This article was downloaded by:

On: 11 October 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Grana
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713648917

The Pollen Morphology of Burseraceae

Pieter W. Leenhoutsa
a
Rijksherbarium, Leiden, The Netherlands

Online publication date: 12 November 2009

To cite this Article Leenhouts, Pieter W.(1978) 'The Pollen Morphology of Burseraceae', Grana, 17: 3, 175 — 177
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00173137809431963
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00173137809431963

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Gnnn 17: 175-177, 1978

The pollen morphology of Burseraceae

A taxonomic comment

PlETER W.LEENHOUTS

Leenhouts. P. W.: The pollen morphology of Burseraceae. A taxonomic comment.-

Gnna 17: 175-177, 1978. Uppsala 30 November 1978. ISSN 0017-3133.
The taxonomic basis of ;I paper by K. hlitra, M. hlondal & S. Saha on “The pollen
morphology of Burseraceae” (Grana 16: 75-79, 1977) is criticized. Apparently, there has
been no cooperation with a specialized taxonomist, no use has been made of the many
recent revisions, especially of SE. Asian Bursenceae, and the voucher specimens have
been cited in such a way that checking with these revisions is impossible. Among the
specific names mentioned many are incorrect, and some are completely unknown in
taxonomy. It is to be regretted that this in itself careful and detailed work has lost much of
its value by having been done on such a shaky taxonomic basis.
Pieter 1V. Leenhoitts. R$sherbarirmi. Sclielpenkade 6. Leiden, The Netherlands.
Downloaded At: 02:56 11 October 2010

In Grana 16 (1977) pp. 75-79 a paper appeared by
Lrishna hlitra, hl. hfondal & Sandhya Saha, enti-
: I d “The pollen morphology of Burseraceae”. The
~ u t h o r srightly state (p. 75): “The available infor-
mation on the pollen morphology of Burseraceae is
limited and very meagre.” This being so, their de-
Xcription of the pollen of 32 species, representing 10
xnera, could have been a valuable contribution and
:night have become one of the basic papers on the
iulynology of that family.
I am not able to judge the palynological qualities
of their paper, but as a taxonomist with more than
25 years experience of Burseraceae I feel obliged to
criticize the systematic part of it. Systematically,
the Burseraceae is among the most extensively
,tudied and best known tropical plant families. This
iiould make a systematic-palynological study worth
it hile, provided that it was done either in coopera-
tion with a taxonomist specialized in that family, or
\\‘as based upon thc series of modern revisions
.ivailable especially for the Asian representatives
.ind on the collections cited in these revisions o r
identified by their authors. In the paper concerned,
none of thcse conditions is fulfilled. Still, the au-
thors could have been aware of the existence of
these revisions. The only modern systematic paper
they cite, and quote from, is the one by Brizicky
(I%?). In itself, this was not very important for
their work: it gives a short general description and
iisciission of thc Burseraceac ;I\ ;I \\hole, but the
only genus treated at some length is Birrsern, an
American genus the pollen of which was not studied
by the authors. However, among the publications
cited by Brizicky they could have found three of
the most important recent papers on Asian
Burseraceae. Starting with these three papers, and
with the additional help of the Index Kewensis, the
authors could have traced all further important
literature. However, instead of doing that, they ap-
parently based themselves taxonomically mainly on
the revision of the Burseraceae by A. W. Bennett in
Hooker’s Flora of British India (1875, not 1872 as
cited), which is now totally obsolete. How obsolete
can readily be seen from a remark by Mitra c.s.,
suggesting a possible explanation for the fairly wide
variation found in the pollen of Cntiarium (p. 77):
“According to Bennett (1872) the British Indian
species under Canariirni probably includes two or
three genera, the determination of which requires
examination of the full series of Archipelago
forms.” Bennett was right: his sect. Scirririarifhe of
Cntwriirm, described by Thwaites as a genus as
early as 1856, has been generally accepted as such
since 1893, and is probably even not very closely
allied with Cnrrariiim; his species Cnrinriirrrt
kadondoti. C. lnxirni, and C. riibigitiosirm are now
generally accepted as belonging to the genus
Dncrjodes, a genus not yet recognized by Bennett.
His request for a more extensive study of the genus
Cnnnriirm has also been fulfilled: since 1875 it has
 176 P . \V. Leetzhorrts
been completely revised by Engler (1883), Lam
(1932), and Leenhouts (1959). Instead of Bennett’s
revision, the really important publications the au-
thors should have used are those by Lam (1932,
1958), Swart (1942). Leenhouts (1952, 1959, 1972),
Husson & Lam (1953). Kalkman (1953. 19541, and
Leenhouts et al. (1956), restricting myself to S. and
SE. Asia as the authors have done.
A second criticism is concerned with the way of
quoting voucher specimens. They are given for all
species studied, but in one case only it was possible
to check the identification without being obliged to
study the material itself, viz. no. 13, Catznrirrnz lit-
tornle, where King 345 is given. In all other cases
either the sheet number of the Calcutta herbarium is
given (mostly), o r a collector is mentioned with
place and date but without a number, or a number is
cited with some unexplained abbreviation. Proba-
bly, at least the specimens from the Calcutta
herbarium will often represent well-known and
Downloaded At: 02:56 11 October 2010
widespread collections that, if only the collector’s
name and number were cited, could easily be
checked with the index of a revision. Now, check-
ing is impossible, which is to be regretted as in some
cases pollen from different collections of the same
species seem to show considerable differences.
This may point to a wrong identification of some of
these collections.
Finally, two minor remarks may be made. In
the first place it is astonishing that mention is
made (p. 75) of the alliance with the Kutaceae,
Simaroubaceae, and Meliaceae, literally quoting
Brizicky (1%2: 184). but nothing is said about the
Anacardiaceae, whereas Brizicky’s next sentence in
the same paragraph reads: “A close relationship to
Anacardiaceae, proposed by some taxonomists
(e.g., Radlkofer), is supported by evidence from
anatomy and palynology.” In the second place the
authors give (p. 77) first a subdivision into four
tribes and say that “These tribes seem to be natural
(Brizicky 1%2)” and then, without any explanation,
give another subdivision into three tribes in ac-
cordance with Engler in Engler & Prantl (1931).
Actually, Brizicky too gave a subdivision into three
tribes and he mentioned the Boswellieae clearly as
being synonymous with the Bursereae.
NOTES ON THE NAMES CITED
The names are corrected as far as necessary in
accordance with modem taxonomy and nomencla-
ture. Identifications have not been checked, how.
ever!
2. Hedwigia balsonrifera SW. = Tetragnstris
balsnttzfer 0. Kuntze.
4. Trigotiochlanrys griffitliii Hk. f. = Sntitirio
griffithii Engl. Consequently, this species belongs
to the tribe Canarieae. though to another section
than the four species of Sntztirin cited there (nos.
32-35). The identification should be checked.
Under 5. Boswellin serrnto Roxb. and 7. Cotll.
nziphoro prtbescetu Engl. the same voucher is cited,
viz. Subramanyam K. 10165; the pollen grains,
however, appear to be distinctly different.
9. Catzoriirtti cinererini (not “citzeriini”) Guill. =
C. subirlatuni Guill.
10. Catznrirrnz cottzracana L. This name is un-
known in taxonomy.
12. Catzariritti lotzgflorescetis Elmer ex Merr.
(not “Mill.”) =C. hirsrrtrrttz Willd.
13. Canarirrttz littorole BI. The only collection
number cited, King 345, made it possible to confirm
the identification. The origin, however, is not India
but the Malay Peninsula.
16. Catzarirrtti sikkinzetzse King = C. strictrrtn
Roxb.
19. Cutiariirm clenzentis (not “clettzotrtis”)
Merr. = C. nspcrirttz Benth.
20. Cnnoriirnz elnzeri Merr. = C. derzticrrlotirnz
BI.
21. Cnrrnrirrni Irispella Miq. This name is un-
known in taxonomy, probably misspelled.
22. Connrirrnr kerrii Craib = C. siibirlatrrm Guill.,
the same as no. 9. As the pollen of these two collec-
tions are not identical, the vouchers should be
reidentified.
23. Catzariirnz perkitzsae (not “perkitzsiac”)
Merr. = C. errrypkylliitti Perk.
24. Cnnnririttz todnyense Engl. = C . eirryphyllirnz
Perk., the same as no. 23; the pollen grains seem to
be slightly different, however.
25. Carzaririni “vriasceanrmi’ should be vrie-
seatzrrtn.
29. Pacliylobiis edrrlis G. Don =Dacryodes edit-
/is H. J. Lam.
3 1. Canarirrnt thyrsoideiini (not “thyrsoidieunz”)
Perkins=C. asperiinz Benth., the same as no. 19
and closely allied with no. 25. The differences of the
pollen grains with these two collections and the
lonely position of this Catzariirm under the Satitiria
type may point to a wrong identification.
 Pollen triorphology of Uiirsrraceae 177

POSTSCRIPT Lam, H. J. 1932. Contributions i I'Ctude de la flore des

The present paper was in press already when I
received from Dr K. hlitra a list with full citations of
the vouchers to the samples studied by her and
collaborators and with some corrections t o the ong-
inal list published. From this new list it became
clear:
I. The "unexplained abbreviations" referred t o
in my paper were in most cases the initials of the
collector concerned, but cited in an unusual way. S
nSI (sample 6) appeared to stand for Botanical
Survey of India. Southern Circle.
2. The identifications of the samples 8, 9, 1 1 , 13,
14, 15, 16, 18,22,23,24,26,27,28,30,and 31 could
bc confirmed, taking into account the name changes
Siven in the present paper.
3. The voucher of sample 7. Cotrimipliora
piibcscetis. turned out t o b e K. Subramanyam 5739,
iiot 10165 as given in the original list; that is the
voucher of sample 5 , Boswellia serrata.
Downloaded At: 02:56 11 October 2010
Indes NCerlandaises. XXII. The Burseraceae of the
hlalay Archipelago and Peninsula, with annotations
concerning extra-hlalayan species, especially of
Dacryodes, Santiria, and Canarium. -Bull. Jard. Bot.
Buitenz., ser. 3, 13:281-561.
Lam, H. J. 1958. Revision of the Burseraceae of the
hlalaysian area in a wider sense. V b. Haplolobus. a
revised revision. - Blumea 9: 237-272.
Leenhouts, P. W. 1952. Revision of the Burseraceae of the
hfalaysian area in a wider sense. 1. Protium Burman f.
11. Scutinanthe Thwaites. - Blumea 7: 154-163.
Leenhouts, P. W. 1959. Revision of the Burseraceae of the
Malaysian area in a wider sense. Xa. Canarium
Stickm. - Blumea 9: 275475.
Leenhouts, P. W. 1972. A revision of Haplolobus
(Burseraceae). -Blumea 20: 283-3 10.
Leenhouts, P. W.,Kalkman, C. 61 Lam, H. J. 1956.
Burseraceae.-In: Flora hlalesiana (ed. C. G. C. J.
van Steenis). ser. I , vol. 5, pp. 209-296.
hlitra, K., hlondal, hl. & Saha, S. 1977. The pollen
morphology of Burseraceae. -GrAna 16: 75-79.
Swart, J. J. 1942. A monograph of the genus Protium and
some allied genera (Burseraceae). - Recl. Trav. Bot.

NCerl. 39: 21 1-446.

4. Sample 20, Canariiitti eltrieri Men., turned out
to represent C. nierrillii H. J. Lam.
5 . The right spelling of sample 21 appeared to be
Ctiticiriiini kipella Miq. T h e identification of the
voucher could be confirmed.
The identifications of the other samples could not
yet b e checked as either the citation of the collec-
tion was still insufficient, or the collection was un-
'hnown to me.

REFERENCES
Hennett, A. W. 1875. Burseraceae. - In: The flora of
British India (ed. J. D. Hooker), vol. 1. pp. 527-540. -
L. Reeve & Co., London.
Ihizicky, G. K. 1962. The genera of Simaroubaceae and
Burseraceae in the southeastern United States. - J.
Arnold Arbor. 43: 173-186.
finpler, A. 1883. Burseraceae. - In: Monographiae Pha-
nerogamarum (ed. A. DeCandolle), vol. 4, pp. 1-169.
-G.hlasson. Pans.
thgler, A. 1931. Burseraceae. - In: Die natijrlichen
Pllanzenfamilien (ed. A. Engler & K. Prantl), 2nd ed.,
vol. 19a, pp. 405456. - W. Engelmann, Lcipzig.
Ilusson, A. M. & Lam. H. J. 1953. Revision of the
Burseraceae of the Malaysian area in a wider sense. V.
-
Haplolobus. Blumea 7: 413458.
Salkman, C. 1953. Revision of the Burseraceae of the
Malaysian area in a wider sense. VI. Revision of the
genus Garuga Roxburgh. - Blumea 7:458-472.
Knlkman, C. 1954. Revision of the Burscraceae of the
Malaysian area in a wider sense VIa. Garuga. VII.
Triomma Hooker f. VIII. Dacryodes Vahl. IX.
Santiria Blume (and a new combination in Protium). -
Blurnea 7: 498-552.

! rilmran .\lenroriiil l'oliirne I