JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. A provisional synopsis of the sections of the genus Croton (Euphorbiaceae) Grady L. Webster1 Summary Webster, G. L.: A provisional synopsis of the sections of the genus Croton (Euphorbiaceae). -Taxon 42: 793-823. 1993. -ISSN 0040-0262. The 19th century classification of Croton by Muller Argoviensis is highly artificial. A revised system that incorporates the sections proposed by Baillon and Grisebach is presented, with a key to the 40 sections recognized. For each section, types and synonymy are indicated, along with a description and list of representative species. Described as new are 2 sections (C. sect. Anadenocroton, sect. Corylocroton) and 3 subsections (C. subsect. Cuneati, subsect. Matourenses, subsect. Sampatik); 2 new sectional names (C. sect. Argyrocroton, sect. Luntia) represent changes in rank.Croton is a large and diverse genus of Euphorbiaceae comprising at least 800 species of the tropics and subtropics. In the most recent general synopsis of the family (Webster, 1994), it is associated in the tribe Crotoneae with the Old World genera Mildbraedia and Fahrenheitia. Croton differs from those genera in having staminate flowers with filaments inflexed in the bud, and pistillate flowers with the petals usually reduced. Furthermore, most species of Croton have a characteristic habit, with terminal thyrses of flowers that have mostly solitary pistillate flowers below and cymules of staminate flowers distally.The present article is a contribution towards a better understanding of phyletic relationships within the genus Croton. In contrast to the other large genera of Euphorbiaceae (e.g., Acalypha, Euphorbia, Phyllanthus), no coherent system of sections has heretofore been available in Croton. The classification of Muller (1866, 1873) was patently artificial (as Muller himself implied in various comments on individual species), and was criticized as such by Bentham (1880). Unfortunately, Pax (1890) accepted Miieller's system, and in the latest general treatment by Pax & Hoffmann (1931) Muller's taxa were retained but inflated in rank (by raising sections to subgenera, etc.). In contrast, Baillon (1858, 1861, 1864) and Grisebach (1859) recognized a considerable number of sections that by and large represent natural groups. These were cited in synonymy by Muller and Bentham, but have never been generally adopted because of the prevailing authority of the Miillerian system. In the 20th century, there have been a number of critical regional studies of 793 TAXON VOLUME 42 described many species and provided valuable discussions of interspecific relat...