A fresh approach to the classification of the genus Gnaphalium with particular reference to the species present in New Zealand (inuleae-compositae)

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The current classification of the cudweeds is inadequate. An extensive comparative morphological survey of the genus in the context of related Compositae was undertaken. Twenty-three characters, taken from phyllaries, corollas, achenes, pappus, pollen, and gross morphology, were recorded for a herbarium sample representing Gnaphalium (48 species), Achyrocline (4 species), and Anaphalis (7 species). The attribute records were ordered so as to produce groups in which constituent species were more similar to one another than they were to species in the other groups. The taxonomic manipulations were carried out intuitively. The resulting scheme lends no support to the two traditional Gnaphalium sections in vogue for over a century and, more seriously, the genus as defined at present is heterogeneous. The Gnaphalium species are redistributed among three very distinct major groups. The three kinds of Gnaphalium are termed gnaphalioid, achyroclinoid, and anaphalioid cudweeds. One group, embracing 80% of the cudweeds sampled, is readily divisible into four subgroups coinciding with Omalotheca Cassini (including Synchaeta Kirpichnikov), Gnaphalium Linnaeus, Gamochaeta Weddell, and Euchiton Cassini. The predictive properties of the new arrangement are demonstrated using independent palynological, geographical, and cytological data. The taxonomy of some New Zealand species groups is discussed in detail. The nomenclatural implications of the results are pointed out with particular reference to the typification of Gnaphalium Linn. Informal definitions of the new groupings are followed by an extensive bibliography.

This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit: