(2787) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Graffenrieda</i> against <i>Centronia</i> (<i>Melastomataceae</i>: <i>Merianieae</i>)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(2787) Graffenrieda DC., Prodr. 3: 105. Mar (med.) 1828 [Melastomat.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: G. rotundifolia (Bonpl.) DC. (Rhexia rotundifolia Bonpl.). (=) Centronia D. Don in Mem. Wern. Nat. Hist. Soc. 4: 284, 314. 1823 (post 17 Mai), nom. rej. prop. Typus: C. laurifolia D. Don. Phylogenetic analyses of the tribe Merianieae (Melastomataceae) have shown that the type of Centronia D. Don is resolved within Graffenrieda DC., which is otherwise resolved as monophyletic (Dellinger & al. in New Phytol. 221: 1136–1149. 2018, in Commun. Biol. 2: 453. 2019; Caetano & al. in Perspect. Pl. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46: 125556. 2020; Reginato & al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 148: 106815. 2020). Centronia has long been considered a genus with problematic delimitations, especially when compared with Graffenrieda and Meriania Sw. (Wurdack in Lasser, Fl. Venezuela 8: 226. 1973, in Phytologia 35: 1–13. 1976; Almeda in Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., ser. 4, 48: 141–152. 1993; Mendoza & Fernández in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid. 69: 259–294. 2012). To date, 21 species names have been validly published in Centronia. However, only five, including the type, C. laurifolia D. Don, are currently accepted in the genus as the remaining have been transferred to Meriania (Wurdack, l.c. 1976, in Brittonia 39: 159–164. 1987; Almeda, l.c. 1993; Mendoza & Fernández, l.c.) or synonymized under Meriania or Wurdastom B. Walln. (Melastomataceae: Cyphostyleae) (Mendoza & Fernández, l.c.; Mendoza in Acta Bot. Mex. 127: e1642. 2020). The five species currently recognized in Centronia are distributed in the Andes from Colombia to Peru, or the Guayana Shield in Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil, with all of them having been rarely collected from very restricted populations (Don in Mem. Wern. Nat. Hist. Soc. 4: 314–315. 1822; Triana in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 28: 71–72. 1873; Macbride in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 13: 326–328. 1941; Wurdack in Bot. Mus. Leafl. 18: 160–166. 1958, in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 10: 135–186. 1964, l.c. 1973; Berry & al., Fl. Venez. Guayana 6: 263–528. 2001; Baumgratz & al., Catal. Pl. Fung. Brasil 2: 1236–1278. 2010; Almeda & al., Catal. Pl. Líquen. Colombia: 1585–1664. 2016). Graffenrieda, on the other hand, includes ca. 70 recognized species from 88 validly published species and infraspecies names, and it has a wider distribution (and often more numerous herbarium collections) from southern Mexico and the Antilles to Bolivia and Brazil (Almeda in Davidse & al., Fl. Mesoamer. 4: 164–337. 2009; Goldenberg & Meirelles in Syst. Bot. 36: 119–123. 2011; Michelangeli & Goldenberg in Brittonia 66: 170–173. 2013; Michelangeli & Ulloa in Phytotaxa 77: 43–48. 2013; Almeda & al. in Phytotaxa 163: 39–47. 2014; Lima & al. in Kew Bull. 72: 47. 2017; Murillo & al. in Phytotaxa 391: 131–137. 2019). Centronia is distinguished from other genera in the Merianieae by the combination of large flowers, calyptrate calyx, and anthers with a dorsal connective appendage (Wurdack, l.c. 1973). The presence of a second dorsal connective appendage has also been associated with species of Centronia (Wurdack, l.c. 1973), but while this character is present in many of the species formerly treated in this genus, it is notoriously absent in the type and a few other species. Graffenrieda also has anthers with dorsal connective appendages and usually smaller flowers. While most species of Graffenrieda have a calyx opening by separate lobes, some species do have a calyptrate calyx, and many species with this character had been previously placed in Calyptrella Naudin, but they are all now treated in Graffenrieda (Williams in Fieldiana, Bot. 29: 562–564. 1963; Goldenberg & Meirelles, l.c.). Thus, based on both molecular data and morphological characters, there is no doubt of the position of Centronia laurifolia within Graffenrieda. Of the remaining four species in Centronia not yet included in molecular phylogenetic analyses, one (C. sessilifolia Cogn.) may be better placed in Meriania, while the other three have staminal characters consistent with Graffenrieda (Wurdack, l.c. 1976; Mendoza & Fernández, l.c.). Following nomenclatural priority, 70 species of Graffenrieda would require new combinations or new names in Centronia in order to achieve monophyletic genera. Because Graffenrieda is more widely distributed and many species are locally common, many tropical botanists and Melastomataceae specialists are familiar with this genus, while the knowledge and distribution of Centronia is more limited. Moreover, the concept of Centronia has probably been more closely associated with species now in Meriania, even if the type has characters that place it together with Graffenrieda. In summary, the conservation of Graffenrieda in favor of Centronia would significantly reduce the number of necessary new combinations or new names (from 70 to at most 4), and the number of specimens affected in herbaria. This action would be in line with other recent conservations in Melastomataceae aimed at preserving nomenclatural stability (e.g., Michelangeli & al. in Taxon 65: 892–893. 2016). JSM: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-5811 FAM: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-143X FA: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4916-8897
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».