Polygala polifolia

Primary tabs

Polygala polifolia

Description

Annual, erect to prostrate, branched herb up to 50 (-70) cm high. Leaves elliptic to lanceolate, 2-20 by 1-7 mm, subsessile, acute to mucronate, with slightly recurved margin, sparsely hairy to subglabrous, 1-nerved. Flowers c. 2.5—3(—3.5) mm long, light to deep blue, turning violet, alae green and often partly red. Sepals lanceolate, acuminate, ciliate, alae asymmetric, 5-nerved. Ovary broadly elliptic, ciliolate and sometimes minutely hairy; Capsule shorter but wider than the alae, c. 1.5 mm long, almost orbicular, very narrowly winged, ciliolate, further glabrous to sparsely hairy. Seeds oblong, at micropylar side with an unequally 3-lobed aril, black, hairy.

Distribution

Ambon present, Asia-Temperate: Taiwan (Taiwan present), Asia-Tropical: India present; Jawa (Jawa present); Lesser Sunda Is. present; Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia present); Maluku (Maluku present); New Guinea present; Pakistan (Pakistan present); Philippines (Philippines present); Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka present); Sulawesi (Sulawesi present); Sumatera (Sumatera present); Thailand (Thailand present), Bangla Desh present, Ceram present, Hongkong present, Johore present, Luzon present, Micronesia present, Mindanao present, Mindoro present, Ponape present, Ryukyu Is present, Sumba present, northern Australia present
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Bangla Desh, Thailand, Indochina, China (and Hongkong), Taiwan, Ryukyu Is., Micronesia (Ponape) and northern Australia; in Malesia: Sumatra, Malay Peninsula (Johore), ?Java, Lesser Sunda Islands (Sumba), Celebes, Philippines (Mindoro, Luzon, Mindanao), Moluccas (Ceram, Ambon), New Guinea.

Notes

Unfortunately MUKHERJEE'S revision of the Indian and Burmese species of Polygala has been neglected by ADEMA, and following him, by subsequent authors. As a result it was not until BURTT (l.c.) showed that MERRILL (l.c.) correctly assigned the name P. chinensis L. to the next species, that that name was commonly used for the present species. Based on ADEMA's revision (1966), BURTT chose the name P. arvensis WILLD. for it. Examination of the type material of both P. arvensis WILLD. and P. tele-pho ides WILLD. (in B) revealed, however, that those names also should be attributed to the next species. As P. brachystachya DC. (the name which MUKHER-JEE chose) is a later homonym of POIRET'S name, it cannot be accepted, thus preventing future confusion with P. brachystachya BLUME, which is a synonym of P. glaucoides L. As the type of P. polifolia (in PRC, kindly examined by Dr. J. CHRTEK) certainly belongs to the present species, this name must be chosen as the correct one.
The synonymy of this and the following species is very complicated, and must remain partly unclear, not only for the name chinensis, but likewise for the names arvensis, brachystachya, elongata, linarifolia, and telephoides. ADEMA (l.c.) did not succeed in unraveling this complex synonymy, and added a new series of mistakes in this matter.
The only sheet from Java is an old specimen from Krawang without indication of the collector; besides it has monstrous flowers. It is suspected to be mislo-calized because no later collections have been made of this species in Java.

Citation

WALKER 1976: Fl. Okinawa: 623
IQBAL DAR 1973: p. 7. – In: Fl. W. Pakist.: f. 3a-c.
CHODAT 1893 – In: Monogr.: 385
THWAITES 1864: En. Pl. Zeyl.: 22
MATTHEW 1981 – In: Fl. Tamil. Carnatic: 74
Merr. 1921: En. Born.: 324
BURTT 1972 – In: Not. R. Bot. Gard. Edinb.: 404
TRIMEN 1893 – In: Fl. Ceyl.: 80
HUI-LIN LIC.S. 1977 – In: Fl. Taiwan: 558
BENN. 1872 – In: Fl. Br. India: 205
ADEMA 1966 – In: Blumea: 269
F.v.M. 1890 – In: Descr. Not. Pap. Pl.: 55
K.SCH. & LAUT. 1905: Fl. Schutzgeb. Sudsee: 284
ADEMA 1966: p. 269. – In: Blumea: f. 15
GIBBS 1914 – In: J. Linn. Soc. Bot.: 59
NAKAJIMA 1970 – In: Hokuriku J. Geobot.: 124
YAMAZAKI 1974 – In: J. Jap. Bot.: 227
MASAMUNE 1955 – In: En. Trach.: 148
CHODAT 1893 – In: Monogr.: 315
MUKHERJEE 1961 – In: Bull. Bot. Soc. Beng.: 43
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 384