In part of the bibliography we can find two species as synonyms, but there are other references which appear as distinct species..E.g.: in The Plant List are separated species:
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2807627
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2807628
But in the Flora of China, the end of the description of Fallopia aubertii exposes "One of us (Park) notes that this could be conspecific with Fallopia baldschuanica (Regel) Holub (see Bailey & Stace, Pl. Syst. Evol. 180: 29ñ52. 1992)."
Does somebody know any solid reference?
Hello Carlos,
To define "both species" The Plant List is based in both cases in a paper from 1971 from Folia Geobotanica and Phytotaxonomica. This journal, edited in Prague, disappeared in 1997. The paper of interest only makes references for the original publications:
- Fallopia aubertii (L. Henry) HOLUB, comb. nova. - Basionym: Polygonum aubertii L. Henry. Rev. Hort. 79:82-83, 1907.
- Fallopia baldschuanica (REGEL) HOLUB, comb. nova. - Basionym: Polygonum baldschuanicum REGEL. Acta Horti Petropol., Petropoli, 8: 648, 1884.
So I guess this should not be enough...
@ These two species are Synonyms. Please check the following links.
Fallopia aubertii (Syn. F. baldschuanica) is a diploid species with 2n=20 chromosomes.
Link: http://www.amjbot.org/content/94/11/1900.full.pdf+html
Link: http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/193.full.pdf+html
Fallopia baldschuanica (Syn. Fallopia aubertii)
Link: http://www.revistafarmacia.ro/201305/art-16-olaru%20991-999.pdf
Link: http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2010/0360/pdf/dck.pdf
Regards
Thank you both. Surely, due to its wide distribution is difficult to know whether it is one or two species. But all the evidence strongly suggests that they are the same, as you say,
If you are interested in the genus Fallopia, perhaps you'll find interesting the articles below. None distinguish both taxa, using one name or another in each case.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11859-010-0695-6#page-1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11284-007-0419-3#page-1
http://archive.bsbi.org.uk/Wats23p111.pdf
And Flora of NorthAmerica considers these two species as synonyms:
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242100054
also GBIF does:
http://www.gbif.org/species/5334436
Hello Carlos,
As you mentioned, Flora of North America treats them as the same entity, with F. baldschuanica as the accepted name and F. aubertii as a synonym. They may not be conspecific but until new revisions/data show that that is the case, the name to use should be F. baldschuanica--as per FNA.
Dear Carlos Gómez Bellver
I think both are same species. Please have a look at these useful links.
Article Tiébré M-S, Vanderhoeven S, Saad L, Mahy G. Hybridization an...
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/65a2/908324db36cc1887634a23ddce15402a5110.pdf
Good luck!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany