2018
DOI: 10.1600/036364418x697247
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Revision of Sumatroscirpus (Sumatroscirpeae, Cyperaceae) with Discussions on Southeast Asian Biogeography, General Collecting, and Homologues with Carex (Cariceae, Cyperaceae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The starkly different pattern of species richness and extent of distribution between the near cosmopolitan Carex with 2000 species and its sister group Sumatroscirpus with three species that are restricted to SE Asia (Léveillé‐Bourret et al, ) is congruent with a positive area‐richness correlation pattern and suggests that colonization out of E Asia may have facilitated the diversification in Carex through the occupation of novel ecological niches (Spalink et al, ). A similar scenario is found within Carex , with the subg.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The starkly different pattern of species richness and extent of distribution between the near cosmopolitan Carex with 2000 species and its sister group Sumatroscirpus with three species that are restricted to SE Asia (Léveillé‐Bourret et al, ) is congruent with a positive area‐richness correlation pattern and suggests that colonization out of E Asia may have facilitated the diversification in Carex through the occupation of novel ecological niches (Spalink et al, ). A similar scenario is found within Carex , with the subg.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first option is undesirable because Cariceae is one of the best‐defined Cyperaceae tribes, having been recognized as a natural group since the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Jussieu, ; Kunth, ). Merging Cariceae with Scirpeae would create a group that would be impossible to define using macroscopic characters, and it would obfuscate the important differences in inflorescence morphology existing between Cariceae and all other Cyperaceae lineages (Gilly, ; Kukkonen, ; Timonen, ; Vrijdaghs & al., ; Léveillé‐Bourret, ,c). It would also be contrary to the general direction in which all modern suprageneric classifications of Cyperaceae have been going: to progressively split large heterogenous tribes into smaller, but more homogenous and natural tribes (Goetghebeur, and references therein; Table ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most species were scored by direct examination of herbarium specimens, often including types, from the following herbaria: A, AAH, ASU, B, BO, CAN, CAS, CHICO, CHR, CHSC, DAO, DOV, FHO, G, GB, GH, HNU, IBSC, K, L, MICH, MO, MT, NY, OSC, P, PRE, SI, SING, SYS, UBC, UPS, US, W, WIN, and WIS. Data were also obtained from our own field observations in eastern Canada, western U.S.A., South America, and northern Vietnam, as well as from original descriptions, floras, revisions, and other literature sources (e.g., Kükenthal, ; Kukkonen, ; Egorova, ; Ball & Reznicek, ; Whittemore & Schuyler, ; Strong, ; Dhooge, ; Reznicek & González Elizondo, ; Dai & al., ; Liang & Tucker, ,b,c; Zhang & Noltie, ; Gilmour & al., ; Léveillé‐Bourret & al., , ). Embryological characters were scored exclusively from the literature (Van der Veken, ; Goetghebeur & Coudijzer, ; Strong, ; Dhooge, ; Gilmour & al., ; Semmouri, ; Léveillé‐Bourret & al., ; Semmouri & al., ). Micromorphological data on fruit anticlinal cell walls were also obtained from the literature (e.g., Schuyler, ; Tucker & Miller, ; Waterway, ; Menapace, ; Zhang, ; Sawtell, ; Villaverde, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations