Difference between revisions of "Geum virginianum"
Sp. Pl. 1: 500. 1753.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|name=Geum flavum | |name=Geum flavum | ||
|authority=(Porter) E. P. Bicknell | |authority=(Porter) E. P. Bicknell | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | |rank=species |
| + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=G. hirsutum | |name=G. hirsutum | ||
|authority=Muhlenberg ex Link | |authority=Muhlenberg ex Link | ||
| + | |rank=species | ||
}} | }} | ||
|hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae;Rosaceae tribe Colurieae;Geum;Geum virginianum | |hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae;Rosaceae tribe Colurieae;Geum;Geum virginianum | ||
| Line 34: | Line 36: | ||
|elevation=0–700 m | |elevation=0–700 m | ||
|distribution=Ont.;Ala.;Ark.;Conn.;Del.;D.C.;Ga.;Ill.;Ind.;Ky.;Md.;Mass.;Mich.;Mo.;N.J.;N.Y.;N.C.;Ohio;Okla.;Pa.;R.I.;S.C.;Tenn.;Vt.;Va.;W.Va. | |distribution=Ont.;Ala.;Ark.;Conn.;Del.;D.C.;Ga.;Ill.;Ind.;Ky.;Md.;Mass.;Mich.;Mo.;N.J.;N.Y.;N.C.;Ohio;Okla.;Pa.;R.I.;S.C.;Tenn.;Vt.;Va.;W.Va. | ||
| − | |discussion=<p>Geum virginianum has been confused nomenclaturally with G. laciniatum. B. L. Robinson and M. L. Fernald (1908) and J. K. Small (1933) misapplied the name G. virginianum to the species correctly named G. laciniatum, and they used the names G. flavum (Robinson and Fernald) and G. hirsutum (Small) for what is correctly named G. virginianum. Much of what is named G. virginianum in older herbarium collections is actually G. laciniatum.</p><!-- | + | |discussion=<p><i>Geum virginianum</i> has been confused nomenclaturally with <i>G. laciniatum</i>. B. L. Robinson and M. L. Fernald (1908) and J. K. Small (1933) misapplied the name <i>G. virginianum</i> to the species correctly named <i>G. laciniatum</i>, and they used the names <i>G. flavum</i> (Robinson and Fernald) and <i>G. hirsutum</i> (Small) for what is correctly named <i>G. virginianum</i>. Much of what is named <i>G. virginianum</i> in older herbarium collections is actually <i>G. laciniatum</i>.</p><!-- |
| − | --><p>In habit and leaf form, Geum virginianum is similar to G. canadense. Geum virginianum differs in having cream petals shorter than the sepals (versus white and usually equal to or longer), the largest stipules of the cauline leaves 20–48 × 10–35 mm (versus smaller), and the stems hirsute to densely hirsute (versus glabrate to downy with only scattered longer hairs). The variability within G. canadense is so great that for some specimens it is difficult to determine whether they belong to G. canadense or G. virginianum.</p><!-- | + | --><p>In habit and leaf form, <i>Geum virginianum</i> is similar to <i>G. canadense</i>. <i>Geum virginianum</i> differs in having cream petals shorter than the sepals (versus white and usually equal to or longer), the largest stipules of the cauline leaves 20–48 × 10–35 mm (versus smaller), and the stems hirsute to densely hirsute (versus glabrate to downy with only scattered longer hairs). The variability within <i>G. canadense</i> is so great that for some specimens it is difficult to determine whether they belong to <i>G. canadense</i> or <i>G. virginianum</i>.</p><!-- |
| − | --><p>L. A. Raynor (1952) believed Geum virginianum to be an F1 hybrid between G. aleppicum and G. canadense. K. R. Robertson (1974) acknowledged that some herbarium specimens assignable to G. virginianum from the area where G. aleppicum and G. canadense are sympatric have mostly aborted pollen and may represent natural hybrids. He pointed out that farther south, where G. aleppicum is absent, specimens of G. virginianum appear fully fertile and seem to represent a valid species.</p> | + | --><p>L. A. Raynor (1952) believed <i>Geum virginianum</i> to be an F1 hybrid between <i>G. aleppicum</i> and <i>G. canadense</i>. K. R. Robertson (1974) acknowledged that some herbarium specimens assignable to <i>G. virginianum</i> from the area where <i>G. aleppicum</i> and <i>G. canadense</i> are sympatric have mostly aborted pollen and may represent natural hybrids. He pointed out that farther south, where <i>G. aleppicum</i> is absent, specimens of <i>G. virginianum</i> appear fully fertile and seem to represent a valid species.</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references= | |references= | ||
| Line 45: | Line 47: | ||
-->{{#Taxon: | -->{{#Taxon: | ||
name=Geum virginianum | name=Geum virginianum | ||
| − | |||
|authority=Linnaeus | |authority=Linnaeus | ||
|rank=species | |rank=species | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
|publication year=1753 | |publication year=1753 | ||
|special status=Endemic | |special status=Endemic | ||
| − | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V9/V9_101.xml |
|subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae | |subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae | ||
|tribe=Rosaceae tribe Colurieae | |tribe=Rosaceae tribe Colurieae | ||
Latest revision as of 22:53, 5 November 2020
Plants leafy-stemmed. Stems 25–110 cm, puberulent and hirsute to densely hirsute, some hairs 2–2.5 mm. Leaves: basal 12–25 cm, blade simple or pinnate, major leaflets 3–5, plus 0–4 minor basal ones, terminal leaflet slightly larger than major laterals; cauline 4–15(–23) cm, stipules ± free, 11–48 × 6–35 mm, blade 3-foliolate or simple and 3-lobed to unlobed. Inflorescences 3–14-flowered. Pedicels puberulent, sometimes with scattered hairs, eglandular. Flowers erect; epicalyx bractlets 1–1.5 mm; hypanthium green; sepals spreading but soon reflexed, 3–6 mm; petals spreading, cream, oblong to elliptic, (1.5–)2–3.5 mm, shorter than sepals, apex rounded. Fruiting tori sessile, densely bristly, hairs 1–2.3 mm. Fruiting styles geniculate-jointed, proximal segment persistent, (3–)4.5–7 mm, apex hooked, glabrate, distal segment deciduous, 1–2 mm, pilose in basal 1/2, hairs much longer than diam. of style.
Phenology: Flowering summer.
Habitat: Mostly forests, river bottoms to dry uplands, rocky slopes, oak-hickory woods
Elevation: 0–700 m
Distribution
Ont., Ala., Ark., Conn., Del., D.C., Ga., Ill., Ind., Ky., Md., Mass., Mich., Mo., N.J., N.Y., N.C., Ohio, Okla., Pa., R.I., S.C., Tenn., Vt., Va., W.Va.
Discussion
Geum virginianum has been confused nomenclaturally with G. laciniatum. B. L. Robinson and M. L. Fernald (1908) and J. K. Small (1933) misapplied the name G. virginianum to the species correctly named G. laciniatum, and they used the names G. flavum (Robinson and Fernald) and G. hirsutum (Small) for what is correctly named G. virginianum. Much of what is named G. virginianum in older herbarium collections is actually G. laciniatum.
In habit and leaf form, Geum virginianum is similar to G. canadense. Geum virginianum differs in having cream petals shorter than the sepals (versus white and usually equal to or longer), the largest stipules of the cauline leaves 20–48 × 10–35 mm (versus smaller), and the stems hirsute to densely hirsute (versus glabrate to downy with only scattered longer hairs). The variability within G. canadense is so great that for some specimens it is difficult to determine whether they belong to G. canadense or G. virginianum.
L. A. Raynor (1952) believed Geum virginianum to be an F1 hybrid between G. aleppicum and G. canadense. K. R. Robertson (1974) acknowledged that some herbarium specimens assignable to G. virginianum from the area where G. aleppicum and G. canadense are sympatric have mostly aborted pollen and may represent natural hybrids. He pointed out that farther south, where G. aleppicum is absent, specimens of G. virginianum appear fully fertile and seem to represent a valid species.
Selected References
None.