Difference between revisions of "Sagittaria isoetiformis"
Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 6:115, plate 53. 1895.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|place=6:115, plate 53. 1895 | |place=6:115, plate 53. 1895 | ||
|year=1895 | |year=1895 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |special_status={{Treatment/ID/Special_status | ||
| + | |code=F | ||
| + | |label=Illustrated | ||
| + | }}{{Treatment/ID/Special_status | ||
| + | |code=E | ||
| + | |label=Endemic | ||
}} | }} | ||
|basionyms= | |basionyms= | ||
| Line 23: | Line 30: | ||
|elevation=0–100 m | |elevation=0–100 m | ||
|distribution=Ala.;Fla.;Ga.;N.C.;S.C. | |distribution=Ala.;Fla.;Ga.;N.C.;S.C. | ||
| − | |discussion=<p>Sagittaria isoetiformis has often been misidentified as Sagittaria teres (E. O. Beal 1960b). The two species can be separated, however: S. teres has nearly terete phyllodia, whereas S. isoetiformis has flattened phyllodia (R. K. Godfrey and P. Adams 1964). A study of the genetics of the two species shows them to be genetically different, and the data indicate the two taxa actually should be considered at the specific level. The two species are capable of CAM photosynthesis, a process very uncommon in the genus and found among none of their supposedly closely related species (A. L. Edwards, pers. comm.).</p> | + | |discussion=<p><i>Sagittaria isoetiformis</i> has often been misidentified as <i>Sagittaria teres</i> (E. O. Beal 1960b). The two species can be separated, however: <i>S. teres</i> has nearly terete phyllodia, whereas <i>S. isoetiformis</i> has flattened phyllodia (R. K. Godfrey and P. Adams 1964). A study of the genetics of the two species shows them to be genetically different, and the data indicate the two taxa actually should be considered at the specific level. The two species are capable of CAM photosynthesis, a process very uncommon in the genus and found among none of their supposedly closely related species (A. L. Edwards, pers. comm.).</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references={{Treatment/Reference | |references={{Treatment/Reference | ||
| Line 35: | Line 42: | ||
-->{{#Taxon: | -->{{#Taxon: | ||
name=Sagittaria isoetiformis | name=Sagittaria isoetiformis | ||
| − | |||
|authority=J. G. Smith | |authority=J. G. Smith | ||
|rank=species | |rank=species | ||
| Line 49: | Line 55: | ||
|publication title=Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. | |publication title=Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. | ||
|publication year=1895 | |publication year=1895 | ||
| − | |special status= | + | |special status=Illustrated;Endemic |
| − | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V22/V22_170.xml |
|genus=Sagittaria | |genus=Sagittaria | ||
|species=Sagittaria isoetiformis | |species=Sagittaria isoetiformis | ||
Latest revision as of 20:29, 5 November 2020
Herbs, perennial, to 65 cm; rhizomes absent; stolons present; corms present. Leaves emersed or submersed, phyllodial or rarely dilated apically, flattened, 4–40 cm × 0.05–0.4(–0.5) cm. Inflorescences racemes, of 1–5 whorls, emersed, 2–20 × 1.5–12 cm; peduncles 7–59 cm; bracts connate more than or equal to ¼ total length, oblanceolate, 0.2–0.3 mm, delicate, not papillose; fruiting pedicels spreading, cylindric, 0.5–6 cm. Flowers to 1.3 cm diam.; sepals recurved to spreading, not enclosing flower; filaments dilated, shorter than anthers, minutely tomentose; pistillate pedicellate, without ring of sterile stamens. Fruiting heads 0.5–1 cm diam.; achenes obovoid, abaxially keeled, 2.2–2.8 × 1.5–2 mm, beaked; faces not tuberculate, wings 1–2, ± entire, glands 3–5; beak lateral, incurved-erect, 0.2 mm.
Phenology: Flowering summer–fall.
Habitat: Shores of sandy-bottomed lakes, se coastal plain
Elevation: 0–100 m
Distribution
Ala., Fla., Ga., N.C., S.C.
Discussion
Sagittaria isoetiformis has often been misidentified as Sagittaria teres (E. O. Beal 1960b). The two species can be separated, however: S. teres has nearly terete phyllodia, whereas S. isoetiformis has flattened phyllodia (R. K. Godfrey and P. Adams 1964). A study of the genetics of the two species shows them to be genetically different, and the data indicate the two taxa actually should be considered at the specific level. The two species are capable of CAM photosynthesis, a process very uncommon in the genus and found among none of their supposedly closely related species (A. L. Edwards, pers. comm.).