Lepidophorinae Oberpr. & Töpfer, 2022

Oberprieler, Christoph, Töpfer, Alisha, Dorfner, Marco, Stock, Miriam & Vogt, Robert, 2022, An updated subtribal classification of Compositae tribe Anthemideae based on extended phylogenetic reconstructions, Willdenowia 52 (1), pp. 117-149 : 132

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.52.52108

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ACD331-FFE4-B020-2094-F89FA517FB5E

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Lepidophorinae Oberpr. & Töpfer
status

subtrib. nov.

16. Lepidophorinae Oberpr. & Töpfer , subtrib. nov. Type: Lepidophorum Neck. ex Cass. ( Lepidophorum repandum (L.) DC.).

Description — Annual, glabrous herbs. Leaves alternate, serrate. Capitula solitary, pedunculate, radiate. Involucre meniscoid to hemispheric. Phyllaries in 3 or 4 rows, with narrow, brown scarious margins. Receptacle convex, paleate; paleae flat to canaliculate, narrowly elliptic to obovate, with a central resin duct. Ray florets female or neuter, sterile; limb yellow. Disc florets hermaphrodite, fertile; corolla 5-lobed, yellow. Achenes of ray florets flat; apex with c. 4 free or basally connate scales. Achenes of disc florets narrowly obovoid, 5-ribbed; apex marginally rounded; pericarp with myxogenic cells along ribs, without resin sacs. Embryo sac development monosporic. Base chromosome number x = 9.

Distribution — SW Europe.

Members — Lepidophorum Neck. ex Cass. (1).

Notes — As in the previous case of Lonas , the annual, unispecific genus Lepidophorum was considered “difficult to place” on morphological and anatomical grounds by Bremer & Humphries (1993: 139), who classified it in their highly polyphyletic subtribe Leucantheminae , which contained also genera presently arranged in subtribes Artemisiinae ( Leucanthemella , Nipponanthemum ), Glebionidinae ( Nivellea ) and Leucanthemopsidinae ( Hymenostemma , Leucanthemopsis , Phalacrocarpum , Prolongoa ). Based on the possession of receptacular paleae with a central resin duct, the genus shows some morphological affinity to Lonadinae and Santolininae . However, both gene trees of the present study (Fig. 1, 2) do not support either affinity, while the genus is unfortunately missing in the species-tree reconstructions due to missing sequence information from the other nuclear markers.

Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF