Two major lineages of beetles inhabit cycad cones in the New World: weevils (Curculionoidea) in the subtribe Allocorynina, including the genera Notorhopalotria Tang and O'Brien, Parallocorynus Voss, Protocorynus O'Brien and Tang and Rhopalotria Chevrolat, and beetles in the family Erotylidae, including the genus Pharaxonotha Reitter. Analysis of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) mitochondrial gene as well as cladistic analysis of morphological characters of the weevils indicate four major radiations, with a probable origin on the cycad genus Dioon Lindl. and comparatively recent host shifts onto Zamia L. Analysis of the 16S rRNA gene for erotylid beetles indicates that an undescribed genus restricted to New World Ceratozamia Brongn. is the most early-diverging clade, and this lineage is sister to a large radiation of the genus Pharaxonotha onto Zamia, with apparent host shifts onto Dioon and Ceratozamia. Analysis of beetles are in accord with current models of continental drift in the Caribbean basin, support some proposed species groupings of cycads, but not others, and suggest that pollinator type may impact population genetic structure in their host cycads.

Zamia acuminata has remained an obscure, poorly understood species for over a century due to possibly misinterpreted or erroneous locality data on the unicate sterile type specimen, a very brief protologue description, the misidentification of the plants from El Valle de Antón in Panama as Z. acuminata, and the erroneous determinations of plants of Z. acuminata from Costa Rica as Z. fairchildiana. Recently collected material from San José Province in Costa Rica is here determined to be identical to the single sterile leaf material of the holotype of Zamia acuminata. We consider Z. acuminata to be a Costa Rican endemic species restricted to the western Talamanca mountain range in San José Province, and that the Zamia from El Valle de Antón in Panama, which has previously been referred to as Zamia acuminata, to be a new species, here described as Zamia nana.

The great bulk of the world’s charophyte literature of the past 100 years or more suffers from several major limitations. Much is entirely descriptive with but few attempts to ascribe any functionality to the features under consideration, or how they adapt such species to their respective ecological niches. Charophyte distributions have been attributed almost entirely to physical parameters with virtually no consideration given to the role of aquatic herbivores or other biotic environmental factors. Furthermore, most workers have focused on relatively restricted areas with little or no reference to others either near or far removed. That there is much to be gained from a wider focus (both spatially and conceptually) that incorporates greater conjecture as well as enhanced collaboration is here suggested. How are the charophyte floras of one region similar to, or different from, those of another, and, of particular significance, ‘Why?’ The authors, being North American, focus on that continent but with the firm conviction that most generalities applicable there hold equally true for other landmasses, and have done so for the previous 10, if not 100, million years. This account focuses first, if somewhat superficially, on 14 widely distinct North American charophyte communities (plus South American Lake Titicaca) and then in greater detail on four of those. Among other issues considered are how species richness relates to latitude; why some geographical entities support more charophyte species than do others; the extent to which charophyte floras reflect the availability of different habitats; the contributions of herbivory to the preceding; the stability of the North American charophyte flora; the ecological considerations most often reflected by charophyte zonation and how–or to what extent–range extensions reflect niche preferences or requirements. While the authors well appreciate just how minimal their efforts may appear a century hence, at least they hope to have placed on the table some considerations with which colleagues from other landmasses may agree, disagree or suggest modifications.

No abstract