Difference between revisions of "Loeflingia squarrosa"
in J. Torrey and A. Gray,Fl. N. Amer. 1: 174. 1838.
FNA>Volume Importer |
FNA>Volume Importer |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|name=Loeflingia pusilla | |name=Loeflingia pusilla | ||
|authority=Curran | |authority=Curran | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym |
|name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. artemisiarum | |name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. artemisiarum | ||
|authority=Barneby & Twisselmann | |authority=Barneby & Twisselmann | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym |
|name=Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum | |name=Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum | ||
|authority=(Barneby & Twisselmann) Dorn | |authority=(Barneby & Twisselmann) Dorn | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym |
|name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. cactorum | |name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. cactorum | ||
|authority=Barneby & Twisselmann | |authority=Barneby & Twisselmann | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym |
|name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. texana | |name=Loeflingia squarrosa subsp. texana | ||
|authority=(Hooker) Barneby & Twisselmann | |authority=(Hooker) Barneby & Twisselmann | ||
| − | }}{{Treatment/ID/Synonym | + | }} {{Treatment/ID/Synonym |
|name=Loeflingia texana | |name=Loeflingia texana | ||
|authority=unknown | |authority=unknown | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
|elevation=0-2100 m | |elevation=0-2100 m | ||
|distribution=Ariz.;Ark.;Calif.;Kans.;Nebr.;Nev.;Okla.;Oreg.;Tex.;Utah;Wash.;Wyo.;Mexico (Sonora). | |distribution=Ariz.;Ark.;Calif.;Kans.;Nebr.;Nev.;Okla.;Oreg.;Tex.;Utah;Wash.;Wyo.;Mexico (Sonora). | ||
| − | |discussion=<p>R. C. Barneby and E. C. Twisselmann (1970) recognized four subspecies of Loeflingia squarrosa, for the most part allopatric. After a reevaluation of the characters used in their key, we feel that those entities are best regarded as geographical races of the species. This is justified largely by both the overlap in expressions of and the lack of correlation of the characters. Barneby and Twisselmann placed major emphasis on habit and stature, including the position of the primary dichotomy of the plant and the location of intermediate monochasial branching subsequent to last branching, if present. In their words, “We have developed an objective formula for describing the permutations of branching, but believe that the intangible quality of habit permits intuitive sorting of material into categories that coincide with comprehensive dispersal patterns.” They used, in addition to habit, the size and stiffness of stipules and sepal spurs, size of sepals and their orientation, size and shape of capsules, and size of seeds to discriminate between subspecies.</p> | + | |discussion=<p>R. C. Barneby and E. C. Twisselmann (1970) recognized four subspecies of <i>Loeflingia squarrosa</i>, for the most part allopatric. After a reevaluation of the characters used in their key, we feel that those entities are best regarded as geographical races of the species. This is justified largely by both the overlap in expressions of and the lack of correlation of the characters. Barneby and Twisselmann placed major emphasis on habit and stature, including the position of the primary dichotomy of the plant and the location of intermediate monochasial branching subsequent to last branching, if present. In their words, “We have developed an objective formula for describing the permutations of branching, but believe that the intangible quality of habit permits intuitive sorting of material into categories that coincide with comprehensive dispersal patterns.” They used, in addition to habit, the size and stiffness of stipules and sepal spurs, size of sepals and their orientation, size and shape of capsules, and size of seeds to discriminate between subspecies.</p> |
|tables= | |tables= | ||
|references= | |references= | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
|publication year=1838 | |publication year=1838 | ||
|special status= | |special status= | ||
| − | |source xml=https://jpend@bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation.git/src/ | + | |source xml=https://jpend@bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation.git/src/8f726806613d60c220dc4493de13607dd3150896/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V5/V5_46.xml |
|subfamily=Caryophyllaceae subfam. Polycarpoideae | |subfamily=Caryophyllaceae subfam. Polycarpoideae | ||
|genus=Loeflingia | |genus=Loeflingia | ||
Revision as of 17:39, 18 September 2019
Plants 1–12 cm, covered with stalked glands, somewhat fleshy. Stems stiff, usually dichotomously branched at or near base, variously branched or not distally. Leaves usually connate proximally into short, scarious sheath; stipules filamentous to spinose, 0.4–1.5 mm; blade erect to ± recurved, 0.4–5.5 mm, apex blunt to spine-tipped. Inflorescences often secund. Flowers cleistogamous; sepals erect to squarrose, resembling leaves (especially outer pair), usually with 2 filamentous to stiff lateral spurs, 1.8–6.5 mm, becoming hardened, margins often scarious. Capsules 3-angled, 1.5–3.7 mm, 1/2–4/5 times as long as sepals. Seeds 0.4–0.7 mm.
Phenology: Flowering spring–summer.
Habitat: Sandy, gravelly areas
Elevation: 0-2100 m
Distribution
Ariz., Ark., Calif., Kans., Nebr., Nev., Okla., Oreg., Tex., Utah, Wash., Wyo., Mexico (Sonora).
Discussion
R. C. Barneby and E. C. Twisselmann (1970) recognized four subspecies of Loeflingia squarrosa, for the most part allopatric. After a reevaluation of the characters used in their key, we feel that those entities are best regarded as geographical races of the species. This is justified largely by both the overlap in expressions of and the lack of correlation of the characters. Barneby and Twisselmann placed major emphasis on habit and stature, including the position of the primary dichotomy of the plant and the location of intermediate monochasial branching subsequent to last branching, if present. In their words, “We have developed an objective formula for describing the permutations of branching, but believe that the intangible quality of habit permits intuitive sorting of material into categories that coincide with comprehensive dispersal patterns.” They used, in addition to habit, the size and stiffness of stipules and sepal spurs, size of sepals and their orientation, size and shape of capsules, and size of seeds to discriminate between subspecies.
Selected References
None.