Remarks on the South-American species of the genus Cassipourea (Rhizophoraceae)
Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht , Volume 84 - Issue 1 p. 373- 377
Though an excellent, critical monograph of the genus Cassipourea was published some years ago by ALSTON (in Kew Bulletin, 1925, p. 241—276), I should like to make a few remarks on the South-American species of this genus as my revision for PULLE’s Flora of Suriname III.2 has brought to light a few new facts. It will also give me an opportunity to refer to a publication of BRIQUET on some American representatives of this genus (in Candollea IV, 1931, p. 342—350), which disagrees with regard to a number of species with ALSTON’s interpretations. The species which covers the largest area is the chiefly West-Indian C. elliptica (Sw.) Poir. Formerly also a number of West- Brazilian and Peruvian specimens were referred to it, but ALSTON pointed out that these plants belonged to another species for which he introduced the name C. peruviana. A new West-Indian species, based on Broadway nr. 3841 and 4631, both from Tobago, was described by BRIQUET under the name C. Broadwayi. This species is, in my opinion, conspecific with C. elliptica. BRIQUET amply discussed the differences with C. latifolia Alston from Trinidad, but does not mention its relationship to C. elliptica. , though, in view of the latter’s area of distribution, this would have been more to the point. That ALSTON had already referred Broadway nr. 3841 to C. elliptica was apparently overlooked by BRIQUET. In opposition to BRIQUET I agree with ALSTON that no value should be set on the varieties of C. elliptica described by GRISEBACH (Fl. Br. W. Ind. Isl., I860, p. 274).
|Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht|
|Released under the CC-BY 4.0 ("Attribution") License|
|Organisation||Naturalis journals & series|
Jonker, F.P. (1942). Remarks on the South-American species of the genus Cassipourea (Rhizophoraceae). Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, 84(1), 373–377.