Nomenclatural Changes for Some Grasses in California and the Muhlenbergia Clade (Poaceae)

Columbus, J. Travis; Smith, James Penny

doi:10.5642/aliso.20102801.07

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in gross morphology of the spikelet, but similar in anatomy and cytology to members of this tribe (Decker, 1964), appears from molecular data to be nested in Stipeae Hsiao & al., 1999;Romaschenko & al., 2008Romaschenko & al., , 2010Soreng & Davis, 1998). The genus has recently been included in Stipeae (Barkworth, 2007), transferred into the genus Stipa (Columbus & Smith, 2010), and is sometimes placed in the monotypic subtribe Ampelodesminae Conert .…”

Section: Peripheral Stipeae Clarification Of What Is In and Whatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematics and evolution of the needle grasses (Poaceae: Pooideae: Stipeae) based on analysis of multiple chloroplast loci, ITS, and lemma micromorphology

Romaschenko

Peterson

Soreng

et al. 2012

TAXON

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a molecular phylogenetic study of the tribe Stipeae using nine plastid DNA sequences (trnK‐matK, matK, trnH‐psbA, trnL‐F, rps3, ndhF, rpl32‐trnL, rps16‐trnK, rps16 intron), the nuclear ITS DNA regions, and micromorphological characters from the lemma surface. Our large original dataset includes 156 accessions representing 139 species of Stipeae representing all genera currently placed in the tribe. The maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses of DNA sequences provide strong support for the monophyly of Stipeae; including, in phylogenetic order, Macrochloa as remote sister lineage to all other Stipeae, then a primary stepwise divergence of three deep lineages with a saw‐like (SL) lemma epidermal pattern (a plesiomorphic state). The next split is between a lineage (SL1) which bifurcates into separate Eurasian and American clades, and a lineage of three parts; a small Patis (SL2) clade, as sister to Piptatherum s.str. (SL3), and the achnatheroid clade (AC). The AC exhibits a maize‐like lemma epidermal pattern throughout. AC consists of a core clade of Austral‐Eurasian distribution and a “major American clade” of North and South American distribution. The base chromosome number for Stipeae is somewhat ambiguous but based on our survey it seems most likely to be x = 11 or 12. Our phylogenetic hypothesis supports the recognition of the following genera and groups (listed by region): Eurasia—Achnatherum, “Miliacea group”, “Neotrinia” (monotypic), Orthoraphium (monotypic), Patis (also 1 from North America), Piptatherum s.str., Psammochloa (monotypic), Ptilagrostis, Stipa, “Timouria group”, and Trikeraia; Mediterranean—Ampelodesmos (monotypic), Celtica (monotypic), Macrochloa (monotypic), and “Stipella‐Inaequiglumes group”; Australasia—Anemanthele (monotypic), and Austrostipa; North America (NA)—“Eriocoma group”, Hesperostipa, Oryzopsis (monotypic), Piptatheropsis, “Pseudoeriocoma group”, and “Stillmania” (monotypic); South America—Aciachne, Amelichloa (also NA), Anatherostipa (s.str.), Jarava (polyphyletic), Lorenzochloa, Nassella (also NA), Ortachne, Pappostipa (also NA), and Piptochaetium (also NA). Monophyly of Phaenospermateae including Duthieinae is demonstrated, and its inclusion within or treatment as sister to Stipeae is rejected.

show abstract

Section: Peripheral Stipeae Clarification Of What Is In and Whatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematics and evolution of the needle grasses (Poaceae: Pooideae: Stipeae) based on analysis of multiple chloroplast loci, ITS, and lemma micromorphology

Romaschenko

Peterson

Soreng

et al. 2012

TAXON

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We chose K000433539 as the lectotype because it has more material, both reproductive and vegetative, than the other specimens. Columbus and Smith (2010) were forced to base their name on Piptochaetium purpuratum Phil. because the name Stipa fusca had already been used for an Australian taxon by Hubbard (1925) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Columbus & J.P. Sm. ( Columbus and Smith 2010 ). We strongly disagree with their generic interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Piptochaetium fuscum (Nees ex Steud.) Barkworth, Ciald., & Gandhi, a new combination replacing Piptochaetium setosum (Trin.) Arechav.

Barkworth¹,

Cialdella²,

Gandhi³

2014

PHYTOKEYS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dávila et al (2006) compiled and edited the corresponding data of the accepted names and synonymy for the Mexican taxa in the "Catálogo de las Gramíneas de México". The present article is based on these two last catalogues, and has been further enriched by recently published treatments (e.g., Finot et al 2004, Bess et al 2006, Zuloaga et al 2007, Bell and Columbus 2008, Valdés-Reyna et al 2009, Columbus and Smith 2010, Peterson et al 2010, Chemisquy et al 2010, Peterson et al 2012) and/or additions of new described species (Finot et al 2004, Peterson and Columbus 2009). In addition, I have included new reports based on review of recently collected grass specimens in the state of Durango (Herrera Arrieta et al 2004, Herrera Arrieta and Cortés Ortíz 2009, Herrera Arrieta et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adiciones y nombres actualizados de las gramíneas de Durango, México

Arrieta

2014

Acta Bot. Mex.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twelve years after publication of the floristic treatment "Las Gramíneas de Durango", a list of accepted names is updated based on recent botanical work in Durango, Mexico. Ninety-one genera, 367 species, 15 subspecies, 55 varieties and 2 forms are included. Of these, 14 genera are newly recognized for Durango, whereas 17 genera previously reported from the state are now treated as synonyms, and three genera previously recorded are excluded. At the specific and infraspecific levels, 46 changes for synonymy occurred. Fifteen species were excluded, while 43 species and 27 infraspecific taxa were added. Four species are reported as new records for the state.Key words: additions, Durango, grasses, Mexico. RESUMENDespués de 12 años que fuera publicado el tratamiento florístico de "Las gramíneas de Durango" se presenta una relación de nombres aceptados, actualizados con base en trabajos botánicos recientes, de las gramíneas de Durango, México. Se reconocen un total de 91 géneros, 367 especies, 15 subespecies, 55 variedades y 2 formas. De ellos, 14 géneros representan nuevos registros para la entidad, mientras que 17 previamente reconocidos corresponden a sinónimos en el inventario actual y se excluyen tres registrados anteriormente. En los niveles específico e infraespecífico, se realizaron 46 cambios por sinonimia. Quince especies se excluyeron, mientras que 43 y 27 taxa infraespecíficos se adicionaron. Cuatro especies resultaron ser nuevos registros para el estado. 106: 79-95 (2014) 80 Acta Botanica Mexicana

show abstract

Nomenclatural Changes for Some Grasses in California and the Muhlenbergia Clade (Poaceae)

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Systematics and evolution of the needle grasses (Poaceae: Pooideae: Stipeae) based on analysis of multiple chloroplast loci, ITS, and lemma micromorphology

Systematics and evolution of the needle grasses (Poaceae: Pooideae: Stipeae) based on analysis of multiple chloroplast loci, ITS, and lemma micromorphology

Piptochaetium fuscum (Nees ex Steud.) Barkworth, Ciald., & Gandhi, a new combination replacing Piptochaetium setosum (Trin.) Arechav.

Adiciones y nombres actualizados de las gramíneas de Durango, México

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About