Monographs Details:
Authority:
Mori, S. A. & Prance, Ghillean T. 1990. Lecythidaceae - Part II: The zygomorphic-flowered New World genera (Couroupita, Corythophora, Bertholletia, Couratari, Eschweilera, & Lecythis). With a study of secondary xylem of Neotropical Lecythidaceae by Carl de Zeeuw. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 21: 1-376. (Published by NYBG Press)
Mori, S. A. & Prance, Ghillean T. 1990. Lecythidaceae - Part II: The zygomorphic-flowered New World genera (Couroupita, Corythophora, Bertholletia, Couratari, Eschweilera, & Lecythis). With a study of secondary xylem of Neotropical Lecythidaceae by Carl de Zeeuw. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 21: 1-376. (Published by NYBG Press)
Family:
Lecythidaceae
Lecythidaceae
Synonyms:
Lecythis bracteata Willd., Pekea couroupita Juss. ex DC., Couroupita surinamensis Mart. ex O.Berg, Couroupita peruviana O.Berg, Couroupita membranacea Miers, Couroupita antillana Miers, Couroupita guianensis var. surinamensis (Mart. ex O.Berg) Eyma, Couroupita froesii R.Knuth, Couroupita saintcroixiana R.Knuth, Couroupita venezuelensis R.Knuth, Couroupita acreensis R.Knuth, Couroupita idolica Dwyer
Lecythis bracteata Willd., Pekea couroupita Juss. ex DC., Couroupita surinamensis Mart. ex O.Berg, Couroupita peruviana O.Berg, Couroupita membranacea Miers, Couroupita antillana Miers, Couroupita guianensis var. surinamensis (Mart. ex O.Berg) Eyma, Couroupita froesii R.Knuth, Couroupita saintcroixiana R.Knuth, Couroupita venezuelensis R.Knuth, Couroupita acreensis R.Knuth, Couroupita idolica Dwyer
Description:
Description - Tree, to 35 mm tall, the young branches sparsely puberulous, soon becoming glabrous. Leaves in terminal clusters of 7-23; blades oblong, (6-)8-31 (-5 7) x 3-10 cm, usually broadest near or slightly above middle, chartaceous, glabrous above, glabrous beneath except on venation and in axils of secondary veins, or sparsely puberulous; midrib plane or prominulous above, prominent and usually puberulous or hirtellous, rarely glabrous beneath; lateral veins 15-25 pairs, prominulous above, prominent beneath, usually with hirsute mass of hair at junction with midrib; apex usually acute or bluntly acuminate or rarely long acuminate; base cuneate; margins entire, slightly undulate and often with numerous minute glandular teeth at nerve endings; petioles 5-30 mm long, flattened above, not winged, hirtellous or sparsely puberulous-glabrescent. Inflorescences ramiflorous or predominantly cauliflorous, racemose when young, often becoming a panicle of racemes, producing flowers at and near apex, to 3.5 m long, hanging downwards from all over trunk, the rachis sparsely puberulous near apex, becoming glabrous towards base; pedicels 12-60 mm long, puberulous to glabrescent. Flowers 5-6 cm diam.; Calyx-lobes broadly triangular, rounded at apex, ca. 5 mm long, glabrous to sparsely puberulous on exterior, the margins ciliate; petals oblong, 30-50 mm long, glabrous except for a few scattered hairs on margin, yellow tinted red on exterior, deep to pinkish red within; staminal ring 20 mm wide, with 600-700 stamens on short filaments, the stamens extending well up ligule but middle of ligule without stamens, hood red to pink, with 180-220 stamens on longer, thicker filaments than the ring stamens, a few filaments often united into straps bearing 3-6 anthers, some sterile filaments present; hypanthium campanulate, 5-10 mm long, the style minute, not well-differentiated from summit of ovary. Fruits usually globose, but some wider than long or longer than wide, transverse diam. 12-23.6 cm, longitudinal diam. 12-23.4 cm, the exocarp crustaceous, dull, lenticellate, the calycine ring ca. 9 cm diam., inserted 1-5 cm below apex, usually at around 1 cm from apex, with six slightly protruding remnants of Calyx-lobes persisting, the pulp fibrous, not spongy when dry. Seeds 82-295 per fruit, slightly hairy to glabrescent on exterior.
Description - Tree, to 35 mm tall, the young branches sparsely puberulous, soon becoming glabrous. Leaves in terminal clusters of 7-23; blades oblong, (6-)8-31 (-5 7) x 3-10 cm, usually broadest near or slightly above middle, chartaceous, glabrous above, glabrous beneath except on venation and in axils of secondary veins, or sparsely puberulous; midrib plane or prominulous above, prominent and usually puberulous or hirtellous, rarely glabrous beneath; lateral veins 15-25 pairs, prominulous above, prominent beneath, usually with hirsute mass of hair at junction with midrib; apex usually acute or bluntly acuminate or rarely long acuminate; base cuneate; margins entire, slightly undulate and often with numerous minute glandular teeth at nerve endings; petioles 5-30 mm long, flattened above, not winged, hirtellous or sparsely puberulous-glabrescent. Inflorescences ramiflorous or predominantly cauliflorous, racemose when young, often becoming a panicle of racemes, producing flowers at and near apex, to 3.5 m long, hanging downwards from all over trunk, the rachis sparsely puberulous near apex, becoming glabrous towards base; pedicels 12-60 mm long, puberulous to glabrescent. Flowers 5-6 cm diam.; Calyx-lobes broadly triangular, rounded at apex, ca. 5 mm long, glabrous to sparsely puberulous on exterior, the margins ciliate; petals oblong, 30-50 mm long, glabrous except for a few scattered hairs on margin, yellow tinted red on exterior, deep to pinkish red within; staminal ring 20 mm wide, with 600-700 stamens on short filaments, the stamens extending well up ligule but middle of ligule without stamens, hood red to pink, with 180-220 stamens on longer, thicker filaments than the ring stamens, a few filaments often united into straps bearing 3-6 anthers, some sterile filaments present; hypanthium campanulate, 5-10 mm long, the style minute, not well-differentiated from summit of ovary. Fruits usually globose, but some wider than long or longer than wide, transverse diam. 12-23.6 cm, longitudinal diam. 12-23.4 cm, the exocarp crustaceous, dull, lenticellate, the calycine ring ca. 9 cm diam., inserted 1-5 cm below apex, usually at around 1 cm from apex, with six slightly protruding remnants of Calyx-lobes persisting, the pulp fibrous, not spongy when dry. Seeds 82-295 per fruit, slightly hairy to glabrescent on exterior.
Discussion:
Because Couroupita guianensis is morphologically quite variable, and because it has been described numerous times as different species, it is discussed here in some detail. It is a rather widespread but uncommon tree in the forests of Southern Central America and northern South America. There is considerable variation in leaf characters which probably indicates a number of rather isolated populations which I am nonetheless convinced represent a single polymorphic species. The actual number of herbarium collections from the wild available for study is extremely small. A large number of collections are from cultivated trees as this species is widely cultivated as an ornamental curiosity. The variation in leaf morphology is partially explained by the fact that C. guianensis (and probably the other species too) sheds all of its leaves up to four times a year (observed by this author in Guyana, Belem, Brazil, and Florida). Consequently, leaves have been collected in various stages of development. About four days after the leaves fall, new ones appear, expand with extreme rapidity, and reach their mature size in about four days. This determines whether the leaves appear membraneous, chartaceous, or coriaceous — a character state which has nonetheless frequently been used taxonomically. Much of the apparent variation in the inflorescence is due to the fact that the flowering rachises develop gradually, flowering as short racemes initially, but progressively extending and branching into hanging paniculate arrangements of racemes up to three meters long. They always bear flowers near to the apex and fruits a bit further back nearer to the trunk. This inflorescence variation in size has also been used as a taxonomic character, but, because it seems to be a function of developmental stage, it is obviously meaningless.Because of the morphological variation within individual trees of C. guianensis and because of the use by previous authors of features known to be variable as taxonomic characters to separate species, I made a detailed study of a single tree cultivated at the Fairchild Tropical Garden in Coral Gables, Florida. Prance 16541 (Fig. 39) is a serial collection showing some of the leaf variation. I found that a cluster of leaves is occasionally produced on the rachises of the inflorescence. These leaves are much larger and of quite a different shape than those of the crown. The difference in these leaves is much greater than that between many of the ‘species’ established by Knuth (1939) on the basis of leaf characters. Collections from Surinam (Prance 16569, 16570) also show variation between crown leaves and trunk leaves that is far greater than that between previously recognized species. It is consequently necessary to reduce into synonymy under C. guianensis many of the species recognized by Knuth and others. Aublet’s original illustration of C. guianensis depicts the leaves arising from a flowering branch. Since the leaves of Aublet’s type collection are large and rather similar to flowering-branch leaves, it is probable that Aublet used flowering-branch leaves to describe the species, rather than making a mistake in the drawing as has been assumed by some previous authors. Since the flowering branches are nearer the ground and more easily accessible, collectors tend to use these leaves for specimens in preference to those of the crown.Couroupita surinamensis Mart, ex Berg was reduced to varietal status under C. guianensis by Eyma (1932). Eyma’s reason for this was because, C. surinamensis is based on a single fruit character, the position of the calycine ring. The type fruit of C. surinamensis resembles that of C. guianensis and, therefore, C. surinamensis can not be maintained as a separate species or even variety.The natural distribution of C. guianensis is hard to determine because it has been extensively cultivated as an ornamental and curiosity from early times. The fact that it is a sacred tree of various Indian groups (Dwyer, 1965) probably means that it was moved around in Pre-Columbian times as well. Many of the cultivated plants in botanical gardens are from one or a few parent trees. For example, the material with large acuminate leaves, described by Miers as C. antillana and also cultivated in other Caribbean Islands and Brazilian botanical gardens, is probably from a single source. It does not merit recognition as a separate species. The natural range of C. guianensis appears to be moist forests in Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas, Ecuador, Peru, and western Amazonian Brazil (Fig. 37). Since the genus is so widely cultivated, a separate map is provided of the collections which are definitely known to come from cultivated trees (Fig. 38). This shows that many of the other localities in Figure 37 could be based on cultivated trees, especially some of the localities of C. guianensis in Central America and northern Venezuela.Koepke (pers. comm.) informs me that he observed a tree of C. guianensis in Peru over an extended period, watching for dispersal of the abundant fruits on the ground. The fruits were not touched by rodents and other common animals in the forest over a three week period. However, a wild herd of pigs visited the area and broke open and ate all the fruit which were on the forest floor. The seeds were ingested by the pigs. It is therefore possible that the seeds of this species are dispersed by wild pigs.Several workers, for example, Jacques (1965), have shown that C. guianensis has dimorphic pollen. Mori et al. (1980b) from a study of trees cultivated in Bahia, Brazil, showed that there is a physiological difference between the pollen of the staminal ring and the hood. No grains from the hood germinated whereas grains from the staminal ring germinated readily. A scanning electron microscope study also showed morphological differences between the two types of pollen. This suggests that the hood pollen is a pollinator reward and that only the ring pollen is fertile.Ormond et al. (1981, 1985) studied the floral biology of cultivated trees of C. guianensis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where it is visited by pollen gathering bees, especially Xylocopa brasilianorum. They found the flowers to be at least partially self-compatible. They also presented details of the stigma morphology and pointed out the presence of two distinct parts of the stigmatic area, one hydrophobic and composed of conspicuous collector hairs, and the other hydrophilic and formed by the top of the transmission tissue. They also confirmed the physiological and morphological differences between the hood and staminal ring pollen. A study by Yarsick et al. (1986) of a tree of C. guianensis cultivated in the Caracas Botanical Garden, Venezuela also showed that it is visited by large bees of the genera Bombus and Xylocopa as well as smaller bees of the genera Apis and Trigona, and wasps.
Because Couroupita guianensis is morphologically quite variable, and because it has been described numerous times as different species, it is discussed here in some detail. It is a rather widespread but uncommon tree in the forests of Southern Central America and northern South America. There is considerable variation in leaf characters which probably indicates a number of rather isolated populations which I am nonetheless convinced represent a single polymorphic species. The actual number of herbarium collections from the wild available for study is extremely small. A large number of collections are from cultivated trees as this species is widely cultivated as an ornamental curiosity. The variation in leaf morphology is partially explained by the fact that C. guianensis (and probably the other species too) sheds all of its leaves up to four times a year (observed by this author in Guyana, Belem, Brazil, and Florida). Consequently, leaves have been collected in various stages of development. About four days after the leaves fall, new ones appear, expand with extreme rapidity, and reach their mature size in about four days. This determines whether the leaves appear membraneous, chartaceous, or coriaceous — a character state which has nonetheless frequently been used taxonomically. Much of the apparent variation in the inflorescence is due to the fact that the flowering rachises develop gradually, flowering as short racemes initially, but progressively extending and branching into hanging paniculate arrangements of racemes up to three meters long. They always bear flowers near to the apex and fruits a bit further back nearer to the trunk. This inflorescence variation in size has also been used as a taxonomic character, but, because it seems to be a function of developmental stage, it is obviously meaningless.Because of the morphological variation within individual trees of C. guianensis and because of the use by previous authors of features known to be variable as taxonomic characters to separate species, I made a detailed study of a single tree cultivated at the Fairchild Tropical Garden in Coral Gables, Florida. Prance 16541 (Fig. 39) is a serial collection showing some of the leaf variation. I found that a cluster of leaves is occasionally produced on the rachises of the inflorescence. These leaves are much larger and of quite a different shape than those of the crown. The difference in these leaves is much greater than that between many of the ‘species’ established by Knuth (1939) on the basis of leaf characters. Collections from Surinam (Prance 16569, 16570) also show variation between crown leaves and trunk leaves that is far greater than that between previously recognized species. It is consequently necessary to reduce into synonymy under C. guianensis many of the species recognized by Knuth and others. Aublet’s original illustration of C. guianensis depicts the leaves arising from a flowering branch. Since the leaves of Aublet’s type collection are large and rather similar to flowering-branch leaves, it is probable that Aublet used flowering-branch leaves to describe the species, rather than making a mistake in the drawing as has been assumed by some previous authors. Since the flowering branches are nearer the ground and more easily accessible, collectors tend to use these leaves for specimens in preference to those of the crown.Couroupita surinamensis Mart, ex Berg was reduced to varietal status under C. guianensis by Eyma (1932). Eyma’s reason for this was because, C. surinamensis is based on a single fruit character, the position of the calycine ring. The type fruit of C. surinamensis resembles that of C. guianensis and, therefore, C. surinamensis can not be maintained as a separate species or even variety.The natural distribution of C. guianensis is hard to determine because it has been extensively cultivated as an ornamental and curiosity from early times. The fact that it is a sacred tree of various Indian groups (Dwyer, 1965) probably means that it was moved around in Pre-Columbian times as well. Many of the cultivated plants in botanical gardens are from one or a few parent trees. For example, the material with large acuminate leaves, described by Miers as C. antillana and also cultivated in other Caribbean Islands and Brazilian botanical gardens, is probably from a single source. It does not merit recognition as a separate species. The natural range of C. guianensis appears to be moist forests in Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas, Ecuador, Peru, and western Amazonian Brazil (Fig. 37). Since the genus is so widely cultivated, a separate map is provided of the collections which are definitely known to come from cultivated trees (Fig. 38). This shows that many of the other localities in Figure 37 could be based on cultivated trees, especially some of the localities of C. guianensis in Central America and northern Venezuela.Koepke (pers. comm.) informs me that he observed a tree of C. guianensis in Peru over an extended period, watching for dispersal of the abundant fruits on the ground. The fruits were not touched by rodents and other common animals in the forest over a three week period. However, a wild herd of pigs visited the area and broke open and ate all the fruit which were on the forest floor. The seeds were ingested by the pigs. It is therefore possible that the seeds of this species are dispersed by wild pigs.Several workers, for example, Jacques (1965), have shown that C. guianensis has dimorphic pollen. Mori et al. (1980b) from a study of trees cultivated in Bahia, Brazil, showed that there is a physiological difference between the pollen of the staminal ring and the hood. No grains from the hood germinated whereas grains from the staminal ring germinated readily. A scanning electron microscope study also showed morphological differences between the two types of pollen. This suggests that the hood pollen is a pollinator reward and that only the ring pollen is fertile.Ormond et al. (1981, 1985) studied the floral biology of cultivated trees of C. guianensis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where it is visited by pollen gathering bees, especially Xylocopa brasilianorum. They found the flowers to be at least partially self-compatible. They also presented details of the stigma morphology and pointed out the presence of two distinct parts of the stigmatic area, one hydrophobic and composed of conspicuous collector hairs, and the other hydrophilic and formed by the top of the transmission tissue. They also confirmed the physiological and morphological differences between the hood and staminal ring pollen. A study by Yarsick et al. (1986) of a tree of C. guianensis cultivated in the Caracas Botanical Garden, Venezuela also showed that it is visited by large bees of the genera Bombus and Xylocopa as well as smaller bees of the genera Apis and Trigona, and wasps.
Distribution:
Costa Rica South America| Cartago Costa Rica Central America| Puntarenas Costa Rica Central America| Panama Central America| Veraguas Panama Central America| Colombia South America| Caquetá Colombia South America| Meta Colombia South America| Putumayo Colombia South America| Vaupés Colombia South America| Vichada Colombia South America| Venezuela South America| Anzoátegui Venezuela South America| Barinas Venezuela South America| Bolívar Venezuela South America| Carabobo Venezuela South America| Cojedes Venezuela South America| Delta Amacuro Venezuela South America| Mérida Venezuela South America| Miranda Venezuela South America| Monagas Venezuela South America| Zulia Venezuela South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America| French Guiana South America| Ecuador South America| Esmeraldas Ecuador South America| Morona-Santiago Ecuador South America| Napo Ecuador South America| Pastaza Ecuador South America| Peru South America| Loreto Peru South America| San Martín Peru South America| Ucayali Peru South America| Brazil South America| Acre Brazil South America| Amazonas Brazil South America| Pará Brazil South America| United States of America North America| Florida United States of America North America| Panama Central America| Cuba South America| Jamaica South America| Dominican Republic South America| Puerto Rico South America| Virgin Islands South America| Saint Croix Virgin Islands of the United States South America| Saint Thomas Virgin Islands of the United States South America| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines South America| Barbados South America| Colombia South America| Valle Colombia South America| Venezuela South America| Aragua Venezuela South America| Distrito Federal Venezuela South America| Zulia Venezuela South America| Trinidad and Tobago South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America| Peru South America| Ucayali Peru South America| Brazil South America| Pará Brazil South America| Pernambuco Brazil South America| Rio de Janeiro Brazil South America|
Costa Rica South America| Cartago Costa Rica Central America| Puntarenas Costa Rica Central America| Panama Central America| Veraguas Panama Central America| Colombia South America| Caquetá Colombia South America| Meta Colombia South America| Putumayo Colombia South America| Vaupés Colombia South America| Vichada Colombia South America| Venezuela South America| Anzoátegui Venezuela South America| Barinas Venezuela South America| Bolívar Venezuela South America| Carabobo Venezuela South America| Cojedes Venezuela South America| Delta Amacuro Venezuela South America| Mérida Venezuela South America| Miranda Venezuela South America| Monagas Venezuela South America| Zulia Venezuela South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America| French Guiana South America| Ecuador South America| Esmeraldas Ecuador South America| Morona-Santiago Ecuador South America| Napo Ecuador South America| Pastaza Ecuador South America| Peru South America| Loreto Peru South America| San Martín Peru South America| Ucayali Peru South America| Brazil South America| Acre Brazil South America| Amazonas Brazil South America| Pará Brazil South America| United States of America North America| Florida United States of America North America| Panama Central America| Cuba South America| Jamaica South America| Dominican Republic South America| Puerto Rico South America| Virgin Islands South America| Saint Croix Virgin Islands of the United States South America| Saint Thomas Virgin Islands of the United States South America| Saint Vincent and the Grenadines South America| Barbados South America| Colombia South America| Valle Colombia South America| Venezuela South America| Aragua Venezuela South America| Distrito Federal Venezuela South America| Zulia Venezuela South America| Trinidad and Tobago South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America| Peru South America| Ucayali Peru South America| Brazil South America| Pará Brazil South America| Pernambuco Brazil South America| Rio de Janeiro Brazil South America|
Common Names:
el arbol de granadillo, el granadillo de las huacas, coco sa-chapura, maraco, coco de mono, ma-mey hediono, muco, taparo de monte, Boskalebas, iwadaballi, kaupe, ko-poe-e, taparo de chuco, tapara chuco, taparom, , kouroupitoumou, boulet de canon, ayahuma, castanha de macaco, cuiarana, cannon-ball tree, bola de cañon
el arbol de granadillo, el granadillo de las huacas, coco sa-chapura, maraco, coco de mono, ma-mey hediono, muco, taparo de monte, Boskalebas, iwadaballi, kaupe, ko-poe-e, taparo de chuco, tapara chuco, taparom, , kouroupitoumou, boulet de canon, ayahuma, castanha de macaco, cuiarana, cannon-ball tree, bola de cañon