New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)

Da-Li Fu

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)

Da-Li Fu^*

Published in American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 12, Issue 5)

Received: 3 September 2024 Accepted: 25 September 2024 Published: 10 October 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Hamamelidales Griseb. (1854) order serves as a foundational group and plays a significant role in the research of evolutionary systematics of the class Rosopsida Batsch (1802) of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu (2018). To address the ambiguities surrounding the circumscription of certain genera within this order, such as Paeonia L. (1753), Liquidambar L. (1753), and Hamamelis L. (1753), relevant chloroplast complete genome sequences from the NCBI database were retrieved, and evolutionary analyses were conducted on these sequences in this study. Notably, Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov., a new genus endemic to America characterized by its distinctly lobed floral discs, has been separated from Paeonia L. belonging to Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, nom. cons. (1830), and Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu is designated as its type species. This new genus derives from Moutan Rchb. (1827), rather than Paeonia L., given that a maximum PHS value of 0.837 were observed between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu based on CPCG evolutionary analyses. Meanwhile, the application of the minimum criterion PHS ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric, CPCG) for genus classification of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu, has led to confirmation of two synonyms for Liquidambar L.: Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang; additionally, three current synonyms for Hamamelis L., including Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey., and Sycopsis Oliv., have been scientifically identified. In total, 13 novel family names like Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu, Dianthaceae D. L. Fu, Diospyraceae D. L. Fu and Ilecaceae D. L. Fu have been established, along with two new specific epithets, Hamamelis hubeiensis D. L. Fu and Hamamelis grandifolia D. L. Fu, and 39 newly valid combinations involving Hamamelis L., Liquidambar L., Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, and Moutan Rchb. also been published, such as Hamamelis annamica (Gagnep.) D. L. Fu, Liquidambar cambodiana (Lecomte) D. L. Fu, Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, and Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu. These contributions will effectively clarify taxonomic nomenclature confusions in a scientific manner while establishing a robust foundation for further research into the evolutionary systems within the order Hamamelidales Griseb.

Published in	American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry (Volume 12, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14
Page(s)	346-355
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Lobidiscus, Moutan, Liquidambar, Hamamelis, New Genus, New Combination, CPCG (Chloroplast Complete Genome), Genus Minimum Criterion, Typical Algorithm

1. Introduction

The order Hamamelidales Griseb. (1854) is foundational and plays a significant role in the research of evolutionary systematics of the class Rosopsida Batsch (1802) of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu (2018). This order encompasses families such as Hamamelidaceae R. Br., nom. cons. (1818), Vitaceae Juss., nom. cons. (1789), Penthoraceae Rydb. ex Britt., nom. cons. (1901) and Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, nom. cons. (1830)

[1, 2]

. However, traditional taxonomy and modern phylogenetic approaches reveal persistent taxonomic challenges

[3-9]

, particularly regarding ambiguities in the circumscription of certain genera including Paeonia L. (1753), Liquidambar L. (1753), and Hamamelis L. (1753) within this order.

In 1804, the species of Mudan, renowned as the "King of Flowers" in China, was officially published and named Paeonia suffruticosa Andrews (Woody Peony). This was also the first species of Moutan taxa to be released, in accordance with the relevant articles of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the name holds absolute precedence in the names of Moutan taxa. Consequently, the assertion that “many scholars have confirmed that P. suffruticosa is a hybrid formed by repeated hybridization of several species of subsect. Vaginatae, based on morphological and molecular biological evidence”

[10]

is wholly incorrect. In other words, as long as the type of P. suffruticosa is authentic, regardless of whether it is collected from cultivated or wild plants, the species must be acknowledged. It implies that all other subsequent species of Moutan taxa can be regarded as the hybrids (alternative forms of varieties) of P. suffruticosa, yet P. suffruticosa cannot be considered as a hybrid of these later species. In 1824, the Paeonia sect. Moutan DC. was published

[11]

, and in 1827, the genus Moutan Rchb. was established. This was a typical course of development in plant taxonomy; however, it failed to draw the attention of taxonomists, despite the Moutan taxa having very distinct characteristics, such as the woody stems and the envelope discs

[11-19]

. Subsequently, species within the Moutan taxa such as Paeonia delavayi Franch (1887), Paeonia potaninii Komarov (1921), and Paeonia decomposita Hand-Mazz. (1939), have continued to utilize the genus name Paeonia L. Over the past three decades, Chinese Moutan taxonomist Hong T.

[12-14]

and world-renowned Paeonia taxonomist Hong D. Y.

[15-19]

have also maintained the use of the genus name in their publications concerning Moutan taxa. However, contemporary phylogenic studies

[20-21]

have demonstrated that the genus Paeonia L. can be clearly divided into three distinct taxa, now recognized as 3 subgenera or 3 sections. Further investigations are requisite to ascertain whether these two additional taxa may warrant classification as separate genera based on their unique taxonomic characteristics

[12-19, 22]

In another instance, phylogenic analyses have revealed that Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang are nested within Liquidambar L., leading to the formal transfer of all Altingia and Semiliquidambar species to Liquidambar L.

[23-25]

. The reasons for this nesting typically involve the synonymy of Altingia and Semiliquidambar with Liquidambar L., or the characterization of Liquidambar L. as a diverse genus, with exceptions arising from sampling and analysis errors. Consequently, further analyses are warranted to ascertain whether the other two genera should be considered synonyms of Liquidambar L.

Similarly, phylogenetic analyses have indicated a close relationship between the genus Hamamelis L. and Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey., and Sycopsis Oliv.

[26, 27]

, some of which are nested. Therefore, further analyses are required to determine whether the other three genera should be considered synonyms of Hamamelis L. or if Distylium Sieb. & Zucc. represents a diverse genus.

Both traditional taxonomy and modern phylogeny encounter limitations in their objectivity and impartiality when it comes to determine whether a genus is the synonym or a diverse genus. The new science evolutionomy has been developed with the publications of the evolutionary continuity principle, the evolutionary particularity principle, the theoretical monograph as the Theory and Practice of Evolutionomy, and so on

[1-9]

. The establishment, publication, and implementation of the minimum criterion PHS ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric, CPCG) for the classification of genus of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu has scientifically identified 107 current genus synonyms within the class Scutellopsida D. L. Fu, and the taxonomic confusions of the class has also been scientifically resolved to a certain extent.

[4-9]

To scientifically identify the circumscription of certain genera and resolve the synonyms or diverse genera leading to the taxonomic confusions within the three genera of Hamamelidales Griseb., some relevant CPCG sequences from the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information, USA) database have been downloaded and the evolutionary analyses on these sequences have been conducted, and the results are as follows.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. CPCG of Hamamelidales

Total 28 CPCG of representative species of three families of Hamamelidales Griseb. were selected from the NCBI database. Their current names, scientific names and CPCG numbers of NCBI are listed in Table 1 to Table 6.

2.2. Evolutionary Analyses of CPCG

The evolutionary analyses of CPCG mainly use the typical algorithm

[3-9]

to determine the relative evolutionary relationships between different taxa by comparing the phylogenetic similarity (PHS) between the designated type and target taxa. The formula is as follows:

PHS = \frac{SPHL}{APHL}

PHS = phylogenetic similarity between the type and objective taxon; SPHL = the number of same phylogenetic loci between the type and objective taxon; APHL = the number of all phylogenetic loci of the type; statistics of phylogenetic loci using Nucleotide Barcodes (17bp).

3. Results

3.1. Evolutionary System of Paeoniaceae

Using the types of Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu, Paeonia lactiflora Pall., Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, and Cercidiphyllum japonicum Siebold & Zucc. respectively, the PHS of CPCG of total 17 species, 16 species of Paeoniaceae and Cercidiphyllum japonicum Siebold & Zucc. are analyzed, and the results are shown in Table 1 to Table 4.

Table 1. PHS of CPCG between Moutan suffruticosus and some representative species of Paeoniaceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Moutan suffruticosus_JQ952559.1	Paeonia suffruticosa	127105	1
2	Moutan ostii_MK701990.1	Paeonia ostii	122827	0.966
3	Moutan qiui_MT210544.1	Paeonia qiui	122471	0.964
4	Moutan decompositus_NC039425.1	Paeonia decomposita	122355	0.963
5	Moutan rockii_NC037772.1	Paeonia rockii	122242	0.962
6	Moutan jishanensis_MT210545.1	Paeonia jishanensis	121976	0.960
7	Moutan delavayi_MT210546.1	Paeonia delavayi	116440	0.916
8	Moutan ludlowii_NC035623.1	Paeonia ludlowii	115813	0.911
9	Paeonia anomala_MT210549.1	Paeonia anomala	110249	0.867
10	Paeonia lactiflora_MN868412.1	Paeonia lactiflora	110210	0.867
11	Paeonia mairei_MZ617462.1	Paeonia mairei	110175	0.867
12	Paeonia intermedia_MT210547.1	Paeonia intermedia	110084	0.866
13	Paeonia veitchii_NC032401.1	Paeonia veitchii	109600	0.862
14	Paeonia emodi_MT210548.1	Paeonia emodi	109542	0.862
15	Paeonia obovata_NC026076.1	Paeonia obovata	109465	0.861
16	Lobidiscus brownii_JQ952560.1	Paeonia brownii	104203	0.820
17	Cercidiphyllum japonicum_NC037940.1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum	44192	0.348

Table 2. PHS of CPCG between Paeonia lactiflora and some representative species of Paeoniaceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Paeonia lactiflora_MN868412.1	Paeonia lactiflora	126772	1
2	Paeonia mairei_MZ617462.1	Paeonia mairei	126698	0.999
3	Paeonia anomala_MT210549.1	Paeonia anomala	123509	0.974
4	Paeonia veitchii_NC032401.1	Paeonia veitchii	121653	0.960
5	Paeonia intermedia_MT210547.1	Paeonia intermedia	121049	0.955
6	Paeonia obovata_NC026076.1	Paeonia obovata	120315	0.949
7	Paeonia emodi_MT210548.1	Paeonia emodi	115807	0.914
8	Moutan delavayi_MT210546.1	Paeonia delavayi	111923	0.883
9	Moutan ludlowii_NC035623.1	Paeonia ludlowii	111508	0.880
10	Moutan decompositus_NC039425.1	Paeonia decomposita	111051	0.876
11	Moutan ostii_MK701990.1	Paeonia ostii	110968	0.875
12	Moutan jishanensis_MT210545.1	Paeonia jishanensis	110693	0.873
13	Moutan qiui_MT210544.1	Paeonia qiui	110631	0.873
14	Moutan rockii_NC037772.1	Paeonia rockii	110547	0.872
15	Moutan suffruticosus_JQ952559.1	Paeonia suffruticosa	110217	0.869
16	Lobidiscus brownii_JQ952560.1	Paeonia brownii	103350	0.815
17	Cercidiphyllum japonicum_NC037940.1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum	44551	0.351

Table 3. PHS of CPCG between Lobidiscus brownii and some representative species of Paeoniaceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Lobidiscus brownii_JQ952560.1	Paeonia brownii	126326	1
2	Moutan delavayi_MT210546.1	Paeonia delavayi	105782	0.837
3	Moutan ludlowii_NC035623.1	Paeonia ludlowii	105265	0.833
4	Moutan ostii_MK701990.1	Paeonia ostii	105032	0.831
5	Moutan decompositus_NC039425.1	Paeonia decomposita	104898	0.830
6	Moutan jishanensis_MT210545.1	Paeonia jishanensis	104580	0.828
7	Moutan qiui_MT210544.1	Paeonia qiui	104507	0.827
8	Moutan rockii_NC037772.1	Paeonia rockii	104388	0.826
9	Moutan suffruticosus_JQ952559.1	Paeonia suffruticosa	104209	0.825
10	Paeonia anomala_MT210549.1	Paeonia anomala	103392	0.819
11	Paeonia lactiflora_MN868412.1	Paeonia lactiflora	103353	0.818
12	Paeonia mairei_MZ617462.1	Paeonia mairei	103345	0.818
13	Paeonia intermedia_MT210547.1	Paeonia intermedia	103179	0.817
14	Paeonia emodi_MT210548.1	Paeonia emodi	102903	0.815
15	Paeonia obovata_NC026076.1	Paeonia obovata	102722	0.813
16	Paeonia veitchii_NC032401.1	Paeonia veitchii	102721	0.813
17	Cercidiphyllum japonicum_NC037940.1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum	43220	0.342

Table 4. PHS of CPCG between Cercidiphyllum japonicum and some representative species of Paeoniaceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum_NC037940.1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum	133181	1
2	Moutan delavayi_MT210546.1	Paeonia delavayi	44789	0.336
3	Moutan decompositus_NC039425.1	Paeonia decomposita	44777	0.336
4	Moutan jishanensis_MT210545.1	Paeonia jishanensis	44754	0.336
5	Moutan qiui_MT210544.1	Paeonia qiui	44731	0.336
6	Moutan ostii_MK701990.1	Paeonia ostii	44719	0.336
7	Moutan rockii_NC037772.1	Paeonia rockii	44677	0.336
8	Moutan ludlowii_NC035623.1	Paeonia ludlowii	44627	0.335
9	Paeonia lactiflora_MN868412.1	Paeonia lactiflora	44554	0.335
10	Paeonia anomala_MT210549.1	Paeonia anomala	44539	0.334
11	Paeonia mairei_MZ617462.1	Paeonia mairei	44536	0.334
12	Paeonia emodi_MT210548.1	Paeonia emodi	44467	0.334
13	Paeonia obovata_NC026076.1	Paeonia obovata	44415	0.334
14	Paeonia intermedia_MT210547.1	Paeonia intermedia	44381	0.333
15	Paeonia veitchii_NC032401.1	Paeonia veitchii	44340	0.333
16	Moutan suffruticosus_JQ952559.1	Paeonia suffruticosa	44197	0.332
17	Lobidiscus brownii_JQ952560.1	Paeonia brownii	43221	0.325

From Table 1 to Table 3, it can be concluded that using the types of Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu, Paeonia lactiflora Pall. and Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu respectively, Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi obviously include 3 genera: Moutan Rchb., Paeonia L., and Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, which all have the same evolutionary boundary: PHS (17bp) ≥ 0.90 (intrageneric) or PHS (17bp) ≤ 0.89 (intergeneric). Therefore, the 3 genera system of Paeoniaceae is natural by the chloroplast complete genomic evolutionomy.

From Table 4, it is evident that the PHL between Cercidiphyllum japonicum Siebold & Zucc. and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu is 44789 more than other species. It means the genus Moutan Rchb. is the most primitive genus of Paeoniaceae.

Based on Table 1 to Table 4, the evolutionary system of genera of Paeoniaceae is presented as Figure 1. The figure provides a clearly evolutionary context within the family Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, indicating that the newly established genus Lobidiscus D. L. Fu is derived from the most primitive genus Moutan Rchb., rather than from Paeonia L.. This conclusion is supported by the maximum PHS value of 0.837 between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu (Table 3), as determined through CPCG evolutionary analyses.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Evolutionary system of genera of Paeoniaceae.

3.2. Synonyms of Liquidambar Genus

Using the type of Liquidambar formosana Hance, the PHS of CPCG of 6 species of Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu are analyzed, and the results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. PHS of CPCG between Liquidambar formosana and some representative species of Liquidambaraceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Liquidambar formosana_KC588388.1	Liquidambar formosana	133703	1
2	Liquidambar chinensis_NC047288.1	Altingia chinensis	133531	0.999
3	Liquidambar cathayensis_MN410884.1	Semiliquidambar cathayensis	132359	0.990
4	Cercidiphyllum japonicum_NC037940.1	Cercidiphyllum japonicum	83212	0.622
5	Exbucklandia populnea_NC065400.1	Exbucklandia populnea	78802	0.589
6	Hamamelis mollis_NC037881.1	Hamamelis mollis	77977	0.583

From Table 5, it is evident that using the type of Liquidambar formosana Hance, the genera of Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang are the synonyms of the genus Liquidambar L., owing to their evolutionary relationships with the type far from reaching the minimum criterion PHS (17bp) ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric) for genus classification. Therefore, it can be confirmed that the combination of the genus Liquidambar L. by Ickert-Bond & Wen

[24]

is scientific. However, the nine specific combinations of the genus are not validly published according to the relevant articles of International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

3.3. Synonyms of Hamamelis Genus

Using the type of Hamamelis mollis Oliv., the PHS of CPCG of 7 species of Hamamelidaceae R. Br. are analyzed, and the results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. PHS of CPCG between Hamamelis mollis and some representative species of Hamamelidaceae.

No.	Scientific Names and Numbers of CPCG in NCBI	Current Names	PHL/17bp	PHS
1	Hamamelis mollis_NC037881.1	Hamamelis mollis	133081	1
2	Hamamelis sinensis_MT323104.1	Sycopsis sinensis	124249	0.934
3	Hamamelis racemosum_MZ571522.1	Distylium racemosum	124146	0.933
4	Hamamelis subaequalis_NC037243.1	Parrotia subaequalis	123821	0.930
5	Eustigma oblongifolium_NC071207.1	Eustigma oblongifolium	114012	0.857
6	Sinowilsonia henryi_NC036069.1	Sinowilsonia henryi	112888	0.848
7	Fortunearia sinensis_NC041487.1	Fortunearia sinensis	112522	0.846

Table 6 indicates that using the type of Hamamelis mollis Oliv., the genera of Sycopsis Oliv., Distylium Sieb. & Zucc., and Parrotia C. A. Mey. are the synonyms of the genus Hamamelis L., because of their evolutionary relationships with the type not meeting the minimum criterion PHS (17bp) ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric) for genus classification. Therefore, it is scientific to combine Hamamelis L. genus as follows.

Hamamelis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 124 (1753). Type: Hamamelis virginiana L. ─ Distylium Sieb. & Zucc., Fl. Jap. (Sieb.) 1: 178, t. 94. 1841. Type: Hamamelis racemosa (Sieb. & Zucc.) D. L. Fu. ─ Parrotia C. A. Mey., Verz. Pfl. Casp. Meer. 46. 1831. Type: Hamamelis persica DC. ─ Sycopsis Oliv., Trans. Linn. Soc. London 23(1): 83, t. 8. 1860. Type: Hamamelis sinensis (Oliv). D. L. Fu.

About 25 species, in Asia and America, including 18 new specific combinations.

4. New Genus Lobidiscus D. L. Fu

Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov. Moutan Rchb. et Paeonia L. similis, sed herbis perennus, cespitosis et semi-decumbentus, foliolis profunde dissectis, discis carnosis, lobatis cum nectarifluis, basis carpellis circumdatis.

Perennial herbs, cespitose and semi-decumbent. Roots fleshy and large. Multi-stems semi-decumbent. Leaves 5-7, alternate, biternate; leaflets deeply dissected. Flowers large, nodding, solitary and termina on a stem, more than 4 cm in diam. Sepals 5–6, purplish green, ovate to sub-orbicular, overlapping, and cupped. Petals 5–10, orbicular, varying in color from crimson, brownish maroon to yellow on the margins. Stamens numerous, yellow. Disc fleshy, with about 12 nectariferous lobes, encircled the bases of carpels. Carpels 3-6, free; ovules numerous, borne in two rows along ventral suture. Styles short; stigmas laterally flattened, recurved. Fruit a follicle. Seeds yellowish tan to black, globose, or ovoid-globose, 6-11 mm in diam. diploid (2N = 10).

Type: Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu.

2 species, in America. Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu and Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu.

5. New Names of Some Families

The family name, Altingiaceae Lindl. (1846) nom. cons., fails to comply with the fundamental principles of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature due to the inappropriate type, namely Altingia Noronha, being a synonym of Liquidambar L.. Replacing the family name with a scientific and standardized one will be an inevitable tendency in the advancement of plant taxonomy. This circumstance is not an isolated instance. Some conserved family names that employ synonyms or illegal types have been compiled, and their scientific names have been determined as follows.

Aesculaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Hippocastanaceae A. Rich., Bot. Méd.: 680. Jun 1823, nom. cons. Typus: Aesculus L. (Hippocastanum Mill., nom. syn.).

Amphipterygiaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Julianiaceae Hemsl. in J. Bot. 44: 379. Oct 1906, nom. cons. Typus: Amphipterygium Standl. (Juliania Schltdl., nom. illeg.)

Dianthaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Caryophyllaceae Juss., Gen. Pl.: 299. 4 Aug 1789, nom. cons. Typus: Dianthus L. (Caryophyllus Mill., nom. illeg.).

Diospyraceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Ebenaceae Gürke in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 4(1): 153. Dec 1891, nom. cons. Typus: Diospyros L. (Ebenus Kuntze, nom. illeg.).

Drimydaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Winteraceae R. Br. ex Lindl., Intr. Nat. Syst. Bot.: 26. Sep 1830, nom. cons. Typus: Drimys J. R. Forst. & G. Forst., nom. cons. (Wintera Murray, nom. illeg.).

Ilecaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Aquifoliaceae DC. ex A. Rich., Nouv. Elém. Bot., ed. 4: 555. 1828, nom. cons. Typus: Ilex L. (Aquifolium Mill., nom. illeg.).

Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Altingiaceae Lindl., Veg. Kingd.: 253. Jan-Mai 1846, nom. cons. Typus: Liquidambar L. (Altingia Noronha, nom. syn.)

Loniceraceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Caprifoliaceae Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 153. Jul-Aug 1763, nom. cons. Typus: Lonicera L. (Caprifolium Mill., nom. syn.).

Mammillariaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Cactaceae Juss., Gen. Pl.: 310. 4 Aug 1789, nom. cons. Typus: Mammillaria Haw., nom. cons. (Cactus L., nom. rej.).

Mirabilidaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Nyctaginaceae Juss., Gen. Pl.: 90. 4 Aug 1789, nom. cons. Typus: Mirabilis L. (Nyctago Juss., nom. syn.).

Oenotheraceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Onagraceae Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 81. Jul-Aug 1763, nom. cons. Typus: Oenothera L. (Onagra Mill., nom. syn.).

Triglochinaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Juncaginaceae Rich., Démonstr. Bot.: ix. Mai 1808, nom. cons. Typus: Triglochin L. (Juncago Ség., nom. syn.).

Utriculariaceae D. L. Fu, fam. nom. nov. Lentibulariaceae Rich., Fl. Paris. (Poiteau & Turpin) 1: 23 (ed. fol.), 26 (ed. qto.) 1808, nom. cons. Typus: Utricularia L. (Lentibularia Ség., nom. syn.).

6. New Specific Combinations

Hamamelis annamica (Gagnep.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Saxifragites annamicus Gagnep., Notul. Syst. (Paris) 14: 34. 1950.

Hamamelis buxifolia (Hance) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Myrsine buxifolia Hance, Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 4, 15: 225. 1861.

Hamamelis hubeiensis D. L. Fu, sp. nom. nov. Distylium racemosum var. chinense Franch. ex Hemsl., J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 23: 290. 1887, non Hamamelis chinensis R. Br.; Distylium chinense (Franch. ex Hemsl.) Diels, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 29: 290. 1900.

Hamamelis chungii (F. P. Metcalf) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Sycopsis chungii F. P. Metcalf, Lingnan Sci. J. 10: 414. 1931.

Hamamelis cuspidata (H. T. Chang) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium cuspidatum H. T. Chang, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni (2): 38. 1959.

Hamamelis dunniana (H. Lév.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium dunnianum H. Lév., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 11: 67. 1912.

Hamamelis elaeagnoides (H. T. Chang) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium elaeagnoides H. T. Chang, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni (2): 37. 1959.

Hamamelis gracilis (Nakai) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium gracile Nakai, J. Arnold Arbor. 5: 77. 1924.

Hamamelis indica (C. B. Clarke) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium indicum Benth. ex C. B. Clarke, Fl. Brit. India [J. D. Hooker] 2(5): 427. 1878.

Hamamelis lepidota (Nakai) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium lepidotum Nakai, Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 32: 220. 1918.

Hamamelis grandifolia D. L. Fu, sp. nom. nov. Distylium macrophyllum H. T. Chang, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni (1): 39. 1960, non Hamamelis macrophylla Pursh.

Hamamelis myricoides (Hemsl.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium myricoides Hemsl. in Hooker's Icon. Pl. 29: sub t. 2835. 1907.

Hamamelis pingpienensis (Hu) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Sycopsis pingpienensis Hu, Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol., Bot. 10: 149. 1940.

Hamamelis racemosa (Sieb. & Zucc.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium racemosum Sieb. & Zucc., Fl. Jap. 1: 179. 1841.

Hamamelis sinensis (Oliv.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Sycopsis sinensis Oliv. in Hooker's Icon. Pl. 20: t. 1931. 1890.

Hamamelis stellaris (Kuntze) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium stellare Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 233. 1891.

Hamamelis triplinervia (H. T. Chang) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Sycopsis triplinervia H. T. Chang, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni (1): 41. 1960.

Hamamelis tsiangii (Cheng) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Distylium tsiangii Chun ex Cheng, Contr. Biol. Lab. Sci. Soc. China, Bot. Ser. viii. 142. 1932; et in J. Arnold Arbor. 25: 330. 1944.

Liquidambar cambodiana (Lecomte) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia cambodiana Lecomte, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 30: 391. 1924.

Liquidambar caudata (H. T. Chang) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Semiliquidambar caudata H. T. Chang, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni, 39. 1962.

Liquidambar chingii (Metcalf) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia chingii Metcalf, Lingnan Sc. Journ. 10: 413. 1931.

Liquidambar gracilipes (Hemsl.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia gracilipes Hemsl., in Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 2837. 1907.

Liquidambar multinervis (Cheng) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia multinervis Cheng, in Notes For. Inst. Nat. Centr. Univ. Nanking, Dendrol. Ser., No. 1, 3. 1947.

Liquidambar obovata (Merrill & Chun) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia obovata Merrill & Chun, in Sunyatsenia, 2: 238. 1935.

Liquidambar poilanei (Tardieu) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia poilanei Tardieu, Fl. Camb., Laos & Vietn., Fasc. 4. 95. 1965.

Liquidambar siamensis (Craib) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia siamensis Craib, Kew Bull. 68. 1928.

Liquidambar yunnanensis (Rehd. & Wils.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Altingia yunnanensis Rehd. & Wils. in Sargent Pl. Wilson. I: 422. 1913.

Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia brownii Douglas ex Hook., Fl. Bor.-Amer. (Hooker) 1(1): 27. 1829.

Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia californica Nutt., Fl. N. Amer. (Torr. & A. Gray) 1(1): 41. 1838.

Moutan baokangensis (Z. L. Dai & T. Hong) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia baokangensis Z. L. Dai & T. Hong, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 17(1): 2. 1997.

Moutan decompositus (Hand.-Mazz.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia decomposita Hand.-Mazz., Acta Horti Gothob. 13: 39. 1939.

Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia delavayi Franch., Bull. Soc. Bot. France 33: 382. 1887.

Moutan jishanensis (T. Hong & W. Z. Zhao) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia jishanensis T. Hong & W. Z. Zhao, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 12(3): 225. 1992.

Moutan ludlowii (Stern & G. Taylor) D. L. Fu, sp. comb. nov. Paeonia lutea var. ludlowii Stern & G. Taylor, J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 6: 217. 1851; Paeonia ludlowii (Stern & G. Taylor) D. Y. Hong, Novon 7(2): 157. 1997.

Moutan ostii (T. Hong & J. X. Zhang) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia ostii T. Hong & J. X. Zhang, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 12(3): 223. 1992.

Moutan potaninii (Komarov) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia potaninii Komarov, Bot. Mater. Gerb. Glavn. Bot. Sada R. S. F. S. R. 2: 7. 1921.

Moutan qiui (Y. L. Pei & D. Y. Hong) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia qiui Y. L. Pei & D. Y. Hong, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 33(1): 91. 1995.

Moutan rockii (S. G. Haw & Lauener) D. L. Fu, sp. comb. nov. Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii S. G. Haw & Lauener, Edinburgh J. Bot. 47(3): 279. 1990; Paeonia rockii (S. G. Haw & Lauener) T. Hong & J. J. Li ex D. Y. Hong, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 36(6): 539. 1998.

Moutan rotundilobus (D. Y. Hong) D. L. Fu, sp. comb. nov. Paeonia decomposita subsp. rotundiloba D. Y. Hong, Kew Bull. 52(4): 961. 1997; Paeonia rotundiloba (D. Y. Hong) D. Y. Hong, J. Syst. Evol. 49(5): 465. 2011.

Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia suffruticosa Andrews, Bot. Repos. 6: t. 373. 1804.

Moutan yananensis (T. Hong & M. R. Li) D. L. Fu, sp. transl. nov. Paeonia yananensis T. Hong & M. R. Li, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 12(3): 226. 1992.

7. Conclusion

The evolutionary system of the genera within Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi has been initially established, encompassing three natural genera: Moutan Rchb., Paeonia L., and Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, all sharing a common evolutionary boundary defined by PHS (17bp) ≥ 0.90 (intrageneric) or PHS (17bp) ≤ 0.89 (intergeneric). The most primitive genus in this family is Moutan Rchb. Notably, the new genus Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov., characterized by its distinctly lobed floral discs, is described herein with Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu designated as the type species; this new genus originates from Moutan Rchb. (1827), rather than Paeonia L., as evidenced by a maximum PHS value of 0.837 between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu based on CPCG evolutionary analyses. Two synonyms of the genus Liquidambar L. (1753), Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang, have been confirmed, while three current synonyms of the genus Hamamelis L. (1753), including Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey. and Sycopsis Oliv., have also been scientifically identified. Additionally, 13 novel family names, two new specific epithets, and 39 newly valid specific combinations have been published in accordance with the scientific criterion. These contributions will provide a robust foundation for future research into the evolutionary systems within the order Hamamelidales Griseb. and serve an indicative function in subsequent investigations regarding the scientific definition of genus and scientifically resolving confusions of certain genera within the phylum Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu.

Abbreviations

CPCG	Chloroplast Complete Genomes
PHL	Phylogenetic Loci
PHS	Phylogenetic Similarity

Author Contributions

Da-Li Fu is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Fu, D. L. An evolutionary particularity principle for evolutionary system of classes of Fructophyta. Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2019, 7(5): 191-199. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20190705.15
[2]	Fu, D. L. The theory and practice of evolutionomy. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House; 2020, 1-158.
[3]	Fu, D. L., Fu, H. An evolutionary continuity principle for evolutionary system of organism divisions. Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2018, 6(3), 25-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20180603.14
[4]	Fu, D. L., Fu, H., Qin, Y., Zhou, D. S., Duan, R. M. Analyses of chloroplast genomic and morphological evolutionomy of Yulania subsect. Cylindricae (Magnoliaceae). Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2019, 7(5), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20190705.16
[5]	Fu, D. L., Fu, H., Duan, R. M., Qin, Y. Evolutionary System of Magnoliaceae Based on Chloroplast Genomic and Morphological Evolutionomy. Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2024, 12(1), 22-50. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241201.14
[6]	Fu, D. L., Fu, H. New Names and New Combinations of Phyllostachys Sieb. & Zucc. (Bambusaceae). Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2024, 12(2), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241202.14
[7]	Fu, D. L. New Names and New Combinations of the Genera of Bambusa, Dinochloa and Guadua (Bambusaceae). Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2024, 12(3), 174-184. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241203.14
[8]	Fu, D. L. New Names and New Combinations of Jarava, Cinna, Coleanthus, Sclerochloa and Graphephorum (Poales). Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2024, 12(4), 242-259. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241204.13
[9]	Fu, D. L. New Names and New Combinations of some genera of Aegilopaceae and Andropogonaceae (Scutellopsida). Amer. J. Agric. Forest. 2024, 12(4), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241204.17
[10]	Yang, Y., Sun, M., Li, S. S., Chen, Q. H., Silva, J. A. T., Wang, A. J., Yu X. N., Wang L. S. Germplasm resources and genetic breeding of Paeonia: a systematic review. Hort. Res. 2020, 7: 107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-020-0332-2
[11]	AASE (Agendae Academiae Sinicae Edita). Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae. Beijing: Science Press; 1979, vol. 27, pp. 37-59.
[12]	Hong, T., Zhang, J. X., Li, J. J., Zhao, W. Z., Li, M. R. Study on the Chinese wild woody peonies (1): new taxa of Paeonia L. sect. Moutan DC. Bull. Bot. Res. 1992, 12, 223–234.
[13]	Hong, T., Osti, G. L. Study on the Chinese wild woody peonies (II): new taxa of Paeonia L. sect. Moutan DC. Bull. Bot. Res. 1994, 14, 237–240.
[14]	Hong, T., Dai, Z. L. Study on the Chinese wild woody Peonies (III): new taxa of Paeonia L. sect. Moutan DC. Bull. Bot. Res. 1997, 17, 1–5.
[15]	Pei, Y. L., Hong, D. Y. Paeonia qiui – a new woody species of Paeonia from Hubei, China. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 1995, 33, 91–93.
[16]	Hong, D. Y. Paeonia (Paeoniaceae) in Xizang (Tibet). Novon 1997, 7, 156–161.
[17]	Hong, D. Y. Paeonia rockii and its one new subspecies from Mt. Taibai, Shanxi of China. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 1998, 36(6), 538–543.
[18]	Hong, D. Y., Pan, K. Y. Paeonia cathayana, a new tree peony, with revision of P. suffruticosa subsp. yinpingmudan. Acta Phytotax. Sin. 2007, 45, 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1360/aps07043
[19]	Hong, D. Y. Peonies of the world: taxonomy and phytogeography. London: Royal Botanical Garden, Kew; 2010.
[20]	Sang, T., Crawford, D. J., Stuessy, T. F. Chloroplast DNA Phylogeny, Reticulate Evolution, and Biogeography of Paeonia (Paeoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 1997, 84(9), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2446155
[21]	Wu, L. W., Nie, L. P., Wang, Q., Xu, Z. C., Wang, Y., He, C. N., Song, J. Y., Yao, H. Comparative and phylogenetic analyses of the chloroplast genomes of species of Paeoniaceae. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94137-0
[22]	Bernhardt, P., Meier, R., Vance, N. Pollination ecology and floral functions of Brown's peony (Paeonia brownii) in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. J. Poll. Ecol. 2013, 11(2), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2013)2
[23]	Ickert-Bond, S. M., Wen, J. Phylogeny and biogeography of Altingiaceae: Evidence from combined analysis of five non-coding chloroplast regions. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 2006, 39, 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.12.003
[24]	Ickert-Bond, S. M., Pigg, K. B., Wen, J. Comparative Infructescence Morphology in Altingia (Altingiaceae) and Discordance between Morphological and Molecular Phylogenies. Amer. J. Bot. 2007, 94(7), 1094–1115. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.94.7.1094
[25]	Ickert-Bond, S. M., Wen, J. A taxonomic synopsis of Altingiaceae with nine new combinations. PhytoKeys 2013, 31: 21–61. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.31.6251
[26]	Wang, N. J., Chen, S. F., Xie, L., Wang, L., Feng, Y. Y., Lv, T., Fang, Y. M., Ding, H. The complete chloroplast genomes of three Hamamelidaceae species: Comparative and phylogenetic analyses. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8637. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8637
[27]	Jin, Z. C., Xu, L. S., Xu, Y. C., Chen, Y. S. Loropetalum axillare (Hamamelidaceae), a new species from Guangdong, China. Phytotaxa 2023, 622(1), 085–094. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.622.1.6

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Fu, D. (2024). New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 12(5), 346-355. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Fu, D. New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). Am. J. Agric. For. 2024, 12(5), 346-355. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Fu D. New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). Am J Agric For. 2024;12(5):346-355. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14,
  author = {Da-Li Fu},
  title = {New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)
},
  journal = {American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry},
  volume = {12},
  number = {5},
  pages = {346-355},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  abstract = {Hamamelidales Griseb. (1854) order serves as a foundational group and plays a significant role in the research of evolutionary systematics of the class Rosopsida Batsch (1802) of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu (2018). To address the ambiguities surrounding the circumscription of certain genera within this order, such as Paeonia L. (1753), Liquidambar L. (1753), and Hamamelis L. (1753), relevant chloroplast complete genome sequences from the NCBI database were retrieved, and evolutionary analyses were conducted on these sequences in this study. Notably, Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov., a new genus endemic to America characterized by its distinctly lobed floral discs, has been separated from Paeonia L. belonging to Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, nom. cons. (1830), and Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu is designated as its type species. This new genus derives from Moutan Rchb. (1827), rather than Paeonia L., given that a maximum PHS value of 0.837 were observed between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu based on CPCG evolutionary analyses. Meanwhile, the application of the minimum criterion PHS ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric, CPCG) for genus classification of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu, has led to confirmation of two synonyms for Liquidambar L.: Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang; additionally, three current synonyms for Hamamelis L., including Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey., and Sycopsis Oliv., have been scientifically identified. In total, 13 novel family names like Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu, Dianthaceae D. L. Fu, Diospyraceae D. L. Fu and Ilecaceae D. L. Fu have been established, along with two new specific epithets, Hamamelis hubeiensis D. L. Fu and Hamamelis grandifolia D. L. Fu, and 39 newly valid combinations involving Hamamelis L., Liquidambar L., Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, and Moutan Rchb. also been published, such as Hamamelis annamica (Gagnep.) D. L. Fu, Liquidambar cambodiana (Lecomte) D. L. Fu, Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, and Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu. These contributions will effectively clarify taxonomic nomenclature confusions in a scientific manner while establishing a robust foundation for further research into the evolutionary systems within the order Hamamelidales Griseb.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)

AU - Da-Li Fu
Y1 - 2024/10/10
PY - 2024
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14
DO - 10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14
T2 - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JF - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
JO - American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
SP - 346
EP - 355
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2330-8591
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14
AB - Hamamelidales Griseb. (1854) order serves as a foundational group and plays a significant role in the research of evolutionary systematics of the class Rosopsida Batsch (1802) of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu (2018). To address the ambiguities surrounding the circumscription of certain genera within this order, such as Paeonia L. (1753), Liquidambar L. (1753), and Hamamelis L. (1753), relevant chloroplast complete genome sequences from the NCBI database were retrieved, and evolutionary analyses were conducted on these sequences in this study. Notably, Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov., a new genus endemic to America characterized by its distinctly lobed floral discs, has been separated from Paeonia L. belonging to Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, nom. cons. (1830), and Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu is designated as its type species. This new genus derives from Moutan Rchb. (1827), rather than Paeonia L., given that a maximum PHS value of 0.837 were observed between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu based on CPCG evolutionary analyses. Meanwhile, the application of the minimum criterion PHS ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric, CPCG) for genus classification of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu, has led to confirmation of two synonyms for Liquidambar L.: Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang; additionally, three current synonyms for Hamamelis L., including Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey., and Sycopsis Oliv., have been scientifically identified. In total, 13 novel family names like Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu, Dianthaceae D. L. Fu, Diospyraceae D. L. Fu and Ilecaceae D. L. Fu have been established, along with two new specific epithets, Hamamelis hubeiensis D. L. Fu and Hamamelis grandifolia D. L. Fu, and 39 newly valid combinations involving Hamamelis L., Liquidambar L., Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, and Moutan Rchb. also been published, such as Hamamelis annamica (Gagnep.) D. L. Fu, Liquidambar cambodiana (Lecomte) D. L. Fu, Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, and Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu. These contributions will effectively clarify taxonomic nomenclature confusions in a scientific manner while establishing a robust foundation for further research into the evolutionary systems within the order Hamamelidales Griseb.

VL - 12
IS - 5
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Da-Li Fu

Research Institute of Non-Timber Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Zhengzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Non-Timber Forest Germplasm Enhancement & Utilization of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Zhengzhou, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8107-0745

Download PDF

Figure 1

Figure 1. Evolutionary system of genera of Paeoniaceae.

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Fu, D. (2024). New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 12(5), 346-355. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Fu, D. New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). Am. J. Agric. For. 2024, 12(5), 346-355. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Fu D. New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales). Am J Agric For. 2024;12(5):346-355. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14,
  author = {Da-Li Fu},
  title = {New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)
},
  journal = {American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry},
  volume = {12},
  number = {5},
  pages = {346-355},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajaf.20241205.14},
  abstract = {Hamamelidales Griseb. (1854) order serves as a foundational group and plays a significant role in the research of evolutionary systematics of the class Rosopsida Batsch (1802) of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu (2018). To address the ambiguities surrounding the circumscription of certain genera within this order, such as Paeonia L. (1753), Liquidambar L. (1753), and Hamamelis L. (1753), relevant chloroplast complete genome sequences from the NCBI database were retrieved, and evolutionary analyses were conducted on these sequences in this study. Notably, Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, gen. nov., a new genus endemic to America characterized by its distinctly lobed floral discs, has been separated from Paeonia L. belonging to Paeoniaceae (Bercht. & J. Presl) Rudolphi, nom. cons. (1830), and Lobidiscus californicus (Nutt.) D. L. Fu is designated as its type species. This new genus derives from Moutan Rchb. (1827), rather than Paeonia L., given that a maximum PHS value of 0.837 were observed between Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu and Moutan delavayi (Franch.) D. L. Fu based on CPCG evolutionary analyses. Meanwhile, the application of the minimum criterion PHS ≤ 0.928 (intergeneric, CPCG) for genus classification of Fructophyta D. L. Fu & H. Fu, has led to confirmation of two synonyms for Liquidambar L.: Altingia Noronha and Semiliquidambar H. T. Chang; additionally, three current synonyms for Hamamelis L., including Distylium Siebold & Zucc., Parrotia C. A. Mey., and Sycopsis Oliv., have been scientifically identified. In total, 13 novel family names like Liquidambaraceae D. L. Fu, Dianthaceae D. L. Fu, Diospyraceae D. L. Fu and Ilecaceae D. L. Fu have been established, along with two new specific epithets, Hamamelis hubeiensis D. L. Fu and Hamamelis grandifolia D. L. Fu, and 39 newly valid combinations involving Hamamelis L., Liquidambar L., Lobidiscus D. L. Fu, and Moutan Rchb. also been published, such as Hamamelis annamica (Gagnep.) D. L. Fu, Liquidambar cambodiana (Lecomte) D. L. Fu, Lobidiscus brownii (Hook.) D. L. Fu, and Moutan suffruticosus (Andrews) D. L. Fu. These contributions will effectively clarify taxonomic nomenclature confusions in a scientific manner while establishing a robust foundation for further research into the evolutionary systems within the order Hamamelidales Griseb.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - New Genus Lobidiscus and New Combinations of Genera of Moutan, Liquidambar and Hamamelis (Hamamelidales)

VL - 12
IS - 5
ER -

Copy | Download