Elaphoglossum
Content
Distribution
Andes present, wetter parts of tropics and subtropics present
More than 400 spp., throughout wetter parts of tropics and subtropics, with greatest diversity on the Andes.
Taxonomy
The generic name Elaphoglossum was proposed by Schott in 1834 for certain specified species of the composite genus Acrostichum, but he gave no description, and therefore his name, though long accepted, does not comply with the present conditions of valid publication (Morton, l.c. 1955). When Presl attempted a more complete survey of the Acrostichoid ferns (1836) he adopted the name Olfersia Raddi for the species listed as Elaphoglossum by Schott; but Raddi's name was given originally to the single species O. corcovadensis, which is now included in the earlier Polybotrya H. & B. Presl also established a new genus Aconiopteris for Acrostichum subdiaphanum Hook. & Grev., the only distinctive character of which is that the veins join in a series of arcs along the margin. This character is not now regarded as significant for generic Separation, and the type species of Aconiopteris is now included in the same genus as most of those listed as Olfersia by Presl. Thus, according to a strict interpretation of the Code, Aconiopteris is the correct name for the species which have been commonly called Elaphoglossum for more than a Century. The first valid publication of the name Elaphoglossum was by John Smith in 1841. A proposal was therefore made (Anderson 1965) for the conservation of Elaphoglossum J. Sm. as against Aconiopteris and this has been approved.
In 1845 Fee published his elaborate and finely illustrated work on the Acrostichoid ferns, in which he criticized Presl's arrangement. He restricted the genus Olfersia Presl to two species and redefined Acrostichum to include the bulk of Presl's Olfersia; for Acrostichum as restricted by Presl (but excluding a few species) he proposed the new name Chrysodium. He maintained Aconiopteris as a separate genus. In 1846 John Smith published the name Dictyoglossum for tropical American species having anastomosing veins, but a generic Separation on this character is now regarded as unnatural. In 1857 Moore adopted the name Elaphoglossum in the modern sense and transferred many names to it, but Hooker (1864) reverted to a comprehensive Acrostichum with Elaphoglossum as a section. Beddome (1865 onwards) followed Moore, and the name Elaphoglossum came into quite general use after the publications of Christ (1897, 1899) and Diels (1899).
Subsequent treatment of the genus in relation to other genera in systems of Classification is dealt with in the introduetion to the present group of genera (supra p. 257). One aberrant suggestion should however be mentioned. In his Monograph (1899, p. 17) Christ recognized the isolation of Elaphoglossum among Acrostichoid ferns, but pointed out similarities between the genera Elaphoglossum and Syngramma, noting however the great difference between the bristle-like hairs which clothe the rhizome of Syngramma and the scales of Elaphoglossum. Bower accepted a relationship between the two genera, and placed them as simple-fronded derivatives of the same stock as Metaxya (). But the superficial resemblance between Elaphoglossum and Syngramma is due to the kind of convergent evolutionthat has occurred many times among ferns. It is clear that one general evolutionary trend which has occurred along several separate lines is reduetion from a branched frond to a simple one; Syngramma and Elaphoglossum appear to be the ends of two quite different such lines. They differ greatly in spores as well as in scales; probably a study of sporangia would show further differences. The association of Syngramma (an exclusively Old World genus) and Elaphoglossum with Metaxya, which is an isolated monotypic south American genus placed with some doubt in a separate subfamily of Cyatheaceae () seems to me highly improbable. I know of no other author who has seriously upheld Bower's ideas on these genera.
In 1845 Fee published his elaborate and finely illustrated work on the Acrostichoid ferns, in which he criticized Presl's arrangement. He restricted the genus Olfersia Presl to two species and redefined Acrostichum to include the bulk of Presl's Olfersia; for Acrostichum as restricted by Presl (but excluding a few species) he proposed the new name Chrysodium. He maintained Aconiopteris as a separate genus. In 1846 John Smith published the name Dictyoglossum for tropical American species having anastomosing veins, but a generic Separation on this character is now regarded as unnatural. In 1857 Moore adopted the name Elaphoglossum in the modern sense and transferred many names to it, but Hooker (1864) reverted to a comprehensive Acrostichum with Elaphoglossum as a section. Beddome (1865 onwards) followed Moore, and the name Elaphoglossum came into quite general use after the publications of Christ (1897, 1899) and Diels (1899).
Subsequent treatment of the genus in relation to other genera in systems of Classification is dealt with in the introduetion to the present group of genera (supra p. 257). One aberrant suggestion should however be mentioned. In his Monograph (1899, p. 17) Christ recognized the isolation of Elaphoglossum among Acrostichoid ferns, but pointed out similarities between the genera Elaphoglossum and Syngramma, noting however the great difference between the bristle-like hairs which clothe the rhizome of Syngramma and the scales of Elaphoglossum. Bower accepted a relationship between the two genera, and placed them as simple-fronded derivatives of the same stock as Metaxya (). But the superficial resemblance between Elaphoglossum and Syngramma is due to the kind of convergent evolutionthat has occurred many times among ferns. It is clear that one general evolutionary trend which has occurred along several separate lines is reduetion from a branched frond to a simple one; Syngramma and Elaphoglossum appear to be the ends of two quite different such lines. They differ greatly in spores as well as in scales; probably a study of sporangia would show further differences. The association of Syngramma (an exclusively Old World genus) and Elaphoglossum with Metaxya, which is an isolated monotypic south American genus placed with some doubt in a separate subfamily of Cyatheaceae () seems to me highly improbable. I know of no other author who has seriously upheld Bower's ideas on these genera.
Citation
Moore 1862: Ind. Fil.: 351
C. Chr. 1905: Ind. Fil.: Iii, 302
Diels 1899 – In: E. & P., Nat. Pfl. Fam. 1: 331
Holttum 1966: pp. 317-326. – In: Blumea
W. R. Anderson 1965 – In: Regn. Veget.: 18
Bedd. 1883: Handb. Ferns Br. India: 416
Morton 1955 – In: Amer. Fern J.: 11
Moore 1857: Ind. Fil.: xvi
J. Sm. 1875: Hist. Fil.: 125
Christ 1897: Farnkr. Erde: 33
Hook. & Baker 1868: Syn. Fil.: 400
J. Sm. 1842 – In: Hook., Gen. Fil.: t. 105A
Copel. 1947: Gen. Fil.: 119
J. Sm. 1899: pp. 1-159. – In: Neue Denkschr. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. Naturw.