Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid ISSN: 0211-1322 [email protected] Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas España Gibbs, Peter; Semir, João A Taxonomic revision of the genus ceibamill. (Bombacaceae) Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid, vol. 60, núm. 2, 2003, pp. 259-300 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55660201 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative A TAXONOMIC REVISION OF THE GENUS CEIBA MILL. (BOMBACACEAE) by PETER GIBBS 1 & JOÃO SEMIR 2 1 School of Biology, University of St Andrews, Scotland (United Kingdom) visiting CNPq Research Fellow, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Minas Gerais (Brazil) 2 Departamento de Botânica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. São Paulo (Brazil) Resumen GIBBS, P. & J. SEMIR (2003). Revisión taxonómica del género Ceiba Mill. (Bombacaceae). Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 60(2): 259-300 (en inglés). En esta revisión taxonómica de Ceiba, que incluye el género Chorisia, se reconocen 17 es- pecies, siete de las cuales se agrupan en el complejo C. insignis. Se describe una nueva especie, C. lupuna P.E. Gibbs & Semir, del Perú, que pertenece al complejo de C. insignis, así como una nueva subespecie, C. aesculifolia subsp. parvifolia (Rose) P.E. Gibbs & Semir. Se incluyen mapas de distribución de 16 especies (aunque en el caso de C. pentandra solo se representa su distribución americana) y se dibujan detalles diagnósticos de seis especies. Palabras clave: Bombaceae, Chorisia, Ceiba, Sudamérica. Abstract GIBBS, P. & J. SEMIR (2003). A taxonomic revision of the genus Ceiba Mill. (Bombacaceae). Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 60(2): 259-300. In this taxonomic revision of Ceiba Mill. (in which we include Chorisia Kunth) we recognize 17 species, seven of which we group in the C. insignis species aggregate. One new species is described, C. lupuna P.E. Gibbs & Semir from Peru, which is referred to the C. insignis agg., and one new subspecies, C. aesculifolia subsp. parvifolia (Rose) P.E. Gibbs & Semir is recog- nized. Distribution maps are provided for 16 species (that for C. pentandra is restricted to the New World), and six species are illustrated. Key words: Bombaceae, Chorisia, Ceiba, South America. INTRODUCTION perimental Station of the Instituto Agronômi- co (Fazenda Santa Eliza), Campinas (São This revision of the genus Ceiba represents Paulo). We did not solve this particular prob- the tardy completion of taxonomic studies we lem until much later but sporadic taxonomic initiated with the genus Chorisia in the early studies with herbarium material and species 1980s. At that time our main research interest represented in the splendid collection of trees was in the breeding system of Chorisia spe- of known provenance at the Fazenda Santa ciosa and related species, and our taxonomic Eliza led to a gradual understanding of this enquiry began because of doubts we had con- group, and our conviction that the genus Cho- cerning the identity of pale yellow flowered risia should be merged with Ceiba (cf. GIBBS trees listed as “Chorisia insignis HBK” in cul- & al., 1988). However, our taxonomic re- tivation at the horticultural section of the Ex- search with Ceiba went into abeyance for a 260 ANALES JARDÍN BOTÁNICO DE MADRID, 60(2) 2003 number of years whilst the first author was in- yet complete but it appears that all other volved with studies on the reproductive biolo- species of Chorisia... are referable to it” [i.e. gy of species of the Brazilian cerrado and Ar- to such a species aggregate]. Mindful of the gentine Chaco vegetation, and second author adage “fools rush in where angels fear to undertook a doctoral thesis on the genus Ly- tread”, we concluded: “Whether any of these chnophora Mart. (Asteraceae). taxa can be maintained at a specific or subspe- Fortunately, over the intervening years, cific level must await the outcome of our with one notable exception, few other people analysis of the Ceiba insignis complex.” In have taken an interest in the taxonomy of the event, we recognize here the Ceiba insig- species of Ceiba or Chorisia, despite the great nis aggregate with seven component species, beauty of the flowers of these trees, and some including a new species C. lupuna, and we confusion concerning their identity. The ex- treat Ch. integrifolia as a synonym of C. in- ception was a paper by RAVENNA (1998). The signis s.s., and Ch. incana as a synonym of principle objective of RAVENNA (1998) was to C. ventricosa. accept Gibbs, Semir and da Cruz’s view that GIBBS & al. (1988) provided a taxonomic Chorisia should be merged with Ceiba, and history of the genera Ceiba and Chorisia, and then to effect all possible recombinations of a discussion of their alleged differential char- Chorisa species under Ceiba. No attempt was acters, particularly the nature of the stamen made to study type material of the species of tube, which led us to believe that Chorisia Chorisia to be recombined, and unsurprising- should not be separated from Ceiba. To pro- ly, of the seven new combinations effected in vide an introduction to this revision, we here this paper, two were superfluous. In addition, include a summary of the views put forward two new species were proposed by Ravenna in that earlier publication. (both rejected in the present revision), togeth- Although used by PLUMIER (1703: 42), er with an unworkable key which purported to MILLER (1754) provided the first valid publi- identify five of the 10 species considered in cation of the generic name Ceiba, but this was his study. Why the key was restricted to just overlooked until DRUCE (1913). As clarified these five taxa was not explained. The paper was produced in the author’s own xeroxed by NICOLSON (1979), the type species of this series ‘Onira Botanical Leaflets’ rather than genus is Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. (1791), published in a peer-reviewed journal, and so first published as Bombax pentandrum L. is difficult to access, but since care was taken (1753). The generic names Bombax, and sub- to ensure that copies were sent to some major sequently Chorisia, prevailed for this group botanical institutions, e.g. Royal Botanic until Ceiba was re-established by SCHUMANN Gardens, Kew, effective publication was (1886, 1890). Thus, KUNTH (1822), working achieved. with the Humboldt and Bonpland collections, RAVENNA (1988) claimed that GIBBS & AL. recognised two ‘sections’ in Bombax: “fila- (1988) “believed that Ch. crispiflora HBK, mente quinque” for his Bombax aesculifolia, Ch. speciosa St. Hil., Juss. & Camb., Ch. ven- and “filamenta creberrima (Ceiba)” for two tricosa Nees & Mart., Ch. integrifolia Ulbr. other species with multiple stamens. Kunth and Ch. incana Rob. are referable to Ch. in- (1822) also described the genus Chorisia for signis. The writer’s own experience with liv- two species, Ch. insignis and Ch. crispiflora, ing material of these and other species in their with complete fusion of the functional stami- native habit, cannot allow him to accept Gibbs nal filaments to give a tube around the style, & al. opinion”. This implies we treated all of but he recognized that this was a complex these taxa as synonyms of Chorisia insignis, structure: “... tubus staminens duplex; interior which in this paper we recombined as Ceiba tenuis, elongatus, teres, apice antherifer; ex- insignis. In fact we commented that these terior brevis, interior adnatus, apice deci- species “form a polymorphic complex or ag- molobus, lobis patentibus, sterilibus. Anther- gregate species... Our detailed studies are not ae 10, sumo tubo externae adnatae...”. P. GIBBS & J. SEMIR: A TAXONOMIC REVISION OF THE GENUS CEIBA 261 DE CANDOLLE (1824) retained Bombax for nal tube with a corona-like structure of stami- seven species with multiple stamens, and nal appendages, and with the upper staminal Chorisia for Kunth’s two species, but he de- filaments fused to form a tube, whilst species scribed the genus Eriodendron (with Ceiba of Ceiba, lack such appendages and divide to Plum. as a synonym) for species with five free give 5 filaments, in fact breaks down with in- staminal filaments united at their base into a termediate conditions. Strictly applied, the tube, to which he referred Bombax aesculi- distinction between Chorisia and Ceiba leads folium, Bombax erianthos (as E. leiantherum) to such species as Chorisia speciosa and the and Bombax pentandrum (as E. anfractuo- closely related (and interfertile) Ceiba pubi- sum). To these latter genera, NEES & MARTIUS flora, and similarly, Chorisia glaziovii and (1823) added Chorisia ventricosa, MARTIUS the closely related Ceiba erianthos, being & ZUCCARINI (1826) Eriodendron samauma, placed in separate genera, as DAWSON (1944) and SAINT HILAIRE (1828) described Chorisia and SANTOS (1964) noted. We have also pro- speciosa, Eriodendron pubiflora and E. jas- duced fertile hybrids between Ceiba erian- minodora. thos × Chorisia speciosa and C. erianthos × Additional generic names were subse- Chorisia chodatii. Again as discussed by quently proposed by diverse authors but none GIBBS & al. (1988), pollen morphology di- received widespread acceptance, and the vides these taxa not according to Chorisia vs. modern view of Ceiba and related genera was Ceiba, but a large group of both these genera, cast by SCHUMANN in his treatment of the with essentially peritreme grains, are distinct group for Martius’s Flora brasiliensis (1886) from some four or so species with distinctly and subsequently his monograph in Engler oblate grains. We used this striking pollen dif- and Prantl’s Pflanzenfamilien (1890). In the ference to recognize two sections with the tribe Adansoniae Benth., Schumann recog- united genus Ceiba. nized four genera: Adansonia, Bombax, Cho- The taxonomy of Ceiba presents some spe- risia and Ceiba.