Recovery of Pellaeopsis (Pteridaceae) [NOT PASSED]

[MoniPonce]

Author(s) of proposal

M. M. Ponce and M. A. Scataglini

Name of taxon

Pellaeopsis

Rank of taxon

Genus

Approximate number of species affected

Ten

Description of change

Ten species from Africa and Madagascar, usually assigned to Cheilanthes s.l., Doryopteris s.l. and Pellaea s.l., would correspond to Pellaeopsis J. Sm. (1875), an ancient paleotropical genus that need to be recovered and redefined.

Reason for change

In our phylogenetic reconstruction of cheilanthoid ferns to delimit Cheilanthes s.s. (Ponce & Scataglini 2020), we include paleotropical incertae sedis species, usually assigned to Cheilanthes s.l, Doryopteris s.l. and Pellaea s.l. We obtained a 100% supported clade, sister to genus Hemionitis, made up of Cheilanthes leachii, Doryopteris pilosa, D. pedatoides, Pellaea angulosa, P. boivinii, P. doniana, P. dura, P. longipilosa, P. maxima and P. pectiniformis. This clade would correspond to the genus Pellaeopsis Smith, 1875 ≡ Pteridella Mett. ex Kuhn, 1879. Smith defined Pellaeopsis composed by P. burkeana ≡ P. dura and P. angulosa ≡ P. articulata, the later as the type species, while Kuhn included eight species under Pteridella with P. doniana as the type species.
We adopt to this group the name with priority, Pellaeopsis.
The ten species clustered in our phylogeny differ from Cheilanthes s.s. by their laminae more or less coriaceous, glabrous or with squamiformis hairs; ultimate segments articulated; venation partially anastomosing or free (vs. laminae herbaceous, sometime subcarnosus, with glandular or simples hairs, ultimate segments no articulated, venation free); from Doryopteris s.s. by their rhizome scales non-clathrate, linear-lanceolate or triangular-lanceolate (vs. scales of rhizome and petiole bases clathrate, more or less ovate-lanceolate); tuberculate, granulose or rugulose perispore (vs. predominantly cristate- reticulate perispore, sometime rugulate spores); and from Pellaea s.s., by their laminae usually pedate-pinnatifid up to pedate-4-pinnate, having the basal basiscopic portions of the basal pinnae more developed or divided, (vs. pinnate up to 3-pinnate); 4-furcate or partially anastomosed veins (vs. 2-3-furcate free veins); sligthly recurved, narrow, membranous indusium (vs. usually strongly revolute, thickened indusium).

Reference(s) for publication of the name

Kirkpatrick_Pellaea-2007.pdf
Ponce & Scataglini_Further progress towards the delimitation of Cheilanthes_ODAE2018.pdf

List the numbers of any related issues

No response

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the PPG Code of Conduct

[gyatskievych]

According to IPNI, only two species have combinations in Pellaeopsis: P. articulata and P. burkei. Shouldn't the formal recognition of Pellaeopsis in PPG II wait until the circumscription of the genus has been described in more detail, or at least until the majority of the species have been transferred into it? From what I see from the literature on African and Malagasy plants (cited in Tropicos under Synonymy of Pellaea angulosa), there is considerable disagreement on the limits of some species, especially Pellaea angulosa.

[MoniPonce]

In relation to the comments on our proposals (#41 and #42), we are submitting the advances presented at the XXXIX Jornadas Argentinas de Botánica held in September 2023.
Poster Pellaeopsis - Choristosoria- PPG2.pdf

[MoniPonce]

We obtained good support for two groups of species belonging to Cheilanthes, Doryopteris and Pellaea from Africa and Madagascar that should be transferred to the genera Pellaeopsis J. Sm. and Choristosoria Mett. ex Kuhn. These assigments would improve the generic limits. This would not be an obstacle to examine the specific delimitation of each taxa of these genera. Consequently, if there is consensus to restore the old names, new combinations would be necessary for several Choristosoria and Pallaeopsis species names.

[joelnitta]

This proposal was voted on during PPG Ballot 4 (voting period October 2023). A total of 51 votes were cast. There were 31 'Yes' votes (60.8%) and 20 'No' votes (39.2%). The proposal does not pass.