Late individual of P. dendroides mounted between them. The middle plant is often a fantastic match for the type of E. dendroides Kunth, described from the same locality. Kunth’s ideas on the two species have been primarily based partly around the shorter peduncles in P. pilosus, but this character varies in both species. Kunth also differentiated E. pilosum by leaves rigid, “pilose-ciliate,” having a sharp apex, and involucral bracts ovate, acute, when E. dendroides was described as having leaves acuminate, membranous and glabrous, and involucral bracts obovate. These characters are sufficient to distinguish the two components around the sheet and to justify exclusion on the middle plant in the sort material. Paepalanthus pilosus has suffered confusing taxonomic treatment as time passes. K nicke (1863) recognized P. pilosus and P. dendroides (both described from Bogot as well as P. selaginoides (Popay ) PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20109258 as distinct taxa, distinguishing P. selaginoides by the close to obsolete peduncles, and P. pilosus from P. dendroides by the robust scattered cilia on the leaf margin. Ruhland (1903) synonymized all 3 beneath P. pilosus with all the claim that these diagnostic characters have been too variable, from time to time even inside specimens, an impression maybe fostered by the mixed sheet of P. dendroides and P. pilosus from Kunth’s herbarium. At the same time, Ruhland erected an additional new species, P. karstenii, also from near Bogot distinguished from P. pilosus by the “leaf indument and apex,” the involucral bracts broad and glabrous abaxially, and “a distinctive form of the perianth.” Inexplicably, he also described capitula as two mm wide in P. pilosus CAY10505 web versus 6 mm wide in P. karstenii, which accords neither with all the variety of P. pilosus (capitula six.five mm) nor earlier descriptions. How Ruhland believed the leaf indument, apex, or perianth in P. karstenii differed from that of P. pilosus will not be clear from his description, leaving only the essential character of bract pubescence, which also varies widely inside species. Actually the broad (obovate) subglabrous bracts seen in the sort of P. karstenii are additional standard of P. dendroides as recognized by both Kunth and K nicke. The identity of P. karstenii requirements further study (see Doubtful Taxa). Moldenke (1975b) ostensibly followed Ruhland, treating P. dendroides as a synonym of P. pilosus, and distinguishing P. karstenii by the “involucral bracts glabrous around the outer surface,” but his use on the names in annotations (ca.1930’s980’s) doesn’t correlate with bract pubescence or shape. In his pattern of annotations, Moldenke revived the suitable distinction between P. dendroides and P. pilosus, but confused the nomenclature, mostly annotating common P. pilosus as P. karstenii, even though applying the name P. pilosus to P. dendroides and occasional long-pedunculate people of P. pilosus. This convention was followed by later authors (e.g., Cleef 1981, Madri n and Zapata 2001). Huft’s treatment (1994) was related but treated Central American P. pi-Nancy Hensold / PhytoKeys 64: 17 (2016)losus as P. kupperi in lieu of P. karstenii. Hensold and Hammel (2003), within a treatment of Costa Rican species, re-established P. dendroides as a distinct taxon and corrected application with the name P. pilosus to accord with all the original notion of Kunth and K nicke, which consists of each P. kupperi and most material determined as P. karstenii. Moldenke didn’t specify distinguishing characters for his other species right here placed in synonymy of P. pilosus, nor have been these names widely u.