175
PLANT NAME CHANGES
NAME CHANGES IN STACE’S NEW FLORA OF THE BRITISH ISLES MARTIN SANFORD Ten years ago, I wrote a note for Transactions with this title (Sanford, 2010) covering changes in nomenclature in the British Flora following publication of the 3rd edition of Clive Stace’s New Flora of the British Isles (Stace, 2010a). Now that the 4th edition of this essential reference work is out (Stace, 2019), it is time to bring this up-to-date and review a further round of name changes. The driving force behind these changes continues to be advances in molecular systematics. The construction of a new phylogeny based on DNA sequencing rather than external features as described by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group is currently in its fourth edition (known as APG IV) (APG, 2016). Twenty years after its first iteration, the system, which represents the natural relationships between groups of plants based on their changes through evolution, has become the standard followed by most modern floras. The classification aims to divide plants into monophyletic groups (arising from diversification of a single common ancestor). There are still families and genera that are polyphyletic (comprising similar taxa derived from more than one ancestor) that will require further division. There are also some paraphyletic groups (comprising some, but not all, of the descendants arising from diversification of a single ancestor) – these can result in different, but equally valid, interpretations and Stace (2019) explains why he has retained some of these groupings. For more details on the APG classification see their page on the Missouri Botanic garden website: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html Stace described the impact of molecular systematics on plant classification, particularly in the British Flora, in a useful summary paper for the BSBI journal Watsonia (Stace, 2010b). The changes are discussed under four headings which I think are still relevant here: No change here then (little or no impact) Many of the large, well-known families such as Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae and Poaceae are the same whether defined by molecular or phenetic data. The fact that these families remain largely unchanged from APG III to APG IV is a strong endorsement of the molecular system and it works even in families like Rosaceae where there is a wide variation in the features of flower and fruit morphology. There are numerous small changes in family structure with for instance, Fumariaceae sinking into Papaveraceae, Tiliaceae sinking into Malvaceae and Hydrocotylaceae split from Apiaceae, but overall the arrangement of taxa has not changed much. Welcome back old friends (changes that represent reversions to previous classifications) The ‘resurrection’ of taxa like Reynoutria for Fallopia japonica and F. sachalinensis reflects the ongoing debate on the limits of Fallopia. Elymus for Elytrigia, Lycopsis for Anchusa, and Buglossoides for Lithospermum (arvense) have also been used before. The reversion to a broader scope for Cupressus encompassing Chamaecyparis,
Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 56 (2020)