Difference between revisions of "Dasiphora"
Autik. Bot., 167. 1840.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|name=Comocarpa | |name=Comocarpa | ||
|authority=Torrey & A. Gray | |authority=Torrey & A. Gray | ||
− | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | |rank=unranked |
+ | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=Potentilla sect. Comocarpa | |name=Potentilla sect. Comocarpa | ||
|authority=(Torrey & A. Gray) O. Stevens | |authority=(Torrey & A. Gray) O. Stevens | ||
− | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | |rank=section |
+ | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=Potentilla subg. Dasiphora | |name=Potentilla subg. Dasiphora | ||
|authority=(Rafinesque) Jepson | |authority=(Rafinesque) Jepson | ||
− | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | |rank=subgenus |
+ | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=Potentilla sect. Fruticosae | |name=Potentilla sect. Fruticosae | ||
|authority=(Döll) Grenier & Godron | |authority=(Döll) Grenier & Godron | ||
− | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | |rank=section |
+ | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym | ||
|name=Potentilla sect. Rhopalostylae | |name=Potentilla sect. Rhopalostylae | ||
|authority=(Th. Wolf) Gu ş uleac | |authority=(Th. Wolf) Gu ş uleac | ||
+ | |rank=section | ||
}} | }} | ||
|hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae;Rosaceae tribe Potentilleae;Dasiphora | |hierarchy=Rosaceae;Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae;Rosaceae tribe Potentilleae;Dasiphora | ||
Line 38: | Line 43: | ||
|distribution=North America;Eurasia. | |distribution=North America;Eurasia. | ||
|discussion=<p>Species ca. 12 (1 in the flora).</p><!-- | |discussion=<p>Species ca. 12 (1 in the flora).</p><!-- | ||
− | --><p>Dasiphora comprises the shrubby cinquefoils, which are well known in the horticultural trade. All species occur in Asia; only D. fruticosa is also native to the flora area. Molecular analysis confirms the distinction of these species from Potentilla (T. Eriksson et al. 1998; M. Lundberg et al. 2009; C. Dobeš and J. Paule 2010), with morphological support provided by the shrubby habit, unique leaflet division, and anther structure (J. Soják 1989). Pentaphylloides Duhamel has been misapplied to this genus (for example, N. H. Holmgren 1997b); that name is based on Potentilla and accordingly not legitimate. Contrary to W. A. Weber and R. C. Wittmann (1996), Dasiphora is not nomenclaturally superfluous; P. A. Rydberg (1898) lectotypified it on P. fruticosa.</p> | + | --><p><i>Dasiphora</i> comprises the shrubby cinquefoils, which are well known in the horticultural trade. All species occur in Asia; only <i>D. fruticosa</i> is also native to the flora area. Molecular analysis confirms the distinction of these species from <i>Potentilla</i> (T. Eriksson et al. 1998; M. Lundberg et al. 2009; C. Dobeš and J. Paule 2010), with morphological support provided by the shrubby habit, unique leaflet division, and anther structure (J. Soják 1989). Pentaphylloides Duhamel has been misapplied to this genus (for example, N. H. Holmgren 1997b); that name is based on <i>Potentilla</i> and accordingly not legitimate. Contrary to W. A. Weber and R. C. Wittmann (1996), <i>Dasiphora</i> is not nomenclaturally superfluous; P. A. Rydberg (1898) lectotypified it on P. fruticosa.</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references={{Treatment/Reference | |references={{Treatment/Reference | ||
Line 62: | Line 67: | ||
|publication year=1840 | |publication year=1840 | ||
|special status= | |special status= | ||
− | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V9/V9_481.xml |
|subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae | |subfamily=Rosaceae subfam. Rosoideae | ||
|tribe=Rosaceae tribe Potentilleae | |tribe=Rosaceae tribe Potentilleae |
Latest revision as of 22:57, 5 November 2020
Shrubs, (0.2–)1–10(–16) dm; taprooted. Stems: number not recorded, prostrate to erect; bark reddish brown or grayish, papery, shredding; lateral short shoots often present (bearing fascicles of leaves); unarmed; villous first year, then glabrous. Leaves deciduous, sometimes persistent, cauline, alternate, usually ± odd-pinnate to subpalmate (jointed beyond stipules and at distal leaflet node), rarely ternate; stipules persistent, proximally adnate to base of petiole, broadly lanceolate to ovate, margins entire; petiole present; blade ± ovate in outline, 0.5–2.6 cm, foliaceous, leaflets (3–)5(–7)[–9], proximal pairs confluent on rachis, linear to narrowly elliptic or oblong, margins flat or revolute, entire, venation pinnate, surfaces glabrous or hairy. Inflorescences terminal and on lateral twigs, solitary flowers or 2–7(–30)-flowered, loosely cymose, glabrous or hairy; bracts present, ± leafy; bracteoles absent. Pedicels present, straight. Flowers occasionally functionally unisexual (plants monoecious), [10–]15–30[–35] mm diam.; epicalyx bractlets 5; hypanthium patelliform to cupulate, 1–2 × 3.5–5 mm, villous; sepals 5, spreading, ovate [broadly elliptic]; petals 5, yellow [white], obovate to orbiculate, longer than sepals; stamens 20 or 25(–30), shorter than petals, filaments filiform, glabrous, theca solitary, horseshoe-shaped, rimming broad connective, dehiscing by continuous marginal slit; torus hemispheric; carpels 30–100, hirsute, styles sub-basal, clavate; ovule 1. Fruits aggregated achenes, individually deciduous, 30–100, obliquely ovoid, 1.4–1.8(–2) mm, hirsute; hypanthium persistent; sepals persistent, erect; styles tardily deciduous, jointed. x = 7.
Distribution
North America, Eurasia.
Discussion
Species ca. 12 (1 in the flora).
Dasiphora comprises the shrubby cinquefoils, which are well known in the horticultural trade. All species occur in Asia; only D. fruticosa is also native to the flora area. Molecular analysis confirms the distinction of these species from Potentilla (T. Eriksson et al. 1998; M. Lundberg et al. 2009; C. Dobeš and J. Paule 2010), with morphological support provided by the shrubby habit, unique leaflet division, and anther structure (J. Soják 1989). Pentaphylloides Duhamel has been misapplied to this genus (for example, N. H. Holmgren 1997b); that name is based on Potentilla and accordingly not legitimate. Contrary to W. A. Weber and R. C. Wittmann (1996), Dasiphora is not nomenclaturally superfluous; P. A. Rydberg (1898) lectotypified it on P. fruticosa.