36.5 Eriophorum L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 52.
Comments:
(1) Love & Love (1975) include something they call E. altaicum Meinsh. from Siberia, both sides of Beringia, and Canada. It must therefore at least appear somewhere in synonymy. I assume it to be more or less synonymous with E. chamissonis C.A. Mey. in its previous wide meaning. The distribution of everything named E. chamissonis seems to have been uncritically transferred by the Loves to E. altaicum. (Elven)
Subg. Eriophoropsis (Palla) Raymond ***
B ***
36.5.1 Eriophorum viridi-carinatum (Engelm.) Fern. (1905), Rhodora 7: 89.
B E. latifolium Hoppe var. (beta) viridi-carinatum Engelm. (1844), Amer. J. Sci. 46: 103.
S
2n=
2nD
G CAN
Comments:
(1) Year of publication of Fernald's combination possibly 1906? (Elven)
(1) Reported by Scoggan (1978) and Porsild & Cody (1980) from York Factory, SW Hudson Bay. (Elven)
Subg. Phyllanthela (Andersson) Egor. (1976), Fl. Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR 2: 100.
B Eriophorum taxon (+) Phyllanthela Andersson (1849), Cyper Scand. 12.
36.5.2 Eriophorum gracile W.D.J. Koch ex Roth (1800), Catal. Bot. 2: 259.
S
Comments: See Novoselova (1994).
36.5.2.1 Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth subsp. gracile
S
2n= (1) 60. (2) 76.
2nD (1) Tanaka (1942b, 1948). (2) Hagerup (1944a).
G ALA CAN
Comments:
36.5.2.2 Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth subsp. asiaticum (V. Vassil.) Novoselova (1998), Novit. Syst. Pl. Vasc. 31: 7.
B E. asiaticum V. Vassil. (1940), Not Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. 8: 104.
S E. gracile auct., non Koch ex Roth (1800); see comment (2).
2n=
2nD
G SIB RFE
Comments:
(1) The earlier publication in Bot. Zhurn. 79, 11 (1994): 84 was invalid. (Novoselova)
(2) We need some principle for handling this type of 'synonymy'. There are innumerable cases of misapplied names and we can't include all. In the drafts, mainly Russian cases are included yet. (Elven)
(3) Restrict to misapplications in major floras. (Murray)
36.5.3 Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe (1800). Bot. Taschenb. 1800: 108.
S
2n= (1) 54. (2) 58.
2nD (1) Scheerer (1940). (2) Gadella & Kliphuis (1967a); Love & Love in Love (1973b).
G NOR
Comments:
(1) Added to Novoselova's draft. One report from the arctic parts of N Norway (Batsfjord, Varanger Peninsula) and one from very close to the defined arctic boundary (Havoysund W of North Cape), both of them reliable but not confirmed by vouchers. There are, however, several vouchered sites very near the boundary. (Elven)
36.5.4 Eriophorum angustifolium Honck. (1782), Verz. Gew. Deutschl. 153.
S E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. angustifolium; E. polystachion L. (1753), nom. rejic., Sp. Pl. 52; E. polystachion L. subsp. polystachion; E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. subarcticum (V. Vassil.) Hulten ex J.T. Kartesz & K.N. Gandhi (1992), Phytologia 72,1: 22.
2n= 58.
2nD Love & Love (1975) list numerous counts, many as arctic, for their subsp. subarcticum.
G ICE NOR RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN GRL
Comments:
(1) Subsp. scabriusculum Hulten (1936, Sv. Bot. Tidskr. 30: 518) is mapped by Hulten (1968) from southern parts of Chukotka Peninsula. Arctic occurrences have not been proved and the subspecies should not be included in the list. (Novoselova & Elven)
36.5.5 Eriophorum triste (Th. Fr.) Hada_ & A. Love (1950), Bot. Not. 1950: 34.
B E. angustifolium Honck. var. (beta) triste Th. Fr. (1870), Ofvers. Kungl. Vet.-Akad. Forh. (1869) 26,2: 135.
S E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. triste (Th. Fr.) Hulten (1962), Circump. Pl. 1: 58.
2n= 60.
2nD Love & Love (1975) list several counts, all as arctic.
G NOR RFE ALA? CAN GRL
Comments:
(1) Status of triste, as species or subspecies? The arguments given in Fl. Arct. URSS 3 point towards a lower rank than species but the arguments might be a little misplaced if this is a mainly American-Greenlandic taxon which does not reach Russia except for Wrangel Island. In Svalbard (from where it is described), it is very distinct, and it also appears so in Greenland and Ellesmere Land, but I had problems with it elsewhere in arctic Canada and Alaska. I have therefore tentatively reduced all other areas (in ALA and CAN) to 'question marks'.
Another and somewhat quixotic argument for E. triste as a species is its 'hybridisation pattern'. The hybrid entity E. x sorenseni (E. scheuchzeri x E. triste) is probably frequent in most areas where E. triste occur. No hybrid has been proposed between E. angustifolium and E. scheuchzeri in spite of their very frequent co-occurrence. (Elven)
WARNING! Might be (re-)reduced to a subspecies of E. angustifolium.
36.5.6 Eriophorum x sorenseni Raymond (1950), Natural. Canad. 77: 69.
S E. scheuchzeri Hoppe x E. triste (Th. Fr.) Hada_ & A. Love.
2n=
2nD
G NOR CAN GRL
Comments:
(1) My reasons for acceptance of this taxon, from experience with it from Svalbard and Canada, are that it often occurs independent of at least one of and often both its parents, is very homogeneous morphologically, produces fairly good pollen, and seems to reproduce sexually (as well as very efficiently vegetatively). A more indirect reason is that this entity fairly often is found whereas a similar hybrid between E. angustifolium s. str. and E. scheuchzeri never have been proved from northern areas (see comment above). These two also co-occur very frequently, more frequently than E. scheuchzeri and E. triste. This may also point towards some reality of E. triste as a species distinct from E. angustifolium. Are there other documented hybrids (except E. x medium) which have a similar independent appearance?
Due to the regular occurrence of several spikes and the leaf structure, the hybrid is here placed in this subgenus and not in subg. Eriophorum. (Elven)