4.0 Article

Resurrection of the genus Camelinopsis (Brassicaceae, tribe Thlaspideae); with introduction of a new species

Journal

NORDIC JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/njb.04175

Keywords

Alborz Mountains; Camelinopsis; Irano-Turanian region; Pseudocamelina

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals that the previous merging of the genus Camelinopsis into Pseudocamelina was incorrect, and Camelinopsis should be recognized as a separate genus. Additionally, a new species, Camelinopsis alborzica, was discovered. By comparing its characteristics, it can be clearly distinguished from C. campylopoda.
The ditypic genus Camelinopsis was recently subsumed into Pseudocamelina. However, we here show that the type species of the genus, Camelinopsis campylopoda is distinct from Pseudocamelina, and should be recognized as a separate genus. The second species C. kurdica, however belongs to the genus Pseudocamelina. Camelinopsis differs from Pseudocamelina mainly by its subglobose to broadly obovoid, slightly flattened silicle which is 1.8-2.6 mm wide, instead of a linear, narrowly ellipsoid, occasionally oblong to obovoid silique, that is never wider than 1.5 mm. In addition, seeds of Camelinopsis are mucilaginous when wetted while seeds of Pseudocamelina are not. A new species of Camelinopsis is also described and illustrated based on new collections from western Alborz Mountains, northern Iran. This novelty, C. alborzica, is readily distinguished from C. campylopoda by its biennial (versus annual) habit, straight (versus strongly flexuous) racemes, longer sepals (1.7-2.1 versus 1.2-1.5 mm), shorter fruiting pedicels (0.5-1 versus 1.5- 4 cm) and higher ovule number (8 versus 4 per ovary). The genus Camelinopsis is considered a low mountain relative of the high-elevation genus Didymophysa, as indicated by an ITS phylogeny.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available