⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-05
· read from full text
ⓘ
This paper presents a comprehensive taxonomic revision of neotropical Costaceae, covering 90 species across four monophyletic genera (Chamaecostus, Costus, Dimerocostus, and Monocostus). Using decades of revisionary work, the authors provide morphological, distributional, ecological, and phylogenetic information, along with nomenclatural updates such as three new combinations and several synonymy and lectotypification decisions. The revision fully describes all currently recognized species, includes conservation status via IUCN Red List or estimates, provides distribution maps and photographs, and supplies dichotomous keys; it also notes that four species are insufficiently known and highlights the need for continued study. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.
Abstract
Here we present a taxonomic revision of all neotropical Costaceae represented by 90 species, distributed in four monophyletic genera, Chamaecostus (9 spp.), Costus (76 spp.), Dimerocostus (5 spp.), and Monocostus (1 sp.). The work resulted in three new combinations, several nomenclatural changes, and four insufficiently known species are mentioned to demonstrate the need for continued and ongoing work on this charismatic yet often cryptic lineage of plants. We highlight the seventeen species of Costus and one species of Chamaecostus that were recently described (Maas et al. 2023) based on knowledge that emerged during this complete revisionary work, 60 years in the making. Included in this revision are details concerning the morphology, distribution, ecology, and phylogenetic relationships among the species studied. All currently recognized species are fully described, including notes on taxonomic synonymy, lectotypification, information on distribution and ecology, conservation status (either as evaluated and published in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or as estimated for this publication), vernacular names (when given) and short taxonomic notes. For each species, a distribution map is prepared and at least one colour photograph is included to assist in species identification. Dichotomous keys that include all species are provided, as is a list of all (c. 11.000) exsiccatae studied and an index to scientific names.
Full text
1,535 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Abstract
Here we present a taxonomic revision of all neotropical Costaceae represented by 90 species, distributed in four monophyletic genera, Chamaecostus (9 spp.), Costus (76 spp.), Dimerocostus (5 spp.), and Monocostus (1 sp.). The work resulted in three new combinations, several nomenclatural changes, and four insufficiently known species are mentioned to demonstrate the need for continued and ongoing work on this charismatic yet often cryptic lineage of plants. We highlight the seventeen species of Costus and one species of Chamaecostus that were recently described (Maas et al. 2023) based on knowledge that emerged during this complete revisionary work, 60 years in the making. Included in this revision are details concerning the morphology, distribution, ecology, and phylogenetic relationships among the species studied. All currently recognized species are fully described, including notes on taxonomic synonymy, lectotypification, information on distribution and ecology, conservation status (either as evaluated and published in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or as estimated for this publication), vernacular names (when given) and short taxonomic notes. For each species, a distribution map is prepared and at least one colour photograph is included to assist in species identification. Dichotomous keys that include all species are provided, as is a list of all (c. 11.000) exsiccatae studied and an index to scientific names.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.