Mukdenia

[Afloden]

Hoy, from your Tropicos link click on the little BHL symbol next to the name which will take you to the cited publication! which also happens to take you to the Biodiversity Heritage Library that contains an immense amount of literature.

 So, is the plant in question, A acanthifolia, really in cultivation and is it truly what was described by Nakai? Not sure since I cannot get the protologue for that species, but I'll offer my two cents. Sadly, I grow this plant and rossii, but I have not flowered the former yet. I also have an identical plant by foliage as Oresitrophe rupifraga which looks like A. acanthifolia. See http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=10800#KEY-1-22. I cannot find any decent closeups of flowers of the cordate, entire leaved plant called acanthifolia except the Kew material which seems to be the same judging by picture taken later in anthesis. Lobed leaves and the number of stamens seems to be the defining features delimiting the two genera. One can see pictures of Oresitrophe at http://www.bjkepu.gov.cn/shtp/Flora2009/10/10.htm, even pink flowered ones! Maybe acanthifolia is truly an Aceriphyllum with more divided leaves. The variation in leaf lobing and serration varies a lot in the species and maybe some of these deserve taxonomic recognition.

 But, I also don't see why Mukdenia has priority over Aceriphyllum. Here is the paper naming Mukdenia, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/vol_issue/nels/AN00118019/ISS0000223435_en.html (2nd to last link from bottom, pg 120). Koidzumi clearly knew what A. rossi was because he transferred that species to his new genus for an already monotypic genus, formerly described in Saxifraga as S. rossii. Here is Engler's description of the new genus, Aceriphyllum, described to accommodate S. rossii which is clearly distinct from Saxifraga, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32127912#page/60/mode/1up.

 So, why is Mukdenia given priority over the nicer sounding and much earlier Aceriphyllum? Koidzumi mentions nothing in his paper creating Mukdenia. I cannot find any reference to why this is yet and I am still tracking down the M. acanthifolia issue. Will pay attention to my own plants this spring and hopefully all will flower.
 
 And, last for now, the eastern North American Boykinia aconitifolia is nearly identical in leaf to Aceriphyllum rossii if a little smaller in stature. Their habitat is identical also; shaded rocky stream sides just above the flood zone.   

 Aaron

[Hoy]

Hoy, from your Tropicos link click on the little BHL symbol next to the name which will take you to the cited publication! which also happens to take you to the Biodiversity Heritage Library that contains an immense amount of literature.

 Aaron

Thanks Aaron! I wasn't curious enough to investigate all those symbols!
You are indeed making a real detective work!

[McDonough]

Great input Aaron!  I'm not sure why they mucked up the genus with Mukdenia; the name Aceriphyllum is a much nicer name.  I do hope you'll be able to chime in on the two species of Kirengeshoma as well, the published differences between K. palmata and K. coreana (koreana) seem unclear to me, and I'd love to find the original publications.

The pertinent thread starts here:
http://nargs.org/smf/index.php?topic=593.msg10931#msg10931

Not familiar with Oresitrophe; it's a beauty... some nurseries have it:
Oresitrophe rupifraga
http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/image_files/show/sizedsizedoresitrophe-rupifraga-exh-robin-white-cert-of-merit10617.jpg
http://www.asianflora.com/Saxifragaceae/Oresitrophe-rupifraga.htm

[Afloden]

Like someone said before, the botanists in Korea still call this Aceriphyllum! I see no need to call it Mukdenia.

 So, I found a picture of my A. acanthifolium that apparently did flower, but it is not as good as these; http://cafe316.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_search_read?grpid=1HKH2&fldid=5twa&contentval=0004Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz&nenc=&fenc=&q=%C3%CA%BC%B3&nil_profile=cafetop&nil_menu=sch_updw. Note the 6 stamens which clearly puts it in Aceriphyllum. The leaves are very like Oresitrophe, but the serration of Mukdenia is more regular. See these; http://jjjjgs.egloos.com/3910842 for comparison of rossii to the acanthifolium above. Also note: the irregular number of stamens in this clone as well as what seems to be extra petals, quite a nice form.

 Off to the library where I hope they have the correct volume containing the publication of acanthifolium.

 Aaron

[McDonough]

Wow, great links Aaron.  In the 2nd link, that is indeed quite a special form of M. rossii, with extra stamens and polypetalous flowers, and with a decided pink tinge; would love to grow such a special form.

[Afloden]

 Problem solved! Now to add the DNA of this species to the current data and correct the taxonomic literature -- at least outside Korea where we do not recognize M. (or A.) acanthifolia as valid.

 Mukdenia acanthifolia was described from a collection made by Nakai in Korea's Mozan Province, but was first reported as Oresitrophe rupifraga. Being the good botanist that he was, he brought some of the plant home and grew it from 1939 to 1941 (when acanthifolia was described) in Koishikawa Botanical Garden. When they flowered he realized he had Mukdenia (Aceriphyllum) [placed in parentheses by him!], based on the stamen number.

 But, the story does not end there. He also mentions a plant grown from seed received from Botanischer Garten zu Belvedere in Wien (1938) that were grown out and flowered the same time as his wild collections whereupon he realized the two plants were the same exact thing. During that time period he, nor many others, could communicate with the German botanists as to where those plants and subsequent seed originated; that plant happened to be Bergenia acanthifolia......


 Aaron
 

[McDonough]

Aaron, great information and a good story and detective work!  So indeed, maybe the epithet M. acanthifolia is related to mistaken identity with Bergenia acanthifolia.  But if Mukdenia is indeed a single-species genus, then it encompasses forms with boldly lobed leaves to leaves that are entire and unlobed.  Probably needs a harder look.

[Afloden]

Mark,

 Lee (In Korea) does recognize both taxa and I would take the word of botanist living in the region of both plants over someone who wrote a treatment discounting a species without seeing it. I think acanthifolia is endemic to South Korea and likely very limited in occurence. M. rossii seems to occur in NE China and both Korea's. I see two very distinct species. The leaf texture is different on acanthifolia and far more glossy.

 Nakai placed Bergenia acanthifolia in synonymy with his new Mukdenia because he received the seed from Germany labeled as B. acanthifolia. Not sure being listed in a seed list counts as valid in 1938, but I know Trautvetteria is valid and was first used in a seed list!

 Aaron

[Hoy]

Great work! However regardless of the specific status I want all forms in my garden!

[Hoy]

I unexpectedly found I had a picture of Mukdenia rossi taken in my garden. It is a rather dry place. Maybe I have to move it - if it is still alive!