New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants
Tropical Fish

Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources » TFK Resources » Member Submitted Articles » New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants

New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants

This is a discussion on New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants within the Member Submitted Articles forums, part of the TFK Resources category; ...

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools vBmenu Seperating Image Search this Thread vBmenu Seperating Image
New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants
Old 08-22-2010, 08:13 PM   #1
 
Byron's Avatar
 
New Names for the pygmy chain sword plants

Many planted tank aquarists are familiar with the pygmy chain sword plants. For many years they were deemed to be within the genus Echinodorus, and E. tenellus has been the most widely available of the several very similar species. In 2007 the young Finnish botanist Samuli Lehtonen completed his doctorate on the subject of the natural history of Echinodorus, and several scientific studies have followed from him since then, with the result that the Echinodorus genus has undergone a significant revision and the pygmy chain swords are now in the genus Helanthium. A number of aquarium plant nurseries are now using his revised names, along with the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew and the International Plant Names Index. Dr. Lehtonen is a recognized authority on the Alismataceae; we are therefore following this classification henceforth in our plant profiles.

The Alismataceae is a family of aquatic herbs containing 12 genera with about 80 species that are distributed in the tropical and subtropical regions of both hemispheres. Three genera of interest to aquarists occur in the Neotropics [=tropical regions in the Americas]: Sagittaria, Echinodorus and Helanthium. With a few exceptions that grow fully submersed, the plants in these genera occur as amphibious bog plants, spending roughly half the year emersed during which time they flower, and the remainder submersed during the flooded period which lasts several months. Several of the species are quite similar in appearance, making it difficult for aquarists to differentiate between them. To add to the confusion, even within each species the plants can take on quite different leaf lengths depending upon the conditions in the aquarium.

The group Helanthium [the spelling Helianthium with the first “i” is incorrect] was described by Engelmann, Bentham and Hooker in 1883 as a section in the genus Alisma. In 1905, Engelmann and Britton elevated Helanthium as a distinct genus and they assigned to it the dwarf chain sword species from Echinodorus. Pichon (1946) accepted this and further elevated Albidella as a separate genus. In 1955, Fassett again considered the species within Helanthium to be Echinodorus; however, he divided the genus into two subgenera, Helanthium and Echinodorus. Helanthium held two sections, Nymphaeifolii (containing one species, Echinodorus nymphaeifolius) and Tenellii that contained the several closely-related species with E. tenellus as the type species. The subgenus Echinodorus held nine sections containing the remaining species within this genus. In his recent revision of the genus Echinodorus, Rataj (2004) followed Fassett (1955) in this respect, though he increased the number of distinct species considerably.

In phylogenetic analyses (Lehtonen 2006; Lehtonen & Myllys 2008), Echinodorus was found to be polyphyletic and in order to obtain a monophyletic circumscription of the genus, the classification proposed by Pichon (1946) was followed. E. nymphaeifolius was transferred into the genus Albidella, and E. bolivianus, E. tenellus and E. zombiensis were transferred into Helanthium.

The species now in Helanthium are those former Echinodorus species that have traditionally been considered within the generic common designation of dwarf chain sword plants and are smaller than the true Echinodorus species, though leaf length can vary greatly depending upon conditions in the aquarium. The same species grown in two aquaria can look different, and within the same aquarium two plants of the same species may appear slightly different. They are distributed from the temperate USA down to Argentina, and all species are amphibious bog plants. Regardless of whether they are cultivated emersed or submersed, these species propagate vegetatively via runners up to 50 cm in length from which plantlets arise at intervals of 2-5 cm. They also produce inflorescences when growing emersed which produce flowers but adventitious plants are rare.

The number of actual pygmy chain sword species has long been a matter of debate. Haynes and Holm-Nielsen (1994) proposed two species, a narrow-leaf sword (Echinodorus tenellus) with a leaf width of 4mm or less, and a wide-leaf sword (E. bolivianus) with a leaf width of 1-1.5 cm; the remaining “species” were deemed variants of one of these. Christel Kasselmann subsequently noted that some of the wide-leaf forms have distinctive genetic makeup and advocated that the distinct species should be retained. Rataj (2004) listed nine species in his Tenellii group. The IPNI (following Lehtonen & Myllys 2008) currently lists five species, now under the genus Helanthium, as follows:

Helanthium bolivianum
Helanthium nymphaeifolium
Helanthium parvulum
Helanthium tenellum
There are two variants: the “narrow leaf” has a leaf width of 2mm (1/16 inch) and grows to 3 inches or sometimes a bit taller; under bright light the leaves may turn slightly reddish. The “wide leaf” has a leaf width of 5mm (1/8 inch) and attains 3-4 inches in length but in lower light it may grow to 10 inches. The species epithet is now tenellum rather than tenellus to agree with the gender of the genus name.
Helanthium zombiense

References:

Britton, N.L. (1905), Alismaceae, Manual of the Flora of the northern states and Canada, 2nd ed, Holt & Co., New York.

Costa, J.Y., E.R. Forni-Martins and A.L.L. Vanzela (2005), “Karyotype characterization of five Brazilian species of Echinodorus (Alismataceae) with chromosomal banding and 45SrDNA FISH,” Plant Systematics and Evolution Vol. 257, Nos. 1-2.

Fassett, Norman C. (1955), “Echinodorus in the American Tropics,” Rhodora, Vol. 57, No. 677 (May 1955).

Frank, Neil (2000), “The Chain Sword Plants: History and Nomenclatural Perspectives,” Aquatic Gardeners Association [online].

Kasselmann, Christel (2002), Aquarium Plants [translated by Ulf Kotlenga].

Lehtonen, Samuli (2007), “An integrative approach to species delimitation in Echinodorus (Alismataceae) and the description of two new species,” Kew Bulletin Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 525-563.

Lehtonen, Samuli and Leena Myllys (2008), “Cladistic analysis of Echinodorus (Alismataceae): simultaneous analysis of molecular and morphological data,” Cladistics, Vol. 24, No. 2 (April 2008), pp. 218-239.

Pichon, M. (1946), “Sur les Alismatacees et les Butomacees,” Notul. Syst. (Paris), No. 12, pp. 170-183.

Rataj, Karel (2004), “A New Revision of the Swordplant Genus Echinodorus Richard 1848 (Alismataceae),” Aqua—Journal of Ichthyology and Aquatic Biology, Special Publication No. 1, March 2004.


Addendum

Cladistics is a method of systematic analysis for establishing and demonstrating phylogenetic relationships between taxa [the plural of taxon, which means a group or clade of organisms], and reflecting their origins.This method uses the following assumptions:

1. All species originate from other species, and are therefore related to other species in an ancestor-progeny relationship;
2. Species change their features over time, and those features are passed on to the progeny.

The phylogenetic analysis is based on establishing which features found in the group under study are relatively primitive and which are more recently derived, as well as on grouping taxa on the basis of derived features shared by all members of the group. A group (taxon) is termed monophyletic if it consists of the last common ancestor and all descendants; whereas polyphyletic means that the last common ancestor is not included in the group. When classifications are based on phylogenies we can ascertain and predict how that group of related fish function, and since this tells us something about their behaviours and requirements, it is of interest to aquarists.
Byron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:18 PM   #2
 
JohnnyD44's Avatar
 
once again, ridiculously awesome stuff, B!
JohnnyD44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:29 PM   #3
 
Inga's Avatar
 
Interesting! See, I really do learn something new every day. Thanks for sharing.
Inga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 06:26 PM   #4
 
redchigh's Avatar
 
interesting.
redchigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 07:51 PM   #5
 
Byron's Avatar
 
Dr. Lehtonen has significantly revised the entire genus, down to 28 valid phylogenetic species from the 52 in Rataj's 2004 revision of the genus. I have read Dr. Lehtonen's work which I have, and corrected our profile of Echinodorus major [was E. martii] as this species has been back and forth so much it is often under either or both names anyway, and E. major is undoubtedly correct. This one should cause little difficulty for aquarists.

The other species revisions are very significant. Our old familiar E. bleherae [E. bleheri was Rataj's incorrect original name, he corrected it], E. amazonicus and E. parviflorus are all gone (the names that is) as they are not valid species but variants of Echinodorus grisebachii which is a morphologically highly variable species to quote Dr. Lehtonen.

I am for the present waiting to see if Kew and the Internation Index follow Lehtonen before I tackle these three and others in our profiles.
Byron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.