18 research outputs found
Figure 5 in Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae)
No full textFigure 5. Lectotype specimen of Solanum andigenum Juz. & Bukasov (Solanum tuberosum L. Andigenum group) held in LE. Reproduced with permission of the V. L. Komarov Botanical Institute.Published as part of OVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA & SPOONER, DAVID M., 2011, Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae), pp. 107-155 in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2) on page 125, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, http://zenodo.org/record/632642
Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae)
No full textOVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA, SPOONER, DAVID M. (2011): Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2): 107-155, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.
Solanum juzepczukii BUKASOV
No full textSOLANUM JUZEPCZUKII BUKASOV Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma ccaisalla Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 72. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma orcco-malko Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 73. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov var. ckaisalla (Lechn.) Ochoa, Potatoes of S. Amer: Bolivia 363. 1990. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1); full and direct reference to basionym author and valid place of publication not provided (Art. 33.4).Published as part of OVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA & SPOONER, DAVID M., 2011, Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae), pp. 107-155 in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2) on page 142, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, http://zenodo.org/record/632642
Solanum ajanhuiri , Juzepczuk & Bukasov 1929
No full textSOLANUM AJANHUIRI JUZ. & BUKASOV Solanum ahanjuiri Juz. & Bukasov var. azul Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 70. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1). Solanum ahanjuiri Juz. & Bukasov var. jancko Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 71. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1).Published as part of OVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA & SPOONER, DAVID M., 2011, Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae), pp. 107-155 in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2) on page 141, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, http://zenodo.org/record/632642
Solanum curtilobum JUZ. & BUKASOV
No full textSOLANUM CURTILOBUM JUZ. & BUKASOV Solanum curtilobum Juz. & Bukasov forma chinomalko Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 74. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1). Solanum curtilobum Juz. & Bukasov forma choquepitu Lechn. in Bukasov, Kult. Fl. SSSR 10: 74. 1972 [‘1971’]. No Latin diagnosis or description (Art. 36.1); no type designated (Art. 37.1).Published as part of OVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA & SPOONER, DAVID M., 2011, Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae), pp. 107-155 in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2) on page 142, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, http://zenodo.org/record/632642
Evolution of U.S. Policy Approaches to Ensuring Cybersecurity and Defense of Critical Information Infrastructure
No full textRapid development of the Internet technologies has brought both unprecedented opportunities for economic development and a number of dangers for international community. In the early 2000s, challenges and threats emanating from the cyberspace were prioritized by leading world powers. The United States were among the first to elaborate legal framework for cyberpolicy aiming at providing national security after terrorist attacks of 2001. As time passed, dozens of legislation acts were adopted, and a number of agencies and committees responsible for ensuring information security emerged. The article examines the evolution of the U.S. conceptual approaches to information security (cybersecurity of the U.S. official documents) during the presidency of George Bush Jr. (during his tenure in office, the first National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace was accepted), Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The author traces priority changes that took place in this area as well as analyzes U.S. relationships with other major actors in the cybersphere, especially Russia and China. A particular attention is paid to the U.S. policy directed at ensuring security of critical information infrastructures (CII). The author emphasizes that, although a set of regulating document has been adopted, the security level of CII objects remains relatively low. In general, the analysis of national policy documents allowed the author to outline several tendencies, characterizing development of the U.S. policy in cybersphere in recent years. In particular, there is an increasing tendency towards unilateralism relating to the sanctions measures against particular countries and their companies. In this context, the cybersecurity issues are often considered not as an end in itself but as means of achieving wider goals of external and internal policy. The author concludes that the U.S. cybersecurity policy is reactive in nature, which directly affects its effectiveness
Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov
No full text3. Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov, Trudy Vsesoyuzn. S”ezda Gen. Selekts. Semenov. Plemen. Zhivotnov. 3: 603. 1929. Type: cultivated in Leningrad from tuber accession 3355 collected in Peru (Cusco: prov. Acomayo, Pomacanchi, S. Juzepczuk 1166), 1.ix.1928, V.S. Lekhnovich [3355] (lectotype WIR! [WIR-36897], designated here; isolectotype, K! [K 000585544]). Figure 3. Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov var. parco Hawkes, Potato Collect. Exped. Mexico & S. Amer., 2, Syst. Classific. Collect. 73, 131. 1944. Type: cultivated in Cambridge (UK) from tuber accession EPC-1106 collected in Peru (Puno, J. Soukup s.n.), 1940, Anon. [J. G. Hawkes] s.n. (lectotype, K! [K 000658001], designated here). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov var. roseum Vargas, Papas Sudper. 2: 20, fig. 2. 1956 [‘1954’]. Type: Peru. Puno: Prov. Carabaya, Macusani, 4300 m, C. Vargas 1145 (holotype, CUZ!). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma ckoyuckaisalla Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 106. 1988. Type: Bolivia. Oruro: Prov. Carangas, Jango Cala, Z. Huamán 821 (holotype, herb. Ochoa, not found). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma janckock-aisalla Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 107. 1988. Type: Bolivia. Oruro: Prov. Poopó, Toledo, 3700 m, Z. Huamán 809 (holotype, CUZ! [original citation as herb. Ochoa]). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma luckipechuma Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 107. 1988. Type: Bolivia. Oruro: Challa, CIP-702631 (holotype, CIP!). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma luckipinkula Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 107. 1988. Type: Bolivia. Potosí: Prov. Frias, Callactiri, 3900 m, C. Ochoa 10571 (holotype, CUZ! [original citation as herb. Ochoa]). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov forma wilackaisalla Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 107. 1988. Type: Bolivia. Oruro: Prov. Poopó, Saucari-Toledo, Z. Huamán 815 (holotype, herb. Ochoa, not found). Solanum juzepczukii Bukasov var. lucki Ochoa, Phytologia 65: 107. 1988. Type: Bolivia. La Paz: Prov. Ingavi, Ingavi, Z. Huamán 789 (holotype, CUZ! [original citation as herb. Ochoa]). Description: Herbs 0.4–0.8 m tall, semi-rosette when young, developing to semi-erect. Stems 10–15 mm in diameter at base of plant, unwinged to narrowly winged, sparsely pubescent, green to green splotched with purple. Sympodial units tri- to plurifoliate, not geminate. Leaves odd-pinnate, the blades 14–28 x 6– 10 cm, dark green, membranous to chartaceous, rugose, sparsely pubescent adaxially and abaxially, with hairs like those of the stems; lateral leaβet pairs five to seven, decreasing in size from the apex to the base; most distal lateral leaβets 2.5–6.5 x 1.0– 3.5 cm, slightly decurrent onto the rachis on the basiscopic side, broadly ovate to broadly elliptic, the apex obtuse to acute, the base cuneate or rounded; terminal leaβet 3–7 x 2–4 cm, broadly ovate to broadly elliptic, the apex obtuse to acute, the base cuneate or rounded; interjected leaβets one to four, sessile to short petiolulate, broadly ovate to broadly elliptic; petioles 2–4 cm, pubescent as the stems. Pseudostipules 1–5 mm, auriculate, pubescent with hairs like those of the stem. Inβorescences 5–6 cm, terminal with a subtending axillary bud, generally in distal half of the plant, usually forked, with 10–15 βowers, with all βowers apparently perfect, the axes pubescent with hairs like those of the stem; peduncle 7–16 cm long; pedicels 22–35 mm long in βower and fruit, 1–10 mm apart, articulation indistinct or only slightly distinct, articulated high in the distal half. Flowers homostylous, pentamerous. Calyx 4–10 mm long, the tube 1–2 mm, the lobes 2–9 mm, triangular-lanceolate or ellipticlanceolate, terminated in pointed acumens, the acumens 2.0– 4.5 mm long, with hairs like those of the stem. Corolla 3–4 cm in diameter, rotate, lilac–purple or dark red–purple or medium to dark purple, the tube 1–2 mm long, the acumens c. 2 mm long, the corolla edges βat, not folded dorsally, glabrous abaxially, minutely puberulent adaxially, especially along the midribs, ciliate at the margins, especially at the tips of the corollas. Stamens with the filaments 1–2 mm long; anthers 3–5 mm long, lanceolate, connivent, yellow, poricidal at the tips, the pores lengthening to slits with age. Ovary glabrous; style 6–8 x 1 mm, exceeding stamens by 1–2 mm, straight, papillose in the distal half; stigma capitate. Fruit a globose to ovoid berry, 0.5–1.0 cm in diameter, green to green tinged with purple when ripe, glabrous. Seeds from living specimens ovoid and c. 2 mm long, whitish to greenish in fresh condition and drying brownish, with a thick covering of ‘hair-like’ lateral walls of the testal cells that make the seeds mucilaginous when wet, green–white throughout; testal cells honeycomb-shaped when lateral walls removed by enzyme digestion. Chromosome number: 2 n = 3 x = 36 (Huamán 815, Herbarium of the International Potato Center, Lima, Peru). Phenology: Flowering and fruiting from January to May. Distribution: In the high Andean altiplano between southern Peru and central Bolivia, in cultivated fields, at elevations between 3600 and 4400 m. The name S. juzepczukii was validly published in 1929 with a complete Latin description and a single accession cited as the type (Juzepczuk & Bukasov, 1929, see discussion under S. curtilobum above), but is often cited as having been coined later (in Bukasov, 1930) in indices.Published as part of OVCHINNIKOVA, ANNA, KRYLOVA, EKATERINA, GAVRILENKO, TATJANA, SMEKALOVA, TAMARA, ZHUK, MIKHAIL, KNAPP, SANDRA & SPOONER, DAVID M., 2011, Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae), pp. 107-155 in Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 165 (2) on page 119, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01107.x, http://zenodo.org/record/632642
Results of studying wild relatives of the cultivated plants of Russia
No full textIssuing specific recommendations on the in situ conservation of wild relatives
of cultivated plants (=crop wild relatives, CWR) in Russia is possible only on the
basis of preliminary comprehensive studies of their composition, structure and
features. N. I. Vavilov was the founder of comprehensive studies of cultivated
plant relatives. O. N. Korovina was the first to substantiate the basic principles
of conserving CWR diversity in their natural habitats, and to suggest choosing
the most suitable conservation measures, taking into account the data on the
distribution area of a taxon, the state of habitat condition, the state of the taxon
in nature, and human influence. The current phase of studying CWR diversity
and developing a domestic strategy for its conservation is associated with geopolitical
changes in this country, and with the inclusion of research performed
at VIR on CWR diversity in situ conservation into large-scale international projects.
The fundamental conditions for attributing a wild species to relatives of
cultivated plants are, first, taxonomic or evolutionary and genetic closeness to
a cultivated species, and second, the use of species in breeding, or the potential
introduction of a species into cultivation. The work on the compendium of wild
relatives of cultivated plants of Russia is still far from completion. As a result
of the inventory, a list of 1701 species of relatives of cultivated plants for food
and agriculture was compiled. The largest number of species (965) grows in the
European part of Russia. The Russian Caucasus ranks second in terms of CWR
richness (956 species), and the third in CWR numbers is the Russian Far East
(598 species). The 102 nature reserves included in the study contain 1363 CWR
species. The CWR diversity is most effectively conserved in the nature reserve
network of the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia, and least of all in the nature
reserves of the Russian Caucasus, despite the significant concentration of
CWR species in this region.This study is supported by VIR
project No 0662-2019-0005
Potential of Minor Fruit Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) as New Crops in Breeding for Market Diversification
No full text
