Table Of Content

Reviews 385 Reviews R.L. DRESSLER: Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1993.314 pp, 16 plates. ISBN 0-521-45058-6.Price £ 35.00. Thisbookis essentially amuchexpanded and updated versionofDressier’swell known ‘TheOrchids; naturalhistoryand classification’(1981), withouttheparts on natural history. Dressier dividestheorchidfamily in fivesubfamilies: Apostasioideae, Cypripe- dioideae, Epidendroideae, Spiranthoideae, Orchidoideae.The Epidendroideae have swallowedtheVandoideae,whichherecognized inhisearlierbook.Atthe tribaland subtriballevelthere aremanychanges too. Mostofthesechanges reflect increased knowledge andtheresults ofin-dept studies, andarethereforelikely to beimprove- ments.Theclassificationproposed is themostthorough andbest-argued onecurrent- lyavailable. Much is still tentative,however, andeven thenumberofsubfamilies andtheircircumscription can by nomeansbe considered definitive.Dressler is an open-minded scientist, whonever hideshis doubtsand uncertaintiesabout his own system. He wouldbe the first to point outweak spots inhis scheme. In the same spiritIshould liketooffersomecomments and criticisms. Itisonly natural thatDressier is not familiarwitheachandevery of thehundreds of generathatarecurrently recognized intheOrchidaceae.Agrostophyllum, a genus we find heretentatively includedin the subtribeGlomcrinac, is in my opinion mis- placed there,anditsposition inthecladogram onp.216 seems tomehighly dubious. Agrostophyllum fitsmuch betterinthe Podochilinaeon account ofthepresence of endocarpic elaters, eightclavate pollinia with a distinct viscidium, andthe(upper-) lateralinflorescencesproduced by mostspecies, eitheror not inconjunction withter- minalones(A. lateralenever produces terminalinflorescences). The only character state that could possibly separateAgrostophyllum from the other Podochilinaeis foundinthe 'conical' (to call themumbonatewouldbemoreaccurate) stegmata(i.e. silicabodies lining fibre bundles) ofAgrostophyllum, as opposed tothe spherical stegmataoccurring in the Podochilinae sensu Dressier (excluding Chitonochilus, whichisbasedona peloric speciesofAgrostophyllum). Tome, this only seems to indicatethatthe transitionfromumbonateto spherical stegmataoccurred indepen- dently in the Podochilinae,and not justonce intheentire family(p. 25). As to the functionofthesestegmata, Dressier(p. 23) remarks that they are "presumably asort ofstructuralreinforcement."Itappearsmorelikely tothereviewerthattheyare akind ofdefensemechanism,possibly to preventsnailsfromdamaging thevasculartissue. According toDressier(p. 199)"theEriinaeare fairlyuniforminhaving eight pollinia", butSarcostomahas fourpollinia. Iagree, however,thatitisproperly included inthe Eriinae, being closely relatedto Ceratostylis. The hairy roots found in most Eriinae, a characternot mentionedby Dressier, maybe asignificant synapomorphy. Inthegroupofgenerasharing thecharacterstate 'no columnfoot, lip movable' (p. 207, seriesIV-C) only generaare includedwhichdohavea columnfoot,as well as someinwhich thelip is notmovable(e.g. Bogoria, Thrixspermum). On theother hand,in seriesIV-Bwearesupposed tofindgenerapossessing a columnfoot,where- as noneofthelistedgenerahaveone.Clearly, something has gonewrong here. 386 BLUMEA Vol. 39, No. 1/2, 1994 Thereare manycladograms in thisbook, usually calledphylogenetic diagrams, whichillustrateparticular hypothetical phylogenies. As they mostly havebeencon- structed 'by hand' (p. 77), one wondershow these hypotheses came about in the first place. Although thereisakey tothesubtribes, thisbookisnot really usefulas anidentifi- cationguide, as thekey isbasedontechnicalitieswhichareoftendifficultto observe (oreven impossibly so inherbariummaterial),andindividualgeneraareonlylisted, not characterized. Thereis noway toreachkey IX. Thebookis wellproduced andthecolourplates with96photographs show what a diverse lottheorchids are. A fewcorrectionsareofferedhere: ‘Calanthespec.’ (PI. 10f. 56) = C. micrantha Schltr.; 'Glomeraobtusa (PI. 12 f.70)is not thatspecies, butprobably G. aureaSchltr.; 'Mediocalcarabbreviation’ (PL 13f. 76) =M. geni- culatum J.J. Sm.; '‘Bulbophyllum subcubicum’ (PI. 14f. 82, as 'subcubium') re- presents a very different,unrelatedspecies ofBulbophyllum, which Jaap Vermeulen informsmemay beaspecies ofsectionPolyblepharon, PI. 14f.83is placed upside- down. In spiteofthesecriticisms thisis a valuablebook, thateach seriousorchidologist shouldpossess. For therest ofthebotanicalcommunity theearlierwork mentioned inthebeginning is tobe preferred,being amore general introductiontothefascinat- ing Orchid family. AndréSchuiteman D.HUNT: CITESCactaceae Checklist. Royal BotanicGardens, Kew and Interna- tionalOrganization forSucculent Plant Study, 1992. 190pp. Price £ 10.00.ISBN 0-947643-42-7. M. SAJEVA & A.M. ORLANDO: Handbookfor theidentificationoftheCactaceae includedin theAppendix oftheConventionon InternationalTradeinEndangered Species ofWildFaunaand Flora(CITES). In: Piante Grasse, Suppl. of no. 4,Vol. 9, 1989. M. SAJEVA etal.:HandbookfortheidentificationoftheCactaceaeincludedinthe Appendix oftheConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora(CITES). InPiante Grasse, Suppl. ofno.4, Vol. 12, 1992. Hardly any plant grouphasbeenmore extensively collected, grownandstudied by plant-amateurs, thantheCactaceae.Many plant-lovers preferorchids as theirsub- jectofinterest, butthenumberofpeopleactually cultivatingcactaecertainly outnum- bers thosegrowing orchids, carnivorousplants, fuchsiasetc. Theenormous popularity ofthecactaeledto asteady flowofpublications inthe last decades. Scientificpublications as wellas popular onestreatedtaxonomicques- tions, collecting andcollections, cultivationand soon. Ofparticular interest were a greatnumberofarticles injournals dedicatedtothe specialized plant-amateur. The amateur cactologist Backeberg's 'DieCactaceae' (1958-1962) and later 'Cactus Lexicon' (1966, andsubsequent editions) were foralong timeconsideredstandard literaturereference. Reviews 387 Twomaindevelopments enhanced thenecessity fornew standardsinnomencla- ture, as foundin David Hunt's 'CITES CactaceaeChecklist', reviewed here.Firstly many new descriptions were madeby plant-amateurs notfully awareofthenomen- claturalimplications of theirwritings. This ledtoanumberofunnecessary orinvalid names, misinterpretations andoftento unnecessarysplitting. Secondly, rare species becametheobject ofover-collectionand- sometimes- illegal trade. For theimplementation oftheConventionofInternationalTrade inEndangered Species ofWildFaunaandFlora(CITES), a guide, even apreliminary one, was ur- gently needed.TheCITES-fundedproject forthis checklist ledto theestablishment ofa database.Iunderstoodthatfinancing forthe updating ofthedatabase,so thata morecomplete and definitechecklist may bepublished ina few years, is still quite difficult.David Hunt's task was gigantic, and although somecritical remarks have tobe made, heis tobecongratulated withthebook. Thechecklistconsistsoffourparts, including anextensive introductionplus ref- erence literature,alist ofgeneraandprincipal synonyms, the Cactaceaebinomials incurrent usage,as wellas regional checklists forabout35 differentcountriesand regions. Theintroductiondealswitha varietyofsubjects, including more 'technical' questions as wellas principal ones.Itis suggested thatanewmanualon Cactaceae, covering allaccepted andprovisionally accepted species, is tobeexpected by 1995. This is really to be hoped for, butconsidering theenormous task stilllying ahead, and thelackofmoney, onewondershow Huntwillmanage.Itis interesting to note that Hunt's searchforawidely accepted softwareprogrammeendedinusing 'flat' dBaseIII+ data-tables.Experience withcooperation betweenDutchBotanicGardens - allusing differenthard-andsoftwarein mattersofplantcollectionsandspecializa- tions- ledto thesame solutionintheNetherlands.For thecompilation ofdatavari- ous publications were used, the 'European GardenFlora', the 'Cactus Lexicon', 'Repertorium PlantarumSucculentarum',merged withdata from 'IndexKewensis'. Accepted names were distinguished fromsynonyms, provisionally accepted names - like thoseproposed by Backeberg but not mentionedinthe 'European Garden Flora' - are separately indicated,as wellas IUCN conservationratings andCITES Appendix I species. An important remark is thatall names accepted in the above mentionedworks, along withnames reported intradeare included, although they maynot becorrect or valid.ThereforeHuntcorrectly employs the term 'names in current usage' and not 'Namesin CurrentUse' inthesense envisaged by theInter- nationalAssociation forPlantTaxonomy (IAPT). Especially his description ofthe sources available as a basis for this checklist reveals Hunt's dilemma:after theonly ever overall monograph (Britten & Rose, 1919-1923) was published, thousandsofnewtaxa were described, many changes ofclassificationwere proposed, variousgeneric names abandoned; andBackeberg's widelyaccepted publications are - as Hunt putsit- "handicapped by the author'svery narrow concepts ofgeneraandspecies" and"a disregard forspecimen-based typifi- cation".Andto makethings worse, very few generawerecomprehensively mono- graphed. Although theauthordecidedto generally followtheIOS generic list, someexcep- tionsare made,allofwhichare discussedandclarified.Thebibliography is extensive, 388 BLUMEA Vol. 39,No. 1/2, 1994 butImissedreference toL.E. Groen's 'Catalogue ofsucculents in DutchBotanic Gardens' (1990). Themain difficulty with thechecklist is the absenceofauthority regarding the plant names. Especially becausemanyaccepted names will giverise to discussions betweentaxonomists as well as amongamateurs, or - even more likely - between the two, the absenceofauthor-references hampers correct perception of whatis meant. As IunderstoodinCITES-discussions, thisaspect willbe dealtwithinafol- lowing edition. Anotherproblem is thelimitationofthelist to species, leaving out subspecies orvarieties.Itwouldbea greatadvantage ifthis gapcouldbe filledinthe nextedition, although Iamawareof thefactthatthiswouldseveral timesmultiplicate thecomplexity oftheauthor's task. Especially forAppendix Ispecies this checklist shouldin factnot bereadwithout theveryusefuladditions, madeby agroupofItaliancactologists, headedbyMaurizio Sajeva, published in 'Piante Grasse'. In thetwo publications Appendix ICactaceae andother succulentplant family species are treatedperspecies. Full synonymy is given, accompanied by ashort description of the plant and ofits distribution.All species are illustratedwithgood colourphotographs. Apart fromsomeshortcomings, whichhewillbe dealing withinafutureedition, Hunt's Checklistis extremely useful, carefully composed, and very much recom- mended. J.de Koning