Search Results

Liver transplantation (LT) is the sole treatment modality of most of diffuse liver diseases. Simultaneous-pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation is also a life saving operation for IDDM patients. Both procedures are established treatment options in the European Community (EC) and in the US. These procedures are performed in a significantly smaller number in Hungary. Having a larger demand for LT than the supply of cadaver donors alternative solutions are sought to increase the number of transplantable livers. In Hungary partly the shortage of donors and the shortage of recipients are the factors rendering the number of LTs and SPKs low. These factors can be changed by better organisation and good survival data that make the two procedures accepted by the community of physicians.

A new plant association (Roso pendulinea-Tilietum cordatae), similar to the Poo nemoralis Tilietutm cordatae Firbas et Sigmud 1928 (Central European siliceous block field forest), has been dexcribed. This forest commuity develops on the periglacial block fields of southern Slovakia (cerová Vrchovina, syn.: Nógrád-Gömör basalt region). The community has been separated from the Mercuriali-Tilietum Zólyomi et Jakucs 1958 common in the submontane belt of the Pannonicum using phytocoenological comparative analyses.The ecological demand and the species combination cleary distinguish this association from the older forest communities described earlier from northern periglacial block fields of Hungary.

Morphological and molecular studies show that many species classified in Psychotria L. subgen. Heteropsychotria Steyerm. belong to other genera, as Margaritopsis C. Wright, Carapichea Aubl., Notopleura (Oerst.) Bremekamp, and to Palicourea Aubl. (Andersson 2001, 2002a, b, Nepokroeff 1997, Nepokroeff et al. 1999, Razafimandimbison et al. 2014, Taylor 2001, 2005, Taylor and Gereau 2013). In the Flora Mesoamericana a large amount of the species classified originally as members of the subgen. Heteropsychotria are treated in the frame of the first mentioned genera but 70 species and 2 subspecies remained in the Psychotria L. (Taylor 2012). They were distinguished as members of the subgenus Heteropsychotria, although 23 of them were transferred earlier to Palicourea Aubl. (Borhidi 2011). Recently Borhidi and his coauthors revised the fruit and seed morphology of the Mexican and Meso american Psychotria and Palicourea species and described two new genera having different pyrene types and flowers (Borhidi et al. 2015). To complete the list of the Mesoamerican species belonging to Palicourea Aubl. subgenus Heteropsychotria Steyerm. 35 new combinations are made.

The subgenus Heteropsychotria was detected and described by Julian Steyermark in the frame of the monographic series of the Botany of the Guyana Highland (Steyermark 1972) and repeatedly in a more illustrated version in the Flora of Venezuela (Steyermark 1974). Within the subgenus he distinguished 13 sections and 31 series. Three sections (Nrs 4, 7 and 11) of the 13 remained without names and descriptions. After the fundamental molecular taxonomic study of Nepokroeff et al. (1999) a publishing activity started producing a number of critical studies separating some sections as valid individual genera. The section Chytropsia has been included into the genus Margaritopsis Ch. Wright (Andersson 2001, Taylor 2005). The section Notopleura regained its generic status according to Bremekamp’s original concept (Taylor 2001). The Mapouria section has been eliminated by the re-establishment of the Carapichea genus (Andersson 2002b, Taylor and Gereau 2013). It has been recently recognised, that the greater part of the species classified by Steyermark into the section Durifolia belongs to the expanded genus Coccochondra (Taylor 2011). The re-consideration of the taxonomic position of the slenderized subgenus Heteropsychotria was begun by C. M. Taylor et al. with the transfer of some Mesoamerican species as late as 2010, although their close relation to the genus Palicourea was emphasised by Nepokroeff et al. (1999). The next step is, that for the second edition of the Rubiáceas de México the Mexican species of Heteropsychotria were transferred into Palicourea (Borhidi 2011), while C. M. Taylor maintained the Mesoamerican ones within the frame of Psychotria (Taylor 2012). Recently C. M. Taylor started to revise the taxonomic position of the South American Heteropsychotria species with a new circumscription and re-description of the section Didymocarpae (Taylor 2014) by the distinction and description of the new section Tricephalium (Taylor 2015) separating from the rest of the section Cephaëlis and by the detailed elaboration of the section Nonatelia in a new concept with enlarged frame (Taylor and Hollowell 2016). For the remained parts of the Steyermark’s system we suggest here the following reconsiderations. The section Heteropsychotria is enlarged by the inclusion of the anonymous section 4 of Steyermark. The greater part of the anonymous section 7, which remained after the exclusion of the Carapichea species, is described as a new section Bracteiflorae with Palicourea caerulea as type. The section Nonatelia is reconsidered and reshaped in a considerably enlarged form by Taylor and Hollowell (2016), while the section Potaroenses remains unchanged. The Pseudocephaëlis section remains without the series Appunianae, which has been included into the section Tricephalium C. M. Taylor. The section Cephaëlis of Steyermark is divided into two sections. The species with terminal, mostly pedunculate inflorescences is separated under a new name Neocephaëlis Borhidi with Palicourea tomentosa (Aubl.) Borhidi, selected as the type species of the section. The other section includes the species of axillary, mostly sessile inflorescences, elevating the series Axillares of Steyermark on section rank and expanding it by the inclusion of the anonymous section 11, with Palicourea axillaris (Aubl.) Borhidi, selected as the type. For the rest of the eliminated Durifolia section a new one is created under the name Cordifoliae Borhidi, while the Oppositiflorae section also must be cancelled, because its type species is Ronabea latifolia Aubl. At last a new section Microphyllae Borhidi is established for the small-leaved xero-tolerant species of the Antilles with Palicourea orientensis Borhidi et Oviedo as type. The review includes more than 220 species.

Recently Taylor has made an attempt to eliminate the subgenus Heteropsychotria Steyerm. and identified it as a synonym of subgenus Palicourea. It cannot be accepted because the two subgenera differ from each other in important morphological and physiological characters.

The subgenus Palicourea is characterised by having brightly coloured odourless, mostly pedicellate and separated flowers with large corollas often curved tube and swollen base containing an appreciable quantity of nectar, protected by a ring of stiff hairs, namely an arranged complex of characters, which are adapted for hummingbird-pollination. The type species is Palicourea guianensis Aubl. In contrast, the subgenus Heteropsychotria is characterised by having generally green to white inflorescences with white greenish or pale yellow fragrance, smaller mostly sessile flowers with corollas of straight short tube without swollen base and inner hairy ring, but with different pubescence in/or above the middle of the inner face of the tube. These arranged set of characters are clearly adapted to the insect-pollination. The type species is Palicourea deflexa (Sw.) Borhidi. Taylor refers to a great variation in some separate characters between the two character complexes presented in the Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana (2004) without mentioning any concrete example. The reality is, that between the two character complexes there is no intermediate taxon.

After having replaced the subgenus Heteropsychotria Steyermark synonymised by Taylor, a new section has been introduced and created, the section Tricephalium (Müll. Arg.) C. M. Taylor, comprising 35 species and classified in Palicourea subgenus Montanae Taylor 1997. It is diagnosed by having “thick-textured leaves with well-developed intersecondary veins that are extensively reticulated and inflorescences with the flowers sessile in small to large heads that are enclosed by well-developed bracts and the fruits pass through a yellow to red immature stage”. Additionally the section is also characterised by stipules that are shortly united around the stem to laminar, bilobed to emarginate, rounded, rounded and denticulate or erose in each side.

Really, the section Tricephalium is problematic in some respect. It is heterogeneous as a taxonomic unit, because it has not a standard set of characters, even not one character existing in all species classified here for the distinction of the whole group. The most common characteristic feature is the texture and venation of the leaves, a vegetative character that may be influenced rather easily by ecological conditions. Moreover, the major part of the species lives in montane valleys of the Andes of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia as isolated local endemics within similar montane habitats. It is unknown, how these characters would react if the individuals of these species got into lowland situation (see: Clausen et al. (1948) on Achillea lanuginosa). It is to be mentioned that similar leaf texture venations occur in some Carapichea and Coccochondra species as well. Another weakness of the section is the superfluous selection of the typical species, the Palicourea triadica (Müll. Arg.) C. M. Taylor being a very scarcely collected and poorly known species is unable to represent a species-rich, diverse section. After a thorough comparative analysis of the descriptions it turns out that the only character combination occurring in every species of the section Tricephalium is the character-set of the subgenus Heteropsychotria. The only exception would be the Palicourea neilii C. M. Taylor that has according the description bright yellow flowers and corolla tube swollen and bent at the base, but in his fig. 1F the corolla tube is straight and narrow at the base. Therefore we get to the conclusion that the section Tricephalium C. M. Taylor is treated here unchanged as a whole, not in the subgenus Montanae C. M. Taylor, but accentuated its taxonomic position in the frame of the subgenus Heteropsychotria Steyerm.

The new genus is based on Palicourea locellata C. M. Taylor described from the Colombian Andes and placed into the Nonatelia section reconsidered and strongly enlarged by C. M. Taylor including 26 species into the originally monotypic section. According the new protologue of the section it is a highly varied and rather heterogeneous group in morphological point of view. Therefore the section Nonatelia C. M. Taylor is interpreted here in a reduced sense including not more than 5 species. The remained 19 species belong to an undetermined unit or to more units for the moment. Apparently two species Palicourea locellata and P. woronowii do not fit well into Nonatelia, and even to the genus Palicourea either. For the separation of P. woronowii there is not sufficient information, but in the case of P. locellata the morphological information available are well-enough for its distinction on generic level. The new genus is dedicated to the author of the species, being Tromlyca the anagram of C. M. Taylor.

The last synthetic treatment of the Arachnothryx genus was published by D. Lorence in the Flora Mesoamericana (Vol. 4, part 2, 2012) based on a polyphyletic concept including several genera of different tribes and leaving the results of the molecular studies out of consideration. The analytic key offered by the author is based firstly on the highly complex and varied indumentum, and not on the more stable structural elements of the species, therefore the determination of the different species and species-groups is problematic. The present treatment is based on the original strictly monophyletic concept of Planchon (1849) pointed out and detailed by Steyermark, including into the study all (103) the valid species existing in México, Mesoamerica and South America. The new analytic key comprises all the existing Mexican and Mesoamerican species (81).

The last synthetic treatment of the Rogiera genus was published by D. Lorence in the Flora Mesoamericana (Vol. 4, part 2) based on a polyphyletic concept including two genera of different tribes and leaving the results of the molecular studies out of consideration or misinterpreting them (Lorence 2012). Rovaeanthus has been distinguished at first by Johan Rova upon comparative molecular studies (Rova 1999, Rova et al. 1999, 2002). Micro- and macromorphological studies revealed that the basic differences between Rogiera and Rovaeanthus are in the structure of the flowers and the shape and cell-patterns of the seeds as they were correctly presented and illustrated by Borhidi (2006, 2012) and Borhidi et al. (2004). These are: Rovaeanthus has a special form of corolla-throat, consisting of fleshy ring – as in Rondeletia – and a superposed hairy ring, like in Rogiera. This combination of the corolla-features is unique in the Neotropical Rubiaceae. Anthers are subbasal in Rovaeanthus, dorsifixed in the middle in Rogiera. Ovary disc with naked ring in Rogiera and hairy in Rovaeanthus. Shape and ornamentation of the seeds are completely different in the two genera (see below). In these features there are not any intermediate variation, between the two taxonomic units as it is suggested by Lorence. The present treatment is based on the original strictly monophyletic concept of Rogiera pointed out by Planchon (1849) and detailed by Borhidi (1982) and Borhidi et al. (2004) including into the study all (15) valid species of Rogiera and two species of Rovaeanthus. The separation of the two genera has been confirmed by later, more detailed molecular studies (Manns and Bremer 2010, Rova et al. 2009) establishing that the two genera belong to two different tribes: Rogiera belongs to Guettardeae, while Rovaeanthus is a member of the Rondeletieae tribe. It is important to mention, that Rovaeanthus was originally accepted as a valid genus by the World checklist of Rubiaceae (2006) and later has been re-classified into Rogiera in 2012, under the influence of the Lorence’s inaccurate treatment.

A new genus was described based on Portlandia guatemalensis Standl. of uncertain taxonomic position. The proposal of D. H. Lorence to place it into the genus Coutaportla Urb. as C. guatemalensis (Standl.) Lorence has not been supported by the discovery of a new species of Coutaportla (C. pailensis) nor by the molecular taxonomic studies of the group either. The differences of floral morphological, ovary and seed anatomical characters existing between the actually known three Coutaportla species of Lorence are the following: 1.) Placentation: all the three species belong to the Portlandia-complex (Urban 1923, Aiello 1979). Within the complex the placentation is one of the more important, fundamental feature in distinction and separation of the genera (Urban, 1923, Aiello 1979). Coutaportla has a unique form of placentation, the Coutaportla-type with a central-horizontal quadrangular placenta with determined number and position of ovules: 2–3 ascendent and 2–3 colgate separately positioned ones (Aiello 1979). This type of placentation is found only in Coutaportla ghisbreghtiana (the type species of the genus) and in C. pailensis. Coutaportla guatemalensis (Standl.) Lorence has a different form of placentation, with a basal-ascendent placenta and vertically arranged undetermined number of tile-likely arranged ovules, which is of Hintonia-type (Lorence 1986, Borhidi 2003). 2.) Morphological differences: five–six further important differences are found in the stipular, floral and seed morphology of the two Mexican (C. ghisbreghtiana and C. pailensis) and the one Mesoamerican (C. guatemalensis) species (Borhidi 2003, see below in the table). 3.) Molecular differences: the two species group have distant placements in the molecular cladograms of Chiococceae tribe belonging to two different major clades (Motley et al. 2005, Manns and Bremer 2010). All these differences seemed to give satisfactory amount of arguments for the separation of C. guatemalensis as an independent monotypic genus, the Lorencea Borhidi 2003, as endemic to the Mesoamerican flora, dedicated to the honor of D. H. Lorence, who has made numerous important discoveries and successful efforts to promote our knowledge about the Mexican and Central American Rubiaceae. The presented arguments convinced the experts of the World checklist of Rubiaceae to accept it as a valid new genus (Govaerts et al. 2006). As an obvious phytogeographical consequence of all these previous investigations, Coutaportla Urb. turned to be a Mexican endemic genus with two species living in the states Coahuila, Puebla and Oaxaca, of México and Lorencea Borhidi a monotypic endemic one of Mesoamerica, living in the states Chiapas of México and Guatemala. It was a surprise, that in the Flora Mesoamericana (2012): appeared the genus Coutaportla represented by C. guatemalensis (Standl.) Lorence, reducing Lorencea into synonymy with the following sentence: “No hay características de C. guatemalensis que apoyan su separación como género monotípico, como propuso Borhidi”, which is obviously an orbital lie with full knowledge of the above detailed facts. The treatment of the genus Coutaportla en la Flora Mesoamérica is a collection of inadmissible taxonomic inconsequences, starting with the modified generic protologue of Coutaportla by Ochoterena 2012 non Urban 1923, but attributed to Urban without amendment, which is a falsification of the original description of Urban based on a new type and including alien elements without new original studies (see Flora Mesoamericana 4.2: 69). Not to mention the absence of the obligatory citation of the criticised paper of Borhidi, and the fundamental publications of Aiello (1979), Motley et al. (2005), Borhidi (2006), and Manns and Bremer (2010). Therefore, the critical treatment of the genus Coutaportla with the re-establishment of Lorencea is a scientifically well-based, obvious, taxonomic necessity.

Two species was described as new ones and published in the second edition of the monograph: Rubiáceas de México utilized illegitimate names, which turned to be invalid synonyms (Govaerts 2016). These are rectified in the following paper.

The nectary morphology of six Hungarian and one grown Mediterranean leafy spurge (Euphorbia) species was studied and compared. Glands with various horns were found in E. amygdaloides L., E. cyparissias L., E. esula L., E. myrsinites L. and E. virgata W. et K. Nectary without horns is characteristic to E. palustris L. and E. polychroma Kern. Cuticle pattern of the glands was different and characteristic to the species. E. amygdaloides has no cuticle wrinkles. Special letter shaped wrinkles were found in the species, for example „H” shaped in E. cyparissias, E. esula, E. palustris and E. virgata. Wrinkles in E. myrsinites have several branches; they could be „Z”, „W”, „Y” and „E” shaped. The nectar of each studied plants contained fructose, glucose and sucrose. An unknown sugar was found in E. cyparissias only.