Pkytologia (February 1994) 76(2):101-105. COMMENTS ON MICROGYNELLA, SOMMERFELTIA, AND /15T£;/Z0P5/5(ASTERACEAE: ASTEREAE) Guy L. Nesom Department of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78713 U.S.A. ABSTRACT Mtcrogynella, Sommerfeltia,and Asteropstsaieacceptedas distinct, monotypic genera, zmd a taxonomic summary is presented for each. All three are limited in distribution to southeastern Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay,andnortheastern Argentina. They are closely relatedamong themselves and to several other South Americjm genera: Podocoma, Rhabdanthus, Innlopsts, Laennecta, and Blaktella. KEY WORDS: Microgynella, Sommerfeltia, Asteropsis, Astereae, Asteraceae Three Astereaean species of southeastern South America each represent a monotypic genus. Nomenclatural summaries and comments on their delimi- tation and relationships are presented here in clarification of their taxonomic status. The status of Microgynella and Sommerfeltia Grau (1975) provided the new generic name MicrogynellaGrau for a South American species originally treated as the monotypic genus Microgyne Less. (Lessing 1832) and later transferred by Grisebach (1879) to the genus Vtt- tadima A. Rich. Grau correctly observed that Vittadima is an Australasian endemic; he noted that Microgynella should be placed nearest Hystertontca Willd. and Somm,erfeltia Less., but he did not discuss the nature or implica- tion of their relationship to Microgynella. Hystertonicasensu latocomprises twodistinct species groups (Nesom 1993) that are now divided into two separate genera, the "jasionoides group" = ( Hystertonicasensu stricto) and the "pinifoliagroup" (= Neja D. Don) (Nesom 101 PHYTOLOGIA 102 volume 76(2):101-105 February 1994 1994). Plants of Neja, which are perhaps those referred to by Grau (1975) as Hysterionica, are perennial with basally disposed, linear leaves and solitary heads on longscapesor bracteatestems. Both Hysterionica&\iA Neja, however, differfrom Mtcrogynellaintheiruniseriatepistillateflowers,eglandularachenes that are fertile in both ray and disc flowers, prominent orange-resinous ducts accompanying the veins of phyllaries and achenes, and style branches (disc flowers) with deltate collecting appendages. Mtcrogynella cannot be regarded as a particularly close relative ofeither Hystenontca or Neja. The resemblance of Microgynella to Sommerfeltia was early recognized by Hooker & Arnott (1836), who placed theformer (as Microgyne) as a synonym of the latter. They are similar in the following features: herbaceous-perennial habit, the roots and lower stems lignescent; leaves densely arranged along the stems, glandular, stiff, pinnately lobed or dissected with linear divisions; ray flowers with white, short ligules; style branches with linear-lanceolate collect- ingappendages (clearlyin Microgynella., apparentlyin Sommerfeltia, wherethe stigmatic lines are absent); and erostrate achenes with glandular faces. Both generaare restrictedtosoutheastern Braziland adjacent areas ofUruguay and Argentina. In the key to genera of Astereae in the province of Buenos Aires, Som- merfeltia was distinguished by Cabrera (1963, p. 10) from Microgynella (the latter identified as "Vittadinia") and other genera by the following: "Arbusti- tos enanos, con hojas pinatisectas espiniformes [Sommerfeltia)." The putative differencein habit between Sommerfeltiaand Microgynellais slight (both have a suffrutescent tendency), and the leaves of both are rigid and narrowly di- vided. The differences between the two genera, however, are more numerous and moresignificant thanin Cabrera's comparison, as outlinedin thefollowing summary: Microgynella: Stems, leaves, and phyllaries with sessile or slightly sunken, resinousglands,sparselyhispidand witharachnoid vestiture;stems monocephalous; leaves linear, apicaJly trifurcate with a pair oflin- ear lobes, but the uppermost and lower leaves commonly entire; disc flowers fertile; achenes densely sericeous on the faces and mar- gins, also denselyglandular, broadly oblanceolate-obconic and api- cally truncate, the margins more or less parallel at the apex, with a broad pappus insertion; and pappus bristles reddish-brown. Sommerfeltia: Stems, leaves, and phyllaries stipitate-glandular, without arach- noid vestiture; stems monocephalous or less commonly distally branched and bearing several heads in a loosely paniculate-corym- boid capitulescence; leaves pinnately dissected with linear lobes; Nesom: Comments on Microgynella, Sommerfeltia, and Asteropsis 103 disc flowers with sterile ovaries; achenes densely sericeous at the base or on the margins, the faces glandular but sparsely hairy, obo- vate and apically rounded, the margins apically confluent, with a narrow pappus insertion; and pappus bristles whitish. Sommerfeltia cabrerae Chebat., a recently described species from northern Uruguay (Chebataroff 1981), cannot be accepted within Sommerfeltia. It dif- fers from typical Sommerfeltia particularly in its entire leaves, completely fer- tilediscflowers, and differentlyshaped achenes withglandular, evenlystrigose- sericeous faces. As observed by Chebataroff, it closely resembles Hysterionica fihformis (Spreng.) Cabrera (= Nejafiltformis [Spreng.] Nees), but he rejected the species from Hysterionica sensu lato because of its lack of a short, outer seriesofpappus scales. Pappus variabilityamongotherspeciesofNeja(Nesom 1994), however, includes such as found in S. cabrerae, but the correct generic placement of the latter is still under consideration (Nesom in prep.). The status of Asteropsis Asteropsis Less, comprises the single species A. macrocephala Less., which is restricted to southern Brazil and adjacent Uruguay. The species was re- garded as a member of Podocoma Cass, by Bentham (1873), apparently be- cause of its rostrate achenes, but it was accepted as an independent genus by Baker (1882) and Hoffmann (1890). Grau (1977) also regarded it as a synonym of Podocoma, a position apparently followed in the recent phyloge- netic analysis and classification by Zhang & Bremer (1993). If treated within Podocoma, this species would haveto be set apart from all ofthe others, differ- ing in its combination of stems simple or 1-2 branched near the apex, densely arcLchnoid vestiture, entire, linear, non-clasping, densely arranged leaves, and mm large (20-35 in diameter), mostly solitary heads, linear-lanceolate phyllar- ies in 4-5 slightly graduated series, multiseriate ray flowers with long ligules mm (apparently white), disc flowers with sterile ovaries, and large (4-5 long), broadly obovate achenes with strongly thickened marginal ribs, a distinctively short-beaked apex, and sericeous, eglandular faces and margins. The features of Asteropsis place it among a group of South American genera that includes Podocoma (Nesom & Zanowiak 1994) as well as Microgynella, Sonnmerfeltia, Inulopsis Hoffm., Rhabdanthus Nesom, Laennecia Cass., and Blakiella Cu- atr. Among these, however, Asteropsisisjustifiably treated as an independent genus resembling Microgynellaand Sommerfeltiain its densely crowded, linear leaves. PHYTOLOGIA 104 volume 76(2):101-105 February 1994 Taxonomic summaries I. Microgynella Grau {nom. not;.), Mitt. Bot. Staats. Miinchen 12:185. 1975. Microgyne Less. [nom. illeg.], Syn. Gen. Comp. 190. 1832. (not Cass. 1827). TYPE: Microgyne tnfurcata Less. Microgynella tnfurcata{Less.) Grau, Mitt. Bot. Staats. Miinchen 12:185. 1975. BASIONYM: Microgyne tnfurcata Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 190. 1832. Erigeron tnfurcatus (Less.) Gill. & Don ex Hook. & Am., Comp. Bot. Mag. 2:49. 1836. Vittadinia tnfurcata (Less.) Benth. & Hook, ex Griseb., Symh. Fl. Argent. 24:178. 1879. Engeron tndactylus DC, Prodr. 5:290. 1836. II. Sommerfeltia Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 189. 1832. TYPE: Sommerfeltia spmulosa (Spreng.) Less. Sommerfeltia spmulosa (Spreng.) Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 190. 1832. BASIONYM: Conyza spmulosa Spreng., Syst. Veget. 3:510. 1826. III. Asteropsis Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 188. 1832. TYPE: Asteropsis macro- cephala Less. Asteropsis macrocephalaLess., Syn. Gen. Comp. 188. 1832. Podocoma macrocephala (Less.) Herter, Fl. Uruguay PI. Vase. [Estud. Bot. Reg. Urug.] 123. 1931. Podopappus tomentosus Hook. & Am., Comp. Bot. Mag. 2:51. 1836. Neja macrocephala DC, Prodr. 5:325. 1836. This name is het- erotypic with that of Asteropsis macrocephala Less. Neja sect. Phylloneja DC, Prodr. 5:325. 1836. Type (and only species): Neja macrocephala DC. (= Asteropsis macrocephala Less.). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank B.L. Turner and Mark Mayfield for their review ofthe manuscript and the staffs of MO and US for help during recent visits to their institutions. Nesom: Comments on Microgynella, Sommerfeltia, and Asteropsis 105 LITERATURE CITED Baker, J.G. 1882. Compositae III. Asteroideae. /n C.F.P. Martius, Fl. Bras. 6(3):1-100 Bentham, G. 1873. Compositae. In Bentham, G. & J.D. Hooker. Gen. PI. 2:163-533. A. Black, London, Great Britain. Cabrera, A.L. 1963. Flora de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Tomo IV, Parte 6a. Compuestas. Coleccion Cientifica del I.N.T.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina. Chebataroff, P.J. 1981. Una nueva especie del genero Sommerfeltia (Com- positae). Hickenia 1:233-235. Grau, J. 1975. Podocoma und Vittadinia - zwei vermeintlich bikontinentale Gattungen. Mitt. Bot. Staats. Miinchen 12:181-194. Grisebach, A.H.R. 1879. Symbolae adFloramArgentinam. Dieterich,Gottin- gen, Sweden. Hoffmann, 0. 1890. Tubuliflorae - Astereae. In Die Naturlichen Pflanzen- familien (A. Engler & K. Prantl [eds.l) 4(5):142-172. Wilhelm Engel- mann, Leipzig, Germany. Hooker, W.J. &: G.A.W. Arnott. 1836. Contributions toward a flora ofSouth America and the islands of the Pacific. Comp. Bot. Mag. 2:41-52. Lessing, C.F. 1832. Synopsis Generum, Compositarum. Dunckeri &: Hum- blotii, Berlin, Germany. Nesom, G.L. 1993. A Cuban endemic: Hysterionica marginata (Asteraceae: Astereae) rather than Aster grisebachii. Phytologia 75:163-165. 1994. SeparationofyVeja(Asteraceae: Astereae)from i/y5<ertonica. Phytologia 76:168-175. &: D. Zanowiak. 1994. Taxonomic overview of Podocoma (Aster- aceae: Astereae), with the incorporation of two species from Conyza. Phytologia 76:106-114. Zhang, X. Si K. Bremer. 1993. A cladistic analysis of the tribe Astereae (Asteraceae) with notes on their evolution and subtribal classification. PI. Syst. Evoi. 184:259-283.