Fosterella floridensis Ibisch, R.V squez & E.Gross

Literature references:

FCBS (Web): cd Ibisch & Vasquez 2000: ch Ibisch 1998: 2(2):120 Ibisch 2012: 2012(1): 32 Wagner & Weising 2015: 117

Comments:

• From Selbyana 23(2); 204-219. 2002
  There has been some confusion in the literature regarding the specimen M. Kessler et al. 10189 (GOET, LPB, SEL) from Dpto. La Paz: Prov. Bautista Saavedra, Pauyi-Yuyo; between Apolo and Charazani. Ibisch et al. (1999) erroneously assigned the specimen to Fosterella fforidensis instead of F. latifolia. The error was clarified in the attached `Errata' of the Revista de la Sociedad Boliviana de Botanica, however we now conclude that F. latifolia identification was wrong as a result of a specimen mix-up. Instead Kessler et al. 10189 is a collection of F. petiolata (see below). Both F. floridensis and F. latifolia are still known exclusively from restricted ranges in the semihumid Santa Cruz Andes —See Ibisch 1998
• There has been some confusion in the literature regarding the specimen M. Kessler et al. 10189 (GOET, LPB, SEL) from Dpto. La Paz: Prov. Bautista Saavedra, Pauyi-Yuyo, between Apolo and Charazani. Ibisch et al. (1999) erroneously assigned the specimen to Fosterella floridensis instead of F. latifolia . The error was clarified in the attached ‘Errata’ of the Revista de la Sociedad Boliviana de Botánica, however we now onclude that F. latifolia identification was wrong as a result of a specimen mixup. Instead Kessler et al. 10189 is a collection of F. petiolata (see below). Both F. floridensis and F. latifolia are still known exclusively from restricted ranges in the semihumid Santa Cruz Andes. —See Ibisch et al. 2002 p. 4