Revision of the Genus<Emphasis Type="Italic">Sibbaldia</Emphasis> L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proe. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.), Vol. 90, Number 3, June 1981, pp. 253-272. (~ Printed in India. Revision of the genus Sibbaldia Lo (Rosaceae) in India B K DIXIT and G PANIGRAHI Botanical Survey of India, P.O. Botanic Garden, Howrah 711 103, India MS received 28 January 1980; revised 19 February 1981 Abstraer. Twelve species of Sibbaldia L. ore recognised, including one new combi- nation and. one new record fcr India. Key to the species, correct nomenclature of taxa dealt with, their systematic account, iange of distribution, both in India and outside ave given and. specimens exarnined cited. Keywords. Angiospermae; Rosales; Rosaceae; revision of Indian species of Sibbalah'a L. 1. Introduction Linnaetts (1737) named the genus Sibbaldia, after Robert Sibbald (1643-1720), an Edinburgh naturalist and physician. In 1753, he described two species viz. Sibbaldia procumbens L. and S. erecta L. and attributed them to bis class "Pentan- dria pentagynia ". Subsequently, in 1754, he described the gentts Sibbaldia as distinct from Potentilla L. and attributed tire stamens and tire carpels to the former but 20 or more stamens and indefinite number of carpels per flower to the latter. Seringe (1825) followed Linnaeus and recognised Sibbaldia L. and Potentilla L. os distinct genera and included them inthe tribe Dryadeae Vent. He assigned 5 stamens, 5 pistils, minute petals, inverted (basal)seeds (ovules) to Sibbaldia and indefinite number of stamens artd pistils, larger pet~ls, pendulous seeds (ovules) to Potentilla. I-Ie split up Sibbaldia L. irtto two sections : the Platyphyllae Ser. with two species artd the Leptophyllae Ser. with six species, the former characterised by procumbent stems, ternate leaves and obovate leaflets with tridentate apex, and the latter by erect stems, 3 or many-fid leaves and linear lobes. He assigned S. parviflora Willd. with a range extending to India to the section Platyphyllae. Endlicher (1840) segregated Sibbaldia tetrandra Bunge (1829) eharacterised by dioecious (through abortion) and tetramerous flowers, ovary provided witha short stalk and sttbterminal style with a capirote stigma as the basis of a new genus Dryadanthe Endl. bttt made no formal transfer of the type species to bis new genus. He placed Dryadanthe Eedl., Sibbaldia L. and Potentilla L. in the suborder Dryadeae (Vent.) Endl., the tribe Chamaerhodeae (Torrey and Gray) Endl. I-Iooker (1878) on the other hand, reduced Sibbaldia L. os a section of the genus Potentilla L. in which he recognised three sections : (i) Sibbaldia (L.) Hook. f., 253 P. (B)--7 254 B K Dixit and G Panigrahi (ii) Trichothalamus (Lehm.) Hook. f., and (iii) Potentilla proper. Re dist[nguishcd the section Sibbaldia from the other two sections in having 4, 5 or 10 st~men.~ and often unisexual flowers in contrast to the section Trichothalamus characterise by often dio~ious flowers, numerous stamens and achertes concealed by long, stiff receptacular hairs and the section Potentilla proper hav[ng b[sexual flowers, numerous stamens, and achenes not concealed by receptacular hairs. He assigned the taxa of tke section Sibbaldia to three unaamed groups on the morphology of teaves alorte, viz., (a) leaves simple : P. trullifoffa Hook. f., (b) lezves digitately 3-5- foliate : P. sibbaldi sensu tt~ok, f., non tt~tller f. (1818), P. sibbaldi var. micrantha ttook, f., P. perpusilla ttook, f., P. tetrandra (Bunge) Hook. f., P. axilliflora Hook. f., P. purpurea (Royle) ttook, f., and (c) leaves pinnate : P. albifo•a Wall. ex ttook, f. Focke (1888) treated the genera Potentilla L. and Sibbaldia L. as distinct but reduced Dryadanthe Endl. as congeneric with Sibbaldia L. He attributed them to the subfamily Rosoideae Focke, tribe Potentil[eae Juss., subtribe Potentillinae Focke. Muravjova (1936) reeogaized tlaree sections within the genus Sibbaldia L. viz. (a) Eu-Sibbaldia Murav. with ternate leaves, 5 stamens and yellow petals; (b). Porphyranthe Murav. with d!gitately 5-foliate leaves, 5 stamens and red petals and (c) Decandra Murar. with ternate and imparipirmately 5-foliate leaves, terminal leaflet 3-toothed at apex, 10 stamens and pale yellow petals. Chatterjee (1938) studied the Indian and Chinese species of Sibbaldia. Of the 11 spezies ctealt with by him, nine are Indian in distribution, t-Ie transferred P. perpusilla t-Iook, f., P. axilliflora Rook. f., P. trullifolia ttook, f. and P. sikki- mensis Prain to Sibbaldia L. He considered S. parviflora Willd. (= S. cuneata Kuntze; P. sibbaldi sensu Itook. f., non Italler, f. 1818) and S. procumbens L. as two distinct species and rnaintained that the latter does not occur in south-eastern Asia. Juzepczuk (194l) described Sibbaldianthe Jttz. asa new genus based on Sibbaldi- anthe adpressa (Bunge) Juz. (= Sibbaldia adpressa Bunge, 1829) as the type species and distingttishecl ir from the three allied genera, Potentilla L., Sibbaldia L. and Dryadanthe En of the tribe Potentilleae as follows : I. Flowers usually rather large; stamens ca. 20; carpels numerous Potentilla L. 1. Flowers small, not conspicuous; stamens usually 5, rarely 4 of 10; carpels 5-12 2. Flowers often unisexual, dioecious; sepals and petals ususlly 4 "Dryadanthe Bunge 2. Flowers bisexual; sepals and petals 5 3. Stamens 5, altern~t.ing with p~.tals; styles l~ter01, clavate " Sibbaldia L. 3. Stamens 10, opposite to petals; stylcs nearly basal, fusiform Sibbaldianthe Juz. But, Htttchirtsoa (t964), Sojak(1970)and Airy Shaw (1973) considered such differ- entes at generic level as rather variable. While ttatchii!son (l.c.) treats Sibbaldi- anthe Juz. and Focke (1888) and Sojak (l.c.), consicter Dryadanthe Endl. o.s congenerie with and synonymous to Sibbaldia, Airy Shaw (1.c.) lists, without any eomment, Sibbaldianthe Juz. as generically distinct from Sibbaldia L. (= Do,adanthe Endl.). Revision of the genus Sibbaldia L. 255 Sojak (1970) recognised tire sections in the getms Sibbaldia L. viz. (1) Mono. phyllidium Sojak with simple leaves, petals unknown, ¡ stamens and lateral styles; (2) Mesophyton Sojak with ternate leaves, purpl epetals, tire stamens and lateral styles; (3) Dryadanthe (Bunge) Ovcz. with ternate leaves, straw-coloured petals, tetramerous flowers and subterminal styles; (4) Decandra Murar. with ternate and imparipinnately 5-foliate leaves, pale yellow petals, 10 stamens, and basal, fusifot m styles; and (5) Piletophyllum Sojak characterised by imparipinnate leaves, yellow petals, tire stamens and lateral styles. He (l.c.) considered Poten- tilla lindenbergii Lehm. (185l) us conspecifie with SibbaMia adpressa Bunge (1829)- A eritical study of the diagaostic features of the four genera us outlined by Juzepezuk (l.c.) above, sets out Potentilla L. asa good genus, whereas the generic d~limitations between Dryadanthe Endl. Sibbaldianthe Juz. and Sibbaldia L. get bturred due to the existence of morphologlcal intergrades us discttssed below : Dryadanthe Eadl. based on D. tetrandra (Bunge) Juz. is usually attributed tetra- merous, dioecious flowers and subterminal styles. But Sibbaldia purpurea Royle, S. perpusilla (Hook. f.) Chatterjee, S. minutissima Kitamura and S. sericea (Grubov.) Sojak show the presence of both tetramerous and pentamerous flowers on the sume of on differertt biotypes; S. purpurea Royle, S. pentaphylla Krause possess dioeeious ¡ and S. compacta (Smith and Cave) Dixit and Panigrahi has subterminal styles. In contrast, some pistitlate ¡ of Dryadanthe tetrandra a!so show six pistils and six achenes instead offour us att~ibuted to tke genus. We. therefore, ag;ee with Focke (1888), Sojak (1970) and Airy Shaw (1973) in treating Dryadanthe Endl. as congeneric w ith and synonymous to Sibbaldia L. Similarly, Sibbaldia adpressa Bunge, the type species of Sibbaldianthe Juz. is diagnosed by possession of 10 stamens arranged opposite to the petals and by the basal styles. But S. perpusilloides (Smith) ttand-Mazzt., S. parviflora Willd., S. compacta (Smith and Cave) Dixit and Panigrahi, show the presence of 10 stamens arranged opposite the petals and S. axilliflora (Hook. f.) Chatterjee possesses a basal style. We, therefore, treat Sibbaldianthe Juz., ir. agreement with I-Iutchinson (19614) and Sojak (1970), as congeneric with and synonymous to Sibbaldia L. 2. Materials Asa part of a larger scheme of revisionary studies on the family Rosaceae Juss. revisi0n of the genus SibbaMia L. was undertaken. The present study is based on all available herbarium specimens of the genus, deposited in various herbaria of India, viz. Botaaical Sarvey of India, Eastern Circle, Shillortg (ASSAM) ; B.S.I. Northern Circle, Dehra Dun (BSD) ; Central National I-Ierbarium, I-Iowrah (CAL) ; Forest R,search Institute, Dehra Dun (DD); Lloyd Botanic Garden, Darjeeling (D J, abbreviated here) and National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow (LWG). The specimens, collected by the authors from Garhwal ttimalayas, were also eriti- cally examined. Photograpks of the type specimens obtained from the British Museum (Natural tt!story), London (BM); the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (K); Iastitut de Botanique, Montepellier (MPU) ; Museum National ct'Histoire Naturelle, ParŸ (P); National Museum, Department of Botany, Prague (PR); Institut and Botanischer Garten der Universitat, Wien (WU); us also the microfiches of Will- denow's Herbarium, Berlirt (B) and of the Wallichian Herbarium at Kew (K-WALL), 256 B K Dixit and G Panigrahi proeured and deposited in CAL, have been critically evaluated for confirming identifieation wherever type specimens of certain t~txa were not available at CAL for our