Rhodophiala, Sprekelia, Eithea, Habranthus all lumped into Zephyranthes

Greg Ruckert greg@alpacamanagement.com
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:36:58 PDT
I would be a bit cautious about jumping to conclusions about this one, a 
friend of mine has already identified errors in the paper. Same person 
who identified the error in Duncan's Monograph of Lachenalia.

All these papers are supposed to be peer reviewed and I think some of 
the peer reviewers are getting sloppy. Names are not even printed in 
accordance with the code.

Greg Ruckert

The Passionate Plantsman

On 28/09/2019 9:26 am, piaba via pbs wrote:
>   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/…
>
>
>
> ======== tsuh yang
>
>      On Friday, September 27, 2019, 8:00:29 AM EDT, pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net <pbs-request@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:11:49 -0700
> From: Lee Poulsen <wpoulsen@pacbell.net>
> To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
> Subject: [pbs] Rhodophiala, Sprekelia, Eithea, Habranthus all lumped
>      into Zephyranthes
>
>
> Speaking of new versions of PBS wiki genus pages?
>
> I haven?t seen anyone mention it here yet, but a recently published paper is proposing huge changes to the Hippeastreae tribe (or havoc depending on which side of the fence you?re on). It?s based on all kinds of DNA sequencing data as well as morphological and cytogenetic information. And there is a whole lot of ?lumping? involved. I think it?s bigger than when all the current Moraea subgenera got lumped together. The paper is ?Generic classification of Amaryllidaceae tribe Hippeastreae? by Nicol?s Garc?a, Alan W. Meerow, Silvia Arroyo-Leuenberger, Renata S. Oliveira, Julie H. Dutilh, Pamela S. Soltis & Walter S. Judd (a bunch of heavyweights in there).
>
> The key takeaways I think are as follows.
>
> Two subtribes:
> Traubiinae
> Hippeastrinae
>
> Traubiinae contains the following genera:
> Traubia
> Phycella
> Rhodolirium
> Eremolirion
>
>
> Placea has been subsumed into Phycella.
> The former Rhodophiala has been completely dissected into other genera or subgenera (some new, some not) and between the two tribes. In fact, firstly Rhodophiala should have been Myostemma all along it turns out.
> Rhodolirium consists of Rhodophiala  andicola, chilensis, pratensis, and rhodolirion.
> Eremolirion consists of Rhodophiala laeta.
>
>
> OK, you may want to sit down (or hold onto your hats, or any other metaphor that is appropriate) for the other subtribe.
>
> Hippeastrinae contains (only) the following two genera:
> Hippeastrum
> Zephyranthes
>
>
> Hippeastrum consists of Hippeastrum (including Eusarcops) and Tocantinia.
>
> Zephyranthes consists of the following subgenera:
> Zephyranthes
> Habranthus
> Eithea
> Neorhodophiala
> Myostemma
> plus one species that doesn?t fit into any of these: Zephyranthes pedunculosa (Habranthus pedunculosus)
>
> And here is what goes in those subgenera:
> Habranthus: H. estensis, H. gracilifolius, and H. jamesonii.
> Eithea: all the former Eithea species.
> Neorhodophiala: Rhodophiala bifida (now Zephyranthes bifida).
> Myostemma: all the remaining Chilean Rhodophiala not contained in subtribe Traubiinae.
> Zephyranthes: everything else! (All the species that were already in Zephyranthes, the remaining Habranthus, Haylockia, and Sprekelia)
>
> I think the paper said the new classification will result in around 100 Zephyranthes species.
>
> It turns out that subgenera Habranthus and Myostemma are sister subgenera. And that pair is next closely related to subgenus Eithea.
>
>
> I find it interesting that the distinguishing features among the whole host of Zephyranthes species are delineated by (and hidden within) the subgenera classifications. And the paper actually states that it?s a good thing to place all the distinctions as subgenus names *because* the subgenus name is not listed in the scientific binomial name. (This is why I?m still annoyed with the Moraea lumping?now I have to go look up the subgenera clades to see which species are grouped together because they?re more closely related to each other.) But even though I?m not in the splitter camp, I grow things so I like to whine about this particular problem.
>
> Aren?t DNA sequencing results fun?!  ?
>
> --Lee Poulsen
> Pasadena, California, USA - USDA Zone 10a
> Latitude 34?N, Altitude 1150 ft/350 m
>
>
>    
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
> http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus/

_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…


More information about the pbs mailing list