2019/06/01 by Nicolás García, Alan W. Meerow, Silvia Arroyo‐Leuenberger +4 · 2 citations
Chemistry · Agricultural and Biological Sciences · Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · #Chemical synthesis and alkaloids #Plant Diversity and Evolution #Plant and Fungal Species Descriptions #Subgenus #Amaryllidaceae #Biology #Genus #Clade #Botany #Phylogenetic tree #Tribe #Zoology #Genetics
paper · doi:10.1002/tax.12062
openalex publication_date 2019/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
A robust generic classification for Amaryllidaceae has remained elusive mainly due to the lack of unequivocal diagnostic characters, a consequence of highly canalized variation and a deeply reticulated evolutionary history. A consensus classification is proposed here, based on recent molecular phylogenetic studies, morphological and cytogenetic variation, and accounting for secondary criteria of classification, such as nomenclatural stability. Using the latest sutribal classification of Hippeastreae (Hippeastrinae and Traubiinae) as a foundation, we propose the recognition of six genera, namely Eremolirion gen. nov., Hippeastrum , Phycella s.l., Rhodolirium s.str., Traubia , and Zephyranthes s.l. A subgeneric classification is suggested for Hippeastrum and Zephyranthes to denote putative subclades. In Hippeastrum , we recognize H . subg. Hippeastrum and H . subg. Tocantinia . In Zephyranthes , Z . subg. Eithea , Z . subg. Habranthus , Z . subg. Myostemma (= core Rhodophiala clade), Z . subg. Neorhodophiala subg. nov., and Z . subg. Zephyranthes are recognized. Descriptions, synonymy, taxonomic keys, and new combinations are provided for each genus and subgenus.