Mukdenia

[McDonough]

I was referring to pic of "acanthifolium" in the Plantsman article ... obviously serrated ..
I do not have it nor, I guess, does anyone else ??  Where is reality?

If the photo of Mukdenia acanthifolia in the Plantsman article shows a plant with serrated leaves, then it is in conflict with the plant grown at Wisley (as shown in the link I posted, & other photos I've seen, and with the description of this species in the article-link I posted).  Of course, the term "serrate" could refer to a leaf edge being minutely serrated, to much more coursely serrate.  

Mukdenia rossii has leaves that are distinctly lobed or serrated, described as having leaf "lobes serrate at margin", easily seen in the species:
http://gardenbreizh.org/photos/karlostachys/photo-199464.html

From what I can tell, M. acanthifolia has entire non-serrated non-lobed leaves, but with fine cilia along the leaf margins (whether these are firm and thorny versus just being ciliate hairs, is another matter).  Also, whether the tiny irregularities in the leaf edge, as seen in the 2nd photo-link below, can constitute the same application of "serrated leaves" as in M. rossii, then language is getting in the way, or the terms are applied without being exact enough, because the photos of M. acanthifolia foliage clearly show whole entire leaves.  Bill, or anyone else with access to Plantsman" (V10:4), can you please scan the information and photo, and post it here under the fair use provision.

Two more photos found showing foliage of M. acanthifolia.  How do the leaves in these photos compare to the Plantsman article photo?
http://www.asianflora.com/Saxifragaceae/Mukdenia-acanthifolia.htm
http://gardenbreizh.org/photos/karlostachys/photo-213666.html

[Moyles]

Leaves in first link sure look serrated to me ... but .... what difference does this make??

[McDonough]

Leaves in first link sure look serrated to me ... but .... what difference does this make??

Correct, the first link in my message above is clearly labelled as Mukdenia rossii, with serrated leaves. Or... are your talking about the first of my two links showing leaves of M. acanthifolia?  Specificity surely helps here.

But we're talking about M. acanthifolia leaf characteristics, with entire leaves without lobes.  Not sure why the confusion, we're only talking about two species.

[Moyles]

The leaves of M rossii and M acanthifolium as pictured are so distinctly different that they could never be confused ... I would never think of the leaves of my rossii as being serrated ... sure, lobed, but ..
What to say?? 

[Moyles]

I was referring to http://www.asianflora.com/Saxifragaceae/Mukdenia-acanthifolia.htm
Looks just like the Plantsman example .....

[McDonough]

I was referring to http://www.asianflora.com/Saxifragaceae/Mukdenia-acanthifolia.htm
Looks just like the Plantsman example .....

Bill, that's what I'm trying to understand, what do the leaves of M. acanthifolia in the photo in the Plantsman look like... from what you now finally tell us I gather the leaves are ENTIRE, not lobed.

In the link to M. rossii above, the leaves are not only lobed, but have obvious minor serrations along the lobes as well.

You wrote "The leaves of M rossii and M acanthifolium as pictured are so distinctly different that they could never be confused ... I would never think of the leaves of my rossii as being serrated". Of course! In the Flora of China, M. rossii is described as "lobes serrate at margin". One needs to consider the lexicon of the Flora that covers this species.

So... restating the obvious, consistent with what we're seeing in the links provided... M. rossii has deeply lobed leaves, with small serrations along the lobe margins;  M. acanthifolia has entire (un-lobed) leaves, with or without minute leaf serrations and possibly with ciliate edges.  Even more simply put, M. rossii has 5-7 lobed maple-like leaves, M. acanthifolia has simple non-lobed ovate leaves like Bergenia.

Also, the correct species spelling is Mukdenia acanthifolia.

[Moyles]

I stand corrected ... and yes, to all of your above ... just an innocent ref to a Mukdenia review in the Plantsman!  Ah well ....

[McGregor]

Been busy with other things and only just come across this discussion but I can add something. Takedana is a great example of a nationalistic botanist. He named some 4300 taxa (mainly species) many from Korea. Many are good species which have stood the test of time but many seem to have either been aberrant specimens or over-interpreted small populations. Takedana was naming species from around 1918 into the 1940s and there was great kudos attached to the assertion of species as endemic to Japan or Korea. This is a process not unknown in other countries - the Soviet Union was very prone to such, and more recently Spanish botany has gone through the same process in the last twenty years. It seems probable that Mukdenia rossii is a pretty variable species (along with the Irregulares Saxifraga species such as Sax. fortunei). Bergenia have gone through a process of being split and later being lumped together.

The process of creating larger scale flora help make this variability clear. So the Flora of China has far greater scope than Takedana's much narrower approach based on populations in Korea. It seems likely (unfortunately I haven't managed to see the paper) that Nakai's M. acanthifolia (1941) is what is being referred to as Mukdenia rossii (Oliv.) Koidz. f. multiloba (Nakai ) W.Lee (1996) in Lineamenta Florae Koreae p.450.

Hope this helps - it certainly makes it look likely that the concept of Mukdenia as monotypic is probably a sensible one.

[McDonough]

Malcolm, thanks for weighing in on this subject.  When looking for information and photos, I did come across the M. rossii f. multilobum combination, but couldn't find a description for it that tells us what features distinguish it from regular M. rossii.  Of course, the name "multiloba" gives obvious impressions of leaves with multiple lobes, but M. rossii as we know it already has multiple lobes, so it makes one wonder.

I found the following link with lots of excellent photos of the plant identified as Mukdenia rossii for. multiloba (Nakai) W.T.Lee
Scroll down half way and there is a combined photo showing leaf diversity, a strikingly divided leaf on the left, on the right a more normal rounded leaf with the usual amount of bold lobing.
http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ssgb3&logNo=135923158&redirect=Dlog&widgetTypeCall=true

It would be interesting to see if there is a connection linking Nakai's M. acanthifolia (1941) to what is being referred to as Mukdenia rossii (Oliv.) Koidz. f. multiloba (Nakai ) W.Lee, but since "acanthifolia" has rounded entire leaves without lobes, could it be that M. acanthifolia represents M. rossii in the unlobed leaf phase, and those with lobes are f. multiloba?  Either that, or M. acanthifolia ia a good species that has entire unlobed leaves.  It would be fun to find a latin description of originl M. rossii and M. acanthifolia.

This discussion runs in parallel with that of Kirengeshoma, with merely two "species" in the same geographical area (China, Korea, Japan), without as clear a species delineation as one would like... is it a monotypic genus with just one species having more variation than ascribed, or truely a 2-species genus?

[McGregor]

Hi Mark

It certainly does run in parallel since the second Kirengeshoma species (K. koreana) is again a species described by Nakai this time in 1935. References vary as to whether this should be incorporated within K. palmata (named by Yatabe in 1890) but again it may be a result of a narrower definition of a what constitutes a species.

[Hoy]

Hi Mark

It certainly does run in parallel since the second Kirengeshoma species (K. koreana) is again a species described by Nakai this time in 1935. References vary as to whether this should be incorporated within K. palmata (named by Yatabe in 1890) but again it may be a result of a narrower definition of a what constitutes a species.

What a species is, is what it is by definition! The best way, as I see it, is to use DNA. But then somebody has to do the job and make the decision where to split and where to lump together. The result wont always turn out like you anticipated anyway.
Even when we get an easy access to the barcoding of life it will always be uncertainties.

PS. I would love to grow a whole specter of different Mukdenias (and Kirengeshomas) regardless of the formal status

[Tim Ingram]

Bob Nold made the point earlier on that when wild plants are grown from seed there is often considerable variation (he showed an example of a cactus). I have also found this with some plants grown on the nursery from wild collected seed, and it suggests that this should be a feature of determining the natural variation found within a 'species' (though I suppose this is often evident looking at populations within the wild). I wonder how much variation occurs within Mukdenia if grown from wild seed? From a gardening perspective we tend to 'split' plants because of the fascinating variation that occurs, but as Trond and Malcolm say this can also become very subjective and linked to particular botanists. I remember (tongue in cheek) suggesting to Jim Archibald that some plants, such as paeonies, be classified by Map reference, because of the extent to which small populations received different names!

[McDonough]

Yes, lots of conjecture and ways to use this case as a taxonomic example, but at the root of the issue, we need to know what is the original published descriptions of M. rossii, M. rossii f. multiloba, and M. acanthifolia, to make sense of it all.  If anyone finds original published descriptions, please post them here.

[Tim Ingram]

You are right of course Mark - there is always the need to have type specimens and descriptions as a base from which to work, but gardeners are probably much more aware of natural variation within plants than are many botanists (and also add greatly to it!).

[Hoy]

This is the oldest reference I find regarding Mukdenia/Aceriphyllum/Saxifraga rossii:
http://www.tropicos.org/Name/29102266
but i have no access to that journal!