Difference between revisions of "Chenopodium sect. Pseudoblitum"
Gen. Pl. 3: 52. 1880.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
|publication year=1880 | |publication year=1880 | ||
|special status= | |special status= | ||
| − | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V4/V4_517.xml |
|genus=Chenopodium | |genus=Chenopodium | ||
|subgenus=Chenopodium subg. Blitum | |subgenus=Chenopodium subg. Blitum | ||
Latest revision as of 22:59, 5 November 2020
Plants annual. Leaf blades triangular, narrowly triangular, or rhombic, glabrous. Flowers: perianth segments 3–4, connate nearly to apex or only at base, margins entire; stigmas 0.1–0.2 mm. Seeds vertical and horizontal.
Distribution
North America, Europe, Asia.
Discussion
Species 2 (2 in the flora).
Chenopodium rubrum was selected as the type of Chenopodium by N. L. Britton and A. Brown (1913). Following that typification, this should be sect. Chenopodium. Chenopodium album was proposed as the lectotype of the genus by A. S. Hitchcock and M. L. Green (1929). It is now the “standing type” of the genus (W. Greuter et al. 1993; C. Jarvis et al. 1993), and we agree with that decision (S. L. Mosyakin and S. E. Clemants 1996). While acceptance of C. rubrum as the type would have no real consequences for our treatment here, this species has occasionally been placed in the genus Blitum (a segregate of Chenopodium), and if new evidence should suggest that this latter treatment should be followed then nomenclatural havoc would occur.
Selected References
None.