Alseodaphnopsis

van der Werff, H., 2019, Alseodaphnopsis (Lauraceae) revisited, Blumea 64 (2), pp. 186-189 : 187

Alseodaphnopsis

Li et al. (2011) conducted the most extensive phylogenetic analysis of the Persea group to date. The genera Machilus , Persea and Phoebe were relatively well represented in their study, but Alseodaphne , Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe were very poorly represented (nine species of which two undescribed attributed to Alseodaphne , five species of which two unidentified attributed to Dehaasia and one species attributed to Nothaphoebe ). They found that Alseodaphne fell into two clades, one including a few species of Alseodaphe (one of them the type species) and the Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe species, the other one comprising a few species of Alseodaphne . Recently Mo et al. (2017) analysed the Alseodaphne group again and confirmed that Alseodaphne was not monophyletic. Based on molecular and some morphological evidence they described the new genus Alseodaphnopsis H.W.Li & J.Li and included nine species (eight previously placed in Alseodaphne and one newly described) from southern China and adjacent India, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam in their new genus. Mo et al. (2017) did not find morphological characters in flowers or fruits that clearly separate Alseodaphnopsis from Alseodaphne . In the diagnosis of Alseodaphnopsis Mo et al. (2017) listed several characters in which Alseodaphnopsis was said to differ from Alseodaphne s.str. ( Table 1).

Mo et al. (2017) presented two tables with measurements of fruits and inflorescences of a number of Alseodaphne species and most species of Alseodaphnopsis . They did not present data on the diameter or colour of the twigs, whether terminal buds are perulate or not, whether tepals are persistent or early deciduous, diameter of the petioles, leaf texture and whether midrib is sunken, flat or raised on the upper leaf surface. The lack of data makes it difficult to determine if any of the characters listed in Table 1 are diagnostic for Alseodaphnopsis or are simply more frequent among Alseodaphnopsis species than among Alseodaphne species. All diagnostic characters should be present in all species of Alseodaphnopsis and lacking in Alseodaphne s.str. Therefore the morphological basis for recognizing Alseodaphnopsis is unconvincing. Yet, molecular studies have shown that Alseodaphne is not monophyletic and it is to be expected that diagnostic morphological differences exist if the two clades of Alseodaphne represent two genera. Many species of Alseodaphne s.lat. are poorly known. Of the ten species of Alseodaphne s.lat. included in the Flora of China ( Li et al. 2008), flowers were not known of four species; Kostermans (1973) described 14 new species known from one or two collections. This lack of good collections makes the finding of morphological diagnostic characters for Alseodaphnopsis difficult. Prior to the description of Alseodaphnopsis all Asian genera of the Persea group were defined by reproductive characters that were diagnostic.