Revisional study of neotropical Beilschmiedia species (Lauraceae ...

Cruz, Road to El Chorro Blanco, 1500 malt., Oct. 10, 1993 (fl.),Leiva937(MO);Cajamaroa,ChorroBlanco,
1900 malt., Dec. 19, 1984 (fr.), Sagastegui 12408 (MO). Piura: Huancabamba, Districto Canchaque, Chorro
Blanco, 1500-1900 malt., Apr. 18, 1987 (immature fr.), Dfaz 2464 (MO); same districto, between Chorro
Blanco & War War, 2000-2500 malt., Jun. 18, 1989 (inunature fr.), Dfaz 3195 (MO). Sapuena: C. I. Jenaro
Herrera, Trocha Arboretum Braga, Tahuampa forest, 04°SS'S 73°45'W, 120-125 malt., Sep. 29, 1991 (fr.),
Grandez 2883 (MO). Huanuco: Prov. Puerto Inca, Dtto. Yuyapichis, 09°40'5 7Y02'W, 270m alt., Nov. 1-15,
1990 (fr.), Tello 590 (MO).
Kostennans (1938) excluded one of the syntypes, Pittier 1863, and classified it as B.
anay. I have not seen this collection.
Beilschmiedia costaricensis has alternate leaves and fine ramification, but it has
relatively coarser ramification than the other species of the san1e phyllotaxis and ran1ification.
Additionally, this species is distinguished from them by a combination of the following
characters; appressed to spreading pubescence on the terminal buds and twigs, ramification
with free veinlets, non-glaucous lower leaf surfaces, glabrous anthers and fruit pedicels not
constricted at the base. This species is sometimes misidentified as B. pendula. About the
difference between B. costaricensis and B. pendula, see the notes under B. pendula.
Most of the collections from Colombia and Ecuador appear to be different from the
collections fron1 other countries (and some collections from Colombia) by their having
coriaceous leaves, coarser and less raised ramification and a sparsely pubescent pistil.
Additionally, the former collections tend to have shorter petioles and larger leaves than the
latters. However, differences of the leaf texture and ran1ification size between them are
subtle and hard to make a clear separation, and the petiole length and leaf size has no clear
gap between thetn. Pubescence on a pistil in the former collection cannot be a distinctive
character because the n1ount of indument is very small and can be easily missed.
Considering that separating those two kinds of collections and making a new species from
the former collections would only create a confusion, I decide to keep them in B .
costaricensis.
Usually, orientation of indument on the terminal buds and twigs is consistent within a
species in neotropical Beilschmiedia species. But the indument of B. costaricensis ranges
from appressed to spreading or very rarely to erect. The collections with erect hairs from
Costa Rica (Bello 560, Brenes 6605, Haber 6665, 7693, 7721) share the same characters
with the other collections of B. costaricensis except for the erect indument, hence I keep
these collections in B. costaricensis. However, the collections with erect hairs from
40