Flora of North America species comparison

Species 8 (2 in the flora).

J. Holub (1972b) argued that the correct name for this group, when segregated from Epilobium, should be Chamerion (Rafinesque) Rafinesque ex Holub. However, A. N. Sennikov (2011), using the more recent and clarified ICBN (Melbourne Code), correctly argued that the name of the segregated genus should be Chamaenerion, and that opinion is followed here.

All species of Chamaenerion tested to date have been self-compatible, although the strong protandry can result in low fertilization rates if there is a shortage of pollinators. Flowering is diurnal, with each flower generally remaining open for three to five or more days.

All eight species (nine taxa) of Chamaenerion are restricted to the northern hemisphere, and six of eight species occur only in Eurasia; Circaea is the only other genus of Onagraceae in which most species occur outside of the western hemisphere (D. E. Boufford 1982b). Chamaenerion is generally divided into two sections, each with four species (T. Tacik 1959; and, as Chamerion, J. Holub 1972b; W. L. Wagner et al. 2007). P. H. Raven (1976) and most others who treated this group as a section of Epilobium divided it into two corresponding subsections. Both species of Chamaenerion in North America are placed in sect. Chamaenerion (not treated formerly here), along with two species endemic to the Himalayan region, C. conspersum (Haussknecht) Kitamura and C. speciosum (Decaisne) Hoch & Gandhi (Chen C. J. et al. 1992); the other four species, all endemic in Eurasia, comprise sect. Rosmarinifolium Tacik.

Chamaenerion differs from Epilobium in leaves nearly always alternate, rarely subopposite or verticillate near stem base (versus opposite at least on proximal stem); absence of a floral tube (versus a distinct floral tube); slightly zygomorphic flowers with subequal stamens that are erect, later deflexed, and a style that is deflexed, later erect (versus actinomorphic flowers with erect stamens in two unequal series and erect style); and pollen shed in monads (versus pollen shed in tetrads, or monads in one species). Molecular analyses (D. A. Baum et al. 1994; R. A. Levin et al. 2004) provided strong support for Chamaenerion as a monophyletic group separate from Epilobium, and for sect. Chamaenerion (only C. angustifolium and C. latifolium sampled) as monophyletic.

The superfluous and illegitimate name Pyrogennema Lunell pertains here.

(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)

Genera 2, species 173 (2 genera, 43 species in the flora).

Epilobium and its close relatives have been recognized historically either as part of Onagreae (A. P. de Candolle 1828b), sometimes as a subtribe (É. Spach 1834–1848, vol. 4; J. Torrey and A. Gray 1838–1843, vol. 1), or as the distinct Epilobieae (R. Raimann 1893; P. A. Munz 1965; P. H. Raven 1976). The synapomorphies for Epilobieae as currently delimited include its highly condensed, heteropycnotic chromosomes with a base chromosome number of x = 18, sepals held erect or spreading (not reflexed) throughout anthesis, and the presence of a coma of hairs on the seeds (secondarily lost in some species). Molecular support for the tribe is strong (97–100% BOOTSTRAP support; D. A. Baum et al. 1994; R. A. Levin et al. 2004).

Endlicher established Epilobieae and included Oenothera within it; it is unclear how or whether his concept differed from Onagreae of A. P. de Candolle (1828b). É. Spach (1834–1848, vol. 4) recognized these genera as Onagreae and differentiated so-called sect. Oenotherinae from sect. Epilobieae, placing in the latter not only Epilobium and related groups, but also Clarkia and its segregates. J. Torrey and A. Gray (1840) excluded Clarkia from their Epilobiinae and also excluded Boisduvalia, a delimitation also followed by R. Raimann (1893) for his Epilobieae. Epilobieae did not assume its current delimitation, including only Epilobium and its close relatives, until the works of P. A. Munz (1941) and P. H. Raven (1964).

G. L. Stebbins (1971) and P. H. Raven (1976) considered the diverse chromosome numbers in Epilobieae and proposed that the species of Boisduvalia (now a section of Epilobium) with n = 9 or 10 represented the original base chromosome number for the tribe, and that these numbers were derived from x = 11 which is found in Circaeeae, Gongylocarpeae, and Lopezieae (W. L. Wagner et al. 2007). They proposed a series of aneuploid reductions from n = 9 or 10 to n = 6, followed by polyploidy to produce the array of numbers in Epilobium (n = 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 30) and Boisduvalia (n = 9, 10, 15, 19). D. A. Baum et al. (1994) demonstrated that molecular data did not support that hypothesis and found that a monophyletic Chamaenerion (n = 18, 36, 54) forms a strongly distinct sister branch to Epilobium, within which sect. Epilobium (n = 18) is monophyletic and sister to the rest of Epilobium, including the former segregates Boisduvalia and Zauschneria. The data from Baum et al. suggested that Epilobieae are primitively polyploid, with numbers based on x = 18, which is unique in the family. Using comparable sampling and some additional genes, R. A. Levin et al. (2004) found strong support for the phylogeny proposed by Baum et al.

(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)