Lachnanthes Elliott, Sketch Bot. S. Carolina 1: 47. 1816.

Pellegrini, Marco O. O., Hickman, Ellen J., Guttierrez, Jorge E., Smith, Rhian J. & Hopper, Stephen D., 2020, Revisiting the taxonomy of the Neotropical Haemodoraceae (Commelinales), PhytoKeys 169, pp. 1-59 : 1

2. Lachnanthes Elliott, Sketch Bot. S. Carolina 1: 47. 1816. Figs 6 , 7 , 8

Camderia Dumort., Anal. Fam. Pl.: 80. 1829, nom. illeg. Type species. Heritiera tinctorum Walter ex J.F.Gmel. [= Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy].

Heritiera J.F.Gmel., Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 2(1): 113. 1791, nom. illeg., non Heritiera Aiton, nec Heritiera Retz. Type species. Heritiera tinctorum Walter ex J.F.Gmel. [= Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy].

Gyrotheca Salisb., Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 327. 1812, nom. nud.

Type species.

Lachnanthes tinctoria (Walter ex J.F.Gmel.) Elliott [= Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy].

Comments.

Lachnanthes is morphologically and phylogenetically related to Dilatris P.J.Bergius s.str., a yet undescribed African genus and Haemodorum , due to their red to orange roots, branched cincinni, upright tepals, three fertile stamens, inferior ovary and lenticellate and winged seeds ( Simpson 1990, 1998b; Hopper et al. 1999, 2009; Pellegrini 2019; Hopper et al., in prep.). Lachnanthes can be differentiated from Haemodorum , based on their roots being sand-binding or not (roots lacking a rhizosheath and not sand-binding in Lachnanthes vs. with a rhizosheath and sand-binding in almost all species of Haemodorum ), pubescence (present vs. absent), the consistency of the tepals (succulent vs. coriaceous) and the number of ovules per carpel (5-7 vs. 2) ( Hickman 2019; Pellegrini 2019). On the other hand, Lachnanthes can be differentiated from Dilatris s.str. by its roots lacking a rhizosheath and not sand-binding (vs. with a rhizosheath and sand-binding in Dilatris s.str.), outer tepals ½ times shorter than the inner tepals (vs. outer and inner tepals equal), tepals erect and lacking apical glands (vs. tepals patent, with apical glands), monomorphic stamens (vs. dimorphic), septal nectaries interlocular (vs. supralocular), 5-7 ovules per locule (vs. one), the absence of an anthocarp (vs. anthocarp present) and loculicidal capsules (vs. septifragal) ( Hickman 2019; Pellegrini 2019). The differences between Lachnanthes and the undescribed genus will be posteriorly discussed ( Hopper et al. in prep.; Pellegrini et al., in prep.).

Figures

Figure 6. Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy A swampy environment B detail of the red roots C habit of an adult flowering specimen D inflorescence showing external surface lanate and internal surface glabrous and yellow perianth E detail of a flower being visited by a bee F fruiting inflorescence, with the detail of a fruit in longitudinal section. A by U. Lorimer, B by J. Fowler, C, F by S. Zona and D, E by B. Peterson, fruit detail by J. Bradford.

Figure 7. Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy. Full colour whole plant illustration. Illustration by E. J. Hickman. Scale bar: 1 cm.

Figure 8. Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy A, B root: A portion of the root B cross-section C rhizome in longitudinal section D cincinnus E flower F hair G-I perianth: G outer tepal (frontal and dorsal view) H dorsal view of a inner tepal I side view of the inner tepal with epipetalous stamen J anther (frontal and dorsal view) K-M gynoecium: K cross-section L longitudinal section M stigma N-S fruit: N immature capsule O cross-section P longitudinal section Q placenta with ovules in side view R placenta with ovules in dorsal view S dehisced capsule T-V seed: T dorsal view U ventral view V longitudinal section. Illustration by E. J. Hickman. Scale bars: 0.8 mm (A, B); 1 cm (C, D, T-V); 2 mm (E, G-J, N-S); 0.4 mm (F); 1.25 mm (K, L); 0.62 mm (M).