Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

List of Araceae genera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove ads

This is a list of genera in the plant family Araceae. As currently circumscribed, the family contains over 3700 species into approximately a hundred genera. The family's taxonomy remains in flux, and a full taxonomic treatment integrating the mass of phylogenetic data that has become available in the last 10 years remain to be produced. The classification presented here is informed by the review of Mayo et al. (2013).[1]

Remove ads

Genera

More information Genus Authority, Year ...
Remove ads

Taxonomy

Summarize
Perspective

Bogner & Nicolson (1991)

The following is Bogner & Nicolson's (1991)[85] classification of Araceae as cited in Mayo et al. (1997).[86]

Araceae
Remove ads

Notes

  1. [N 1]
    A second date given in parentheses indicate the printed date on the work, when that date differs from the actual date of publication. This may occur because the work was distributed at a different date, or because a book was printed in multiple issues bound together at a later date.
  2. [N 2]
    Although Schott's original publication used both Lysichiton and Lysichitum his later publications used only the former name.
  3. [N 3]
    Since Barton himself credits Nuttall in following Salisbury's (1812, Trans. Hortic. Soc. Lond. 1:267) invalid name, some attribute authorship to that author instead (either in Barton or in Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 1:105, 1818)
  4. [N 4]
    Although Schleiden originally published the genus in an earlier version[6] of that paper, he originally only included one species, W. delilei (≡ Wolffiella hyalina (Delile) Monod). That species was later moved out of Wolffia and into Wolffiella, overlooking that it was already the type of the former name. By the time the problem was noticed in the mid-20th century, Wolffia would have replaced Wolffiella, and the former Wolffia would have had to become Grantia (den Hartog, 1969, Taxon 18(5):591-592), which would have resulted in "intolerable confusion" (McVaugh, 1971, Taxon 20(2-3):384-389) as most of the species of the then Lemnaceae changed genera (two of which similar in name), and so the name was conserved (McVaugh, 1971) with a later date of publication allowing for a valid lectotype to be chosen.[6]
  5. [N 5]
    Schleiden's species is an illegitimate renaming of Linnaeus' Lemna arrhiza and is properly called Wolffia arrhiza (L.) Horkel ex Wimm.
  6. [N 6]
    An illegitimate new name for Eduard Poeppig's Scindapsus occidentalis. The species' correct name is Alloschemone occidentalis (Poepp.) Engl. & K.Krause.
  7. [N 7]
    Although Adanson originally called the species Dracontium pertusum, the combination Monstera pertusa was assigned by Schott (1830, Wiener Z. Kunst 4:1028), the first author to accept Adanson's genus and create combinations in it, to Pothos pertusum Roxb. (currently known as Rhaphidophora pertusa (Roxb.) Schott).
  8. [N 8]
    Some sources cite Gen. Aroid.:pl. 83 (1858), but there is no reason to believe that the May issue of Bonplandia, which Schott himself cite as the place of publication in Genera Aroidearum Exposita was published with that much delay.
  9. [N 9]
    Treated now as Cyrtosperma merkusii (Hassk.) Schott.
  10. [N 10]
    The species is now known at Lasia spinosa (L.) Thwaites.
  11. [N 11]
    The year when the work was completed.
  12. [N 12]
    The species, which is an illegitimate renaming of Loddiges' Calladium zamiifolium, is correctly known as Zamioculcas zamiifolia (G.Lodd.) Schott.
  13. [N 13]
    The correct name is Aglaonema nitida (Jack) Kunth. Schott's original type species may have been meant to be a renaming of William Roxburgh's Calla oblongifolia (=Aglaonema marantifolia Blume), but Schott mistakenly cited only Heinrich Friedrich Link's Arum integrifolium as a synonym, rendering the type species' new name illegitimate; he would later (1832, Melet. Bot. 1:20) rename it Aglaonema integrifolium. (Nicolson, 1969, Smithsonian Contr. Bot. 1:5)
  14. [N 14]
    The species' name is illegitimate as it is based on the same type as Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson, which is the correct name.
  15. [N 15]
    This species is now treated as a synonym of Anchomanes difformis (Blume) Engl.
  16. [N 16]
    Properly treated as Apoballis rupestris (Zoll. & Moritzi ex Zoll.) S.Y.Wong & P.C.Boyce.
  17. [N 17]
    If the designation by Pfeiffer (1872, Nomencl. Bot. 1:265) is valid, the type is Arisaema speciosum, otherwise, the designation by Britton and Brown (1913, Ill. Fl. N.U.S., ed. 2. 1:442) of A. nepenthoideshas priority.
  18. [N 18]
    Although the original description included only this species, which is listed as type in Index Nominum Genericorum, the name is not included in any standard databases for unknown reasons.
  19. [N 19]
    This number does not account for many more species that remain undescribed or untransferred from original placement in the discredited Microcasia (Boyce & Yeng 2013; Webbia 67(2):139-146).
  20. [N 20]
    This species was until recently placed in its own subfamily, which was found (Cabrera et al. 2008; Am. J. Bot. 95(9)1153-1165:1160) to be nested within Aroideae. A new, comprehensive taxonomy of the family remains to be published, but Cabrera and al. characterized the demoting of the subfamily back to tribal status as the most sensible option.
  21. [N 21]
    A first part comprising 10 pages and 6 plates was issued in quarto format in 1803, but this edition was abandoned, and the more common folio edition began publication 2 years later.
  22. [N 22]
    IPNI and ING gives a part of Schott's Aroideae issued in 1855 as the place of publication, but the premier monograph gives the 1856 publication, which is the only one that could be verified.
  23. [N 23]
    Schott originally published the genus the year before(Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 7:85) as Hapale, but then chose to alter the name as it was homonymous with a now disused genus of marmosets. This new name was later conserved (Brummitt 1984; Taxon 33(4):707) over the original form.
  24. [N 24]
    Multiple sources give the year of publication as 1853 (Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 3:369), but Schott merely notes after describing his Dracunculus crinita that "a genus Helicodiceros will probably be justified" ("Eine Gattung «Helicodiceros» dürfte hierdurch begründet werden."), which fails to satisfy the requirement of the ICN's article 36.1 (see also Rickett and Stafleu, 1959, Taxon 8(7):231).
  25. [N 25]
    The species' correct name is Montrichardia arborescens (L.) Schott
  26. [N 26]
    Treated as a synonym of Peltandra virginica (L.) Schott
  27. [N 27]
    Tenore's name was an unnecessary renaming of Thunberg's earlier Arum ternatum. The correct name for the species is Pinellia ternata (Thunb.) Makino.
  28. [N 28]
    Now known as Sauromatum venosum (Dryand. ex Aiton) Kunth.
  29. [N 29]
    Due to confusion with a later, similarly titled work by Zollinger which has the same standardised abbreviation, some sources erroneously give 1854 as the date of publication.
  30. [N 30]
    Properly attributed to Brongniart in Schott (who says he is quoting Brongniart's description from a letter without adding any details of his own: "Wir bringen nachstehend den uns vom Autor überlassenen Gattungskarakter dar, indem wir uns nicht erlauben, demselben Eigenes anzufügen."), not Brongniart ex Schott, and not cited to Gen. Aroid.:pl. 65 (1858).
  31. [N 31]
    Now known as Theriophonum minutum (Willd.) Baill.
Remove ads

References

Further reading

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads