A revision of taxonomic relation between Oenothera perangusta and O. ersteinensis (Onagraceae) based on morphometric research and statistical analyses
Author
Woźniak-Chodacka, Monika
text
Phytotaxa
2018
2018-12-13
383
1
55
74
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.383.1.3
journal article
10.11646/phytotaxa.383.1.3
1179-3163
13725223
Oenothera ersteinensis
Linder & Jean, Bull. Soc. Bot.
France
116: 523. 1969
.
Type
:—
FRANCE
.
Bas-Rhin
:
Erstein
, at junction of national road 83 with 426 [cultivated from seeds],
July 1968
,
Jean
s.n.
(
holotype
:
LILLE
;
paratype
: STR-40811!).
Figure 3
.
Genetic features:
—Number of chromosomes: 2n=14; Renner’s complexes combination:
♀
cruens
♂
virens
; catenation figure: ring of 14 chromosomes (
Linder & Jean 1969
); permanent translocation heterozygote (
PTH
); main
types
of genomes combination: AB (
Dietrich
et al
1997
).
Distribution:
—Western and Central Europe:
France
,
Germany
,
Belgium
and
Switzerland
(
Rostański
et al.
2010
,
Rostański & Verloove 2015
).
FIGURE 1.
The holotype of
Oenothera perangusta
Gates
(GH-00073029).
FIGURE 2.
The holotype of
Oenothera perangusta
Gates var.
rubricalyx
Gates
(GH-00073030).
FIGURE 3.
The paratype of
Oenothera ersteinensis
Linder & Jean
(STR-40811).
Representatives of the American school of taxonomy treat the names
O. ersteinensis
and
O. perangusta
as synonyms assigned to separate and distinct species within subsect.
Oenothera
,
O. biennis
s.l.
and
O. oakesiana
s.l.
, respectively. In the opinion of those researchers, both taxa are clearly unlike, not only morphologically but also genetically, due to the different haploid genome
types
combinations (
Dietrich
et al.
1997
).
The analysis of the interpretation of examined taxa by European researchers is much more complicated due to the inconsistent usage of particular names. The only one
Oenothera
taxonomist who conducted research on the whole European continent was K. Rostański and that is why mainly his papers were analyzed.
In his earlier publications, Rostański used the name
O. perangusta
(without giving any synonyms) in reference to specimens found in
Russia
(
Rostański 1975
) and
Wales
(
Rostański & Ellis 1979
). In 1985 he proposed a new systematics of subsect.
Oenothera
, in which
O. perangusta
and
O. ersteinensis
were treated as one species (within series
Oenothera
) under the name
O. strigosa
(
Rydberg 1900: 278
)
Mackenzie & Bush (1902: 139)
. After the year 2001, Rostański started to consider
O. ersteinensis
and
O. perangusta
as separate species:
O. perangusta
was supposed to reach Scandinavia and Eastern Europe (
Rostański & Ramst 2001
,
Rostański
et al.
2004
, Rostański 2006,
Rostański & Karlsson 2010
) whereas the range of
O. ersteienensis
was thought to be limited to Western Europe mostly (
Rostański & Meierott 2006
,
Rostański 2007
). However, roughly at the same time, Rostański came back to the conclusion that both names refer to the same taxon (
Rostański 1995
,
Rostański 2007
). Finally, in his latest papers, the status of
O. ersteinensis
and
O. perangusta
is quite unclear; they are considered as separate, but “possible identical” species (
Rostański
et al.
2010
,
Rostański & Verloove 2015
). Such unstable treatment leads to taxonomic and nomenclatural chaos.
In this paper I present the results of morphometric research and statistical analyses performed on specimens labelled as
O. perangusta
,
O. perangusta
var.
rubricalyx
(including the
holotypes
) and
O. ersteinensis
(including the
paratype
). European representatives of two distant species—
O. oakesiana
and
O. biennis
, have served as a background to show the relations between the studied taxa.