Para información adicional acerca de este espécimen, por favor contactar: Jonathan D. Amith (demca.biology@gmail.com)
jamithposted 2020-12-11 00:08:47
Allen Coombes sent the photos to Ken Robertson and got this response on 2019-06-26, "Dear Allen, It's good to hear from you! Either of those e-mail address should work, although the preferred one is . Judging from the more or less linear stigmas shown in the face view of the flower, that plant could be Convolvulus nodiflorus. This species has been included in Jacuemontia, but the stigmas are different and the pollen is tricolpate, rather than the special kind of pollen in Jacquemontia: 3-aggrecolpate with 4–6 colpi circumpolar at each pole and 4–6 colpi equatorial and perpendicular to the polar colpi. During my dissertation research, many specimens of C. nodiflorus were included with loans of Jacquemontia. However, since I excluded C. nodiflorus from Jacquemontia, I did not keep record of the species. Then A. Coombes looked at the voucher he has and said, on 2019-06-27, "I think this cannot be Convolvulus nodiflorus. This should have very short peduncles as here https://datosabiertos.unam.mx/IBUNAM:MEXU:492840 and 30949 has long peduncles (as in J. oaxacana). Also the habitat is wrong, all the specimens of this in MEXU (as Jacquemontia n.) are from dry parts of SE Puebla in the Tehuacan area. We have 2 specimens, not very good and both in fruit. A 2015 monograph of Convolvulus keeps nodiflorus in Jacquemontia. Over to Andrew?" Then, A. McDonald, on 2019-06-28, "OK, got all those photos, and it cannot be J. nodiflora on account of the peduncles. Allen is correct, that species retains its inflorescence underneath its leaves. Moreover, the style branches are classic Jacquemontia. My Fl. Of Veracruz treatment keys it out to J. oaxacana, & your corner of Puebla is biogeographically Veracruz. So I stick with my original determination. Hope this helps, "