Revision of the Genus Cryptostegia R. Br. (Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Revision of the genus Cryptostegia R. Br. (Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae) Jens KLACKENBERG Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Sektionen för fanerogambotanik, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected] ABSTRACT The Malagasy endemic but widely introduced tropical genus Cryptostegia is KEY WORDS revised. Two species, C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis, are accepted. Cryptostegia, Geographic distribution of some important characters is discussed and plot- Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae, ted on a map. Diagnostic characters, descriptions, drawings and distribution Madagascar. maps are presented. Typifications are discussed. RÉSUMÉ Révision du genre Cryptostegia R. Br. (Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae). Le genre Cryptostegia, endémique de Madagascar mais dont les espèces ont été largement introduites en région tropicale, est révisé. Deux espèces, C. grandi- MOTS CLÉS flora et C. madagascariensis, sont acceptées. La distribution géographique de Cryptostegia, quelques caractères importants est discutée et indiquée sur une carte. Des Apocynaceae, Periplocoideae, caractères diagnostiques, des descriptions, des illustrations et des cartes de Madagascar. distribution sont présentés. Les typifications sont discutées. INTRODUCTION or four taxa were accepted. However, relevant material was not all consulted in these treat- Cryptostegia is a small Malagasy periplocoid ments. Consequently, a new revision of the genus genus with showy white to pink flowers. It is is justified. endemic to West Malagasy phytogeographical Region. Cryptostegia is a liana or shrub with Cryptostegia was described in 1819 by scrambling or self-supporting branches. The two R. BROWN from a specimen collected in India, most recent views presented on the taxonomy of but it was mentioned even earlier in a manuscript Cryptostegia (MORAT 1973; MAROHASY & of Flora Indica by ROXBURGH as Nerium grandi- FORSTER 1991) express large discrepancies in the florum. This manuscript was published, however, interpretation of important characters, and one only in 1832. A second species, C. madagas- ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2001 • 23 (2) : 205-218 © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 205 Klackenberg J. cariensis, was added in 1844 by DECAISNE and used in earlier classifications is shown to be was based on material from Madagascar distin- unclear. However, important correlations guished mainly by its entire corona lobes, not between characters do exist and two species are bifid as in C. grandiflora. A third species, recognized, but no useful infraspecific delimita- C. glaberrima, was described by HOCHREUTINER tions are found. (1908), also from Malagasy material. It was char- Anatomical features of Cryptostegia have been acterized primarily by having completely glabrous thoroughly discussed by ARTSCHWAGER (1946). leaves, compared to the supposedly more or less When described by BROWN (1819), hairy ones of C. madagascariensis. The existence Cryptostegia was thought to be a native of the of C. glaberrima as a separate species has not been Indian peninsula, represented by the single endorsed by subsequent authors, but has recently species C. grandiflora. In contrast, DECAISNE’s been accepted at infraspecific level by MAROHASY (1844) C. madagascariensis was thought to be & FORSTER (1991). Variation in leaf pubescence endemic to Madagascar. Later COSTANTIN & was also discussed by JUMELLE (1907), who GALLAUD (1906) reported C. grandiflora from found a gradual variation and gave no taxonomic SW Madagascar for the first time and this species value to this character. JUMELLE (1908) main- was then supposed to be indigenous in both Asia tained, however, the distinction between C. gran- and Madagascar. Only a couple of years later, diflora and C. madagascariensis based on however, JUMELLE (1908) proposed that both differences in calyx and corona morphology. C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis were in CHOUX mentioned both C. grandiflora and fact endemic to Madagascar and explained the C. madagascariensis in his “Index des Asclé- pantropical distribution of C. grandiflora as piadacées de Madagascar”, but later commented introductions. Cryptostegia was introduced first in in the “Catalogue des Plantes de Madagascar” the adjacent areas in the Indian Ocean, and later that the former probably only was a variation of to the Americas, both for its rubber content and the latter (CHOUX 1914; 1931). In contrast, as an ornamental (see POLHAMUS et al. 1934). An POLHAMUS et al. (1934) in an article discussing a early introduction was reported by P. KOENIG, case of interspecific hybridization between who collected cultivated plants at Mauritius C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis, stated that 1907-1908. He annotated in schedae (P. Koenig “there appears to be no occasion for confusing s.n., Mauritius, K) that this plant was introduced the two species, since the essencial differences are to this island two or three centuries earlier by the outstanding and easily recognized”. MORAT Malagasy people who settled at the foot of the (1973), however, argued that the variation Signal Mountain. Cryptostegia is today known described between C. glaberrima, C. grandiflora from many parts of the tropics, often naturalized. and C. madagascariensis only represents variation Both C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis have within a single species. MAROHASY & FORSTER been used for introduction, with C. grandiflora (1991) recently contradicted MORAT in a taxo- probably being the more frequently introduced of nomic revision of the genus. Based on Australian the two as estimated by collections made from (i.e. introduced) material and their own Malagasy outside Madagascar. collections only, but with extensive field observa- The latex of Cryptostegia has been used for pro- tions, MAROHASY & FORSTER accepted both duction of rubber in India and Madagascar, for C. grandiflora and C. madagascariensis at the example (JUMELLE 1908; POLHAMUS et al. 1934), species level, as well as HOCHREUTINER’s glabrous hence the English names “Indian”or “Madagascar taxon as a variety, C. madagascariensis var. rubber vine”. The hybrid between the two species glaberrima (Hochr.) Marohasy & P.I. Forst. yields twice as much latex as either of the parent Furthermore, a fourth taxon, C. madagascariensis species (POLHAMUS et al. 1934). In Madagascar var. septentrionalis Marohasy & P.I. Forst. was the fibers also have been utilized for making added, characterized by the leaves being hairy on threads and ropes, mostly for manufacturing nets their upper side but glabrous below. In the pre- and fishing lines (JUMELLE 1907). Its poisonous sent study some of the morphological variation properties have sometimes been utilised for 206 ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2001 • 23 (2) Cryptostegia (Apocynaceae) committing suicide for religious reasons (CHOUX Table 1. — Measurements of Cryptostegia presented by POLHAMUS et al. (1934) (1), MAROHASY & FORSTER (1991) (2) and 1931). It has also been taken as a medicine to the present study (3) in this order from top to bottom within each cure gonorrhoea (JUMELLE 1907), as well as a car- category, respectively. diotonic (BOITEAU 1986). C. grandiflora C. madagascariensis MATERIALS AND METHODS. — This study is Leaf based on dried specimens of native Malagasy lamina length 10-12 cm1 7-9 cm1 2 2 material from the following herbaria: BM, G, K up to 10 cm up to 9.2 cm 6-9 cm3 2-11 cm3 (also introduced material), MO, P, S and WAG lamina width 5-7 cm 4-6 cm (abbreviations according to HOLMGREN et al. up to 6.3 cm up to 5.2 cm 1990). 3-5 cm 1.5-5.5 petiole length 10-14 mm 5-7 mm 7-20.8 mm 3.7-16.6 mm 5-15 mm 3-10 mm DISCUSSION Pedicels 8-9 mm 7-8 mm 4.2-8.5 mm 3.1-7.7 mm Delimitation of species 3-7 mm 3-7 mm Most authors (DECAISNE 1844; JUMELLE 1908; Calyx lobe length 13-15 mm 7-8 mm HOUX AROHASY ORSTER C 1914; M & F 1991) 11.9-18.7 mm 9-14 mm have recognized two separate species within 14-20 mm 5.7-12.8 mm Cryptostegia, C. grandiflora and C. madagascarien- lobe width 6-7 mm 3-4 mm sis, and only one, HOCHREUTINER (1908), has 5.6-9.8 mm 3.5-6.9 mm 4.2-8.8 mm 2.7-5.4 mm argued for a third species, C. glaberrima. CHOUX (1931) and particularly MORAT (1973) have pro- Corolla posed to include the morphological variation total length 70-75 mm 55-60 mm within a single species, C. grandiflora. 50-60 mm 30-40 mm (probably not flattened) 48-70 mm (29-)42-64 mm POLHAMUS et al. (1934) presented a study on tube length 45-50 mm 25-30 mm hybridization between Cryptostegia grandiflora 19-45 mm 12-23 mm 18-30 mm (9-)15-25 mm and C. madagascariensis and their content of lobe length 45-50 mm 35-40 mm latex, based on cultivated material in a botanic 21-43 mm 24-41.4 mm garden in Florida, U.S.A. A host of distinguish- 32-56 mm (20-)25-44 mm ing characters between the parent species were lobe width 25-28 mm 18-22 mm 13-22.5 mm 12-24.6 mm given, and the authors excluded all doubt on the 15-30 mm (8-)14-26 mm specific distinctness of these two taxa. The distin- guishing characters presented included most Corona length 12-13 mm 8-9 mm c. 10 mm 6-8.5 mm parts of the plant, e.g. habit of growth, stem 8-11 mm 6-9 mm colour and texture, shape of nodes, length of internodes, number and size of lenticels, length Follicle length 11-12.5 cm 7.5-9 cm of pedicels, colour, size and shape of corolla, size 10-15.4 cm 5.8-9.9 cm and shape of calyx, shape of corona lobes, shape 8-13.5 cm (5-)7-9 cm of translator spathes, colour of venation on young leaves, texture and colour and shape of leaf lam- ina, colour and length of petioles, and size and view, as the actual number of individuals, or how shape of follicles.