Fosterella penduliflora (C.H.Wright) L.B.Sm.
Taxonomic Change:
Literature references:
*move your mouse pointer over the page numbers to see comment
Comments:
- Comment on type
C:H. WRIGHT (1910), in describing Catopsis penduliflora from a living plant sent by Messrs. F. Sanders & Sons, did not cite a voucher nor chose a holotype. STAPF (1924), who recombined this species to Lindmania penduliflora, prepared detailed drawings on a herbarium specimen preserved at Kew in 1923. Obviously, he studied a voucher of the same living plant, which Wright had described and which was still cultivated in Kew at that time. Consequently, we designate that specimen as lectotype (K000321535). ,
Clonotypes of Fosterella chiquitana Ibisch, R. Vasquez & E. Gross are cultivated in the Botanical Gardens Heidelberg (Germany) and in the living collection of the Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza, Santa Cruz (Bolivia).
A Clonotype of Fosterella latifolia Ibisch, R. Vasquez & E. Gross is cultivated in the living collection of the Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza, Santa Cruz (Bolivia).
See Peters et al in Selbyana 29(2): 182-194. 2008
C.H. Wright, in describing Catopsis penduli¬flora from a living plant sent by Messrs. R Sanders & Sons (1910), did not cite a voucher nor chose a holotype. Stapf, who recombined this ' species in 1924 to Lindmania penduliflora, pre¬pared detailed drawings on a herbarium speci¬men preserved at Kew in 1923. Obviously, he studied a voucher of the same living plant, which Wright had described and which was still cultivated in Kew at that time. Consequently, we designate that specimen as lectotype.
Previous molecular research based on RAPID data already suggested a close relationship be¬tween Fosterella chiquitana, F. latifolia and F. penduliflora ("penduliflora group"; Ibisch et al. 2002). Since then, the morphological revision of additional material collected has shown that the variability of F. penduliflora is larger than for¬merly expected, and that it is difficult to distin¬guish F. chiquitana from F. penduliflora by morphological characters. Recent AFLP data (Rex et al. 2007) suggest that plants previously considered as F. chiquitana from the Chiquitan¬ia lowlands do not represent a monophyletic tax¬on, but instead belong to the variable F. pen¬duliflora. Similar problems have been detected in the case of the specimens that were collected in valleys of the region at the Andean knee, and which had previously been assigned to F. lati¬folia. According to recent molecular analyses, these plants do not represent a monophyletic group as well, although they show a certain mor¬phological distinctness (Rex et al. 2007). Thus, we now consider F. chiquitana and F. latifolia as synonyms of F. penduliflora. —See Peters 2009