Notes on the Araceae of Suriname
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACTA BOTANICA NEERLANDICA, Vol. 2 (3), 1953 Notes on the Araceae of Suriname BY A.M.E. Jonker-Verhoef AND F.P. Jonker Botanical Museum and Herbarium, Utrecht (Received April 14th, 1953) The list of Araceae published in 1906 by A. A. Pulle in his “Enumeration of the Vascular Plants known from Surinam” comprises 39 to 14 the species belonging genera, largest genera being Anthurium with 7 and Philodendron with It species 12 species. was found that one these of 39 species was included by mistake, for the specimen of Wullschlaegel n. 1764, which is the type Spathiphyllum blandum Schott, was erroneously assumed to have been collected in Suriname. in 1908 Tresling Already had collected a species that was not listed by Pulle, viz. Dieffenbachia picta (Lodd.) Schott. Our studies of the collections made between 1915 and 1926 by the revealed the of hitherto Forestry Department (B.W.) presence 5 unrecorded species, viz. Anthurium digitatum (Jacq.) G. Don, Dieffen- bachiapaludicola N. E. Br. ex Gleas., Heteropsisjenmanii Oliv., Philodendron guttiferum Kunth and Spathiphyllum huberi Engl. In 1937 during the expedition to the southern frontier of Suriname the Rombouts physician collected another species that proved to be the new to flora, viz. Anthurium clavigerum Pocpp.; it was previously known from Peru only. The entomologist Geyskes increased in 1939 the total number of species by two by collecting Heteropsis longispathacea Engl., so far known from Amazonian Brazil only, and the noteworthy Anthurium salviniae Hemsley, previously known from Guatemala and Yucatan. In 1944 Stahel the recorded for the first time occurrence in Suriname of the of which the genus Heteropsis, most common species, H. jenmanii Oliv., originally described from British Guiana, had already been collected several times by the Forestry Department. In 1948 A. D. Hawkes published in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 75, p. 633, an enumeration of the Araceae collected in 1944 Bassett His by Maguire. list contains the names of 10 species that recorded here for the time in were first as collected Suriname, 4 and of these were as new. The number of regarded entirely genera was increased viz. Schott and the by two, Stenospermation new genus The number of that Maguirea. species were said to be new to the Suriname flora and also the number of new species appeared to be when the for remarkably large figures the Araceae are compared with those for other families represented in Maguire’s collection. Though revision showed our that some of Hawkes’ identifications were in- the Maguire collections nevertheless correct, proved to contain some 350 A. M. E. JONKER—VERHOEF AND F. P. JONKER important additions to the list of Suriname Araceae, viz. five hitherto unrecorded 3 of which species, were new, viz. Anthurium maguirei A. D. Hawkes, Stenospermation maguirei Jonk. et Jonk. and Schismato- americana and glottis Jonk. et Jonk., two new genera, viz. Stenospermation Schott and Schismatoglottis Zoll. et Mor. Maguirea A. D. Hawkes, however, proved to be identical with Dieffenbachia Schott (v. infra). Finally the collections made by Lanjouw and Lindeman in 1948 proved to contain 2 species that were new for Suriname, viz. Philo- dendron jenmanii Krause, previously known from British Guiana and Amazonian Brazil, and Syngonium hastifolium Engl., known from Amazonian Brazil only. As result of our revision 18 56 and varieties a genera, species 7 of known from 4 Araceae are now Suriname; of these species are found cultivated Of the 18 as plants only. genera two are represented by a considerable number of species, viz. Anthurium Schott by 11 species and Philodendron Schott by 13 species; two of these Philodendron species be 2 varieties. The Xanthosoma Schott proved to represented by genus with of which comes next 5 species, 3 are known in Suriname as cultivated It is followed the plants only. by genus Monstera Adans. with 4 species. Both Spathiphyllum Schott and Dieffenbachia Schott have 3 species, but one of the species of Dieffenbachia is represented by 3 varieties. 2 the Represented by species are genera Dracontium L., Heteropsis Kunth, Montrichardia Crueger, Stenospermation Schott and Syngonium the Caladium Schott; whereas genera Vent., Cyrtosperma Griff., Rhodo- spatha Poepp., Pistia L., Schismatoglottis Zoll. et Mor. and Urospatha Schott are represented by a single species; the only species of the is 2 varieties. last named genus represented by The genus Colocasia Schott is also represented by a single species but the latter is cultivated only. It is that some of the above mentioned noteworthy genera have their main area in other parts of the world, viz. Cyrtosperma, of which 9 species occur in tropical Africa, Malesia, Melanesia and Polynesia and but 2 species in Amazonian Brazil and Guiana, and Schismato- in glottis, with circ. 75 species Malesia and Birma and a single species in Suriname. The genus Spathiphyllum, on the other hand, is represented in America and 1 in by 26 species tropical only Malesia. The genus Pistia, which consists of a single aquatic species, is pantropic, but all in Suriname the remaining genera occurring are confined to tropical them the smallest of America. Among Heteropsis shows area distribution, for it is restricted to Brazil and Guiana. few taxonomic and In the following paper a phytogeographic made the and There remarks are on some of genera species. are also descriptions of two new species. Dracontium L.: D. foecundum Hook.f., known from Trinidad and is be in Suriname it British Guiana, to expected as was collected twice of the River. on the British bank Corantyne Known from Suriname and D. are D. asperum K. Koch polyphyllum L. NOTES ON THE ARACEAE OF SURINAME 351 Cyrtosperma Griff.: this has but been foundin Suriname genus once and this collection has to be referred to C. spruceamm (Schott) Engl., done Pulle. not to C. americanum Engl, as was by C. americanum is known from French Guiana only. Urospatha Schott: Pulle mentioned U. hostmannii Schott only. Now material of this has been more genus collected, and this does not belong to U. hostmannii but, in our opinion, to U. sagittifolia (Rudge) Schott. We consider U. caudata (Poepp.) Schott as conspecific with the latter. According to Engler the difference would be that U. sagittifolia and and caudata smooth has a rough verrucose petiole U. a one. This towards feature, however, is of no value as the petiole is often rough the in the Gleason base and smooth upper part. too appears to have label attached come to this conclusion for he remarked on a to Jenman 5779 in the Kew herbarium: “The is smooth n. petiole at the apex but becomes rough towards the base so that U. caudata and U. sagitti- folia are one species”. The other difference mentioned by Engler, viz. the length of the main ribs in basal of denudate part of the the lobes the leaf blade, has no value either as the variability of this character is so great that no line can be drawn. U. hostmannii is regarded by the present authors as a variety of U. sagittifolia, characterized by the narrower leaves and and U. we consider U. spruceana Schott, U. decipiens Schott dubia Schott identical with this variety. Its correct name appears to be U. sagittifolia (Rudge) Schott var. spruceana (Schott) Engl. Both Schott and Engler the mention as type of U. spruceana Schott specimen “Spruce n. 945”. However, 945 is not the collector’s number but the number given to this collection in the Martius herbarium. The correct collector’s number is 1235; this number is cited both by Schott and Engler of as the type U. decipiens Schott. Anthurium Schott: in Anthurium Pulle cited 7 the genus species but one of them, viz. A. trinerve Miq. we consider conspecific with A. scandens (Aubl.) Engl., which was also cited by Pulle. The two collections referred by Pulle to A. acaule Schott do not belong to this species but to A. gracile (Rudge) Engl., a species also cited by him. To the remaining 5 species, A. D. Hawkes, l.c., added in 1948: 1°. A. galeottii (Hort.) C. Koch; the specimen cited by him, however, belongs to A. scolopendrinum (Ham.) Kunth, which was mentioned already by Pulle; 2°. A. hookeri Kunth, the specimen is named by the present authors A. crassinervium (Jacq.) Schott, see below; 3°. a new species, A. maguirei A. D. Hawkes; 4°. A. nigrescens Engl.; this is the specimen regarded by present authors as belonging to A. A. polyrrhizum C. Koch et Augustin; 5°. another new species, stahelii A. D. does this but Hawkes, which, however, not belong to genus to Philodendron Schott, and is conspecific with P. myrmecophilum Engl. Three of these species therefore have to be added to the five good species of Pulle’ s list, which brings the number to eight. To these 352 A. M. E. JONKER—VERHOEF AND F. P. JONKER eight we added as a result of the study of our unidentified material: A. salviniae Hemsh, A. clavigerum Poepp. and A. digitatum (Jacq.) Don. 11 of known from G. Consequently species Anthurium are now desirable few Suriname. It seems to give a taxonomic and phyto- notes of the of this geographic on some species genus. Noteworthy is the discovery by Geyskes of A. salviniae Hemsley in the Mts. till this known Toemoek-Hoemoek Up now species was from Guatemala and Lux and (Heyde n. 4278 [K] and Salvin s.n. [K]) Yucatan (A. Schott n. 638 [BM]). The of correct names the large-leaved rosulate not rarely cultivated which known Anthurium species are as A. crassinervium (Jacq.) Schott and A. hookeri to determine. The of Kunth, were not easy type A. hookeri, figured by Hooker in Botan.