|
|
An annotated list of the species of Ensete, Musa and Musella. This annotated list started life as a simple attempt to resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in nomenclature of the ornamental Musaceae encountered in various standard horticultural texts. The scope has widened somewhat to attempt to include all published taxa, and their synonyms, the majority of which are never likely to be encountered in horticulture whether for fruit production or ornamental use. The information presented is summarised here. The
Musaceae has been exploited by man for food for millennia and contributes staple crops to
many regions of the world. It is probable that the banana was one of the first
fruit-bearing plants to receive attention in the early development of agriculture more
than 4,000 years ago (the first development of agriculture is generally reckoned to have
occurred about 10,000 years ago). A number of distinct groups of edible bananas have
been developed from species of Musa. By far the largest and now the most
widely distributed group is derived from Musa acuminata (mainly) and Musa
balbisiana either alone or in various hybrid combinations. Musa acuminata
is now placed in the Musa section Musa 1 (Eumusa 1) and Musa
balbisiana in section Musa 2 (Eumusa 2). The next and much
smaller group is derived from members of the section Australimusa and is
restricted in importance to Polynesia. Of even more restricted importance are small
groups of hybrids in Papua New Guinea; a section Musa 1 (Eumusa 1) group
to which Musa schizocarpa has also contributed and a group of section Musa
1 (Eumusa 1) x
section Australimusa hybrids. Musaceae nomenclature in standard horticultural texts and nursery and seed catalogues is ambiguous, inconsistent, incomplete and sometimes wrong. There are various reasons for this. First, taxonomy is a dynamic discipline and the Musaceae are no different to other families in being subject to periodic revision by and sometimes disagreement among taxonomists. Changes periodically affect all levels of classification. For example, in the first edition (1987) of The Plant-Book Mabberley uses Cronquist's System for the arrangement of Angiosperm families and provides the following classification:
In the second edition of The Plant-Book Mabberley (1997) uses Kubitzki's System which alters the classification as follows:
However,
most authorities have maintained Strelitziaceae, Heliconiaceae as families separate from
the Musaceae, e.g. Watson &
Dallwitz (1992 onwards) and Berry &
Kress (1991).
Links to particularly useful web pages for other families within the Zingiberales are in the table above. There have also been changes at the genus level. The 1931 edition of Willis, the pre-cursor of Mabberley's Plant-book, lists Musa as the only genus in the Musaceae. Although Horaninow described Ensete as early as 1862 the genus did not receive widespread recognition until revived by Cheesman in 1947. Mabberley, Cullen and recent RHS publications still include only two genera in the Musaceae, Ensete and Musa. The situation of Musella lasiocarpa remains somewhat controversial. The plant has been round the taxonomic block, being placed first in Musa and then in Ensete before eventually it's monotypic status was recognised, at least by some, around 1978. We await the final word on Musella lasiocarpa. Changes
have been equally great at the species level and are by no means complete. Cheesman
is the father of modern Musaceae taxonomy and it may come as a surprise that the proper
definition of Ensete and a number of very significant Musa species
including Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana is as recent as Cheesman's
work in the 1940's and 50's. Willis (1931) noted that Musa contained 80
species but he did not list them. This number has now been reduced considerably with
the separation out of Ensete by Cheesman and the recognition that a number of Musa
"species" were actually hybrids. A strong case has also been made for
abandoning Linnean binomials that were applied mistakenly to sterile Musa hybrids
cultivated for fruit and which still cause confusion today (see below). As a counter
to these downward pressures the number of species is increasing again as new taxa are
discovered and described. A second reason for the inconsistencies in the literature is that the family is difficult to study. Hot spots of Musaceae biodiversity are in areas that are difficult, sometimes even dangerous to travel and work in. It is difficult to obtain and prepare adequate herbarium material especially of the massive inflorescences. As a result, and despite its importance as a source of valuable food plants, the family is still incompletely known after some 200 years study. Studies of plant genome structure are being applied to the taxonomy of the Musaceae with fascinating results and are likely to result in further changes within the family. Some of the species mentioned here are vulnerable to reduction as further synonymy or even hybridity is uncovered. But new species await discovery and/or formal description. A new species was described from Indonesia in 1998 and two others from Sabah and China in 2000. Undescribed species are also reported from north-east India, Thailand and Vietnam, parts of which are still botanically very little known, and still more may be expected when Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar (Burma) are properly explored. These are exciting times for those interested in the Musaceae. Thirdly, Musaceae taxonomy is made still more difficult by
the group's domestication. Today's fruit-bearing cultivars are hundreds or perhaps
thousands of years and many mutations away from the chance hybridisation or mutation that
originally gave rise to them. The cultivated bananas and plantains, whether derived
from the Musa (Eumusa) or Australimusa sections, are
sufficiently removed from their original species that they cannot usefully be assigned
Linnean binomials. Recognising this, Simmonds and Shepherd proposed in 1955 an
alternate, genome-based system for the nomenclature of the section Musa (Eumusa)
bananas. Despite the simplicity of the product of Simmonds and Shepherd's system, as
distinct from its application, and its widespread use by banana fruit specialists, there
is an extraordinary reluctance to adopt it in ornamental horticulture. The
application of what are effectively spurious or mis-applied Linnean binomials is therefore
still widespread even in recent and, supposedly, authoritative horticultural publications.
This would not be so bad if publications were consistent one with another in terms
of nomenclature but some, notably recent RHS publications, are not even internally
consistent. Where their use has been devalued if not actually discredited by
Simmonds and Shepherd, the tendency to cleave to Linnean binomials as the only mechanism
with which to fix a plant in the horticultural firmament is, at the very least, unhelpful
and sometimes downright misleading. Fifthly, Musaceae taxonomic literature is liberally peppered with mistakes! The published works of authorities from Linnaeus through, for example, Baker, Schumann, Cheesman, Simmonds, Champion and Lock all include errors. To err, of course, is human but it is also human to tend to trust that the great authorities must always have been correct in their published works. Not so. Mistakes were made and were and are repeated and thus became part of the paradigm. A recent example is provided by Musa sikkimensis which was introduced to cultivation in 1998 as Musa hookeri because that was the name applied to it by the Indian seed collector. Although the nomenclature was quickly corrected by the seedsman the "wrong" name, Musa hookeri, is still in wide circulation for this material. A final and rich source of ambiguities is that, when it comes to nomenclature, wholesale and retail nurserymen and seedsmen, with honourable exceptions, are as erratic as they are inventive. This
list now attempts to include all published names of taxa in the Musaceae and by giving
their proper or "accepted" names to try to resolve inconsistencies in
nomenclature in the horticultural literature. Information on Musaceae is widely
scattered and modern standard horticultural references have only partial and frequently
mis-named species lists and poor synonymy. I have tried clearly to identify accepted
names, those that are properly applied to true botanical species, subspecies and
varieties. I have also tried to identify names that are synonyms, spurious binomials
and plain mistakes such as typographical errors and transliterations that occur in the
literature. An explanation of the form of the entries in this list is given here. CAVEAT EMPTOR! This
is a work in progress and is being regularly revised and updated. Review, comment and opinion on any and all aspects of this web site is now invited. I would be grateful to receive any further information and literature references on the plants mentioned and species or subspecies that I have not mentioned. And since this list has pretensions to being authoritative, I would be especially grateful to receive corrections to my mistakes. All contributors will be acknowledged as I update the list. Please e-mail me at drc@globalnet.co.uk David Constantine. The Musaceae - an annotated list of the species of Ensete, Musa and Musella, The genus Musa - an annotated list of species, The genus Musella - an annotated list of species are Copyright © 1999 onwards by David Constantine The genus Ensete - an annotated list of species is Copyright © 1999 onwards by Gerda Rossel & David Constantine The right of David Constantine and Gerda Rossel to be identified as the Authors of the Work(s) has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 The copyright of other sources for and contributors to this website is acknowledged as appropriate.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the
following people who have contributed to the development of this website:
|
|
|
|