Panarctic Flora

Browse

672121 Draba chamissonis G. Don

Distribution

West Chukotka: Rare
South Chukotka: Rare
East Chukotka: Rare
Western Alaska: Rare
Southern Arcti Tundra: Rare
Shrub Tundra: Rare
Bordering boreal or alpine areas: Scattered

GBIF

2n= 16 (2x). - Far East (N). - Zhukova (1980); Zhukova and Petrovsky (1980, 1984, five or more counts).

Geography: Amphi-Beringian (W): RFE ALA.

Notes: Petrovsky and Elven: Draba chamissonis has been a disputed name due to lack of a designated type and of a clear concept of what the name represents. Tolmachev (1975b) mapped D. chamissonis from five widely separated localities in northeastern Asia but not from the Chukchi Peninsula, strange as this is the only part of Russia mentioned in the protologue (Lavrentiya Bay). Hultén (1968a) mapped two localities in the easternmost Chukchi Peninsula. The three Russian specimens in S annotated as D. chamissonis (including the two from the Chukchi Peninsula mapped by Hultén) have been inspected by Elven and belong to 2-3 different species. One is D. nivalis, one is D. cinerea s. lat., and one is incomplete and perhaps unidentifiable. Berkutenko (1988) did not mention the species for the Russian Far East (i.e., including the type area).

In North America, Hultén (1937) cited the name D. chamissonis in synonymy of either D. kamtschatica or D. nivalis for the Aleutian Islands. Hultén (1968a) mapped it from two localities in northwestern Alaska (but not from Unalaska, given as the second locality in the protologue), and Hultén (1968b) stated that his inclusion of it for Alaska was based solely on the reports of Wiggins and Thomas (1962) from Barrow, Elson Lagoon, and Lake Noluk (i.e., from sites where it certainly does not occur). It is therefore very probable that Hultén, like Tolmachev, ignored the original material and the original description. It is impossible to get any consistent impression of this species from Hultén's description, for good reasons. The only Alaskan specimen in S annotated by Hultén as D. chamissonis (and inspected by Elven) is yellow-flowered and belongs to either D. micropetala or D. pauciflora. His description (Hultén 1968a) is a composite based on Alaskan (D. micropetala-pauciflora) and Chukotkan plants (D. nivalis, D. cinerea s. lat.). Mulligan (1976) and Rollins (1993) did not accept the species from Alaska or North America.

This problem was solved by Petrovsky (2005), identifying original material and designating a lectotype that makes D. chamissonis a priority name for the plant that in more recent times have been known as D. kamtschatica.

Grundt, Petrovsky, Murray, and Elven: Calder and Taylor (1968) treated this plant as D. lonchocarpa subsp. kamtschatica and reported it to be the coastal Pacific race in northwestern North America, accepted by Hultén (1968a) north to the non-arctic parts of southern Alaska. The original material of D. kamtschatica differs appreciably in morphology from North American and Asian material of D. lonchocarpa. In ITS sequences, D. chamissonis (= D. kamtschatica) is identical with a major type in D. nivalis and different from D. lonchocarpa. A merger with D. lonchocarpa is not appropriate.

Draba chamissonis differs from D. nivalis mainly in regular occurrence of several short and broad, almost cordate stem leaves. Otherwise, it is a more slender plant with more elongated infrutescence. The overlap with D. nivalis is extensive in these features. It has an appreciable range in the Russian Far East from Kamtchatka north to East Chukotka and interior West Chukotka and is now identified in southwestern Alaskan material north to the Arctic south of the Yukon River Delta (ALA) but not from northern Alaska (i.e., not from Hultén's localities). It may be acceptable as a taxon but probably not as a species. Its characters and range justify rank as a regional race of D. nivalis. It is retained as a species here because we want a change of rank (and a recombination of name) to be based on more thorough investigations.

Higher Taxa