identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
144387A00072FF93B043FC25FB8FFC67.text	144387A00072FF93B043FC25FB8FFC67.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alseodaphnopsis	<div><p>Alseodaphnopsis</p><p>Li et al. (2011) conducted the most extensive phylogenetic analysis of the Persea group to date. The genera Machilus, Persea and Phoebe were relatively well represented in their study, but Alseodaphne, Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe were very poorly represented (nine species of which two undescribed attributed to Alseodaphne, five species of which two unidentified attributed to Dehaasia and one species attributed to Nothaphoebe). They found that Alseodaphne fell into two clades, one including a few species of Alseodaphe (one of them the type species) and the Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe species, the other one comprising a few species of Alseodaphne . Recently Mo et al. (2017) analysed the Alseodaphne group again and confirmed that Alseodaphne was not monophyletic. Based on molecular and some morphological evidence they described the new genus Alseodaphnopsis H.W.Li &amp; J.Li and included nine species (eight previously placed in Alseodaphne and one newly described) from southern China and adjacent India, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam in their new genus. Mo et al. (2017) did not find morphological characters in flowers or fruits that clearly separate Alseodaphnopsis from Alseodaphne . In the diagnosis of Alseodaphnopsis Mo et al. (2017) listed several characters in which Alseodaphnopsis was said to differ from Alseodaphne s.str. (Table 1).</p><p>Mo et al. (2017) presented two tables with measurements of fruits and inflorescences of a number of Alseodaphne species and most species of Alseodaphnopsis . They did not present data on the diameter or colour of the twigs, whether terminal buds are perulate or not, whether tepals are persistent or early deciduous, diameter of the petioles, leaf texture and whether midrib is sunken, flat or raised on the upper leaf surface. The lack of data makes it difficult to determine if any of the characters listed in Table 1 are diagnostic for Alseodaphnopsis or are simply more frequent among Alseodaphnopsis species than among Alseodaphne species. All diagnostic characters should be present in all species of Alseodaphnopsis and lacking in Alseodaphne s.str. Therefore the morphological basis for recognizing Alseodaphnopsis is unconvincing. Yet, molecular studies have shown that Alseodaphne is not monophyletic and it is to be expected that diagnostic morphological differences exist if the two clades of Alseodaphne represent two genera. Many species of Alseodaphne s.lat. are poorly known. Of the ten species of Alseodaphne s.lat. included in the Flora of China (Li et al. 2008), flowers were not known of four species; Kostermans (1973) described 14 new species known from one or two collections. This lack of good collections makes the finding of morphological diagnostic characters for Alseodaphnopsis difficult. Prior to the description of Alseodaphnopsis all Asian genera of the Persea group were defined by reproductive characters that were diagnostic.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/144387A00072FF93B043FC25FB8FFC67	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	van der Werff, H.	van der Werff, H. (2019): Alseodaphnopsis (Lauraceae) revisited. Blumea 64 (2): 186-189, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2019.64.02.10, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2019.64.02.10
144387A00072FF91B30DFC76FD1FFAAB.text	144387A00072FF91B30DFC76FD1FFAAB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alseodaphnopsis	<div><p>Flowers of Alseodaphnopsis</p><p>All genera of the Persea group share a common flower structure. The flowers have two whorls of three tepals each; in most cases the six tepals are equal, but occasionally unequal with the outer three shorter than the inner three. Stamens are ar- ranged in three whorls of three stamens each; stamens of the third whorl have each two glands at the base of the filaments. A fourth, innermost whorl is usually present and staminodial, but may be lacking entirely. The pistil is superior.</p><p>Alseodaphnopsis andersonii (King ex Hook.f.) H.W.Li &amp; J.Li is a relatively common species of which several flowering collections are known. As part of a search for reproductive characters diagnostic for Alseodaphnopsis these flowering specimens were studied and two flower types were found to be present. One flower type has a large pistil and small stamens, the stamens shorter that the pistil and with anthers that show four locelli that do not open (Fig. 1a). The second type has a small pistil, shorter than the stamens and large stamens with open locelli (Fig. 1b). These different flower types can be explained in two ways. It could be that the flowers are unisexual and the species dioecious. But dioecy has never been reported for any member of the Persea group. In Asia, unisexual flowers in Lauraceae are only known in the Litsea group, a group of genera with flowers in umbels or pseudo-umbels. It is also possible that the two flower types are an example of dichogamy, a system in which the flowers pass through separate pistillate and staminate phases. During the pistillate phase the stamens are relatively undeveloped and the locelli remain closed, while the pistil is functional with a receptive stigma. During the following staminate phase the stamens develop further, the locelli open and shed pollen, while the stigma dries out and the pistil cannot be fertilized. Dichogamy was first demonstrated in the cultivated Persea americana Mill. (Stout 1927). Kubitzki &amp; Kurz (1984) reported dichogamy for Lauraceae in Amazonian Brazil and I have observed dichogamy in species of Licaria Aubl. and Cryptocarya . Dichogamy thus appears to be a common flowering process among Lauraceae with bisexual flowers. Whether flowers are unisexual or bisexual with dichogamy can be determined most easily by examining the base of young fruits with remnants of floral parts. In the case of unisexual flowers, staminodes can be expected among floral remnants on young fruits; in the case of bisexual flowers stamens with opened locelli can be expected. In the case of Alseodaphnopsis andersonii staminodes were found at the base of young fruits (Fig. 1c). For comparison, Fig. 1d shows a stamen of A. andersonii . This confirms that the flowers of Alseodaphnopsis andersonii are unisexual. This is the first time that unisexual flowers have been found on any species of the Persea group. Alseodaphnopsis lanuginosa (Kosterm.) H.W.Li &amp; J.Li was also found to have two flower types, similar to Alseodaphnopsis andersonii (pistillate flowers: Pételot 3386bis, MO; staminate flowers: Pételot 3565, MO). A single flowering collection of Alseodaphnopsis petiolaris (Meisn.) H.W.Li &amp; J.Li (Fig. 1e) was found to have staminate flowers and an unidentified collection from Thailand (Maxwell 07-702, MO) has pistillate flowers. Because the type species of Alseodaphnopsis, A. petiolaris, was found to have unisexual flowers, I propose to accept as diagnostic character for Alseodaphnopsis the presence of unisexual flowers instead of the characters proposed by Mo et al. (2017). I would further accept in Alseodaphnopsis A. andersonii, A. lanuginosa and the unidentified species represented by Maxwell 07-702. These four species form a homogeneous group characterized by large, chartaceous leaves (mostly 20–30 cm long) and large inflorescences (20–30 cm long; Maxwell 07-702 has inflorescences to 15 cm long). Two other species placed in Alseodaphnopsis by Mo et al. (2017), A. hainanensis (Merr.) H.W.Li &amp; J.Li and A. rugosa (Merr. &amp; Chun) H.W.Li &amp; J.Li, appear quite different in their thick, coriaceous, narrowly elliptic to narrowly obovate leaves to 10 cm long. I have not seen flowers of these species. Their relationship is probably with Alseodaphne rhododendropsis Kosterm., a species from Central Vietnam. The other species placed by Mo et al. (2017) in Alseodaphnopsis are not known to me. Alseodaphnopsis petiolaris, A. andersonii and A. lanuginosa resemble each other closely and have been confused. Two collections of Alseodaphnopsis lanuginosa, Pételot 3386 and 3386bis (both at MO) were annotated by Kostermans as Alseodaphne andersonii and cited as such in the synopsis of Alseodaphne (Kostermans 1973); duplicates of Pételot 3565 in L and MO, the type of A. lanuginosa, have labels copied by Kostermans from the original label of the holotype in P and give as altitude 400 m instead of 1 500 m on the holotype; three collections of A. andersonii in P (Poilane 20964, 30298 and 15704) were initially identified as A. petiolaris; Poilane 18974 (L) was identified and cited in Kostermans (1973), as A. lanuginosa, but appears to be A. andersonii .</p><p>Alseodaphne, Dehaasia and Nothaphoebe have never been revised. A better understanding of the species is necessary for a better understanding of the generic boundaries. Because the current concepts of the genera are based on flower characters – Alseodaphne with bisexual flowers, equal tepals and 4-locular stamens, Alseodaphnopsis with unisexual flowers, Dehaasia with 2-locular stamens, and Nothaphoebe with bisexual flowers, unequal tepals and 4-locular stamens –, revisions should be based on flowering specimens. As Kochummen (1989) already commented, describing new species in Alseodaphne or Dehaasia based on fruiting specimens alone is unwise. Once the four genera mentioned above have been revised, it will become possible to determine if those genera are monophyletic.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/144387A00072FF91B30DFC76FD1FFAAB	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	van der Werff, H.	van der Werff, H. (2019): Alseodaphnopsis (Lauraceae) revisited. Blumea 64 (2): 186-189, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2019.64.02.10, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2019.64.02.10
