Chenopodium

Chenopodium

Synonymy

Chenopodium L., Sp. Pl. 1: 218. 1753 sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium sect. Leprophyllum Dumort., Fl. Belg. 1: 21. 1827 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium sect. Chenopodiastrum Moq., Prodr. 13(2): 61. 1849 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Vulvaria Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 1: 174. 1897, nom. illeg., syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • 1. Scott in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 100. 1978, 2. Hitchcock (1929)
  • =Chenopodium [unranked] Fremontiana Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1). 1916 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium subsect. Fremontiana (Standl.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 401. 1996 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • =Chenopodium [unranked] Leptophylla Standl., N. Amer. Fl. 21(1): 14. 1916 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium subsect. Leptophylla (Standl.) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 400. 1996 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • =Chenopodium ser. Cicatricosa Aellen in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 69: 69. 1964 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium subsect. Cicatricosa (Aellen) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 402. 1996 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • =Chenopodium ser. Favosa Aellen in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 69: 69. 1964 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • Chenopodium subsect. Favosa (Aellen) Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 401. 1996 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)
  • =Chenopodium subsect. Standleyana Mosyakin & Clemants in Novon 6: 402. 1996 syn. sec. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b)

Content

Notes

Chenopodium has been considered one of the most diverse genera within Chenopodiaceae with c. 150 species (Kühn 1993), or even up to 250 species (under a narrow species concept). The circumscription has considerably changed over time, and several infrageneric classifications have been proposed. In a wide sense, Kühn (1993) and Mosyakin & Clemants (1996) recognized three subgenera: Ambrosia A. J. Scott, Chenopodium and Blitum (L.) Hiitonen, and this classification was followed by several authors in recent treatments for the genera. However, it was proposed, based initially on morphological data, to include subg. Ambrosia into the re-circumscribed genus Dysphania R. Br. (Mosyakin & Clemants 2003, 2008; Clemants & Mosyakin 2003; Zhu & al. 2003). Recent phylogenetic studies based on molecular data (Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012a-b) have shown that Chenopodium in its traditional circumscription is not monophyletic and consist of six independent lineages. Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b) also give the morphological descriptions of the segregates, including Chenopodium s.str., which still remains the most species-rich and most widespread genus of the group. Chenopodium belongs to Chenopodieae, which is monophyletic in the circumscription by Fuentes-Bazán & al. (2012b).
The typification of the genus Chenopodium is debated. If the same solution is adopted for Chenopodium as that proposed for Salsola by Akhani & al. (2014), i.e., the recognition of the lectotype proposed under the American Code (Chenopodium rubrum L. in our case), then the genus recognized here as Oxybasis should be called Chenopodium s.str., and the genus containing C. album L. (the lectotype of Chenopodium as recognized here) should be probably called Rhagodia, which will have disastrous consequences for taxonomy and nomenclature of the group (see discussion in Mosyakin & Clemants 1996; Fuentes-Bazán & al. 2012b).