Abstract
The close relationship between two monotypic genera, Lepidocordia from northern South America, and Antrophora from Central America, is reevaluated in light of numerous recent collections. It was discovered that Lepidocordia punctata and A ntrophora williamsii are dioecious and each species appears to have two floral morphs, pistillate and staminate. The original descriptions of L. punctata and of A. williamsii were based on very limited collections that represented only opposite morphs, thus creating an exaggerated and artificial distinction between the two genera. New data from leaf architecture, pollen morphology, and fruit anatomy, as well as this distinctive breeding system, support their congeneric treatment. Antrophora is reduced to Lepidocordia, and A. williamsii now becomes L. williamsii. Lepidocordia is best retained in the Ehretioideae, but it and Rochefortia (3 spp) are the only dioecious genera in this subfamily, and thus quite distinct.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Lepidocordia punctata is dioecious with pistillate and staminate morphs.
- Taxon
- Lepidocordia punctataLepidocordia punctatae0
- Organ / stage
- pistillate and staminatee0
- Outcome
- dioeciouse0
Verbatim
e0“Lepidocordia punctata and A ntrophora williamsii are dioecious and each species appears to have two floral morphs, pistillate and staminate”
Claim · model-written summary
Antrophora williamsii is dioecious with pistillate and staminate morphs.
Verbatim
e0“Lepidocordia punctata and A ntrophora williamsii are dioecious and each species appears to have two floral morphs, pistillate and staminate”
Claim · model-written summary
Original descriptions based on opposite morphs exaggerated distinctions between the genera.
- Taxon
- L. punctataLepidocordia punctatae0
- Outcome
- exaggerated and artificial distinction between the two generae0
Verbatim
e0“The original descriptions of L. punctata and of A. williamsii were based on very limited collections that represented only opposite morphs, thus creating an exaggerated and artificial distinction between the two genera”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf, pollen, fruit and breeding system data support treating the two genera as congeneric.
- Taxon
- LepidocordiaLepidocordiat0
- Outcome
- congeneric treatmente0
Verbatim
e0“New data from leaf architecture, pollen morphology, and fruit anatomy, as well as this distinctive breeding system, support their congeneric treatment”
t0“Lepidocordia and Antrophora”
Claim · model-written summary
Antrophora was reduced to Lepidocordia and A. williamsii became L. williamsii.
Verbatim
e0“Antrophora is reduced to Lepidocordia, and A. williamsii now becomes L. williamsii”
Claim · model-written summary
Lepidocordia was retained in Ehretioideae.
- Taxon
- LepidocordiaLepidocordiae0
- Outcome
- retained in the Ehretioideaee0
Verbatim
e0“Lepidocordia is best retained in the Ehretioideae”
Claim · model-written summary
Lepidocordia and Rochefortia are the only dioecious genera in Ehretioideae.
- Taxon
- LepidocordiaLepidocordiat0
- Outcome
- only dioecious genera in this subfamilye0
Verbatim
e0“it and Rochefortia (3 spp) are the only dioecious genera in this subfamily”
t0“Lepidocordia”