Content uploaded by Orlando O. Ortiz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Orlando O. Ortiz on Jul 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Phytotaxa 452 (3): 191–199
https://www.mapress.com/j/pt/
Copyright © 2020 Magnolia Press Article PHYTOTAXA
ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition)
ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition)
Accepted by Samuli Lehtonen: 2 Jul. 2020; published: 15 Jul. 2020
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.452.3.1
191
Promoting the study of plant taxonomy: a new species of Anthurium (Araceae)
named by students from the University of Panama
ORLANDO O. ORTIZ1,2,6*, THOMAS B. CROAT3,7, HILARIO ESPINOSA2,4,8 & RICCARDO M. BALDINI5,9
1 Herbario PMA, Universidad de Panamá, Estafeta Universitaria, Panama City, Panama.
2 Departamento de Botánica, Universidad de Panamá, Estafeta Universitaria, Panama City, Panama.
3 Missouri Botanical Garden, 4500 Shaw Boulevard, St Louis, Missouri, MO 63166-0299, USA .
4 University of Haifa, Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology, Israel.
5 Centro Studi Erbario Tropicale and Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Firenze, Via La Pira 4, Firenze, 50121, Italy.
6
�
ortizopma@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-0046
7
�
Thomas.Croat@mobot.org; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6810-0567
8
�
hespinosaortega@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2005-827X
9
�
riccardomaria.baldini@unifi.it; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2181-3441
*Author for correspondence
Abstract
Currently in Panama, as in other parts of the world, there is little interest in taxonomy, both at the educational and research
levels. In order to increase awareness and research interest in plant taxonomy amongst botany majors, we involved a cohort
of college-level students of the University of Panama’s Biology School in the process of naming a yet-to-be described spe-
cies of Anthurium (Araceae), engaging them in all aspects of taxonomy including the process of proposing a new species to
the scientific community. With their help, we hereby describe a new species we named Anthurium oistophyllum, with de-
scriptions and illustrations based upon photographs of the vegetative and reproductive structures taken from live material.
Keywords: Aroids, Flora of Panama, debate on Taxonomy, IUCN, biodiversity
Introduction
In recent years we have seen conflicting opinions regarding the state of health of Plant Taxonomy. Despite the various
ongoing opinions, Plant Taxonomy is a landmark together with Botanical Nomenclature, the latter regulating the
application of the name of the new described taxa, and both strictly connected through the type concept. In this
context, if Plant Taxonomy is an essential tool of describing biodiversity in a rigorous and unequivocal way through
the application of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018). The process of description is ruled since Linnaeus (1751), and still a
crucial step in discovering new species (Winston 1999), as the type method (Thomson et al. 2018).
A further aspect consists of a paradox between the increase of the newly described species and the low growth
rate in the new employment of new professional taxonomists (see Bebber et al. 2013, Wheeler 2013) and the following
crisis of the herbarium managements and the biological information they contain (Hoagland 1996, Lyal & Weitzmann
2004, Ramsay 1986). We have to remember that a new species can be discovered either in nature or in an herbarium.
In fact, herbaria represent the physical place where plant taxonomic information is deposited, and where past, recent
and current botanical collections are preserved, particularly type specimens, and where taxonomists understand what
makes a species unique and comparable to other related species (Krell & Wheeler 2014).
At present, experienced taxonomists who have a broad understanding of their groups, a wealth of field experience
and a broader evolutionary context in which to interpret their knowledge, are retiring or have passed away (Borkent
2020). When the current cohort of taxonomists retire, what proportion will be replaced? The experienced taxonomic
specialists are generally not being replaced and the training and recruitment of the next-generation taxonomists gets
increasingly difficult with university education globally facing a significant decrease in both organismic focus and
taxonomy in the respective curricula (Borkent 2020, Britz et al. 2020). Anatomical and morphological skills form the
backbone of an education in taxonomy but students are missing out on these now. As a result, postgraduate qualifications
ORTIZ ET AL.
192 • Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press
specifically in taxonomy are rarer (Saunders 2020). A decrease in the number of taxonomists, and the lack of sufficient
funding for taxonomy, caused by the lack of appreciation for this area of research, have been mentioned as some of the
major factors impacting taxonomic research and impeding its progress (Dubois 2003, de Carvalho et al. 2005, Ebach
et al. 2011).
With the emergence of new techniques of systematic investigation, classical taxonomy based only on descriptive
morphology has often become the subject of criticism or defenses (see Meier 2008, Cook et al. 2010, Renner 2016), as
well as the formal rules of description (Hassemer et al. 2020). Molecular techniques are important tools for taxonomy
and biodiversity studies, but diagnostics is often only a small part of a taxonomist’s role and the idea that taxonomists
can be replaced by sequencers is an error (Britz et al. 2020). Using genetic sequences of described taxa often provides
important evidence to support or refute proposed species, but using the genetic information in isolation to describe
new taxa confuses identification with classification (Wheeler 2005, Saunders 2020). But after all, species need to be
described and recognized morphologically so that society as a whole can recognize them and then they can be subject
to conservation or use.
Currently more or less 1.6 million species are known scientifically, but estimates of the true diversity of life on
our planet range from several million to 2 billion species (Costello et al. 2012, Larsen et al. 2017). Species in general
are going extinct rapidly (Barnosky et al. 2011, Kolbert 2014). Tens of thousands of species go extinct each year
(Wilson 1992) taking with them irreplaceable evidence of their uniqueness and phylogenetic history (Wheeler 2020).
Taxonomy as such is critical to addressing the biodiversity crisis, preserving evidence from phylogenetic history,
adopting evidence-based conservation goals, and adapting to our rapidly changing world (Wheeler 2020). Plant
Conservation cannot be separated from Plant Taxonomy and its application: hence the importance of describing new
taxa as showed here.
We can argue that Plant Taxonomy is still alive, but deserves to be improved and supported towards new goals,
challenges and a qualified competence (Wheeler & Valdecasas 2005, Agnarsson & Kuntner 2007) in order to confirm
its crucial role in the global biodiversity crisis: that is why it is worth focusing on new species as is being done in the
present paper with the contribution of young students in naming a new species, hoping for their increasing interest in
Plant Taxonomy.
In the present paper, a new species of Anthurium Schott (1829: 828) is described, which was recently collected
in the Province of Chiriquí (western Panama). Anthurium is a strictly Neotropical genus, which represents the largest
genus of Araceae. The genus consists of 950 species described in total, but it is estimated that there may be about
3000 species (Boyce & Croat 2020). Species are common at lower and middle elevations and especially in cloud
forests (Croat 1986a). In Panama, this genus contains more than 200 endemic species, most of which occur in isolated
peaks or on the tops of mountain ranges (Ortiz et al. 2018, 2019). The species proposed in this work also presents
the aforementioned pattern, it occurs only on the top of Cerro Hornito that includes dwarf forests, which is highly
threatened by livestock activities.
Material and methods
The species described in this work was made mainly based on botanical specimens recently collected, in 2019, in the
remote and poorly explored mountainous areas of Cerro Hornito, which is located in western Panama (Province of
Chiriquí). The material was collected according to the methodology proposed by Croat (1985). A few living individuals
were collected to try to grow them at the Summit Botanical Garden (Croat 1971). The type specimens were processed
in the University of Panama herbarium (PMA) facilities and were dried without using ethanol.
The descriptions are of fertile material, and all specimens were keyed using the Lucid Anthurium Key (Haigh et
al. 2009). The descriptive terminology follows Croat and Bunting (1979). Herbarium specimens, including types, were
studied from MO, PMA, SCZ and UCH. The acronyms of all herbaria mentioned in this work are according to Thiers
(2020).
The conservation status assessment was made based on the criteria of the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN 2001), using the parameters of number of locations, extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy
(AOO). The calculations of EOO and AOO values were performed using the GeoCAT software (Bachman et al. 2011).
Life zones are according to Holdridge et al. (1971).
A NEW SPECIES OF ANTHURIUM (ARACEAE) Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press • 193
Taxonomy
Anthurium oistophyllum O. Ortiz, Croat & Baldini, sp. nov. (Figs. 1, 2)
Within section Calomystrium Schott (1860: 496), Anthurium oistophyllum is particularly similar to A. cucullispathum Croat (1986b:
77), because both species can have ovate-triangular blades and orange ripe berries. Anthurium cucullispathum differs from A.
oistophyllum in having narrowly ovate to ovate-triangular blades, 1.6–2.2 times longer than broad, 6–15 pairs of primary lateral
veins, cucullate spathes and creamy white spadices.
Type:—PANAMA. Chiriquí: Planes de Hornitos, cima de Cerro Hornito, bosque nuboso enano, 8°38’56” N, 82°11’32” W, 1838 m, 14
September 2019, Orlando O. Ortiz, Ramón da Pena & Christel Ramos 3712 (holotype, PMA!; isotypes, FT!, MO!).
Terrestrial or epiphyte, to ca. 1 m high; internodes short, 2.5–3.0 cm diam.; cataphylls to 16 cm long, persisting
marcescent-intact; petiole terete, slightly sulcate adaxially towards the apex, 36.5–41.5 cm long, 1.3–1.5 times longer
than petioles, medium green, semiglossy, drying dark brown, weakly glossy; geniculum subterete, slightly sulcate
adaxially, slightly thicker and darker than petiole, 2.0–2.5 long; blades ovate-triangular, 26.5–28.8 × 17.0–20.4 cm,
1.2–1.6 times longer than wide, 0.60–0.72 times as long as petioles, narrowly acuminate at apex, prominently cordate
at the base, moderately coriaceous, glossy and bicolorous, drying dark green and semiglossy, faintly short pale-lineate
above, slightly paler and weakly glossy below, lacking punctations or pale lineations, drying dark brown above,
slightly paler and reddish yellow-brown below; anterior lobe 20.8 cm long, broadly convex to weakly concave,
broadest at petiolar plexus; posterior lobes directed toward the base to moderately spreading, 10.5–10.7 × 5.5–6.7
cm; basal veins 5–6 pairs, 1st and sometimes 2nd pair free to the base, 3rd pair fused 1.5–2.0 cm; 4th pair fused 2.5–2.7
cm; posterior rib nearly straight, naked 1.0–1.5 cm; sinus nearly spathulate in life but narrowly to broadly parabolic
when flattened, 5–8 cm deep, 5–8 cm wide; midrib and basal veins convex and paler above, acute and slightly paler
below, drying darker and subtriangular above, rounded and finely ribbed, darker below; primary lateral veins 2–3
pairs, arising at 45° angle near middle to 25° angle near apex, etched-sunken above, acute below; tertiary veins darker
than surface; collective veins arising from the 1st pair of basal veins or the lowermost primary lateral vein, arising at
a steep angle and now even approaching the margin until the distal 2/3 of the blade, 8–13 mm from margin, markedly
loop-connecting primaries; upper surface evenly granular; lower surface densely dark-speckled. Inflorescence erect,
held above the leaves; peduncle terete, 38–65 cm long; spathe pale green, spreading, broadly ovate-elliptic, 7–8 ×
4–5 cm; spadix sessile, fusiform to narrowly cylindroid, tapered toward both ends, yellow with a tinge of orange, 6–7
cm long, 1.0–1.5 mm diam.; flowers 7–10 visible in the principal spiral, 13–15 visible in the alternate spiral; lateral
tepals inner margin rounded, outer margin 2-sided; stamens exserted, orange. Infructescence with spadix dark violet-
purple; berries subglobose, yellow at the base, orange at apex; seed 1, oblong, 5 mm long, 3 mm diam., surrounded by
a yellowish mucilaginous sac.
Eponomy:—The species epithet is from the Latin “oistophyllus” referring to the arrow-shaped leaf blades. The
eponomy of this species was chosen through an exhibition held in the scientific bio-fair 2019 at the University of
Panama. The name used, chosen from about 100 proposals, was proposed by the student Rubén Guardia.
Distribution:—Anthurium oistophyllum is endemic to Panama, known only from Chiriquí Province (the type
locality) at 1609–1900 m in Premontane rain forest and Lower montane rain forest life zones (Figure 3C).
Habitat and Ecology:—This species grows in very humid elfin forests, which is extremely cloudy during
daylight hours (Figure 3A). It represents a relatively rare species, since we count no more than 50 individuals in the
type locality. This species can grow as epiphyte or occasionally terrestrial. The color of its berries suggests that it could
be dispersed by birds (Willson & Whelan 1990).
Phenology:—Flowering and fruiting in September.
Conservation status:—Anthurium oistophyllum is known only from one location, which is devoid of protection.
The type locality situated at the top of Cerro Hornito is just outside the limits of the Fortuna Forest Reserve. It is
currently known that this locality present deforestation due to activities related to livestock, which has generated
large pastures with highly degraded soils (Figure 3B). Due to the potential loss of habitat and the restricted natural
distribution that this species comprises (AOO = 12 km2; EOO = 7.3 km2), we recommend including A. oistophyllum as
a critically endangered species CR [B1ab(ii,iii,iv)+B2ab(ii,iii,iv)],
ORTIZ ET AL.
194 • Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press
FIGURE 1. Anthurium oistophyllum. A. Habit. B. Cataphylls. All from Ortiz et al. 3722. Photo credits: Orlando O. Ortiz.
A NEW SPECIES OF ANTHURIUM (ARACEAE) Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press • 195
FIGURE 2. Reproductive structures of Anthurium oistophyllum. A. Flowering spadix (Ortiz et al. 3722). B. Infructescence (Ortiz et al.
3712). Photo credits: Orlando O. Ortiz.
ORTIZ ET AL.
196 • Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press
FIGURE 3. Habitat and distribution of Anthurium oistophyllum. A. Natural habitat (elfin forest). B. Degraded habitat (pastures) with
forest patches. C. Distribution map (red triangles). Photo credits: Ramón da Pena.
Discussion:—This species belongs to the Calomystrium section, due to the presence of short internodes, persistent
and marcescent-intact cataphylls and thick spathes. In this section, Anthurium oistophyllum also can be confused with
the sympatrics, A. hoffmannii Schott (1858: 181) and A. obtusilobum Schott (1858: 181), due to the spadix shape and
the spathe color, although it is especially similar to A. cucullispathum, since both can have ovate-triangular blades and
orange ripe berries. Anthurium hoffmannii differs from A. oistophyllum in having ovate blades, pale-green, salmon,
whitish or cream spadices, white stamens and red ripe berries; A. obtusilobum differs in having ovate blades with
collective veins that arising from one of the lowermost basal veins, whitish spathes, pale green to white spadices and
red-violet berries; A. cucullispathum differs in having narrowly ovate to ovate-triangular blades, 1.6–2.2 times longer
than broad, 6–15 pairs of primary lateral veins, cucullate spathes and creamy white spadices.
Anthurium oistophyllum has been often confused with A. globosum Croat (1986b: 105) which also occurs in
the type locality; however the two species exhibit clear morphological differences; for instance, A. globosum exhibit
collective veins arising from either the 1st or 2nd, sometimes 3rd pair of basal vein whereas A. oistophyllum has the
collective vein arising from the 1st pair of basal veins or the lower primary lateral veins. Similarly, the latter has a
narrowly cylindroid, yellow to orange spadix whereas A. globosum has a much thicker cylindroid to globose, usually
reddish spadix.
Another similar species is A. haltonii Croat (in Croat et al. 2013: 41), which occurs a bit far from the type locality
in the Comarca Ngäbe-Buglé. This species differs from A. oistophyllum in having markedly paler leaf blades on the
lower surfaces (when dry), more primary lateral veins (6–7 pairs) that arising at a 54° angle and few pairs of basal veins
(less than four pairs).
Additional specimens examined (paratypes):—PANAMA. Chiriquí, Cerro Hornito, S facing slope approached
from Los Planes de Hornito, 8°41’ N, 82°10’ W, 1750–1900 m, 22 September 1987, Thomas B. Croat 67977 (CM!,
MEXU!, MO!, SCZ!); Planes de Hornitos, camino hacia la cima de Cerro Hornito, bosque nuboso, 8°39’14” N,
82°11’53” W, 1609 m, 14 September 2019, Orlando O. Ortiz, Ramón da Pena & Christel Ramos 3722 (PMA!).
A NEW SPECIES OF ANTHURIUM (ARACEAE) Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press • 197
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the curators of the following herbaria: PMA, MO, SCZ, and UCH for allowing access to their
collections; all volunteers of Aroid Lab of MO and Carla Kostelac for the herbarium assistance; the University of
Panama and Missouri Botanical Garden for support the herbarium work; Marylin D. Castillo Weeks for preparing the
map; Christel Ramos and Jean Miranda for the field-work support. Special thanks to Ramón da Pena for sponsoring the
field work in Chiriquí Province and to the Staff of Finca La Suiza for allowing us to enter their private reserve.
References
Agnarsson, I. & Kuntner, M. (2007) Taxonomy in a changing world: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Systematic Biology 56:
531–539.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701424546
Bachman, S., Moat, J., Hill, A.W., de la Torre, J. & Scott, B. (2011) Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial
conservation assessment tool. ZooKeys 150: 117–126.
https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2109
Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J.L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire,
K.C., Mersey, B. & Ferrer, E.A. (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
Bebber, D.P., Wood, J.R.I., Baker, C. & Scotland, R.W. (2013) Author inflation masks global capacity for species discovery in flowering
plants. New Phytologist 201: 700–706.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12522
Borkent, A. (2020) Shrinking biodiversity, dwindling taxonomy and building a broader science. Megataxa 1: 53–58.
https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.11
Boyce, P.C. & Croat, T.B. (2020) The Überlist of Araceae, Totals for Published and Estimated Number of Species in Aroid Genera.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24820.09605 (accessed 23 April 2020)
Britz, R., Hundsdörfer, A. & Fritz, U. (2020) Funding, training, permits—the three big challenges of taxonomy. Megataxa 1: 49–52.
https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.10
Cook, L.G., Edwards, R.D., Crisp, M.D. & Hardy, N.B. (2010) Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions?
Invertebrate Systematics 24: 322–326.
https://doi.org/10.1071/IS10011
Costello, M.J., Wilson, S.P. & Houlding, B. (2012) Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates
of taxonomic effort. Systematic Biology 61: 871–883.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr080
Croat, T.B. (1971) Summit garden, Panama Canal zone: its role in botanical research. Taxon 20: 769–772.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1218602
Croat, T.B. (1985) Collecting and preparing specimens of Araceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 72: 252–258.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2399178
Croat, T.B. (1986a) The distribution of Anthurium (Araceae) in Mexico, Middle America and Panama. Selbyana 9: 94–99.
Croat, T.B. (1986b) A Revision of Genus Anthurium (Araceae) of Mexico and Central America. Part II: Panama. Monographs in systematic
botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 14: 1–204.
Croat, T.B. & Bunting, G.S. (1979) Standardization of Anthurium descriptions. Aroideana 2: 15–25.
Croat, T.B., Deal, E.J., Russel, N. & Kostelac, C.V. (2013) New species of Anthurium (Araceae) from Central America. Aroideana 36:
30–55.
de Carvalho, M.R., Bockmann, F.A., Amorim, D.S., de Vivo, M., de Toledo-Piza, M., Menezes, N.A., de Figueiredo, J.L., Castro, R.M.C.,
Gill, A.C., McEachran, J.D., Compagno, L.J.V., Schelly, R.C., Britz, R., Lundberg, J.G., Vari, R.P. & Nelson, G. (2005) Revisiting
the taxonomic impediment. Science 307: 353.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5708.353b
Dubois, A. (2003) The relationships between taxonomy and conservation biology in the century of extinctions. Comptes Rendus Biologies
326: S9–S21.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr080
ORTIZ ET AL.
198 • Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press
Ebach, M.C., Valdecasas, A.G. & Wheeler, Q.D. (2011) Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact
evaluation. Cladistics 27: 550–557.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00348.x
Haigh, A., Mayo, S.J., Croat, T.B., Reynolds, L., Mora-Pinto, M., Boyce, P.C., Lay, L., Bogner, J., Clark, B., Kostelac, C.V. & Hay, A.
(2009) Interactive web-taxonomy for the Araceae: www.catearaceae.org. Blumea. 54: 13–15.
https://doi.org/10.3767/000651909X474032
Hassemer, G., Prado, J. & Baldini, R.M. (2020) Diagnoses and descriptions in Plant Taxonomy: Are we making proper use of them? Taxon
69: 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12200
Holdridge, L.R, Grenke, W.C., Hatheway, W.H., Liang, T. & Tosi, J.A. (1971) Forest Environments in Tropical Life Zones: a pilot study.
Pergamon Press, New York, 747 pp.
Hoagland, K.E. (1996) The taxonomic impediment and the Convention of Biodiversity. Association of Systematics Collections Newsletter
24: 61–62, 66–67.
IUCN. (2001) The IUCN Red List categories and criteria, version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria
(accessed 23 April 2020)
Kolbert, E. (2014) The Sixth Extinction. Henry Holt, New York, 319 pp.
Krell, F.T. & Wheeler, Q.D. (2014) Specimen collection: plan for the future. Science 344: 815–816.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6186.815
Larsen, B.B., Miller, E.C., Rhodes, M.K. & Wiens, J.J. (2017) Inordinate fondness multiplied and redistributed: the number of species on
earth and the new pie of life. The Quarterly Review of Biology 92: 229–265.
https://doi.org/10.1086/693564
Linnaeus, C. (1751) Philosophia botanica, in qua explicantur fundamenta botanica cum definitionibus partium, exemplis terminorum,
observationibus rariorum, adjectis figuris aeneis. apud Godofr. Kiesewetter, Stockholmieae (Stockholm), 396 pp.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.37652
Lyal, C.H.C. & Weitzmann, A.L. (2004) Taxonomy: exploring the impediment. Science 305: 1106.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.305.5687.1106a
Meier, R. (2008) DNA Sequences in Taxonomy. Opportunities and Challenges. In: Wheeler, Q. (Ed.) The New Taxonomy. Boca Raton,
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Florida, pp. 95–127.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420008562.ch7
Ortiz, O.O., Croat, T.B. & Baldini, R.M. (2018) Current status of aroid species diversity in Panama, including new records for the Country.
Webbia 73: 141–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00837792.2018.1452451
Ortiz, O.O., de Stapf, M.S & Croat, T.B. (2019) Diversity and distributional patterns of aroids (Alismatales: Araceae) along an elevational
gradient in Darién, Panama. Webbia 75: 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00837792.2019.1646465
Ramsay, G.W. (1986) The taxonomic impediment to conservation. The Weta 9: 60–62.
Renner, S. (2016) A Return to Linnaeus’s Focus on Diagnosis, Not Description: The Use of DNA Characters in the Formal Naming of
Species. Systematic Biology 65: 1085–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syw032
Saunders, T.E. (2020) Taxonomy at a crossroads: Communicating value, building capability, and seizing opportunities for the future.
Megataxa 1: 63–66.
https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.13
Schott, H.W. (1829) Für Liebhaber der Botanik. Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode 94: 779–780.
Schott, H.W. (1858) Ueber Aroideen Central-America’s. Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift 8: 177–182.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02106075
Schott, H.W. (1860) Prodromus Systematis Aroidearum. Vindobonae Typis congregationis Mechitharisticae, Vienna, 602 pp.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.68
Thiers, B. (2020) Index Herbariorum: A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual
Herbarium. Available from: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/ (accessed 23 April 2020)
Thomson, S.A., Pyle, R.L., Ahyong, S.T., Alonso-Zarazaga, M., Ammirati, J., Araya, J.F., Ascher, J.S., Audisio, T.L., Azevedo-Santos,
V.M., Bailly, N., Baker, W.J., Balke, M., Barclay, M.V.L., Barrett, R.L., Benine, R.C., Bickerstaff, J.R.M., Bouchard, P., Bour, R.,
Bourgoin, T., Boyko, C.B., Breure, A.S.H., Brothers, D.J., Byng, J.W., Campbell, D., Ceríaco, L.M.P. Cernák, I., Cerretti, P., Chang,
C.-H., Cho, S., Copus, J.M., Costello, M.J., Cseh, A., Csuzdi, C., Culham, A., D’Elía, G., d’Acoz, C.U., Daneliya, M.E., Dekker,
A NEW SPECIES OF ANTHURIUM (ARACEAE) Phytotaxa 452 (3) © 2020 Magnolia Press • 199
R., Dickinson, E.C., Dickinson, T.A., van Dijk, P.P., Dijkstra, K.-D.B., Dima, B., Dmitriev, D.A., Duistermaat, L., Dumbacher, J.P.,
Eiserhardt, W.L., Ekrem, T., Evenhuis, N.L., Faille, A., Fernández-Triana, J.L., Fiesler, E., Fishbein, M., Fordham, B.G., Freitas,
A.V.L., Friol, N.R., Fritz, U., Frøslev, T., Funk, V.A., Gaimari, S.D., Garbino, G.S.T., Garraffoni, A.R.S., Gem, J., Gill, A.C., Gray,
A., Grazziotin, F.G., Greenslade, P., Gutiérrez, E.E., Harvey, M.S., Hazevoet, C.J., He, K., He, X., Helfer, S., Helgen, K.M., van
Heteren, A.H., Garcia, F.H., Holstein, N., Horváth, M.K., Hovenkamp, P.H., Hwang, W.S., Hyvönen, J., Islam, M.B., Iverson, J.B.,
Ivie, M.A., Jaafar, Z., Jackson, M.D., Jayat, J.P., Johnson, N.F., Kaiser, H., Klitgård, B.B., Knapp, D.G., Kojima, J., Kõljalg, U.,
Kontschán, J., Krell, F.-T., Krisai-Greilhuber, I., Kullander, S., Latella, L., Lattke, J.E., Lencioni, V., Lewis, G.P., Lhano, M.G.,
Lujan, N.K., Luksenburg, J.A., Mariaux, J., Marinho-Filho, J., Marshall, C.J., Mate, J.F., McDonough, M.M., Michel, E., Miranda,
V.F.O., Mitroiu, M.-D., Molinari, J., Monk, S., Moore, A.J., Moratelli, R., Murányi, D., Nakano, T., Nikolaeva, S., Noyes, J., Ohl, M.,
Oleas, N.H., Orrel, T., Páll-Gergely, B., Pape, T., Papp, V., Parenti, L.R., Patterson, D., Pavlino, I.Y., Pine, R.H., Pocza, P., Prado, J.,
Prathapan, D., Rabeler, R.K., Randall, J.E., Rheindt, F.E., Rhodin, A.G.J., Rodríguez, S.M., Rogers, D.C., Roqu, F.O., Rowe, K.C.,
Ruedas, L.A., Salazar-Bravo, J., Salvador, R.B., Sangster, G., Sarmiento, C.E., Schigel, D.S., Schmidt, S., Schueler, F.W., Segers,
H., Snow, N., Souza-Dias, P.G.B., Stals, R., Stenroos, S., Stone, R.D., Sturm, C.F., Štys, P., Teta, P., Thomas, D.C., Timm, R.M.,
Tindall, B.J., Todd, J.A., Triebel, D., Valdecasas, A.G., Vizzini, A., Vorontsova, M.S., de Vos, J.M., Wagner, P., Watling, L., Weakley,
A., Welter- Schultes, F., Whitmore, D. Wilding, N., Will, K., Williams, J., Wilson, K., Winston, J.E., Wüster, W., Yanega, D., Yeates,
D.K., Zaher, H., Zhang, G., Zhang, Z.-Q. & Zhou, H.-Z. (2018) Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation.
PLoS Biology 16: e2005075.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005075
Turland, N.J., Wiersema, J.H., Barrie, F.R., Greuter, W., Hawksworth, D.L., Herendeen, P.S., Knapp, S., Kusber, W.-H., Li, D.-Z., Marhold,
K., May, T.W., McNeill, J., Monro, A.M., Prado, J., Price, M.J. & Smith, G.F. (2018) International Code of Nomenclature for Algae,
Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Koeltz
Botanical Books, Glashütten, 254 pp.
https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018
Wheeler, Q.D. & Valdecasas, A.G. (2005) Ten challenges to transform taxonomy. Graellisia 61: 151–160.
https://doi.org/10.3989/graellsia.2005.v61.i2.17
Wheeler, Q.D. (2013) Are reports of the death of taxonomy an exaggeration? New Phytologist 201: 370–371.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12612
Wheeler, Q.D. (2020) A taxonomic renaissance in three acts. Megataxa 1: 4–8.
https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.2
Wheeler, Q.D. (2005) Losing the plot: DNA “barcodes” and taxonomy. Cladistics 21: 405–407.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00075.x
Willson, M.F. & Whelan, C.J. (1990) The evolution of fruit color in fleshy-fruited plants. The American Naturalist 136: 790–809.
https://doi.org/10.1086/285132
Wilson, E.O. (1992) The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 424 pp.
Winston, J.E. (1999) Describing species: Practical taxonomic procedure for biologists. Columbia University Press, New York, 542 pp.
