13.07.2013 Views

Cassiinae pt 1 NY-Botanical_gardens_Vol. 35_1 - Copy.pdf - Antbase

Cassiinae pt 1 NY-Botanical_gardens_Vol. 35_1 - Copy.pdf - Antbase

Cassiinae pt 1 NY-Botanical_gardens_Vol. 35_1 - Copy.pdf - Antbase

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

8 MEMOIRS OF THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN [VOL.<br />

that of some sennas; and in several members of Senna ser. Coluteoideae the pod<br />

is at once indehiscent and multUocular Uke that of Cassia. The long woody pipe-<br />

Uke pod of Senna spectabilis superficially resembles that of some true cassias,<br />

but when ripe it sphts open along the ventral suture and it arises from a flower<br />

whoUy unhke that of any Cassia in its androecium and asymmetric corolla, fea­<br />

tures that remain in close harmony with related sennas characterized by piano-<br />

compressed pods. Cassia lacks petiolar glands, but whUe the gland characteristic<br />

of the majority of sennas is absent in some series of the genus it is infaUibly<br />

present wherever the pod approaches that of Cassia in form or other attributes.<br />

An internaUy pulpy pod, common but not ubiquitous in Cassia, occurs also in<br />

some sennas (e.g. S. pendula, S. bacillaris); it is a speciaUzation doubtless related<br />

to seed dispersal which we suppose to have developed independently in the two<br />

genera, as it has in some neotropical acacias. By itself, therefore, the pod does<br />

not provide a sure means of separaring Cassia from Senna, although the few<br />

exce<strong>pt</strong>ions are not genuine obstacles but merely distracrions due to convergent<br />

evolution. The fallibility of the pod deserves emphasis, nonetheless, because of<br />

its influence on the historical taxonomy of Cassunae.<br />

Cassia and Senna became first known to European botanists through the pods<br />

of C. fistula and of S. italica and S. alexandrina, articles of herbal medicine<br />

imported from the Orient by way of Egy<strong>pt</strong> and Asia Minor. The fistular woody<br />

muUilocular pulp-laden pod of Cassia appeared (and really is) fundamentally<br />

distinct from the bifacial papery umlocular dry pod of Senna, and it was in these<br />

terms that Tournefort (Inst. Rei Herb. 618, t. 390, 392. 1700) defined the genera.<br />

And it was to Tournefort's durably influential work that the origin of confusion<br />

between Cassia and Senna can be traced. While Tournefort illustrated Cassia by<br />

pods of C. fistula and C. grandis and by a flower probably of the latter, he also<br />

listed as species of Cassia seven American sennas, mostly known to him only<br />

from antecedent accounts by Piso and Plumier. All of these were deliberately<br />

absorbed by Linnaeus (1753, 1754, U. cc), along with several sennas discovered<br />

after 1700 and the five then-known species of Chamaecrista, into the heterogeneous<br />

genus that survived into modern times. In this historically momentous<br />

decision Linnaeus ada<strong>pt</strong>ed, in the high-handed manner that shocked many contemporary<br />

botanists, a famihar name to an unfamihar usage. For the genus Cassia<br />

described in the fifth edition of Genera Plantarum is no longer Cassia of the<br />

ancients but explicitly Senna. The carefully described androecium, which is pro­<br />

foundly at odds with that of the genuine cassias or of the chamaecristas attributed<br />

to Cassia in Species Plantarum, is that of Senna as observed alive in the conservatories<br />

at Hartekamp and Upsala; for the androecium of Cassia sens, str.,<br />

a genus of tropical trees that had not yet been brought to flower in cultivation,<br />

was evidently unknown to him. The world monographs of Cassia by DeCandolle<br />

in CoUadon (1816), Vogel (1837, incorporating a wealth of BrazUian sennas discovered<br />

by Sellow) and Bentham (1871), while attaining progressively sophisti­<br />

cated understanding of relationships between natural groups of <strong>Cassiinae</strong>, reaffirmed<br />

the generic conce<strong>pt</strong> of Linnaeus, and stifled the voices of protest.<br />

In fact the intratribal generic hmits, as we understand them today, had been<br />

worked out intuitively as early as 1739 by Jacob Breyne (Prod. fasc. rar. pl.<br />

secund. 50), who first described the genera Chamaecrista and Chamaecassia,<br />

the latter equivalent to Senna P. MiU. Later on, piecemeal partitions of Linnaean<br />

Cassia were attem<strong>pt</strong>ed by Persoon and WiUdenow, who abstracted from it the<br />

true cassias as Cathartocarpus (1805) and Bactyrilobium (1809) respectively, and<br />

also by Link (1831) and Roxburgh (1832), who contradictorily expelled the sennas<br />

and chamaecristas and reserved a purified Cassia for the immediate kindred of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!