Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Maximising Synergy among Tropical Plant Systematists, Ecologists, and Evolutionary Biologists
2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 32; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.007
ISSN1872-8383
AutoresTimothy R. Baker, R. Toby Pennington, Kyle G. Dexter, Paul V. A. Fine, Helen Fortune-Hopkins, Eurídice N. Honorio Coronado, Isau Huamantupa‐Chuquimaco, Bente Klitgård, Gwilym P. Lewis, Haroldo C. de Lima, Peter S. Ashton, Christopher Baraloto, Stuart J. Davies, Michael J. Donoghue, Maria Kaye, W. John Kress, Caroline E. R. Lehmann, Abel Monteagudo, Oliver L. Phillips, Rodolfo Vásquez,
Tópico(s)Species Distribution and Climate Change
ResumoKey research questions are defined to foster closer collaboration between systematists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists working in tropical forests. Long-term plots are proposed as a focus of such collaborative studies. Addressing the proposed questions will require a significant shift in how both individuals and institutions operate in the collection and curation of botanical specimens. Closer collaboration among ecologists, systematists, and evolutionary biologists working in tropical forests, centred on studies within long-term permanent plots, would be highly beneficial for their respective fields. With a key unifying theme of the importance of vouchered collection and precise identification of species, especially rare ones, we identify four priority areas where improving links between these communities could achieve significant progress in biodiversity and conservation science: (i) increasing the pace of species discovery; (ii) documenting species turnover across space and time; (iii) improving models of ecosystem change; and (iv) understanding the evolutionary assembly of communities and biomes. Closer collaboration among ecologists, systematists, and evolutionary biologists working in tropical forests, centred on studies within long-term permanent plots, would be highly beneficial for their respective fields. With a key unifying theme of the importance of vouchered collection and precise identification of species, especially rare ones, we identify four priority areas where improving links between these communities could achieve significant progress in biodiversity and conservation science: (i) increasing the pace of species discovery; (ii) documenting species turnover across space and time; (iii) improving models of ecosystem change; and (iv) understanding the evolutionary assembly of communities and biomes. Systematics (see Glossary) and ecology in the tropics each has a distinguished heritage, but there are significant bottlenecks to progress in both fields: for systematics, the slow pace of species discovery and description, and for ecologists, the difficulty of ensuring consistent and accurate species determinations within and among study sites. These problems prevent progress in addressing some of the most pressing questions in biodiversity science, such as how diversity is distributed in space, how it changes over time, and how it contributes to the resilience of tropical ecosystems to global change. Here we present a question-driven justification for bringing systematists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists together, to complement recent work that has argued for specimen archiving [1Ward D.F. et al.More from ecologists to support natural history museums.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 373-374Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar, 2Schilthuizen M. et al.Specimens as primary data: museums and 'open science'.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 237-238Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar] or highlighted problems with identifications within existing collections [3Goodwin Z.A. et al.Widespread mistaken identity in tropical plant collections.Curr. Biol. 2015; 25: R1066-R1067Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar]. The questions we identify and discuss below fall into two categories. Our first question relates to taxonomy: completing the formal description of tree species in tropical forests. By contrast, answering the final three ecological and evolutionary questions depends on solving issues of species identification. Achieving consistent, precise, and accurate identifications among tropical forest sites has been greatly facilitated by an increasing number of field guides, local floras, annotated checklists, taxonomic revisions, and monographs (e.g., [4Ribeiro J.E.L.d.S. et al.Flora da Reserva Ducke. INPA-DFID, 1999Google Scholar]). In particular, the availability of automated online tools that standardise spellings and catalogue synonyms for tropical plants has been a major step forward in improving datasets for large comparative analyses [5Boyle B. et al.The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names.BMC Bioinformatic. 2013; 14: 16Crossref PubMed Scopus (301) Google Scholar]. However, standardising spelling and nomenclature does not address the key assumption of comparative studies that species identifications are consistent and correct among sites. Uniform identifications are unlikely to be the case in many species-rich clades of tropical tree, even with a committed effort by the ecological community, because species identification, especially of sterile vouchers, can be challenging (Box 1). This problem limits our capacity to make the reliable links, based on species names, among phylogenetic, functional trait, and inventory datasets that are required for large-scale comparative analyses. Overall, our broad aim is to suggest that the solution to these issues requires changes in how both individual researchers and collections-based institutions operate. We concentrate on tropical forest tree communities because they have been a focus of long-term ecological monitoring and their high species richness means that they are a priority for global biodiversity conservation. However, our arguments also apply more broadly to studies of other biomes and taxa, such as the diverse and poorly known grass flora of savannah ecosystems, taxonomically complex groups in temperate evergreen forests, and comparative studies of insect diversity.Box 1Evaluating Identification Success in Complex Groups of Tropical TreesConsistent species identifications are challenging to maintain in dispersed networks of plots in diverse forests over time and space. This difficulty is related to variation in knowledge among field botanists in different regions and at different times, especially where new taxonomies have been published concurrently. Abundant, widespread species are likely to be identified successfully, particularly if they possess distinctive vegetative features that facilitate the identification of sterile collections (e.g., five of the ten most abundant species found in the RAINFOR plot network in Amazonia are arboreal palms [57Fauset S. et al.Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling.Nat. Commun. 2015; 6: 6857Crossref PubMed Scopus (183) Google Scholar], which are readily identified in the field). By contrast, rarer taxa present particular challenges, especially if they lack key diagnostic morphological characters. However, few studies examine whether identifications of such 'difficult' groups vary in space, or over time, and determination of whether current taxonomic knowledge has been appropriately applied is rare (e.g., [19Dexter K.G. et al.Using DNA to assess errors in tropical tree identifications: how often are ecologists wrong and when does it matter?.Ecol. Monogr. 2010; 80: 267-286Crossref Scopus (70) Google Scholar]). We used an online image library hosted at ForestPlots.net [54Lopez-Gonzalez G. et al.ForestPlots.net: a web application and research tool to manage and analyse tropical forest plot data.J. Veg. Sci. 2011; 22: 610-613Crossref Scopus (141) Google Scholar] from tropical forest inventory plots in western Amazonia to explore uncertainties in identifications within eight clades of tropical trees that present difficulties in identification: Andira, Apuleia, Inga, Parkia, Platymiscium, Poeppigia, Protium, and Tachigali.Specialists in each group assessed the accuracy of the identifications of collections that had been made for these genera by 18 different botanists across 60 plots during the past 30 years. In total, collections from 452 trees were examined online and their species-level identifications were assessed as correct or incorrect based on the voucher images. The collections were originally identified as 77 different species. Overall, the results were encouraging: even in taxonomically difficult groups where species are often very rare, 75% of trees were correctly identified (Figure I). However, some lineages clearly present greater difficulties than others: within Andira and Tachigali, approximately 50% of trees are apparently misidentified (Figure I). Successful identification is not clearly related to the diversity of the genera or the frequency of botanical collection of these species (Figure I). Rather, achieving high levels of correct identification within particular groups is more idiosyncratic. Undoubtedly, in some groups, identification is very difficult with sterile material (e.g., Tachigali). For other groups, it might reflect that all species occur at extremely low density and are therefore unfamiliar to many field ecologists (e.g., Andira). In other cases, relative success might depend on the availability and knowledge of recent taxonomic studies and existing links between ecologists and systematists to transfer this knowledge (e.g., Protium, Inga). Consistent species identifications are challenging to maintain in dispersed networks of plots in diverse forests over time and space. This difficulty is related to variation in knowledge among field botanists in different regions and at different times, especially where new taxonomies have been published concurrently. Abundant, widespread species are likely to be identified successfully, particularly if they possess distinctive vegetative features that facilitate the identification of sterile collections (e.g., five of the ten most abundant species found in the RAINFOR plot network in Amazonia are arboreal palms [57Fauset S. et al.Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling.Nat. Commun. 2015; 6: 6857Crossref PubMed Scopus (183) Google Scholar], which are readily identified in the field). By contrast, rarer taxa present particular challenges, especially if they lack key diagnostic morphological characters. However, few studies examine whether identifications of such 'difficult' groups vary in space, or over time, and determination of whether current taxonomic knowledge has been appropriately applied is rare (e.g., [19Dexter K.G. et al.Using DNA to assess errors in tropical tree identifications: how often are ecologists wrong and when does it matter?.Ecol. Monogr. 2010; 80: 267-286Crossref Scopus (70) Google Scholar]). We used an online image library hosted at ForestPlots.net [54Lopez-Gonzalez G. et al.ForestPlots.net: a web application and research tool to manage and analyse tropical forest plot data.J. Veg. Sci. 2011; 22: 610-613Crossref Scopus (141) Google Scholar] from tropical forest inventory plots in western Amazonia to explore uncertainties in identifications within eight clades of tropical trees that present difficulties in identification: Andira, Apuleia, Inga, Parkia, Platymiscium, Poeppigia, Protium, and Tachigali. Specialists in each group assessed the accuracy of the identifications of collections that had been made for these genera by 18 different botanists across 60 plots during the past 30 years. In total, collections from 452 trees were examined online and their species-level identifications were assessed as correct or incorrect based on the voucher images. The collections were originally identified as 77 different species. Overall, the results were encouraging: even in taxonomically difficult groups where species are often very rare, 75% of trees were correctly identified (Figure I). However, some lineages clearly present greater difficulties than others: within Andira and Tachigali, approximately 50% of trees are apparently misidentified (Figure I). Successful identification is not clearly related to the diversity of the genera or the frequency of botanical collection of these species (Figure I). Rather, achieving high levels of correct identification within particular groups is more idiosyncratic. Undoubtedly, in some groups, identification is very difficult with sterile material (e.g., Tachigali). For other groups, it might reflect that all species occur at extremely low density and are therefore unfamiliar to many field ecologists (e.g., Andira). In other cases, relative success might depend on the availability and knowledge of recent taxonomic studies and existing links between ecologists and systematists to transfer this knowledge (e.g., Protium, Inga). It is an embarrassment that estimates of the tree species richness of tropical forest regions rest on large extrapolations [6ter Steege H. et al.Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora.Science. 2013; 342: 1243092Crossref PubMed Scopus (772) Google Scholar]. Forest plot inventories contain c. 5000 tree species of ≥10 cm diameter in Amazonia [6ter Steege H. et al.Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora.Science. 2013; 342: 1243092Crossref PubMed Scopus (772) Google Scholar] and in total ∼11 600 tree species have been collected to date in this region [7ter Steege H. et al.The discovery of the Amazonian tree flora with an updated checklist of all known tree taxa.Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 29549Crossref PubMed Scopus (102) Google Scholar]. However, based on extrapolations from plot data approximately 16 000 tree species are estimated to occur in Amazonia [6ter Steege H. et al.Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora.Science. 2013; 342: 1243092Crossref PubMed Scopus (772) Google Scholar], which means that ∼5000 tree species might await discovery. This proportion of undescribed species is consistent with recent taxonomic monographs of diverse neotropical rain forest tree genera where 20–40% of species are new to science (e.g., [8Maas P.J.M. et al.Confronting a morphological nightmare: revision of the neotropical genus Guatteria (Annonaceae).Blumea. 2015; 60: 1-219Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar, 9Pennington R. A monograph of Andira (Leguminosae–Papilionoideae).Syst. Bot. Monogr. 2003; 64: 145Crossref Google Scholar, 10Klitgård B.B. Platymiscium (Leguminosae: Dalbergieae): biogeography, morphology, taxonomy and uses.Kew Bull. 2005; 60: 321-400Google Scholar]). While some of these new species might be surprisingly abundant (e.g., Drypetes gentryana [11Vasquez R. Una nueva especia de Drypetes Vahl (Putranjivaceae) del Perú.Arnoldoa. 2014; 21 (in Spanish): 9-24Google Scholar], Brownea jaramilloi [12Pérez A.J. et al.Brownea jaramilloi (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae), a new, over-looked species endemic to the Ecuadorian Amazon.Kew Bull. 2012; 68: 157-162Crossref Scopus (5) Google Scholar]; Box 2), in many cases their population sizes are likely to be small: ter Steege et al. [6ter Steege H. et al.Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora.Science. 2013; 342: 1243092Crossref PubMed Scopus (772) Google Scholar] estimate that 62% of Amazonian tree species collectively comprise only 0.12% of trees in the Amazon.Box 2Using Networks of Long-Term Monitoring Sites to Increase Taxonomic KnowledgeThere are several examples of the value of closely linking long-term monitoring with taxonomic studies to increase the pace of species discovery in tropical forests. For example, at the Jenaro Herrera Research Centre in Peru, two permanent plots – one 9-ha arboretum in upland forest and one 6-ha arboretum in seasonally flooded forest – have been established since the 1980s. In subsequent decades, numerous researchers have collected specimens from these sites. This repeated collection effort has resulted in the description of 26 new tree species (Table 1 and Figure II) (E. Honorio, MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2006). The descriptions of these new taxa have been based on specimens that have been archived in herbaria internationally, which made them widely accessible to the taxonomic community. A similar example comes from permanent plots established as part of a forest fragmentation project near Manaus, Brazil, where a taxonomic specialist identified potential new species of Sapotaceae from sterile plot vouchers in the early 1990s. The ecologists responsible for the plots revisited them annually and finally collected these trees with flowers and fruit over the subsequent decade, resulting in the publication of 10 species new to science [58Pennington T.D. Flora da Reserva Ducke, Amazonas, Brasil: Sapotaceae.Rodriguésia. 2006; 57: 251-366Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar].Table 1The 26 New Species of Tree Described Using Herbarium Vouchers Collected in Jenaro Herrera, PeruFamilySpeciesType citationAnacardiaceaeThyrsodium herrerense Encarn.60Encarnacion F. Thyrsodium herrerense Encarnación, especie nueva de Anacardiaceae del departamento de Loreto, Perú. Contribución al estudio de la flora y de la vegetación de la Amazonia Peruana. VI.Candollea. 1984; 39 (in Spanish): 1-4Google ScholarAnnonaceaeKlarobelia inundata ChatrouL.W. Chatrou, PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 1998AraliaceaeSchefflera megacarpa A.H. Gentry61Gentry A.H. New species and a new combination in Palmae, Theaceae, Araliaceae, Apocynaceae, and Bignoniaceae from the Choco and Amazonian Peru.Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1981; 68: 112-121Crossref Google ScholarArecaceaeOenocarpus balickii F. Kahn62Kahn F. Las palmeras del Arborétum Jenaro Herrera (Provincia de Requena, Departamento de Loreto, Perú). Contribución al estudio de la flora y de la vegetación de la Amazonía Peruana. XVII.Candollea. 1990; 45 (in Spanish): 341-362Google ScholarCalophyllaceaeHaploclathra cordata R. Vásquez63Vásquez R. Una nueva Haploclathra (Clusiaceae) de la Amazonia Peruana.Novon. 1993; 3 (in Spanish): 499-501Crossref Google ScholarCaryocaraceaeCaryocar harlingii Prance & Encarn.64Prance G.T. An update on the taxonomy and distribution of the Caryocaraceae: Una actualización sobre la taxonomía y distribución de las Caryocaraceae.Opera Bot. 1987; 92: 179-184Google ScholarEbenaceaeDiospyros nanay B. Walln.65Wallnöfer B. Neue Diospyros-Arten (Ebenaceae) aus Südamerika.Ann. Nat. Hist. Mus. Wien Ser. B Bot. Zool. 1999; 101 (in German): 565-592Google ScholarHumiriaceaeVantanea spichigeri A.H. Gentry66Gentry A. A new species of Vantanea (Humiriaceae) from Amazonian Peru. Contribution to the study of the flora and vegetation of Peruvian Amazonia: 20.Candollea. 1990; 45: 379-380Google ScholarLauraceaeEndlicheria argentea Chanderb.67Chanderbali A.S. Endlicheria (Lauraceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 91. New York Botanic Garden, 2004Google ScholarLauraceaeEndlicheria citriodora van der Werff68van der Werff H. New species of Lauraceae from Ecuador and Peru.Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1991; 78: 409-423Crossref Google ScholarLauraceaeMezilaurus opaca Kubitzki & van der Werff69Van Der Werff H. A revision of Mezilaurus (Lauraceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1987; 74: 153-182Crossref Google ScholarLauraceaeOcotea immersa van der Werff70van der Werff H. Vicentini A. New species of Lauraceae from central Amazonia, Brazil.Novon. 2000; 10: 264-297Crossref Scopus (12) Google ScholarLauraceaePleurothyrium acuminatum van der Werff71van der Werff H. A revision of the genus Pleurothyrium (Lauraceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1993; 80: 39-118Crossref Google ScholarMagnoliaceaeTalauma rimachiiaThis name is now the basionym of Magnolia rimachii (Lozano) Govaerts. Lozano72Lozano Contreras G. Dugandiodendron y Talauma (Magnoliaceae) en el Neotrópico.Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas, y Naturales. 1994; (in Spanish)Google ScholarMelastomataceaeMiconia spichigeri Wurdack73Wurdack J.J. A new species of Miconia R. and P. (Melastomataceae) from Amazonian Peru.Candollea. 1989; 44: 517-519Google ScholarMelastomataceaeVotomita pubescens Morley74Morley T. Five new taxa of New World Memecyleae (Melastomataceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1985; 72: 548-557Crossref Google ScholarMeliaceaeCarapa vasquezii Kenfack75Kenfack D. Carapa vasquezii (Meliaceae), a new species from western Amazonia.Brittonia. 2011; 63: 7-10Crossref Scopus (4) Google ScholarMeliaceaeTrichilia tenuifructa T.D. Penn.76Pennington T.D. Clarkson J.J. A revision of American Trichilia (Meliaceae).Phytotaxa. 2016; 259: 1-2Crossref Google ScholarMoraceaeNaucleopsis herrerensis C.C. Berg77Berg C.C. Rosselli P.F. New taxa and combinations in Moraceae and Cecropiaceae from Central and South America.Novon. 1996; 6: 230-252Crossref Scopus (6) Google ScholarOchnaceaeFroesia diffusa Gereau & R. Vásquez78Gereau R.E. Vasquez R. Una nueva Froesia (Quiinaceae) de la Amazónia occidental.Novon. 1994; 4 (in Spanish): 246-249Crossref Scopus (3) Google ScholarOchnaceaeQuiina attenuata J.V. Schneid. & Zizka79Schneider J.V. Zizka G. Taxonomic novelties in the neotropical genus Quiina Aubl (Quiinaceae).Candollea. 2003; 58: 461-471Google ScholarPrimulaceaeCybianthus spichigeri Pipoly80Pipoly J. New species of Cybianthus subgenus Conomorpha (Myrsinaceae) from Amazonian Peru.Candollea. 1991; 46: 41-45Google ScholarRubiaceaePlatycarpum loretensis N. Dávila & Kin.-Gouv.81Dávila N. Kinoshita L.S. A new species of Platycarpum (Rubiaceae, Henriquezieae) from Peruvian Amazon.Phytotaxa. 2016; 260: 276-282Crossref Scopus (5) Google ScholarSapotaceaeMicropholis bochidodroma T.D. Penn.82Pennington T.D. Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica Monograph 52. New York Botanic Garden, 1990Google ScholarSapotaceaePouteria sessilis T.D. Penn.82Pennington T.D. Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica Monograph 52. New York Botanic Garden, 1990Google ScholarUrticaceaePourouma herrerensis C.C. Berg83Berg C.C. Pourouma herrerensis CC Berg, a new species of Cecropiaceae from Amazonian Peru. Contribution to the study of the flora and vegetation of Peruvian Amazonia: 15.Candollea. 1989; 44: 513-516Google Scholara This name is now the basionym of Magnolia rimachii (Lozano) Govaerts. Open table in a new tab Most of the species that remain to be described are likely to be rare, but some might be both widespread and surprisingly common. For example, Drypetes gentryana was described in 2014 from a permanent plot in the Yanachaga Chemillén National Park on the eastern flank of the Andes in central Peru [11Vasquez R. Una nueva especia de Drypetes Vahl (Putranjivaceae) del Perú.Arnoldoa. 2014; 21 (in Spanish): 9-24Google Scholar]. Previously collected sterile vouchers collected from other permanent plots have since demonstrated that this species is also found in aseasonal and seasonal forests spanning >1000 km in lowland Peruvian Amazonia. The plot data also demonstrate that this species occurs with local abundances of two or more stems per hectare, which would classify the species as an 'oligarchic' taxon: both locally common (abundance of one or more stems per hectare) and widespread [59Pitman N.C. et al.Oligarchies in Amazonian tree communities: a ten-year review.Ecography. 2013; 36: 114-123Crossref Scopus (38) Google Scholar]. This example demonstrates the benefit to taxonomists of working with distributed permanent plots: the plot data provide information on the distribution and local abundance of new taxa, which contributes to assessments of their ecology and conservation status. There are several examples of the value of closely linking long-term monitoring with taxonomic studies to increase the pace of species discovery in tropical forests. For example, at the Jenaro Herrera Research Centre in Peru, two permanent plots – one 9-ha arboretum in upland forest and one 6-ha arboretum in seasonally flooded forest – have been established since the 1980s. In subsequent decades, numerous researchers have collected specimens from these sites. This repeated collection effort has resulted in the description of 26 new tree species (Table 1 and Figure II) (E. Honorio, MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2006). The descriptions of these new taxa have been based on specimens that have been archived in herbaria internationally, which made them widely accessible to the taxonomic community. A similar example comes from permanent plots established as part of a forest fragmentation project near Manaus, Brazil, where a taxonomic specialist identified potential new species of Sapotaceae from sterile plot vouchers in the early 1990s. The ecologists responsible for the plots revisited them annually and finally collected these trees with flowers and fruit over the subsequent decade, resulting in the publication of 10 species new to science [58Pennington T.D. Flora da Reserva Ducke, Amazonas, Brasil: Sapotaceae.Rodriguésia. 2006; 57: 251-366Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar].Table 1The 26 New Species of Tree Described Using Herbarium Vouchers Collected in Jenaro Herrera, PeruFamilySpeciesType citationAnacardiaceaeThyrsodium herrerense Encarn.60Encarnacion F. Thyrsodium herrerense Encarnación, especie nueva de Anacardiaceae del departamento de Loreto, Perú. Contribución al estudio de la flora y de la vegetación de la Amazonia Peruana. VI.Candollea. 1984; 39 (in Spanish): 1-4Google ScholarAnnonaceaeKlarobelia inundata ChatrouL.W. Chatrou, PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 1998AraliaceaeSchefflera megacarpa A.H. Gentry61Gentry A.H. New species and a new combination in Palmae, Theaceae, Araliaceae, Apocynaceae, and Bignoniaceae from the Choco and Amazonian Peru.Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1981; 68: 112-121Crossref Google ScholarArecaceaeOenocarpus balickii F. Kahn62Kahn F. Las palmeras del Arborétum Jenaro Herrera (Provincia de Requena, Departamento de Loreto, Perú). Contribución al estudio de la flora y de la vegetación de la Amazonía Peruana. XVII.Candollea. 1990; 45 (in Spanish): 341-362Google ScholarCalophyllaceaeHaploclathra cordata R. Vásquez63Vásquez R. Una nueva Haploclathra (Clusiaceae) de la Amazonia Peruana.Novon. 1993; 3 (in Spanish): 499-501Crossref Google ScholarCaryocaraceaeCaryocar harlingii Prance & Encarn.64Prance G.T. An update on the taxonomy and distribution of the Caryocaraceae: Una actualización sobre la taxonomía y distribución de las Caryocaraceae.Opera Bot. 1987; 92: 179-184Google ScholarEbenaceaeDiospyros nanay B. Walln.65Wallnöfer B. Neue Diospyros-Arten (Ebenaceae) aus Südamerika.Ann. Nat. Hist. Mus. Wien Ser. B Bot. Zool. 1999; 101 (in German): 565-592Google ScholarHumiriaceaeVantanea spichigeri A.H. Gentry66Gentry A. A new species of Vantanea (Humiriaceae) from Amazonian Peru. Contribution to the study of the flora and vegetation of Peruvian Amazonia: 20.Candollea. 1990; 45: 379-380Google ScholarLauraceaeEndlicheria argentea Chanderb.67Chanderbali A.S. Endlicheria (Lauraceae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 91. New York Botanic Garden, 2004Google ScholarLauraceaeEndlicheria citriodora van der Werff68van der Werff H. New species of Lauraceae from Ecuador and Peru.Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1991; 78: 409-423Crossref Google ScholarLauraceaeMezilaurus opaca Kubitzki & van der Werff69Van Der Werff H. A revision of Mezilaurus (Lauraceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1987; 74: 153-182Crossref Google ScholarLauraceaeOcotea immersa van der Werff70van der Werff H. Vicentini A. New species of Lauraceae from central Amazonia, Brazil.Novon. 2000; 10: 264-297Crossref Scopus (12) Google ScholarLauraceaePleurothyrium acuminatum van der Werff71van der Werff H. A revision of the genus Pleurothyrium (Lauraceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1993; 80: 39-118Crossref Google ScholarMagnoliaceaeTalauma rimachiiaThis name is now the basionym of Magnolia rimachii (Lozano) Govaerts. Lozano72Lozano Contreras G. Dugandiodendron y Talauma (Magnoliaceae) en el Neotrópico.Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas, y Naturales. 1994; (in Spanish)Google ScholarMelastomataceaeMiconia spichigeri Wurdack73Wurdack J.J. A new species of Miconia R. and P. (Melastomataceae) from Amazonian Peru.Candollea. 1989; 44: 517-519Google ScholarMelastomataceaeVotomita pubescens Morley74Morley T. Five new taxa of New World Memecyleae (Melastomataceae).Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1985; 72: 548-557Crossref Google ScholarMeliaceaeCarapa vasquezii Kenfack75Kenfack D. Carapa vasquezii (Meliaceae), a new species from western Amazonia.Brittonia. 2011; 63: 7-10Crossref Scopus (4) Google ScholarMeliaceaeTrichilia tenuifructa T.D. Penn.76Pennington T.D. Clarkson J.J. A revision of American Trichilia (Meliaceae).Phytotaxa. 2016; 259: 1-2Crossref Google ScholarMoraceaeNaucleopsis herrerensis C.C. Berg77Berg C.C. Rosselli P.F. New taxa and combinations in Moraceae and Cecropiaceae from Central and South America.Novon. 1996; 6: 230-252Crossref Scopus (6) Google ScholarOchnaceaeFroesia diffusa Gereau & R. Vásquez78Gereau R.E. Vasquez R. Una nueva Froesia (Quiinaceae) de la Amazónia occidental.Novon. 1994; 4 (in Spanish): 246-249Crossref Scopus (3) Google ScholarOchnaceaeQuiina attenuata J.V. Schneid. & Zizka79Schneider J.V. Zizka G. Taxonomic novelties in the neotropical genus Quiina Aubl (Quiinaceae).Candollea. 2003; 58: 461-471Google ScholarPrimulaceaeCybianthus spichigeri Pipoly80Pipoly J. New species of Cybianthus subgenus Conomorpha (Myrsinaceae) from Amazonian Peru.Candollea. 1991; 46: 41-45Google ScholarRubiaceaePlatycarpum loretensis N. Dávila & Kin.-Gouv.81Dávila N. Kinoshita L.S. A new species of Platycarpum (Rubiaceae, Henriquezieae) from Peruvian Amazon.Phytotaxa. 2016; 260: 276-282Crossref Scopus (5) Google ScholarSapotaceaeMicropholis bochidodroma T.D. Penn.82Pennington T.D. Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica Monograph 52. New York Botanic Garden, 1990Google ScholarSapotaceaePouteria sessilis T.D. Penn.82Pennington T.D. Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica Monograph 52. New York Botanic Garden, 1990Google ScholarUrticaceaePourouma herrerensis C.C. Berg83Berg C.C. Pourouma herrerensis CC Berg, a new species of Cecropiaceae from Amazonian Peru. Contribution to the study of the flora and vegetation of Peruvian Amazonia: 15.Candollea. 1989; 44: 513-516Google Scholara This name is now the basionym of Magnolia rimachii (Lozano) Govaerts. Open table in a new tab Most of the species that remain to be described are likely to be rare, but some might be both widespread and surprisingly common. For example, Drypetes gentryana was described in 2014 from a permanent plot in the Yanachaga Chemillén National Park on the eastern
Referência(s)