Volume 86Number 31999REVISION OFBEILSCHMIEDIA(LAURACEAE) IN THENEOTROPICS1Annalsof theMissouriBotanicalGardenSachiko Nishida2ABSTRACT The neotropical species of Beilschmiedia are revised here. including general descriptions for morphology. anatomv.biogeographic distribution, and seed dispersai. The systematic position of Beilschmiedia within the family, as well asthe systematic treatment of its neotropical species. is provided. As a result, 28 species were recognized with 4 newlydescribed and 2 newly combined; they divide into five species groupings based on their leaf anatomical characters. Lauraceae contain many taxa that are importantecological and economical components of tropicalforests. However, the taxonomy of the family hasnot been sufficiently clarified at either the genus orspecies level. Beilschmiedia is an example of sucha poorly understood genus. Beilschmiedia is one of the largest pantropicalgenera in the Lauraceae, comprising about 250species. It is usually distinguished from other laurelgenera by the following characters: bisexual andtrimerous flowers, six equal to subequal tepals, sixto nine fertile stamens with 2-celled anthers, sta-minai glands only in the third whorl, shallow re-ceptacles, and fruit lacking cupules. This genus is still poorly understood taxonomi-cally. Since Meisner (1864) revised Beilschmiediawith the rest of the family, no revision for the entiregenus has been written. For neotropical species,Kostermans's (1938) work was the most recent com-prehensive revision, and Allen (1945) treated theMVexican and Central American species. These tworevisional works were not based on abundant ma-terial; 7 of 15 species in Kostermans's revision and4 of 8 species in Allen's revision were known only ' This study, undertaken as part of the author's doctoral dissertation research ai Kyoto University, Japan, was mainlydonc during a stay at the Missouri Botanical Garden. I thank Hiroshi Tobe for his encouragement, Henk van der Werfffor his guidance, and ail the Garden staff for their support during my stay. I also thank the curators of the followingherbaria: A, B, BM, BR, C, CR, F, IEB, INB, K. LL.. MEXU. NY. P. R, RB, S, U, US, and VEN. I am especiallygrateful to the curators of MO, NY, and RB for allowing me to remove leaves from their specimens for leaf anatomystudies. Barry Hammel, William Haber, and the INB staff, especially Renaldo Aguilar, assisted me during my fieldworkin Costa Rica. J. L. Clark and K. Thomsen kindly sent me slides or materials of Beilschmiedia. Roy E. Gereau, as wellas Hidetoshi Nagamasu, improved the Latin diagnoses. John Myers drew the fine illustrations. This research wassupported by the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS fellowships from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports andCulture. 2 Division of Phylogenetics, Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo, Yayoigaoka 6, Sanda, 669-1546, Japan. ANN. MISSOURI BOT. GARD. 86: 657-701. 1999.1 i\1� w e0o 0 ?M
BioStor
