|
Notes:
Plants described as Chimarrhis glabriflora are very similar to Chimarrhis hookeri, and the plants corresponding to these names are sympatric. Delprete (1999) separated Chimarrhis glabriflora and Chimarrhis hookeri based their stem diameter, leaf "thinness" (whether this is shape or texture is not explained) and number of secondary veins, and presence vs. absence of pubescence on the stipules and disk. The disk pubescence was the main feature that distinguished these functionally, because it was the character used in his key, but all of the characters given to separate these species vary, and some are noted in his own descriptions to have variation that encompasses the characterization of the other species (e.g., stipule pubescence of Chimarrhis hookeri). Specimens annotated by Delprete also do not correspond to his species characterization; for example, Hartshorn 1687 has the the pubescent disk, thinner stems, smaller leaves, and fewer secondar veins of Chimarrhis hookeri along with the glabrous stipules of Chimarrhis glabriflora, while Palacios 2828 was identified by Delprete as Chimarrhis hookeri perhaps based on its canescent stipules but has the fleshy stems, relatively large leaves with 13 pairs of secondary veins, and glabrous disk of Chimarrhis glabriflora. The two specimens corresponding to these species contrasted by Delprete (1999: 162, fig. 70) are both sterile and do appear distinct, but continuous variation in robustness is documented by specimens of both sterile and fertile plants, and no consistent distinctions or differing suites of characters can be found. The plants separated by him deserve further study, but seem to represent variation within a population, perhaps of different developmental stages, or possibly microhabitat differentiation. These two species cannot be conclusively and consistently separated and are combined here.
|