@article{nhanala_yencho_2020, title={Assessment of the potential of wild
            <i>Ipomoea
            spp. for the improvement of drought tolerance in cultivated sweetpotato
            <i>Ipomoea batatas
            (L.) Lam}, volume={61}, ISSN={0011-183X 1435-0653}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20363}, DOI={10.1002/csc2.20363}, abstractNote={Sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam] is cultivated worldwide, and it is a staple food in many developing countries. In some regions (e.g., Africa) drought is a major production constraint that results in significant yield loss. Climate change is predicted to result in even greater losses due to long periods of drought and elevated temperatures. The goal of this study was to assess the potential of wild Ipomoea spp. as a source of drought tolerance in cultivated sweetpotato. We evaluated the drought tolerance of I. batatas, I. cynanchifolia, I. leucantha, I. trifida and I. triloba in a randomized complete block design, with five levels of simulated drought: control (daily irrigation), and no irrigation for 7, 9, 21 and 50 days. We observed that post drought re-irrigation of the wild species subjected to 21 days of stress resulted in plant recovery and an increase of the stomatal conductance of up to 99% in I. leucantha. However, under extreme stress (50 d) the wild plants did not respond to re-irrigation, resulting in up to 89% (I. leucantha) plant mortality. The wild species did not produce storage roots, while the I. batatas cultivars produced storage roots. Under 50 days of stress I. batatas had a survival rate between 44% (cv. Tanzania) and 89% (cv. Beauregard). We concluded that the wild genotypes screened may not be a valuable source of germplasm for drought tolerance and that significant levels of drought tolerance may exist in cultivated sweetpotato.}, number={1}, journal={Crop Science}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Nhanala, Stella E. C. and Yencho, G. Craig}, year={2020}, month={Nov}, pages={234–249} }
 @article{eserman_sosef_simao-bianchini_utteridge_barbosa_buril_chatrou_clay_delgado_desquilbet_et al._2020, title={Proposal to change the conserved type of Ipomoea, nom. cons. (Convolvulaceae)}, volume={69}, ISSN={["1996-8175"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.12400}, DOI={10.1002/tax.12400}, abstractNote={(2786) Ipomoea L., Sp. Pl.: 159. 1 Mai 1753 [Convolvul.], nom. cons. Typus: I. triloba L., typ. cons. prop. Ipomoea L. is the largest (650–900 species, depending on the concept adopted) and most iconic genus in Convolvulaceae, a family of c. 1880 species (data from Staples, Convolvulaceae Unlimited, 2012 at: http//convolvulaceae.myspecies.info), including the important crop sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. (Tabl. Encycl. 1: 465. 1793), and several ornamental species commonly known as “bindweeds” or “morning glories” (Wilkin in Kew Bull. 54: 853–876. 1999; Mabberley, Mabberley's Plant-book. 2008). The genus has a long history of taxonomic and nomenclatural problems, mainly for the lack of a clear morphological circumscription and overlap with other genera. In his Species plantarum (1753), Linnaeus distinguished two genera, Convolvulus L. and Ipomoea, whose species suffered numerous re-arrangements, between Ipomoea and Convolvulus, but especially into numerous more recently described genera, which amount today to a total of 60 (Staples in World Checklist of Vascular Plants, v.2.0. 2020, http://wcvp.science.kew.org/ retrieved 2 Apr 2020). Linnaeus included 17 species in Ipomoea. However, of these, only the first, I. quamoclit L., truly matched his earlier generic description published in 1737 (Gen. Pl.: 47; “Petalum infundibuliforme; Tubus sere cylindraceus, longissimus”). Linnaeus actually replaced the name Quamoclit of Tournefort (Inst. Rei Herb., ed. 3, 2: t. 39. 1719) with his own Ipomoea (see Manitz in Taxon 25: 193–194. 1976). Hence, I. quamoclit would be the logical type of Ipomoea. However, in the past, some argued for a separation between the genus Quamoclit Mill. and Ipomoea (Roberty in Candollea 14: 11–65. 1952) that would result in an unfortunate recombination of hundreds of Ipomoea names, and which led Manitz (l.c.) to propose to conserve the name Ipomoea with another, conserved, type, I. pes-tigridis L., which was accepted (see Taxon 30: 145. 1981, 31: 310. 1982). More recently, molecular phylogenetic analyses have greatly assisted in obtaining a better understanding of the classification and phylogeny of the family as a whole and a much more stable taxonomy is now emerging. These studies have also shown that within the tribe Ipomoeeae Hall. f. s.l., Ipomoea is paraphyletic with 10 genera nested within it: Argyreia Lour., Astripomoea A. Meeuse, Blinkworthia Choisy, Lepistemon Blume, Lepistemonopsis Dammer, Mina Cerv., Paralepistemon Lejoly & Lisowski, Rivea Choisy, Stictocardia Hall. f., and Turbina Raf. (Wilkin, l.c.; Manos & al. in Syst. Bot. 26: 585–602. 2001; Miller & al. in Syst. Biol. 51: 740–753. 2002; Stefanović & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1510–1522. 2002, in Syst. Bot. 28: 701–806. 2003; Eserman & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 101: 92–103. 2014; Simões & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 179: 374–387. 2015). This furthered the debate about the actual identity of Ipomoea. Wilkin (l.c.) proposed the inclusion of all genera of Ipomoeeae into an Ipomoea s.l. This was recently taken up by Munõz-Rodríguez & al. (in Nature, Pl. 5: 1136–1154. 2019), soaring the genus to c. 900 species, without proposing any infrageneric classification and allowing huge morphological variation. As molecular phylogenetic results have also demonstrated, tribe Ipomoeeae can be subdivided into two main clades (Stefanović & al., l.c. 2003; Wood & al. in Phytokeys 143: 1–823. 2020) with the informal names “Astripomoeinae” and “Argyreiinae”. While the first concentrates a large diversity of the Neotropical Ipomoea, the latter is more widely distributed throughout Africa, Asia, Australia, and many of the Pacific islands, and is mostly absent from the Neotropics. Unfortunately, “Argyreiinae” includes the presently conserved type of Ipomoea, I. pes-tigridis L. Hence, implementing a new classification with the distinction of several clades at genus level would result in around 600 name changes for the Ipomoea within the “Astripomoeinae” clade, affecting mostly the American species of the genus, many of which have ornamental value. Moreover, the most economically important species, I. batatas (L.) Lam., also does not belong to the clade including the type; therefore, a potential segregation of Ipomoea s.l. into smaller genera would result in the renaming of sweetpotato. With an annual production of over 90 million metric tons (data from Shahbandeh, Global sweet potato production volume 2010–2018. 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/812343/global-sweet-potato-production) and hundreds if not thousands of registered cultivars (in Asia and the Pacific region alone, there exists an estimated 12,000 landraces, while in 1994 the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru held a total of 6500 sweetpotato accessions; Takagi & al. in Flach & Rumawas, PROSEA 9, Plants Yielding Non-seed Carbohydrates: 102–107. 1999), a name change in sweetpotato would certainly result in a very costly and extreme effort by the commercial enterprises involved. As shown above (Wilkin, l.c.; Munõz-Rodriguez & al., l.c.), some authors regard the presence of the type of Ipomoea in the “Argyreiinae” clade as an obstacle towards a most useful renewal of the re-circumscription of the genera in tribe Ipomoeeae because of the sheer amount of necessary name changes and have preferred to advocate the inclusion of all the taxonomic diversity into a mega-genus Ipomoea. We think nomenclature should not block the development of a more stable and logical classification and here propose to replace the conserved type of the genus with a species included in the “Astripomoeinae” clade. This would permit those who wish to create a new classification to do so with far fewer nomenclatorial consequences. Thus, the generic name Ipomoea would be retained for the clade with the highest taxonomic diversity (c. 600 species), while preventing a name change in the economically important I. batatas. There are numerous examples of changes in nomenclature that are rejected by the scientific community when they cause significant destabilization. For example, the recent taxonomic changes in “monkeyflowers” (Mimulus, Phrymaceae; Barker & al. in Phytoneuron 39: 1–60. 2012, Lowry & al. in Taxon 68: 617–623. 2019, Nesom & al. in Taxon 68: 624–627. 2019) were rejected by the evolutionary biology community and have brought to the forefront discussions about when nomenclatural changes are appropriate. Most scientists recognize the importance of naming groups based on evolutionary lineages, but to what extent this is applied must be done with the utmost consideration. As it concerns Ipomoea, it is a priority to allow the possibility to subdivide the genus into smaller genera, while maintaining maximal nomenclatural stability. Manitz (l.c.), in proposing to conserve Ipomoea with a conserved type, identified the early confusion in the circumscription of Ipomoea and Convolvulus and acknowledged the need to stabilize nomenclature. His argument followed previous authors, especially House (in Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 18: 181–263. 1908) in considering that, although I. quamoclit would be the “historically correct” species to be selected, its morphological particularities (red tubular corolla) might have blocked those who wanted to regard Quamoclit as a distinct genus because of the very high number of new names that would then be needed to accommodate the remainder of the Ipomoea species. What Manitz did not know, was that the type House had already proposed, Ipomoea pes-tigridis L., and which he selected for conservation, would later lead to almost the same situation. In view of the recent molecular and systematic works that suggest the phylogenetic position of I. pes-tigridis as distantly related to the largest part of the genus Ipomoea, we would propose alternatively I. triloba L. as the conserved type for the genus. The broad-scale molecular phylogenetic study of Wood & al. (l.c.) demonstrated with ample sampling that I. triloba is one of the most closely related species to I. batatas. A range of important ornamental species are also fairly closely related to I. batatas and I. triloba, when considering a broader clade (e.g., I. nil (L.) Roth, I. tricolor Cav., and I. purpurea (L.) Roth). Therefore, our proposed type will allow future studies to re-assess the generic delimitation within tribe Ipomoeeae, without the fear of destabilizing the nomenclature of the group, in particular the species with greatest economic importance. LAE, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0208-6632 MSMS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-5813 RS-B, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9738-9494 TMAU, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2823-0337 JCJB, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8753-4915 MTB, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9615-2057 LWC, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0131-0302 KC, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3956-0887 GD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-1540 TED, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2119-4524 PPAF, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1134-7918 JRGA, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7066-0608 ALH, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2172-6356 GH-R, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8209-0366 RLJ, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0426-6186 RKK, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8538-8694 SL, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-2450 JAAML, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4741-1723 IDM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7567-470X REM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5802-2267 SM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7712-7785 ALCM, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0862-0135 IM-M, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0203-5795 SN, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1829-7290 MP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-8920 FSP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8380-843X PPi, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1746-1439 PPo, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7998-2064 JR, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1980-5557 FDSS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0053-1333 VBS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-1114 SSS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6318-3137 JRS, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3349-2964 PT, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-5722 LVV, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1724-2068 MLW, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9406-8951 AV, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2844-723X JY, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0371-8814 CY, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6583-0628 BH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-8512 ARGS, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7267-8353 We are thankful for useful comments from Dr. Mihai Costea (Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada) and Dr. Saša Stefanović (University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada).}, number={6}, journal={TAXON}, author={Eserman, Lauren A. and Sosef, Marc S. M. and Simao-Bianchini, Rosangela and Utteridge, Timothy M. A. and Barbosa, Juliana C. J. and Buril, Maria Teresa and Chatrou, Lars W. and Clay, Keith and Delgado, Geadelande and Desquilbet, Thibaut E. and et al.}, year={2020}, month={Dec}, pages={1369–1371} }