Kew Bulletin

, 70:39 | Cite as

Preliminary synopsis of the genus Hebecarpa (Polygalaceae)

Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Summary

As traditionally circumscribed, the genus Polygala has been shown to be non-monophyletic, and most of the necessary generic combinations have been made for the New World species. The genus Hebecarpa, though, still needs to be addressed, as only eight species have been transferred. Even though over 65 names within Polygala are referable to Hebecarpa, preliminary study indicates that more than half the names are likely not worthy of taxonomic recognition, but careful revisionary study is necessary for fully sorting out the species and accurate synonymisation. To make the most accurate names available for modern workers, we here transfer 11 names (and associated synonyms) which we think most likely reflect discreet evolutionary lineages (species), bringing the total number of Hebecarpa species to 19. Forty-one additional names in Polygala that are attributable to Hebecarpa are enumerated but left for synonymisation or transfer after more study.

Key Words

new combinations nomenclature Polygala 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr Barbara S. Carlsward (EIU) for assistance with composing the plate, and to Dr Kurt M. Neubig (SIU) for molecular lab work and phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences that shed some light on our taxonomic understanding.

References

  1. Abbott, J. R. (2009). Revision of Badiera (Polygalaceae) and phylogeny of the Polygaleae. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  2. ____ (2011). Notes on the disintegration of Polygala (Polygalaceae), with four new genera for the flora of North America. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 5(1): 125 – 137.Google Scholar
  3. Barneby, R. (1970). New phanerogams from the arid Neotropics. Rhodora 72: 66 – 71.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, A. W. (1895). J. Bot. 33: 108.Google Scholar
  5. Bentham, G. (1840). Plantas Hartwegianae I: 58. W. Pamplin, London.Google Scholar
  6. ____ (1843). Plantas Hartwegianae Q: 113. W. Pamplin, London.Google Scholar
  7. ____ (1844). The botany of the voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur. Smith, Elder & Co., London.Google Scholar
  8. Bernardi, L. F. (2000). Consideraciones taxonómicas y fitogeográficas acerca de 101 Polygalae Americanas. Cavanillesia Altera 1: 1 – 456.Google Scholar
  9. Blake, S. F. (1916). A revision of the genus Polygala in Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. Contr. Gray Herb. 47: 1 – 122.Google Scholar
  10. ____ (1924). Polygalaceae. North American Flora 25: 305 – 379.Google Scholar
  11. Brandegee, T. S. (1911). Plantae mexicanae purpusianae 3. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 4: 177 – 194.Google Scholar
  12. ____ (1912). Plantae mexicanae purpusianae 4. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 4: 269 – 281.Google Scholar
  13. ____ (1917). Plantae mexicanae purpusianae 8. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 6: 363 – 375.Google Scholar
  14. Castro, S., Silveira, P., Coutinho, A. P. & Paiva, J. (2007). Heterosamara sect. Villososperma comb. nov. (Polygalaceae) from eastern Asia. Nordic J. Bot. 25: 286 – 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chodat, R. H. (1891a). Monographia polygalacearum, 1. Mém. Soc. Phys. Genève 31, suppl. 7: 1 – 143.Google Scholar
  16. ____ (1891b). Sur la distribution et l’origine de l’espèce et des groupes chez les polygalacées. Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat., sér. 3, 25: 695 – 714.Google Scholar
  17. ____ (1892). Polygalaceae. In: T. Durand & H. Pittier, Primitiae florae costaricensis. Bull. Soc. Bot. Belgique 30: 298 – 305.Google Scholar
  18. ____ (1893). Monographia polygalacearum, 2. Mém. Soc. Phys. Genève 31: 1 – 500.Google Scholar
  19. ____ (1895). Polygalaceae novae vel parum cognitae 3. Bull. Herb. Boissier 3: 121 – 135.Google Scholar
  20. ____ (1896). Polygalaceae. In: A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 3 (4): 323 – 345. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  21. ____ (1914). Polygalaceae novae. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 12 (Beibl. 115): 70 – 85.Google Scholar
  22. ____ (1917). Verh. Bot. Vereins Prov. Brandenburg 58: 148.Google Scholar
  23. De Candolle, A. P. (1824). Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis 1: 331. Treuttel & Würtz, Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Eriksen, B. (1993). Phylogeny of the Polygalaceae and its taxonomic implications. Pl. Syst. Evol. 186: 33 – 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ____, Ståhl, B. & Persson, C. (2000). Polygalaceae. In: G. Harling & L. Andersson (eds), Flora of Ecuador 65. Botanical Institute, Göteborg University, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  26. Forest, F., Chase, M. W., Persson, C., Crane, P. R. & Hawkins, J. A. (2007). The role of biotic and abiotic factors in evolution of ant-dispersal in the milkwort family (Polygalaceae). Evolution 61: 1675 – 1694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray, A. (1852). Plantae wrightianae texano-neo-mexicanae part 1. Smithsonian Contr. Knowl. 3(5): 1 – 46.Google Scholar
  28. ____ (1861). Enumeration of a collection of dried plants made by L. J. Xantus, at Cape San Lucas, etc., in Lower California, between August 1859 and Feb. 1860. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 5: 153 – 173.Google Scholar
  29. Kunth, K. S. (1823). In: F. W. H. A. von Humboldt, A. Bonpland & K. S. Kunth, Nova genera et species plantarum 5: 407. Sumtibus Librairie Graeco-Latino-Germanicae, Lutetiae Parisiorum.Google Scholar
  30. McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Buck, W. R., Demoulin, V., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D. L., Herendeen, P. S., Knapp, S., Marhold, K., Prado, J., Prud'homme van Reine, W. F., Smith, G. F., Wiersema, J. H. & Turland, N. J. (eds) (2012). International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. Regnum Veg. 154. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, P. (1768). The gardeners dictionary Ed. 8. [unpaged], Polygala n. 7. London.Google Scholar
  32. Paiva, J. A. R. (1998). Polygalarum Africanarum et Madagascariensium prodromus atque gerontogaei generis Heterosamara Kuntze, a genere Polygala L. segregati et a nobis denuo recepti, synopsis monographica. Fontqueria 50: 1 – 346.Google Scholar
  33. Pastore, J. F. B., Cardoso, D. B. O. S. & Aymard, G. A. (2010). A synopsis, new combinations, and synonyms in Acanthocladus (Polygalaceae). Novon 20: 317 – 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ____ (2012). Caamembeca: Generic status and new name for Polygala subgenus Ligustrina (Polygalaceae). Kew Bull. 67: 435 – 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ____ & Abbott, J. R. (2012). Taxonomic notes and new combinations for Asemeia (Polygalaceae). Kew Bull. 67: 801 – 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ____ & Moraes, P. (2013). Generic status and lectotypifications for Gymnospora (Polygalaceae). Novon 22(3): 304 – 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Persson, C. H. (2000). In: C. Persson, B. Stahl & B. Eriksen, Flora of Ecuador 65: 10. Botanical Institute, Göteborg University, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  38. ____ (2001). Phylogenetic relationships in the Polygalaceae based on plastid DNA sequences from the trnL-F region. Taxon 50: 763 – 779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Presl, C. (1835). Reliquiae Haenkeanae 2 (2). J. G. Calvae, Pragae.Google Scholar
  40. Reichenbach, H. G. (1823). Iconographia botanica seu Plantae criticae 1. Lipsiæ.Google Scholar
  41. Riley, L. A. M. (1923). Contibutions to the Flora of Sinaloa: I. Bull. Misc. Inform., Kew 1923, No. 3: 103 – 115.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, B. L. & Greenman, J. M. (1894). Further new and imperfectly known plants collected in Mexico. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 29: 382 – 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose, J. N. (1905). Studies of Mexican and Central American Plants 4. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 8: 281 – 339.Google Scholar
  44. ____ (1906). Studies of Mexican and Central American Plants 5. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 10: 79 – 1322.Google Scholar
  45. ____ (1911). Studies of Mexican and Central American Plants 7. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 13: 291 – 312.Google Scholar
  46. Schultes, J. A. (1819). In: J. J. Roemer & J. A. Schultes, Systema vegetabilium 5. J. G. Cottae, Stuttgardtiae.Google Scholar
  47. Watson, S. (1882). Contributions to American botany X. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 17: 316 – 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wendt, T. L. (1978). A systematic study of Polygala section Rhinotropis (Polygalaceae). Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  49. ____ (2001). Polygalaceae. In: W. D. Stevens, C. U. Ulloa, A. Pool & O. M. Montiel (eds), Flora de Nicaragua,. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 2154 – 2167.Google Scholar
  50. Willdenow, C. L. (1803). Species Plantarum 3: 889. Impensis G. C. Nauk, Berolini.Google Scholar
  51. Wood, J. R. I. & Beck, S. G. (2013). Una revisión de Polygala L. sensu lato en Bolivia. Revista Soc. Boliv. Bot. 7: 5 – 53.Google Scholar
  52. Wooton, E. O. & Standley, P. C. (1913). Descriptions of new plants preliminary to a report upon the flora of New Mexico. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 16: 109 – 196.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Richard Abbott
    • 1
  • José Floriano B. Pastore
    • 2
  1. 1.Missouri Botanical GardenSaint LouisU.S.A.
  2. 2.Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaCuritibanosBrazil

Personalised recommendations