WHITE PINTS OF JAPAN 181 



TAXONOMY OF THE "PINUS PARVIFLORA COMPLEX" 



Returning to the native Japanese white pines, the names (P. pentaphylla 

 Mayr and P. hLmekomatsu Miyabe 5 Kudo) I have used for the first two of 

 these are those in use by many Japanese botanists and foresters and by the 

 pine monographer N. T. Mirov (1967). P. -pentaphylla Mayr is the northern 

 taxon, and P. himekomatsu Miyabe & Kudo the southern taxon of the wider- 

 ranging and morphologically diverse species Pinus parviflora Sieb. 6 Zucc. 

 This latter single species is one often recognized outside Japan (i.e., 

 as by Critchfield and Little, 1966). 



The taxonomy of this "P. parviflora complex" is confused; thus con- 

 troversy still exists as to which of the species names is most acceptable. 

 Originally, Siebold and Zuccarini (1870) described the species distribution 

 as ranging from 35°N. latitude to the Kurile Islands, and they illustrated 

 the seeds as wingless. Later Mayr (1890) split the "complex" into 2 species 

 describing P. parviflora Sieb. & Zucc. with a short-winged seed, from the 

 south, and P. pentaphylla Mayr with a longer-winged seed, from the north. 

 Still later Miyabe and Kudo (1932) reinvestigated the "complex", pointing 

 out that Siebold and Zuccarini 's original drawings of P. parviflora Sieb. 

 & Zucc. (1870, Tab. 115) probably illustrated branches and foliage of 

 the northern taxon, male and female strobili of the southern taxon, and 

 the wingless seeds of Pinus pumila Regel . On the basis of these probable 

 errors in illustration, the overextension of botanical range to the 

 Kuriles off northeast Hokkaido (Fig. 1) , and their own extensive observa- 

 tions on the "complex", Miyabe and Kudo rejected the single species F. 

 parviflora Sieb. £ Zucc. They accepted P. pentaphylla Mayr as a distinct 

 and validly published species, and renamed and described Mayr's P. 

 parviflora Sieb. § Zucc. (his southern species) as a new species Pinus 

 himekomatsu Miyabe & Kudo. 



Up to the present time, some contemporary Japanese botanists have 

 accepted the treatment of Miyabe and Kudo (i.e., Takeda, Kusaka, and 

 Iwate (1954), or Hayashi (I960)), while others (Makino, 1952, or Tanaka 

 et al. , 1966) have relegated the southern taxon to varietal states as P. 

 pentaphylla var. himekomatsu Makino. Undoubtedly this controversy will 

 continue, so my choice of species names is conditional upon their 

 stabilization. * 



1 Editor's note: On October 15 3 1969 3 the International Union of 

 Forest Research Organizations 3 through its Inters ectional Working Group 

 on Z-enetic Resistance to Forest Diseases and Insects, Committee on White 

 Pine Blister Rust 3 recommended to the International Association f ■ 

 Plant Taxonomy 3 through their Standing Committee on Stabilization (of 

 plant names) that the Standing Committee consider and recommend usage to 

 stabilize these white pine latin binomials. Dr. E. L. Little, Jr. 3 one 

 of the United States members of the Standing Committee 3 has already 



■'.ted the problem to the Standing Committee. 



