New Combinations in the Florida Flora Daniel B. Ward Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A. ABSTRACT. New combinations are made for the tinguishable components of the Florida flora. following species and varieties within the flora of Where generic realignments have been proposed Florida: Agaloma oerstediana, Agaloma pubentissi- and are here accepted, acknowledgment is thereby ma, Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana, Asimina spa¬ given to the merit of those changes. tulata, Deeringothamnus rugelii var. pulchellus, Er- Though the International Code of Botanical No¬ ianthus brevibarbis var. coni art its, Ludwigia curtissii menclature (Greuter et al., 2000) permits both sub¬ var. simpsonii, Nyssa biflora var. ursina, Pentalinon species and variety to be employed as infraspecific luteum var. sericeum, Peperomia hum ills var. cu¬ ranks, the writer's past experience has shown few re ulicola, Ptelea trifoliata var. baldwinii, Stipulicida if any situations where both of these two hierarchi¬ setacea var. filiformis, Zamia floridana var. umbro- cal ranks are needed. The far greater historic se¬ sa. niority of variety over subspecies, the clear inter¬ Key words: Agaloma, Annonaceae, Apocyna- mediacy of variety between species and form, and ceae, Aristida, Asimina, Caryophyllaceae. Deerin¬ the flavor of calculated erudition attached to sub¬ gothamnus, Erianthus, Euphorbiaceae, Florida, species, seem sufficient to justify variety for the Ludwigia, North America, Nyssa, Nyssaeeae, Ona- infraspecific combinations created here. graceae, Pentalinon, Peperomia, Piperaceae, Po- Annonaceae aceae, Ptelea, Kutaceae, Stipulicida, Zamia, Za- Asimina spatulala (H. Krai) I). B. Ward, comb, et miaceae. stat. nov. Basionym: Asimina longifolia R. Krai var. spatulata R. Krai. Brittonia 12: 266. 1960. Florida possesses one of the richest floras in TYPE: U.S.A. Florida: Leon Co., abundant in number of species of any state in the U.S., exceed¬ recently burned sandy pine flatwoods, 1 mi. ed only by California and Texas. This abundance NW Lake Jackson, 7 May 1957, Krai 4714 extends to its infraspecific taxa—the varieties and (holotype, NY; isotypes, BH. BM, DUKE, F, subspecies—and is surely due to the relative iso¬ FLAS, FSU, GA, GH. IA. MIAMI. MO. NA. lation of the peninsular body of tilt* state from the NCSC, NGU, PH, UC, US). continental landmass, and the endemism that has followed interglacial flooding and the resultant pop- Krai (1960) interpreted the familiar Florida Dog ulational disjunctions. Banana to consist of two taxa, which he separated This profuse and intricate flora has yet to receive as Asimina longifolia var. longifolia, and A. longi¬ the detailed study and understanding regularly ac¬ folia var. spatulata. He found ranges of the two en¬ corded the floras of many states in the western and tities to be largely allopatric, supported by a num¬ northeastern United States, though recent guides ber of leaf, flower, pubescence, and habit (Clewell, 1985; Wunderlin, 1998) are significant ef¬ differences. Wilbur (1970) was not convinced that forts in that direction. Monographs, especially, are these taxa merited recognition even at varietal lev¬ prone to gloss over taxa in Florida that appear of el. The distinctions as described by Krai, however, do appear consistent in Florida populations, above secondary importance, and when placing Florida that normally accorded varietal status. Recognition species in new generic classifications, often fail to of A. spatulata at the specific level seems justified. transfer varieties and subspecies that are readily recognizable to Florida field botanists. Deeringothuiniius rugelii (B. L. Robinson) J. K. The following new combinations provide names Small var. pulchellus (J. K. Small) 1). B. for a few of the orphan taxa that have been recog¬ Ward, comb, et stat. nov. Basionym: Deerin¬ nized historically in Florida but for one reason or gothamnus pulchellus J. K. Small, Bull. Torrey another presently have no legitimate name in the Bot. Club 51: 390. 1924. TYPE: U.S.A. Flor¬ appropriate genus or species. In each of these ida: Desoto Co., pinelands, uninhabited wil¬ transfers, earlier authors have treated the taxon as derness E of Punta Gorda, 28 Apr. 1923, worthy of recognition; no new taxa are proposed. Small 10925 (holotype, NY; isotypes, G1I. These taxa are also accepted here, as clearly dis¬ MCU, MlCHi, MO). Novon 11: 360-365. 2001. Volume 11, Number 3 Ward 361 2001 Combinations in Florida Flora Deeringothamnus has been known as a ditypic James (1957), though unwilling to distinguish 5. genus endemic to Florida, with a yellow-flowered filiformis from typical S. setacea, noted and named species (D. rugelii) restricted to Seminole and Vol¬ (as 5. setacea var. lacerata C. W. James) a variant usia Counties, east-central Peninsula, and a white- with strikingly lacerate sepals from Pinellas County, flowered species (D. pulchellus) in Lee and Char¬ on the Gulf Coast. These variations have been care¬ lotte Counties, southwest Peninsula (Krai, 1960). A fully observed and recorded by Judd (1983: 36); he collection by O'Neill from Bithlo, Orange County, found recognition of the lacerate-sepaled variant central Peninsula (noted by Krai, but misattributed justified at varietal level, though he conservatively to Moldenke), and several recently discovered pop¬ concluded the slender-stemmed S. filiformis “mere¬ ulations near Orlando, Orange County, seem inter¬ ly represents a morphological/ecological extreme” mediate. An Orlando population found in 1985 has of typical S. setacea. However, since Judd’s map been assigned to the white-flowered taxon (Eliane and other data place Nash's 5. filiformis almost ex¬ M. Norman, pers. comm., June 1987). Though flow¬ clusively within the elongate Central Florida Ridge, er color is not the only distinguishing character home of a host of other Florida endemics (Christ¬ (petal shape and degree of curvature differ also), man & Judd, 1990). loss of all taxonomic recogni¬ the presence of intermediates suggests a fragment¬ tion for this plant would be unfortunate. Varietal ed ancient population differing in random ways and status preserves the taxon, yet reflects its modest better treated as a single species. and intergrading morphological differences. Apocynaceae Euphorbiaceae Pentalinoii luteum (L.) B. Hansen & K. Wunder- Agaloma oerstediana (J. F. Klotzsch & C. A. Gar- lin var. sericeum (R. W. Long) 1). B. Ward, cke) D. B. Ward, comb. nov. Basionym: Poin- comb. nov. Basionym: Urechites lutea (L.) N. settia oerstediana J. F. Klotzsch & C. A. Gar- L. Britton var. sericea R. W. Long, Rhodora 72: cke, Monatsber. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 31. 1970. TV PE: Haiti. Tortile Island, vicinity Berlin I860: 103. 1860 (holotype. B perhaps of La Valle, thicket E of harbor, twining on no longer extant). shrubs to height of 15 ft., flowers yellow, 28 Agaloma oerstediana was first reported for Flor¬ Dec. 1928, Leonard 11642 (holotype, GH). ida (as Euphorbia graminea Jacquin) by Herndon Once known as Urechites Mueller Argoviensis, (1994), 1 >ased on several collections in Dade Coun¬ this small genus (apparently 2 species) is correctly ty, the southernmost tip of the Peninsula, where it termed Pentalinon Voigt (Hansen & Wunderlin, has become a frequent greenhouse weed. It has 1986; accepted by Howard, 1989). Although in the since moved via horticultural transplants into land¬ Antilles Pentalinon luteum has been described as scape settings northward at least to Palm Beach glabrous to variously pubescent (Howard, 1989), County. Its white-appendaged glands clearly mark tbe founder effect selections represented in Florida, it as a member of Euphorbia subg. Agaloma as con¬ as reported by Small (1933), appear sufficiently ventionally delimited (Webster, 1967). (Corrected distinct to merit retention of two entities at varietal identification of the Florida introduction has been rank. supplied by Daniel F. Austin and Derek Burch, with Richard Abbott adding data as to recent dis¬ Caryophyllaceae tribution.) fhe genus Euphorbia, broadly circumscribed Stipulicida setacea A. Michaux var. filiforiuis (G. (Boissier, 1862, 1866; Pax & Hoffmann, 1931), V. Nash) I). B. Ward, comb, et stat. nov. Bas¬ consists of over 1500 species, a vast assembly held ionym: Stipulicida filiformis G. V. Nash, Bull. together by the presence of a bisexual pseudan- Torrey Bot. Club 22: 148. 1895. TYPE: U.S.A. thium or cyathium. Recent workers (Webster, 1994) Florida: Lake Co., dry sandy soil, vicinity of have somewhat reduced this unwieldy grouping by Eustis, 12—31 Mar. 1894, Nash 14 (holotype, recognition of small segregate genera (notably Ped- NY). ilanthus and Chamaesyce), but authors who have As do so many other widespread southeastern made major generic dissections on the basis of species, Stipulicida setacea shows increasing vari¬ gross morphology or other non-cyathial characters ability in the part of its range that extends into have in general been disregarded or their taxa re¬ peninsular Florida. This variability was acknowl¬ tained only at infrageneric rank (cf. Wheeler, 1943; edged long ago by Nash (1895) in recognizing S. Webster. 1967, 1994; Govaerts et al., 2000). filiformis from Lake County, central Peninsula. It is difficult to understand why these infrage- 362 Novon neric taxa, some of them sharply differentiated, are Eriantbus brevibarbis A. Michaux var. contor- so seldom given generic ranking; perhaps the tus (W. Baldwin ex S. Elliott) I). B. Ward, unique structure of the cyathium overrides ac¬ comb, et stat. nov. Basionym: Erianthus con- knowledgment of other, conflicting criteria. In any tortus W. Baldwin ex S. Elliott, Sketch 1: 40. event, in the belief that certain of these segregate 1816. TYPE: U.S.A. Georgia: Savannah, Bald¬ groupings more closely represent what may be else¬ win s.n. (holotype, CHARE now lost). where interpreted to be of generic rank than does Webster and Shaw (1995) have argued persua¬ the undivided cyathial complex, it is believed ap¬ sively that Fernald (1943) was incorrect in his in¬ propriate, at least for the purpose of regional floris- terpretation that Michaux’s type of Erianthus brev¬ tic analysis, to recognize Agaloma Rafinesque at ibarbis from Illinois is specifically distinct from generic level. (Equivalent status is to be given to southeastern plants; they believed varietal status is Chamaesyce S. F. Gray, Poinsett in Graham, and Ti- sufficient. But if Webster and Shaw’s further con¬ thymalus Gaertner (Ward. ms.). Euphorbia s. str. clusion that Erianthus should be merged with Sac- has no native or naturalized species in North Amer¬ charurn is rejected, this new combination is need¬ ica.) ed. Agaloina pubentissima (A. Michaux) 1). B. Ward, comb. nov. Basionym: Euphorbia pubentissima Nyssaceae A. Michaux, FI. Bor. Amer. 2: 212. 1803. Nyssa biflora T. Walter var. ursina (J. K. Small) TYPE: U.S.A. Carolina: Michx. s.n. (holotype, I). B. Ward, comb, et stat. nov. Basionym: Nys¬ P). sa ursina J. K. Small, Torreya 27: 92. 1927. The impressive, yet unpublished, thesis by Huft TYPE: U.S.A Florida: Gulf Co., Apalachicola (1979) documented this species as occurring widely River delta, near Port St. Joe, pineland in the southeastern United States and sparingly in swamps, 27 Nov. 1923 (fr). Small 10995, 24 north Florida. It was addressed by Small (1933) as Apr. 1924 (fl). Small 11255 (syntypes, both Tithymalopsis apocynifolia (Small) Small, T. pani- NY). culata (Elliott) Small, and T. zinniiflora Small. Godfrey (Kurz & Godfrey, 1962; Godfrey, 1988; pers. comm., Dec. 1989) stated his belief that N. Gramineae ( = Poaceae) ursina is a fire-induced form of N. biflora (which Aristida strieta A. Michaux var. beyrichiana (C. he treated, 1988., as a variety of A. sylvatica). How¬ B. von Trinius & F. J. Ruprecht) 1). B. Ward, ever. Burckhalter (1992) has viewed N. ursina as comb, et stat. nov. Basionym: Aristida beyri¬ sufficiently distinct in habit, leaf size, and fruit chiana C. B. von Trinius & F. J. Ruprecht. shape to justify recognition at specific rank. While Mem. Acad. St. Petersb. VI. Sci. Nat. 7(2): the morphological differences, particularly the 104. 1849. TYPE: U.S.A. Georgia?, in pinetis, stunted form of the plants, are apparent in the field, Beyrich s.n. (holotype, LE; isotype, US). one is unable to dismiss the possibility that all one is seeing is an environmental response. However, Peet (1993) lias reported that the familiar Wire- the similarity of range of the Dwarf Tupelo to a wide grass consists of two populations separable on pu¬ array of wetland Panhandle endemics suggests a bescence of the leaf sheaths, the typical, near-gla¬ genetic component and tilts the balance toward a brous one native to eastern North Carolina and median level of taxonomic recognition. adjacent South Carolina, and the second to south¬ ern South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Peet matched the more pubescent southern population Onagraceak with the name A. beyrichiana and accorded it spe¬ Ludwigia curtissii A. W. Chapman var. simpsonii cific rank. Standing alone, the stated morphological (A. W. Chapman) D. B. Ward, comb, et stat. differences would attract little attention. His sup¬ nov. Basionym: Ludwigia simpsonii A. W. porting argument, that there may have been two Chapman, Fl. South. U. S., 2nd ed, suppl. 2: main centers of glacial-time persistence of the 685. 1892. TYPE: U.S.A. Florida: Manatee, pineland flora, is of unsupported validity. The mod¬ low ground, Simpson s.n. (holotype, US; iso¬ est differences observed in the two Wiregrass pop¬ types, GH, MO, US). ulations are of a different order of magnitude from those of the distinct species cited by Peet as en¬ Peng (1989) looked carefully at the Ludwigia demic to the two areas. Taxonomic recognition does curtissii-L. simpsonii complex and its near relatives appear justified, but at infraspecific rank. and concluded the present taxa represent two spe- Volume 11, Number 3 Ward 363 2001 Combinations in Florida Flora cies. To Godfrey and Wooten (1981) the differences species known as Peperomia humilis, as reported had not merited even varietal recognition. Peng by Boufford. The first, more northern population agreed the entities are sympatric throughout central has long been recognized as distinct under the and south peninsular Florida (with L. simpsonii ex¬ names Piper leptostachyon Nuttall (1822: 287), tending into north Florida), and often intergrade in Peperomia leptostachya (Nuttall) Chapman (1883), diagnostic capsule and leaf characters. Peng noted Peperomia cumulicola Small (1921: 197), and Mi¬ the two taxa to appear to be ecologically distinct, cropiper leptostachyon (Nuttall) Small (1933: 400). with L. curtissii on black muck or in deep standing (For full synonymy, see Boufford, 1982.) Nuttall’s water, and L. simpsonii on roadsides or moist sandy Piper leptostachyon far predated Small’s Peperomia soil. He found L. curtissii to be octoploid, L. simp¬ cumulicola, but the transfer of Piper leptostachyon sonii to be hexaploid, and the chromosome number to Peperomia by Chapman (1883) was rendered in¬ to correlate with capsule size (L. curtissii the larg¬ valid, as a later homonym, by the earlier formation er). These populational characteristics are undoubt¬ of Peperomia leptostachya Hooker & Arnott (1841) edly as described by Peng. But, setting aside the of the Hawaiian Islands. Though at an infraspecific chromosomal information, the pervasive morpholog¬ level either epithet is available, the uncertainty that ical intergradation confounds the field botanist and attends the relationship between these two entities guarantees erratic herbarium identifications. Vari¬ clearly leaves open the possibility they will again etal status reflects the small magnitude of apparent be treated at specific rank, and use of the same differences, yet preserves the taxon. epithet at all ranks is desirable. Rutaceae PlPERACEAE Ptelea trifoliata L. var. baldwinii (Torrey & A. Peperomia humilis A. G. Dietrich var. cumuli- Gray) I). B. Ward, comb, et stat. nov. Basio¬ cola (J. K. Small) I). B. Ward, comb et stat. nym: Ptelea baldwinii Torrey & A. Gray, FI. nov. Basionym: Peperomia cumulicola J. K. N. Amer. 1:215. 1838. TYPE: U.S.A. Florida: Small. J. New York Bot. Gard. 22: 197. 1921. Duval Co., Fort George Island, Baldwin s.n. TYPE: U.S.A. Florida: Volusia Co., shell-mid¬ (holotype, PH). den, 10 mi. S of Daytona, 30 Nov. 1919, Small 9196 (holotype, NY). Florida plants of Ptelea trifoliata have been as¬ signed to variety trifoliata, variety mollis Torrey & Florida field botanists stubbornly maintain that A. Gray, and a narrow-leaflet variant that Bailey Boufford (1982) combined two distinct entities by (1962) left unnamed but with collections from the his treatment of Peperomia humilis. The one—al¬ type locality of P. baldwinii (Fort George Island, ways terrestrial, seemingly always on aboriginal Duval County, Florida). Bailey, in a continuation of shell middens, with leaves round-tipped and spat- her study (Bailey et al., 1970), found plants with ulate or the lower ones acute, the stems green and “narrow terminal leaflets” in 11% of populations sparingly pubescent—is found on scattered sites in within the Florida peninsula, but none elsewhere northern peninsular Florida, from Fort George Is¬ in the Southeast. Small (1933), though treating it land, Duval County (where locally so common that at specific rank, well described and provided a key it forms the dominant ground cover) and Pineola, to set apart the narrow-leaflet population. Other au¬ Citrus County, south at least to Jonathan Dickinson thors (Godfrey, 1988; Wunderlin, 1998) have been State Park, Martin County. The other—apparently unwilling to recognize any named infraspecific en¬ always epiphytic, often on dead limbs, with leaves tities. But the morphological differences as con¬ elliptic and acute, the stems usually pink and firmed by Bailey, though modest, have reasonably densely pubescent—is largely restricted to the discrete ranges, and merit at least minimal taxo¬ Florida Keys and Cape Sable, Monroe County, and nomic recognition. the Fakahatchee Strand of Collier County. The dif¬ ferences extend to cultural experiences, with the Zamiaceak northern entity successfully grown in Broward Zamia floridana A. P. DC. var. mnhrosa (J. K. County, where the more southern form does not sur¬ Small) D. B. Ward, comb, et stat. nov. Basio¬ vive. (These observations, together with those of the nym: Zamia umbrosa J. K. Small. J. New York present author, are the synthesis of long Florida Bot. Gard. 22: 136. 1921. TYPE: U.S.A. Flor¬ field experience by Daniel F. Austin, John Beckner, ida: Volusia Co., hammock between Volusia Donald Blake, and Roger Hammer.) and Ocean City, 4 May 1921, Small 8679 (lec- The second, more tropical taxon observed in totype, designated by Eckenwalder (1980), Florida seems clearly the widespread West Indian NY; isolectotypes, DUKE, FLAS, GH). 364 Novon Within Florida two morphologically recognizable acknowledged in he above text) lor their generosity races of Zamia may be distinguished, the individ¬ in sharing field information, and the curators of the uals of which retain their differences under uniform New York Botanical Garden for the loan of speci¬ culture: the widespread Z. floridana and the more mens critical to this study. restricted east coast Z. umbrosa. [From 1962 through 1972, 29 plants from five populations (four I .iterature Cited of Z. floridana, one of Z. umbrosa) were maintained under glass in Gainesville, and periodically mea¬ Bailey, V. L. 1962. Revision of the genus Ptelea (Ruta- sured. both in leaflet orientation and length/width eeae). Brittonia 14: 1^15. -. S. B. Herl n & H. E. Bailey. 1970. Ptelea Irifol- ratios, plants of Z. umbrosa (from Flagler County) iata ssp. trifoliata (Rutaceae) in deciduous forest re¬ remained distinct, while those from other localities gions of eastern North America. Brittonia 22: 346—358. were indistinguishable both within and among pop¬ Boissier, E. 1862, 1866. Subordo Euphorbieae. DC. Prodr. ulations.] Even so, both Florida representatives are 15(2): 3-188; 1261-1269. undoubtedly “founder effect" chance selections Boufford, I). E. 1982. Notes on Peperomia (Piperaeeae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 63: from a morphologically varied Caribbean complex. 317-325. Eckenwalder (1980: 323) made no provision for Burekhalter, R. E. 1992. The genus Nyssa (Cornaeeae) in taxonomic recognition of the differences within the North America: A revision. Sida 15: 323—342. complex, stating: “No coherent system of varieties Chapman, A. W. 1883. El. South. U.S. Suppl. 645. Christman, S. P. & W. S. Judd. 1990. Notes on plants could be devised that was not . . . arbitrary and . . . endemic to Florida scrub. Florida Sci. 53: 52—73. typological. . . . Local botanists are thus left with Clewell, A. E. 1985. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the the somewhat unsatisfactory circumstance of not Florida Panhandle. IJniv. Presses of Florida, Tallahas¬ being able to give taxonomic recognition to distinc¬ see. tive variants that occur in their region. . . Since Eckenwalder, J. E. 1980. Taxonomy of the West Indian cycads. J. Arnold Arbor. 61: 701—722. not all local botanists are content to be so con¬ Eernald, M. L. 1943. Erianthus brevibarbis and other spe¬ strained, varietal status is here proposed for Zamia cies. Rhodora 45: 246—255. umbrosa. Beyond these two varieties, the extreme Godfrey, R. K. 1988. A'yssa. Ptelea. In: Trees, Shrubs, and narrow-leaflet form of the Dade County rocklands, Woody Vines of Northern Florida and Adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. as well as plants from Putnam and (day Counties -& J. W. Wooten. 1981. Ludwigia. In: Aquatic and locally known as the Palatka Giant (with leaves to Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Dicoty¬ 1.3 m), are yet to be integrated into a conventional ledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. nomenclatural structure. Govaerts, R.. I). G. Frodin & A. Radcliffe. 2000. World Eckenwalder (1980), relying heavily on leaflet Checklist and Bibliography of Euphorhiaceae. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2: 792. width and vein number, extended Zamia pumila L., Greuter, W., J. McNeill. E. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. a name initially applied to plants from Hispaniola, Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras, I). H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, to all members of the genus in the West Indies anil J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland & I). L. Hawks- Florida. Stevenson (1987), by incorporating leaflet worth (editors). 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code). Regnum Veg. 138. shape and dentieulation and cone shape and color, Hansen, B. F. & R P. Wunderlin. 1986. Pentalinon Voigt, was able to distinguish six species within this area, an earlier name for Urechtites Muell. Arg. (Apocyna- one of which (his Z. integrifolia) ranges to Florida; ceae). Taxon 35: 166—168. he later (1991) examined the genus as found in the Herndon, A. 1994 Euphorbia graminea (Euphorhiaceae) United States in satisfying detail. Landry (1993) new to Florida. Sida 16: 208—209. Hooker, W. J. & C. A. Walker Arnott. 1841. Piperaeeae. has followed Stevenson in recognizing the Florida P 96 in: Rot. Beechey Voy. Henry G. Bohn, London. plant as specifically distinct from the all-inclusive Howard, R. A. 1989. Urechites. In: Flora of the Lesser Z. pumila of Eckenwalder. However, Eckenwalder Antilles 6: 115. (pers. comm., Sep. 1977), though he did not himself Huft, M. J. 1979. A Monograph of Euphorbia section Ti- thymalopsis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, use the name, appears to have been the first to note Ann Arbor. the familiar Zamia integrifolia Aiton was nomen- James, C. W. 1957. A new variety of Stipulicida setacea. claturally superfluous when published, and is thus Rhodora 59: 98. illegitimate; the Florida segregate, il recognized at Judd, W. S. 1983. The taxonomic status of Stipulicida fil- specific rank, is Z. floridana A. DC. iformis (Caryophyllaceae). Sida 10: 33—36. Krai, R. 1960. A revision of Asimina and Deeringolham- Acknowledgments. 1 thank D. E. Boufford, W. nus (Annonaceae). Brittonia 12: 233—278. kurz, H. & R. K. Godfrey. 1962. iS'yssa. In: Trees of North¬ S. Judd, C.-l. Peng, K. I). Perkins, G. L. Webster, ern Florida. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville. R. L. Wilbur, and R. P. Wunderlin for their sug¬ Landry, G. P. 199.3. Zamiaceae. In: Flora N. America 3: gestions in review of this paper, many others (some 347—349. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Volume 11, Number 3 Ward 365 2001 Combinations in Florida Flora Nash, G. V. 1895. Notes on some Florida plants. Bull. -. 1991. The Zamiaceae in the southeastern United Torrey Bot. Club 22: 141—161. States. J. Arnold Arbor., Suppl. Ser. 1: 367-384. Nuttall, T. 1822. Catalogue of plants growing in east-Flor- Webster, G. L. 1967. The genera of Euphorbiaceae in the ida. Amer. J. Sci. 5: 286-304. southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 48: 303- Pax, F. & K. Hoffmann. 1931. Euphorbiaceae. In: Nat. 4.30. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2. 19c: 1 1-233. -. 1994. Synopsis of the genera and suprageneric Peet, R. K. 1993. A taxonomic study of Aristida stricta taxa of Euphorbiaceae. Ann. Misouri Bot. Gard. 81: 33— and A. beyrichiana. Rhodora 95: 25—37. 144. Peng, C. I. 1989. The systematics and evolution of Lud- Webster, R. I). & R. B. Shaw. 1995. Taxonomy of the wigia sect. Microcarpium (Onagraceae). Ann. Missouri native North American species of Saccharurn (Poaceae: Bot. Card. 76: 221-302. Andropogoneae). Sida 16: 551-580. Small, J. K. 1921. Historic trails, by land and by water, Wheeler, L. C. 1943. The genera of the living Euphor- a record of exploration in Florida in December 1919. J. bieae. Amer. Midi. Naturalist 30: 456—503. New York Bot. Card. 22: 193—222. Wilbur, R. L. 1970. Taxonomic and nomenclatural obser¬ -. 1933. Tithymalopsis, IJrechites. In: Manual of tbe vations on the eastern North American genus Asimina Southeastern Flora. Published by the author, New York. (Annonaceae). J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 86: 88—96. Stevenson, D. W. 1987. Again the West Indian zamias. Wunderlin, R. P. 1998. Ptelea. In: Guide to the Vascular Fairchild Trop. Card. Bull. 42: 23—27. Plants of Florida. Univ. Presses of Florida, Gainesville.