44 AROIDEANA Vol. 13, No. 1-4 A Comparison of Aroid ClassiftcationSystems Thomas B. Croat Missouri Botanical Garden p. o. Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA Abstract Hooker (1883) which in turn was based on the first monograph of the family by The paper compares four systems of H. Schott (1860). classification of the Araceae: Engler's Like the Schott system, Hutchinson original (1905-1920), M. Hotta's (1970), J. based his classification primarily on floral Bogner and D. Nicolson's On press) and morphology. However, he divided the M. Grayum's (1990). All are compared genera not into subfamilies but into 18 against the backdrop of the traditional tribes. Although Hutchinson's system has system of classification by Adolf Engler been used by some workers in general and against each other. review papers (e.g., Marchant, 1970, 1971a, 1971b, 1972, 1974; Raven and Introduction Axelrod, 1974; Li, 1979, 1980), it has been A review of the systems of classifica­ deemed quite unnatural by modern tion in the Araceae between the time of workers of the Araceae and it will not be Linnaeus and the modern era was pre­ dealt with further. sented by Nicolson (1960,1987). The last Since no other work has been so thorough systematic treatment of the widely accepted, it is important that a Araceae was published by Adolf Engler synopsis of Engler's original classifica­ in Das Pjlanzenreich (Engler, 1905, tion be presented here. The modified 1911, 1912, 1915, 1920a, 1920b; Engler & Englerian system which follows differs Krause, 1908, 1920; Krause 1908, 1913). from the original version only by the This subfamilial classification has served inclusion of 14 accepted new genera as the basis for virtually all non-taxo­ published since the appearance of nomic studies of aroid morphology to Engler's revision. Originally, Engler had this date. Although major subfamilial included 107 genera arranged in eight revisions of the Araceae have been subfamilies. These retain their original published (Hotta, 1970 and Hutchinson, numbers in the modification presented 1973), they have not gained wide accep­ while those added later into the system tance. The system by Hotta, based pri­ are assigned lower case letters, as in 54a, marily on the Englerian model, is proba­ Amauriella. Genera added since Engler bly the more natural of the two. A are assigned upper case letters and also synopsis of the Hotta system will be bear an asterisk. With minor exceptions presented and discussed later. The only (see placement of Heteroaridarnm, Hot­ other important treatment of the Araceae tarnm and jasarnm, more recently in this century was that of Lemee (1941) switched by Bogner [pers. comm.]), in his Dictionaire .... phanerogams. This placement of new taxa within Engler's work, published in French, is merely a system is based on their assignment in "A version of Engler's treatment which in­ Critical List of Aroid Genera" (Bogner, cluded four genera published since 1978). Three published genera have Engler's treatment was published. In been added subsequent to the appear­ contrast, Hutchinson's system is an ex­ ance of Bogner's list: Furtadoa (Hotta, tension of the one devised by J. D. 1981) and Bognera (Nicolson, 1984), THOMAS B. CROAT, 1990 45 both in the subfamily Philodendroideae dospatha [Croat], 18. Monstera (Calloideae in Grayum, 1990) and An­ Adans., 19. Alloschemone aphyllopsis Hay in the Lasioideae. Schott, 20. Amydrium Schott) Lasiomorpha was resurrected to the ge­ Tribe 2. SPATHIPHYLLEAE Engl. (21. neric level by Hay. These have been Spathiphyllum Schott, 22. Hol­ included, using the same lettering system ochlamys Engl.) as for genera previously added. Subfamily m. CALLOIDEAE Schott Genera accepted by Engler but subse­ Tribe 1. SYMPLOCARPEAE Engl. (Ap­ quently placed into synonymy are also propriately now ORONTIEAE) indicated. The author who placed it into (23. Lysichiton Schott (as synonymy is added in brackets. Some of Lyschitum) 24. Symplocarpus the authors of Engler's generic names Salisb., 25. Orontium L.) have been changed to reflect proper Tribe 2. CALLEAE Schott (26. Calla L.) nomenclature. Subfamily Iv. LASIOIDEAE Engl. Tribe 1. LASIEAE Engl. (27. Cyrto­ The SubfamiJial Classification of the sperma Griff., *27A. Lasiomor­ Araceae by Engler (1905-1920) pha Schott [Hay] (989), 28. Lour. 29. Subfamily I. POTHOIDEAE Engl. Lasia Anaphyllum Schott, 29A. Hay, (Properly ACOROIDEAE, according to Anaphyllopsis the rules of nomenclature when Acarus 30. Podolasia N. E. Brown, 31. is included.) Urospatha Schott [Bogner], Tribe 1. POTHEAE Engl. (1. Pothos L., 2 .. (1988, 1989) 32. Dracontioides Pothoidium Schott, *2A. Engl., 33. Echidnium Schott = Pedicellarum M. Hotta, 3. Dracontium [Bogner], 34. Dra­ Anadendrum Schott (as Anad­ contium L., *34A. Pycnospatha endron), 3a. Epipremnopsis Thorel ex Gagnep.) Engl. = Amydrium [Nicolson]) Tribe 2. AMORPHOPHALLEAE Eng!. Tribe 2. HETEROPSIDEAE Engl, (4. (Now correctly THOM­ Heteropsis Kunth) SONIEAE) 05. Pseudohy­ Tribe 3. ANTHURIEAE Engl. (5. An­ drosme Engl., 36. Plesmonium thurium Schott) Schott = A morphophallus Tribe 4. CULCASlEAE Engl. (6. Culcasia [Bogner], 37. Anchomanes P. Beauv.) Schott, 38. 1bomsonia Wall. = Tribe 5. ZAMIOCULCADEAE Engl. (7. Amorphophallus [Bogner, Zamioculcas Schott, 8. Gona­ Mayo & Sivadasan], 39. Pseu­ topus Hook. f.) dodracontium N. E. Brown, 40. Tribe 6. ACOREAE Engl. (9. Acorus L. = Amorphophallus Blume) Acoraceae, 10. Gymnostachys Tribe 3. NEPHTHYTIDEAE Engl. (41. R. Br.) Nephthytis Schott, 42. Cercestis Subfamily II. MONSTEROIDEAE Schott, 43. Rhektophyllum N. E. Engl. Brown = Cercestis [Bogner]) Tribe 1. MONSTEREAE Eng!. (ll. Tribe 4. MONTRICHARDIEAE Eng!. Rhaphidophora Hassk. (as Ra­ (44. Montrichardia Cruger) phidophora) Engl. 12. Afrora­ Subfamily V. PHll.ODENDROIDEAE phidophora Engl. = Rhaphido­ Engl. phora [Hepper], 13. Epi­ Tribe 1. PHILODENDREAE Schott premnum Schott, 14. Scin­ SubTribe 1. HOMALOM­ dapsus Schott, 15. Stenosper­ ENINAE Schott, (*45A. Furta­ mation Schott (as Stenosperma­ doa M. Hotta 45. Homalomena tium), 16. Rhodospatha Poepp., Schott, 46. Diandriella Engl. = 17. Anepsias Schott = Rho- Homalomena [Bogner]) AROIDEANA Vol. 13, No. 1-4 Fig. 1. Cercestis kamerunianus N.E. Br. Fig. 2. Mangonia uruguaya (Hicken) in Dyer, Croat 53498. Nigeria. Photo by Bogner, F Felippone s.n. (type), Uru­ T B. Croat. guay. Photo by F. Felippone. Fig. 3. Calla palustris L. , de GraCi! 508. Fig. 4. Chlorospatha croatiana Grayum, Photo by A. de Graaf. Croat 67109, Panama. Photo by T B. Croat. maMAS B. CROAT, 1990 47 Subtribe 2. SCHISMATOG­ jasarum Bunting, 67. Apbyl­ LOTTIDINAE Schott (47. Scbis­ larum S. Moore, = Caladium matoglottis Zoll. & Mar., 48. [Bogner & Mayo) 68. Cblorospa­ Bueepbalandra Schott, *48A. tba Eng!., 69. Xantbosoma Pbymatarum M. Hotta, 49. Ari­ Schott) darum Ridley, *49A. Heteroari­ Subtribe 4. COLOCASII­ darum M. Hotta, *49B. Hotta­ NAE Schott (70. Coloeasia rum Bogner & Nicolson, 50. Schott) Piptospatba N. E. Brown, 51. Subtribe 5. ALOCASIINAE Mieroeasia Beccari = Bueepb­ Schott (71. Aloeasia (Schott) G. alandra [Bogner]) Don, 72. Sebizoeasia Engler = Subtribe 3. PHILO DEN­ Xenopbya [Nicolson) = Alocasia DRINAE Schott (52. Pbiloden­ [A. Hay]) dron Schott [Krause (913) rec­ Tribe 2. SYNGONIEAE Eng!. (73. Por­ ognized Tbaumatopbyllum pbyrospatba Eng!. = Syngo­ Schott, now = Pbilodendron nium [Croat), 74. Syngonium [Bunting), without numbering it Schott) or putting it in a key), 53. Tribe 3. ARIOPSIDEAE Eng!. (75. Ariop­ Pbilonotion Schott = Sebisma­ sis Nimmo ex J. Graham) toglottis [Bunting]) Subfamily VII. AROIDEAE Engl. Tribe 2. ANUBIADEAE Eng!. (54A. Tribe 1. STYLOCHAETONIEAE Schott Amauriella Rendle = Anubias (76. Styloebaeton l.epr. as Sty­ [Bogner), 54B. Anubias Schott) loebiton) Tribe 2A. BOGNEREAE Mayo & Ni­ Tribe 1A. AROPHYTEAE Bogner (*76A. colson (*54A. Bognera Mayo Carlepbyton]um., *76B. Colle­ & Nicolson) S. Buchet *76c. Tribe 3. AGLAONEMATEAE Engl. (55. togyne Aro­ pbyton ]um.) Aglaonema Schott, 56. Aglaodorum Schott) Tribe 2. ASTEROSTIGMATEAE Schott Tribe 4. DIEFFENBACHIEAE Engl. (57. (77. Mangonia Schott, 78. An­ Dieffenbaebia Schott) dromyeia A. Rich. = Aster­ Tribe 5. ZANTEDESCHIEAE Eng!. (58. ostigma [Bogner), 79. Tae­ Zantedesebia Spreng.) earum Brongn. ex Schott, 80. Tribe 6. TYPHONODOREAE Eng!. (59. Asterostigma Fisch. & Mey., 81. Typbonodorum Lind!.) Synandrospadix Eng!., 82 . Tribe 7. PELTANDREAE Eng!. (60. Pel­ Spatbantbeum Schott, 83. tandra Raf.) Gorgonidium Schott, 84. Subfamily VI. COLOCASIOIDEAE Gearum N. E. Brown, 85. Spatb­ Engl. iearpa Hook.) Tribe 1. COLOCASIEAE Eng!. Tribe 3. PROTAREAE Eng!. (86. Prota­ Subtribe 1. STEUDNERINAE rum Eng!.) Eng!. & K. Kr. (61. Steudnera Tribe 4. CALLOPSIDEAE Eng!. (87. Cal­ K. Koch, 62. Remusatia Schott, lopsis Eng!.) 63. Gonatantbus Klotzsch Tribe 5. ZOMICARPEAE Eng!. (88. Subtribe 2. HAPALININAE Seapbispatba Brongn. ex Eng!. & K. Kr. (64. Hapaline Schott, 89. Xenopbya Schott = Schott) Aloeasia [Hay), 90. Zomiearpa Subtribe 3. CALADIINAE Schott, 91. Zomiearpella N. E. Eng!. & K. Kr. (65. Caladiopsis Brown, *91A. Filarum Nicolson, Eng!. = Cblorospatba [Madi­ 92. Ulearum Eng!.) son), 66. Caladium Vent., *66A. Tribe 6. AREAE Engl. 48 AROIDEANA Vol. 13, No. 1-4 Subtribe 1. ARINAE Schott systems will be presented here in synop­ (93. Arnm 1., 94. Dracunculus tic form. These, as well as the system of Schott, 95. HelicodicerosSchott, Hotta, will be compared with Engler's 96. Tberiophonum Blume, 97. classification. All of these systems have Typhonium Schott, 98. Sauro­ benefited from a substantial amount of matum