familyRosaceae
subfamilyRosaceae subfam. Amygdaloideae
genusCrataegus
sectionCrataegus sect. Coccineae
speciesCrataegus chrysocarpa
Difference between revisions of "Crataegus chrysocarpa var. blanchardii"
J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 1: 1009. 2007.
Endemic
Basionym: Crataegus blanchardii Sargent Rhodora 7: 218. 1905 (as blanchardi)
Synonyms: C. irrasa var. blanchardii (Sargent) Eggleston
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|label=Endemic | |label=Endemic | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |basionyms={{Treatment/ID/ | + | |basionyms={{Treatment/ID/Basionym |
|name=Crataegus blanchardii | |name=Crataegus blanchardii | ||
|authority=Sargent | |authority=Sargent | ||
| + | |rank=species | ||
| + | |publication_title=Rhodora | ||
| + | |publication_place=7: 218. 1905 (as blanchardi) | ||
}} | }} | ||
|synonyms={{Treatment/ID/Synonym | |synonyms={{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=C. irrasa var. blanchardii | |name=C. irrasa var. blanchardii | ||
|authority=(Sargent) Eggleston | |authority=(Sargent) Eggleston | ||
| + | |rank=variety | ||
}} | }} | ||
|hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Amygdaloideae;Rosaceae tribe Gillenieae;Crataegus;Crataegus sect. Coccineae;Crataegus (sect. Coccineae) ser. Rotundifoliae;Crataegus chrysocarpa;Crataegus chrysocarpa var. blanchardii | |hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Amygdaloideae;Rosaceae tribe Gillenieae;Crataegus;Crataegus sect. Coccineae;Crataegus (sect. Coccineae) ser. Rotundifoliae;Crataegus chrysocarpa;Crataegus chrysocarpa var. blanchardii | ||
| Line 33: | Line 37: | ||
|elevation=10–200 m | |elevation=10–200 m | ||
|distribution=Que.;Minn.;N.Y.;Vt. | |distribution=Que.;Minn.;N.Y.;Vt. | ||
| − | |discussion=<p>Variety blanchardii is usually like var. chrysocarpa, but with 20 pink anthers; it ranges from Minnesota and Quebec to Vermont and New York. Eggleston perhaps combined it under Crataegus irrasa because of its leaves being (in specimens seen by him) more like C. irrasa in shape and size than those of C. chrysocarpa. The type material, however, is like C. chrysocarpa in these features.</p> | + | |discussion=<p>Variety blanchardii is usually like <i></i>var.<i> chrysocarpa</i>, but with 20 pink anthers; it ranges from Minnesota and Quebec to Vermont and New York. Eggleston perhaps combined it under <i>Crataegus irrasa</i> because of its leaves being (in specimens seen by him) more like <i>C. irrasa</i> in shape and size than those of <i>C. chrysocarpa</i>. The type material, however, is like <i>C. chrysocarpa</i> in these features.</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references= | |references= | ||
| Line 42: | Line 46: | ||
-->{{#Taxon: | -->{{#Taxon: | ||
name=Crataegus chrysocarpa var. blanchardii | name=Crataegus chrysocarpa var. blanchardii | ||
| − | |||
|authority=(Sargent) J. B. Phipps | |authority=(Sargent) J. B. Phipps | ||
|rank=variety | |rank=variety | ||
| Line 57: | Line 60: | ||
|publication year=2007 | |publication year=2007 | ||
|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_1030.xml |
|subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Amygdaloideae | |subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Amygdaloideae | ||
|tribe=Rosaceae tribe Gillenieae | |tribe=Rosaceae tribe Gillenieae | ||
Latest revision as of 22:53, 5 November 2020
Shrubs, 20–30 dm. Leaves: blade ovate to rhombic-ovate, base ± cuneate, sinuses: max LII 15–20%, lobe apex acute, veins 3–5 per side, abaxial surface glabrous or veins hairy, adaxial appressed-scabrous, glabrescent. Inflorescences: branches pubescent. Flowers 15–20 mm diam.; hypanthium pubescent; stamens 20, anthers pink. Pomes red, suborbicular, 8–10 mm diam., glabrous.
Phenology: Flowering May; fruiting Sep–Oct.
Habitat: Open brush
Elevation: 10–200 m
Distribution
Que., Minn., N.Y., Vt.
Discussion
Variety blanchardii is usually like var. chrysocarpa, but with 20 pink anthers; it ranges from Minnesota and Quebec to Vermont and New York. Eggleston perhaps combined it under Crataegus irrasa because of its leaves being (in specimens seen by him) more like C. irrasa in shape and size than those of C. chrysocarpa. The type material, however, is like C. chrysocarpa in these features.
Selected References
None.
Lower Taxa
None.