Notes on some Acanthaceous genera and species of controversial position BY C.E.B. Bremekamp (.Botanical Museum, Utrecht) (received October 12th, 1955) I. The position of the genus Stenandriopsis S. Moore in The genus Stenandriopsis was created by S. Moore Journ. of Bot. 44: 153. 1906 for a plant collected first by Vaughan Thompson and Baron in afterwards by an unspecified part of Madagascar. As the plate by which the description is accompanied depicts the specimen collected Baron the latter is by (n. 6708), to be regarded as the type. Stenandriopsis was referred by its author to the Justicieae, but this tribe is apparently accepted by him in the delimitation it received in BENTHAM and HOOKER’s “Genera Plantarum”, and as it is in this sense a most heterogeneous mixture, this does not greatly enlighten Of us. more importance is that Moore compares it with Crossandra Salisb. and Stenandrium i.e. with to Nees, genera belonging my subfamily the Acanthoideae and referred by me respectively to Acantheae and the in Aphelandreae. However, my paper on “The Acantheae of the Malesian Area. I. General Considerations” in Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. v. Weten- I that it sch., Ser. c. 58: 166. 1955, pointed out can not belong to the Acantheae as the corolla throat lacks the incision in the adaxial side which is characteristic for that tribe. It can not belong to the Aphe- landreae either as the corolla limb is subactinomorphous instead of bilabiate. As I had that distinctly to rely at time entirely on Moore’s description and on the plate by which the latter is accompanied, I was unable to arrive at a but I that the conclusion, suggested genus might a new tribe of Acanthoideae. Since then I have had the represent my opportunity to inspect in the herbarium of the British Museum of Natural the material which History on the genus was based, for I tender which my best thanks to the Keeper, and now I am able to definite express a more opinion. that the As it appeared stem was not provided with articulations, that all parts were free from cystoliths, and that the pollen grains were described but not monocolpate, as by Moore, tricolpate, there can be doubt that the the Acanthoideae no— — ~ to sensu meo. 0genus belongs0 That the pollen grains were regarded by Moore as monocolpate, is ACANTHACEOUS GENERA AND SPECIES OF CONTROVERSIAL POSITION 645 doubtless due to the circumstance that he made his observations on immature ones. Such grains shrink, as a rule, considerably when the in the flowers are dried, and shrinking wall is at one side drawn in; this dent feature of was apparently mistaken by Moore for a normal the whereas the of the three pollen grain, presence true colpae was overlooked. the As absence of an incision in the adaxial side of the corolla of the throat and the subactinomorphous nature corolla limb were conclusion that the either confirmed, my genus can not belong to the Acantheae or to the Aphelandreae is to be accepted. The structure of the flower be similar that of the flower of proved to very to Haselhoffia Lindau, a genus differing from Stenandriopsis in the presence of four instead of ovules in each of the cells in two ovary and the ellipsoidal 12-colpate instead of globose and 3-colpate pollen grains. It apparently represents a distinct tribe which may be characterized as follows: Stenandriopsideae, nova tribus Acanthoidearum corolla limbo subactinomorpho instructa ad tribum Haselhoffiearum accedens, ovario utroque loculo ovulis duobus munito, granulis pollinis globosis et 3-colpatis ab ea diversa, ovarii structura cum tribu Acanthearum et cum tribu Aphelandrearum quadrans, a tribu Acanthearum corollae fauce facie adaxiali integra, a tribu Aphelandrearum corollae limbo sub- actinomorpho distincta. Habitat insulam Madagascar dictam. Genus typicum: Stenandriopsis S. Moore in Journ. of Bot. 44 :153, tab. 478 B. 1906. The of the is St. S. Moore type species genus Stenandriopsis Thompsoni and this is the only species of which specimens were available to me. three The Madagascar species which were described by Benoist in 151. Not. Syst. 8: 1939, are provided with pseudo-verticillate leaves. Leaves arranged in this way are a characteristic feature of the genera and limb of Crossandra Salisb. and Blepharis Juss., as the corolla Crossandra is like that of Stenandriopsis subactinomorphous, these three species might perhaps belong either to Crossandra or to a new genus in the latter’s vicinity. The adaxial side of the corolla throat, however, shows in Crossandra a deep incision, and if my supposition with regard to the position of these species is right, such an incision or at least an indication of the latter should be present here too. II. Lindau The position of the genus Rhombochlamys The of the of which far position genus Rhombochlamys Lindau, so in two species were found South America, was also discussed by me in “The Acantheae of I. General my paper on the Malesian Area. in Considerations” Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. v. Wetensch., Ser. C, 58: 164-165. in connection with the delimitation of sub- 1955, my family Acanthoideae. I came to the conclusion that the tribe Rhombo- which created Lindaufor the of this chlamydeae, was by reception genus, can not belong in the vicinity of the Andrographideae, as Lindau thought, but that there is in of the good reason to insert it the vicinity Aphelan- 646 C. E. B. BREMEKAMP dreae. Lindau paid too much attention to the pollen characters, which, he have observed in this and moreover, seems to case inaccurately, neglected the apparently very striking resemblance with the Aphelan- dreae, which nevertheless had not escaped his attention, for he duly remarks “Aeusserlich hat die Gattung mit Aphelandra Aehnlichkeit”. However, here too a definite conclusion could not be reached because no information was available with regard to three of the four main characters in which the subfamily Acanthoideae differs from the sub- the family Ruellioideae, viz. absence or presence of articulations in the the absence of and the absence stem, or presence cystoliths, or presence of in the When Lindau had been in pores pollen grains. right placing this tribe in the vicinity of the Andrographideae, it would have fallen in and the show my subfamily Ruellioideae, stem ought to articulations, cystoliths ought to be present, and the pollen grains ought to be with provided pores. The of the the types two species pertaining to genus Rhombochlamys unfortunately are no longer available; they were lost in the fire by which the Berlin-Dahlem Herbarium was devastated. However, I could in the Kew study Herbarium an Acanthacea collected in Colum- i.e. in in which the the bia, the country types of two species were found, and The identified by Standley as belonging to one of them. rather condition of this did allow full verification of poor specimen not a the identification, but in so far as its characters could be compared with the description they proved to agree with it, so that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the identification, which probably will have been based At the on a more complete specimen. any rate con- dition of the specimen was sufficient to allow a choice in two of the three pairs of alternatives mentioned above. The stem proved to be without articulations, and cystoliths were absent; the pollen structure unfortunately could not be studied. The absence of articulations and of in with the mentioned in the cystoliths conjunction presence, of four monothecous description, anthers, however, indubitably prove that Lindau when he this erred assigned to genus a place in the vicinity of the Andrographideae, and that it certainly is to be referred the where it will be to Acanthoideae, have to placed near or perhaps even in the Ifit should that the do Aphelandreae. appear pollen grains not would differ from the possess germ pores, they hardly 3-colpate type that is met with in the great majority of the Acanthoideae, the Aphelan- dreae included, and then the only point in which the Rhombochlamydeae would differ from the latter, would be the presence of four instead of two ovules in each of the and this would be sufficient ovary cells, hardly to maintain them as a separate tribe. “ ” III. The position of the African Hemigraphis SPECIES In “Materials for of the Strobilanthinae Acantha- my a Monograph ( in Verh. Ned. Akad. ceae)” v. Wetensch., Afd. Natuurk., 2nd Sect. 41, no 1, 1944, I'rejected the former tribe Strobilantheae as an artificial and referred Strobilanthes group, Bl. and its nearest allies, among ACANTHACEOUS GENERA AND SPECIES OF CONTROVERSIAL POSITION 647 which Hemigraphis Nees occupies a prominent position, as a subtribe Strobilanthinae to a widened tribe Ruellieae. The subtribe Strobilanthinae 1° proved easily recognizable by the presence of two rows or, more bundles ofhairs which the of the is retained rarely, by upper part style against the adaxial side of the corolla, and 2° by the laterally flattened abaxial stigma lobe. I stated l.c. that this subtribe is confined to Asia and the adjoining part of Oceania, where it is represented by a few Hemigraphis species. The position of Bentham’s African Strobilanthes species, for which Clarke in Thiselton-Dyer’s “Flora of Tropical Africa” 162. had created I had (5: 1899) a new genus Acanthopale, discussed before in “Ueber T. a year my paper Dischistocalyx And. ex Bth. und Acanthopale C. B. Clarke ( Acanthaceae)” in Bot. Jahrb. 73: 126-150. where I that 1943, came to the conclusion Acanthopale is no near ally of Strobilanthes, as Clarke had assumed, but that it should be placed near Dischistocalyx, as Lindau had done, and that these two genera belong to a group centered round Ruellia L.