Translator Disclaimer
11 September 2015 A taxonomic backbone for the global synthesis of species diversity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The Caryophyllales constitute a major lineage of flowering plants with approximately 12500 species in 39 families. A taxonomic backbone at the genus level is provided that reflects the current state of knowledge and accepts 749 genera for the order. A detailed review of the literature of the past two decades shows that enormous progress has been made in understanding overall phylogenetic relationships in Caryophyllales. The process of re-circumscribing families in order to be monophyletic appears to be largely complete and has led to the recognition of eight new families (Anacampserotaceae, Kewaceae, Limeaceae, Lophiocarpaceae, Macarthuriaceae, Microteaceae, Montiaceae and Talinaceae), while the phylogenetic evaluation of generic concepts is still well underway. As a result of this, the number of genera has increased by more than ten percent in comparison to the last complete treatments in the Families and genera of vascular plants” series. A checklist with all currently accepted genus names in Caryophyllales, as well as nomenclatural references, type names and synonymy is presented. Notes indicate how extensively the respective genera have been studied in a phylogenetic context. The most diverse families at the generic level are Cactaceae and Aizoaceae, but 28 families comprise only one to six genera. This synopsis represents a first step towards the aim of creating a global synthesis of the species diversity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales integrating the work of numerous specialists around the world.

Introduction

Background

Recent years have yielded a wealth of new informatics tools and infrastructures to facilitate working with taxonomic data. Searching and accessing the necessary literature and type specimens has become much faster and easier, thus stimulating research in plant systematics. Modern monographic work synthesizes knowledge on a group of organisms and generates, manages, and publishes high quality data as needed for a variety of applications. To be biologically meaningful and to allow correct identification especially at the species level, the entities recognized such as species or genera should as much as possible reflect the latest understanding provided by phylogenetic and evolutionary approaches (Marhold & al. 2013; Borsch & al. 2015; Naciri & Linder 2015). In order to achieve this, an integration of the ever-increasing number of phylogenetic and evolutionary studies and the data generated by them with formal monographic work is imperative. This requires the research process to be organized in a way that explicitly links data on characters and specimens with evolutionary results and taxon concepts, and that allows for continuous updating to reflect the continuous generation of knowledge (Borsch & al. 2015). At the same time there is now an increased awareness for the need of a comprehensive assessment of the species diversity on our planet as a basis for conservation and sustainable use (Lughada & Miller 2009; Paton 2009; Hendry & al. 2010).

The Caryophyllales Global Synthesis Initiative

We have started a joint initiative entitled “Global synthesis of species diversity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales”. The idea was to develop a practical model for integrative monographic work that is based on a sizable group of world-wide occurring organisms. Our approach is to develop a network and an internet portal based on a collaborative approach of institutions and individual researchers studying various aspects of the diversity and evolution of the Caryophyllales. Major partners will function as focal points with a long-term institutional commitment that ensures sustainability of the initiative. At the moment the core partnership consists of: the Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México — UNAM (Mexico); the Instituto de Botánica Darwinion (Argentina); and the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin — BGBM (Germany). The BGBM is committed to support the coordination of the initiative and will provide the biodiversity informatics infrastructure. Apart from aiming at satisfying the general scientific and applied need for quality data, we specifically envision the application of the Synthesis in the context of plant conservation. One of the immediate outputs of the Caryophyllales synthesis will be an up-todate taxonomic backbone for the World Flora Online as called for by the Convention on Biological Diversity's Conference of the Parties (2012). Considering the enormous progress on understanding and describing Caryophyllales diversity that has been made in the past two decades and will continue into the future, and also the need to have full coverage of the diversity for the users, the approach will entail a mechanism to integrate new results as they become available (Borsch & al. 2015) and therefore to present the best possible treatment for any given taxon. A comprehensive review and treatment at the generic level is an important step that will then be extended to the species level and be complemented by descriptive and other information.

Caryophyllales as a model group

Reasons for choosing Caryophyllales as model group are diverse. The group is one of the major lineages of angiosperms with about 12 500 species. It is strongly supported as monophyletic by several molecular phylogenetic studies (Savolainen & al. 2000; Soltis & al. 2000; Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Brockington & al. 2009; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Qiu & al. 2010; Soltis & al. 2011; Crawley & Hilu 2012).

The Caryophyllales are of great ecological and evolutionary interest because they show multiple origins of specialized morphological, anatomical, and biochemical traits. The order for example comprises the highest diversity of species with C4 photosynthesis after the grasses (Sage & al. 2011). Several lineages are highly specialized with adaptations to extreme habitats such as xeric conditions, salinity, or nitrogen-poor soils, and thus the group includes many succulent, halophytic, gypsophilous and carnivorous plants. The Caryophyllales are the order with the highest number of halophytes containing more than 21 % of all halophytic species (Flowers & al. 2010) and with the evolutionary oldest halophyte lineages (e.g. Kadereit & al. 2012a). The anatomy of Caryophyllales is also interesting because there are many wood features that are difficult to interpret (e.g. successive cambia, vessel elements perforation plates, ray anatomy, and raylessness; Carlquist 2010). In several families, pollen has evolved complex architectures and ultrastructures, based on the tricolpate pollen of the eudicots (Skvaria & Nowicke 1976; Nowicke 1994) with several Amaranthaceae exhibiting strongly derived metareticulate pollen with the highest number of apertures known in angiosperms (Borsch 1998; Borsch & Barthlott 1998). Caryophyllales are characterized by a unique phenomenon of petal loss and repeated reinvention (Brockington & al. 2012; Ronse De Craene 2013).

Furthermore, the order is relevant in the context of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and CITES by including groups of plants with many endangered species (e.g. Hunt 1999), most importantly Cactaceae, Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae. Species of economic importance include cereals and green vegetables (e.g. amaranth, quinoa, spinach, sugar beet), ornamentals (e.g. many Cactaceae and Caryophyllaceae species, carnivorous groups), noxious weeds (e.g. Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb., Amaranthus spinosus L. and Mirabilis and Opuntia species), and of medical importance (mainly allergens; e.g. Amaranthus retroflexus L., Atriplex species, Kali turgidum (Dumort.) Guterm.).

The rapidly increasing number of fully sequenced genomes (currently five: two Chenopodiaceae, two Amaranthaceae and one Caryophyllaceae;  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome) and trancriptomes (66 species of Caryophyllales are included in the 1KP initiative;  https://sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/onekp/home) opens new exciting opportunities for evolutionary studies in this order.

Circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Caryophyllales

For many decades the order just included the taxa characterized by a free central placentation (= Centrospermae), perisperm and curved embryos (Bittrich 1993a). Based on phylogenetic analyses, the Caryophyllales are now understood in a wider sense as also including Polygonales, Nepenthales and smaller lineages that were distantly placed in earlier classification systems, such as Rhabdodendron or Simmondsia (APG 1998; Cuénoud & al. 2002). This concept of the order is also basically followed here. We will summarize the changes in the classification of Caryophyllales and the different families below. This will help to understand the changes during the long transition phase from pre-cladistic to phylogeny-based taxonomy.

Several pre-cladistic classification systems were proposed for the Caryophyllales (for a review until the 1990s see Cronquist & Thorne 1994). Rodman & al. (1984) were the first to evaluate the classification of Caryophyllales based on a cladistic analysis of morphological characters. They reasserted the monophyly of the group and produced one of the first classifications based on a phylogenetic hypothesis (Table 1), even though this study was questioned with respect to its methodology and character selection (Gianassi & al. 1992). Subsequently, early molecular systematic studies (i.e. Rettig & al. 1992; Downie & Palmer 1994; Downie & al. 1997; Lledó & al. 1998) indicated the close relationship of the members of subclass Caryophyllidae (i.e. Caryophyllales, Plumbaginales and Polygonales sensu Cronquist 1981). Further studies (e.g. Albert & al. 1992; Chase & al. 1993) showed close phylogenetic relationships of Caryophyllidae with the carnivorous lineages Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae (Nepenthales sensu Cronquist 1981). Morton & al. (1997) found that the Madagascan Asteropeiaceae (Theales sensu Takhtajan 1987) and Physenaceae (described by Takhtajan 1985, but placed in Sapindales) both belong to Caryophyllales. This placement of Asteropeiaceae was further supported by a morphological cladistic analysis (Luna & Ochoterena 2004). Other studies (e.g. Fay & al. 1997) clarified the placement of Rhabdodendraceae (Rosales sensu Cronquist 1981), Simmondsiaceae (previously placed in either Euphorbiaceae or Buxaceae; Tobe & al. 1992), Tamaricaceae and Frankeniaceae (Violales sensu Cronquist 1988). The suggested affinities of all these groups to Caryophyllales were examined by Nandi & al. (1998), with respect to the fit of morphological characters, who adopted the concept of “caryophyllids s.l.” for a clade including Caryophyllales sensu Cronquist (1981) plus most of the taxa mentioned above. Nandi & al. (1998) further showed that the Dioncophyllaceae (Theaneae sensu Takhtajan 1987) and Ancistrocladaceae (Theales sensu Cronquist 1981) also belong to the carnivorous clade within the caryophyllids.

Based on a review of published molecular phylogenetic studies, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG 1998) considered 26 families to constitute the Caryophyllales with an expanded taxon concept. In this concept the order included all the families of the caryophyllids s.l. (Nandi & al. 1998) plus several family segregates such as Achatocarpaceae and Stegnospermataceae (segregated from Phytolaccaceae), Drosophyllaceae (segregated from Droseraceae) and Sarcobataceae (segregated from Chenopodiaceae). A molecular study by Savolainen & al. (2000) tested this circumscription and retrieved a well-supported clade. On their trees the authors annotated the families Halophytaceae (segregated from Chenopodiaceae) and Petiveriaceae (segregated from Phytolaccaceae).

Since then, further studies have improved the understanding of the phylogenetic relationships within the expanded Caryophyllales. The study by Cuénoud & al. (2002) based on 18S rDNA, rbcL, atpB, and partial matK sequences, was relevant in terms of its sampling, which included most of the families treated by Kubitzki & al. (1993) and Mabberley (1997), including Agdestidaceae, Barbeuiaceae and Gisekiaceae (segregated from Phytolaccaceae). Cuénoud & al. (2002) retrieved a well-supported Caryophyllales clade in most of their analyses, and one of their most relevant results was the detection of major subclades: the “core Caryophyllales” and “non-core Caryophyllales”. The core Caryophyllales included the traditionally recognized Caryophyllales (Cronquist 1981) and their segregated families; within this clade two subclades were recovered, one is the “lower core Caryophyllales” including Achat ocarpaceae, Amaranthaceae s.l. (including Chenopodiaceae), Asteropeiaceae and Caryophyllaceae, and the other is the “higher core Caryophyllales” including the rest of the traditional Caryophyllales and their segregated families. Within the “higher core Caryophyllales”, Corbichonia and Lophiocarpus (rbcL+matK analysis) were considered as separate linages within Molluginaceae and Phytolaccaceae, respectively. The “non-core Caryophyllales” clade also included two major subclades: one including Frankeniaceae, Plumbaginaceae, Polygonaceae and Tamaricaceae, and the other consisting of the carnivorous families Ancistrocladaceae, Dioncophyllaceae, Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae. The analysis of Cuénoud & al. (2002) resulted in inconclusive positions for Rhabdodendraceae and Simmondsiaceae. In their combined tree, Rhabdodendraceae were recovered as sister to all Caryophyllales (100 % Bootstrap; BS), and Simmondsiaceae as sister to the core Caryophyllales (moderate BS), while in the analysis of matK (low BS), both taxa as sisters were recovered as sister to the core Caryophyllales.

The study by Hilu & al. (2003) based on matK also retrieved two moderately supported major clades: “Caryophyllales I” and “Caryophyllales II”, the former including the core Caryophyllales plus Simmondsiaceae and Rhabdodendraceae (expanded core Caryophyllales). Within this clade two sister groups were recovered, “higher core I” and “higher core II”, one comprising Aizoaceae, Nyctaginaceae and relatives and the other Cactaceae, Portulacaceae, and relatives. The “Caryophyllales II” corresponded to the non-core Caryophyllales of Cuénoud & al. (2002).

Schäferhoff & al. (2009) employed sequence data of the petD group II intron and matK and recovered the “caryophyllids” and “polygonids” as major clades with high confidence. The caryophyllids include the expanded core Caryophyllales, which in general correspond to the “Caryophyllales I” of Hilu & al. (2003). The polygonids correspond to the non-core Caryophyllales of Cuénoud & al. (2002) and Caryophyllales II of Hilu & al. (2003). Furthermore, Schäferhoff & al. (2009) described the Microteaceae (segregated from Phytolaccaceae) with the sole genus Microtea, which they sampled for the first time in any molecular study. The study underscored the importance of a representative taxon sampling because Microtea was identified based on just two markers as an isolated lineage that together with the Simmondsiaceae is the successive sister to the rest of the caryophyllids.

Other recent authors mainly increased the number of characters analysed from the chloroplast. Brockington & al. (2009) using nine plastid genes from the singlecopy region, the inverted repeat, and two nuclear genes, recovered the non-core Caryophyllales and core Caryophyllales clades with Rhabdodendraceae followed by Simmondsiaceae plus the clade Asteropeiaceae—Physenaceae as successive sisters of the rest of the core Caryophyllales. Within the core Caryophyllales, the authors designated the “globular inclusion” clade as the clade that corresponds to the higher core Caryophyllales” of Cuénoud & al. (2002). Within this clade, they referred to the clade containing Cactaceae, Portulacaceae, and relatives as the “portulacaceous cohort” (an earlier-suggested name by Rodman & al. 1984, “cohort Portulacares”) and the lineage including Aizoaceae, Nyctaginaceae, and most parts of Phytolaccaceae possessing raphides as the “raphideclade”.soltis& al. (2011) used 17 genes (representing the three plant genomes) and came to results very similar to those of Schäferhoff & al. (2009) and Brockington & al. (2009).

Several phylogenetic studies have focused on the Portulacineae (= Cactineae/Portulacaceous cohort) (Applequist & Wallace 2001; Nylfeler 2007; Nylfeler & al. 2008; Ocampo & Columbus 2010). The most recent study by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a) resulted in the disintegration of Portulacaceae, recognizing eight monophyletic families including the newly described Anacampserotaceae (segregated from Portulacaceae), the concept of Portulacaceae s.str. as a monotypic family, changes of the circumscription of some families (Didiereaceae), and the re-establishment and change of concept of others (Montiaceae and Talinaceae).

The family names Limeaceae and Lophiocarpaceae were published in 2005 (Hoogland & Reveal 2005) and 2008 (Doweld & Reveal 2008), respectively, based on phylogenetic data (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002) that were confirmed in later works (e.g. Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2009). In a similar way the Kewaceae were validated (Christenhusz & al. 2014) to accommodate the second lineage of the biphyletic genus Hypertelis that had been found outside of Molluginaceae s.str. (Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2011; Christin & al. 2011) but in an isolated position sister to the raphide clade. The genus Macarthuria that was resolved in an isolated position as sister to the remainder of the core Caryophyllales (Brockington & al. 2011; Christin & al. 2011) was accommodated in the new family Macarthuriaceae (Christenhusz & al. 2014).

In summary, our concept of Caryophyllales includes 39 families (Fig. 1; Table 1, 2). It is in line with the families recognized by the APG III (2009) and Stevens (2001 onwards) but separates Agdestidaceae from Phytolaccaceae and Chenopodiaceae from Amaranthaceae and is updated by adding Kewaceae and Macarthuriaceae. In APG III (2009) Agdestis was included within Agdestidoideae (Phytolaccaceae) although its position as sister of Sarcobataceae obtained by Cuénoud & al. (2002) and Schäferhoff & al. (2009) supports the acceptance of the family described by Nakai (1942). APG III (2009) also recognized the Sarcobataceae. The Amaranthaceae are treated in a very wide sense in APG III (2009) including all Chenopodiaceae, merely reflecting that the two families form a monophyletic group (Cuénoud & al. 2002; Kadereit & al. 2003; Müller & Borsch 2005a), while the relationships of the major groups of Chenopodiaceae are still under debate. In this case, a merger resulting in a shift of family assignment for a major lineage of plants with many genera appearing in numerous studies in ecology, agriculture, and conservation had been promoted without robust phylogenetic data (see also respective family treatments).

Fig. 1.

Summary of the current knowledge on phylogenetic relationships in the Caryophy11ales. Based on Cúenod & al. (2002), Brockington & al. (2009) and Schäferhoff & al. (2009). Branch widths shown as triangles indicate species richness in these clades. — ••• = high support (95-100 BS/JK/PP), •• = medium support (75-94 BS/JK/PP), • = low support (50-74 BS/JK/PP).

f01_281.jpg

Table 1.

Circumscription of Caryophyllales in a phylogenetic context according to different authors. The names in bold represent changes in comparison to the previous concept. * = not at family level in APG; ** = different concept from APG III (2009) and Stevens (2001 onwards).

t01_281.gif

Table 2.

Comparison of the current treatment with the two volumes edited by Kubitzki & al. (1993) and Kubitzki & Bayer (2003) representing the so far most inclusive generic treatment of the Caryophyllales.

t02_281.gif

For ease of recognition, we distinguish the two major Caryophyllales clades as caryophyllids and polygonids following Schäferhoff & al. (2009). The caryophyllids are the larger clade and include Simmondsiaceae and/ or Rhabdodendraceae along with the core Caryophyllales (= Centrospermae). The polygonids include the “carnivorous clade” with Ancistrocladaceae, Dioncophyllaceae, Droseraceae, Drosophyllaceae and Nepenthaceae plus the Frankeniaceae + Tamaricaceae and Plumbaginaceae + Polygonaceae subclades (Fig. 1)

Rationale for a revised generic classification

More than twenty years have passed since the publication of the comprehensive treatment of the centrospermous families of Caryophyllales by several authors in “Families and genera of vascular plants” (Kubitzki & al. [eds.] 1993). There, 15 families are recognized in the order (Achatocarpaceae, Aizoaceae, Amaranthaceae, Basellaceae, Cactaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Didiereaceae, Halophytaceae, Hectorellaceae, Molluginaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Phytolaccaceae, Portulacaceae and Stegnospermaceae [= Stegnospermataceae]). Ten years later the treatment was completed with the publication by Kubitzki & Bayer (2003), where the concept of “expanded Caryophyllales” was adopted, by now also treating Ancistrocladaceae, Asteropeiaceae, Dioncophyllaceae, Droseraceae, Drosophyllaceae, Frankeniaceae, Nepenthaceae, Physenaceae, Rhabdodendraceae, Simmondsiaceae, and Tamaricaceae. In addition to the treatments of these families, Cuénoud (2003) discussed the circumscription of the expanded Caryophyllales including Plumbaginaceae and Polygonaceae previously considered as separate orders by Kubitzki (1993b) and Brandbyge (1993), respectively. The two volumes edited by Kubitzki & al. (1993) and Kubitzki & Bayer (2003) represented the most inclusive generic treatment of the Caryophyllales with 675 genera in 27 families. In addition, there are even more comprehensive family-wide treatments including all genera and even species for the Aizoaceae (Hartmann & al. 2001a, b), Basellaceae (Eriksson 2007), Cactaceae (Hunt 2006) and Portulacaceae (Eggli 2002).

The amount of new data accumulated in the past two decades has considerably improved our understanding about the Caryophyllales and marks a major transition from a pre-phylogenetic to a largely phylogeny-based classification. Several molecular phylogenetic studies have evaluated the intrafamilial classifications adopted by various authors in Kubitzki & al. (1993), Hartmann & al. (2001a, b) and Hunt (2006), for example: Aizoaceae (Hassan & al. 2005; Klak & Bruyns 2012; Klak & al. 2003a, b, 2007, 2013; Bohley & al. 2015), Amaranthaceae (Kadereit & al. 2003; Müller & Borsch 2005a, b; Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009; Masson & Kadereit 2013), Cactaceae (Arias & al. 2005; Butterworth 2006; Ritz & al. 2007, 2012; Butterworth & Edwards 2008; Griffith & Porter 2009; Ocampo & Columbus 2010; Korotkova & al. 2010, 2011; Barcenas & al. 2011; Calvente & al. 2011a, b; Demaio & al. 2011; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Majure & al. 2012; Franck & al. 2013a, b; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), Caryophyllaceae (Oxelman & al. 2001; Fior & al. 2006; Harbaugh & al. 2010; Greenberg & Donoghue 2011), Chenopodiaceae (Kadereit & al. 2003, 2006a, b, 2010; Kapralov & al. 2006; Akhani & al. 2007; Zacharias & Baldwin 2010; Kadereit & Freitag 2011; Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b), Didiereaceae (Applequist & Wallace 2000), Nyctaginaceae (Levin 2000; Douglas & Manos 2007), Plumbaginaceae (Lledó & al. 1998, 2001, 2005), Polygonaceae (Sanchez & Kron 2008, 2009; Burke & al. 2010; Burke & Sanchez 2011; Sanchez & al. 2011; Schuster & al. 2011; Kempton 2012; Sun & Zhang 2012).

These and other molecular phylogenetic studies have resulted in the confirmation or rejection of monophyly in several taxa, and consequently in changes of their circumscription or status. Some of the re-established taxa are for example Lymanbensonia, Nyctocereus (Cactaceae, Korotkova & al. 2010, Arias & al. 2005, respectively); Atocion, Eudianthe, Heliosperna (= Ixoca), Viscaria (Caryophyiiaceae, Oxelman & al. 2001); Lipandra, Oxybasis (Chenopodiaceae, Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b); and Afrobrunnichia (Polygonaceae, Sanchez & Kron 2009).

Taxa for which the circumscription had, or has, to be changed in order to accept them as monophyletic groups are for example: Arenaria (Caryophyllaceae, Harbaugh & al. 2010), Atocion (Caryophyllaceae, Frajman & al. 2009b), Atraphaxis (Polygonaceae, Schuster & al. 2011a, b), Austrocylindropuntya (Cactaceae, Ritz & al. 2012), Bassia (Chenopodiaceae, Kadereit & Freitag 2011), Beta (Chenopodiaceae, Kadereit & al. 2006b), Brunnichia (Polygonaceae, Sanchez & Kron 2009), Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae, Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b), Echinopsis (Cactaceae, Schlumpberger & Renner 2012), Ferocactus (Cactaceae, Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), Grayia (Chenopodiaceae, Zacharias & Baldwin 2010), Hatiora (Cactaceae, Korotkova & al. 2011), Limoniastrum (Plumbaginaceae, Lledó M. D. & Crespo M. B. 2000), Lychnis (Caryophyllaceae, Oxelman & al. 2001; Popp & al. 2008), Mammillaria (Cactaceae, Bárcenas & al. 2011; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011), Mesembryanthemum (Aizoaceae, Klak & al. 2007), Minuartia (Caryophyllaceae, Dillenberger & Kadereit 2014), Moehringia (Caryophyllaceae, Fior & Karis 2007), Opuntia (Cactaceae, Majure 2012), Pachycereus (Cactaceae, Arias & Terrazas 2009), Peniocereus (Cactaceae, Arias & al. 2005), Pfeiffera (Cactaceae, Korotkova & al. 2010), Polycarpon (Caryophyllaceae, Kool & al. 2007), Silene (Caryophyllaceae, Oxelman & al. 2001), Suaeda (Chenopodiaceae, Schütze & al. 2003), and Viscaria (Caryophyllaceae, Frajman & al. 2009b).

In addition, molecular phylogenies also have resulted in the identification and description of new taxa at all levels, for example: Anacampserotaceae (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a); Microteaceae (Schäferhoff & al. 2009); Didiereoideae, Portulacarioideae (Didiereaceae, Applequist & Wallace 2003); Blossfeldieae (Cactaceae, Butterworth 2006); Caribeae (Nyctaginaceae, Douglas & Spellenberg 2010); Eremogoneae (Caryophyllaceae, Harbaugh & al. 2010); Gymnopodieae, Leptogoneae (Polygonaceae, Burke & Sanchez 2011); Chenopodiastrum (Chenopodiaceae, Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b); and Surreya (Amaranthaceae, Masson & Kadereit 2013).

The new data also demonstrate that developing a classification system for the order is a dynamic process. An updated backbone at the generic level serves to present the current state of knowledge. We believe that this is an important step because many projects or researchers are specifically dealing with certain genera. Building upon a generic-level backbone will increase the efficiency of implementing the next steps towards a synopsis at species level. For example, Oxelman & al. (2013) keep a dynamically updated classification of Sileneae online. The long-term aim is to provide a portal where taxonomic, chorologic, nomenclatural, and phylogenetic information can be retrieved, along with literature, DNA sequences and images. This resource can be a valuable subproject for infrageneric and species-level taxonomy, and also for various other biological research projects where there is a strong need for a solid taxonomy based on phylogenetic relationships in Sileneae (e.g. Bernasconi & al. 2009). Such initiatives will be strongly supported by the Caryophyllales network, also by providing a sustained informatics infrastructure and a joint concept for future monographic work (Borsch & al. 2015). The published treatment of the genera of Caryophyllales, produced directly from an EDIT-Platform database, will provide a stepping stone for further refinement, also to encourage further research and participation in the network. Members of the Caryophyllales network will be able to correct and add to the information presented as it is databased. Once published, the continuously updated dynamic treatment will also be available as a freely accessible online data portal ( http://caryophyllales.org/).

Fig. 2.

A: Achatocarpaceae: Phaulothamnus spinescens A. Gray, U.S.A., Texas, 22 Aug 2001, Borsch & al. 3446 (B, ISC), photo by T. Borsch. — B–D: Aizoaceae: B: Tetragonia decumbens Mill., South Africa, Cape Town, Muizenberg, 1 Mar 2015, photo by P. Bruyns. — C: Cheiridopsis robusta N. E. Br., South Africa, Richtersveld, north of Port Nolloth, Sep 1991, photo by W. Barthlott. —D: Brauns ia apiculata (Kensit) L. Bolus, South Africa, Witteberg, 6 Aug 2013, photo by P. Bruyns. — E & F: Amaranthaceae: E: Gomphrena haenkeana Mart., Bolivia, Santa Cruz, 6 Apr 2003, Borsch & Ortuño 3627 (B, LPB), photo by T. Borsch. — F: Pleuropetalum sprucei (Hook. f.) Standi., Germany, Botanischer Garten Berlin, photo by T. Borsch.

f02_281.jpg

Fig. 3.

A: Amaranthaceae: Tidestromia lanuginosa (Nutt.) Standi., U.S.A., Texas, Borsch & al. 3439 (B, ISC, MEXU), photo by T. Borsch. - B-D: Cactaceae: B: Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britton & Rose, U.S.A., Arizona, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 11 Apr 1992, photo by W. Barthlott. — C: Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill., Spain, Canarias, Tenerife, near Orotava, Feb 1989, photo by W. Barthlott. — D: Pereskia aculeata Mill., Monaco, Jardin Exotique de Monaco, Jun 1998, photo by W. Barthlott. — E—G: Caryophyllaceae: E: Arenaria cretica Spreng., Greece, Mt Olimbos, 29 Jul 2005, photo by N. Turland. — F: Bolanthus creutzburgii subsp. zaffranii Phitos & al., Greece, Kriti, Paleochora, 31 Mar 2009, Turland & al. 1841 (MO, PAL, UPA), photo by N. Turland. — G: Silene virginica L., U.S.A., Tennessee, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 25 Jun 2012, photo by N. Turland.

f03_281.jpg

Fig. 4.

A: Caryophyllaceae: Dianthus androsaceus (Boiss. & Heldr.) Hayek, Greece, Mt Taigetos, 14 Jul 2007, photo by N. Turland. - B-D: Chenopodiaceae: B: Allenrolfea occidentalis (S. Watson) Kuntze, U.S.A., Texas, 23 Aug 2001, Borsch & al. 3447 (B, ISC), photo by T. Borsch. — C: Chenopodium quinoa Willd., Bolivia, Departamento de La Paz, Altiplano, 2010, photo by T. Borsch. — D: Chenopodium vulvaria L., Germany, Botanischer Garten der Universität Mainz, Aug 2015, photo by G. Kadereit. — E & F: Didieriaceae: E: Alluaudia ascendens (Drake) Drake, Germany, Botanische Gärten der Universität Bonn, 2010, photo by N. Korotkova. — F: Portulacaria namaquensis Sond., Namibia, W of Aussenkehr, 5 Jul 2013, photo by P. Bruyns. — G: Dioncophyllaceae: Triphyophyllum peltatum (Hutch. & Dalziel) Airy Shaw, Côte d'lvoir, Parc National de Tai, north of Mt Niénokoué, 1998, photo by W. Barthlott.

f04_281.jpg

Fig. 5.

A & B: Droseraceae: A: Drosera cistiflora L., Germany, Botanische Gärten der Universität Bonn, Jan 2001, photo by W. Barthlott. — B: Drosera cuneifolia L. f., South Africa, Cape Town, Table Mountain, 6 Jan 2008, photo by N. Turland. — C: Halo— phytaceae: Halophytum ameghinoi (Speg.) Speg., ex Sukkulenten-Sammlung Zürich, photo by T. Borsch. — D: Montiaceae: Claytonia virginie a L., U.S.A., Missouri, Rockpile Mountain Wilderness, 10 Apr 2010, photo by N. Turland. — E–G: Nyctaginaceae: E: Bougainvillea spectabilis Willd., Germany, Botanische Gärten der Universität Bonn, Oct 1990, photo by W. Barthlott. — F: Guapira rufescens (Heimeii) Lundell, Cuba, Holguín, 1 Mar 2010, Borsch & al. 4273 (B, HAJB), photo by T. Borsch. — G: Pisonia aculeata L., Cuba, Holguín, 27 Feb 2010, Borsch & al. 4229 (B, HAJB), photo by T. Borsch.

f05_281.jpg

Fig. 6.

A & B: Phytolaccaceae: A: Rivina humilis L., Germany, Botanische Gärten der Universität Bonn, Borsch 3542 (BONN), photo by T. Borsch. — B: Trichostigma octandrum (L.) H. Walter, Cuba, Villa Clara, 1 Mar 2012, Borsch & al 5265 (B, HAJB), photo by T. Borsch. — C & D: Plumb aginaeeae: C: Acantholimon androsaceum (Jaub. & Spach) Boiss., Greece, Kriti, Lefka Ori, 13 Jul 2006, photo by N. Turland. — D: Armeria maritima (Mill.) Willd. subsp. maritima, U.K., Devon, Foreland Point, 20 May 2008, photo by N. Turland. — E–G: Polygonaceae: E: Coccoloba shaferi Britton, Cuba, Holguin, 1 Mar 2010, Borsch & al. 4270 (B, HAJB) photo by T. Borsch. — F: Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L., Cuba, Holguín, 1 Mar 2010, photo by T. Borsch. — G: Triplaris americana L., Peru, San Martín, Río Huallaga, 27 Jun 2009, photo by A. Sanchez.

f06_281.jpg

Fig. 7.

A: Sarcobataceae: Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Hook.) Torr., Germany, Botanischer Garten Berlin, 29 Aug 2015, photo by N. Turland. — B: Tamaricaceae: Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb., Azerbaijan, Borsch & al. 5461 (B, BAK), photo by T. Borsch.

f07_281.jpg

Revised generic classification of Caryophyllales

Methodology and content

The names of genera listed follows the rules of nomenclature (McNeill & al. 2012) and the family assignments adhere to APG III (2009) and Stevens (2001 onwards), if not noted otherwise. Notes are added to many genera providing information about the current state of knowledge in terms of monophyly or phylogenetic relationships. The data management is effected by means of the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy software suite (Berendsohn 2010; Berendsohn & al. 2011). In a first step, data from Names in Current Use 3 (Greuter & al. 1993) were imported. Additions and corrections were then incorporated particularly from Bittrich 1993bd; Bittrich & Kühn 1993; Brandbyge 1993; Carolin 1993; Endress & Bittrich 1993; Kubitzki 1993a, b; Kühn 1993; Rohwer 1993; Sperling & Bittrich 1993; Townsend 1993; Dickison 2003; Gaskin 2003; Kubitzki 2003ae; Porembski 2003; Porembski & Barthlott 2003; Prance 2003, and for Aizoaceae and Cactaceae, corrections were incorporated from Hartmann (2001a, b) and Hunt (2006) respectively; if not noted otherwise. Data cited include the generic name, its author citation and its nomenclatural reference, the name of the type species, selected synonyms (including all names listed in NCU-3; Greuter & al. 1993), and later publications with their respective nomenclatural data.

Author names are abbreviated in conformity with Brummitt & Powell (1992) and its updates online; titles of serials in the nomenclatural reference citations are abbreviated in conformity with Bridson & al. (2004) and the titles of monographs are abbreviated in conformity with Stafleu & Cowan (1976–1988) and their successors, except that all components start with capital letters.

The name of the type species follows NCU-3 (Greuter & al. 1993); for genera not treated there, the names were obtained from reviewing protologues, Index Nominum Geneticorum (ING; Farr & Zijlstra 1996+), Tropicos (undated), or The International Plant Names Index (IPNI 2004+). To denote the taxon concept followed in the present publication, a “sec.” (secundum, following, according to; Stearn 1992) reference is given (see, e.g., Berendsohn 1997; Franz & Cardona-Duque 2013). This is a bibliographic citation of a (recent) paper or work giving the circumscription of the taxon (by means of a description, synonymy and/or details of the relationship to other taxa). In some cases, this is further discussed in a note, particularly with reference to the authors mentioned in the previous paragraph and later publications. The text of the following section, Classification, consists of direct output from the EDIT-Platform database.

Classification

The families and genera are listed in alphabetical order, with a single incertae sedis genus at the very end of the list. Each accepted name is given in bold and includes the standardized information mentioned above. The homotypic and heterotypic synonyms are listed according to the conventions in Willdenowia. Many names are followed by notes as mentioned above.

Achatocarpaceae Heimerl sec. APG (2009).

  • A small family comprising two genera and 16 species occurring in tropical America, from southeastern United States to South America (Medina 2009). Traditionally, the family has been included in Phytolaccaceae s.l., but its position as an independent lineage has been well supported by several molecular phylogenetic studies (Hilu & al. 2003; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2009, 2011), which also showed that the family is more closely related to the Amaranthaceae/Chenopodiaceae clade rather than to Phytolaccaceae. Achatocarpaceae are characterized by having unisexual flowers, the gynoecium with two connate carpels, unilocular ovaries with two styles and a single ovule, berrylike fruits and pollen with obscure pores (Martinez-García 1985; Lipscomb 2003).

  • Achatocarpus Triana in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 4, 9: 45. 1858 sec. Bittrich (1993b). — Type: Achatocarpus nigricans Triana

  • Phaulothamnus A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 20: 293. 1885 sec. Bittrich (1993b). — Type: Phaulothamnus spinescens A. Gray — Fig. 2A.

  • Agdestidaceae Nakai sec. Cuénoud & al. (2002).

  • A monotypic family distributed from southern United States to Nicaragua (Rohwer 1993a), introduced and naturalized in Florida and the Antilles and cultivated as ornamentals in South America (Rzedowski & Calderón 2000). Traditionally, Agdestis was placed in Phytolaccaceae, subfamily Agdestioideae (e.g. Rohwer 1993a; Stevens 2001 onwards; Nienaber & Thieret 2003), but several molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that it represents a wellsupported independent lineage (Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Schäferhoff & al. 2009). These studies also showed a close but only moderately supported relationship of the family with Sarcobataceae. Agdestidaceae are climbers and characterized by paniculate inflorescences, semi-inferior ovaries and cypselas crowned by winglike sepals (Nienaber & Thieret 2003).

  • Agdestis Moc. & Sessé ex DC., Syst. Nat. 1: 511, 543. 1817 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Agdestis clematidea Moc. & Sessé ex DC.

  • Monotypic; southern United States, Mexico, and Central America.

  • Aizoaceae Martinov sec. APG (2009).

  • The Aizoaceae have a worldwide distribution throughout the tropics and subtropics (Hartmann 2001a, b). However, the centres of diversity are in the southwestern part of Africa (Bittrich 1986; Jürgens 1986; Hartmann 1991). Relatively few genera occur outside of southern Africa, mainly those from subfamilies Aizooideae, Sesuvioideae and Tetragonioideae. In contrast, Mesembryanthemoideae and Ruschioideae are largely restricted to southern Africa with few species found outside of this area (e.g. Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L., M. nodiflorum L. and Carpobrotus, Delosperma, Disphyma and Sarcozona species) (Hartmann 2001a, b). The family consists predominantly of succulent (mostly leaf succulent), annual to perennial herbs, subshrubs or shrubs, with undifferentiated perianth or biseriate with petals of staminodial origin, with mostly hygrochastic loculicidal fruits.

  • Acrodon N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Acrodon bellidiflorus (L.) N. E. Br.

  • Acrosanthes Eckl. & Zeyh. in Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral. [Ecklon & Zeyher]: 328. 1837 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Acrosanthes anceps Sond.

  • = Aizoon subg. Acrosanthes (Eckl. & Zeyh.) D. Dietr., Syn. Pl. 3: 130. 1842.

  • = Didaste E. Mey. ex Harv. & Sond., Fl. Cap. 2: 472. 1862, nom. nud.

  • Aizoanthemum Dinter ex Friedrich in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 2: 343.1957 sec. Hartmann (2001a). —Type: Aizoanthemum membrum-connectens Dinter ex Friedrich

  • Aizoon L., Sp. Pl. 1: 488. 1753 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Veslingia Heist. ex Fabr., Enum.: 201. 1759. — Type: Aizoon canariense L.

  • Aloinopsis Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 177. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Acaulon N. E. Br. in J. Bot. 66: 76. 1928 ≡ Aistocaulon Poelln. ex H. Jacobsen, Succ. Pl.: 123. 1935. — Type: Aloinopsis aloides (Haw.) Schwantes

  • The Aloinopsis clade includes several small genera (ranging from one to six species), i.e. Aloinopsis, Deilanthe, Nananthus, Pleiospilos, Prepodesma, Rabiea and Tanquana (Klak & al. 2013). The group is found outside the winter-rainfall region of South Africa. The status and generic placement of numerous species in this group has been subject to many changes. For example, the monotypic Prepodesma has been included in five different genera by different taxonomic treatments. Aloinopsis, Nananthus and Rabiea are particularly poorly known in terms of species delimitation.

  • Amphibolia L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 31: 169. 1965 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Amphibolia maritima L. Bolus

  • Antegibbaeum Schwantes ex C. Weber in Baileya 16: 10. 1968 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Antegibbaeum fissoides (Haw.) C. Weber

  • A monotypic genus, which is endemic to the Little Karoo, South Africa. The placement of this genus as sister to Cylindrophyllum remains statistically poorly supported (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Antimima N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 211. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Antimima dualis (N. E. Br.) N. E. Br.

  • A large genus of 96 species, which has never been revised. Most species were previously placed in Ruschia, but separated from the latter based on fruit characters. Hartmann (2001a) recognized five subgenera within Antimima, but did not indicate which species belong to which subgenus. The molecular study by Klak & al. (2013) suggests that Antimima is not monophyletic in its current circumscription. A detailed morphological and molecular study is needed to establish generic boundaries within the Antimima clade, in which several other smaller genera such as Brausia, Hammeria, Smicrostigma and Zeuktophyllum take part (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Apatesia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12.1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Apatesia pillansii N. E. Br.

  • Arenifera A. G. J. Herre in Sukkulentenk. 2: 35. 1948 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Arenifera pillansii (L. Bolus) A. G. J. Herre

  • There are four species included in Arenifera (Hartmann 2001a). Since this group was not sampled by Klak & al. (2013), its phylogenetic position within the tribe Ruschieae remains uncertain.

  • Argyroderma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71: 92. 1922 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Argyroderma testiculare (Aiton) N. E. Br.

  • = Roodia N. E. Br. in Fl. Pl. South Africa 2: 78. 1922.

  • Astridia Dinter in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 80: 430. 1926 sec.

  • Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Astridia velutina Dinter

  • Bergeranthus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 179. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Bergeranthus scapigerus (Haw.) Schwantes

  • Bijlia N. E. Br. in J. Bot. 66: 267. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Bijlia cana (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • = Bolusanthemum Schwantes in Gartenwelt 32: 514. 1928.

  • Braunsia Schwantes in Gartenwelt 32: 644. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Braunsia nelii Schwantes —Fig. 2D.

  • = Echinus L. Bolus in Fl. Pl. South Africa 7: 266. 1927, nom. illeg.

  • Brianhuntleya Chesselet, S. A. Hammer & I. Oliver in Bothalia 33: 161. 2003 sec. Chesselet & al. (2003). — Type: Brianhuntleya intrusa (Kensit) Chesselet, S. A. Hammer & I. Oliver

  • A monotypic genus, from the Worcester-Robertson Karoo (South Africa). Its sister relationship to Bijlia (two species) remains poorly supported (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Calamophyllum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 15, 28. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Calamophyllum teretifolium (Haw.) Schwantes

  • A mysterious genus including three species. These were described by Haworth between 1795 and 1812. However, for two of the names no types have been selected yet, whereas for the third a drawing by Duncansan serves as a lectotype (Hartmann 2001a). The distribution of the genus is uncertain.

  • Carpanthea N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Carpanthea pomeridiana (L.) N. E. Br.

  • = Macrocaulon N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927.

  • Carpobrotus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Abryanthemum Neck., Elem. Bot. 2: 82. 1790, nom. inval. — Type: Carpobrotus edulis (L.) L. Bolus

  • Carruanthus (Schwantes) Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 106. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Bergeranthus subg. Carruanthus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 180. 1926. — Type: Carruanthus caninus (Lam.) Schwantes

  • = Tischleria Schwantes in Sukkulentenk. 4: 78. 1951.

  • Cephalophyllum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Cephalophyllum tricolorum (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • Cerochlamys N. E. Br. in J. Bot. 66: 171. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Cerochlamys trigona N. E. Br.

  • Chasmatophyllum Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 14, 17. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Chasmatophyllum musculinum (Haw.) Dinter & Schwantes

  • Cheiridopsis N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Cheiridopsis tuberculata (Mill.) N. E. Br. — Fig. 2C.

  • Cheiridopsis was found to be closely related to Ihlenfeldtia and Odontophorus (Klak & al. 2013). In addition, one of the three subgenera of Cheiridopsis, C. subg. Odontophoroides, could be more closely related to Odontophorus than to the remainder of Cheiridopsis (Hartmann 2001b). Although Cheiridopsis and Odontophorus were revised at species level (Hartmann 1976; Hartmann & Dehn 1987), their generic limits need to be reinvestigated.

  • Circandra N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 126. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Circandra serrata (L.) N. E. Br.

  • A monotypic genus; its only species was already known to Linnaeus as Mesembryanthemum serratum L. The area where it was previously recorded has been subject to extensive cultivation, so the species had been thought to be extinct. However, it was rediscovered in 2007 and is currently considered as critically endangered (Klak & Low 2007). The hypanthium found in the flowers suggests a close relationship with Erepsia, where this species had been included previously (as E. serrata (L.) L. Bolus).

  • Cleretum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925 sec. Klak & Bruyns (2012). — Type: Cleretum papulosum (L. f.) L. Bolus

  • = Dorotheanthus Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 283. 1927.

  • = Aethephyllum N. E. Br. in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 43: 400. 1928.

  • = Pherolobus N. E. Br. in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 43: 400. 1928.

  • = Sineoperculum Van Jaarsv. in J. S. African Bot. 48: 5. 1982.

  • Conicosia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Conicosia pugioniformis (L.) N. E. Br.

  • = Herrea Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 436. 1927.

  • Conophytum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71: 19. 1922 sec. Hammer (2001). — Type: Conophytum minutum (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • = Derenbergia Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 137. 1925.

  • = Ophthalmophyllum Dinter & Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 64. 1927.

  • = Herreanthus Schwantes in Gartenwelt 32: 514. 1928.

  • = Berresfordia L. Bolus, Notes Mesembryanthemum 2: 313. 1930.

  • Corpuscularia Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 185. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Schonlandia L. Bolus in Fl. Pl. South Africa 7: 259. 1927. — Type: Corpuscularia lehmannii (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Schwantes

  • The genus includes eight species and is endemic to the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Its phylogenetic position near Delosperma has been confirmed (Klak & al. 2013), but the genus lacks a taxonomic revision.

  • Cylindrophyllum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 15, 28. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Cylindrophyllum calamiforme (L.) Schwantes

  • Cylindrophyllum includes five species (Hartmann 2001a), but lacks a taxonomic revision.

  • Cypselea Turpin in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 7: 219. 1806 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Radiana Raf., Specchio Sci. 1: 88. 1814. — Type: Cypselea humifusa Turpin

  • = Millegrana Juss. ex Turpin in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 7: 220. 1806, nom. und.

  • Cypselea includes three species (Hartmann 2011a) and is nested within Sesuvium (Bohley & al. 2015; Hassan & al. 2005; Thulin & al. 2012). Two of the species are endemic to Paraguay and Cuba, respectively (Hartmann 2011a).

  • Deilanthe N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 278. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Deilanthe peersii (L. Bolus) N. E. Br.

  • Delosperma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Delosperma echinatum (Lam.) Schwantes

  • A large genus of 142 species, which has never been revised. The study by Klak & al. (2013) suggests that Delosperma is not monophyletic in its current circumscription. A detailed morphological and molecular study is needed to establish generic boundaries within the Delosperma clade, in which several other smaller genera, including Corpuscularia, Ectotropis, Frithia, Mestoklema and Trichidiadema take part (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Dicrocaulon N. E. Br. in J. Bot. 66: 141. 1928 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001a). — Type: Dicrocaulon pearsonii N. E. Br.

  • Didymaotus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433.

  • 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Didymaotus lapidiformis (Marloth) N. E. Br.

  • The phylogenetic position of this monotypic genus remains largely unresolved (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Dinteranthus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 184.

  • 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Dinteranthus microspermus (Dinter & Derenb.) Schwantes

  • Diplosoma Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 179. 1926 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001b). — Type: Diplosoma retroversum (Kensit) Schwantes

  • = Maughania N. E. Br. in J. Cact. Succ. Soc. Amer. 2: 389. 1931.

  • = Maughaniella L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 28: 264. 1962.

  • Disphyma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Disphyma crassifolium (L.) L. Bolus

  • Dracophilus Dinter & Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 187. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a) ≡ Juttadinteria subg. Dracophilus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 183. 1926. — Type: Dracophilus delaetianus (Dinter) Dinter & Schwantes

  • Drosanthemum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 14, 29. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Drosanthemum hispidum (L.) Schwantes

  • A large genus of 107 species, which has only partly been revised. With the exception of few misplaced species, the genus is thought to be monophyletic (Klak & al. 2003b; Klak & al. 2013). Hartmann (2007) recognized eight subgenera in Drosanthemum and also provided a key to the subgenera with a list of species included for each of them. Although also distribution maps were included for all eight subgenera, no vouchers were cited (Hartmann 2007), so that it remains uncertain on which material the maps were based. In addition, only one of the eight subgenera has so far been revised in part (Hartmann 2008). Since many species are threatened by agriculture or urban expansion, the genus is in urgent need of revision.

  • Eberlanzia Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 189. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Eberlanzia clausa (Dinter) Schwantes

  • Eberlanzia includes eight species (Hartmann 2001a). However, the two species sampled by Klak & al. (2013) do not group together, suggesting that the genus is not monophyletic in its current circumscription.

  • Ebracteola Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 15, 24. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Ebracteola montis-moltkei (Dinter) Dinter & Schwantes

  • Ectotropis N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Ectotropis alpina N. E. Br.

  • Enarganthe N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 71. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Enarganthe octonaria (L. Bolus) N. E. Br.

  • A monotypic genus, which is endemic to Namqualand. Relationships to other members in the Conophytum clade remain uncertain.

  • Erepsia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Erepsia inclaudens (Haw.) Schwantes

  • = Piquetia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925, nom. illeg.

  • = Semnanthe N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927.

  • = Kensitia Fedde in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 48: 11. 1940.

  • Esterhuysenia L. Bolus in S. African J. Bot. 33: 308. 1967 sec. Hartmann (2001a). — Type: Esterhuysenia alpina L. Bolus

  • A small genus with five species endemic to the Cape region of South Africa. See further notes under Hammeria.

  • Faucaria Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 176. 1926 sec. Groen & Hartmann (2001). — Type: Faucaria tigrina (Haw.) Schwantes

  • Fenestraria N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Fenestraria aurantiaca N. E. Br.

  • A monotypic genus from Namaqualand. See further notes under Cephalophyllum.

  • Frithia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Frithia pulchra N. E. Br.

  • This bitypic genus was found to be closely related to Delosperma (Klak & al. 2013). See further remarks under Delosperma.

  • Galenia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 359. 1753 sec. Hartmann (2001b).

  • — Type: Galenia africana L.

  • = Kolleria C. Presl., Symb. Bot. 1: 23. 1831.

  • = Sialodes Eckl. & Zeyh., Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral. 3: 329. 1837.

  • = Tephras E. Mey. ex Harv. & Sond., Fl. Cap. 2: 477. 1862.

  • Gibbaeum Haw. ex N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71: 129. 1922 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Gibbaeum pubescens (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • = Rimaria N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 413. 1925.

  • = Argeta N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 82: 113. 1927.

  • = Imitaria N. E. Br. in J. Bot. 65: 348. 1927.

  • = Mentocalyx N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 251. 1927.

  • = Muiria N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 116. 1927.

  • The monotypic Muiria was placed in Gibbaeum, as G. hortenseae (N. E. Br.) Thiede & Klak, sec. Goldblatt & Manning (2000). The species was confirmed to be closely related to Gibbaeum, but its relationship to other species in the genus remains unresolved (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Glottiphyllum Haw. ex N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 70: 311. 1921 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Glottiphyllum linguiforme (L.) N. E. Br.

  • Gunniopsis Pax, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(lb): 44. 1889 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Aizoon subg. Gunniopsis Pax & K. Hoffm. in J. S. African Bot. Soc. 25: 30. 1959. — Type: Gunniopsis quadrifaria Pax

  • = Gunnia F. Muell., Rep. Pl. Babbage's Exped.: 9. 1859, nom. illeg.

  • = Neogunnia Pax & K. Hoffm., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 225. 1934.

  • The genus is endemic to Australia.

  • Hallianthus H. E. K. Hartmann in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 114: 167. 1992 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Hallianthus planus (L. Bolus) H. E. K. Hartmann

  • Hammeria Burgoyne in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 70(4): 204. 1998 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Hammeria salteri (L. Bolus) Burgoyne A small genus consisting of only three species. The two species included in the molecular study by Klak & al. (2013) were not resolved as sisters. However, they were shown to group with other small genera such as Braunsia and Esterhuysenia in the Antimima clade (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Hartmanthus S. A. Hammer in Haseltonia 3: 79. 1995 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Hartmanthus pergamentaceus (L. Bolus) S. A. Hammer

  • Hereroa (Schwantes) Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 15, 23. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Bergeranthus subg. Hereroa Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 180. 1926. — Type: Hereroa puttkammeriana (Dinter & Berger) Dinter & Schwantes

  • Hereroa includes 27 species but lacks a taxonomic revision. The study by Klak & al. (2013) reveals Rhombophyllum (five species) and Bergeranthus (ten species) as its closest relatives. Denser sampling may in addition show that Hereroa is not monophyletic, with Rhombophyllum likely to be nested within it. On account of the close morphological resemblance between these genera, generic limits need to be critically reinvestigated.

  • Hymenogyne Haw., Revis. Pl. Succ.: 192. 1821 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Hymenogyne glabra (Aiton) Haw.

  • = Thyrasperma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925.

  • Ihlenfeldtia H. E. K. Hartmann in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 114: 47. 1992 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Ihlenfeldtia excavata (L. Bolus) H. E. K. Hartmann

  • The two species currently included in Ihlenfeldtia were previously included in Cheiridopsis. However, the two species were moved each into their own genus and thought to be closely related to Tanquana (three species) and Vanheerdia (two species), based on characters of the fruits (Hartmann 1992). However Klak & al. (2013) confirmed the previous position of Ihlenfeldtia as a close relative of Cheiridopsis, which is supported by characteristics of the leaves (Hartmann 1992). See further notes under Cheiridopsis.

  • Jacobsenia L. Bolus & Schwantes, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 255. 1954 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001c). — Type: Jacobsenia kolbei (L. Bolus) L. Bolus & Schwantes

  • = Anisocalyx L. Bolus, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 385. 1958, nom. illeg.

  • = Drosanthemopsis Rauschert in Taxon 31: 555. 1982. Although Jacobsenia currently includes only three species, they were shown not to be monophyletic (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Jensenobotrya A. G. J. Herre in Sukkulentenk. 4: 79. 1951 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Jensenobotrya lossowiana A. G. J. Herre

  • Jordaaniella H. E. K. Hartmann in Biblioth. Bot. 136: 57. 1983 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Jordaaniella clavifolia (L. Bolus) H. E. K. Hartmann

  • Juttadinteria Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 182. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Juttadinteria kovisimontana (Dinter & A. Berger) Schwantes

  • Khadia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 279. 1930 sec. Hartmann & Chesselet (2001). — Type: Khadia acutipetala (N. E. Br.) N. E. Br.

  • Knersia H. E. K. Hartmann & Liede in Bradleya 31: 126. 2013 sec. Hartmann & Liede-Schumann (2013). — Type: Knersia diversifolia (L. Bolus) H. E. K. Hartmann & Liede

  • A monotypic genus, which was recently erected to accommodate a species previously misplaced in Drosanthemum (Klak & al. 2013; Hartmann & Liede-Schumann 2013).

  • Lampranthus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 71. 1930, nom. cons. sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Lampranthus multiradiatus (Jacq.) N. E. Br.

  • = Aristanthus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 28. 1827.

  • = Mesembryanthus Necker ex Rothm. in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 15: 413. 1941, nom. inval. Lampranthus is a large genus of 194 species, which has never been revised. A molecular study of the Lampranthus group identified a core of closely related species, which makes up the current genus (Klak & al. 2003a). Groups of species not closely related to Lampranthus s.str. were placed in other genera, with some placed in new genera (Klak 2005).

  • Lapidaria (Dinter & Schwantes) N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 84: 472. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡interanthus subg. Lapidaria Dinter & Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 223. 1927. —type: Lapidaria margaretae (Schwantes) N. E. Br.

  • A monotypic genus, which was shown to be sister to Dinteranthus (Klak & al. 2013), where it had been placed previously. The two genera form a clade together with Lithops and Schwantesia (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Leipoldtia L. Bolus in Fl. Pl. South Africa 7: t. 256. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Leipoldtia constricta (L. Bolus) L. Bolus

  • = Rhopalocyclus Schwantes in Gartenwelt 32: 599. 1928.

  • Lithops N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 71: 44. 1922 sec. Cole & Cole (2001). — Type: Lithops lesliei (N. E. Br.) N. E. Br.

  • Lithops is one of the best-known genera among collectors of succulents. Species and subspecies are largely distinguished by the colour and markings present on the flattened leaf tops. The genus was shown to be closely related to Dinteranthus, Lapidaria and Schwantesia by Klak & al. (2013). In view of the close morphological resemblance between the four genera in terms of fruit and floral characters, it needs to be reinvestigated whether all of the genera should be maintained.

  • Machairophyllum Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 187. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). —Type: Machairophyllum albidum (L.) Schwantes = Perissolobus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 278. 1930.

  • Malephora N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Malephora mollis (Aiton) N. E. Br.

  • = Crocanthus L. Bolus in Fl. Pl South Africa 7: 255. 1927.

  • = Hymenocyclus Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 27. 1927.

  • The genus includes 16 species, but lacks a taxonomic revision. Since the group is rather homogenous, further sampling is likely to confirm the monophyly of the genus with the species currently included. Marlothistella Schwantes in Gartenwelt 32: 599. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Marlothistella uniondalensis Schwantes

  • Mesembryanthemum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 480. 1753, nom. cons, sec. Klak & al. (2007). — Type: Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum L.

  • = Brownanthus Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 14, 20. 1827 ≡ Trichocyclus N. E. Br. in Bothalia 1(3): 151. 1922, nom. illeg.

  • = Aptenia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412.1925. = Aridaria N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925.

  • = Aspazoma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 413. 1925.

  • = Dactylopsis N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 413. 1925.

  • = Phyllobolus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 413. 1925.

  • = Prenia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925. = Psilocaulon N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925.

  • = Sceletium N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925.

  • = Synaptophyllum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 412. 1925.

  • = Pseudobrownanthus Ihlenf. & Bittrich in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 105: 319. 1985.

  • = Caulipsolon Klak, 111. Handb. Succ. Pl. Aizoaceae A–E: 103. 2002.

  • = Volkeranthus Gerbaulet in Bradleya 30: 196.2012.

  • A new infrageneric classification has been proposed by Klak & Bruyns (2013). A broad generic circumscription for Mesembryanthemum has been reaffirmed and Mesembryanthemum subdivided into five subgenera, with all five shown to be monophyletic. Two species were recently reinstated and shown to form part of subgenus Volkeranthus, which is sister to the remainder of Mesembryanthemum (Klak & al. 2014). Thus, Mesembryanthemum currently includes 105 species.

  • Mestoklema N. E. Br. ex Glen in Bothalia 13: 454. 1981 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Mestoklema tuberosum (L.) N. E. Br. ex Glen See notes under Delosperma.

  • Meyerophytum Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 436. 1927 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001d). — Type: Meyerophytum meyeri (Schwantes) Schwantes

  • = Depacarpus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 71. 1930.

  • Mitrophyllum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 181. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Mitrophyllum mitratum (Marloth) Schwantes

  • = Conophyllum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 321. 1928.

  • = Mimetophytum L. Bolus, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 252. 1954.

  • Monilaria Schwantes in Gartenwelt 33: 69. 1929 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001e). — Type: Monilaria chrysoleuca (Schltr.) Schwantes

  • Mossia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 71. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Mossia intervallaris (L. Bolus) N. E. Br.

  • Namaquanthus L. Bolus, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 257. 1954 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Namaquanthus vanheerdei L. Bolus

  • Namibia Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 106. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b) = Juttadinteria subg. Namibia Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 184.

  • 1926. — Type: Namibia cinerea Dinter & Schwantes

  • Nananthus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Nananthus vittatus (N. E. Br.) Schwantes

  • Nelia Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 43: 92. 1928 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Nelia meyeri Schwantes

  • = Sterropetalum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 83: 266. 1928.

  • Neohenricia L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 4: 51. 1938 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Henricia L. Bolus, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 39. 1936. — Type: Neohenricia sibbettii (L. Bolus) L. Bolus

  • A small genus including only two species. See further remarks under Stomatium.

  • Octopoma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 72. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Octopoma octojuge (L. Bolus) N. E. Br.

  • Octopoma has been recognized by several authors (Hartmann 2001b) and Klak & al. (2013). However, the two infrageneric groups distinguished on account of differences in fruit morphology (Hartmann 2001b) were not confirmed by Klak & al. (2013).

  • Odontophorus N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Odontophorus marlothii N. E. Br.

  • See remarks under Cheiridopsis.

  • Oophytum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 413. 1925 sec. Ihlenfeldt (2001f). — Type: Oophytum oviforme (N. E. Br.) N. E. Br.

  • Orthopterum L. Bolus in S. African Gard. 17: 281. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Orthopterum waltoniae L. Bolus

  • Orthopterum, comprising two species, is closely allied to Faucaria (Klak & al. 2013), from which it mainly differs by the repeatedly opening and closing fruits (Hartmann 2001b).

  • Oscularia Schwantes in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 187. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Oscularia deltoides (L.) Schwantes

  • Ottosonderia L. Bolus in Notes Mesembryanthemum [H. M. L. Bolus] 3: 292. 1958 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Ottosonderia monticola (Sond.) L. Bolus A monotypic genus from Namaqualand, which was shown to be closely allied to Jordaaniella and to Ruschia sandbergensis L. Bolus (Klak & al. 2013). However, relationships to other members of the xeromorphic winter-rainfall clade remain in many parts poorly resolved.

  • Peersia L. Bolus in Fl. Pl. South Africa 7: t. 264. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Peersia macradenia (L. Bolus) L. Bolus

  • A small genus of only three species, which was shown to be closely allied to Rhinephyllum (Klak & al. 2013), where all three species were previously placed.

  • Phiambolia Klak in Bradleya 21: 112. 2003 sec. Klak (2003). — Type: Phiambolia hallii (L. Bolus) Klak

  • Pleiospilos N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Pleiospilos bolusii (Hook. f.) N. E. Br.

  • = Punctillaria N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 78: 433. 1925.

  • Plinthus Fenzl in Nov. Stirp. Dec.: 52. 1839 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Plinthus cryptocarpus Fenzl

  • Polymita N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 72. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Polymita pearsonii N. E. Br.

  • A small genus including only two species. It is closely allied to Schlechteranthus (Klak & al. 2013), which also only incorporates two species. As indicated by the molecular analysis by Klak & al. (2013), the generic limits need to be critically reinvestigated.

  • Prepodesma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 279. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Prepodesma orpenii (N. E. Br.) N. E. Br.

  • Psammophora Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 188. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Psammophora nissenii (Dinter) Dinter & Schwantes

  • Rabiea N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 279. 1930 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Rabiea albinota (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • Rhinephyllum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 82: 92. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Rhinephyllum muirii N. E. Br.

  • = Neorhine Schwantes in Monatsschr. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 2: 22. 1930.

  • Rhombophyllum (Schwantes) Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 16, 23. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b) = Bergeranthus subg. Rhombophyllum Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 180. 1926. — Type: Rhombophyllum rhomboideum (Salm-Dyck) Schwantes

  • Ruschia Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 186. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Ruschia rupicola (Engl.) Schwantes

  • A large genus including 206 species, for which no taxonomic revision has been compiled. Dehn (1993) recognized nine subgenera, of which only one has been studied further, Ruschia subg. Spinosae (Salm-Dyck) Dehn (Hartmann & Stüber 1993). However, it has since been established that Ruschia is not monophyletic in its current circumscription (Klak & al. 2013). The clade in which species of Ruschia s.str. are found is still poorly resolved, so that relationships of species groups of current Ruschia remain uncertain. In addition, much denser sampling is required to establish monophyly and relationships of the subgenera of Ruschia and their relationship to other members of the xeromorphic winter-rainfall clade (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Ruschianthus L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 27: 62. 1960 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Ruschianthus falcatus L. Bolus

  • A monotypic genus, which resolved within the Conophytum clade (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Ruschiella Klak in Bradleya 23: 100. 2005 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Ruschiella argentea (L. Bolus) Klak

  • Saphesia N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 91: 205. 1932 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Saphesia flaccida (Jacq.) N. E. Br.

  • Monotypic. Saphesia is an insufficiently known genus that needs further study to clarify its identity (Klak & al. 2015).

  • Sarcozona J. M. Black in Trans. & Proc. Roy. Soc. South Australia 58: 176. 1934 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Sarcozona pulleinei (J. M. Black) J. M. Black The genus consists of only two species, which are endemic to Australia.

  • Schlechteranthus Schwantes in Monatsschr. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 1: 16. 1929 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Schlechteranthus maximiliani Schwantes A small genus of two species, which is endemic to Namaqualand. See further remarks under Polymita.

  • Schwantesia Dinter in Möller's Deutsche Gärtn.-Zeitung 42: 234. 1927 sec. Hartmann & Zimmermann (2001). — Type: Schwantesia ruedebuschii Dinter

  • Scopelogena L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 28: 9. 1962 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Scopelogena verruculata (L.) L. Bolus A small genus with two species, which was placed in a clade with two species of the polyphyletic Ruschia (Klak & al. 2013). A comprehensive revision of Ruschia should therefore also address the generic delimitation of Scopelogena.

  • Sesuvium L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 1052, 1058, 1371. 1759 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Halimus Rumph. ex Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 263. 1891, nom. illeg. ≡ Halimum Loef. ex Hiern. in Cat. Afr. Pl. 1: 411. 1898. — Type: Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L.

  • = Diplochonium Fenzl, Nov. Stirp. Dec.: 57. 1839.

  • = Pyxypoma Fenzl in Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 2: 293. 1840.

  • = Psammanthe Hance in Ann. Bot. Syst. 2: 659. 1851. The genus includes about 15 species; the exact number, however, is unknown and a taxonomic treatment is needed. Sesuvium contains an African clade consisting of C4 species and an American clade consisting of Cypselea (also C4) and a C3 Sesuvium clade (Bohley & al. 2015). Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L., which belongs to the American clade, is found along tropical and subtropical coasts.

  • Skiatophytum L. Bolus in S. African Gard. 17: 435. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Gymnopoma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 83: 194. 1928. — Type: Skiatophytum tripolium (L.) L. Bolus

  • = Caryotophora Leistner, Notes Mesembryanthemum 3: 289. 1958.

  • Skiatophytum forms part of the tribe Apatesieae, which consists of only 11 species. The tribe is considered to be monophyletic (Ihlenfeldt & Gerbaulet 1990; Klak & al. 2003b; Klak & al. 2015). Skiatophytum includes only three species, which are endemic to the south-western Cape region of South Africa (Klak & al. 2015). Based on a recent phylogenetic study, Klak & al. (2015) proposed that the monotypic Caryotophora Leistner should be considered part of Skiatophytum. In addition, it was shown that the lectotype and protologue of Mesembryanthemum flaccidum Jacq. did not correspond to the species currently associated with this name, which was described as S. flaccidifolium Klak (Klak & al. 2015). The type of the monotypic Saphesia, which is M. flaccidum, was found to be an insufficiently known species.

  • Smicrostigma N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 87: 72. 1930 sec. Hartmann (1993). — Type: Smicrostigma viride (Haw.) N. E. Br.

  • A monotypic genus, which was shown to be closely related to Zeuktophyllum (two species) and Octopoma p.p. (Klak & al. 2013). All three taxa are endemic to the Little Karoo, South Africa. The overall similarity between these taxa suggests that a broader generic concept should be adopted for this group of species.

  • Stayneria L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 27: 47. 1960 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Stayneria littlewoodii L. Bolus

  • A monotypic genus, which was found to be closely allied to parts of the polyphyletic genus Ruschia (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Stoeberia Dinter & Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 3: 14, 17. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Stoeberia beetzii (Dinter) Dinter & Schwantes

  • = Ruschianthemum Friedrich in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 3: 563. 1960. Hartmann (2001b) treated Ruschianthemum as a distinct genus with R. gigas (Dinter) Friedrich as the only species. However, the species had already previously placed in Stoeberia because of strong similarities; it differs mostly in its fruit morphology, which has traditionally played an important role in delimiting genera in Aizoaceae. However, fruit characters have recently been shown to be far more homoplasious than previously expected (Klak & al. 2013), suggesting that fruit morphology on its own does not justify the recognition as a distinct genus. Given the large overall similarity in all other morphological characters to Stoeberia, this species has been reinstated as a member of Stoeberia by Chesselet & van Wyk (2002), based on very similar arguments.

  • Stomatium Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 175. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Stomatium suaveolens Schwantes

  • = Agnirictus Schwantes in Monatsschr. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 2: 21. 1930, nom. inval.

  • Stomatium currently includes 39 species, but lacks a taxonomic revision. It was shown to be closely related to Chasmatophyllum (eight species), Mossia (one species), Neohenricia (two species), Peersia (three species) and Rhinephyllum (11 species) by Klak & al. (2013). Both Chasmatophyllum and Rhinephyllum also lack a taxonomic revision. All of these genera occur outside the winter-rainfall region of South Africa. The group shares a similar floral morphology, i.e. yellow or more rarely cream-coloured petaloid staminodes, absence of filamentous staminodes and a concavely shaped ovary wall. Over the past decades species have been shifted between genera since generic boundaries are poorly circumscribed.

  • Tanquana H. E. K. Hartmann & Liede in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 106: 479. 1986 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Tanquana archeri (L. Bolus) H. E. K. Hartmann & Liede

  • Based on differences in fruit morphology, Hartmann & Liede (1986) excluded three species from Pleiospilos and established a new genus for them, Tanquana. However, its previously recognized close relationship to Pleiospilos was confirmed by Klak & al. (2013), and is also corroborated by leaf-morphological characters (Hartmann & Liede 1986).

  • Tetragonia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 480. 1753 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡ Ludolfia Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 244. 1763 ≡ Tetragonocarpus Hassk. in Flora 40: 99. 1857. — Type: Tetragonia fruticosa L. — Fig. 2B.

  • = Demidovia Pall., Enum. Hort. Demidof: 150. 1781.

  • = Tetragonella Miq. in Lehm. Pl. Preiss. 1: 245. 1845.

  • = Anisostigma Schinz in Bull. Herb. Boissier 5 App. 3: 78. 1897.

  • Titanopsis Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 178. 1926 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Titanopsis calcarea (Marloth) Schwantes

  • = Verrucifera N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 88: 278. 1930.

  • Trianthema L., Sp. Pl. 1: 223. 1753 sec. Hartmann (2001b) ≡= Reme Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 245. 1763 ≡ Portulacastrum Juss. ex Medik., Philos. Bot.: 99. 1789. — Type: Trianthema portulacastrum L.

  • = Papularia Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 69. 1775.

  • = Meridiana L. f., Suppl. Pl.: 248. 1782.

  • = Ancistrostigma Fenzl in Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 2: 293. 1840.

  • The genus belongs to Sesuvioideae and comprises about 28 species in two monophyletic clades, T. subg. Trianthema and T. subg. Papularia (Bohley & al. 2015). The latter has been revised by Hartmann & al. (2011). Nearly all species are C4 plants: an exception is the C3 species T. ceratosepala Volkens & Irmsch.

  • Tribulocarpus S. Moore in J. Bot. 59: 228. 1921 sec. Thulin & al. (2012). — Type: Tribulocarpus dimorphantha (Pax) S. Moore

  • Tribulocarpus belongs to the Sesuvioideae (Klak & al. 2003; Thulin & al. 2012) and is sister to the remaining genera of the subfamily, i.e. Sesuvium (incl. Cypselea), Trianthema and Zaleya. It is the only genus in the Sesuvioideae that includes only C3 species.

  • Trichodiadema Schwantes in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2: 187. 1926 sec. Niesler (2001). — Type: Trichodiadema stelligerum (Haw.) Schwantes

  • The genus includes 32 species and is divided into two subgenera (Hartmann & Niesler 2013). The latter study as well as earlier studies appear to be largely based on the types of Trichodiadema (Niesler 1997), since very little additional material (none from a South African herbarium) is cited as the basis for their taxonomic conclusions. Distribution ranges for the recognized species remain uncertain due to the lack of cited vouchers. In addition, monophyly of the genus needs to be reinvestigated in view its having been found nested among species of Delosperma (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Vanheerdea L. Bolus ex H. E. K. Hartmann in Bradleya 10: 15. 1992 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Vanheerdea roodiae (N. E. Br.) L. Bolus ex H. E. K. Hartmann

  • Vanzijlia L. Bolus in Fl. Pl. South Africa 7. t. 256: 262. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Vanzijlia annulata (A. Berger) L. Bolus

  • Vlokia S. A. Hammer in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 66: 256. 1994 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Vlokia ater S. A. Hammer

  • Wooleya L. Bolus in J. S. African Bot. 27: 48. 1960 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Wooleya farinosa L. Bolus

  • A monotypic genus from the cost of Namaqualand. Its phylogenetic position within the xeromorphic winter-rainfall clade remains unresolved (Klak & al. 2013).

  • Zaleya Burm. f. in Fl. Indica (N. L. Burman): 110. 1768 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Zaleya decandra Burm. f.

  • = Rocama Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 71. 1775. The genus is monophyletic and belongs to Sesuvioideae, where it is sister to Sesuvium (Bohley & al. 2015). Zaleya is a C4 genus and distributed in eastern Africa, southern Asia and Australia. It contains seven species (Hartmann 2011b).

  • Zeuktophyllum N. E. Br. in Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 81: 12. 1927 sec. Hartmann (2001b). — Type: Zeuktophyllum suppositum (L. Bolus) N. E. Br.

  • Amaranthaceae Juss. sec. Müller & Borsch (2005).

  • Amaranthaceae belong to a clade together with Chenopodiaceae. Support for the monophyly of the “Amaranthaceae-Chenopodiaceae alliance” is found consistently in all molecular phylogenetic analyses (Manhart & Rettig 1994; Downie & al. 1997; Cuénoud & al. 2002; Kadereit & al. 2003; Müller & Borsch 2005a; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2009). The family circumscription of the Amaranthaceae in the sense of Schinz (1893) was upheld by Townsend (1993) and confirmed as monophyletic with high statistical confidence by Kadereit & al. (2003) and Müller & Borsch (2005a). Following this concept the Amaranthaceae predominantly occur in tropical and subtropical regions with most of the species diversity in the Neotropics, eastern and southern Africa and Australia (Müller & Borsch 2005a, b; Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009). Subfamily Gomphrenoideae has been revealed as monophyletic and nested within the Amaranthoideae and is characterized by unilocular anthers (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009) and metareticulate pollen (Borsch & Barthlott 1998; in core Gomphrenoideae except Irenella, Iresine and Woehleria). In contrast, subfamily Amaranthoideae is largely paraphyletic. The genera Bosea and Charpentiera were found as successive sisters to the remainder of the Amaranthaceae (Müller & Borsch 2005a). The Celosioideae (corresponding to the celosioid clade) are the only natural tribe in the pre-phylogenetic classification of the family and further major lineages are constituted by the amaranthoid clade (Amaranthus, Chamissoa and relatives), the aervoid clade (Aerva, Ptilotus and relatives) and the achyranthoid clade (Achyranthes, Centemposis, Cyathula, Pupalia, Sericocoma and many other African genera; Müller & Borsch 2005b). The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG 1998) proposed to apply the name Amaranthaceae to the complete Amaranthaceae—Chenopodiaceae alliance, essentially adopting the family concept of Baillon (1887) and Mallingson (1922). The broad family circumscription was also adopted in subsequent versions of the APG classification (APG II 2003; APG III 2009). However, since recent phylogenetic analyses rather indicate the monophyly of the core Chenopodiaceae but are not yet conclusive about the position of the subfamily Polycnemoideae, the widely used family name Chenopodiaceae is maintained (see introduction to the family Chenopodiaceae). The four genera of the well-supported polycnemoid lineage (Hemichroa, Nitrophila, Polycnemum, Surreya) that corresponds to the subfamily Polycnemoideae share petaloid tepals, two large bracteoles supporting the flower, an androecium that is basally united into a tube and bilocular anthers with the Amaranthaceae sensu Schinz (1893), Masson & Kadereit (2013). We are therefore provisionally treating this subfamily under the Amaranthaceae along with Endlicher (1841), Moquin-Tandon (1849) and Scott (1977).

  • Achyranthes L., Sp. Pl. 1: 204. 1753, nom. cons. prop. sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Achyranthes aspera L.

  • Achyropsis Benth. & Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 36. 1880 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Achyranthes sect. Achyropsis Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 310. 1849. — Type: not designated.

  • Aerva Forssk. in Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 170. 1775, nom. cons. sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Aerva tomentosa Forssk.

  • The genus may not be monophyletic and includes two principal lineages (Thiv & al. 2006). One of these was shown as sister to the remainder of the aervoid clade (represented by A. javanica Juss.; Müller & Borsch 2005a) and the other (represented by A. leucura Moq.; Müller & Borsch 2005b) as sister to Ptilotus. Further study of the aervoid clade is needed to clarify generic concepts.

  • Allmania R. Br. ex Wight in J. Bot. 1: 226. 1834 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Allmania nodiflora (L.) R. Br. ex Wight

  • Allmaniopsis Suess. in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 4. 1952 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Allmaniopsis fruticulosa Suess.

  • Alternanthera Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 28, 59. 1775 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Alternanthera achyranthes Forssk.

  • = Telanthera R. Br., Observ. Congo. 1818.

  • = Brandesia Mart., Nov. Gen. Sp. Pl. 2: 25. 1826.

  • = Buchholzia Mart., Nov. Gen. Sp. Pl. 2: 49. 1826.

  • = Mogiphanes Mart., Nov. Gen. Sp. Pl. 2: 29. 1826.

  • The genus Alternanthera is well supported as monophyletic in the current circumscription and is characterized by the presence of capitate stigmas and in most species also distinct androecial appendages that alternate with the filaments. The previously recognized genera do not represent natural entities except Mogiphanes, which is nested within one of the two major subclades of Alternanthera (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2012).

  • Amaranthus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 989. 1753 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Amaranthus caudatus L.

  • = Acnida L., Sp. Pl. 2: 1027. 1753 ≡ Amaranthus subg. Acnida (L.) Aellen ex K. R. Robertson in J. Arnold Arbor. 62(3): 283. 1981.

  • = Albersia Kunth, Fl. Berol. 2: 144. 1838 ≡ Amaranthus subg. Albersia (Kunth) Gren. & Godr., Fl. France 3: 3. 1856.

  • = Acanthochiton Torr., Rep. Exped. Zuñi & Colorado Rivers: 170. 1853 ≡ Amaranthus sect. Acanthochiton (Torr.) Mosyakin & K. R. Robertson in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 33: 277. 1996.

  • = Goerziella Urb., Repert Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 20: 301. 1924 ≡ Amaranthus sect. Goerziella (Urb.) Mosyakin & K. R. Robertson in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 33: 280. 1996. The genus, with its more than 75 currently recognized species, is monophyletic and constitutes a C4 lineage (Sage & al. 2007) within the otherwise completely C3 amaranthoid clade (Müller & Borsch 2005b) of subfamily Amaranthoideae. The current infrageneric system of the genus (Mosyakin & Robertson 1996, 2003), recognizing three subgenera (A. subg. Acnida (L.) Aellen ex K. R. Robertson, A. subg. Albersia (Kunth) Gren. & Godr. and A. subg. Amaranthus) and several sections, was developed before the advent of molecular phylogenetic methods and is now in need of revision. Amaranthus subg. Acnida, represented by dioecious species currently placed in three sections, seems to be nonmonophyletic, since dioecy in Amaranthus probably developed independently at least twice (Mosyakin 2005). Surprisingly, no comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study of Amaranthus has been done yet, despite the economic importance of the genus, containing some pseudocereal and green crops, popular ornamentals, and noxious weeds.

  • Arthraerua (Kuntze) Schinz, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(la): 109. 1893 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Aerva sect. Arthraerua Kuntze in Jahrb. Königl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 4: 272. 1886. — Type: Arthraerua leubnitziae (Kuntze) Schinz

  • Bosea L., Sp. Pl. 1: 225. 1753 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Bosea yervamora L.

  • Calicorema Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 34. 1880 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Calicorema capitata (Moq.) Hook. f.

  • The genus is not monophyletic as currently circumscribed because its two species, Calicorema capitata and C. squarrosa (Schinz) Schinz, appear in two completely different lineages of the achyranthoid clade (Müller & Borsch 2005a, b). Correct generic assignment has to await a comprehensive analysis of the achyranthoid clade.

  • Celosia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 205. 1753 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Celosia argentea L.

  • Centema Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 31. 1880 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Centema angolensis Hook. f.

  • Centemopsis Schinz in Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 56: 242. 1911 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • The genus is probably monophyletic considering phylogenetic trees of Müller & Borsch (2005b) and Sage & al. (2007).

  • Centrostachys Wall., Fl. Ind., ed. 1820: 497. 1824 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Centrostachys aquatica (R. Br.) Wall.

  • Chamissoa Kunth in Nov. Gen. Sp. [H. B. K.] 2: 196, t. 125. 1818, nom. cons. sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Chamissoa altissima (Jacq.) Kunth

  • Charpentiera Gaudich. in Voy. Uranie, Bot.: 444, t. 48. 1826 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Charpentiera obovata Gaudich.

  • Chionothrix Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 33. 1880 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Chionothrix somalensis (S. Moore) Hook. f.

  • Cyathula Blume in Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind. 11: 548. 1826 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Cyathula prostrata (L.) Blume

  • Cyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 27: 42. 1899 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Sericocoma subg. Kyphocarpa Fenzl in Linnaea 17: 324. 1843. — Type: Cyphocarpa trichinioides (Fenzl) Lopr.

  • Dasysphaera Volkens ex Gilg, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. 2–4, 1: 153. 1897 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • Deeringia R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 413. 1810 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Deeringia celosioides R. Br.

  • = Dendroportulaca Eggli in Adansonia, sér. 3, 19: 49. 1997.

  • Celosieae. Dendroportulaca (formerly placed in Portulacaceae) has been shown to be referable to Deeringia and the only species, Dendroportulaca mirabilis Eggli, has been transferred there (Apple-quist & Pratt 2005).

  • Digera Forssk. in Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 65. 1775 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Digera arvensis Forssk.

  • Eriostylos C. C. Towns, in Kew Bull. 46: 237. 1991 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Eriostylos stefaninii (Chiov.) C. C. Towns.

  • Froelichia Moench, Methodus: 50. 1794 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Froelichia lanata Moench

  • Froelichiella R. E. Fr. in Ark. Bot. 16(13): 3. 1921 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Froelichiella grisea (Lopr.) R. E. Fr.

  • Gomphrena L., Sp. Pl. 1: 224. 1753 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Gomphrena globosa L. — Fig. 2E.

  • Gossypianthus Hook. in Icon. Pl.: 251. 1840 sec. Clemants (2003). — Type: Gossypianthus rigidiflorus Hook. Close relationships between Gossypianthus and Guilleminea and a merger of both genera were long-disputed (Mears 1967; Eliasson 1988). Phylogenetic analysis of plastid (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009) and nuclear sequences (T. Ortuño & T. Borsch, unpubl. data) show that they are more distantly related and do not form sister groups.

  • Guilleminea Kunth, Nov. Gen. Sp. (quarto ed.) 6: 40, pl. 518. 1823 sec. Clemants (2003) ≡ Brayulinea Small, Fl. S. E. U. S.: 394. 1903. — Type: Guilleminea illecebroides Kunth

  • See notes under Gossypianthus.

  • Hebanthe Mart., Beitr. Amarantac.: 96. 1825 sec. Borsch & Pedersen (1997). — Type: not designated.

  • The genus was resurrected based on its very distinctive flower and pollen morphology by Borsch & Pedersen (1997) and also appears to be monophyletic based on molecular phylogenetic analysis (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009; Borsch & al. 2011).

  • Hebanthodes Pedersen in Bonplandia (Corrientes) 10: 102. 2000 sec. Pedersen (2000). — Type: Hebanthodes peruviana Pedersen

  • Monotypic and known from a single historical specimen (Pedersen 2000). Affinities are unclear but a placement within the gomphrenoid clade of Gomphrenoideae (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009) is certain, where it shares a pollen morphology similar to Pfaffia.

  • Hemichroa R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 409. 1810 sec. Masson & Kadereit (2013). — Type: Hemichroa pentandra R. Br.

  • Polycnemoideae. Hemichroa consists of only one species; two further species have been segregated as Surreya (see there for details; Masson & Kadereit 2013). The succulent halophyte H. pentandra R. Br. is endemic to Australia. It is sister to Surreya (Masson & Kadereit 2013).

  • Henonia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 237. 1849 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Henonia scoparia Moq.

  • Herbstia Sohmer in Brittonia 28:448.1977 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Herbstia brasiliana (Moq.) Sohmer

  • Hermbstaedtia Rchb. in Consp. Regn. Veg.: 164. 1828 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Hermbstaedtia glauca (J. C. Wendl.) Steud. ex Rchb.

  • Indobanalia A. N. Henry & B. Roy in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 10: 274. 1969 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Banalia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 278. 1849, nom. illeg. — Type: Indobanalia thyrsiflora (Moq.) A. N. Henry & B. Roy

  • Irenella Suess. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 35: 318. 1934 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Irenella chrysotricha Suess.

  • Iresine P. Browne in Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 358. 1756, nom. cons. sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Iresine diffusa Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.

  • = Dicraurus Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 42. 1880.

  • The genus is monophyletic (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009; Borsch, Flores Olvera, Zumaya & Müller, in review) with approximately 45 species all of which are characterized by Iresine-type pollen (Borsch 1998). The two species formerly classified as Dicraurus on the base of alternate and not opposite leaves are nested within the Iresine clade, confirming the merger by Henrickson & Sundberg (1986). Their dense indumentum with branched trichomes appears to be an adaptation to the dry habitats of northern Mexico.

  • Lagrezia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 252. 1849 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Lagrezia madagascariensis (Poir.) Moq.

  • = Apterantha C. H. Wright in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1918: 202. 1918.

  • Leucosphaera Gilg, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. 2–4, 1: 152. 1897 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Leucosphaera bainesii (Hook. f.) Gilg

  • Lithophila Sw., Prodr. [O. P. Swartz]: 1, 14. 1788 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Lithophila muscoides Sw.

  • Lopriorea Schinz in Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 56: 251. 1911 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Lopriorea ruspolii (Lopr.) Schinz

  • Marcelliopsis Schinz, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 16c: 48. 1934 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Marcellia Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(79): 625. 1886, nom. illeg. — Type: Marcellia mirabilis Baill.

  • Mechowia Schinz in Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(1a): 110. 1893 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Mechowia grandiflora Schinz

  • Nelsia Schinz in Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 56: 247. 1912 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Nelsia quadrangula (Engl.) Schinz

  • Neocentema Schinz in Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 56: 248. 1911 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • Nitrophila S. Watson in Botany [Fortieth Parallel]: 297. 1871 sec. Masson & Kadereit (2013) ≡ Banalia sect. Idiopsis Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 279. 1849. — Type: Nitrophila occidentalis (Moq.) S. Watson

  • Polycnemoideae. Nitrophila consists of four (to eight) species distributed in western North America and South America, and the genus represents a classical example of an amphitropical desert disjunction (Masson & Kadereit 2013). Nitrophila shows leaf anatomical adaptations to physiological drought.

  • Nothosaerva Wight in Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. [Wight] 6: 17. 1853 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Nothosaerva brachiata (L.) Wight

  • Nototrichium W. F. Hillebr. in Fl. Hawaiian Isl.: 372. 1888 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • Nyssanthes R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 418. 1810 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • Pandiaka Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 35. 1880 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Achyranthes sect. Pandiaka Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 310. 1849. — Type: Pandiaka involucrata (Moq.) B. D. Jacks.

  • Pedersenia Holub in Preslia 70: 181. 1998 sec. Holub (1998). — Type: Pedersenia argentata (Mart.) Holub The genus was resurrected by Pedersen (1997) under Trommsdorffia Mart., a later homonym of Trommsdorffia Bernh. (Compositae; Holub 1998). Pedersenia is well supported as monophyletic (Borsch & al. 2011).

  • Pfaffia Mart., Beitr. Amarantac.: 103. 1825 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pfaffia glabrata Mart.

  • = Sertuernera Mart., Nov. Gen. Sp. Pl. 2: 36. 1826.

  • Philoxerus R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 416. 1810 sec. Bao & al. (2003). — Type: Philoxerus conicus R. Br.

  • = Blutaparon Raf., New Fl. 4: 45. 1838.

  • The genus name was lectotypified by Standley (1917) using an Australian species, P. conicus R. Br. (≡ Gomphrena conica (R. Br.) Spreng.). Palmer (1998) accepted G. conica along with the other Australian species of Gomphrena and indicated that this is a rare species that grows in sandy soils close to coasts. Considering this, Philoxerus would have to be a synonym of Gomphrena. The problem is that Hooker (1880, Genera plantarum) kept the genus name Philoxerus separate from Gomphrena and, rather than using morphological characters, applied a genus concept for Philoxerus to comprise Gomphrena species of coastal habitats in America, Africa and Australia. This is practically upheld in the genus concept of Biutaparon Raf. (Townsend 1993), with four coastal species, although Townsend did not even cite the name Philoxerus. Mears (1982a, b) argued that Philoxerus had been used for the American coastal species, so he actually looked for a name that would define a genus of coastal species based on the American coastal plants originally described by Linnaeus as G. vermicularis. What Mears overlooked is that G. conica also appears to be a coastal plant (Palmer 1998), so that Bentham's 1880 generic concept of a gomphrenoid genus of coastal plants under the name Philoxerus would actually have been correct with five and not four species. Strictly applying such a genus concept to formal nomenclature, Biutaparon is a synonym of Philoxerus. However, in the course of analysing evolutionary relationships it will have to be seen if the adaptation to coastal habitats correlates with other characters that could provide synapomorphies for circumscribing and maintaining a genus Philoxerus, and if these synapomorphies are shared by P. conicus and the other coastal species.

  • Pleuropetalum Hook. f. in London J. Bot. 5: 108. 1846 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pleuropetalum darwinii Hook. f. — Fig. 2F.

  • Pleuropetalum is a member of Amaranthoideae. The genus is unusual in the family because of a higher stamen and carpel number (Eliasson 1988; Ronse Decraene & al. 1999).

  • Pleuropterantha Franch., Sert. Somal.: 59 (t. 5). 1882 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pleuropterantha revoilii Franch.

  • Polycnemum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 35. 1753 sec. Masson & Kadereit (2013). — Type: Polycnemum arvense L.

  • = Selago Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 268. 1763, nom. illeg.

  • = Rovillia Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 1: 182. 1897.

  • Polycnemoideae. The genus comprises six species distributed in Eurasia and northwestern Africa. It is sister to the rest of Polycnemoideae (Masson & Kadereit 2013).

  • Polyrhabda C. C. Towns, in Kew Bull. 39: 775. 1984 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Polyrhabda atriplicifolia C. C. Towns.

  • Pseudogomphrena R. E. Fr. in Ark. Bot. 16(13): 17. 1920 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pseudogomphrena scandens R. E. Fr.

  • Pseudoplantago Suess. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 35: 334. 1934 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pseudoplantago friesii Suess.

  • Pseudosericocoma Cavaco in Mém. Mus Hist. Nat., Paris, Ser. Bot., 13: 66. 1962 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pseudosericocoma pungens (Fenzl) Cavaco

  • Psilotrichopsis C. C. Towns, in Kew Bull. 29 (3): 464. 1974 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Psilotrichopsis curtisii (Oliv.) C. C. Towns.

  • Psilotrichum Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind. 11: 544. 1826 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Psilotrichum trichotomum Blume

  • The genus is highly polyphyletic (Müller & Borsch 2005a, b). Correct generic assignment has to await a comprehensive analysis of the achyranthoid clade.

  • Ptilotus R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 415. 1810 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • = ?Dipteranthemum F. Muell. in South Sc. Record. 3: 281. 1883.

  • Ptilotus has been recovered as monophyletic in the current circumscription, with the species diversity the result of a rapid diversification in Australia (Hammer & al. 2015).

  • Pupalia Juss. in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 2: 132. 1803, nom. cons. sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss.

  • Quaternella Pedersen in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Adansonia Sér. 4, 12: 92. 1990 sec. Pedersen (2000). — Type: Quaternella confusa Pedersen

  • Rosifax C. C. Towns, in Kew Bull. 46: 101. 1991 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Rosifax sabuletorum C. C. Towns.

  • Saltia R. Br. ex Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 325. 1849 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Saltia papposa (Forssk.) Moq.

  • = Psilodigera Suess. in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 4: 109. 1952.

  • Sericocoma Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl. Suppl. 2: 33. 1842 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Sericocoma trichinioides Fenzl

  • Sericocomopsis Schinz in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 21: 184. 1895 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii Schinz

  • Sericorema Lopr. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 27: 39. 1899 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Sericocoma sect. Sericorema Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 30. 1880. — Type: Sericorema remotiflora Lopr.

  • Sericostachys Gilg & Lopr. ex Lopr. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 27: 50. 1899 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • Siamosia K. Larsen & Pedersen in Nordic J. Bot. 7: 271. 1987 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Siamosia thailandica K. Larsen & Pedersen

  • Stilbanthus Hook. f. in Hooker's Icon. Pl. 13: 67. 1879 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Stilbanthus scandens Hook. f.

  • Surreya R. Masson & G. Kadereit in Taxon 62: 109. 2013 sec. Masson & Kadereit (2013). — Type: Surreya diandra (R. Br.) R. Masson & G. Kadereit

  • Polycnemoideae. The Australian Surreya comprises two species of subshrubs (Masson & Kadereit 2013).

  • Tidestromia Standl. in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 6: 70. 1916 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Alternanthera sect. Cladothrix Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 359. 1849 ≡ Cladothrix (Moq.) Nutt. ex Benth. & Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 37. 1880, nom. illeg. — Type: Tidestromia lanuginosa (Nutt.) Standl. — Fig. 3A.

  • The genus is monophyletic (Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009).

  • Trichuriella Bennet in Indian J. Forest. 8: 86. 1985 sec. Townsend (1993) ≡ Trichurus C. C. Towns. in Kew Bull. 29(3): 466. 1974, nom. illeg. — Type: Trichuriella monsoniae (L. f.) Bennet

  • Volkensinia Schinz in Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 57: 535. 1912 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Volkensinia prostrata (Volkens ex Gilg) Schinz

  • Woehleria Griseb., Abh. Königl. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen. 9: 11. 1860 sec. Townsend (1993). — Type: Woehleria serpyllifolia Griseb.

  • Xerosiphon Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 16: 55. 1843 sec. Pedersen (1990). — Type: Xerosiphon gracilis Turcz.

  • A well-circumscribed monophyletic genus with two species that was long treated as part of a widely circumscribed genus Gomphrena Mart, but resurrected by Pedersen (1990) because of its morphological distinctness (gamopetalous perianth, cauline leaves reduced to scales). Molecular phylogenetic analyses (Sage & al. 2007; Sánchez-del Pino & al. 2009) depicted Xerosiphon as an isolated lineage in the gomphrenoid clade of subfamily Gomphrenoideae.

  • Anacampserotaceae Eggli & Nyffeler sec. APG (2009).

  • A family with three genera and around 36 species mainly distributed in the southern and eastern parts of Africa, but also found in North America, South America, and Australia (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a). The species of this family are traditionally considered members of Portulacaceae; however, molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that the traditional Portulacaceae are not monophyletic (Hershkovitz & Zimmer 1997; Applequist & Wallace 2001; Nyffeler 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010). Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a) proposed the segregation of the traditional Portulacaceae into four families (Anacampserotaceae, Montiaceae, Portulacaceae and Talinaceae) based on morphological and molecular data. In this context, the Anacampserotaceae are recognized by their capsules with loculicidal dehiscence, endocarp valves forming a basket-like structure and seeds with testa layers separate from each other (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a).

  • Anacampseros L., Opera Var.: 232. 1758, nom. cons. sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: Anacampseros telephiastrum DC.

  • = Talinaria Brandegee in Zoe 5: 231. 1908.

  • = Xenia Gerbaulet in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 113: 552. 1992.

  • = Avonia (E. Mey. ex Fenzl) G. D. Rowley in Bradleya 12: 111. 1994.

  • Anacampseros with c. 34 herbaceous species distributed in Africa, Australia, North and South America, is the most diverse genus of Anacampserotaceae (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a). Phylogenetic analyses recover this lineage as a derived monophyletic group with moderate statistical support (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a).

  • Grahamia Gillies ex Hook. & Arn. in Bot. Misc. 3: 331. 1833 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Grahamia bracteata Gillies

  • Talinopsis A. Gray in Smithsonian Contr. Knowl. 1: 14. 1852 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Talinopsis frutescens A. Gray

  • Phylogenetic analyses recover the North American Talinopsis frutescens A. Gray, the only member of the genus, as the most basal member of Anacampserotaceae (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010).

  • Ancistrocladaceae Planch. ex Walp. sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family comprising 18 species with a disjunct paleotropical distribution in western and central Africa and southeastern Asia (Rischer & al. 2005). The family includes only non-carnivorous plants characterized by having nuts, ruminate endosperm and a gynoecium partly inferior with a single ovule (Heubl & al. 2006). Traditionally, the family was placed either in the order The ales (e.g. Thome 1992) or Dilleniales (e.g. Thorne 2000). However, the position of the family within Caryophyllales and its close relationship with the “partially carnivorous” Dioncophyllaceae (see there) was shown by the early molecular phylogenetic study of Nandi & al. (1998). These results were confirmed by subsequent studies (e.g. Meimberg & al. 2000; Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Brockington 2009, 2011; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Renner & Specht 2011), which have also shown, with high support, that both Ancistrocladaceae and Dioncophyllaceae are part of the “carnivorous clade” of the Caryophyllales. Other studies focusing on the evolution of carnivory and relationships within this clade (e.g. Heubl & al. 2006; Renner & Specht 2011) suggest that the absence of carnivory in Ancistrocladaceae can be explained as a complete secondary loss of this character.

  • Ancistrocladus Wall., Numer. List: 1052. 1829, nom. cons. sec. Porembski (2003). — Type: Ancistrocladus hamatus (Vahl) Gilg

  • Asteropeiaceae Takht. ex Reveal & Hoogland sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with eight species endemic to Madagascar (Kubitzki 2003). The genus was traditionally placed in Theales, either in its own family (e.g. Takhtajan 1987; Thome 1992) or within Theaceae (e.g. Cronquist 1988). However, early molecular phylogenetic studies have shown the affinities of Asteropeiacae within Caryophyllales and the close relationship with Physenaceae (e.g. Morton & al. 1997). These results were confirmed by subsequent studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Brockington 2009, 2011; Soltis & al. 2011). The clade Asteropeiaceae—Physenaceae is also well supported by wood-anatomical characters (e.g. Miller & Dickison 1992; Dickison & Miller 1993; Carlquist 2006); some member species (with small circular alternate pits on vessels, vasicentric tracheids plus fibre tracheids, abaxial confluent diffuse parenchyma and predominantly uniseriate rays) have been proposed as synapomorphies to the family (e.g. Carlquist 2006).

  • Asteropeia Thouars, Hist. Vég. Isles Austral. Afriq.: 51– 52, pl. 15. 1805 sec. Kubitzki (2003a). — Type: Asteropeia multiflora Thouars

  • Barbeuiaceae Nakai sec. APG (2009).

  • A monotypic family restricted to Madagascar (Rohwer 1993). The family is characterized by ovaries consisting of two united carpels with two locules and by capsules (Rohwer 1993). Traditionally, the family was placed in Phytolaccaceae subfamily Barbeuioideae, but its position as an independent lineage has been supported by several molecular phylogenetic studies (Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Schäferhoff & al. 2009).

  • Barbeuia Thouars in Gen. Nov. Madagasc.: 6. 1806 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Barbeuia madagascariensis Steud.

  • Basellaceae Raf. sec. APG (2009).

  • Basellaceae are a small tropical and subtropical family native to the Americas, southeastern Africa, Madagascar and possibly Asia. The centre of diversity is in the Andes of northwestern South America, but the centre of origin may very well be in Africa. At present, four genera (Anredera, Basella, Tournonia, Ullucus) with a total of 19 species are recognized, most of them succulent vines occurring in dry habitats. Some species are cultivated, and one (Ullucus tuberosus Caldas) is an important high-Andean crop grown for its edible tubers.

  • Anredera Juss., Gen. Pl.: 84. 1789 sec. Eriksson (2007) ≡ Clarisia Abat in Mem. Acad. Real Soc. Med. Sevilla 10: 418. 1792. — Type: Anredera spicata J. F. Gmel.

  • = Boussingaultia Kunth, Nov. Gen. Sp. (quarto ed.) 7: 194 t. 645. 1825.

  • = Tandonia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 226. 1849 = Boussingaultia sect. Tandonia (Moq.) Volkens, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(1a): 128. 1893 ≡ Anredera sect. Tandonia (Moq.) Steenis, Flora Malesiana, ser. 1, 5: 302. 1957.

  • = Boussingaultia sect. Moquiniella Hauman in Anales Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires 33: 351. 1925.

  • = Boussingaultia sect. Euboussingaultia Volkens, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(1a): 128. 1893, nom. inval.

  • = Siebera C. Presl in Isis (Oken) 21: 275. 1828, nom. nud.

  • = Beriesa Steud., Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 199. 1840, nom. nud.

  • A monophyletic group of species in Anredera corresponds to the previously recognized taxon Tandonia, but a formal recognition of Tandonia would make the remaining Anredera paraphyletic (Eriksson 2007).

  • Basella L., Sp. Pl. 1: 272. 1753 sec. Eriksson (2007). — Type: Basella rubra L.

  • = Gandola Raf., Sylva Tellur.: 60. 1838.

  • One species, B. paniculata Volkens, is morphologically deviating in Basella, and may be better placed in a genus of its own. A phylogenetic analysis based on morphological data gave inconclusive results regarding its placement (Eriksson 2007).

  • Tournonia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 221, 225. 1849 sec. Eriksson (2007). — Type: Tournonia hookeriana Moq.

  • Ullucus Caldas in Seman. Nuev. Granad.: 185. 1809 sec. Eriksson (2007). — Type: Ullucus tuberosus Caldas

  • = Melloca Lindl. in Gard. Chron. 42: 685. 1847.

  • Cactaceae Juss. sec. APG (2009).

  • Cactaceae comprise about 120 to 130 genera and some 1450 to 1870 species (Hunt 2006; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010b). Most species are highly modified perennial stem succulents which conserve water to survive temporary dry periods. Only some two dozen species of the genera Pereskia, Pereskiopsis and Quiabentia have a shrubby or tree-like habit with more or less fleshy leaves. All species of the family bear characteristic spine clusters (i.e. areoles), representing short shoots with leaves transformed into spines already at the stage of primordia. Some taxa are spineless and even lack areoles at maturity but all species bear areoles as seedlings. This characteristic is a true synapomorphy of the entire family. Cacti are native to the Americas, except for the widely distributed Rhipsalis baccifera (Sol.) Steam that also occurs in tropical Africa, Madagascar, and on islands in the Indian Ocean. Several species from different lineages have been introduced worldwide as crop plants or ornamentals and have become naturalized, and are classified as invasive aliens in several areas, including Australia, southern Africa, and the Mediterranean. For a long time in the past, the classification into genera and suprageneric groups was based on form characteristics of vegetative and reproductive structures, culminating in the fine-grained classifications of Backeberg (1958–1962, 1966) or Buxbaum (1962) and Endler & Buxbaum (1974). Many of the highly modified structural features are associated with the succulent life strategy (e.g. Nyffeler & al. 2008), and hence provide particular challenges in the interpretation of a classification based on purported relationships. The consensus classification initiative as reported by Hunt & Taylor (1986) and subsequent papers helped to overcome the deviating systems used in the second part of the 20th century, but also fell short in not being based on further and expanded data sets of comparative data for reconstructing relative relationships. However, the molecular phylogenetic studies (see the introduction and Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b) provide the base for an increasingly stable backbone classification for major suprageneric clades. At the same time, unexpected novel placements are suggested by such studies for several species or genera, such as Blossfeldia (Nyffeler 2002) or Lymanbensonia (Korotkova & al. 2010), while long-established genera, such as Echinocactus and Ferocactus but also Mammillaria have been found to be polyphyletic (Bárcenas & al. 2011; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013). To use these findings for updating the generic classification of the family is a pronounced challenge (Hunt 2006; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010b).

  • Acanthocereus (Engelm. ex A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 432. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006) ≡ Cereus subsect. Acanthocereus Engelm. ex A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 77. 1905. — Type: Acanthocereus baxaniensis (Karw.) Borg

  • = Monvillea Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 21. 1920. Currently accepted as monotypic with A. tetragonus (L.) Britton & Rose (Hunt 2006), whereas all other names suggested in this genus are of uncertain application or were wrongly assigned to Acanthocereus. The molecular phylogenetic study of Arias & al. (2005) showed that Acanthocereus would need to be expanded to include Peniocereus subg. Pseudoacanthocereus Sánchez-Mej., but no new combinations have yet been published.

  • Acharagma (N. P. Taylor) Glass in Guía Identif. Cact. Amenazadas México 1: [Ac/Ag]. 1997 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) ≡ Escobaria sect. Acharagma N. P. Taylor in Kakteen And. Sukk. 34: 185. 1983. — Type: Acharagma roseanum (Boed.) E. F. Anderson Acharagma includes only two species that were found well-supported as sister to each other by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013).

  • Ariocarpus Scheidw. in Bull. Acad. Roy. Sci. Bruxelles 5: 491. 1838 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Ariocarpus retusus Scheidw.

  • = Neogomesia Castañeda in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 13: 98. 1941.

  • = Roseocactus A. Berger in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 15: 45. The monophyly of Ariocarpus was repeatedly confirmed (Butterworth & al. 2002; Bárcenas & al. 2011; Hérnandez-Hérnandez & al. 2001; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013). Recent traditional treatments by Anderson & Fitz Maurice (1998) and Lüthy & Moser (2002).

  • Armatocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [21]. 1938 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Armatocereus laetus (Kunth) Backeb.

  • Arrojadoa Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 170. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Arrojadoa rhodantha (Gürke) Britton & Rose

  • = Pierrebraunia Esteves in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 69: 296. 1997.

  • = Arrojadoopsis Guiggi in Cactology 1: 26. 2007. Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Arthrocereus A. Berger in Kakteen: 146, 337. 1929, nom. cons. sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Cereus damazioi K. Schum.

  • Astrophytum Lem., Cact. Gen. Sp. Nov.: 3–6. 1839 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Astrophytum myriostigma Lem.

  • = Digitostigma Velazco & Nevárez in Cact. Suc. Mex. 47: 79. 2002, nom. inval.

  • Confirmed as monophyletic, including Digitostigma; therefore the transfer of Digitostigma to Astrophytum, as suggested by Hunt (2003), is justified.

  • Austrocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 44. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Austrocactus bertinii (Cels) Britton & Rose

  • Austrocylindropuntia Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 6: 21. 1938 sec. Ritz & al. (2012). — Type: Austrocylindropuntia exaltata (A. Berger) Backeb.

  • = Andinopuntia Guiggi, Cactology 2(Suppl.): [1]. 2011.

  • = Banfiopuntia Guiggi, Cactology 2(Suppl.): [1]. 2011.

  • = Peruviopuntia Guiggi, Cactology 2(Suppl.): [1]. 2011.

  • = Trichopuntia Guiggi, Cactology 2(Suppl.): 2. 2011. Austrocylindropuntia as originally treated in Hunt (2006) was found as not monophyletic by Ritz & al. (2012). Austrocylindropuntia lagopus (K. Schum.) F. Ritter was found sister to the remaining species of Austrocylindropuntia and Cumulopuntia and was therefore segregated as a monotypic genus Punotia D. R. Hunt; see also there.

  • Aylostera Speg. in Anales Soc. Ci. Argent. 96: 75. 1923 sec. Ritz & al. (2007). — Type: Aylostera pseudominuscula (Speg.) Speg.

  • = Mediolobivia Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1934(2). 1934.

  • = Digitorebutia Frič & Kreuz, ex Buining in Succulenta (Netherlands) 22. 1940.

  • See notes under Rebutia. According to the molecular phylogenetic study of Mosti & al. (2011), Aylostera falls in two clades, Aylostera s.str. and Mediolobivia (incl. A. einsteinii (Frič ex Kreuz. & Buining) Mosti & Papini), which were recognized as subgenera by these authors. The genus is an excellent example for the notorious oversplitting prevalent in many cacti: Hunt (2006) (as Rebutia subg. Rebutia) accepted ten species, while Mosti & al. (2011) argued for 110 species.

  • Aztekium Boed. in Monatsschr. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 1: 52. 1929 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Aztekium ritteri (Boed.) Boed.

  • The genus contains only three species; two of them (A. ritteri and A. hintonii Glass & W. A. Fitz Maur.) have been found well supported as sisters to each other (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013).

  • Bergerocactus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 435. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Bergerocactus emoryi (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • Blossfeldia Werderm. in Kakteenkunde 1937: 162. 1937 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Blossfeldia liliputana Werderm.

  • The monotypic peculiar genus Blossfeldia is found as sister to the rest of the Cactoideae (Nyffeler 2002; Butterworth 2006).

  • Borzicactus Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 261. 1909 sec. Hunt (2012b). — Type: Borzicactus ventimigliae Riccob.

  • = Clistanthocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1937(1): 24. 1937.

  • = Seticereus Backeb. in Kakt. And. Sukk. 1937: 37. 1937.

  • = Akersia Buining in Succulenta (Netherlands) 1961: 25. 1961.

  • = Borzicactella H. Johnson ex F. Ritter, Kakteen Südamerika 4: 1385. 1981.

  • Borzicactus is reinstated based on the results of Schlumpberger & Renner (2012). Its circusmcription has been the subject of some debate, as summarized by Bregman (1992). The exact delimitation of Borzicactus and the genera currently included or considered related to it is still unclear.

  • Brachycereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 120. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Brachycereus nesioticus (K. Schum.) Backeb.

  • Brasilicereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): 22. 1938 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Brasilicereus phaeacanthus (Gürke) Backeb.

  • = Bragaia Esteves, Hofacker & P. J. Braun in Kakteen And. Sukk. 60(12): 328. 2009.

  • Recent floristic monograph by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Brasiliopuntia (K. Schum.) A. Berger, Entwicklungslin. Kakt. 17, 18: 94. 1926 sec. Majure & al. (2012) ≡ Opuntia subg. Brasiliopuntia K. Schum., Gesamtbeschr. Kakt. 1898. — Type: Brasiliopuntia brasiliensis (Willd.) A. Berger

  • Originally monotypic with B. brasiliensis. Majure & al. (2012) found good support for a sister-group relation of Opuntia schickendantzii F. A. C. Weber., and transferred this species to Brasiliopuntia.

  • Browningia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 63. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Browningia candelaris (Meyen) Britton & Rose

  • = Gymnanthocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1937(8): Nachtr. 15 [2], 1937.

  • = Azureocereus Akers & H. Johnson in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 21: 133. 1949.

  • = Gymnocereus Backeb., Cactaceae Handb. Kakteen. Pereskioideae Opuntioideae 2: 920. 1959, nom. illeg.

  • Calymmanthium F. Ritter in Kakteen And. Sukk. 13: 25. 1962 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Calymmanthium substerile F. Ritter

  • Monotypic; sampled by Korotkova & al. (2010) and resolved as sister to Lymanbensonia.

  • Carnegiea Britton & Rose in J. New York Bot. Gard. 9: 187. 1908 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britton & Rose — Fig. 3B.

  • Castellanosia Cárdenas in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 23: 90. 1951 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Castellanosia caineana Cárdenas

  • Cephalocereus Pfeiff. in Allg. Gartenzeitung (Otto & Dietrich) 6: 142. 1838 sec. Arias & al. (2012) ≡ Pilocereus Lem., Cact. Gen. Sp. Nov.: 6–7. 1839, nom. illeg. — Type: Cephalocereus senilis (Haw.) K. Schum.

  • = Haseltonia Backeb. in Blatt. Sukkulentenk. 1: 3. 1949.

  • = Neodawsonia Backeb. in Blatt. Sukkulentenk. 1: 4. 1949.

  • See under Neobuxbaumia.

  • Cereus Mill, in Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [308]. 1754 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Cereus hexagonus (L.) Mill.

  • = Piptanthocereus (A. Berger) Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 225. 1909.

  • = Subpilocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6). 1938.

  • = Mirabella F. Ritter, Kakteen Südamerika 1: 108. 1979.

  • Cipocereus F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 1: 54. 1979 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Cipocereus pleurocarpus F. Ritter

  • = Floribunda F. Ritter, Kakteen Südamerika 1: 58. 1979. Recent floristic monograph by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Cleistocactus Lem., 111. Hort. 8. 1861 sec. Hunt (2006). - Type: Cleistocactus baumannii (Lem.) Lem.

  • = Maritimocereus Akers & Buining in Succulenta (Netherlands) 1950: 49. 1950.

  • = Bolivicereus Cárdenas in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 23: 91. 1951.

  • = Cephalocleistocactus F. Ritter in Succulenta (Netherlands): 108. 1959.

  • = Seticleistocactus Backeb. in Descr. Cact. Nov. 3. 1963.

  • = Hildewintera F. Ritter in Kakteen And. Sukk. 17: 11. 1966, nom. inval.

  • = Winterocereus Backeb., Kakteenlexikon 455. 1966. The broad circumscription of Cleistocactus as employed by Anderson (2001, 2005), and Hunt (2006) goes back to the Cactaceae consensus classification reported by Hunt & Taylor (1986), where the predominantly ornithophilous floral syndrome was used as a diagnostic character. Schlumpberger & Renner (2012) found that Cleistocactus s.l. is polyphyletic — the monotypic Cephalocleistocactus was placed as sister to Yungasocereus, with Cleistocactus s.str. as sister to Vatricania next to Weberbauerocereus, and two terminals representing the former Borzicactus and Loxanthocereus were placed in the Oreocereus clade, the former next to Matucana and the latter next to Haageocereus. Deciding whether Cleistocactus s.l. should be retained or split up is difficult, since sampling of the group and its possible sister taxa is still inadequate. The affiliation of Loxanthocereus with Haageocereus was seen earlier, and Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b) listed it as synonym of Haageocereus.

  • Coleocephalocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22]. 1938 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Coleocephalocereus fluminensis (Miq.) Backeb.

  • = Buiningia Buxb. in Krainz, Kakteen: 46–47, C IV. 1971.

  • Recent floristic monograph by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Consolea Lem. in Rev. Hort. (Paris) 1862: 174. 1862 sec. Majure & al. (2012). — Type: Consolea spinosissima (Mill.) Lem.

  • Plastid and nuclear ITS data so far provided inconclusive results for the placement of Consolea and its separation from Opuntia. Consolea was found to be imbedded in Opuntia by Griffith & Porter (2009) based on combined nuclear and plastid data. The plastid and nuclear data of Majure & al. (2012) supported the monophyly but were incongruent regarding the placement of Consolea: while plastid data resolved Consolea outside of Opuntia (BS=53%), nuclear ITS data resolve Consolea within Opuntia (BS=75%), yet both these placements receive only weak support. Support for a placement outside of Opuntia increased to 81% BS when only diploids were included in a combined nuclear and plastid analysis. Majure & al. (2012) pointed out that evolution in Opuntia and allies involves hybridization and allopolyploidization and that Consolea might be of allopolyploid origin, as indicated by the incongruent plastid and nuclear trees. Nevertheless, Majure & al. (2012) argued for recognizing Consolea as a genus distinct from Opuntia because of good support for its monophyly, the placement by combined plastid and nuclear data outside of Opuntia and unique morphological characteristics.

  • Copiapoa Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 85. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Copiapoa marginata (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose

  • = Pilocopiapoa F. Ritter in Kakteen And. Sukk. 12: 20. 1961. Recent floristic treatment by Hoffmann & Walter (2005).

  • Corryocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 66. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Corryocactus brevistylus (K. Schum, ex Vaupel) Britton & Rose

  • = Erdisia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 104. 1920.

  • Coryphantha (Engelm.) Lem. in Cactées: 32. 1868, nom. cons. prop. sec. Hunt (2006) = Mammillaria subg. Coryphantha Engelm. in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 3: 264. 1856. — Type: Coryphantha sulcata (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Lepidocoryphantha Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): 22. 1938.

  • = Escobrittonia Doweld in Sukkulenty 3: 17. 2000. Found as highly polyphyletic by Bárcenas & al. (2011), and as nested in Mammillaria. One core Coryphantha clade was resoved but only weakly supported as monophyletic (0.65 PP from Bayesian Inference). Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) likewise found Coryphantha as polyphyletic, but not nested in Mammillaria; however, far fewer species were sampled therein. One maximally supported group was found that also contains Neolloydia matehualensis Backeb., while other Coryphantha species were found close to Echinomastus and Escobaria. As in the whole mammilloid clade, support for the relevant nodes is still weak and generic limits of Coryphantha need further evaluation. See also notes under Mammillaria and Neollydia. Recent traditional monograph by Dicht & Lüthy (2003).

  • Cumarinia (F. M. Knuth) Buxb. in Oesterr. Bot. Z. 98: 61. 1951 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Cumarinia odorata (Boed.) Buxb. Monotypic; segregated from Coryphantha based on the results of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013).

  • Cumulopuntia F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 2: 399. 1980 sec. Ritz & al. (2012). — Type: Cumulopuntia ignescens (Vaupel) F. Ritter

  • = Sphaeropuntia Guiggi in Cactology 3 (Suppl. II): 1. 2012.

  • Griffith & Porter (2009) found no support for a monophyletic Cumulopuntia, but it was also not contradicted. Cumulopuntia was then confirmed as monophyletic by Ritz & al. (2012). Cumulopuntia falls in two clades in the molecular phytogeny, one consisting of C. sphaerica (C. F. Först.) E. F. Anderson and related taxa from the W Andean slopes of Chile and Peru, characterized by forming dwarf shrubs with easily detachable stem segments, and another consisting of Cumulopuntia s.str., characterized by growth in often dense cushions, with firmly attached stem segments (Griffith & Porter 2009; Ritz & al. 2012). For the C. sphaerica clade, the generic name Sphaeropuntia was recently published, but its circumscription is not yet fully resolved, and it this thus better treated as synonym for the time being.

  • Cylindropuntia (Engelm.) F. M. Knuth, Nye Kaktusbog 102. 1930 sec. Hunt (2006) = Opuntia subg. Cylindropuntia Engelm. in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 3: 302. 1856. — Type: Cylindropuntia arborescens (Engelm.) F. M. Knuth

  • Griffith & Porter (2009) found no support for a monophyletic Cylindropuntia based on combined nuclear and plastid markers, while Bárcenas & al. (2011) found a monophyletic Cylindropuntia with high to maximal support based on plastid data only.

  • Dendrocereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 113. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Dendrocereus nudiflorus (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • Denmoza Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 78. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Denmoza rhodacantha (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose

  • Monotypic; distributed in Argentina. Formal monograph by Leuenberger (1993).

  • Discocactus Pfeiff. in Allg. Gartenzeitung (Otto & Dietrich) 5: 241. 1837 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Discocactus insignis Pfeiff.

  • Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Disocactus Lindl., Edwards's Bot. Reg. 31: t. 9.1845 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Disocactus biformis (Lindl.) Lindl.

  • = Aporocactus Lem. in I11. Hort. 7: misc. 67. 1860.

  • = Cereus subsect. Heliocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 78. 1905 = Heliocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 433. 1909.

  • = Chiapasia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 203. 1923.

  • = Nopalxochia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 204. 1923.

  • = Bonifazia Standl. & Steyerm. in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 23: 66. 1944.

  • = Pseudonopalxochia Backeb., Cactaceae Handb. Kakteen. Pereskioideae Opuntioideae 1: 69. 1958.

  • Echinocactus Link & Otto, Verh. Vereins. Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten 3: 420. 1827 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Echinocactus platyacanthus Link & Otto

  • = Echinofossulocactus Lawr. in Gard. Mag. & Reg. Rural Domest. Improv. 17: 317. 1841.

  • = Homalocephala Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 181. 1922.

  • = Emorycactus Doweld in Succulenta (Netherlands) 75: 270. 1996.

  • = Meyerocactus Doweld in Succulenta (Netherlands) 75: 271. 1996.

  • = Kroenleinia Lodé in Cact. Avent. Int. 102: 25. 2014. Echinocactus turns out to be paraphyletic in recent molecular studies (Bárcenas & al. 2011; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), with E. grusonii Hildm. resolved in a separate clade from the remaining four species, yet with only low support (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013) or in a polytomy (Bárcenas & al. 2011). Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) re-circumscribed Echinocactus to include only four species, excluding E. grusonii and also E. polycephalus Engelm. & J. M. Bigelow but did not suggest new generic assignment for these species. The generic name Kroenleinia was recently erected for E. grusonii, but it may be premature to accept this monotypic genus in view of the numerous unresolved or poorly supported topologies in the group.

  • Echinocereus Engelm. in Wislizenus, Mem. Tour N. Mexico: 91. 1848 sec. Sánchez & al. (2014). — Type: Echinocereus viridiflorus Engelm.

  • = Wilcoxia Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 434. 1909.

  • Echinocereus was studied in detail and found as monophyletic by Sánchez & al. (2014) but excluding E. pensilis J. A. Purpus, which was resolved distant from Echinocereus and as as sister to the Stenocereus group. Because E. pensilis had been regregated as a monotypic genus Morangaya, its reinstatement was suggested by Sánchez & al. (2014).

  • Echinopsis Zucc, in Abh. Math.-Phys. C1. Königl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. 2: 675. 1837 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Echinopsis eyriesii (Turpin) Zucc. ex Pfeiffer & Otto

  • = Trichocereus (A. Berger) Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 236. 1909.

  • = Chamaecereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 48. 1922.

  • = Lobivia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 49. 1922.

  • = Acanthocalycium Backeb., Kaktus ABC: 224, 412. 1935.

  • = Soehrensia Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [21]. 1938.

  • = Setiechinopsis (Backeb.) de Haas in Succulenta (Netherlands) 22: 9. 1940.

  • = Acantholobivia Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 76. 1942.

  • = Pseudolobivia (Backeb.) Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941: 76. 1942.

  • = Reicheocactus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 76. 1942.

  • = Helianthocereus Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 11: 53. 1949.

  • = Leucostele Backeb. in Kakt. And. Sukk. 4: 1. 1953. The present wide circumscription of Echinopsis goes back to the mid-1970s. First indications that this broad Echinopsis is polyphyletic were found by Lendel & al. (2006) and Ritz & al. (2007), and Schlumpberger & Renner (2012) in their deeply sampled study indeed found vast polyphyly and paraphyly throughout most of the subtribe Trichocereinae. Species of Echinopsis were scattered over eight different clades and interspersed with species of Acanthocalycium, Arthrocereus, Borzicactus, Cephalocleistocactus, Cleistocactus, Denmoza, Espostoa, Haageocereus, Harrisia, Matucana, Mila, Oreocereus, Oroya, Pygmaeocereus, Rauhocereus, Samaipaticereus, Weberbauerocereus and Yungasocereus, all of which are part of a highly supported clade (100% BS). To transform their results into a formal classification of monophyletic genera is no easy task. It would entail either to further broaden an already very heterogeneous genus by including the genera mentioned above or to accept about a dozen segregates (valid generic names are at hand). Nevertheless, maintaining Echinopsis (sensu Hunt 2006) is rather not an option, as it is clearly polyphyletic and should be split up. The necessary new combinations are already available (Schlumpberger 2012); a fully revised generic circumscription is still to be published.

  • Epiphyllum Haw. in Syn. PI. Succ.: 197. 1812 sec. Hunt (2006) = Phyllocactus Link, Handbuch 2: 10. 1829, nom. illeg. — Type: Epiphyllum phyllanthus (L.) Haw.

  • = Marniera Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 22. 1950.

  • Epithelantha F. A. C. Weber ex Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 92. 1922 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Epithelantha micromeris (Engelm.) F. A. C. Weber ex Britton & Rose The number of species is in dispute, and the recent work of Donati & Zanovello (2011) recognizes about half a dozen species. So far only E. micromeris sampled in a phylogenetic study (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), and found in an isolated position within the tribe Cacteae.

  • Eriosyce Phil, in Anales Univ. Chile 41: 721. 1872 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Eriosyce sandillon (Gay) Phil.

  • = Islaya Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1834: [3], 1834.

  • = Neoporteria Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 94. 1922.

  • = Pyrrhocactus A. Berger, Kakteen: 215, 345. 1929.

  • = Horridocactus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [21]. 1938.

  • = Neochilenia Backeb. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 51: 60. 1942.

  • = Thelocephala Y. Itô, Explan. Diagr. Austroechinocactinae: 292. 1957.

  • = Rimacactus Mottram in Bradleya 19: 75. 2001.

  • The diminutive Eriosyce laui Lüthy from northern Chile has been found to differ morphologically from the remaining taxa of Eriosyce s.l. by Nyffeler & Eggli (1997), and was subsequently segregated as the monotypic genus Rimacactus. As long as this segregation is not backed up by molecular data, it appears premature to accept the genus. Recent treatments by Kattermann (1994) and Hoffmann & Walter (2005; Chile).

  • Escobaria Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 53. 1923 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Escobaria tuberculosa (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Neobesseya Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 51. 1923.

  • = Cochiseia W. H. Earle in Saguaroland Bull. 30: 65. 1976.

  • = Escocoryphantha Doweld in Sukkulenty 1999(1): 10. 1999.

  • See notes under Mammillaria.

  • Escontria Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 10: 125. 1906 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Escontria chiotilla (F. A. C. Weber ex K. Schum.) Rose Recent monograph by Gibson (1988a).

  • Espostoa Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 60. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Espostoa lanata (Kunth) Britton & Rose

  • = Pseudoespostoa Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1834: gen. 104. 1834 = Binghamia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 167. 1920.

  • = Thrixanthocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1937(8): Nachtr. 15. 1937.

  • Espostoopsis Buxb. in Krainz, Kakteen: 38–39, C Va. 1968 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Espostoopsis dybowskii (Rol.-Goss.) Buxb.

  • Eulychnia Phil, in F1. Atacam.: 23. 1860 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Eulychnia breviflora Phil.

  • = Philippicereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 75. 1942.

  • Recent monograph by Hoffmann & Walter (2005).

  • Facheiroa Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 173. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Facheiroa pubiflora Britton & Rose

  • = Zehntnerella Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 176. 1920.

  • Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004). Ferocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 123. 1922 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Ferocactus wislizeni (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Bisnaga Orcutt in Cactography 1. 1926 = Ferocactus sect. Bisnaga (Orcutt) N. P. Taylor & J. Y. Clark in Bradleya 1: 6. 1983.

  • Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) found Ferocactus in its current circumscription to be vastly polyphyletic, and the same is true for F. sect. Bisnaga. The Ferocactus clade found by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) also includes the genera Glandulicactus, Leuchtenbergia, Stenocactus and Thelocactus, corroborating the results of a much less dense sampling by Hernández - Hernández & al. (2011). The Ferocactus clade is morphologically characterized by pericarpels with scales and ribbed stems, and Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) suggested expanding Ferocactus to embrace the genera just mentioned as the best taxonomic solution to make Ferocactus monophyletic, yet Leuchtenbergia is the oldest name of this assemblage and would have priority, unless the name Ferocactus is conserved.

  • Frailea Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 208. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Frailea cataphracta (Dams) Britton & Rose

  • Geohintonia Glass & W. A. Fitz. Maur. in Cact. Suc. Mex. 37: 16. 1992 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Geohintonia mexicana Glass & W. A. Fitz. Maur.

  • Monotypic; sampled by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) and resolved as sister to Aztekium.

  • Glandulicactus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22]. 1938 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Glandulicactus uncinatus (Galeotti ex Pfeiff.) Backeb. See notes under Ferocactus.

  • Grusonia Rchb. f. ex Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 1: 215. 1919 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Grusonia bradtiana (J. M. Coult.) Britton & Rose

  • = Corynopuntia F. M. Knuth, Kaktus ABC: 114, 410. 1936.

  • = Micropuntia Daston in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 36: 661. 1946.

  • = Marenopuntia Backeb. in Desert Pl. Life 22: 27. 1950. Corynopuntia was included in Grusonia s.l. (Wallace & Dickie 2002; Anderson 2001, 2005; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010b), then accepted as separate genus by Hunt (2006). Griffith & Porter (2009) argued for recognizing Corynopuntia as a distinct genus, and Grusonia as monotypic, although support for the monophyly of Corynopuntia was only 67% BS in their study. Their data also suggest that Micropuntia could be recognized as a separate genus. Bárcenas & al. (2011) did not find support for treating Corynopuntia separately from Grusonia, and in addition found no support for a monophyletic Corynopuntia-, therefore, the circumscription of Corynopuntia still needs to be clarified.

  • Gymnocalycium Pfeiff. ex Mittler, Taschenb. Cactuslieb. 2: 124. 1844 “Gymnocalicium” sec. Demaio & al. (2011). — Type: Gymnocalycium gibbosum (Haw.) Pfeiff. ex Mittler

  • Found as monophyletic at first by Ritz & al. (2007), then studied in more detail and confirmed as monophyletic by Meregalli & al. (2010). Demaio & al. (2011) conducted the most detailed phylogenetic study by sampling almost the whole genus and again confirmed the monophyly of Gymnocalycium with maximal support. Recent illustrated synopsis by Charles (2009).

  • Haageocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1934(6): [1]. 1934 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Haageocereus pseudomelanostele (Werderm. & Backeb.) Backeb.

  • = Loxanthocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1937(1): 24. 1937.

  • = Peruvocereus Akers in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 19: 67. 1947.

  • = Maritinocereus Akers & Buining in Succulenta (Netherlands) 1950: 49. 1950.

  • Recent monograph by Calderón & al. (2007).

  • Harrisia Britton in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 35: 561. 1909 sec. Franck & al. (2013a). — Type: Harrisia gracilis (Mill.) Britton

  • = Eriocereus Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 238. 1909.

  • = Roseocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): 21. 1938.

  • = Estevesia P. J. Braun in Kakteen And. Sukk. 60(3): 64. 2009.

  • Harrisia was confirmed as monophyletic by Franck (2012), with a revised infrageneric classification published shortly after (Franck & al. 2013a). The recently described genus Estevesia P. J. Braun was not included in any molecular study so far. It was provisionally placed in the synonymy of Harrisia by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b). For synopsis see Franck (2012); further phylogenetic studies see Franck & al. (2013b).

  • Hatiora Britton & Rose in L. H. Bailey, Standard Cycl. Hort.: 1432. 1915 sec. Korotkova & al. (2011). — Type: Hatiora salicornioides (Haw.) Britton & Rose

  • = Pseudozygocactus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [5, 21], 1938.

  • The circumscription of Hatiora has been clarified recently. Hatiora including Rhipsalidopsis as adopted by Barthlott (1987), Barthlott & Hunt (1993), Barthlott & Taylor (1995), Hunt (2006) and Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b) was found to be polyphyletic (Calvente & al. 2011; Korotkova & al. 2011). Hatiora should therefore be restricted to species with cylindrical stems, terete pericarpels, and small yellow-orange or magenta flowers, corresponding to Hatiora in the traditional sense. Accordingly, Rhipsalidopsis in its traditional circumscription should again be accepted at generic rank.

  • Hylocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 428. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006) = Cereus subg. Hylocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 72. 1905. — Type: Hylocereus triangularis (L.) Britton & Rose

  • = Wilmattea Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 195. 1920. Hylocereus is morphologically very similar to Selenicereus, and available phylogenetic studies as well as morphological and anatomical data so far suggest that the two genera could be merged (Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Bárcenas & al. 2011, Gómez-Hinostrosa & al. 2014), but they still need to be studied more extensively before firm conclusions on their circumscription are possible.

  • Jasminocereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 146. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Jasminocereus thoarsii (F. A. C. Weber) Backeb.

  • Lasiocereus F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 4: 1477. 1981 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Lasiocereus rupicola F. Ritter

  • Lemaireocereus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 424. 1909 sec. Arias & al. (2012) = Pachycereus subg. Lemaireocereus (Britton & Rose) Bravo in Cact. Suc. Mex. 17: 119. 1972 ≡ Pachycereus sect. Lemaireocereus (Britton & Rose) P. V. Heath in Calyx 2: 106. 1992. — Type: Lemaireocereus hollianus (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose

  • = Anisocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): 21. 1938.

  • In the second half of the 20th century, Lemaireocereus was referred to as a synonym of Pachycereus (see there) by Buxbaum (1961), Bravo-Hollis (1978), and Gibson & Horak (1978), based on similar floral morphology. Phylogenies based on molecular (Arias & al. 2003) and structural data (Arias & Terrazas 2006) consistently have revealed that Lemaireocereus is an early-diversified lineage within Pachycereinae. Lemaireocereus should be restricted to species with rounded ribs, terminal flowers with long hairs and bristles, fruit with irregular dehiscence, and red pulp (Arias & Terrazas 2009; Arias & al. 2012).

  • Leocereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 108. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Leocereus bahiensis Britton & Rose

  • Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004). Lepismium Pfeiff. in Allg. Gartenzeitung 3: 315. 1835 sec. Korotkova & al. (2011). — Type: Lepismium commune Pfeiff.

  • = Nothorhipsalis Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1–2): 29. 2002.

  • = Ophiorhipsalis (K. Schumann) Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1–2): 39.2002.

  • Several considerably different generic concepts have been suggested for Lepismium in the past 80 years. It was either recognized as monotypic for L. cruciforme (Vell.) Miq., e.g. by Britton & Rose (1923) or included into Rhipsalis (Schumann 1899; Vaupel 1925, 1926). Barthlott (1987) and Barthlott & Taylor (1995) redefined Lepismium based on the mesotonic branching as the main diagnostic character, but this circumscription was found to be polyphyletic by Nyffeler (2002) and Korotkova & al. (2010). Consequently, some of its species were transferred to Lymanbensonia and Pfeiffera by Korotkova & al. (2010). Recent monograph by Barthlott & Taylor (1995).

  • Leptocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 433. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006) = Cereus subg. Leptocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 79. 1905. — Type: Leptocereus assurgens (C. Wright ex Griseb.) Britton & Rose = Neoabbottia Britton & Rose in Smithsonian Mise. Collect. 72: 2. 1921.

  • Leuchtenbergia Hook. in Bot. Mag.: 4393. 1848 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Leuchtenbergia principis Hook.

  • See notes under Ferocactus.

  • Leuenbergeria Lodé in Cact. Avent. Int. 97: 26. 2012 sec. Lodé (2012) ≡ Pereskia subg. Leuenbergera G. D. Rowley in Cactaceae Syst. Init. 32: 7. 2014. — Type: Leuenbergia quisqueyana (Alain) Lodé Segregated from Pereskia to include the northern clade; see note under Pereskia.

  • Lophocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 426. 1909 sec. Arias & al. (2012) = Cereus subg. Lophocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 62. 1905 ≡ Pachycereus sect. Lophocereus (A. Berger) P. V. Heath in Calyx 2: 106. 1992. — Type: Lophocereus schottii (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Marginatocereus (Backeb.) Backeb., Cact. Jahrb. Deutsch. Kakt.-Ges. 77. 1941 (1942).

  • Lophocereus (including L. gates and L. schottii) was strongly recognized as a separate genus, restricted to the Sonoran Desert, by e.g. Lindsay (1963) and Bravo-Holis (1978). Comparative studies carried out by Gibson & Horak (1978) showed that those species share morphological and anatomical characteristics with Pachycereus marginatus (DC.) Britton & Rose. However, other taxonomists preferred to include this genus and others (e.g. Backebergia, Lemaireocereus, Marginatocereus, Mitrocereus, Pterocereus) in a broader genus Pachycereus (Barthlott & Hunt 1993; Hunt 2006). Phylogenetic studies based on structural (anatomy + morphology) and molecular data confirm that Lophocereus is monophyletic including three species (L. marginatus (DC.) S. Arias & Terrazas as sister to the remaining species). The genus represents a lineage within the subtribe Pachycereinae, but is not directly related to Pachycereus s.str. or Backebergia (see there; Hartmann S. & al. 2001, 2002; Arias & al. 2003; Arias & Terrazas 2006). A proposal to recognize this genus newly circumscribed (now going also beyond the Sonoran Desert) was conducted by Arias & al. (2012). Lophocereus now includes taxa characterized by cylindrical stems with basal branching, an apical fertile zone with areoles, and spines larger than those of the sterile zone, and two or more flowers per areole. The flowering zone is conspicuously modified in all three species, although in L. gatesii M. E. Jones and L. schottii internodes are shorter and spines are longer (Arias & Terrazas 2009; Arias & al. 2012). Structural changes in the fertile zone exist between several genera of Pachycereinae, including cephalium (e.g. Backebergia and Cephalocereus species), pseudocephalium (e.g. Lophocereus and Neobuxbaumia species) and intermediate forms. However, those structures are highly homoplastic and occur within several genera.

  • Lophophora J. M. Coult. in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 3: 131. 1894 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Lophophora williamsii (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) J. M. Coult.

  • Butterworth & al. (2002) found L. williamsii as sister to Obregonia and L. diffusa (Croizat) Bravo as sister to Acharagma, yet both with only moderate support. In contrast, Lophophora williamsii and L. diffusa were resolved as sisters with moderate support in the study of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013), who also found high support for the sister relationship of Lophophora and Obregonia, justifying generic rank for both.

  • Lymanbensonia Kimnach in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 56: 101. 1984 sec. Korotkova & al. (2010). — Type: Lymanbensonia micrantha (Vaupel) Kimnach

  • = Acanthorhipsalis Kimnach in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 55: 177. 1983, nom. illeg. Segregated from Acanthorhipsatis (Kimnach 1984), but otherwise either assigned to Lepismium (Barthlott 1987; Barthlott & Taylor 1995; Anderson 2001, 2005) or to Pfeiffera (Hunt 2006). The molecular phylogenetic study of Korotkova & al. (2010) unexpectedly found the three species now assigned to Lymanbensonia to represent a highly supported isolated clade distant from either Lepismium or Pfeiffera. As this new clade contained the nomenclatural type of Lymanbensonia, this generic name was reinstated.

  • Maihuenia (Phil, ex F. A. C. Weber) K. Schum, in Gesamtbeschr. Kakt. 651: 754. 1898 sec. Hunt (2006) = Pereskia subg. Maihuenia Phil, ex F. A. C. Weber in Bois, Dict. Hort. 2: 938. 1898. — Type: Maihuenia poeppigii (Otto ex Pfeiff.) F. A. C. Weber ex K. Schum. Recent monograph by Leuenberger (1997).

  • Maihueniopsis Speg. in Anales Soc. Ci. Argent. 99: 86. 1925 sec. Ritz & al. (2012). — Type: Maihueniopsis molfinoi Speg.

  • = Puna R. Kiesling in Hickenia 1: 289. 1982 = Maihueniopsis subg. Puna (R. Kiesling) Stuppy in Succ. Pl. Res. 6: 50. 2002.

  • Griffith & Porter (2009) found Maihueniopsis polyphyletic based on a combined analysis of nuclear ITS and plastid trnL-F, but Ritz & al. (2012) found a monophyletic Maihueniopsis to be strongly supported by nuclear phyC and plastid trnK/matK. The reasons for these deviating results are discussed in detail by Ritz & al. (2012) and appear to result from peculiarities in the evolution of the ITS sequences used by Griffith & Porter (2009) that seem unsuitable to adequately represent phylogenetic relationships.

  • Mammillaria Haw. in Syn. Pl. Succ.: 177. 1812, nom. cons. sec. Hunt (2006) = Cactus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 466. 1753 = Neomammillaria Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 65. 1923. — Type: Mammillaria simplex Haw.

  • = Mammillaria subg. Cochemiea K. Brandegee, Erythea 5: 113. 1897.

  • = Cochemiea (K. Brandegee) Walton in Cact. J. (London) 2: 50. 1899.

  • = Bartschella Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 57. 1923.

  • = Dolichothele (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 61. 1923.

  • = Mamillopsis Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 19. 1923.

  • = Phellosperma Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 60. 1923.

  • = Solisia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 64. 1923.

  • = Chilita Orcutt in Cactography 2. 1926.

  • = Porfiria Boed. in Z. Sukkulentenk. 2. 1926.

  • = Krainzia Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22]. 1938.

  • = Mammilloydia Buxb. in Oesterr. Bot. Z. 98: 64. 1951.

  • = Oehmea Buxb. in Sukkulentenk. 7: 17. 1951.

  • = Pseudomammillaria Buxb. in Oesterr. Bot. Z. 98: 84. 1951.

  • = Leptocladodia Buxb. in Oesterr. Bot. Z. 101. 1954.

  • = Escobariopsis Doweld in Sukkulenty 3: 23. 2000. Mammillaria is the largest genus within Cactaceae, and numerous suggestions for infrageneric entities have been proposed, often then segregated as different genera; the different taxonomic concepts were summarized by Butterworth & Wallace (2004). Although several phylogenetic studies dealing with the genus and allies have been published, there are still many uncertainties that result from insufficient phylogenetic resolution and support. Mammillaria was studied in detail using data from the plastid rpl16 intron and psbA-trnH intergenic spacer by Butterworth & Wallace (2004), who sampled c. 4/5 of the accepted species, and Bárcenas & al. (2011) for trnK/matK compiled an even more extensive sampling. Mammillaria was also included in the phylogenetic studies of the tribe Cacteae by Butterworth & al. (2002) and Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013), though with much fewer species sampled. The first sequence data already hinted at a non-monophyly of Mammillaria (Butterworth & al. 2002), yet without support. The results of Butterworth & Wallace (2004), based on a detailed sampling, again suggested polyphyly of Mammillaria. The genera Coryphantha, Escobaria, Mammilloydia, Neolloydia, Ortegocactus and Pelecyphora were found nested in a maximally supported Mammillaria s.l. clade. Bárcenas & al. (2011) did not find sufficient support for a monophyletic Mammillaria, and Coryphantha (likewise polyphyletic), Escobaria and Ortegocactus were nested in different Mammillaria clades. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) found that Coryphantha and Mammillaria could be separate clades, yet Mammillaria was supported as monophyletic only in the parsimony tree (61% BS/78% JK), but not found as monophyletic by Bayesian Inference. A clade of Coryphantha incl. Neolloydia was maximally supported in the parsimony and Bayesian trees, but C. macromeris (Engelm.) Lem. fell outside that clade, suggesting that Coryphantha is likewise polyphyletic. Escobaria was found polyphyletic as well (Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), but only few species have been sampled. The results of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) also provided some insights into generic limits in the whole assemblage, as well as taxonomic changes by segregating Cochemiea from Mammillaria, and Cumarinia from Coryphantha. Mammilloydia was found nested in Mammillaria (Butterworth & al. 2002; Butterworth & Wallace 2004; Bárcenas & al. 2011; Vázquez-Sánchez & al. 2013), and all authors argue Mammilloydia should therefore no longer be recognized at generic rank. The Mammillaria assemblage therefore remains one of the Cactaceae groups that need further detailed study. Some nodes were so far only weakly supported, and final conclusions regarding the monophyly and generic limits of Mammillara must await a more extensive sampling, especially for Coryphantha and Escobaria; only then will firm taxonomic and nomenclatural conclusions be possible.

  • Matucana Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 102. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Matucana haynei (Otto ex Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose

  • = Submatucana Backeb., Cactaceae Handb. Kakteen. Pereskioideae Opuntioideae 2: 1059. 1959.

  • = Eomatucana F. Ritter in Kakteen And. Sukk. 16: 230. 1965.

  • Recent monograph by Bregmann (1996).

  • Melocactus Link & Otto in Verh. Preuss. Ver. Gartenb. 3: 417. 1827, nom. cons. sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Cactus melocactus L.

  • Recent monograph by Taylor (1991); recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004; Brazil).

  • Micranthocereus Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22]. 1938 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Micranthocereus polyanthus (Werderm.) Backeb.

  • = Austrocephalocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22], 1938.

  • = Siccobaccatus P. J. Braun & Esteves in Succulenta (Netherlands) 69: 6. 1990. Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Mila Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 211. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Mila caespitosa Britton & Rose

  • Miqueliopuntia Frič ex F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 3: 869. 1980 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Miqueliopuntia miquelii (Monv.) F. Ritter

  • Monotypic; sampled by Griffith & Porter (2009) and not found nested in any other genus, justifying generic rank.

  • Morangaya G. D. Rowley in Ashingtonia 1: 44. 1944 sec. Sánchez & al. (2014). — Type: Morangaya pensilis (K. Brandegee) G. D. Rowley

  • See note for Echinocereus.

  • Myrtillocactus Console in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 1: 10. 1897 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Myrtillocactus geometrizans (Mart, ex Pfeiff.) Console

  • Neobuxbaumia Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 6: 17; 8, 12, 24.1938 sec. Arias & al. (2012). -Type: Neobuxbaumia tetetzo (J. M. Coult.) Backeb.

  • = Rooksbya (Backeb.) Backeb., Cactaceae Handb. Kakteen. Pereskioideae Opuntioideae 4: 2165. 1960. Phylogenetic studies so far resolved Neobuxbaumia as closely related to Cephalocereus and Pseudomitrocereus (Arias & al. 2003; Arias & Terrazas 2006; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011). However, these studies did not specifically focus on Neobuxbaumia, and its generic limits are therefore not yet firmly established. Arias & al. (2003) found Neobuxbaumia in a weakly supported polytomy with Cephalocereus and Pachycereus fulviceps (F. A. C. Weber ex Schumann) D. R. Hunt (= Pseudomitrocereus) as sister to both. The two Cephalocereus species were well supported as sister to each other, but could not be separated from Neobuxbaumia in any tree (Arias & al. 2003). Bárcenas & al. (2011) and Hernández-Hernández & al. (2011) found Neobuxbaumia to be polyphyletic but the relevant nodes were weakly supported, therefore a monophyletic Neobuxbaumia is neither confirmed not contradicted by the currently available data.

  • Neolloydia Britton & Rose in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 49: 251. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Neolloydia conoidea (DC.) Britton & Rose

  • Found to be polyphyletic by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013), with the type species sister to the rest of the mammilloid clade, but support <50%, while N. matehualensis Backeb. was nested in Coryphantha with maximal support.

  • Neoraimondia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 181. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Neoraimondia macrostibas (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose

  • = Neocardenasia Backeb. in Blatt. Sukkulentenk. 1: 2. 1949.

  • Neowerdermannia Frič in Kaktusár 1: 85.1930 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Neowerdermannia vorwerkii Frič Nyctocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 423. 1909 sec. Arias & al. (2005). — Type: Nyctocereus serpentinus (Lag. & Rodr.) Britton & Rose

  • Monotypic; segregated from Peniocereus by Arias & al. (2005) because N. serpentinus was resolved distant from the Peniocereus clade.

  • Obregonia Frič in Zivot v Prirod 29(2): 3. 1925 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Obregonia denegrii Frič See notes under Lophophora.

  • Opuntia Mill, in Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [974]. 1754 sec. Majure & al. (2012). — Type: Opuntia vulgaris Mill. -Fig. 3C.

  • = Nopalea Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck. (1849): 63-64, 233. 1850.

  • Opuntia is the second-largest genus of the family Cactaceae. As in all species-rich Cactaceae groups, numerous different generic conceps with a varying number of segregate genera have been suggested for Opuntia. Both extensive splitting (e.g. Backeberg 1966) or lumping into a broadly defined Opuntia were put forward (Rowley 1958; Benson 1982). The first phylogenetic study by Wallace & Dickie (2002) based on the rpl16 intron found Opuntia in the broad sense to be polyphyletic. For the revised generic classification they presented based on their data, they argued for splitting Opuntia, because otherwise further genera (e.g. Pereskiopsis, Pterocactus) were also nested within Opuntia and merging those would make Opuntia a highly heterogenous assemblage. Therefore, Wallace & Dickie suggested reinstating the earlier-proposed Opuntia segregates Austrocylindropuntia, Brasiliopuntia, Consolea, Corynopuntia, Cumulopuntia, Cylindropuntia, Grusonia, Maihueniopsis, Miqueliopuntia, Nopalea, Tephrocactus, and Tunilla. Opuntia s.str. was thus restricted to the taxa with flattened stems and reticulate pollen. This concept was entirely adapted by Hunt (2006), and largely by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b). Griffith & Porter (2009), using data from plastid trnL-F and nuclear ITS, found Opuntia in this restricted sense to additionally include Consolea and Nopalea, the clade including all these genera received 100% support, and both Consolea and Nopalea were also as monophyletic with 100%. The tree resolution, however, did not allow an immediate conclusion on the delimitation of these genera. Nopalea used to be separated from Opuntia s.str. because it differs primarily in its hummingbird-syndrome flowers. Nevertheless, it was repeatedly found to be nested in Opuntia (Wallace & Gibson 2002; Griffith & Porter 2009; Barcenas & al. 2011; Hernández-Hernández & al. 2011; Majure & al. 2012) and is therefore no longer maintained as separate genus. The relationship of Consolea to Opuntia has remained more difficult to resolve, but available data suggest it is not part of Opuntia (see also notes under Consolea).

  • Oreocereus (A. Berger) Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 258. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006) ≡ Cereus subg. Oreocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 64. 1905. — Type: Oreocereus celsianus (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) Riccob.

  • = Arequipa Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 100. 1922.

  • = Morawetzia Backeb. in Jahrb. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 1: 73. 1936.

  • = Arequipiopsis Kreuz. & Buining in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 50: 198. 1941.

  • Oroya Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 102. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Oroya peruviana (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose

  • Ortegocactus Alexander in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 33: 39. 1961 sec. Vazquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Ortegocactus macdougallii Alexander Merging Ortegocactus into Mammillaria was proposed by Hunt & Taylor (1990) and Barthlott & Hunt (1993). The sole species, O. macdougallii, was first sampled by Butterworth & Wallace (2004) and found nested in Mammillaria, so the authors argued future transfer to Mammillaria may be justified, but must await further clarification of generic limits in this group. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) found O. macdougallii not nested in Mammillaria, but in a weakly supported polytomy in the mammilloid clade, suggesting maintaining it as a separate genus for the time being.

  • Pachycereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 420. 1909 sec. Arias & Terrazas (2009) = Cereus subg. Pachycereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 63. 1905. — Type: Pachycereus pringlei (S. Watson) Britton & Rose

  • = Backebergia Bravo in Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. Nac. México 24: 230. 1954.

  • = Pterocereus T. MacDoug. & Miranda in Ceiba 4: 135. 1954.

  • Phylogenetic studies based on morphological and molecular data show consistently that Pachycereus s.str. is a monophyletic group with five species (Arias & al. 2003; Arias & Terrazas 2006, 2009; Arias & al. 2012). Other species previously considered in Pachycereus (Buxbaum 1961; Gibson & Horak 1978; Anderson 2001; Hunt 2006; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010b) have been transferred to Lemaireocereus, Lophocereus, and Pseudomitrocereus. More inclusive and robust new evidence may corroborate or refute the current delimitation of these last genera. Pachycereus s.str. includes tree-like species, interareolar grooves on the stems, abundant trichomes on the flower, and flexible spines on the fruit. The genera Backebergia and Pterocereus (both monotypic) remain inconclusive on molecular data available (Arias & al. 2003; Hernández-Hernández 2011); therefore their recognition as separate genera remains premature. Recent monograph by Arias & Terrazas (2009).

  • Parodia Speg. in Anales Soc. Ci. Argent. 96: 70. 1923 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Parodia microsperma (F. A. C. Weber) Speg.

  • = Malacocarpus Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck. (1849): 24–25, 141. 1850 = Wigginsia D. M. Porter in Taxon 13: 210. 1964.

  • = Notocactus (K. Schum.) Frič in Cacti Price-List 1928: [3], 1928.

  • = Acanthocephala Bakckeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [7], 1938.

  • = Eriocephala Backeb. in Blatt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [7, 21]. 1938 = Eriocactus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941: 76. 1942.

  • = Brasilicactus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941: 76. 1942.

  • = Brasiliparodia F. Ritter, Kakteen Südamerika 1: 144. 1979.

  • Pediocactus Britton & Rose in 111. F1. N. U. S. (Britton & Brown) 2: 569. 1913 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pediocactus simpsonii (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Utahia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 215. 1922.

  • = Navajoa Croizat in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 15: 89. 1943.

  • = Pilocanthus B. W. Benson & Backeb. in Kakteen And. Sukk. 8: 188. 1957.

  • = Neonavajoa Doweld in Sukkulenty 1999(2): 24. 1999.

  • = Puebloa Doweld in Sukkulenty 1999(1): 20. 1999. Recent monographs by Heil & al. (1981) and Hochstätter (2007).

  • Pelecyphora Ehrenb. in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 1: 737. 1843 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Pelecyphora aselliformis Ehrenb.

  • = Encephalocarpus A. Berger, Kakteen: 331. 1929. The generic limits are not yet clarified, Pelecyphora was found monophyletic by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) and Bárcenas & al. (2011), who additionally found Escobaria paraphyletic to Pelecyphora.

  • Peniocereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 428. 1909 sec. Arias & al. (2005) ≡ Cereus subsect. Peniocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 77. 1905. — Type: Peniocereus greggii (Engelm.) Britton & Rose

  • = Neoevansia W. T. Marshall, Cactaceae (Marshall & Bock): 84. 1941.

  • = Cullmannia Distefano in Kakteen And. Sukk. 7: 8. 1956.

  • The generic circumscription of Peniocereus was revised based on the molecular phylogenetic study of Arias & al. (2005). Their study based on plastid trnL-F and rpl16 found Peniocereus polyphyletic, its species resolved in three lineages. Peniocereus subg. Pseudoacanthocereus Sánchez-Mej. was found to be nested in Acanthocereus, yet both were also paraphyletic. For a classification reflecting these relationships, Peniocereus subg. Pseudoacanthocereus would need to be transferred to Acanthocereus. The other major Peniocereus clade found by Arias & al. (2005) corresponds to Peniocereus subg. Peniocereus. Peniocereus serpentinus (Lag. & Rodr.) N. P. Taylor was resolved as a separate lineage. Since it is the type species of the earlier-proposed genus Nyctocereus, Arias & al. (2005) suggested reinstating it as monotypic.

  • Pereskia Mill, in Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [1026]. 1754 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pereskia aculeata Mill. — Fig. 3D.

  • = Pereskia sect. Rhodocactus A. Berger, Kakteen: 43. 1929 ≡ Rhodocactus (A. Berger) F. M. Knuth, Nye Kaktusbog: 102. 1930.

  • Pereskia has been repeatedly found to be paraphyletic by Nyffeler (2002), Edwards & al. (2005), and Butterworth & Edwards (2008). The genus forms a grade at the base of the Cactaceae, with a northern clade including Mesoamerican and Caribbean pereskias as the first branching group followed by a southern clade, with mainly the Andean pereskias, which also include the nomenclatural type of Pereskia (Butterworth & Wallace 2005; Edwards & al. 2005). No nomenclatural changes to reflect the paraphyly of Pereskia were proposed by Edwards & al. (2005), who preferred their results to be tested with additional genes before suggesting a new classification for Pereskia. Also, no generic name was readily available for the northern Pereskia clade — the type of the earlier-proposed segregate Rhodocactus was in the southern clade together with the type of Pereskia itself. Pereskia was accepted as polyphyletic to reflect its morphological differences to the rest of the Cactaceae. Both Pereskia clades have characters that are interpreted as ancestral within Cactaceae, such as a woody stem, the presence of true leaves, a flower morphology that differs from the rest of the Cactaceae and C3 photosynthesis. Only recently, the northern pereskias were segregated as Leuenbergeria, yet this segregation also received criticism because the two clades are hard to distinguish morphologically ( http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/Edge/apr13/apr13lit.shtml; Hunt 2013). Seeking a compromise between molecular phylogenetic hypotheses and nomenclatural stability, Rowley (2013) suggested a subgenus Leuenbergera (note the different spelling!) for the northern Pereskia clade. Monograph by Leuenberger (1986).

  • Pereskiopsis Britton & Rose in Smithsonian Misc. Collect. 50: 331. 1907 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pereskiopsis brandegeei (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose

  • Pfeiffera Salm-Dyck in Cact. Hort. Dyck. 1844: 40. 1845 sec. Korotkova & al. (2010). — Type: Pfeiffera cereiformis Salm-Dyck

  • = Rhipsalis subg. Ac anthorhipsalis K. Schum., Gesamtbeschr. Kakt.: 615. 1898 = Acanthorhipsalis (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 211. 1923. The circumscription of Pfeiffera has undergone several radical changes in the past, and until the early 1980s, it was treated as a monotypic genus with P. ianthothele (Monv.) F. A. C. Weber. Kimnach (1983) subsumed Pfeiffera under Rhipsalis, while Barthlott (1987), Barthlott & Taylor (1995) and Anderson (2001, 2005) synonymized it with Lepismium. In the molecular phytogeny of Nyffeler (2002), P. ianthothele unexpectedly grouped together with two traditional Lepismium species, and widely distant from either Rhipsalis or Lepismium. Hunt (2006) broadened the concept of Pfeiffera to include nine species. This circumscription of Pfeiffera was evaluated and clarified by Korotkova & al. (2010), who rejected the circumscription of Hunt (2006), which also included the species now segregated as Lymanbensonia (see there). Recent annotated checklist by Barthlott & Taylor (1995, as Lepismium subg. Pfeiffera (Salm-Dyck) Barthlott).

  • Pilosocereus Byles & G. D. Rowley in Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 19: 66. 1957 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pilosocereus leucocephalus (Poselg.) Byles & G. D. Rowley

  • = Pseudopilocereus Buxb. in Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 44: 249. 1968.

  • Recent monograph by Zappi ( ); recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Polaskia Backeb. in Blätt. Sukkulentenk. 1: 4. 1949 sec. Hunt (2006) ≡ Chichipia Backeb. in Liste Cact. Jard. Bot. Les Cèdres 12. 1950, nom. illeg. — Type: Polaskia chichipe (Rol.-Goss.) Backeb.

  • = Heliabravoa Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 18: 23. 1956. Recent monograph by Gibson (1988b).

  • Praecereus Buxb. in Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 44: 273. 1968 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Praecereus smithianus (Britton & Rose) Buxb.

  • Pseudoacanthocereus F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 1: 47. 1979 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pseudoacanthocereus brasiliensis (Britton & Rose) F. Ritter

  • Pseudomitrocereus Bravo & Buxb. in Bot. Stud. 12: 53. 1961 sec. Arias & al. (2012). — Type: Pseudomitrocereus fulviceps (F. A. C. Weber ex K. Schum.) Bravo & Buxb.

  • = Cephalocereus subg. Mitrocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6). 1938 = Mitrocereus (Backeb.) Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 2: 77. 1942.

  • Monotypic; Pseudomitrocereus fulviceps was previously included in Pachycereus or Cephalocereus, later elevated to generic rank as Mitrocereus (Backeberg 1942) and later Pseudomitrocereus (Bravo & Buxbaum, in Buxbaum 1961). Arias & al. (2003) found P. fulviceps to be unrelated to Pachycereus and instead as sister sister to a clade of Cephalocereus and Neobuxbaumia. Therefore, Pseudomitrocereus was reinstated by Arias & al. (2012). Pseudomitrocereus is characterized by having distinct fertile stem parts, flowers completely covered with trichomes, and thick axial tissue (pericarpel and receptacle; Buxbaum 1961). Its inclusion in Pachycereus was supported by non-informative attributes (e.g. growth form), shared by other members of Pachycereinae (or Echinocereinae sensu Nyffeler & Eggli 2010b). However, it is part of the clade “Cephalocereus”' according to Arias & al. (2003), composed by Cephalocerus, Neobuxbaumia, and Pseudomitrocereus. The species of this clade share the presence of prismatic crystals in the epidermis, inner stamens and nectarial chamber, while the fruit is dehiscent and the pulp is white (Arias & Terrazas 2006). Mitrocereus was based on the name Pilocereus chrysomallus Lem. as the type species, but this name represents another species included in the synonymy of Pachycereus militaris (Audot) D. R. Hunt. Consequently, Buxbaum and Bravo (Buxbaum 1961) proposed the name Pseudomitrocereus, with P. fulviceps as the nomenclatural type.

  • Pseudorhipsalis Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 213. 1923 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pseudorhipsalis alata (Sw.) Britton & Rose

  • = Wittia K. Schum, in Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 13: 117. 1903, nom. illeg.

  • = Wittiocactus Rauschert in Taxon 31: 558. 1982.

  • = Disisorhipsalis Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1–2): 40. 2002. Recent monographs by Kimnach (1993) and Bauer (2003).

  • Pterocactus K. Schum, in Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 7: 6. 1897 sec. Griffith & Porter (2009). — Type: Pterocactus kuntzei K. Schum.

  • Confirmed as monophyletic with maximal support by Griffith & Porter (2009) and Ritz & al. (2012). Recent monograph by Kiesling (1982).

  • Punotia D. R. Hunt in Cactaceae Syst. Init. 25: 26. 2011 sec. Ritz & al. (2012). — Type: Punotia lagopus (K. Schum.) D. R. Hunt

  • The sole species of this recently segregated genus, Punotia lagopus, was formerly placed in Austrocylindropuntia, but was recovered as sister to the remaining species of Austrocylindropuntia and Cumulopuntia by Ritz & al. (2012). It differs from Austrocylindropuntia in several characters, especially its growth form as flat, extensive cushions.

  • Pygmaeocereus H. Johnson & Backeb. in Natl. Cact. & Succ. Journ. 12: 86. 1957 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Pygmaeocereus bylesianus Andreae & Backeberg Suggested as synonym of Haageocereus by Nyffeler & Eggli (2010b).

  • Quiabentia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 252. 1923 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Quiabentia zehntneri (Britton & Rose) Britton & Rose

  • Rapicactus Buxb. & Oehme in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1942: 24. 1942 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Rapicactus subterraneus (Backeb.) Buxb. & Oehme

  • = Lodia Mosco & Zanovello in Bradleya 18: 44. 2000. Traditionally included in Turbinicarpus (see there); separated from it by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) after Turbinicarpus was found to be polyphyletic by them and previously also by Barcenas & al. (2011). Recent monograph by Lüthy (2003).

  • Rauhocereus Backeb. in Descr. Cact. Nov. 5. 1957 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Rauhocereus riosaniensis Backeb.

  • Rebutia K. Schum, in Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 5: 102. 1895 sec. Ritz & al. (2007). — Type: Rebutia minuscula K. Schum.

  • The circumscription of Rebutia s.l. vs a suite of proposed segregates (including Aylostera, Digitorebutia, Mediolobivia, Sulcorebutia and Weingartia) has been the subject of continued debate in the past 30 years. The wide circumscription (including these taxa) was adopted by Anderson & al. (2001) and Hunt (2006), but not by Anderson (2005), who recognized Sulcorebutia and Weingartia. The broad concept goes back to the consensus Cactaceae classification as summarized by Hunt & Taylor (1986), and some participants of the discussions at that time even argued that Rebulia sensu latissimo should be placed in the synonymy of an even more expanded Echinopsis. Recent molecular phylogenetic studies showed, however, that Rebutia does not belong in the Echinopsis clade (Ritz & al. 2007; Mosti & al. 2011; Schlumpberger & Renner 2012), and that the genus in this broad concept is an untenable polyphyletic assemblage, as first noted by Lendel & al. (2006). In the molecular phylogeny of Ritz & al. (2007), three independent clades with taxa of Rebutia s.l. are found, namely “Rebutia I” (including the segregates Aylostera, Digitorebutia and Mediolobivia), “Rebutia II” (conforming to Rebutia s.str.) and Weingartia (incl. Cintia and Sulcorebutia). While Rebutia s.str. is placed as sister to Browningia, Aylostera is placed in a clade with Cereus and Stetsonia (Ritz & al. 2007; ). Therefore it appears reasonable to abandon the concept of Rebutia s.l., to restrict Rebutia to the “true” rebutias, and to accept both Aylostera as well as Weingartia as separate genera. Most of the necessary new combinations have been published for Aylostera (Monti & al. 2011) and Weingartia (Hentzschel & Augustin 2008).

  • Rhipsalidopsis Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 209. 1923 sec. Korotkova & al. (2011). — Type: Rhipsalidopsis rosea (Lagerh.) Britton & Rose

  • As explained under Hatiora, the inclusion of Rhipsalidopsis in Hatiora is not supported by recent molecular phylogenies. Calvente & al. (2011) found the two traditional Rhipsalidopsis species (R. gaertneri (Regel) Moran, R. rosea) are sister to Schlumbergera, but with moderate support. Korotkova & al. (2011), however, found Hatiora s.str., Rhipsalidopsis and Schlumbergera to form a grade, and even though support for this topology is also moderate, support for the monophyly of the three genera is maximal: therefore, Rhipsalidopsis (Easter cacti) is best kept separate from Schlumbergera (Christmas cacti). Recent annotated checklist by Barthlott & Taylor (1995, as Hatiora subg. Rhipsalidopsis (Britton & Rose) Barthlott).

  • Rhipsalis Gaertn. in Fruct. Sem. Pl. 1: 137. 1788, nom. cons. sec. Korotkova & al. (2011). — Type: Rhipsalis cassutha Gaertn.

  • = Erythrorhipsalis A. Berger in Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 30: 4. 1920.

  • The circumscription of Rhipsalis — one of the oldest genera of the family — has changed repeatedly over time, and often Hatiora, Lepismium and Pseudorhipsalis, all now accepted at generic rank, were variously subsumed under Rhipsalis. The morphology-based circumscription of Rhipsalis by Barthlott & Taylor (1995) has been entirely confirmed as monophyletic with maximal support in the molecular phylogenetic study of Korotkova & al. (2011); the same result was shown by Calvente & al. (2011b), though with a less comprehensive sampling. Rhipsalis is notable since R. baccifera (Sol.) Steam is the only species of the family that naturally occurs outside the New World. Recent annotated checklist by Barthlott & Taylor (1995).

  • Salmiopuntia Eric ex Guiggi, Cactology 2 (Suppl.): 2. 2011 sec. Majure & al. (2012). — Type: Salmiopuntia salmiana (J. Parm. ex Pfeiff.) Guiggi

  • This monotypic genus has been found in a polytomy with Brasiliopuntia + Tacinga and Opuntia s.str. (i.e. the platyopuntioids) by Griffith & Porter (2009). The study of Majure & al. (2012) confirmed that Salmiopuntia is not part of Opuntia s.str.

  • Samaipaticereus Cárdenas in Cact. Suce. J. (Los Angeles) 24: 141. 1952 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Samaipaticereus corroanus Cárdenas

  • Schlumbergera Lem. in III. Hort. 5: 24. 1858 sec. Korotkova & al. (2011). — Type: Schlumbergera epiphylloides Lem.

  • = Zygocactus K. Schum., FI. Bras. 4: 223. 1890.

  • = Epiphyllanthus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 84. 1905.

  • Schlumbergera (Christmas cacti) is one of the best-known and one of the morphologically best-defined Cactaceae genera, recognizable by its flattened stems and bright pink zygomorphic flowers. Its monophyly was confirmed by the molecular phylogenetic analysis of Calvente & al. (2010) and Korotkova & al. (2011). Recent annotated checklist by Barthlott & Taylor (1995).

  • Sclerocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 212. 1922 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Sclerocactus polyancistrus (Engelm. & J. M. Bigelow) Britton & Rose

  • = Echinomastus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 147. 1922.

  • = Toumeya Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 91. 1922, nom. illeg.

  • = Ancistrocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 4: 3. 1923.

  • = Coloradoa Boissev. & C. Davidson in Colorado Cact. 54. 1941.

  • Confirmed as monophyletic by Butterworth & al. (2002) and Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). The generic status and limits of Echinomastus need further evaluation because it was found to be polyphyletic by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). Revisions/monographs by Heil & Porter (1994) and Hochstätter (2005).

  • Selenicereus (A. Berger) Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 429. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006) = Cereus subsect. Selenicereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 76. 1905. — Type: Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose

  • = Cryptocereus Alexander in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 22: 164. 1950.

  • = Chiapasophyllum Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1–2): 32. 2002.

  • Stenocactus (K. Schum.) A. W. Hill in Index Kew. Suppl. 8: 228. 1933 sec. Hunt (2006) = Echinocactus subg. Stenocactus K. Schum., Gesamtbeschr. Kakt.: 292. 1898. — Type: Stenocactus coptonogonus (Lem.) A. W. Hill ex A. Berger

  • See notes under Ferocactus.

  • Stenocereus (A. Berger) Riccob. in Boll. Reale Orto Bot. Palermo 8: 253. 1909, nom. cons. sec. Hunt (2006) = Cereus subg. Stenocereus A. Berger in Rep. (Annual) Missouri Bot. Gard. 16: 66. 1905. — Type: Stenocereus stellatus (Pfeiff.) Riccob.

  • = Rathbunia Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 414. 1909.

  • = Machaerocereus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 114. 1920.

  • = Lemaireocereus subg. Isolatocereus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): 17. 1938 = Isolatocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 47, 76. 1942.

  • = Ritterocereus Backeb. in Jahrb. Deutsch. Kakteen-Ges. 1941: 76. 1942.

  • = Hertrichocereus Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 22: 153. 1950.

  • = Marshallocereus Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 22: 154. 1950.

  • = Griseocactus Guiggi in Cactology 3(Suppl.): 1. 2012.

  • = Griseocereus Guiggi in Cactology 3: 7. 2012, nom. inval.

  • Recent treatments by Gibson (1991) and Arreola-Nava & Terrazas (2003).

  • Stephanocereus A. Berger in Entwicklungslin. Kakt.: 97. 1926 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Stephanocereus leucostele (Gürke) A. Berger

  • = Coleocephalocereus subg. Lagenopsis Buxb. in Krainz, Kakteen: 48–49, CIVb. 1972 = Pilosocereus subg. Lagenopsis (Buxb.) Braun in Bradleya 6: 89. 1988 = Stephanocereus subg. Lagenopsis N. P. Taylor & Eggli in Bradleya 9: 91. 1991 = Lagenocereus Doweld in Turczaninowia 5: 8. 2002.

  • Recent floristic treatment by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Stetsonia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 64. 1920 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Stetsonia coryne (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose

  • Strombocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 106. 1922 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Strombocactus disciformis (DC.) Britton & Rose

  • Confirmed as monophyletic by Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013).

  • Strophocactus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 16: 262. 1913 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Strophocactus wittii (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose

  • = Deamia Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 212. 1920.

  • Tacinga Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 1: 39. 1919 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Tacinga funalis Britton & Rose Recent floristic monograph by Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Tephrocactus Lem. in Cactées: 88. 1868 sec. Ritz & al. (2012). — Type: Tephrocactus diademata (Lem.) Lem.

  • = Ursopuntia P. V. Heath, Calyx 6(2): 41. 1999.

  • = Quasitephrocactus G. Popov, Kakt. Klub 15(1–2): 13, 2012, nom. illeg.

  • Tephrocactus was confirmed as monophyletic by Ritz & al. (2012). Recent monographs by Kiesling (1984) and Gilmer & Thomas (1998).

  • Thelocactus (K. Schum.) Britton & Rose in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 49: 251. 1922 sec. Hunt (2006) = Echinocactus subg. Thelocactus K. Schum., Gesamtbeschr. Kakt.: 429. 1898. — Type: Thelocactus hexaedrophorus (Lem.) Britton & Rose

  • = Hamatocactus Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 3: 104. 1922.

  • = Torreyocactus Doweld in Sukkulenty 1998(1): 19. 1998.

  • See notes under Ferocactus.

  • Tunilla D. R. Hunt & Iliff in Cactaceae Syst. Init. 9: 10. 2000 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Tunilla soehrensii (Britton & Rose) D. R. Hunt & Iliff

  • Turbinicarpus Buxb. & Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1937(1): 27. 1937 sec. Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013). — Type: Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus (Boed.) Buxb. & Backeb.

  • = Gymnocactus Backeb. in Blätt. Kakteenf. 1938(6): [22]. 1938.

  • = Normanbokea Kladiwa & Buxb. in Krainz, Kakteen 40: 40, C VIIIb. 1969.

  • = Bravocactus Doweld in Sukkulenty 1998(1): 22. 1998.

  • = Kadenicarpus Doweld in Sukkulenty 1998(1): 22. 1998.

  • Turbinicarpus has been found to be polyphyletic in the molecular studies of Bárcenas & al. (2011) and Hernández-Hernández & al. (2011). The most comprehensively sampled dataset of Vázquez-Sánchez & al. (2013) showed Turbinicarpus to fall into three separate clades. Turbinicarpus was re-circumscribed restricted to 11 species, while species with a tuberous root connected to the body with a long, thin neck are now segregated as Rapicactus based on these results. Two further species (T. horripilus (Lem.) V. John & Říha and T. pseudomacrochele (Backeb.) Buxb. & Backeb.) are outside the main Turbinicarpus clade (incl. Gymnocactus) and a new generic name would be needed for them. Recent treatments by Lũthy (2002) and Lüthy & Moser (2002).

  • Uebelmannia Burning in Succulenta (Netherlands) 46: 159. 1967 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Uebelmannia gummifera (Backeb. & Voll) Burning

  • Recent works by Nyffeler (1998), Lüthy & Moser (2002), and Taylor & Zappi (2004).

  • Vatricanici Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 22: 154. 1950 sec. Schlumpberger & Renner (2012). — Type: Vatricanici guentheri (Klipper) Backeb.

  • Included in Espostoa s.l. by modem lexicographic treatments such as Anderson (2001, 2005) and Hunt (2006), the genus was found to be distant from the Espostoa in the Cleistocactus s.str. clade by Schlumpberger & Renner (2012). Consequently, the monotypic Vatricanici was suggested to be reinstated.

  • Weberbauerocereus Backeb. in Cactaceae (Berlin) 1941(2): 31, 75. 1942 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Weberbauerocereus fascicularis (Meyen) Backeb. Recent monograph by Arakaki (2003).

  • Weberocereus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 431. 1909 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Weberocereus tunilla (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose

  • = Werckleocereus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 432. 1909.

  • = Eccremocactus Britton & Rose in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 16: 261. 1913.

  • Weingartia Werderm. in Kakteenkunde 1937: 20, 21. 1937 sec. Ritz & al. (2007). — Type: Weingartia fidaiana (Backeb.) Werderm.

  • = Sulcorebutia Backeb. in Cact. Succ. J. Gr. Brit. 13: 96. 1951.

  • = Cintia Kníže & Říha in Kaktusy (Brno) 31: 37. 1995.

  • = Gymnorebutia Doweld in Sukkulenty 4(1–2): 24. 2002.

  • Weingartia and Sulcorebutia used to be merged in Rebutia, e.g. by Barthlott & Hunt (1993), Anderson (2001), and Hunt (2006), but were recognized by Anderson (2005). The Rebutia s.l. assemblage was found highly polyphyletic by Ritz & al. (2007), and was shown to be separated into three well-supported clades. One of these clades comprises species of Cintia, Sulcorebutia and Weingartia and includes the nomenclatural type of Weingartia. Ritz & al. (2007) suggested that all three could be merged into a single genus, for which Weingartia is the oldest name.

  • Yavia R. Kiesling & Piltz in Kakteen And. Sukk. 52(3): 57. 2001 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Yavia cryptocarpa R. Kiesling & Piltz

  • Yungasocereus F. Ritter in Kakteen Südamerika 2: 668. 1980 sec. Hunt (2006). — Type: Yungasocereus inquisivensis (Cárdenas) F. Ritter

  • Caryophyllaceae Juss. sec. APG (2009).

  • A family of chiefly opposite-leaved herbs comprising about 100 genera and 3000 species. The family is widely distributed in north-temperate, montane and alpine areas with a centre of diversity in the eastern Mediterranean and Irano-Turanean regions, while presence in the tropics and the southern hemisphere is limited and mostly at higher elevations (Bittrich 1993c; Rabeler & Hartman 2005a). Several taxa (especially species of Dianthus, Gypsophila and Silene) are important in the horticultural trade, while others (e.g. Stellaria media (L.) Vill.) have become widely known weedy taxa. The number of genera included here is over 10% higher than most recent estimates (Bittrich 1993c; Rabeler & Hartman 2005a; Harbaugh & al. 2010), reflecting the results of recent molecular studies on large genera (especially Minuartia, Dillenberger & Kadereit 2014) as well as retention of several genera (e.g. Myosoton, Velezia and Xerotia) that may eventually disappear. The family is monophyletic as circumscribed by Bittrich (1993c), although the “traditional” division into three subfamilies (Bittrich 1993c; Pax & Hoffmann 1934) based on stipule, petal, sepal and fruit features does not provide monophyletic groups and should be replaced with the tribe-based scheme presented by Harbaugh & al. (2010) and confirmed by subsequent studies (e.g. Greenberg & Donoghue 2011).

  • Acanthophyllum C. A. Mey. in Verz. Pfl. Gasp. Meer.: 210. 1831 sec. Pirani & al. (2014). — Type: Acanthophyllum mucronatum C. A. Mey.

  • = Ochotonophila Gilli in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 59: 169. 1956.

  • = Kuhitangia Ovcz. in Dokl. Akad. Nauk Tadzh. SSR 10: 50. 1967.

  • = Scleranthopsis Rech. f. in Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien 70: 37. 1967.

  • Consists of about 60 cushion-forming subshrubby species of the subalpine steppe region in central to southwestern Asia (Bittrich 1993b; Ghaffari 2004). Pirani & al. (2014) showed that the genus is paraphyletic in this circumscription with Allochrusa, Diaphanoptera p.p., Ochotonophila and Scleranthopsis nested within it.

  • Achyronychia Torr. & A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 7: 330. 1868 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Achyronychia cooperi Torr. & A. Gray

  • monotypic genus; southwestern United States and Mexico. Hartman (2005a) noted that seed and flower characters suggest a close relationship to Scopulophila. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) showed a similar result from molecular data.

  • Agrostemma L., Sp. P1. 1: 435. 1753 sec. Oxelman & al. (2001) = Githago Adans., Fam. P1. 2: 255. 1763. — Type: Agrostemma githago L.

  • Two to three species, probably native in the Mediterranean region, but widely spread as agricultural weeds and/or ornamentals. Several phylogenetic studies (Oxelman & Lidén 1995; Oxelman & al. 1997; Fior & al. 2006; Greenberg & Donoghue 2011) strongly support Agrostemma as a sister group to the rest of the tribe Sileneae.

  • Allochrusa Bunge ex Boiss., FI. Orient. 1: 559. 1867 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Allochrusa versicolor (Fisch. & C. A. Mey.) Boiss.

  • Comprises seven species from southwestern Asia that are probably nested in Acanthophyllum (Pirani & al. 2014).

  • Ankyropetalum Fenzl in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 1: 393. 1843 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Ankyropetalum gypsophiloides Fenzl

  • Four species in the eastern Mediterranean region east to Armenia. Closely related to Gypsophila, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Arenaria L., Sp. P1. 1: 423. 1753 sec. Sadeghian & al. (2015). — Type: Arenaria serpyllifolia L. — Fig. 3E.

  • = Spergulastrum Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 275. 1803.

  • = Cernohorskya Á. Löve & D. Löve in Preslia 46: 127. 1974.

  • = Willwebera Á. Löve & D. Löve in Lagascalia 4: 9. 1974.

  • About 160 species, in north-temperate areas, the Mediterranean, and Andean South America. Harbaugh & al. (2010), Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and most recently Sadeghian & al. (2015) have sampled Arenaria and, between their results, have removed about one-half of the species into four segregate genera not aligning in the same tribe as Arenaria. Sadeghian & al. (2015) found that four of the five remaining subgenera that McNeill (1962) recognized form Arenaria s.str., with the placement of A. subg. Dicranilla (Fenzl) F. N. Williams still unknown. While a few of the infrageneric groups recognized by McNeill (1962) are confirmed by molecular results (e.g. A. subg. Leiosperma McNeill, A. sect. Plinthine (Rchb.) McNeill), most are not.

  • Atocion Adans. in Fam. Pl. (Adanson) 2: 254. 1763 sec. Oxelman & al. (2001). — Type: Atocion armeria (L.) Raf.

  • = Minjaevia Tzvelev in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 33: 102. 2001.

  • Recently revised by Frajman & al. (2013), who recognized six, mostly European species. Well supported as monophyletic by several unlinked DNA sequence regions, and also as sister to Viscaria (Frajman & al. 2009b; see under Viscaria).

  • Bolanthus (Ser.) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205. 1841 sec. Bittrich (1993c) = Saponaria sect. Bolanthus Ser. in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 366. 1824. — Type: Bolanthus hirsutus (Labill.) Barkoudah — Fig. 3F. About 15 species in the eastern Mediterranean region, especially Greece and Turkey (Koç & Hamzaoğlu 2015). Closely related to Acanthophyllum and Gypsophila, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Brachystemma D. Don, Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 216. 1825 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Brachystemma calycinum D. Don

  • monotypic; Himalayas, SE Asia. Likely near Arenaria and Moehringia; one rbcL sequence exists (Saslis-Lagoudakis & al. 2012), but has not been included in a phytogeny including these genera.

  • Bufonia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 123. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Bufonia tenuifolia L.

  • About 20 species in the Mediterranean region. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) showed Bufonia as sister to the remainder of Sagineae (except for Drypis), while Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found it was an unsupported sister to a clade containing Minuartia s.str. and Mcneillia.

  • Calycotropis Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 35: 327. 1862 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Calycotropis minuartioides Turcz.

  • Monotypic; Mexico. Listed as a “doubtful genus” in the Caryophyllaceae by Bittrich (1993c).

  • Cardionema DC., Prodr. 3: 372. 1828 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Cardionema multicaule DC.

  • Six species found from western North America south to Chile. Sosa & al. (2006) found Cardionema and Scopulophila clustered with Cerdia. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) showed Cardionema belonging to a poorly resolved group of genera in the tribe Polycarpaeae.

  • Cerastium L., Sp. Pl. 1: 437. 1753 sec. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011). — Type: Cerastium arvense L.

  • Includes 100 or, more likely, close to 200 north-temperate species, especially diverse in the eastern Mediterranean. The genus is in need of monographic study. The most recent infrageneric classification is presented by Schischkin (1936); even with corrected nomenclature and inclusion of extra-Russian taxa, it is not likely to be representative of relationships in the genus. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) included 39 species of Cerastium in their study and found several interesting points. Cerastium subg. Dichodon (Bartl. ex Rchb.) Boiss. should be treated as a genus, Dichodon (see there), being a sister to Holosteum. As in Dianthus, resolution of the species was very poor, most species falling into either a polytomy of 11 species or one of 23. They also found Cerastium formed a clade within Stellaria. These genera are considered quite distinct by nearly all workers, so this must be investigated further.

  • Cerdia Moc. & Sessé ex DC., Prodr. 3: 377. 1828 sec. Sosa & al. (2006). — Type: not designated.

  • Monotypic; endemic to Mexico. Placement within the Polycarpeae is probable (near Cardionema and Scopulophila?), but Sosa & al. (2006) suggested that further study is needed. In a broader survey using a different voucher, Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found Cerdia clustering near Drymaria.

  • Chaetonychia (DC.) Sweet in Hort. Brit., ed. 3: 263. 1839 sec. Bittrich (1993c) = Paronychia sect. Chaetonychia DC., Prodr. 3: 370. 1828. — Type: Chaetonychia cymosa (L.) Sweet

  • monotypic; western Mediterranean. Probably a close relative of Paronychia, but as yet not sampled for molecular phylogenetic analysis.

  • Cherleria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 425. 1753 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Cherleria sedoides L.

  • = Wierzbickia Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205; Syn. Red.: 106. 1841.

  • = Lidia Á. Löve & D. Löve in Bot. Not. 128: 510. 1976.

  • Originally including only C. sedoides found in mountains of Europe, but Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) proposed expanding it to 19 species of Eurasia and western North America; Mosyakin suggests 23 to account for some additional eastern European taxa not yet transferred to Cherleria (S. Mosyakin, unpubl. data). Formerly included (with Pseudocherleria) in Minuartia sect. Spectabiles (Fenzl) Hayek, Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found the two groups segregated into different clades far from Minuartia s.str., proposing the recognition of both Cherleria and Pseudocherleria.

  • Colobanthus Bartl., Ord. Nat. Pl: 305. 1830 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Colobanthus quitensis (Kunth) Barthlott

  • Comprises 20 species of cushion plants most diverse in the southern hemisphere. The genus is monophyletic and a sister to Sagina.

  • Cometes L., Syst. Nat., ed. 12 (2): [109, 127], 1767 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Cometes surattensis L.

  • Two species; deserts from NW India to NE Africa. Likely a member of Polycarpaeae, but the one available ITS sequence has not been included in a broader survey.

  • Corrigiola L., Sp. Pl. 1: 271. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Corrigiola litoralis L.

  • About 11 species. Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) both confirmed placement (with Telephium) in tribe Corrigioleae, near the base of Caryophyllaceae.

  • Cyathophylla Bocquet & Strid, Mount. Fl. Greece 1: 175. 1986 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Cyathophylla chlorifolia (Poir.) Bocquet & Strid

  • Monotypic; mountains of Greece and Turkey. Closely related to Saponaria, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Dadjoua Parsa, Fl. Iran 8: 248. 1960 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Dadjoua pteranthoidea Parsa

  • Monotypic; Iran. Listed as a “doubtful genus” in the Caryophyllaceae by Bittrich (1993c).

  • Dianthus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 409. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Dianthus caryophyllus L. — Fig. 4A.

  • With about 300 species, Dianthus is the second largest genus in the Caryophyllaceae. Dianthus is most diverse in southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia. No recent monographic work has been undertaken; the most comprehensive infrageneric classification is presented in Pax & Hoffmann (1934). Although Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) included 37 species in their analysis, virtually no resolution was found; 26 species formed a polytomy. May include Velezia (see there).

  • Diaphanoptera Rech. f. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 48: 41 1940 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Diaphanoptera khorasanica Rech. f.

  • A genus of six species according to Schiman-Czeika (1988), but recent molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate polyphyly, with some species nested in Acanthophyllum (Pirani & al. 2014).

  • Dicheranthus Webb in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 3, 5: 28. 1846 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Dicheranthus plocamoides Webb

  • monotypic; Canary Islands. A member of the Polycarpaeae, clustering with Pteranthus (Greenberg & Donoghue 2011).

  • Dichodon (Bartl, ex Rchb.) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205. 1841 sec. Ikonnikov (1973) ≡ Stellaria [unranked] Dichodon Bartl, ex Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 785. 1832. — Type: Dichodon dubium (Bastard) Ikonu.

  • = Provancheria B. Boivin in Naturaliste Canad. 93: 644. 1967.

  • Five species of the Arctic, central Europe, and Iran. Treated as Cerastium subg. Dichodon (Bartl, ex Rchb.) Boiss. in most recent works. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found that the two sampled species of Dichodon formed a clade sister to Holosteum, and together formed a clade sister to Cerastium + Moenchia.

  • Dolophragma Fenzl, Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 1: 63. 1836 sec. Sadeghian & al. (2015). — Type: Dolophragma globiflorum Fenzl

  • A genus of four or five Himalayan species. Most recently treated as a subgenus of Arenaria (McNeill 1962). Sadeghian & al. (2015) suggested the genus be again recognized after finding that the one sampled species clustered near Eremogone, either as a sister to Silene or between Eremogone and Silene. They also noted that the result reported by Greenberg & Donoghue (2011), showing Arenaria przewedskii Maxim, clustering with members of Lepyrodiclis and Pseudostellaria, suggests that Dolophragma may be polyphyletic.

  • Drymaria Willd. ex Schult., Syst. Veg. ed. 15bis 5: 31, 406. 1819 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Drymaria arenarioides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Schult.

  • = Pinosia Urb. in Ark. Bot. 23A(5): 70. 1930.

  • About 50 species, all but two found only in the New World. Little is known about relationships within Drymaria. Duke's (1962) preliminary revision, in which he described but did not validly publish 17 series, is the only recent comprehensive study. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) included all four sampled taxa and show a poorly resolved, possibly polyphyletic genus.

  • Drypis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 413. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Drypis spinosa L.

  • monotypic; eastern Mediterranean. Formerly placed in an isolated position within the Caryophylloideae. Molecular studies, including Harbaugh & al. (2010), Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014), place Drypis as sister to all other sampled taxa in tribe Sagineae.

  • Eremogone Fenzl in Vers. Darstell. Alsin.: 13. 1833 sec. Rabeler & Wagner (2015). — Type: Eremogone graminifolia Fenzl

  • = Brewerina A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 8: 620. 1873.

  • About 90 species, most diverse in eastern Asia and western North America. Harbaugh & al. (2010) confirmed the wide separation from Arenaria that Fior & al. (2006) reported. Broad sampling is still needed to resolve infrageneric relationships; existing information (Sadeghian & al. 2015) is not consistent with the extant classification (McNeill 1962) erected for these taxa in two subgenera under Arenaria.

  • Eudianthe (Rchb.) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 206. 1841 sec. Oxelman & al. (2001) = Lychnis [unranked] Eudianthe Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 824. 1832 = Pontinia Fries in Bot. Not. (1843): 141. 1843. — Type: Eudianthe coeli-rosa (L.) Fenzl ex Endl. Two western Mediterranean annual species, well supported as not belonging to the core Silene/Lychnis group (Oxelman & Lidén 1995; Oxelman & al. 1997; Oxelman & al. 2001).

  • Facchinia Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 204; Syn. Red.: 63. 1841 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Facchinia lanceolata (All.) Rchb.

  • Five species found in high mountains of Europe. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found Facchinia to be both distant from Minuartia s.str. and a sister to the clade containing Colobanthus and Sagina.

  • Gymnocarpos Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 65. 1775 sec. Oxelman & al. (2002). — Type: Gymnocarpos decandrus Forssk.

  • = Sclerocephalus Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 1, 3: 12. 1843.

  • = Lochia Balf. f. in Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 12: 409. 1884.

  • Ten species, occurring from the Canary Islands east to Mongolia. Oxelman & al. (2002) found an expanded Gymnocarpos was monophyletic and sister to part of Paronychia.

  • Gypsophila L., Sp. Pl. 1: 406. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Gypsophila repens L.

  • = Bolbosaponaria Bondarenko in Opred. Rast. Sred. Azii 2: 327. 1971.

  • = Pseudo saponaria (F. N. Williams) Ikonn. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 15: 144. 1979.

  • Gypsophila includes about 150 species and is especially diverse in the eastern Mediterranean and southwestern Asia. Most of the infrageneric classification is derived from Barkoudah's (1962) monograph of Gypsophila and three related genera. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) included 24 species in their analysis and found Gypsophila to be polyphyletic, with most species forming a clade sister to Saponaria and four species resolving close to Dianthus/Petrorhagia; one of these species, G. muralis L., is here treated as Psammophiliella. Pirani & al. (2014) found G. cerastioides D. Don nested within Acanthophyllum. Recognition of Bolbosaponaria seems likely; while Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found B. bucharica (B. Fedtsch.) Bondarenko clustered with two other species of Gypsophila, Pirani & al. (2014) found it to be a sister taxon to Diaphanoptera afghanica Podl.

  • Habrosia Fenzl in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 1: 322. 1843 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Habrosia spinuliflora (Ser.) Fenzl

  • Monotypic; southwestern Asia. Smissen & al. (2003) placed Habrosia as sister to Drypis. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011), citing the ITS voucher from the Smissen & al. (2003) study, reported II. spinuliflora nested in Minuartia (Sabulina sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit 2014), sister to a clade of five North American species.

  • Haya Balf. f. in Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 12: 408. 1884 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Haya obovata Balf. f.

  • Monotypic; Socotra Island. Kool & al. (2007, 2012) found H. obovata nested in a clade of Polycarpaea; the genus is retained pending additional resolution of the polyphyletic Polycarpaea.

  • Heliosperma (Rchb.) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 206. 1841, nom. cons. sec. Frajman & Rabeler (2006) ≡ Silene [unranked] Heliosperma amp;Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 817. 1832 ≡ Ixoca Raf., Autik. Bot: 25. 1840. — Type: Silene quadrifida (L.) L.

  • A chiefly central and southeastern European group with four to 16 species depending on species delimitations (Frajman & Oxelman 2007). Heliosperma has been conserved over its senior synonym Ixoca (Barrie 2011), as proposed by Frajman & Rabeler (2006). Frajman & al. (2009a) analysed several independent nuclear and plastid loci showing strong support for monophyly of the genus, although it appears to have a complex history, possibly involving ancient hybridization events.

  • Herniaria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 218. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Herniaria glabra L.

  • = Heterochiton Graebn. & Mattf. in Syn. Mitteleur. Fl. 5: 870. 1919.

  • About 50 species, most of them narrowly distributed endemics. Herniaria remains largely unsampled for DNA (four species in Greenberg & Donoghue 2011) and is likely to be closely related to Paronychia subg. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Rchb.; see Oxelman & al. (2002) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011).

  • Holosteum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 88. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Holosteum umbellatum L.

  • Three to four species of temperate Eurasia. While Harbaugh & al. (2010) found that Holosteum and Moenchia were sister taxa, Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found Holosteum and Dichodon to be sisters, with that clade a sister to the clade that include Cerastium and Moenchia.

  • Honckenya Ehrh. in Neues Mag. Aerzte 5: 206. 1783 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Honckenya peploides (L.) Ehrh.

  • monotypic; circumpolar in sandy coastal areas. Harbaugh & al. (2010) found Honckenya and Wilhelmsia are sister to each other and both are the closest relatives to the Hawaiian Schiedea.

  • Illecebrum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 206. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Illecebrum verticillatum L.

  • monotypic; native to the Canary Islands and the Mediterranean. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) showed Illecebrum belonging to a poorly resolved group of genera in the Polycarpaeae, closest to Cardionema as shown by Kool & al. (2007).

  • Kabulia Bor & C. E. C. Fisch, in Indian Forester 65: 611. 1939 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Kabulia akhtarii Bor & C. E. C. Fisch.

  • monotypic; Afghanistan. There is no new information to contradict Bittrich's (1993) placement as incertae sedis in the Paronychioideae (?Paronychieae).

  • Krauseola Pax & K. Hoffm., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 308. 1934 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Krauseola mosambicina (Moss) Pax & Hoffm.

  • Two species from tropical east Africa. Likely included in the Polycarpaeae, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Lepyrodiclis Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl: 966. 1840 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Lepyrodiclis holosteoides (C. A. Mey.) Fisch. & C. A. Mey.

  • Three species of central Asia. Sadeghian & al. (2015) found two species formed a clade sister to one including Odontostemma and Pseudostellaria. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) noted that L. holosteoides clustered with Stellaria monosperma Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don.

  • Loeflingia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 35. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Loeflingia hispanica L.

  • Seven species of the Mediterranean, southwestern Asia, and western North America. Fior & al. (2006) and Harbaugh & al. (2010) both showed Loeflingia and Polycarpon clustering together; a result not shown in the Kool & al. (2007) study of Polycarpon. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found it clustered in a poorly resolved clade including eleven other genera of Polycarpaeae.

  • Lychnis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 436. 1753 sec. Oxelman & al. (2001). — Type: Lychnis chalcedonica L.

  • = Coronaria Guett. in Hist. Acad. Roy. Sci. Mém. Math. Phys. (Paris 4to) 1750: 229. 1754.

  • = Hedona Lour., Fl. Cochinch. 1: 286. 1790.

  • = Exemix Raf., Autik. Bot.: 27. 1840.

  • = Coccyganthe (Rchb.) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 206. 1841 = Lychnis [unranked] Coccyganthe Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 825. 1832.

  • = Uebelinia Hochst. in Flora 24: 664. 1841.

  • This circumscription, including around twenty species, is strongly supported as monophyletic (e.g. Popp & al. 2008; Greenberg & Donoghue 2011), with the African Uebelinia nested within. However, its relationships to Silene are not fully resolved (see under Silene).

  • Mcneillia Dillenb. & Kadereit, Taxon 63: 78. 2014 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Mcneillia graminifolia (Ard.) Dillenb. & Kadereit

  • Five species of southeastern Europe and Turkey. Treated as Minuartia [sect. Lanceolatae (Fenzl) Graebn.] ser. Graminifoliae Mattf. by McNeill (1962), Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found these taxa forming a clade sister to Minuartia s.str.

  • Microphyes Phil., Fl. Atacam.: 20, t. 1. 1860 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Microphyes litoralis Phil.

  • = Wangerinia C. Franz in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 42(2–3, Beibl. 97): 11. 1908.

  • Three species in Chile. Traditionally placed in Polycarpaeae, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Minuartia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 89. 1753 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Minuartia dichotoma L.

  • = ?Queria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 90. 1753.

  • = Alsinanthe (Fenzl) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205. 1841.

  • = Tryphane (Fenzl) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205. 1841 = Alsine [unranked] Tryphane Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl.: 965. 1840.

  • = Alsinopsis Small, Fl. S. E. U. S.: 419. 1903.

  • = Lidia Á. Löve & D. Löve in Bot. Not. 128: 510. 1976.

  • = Minuopsis W. A. Weber in Phytologia 58(6): 383. 1985.

  • About 54 species, chiefly in Mediterranean Europe and eastward into south-central Asia. While several molecular studies had shown Minuartia to be polyphyletic, Dillenberger & Kadereit's (2014) study is the most comprehensive to date, including the first sequences for Minuartia sect. Minuartia. They found that the 96 species of Minuartia sampled belonged to ten different clades representing four different tribes. This circumscription restricts Minuartia to two of the twelve sections of Minuartia subg. Minuartia recognized by McNeill (1962).

  • Minuartiella Dillenb. & Kadereit, Taxon 63: 78. 2014 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Minuartiella acuminata (Turill) Dillenb. & Kadereit

  • Four species of the mountains of Turkey and Iran. Treated as Minuartia [sect. Lanceolatae (Fenzl) Graebn.] ser. Dianthifoliae Mattf. by McNeill (1962), Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found the sampled taxa forming an isolated clade that could be interpreted as sister to a clade that included Colbanthus, Facchinia, Sabulina and Sagina.

  • Moehringia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 359. 1753 sec. Fior & Karis (2007). — Type: Moehringia muscosa L.

  • A group of 25 north-temperate species. Fior & Karis (2007) found Moehringia could be made monophyletic by transferring four Iberian species to Arenaria.

  • Moenchia Ehrh. in Neues Mag. Aerzte 5: 203. 1783, nom. cons. sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Moenchia quaternella Ehrh.

  • Three species found in western and central Europe. While Harbaugh & al. (2010) noted that Moenchia and Holosteum were sister taxa, Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found that Moenchia was a sister to Cerastium.

  • Mononeuria Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205; Syn. Red.: 118. 1841 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Mononeuria patula (Michx.) Dillenb. & Kadereit

  • = Geocarpon Mack, in Torreya 14: 67. 1914.

  • = ?Selleola Urb. in Ark. Bot. 23A(5): 69. 1930.

  • = Porsildia Á. Löve & D. Löve in Bot. Not. 128: 509. 1976.

  • Nine species of eastern North America. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found Geocarpon was nested within a clade consisting of Minuartia sect. Uninerviae (Fenzl) Mattf.; that clade was sister to a clade containing Triplateia and three species of Stellaria on the basis of matK sequences.

  • Myosoton Moench, Methodus: 225. 1794 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench

  • = Malachium Fr. ex Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 795. 1832, nom. illeg.

  • Monotypic; temperate Eurasia. Treatment of the species as Stellaria aquatica L. may be warranted pending a serious review of Stellaria. It was found clustering near species of Stellaria sect. Stellaria by both Harbaugh & al. (2010) and by Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) in a study that more densely sampled Stellaria.

  • Odontostemma Benth. ex G. Don in Gen. Syst. 1: 449. 1831 sec. Sadeghian & al. (2015). — Type: Odontostemma glandulosum Benth. ex G. Don

  • = Gooringia F. N. Williams in Bull. Herb. Boissier 5: 530. 1897.

  • About 65 species of the Himalayas and adjacent southern China. Considered as a subgenus of Arenaria by many (e.g. McNeill 1962), Harbaugh & al. (2010) proposed, and Sadeghian & al. (2015) confirmed, that Odontostemma should be treated as a genus, clustering with Cerastium and Stellaria rather than Arenaria. Work on new combinations necessary for recognizing most species in Odontostemma is underway (R. Rabeler & W. Wagner, unpubl. data).

  • Ortegia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 560. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Ortegia hispanica L.

  • Monotypic; Italy and Iberian Peninsula. A member of tribe Polycarpaeae, but relationships vary in different studies. Fior & al. (2006) showed Ortegia in a cluster with Loeflingia and Polycarpon, Kool & al. (2007) reported Ortegia clustering with Cardionema and Illecebrum. Curiously, using the matK sequence from the Fior & al. (2006) study, both Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found that Ortegia clustered with a Hawaiian collection of Drymaria cordata (L.) Willd. ex Schult, var. pacifica Mizush.

  • Paronychia Mill, in Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [1019]. 1754 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Paronychia argentea Lam.

  • = Anychia Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 112–113. 1803.

  • = Siphonychia Torr. & A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1: 173. 1838.

  • = Gibbesia Small in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 25: 621. 1898.

  • = Anychiastrum Small, Fl. S. E. U. S.: 400. 1903.

  • = Odontonychia Small, Fl. S. E. U. S.: 401. 1903.

  • = Gastronychia Small, Man. S. E. Fl.: 480, f. 1933.

  • In a study mainly addressing Gymnocarpos, Oxelman & al. (2002) found Paronychia to be polyphyletic, with the subgenera Paronychia and Siphonychia forming a strongly supported sister group to Gymnocarpos, whereas species in P. subg. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Rchb. were found to be more closely related to Herniaria and Philippiella. This was confirmed by Greenberg & Donoghue (2011). The genus consists of 110 (Hartman & al. 2005) or more than 150 species (Bittrich 1993b). It is one of the large genera in the family that has not yet been extensively studied with DNA sequence data, especially in P. subg. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Rchb. (only two of 48 species sampled).

  • Pentastemonodiscus Rech. f. in Anz. Österr. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 102: 11. 1965 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pentastemonodiscus monochlamydeus Rech. f.

  • Monotypic; Afghanistan. Presumed to be close to Scleranthus, but has not yet been sampled for DNA.

  • Petrocoptis A. Braun ex Endl. in Endl. Gen. Suppl. 2: 78. 1842 sec. Oxelman & al. (2001). — Type: Petrocoptis pyrenaica (Bergeret) A. Braun ex Walp.

  • = Silenopsis Willk. in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 5: 237. 1847.

  • Endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, in particular the Pyrenees. Species-level taxonomy is controversial, with anything between one and 12 species (Cires & Prieto 2015) recognized. Phylogenetically, it occupies a position distinctly outside of the core Silene/ Lychnis clade according to several putatively unlinked genes (e.g. Oxelman & Lidén 1995; Oxelman & al. 1997; Popp & Oxelman 2004), but the exact position varies, suggesting a possible ancient hybrid origin (Frajman & al. 2009a). Cires & Prieto (2015) confirmed the genus was monophyletic but noted that additional study was needed to resolve infrageneric relationships.

  • Petrorhagia (Ser.) Link in Handbuch 2: 235. 1829 sec. Rabeler & Hartman (2005b) = Gypsophila sect. Petrorahgia Ser. in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 354. 1824. — Type: Petrorhagia saxifraga (L.) Link

  • = Tunica Ludw., Inst. Regn. Veg. (ed. 2): 129. 1757.

  • = Kohlrauschia Kunth, Fl. Berol. ed. 2. 1: 108. 1838.

  • = Fiedleria Rchb., Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 6: 42. 1844.

  • Comprising 33 species, ranging from the Canary Islands east to Kashmir. Shown to cluster as sister to a clade including Dianthus and Velezia by Harbaugh & al. (2010), Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and Pirani & al. (2014). The genus has not been widely sampled. Although kept separate by Bittrich (1993c), most recent treatments of the genus include Kohlrauschia as a section in Petrorhagia following the monograph of Ball & Heywood (1964). This may deserve further investigation since Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) cited three samples in their study; a voucher of “P. velutina Guss.” (a later name for P. dubia (Raf.) G. López & Romo) was shown as a sister to a clade including P. saxifraga (L.) Link and a second voucher of P. dubia; the identification of the vouchers should be verified.

  • Philippiella Speg. in Revista Fac. Agron. Univ. Nac. La Plata 1897: 566. 1897 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Philippiella patagonica Speg.

  • Monotypic; Patagonia. Oxelman & al. (2002) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found P. patagonica was nested within Herniaria; the genus is retained pending additional sampling in Hemiaria.

  • Phrynella Pax & K. Hoffm., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 364. 1934 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Phrynella ortegioides (Fisch. & C. A. Mey.) Pax & K. Hoffm. Monotypic; Turkey. Possibly related to Gypsophila, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Pirinia M. Král in Preslia 56: 161. 1984 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pirinia koenigii M. Král

  • Monotypic; Bulgaria. Placed in the Polycarpaeae, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Pleioneura Rech. f. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 75: 357. 1951 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pleioneura griffithiana (Boiss.) Rech. f.

  • monotypic; central Asia to Himalayas. Possibly related to either Psammosilene or Saponaria (Bittrich 1993c), but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Plettkea Mattf. in Schriften Vereins Naturk. Unterweser 7: 11, 13, 17. 1934 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: not designated.

  • Four species of the Peruvian Andes. The single species that has been sequenced clustered among species of Stellaria in both Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011).

  • Pollichia Aiton in Hort. Kew. 1: 5. 1789–1789, nom. cons, sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pollichia campestris Aiton

  • monotypic; eastern and southern Africa. Kool & al. (2012) placed P. campestris as sister to the monotypic Sphaerocoma; both genera form a clade that is sister to a clade containing Polycarpaea and Polycarpon.

  • Polycarpaea Lam. in J. Hist. Nat. 2: 3, 5. 1792, nom. cons. sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Polycarpaea teneriffae Lam.

  • = Robbairea Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 735. 1867.

  • = Reesia Ewart in Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, n.s., 26: 9. 1913.

  • A paleotropical group of 50+ species. Kool & al. (2007, 2012) found it to be polyphyletic; additional sampling is required to treat the genus, resolve infrageneric relationships and decide how some small genera (e.g. Haya, Xerotia) should be treated.

  • Polycarpon L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 859, 881, 1360. 1759 sec. Kool & al. (2007). — Type: Polycarpon tetraphyllum (L.) L.

  • Monotypic; Mediterranean and western North America. Kool & al. (2007) found Polycarpon was polyphyletic with species distributed in three clades. Two of these included species of Polycarpaea and were removed from Polycarpon. The third included members of the P. tetraphyllum group; tight relations in the remaining clade suggested reduction to one polymorphic species.

  • Polytepalum Suess. & Beyerle in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 69: 143. 1938 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Polytepalum angolense Suess. & Beyerie

  • monotypic; Angola. Placed in the Polycarpaeae, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Psammophiliella Ikonn. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 11: 116. 1976 sec. Ikonnikov (1976). — Type: Psammophiliella muralis (L.) Ikonn.

  • = Psammophila Fourr. ex Ikonn. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 8: 273. 1971, nom. illeg. ≡ Psammophila Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2. 16: 345. 1868, nom. inval.

  • Four species of central Asia. Most often treated as Gypsophila subg. Macrorrhizaea, but both Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and Pirani & al. (2014) showed P. muralis as sister to a clade of Dianthus/ Petrorhagia, clearly separate from the remainder of Gypsophila.

  • Psammosilene W. C. Wu & C. Y. Wu in L. P. King, Icon. Pl. Medic. 1: [s.n.], t. 1. 1945 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Psammosilene tunicoides W. C. Wu & C. Y. Wu monotypic; in montane forests of Yunnan, China. Oxelman & Lidén (1995) found Psammosilene to be sister to subfamily Caryophylloideae, while Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found it to be a sister to tribe Caryophylleae (Dianthus/Gypsophila/Saponaria, etc.).

  • Pseudocerastium C. Y. Wu & al. in Acta Bot. Yunnan. 20: 395. 1998 sec. Lu & Rabeler (2001). — Type: Pseudocerastium stellarioides X. H. Guo & X. P. Zhang

  • monotypic; China. Presumed close to Cerastium, but not yet sampled for DNA.

  • Pseudocherleria Dillenb. & Kadereit in Taxon 63: 79. 2014 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Pseudocherleria laricina (L.) Dillenb. & Kadereit

  • Comprises 12 species found in the Caucasus region, arctic Asia and northwestern North America. Formerly included (with Cherleria) in Minuartia sect. Spectabiles (Fenzl) Hayek, Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found the two groups segregated into different clades far from Minuartia s.str., proposing the recognition of both genera.

  • Pseudostellaria Pax, Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 318. 1934 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pseudostellaria rupestris (Turcz.) Pax

  • A group of about 20 species, mostly in central Asia east to Japan, with one species in Europe and three in western North America. The few species thus far sampled cluster near Lepyrodiclis and Odontostemma. Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) included four species and found the American P. jamesiana (Torr.) W. A. Weber & R. L. Hartm. did not cluster with the three Asian species; their report showing Stellaria jamesiana Torr. (= P. jamesiana (Torr.) W. A. Weber & R. L. Hartm.) clustering among Cerastium is based on a misidentified specimen of C. arvense L.

  • Pteranthus Forssk. in Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 36. 1775 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pteranthus dichotomus Forssk.

  • Monotypic; northern Africa east to Iran. A member of the Polycarpaeae, clustering with Dicheranthus (Greenberg & Donoghue 2011).

  • Pycnophyllopsis Skottsb. in Kongl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Handl. 56(5): 216. 1916 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Pycnophyllopsis muscosa Skottsb.

  • Segregation of Pycnophyllopsis from Pycnophyllum has been confirmed (M. Timaná, unpubl. data). Plettkea may belong here.

  • Pycnophyllum Remy in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 3, 6: 355. 1846 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: not designated.

  • A genus of 17 Andean species that clusters close to Drymaria, a result first reported by Smissen & al. (2003) and confirmed in four further studies. This contradicts the earlier placement (e.g. Bittrich 1993c) as a member of subfamily Alsinoideae.

  • Reicheella Pax, Nat. Pflanzenfam., Nachtr. 2: 21. 1900 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Reicheella andicola (Phil.) Pax

  • monotypic; Chile. Not yet sampled in a molecular study.

  • Rhodalsine J. Gay in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 3, 4: 25. 1845 sec. Favarger & Monserrat (1991). — Type: Rhodalsine procumbens J. Gay

  • = Psammanthe Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 205; Syn. Red.: 94. 1841, nom. rej. prop. (Kool & Thulin 2013).

  • Five mostly Mediterranean species. Formerly treated as Minuartia subg. Rhodalsine (J. Gay) Graebn. (McNeill 1962), Harbaugh & al. (2010), Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and Kool (2012) each found Rhodalsine to be sister to Spergula and Spergularia.

  • Sabulina Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 785. 1832 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Sabulina tenuifolia (L.) Hiern.

  • Comprising c. 65 species (possibly 70, including some eastern European and western Asian taxa not yet transferred to Sabulina: S. Mosyakin, unpubl. data), all but two found in the northern hemisphere (Europe, Asia and North America). Including members of six sections of McNeill's (1962) Minuartia subg. Minuartia as well as Stellaria fontinalis (Short & Peter) B. L. Rob., these species form a clade that is sister to a clade including Colobanthus, Facchinia and Sagina. Rabeler & al. (2014) suggested this clade may be further subdivided, possibly recognizing four other genera.

  • Sagina L., Sp. Pl. 1: 128. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Sagina procumbens L.

  • = Spergella Rchb., Handb. Gewächsk., ed. 2, 1: 65. 1827.

  • A genus of about 30 species, most diverse in northtemperate and arctic areas with a few taxa found on some tropical mountains. Sampling shows Sagina to be monophyletic, although infrageneric relationships have not been studied.

  • Sanctambrosia Skottsb. ex Kuschel in Ark. Bot., ser. 2, 4: 418. 1962 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Sanctambrosia manicata (Skottsb.) Skottsb. ex Kuschel

  • monotypic; San Ambrosio Island (Desventurados archipelago), Chile. Kool (2012) reported it nested within a Spergularia clade.

  • Saponaria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 408. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Saponaria officinalis L.

  • = Melandryum [unranked] Gastrolychnis Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl.: 974. 1840.

  • = Spanizium Griseb., Spic. Fl. Rumel. 1: 180. 1843.

  • About 40 species, most diverse in the Mediterranean and southwestern Asia. The most comprehensive monograph dates from 1910 (Simmler 1910), with Shults (1989) providing an updated account for Russian taxa. Up to now, sampling has been minimal and offers no information on how related genera (Bolbosaponaria, Cyathophylla, Pleioneura, etc.) may best be treated.

  • Schiedea Cham. & Schltdl. in Linnaea 1: 46. 1826 sec. Wagner & al. (2005). — Type: Schiedea ligustrina Cham. & Schltdl.

  • = Alsinidendron H. Mann in Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 10: 311. 1866.

  • A monophyletic group of 34 species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. See Wagner & al. (2005) for a monographic/phylogenetic revision and Harbaugh & al. (2010) for comments on the origin of Schiedea.

  • Scleranthus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 406.1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Scleranthus annuus L.

  • = Mniarum J. R. Forst. & G. Forst, Char. Gen. Pl., ed. 2: [1], 1776.

  • About 12 species native to Eurasia and Australasia. Smissen & al. (2003) found Scleranthus to be monophyletic and to be treated as two subgenera: S. subg. Scleranthus (three species, Eurasia) and S. subg. Mniarum (J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.) Pax) (nine species, southeastern Australasia). Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found Scleranthus was sister to one of ten clades of Minuartia s.l., treated by them as Cherleria.

  • Scopulophila M. E. Jones in Contr. W. Bot. 12: 5. 1908 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Scopulophila nitrophiloides Jones

  • Two species; southwestern United States and Mexico. Hartman (2005b) noted seed and flower characters suggesting a close relationship to Achyronychia; Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) showed this for S. rixfordii (Brandegee) Munz & I. M. Johnst., but S. parryi (Hemsl.) I. M. Johnst. clustered with Sphaerocoma aucheri Boiss. (= S. hookeri T. Anderson subsp. aucheri (Boiss.) Kool & Thulin).

  • Silene L., Sp. Pl. 1: 416. 1753, nom. cons. prop. sec. Oxelman & al. (2001) ≡ Viscago Zinn, Cat. Pl. Gott.: 188. 1757 ≡ Kaleria Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 506. 1763 ≡ Corone Hoffmanns ex Steud., Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 422. 1840 ≡ Oncerum Dulac, Fl. Hautes-Pyrénées : 255. 1867. — Type: Silene anglica L. — Fig. 3G.

  • = Cucubalus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 414. 1753 ≡ Scribaea Borkh. in Rhein. Mag. 1: 591. 1793.

  • = Oberna Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 255. 1763 = Silene sect. Behenantha Otth in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 367. 1824 = Behenantha (Otth) Schur in Verh. Naturf. Vereins Brünn 15(2): 130. 1877.

  • = Otites Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 255. 1763.

  • = Lychnanthos S. G. Gmel. in Novi Comment. Acad. Sci. Imp. Petrop. 14(1): 525. 1770.

  • = Melandrium Röhl., Deutschl. Fl. (ed. 2) Phanerog. Gew. 2: 37, 274. 1812.

  • = Lychnis sect. Physolychnis Benth., 111. Bot. Himal. Mts.: 80. 1834 = Lychnis [unranked] Gastrolychnis Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl.: 974. 1840 ≡ Gastrolychnis (Fenzl) Rchb., Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 206. 1841 ≡ Wahlbergella Fries in Bot. Not. (1843): 143. 1843 ≡ Physolychnis Rupr. in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 14: 41. 1869.

  • = Alifiola Raf., Autik. Bot.: 24. 1840.

  • = Ebraxis Raf., Antik. Bot.: 29. 1840.

  • = Evactoma Raf., Autik. Bot.: 23. 1840.

  • = Pleconax Raf., Autik. Bot.: 24. 1840 ≡ Conosilene (Rohrb.) Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2. 16: 344. 1868.

  • = Xamilenis Raf., Antik. Bot.: 24. 1840.

  • = Elisanthe (Fenzl) Rchb., Dent. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 206. 1841.

  • = Silenanthe Griseb. & Schenk in Archiv für Naturgeschichte 18: 300. 1852.

  • = Polyschemone Schott, Nymann & Kotschy in Schott, Analecta Bot.: 55. 1854.

  • = Carpophora Klotzsch in Bot. Ergebn. Reise Waldemar: 139. 1862.

  • = Leptosilene Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2. 16: 344. 1868.

  • = Muscipula Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2. 16: 344. 1868.

  • = Petrosilene Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2. 16: 344. 1868.

  • = Petrocoma Rupr. in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. SaintPétersbourg, Sér. 7, 15(2): 200. 1869.

  • = Anotites Greene in Leafl. Bot. Observ. Crit. 1: 97. 1904.

  • = Gastrocalyx Schischk. in Izv. Kavkazsk. Muz. 12: 200. 1919 ≡ Schischkiniella Steenis in Blumea 15: 145. 1967.

  • = Charesia E. A. Busch in Trudy Bot. Muz. 19: 182. 1926.

  • = Sofianthe Tzvelev in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 33: 97. 2001.

  • = Neoussuria Tzvelev in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 34: 299. 2002.

  • Generic delimitation has been notoriously controversial (see Oxelman & Lidén 1995 for a review). Some authors have lumped all c. 850 species of the tribe Sileneae (except Agrostemma) in Silene (e.g. Greuter 1995), whereas Tzvelev (2001) recognized 23 genera in Europe alone. Molecular evidence clearly supports separation of Agrostemma, Atocion, Eudianthe, Heliosperma, Petrocoptis and Viscaria (e.g. Oxelman & Lidén 1995; Oxelman & al. 1997, 2001; Popp & Oxelman 2004; Frajman & al. 2009a, b; Greenberg & Donoghue 2011). However, monophyly of Silene, in the sense adopted here, is only rarely supported by individual gene trees. Several studies have identified two major clades (S. subg. Behenantha (Otth) Endl. and S. subg. Silene; e.g. Oxelman & Lidén 1995; Oxelman & al. 1997, 2001; Eggens & al. 2007; Erixon & Oxelman 2008; Rautenberg & al. 2012; Aydin & al. 2014), but their relationship to Lychnis is ambiguous. Silene sect. Atocion Otth, a small group of annuals from the eastern Mediterranean, appears to be blurring the picture, possibly due to highly elevated substitution rates across the genome (Z. Aydin & al., unpubl. data).

  • Solitaria (McNeill) Sadeghian & Zarre, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 178: 667. 2015 sec. Sadeghian & al. (2015) = Arenaria subg. Solitaria McNeill, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh. 24: 128, 1962. — Type: Solitaria ciliolata (Edgew.) Sadeghian & Zarre

  • A genus of about seven Himalayan species. Sadeghian & al. (2015) found Solitaria clustering as a sister to either Odontostemma or Pseudostellaria.

  • Spergula L., Sp. Pl. 1: 440. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Spergula arvensis L.

  • Five north-temperate species. While López González (2010) suggested Spergularia should be included in Spergula based on morphology, Kool (2012) demonstrated that both genera are monophyletic.

  • Spergularia (Pers.) J. Presl & C. Presl, Fl. Cech.: 94. 1819, nom. cons. sec. Bittrich (1993c) = Arenaria subg. Spergularia Pers., Syn. Pl. 1: 504. 1805 = Tissa Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 507, 611. 1763. — Type: Spergularia rubra (L.) J. Presl & C. Presl

  • = Delia Dumort. in Fl. Belg. 1: 110. 1827.

  • About 60 species (Hartman & Rabeler 2005), especially diverse in the Mediterranean and temperate South America. The genus is monophyletic (Kool 2012), but infrageneric relationships are not defined.

  • Sphaerocoma T. Anderson in J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 5: 16. 1861 sec. Kool & al. (2012). — Type: Sphaerocoma hookeri T. Anderson

  • Monotypic; in deserts from Somalia east to Pakistan. Kool & al. (2012) noted that Sphaerocoma is sister to the monotypic Pollichia and together they form a sister clade to one including Polycarpaea and Polycarpon.

  • Stellaria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 421. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Stellaria holostea L.

  • = Alsine L., Sp. Pl. 1: 272. 1753.

  • = Tytthostemma Nevski in Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R., Ser. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyss. Rast 4: 305. 1937.

  • = Mesostemma Vved. in Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Uzbekistansk. Fil. Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R. 3: 4. 1941.

  • = Fimbripetalum (Turcz.) Ikonn. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 14: 78. 1977.

  • A genus of about 150 to more likely 200 species of Eurasia and North America, most diverse in the mountains of central Asia. Stellaria is in need of a monographic revision; the most recent infrageneric classification is that of Pax & Hoffman (1934). Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) conducted the most extensive sampling of Stellaria to date, including 44 species. Stellaria is clearly polyphyletic and in need of further study: S. obtusa Engelm. appeared as a sister to a clade including Honckenya, Schiedea and Wilhemsia; three Mexican/Caribbean species were sister to Minuartia sect. Uninerviae (Fenzl) Mattf. (= Mononeuria of Dillenberger & Kadereit 2014); S. americana (Porter ex B. L. Rob.) Standl. clustered with Pseudostellaria jamesiana (Torr.) W. A. Weber & R. L. Hartm.; and S. holostea, the type of Stellaria, appeared as sister to the clade that includes Cerastium, Dichodon, Holosteum, Moenchia and the majority of Stellaria species sampled.

  • Stipulicida Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 26, pl. 6. 1803 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Stipulicida setacea Michx. Stipulicida is found only in the southeastern United States and Cuba. Long thought to be monotypic, a recent morphological study (Poindexter & al. 2014) proposed recognition of two species. Work is underway to confirm placement in the Polycarpaeae (K. Neubig & R. Rabeler, unpubl. data).

  • Telephium L., Sp. Pl. 1: 271. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Telephium imperati L.

  • Five species of the Mediterranean and southwestern Asia. Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) both placed Telephium in tribe Corrigioleae, near the base of Caryophyllaceae.

  • Thurya Boiss. & Balansa in Boissier, Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 2, 5: 63. 1856 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Thurya capitata Boiss. & Balansa

  • Monotypic; SW Asia. Not yet sampled in a molecular study.

  • Thylacospermum Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl.: 967. 1840 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Periandra caespitosa Cambess.

  • Two species, central Asia and Himalayas. The phylogenetic placement is still uncertain. Harbaugh & al. (2010) placed it “tentatively” into Eremogoneae, whereas Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) and Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) both found Thylacospermum closely aligned with Spergula; Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) considered their placement “uncertain”.

  • Triplateia Bartl, in Ord. Nat. Pl.: 305. 1830 sec. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014). — Type: Triplateia diffusa Bartl.

  • = Hymenella Ser. in Candolle, Prodr. 1: 389. 1824, nom. illeg.

  • Monotypic; endemic to central Mexico. Treated by McNeill (1962) as Minuartia subg. Hymenella (Ser.) McNeill. Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) both reported it as sister to Geocarpon minimum Mack., a species endemic to the Ozark region of the United States. Dillenberger & Kadereit (2014) found that it was a sister taxon to three species of Stellaria from Mexico and the Caribbean. This clade was, depending on the gene chosen, either sister to Mononeuria (Minuartia sect. Uninerviae + Geocarpon) (matK) or sister to a clade including Honckenya, Schiedea and Wilhelmsia (ITS).

  • Voccaria Wolf, Gen. Pl.: 3. 1776 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Vaccaria pyramidata Medik.

  • One or four species, native to Eurasia. While usually thought to be closely related to Saponaria, both Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) found a potential relation with Gypsophila based on different vouchers: sister to Gypsophila in the former study, clustering near the base of a Gypsophila clade in the latter.

  • Velezia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 332. 1753 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Velezia rigida L.

  • Six species occurring from the Mediterranean east to Afghanistan. May be included in Dianthus; Harbaugh & al. (2010) and Greenberg & Donoghue (2011) both found V. rigida nested in Dianthus, while Pirani & al. (2014) showed Velezia as a sister to Dianthus.

  • Viscaria Bernh. in Syst. Verz.: 261. 1800, nom. cons. sec. Oxelman & al. (2001) = Steris Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 255. 1763. — Type: Viscaria vulgaris Bernh.

  • = Liponeurum Schott, Nymann & Kotschy in Schott, Analecta Bot.: 55. 1854.

  • Recently revised by Frajman & al. (2013) with three chiefly European and North American species.

  • Wilhelmsia Rchb., Consp. Regn. Veg.: 206. 1828 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Arenaria physodes Fisch. ex Ser.

  • Monotypic; arctic northwestern North America and eastern Asia. Harbaugh & al. (2010) found Wilhelmsia and Honckenya are sister to each other and both are the closest relatives to the Hawaiian Schiedea.

  • Xerotia Oliv. in Hooker's Icon. Pl.: t. 2359. 1895 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: Xerotia arabica Oliv.

  • Monotypic; Arabia. Found to be nested in one of the clades of Polycarpaea by Kool & al. (2012); placement awaits further resolution of polyphyly in Polycarpaea.

  • Chenopodiaceae Vent. sec. Müller & Borsch (2005).

  • The family Chenopodiaceae is cosmopolitan predominantly occurring in temperate and subtropical regions, and especially in semi-arid or arid environments (Kühn 1993; Kadereit & al. 2003). Our delimitation of the Chenopodiaceae follows the concept of Ulbrich (1934), and Kühn (1993) with the exception of the Polycnemoideae (see Amaranthaceae). Considering that the core of Chenopodiaceae (composed of Betoideae, Camphorosmoideae, Chenopodioideae, Salicornioideae, Salsoloideae and Suaedoideae) is likely to be monophyletic, we maintain the Chenopodiaceae as a family distinct from the Amaranthaceae in line with a series of current taxonomic treatments and morphological, physiological and phylogenetic studies (Tzvelev & al. 1996; Welsh & al. 2003; Zhu & al. 2003; Kadereit & al. 2005; Kapralov & al. 2006; Voznesenskaya & al. 2007; Akhani & al. 2007; Zacharias & Baldwin 2010; Kadereit & al. 2010; Sukhorukov 2010; Flores-Olvera & al. 2011; Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2014). We believe that name stability is important as it facilitates the assignment of genera to the respective major Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae clades in line with the vast literature on Chenopodiaceae. The monophyletic core Chenopodiaceae had already been found with maximum support based on matK-trnK sequence data (Müller & Borsch 2005a), although relationships of the six major subfamilies were not clear. Much progress has been made in the last decade on the internal relationships of Chenopodiaceae. Schütze & al. (2003) found two major clades of Suaedoideae Ulbr., to which Bienertia is sister. The Salicornioideae were clearly identified as monophyletic and are a lineage of about 90 species growing worldwide in coastal and inland saline habitats (Kadereit & al. 2006) with often succulent-articulated stems. Phylogenetic analysis yielded good support for the Camphorosmoideae that include several major lineages of mostly steppe, semi-desert and desert plants (Kadereit & Freitag 2011), but genera of the Salsoloideae such as Salsola L. were depicted as largely polyphyletic (Akhani & al. 2007; Kadereit & Freitag 2011). The Chenopodioideae were confirmed as monophyletic, although the members of the genus Chenopodium in its pre-phylogenetic circumscription appeared scattered across the subfamily, leading to a re-circumscription at genus and tribal level (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b).

  • Acroglochin Schrad., Mant. 1: 69, 227. 1822 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Acroglochin chenopodioides Schrad. The central Asian genus Acroglochin represents an ancient lineage in Chenopodiaceae and stands phylogenetically isolated from other subfamilies (Hohmann & al. 2006; Kadereit & al. 2012, online supplement). The genus was formerly included in Betoideae and should probably be classified as a subfamily of its own.

  • Agriophyllum M. Bieb. in Fl. Taur.-Caucas. 3: 6. 1819–1820 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Agriophyllum arenarium M. Bieb.

  • Agriophyllum comprises six western and central Asian species of annual herbs and belongs to the Corispermoideae (Kadereit & al. 2003).

  • Allenrolfea Kuntze in Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 545. 1891 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Allenrolfea occidentalis (S. Watson) Kuntze — Fig. 4B.

  • Allenrolfea comprises two or three species of stem-succulent halophytes distributed in the Americas (Kadereit & al. 2006a).

  • Anabasis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 223. 1753 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Anabasis aphylla L.

  • = Brachylepis C. A. Mey. ex Ledeb., Icon. Pl. 1: 12. 1829.

  • = Fredolia (Coss. & Durieu ex Bunge) Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 451, 578. 1934.

  • = Esfandiaria Charif & Aellen in Verh. Naturf. Ges. Basel 63: 262. 1952.

  • A diverse genus within the Salsoleae s.str. (Akhani & al. 2007) distributed throughout northern African and Eurasian steppes, semi-deserts and deserts. The genus evolved some extremely drought-tolerant species, e.g. A. calcarea (Charif & Aellen) Bokhari & Wendelbo, showing anatomical and morphological adaptations to drought such as stunted growth forms, reduced leaves, central water storage tissues and a multi-layered epidermis (Bokhari & Wendelbo 1978). The fruit anatomy of the genus was studied by Sukhorukov (2008).

  • Anthochlamys Fenzl in Endlicher, Gen. Pl.: 300. 1837 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Anthochlamys polygaloides (Fisch. & C. A. Mey.) Moq.

  • Anthochlamys comprises three southwestern Asian species of annual herbs and belongs to the Corispermoideae (Kühn 1993a; Kadereit & al. 2003). Carpologically it is closely related to Corispermum (Sukhorukov 2014).

  • Aphanisma Nutt. ex Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 43, 54. 1849 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Aphanisma blitoides Nutt. ex Moq.

  • This monotypic genus is distributed in coastal habitats of California and according to Hohmann & al. (2006) it belongs to Betoideae-Hablitzieae. Together with its sister genus Oreobliton, which is distributed in northern Africa, Aphanisma represents an interesting example of a western Eurasian-western North American disjunction (Kadereit & Baldwin 2012).

  • Archiatriplex G. L. Chu in J. Arnold Arbor. 68: 461. 1987 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Archiatriplex nanpinensis G. L. Chu

  • This monotypic genus is only known from northern Sichuan province, China, near Nanping (Chu 1987). Archiatriplex is interpreted as an ancient lineage of the Chenopodieae (formerly Atripliceae), based on molecular phylogenetic and morphological evidence (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Arthrocnemum Moq. in Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 111. 1840 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Arthrocnemum glaucum Ung.-Sternb.

  • Arthrocnemum belongs to Salicornioideae. In its current circumscription, the genus consists of two disjunctly distributed species, the Eurasian and northern African A. macrostachyum (Moric.) K. Koch and the North American and Mesoamerican A. subterminale (Parish) Standl. Both are stem-succulent hygrohalopyhtes (Kadereit & al. 2006a).

  • Arthrophytum Schrenk in Bull. Cl. Phys.-Math. Acad. Pétersb. 3: 211. 1845 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Arthrophytum subulifolium Schrenk

  • The genus belongs to Salsoleae s.str. and comprises c. nine species (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Atriplex L., Sp. Pl. 1: 1052. 1753 sec. Kadereit & al. (2010). — Type: Atriplex hortensis L.

  • = Obione Gaertn., Fruct. Sem. Pl. 2: 198. 1791.

  • = Atriplex [unranked] Theleophyton Hook. f. in London J. Bot. 6: 279. 1847 ≡ Theleophyton (Hook. f.) Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 44, 115. 1849.

  • = Blackiella Aellen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 68: 423. 1938.

  • = Morrisiella Allen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 68: 422. 1938.

  • = Pachypharynx Allen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 68: 429. 1938.

  • = Senniella Aellen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 68: 416. 1938.

  • = Cremnophyton Brullo & Pavone in Candollea 42: 622. 1987.

  • Atriplex is the most species-rich genus within Chenopodiaceae with c. 300 species. This cosmopolitan genus comprises annual or perennial herbs, subshrubs and shrubs that are often prominent floristic elements of steppes, semi-deserts and coastal habitats (Kadereit & al. 2010). Most species of Atriplex are C4 plants that all belong to one large C4 lineage. Many species of the genus are halophytes and possess salt glands. Ontogenetic studies showed that the two more or less concrescent “bracteoles” that envelop the fruit and that are characteristic of Atriplex are better interpreted as two tepals (Flores-Olvera & al. 2011). The circumscription of Atriplex has changed over time, and several infrageneric classifications have been proposed (Flores & Davis 2001; Kadereit & al. 2010). Recent phylogenetic studies based on molecular data (Kadereit & al. 2010; Zacharias & Baldwin 2010) show that Atriplex in its traditional circumscription is not monophyletic and includes several satellite genera that have been separated in the past. A new infrageneric classification is needed. Previously Atriplex was placed in the tribe Atripliceae. However, because the previous Chenopodieae are paraphyletic to Atripliceae the tribes were merged together by Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b). The accepted name of the tribe in the new, monophyletic definition is Atripliceae.

  • Axyris L., Sp. Pl. 1: 979. 1753 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Axyris amaranthoides L.

  • Axyris, together with Ceratocarpus and Krascheninnikovia, constitutes the Axyrideae (Kadereit & al. 2010). The genus consists of six species mainly concentrated in the mountains of central Asia and eastern Siberia (Sukhorukov 2011); some species (especially A. amaranthoides L.) occur as alien weeds in Eurasia and North America beyond their native range. Investigated species of the genus show heterocarpy (Sukhorukov 2005, 2011).

  • Baolia H. W. Kung & G. L. Chu in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 16(1): 119. 1978 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Baolia bracteata H. W. Kung & G. L. Chu

  • The phylogenetic position of this rare monotypic genus from China is unknown. According to Kühn (1993a) it belongs to the Chenopodioideae.

  • Bassia All. in Mélanges Philos. Math. Soc. Roy. Turin 3: 177. 1766 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Bassia muricata (L.) Asch.

  • = Kochia Roth in J. Bot. (Schrader) 1800(1): 307. 1801.

  • = Echinopsilon Moq., Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., ser. 2, 2: 127. 1834, nom. illeg.

  • = Londesia Fisch. & C. A. Mey. in Index Seminum [St. Petersburg (Petropolitanus)] 2: 40. 1836.

  • = Panderia Fisch. & C. A. Mey. in Index Seminum [St. Petersburg (Petropolitanus)] 2: 21. 1836.

  • = Kirilowia Bunge in Del. Sem. Hort. Dorpat. 1843: 7. 1843.

  • = Chenoleoides (Ulbr.) Botsch. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 61: 1408. 1976 ≡ Chenolea sect. Chenoleoides Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 530. 1934.

  • Bassia belongs to Camphorosmoideae-Camphorosmeae and in the circumscription adopted here consists of c. 20 C4 annuals or perennials. The genus is distributed from the western Mediterranean to eastern Asia (Kadereit & Freitag 2011), with the main centre of diversity in central Asia. It represents an interesting example of C4 leaf-type diversity (Freitag & Kadereit 2014) and multiple reduction of water-storage tissue (Akhani & Khoshravesh 2013; Kadereit & al. 2014).

  • Beta L., Sp. Pl. 1: 222. 1753 sec. Kadereit & al. (2006b). — Type: Beta vulgaris L.

  • Beta comprises seven species of annuals or biennial and perennial herbs with a storage root. Beta is subdivided into two sections and is the only genus of tribe Beteae. Beta sect. Procumbentes Ulbr. (≡ B. [unranked] Patellares Tranzschel) was excluded from Beta on the basis of molecular phylogenetic and morphological results (see under Patellifolia; Hohmann & al. 2006; Kadereit & al. 2006b). Beta vulgaris and its various cultivated varieties (sugar beet, beetroot, fodder beet and chard) are the economically most important crops within Caryophyllales (McGrath & al. 2011). For B. vulgaris the chloroplast genome (Li & al. 2014) and the nuclear genome (Dohm & al. 2013) have been sequenced recently.

  • Bienertia Bunge ex Boiss. in Fl. Orient. [Boissier]: 945. 1879–1879 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Bienertia cycloptera Bunge ex Boiss.

  • The genus comprises three species that grow in temporarily wet saline habitats in Iran and surrounding countries (Akhani & al. 2005, 2012). The discovery of Akhani & al. (1997) and Freitag & Stichler (2002) that B. cycloptera Bunge is a C4 plant without Kranz tissues triggered a large number of physiological, biochemical and genetic studies investigating C4 photosynthesis in this genus (Akhani & al. 2009).

  • Blitum L., Sp. Pl. 1753 1: 4. 1753 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) ≡ Morocarpus Boehm., Def. Gen. Pl., ed. 3: 385. 1760, nom. illeg. ≡ Chenopodium sect. Blitum (L.) Benth. & Hook f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 52. 1880 = Chenopodium sect. Eublitum Aellen in Verh. Naturf. Ges. Basel 41: 103. 1930 = Chenopodium subg. Blitum (L.) Hiitonen, Suom. Kasvio: 307. 1933. — Type: Blitum capitatum L.

  • = Anserina Dumort., Fl. Belg. 1: 21. 1827 = Agathophytum Moq. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 1: 291. 1834, nom. illeg. = Orthosporum subg. Agathophytum T. Nees, Gen. Fl. Germ. [1]: ad. t. [57]. 1835 = Chenopodium sect. Agathophytum (T. Nees) Benth. & Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 52. 1880.

  • = Monolepis Schrad. in Index Seminum Hort. Acad. Gotting. 1830: 4. 1830.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Californica Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 30. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Atriplicina Allen in Verh. Naturf. Ges. Basel 41: 99. 1930 = Scleroblitum Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 495. 1934.

  • In the last century, the Linnaean Blitum, with its two species, B. capitatum and B. virgatum L., was usually merged with Chenopodium s.l. (e.g. Aellen 1929; Iljin & Aellen 1936; Aellen & Just 1943; Aellen 1960–1961; Grubov 1966; Brenan & Akeroyd 1993; Mosyakin 1996; Uotila 1997, 2001a, b; Clemants & Mosyakin 2003), or rarely recognized in the original Linnaean circumscription (Scott 1978a). However, the resurrection of this genus based on phylogenetic reconstruction supports a monophyletic lineage and a wide concept of Blitum including c. ten species (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b), most of them in the northern hemisphere and one (B. atriplicimum F. Muell.) in Australia. Blitum belongs to the tribe Anserineae.

  • Camphorosma L., Sp. Pl. 1: 122. 1753 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Camphorosma monspeliaca L. Camphorosma belongs to Camphorosmoideae-Camphorosmeae and consists of four C4 annuals or perennials. The genus is distributed from the western Mediterranean to central Asia (Kadereit & Freitag 2011).

  • Caroxylon Thunb., Nov. Gen. 2: 37. 1782 sec. Akhani & al. (2007) ≡ Salsola sect. Caroxylon (Thunb.) Fenzl, Nov. Gen. 2: 37. 1782. — Type: Caroxylon aphyllum (L. f.) Tzvelev

  • = Salsola sect. Cardiandra Aellen in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 28: 32. 1967.

  • = Salsola sect. Malpighipila Botsch. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 54: 990. 1969.

  • = Salsola sect. Irania Botsch. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 71: 1400. 1986.

  • = Nitrosalsola Tzvelev in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 50: 80. 1993.

  • The genus Caroxylon was resurrected by Tzvelev (1993) and then confirmed and re-circumscribed based on molecular and morphological evidence (Akhani & al. 2007). In that circumscription, it is the most diverse genus in Salsoloideae with c. 100 species distributed in central and southwestern Asia, the Mediterranean region and northern and southern Africa (Feodorova 2011). Feodorova & Samigullin (2014) revealed four clades within Caroxylon s.l. and provisionally advocated further splitting of the genus, with recognition of Caroxylon s.str., a recircumscribed Nitrosalsola, and possibly two other segregate genera, based on molecular and morphological evidence.

  • Ceratocarpus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 969. 1753 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Ceratocarpus arenarius L.

  • = Ceratoides Gagnebin in Acta Helv. Phys.-Math. 2: 59. 1755.

  • This monotypic genus comprises one annual widespread Eurasian species and belongs to the Axyrideae G. Kadereit & Sukhor. (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Chenolea Thunb. in Nov. Gen. Pl.: 9. 1781 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Chenolea diffusa Thunb. This genus is distributed in southern Africa and comprises two perennial species (Snijman & Manning 2013; Kadereit & al. 2014). Other taxa previously placed in Chenolea are now mainly included in Bassia s.l. or Chenoleoides (see discussion under Bussia).

  • Chenopodiastrum S. Fuentes & al. in Willdenowia 42: 14. 2012 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) ≡ Chenopodium subsect. Undata Aellen & Iljin ex Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 400. 1996. — Type: Chenopodiastrum murale (L.) S. Fuentes & al.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Hybrida Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 13. 1916 ≡ Chenopodium sect. Grossefoveata Aellen & Iljin ex Mosyakin in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 50: 75. 1993 ≡ Chenopodiastrum sect. Grossefoveata (Mosyakin) Mosyakin in Phytoneuron 2013-56: 6. 2013.

  • Chenopodiastrum is a widespread new genus with six or seven species and segregated from Chenopodium s.l. Its recognition is based mainly on molecular phylogenetic studies (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b). The genus is subdivided into two groups, for which sectional rank was proposed (Mosyakin 2013).

  • Chenopodium L., Sp. Pl. 1: 218. 1753 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) = Chenopodium sect. Leprophyllum Dumort., Fl. Belg. 1: 21. 1827 = Chenopodium sect. Chenopodiastrum Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 61. 1849 ≡ Vulvaria Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 1: 174. 1897, nom. illeg. — Type: Chenopodium album L. — Fig. 4C & D.

  • = Rhagodia R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 408. 1810.

  • = Einadia Raf., Fl. Tellur. 4: 121. 1838.

  • = Chenopodium ser. Cicatricosa Aellen in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 69: 69. 1964 = Chenopodium subsect. Cicatricosa (Aellen) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 402. 1996.

  • = Chenopodium ser. Favosa Aellen in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 69: 69. 1964 = Chenopodium subsect. Favosa (Aellen) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 401. 1996.

  • = Chenopodium subsect. Fremontiana (Standl.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 401. 1996 ≡ Chenopodium [unranked] Fremontiana Standl, in Fl. Bor.-Amer. (Michaux) 21: 18. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium subsect. Leptophylla (Standl.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 400. 1996 ≡ Chenopodium [unranked] Leptophylla Standl, in Fl. Bor.-Amer. (Michaux) 21: 14. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium subsect. Standleyana Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 402. 1996.

  • Chenopodium has been considered one of the most diverse genera within Chenopodiaceae with c. 150 species (Kühn 1993), or even up to 250 species (under a narrow species concept). The circumscription has considerably changed over time, and several infrageneric classifications have been proposed. In a wide sense, Kühn (1993) and Mosyakin & Clemants (1996) recognized three subgenera: C. subg. Ambrosia A. J. Scott, C. subg. Blitum (L.) Hiitonen and C. subg. Chenopodium, and this classification was followed by several authors in recent treatments for the genera. However, it was proposed, based initially on morphological data, to include C. subg. Ambrosia into the re-circumscribed genus Dysphania R. Br. (Mosyakin & Clemants 2003, 2008; Clemants & Mosyakin 2003; Zhu & al. 2003). Recent phylogenetic studies based on molecular data (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b) have shown that Chenopodium in its traditional circumscription is not monophyletic and consists of six independent lineages. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) also gave the morphological descriptions of the segregates, including Chenopodium s.str., which still remains the most species-rich and most widespread genus of the group. Chenopodium belongs to Atripliceae (earlier Chenopodieae), which is monophyletic in the circumscription by Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b). The typification of the genus Chenopodium is debated. If the same solution is adopted for Chenopodium as that proposed for Salsola by Akhani & al. (2014), i.e. the recognition of the lectotype proposed under the “American Code” (Arthur & al. 1907) (C. rubrum L. in our case), then the genus recognized here as Oxybasis should be called Chenopodium s.str., and the genus containing C. album L. (the lectotype of Chenopodium as recognized here) should probably be called Rhagodia, which will have disastrous consequences for taxonomy and nomenclature of the group (see discussion in Mosyakin & Clemants 1996; Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b).

  • Choriptera Botsch. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 52: 804. 1967 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Choriptera semhahensis (Vierh.) Botsch.

  • = Gyroptera Botsch. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 52: 807. 1967. This genus has not yet been included in any molecular phylogenetic study. It belongs to the African Arabian subtribe Sevadinae, presumably included in Salsoleaae (Botschantzev 1975).

  • Climacoptera Botsch. in Sborn. Geobot. Akad. Sukachev: 111. 1956 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Climacoptera lanata (Pall.) Botsch.

  • Climacoptera s.str. represents a monophyletic C4 genus within Caroxyleae. The genus is distributed in central and southwestern Asia and comprises only annual species. Highly contradictory species numbers, ranging from six to c. 42, are given (Akhani & al. 2007; Pratov 1986).

  • Corispermum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 4. 1753 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Corispermum hyssopifolium L.

  • Corispermum comprises 60–65 annual psammophytic (rarely glareophytic) species naturally distributed mainly in Eurasia, with fewer than ten species native in North America (Mosyakin 1995). Species delimitations and distribution are poorly understood because of high morphological variability and possible recent explosive radiation of local races. There is one molecular phylogenetic study of Corispermum by Xue & Zhang (2011) that is limited to Chinese species and shows a rather poor infrageneric resolution. The genus is in need of a taxonomic revision based on comprehensive molecular phylogenetic and morphological studies.

  • Cornulaca Delile in Fl. Egypte: 206. 1813–1814 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Cornulaca monacantha Delile Cornulaca comprises c. six species occurring in central and southwestern Asia and northern Africa. The genus is presumably monophyletic (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Cyathobasis Aellen in Candollea 12: 160. 1949 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Cyathobasis fruticulosa (Bunge) Aellen

  • A monotypic genus from Anatolia, closely related to Girgensohnia and Hammada of Salsoleae s.str. (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Cycloloma Moq. in Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 17. 1840 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Cycloloma platyphyllum (Michx.) Moq.

  • = Cyclolepis Moq. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 2, 1: 203. 1834, nom. illeg.

  • A monotypic genus from North America that is probably phylogenetically nested within Dysphania (Dysphanieae; G. Kadereit, unpubl. data).

  • Didymanthus Endl. in Nov. Stirp. Dec.: 7. 1839 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Didymanthus roei Endl.

  • This monotypic genus belongs to the Australian Camphorosmeae and is closely related to Dissocarpus and Eriochiton (Cabrera & al. 2009). The genus is endemic to Australia (Wilson 1984).

  • Dissocarpus F. Muell. in Trans. Phil. Inst. Vict. 2: 75. 1858 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Dissocarpus biflorus F. Muell.

  • Four species are currently recognized in Dissocarpus (Australian Camphorosmeae). The genus is endemic to Australia (Wilson 1984). It is closely related to Didymanthus and Eriochiton (Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Dysphania R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 411. 1810 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b). — Type: Dysphania littoralis R. Br.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Orthosporum R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 407. 1810 = Blitum [unranked] Orthosporum (R. Br.) C. A. Mey. in Ledebour, Fl. Altaic. 1: 11. 1829 = Orthosporum (R. Br.) T. Nees, Gen. Fl. Germ. [1]: ad t. [57] [!]. 1834 = Dysphania sect. Orthospora (R. Br.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 382. 2002.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Botryoides C. A. Mey. in Ledebour, Fl. Altaic. 1: 410. 1829 = Chenopodium [unranked] Botrys Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 24: 580. 1832 = Chenopodium sect. Botrys (Rchb.) W. D. J. Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv: 607.1837 ≡ Ambrina sect. Botryois Moq., Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 36. 1840, nom. illeg. ≡ Vulvaria sect. Botrys (Rchb.) Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 1: 177. 1897 ≡ Botrys (Rchb.) Nieuwl. in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 3: 274. 1914 ≡ Chenopodium subsect. Botrys Aellen & Iljin, Fl. URSS 6: 46. 1936 ≡ Neobotrydium Moldenke in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 35: 330. 1946 ≡ Chenopodium sect. Botryoides A. J. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 212. 1978 ≡ Dysphania sect. Botryoides (C. A. Mey.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 383. 2002.

  • = Roubieva Moq. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 1: 292. 1834 ≡ Ambrina Spach, Hist. Nat. Vég. 5: 295. 1836, nom. illeg. ≡ Chenopodium sect. Roubieva (Moq.) Volkens, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(1a): 61. 1893 ≡ Dysphania sect. Roubieva (Moq.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 382. 2002.

  • = Botrydium Spach, Hist. Nat. Vég. 5: 298. 1836.

  • = Ambrina Moq., Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 36. 1840 = Ambrina sect. Adenois Moq., Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 39. 1840 ≡ Chenopodium sect. Ambrina Benth. & Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 51. 1880 ≡ Chenopodium [unranked] Ambrosioidia Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 26. 1916 ≡ Chenopodium subg. Ambrosia A. J. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 211. 1978 ≡ Dysphania sect. Adenois (Moq.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 382. 2002.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Carinata Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 27. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Incisa Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 25. 1916.

  • = Meiomeria Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 7. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Tetrasepala Allen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 63: 490. 1930 ≡ Dysphania sect. Tetrasepalae (Allen) A. J. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 218. 1978.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Margaritaria Brenan in Kew Bull. 11: 166. 1956.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Nigrescentia Allen in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 19: 3. 1973.

  • = Dysphania sect. Caudatae A. J. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 218. 1978.

  • The widespread genus Dysphania comprises c. 50 species native mostly to South America (D. sect. Adenois), Eurasia and Africa (D. sect. Botryoides) and Australia (D. sect. Dysphania, D. sect. Orthospora and D. sect. Tetrasepalae). Traditionally, only native Australian taxa were included in Dysphania (Scott 1978; Wilson 1983, 1984); later an expanded circumscription of the genus was proposed (Mosyakin & Clemants 2002, 2008) based on morphological evidence. Further molecular phylogenetic studies (Kadereit & al. 2003, 2010; Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b) demonstrated that Dysphania is phylogenetically distant from Chenopodium and forms the tribe Dysphanieae together with the closely related Suckleya and Teloxys. The latter was included in Dysphania based on morphology (Mosyakin & Clemants 2002, 2008; Clemants & Mosyakin 2003; Zhu & al. 2003), but should be recognized as a separate genus based on molecular results (Kadereit & al. 2010; Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a, b).

  • Enchylaena R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 407. 1810 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Enchylaena tomentosa R. Br.

  • Enchylaena seems to be polyphyletic (Cabrera & al. 2009). However, more molecular data for this genus of Australian Camphorosmeae are needed before taxonomic rearrangements can be done.

  • Eokochia Freitag & G. Kadereit in Taxon 80: 72. 2011 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Eokochia saxicola (Guss.) Freitag & G. Kadereit

  • A rare endangered monotypic genus of Camphorosmeae growing on coastal cliffs in the central Mediterranean (Iamonico & Kadereit 2013). Eokochia is sister to the North American genus Neokochia (Kadereit & Freitag 2011), thus belonging to a clade showing an ancient Mediterranean-North American disjunction.

  • Eremophea Paul G. Wilson in Fl. Australiana 4: 326. 1984 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Eremophea aggregata Paul G. Wilson

  • The genus is endemic to Australia and belongs to the Camphorosmeae. It is closely related to Neobassia (Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Exomis Fenzl ex Moq. in Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 49. 1840 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Exomis axyrioides Fenzl ex Moq.

  • A monotypic genus distributed in South Africa. It belongs to the Archiatriplex clade within Chenopodieae, formerly Atripliceae (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Extriplex E. H. Zacharias in Syst. Bot. 35: 850. 2010 sec. Zacharias & Baldwin (2010). — Type: Extriplex joaquinana (A. Nelson) E. H. Zacharias

  • The two species of Extriplex are endemic to the California Floristic Province. Extriplex belongs to the Archiatriplex clade within Chenopodieae, formerly Atripliceae (Kadereit & al. 2010; see Zacharias & Baldwin 2010 for detailed information on the genus).

  • Girgensohnia Bunge ex Fenzl, Fl. Ross.: 835. 1851 sec. Sukhorukov (2007). — Type: Girgensohnia pallasii Bunge

  • Girgensohnia comprises five annual species in central Asia and Iran (Sukhorukov 2007). The genus belongs to the Salsoleae s.str. and is closely related to Cyathobasis and Hammada (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Grayia Hook. & Am. in Bot. Beechey Voy.: 387. 1840-1840 sec. Zacharias & Baldwin (2010). — Type: Grayia polygaloides Hook. & Arn.

  • = Zuckia Standl. in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5: 58. 1915. A small North American genus that belongs to the Archiatriplex clade within Chenopodieae, formerly Atripliceae (Kadereit & al. 2010; see Zacharias & Baldwin 2010 for detailed information on the genus).

  • Grubovia Freitag & G. Kadereit in Taxon 80: 72. 2011 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Grubovia dasyphylla (Fisch. & C. A. Mey.) Freitag & G. Kadereit

  • A central Asian genus comprising three annual C3 species previously included in Bassia and/or Kochia. Grubovia is sister to the speciose clade of Australian Camphorosmeae (Kadereit & Freitag 2011).

  • Hablitzia M. Bieb. in Mém. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 5: 24. 1817 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Hablitzia tamnoides M. Bieb.

  • The monotypic genus belongs to the Hablitzieae-Betoideae (Hohmann & al. 2006; Kadereit & al. 2006). Hablitzia tamnoides is one of the very few climbing species in Chenopodiaceae. Annual shoots grow from a fleshy root in this species, which is endemic to Caucasus and NW Iran.

  • Halarchon Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 4(11): 19, 75. 1862 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halarchon vesiculosus (Moq.) Bunge

  • Phenotypically this monotypic genus from Afghanistan fits into Halimocnemis s.l. However, several attempts to generate sequences for this species have failed (H. Akhani, pers. comm.).

  • Halimione Aellen in Verb. Naturf. Ges. Basel 49: 121. 1938 sec. Kadereit & al. (2010). — Type: Halimione pedunculata (L.) Aellen

  • Halimione consists of three species (one annual, two perennial), which are distributed in Europe, the Mediterranean and western Asia. The genus is often included in Atriplex. Molecular and morphological data, however, support the generic status of Halimione (Kadereit & al. 2010), which is sister to the species-rich Atriplex in the tribe Chenopodieae, formerly Atripliceae.

  • Halimocnemis C. A. Mey. in Ledebour, Fl. Altaic. 1: 381. 1829 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Halimocnemis sclerosperma (Pall.) C. A. Mey.

  • = Halanthium K. Koch in Linnaea 17: 313. 1844.

  • = Gamanthus Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 4(11): 19, 76. 1862.

  • = Halotis Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 4(11): 19, 73. 1862.

  • Halimocnemis is an aggregate of Irano-Turanian annual species that is phylogenetically not well resolved. Based on phylogenetic studies (Akhani & al. 2007), a broad concept was adopted in which Gamanthus, Halanthium and Halotis are included. Further phylogenetic studies are required for possible inclusion of genera such as Halarchon, Physandra and Piptoptera.

  • Halocharis Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 48, 201. 1849 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halocharis sulphurea (Moq.) Moq.

  • Halocharis comprises seven annual species and belongs to the Caroxyleae (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Halocnemum M. Bieb. in Fl. Taur.-Caucas. 3: 3. 1819–1820 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halocnemum strobilaceum (Pall.) M. Bieb.

  • Halocnemum belongs to Salicornioideae and comprises two hygrohalophytic species of shrubs. The genus is distributed in the southern Mediterranean and southern, western and west-central Asia and is closely related to Halopeplis and Halostachys (Kadereit & al. 2006).

  • Halogeton C. A. Mey. in Icon. Pl. [Ledebour] 1: 10. 1829 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.) C. A. Mey.

  • = Agathophora (Fenzl) Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 4(11): 19, 92. 1862. Halogeton belongs to Salsoleae s.str. and is likely monophyletic (Akhani & al. 2007). This Eurasian genus, one species of which is also found in the southwestern and partly central United States as a widespread invasive alien, comprises c. five annual and perennial species and is often found in saline habitats.

  • Halopeplis Bunge ex Ung.-Sternb. in Vers. Syst. Salicorn.: 102. 1866 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halopeplis nodulosa (Delile) Bunge ex Ung.-Sternb.

  • Halopeplis comprises three species of annual and perennial hygrohalophytes distributed in the southern Mediterranean, South Africa and southern, western and central Asia. The genus belongs to Salicornieae and is closely related to Halocnemum and Halostachys (Kadereit & al. 2006).

  • Halostachys C. A. Mey. ex Schrenk in Bull. Cl. Phys.-Math. Acad. Pétersb. 1: 361. 1843 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Halostachys caspica (M. Bieb.) C. A. Mey. ex Schrenk

  • This monotypic genus of Salicornieae is distributed in central, southern and western Asia and southern and eastern Europe. It is closely related to Halocnemum and Halopeplis (Kadereit & al. 2006). Nomenclatural note: Pfeiffer (1874) had chosen Halostachys songarica Schrenk as the type of Halostachys, but this species was by that time already placed in the new genus Halopeplis (see Piirainen 2015 for details). A proposal has been published to conserve the name Halostachys with H. caspica as its conserved type (Piirainen 2015).

  • Halothamnus Jaub. & Spach, 111. Pl. Orient. 2: 50. 1845 sec. Kothe-Heinrich (1993). — Type: Halothamnus bottae Jaub. & Spach

  • = Aellenia Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 567. 1934.

  • Halothamnus belongs to Salsoleae s.str. and is likely monophyletic (Akhani & al. 2007). The genus comprises 21 species, most of which are small shrubs or subshrubs, only two species are annuals. It is found from Somalia in the west to Kazakhstan in the east in desert and semi-desert habitats (Kothe-Heinrich 1993).

  • Haloxylon Bunge, Fl. Ross.: 292. 1852 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Haloxylon ammodendron (C. A. Mey.) Bunge The molecular phylogenetic studies by Akhani & al. (2007) reject a wide interpretation of Haloxylon as suggested by Hedge (1977).

  • Hammada Iljin in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 33: 582. 1948 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Hammada leptoclada (Popov) Iljin

  • Generic circumscription of Hammada requires more studies. The molecular phylogeny of three studied species showed paraphyly of the studied samples (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Heterostachys Ung.-Sternb., Atti Congr. Bot. Firenze 1874: 267, 268, 331. 1876 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Heterostachys ritteriana (Moq.) Ung.-Sternb.

  • This halophytic genus belongs to the Salicornioideae and comprises two species in Central and South America. It is closely related to Allenrolfea (Kadereit & al. 2006).

  • Holmbergia Hicken in Apuntes Hist. Nat. 1: 65. 1909 sec. Zacharias & Baldwin (2010). — Type: Holmbergia exocarpa (Griseb.) Hicken

  • A monotypic South American genus of Chenopodieae (incl. Atripliceae) (Kadereit & al. 2010; Zacharias & Baldwin 2010). It is one of the rare Chenopodiaceae with berry-like fruits.

  • Horaninovia Fisch. & C. A. Mey. in Enum. Pl. Nov. 1: 10. 1841 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Horaninowia ulicina Fisch. & C. A. Mey.

  • = Eremochion Gilli in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 62: 22. 1959. A likely monophyletic genus within Salsoleae s.str. comprising six annual species distributed in desert habitats in central and western Asia (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Iljinia Korovin ex Kom., Fl. URSS 6: 309, 877. 1936 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Iljinia regelii (Bunge) Korovin ex Kom.

  • This presumably monotypic genus likely belongs to Salsoloideae, but has not yet been included in molecular studies.

  • Kali Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [unpaged]. 1754 sec. Akhani & al. (2007) = Salsola sect. Kali (Mill.) Dumort., Fl. Belg. (Dumortier): 23. 1827. — Type: Kali turgidum (Dumort.) Guterm. The genus comprises c. 20 C4 annual species with spiny leaf tip, except for the shrubby species Kali griffithii (Bunge) Akhani & Roalson, an endemic of southeastern Iran, southern Afghanistan and adjacent Pakistan. The genus is native to Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean basin and is also widely introduced in Australia, South Africa and North America (Brullo & al. 2015a, b). However, it is likely that some species are native to Australia and North America (see Hrusa & Gaskin 2008; Chinnock 2010). The typification and nomenclature of Kali are discussed in Akhani & al. (2014). See also under Salsola.

  • Kalidium Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 46, 146. 1849 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Kalidium foliatum (Pall.) Moq.

  • = Kalidiopsis Aellen in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 28: 31. 1967.

  • This genus belongs to the Salicornioideae and comprises five perennial halophytic species that are distributed in central and southwestern Asia as well as southern and southeasternmost Europe. The monophyly of Kalidium is only weakly supported by molecular data (Kadereit & al. 2006).

  • Kaviria Akhani & Roalson in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 948. 2007 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Kaviria tomentosa (Moq.) Akhani

  • = Salsola sect. Belanthera Iljin in Trudy Bot. Inst. Nauk SSSR 1,3: 158. 1937.

  • This genus belongs to Caroxyleae and includes c. ten xerohalophytic species mainly distributed in deserts of central and southwestern Asia (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Krascheninnikovia Gueldenst. in Novi Comment. Acad. Sci. Imp. Petrop. 16: 551. 1772 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Krascheninnikovia ceratoides (L.) Gueldenst.

  • = Eurotia Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 260. 1763, nom. illeg. Krascheninnikovia, according to a molecular study (ITS phylogeny only) by Heklau & Röser (2008), comprises only one widespread and highly polymorphic species with two subspecies (Eurasian and North American ones). However, considerable morphological diversity and wide geographical distribution (from southern Europe through central Asia to southwestern and west-central North America) of respresentatives of the genus suggest recognition of several species and/or subspecies (Grubov 1966; Zhu & al. 2003). The genus belongs to the Axyrideae (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Lagenantha Chiov. in Fl. Somala 1: 292. 1929 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Lagenantha nogalensis Chiov.

  • The genus likely belongs to Salsoloideae, but has not yet been included in molecular studies.

  • Lipandra (Less.) Moq. in Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 19. 1840 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) ≡ Oligandra Less, in Linnaea 9: 199. 1834, nom. illeg. ≡ Gandriloa Steud., Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 662. 1840, nom. illeg. ≡ Oliganthera Endl., Gen. Pl., Suppl. 1: 1377. 1841, nom. illeg. — Type: Lipandra atriplicoides (Less.) Moq.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Polysperma Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 13. 1916 ≡ Chenopodium subsect. Polysperma (Standl.) Kowal ex Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 400. 1996.

  • The isolated lineage of Chenopodium polyspermum L., revealed in the phylogenetic study of Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b), is well supported by the unique morphological characters of that widespread Eurasian species, which led to the creation of a monotypic subsection within Chenopodium s.l. (Mosyakin & Clemants 1996).

  • Maireana Moq. in Chenop. Monogr. Enum.: 95. 1840 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Maireana tomentosa Moq.

  • = Austrobassia Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 532. 1934.

  • = Duriala (R. H. Anderson) Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 537. 1934.

  • = Eriochiton (R. H. Anderson) A. J. Scott in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 89: 119. 1978.

  • A species-rich genus of Camphorosmoideae, mostly endemic to Australia (Wilson 1975). Monophyly of the genus is unclear (Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Malacocera R. H. Anderson in Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, ser. 2, 51: 382. 1926 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Malacocera tricornis (Benth.) R. H. Anderson A small genus endemic to Australia and belonging to Camphorosmoideae (Wilson 1984; Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Manochlamys Aellen in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 70: 379. 1939 sec. Kadereit & al. (2010). — Type: Manochlamys albicans (Aiton) Aellen

  • A monotypic genus distributed in South Africa. It belongs to the Archiatriplex clade within Chenopodieae, formerly Atripliceae (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Microcnemum Ung.-Sternb., Atti Congr. Bot. Firenze 1874: 268, 269, 280. 1876 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Microcnemum fastigiatum (Loscos & J. Pardo) Ung.Sternb.

  • A monotypic genus in Salicornioideae of rare hygrohalophytic herbs with two subspecies that show a disjunct distribution in the western and eastern Mediterranean region to central Iran (Kadereit & Yaprak 2008).

  • Microgynoecium Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 56. 1880 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Microgynoecium tibeticum Hook. f.

  • The phylogenetic position of the monotypic Himalayan genus Microgynoecium is in Atripliceae (earlier Chenopodieae) based on morphological and strong molecular evidence (Kadereit & al. 2010; Fuentes-Bazan & al. 2012a, b).

  • Micromonolepis Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 499. 1934 sec. Ulbrich (1934). — Type: Micromonolepis pusilla (Torr. ex S. Watson) Ulbr.

  • A monotypic genus distributed in western North America and likely closely related to Chenopodium (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Nanophyton Less, in Linnaea 9: 197. 1834 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Nanophyton erinaceum (Pall.) Bunge

  • A genus of c. ten closely related xerophytic species that are distributed in central Asia (Pratov 1985). Nanophyton is related to Halocharis and Kaviria based on phylogentic studies (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Neobassia A. J. Scott in Feddes Repert. 89: 117. 1978 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Neobassia astrocarpa (F. Muell.) A. J. Scott

  • A small genus endemic to Australia and belonging to Camphorosmoideae (Wilson 1984, Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Neokochia (Ulbr.) G. L. Chu & S. C. Sand. in Madroño 55: 255. 2009 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011) ≡ Kochia sect. Neokochia Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 535. 1934. — Type: Neokochia americana (S. Watson) G. L. Chu & S. C. Sand.

  • A North American genus of Camphorosmoideae comprising two closely related species of subshrubs or dwarf shrubs.

  • Noaea Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 207. 1849 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch. & Schweinf.

  • A small genus of three xerophytic C4 species distributed in northern Africa eastwards to southwestern and central Asia (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Nucularia Batt. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 50: 469. 1903 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Nucularia perrinii Batt.

  • Ofaiston Raf., Fl. Tellur. 3: 46. “1836” [1837] sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Ofaiston monandrum (Pall.) Moq. A monotypic genus endemic to southeastern Europe, southwestern Siberia, and central Asia. It is closely related to Petrosimonia (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Oreobliton Durieu in Duch. Rev. Bot. 2: 428. 1847 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Oreobliton thesioides Durieu & Moq. ex Durieu

  • Hohmann & al. (2006) showed that this monotypic genus belongs to Betoideae-Hablitzieae. Oreobliton thesioides is a subshrub distributed on calcareous rocks in Algeria and Tunisia. Together with its sister genus Aphanisma it represents an interesting example of a western Eurasian-western North American disjunction (Kadereit & Baldwin 2012).

  • Osteocarpum F. Muell. in Trans. Phil. Inst. Vict. 2: 77. 1858 sec. Mueller (1858). — Type: Osteocarpum salsuginosum F. Muell.

  • = Babbagia F. Muell., Rep. Pl. Babbage's Exped.: 21. 1859.

  • A small genus endemic to Australia and belonging to Camphorosmoideae (Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Oxybasis Kar. & Kir. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou: 738. 1841 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b). — Type: Oxybasis minutiflora Kar. & Kir.

  • = Blitum subg. Pseudoblitum (Gren. & Godr.) Schur, Enum. Pl. Transsilv.: 571. 1866 ≡ Chenopodium sect. Pseudoblitum (Gren. & Godr.) Syme, Engl. Bot, ed. 3, 8: 20. 1868 ≡ Chenopodium [unranked] Rubra Standl., N. Amer. F1. 21(1): 29. 1916.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Pseudoblitum Hook. f. in Benth. & Hook. f., Gen. P1. 3: 52. 1880 ≡ Blitum sect. Pseudoblitum (Hook. f.) Mosyakin in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 69(3): 394.2012 ≡ Oxybasis sect. Pseudoblitum (Hook. f.) Mosyakin in Phytoneuron 2013-56: 3. 2013.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Glauca Standl., N. Amer. F1. 21(1): 28. 1916 = Chenopodium subsect. Glauca (Standl.) A. J. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100: 216.1978 ≡henopodium sect. Glauca Ignatov in Sosud. Rast. Sovet. Dal'nego Vostoka 3: 22. 1988 = Oxybasis sect. Glaucae (Standl.) Mosyakin in Phytoneuron 2013-56: 4. 2013 ≡ Blitum sect. Glauca (Standl.) Mosyakin in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 69(3): 395. 2012.

  • = Chenopodium [unranked] Urbica Standl., N. Amer. F1. 21(1): 11. 1916 ≡ Chenopodium sect. Urbica (Standl.) Mosyakin in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 700. 2002 = Oxybasis sect. Urbicae (Standl.) Mosyakin in Phytoneuron 2013-56: 5. 2013.

  • = Chenopodium sect. Degenia Aellen in Magyar Bot. Lapok 25: 56. 1927.

  • Oxybasis was described by Karelin & Kirilov (1841) and included at that time only one species, O. minutiflora Kar. & Kir. (= Oxybasis chenopodioides (F.) S. Fuentes & al.). The phylogenetic studies by Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) and Sukhorukov & al. (2013) supported the monophyly of this widespread genus as a member of Chenopodieae and enlarged its circumscription with species segregated from Chenopodium s.l. At least ten species are currently known (some recently transferred from Chenopodium: see Mosyakin 2013; Sukhorukov 2014), and some occur in saline habitats. Since Oxybasis contains O. rubra (L.) S. Fuentes & al., and its basionym, C. rubrum L., is considered by some authors to be lectotype of Chenopodium, the adoption of that lectotype would result in Oxybasis becoming a synonym of Chenopodium (see there).

  • Patellifolia A. J. Scott & al. in Taxon 26: 284. 1977 sec. Kadereit & al. (2006b) = Beta [unranked] Patellares Tranzschel in Trudy Prikl. Bot. Selekts. 17: 205. 1927 ≡ Patellaria J. T. Williams & al. in Feddes Repert. 87: 289. 1976, nom. illeg. — Type: Patellifolia webbiana (Moq.) A. J. Scott & al.

  • According to Kadereit & al. (2006) Patellifolia is a separate genus, more closely related to Habliztia than to Beta. According to Thulin & al. (2010) Patellifolia includes only one polymorphic species within a wide Macaronesian-Mediterranean distribution and a small disjunct eastern African population.

  • Petrosimonia Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 4(11): 19, 52. 1862 sec. Kühn (1993). —Type: Petrosimonia monandra (Pall.) Bunge

  • A genus of c. 12 species distributed in saline soils of central and southwestern Asia, westwards to the eastern Mediterranean. Petrosimonia is a typical genus with bifurcate hairs. It forms a monophyletic group with Ofaiston within Caroxyleae (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Physandra Botsch. in Sborn. Geobot. Akad. Sukachev: 114. 1956 sec. Botschantzev (1956). — Type: Physandra halimocnemis (Botsch.) Botsch.

  • Physandra has not yet been included in any phylogentical study. It is presumably a member of Halimocnemis s.l. (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Piptoptera Bunge in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 5: 644. 1877 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Piptoptera turkestana Bunge

  • See notes under Halimocnemis on the possible synonymy of Piptoptera.

  • Proatriplex (W. A. Weber) Stutz & G. F. Chu in Amer. J. Bot. 77: 366. 1990 sec. Zacharias & Baldwin (2010) ≡ Atriplex subg. Proatriplex W. A. Weber in Madroño 10: 189. 1950. — Type: Proatriplex pleiantha (W. A. Weber) Stutz & G. L. Chu

  • Pyankovia Akhani & Roalson in Int. J. Pl.Sci. 168(6): 949. 2007 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Pyankovia brachiata (Pall.) Akhani & Roalson

  • Pyankovia is a recent segregate of Climacoptera and Salsola s.l.; it was initially described as a monotypic genus (Akhani & al. 2007). Further studies showed that the genus contains more than one species (Wen & al. 2010). There are probably at least three species distributed from southeastemmost Europe through the Caspian area, the Caucasus, and Iran to central Asia (S. Mosyakin, unpubl. data).

  • Rhaphidophyton Iljin in Acta Inst. Bot. Acad. Sc. URSS, Ser. I, 3: 157. 1936 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Rhaphidophyton regelii (Bunge) Iljin

  • A monotypic genus from central Asia belonging to the tribe Salsoleae of Salsoloideae (Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Roycea C. A. Gardner in J. Roy. Soc. Western Australia 32: 77. 1948 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Roycea pycnophylloides C. A. Gardner

  • A small genus comprising three species, endemic to Australia (Wilson 1984).

  • Salicornia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 3. 1753 sec. Kadereit & al. (2006a). – Type: Salicornia europaea L.

  • The genus is distributed worldwide (except for Australia and South America) in salt marshes and sahne inland habitats and consists of annual species. It is nested within the perennial Sarcocomia. For recent molecular and morphological studies see Kadereit & al. (2007, 2012), Akhani (2008), Teege & al. (2011), Slenzka & al. (2013) and Steffen & al. (2015).

  • Salsola L., Sp. Pl 1: 222. 1753. — Type: Salsola soda L.

  • = Salsola sect. Coccosalsola Fenzl. in Ledeb. Fl. Ross. 3,2: 802. 1851 ≡ Salsola sect. Coccosalsola Fenzl subsect. Coccosalsola (Fenzl.) Botsch. p.p. in Nov. Sist. Vys. Rast. 13: 94. 1976;

  • = Soda Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2, 17: 145. 1869;

  • = Seidlitzia Bunge ex Boiss., Fl. Orient. 4: 950. 1879;

  • = Hypocylix Wol. in Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Wien. Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 51: 275. 1886;

  • = Darniella Maire & Weiller in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 30: 301. 1939;

  • = Fadenia Aellen & C. C. Towns. in Kew Bull. 27: 501. 1972;

  • = Salsola sect. Obpyrifolia Botsch. & Akhani in Bot. Zhurn. 74(11): 1664. 1989;

  • = Neocaspia Tzvelev in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 50(1): 81. 1993.

  • Salsola s.l. was a heterogenous and polyphyletic complex, which has been split into at least ten lineages based on nuclear and chloroplast markers (Akhani & al. 2007; Pyankov & al. 2001; Kadereit & Freitag 2013). Caroxylon as the largest group, and Climacoptera, Kaviria and Pyankovia were transferred to the tribe Caroxyleae (Caroxyloneae). Several other segregates have either been described as new genera or were resurrected from existing names, including Kali, Turania and Xylosalsola. Three names were informally mentioned: “Canarosalsola”, “Collinosalsola” and “Oreosalsola”, the last soon to be formally published (Akhani & Khoshravesh, in press). The two species, S. webbii Moq. and S. genistoide Juss. ex Poir., are sister of Salsoleae and therefore should be described as separate genera (Voznesenskaya & al. 2013).

  • The typification of the genus Salsola is debated (Akhani & al. 2014; Mosyakin & al. 2014), and a conserved type, S. kali L., is proposed instead of the current type, S. soda (Mosyakin & al. 2014). If accepted, the name Salsola L. will replace Kali Mill, and Salsola sensu Akhani & al. will be Soda Fourr. In its present circumscription accepted here, Salsola is still a morphologically very diverse group that probably deserves further splitting into several more natural genera, following more comprehensive molecular and morphological studies.

  • Sarcocornia A. J. Scott in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 75: 366. 1978 sec. Kadereit & al. (2006a) ≡ Salicornia sect. Perennes Duval-Jouve ex Moss in J. Bot. 49: 178. 1911. – Type: Sarcocornia perennis (Mill.) A. J. Scott

  • = Salicornia subg. Arthrocnemoides Ung.-Sternb. in Versuch einer Systematik der Salicornieen: 54. 1866. Sarcocornia belongs to Salicomieae and comprises c. 28 species of perennial, stem-succulent halophytes distributed worldwide (Alonso & Crespo 2008; Steffen & al. 2010; de la Fuente & al. 2013). The genus is paraphyletic with respect to Salicornia. A wordwide molecular phylogenetic study shows the multiple parallel evolution of prostrate, mat-forming habits (Steffen & al. 2015).

  • Sclerochlamys F. Muell. in Trans. Phil. Inst. Vict. 2: 76. 1858 sec. Mueller (1858). — Type: Sclerochlamys brachyptera F. Muell.

  • A small genus belonging to the Camphorosmoideae and endemic to Australia (Wilson 1984; Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Sclerolaena R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 410. 1810 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Sclerolaena uniflora R. Br.

  • = Cyrilwhitea Ising in Trans. Roy. Soc. South Australia 88: 1964. 1964.

  • = Stelligera A. J. Scott in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 89: 114. 1978.

  • A species-rich genus of Camphorosmoideae, endemic to Australia. Monophyly of the genus remains unclear (Wilson 1980; Cabrera & al. 2009); further studies are needed.

  • Sedobassia Freitag & G. Kadereit in Taxon 60: 72. 2011 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Sedobassia sedoides (Pall.) Freitag & G. Kadereit

  • This monotypic genus belongs to Camphorosmoideae, with an annual species distributed from Hungary to southern Siberia and showing a C3/C4 intermediate photosynthetic pathway (Kadereit & al. 2014). The illegitimate name Salsola sedoides Pall. (the basionym of Sedobassia sedoides) was proposed for conservation against Salsola sedoides L. (Freitag & Sennikov 2014). If this proposal is accepted, the name Sedobassia sedoides (Pall.) Freitag & G. Kadereit will remain in use.

  • Sevada Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 47, 154. 1849 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Sevada schimperi Moq.

  • A monotypic African genus.

  • Spinacia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 1027. 1753 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Spinacia oleracea L.

  • The small Eurasian genus Spinacia is supported as monophyletic and sister to Blitum, both genera belonging to the tribe Anserineae Dumort. (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a).

  • Spirobassia Freitag & G. Kadereit in Taxon 60: 71. 2011 sec. Kadereit & Freitag (2011). — Type: Spirobassia hirsuta (L.) Freitag & G. Kadereit

  • A monotypic genus in Camphorosmoideae comprising an annual species distributed from the northern Mediterranean to southern Siberia.

  • Stutzia E. H. Zacharias in Syst. Bot. 35: 851. 2010 sec. Zacharias & Baldwin (2010). — Type: Stutzia dioica (Nutt.) E. H. Zacharias

  • = Endolepis Torr, in Pacif. Rail. Rep. 12: 47. 1860, nom. illeg.

  • Suaeda Forssk. ex J. F. Gmel. in Onomat. Bot. Compl. 8: 797. 1776, nom. cons. sec. Kapralov & al. (2006). — Type: Suaeda vera Forssk. ex J. F. Gmel.

  • = Alexandra Bunge in Linnaea 17: 120. 1843.

  • = Brezia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 47. 1849.

  • = Calve lia Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 47. 1849.

  • = Helicilla Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 47, 169. 1849.

  • = Borsczowia Bunge in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 5: 643. 1877.

  • Molecular phylogenetic studies clearly show that Alexandra and Borsczowia should be included in a monophyletic Suaeda (Kapralov & al. 2006), despite the arguments by Lomonosova & Freitag (2011), who preferred a paraphyletic Suaeda by keeping Alexandra as a separate genus. The study by Schütze & al. (2003) is currently the most comprehensive molecular and morphological study of the genus. The pollen morphology of Suaeda was studied by Dehghani & Akhani (2009).

  • Suckleya A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 11: 103. 1876 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Suckleya petiolaris A. Gray The monotypic North American genus Suckleya belongs to the Dysphanieae, in which it is sister to Cycloloma and Dysphania (Kadereit & al. 2010).

  • Sympegma Bunge in Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg 25: 351, 371. 1879 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Sympegma regelii Bunge

  • Tecticornia Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 65. 1880 sec. Shepherd & Wilson (2007). — Type: Tecticornia cinerea (F. Muell.) Baill.

  • = Pachycornia Hook. f., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 65. 1880.

  • = Halosarcia Paul G. Wilson in Nuytsia 3: 28. 1980.

  • = Sclerostegia Wilson in Nuytsia 3: 17. 1980.

  • = Tegicornia Paul G. Wilson in Nuytsia 3: 25. 1980.

  • A genus of Salicornioideae with c. 25 hygrohalophytic species, largely endemic to Australia.

  • Teloxys Moq. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 1: 289. 1834 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) ≡ Chenopodium sect. Teloxys (Moq.) Beck, Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. (Reichenbach) 24: 116. 1908 ≡ Chenopodium [unranked] Aristata Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 25. 1916 ≡ Chenopodium subsect. Teloxys (Moq.) Aellen & Iljin, Fl. URSS 6: 47. 1936 ≡ Dysphania subsect. Teloxys (Moq.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 59: 383. 2002. — Type: Teloxys aristata (L.) Moq.

  • Since the treatment of Beck (1907–1909), Teloxys was included and mostly accepted in Chenopodium subsect. Teloxys. For the Flora of North America, Mosyakin & Clemants (2002) transfered this species to Dysphania. However, the phylogenetic studies of Kadereit & al. (2010) and Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012a) recovered an isolated position of the monotypic Teloxys, supporting its first circumscription (Moquin 1834) and also revealing its close relationship to Cycloloma, Dysphania and Suckleya.

  • Threlkeldia R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 409. 1810 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Threlkeldia diffusa R. Br. A small genus belonging to the Camphorosmoideae and endemic to Australia (Wilson 1984; Cabrera & al. 2009).

  • Trcigcinopsis Maire & Wilczek in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 27: 67. 1936 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Traganopsis glomerata Maire & Wilczek

  • Traganum Delile, Descr. Égypte, Hist. Nat. 2: 204. 1813– 1814 sec. Kühn (1993). — Type: Traganum nudatum Delile

  • Turania Akhani & Roalson, Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 946. 2007 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Turania sogdiana (Bunge) Akhani

  • = Salsola sect. Androssowia Rilke in Biblioth. Bot. 149: 77. 1999.

  • = Salsola sect. Sogdiana (Iljin) Rilke in Biblioth. Bot. 149: 69. 1999.

  • A small segregate genus of the Salsola s.l. complex, with three species endemic to Aralo-Caspian sandy deserts.

  • Xylosalsola Tzvelev in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 50: 81. 1993 sec. Akhani & al. (2007). — Type: Xyloscilsola arbuscula (Pall.) Tzvelev

  • A segregate genus of Salsola s.l. consisting of small or large shrubs occurring in sandy or gravelly habitats of the central Asian and Iranian deserts (Tzvelev 1993; Akhani & al. 2007).

  • Didiereaceae Radlk, sec. apg (2009).

  • A family with six genera and 20 species (Bruyns & al. 2014). Traditionally, Didiereaceae included xerophytic shrubs and trees endemic to Madagascar with short lateral shoots bearing spines or alternate leaves (Kubitzki 1993a; Cuénoud 2003). However, molecular phylogenetic studies (Applequist & Wallace 2001, 2003; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Bruyns & al. 2014) showed a well-supported clade including the traditional Didiereaceae plus the African genera Calyptrotheca, Ceraria and Portulacaria, previously placed in Portulacaceae. This expanded circumscription of the family is accepted here, which includes also much-branched plants with opposite leaves and without spines. Applequist & Wallace (2003) divided the family into three subfamilies: Calyptrothecoideae, Didiereoideae (= traditional Didiereaceae) and Portulacarioideae. The recent molecular phytogeny of Bruyns & al. (2014) supports the monophyly of these subfamilies and the inclusion of Ceraria within Portulacaria.

  • Alluciudia (Drake) Drake in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 9: 37. 1903 sec. Kubitzki (1993a) ≡ Didierea sect. Alluciudia Drake in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 133: 240. 1901. — Type: Alluciudia procera (Drake) Drake — Fig. 4E.

  • Alluciudiopsis Humbert & Choux in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 199: 1651. 1934 sec. Kubitzki (1993a). — Type: Alluaudiopsis fiherenensis Humbert & Choux

  • Calyptrotheca Gilg in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 24: 307. 1897 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Calyptrotheca somalensis Gilg

  • Decarya Choux in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 188: 1620. 1929 sec. Kubitzki (1993a). — Type: Decarya madagascariensis Choux

  • Didierea Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1-2: 258. 1880 sec. Kubitzki (1993a). — Type: Didierea madagascariensis Baill.

  • Portulacaria Jacq. in Coll. 1: 160. 1787 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Portulacaria afra Jacq. — Fig. 4F.

  • = Ceraria Pearson & Stephens in Ann. S. African Mus. 9: 32. 1912.

  • Dioncophyllaceae Airy Shaw sec. APG (2009).

  • A small family of woody lianas comprising three monotypic genera endemic to the Guineo-Congolian rainforest (Poremski & Barthlott 2003). The family is characterized by leaves with grapnels on branches or paired at the leaf apex, elongated funicles and large discoid and winged seeds (Heubl & al. 2006). The family is considered as partially carnivorous because it includes both carnivorous (Triphyophyllum) and non-carnivorous taxa (Dioncophyllum and Habropetalum). The studies by Heubl & al. (2006) and Renner & Specht (2011) concluded that within Dioncophyllaceae occurred a partial secondary loss of carnivory. See also notes under Ancistrocladaceae.

  • Dioncophyllum Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1–2: 870. 1890 sec. Porembski & Barthlott (2003). - Type: Dioncophyllum thollonii Baill.

  • Habropetalum Airy Shaw in Kew Bull. 1951: 334. 1952 sec. Porembski & Barthlott (2003). – Type: Habropetalum dawei (Hutch. & Dalziel) Airy Shaw

  • Triphyophyllum Airy Shaw in Kew Bull. 1951: 341. 1952 sec. Porembski & Barthlott (2003). — Type: Triphyophyllum peltatum (Hutch. & Dalziel) Airy Shaw —Fig. 4G.

  • Droseraceae Salisb. sec. apg (2009).

  • The family includes perennial or annual carnivorous herbs and sometimes submerged aquatics (Kubitzki 2003b) characterized by having perception of tactile and chemical stimuli, leaf blade and tentacle movement and genetically by a loss of the rpl2 intron (Heubl & al. 2006). The family comprises three genera, two of them monotypic: Aldrovanda distributed in Eurasia, southeastern Africa and northeastern Australia, and Dionaea endemic to the southeastern United States. Drosera is cosmopolitan and comprises probably more than 100 species (Kubitzki 2003b; Rivadavia & al. 2003). The family is well known to attract, capture, retain and digest small prey animals (mainly small arthropods) with active snap-traps (Aldrovanda [waterwheel plant] and Dionaea [Venus flytrap]) or with active sticky flypaper traps (Drosera [= sundews]) and to absorb the resulting nutrients (Poppinga 2013). The relationships of Droseraceae to the other carnivorous families of the Caryophyllales remain unclear; the results of several molecular phylogenetic studies resulted in three main hypotheses: Droseraceae as sister of Nepenthaceae (e.g. Nandi & al. 1998: rbcL; Cuénoud & al. 2000; Brockington & al. 2009: combined nuclear and plastid data; Schäferhoff & al. 2009: petD); Droseraceae as sister of a clade including Drosophyllaceae + [Ancistrocladaceae + Dioncophyllacae] (e.g. Schäferhoff & al. 2009: petD) and Droseraceae as sister of the rest of the carnivorous families (e.g. Meimberg & al. 2000: partial matK; Schäferhoff & al. 2009: complete matK; Renner & Specht 2011: combined nuclear, ribosomal and plastid data).

  • Aldrovanda L., Sp. Pl. 1: 281. 1753 sec. Kubitzki (2003b). – Type: Aldrovanda vesiculosa L.

  • Dionaea J. Ellis in Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal., ser. 2, 1: 98. 1773 sec. Kubitzki (2003b). — Type: Dionaea muscipula J. Ellis

  • Drosera L., Sp. Pl. 1:281. 1753 sec. Kubitzki (2003b). — Type: Drosera rotundifolia L. — Fig. 5A & B.

  • = Sondera Lehm., Nov. Stirp. Pug. 8: 44. 1844.

  • = Freatulina Chrtek & Slavíková in Cas. Nár. Mus., Odd. Prír. 165: 140. 1996.

  • Drosera has a worldwide distribution, but the majority of species are found in the southern hemisphere, especially in southwestern Australia and New Zealand (Kubitzki 2003b; Rivadavia & al. 2003). Several classifications have been proposed for the genus; the last one was that by Seine & Barthlott (1994), who recognized three subgenera and 11 sections based on morphological, anatomical, palynological and cytotaxonomical characters; the molecular phylogenetic study that included the most representative subgenera and sectional sampling so far (i.e. Rivadavia & al. 2003) supported the monophyly of only some of these groups.

  • Drosophyllaceae Chrtek & al. sec. APG (2009).

  • A monotypic family that includes carnivorous subshrubs distributed in Spain, Portugal and Morocco (Kubitzki 2003c). These are characterized by reverse circinate leaves, basal placentation, polyporate pollen and a chromosome base number x = 6 (Heubl & al. 2006). Historically, the single genus Drosophyllum was placed within Droseraceae, but its position as an independent lineage has been well supported by several molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Meimberg & al. 2000; Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Brockington & al. 2009; Schäferhoff & al. 2009). These studies also revealed the closer relationship of Drosophyllacae with the clade Ancistrocladaceae + Dioncophyllaceae rather than Droseraceae.

  • Drosophyllum Link in Nenes J. Bot. 1(2): 53. 1805 sec. Kubitzki (2003c). — Type: Drosophyllum lusitanicum (L.) Link

  • Frankeniaceae Desv. sec. apg (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with 70–80 species of halophytic and xerophytic shrubs, subshrubs and herbs (Whalen 1987; Kubitzki 2003d) distributed throughout the warmer dry regions of the world (Kubitzki 2003d). Kubitzki (2003d) recognized two genera: Frankenia and the monotypic Hypericopsis; however in the same year Olson & al. (2003) supported the inclusion of Hypericopsis within Frankenia based on wood-anatomical characters. The position of Hypericopsis within the Eurasian and Australian clade of Frankenia has also been well supported by the molecular phylogenetic study of Gaskin & al. (2004).

  • Frankenia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 331. 1753 sec. Gaskin & al. (2004). — Type: Frankenia laevis L.

  • = Beat soni a Roxb. in Beatson, Tracts St. Helena: 300. 1816.

  • = Hypericopsis Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 6: 25. 1846.

  • = Niederleinia Hieron. in Bol. Acad. Nac. Ci. 3: 218. 1879.

  • = Anthobryum Phil, in Anales Mus. Nat. Santiago de Chile 1891: 51. 1891.

  • Gisekiaceae Nakai sec. APG (2009).

  • Gisekia was excluded from Aizoaceae and raised to family level by Nakai (1942). Recent molecular studies support the family status and show an isolated position of Gisekiaceae within cor-Caryophyllales (Brockington & al. 2009; Schäfferhoff & al. 2009; Crawley & Hilu 2012; Bissinger & al. 2014).

  • Gisekia L., Mant. Pl.: 554, 562. 1771 sec. Gilbert (1993). —Type: Gisekia pharnacioides L.

  • Gilbert (1993) revised the genus and accepted seven species; however, Bissinger & al. (2014) found all species to be polyphyletic and suggested to treat them as one polymorphic species or species complex, Gisekia pharnaceoides agg. Gisekia pharnaceoides is a C4 species with atriplicoid Kranz anatomy and NAD-ME biochemical type. The lineage originated in South Africa and presumably migrated along arid areas of eastern Africa during the late Miocene/Pliocene (Bissinger & al. 2014).

  • Halophytaceae A. Soriano sec. APG (2009).

  • A monotypic family of succulent monoecious herbs, endemic to semi-deserts of western and southwestern Argentina (Hunziker 1998; Bittrich 1993c; Pozner & Cocucci 2006). For many years the position of the only species, Halophytum ameghinoi (Speg.) Speg. within Caryophyllales was uncertain. When the species was described, it was placed in Aizoaceae and later transferred to Chenopodiaceae (e.g. Cronquist 1981). Several molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that it represents a well-supported independent lineage within the Portulacineae (Brockington & al. 2009, 2011; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & al. 2010; Arakaki & al. 2011), but its relationships with the other families in this group remain uncertain. The most recent phylogenetic study, based on data from several nuclear and chloroplast markers, supports a close relationship between Halophytum and Basellaceae and a close relationship of both with Didiereaceae (Anton & al. 2014).

  • Halophytum Speg. in Anales Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires 7: 152. 1902 sec. Bittrich (1993d). — Type: Halophytum ameghinoi (Speg.) Speg. — Fig. 5C.

  • Kewaceae Christenh. sec. Christenhusz & al. (2014).

  • Monogeneric family segregated from Molluginaceae (Christenhusz & al. 2014) based on results from Christin & al. (2011).

  • Kewa Christenh. in Phytotaxa 181: 240. 2014 sec. Christenhusz & al. (2014). — Type: Kewa salsoloides (Burch.) Christenh.

  • Eight species, distributed in Africa and Saint Helena; checklist of species in Christenhusz & al. (2014). These species were formerly included in Hypertelis (Molluginaceae), but have been shown to occupy an isolated position in Caryophyllales (Christin & al. 2011).

  • Limeaceae Shipunov ex Reveal sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with c. 20 species, distributed mainly in southern Africa with a few species in Sudan, Ethiopia and southern Asia (Endress & Bittrich 1993). Traditionally, the single genus Limeum was placed in Molluginaceae. However, the position of the genus as an independent lineage and its distant placement from Molluginaceae has been well supported by several molecular studies (Brockington & al. 2009; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Christin & al. 2011). The family includes herbs and subshrubs characterized by pseudomonomerous twochambered ovaries (Endress & Bittrich 1993).

  • Limeum L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 995. 1759 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Limeum africanum L.

  • Lophiocarpaceae Doweld & Reveal sec. APG (2009).

  • Small family of about six species distributed in Africa, mainly in the southwest, and southwestern Asia (Endress & Bittrich 1993; Rohwer 1993). The family includes the genus Lophiocarpus, previously placed in Phytolaccaceae subfamily Microteoideae and the genus Corbichonia, previously placed in Molluginaceae. The clade Lophiocarpus + Corbichonia was first recovered and well supported in the molecular phylogeny based on matK sequences by Cuénoud & al. (2002). The family was described by Doweld and Reveal (2008) and the clade was later confirmed by Schäferhoff & al. (2009) and Brockington & al. (2011). The two genera included in Lophiocarpaceae are morphologically very different. While members of Lophiocarpus are herbs and sometimes suffrutescent, characterized by flowers in spikes (with five tepals and four stamens) and achenes (Rohwer 1993), members of Corbichonia are herbs or subshrubs, characterized by flowers in cymes (with five sepals and several petaloid staminodes and stamens) and capsules (Endress & Bittrich 1993; Boulos 1999; Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2015).

  • Corbichonia Scop, in Intr. Hist. Nat.: 264. 1777 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Corbichonia decumbens (Forssk.) Exell

  • Lophiocarpus Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 16: 55. 1843 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Lophiocarpus polystachyus Turcz.

  • Macarthuriaceae Christenh. sec. Christenhusz & al. (2014).

  • A monogeneric family restricted to Australia. The poorly known genus Macarthuria has been shown to be sister to all core Caryophyllales (Brockington & al. 2011; Christin & al. 2011) and a separate family Macarthuriaceae was proposed (Christenhusz & al. 2014).

  • Mcicarthuria Hügel ex Endl., Enum. Pl.: 11. 1837 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Macarthuria australis Hügel ex Endl.

  • About ten species of rush-like shrubs from Australia, especially southwestern Australia.

  • Microteaceae Schäferh. & Borsch sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family restricted to the Neotropics and distributed from Central America and the Antilles to South America (Rohwer 1993; Schäferhoff & al. 2009). Based mainly on the presence of single-ovuled ovaries, Nowicke (1969) placed Microtea, together with Lophiocarpus, in Phytolaccaceae subfamily Microteoideae. However, Schäferhoff & al. (2009) showed that these two genera are not closely related and the position of Microtea as an independent lineage was well supported, resulting in the description of the new family. These results were later confirmed by Brockington & al. (2011).

  • Microtea Sw., Prodr. [O. P. Swartz]: 4, 53. 1788 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Microtea debilis Sw.

  • A poorly studied genus of annual herbs from Central and South America and the Antilles. The number of species is estimated to c. 12 (Schäferhoff & al. 2011); a modem monograph is lacking. Microtea was found in an isolated phylogenetic position (Schäferhoff & al. 2011; two species have been sampled).

  • Molluginaceae Bartl. sec. APG (2009).

  • A family with nine genera and c. 90 species mainly distributed in southern Africa, but also found in the tropics around the world. The circumscription has been problematic and some of the taxa formerly assigned to Molluginaceae are now considered as members of other families (especially Aizoaceae and Phytolaccaceae) or as independent families within the Caryophyllales (e.g. Kewaceae, Limeaceae, Lophiocarpaceae) (Endress & Bittrich 1993; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Christin & al. 2011; Christenhusz & al. 2014). The family as currently circumscribed is characterized by an undifferentiated perianth with alternitepalous stamens, except for Glinus, which occasionally has small petals (Brockington & al. 2013).

  • Adenogramma Rchb. in Iconogr. Bot. Exot. 2: 3. 1828 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Adenogramma mollugo Rchb.

  • Coelanthum E. Mey. ex Fenzl in Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 1: 353. 1836 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Coelanthum grandiflorum E. Mey. ex Fenzl

  • Glinus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 463. 1753 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Glinus lotoides L.

  • Glischrothamnus Pilg. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 40: 396. 1908 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Glischrothamnus ulei Pilg.

  • Hypertelis E. Mey. ex Fenzl in Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 1: 352. 1836 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). —Type: Hypertelis spergulacea E. Mey. ex Fenzl

  • Monotypic genus (after segregation of Kewa, see there), distributed in Namibia. Might belong to an expanded Mollugo (Christin & al. 2011), but further study is needed to clarify this.

  • Mollugo L., Sp. Pl. 1: 89. 1753 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Mollugo verticillata L.

  • Recent phylogenetic analysis has shown that the genus is not monophyletic and that its species are scattered across the Molluginaceae phytogeny (Christin & al. 2011). A thorough re-evaluation of the circumscription of Mollugo is clearly needed.

  • Pharnaceum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 272. 1753 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Pharnaceum incanum L.

  • Polpoda C. Presl in Polpoda: 1–2. 1829 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Polpoda capensis C. Presl

  • Psammotropha Eckl. & Zeyh. in Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral. [Ecklon & Zeyher]: 286. 1836 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). — Type: Psammotropha parvifolia Eckl. & Zeyh.

  • Suessenguthiella Friedrich in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 2: 60. 1955 sec. Endress & Bittrich (1993). Type: Suessenguthiella scieranthoides (Sond.) Friedrich

  • Montiaceae Raf. sec. APG (2009).

  • A family with 13 genera and around 200 species distributed around the world (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a). The species of this family are traditionally considered as members of Portulacaceae; however, molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that the traditional Portulacaceae are not monophyletic (Hershkovitz & Zimmer 1997; Applequist & Wallace 2001; Nyffeler 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010). Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a) proposed the segregation of the traditional Portulacaceae into four families (Anacampserotaceae, Montiaceae, Portulacaceae and Talinaceae) based on morphological and molecular data. The circumscription of Montiaceae follows the proposal of Hershkovitz (1993, 2006) and Hershkovitz & Zimmer (2000). Montiaceae also includes Hectorellaceae (Applequist & al. 2006; Wag staff & Hennion 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a).

  • Calandrinia Kunth, Nov. Gen. Pl. (folio ed.) 6: 77. 1823, nom. cons. sec. Hershkovitz (1993). — Type: Calandrinia caulescens Kunth

  • = Baitaria Ruíz & Pav., Fl. Peruv. Prodr.: 63. 1823.

  • = Monocosmia Fenzl, Nov. Stirp. Dec.: 84. 1839.

  • Calyptridium Nutt, in Fl. N. Amer. 1: 198. 1838 sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: Calyptridium monandrum Nutt.

  • Calyptridium is a North American genus with eight species (Guilliams 2009). Although Hershkovitz (1990) treated Calyptridium as a section of Cistanthe, phylogenetic analyses have shown that this consideration makes Cistanthe a non-monophyletic group (Hershkovitz & Zimmer 2000; Applequist & Wallace 2001; Hershkovitz 2006).

  • Cistanthe Spach in Hist. Nat. Vég. 5: 229. 1836 sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: not designated.

  • = Spraguea Torr, in Smithsonian Contr. Knowl. 6(2): 4. 1853.

  • = Diazia Phil., Fl. Atacam.: 22. 1860.

  • = Silvaea Phil., Fl. Atacam.: 21. 1860.

  • = Philippiamra Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 58. 1891, nom. illeg.

  • = Lewisiopsis Govaerts, World Checkl. Seed Pl.. 3: 21. 1999.

  • See under Calyptridium (Montiaceae).

  • Claytonia L., Sp. Pl. 1753 1: 204. 1753 sec. Miller & Chambers (2006) = Claytonia [unranked] Euclaytonia Walp., Repert. Bot. Syst. 2: 237. 1843, nom. inval. ≡Claytonia [unranked] Cormosae A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 22: 278. 1887 ≡ Claytonia sect. Cormosae A. Gray ex Poelln. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 30: 281. 1932, nom. superfl. — Type: Claytonia virginica L. — Fig. 5D.

  • = Limnia Haw., Syn. Pl. Succ.: 11. 1812 ≡ Claytonia sect. Limnia (Haw.) Torr. & A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1: 199. 1838 ≡ Montia sect. Limnia (Haw.) B. L. Rob., Syn. Fl. N. Amer. 1: 273. 1897 ≡ Claytonia subg. Limnia (Haw.) Holub in Preslia 47: 328. 1975.

  • = Claytonia [unranked] Caudicosae A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 22: 279. 1887.

  • = Claytonia [unranked] Rhizomatosae A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 22: 280. 1887 ≡ Montia [unranked] Rhizomatosae (A. Gray) B. L. Rob., Syn. Fl. N. Amer. 1: 272. 1897 ≡ Claytonia sect. Rhizomatosae (A. Gray) Poelln. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 30: 281, 296. 1932.

  • = Claytonia sect. Chenopodinae Poelln. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 30: 280. 1932.

  • Hectorella Hook. f. in Handb. N. Zeal. Fl.: 27. 1864 sec. Philipson (1993). — Type: Hectorella caespitosa Hook. f.

  • Monotypic; endemic to New Zealand (South Island). The taxonomic position of Hectorella remained controversial for a long time and was even treated in a separate family along with Lyallia (Hectorellaceae; Philipson & Skipworth 1961). However, phylogenetic analyses have confirmed that this monotypic genus is nested in Montiaceae (Applequist & al. 2006; Wagstaff & Hennion 2007; Nylfeler & Eggli 2010a).

  • Lenzia Phil, in Anales Univ. Chile 23: 381. 1863 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Lenzia chamaepitys Phil.

  • Lewisia Pursh, Fl. Amer. Sept. 2: 368. 1814 sec. Hershkovitz & Hogan (2003). — Type: Lewisia rediviva Pursh

  • = Oreobroma Howell in Erythea 1: 31. 1893.

  • = Erocallis Rydb. in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 33: 140. 1906.

  • Lyallia Hook. f., Fl. Antarct. 2: 548, t. 122. 1847 sec. Philipson (1993). — Type: Lyallia kerguelensis Hook. f.

  • monotypic; endemic to the subantarctic Kerguelen Islands. Lyallia kerguelensis was found to be sister to Hectorella and both are nested in Montiaceae (Wagstaff & Hennion 2007; see also under Hectorella).

  • Montia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 87. 1753 sec. Miller (2004). — Type: Montia fontana L.

  • = Crunocallis Rydb. in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 33: 139. 1906.

  • = Naiocrene (Torr. & A. Gray) Rydb. in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 33: 139. 1906.

  • = Montiastrum Rydb., Fl. Rocky Mts.: 1061. 1917.

  • = Limnalsine Rydb., N. Amer. Fl. 21(4): 295. 1932.

  • = Mona Ö. Nilsson in Bot. Not. 119: 266. 1966.

  • = Neopaxia Ö. Nilsson in Bot. Not. 119: 469. 1966.

  • = Maxia Ö. Nilsson in Palynol. 7: 359. 1967.

  • = Claytoniella Jurtzev in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 57: 644. 1972.

  • Montiopsis Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 3(3): 14. 1898 sec. Hershkovitz (1993). — Type: Montiopsis boliviana Kuntze

  • Parakeelya Hershk. in Phytologia 84: 101. 1998 sec. Hershkovitz (1998). — Type: Parakeelya ptychosperma (F. Muell.) Hershk.

  • = ?Rumicastrum Ulbr., Nat. Pflanzenfam. (ed. 2) 16c: 519. 1934.

  • Based on phylogenetic analyses (Hershkovitz 1996), Hershkovitz (1998) transferred 35 Australian Calandrinia species to the new genus Parakeelya. However, the relationships of the species of this genus within Montiaceae are not well supported (Hershkovitz 1996; Hershkovitz & Zimmer 2000), so further studies are needed to evaluate its affinities. Australian botanists still continue to use the name Calandrinia for species assignable to Parakeelya. The relationships of the Australian genus Rumicastrum are not clear. It was considered as a genus closely related to Atriplex (Chenopodiaceae). Carolin (1987) and Hershkovitz (1993) used the name to represent the Australian calandrinias (Montiaceae); however, Hershkovitz & Zimmer (2000) opted to use the name Parakeelya for those taxa. Further studies are required to clarify the correct use of Rumicastrum.

  • Phemeranthus Raf. in Specchio Sci. 1: 86. 1814 sec. Kiger (2004) ≡ Talinum sect. Phemeranthus (Raf.) DC., Prodr. 3: 356. 1828. — Type: Phemeranthus teretifolius (Pursh) Raf.

  • Species of Phemeranthus were considered as members of Talinum. However, morphological and molecular analyses have shown that c. 30 New World species that have terete to semi-terete leaves represent a lineage different from Talinum (Talinaceae; Carolin 1987; Hershkovitz & Zimmer 2000; Applequist & Wallace 2000; Nylfeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010).

  • Schreiteria Carohn in Palynol. 3: 330. 1985 sec. Carolin (1993). — Type: Schreiteria macrocarpa (Speg.) Carolin

  • An enigmatic monotypic genus, placed here with doubts, and not included in any recent analysis.

  • Nepenthaceae Dumort. sec. apg (2009).

  • A monogeneric family comprising 120–138 species (McPherson 2009, 2011) native to tropical Asia, distributed from Madagascar through Indo-Malesia to New Guinea and New Caledonia (Kubitzki 2003e; Meimberg & Heubl 2006). The family includes woody climbers or scrambling shrubs and some epiphytes (Kubitzki 2003e) widely known as the carnivorous “pitcher plants”. They are characterized by unisexual flowers, axilar placentation, filaments united into a column, three- or four-locular ovaries and the loss of vascularization in glands (Heubl & al. 2006). The affinities of Nepenthaceae have long been discussed (Meimberg & al. 2001). Traditionally, the family was placed in the order Nepenthales, either as a monofamilial order (e.g. Takhtajan 1980) or together with Droseraceae and Sarraceniaceae (e.g. Cronquist 1988). The placement of the family within Caryophyllales was shown by the early molecular phylogenetic study of Nandi & al. (1998). Several molecular phylogenetic studies have shown (although with moderate support) the close relationship of Nepenthaceae and Droseraceae (Nandi & al. 1998; Cuénoud & al. 2000; Brockington & al. 2009; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; further information under Droseraceae). Another study, based on parsimony analysis of combined rbcL and matK shows with high support Nepenthes as sister to the rest of the carnivorous families, whereas the study of Renner & Specht (2011), based on the ML and Bayesian analysis of the combined data of nuclear, ribosomal and plastid DNA, shows also with high support the relationship of Nepenthaceae with the Drosophyllaceae + [Dioncophyllaceae + Ancistrocladaceae] clade.

  • Nepenthes L., Sp. Pl. 1:955. 1753 sec. Kubitzki (2003e). —Type: Nepenthes distillatoria L.

  • = Anurosperma Hallier f. in Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 39(2): 162. 1921.

  • Nyctaginaceae fuss. sec. APG (2009).

  • This family comprises c. 30 genera and 300–400 species (Bittrich & Kühn 1993; Spellenberg 2003) of trees, shrub and herbs. These are found in all warmer areas of the world (Douglas & Spellenberg 2010), but mostly in the Americas, with two centres of distribution: arid western North America (southwestern U.S.A. and northern Mexico) and the Neotropics (tropical and subtropical South America and the Antilles). Some genera, such as Boerhavia, Mirabilis and Pisonia, have some species occurring in the Old World, but some of them are introduced (Mirabilis), whereas Commicarpus, with few American species, is most diverse in Africa; Phaeoptilum is endemic to southwestern Africa and Botswana (Bittrich & Kühn 1993; Douglas & Spellenberg 2010). Recently, Douglas & Spellenberg (2010), based on the molecular phytogeny of the family by Douglas & Manos (2007), made some adjustments to Bittrich and Kühn's classification of 1993, so that seven tribes were recognized: Boldoeae, Bougainvilleeae, Caribeeae, Colignonieae, Leucastereae, Nyctagineae and Pisonieae; the relationship of Caribeeae with the others is unknown since it is known only from the type. Several genera, especially those of North America that include the suffrutescent and herbaceous taxa, have been the focus of interest of various studies. However, most of the taxa distributed in the Neotropics, including the trees and shrubs in the diverse genera Guapira, Neea and Pisonia, are poorly known.

  • Abronia Juss., Gen. Pl.: 448. 1789 sec. Galloway (2003). —Type: Abronia californica J. F. Gmel.

  • Acleisanthes A. Gray in Amer. J. Sci. Arts ser. 2, 15: 259. 1853 sec. Levin (2002). — Type: Acleisanthes crassifolia A. Gray

  • = Selinocarpus A. Gray in Amer. J. Sci. Arts ser. 2, 15: 262. 1853.

  • = Ammocodon Standl, in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 6: 631. 1916.

  • Allionia L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 883, 890, 1361. 1759, nom. cons. sec. Turner (1994) ≡ Wedelia Loefl., Iter. Hispan.: 180. 1758 ≡ Wedeliella Cockerell in Torreya 9: 166. 1909, nom. illeg. — Type: Allionia incarnata L.

  • Andradea Allemão, Pl. Novas Brasil Andradea. 1845 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Andradea floribunda Allemão

  • Anulocaulis Standl, in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 374. 1909 sec. Hernández-Ledesma & al. (2010). — Type: Anulocaulis eriosolenus (A. Gray) Standl.

  • Belemia Pires in Bol. Mus. Paraense “Emilio Goeldi”, N. S., Bot. 52: 1. 1981 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Belemia fucsioides Pires

  • Boerhavia L., Sp. Pl. 1: 3. 1753 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Boerhavia erecta L.

  • Boerhavia, with c. 40 species, is distributed in warmtemperate and tropical regions worldwide (Spellenberg 2003) and has been recognized as a natural group by Douglas & Manos (2007). Several authors (Fay 1980; Spellenberg 2001, 2003) have highlighted that at the species level this is a taxonomically difficult group due to morphological variation. Especially among annuals of the Sonoran desert and the pantropical B. diffusa Vahl and B. coccinea Mill, complex (Spellenberg 2001, 2003), apparently factors such as wide dispersal, hybridization and autogamy have contributed to that variation (Fay 1980; Spellenberg 2001, 2003). The genus is in need of a critical revision.

  • Boldoa Cav. ex Lag. in Gen. Sp. Pl.: 9. 1816 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: not designated.

  • The genus is monotypic, with B. purpurascens Cav. ex Lag. distributed from Mexico and the Antilles to northern South America. Along with Cryptocarpus and Salpianthus, Boldoa is placed within the tribe Boldoeae (Douglas & Spellenberg 2010), and in several treatments (Standley 1911, 1918, 1931; Fay 1980; Pérez & al. 2000; Spellenberg 2001; Hernández-Ledesma & Flores 2003; González 2007) the genus has been included in the wide concept of the genus Salpianthus. Here we follow Bittrich & Kühn (1993) and Harling (2010), who consider them as separate genera because of differences of the perianth: Boldoa has a campanulate perianth (2–3.5 mm long) with glandular and uncinate hairs, Salpianthus has a tubular perianth (6–7 mm long) with straight hairs, while Cryptocarpus has a pyriform perianth (1.5–2 mm long). A revision and phylogenetic analysis including all the species of the tribe is necessary to evaluate the circumscription of the genera.

  • Bougainvillea Comm, ex Juss., Gen. Pl.: 91. 1789, nom. cons. sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Bougainvillea spectabilis Willd. — Fig. 5E.

  • Standley and Steyermark (1946) state that Bougainvillea contains c. 14 species native to South America, three of which were cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. According to Fay (1980), the genus includes ten species, but that author argued that artificial selection processes, hybridization and the spread of clonal variants have produced a complex pattern of variation only loosely related to any natural group. Gillis (1976) treated the bougainvilleas of cultivation, considering three species and one hybrid. The biology, artificial selection as well as the lack of a monographic treatment make it difficult to determine the current number of species.

  • Caribea Alain in Candollea 17: 113. 1960 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Caribea litoralis Alain

  • An endemic genus from Cuba that has a unique morphology among the Nyctaginaceae (Douglas & Spellenberg 2010). Caribea includes compact bushforming taprooted perennials characterized by opposite leaves forming a stipulariform sheath at the base (Bittrich & Kühn 1993; Douglas & Spellenberg 2010). Because the genus is known only from the type collection, the most recent classification system for the family (Douglas & Spellenberg 2010) included it in its own tribe, Caribeeae. It is awaiting its rediscovery in the field.

  • Cephalotomandra H. Karst. & Triana in Nuev. Jen. Esp.: 23. 1855 sec. Bittrich & Kühn ( 1993). — Type: Cephalotomandra fragrans H. Karst. & Triana

  • Colignonia Endl., Gen. Pl.: 311. 1837 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Colignonia parviflora (Kunth) Choisy

  • Commicarpus Standl, in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 373. 1909 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Commicarpus scandens (L.) Standl.

  • Cryptocarpus Kunth, Nov. Gen. Sp. (folio ed.) 2: 150. “1817” [1818] sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Cryptocarpus pyriformis Kunth

  • The genus is monotypic with C. pyriformis restricted to Ecuador, Peru, and the Galapagos Islands. For further information see notes under Boldoa.

  • Cuscatlania Standl. in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 13: 437. 1923 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Cuscatlania vulcanicola Standl.

  • A monotypic genus, C. vulcanicola is a perennial herb reported from El Salvador.

  • Cyphomeris Standl, in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 13: 428. 1911 sec. Mahrt & Spellenberg (1995). — Type: Cyphomeris gypsophiloides (M. Martens & Galeotti) Standl.

  • Grajalesia Miranda in Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. Nac. México 21: 299. 1951 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Grajalesia ferruginea Miranda

  • Guapira Aubl. in Hist. Pl. Guiane: 308. 1775 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Guapira guianensis Aubl. — Fig. 5F.

  • = Torrubia Vell., Fl. Flumin.: 139. “1825” [1829].

  • A neotropical genus with c. 70 species, distributed from southern Florida to South America and the Antilles. It is closely related to Neea, also being dioecious and having fleshy fruits. Both genera form a complex and their distinctness has been questioned by several authors (e.g. Standley 1931; Burger 1983; Pool 2001; Douglas & Manos 2007) because they are distinguished only by the presentation of the stamens, which are included in Neea and exserted in Guapira. In the phylogenetic analysis by Douglas & Manos (2007), the two genera form a clade in which both are paraphyletic; however those authors questioned if this result was the effect of their sampling (Guapira, two species; Neea, three species) or whether the paraphyly is due to the lack of resolution between both genera. Guapira needs a taxonomic revision and also needs to be evaluated in a phylogenetic analysis that includes an extensive sampling along with Neea.

  • Leucaster Choisy in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 457. 1849 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). Type: Leucaster cani-— florus (Mart.) Choisy

  • Mirabilis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 177. 1753 sec. Le Duc (1995). — Type: Mirabilis jalapa L.

  • = Oxybaphus Ľ Hér. ex Willd., Sp. Pl. (ed. 4): 170, 185. 1797.

  • = Quamoclidion Choisy in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 429. 1849.

  • = Allioniella Rydb. in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 29: 687. 1902.

  • = Hesperonia Standl. in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 12: 306, 360. 1909.

  • A genus with 50–60 American and one Asiatic species. It includes herbs, suffrutescent herbs and subshrubs characterized by the presence of involucres of accrescent bracts, often connate, which surround one or more flowers. Traditionally the genus was classified into six sections, some of them corresponding to previously separated genera. Molecular phylogenetic studies, which have mainly been focused on the North American species, support the monophyly of the genus (Levin 2000; Douglas & Manos 2007; P. Hernández-Ledesma & al., unpubl. data) but not the monophyly of the sections (P. Hernández-Ledesma & al., unpubl. data). In order to achieve a natural subgeneric classification, the South American species should be included in the sampling.

  • Neea Ruiz & Pav., Fl. Peruv. Prodr.: 52. 1794 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Neea verticillata Ruiz & Pav.

  • Neea shows extensive morphological variation in habit, leaves, pubescence, inflorescences, flowers and fruits (Burger 1983). Some authors (e.g. González 2007) have considered it the taxonomically least understood group in the Neotropics. Neea seems to be the most species-rich genus within Nyctaginaceae; Douglas & Spellenberg (2010) mentioned that the genus has c. 80 species. However, the lack of a revision, along with the morphological variation and dioecy, has generated many species names (c. 150), whereas the actual number of species remains uncertain. For further information see notes under Guapira.

  • Neeopsis Lundell in Wrightia 5: 241. 1976 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993).— Type: Neeopsis flavifolia (Lundell) Lundell

  • Nyctaginia Choisy in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 429. 1849 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Nyctaginia capitata Choisy

  • Okenia Schltdl. & Cham. in Linnaea 5: 92. 1830 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Okenia hypogaea Schltdl. & Cham.

  • Phaeoptilum Radik, in Abh. Naturwiss. Vereins Bremen 8: 435. 1883 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Phaeoptilum spinosum Radlk.

  • Pisonia L., Sp. Pl. 1753 1: 1026. 1753 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Pisonia aculeata L. — Fig. 5G.

  • = Ceodes J. R. Forst. & G. Forst., Char. Gen. Pl., ed. 2: 141. 1776.

  • = Calpidia Thouars, Hist. Vég. Isles Austral. Afriq.: 37. 1805.

  • = Rockia Heimerl in Gesterr. Bot. Z. 63: 289. 1913.

  • = Heimerlia Skottsb. in Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 30: 738. 1936 = Heimerliodendron Skottsb. in Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 35: 364. 1941.

  • This genus includes shrubs, trees and woody climbers characterized by stout spines on the stems and coriaceous fruits with stipitate glands. Its distribution is pantropical with a centre of diversity in the Neotropics. Molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Douglas & Manos 2007; León de la Luz & Levin 2012) supported the monophyly of Pisonia, although the genus was poorly sampled in both studies. Pisonia has not been monographed, and the number of species is uncertain; some treatments considered 40 species (e.g. Spellenberg 2001; DeFilipps & Maina 2003; González 2007) whereas others (e.g. Spellenberg 2003) considered a range between 10–50 species; in the literature there are numerous accepted and unresolved names.

  • Pisoniella (Heimerl) Standl, in Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 13: 385. 1911 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993) ≡ Pisonia sect. Pisoniella Heimerl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(lb): 29. 1889. — Type: Pisoniella arborescens (Lag. & Rodr.) Standl.

  • Ramisia Glaz. ex Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(88): 697. 1887 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Ramisia reclinata Glaz.

  • Reichenbachia Spreng, in Bull. Soc. Philom. 1823: 54. 1823 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Reichenbachia hirsuta Spreng.

  • Salpianthus Bonpl., Pl. Aequinoct. 1(6): 154. 1807 sec. Bittrich & Kühn (1993). — Type: Salpianthus arenarius Bonpl.

  • The genus includes shrubs with alternate leaves, a four- or five-lobed tubular petaloid perianth with straight glandular hairs, three to four long-exserted stamens and a linear style (Bittrich & Kühn 1993). Three species are recognized following this concept: S. aequalis Standi., S. arenarius and S. macrodontus Standi., all of them with restricted distributions in Mexico. Salpianthus was assumed to be monophyletic by Douglas & Manos (2007); however, only S. arenarius was included in their study. For further information see notes under Boldoa.

  • Tripterocalyx (Torr.) Hook. in Hooker's J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 5: 261. 1853 sec. Galloway (2003) ≡ Abronia [unranked] Tripterocalyx Torr., Rep. Exped. Rocky Mts.: 96. 1843. Type: Tripterocalyx micranthus (Torr.) Hook.

  • Physenaceae Takht. sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with two species endemic to Madagascar (Dickison 2003). Traditionally, the only genus Physena was placed in Capparales/Capparaceae (e.g. Pax & Hoffmann 1936) or Flacourtiaceae (e.g. Perrier de la Bâthie 1946). Later, it was considered as a family of its own and placed in the order Sapindales (e.g. Takhtajan 1980, 1987) and was then even transferred to the separate order Physenales (e.g. Takhtajan 1997). However, already the early molecular phylogenetic studies of Morton & al. (1997) showed the affinities of Physenaceae with Caryophyllales and its close relationship to Asteropeiaceae. These results were confirmed by subsequent molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Brockington 2009, 2011; Soltis & al. 2011). The relationship between Asteropeiaceae and Physenaceae is also supported by wood-anatomical characters. For further information see notes under Asteropeiaceae. Physena Noronha ex Thouars in Gen. Nov. Madagasc.:

  • 6. 1806 sec. Dickison (2003). — Type: Physena madagascariensis Thouars ex Tul.

  • Phytolaccaceae R. Br. sec. apg (2009).

  • This family comprises herbs, trees or lianas distributed mainly in the Americas, including the Antilles, but with some members distributed in Australia and New Caledonia. They are characterized by styloids, elongate crystals, racemes or spikes and four or five tepals (Rohwer 1993a; Stevens 2001 onwards). The circumscription of the family has long been controversial. Following the treatment by Rohwer (1993a), Phytolaccaceae have been disintegrated step by step according to the results of molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2011), which have shown that the subfamilies Agdestioideae, Barbeuioideae and Microteoideae (sec. Rohwer 1993a) are well-supported independent lineages. Therefore, these taxa are now treated at family level (see further notes under those families). These studies have also shown that Phytolaccaceae s.l. comprising the subfamilies Phytolaccoideae and Rivinoideae (sec. Rohwer 1993a) are not monophyletic. The most recent study by Brockington & al. (2011) included most of the genera recognized in these subfamilies and showed that the Phytolaccoideae (= Phytolaccaceae s.str.) represents a well-supported independent lineage, while the support for Rivinoideae is present but weak. Recent studies (J. Petersen, T. Borsch & P. Hernández-Ledesma, unpubl. data) show that the latter is probably more closely related to Nyctaginaceae than to Phytolaccaceae s.str. Rivinaceae have been recognized as an independent family within Caryophyllales by Stevens (2001 onwards). However, the correct family name for a clade that includes the genera Petiveria and Rivina would have to be Petiveriaceae C. Agardh (1824) and not Rivinaceae C. Agardh (1824). Both family names were published in the same work (Agardh 1824) but Meissner (1836) included Rivina under Petiveriaceae separate from Phytolaccaceae. This gives priority to Petiveriaceae. The taxon has a complicated taxonomic history. In some early treatments members were classified either within Phytolaccaceae and distinct from Petiveriaceae C. Agardh (Lindley 1853), or vice versa (e.g. Hutchinson 1959; Brown & Varadarajan 1985), or at an infrafamiliar or infrageneric level within Phytolaccaceae (e.g. Petiverieae, Rivineae, Rivinoideae) (including Petiveria and related genera) (e.g. Heimerl 1889, 1934; Rohwer 1993a).

  • Anisomeria D. Don in Edinb. N. Phil. Journ. 13: 238. 1832 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Anisomeria coriacea D. Don

  • Ercilla A. Juss. in Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 25: 11. 1832 sec.

  • Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Ercilla volubilis A. Juss.

  • Gallesia Casar, in Nov. Stirp. Bras. Dec. 5: 43. 1843 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Gallesia scorodendrum Casar.

  • Hilleria Vell, in F1. Flumin.: 47. 1829 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Hilleria elastica Vell.

  • = Mohlana Mart., Nov. Gen. Sp. P1. 3: 170. 1829.

  • Ledenbergia Klotzsch ex Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 4, 14. 1849 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Ledenbergia seguierioides Klotzsch ex Moq.

  • = Flueckigera Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 550. 1891.

  • Monococcus F. Muell., Fragm. 1: 46. 1858 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Monococcus echinophorus F. Muell.

  • Petiveria L., Sp. Pl. 1: 342. 1753 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Petiveria alliacea L.

  • Phytolacca L., Sp. Pl. 1: 441. 1753 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Phytolacca americana L.

  • = Nowickea J. Martínez & J. A. McDonald in Brittonia 41: 399. 1989.

  • Phytolacca comprises 25–35 species of perennial herbs, shrubs and trees distributed in North and South America, eastern Asia and New Zealand. The genus Nowickea is here included; it was characterized by a well-developed gynophore, green herbaceous and often elongated tepals and obovoid or obpyriform fruits with narrowly ellipsoid seeds (Martínez & McDonald 1989). Since its publication, the genus was known only from the type and considered as distinct from Phytolacca. However, Cruz & Alcántara (2000) described several anomalous characteristics in P. icosandra L. and showed similarities with Nowickea. Recently, Ramírez-Amezcua & Steinmann (2013) showed that the Nowickea species correspond to anomalous plants of P. icosandra: the evidence was based on specimens showing the characteristic flowers of P. icosandra along with anomalous flowers (in one plant) showing the distinctive characteristics of Nowickea.

  • Rivina L., Sp. Pl. 1: 121. 1753 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Rivina humilis L. — Fig. 6A.

  • Schindleria H. Walter in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 37, Beibl. 85: 24. 1906 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: not designated.

  • Seguieria Loefl., Iter. Hispan.: 191. 1758 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Seguieria americana L.

  • Trichostigma A. Rich, in Hist. Fis. Cuba 10: 306. 1845 sec. Rohwer (1993a). — Type: Trichostigma rivinoides A. Rich. — Fig. 6B.

  • = Villamilla Ruiz & Pav. ex Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 10. 1849.

  • Plumbaginaceae Juss. sec. apg (2009).

  • A cosmopolitan family of perennial herbs or shrubs, rarely climbers, mainly distributed in the temperate zones of the northern hemisphere, especially in the Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian regions but also in southern Africa, southern South America and Western Australia. The family comprises 25–30 genera and 650–1000 species, which predominantly occur in arid and saline environments and often in coastal habitats. The family is characterized by flowers that have stamens opposite the petals and a single basal anatropous ovule with a curled funicle. Molecular studies based on different markers have shown that Plumbaginaceae are well supported as monophyletic family within Caryophyllales and sister to Polygonaceae (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003). Lledó & al. (1998, 2001) confirmed the classification of Plumbaginaceae into two subfamilies, Limonioideae and Plumbaginoideae, well differentiated by morphological, chemical and molecular characters. Plumbaginoideae are mostly distributed in the pan tropical region and comprise four genera; Plumbago with c. 20 species is the largest. Limonioideae have diversified in regions with a Mediterranean climate and are morphologically more diverse. This sub-family is divided into two tribes: Aegialitideae (one genus with two species) and Limonieae. Most species of Limonieae (> 85%) are grouped into three genera: Acantholimon, Armeria and Limonium, while the remaining species belong to monotypic or small genera (Kubitzki 1993b) mostly segregated from Acantholimon and Limonium. The status of most of these genera is unclear; generic concepts and relationships are in need of revision.

  • Acantholimon Boiss. in Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 1, 7: 69. 1846, nom. cons. sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Acantholimon glumaceum (Jaub. & Spach) Boiss. — Fig. 6C.

  • A large genus of cushion-forming subshrubs; 150–200 species (including many narrow endemics) distributed from southeastern Europe to central Asia, centred in the mountainous regions of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan (Kubitzki 1993b). The study by Lledó & al. (2005) included only one representative of Acantholimon, which was recovered in a clade together with Cephalorhizum and Dictyolimon. Moharrek & al. (2014) studied 50 species Acantholimon from Iran. Due to the unresolved position of Cephalorhizum turcomanicum Popov (found either as sister to Acantholimon or nested within it), monophyly of Acantholimon is uncertain. Old sections of Acantholimon were not found as monophyletic (Moharrek & al. 2014).

  • Aegialitis R. Br., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 426. 1810 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Aegialitis annulata R. Br. A genus of two woody mangrove species (shrubs or small trees); one native to southeastern Asia, the other native to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Sister to the rest of Limonioideae (Lledó & al. 2001, 2005) and placed in the monogeneric tribe Aegialitideae (Lledó & al. 2001).

  • Afrolimon Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 16: 168. 1979 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Afrolimon peregrinum (P. J. Bergius) Lincz. A group of about ten species from the Cape region of South Africa. Two representatives sampled by Lledó & al. (2005; A. peregrinum, A. purpuratum Lincz.) were found nested within Limonium. According to these results, the status as a distinct genus can not be maintained.

  • Armeria Willd., Enum. Pl: 333. 1809, nom. cons. sec. Kubitzki (1993b) = Statice L., Sp. Pl. 1: 274. 1753. — Type: Armeria vulgaris Willd. — Fig. 6D.

  • A genus of c. 90 species, found in temperate regions of the northern hemisphere and in South America (Chile, Tierra del Fuego); a centre of distribution is the Iberian Peninsula (Nieto Feliner 1990). Monophyly of Armeria is supported by several studies (Lledó & al. 2005; Moharrek & al. 2014). Fuertes Aguilar & Nieto Feliner (2003) discussed the reticulate evolution in Armeria.

  • Bakerolimon Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 1968: 175. 1968 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Bakerolimon plumosum (Phil.) Lincz.

  • Two species, distributed in the deserts of Chile and Peru. One sampled species was found in a clade together with Armeria-Psylliostachys, Myriolimon and Saharanthus (Lledó & al. 2005).

  • Bamiania Lincz. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 56: 1634. 1971 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Bamiania pachycorma (Rech. f.) Lincz.

  • Monotypic; from Afghanistan. No sequence data are available for this species yet.

  • Bukiniczia Lincz. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 56: 1634. 1971 sec. Kubitzki (1993b) = Aeoniopsis Rech. f., Fl. Iran. 108: 24. 1974. — Type: Bukiniczia cabulica (Boiss.) Lincz.

  • Monotypic; B. cabulica is distributed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not yet included in molecular studies.

  • Cephalorhizum Popov & Korovin in Trudy Turkestansk. Nauen. Obsc. 1: 39. 1923 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: not designated.

  • Two(?) species from Afghanistan and central Asia. One species was sampled (C. coelicolor (Rech. f.) Rech. f.) and found in a clade together with Acantholimon acerosum (Willd.) Boiss. and Dictyolimon macrorrhabdos (Boiss.) Rech. f. (Lledó & al. 2005). Sequence data for C. turcomanicum Popov were generated by Akhani & al. (2013).

  • Ceratolimon M. B. Crespo & Lledó in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 169. 2000 sec. Crespo & Lledó (2000). — Type: Ceratolimon feei (Girard) M. B. Crespo & Lledó

  • = Bubania Girard in Mém. Sect. Sci. Acad. Sci. Montpellier 1: 182. 1848, nom. illeg.

  • = Limoniastrum sect. Bubania Batt., Fl. Algkr. (Dicot.): 726. 1890 = Limoniastrum subg. Bubania (Batt.) Maire in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 27: 247. 1936.

  • Ceratolimon, a segregate from Limoniastrum, includes four species of dwarf shrubs with disjunct distributions on the Atlantic and Indian Ocean edges of the Sahara Desert (Crespo & Lledó 2000). Three species sampled by Lledó & al. (2000) formed a well-supported clade, that is sister to Limoniastrum.

  • Ceratostigma Bunge, Enum. Pl. China Bor.: 55. 1833 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Ceratostigma plumbaginoides Bunge

  • = Valoradia Hochst, in Flora 25(1): 239. 1842.

  • A genus of about eight species; distributed in Asia, especially in China and the Himalayas; one species in eastern Africa.

  • Chaetolimon (Bunge) Lincz. in Trudy Tadzikisk. Bazy 8: 586. 1940 sec. Kubitzki (1993b) = Acantholimon sect. Chaetolimon Bunge in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 18(2): 68. 1872. — Type: Chaetolimon sogdianum Lincz.

  • Dictyolimon Rech. f. in Fl. Iran. 108: 21. 1974 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Dictyolimon macrorrhabdos (Boiss.) Rech. f.

  • Four species distributed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. One representative was sampled (D. macrorrhabdos) and found in a clade together with Acantholimon acerosum (Willd.) Boiss. and Cephalorhizum coelicolor (Rech. f.) Rech. f. (Lledó & al. 2005).

  • Dyerophytum Kuntze in Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 394. 1891 sec. Kubitzki (1993b) = Vogelia Lam., Tabl. Encycl. 2: 147. 1792, nom. illeg. — Type: Dyerophytum africanum (Lam.) Kuntze

  • Three species of shrubs or subshrubs; from India, Arabia, Socotra and southern Africa.

  • Ghaznianthus Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 16: 167. 1979 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Ghaznianthus rechingeri (Freitag) Lincz.

  • Monotypic; from Afghanistan. No sequence data are available yet.

  • Gladiolimon Mobayen in Revis. Taxon. Acanthol.: 296. 1964 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Gladiolimon speciosissimum (Aitch. & Hemsl.) Mobayen

  • Monotypic; distributed in Afghanistan. No sequence data are available yet.

  • Goniolimon Boiss. in Candolle, Prodr. 12: 632. 1848 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: not designated.

  • Ikonnikovia Lincz. in Fl. URSS 18: 745. 1952 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Ikonnikovia kaufmanniana (Regel) Lincz.

  • Monotypic; distributed in central Asia. No sequence data are available yet.

  • Limoniastrum Fabr. in Enum. Meth. Pl. Hort. Helmstad: 25. 1759 sec. Crespo & Lledó (2000). — Type: Limoniastrum articulatum Moench

  • Only two species, Limoniastrum guyonianum Boiss. and L. monopetalum (L.) Boiss., distributed in the Mediterranean region. Narrow circumscription (see Crespo & Lledó 2000) based on results from Lledó & al. (2000).

  • Limoniopsis Lincz. in Fl. URSS 18: 744. 1952 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Limoniopsis owerinii (Boiss.) Lincz.

  • Two species, Limoniopsis davisii Bokhari and L. owerinii, distributed in eastern Turkey and Caucasia, respectively. Not yet sampled in any molecular studies.

  • Limonium Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [1328]. 1754, nom. cons. sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Limonium vulgare Mill.

  • = Eremolimon Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 22: 200. 1985.

  • The largest genus of the family with an estimated c. 350 species with a preference for coastal habitats; distributed worldwide but mainly in the Mediterranean region. Afrolimon was shown to be nested in Limonium and related to L. vulgare, the type of Limonium (Lledó & al. 2005). Limonium is divided into two major clades corresponding to subgenera, but otherwise the current infrageneric classification proved to be artificial (Lledó & al. 2005). Akhani & al. (2013) studied the Irano-Turanian taxa of Limonium. They stated that segregation of Eremolimon is not supported by morphology or molecular data (Akhani & al. 2013). Evolutionary studies of this group are complicated by hybridization, many microspecies and apomictic taxa.

  • Muellerolimon Lincz. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 67: 675. 1982 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Muellerolimon salicorniaceum (F. Muell.) Lincz.

  • Monotypic genus; halophytic M. salicorniaceum distributed in Western Australia. Related to Goniolimon (Lledó & al. 2005).

  • Myriolimon Lledó & al. in Taxon 54: 811. 2005 sec. APG (2009) ≡ Statice sect. Myriolepis Boiss. in Candolle, Prodr. 12: 667. 1848 ≡ Limonium sect. Myriolepis (Boiss.) Sauvage & Vindt, Fl. Maroc 1: 47, 74. 1952

  • Limonium subg. Myriolepis (Boiss.) Pignatti in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 64: 361. 1971 = Myriolepis (Boiss.) Lledó & al. in Taxon 52: 71. 2003, nom. illeg. — Type: Myriolimon ferulaceum (L.) Lledó & al.

  • Two species distributed along the central and western coasts of the Mediterranean region.

  • Neogontscharovia Lincz. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 56: 1633. 1971 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Neogontscharovia miranda (Lincz.) Lincz.

  • Plumbagella Spach in Hist. Nat. Vég. 10: 333. 1841 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Plumbagella micrantha (Ledeb.) Boiss.

  • Monotypic; distributed in central Asia.

  • Plumbago L., Sp. Pl. 1: 151. 1753 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Plumbago europaea L.

  • A genus of 10–20 species (“leadworts”) with pantropical distribution.

  • Popoviolimon Lincz. in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 56: 1633. 1971 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Popoviolimon turcomanicum (Popov ex Lincz.) Lincz.

  • Monotypic; distributed in Turkmenistan. No sequence data are available yet.

  • Psylliostachys (Jaub. & Spach) Nevski in Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Náuk S. S. S. R., Ser. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyss. Rast 4: 314. 1937 sec. Kubitzki (1993b) ≡ Statice subg. Psylliostachys Jaub. & Spach, I11. Pl. Orient. 1: 158. 1844.

  • — Type: Psylliostachys spicata (Willd.) Nevski Two or three species; distributed in Asia (former Soviet central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan). Psylliostachys species formed a well-supported clade (Moharrek & al. 2014) and were shown to be sister to representatives of Armeria (Lledó & al. 2001, 2005; Moharrek & al. 2014).

  • Saharanthus M. B. Crespo & Lledó in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 169. 2000 sec. Crespo & Lledó (2000) ≡ Caballeroa Font Quer in Cavanillesia 7: 150. 1935, nom. inval. ≡ Lerrouxia Caball. in Trab. Mus. Nac. Ci. Nat., Ser. Bot., 28: 13. 1935, nom. illeg. — Type: Saharanthus ifniensis (Caball.) M. B. Crespo & Lledó

  • Monotypic genus; distributed in the western Sahara Desert. Segregated from Limoniastrum based on results from Lledó & al. (2000); was found in a clade together with Armeria-Psylliostachys, Bakerolimon and Myriolimon (Lledó & al. 2005).

  • Vassilczenkoa Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 16: 166. 1979 sec. Kubitzki (1993b). — Type: Vassilczenkoa sogdiana (Lincz.) Lincz.

  • Polygonaceae Juss. sec. APG (2009).

  • The Polygonaceae are a morphologically diverse clade containing more than 50 genera and 1200 species. The family is a monophyletic group with the morphological synapomorphies of an ocrea, orthotropous ovules, (usually) trigonous achenes and quincuncial aestivation (Judd & al. 2007). Polygonaceae are distributed worldwide and are present in almost all ecosystems ranging from tropical rainforests to alpine regions and tundra (Brandbyge 1993; Sanchez & al. 2009). Burke & Sanchez (2011), based on phylogenetic data, recognized three subfamilies: Eriogonoideae, Polygonoideae and Symmerioideae. Polygonoideae were considered non-monophyletic in previous studies (Lamb Frye & Kron 2003; Sanchez & Kron 2008), but a new circumscription by Sanchez & al. (2011) supported a monophyletic subfamily including the type genus Polygonum and other genera such as Atraphaxis, Fagopyrum, Fallopia, Koenigia, Muehlenbeckia, Oxyria, Persicaria, Rheum and Rumex; whereby Eriogonoideae was expanded to include currently recognized Antigonon, Coccoloba, Ruprechtia, Triplaris and other members of the woody genera previously included in Polygonoideae (Sanchez & Kron 2009; Burke & al. 2010). It is important to mention that much work is still needed within the tribe Eriogoneae (or Eriogonoideae s.str.), since most of the recognized genera have no support as being monophyletic (Kempton 2012). Symmerioideae is monotypic and the only species recognized is Symmeria paniculata Benth.; this subfamily shows a unique trans-Atlantic disjunction, in the Amazon Basin and western Africa, which needs further study (Burke & Sanchez 2011).

  • Acanthoscyphus Small in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 25: 53. 1898 sec. Reveal (2005). — Type: Acantho scyphus parishii (Parry) Small

  • Aconogonon (Meisn.) Rchb. in Handb. Nat. Pfl.-Syst.: 236. 1837 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Aconogonon alpinum (All.) Schur

  • Afrobrunnichia Hutch. & Dalziel in Fl. W. Trop. Afr. [Hutchinson & Dalziel] 1: 118. 1927 sec. Sanchez & Kron (2009). — Type: Afrobrunnichia erecta (Asch.) Hutch. & Dalziel

  • Antigonon Endl., Gen. Pl.: 310. 1837 sec. Brandbyge (1993) = Corculum (Endl.) Stuntz in Bull. Bur. Pl. Industr. U. S. D. A. 282: 86. 1913. — Type: Antigonon leptopus Hook. & Am.

  • The genus Antigonon, with three to six species, consists of woody or herbaceous perennial lianas that grow in Mexico and Central America, with the exception of A. leptopus Hook. & Arn., which is widely cultivated as an ornamental (Brandbyge 1993). Sanchez & Kron (2009), Sanchez & al. (2009), Burke & al. (2010) and Burke & Sanchez (2011), based on consistent and highly supported molecular data, proposed that Antigonon and Brunnichia, two genera with suffrutescent habit and tendril-bearing lianas, are clearly distinguished from the rest of the subfamily Eriogonoideae. According to Brandbyge (1993), the described species are poorly defined and a taxonomic revision is needed.

  • Aristocapsa Reveal & Hardham in Phytologia 66: 84. 1989 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Aristocapsa insignis (Curran) Reveal & Hardham

  • Atraphaxis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 333. 1753 sec. Schuster & al. (2011a). — Type: Atraphaxis spinosa L.

  • Bistorta Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 277, 525. 1763 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Bistorta major Gray

  • Brunnichia Banks ex Gaertn. in Fruct. Sem. Pl. 1: 213. 1788 sec. Sanchez & Kron (2009). — Type: Brunnichia cirrhosa Gaertn.

  • Calligonum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 530. 1753 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Calligonum polygonoides L.

  • Centrostegia A. Gray ex Benth. in Candolle, Prodr. 14: 27. 1856 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Centrostegia thurberi A. Gray ex Benth.

  • Chorizanthe R. Br. ex Benth. in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 17: 405, 416. 1836 sec. Reveal (2005). — Type: Chorizanthe virgata Benth.

  • = Acanthogonum Torr, in Pacif. Rail. Rep. 4: 132. 1856.

  • = Eriogonella Goodman in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 21: 90. 1934.

  • Coccoloba P. Browne in Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 209. 1756, nom. cons. sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Coccoloba uvifera (L.) L. — Fig. 6E & F.

  • = Guaiabara Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [590]. 1754. Coccoloba includes c. 120 Neotropical species, which are grouped in four areas with distinguished endemism: the Antilles, Central America, northern South America and the Amazon region of Brazil (Stohr 1982; Brandbyge 1993). The presence of an ocrea (also ochrea), flowers with five tepals and eight stamens and the globose or trigonous achenes are the fundamental characteristics that support the relationships among Coccoloba, Neomillspauhia and Podopterus (Sanchez & Kron 2009; Burke & al. 2010; Burke & Sanchez 2011). The particular ecological conditions and ecological isolation of the Antilles allow inferring a radiation, mainly in Cuba and Hispaniola, with c. 40 endemic species; however, there is no biogeographic hypothesis for the genus. Currently, Coccoloba is classified in several sections, which have not been phylogenetically evaluated.

  • Dedeckera Reveal & J. T. Howell in Brittonia 28: 245. 1976 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Dedeckera eurekensis Reveal & J. T. Howell

  • Dodecahema Reveal & Hardham in Phytologia 66: 86. 1989 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Dodecahema leptoceras (A. Gray) Reveal & Hardham

  • Duma T. M. Schust, in Int. J. Plant. Sci. 172: 1053. 2011 sec. Schuster & al. (2011b). — Type: Duma florulenta (Meisn.) T. M. Schust.

  • A new genus segregated form Muehlenbeckia, based on the molecular study by Schuster & al. (2011). The genus comprises three species restricted to Australia, and is characterized by erect shrubs with thornlike branches. This habit it not found in any other Muehlenbeckia (as studied by Schuster & al. 2011). In addition, Duma does not possess extrafloral nectaries at the petiole base, which are present in most species of Fallopia, Muehlenbeckia and Reynoutria.

  • Emex Campd. in Monogr. Rumex: 56. 1819, nom. cons, sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Emex spinosa (L.) Campd.

  • Eriogonum Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 246. 1803 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Eriogonum tomentosum Michx.

  • = Pterogonum H. Gross in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 49: 239. 1913.

  • = Sanmartinia M. Buchinger in Com. Inst. Nac. Invest. Cienc. Nat., Buenos Aires, Cienc. Bot. 1: 5. 1950.

  • Eskemukerjea Malick & Sengupta in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 11: 433. 1972 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Eskemukerjea nepalensis Malick & Sengupta

  • This genus has been considered as a synonym of Fagopyrum, based on pollen morphology (Hong 1988). However, recent molecular analyses did not place it in Fagopyrum (Ohsako & al. 2001; Galasso & al. 2009; Sanchez & al. 2011). Since there are morphological characters that suggest placement in Fagopyrum, but no molecular evidence for that relationship, Eskemukerjea was left as incertae sedis by Sanchez & al. (2011).

  • Fagopyrum Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [495]. 1754, nom. cons. sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Fagopyrum esculentum Moench

  • = Harpagocarpus Hutch. & Dandy in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1926: 364. 1926.

  • = Parapteropyrum A. J. Li in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 19: 330. 1981.

  • Fallopia Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 277, 557. 1763 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Polygonum scandens L.

  • = Bilderdykia Dumort., Fl. Belg. 1: 18. 1827.

  • = Pleuropterus Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 21: 587. 1848.

  • Gilmania Coville in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 26: 210. 1936 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Gilmania luteola (Coville) Coville

  • Goodmania Reveal & Ertter in Brittonia 28: 427. 1977 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Goodmania luteola (Parry) Reveal & Ertter

  • Gymnopodium Rolfe in Hooker's Icon. Pl.: t. 2699. 1901 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Gymnopodium floribundum Rolfe

  • = Millspaughia B. L. Rob. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 36(3, Beibl. 80): 13. 1905.

  • The genus Gymnopodium was originally described with three species, growing as shrubs or small trees on limestone soils in Belize, Guatemala, and the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico (Blake 1921; Brandbyge 1993). Sanchez & al. (2009) and Burke & al. (2010) showed that Gymnopodium is strongly supported as monophyletic in the subfamily Eriogonoideae (sec. Burke & Sanchez 2011); based on leaf shape and pubescence characters, the genus should be recognized with only one polymorphic species (Burke & Sanchez 2011).

  • Harfordia Greene & Parry in Proc. Davenport Acad. Nat. Sci. 5: 27. 1886 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Harfordia macroptera (Benth.) Greene & Parry

  • Hollisteria S. Watson in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 14: 296. 1879 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Hollisteria lanata S. Watson

  • Johanneshowellia Reveal in Brittonia 56: 299. 2004 sec. APG (2009). — Type: not designated.

  • Knorringia (Czukav.) Tzvelev in Nov. Syst. Pl. Vas. 24: 76. 1987 sec. Sanchez & al. (2011) = Polygonum sect. Aconogonon Meisn., Monogr. Polyg.: 43, 55. 1826 = Polygonum sect. Knorringia Czukav. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 3: 92–93. 1966 = Aconogonon sect. Knorringia (Czukav.) Soják in Preslia 46: 151. 1974. — Type: Knorringia sibirica (Laxm.) Tzvelev The genus was segregated from Polygonum s.l. (or from Aconogonum) and placed in the Coccolobeae by Hong (1989). Later on it was included within Persicaria (Persicarieae) by Brandbyge (1993) and after that considered as incertae sedis within Polygoneae by Galasso & al. (2009). Its isolated position from Persicaria was statistically well supported by molecular data in Sanchez & al. (2011). The taxon is sister to the remaining members of the Polygoneae, with which it shares characters such as tepal nervature, structure of the exocarp and pollen morphology (Galasso & al. 2009).

  • Koenigia L., Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 3, 35. 1767 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Koenigia islandica L.

  • Lastarriaea J. Rémy, Fl. Chil. 5: 289. 1851–1852 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Lastarriaea chilensis J. Rémy

  • Leptogonum Benth., Gen. Pl. 3(1): 103. 1880 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Leptogonum domingensis Benth.

  • Leptogonum is an interesting genus of small trees or shrubs, endemic to Hispaniola (Liogier 1983; Brandbyge 1989). In Burke & al. (2010), this genus was placed in the subfamily Eriogonoideae and recognized as its own subtribe Leptogoneae (Burke & Sanchez 2011), based on the lack of accrescent tepals in the fruit, the reduction to three stamens, and the leaves clustered at the stem apices.

  • Magoniella Adr. Sanchez in Syst. Bot. 36: 708. 2011 sec. Sanchez & al. (2011). — Type: Magoniella obidensis (Huber) Adr. Sanchez

  • This recently published genus comprises two species distributed in Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela, and it was segregated from Ruprechtia based on molecular and morphological characters (Sanchez & Kron 2011). Magoniella is characterized by a strict lianaceous habit, and it shares with Salta and Triplaris the presence of a scar at the base of the perianth in the fruit.

  • Mucronea Benth. in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 17: 405, 419. 1836 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Mucronea californica Benth.

  • Muehlenbeckia Meisn., Pl. Vasc. Gen. 1: 227. 1841, nom. cons. sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Muehlenbeckia australis (G. Forst.) Meisn.

  • = Homalocladium (F. Muell.) L. H. Bailey in Gentes Herb. 2: 56. 1929.

  • Nemacaulis Nutt, in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 4: 18. 1848 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Nemacaulis denudata Nutt.

  • Neomillspaughia S. F. Blake in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 48: 84. 1921 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Neomillspaughia paniculata (Donn. Sm.) S. F. Blake

  • With only two recognized species, the genus is restricted to the dry forests of Mexico and Central America (Brandbyge 1993; Burke & al. 2010). Previous to their assignment to a new genus by Blake (1921), species of Neomillspaughia had been placed in either Campderia Benth. (Donnell Smith 1899) or Podopterus (Gross 1913). Roberty & Vautier (1964) included Neomillspaughia in the genus Podopterus; however, based on molecular data, Neomillspaughia receives strong support as sister to Coccoloba (Sanchez & al. 2009; Burke & al. 2010).

  • Oxygonum Burch, ex Campd. in Monogr. Rumex: 18. 1819 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Oxygonum alatum Burch.

  • Oxygonum comprises c. 35 species and is confined to the African continent and Madagascar (Graham 1957; Ortiz & Paiva 1999). Several studies have placed the genus in Polygoneae (Haraldson 1978; Brandbyge 1993; Hong & al. 1998; Galasso & al. 2009); however, Haraldson (1978) suggested a close affinity to Fagopyrum and genera in Rumiceae. Rouse Decraene & Akeroyd (1988) suggested an affinity with Polygonum. Oxygonum has not been sampled in any molecular study; therefore it was left as incertae sedis by Sanchez & al. (2011).

  • Oxyria Hill in Veg. Syst. 10: 24. 1765 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Oxyria digyna (L.) Hill

  • Oxytheca Nutt, in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 4: 16. 1848 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Oxytheca dendroidea Nutt.

  • Persicaria Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [1054]. 1754 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Persicaria maculosa Gray

  • = Tovara Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 276, 612. 1763.

  • = Antenoron Raf., Fl. Ludov.: 28. 1817.

  • = Echinocaulon (Meisn.) Spach, Hist. Nat. Vég. 10: 521. 1841.

  • = Cephalophilum Meisn. ex Börner in Bot. Syst. Not. 276. 1912.

  • = Physopyrum Popov in Ind. Sem. Hort. Bot. Almaat. Acad. Sci. URSS. 2: 23. 1935.

  • Podopterus Bonpl., Pl. Aequinoct. 2: 89. 1812 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Podopterus mexicanus Bonpl. Podopterus includes three species restricted to Mexico and Guatemala (Brandbyge 1993). The genus has strong morphological affinities to Neomillspaugia and Coccoloba, based on habit and the presence of five tepals (Burke & al. 2010). Although the placement of Podopterus is not well supported, Burke & Sanchez (2011) included the genus in the tribe Coccolobeae alongside Coccoloba and Neomillspaughia. Neomillspaughia and Podopterus share the presence of accrescent and membranous inner tepals (Blake 1921; Roberty & Vautier 1984).

  • Polygonum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 359.1753, nom. cons. sec. Schuster & al. (2011a). — Type: Polygonum aviculare L.

  • = Polygonella Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 240. 1803.

  • Pteropyrum Jaub. & Spach, I11. Pl. Orient. 2: 7. 1844 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Pteropyrum aucheri Jaub. & Spach

  • Pterostegia Fisch. & C. A. Mey. in Index Seminum [St. Petersburg] 2: 23. 1835 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Pterostegia drymarioides Fisch. & C. A. Mey.

  • Pteroxygonum Dammer & Diels in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 36: 36. 1905 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Pteroxygonum giraldii Dammer & Diels

  • A monotypic genus found in China. The genus was considered part of Fagopyrum (Haraldson 1978; Ronse Decraene & Akeroyd 1988) but molecular studies do not support this placement (Sun & al. 2008; Sanchez & al. 2009; Tavakkoli & al. 2010). Sun & al. (2008) suggested that this genus should be placed in Persicarieae, but in Sanchez & al. (2009) the position is unresolved. In Tavakkoli & al. (2010) there is conflicting placement of Pteroxygonum depending on the gene region. Therefore, Sanchez & al. (2011) decided to leave this genus as incertae sedis.

  • Reynoutria Houtt., Nat. Hist. 2(8): 639. 1777 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Reynoutria japonica Houtt.

  • Rheum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 371. 1753 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Rheum rhaponticum L.

  • Rubrivena M. Král in Preslia 57(1): 65. 1985 sec. Brandbyge (1993) = Persicaria sect. Rubrivena (M. Král) S. P. Hong in Pl. Syst. Evol. 186: 112. 1993. — Type: Rubrivena polystachya (Wall, ex Meisn.) M. Král

  • A monotypic genus distributed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and China (Qaiser 2001). The taxonomy of Rubrivena is complex; its members have been included in Polygonum (P. polystachyum; Li & al. 2003) and Persicaria (P. wallichii; Freeman 2005), and both names are accepted by Tropicos (undated). However, based on molecular studies, the placement of Rubrivena is strongly supported as sister to Aconogonon and Koenigia (Sanchez & al. 2011).

  • Rumex L., Sp. Pl. 1: 333. 1753 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Rumex patientia L.

  • = Acetosella (Raf.) Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon ser. 2, 17: 145. 1869.

  • = Bucephalophora Pau in Not. Bot. Fl. Españ. 1: 24. 1887.

  • = Acetosa Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: [unpaged]. 1754.

  • Ruprechtia C. A. Mey. in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St-Pétersbourg, Sér. 6, Sci. Math., Seconde Pt. Sci. Nat. 6: 148. 1840 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Ruprechtia ramiflora (Jacq.) C. A. Mey.

  • = Enneatypus Herzog in Meded. Rijks-Herb. 46: 3. 1922.

  • Salta Adr. Sanchez in Syst. Bot. 36: 708. 2011 sec. Sanchez & al. (2011). — Type: Salta triflora (Griseb.) Adr. Sanchez

  • A new monotypic genus described in Sanchez & Kron (2011), based on morphological and molecular data. This genus is commonly found in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay, and is characterized by a pronounced development of brachyblasts and the short axis of the inflorescences borne on a short shoot (Pendry 2004; Sanchez & Kron 2011). Molecular studies have strongly supported the placement of this genus as sister of a clade that includes Magoniella, Ruprechtia and Triplaris (Burke & al. 2010; Sanchez & Kron 2011).

  • Sidotheca Reveal in Harvard Pap. Bot. 9: 211. 2004 sec. APG (2009) = Oxytheca sect. Neoxytheca Ertter. in Brittonia 32: 92. 1980. — Type: not designated.

  • Sidotheca was established as a new name, replacing Oxytheca sect. Neoxytheca.

  • Stenogonum Nutt, in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 4: 19. 1848 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Stenogonum salsuginosum Nutt.

  • Symmeria Benth. in London J. Bot. 4: 630. 1845 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Symmeria paniculata Benth.

  • Systenotheca Reveal & Hardham in Phytologia 66: 85. 1989 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Systenotheca vortreidei (Brandegee) Reveal & Hardham

  • Triplaris Loefl., Iter. Hispan.: 256. 1758 sec. Brandbyge (1993). — Type: Triplaris americana L. — Fig. 6G.

  • Portulacaceae Juss. sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a).

  • A monogeneric family with c. 100 species mainly distributed in tropical and subtropical areas of the world.

  • Portulaca L., Sp. Pl. 1: 445. 1753 sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: Portulaca oleracea L.

  • = Lemia Vand., Fl. Lusit. Brasil. Spec. 35. 1788.

  • = Sedopsis (Engl, ex Legrand) Exell & Mendonça, Consp. Fl. Angol. 1: 116. 1937.

  • = Merida Neck., Elem. Bot. 2: 382. 1790, nom. inval.

  • = Lamia Vand, ex Endl., Gen. Pl: 949. 1840, nom. inval.

  • Although the circumscription of the genus has been relatively stable, the infrageneric classification remains controversial. Previous proposals (von Poellnitz 1934; Legrand 1958; Geesink 1969) are only in part consistent with the results of a recent phylogenetic analysis (Ocampo & Columbus 2012). The genus is monophyletic and has two main lineages: one whose members have opposite leaves (OL clade) and are distributed in Africa, Asia and Australia (except P. quadrifida L., which is a pantropical weed), and a second lineage whose species have alternate to sub-opposite leaves (AL clade), are more widespread and originated in the New World. These major clades and their subclades have anatomical and morphological features (Ocampo & Columbus 2012; Ocampo & al. 2013) that will be used to amend the classification of Portulaca.

  • Rhabdodendraceae Prance sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family comprising three species distributed in tropical South America, the Guyanas, the Amazonian region and northeastern Brazil (Prance 2003). The family has had a complicated taxonomic history. Traditionally, species that are now placed in Rhabdodendron were included in different families of Rutales, in the family Chrysobalanaceae (as the genus Lecostemon DC.) (Bentham 1853) or in Rutaceae (Gilg & Pilger 1905; Huber 1909; Takhtajan 1980). In other systems (e.g. Cronquist 1981), Rhabdodendron was placed within Rosales (for a detailed taxonomic history until the 1970s see Prance 1972). Based on morphological, palynological and anatomical characters, Prance (1972) considered Rhabdodendron in its own family, and suggested for the first time some affinities with Caryophyllales, specifically with Phytolaccaceae. Later on, the early molecular phylogenetic study of Fay & al. (1997) confirmed the affinities of Rhabdodendraceae with Caryophyllales. Since then, the position of the family within the order was also confirmed by subsequent studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Brockington & al. 2009, 2011; Qiu & al. 2010; Soltis & al. 2011), although there are several hypothesis about its internal position.

  • Rhabdodendron Gilg & Pilg. in Verb. Bot. Vereins Prov. Brandenburg 47: 152. 1905 sec. Prance (2003). — Type: Rhabdodendron columnare Gilg & Pilg.

  • Sarcobataceae Behnke sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with two species distributed in North America (Kühn 1993; Hils & al. 2003), from the western United States to northwestern Mexico. The family includes shrubs characterized by having thorny branches, ebracteolate and unisexual flowers, staminate flowers arranged in spikes, whereas the pistillate ones are solitary (Wels & al. 2003). Traditionally, the only genus, Sarcobatus, was placed in Chenopodiaceae (for a detailed taxonomic history until the 1990s see Behnke 1997). The early molecular phylogenetic study by Downie & al. (1997) supported the position of Sarcobatus as an independent lineage. In this study, Sarcobatus showed a close relationship with members of Nyctaginaceae and Phytolaccaceae rather than Chenopodiaceae. Based on these results in addition to characters of the sieveelement plastids and some morphological characters, Behnke (1997) described the new family; nevertheless, some authors continued to treat the genus as part of Chenopodiaceae (e.g. Hils & al. 2003). The position of Sarcobatus as an independent lineage was confirmed by other molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Hilu & al. 2003; Brockington 2009, 2011; Soltis & al. 2011; Schäferhoff & al. 2009), which showed a close but only moderately supported relationship of the family with Agdestidaceae.

  • Sarcobatus Nees, Reise Nord-America 2: 446. 1841 sec. Hils & al. (2003). — Type: Sarcobatus maximilianii Nees — Fig. 7A.

  • = Fremontia Torr., Rep. Exped. Rocky Mts.: 95. 1843.

  • Simmondsiaceae Tiegh. ex Reveal & Hoogland sec. APG (2009).

  • A monotypic family native to the Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico and to neighbouring regions in Arizona and southern California (Vázquez Yanes & al. 1999); it is also introduced in some countries of South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. The family includes evergreen dioecious shrubs with opposite and thick leaves, clearly articulated near the stem; the staminate flowers are small and borne in terminal inflorescences, while the pistillate flowers are single and axillary; the calyx is much enlarged in fruit (Stevens 2001 onwards; Köhler 2003). Traditionally, the family was placed in Hamamelidales (sensu Takhtajan 1980), Euphorbiales (sensu Cronquist 1988) or in its own order Simmondsiales (sensu Takhtajan 1997), in some cases within Buxaceae or close to it. However, the early molecular phylogenetic study by Fay & al. (1997) showed the affinities of Simmondsiaceae with Caryophyllales: this agrees also with several morphological characters of the stylodia, calyces and secondary growth (Köhler 2003). The affinities of the family with Caryophyllales were confirmed by subsequent molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g. Cuénoud & al. 2002; Brockington 2009, 2011; Soltis & al. 2011), which showed that Simmondsiaceae are closer to Rhabdodendraceae and/or to the remainder of the caryophyllid clade. For further information see notes under Rhabdodendraceae.

  • Simmondsia Nutt, in London J. Bot. 3: 400. 1844 sec.

  • Köhler (2003). — Type: Simmondsia californica Nutt.

  • The only species, Simmondsia chinensis C. K. Schneid., is known as a dominant shrub in its native distribution area. The species is well appreciated for the liquid wax, extracted from the seeds, which is used mainly in the cosmetic industry (jojoba; Vázquez Yanes & al. 1999).

  • Stegnospermataceae Nakai sec. APG (2009).

  • A monogeneric family with three species occurring from northwestern Mexico to Nicaragua and the Antilles (Rohwer 1992). The family includes small trees and shrubs characterized by bisexual flowers with a two-whorled perianth, one whorl consisting of five free green sepals, and the other whorl of five white narrow-based petals adherent to the alternisepalous stamens at the base. The fruits are capsules and the seeds are arillate (Rohwer 1993). When the only genus, Stegnosperma, was described in 1844, it was placed in Phytolaccaceae and accepted by other authors (e.g. Heimerl 1934). Nakai (1942) elevated the genus to the family level. Recognition as a family was also supported by morphological, palynological and wood-anatomical characters (e.g. Nowicke 1969; Bell 1980; Carlquist 1999). For a detailed taxonomic history until the 1980s see Bell (1980). The early molecular phylogenetic studies of Downie & al. (1997) and Fay & al. (1997) showed the position of Stegnosperma as an independent lineage. However, both classifications, the recognition of Stegnospermataceae (e.g. Rohwer 1993; Takhtajan 1997) and Stegnosperma within Phytolacacceae (e.g. Stevens 2001), continued to be used. Subsequent phylogenetic studies (e.g. Savolainen & al. 2000; Cuénoud & al. 2002; Schäferhoff & al. 2009; Qiu & al. 2010; Brockington 2009, 2011; Soltis & al. 2011) confirmed the findings of Downie & al. (1997) and Fay & al. (1997), resulting in the wide recognition of Stegnospermataceae as a separate family.

  • Stegnosperma Benth., Bot. Voy. Sulphur: 17. 1844 sec. Rohwer (1993b). — Type: Stegnosperma halimifolium Benth.

  • Talinaceae Doweld sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a).

  • A family with three genera and around 28 species mainly distributed in Africa, but with a few taxa in the Americas and the tropics around the world (Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a). The species of this family are traditionally considered as members of Portulacaceae; however, molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that the traditional Portulacaceae are not monophyletic (Hershkovitz & Zimmer 1997; Applequist & Wallace 2001; Nyffeler 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010). Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a) proposed the segregation of the traditional Portulacaceae into four families (Anacampserotaceae, Montiaceae, Portulacaceae and Talinaceae) based on morphological and molecular data.

  • Amphipetalum Bacigalupo in Candollea 43: 409. 1988 sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: Amphipetalum paraguayense Bacigalupo

  • Talinella Baill. in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 1(69): 569. 1886 sec. Applequist (2005). — Type: Talinella boiviniana Baill.

  • = Sabouraea Leandri in Adansonia sér. 2, 2: 224. 1962. Unique in the suborder Portulacineae in having berry-like fruits. Molecular phylogenies show Talinella embedded in Talinum (Hershkovitz & Zimmer 1997; Applequist & Wallace 2001; Nyffeler 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a), but Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a) suggested to accept the genus pending further research towards a deeply sampled phytogeny of Talinum. Recent treatments by Eggli (1997) and Applequist (2005).

  • Talinum Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 245, 609. 1763, nom. cons, sec. Nyffeler & Eggli (2010a). — Type: Talinum triangulare (Jacq.) Willd.

  • Molecular and phylogenetic analyses have shown that the New World species with terete to semi-terete leaves formerly treated as members of Talinium form a monophyletic genus within Montiaceae (Phemeranthus; Carolin 1987; Hershkovitz & Zimmer 2000; Applequist & Wallace 2000; Nyffeler & Eggli 2010a; Ocampo & Columbus 2010).

  • Tamaricaceae Link sec. APG (2009).

  • Five genera and c. 80 species occurring in Africa, Asia and Europe with major distribution in the Irano-Turanian and Mediterranean regions (Gaskin 2003). Phylogenetic studies support the monophyly of the genera. Three well-supported clades have been recovered: Hololachna and Reaumuria; Myricaria and Myrtama; and Tamarix. Tamarix is sister to the clade comprising Myricaria and Myrtama, and this group is sister to Hololachna and Reaumuria (Gaskin & al. 2004). The main feature in most genera of Tamaricaceae is the presence of salt glands, which enable successful growth in salty and riparian habitats.

  • Hololachna Ehrenb. in Linnaea 2: 273. 1827 sec. Gaskin (2003). — Type: Hololachna songarica (Pall.) Ehrenb. This is a monotypic genus restricted to central Asia and Mongolia. Hololachna is sister to Reaumuria (Gaskin & al. 2004).

  • Myricaria Desv. in Ann. Sci. Nat. (Paris) 4: 349. 1825 sec. Gaskin (2003). — Type: Myricaria germanica (L.) Desv.

  • Myricaria is a hygrophytic genus with c. 13 species occuring in Europe and central Asia. Molecular phylogenetic studies support a sister group relationship between Myrtama and Myricaria (Wang & al. 2009).

  • Myrtama Ovcz. & Kinzik. in Dokl. Akad. Nauk Tadzh. SSR 20(7): 55. 1977 sec. Gaskin (2003) = Tamaricaria Qaiser & Ali in Blumea 24: 153. 1978. — Type: Myrtama elegans (Royle) Ovcz. & Kinzik.

  • The monotypic genus Myrtama is variously interpreted in taxonomic references, both as an independent genus or as a synonym of Myricaria (Yang & Gaskin 2007) or Tamarix (Baum 1978).

  • Reaumuria L., Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 2: 1081. 1759 sec. Gaskin (2003). — Type: Reaumuria vermiculata L. Reaumuria is a xerohalophytic genus with c. 13 shrubby and rarely annual species occurring in deserts and semi-deserts of southwestern and central Asia (Bobrov 1966; Zohary & Danin 1970). Except for one polymorphic species group (R. alternifolia (Labill.) Britten), Reaumuria species are characterized by cylindrical succulent leaves.

  • Tamarix L., Sp. Pl. 1: 270. 1753 sec. Gaskin (2003). — Type: Tamarix gallica L. — Fig. 7B.

  • Tamarix with c. 60 species is most diversified in saline and wet habitats of the Old World and is naturalized in Australia and the Americas, sometimes as aggressive invasive plants. It is one of the few lineages in Caryophyllales that contain large trees and shrubs with a significant role in carbon sequestration and vegetation under harsh and salty conditions. The taxonomy and phylogenetic reconstruction of Tamarix are challenging due to the absence of reliable constant characters and the occurrence of hybridization even among morphologically very different species (Gaskin & Kazmer 2009; Mayonde & al. 2015; Samadi & al. 2013; H. Akhani & T. Borsch, unpubl. data).

  • Incertae sedis

  • Jorena Adans. in Fam. Pl. (Adanson) 2: 249. 1763 sec. Bittrich (1993c). — Type: not designated.

    Listed as a “doubtful genus” in the Caryophyllaceae by Bittrich (1993c).

  • Summary: current knowledge, trends, gaps

    Phylogenetic sampling as a basis for classification

    The synopsis of the genera currently accepted in Caryophyllales along with a discussion on the recent work dealing with these genera provides a comprehensive source of information on the current knowledge of this group of plants. In the context of global undertakings, such as the World Flora Online (WFO; CBD-SBSTTA 2012), this study forms the basis for a gap analysis on the availability of treatments for a major group of flowering plants. The results indicate that there is a substantial taxonomic turnover when comparing the current classification with generic concepts available in the complete treatment of the order in Kubitzki's “Families and genera of vascular plants” (FGVP; Kubitzki & al. 1993; Kubitzki & Bayer 2003; Table 2). The number of families has increased substantially (27 vs 39 families), reflecting changes necessary because families were not monophyletic (e.g. Portulacaceae). In addition, several isolated lineages have been recovered that were consequently elevated to family rank (e.g. Kewaceae, Macarthuriaceae). The most diverse families in terms of numbers of genera are the Cactaceae, Aizoaceae, Chenopodiaceae and Caryophyllaceae (all with over 100 genera), while 28 families comprise only one to six genera (Table 2). At the generic level, the numbers have increased by more than ten percent in comparison to the last complete treatments in the FGVP volumes (Table 2). While the number of genera has remained equal (or nearly so) in 18 families, generic boundaries have changed dramatically in some families, especially in Cactaceae and Caryophyllaceae.

    It is also clear that sampling at the species level is far from complete, so that many genera or entire tribes lack data needed to assert their monophyly and/or their exact position in the families, while others are already known to be polyphyletic but are insufficiently sampled to be reclassified. In addition, for many taxa no taxonomic revision is available or the existing one is clearly outdated.

    For example, in the Aizoaceae of South Africa, 55 % of taxa are in need of revision, 52 % of the recognized taxa in the family have not been treated in any revision, with an additional 12 % of taxa revised prior to 1970 (von Staden & al. 2013). In the Ruschioideae the five largest genera, Ruschia (206 species), Lampranthus (194 species), Delo sperma (142 species), Drosanthemum (107 species) and Antimima (96 species) have never been comprehensively revised at species level (i.e. there is no key to the species). The same is true for numerous smaller genera such as Stomatium (39 species), Hereroa (27 species) and Malephora (16 species). In addition, a recent extensive phylogenetic study of Ruschieae, the most speciose clade in Aizoaceae, showed that numerous genera are not monophyletic, including the large genus Ruschia (Klak & al. 2013). Despite the lack of resolution in parts of the tree due to the lack of variable gene regions, the many cases of polyphyly detected in the phylogeny were an indication of misplaced taxa and narrow generic concepts upheld by traditional taxonomists (Klak & al. 2013). In particular, mono- and bitypic genera in Ruschieae, which were found to be nested within larger genera, need critical re-evaluation (Klak & al. 2013). In contrast, for the Mesembryanthemoideae a phylogeny is available with an almost complete sampling of species (Klak & al. 2007) as well as detailed morphological studies and revisions published for most clades over the last 30 years (e.g. Bittrich 1986; Klak & Linder 1998; Klak & al. 2006; Gerbaulet 1995, 1996ac, 1997, 2001). However, a conflict in genus delimitaton has erupted between taxonomists with regard to the number of genera that should be recognized in Mesembryanthemoideae. Whereas Klak & Bruyns (2013) favoured a generic concept based on monophyly, Gerbaulet (2012) supported the traditional system of “many genera”, which upholds also genera shown to be paraphyletic (e.g. Phyllobolus). No detailed phylogeny is available for the Aizooideae, which include c. 108 species in seven genera. Finally, a further phylogeny including 18 species from Tetragonioideae indicated that several genera, such as Aizoanthemum, Aizoon and Gunniopsis may not be monophyletic (C. Klak, pers. comm.). In contrast, phylogenetic relationships of the smallest subfamily, Sesuvioideae, which is sister to the remaining Aizoaceae (Klak & al. 2003a, b), are resolved and generic concepts were clarified recently (Thulin & al. 2012; Bohley & al. 2015).

    For Basellaceae, Eriksson (2007) recognized four genera and 19 species in comparison to four genera and 17–22 species accepted by Sperling & Bittrich (1993). In his phylogenetic analysis based on morphological data, three of the genera are supported as monophyletic, while the monophyly of the fourth genus (Basella) is more uncertain. This analysis is well sampled (all taxa), but the resolution is rather poor. No analysis based on molecular data has been done yet.

    Available treatments in modern floras are patchy on a global level

    Monographic work provides the in-depth synthetic information, and the checklist and gap analysis presented here is aimed at defining part of the baseline for such analysis in the Caryophyllales where it is still missing. However, for the aim of creating a global synthesis of knowledge in the Caryophyllales it is indispensable to consider also the information published in floras.

    It is difficult to know in how many floras or related works the Caryophyllales have been treated in the past, especially in regions with a long history of botanical activity such as C and W Europe. In fact, if we take the establishment of the Linnaean classification system and naming as a starting point, we can commence right away in the 18th century, for example with Linnaeus's own Flora suecica (Linné 1745). Flora treatments are numerous; setting aside the numerous works of mostly historical interest, Frodin (2001) in the second edition of “Guide to standard floras of the world” gave information on nearly 1000 general floras distributed in ten major regions of the world. Only in a few cases is there specific information about the families or groups treated in each flora (e.g. Flora of Nigeria: Caryophyllales by Ghazanfar 1991); for the other floras it is necessary to review each flora individually in order to identify works of significance for a global synthesis.

    Our approach for uniting the information available for the global synthesis is partly based on taking advantage of information technologies, and fortunately floras are increasingly published on the World Wide Web. An initial review of such publication has revealed that many historical floras that include treatments of Caryophyllales are already available online, for example the pre-1900 floras of the Alps, Australia, Barbados, Brazil, India, Jamaica, Niger, Sri Lanka and Syria, and pre-1990 treatments from Chile, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guatemala, Japan, Madagascar, Panama, South Africa and Taiwan. The bibliographic references of these floras are cited in Frodin (2001), but can also be accessed through the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL 2005+), JSTOR (JSTOR 2000+), Gallica (1997+) and Google Books (2015). More recent floras including the Caryophyllales are those from China, Nicaragua, the Malesian region (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea) and the Zambesi river basin (Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the Caprivi Strip), in which the last treatments for some families of Caryophyllales were printed in the 2000s. Incomplete floras (and incomplete for Caryophyllales so far) treat Argentina, the Hawaiian Islands, North America north of Mexico, the Marquesas Islands, Mesoamerica, Madagascar, the Neotropics, Pakistan, Palestine and Tasmania.

    Most of these are simply digitized print treatments (representing images of the actual print work, which, depending on their quality, may or may not be searchable after optical character recognition — OCR). In contrast to this, very few “true” e-floras exist, i.e. floras produced with the online publication as their principal output and making full use of existing biodiversity informatics techniques. An example of the latter is the Flora of Western Australia (Western Australian Herbarium 1998+).

    However, increasingly various intermediates between electronic representations of print media and true e-floras are becoming available, partly as a result of the computerized editing process of the print publication, and partly because printed floras are “marked up” in order to database their content, for example the treatments of Flora Malesiana (see Hamann & al. 2014).

    Another important source of information on Caryophyllales are checklists, which are mostly available online, because most of them were developed over the past two decades. Some of them refer to taxa treated in previously printed floras, some of them are continuously updated and others are in progress. Such checklists are available for Africa, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, central Africa, Cono Sur (Argentina, southern Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay), Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Europe plus the Mediterranean region, Germany, the Guiana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and part of Venezuela), Iran, Ireland, Israel, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, the pan-Arctic region, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, southern Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United States.

    All of these floristic projects have generated valuable information that has increased our knowledge about the Caryophyllales. An online bibliography of such sources of information focussing on Caryophyllales is in preparation, and we envision using this as the base of a comprehensive gap analysis for the order, and also as the basis for an analysis of regional differences in taxon concepts. It became clear from the preliminary survey that such gaps exist, and that there is a lack of synchronization of taxon concepts, partly due to the state of knowledge at the time of the production of the treatment, but often also caused by a specific local perspective that needs to be placed into a wider geographic context. This was one of the reasons for the decision to use the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy for data management, because this is currently the only taxonomic software system natively supporting different classifications, taxonomic concepts and taxon-concept relationships. It indicates also the need for increased efforts to share and integrate the information generated and to promote the filling of gaps in both geographic and taxonomic coverage. This will be facilitated by the application of information technology, making the information openly available in electronic form and thus furthering the process of future revision and dissemination. Additionally, it enables new kinds of links to current data, including those available only in virtual form, which has not readily been possible in the past (Frodin 2001).

    Conclusions and future work

    While the published version of this treatment only includes citable publications as its basic reference, there will be a dynamic online version of this generic synopsis that will not only be continuously updated but also become more extensive. To facilitate both interaction in the scientific community and to inspire further research on the Caryophyllales, key data to relevant current projects and research underway will be presented. One of the key steps on the way to a synthesis of Caryophyllales will be identifying specialists who are working at the species level; some of them are those who contributed to this generic synopsis, but others have already been identified and agreed to collaborate. Within the network, we then have to organize the work on taxonomic groups with several specialists and to develop a format, as standardized as possible, for the species-level taxonomic treatments. In addition, directories of specialists, of electronic resources and an online bibliography for the Caryophyllales will be developed. Starting with the Caryophyllales 2015 conference in Berlin (September 2015), regular meetings of the Caryophyllales community will drive this process.

    Role of authors

    The draft of the generic checklist and the initial data entry was the work of PH, who also provided the treatments of Achatocarphaceae, Agdestidaceae, Ancistrocladeceae, Asteropeiaceae, Barbeuiaceae, Didiereaceae, Dioncophyllaceae, Droseraceae, Drosophyllacae, Frankeniaceae, Halophytaceae, Limeaceae, Lophiocarpaceae, Microteaceae, Nepenthaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Physenaceae, Rhabdodendraceae, Sarcobataceae, Simmondsiaceae and Stegnospermataceae and collaborated in some notes of Chenopodiaceae, Phytolaccaceae and Polygonaceae. The following groups were revised by specific authors: Aizoaceae: CK, with contributions by GK (Sesuvioideae); Amaranthaceae: TB, with contributions by GK (Polycnemoideae); Anacampserotaceae, Molluginaceae and Portulacaceae: GO; Montiaceae and Talinaceae: GO, with contributions by UE; Cactaceae: SA, UE, NK, RN, BOS; Caryophyllaceae: RR, BO (Sileneae), with contributions by SvM; Basellaceae: RE; Chenopodiaceae: HA, HFO, SFB, GK, PU; Gisekiaceae: GK; Plumbaginaceae, Kewaceae, Macarthuriaceae and contributions to other families (e.g. Deeringia, Hypertelis, Microtea): SvM; Polygonaceae: ICN, AS; Tamaricaceae: HA. WGB extensively rechecked the nomenclatural references and standardization of database entries. SvM edited entries and updated the database. Introduction and summary were prepared as a draft by PH, TB and WGB. Comments from co-authors were incorporated, and the final text edited by WGB, SvM, NK and TB.

    Acknowledgements

    We would like to acknowledge the technical support by Katja Luther, Andreas Müller and Cherian Mathew at the BGBM during work with the EDIT Platform software and the production of the generic list directly from the database. There was a productive exchange with James Solomon (Missouri Botanical Garden) while checking our nomenclatural data against the Tropicos database. Werner Greuter, Nicholas Turland, and Wolf-Henning Kusber are acknowledged for advice on complicated cases of nomenclature. Demet Töre provided literature on Plumbaginaceae.

    Wilhelm Barthlott, Peter Bruyns and Nicholas Turland are thanked for granting permission to use their photographs. David Hunt, John McNeill, Sergei Mosyakin, Kai Müller, Louis Ronse de Craene, Nigel Taylor and one anonymous reviewer are thanked for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

    References

    1. P. Aellen 1929: Beitrag zur Systematik der Chenopodium-Arten Amerikas, vorwiegend auf Grund der Sammlung des United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. I. —  Feddes Repert. 26: 31–64. Google Scholar

    2. P. Aellen 1960–1961: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 533–762 in: K. H. Rechinger (ed.), G. Hegi, Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, ed. 2, 3(2[Lief. 2–4]). — Berlin & Hamburg: Parey. Google Scholar

    3. P. Aellen & T. Just 1943: Key and synopsis of the American species of the genus Chenopodium L. —  Amer. Midl. Naturalist 30: 47–76. Google Scholar

    4. C. Agardh 1824: Chenopodeae, Rivineae, Amaranthaceae, Petivereae, Polygoneae. — Pp. 215–223 in: Aphorismi botanici 15. — Lundae:  Literis BerlingianisGoogle Scholar

    5. H. Akhani 2008: Taxonomic revision of the genus Salicornia L. (Chenopodiaceae) in central and southern Iran. —  Pakistan J. Bot. 40: 1635–1655. Google Scholar

    6. H. Akhani , J. Barroca , N. Koteeva , E. Voznesenskaya , V. Franceschi , G. Edwards , S. M. Ghaffari & H. Ziegler 2005: Bienertia sinuspersici (Chenopodiaceae): A new species from southwest Asia and discovery of a third terrestrial C4 plant without Kranz anatomy. —  Syst. Bot. 30: 290–301. Google Scholar

    7. H. Akhani , T. Chatrenoor , M. Dehghani , R. Khoshravesh , P. Mahdavi & Z. Matinzadeh 2012: A new species of Bienertia (Chenopodiaceae) from Iranian salt deserts: A third species of the genus and discovery of a fourth terrestrial C4 plant without Kranz anatomy. —  Pl. Biosyst. 16: 550–559. Google Scholar

    8. H. Akhani , G. Edwards & E. H. Roalson 2007: Diversification of the world Salsoleae s.l. (Chenopodiaceae): molecular phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and chloroplast datasets and a revised classification. —  Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 931–956. Google Scholar

    9. H. Akhani , M. Ghobadnejhad & S. M. H. Hashemi 2003: Ecology, biogeography and pollen morphology of Bienertia cycloptera Bunge ex Boiss. (Chenopodiaceae), an enigmatic C4 plant without Kranz anatomy. —  Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 5: 167–178. Google Scholar

    10. H. Akhani , W. Greuter & E. H. Roalson 2014: Notes on the typification and nomenclature of Salsola and Kali (Chenopodiaceae). —  Taxon 63: 647–650. Google Scholar

    11. H. Akhani & R. Khoshravesh 2013: The relationship and different C4 Kranz anatomy of Bassia eriantha and Bassia eriophora, two often confused Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Sindian species. —  Phytotaxa 93: 1–24. Google Scholar

    12. H. Akhani & R. Khoshravesh 2015: Taxonomic novelties from Irano-Turanian region and NE Iran: Oreosalsola, a new segregate from Salsola s.l., two new species in Anabasis and Salvia, and two new combinations in Caroxylon and Seseli. — Phytotaxa (in press). Google Scholar

    13. H. Akhani , M. V. Lara , M. Ghasemkhani , H. Ziegler & G. E. Edwards 2009: Does Bienertia cycloptera with the single-cell system of C4 photosynthesis exhibit a seasonal pattern of delta C13 values in nature similar to co-existing C4 Chenopodiaceae having the dualcell (Kranz) system? —  Phot. Res. 99: 23–36. Google Scholar

    14. H. Akhani M. Malekmohammadi , P. Mahdavi , A. Gharibiyan & M. W. Chase 2013: Phylogenetics of the Irano-Turanian taxa of Limonium (Plumbaginaceae) based on ITS nrDNA sequences and leaf anatomy provides evidence for species delimitation and relationships of lineages. —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 171: 519–550. Google Scholar

    15. H. Akhani , P. Trimborn & H. Ziegler 1997: Photosynthetic pathways in Chenopodiaceae from Africa, Asia and Europe with their ecological, phytogeographical and taxonomical importance. —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 206: 187–221. Google Scholar

    16. V. A. Albert , S. E. Williams & M. W. Chase 1992: Carnivorous plants: Phylogeny and structural evolution. —  Science 257: 1491–1495. Google Scholar

    17. M. A. Alonso & M. B. Crespo 2008: Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on South American taxa of Sarcocornia (Chenopodiaceae). —  Ann. Bot. Fenn. 45: 241–254. Google Scholar

    18. E. F. Anderson 2001: The cactus family. — Portland: Timber Press. Google Scholar

    19. E. F. Anderson 2005: Das grosse Kakteen-Lexikon. — Stuttgart: Ulmer. Google Scholar

    20. E. F. Anderson & W. A. Fitz Maurice 1998: Ariocarpus revisited. — Haseltonia 5: 1–20. Google Scholar

    21. M. A. Anton , T. Hernández-Hernández , A. De-Nova & V. Sosa 2014: Evaluating the phylogenetic position of the monotypic family Halophytaceae (Portulacineae, Caryophyllales) based on plastid and nuclear molecular data sets. — Bot. Sci. 92: 351–361. Google Scholar

    22. APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] 1998: An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. —  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531–553. Google Scholar

    23. APG II [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] 2003: An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. — Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 141: 399–436. Google Scholar

    24. APG III [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] 2009: An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. — Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161: 105–121. Google Scholar

    25. W. L. Applequist 2005: A revision of the Malagasy endemic Talinella (Portulacaceae). — Adansonia, sér. 3, 27: 47–80. Google Scholar

    26. W. L. Applequist & D. Pratt 2005: The Malagasy endemic Dendroportulaca (Portulacaceae) is referable to Deeringia (Amaranthaceae): molecular and morphological evidence. —  Taxon 54: 681–687. Google Scholar

    27. W. L. Applequist , W. L. Wagner , E. A. Zimmer & M. Nepokroeff 2006: Molecular evidence resolving the systematic position of Hectorella (Portulacaceae). —  Syst. Bot. 31: 310–319. Google Scholar

    28. W. L. Applequist & R. S. Wallace 2000: Phylogeny of the Madagascan endemic family Didiereaceae. —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 221: 157–166. Google Scholar

    29. W. L. Applequist & R. S. Wallace 2001: Phylogeny of Portulacaceous cohort based on ndhF sequence data. — Syst. Bot. 26: 406–419. Google Scholar

    30. W. L. Applequist & R. S. Wallace 2003: Expanded circumscription of Didiereaceae and its division into three subfamilies. — Adansonia, sér. 3, 25: 13–16. Google Scholar

    31. M. Arakaki 2003: Relaciones taxonómicas en el género Weberbauerocereus Backeberg. — Quepo 17: 62–72. Google Scholar

    32. M. Arakaki , P.-A. Christin , R. Nyffeler , A. Lendel , U. Eggli , R. M. Ogburn , E. Spriggs , M. J. Moore & E. Edwards 2011: Contemporaneous and recent radiations of the world's major succulent plant lineages. —  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108: 8379–8384. Google Scholar

    33. S. Arias , S. Gama-López , L. U. Guzmán-Cruz & B. Vázquez-Benítez 2012: Cactaceae. — In: L. R. Medina (ed.), Flora del Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán 95. — México D. F.: Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Google Scholar

    34. S. Arias & T. Terrazas 2006: Análisis cladístico del género Pachycereus (Cactaceae) con caracteres morfológicos. —  Brittonia 58: 197–216. Google Scholar

    35. S. Arias & T. Terrazas 2009: Taxonomic revision of Pachycereus (Cactaceae). —  Syst. Bot. 34: 68–83. Google Scholar

    36. S. Arias , T. Terrazas , H. J. Arreola-Nava , M. Vázquez-Sánchez & K. M. Cameron 2005: Phylogenetic relationships in Peniocereus (Cactaceae) inferred from plastid DNA sequence data. —  J. Pl. Res. 118: 317–328. Google Scholar

    37. H. J. Arreola-Nava & T. Terrazas 2003: Especies de Stenocereus con aréolas morenas: claves y descripciones. — Acta Bot. Mex. 64: 1–18. Google Scholar

    38. J. C. Arthur , J. H. Barnhart , N. L. Britton , F. E. Clements , O. F. Cook , F. V. Coville , F. S. Earle , A. W. Evans , T. E. Hazen , A. Hollick , M. A. Howe , F. H. Knowlton , G. T. Moore , H. H. Rusby , C. L. Shear , L. M. Underwood , D. White & W. F. Wight 1907: American Code of Botanical Nomenclature. — Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 167–178. Google Scholar

    39. Z. Aydin , A. S. Ertekin , E. Långström & B. Oxelman 2014: A new section of Silene (Caryophyllaceae) including a new species from south Anatolia, Turkey. —  Phytotaxa 178: 98–112. Google Scholar

    40. B.-J. Bao , S. E. Clemants & T. Borsch 2003: Amaranthaceae. — Pp. 415–429 in: Z.-Y. Wu , P. H. Raven & D.-Y. Hong (ed.), Flora of China 5. — Beijing: Science Press; St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Google Scholar

    41. C. Backeberg 1958–1962: Die Cactaceae. Handbuch der Kakteenkunde 1–6. — Jena: VEB G. Fischer. Google Scholar

    42. C. Backeberg 1959: Die Cactaceae. Handbuch der Kakteenkunde 2 Cereoideae (Hylocereae Cereae). — Jena: VEB G. Fischer. Google Scholar

    43. C. Backeberg 1966: Das Kakteenlexikon. — Jena: VEB G. Fischer. Google Scholar

    44. H. Baillon 1887: LXXVII. Chénopodiacées. — Pp. 130–217 in: Histoire des plantes 9. — Paris:  HachetteGoogle Scholar

    45. P. W. Ball & V. H. Heywood 1964: A revision of the genus Petrorhagia. — Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 3: 121–172. Google Scholar

    46. R. T. Bárcenas , C. Yesson & J. A. Hawkins 2011: Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae. —  Cladistics 27: 470–489. Google Scholar

    47. Y. I. Barkoudah 1962: A revision of Gypsophila, Bolanthus, Ankyropetalum and Phryna. —  Wentia 9: 1–203. Google Scholar

    48. F. R. Barrie 2011: Report of the General Committee: 11. — Taxon 60: 1211–1214. Google Scholar

    49. W. Barthlott 1987: New names in Rhipsalidinae (Cactaceae). — Bradleya 5: 97–100. Google Scholar

    50. W. Barthlott & D. Hunt 1993: Cactaceae. — In: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    51. W. Barthlott & N. P. Taylor 1995: Notes towards a monograph of Rhipsalideae (Cactaceae). — Bradleya 13: 43–79. Google Scholar

    52. R. Bauer 2003: The genus Pseudorhipsalis Britton & Rose. — Haseltonia 9: 94–120. Google Scholar

    53. B. R. Baum 1978: The genus Tamarix. — Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Google Scholar

    54. G. Beck 1907–1909: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 91–213 in: H. G. L. Reichenbach (ed.), Icones Florae germanicae et helveticae 24. — Lipsiae et Gerae: Friederici Zezschwitz. Google Scholar

    55. W. G. Berendsohn 1995: The concept of “potential taxa” in databases. —  Taxon 44: 207–212. Google Scholar

    56. W. G. Berendsohn 1997: A taxonomic information model for botanical databases: the IOPI model. —  Taxon 46: 283–309. Google Scholar

    57. W. G. Berendsohn 2010: Devising the EDIT Platform for Cybertaxonomy. — Pp. 1–6 in: P. L. Nimis & R. Vignes-Lebbe (ed.), Tools for identifying biodiversity: progress and problems. — Venezia: Edizioni Università di Trieste. Google Scholar

    58. W. G. Berendsohn , A. Güntsch , N. Hoffmann , A. Kohlbecker , K. Luther & A. Müller 2011: Biodiversity information platforms: from standards to interoperability. —  ZooKeys 150: 71–87. Google Scholar

    59. G. Bernasconi , J. Antonovics , A. Biere , D. Charlesworth , L. F. Delph , D. Filatov , T. Giraud , M. E. Hood G. A. Marais , D. McCauley , J. R. Pannell , J. A. Shykoff , B. Vyskot , L. M. Wolfe & A. Widmer 2009: Silene as a model system in ecology and evolution. —  Heredity 103: 5–14. Google Scholar

    60. BHL 2005+ [continuously updated]: Biodiversity Heritage Library. — BHL Project, published at  http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ [variously accessed 2012–2015]. Google Scholar

    61. K. Bissinger , R. Khoshravesh , J. P. Kotrade , J. Oakley , T. Sage , R. Sage , H. Hartmann & G. Kadereit 2014: Gisekia (Gisekiaceae) — phylogenetic relationships, biogeography, and ecophysiology of a poorly-known C4 lineage in the Caryophyllales. —  Amer. J. Bot. 101: 499–509. Google Scholar

    62. V. Bittrich 1986: Untersuchungen zu Merkmalsbestand, Gliederung und Abgrenzung der Unterfamilie Mesembryanthemoideae (Mesembryanthemaceae Fenzl.). — Mitt. Inst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg 21: 5–116. Google Scholar

    63. V. Bittrich 1993a: Introduction to Centrospermae. — Pp. 13–19 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    64. V. Bittrich 1993b: Achatocarpaceae. — Pp. 35–36 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    65. V. Bittrich 1993c: Caryophyllaceae. — Pp. 206–236 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    66. V. Bittrich 1993d: Halophytaceae. — Pp. 320–321 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    67. V. Bittrich & U. Kühn 1993: Nyctaginaceae. — Pp. 473–485 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    68. S. F. Blake 1921: Neomillspaughia, a new genus of Polygonaceae, with remarks on related genera. —  Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 48: 77–89. Google Scholar

    69. W. Blum , M. Lange , W. Rischer & J. Rutow 1998: Echinocereus. — Bietigheim: Published by the authors. Google Scholar

    70. E.G. Bobrov 1966: A review of the genus Reaumuria L. in connection with the problem of the origin of the Afro-Asiatic desert flora. — Bot. Zhurn. 51: 1057–1072. Google Scholar

    71. K. Bohley , O. Joos , H. Hartmann , R. Sage , S. Liede-Schumann & G. Kadereit 2015: Phylogeny of Sesuvioideae (Aizoaceae) — biogeography, leaf anatomy and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. —  Perspect Pl. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 17: 116–130. Google Scholar

    72. M. H. Bokhari & P. Wendelbo 1978: On anatomy, adaptions to xerophytism and taxonomy of Anabasis inclusive Esfandiaria (Chenopodiaceae). — Bot. Notiser 131: 279–292. Google Scholar

    73. T. Borsch 1998: Pollen types in the Amaranthaceae. Morphology and evolutionary significance. —  Grana 37: 129–142. Google Scholar

    74. T. Borsch & W. Barthlott 1998: Structure and evolution of metareticulate pollen. —  Grana 37: 68–78. Google Scholar

    75. T. Borsch , P. Hernández-Ledesma , W. G. Berendsohn , H. Flores-Olvera , H. Ochoterena , F. O. Zuloaga , S. von Mering & N. Kilian 2015: An integrative and dynamic approach for monographing species-rich plant groups — building the global synthesis of the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. —  Perspect. Pl. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 17: 284–300. Google Scholar

    76. T. Borsch , T. Ortuño & M. H. Nee 2011: Phylogenetics of the neotropical liana genus Pedersenia (Amaranthaceae: Gomphrenoideae) and discovery of a new species from Bolivia based on molecules and morphology. —  Willdenowia 41: 5–14. Google Scholar

    77. T. Borsch & T. M. Pedersen 1997: Restoring the generic rank of Hebanthe Martius (Amaranthaceae). — Sendtnera 4: 13–31. Google Scholar

    78. V. P. Botschantzev 1956: fi01_281.gif [Two new species from the family Chenopodiaceae]. — Pp. 108–118 in: V. B. Sochava (ed.), fi02_281.gif fi03_281.gif fi04_281.gif [To the 75th anniversary of Academician V. N. Sukachev. Collected works on geobotany, forestry, paleogeography and floristics]. — Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Google Scholar

    79. V. P. Botschantzev 1975: Species of the subtribe Sevadinae (Chenopodiaceae). —  Kew Bull. 30: 367–370. Google Scholar

    80. L. Boulos 1999: Flora of Egypt. — Cairo: Al Hadara. Google Scholar

    81. J. Brandbyge 1993: Polygonaceae. — Pp. 531–544 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    82. H. Bravo-Hollis 1978: Las Cactáceas de México, ed. 2, 1. — México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Google Scholar

    83. R. Bregman 1992: Seed studies in the subtribe Borzicactinae Buxbaum (Cactaceae); morphology, taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 114: 201–250. Google Scholar

    84. R. Bregman 1996: The genus Matucana. Biology and systematics of fascinating Peruvian cacti. — Rotterdam & Brookfield: A. A. Balkema. Google Scholar

    85. J. P. M. Brenan & J. Akeroyd 1993: Chenopodium. — Pp. 111–114 in: T. G. Tutin , N. A. Burges , A. O. Chater , J. R. Edmonson , V. H. Heywood , D. M. Moore , D. H. Valentine , S. M. Walters & D. A. Webb (ed.), Flora europaea, ed. 2, 1. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

    86. G. D. R. Bridson , S. T. Townsend , E. A. Polen & E. R. Smith 2004: BPH-2. Periodicals with botanical content. Constituting a second edition of Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum 1–2. — Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, published at  http://huntbotanical.org/databases/show.php?1 Google Scholar

    87. G. Bringmann , W. Saeb , R. God , M. Schäffer , G. François , K. Peters , E. Peters , P. Proksch , K. Hostettmann & L. A. Assi 1998: 5′-O-Demethyldioncophylline A, a new antimalarial alkaloid from Triphyophyllum peltatum. —  Phytochemistry 49: 1667–1673. Google Scholar

    88. N. L. Britton & J. N. Rose 1923: Subtribe 8. Rhipsalidanae. — In: N. L. Britton & J. N. Rose (ed.), The Cactaceae. Descriptions and illustrations of plants of the cactus family 4. — Washington: Carnegie Institute. Google Scholar

    89. S. F. Brockington , R. Alexandre , J. Ramdial , M. J. Moore , S. Crawley , A. Dhingra , K. Hilu , D. E. Soltis & P. S. Soltis 2009: Phylogeny of the Caryophyllales sensu lato: Revisiting hypotheses on pollination biology and perianth differentiation in the core Caryophyllales. —  Int. J. Pl. Sci. 170: 627–643. Google Scholar

    90. S. F. Brockington , P. Dos Santos , B. Glover & L. P. Ronse De Craene 2013: Androecial evolution in Caryophyllales in light of a paraphyletic Molluginaceae. —  Amer. J. Bot. 100: 1757–1778. Google Scholar

    91. S. F. Brockington , P. J. Rudall , M. W. Frohlich , D. G. Oppenheimer , P. S. Soltis & D. E. Soltis 2012: ‘Living stones’ reveal alternative petal identity programs within the core eudicots. —  Plant J. 69: 193–203. Google Scholar

    92. S. F. Brockington , R. H. Walker , B. J. Glover , P. S. Soltis & D. E. Soltis 2011: Complex pigment evolution in the Caryophyllales. —  New Phytol. 190: 854–864. Google Scholar

    93. C. Brullo , S. Brullo , J. F. Gaskin , G. G. Del Galdo , G. F. Hrusa & C. Salmeri 2015: A new species of Kali (Salsoloideae, Chenopodiaceae) from Sicily, supported by molecular analysis. —  Phytotaxa 201: 256–277. Google Scholar

    94. C. Brullo , S. Brullo , V. Ilardi & G.G. Del Galdo 2015: Kali dodecanesicum (Chenopodiaceae, Salsoloideae) a new species from Greece. —  Phytotaxa 218: 61–68. Google Scholar

    95. R. K. Brummitt & C. E. Powell 1992: Authors of plant names. — Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens. — Continuous updates published at  http://www.ipni.org/ipni/authorsearchpage.do and  http://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/botanist_index.html [last accessed 14 Jul 2015]. Google Scholar

    96. P. V. Bruyns , M. Oliveira-Neto , G. F. Melo-de-Pinna & C. Klak 2014: Phylogenetic relationships in the Didiereaceae with special reference to subfamily Portulacarioideae. —  Taxon 63: 1053–1064. Google Scholar

    97. W. C. Burger 1983: Flora costaricensis. — Fieldiana, Bot. 13: 180–199. Google Scholar

    98. J. M. Burke & A. Sanchez 2011: Revised subfamily classification for Polygonaceae, with a tribal classification for Eriogonoideae. —  Brittonia 63: 510–520. Google Scholar

    99. J. M. Burke , A. Sanchez , K. A. Kron & M. Luckow 2010: Placing the woody tropical genera of Polygonaceae: a hypothesis of character evolution and phylogeny. —  Amer. J. Bot. 97: 1377–1390. Google Scholar

    100. C. A. Butterworth 2006: Resolving “Nyffeler's Puzzle” the intriguing taxonomic position of Blossfeldia. —  Haseltonia 12: 3–10. Google Scholar

    101. C. A. Butterworth , J. H. Cota-Sanchez & R. S. Wallace 2002: Molecular systematics of tribe Cacteae (Cactaceae: Cactoideae): A phylogeny based on rpl16 intron sequence variation. — Syst. Bot. 27: 257–270. Google Scholar

    102. C. A. Butterworth & E. J. Edwards 2008: Investigating Pereskia and the earliest divergences in Cactaceae. —  Haseltonia 14: 46–53. Google Scholar

    103. F. Buxbaum 1962: Das phylogenetische System der Cactaceae (nach dem Forschungsstand Ende 1961). — In: H. Krainz (ed.), Die Kakteen. Lieferung 21. — Stuttgart: Franckh'sche Verlagshandlung. Google Scholar

    104. F. Buxbaum 1970: Gattung Lepismium. — In: H. Krainz (ed.), Die Kakteen. Lieferung 44–45. — Stuttgart: Franckh'sche Verlagshandlung. Google Scholar

    105. J. Cabrera , S. Jacobs & G. Kadereit 2009: Phylogeny of the Australian Camphorosmeae (Chenopodiaceae) and the taxonomic significance of the fruiting perianth. —  Int. J. Pl. Sci. 170: 505–521. Google Scholar

    106. J. Cabrera , S. Jacobs & G. Kadereit 2011: Phylogeography of Camphorosmeae (Chenopodiaceae): tracking the Tertiary history of Australian aridification. — Telopea 13: 313–326. Google Scholar

    107. N. Calderón , D. Zappi , N. Taylor & A. Ceroni 2007: Taxonomy and conservation of Haageocereus Backeb. (Cactaceae) in Peru. — Bradleya 25: 45–124. Google Scholar

    108. A. Calvente 2012: A new subgeneric classification of Rhipsalis (Cactoideae, Cactaceae). —  Syst. Bot. 37: 983–988. Google Scholar

    109. A. Calvente , D. C. Zappi , F. Forest & L. G. Lohmann 2011a: Molecular phylogeny of tribe Rhipsalideae (Cactaceae) and taxonomic implications for Schlumbergera and Hatiora. —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 58: 456–468. Google Scholar

    110. A. Calvente , D. C. Zappi , F. Forest & L. G. Lohmann 2011b: Molecular phylogeny, evolution, and biogeography of South American epiphytic cacti. —  Int. J. Pl. Sci. 172: 902–914. Google Scholar

    111. S. Carlquist 2006: Asteropeia and Physena (Caryophyllales): a case study in comparative wood anatomy. —  Brittonia 58: 301–313. Google Scholar

    112. S. Carlquist 2010: Caryophyllales: a key group for understanding wood anatomy character states and their evolution. —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 164: 432–393. Google Scholar

    113. R. C. Carolin 1987: A review of the family Portulacaceae. —  Austral. J. Bot. 35: 383–412. Google Scholar

    114. R. C. Carolin 1993: Portulacaceae. — Pp. 544–555 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    115. CBD-SBSTTA 2012: Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: World Flora Online by 2020. Note by the Executive Secretary. — Published at  http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-38-en.pdf [last accessed 15 Jul 2015]. Google Scholar

    116. G. Charles 2009: Gymnocalycium in habitat and culture. — Stamford: Published by the author. Google Scholar

    117. M. W. Chase , D. E. Soltis , R. Olmstead , D. Morgan , D. H. Les , B. D. Mishler , M. R. Duvall , R. A. Price , H. G. Hills , Y.-L. Qiu , K. A. Kron , J. H. Rettig , E. Conti , J. D. Palmer , J. R. Manhart , K. J. Sytsma , H. J. Michaels , W. J. Kress , K. G. Karol , W. D. Clark , M. Hedren , B. S. Gaut , R. K. Jansen , K.-J. Kim , C. F. Wimpee , J. F. Smith , G. R. Furnier , S. H. Strauss , Q.,-Y. Xiang , G. M. Plunkett , P. S. Soltis , S. M. Swensen , S. E. Williams , P. A. Gadek , C. J. Quinn , L. E. Eguiarte , E. Golenberg , G. H. Learn Jr ., S. W. Graham , S. C. H. Barrett , S. Dayanandan & V. A. Albert 1993: Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. —  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 528–580. Google Scholar

    118. P. Chesselet , S. A. Hammer & I. Oliver 2003: Notes on African Plants: Mesembryanthemaceae. Brianhuntleya, a new genus endemic to the Worcester-Robertson Karoo, South Africa. —  Bothalia 33: 160–164. Google Scholar

    119. P. Chesselet & A. E. Van Wyk 2002: Mesembs with nutlike schizocarpic fruit and Ruschianthemum Friedrich sunk under Stoeberia Dinter & Schwantes. — Bothalia 32: 187–190. Google Scholar

    120. R. J. Chinnock 2010: Some observations on Salsola L. (Chenopodiaceae) in Australia. — J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. 24: 75–79. Google Scholar

    121. M. Christenhusz , S. F. Brockington , P.-A. Christin & R. F. Sage 2014: On the disintegration of Molluginaceae: a new genus and family (Kewa, Kewaceae) segregated from Hypertelis, and placement of Macarthuria in Macarthuriaceae. —  Phytotaxa 181: 238–242. Google Scholar

    122. P.-A. Christin , T. L. Sage , E. J. Edwards , R. M. Ogburn , R. Khoshravesh & R. F. Sage 2011: Complex evolutionary transitions and the significance of C3–C4 intermediate forms of photosynthesis in Molluginaceae. —  Evolution 65: 643–660. Google Scholar

    123. G.-L. Chu 1987: Archiatriplex, a new Chenopodiaceous genus from China. — J. Arnold Arbor. 68: 461–469. Google Scholar

    124. E. Cires & J. A. Prieto 2015: Phylogenetic relationships of Petrocoptis A. Braun ex Endl. (Caryophyllaceae), a discussed genus from the Iberian Peninsula. —  J. Pl. Res. 128: 223–238. Google Scholar

    125. S. E. Clemants 2003: Guilleminea, Gossypianthus. — Pp. 437–439 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 4. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    126. S. E. Clemants & S. L. Mosyakin 2003: Dysphania, Chenopodium. — Pp. 267–299 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 4. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    127. J. Clement , T. J. Mabry , H. Wyler & A. Dreiding 1994: Chemical review and evolutionary significance of the betalains. — Pp. 247–261 in: H.-D. Behnke & T. J. Mabry (ed.), Caryophyllales: Evolution and systematics. — Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar

    128. D. T. Cole & N. A. Cole 2001: Lithops. — Pp. 72–74 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F–Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    129. Conference of the Parties 2012: UNEP/CBD/COP/11/35. Annex I. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its eleventh meeting (Hyderabad, India, 8–19 October 2012). — Published at  http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/full/cop-11-dec-en.pdf [last accessed 14 Jul 2015]. Google Scholar

    130. S. S. Crawley & K. Hilu 2012: Caryophyllales: Evaluating signal in trnK intron versus matK. —  J. Syst. Evol. 50: 387–410. Google Scholar

    131. M. B. Crespo & M. D. Lledó 2000: Two new north African genera related to Limoniastrum (Plumbaginaceae). —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 132: 165–174. Google Scholar

    132. A. Cronquist 1981: An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. — New York: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar

    133. A. Cronquist 1988: The evolution and classification of Flowering Plants, ed. 2. — New York: New York Botanical Garden. Google Scholar

    134. A. Cronquist & R. F. Thorne 1994: Nomenclatural and taxonomic history. — Pp. 5–25 in: H. D. Behnke & T. J. Mabry (ed.), Caryophyllales: Evolution and systematics. — Berlin:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    135. B. S. Crozier 2005: Systematics of Cactaceae Juss. Phylogeny, cpDNA evolution, and classification, with emphasis on the genus Mammillaria. — Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Ph.D. thesis. Google Scholar

    136. D. R. Cruz & A. O. Alcántara 2000: Anormalidad floral en Phytolacca icosandra L. (Phytolaccaceae) en el Pedregal de San Ángel, México D. F. — Acta Bot. Mex. 53: 27–33. Google Scholar

    137. P. Cuénoud 2003: Conspectus of families of expanded Caryophyllales. — Pp. 5–6 in: K. Kubitzki & C. Bayer (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 5. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    138. P. Cuénoud , V. Savolainen , L. W. Chatrou , M. Powell , R. J. Grayer & M. W. Chase 2002: Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. —  Amer. J. Bot. 89: 132–144. Google Scholar

    139. V. de la Fuente , M. Oggerin , L. Rufo , N. Rodríguez , E. Ortuñez , D. Sánchez-Mata & R. Amils 2013: A micromorphological and phylogenetic study of Sarcocornia A.J. Scott (Chenopodiaceae) on the Iberian Peninsula. —  Pl. Biosyst. 147: 158–173. Google Scholar

    140. R. A. DeFilipps & S. L. Maina 2003: Nyctaginaceae. — In: M. J. Jansen-Jacobs (ed.), Flora of the Guianas. Series A: Phanerogams 22. — Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Google Scholar

    141. M. Dehghani & H. Akhani 2009: Pollen morphological studies in subfamily Suaedoideae (Chenopodiaceae). —  Grana 48: 79–101. Google Scholar

    142. M. Dehn 1993: Untersuchungen zum Verwandtschaftskreis der Ruschiinae (Mesembryanthemaceae). — Mitt. Inst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg 24: 91–198. Google Scholar

    143. P. H. Demaio , M. H. J. Barfuss , R. Kiesling , W. Till & J. O: Chiapella 2011: Molecular phylogeny of Gymnocalycium (Cactaceae): Assessment of alternative infrageneric systems, a new subgenus, and trends in the evolution of the genus. —  Amer. J. Bot. 98: 1841–1854. Google Scholar

    144. P. Demaio , M. H. J. Barfuss , W. Till & J. Chiapella 2010: Entwicklungsgeschichte und infragenerische Klassifikation der Gattung Gymnocalycium: Erkenntnisse aus molekularen Daten. Phylogenetic relationships and infrageneric classification of the genus Gymnocalycium: Insights from molecular data. — Gymnocalycium 23(Sonderausgabe): 925–946. Google Scholar

    145. R. F. Dicht & A. D. Lüthy 2003: Coryphantha. Kakteen aus Nordamerika. — Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer. Google Scholar

    146. W. C. Dickison 2003: Physenaceae. — Pp. 332–333 in: K. Kubitzki & C. Bayer (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 5. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    147. W. C. Dickison & R. B. Miller 1993: Morphology and anatomy of the Malagasy genus Physena (Physenacae), with a discussion of the relationships of the genus. — Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Adansonia 1–4: 85–106. Google Scholar

    148. M. S. Dillenberger & J. W. Kadereit 2014: Maximum polyphyly: multiple origins and delimitation with plesiomorphic characters require a new circumscription of Minuartia (Caryophyllaceae). —  Taxon 63: 64–88. Google Scholar

    149. J. C. Dohm , A. E. Minoche , D. Holtgräwe , S. Capella-Gutiérrez , F. Zakrzewski , H. Tafer , O. Rupp , T. Rosleff Sörensen , R. Stracke , R. Reinhardt , A. Goesmann , T. Kraft , B. Schulz , P. F. Stadler , T. Schmidt , T. Gabaldón , H. Lehrach , B. Weisshaar & H. Himmelbauer 2014: The genome of the recently domesticated crop plant sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). —  Nature 505: 546–549. Google Scholar

    150. D. Donati & C. Zanovello 2011: Epithelantha. — Villazzano: Associazione Cactus Trentino Südtirol. Google Scholar

    151. J. Donnell Smith 1899: Undescribed plants from Guatemala and other Central American republics XXI. —  Bot. Gaz. 27: 434–443. Google Scholar

    152. N. A. Douglas & P. S. Manos 2007: Molecular phylogeny of Nyctaginaceae: taxonomy, biogeography, and characters associated with a radiation of xerophytic genera in North America. —  Amer. J. Bot. 94: 856–872. Google Scholar

    153. N. A. Douglas & R. Spellenberg 2010: A new tribal classification of Nyctaginaceae. — Taxon 59: 905–910. Google Scholar

    154. A. Doweld & J. L. Reveal 2008: New suprageneric names for vascular plants. — Phytologia 90: 416–417. Google Scholar

    155. S. R. Downie , D. S. Katz-Downie & K.-J. Cho 1997: Relationships in the Caryophyllales as suggested by phylogenetic analyses of partial chloroplast DNA ORF2280 homolog sequences. —  Amer. J. Bot. 84: 253–273. Google Scholar

    156. S. R. Downie & J. D. Palmer 1994: A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the Caryophyllales based on structural and inverted repeat restriction site variation. —  Syst. Bot. 19: 236–252. Google Scholar

    157. J. A. Duke 1961: Preliminary revision of the genus Drymaria. —  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 48: 173–268. Google Scholar

    158. E. J. Edwards , R. Nyffeler & M. J. Donoghue 2005: Basal cactus phylogeny: Implications of Pereskia (Cactaceae) paraphyly for the transition to the cactus life form. —  Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1177–1188. Google Scholar

    159. F. Eggens , M. Popp , M. Nepokroeff , W. L. Wagner & B. Oxelman 2007: The origin and number of introductions of the Hawaiian endemic Silene species (Caryophyllaceae). —  Amer. J. Bot. 94: 210–218. Google Scholar

    160. U. Eggli 1997: A synopsis of woody Portulacaceae in Madagascar. — Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Adansonia 19: 45–59. Google Scholar

    161. U. Eggli (ed.) 2002: Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Dicotyledons. — Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    162. U. H. Eliasson 1988: Floral morphology and taxonomic relations among the genera of Amaranthaceae in the New World and the Hawaiian Islands. —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 96: 235–283. Google Scholar

    163. J. Endler & F. Buxbaum 1974: Die Pflanzenfamilie der Kakteen, ed. 3. — Minden: Lehrmeister-Bücherei. Google Scholar

    164. S. L. Endlicher 1841: Amarantaceae. — P. 1377 in: Genera plantarum secudum ordines naturales disposita. — Vindobonae:  Fr. BeckGoogle Scholar

    165. M. E. Endress & V. Bittrich 1993: Molluginaceae. — Pp. 419–425 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York:  SpringerGoogle Scholar

    166. R. Eriksson 2007: A synopsis of Basellaceae. — Kew Bull. 62: 297–320. Google Scholar

    167. P. Erixon & B. Oxelman 2008: Reticulate or tree-like chloroplast DNA evolution in Sileneae (Caryophyllaceae). —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 48: 313–325. Google Scholar

    168. E. R. Farr & G. Zijlstra (ed.) 1996+ [continuously updated] : Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum). 1996+. — Smithsonian Institution, published at  http://botany.si.edu/ing/ [variously accessed 2012–2015]. Google Scholar

    169. C. Favarger & P. Monserrat 1991: Rhodalsine. — Pp. 231–233 in: S. Castroviejo , C. Aedo , S. Cirujano , M. Laínz , P. Montserrat , R. Morales , F. Muñoz Garmendia , C. Navarro , J. Paiva & C. Soriano (ed.), Flora iberica 2. — Madrid: Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC. Google Scholar

    170. J. J. Fay 1980: Nyctaginaceae. — Pp. 1–54 in: A. Gómez-Pompa (ed.), Flora de Veracruz 13. — Xalapa: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos. Google Scholar

    171. M. Fay , K. M. Cameron , G. T. Prance , M. D. Lledó & M. Chase 1997: Familial relationships of Rhabdodendron (Rhabdodendraceae): plastid rbcL sequences indicate a caryophyllid placement. —  Kew Bull. 52: 923–932. Google Scholar

    172. T. A. Feodorova 2011: Phylogenetic relations of the South African species of Caroxylon sect. Caroxylon and Tetragonae (Chenopodiaceae) based on the morphology and nrITS sequences. — Turczaninowia 14: 69–76. Google Scholar

    173. T. A. Feodorova & T. H. Samigullin 2014: fi05_281.gif fi06_281.gif Vermiculatae Botsch. fi07_281.gif Caroxylon (Thunb.) Fenzl fi08_281.gif Salsola L. (Chenopodiaceae Juss.) [The taxonomic position of species of subsection Vermiculatae Botsch. of section Caroxylon (Thunb.) Fenzl of the genus Salsola L. (Chenopodiaceae Juss.)]. — fi09_281.gif fi10_281.gif [Questions in modem algology], No. 3S (7S). — fi11_281.gif fi12_281.gif fi13_281.gif fi14_281.gif fi15_281.gif — [Proceedings of the International Conference “Ecological physiology of aquatic phototrophs: distribution, reserves, chemical composition and use” III Sabininskie reading. Part 2], — Published at  http://algology.ru/525 Google Scholar

    174. S. Fior & P. O. Karis 2007: Phylogeny, evolution and systematics of Moehringia (Caryophyllaceae) as inferred from molecular and morphological data: a case of homology reassessment. —  Cladistics 23: 362–372. Google Scholar

    175. S. Fior , P. O. Karis , G. Casazza , L. Minuto & F. Sala 2006: Molecular phylogeny of the Caryophyllaceae (Caryophyllales) inferred from chloroplast matK and nuclear rDNA ITS sequences. —  Amer. J. Bot. 93: 399–411. Google Scholar

    176. H. Flores-Olvera & J. I. Davis 2001: A cladistic analysis of Atripliceae (Chenopodiaceae) based on morphological data. —  J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128: 297–319. Google Scholar

    177. H. Flores-Olvera , A. Vrijdaghs , H. Ochoterena & E. Smets 2011: The need to re-investigate the nature of homoplastic characters: an ontogenetic case study of the ‘bracteoles’ in Atripliceae (Chenopodiaceae). —  Ann. Bot. (Oxford), n.s., 108: 847–865. Google Scholar

    178. T. J. Flowers & T. D. Colmer 2008: Salinity tolerance in halophytes. —  New Phytol. 179: 945–963. Google Scholar

    179. T. J. Flowers , H.K. Galal & L. Bromham 2010: Evolution of halophytes: multiple origins of salt tolerance in land plants. —  Funct. Pl. Biol. 37: 604–612. Google Scholar

    180. B. Frajman , F. Eggens & B. Oxelman 2009a: Hybrid origins and homoploid reticulate evolution within Heliosperma (Sileneae, Caryophyllaceae) — a multigene phylogenetic approach with relative dating. —  Syst. Biol. 58: 328–345. Google Scholar

    181. B. Frajman , N. Heidari & B. Oxelman 2009b: Phylogenetic relationships of Atocion and Viscaria (Sileneae, Caryophyllaceae) inferred from chloroplast, nuclear ribosomal, and low-copy gene DNA sequences. — Taxon 58: 811–824. Google Scholar

    182. B. Frajman & B. Oxelman 2007: Reticulate phylogenetics and phytogeographical structure of Heliosperma (Sileneae, Caryophyllaceae) inferred from chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences. —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 43: 140–155. Google Scholar

    183. B. Frajman & R. K. Rabeler 2006: (1737) Proposal to conserve the name Heliosperma against Ixoca (Caryophyllaceae, Sileneae). —  Taxon 55: 807–808. Google Scholar

    184. B. Frajman , M. Thollesson & B. Oxelman 2013: Taxonomic revision of Atocion and Viscaria (Sileneae, Caryophyllaceae). —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 173: 194–210. Google Scholar

    185. A. R. Franck 2012: Synopsis of Harrisia including a newly described species, several typifications, new synonyms, and a key to species. —  Haseltonia 18: 95–104. Google Scholar

    186. A. R. Franck , B. J. Cochrane & J. R. Garey 2013a: Phylogeny, biogeography, and infrageneric classification of Harrisia (Cactaceae). —  Syst. Bot. 38: 210–223. Google Scholar

    187. A. R. Franck , B. J. Cochrane & J. R. Garey 2013b: Relationships and dispersal of the Caribbean species of Harrisia (sect. Harrisia; Cactaceae) using AFLPs and seven DNA regions. —  Taxon 62: 486–497. Google Scholar

    188. N. M. Franz & J. Cardona-Duque 2013: Description of two new species and phylogenetic reassessment of Perelleschus O'Brien & Wibmer, 1986 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with a complete taxonomic concept history of Perelleschus sec. Franz & Cardona-Duque, 2013. —  Syst. Biodivers. 11: 209–236. Google Scholar

    189. C. C. Freeman 2005: Polygonoideae. — Pp. 479–601 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 5. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    190. H. Freitag & G. Kadereit 2014: C3 and C4 leaf anatomy types in Camphorosmeae (Camphorosmoideae, Chenopodiaceae). —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 300: 665–687. Google Scholar

    191. H. Freitag & A. Sennikov 2014: (2256) Proposal to conserve the name Salsola sedoides Pall. against S. sedoides L. (Amaranthaceae / Chenopodiaceae). —  Taxon 63: 186–187. Google Scholar

    192. H. Freitag & W. Stichler 2002: Bienertia cycloptera Bunge ex Boiss., Chenopodiaceae, another C4 Plant without Kranz Tissues. —  Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 4: 121–132. Google Scholar

    193. D. G. Frodin 2001: Guide to standard floras of the world. — Cambridge:  Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

    194. T. Frosch , M. Schmit , T. Noll , G. Bringmann , K. Schenzel & J. Popp 2007: Ultrasensitive in situ tracing of the alkaloid Dioncophylline A in the tropical liana Tryphyophyllum peltatum by applying deep-UV resonance Raman microscopy. —  Anal. Chem. 79: 986–993. Google Scholar

    195. S. Fuentes-Bazán , G. Mansion & T. Borsch 2012a: Towards a species level tree of the globally diverse genus Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 62: 359–374. Google Scholar

    196. S. Fuentes-Bazán , P. Uotila & T. Borsch 2012b: A novel phylogeny-based generic classification for Chenopodium sensu lato, and a tribal rearrangement of Chenopodioideae (Chenopodiaceae). —  Willdenowia 42: 5–24. Google Scholar

    197. J. Fuertes Aguilar & G. Nieto Feliner 2003: Additive polymorphisms and reticulation in an ITS phylogeny of thrifts (Armeria, Plumbaginaceae). —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 28: 430–447. Google Scholar

    198. G. Galasso , E. Banfi , F. D. Mattia , F. Grassi , S. Sgorbati & M. Labra 2009: Molecular phylogeny of Polygonum L. s.l. (Polygonoideae, Polygonaceae), focusing on European taxa: preliminary results and systematic considerations based on rbcL plastidial sequence data. — Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Mus. Civico Stori Nat. Milano 150: 113–148. Google Scholar

    199. Gallica 1997+ [continuously updated]: Gallica bibliothèque numérique. — Bibliothèque nationale de France, published at  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ [variously accessed 2012–2015]. Google Scholar

    200. L. A. Galloway 2003: Abronia, Tripterocalyx. — Pp. 61–71 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 4. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    201. J. F. Gaskin 2003: Tamaricaceae. — Pp. 363–368 in: K. Kubitzki & C. Bayer (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants, 5. —  Berlin, Heidelberg & New York : Springer. Google Scholar

    202. J. F. Gaskin , F. Ghahremani-nejad , D. Zhang & J. P. Londo 2004: A systematic overview of Frankeniaceae and Tamaricaceae from nuclear rDNA and plastid sequence data. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 401–409. Google Scholar

    203. J. F. Gaskin & D. J. Kazmer 2009: Introgression between invasive saltcedars (Tamarix chinensis and T. ramosissima) in the USA. —  Biol. Invas. 11: 1121–1130. Google Scholar

    204. R. Geesink 1969: An account of the genus Portulaca in Indo-Australia and the Pacific. — Blumea 17: 275–301. Google Scholar

    205. M. Gerbaulet 1995: Phyllobolus N.E.Br. emend. Bittrich (Aizoaceae): A reassessment of generic boundaries. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 117: 385–399. Google Scholar

    206. M. Gerbaulet 1996a: Revision of the genus Sceletium N.E.Br. (Aizoaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 118: 9–24. Google Scholar

    207. M. Gerbaulet 1996b: Revision of the genus Prenia N.E.Br. (Aizoaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 118: 25–40. Google Scholar

    208. M. Gerbaulet 1996c: Revision of the genus Aridaria N.E.Br. (Aizoaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 118: 41–58. Google Scholar

    209. M. Gerbaulet 1997: Revision of the genus Phyllobolus N.E.Br. (Aizoaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 119: 145–211. Google Scholar

    210. M. Gerbaulet 2001: Mesembryanthemum. — Pp. 143–153 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F-Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    211. M. Gerbaulet 2012: One or many genera in Mesembryanthemoideae (Aizoaceae)? Discussion of a conflict in genus perception. — Bradleya 30: 187–198. Google Scholar

    212. S. M. Ghaffari 2004: Cytotaxonomy of some species of Acanthophyllum (Caryophyllaceae) from Iran. — Biologia (Bratislava) 59: 53–60. Google Scholar

    213. S. A. Ghazanfar 1991: Flora of Nigeria: Caryophyllales. — Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 34: 1–39. Google Scholar

    214. D. E. Gianassi , G. Zurawski , G. Learn & M. T. Clegg 1992: Evolutionary relationships of the Caryophyllidae based on comparative rbcL sequences. —  Syst. Bot. 17: 1–15. Google Scholar

    215. A. C. Gibson 1988a: The systematics and evolution of subtribe Stenocereinae. 4. Escontria. — Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 60: 161–167. Google Scholar

    216. A. C. Gibson 1988b: The systematics and evolution of subtribe Stenocereinae. 2. Polaskia. — Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 60: 55–62. Google Scholar

    217. A. C. Gibson 1991: The systematics and evolution of subtribe Stenocereinae. 11. Stenocereus dumortieri vs. Isolatocereus dumortieri. — Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 63: 184–190. Google Scholar

    218. A. C. Gibson & K. E. Horak 1978: Systematic anatomy and phylogeny of Mexican columnar cacti. —  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 65: 999–1057. Google Scholar

    219. M. G. Gilbert 1993: A review of Gisekia (Gisekiaceae). —  Kew Bull. 48: 343–356. Google Scholar

    220. T. W. Gillis 1976: Bougainvilleas of cultivation (Nyctaginaceae). — Baileya 20: 34–41. Google Scholar

    221. K. Gilmer & H.-P. Thomas 1998: Die Gattung Tephrocactus Lemaire s.str. — taxonomic, Ökologie und Kultur. — Schumannia 2: 85–141. Google Scholar

    222. P. Goldblatt & J. Manning 2000: Cape plants. A conspectus of the Cape flora of South Africa. — Pretoria: National Botanical Institute; St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. — Strelitzia 9. Google Scholar

    223. C. Gómez-Hinostrosa , H. M. Hernández , T. Terrazas & M. E. Correa-Cano 2014: Studies on Mexican Cactaceae. V. Taxonomic notes on Selenicereus tricae. —  Brittonia 66: 51–59. Google Scholar

    224. R. J. González 2007: Nyctaginaceae. — Pp. 785–796 in: B. E. Hammel , M. H. Grayum , C. Herrera & N. Zamora (ed.), Manual de plantas de Costa Rica 6. — St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Google Scholar

    225. Google Books 2015: Google Books. — Google Inc., published at  https://books.google.de/ [last accessed 15 Jul 2015]. Google Scholar

    226. R. A. Graham 1957: A revision of Oxygonum. —  Kew Bull. 12: 145–172. Google Scholar

    227. A. K. Greenberg & M. J. Donoghue 2011: Molecular systematic s and character evolution in Caryophyllaceae. — Taxon 60: 1637–1652. Google Scholar

    228. W. Greuter 1995: Silene (Caryophyllaceae) in Greece: a subgeneric and sectional classification. —  Taxon 44: 543–581. Google Scholar

    229. W. Greuter , R. K. Brummit , E. Farr , N. Kilian , P. M. Kirk & P. C. Silva 1993: NCU-3. Names in current use for extant plant genera. — Regnum Veg. 129. Google Scholar

    230. W. Greuter , H. M. Burdet , W. G. Chaloner , V. Demoulin , R. Grolle , D. L. Hawksworth , D. H. Nicolson , P. C. Silva , F. A. Stafleu , E. G. Voss , & J. McNeill (ed.) 1988: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Fourteenth International Botanical Congress, Berlin, July–August 1987. — Regnum Veg. 118. Google Scholar

    231. M. P. Griffith & J. M. Porter 2009: Phylogeny of Opuntioideae (Cactaceae). —  Int. J. Plant. Sci. 170: 107–116. Google Scholar

    232. L. E. Groen & H. E. K. Hartmann 2001: Faucaria. — Pp. 23–26 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F–Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    233. H. Gross 1913: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Polygonaceen. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 49: 234–339. Google Scholar

    234. V. I. Grubov 1966: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 3–134 in: Plantae Asiae centralis / fi16_281.gif fi17_281.gif 2. — Leningrad: Nauka. Google Scholar

    235. C. M. Guilliams 2009: Phylogenetic reconstruction, character evolution, and conservation in the genus Calyptridium (Montiaceae). — San Diego: San Diego State University, M.S. thesis [published at  http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/plants/lab/Guilliams2009-ThesisCalyptridium-Montiac-r.pdf]. Google Scholar

    236. Y. F. Hallock , K. P. Manfredi , J.-R. Dai , J. H. Cardellina II ., J. R. Gulakowski J. B. McMahon , M. Schäffer , M. Stahl , K.-P. Gulden , G. Bringmann , G. François & M. R. Boyd 1997: Michellamines D–F, new HIV-inhibitory dimeric naphthylisoquinoline alkaloids, and korupensamine E, a new antimalarial monomer, from Ancistrocladus korupensis. —  J. Nat. Prod. 60: 677–683. Google Scholar

    237. T. D. Hamann , A. Müller , M. C. Roos , M. Sosef & E. Smets 2014: Detailed mark-up of semi-monographic legacy taxonomic works using FlorML. — Taxon 63: 377–393. Google Scholar

    238. S. A. Hammer 2001: Conophytum. — Pp. 134–175 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae A–E. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    239. T. Hammer , R. Davis & K. Thiele 2015: A molecular framework phylogeny for Ptilotus (Amaranthaceae): evidence for the rapid diversification of an arid Australian genus. —  Taxon 64: 272–285. Google Scholar

    240. K. Haraldson 1978: Anatomy and taxonomy in Polygonaceae subfam. Polygonoideae Meisn. emend. Jaretzky. — Symb. Bot. Upsal. 22: 1–95. Google Scholar

    241. D. T. Harbaugh , M. Nepokroeff , R. K. Rabeler , J. McNeill , E. A. Zimmer & W. L. Wagner 2010: A new lineage-based tribal classification of the family Caryophyllaceae. —  Int. J. Plant. Sci. 171: 185–198. Google Scholar

    242. G. W. Harling 2010: Nyctaginaceae. — Pp. 1–79 in: C. H. Persson & B. Ståhl (ed.), Flora of Ecuador 36. — Göteborg: Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences. Google Scholar

    243. R. L. Hartman 2005a: Achyronychia. — Pp. 46–47 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 5. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    244. R. L. Hartman 2005b: Scopulophila. — P. 47 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 5. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    245. R. L. Hartman & R. K. Rabeler 2005: Spergularia. — Pp. 16–23 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 5. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    246. R. L. Hartman , J. W. Thieret & R. K. Rabeler 2005: Paronychia. — Pp. 30–43 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 5. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    247. H. E. K. Hartmann 1976: Monographien der Gattung Odontophorus N. E. Br. (Mesembryanthemaceae Fenzl). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 97: 161–225. Google Scholar

    248. H. E. K. Hartmann 1988: Monographien der subtribus Leipoldtiinae — VIII. Monographie der Gattung Cephalophyllum (Mesembryanthemaceae). — Mitt. Inst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg 22: 93–187. Google Scholar

    249. H. E. K. Hartmann 1991: Mesembryanthema. — Contr. Bolus Herb. 13: 75–157. Google Scholar

    250. H. E. K. Hartmann 1992: Ihlenfeldtia, a new genus in Mesembryanthema (Aizoaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 114: 29–50. Google Scholar

    251. H. E. K. Hartmann 1993: Aizoaceae. — Pp. 37–69 in: K. Kubitzki , J. G. Rohwer & V. Bittrich (ed.), The families and genera of vascular plants 2. —  Berlin, Heidelberg & New York : Springer. Google Scholar

    252. H. E. K. Hartmann 2001a: Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae A–E. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    253. H. E. K. Hartmann 2001b: Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F–Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    254. H. E. K. Hartmann 2007: Studies in Aizoaceae: eight new subgenera in Drosanthemum Schwantes. — Bradleya 25: 145–176. Google Scholar

    255. H. E. K. Hartmann 2008: A carnival of flowers in Drosanthemum subgenus Speciosa (Aizoaceae). — Bradleya 26: 99–120. Google Scholar

    256. H. E. K. Hartmann , C. Bruckmann & B. Hansen 2001: Drosanthemum. — Pp. 227–250 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae A-E. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    257. H. E. K. Hartmann & P. Chesselet 2001: Khadia. — Pp. 72–74 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F-Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    258. H. E. K. Hartmann & M. Dehn 1987: Monographien der subtribus Leipoldtiinae — VII. Monographie der Gattung Cheiridopsis (Mesembryanthemaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 108: 567–663. Google Scholar

    259. H. E. K. Hartmann & S. Liede 1986: Die Gattung Pleiospilos s. lat. (Mesembryanthemaceae). — Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 106: 433–485. Google Scholar

    260. H. E. K. Hartmann & S. Liede-Schumann 2013: Knersia gen. nov., an emigrant from Drosanthemum (Ruschieae, Ruschioideae, Aizoaceae). — Bradleya 31: 116–127. Google Scholar

    261. H. E. K. Hartmann , U. Meve & S. Liede-Schumann 2011: Towards a revision of Trianthema, the Cinderella of Aizoaceae. —  Plant Ecol. Evol. 144: 177–213. Google Scholar

    262. H. E. K. Hartmann & D. Stüber 1993: On spiny Mesembryanthema and the genus Eberlanzia (Aizoaceae). — Contr. Bolus Herb. 15: 1–75. Google Scholar

    263. H. E. K. Hartmann & N. Zimmermann 2001: Schwante sia. — Pp. 291–294 in: H. E. K. Hartmann (ed.), Illustrated handbook of succulent plants. Aizoaceae F-Z. — Berlin, Heidelberg & New York: Springer. Google Scholar

    264. S. Hartmann , J. D. Nason & D. Bhattacharya 2001: Extensive ribosomal DNA genic variation in the columnar cactus Lophocereus. —  J. Molec. Evol. 53: 124–134. Google Scholar

    265. S. Hartmann , J. D. Nason & D. Bhattacharya 2002: Phylogenetic origins of Lophocereus (Cactaceae) and the senita cactus-senita moth pollination mutualism. —  Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1085–1092. Google Scholar

    266. N. S. Hassan , J. Thiede & S. Liede-Schumann 2005: Phylogenetic analysis of Sesuvioideae (Aizoaceae) inferred from nrDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences and morphological data. —  Pl. Syst. Evol. 255: 121–143. Google Scholar

    267. I. C. Hedge 1997: Haloxylon. — Pp. 315–326 in: K. H. Rechinger (ed.), Flora iranica 172. — Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Google Scholar

    268. I. C. Hedge , H. Akhani , H. Freitag , G. Kothe-Heinrich , D. Podlech , S. Rilke & P. Uotila 1997: Chenopodiaceae. — Pp. 1–371 + 212 pl. in: Flora iranica 172. — Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Google Scholar

    269. K. D. Heil , B. Armstrong & D. Schleser 1981: A review of the genus Pediocactus. — Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 53: 17–39. Google Scholar

    270. K. D. Heil & J. M. Porter 1994. Sclerocactus (Cactaceae): a revision. — Haseltonia 2: 20–46. Google Scholar

    271. A. Heimerl 1889: Phytolaccaceae. — Pp. 1–14 in: A. Engler & K. Prantl (ed.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien 3(1b). — Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Google Scholar

    272. A. Heimerl 1934: Phytolaccaceae. — Pp. 135–164 in: A. Engler & K. Prantl (ed.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, ed. 2, 4. — Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Google Scholar

    273. H. Heklau & M. Röser 2008: Delineation, taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of the genus Krascheninnikovia (Amaranthaceae subtribe Axyridinae). — Taxon 57: 563–576. Google Scholar

    274. A. P. Hendry , L.G. Lohmann , E. Conti , J. Cracraft , K. A. Crandall , D. P. Faith , C. Häuser , C. A. Joly , K. Kogure , A. Larigauderie , S. Magallón , C. Moritz , S. Tillier , R. Zardoya , A. H. Prieur-Richard , B. A. Walther , T. Yahara & M. J. Donoghue 2010: Evolutionary biology in biodiversity, science, conservation and policy: a call to action. —  Evolution 64: 1517–1528. Google Scholar

    275. J. Henrickson & S. Sundberg 1986: On the submersion of Dicaurus into Iresine (Amaranthaceae). — Aliso 11: 355–364. Google Scholar

    276. G. Hentzschel & K. Augustin 2008: Verzeichnis der Arten und Umkombinationen. — Gymnocalycium 21: 777–782. Google Scholar

    277. T. Hernández-Hernández , H. M. Hernández , J. A. De-Nova , R. Puente , L. E. Eguiarte & S. Magallón 2011: Phylogenetic relationships and evolution of growth form in Cactaceae (Caryophyllales, Eudicotyledoneae). —  Amer. J. Bot. 98: 44–61. Google Scholar

    278. P. Hemández-Ledesma & H. Flores-Olvera 2003: Nyctaginaceae de Hidalgo, México. — Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. Nac. Antón. México, Bot. 74: 231–287. Google Scholar

    279. P. Hemández-Ledesma , H. Flores-Olvera & H. Ochoterena 2010: Cladistic analysis and taxonomic synopsis of Anulocaulis Standi. (Nyctaginaceae) based on morphological data. —  Syst. Bot. 35: 858–876. Google Scholar

    280. M. A. Hershkovitz 1990: Nomenclatural changes in Portulacaceae. — Phytologia 68: 267–270. Google Scholar

    281. M. A. Hershkovitz 1993: Revised circumscriptions and subgeneric taxonomies of Calandrinia and Montiopsis (Portulacaceae) with notes on phytogeny of the portulacaceous alliance. —  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80: 333–365. Google Scholar

    282. M. A. Hershkovitz 1998: Parakeelya: a new genus segregated from Calandrinia (Portulacaceae). — Phytologia 84: 98–106. Google Scholar

    283. M. A. Hershkovitz 2006: Ribosomal and chloroplast DNA evidence for diversification of western American Portulacaceae in the Andean region. —  Gayana, Bot. 63: 13–74. Google Scholar

    284. M. A. Hershkovitz & S. B. Hogan 2003: Lewisia. — Pp. 476–485 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 4. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    285. M. A Hershkovitz & E. A. Zimmer 1997: On the evolutionary origins of the cacti. —  Taxon 46: 217–232. Google Scholar

    286. M. A. Hershkovitz & E. A. Zimmer 2000: Ribosomal DNA evidence and disjunctions of western American Portulacaceae. —  Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 15: 419–439. Google Scholar

    287. G. Heubl , G. Bringmann & H. Meimberg 2006: Molecular phytogeny and character evolution of carnivorous plant families in Caryophyllales — Revisited. —  Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 8: 821–830. Google Scholar

    288. G. Heubl , F. Turini , V. Mudogo , I. Kajahn & G. Bringmann 2010: Ancistrocladus ileboensis (D. R. Congo), a new liana with unique alkaloids. —  Pl. Ecol. Evol. 143: 63–69. Google Scholar

    289. M. H. Hils , J. W. Thieret & J. D. Morefield 2003: Sarcobatus. — Pp. 387–389 in: Flora of North America Editorial Committee (ed.), Flora of North America north of Mexico 4. — New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

    290. K. W. Hilu , T. Borsch , K. Müller , D. E. Soltis , P. S. Soltis , V. Savolainen , M. W. Chase , M. P. Powell , L. A. Alice , R. Evans , H. Sauquet , C. Neinhuis , T. A. B. Slotta , J. G. Rohwer. , C.S. Campbell & L. W. Chatrou 2003: Angiosperm phytogeny based on matK sequence information. —  Amer. J. Bot. 90: 1758–1776. Google Scholar

    291. F. Hochstätter 2005: The genus Sclerocactus tribe Cacteae, family Cactaceae. — Mannheim: Published by the author. Google Scholar

    292. F. Hochstätter 2007: The genera Pediocactus, Navajoa, Toumeya; family Cactaceae, subfamily Cactoideae, tribe Cacteae. — Mannheim: Published by the author. Google Scholar

    293. A. Hoffmann & H. Walter 2005: Cactáceas en la flora silvestre de Chile, ed. 2. — Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Fundación Claudio Gay. Google Scholar

    294. S. Hohmann , J. W. Kadereit , & G. Kadereit 2006: Understanding Mediterranean-Californian disjunctions: evidence from Chenopodiaceae Betoideae. —  Taxon 55: 67–78. Google Scholar

    295. J. Holub 1998: Trommsdorffia Bernh. 1800 is a validly published generic name. — Preslia 70: 179–182. Google Scholar

    296. S.-P. Hong 1988: A pollen morphological re-evaluation of Harpagocarpus and Eskemukerjea (Polygonaceae). —  Grana 27: 291–295. Google Scholar

    297. S.-P. Hong 1989: Knorringia (= Aconogonon sect. Knorringia), a new genus in the Polygonaceae. —  Nordic J. Bot. 9: 343–357. Google Scholar

    298. S.-P. Hong , L. P. Ronse Decraene & E. Smets 1998: Systematic significance of tepal surface morphology in tribes Persicarieae and Polygoneae (Polygonaceae). —  Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 127: 91–116. Google Scholar

    299. R. D. Hoogland & J. L. Reveal 2005: Index nominum familiarum plantarum vascularium. —  Bot. Rev. 71: 1–291. Google Scholar

    300. J. D. Hooker 1880: Amarantaceae. — Pp. 20–43 in: G. Bentham & J. D. Hooker (ed.), Genera plantarum 3. —  London : Reeve & Co. Google Scholar

    301. G. F. Hrusa & J. F. Gaskin 2008: The Salsola tragus complex in California (Chenopodiaceae): characterization and status of Salsola australis and the autochthonous allopolyploid Salsola ryanii sp. nov. —  Madroño 55: 113–131. Google Scholar

    302. D. Hunt 1999: CITES Cactaceae checklist. — London: Kew Publishing. Google Scholar

    303. D. Hunt 2006: The new cactus lexicon. — Milborne Port: dh Books. Google Scholar

    304. D. Hunt 2012a: Taxonomic implications of DNA studies relating to Cactaceae subfam. Cactoideae. — Cactaceae Syst. Init. 26: 5–11. Google Scholar

    305. D. Hunt 2012b: New cactus lexicon updates etc. — Cactaceae Syst. Init. 26: 12–20. Google Scholar

    306. D. Hunt 2013: Leuenbergeria. — Cactaceae Syst. Init. 31: 16–17. Google Scholar

    307. D. Hunt & N. P. Taylor 1987: The genera of the Cactaceae. Towards a new consensus. — Bradleya 4: 65–78.