全 文 ：广 西 植 物 Guihaia 28(6)：711— 720 2008年 11月
‘ ● n ·l ●^ ● Jl — n ● l 1 ▲ ● A revlew otthe com ter~in tne Horas otm am ancI Sla
MA Jin—Shuang．CAO Wei
(1．Brooklyn Botanic Garden，1000 Washington Avenue，Brooklyn，NY 11225—1099，USA；2．Institute
ofApplied Ecology，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Shenyang 110016，China)
Abstract：The floras of the mainland Asia have been studied for more than three hundred years，however，they are still
incomplete．Progress on the conifers floras from the mainland Asia，a relatively wel studied group，is still less than
expected．The major differences among the different floras in mainland Asia，especialy compared with the world
checklist of conifers，are analysed and discussed；and the related aspects in the traditional taxonomy from mainland A—
sia are also addressed．
Key words：floras；mainland Asia；conifers；review
CLC Number：Q949 Document Code：A Article ID：1000-3142(2008)06-0711—1O
1 Introduction
Mainland Asia is here definited as the Asian con—
tinent，except for the area covered by Flora Malesiana
(Van Steenis，1951，i．e．southeast Asian islands)．T his
is the largest and also the most populous continent in
the world． However。its rich flora is stil1 not cata—
logued well，even though its botany has been explored
for more than three hundred years，both by outsiders
(especialy European and North American scientists)
and by insiders(1ocal scientists from different coun—
tries)．In order to get a better picture of the current
status of local floras，we are analyzing the general pro—
gress and situation of the conifers floras from mainland
Asia，and comparing them with those in the recently
published“World Checklist of Conifers”(Farjon，1998，
2001)．
As a developing region，mainland Asia is a poorly
understood botanically and its floras are far away from
being completely surveyed，unlike North America or
Europe．It has been studied by 1ocal researchers and
westerners，as well as partnerships between them in
the past three hundred years． In the last century，for
example，there were some famous works like Flora of
British India(Hooker，1875— 1897)and Index Florae
Sinensis(Forbes& Hemsley，1886—1905)from Kew，
and the floras of Chinese Manchuria from Russia
(Komarov，1901— 1907)and Japan(Kitagawa，1939，
1979)．In the past half century，there were Flora Irani—
ca from Vienna，Austria(Rechinger，1963)，and Flora of
Iraq(from Kew，Townsend，1966)，and more recently
the Checklist of Myanmar from Smithsonian Institution
of USA(Kress et a1．，2003)，Flore du Cambodge，du
Laos et du Vietnam from Paris，France(Gagnepain，
1960)，F1ora of Turkey(Davis，1965—2000)，Flora of
Arabian Peninsula and Socotra(Miller& Co pe，1996)，
and F1ora of Bhutan(Gerison& Long．1983)from Ed—
inburgh，Scotland．Recently cooperated works between
east and west have become a mode1，for example F1ora
of Thailand(cooperatively produced by Thai Forestry
and Denmark，Phengklai，1972)and Flora of China(co—
operately produced by Chinese Academy of Sciences
cooperated and Missouri Botanical Garden．Wu& Ra—
yen，1 9 94)．In addition to the works mentioned above，
there are also some works published by 1ocal research—
ers，such as Chinese Florae Reipublicae Popularis Sini—
cae(Wu＆ Chen，2004；Polhil，1990；Qian＆ Ricklefs，
1999；Ma Clemants，2006)，the Mi ddle East(Heler
& Heyn，1994)as well as many others from Japan
Received date：2008—03—25 Accepted date：2008—07—10
作者简介：马金双(1955一)，男 ，博士，教授，研究方向为种子植物分类，(E-mail)jinshuangma@bbg．org。
712 广 西 植 物 28卷
(Hara et a1．，1978)，Korea(Park，2007)，and India
(Sharma，1993)．
The historical collections of plants specimens play
very important roles in modern flora preparation
(Schatz，2002)．The Mainiand Asia，however，is disad—
vantaged in this respect because most early collections
1ie abroad．Examples include Kew’s collections from
India(Rau，1994)，Russian collections from central
(Grubov，2001)，north(Krasnoborov，2000)and east
Asia(Komarov，1901— 1907)，as well as the American
colections(Wu & Raven，1994)and Japanese collec—
tions(Nakai，1 952)from East Asia．In the past three
hundred years，many floras for the colonized parts of
mainland Asia have been published，especially in earlier
years(Kaempfer，1712；Bretschneider，1880，1898；
Hooker，1875— 1897；Lecomate，1916— 1944；Hum—
bert，1938— 1951)．Recently more and more work has
been published from 1ocal researchers(Charkevicz。
1989；Czerepanov，1995；Grubov 2001；Hara et a1．
1978；Heller& Heyn，1994；Huang，1994；1watsuki et
a1．，1995；Nasir L Nasir，1978；Ohwi，1984；Rau，
1994；Sharma，1993；Singh＆ Mudgal，1997；Wu&
Chen，2004；Zohary，1966)．However，this vast area is
still poorly understood especially when compared with
floras of the developed world such as Europe and
North America．
2 M ethods and Materials
In order to better understand the flora situation in
the mainiand Asia，we divided it into east，south，west，
central and north Asia，mainiy based on geographic，nat—
ural，and more especifically floristic criteria：East Asia：
from Russian Far Ea st，Japan，through Koreas to Taiwan
and northeast，north，east，south and southwest China，al1
the、^阻y to Himalayan area (itself，sometimes called Hi-
ma layas，including Nepal，Bhutan，as well as northwest
and northeast of India and north of Pakistan)；South A_
sia：from Cambodia，Laos，Vietnam ，Myanmar，Thailand
to Bangladesh，India(except northeast and northwest
parts)，and Sri Lanka，West Asia：The Arabian Peninsu—
la，Iran Highland，west to Middle East and Turkey as
well as west of Pakistan；Central Asia：Kazakhstan，Kyr—
gyzstan，Turkmenistan，Tadzhikstan，Uzbekistan，Af—
ghanistan as well as northwest China and Mongolia；and
North Asia：the whole Russian Siberia．The most abun—
dant region floristically is in east and south Asia(Qian 8L
Eicklefs，1999)，and the most impoverished regions are in
west，central as well as north Asia．
Mainand Asia includes more than 25 countries or
regions，we chose all of their current floras(if not availa-
ble，a checklist instead)as the basic unit for our stafs—
tics．Each of them is treated as a lOcal flora．The coni—
fers，as we define here，are the two classes recognized by
the recent world checklist of conifers(Farjon，1998，
2001)，i．e．Coniferopsida and Taxopsida．All local floras
are listed alphabetically if there are any conifers treated，
and compared with theⅥrOrld Checklist of Conifers pub—
lished recently(Farjon，1998，2001)in order to analyze
(see Table 1，The list and comparation of the conifers in
mainland Asia，for detail)．
Here is listed the detailed information of each lo—
cal flora used in this work alphabetically wi th their
three—letter abbreviations，their publication introduction
and brief comments：
(=I ：Heller D．and C C．Heyn．1994，Conspectus
Florae Orientalis，9：14— 17，The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities，8n annotated catalogue of the
Flora of the Middle East(some part of West Asia)
published by The Israel Academy of Sciences and Hu—
manities．It covers the entire West Asia，from Turkey
to Arabian Penisula，with a name Iist and their distri—
bution information，completed by local scientists about
fifteen years ago． It was a little out of date even
though there is not much to be added．More impor—
tantly，this is the only local information for the whole
area．Total，there are 7 genera，20 species and 4 in—
fraspecies(both subspecies，varieties and forms are
treated as infraspecies，same as below)．
eLM：Kress，W．J．，R．A．DeFilipps，E．Farr and
D．Y．Y．Kyi．2003，A Checklist of the Trees，Shrubs，
Herbs，and Climbers of Myanmar，Contributions from
the United States National Herbarium，45：33— 36，
Smithsonian Institution．This is not flora，but a check—
list revised for the fifth time in the past century，a long-
term project of the cooperation between Myanmar and
6期 马金双等：亚洲大陆植物志中的针叶树评述 713
western countries．However，not al of the information
provided is complete or perfect because this country is
believed to be one of poorest understandings of their
own floras among al1 countries in mainland Asia．1、O—
tal，there are 9 genera and 3 1 species．
CLV：Hiep& Vidal，1996 in Morat P．(ed．)，Hore
du Cambodge du Laos et du Vietnam 28：3—158，Muse—
um National D’Historire Naturelle．This flora has been
very slowly studied for 3 long time by the taxonomists
from Paris(Gagnepain，1960，Lecomate，1916—1944)．E—
yen the Conifers published about 10 years ago has been
changed now，and some new taxa have been described
more recently from North Vietrmm(Averyanov et a1．，
2002；Bond，2002；Fa~on et a1．，2002；Thomas et a1．，
2007)．This work in fact is a new edition of the old one，
which was published more than half a century ago．TO—
tal，there are 16 genera，29 species and 1 infaspecies．
EPN：Hara H．，W．T．Steam，and L．H．J．Wil—
liams，1978，An enumeration of the flowering plants of
Nepal 1：23— 28，British M useum (Natural Histo—
ry)．This is the cooperative work between Japa—
nese and British scientists on their longtime study
Table 1 The list and comparison of the conifers in mainland Asia
Taxa D／T(％) CLV FBT FOP OOI GVK KVM CFO F0I FOY
Abies
Ammentaxu$
Calocedrus
Cathaya
Cedrus
Cephalotaxus
Chamaecyparis
Cryptomeria
Cunninghamia
Cupresus
Dacrycarpus
Dacrydium
Fokienia
Glyptostrobus
J uniperus
Keteleeria
Larix
M etasequoia
Microbiota
Nageia
Nothotsuga
Picea
Pinus
Platycladus
Podocarpus
P5eudolarix
Pseudotaxus
Pseudotsuga
Sciadopitys
Taiwania
TaXU$
Thuja
Thujopsis
Torreya
Tsuga
1、0tal：G：Sp+Inf(D)
Different／Total( )
15／76(19．7)
1／4(25)
2／10(20)
2／18(11．1)
1／4(25)
1／4(25)
4／17(23．5)
1／5(20)
49／134(36．6)
6／10(60)
13／33(39．4)
1+ 1
4
1
2(O)
1 1(1)
1
1
1
1
See Tsuga
11／65(16．9)
20／124(16．1) 7(1)
15／37(40．5)
3／5(60)
4／25(16)
3／7(4Z．86)
7／17(41．18) 1
16：29
+ 1(1)
3．33
2
4
1
4(1)
1
3
4 3
1
1
2
2(1)
5(1) 5+4(2) 4(1) 10(2) 8+1(2) 9+6(4)
1 1 2(1)
3
8
3(2)
3(2)
6+ 1
1
1
1
1 1 1
3 5+1(1) 7(3)
1
1 1 1
8：14+ 7：13+ 12：32+ l1：24+ 5：11+ 7：2O+ 7：22+ 7：18+
O(1) O(1) O(4) 5(4) O(2) 4(5) 1(5) 14(7)
7．14 7．69 12．50 13．79 18．18 20．83 21．74 21．88
714 广 西 植 物 28卷
Ammentaxu$
CdZ0cPdr“S 1
Cathaya
Cedrus 1
Cephalotaxus 2+ 1(1) 3 1
Chamaecyparis 2
Cryptomeria 1+ 1(1)
Cunninghamia
Cupresus 2(1)
Dacrycarpus
Dacrydium 1 1
Fokienia
Glyptostrobus
Juniperus 4(1) 5+4(7)
Keteleeria
L口r如 3(1) 2(1) 1+1 2
Metasequoia
M icrobiota
Nageia
Nothotsuga
Picea 2(1) 1+ 1(1) 7+ 2(2) 3
PiMs 3 2 7+1 5(1) 2
Platycladus
Podocarpus 1 2+1(2) 7(3) 6(3)
Pseudolarix
Pseudotaxus
Pseudotsuga 1
Sciadopitys 1
Taiwania
Ta37“s 1十1(1) 1+1 2
Thuja 1
Thujopsis 1+1
Torreya 1+1(1)
Tsuga 1 2 2(2)
Total：G：Sp+ 5：13+ 9：14+ 16：39+ 9：31十 5：11+
Inf(D) 0(3) 2(4) 16(14) O(8) O(3)
Diferent／Total( )23．O8 25．OO 25．45 25．81 27．27
3+ 1
1+ 1(1)
1
1
6+ 1(1)
3+ 1
1+ 1
1+ 1(1)
5+ 1
l+ 1
2(1)
1
1
5(3) 21+13(12) 20+3(13)
5+4(6)
3(2) 9+3(5) 5(3)
1
1 1
See Tsuga
4(1) 16+ 9(3)
4 22+14(8)
10+4(5)
3+ 1(3)
3+ 3(3)
2
7(1)
12(5)
2+ 2(2)
4+4(5)
7：21+ 31：153+ 7：55+
0(6) 71(67) 3(24)
28．57 29．91 41．37
1+ 0
2+ 2
1+ 0
1+ 0
4+ 2
3+ 0
1+ 1
3+ 3
5+ 2
35：192
+ 92
6+ 1
3+ 0
1+ 0
4+ 1
l1+2
6+2
1+ 0
2+0
16+9
9+ 3
21+0
+ 0
+0
+ 32
3+ 1
11+ 9
1+ 0
1+ 0
6+ 0
1+0
34+21
1O9+51
1+0
107+5
1+ 0
1+ 0
4+ 3
1+ 0
1+ 0
1O+ 2
5+ 0
1+1
5+3
9+4
35：495+
182
in the Himalayas．In fact，it is only a checklist with
distribution information，not true flora since the
Flora of Nepal proj ect is still in preparation at this
time(Noshiro & Raj bhandari，2002；Shrestha，
2000：Watson & Blackmore，2003)．Total，there
are 9 genera，1 4 species and 2 infraspecies．
FAP：Miller A．G．and T．A．Cope．1996，Flora of
Arabian Peninsula and Socotra 1：71— 8O，Edinburgh
University Press． This is iust a reference here since
only three species are listed in the area but it is not lis—
ted in the tab1e．
FBT：Grierson A．J．C．and D．G．Long．1983，Flora
Of Bhutan 1(1)：44— 56，Roya1 Botanic Garden，Edin—
burgh．This is a good project from the Royal Botanical
Garden，Edinburgh through their long time research
and colections over several generations．Certainly，this
is also the one of best floras among the region，since
the works has been only finished recently．Total，there
are 8 genera and 1 4 species．
FOA：Zohary M ．1966，Flora of Palaestifa 1：17—
23，Jerusalem Academic Press(Cis-and Transjordan，
comprising Israel，Jordan and Gaza Strip)．This is an一
1 O 0 1 1 O O l 1 O O O u 1 7 0 0 0 O O 2 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
6 z 1 2 n 3 1 2 6 1 2 l 1 3 7 l 1 5 1 1 9 1
6期 马金双等：亚洲大陆植物志中的针叶树评述 715
0ther project from Israel for West Asia．Even though it
is 8 little older than the former CFO，it is a true flora，
which could help us in understanding the area better．
However。it wil not be lisled in the table(See CFO for
detail)．
FOC：Fu，L K，& N．Li 1999 in Wu C Y．and P．
Raven．(eds．)，F1ora of China 4：1— 1O5，Science Press
MiSSOUri Botanical Garden．This is an updated and re—
vised English edition based on the Chinese edition，pub—
lished by Science Press in Bering and the Missouri Bo—
tanica1 Garden in St．Louis since the early 1990s．The
Chinese edition of Flora of China，known as FRPS，the
abbreviation of F1orae Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae，was
the first Cl1inese flora in a1inese history in more than a
century(Wu＆ Cheng，2004)．Total，there are 31 gene—
ra，153 species and 71 infraspecies conifers in China，more
than that of any other country in the world．The treat—
ment of conifers for Flora of China English edition is a
little better than that in the a nese edition，with more
broad species concept．However，many discrepancies still
exist between the treatment and world checklist，such as
different nalTles for some species and infraspecies，espe—
dally in Nothotsuga(1／1，i．e．difference／total number)，
Pseudotsuga(3／4)，Keteleeria(6／9)，Tsuga(5／8)，Podo—
carpus(5／14)，Calocedrus(1／2)，Taxus(3／6)，and Juni—
perus(12／34)(see Table 1 for detail)．
FOI：Riedl H．in K．H．Rechinger(ed．)，1963，
1965，1968．Flora Iranica 3：1— 8，12：1— 2，14：1— 9，
5O：1— 10，Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt
Garz．This flora covers not only Dan as it is today，but
also neighboring areas like Afghanistan，North Iraq，
West Pakistan，Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan．It is a
famous taxonomic work from Vienna，Austria． Not
only is detailed information provided but also the speci—
mens are cited，which is very useful for further research
work．Total，there are 7 genera，21 species and 1 in—
fraspecies．
F ：Yarnazaki，T．1995 in 1watsuki K_，T．Yamaza—
l‘i，D．E Boufford and H．Ohba(eds)．Flora of Japan 1：
263—287，Kodansha Ltd．This is a new update flora in
English，which has been praised very much since it was
published(Ma，2006)．This flora is well updated except
for the use of Sabina instead of Juniperus，the only one
used today both locally and globally．Total，there are 16
genera，39 species and 16 infraspecies．
FOK：Yi，Y．N．2002．Flora of Korea，2nd ed．，
Kyohaksa，Seul，P．1— 1269． There are several local
floras from Korea，but all in Korean．More important—
lv。the taxonomic concepts used in this work is a little
too narrow to accept，similar to the early works of Jap—
anese taxonomists from east Asia(Nakai，1952)，espe—
cially when compared with neighboring countries．
There are 10 genera，24 species and 21 infraspecies，but
the difference from the world checklist is up to more
than half(25／24+21，53．7％)．However，this wil1 not
be lised in the table 1(See GVK for detail)．
FOL：Phengklai C 1972 1975 in Smitinand T．
and K．Larsen(eds．)，Flora of Thailand 2(2)：185—196
and 2(3)：197—210，Applied Scientific Research Corpo—
ration of Thailand．This has been treated as a good ex—
ample of the cooperation flora between Thailand and
Denmark，because it has been wet1 accepted worldwide．
Total，there are 5 genera and 1 1 species．
FOP：Nasir E．and Y．J．Nasir in E．Nasir and S．I．
Ali(ed．)，1987，Flora of Pakistan 18O一185：1—35，Pald—
stan Agricultural Research Council．This is the best ex—
ample among the loeal floras in the ma inland Asia，not
only for their quality but also for the style and amount of
information provided． This is also a flora from mainland
Asia produced mainly by local researchers，except for a
few recent volum es．Tota1，there are 7 genera and 13
species·
FO Q：Town send，C． C． 1966． Conifers in
1bwnsend，C．C & Guest，E．(eds．)，Flora of Iraq 2：
81．——100，Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of
Iraq．Only two genera with three species were recorded
in this old publication．This is not listed in the table
but used only as a reference．
FOS：Krasnoborov I．M．2000，Flora of Siberia 1：
67— 77，Science Publishers，Inc． This may be the ne—
west publication since the Komarovian era．However，
most of their works are stil1 very similar to previous
Komarovian scholar concepts in this vast area．Total，
there are 5 genera and 13 species．
FOT：Huang T．C．1994，Flora of Taiwan ed．2，1：
545——595，Taipei．This was treated as a local flora in
716 广 西 植 物 28卷
Flora of China(FOC)，because it has been covered by
that project both in the Chinese edition(Wu& Chen，
2004)and in the English edition(Wu Raven。1994)．
However，it is much different from the rest of 1ocal
Chinese floras because this was the only one published
in English，not Chinese(Not listed in the table，but see
FOC and Ma et al，2000 for detail)．
FoY：Coode，M．J．E．& J．Culen 1965，1988，&
2000 in Davis P．H．(ed．)Flora of Turkey and the
East Aegean Islands 1：67—85，10：l1— 12， 11：5—
10 Edinburgh University Press．This is another good
example of the cooperation between Asian and Europe—
an taxonomists，even through it was from Edinburgh
side only at beginning．It is also one of the best floras
in the area and has been updated accordingly since
then．Total，there are 7 genera，18 species and 14 in—
fraspecies．
CO1：Singh，K．P．and V．Mudgal 1997 Gymno—
sperms of India—in Mudgal V．and P．K．Hajra(eds．)，
Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies in India
1：443— 472，Botanica1 Survey of India． Since the
1840s，the time of Hooker and Bentham，there has been
no official gymnosperm flora for this vast area，even
though there have been many different kinds of local
floras within India published since then (Sharma，
1993)．This is iust a 1ist with distribution information，
so modern floras are stil1 needed． Even so，the statis—
tics from this work show that the conifers treatment in
India is much better than most of the local floras in
mainland Asia．Tota1，there are 1 2 genera and 32 spe—
cies．
GVK：Park，C．W ．2007．Genera of Vascular Plants
of Korea，Academy Publishing Co．，Seoul，p．1— 1498．
This is a first completed new flora for whole Korean
Peninsula in English in the history，even there were
few others in Korean(Yi，2002)，and the treatments on
taxa in this flora are also very good and updated great—
ly，especially compared with the concepts of genera and
species by others(Yi，2002)．Total，there are 1 1 genera
and 24 species and 5 varieties，and the difference from
the world checklist is only a fraction(4／29，13．79 ，
difference／total taxa，see table 1 for detail)．
KVlVI：Grubov V．I．2001，Key to the Vascular
Plants of Mongolia 1：27— 32，Science Publishers，Inc．
This is a famous Russian work on the Flora of Mongo—
lia．However，there is no official flora for this country
yet，as it is another poorly understood area in mainland
Asia，even though it is not a particularly abundant in
flora．To tal，there are 5 genera and 1 1 species．
PCA：Grubov，V．I．，A．E．Matzenko，and M ．G．
Pachomova 2002，Plants of Central Asia-Plant colec—
tions from China and Mongolia 6：10—35，Science Pub-
lishers，Inc． Northwest China(central Asian part of
China)has been explored many times by Russian sci—
entists throughout history． This is one of their many
works but it is slightly out of date by concept，but not
listed in the table．
PFE：Charkevicz S．S．1 989，Plantae Vasculares Ori-
entis Extremi Sovietici 4：1O一 25，Leningrad．This is an—
other work after Komarov’s Flora of USSR(Komarov，
1934— 1960)．With respect to the concept of species，
some have been treated slightly better than those in the
Komarov’s edition． Total，there are 7 genera and 21
species．
VPR：Czerepanov S．K．，1 995，Vascular Plants of
Russia and Adjacent States(The Forrner USSR)197，
220，335-337，489，Cambridge University Press．This
is the summary of Flora of USSR(Komarov，1934—
1960)in English．The Russian concept of species has
been largely influenced by Komarov and his folowers
in the history．Even though there are only 7 genera，55
species and 3 infraspecies，the difference between their
treatments with the world checklist has been up to 42．
1 (24／55+3)．
3 Discussion
The concepts of plant taxa used by the different au—
thors from different institutions or countries。are still
very different from each other，even simply within coni—
fers from mainland Asia．At the fami ly 1evel，Taxodiace—
ae and Cupressaceae have been merged since the 1970s
(Eckenwalder，1976；Fa~on，1998，2001)，but the merge
has never been accepted in any local floras in mainland
Asia．No statement or proposal about the disagreement
has been ma de from any local works among more than
6期 马金双等：亚洲大陆植物志中的针叶树评述 717
20 1ocal floras in mainland Asia mentioned in this work．
The only feasible reason for this is that some traditional
works，which we have cited here，are too familiar with
their old concepts of separation between these two fami —
lies so they do not want to change it，especially since
most genera of Taxodiaceae are mainly from Asia．Evi—
dently，further work regarding this should be reconsid-
ered since foreign and local taxonomi sts have not reached
an agreement．At the genus level，problem concerning
concepts are also unresolved． In fact，they are even
worse than those at the family 1eve1．There were many
disagreement at this leve1．such as Platycladus(Fu&
Li，1999)，an endemic genus from Chirib，which has been
used as rh~ja，even under cultivation(Grubov et a1．，
2002；Czerepanov，1995；Hiep& ⅥdaI，1996)．Another
example is Sabina，synonymus under Juniperus(Farjon，
2001)，used in mordern Japanese Flora(Yamazaki，
1995)．The same situation is faced in Nageia(Farjon，
2001；Fu& Li，1999)，which some have put it under
Podocarpus(Yama zaki，1995；Phengklai，1975)．Finally，
Nothotsuga(Fatjon，1998，2001)，an endemic genus to
China，has never been accepted in FI)C itself，but under
Tsuga(Fu& Li，1999)．These issues of splits or merges
have been debated for a long time by different authors，
especially from different countries．
At the species level，we need much more work on
the concept of‘senso．Iato． to‘senso．striato． ，the most
disputed point worldwide in taxonomy．In some parts，
this is even worse than the above discussions at the ram-
ily and genus levels since it frequently happens．Exam-
pies of these arguments can be found among following
taxa：1，Keteleeria，with 3 species and 1 variety recog—
nized by Farjon，but 5 species and 4 varieties recorded
from China alone by FOC(Fu& Li，1999)，and disagree—
ment rate up to 66％(6 difference among 9 entirely ac—
cepted both species and infaspecies by local floras，see
table 1 for detail)；2，Pseudotsuga，with 2 species and 2
varieties from ma inland Asia，but 3 species and 1 variety
recorded in FOC(Fu& Li，1999)，and disagreement rate
up to 75 (3 to 4)；3，Torreya，wi th 3 species and 3 vari—
eties in mainland Asia，but disagreement rate up to 42．
86 (3 to 7)；4，Tsuga，only 5 species and 2 varieties in
mainland Asia，but disagreement rate up to 41．18 (7 to
17)；5，Podocarpus，with 9 species and 2 varieties from
ma inland Asia，but disagreement rate up to 40．5 (15 to
37)；and 6，Lar／x，with 7 species and 7 varieties from
mainland Asia，but disagreement rate up to 39．4％(13 to
33)．The most interesting thing is that al these disa—
greement are mainly from east As ia，i．e．，from F()C，R
as wel1 as VPR，the most conifer-rich region in the
world．
4 Summary
Mainland Asian floras have been explored for a
long time；however，we stil do not know them very
well，even some of the best known taxa ，Corfifers． In
fact，the folowing countries are without any flora at all
in their history：Myanmar，Mongolia，and Nepa1．Some
have no modem floras，or at least no complete flora yet，
such as India，even they have tried several times but no
published so far for this vast country(Jain，1978—1999；
Sharma，1993)．From the financial point of view，they do
not have the proper resources，but India also lacks a kind
of comprehensive ability to produce its own floras with—
out any help from the outside．Flora of India has been
begun several times，even though started several times
since Bentham and Hooker era(Jain，1978—1999；Shar—
nqa，1993)．However，no one could finsh the whole pro—
ject．The same goes for the Flora du Cambodge，Laos et
Vietnam(Morat，1960)from Museum Nationa1 d’His—
toire Naturelle，Paris，which ha s been studied for more
than a century． rtunately。it wi lI take another cen—
tury to treat all rema inng taxa at the current rate．In
the north，much area has been covered by the Flora U
S．S．R as well as the replacement floras of the former
SO et Republic such as Flora of Siberia(Krasnoborov，
2000)，and Plantae Vasculares Orientis Extremi Sovietici
(Charkevicz，1989)，but their concepts are mainly from
the Komarovian scholars．Thus，it is still far away from
a complete understanding and a worldwide acceptance in
the taxonomic field．In the west and central Asia，it is so
varied in topography，geography and politics that no
complete attempt has been ma de yet，only a sma l area，
formerly Russian part，has been covered(Czerepanow，
1995)，or Iran et a1．，by Flora Iranica(Rechinger，1963)．
718 广 西 植 物 28卷
The best case in mainland Asia is east Asia，which has
been covered very well in the past few decades，by their
works such as Flora of Japan(1watsuki et a1．，1995)，
Flora of China(Wu Raven，1994)，Flora of Taiwan
(Huang，1994)，Flora of Bhutan(Grierson Long，
1983)，Florae Reipublicae Pop~aris Sinicae(Flora of Chi—
na 。Chinese Edition，Ma& Clemants，2006)and many 1o—
cal floras within China(Ma et a1．，2000；Liu et a1．，2007)
and Japan(Editorial Committee of The Journal of Phyto—
geography and Taxonomy，2002)．Also，there are some
new floras from this area in preparation，such as Flora of
Korea(Im，1999；Park，2007)and Flora of Nepal(Watson
＆Blackmore。2003)．
Mainland As ia is the modelTl distribution center of
Conifers(contreas-Medina& Vega，2002；Fa~on，1998，
2001)．There are 8 families，69 genera，653 species and
187 inDaspecies of conifers in the world(Farjon，2001)，6
fami lies，35 genera，192 species and 92 infraspecies are
distributed in mainland Asia，and 17 genera are endemic
to this area：Ammentaxus，Cathaya，Cephalotaxus，
Cryptomeria，Cunninghamia，Fokienia，Glyptostrobus，
Keteleeria，Metasequoia，Microbiota，Nothotsuga，Platy—
cladus，Pseudolarix，Pseudotaxus，Sciadopitys，Taiwan—
ia and Thujopsis-almost half of the total genera from
mainland Asia(represented by 48．57 )，the highest
percentage of endemi c conifer genera in the world．In
fact，most of them are endemi c to the region of east A—
sia，which has been recognized as the richest floras in the
world(Wu＆ Raven，1994)．Besides this，six genera are
also shared between east Asia and north America：Calo—
cedrus，Chamaecyparis，Pseudotsuga， a，Torreya
and Tsuga，which represents a great floristic diversity
and close affinity between these two continents． The
most poorly understood floras from mainland Asia are
those of less developed areas，according to their different
percentages(see table 1 for detail)compared with the
world checklists of Conifers(Farjon，1998，2001)，such as
Russia(41．37％，24 to 58)，China(29．91 ，67 to 224)，
Myanmar(25．81 ，8 to 31)，Japan(25．45 ，14 to 55)，
and Nepal(25％，4 to 16)．In fact，some diferent per—
centages ma y be even higher than those above since they
do not have complete information．For example，Caloce一
&us and Dacrycarpus are not recorded in CLM(Kress et
a1．2002)even though these have been recognized world—
wide(Farjon，2001；Fu& Li，1999)．
In short。the mainland Asian flora is stil1 under de—
velopment．The basic resources needed for flora prepara—
tion，such as herbarium colections，1ibrary accumulations
and trained taxonomi sts，are still far behind their modern
counterparts in North America or Europe．There is still
a long way to go even in the new century for the taxono—
mists from ma inland Asia．Currently，only Israel and Ja—
pan can afford to go further beyond their own boundaries
in preparing floras or for further plant exploration．
There is not enough solid financial suppoK or coopera—
tion between even the closest neighbors，such as China，
India and Indochina．E~dently，taxonomi c work of ina—
inland Asia by western countries will continue to play a
major role in the flora preparation and production by
helping them to finish their floras．More cooperation
from Europe and North America with mainland Asia is
greatly appreciated，expected and encouraged，not only
because of their history，but also for the information we
share in the future in order to under our floras better
than before(Orchard，1999)．
Last，but not least，the situation of traditional tax—
onomy in Asia is facing a very serious challenge today．
Some cases are even worse than what one can image or
expect．Recently，traditional taxonomy has lost their
priority to the molecular works worldwide．Basic her—
barium facilities have lost their solid support in com—
parison with the past，and even the largest herbaria and
best institutes in Asia are no exception，such as TI and
PE．W ithout that priority and support，we cannot
hope to complete the basic information of the
biodiversity and conservation worldwide．
Acknowledgement： The authors thank Dr．Steve
Clemants of Brooklyn Botanic Garden for his help
in English．
References：
Averyanov LV，Hiep NT，Harder DK，eta1．2002．The history
of discovery and natura1 habitats of Xanthocyparis vietnam—
ensis(Cupressaceae)[J]．Turczaninowia，5：31—39
Bond R．2002．Pinus krempfii：a rare pine from Vietnam[J]．
BullAmer Conifer Soc，19：1O一 13
Bretschneider E． 1 880． Early European Researches into the
Flora of China[M]．Shanghai
6期 马金双等：亚洲大陆植物志中的针叶树评述 7l9
Bretschneider E．1898．History of European Botanical Discov—
eries in China[M]．Leipzig
Charkevicz SS．1989．Conifers[M]／／Charkevicz SS(ed)．Leningrad：
Plantae Vasculares Orientis Extremi Sovietiei，4：1O一 25
Contreas-Medina R，Vega IL．2002．On the distribution of gymno—
sperm genera，their areas of endemism and cladistic biogeography
rJ1．Austral Syst Bot，15：193—203
CoodeⅫ E，J Culen． 1965～ 1988． 2000． Conifers in Davis
[M]／／P．H．(ed)．Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean
Islands．Edinburgh University Press
Czerepanov SK．1995．Vascular Plants of Ruasia and Adjacent
States(The Former usSR)[M]．Cambridge University Press：
197，220，335— 337，489
Davis PH．1965——2000．Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean
Islands vo1．1—1li-M]．Edinburgh University Press
Editoria1 Co mmittee of The Journa1 of Phytogeography and Taxon—
omy．2002．Plant natural history each prefecture in Japan[J]．
J Phytogeogr Taxon，50：143—262(in Japanese)
Eckenwalder JE．1976．Re-Evaluation of Cupressaceae and Taxodi—
aeeae：A proposed merger[J]．Madroho，23：237—3OO
Farjon A．1998．Ⅵ r【d Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers，1st
edition[M]．Kew：Royal Botanica1 Garden
Farjon A．2001．W0r【d Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers，
2nd edition[M] ．Kew：Royal Botanical Garden
Farjon A，Nguyen TH，Harder DK， a1．2002．A new genus and
species in Cupressaceae(co niferales)from northem Vietnam．Xan—
thocy触 vietnamensis[J]．Novon，12：179—189
Forbes FB．Hemsley WB． 1886——1905．Index Florae Sinensis
rM]．Kew：Roya1 Botanical Garden
Fu LG，Li N．1999．Conifers[M]／／Wu 8L Raven(eds)．Flora of
China，vo1．4．Beijing：Science Press；St．Louis：MiSSOUri Botani—
cal Garden
Gagnepain F．1960．Flore du Cambodge，du Laos et du Vietnam
rM]．Paris：Museum National d’Histoire Naturele(in French)
Grierson AJC，Long DG．1983．Flora of Bhutan[M] ．Edinburgh：
Royal Botanic Garden，1：44～56
Orubov VI．2001．Key to the Vascular Plants of Mongolia[M3．
Inc．Enfield(NH)：Science Publishers，1：27—32
Grubov VI，Matzenko AE，Pachomova MG．2002．Plants of Can—
l Asia-Plant collections from China and Mongolia[M]．Inc
Enfield(NH)：Science Publishers，6：10—35
Hara H，Steam WT，Wiliams L HLI．1 978．An Enumeration of the
Flowering Plants of Nepal[M]．London：British Museum(Natu-
ral History)，1：23—28
Heler D，Heyn 02．1994．Conspectus Florae Orientalis[M] ．Jerusa-
lam：The Israel Academy of Sciences an d Humanities，9：14— 17
Hiep NT，Vida1 JE．1996．Flore du Cambodge du Le ns et du viet—
nam[M]．Paris：Museum Nationa1 d’Histoire Naturele，28：3～
158(in French)
Hooker JD(ed)．1875—1897．Flora of British India[M]．Kew：
Royal Bo tanical Garden
Huang TC(ed)．1994．Flora of Taiwan ed 2[h ．Taipei，1：545—595
Humbert H(ed)．1938—1951．Flore Genevale de I’Indo-C ne Sup—
plements 1(1—10)[ ．Paris：M1zgeum National d’Histoire Na—
turele(in French)
Im H 1999．Flora ofKorea andthe role offlorisfic study[J]．Kore—
o32 J Pl Taxon，29：275—284
1watsuld K，Yamazaki T，Bo ufford DE，et a1．1995(eds)．Flora of Japan
[M3．Tokyo：KodanshaLtd
Jain SK(ed)．1978—1999．Fascicles of Flora of India，vo1．1-24[M]．
Howrah：Botanical Survey of India
Kaempfer K 1712．Flora JaponicaEM] ．Wiesbaden：Franz Steiner
Kitagawa M 1939．Lineamenta Florae Manshurieae[M] ．Hsinking：
Report of the Institute of Scientific Research，Mancboukuo
Kitagawa~L 1979．Neo-Lineamenta Florae Manshuricae r M]．
Vaduz：J．Cramer
Komarov VL(ed)．1901—1907．Flora Manshuriae[M]．Lenin—
grad
Komarov VL(ed)．1934—1960．Flora USSREM] ．Leningrad
Krasnoborov IM．2000．Flora of Siberia[M]．Inc．Enfield(NH)：
Science Publishers，1：67—77
Kress W，，DeFilipps RA，Fa” E，et a1．2003．A Checklist of the
Trees，Shrubs，Herbs，and Climbers of Myanmar，Co ntributions
from the United States National Herbarium[M]．Washington
D．C：Smithsonian Institution，45：33— 36
Lecomate HF(ed)．1916—1944．Flore Genevale de I’Indo-Chine
[M]．Paris：Museum National d’Histoire Naturele(in French)
Liu QR，Yu M，Ma JS．2007．Review on the Chinasa 1oeal floras厂J]．
Cruihaia，27(6)：844—849(Chinese with English summary)
Ma JS．2006．“Flora of Japan”，by 1watsuki K，Yamazaki T，Boufford
DE，H．Ohba，vo1．1，2(a，b， c)，and 3(a，＆ b)，1993～2006。Ko—
dansha，Tokyo，Japan口]．Taxon，55(4)：1 072
Ma JS，Shao GF，Qian H，eta1．2000．www．metasequoia．org／lo—
ea1．htm[OL]
Ma JS，Clemants S．2006．A history and overview of the Flora Re—
publieae Popularis Sinca(FI S，Flora of China，Chinese edition，
1959-20o4)[M] ．Taxon，55(2)：451-460
Miler AG．Co pe TA．1996．Flora of Arabian Peninsula and Socotra
[ ．Edinburgh：Edinburgh University Press，1：71—8o
Morat P．1960．Flore du Cambodge du Laos et du Vietnam[M]．
Paris：Museum National d’Histoire Naturele(in French)
Nakai T．1952．A synoptical sketch of Korea Flora[M]．Tokyo：
Bul Natl Sci Mus，31：1—152
Nasir E，Nasir YJ．1987．Conifers[M]／／Nasir E， i sI(eds)．
Flora of Pakistan．Karachi，180—185，1—35
Noshiro S。R~hbandari KR(eds)．2002．Himalayan 13otany in the
Twentieth and Twenty—first Centuries[M]．Tokyo：Society of
Himalayan Bo tany。1—212
Ohwi J．1984．Flora of Japan．edited by Meyer FG & Walker EH
[M]．Washington D．C．：Smithsonian Institution
Orchard AE．1999．Species Plantarum：Flora of the World．Intro—
duction to the Series[M]．Canberra：Australian Biologieal Re—
sources Study
Park CW．2007．Genera of Vascular Plants of Korea[M]．SeouI：
Academy Publishing Co．．1—1498
Phengkla C 1972，1975．in Smitinand T，Larsen K(eds)． 1972．
Flora of Thailand[M]．Bangkok：Applied Scientific Research Cot—
poration of Thmland，2(2，3)：185—196，197—203
Polhil RM．1990．Production rates of major regional floras[J]．Fl
MalesBull Special，1：11— 2O
Qian H，Rieklefs RE．1999．A comparison of the taxonomic rich—
ness of vascular plants in China and the United States[J]．Amer
Nnturalist，154：16O一 181
Rau MA．1994．Plant Exploration in India and Floras[M]／／Johri
BM(ed)．Bo tany in India，History and Progress Inc North Leb—
anon(NH)：Science Publishers，1：17—41
Rechinger KH (ed)． 1963． Flora Iranica E M]．Akademische
Druck-u．Verlagsanstale Graz—Austria(in German)
Riedl H． 1963，1965，1968． Flora IraI1ica r M]．Akademische
Druck-u．Ver1agsanstale Graz-Aust“a，3：1—8，12：1—2，14：1
— 9，5O：1—1O(in Gem an)
Schatz GE． 2OO2．1 xonomv and herbaria in sen，ice of Dlant con—
servation：蚕 s0ns from ^adagascar’s endemic fammes[J]．A
M 0 r Bot Gnrd，89：145—152
720 广 西 植 物 28卷
Sharma BD．1993．Flora of India[M~．Culcata：Botamcal Survey of India
Shrestha KK．2000．News related to Flora of Nepal[J]．Newsl
Himalayan Bot，26：22— 23
Singh KP，Mudgal V．1997．Gymnosperms of India[M]／／Mudgal
V。Hajra PK(eds)．Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strate—
gies in India．Culcata：Botanical Survey of India，1：443—472
n omas P，Sengdala K，Kamxay V，eta1．2007．New records of coni-
fers in Cambodia and Laos[J]．Edinburgh J Bot，64(1)：37—44
Townsend CC． 1966．Conifers[M~／／Townsend CC，Guest E
(eds)．Flora of Iraq．Bahgad：Ministry of Agriculture of the Re-
public of Iraq，2：81一i00
Van Steenis CGGJ．195l_Flora Malesiana—Present and Prospects
[刀．Taxon，1：21-24
Watson M ，Blaekmore S 2003．The first editorial meeting for the
Flora of Nepal口]．Nez~l Himalayan Bot，31：2O一22
Wu CY，Chen SC． 2004． Florae Reipublicae Popularis Sincae
[M3．Bering：Sceince Press，1：1—1044(in Chinese)
wu CY，Raven P．1994．Flora of China[M]．Beijing：Science
Press；St．Louis：Missouri Botanical Garden
Yamazaki T．1995．CoNfers[M]／／1watsuki K，Yamazaki T，Bouf—
f0rd DE，Ohba H(eds)．Flora of Japan Tokyo：Kodansha Ltd．，
1：263— 287
Yi YN．2002．Flora of Korea，2nd e d_FM]．Soul：Kyohaksa(in
Korean)
Zohary M．1966．Flora of Palaestina[M]．Jerusalem：Jerusalem
Academic Press，1：17—23
亚洲大陆植物志中的针叶树评述
马金双1，曹 伟
(1．布鲁克林植物园，布鲁克林，纽约 11225—1099，美国；2．中国科学院 沈阳应用生态研究所 ，沈阳 110016)
摘 要：以比较清楚的针叶树类为例，同时参考世界性的专著，对亚洲大陆各地的植物志进行了系统的比较研
究，发现尽管亚洲大陆的经典植物分类已经进行了三百多年的长期而且广泛的研究，仍然有很长的路要走，特别
是经典分类受到严重挑战的今天。
关键词：植物志；亚洲大陆；针叶树；综述
(上接第 740页 Continue from page 740)
国特有植物大血藤的RAPD分析——植物地带性分化的分
子差异标准初探)rJ7．Acta Univ Sunyatseni(Sci Nat)(中山
大学学报 ·自然科学版))，38(1)：64—69
Manchester SR．1977．Wood of Tapirira(Anacardiaeeae)from the
Palaeogeen clarno Formation of Oregon[J]．Rev Palaeobot Pa—
lynol，23：119— 127
Manchester SR．1999．Biogeographical relationships of North Amer—
ican Tertiary Floras[J]．Ann Missouri Bot Card，86：472—522
Momohara A。Saito 2001．Change of paleovegetation caused by
topographic change in and around a sedimentary basin of the Up—
per Mi ocene Tokiguehi Porcelain Clay Formatoin，central Japan
[J]．GeoscienceRept Shimane Univ，20：49—58
Qu SZ(曲式曾)，Min CL(闵成林)．1986．A new species of Sar—
gentodoxa from Shaanxi(大血藤属一新种)[J]．Bull Bot Res
(植物研究)，6(2)；87—90
Sheng XY(盛仙永)，Liu wz(~u文哲)．2003．Advances in Sar-
gentodoxa(大血藤属植物研究进展)[J]．Acta Bot Boreal-Oc—
olden t Sin(西北植物学报)，23‘7)：1 116—1 120
Shi JX(石建孝)，Ren Y(任毅)，Di WZ(狄维忠)．1994．The tax-
onomic studies on Sargentodoxaceae(大血藤科植物的分类学研
究)口]．Acta Bot Boreal-Occident Sin(西北植物学报)，14(5)：
99— 103
Thompson JD，Gibson TJ，Plewniak F．1997．The Clustal X
windows interface：flexible strategies for multiple sequence
alignment aided by quality analysis tools[J]．Nucl Acids
Re5，25：4 876— 4 882
Tiffney BH．1993．Fruits and seeds of the Tertiary Brandon Lig—
nite．VII．Sargentodoxa(Sargentodoxaceae)[J]．Am J Bot，870：
517— 523
Wang F．2002．Phylogeny and biogeography of the Lardizabalace—
ae[D]．Kunming：Ph．D．Dissertation，62
Wei ZX(韦仲新)，Li DZ(李德铢)．1995．Polen morphology and
wal uhrastructure of Sargentodoxaceae(大血藤科花粉形态及
外壁超微结构的研究)[J]．Acta Bot Yunnan(云南植物研究)，
17(2)：197—200
Xiang JY(向建英)，GuanKY(管开云)，Yang JB(杨俊波)．2002．
Studies on the classification of Begonia sect．Sphenanthera based
on nuclear ribosomal DNA ITS sequence data(应用 ITS区序列
对秋海棠属无翅组分类学问题的探讨)[J]．Acta Bot Yunnan
(云南植物研究)，24(4)：455—462
Zhang QW(张秦伟)．2002．A study on floristic regionalization in Qir卜
ling Mt．(秦岭种子植物区系分区研究)[J]．J Wulum Bot Res(武
汉植物学研究)，20(1)：21—32
Zhou ZK(周浙昆)，Arata M．2005．Fossil history of some endam—
ic seed plants of east Asia and its phytogeographieal signif icance
(一些东亚特有种子植物的化石历史及其植物地理学意义)
[J]．Acta Bot Yunnan(云南植物研究)，27(5)：449—47o