Flora of North America species comparison

Rumex acetosella in the broad sense is an extremely variable and taxonomically complicated polyploid complex, which includes diploids, tetraploids, hexaploids, and octoploids. This complex (excluding more distantly related arctic-montane R. graminifolius and its allies) probably originated and developed mostly in southern Europe and southwestern Asia. Some races of R. acetosella now are distributed almost worldwide as introduced and often completely naturalized aliens.

Á. Löve (1941, 1983) assumed that in this group chromosome numbers are strictly correlated with morphology. In his opinion, every chromosome race represents a distinct species: diploid Rumex angiocarpus Murbeck [= Acetosella angiocarpa (Murbeck) Á. Löve]; tetraploid R. multifidus Linnaeus [= R. tenuifolius (Wallroth) Á. Löve = Acetosella multifida (Linnaeus) Á. Löve]; hexaploid R. acetosella in the narrow sense [= A. vulgaris (W. D. J. Koch) Fourreau, with gymnocarpous A. vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and angiocarpous A. vulgaris subsp. pyrenaica (Pourret ex Lapeyrouse) Á. Löve]; hexaploid R. graminifolius Rudolph ex Lambert [= A. graminifolia (Rudolph ex Lambert) Á. Löve]. However, the distribution given by Löve for these taxa seems unnatural. Studies by J. C. M. den Nijs and collaborators (den Nijs 1974, 1976, 1984; den Nijs and T. Panhorst 1980; den Nijs et al. 1980, 1985; see also W. Harris 1969, 1973) indicate that the situation is more complicated. They postulated the development of two major evolutionary lines into two ploidy complexes: a primary western Mediterranean one and a secondary eastern Mediterranean one. According to this scheme, polyploid races independently and spontaneously emerged (and still are emerging) within different ancestral populations.

The most widespread, almost cosmopolitan race, presumably native to the southwestern Mediterranean region, including southwestern and Atlantic Europe, which is common in North America, is characterized by a hexaploid chromosome set (2n = 42), nonmultifid lateral lobes of basal leaves, and angiocarpy (fruits are not easily separable from accrescent inner tepals). It was commonly and erroneously referred to as Rumex angiocarpus Murbeck, or R. acetosella subsp. angiocarpus (Murbeck) Murbeck. According to J. R. Akeroyd (1991), who in general followed the taxonomic revision of the group by J. C. M. den Nijs (1984), the correct name for this taxon is R. acetosella subsp. pyrenaicus (Pourret ex Lapeyrouse) Akeroyd (=Acetosella vulgaris subsp. pyrenaica (Pourret ex Lapeyrouse) Á. Löve). Gymnocarpous nonmultifid and multifid forms (R. acetosella subsp. acetosella and R. acetosella subsp. acetoselloides (Balansa) den Nijs, respectively) also occur in North America, but evidently rarely. The distributions of subspecies of R. acetosella in North America are poorly known. Keys and detailed descriptions for the subspecies were provided by den Nijs and Akeroyd. However, the tempting simplicity of the keys is somewhat suspicious. The alternative point of view (and an alternative key) may be found in Á. Löve (1983).

Rumex acetosella subsp. arenicola Mäkinen ex Elven was recently described from Greenland and reported for Scandinavia and arctic Russia (R. Elven et al. 2000). This entity seems to be morphologically transitional toward Rumex graminifolius (see discussion under that species below). According to Elven et al., it differs from other infraspecific entities of R. acetosella in having the following characters: leaves usually without basal lobes (as in R. graminifolius), with revolute margins; inflorescence sparsely branched; tepals and pedicels densely covered with red papillae (as in R. graminifolius). From R. graminifolius and related taxa (R. beringensis and R. krausei) it can be distinguished by narrower inner tepals (similar in size to those in other subspecies of R. acetosella). The distribution of subsp. arenicola and its relations to other taxa are in need of further study.

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

In the nineteenth century, Rumex occidentalis commonly was misidentified as R. aquaticus, R. longifolius, or R. domesticus.

All of the species of subsect. Aquatici Rechinger f., represented in North America by Rumex occidentalis, R. arcticus, R. nematopodus, and R. tomentellus, form a taxonomically complex aggregate with poorly delimited, often intergrading species. Extremes are evidently distinct (e.g., R. arcticus and R. tomentellus). The taxonomy and distribution of members of this aggregate are still insufficiently known. Some authors prefer to treat all or most of these taxa as subspecies or varieties of R. aquaticus in the broad sense. From my point of view, this does not promote a better understanding of their variability and relationships.

A number of segregate species have been described and recognized in regional floras in North America. In most cases the features upon which these species are based intergrade. One of the most widely recognized segregates is Rumex fenestratus Greene emend. Rechinger f. [R. aquaticus subsp. fenestratus (Greene) Hultén, R. occidentalis S. Watson subsp. fenestratus (Greene) Hultén], which, according to K. H. Rechinger (1937), may be distinguished mostly by larger and more cordate fruiting inner tepals (more than 7 mm in R. fenestratus, usually less than 7 mm in R. occidentalis), and larger achenes (3 mm, and more than 3.5 mm, respectively). The morphotype of R. fenestratus occurs mostly along the Pacific coast from central western California to Alaska. Plants with large fruiting inner tepals [known as R. fenestratus var. labradoricus Rechinger f. or R. occidentalis var. labradoricus (Rechinger f.) Lepage] occur also in eastern Canada (Newfoundland and Quebec). In this treatment, I follow the taxonomic decision by J. E. Dawson (1979), who carefully analyzed the clinal variability of the R. occidentalis aggregate. However, R. fenestratus probably deserves recognition at least as a subspecies of R. occidentalis, but its taxonomic status needs additional investigation.

Rumex occidentalis was reported also from New Brunswick (which seems to be a rather natural extension of its range); however, the present status of the species in that province is uncertain.

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