Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
21 March 2022 Systematics of Vigna Subgenus Lasiospron (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae: Phaseolinae)
Alfonso Delgado-Salinas, Matt Lavin, Cristiane Snak, Gwilym P. Lewis
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

A taxonomic treatment is herein provided for the six primarily Neotropical species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron. This subgenus is distinguished, in part, by its close relationship with Old World Vigna species, but rather than having an Old World Vigna floral asymmetry where distal floral parts can have a right-hand curvature (from a face-view perspective), distal parts of Vigna subg. Lasiospron flowers, like those of American Phaseolinae, curve to the left. Our proposed taxonomy reflects published phylogenetic analyses that resolve the Vigna subg. Lasiospron species in a subclade of the primarily Old World clade of species of Vigna sensu stricto. Vigna subg. Lasiospron is therefore distinctive in having a primarily neotropical distribution. Three of the six Vigna subg. Lasiospron species have an amphi-Atlantic distribution, which we suggest was achieved naturally by the ability of these species to disperse and colonize coastal habitats. Nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms are reported, along with species descriptions and the biogeographical, genetic, and morphological evidence that argues for each of the six Vigna subg. Lasiospron species fitting a unified species concept.

Previous taxonomic studies and recent phylogenetic analyses of molecular and non-molecular data suggest that the economically important genus Vigna Savi now comprises approximately 80 mostly Paleotropical species nested within the Phaseolinae clade (Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). This clade of mostly Paleotropical species of Vigna, plus the genus Physostigma Balf., is sister to a clade of New World Phaseolinae genera, which includes genera recently segregated from Vigna sensu stricto: Ancistrotropis A.Delgado, Cochliasanthus Trew, Condylostylis Piper, Helicotropis A.Delgado, Leptospron (Benth.) A.Delgado, and Sigmoidotropis (Piper) A.Delgado (Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). The mostly Old World Vigna clade includes species of Vigna subgenera Ceratrotropis (Piper) Verdc., Haydonia (R.Wilczek) Verdc., and Plectrotropis (Schumach.) Bak., as well as the mostly New World species of V. subg. Lasiospron (Benth.) Maréchal, Mascherpa & Stainier, the latter resolved as a well-supported early branching clade (Thulin et al. 2004; Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011).

We herein present a taxonomic treatment on the species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron, which are morphologically distinct from all other Vigna species, as well as from species of New World Phaseolinae genera, in sharing deeply emarginate standards, wing petals embracing the keel all with an left-hand curvature (as viewed face-on), and fruits becoming resupinate by the torsion of the pedicels. According to Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011), V. subg. Lasiospron is monophyletic and comprises six species that form the basis of our taxonomic account. These six are Vigna diffusa (Scott Elliott) A. Delgado & Verdc., V. juruana (Harms) Verdc., V. lasiocarpa (Mart. ex Benth.) Verdc., V. longifolia (Benth.) Verdc., V. schottii (Benth.) A.Delgado & Verdc., and V. trichocarpa (C.Wright) A.Delgado.

Materials and Methods

Taxonomic Study Group—Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011) report the materials and methods from which stems this taxonomic account of Vigna subg. Lasiospron. These include visits to and loans of herbarium specimens from BH, BM, BR, CAS, CHAPA, F, FLAS, G, GH, K, LJ, M, MEXU, MONT, NY, OXF, P, PHILA, RB, RBGE, SI, TEX-LL, US, VEN, W, and WU (herbarium acronyms follow Thiers 2020). The bibliographic citations in the original publications and databases such as IPNI (The International Plant Names Index;  http://ipni.org/), TROPICOS ( http://www.tropicos.org/), and The Plant List ( http://www.theplantlist.org/) were consulted. Flowers in the microscope slide collection of Bernard Verdcourt at Kew were consulted and, when appropriate, measurements of corolla structures were usually made on rehydrated flowers under a dissecting microscope. Some other structures, including pollen, were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), with the assistance of the Micromorphology Group of the Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Our taxonomic focus derives from the phylogenetic results of Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011), which resolved the six species of V. subg. Lasiospron as an early branching subclade of the Old World Vigna clade (Vigna sensu stricto in Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). In contrast to the more comprehensive study of Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011), the focus here is primarily on the species of V. subg. Lasiospron species and the coalescence of conspecific samples of this clade. We reanalyzed only the ITS sequence data because these data are sampled for multiple conspecific accessions of V. subg. Lasiospron species and because we have corrected some misidentifications since Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011). Ultimately, we wanted to demonstrate how genetic data covary with geographical and morphological variation to bolster our species delimitations in V. subg. Lasiospron. All data have been submitted to Dryad (Delgado-Salinas et al. 2022) and updated in GenBank.

Taxon Sampling—We reanalyzed 160 ITS accessions representing the 67 species of the Vigna sensu lato clade resolved by Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011). This clade comprises the African genus Physostigma and the mostly African and Asian species of Vigna sensu stricto. The latter includes the focal subclade of this analysis, Vigna subg. Lasiospron, the American Vigna. The Vigna sensu stricto clade and Physostigma form the sister clade to the American Phaseolinae (Ancistrotropis, Cochliasanthus, Condylostylis, Dolichopsis, Helicotropis, Leptospron, Macroptilium, Mysanthus, Phaseolus, Oxyrhynchus, Ramirezella, Sigmoidotropis, and Strophostyles; Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). We included conspecific samples of species from these genera to test the delimitation of species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron and compare patterns of coalescing conspecific genetic samples within V. subg. Lasiospron with such patterns in other subclades of Vigna sensu lato.

Phylogenetic Analysis—We conducted a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of an ITS sequence data set from Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011) using BEAST 2.6.2 (Bouckaert et al. 2019). We did not redo the analysis of the chloroplast locus trnK/matK because those data do not include multiple conspecific accessions of Vigna subg. Lasiospron species (Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011) and because such studies as Raveenadar et al. (2018) find ITS sequence data to be significantly more informative at the species level in the genus Vigna than any of the commonly used cpDNA loci. The Bayesian analysis included partitioning the ITS region into three subregions (i.e. the internal transcribed spacer 1, the 5.8S locus, and the internal transcribed spacer). The nucleotide substitution model involved model averaging using bModelTest (Bouckaert and Drummond 2017) or using the general time reversible nucleotide substitution model, as in Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011).

Multiple MCMC chains each included 100 M generations sampled every 90 K generations such that a 10% burn-in yielded 1000 sample points at likelihood stationarity. Using Tracer (Rambaut et al. 2018), we inspected likelihood scores simultaneously from multiple Bayesian runs, which invoked the same or differing combinations of settings (e.g. one versus three ITS data partitions, bModelTest versus general time reversible site models, and birth-death versus Yule tree models). In this manner we verified that all Bayesian runs achieved likelihood stationarity and determined the effect on the results of invoking different combinations of site and tree models.

The main tree prior included the root of Vigna sensu lato (the entire data set) with an age constraint set as a normally distributed density calibration of 8.0 ± 0.8 Ma (Lavin et al. 2005) rather than 9.1 ± 1.0 Ma (Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). This is because we wanted to bias ages toward conservative (minimum) estimates. With the root age so constrained, we made age estimates for the stem clades of Vigna sensu stricto plus Physostigma, the American Phaseolinae, all genera of the American Phaseolinae, and all the main subclades of Vigna sensu stricto including V. subg. Lasiospron.

Abiotic Variables—We wanted to climatically circumscribe the lowland wet tropical environments of Vigna subg. Lasiospron species, so we georeferenced a total of 427 herbarium collections of V. subg. Lasiospron (Supplemental Information, Delgado-Salinas et al. 2022). From the latitude and longitude of each collection, monthly precipitation, and minimum and maximum temperatures were extracted from the WorldClim v. 2.0 model layers (WGS84 projection; Fick and Hijmans 2017) using the R library raster (Hijmans et al. 2020). Bioclimatic variables (O'Donnell and Ignizio 2012) were derived from these climate models using the biovars function in the raster library. We extracted elevation data from STRM altitude models (Jarvis et al. 2008) using resampled data with spatial resolution of approximately 250 m on the line of the equator. A principal components analysis and generation of biplots were performed on all climate data in order to detect the orthogonal climate variables that showed the greatest amount of variation among the V. subg. Lasiospron sample sites.

Results

Phylogenetic Analysis—Likelihood stationarity was readily achieved with MCMC chains run for 100 M generations, including when such runs involved different combinations of site and tree models (Fig. S1, Delgado-Salinas et al. 2022). Vigna subg. Lasiospron and multiple conspecific accessions of five of the six constituent species were each resolved as monophyletic (Fig. 1). Samples of V. diffusa did not yield amplifiable DNA. Vigna subg. Lasiospron was resolved as sister to the rest of the Vigna sensu stricto (Fig. 1). The Vigna sensu stricto plus Physostigma clade was resolved as sister to the American Phaseolinae clade (Figs. 12). Mean age estimates of the stem clades representing genera and subgenera range from about 4–5 Ma for Vigna subgenera Ceratotropis and Lasiospron (Fig. 1) to about 2–3 Ma for many of the American Phaseolinae genera (Fig. 2).

Each of the five Vigna subg. Lasiospron species represented by multiple conspecific accessions resolved as well-supported coalescent clades with stem clade age estimates ranging from about 1.7 Ma for V. trichocarpa to about 1.0 Ma for Vigna juruana and V. schottii (Fig. 1). Coalescing conspecific ITS samples with similar to slightly older stem clade age estimates occur elsewhere in the Vigna sensu lato clade; for example, Vigna aconitifolia and V. umbellata of Vigna subg. Ceratotropis, Vigna luteola, and Vigna unguiculata (Fig. 1). Stem age estimates of American Phaseolinae species represented by coalescing conspecific samples tend to average less than 1 Ma in age (Fig. 2). Regardless, coalescing conspecific samples may not be the rule in Phaseolinae. The American Phaseolinae genera Ancistrotropis, Helicotropis, Leptospron, Macroptilium, and Sigmoidotropis are sufficiently sampled to resolve conspecific ITS samples as paraphyletic (Fig. 2). Age estimates did not differ significantly with respect to site and tree model combinations, except that invoking the Yule tree model resulted in older age estimates (Fig. S2, Delgado-Salinas et al. 2022).

Age estimates derive from nucleotide substitution models sampled at likelihood stationarity, which using bModelTest included mostly variants of the Tamura-Nei 93 (TN93) model with four substitution parameters. These models account for the difference between transitions and transversions, two kinds of transitions (C↔T more frequent than A↔G), and two kinds of transversions (purine↔pyrimidine). Mean estimates for the gamma shape parameter for among site rate heterogeneity were lowest for the 5.8S regions (< 0.30), highest for ITS1 (> 2.0), and intermediate for ITS 2 (1.0–2.0). Overall mean estimates of nucleotide substitution rates were about 5.5 × 10–8 substitutions per site per year with the bModelTest site model, the birth-death tree model, and three ITS partitions. Substituting in either the general time reversible site model, the Yule tree model, or not partitioning the ITS region resulted in slower substitution rate estimates (and thus generally older age estimates). For example, using either the general time reversible site model or the Yule tree model resulted in mean substitution rate estimates around 4.2 × 10–8 substitutions per site per year (Fig. S1).

BiogeographyVigna subg. Lasiospron species are distributed latitudinally as three pairs. One member of each pair is strictly neotropical and the other neotropical and tropical African or Madagascan. Vigna lasiocarpa and V. trichocarpa average the most northern latitude of the three pairs and center on Mesoamerica, the Greater Antilles, and northern South America with V. trichocarpa extending across the Atlantic to coastal tropical West Africa (Fig. 3, top panel). Vigna juruana and V. longifolia center on northern tropical South America with V. juruana extending across the Atlantic to west Central Africa (Fig. 3, middle panel). Vigna schottii and V. diffusa average the most southern latitude with most collections coming from southern Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and northern Argentina, and with V. diffusa extending across the Atlantic to Madagascar (Fig. 3, bottom panel). Notably, none of these pairs represent sister species (Fig. 1). Generally, interspecific relationships are not well supported among the V. subg. Lasiospron species with the exception of Vigna juruana and V. schottii (Fig. 1). The most northerly species, V. trichocarpa (Fig. 3), possibly represents the sister clade to the rest of V. subg. Lasiospron species (Fig. 1), but this relationship is tentative given that it is weakly supported (Fig. 1) and that Vigna diffusa has yet to be sampled for ITS sequence variation.

The ecological predilection of all Vigna subg. Lasiospron species to the edges of tropical wet forests along riparian corridors or to coastal environments suggests the evolution of the Lasiospron clade has been phylogenetically niche conserved to such lowland tropical wet settings. The early branching V. trichocarpa samples (Fig. 1) come from the Amazon River basin, northern and southern Restinga Atlantic Forest, and Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system. The similarly early branching clade of V. longifolia accessions come from the Amazon River basin, northern Restinga Atlantic Forest in Brazil, and the Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system. The clade that includes accessions of V. lasiocarpa mostly come from the Amazon River basin and Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system. Accessions of Vigna schottii, all from the Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system of southern Brazil and adjacent countries and the southern Restinga Atlantic Forest in southeastern Brazil, resolve as sister to the clade of V. juruana accessions (Fig. 1), all from the Amazon River basin and eastern Restinga Atlantic Forest. The one species unsampled for ITS sequence variation, V. diffusa, is represented by accessions that come from the southern Restinga Atlantic Forest. Sympatry is common among the species of V. subg. Lasiospron. The long stem branches of each species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron resolve with strong clade support (Fig. 1), which suggests that sympatry has likely resulted from secondary contact over the long evolutionary history of each of these species.

Fig. 1.

ITS phylogeny derived from a BEAST2 analysis of Vigna sensu lato (s. l.) featuring the subclade with Physostigma and Vigna sensu stricto (s. s.). Branches with high support values report posterior probabilities adjacent to the corresponding branch. Inset: Age distributions, estimated for stem clades with labels (the crowns of which are delimited by thick branches), come from 1000 samples at likelihood stationarity.

img-z3-1_97.jpg

The six species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron inhabit a broad latitudinal range of tropical wetlands from western Cuba and southern Mexico (ca. 23.2°N) to northern Argentina and southern Uruguay (34.9°S) at altitudes mostly well below 500 m (Fig. 4, top panel). The average elevation of the three amphi-Atlantic species is 112 m, whereas the average elevation of the three species confined to the New World is 151 m (the 95% CI of the difference in these means, 0.5–77 m, does not encompass 0).

For the 427 collection sites of the six species of V. subg. Lasiospron for which longitudes and latitudes could be assigned, climate variables that varied most included annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, and precipitation seasonality (Fig. 4). The collection sites of the six V. subg. Lasiospron species tend to come from low elevations where the annual mean temperature is around 26°C and the annual mean precipitation measures about 2000 mm with low precipitation seasonality (Fig. 4). Vigna schottii and V. diffusa occur at more southern latitudes with annual mean temperatures closer to 20°C and with more uniform monthly precipitation (Fig. 4, right hand columns of each panel).

Taxonomic Treatment

  • Vigna subg. Lasiospron (Benth.) Maréchal, Mascherpa & Stainier, Taxon 27: 201 (1978). Type: Vigna lasiocarpa (Benth.) Verdc., designated by Verdcourt (1970: 539).

  • Phaseolus section Strophostyles sensu Bentham, pro parte, Comm. Leg. Gen.: 74 (1837); Hassler in Candollea 1: 462 (1923), non Elliot; Piper in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 22: 677 (1926).

  • Phaseolus section Strophostyles emend. Benth., in Martius, Flora Brasiliensis 15(1): 187 (1859).

  • Vigna section Lasiospron (Benth.) Verdc., Kew Bulletin 24: 539 (1970).

  • Perennials or occasionally annuals, scrambling or climbing (sinistrorsely) vines up to 5 m or more long, with foliage and reproductive parts covered with yellow hairs, these often over 1 mm long, some individuals also conspicuously invested with minute glandular hairs. Stems herbaceous, hollow, angulate (sturdy), older ones lignescent, frequently developing adventitious roots, stems and roots reported to have nodules. Leaves entire or seldom lobed, rarely with sinuous margins, membranaceous to chartaceous, oblong to ovate or widely ovate, sometimes rhombic or linear-lanceolate, usually obtuse or acute or even acuminate at apex, with 3 basal or supra-basal nerves (one prominent and central, and one to either side), lateral leaflets asymmetrical, lateral vein on the broader side diverging ca. 30°, venation brochidodromus; stipules extended at the base or point of insertion, scarcely to distinctly and unequally bilobed or very distinctly spurred (sometimes adnate to the stem), membranaceous to chartaceous, triangular to lanceolate, 6–10-veined, not reflexed, persistent; stipels oblong to triangular, often trapezoidal, shorter than petiolules, glanduliferous due to glandular hairs; petioles mostly shorter than terminal leaflets, petioles and rachis bifacial, adaxially canaliculate, drying angled. Inflorescences few-flowered pseudoracemes, the flowers clustered at the apex, 2 flowers per node, the nodes adhering laterally to the rachis, swollen, with few to ca. 10 vestured glanduliferous orifices, these sparsely scattered or distributed in rows; primary and secondary bracts caducous, bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, as long or twice as long as the calyx tube, bracts and bracteoles lanceolate and at base geniculate, often spurred; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, longer and twisting in fruit, covered with straight, retrorse hairs; calyx campanulate, calyx-teeth generally short and subequal or forming two lips, the upper lobe broad and emarginate or the sinus as deep as the other three lower lobes, the lower lobe (two laterals and one central tooth) mostly equalling the tube length. Flowers predominately orange yellow or greenish yellow, glabrous; standard petal asymmetric, deeply emarginate or bilobed at apex, two parallel callosities on the centre of lamina at the point of folding, with two thick, fleshy auricles at the margins above the claw, the portion of the lamina immediately above the claw covered with micro-papillae; wing petals longer than keel, right wing (flower's right-side seen from the front) positioned clearly as a landing platform for visiting insects, the left wing (flower's left side) distally clasping around the left-side wall of the keel; keel distinctly beaked, loosely coiled to ca. 270° or through ca. 360°, twisted to the right side of the flower, the keel wider at region of connation with wings; stamens 10, diadelphous, the single free stamen with a broad or cup-shaped appendage on the basal portion; pollen grains triporate, with coarsely reticulate exine, interstitium granular; ovary with a basal nectary disc less than 1 mm long, lobed distally; ovules few to many, style tenuous to variously thickened, with a short, curled or spreading pollen brush, twisted at the apex, thus placing the stigma sideways and mostly extended beyond the stigma and projected into a horn-like or hook-like appendage, stigma small, elliptic or transversely ovate, introrse [= opening inwards and a term usually referring to anthers] or terminal, sparsely ciliate. Fruit inverted by a post-pollination twisting of the pedicel, patent (diverging from the axis at ca. 90°), or held erect (parallel to rachis), often placed on one side of the rachis (secund), straight to slightly falcate, subcylindrical or flattened, valves membranaceous or coriaceous, turning dark brown or black at maturity, covered with bristly, yellow, straight hairs, elastically dehiscent. Seeds asymmetrical, broader than long (D-shaped), compressed to subglobose (surrounded in fruit by a membranaceous whitish layer), hilum oblong, as long as seed width, covered by an epihilum and this often by a short epi-groove, with a distinctly raised rim-aril, and often with a conspicuous white membranaceous aril towards the lens. Seedlings with hypogeal germination. Chromosome number: 2n = 20 or 22.

  • Etymology—Bentham (1837) possibly named this group of plants Lasiospron to emphasize the hairiness of their pods: Lasio (hairy); spron (beak).

  • Taxonomic History—The taxonomy of this group of plants began with Bentham (1837), who published five new species in his taxonomic treatment of the genus Phaseolus. In Phaseolus section Strophostyles (Elliott) Benth., Bentham described Phaseolus schottii, P. longifolius, and P. ovatus, and an unnamed variety under the last. In addition, P. hirsutus and P. lasiocarpus were described under a newly proposed Phaseolus section Lasiospron Benth. Bentham classified P. pilosus Kunth (1823) under Phaseolus section Leptospron Benth. In his treatment of the genus in Flora Brasiliensis, Bentham (1859) synonymized P. schottii under P. longifolius, P. hirsutus under P. lasiocarpus, and recircumscribed P. campestris Benth. (1837). All these were included within P. section Strophostyles and not within Bentham's P. section Lasiospron. Chodat and Hassler (1904) and later Hassler (1923), in his treatment of the genus for South America, reduced all published taxa classified under P. section Strophostyles to two species, Phaseolus schottii with four varieties (and six formas) and P. pilosus with two varieties. Piper (1926) recognized only four species in this group, P. hirsutus, P. campestris, P. schottii, and P. pilosus. Verdcourt (1970), as part of a taxonomic study of subtribe Phaseolinae for the Flora of Tropical East Africa, which involved delimiting the genus Phaseolus, transferred this group of species into the reinstated section under Vigna Savi and recognized only three species, V. lasiocarpa, V. juruana, and V. longifolia. Maréchal et al. (1978) raised V. section Lasiospron to the subgenus rank under Vigna and followed Verdcourt's species classification. Lackey (1983) preferred the placement of V. subg. Lasiospron under V. subg. Vigna and followed again Verdcourt in recognizing only three species.

  • In sum, taxonomic misconception and uncertainties likely result, in part, from the similar morphologies of the six V. subg. Lasiospron species, which are all adapted to thrive in riparian and wetland habitats. In addition, ambiguities occur in original species descriptions, such as Hassler's (1923) description of P. schottii var. campestris, which combines diagnostic traits of more than one species (see Notes under Vigna juruana). Imprecise label information of critical herbarium specimens causing taxonomic uncertainty is exemplified by Vigna trichocarpa (see Notes under this species). Original and type specimens have been lost, as in the case of the holotype of V. juruana. We thereby provide a modern taxonomic synthesis of Vigna subg. Lasiospron, a group that has puzzled taxonomists for almost 200 yr.

  • Morphological, Ecological, and Karyological Traits (Figs. 56)Habit. All species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron are vines, mostly herbaceous and rarely woody and then mostly with age and at the base of the stem, which climb mainly on trees at forest edges particularly along riparian corridors. Stems. Mainly herbaceous, hollow or with a spongy pith, angulate (sturdy), becoming lignescent with age. Floating stems of Vigna lasiocarpa have been reported carrying nitrogen fixing nodules on adventitious roots and on stems, but vascularly attached to the bases of adventitious roots (James et al. 2001). Vegetative multiplication by stems occurs in plants of Vigna lasiocarpa (Pott and Pott 2000). Climbing direction in Vigna longifolia has been noted in the field label of the herbarium specimen Ahumada et al. 3373 (K), which records the direction of twining from left to right (sinistrorsum), when in other species it is from right to left. Leaves. The leaflets display a wide variation in size and shape even within the same species. They range in form from narrowly linear to broadly ovate, sometimes even with lobes at the base. In addition to showing different shapes, Vigna lasiocarpa leaflets have undulate margins. Due to this variation, leaflet shape and size are not reliable characters for species separation. Stipules and stipels. The stipules are moderately appendaged or distinctly produced below their point of insertion. The upper portion is generally lanceolate or widely triangular, and always conspicuously veined. The lower portion or appendage can be a single spur or bilobed (Fig. 5A–B). The texture varies from membranaceous to somewhat chartaceous and brittle. Stipules tend to be loosely fixed to stems, although often, as in V. lasiocarpa, they are closely adnate to the stem. Stipels are mostly ovate, although trapezoidal forms also occur. They tend to be covered with minute glandular hairs forming a nectariferous area. Inflorescence and node's extrafloral nectary. The inflorescences of Vigna subg. Lasiospron are pseudoracemes, where all secondary branches have been completely reduced and transformed into cushion-like glanduliferous nodes that generally carry two flowers each. These nodes are attached laterally to the inflorescence rachis and have few to ca. 10 vestured secretory orifices or extrafloral nectaries (Marazzi et al. 2019). These orifices are distributed sparsely or in close rows (Fig. 5C–F). In Vigna subg. Lasiospron species the shape of these nodes varies, as does the placement of the secretory orifices. The nodes in Vigna juruana are spatuliform, and the orifices are distributed in a scalariform pattern, with transverse separations, whereas in Vigna lasiocarpa, the nodes are elliptical and voluminous, and the orifices are displayed in two rows. In other species of the subgenus, they are subspherical or obpyriform, with the orifices distributed in a sparse-alternate pattern, and no transverse separations are visible.

  • Although notably different in shape and orifice distribution, the nectaries present in Vigna subg. Lasiospron may have a similar vascular supply to that found in Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Kuo and Pate 1985). These extrafloral nectaries in V. lasiocarpa have been reported to be active during the day even when the plants are fruiting (Lewis and Owen 1989) and are often visited by bees of the genus Trigona (da Silva et al. 2384) and by other Hymenoptera (Hoc et al. 1993). In Argentina, Hoc et al. (1993) registered wasps and ants actively sucking nectar from the inflorescence nodes. Ants were observed patrolling the plant displaying deterrent behaviour against other visitors to the plant. Flower. Flower colour varies from yellow to greenish yellow (Fig. 5D). The standard petal is deeply emarginate or bilobed at its apex and is sometimes not fully extended because the standard bends backwards in anthesis, leaving a portion of the margins joined to form a hood. On the internal face of the standard petal, two parallel thickenings or appendages, and two prominent, thick fleshy auricles, are located above a short petal claw. The concavity or furrow produced by the backward bending of the standard at anthesis, enclosed by the parallel thickenings and auricles, is papillate. This protected region directs the bee's mouth parts to the nectary, which is located at the base of the gynoecium.

  • Wing petals are adnate to the keel by their claws, and by their positioning upon the keel lateral pocket. Wing sculpturing occurs mainly on the right-side wing (as observed from the front of the flower). The sculpturing is in a lamellate pattern in the upper basal and upper central regions of the petal, and the upper basal margins of the petal are incurved. The auricles in the upper basal region are thick and fleshy, and in V. juruana a line of four to five hairs or cilia are present. These interlock with the basal auricles of the standard. The right-side wing petal extends distally and rotates to form a landing platform, whereas the left-side wing is held vertically and distally embraces the keel, thus blocking entry to the nectary by unwanted flower visitors.

  • Keel petals are united to each other for almost their whole length and form a tubular structure that encloses the androecium and gynoecium. The keel is curved at its mid-length position and there held erect between the wings; distally it is curved and rotated towards the right side of the flower. The two keel petal claws are strongly adnate to the staminal tube, whereas their lateral basal walls have a concave pocket and fold which attaches them to the wing petals, thus forming a lever mechanism of the four united petals when a pollinator lands on them. A semi-circular opening of the keel apex exposes the protruding stigma which is adjusted for nototribic or pleurotribic pollination.

  • The androecium is diadelphous and comprises nine stamens partially united to form a staminal sheath or tube, and one free vexillary stamen. The vexillary stamen filament has a conspicuous appendage just above its base. The appendage upper surface is verrucate. Verrucate surfaces are also present on adjacent margins of the staminal tube, constituting a shield that protects the ovary, as a visiting insect's proboscis searches for the basal fenestrae that lead to the nectary cavity. Stamen filaments are cylindrical with vascular traces running internally. The walls of the filaments have spirally coiled, free, elongate epidermal cells (Fig. 6A–B). These stretchy interweaved walls may provide the filament with some degree of elasticity that may play a role in promoting pollen transfer to the stylar pollen brush. Anthers are uniform, oblong in shape, basifixed to almost dorsifixed, and of longitudinal dehiscence.

  • Pollen grains are characterized by being triporate and with a wide reticulum, as seen in other species of Vigna (Maréchal et al. 1978). Their shape is suboblate to oblate, with a semi-angular to angular outline as viewed from the polar region (Fig. 6D–F). Pores comprise a globular to granulate operculum membrane. Pollen studies have described the interstitium as granular (non-orientated to orientated, and without a foot layer; Horvat and Stainier 1980; Ferguson and Skvarla 1983). However, the interstitium has been reported for Vigna lasiocarpa as columellar (Di Stilio 1994).

  • The gynoecium comprises a sessile, non-stipitate, straight ovary, with a lobed basal nectary disc confined within the base of the staminal tube. The length of the style is highly variable and ranges from around 1.5 cm in V. juruana to 5–6 mm in V. lasiocarpa. The style is thread-like or tenuous for about one-third of its length, then thickened uniformly for the next third, and narrows once again for the final third. A pollen brush is confined to the upper part of the style and is made up of curly (Fig. 6H) or straight hairs (Fig. 6I). The style-tip may be curved inwards to very different degrees, placing the stigma in a subterminal position (Fig. 6G), except in V. juruana where it is in an apical position (Fig. 6I). The stigma bears a whorl of non-receptive, short hairs (Drewes and Gamba 2011). In mature flowers of Vigna lasiocarpa the stigma surface produces a copious exudate and is located at the opening of the keel.

  • Pollination Studies—Flowers of Vigna longifolia and V. diffusa are effectively pollinated by bees of the genus Megachile, and V. diffusa by Apis mellifera, Bombus morio, and Xylocopa brasilianorum (Hoc et al. 1993; Souza et al. 2017, initially reported as V. longifolia but later determined to be V. diffusa). Pollen transference is nototribic, placing the pollen in an area between the head and thorax of the bee, or pleurotribic and sternotribic, in the case of the deposition of the pollen of V. diffusa in the entire metasoma, where the pollen brush slides from the dorsal to the ventral region in Megachile spp. (Hoc et al. 1993; Souza et al. 2017). Label data of da Silva et al. 2384 (in herb.) mentioned that large bees (Fig. 6E) are struck by the stigma on the side of their bodies (pleurotribic) while visiting the flowers of V. lasiocarpa.

  • Fruit and Seeds—The pods in Vigna subg. Lasiospron are usually laterally flattened, with chartaceous, thin valves (Fig. 5G). However, in Vigna lasiocarpa and V. longifolia the pods are nearly cylindrical, with their valve walls thicker than those of the rest of the species in the subgenus. Pod valves are covered with golden-yellow appressed hairs which turn black on drying. Pods are usually elastically dehiscent (Fig. 5H) along both sutures and the pedicels rotate and twist as the fruit matures, presenting it in either an ascending or pendent position. In an ascending position the abaxial suture faces the inflorescence axis, whereas in the pendent position the abaxial suture faces upwards. Seed orientation in the pod is mostly with its long axis parallel to the suture, although in V. lasiocarpa it tends to be somewhat oblique. Funicles in nearly all species are short, except in V. trichocarpa where they are approximately 1 mm.

  • Seeds vary in size and shape and are sometimes almost isodiametric to oblong-elliptic. Although more generally flattened to some extent, in V. lasiocarpa and V. longifolia seeds tend to be subglobose. In these two species, a white hippocrepiform aril develops at the edge of the hilum (Fig. 5I); the other four species have variable or no aril development (Table 1). Arils are found also in some species of Old World Vigna such as in wild plants of Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Maréchal (Takahashi et al. 2016). A comparison of some morphological characters of the species of V. subg. Lasiospron is presented in Table 1.

  • Seed Dispersal—Marsh deer, waterfowl, and cattle have been seen eating the foliage and seeds of Vigna species in the Brazilian Pantanal (Pott and Pott 1994, 2000). Waterfowl species that breed in North America and winter in Central and South America and the Antilles, which migrate across the Atlantic to Africa, are potentially able to disperse seeds over long distances (Somenzari et al. 2018). Species with a seed aril could be dispersed by birds and vertebrates. The widest ranging New World species, Vigna lasiocarpa and V. longifolia, have seed arils that are consistently well developed. In contrast, the least widely ranging species, Vigna schottii, has seed arils that are variably developed. However, the three amphi-Atlantic species, Vigna trichocarpa, V. juruana, and V. diffusa, have seed with little or no aril development (Table 1), suggesting the development of cartilaginous arils is not required for long distance trans-oceanic dispersal.

  • Chromosome Numbers—Chromosome counts of three Vigna subg. Lasiospron species have been reported (Maréchal 1969; Senff et al. 1992, 1995; Mercado-Ruaro and Delgado-Salinas 1996; Schifino-Wittmann 2000). Vigna diffusa (as V. longifolia) and V. longifolia have 22 somatic chromosomes, with counts of 2n = 22, whereas V. lasiocarpa is a dysploidy species, with a chromosome count of 2n = 20. These counts conform with the overall pattern found in Vigna (Goldblatt and Johnson 1979; Costa et al. 2019), which is a base chromosome number of n = 11 being most common, and base number of n = 10, 12, and others uncommon.

  • Synapomorphies of Vigna Subg. Lasiospron—In a mature flower, the distal portion of the keel twists to the right-hand side of the corolla, often into a complete coil. Pedicels, which are shorter than the calyx tube, twist following pollination to render the adaxial suture of the fruit upside down (resupinate). Fruits are pendent or ascending and their valves turn brown or black at maturity.

  • Fig. 2.

    ITS phylogeny derived from a BEAST2 analysis of Vigna sensu lato (s. l.) featuring the subclade American Phaseolinae. Branches with high support values report posterior probabilities adjacent to the corresponding branch. Inset: Age distributions, estimated for stem clades with labels and included in the American Phaseolinae (the crowns of which are delimited by thick branches), come from 1000 samples at likelihood stationarity.

    img-z5-1_97.jpg

    Fig. 3.

    Geographic distributions of the six species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron, which are ordered, top to bottom, by mean latitude. Filled circles indicate species with amphi-Atlantic distributions.

    img-z6-1_97.jpg

    Fig. 4.

    Elevation and climate variables, the latter of which varied most among 427 georeferenced collection sites of Vigna subg. Lasiospron species. From the top panel, elevation (m), annual mean temperature (C), annual precipitation (mm), and precipitation seasonality, which is the coefficient of variation (CV) of mean monthly precipitation (i.e. values close to 100% indicate highly seasonal climates, whereas values less than 60% indicate more uniform monthly precipitation regimes throughout the year). Species are ordered, left to right, by average north to south latitude (corresponding to Fig. 3). For each boxplot, the horizontal bar indicates the median, the box encompasses 50% of the data points, the whiskers approximately 99% of the data, and individual points represent outliers. Filled diamonds indicate mean values.

    img-z7-1_97.jpg

    Fig. 5.

    Photographic images of reproductive structures of Vigna subg. Lasiospron. A. Stipules peltate or medifixed of Vigna trichocarpa (Snak 1066). B. Stipules with a bilobed spur of Vigna diffusa (Snak 269). C. Vigna lasiocarpa floral buds, notice the long bracts and bracteoles and the arrow pointing to extrafloral nectaries (Vibrans 8246). D. Vigna diffusa flower (Snak 269). E. Xylocopa brasilianorum pollinating V. diffusa (Snak 501). F. Pods of Vigna lasiocarpa, with rotated pedicels (Vibrans 8246). G. Flattened pods of Vigna trichocarpa (São-Mateus s.n.). H. Nearly cylindrical, dehiscent pods of Vigna lasiocarpa (Vibrans 8246). I. Seed aril of Vigna lasiocarpa (Vibrans 8246). Photographs taken by Wallace M. B. São-Mateus, Cristiane Snak, and Heike Vibrans.

    img-z8-1_97.jpg

    Fig. 6.

    SEM images of reproductive structures of Vigna subg. Lasiospron. A. Vigna diffusa, dorsifixed anther with pollen grains. B. detail of filament showing helically orientated, intertwining arrays of cell walls. C. Vigna schottii, detail of filament showing cell walls helically orientated. D. Vigna diffusa, triporate pollen grains, equatorial and polar view. E. Vigna lasiocarpa, pollen grain, equatorial view. F. Vigna lasiocarpa, pollen grain, polar view. G. Vigna longifolia, stigma with wet stigmatic membrane and hooked style-tip (arrow). H. Vigna juruana, pollen brush of style comprising curly hairs. I. Vigna schottii, truncate stigma with fringed hairs and secretion containing pollen grains. Specimens: (A, B, D) Vigna diffusa (Cordeiro 616); (H) Vigna juruana (Henkel 5321); (E) Vigna lasiocarpa (Jansen-Jacobs 5019); (G) Vigna longifolia (Vibrans 8246); (F) Vigna longifolia (Kew Slide Collection 279); (C, I) Vigna schottii (Zardini 8650). Scale bars on images A–I. SEM photos by Hannah Banks. Image G, by H. Vibrans.

    img-z9-1_97.jpg

    Table 1.

    Comparison of morphological traits of Vigna subg. Lasiospron species.

    img-z10-2_97.gif

    Key to the Species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron

    1. Stipules scarcely to distinctly bilobed, below the point of insertion 2

    2. Upper extension of stipules 3 mm long; calyx 2–2.5 mm long; flowers pale greenish yellow, 8–10 mm long; style not extended beyond stigma, stigma apically placed; pollen brush 1 mm long, with hairs curled; fruit flattened 1. Vigna juruana

    2. Upper extension of stipules 3–12 mm long; calyx 3–10 mm long; flowers orange to golden yellow, 12–35 mm long; style extended beyond stigma, stigma laterally placed, pollen brush 3–6 mm long, hairs spreading; fruit flattened or cylindrical 3

    3. Upper extension of stipules 2–4 mm wide, membranaceous to chartaceous, up to 10-veined; calyx 3–3.5 mm long; inflorescence rachis with 2–3 nodes; style extension projecting into a small crustaceous horn-like appendage; ovules 8–10 per ovary; pods oblong, flattened, thin-valved; seed without rim-aril 2. Vigna diffusa

    3. Upper extension of stipules 1–2 mm wide, chartaceous, up to 6-veined; calyx 4–10 mm long; inflorescence rachis with 3–8 nodes; style-extension projecting into a horny, hook-like appendage; ovules 10–18 per ovary; pods linear to slightly falcate, cylindrical, thick-valved; seed with rim-aril 4

    4. Inflorescence rachis with 2–4 nodes; calyx 4–5 × 2–3 mm, sparsely hirsute to strigose at base, upper teeth slightly divided, narrow and acute, not forming a lip; keel-beak not quite completing one coil; pods linear to slightly falcate, 4–8 × 0.5 cm, tapering to the apex, rostrum ca. 5 mm long 3. Vigna longifolia

    4. Inflorescence rachis with (3–)5–8(–9) nodes; calyx 5.5–10 × 3.5–8 mm, densely hirsute-strigose, upper teeth deeply divided and broadly rounded at apex to form a lip; keel beak fully completing one coil; pods linear-oblong, 6–9 × 0.7–1.1 cm, abruptly truncate at the tip, rostrum 2–3 mm long 4. Vigna lasiocarpa

    1. Stipules distinctly spurred, below the point of insertion 5

    5. Inflorescence rachis with 4–6 nodes, nodes oblong, spatuliform, orifice distribution scalariform, with transverse separations; calyx 1.5–2 mm long, teeth 0.5 mm long; flower 8–12 mm long; pollen brush 2–3 mm long; pod oblong, flattened, (3–)3.5–4 cm long, 7–8 mm wide, ascending 5. Vigna trichocarpa

    5. Inflorescence rachis with 3–5(–8) nodes, nodes subspherical, obpyriform, orifice distribution sparse-alternate, without transverse separations; calyx 3–4 mm long, teeth 1 mm long; flower 12–14 mm long; pollen-brush 3.5–4 mm long; pod linear, subcylindrical, 4–6 cm long, ca. 6 mm wide, patent or ascending 6. Vigna schottii

  • 1. Vigna juruana (Harms) Verdc., Kew Bulletin 24: 540 (1970). Phaseolus juruanus Harms, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berl. 7: 506 (1921). TYPE: BRAZIL. Amazonas, Jurua miry, Jul 1901, E. Ule 5533 (holotype: B, presumably destroyed; isotypes: K!, U!). Figure 7.

  • Phaseolus campestris sensu Benth., in Mart., Flora Brazil. 15(1): 188 (1859). TYPE: BRAZIL. “in Braziliae septentrionalis campis et pascuis ad Pará.” Martius s.n. (lectotype M!, designated here), nom. illeg., non P. campestris Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 77 (1837), non Vigna campestris (Mart. ex Benth.) R.Wilczek, in Fl. Congo Belge 6: 391 (1954). See nomenclatural notes below.

  • Phaseolus schottii var. campestris forma brasiliensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: BRAZIL. “Alto Amazonas: ad ostium fluminis Saliman [sic]”, Spruce 1641 (lectotype: K, herb. Benth., designated here; isolectotypes: G, K!, M!), synon. nov., non P. schottii var. campestris forma guyanensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: FRENCH GUIANA. Poiteau s. n. (holotype: G), synon. nov., non P. schottii var. campestris forma transiens Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: BRAZIL. Bahia in pratis humidis, Salzmann s.n. (holotype: G; isotypes: K!, MO!). See nomenclatural notes below.

  • Phaseolus schottii Benth. var. tucumanensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464 (1923). Type: Argentina. Tucumán, cumbre de Anfama, alt. 2500 m, Schreiter 866 (holotype: Herb. Osten, not seen). See nomenclatural notes below.

  • Perennials or annuals (?), procumbent or climbing vines up to 3 m, with foliage and reproductive parts covered with minute glandular hairs, and sparse or dense pubescence. Stems hollow, slightly woody at base, often with adventitious roots, sparsely to densely strigose, with yellow to reddish, retrorse hairs. Leaves with stipules ovate to narrowly-lanceolate, unequally bilobed, upper portion ca. 3 mm long, 1–2 mm wide, 5–6-veined, not reflexed, persistent; lower portion ca. 2 mm long, sparsely pilose; stipels oblong or triangular, ca. 1 mm long, subequal in length to petiolules, glabrous except for minute glandular trichomes; petioles 3.5–11 cm long, covered with retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, ca. 0.5–2.5 cm long, with some antrorsely appressed hairs on the adaxial side, canaliculate; leaflets entire, ovate to narrowly ovate, or lanceolate, acute at apex, with raised veins below, membranaceous, sparsely to densely strigose, terminal leaflet 4–12 × 1.5–9 cm, lateral leaflets 4.5–10.5 × 2–7 cm. Inflorescences up to 15 cm long, peduncles ca. 13.5 cm long, covered with short retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally; rachis 1.5–2 cm long, with 5–8(–10) swollen, oblong, 2–3 mm long nodes, 5–8 orifices alternately distributed, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts caducous, secondary bracts ca. 6 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, ca. 4.5 mm long, longer than calyx tube; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, 1–1.5 mm long, longer and twisting in fruit, covered distally with straight, retrorse hairs; calyx campanulate, sparsely strigose at the base, glabrous distally, ca. 2 × ca. 1.5 mm, upper teeth slightly divided, narrow and acute, not forming a lip, teeth triangular, subequal, 0.5 mm long, lower tooth slightly longer than lateral teeth. Flowers pale greenish yellow, 8–10 mm long; standard petal asymmetric, broadly ovate, ca. 8 × ca. 8 mm, bilobed at apex, two parallel callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, two fleshy auricles above a short claw; wing-petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, ca. 1 cm long, 5–6 mm wide, with an auricle at base, claw ca. 3 mm long; keel distinctly beaked, twisted through ca. 270°, the apex hook-like; ca. 7 mm above wing petals, with transverse pockets above the claws, claws ca. 2 mm long, fused to staminal tube; androecium ca. 1 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers oblong-ovate, ca. 1 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disc ca. 0.5 mm long, ovules 8–9 per ovary, style with a tenuous lower part, upper portion thickened, cylindrical, curved, pollen-brush ca. 1 mm long, with curled hairs; stigma globose, apical. Fruit patent, linear-oblong to slightly falcate, flattened, valves thin-walled, not constricted between the seeds, turning dark brown or black at maturity, 4–7 cm long, 4–7 mm wide, elastically dehiscent, sparsely strigose, with yellow, straight hairs, beak 1 mm long, straight. Seeds D-shaped, 3.5–6.5 × 3–4 mm, surface smooth, testa dark brown, mottled lighter brown, hilum oblong, as long as seed width, rim-aril distinctly raised, covered by an epihilum, without aril. Figure 7.

  • Illustrations—Wilczek (1954) as Vigna campestris (Fig. 7).

  • Distribution and Habitat—Southern Mexico (Tabasco), Central America (Costa Rica, Honduras, Panamá), and South America (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname); also including Trinidad (Republic of Trinidad and Tobago). Likely native in west and central Africa (Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central Africa Republic, and Nigeria; Fig. 3). Seasonal or permanently flooded plains or in riverine forests; in South America, in the Solimões River and Amazon River basin and eastern Restinga Atlantic Forest. Sometimes reported growing on the floodplains of Amazonian black water and clear water rivers (i.e. Igapó, common name “feijão do Igapó”), sprawling in floating plant islands or growing in old rice fields; altitudinal range mostly 0–700 m (collected at 1400–1600 m in the Peruvian Ucayalli Department). This species grows in habitats similar to V. trichocarpa and V. longifolia with which it is sometimes sympatric (e.g. Iquitos, Perú). Flowering and fruiting have been registered all year except for June.

  • Etymology—Named after the River Juruá in Brazil.

  • Vernacular Names—“Soematalan” (Amshoff 1939); “feijão do Igapó” (Fróes 21065); “frijolillo” (Colombia); “namiatá” (French Guiana, Wayapi); “porotillo” (Perú); “kwakwa” (Wilczek 1954).

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Bolivia.Pando: Manuripi, a lo largo del arroyo Bay, entre el campamento Bay y La Poza, 17 Oct 1989, St. G. Beck 19433 (MEXU). Brazil.Amapa: Rio Araguari, vicinity Camp 12, 1°10′60″S, 52°7′60″W, 30 Sep 1961, J. Murca Pires 51366 (MICH, US). Colombia.Amazonas: Leticia, Río Amazonas, Isla de Mocagua, frente del Vergel, Lago Resaca, 3°51′0″S, 70°15′0″W, 110–120 m, 3 Oct 1991, A. Prieto 92 (MO). Costa Rica.Alajuela Province: Los Chiles, R. V. S. Caño Negro, cuenca del Río Frío, 10°53′18″N, 84°46′37″W, 60 m, 27 Sep 2000, L. Acosta et al. 2772 (G). French Guiana. Cayenne, Saut Nacibo, 4°41′0″N, 52°59′0″W, 20 m, 25 Mar 1994, B. Bordenave 892 (K). Guyana. Essequibo Isl.-W Demerara, lower 7 km of Tiger Creek; 6°30′0″N, 58°39′0″E, 15 m, 11 Dec 1992, T. W. Henkel 403 (US). Honduras.Atlantida Department: Tela River near Puerto Sierra, 3 May 1903, P. Wilson 669 (NY). México.Tabasco: a 300 m de la desviación del Río González, hacia Boca Grande, 14 Feb 1990, M. A. Magaña A 2255 (MEXU). Panamá.Panamá Province: Fort Clayton, Canal Zone, 14 Jul 1966, J. D. Dwyer 4584 (MEXU, MO). PERÚ.Huánuco Department: Estación Experimental Agrícola, 701 m, 4 Dec 1945, R. J. Seibert 2268 (F, US). Suriname. Lucie Rivier, 2–10 km below confluence of Cost Rivier, 225 m, 9 Sep 1963, H. S. Irwin 55541 (NY). Trinidad. Nariva Swamp, E of Sand Hill, 5 Apr 1977, C. D. Adams 14246 (K). Venezuela.Amazonas: Departamento Río Negro, Río Siapa, near base of Cerro Aracamuni, 1°39′0″N, 65°40′0″W, 4 Nov 1987, 250 m, R. Liesner 22785 (MO). Cameroon. Bipinde, Urwaldgebeit, Dec. 1912, G. Zenker 4300 (M). Central African Republic. Left bank of Mambére R., near Bania, 26 Nov 1965, A. J. M. Leeuwenberg 7040 (K). Democratic Republic Of The Congo. Jangauellei, ile Esali II, 12 Jul 1988, J. Louis 10294 (K). Nigeria. River Old Calabar, 1863, G. Mann 2319 (K).

  • Notes—In Martius Flora Brasiliensis, Bentham (1859) described Phaseolus campestris, a name already used (Bentham 1837) and thus a later homonym and illegitimate under Article 53 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland et al. 2018) and unavailable for use (Verdcourt 1970). Hassler (1923), while possibly considering that Bentham (1837) listed Phaseolus schottii before V. longifolia, published four varieties, P. schottii var. genuinus, P. schottii var. campestris, P. schottii var. longifolia, and P. schottii var. tucumanensis. Under P. schottii var. campestris, Hassler combined characters diagnostic of different taxa and, in consequence, listed specimens of different taxa under his new combinations. Under P. schotti var. campestris forma brasiliensis he cited three collections from Brazil: Minas, in silvis ad Salgado [sic.], Martius 1680 (M!), since identified as V. luteola (refer to Verdcourt 1970: 540); Alto Amazonas: ad ostium fluminis Saliman [sic], Spruce 1641 (G), identified here as V. juruana; and a collection from Bahia by Salzmann 182 (G), here identified as V. trichocarpa. The exact locality of Spruce's specimen has been established by consulting the expedition notes in Spruce (1851–1855). He recorded his collection numbered 1641, collected in Solimões and Manaquirý, on June 1851, as a Phaseolus close to P. ovatus (P. ovatus aff.). Such information only appears on one of the two sheets of Spruce 1641 at K (herb. Benth.), and we have designated this specimen as the lectotype of P. schottii var. campestris. Amshoff (1939) considered P. schottii var. campestris f. guyanensis Hassl. as a synonym of Phaseolus trichocarpus. Unfortunately, original material could not be found at P, and the description does not give enough information to elucidate its identity; therefore, we accept Amshoff's judgment here. Concerning the type of Phaseolus schottii var. campestris f. transiens Hassl., see statements under Vigna trichocarpa in this treatment.

  • Vigna juruana has the smallest flowers of all Vigna subg. Lasiospron species and has a very distinctive style on its gynoecium. The style has a tenuous lower part, with a thicker, cylindrical, and curved upper portion, which becomes rather slender again towards the stigma. Its pollen brush is short and with unique curled short hairs. In addition, the style has no extension beyond the stigma, a characteristic seen in all other species of V. subg. Lasiospron.

  • We have not seen the type of Phaseolus schottii var. tucumanensis, and despite Hassler's lengthy description in the taxon protologue it is not obvious where it belongs taxonomically. Lackey (1983) placed this variety as a synonym of Macroptilium fraternum (Piper) Lackey. We tentatively place var. tucumanensis as a nomenclatural synonym under Vigna juruana. This is because the original description includes floral dimensions that best fit Vigna juruana (e.g. a small calyx ca. 2.5 cm long). However, the original description describes the fruits as ca. 2.5 cm long and 3 mm wide, and the fruit length is too small for V. juruana. Regarding the type locality, no herbarium specimen has been found with a collection locality in the Tucumán province that matches the protologue of Phaseolus schottii var. tucumanensis. Moreover, no V. subg. Lasiospron species, including V. juruana, is reported from such a high elevation. Vigna juruana and V. lasiocarpa are the two V. subg. Lasiospron species with the widest elevational ranges (Fig. 4) with V. juruana occurring up to 1028 m and V. lasiocarpa up to 1731 m. The Tucumán collection locality and the reported altitude of 2500 m for var. tucumanensis are both exceptional for the subgenus (Figs. 34).

  • Fig. 7.

    Illustration of Vigna juruana. A. Habit, natural size. A1. Portion of stem. A2. Portion of peduncle. B. Stipules, some indumentum omitted for clarity (× 6). C. Leaflet outlines to show variation. C-1. Close-up of trichomes on upper leaflet surface. D. Extrafloral nectaries on inflorescence node (× 6). E, E1. Standard petal, ventral (× 6) and dorsal view. F1, F2. Wing petals (× 6). G, G1. Keel petals (× 6), taken from floral buds and flower. H. Staminal tube and vexillary stamen free (× 6). I. Gynoecium (× 5) and stigma enlarged. J. Fruit, natural size. K. Seed, hilar view (× 9). Drawn from Plowman, Schultes & Tovar 6387 (habit and dissection); Henkel et al. 3153 (stipules); Steyermark 87773 (fruit); Hill 13046 (seed). Illustration by Pat Halliday.

    img-z12-1_97.jpg
  • 2. Vigna diffusa (Scott Elliot) A. Delgado & Verdc., American Journal of Botany 98(10): 1711 (2011). Phaseolus diffusus Scott Elliot, J. Linn. Soc. 29: 12 (1891). TYPE: MADAGASCAR. sandy dunes near Fort Dauphin, Sep 1890, G.F. Scott Elliot 2366 (lectotype: K!, designated by Du Puy et al. 2002; isolectotypes: BM!, P!).

  • Phaseolus ovatus sensu Benth. Comm. Legum. Gen.: 77 (1837) in Brazil, pro parte.

  • Vigna longifolia sensu Du Puy et al. (2002), non (Benth.) Verdc.

  • Perennial prostrate or climbing vines, foliage and reproductive parts covered with long yellow hairs, with minute glandular hairs intermingled, sparsely or densely pilose. Stems herbaceous, fibrous, often with adventitious roots, sparsely to densely pilose with yellow, straight hairs. Leaves trifoliolate, stipules lanceolate to sagittate, upper extension 4–12 mm long, 2–4 mm wide, membranaceous to chartaceous, 8- to 10-veined, lower portion biauriculate, 1–2 mm long, stipels ovate-lanceolate, shorter than petiolules, ca. 2 mm long, covered with long straight and minute glandular hairs; petioles 2–6 cm long, covered with hirsute, retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, 5–10 mm long, with antrorsely appressed hairs, canaliculate; leaflets entire, ovate, elliptic-ovate, or oblong, usually obtuse or acute at apex, often with raised veins below and the veins outlined in light green relative to the darker green lamina, chartaceous, densely strigose to softly pilose on both surfaces; terminal leaflet 4–6.5 × 2–2.5 cm, lateral leaflets 3–6 × 2–3 cm. Inflorescences 7–13.5 cm long, peduncles up to 13 cm long, covered with straight, retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally, rachis ca. 5 mm long, with 2–3 swollen, ampulliform nodes, ca. 1.5 mm long, with 3–5 vestured orifices, alternately distributed, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts caducous, secondary bracts lanceolate, ca. 10 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, lanceolate, 6–10 mm long; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, 3–5 mm long, longer and twisting in fruit, covered with retrorse, straight hairs, antrorse at base of calyx; calyx campanulate, sparsely pilose at base, tube longer than teeth, ca. 3 × ca. 3 mm, upper teeth emarginate, rounded at apex, not forming a lip, lateral teeth and lower tooth oblong and rounded, ca. 1 mm long. Flowers golden yellow, 1.5–2 cm long, standard petal asymmetric, broadly ovate, ca. 1.5 × ca. 1.5 cm, bilobed at apex, two parallel, thick callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, two fleshy auricles, 1 mm wide, above a short claw; wing petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, 1.5–1.7 × ca. 1.5 cm, with a prominent auricle at base, claw ca. 3 mm long; keel distinctly beaked, curved through 270°, almost forming a complete coil, ca. 1.5 cm above the wing, with transverse pockets above the petal claws, claws ca. 4 mm long, fused to staminal tube; androecium 2 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers oblong-ovate, ca. 1 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to their filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine, interstitium granular; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disc ca. 1 mm long, ovules 10–11 per ovary, style with a tenuous lower part, upper part thickened, cylindrical, curved, pollen brush 4–5 mm long, with long spreading hairs produced beyond the stigma to form a short conical appendage; stigma transversally-ovate, laterally placed. Fruit patent, linear-oblong, flattened, truncate at the apex, valves thin-walled, turning dark brown or black at maturity, densely pilose with yellow hairs, 4.5–6 cm long, ca. 7 mm wide, beak 1 mm long, elastically dehiscent. Seeds (immature) D-shaped, ca. 3 × ca. 4 mm, surface smooth, testa brown, hilum oblong, ca. 2 mm long, covered by an epihilum, rim-aril raised, aril when present poorly developed, membranaceous and whitish. Chromosome number: 2n = 22 (Senff et al. 1992, 1995; Schifino-Wittmann 2000).

  • Illustrations—Herter (1952) as Phaseolus ovatus; Isaguirre and Beyhaut (1997) as Vigna longifolia; Cordazzo and Seeliger (1995) as Vigna luteola; Snak, Miotto and Goldenberg (2011) as Vigna longifolia.

  • Distribution and HabitatVigna diffusa occurs in southern Brazilian restinga, a coastal low forest or scrub vegetation on sand, along the coast of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and São Paulo, south to Uruguay (Fig. 3). According to herbarium labels, Vigna diffusa was first collected in the nineteenth century on the eastern coast of Madagascar. Three specimens of this species from Madagascar have been found in herbaria, and 1964 was the last time the species was collected on the island. The occurrence in Madagascar is just as likely the result of natural trans-Atlantic dispersal as human introduction because Vigna diffusa occurs on coastal sand dunes, flooded or moist environments, and in grasslands and Restinga communities all at sea level. Flowering and fruiting have been registered in most months except June, and August to November.

  • Etymology—The species name refers to the spreading habit of the species (diffusus, spreading).

  • Vernacular Name—“Feijão-da-praia” (Cordazzo and Seeliger 1995).

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Brazil.Paraná: Paranaguá, Ilha do Mel, 30 Dec 2009, C. Snak et al. 269 (UPCB). Uruguay.Canelones: bords de Santa Lucía, Mar 1867, E. Gilbert 311 (K, W). Madagascar. Sandy dunes near Fort Dauphin, Sep 1890, G. F. Scott Elliot 3023 (BM, K).

  • Notes—A new combination is here proposed for the name Phaseolus diffusus. Specimens of this species collected by Tweedie s.n. (K) and St. Hilaire s.n. (P) in southern Brazil were listed by Bentham (1859) under P. ovatus. With reference to nomenclatural and taxonomic decisions about the latter see under V. schottii.

  • Vigna diffusa is morphologically similar to V. schottii but differs from it by its biauriculate stipules and mainly ovate leaflets. The diagnostic sagittate upper portion of the stipule has a wide base and scarious texture. The ovate to elliptic-ovate (sometime oblong) leaflets are often bicolored, where the main veins are lighter green compared to the darker green leaflet lamina. In addition, although originally described as Phaseolus diffusus from Madagascar, V. diffusa has the most southerly and easterly distribution of any of the six species of V. subg. Lasiospron in South America; it is most frequently encountered in coastal habitats of southern Brazil and Uruguay (Fig. 3).

  • 3. Vigna longifolia (Benth.) Verdc., in Kew Bulletin 24: 541 (1970). Phaseolus longifolius Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 75 (1837). TYPE: BRAZIL. “ad Brasilia”, Schott s.n. (holotype: W!). Figure 8.

  • Phaseolus schottii var. longifolius f. intermedius Hassl., Candollea 1: 463. 1923. TYPE: PARAGUAY. Chaco. Hassler 2769 (G, not seen); Jörgensen 2959 (lectotype: G!, designated here; MO!, US! = V. longifolia) synon. nov. Syntypes Rojas 2917 (SI! = V. longifolia). ARGENTINA. Jörgensen 2951 (SI! = V. longifolia).

  • Phaseolus schottii var. longifolius f. grandiflorus Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: PARAGUAY. “in Paraguaria septentrionales”, 1901–1902, E. Hassler 7320 (lectotype: G!, designated here; isolectotypes: BM!, F!, G!, GH!, MO!, NY!), synon. nov.

  • Perennial or annual (?), scrambling or climbing vines up to 3 m, with foliage and reproductive parts covered with minute glandular hairs, and a sparse or dense pubescence. Stems rhizomatous, hollow, slightly woody at base, often with adventitious roots, sparsely strigose, with yellow, retrorse hairs less than 1 mm long. Leaves with stipules narrowly-lanceolate, unequally bilobed, upper portion 4–6 × 1–2 mm, 5–6-veined, not reflexed, persistent; lower portion ca. 2 mm long, sparsely pilose; stipels oblong or triangular, 1.5–2 mm long, subequal in length to petiolules, glabrous except for minute glandular trichomes; petioles 4–10 cm long, covered with retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, 5–20 mm long, with some antrorsely appressed hairs on the adaxial side, canaliculate; leaflets entire, ovate to narrowly ovate or lanceolate, acute or acuminate at apex, often with raised veins below, membranaceous to chartaceous, sparsely to densely strigose, terminal leaflet 9–15 × 1.3–5.5 cm, lateral leaflets 7–11 × 2–5.5 cm. Inflorescences up to 35 cm long, peduncles 14–32 cm long, covered with short retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally; rachis 1.5–3 cm long, with 2–4 swollen ovoid nodes, these 2–4 mm long, with 4–6 alternate orifices, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts, caducous, secondary bracts ca. 6 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, 6–10 mm long, longer than calyx tube; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, longer and twisting in fruit, covered distally with retrorse, straight hairs; calyx campanulate, sparsely strigose at the base, glabrous distally, 4–5 × 2–3 mm, upper teeth slightly divided, narrow and acute, not forming a lip, other teeth triangular, subequal, 1.5–2 mm long, lower tooth slightly longer than lateral teeth. Flowers golden yellow, ca. 2.5 cm long, standard petal asymmetric, broadly ovate, ca. 2 × ca. 2.5 cm, bilobed at apex, with two parallel, thick callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, and two fleshy auricles above a short claw; wing petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, ca. 2.5 × ca. 1.5 cm, with an auricle at base, claw ca. 3 mm long; keel distinctly beaked, coiled ca. 360°, almost forming a complete circle, ca. 1.5 cm above the wing, with transverse pockets above the claws, claws ca. 4 mm long, fused to staminal tube; androecium ca. 3.5 cm long, staminal tube ca. 2.5 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers oblong-ovate, ca. 1 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disc ca. 1 mm long, ovules 12–14, style with a tenuous lower part, upper part thickened and cylindrical, curved, pollen brush ca. 8 mm long, with long spreading hairs, produced beyond the stigma to form a short hook; stigma transversally-ovate, laterally placed, surrounded by short cilia. Fruit patent, oblong to slightly falcate, sub-cylindrical, valves thick-walled, not constricted between the seeds, turning dark brown or black at maturity, (4–)6–8 cm long, 5–6 mm wide, elastically dehiscent, densely strigose, with yellow and white, straight hairs, beak straight, 5–7 mm long. Seeds globose to D- shaped, ca. 3 × ca. 4 mm, surface smooth, testa light brown, mottled darker brown, hilum oblong, as long as seed width, rim-aril prominent, covered by an epihilum, aril consistently present, hippocrepiform, cartilaginous with white-banded crenate margins, mostly surrounding the hilum. Chromosome number: 2n = 22 (Mercado-Ruaro and Delgado-Salinas 1996). Figure 8.

  • Distribution and Habitat—Southern Mexico (Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, Veracruz), Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panamá) and in South America, Amazon River basin, and Amazonian savannas, Restinga Atlantic Forest and in the Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Perú, Venezuela). Although widely distributed, this species has not to our knowledge been collected in Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname. Vigna longifolia, as well as V. lasiocarpa, have been collected in the Pacific lowlands of Ecuador (Guayas Province), the most western location for species of V. subg. Lasiospron in South America. This species also has one of the most southern occurrences of a V. subg. Lasiospron species in northeastern Argentina (Fig. 3). Vigna longifolia generally inhabits seasonal or permanently flooded plains or savannah-type grasslands, and is sometimes reported sprawling on floating vegetation. It also grows in old rice fields; altitudinal range from 0–600 m. Flowering and fruiting throughout the year.

  • Etymology—The species epithet longifolia refers to the long, narrow leaflets.

  • Vernacular Names—“Baul ch'ó” (E. Ucan 1607); “feijão bravo” (Melo 3352); “Siratro de Agua” (Lock 83/66).

  • Uses—The species is relished by livestock, and its seeds are eaten by birds (Pott and Pott 1994).

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Argentina.Chaco Province: Colonia Benítez, without date, A. G. Schulz 10328 (G). Bolivia. —El Beni: Trinidad, Jan 1965, O. Braun 11 (US). Brazil.Amazonas: Alenquer, Margem do Rio Amazonas, 30 May 2014, C. Snak et al. 1216 (HUEFS). Colombia.Amazonas: Río Lontoyacu, 2 Oct 1946, R. E. Schultes 46–173 (US). Costa Rica. Guanacaste Province, Cantón Bagaces P.N. Palo Verde, valle de Tempique, Sector Catalina, La Espuela y el área administrativa de Palo Verde, 10°21′0″N, 85°21′0″W, 10 m, 22 Sep 1994, U. Chavarría 1047 (K). Ecuador.Guayas: Estación Psicícola Santa Priscila, Est. 3, 2°23′0″N, 79°46′W, 5 m, 20 May 2000, X. Cornejo and C. Bonifaz 7049 K). El Salvador.Ahuachapán: A.P. Santa Rita, ruta 7, La Laguna, 13°48′0″N, 90°4′0″W, 20 m, 12 Apr 2004, J. M. Rosales 2365 (MEXU). Guatemala. Depto. Jutiapa, potreros between Trapiche Vargas and Asunción Mita, 500–600 m, 15 Nov 1939, J. A. Steyermark 31881 (F). México.Campeche: Hopelchén District, a 2.2 km al ENE de Chun-Ek, 19°11′42″N, 89°10′25″W, 90 m, 26 Aug 2005, D. Álvarez 11670 (MEXU). Panamá.Canal Zone: vicinity of Frijoles, 3 Mar 1923, C. V. Piper 5164 (US). Paraguay.Chaco: campos bajos estero Estancia Loma Pará, Apr 1917, T. Rojas 2917 (SI). Perú.Loreto: Lower Río Nanay, May-Jun 1929, Ll. Williams 555 (US). Venezuela.Apure: Payarita, entre San Fernando y Achaguas, Bajo Apure, 12 Aug 1972, M. Ramia 4852 (VEN).

  • Notes—Bentham (1859) considered Phaseolus longifolius and P. schottii as conspecific, placing the latter as a synonym of the former. As mentioned above, Hassler (1923) recognised P. schottii published earlier in Bentham's (1837) treatment, and he published four varieties, P. schottii var genuinus, P. schottii var. campestris, P. schottii var. longifolia, and P. schottii var. tucumanensis. In our treatment, the typical variety is discussed under Vigna schottii, and varieties campestris and tucumanensis under V. juruana.

  • In more recent classifications (Verdcourt 1970; Maréchal et al. 1978), Vigna longifolia included three of the six species here considered as part of V. subg. Lasiospron. The species V. diffusa, V. schottii and for some time even V. trichocarpa were considered as synonyms of this distinctive species. Vigna longifolia is distinguished from the other V. subg. Lasiospron species by a combination of features, including its bi-auriculate stipules with a long, narrowly triangular upper portion, up to 6 mm long, and lanceolate leaflets, up to 15 cm long. Its flowers are approximately 2 cm long, with a conspicuous hooked style tip. The long-tapering pods with thick-walled valves have seeds each with a conspicuous white aril. Seeds with cartilaginous white arils are also consistently present in V. lasiocarpa.

  • Fig. 8.

    Illustration of Vigna longifolia. A. Habit, natural size. A1. Portion of stem. A2. Portion of petiole. B. Stipules, only a portion of indumentum shown for clarity (× 6). C. Leaflets showing variation in shape (natural size). C1. Detail of vein. D. Extrafloral nectaries on inflorescence node (× 6). E. Flower bud (pre-anthesis), including bracteoles, indicated by arrow (× 3). F. Calyx opened out, external surface (× 3). G. Standard petal, ventral surface (× 0.5). G1. Standard petal, external surface (× 1). G2. Standard petal inner surface showing thickenings and auricles (× 6). H. Wing petal (× 3). I. Keel petals, drawn from young flower (× 3). J. Staminal tube with free vexillary stamen (× 3). K. Gynoecium (× 3). L. Fruits, natural size. L1. Twisted pedicel at base of fruit. M. Seed (× 6). Drawn from Barbosa & Silva 1927 (habit and flower dissection); Herbarium Lehmannianum 8757 (fruit and seed). Illustration by Pat Halliday.

    img-z16-1_97.jpg
  • 4. Vigna lasiocarpa (Mart. ex Benth.) Verdc., in Kew Bulletin 24: 539 (1970).

  • Phaseolus lasiocarpus Mart. ex Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 76 (1837). TYPE: BRAZIL. “ad Ega Amazonum”, Martius s.n. (lectotype: M!, designated here; isolectotype: M!). P. pilosus Kunth var. lasiocarpus (Mart. ex Benth.) Hassl., Candollea 1: 465 (1923). See nomenclatural notes below.

  • Phaseolus pilosus Kunth, Nov. Gen. Sp. 6: 453 (1823). TYPE: [COLOMBIA]. “crescit in arenosis fluminis Magdalenae, prope Morales”, Humboldt & Bonpland 1542 (holotype: P!; isotype: B–W!, annotated as P. hirtus).

  • P. pilosus Kunth var. genuinus Hassl., Candollea 1: 465 (1923).

  • Phaseolus hirsutus Mart. ex Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 76 (1837). TYPE: BRAZIL. “in campis provinciae Rio Negro”, Martius s. n. [2729] (lectotype: M!, designated here).

  • Phaseolus balansae Micheli, Mem. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genéve 28(7): 29, Contr. Flor. Paraguay 1:29. Figure 8 (1883). TYPE: PARAGUAY. “cosme inter Villa Rica et Caaguazu, in pratis, Mart.”, M. Balansa 1549 (holotype: G; isotypes: P-2!).

  • P. lasiocarpus var. balansae (M. Micheli) Chod. & Hassl., in Bull. Herb. Boiss. 2: 909 (1904).

  • Phaseolus lasiocarpus var. igatimianus Chod. & Hassl., in Bull. Herb. Boiss. 2: 909 (1904). TYPE: PARAGUAY. [Canindeyú Department], “iter ad Yerbales montimun Sierra de Maracayú, in regione vicini Igatimí”, Nov 1885, E. Hassler 5535 (holotype: G, not seen; isotypes: BM!, F!, MO!, NY!, P!, W!).

  • Phaseolus diversifolius Pittier, Bol. Tecn. Minist. Agric. 5: 56 (1944). TYPE: VENEZUELA. Anzoátegui, sabanas de Guaraguara, cerca de Santamé, H. Pittier 14302 (holotype: not traced), non P. diversifolius Pers., Syn. Pl. 2(2): 296 (1807).

  • Perennial scrambling or climbing vine up to 5 m or more, foliage and reproductive parts covered with long yellow (rarely brown) hairs, and minute glandular hairs intermingled, pubescent or glabrescent. Stems herbaceous, fibrous (sturdy), older stems woody, with nitrogen fixing nodules, often with adventitious roots with nodules, sparsely to densely pilose with yellowish-fulvous, straight hairs. Leaves with stipules ovate-lanceolate, often apiculate, unequally bilobed, upper portion 4–7 × 1–2 mm wide, obscurely veined; lower portion ca. 2 mm long, sometimes adnate to the stem, densely strigose; stipels oblong to triangular, 1–2 mm long, shorter than petiolules, 2-veined, covered with minute glandular trichomes; petioles 4–6 cm long, covered with hirsute, retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, 5–10 mm long, with antrorsely appressed hairs, canaliculate; leaflets entire or lobed, with sinuous margins, oblong to ovate or widely ovate, sometimes rhombic or linear-lanceolate, usually obtuse or acute or even acuminate at apex, often with raised veins below, chartaceous, densely strigose to softly pilose on both surfaces, usually more densely so beneath; terminal leaflet 4–11.5 × 2.5–5 cm, lateral leaflets 3–9.5 × 2–4.5 cm. Inflorescences 10–50 cm long, peduncles up to 45 cm long, covered with straight, retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally; rachis 3–5 cm long, with (3–)5–8(–9) swollen nodes, these oblong, 2–4 mm long, with ca. 10 secretory orifices in two parallel rows, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts caducous, secondary bracts lanceolate, 8–10 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, lanceolate, 6–15 mm long; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, 3–5 mm long, longer and twisting in fruit, covered with retrorse, straight hairs, antrorse at base of calyx; calyx campanulate, densely hirsute-strigose, tube longer than teeth, 5.5–10 × 3.5–8 mm, upper teeth deeply divided and broadly rounded at apex forming a lip; 5–6 × 5–6 mm, sinuses 3 mm, lower lip with lateral teeth oblong and rounded, 5–6 × 2–3 mm, and with the middle lower tooth 4–5 × 2 mm. Flowers golden yellow, (1.8–)2.5–3.5 cm long, standard petal asymmetric, broadly ovate, 2.5–3 × 2.7–3 cm, bilobed at apex, two parallel, thick callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, and two fleshy auricles above a short claw; wing petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, 2.5–3.5 × ca. 1.5 cm, with a prominent auricle at base, ca. 2 mm long, claw ca. 4 mm long; keel distinctly beaked, curved through 360°, forming a complete coil, ca. 3 cm above the wing, with transverse pockets above the claws, claws 4–5 mm long, fused to staminal tube; androecium 3.5–4 cm long, staminal tube ca. 3 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers oblong-ovate, ca. 1 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine, interstitium granular; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disk ca. 1 mm long, ovules 16–18, style with a tenuous lower part, upper portion thickened, cylindrical, curved, pollen brush 7–10 mm long, with long spreading hairs, produced beyond the stigma to form a short hook; stigma transversally-ovate, laterally placed. Fruit patent or rarely ascending, linear-oblong, cylindrical, truncate at the apex, valves coriaceous to woody, turning dark brown or black at maturity, densely pilose with a mixture of white and yellow hairs becoming more brownish at the sutures and base, 6–9 cm long, 7–11 mm wide, elastically dehiscent, beak 2–3 mm long, seeds arranged obliquely. Seeds oblong, subglobose, 3–4 × 3–4 mm, surface smooth, testa brown, hilum oblong, ca. 2 mm long, covered by an epihilum, rim-aril raised, with a white, excentric hippocrepiform aril consistently present towards the lens. Chromosome number: 2n = 20 (Maréchal 1969, as P. pilosus Kunth; Mercado-Ruaro and Delgado-Salinas 1996).

  • Illustrations and Photographs—Bentham (1859) as Phaseolus lasiocarpus, or in  http://floraBrasiliensis.cria.org.br; Micheli (1883) as Phaseolus balansae; Pittier (1944) as Phaseolus lasiocarpus; Lackey and D'Arcy (1980) as Vigna lasiocarpa; Lewis and Owen (1989) photographs of flower and fruit, as V. lasiocarpa; Pott and Pott (2000) photograph of V. lasiocarpa.

  • Distribution and Habitat—The species occurs in southern Mexico (Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Tabasco, Veracruz, and Yucatán); Central America (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panamá); South America (Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Perú, Paraguay, and Argentina) and in the Dominican Republic (Fig. 3). Mainly in seasonal or permanently flooded plains or savannas or swampy grasslands, reported growing in sugar plantation ditches and on bank edges of rice fields; mostly from sea level to ca. 600 m, but ascending in México and Colombia to 1200 m. In South America, in the Solimões and Amazon River basins, and in the Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system. An ecological study of aquatic macrophyte diversity in the Pantanal Matogrossense National Park found Vigna lasiocarpa to be one of the most frequent species and distributed among ca. 60% of the 17 sampling sites (Pott et al. 2011). Flowering and fruiting occur throughout the year.

  • Vernacular Names—“Frijolillo” (H. Vibrans 8246), “Feijãozinho-do-brejo” (Pott and Pott 2000).

  • Etymology—The species epithet alludes to the hairiness of the fruits (Lasio woolly or hairy and Carpus fruit).

  • Uses—The species is relished by livestock, and its seeds are eaten by birds (Pott and Pott 2000).

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Argentina. —Corrientes: Depto. Santo Tomé, Estancia Garruchos, 14 Feb 1960, T. M. Pedersen 5446 (RBGE, US). Belize.Stann Creek District: Carib Switch, Stann Creek-Middlesex Road, 13 Jan 1953, P. H. Gentle 7839 (MEXU). Bolivia.El Beni: Trinidad, 236 m, O. Braun 75 (US). Brazil.Acre: Rio Branco, Amazonia, Baixo Rio Branco, 1 Jan 1948, R. de Lemos Fróes 23013 (NY). Colombia.Cauca: east of Aganche, 1200–1500 m, 14 Jul 1922, F. W. Pennell 8328 (NY). Costa Rica.Alajuela: Alfaro Ruiz, entre Tapezco de Arriba y Tapezco de Abajo, 1900 m, 12 Nov 1964, A. Jiménez M. 1145 (NY). Dominican Republic.San Cristóbal: Station Hatillo, 1 Nov 1977, A. H. Liogier 9073 (NY). Ecuador.Guayas: Milagro, 50 m, 30 Jun 1923, A. S. Hitchcock 20275 (NY US). El Salvador.Ahuachapán: A.P. Santa Rita, ruta 7, La Laguna, 13°48′0″N, 90°4′0″W, 20 m, 12 Apr 2004, J. M. Rosales 2355 (MEXU). Guyana. Demerara-Mahaica Region, east coast Demerara, Cane Grove Conservancy, Flagstaff, 6°37′60″N, 57°55′60″E, 19 Feb 1989, L. J. Gillespie 706 (US). Honduras.Cortés: en bananales de La Lima, 60 m, Jun 1977, R. H. Stover 4 (MEXU). México.Campeche: Municipio Champotón, Aguada Paraíso, 18°55′60″N, 90°21′0″W, 12 m, 15 Oct 1981, C. Chan 887 (XAL). Nicaragua.Managua: Banco de Germoplasma, Hacienda Experimental de la Universidad Centroamericana, 15 Nov 1984, D. Soza 247 (MO). Panamá.Chiriquí: vicinity of San Félix, eastern Chiriquí, 1 Jan 1912, H. Pittier 5225 (US). Paraguay.Alto Paraná: in regione fluminis Alto Paraná, 1 Oct 1909, K. Fiebrig 6177 (BM, SI, US). Perú.Loreto: Mishuyacu, near Iquitos, 100 m, 1 Feb 1930, C. Klug 1022 (NY, US). Suriname.District Nickerie: Nickerie, 28 Jun 1951, A. T. Semple 358 (US). Venezuela.Amazonas: at Cerro Yavita, Río Atabapo, Río Orinoco; 19 Oct 1950, B. Maguire 29294A (NY).

  • Notes—Verdcourt (1970) designated Vigna lasiocarpa as the type species of V. sect. Lasiospron and, in addition, gave reasons for selecting the species Phaseolus lasiocarpus opposed to P. pilosus or P. hirsutus. Unfortunately, no lectotype was designated at that time between the two cited syntypes under P. lasiocarpus. Both syntypes were studied by us, and the Martius collection at M has been designated as lectotype. Regarding the original material of P. hirsutus at M, all syntypes were found except the one of Poeppig. The lectotype here designated is the Martius specimen from Rio Negro, which bears a description of this species in Martius' handwriting. Recently, Cremers and Hoft (1998), following Grisebach (1860), listed Dolichos jacquinii DC. (De Candolle 1825) in synonymy under V. lasiocarpa; however, no new combination was proposed by those authors. De Candolle published Dolichos jacquinii for a plant described by Jacquin (1788) from the Caribbean jungles under the epithet D. lignosus L. (Linnaeus 1753). No type specimen of the binomial has been found at G-DC or at BM-Banks herbarium, and only the species description can be used to interpret the name. Jacquin described a plant with white flowers on peduncles shorter than the leaves, and long straight pods with 18 seeds. Although Vigna lasiocarpa sometimes has pods containing 18 seeds, its inflorescences always exceed the length of the leaves and the species never has been reported to have white flowers. Thus, from its description Dolichos jacquinii is not identifiable as V. lasiocarpa, and the decision here is to exclude this name.

  • Phaseolus diversifolius Pittier was proposed as a synonym of V. lasiocarpa by Aymard (1999). We have not seen Pittier's plant and, thus, cannot comment upon its identity. The protologue of Phaseolus diversifolius is not in Latin and the name has been shown to be a later homonym of P. diversifolius Pers. (Persoon 1807). Therefore, in accordance with Article 53 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland et al. 2018), this species was not validly published, and the name is unavailable for use.

  • Vigna lasiocarpa is the most vigorous and conspicuous of all the species of V. subg. Lasiospron. It is most similar in overall morphology to its sister species V. longifolia. Vigna lasiocarpa differs from V. longifolia in being more often pubescent (especially on the leaves), having longer and wider calyces with the upper teeth more deeply divided and broadly rounded at the apex to form a lip, and having longer and thicker fruits. Both species have distinctive arillate seeds. Vigna lasiocarpa is the only species in the subgenus, up to now, that has been reported as a dysploid.

  • 5. Vigna trichocarpa (C. Wright) A. Delgado, Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 45: 1254 (1993). Phaseolus trichocarpus C. Wright, in F. A. Sauvalle, An. Acad. Ci. Habana, Rev. Ci. 5: 337 (1869) and in Fl. Cuba: 30 (1873). TYPE: CUBA. [Pinar del Río Province], “en la orilla de las lagunas dentro del agua. Vuelta Abajo”, no date, C. Wright s.n. (holotype: GH!; isotypes: BM!, G-2!, K-3!, MO!, NY-3!, P!, US!, WU!). (See notes). Figure 9.

  • Phaseolus ovatus Benth. var. glabratus Benth., in Mart. Flora Brazil. 15(1): 188 (1859). TYPE: BRAZIL. “prope Bahiam, in humidis cum forma pilosa”, W. D. Salzmann s.n. (holotype: M, not seen; isotypes: K!, MO!, RBGE!). non sensu Chodat & Hassler, Bull. Herb. Boiss. Ser. 2, 4: 909. (1904).

  • Phaseolus schottii var. campestris forma transiens Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: BRAZIL. Bahia in pratis humedis, W. D. Salzmann s.n. (holotype: G-DEL, not seen; isotypes: K!, MO!, RBGE!), synon. nov. (See notes).

  • Phaseolus lanceolatus Bello, Anales Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 10: 262 (1881). TYPE: PUERTO RICO. Without locality, Bello s.n. (holotype: B, destroyed). Neotype designated by Santiago-Valentín et al. Taxon 64: 333, 2015: Puerto Rico, Pueblo Viejo, 19 July 1914, J.A. Stevenson 2097 [NY, barcode 01007063].

  • Phaseolus schottii var. campestris forma guyanensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. TYPE: FRENCH GUIANA. Without locality, Poiteau s.n. (G, not seen) synon. nov. (See notes).

  • Phaseolus productus Ducke, Arch. Jard. Bot. Río de Janeiro 4: 99 (1925). TYPE: [BRAZIL. Pará State], “in campis inundatis Jutahy inter Almeirim et Prainha inter frutices ad ripam fluminis”, 16 Apr 1923, Ducke s.n. (lectotype: RB!, No. 17.285, designated here).

  • Vigna paludosa Milne-Redh., Kew Bulletin 2: 27 (1947). TYPE: SIERRA LEONE. Rokupr, common among grass in swamps, 29 Jan 1935, Deighton 2953 (holotype: K!).

  • Perennials or annuals (?), scrambling or climbing vines up to 3 m, with foliage and reproductive parts covered with minute glandular hairs, and sparse or dense pubescence. Stems hollow, slightly woody at base, often with adventitious roots, sparsely to densely strigose, with yellow, retrorse hairs. Leaves with stipules ovate to narrowly-lanceolate, spurred, upper portion 8–12 × 1–2 mm, 5–6-veined, not reflexed, persistent; lower portion 3–4 mm long, sparsely pilose; stipels oblong or triangular, ca. 1.5 mm long, subequal in length to petiolules, glabrous except for minute glandular trichomes; petioles 3.5–8 cm long, covered with retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, ca. 1 cm long, with some antrorsely appressed hairs on the adaxial side, canaliculate; leaflets entire, ovate, narrowly ovate, to lanceolate, acute or acuminate at apex, with raised veins below, membranaceous; sparsely to densely strigose, terminal leaflet 3.5–11 × 1.5–3 cm, lateral leaflets 7–9 × 2–3.5 cm. Inflorescences up to 22 cm long, peduncles 16–20 cm long, covered with short retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally; rachis 1.5–2 cm long, with 1–4(–5) nodes, the nodes oblong, spatuliform, 2–3 mm long, orifice distribution scalariform, with transverse separations, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts, caducous, secondary bracts ca. 6 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, 5–8 mm long, longer than calyx tube; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, 1–2 mm long, longer and twisting in fruit, covered distally with retrorse, straight hairs; calyx campanulate, sparsely strigose at the base, glabrous distally, 1.5–2 × ca. 2 mm, upper teeth slightly divided, narrow and acute, not forming a lip, teeth triangular, subequal, 0.5 mm long, lower tooth slightly longer than lateral teeth. Flowers golden yellow, 8–12 mm long, standard petal asymmetric, broadly ovate, ca. 10 × ca. 10 mm, bilobed at apex, with two parallel callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, and two fleshy auricles above a short claw; wing petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, ca. 1.2 cm long, 5–6 mm wide, with an auricle at base, claw ca. 1.5 mm long; keel distinctly beaked, coiled through ca. 360°, almost forming a complete circle; ca. 7 mm above the wing, with transverse pockets above claws, the claws ca. 2 mm long, fused to the staminal tube; androecium ca. 1.5 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers oblong-ovate, ca. 1 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disc ca. 0.5 mm long, ovules 7–8 per ovary, style with a tenuous lower part, upper portion thickened, cylindrical, curved, pollen brush 2–3 mm long, with long spreading hairs, produced beyond the stigma to form a conical appendage; stigma transversally-ovate, sub-apically placed. Fruit ascending, oblong, flattened, valves thin-walled, not constricted between the seeds, turning dark brown or black at maturity, sparsely strigose, with yellow, straight hairs, (3–)3.5–4 cm long, 6–7(–8) mm wide, beak 2 mm long, straight, elastically dehiscent. Seeds D- shaped, 2–3.5 × 3–4 mm, surface smooth, testa light to dark brown, hilum oblong, as long as seed width, rim-aril distinctly raised, covered by an epihilum, lacking a cartilaginous aril. Seedlings with hypogeal germination, eophylls without stipules. Figure 9.

  • Illustrations—Berhaut (1976) as Vigna paludosa Milne-Redh. Maxted et al. (2004) and Acevedo-Rodríguez (2003) as Vigna longifolia.

  • Distribution and Habitat—Southern Mexico to Brazil, including the Greater Antilles, and likely native in west Africa (Fig. 3). In general, in seasonal or permanently flooded plains or marshy environments, sometimes reported in coastal vegetation and sprawling in floating plant islands in rivers and lakes of South America, or growing in old rice fields; altitude 0 to 300 m. Flowering and fruiting have been recorded throughout the year, except in June. In South America, in the Solimões and Amazon River basins and northern Restinga Atlantic Forest and in the Paraguay-Paraná fluvial system and the southern Restinga Atlantic Forest.

  • Etymology—The specific epithet refers to the plant's hairy fruits (Trichos hairs and Carpos fruit).

  • Vernacular Names—“Feijãozinho amarelo” (Brazil). “Habichuela cimarrona” (Puerto Rico).

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Belize.Stann Creek District: ca. one mile, WSW of Hopkins, 17 Apr 1976, G. R. Proctor 35795 (IJ, MO). Bolivia.Santa Cruz: Velasco Province, Reserva Ecológica El Refugio, 14°45′47″S, 61°52′51″W, 100 m, 15 Oct 1994, T. J. Killeen 6839 (MEXU). Brazil.Amazonas: District Careiro, Lago Redondo, 3 Jan 1964, G. Marlier 14375 (US). Colombia.Chocó: Río Atrato, 2–5 hr below Río Sucio, above Loma Teguerre, 16 May 1967, J. A. Duke 10988 (MO, NY). Costa Rica. —CARTAGO: Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrícolas, 609 m, 1 Feb 1959, A. T. Semple 1 (US). Dominican Republic.Samaná: Sánchez District, sección La Majagua, Yaqueson (Jackson), entre caño La Bestia y caño Punta Arena, 19°16′0″N, 69°31′60″W, 30 Mar 1996, B. Peguero 134 (MEXU). French Guiana. 10 km west of Mana, Savane de Criques Jacques, near St. Laurent, 19 Dec 1954, R. S. Cowan 38884 (NY, US); St. Laurent do Maroni, 24 Feb 1914, R. Benoist 75 (P). Guatemala.Petén: Lake Zotz, 18 May 1933, C. L. Lundell 3299 (MICH). Guyana. Siparuni-Potaro Region, Essequibo R., near Iwokrama Rainforest Reserve, 4°16′60″N, 58°30′0″W, 65 m, 20 Mar 1996, D. Clarke 1356 (NY). Honduras.Cortés: Agua Azul tract No. B. North shore of Lake Yojoa near the canyon, 16 Aug 1951, P. Kamb 2092 (BM). Jamaica.Slipe District: without locality, 22 Jul 1973, G. R. Proctor 33461 (IJ). México.Tabasco: ejido San Ramón, campo petrolero San Ramón, 17 Jun 1996, G. Ortíz 2051 (MEXU). Nicaragua.Río San Juan: delta of Río San Juan, 23 Mar 1961, G. S. Bunting 829 (F, US). Panamá.Canal Zone: bridge over inlet of Limón Bay, S of Ft. Sherman, 22 Aug 1960, J. E. Ebinger 975 (MO). Perú.Loreto: Province Maynas, Urco-Cocha, comunidad de Várgea, 10 Aug 1998, A. Zamora U. 11 (HUT). Puerto Rico. Guaynabo, 3 Jul 1924, H. H. Whetzel 1 (BH); Pueblo Viejo, no date, J. A. Stevenson 2097 (NY). Suriname.Commewijne District: Charlottenburg, no date Wullschlaegel s.n. (W). Senegal.Regione de Sédhiou: Ile du Diable, Silinki, Sorange, Forest de Bondié, 2 Mar 1964, R. P. Berhaut 7165 (M-2). Sierra Leone. Madina (Buya-Romende), 11 Aug 1953 H. D. Jordan 907 (K).

  • Notes—Howard (1988), using the sparse information available for Wright's collections in Cuba, listed among nine collections of Phaseolus, two collections named as P. trichocarpus: C. Wright s.n., and C. Wright 2341. The latter was collected in San Mateo (Pinar del Río), whereas the former lacking a collection number was given no exact collection locality. Furthermore, Howard considered as the holotype the specimen at GH of Wright 2341, although Wright's protologue mentions a plant listed by Grisebach as P. ovatus non Benth., “growing in the water, next to the shore of the lagoons in Vuelta Abajo.” Vuelta Abajo is also located in the Cuban province of Pinar del Río, and was several times visited by Wright in 1862 (21, 22 July, 4 August, 4 November). Delgado-Salinas (1993) transferred Phaseolus trichocarpus C. Wright to Vigna, and designated as lectotype the same collection C. Wright 2341, pointing out that the holotype might possibly be found in HAB. Numerous duplicates of C. Wright 2341 as well of C. Wright s.n. were distributed to different herbaria (BM, G-2, K-3, MO, NY-3, P, US, WU). In some herbaria (e.g. MO), both collections were mounted on the same sheet. The specimen at US even has a different collection locality: La Habana, Playa Santa Ana, with the collection year given as 1860, whereas duplicates at NY, US, and WU show 1865 as the year of collection.

  • Bello's type material of Phaseolus lanceolatus is no longer extant at B. With no original material, Bello's description, particularly of the stipules and the collecting locality (Puerto Rico), leaves little doubt as to the plant's identity. A neotype was designated by Santiago-Valentín et al. (2015).

  • As mentioned earlier, we did not locate the type specimen of P. schottii var. campestris forma guyanensis and, therefore, we have accepted Amshoff's (1939) taxonomic decision in placing it under Phaseolus trichocarpus (= Vigna trichocarpa). Regarding the forma transiens of Hassler, Salzmann's collection from Bahia, Brazil “in humidis” with Bentham's handwriting on the specimen was designated as lectotype. It is important to mention that different collections of Phaseolus were made by Salzmann in Bahia and those have been considered in different publications under different names: Bahia in humidis “Phaseolus luteus,” 1831, Salzmann s.n. (RBGE); Bahia, in collibus humidis, Phaseolus luteus, Salzmann s.n. (MO), and also Bahia in humidis, 1830, Salzmann 181 (G); a mixed collection at G of Salzmann 182/Salzmann 183 (MO), are all here identified as Vigna trichocarpa. In addition, Bahia “hirsutis,Salzmann s.n. (P), and Bahia “Phaseolus luteus” Salzm., foliis hirsutis, Salzmann s.n. (P) are also assignable to Vigna trichocarpa, and it is possible that at least some of these specimens (especially those without a number) are from the same gathering.

  • Vigna trichocarpa is by far the most widely distributed and morphologically distinctive species of the subgenus, especially in fruit. The ascending fruits that parallel the inflorescence axis characterize V. trichocarpa. In addition, the seeds of V. trichocarpa hang from longer funicles relative to the shorter funicles of other species of V. subg. Lasiospron. The stipules of Vigna trichocarpa are distinctive in having the lower portion forming a spur with entire margins. Such a stipule is found otherwise among V. subg. Lasiospron species in V. schottii.

  • Fig. 9.

    Illustration of Vigna trichocarpa. A. Habit, natural size. A1. Portion of petiole. A2. Portion of stem. A3. Leaf showing narrow leaflets. B. Stipules (× 3). C. Variation in leaflet shape outlines (× 1). D. Extrafloral nectaries on inflorescence node (× 6). E. Flower bud, including bracteoles (× 3). F. Calyx opened out, external surface (× 6). G. Standard petal outer surface (× 3). H. Wing petal (× 6). H1. Wing petal from bud (× 3). I. Keel petals (× 6). J. Staminal tube with free stamen (× 6). K. Gynoecium (× 6). L. Fruits, natural size. M. Seed, hilar view (× 9). Drawn from Jansen Jacobs 4681 (habit and flower); Berg et al. 19796 (fruit and seed); Prance et al. 8048; Berg et al. 19796; Glaziou 9392 (leaflet outlines). Illustration by Pat Halliday.

    img-z20-1_97.jpg
  • 6. Vigna schottii (Benth.) A. Delgado & Verdc., in American Journal of Botany 98(10): 1711 (2011). Phaseolus schottii Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 75 (1837). TYPE: BRAZIL. ad Tejuco. Schott s.n. (holotype: W!; isotype: NY!). non P. schottii Benth. sensu Hassler in part, Candollea 1: 463. 1923; non P. schottii var. longifolius (Benth.) Hassl., Candollea 1: 463. 1923; non P. schottii var. longifolius forma intermedius Hassl., Candollea 1: 463. 1923; non P. schottii var. longifolius forma grandiflorus Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923; non P. schottii var. campestris Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923; non P. schottii var. campestris forma braziliensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923; non P. schottii var. campestris forma guyanensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923; non P. schottii var. campestris forma transiens Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923; non P. schottii var. tucumanensis Hassl., Candollea 1: 464. 1923. (See notes).

  • Phaseolus ovatus Benth., Comm. Legum. Gen.: 75 (1837). Syntypes. BRAZIL. “In campis et pascuis ad Pará” Martius s.n. (not traced). “Ad Tejuco”, Schott s.n. (NY!), synon. nov. (See notes).

  • Phaseolus ovatus Benth. var. glabratus Benth., sensu Chodat & Hassler, Bull. Herb. Boiss. Ser. 2, 4: 909. (1904).

  • Phaseolus schottii var. genuinus Hassl., Candollea 1: 463. 1923. Syntypes. BRAZIL. Blanchet 58 (G!, P! = V. trichocarpa); Salzmann 181 (G! = V. trichocarpa); PARAGUAY. Hassler 1818 (G, not seen); Hassler 5892 [5982] (NY!, US! = V. schottii); Hassler 6465 (not seen); Hassler 6743 (G!; NY!; P!; US! = V. schottii); Rojas 477 (G, not seen). Phaseolus schottii var. genuinus forma ovatus Hassl., Candollea 1: 463. 1923. Syntypes. BRAZIL. Salzmann 183 (G! pro parte; P-3! = V. trichocarpa); Blanchet 1159 (G, not seen); URUGUAY. Berro 843 (G, not seen); Osten 4671 (G, not seen); PARAGUAY. Balansa 1548 (G-3!, P-3! = V. longifolia); Hassler 1818a (G, not seen); Hassler 6465a (G, not seen); Hassler 8470 (G-3!; K!; NY!; US!; W! = V. schottii); Hassler 9352 (G, not seen). Specimens reported to be at G were not found in the collection. This varietal name genuinus was found to comprise more than one taxon.

  • Perennial (?), trailing and climbing herbaceous vine, up to 1.5 m, with fibrous roots ca. 50 cm long, foliage and reproductive parts covered with minute glandular hairs, and yellowish-white, straight hairs. Stems slender, fibrous, often with adventitious roots, sparsely to densely pilose or often hirsute, with yellowish or white hairs, ca. 2 mm long. Leaves with stipules lanceolate, distinctly spurred, upper portion 5–10 × ca. 1 mm, 6-veined; lower portion ca. 2 mm long, pilose to densely strigose; stipels ovate-lanceolate, 1.5–2 mm long, subequal in length to petiolules, covered with minute glandular trichomes; petioles 2.4–6 cm long, hirsute with retrorse hairs, rachis considerably shorter, 5–10 mm long, with some antrorsely appressed hairs, canaliculate; leaflets ovate to ovate-lanceolate, usually acute at apex, with raised veins below, chartaceous and sparsely to densely sericeous, terminal leaflet 4.2–10 × 2–4 cm, lateral leaflets 4–7.8 × 1.8–4.2 cm. Inflorescences up to 11 cm long, peduncles 5–9 cm long, almost entirely covered with short retrorse hairs, densely strigose distally; rachis 1.5–2 cm long, with 3–5(–8) swollen, obpyriform nodes, 2.5–3 mm long, each with 4–6 alternate orifices, flowers clustered distally; primary bracts caducous, secondary bracts ca. 6 mm long, caducous; bracteoles mostly persistent at anthesis, ca. 6 mm long, longer than calyx-tube, bracts and bracteoles lanceolate and at base geniculate; pedicels shorter than calyx tube, longer and twisting in fruit, covered with retrorse, straight hairs; calyx campanulate, sparsely strigose at the base, glabrescent distally, tube longer than teeth, ca. 4 mm long, teeth triangular, subequal, 1–2 mm long, the adaxial pair broad and emarginate, lateral teeth slightly longer than lower tooth. Flowers described as golden yellow, ca. 1.5 cm long; standard broadly ovate, 1.2–1.4 × 1.4–1.6 cm, bilobed at apex, with two parallel callosities on the lamina above the point of folding, the left one more prominently developed, and two fleshy auricles above the claw, claw ca. 3 mm long; wing petals longer than keel, with an obovate lamina, ca. 1.5 cm long, 8–10 mm wide, with an auricle at base, claw ca. 2 mm long; keel beaked, curved through ca. 270°, 1.2–1.4 cm above the wing, with a transverse pocket above the petal claws, the claws ca. 3 mm long, fused to staminal tube, androecium with staminal tube ca. 2 cm long, vexillary stamen with a basal appendage; anthers ovate, ca. 0.5 mm long, basifixed to sub-basifixed to filaments; pollen grains triporate, with a coarsely reticulate exine; ovary straight, with a basal nectary disc less than 1 mm long, ovules 9 per ovary, style with a tenuous lower part, upper portion thickened, cylindrical, curved, pollen brush 3–4 mm long, with long-spreading hairs, produced beyond the stigma to form a short hook; stigma transversally-ovate, laterally placed. Fruit patent or rarely ascending, oblong, subcylindrical, valves thin-walled, not constricted between the seeds, turning dark brown or black at maturity, densely strigose, with golden yellow, straight hairs, 4–6 cm long, ca. 6 mm wide, elastically dehiscent, beak straight, 3 mm long. Seeds (immature) D-shaped, surface smooth, testa brown, hilum oblong, as long as seed width, covered by an epihilum, and with variable aril development.

  • Illustrations—Burkart (1987), as Vigna longifolia; Hoc et al. (1993) as Vigna longifolia; Ferrucci et al. (2002) as Vigna longifolia.

  • Distribution and Habitat—This species ranges across the provinces of Corrientes, Entre Ríos, and Misiones in Argentina. In Paraguay it occurs mainly in the River Paraguay basin, and it is disjunct in El Beni, Bolivia and in the states of Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, and possibly ranges south to Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil (Fig. 3). The species occurs in woodland margins, along the shores of lakes or temporary ponds and riverbanks, and low swampy grasslands or “pajonal,” below 200 m. Flowering and fruiting throughout the year.

  • Etymology—Named in honour of H. W. Schott, who collected in Brazil.

  • Vernacular Name—“Feijão biriba.”

  • Representative Specimens Examined—See Appendix 1 for complete list. Argentina.Corrientes: Depto. Ituzaingó, Isla Apipé Grande, Puerto San Antonio, 8 Dec 1973, A. Krapovickas 23806 (MO). Bolivia.El Beni: Yacuma Province, unos 60 km al E de San Borja, 22 Jul 1989, St. G. Beck 16929 (LPB, MEXU). Paraguay.Alto Paraguay: swamp bordering Río Tapiracuai, 11 Sep 1957, A. L. Woolston 872 (K, NY).

  • Notes—Bentham's (1837) original description of Phaseolus ovatus was based on two specimens: in campis et pascuis ad Pará collected by Martius s.n. and ad Tejuco [Tijuca, Río de Janeiro] collected by Schott s.n., neither of which has been found in any of the herbaria visited or consulted by Bentham. However, there is a specimen at K which has long been considered the type of P. ovatus. The herbarium sheet has a label that reads Pohl (not Schott) as the collector of this plant in Tejuco, Brazil. In addition, there are two comments in pencil, one in Bentham's handwriting, in the left bottom corner identifying it as P. ovatus, and the other by Piper annotating it as, “possibly the type of P. ovatus”. Regarding the confusing information about Pohl and Schott's collections, Urban (1899) in Flora Brasiliensis pointed out that, “It is a matter for grieving because which specimens Pohl [and] which specimens Schott might have collected cannot always be settled from the sheets of the Vienna herbarium”. Nonetheless, the specimen has spurred stipules, as mentioned in the description of Phaseolus schottii. Concurrently, Bentham (1837) distinguished an unnamed variety of P. ovatus, the type of which, at M, was identified as Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth. by Verdcourt (1970). This leaves the description as the only extant original material. In addition, Bentham (1859), in Flora Brasiliensis, listed under P. ovatus seven specimens, including another variety: var. glabratus, the type of which at M is conspecific with what is currently known as V. trichocarpa. Of the other six, two are the Martius and Schott collections cited in the original protologue, as well as the taxon mentioned above as an unnamed variety. Of the remaining three Brazilian specimens cited under P. ovatus, two: in humidis Banda Oriental frequens, Tweedie s.n. (K), and in Brasilia meridional, A. de St. Hilaire s.n. (P), are plants like Phaseolus diffusus (= Vigna diffusa of this treatment) and the third, collected in Río Grande do Sul, Herb. Imp. Br. 1536 (P), is here treated as Vigna schottii. Without extant syntypes, and the material cited in Flora Brasiliensis under P. ovatus being heterogeneous, different taxonomic interpretations have been given by authors dealing with this species name. We suggest that the name should be abandoned as it seems impossible to establish its identity.

  • Accordingly, the range of Vigna schottii extends to southern Brazil, which is a possibility. In the absence of any other collections from that area, we suspect there may have been a mistake in specimen labelling.

  • Hassler (1923) included a number of diverse elements within his concept of Phaseolus schottii, held together by their straight-beaked pods and sparsely hirsute-pilose to glabrescent calyces, characteristics common in V. subg. Lasiospron. Most of the infraspecific taxa described under P. schottii by Hassler are morphologically heterogeneous and difficult to interpret.

  • As discussed previously, Vigna schottii and V. diffusa share some morphological characters although V. schottii is much more robust, and its leaves are commonly ovate-lanceolate, and its stipules are spurred (while those of V. diffusa are biauriculate). Vigna schottii also shares some characteristics with V. trichocarpa as well; some forms of V. schottii in central eastern Brazil have narrower leaflets similar those of V. trichocarpa. The fruits of V. schottii, however, are narrower and longer than those of V. trichocarpa, in addition to being held pendent on the infructescence.

  • Excluded TaxaDolichos jacquini DC., in A. DC. Prodr. 2: 397 (1825), nom. nov. for D. lignosus Jacq., Select. Stirp. Amer. Hist.: 263 (1788), nom. illeg., non D. lignosus L. (1753).

  • Discussion

    The six species of Vigna subg. Lasiospron grow mostly in seasonal or permanently flooded plains or marshy environments, such as gallery forests, swamp forests and grasslands. Herbarium labels report that they sprawl in floating plant islands in rivers and lakes or grow along ditches in sugar cane plantations and along banks at the edges of rice fields. Two or sometimes three species of the subgenus grow sympatrically within the same fluvial system. For example, Vigna juruana and V. lasiocarpa co-occur along the black-water courses of the Rio Negro basin. Regardless of sympatry, no hybrids have been reported. Regarding likely adaptations to these aquatic and wetland environments, nitrogen-fixing nodules are borne on stems and adventitious roots in V. trichocarpa growing in flooded areas of Puerto Rico (Dubey et al. 1972). Similarly, plants of V. lasiocarpa in the Brazilian Pantanal with nodules on their floating stems and on adventitious roots (James et al. 2001) have been reported as frequent (Pott et al. 2011).

    The phylogenetic position of Vigna subg. Lasiospron, nested within the Physostigma + Vigna sensu stricto clade (Figs. 12) concurs with the results of Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011). We do not propose here to rank V. subg. Lasiospron at the genus level because the more comprehensive analysis of Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011) did not resolve the V. subg. Lasiospron clade as sister to the rest of the Vigna (cf. Figure 1). The results of Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011) suggest that ranking V. subg. Lasiospron at the genus level would require doing the same for all the infrageneric taxa of Vigna (e.g. V. subg. Ceratotropis), which are not as distinct apomorphically as are the newly ranked genera of the American Phaseolinae (Fig. 2; Delgado-Salinas et al. 2011). We therefore maintain Vigna subg. Lasiospron as it has been traditionally ranked and circumscribed.

    Species Concept—Coalescing conspecific ITS sequence samples of V. subg. Lasiospron species are resolved with high branch support values (Fig. 1), as found by Delgado-Salinas et al. (2011). These results concur with those of Raveenadar et al. (2018), a study that found ITS barcodes to more accurately identify Vigna species compared to cpDNA barcodes. We analyzed the V. subg. Lasiospron ITS accessions in Raveenadar et al. (2018), which come from Vigna lasiocarpa and V. longifolia. Raveenadar et al.'s ITS accessions of Vigna lasiocarpa were resolved with our accessions of V. lasiocarpa in a well-supported coalesced clade (1.0 posterior probability; data not shown). Their ITS accessions of Vigna longifolia were resolved with our accessions of V. trichocarpa in a well-supported coalesced clade (1.0 posterior probability). From our perspective, the three Vigna longifolia ITS accessions in Raveenadar et al. (2018) likely derived from specimens of V. trichocarpa. Regardless of this discrepancy, well-supported coalescing conspecific ITS samples of Vigna subg. Lasiospron suggest the ITS region is a potentially highly informative barcode for identifying V. subg. Lasiospron species.

    Coalescing conspecific genetic samples, especially from nuclear loci and especially when sampled in a geographically comprehensive manner, are not common in plant species (Fazekas et al. 2009; Hollingsworth et al. 2011). This is explained by one or a combination of factors (Naciri and Linder 2015). These factors include persistence in low effective population sizes due to either population or genomic attributes (e.g. low ploidy levels), adaptation to dispersal limited habitats (Pennington and Lavin 2016), or long evolutionary persistence of populations (antiquity of species ages).

    The coalescing conspecific ITS sequence samples of the species of V. subg. Lasiospron may reflect the relatively older age of this clade and its constituent species (Figs. 12) and perhaps other factors such as low ploidy level, or that species of V. subg. Lasiospron somehow persist in low effective population sizes in dispersal limited environments. However, the wet forest and riparian habitat, especially for clades of tropical vines, is not predicted to promote genetic coalescence of conspecific samples. Lowland tropical wet habitats are prone to regular or profound disturbances (e.g. drought, wind, mudslides), which promote continuous cycles of local mortality and recolonization (Pennington and Lavin 2016). Indeed, Vigna species commonly have widespread distributions indicative of high levels of dispersal ability (e.g. via hydrochory; Tomooka et al. 2002) or adaptation to dispersal prone wet tropical environments.

    Regardless, the finding of coalescing conspecific ITS sequence samples bolsters species delimitation in this clade because genetic evidence covaries with the diagnostic species traits enumerated in the taxonomy section (Table 1). Thus, the species of V. subg. Lasiospron fit the universal species concept (e.g. De Queiroz 2007), which requires a combination of ecological, genetic, geographical, and phenotypic evidence for separately evolving metapopulations.

    Trans-Atlantic Dispersal—Of the three amphi-Atlantic species of V. subg. Lasiospron, Vigna trichocarpa and V. juruana presumably dispersed across the Atlantic from Meso-America to West Africa and from South American to Central Africa, respectively (Fig. 3). Vigna diffusa likely dispersed from southern tropical South America (e.g. present day coastal Brazil) across the Atlantic to Madagascar. These three amphi-Atlantic species have been considered as not native to Africa or Madagascar (Verdcourt 1970; Maréchal et al. 1978; Maxted et al. 2004). These three species could have attained an amphi-Atlantic distribution because of indirect human-mediated dispersal, either via slave-trade migration (e.g. by Portuguese sailors as part of ship ballast) or as seed contaminants among New World crops brought to Africa and Madagascar (Voeks 2009). However, the three amphi-Atlantic species of V. subg. Lasiospron are abundant in coastal and riparian environments (cf. Figure 3), including sand dunes in the case of Vigna diffusa. These three amphi-Atlantic species are well adapted to coastal habitats and thus most amenable to trans-oceanic dispersal. Natural transoceanic dispersal is possible given reports of floating Vigna seeds, as in V. marina (Burm.) Merr. (Lawn and Cottrell 2016).

    The two most northern amphi-Atlantic species, Vigna trichocarpa and Vigna juruana, also have neotropical distributions in Amazonia and the Atlantic wet forests (Fig. 3). Such neotropical disjunctions between the Amazon and Atlantic forests could result from historical connections (e.g. Batalha-Filho et al. 2013). However, for Vigna trichocarpa and V. juruana, such disjunctions could be due to ongoing coastal migration routes or long-distance dispersal by birds, which often explains widely disjunct aquatic plant species distributions (e.g. Les et al. 2003).

    The amphi-Atlantic distributions of Vigna subg. Lasiospron species are therefore likely a result of long-distance over-water dispersal associated with species having a predilection to colonizing coastal environments. Notably, Vigna lasiocarpa and V. longifolia, two of the widest ranging species confined to the Americas (Fig. 3), rarely inhabit coastal settings in contrast to the three amphi-Atlantic species. Indeed, a predilection to coastal environments covaries with a lower average elevation of the three amphi-Atlantic species compared to the three species confined to the Americas (Fig. 4; Results section).

    Trans-oceanic, including amphi-Atlantic, geographical distributions are common among tropical legume clades (Lavin et al. 2004) and species. Examples of this include Aeschynomene sensitiva Sw., Canavalia. bonariensis Lindl. (which has a geographical distribution similar to Vigna diffusa), C. rosea (SW.) DC, Machaerium lunatum (L.) Duke, Macropsychanthus comosus (G.Mey.) L.P. Queiroz & Snak, Rhynchosia caribaea Benth., R. minima (L.) DC., Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers., Vigna luteola (Jacq.) Benth., V. marina (Burm.) Merr., and V. vexillata (L.) A.Rich (e.g. Snak et al. 2016; Yamamoto et al. 2019; Queiroz and Snak 2020). It is therefore likely that Vigna subg. Lasiospron species also have this natural trans-Atlantic dispersal ability independent of human-mediated dispersal.

    Acknowledgments

    Our contribution to the study of Vigna honors the memory of the late Kew botanist Dr. Bernard Verdcourt (20 January 1925–25 October 2011), who always generously shared his vast knowledge about this group of plants, thus paving the way for future generations. We thank Brian Schrire for sharing his wide knowledge of the Leguminosae, especially biogeography of the family, and the late Pat Halliday for preparing the outstanding line drawings (Figs. 79). We thank L. Torres Colín and M. Rosario García Peña (MEXU) for technical and curatorial support and Diana Martínez Almaguer (IBUNAM) for technical assistance; Hannah Banks and Paula J. Rudall, latterly of the Micro-morphology section of the Jodrell Laboratory at RBG, Kew, for their support with SEM studies, and the staff of the Library, Art and Archives, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for assistance with pertinent literature. We also wish to thank Thierry Vanderborght of the Collection of wild Phaseoleae–Phaseolinae species at the National Botanic Garden of Belgium, and the Directors and Curators of the following herbaria for providing specimens on loan and/or placing material at our disposal during visits: BM, BR, CHAPA, F, G, IJ, K, M, MEXU, MO, MONT, NY, OXF, P, RB, RBGE, SI, TEX, US, VEN, W, WU. Funding for the first author's research and travelling was provided by UNAM-DGAPA and by the KLARF-Programme, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2006–2007).

    Author Contributions

    ADS conceived of the idea, generated and analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. ML generated and analyzed the data and assisted in writing and revising the paper. CS and GPL assisted in writing and revising the paper.

    Literature Cited

    1.

    Acevedo-Rodríguez, P. 2003. Bejucos y Plantas Trepadoras de Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Google Scholar

    2.

    Amshoff, J. H. 1939. Papilionaceae subfamily Papilionatae. Pp. 1–257 inFlora of Suriname 2 ed. 2, ed. A. A. Pulle. Amsterdam: Koloniaal Institute. Google Scholar

    3.

    Aymard, G. A. 1999. Vigna Savi. Pp. 426–431 inFlora of the Venezuelan Guayana 5, Eriocaulaceae–Lentibulariaceae, eds. J. A. Steyermark, P. E. Berry, K. Yatskievych, and B. K. Holst. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Google Scholar

    4.

    Batalha-Filho, H., J. Fjeldså, P.-H. Fabre, and C. Yumi Miyaki. 2013. Connections between the Atlantic and the Amazonian forest avifaunas represent distinct historical events. Journal of Ornithology 154: 41–50. Google Scholar

    5.

    Bentham, G. 1837. Commentations de Leguminosarum Generibus. Vienna: Sollingeri. Google Scholar

    6.

    Bentham, G. 1859. Leguminosae. I. Papilionaceae. Pp. 1–216 inFlora Brasiliensis 15, ed. C. F. P. von Martius. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. Google Scholar

    7.

    Berhaut, J. 1976. Légumineuses Papilionacées. Flore Illustrée du Sénégal 5. Dakar, Senegal. Google Scholar

    8.

    Bouckaert, R. and A. Drummond. 2017. bModelTest: Bayesian phylogenetic site model averaging and model comparison. BMC Evolutionary Biology 17: 42. Google Scholar

    9.

    Bouckaert, R., T. G. Vaughan, J. Barido-Sottani, S. Duchêne, M. Fourment, A. Gavryushkina, J. Heled, G. Jones, D. Kühnert, N. De Maio, M. Matschiner, F. K. Mendes, N. F. Müller, H. A. Ogilvie, L. du Plessis, A. Popinga, A. Rambaut, D. Rasmussen, I. Siveroni, M. A. Suchard, C.-H. Wu, D. Xie, C. Zhang, T. Stadler, and A. J. Drummond. 2019. BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS ONE Computational Biology 15: e1006650. Google Scholar

    10.

    Burkart, A. 1987. Leguminosae. Pp. 442–763 inFlora Ilustrada de Entre Ríos 6, eds. T. de Burkart and N. S. Bagacilupo. Buenos Aires: INTA. Google Scholar

    11.

    Chodat, R. and E. Hassler. 1904. Plantae Hasslerianae. Enumeration des Plantes Recoltees au Paraguay. Bulletin de lHerbier Boissier, Sér. 2 4: 907–909. Google Scholar

    12.

    Cordazzo, C. V. and U. Seeliger. 1995. Guia Ilustrado da Vegetção Costeira no Extremo Sul do Brasil. Río Grande do Sul: Editora da Furg. Google Scholar

    13.

    Costa V. A., F. O. Bustamante, S. W. D. S. I. Alves, A. R. S. Oliveira, A. F. Costa, A. M. Benko-Iseppon, and A. C. Brasileiro-Vidal. 2019. Variation in the number of rDNA sites in Vigna Savi species (Fabaceae). Journal of Basic and Applied Genetics 30 (Supplement 1: Citogenética Vegetal): 115. Google Scholar

    14.

    Cremers, G. and M. Hoft. 1998. Inventaire Taxonomique des Plantes, part 3, Connaraceae a Fabaceae de la Guyane Francaise. VII–Les Dicotyledones. Paris: Minh. Google Scholar

    15.

    De Candolle, A. P. 1825. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 2: 397. Google Scholar

    16.

    Delgado-Salinas, A. 1993. New combinations in Vigna. P. 1254 inCatalogue of the Flowering Plants and Gymnosperms of Perú, eds. L. Brako and J. L. Zarucchi. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. Google Scholar

    17.

    Delgado-Salinas, A., M. Thulin, R. Pasquet, N. Weeden, and M. Lavin. 2011. Vigna (Leguminosae) sensu lato: The names and identities of the American segregate genera. American Journal of Botany 98: 1694–1715. Google Scholar

    18.

    Delgado-Salinas, A., M. Lavin, C. Snak, and G. P. Lewis. 2022. Data from: Systematics of Vigna subgenus Lasiospron (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae: Phaseolinae). Dryad Digital Repository.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.crjdfn35rGoogle Scholar

    19.

    De Queiroz, K. 2007. Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology 56: 879–886. Google Scholar

    20.

    Di Stilio, V. 1994. Vigna (Leguminosae, Phaseoleae) en la Argentina: Estudio palinológico. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 30: 3–11. Google Scholar

    21.

    Drewes, S. I. and C. Gamba. 2011. Morfología profunda del gineceo en Vigna (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae). Kurtziana 36: 55–67. Google Scholar

    22.

    Dubey, H. D., R. Woodbury, and R. L. Rodríguez. 1972. New records of tropical legume nodulation. Botanical Gazette (Chicago, Ill.) 133: 35–38. Google Scholar

    23.

    Du Puy, D. J., J.-N. Labat, R. Rabevohitra, J.-F. Villiers, J. Bosser, and J. Moat. 2002. The Leguminosae of Madagascar. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens. Google Scholar

    24.

    Fazekas, A. J., P. R. Kesankurti, K. S. Burgess, D. M. Percy, S. W. Graham, S. C. Barrett, S. G. Newmaster, M. Hajibabei, and B. C. Husband. 2009. Are plant species inherently harder to discriminate than animal species using DNA barcoding markers? Molecular Ecology Resources 9: 130–139. Google Scholar

    25.

    Ferguson, I. K. and J. J. Skvarla. 1983. The granular interstitium in the pollen of subfamily Papilionoideae (Leguminosae). American Journal of Botany 70: 1401–1408. Google Scholar

    26.

    Ferrucci, M. S., S. A. Cáceres Moral, and M. Galvany Casals. 2002. Pp. 111–153 inFlora del Iberá, Cap 2, Las Plantas Trepadoras, eds. M. Arbó and S. G. Tressens. Corrientes: EUDENE y Universidad Nacional de Nordeste. Google Scholar

    27.

    Fick, S. E. and R. J. Hijmans. 2017. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37: 4302–4315. Google Scholar

    28.

    Goldblatt, P. and D. E. Johnson. 1979. Index to plant chromosome numbers. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.  http://legacy.tropicos.org/Project/IPCN (accessed 15 March 2021). Google Scholar

    29.

    Grisebach, H. R. A. 1860. Phaseolus L. In: Flora of the British West Indian Islands. London. Google Scholar

    30.

    Hassler, E. 1923. Revisio specierum austro-americanarum generis Phaseolus L. Candollea 1: 417–472. Google Scholar

    31.

    Herter, G. 1952. Flora Ilustrada del Uruguay 14. Basel, Switzerland. Google Scholar

    32.

    Hijmans, R. J., J. Van Etten, J. Cheng, M. Mattiuzzi, M. Sumner, J. A. Green-berg, O. Perpinan-Lamigueiro, A. Bevan, E. B. Racine, A. Shortridge, and A. Ghosh. 2020. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling, version 3.4–5.  https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rasterGoogle Scholar

    33.

    Hoc, P., V. S. di Stilio, M. A. Agullo, M. M. Brizuela, and R. A. Palacios. 1993. Biología floral de Vigna longifolia (Leguminosae, Phaseoleae). Darwiniana 32: 27–39. Google Scholar

    34.

    Hollingsworth, P. M., S. W. Graham, and D. P. Little. 2011. Choosing and using a plant DNA barcode. PLoS One 6: e19254. Google Scholar

    35.

    Horvat, F. and F. Stainier. 1980. L'etude de l'exine dans le complexe Phaseolus- Vigna et dans des genres apparentés IV. Pollen et Spores 22: 139–172. Google Scholar

    36.

    Howard, R. A. 1988. Charles Wright in Cuba, 18561867. Alexandria, Virginia: Meckler Corporation and Chadwyck-Healey Ltd. Google Scholar

    37.

    Isaguirre, P. and R. Beyhaut. 1997. Las Leguminosas en Uruguay y Regiones Vecinas, Part 1, Papilionoideae. Montevideo: Editorial Hemisferio. Google Scholar

    38.

    Jacquin, N. J. 1788. Selectarum Stirpium Americanarum Historia 205. Vienna. Google Scholar

    39.

    James, E. K., M. F. Loureiro, A. Pott, V. J. Pott, C. M. Martins, A. A. Franco, and J. I. Sprent. 2001. Flooding-tolerant legume symbiosis from the Brazilian Pantanal. The New Phytologist 150: 723–738. Google Scholar

    40.

    Jarvis, A., H. I. Reuter, A. Nelson, and E. Guevara. 2008. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).  http://srtm.csi.cgiar.orgGoogle Scholar

    41.

    Kunth, C. S. 1823. Phaseolus. Nova Genera et Species Plantarum (folio ed.) 6: 355. Google Scholar

    42.

    Kuo, J. and J. S. Pate. 1985. The extrafloral nectaries of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp): I. Morphology, anatomy and fine structure. Planta 166: 15–27. Google Scholar

    43.

    Lackey, J. A. 1983. A review of generic concepts in American Phaseolinae (Fabaceae, Faboideae). Iselya 2: 21–64. Google Scholar

    44.

    Lackey, J. A. and W. G. D. D'Arcy. 1980. Vigna. Pp. 791–802 inFlora of Panama, Part V, Family 83, Leguminosae, Subfamily Papilionoideae (Conclusion), eds. R. E. Woodson, R. W. Schery, J. D. Dwyer, W. G. D'Arcy, M. O. Dillon, P. S. White, M. E. Poston, P. R. Frantz, D. R. Windler, L. McLaughlin, B. G. Schubert, R. H. Maxwell, D. B. Dunn, and J. A. Lackey. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 67: 523–818. Google Scholar

    45.

    Lavin, M., B. D. Schrire, G. P. Lewis, R. T. Pennington, A. Delgado-Salinas, M. Thulin, C. E. Hughes, A. Beyra Matos, and M. F. Wojciechowski. 2004. Metacommunity process rather than continental tectonic history better explains geographically structured phylogenies in legumes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 359: 1509–1522. Google Scholar

    46.

    Lavin, M., P. Herendeen, and M. F. Wojciechowski. 2005. Evolutionary rates analysis of Leguminosae implicates a rapid diversification of lineages during the Tertiary. Systematic Biology 54: 530–549. Google Scholar

    47.

    Lawn, R. J. and A. Cottrell. 2016. Seeds of Vigna marina (Burm.) Merrill survive up to 25 years flotation in saltwater. Queensland Naturalist 54: 3–13. Google Scholar

    48.

    Les, D. H., D. J. Crawford, R. T. Kimball, M. L. Moody, and E. Landolt. 2003. Biogeography of discontinuously distributed hydrophytes: A molecular appraisal of intercontinental disjunctions. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: 917–932. Google Scholar

    49.

    Lewis, G. P. and P. E. Owen. 1989. Legumes of the Ilha de Maracá. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens. Google Scholar

    50.

    Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. A facsimile of the first edition 1753, vol. 2. Printed in 1959. London: Ray Society. Google Scholar

    51.

    Marazzi, B., A. M. González, A. Delgado-Salinas, M. A. Luckow, J. Ringelberg, and C. E. Hughes. 2019. Extrafloral nectaries in Leguminosae: Phylogenetic distribution, morphological diversity and evolution. Australian Systematic Botany 32: 409–458. Google Scholar

    52.

    Maréchal, R. 1969. Données cytologiques sur les espéces de la sous-tribu des Phaseolinae. Premiére série. Bulletin du Jardin Botanique National de Belgique 39: 125–165. Google Scholar

    53.

    Maréchal, R., J.-M. Mascherpa, and F. Stainier. 1978. Etude taxonomique d'un groupe complexe d'espéces des genres Phaseolus et Vigna (Papilionaceae) sur la base de données morphologiques et polliniques, traitées par l'analyse informatique. Boissiera 28: 1–273. Google Scholar

    54.

    Maxted, N., P. Mabuza-Diamini, H. Moss, S. Padulosi, A. Jarvis, and L. Guarino. 2004. Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies on Crop Gene-pools 11: An ecogeographic study of African Vigna. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. CAB Direct: CAB International. Google Scholar

    55.

    Mercado-Ruaro, P. and A. Delgado-Salinas. 1996. Karyological studies in several Mexican species of Phaseolus L. and Vigna Savi (Phaseolinae, Fabaceae). Pp. 83–87 inAdvances in Legume Systematics, part 8, Legumes of Economic Importance, eds. B. Pickersgill and J. M. Lock. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens. Google Scholar

    56.

    Micheli, M. 1883. Contributions a la Flora du Paraguay. Leguminoses. Memoirs de la Societé de Physique et d'Historie Naturelle de Geneve 28: 29. Google Scholar

    57.

    Naciri, Y. and H. P. Linder. 2015. Species delimitation and relationships: The dance of the seven veils. Taxon 64: 3–16. Google Scholar

    58.

    O'Donnell, M. S. and D. A. Ignizio. 2012. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 691. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey. Google Scholar

    59.

    Pennington, R. T. and M. Lavin. 2016. The contrasting nature of woody plant species in different neotropical forest biomes reflects differences in ecological stability. The New Phytologist 210: 25–37. Google Scholar

    60.

    Persoon, C. H. 1807. Synopsis Plantarum 2(2): 296. Google Scholar

    61.

    Piper, C. V. 1926. Studies in American Phaseolinae. Contributions from the United States National Herbarium 22: 663–701. Google Scholar

    62.

    Pittier, H. 1944. Leguminosas de Venezuela. Papilionáceas. Boletin Técnico 5. Caracas: Ministerio de Agricultura y Cría, Servicio Botánico. Google Scholar

    63.

    Pott, A. and V. J. Pott. 1994. Plantas do Pantanal. Corumbá, Brazil: Embrapa-Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria do Pantanal. Google Scholar

    64.

    Pott, V. J. and A. Pott. 2000. Plantas Aquáticas do Pantanal. Brasilia: Embrapa Comunicação para Transferencia de Tecnologia. Google Scholar

    65.

    Pott, V. J., A. Pott, L. C. P. Lima, S. N. Moreiras, and A. K. M. Oliveira. 2011. Aquatic macrophyte diversity of the Pantanal wetland and upper basin. Brazilian Journal of Biology 71: 255–263. Google Scholar

    66.

    Queiroz, L. P. and C. Snak. 2020. Revisiting the taxonomy of Dioclea and related genera (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae), with new generic circumscriptions. PhytoKeys 164: 67–114. Google Scholar

    67.

    Rambaut, A., A. J. Drummond, D. Xie, G. Baele, A. Marc, and A. Suchard. 2018. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Systematic Biology 67: 901–904. Google Scholar

    68.

    Raveenadar, S., G.-A. Lee, J.-R. Lee, K. Jun Lee, S.-Y. Lee, G.-T. Cho, K.-H. Ma, and J.-W. Chung. 2018. DNA barcodes for the assessment of phylogenetic relationships based on cpDNA and nrDNA regions in Vigna species. Plant Breeding and Biotechnology 6: 285–292. Google Scholar

    69.

    Santiago-Valentín, E., L. Sánchez-Pinto, and J. Francisco-Ortega. 2015. Domingo Bello y Espinoza (1817–1884) and the new taxa published in his “Apuntes para la flora de Puerto–Rico.”. Taxon 64: 323–349. Google Scholar

    70.

    Schifino-Wittmann, M. T. 2000. The cytogenetics and evolution of forage legumes from Río Grande do Sul: a review. Genetics and Molecular Biology 23: 989–995. Google Scholar

    71.

    Senff, M. I., M. C. Mallmann Hickenbick, and N. Rodrigues Paim. 1992. Cytogenetic studies in species of the genus Vigna (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae). Revista Brasileira de Genetica 15: 407–418. Google Scholar

    72.

    Senff, M. I., M. T. Schifino-Wittmann, and N. Rodrigues Paim. 1995. Cytogenetic studies of populations of Arachis, Desmodium and Vigna species (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) from Río Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Genetica 18: 629–631. Google Scholar

    73.

    Snak, C., S. T. S. Miotto, and R. Goldenberg. 2011. Phaseolinae (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae, Phaseoleae) no Estado do Paraná, Brasil. Rodriguésia 62: 695–716. Google Scholar

    74.

    Snak, C., M. Vatanparast, C. Silva, G. P. Lewis, M. Lavin, T. Kajita, and L. P. Queiroz. 2016. A dated phylogeny of the papilionoid legume genus Canavalia reveals recent diversification by a pantropical liana lineage. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 98: 133–146. Google Scholar

    75.

    Somenzari, M., P. P. do Amaral, V. R. Cueto, A. de C. Guaraldo, A. E. Jahn, D. M. Lima, P. C. Lima, C. Lugarini, C. G. Machado, J. Martinez, J. L. X. do Nascimento, J. F. Pacheco, P. Paludo Danielle, P. Nêmora, P. P. Serafini, L. F. Silveira, A. E. B. A. de Sousa, N. A. de Sousa, M. A. de Souza, W. Rodrigues Telino-Júnior, and B. M. Whitney. 2018. An overview of migratory birds in Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 58: e20185803. Google Scholar

    76.

    Souza, J. M. T., C. Snak, and I. G. Varassin. 2017. Floral divergence and temporal pollinator partitioning in two synchronopatric species of Vigna (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae). Arthropod-Plant Interactions 11: 285–297. Google Scholar

    77.

    Spruce, R. 1851–1855. Expeditions and Collecting Papers 1841–1861. Plantae Amazonicae Nos. 267–1240: c. Oct 1849–Jan 1851. Kew: UK Archives–Library, Royal Botanic Gardens. Google Scholar

    78.

    Takahashi, Y., P. Somta, C. Muto, K. Iseki, K. Naito, M. Pandiyan, S. Natesan, and N. Tomooka. 2016. Novel genetic resources in the genus Vigna unveiled from Gene Bank Accessions. PLoS One 11: e0147568. Google Scholar

    79.

    Thiers, B. 2020. Index Herbariorum: A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden′s Virtual Herbarium.  http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ (last accessed November 2020). Google Scholar

    80.

    Thulin, M., M. Lavin, R. Pasquet, and A. Delgado-Salinas. 2004. Phylogeny and biogeography of Wajira (Leguminosae): A monophyletic segregate of Vigna centered in the Horn of Africa region. Systematic Botany 29: 903–920. Google Scholar

    81.

    Tomooka, N., D. A. Vaughan, H. Moss, and N. Maxted. 2002. The Asian Vigna: Genus Vigna subgenus Ceratotropis genetic resources. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar

    82.

    Turland, N. J., J. H. Wiersema, F. R. Barrie, W. Greuter, D. L. Hawks-worth, P. S. Herendeen, S. Knapp, W.-H. Kusber, D.-Z. Li, K. Mar-hold, T. W. May, J. McNeill, A. M. Monro, J. Prado, M. J. Price, and G. F. Smith. 2018. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code). Adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. Google Scholar

    83.

    Urban, I. 1899. Vitae itineraque collecturum botanicorum, notae collaboratorum biographicae, in C. F. P. von Martius and A. W. Eichler. Flora Brasiliensis 1: 22. Google Scholar

    84.

    Verdcourt, B. 1970. Studies in the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae for the Flora of Tropical East Africa 4. Kew Bulletin 24: 507–569. Google Scholar

    85.

    Voeks, R. 2009. Traditions in transition: African diaspora ethnobotany in lowland South America. Pp. 275–294 inMobility and Migration in Indigenous Amazonia: Contemporary Ethnoecological Perspectives, ed. M. N. Alexiades. New York: Berghahn Books. Google Scholar

    86.

    Wilczek, R. 1954. Papilionaceae. Pp. 260–409 inFlore du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Urundi. Spermatophytes, ed. W. Robyns. Brussels: Institut National pour l'Étude Agronomique du Congo Belge. Google Scholar

    87.

    Yamamoto, T., Y. Tsuda, K. Takayama, R. Nagashima, K. Tateishi, and T. Kajita. 2019. The presence of a cryptic barrier in the West Pacific Ocean suggests the effect of glacial climate changes on a widespread sea-dispersed plant, Vigna marina (Fabaceae). Ecology and Evolution 9: 1–12. Google Scholar

    Appendices

    Appendix 1 Index to numbered collections examined. Numbers in parentheses refer to the order of species in the taxonomic section (1 = Vigna jurana, 2 = V. diffusa, 3 = V. longifolia, 4 = V. lasiocarpa, 5 = V. trichocarpa, 6 = V. schottii).

    • Abraham, A. 200 (1).

    • Acosta, L. 2772 (1).

    • Adams, C. D. 14246 (1).

    • Adams, P. 162 (5).

    • Aguilar Zepeda, J. A. 55 (3).

    • Ahumada, O. 3373 (3).

    • Allen, C. 345 (4).

    • Allen, P. H. 1059 (4).

    • Alston, A. H. G. 7627 (4).

    • Álvarez, D. 11670 (3).

    • Anderson, B. 1853 (3).

    • Araque M., J. 19044 (1).

    • Arbo, M. M. 6894 (6).

    • Archer, W. A. 2041 (1); 2690 (1); 2803 (1).

    • Arias, L. A. 113 (4).

    • Aristeguieta, L. 4133 (4); 6172 (5).

    • Austin, D. F. 7012 (4).

    • Aviles, S. 56 (5).

    • Aymard C., G. 2595 (4).

    • Balcazar, J. 1123 (3); 1237 (3).

    • Baldwin, J. T. 3571 (4); 4716 (1).

    • Barbour, P. J. 5173 (1).

    • Bartlett, H. H. 1647C (5); 16497 (5); 16524 (5); 21185 (2).

    • Basurto Peña, F. s.n. (4).

    • Beck, St. G. 10122 (3); 16929 (6); 18854 (6); 19433 (1); 24295 (6); 27577 (3).

    • Belém, R. P. 686 (1).

    • Bell, D. 88–157 (5).

    • Benoist, R. 75 (5).

    • Berg, C. C. 19786 (5).

    • Berhaut, R. P. 7165 (5).

    • Betancurt, J. 1990 (3).

    • Black, G. A. 52-14427 (3).

    • Blanchet, J. S. 58 (5).

    • Bordenave, B. 892 (1).

    • Braun, O. 11 (3); 75 (4).

    • Breteler, F. J. 1637 (1); 3851 (1).

    • Bunting, G. S. 829 (5).

    • Burchell, W. J. 9258 (4).

    • Burt, R. L. 162 (4).

    • Cavalcante, P. 676 (1).

    • Chan, C. 887 (4).

    • Chavarría, U. 1047 (3).

    • Cid, C. A. 2422 (3); 3489c (4).

    • Clarke, D. 1356 (5); 344 (1); 3871 (1).

    • Clewell, A. 4010 (1).

    • Colonnello, G. 1525 (5); 1594 (1); 1783 (1).

    • Cordeiro, J. 616 (2).

    • Cornejo, X. 7049 (3).

    • Cowan, R. S. 38884 (5).

    • Croat, T. B. 13238 (5); 8250 (5).

    • Croizat, L. 147 (4).

    • Cuatrecasas, J. 21411 (1); 7451 (1).

    • Curran, H. M. 119 (4); M. 337 (1); 47 (4); 546 (5); SN1 (1).

    • da Costa Sacco, J. 288 (2).

    • Dahlgren, B. E. 407 (5).

    • Daniels, A. G. H. 1337 (1).

    • D′Arcy, W. G. 13431 (4); 9651 (4).

    • Davidse, G. 18127 (4).

    • Davidson, C. 10242 (3).

    • de Alba, J. 8 (4); 83 (4).

    • de Almeida, C. 1034 (3).

    • de la Cruz, J. S. 3283 (1); 4130 (1).

    • de Lemos Fróes, R. 20249 (4); 23013 (4).

    • de St. Hilaire, A. s.n. (2).

    • de Wilde, W. J. J. O. 2752 (1).

    • Debouck, D. G. 2946 (4).

    • Delascio Chitty, F. 17125 (5).

    • Delgado Salinas, A. 791 (4); 995 (4).

    • Díaz, C. 308 (1).

    • Drouet, F. 1989 (4); 2666 (5).

    • Ducke, A. 11873 (3); 11874 (3); 16649 (1); 24325 (1).

    • Duke, J. A. 10988 (5).

    • Dupré, M. 1842 (5).

    • Dwyer, J. D. 2882 (4); 4583 (5); 4584 (1).

    • Ebinger, J. E. 975 (5).

    • Eiten, G. 9062 (4).

    • Ekman, E. L. 1610 (4); 18095 (5); 18259 (5).

    • Encarnación, F. 25123 (1); 26338b (1).

    • Fernández Casas, J. 5833 (4).

    • Fiebrig, K. 501 (6); 6177 (4).

    • Flores, A. 317 (6).

    • Folli, D. A. 2427 (5).

    • Forero, E. 4009 (1).

    • Fosberg, F. R. 29259 (4).

    • Freitas, M. 18 (2).

    • Frey, R. 514 (3).

    • García Barriga, H. 14188 (4).

    • Garvizu, M. 151 (1); 275 (1).

    • Gentle, P. H. 3076 (4); 7839 (4).

    • Gentry, A. 7511 (1); 9277 (4); 18428 (1); 21252 (1); 25798 (1); 64320 (1).

    • Gerrard, W. J. 168 (2).

    • Gilbert, E. 311 (2).

    • Gillespie, L. J. 706 (4).

    • Gines, L. A. 109 (1).

    • Gleason, H. A. 869 (1).

    • Goodland, R. 524 (4); 770 (4).

    • Granville, J. J. 10041 (1).

    • Grayum, M. 6071 (4).

    • Guaglianone, E. R. 1031 (4).

    • Guareco, I. 391 (4).

    • Guedes, M. 11876 (5).

    • Gutiérrez B., C. 6299 (4).

    • Hahn, W. 2080 (4).

    • Hamilton, C. 3135 (5).

    • Hanan Alipi, A. 1001 (3).

    • Hariusa, S. G. 533 (5).

    • Hariusa, S. G. 904 (5).

    • Harley, R. M. 10432 (4).

    • Hassler, E. 1880 (4); 5982 (3); 5982 (6); 6743 (3); 6743 (6); E. 6828 (4); 7320 (3); 8470 (3); 8470 (6).

    • Hatschbach, G. 29389 (2); 8869 (4).

    • Haught, O. 1535 (4).

    • Henkel, T. W. 403 (1); 3675 (4); 5321 (1).

    • Hepper, F. N. 2626 (5).

    • Herb. Imp. Br. 1536 (6).

    • Heringervet, E. P. 841 (3).

    • Hermann, F. J. 10948 (4).

    • Herter, G. 675 (2).

    • Hill, S. R. 13046 (1).

    • Hitchcock, A. S. 20275 (4).

    • Hoff, M. 6357 (1).

    • Holt, E. G. 457 (1).

    • Hopkins, M. J. G. 784 (4).

    • Horner, C. 267 (1).

    • Humbert, H. 27508 (4).

    • Hunter, A. A. 470 (4).

    • Ibarrola, T. 2844 (6).

    • Ijjasz, E. H. 655 (5).

    • Irwin, H. S. 55541 (1); 57688 (1).

    • Jangoux, J. 1579 (3).

    • Jansen Jacobs, M. J. 4681 (5); 1770 (1).

    • Janssen, A. 513 (3).

    • Jaramillo, R. 336 (4).

    • Jenman, G. S. 2111 (5); 5230 (5).

    • Jenman, J. S. 1855 (1).

    • Jiménez M., A. 1145 (4).

    • Jones, J. 9715 (1).

    • Jordan, H. D. 402 (5); 907 (5).

    • Jörgensen, P. 2929 (3); 2951 (3); 2959 (3); 4559 (3); 4559 (6); 4625 (4).

    • Junk, W. 13 (3).

    • Kamb, P. 2092 (5).

    • Killeen, T. J. 6839 (5); 6894 (4).

    • Killip, E. P. 34360 (4).

    • King, R. M. 1096 (4); 944 (4).

    • Klein, R. M. 9961 (6).

    • Klug, C. 1022 (4).

    • Klug, G. 931 (1); 1251 (5).

    • Kortught, P. 8894 (1).

    • Koster, H. W. 113 (4).

    • Krapovickas, A. 16987 (6); 21638 (4); 23806 (6); 2520 (3); 41113 (6).

    • Krukoff, B. A. 1242 (3).

    • Kuhlmann, J. G. 1789 (3).

    • Lanjouw, J. 1118 (5); 1480 (1); 1539 (5); 2050 (1); 3207 (5).

    • Leeuwenberg, A. J. M. 7040 (1).

    • Lehmannian, F. C. 8454 (3); 8757 (3).

    • León, B. 7197 (5).

    • León, H. 666 (4).

    • Letouzey, R. 10023 (1); 11500 (1).

    • Lewis, G. P. 1427 (4).

    • Lewis, W. H. 769 (4).

    • Liesner, R. 22785 (1).

    • Liogier, A. H. 9073 (4).

    • Lisboa, P. 1444 (4).

    • Lock, J. M. 83/66 (3).

    • López, M. G. 326 (4).

    • Louis, J. 10294 (1).

    • Lundell, C. L. 3299 (5).

    • Maas, P. J. M. 4088 (4); 5555 (1); 7298 (4).

    • MacDougal, J. M. 3094a (5).

    • Magalhães, G. M. 19506 (5).

    • Magaña A., M. A. 1237 (3); 1867 (5); 2255 (1).

    • Maguire, B. 23773 (1); 23849 (1); 29294A (4); 32059 (4); 35830 (4).

    • Mann, G. 2319 (1).

    • Marlier, G. 14375 (5).

    • Martínez S., E. 37259 (4).

    • Mattos, J. 8952 (2).

    • Matuda, E. 3594 (3).

    • McDowell, T. 1981 (4).

    • McKee, G. S. 11123 (4).

    • Melo, F. 3352 (3).

    • Milliken, W. 266 (1).

    • Molina R., A. 32000 (4).

    • Montes, R. A. 1363 (3).

    • Moreira, A. S. 86 (5).

    • Mori, S. 21308 (1); 21309 (1); 21716 (1).

    • Murca Pires, J. 51366 (1).

    • Mutchnick, P. 418 (1).

    • Mutis, J. C. 2344 (4).

    • Nelson, C. 5731 (4); 5732 (4).

    • Nelson, E. W. 2848 (4).

    • Novelo Retana, A. 3298 (3).

    • Oldeman, R. A. A. 3233b (1).

    • Oldenburger, F. H. F. 202 (5).

    • Oliver, R. L. 3538 (4).

    • Orellana, M. R. 655 (4).

    • Orozco S., A. 19 (3); 86 (5); 105 (5).

    • Ortega, R. V. 905 (3).

    • Ortíz, G. 2051 (5).

    • Pabst, G. 9078 (2).

    • Palacios, W. 650 (1).

    • Pasand, R. 1581 (5).

    • Paulo H., E. 901 (4).

    • Pedersen, T. M. 4826 (3); 5446 (4); 8318 (3); 9605 (6); 12992 (2).

    • Peguero, B. 134 (5).

    • Peltier, J. 4641 (2).

    • Pennell, F. W. 1654 (4); 8328 (4).

    • Philcox, D. 4189 (4).

    • Piper Vibrans, C. V. 5164 (3).

    • Pittier, H. 2247 (4); 5225 (4); 10640 (4); 14590 (4); 15132 (4).

    • Plowman, T. 6387 (1).

    • Pohl, J. E. s.n. (6).

    • Poole, J. M. 1628 (1).

    • Prance, G. T. 1319 (1); 2566 (1); 5264 (3); 10328 (1); 10791 (1); 13403 (1).

    • Prévost, M. F. 1011 (1).

    • Prieto, A. 92 (1).

    • Proctor, G. R. 21926 (5); 33106 (5); 33461 (5); 35795 (5).

    • Pueyrredon, E. 17924 (3).

    • Ramia, M. 4851 (4); 4852 (3); 5379 (3).

    • Ramírez A., J. G. 4589 (3).

    • Ramírez, I. 300 (1).

    • Rentería A., E. 1902 (4).

    • Revilla, J. 1767 (1); 1946 (1); 2014 (1).

    • Riedel, L. 246 (1).

    • Rimachi Y., M. 10566 (1).

    • Rodrigues, W. 2724 (1); 9267 (1).

    • Rodríguez,? . 1913 (4).

    • Rojas, T. 2917 (3).

    • Rombouts, H. E. 714 (1).

    • Rosales, J. M. 1257 (1); 2302 (3); 2355 (4); 2365 (3).

    • Rosengurtt, B. 3039b (2).

    • Rovirosa, J. N. 442 (4).

    • Rudas, A. 4282 (1).

    • Salzmann, Ph. 182 (5); 183 (5); s.n. (5); s.n. (5).

    • Sanjines, A. 175 (3).

    • São-Mateus, W. M. B. 58 (5).

    • Schaller, G. 165 (3); 278 (3).

    • Schinini, A. 21809 (4).

    • Schipp, W. A. 620 (4).

    • Schott, A. C. V. s.n. (6).

    • Schultes, R. E. 46-173 (3); 46-189 (1); 929 (4); 5858 (1); 12595 (1); 17973A (4).

    • Schulz, A. G. 10328 (3); 11036 (3).

    • Schunke Vigo, J. 9228 (1).

    • Schwarz, G. J. 11894 (4).

    • Scott Elliot, G. F. 3023 (2).

    • Segadas-Vianna, F. 3590 (5).

    • Seibert, R. J. 2268 (1); 632 (5).

    • Semple, A. T. 1 (5); 7 (4); 10 (4); 19 (4); 23 (5); 39 (4); 130 (5); 358 (4).

    • Shattuck, O. 245 (5); 909 (5).

    • Sieber, F. W. s.n. (4).

    • Silva, M. G. 1256 (3); 35285 (4).

    • Silva, N. T. 4848 (4).

    • Skutch, A. F. 3006 (4); 3086 (4).

    • Smith, A. C. 2242 (5).

    • Smith, D. 103 (3).

    • Smith, L. B. 7102 (2).

    • Smith, S. F. 778 (5).

    • Snak, C. 269 (2); 1066 (5); 1216 (3).

    • Sobel, G. L. 4874 (4).

    • Solomon, J. C. 16823 (3).

    • Sousa Sánchez, M. 8788 (4); 11711 (4).

    • Soza, D. 247 (4).

    • Sprague, R. A. 100 (4).

    • Spruce, R. 467 (3); 1641 (1); 1641 (1).

    • Stahl, A. 97 (1).

    • Standley, P. C. 26690 (4); 48407 (1).

    • Starry, D. E. 257 (5).

    • Stergios, B. 6186 (1).

    • Stevenson, J. A. 2097 (5).

    • Stevenson, P. 1355 (1).

    • Steyermark, J. A. 31881 (3); 87773 (1); 114844 (1).

    • Stover, R. H. 4 (4).

    • Tamayo, F. 2912 (4).

    • Tenorio Lezama, P. 19602 (3).

    • Traill, J. W. H. 153 (3).

    • Tweedie, J. 343 (2); s.n. (2).

    • Tyson, E. L. 4583 (5).

    • Ucan, E. 1607 (4).

    • Ule, E. 8171 (4).

    • Usteri, P. A. 956 (2).

    • Van der Sluys,? . 781 (5).

    • Vanni, R. 1272 (3).

    • Vásquez, R. 6417 (1); 10593 (1).

    • Ventura V., E. 785 (4).

    • Vibrans, H. 8246 (3).

    • Vogel, S. 100 (4); 103 (1).

    • von Luetzelburg, P. 21465 (1).

    • Werdermann, E. 2326 (4).

    • Wetmore, R. H. 190 (5).

    • Whetzel, H. H. 1 (5).

    • Williams, L. 555 (3); 1038 (1); 15210 (1); 15267 (1).

    • Wilson, P. 669 (1).

    • Wood, J. R. I. 20751 (3).

    • Woodson, R. E. 1217 (4).

    • Woodworth, R. H. 473 (5); 564 (5).

    • Woolston, A. L. 872 (6).

    • Wright, C. 2341 (5).

    • Wullschlaegel, H. R. 79 (5); 80 (1); 934 (5); s.n. (5).

    • Wurdack, J. J. 39883 (4); 41398 (4).

    • Wykes, W. D. UI/8 (3).

    • Zamora U., A. 11 (5).

    • Zardini, E. 3295 (6); 16147 (6); 25163 (6).

    • Zenker, G. 4300 (1); 4301 (1).

    © Copyright 2022 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists
    Alfonso Delgado-Salinas, Matt Lavin, Cristiane Snak, and Gwilym P. Lewis "Systematics of Vigna Subgenus Lasiospron (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae: Phaseolinae)," Systematic Botany 47(1), 97-124, (21 March 2022). https://doi.org/10.1600/036364422X16442668423428
    Published: 21 March 2022
    KEYWORDS
    biogeography
    FABACEAE
    legumes
    Madagascar
    Neotropics
    Paleotropical Africa
    Phylogenetic taxonomy
    Back to Top