Abstract

AUBLET described and figured in his “Histoire des Plantes de la Guiane Francoise” (Vol. I p. 170-172 and Vol. III t. 65, 1775) under the name Simira tinctoria a tree belonging to the family Rubiaceae which until very recently was represented in the herbaria solely by specimens that he himself had collected. One of these specimens is preserved in the herbarium of the British Museum (Natural History) and another one in the “Herbier Denaiffe” (cf. LANJOUW, J. and H. UITTIEN in Rec. d. trav. bot. Neerl. 37, 357, 1940), which was recently acquired by the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. AUBLET’s new genera were viewed in his own time and even long afterwards with considerable distrust, and when we see that their separation from older and already well-known allies is but rarely justified by the contents of his diagnoses, this attitude becomes comprehensible. However, when we take the trouble to examine the material on which his new genera were founded, we are often forced to admit that his intuition had shown him the right way. This applies e.g. to the genera that were separated by him from Psychotria L, viz. Ronabea, Tapogomea, Carapichea, Palicourea, Mapouria and Nonatelia. The taxonomists of AUBLET’s own time and those of the immediately following period reduced all these genera to Psychotria, but these authors based their opinion almost exclusively on AUBLET’s insufficiently explicit descriptions. In a later period, when the plants on which AUBLET had founded his genera, were more thoroughly studied, it was gradually recognized that their reduction to Psychotria was not justified.

Highlights

  • AUBLET’s new genera were viewed in his own time and even long afterwards with considerable distrust, and when we see that their separation from older and already well-known allies is but rarely justified by the contents of his diagnoses, this attitude becomes comprehensible

  • In a later period, when the plants on which AUBLET had founded his genera, were more thoroughly studied, it was gradually recognized that their reduction to Psychotria was not justified

  • The description of Simira is preceded in Aublet’s work by the descriptions of Ronabea, Tapogomoa and Carapichea and followed by those of Palicourea and Mapouria, all of them genera belonging to the Psychotrieae and nearly related to Psychotria itself, and the description of Simira does not contain a single item that would exclude it from this group

Read more

Summary

Introduction

AUBLET’s new genera were viewed in his own time and even long afterwards with considerable distrust, and when we see that their separation from older and already well-known allies is but rarely justified by the contents of his diagnoses, this attitude becomes comprehensible. The taxonomists of AUBLET’s own time and those of the immediately following period reduced all these genera to Psychotria, but these authors based their opinion almost exclusively on AUBLET’s insufficiently explicit descriptions. That the ovules are in reality not solitary but densely packed on a placenta with which they form an oblong mass that can be mistaken for a solitary ovule, could, not be guessed, and the authors who reduced Aublet’s preceding and following genera to Psychotria, had every reason to do the same with Simira.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.