Corydalis panda M. Lidén & Y.W. Wang (Fumariaceae) is described as a new species and compared wit... more Corydalis panda M. Lidén & Y.W. Wang (Fumariaceae) is described as a new species and compared with its relatives. It belongs to sect. Elatae according to the following characters: roots numerous, rhizome monopodial, often with a fleshy hibernation bud at the apex, and stigma subquadrangular with four apical papillae and two lateral pairs on each side.
FIGURE 1. Dionysia avia. A in Donysia avia (Primulaceae), a new species from Zagros Mountains, Iran
FIGURE 1. Dionysia avia. A. Flowering branch with corolla tube cut slightly above the calyx lobes... more FIGURE 1. Dionysia avia. A. Flowering branch with corolla tube cut slightly above the calyx lobes; B. Corolla of short
Flowers of the Se La : Alpine plants of NW Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh in NE India, the land of the rising sun, is a Paradise for botanists, still lar... more Arunachal Pradesh in NE India, the land of the rising sun, is a Paradise for botanists, still largely unexplored. In the west part of the state, the Se La straddles the Himalayan range at 4200 metr ...
Fumariaceae in North East India : new species and records in Corydalis DC and Dactylicapnos Wall
A synopsis for the NE Indian species of the genera Corydalis DC. and Dactylicapnos Wall. is prese... more A synopsis for the NE Indian species of the genera Corydalis DC. and Dactylicapnos Wall. is presented. Corydalis arcuata (Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet), C. biflora (Sikkim) and C. stenophylla (Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim) are described as new species. Six species, namely Corydalis auricilla Liden, C. davidii Franch. (s.l.), C. diffusa Liden, C. inopinata Prain, C. pterygopetala Hand.-Mazz. and C. tangutica Peshkova (s.l.) are reported as new to India. Another seven species of Corydalis and five species of Dactylicapnos were either overlooked in Flora of India or became known to the Indian flora after its publication: C. cashmeriana subsp. longicalcarata (D.G. Long) Liden, C. ecristata (Prain) D.G. Long, C. jigmei C.E.C. Fisch. & Kaul, C. khasiana Liden, C. pseudojuncea Ludlow & Steam, C. rubrisepala Liden, C. uranoscopa Liden and Dactylicapnos burmanica (K.R. Stern) Liden, D. cordata Liden, D. lichiangensis (Fedde) Hand.-Mazz., D. odontocarpa Liden, and D. platycarpa Liden. Two species of...
Ignored Biodiversity in Acid Soil Islands in Karst Areas, South China: Impatiens longlinensis (Balsaminaceae), a New Critically Endangered Species
Systematic Botany, 2020
—The karst area in South China is notable for its fragile vegetation and unique flora with many n... more —The karst area in South China is notable for its fragile vegetation and unique flora with many narrow endemic species, and is one of the most threatened biodiversity hotspots in the world. However, the biodiversity of acid soil areas scattered in the karst area have previously been underestimated. With a recent increase of new discoveries of plants and animals, the conservation of biodiversity in these acid soil areas has become urgent. This study deals with a new species, Impatiens longlinensis. The new species is similar to I. yui and I. lasiophyton in having pubescence, two lateral sepals, funnelform lower sepal, and linear capsule. But it can be distinguished by having orbicular to obovate dorsal sepals and oblong to elliptic lower and upper lobes of lateral united petals. Moreover, molecular data and micro-morphological evidence also support that the species is new to science. The new species is only known from a valley near the summit of Mt. Jinzhongshan within an area of less than 5 km2. Based on the Red List categories and criteria developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the threat posed by exploitation for tourism development, we categorize it as Critically Endangered (CR).
Impatiens pseudolaevigata from West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India, is newly... more Impatiens pseudolaevigata from West Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India, is newly described and illustrated. A detailed description, information on distribution and ecology, and colour photographs are provided for identification of the species.
Phylogeny of Impatiens (Balsaminaceae): integrating molecular and morphological evidence into a new classification
Cladistics, 2015
Impatiens L. is one of the largest angiosperm genera, containing over 1000 species, and is notori... more Impatiens L. is one of the largest angiosperm genera, containing over 1000 species, and is notorious for its taxonomic difficulty. Here, we present, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the genus to date based on a total evidence approach. Forty‐six morphological characters, mainly obtained from our own investigations, are combined with sequence data from three genetic regions, including nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid atpB‐rbcL and trnL‐F. We include 150 Impatiens species representing all clades recovered by previous phylogenetic analyses as well as three outgroups. Maximum‐parsimony and Bayesian inference methods were used to infer phylogenetic relationships. Our analyses concur with previous studies, but in most cases provide stronger support. Impatiens splits into two major clades. For the first time, we report that species with three‐colpate pollen and four carpels form a monophyletic group (clade I). Within clade II, seven well‐supported subclade...
de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994) and de Queiroz (1992) suggest in a series of article... more de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994) and de Queiroz (1992) suggest in a series of articles that we should base our formal nomenclatural definitions on the tenet of evolution, and they also give explicit examples of how this could be achieved. One of their main concerns is the legal possibility in the current code to lump or split, which (they argue) has undesirable consequences for nomenclatural stability. Their alternative system “phylogenetic taxonomy” has been positively reviewed in this journal by Sundberg & Pleijel (1994), and thoroughly discussed by Schander & Thollesson (1999, whereas wholly negative reactions are so far wanting. Schander and Thollesson very clearly analyse most of the problems with “phylogenetic taxonomy” that we recognise below. A certain repetition of their arguments cannot be avoided, but we try to develop some points further, and we reach rather different conclusions. Let us state from the outset that we agree with other proponents of phylogenetic systematics in considering taxa equivalent to named clades, and we consider the central role of formal taxonomy to be communication of phylogeny. Whether it is wise or not to make reference to monophyly a formal requirement for taxon recognition is Hot our main objective to discuss here. What we question are the claims made by the above authors that the current nomenclatural system fails to accomplish the goals of phylogenetic systematics. Rather, we feel that it works admirably well. It was the recognition in “classical taxonomy” of a natural hierarchy that inspired development of a theory of evolution in the first place. de Queiroz & Gauthier (Q and G) are dissatisfied over the fact that no reference to phylogeny is obligatory in the nomenclatural codes, but the specific alternatives suggested by Q and G are certainly, as we show below, in conflict with convenience, stability, information content, and communication efficiency. In the current system we have the possibility to select well established categories and names for well supported clades, an advantage we shouldn’t dispose of without reflection. That the current nomenclatural system works well also for non-phylogenetic taxonomy is not enough reason to abandon it, and might even be considered a strength. Let us first clarify the type concept, which seems to be enveloped in mystery. The zoological Code states a “.....name-bearing type provides the objective standard of reference by which the application of the name it bears is determined, no matter how the boundaries of the taxon may change”. In the draft to the new code the intention of this paragraph is even more carefully spelled out. The Botanical code has a different wording (“A nomenclatural type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached.. .[it] is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon”), but the meaning is clearly the same. The type can thus be used to ‘point’ to a clade of which the type is (or rather, represents) a component. Nomenclatural types allow us to free systematics from typology by divorcing naming and diagnosis, and they make ostensive definitions of names possible. Neither formally (in the nomenclatural codes) nor, according to our experience, in the mind of the average taxonomist, is there any support for the claim that the characters of the type are in any sense defining properties of taxa, and we fail to understand how “..fixed classes can be unambiguously defined by the type concept” (Sundberg & Pleijel, 1994). Linnaeus’ classical formulation about characters not making the taxon (“Scias characterem non constituere genus, sed genus characterem”, Linnaeus, 1751), is echoed in the modern individuality thesis. Misunderstanding of the type method is probably partly behind the enthusiasm for ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’ as reflected in recent discussions on the world wide web. It is true, however, that as a semaphoront can represent more than one (historical) individual (including ‘life’), types in the current system are not very rigid designators, and auxiliary criteria are necessary to show the intended clade (Schander & Thollesson, 1995). In the current system these criteria are informal, and the inclusiveness of for example Mammalia or Anemone is subjective. Even if we only allow monophyletic entities to be named, the same name can still be used by different authors for clades of different inclusiveness (or incorporativeness; Ghiselin, 1995). To prevent this, Q and G suggest (implicitly) that names be typified by two or more types, i. e. the application of a name is restricted to a specific clade by pointing to an ancestor (by the way, this is not as stated by Q and G a definition stated in terms of necessary properties, but a baptismal act; Ghiselin, 1995). In practice, however, the more-than-one-type system will be disastrous, as it may force renaming of well supported and familiar clades if our
Species‐Evolutionary Actors or Evolutionary Products?
TAXON, 1990
Many of Dressler's points are perfectly compatible with our view, but a confusion between int... more Many of Dressler's points are perfectly compatible with our view, but a confusion between interactors (organisms) and replicators (information systems) is evident. As it is not possible to cover this subject here we refer to Lid6n (In press), and choose to point at some specific questions. 1. Dressler states that "species are not derived from pairs or single individuals, but from populations." We agree, and as you could substitute taxa for species, what is the difference? The definition of monophyly is not dependent on species concepts or formal taxonomy. All taxa in a phylogenetic classification are (in theory) monophyletic, i.e., derived from integrated wholes, or in Dressler's own words "are or have been interbreeding2 populations," so his conclusion that "however defined, the concepts of monophyly are clear and useful for groups of species, but they are less so at the species level" does certainly not follow from his argument. Whether a population has once arisen by hybridization is irrelevant to its status as a population. A "thing" (here the singularity in the evolutionary model) cannot be polyphyletic. In the special case of alloploidy it is of course possible that two events may give very similar results, but if we were not there to see it happen, the only way to infer polyphyly is by character analysis. It is not a conceptual difficulty. 2. The third paragraph is difficult to understand. Part of a population cannot be monophyletic in any sense. Does he mean that character analysis may show that for example all males share a unique feature? So what? Lack of knowledge may of course give wrong results, but what has that got to do with species concepts? And please forgive Donoghue (1985) his unhappy formulation. In his thesis (1982) he explicitly states that in a phylogenetic analysis specimens are seen as "representatives of populations." Accordingly, they are not themselves elements in the hierarchy. 3. "Interbreeding may be verified at least as easily as monophyly." We would be pleased if he developed this paragraph further. There are several alternative interpretations. If "the species level" is preconceived, it becomes circular. If he means that the pattern one finds may permit one to infer that the organisms in the sample all belong to the same "interbreeding population" (=species?), what kind of character distribution is that?
... If - in concordance with the most recent paper by Queiroz (1996) and the clear and concise pr... more ... If - in concordance with the most recent paper by Queiroz (1996) and the clear and concise presentation by Schander & Thollesson (1995; in fact ... songs than the authors must be, the title parodies "Charlie is my darling" of which the best known version is by Lady Carolina Naime ...
A paper by on the taxonomy of Fumaria is commented upon. It is concluded that the lack of congrue... more A paper by on the taxonomy of Fumaria is commented upon. It is concluded that the lack of congruence between the authors' results and evidence from morphology, chemistry, and crossing experiments renders their approach questionable.
Studies inDactylicapnos(Papaveraceae-Fumarioideae) part II. Revision ofDactylicapnossect.Pogonospermasect. nov., withD. arunachalensissp. nov
Nordic Journal of Botany, 2014
ABSTRACT Dactylicapnos sect. Pogonosperma Lidén & M. K. Pathak sect. nov. is established ... more ABSTRACT Dactylicapnos sect. Pogonosperma Lidén & M. K. Pathak sect. nov. is established and revised based on morphology, and found to include four species: D. gaoligongshanensis from west Yunnan, D. arunachalensis Lidén & M. K. Pathak sp. nov., endemic to central Arunachal Pradesh, D. grandifoliolata (syn. D. ventii) and D. paucinervia (K. R. Stern) Lidén & M. K. Pathak comb. nov., the two latter species widespread in the east Himalayas.
Phylogeny and Biogeography of Dionysia (Primulaceae)
International Journal of Plant Sciences, 2004
Cladistic analyses using parsimony jackknifing and Bayesian inference were performed to elucidate... more Cladistic analyses using parsimony jackknifing and Bayesian inference were performed to elucidate phylogenetic relationships in the genus Dionysia. DNA sequences from one nuclear DNA region (ITS) and from two chloroplast genome regions (rps16 intron and trnL‐trnF) were used with and without the addition of a morphological character matrix. A total of 43 species from Primulaceae were sequenced, including 39 species of Dionysia. The results strongly suggest that the sister species to the rest of genus Dionysia are Dionysia balsamea and D. hissarica, not D. mira. No section and subsection with more than one species of Dionysia as currently circumscribed appears to be monophyletic. Instead, species often belong to clades corresponding to geographical proximity. Earlier proposed notions of evolutionary trends and geographical migrations in Dionysia are discussed.
Dionysia splendens Alipour, Mehregan & Lidén, sp. nov., from Fars, Iran, is a unique species that... more Dionysia splendens Alipour, Mehregan & Lidén, sp. nov., from Fars, Iran, is a unique species that cannot be easily accommodated in any hitherto recognised section of the genus and is immediately recognised by its large flowers and pectinate leaves with very broad pale and thick midvein. It agrees with Dionysia cespitosa Duby (Boiss.) in the small flat leaves, stalked inflorescence with large bracts, and few large ellipsoid seeds, but differs in the tubular calyx and large purplish-blue corolla. It is also somewhat reminiscent of Dionysia viva Lidén & Zetterl. in growth habit and inflorescence structure, but that species has large irregularly dentate leaves, yellow corolla and numerous small angular seeds. Dionysia splendens is so far known from a single locality with c.200 mature individuals. An updated key to Dionysia species in the Zagros mountains is provided.
Uploads
Papers by Magnus Lidén