Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T07:30:34.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Hebridean Marsh-Orchid’: Nomenclatural and conceptual clarification of a biological enigma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2010

R. M. Bateman  and
I. Denholm
R. M. Bateman
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, and Department of Geology, Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UK.
I. Denholm
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Arable Crop Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2JQ, UK.
Get access

Abstract

The ‘Hebridean Marsh-orchid’ is a controversial dactylorchid taxon currently regarded as endemic to the island of North Uist in the Scottish Hebrides. Re-evaluation of past taxonomic treatments reveals that none of its three names – Dactylorhiza majalis (Reichenbach f.) P. F. Hunt & Summerhayes subsp. scotica Nelson (1976, 1979), D. majalis subsp. occidentalis (Pugsley) Soó var. ebudensis Wiefelspütz (in Landwehr, 1977), and D. majalis subsp. occidentalis var. scotica (Nelson) R. M. Bateman & Denholm (1983) – has been validly published. We herein legitimize D. majalis subsp. occidentalis var. ebudensis Wiefelspütz ex R. M. Bateman & Denholm, presenting for the first time full details of its lectotype. However, we also note that this nomenclatural clarification has no relevance to determining the most appropriate rank for, and biological significance of, this taxon, which is one of many doubtfully distinct ‘critical’ taxa of dactylorchids that occur in western and northern regions of the British Isles. Taxonomic opinions expressed on these populations to date have been based on sparse, qualitative, and often contradictory data, and most lacked an explicit conceptual framework. We outline a more rigorous analytical protocol.

Type
Articles
Information
Edinburgh Journal of Botany , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allan, B., Woods, P. & Clarke, S. (1993). Wild Orchids of Scotland. HMSO/Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Denholm, I. (1983). A reappraisal of the British and Irish dactylorchids, 1. The tetraploid marsh-orchids. Watsonia 14: 347–376.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Denholm, I. (1985). A reappraisal of the British and Irish dactylorchids, 2. The diploid marsh-orchids. Watsonia 15: 321–355.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Denholm, I. (1989a). A reappraisal of the British and Irish dactylorchids, 3. The spotted-orchids. Watsonia 17: 319–349.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Denholm, I. (1989b). Morphometric procedure, taxonomic procedure and marsh-orchid systematics. Watsonia 17: 449–455.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Denholm, I. (1989c). The complementary roles of organisms, populations and species in ‘demographic’ phytosystematics (abstract). Amer. J. Bot. (suppl.) 76: 226.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. M. & Dimichele, W. A. (1994). Saltational evolution of form in vascular plants: a neoGoldschmidtian synthesis. In: Ingram, D. S. & Hudson, A. (eds) Shape and Form in Plants and Fungi, pp. 63–102. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, M. S. (1936). Further botanising in the Outer Hebrides. Report Bot. Soc. Exch. Club Brit. Isles 11: 534–560.Google Scholar
Davis, J. I. & Manos, P. S. (1991). Isozyme variation and species delimitation in Puccinellia nuttalliana complex (Poaceae): an application of the phylogenetic species concept. Syst. Bot. 16: 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. I. & Nixon, K. C. (1992). Populations, genetic variation, and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Syst. Biol. 41: 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, D. M. T. (1991). Two new varieties of British Dactylorhiza. Watsonia 18: 307–309.Google Scholar
Foley, M. J. Y. (1990). A reassessment of populations of Dactylorhiza traunsteineri (Sauter) Soó in the British Isles and a comparison with others from central Europe. Watsonia 18: 153–172.Google Scholar
Gilmour, J. S. L. & Heslop-Harrison, J. (1954). The deme terminology and units of microevolutionary change. Genetica 27: 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, C. W. & Reichard, S. H. (1992). Current practice in the use of subspecies, variety and forma in classification of wild plants. Taxon 41: 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, J. (1948). Field studies in Orchis L., 1. The structure of dactylorchid populations on certain islands in the Inner and Outer Hebrides. Trans. Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb. 35: 26–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, J. (1954). A synopsis of the dactylorchids of the British Isles. Ber. Geobot. Forschunginst. Rubel Zürich 1953: 53–82.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, M. N. (1992). The marsh orchids in Hampshire and Dorset: some recent research. Proc. Hampshire Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 47: 225–252.Google Scholar
Kenneth, A. G., Lowe, M. R. & Tennant, D. J. (1988). Dactylorhiza lapponica (Laest. ex Hartman) Soó in Scotland. Watsonia 17: 37–41.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. (1983). The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landwehr, J. (1977). Wilde Orchideeen van Europa. Amsterdam: VBNN.Google Scholar
Lang, D. (1980). Orchids of Britain: A Field Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, D. A. (1993). Local speciation in plants: the rule not the exception. Syst. Bot. 18: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, M. R., Tennant, D. J. & Kenneth, A. G. (1986). The status of Orchis francis-drucei Wilmott. Watsonia 16: 178–180.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. (1976). Monographic und Ikonographie der Orchidaceengattung (III), Dactylorhiza. Zürich: Speich AG.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. (1979). Nachtrag zu E. Nelson, Monographic und Ikonographie der Orchidaceengattung Dactylorhiza, Dezember 1976. Taxon 28: 592–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nybom, H. & Schaal, B. A. (1990). DNA “fingerprints” reveal genotypic distributions in natural populations of blackberries and raspberries (Rubus, Rosaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 11: 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankhurst, R. J. & Mullin, J. M. (1991). Flora of the Outer Hebrides. London: Natural History Museum.Google Scholar
Perring, F. H. & Farrell, L. (1983). British Red Data Book, 1. Vascular Plants (ed. 2). Nettleham, UK: Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Perring, F. H. & Walters, S. M. (eds) (1976). Atlas of the British Flora (ed. 2). Wakefield, UK: EP Publishing.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (1993). Evolution. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. H. (1961). Studies in Welsh orchids. II. The occurrence of Dactylorchis majalis (Reichb.) Vermeul. in Wales. Watsonia 5: 37–42.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. H. (1966). Studies in Welsh orchids. III. The co-existence of some of the tetraploid species of marsh-orchids. Watsonia 6: 260–267.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. H. (1989). Errors and misconceptions in the study of marsh-orchids. Watsonia 17: 455–462.Google Scholar
Stuessy, T. F. (1990). Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Summerhayes, V. S. (1968). Wild Orchids of Britain (ed. 2). London: Collins.Google Scholar
Wiefelsputz, W. (1976). Über einige Dactylorhiza-Sippen in Grössbritannien und Irland. Jahresber. Naturwiss. Vereins Wuppertal 29: 41–51.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1968). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar