Le statut de l’image et de l’imagination dans la phénoménologie générative

Schnell, Alexander

doi:10.1163/9789004322516_007

Cited by 1 publication

(134 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ex D. Don, and Melastoma holosericea Steud. Ex Triana (Schnell 1996). Don (1823) did not choose a type because this was not customary at the time, but he provided a description, diagnosis and discussion of the affinities of Conostegia to Miconia .…”

Section: Taxonomic Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Don (1823) did not choose a type because this was not customary at the time, but he provided a description, diagnosis and discussion of the affinities of Conostegia to Miconia . Schnell (1996) informally designated Melastoma procera as the type of Conostegia .…”

Section: Taxonomic Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lastly, before a break in the revision of the genus that would last about 100 years, Cogniaux (1891) treated 34 species of Conostegia . Later Schnell (1996) provided the only detailed classification within Conostegia in which he recognized 42 species and divided them in three subgenera ( Conostegia , Lobatostigma and Ossaeiformis ) and further divided subgenus Conostegia into six sections ( Axiliflora , Conostegia , Dasystegia , Notostegia , Parvistigma and Tomentostegia ). Unfortunately Schnell’s work was never published.…”

Section: Taxonomic Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The genus had always been thought of as a morphologically distinct group (Bonpland 1806-1816; Don 1823; Almeda 1990; Schnell 1996) and in one of the few thorough revisions of the taxonomy of genera with terminal inflorescences, Judd and Skean (1991) concluded that Conostegia was likely monophyletic. After the work of Schnell (1996), the most comprehensive study that included species of Conostegia has been that for the Flora Mesoamericana by Almeda (2009). The latter study followed very closely the work of Schnell (1996).…”

Section: Taxonomic Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The group was revised by Schnell (1996) who recognized 42 species, but this thorough revision unfortunately was never published. A recent molecular phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences from four chloroplast and two nuclear ribosomal spacers found Conostegia not to be monophyletic but identified a core Conostegia clade (Kriebel et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Monograph of Conostegia (Melastomataceae, Miconieae)

Kriebel¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent molecular phylogenetic analysis identified a clade containing all species of Conostegia, but that also included species of Clidemia and Miconia nested inside. A taxonomic revision of a more broadly circumscribed Conostegia is presented here. In total, 77 species of Conostegia are recognized. One species from Ecuador, Conostegia ortizae is described as new. Twenty-nine new combinations are proposed for the species of Clidemia and Miconia that fall inside Conostegia. Two new names are proposed for the two species for which the epithet was previously occupied in Conostegia. An infrageneric classification of Conostegia is proposed recognizing three sections based on the results of the molecular phylogeny. This taxonomic revision includes ample documentation of the anatomy and morphology of most species in the genus, taxonomic descriptions, a dichotomous key, and distribution maps for all species.

show abstract