List of Sapindaceae genera explained

This is a list of genera in the soapberry family, Sapindaceae, which includes the soapberries (Sapindus), maples (Acer), and paullinias, amongst others. As currently circumscribed, the family contains approximatively 1900 species into over 140 genera classified into 4 subfamilies.

Phylogeny and circumscription

The circumscription of Sapindaceae encompasses the former Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae families as tribes in subfamily Hippocastanoideae. Although the classification at subfamilial level is fairly well-established, the circumscription at tribal and generic level remains only partially resolved, especially in the larger subfamily Sapindoideae, which has led the most recent revision to treat the majority of these genera without placing them in a tribe. Another recent study hints at even more incongruity between traditional circumscription and molecular evidence.

Changes have included the synonymization of Distichostemon with Dodonaea, and Neotina and Tinopsis with Tina. Additionally, not all authors agree about the broad circumscription that ensues from placing Xanthoceras as the sister group to the three traditional families as the resulting Sapindaceae sensu lato, unlike the traditional families, is difficult to characterize. As a result, the elevation of Xanthoceroideae to family level was proposed, which would have removed six genera from Sapindaceae and Hippocastanoideae.

This list follows the updated classification of Buerki et al.[1]

Subfamily Dodonaeoideae

Tribe Dodonaeae

(Kunth) DC. (1824). Type genus: Dodonaea

Tribe Doratoxyleae

Radlk. 1890. Type genus: Doratoxylon

Incertae sedis

Subfamily Hippocastanoideae

Tribe Acereae

(Durande) Dumort. (1827). Type genus: Acer

Tribe Hippocastaneae

(DC.) Dumort. (1827). Type genus: Aesculus

Subfamily Sapindoideae

Tribe Athyaneae

Acev.‐Rodr. (2017). Type genus: Athyana

Tribe Blomieae

Buerki & Callm. (2021). Type genus: Blomia

Tribe Bridgesieae

Acev.‐Rodr. (2017). Type genus: Bridgesia

Tribe Cupanieae

Blume (1857). Type genus: Cupania

Tribe Guindilieae

Buerki, Callm. & Acev.‐Rodr. (2021). Type genus: Guindilia

Tribe Haplocoeleae

Buerki & Callm. (2021). Type genus: Haplocoelum

Tribe Koelreuterieae

Radlk. (1890). Type genus: Koelreuteria

Tribe Melicocceae

Blume (1847). Type genus: Melicoccus

Tribe Nephelieae

Radlk. (1890). Type genus: Nephelium

Tribe Paullinieae

(Kunth) DC. (1824). Type genus: Paullinia

Tribe Sapindeae

(Kunth) DC. (1824). Type genus: Sapindus

Tribe Schleichereae

Radlk. (1890). Type genus: Schleichera

Tribe Stadmanieae

Buerki & Callm. (2021). Type genus: Stadtmannia

Tribe Thouiniaeae

Blume (1847). Type genus: Thouinia

Tribe Tristiropsideae

Buerki & Callm. (2021). Type genus: Tristiropsis

Tribe Ungnadieae

Buerki & Callm. (2021). Type genus: Ungnadia

Subfamily Xanthoceratoideae

Incertae sedis

Fossil genera

A number of fossil genera have been placed within Sapindaceae, many being morphogenera and lacking subfamilial identification[20]

Notes and References

  1. Buerki S, Callmander MW, Acevedo-Rodriguez P, Lowry PP, Munzinger J, Bailey P, Maurin O, Brewer GE, Epitawalage N, Baker WJ, Forest F . An updated infra-familial classification of Sapindaceae based on targeted enrichment data . Am J Bot . 108 . 7 . 1234–51 . July 2021 . 34219219 . 8361682 . 10.1002/ajb2.1693 .
    Corrigendum . Am J Bot . 109 . 8 . 1326–7 . August 2022 . 36017873 . 9536560 . 10.1002/ajb2.16049 .
  2. The genus might not be distinct from Majidea
  3. Because its fruit has not been described in the literature, this genus' tribal placement is not entirely clear
  4. A replacement name for Radlkofer's own Euphoriopsis (Actes Congr. Bot. Amsterdam 1877:128, 1877) which was preoccupied by a genus of fossil Sapindaceae named by Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo (Sapind. Foss. Monogr.:12, 1852).
  5. Not Hist. Pl. Remarq. Brésil:239: although the title page for that work gives the year of publication as 1824, the relevant part was not issued before late 1825 (Stafley & Cowan, Taxon. Lit., ed. 2 4:1067).
  6. Saint-Hilaire originally described two species, now treated as one, but a generic type has yet to be defined.
  7. Thwaites had originally (Hooker's J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 6:65. 1854) named the genus Pterophyllum, but that name had already been applied by Siebold et Zuccarini to a genus of Papaveraceae in 1843 (Abh. Math.-Phys. Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. 3(3):719).
  8. Erwin . D. M. . Stockey . R. A. . 1990 . Sapindaceous flowers from the Middle Eocene Princeton chert (Allenby Formation) of British Columbia, Canada . Canadian Journal of Botany . 68 . 9 . 2025–34. 10.1139/b90-265 .
  9. Sven Buerki, Jérôme Munzinger, Porter P. Lowry II, Martin W. Callmander "Two new genera of Sapindaceae (Cupanieae) from the southern Pacific: Lepidocupania and Neoarytera," Candollea, 75(2), 269-284, (29 October 2020)
  10. Book: Schultes, Josef August . Josef August Schultes . 1819 . Systema Vegetabilium . la . 15bis . 5 . Stuttgart . J.G. Cottae . xxxii .
  11. Arnott published the name as Erythrophila, which Otto Wilhelm Sonder later (Fl. Cap. 1:237, 1860) "corrected" to Erythrophysa. Nonetheless, the original spelling is correct under the ICBN (Vienna, 2005, art. 60); the need to conserved the corrected spelling was noted as early as 1962 (B. . Verdcourt . A new species of Erythrophysa E. Mey. ex Arn.(Sapindaceae) from Ethiopia . Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Botany . 58 . 372 . 201–5 . 1962 . 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1962.tb00893.x .), but no formal proposal was published.
  12. The first book was published in several edition, the in-octavo edition, vol. 3, p. 255 is often cited.
  13. The Mantissa Plantarum (Mat. Pl.:125) is often also cited. This was a work published simultaneously as an appendix to volume 2 of the Systema Naturaes 12th and 13th editions. The link is to an online scan of the 13th edition (without the Mantissa), a page-for-page reprint done in Vienna missing only the third volume's errata. See Stafleu & Cowan (1981; Taxon. Lit. 3:106–108) for further details and references.
  14. According to Acevedo-Rodríguez et al., the difference from Dimocarpus is "doubtful".
  15. According to Stafleu & Cowan (1983; Taxon. Lit. 4:273), different copies may be bound differently. Other sources cite "1894" as the year of publication.
  16. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:36270-1 Allophylus L.
  17. The definition of species in the genus is a difficult matter, and species number have ranged from 250 to a single polymorphic one. Since the latter proposal by Pieter Willem Leenhouts (Blumea 15(2):313. 1967), "no progress in an understanding of the systematic structure of Allophylus has been made" .
  18. The paper was issued in two part, the first (pp. 358–368) was included with the November 1886 issue containing proceedings of the society's July meeting. the rest was published in March 1887 alongside the proceedings of the November meeting (J.A. . Leussink . The publication dates of the Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France (Vols. 26–40, 1879–1893) . Taxon . 35 . 2 . 247–261 See p. 256 . 1986 . 1221267 .).
  19. This preprint eventually appeared as Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg Divers Savans 2:75–147 (1835).
  20. Web site: Sapindaceae . The International Fossil Plant Names Index . 3 Dec 2023.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "List of Sapindaceae genera".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.