A survey of the American species of vaccinium, subgenus euvaccinium

W. H. Camp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2804714

1942-04-01

Brittonia

Abstract:In the preceding paper I have noted the possibility that fu ture work on the phylogeny of the Vaccinieae may indicate the need for generic realignments within the tribe, eventually influencing the circumscription of the genus Vaccinium. However, no nomenclatural changes would be necessary in the group here under consideration for it contains the nomenclatural type of the genus. Nevertheless, it should be stated that, in my opinion, this group-toge ther with other forms which are outside the present discussion--merits at least the rank of subgenus. I t is to be noted that, as originally set up by Asa Gray, this subgeneric group contained V. uliginosum and V. occidentale. These have been excluded on the basis of their different type of inflorescence. The proper citation for this group, which contains the American bilberries, is: Vaccinium subgenus Euvaccinium (A. Gray) Klotzsch, Linnaea 24: 54, 58. 1851 (pro par te) . The type species is Vaccinium myrtillus L. Since nomenclature will play a minor role in the present discussion, it will scarcely be necessary to go into greater detail concerning these matters in this place. In the foregoing paper some consideration was given to the dynamics of speciation within the eastern American members of the genus Vaccinium, subgenus Cyanococcus. There it was noted that the evidence indicates that this g roupthe t rue blueberries--is not genetically unusual within the family. I t is therefore held as axiomatic that the American bi lberr ies-in the subgenus Euvaccinium, and from the standpoint of their basic cytogenetic phenomena--are probably neither unique nor different from the i r relatives. Fur thermore, the distribution patterns and morphological variations which one finds among the species of American bilberries are so similar to those in other segments of the genus which have been studied that one is direct ly led to the conclusion that the same forces have been operative in their production. Therefore, in my conclusions I have had little hesitation in going somewhat beyond the available data. This may be scientifically unsound; nevertheless, it is the best I can do unti l the actual data are available. At least, this procedure has brought to the present discussion a point of view without which we should have no explanation of the possible reasons for the different types of variabilities which are so obvious when the material is studied.