43.7Rumex L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 333.
SAcetosa Miller (1754), Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4, 1; Acetosella (Meissner) Fourr. (1869), Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, sér. 2, 17: 1450.
Comments:
(1)As Acetosa and Acetosella are distinct segregates we could discuss acceptance of these as genera. This would be in accordance with how we do it in other groups. (Tzvelev & Elven)
(2)I have therefore tentatively grouped the species in subgenera. (Elven)
WARNING! Acetosa and Acetosella may merit rank as separate genera.
Subg. Rumex
43.7.1Rumex longifolius DC. in Lam. & DC. (1815), Fl. Franc., ed. 3, 6: 368.
SR. domesticus Hartm. (1820), Skand. Fl., ed. 1, 148.
T[Described from France: Roussilon.]
2n=(1) 40 (4x, see comment). (2) 60 (6x).
2nD(1) Jonsell (2000 Finl). (2) Löve & Löve (1975) list several counts, one Icelandic; Jonsell (2000, 31 counts from Norw, Finl, Sweden).
GICE NOR RUS RFE* ALA*? GRL*
Comments:
(1)Possibly native on seashores in N Europe (Iceland, Norway, European Russia. Occurrences in other areas should be considered as to stability. (Elven)
(2)The tetraploid number was found in five different Finnish populations tentatively referred to this species, acc. to Snogerup in Jonsell (2000). (Elven)
43.7.2Rumex confertus Willd. (1809), Enum. Pl. Hort. Berol. 397.
S
2n=
2nD
GRUS*
Comments:
(1)A stable adventive in Vorkuta, Polar Ural. (Tzvelev)
(2)Also expands and approaches the Arctic in NE Norway, perhaps already within it (in Vardø) but not as stable yet. (Elven)
43.7.3Rumex aquaticus L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 336.
S
TLinnaean herbarium 464.23 (LINN) lectotype, selected by Jonsell & Jarvis (1994, Nord. J. Bot. 14: 154).
Comments:
(1)The arctic Norwegian plants differ appreciably from the southern ones and I have been in favour of acceptance of the split into the subspecies aquaticus and protractus applied by Fl. Arct. URSS. But then I am in doubt whether subsp. aquaticus reaches the Arctic. In Fl. Arct. URSS it is reported from Kola Peninsula (probably Murmansk, non-arctic), lower Jenisei (Dudinka, probably non-arctic) and the Anadyr basin (probably non-arctic). (Elven)
(2)We now prefer to include subsp. protractus in subsp. aquaticus. (Tzvelev)
(3)Done. (Elven)
43.7.3.1Rumex aquaticus L. subsp. aquaticus
SR. arcticus L. subsp. protractus (Rech. fil.) Rech. fil. (1949), Candollea 12: 56 [basionym: R. protractus Rech. fil. (1934), Feddes Repert. 33: 356].
2n=140 (14x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list three non-arctic counts (as subsp. aquaticus); Löve & Löve in Löve (1975c as subsp. protractus); Jonsell (2000 Sweden).
GNOR RUS SIB RFE?
Comments:
43.7.3.2Rumex aquaticus L. subsp. insularis Tolm. (1966), Fl. Arct. URSS 5: 158.
S
2n=140 (14x).
2nDLöve & Löve in Löve (1975c).
GRUS
Comments:
(1)This is one of quite a few Kolguev Island endemics proposed by the Russians. Has Kolguev a (glaciological) history which makes the presence of such endemics probable? (Elven)
(2)Also occurs in Novaya Zemlya. (Tzvelev & Yurtsev)
WARNING! Acceptance may depend on a general justification of Kolguev (and Novaya Zemlya) endemics.
43.7.4Rumex arcticus Trautv. (1847), Fl. Taim. 29.
SR. aquaticus L. subsp. arcticus ***; R. kamtschadalus Kom. (1914), Feddes Repert. 13: 166; R. arcticus Trautv. var. kamtschadalus (Kom.) Rech. fil. in Tolm. (1966), Fl. Arct. URSS 5: 155.
T[Described from Siberia: "Taimyr R. 74 1/4 and 75N".]
2n=120 (12x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list four counts, all as arctic.
GRUS SIB RFE ALA CAN
Comments:
(1)If R. kamtschadalus occurs in the arctic parts it could be treated as a race (subspecies, variety) of R. arcticus. However, the low ploidy level reported counts against inclusion. The counts reported by Löve & Löve should be checked against the original sources. (Elven)
(2)We propose to include it in the synonymy of R. arcticus. (Tzvelev & Yurtsev)
(3)Then the five tetraploid (2n=40) chromosome counts listed by Löve & Löve (1975) need to be checked against sources. (Elven)
43.7.5Rumex occidentalis S. Wats. (1877), Proc. Amer. Acad. 12: 253.
SR. fenestratus Greene (1901), Pittonia 4: 306.
2n=c. 140 (14x).
2nDMulligan (1957); Taylor & Mulligan (1968).
GCAN
Comments:
43.7.6Rumex gmelinii Turcz. ex Ledeb. (1851), Fl. Ross. 3: 508.
S
2n=
2nD
GSIB
Comments:
43.7.7Rumex pseudonatronatus Borb. (1880), Értek. Term. Köréb. Magyar Tud. Akad. 11, 18: 21.
S
T[Described from Hungary.]
2n=40 (4x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list four non-arctic counts; Jonsell (2000 N Sweden).
GRUS
Comments:
(1)Probably adventive and not stable. (Tzvelev)
WARNING! Will be excluded if not confirmed as stable in European Russia.
43.7.8Rumex sibiricus Hultén (1928), Fl. Kamtch. 2: 48.
SR. salicifolius auct., non Weinm. (1821, Flora 4: 28); R. triangulivalvis auct., non (Danser) Rech. fil. (1936, Feddes Repert. 40: 297); R. salicifolius var. triangulivalvis auct., non (Danser) Hickman (1984, Madroño 31: 252).
TSiberia: Nikandrovski Ostrov, 1876, leg. M. Brenner (S) holotype.
2n=20 (2x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list two counts, one as arctic, for R. sibiricus.
GSIB RFE ALA CAN
Comments:
(1)I have here followed most of the arguments by Hultén (1928) when he described R. sibiricus. He kept to this opinion also in Hultén (1944, 1968) and included all the arctic plants from Siberia, Alaska, Yukon and Mackenzie districts in this species. His arguments for not accepting the names R. salicifolius (Californian) and R. triangulivalvis (described on introduced plants in the Netherlands) seem valid.
The question is what to do with the eastern Canadian plants that seem to reach the Arctic on the south shore of Hudson Bay (Porsild & Cody 1980). They follow the roads and railways and seem to be southern introductions. They may belong to 'triangulivalvis'. I have not entered them yet. (Elven)
43.7.9Rumex maritimus L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 335.
S
TLinnaean Stockholm herbarium 150.3 (S) lectotype, selected by Jonsell & Jarvis (1994, Nord. J. Bot. 14: 154).
2n=For the collective species. 40 (4x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list several non-arctic counts.
Comments:
(1)See the discussion by Snogerup in Jonsell (2000, Fl. Nord. 1) of the options as to species, subspecies, varieties or nothing. As the problems mainly are in South America, and as the entities are fairly well separated in the north, I propose that we choose subspecies. (Elven)
43.7.9.1Rumex maritimus L. subsp. maritimus
SR. rossicus Murb. (1913), Bot. Not. 1913: 221.
2n=40 (4x).
2nDJonsell (2000 Sweden).
GRUS? SIB
Comments:
43.7.9.2Rumex maritimus L. subsp. fueginus (Phil.) Hultén (1968), Ark. Bot., ser. 2, 7, 1: 45.
BR. fueginus Phil. (1895), Anal. Univ. Chile 91: 493.
SR. maritimus L. var. fueginus (Phil.) Dusén (1900), ***
T[Described from South America.]
2n=
2nD
GCAN
Comments:
(1)Reaches the Arctic in the Hudson Bay area (Churchill), acc. to Scoggan (1978). (Elven)
Subg. Acetosa (Miller) Rech. fil. (1937), ***.
BAcetosa Miller (1754), Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4, 1.
43.7.10Rumex acetosa (1753), Sp. Pl. 337.
SAcetosa pratensis Mill. (1768), Gard. Dict., ed. 8, no. 1.
TSweden: Sörmland, Salem, leg. B. Jonsell 7110 (UPS) typ. cons. selected by Jonsell & Nilsson (1996, Taxon 45: 131).
Comments:
(1)The problem here is how to handle the montane-alpine and northern races. The widespread (and lowland) subsp. acetosa is separated by several assumedly independent characters from the northern plants. It reaches the Arctic mainly in Europe.
A separate low-grown race in the Atlantic islands has been tentatively accepted here and by Nilsson in Jonsell (2000) as subsp. islandicus. Similar plants also occur in alpine and arctic parts of Norway and perhaps in Novaya Zemlya and other arctic islands. These are, however, not included in subsp. islandicus by Nilsson who considers it a restricted race in Iceland and the Faeroes.
The nomenclatural handling of the tall-grown forest plants is probably inconsistent. Traditionally, the Nordic plants are named as subsp. lapponicus (typified from Finland) whereas the C European plants are named as subsp. alpestris (typified from N Balkan) or R. arifolius (typified from W Alps). The latter names have more or less generally been accepted also for similar tall-grown plants in N Russia, Siberia and western North America, without comparison with the Nordic plants. I am not sure that we can or should separate the tall-grown forest plants on two races and the proposal below is therefore very preliminary. As subspecies, 'lapponicus' (1933) seems to have priority before 'alpestris' (1943). (Elven)
43.7.10.1Rumex acetosa L. subsp. acetosa
SAcetosa pratensis Mill. subsp. pratensis
2n=14 (female)/15 (male) (2x).
2nDJonsell (2000 Norw, Finl)
GICE NOR RUS? SIB?
Comments:
43.7.10.2Rumex acetosa L. subsp. islandicus (Á. Löve) Ö. Nilsson in Jonsell (1996), Nord. J. Bot. 16: 5.
BAcetosa alpestris (Jacq.) Á. Löve subsp. islandicus Á. Löve (1956), Acta Horti Gothob. 20: 191.
S
TIceland: Mosfellsbær (Úlfarsá), 1949, leg. Á. Löve & D. Löve (Löve & Löve private herb.) holotype.
2n=
2nD
GICE NOR? RUS?
Comments:
(1)Considered by Nilsson in Jonsell (2000) as a local endemic of Iceland and the Faeroes, even if similar plants occur at least in Fennoscandian mountains, Vaigach and Novaya Zemlya. For separating characters, see Nilsson in Jonsell (2000). If we exclude the N Norwegian and N Russian plants from this subspecies, we have a problem in where to place them. They will be obvious misfits both in subsp. acetosa and in subsp. lapponicus/-alpestris. Tolmachev (1966) mapped these N Russian plants from Kolguev and Novaya Zemlya (but not from Vaigach) as subsp. lapponicus. (Elven)
WARNING! Only tentatively proposed.
43.7.10.3Rumex acetosa L. subsp. lapponicus Hiit. (1933), Suomen Kasvio 300.
SR. alpestris auct., non Jacq. (1762); R. alpestris Jacq. subsp. lapponicus (Hiit.) Jalas (1977), Ann. Bot. Fenn. 14: 191.
TRussia: Kola Peninsula, Ponoj, 27.08.1899, leg. J. Montell (H) holotype.
2n=
2nD
GNOR RUS SIB? GRL?
Comments:
(1)The affinity of the Russian plants from the areas east of Kola Peninsula is uncertain, as is that of the Greenland plants. (Elven)
43.7.10.4Rumex acetosa L. subsp. alpestris (Scop.) Á. Löve (1943), Bot. Not. 1943: 243.
BLapathum alpestre Scop. (1772), Fl. Carniol., ed. 2, 261.
SR. alpestris Jacq. (1762), Enum. Stirp. Vindob. 62; Acetosa pratensis Mill. subsp. alpestris (Jacq.) Á. Löve (1961), Bot. Not. 114: 51.
2n=14 (female)/15 (male) (2x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, some as arctic, for Acetosa pratensis subsp. 'arifolia' (incl. subsp. lapponicus).
GRUS SIB ALA CAN GRL?
Comments:
WARNING! Might be merged with subsp. lapponicus under that name.
43.7.10.5Rumex acetosa L. subsp. pseudoxyria Tolm. (1966), Fl. Arct. URSS 5: 152.
SAcetosa pratensis Mill. subsp. pseudoxyria (Tolm.) Á. Löve & Kapoor ***
TSiberia: in tundra glareosa prope sinum Tiksi, Jacutiae arcticae, 10.07.1956, leg. A. Tolmatchev & B. Jurtzev (LE) holotype?
2n=14 (female)/15 (male) (2x).
2nDZhukova (1966); Zhukova & Tikhonova (1971).
GSIB RFE
Comments:
43.7.11Rumex thyrsiflorus Fingerh. (1829), Linnaea 4: 380.
SAcetosa thyrsiflora (Fingerh.) Á. Löve (1948), Rep. Univ. Inst. Appl. Sci. Reykjavik, Dept. Agric., ser. B, 3: 107.
T[Described from Germany.]
2n=14 (female)/15 (male) (2x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, one as arctic; Lövkvist & Hultgård (1999 S Sweden); Jonsell (2000 Norw, Sweden).
GRUS SIB
Comments:
43.7.12Rumex oblongifolius Tolm. (1966), Fl. Arct. URSS 5: 154.
SAcetosa oblongifolia (Tolm.) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1976), Bot. Not. 128: 506.
2n=
2nD
GSIB
Comments:
Subg. Acetosella (Meissn.) Rech. fil. (1937), ***.
BRumex L. sect. Acetosella Meissn. in A. DC. (1857), ***.
SAcetosella (Meissn.) Fourr. (1869), Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, sér. 2, 17: 1450.
Comments:
(1)The Rumex acetosella aggregate, which may include all of subg. Acetosella, has hitherto defied all attempts of a generally acceptable revision, including my own feeble attempt (Elven in Jonsell 2000, Flora Nordica 1). The treatment below just includes the currently applied names. Their presented assignment to species is, however, dubious.
There may be three major form-groups represented in and close to the Arctic:
(A) The 'acetosella' group is mainly European and West Asiatic but is spread as ruderals in all temperate parts of the world. It contains at least the entities named as 'acetosella' s. str., 'tenuifolius', 'acetoselloides' (southern), 'pyrenaicus' (southern), and 'multifidus'/'angiocarpus' (southern). Löve (1941, 1942, 1943 and elsewhere) confused the issue by stating that some of these where separated by a good correspondence between morphology and ploidy level, 'tenuifolius' as tetraploid, 'acetosella' s. str. as hexaploid, and some southern species as diploid. This correlation has later been disproved in several investigations and two or more ploidy levels are now accepted within each entity. The entities 'acetosella' and 'tenuifolius' are still partly recognised on morphological evidence but as subspecies.
(B) The 'graminifolius' group is Eurasiatic and may contain only one species: R. graminifolius s. str. It seems to be mainly boreal-continental and is not ruderal. Löve here followed a tradition from, e.g., Kjellman (1883) and Hultén (1937, 1944) and identified this with an arctic form-group. Nearly all his reports on what he named 'graminifolius' thereby refer to the next form-group (C), including his reports from Greenland, arctic European Russia and most of the Beringian area, and his octoploid chromosome reports (Löve & Löve 1975). Rumex graminifolius as described and illustrated by Lambert (1811) and typified is fairly different from the entities of form-group (C).
(C) The 'beringensis' group is probably nearly circumpolar but with most diversity in the Beringian area. It probably includes the entities named below as 'arenicola', 'beringensis' and 'krausei'. These are the truly arctic representatives of subg. Acetosella. The reason why they have been merged, by Löve and many others, with R. graminifolius is that their leaves are narrow and entire or subentire and that some of them have large nuts and tepals (valves) distinctly longer than the nut.
There are several options for handling of these entities, none of them very satisfactory (see Elven in Jonsell 2000, Flora Nordica 1). There is no good correspondence, e.g., among the morphological traits or between morphology and ploidy levels. The genetical background of the variation pattern is unknown. What is known in that the simple ploidy explanation of Löve (1943 and other works) not only is untenable but probably was insufficiently supported by his primary data. I am not longer sure that the treatment of Elven in Jonsell (2000) is fully tenable, se comments below. (Elven)
43.7.13Rumex acetosella L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 338.
S
TLinnaean herbarium 464.38 (LINN) lectotype, selected by Löve (1983, Bot. Helv. 93: 164).
Comments:
(1)It is more or less clear that there is no unambiguous way of dividing the more southern material. Different morphological criteria give widely different solutions and none of them correspond well with the ploidy differences. The two more southern races proposed below are largely sympatric but differ ecologically. (Elven)
43.7.13.1Rumex acetosella L. subsp. acetosella
SAcetosella vulgaris (Koch) Fourr. [(1869), Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, n. s., 17: 145] ex Á. Löve ***
2n=(1) 28 (4x). (2) 42 (6x).
2nD(1) Jonsell (2000 Sweden). (2) Löve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, some as arctic.
GICE NOR RUS*? SIB*? RFE*? CAN* GRL*
Comments:
(1)Native, at least in N Europe. The most frequent ruderal of the group in all temperate areas. (Elven)
43.7.13.2Rumex acetosella L. subsp. tenuifolius (Wallr.) O. Schwarz (1949), Mitt. Thüring. Bot. Ges. 1: 97.
BR. acetosella L. var. tenuifolius Wallr. (1822), Sched. Crit. 1: 186.
SR. tenuifolius (Wallr.) Á. Löve (1941), Bot. Not. 1941: 99; Acetosella tenuifolia (Wallr.) Á. Löve (1948), Rep. Univ. Inst. Appl. Sci. Reykjavik, Dept. Agric., ser. B, 3: 108.
TÁ. Löve no. 01 (LD) neotype, selected by Löve (1941, Bot. Not. 1941: 99).
2n=28 (4x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, some as arctic; Jonsell (2000 Sweden).
GICE NOR RUS? GRL?
Comments:
43.7.13.3Rumex acetosella L. subsp. arenicola Mäkinen ex Elven in Jonsell (2000), Nord. J. Bot. 19: 387.
SR. graminifolius auct. plur., non Lamb. (1811).
TNE Grenland: Zackenberg, 1999, leg. B. Jonsell 7724 (S) holotype.
2n=
2nD
GNOR RUS GRL
Comments:
(1)Typified from NE Greenland and specimens seen from Greenland (named by Löve as R. graminifolia), Iceland, N Fennoscandia, and N European Russia (also here named by Löve as R. graminifolius), belongs here. In the North Atlantic area this is native, arctic(alpine) plant that very rarely occurs as a ruderal. It also occurs in areas from where even ruderal plants of the other races are missing.
The relationship between subsp. arenicola and the Beringian taxa named as R. beringensis Jurtz. & Petrovsky and R. krausei Jurtz. & Petrovsky had not been studied previous to the publication of subsp. arenicola. It was assumed that R. beringensis and R. krausei really belonged in the affinity of R. graminifolius sensu Lambert, as indicated by Löve & Löve (1975) and the Russian authors. We investigated some material in St. Petersburg in Febr. 2000 and it is probable that these Beringian arctic taxa also are closer to subsp. arenicola (and in the R. acetosella affinity) than to the mainly boreal R. graminifolius. Both Beringian taxa differ, however, from subsp. arenicola in some assumedly important diagnostic characters as, e.g., size and shape of the tepals compared with the nut. (Petrovsky & Elven)
WARNING! Might be re-evaluated and placed closer to R. beringensis and R. krausei.
43.7.14Rumex beringensis Jurtz. & Petrovsky in Jurtz. et al. (1973), Bot. Zhurn. 58: 1745.
SAcetosella beringensis (Jurtz. & Petrovsky) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1976), Bot. Not. 128: 506.
T***
2n=14 (2x). See comment.
2nDZhukova (1969, three counts from NE As, as R. graminifolius s. lat.); Zhukova & Tikhonova (1971, 1973, seven counts from NE As, as R. graminifolius); Zhukova & Petrovsky (1975, NE As, as R. graminifolius var. subspathulata; 1977, 1980, NE As, as R. graminifolius). Löve & Löve (1975) list six counts, all as arctic, for Acetosella beringensis.
GRFE ALA?
Comments:
(1)The sorting of chromosome counts by Löve & Löve (1975) on A. beringensis (diploids) and R. krausei (triploids) is not supported by the Russian sources. (Petrovsky & Elven)
43.7.15Rumex krausei Jurtz. & Petrovsky in Jurtz. et al. (1973), Bot. Zhurn. 58: 1745.
SAcetosella krausei (Jurtz. & Petrovsky) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1976), Bot. Not. 128: 506.
T***
2n=21 (3x).
2nDZhukova & Petrovsky (1971, 1972, NE As, as R. graminifolius var. subspathulata); Zhukova et al. (1973, NE As, as R. graminifolius var. subspathulata). Löve & Löve (1975) list four counts, all as arctic, for Acetosella krausei.
GRFE ALA?
Comments:
(1)Acetosella plants are obligately outcrossing (dioecious) and the reports of a consistently triploid chromosome number is therefore extremely strange. The chromosome count vouchers (LE) showed no sign of sterility. (Petrovsky & Elven)
43.7.16Rumex graminifolius Rudolph ex Lamb. (1811), Trans. Linn. Soc. 10: 264.
SAcetosella graminifolia (Rudolph ex Lamb.) Á. Löve (1948), Rep. Univ. Inst. Appl. Sci. Reykjavik, Dept. Agric., ser. B, 3: 109.
T[Described from Kamtchatka and the Kurile Islands.]
2n=(1) 42 (6x). (2) 56 (8x).
2nD(1) Borgen & Elven (1983 N Norw). (2) Löve & Löve (1975) list five counts, all as arctic, for Acetosella graminifolia s. str., but see comment.
GRUS? SIB? RFE?
Comments:
(1)I am now in doubt whether this plant reaches the Arctic at all. Rumex graminifolius as here defined, and also as described and typified, stops some distance south of the Arctic in Finland and Norway and the reports from arctic European Russia may refer to the 'arenicola' entity.
(2)The octoploid chromosome reports referred by Löve & Löve (1975) at least partly originate from R. acetosella subsp. arenicola. The origin of the octoploid count reported by Zhukova (1968) should be investigated.
43.8Rheum L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 371.
43.8.1Rheum compactum L. (1762), Sp. Pl., ed. 2, 531.
S
2n=44 (4x).
2nDLöve & Löve (1975) list three counts, one as arctic.
GSIB
Comments: