Sixty Years with the Chrysobalanaceae

Ghillean T. Prance

doi:10.1007/s12229-020-09234-y

Abstract

A review is given of the studies of Ghillean Prance and associates on the Chrysobalanaceae over the past sixty years. This has focussed on defining the generic boundaries in the family and on monographic work with a worldwide approach to this pantropical family. The importance of field studies for work on monographs and Floras is emphasized. Monographs are still the basis for much work on conservation, ecology and economic botany and are needed as a foundation for molecular studies. The importance of being open to experimenting with new techniques and as a result being willing to change the taxonomy in accordance with new findings is demonstrated and emphasized. The twelve genera of the Chrysobalanaceae at the beginning of this career-long study have now increased to twenty-eight in order to present a much better monophyletic and evolutionary arrangement based on recent molecular evidence. In particular it was necessary to divide and rearrange the originally large genera Parinari and Licania into a number of smaller segregate genera. All known species were included in a worldwide monograph published in 2003. A brief review of the economic use for the family is given.

Highlights

I began to work on the Chrysobalanaceae in 1960 so it is sixty years since I first started looking at specimens of the genus Parinari from Africa in the Forest Herbarium, Oxford (FHO)
Many of my original decisions about generic boundaries based on morphology had to be modified along the way as new data were accumulated and new methods applied
It is important to aim for rigorous systems that do not include polyphyletic taxa and so many changes to the generic concepts of the Chrysobalanaceae have been made to achieve this

Summary

Introduction

I began to work on the Chrysobalanaceae in 1960 so it is sixty years since I first started looking at specimens of the genus Parinari from Africa in the Forest Herbarium, Oxford (FHO). As I have continued to study this family throughout my career, I felt that now is a good time to look at the lessons learned from a long-term study over this interesting period of much progress and change within systematics. This has taken me on a journey from morphology and phenetics to the. The certainty of familial status and its distance from the Rosaceae were among the earliest conclusions of my doctoral research This was not really a new discovery as the group was given a family name by Robert Brown in 1818. It is a review of the lessons learned and the necessary changes to the taxonomy as new data became available

Objectives

Conclusion