Atriplex mucronata
Atriplex suckleyi
quelite
Suckley's orach
erect, ascending, or procumbent, much branched, obtusely angled, 1–6 dm, stout, scurfy when young.
terete, often tinged with red, sparsely mealy or glabrous.
alternate or proximalmost opposite or subopposite;
petiole to 1.5 cm or sessile;
blade paler abaxially, oblong or oval, lanceolate, or elliptic to broadly obovate or narrowly oblong, 10–40(–60) × (2–)4–20 mm, base rounded to cuneate, margin entire or undulate, rarely with 1–2 teeth, apex rounded to acute, mucronate, thin, often densely white scurfy beneath, grayish green and glabrate above.
numerous, alternate, sessile;
blade lanceolate to elliptic or less commonly ovate, 7–35 × (2–)4–10(–11) mm, thick and succulent, base acute, margin entire, apex acute or acuminate, glaucous, sparsely farinose when young.
in small glomerules, these in distal axils or in short, dense or interrupted, mostly simple, terminal spikes, perianth cup-shaped, frequently pinkish, lobes each with fleshy crest.
fascicled in axils.
solitary or few in leaf axils, calyx within bracteoles of 3 or 4, entire or lobed, distinct, obtuse, hyaline sepals.
reddish brown, 2 mm.
brown, 1.5 × 1.2 mm.
glomerules terminal or in dense or interrupted, terminal or axillary, naked spikes or shortly branched panicles.
bracteoles subsessile or with stipes to 1 mm, cuneate-orbiculate, compressed, 4.5–7 × 3.5–5.6 mm, typically longer than wide, united to middle, apex rounded, 3–5-toothed, teeth subequal, sides irregularly tuberculate or with 2 lateral dentate crests, rarely not appendaged.
bracteoles small and difficult to find, sessile, ovate, 2 × 1.5 mm, membranous, united to apex, without appendages, scurfy, each pistil subtended by a perianth.
= 18.
Atriplex mucronata
Atriplex suckleyi
Problems with prior applications of the name Atriplex mucronata lie in the mistaken determination of the place of publication as Amer. Monthly Mag. & Crit. Rev. 2: 176. 1818 (where the name is only mentioned), instead of 2: 119. 1817 (where accompanied by a description and notes). H. M. Hall and F. E. Clements (1923) evidently relied on P. C. Standley’s (1916) interpretation, which indicated the wrong citation (see also A. dioica Rafinesque as an identical example). Hall and Clements applied the name mucronata to their interpretation of A. patula subsp. hastata or to A. hastata (i.e., to A. prostrata according to this treatment).
The treatment of Obione by C. H. B. A. Moquin-Tandon (1849) included “A. mucronata Rafin.!” as a synonym of O. arenaria. Possibly a sheet in the Prodromus herbarium at Geneva was the basis for that decision. It has two mounted specimens, one labeled A. arenaria Nuttall, collected by Nuttall in “N. Jersey, 1826,” and a second labeled “Atriplex mucronata Rafinesque (A. arenaria Nuttall, N. Jersey) Maritime NY, Rafinesque 1819.” From that information (although the year is 1819, not 1817), and from the description of the taxon, it seems clear that A. arenaria Nuttall is a later synonym of A. mucronata Rafinesque by at least half a year.
H. A. Gleason and A. Cronquist (1991) indicated that this taxon, by whatever name, is “perhaps better treated as a variety of the more tropical Atriplex pentandra (Jacquin) Standley, but the proper nomenclatural combination not yet made.” The present writer agrees with that conclusion, but such subjugation might indicate further contraction into the species of additional closely related taxa, e.g., A. wrightii, which is clearly closely allied as well.
Plants from the coastal states from New England south to New Jersey are much alike and seldom, if ever, display prominent, terminal, naked spikes or panicles with beadlike glomerules of staminate flowers. Plants from Florida westward sometimes have such staminate spikes or panicles.
Specimens from Florida and some from Texas can be distinguished from Atriplex pentandra only with difficulty, especially those individuals with entire leaves. However, the fruiting bracteole length-width ratio and overall shape, with some allowance for overlap, can serve to distinguish most specimens; those of A. mucronata are proportionately longer than broad and, on average, larger.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
At specific rank, the epithet suckleyi clearly has priority. Stutz et al. (1993) resurrected Endolepis Torrey and placed within it two completely disparate species, E. dioica and E. covillei Standley [Atriplex covillei (Standley) J. F. Macbride]. The interpretation of the genus by Stutz et al. stands on the presence of perianth segments subtending the ovary within the fruiting bracteoles, lack of Kranz leaf anatomy, and other more equivocal characteristics. The shared features hardly indicate near affinity, however. The two taxa are otherwise grossly dissimilar. Fundamentally, the genus Endolepis as resurrected by H. C. Stutz et al. stands on the basis of a single character: the presence of perianth segments. Kranz anatomy rises and falls, both within subg. Atriplex and subg. Obione. Thus, coincidence of the non-Kranz criterion is subject to interpretation. Perianth segments subtending the ovary within the enclosing bracteoles, per se, appear to be of independent origin. And, the peculiar nature of the staminate calyx in A. suckleyi (a major determining condition in establishment of the genus Endolepis by Torrey) is not present in A. covillei. Certainly the two species included within Endolepis appear to be as closely allied to other species of Atriplex as they are to each other.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
LA Plants
MD Biodiversity
WildflowerSearch
iNaturalist
USDA Plants Database
PNW Herbaria
