Question re source(s) for variety descriptions for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Nature Talk
21

OH! Well, that will help me with my IDs. :) I do see the yellowish-green leaves and it confuses me. Did you get that from an eBook? I saw that one should be available but on the IAS website, could not find a link on how to purchase it.

1 Like
22

No, unfortunately the plans to make an ebook never panned out (at least as of my last discussion with Bill earlier this year).

1 Like
23

Do you, or does anybody, know what publication is referenced here (specifically)?

image
image1940×700 326 KB

24

“[Field & Laboratory; Contributions from the Science Departments. [Southern Methodist University]”
https://www.ipni.org/n/23635-2

(see also:
https://www.ipni.org/?q=aster%20lateriflorus
https://www.ipni.org/?q=Symphyotrichum%20lateriflorum
for more infraspecific fun)

1 Like
25

Been to the last two many times. The first one, though, had escaped me. Thanks, Cassi!

1 Like
26

And of course I added a Field & Laboratory Wikipedia stub. :roll_eyes:

27

To any and all – question.

Linnaeus Latin Solidago lateriflora I sometimes see referenced as Solidago lateriflorus. When I plug Solidago lateriflora into Google Translate from Latin to English, it translates it to Solidago lateriflorus. Which is correct? :)

28

Solidago lateriflora. Plant genera ending in “-go” in Latin are, traditionally, feminine, and Linnaeus assigned feminine epithets to it in Species Plantarum; see the protologue. (For the many genera that don’t have a clear classical derivation with which to fix their gender, gender is established by the usage of the first person to define that genus.)

I’m not sure how much formal grammar is actually built into Google Translate’s backend, so I wouldn’t necessarily trust it to get agreement of number and gender right in cases like this, where “Solidago” is functionally a proper noun.

1 Like
29

Thank you! I should know that from having taken Spanish way back when. Now I wish I had paid more attention when my former Latin teacher mother tried to teach me some.

30

In his description of Solidago lateriflora, Linnaeus says “Flores & omnia ut in precedentibus,” Google translating that phrase to “Flowers & Everything else is as in the preceding text.” This is on page 879, volume 2. Would this be the directly preceding text, the definition of Solidago altissima (which I believe, if it has remained, is Tall Goldenrod), or would I go back up to the genus level to find what he means as “precedentibus” or “preceding”?

Entirety so nobody has to look it up:
Plantarum – Linneaus, 1753, v2, p879

Solidago lateriflora
4. SOLIDAGO panicula corymbosa : racemis recurvis adscendentibus, caule inferne ramoso floriferoque.
Habitat in America Septentrionali. Kalm.
Planta S. canadensi dimidio minor. Folia nonserrata, molliora, sed uno alterove dente interdum notata. Flores & omnia ut in precedentibus, at caulis inframedium Ramos emittit simplices, caule paulo breviores, apice corymbosos; nullos vero ramos inter corymbum terminaiem caulis & medium seu ramos, quod in hac singulare.

And what does he mean by “Planta S. canadensi dimidio minor”? (“The plant S. canadensis one half”??)

31

So
 (not just directed at cassi) nobody out there would happen to have a copy of Field & Lab. volume 21, or even this particular article by Shinners? It’s not available electronically that I could see, and I could only find a few Field & Lab. articles online at all, and not botany-related.

“Notes on Texas Compositae–IX” pages 155-162, Field & Lab. 21 (1953).

I’m going to check World Cat for the nearest to me, but pandemic and all


32

Or maybe that means the plant is about half the size of S. canadensi?

33

Hi all,

I am enjoying delving into the literature, learning the chronology of the “discovery” process of this species. Discovering where to find the literature. One article has been particularly helpful which some of you in this field have most likely read:

Wiegand, K.M. (1928). “Aster lateriflorus and some of its relatives”. Rhodora. 30: 161-179. Via Biodiversity Heritage Library.

But it’s really putting them all together that is giving me an idea of two things: the intricacies of what make up an aster, and how complicated we can make it. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum really does have many variations that can be confusing in photos. Perhaps not so much in the field, at least for those I have seen in 3D in my own area.

Regarding sources for variety descriptions, I’m finding them. There is still some literature I can’t get my hands on (or my eyes, rather). I have Wiegand’s article I reference above for angustifolium and tenuipes. I know where to find Shinners’ flagellare, in an old Field & Lab. article which is not available online that I have found. I mentioned that before and have to look into getting a hard or scanned copy. Burgess’ description of spatelliforme and Lindley’s of hirsuticaule were published in Fl. S.E. U.S., also available on BHL, and spatelliforme was moved to varietal status by A.G.Jones in 1984, published in Phytologia. I’m not sure if Jones’ publication of hirsuticaule was its first. Still have to look up Desf. horizontale. (Note: These were all species of Aster at the time and I’m aware the names were slightly different than now – just being lazy.)

S. lateriflorum var. hirsuticaule is still listed as a variety on VASCAN with distribution information. This is the only database in which I find it not listed as a synonym.

Brouillet L, Desmet P, Coursol F, Meades SJ, Favreau M, Anions M, BĂ©lisle P, Gendreau C, Shorthouse D, and contributors (2010+) (4 September 2020). “Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var. hirsuticaule (Lindley ex De Candolle) G.L. Nesom”. data.canadensys.net. Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (VASCAN).

In 1928, in above Wiegand article, he wrote:

Of his var. hirsuticaulis (A. hirsuticaulis Lindl., A. miser var. hirsuticaulis T. & G.) Dr. Gray says: “founded only on specimens from Albany, N.Y., Beck in herb. Torr. & Lindl., is a singular form, probably growing in much shade, with long and narrow leaves, as of A. vimineus, the midrib of these beneath and the stem very hirsute. Other forms in Torr. & Gray, Fl., are ambiguous between this and A. vimineus.” In his description of typical A. diffusus Dr. Gray says further: “either pubescent or almost glabrous.” In recent years the name var. hirsuticaulis has sometimes been erroneously applied to the hairy forms of A. lateriflorus in distinction to the “typical” or glabrous type, while at other times it has been applied to narrow-leaved plants, with little reference to the degree of pubescence. The gradation in pubescence is so gradual, however, and the occurrence of wholly glabrous plants so infrequent, that no varieties based on pubescence can well be made. Also our narrow leaved var. angustifolius may be either hairy or glabrous. Certainly if applied to either narrow-leaved forms of A. lateriflorus, or to hairy-stemmed forms, it becomes a source of constant confusion, as these characters are neither independent in occurrence nor coexistent. The name var. hirsuticaulis may be restricted, therefore, to the original specimens, and dropped from general use.

So, in 1928, Wiegand rejected it for the reasons he gave. Yet, in G.L.Nesom’s “Review of the taxonomy of Aster sensu lato (Asteraceae: Astereae), emphasizing the New World species” published 1994 in Phytologia 77:285-286, Aster lateriflorus var. hirsuticaulis is treated and placed in Symphyotrichum with the other 5 varieties. So at that point, it wasn’t dead, as was said in a previous post in this thread by @kweitemier. The non-variety that doesn’t want to die?

If I counted correctly, by 1994, after Linneaus’ original description, there had been fifteen species names and twenty varieties described. All for the same little plant.

Elizabeth

34

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.