taxonID	type	description	language	source
03EF8793FF85FFEE6D31FD1FFD66FB8F.taxon	discussion	Karyologically, H. cryptopodus with its diploid chromosome number of 2 n = 18 also fits to subfamily Urgineoideae although the most abundant basic haploid chromosome number in this group appears to be x = 10 (SPETA 1998 a). The same basic chromosome number of x = 9 as in H. cryptopodus is found, for example, in the generitype of Drimia, D. elata but also in the Rhadamanthus-group of Drimia sensu GOLDBLATT & MANNING 2000. This group also contains the closest relatives of H. cryptopoda, the Madagascan species D. urgineoides and D. mascarenensis (SPETA 1998 a). In Ledebouria sensu MANNING et al. (2004) a variety of chromosome numbers have been found from 2 n = 20 up to 2 n = 68 (SPETA 1998 a). The diploid chromosome number of 2 n = 10 for Ledebouria humifusa (WETSCHNIG in WETSCHNIG & PFOSSER 2003) appears to be the only case so far where a chromosome number smaller than 2 n = 20 has been reported for this group. Based on molecular, morphological and karyological data Hyacinthus cryptopodus should be transferred from subfamily Hyacinthoideae to subfamily Urgineoideae. In the most recent generic synopsis (MANNING et al. 2004) subfamily Urgineoideae contains the three genera Bowiea, Igidia and Drimia. The genus Bowiea forms a clearly separated monophyletic basal clade in all analyses until now (Fig. 1, PFOSSER & SPETA 1999, 2004, WETSCHNIG & PFOSSER 2003, MANNING et al. 2004). Although Igidia was not available for analysis and the genus Drimia itself may prove to be a rather heterogeneous assemblage when analyzed more thoroughly we suggest H. cryptopodus to be placed best within Drimia sensu MANNING et al. (2004) for the time being. This decision is not intended as a final one, but should serve as a starting point for future research in an alliance still suffering from a lack of detailed systematic knowledge on the species level. The same holds true for subfamily Ornithogaloideae which lacks an adequate distribution of species into more uniform genera. To adopt a broad and comprehensive generic concept like that of MANNING et al. (2004) only shifts problems to another level, because the distribution of species into genera mainly defined by molecular data results in genera unrecognizable by morphological synapomorphies. Possiblities for further subdivisions for all subfamilies of Hyacinthaceae based on a combination of morphological, cytological, karyological and chemotaxonomical characters have already been proposed (SPETA 1998 a, b, PFOSSER & SPETA 1999). Recently, Drimiopsis and Resnova have been resurrected as independent genera of their own again (LEBATHA et al. 2006), after they have been sunk into Ledebouria before (MANNING et al. 2004). This could serve as an example of how to arrive at a situation with more homogeneous and thus also more practically recognizable genera.	en	Pfosser, M., Wetschnig, W., Speta, F. (2006): Drimia cryptopoda, a new combination in Hyacinthaceae from Madagascar. Linzer biologische Beiträge 38 (2): 1731-1739, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13320684
