identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9C6AC80CFF9879727079F8ADE5DEAA29.text	9C6AC80CFF9879727079F8ADE5DEAA29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Breynia (sect. Cryptogynium) (Mull. Arg.) Welzen & Pruesapan	<div><p>Breynia section Cryptogynium (Müll.Arg.) Welzen &amp; Pruesapan ( Phyllanthaceae)</p><p>Breynia section Cryptogynium (Müll.Arg.) Welzen &amp; Pruesapan in Van Welzen et al. (2014) 89. ― Sauropus Blume section Cryptogynium Müll.Arg.(1863) 73. ― Type: Sauropus rigidus Thwaites [= Breynia quadrangularis (Willd.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr.].</p><p>Ceratogynum Wight (1852) 26, t. 1900. ― Type: Ceratogynum rhamnoides Wight [= Breynia quadrangularis (Willd.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr.].</p><p>Sauropus Blume sect. Hemisauropus Müll.Arg. (1866) 243. ― Sauropus Blume subgenus Hemisauropus (Müll.Arg.) Pax &amp; K.Hoffm.(1922) 225. ― Breynia J.R.Forst. &amp; G.Forst. subgenus Hemisauropus (Müll.Arg.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr. (2015) 416. ― Type: Sauropus rostratus Miq. [= Breynia temii (Welzen &amp; Chayam.) Welzen &amp; Pruesapan].</p><p>More references for each name can be found in Van Welzen et al. (2014).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C6AC80CFF9879727079F8ADE5DEAA29	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Welzen, P. C. van	Welzen, P. C. van (2017): Reduction of Breynia subgenus Hemisauropus to B. section Cryptogynium and discussion of the B. quadrangularis complex (Phyllanthaceae). Blumea 62 (2): 90-91, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2017.62.02.02, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2017.62.02.02
9C6AC80CFF9979727323FE13E561AC0D.text	9C6AC80CFF9979727323FE13E561AC0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Breynia quadrangularis	<div><p>BREYNIA QUADRANGULARIS COMPLEX</p><p>It is obvious that Chakrabarty and colleagues prefer to maintain entities in the Breynia quadrangularis complex (sect. Cryptogynium) as distinct species (Chakrabarty &amp; Gangopadhyay 1996, under Sauropus; Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan 2015), while I (Van Welzen 2003, under Sauropus; Van Welzen et al. 2014) regard them as one single, variable species. These species were also partly used as infraspecific entities ( var. compressus, var. puberulus; see Van Welzen 2003). Time will tell who is cor- rect. I only would like to add three remarks to the discussion. The identification table in Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan (2015) nicely shows that the variability is more or less continuous and the differences do not always seem to be very distinct, especially not between their B. compressa (Müll.Arg.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr. and B. concinna (Collett &amp; Hemsl.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr. Particularly sepal shapes are difficult as a character, because sepals can become, by exception, free and narrow. This is discussed in Van Welzen et al. (2014: 88), where an ex- ample for B. androgyna (L.) Chakrab. &amp; N.P.Balakr. is provided. What is not obvious from the discussion by Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan (2015), is whether or not the whole distribution and variability of the species complex was covered, as they focus on India. It is unlikely that they have seen material from the species’ full range, because they do not refer to it and they do not acknowledge loans from other herbaria. Quite a number of specimens are known from outside India (see Van Welzen 2003, map 15 under Sauropus quadrangularis). If the complete variability is not covered then the status of the taxa recognised by Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan (2015) is uncertain as intermediates specimens occur outside and even inside India (Van Welzen 2003: 367, note 4).</p><p>Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan (2015) discuss only differences in morphology. A synthetic approach, also taking into account similarities, may be more clarifying.All other species in section Cryptogynium and subgenus Sauropus have pistillate flowers with horizontal, partly split stigmas resembling a crescent moon. The pistillate flowers in the quadrangularis group have erect, non-crescent moon-like stigmas. This obvious apomorphy, together with transitions between forms, is especially for me important to regard all forms as one, though variable, species. Describing variability is difficult. Two extremes are presented here: splitting into various species (Chakrabarty &amp; Balakrishnan 2015) or uniting all forms into one (Van Welzen et al. 2014) with a description of the variability via notes (Van Welzen 2003). The best way forward will be to use molecular data in a phylogeographic approach to see if the complex contains a single or multiple species. Until such studies have been performed, disagreements like these are likely to persist.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9C6AC80CFF9979727323FE13E561AC0D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Welzen, P. C. van	Welzen, P. C. van (2017): Reduction of Breynia subgenus Hemisauropus to B. section Cryptogynium and discussion of the B. quadrangularis complex (Phyllanthaceae). Blumea 62 (2): 90-91, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2017.62.02.02, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2017.62.02.02
