Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:37:52.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEW COMBINATIONS IN THE FERNS OF THAILAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

S. Lindsay  and
D. J. Middleton
S. Lindsay
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, UK. E-mail: s.lindsay@rbge.ac.uk and d.middleton@rbge.ac.uk
D. J. Middleton
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, UK. E-mail: s.lindsay@rbge.ac.uk and d.middleton@rbge.ac.uk

Abstract

New combinations are made in the fern genera Colysis, Cyclosorus, Haplopteris and Selliguea from Thailand. A new combination for Pteridaceae subfamily Cryptogrammoideae is made.

Keywords

ColysisCryptogrammoideaeCyclosorusfernHaplopterisPolypodiaceaePteridaceaeSelligueaThailandThelypteridaceae

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Edinburgh Journal of Botany , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 355 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 2009

Introduction

A multi-access key to the ferns of Thailand is currently being developed at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh in collaboration with the Forest Herbarium Bangkok and Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. This work will be explained in greater detail in forthcoming papers to be published in Thai Forest Bulletin but one of the aims is to ensure that all species which occur in Thailand bear the name which best reflects current research into generic delimitation. Fortunately, much of this research has been summarised by Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider and Wolf2006, Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider, Wolf, Ranker and Haufler2008) and we shall adopt the family and generic concepts laid out in these works. As it is not possible at this stage to taxonomically revise the c.670 species of fern which occur in Thailand species delimitation will follow Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1979, Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1985, Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1988, Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1989), unless specific pieces of taxonomic work have superseded these publications (e.g. Hovenkamp et al., Reference Hovenkamp, Bosman, Hennipman, Nooteboom, Rödl-Linder and Roos1998), or we have come to our own differing opinion in specific groups. One of the consequences of updating generic delimitations of Thai ferns is that a number of new combinations are necessary.

Polypodiaceae

The limits of the family Polypodiaceae and the generic concepts within the family have changed greatly over the years. In Nooteboom (Reference Nooteboom1997, Reference Nooteboom1998) Colysis C.Presl was treated as a synonym of Leptochilus Kaulf. and included Leptochilus macrophyllus var. pedunculatus. This taxon had been treated by Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1989) as Colysis pedunculata. We follow Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1989) and Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider and Wolf2006, Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider, Wolf, Ranker and Haufler2008) who treat Colysis and Leptochilus as distinct. We are, however, following Nooteboom's recognition of this taxon at the rank of variety, rather than at the species rank, and a new combination is necessary in Colysis.

In Hovenkamp (Reference Hovenkamp1998) and Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider and Wolf2006, Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider, Wolf, Ranker and Haufler2008) Crypsinus C.Presl is treated as a synonym of Selliguea Bory and several new combinations are therefore necessary for Crypsinus species from Thailand.

  • Colysis macrophylla (Blume) C.Presl var. pedunculata (Hook. & Grev.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Ceterach pedunculatum Hook. & Grev., Icon. Filic. 1: t.5 (1827). – Selliguea pedunculata (Hook. & Grev.) C.Presl, Epimel. Bot. 146 (1851). – Polypodium pedunculatum (Hook. & Grev.) Salomon, Nomencl. Gefässkrypt. 312 (1883). – Pleopeltis pedunculata (Hook. & Grev.) Alderw., Bull. Dept. Agric. Indes Neerl. 27: 12 (1909). – Colysis pedunculata (Hook. & Grev.) Ching, Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. 4: 321 (1933). – Leptochilus macrophyllus var. pedunculatus (Hook. & Grev.) Noot., Blumea 42: 290 (1997). – Type: Bangladesh, Sylhet, 1815, D. Smith 1074 (holo K!).

  • Selliguea cruciformis (Ching) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium cruciforme Ching, Sinensia 1: 47 (1930). – Phymatodes cruciformis (Ching) Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 77 (1933). – Crypsinus cruciformis (Ching) Tagawa, Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 14: 193 (1952). – Phymatopsis cruciformis (Ching) Ching, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 9: 192 (1964). – Phymatopteris cruciformis (Ching) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 462 (1973). – Type: China, Kwangtung [Guangdong], Lung-tau Shan, The Herbarium of Lingnan University 12482 (holo SYS, n.v.).

  • Selliguea ebenipes (Hook.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium ebenipes Hook., Sp. Fil. 5: 88 (1864). – Phymatopsis ebenipes (Hook.) J.Sm., Hist. Fil. 105 (1875). – Pleopeltis ebenipes (Hook.) Bedd., Handb. Ferns Brit. India 363 (1883). – Phymatodes ebenipes (Hook.) Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 86 (1933). – Crypsinus ebenipes (Hook.) Copel., Gen. Fil. 206 (1947). – Phymatopteris ebenipes (Ching) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 462 (1973). – Type: India, Kamalori, Edgeworth 32 (lecto K!, designated here).

  • Selliguea griffithiana (Hook.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium griffithianum Hook., Hooker's Icon. Pl. 10: t.951 (1854). – Pleopeltis griffithiana (Hook.) T.Moore, Ind. Fil. lxxviii (1857). – Phymatopsis griffithiana (Hook.) J.Sm., Hist. Fil. 104 (1875). – Phymatodes griffithiana (Hook.) Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 71 (1933). – Crypsinus griffithianus (Hook.) Copel., Gen. Fil. 206 (1947). – Phymatopteris griffithiana (Ching) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 462 (1973). – Type: Bootan [Bhutan], Griffith s.n. (lecto K!, designated here).

  • Selliguea hirsuta (Tagawa & K.Iwats.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Crypsinus hirsutus Tagawa & K.Iwats., Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 24: 176 (1970). – Type: Thailand, Chiang Mai, Doi Chiang Dao, 1800 m, Put for Eryl Smith 1160 (holo K!; iso K! [but without mention of Put and altitude given as 5000 ft]).

  • Selliguea oxyloba (Wall. ex Kunze) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium oxylobum Wall. ex Kunze, Linnaea 24: 255 (1851). – Polypodium hastatum var. oxylobum (Wall. ex Kunze) C.B.Clarke, Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 1: 563 (1880). – Phymatodes oxyloba (Wall. ex Kunze) C.Presl ex Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 67 (1933). – Crypsinus oxylobus (Wall ex Kunze) Sledge, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 2: 145 (1960). – Phymatopsis oxyloba (Wall. ex Kunze) Ching, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 9: 190 (1964). – Phymatopteris oxyloba (Ching) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 464 (1973). – Type: India, Kamoun [Kumaon], Wallich 294 (lecto K-W!, designated by Morton, Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 38: 260 (1974); isolecto K(×2)!, US!).

Morton (Reference Morton1974) designated Wallich 294 (K-W) as the lectotype of this name but incorrectly cited the locality as Nepal. There is only one specimen under Wallich 294 in the Wallich Herbarium at Kew, quite clearly labelled Kamoun [in India], as are the isolectotypes.

  • Selliguea rhynchophylla (Hook.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium rhynchophyllum Hook., Hooker's Icon. Pl. 10: t.954 (1854). – Pleopeltis rhynchophylla (Hook.) T.Moore, Index Fil. lxxviii (1857). – Phymatopsis rhynchophylla (Hook.) J.Sm., Hist. Fil. 104 (1875). – Phymatodes rhynchophylla (Hook.) Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 69 (1933). – Crypsinus rhynchophyllus (Hook.) Copel., Gen. Fil. 206 (1947). – Phymatopteris rhynchophylla (Hook.) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 464 (1973). – Type: India, Khasia, Mamloo, Hooker & Thomson s.n. (lecto K! [barcode K000575673], first step designated by Ching, Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 70 (1933), second step designated here; isolecto K! [barcode K000575672]).

The two-step lectotypification has been done under Art. 9.15 of the ICBN (McNeill et al., Reference McNeill, Barrie, Burdet, Demoulin, Hawksworth and Marhold2006) as Ching (Reference Ching1933) narrowed down the typification to one of the collections cited in the protologue but did not specify a particular specimen.

  • Selliguea trisecta (Baker) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Polypodium trisectum Baker, Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1898: 232 (1898). – Crypsinus trisectus (Baker) Tagawa, Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 14: 194 (1952). – Phymatopsis trisecta (Baker) Ching, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 9: 189 (1964). – Phymatopteris trisecta (Baker) Pic.Serm., Webbia 28: 465 (1973). – Type: China, Yunnan, Mi-le District, Henry 9891 (holo K!; iso E!).

Pteridaceae

  • Haplopteris winitii (Tagawa & K.Iwats.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Antrophyum winitii Tagawa & K.Iwats., Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 23: 176, f.13 (1969). – Type: Thailand, Chiang Rai, Winit 1114 (holo SING!; iso BKF!).

In their description of Antrophyum winitii Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa and Iwatsuki1969) stated that this was an unusual taxon as it exhibited characteristics of both Antrophyum and Vittaria (sensu Tagawa & Iwatsuki and other authors prior to Crane (Reference Crane1997)). Of the two genera, they chose to describe this species as an Antrophyum. However, a re-examination of the type material has revealed an error in their description. The sporangial paraphyses are capitate with yellow funnelform apical cells and are not, as the protologue states, ‘ribbon-like’ and ‘dark red’. Within the Old World vittarioid genera funnelform paraphyses are characteristic of Haplopteris, into which all Old World Vittaria have now been placed (Crane, Reference Crane1997), and Monogramma (Ruhfel et al., Reference Ruhfel, Lindsay and Davis2008). Haplopteris and Monogramma are distinguished by the two rows of linear sori in Haplopteris vs. only one row in Monogramma. Haplopteris winitii has two rows. Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa and Iwatsuki1969) did not describe the spores. These are, however, monolete like those of most species of Haplopteris, not trilete like all known species of Antrophyum.

  • Pteridaceae subfamily Cryptogrammoideae (Pic.Serm.) S.Linds., comb. et stat. nov. – Cryptogrammaceae Pic.Serm., Webbia 17: 299 (1963). – Type genus: Cryptogramma R.Br.

The Pteridaceae as delimited by Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider and Wolf2006, Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider, Wolf, Ranker and Haufler2008) is larger than traditionally recognised as it now includes a number of other families such as Adiantaceae and Vittariaceae. They do, however, note that there are five monophyletic groups within this expanded family which could be recognised at the family or subfamily level. We choose to recognise each of these groups at the subfamily level. All five of these groups have a name available at the family rank but only four of the five have a name available at the subfamily rank. Here we make a new combination for the remaining subfamily, which includes three Coniogramme species from Thailand.

Thelypteridaceae

The generic concepts in the Thelypteridaceae adopted by Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider and Wolf2006, Reference Smith, Pryer, Schuettpelz, Korall, Schneider, Wolf, Ranker and Haufler2008) are intermediate between the very broad approach of Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1988), in which almost all species were placed in Thelypteris Schmidel, and the much narrower generic concepts employed by Holttum (1982), in which 22 genera were recognised, most of which also occur in Thailand. Application of Smith et al.’s generic concepts to the Thelypteridaceae of Thailand results in four genera (Cyclosorus Link, Macrothelypteris (H.Ito) Ching, Pseudophegopteris Ching and Thelypteris), with the largest number of species in Cyclosorus. Whether or not these four genera adequately describe the diversity of Thai Thelypteridaceae is the subject of much debate but unfortunately this debate cannot be properly resolved without further research involving a broad sampling of Thai and other Old World taxa. For the time being we choose to follow Smith et al. and in order to do so a number of Thelypteris species in Thailand require new combinations in Cyclosorus.

  • Cyclosorus canus (Baker) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Nephrodium canum Baker, Syn. Fil. 267 (1867). – Dryopteris cana (Baker) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 2: 812 (1891). – Pseudocyclosorus canus (Baker) Holttum & Jeff.W.Grimes, Kew Bull. 34: 509 (1980). – Type: ‘NW India’, Edgeworth s.n. (holo K!).

This species was referred to as Thelypteris repens (Hope) Ching in Tagawa & Iwatsuki (Reference Tagawa, Iwatsuki, Smitinand and Larsen1988). We are following Holttum & Grimes’ (1980) species concept in which Thelypteris repens was placed as a synonym of Pseudocyclosorus canus. Pseudocyclosorus Ching is now treated as a synonym of Cyclosorus Link and a combination in this genus is necessary for this species.

  • Cyclosorus crassifolius (Blume) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Aspidium crassifolium Blume, Enum. Pl. Javae 158 (1828). – Dryopteris crassifolia (Blume) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 2: 812 (1891). – Thelypteris crassifolia (Blume) Ching, Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. Bot. 6: 285 (1936). – Mesoneuron crassifolium (Blume) Ching, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 8: 325 (1963). – Mesophlebion crassifolium (Blume) Holttum, Blumea 22: 232 (1975). – Type: Java, Zippelius s.n. (lecto L! [acc. no. 908,342-64], designated by Holttum, Blumea 22: 232 (1975)).

  • Cyclosorus exsculptus (Baker) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Acrostichum exsculptum Baker, J. Bot. 26: 326 (1888). – Leptochilus exsculptus (Baker) C.Chr., Ind. Fil. 385 (1906). – Dryopteris exsculpta (Baker) Copel., Philipp. J. Sci. 37: 410 (1928). – Thelypteris exsculpta (Baker) K.Iwats., Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 21: 170 (1965). – Pronephrium exsculptum (Baker) Holttum, Blumea 20: 117 (1972). – Type: Sarawak, Hose 244 (holo K!).

  • Cyclosorus immersus (Blume) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Aspidium immersum Blume, Enum. Pl. Javae 156 (1828). – Lastrea immersa (Blume) T.Moore, Index Fil. lxxxix (1857). – Dryopteris immersa (Blume) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Pl. 2: 813 (1891). – Thelypteris immersa (Blume) Ching, Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. Bot. 6: 306 (1936). – Parathelypteris immersa (Blume) Ching, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 9: 303 (1963). – Amphineuron immersum (Blume) Holttum in Nayar & Kaur, Companion Handb. Ferns Brit. India 203 (1974). – Type: Java, Blume s.n. (lecto L! [acc. no. 908,335-404], designated by Holttum, Blumea 23: 211 (1977)).

  • Cyclosorus rubicundus (Alderw.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Phegopteris rubicunda Alderw., Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg III. 2: 162 (1920). – Abacopteris rubicunda (Alderw.) Holttum, Rev. Fl. Mal. 2: 292, f.170 (1955). – Thelypteris rubicunda (Alderw.) K.Iwats., Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imp. Univ., Ser. B, Biol. 31: 195 (1965). – Pronephrium rubicundum (Alderw.) Holttum, Blumea 20: 123 (1972). – Type: Sumatra, Benkoelen, Lebong Tandai, Brooks 232.S (holo BO; iso BM(×2)!).

  • Cyclosorus triphyllus (Sw.) Tardieu var. parishii (Bedd.) S.Linds., comb. nov. – Meniscium parishii Bedd., Ferns Brit. India t.184 (1866). – Meniscium triphyllum Sw. var. parishii (Bedd.) Bedd., Handb. Ferns Brit. India 399 (1883). – Abacopteris triphylla (Sw.) Ching var. parishii (Bedd.) Ching, Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. Bot. 8: 241 (1938). – Thelypteris triphylla (Sw.) K.Iwats. var. parishii (Bedd.) K.Iwats., Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imp. Univ., Ser. B, Biol. 31: 191 (1965). – Pronephrium parishii (Bedd.) Holttum, Blumea 20: 123 (1972). – Type: Burma, Moulmein, Parish 135 (lecto K! [barcode K000575671], designated here; isolecto K! [barcode K000575670]).

Acknowledgements

We thank the Leverhulme Charitable Trust for their financial support of this work, and Serena Lee (SING), Alison Moore (K) and Alison Paul (BM) for making images of type material available to us. We thank John Parnell and Peter Hovenkamp for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

Ching, R. C. (1933). The studies of Chinese ferns XI. Contr. Inst. Bot. Natl. Acad. Peiping 2: 31–100.Google Scholar
Crane, E. H. (1997). A revised circumscription of the genera of the fern family Vittariaceae. Syst. Bot. 22: 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holttum, R. E. (1982 [‘1981’]). Thelypteridaceae. Flora Malesiana ser. II, Ferns and Fern Allies 1: 331–560. Leiden: Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus.Google Scholar
Holttum, R. E. & Grimes, J. W. (1980). The genus Pseudocyclosorus Ching (Thelypteridaceae). Kew Bull. 34: 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, P. (1998). An account of the Malay-Pacific species of Selliguea. Blumea 43: 1–108.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, P. H., Bosman, M. T. M., Hennipman, E., Nooteboom, H. P., Rödl-Linder, G. & Roos, M. C. (1998). Polypodiaceae. Flora Malesiana ser. II, Ferns and Fern Allies 3: 1–234. Leiden: Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus.Google Scholar
McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burdet, H. M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D. L., Marhold, K. et al. . (eds) (2006). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Ruggell: A. R. G. Gantner Verlag KG [Regnum Veg. vol. 146].Google Scholar
Morton, C. V. (1974). Studies of fern types, II. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 38: 215–281.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, H. P. (1997). The microsoroid ferns (Polypodiaceae). Blumea 42: 261–395.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, H. P. (1998). Leptochilus. Flora Malesiana ser. II, Ferns and Fern Allies 3: 81–90. Leiden: Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus.Google Scholar
Ruhfel, B., Lindsay, S. & Davis, C. C. (2008). Phylogenetic placement of Rheopteris and the polyphyly of Monogramma (Pteridaceae s.l.): Evidence from rbcL sequence data. Syst. Bot. 33: 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. R., Pryer, K. M., Schuettpelz, E., Korall, P., Schneider, H. & Wolf, P. G. (2006). A classification of extant ferns. Taxon 55: 705–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. R., Pryer, K. M., Schuettpelz, E., Korall, P., Schneider, H. & Wolf, P. G. (2008). Fern classification. In: Ranker, T. A. & Haufler, C. H. (eds) Biology and Evolution of Ferns and Lycophytes, pp. 417–467. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagawa, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (1969). New and interesting ferns from Thailand 4. Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 23: 175–178.Google Scholar
Tagawa, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (1979). In: Smitinand, T. & Larsen, K. (eds) Flora of Thailand, vol. 3, part 1. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.Google Scholar
Tagawa, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (1985). In: Smitinand, T. & Larsen, K. (eds) Flora of Thailand, vol. 3, part 2. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.Google Scholar
Tagawa, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (1988). In: Smitinand, T. & Larsen, K. (eds) Flora of Thailand, vol. 3, part 3. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.Google Scholar
Tagawa, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (1989). In: Smitinand, T. & Larsen, K. (eds) Flora of Thailand, vol. 3, part 4. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.Google Scholar