Panarctic Flora

410715 Rumex lapponicus (Hiitonen) Czernov

• Czernov, Fl. Murmansk. Obl. 3: 154 (1956). - Rumex acetosa subsp. lapponicus Hiitonen, Suom. Kasvio: 300 (1933). Holotype (H): European Russia: the Murman area, Ponoj, 27. Aug. 1899, leg. J. Montell. - Acetosa lapponica (Hiitonen) Holub, Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 11: 80 (1976) - Rumex alpestris subsp. lapponicus (Hiitonen) Jalas, Ann. Bot. Fenn. 14: 191 (1977).
• Rumex alpestris auct., non Jacq. (1762). - Rumex acetosa subsp. alpestris auct., non (Jacq.) Á. Löve (1943). - Acetosa pratensis subsp. alpestris auct., non (Jacq.) Á. Löve (1961).

2n= 14 (female) / 15 (male) (2x). - Europe, Far East (N), Alaska, U.S.A., Greenland. - Numerous reports, partly for "arifolius".

Geography: Amphi-Atlantic (E) - European (N) - Asian (N) - amphi-Beringian - Cordilleran: NOR RUS (SIB) ALA CAN GRL.

Notes: Rechinger and Akeroyd (1993b) accepted Rumex acetosa L. and R. alpestris Jacq. as two species, the latter described from the Austrian mountains ("In alpibus Vochinensibus" Kärnten). They assigned R. lapponicus to R. alpestris as a subspecies. However, Pestova (1998) concluded that R. alpestris is a synonym of R. scutatus L., a central European mountain plant quite distant from the R. acetosa group. The priority species name for what traditionally has been named R. alpestris is then R. arifolius All., described from the western Alps. The main diagnostic character given by Rechinger and Akeroyd is the entire ochrea in their R. "alpestris" (including R. lapponicus) vs. the fimbriate one in R. acetosa (including subsp. islandicus) but there are several additional characters in blade shape and inflorescence. The choice is between rank of species or race. However, we have not found a subspecific combination of "lapponicus" within R. arifolius. Nilsson (2000), with a Nordic viewpoint, assigned R. lapponicus to R. acetosa as a subspecies, whereas Mosyakin (2005) accepted R. lapponicus besides R. acetosa s. str. This matter was discussed by Swietlinska (1963) and Hylander (1966) with reference to central European ("arifolius") and Nordic ("lapponicus") mountain plants, respectively. Transitions between R. acetosa s. str. and R. arifolius-R. lapponicus are not rare but they have at least partly aborting fruits. This supports treatment of R. arifolius-R. lapponicus at specific rank.

Another question is whether the Fennoscandian "lapponicus" and the central European "arifolius" are the same. Hiitonen (1933), based on northeastern Fennoscandian plants, found them different. Tolmachev (1966b) supported that conclusion when he wrote: "So far as can be judged from the limited material of the latter species [R. arifolius All.] (originating mainly from the Carpathians and Tatra) available ..., Central European alpine plants are more robust than northern plants; their leaves often have a cordate base with the lobes obtusish or sometimes rounded; the branches of the inflorescence are often distinctly further branched. I have not found in the north any plants that might completely duplicate the structure and appearance of Central European alpine sorrel." translated in Tolmachev et al. 2000. This conclusion of Tolmachev and Hiitonen might have been different if they had included plants from northwestern Scandinavia in their study. Plants in the tall-herb vegetation in the forest belt of the mountain valleys of northern Norway and northwestern Sweden are characterized by tall growth (often 1.5 m or taller), stem leaves numerous, very large, broad and thin, with cordate base and rounded lobes, ochreas entirely entire, and inflorescence regularly twice branched. Even if Nilsson (2000: 291) stated that there are some differences from central European plants, "e.g. shape and texture of leaves and ochreas", I cannot see them when comparing such northwestern Scandinavian plants with central European ones. My conclusion is that the variation is larger among the northern plants of R. acetosa s. lat. than among the central European ones but that the "arifolius" morphology of central European plants is found as a morphologically and eco-geographically distinct part of the variation pattern in the north. I have no idea whether this is due to introgression in the Fennoscandian region between two races immigrating in postglacial times from, respectivelly, south and east, which certainly is possible among these perhaps partly interfertile plants. From northern European evidence, then, "arifolius" and "lapponicus" are closer, at least morphologically, than are these two to R. acetosa s. str. Treatment as two subspecies of R. arifolius is an alternative. The Scandinavian plants that closely approach or are identical with central European R. arifolius are non-arctic.

Tolmachev (1966b) accepted R. lapponicus from northern Europan Russia east to the Urals and tentatively from scattered localities farther eastwards in Siberia and to the Koryak coast. He also suggested that: "Possibly, the non-introduced plants of "R. acetosa ssp. alpestris" from coastal and inland districts of Alaska discussed by Hultén ... are identical with our Koryakian plants and, if so, should be considered to belong to R. acetosa ssp. lapponicus." Our field and herbarium (ALA) experiences with Alaskan plants give support to Tolmachev's opinion. A major part of the Alaskan plants corresponds morphologically with the northern European R. lapponicus (see also the illustrations in Hultén 1968a and Cody 1996) but not with the central European and possibly northwestern Scandinavian R. arifolius (compare with central European illustrations). The connection between the Asian and American plants of R. lapponicus is Pacific (Aleutian) rather than Beringian. Similar plants are missing from Chukotka north of the Koryak area where they are replaced by R. pseudoxyria (see below).