6 PHYTOLOGIA An international journal to expedite plant systematic, phytogeographical and ecological publication Vol. 69 October 1990 No.4 CONTENTS --G.L. NESOM, Taxonomy of the Erigeron coronarius group of Erigeron sect. Geniculactis (Asteraceae: Astereae) ............. 237 » ~ G.L. NESOM, Two new species of Erigéron (Asteraceae: Astereae) pay 9) ERE EAN SRR RL RE ht Se 254 | gy D.R. WINDLER, J.J. MARRON, & S.G. SKINNER, Crota/aria /otifolia rt Linnaeus and Crotalaria purdiana Senn, a clarification of the species (with notes on Crotalaria axillaris Aiton) ....... 258 a SUNDELL, Notes on Arizona Asclepias (Asclepiadaceae) with a Co iech tO ihe Pe SEE is iad ee eee 265 _~ LL.B. SMITH & W.J. KRESS, New genera of Bromeliaceae ............ 271 _-+J.L. REVEAL, Minor new combinations in Toxicodendron A EO eee ee oe Bore laaletebesteyanpersauesgeedenses 275 - SUNDBERG, S.D. & G.L. NESOM, A new species of Erigeron Asteraceae: Astereae) from Chihuahua, México ..........c0ee 278 ~ NESOM, G.L., Taxonomy of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca (Asteraceae: Astereae) in México, with comments on the taxa OOP UME CPIM a RAL OSS obs ccd son low caos done deman coe ceccecreus aubsomeu does evacensel 282 Contents continued on the inside cover. Published by Michael J. Warnock 185 Westridge Drive Huntsville, Texas 77340 U.S.A. PHYTOLOGIA is printed on acid free paper. - TURNER, B.L., Two new species of Verbesina (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) from the states of Jalisco and Guerrero, MGKIGO oc. ocdeeecscesesedepesdoechlafeachousch bas chsae qehebay icon edhe aan 295 - TURNER, B.L., Two new species of Perityle (Asteraceae, Helenieae) From MEXICO see var. Toset 2. Phyllaries distinctly purplish at least at the apices and commonly along the distal margins and midregion as well, with thick based, nonglandular trichomes: < 2/5 2.5...) sfe.so0e oe tectemaae var. inuloides 2’ Phyllaries completely without purple coloration, with relatively thin based nonglandular trichomes ..............---+.+--+- var. viridis 2a. HETEROTHECA INULOIDES Cass. var. INULOIDES Chromosome number, n=9 pairs. Nuevo Leon, Durango, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Hidalgo, Veracruz, Col- ima, Michoacan, México, Tlaxcala, Puebla; roadsides, fields, openings in pine- oak or pine woodlands; 2000-3000 m; (May-)August-November(-December). 286 PUY T0L,0 GLA volume 69(4):282-294 October 1990 Plants of several scattered collections from far outside its main range must be identified as var. inuloides: Nuevo Leon: Dulces Nombres, 12 Aug 1948, Meyer & Rogers 2951 (GH). San Luis Potosi: region of S.L.P., 1878, Parry & Palmer 372 (GH). And as noted by McVaugh (1984), other populations with var. inulozdes-like phyllaries occur well within the range of var. rosez, in the areas of northeastern Nayarit, southeastern Durango, and adjacent Za- catecas. To show their location, these are mapped (Map 1) as var. inulozdes, although field study may prove these to be variants within more rosez-like pop- ulations. Further, plants that might be interpreted as intermediate between var. inuloides and var. rosez occur in the vicinity of Uruapan and Tancitaro, Michoacan, but these are mapped as var. roset. 2b. HETEROTHECA INULOIDES Cass. var: ROSEI Wagenk. Heterotheca tnuloides Cass. var. roset Wagenknecht, Rhodora 62:69. 1960. TYPE: MEXICO. Jalisco: sandy soil, grassland and roadsides, 30 mi E of Guadalajara, 25 Jul 1956, B.L. Wagenknecht 2846 (HOLOTYPE: KANU!). In addition to the paucity or complete lack of nonglandular hairs, the phyllaries of var. rosei usually are completely lacking in purple coloration, they are more densely stipitate glandular than in var. znuloides, and the glands usually have thicker stipes. Judging from their more slender taproots, these plants also tend to be more short lived than those of the two eastern varieties of Heterotheca inuloides. Chromosome number, n=9 pairs. Durango, Zacatecas, Nayarit, Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima; matorral, shrub- lands, oak-juniper to pine-oak and pine woodlands, roadsides and other dis- turbed sites, pond edges; 1200-2400 m; (March-)June-November. 2c. HETEROTHECA INULOIDES Cass. var. VIRIDIS Nesom, var. nov. Heterotheca inuloides Cass. var. viridis Nesom, var. nov. TYPE: MEX- ICO. Oaxaca: Distrito del Centro, Monte Alban, 1850 m, 14 Oct 1932, C. Conzatti 4794 (HOLOTYPE: LL!; Isotype: MEXU). A H. inuloides Cass. var. inuloides differt phyllariis absque pigmento purpurato ac trichomatibus tenuioribus ad bases lon- gioribusque. These plants are similar to those of var. inuloides in their phyllaries with a densely hirsute-pilose vestiture but consistently different in their complete lack of purple coloration and the longer nonglandular trichomes with thinner bases. Intermediates between the two taxa occur in northern Puebla and along the adjacent border with Veracruz. Chromosome number, n=9 pairs. Taxonomy of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca 287 Nesom: SURIIIxeqns “H g H ®@ SIPUIA ‘2A @ wo ipuess 12sQ1 “18A © soplojnur “1eA = soprojnur “H wsso[301d3] “-H W Map 1. Geographic distribution of the taxa of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca in México. 288 PHY TOLOGIA volume 69(4):282-294 October 1990 Veracruz, Puebla, Oaxaca; openings in oak-juniper and pine-oak wood- lands, roadsides and other disturbed sites; 1550-2300 m; June-November (-February). Representative collections examined: MEXICO. Oaxaca: Valley of Oax- aca, 19 Apr 1896, Conzatt: 125 (GH); Km 58 S of Oaxaca on road to Puerto Escondido, 14 Aug 1975, Davidse 9623 (LL); between Oaxaca and Puerto Es- condido, 8 km S of Sola de Vega, 25 Jun 1986, Diggs, et al. 4005 (NY); 20 mi S of Nochixtlan along rte 190, 1 Feb 1960, King 2515 (TEX) (voucher for chromosome count of n=9, as annotated by Ellison, apparently previously un- reported); ca. 40 mi SE of Oaxaca, 15 Jun 1960, King 2897 (TEX) (voucher for chromosome count of n=9 pairs [Turner, et al. 1961]); 15 km SE of Miahu- atlan, 6 Jul 1969, Marcks & Marcks 1048 (LL); 19 mi W of Oaxaca along rte 190, 15 Aug 1961, Powell & Edmondson 703 (TEX); 11 km N of Ixtlan, 17 Sep 1965, Roe & Roe 1989 (LL); 33 km NE of Cuajimoloyas, 14 May 1983, Torres 2891 (TEX). Puebla: Supercarretera México-Puebla, 24 Apr 1966, Boege 66 (GH); Orizaba, 1829, Botter: 799 (GH); 1 mi E of Hwy 125, N of San Salvador on road to Tlachichuca, 7 Jun 1983, Dorr 2673 (TEX); 5 mi E of Tlahuapan along rte 190, 24 Jan 1960, King 2236 (TEX); W of San Martin Texmelucan, 1 Aug 1953, Manning & Manning 53689 (GH); 3 km E of center of San Nicolas Buenos Aires, 7 Sep 1986, Nee & Soule 33040 (TEX). Veracruz: S of Totalco, 27 Aug 1968, Ramos 269 (GH). 3. HETEROTHECA LEPTOGLOSSA DC. Heterotheca leptoglossa DC., Prodr. 5:317. 1836. TYPE: MEXICO. [Edo.} Guanajuato: Leon to Guanajuato, 1827, Mendez s.n. (HOLOTYPE: G- DC fiche!; Isotype: GH). Perennials. Phyllaries linear-lanceolate, 0.5-0.7(-1.0) mm wide, the inner- most 9-11 mm long, without scarious margins, purple at the very apices, nearly eglandular to sparsely sessile glandular or the glands short stipitate near the phyllary apex, sparsely strigose in the midregion with appressed to appressed ascending nonglandular hairs. Ray achenes commonly minutely strigose on the angles and faces, sometimes hairy only on the angles or still less commonly completely glabrous; outer pappus of strongly developed, lanceolate scales. Chromosome number, n=9 pairs (reported as Heterotheca inuloides by Turner & Johnston 1961). Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosi, Jalisco, Guanajuato, Querétaro; roadsides and other disturbed sites, brushlands; 1750-2350 m; July-December (-January). Heterotheca leptoglossa was recognized by Wagenknecht (1960) as a dis- tinct species, but he cited only two collections (other than the type) from the geographical area of the species as recognized here. He added, however, Nesom: Taxonomy of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca 289 citations of other collections from Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and Sonora, all recog- nized here as H. subazillaris (Map 1, region “a”). McVaugh (1984) included H. leptoglossa within his concept of H. inuloides var. roset. This taxon might reasonably be considered as a fourth variety of Het- erotheca inuloides, but it appears to be genetically isolated from both var. in- uloides and var. roset. The former is mostly contiguous with it in geographic range and the latter is partially sympatric (Map 1). Heterotheca leptoglossa is more similar to var. rosei in its very sparsely hairy phyllaries, but the former differs in its more strongly woody taproots (and presumably longer duration) and phyllaries that are purple tipped and less densely glandular with relatively thin stiped glands. Further, the nonglandular hairs are usually appressed in orientation, in contrast to the spreading-erect ones of var. roset. 4. HETEROTHECA SUBAXILLARIS (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby Heterotheca subazillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby, Trans. New York Acad. 7:10. 1887. BASIONYM: Inula subazillaris Lam., Encycl. Meth. Bot. 3:259. 1789. TYPE: UNITED STATES. “Carolina,” D. Walter s.n. (HOLO- TYPE: P, not seen). Heterotheca chrysopsidis DC., Prodr. 5:317. 1836. TYPE: MEXICO. [Coahuila]: Saltillo, Jan 1828, Berlandier 1830 [109] (HOLOTYPE: G-DC fiche!; Isotypes: F!, GH, NY, PH). Heterotheca latifolia Buckl., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 13:459. 1862. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Texas: Llano Co., S.B. Buckley s.n. (PH, not seen). Heterotheca subazillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby var. latifolia (Buckl.) Gandhi & Thomas, Sida, Bot. Misc. 4:110. 1989. Heterotheca latifolia Buckl. var. arkansana Wagenk., Rhodora 62:105. 1960. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Arkansas: Logan Co., Magazine Mountain, 10 Sep 1930, D.M. Moore 30142 (HOLOTYPE: TEX!). Heterotheca latifolia Buck]. var. macgregoris Wagenk., Rhodora 62:103. 1960. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Kansas: Morton Co., 9 mi N of Elkhart, bluffs along Cimmaron River, dry sandy prairie, 27 Aug 1951, R.L. McGregor 5163 (HOLOTYPE: KANU!). Heterotheca psammophila Wagenk., Rhodora 62:76. 1960. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Arizona: Yavapai Co., 1 mi S of Sedona, 23 Aug 1957, B.L. Wagenknecht 4824 (HOLOTYPE: KANU not seen). Heterotheca subazillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby var. petiolaris Benke, Rhodora 30:201. 1928. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Texas: [Galve- ston Co.], Galveston, 12 Mar 1928, H.C. Benke 4585 (HOLOTYPE: F!). 290 PHYTOLOGTA volume 69(4):282-294 October 1990 Heterotheca subazillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby var. procumbens Wa- genk., Rhodora 62:75. 1960. TYPE. UNITED STATES. Alabama: Mobile Co., flattish dunes, ca. 1 mi SW of Dauphin Island Post Of- fice, R.M. Harper 3801 (HOLOTYPE: GH; Isotypes: F!, NY, PH, US). Annuals to short lived perennials. Upper cauline leaves ovate lanceolate to oblong, with a sessile or subsessile, commonly cordate, subclasping base, but sometimes not at all clasping. Phyllaries lanceolate, the innermost 5- 8(-9) mm long, purple at the apices or without purple pigments, sparsely to densely glandular, usually sparsely to moderately invested with nonglandu- lar trichomes but sometimes only glandular. Ray achenes usually completely glabrous, rarely slightly and minutely strigose on the angles; outer pappus of strongly developed, lanceolate scales. Chromosome number, n=9 pairs. Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, widely distributed from coast to coast in the United States, primarily in the southern half of the country; in a variety of habitats, often disturbed, from beach dunes to Larrea desert to pine woodlands; (0-)1200-2500 m; July-December(-February). Within what is considered here as a single, variable species, Wagenknecht (1960) treated Heterotheca subazillaris (with 2 varieties), H. latifolia Buckl. (with 3 varieties), H. psammophila Wagenk., and H. chrysopsidis DC. Be- fore that, Shinners (1951) had accepted H. latifolia as a good taxon with the caveat that it was probably only varietally distinct from H. subazillaris, “the southeastern representative of this species.” The status of the Mexican H. chrysopsidis had never been evaluated, and H. psammophila had not previ- ously been recognized. Characters used to delimit these taxa have included duration (as surmised from the taproot thickness), plant height, stem width, length of trichomes on the stems and leaves, petiole length of lower cauline leaves, size, shape, and insertion of upper cauline leaves, toothing of leaf mar- gins, shape of the capitulescence, head size (including phyllary, disc corolla, and pappus length), degree of investment of phyllaries with glandular and nonglandular trichomes, and the pattern of pigmentation in the phyllaries. Attempts to characterize taxa at any level within the Heterotheca subazil- laris complex must be based on the supposition that geographic patterns can be identified, but among what seem to be shifting and variable constellations of morphological features, I have not been able to discover patterns that would allow a consistent application of names at even varietal rank. Harms (1968, p. 9) ventured that perhaps the “entire complex should still be accepted as a single, polymorphic, polytypic species,” and Cronquist (1980) apparently took the same conservative view as presented in the present study, although he did not list synonyms of what he considered to be the widespread H. subazillaris. Geographic trends can be observed in this species, and plants can often be Nesom: Taxonomy of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca 291 identified as having originated in certain geographic areas, but in my opin- ion, plants occurring in broad areas of intergradation are significantly more numerous than those that have been given names and that are said to have a distinctive combination of traits. In this, my view seems to be very near that of Semple (1990, p. 226) with regard to plants of certain species of sect. Phyllotheca, who regards them as “morphotypes,” “ ...sometimes semidistinct regional ’races’ that grade into each other to such an extent that continued recognition cannot be justified ....”. Whoever may choose to recognize segre- gate taxa within the H. subazillaris complex will be challenged to present more than simple diagnoses and taxonomic combinations to justify their decisions. What has been considered typical Heterotheca subazillaris (var. subazillaris or var. procumbens) occurs in sandy habitats along the coast of the eastern United States to central México. These plants are said to be distinguished from H. latifolia by their procumbent or at least less than erect habit, merely scabrous stems and leaves, thicker leaves, and more densely hirsute-villous hairs on the phyllaries. Nearly identical plants, however, are found in sandy habitats far inland within the range of H. latifolia, and plants with none of the putatively diagnostic features of typical H. subazillaris are commonly collected in coastal and near coastal sites. Further, Burk (1961), in a study apparently little appreciated by some systematists, demonstrated that plants of H. sub- azillaris are phenotypically highly plastic in features of habit, vestiture, and leaf morphology. He transplanted sets of North Carolina plants from a barrier island (var. procumbens) and from an inland habitat (H. latzfolia) to a common garden on the piedmont, where they “developed into virtually identical sets of plants.” Using cloned individuals, he also observed that vestiture was signifi- cantly modified depending on the season and whether the plants were grown in a greenhouse or outdoors. Burk concluded that it was preferable to “retain the former concept of H. subazillaris as a single, highly variable species.” Harms (1965a) also documented the ease of environmental modification among plants of H. subazillaris. Harms (1965a, 1968) noted that he was able to distinguish Heterotheca latifolia var. macgregoris Wagenk. but that he could not separate it from var. arkansana Wagenk. Wagenknecht (1960) separated both of the latter two va- rieties from typical H. latifolia on the basis of their putatively more pilose or velutinous upper leaf surfaces, but I cannot confirm the existence of any morphological features or geographic localization consistent enough to war- rant the formal recognition of either taxon. Hatch, et al. (1990) have listed (without comment) both var. arkansana and var. macgregoris as synonyms of var. latifolia. Heterotheca subazillaris var. petiolaris Benke has been considered a syn- onym of typical H. subazillaris (Burk 1961) and of H. latifolia (Wagenknecht 1960). But plants similar to the type of var. petiolaris with particularly long petioles and narrowly oblong-lanceolate blades (basal and lower cauline leaves) 292 PHYPODOCG PA volume 69(4):282-294 October 1990 are common from Galveston County, Texas, into Tamaulipas of northeastern México and appear to represent a morphotype outside of both H. subazillaris and H. latifolia, as conceived of by Wagenknecht. In any case, “var. petio- laris” intergrades with other morphotypes of the same region and cannot be consistently distinguished from them. As noted by Wagenknecht, plants of Heterotheca chrysopsidis (from south- ern Coahuila and adjacent Nuevo Leon) are slightly longer lived, shorter in stature, have petiolate, prominently thickened (much like coastal variants) leaves with broadly ovate blades, and the pappus tends to be deep reddish brown. These features are most pronounced in plants from the gypseous areas of Nuevo Leon. Nevertheless, I have found it impossible to regard these traits as anything but tendencies, since many plants from the same area are iden- tical with those that are common in central Texas, and the distinctive traits disappear gradually northward through Coahuila. Heterotheca psammophila was recognized by Wagenknecht from Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, trans-Pecos Texas, and northern México as a taxon with particularly large leaves, large heads, and highly glandular phyllaries. The plants do seem to have consistently larger leaves, but plants with similar leaves grade eastward across a wide area and sometimes appear in populations of central Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Further, in Arizona and western New Mexico, while some individuals produce heads that are among the largest in the species (innermost phyllaries 7-9 mm long), other large leaved plants in the same area commonly produce small heads (innermost phyllaries 5-7 mm long). There is no consistent distinction in the degree of glandularity, and in the United States, no consistency in the presence or absence of nonglandular hairs. In contrast, there does appear to be a degree of isolation between two weakly differentiated “morphotypes” of Heterotheca subazillaris in the moun- tains of northwestern México. Indeed, this is the only “real” boundary I have been able to discover in the H. subazillaris complex. Plants of region “a” (Map 1) have phyllaries with purple tips, without non-glandular hairs, and the in- nermost are 6-8(-9) mm long. To the east in central Chihuahua (region “b”), the phyllaries usually lack purple tips, almost always produce nonglandular hairs, and the innermost are 5-6 (-7) mm long. The plants of region “a” might justifiably be regarded as a separate variety, presumably corresponding to H. psammophila, were it not for the apparent complete intergradation in Arizona of these “psammophila-like” plants with more typical H. subazillaris. The occurrence of dense glandularity and relatively large heads in the west- ern part of the range of Heterotheca subazillaris prompts the speculation that these features may have appeared in response to the input of genes from H. grandiflora. Nesom: Taxonomy of Heterotheca sect. Heterotheca 293 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. B.L. Turner and Dr. P.O. Karis for their review and comments on the manuscript and the staffs of F, GH, KANU for loans of specimens. LITERATURE CITED Burk, C.J. 1961. Environmental variation in Heterotheca subazillaris. Rho- dora 63:243-246. Cronquist, A. 1980. Asteraceae. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States, vol. 1. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Harms, V.L. 1965a. Biosystematic studies in the Heterotheca subazillaris complex (Compositae: Astereae). Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 68:244-257. . 1965b. Cytological evidence supporting the merger of Heterotheca and Chrysopsis. Brittonia 17:11-16. . 1968. Nomenclatural changes and taxonomic notes on Heterotheca, including Chrysopsis, in Texas and adjacent states. Wrightia 4:8-20. Hatch, $.L., K.N. Gandhi, & L.E. Brown. 1990. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Teras. Texas A & M Agric. Expmt. St., College Station. McVaugh, R. 1984. Heterotheca. Flora Novo-Galiciana 12:505-508. Univer- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Semple, J.C. 1977. Cytotaxonomy of Chrysopsis and Heterotheca (Com- positae: Astereae): a new interpretation of phylogeny. Canad. J. Bot. 55:2503-2513. . 1990. Neotypification of Amellus villosus, the identity of a Brad- bury collection, and typification of some other goldenasters (Compositae: Astereae). Brittonia 42:221-228. —______., V. Blok, & P. Heiman. 1980. Morphological, anatomical, habit, and habitat differences among the goldenaster genera Chrysopsis, Het- erotheca and Pityopsis (Compositae - Astereae). Canad. J. Bot. 58:164- ae Semple, J.C., C. Leeder, C. Leuty, & L. Gray. 1988. Heterotheca sect. Am- modia (Compositae: Astereae): A multivariate study of H. oregonu and specimens of Brewer’s (Golden)aster. Syst. Bot. 13:547-558. 294 PHYTOLOGIA volume 69(4):282-294 October 1990 Shinners, L.H. 1951. The North Texas species of Heterotheca, including Chrysopsis (Compositae). Field & Lab. 19:66-71. Turner, B.L., W.L. Ellison, & R.M. King. 1961. Chromosome numbers in the Compositae. IV. North American species with phyletic interpretations. Amer. J. Bot. 48:216-223. Turner, B.L. & M. C. Johnston. 1961. Chromosome numbers in the Composi- tae III. Certain Mexican species. Brittonia 13:64-69. Wagenknecht, B.L. 1960. Revision of Heterotheca section Heterotheca (Com- positae). Rhodora 62:61-76. . 1960. Revision of Heterotheca section Heterotheca (Compositae). Rhodora 62:97-107. Phytologia (October 1990) 69(4):295-296. TWO NEW SPECIES OF VERBESINA (ASTERACEAE, HELIANTHEAE) FROM THE STATES OF JALISCO AND GUERRERO, MEXICO B.L. Turner Department of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78713 U.S.A. ABSTRACT Verbesina platanara spec. nov. and Verbesina teotepecana spec. nov., new species from the states of Jalisco and Guerrero, respec- tively, are described. The former is seemingly related to V. culminicola McVaugh, but the latter apparently has no close relatives. KEY WORDS: Asteraceae, Verbesina, México Routine identification of Mexican Asteraceae has revealed the following novelties in the genus Verbeszna. Verbesina platanara B. Turner, spec. nov. TYPE: MEXICO. Jalisco: Mpio. de San Martin Bolanos, Las Treinta Vueltas, 10 km al NW de El Platanar, 2200 m, J. Rzedowski 26229 (HOLOTYPE: MICH!). Verbesinae culminicolae McVaugh similis sed differt caulibus sine alis, capitulis majoribus ligulis longioribus, et acheniis sine pappo. Shrubs to 1.5 m high. Stems strigulose, wingless, glabrate with age. Leaves alternate, simple, crowded along the upper nodes, lanceolate to oblanceolate, 10-14 cm long, 1.5-3.0 cm wide, about equally tapering at both ends, sparsely hispidulous to nearly glabrate, the margins remotely serratulate to nearly en- tire. Head about 25 mm across the extended rays, single and axillary, the peduncle ca. 6 cm long. Involucres ca. 4 mm high, the bracts 2-3 seriate, grading into the obovate receptacular bracts. Ray florets ca. 11, pistillate, the ligules yellow, ca. 1 cm long, ca. 4 mm wide. Disk florets numerous (50+), the corollas yellow, ca. 3.5 mm long, the tube densely pubescent, ca. 1 mm long. Achenes (immature) ca. 3 mm long, 1.5 mm wide, sparsely pubescent, epappose. The species is apparently most closely related to Verbesina culminicola McVaugh on characters of the head and corolla, but differs in having wingless stems, larger heads borne singly in the leaf axils, and epappose achenes. 295 296 PHYTOLOGIA volume 69(4):295-296 October 1990 Verbesina teotepecana B. Turner, spec. nov. TYPE: MEXICO. Guerrero: Mpio. Tlacotepec, Cerro Teotepec, pine-fir forests, 3300 m, 11 Apr 1963, J. Rzedowski 16500 (HOLOTYPE: MICH!). Frutices usque ad 2.5 alti. Folia opposita sessilia lanceolata ac auriculata. Caules teretes dense glandulosi-pubescentes sine alis. Capitula radiata ac hemisphaerica, discus ca. 2 mm lati; involucra 10-12 mm alta, bracteae 2-4 seriatae lineari-lanceolatae apicibus acutis. Flosculi disci numerosi (100+), corollis luteis ca. 6 mm longis. Achenia ca. 4 mm longa, pappus aristis 2 cito deciduis 3-4 longis contans. Shrub to 1.5 m high. Stems terete, densely glandular pubescent. Leaves 12- 15 cm long, 3-4 cm wide, sessile, auriculate at the base, the apices gradually and narrowly acute, densely glandular pubescent on both surfaces. Heads hemispheric, radiate, ca. 18, borne terminal in a rounded capitulescence, not much exceeding the leaves, if at all. Involucres 10-12 mm high, ca. 2 cm across, the bracts black, linear-lanceolate, glandular pubescent. Ray florets 15-21, pistillate, the ligules 6-8 mm long, 3-5 mm wide, yellow. Disk florets numerous, the corollas ca. 6 mm long, yellow, the tube ca. 1.5 mm long, the throat tubular, ca. 3.5 mm long. Achenes about 4 mm long, narrowly alate, the pappus of 2 awns 2-3 mm long. The opposite sessile auriculate leaves, large heads and densely glandular pubescent foliage readily distinguish this taxon. It has no close relative among the species of Verbeszna known to me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Guy Nesom for the Latin diagnosis and description, and to him and Andrew McDonald for reviewing the manuscript. Phytologia (October 1990) 69(4):297-300. TWO NEW SPECIES OF PERITYLE (ASTERACEAE, HELENIEAE) FROM MEXICO B.L. Turner Department of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78713 U.S.A. ABSTRACT Two new species of Perityle belonging to the section Perityle are described: P. pennellii spec. nov., from Cerro Mercado, near Cd. Du- rango, Durango and P. stevensii spec. nov. from near Emcosa, Sinaloa. Both species have white rays and yellow disks and are believed to re- late to P. hofmetsteria Rydb. and several other taxa of northwestern México with similar characteristics. A brief key and map to these taxa are provided. KEY WORDS: Perityle, Asteraceae, Helenieae, México Preparation of a treatment of Perityle for the Asteraceae of Mexico has revealed the following novelties belonging to the section Perityle (sensu Powell, 1974; Rhodora 76:229-306). Perityle pennellii B. Turner, spec. nov. TYPE: MEXICO. Durango: Cerro de Mercado, N of Cd. Durango, crevices of ferruginous rocks, 2000-2100 m, 24-25 Aug 1934, Frances W. Pennell 18160 (HOLOTYPE: NY!). Perityle canescenti Everly similis sed differt foliis simplicibus (vs. tripartitis) peranguste spathulatis differt. Small suffruticose perennials 3-10 cm high; stems hispid-puberulous; leaves mostly 8-10 mm long, 1-3 mm wide; petioles mostly 4-6 mm long; blades ovate to elliptic, 2-4 mm long, 2-3 mm wide, sparsely hispid, glandular punctate, the margins entire, or rarely faintly 3 lobed; involucral bracts ca. 15, 4-5 mm high, sparsely puberulent, the apices acute; heads single on hispidulous peduncles 10-20 mm long; ray florets 5-8, the ligules 2-4 mm long, white; disk florets ca. 25, yellow, the corollas tubular, ca. 3 mm long, the lower portion glandular pubescent; achenes ca. 2.5 mm long with margins callous thickened, ciliate with 297 298 PHEV TIO LIOGIA volume 69(4):297-300 October 1990 long hairs, the pappus of 2-3 rather persistent bristles 2-3 mm long, between these a crown of slender scales ca. 0.3 mm high. Powell (1974) recognized four species of the sect. Perityle with white rays, yellow disks, and having large achenes (1.8-3.5 mm long) with prominent pap- pus bristles (1.5-3.0 mm long). These are: 1) P. ciliata (Dewey) Rydb. (known only from Arizona, U.S.A.); 2) P. canescens Everly, a taxon with 3 partite leaves with linear segments (known only from Sinaloa, Sierra Tacuichamona); 3) P. coronopifolia A. Gray, also with 3 partite leaves, but the achenes having margins with long-ciliate hairs as opposed to the merely puberulent margins in P. ciliata (known only from Arizona, U.S.A.); and 4) P. hofmeisteria Rydb., with leaves 10-60 mm long, 2-20 mm wide, the blades broadly ovate to flabel- late in outline, with margins deeply lobed to serrate, the heads ca. 8 mm high (known only by a few collections from near Cd. Durango and in the vicinity of Rodeo, Durango). Among the Mexican species described to date, Perityle pennellii is closest to P. canescens; it differs from the latter in possessing much smaller leaves which are very narrowly spatulate with essentially entire margins. The distribution of the Mexican taxa which make up the above mentioned complex is shown in Figure 1. It is likely that additional taxa will come to the fore as the bluffs and ledges of northwestern México are more thoroughly explored. Perityle stevensii B. Turner, spec. nov. TYPE: MEXICO. Sinaloa: Mpio. San Ignacio, ca. 2.6 mi from Hwy 15 along road to microwave tower, ca. 17 mi SE of Emcosa, 10 Sep 1973, Warren Douglas Stevens 2040 (and Mary Fairhurst) (HOLOTYPE: TEX!; Isotype: MSU). Peritylae hofmeisteriae Rydb. similis sed differt foliis parvioribus magis conspicue glandulosi-punctatis petiolis brevioribus et acheniis setis pappi magis facile deciduis brevioribus (1.0-1.5 mm longis vs. 2-3 mm). Suffruticose perennials 15-30 cm high; stems densely puberulent; leaves mostly 15-25 mm long, 8-15 mm wide; petioles 7-17 mm long; blades del- toid, irregularly crenulodentate, sparsely puberulent, glandular punctate on both surfaces; heads single on puberulent peduncles 10-25 mm long; involu- cral bracts 6-7 mm long, puberulent, the apices acute; ray florets ca. 11, the rays white, 2.5-3.5 mm long; disk florets ca. 40, the corollas yellow, ca. 3 mm long, atomiferous glandular; achenes (immature) ca. 2.5 mm long, sparsely setiferous, the pappus of 1 or 2 readily deciduous bristles 1.0-1.5 mm long, between these a short crown of scales ca. 0.2 mm high. According to label data, the species is “common on steep rockface of road- cut, stems woody but extremely brittle, rays white, disc yellow.” 299 Two new species of Perityle from México Turner: Perityle A canescens @ coronopifolia © hofmeisteria A pennellii @ stevensii | Fig. 1. Distribution of Perityle spp. discussed in text. 300 PR YT. On O- GTA volume 69(4):297-300 October 1990 Dr. Stevens (pers. comm.) notes that the type was collected on a side road leading to Baila and Cerro de Culagua, which is about 79.5 road miles N of Mazatlan; it was identified by John Strother as Perityle gentry: A.M. Powell, but the latter species belongs to the section Laphamiaand is markedly different from P. stevenszi. Perityle stevensi is apparently most closely related to P. hofmeisteria, which is discussed under the above species. It differs from that taxon in having smaller, less deeply lobed, leaves with mostly shorter petioles. In addition, the pappus bristles are shorter (1.0-1.5 mm long vs. 2-3 mm) and readily deciduous. It is possible that P. stevensz will be found to have achenes without callous- thickened margins; if so, the species will not readily relate to yet other Mexican taxa. The following key should help the interested worker in distinguishing among these taxa. Key to the Mexican species of sect. Perityle having white rays, yellow disks and large achenes with callous-thickened margins: 1. Achenes mostly 2.0-3.5 mm long; leaves simple; pappus bristles mostly 1,5-3.0, mm. longj-rarely shorter. o/s 64 «02%. « j-th aoe ee eee (2) 1’ Achenes mostly 1.3-2.0 mm long; leaves tripartite, pappus bristles mostly O:5-1-5 mim long 2)... 1.592. sot ose oe oe ae (4) 2. Leaves narrowly spatulate, 2-4 mm wide, 8-10 mm long P. pennelli 2’ Leaves not spatulate,.much larger...:........0 sess e eee (3) 3. Leaves densely glandular punctate; pappus bristles 1-2 mm long; Sinaloa’ 21nd siete nes ae bats yanks Poshele c 651s Da ena eee ee P. stevens 3’ Leaves sparsely glandular punctate, if at all; pappus bristles 2-3 mm long; Dien t go. os, ct ost oid note misread pln aio oe tee oh P. hofmeisteria 4. Heads 2-5, borne in clusters; achenes with margins long- CHARS od sven bid sis 4 o wie ow 3 5 is oo lane ee P. coronopifolia 4' Heads solitary; achenes merely puberulent ............ P. canescens ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. Guy Nesom for the Latin diagnoses and to him and Dr. A.M. Powell for reviewing the manuscript. Phytologia (October 1990) 69(4):301-312. NOMENCLATURAL NOTES FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN FLORA. IV. John T. Kartesz & Kancheepuram N. Gandhi North Carolina Botanical Garden, Department of Biology, Coker Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3280 U.S.A. ABSTRACT The authorship of the following names is discussed: Bouteloua gra- cilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ez Griffiths, Brachiaria platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) Nash in Small, Bromus unioloides Kunth, Dichanthelium lin- earifolium (Scribn. er Nash) Gould, Echinochloa frumentacea Link, Se- taria sphacelata (Schumach.) Stapf & Hubbard, and Sporobolus vagint- florus (Torr. ez A. Gray) Wood. Aira elegantissima Schur and Hymen- achne amplezicaulis (Rudge) Nees are accepted to be correct names. KEY WORDS: Floristics, Nomenclature, Poaceae, Aira, Bouteloua, Brachiaria, Bromus, Dichanthelium, Echinochloa, Hymenachne, Setaria, and Sporobolus. Introduction Continuing with the “Nomenclatural notes for the North American flora” (Kartesz & Gandhi 1989; 1990a; 1990b), a fourth note in the series is presented here, toward advancing our understanding of North American plant names. POACEAE Aira elegantissima Schur The European weed, commonly known as annual silver hair grass, has been treated by many workers as Aira elegans Willd. ez Gaudin. Tutin (1980) accepted the name A. elegantissima Schur for this grass and in synonymy stated that A. capillaris Host (non Savi) and A. elegans Willd. ez Gaudin 301 302 Pe YAO OGin volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 were illegitimate names. However, he did not elaborate on the illegitimacy of the latter name. While reviewing Gaudin’s (1811) work, we found that he numbered each of his accepted taxa, which has historically been a common practice by var- ious workers. In the last paragraph of the protologue of Aira caryphyllea L. (number 7), he included the name “A. elegans Willd. ined.” and provided a brief description. Since the name A. elegans was not separately numbered, its inclusion within the protologue of A. caryphyllea could be interpreted as being a described name in synonymy, a provisional name, or both (Greuter 1988, Art. 34.1). Hence, the status of none of these can be considered legitimate. Therefore, the name A. elegantissima is the oldest legitimate name for this species complex. Aira elegantissima Schur, Verh. Mitt. Siebenb. Ver. Naturw. 4(Sert. Fl. Transs.):85. 1853. Aira capillaris Host, Icon. Gram. Austr. 4:20, t. 35. 1809, non Savi, 1798. Aira elegans Willd. ez Gaudin, Agrost. Helv. 1:130. 355. 1811 (pro syn. and/or provisional name), nom. invalid. Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. er Kunth) Lag. ez Griffiths Some authors, such as Gould (1975) and McVaugh (1983), attribute the name Bouteloua gracilis to (Willd. er Kunth) Lag. ez Steud. In Steudel (1840), synonyms are provided in italics. On p. 219, 12 species of Bouteloua are listed in italics (including “B. gracilis Lag.”). For the preceding name, Steudel cited “Chondrosium gracile H.B.” as the accepted name. [The correct authorship for the name C. gracile is: Willd. er Kunth, which was based on Willdenow’s manuscript name Actinochloa gracilis]. On p. 355, Steudel listed the names of Chondrosium species that he accepted and their synonyms, but for C. gracile, he did not cite B. gracilis. Nevertheless, since Steudel did not accept the name B. gracilis, he did not validate the new combination (Greuter 1988, Art. 34.1a). Griffiths, who also attributed the name to Lagasca, inadvertently validated the combination. Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. er Kunth) Lag. ez Griffiths, Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 14:375. 1912. BASIONYM: Chondrosium gracile Willd. er Kunth, Nov. Gen. et Sp. 1:176. 1814. Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ez Steud., Nom., ed. 2. 1:219. 1840, pro syn. Kartesz & Gandhi: Nomenclatural notes of North American flora-IV. 303 Brachiaria platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) Nash in Small Webster (1988, p. 606) concluded that “combining Urochloaand Brachiaria, excluding the type {of Brachiaria], is morphologically justified and taxonom- ically necessary.” He made four new combinations in Urochloa. However, we consider Brachiaria as distinct from Urochloa. The combinations Panicum platyphyllum (Griseb.) Munro ez Wright (1871), Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash, and Urochloa platyphylla (Griseb.) Web- ster were based on Paspalum platyphyllum Griseb. Unfortunately, this ba- sionym is a later homonym of Panicum platyphyllum J.A. Schultes (1827). Hence, Grisebach must not be cited as the parenthetical author for these names. Wright’s new combination should be treated as a nomen novum, with- out a parenthetical author (Greuter 1988, Art. 72.2,.Note 1), and with its priority starting from 1871 (not from 1866). This name thus can serve as a basionym for B. platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) Nash and U. platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) Webster. The correct nomenclature is given below. Brachiaria platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) Nash in Small, Fl. Southeast. U.S. 81. 1903. BASIONYM: Panicum platyphyllum Munro ez Wright, Anal. Acad. Cienc. Habana 8:206. 1871. Urochloa platyphylla (Munro ez Wright) R. Webster, Syst. Bot. 13:606. 1988. Paspalum platyphyllum Griseb., Cat. Pl. Cubensium 230. 1866, non J.A. Schultes 1827. Bromus Bromus catharticus Vahl Although the names Bromus unioloides Kunth (1815) and Festuca unioloz- des Willd. (1803) share specific epithets, they are based on different types, the former from Ecuador, the latter from Carolina. In conjunction with his description of B. unioloides, Kunth did not cite Willdenow either directly or indirectly. For his B. unioloides, Kunth (1829) cited Schenodorus unzoloides Roem. & Schult. (1817) in synonymy. Moreover, Kunth considered Willde- now’s F. unioloides to be a different species, and in transferring it to Bromus, named it B. willdenowii Kunth (1829), citing F. uniolordes and Ceratochloa unioloides (Willd.) P. Beauv. (1812) in synonymy. Some authors, such as Gould (1975), include the parenthetical author for B. unzoloides, which is in- correct, whereas the author citation used by Hitchcock & Chase (1951, p. 833) and McVaugh (1983) is correct. We provide the following nomenclatural summary. Bromus catharticus Vahl, Symb. Bot. 2:22. 1791. 304 Pay TiOKh OO Gl A volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 Festuca untoloides Willd., Hort. Berol. 3, t. 3. 1803. Ceratochloa unioloides ( Willd.) P. Beauv., Ess. Agrost. 75, t. 15, f. 7. 1812. Bro- mus untoloides (Willd.) Raspail, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. 5:439. 1825, non Kunth 1815. Bromus willdenoww Kunth, Rev. Gramin. 1:134. 1829. Bromus unioloides Kunth in H.B.K., Nov. Gen. Sp. 1:151. 1815. Schen- odorus unioloides (Kunth in H.B.K.) Roem. & Schult., Syst. Veg. 2:708. 1817. Zerna unioloides (Kunth in H.B.K.) Lindm., Svensk Fanerogamfl. 101. 1918. Dichanthelium linearifolium (Scribn. ez Nash) Gould Gould (1974) based his new combination Dichanthelium linearifolium on Panicum linearifolium “Scribn.,” which was proposed in an appendix given in volume 3 of Britton & Brown (1898). The basionym authorship is discussed below. The first edition of Britton and Brown’s /Il. Fl. N. U.S. was issued in three volumes, with volume 1 in 1896 and volume 3 in 1898. The grass family was treated in vol. 1, in which (p. 94) Britton indicated in a footnote that the grass text was elaborated with the assistance of G.V. Nash. In his introduction to the second edition, Britton (in Britton & Brown 1913, p. XIII) explicitly stated that the “text of the grass family has been written by Mr. George V. Nash for both editions.” Hence, all new names of grasses found in those editions must be attributed to Nash. Britton (Britton & Brown 1898) stated that the appendix in volume 3 included “new discoveries or new determinations, mostly from the west, made while the work has been in press.” Although the name Panicum linearifolium was attributed to Scribner, there was no indication that it was a new species nor that the text was from Scribner. The distribution was given as “New York, and New Jersey to Missouri.” Thus, this was not one of the new species from the west, but a new determination. Had Nash mentioned this new species as “P. lineartfolium Scribner, sp. nov.” (instead of “P. lineartfolium Scribner”), we would accept Scribner to be the author of this species, but that was not the case. It was most likely that Scribner provided the material and epithet for this name. We conclude that the authorship of P. lnearifolium should be: Scribn. ex Nash, and provide the following nomenclatural summary. Dichanthelium linearifolium (Scribn. ex Nash) Gould, Brittonia 26:60. 1974. BASIONYM: Panicum linearifolium Scribn. ex Nash in Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S. 3:500. 1898. Kartesz & Gandhi: Nomenclatural notes of North American flora-IV. 305 Echinochloa frumentacea Link The combinations Echinochloa frumentacea Link (1827), Oplismenus fru- mentaceus Kunth (1829), Panicum crusgalli L. var. frumentaceum Trimen (1885), and E. crusgalh (L.) P. Beauv. var. frumentacea Wight (1909) are presumed to have been based on P. frumentaceum Roxb. (1820), which is a later homonym of P. frumentaceum Salisbury (1796). Although the latter name is superfluous, and thus illegitimate (Salisbury cited Holcus sorghum L. in synonymy), P. frumentaceum Roxb. must be rejected as a later homonym (Greuter 1988, Art. 64.1, Note 1) and cannot serve as a basionym. Link’s new combination must be considered as a nomen novum (Greuter 1988, Art. 72.2, Note 1), with priority from 1827 (not from 1820). The combination E. frumen- tacea Link can serve as a basionym for Kunth’s and Trimen’s combinations. We provide the following nomenclatural summary. Echinochloa frumentacea Link, Hort. Berol. 1:204. 1827. Oplismenus fru- mentaceus (Link) Kunth, Rev. Gram. 1:445. 1829. Panicum crusgalli L. var. frumentaceum (Link) Trimen, Syst. Cat. Fl. Pl. Ceylon 104. 1885. Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) P. Beauv. var. frumentacea (Link) W. Wight, Cent. Dict. Sup. 810. 1909. Panicum frumentaceum Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1:307. 1820, non Salisb. 1796. Elymus alaskanus (Scribn. & Merr.) Love ssp. latiglumis (Scribn. & J.G. Smith) Love The subspecific new combination Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ez Shinners ssp. latiglumis (Scribn. & J.G. Smith) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey (Great Basin Naturalist 43:562. 1983) was not validly made, because of the lack of citation of the basionym and a full and direct reference to its author and place of valid publication with page and date (Greuter 1988, Art. 33.2). Hence, to date, the above new combination remains invalid. Barkworth (pers. comm.) informed us that although she was aware of the nomenclatural problem, she does not intend to correct it, since she presently prefers to follow Léve’s treatment of this taxon (given below). Elymus alaskanus (Scribn. & Merr.) Love ssp. latiglumis (Scribn. & J.G. Smith) Love, Taxon 29:166. 1980. BASIONYM: Agropyron violaceum (Hornem.) Lange var. latiglume Scribn. & J.G. Smith, U.S.D.A., Div. Agrost. Bull. 4:30. 1897. Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ez Shinners ssp. latiglumis (Scribn. & J.G. Smith) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey, nom. invalid. 306 PHA OL O'S lA volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 Hymenachne amplezicaulis (Rudge) Nees The genus Hymenachne consists of eight species (fide Webster 1987). The species H. amplericaulis (Rudge) Nees (1829), a native of the West Indies, is reported from Florida. This species was based on Panicum amplezicaule Rudge (1805). Hsu (1978) treated H. amplezicaulis as a synonym of H. pseu- dointerrupta C. Muell. (Bot. Zeit. 19:333. 1861), giving the range of this grass as “Assam, Burma, Malaya to Indo-China, China and Polynesia.” Web- ster treated both H. amplezicaulis and H. pseudointerrupta as synonyms of H. acutigluma (Steud.) Gilliland (Gard. Bull. Singapore 20:314. 1964), with the latter name being based on P. acutigluma Steud. (1854). Webster commented that H. acutigluma is a native of Australia. In researching this problem, we found that the oldest name in this complex is P. amplezicaule. Hsu and Web- ster gave no reasons for rejecting this name and inexplicably accepting a later name. Bor (1960) remarked that the grass in Assam (India), known as Hymen- achne amplericaulis, is distinct from the American H. amplezicaulis. He as- signed the Indian element to H. pseudointerrupta. Koyama (1987) essentially followed Bor in accepting the name H. pseudointerrupta for a Japanese species and considered (p. 510) the name H. amplezicaulis to be misapplied to a grass in SE Asia. We accept Bor’s and Koyama’s interpretation that the American element Hymenachne amplezicaulis is distinct from the SE Asian Hymenachne. Ac- cordingly, we conclude that H. amplezicaulis is the correct name for the New World Hymenachne. If H. acutigluma and H. pseudointerrupta are conspecific (as indicated by Webster), then H. acutigluma has priority over H. pseudoint- errupta. Both Hsu and Webster were correct at the time of their publications; the former choosing the name H. pseudointerrupta; the latter choosing the name H. acutigluma. However, both authors erred in citing H. amplezicaulis as a synonym of their respective combinations. For the American element, the correct nomenclature is given below: Hymenachne amplezicaulis (Rudge) Nees, Agros. Bras. 276. 1829. BA- SIONYM: Panicum amplexicaule Rudge, Pl. Guzan. vol. 1:21. 1805. Non Hymenachne amplezicaule sensu Hsu or Webster. Setaria sphacelata (Schumach.) Stapf & Hubbard The tropical African grass Setaria sphacelata has become naturalized in California and elsewhere in the U.S.A. The name has been attributed to “Stapf & Hubbard” (Chipp 1929), to “Stapf & Hubbard ez Moss” (Stapf & Hubbard Kartesz & Gandhi: Nomenclatural notes of North American flora-IV. 307 1930), to “(Schumach.) Stapf & Hubb. ez Moss” (Clayton 1966), to “(Schu- mach.) Moss” (Clayton 1972, 1979; Clayton & Renvoize 1982; Webster 1987), or to “(Schumach.) Stapf & Hubb.” (Hitchcock & Chase 1951; Munz 1968, p. 197 in supplement; Kartesz & Kartesz 1980). The name first appeared in T.F. Chipp’s (1929, pp. 184, 195) article on the Imatong Mountains of Sudan, where he stated (p. 195) “Setaria sphacelata Stapf & Hubbard. E. of Kippia, 9000 ft. A grass 3 ft. high, one of the commonest constituents of the mountain meadows. No. 98.” The serial no. 98 refers to the collector’s field number of the collections made in the Imatong Mountains (as per * mark note on p. 179). A section of Chipp’s article (pp. 195-197) includes new species that were attributed to M.B. Moss, and with all newly described species provided with detailed descriptions. However, the species in question is not one of the new species. Hence, we speculate that Chipp did not consider this grass to be new. Attribution of the new species to Moss might have misled some authors, such as Clayton, to believe that Moss was the author of the combination S. sphacelata. On p. 184 (Chipp 1929), the mention of this species name is a nomen nudum and does not constitute a valid publication (Greuter 1988, Art. 32.1; Rec. 50B). In the protologue given on p. 195, no basionym is mentioned and no reference is made to Schumacher, either directly or indirectly. If Chipp intended the name Setaria sphacelata to be a new combination authored by (Schumach.) Stapf & Hubb., the protologue does not meet the minimum requirement, t.e., an indirect reference to Schumacher’s Panicum sphacelatum, and therefore, Chipp cannot be credited with the new combination. Because of the ambiguity of the description given by Chipp (a 5 word description: “A grass 3 ft. high”), the alternative possibility of considering the name as sp. nov. is also eliminated. In light of the above analysis, we believe that the name Setaria sphacelata does not have valid taxonomic and nomenclatural standing in Chipp’s article. To our best knowledge, Stapf & Hubbard (1930) used this name, attributing it to Stapf & Hubb. ez Moss, and cited the basionym (p. 796). Thus, the new combination (S. sphacelata) was not made in Chipp’s article, but made by Stapf & Hubbard. Accordingly, the correct authority for S. sphacelata is: (Schumach.) Stapf & Hubbard (as given by Hitchcock & Chase, Munz, and Kartesz & Kartesz). Sporobolus vaginiflorus (Torr. ex A. Gray) Wood In 1861, Wood proposed the combination Sporobolus vaginiflorus and at- tributed the species epithet to Torrey. He also cited the following references: “Agrostis Muhl., Crypsis Nutt.” Wood’s combination has historically been pre- sumed to be based on Vilfa vaginiflora Torrey. We came across discrepancies 308 PLY T0.LO GTA volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 on the authorship of both the basionym and new combination. The following names are involved in the taxonomy and nomenclature of S. vaginiflorus: Agrostis virginica L. 1753; Muhl. 1817; Torr. 1824. Crypsis virginica (L.) Nutt. 1818. Vilfa vaginiflora Torr. “in” A. Gray 1834; Torr. 1843. Sporobolus vaginiflorus (Torr.) Wood. In 1824, Torrey used the name Agrostis virginica L. for a northern U.S. plant; however, he later realized that true A. virginica was taxonomically different and more widespread than the northern plant. For the northern grass, which he called “A. virginica L.,” Torrey excluded the Linnean type and provided a new name: Vilfa vaginiflora. This is evident from his 1843 treatment of V. vaginiflora. He also asserted that even Muhlenberg’s “A. virginica” belongs in Torrey’s V. vaginiflora. Torrey’s description of the plant, along with Muhlenberg’s, although given under a misapplied name (2.e., A. virginica), clearly apply to V. vaginiflora. Since V. vaginiflora was not a new species, but rather a new name, no new description was necessary; a mere reference to either Muhlenberg’s or Torrey’s description was all that was required to validate the new name. Between his 1824 and 1843 publications, Torrey had the name Vilfa vagznt- flora in manuscript form. Prior to Torrey’s 1843 publication of the name V. vaginiflora, Gray (1834) used the name and attributed it to Torrey. Gray in- dicated that it was Torrey’s manuscript name. With reference to authorship of the name, there has been difference of opinion, with some workers (e.g., Voss 1966) attributing it to Torrey and others (e.g., Kartesz & Kartesz 1980) to Torr. ez A. Gray. Even Torrey cited the authorship as “Torr. in A. Gray” in his 1843 work. Voss argued that Gray published Torrey’s label information of this name (Vilfa vaginiflora Torrey, Synop. Flora, ined. Agrostis virginica Muhl., Gram. p. 74, Torrey, Flora, v. 1, p. 89, non Elliott et Auct.). Voss further emphasized that Torrey’s label information was sufficient to validate the name and that Gray’s description was nonessential; hence, Torrey alone should be credited with authorship. We assessed the problem to determine correct authorship. Although it is evident that Gray’s description was nonessential to validate the name, it was Gray who actually published it. Whenever Gray used verbatim descriptions of others, he usually provided such descriptions in quotation. However, in this case, the description is not a critical issue. We believe that in order for Torrey to receive credit of authorship, Gray should have specifically stated that he published the name for Torrey; however this was not done. Mere attribution to Torrey alone does not justify authorship to Torrey. Such attributions to Kartesz & Gandhi: Nomenclatural notes of North American flora-IV. 309 manuscript authors were customary in the Torrey-Gray era. According to the present practice of the ICBN committee for Spermatophyta, nomenclatural decisions must be made on the published text (Taxon 33:300. 1984; on the authorship of the genus Burtonia: R. Brown vs. R. Brown ez Ait. f.). Hence we disagree with Voss and concur with Kartesz & Kartesz on the correct authorship being: Torr. ez A. Gray. With reference to the authorship of the new combination (Sporobolus vagini- florus), Soil Conservation Service (1982) gave the transfer authors as: Torr. ex Wood. As we indicated earlier, Wood attributed the name to Torrey and cited the references to Agrostis Muhl. and Crypsis Nutt. These two references must be construed as Agrostis virginica sensu Muhl. non L. and Crypsis vir- ginica sensu Nutt. (non A. virginica L.). According to Greuter (1988), Art. 48.1, Wood excluded the Linnean material. Certainly, Wood was aware of Gray’s publication, which excluded the Linnean material. Wood’s reference to Torrey must be considered as an indirect reference to the basionym. This interpretation is based on Greuter (1988), Art. 32, Ex. 5. Hence, Wood is the sole transfer author for the combination S. vaginiflorus as indicated below: Sporobolus vaginiflorus (Torr. ex A. Gray) Wood, Class-book Bot. 775. 1861. BASIONYM: Vilfa vaginiflora Torr. ex A. Gray, Gram. & Cyp. 1:3. 1834. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. John McNeill (Royal Ontario Museum), Dr. Mary E. Bark- worth (Utah State University), Dr. Paul A. Fryxell (U.S.D.A. Scientist in col- laboration with Texas A&M University), and Dr. Larry E. Brown (Houston Community College) for their valuable suggestions for the improvement of this manuscript. We also thank Dr. Guy Nesom (University of Texas at Austin), Dr. Robert Webster (U.S.D.A., Beltsville, MD), and Ms. Ruth F. Schallert (Botany Librarian, Smithsonian Institution) for providing references used in this study. REFERENCES Beauvois, P. 1812. Ess. Agrost. Paris. Bor, N.L. 1960. Grasses Burm. Ceyl. Ind. Pakist. Pergamon Press Inc., New York, NY. 310 PAYS f. OuL 1O1G A volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 Britton, N.L. & A. Brown. 1896. Ill. Fl. N. U.S., vol. 1. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY. . 1898. Ill. Fl. N. U.S., vol. 3. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY. . 1913. JIL Fl. N. U.S., vol. 1. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY. Chipp, T.F. 1929. The Imatong Mountains, Sudan. Bull. Misc. Inform. 177-197. [This journal was superseded by Kew Bull.]. Clayton, W.D. 1966. Studies in Gramineae: IX. Kew Bull. 20:262-264. . 1972. Fl. W. Trop. Afr., ed. 2. vol. 3. Crown Agents Overseas Government & Administration, London. . 1979. Notes on Setaria (Gramineae). Kew Bull. 33:503-505. & S.A. Renvoize. 1982. Fl. Trop. E. Afr., Gramineae, part 3. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Gaudin, J. 1811. Agrost. Helv., vol. 1. J.J. Paschoud, Geneva. Gould, F.W. 1974. Nomenclatural changes in the Poaceae. Brittonia 26:59- 60. . 1975. Grasses Tezas. Texas A&M University Press, College Sta- tion, TX. Gray, A. 1834. N. Amer. Gram. Cyp., part I. (Ezsiccata). Greuter, W. (Chairman, Editorial Committee). 1988. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Regnum Veg. #118. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht. Hitchcock, A.S. & A. Chase. 1951. Man. Grasses U.S. U.S. Dept. of Agr., Misc. Publ. no. 200. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC. Hsu, Chien-Chang. 1978. Gramineae (Poaceae). Pp. 373-783. In: Fl. Tat- wan, vol. 5. Epoch Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan. Kartesz, J.T. 1991. Syn. Checkl. Vasc. Fl. U.S. Canad. Greenl., ed. 2 in press. Timber Press, Portland, OR. & K.N. Gandhi. 1989. Nomenclatural notes for the North American flora - I. Phytologia 67:461-468. Kartesz & Gandhi: Nomenclatural notes of North American flora-IV. 311 . 1990a. Nomenclatural notes for the North American flora - II. Phytologia 68:421-427. . 1990b. Nomenclatural notes for the North American flora - III. Phytologia 69:129-137. Kartesz, J.T. & R. Kartesz. 1980. Syn. Checkl. Vasc. Fl. U.S. Canad. Greenl. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Koyama, T. 1987. Grasses Japan. Kodansha Ltd., Tokyo. Kunth, C.S. 1815. in H.B.K. Nov. Gen. Sp., vol. 1. Paris. . 1829. Rev. Gramin., vol. 1. Paris. Link, J.H.F. 1827. Hort. Berol., vol. 1. Berlin. McVaugh, R. 1983. Fl. Novo-Galiciana, vol. 14. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Muhlenberg, G.H.E. 1817. Descr. Gram. Impensis Solomon. W. Conrad, Philadelphia, PA. Munz, P.A. 1968. Calif. Fl., Suppl. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Nees, C.G.D. 1829. Agrost. Bras. in C.F.P. Martius Fl. Bras. Enum. Pl., vol. 2(1)-Gramineae. Stuttgartiae. Roemer, J.J. & J.A. Schultes. 1817. Syst. Veg., vol. 2. Stuttgartiae. Roxburgh, W. 1820. Fl. Ind., vol. 1. Serampore. Rudge, E. 1805. Pl. Guian., vol. 1. London. Salisbury, R.A. 1796. Prodr. Stirp. Chat. Allerton. London. Schultes, J.A. 1827. Mant. vol. 2. Stuttgartiae. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Nat. List Sci. Pl. Nam., vols. 1 & 2. U.S.D.A., S.C.S.-T.P. #159. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Stapf, O. & C.E. Hubbard. 1930. Gramineae. Pp. 769-944. Jn: D. Prain (ed.), Fl. Trop. Afr., vol. 9(5). L. Reeve & Co. Limited, Ashford, Kent. Steudel, E.G. 1840. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 1, vol. 1. Typis et Sunptibus, J.G. Cottae, Stuttgartiae et Tubingae. 312 Pay PO L OG TA volume 69(4):301-312 October 1990 . 1854. Syn. Pl. Glumac. Stuttgartiae. Torrey, J. 1824. Fl. N. Middle U.S., vol. 1. T. & J. Swords, New York, NY. 1843. Fl. New York, vol. 2. Carroll & Cook, Albany, NY. Trimen, H. 1885. Syst. Cat. Fl. Pl. Ceylon. Colombo. Tutin, T.G. 1980. Gramineae. Pp. 118-267. Jn: Tutin, et al., eds., FI. Europaeae, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, London. Voss, E.G. 1966. Nomenclatural notes on monocots. Rhodora 68:435-463. Webster, R. 1987. Austral. Paniceae (Poaceae). J. Cramer, Gebruder Born- traeger, D-1000 Berlin, D-7000 Stuttgart. . 1988. Genera of the North American Paniceae (Poaceae: Pani- coideae). Syst. Bot. 13:576-609. Wight, W. 1909. Cent. Dict. Sup. Willdenow, C.L. 1803. Hort. Berol., vol. 1. Berlin. Wood, A. 1861. Class-book Bot., ed. s.n. A.S. Barnes & Burr, New York, NY. Wright, C. 1871. Anal. Acad. Cienc. Habana 8:. i 5 00288 2304 Information for Authors Articles from botanical systematics and ecology, including biographical sketches, critical reviews and summaries of literature will be considered for publication in PHYTOLOGIA. Manuscripts may be submitted either on computer diskette, or as typescript. Diskettes will be returned to authors after action has been taken on the manuscript. Diskettes may be 5.25 inches or 3.5 inches but must be written in DOS format as flat ASCII files. Typescript manuscripts should be single spaced and will be read into the computer using a page scanner. The scanner will read standard typewriter fonts but will not read dot matrix print. Manuscripts submitted in dot matrix print cannot be accepted. Use underscore (not italics) for scientific names. Corrections made on typescript manuscripts must be complete and neat as the scanner will not read them otherwise. Language of manuscripts may be either English or Spanish. Figures will be reduced to fit within limits of text pages and therefore, should be submitted with an internal scale and have dimensions proportional to those for text pages. Legends for figures should be included in figures whenever possible. Each manuscript should have an abstract and key word list. Specimen citations should be consistent throughout the manuscript. Serial titles should be cited with abbreviations used in Botanico Periodicum Huntianum. References cited only as part of nomenclatural summaries should not appear in Literature Cited. Nomenclatural work should include one paragraph per basionym and must provide proper (as defined by the current /nternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature) citation of sources of epithets and combinations. Authors should arrange for two workers in the appropriate field to review the manuscript before submission. Copies of reviews should be forwarded to the editor with the manuscript. Manuscripts will not be published without review. Cost of publication is currently $12.00 US per page for publica- tion without reprints. Publication with 100 reprints is provided for $16.50 US per page, 200 reprints for $20.00 US per page. Page charges are due with manuscript and no paper will be published before payment is received in full. Reprints must be ordered and paid for in advance. Page charges will be determined on the basis of a typescript page (single spaced, 10 points, blank line between paragraphs) with all type inside a rectangle 143 mm (horizonal) by 219 mm(vertical), not including running head and page number. Title page should include title, author(s) name(s) and address(es). Two blank lines should appear above and below section headings (Abstract, Discussion, Literature Cited, etc.) in the manuscript. No extra charge is made for line drawings provided they conform to limitations of size and proportion for normal text. Halftones require an extra charge of $5.00 US per page..