Crossosoma

Journal of the Southern California Botanists, Inc.

Volume 22, Number 1 Spring-Summer 1996

CONTENTS

Notes from the Editor 1

Herbarium Specimens as Documents: Purposes and

General Collecting Techniques — Timothy S. Ross 3 ""

Bylaws of the Southern California Botanists Inc.

[as approved by the membership, April 1996] 40

SCB Fine icial Report for 1995 — Alan P. Romspert 47

Instructions to Contributors (Revised 1996) 48

LIBRARY

JAM 2 3 199/ —

NEW YORK
BOTANICAL GARDEN

Crossosoma

CROSSOSOMA (ISSN 0891-9100) is published twice a year (normally about May and
November) by Southern California Botanists, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation.
Subscription rate to domestic libraries and institutions is $15.00 per calendar year, or
$20.00 for foreign institutions (for individual membership, see inside back cover). Back
issues (Vols. 18-present) are available for $3.00 an issue or $6.00 a volume, postpaid.
Prior to Volume 18, CROSSOSOMA was published six times a year; these back issues are
$1.00 each, or $6.00 per volume, postpaid.

SCB Board of Directors for 1996 (as of May 19%)

President

First Vice President
Second Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Directors-at-large

Ex officio Board Members.

J. Mark Porter (1996)

Terry Daubert (1996)

Steve Boyd ( 1996)

Stanley Spencer (1995-1996)

Alan P. Romspert (1996-1997)

Ileene Anderson (1996-1997)

Henry Bante (1995-1996)

Vince Coleman (1995-1996)

J. Travis Columbus (1995-1996)

Julie Greene (1996-1997)

Orlando Mistretta (1996-1997)

Barry Pngge (1996-1997)

Andrew C. Sanders (1996-1997)

Allan A. Schoenherr (1996-1997)

Joan Stevens ( 1995 p.p.- 1996)

Joy Nishida (Immediate Past President, 1996)
Annette H. Ross (Editor of Leaflets)

Timothy S. Ross (Editor of Crossosoma )

PLEASE NOTE Applications for membership, or requests for subscriptions or back issues
should be sent to Alan Romspert, Treasurer, at the Fullerton address below'. Notices of a
time dated nature (fieldtnps, workshops, symposia, etc.) to be included in the newsletter
Leaflets should be submitted to Annette H. Ross, Editor of Leaflets , at the Claremont
address below. Articles, book reviews, or other items for submission to CROSSOSOMA
should be sent to Timothy S. Ross, Editor of Crossosoma, also at the Claremont address.

O Southern California Botanists, Department of Biology, California State University,
Fullerton, CA 92834, U.S.A.

O Southern California Botanists, c/o Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North
College Avenue, Claremont, CA 9171 1, U.S.A.

Copyright © 1996 by Southern California Botanists, Inc.

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

1

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR...

It was with mixed feelings, in late 1995, that I agreed to be considered for the position
of Editor of CROSSOSOMA. While I knew that it would be difficult to find the time to
compile and publish the journal amid my other varying obligations, I also felt that it would be
an excellent opportunity to try and make a contribution to the SCB by putting some of my
meager abilities to use. In The Southern California Botanists, we have a faithful but largely
silent membership who are engaged in a broad diversity of studies and activities related to the
Southern California flora. Among our members are professional and academic botanists,
parabotanists, botanical consultants, students, ecologists, native plant growers, horti-
culturalists, naturalists, and others. It is clear that each year our members renew their
memberships in the SCB with the desire to learn more about our globally unique flora; yet,
many of them who are making interesting observations and engaging in local flonstic studies
often do not report their own findings because they think their observations will be of
insufficient interest to others in the botanical community. This is a misconception that needs
to be overcome. CROSSOSOMA has the potential to provide a unique voice— that of botanists
working in Southern California— to promote an improved understanding of the plants that
occur here, and the habitats, niches, and vegetation assemblages within which they thrive.
As our former Editor, Curtis Clark made an important first step in separating the more
informal time-dated notices of events and activities into our bulletin Leaflets , thus allowing
CROSSOSOMA the flexibility to be developed into a more formal journal. This laid an
important foundation for moulding our journal into that unique Southern Californian voice.
The unforeseeable shortcoming has been the reluctance, or hesitance, among many of our
members in contributing to that voice.

At the December 1995 meeting of the SCB Board of Directors, my role as Editor of
CROSSOSOMA was formally approved. I had weighed the pros and cons of the position and
knew quite well what I was getting into. Having anticipated the approval, I had already
begun making slight revisions to the format and had enthusiasucally begun to formulate some
of the minor changes that I thought would help the journal to continue its development. My
intention was to get the journal published in a precise and timely manner, and to gradually
expand the nature of its contents. Regrettably, in the early part of 1996, 1 was unexpectedly
confronted w ith personal difficulties which largely brought progress on CROSSOSOMA to a
screeching halt and maimed most efforts to incrementally proceed on its compilation and the
completion of at least this first issue for which I was responsible. The intervening months
have been a major trial, but at the time of this writing (mid-November), compilation of the
journal has once again resumed at a productive level and 1 am exceedingly confident that we
will be able to get CROSSOSOMA back on a regular publication schedule within the next few
months.

The main article in this issue revolves around the importance of collecting herbarium
specimens as a form of documentation for flonstic and other botanical studies. Without
herbanum specimens to venfy records that are reported, one might as well be reading
fictional accounts of the plants that occur at a given site. Herbanum specimens may take a
certain amount of time to process (extra time that few of us seem to have), but they serve an
indispensable role in providing venfiable matenal as the basis for vanous types of studies.
Although this article was onginally intended for publication in about May, it follows nicely
on the tails of our October SCB Symposium, in which the importance of herbanum
specimens was frequently stated. Such specimens are not necessanlv difficult to prepare, but
the number of SCB members who regularly document their findings by such means is
surpnsingly low. The process of collecting and processing herbanum specimens is actually
quite simple, but because many of our members have never been exposed to the basic
premises and techniques of the process (apparently even including some students getting

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

degrees in Botany), it is hoped that the article presented in this issue will be of some
educational value. Improved knowledge of our flora does not, and cannot , proceed on the
basis of unvenfiable reports.

This issue of CROSSOSOMA also includes the Revised Bylaws of The Southern
California Botanists Incorporated, and the Revised Instructions for Contributors. Changes to
the SCB Bylaws were necessary to clarify a few ambiguities and improve a few grammatical
anomalies, but— much more importantly— were also necessary to accomodate more recent
changes in the SCB that were not reflected in the previous version of the Bylaws (the
splitUng of Leaflets from CROSSOSOMA, for example).

Copies of the proposed changes to the SCB Bylaws were sent to the membership for a
vote in the early part of the year. According to the Bylaws, matters voted upon by mail must
receive a response from a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the membership in order to be
valid. Although all of the responses received by the Board were "Yea," a count of the
responses relative to the paid membership at that time revealed that the mail vote would have
been invalid had we received one less vote. Although I can understand a certain amount of
the evident apathy, the Board of Directors of the SCB hopes that any future votes of the
membership by mail will be taken more seriously. The voice and choices of each SCB
member are, cumulatively, cnucal to the guidance and progress of the SCB.

The Instructions to Contributors are being published in this issue because they have
only recently been revised, and it is important to inform prospective contributors of the style,
content, and subject matter that are considered acceptable. Although we wish to make our
journal somewhat more formal and more respectable, most of us do not want it to lose its
comfortable informality and accessibility to the general membership. Full-length articles and
more formal contributions are being reviewed by at least two appropriate "outside"
reviewers, but there is still a desire to see publication of our members' general observations,
notes, points of view, book reviews, and collections that are considered "noteworthy" at a
local level. Our mutual interest is the "Austrocalifomian flora," and any contributions that
improve our knowledge of it— in the present, or in the past— are heartily welcomed.

As the current Editor of CROSSOSOMA, I consider it both a challenge and a great
privilege to serve the SCB in this capacity. I do not know how long I will last as Editor, but I
hope that I can help to promote the journal and its purposes in the interim. 1 trust that — in the
months to come — CROSSOSOMA will be able to establish some precedents that will illustrate
to SCB members the types of notes and observations that are desired in the journal, and
which can contribute to our mutually improved knowledge and appreciation of our Southern
California flora. Our society and our journal can only succeed and progress w ith input from
its diverse membership. I hope that each SCB member will consider their own expertise and
knowledge, and will recognize that their own observations, questions, and perspectives can
contribute to a better understanding of the floras of Southern California and immediately
adjacent regions.

—Timothy S. Ross

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

3

HERBARIUM SPECIMENS AS DOCUMENTS:
PURPOSES AND GENERAL COLLECTING TECHNIQUES

Timothy s. Ross
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
1500 North College Avenue
Claremont, California 9171 1

ABSTRACT: Some of the potential and practical uses of herbarium specimens are discussed, information is
provided on how to collect and prepare useful, representative specimens; and recommendations are given on the
critical information that ought to be recorded on herbarium labels in order to make the specimens a valuable pan
of an herbarium collection Fundamental principles of herbanum specimen care are bnefly given as they relate
to the handling, storage, and longevity of such research materials.

KEY WORDS: documentation, floristics, herbarium, labels, plant collecting, specimens, vascular plants

For many people, the basic concept of an herbanum and the rationale for collecting
herbarium specimens remain elusive. Why would anyone collect a plant, press it and dry it,
mount it on paper with information about it, and then store it indefinitely as a reference? The
information informally presented here is intended to clarify the concept a bit, explain some of
the ways in which herbarium specimens are used, and provide guidelines on the type of
material to collect and the information to record in order to produce a meaningful and more
valuable herbarium specimen. The content is intended for those who might have the need or
desire to collect some herbarium specimens as vouchers, but aren't sure how to go about it.

As with many of the natural sciences. Held botany is an area in which conscientious
amateurs can make significant contributions. The quality of the product, however, has a lot
to do with the care that goes into collecting good, representative plant specimens, as well as
the precision and reliability of the observations recorded on the accompanying labels. If you
are planning to collect herbanum specimens, take the time to learn how to do it properly so
that your collections will contribute accurate information and will become a valuable part of
an herbarium collection.

What follows is one collector's perspective, and was denved — with minor revisions—
from a handout written for an in-house plant collecting workshop given at RSABG in March
of 1994. In the intervening couple of years, photocopies of that handout (under the original
title Basic techniques for field documentation of vascular plants) apparently have been
photocopied and sporadically disseminated as a reference; hence, if it answers any basic
questions about plant collecting, it seems appropriate to make it available to a wider
audience. The guidelines presented here deal only with vascular plants. It should also be
noted that some of the labels used as examples herein have been fictionalized.

What an herbarium specimen looks like.

An herbanum specimen is basically a plant (or several small plants, or a portion of a
large plant) that has been collected, flattened as much as possible in a plant press, dned, then
affixed to an herbarium sheet by gluing or sewing (Fig. 1). An herbanum sheet is acid free
(pH neutral), archivally stable paper that is generally high in cotton rag fiber and measures
approximately 11.5 x 16.5 inches. [This is American Standard size; dimensions in Great
Bntain and other countries may vary slightly.] It is also reasonably sturdy so that it provides
a degree of support for the specimen that has been mounted on it. Onto the same sheet, with
the plant specimen, a label is glued that indicates who collected the specimen, when it was

4

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Fig. 1. What an herbarium specimen looks like (Redrawn from Forman and Bndson 1989 )

collected, where it was collected, and what the plant is (if known). Labels often provide
additional information that helps to make the collection more useful or purposeful, such as
the growth habit of the plant and its flower or fruit color-, the habitat within which the species
was found; the elevation, degree and direction of slope where the plant occurred; the type and
coarseness of soil in which the plant was growing; and so forth. It may also include
information about why the specimen was collected (e.g., a voucher for flonstic studies, for a
botanical consulting project, for a chromosome count, or for a seed collection). Generally,
the more information that a label provides for a collection, the more potential use that
specimen has (provided the information is relevant and accurate). A mounted herbarium
specimen may also have a fragment packet (a small envelope for holding seeds or other loose
pieces of the plant), an accession stamp indicating which herbarium it belongs to (this often
includes an accession number), and one or more annotations or annotauon labels. AnnotaUon
labels are small slips of paper that are glued to the herbarium sheet and which often confirm
the identity of the plant or provide a re-identification. They may also provide additional
information about that specimen or may indicate that a piece of plant material was removed
for detailed studies. Like the herbarium sheet itself, fragment packets and annotation labels
are generally made of archivally stable, acid-free paper.

What is an herbarium?

An herbarium is, in essence, a reference library of preserved plant specimens that are
used in studies of specific plants, and of plant diversity. The majority of herbanum
specimens consist of pressed and dried plants or portions of plants, but may also include
liquid-preserved (fixed or "pickled") specimens, or a collection of wood samples (a
xylarium). The term herbarium is derived from Latin herba, "springing vegetation," or "a
green plant," and was originally used for books in which were preserved samples of herbs
that had medicinal and/or culinary' value. Ultimately the term was transfemtively utilized for
any repository of plants preserved for reference. Today, an herbanum may consist of a
solitary cabinet at a community college with representatives of the region's local plants, or
may occupy several rooms in a museum and have representative plant specimens from
throughout the world. In each case, the specimens serve as an important reference collection
that contnbutes to an improved knowledge of plant diversity, locally and globally.

Why collect herbarium specimens?

Botanists — amateur and professional alike— have vanous reasons for collecting plant
specimens. As a starting point, many botanists collect specimens as an aid in learning the
plants of a particular region. By collecting a good, representative specimen of a plant, one

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

5

can use the best available botanical references to find out what it is. After collecting several
similar-looking plants in a given area and keying them out, one may discover that they
actually represent several different species. Conversely, one may collect several plants that
look slightly different from each other, yet discover on keying them that they are really all
the same species, but look slightly different from each other because of environmental
conditions. Perhaps one was growing in full sun, another was growing in a moist, shady
situation, and still another was considerably larger than the others because it was growing on
a recently burned slope where competition from other plants was lessened and there were
more available nutrients in the soil. If you do not collect those representative specimens, or
you collect them and throw them away, then you effectively have no provable record of the
diversity that you observed and no primary material to examine again later. Collecting and
preserving representative plant specimens, along with carefully recording information about
them, contributes to a better understanding of their distribution and variation by maintaining
a permanent record that can be observed and verified by others.

Of great importance, herbarium specimens often serve as a historical record: a single
humble specimen may provide documentation that a particular species once occurred in an
area that is now completely urbanized or converted to agriculture. This kind of distnbuuonal
information is valuable to conservationists who are interested in studying the decline of a
species. It is also of interest to biogeographers who, by studying natural plant distribution
patterns, can often learn about the migrations of plant species over geologic time, and can
gain insight into evolutionary trends and potential relationships among various taxa. In an
area like Southern California, there have been so many profound changes through the
historical sequence of grazing, agriculture, and urbanization, that it is now very difficult to
reconstruct an understanding of past plant distributions and vegetation assemblages in the
areas now converted to concrete, asphalt, and introduced weeds. In this regard, our window
into the past is often provided by historical herbarium specimens which record the presence
of a species at a particular place at a given point in time. Many Southern Californians are
oblivious to the trends of habitat destruction. If you get an opportunity, look at a map of the
Los Angeles Basin from around the turn of the century. There are roads and railway lines
between small population centers, but it's likely that few if any people of the time could have
envisioned a nearly solid carpet of urban development from the Santa Monica Mountains to
the Santa Anas and the San Gabriels, with the low network of hills covered in housing tracts.
It would be nice to preserve areas of natural vegetation for all time, but because of
exponential population growth, land use decisions, the destructive behavior of short-sighted
individuals, and progressive invasion of weeds, there are probably no habitats immune to
destruction. With this inability to conserve areas ad infinitum in order to study them, other
methods are often necessary fora; least documenting some of the natural diversity that they
house. In the case of plants, herbarium specimens often provide a useful means.

One of the most important uses of herbarium collections is in their value for
revisionarv taxonomic work. Many botanical researchers specialize in studying one or more
specific groups of plants. By bringing together and carefully examining a broad assortment
of specimens from numerous herbaria, they can get a good idea of the range of variation in a
group of plants. Each specimen or collection can contribute additional information to the
overall picture. One specimen, compared with several similar specimens collected over a
broad geographical area, may provide information about the natural distribution limits of a
species, or an unusual habitat that the species was not known to occur in, or the elevational
range in which the species can grow, or the typical vegetation assemblage with which the
species occurs, or an unusual flower size or form that occurs in a given geographical range or
habitat, and so forth. A single collection that "seems" to be a particular species but doesn't
quite fit the description may, after careful study, turn out to be a previously unknown variety,
subspecies, or species. If that first field botanist had walked past that plant and never
collected an herbarium specimen, its existence might never be made known. The collections
of scores of botanists thus contribute cumulatively to improved knowledge of a particular

6

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

species or group of plants, or to the plants of a particular region. After studying the diversity
of herbarium specimens, a conscientious taxonomist will append an annotation label to each
one indicating whether it is correctly identified or re-identifying it if it isn't. Provided that the
taxonomist is competent, this annotation generally increases the useful value of the specimen
by verifying its identity. Some botanists may try to do taxonomic work in a particular plant
group without consulting the great diversity of specimens housed in herbaria, choosing
instead to try and formulate a classification scheme based on a very limited number of
specimens that they have personally seen in the field, grown, or personally collected.
Because they are oblivious to the broader range of variation in a species, or group of species,
they may end up with a very skewed, unrealistic taxonomic concept. Consequently, they
may write a key to the species that is idealistic, based on a very small sample size, and that
has no relevance to the range of variation exhibited by the taxon in the real world. The end
result is often a key to the species that "doesn't work." By consulting the diversity of
herbarium specimens, however, a researcher can examine a cross-section of the natural
variation found in a particular group and can often begin to distinguish between the
consistent nature of some morphological characters, plasticity of other characters, and the
patterns that are exhibited over a broad, geographical area. This results in a better, more
realistic understanding of the group being studied.

Herbarium specimens provide much of the basic information that is found in regional
published floras. A botanist who studies the plants of a particular region (a floristic botanist,
or floristician) relies heavily on the specimens and label data in an herbarium. With physical
specimens to study, the botanist can usually verify that the specimen is what the label says it
is and, by examining a broad assortment of collections of that taxon, can get a good idea of
the natural morphological variation of the plant, its appearance at various developmental
stages, its geographic distribution pattern, the habitat(s) or vegetation assemblage(s) in which
it typically occurs, its elevational range, what time of year it is typically found blooming or
fruiting in the field, and so on.

In order to compile a worthwhile regional flora, however, the total diversity of an area
must be sampled and documented. Some people may only collect the most obvious plants in
an area (trees and shrubs, or the ones with the biggest or prettiest flowers). If 93% of the
plants in that area are subtle annuals and herbaceous perennials, or don't have "showy"
flowers and consequently don't get documented, then what do we ultimately know about the
plant diversity in that area? Sometimes the most interesting plants in a particular habitat are
the very small annuals— variously known as "knee-plants," "belly plants" (because you have
to get down on your knees or belly to see them), or "dinkophytes" (dinky plants). These
small plants are often overlooked by the casual botanist. On the other hand, a few botanists
may get so engrossed in the small herbs that they are oblivious to the trees overhead. If a
geographical area has been visited by various botanists over time, chances are reasonably
good that their diversity of collecting styles will help to "round out" the representation of
plants from that area. However, if you are botanizing in an area that has not been visited and
documented before (and especially if you are the only one to botanize there before its natural
diversity is destroyed) then you should make an effort to document as many of the species as
possible. A good field botanist will critically examine, and try to document, the full range of
plant diversity in a given area.

An herbarium specimen can also provide documentation for ecological studies such
as parasite/host relationships and insect/plant interactions. For example, many species of
mistletoe (such as Arceuthobium and Phoradendron) are fairly host specific. Consequently,
the label on a specimen of Phoradendron densum may indicate the host plant as Juniper us
californica (preferably with a spng of the juniper attached to the same herbarium sheet), or
may record it on Pinus monophylla (single-leaf pinyon pine) as an unusual occurrence.
Conversely, an entomologist studying butterflies may collect an herbarium specimen of
Phoradendron densum as a voucher to document it as the food plant of the Great Purple
Hairstreak larvae (Allides halesus corcorani). That voucher specimen serves as a

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

7

documenting basis for their observations. It can be examined by a botanist and its
identification confirmed, or it could turn out to be another species of Phoradendron that the
Hairstreak was not previously known to feed on. In the latter case, without a voucher to
examine and confirm, the error would not be found out and there would be no concomitant
improvement in knowledge of the Hairstreak's foodplants.

Herbarium specimens also provide documentation for other forms of research. In a
sense, they provide a degree of accountability. For example, an herbarium specimen may
consist of an identifiable plant with a label indicating that seeds from that plant were used to
obtain a chromosome count for the species. Without that documenting specimen, there is no
way to know that the plant whose chromosomes were counted was accurately identified.
Someone could publish a paper stating that Lotus scoparius ssp. scoparius has a chromosome
count of n=8. Without an herbarium voucher as proof, no one might ever know that the plant
whose chromosomes that researcher counted was actually Melilotus indicus, a common weed
that they had misidentified. A voucher provides the necessary documentation to prove what
plant was being studied. This kind of accountability is very important for a diversity of
studies. Brian Boom of the New York Botanical Garden, speaking at a botanical symposium
in Texas, recently stated the simple rule: "no voucher: no data " A researcher who does not
collect voucher specimens, or has not annotated specimens that they've studied, may be able
to hide shoddy scholarship for many years (this is a warning— not a helpful hint). They may
publish their profound observations and conclusions, but if they have left behind no evidence
of the plants or materials that they purportedly studied then their results must be viewed with
necessary skepticism.

Herbarium specimens are also used as primary resources for plant locality data. The
locations given on labels are often used by conservationists to compile known localities for
rare plants so that those populations may be reconfirmed and/or monitored. A horticulturist
may use label data in an herbarium in order to locate a particular species for the purpose of
collecting seeds or cuttings for cultivation. A researcher may use the data to find out where
they can go to study living plants in the field, or collect material for laboratory studies.
Consequently, the more precise the locality data on a specimen the more useful it will
ultimately be.

Continued advances in research methods may also make new uses of herbarium
specimens. In recent years, for example, researchers have been able to extract DNA from
well-preserved herbarium specimens in order to perform comparative molecular studies.
Using such material, they can leam about genetic variation within species as well as make
inferences about the potential relationships among groups of species. It is preferable to
collect such material from living plants in the field or greenhouse, but there may be instances
in which the plant in need of study is so rare that it can no longer be found in the field, or the
area where the plant occurs may be closed to outsiders, or traveling several 'hundred or
thousand miles to find and collect material may not be feasible. Using herbarium specimens
in this manner is a consumptive process, since it consumes a portion of the specimen. While
herbarium specimens are meant to last indefinitely, using a portion for molecular, anatomical,
palynological, or other studies may sometimes be allowed if it is clearly justified and does
not destroy the specimen. However, a courteous and conscientious researcher will first seek
the permission of the Herbarium Curator poor to removal of any material and, if and when
permission is granted, will clearly annotate the specimen indicating who removed which
portion and quantity from the specimen for study.

It is clear that herbaria house a tremendous amount of information and continue to be
a rich, primary reference for plant studies. There is no substitute for an original plant
specimen that can be examined, dissected, and compared with others. By carefully collecting
and preserving representative plant specimens, both amateur and professional botanists
incrementally contribute to a better understanding of plant diversity, variation, relationships,
and distribution patterns.

8

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Preparation / Basic equipment for collecting and pressing plant specimens.

If you are going to be a serious and effective plant collector, you should get in the
habit of carrying everything that you'll need. Make a checklist for yourself, if necessary, just
to be sure that you don't forget anything critical before you head out to the field. Some
people botanize within a few feet of their car, but remember the plants won't come to you;
you have to go to the plants. With that in mind, be prepared to do some walking, hiking,
climbing, crawling, and maybe even some wading. There are two basic categories of needs
when you go out into the field: 1) human comfort and survival needs (food, clothing,
shelter); and 2) the tools and supplies to effectively perform your task. A third category
involves optional, or luxury, items that may be carried along.

Category 1 — Items relating to human comfort and survival are essential to keep in
mind before you go to the field. You cannot effectively concentrate on your task if you are
dehydrated, out of water, suffering from hypothermia, and separated from the comforts of
your automobile by five miles of dense chaparral. Always plan ahead for the type of field
conditions that will be encountered. Dress appropriately for the type of vegetation and
weather that may be encountered. If you're going to be pushing through brush, wear jeans or
similar resistant clothing. Leather gloves may also be helpful in pushing aside harsh or
thorny brush. Sturdy hiking boots are usually essential. Carry a jacket or coat that will keep
you warm if you get caught out late or intend to stay overnight. I have now spent two
unplanned nights on ridgetops in chaparral, and 1 can vouch for the value of jackets,
emergency blankets, extra food and water, or other items that may make an unplanned
overnight stay in the wilderness less dangerous. Light-weight rain gear takes little space, but
can make a great difference when that unexpected storm front comes rolling in. It is always a
good idea to carry a flashlight (with fresh batteries) even if you don't plan to be out after
dark. Carry adequate amounts of food and water (one gallon per person per day, as a general
rule of thumb), the quantity dependent on the duration of the field outing as well as the
strenuousness of the hike. It is preferable to carry a little loo much food and water, than to
find out later that you've taken too little. As an animal that has and cames belongings, a
backpack will be essential to storing and transporting your extra comfort and survival items
as well as many of the tools and supplies for performing your task. If your backpack is too
small to fit everything into it, don't leave behind half your water; either buy a bigger
backpack or re-assess whether your itinerary is realistic.

Category 2 — In order to make good field collections of plants you will need to
carry several items. The first is a field press. Because the specimens that you collect will
look their best if they are pressed while fresh (prior to wilting and collapsing on themselves),
carrying a field press allows you to make better- looking and more useful specimens. Field
presses come in various forms. Perhaps the most common one is the oak-frame press (Fig.
2). It consists of two oakwood end-pieces in lattice form measuring 12 x 18 inches between
which are several sheets of corrugated cardboard (often called "ventilators") of the same
dimensions. The frame, with its corrugates, is generally held together by two straps that are
used to cinch it tight when pressing plants. Another form of field press is becoming
increasingly popular. It is generally made of water-resistant nylon pack cloth and its rigidity
is provided by inserting corrugates (ventilators) into two lateral pockets to provide a backing
(Fig. 3). It can be used to field-press numerous specimens, then the flaps are folded inward
and fastened over the pressed material, and the press is closed and earned like a bnefcase.
Regardless of which land of press is used, it should be stocked with plenty of pressing
papers. Newspaper is generally the pressing matenal of choice because it is cheap and
readily available. [Some newspaper inserts, such as advertisements on glossy papier or
portions of newspnnt that have been saturated with pnnter's ink, are less absorbtive and
should be avoided.] A double-folded newspaper, when fuliy opiened, generally measures
about 22.5 x 27.5 inches. Each of these full sheets is cut in half down the center fold to give
you single pressing papers that measure about 22.5 x 13.75 inches. When this single sheet is

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Sprmg-Summer 1996

9

Fig. 2. Traditional field-press with a lattice-type oakwood frame, pressing papers, and cinching straps, as well
as a few tools of the trade (Illustration from Anonymous [USDA] 1971.)

Fig. 3. Newer style field-press with nylon shell and internal compression straps (corrugates and pressing papers
not shown); right, folded closed for carrying (lllustrauon from Savile 1962 )

folded over, it gives you a pressing paper measuring about 1 1.25 x 13.75 inches with the fold
along the long edge. This is generally a satisfactory size in which to press material. The
"Calendar" section of the Los Angeles Times generally is single-folded and comes in the
proper format for plant-pressing use. The larger double-folded sheets should be cut in
advance to save time in the field. A single sheet of newsprint is used for each specimen,
unless the specimen is particularly thorny, stiffly branched, or bulky, in which case you may
want to double or triple the paper to prevent ripping or puncturing of the pressing paper

An essential part of your collecting will be the keeping of accurate observations and
data in your field notebook. This may simply be a spiral-bound notebook, or a lancy,
waterproof bound book with blank pages. Always carry it with you into the field, even when
you think that you probably won't collect anything. Field notes must be written down at the
site of the collection: do not try to rely on your memory. Associated with your field
notebook, you must always have pens and/or pencils. Pens should have indelible ink in case
you and your notebook fall into a stream or you find your collecting venture interrupted by
rain. [Test your pens for indelibility prior to using them in the field. I currently recommend
the blue- or black-ink versions of "Uni-ball Deluxe Micro" pens ] A pencil is considered
indelible, but may tear through the paper fibers if the notebook gets wet.

Another indispensable part of your collecting venture will include maps. Because the
accurate location of your plant collection is of utmost importance, you should always plan
ahead to have a map for the area in which you'll be collecting. If you are collecting along
roads or in developed areas, road maps may be adequate. Thomas Brothers Guides, as well

10

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

as maps by the American Automobile Associauon (AAA), are often quite good in this regard.
If you are collecting in an undeveloped area such as in the mountains or out on the open
desert, make a point of obtaining United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps
for that area. Topographic maps may also be useful in urbanized areas if you want
latitude/longirude or elevational information. If you want to reduce wear-and-tear on your
topographic map, photocopy the portion of the map coven ng the area w here you intend to
botanize, and carry that into the field with you. Learn to read maps so that you always know
where you are relative to topographic features. If you are certain of your locality, you may
also pencil-in your collection sites and collection numbers on the map. This will be a
tremendous aid to you when you are generaung labels for your collections. Photocopies of
maps, with collection sites clearly indicated, may later be glued into your collecting notebook
for reference.

When going into the field to collect herbanum specimens, you should always take
collecting bags. Rather than opening up your field press for every plant that you collect, it is
often easier to accumulate several collections in a plastic bag and then make periodic stops to
put those several collections into the press. A few decades ago, botanists carried a cylindrical
metal container called a vasculum into which they placed their collections to keep them fresh.
The advent of plastics, however, has largely obviated the need for a heavier, bulkier
vasculum. Particularly useful are large plastic garbage bags for specimens taken from woody
plants and large herbs; Ziploc® bags in gallon and quart sizes are ideal for keeping
collecuons of small, delicate annuals separate and fresh until they can be put into the press.
For the large collecting bags, trash compactor bags are sturdier than normal trash bags
because they are several mil thick and can stand up to brushy field conditions better without
ripping. In addition, white bags are preferable to black or brown bags because they will
absorb less heat from the sun and keep your collections a little cooler. Always carry an
assortment of plastic collecung bags in your backpack or with your field press. If you are
collecting during the summer and the air is particularly hot and dry, some water should be
sprinkled into the collecting bag ( not poured) to keep your collections a little fresher. When
you stop momentarily along your hike, try to place your bagged specimens in a shady spot (if
possible) to prevent the material cooking in the bag.

In order to collect good specimens, you will need digging and pruning tools to
facilitate the collecting. A good herbanum specimen is representative of the entire plant;
therefore, annuals should be collected whole, with their tap roots, and herbaceous perennials
should also include their root system whenever possible. Getting at the root system will
usually require a sturdy digging utensil such as a large thick-bladed knife, a rock pick, a
garden trowel, or another similar tool. Do not dig up or disturb the root systems of nearby
plants that you do not intend to collect; remember that you are a careful field botanist, not a
badger. In order to collect specimens of woody plants such as large shrubs or trees, a pair of
sharp hand pruners are best [note that, despite the name, these are not used for pruning
hands]. This is preferable to pulling and twisting a branch until it finally breaks. As in your
second-grade art class, the neatness of your work counts for a lot. If your excursion is
focused on collecting materials from trees (such as an autumn tnp to collect oaks with
acorns), and you will not have to hike very far from your vehicle, you may consider taking
along a pole pruner in order to reach branches that might otherw ise be inaccessible.

Finally, as part of your preplanning, you should make sure that you carry along any
necessary collecting permits applicable to the area in which you'll be collecting. These are
generally required for public lands such as Nauonal Forests, National Parks and Monuments,
State Parks, and land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). General
collecting permits for National Forest lands usually exclude wilderness areas, so be sure that
your permit covers your intended collecting area. Do not collect on private land unless you
have the permission of the land owner. In such a case, it would be wise to get the owner's
permission in writing. Again, by knowing how to read maps accurately and being able to

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

11

place yourself confidently at a given locality on the map, you may be able to avoid trouble
with suspicious locals by pointing out that you are on public land— not on theirs.

Category 3 — There are also other items that might be viewed as optional or luxury
accessories to take into the field. To some botanists, items mentioned here may be
considered Category 1 or 2 items, depending on what they consider to be indispensible.
Among these are a local flora that you can use to key-out plants in the field, if you want to
try and identify your plants on-site. Other items that many botanists drag into the field with
them include a magnifying lens (usually lOx or greater); a camera with more film than you
intend to use; water purification tablets or a manual water pump with fine filter (necessary if
you are on an extended hike and may run out of water); an altimeter-, a compass', a pair of
binoculars', a First-Aid kit', a snake-bite kit', a sleeping bag and a tent if you're going to be out
overnight. There are a diversity of other items that may be carried with you, depending on
the nature of your excursion. In my daypack, I also tend to take 2.25 x 3.5-inch manila coin
envelopes for collecting seeds. In this way I can collect mature seeds of native plants that I
want to grow when I encounter them, rather than having to try and guess when they'll be
mature and making special tnps to collect them. Extra plastic bags can also be carried for
collecting cuttings for propagation, or collecting other plant materials for research. If you
will only be out for the day and intend to collect cuttings or other live materials for
propagation or research, it is wise to have an ice-chest back at your vehicle into which you
can place these materials to keep them fresh and cool.

How to collect useful specimens:

Where to collect — Where you collect is important. Some people only collect
plants at roadside. The end result is often a skewed collection of plants that occur only in
disturbed areas. This is not entirely "bad," however. Somewhat under-represented in
herbarium collections are plants of undeveloped lots and other disturbed areas. If you are a
perceptive collector, botanizing in such localities may allow you to document weeds that
were not previously known for the county or state and may also reveal weeds that have not
been seen for decades, thus providing evidence that the plant is still a part of the local flora.
Documenting interesting native plants, however, usually requires getting away from
anthropogenic disturbances and hiking away from roadsides and habitations into relatively
undisturbed vegetation. Hiking through brush or woodlands or along streams may present
some challenges to human comfort, but very often it results in a much better understanding
and appreciation of native plant communities, habitats, and diversity. You'll rapidly discover
that botanizing at the open door of your car is very limiting.

The greatest satisfaction comes from botanizing in a wide diversity of habitats and
gradually gaining familiarity with the equally diverse plants that occur in them. When
collecting in a new area, make an effort to explore and document each of the different
habitats represented there. Some people have the faulty idea that plants at a site are evenly
mixed and distributed. They will collect in an area a few yards square, think they've seen it
all, and drive elsewhere. In fact, even in an area that looks relatively uniform, if you take the
time to wander over the whole site you'll often discover isolated small colonies or individuals
of species that you didn't observe earlier. A good Held botanist is mobile. In your attempt to
discover the broader range of plant diversity at a site, you will need to explore the flats, the
puddles, the washes, the draws, the canyon bottoms, the stream beds and margins, the bases
of the slopes and the ridgetops, the gradual slopes and the steep slopes; the different slope
exposures— north, south, east, west, and points in between; the various substrates— clay,
sand, gravel, cobbles, scree, boulder outcrops, and humusy leaf litter; grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, understories, and the myriad microhabitats resulting from countless variables,
whether perceptible or not. Even thorough field botanists can go back to an area where they
have previously botanized and still find plants that they'd overlooked.

12

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

On the other hand, some people will go back repeatedly to a popular collecting site
and recollect the same plants that they have collected there a dozen times before. This adds
little to the overall picture. In the meantime, areas that haven't been explored often remain
unexplored. The value in returning to a site where you have collected before is that it allows
you to document other plants that were not flowering or fruiting when you were there earlier.
This assumes that you are factoring in the seasonal nature of the flora.

Pick an area that isn't very well known botamcally (a "floristic black-hole"), and
systematically document the plants in it. No one will ever know about that area's plant
diversity until someone takes the first step of exploring it and collecting voucher specimens.

Type of material to collect — Collect representative material with flowers and/or
fruits. Avoid collecting "sterile" material whenever possible. The term "sterile," in this
context, does not mean that the plant is incapable of reproducing; it simply means that the
material lacks reproductive parts. Because plant classification schemes rely heavily on the
arrangement and features of reproductive parts, collecting representative material that is in
"good" flowering or fruiting condition is your best assurance of being able to accurately
identify what plant you have. Exceptions are occasionally made to this rule. The primary
exception is when you are documenting the flora of an area and happen to encounter an
unusual plant or an unusual occurrence of a plant that is in sterile condition at the time. If it
is in an area that you very likely will not be able to return to later (due to remoteness, for
example), and the plant is distinctive enough that it can potentially be identified based on
vegetative features alone, then it may be worth collecting as a sterile voucher for floristic
studies. In this way you will have a physical specimen that can later be re-examined or
shown to an expert. If you find yourself in a suriilar situation, but doubt that the plant is
sufficiently distinctive to be identified on vegetative characters alone, you may want to
collect propagation material to grow it at home until the plant blooms and can be identified.
This is an advanced technique only for those whose "desire to know'" equals their desire to
document. 1 have occasionally done this in order to get fertile, identifiable material when
collecting in a remote area. This requires some basic horticultural skills and effort, but is a
satisfying— if not fun— way of learning a new plant. If you do this, indicate clearly on your
label that the material was collected on a particular date, grow n for awhile, and then pressed
and preserved on a later date. If you collect the plant as sterile material in March, grow it
until September when it blooms, and then press the flowering material and indicate only that
it was collected in March, then you run the risk of introducing false information into the
literature. On the basis of that specimen, a botanis} may note iaa flora that the species has
been putatively collected in flowering condition in March, even though — from other
specimens— it is generally known to flower only in September and October.

Collecting "representative matenal" means taking a voucher that is fairly typical of a
particular species that you want to document. If botanists only collected and preserved
"freak" plants, we would ultimately have a fairly skewed idea of what they look like in the
wild. There is nothing wrong with documenting unusual forms of a plant, but they should
supplement— not replace— a normal collection. A good representation of a species in an
herbarium will include numerous fairly "typical" specimens, some depauperate (small, poorly
developed) specimens, some unusually robust plants, some in flower and some in fruit, all
collected from throughout the taxon's range.

A good, representative collection also implies taking an appropriately sized sample
with important or relevant diagnostic features (remember that a standard herbarium sheet
measures about 1 1.5 x 16.5 inches). Little snippets or pieces of plants that are scrappy and
non-representative are called "top-snatches," and are frowned upon in herbaria. Top-snatches
tend to be typical of many student or amateur collections but are usually just a reflection of a
lack of proper training in collecting techniques. If you are hiking dow n a trail with a group
of people, you all stop to look at a very interesting shrub in full bloom, and before moving on
you pinch off a 2-inch stem tip with three small leaves and a flower and press it in your

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

13

notebook, then you have just taken a classic "top-snatch." It's fine if you just want to use it as
a bookmark, but if you try to pass it off as an herbarium specimen then you're performing a
dis- service. Many herbarium curators would fling it in the trash and this, unfortunately, has
been the fate of many student collections around the world. Take the time to collect
worthwhile specimens.

Becoming a good field botanist requires a familiarity with all the plants encountered
in the field, so make a point of collecting and learning both the natives and the weeds. If you
do not know what a plant is, and it's in good condition (i.e., has flowers and/or fruits), collect
it and find out what it is. I have been in the field with people who will only collect plants
that they already know, and will not collect a plant if they don't know what it is. This is
illogical and incomprehensible. Particularly frustrating to herbarium personnel is when one
of these individuals comes into the herbarium without a specimen and vaguely tries to
describe the interesting plant that they saw so that they can be told what it was. If you see
something that you don't know, collect a good, representative specimen so that it can be
identified. Next time you see it in the field you'll know what it is... —and if perchance you
never see it in the field again, you at least have that first voucher specimen that was collected.
It may turn out to be a plant not previously known to occur in that area. Remember: no
voucher: no data.

How to collect and press the specimens / What kind of information to record
while collecting.

Notebooks, and notes on note-taking — [See Category 2 under the heading
"Preparation / Basic equipment for collecting and pressing plant specimens," above.] When
you arrive at a new site where you will be collecting plants, crack open your field notebook
and begin by writing down the following: date, general and specific location, names of any
other people with whom you are collecting, overall vegetation type and physiographic
features, and the names of the visually dominant plants in the area (i.e., those that contribute
to the character of the overall vegetation type). If you do not know what the locally
dominant plants are, then start by collecting them. It is easiest to keep track of your
specimens and their related records by assigning them chronological collection numbers as
you collect them. You may want to keep track of your consecutive collection numbers by
writing them at the top of each new page in your field notebook. I find that this prevents
having to leaf back through several pages of notes to see what the last assigned number was.
When you collect a plant, write the next sequential number in your field notebook (what is
now its "assigned" number), then write down your "field ID." The "field ID" is simply your
best guess as to what the plant is. If you know what the family is, but have no idea what
genus it belongs to, simply write down the family name (but leave room in your notebook to
write in the correct name when you key it out). If you think that you know what genus it is,
but aren't sure, then write it down with a question mark (e.g, Eragrostis?) If you already
know the plant, great! If you don't already know it, your field ID and collection number will
serve as a "handle" on that collection until you can identify it. As you collect each plant,
write down the relevant information about its microhabitat, habitat, size, growth habit, fruit
or flower colors, local abundance, associated species, and anything else that will help you to
identify the specimen later and also make the collection more useful. [See "Important
information to include on all labels," below.] Try to leave some free space with each entry so
that you can add some notes when keying your specimen, or at least have room for the
correct name and author when you identify it.

Collecting — For annuals, collect the whole plant including the taproot; if they are
small, collect several representative samples or a representative range of sizes at the site, so
that you can "fill" at least one herbarium sheet (see Figure 1, first two illustrations). For
herbaceous or smaller suffrutescent perennials, collect the whole plant if possible; if there are
portions of the plant that you cannot collect, make notes on them. Taller/longer plant

14

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Fig. 4. Plant specimens folded during pressing in order to fit onto an herbarium sheet when dry Depending on
how many folds are made on the specimens, this is variously known as an "N-fold," a "zig-zag fold," or an
"accordion fold " This type of folding of the specimens is frequently used with grasses and sedges since they
may have long leaves andior culms In the third illustration, note that squares of card-stock paper with slits cut
in them are being used to hold the folded leaves and culms in place while the specimens are pressed and dried
Use of this technique is highly recommended by many agroslologisls and cancologisls as a means of "beating
the specimens into submission " For plant mounters, it is much easier to mount specimens that are not
constantly trying to "straighten-out" and break free (Left, redrawn from McFarlane 1985; center two, redrawn
from Savile 1962; right, redrawn from Forman and Bridson 1989 )

collections may often be folded in the press so that they will fit, in their entirety, onto an
herbarium sheet (Fig. 4). Alternatively, very large or tall specimens can be cut into lengths,
if necessary, and pressed individually. This will result in a multiple-sheet collection (e.g.,
sheet 1 of 2 [upper stem and flowers), sheet 2 of 2 [lower stem and root system]). You will
probably learn the hard way that if you collect only the top of the plant, the key that you are
trying to use will ask for characters relating to the root system or the basal rosette of leaves.
Tufted or "clump-forming" grasses and sedges can often be divided into several specimens to
reduce the amount of bulk being pressed on each sheet. When you divide the tuft, make sure
that each specimen you press is fertile (has at least one flowering or fruiting culm), has
representative leaves, and includes the root system. You will often need to know whether the
grass or sedge is rhizomatous or not. Get in the habit of collecting representative specimens.
Remember top-snatches are a no-no. When collecting a representative portion of a larger,
woody plant— whether tree or shrub— make notes in your fieldbook on the size and growth
habit, and on any potentially valuable characters of the plant that will not be evident from the
pressed specimen itself. Sometimes the bark of particular woody plants can be very
distinctive; consequently, it may be useful on occasion to cut off a representative sample of
bark to glue onto the same herbarium sheet as the collected branch portion.

Notes on numbering — Some novices to botanical collecting may be confused by
what constitutes a "collection," or what assortment of plants should have discrete collection
numbers assigned to them. A specific "collection" consists of all the plants of the same taxon
that you collect on one date in one small area. If you collect the same species twice on the
same day while hiking a 20-mile trail— once at the west base of Hypothetical Mountain and
again at mid-slope on the east side of the peak — those are two separate localities and will,
therefore, constitute two separate collections. Even if the species is the same, the habitat,
locality, associated species, and other details will generally differ. Be sure that your labels

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

15

reflect that difference. It doesn't matter how many duplicates of that species you collect at
one of those sites; at one site they all represent the same collection number.

The pressing process — The actual pressing process is straight-forward. Find a
convenient place to open your field press, preferably out of the wind and where the ground is
fairly level. [You will ultimately find that— no matter how mild a day it is— opening a plant
press generally signals the Wind gods to act up. It is fairly predictable, but usually less than
amusing when you are trying to hold everything down and get the pressing done.] Take a
pressing sheet of newspaper, and write the plant collection number on the outside margin
(you will already have written all the relevant data into your field notebook, next to the
assigned number and your field ID, when you collected the material). It is preferable to wnte
the collection number on the outside of the newspaper— this way you can rapidly see the
number without having to open the sheet. Place the open newsprint in the field press,
carefully organize the specimen(s) on the sheet, and close the sheet, holding it down while
preparing the next newspaper. Press the next specimen in the same fashion on top of it.
When you have pressed several plants in this fashion, you may place a cardboard corrugate
(ventilator) on top of the stack to provide even pressure on the plants below. After field-
pressing all your current collections, close and tighten the press, and proceed onward. As
long as your specimens remain in their appropriately numbered sheets of newsprint they will
be easily correlated with the correct collection information in your notebook.

This process of pressing numerous specimens with a minimum number of
corrugates/ventilators is called "field-pressing." Its purpose is to preliminarily press as much
fresh material as possible with minimal bulk. At the end of the day, however, you will want
to transfer each individual specimen into a "drying press" (See "How to dry the specimens,"
below).

Tips — 1). Modifying your numbering to account for "mixed sheets." or specimens
that accidentally didn't get numbered in the field. — From time to time you may discover
that you have unintentionally pressed more than one taxon under only one number. This can
even happen when you think that you are collecting only one taxon (this may often be the
case with Cryplantha species or some of the varieties of Vulpia microslachys , for example).
When you discover your error, this is most easily dealt with by appending letters to your
collection number to once again make them discrete identifiers (e.g., 1027a = Cryplantha
nevadensis var. rigida\ 1027b = C. barbigera). This prevents having to apply another
number that is out of sequential and chronological order. If you accidentally forgot to
number one or more collections in the field, and have not yet begun collecting elsewhere,
then the next sequential numbers can be applied. If, however, you do not discover the error
prior to visiting additional sites and assigning subsequent numbers, then you can use some of
your numbers from that specific earlier site and turn them into "a's" and " b's " (and "c's" and
"d s" if necessary). If for some reason I think that I might have one or two collections from a
site that did not get numbered (—this may be the case in a situation where I am "humed" or
collecting with other individuals who are bringing me plants—), I sometimes wnte down one
or two extra numbers in my notebook at the end of my sequence before resuming collecting
at another site. I call these numbers "clauses," because their specific use is for application to
collections that might have gotten overlooked. Sometimes they get used; other times
everything is accounted for and they do not. Remember that the numbenng system is an
organizational convenience, not a method of keeping precise track of how many taxa you
have collected. If you have some "clause" numbers that go unused, or you have to split a
specific number into a, b, and c to account for the taxa that have been collected, don't worry
about it. What is important is collecting quality specimens and writing accurate data that can
be directly correlated with each other.

2). Preventing complete loss of the data in your field notebook should your notebook
get lost or destroyed. — Depending upon how many specimens you collect, how small your
handwriting is, how many pages your field notebook has, and how extensive your notes are, a
field notebook may last from a few weeks to a few years. Because the notes in your

16

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

notebook are irreplaceable, it is a very good idea to photocopy the recent pages of your
notebook and keep them in a safe place just in case your original notebook is somehow lost
or destroyed. If you have six months' worth of accumulated notes, have not yet generated
labels for any of those collections, and have not photocopied the previous pages for
safekeeping, then you will very likely have a prominent sinking feeling when your notebook
gets fumbled over the edge of a 60-foot precipice and plummets into a quickly moving
stream below. Having photocopies of the earlier notes provides a form of insurance against
complete loss. Although any notes that have been taken on your current excursion might be
lost, you will at least have the earlier notes (preserved via photocopies) that can be used for
processing your earlier collections. Also, as you watch your notebook plunge into the stream
below, your memory will still be fresh enough for the day’s collections that you should be
able to reconstruct much — if not most— of the salient data relating to them. Precise
descriptive details might be lost, but (assuming that your memory is fairly normal) you
should be able to reconstruct sufficient general details regarding your day's collections so
that they can at least be processed. Such notes should be written down as soon as possible.
Then go buy yourself a new notebook.

Special techniques for difficult types of plants.

Dry, brittle , or wilted specimens — Although this paper is meant to be only a very
general introduction to the documentation of plants via herbarium specimens, it would
perhaps be remiss of me to not at least acknowledge some of the difficulties that might be
encountered with particular kinds of plants. Those that might be seen and collected when dry
and brittle, for example, all too often shatter into virtually useless pieces when pressed in that
condition. Such material fares much better if first rehydrated (at least partially) prior to being
placed in the plant press. The examples that first come to mind are our Selaginella species,
and ferns such as Pentagramma triangularis , Aspidotis californica, or Cheilanthes covillei,
w'hich generally occur in fairly xenc habitats. In the spring or early summer these tend to be
encountered in fine shape for documentation; however, as the season progresses and the
substrate dries, the leaves or fronds gradually begin to dry and curl. A selaginella or fern
encountered in this condition can often be placed in a bowl of water and satisfactorily
rehydrated after a day or two, at which time it can be pressed w ithout serious damage.

In a similar vein, there may be occasions when you collect plants on a hot summer
day and for one reason or another don't have an opportunity to stop and get them into a press.
By the end of the day, you may find that the specimens in your collecting bag have become
seriously wilted, quite floppy, and in very poor shape for pressing. Under such conditions,
one can often place the specimens into a large plastic bag, sprinkle some water over the
plants, seal the bag, and place it in a refrigerator overnight. The next day, some of the plants
will have perked up so w ell that they look better than when they were collected.

The preceding example assumes that you are reasonably close to "civilization" and
not far from its conveniences. There may be times, however, when you will have to
improvise. In 1990, for example, while on a two-week trip with some ornithologists in the
Sierra de La Laguna, Baja California Sur, I noticed a Phytolacca (Pokeweed) in fine
flowering condition in the woodland understory at the margin of La Laguna meadow.
Because we were in transit between basecamps, there was no time to stop and collect the
specimen, but since it was the first one that I had seen after several days in the range, I tried
to retrace my steps to collect it after we had set up our new camp. After repeatedly searching
for the specific plant that 1 had seen, the only pokeweed that I encountered was one that had
flowered, begun to set fruits, and then for unknown reasons completely dessicated into a
fragile, brittle, standing "mummy." Better than nothing, I collected the specimen and very
gingerly earned it back toward camp, doing my best to avoid any breezes that might snap off
pieces of the plant. There was no way that it could be pressed in that condition without
destroying it, so— back near camp— I carefully inundated it in one of the shallow, slow'

CROSSOSOMA 22(1). Spring-Summer 1996

17

streamlets that meanders across the meadow, and held it in place with a few pebbles. By the
next morning, the cold water had hydrated the pokeweed so well that it could now be
arranged and pressed without any damage.

Succulent plants, armed or unarmed — On the other end of the scale, however,
cacti and succulents can present very different challenges due to their adaptations against
drying. I have heard tales of dudleyas being collected and pressed, glued to herbarium
sheets, and then continuing to grow. Needless to say, this is counter to one's intentions.
Because of some of the difficulties encountered in applying standard herbarium practices to
succulents, they tend to be seriously under-representki in herbarium collections even if they
are common in the wild. This need not be the case, however. With unarmed succulents such
as Dudleya, Sedum, and Crassula species, for example, I have had very' good success by
putting them in a separate drying press from the more conventional collections [1 usually cut
the Dudleya rosette and rootstock in half to reduce the bulk]. While the other presses go
straight into the plant dryer, the press with succulents is first placed in a freezer for at least a
couple of days (or preferably about a week) until the specimens are frozen solid. When this
has been accomplished, the press is removed from the freezer and put directly into the plant
dryer. Using this technique, the active cells are killed, and the specimens dry to a more-or-
less spongy texture which retains the plant's morphology surprisingly well.

Agave and Yucca species present their own delightful challenges, not only because
their leaves may be armed with vicious teeth or dagger-tips, but because the leaves are so
strongly fibrous that attempting to collect one by a sawing action heightens the odds of
getting cut or stabbed. With such plants, try to collect at least one leaf (including the base,
which may have taxonomic characters) as well as some flowers and/or fruits. Broad-leaved
agaves may have the center of their leaves cut out to promote or speed drying efforts. The
portions of the leaf with most of the taxonomic characters tend to be the tip, margins, and
base; hence, removal of the central portion usually will not jeopardize identification efforts.
Make an effort to carefully record details of the plant that will not be represented by the
herbarium specimen, such as growth form, height, branching pattern, inflorescence structure,
inflorescence bracts, shape and orientation of penanth segments, and anything else that might
help you to identify the taxon. If the leaf that you chose to remove was a small one, try to
make notations on the length and width of the larger leaves on the plant.

Cacti are among the most difficult plants to preserve as herbarium specimens due to
their bulk, spines, and often the loss of some critical aspect of their distinctive shape or
growth form. For this reason, many cactus researchers tend toward liquid preservation
("pickling") of specimens in jars, and also why many newly described species are
vegetatively reproduced and cultivated as "clonotypes" (genetically identical to the type
specimen[s], unless and until mutations appear). Cacti can be preserved as herbarium
specimens, however, but it is helpful to know which characters will be useful in identifying
the specimens so that those characters can be preserved if present. Careful, descriptive field
notes are also very important to include with such collections.

Opunlia specimens should include representative joints (stem segments), flowers,
and/or fruits whenever possible. Many collectors make a habit of cutting Opuntia joints in
half, longitudinally, so as to reduce the overall bulk and to assist with the drying process (the
juicy, mucilaginous flesh can be carefully scraped out, leaving the fibrous infrastructure and
the epidermis). Flowers and developing fruits may also be cut in half to reduce bulk as well
as illustrate both the interior and extenor. Small globular cacti such as Mammillaria or
Coryphanlha species are sometimes collected whole, simply allowed to dessicate over time,
and stored in small boxes with their labels. Others cut the specimens in half and press them.
Flowers and fruits (or many of them) should be removed and pressed so that they may also be
glued on the sheet with the body of the specimen. Large barrel cacti and columnar cacti also
present special problems. Careful notes should be taken on such aspects as the plant growth
form, size, and number of nbs to the body or stems. The actual material collected for
pressing usually includes flowers and/or fruits (sliced in half), and a length of nb including at

18

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

least one cluster of spines. In all these instances, the resulting herbarium specimen is
particularly enhanced if it is accompanied by a clear photographic print which either
illustrates the specimen in its habitat, or particular aspects of the plant that might be lost or
unobserv able on drying.

If you intend to collect cacti, agaves, or yuccas for use as herbarium specimens, it
would be wise to consult someone with considerable experience in the process, as they may
well be able to suggest simplified and reliable methods for preparing the specimens. Their
first recommendation will probably be "heavy leather gloves." Due to the bulk and
coarseness of these specimens, you will probably also find it useful to at least double or triple
the thickness of pressing newspapers that you use in order to avoid ripping and tearing of the
newspapers that contain the material.

Lemna, Potamogeton, or other delicate aquatics — Among the taxa often under-
represented in herbaria are aquatic plants. Most collectors tend to be geophilous mammals
w ho fear stepping onto sandbars or into potenually deep muck. Certainly very few of them
will try' to collect a plant that requires stripping off most of their clothing and wading into
water any deeper than a foot. As a consequence, our aquatics are seriously under-collected
and our knowledge of their distribution patterns remains poor. Fortunately, there are some
botanists who are fascinated by aquatic plants and who help to compensate for the
hydrophobic majority.

Unlike the succulents, aquatics live in the ultimate mesic environment and dry readily
upon collection and pressing. The difficulty with making herbarium specimens (besides
reaching them without getting wet or muddy) often lies in their fragility. A submerged
Potamogeton, for example, may ascend gracefully just beneath the surface of the water, the
support of its aquatic environment allowing its three-dimensional spread. Upon collecting it
and lifting it from the water, however, it may likely collapse upon itself and become a floppy
green cordage of "slop." Do not simply drop this in the press and expect it to be a
worthwhile specimen. You might as well empty a can of cooked spinach into the press.
Rather, carefully untangle the cordage and select strands that include the flowers and/or
fruits. The specimens that you press should be carefully arranged on each sheet so that the
general growth habit of the species is evident and any fertile portions of the plant can be
examined. If it is a Potamogeton species w'ith dimorphic leaves (i.e., those that drift beneath
the surface of the water differ in size and/or shape from those that float on the water's
surface), be sure that you indicate this on the label and also include both types of leaves on
the pressed specimen. Other Southern California aquatics that should be handled in more-or-
less the same way include Phyllospadix spp. (the only truly marine angiosperms in our flora),
Zannichellia palustris, and Zostera spp.

Plants in the Lemnaceae may provide their own challenges. Most species of Lemna.
Spirodela, Wolffia, and Wolffiella tend to float on— or just beneath — the surface of still or
slowly moving water. Generally, this means that they will be near the margin of ponds or
small streams and will, therefore, not be too difficult to collect. However, while they may
distribute themselves fairly evenly across or just beneath the surface of the water, they tend
to "glob" together like other aquatics when collected. The result is that an herbarium sheet
representing a Lemna species may consist of globs of Lemna specimens compressed together
such that the characten sties of the individuals are difficult to discern. As with most other
types of plants, overlapping of the material on the herbarium sheet should be avoided to the
degree possible so that taxonomic characteristics can be observed more readily. Some
botanists, especially those who are in the habit of collecting such aquatics, carry along sheets
of filter paper or cotton fiber paper (as one might use for herbarium labels), carefully
immerse the paper, and bring it up out of the water beneath the floating or subsurface
specimens so that they are captured in a single, natural layer. This prevents the
agglomeration and "globbing" that otherwise would occur with the specimens when simply
collected in-hand. Thus, the paper with the specimens (in one layer) is placed into the press
with very little specimen overlap, making it easier to study them when pressed and dried.

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

19

Many plant collectors find that certain types of aquatics— particularly members of the
Lemnaceae— stick to both sides of the pressing newspaper when they are dried. This may
cause some damage among the specimens when the newspapers are opened, and also makes
removal of the plants difficult for those who are mounting the specimens. Plant collectors
who are used to this problem tend also to take into the field small sheets of wax paper to
place over the specimens of Lemnaceae so that the specimens will only stick to one side of
the pressing papers. If this method is combined with the method of collecting Lemnaceae on
filter paper or archivally stable cotton fiber papier, then the piece of papier that the Lemnaceae
have stuck to can simply be removed from between the wax paper and the pressing
newspaper that was used, and can be glued directly on the herbarium sheet, even though no
adhesive compound was used directly on the specimens of Lemnaceae. As someone who
still finds it very difficult to key out many members of the Lemnaceae from pressed and dried
material, 1 would also recommend collecUng some fresh plants in a small waterproof canister
such as a plastic canister for 35 mm film cartridges (with snap-on plastic lid) so that the fresh
material can be used for keying efforts.

Emergent aquatic plants (such as Echinodorus berteroi , Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp.,
Triglochin spp., etc.) usually do not present the same difficulties as the aquatic plants
mentioned here, and may generally be treated as one would terrestrial plants. However, if the
roots are caked in mud, it is always a good idea to rinse these off in the local pond or stream
so that the roots (not simply big clods of dned mud) are evident on the herbarium specimen.

How many specimens should be collected?

Before you collect plants in a given area, assess the potential impact of your
collecting. Some plants may be locally and/or globally rare. If the plant has already been
documented at this site, then another collection is likely unnecessary (unless it is a voucher
for research materials). If it represents a previously unknown population of a rare plant, then
collect a good representative specimen as a locality voucher. Have, in hand, any necessary
collecting permits. If a population is so small that collecting a single voucher will cause
irreparable damage, then don't collect. Take a clear, identifiable photograph instead. When
collecting in an area in general, assess the local population of a species before collecting. If
the plant is locally abundant then there should be no problem with collecting a specimen and
some duplicates. Some collecting permits set specific limits on the number of duplicates— if
any— which may be collected. This is often the case with rare species. If, however, you
encounter a rare species on a site that is likely destined for development, then collecting
good, representative specimens is particularly important. Remember that a manned bulldozer
can obliterate in a few seconds— with nothing to show for it— more biomass than a field
botanist can collect for documentation in a year’s worth of work.

A single collection of a plant ("umcate") is better than no collection at all, because
now one at least has a documenting voucher. Duplicate specimens are useful because they
can be sent to other herbaria to broaden those collections in exchange for duplicates from
those herbaria that can strengthen the breadth and representation in your own herbarium.
There is also a very practical side to duplicate specimens: if an herbarium bums down or is
destroyed in an earthquake, all of its umcates are lost. If there are duplicates distributed
elsewhere, however, those plant collections remain extant and available to researchers. A
couple of examples include the herbarium of the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) in
San Francisco, which was largely destroyed by the Great Earthquake and resulting fires in
1906, and the important herbarium at Berlin (B) which was a rich repository for type
specimens from around the world, but which was largely destroyed by allied bombing during
World War II. The vast majority of the unicate specimens housed in these herbaria were lost
forever. Blanche Trask, who made very important historical collections on several of
California's Channel Islands around the turn of the century, had sent many duplicates of her
collections to CAS prior to 1906, and then lost her personal herbarium collection in a fire at

20

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, in 1915. Fortunately, some of her duplicate collections
remain extant at other institutions such as the United States National Herbarium (US) in
Washington DC, the New York Botanical Garden (NY), and the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden (RSA), in Claremont. If she had collected only unicates, and all of her collections
had been destroyed, there are several native species that used to occur on the Channel Islands
that we would know nothing about.

Another very important use of duplicates is for specimens that can be sent to
taxonomic experts at their respective institutions for confirmation or re-identification. In this
way, taxonomically difficult groups can become better understood. Identification of the
duplicate— which has been sent to the expert— then confirms or revises the determination of
the plant collection made by the collector so that the collector now has a physical specimen —
correctly identified — that can be studied to improve their own know ledge of the taxonomic
group. In turn, the expert in that particular taxon now has another voucher specimen
collected from the field which contributes to their own accumulated knowledge of the taxon,
its distribution, and its habitat.

How to dry the specimens.

When you return from your collecting trip (if only of one or two days' duration), do
not leave the pressed specimens in a field press any longer than necessary or they may mold
or rot. At first opportunity, they should be put into a drying press and placed into a plant
dryer. If you are on a collecting trip that is longer than a couple of days' duration, then take
along drying presses and plenty of corrugated cardboard ventilators. Transfer specimens
from the field press(es) into drying presses when your field collecting is finished for the day.

The drying process simply involves alternating ventilators (corrugated cardboard)
with individual field-pressed specimens into a press frame. The individual specimens are
sandwiched between corrugates in order to dry the material more quickly. Alternating the
individual specimens with corrugates also allows the material to be pressed more evenly,
resulting in flatter specimens that will be much easier to mount on herbarium sheets.
Optionally, additional felt or paper blotters may be included in a drying press between the
specimens and the corrugates (Fig. 5). Blotters are most frequently used in regions with high
humidity levels; however, if you are pressing bulky material, blotters may also reduce the

— ==r^W-^"''* _ A

/ p_. _n □ o n rj^v. B

c

D
E

Fig. 5. Arrangement within a drying press. Left: A, binding strap, B, plant press frame, C. corrugated
cardboard (ventilator); D, thick newspaper used as a blotter (optional); E. single sheet of newspaper, folded
along its long edge and enclosing pressed plant specimen. F. plant being pressed (Illustration from McFarlane
1985 ) Center: exploded view of plant press showing optional fell blotters Right drying press cinched with
compression straps and ready to be laid in the plant dryer (with the fluting of the ventilators oriented vertically)
(Center and right illustrations from Savile 1962.)

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

21

Fig. 6. Plan for a plant dryer that can have a press up to 46 inches long laid in it The heat is provided by light
bulbs installed beneath. Cooler air is drawn in from below, heated by the light bulbs, and rises through the plant
dryer (preferably through the (lutings of the ventilators) to drive off the moisture in the pressed plants
(Illustration from Anonymous [USDA] 1971 )

amount of puncturing or bending of your ventilators and may increase their usable life-spans.
The inclusion of blotters often contributes to a taller drying press, but the entire press usually
compresses considerably when it is cinched down with the straps. After the binding straps of
the drying press are firmly tightened, the press is layed on its side in a plant dryer (Fig. 6).
Moisture from the plants is drawn by capillary action through the newsprint and cardboard
ventilators (and blotters, if used) and is driven off by the dry, warm air rising through the
ventilators (make sure that the fluting on your corrugates is unobstructed and is oriented
vertically in the plant-dryer). In the process of drying the plant specimens, the heat used
should be sufficient to prevent molding of the material, but should not be so high that the
plant material is in any way cooked.

If you don't have access to a plant dryer, try improvising. Most plants in a drying
press will dry satisfactorily if the press is put outside in the sun and breeze, or in some other
warm, well-ventilated area. Some botanists who collect in the desert sometimes mount their
drying presses on top of their vehicle so that the hot, dry desert air flows through the fluUngs
(like a radiator) as they drive from one collection site to another. As the plants are drying,
however, you must periodically tighten the straps to compensate for the loss of moisture (and
thus bulk) from the specimens. This should be done at least during the first couple of days
when the specimens are losing most of their inherent moisture. Subsequent tightening of a
plant press when the specimens are no longer moist could result in damage to some of the
bulkier, more bottle specimens.

How to store the specimens.

Bundling and storage — After your specimens have been dned, you will generally
find it necessary to store them until you have an opportunity to identify them. When the
individual specimens are removed from the drying press (still in their individual newspapers
with their collection numbers wntten on the margins), it is easiest to bundle them together
between a couple of 12 x 18-inch corrugates (ventilators) up to a thickness of about 4 or 5
inches (10-13 cm). If there are some particularly bulky specimens that could potentially
damage more delicate specimens in the stack, separate them with another corrugate or two.

22

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Bundles should be tied with 2 or 3 cords so that the pressure of the corrugates is evened-out
over the dried plant specimens. The cords that you use for tying the bundles should,
prefererably, be reasonably broad. If you have any 36-inch shoe laces from tennis shoes, for
example, these are just about right for snuggly tying the bundles. Most strings are too thin
and end up cutting into the edges of the corrugates and ultimately damaging the specimens.
Do not tie the bundles with only one cord because all too often the specimens will slide out
one end or the other. Besides damaging any plant specimens that fall out, you will also run
the risk of mixing up labels (if present) or plant specimens among the collection numbers.

Professionally constructed herbarium cases are best for storing bundled herbarium
material, but given that each case may cost from $700 to $1000, few of us can afford to have
one at home. If you enjoy woodworking, you might consider building one out of plywood.
If you do so, be certain that all cracks and seams are sealed and that the doors are carefully
lined with insect-proof foam-rubber. This can often be purchased in varying lengths with one
side pre-coated in adhesive. The doors of the case, when latched closed, should press firmly
against the door liners. Under any circumstances, it is best to identify your specimens
promptly, generate labels for them promptly, and turn them over to an active herbarium with
the lowest turn-around time possible. If you choose to keep a personal herbarium, you
should verify that any cases (whether purchased or home-made) of specimens that you
maintain are indeed waterproof and insect-proof in order to protect and preserve the dried
plant specimens. If you know that it will be at least a few weeks before you can identify
and/or distribute your collections, they should be placed into 12 x 18-inch boxes and should
have all seams and openings completely taped closed to prevent entrance of insects. They
should also be stored somewhere where there is absolutely no possibility of flooding or water
damage. Stored specimens should be carefully checked every few weeks or months for any
evidence of insect damage.

Potential causes of damage to specimens in storage — Here in Southern Cali-
fornia, we are fortunate in that we generally have a low humidity level throughout much of
the year. The level of moisture necessary for the survival of insects should not be under-
estimated, however. Literate members of our species who collect books know that booklice
(Order Psocoptera) can survive just fine with the meager quantity of moisture found in paper
pulp. Larger insects (such as small beetles) may also find their sustenance in dried plant
materials. Small beetles that may do damage in dried plant collections include dermestids
and anobuds (Order Coleoptera). The larvae of dermestids tend to do serious damage to
animal products such as furs and leathers, but may also do considerable damage while
feeding on the pollen and adjacent portions of dried and pressed plant specimens. More
common and more pernicious among dried plant specimens are anobnd beetles, particularly
the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (Fabncius) w hich— in the larv al stage— can cause
considerable and serious damage among herbarium specimens. Though usually uncommon
in a museum setting, silverfish (Order Zygentoma) may be a common pest in the home.
They may consume dry, organic matter, and have a particular fondness for paper;
consequently, they may also do damage to stored herbarium specimens or associated labels.

The "best means of prevention is to regularly check your collection. Upon finding any
evidence of infestation, the plant specimens should be carefully bundled together and placed
into a freezer (a large chest freezer works well) for a minimum of 48 uninterrupted hours. In
general, larvae cannot withstand this sudden and prolonged freezing, and such treatment
should eliminate any active infestations of dermestids and anobiids, as well as booklice and
silverfish. While the material is in the freezer, the case itself should be cleaned and
disinfected to eliminate any persisting insects, eggs, or larvae. Some museums prevent insect
infestations by placing potent insecticides inside of the herbarium cases. Keep in mind that
any chemical that is sufficient to kill insects is very likely also toxic to humans. Freezing and
disinfection appears to be the safest means of dealing with these infestations.

C ROSSO SOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

23

Identifying your specimens.

In order to identify your plant collections accurately, try to use a respected flora that
covers the geographical area where you did your collecting. Use the identification keys and
look critically at the diagnostic characters of the plants. Avoid trying to identify your plants
by comparing them with picture books as this can sometimes lead to awful
misidentifications. Although intimidating and sometimes frustrating, the best wav to leam
plants is to kev them. By using the keys, you will become familiar with some of the
technical characters that taxonomists use to differentiate major groups of plants as well as
closely related taxa. Some of the terminology used in describing plant features will be
unfamiliar, but a good flora will provide a glossary of terms and some will also provide
simple illustrations of the terms being defined. It is important to take the time and leam these
terms— as they are encountered— because many of them will occur repeatedly in botanical
descriptions. If you skim through descriptions but do not bother to look up and leam the
unfamiliar terms, you will not be able to accurately visualize what is being described and will
ultimately short-change yourself. Glossing over keys and descriptions often results in
erroneous identifications. As you work through the key and examine your specimen, jot
down observations of your plant in your collecting notebook. Such notes may consist of
measurements for critical floral or fruit characters, observations of tnchomes or types of
glandularity, and so forth. By writing these down, you can make quick visual reference to
them should you have to re-key the specimen. When you have carefully keyed-out your
specimen and arrived at a final species name in the key, do not automatically assume that
you've keyed it correctly. Refer to the entry for that species and read the description
carefully, comparing it to the characters of your plant. If the description doesn't seem to fit,
go back through the key, watching carefully for any terms that you may have misunderstood
or plant features that you may have misinterpreted. Resist the temptation to try and force a
plant to key out to what you think it is. Judge the specimen on its own characters. It may
turn out to be an unfamiliar species similar in appearance to the one you thought it was.
When you identify your plant, draw a line through the "field ID" in your field notebook if it is
incorrect, and write in the correct name including the authority [e.g., Lupinus concinmts
agardhianus A. A. Heller].

If you are fortunate enough to have access to an herbarium, it can sometimes be
reassuring to examine other specimens of the taxon that yours keyed to. In this way, you
may discover that what you keyed your taxon to is incorrect, or you may be able to get a
reasonable idea of the variation that occurs in the taxon. Such comparative reference is
particularly helpful if you find specimens in the herbarium collection that have been
annotated by a reliable expert in the group. These can either affirm the identity of your plant,
or may send you back to the keys.

Unfortunately, not all plants have big, gaudy, Hibiscus-hke flowers. If you are an
astute collector, you will find yourself documenting plants with minuscule flowers and more
subtle taxonomic characters. In order to examine and measure inconspicuous or hidden
diagnostic characters on a specimen, you will often need a source of magnification such as a
dissecting microscope or a hand-lens (10-30x), some fine dissecting tools (needles, scalpel or
razorblade, fine-tipped tweezers), a small metric measuring rule, and a wetting agent (to
soften the dried plant parts that you wish to dissect, if you are dealing with a dried specimen).
A simple wetting agent may consist of water with a small amount of soap or detergent. This
may be applied with an eye-dropper. Not all plants need to be dissected in order to be
identified; however, for those that do, get in the habit and don't be intimidated. Features that
you first become familiar with under the dissecting scope you may later be able to see with
the naked eye in fresh material. You'll never know what features to look for, though, if you
take the lazy route.

Some people leam all their plant identifications by having others tell them what the
plants are. This can be risky. Some of these helpful people are genuinely knowledgeable;

24

CROSSOSOXtA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

others may have good guesses that are right part of the time; and still others may have an
over-abundance of self-esteem and be "loud, confident, and wrong." Even if you are told
what a plant is, be willing to collect a good sample and key it out (assuming that it is not a
rare plant). If it has been correctly identified for you, then in the process of keying it you'll
become familiar with some of the characters that help to define that taxon. If you have been
misinformed about the plant's identity, then you will now have some idea of how it differs
from the other species and can also begin to assess the reliability of your local "expert." As
you gradually get more familiar with the plants in your area, continue to "run them through
the keys" when you collect them. This will improve your familiarity with the keys and will
reinforce your knowledge of the characters that distinguish each species.

Learning the flora of a region can begin at a painfully slow pace, but it is a
cumulative endeavor that gradually becomes easier, the greater the number of plants that you
learn, the fewer there are remaining to be learned. If you are willing to learn your local
plants, you will someday take great pride in realizing that you have a name for nearly all of
those individual "faces" that you see when you go out on a hike. Although the names will
have been applied by taxonomists, you will have developed the ability to discern individual
taxa as did the local shamans of centuries and millennia earlier.

Generating labels to accompany the specimens.

When making labels for your collections, always use an indelible ink on an archivally
stable paper (25-100% cotton rag). The label, like the plant, should last indefinitely with
proper care. Try to keep the overall label small, if possible, but don't make it cluttered or
visually "busy." If you have a large amount of information that you want to impart on the
label, consider using a smaller font size. Try also to organize your labels in paragraphs that
deal with specific types of information ( e.g ., location, habitat and associated species,
descriptive information specific to the collected plant). To the degree possible, avoid a label
format that wastes a lot of space. The illustration in Fig. 7 provides a general sample label to
show one potential configuration and the type of information to include.

It is useful to organize your locality information in descending order from most
general to most specific (i.e., U.S.A., California, Zzyzx County, Coocoo-Bird Mtns, Rotund
Freddy Canyon, etc.). If you use a general locality header on the label (as in the example
given in Fig. 7), then that header should unambiguously give the general locality for the

HERBARIUM OF BUSTAMENTE COLLEGE

Plants of Zzyzx County , California, U S A
Bnefcaceae

Businessmannia nummulifera B.F. Prickl
var. devastate (P.J. Lorper) Schlossen

COOCOO-BIRD MOUNTAINS Upper end of Rotund Freddy Canyon along
seepage just below the big rock shelf Coocoo-bird Peak USGS 7.5' Quadrangle,
T23N R9W. NW/4 SW/4 SW/4 section 9. elevauon 7650 feet [2332 ml

Associated with Pinus pinoides. Ceanolhus spinescens var fleshovora,
Rhamnus mloxicans. Artemisia slenchi/era. and Aster hootu. in recently bulldozed
montane coniferous forest Steep south-westerly slope on coarse granitic scree
Shrubs to ca 17 dm tall with a spread of 25 dm. the stems ascending to
spreading, in dappled shade of Pinus. leaves glaucous, with slight citrus scent,
petals greenish-yellow with fine carmine penciling

I. B Klektinstuff No. 1394 23 August 1987

with Mai P Jamazzon

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

25

collection, and the text of the label should give any and all specifics of the locality. Try to
indicate the collection locality relative to established place names that are found on maps. If
you are collecting in a remote locality that has few established place names, define the
locality as precisely and clearly as possible using directions and distances from known
locales ( e.g ., "1.35 km (by air) WNW of Blackbird Mine"), and try to include a secondary,
correlative site locator such as latitude/longitude, or township, range, and section. By all
means, avoid site descriptions that sound like directions to someone's house (e.g., "about 13
miles N of Podunk on Route 147, then take a left at a big Joshua tree, drive about a mile NW,
then take another left near a pile of mattresses and trash, drive about 7 miles more till you
come to a sand dune...). Remember that highway and route numbers sometimes change over
time, and also remember that many unpaved roads — particularly in the desert— may be
locatable for the next couple of years, but may be quite gone 10 years later when someone is
trying to find the locality of your plant which turned out to be an unusual new species. Such
a locality might be much easier to relocate if latitude and longitude data are provided. This is
the value of using maps and altimeters to provide the most accurate location possible.

Important information to include on all labels:

1) Plant name (if known) — This should include genus and species, as well as
subspecies and variety, if relevant. (Family name is optional information, but helpful.) The
authority (person who named and described the plant and/or transferred it to its current
status) is also part of the plant's identity and should be included on the label. Floras and
scientific works provide this information; many "popular" works do not

2) Locality data — Always give country, state, county, and follow it with any other
information which would help another person to actually find the site. (Do not abbreviate the
state.) Even if your label specifies "U.S.A., woods 1 mile south of Portland," is this the
Portland that occurs in Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, New York, North
Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, or Texas? It is helpful to visualize your locality from a global
perspective, and then describe it in incremental, descending order. Do not take it for granted
that just because you know where "Oak Rat" is, everyone else will too. Remember that
specimens may be sent out of state or out of the country on exchange or for study, and if all
you’ve indicated for locality is a town or county name, the origin of the specimen may be
undecipherable and the specimen considered useless. Use points of reference that are fairly
permanent (especially names that occur on government topographic maps), i.e., "boulder
outcrop on NE ndge of Harper Mtn at 4775 feet [1456 m]. Happy Cattle Mountains,
California," not vague data like "about half mile beyond Ernie's farm." Who was Ernie?
Where was his farm? And which direction is "beyond?" Elevation information is almost
always useful and should be included, especially if the collection was made in an
undeveloped area.

3) Collector's name — Try' to use your full name rather than merely initials unless
you are thoroughly ashamed of your specimen and want anonymity. "Collected by F.T.S." is
better than nothing, but less than desirable. Also list, as co-collectors, those people who were
with you and helped you to collect the specimen. However, if you cite co-collectors, always
organize your label in such a way that there is no ambiguity about who's collection number
was used (see sample label above).

4) Collection date — This information should never be neglected. Indicating day
and month as well as the year informs others as to w hat time of year the specimen was found
in this condition (flowering or fruiting) at that particular locality and elevation. When
writing dates on labels, use Arabic numbers for the day, and either spell-out or use Roman
numerals for the month. Also, because well-cared-for herbarium specimens will last for
more than a century, always use a four-digit year to avoid potential future ambiguities (i.e., 9
June 1995, or 9 vi 1995, rather than "6/9/95"). Another critical shortcoming to citing dates

26

CROSSOSOMA 22(1). Spring-Summer 1996.

such as "6/9/1995," is that— while this means "June 9th" to you— in most other countries this
would be understood as "September 6th." It is worthwhile to try and maintain a global
perspective.

5) Descriptive information — The pressed plant specimen will remain with the
label, but there are some characteristics of the plant that will usually be lost in the pressing
and drying process. Flower or fruit color should usually be written down, for example, since
these will normally fade when the plant is dry. General plant growth habit is often no longer
recognizable after the plant is more-or-less pressed into two dimensions, especially ii only a
portion of the plant has been collected and pressed. Try to indicate growth habit as well as
general height and breadth of the plant. If you collect the entire plant (a small annual, for
example), you needn't indicate the height of the plant because that will be obvious enough
from the specimen. Data on size are helpful, however, if you have only taken a portion of the
plant, or have collected a whole plant that is not representative of the range of sizes present at
that locality. If you are not good at estimating dimensions (and many people are net), then
take measuring devices with you. For trees, d.b.h. (diameter at breast height) is often helpful
information. Indicating whether a plant is an annual, herbaceous perennial, shrub, tree, vine,
or whether its root system is rhizomatous or tuberous (and so forth), is always useful if that
information is not necessarily obvious from the specimen itself. Finally, if you do not
measure plants in metric units, then at least indicate your units fairly clearly (e.g "7 feet" or
"7 ft" and not "7' tall;" "24 inches" or "24 in" and not "24" wide").

Optional but useful information:

6) Distributing Institution — In the example above it is Bustamente College. This
information is helpful in a collection because it indicates the source of the specimen. In
herbaria, because many of the specimens are received on exchange from other institutions, it
is often helpful to know the origin of your specimen. If the collector needs to be contacted
(and not too many years have passed since the collection date) the collector can usually still
be found in association with that particular institution. If you are not formally associated
with a botanical institution (i.e., as a student, staff member, or research associate), do not
include this information on the label, even if you intend to turn your specimens over to a
particular institution for distnbuuon.

7) Habitat information — Data regarding the local vegetation type (grassland,
chaparral; coastal sage scrub, montane coniferous forest...), soil type and/or geologic
substrate (clay; schist; decomposed granite; serpentine...), slope and exposure of the site
(steep southerly scree slope, open desert flats...), moisture level (riparian area; seepage; xeric
ridgetop...), light level (deeply-shaded canyon bottom; dappled shade in chaparral
understory...), and associated plant species (e.g., growing with Artemisia douglasiana, Salix
lasiolepis, Juncus rugulosus, Mimulus cardinalis, and Alnus rhombifolia...) can all help to
provide valuable data about the plant's niche in the environment. These collective data about
a particular species can then be used to understand its distribution patterns, among other
things. Any information of this sort that can be included on a label will be helpful provided it
is accurate Such notes should be made at the collection site on the basis of observation.
Attempting to remember this information later can lead to faulty recollections, and faulty
information is best left out altogether.

8) Collection numbers — Sequential, chronological numbering of specimens is
very helpful if you plan to collect many specimens over a period of time. Depending on your
organizational skills, numbering each different plant collection may likely help you to keep
your records in order. If you number your plants as you collect them, then you can cross-
reference the numbered plant specimens to your numbered field notebook where you have
written all your critical information. Without numbers or a carefully kept code to indicate
which plants were collected at what locality and on what date, you may suddenly find that
you don't remember if this is the grass that you collected up on Mt. Doggy on Thursday, or

CROSSOSOMA 22(1). Spring-Summer 1996.

27

the grass that you collected down tn the valley the next county over on Friday. If your
information is that fouled-up, throw your specimens away. Specimens with inaccurate
("bad") information only cause confusion and are less than worthless because they
misinform. By using collection numbers and keeping carefully organized field notes, you
should be able to pin-point the locality, date, and pertinent information for each numbered
specimen. Remember that the important point is to collect quality plant specimens (well
prepared and accurately labeled), not necessarily the greatest quantity possible.

One reviewer of this paper pleadingly requested that inclusion of collection numbers
be considered mandatory rather than optional. Perhaps this should be the case. It is true that
specimens with discrete and unique collection numbers are more readily identifiable and
easier to cite than specimens without numbers. This is particularly true if an individual
collects the same taxon at two different sites on the same date, in w hich case citation of the
collector and date is insufficient to distinguish between the collections. I would suggest that
discrete collection numbers are very important and their adoption should be seriously
considered by plant collectors who do not currently use them.

Points to remember — Always carry a field notebook when you collect plants, and
wnte down the information as soon as possible while the plants and your memory' are still
fresh. The more information that you can provide on your label (accurate and relevant), the
more useful your specimen will be in an herbarium collection; but try to be concise. Number
your plant specimens and write the numbers in your notebook next to the relevant
information to prevent potential confusion later. Collect material that is identifiable (flowers
and/or fruits whenever possible) and in good condition (whenever possible). Collect enough
to "fill" an herbarium sheet (if possible). Process your collections promptly.

Sample labels, good and bad (or, learning by example), with some
additional Tangential Comments

Following are sixteen selected herbanum specimen labels that offer an idea of some
of the great diversity in label formats. They have also been chosen to illustrate the quantity,
quality, and types of information that may appear on labels and how that reflects on the
potential value of the specimen. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect label
Nevertheless, there are definitely good labels and bad labels. If you are going to collect
herbanum specimens, strive to be one of those collectors who develops a reputation for
quality plant collections with accurate, informative label data.

Figure 8.

University of Barstow
HERBARIUM

Locality

Habitat

Collector. . . .JEitt; „

Date..3#.. ..!??.?. Det

&aj&.

Fig. 8 — This collection of Ranunculus califormcus (Ranunculaceae) provides the name of the collector, the
date of collection, a very genera] locality, and the distributing institution (University of Barstow) It also

28

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

indicates that the specimen was identified by "F.D ," we are unlikely to know who "F.D " was unless we had a
reasonably good knowledge of the employee history at this herbarium The paucity of information given leaves
a lot to be desired There are even a couple of lines provided on this label format for information about the
habitat, none of which is given It seems likely that this specimen was casually collected by Dr deLufuss
"somewhere" in Contra Costa County, and brought in to the U of B herbarium for identification In general, a
collection with this kind of information is of little value, overall If the plant specimen itself is a good one. it
may be useful (in comparison with other specimens) for seeing the morphological variation in the species
However, many (most?) herbarium curators are reluctant to process these kinds of collections because detailed
information has not been taken at the collecnon site and is rarely forthcoming from the casual collector
Information like "Oh, .1 think I grabbed that one on Ml Diablo . " is not good enough. Vague locality
information such as this may also lead one to wonder whether even the county is correct. If this species were
not otherwise known to occur in Contra Costa County, and if it were the only specimen ciung it from there,
many botanists would not hesitate to dismiss it as very likely a labeling error Hence, the precision of the
locality data is exceedingly important

Figure 9.

Plants of Western North America

Order

G. & Sp. . uL. jei/rry

Locality

Distribution..

Coll.

J ' BSSH 13-2990

Fig. 9 — This simply labeled historical collection of Woodwardia fimbnata (Blechnaceae) is ldenufied on the
label by the name generally applied to our nauve "Giant chain fern" during the era m which it was collected It
also illustrates that the collector — or whoever prepared the label — was unclear on the concept the actual
collection locality of the specimen is not recorded, but the published distribution of the taxon was simply copied
from the literature This contributes no new information DistribuUon patterns are determined from
documented plant collections that provide unambiguous collecuon locality data To paraphrase my colleague
Steve Boyd's occasional comments to neophytes "Plants don't read floras, they occur where they occur, not
necessarily where the floras sav they occur " If the opposite were true, however— that plants only occur where
floras say they occur— the Southern California flora would be considerably more depauperate if one were to
accept distributions given in "The Jepson Manual" (Hickman 1993) as "gospel truth " Galium anguslifolium
Nuttall ssp angustifolium, for example, probably our most common nauve Galium in Southern California,
apparently does not occur on mainland poruons of the "SW," if one were to take The Jepson Manual at face
value In the Galium example given here, the published distribution does not reflect current knowledge,
however, in the Woodwardia example, the distnbuUon given on the label corresponds with the distnbuuon
pattern known at the time (Underw ood 1888) We now know Woodwardia fimbnata to occur m northern Baja
California, Mexico (based on herbarium specimens as vouchers), and it would not surprise me much if it were
eventually also encountered in Sonora, Mexico

Fig. 10 — The old label for this collection of Clayloma per/ohata (Portulacaceae) suggests that it was gathered
between about 1890 and 1920, however, there is no collecuon date given other than "May " The coUeclor is
given as "T" — presumably Mr E P Terry — and identified by Tracy " Mr Terry was probably one of the many
amateur local botanists of the nme who kept a personal herbarium, but later turned it over to the Pomona
College Herbarium (POM) Fortunately , because the specimen has remained in the general area of the
collecuon site, we know where "San Dimas Canon" is (south side of the San Gabnel Mountains) However, if
this specimen had been sent elsewhere in the country (as often happens, parucularly with duplicate collecUons)
then the locality would be ambiguous because no slate or country is cited The vague locality name and the

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

29

Figure 10.

Oregon State University Herbarium

Claytonia perfoliata ssp. mexicana (Rydberg)
Miller & Chambers

John M. Miller May-July 1991

species identification would not preclude someone's assumpuon that the plant came from Mexico Although the
information provided is minimal, the specimen may still serve as a flonshc voucher indicating that the species
occurred (and likely still occurs) in San Dimas Canyon of the San Gabriel Mountains, and also contributes to
the land of phenological information that can show up in a good flora (the plant could be found in bloom in
May). This historical collection has been recently examined and annotated by an expert in the genus Claylorua
The annotation label provides his name, the time-frame dunng which he examined the specimen, the institution
with which he was associated, and his determinauon of the correct identity of the taxon

Figure 1 1.

SANTA CATALINA ISLAND

(CALIFORNIA!

no. 1077

k.ontia perfoliata (Dona, )Hov/el L
grassy glade

date jj1 et) , 9,1921 Avalon Canyon

L. W NUTTALL, Collector

Fig. 11 — The label included here represents the same taxon as that included in Fig 10 This collection serves
as a floristic voucher (cited) for the first flora of Santa Catalina Island, compiled by Charles F Millspaugh and

30

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Lawrence W. Nuttall (1923) While the label informauon is mimmal, the locality and habitat provided are not
unreasonable for the time If we had no voucher specimens of Clayloma from Catalina, someone compiling an
"updated" checklist of the species on the island using only literature references (without studying specimens on
the island), would likely play "the synonym game " This is where synonyms are simply looked up m references
and an assumption is made that the correlation is 1 to 1 with fully faithful acceptance In this case, " Monlia
perfoliaia' would likely be treated as Claylorua perfoliaia ssp perfoliaia. That subspecies does in fact occur on
Catalina, but the specimen here represents ssp mexicana (annotated by John M Miller), the much more
common subspecies on the island

Figure 12.

— HERBARIUM—

VICTORVILLE PRIVATE COLLEGE

OF CULINARY, MEDICINAL, AND HOMEOPATHIC STUDIES

Anemopaia calif ornica Hooker

Coarse, atoloniferoua herb about 32 inches tall with
white flowers. Chaparral Community, elev. 3480 feet.

Hwy 399, one mile southeast of Gorman.

Los Angeles County, California.

DATE: 13 July 1967 COLLECTED BY: Billy Barnett

12 — This label for Anemopsis californica (Saururaceae) is fairly simple, but provides reasonably good,
concise information The collector, dale, locality information, elevation, and general plant description seem
fairly straight-forward The descnption of "white flowers" probably refers more to the overall appearance of the
inflorescence, however, since the individual flowers are insignificant in appearance but are subtended by large,
showy white bracts Somewhat more ambiguous, though, is the citation of the habitat as "Chaparral
Community" because Anemopsis typically grows in low, wet (often swampy) areas In this habitat, any shrubs
that occur are most likely to be willows since chaparral plants do not typically tolerate a water-logged root
system When giving habitat information, remembei to observe it carefully and state it clearly The habitat
information given on this label might have stated it more clearly as "low, marshy meadow, with chaparral on
adjacent slopes "

Figure 13.

RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN (RSA)

Arenana paludicola Robinson

Del Timothy S Ross lit 1994

PLANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

No. 941.

A re ii aria palustris, Willson.

In swamps, San Bernardino Valley.

May, 1882.

Coll S. B. & W. F. Parish, San Bernardino. ^

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

31

Fig- 13 — One of the most important uses of herbarium specimens is in historical documentation of plant
distributions. This is evident in this label example for Arenaria paludicola (Caryophyllaceae) This label is not
gready detailed, but provides concise locality and habitat information (Southern California: San Bernardino
Valley: in swamps), an indication of the collectors (the Parish brothers, Samuel and William, of San
Bernardino), the collection number for the specimen, and the date In California, this rare species used to occur
in freshwater marshy areas near San Bernardino, in the Los Angeles Basin, and northward to Washington state,
but is now nearly extirpated due to habitat destruction. The last known locality in California is on the Nipomo
Mesa near Black Lake (San Luis Obispo County) where the few remaining plants are threatened by
development The name, as given by S B. Parish on the label, was considered "correct" at the time However,
B.L. Robinson realized that the name "Arenaria pal us Ins" had already been applied to another species earlier, so
he provided the newer, accepted name, Arenaria paludicola. Robinson must have been sensitive to taxonomic
or nomenclatural disruption, as both the specific epithet that he chose, and the name that it replaced, loosely
mean the same thing inhabiting marshes

Fig. 14 — The label above, for a collection of Engeron philadelphicus (Asteraceae) from 1896. serves as
another example of a historical collection The amount of information provided is minimal, nevertheless, the
specimen serves as our only document that this species used to occur in the Pomona Valley in Los Angeles
County. Historically, this species had a broad distnbunon— from Labrador to British Columbia and Honda to
California— but despite this distribution pattern it tends to be locally rare and nowhere abundant Other
herbarium vouchers indicate that — in Los Angeles County— this species used to occur in Puddingstone Canyon
(prior to construction of the Puddingstone Reservoir) m the San Jos£ Hills, and aloog the San Gabnel River at
El Monte and Long Beach. In Southern California, it tended to occur along low elevadon riparian margins It
has not been documented in Los Angeles County since 1934, and apparendy has fallen victim to the
channelization of our streams and rivers and the urbanization that followed in subsequent decades

Figure 15.

LOS ANOKLKS. UAL.

Herbarium of Southern (afifornia Academy of Sciences

Ad

A 'o.

Coll. L. A. GKE

A rA / lo

l()oo

32

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1906

Fig- 15 — The label presented on the previous page, for Helemum puberulum (Asteraceae). represents another
collection from the Los Angeles Basm that provides a tantalizing historical glimpse of the habitats and
vegetation that w ere once part of the low land physiognomy There is no way that Louis Greata, in 1900, could
have envisioned the urban spraw l that we now know as Los Angeles Had he known, he would probably have
tned to provide at least slightly better locality and descriptive data for this small marsh in Los .Angeles that he
comfortably knew as the “Kuhrtz Street Marsh." A second label on the same sheet (not illustrated) from the Los
Angeles Museum Herbarium (LAM) is typewntten and indicates the locality as "Kuhrtz Street Marsh, Los
.Angeles, So. Calif ," without any suggestion of doubt as to the locality. Regrettably, however, "Kuhrtz Street"
apparently no longer exists within Los .Angeles City boundaries My best extrapolation is that this little street
probably became the brief stretch now known as "Kurtz Avenue," which is situated on the NW base of City
Terrace, in a low , flat area of about 380 feet elevation, two miles east of the Los .Angeles River Unfortunately,
this is only speculauon Undoubtedly the marsh disappeared decades ago This is w hy it is so important io
provide the kind of locality data that can be recognized by future researchers (if there are any) when local
features have disappeared Greata's mind would be boggled if he could see the area m 1996 At the current rale
of populauon grow th, our minds would boggle if w e could see the same area 96 years into the future (if a
civilized Homo sapiens is still extant) When you generate your labels, always try to keep a global perspective,
but— to the degree possible— also try to maintain a temporal perspecuve

Figure 16.

FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA
(EMC)

licus Benih

Annot.: Gary L. Hannan Aug 1991

University ofSouthern California

HERBARIUM

Name Tkiusi t man ccl A -farn/tu

. > VA _ •

Locality C. ,./W. City

Habitat l3a ? / .c/* /L.

d., u/kci'H/, ./■;/?

Collector J.t.LM

Det.

Fig. 16 — This collecuon of Plaryslemon califormcus (Papaveraceae) also serves as a historical document It
was collected in 1922 at the base of a sandy hillside in or near Culver City. Los .Angeles County One would be
hard-pressed to find a single Plaryslemon growing at Culver City today Such specimens provide valuable
insight into past plant occurrences in areas that have now had their natural vegetation destroyed The label
indicates that the plant was both collected by and idenufied by Frances Morey "Det." simply means
"determined by" (technically. Latin delerminavit, he she determined [it]) If a specimen label prov ides the name
of the plant, but there is no addinonal indication of who idenufied it. the general assumpnon is that the person
who collected it also idenufied it If you collect a plant specimen and someone else idenufies it for you. it is
common courtesy to indicate on the label who idenufied it for you (just so long as you quote them accurately)
.Also, if you re-idenhfy someone else's specimen, you should use an annotauon label that clearly indicates w ho
provided the re-determinauon In the specimen above, the label is accompanied by a recent annotauon label
giving the researcher's name, the standardized acronym of the herbarium with which he is (or was) associated
(EMC Eastern Michigan LTniversity), the date of the annotauon. and his confirmauon that the specimen is
correctly identified

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

33

Figure 17.

RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN (RSA)

Pens lemon grinnellii A. Eastwood
var. grinnellii

Del Timothy S Ross 23 vii 1994

PLANTS OP LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Scrophulariaceae

Penstemon spectabilis Thurb. ex Gray

Summit of Condor Peak, San Gabriel Mountains.
High elevation chaparral with pines on
north slope.

Perennial to 2-3' tall with bright blue flowers.
Bertrund Far 27 8-11-37

Fig. 17 — The example here for a specimen of Penstemon spectabilis (Scrophulariaceae) illustrates several bad
"no-no's" that may be hidden behind the scenes and which are not necessarily discemable from the label itself
The specimen represents one of several plants that was collected by Bertrand Farr in 1937 and stored by him,
unprocessed, until they were obtained in 1993 by another amateur botanist With a paucity of information
available for the plant collections (the locality information only, written on the margins of the newspapers), the
second botanist then put names on the collections, generated labels, and turned the specimens over to the RSA
herbarium Let me point out a few problems that one would not be aware of without knowing the history of the
specimens First of all, the second botanist misspelled the collector's name, which is perhaps no grave error but
certainly a discourtesy Second, the botanist who identified and processed the collections made no mdicadon on
the label, or by means of an annotation label, that the material was identified by someone other than the
collector, consequently, it looks like "Bertrund Far" identified the plants Third, as indicated earlier, the date
should never be written in this short -hand form Always give the full year. Some herbarium collections are well
over 200 years old and, if herbarium specimens last indefinitely as they are intended to, a date like this will
become more ambiguous as time goes on Always spell out the month or’ use roman numerals for it A
duplicate of this specimen, if it were sent to Europe, would be assumed to have been collected November 8th,
and Dot August 1 1th. Most seriously, however, the botanist who processed the collection quite clearly did not
bother to examine the specimen closely when he "identified" it At a quick glance, he misidentified it as
Penstemon spectabilis , a species with a purplish corolla tube and rich blue limb. Then, based on his
misideniification, he made up the descriptive information Examination of the specimen pnor to filing it into
the RSA herbarium revealed that the plant was actually Penstemon grinnellii var grinnellii, a species with a
shorter, broader corolla that tends to be a very pale pinkish or lavender (sometimes almost white) with violet
lines emanating from the throat. It also tends to be about 6-20 inches tall [15-20 cm], not 24-36 inches as
indicated on the label. [The specimen on the sheet was 15 inches tall ] Never, never, never make up the
information that you put on a label Always write down your observaUons when you are in the field and can
examine the fresh plants and their surroundings directly. In this case, the botanist generating the label couldn't
even rely on his memory because he had never been at the site when and where the plant was collected Making
up information in this manner is an inexcusable sloppiness that leads to confusion and — worse yet— may result
in misinformation ultimately getting into the literature

Fig. 18 — Moving on to a much better label, this collection of Viola douglasii (Violaceae) illustrates the kind of
information that results in a useful collection The label is well organized with information presented in discrete
areas. The label indicates the distributing institution (RSABG), the collector's name and her collection number,
the date of the collection with the full year and the month spelled out, the locality (state, county, mountain
range, named locale) supplemented with latitude and longitude coordinates to degrees and minutes, elevation, a
description of the substrate, local distribution information for the species, and a selected list of species

34

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

Figure 18.

Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA

No. 114 SW San Bernardino County

Viola douglasii Steud.

SAN BERNARDINO MTS, ARRASTRE FLAT; near 34d lm N, 117d 5m W;
Elev. 7450 ft. Sparsely vegetated clay soil w/ pavement of
Saragosa Quartzite pebbles. Spotty distribution; loose
patches. Assoc, spp. : Araiis parishii , Are.nana ursine,
Artemisia nova, Draba douglasii, Lewisia rediviva , Lomatium
nevadensu, Poa incurve .

Mary H. O'Brien April 29, 197b

Insect visitors (1978): Visited occas. by Dombglius

major (bombyliid fly^, pierid butterflies, syrphid flies.

associated with it — all of which contribute to a better visualizauon of the habitat In this case, the label also
provides information on insects that were observed visiting the flowers of the violet in 1978 This specimen
serves as a Master's Thesis voucher for pollination studies that the collector conducted on various vascular plant
species on Arraslre Flat (O'Brien 1979). A specimen with these kinds of data recorded on the label can provide
valuable information to Flonshc Botanists, Taxonomists. Entomologists, and Ecologists, among others

Figure 19.

PLANTS OF THE WESTERN STATES

Viol_a douftlasii Steud.

gentle ^ocky and gravelly slope just east of
Doble cemetery, 0.5 air mile ESE of site of
Doble; SU £ of S. 31, T. 3 N. , R. 2 E.

Common in gravelly soil near pinyons.
Foodplant of Speyeria coroni s semiramis in
this area ( Lepidoptera : Nymphalidae ) .

STATE: California COUNTY: San Bernardino
DATE: May 11, 198O ELEV.: 6800 ft.

COLL. : John F. Einmel No. 708

Fig. 19 — For companson of style and purpose, this collection from 1980 of the same species. Viola douglasii,
serves as a voucher documenting it as a food plant for the larvae of the Semiramis FnhUary The collector, John
Emmel. is a Southern California entomologist primarily interested in butterflies When he and Thomas Emmel
published their book, "The Butterflies of Southern California" (1973), the foodplant for this species of butterfly
was hsted as "unknown" becaust it had not yet been documented Making an herbanum specimen of the plant
provides a permanent, primary reference that can be examined and verified by other researchers for decades 10
come

The labels in Figures 18 and 19 remind us that— even though our primary interest is in the plants of the
Calif orm as — those plants are all part of a much more complex natural netw ork than any of us can envision The
disappearance of one plant species, which serves as a natural host for a particular species of insect larvae, may
potentially result in the disappearance of an insect species which, in the adult stage, may be the effective
pollinator of several other plant taxa (This is not even to mention the particular geological substrates that some
plants may be restricted to, the soil bome microorganisms that may be essential for establishment and
maturation of certain plants, and the role of particular plant species as food sources for birds and mammals ]

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

35

HERBARIUM OF U. C. RIVERSIDE

Plants of Riverside County, California

Oxy theca triloba ta Gray PLG

Det. by A. C. Sanders, Aug. 1990

SW Durasno Valley, S of town of Anza. (Near
116°42'W, 33°28'N). Elev. ±4500 ft. Chapar-
ral, with Adenostoma sparsi folium, Brotnus
tectorum, Cercocarpus betuloides, Eriogonum
fasciculatum, etc., on gentle, gravelly
open slope. Annual with branches spreading;
2^-3 ft. diam. canopy.

Chet McGaugh 8 Aug. 1990

Fig. 20 — This label for a collection of Oxylheca tnlobala (Polygonaceae Eriogonoideae) gives a general
locality based on named locales The approximate distance south of Anza would have added some precision,
but the locality is honed a bit with latitude and longitude coordinates and elevation Because the pressed
specimen accompanying the label consisted of one inflorescence branch removed from the basal rosette of the
plant and pressed, the growth form of the plant is not discemable Consequently, the label specifies that the
plant was an annual with the inflorescence branches spreading to form a 2.5-3 foot diameter canopy (very
robust for this species) This is an example of how information on the label complements the pressed specimen
by providing additional data that would not otherwise be evident Note also that while Chet McGaugh collected
the specimen, it was identified by A C Sanders (UCR) and the credit for the determination was recorded on the
label As an aside: when the determiner's name is being placed on the label, the best place for it is immediately
below the plant name as shown here The letters "PLG" that appear on the label are a three-letter abbreviation
for the plant family, Polygonaceae Some botanists use these three-letter abbreviaUons to save space on the
label

Figure 21.

HERBARIUM

LOS ANGELES STATE COLLEGE

OF APPLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES

Gilia latiflora (Gray)Gray ssp. Davyi (Mlkn.)A.&V. Grant

Annual herb 1 ft. high; flowers deep purple tube,
throat white with yellow patches, lobes pink
generally drying blue. Abundant in hilly areas
of a Valley Grassland Community.

Quartz Hill, Mojave Desert
Los Angeles County
California

Date:2l4 March 1962 Collected by: Wesley 0. Griesel

36

CROSSOSOMA 22(1). Spring-Summer 1996

Fig. 21 — This label for a collection of Gilia latiflora ssp davyi (Polemomaceae) shows the information
somewhat broken down into discrete units in order to facilitate reading Because an entire specimen of the plant
is mounted on the herbarium sheet, it is not necessary to include a lot of descriptive informauon Here it is
largely limited to flower color As with most other types of information, get in the habit of writing down the
flower color of the plant when you have the fresh material in front of you For some groups of plants, having
notes on the flower color will prove helpful, and occasionally indispensible, when you are trying to key them
With the genus Gilia. the key that you use may very likely ask for the color of the corolla hmb, throat, and tube,
as well as the color of the pollen or anthers If you've taken the time to w rite that information down in your
notes while the flowers were fresh, you will be in a much better position to identify what you've collected

RANCHO SANTA ANA BOTANIC GARDEN
Flora of Los Angeles County, California, U S A.
Lamiaceae

Salvia mellifera E.L.Greene

SAN GABRIEL MTNS Doe Flat and immediate vicinity, situated between
Gravey ard Canyon and the E Fk of Susanna Canyon, draining to the lower E Fk of
the San Gabriel River Glendora 7.5' USGS quadrangle, T2N R9W, NW/4 NW/4
section 23. elev. ca 2760-2840 feet

Weak-wooded shrubs to ca 15 dm tall on the low ndge just E of the flat,
corollas pale blue

Doe Rat consists of an open area dominated by Elymus condensalus. Arte-
misia dracunculus, and various other herbs such as Claytoma parviflora parviflora.
Nemophila menziesu, Dichelostemma pulchellum, Lupinus bicolor microphytlus.
Eriogonum cf. gracile. Delphinium parryi. Achillea millefolium. Heterotheca cf.
fasligiata, this in turn surrounded by a nng of Amorpha cahformca. then giving way
to a mosaic of hard and soft chaparral with Artemisia cahforntca. Salvia mellifera.
Rhus tnlobala, Eriogonum fasciculatum foliolosum. Yucca whipplei parishu.
Quercus durala gabnelensis. Q. wislizeni, Ceanolhus leucodermis. C. crassifohus.
Rhus ovala. Hazardia squarrosa gnndelioules. etc.

Timothy S Ross 4578 25 April 1991

Steve Boyd

Fig. 22 — This is a rather lengthy label for Salvui mellifera (Lamiaceae). a collection made by the author and
Steve Boyd Unfortunately, I am one of the collectors who may be incorrigibly verbose In my own defense. 1
would like to point out that verbosity is not necessarily bad if the informauon provided on the label is relevant
and helps to improve know ledge of the plant or its habitat If you do include a large amount of information,
however, reduce the font size so that the label is at least more compact The label should complement the
specimen, not compete with it My primary reason for including this label is actually to stress a point that 1 like
to make with other collectors Collect the common species, not just the uncommon species Don’t take it for
granted that just because the species is common today it will still be common or even extant in a few decades
Most Southern California botanists who engage in fieldwork would probably agree that 5. mellifera (Black
Sage) is a common species To make a point, however. I'd like to mennon the problem with this species out on
San Clemente Island Its presence on the island was reported both by Alice Eastwood (1941) and Meryl Dunkle
(1950) However, there is not a single known herbarium specimen of S. mellifera collected on San Clemente
Island that would give some certainty or substantiaUon to those reports Eastwood's list for the California
Channel Islands is known to contain numerous errors, in part because of the liberal manner in which the list was
compiled (e.g.. some reports were apparently derived from unvouchered field observauons or field notes of
visitors to the island) Dunkle's 1950 lists have also contained a few unsubstantiated reports, however, various
botanists working on the island in recent years have rediscovered several of the taxa reported by Dunkle for
which there did not appear to be previously collected vouchers Each "rediscovery" lends credibility to other
reports that Dunkle made for San Clemente Island Salvia mellifera is a disUncUve species, easily recognized
by just about any creature but an O.J. juror or a lobotomized baboon //this species used to occur on the island,
it seems apparent from recent fieldwork that it is no longer extant there— most likely as the result of decades of
browsing bv feral goats I personally believe that it used to occur on the island, but without a voucher specimen
to substantiate any reports, doubt must remain The most plausible explanaUon to me is that botanists who

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

37

might have seen the taxon on the island bypassed this "common" species in favor of collecting other plants that
were unfamiliar to them

Don't take particular species for granted because you think that they are common When you go to a
collecting site, document everything that you can.

Figure 23.

BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO

Sierra de la Giganta
Castilleja Bryantii Brandegee
Det. L. R. Heckard, 1973
Erect annual; bracts scarlet ( orange -red ^ .
Among rocks aud spree at base of cliffs.

Pfllin^edfb/lc7R,°”uml hummiug bird

ftlesa ae rfumi [crest ol the bierra easterly from YillaCon-

stitucion and southwesterly from the northern tip of I si a

San Jose].

Altitude ca. 900 m. ca. 250 03' N., no®57'\V.

Ann etta Carter
L. R. Heckard ct al.

5767

20 March 1973

Herbarium of the University of C.m ifornia, Berkeley

Com ectok’s Note. Mesa de Humi. Except for a con-
spicuous “ picachu" (alt. ca. tj2y »t.) near its SIP edge, the
mesa (alt. ca. Sot) m.) appears nearly jlat with numerous
deep embayments. The most abundant woody plants are Pro-
sopis pa/meri, Jalropha vernicosa, Fuutjuieria diguetii, L.em-
aireoceretts thurberi, Kuellia peninsularis. Agave aud Pachy-
cereus pringlei are scattered on the mesa. A low, spreading
Ambrosia forms an abundant ground cover. On the “ picachu ”
Pithecolobium confine, AJelia virgata ami Jalropha cuneala
are more abundant than they are on the mesa.

Fig. 23 — These two labels for one collecuon serve to illustrate the various types of informauon that can
complement a s pea men This speaes, Caslilleja bryantii (Scrophulanaceae), is an attracuve annual endemic to
the state of Baja California Sur, Mexico It was collected by Annetta Carter, an indefatigable collector in Baja
California Sur who contributed significantly to the flonstic knowledge of Baja California by means of her
carefully prepared speamens and carefully recorded observauons It was not uncommon for her to append
"Collector's Notes" to her specimens in order to provide more data Here, limited by space restncuons on the
genera] collection label, her secondary label provides important informauon on the local topography and the
locally dominant plants [For biographical notes on Annetta Carter, see Ertter 1992 ]

Conclusion

While plant collectors often lake it for granted that documenting plant occurrences is
an easy and straight-forward task, they generally forget how tentative and unsophisticated
their own first efforts were. Most field botanists have honed their own collecting styles after

38

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

observing the techniques of other collectors, and have refined their rituals while gradually
discovering those techniques that "work best" for them. In this evolutionary process, each
collector will ultimately develop their own style— for better or for worse. My own collecting
and record-keeping style has certainly evolved considerably over the past decade.

On the basis of my own experience, I have attempted here to clearly state the basic
process and premises of plant collecting, to provide guidelines that will make the process
more efficient, and to emphasize the potential value of carefully prepared specimens and
labels. 1 hope that the information provided in this introduction to herbarium specimens and
plant collecting will be of benefit to those who wish to collect plant vouchers, but who also
want to be conscientious about the process.

In our current knowledge of plant diversity and distribution patterns, we stand on the
shoulders of countless multitudes, and any additional individuals who might have stepped
into that crowd would undoubtedly have added something more to that cumulative wealth of
knowledge. Additional contributions from botanists — amateur or professional — maintain the
grow th of that knowledge. I hope that any readers will consider the potential contribution of
their own collections and observations, and will understand the cumulative and
complementary nature of each contribution, no matter how small or unimportant it may
originally seem.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank both Victor W. Steinmann and Steve Boyd for taking the time to read and
review this long, rambling paper. Their suggestions and constructive comments were
genuinely helpful in revising it and suggesting a few additional topics to mention. Thanks
also to Annette H. Ross for her critical reading and helpful comments on various versions,
and for helping to eliminate ambiguities and errors that entered during the revisionary
process. Any and all remaining errors or shortcomings are, however, the fault of the author.

I extend my appreciation to all readers who loathe verbosity but actually read the article all
the way through in the hope of learning something. I have tried to write as unambiguously as
possible, but any readers left w ith questions may seek clarification from the author.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the advice of the great plant breeder and w riter, Oscie
B. Watley Jr., whose guidelines, suggestions, and presciptions on writing 1 have attempted to
follow, particularly the admonition "Never be too serious about a fun subject."

REFERENCES CITED AND RECOMMENDED READING

Anonymous. 1971. Preparing herbarium specimens of vascular plants. Agriculture Infor-
mation Bulletin No. 348. U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Dunkle, Meryl B. 1950. Plant ecology of the Channel Islands of California. Allan Hancock
Foundation Publications. Pacific Expeditions 13: 247-386. University of Southern
California Press, Los Angeles.

Eastwood, Alice. 1941. The islands of Southern California and a list of recorded plants, II.
Leaflets of Western Botany 3: 54-78.

Emmel, Thomas C., and John F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26:1-148, Los
Angeles.

Ertter, Barbara. 1992. Obituary': Annetta Mary Carter (1907-1991). Madrono 39:245-250.
Forman, Leonard, and Diane Bndson. 1989. The herbarium handbook. Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, Great Britain.

Fosberg, F. Raymond. 1946. The herbarium. The Scientific Monthly 63: 429-434.

Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University
of California Press, Berkeley.

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

39

MacFarlane, Ruth B. Alford. 1985. Collecting and preserving plants for science and
pleasure. Arco Publishing Inc., New York.

Martin, Gary J. 1995. Chapter 2-Botany. In Ethnobotany: a methods manual. Chapman &
Hall, New York.

O'Brien, Mary. 1979. "Pollination biology of a pavement plain in the San Bernardino
Mountains, California." Master's thesis. Claremont Graduate School, Claremont,
California. [ Unpublished .]

Savile, D.B.O. 1962. Collection and care of botanical specimens. Publication 1113. Plant
Research Institute, Central Experimental Farm, Canada Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Underwood, Lucien M. 1888. Our native ferns and their allies. 3rd ed. rev. Henry Holt and
Company, New York.

HERBARIUM SUPPLIES

Although there are several suppliers of herbarium materials in the United States., the
following address is given as a convenient local source for plant presses, press straps,
ventilators, and other items. A catalog and price list are available.

Herbarium Supply Company, 3483 Edison Way, Menlo Park, California 94025.

40

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BOTANISTS

("SCB" HEREIN)

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I. Purpose of the SCB
Section 1. Purpose of the SCB.

The purpose of the Southern California Botanists (SCB) is the conservauon and study of the
native plants and Vegetation of California, and the education of the public to the value of
California's native flora and its habitat. It is a not for profit public benefit corporation under
the laws of the State of California

ARTICLE II. Members

Section 1. Membership

Any person, family, or group interested in the native plants of California is eligible for
membership in the SCB. Application for membership shall be made to the SCB.

Membership classifications shall be set by, and reviewed as needed by, the Board of
Directors of the SCB.

Section 2. Right of Members to Vote

Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote on any question requiring a vote of the
membership of the SCB. A family or group having a single membership shall have one vote.

Section 3. Right of Initiative

By petition, ten per cent (10%) of the membership may bring issues before the Board of
Directors. If the Board fails to act to the petitioners’ satisfaction, the issue may be brought
before the membership at large by nouce published in Leaflets , the newsletter of the SCB.

Section 4. Termination of Memberships

Membership in the SCB shall terminate: upon the death of that member; by resignation; by
non-payment of dues; or by resolution of the Board of Directors to dissolve SCB. Member-
ships may not be transferred.

Section 5. Dissolution of the SCB: Distribution of Assets

The SCB may be dissolved by three-fourths vote or greater (75% +) of the Board of
Directors. In the event that the SCB is dissolved (after paying or adequately providing for
the debts and obligations of the SCB), the Board of Directors shall give any remaining
property to the California Native Plant Society or such other non-profit organization as may
have goals and objectives similar to those of the SCB. No member shall possess any
property right in or to the property of the SCB. In no event shall any earnings or other
property of the SCB be distributed to or inure to the benefit of any member, former member,
director, or officer of the SCB, or other private individual, either directly or indirectly.

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

41

Section 6. Meeting of the Members

Meetings of the total membership for any purpose or business may be called at any time by
the President upon resolution of the Board of Directors,

Section 7. Notification of Meetings

Written notification of meetings of the membership shall be given to each member. Notice
of meetings shall be placed in the mail at least two (2) weeks prior to the holding of the
meeting. Such mailing shall constitute due and legal notice to a member.

Section 8. Quorum

The presence of ten per cent or more (10% +) of the membership at any meeting shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every' act done or decision made by a
simple majority of the members present at a meeting duly held shall be regarded as a valid
act of the members.

ARTICLE III. DUES

Section 1. Manner of Fixing Dues

Dues of each class of membership in the SCB shall be reviewed and determined as needed by
the Board of Directors.

Notification of any change in dues shall be sent to the membership at least three months prior
to the effective date of such change.

Section 2. Payment of Dues

Dues are payable on a calendar year basis. Dues shall be payable to The Southern California
Botanists and sent to the Treasurer of the SCB. Members who are in default in the payment
of dues after notification in the first issue of Leaflets for each calendar year shall have their
memberships terminated. Any member so terminated shall be reinstated upon full payment
of dues.

ARTICLE IV. Board of Directors
Section 1. Qualification to be a Director

Only members of the SCB in good standing shall be eligible to be members of the Board of
Directors.

Section 2. Membership of the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors shall consist of the officers (a President, one or more Vice-Presidents,
a Secretary, and a Treasurer), plus at least four Directors-at-large. The Directors-at-large
should reflect the composition of the SCB membership (e.g., students, professional botanists,
and non-academic botanists). The immediate Past President of the SCB, the editor of
Leaflets , and the editor of Crossosoma shall be ex officio members of the Board of Directors.

42

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Section 3. Election of Officers and Directors

An election shall occur annually for all available positions on the Board of Directors. To
accomplish this election a Nominaung Committee shall prepare a slate of candidates for
presentation to the members of the SCB. Any member of the SCB in good standing is
eligible to be nominated. Candidates may also be nominated by petition of the membership
at large. Such petitions shall be signed by no fewer than five (5) members of the SCB and
shall be filed with the Nominating Committee not later than October 15. Candidates for
positions on the Board of Directors should be familiar with the Bylaws of the SCB and shall
be informed of the obligations and expectations inherent in the office for which they are a
candidate.

The names of all formally nominated candidates shall be included on a ballot sent to each
member of the SCB. For each office open to a vote, the ballot shall also provide space for a
wnte-in candidate. Voting shall be by secret ballot, the ballots to be received by the
Secretary of the SCB. The ballots so received shall remain sealed until opened and counted
at a meeting of the Board of Directors at which a quorum is present. A plurality of all votes
cast shall be sufficient to elect. All candidates, whether or not elected to the Board for the
following calendar year, shall be informed of the vote in a prompt and timely manner.

Section 4. Tenure of Officers and Directors

The President and Vice-President(s) shall serve a calendar year term. The Treasurer,
Secretary, and Directors-at-large shall each serve a two year term. No more than 60% of the
Directors-at-large shall be elected in any one year. The President and Vice-President(s) may
not serve more than two consecuUve terms in each respective office.

The ex officio post of Immediate Past President is a one year term. In the event that the
Immediate Past President is elected to another office in the SCB, the individual shall bear the
title of Immediate Past President as well as the title of their current office, but shall be
entitled to only one vote in the affairs of the Board.

The editor of Leaflets and the editor of Crossosoma shall sen e as ex officio members of the
Board of Directors during their tenure as editors. Their tenure shall be limited in accordance
with Article VII Sections I and 2.

Section 5. Termination of Directorships

A membership in the Board of Directors of the SCB may be terminated by resignation,
completion of term limit, a majority vote of the Board due to misconduct or non-performance
of duties of office, or upon the death or incapacitation of that member. Officers of the SCB
and other members of the Board who are delinquent in their payment of SCB dues by three
months or more into the calendar year shall be dismissed from the Board. Members of the
Board of Directors who are absent from half or more (50% +) of the Board meetings in a
given calendar year may be dismissed from the Board for non-performance of duties.
Vacancies created by such dismissals may be filled for the remaining tenure of that post by
majority vote of the Board of Directors. Membership in the Board of Directors may not be
transferred.

Section 6. Meetings of the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors shall meet as needed to conduct the business of the SCB. Meetings
shall be called by the President. In the President's absence, inability, or refusal to act, a

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 19%.

43

meeting for purposes of conducting the necessary business of the SCB may be called by any
other member of the Board.

Written notification of the date, time, purpose, and place of the meetings of the Board of
Directors shall be given by the Secretary to each Director at least seven (7) days pnor to the
holding of the meeting.

Section 7. Quorum within the Board

The presence of one-half of the Board of Directors as constituted at that time (but not less
than 5) shall be necessary' to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every' act
done or decision made by a majority of the directors present at a meeting duly held, at which
a quorum is present, shall be regarded as a valid act of the Board of Directors.

Section 8. Powers of the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors shall be the governing body of the SCB. Its acts and decisions shall
be made in accordance with the Bylaws of the SCB and shall be subject to the limitations
established herein.

article v. Duties of the Officers
Section 1. Duties of the President

The President shall preside at all meetings of the members and Board, shall have general
supervision of the affairs of the SCB, shall sign or countersign all certificates, contracts, and
other instruments of the SCB as authorized by the Board and members, and shall perform all
such other duties as are incident to the office or are properly required by the Board.

Section 2. Duties of the Vice-President(s)

The Vice-President(s), in the order designated by the Board, shall exercise the functions of
the President dunng the absence or disability of the President. Each Vice-President shall
have such powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned from time to time by the
Board.

Section 3. Duties of the Secretary

The Secretary' shall keep, or cause to be kept, the minutes of all meetings of the Board of
Directors and meetings of the members, with the time and place of holding, the names of
those present in the case of Board meetings, the number of members present or represented at
a meeting of the general membership, and the proceedings thereof. The Secretary shall give,
or cause to be given, notice of all meetings of the Board of Directors and meetings of the
members as required by the Bylaws. The Secretary shall prepare those directives and other
documents as are needed and authorized for the internal use of the Board of Directors. The
Secretary shall also act as the general recipient of the correspondence directed to the SCB
and shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the
Board.

Section 4. Duties of the Treasurer

The Treasurer shall receive membership dues and all funds due the SCB. The Treasurer shall
keep and maintain, or cause to be kept and maintained, adequate and correct accounts of the

44

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

transactions of the SCB, including accounts of its assets, liabilities, receipts, and disburse-
ments. The Treasurer shall deposit all moneys and other valuables in the name and to the
credit of the SCB with such depositories as may be ordered by the Board, shall render to the
President and Directors, whenever they request it, an account of all transactions as Treasurer
and of the financial condition of the SCB, and shall have such other powers and perform such
other duties as may be prescribed by the Board.

ARTICLE VI. COMMITTEES

Section 1. Formation of Committees

The President or Board of Directors may create committees when necessary and convenient
to accomplish the aims of the SCB. The President or Board shall appoint a chairman and
such members as necessary for the proper functioning of the committee. Vacancies shall be
filled by directive of the President or Board. Committees may be disbanded by the President
or Board of Directors.

Section 2. Composition of Committees

At least one (1) member of the Board of Directors shall serve as a member of each
committee. The chairman of a committee shall be a member of the SCB. Dependent on the
nature and purpose of a given committee, committees may include one or more individuals
who are not members of the SCB if the Board of Directors determines that an ability or
expertise necessary to the goals or objectives of that committee is not represented within the
membership of the SCB. In all other situations, committees shall be comprised of members
of the SCB in good standing.

Section 3. Quorum within a Committee

Unless otherwise provided in the directive of the Board or President establishing the
committee, a majority of the whole committee shall constitute a quorum and the act of a
majority of the members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of
the committee.

Section 4. Powers of Committees

The committees of the SCB shall have those powers and duties as outlined by the Board or
President. The chairman of a committee shall render to the Board, upon their request, an
accounting of the progress and current state of the committee's work.

Section 5. Rules Governing Committee Action

Each committee may adopt its own rules of procedure provided that they are not inconsistent
with the rules adopted by the Board of Directors, or the Bylaws of the SCB.

ARTICLE VII. PUBLICATIONS OF THE SCB

Section 1. Crossosoma, Journal of the SCB

The SCB shall publish and distribute Crossosoma , a botanical journal with articles relevant
to the conservation and study of the California flora, particularly that of Southern California.
Articles of a broader scope may be published if they are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the SCB. Crossosoma shall be published and distributed in a timely manner to

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

45

all pqjd members of the SCB. The Editor of Crossosoma shall be appointed by majority vote
of the Board of Directors. The Editor's tenure may be terminated by resignation, non-
payment of membership dues, a majority vote of the Board due to misconduct or non-
performance of duties of office, or upon death or incapacitation. The Editorship may not be
transferred except by the express majority approval of the Board of Directors.

Section 2. Leaflets , Newsletter of the SCB

The SCB shall publish and distribute Leaflets , a newsletter with notes and notices of interest
to the membership. It shall serve to inform the members of the SCB on such matters as
upcoming events, elections, changes within the Board of Directors, and other announcements
of a time-dated nature. Leaflets shall be published and distributed in a timely manner to all
paid members of the SCB. The Editor of Leaflets shall be appointed by majority vote of the
Board of Directors. The Editor's tenure may be terminated by resignation, non-payment of
membership dues, a majority vote of the Board due to misconduct or non-performance of
duties of office, or upon death or incapacitation. The Editorship may not be transferred
except by the express majority approval of the Board of Directors.

Section 3. Special Publications

The SCB may, as deemed appropriate, produce and distribute special publications on an
irregular basis. Such publications shall be undertaken by majority approval of the Board, and
shall not be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the SCB.

ARTICLE VIII. BOOKS AND RECORDS

Section 1. Accounts, Minutes, Membership

The SCB shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall also keep
minutes of the proceedings of meetings of: the membership, the Board, and committees
having any of the authority of the Board; shall keep a record giving the names and addresses
of the members entitled to vote. All books and records of the SCB may be inspected by any
member, their agent or attorney, for any reasonable purpose at any reasonable time.

Section 2. Records

Each officer shall upon the expiration of their term of office and upon the election of their
successor deliver to their successor the records of their office.

ARTICLE IX. Contracts, Checks, Deposits, and Funds

Section 1. Contracts

The Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers, agent or agents of the SCB, in
addition to the officers so authorized by these Bylaws, to enter into any contract or execute
and deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the SCB, and such authority may
be general or confined to specific instances.

Section 2. Limitation of Authority

In the absence of express authorization of the Board of Directors, no officer, committee
member, nor general member shall have the power to act or bind the SCB in any manner.

46

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

Section 3. Checks, Drafts, Etc.

All checks, drafts, or orders for the payment of money, notes, or other evidences of
indebtedness issued in the name of the SCB, shall be signed by such officer or officers, agent
or agents, of the SCB and in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by
resolution of the Board. In the absence of such determination by the Board, such instruments
shall be signed by the Treasurer. Disbursements in excess of two thousand dollars
($2000.00) shall be approved in advance by the Board of Directors.

Section 4. Deposits

All funds of the SCB shall be deposited to the credit of the SCB in such banks, trust
companies, or other depositories as the Board of Directors may select.

Section 5. Gifts

The Board of Directors may accept on behalf of the SCB any contribution, gift, bequest or
devise for the general purposes or for any specific purpose of the SCB. No contribution shall
be accepted by the Board of the SCB or any member on behalf of the SCB if said
contribution be for the purpose of buying influence or advocacy.

ARTICLE X. Fiscal Year

Section 1. Fiscal Year

The fiscal year of the SCB shall begin on the first day of January and end on the last day of
December in each year.

ARTICLE XI. AMENDMENTS

Section 1. Manner of Amending Bylaws

New Bylaws may be adopted, amended, or repealed, or these Bylaws may be amended or
repealed, by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting called for
such purpose at which a quorum is present or voting by a mail ballot where two-thirds of the
ballots cast and received are affirmative. Ballots from ten percent or greater of the voting
membership must be received for the vote to be considered valid. A copy of the proposed
amendment or new Bylaws shall be included in the notice given each member.

[Approved by the SCB membership Apnl 1996 ]

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

47

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BOTANISTS, INC.
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1995

Bank Balances at December 3 1 , 1994:

Money Market Account

25,743.14

Checking Account

4.196.08

Total

29,939.22

(Outstanding checks 1994, None)
RECEIPTS FOR 1995:

Membership Dues

2,170.00

Book Sales

708.62

Plant Sales

55.55

Symposium

1,053.00

Interest Income

689.26

Donations

2,775.50

Sales Tax

17.42

Shipping and Handling

14.69

Petty Cash

200.00

Other Income

839.55

8.523.59

Total Available

38,462.81

Expenses for 1995:

Mailing

200.00

Printing

1,143.39

Postage

74.00

Symposium

1,061.54

Plant Sales

00.00

Grants

1,000.00

Supplies

00.00

Typing

00.00

1994 Sales Tax

20.00

Petty Cash

200.00

Donations

00.00

Entertainment

224.71

Reid Trips

750.00

Miscellaneous Expenses

189.08

4,882.72

Balance at December 31, 1995

33,580.09

Bank Balances at December 31, 1995:

Money Market Account

28,972.33

Checking Account

4.607.76

Total

33,580.09

(Outstanding Checks 1995, None)

— Reported by Alan P. Romspert, SCB Treasurer.

48

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

CROSSOSOMA is published twice per year and serves as a vehicle for items of interest
to professional and amateur botanists in Southern California. Of primary interest are articles
relevant to the flora of Southern California and adjacent, flonstically related regions. Past
contributions have largely been limited to vascular plants, but articles about our non-vascular
plants are also encouraged. Acceptable subject matter includes ecological, taxonomic,
flonstic, horticultural, and other studies, as well as informal notes, observations, and opinion
pieces. If you are uncertain about the acceptability' of a given paper, please make enquiry of
the Editor.

Original submission of manuscripts — Manuscripts intended for inclusion in
CROSSOSOMA should be submitted directly to the Editor (see address appended below, or
inside the front cover of the current issue). Do not submit articles or notes to CROSSOSOMA
if they have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere. The contents of a manuscript should
have their origin with the author(s); otherwise, complete and appropriate citations should be
provided for any information that is not original.

All items should be in English (smatterings of Latin or Greek are to be expected);
however, it is recommended that articles dealing with taxa that occur in Mexico be provided
with a Spanish abstract as well as an English one. Correct Latin, Greek, or Spanish are the
responsibility of the authorfs).

Brief notes, letters to the Editor, book reviews, and similar short items will usually be
reviewed by the Editor alone; therefore, only one copy need be submitted. There may be
times, however, that the Editor may seek a second opinion for purposes of improved
objectivity. Formal articles and lengthier contributions are normally assessed by the Editor
and at least two outside reviewers; hence, three copies of such manuscripts should be
submitted.

Manuscripts should originally be submitted on white, previously unused 8.5 x 1 1 inch
paper. These should either be typewritten or composed on a computer and printed with a
laser printer or similar high quality printer. Please avoid using a dot-matrix printer if at all
possible; the Editor does not like to guess which letter is purportedly formed by those seven
dots. Hand-written manuscripts (i.e., "manuscripts" in a literal sense) cannot be accepted.
All text pages should be double-spaced, and all margins should be 1 to 1.5 inches to allow
space for editorial corrections and/or reviewers' comments. Tables should be submitted
single-spaced, and formatted as the author envisions their final form. Illustrations should be
submitted as clear, clean photocopies. Photocopies of either photographs or
photomicrographs should be light enough or dark enough so that any relevant elements in
them that are mentioned or discussed are readily identifiable by the Editor and reviewers.

Sequence of submitted manuscripts. — When submitted, manuscripts for formal
articles should be arranged in the following order as relevant: title; author’s name and
address; abstract; key words; text; acknowledgments; literature cited [at the head of a new
page]; tables, figures, and illustrations in consecutive order; captions for the preceding [at the
head of a new page]; appendices. Remember to provide these in triplicate.

Submission of final, revised copy. — After review and acceptance, submit final,
revised version of manuscript in hard copy, as well as on 3.5 inch computer diskette, if
possible. The Editor uses a Macintosh and Microsoft Word 5.0. Diskettes submitted in this
format would be greatly appreciated, but the Editor is willing to attempt conversions from
other formats. The original illustrations should be submitted at this time.

Page charges and reprints. — Currently, there are no page charges assessed for
contributors. However, if glossy pages are requested for black & white illustrations, or if
color reproduction is required for one or more color illustrations, the excess cost must be
prepaid by the contributor. Such costs wili be estimated by the Editor in consultation with

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

49

our printer. If such prepayment is not received prior to an issue going to press, then the
illustration(s) will appear in black & white on the usual paper stock.

Style and Format of Text

Style. — A certain amount of flexibility is permitted in the organization of a given
manuscript. The Editor recognizes that there are a diversity of writing styles of equal
validity, from spartan robotic outline style to fluent stream of consciousness. What is
important is the author's successful communication of facts and/or ideas to the reader. The
organization of the text should be structurally appropriate to the kind of information being
presented. Use headings and subheadings where they would be useful in organizing the
presentation of your text.

Subject matter should be presented in a fairly straight-forward manner, but accuracy
and relevance of detail are to be prized over conciseness for the sake of conciseness. The
Editor also encourages the use of smooth grammatical structure over the increasingly popular
telegraphic styles. [The obvious exception to this is formal description of new taxa in Latin
and English.] Conjunctions, adverbs, and other parts of speech exist to be used; feel free to
use them as appropriate.

Whenever possible, excessive use of the passive voice is to be avoided.

By all means, avoid reification and hypostatization! It is shamefully common in
scientific writing. [E.g.— " Science teaches us that...." First of all: science is an abstract
concept, not a physical object or a being. Second: because science has no being or
consciousness, it cannot impel actions of its own volition. "Our data tell us that...." No.
Data do not speak. They are generally compiled (by humans) and interpreted (by humans),
and are subject to any and all errors or deficiencies inherent in that compilation and
interpretation.]

Abbreviations. — Words or phrases that have fairly standard and widely recognized
abbreviations may be supplanted by them, e.g., "mi" (mile), "ft" (feet), "m" (meter), "dm”
(decimeter), and so forth. Words or abbreviations in Latin, or other non-English languages,
may be italicized or underlined, e.g. ( exempli gratia)-, s.l. ( sensu lato), sstr. ( seusu stricto),
ca. (circa), etc. (el cetera). This is, however, a stylistic matter and subject to an author's
preferences, so long as no ambiguities result. Abbreviations should not appear at the very
beginning of a sentence.

General format. — Articles and notes should begin with a title (all caps) that makes
formal announcement— or at least accurate intimation — of the contents of the text. In formal
articles, this should be followed immediately with the author's name and address, a brief
abstract, and a few key words that might be useful in indexing the article.

For informal notes, observations, book reviews, and the like, an abstract and key
words are not required, and the author's name and address should be appended at the end of
the note following an "em" dash. [The "em" dash is a long dash ( — ), and is used for

interjections and to set off items from the remainder of the text ( e.g I had never seen the

plant before and — gosh!— it was a reeeal purdy thang...). It differs from the intermediate
"en" dash (-), which is generally used to delimit a span between two extremes (e.g., 7.5-10.3
mm), and the hyphen (-), which is usually used to break a long word at the end of a line of
text, or in compound words where its absence might result in an ambiguity or might cause
puzzlement on first observation (e.g., re-emerge, vs. reemerge).] If your typewriter or
computer does not have "em" or "en" dashes, use two hyphens instead (— ).

Style and Format of Reference Citations

For general matters of style. The Chicago manual of style, 14th ed. (1993, University
of Chicago Press) is recommended as a reference. Citation of references should follow the
"Author-Date Citation"-style (Part 2, Section 16) but with the following twist: rather than

50

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996.

city, colon, publisher's name — use publisher's name, comma, city if the city is well-known.
Otherwise, if the city alone may be ambiguous ( e.g ., Portland), add comma, and state if
published in the USA. If the publication is not available from an American publisher, then
use publisher's name, comma, city, comma, [stale or province, comma,] country. Also, in the
citation of bibliographic references, please do not abbreviate book titles or names of journals.
The following citations and references are offered as illustrations of the desired style.

Sample references cited in the text (in order of appearance):

(Ahuramazda 1971; Houdim pers. comm. 19%; Vairya 1995)

(Pumpernickel 195"^

(Belisle in press)

(E. Borden 1942; 1955)

(E Borden Jr. 1978)

(A. Smith 1995a)

(Farquhar, Gamon, and Brown 1993)

(Ahuramazda 1%9; G. Smith 1995)

(A. Smith 1995b)

Correlative references cited in the bibliography (alphabetically and chronologically):

Ahuramazda, Wilbur L. 1%9. A re-assessment of Grooviantha, and seventeen new comb-
inations in Blacklightia (Hendnxiaceae). Journal of Far-out Botanists 4(1): 19-38.

. 1971. Proposals for taxonomic stability in an age of moral crisis. Cosmic Biologist

3(3): 172-214.

Belisle, Andrew Y. Extract of Paullinia cupana (Sapindaceae) successfully used to promote
multiple births. Journal of Needless Scientific Advances. In press.

Borden, Earnest M. 1942. The advantages of forest clearcutting over selective timber
harvests. Economic Forestry Gazette 29(3): 123-127.

. 1955. Type conversion for fun and profit: how to convert useless scrub to worth-
less weed patches. Modern Scientist 9:3-96.

Borden, Earnest M., Jr. 1978. Sins of our fathers: the abuse of our environment in the guise
of scientific and economic progress. Mulch Armageddon Press, Olympia,
Washington. 1584 pp.

Farquhar, Sir William, Elliot S. Gamon, and Engelbert H. Brown. 1993. Stigmatic exudates.
Pp. 81-134 in Pollen and its physiological responses to the environment, Vol. 3,
edited by Edward Q. Leichtlin. Trafalgar Press Ltd., Bristol, England.

Houdim, Harold. 19%. Personal communication viasdance, 1 April.

Pumpernickel, Bernard T. 1957. Chromosome counts for thirty-five commercial crops, and
one for a narrow'ly endemic species now extirpated by agricultural conversion at our
experiment station. Modern Scientist 1 1:33-36.

Smith, A. Jasper. 1995a. Effects of Erwinia amylovora on the thoroughly nonresistent apple
cultivar 'Rosy Martyr.' Journal of Ghastly Blights 17:49-56, plate 13.

. 1995b. Brown Rot ( Monilinia hominis sp. nov.) implicated in the death of world-

renowned plant pathologist Hayman Vasisdass. Journal of Ghastly Blights 17:63-64,
plates 16-39.

Smith, Gunther K. 1995. Slallonea, a new genus in the Mercenanaceae. Bulletin of the
Saxon Violence Research Station 9:48-63.

Vairya, Ahuna. 1995. On the tragic state of American education in the latter half of the
twentieth century. Contributions from the Institute for the Study of Corroding
Empires 8(2): 1 17-191.

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

51

Figures (size & format)

Tables, appendices, and illustrations must ultimately be reduced to a print area of
approximately 11 x 16 cm per page (excluding the header or footer). Plan any figures
accordingly so that on reduction to such size, any illustration details, symbols, and so forth
are still legible or unambiguously identifiable. If possible, make original illustrations no
larger than 40 x 60 cm. Original artwork and other submittals that may be irreplaceable
preferably should be insured, and should be sent to the Editor by reasonably reliable means.
The Editor and the SCB cannot take responsibility for manuscripts or illustrations lost in the
mail; therefore, always keep a clean, reproduceable copy of whatever items you may submit.

Nomenclature, Taxon Authors, Common Names, et cetera

Scientific names. — If a paper is taxonomic in nature all taxa mentioned in a paper
should be identified by scientific name. The taxonomic authority for a given taxon should
follow the taxon name the first time that it appears in text, but need not be used subsequently.
Alternatively, the authorities may be eliminated from the textual discussion if they appear
subsequently in an appendix, table, list of vouchers, checklist, or florula.

Taxon authors. — Authors' names may be spelled out or may be abbreviated,
provided the abbreviation is unambiguous. A fairly widely used contemporary standard for
abbreviations is Authors of plant names (R. K. Brummit and C. E. Powell, eds., 1992, Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, England). Reference to this work, and use of its fairly standardized
abbreviations, is recommended to those who may have access to a copy.

Vernacular or vulgar plant names — "Common names" are often arbitrary,
unlraceable, and quite uncommon; consequently, they should not be used in a paper unless
they are correlated with the scientific name. In general, they are best avoided. Does anybody
know what the Western blue-bonnet bush is? Nobody does. Where can it be found in a
reference book? Nobody knows.

Taxonomic schemes. — Those of you raised during the transition from The Age of
Metals to The Age of Plastics probably know by now that newest does not necessarily equate
with best. Therefore, taxonomic schemes used by an author need not obligatorily correspond
with those used in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (J. C. Hickman, ed.,
1993, University of California Press, Berkeley) if the author finds an alternative taxonomic
treatment to be more meaningful. The validity of taxonomic treatments does not originate in
mandates, committees, or a herd mentality. The Editor does suggest, however, that
appropriate synonymy be provided parenthetically if a taxonomic treatment being used by the
author is not widely known.

Vouchers, Voucher Citations, and Floristic Documentation

Florulas and checklists should be based on voucher specimens, and these specimens
(or at least representative collections) should be cited in the body of the paper or in an
appendix. The herbarium in which these vouchers are housed must be indicated and should
preferably be cited by official herbarium acronym (see P. K. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, and
L. C. Barnett, eds. 1990. Index Herbanorum, Part 1: the herbaria of the world, 8th ed.
Regnum Vegetabile Vol. 120). If the study is not supported by vouchers, this should be
clearly stated in the paper. Likewise, if the study is purportedly based on vouchers, but these
have not been formally accessioned into a recognized herbarium (and are not, therefore,
available to other researchers for study), then this should be clearly stated. "Vouchers" that
are collected, but that never get formally processed, essentially don't exist.

Floristic checklists which are meant for publication should be based on taxa that have
been documented in a given area, rather than on taxa that might possibly occur there. [Nearly
anything is possible, and a list of 700 potential species may be generated for a county park

52

CROSSOSOMA 22(1), Spring-Summer 1996

which actually only sustains 139 species. The list of 700 species is meaningless fiction, and
a list of the 139 species is nearly as meaningless if there are no voucher specimens to
examine in substantiation of those reports ]

In floristic synopses for a given area, voucher specimens need not be cited for taxa
that have already been reported for that area in the literature. However, the source of that
report ought to be cited. The Editor recommends that — whenever possible — researchers
examine and verify original specimens on which reports have been based. In this way,
reports which may have entered the literature based on misidentified material may be
rectified, and the misinformation eliminated rather than perpetuated.

Inconsistencies

Due to the incredible diversity of styles and formats that are recommended by various
books and journals, it seems likely that the Editor will be unwittingly inconsistent from time
to time. The Editor would appreciate having such transgressions pointed out to him so that
they may be avoided subsequently.

Revised 1996

Items intended for possible publication in CROSSOSOMA should be submitted to the
Editor at the following address:

Timothy S. Ross, CROSSOSOMA

do Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
1500 North College Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711-3157

Enquiries and requests for clarification are welcome. The Editor may also be reached by e-
mail at: rosst@cgs.edu, or by FAX at: 909-626-7670, but due to his schedule would prefer
not to play "phone tag." Thanks!

NOTE Readers should submit lists of errata that they encounter in the journal so that
these may be published in a subsequent issue of CROSSOSOMA. Our intent is to publish
accurate information relevant to the Southern California flora and that of adjacent regions.
All errors and discrepancies of importance should be corrected in print.

Southern California Botanists , Inc.

— Founded 1927 —

Memberships, Subscriptions, Back Issues

Individual Memberships in the SCB are $8.00 per calendar year, domestically (or
$13.00 per year to foreign addresses). Memberships include two issues of CROSSOSOMA
per year, and 5 or 6 issues of Leaflets , the newsletter of the SCB. Leaflets provides time-
dated information on activities and events that may be of interest to our general
membership. A subscription to CROSSOSOMA is available to libraries and institutions at
the domestic rate of $15.00 per calendar year ($20.00 to foreign institutions). Back issues
(Vols. 18-present) are available for $3.00 an issue or $6.00 a volume, postpaid. Prior to
Volume 18, CROSSOSOMA included time-dated notices to the membership and was
published six times a year; these back issues are $1.00 each, or $6.00 per volume,
postpaid. Some back issues are out-of-stock and may be provided as photocopies.

SCB SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

No. 1. A FLORA OF THE Santa Rosa PLATEAU, by Earl W. Lathrop &

Robert F. Thome, 39 pp $7.00

No. 3. ENDANGERED PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Proceedings of the 15th Annual SCB Symposium, edited by

Allan A. Schoenherr, 1 14 pp $12.00

Book prices include California state sales tax, handling, and domestic postage.
[Please note that our Special Publication No. 2, FLORA OF THE SANTA MONICA
MOUNTAINS, 2nd edition, by Peter H. Raven, Henry J. Thompson, & Barry A. Pngge, is
now out-of-stock. Members seeking copies of this publication are encouraged to contact
some of the larger booksellers dealing in botanical books as some of them may yet have
small quantities in stock.]

Applications for membership, book purchases, or requests for subscriptions or back
issues, should be sent to: Alan Romspert, Treasurer, Southern California Botanists,
Department of Biology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834, U.S.A.
Make check or money order payable to "Southern California Botanists" or "SCB."
Corrections of name and/or address should also be sent to the Treasurer.

lT,i,,llTHriTI,TTI‘lT,rmHll

•P-

ct»

»

»yi

K*

Journal of the Southern California Botanists, Inc.

Volume 22, Number 2

Autumn-Winter 1996

CONTENTS

Spatial segregation of male and female plants in Croton californicus
(Euphorbiaceae) — Bradford D. Martin & James L. Smith II

Genetic variation within and among sub-populations of the endangered
plant Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina (Brassicaceae)

— William J. Straits, David S. Gill, & Andrew J. Lowe

Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei (Caryophyllaceae), recollection of
an obscure Californian taxon — Timothy S. Ross & Steve Boyd.

Encelia 'Cadiz Reveille' (Asteraceae), a natural hybrid selected for
xeric Southern California gardens — Timothy S. Ross

Additions to the Flora of mainland Los Angeles County,

California — Timothy S. Ross

Book Reviews:

— Plant identification terminology: an illustrated glossary,

by J.G. Harris & M.W. Harris

— A systematic treatment of fruit types,

by Richard W. Spjut

Addenda

Exercise (Creative)

Legends for centerfold plates

Note regarding the publication of CROSSOSOMA

53

59 ""

65

72

74

95

100

98

76

100

Crossosoma

CROSSOSOMA (ISSN 0891-9100) is published twice a year (normally about May and
November) by Southern California Botanists, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation.
Subscription rate to domestic libraries and institutions is $15.00 per calendar year, or $20.00
for foreign institutions (for individual membership, see inside back cover). Back issues
(Vols. 18-present) are available for $3.00 an issue or $6.00 a volume, postpaid. Prior to
Volume 18, CROSSOSOMA was published six times a year; these back issues are $1.00 each,
or $6.00 per volume, postpaid.

Applications for membership, or requests for subscriptions or back issues should be
sent to: Alan Romspert, Treasurer, Southern California Botanists, Department of
Biology , California State University, Fullerton, California 92834, U.S.A.

SCB Board of Directors for 1996 (as of November 1996)

President J. Mark Porter ( 1996)

First Vice President Terry’ Daubert (1996)

Second Vice President Steve Boyd ( 1996)

Secretary Ileene Anderson (1996 p.p.)

Treasurer Alan P. Romspert (1996-1997)

Directors-at-large J. Travis Columbus ( 1995-1996)

Or! ando Mi stretta ( 1 996- 1 997)

Barry A. Pngge (1996-1997)

Andrew C. Sanders (1996-1997)

Allan A. Schoenherr (1996-1997)

Joan Stevens (1995 p.p.- 1996)

Ex officio Board Members Joy Nishida (Immediate Past President, 1996)

Annette H. Ross (Editor of Leaflets )

Timothy S. Ross (Editor of CROSSOSOMA)

Views published in CROSSOSOMA are those of the contributing authors) and are not
necessarily those of the editors, the membership of Southern California Botanists Inc., or the
SCB Board of Directors, unless explicitly stated.

This issue finally published September 1998.

Copyright © 1996, 1998 by Southern California Botanists, Inc. All rights reserved.
Permission to reproduce items in CROSSOSOMA, in whole or in part,
should be requested from the current Editor.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 19%

53

SPATIAL SEGREGATION OF MALE AND FEMALE PLANTS IN
CROTON CALIFORNICUS (EUPHORBIACEAE)

BRADFORD D. MARTIN
Department of Biology
La SierTa University
Riverside, California 92515

JAMES L. SMITH, II
Department of Natural Sciences
Loma Linda University
Loma Linda, California 92350

ABSTRACT: Spatial segregation of the sexes (SSS) occurs in many dioecious species and species
which are gender labile In the present study, spatial distribution of male and female plants of Croton
califormcus was measured in two populations of southern California One population was sampled
using nearest neighbor measurements of plants at random points along transects while another
population was sampled using quadrats on a slope Both nearest neighbor and quadrat measurements
revealed SSS. At the first study site, population density had an influence on SSS with males and
females preferring high and medium density respectively At the second study site, there was no
evidence that density influenced SSS, but males were more abundant on the upper slope while
females were more abundant on the lower slope The results of this study in comparison with
previous studies indicate that sex choice or environmental sex determination may explain SSS in C.
californicus

KEY WORDS: Croton californicus, dioecy, environmental sex determination, Euphorbiaceae,
monoecious morphs, ruche separation, sex choice, spatial segregauon of the sexes

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have demonstrated the existence of ecological differences between male
and female plants in populations of dioecious species, especially the spatial segregation of
the sexes (SSS) along some env ironmental gradient (Bierzychudek and Eckhart 1988).
Males appear to be more prevalent in some microhabitats while females are more prevalent in
others. Investigators postulate that the sexes of dioecious plants often display niche
separation or niche partitioning. Males are usually overrepresented in resource-limited
environments, while females dominate environments w ith abundant resources (Bierzychudek
and Eckhart 1988). Some "dioecious" species that contain monoecious individuals also
exhibit SSS (Freeman etal. 1984; Sakai and Weller 1991; Vitale and Freeman 1986).

Bierzychudek and Eckhart (1988) presented five proximate mechanisms that may
produce SSS, particularly in variable patchy environments: differential mortality, sex choice,
maternal adjustment, habitat choice, and differential germination. They suggest that all of
the proximate mechanisms are unlikely or limited in producing SSS and that the differences
in reproductive biology between the sexes, not intersexual competition, are the main selective
forces resulting in SSS. However, sex choice or environmental sex determination (ESD)
exists (Chamov and Bull 1977; Freeman et al. 1980; Lloyd and Bawa 1984) and the presence
of monoecious individuals in "dioecious" plants implies that this mechanism could be
responsible for many examples of SSS (Freeman et al. 1984; Freeman and Vitale 1985;
Vitale and Freeman 1986). The adaptive significance of monoecy is that it allows hormonal
control of sex allocation via ESD (Chamov and Bull 1977; Freeman et al. 1981).

54

CROSSOSO.UA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Croton californicus Muell. Arg. is reportedly a dioecious plant species (Webster 1993).
The presence of monoecious morphs has been well documented in C. californicus
populations of southern California (Martin 1995a, b; 1997) and SSS as well as sex lability
have also been observed (Martin 1997; Martin and Smith, unpubl. data). This study
documents SSS in two populations of C. californicus and describes differences in the
prevalence of male and female plants with regard to various population densities and their
positions on a slope.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Species and Study Sites. Croton californicus is a subshrub inhabiting sandy soils,
dunes, and washes below 900 m elevation in various plant communities of southwestern
North Amenca. Male and female plants bear small, apetalous, greenish-white flowers.
Pistillate flowers on female plants have multifid styles and resemble staminate flowers on
male plants. Monoecious plants bear male and female flowers and rarely produce a few
bisexual flowers.

Two populations of C. californicus were studied in Riverside and San Bernardino
counties of southern California. One population was located in Riversidian coastal sage
scrub (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977) adjacent to Mockingbird Canyon Creek flowing
through Mockingbird Canyon Archeological Site (MCAS) in Riverside County. The other
population was a pure stand located on the east-facing slope of the Richardson Street
overpass on the north side of the Interstate 10 Freeway in San Bernardino, California.

MCAS Population. Nearest neighbor measurements were performed in the MCAS
population during February 1996. Sex and crown diameter of the nearest plant to random
points along transects were recorded as well as the sex of and distance to the nearest
neighbor. Transects were situated in three subpopulations which were classified as low,
medium, and high density according to their mean plant-to-nearest-neighbor distances, 214 +
221, 102 + 67, and 36 + 35 cm respectively. All reported measures of dispersion in this study
are standard deviations.

The random method for sampling nearest neighbors was used to avoid problems of
reciprocity when two plants are one another's nearest neighbor (Clark and Evans 1955;
Meagher and Burdick 1980). The random data set was a subsample of a larger study
population which was tagged and nearest neighbors measured for another study comparing
methods of nearest neighbor sampling to address the problems of reciprocity (Martin and
Smith, unpubl. data).

Adjacent to the area where plants w ere tagged, a patch of female plants was randomly
measured for nearest neighbor data in May 1996. This was done to enhance the SSS data of
the total random sample. Mean plant-to-nearest-neighbor distance in this patch was 60 + 56
cm.

Chi-square 2x2 contingency analysis with Yates correction for continuity (Zar 1996)
was used to compare SSS of C. californicus in the three population densities. The expected
proportion of male-male, male-female, female-male, and female-female pairs w as calculated
from the total sex ratio of the larger study population. Pielou's (1977) coefficient of
segregation (5) was calculated as follows:

observed number of mixed pairs

5=1-

expected number of mixed pairs

An S of zero indicates that the sexes are randomly distributed; positive v alues indicate SSS,
and negativ e v alues indicate that a plant’s nearest neighbor is more likely to be a member of
the opposite sex than expected if the plants were distributed randomly . One-way analysis of

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

55

Table I Relative abundance (%) for sexual morphs of Croton californicus in two populations of
southern California MCAS = Mockingbird Canyon Archaeological Site

Relative abundance

Female Male Monoecious Male:Female

Population

n

%

n

%

n

%

ratio

MCAS

34

61.8

20

36.4

i

1.8

0.59

Richardson

101

58.7

68

39.5

3

1.7

0.67

Total =

135

59.5

88

38.8

4

1.8

0,65

variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test (Zar
1996) was utilized to statistically compare sex expression with crown diameter.

Richardson Population. Plot sampling, using 25 m2 quadrats, was performed in the
Richardson population in May 1996 to record sex expression and crown diameter. Eighteen
quadrats, nine each on the upper and lower portions of the slope, were placed immediately
adjacent to one another to cover the entire study area. Slope angle was approximately 35°
and relatively uniform.

Chi-square 2x2 contingency analysis with Yales correction for continuity was used to
compare the upper quadrats with the lower quadrats for SSS of C. californicus for male and
female plants. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test was utilized to statistically
compare sex expression with crown diameter.

RESULTS

Frequency of Sexual Morphs. Monoecious morphs of Croton californicus were
present in both of the study populations (Table 1). Relative abundance of monoecious plants
was low with a total relative abundance of 1.8%. Monoecious individuals were not included
in the spatial segregation analysis due to their very low frequency. Females were more
numerous than males in both populations with a total male:female sex ratio of 0.65.

MCAS Population. Spatial segregation of the sexes was observed in the MCAS
population and was associated with population density (Table 2). Medium, high, and total
population densities exhibited significant SSS (p < 0.05 or p < 0.001). The medium density
subpopulation, which was predominantly female, exhibited the greatest SSS. Pielou's S
coefficient was +0.57 indicating the increased probability of a nearest neighbor being a
female plant. The high density subpopulation exhibited SSS (S = +0.15) and was slightly
skewed to male plants. Overall, there were 31 same sex nearest neighbor pairs and 21
opposite sex nearest neighbor pairs. This was over 47% more same sex nearest neighbor
pairs than opposite sex pairs. Males were larger than females w ith mean crown diameters of
62 + 23 and 56 + 27 cm respectively. Although male crown diameters were on average 6 cm
larger than females, the difference was not significant (p = 0.427).

The patch of female plants adjacent to the main study area contained 0 male-male, 17

56

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Table 2 Nearest neighbor data for male and female plants of Croton californicus in low, medium,
and high plant densities of the Mockingbird Canyon Archeological Site population M = male and F =
female * = p < 0.05. *** = p < 0.001 .

Subpopulation

density

Nearest neighbor pairs

Chi-square

(X2)

F*ielou's

5

M-M

F-F

M-F

F-M

Total

Low

3

2

1

6

12

3.11

-0.17

Medium

0

11

0

1

14

13.95***

0.57

High

10

5

3

8

26

4.77*

0.15

Total =

13

18

6

15

52

4.01*

0.19

female-female, 3 male-female, and 1 female-male nearest neighbor pairs. This spatial pattern
was significantly different (p < 0.001) than would be expected by random distribution and
indicates a definite female preference for this site.

Richardson Population. Significant spatial segregation of the sexes (p < 0.01) was
observed betw een upper and lower slopes in the Richardson population (Table 3). Males had
a slightly higher frequency than females on the upper slopes while females had a 2.5 times
higher frequency than males on the lower slopes. Female plants were 34% more numerous
on the lower slope than on the upper slope while male plants were 96% more numerous on
the upper slope than on the lower slope Overall, there was no significant difference in the
total number of plants between upper and lower slopes (p > 0.75).

Plant crow n diameters were not significantly different between the sexes or areas of the
slope (p = 0.352). Male and female plants on the upper slope had mean crow n diameters of
90+42 and 80 + 42 cm respectively, while male and female plants on the lower slope had
mean crown diameters of 89 + 37 and 90+ 33 cm respectively. Males were over 10 cm
larger than females on the upper slope. Females were over 10 cm larger on lower slopes
w hen compared to females on upper slopes.

DISCUSSION

Spatial segregation of the sexes in Croton californicus was associated with both
population density and location on the slope. Male plants of C. californicus were more
abundant in high densities and on the upper portions of the slope when compared to female
plants. This result is consistent with other studies in which male plants of Spinacia oleracea
and Chamaelirium luteum are more prevalent than females in higher population densities
(Onyekwelu and Harper 1979; Meagher 1980). Furthermore, Freeman and Vitale (1985)
demonstrated in Spinacia oleracea that males were more abundant in xenc conditions.

Generally, males are more abundant under w hat might be considered more stressful
conditions such as higher conspecific densities and more xenc environments (Freeman et al.
1976; Lloyd and Webb 1977; Freeman and Vitale 1985; Biereychudek and Eckhart 1988;
Dawson and Bliss 1989). The present study appears to confirm this pattern Soil moisture is
probablv less where population density is high (due to intraspecific competition for water)

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

57

Table 3 Frequency for sexual morphs of Croton califormcus on upper and lower slopes in the

Richardson population K

= number of 25

quadrats sampled ** = p

<001

Frequency

Slope

K

Female

Male

Monoecious

Total

Male:Female

ratio

Upper

9

43**

45**

2

90

1.05

Lower

9

58**

23**

1

82

0.40

Total =

18

101

68

3

172

0.67

and on the top of a slope. Several studies of SSS on slopes report males occurring at higher
frequencies on upper, xenc slopes (Freeman et al. 1976; Waser 1984; Sakai and Weller
1991). Our results are consistent with these earlier reports, though soil moisture measure-
ments would be needed to confirm that higher population densities and upper portions of
slopes are correlated with decreased soil moisture.

Spatial segregation of the sexes may indicate niche separation or niche partitioning
between male and female plants. Niche partitioning would require intersexual competition
which is difficult to demonstrate and seems unlikely (Bierzychudek and Eckhart 1988)
Many studies indicate that sex choice or ESD is prevalent and adaptively significant
(Chamov and Bull 1977; Freeman et al. 1980; Freeman et al. 1984; McArthur et al. 1992).
Environmental sex determination, three sexual morphs, and SSS have been demonstrated in
spinach (Onyekwelu and Harper 1979; Freeman and Vitale 1985; Vitale and Freeman 1985;
Vitale and Freeman 1986). On the basis of this study and the similarities with spinach, sex
choice or ESD appears to be a likely cause of SSS in C. californicus. Further research would
be needed to examine experimentally and longitudinally the sex lability of C. californicus in
different population densities and on various slope aspects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Mel Paras and Scott Ewing for their assistance with the data
collection and analysis of this study. Special thanks go to Scott White for his thorough
review' of the manuscnpt. This research was supported by a Harry Schnllo Faculty Research
Grant from La Sierra University.

LITERATURE CITED

Bierzychudek, P. and V. Eckhart. 1988. Spatial segregation of the sexes of dioecious plants.
American Naturalist 132: 34-43.

Chamov, E. L. and J. Bull. 1977. When is sex environmentally determined? Nature 266:
828-830.

Clark, P. J. and F. C. Evans. 1955. On some aspects of spatial pattern in biological
populations. Science 121: 397-398.

58

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winier 1996

Dawson, T. E. and L. C. Bliss. 1989. Patterns of water use and the tissue water relations in
the dioecious shrub, Salix arctica. the physiological basis for habitat partitioning
between the sexes. OecologiaT9: 332-343.

Freeman, D. C. and J. J. Vitale. 1985. The influence of environment on the sex ratio and
fitness of spinach. Botanical Gazette 146: 137-142.

, K. T. Harper, and E. L. Chamov. 1980. Sex change in plants: Old and new

observations and new hypotheses. Oecologia 47: 222-232.

, L. G. Klikoff, and K. T. Harper. 1976. Differential resource utilization by the sexes

of dioecious plants. Science 193: 597-599.

, E. D. McArthur, and K. T. Harper. 1984. The adaptive significance of sexual

lability in plants using Atriplex canescens as a principal example. Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 265-277.

, ■, , and A. C. Blauer. 1981. Influence of environment on the floral

sex ratio of monoecious plants. Evolution 35: 194-197.

Kirkpatrick, J. B. and C. F. Hutchinson. 1977. The community composition of Californian
coastal sage scrub. Vegelatio 35: 21-33.

Lloyd, D. G. and K. S. Bawa. 1984. Modification of the gender of seed plants in varying
conditions. Evolutionary Biology 17: 255-338.

and C. J. Webb. 1977. Secondary sex characters in plants. Botanical Review 43:

177-216.

Martin, B. D. 1995a. Monoecious morphs in Croton californicus (Euphorbiaceae). Madrofio
42: 323-331.

. 1995b [1997], Postfire reproduction of Croton californicus (Euphorbiaceae) and

associated perennials in coastal sage scrub of southern California. Crossosoma 21:
41-56.

. 1997 [1998], Flowering phenology and sex expression of Croton californicus

(Euphorbiaceae) in coastal sage scrub of southern California. Madrono, in press.

McArthur, E. D., D. C. Freeman, L. S. Luckinbill, S. C. Sanderson, and G. L. Noiler. 1992.
Are tnoecy and sexual lability in Atriplex canescens genetically based?: Evidence
from clonal studies. Evolution 46: 1708-1721.

Meagher, T. R. 1980. Population biology of Chamaelirium luleurn, a dioecious lily. I.
Spatial distributions of males and females. Evolution 34: 1 127-1 137.

and D S. Burdick. 1980. The use of nearest neighbor frequency analysis in studies

of association. Ecology6\: 1253-1255.

Onyekwelu, S. S. and J. L. Harper. 1979. Sex ratio and niche differentiation in spinach
(Spinacia oleracea L.). Nature 282: 609-61 1 .

Pielou, E. C. 1977. Mathematical ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Sakai, A. K. and S. G. Weller. 1991. Ecological aspects of sex expression in subdioecious
Schiedea globosa (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 78: 1280-1288.

Vitale, J. J. and D. C. Freeman. 1985. Secondary sex characteristics in Spinacia oleracea L.:
Quantitative evidence for the existence of at least three sexual morphs. American
Journal of Botany 72: 1061-1066.

and . 1986. Partial niche separation in Spinacia oleracea L.: An examin-
ation of reproductive allocation. Evolution 40: 426-430.

Waser, N. M. 1984. Sex ratio variation in populations of a dioecious desert perennial,
Simmondsia chinensis. Oikos 42: 343-348.

Webster, G. L. 1993. Euphorbiaceae. Pp 567-577 in J. C. Hickman (ed.). The Jepson
manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Zar, J H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

59

GENETIC VARIATION WITHIN AND AMONG SUB-
POPULATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED PLANT LESQUERELLA
KINGII SSP. BERNARDINA (BRASSICACEAE)

WILLIAM J. STRAITS', DAVID S. GILL, and ANDREW J. LOWE
Department of Biology

California State University Fullerton, MH 282
Fullerton, California 92834

[' — Current address: Science Education Center,

The University of Texas at Austin, SZB 340,

Austin, Texas 78712]

ABSTRACT : Lesquerella kingii ssp bernardina is an endangered plant endemic to carbonate soils
of the San Bernardino Mountains, California This study examined patterns of isozyme variation of
the thirteen known sub-populations of this plant Seven enzyme systems, yielding thirteen loci, were
analyzed through starch gel electrophoresis Genetic variation within sub-populations was greater
than expected, indicating high levels of heterozygosity There was little genetic differentiation among
sub-populations, possibly suggesting high levels of gene flow or relatively recent sub-population
derivation. Additional studies are needed to fully understand the ecology and population genetics of
Lesquerella kingii ssp bernardina and to provide guidance for future management decisions

KEY WORDS bladderpod, Brassicaceae, carbonate soils, Cruciferae, electrophoresis, genetic
variation, isozymes, Lesquerella kingii ssp bernardina, San Bernardino Mountains

Lesquerella kingii Wats. ssp. bernardina Munz (Brassicaceae) is a herbaceous plant
endemic to the dolomite and limestone outcrops of the San Bernardino Mountains,
California. Its common name is the San Bernardino Mountains bladderpod, and will
hereafter be refered to as LEK1B. This subspecies is restricted to specific habitat conditions,
with all known individuals found on well drained slopes of carbonate soils which range from
2100-2700 m in elevation, habitat conditions found only infrequently in the San Bernardino
Mountains (Barrows and Myers 1988). Total population size is estimated at 20,000
individuals (California Natural Diversity Database, as cited in USFWS 1994). Sub-
populations are threatened by housing development as well as the proposed expansion of a
major ski resort within the expanding Big Bear Lake area. The taxon is federally listed as an
endangered species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1994).

Population genetics theory' predicts that endemic species will have low' levels of
variation. This prediction has been supported by a number of studies comparing closely
related widespread and endemic species (Karron 1987; Pnmack 1980; Soltis and Soltis
1991). Low levels of variation are often due to small population size and/or narrow species
distributions or ranges. Ramifications of this low level of variation include lowered fitness,
lowered adaptability, inbreeding depression, and greater effect of deleterious recessive
mutations (Ledig 1986). Given these potentially negative consequences of low levels of
variation it is critical for conservationists to have a knowledge of the variation within and
among populations of endemic and rare species.

All known sub-populations of LEKIB are confined to thirteen localized sites (see
Table 1). The purpose of this study was to assess the genetic variation within, and
differentiation among, these thirteen sub-populations. Variation was assessed through
examination of enzymes. Patterns of variability detected in this study could be quite
important for the management of this subspecies.

60

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Table 1. Description of sub-population study sites The location, elevation, and aspect of the
thirteen sub- populations of LEK1B

Site

number

Site

acronym

Site

elevation

Site

aspect

Site

location

1

BMl

2700 m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

")

BM2

2650 m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

3

BM3

2600 m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

4

BM4

2600 m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

5

BRR

2400 m

South

North of Big Bear Lake

6

BRW

2400m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

7

DIV

2100m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

8

DRW

2200 m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

9

LUT

2200 m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

10

NEW

2150m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

11

SRR

2100m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

12

SRW

2200 m

South

South of Big Bear Lake

13

VDC

2200 m

North

South of Big Bear Lake

METHODS

Leaf tissue of twenty individuals from each sub-population was randomly collected
for isozyme analysis in September of 1993. Isozymes were studied through starch gel
electrophoresis. Starch gels were prepared as outlined by Acquaah (1992). Morpholine-
citrate and tns-EDT A -borate electrode buffer systems (Soltis et al. 1983) were used. Proteins
were extracted through homogenization of leaf tissue in an extraction buffer adapted from
Sosa and Garcia-Reina (1992). Filter paper w icks saturated w ith homogenate were inserted
into the gel. Gels were then subjected to approximately 145V at a constant current of 40mA
for a period of five hours, w hich allowed for sufficient migration and separation of isozymes.
Seven enzyme systems were analyzed: malate dehydrogenase (MDH), isocitrate

dehydrogenase (1DH), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase (NAD), aspartate
amino transferase (AAT), malic enzyme (ME), glucose phosphate isomerase (GP1), and
esterase (EST). Recipes and protocols for stains of the seven enzymes studied were based on
the work of Soltis et al. (1983). Resultant data were analyzed for genetic variation within
sub-populations and differentiation among sub-populations using Biosys 1 (Swofford and
Selander 1989).

RESULTS

Assessment of genetic variation within sub-populations was based on several
common measures: mean number of alleles per polymorphic locus, percent polymorphic
loci, and the ratio of observ ed to expected Hardy-Weinberg frequencies (Table 2) The mean
number of alleles per polymorphic locus ranged from 2.00 (BM1, BM2, BM3, SRR) to 2.22
(DRW, VDC), with a mean value of 2.09. Percentage polymorphic loci was 69.23 for all
sub- populations except BM1, BM2, and SSR w hich had values of 53.85, 61.54, and 76.92,
respectiv ely. For all sub-populations the observed to expected Hardy-Weinberg ratio was
greater than one. An observed to expected ratio of one indicates random mating, a ratio
greater than one suggests an excess of heterozygosity as in predominantly outcrossing
populations, and a ratio less than one suggests excess homozygosity as in predominantly
inbreeding populations. Values ranged from 1.253 (SRR) to 1.896 (VDC and DIV), with a
mean v alue of 1.765. As a composite index of variability within sub-populaUon, mean rank
of variability was calculated. The mean rank values are based upon the ranking of each sub-

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

61

Table 2. Summary of genetic variation Average number of alleles per polymorphic locus,
percentage polymorphic loci, and observed to expected Hardy- Weinberg frequencies are given for
each sub-population Larger values suggest greater variation Mean values across all sub-populations
given along bottom margin Within each measure of genetic variability sub-populations were ranked,
all ties were averaged Mean variability ranking is given for each sub-population See Table 1 for
acronyms and descriptions of sub- population study sites

Sub-

population

Mean Number
of alleles per
polymorphic
locus

Percentage of
polymorphic
loci

Observed to
Expected Hardy-
Weinberg
Ratio

Mean rank of
variability
within each
sub- population

BM1

2.00

53.85

1.667

2.17

BM2

2.00

61.54

1.759

2.83

BM3

2.00

69.23

1.881

6.50

BM4

2.11

69.23

1.774

7.00

BRR

2.11

69.23

1.881

8.50

BRW

2.11

69.23

1.775

7.33

DIV

2.11

69.23

1.896

9.50

DRW

2.22

69.23

1.809

9.00

LUT

2.10

69.23

1.615

4.83

NEW

2.11

69.23

1.860

8.00

SRR

2.00

76.92

1.253

5.50

SRW

2.11

69.23

1.877

9.00

VDC

2.22

69.23

1.896

10.83

— Mean —

- 2.09 -

- 68.05 -

- 1.765 -

—

population (least variable to most variable, the
latter having larger values) for each of the
measures of genetic variation.

Genetic differentiation among sub-
populations was based on cluster analysis and
Wnght’s F statistic (Wright 1965). A large F(st)
value suggests a high degree of differentiation,
whereas a small value indicates low
differentiation. For the eleven loci studied the
mean F(st) was 0.063, suggesting little
differentiation among sub-populations (Table 3).
Cluster analysis revealed that all sub-
populations form one group at the 0.9425 level
(Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

Endemic plant species on average have
fewer alleles per polymorphic locus than wide-
spread species (2.48 and 2.67, respectively) and
fewer polymorphic loci (26%; widespread
species 43%) (Hamrick et al. 1991). A large
observed to expected Hardy-Weinberg ratio
indicates a large number of heterozygous
individuals within sub-populations. This ratio
for w idespread plant species is on average much

Table 3. Summary of genetic
differentiation The mean Wright's F
statistics [ F(st) ] across all sub-
populations sampled for each locus are
given Large F(st) values suggest
greater partitioning of variation among
sub-populations The overall mean for
all loci across all sub-populations is
0 063.

Locus

F (st)

IDH-1

0.071

IDH-2

0.043

NAD-1

0.006

MDH-1

0.007

MDH-2

0.015

AAT-1

0.085

ME-1

0.131

ME-2

0.001

GPI-1

0.021

GPI-2

0.135

EST-1

0.118

— Mean —

- 0.063 -

62

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Figure 1 Cluster analysis using unweighted pair group method and Rogers genetic similarity
coefficient The diagram shows the relative distinctions among sub-populations based on multivariate
analysis of all isozyme data The more similar sub-populations unite farther to the left of the diagram
and have correspondingly larger similarity values

BM1

BM2

BM3

BRW

SRR

BM4

EFR

DIV

NEW

SRW

VDC

DRW

LUT

1.0 .99 .98 .97 .96 .95 .94

Similarity

less than endemic species (0.63 and 1.05, respectively) (Hamnck et al. 1991). Percentage
polymorphic loci and observed to expected Hardy-Weinberg ratio (Table 2) of LEKIB in this
study suggest a relatively large amount of variation within each sub-population. The small
number of alleles per polymorphic loci found in LEKIB relative to other plant species studied
may be attributed to the relatively small numbers of individuals and enzyme systems
analyzed. The consistency, however, of percentage of polymorphic loci and observed to
expected Hardy-Weinberg ratio suggests that there is a great deal of heterozygosity within
sub- populations.

Inspection of the cluster diagram based on isozyme data shows no clear distinctions
among sub-populations (Figure 1). The F(st) values of the isozyme data also suggest little
differentiation among sub-populations (Table 3). Geographically isolated sub-divisions of a
population will often show a "spatial genetic structure" characterized by great allelic
frequency differences [large F(st) values] (Heywood 1991). The small F(st) values for the
loci studied contradict the prediction of genetic separation and, rather, suggest that a great
deal of gene flow is occurring among sub-populations of LEKIB.

It is generally accepted that variation provides a species the potential to expand
ecological and geographical range, as well as to adapt to changing env ironmental conditions
(Allard et al. 1978; Heywood and Levin 1985, Rozema et al. 1978). Variation, the key to
evolutionary change, may allow the better occupation of varying microhabitats (Silander
1985), survival of disturbance (Brcmermann 1980, Futuyma 1983), as well as ecological sue-

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

63

cess of colonizing and established populations (Carson 1987). The greater the range of
variation of a species which can be preserved, the greater the likelihood for long-term
survival of the species.

The present existence of LEKIB is threatened by human activity. Pivotal to the
preservation of this rare subspecies is the maintenance of variation. Ideally, the entire range
of variation should be preserved. If due to political, social, economic, cultural, or other
factors, the broad preservation of the sole population of LEKIB is not feasible, the following
priority listing is given. The mean ranking based on the three measures of genetic variability
supports the following ranking of sub-populations, from least variable to most variable:
BM1, BM2, LUT, SRR, BM3, BM4, BRW, NEW, BRR, DRW, SRW, DIV, and VDC
(Table 2).

Although this study attempts to rank the variation of sub-populations, it is important
to note that all sub-populations are of consequence. For instance, while BM1 and BM2 have
low overall variability, they may contain genotypes adapted to high elevation and/or north-
facing slopes, and failure to conserve these lower variability sites may lead to the loss of
genetic combinations important to survival at this extreme of distribution. Further,
destruction of as few as one of the sub-populations may also disrupt gene flow and cause
isolation of sub-populations. This fragmentation may result in a reduced effective population
size, increased inbreeding, and subsequent inbreeding depression, as demonstrated in other
taxa (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987). Much more needs to be understood if informed
management decisions are to be made concerning the preservation of LEKIB

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Southern California Botanists for their generous
financial support, without which this study may not have been possible. We also thank M.
Neel of the San Bernardino National Forest and Dr. J. Burk of California State University,
Fullerton, for the aid in the initial conceptualizing of this work. Thanks to C.E. Jones and J.
Weintraub also of CSUF for their assistance at various stages of this research. Dr. Steven N.
Murray deserves special recognition for his support and advice throughout this study.
Finally, we thank Elizabeth A. Pearson for her continual encouragement and technical
expertise.

LITERATURE CITED

Allard, R.W., R.D. Miller, and A.L. Kahler. 1978. The relationship between degree of
environmental heterogeneity and genetic polymorphism. Pp. 49-69 in A.H.J. Freysen
and J.P. Woldendorp (eds.). Structure and function of plant populations. North
Holland, Amsterdam.

Aquaah, G. 1992. Practical protein electrophoresis for genetic research. Dioscondes
Press, Portland, Oregon.

Barrows, K. and M. Myers. 1988. Element conservation plan for Lesquerella kingii ssp.
bernardina. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest. San
Bernardino, California.

Bremermann, H.J. 1980. Sex and polymorphisms as strategies in host-pathogen interactions.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 87: 671-702.

Carson, H.L. 1987. Colonization and speciation. Pp. 187-206 in A. J. Gray, M.J. Crawley,
and P.J. Edwards (eds.). Colonization, succession, and stability. Blackw ell Scientific,
Oxford.

Charlesworth, D. and B. Charlesworth. 1987. Inbreeding and its evolutionary consequences.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systemalics 18: 237-268.

64

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

Futuyma, D.J. 1983. Interspecific interactions and the maintenance of genetic diversity. Pp.
364-373 in C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, M. Macbryde, and L. Thomas
(eds.). Genetics and conservation: A reference for managing wild animal and plant
populations. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California.

Hamrick, J.L., M.J.W. Godt, D.A. Murawski, and L.D. Loveless. 1991. Correlations
between species traits and allozyme diversity: Implications for conservation biology.
Pp. 75-86 in D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.). Genetics and conservation of rare
plants. Oxford University Press, New York.

Heywood, J.S. 1991. Spatial analysis of genetic variation in plant populations. Annual
Review of Ecology and Syslemalics 22: 335-355.

and D.A. Levin. 1985. Associations between allozyme frequencies and soil

characteristics in Gaillardia pulchella. Evolution 39: 1076-1086.

Karron, J.D. 1987. A comparison of levels of genetic polymorphisms and self-compatibility
in geographically restricted and widespread plant congeners. Evolutionary Ecology 1:
47-58.

Ledig, F T. 1986. Heterozygosity, heterosis, and fitness in outbreeding plants. Pp. 77-104
in M.E. Soule (ed.). Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity.
Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Pnmack, R.B 1980. Phenotypic variation of rare and widespread species of Planlago.
Rhodora 82: 87-95.

Rozema, J., E. Rozea-Dijst, A.H.J. Freysen, and J.J.L. Huber. 1978. Population
differentiation within Fesluca rubra with regard to soil salinity and soil water.
Oecologia 34: 329-341.

Silander, J.A. 1985. The genetic basis of the ecological amplitude of Spartina patens. II.
Variance and correlation analysis. Evolution 39: 1034-1052.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. CNPS inventory of rare and endangered
vascular plants of California. 5th ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
California.

Soltis, D.E., C.H. Haufler, D C. Darrow, and G.J. Gastony. 1983. Starch gel electrophoresis
of ferns: a compilation of grinding buffers, gel and electrode buffers, and staining
schedules. American Fern Journal 73: 9-27.

Solus, P S. and D.E. Soltis. 1991. Genetic variation in endemic and widespread plant
species: examples from Saxifragaceae and Polyslichum (Drvoptendaceae). Aliso
13(1): 215-223.

Sosa, P.A. and G. Garcia-Reina. 1992. Genetic variability and differentiation of sporophytes
and gametophytes in populations of Gelidium arbuscula (Gelidiaceae: Rhodophyta)
determined bv isozyme electrophoresis. Marine Biology 1 13: 679-688.

Swofford, D.L. and R.B Selander. 1989. Biosys-1: A computer program for the analysis of
allelic variation in population genetics and biochemical systematics. Release 1.7.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois, U S. A.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; Five plants from the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California
determined to be threatened or endangered. Available http://www .fws.gov/r9endspp/
r/fr94548/html.

Wnght, S. 1965. The interpretation of population structure by F-statisucs with special
regards to systems of mating. Evolution 19: 395-420.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 19%

65

AREN ARIA MACRADEN1A VAR. KUSCHEI (CARYOPHYLLACEAE),
RE-COLLECTION OF AN OBSCURE CALIFORNIAN TAXON,
WITH NOTES ON KNOWN HABITAT AND MORPHOLOGICAL

VARIATION.

TIMOTHY S. ROSS and STEVE BOYD
Herbarium (RSA-POM)

Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
1500 N. College Avenue
Claremont, California 9171 1

ABSTRACT: Arenana macradenia var kuschei, previously known only from the type collection
made in 1929, is now known from one small population in the Liebre Mountains of Southern
California It occurs on decomposed granite in a natural opening amid chaparral, just outside of an
oak woodland. Because of deficiencies in the type description, and the previous lack of additional
material, a slightly revised description of the taxon is provided The only known population is
potentially threatened by proposed vegetation management activities of the Angeles National Forest

KEY WORDS: Arenaria macradenia complex, Arenaria section Eremogone, California,

Caryophyllaceae, floristics, Liebre Mountains, rare plants

Recent floristic studies in the Liebre Mountains of northwestern Los Angeles County
have provided the first collection of Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei since the type material
was collected nearly seven decades ago. The acquisition of new material of this extremely
rare taxon finally provides an opportunity for assessment of its taxonomic ment, and also
allows for at least a preliminary understanding of its morphological variation and potential
habitat.

FYior to its rediscovery, the taxon had been known from a single collection made in
1929 by J. August Kusche, which found its way to the California Academy of Sciences at
San Francisco (CAS) [herbarium acronyms follow Holmgren el al. 1990], Two years later, it
was described by Alice Eastwood (1931) as a new species, A. Kuschei Eastw., with the
acknowledgment that it was related "to A. macradenia Watson [1882], differing chiefly in the
congested, glandular inflorescence." Sixteen years later, while publishing a synopsis of his
studies in the North American species of Arenaria L. section Eremogone Fenzl, Bassett
Maguire (1947) retained the taxon (having examined the holotype in 1945) but reduced it to
varietal status within A. macradenia where it has been treated since that time. Maguire also
recognized the taxon at its varietal rank in his conspectus of American Arenaria north of
Mexico (1951), but provided no additional information because the holotype remained the
only collection. In both of his treatments, while noting the glandulanty of the inflorescence
as a distinguishing feature of this taxon, Maguire failed to also mention its distinctively
congested nature.

The problem of poor locality data.— Regrettably, the vague collection locality
given for this taxon has plagued it since it was first described, and has occluded efforts to
conduct focused searches for other populations. The handwritten label of the holotype,
apparently in Eastwood's script, states simply: " Arenaria Kuschei Eastwood / Type / n. sp. /
Forest Camp, Mojave desert / alt. 4000 ft. / Coll. J. Aug. Kusche [s. n.} / July 12, 1929." It is
unclear whether the information was recopied from something that Kusche had written, or
whether the data were relayed to Eastwood orally. Regardless, a site called "Forest Camp" in
or about the Mojave Desert seems to occur on no maps and has remained elusive to this day.

66

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

In an effort to learn more about the collector and potentially narrow-down the
collection locality, we undertook a preliminary search for biographical information and any
potential repository for Kusche's fieldnotes or correspondence. However, it appears that only
very basic information is available regarding the collector. John August Kusche (bom 1869,
Germany; died 3 March 1934, San Francisco) is painted as a natural history collector who
apparently sought entomological as well as botanical specimens in such diverse areas as the
South Pacific, Hawaiian Islands, Alaska, Arctic regions. Prince of Wales Island, and Anzona
(Cantelow and Cantelow 1957; Barnhart 1965). Unfortunately, beyond such general
statements, specifics of his collecting activities which might shed light on the locality of
"Forest Camp" — such as itineraries or field notebooks— do not appear to be extant (Ewan
pers. comm. 1995).

In the absence of detailed collection notes, assumptions regarding the locality of
"Forest Camp" have resulted in erroneous reports entering the literature. In the current
edition of the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), the locality is quoted as "Forest Camp, SBD
Co., 4000 feet." This report of the locality as being in San Bernardino County apparently
arose from a "California Native Species Field Survey Form" which was filled out— putatively
from the label of the holotype — by an anonymous CNPS assistant who added "SBD" to the
blank space provided for "County" (Skinner, pers. comm. 1994). In a similar vein, the entry
for the taxon in The Jepson manual: higher plants of California (Hartman 1993) cites the
type locality as "Forest Camp, Inyo Co.," again without apparent substantiauon.

A major portion of the taxon's enigma has apparently revolved around the
visualization and interpretation of its "Mojave Desert" habitat, particularly in the absence of
notes from the collector or a know n set of associated collections which might have provided
hints of the local vegetation in which it was encountered. Following our recent re-collection
of the taxon, we assumed that A. macradenia var. kuschei was likely collected in one of the
mountain ranges at the periphery of the Mojave, and that Kusche may have had a very broad
interpretation of the desert's boundaries. Only recently have we found evidence of just how
inclusively and magnanimously Kusche defined the "Mojave Desert." Two Kusche
collections, randomly encountered in the RSA herbarium and previously housed at the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LAM), are cited here as illustrations.

The first (RSA#390754) bears a typewritten LAM label and is a collection of:
" Stvrax californica v. fulvescens (Eastw.) Munz & Johnston [ =S. redivivus (Toney) L.C.
Wheeler, det. P.W. Fntsch 1995; =5. officinalis L. var. redivivus (Ton.) H. Howard] / Sheep
Creek Canyon, Mohave Desert / California / San Bernardino [County] / [elev.] 3500’ / J.
Kusche [j.n.] / May 22, 1929." Our native Styrax is obviously not a desert plant, and the
collection locality given by Kusche places the collection site well within the San Gabriel
Mountains, in a small canyon that drains southward to Lytle Creek.

The second specimen (RSA#467930) bears a handwritten LAM label and is a
collection of: " Pyrola I Mohave Desert / Kern Co. Cal. / J. Aug. Kusche [j.n.] / May 1922 [?;
or possibly May 10, 22].” Like the Styrax, Pyrola is not a plant of desert habitats. This
particular specimen has now been identified as P. picta Smith (det. T.S. Ross 1996), a taxon
generally found in association with pine forests at elevations above 5500 feet in this region.
The label data suggest that— even though the locality was given as "Mohave Desert" — the
collection was probably made in the Tehachapi, Piute, or Greenhorn mountains in or above
the yellow pine belt.

These labels clearly indicate that Kusche included the mountain ranges bordering the
Mojave Desert within his concept of the Mojave. Although speculative, the name "Forest
Camp," used as the collection locality for the Arenaria, could easily have been an informal
name for a temporary camp used by Kusche during one of his collecting excursions in one of
the bordering ranges. It is not uncommon for naturalists to name memorable campsites (e.g.,
Ross or Boyd would promptly recognize references to "Fly Camp," or "Crossfire Camp"),
although they generally refrain from using such untraceable names on their collection labels.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Wmter 1996

67

On the other hand, the collection data may have been relayed to Alice Eastwood verbally as
" a forest camp," which could explain the untraceable nature of the place name.

Re-collection of the taxon, and description of its habitat. — Though the senior
author had been both interested in the morphological variation exhibited by Arenaria
macradenia throughout its range, and intrigued by the lack of subsequent collections for var.
kuschei, the authors did not set out specifically to rediscover the taxon. In fact, its re-
collection was simply a matter of serendipity which can often occur when flonstic studies are
being conducted in a poorly botanized area. In this case, we wanted to improve the flonstic
documentation of the Liebre Mountains of northwestern Los Angeles County which, despite
its interesting geographic position and accessibility to Southern California botanists,
continued to be something of a "flonstic blackhole."

While camping on the west summit of Liebre Mountain dunng a two-day collecting
tnp, we collected in the vicinity of the campsite in order to document the local diversity. In
one small area near the campsite, the Arenaria was encountered and collected, and its
glandular inflorescence was noted. A few months later, when the senior author found time to
carefully examine the collections, it became evident that the specimen had to be var. kuschei.
Comparison with Eastwood's type specimen, received on loan from CAS, confirmed that the
taxon was indeed the same as Kusche's and that a population of known locality had finally
been found.

Although prolix, a cursory explanation of the local physiography and vegetation
seems appropriate in order to better describe the known habitat of A. macradenia var.
kuschei. It may also suggest the possible habitat for the taxon in adjacent, as yet unbotanized
areas.

Liebre Mountain, near the northwestern comer of Los Angeles County, rises on the
southern edge of the San Andreas Fault and forms an extended WNW/ESE-trending
mountain ridge with a maximum elevation of 5759 ft (1756 m). Eastward, with very little
break in elevation, it grades into the Sawmill Mountain complex with a maximum elevation
of 5514 ft (1681 m). On the north side of the San Andreas Fault, and running parallel, is a
relatively low senes of xenc hills which are sporadically dissected by drainages off the north
slopes of Liebre and Saw mill mountains. The summit of Liebre Mountain itself is dominated
by an indicate mosaic of oak woodlands ( Quercus kelloggii Newberry, Q. wislizeni A. DC.
var . frulescens Engelmann, their hybnd Q. xmorehus Kellogg, Q. garryana Douglas var.
sernota Jepson, and Q. chrysolepis Liebmann), chaparral, occasional Chrysolhamnus
nauseosus [(Pall.) Bntton] scrub, and grasslands nch in annual and perennial herbs. From
breaks in the woodland and chaparral one gains a view northward of the Tehachapi
Mountains, and the southwestern portions of the Mojave Desert to the north and northeast
(i.e., Antelope Valley).

The Liebre Mountain area is a floristically complex area acted upon by Mojavean
influences from the northeast, and coastal influences from the south (both flonstic and
climatic). It serves as a biological stepping stone between the San Gabnel Mountains, the
Tehachapi Range (and hence the Sierra Nevada), and the remainder of the Western
Transverse Ranges (of w hich the Liebres form an easterly extension). The lower slopes in
the area also serve as the southernmost refuge for vanous foothill woodland species including
Quercus douglasii Hooker & Amott, Pinus sabiniana Douglas, and Aesculus californica
(Spach) Nuttall. As a result of this mingling of biotic elements and influences, the flora of
Liebre Mountain is exceedingly diverse. The maintenance of such diversity is highly reliant
upon narrowly defined niches and subtle competition factors.

This being said, the only know n population of A. macradenia var. kuschei is restricted
to a sunny chaparral opening, of slight southwesterly slope, measuring about 16 x 26 ft. (5 x
8 m). The substrate consists of coarse decomposed granite, with the arenarias growing
immediately adjacent to, or between, outcropped granite rocks . Within this restricted area, a

68

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

preliminary count indicated approximately 41 individuals, including young plants (Ross,
piers, obs. Apnl 1995). In addition to these, two first-year seedlings were also noted.
Associated species within the opening included Eriastrum densifolium (Bentham) Mason ssp.
austromontanum (Craig) Masoa Penslemon centranihifolius (Benth.) Bentham, Eriogonum
nudum Douglas ex Bentham (near var. pauciflorum S. Watson), Delphinium parishii A. Gray,
Melica imperfecta Tnnius, Lupinus aff. excubilus M.E. Jones var. austromonlanus (Heller)
C.P. Smith, Viola purpurea Kellogg s.l., Salvia columbariae Bentham, and Lotus strigosus
(Nuttall in Torre y & A. Gray) E.L. Greene; the surrounding chaparral is largely dominated by
Quercus chrysolepis (in shrub form), Q. wislizeni var. frutescens, and Rhamnus tomentella
Bentham ssp. cuspidata (E.L. Greene) Sawyer. The site also occurs just a few meters
outside of a Quercus chrysolepis — Q. kelloggii woodland. Given the mosaic patterns of the
local vegetation, such openings are not uncommon. Nevertheless, despite exploration of
various surrounding areas which would seem to have appropriate habitat, no additional
populations of Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei have thus far been encountered. An
interesting feature of many of these openings is that— while there are recurring, generally
distributed species— each new opiening may showcase a taxon not seen in the previously
visited one. Such parceled dispersal of elements amid the vegetation mosaics makes
concerted searches for specific taxa more difficult, but also leads us to believe that additional,
hidden populations of the Arenaria will eventually be discovered.

Morphological variation and taxonomic assessment. — The rediscovery of
Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei , and the acquisition of additional material for study, has
finally provided an opportunity for assessment of its taxonomic merit. When a taxon is
know n only from a single-sheet collection, one may eventually wonder whether the spiecimen
simply represents a diseased or chimaeric plant. Michael Baad (1969), in his study of
Arenaria section Eremogone in North America, saw no additional collections of the taxon
amid the herbarium specimens that he studied, and concluded that "variety kuschei may well
be just an aberrant A. macradenia [var.] macradenia[ ,] w hich occurs throughout the Mohav e
area" (Baad 1993). In the absence of additional collections, such an assumption is
understandable. However, our recent collection, taken from three different individuals within
the newly discovered population, is remarkably consistent with Kusche's type collection.
Each of our three collections consists of woody grow th with several flowering shoots of the
current season (as in Kusche's collection), but with the addition of a vigorous, flowering,
first-year shoot arising from the base of each plant (not present in Kusche's spiecimen). This
allows for a better understanding of morphological variation within the taxon. Comparison
of the holotype with Alice Eastwood's original description also indicates a few subtle
descriptive shortcomings; consequently, a revised description of the taxon is presented here
for clanty. [Portions italicized below are meant to stress some of the traits which help to
distinguish this variety from others in the A. macradenia complex.]

Arenaria macradenia S. Watson var. kuschei (A. Eastwood) B. Maguire

■ Arenaria Kuschei A. Eastwood. Holotypie: CAS#169243!; fragment of holotype

POM#1219951; isotypes: none known.

Suffrutescent perennial, erect, ca. 20-33 cm tall; vigorous shoots from the base of the
plant ca. 15-32 cm long; secondary shoots from earlier woody growth ca. 7-18 cm long;
glabrous and only slightly glaucous; stems leafy into the inflorescence; mostly 8-1 1 cauline
leaf pairs produced below the inflorescence (prior to grading into definite bracts); leaves dark
green, pungent, acicular, ascending above to ± spreading-arcuate below-, longer than
internodes; margins ciliate-serrulate; bases 1.6-2. 6 mm broad (measured from midnb to
margin and doubled); nodes somewhat swollen and leaf bases ± connate by means of their
hyaline margins; mid-cauline leaves generally longest, 14-30 mm long on secondary shoots,
to 45 mm long on vigorous basal shoots, progressively shorter above and below ; internodes

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996.

69

longest at about 60-82% (71% mean) of the subinflorescential shoot length (i.e., intemodes
which are below bracts and clearly not peduncular in nature); inflorescence ± cymose,
congested ; upper leaves reduced to bracts; tertiary bracts often scarious, their cilia often
modified to glandular hairs; peduncles, pedicels, and calyces densely slipilale- glandular,
peduncles 1.5— 4.5 mm (to 6.5 mm on vigorous basal shoots); pedicels 1. 5-6.0 mm; sepals
ovate-lanceolate to lanceolate (4.5) 5. 0-6.2 mm long (to 7.2 mm on vigorous basal shoots);
sepals, aside from being densely stipitate-glandular, often glandular ciliate especially toward
apical margins; petals white, ofcovate, surpassing sepals by 2-3 mm (in fresh material); ovary
greenish yellow; antisepalar basal glands yellowish; capsules (noted from previous year's
dried remains) with 6 valves. [See Centerfold, Plate I ]

The following collection has been distributed —

CALIFORNIA. Los Angeles Co.: Liebre Mountains, "West Summit" of Liebre
Mountain (construed as the knoll ca. 85 m S of intersection of sections 3,4,9,10), Liebre
Mountain USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, T7N R17W, elevation ca. 5560 ft (1695 m), 7 July 1994,
T. S. Ross, S. Boyd, & S. Burns 8123 (RSA, CAS, MICH).

We will probably never know where J. August Kusche collected his specimen, but it
is quite conceivable that it was taken elsewhere on the southwestern border of the Mojave in
a situation similar to that of the currently known population. Although it would be reckless
to rule out the potential discovery of Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei elsewhere in the
Mojave, it is easy for us to envision Kusche's "Forest Camp" as having been either in the
vicinity of Liebre Mountain, or potentially in a similar habitat nearby in the Tehachapi
Range, based merely on study of morphological trends in the A. macradenia complex relative
to phytogeographic patterns. We hope that continued fieldwork in the Liebres will bnng new
populations to light, and we await the results of any concerted floristic studies so desperately
needed in the Tehachapis.

Common name. — In both The Jepson Manual (Hartman 1993) and the CNPS
Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), the name "Forest Camp sandwort" has been used as the
common name. However, due to the continued ambiguity surrounding the actual location of
"Forest Camp," we would recommend instead that "Kusche's sandwort" be applied as the
standard vernacular for this taxon.

Threats to conservation.— At present, threats to Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei
appear limited to a "crush and bum" project proposed by the Angeles National Forest for the
entire summit of Liebre Mountain, including the area within which Kusche's sandwort
occurs. This crush-and-bum project has been pending for at least five years. The rationale
for such a treatment of the vegetation is unknown to us, but will surely have undesirable
effects on the local flora by means of substrate and soil seed bank disturbance, proliferation
of competitive weeds (even under the assumption that post-fire seeding will not be
conducted), disruption of microhabitats (e.g., destruction of mature woody plants that sene
as nurse-plants for understory species), substandard vegetation recovery (either as a result of
an incomplete "cold bum," or as a result of an overly hot bum capable of destroying most
viable seeds in the seed bank due to the proximity of the fuel load through crushing), and so
forth. We hope that Liebre Mountain can be spared this degrading and unnecessary
vegetation management activity.

Due to the cryptic nature of the type locality, the solitary specimen which until
recently has represented the taxon, and the concomitant doubt as to whether the taxon
merited taxonomic standing, the California Native Plant Society has in recent years
maintained Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei on its List 3 — "Plants about which we need
more information." Prior to publication of the CNPS's 5th Edition of the Inventory (Skinner
and Pavlik 1994), a tremendous effort was made to acquire more information for List 3 plants
ih order to reassign as many as possible to other lists. However, due to the lack of any new

70

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

data, Kusche's sandwort was one of 47 taxa that could not be advanced. Now, with a
verifiably extant population and a slightly improved knowledge of the taxon, it would appear
that it is best graduated to the unenviable List IB — "Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere" — with a R-E-D Code of 3-3-3 ("distributed in one to several
highly restricted occurrences, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported" /
"endangered throughout its [known] range" / "endemic to California"). We would like to
think that the crush and bum management plan proposed for the summit of Liebre Mountain
can be reconsidered and thoughtfully modified or scrapped, thus allowing us the comfort of
proposing a R-E-D Code of 3-1-3 ("not endangered"); however, such a listing will have to
await revised land management decisions by personnel in the Saugus Ranger District of the
Angeles National Forest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Bruce Bartholomew (CAS) for the prompt loan of the holotype for study;
Mark Skinner for making available photocopies of the accumulated literature and notes in the
A. macradenia var. kuschei file at the California Native Plant Society; and Joseph Ewan
(MO), for seeking information regarding J. August Kusche on our behalf. We also extend
our sincere thanks to Richard Rabeler (MICH) and John McNeill (CAN) for thoughtful
reviews and construcuve comments which helped to improve the paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Baad, Michael F. 1969. "Biosystematic studies of the North American species of Arenaria,
subgenus Eremogone (Caryophyllaceae)." (Ph D. diss., University of Washington).
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

. 1993. Letter to the California Native Plant Society, dated 19 December.

Barnhart, J H. [compiler], 1965. The New York Botanical Garden biographical notes upon
botanists, Vol. II: Fox (Eh News. G. K. Hall & Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Cantelow, E. D. and H. C. Cantelow. 1957. Biographical notes on persons in whose honor
Alice Eastwood named native plants. Leaflets of Western Botany 8(5]: 94.

Eastwood, Alice. 1931. Arenaria kuschei Eastwood, new species. Proceedings of the
California Academ\ of Sciences, 4th Senes, 20: 140-141.

Ewan, Joseph A. 1995. Letter, notes, and enclosures dated 14 March.

Hartman, Ronald L. 1993. Arenaria. Pp. 478-480 in J. C. Hickman [ed. ] . The Jepson
manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Holmgren, Patricia K., Noel H. Holmgren, and L. C. Barnett [eds.] 1990. Index
Herbartorum, Part 1: the herbaria of the world. 8th ed. Regnum Vegetabile 120.
Maguire, Bassett. 1947. Studies in the Caryophyllaceae — III. A synopsis of the North
American species of Arenaria, section Eremogone Fenzl. Bulletin of the Toney
Botanical Club 74: 51.

. 1951. Studies in the Caryophyllaceae— V. American Midland Naturalist 46: 503-

504.

Skinner, Mark. 1994. Personal communication via e-mail, dated 3 November

and B. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of rare and

endangered vascular plants of California. CNPS Special Publication No. 1, 5th Ed.,
Sacramento.

Watson, Sereno. 1882. Contributions to American Botany. X. Descriptions of new species
of plants from our Western territories. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences 17: 367.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

71

[Postscript ( 1997 ): It is possible that, in a future issue, T.S. Ross will provide a brief
discussion of the variation and phytogeography of the Arenaria macradenia complex, and
that S. Boyd will detail the distribution and variation of A. macradenia var. kuschei—a few
new populations of which have been discovered on Liebre Mountain ]

72

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn— Winter 1996

ENCELIA CADIZ REVEILLE’: A NATURAL HYBRID
SELECTED FOR XERIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GARDENS.

TIMOTHY S. ROSS

Herbarium (RSA-POM), Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden,
1500 N. College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711

ABSTRACT A selection from a natural hybrid swarm between Encelia fannosa and E. fruiescens
(Asteraceae) is formally provided with the cultivar name 'Cadiz Reveille' The former species bears
capitula with both disk and ray flowers, usually on branched peduncles, while the latter bears capitula
that are strictly discoid and solitary on the ends of the peduncles The hybrid selection described here
was encountered in the southern Mojave Desert and normally has more than one capitulum per
peduncle, each bearing an outer ring of florets which are intermediate in morphology between ray and
disk flowers, thus providing a unique and interesung effect Recommendations are made in regard to
culture and propagation

KEY WORDS Asteraceae, Compositae, cultivar, Encelia, horticulture, natural hybridization.

In the process of fieldwork, one gets an opportunity to observe not only the
morphological variation within and among our native species in vary ing environments, but
also the occasional arrays of fascinating variation in natural hybrid swarms. Unfortunately,
this diversity often goes unseen by Californians who huddle in their air-conditioned homes
and look out their window s onto local seas of Agapanthus, Gazania, Rosmarinus, and so
forth. The California flora has yielded a diversity of ornamental plants to the horticultural
trade, some of which ( Fremonlodendron californicum, Romneya coulteri, Eschscholzia
californica, Phacelia campanularia, Nemophila menziesii, etc.) are appreciated by gardeners
as far away as Great Britain, but are seldom used by Southern Californians in their own
gardens. Many Californians try to maintain a brilliant green lawn and a display of gaudy,
water-guzzling annuals, and w hen they do become aware of drought-tolerant plants, all too
often remain oblivious to the plants native to their area and instead acquire plants from
Australia and South Africa.

Although it is a slow , up-hill battle (one that in my opinion isn't being fought very
hard, if it's being fought at all), Californians need to be made aware of the rich palette of
ornamental plants native to California which may be used in their home landscapes. One of
the best ways to promote our plants in the horticultural trade is to select particularly
noteworthy clones or strains and provide them with cultivar names. Strangely enough, some
people will not cultivate native plants unless these have cultivar names [a psychological
perv ersion, 1 believe]; the false assumption seems to be made that a clone or species is worth
cultiv ating only if it has a cultiv ar name. Of the several-score cultivars derived from native
Californian plants, only a very small percentage have been the result of controlled crosses
(very likely fewer than 10%). Most have been the result of selections made "in the wild," or
selections of spontaneous hybrids which have arisen in a garden setting between species that
would normally not occur together in their native habitats. There are several genera in the
California flora which will undoubtedly yield interesting and worthwhile hybrids if and when
competent hybridizing projects are undertaken with them. In the meantime, in keeping with
the tradition of simply selecting noteworthy clones "from the w ild," the follow ing cultivar is
named and briefly described.

ENCELIA 'CADIZ REVEILLE' [A selection of
Encelia fannosa A. Gray x E. fruiescens (A. Gray) A Gray; Centerfold Plates II & III.]

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

73

Somewhat rounded, or mounding shrub\ drought-tolerant once established. Mature
plant size approximately 9-12 dm tall (36-46 inches) with an ultimate spread of about 18 dm
broad (72 in). Stems and branches erect to spreading, gray-green, becoming light gray with
age. Leaves gray-green, rhomboid-ovate with 3 prominent veins from the base, ca. 40 mm
long by 25 mm wide, entire or subentire and bearing up to 4 subtle pairs of marginal teeth.
Peduncles ca. 6.5-15.0 cm long (2.5-6 in), borne terminally on the branches. Involucre ca.
12 mm diameter; 8-10 mm high; disk florets golden yellow ; ray florets clear, saturated
yellow, ca. (7-) 9-12 (-13), these mostly tubular, the tube ± 5 mm, but with a zygomorphic
limb which spreads outward ± 2 mm. The flower-heads, then, measure about 24-26 mm
across. Morphologically, this cultivar is intermediate between the two putative parents;
however, in overall growth form the plant seems to more closely approximate E. frutescens.
[Plate III ]

Named for the Cadiz Valley, SE San Bernardino County, California, where the clone
was collected; as well as for the somewhat bugle-like outer nng of florets.

As with most discoveries, that of Encelia 'Cadiz Reveille' was quite serendipitous. In
March of 1993, Steve Boyd, Walter Appleby, and I made a trip to Death Valley to collect
material of Sibara deserti (M.E Jones) Rollins and S. rosulata Rollins for use in comparative
molecular studies related to research on the proper generic placement of Sibaropsis hammittii
S. Boyd & T.S. Ross (Madrono 44(1): 29-^7, 1997). On our trip back, during w hich we
made occasional stops in the eastern Mojave Desert for general plant collecting purposes, we
also made a quick stop in the southern Cadiz Valley. When I opened my door at this stop, 1
was greeted by this Encelia with its intriguing flower heads. Approximately two dozen
cuttings were collected from this unique hybrid, and these were turned over to the Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG) in Claremont, with the understanding that I would
receive one rooted cutting in return. Of these cuttings, two rooted: the most vigorous was
retained by the RSABG; the second, feebler specimen was planted in my yard in Ontario, San
Bernardino County.

The individual acquired by the author was planted in full sun on the top of a rock
garden composed of rounded granitic boulders with the intervening spaces built up with
decomposed granite. Once introduced into an amenable habitat, the specimen flourished and
put on excellent growth. Based on its subsequent performance, I would say that it is an
excellent specimen for the xenc home landscape. It blooms sporadically through-out much
of the year, but tends to produce the largest flush of flowers in the spring and early summer.

Cultural recommendations — In horticultural lingo, I would have to say that this is
a very hardy plant: —this relates to its tolerance of abuse, not the temperature range within
which it can survive [our garden is in Zone 18 of the Sunset Western Garden Book], Within
a few months of planting out the Encelia 'Cadiz Reveille,' we acquired two dogs who had
access to the back yard and the rock garden on which it was planted. Of the perhaps two
dozen species of plants in the rock garden, the Encelia was the only one to survive the canid
activity, including a noble effort by one of the dogs to dig up its roots.

Despite the poor propagation record with the original cuttings, in my own experience
this cultivar is easily propagated by stem tip cuttings. Some cuttings w ill actually produce a
capitulum within a few weeks of being planted. Resulting plants should be planted in the
cool, w'et weather of winter or early spring, with excellent drainage, and watered
occasionally during establishment in the cool season if the natural rains are substandard. If
the plant indeed has excellent drainage, then it can be watered in a cursory manner once a
month during the warm season, and given a good soaking once in late summer. Besides
excellent drainage, the plants should have a full day of hot sun. As a result, I believe that this
selection will be an excellent cultivar for the hot inland valleys of Southern California.

This cultivar should be available from the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, and
w ill probably also be offered on occasion at SCB plant sales. Enquiries can be addressed to
the RSABG Plant Propagator.

74

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

CAVEAT — This cultivar should not be planted or cultivated within a mile of
undeveloped areas where locally native Encelia species occur. The ensuing hybridization
will dilute the genetic integrity of the Encelia species native to your area [For the Los
Angeles Basin and adjacent low hills, this means E. californica\ for the northern San
Fernando Valley, Liebre Mountains, and Antelope Valley, this means E. acloni\ for Riverside
County and eastern San Diego County this largely means E. farinosa.) Please do your part to
maintain the species native to your local area.

BOOK REVIEW

Plant Identification Terminology: An Illustrated Glossary. By JAMES G. HARRIS AND
MELINDA Woolf Harris. 1994. Spring Lake Publishing, P.O. Box 266, Payson, Utah
84651. x+ 198 pp.; illus. [B & W], Sof (cover $15.95 postpaid. ISBN 0-964022 1-5-X.

One of the biggest challenges to the beginning student of botany is the necessary
acquisition of the descriptive terminology found in botanical literature. Building this
vocabulary may be a slow, frustrating process, particularly for the individual who does not
have a natural facility with languages, yet it is crucial to understanding plant descriptions and
also to being able to accurately describe one's own observations.

Apart from the slow initial climb up the learning curve, a major difficulty in learning
the terminology is that it has often been difficult for students to find a highly inclusive
glossary of terms to which they can make reference. Many floras, for example, include a
glossary for the basic terminology used therein. Such glossaries, however, contain a
relatively small subset of the terms which may be encountered in botanical literature, and
tracking down the definition of a newly encountered term may require a search through
several different references. For example, one may go to Radford's systematics textbook
(A.E. Radford et al., 1974, Vascular plant systematics , "Chapter 6: Phytography-

morphological evidence," Harper & Row, New York), or Steam's Botanical Latin (William
T. Steam, 1992, Botanical Latin: history, grammar, syntax, terminology and vocabulary, 4th
ed.. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon). A very precise technical term may lead one off to a
specialized article such as Willard W. Payne's "A glossary of plant hair terminology" (1978,
Brittonia 30: 239-255), or Leo J. Hickey's "Classification of the architecture of
dicotyledonous leaves" (1973, American Journal of Botany 60: 17-33). An attempt to
understand the term based on its etymology might lead one to Donald J. Borror's still nifty
little book Dictionary of word roots and combining forms (1971, Mayfield Publishing Co.,
Palo Alto, California).

Hams and Hams recognized this difficulty and set out to compile a more extensive
glossary that would be of benefit both to students and professional botanists. As indicated in
their preface to the work, they also believed that the use of simple illustrations would greatly
improv e the conveyance of meaning for many of the concepts and terms. The result in Plant
Identification Terminology is a reference to "more than twenty-four hundred terms commonly
used in plant description and identification." Heavily scattered throughout the text are
numerous line drawings ( zillions perhaps?) designed to clarify the definitions of terms or
affirm their application. What they have accomplished is an excellent reference at a very
reasonable pace.

While the work cannot be considered exhaustive (-it was not meant to be-), the
wealth of terms and the clarity of presentation definitely fulfill the need that was perceived
by its authors. The book is divided into two parts: the first (pp. 1-1 18) being devoted to an

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). AutumD-Winler 19%

75

alphabetical listing of all the terms to be found in the book; the second (pp. 1 19-188) being
organized into specific categories— such as Roots: root parts, root shapes, root types, etc.—
so that the applicable terms may be more easily compared and contrasted. This latter portion
of the book will be of particular help to beginning students who may not yet be very familiar
with the range of forms, and therefore terms, which may commonly be encountered in regard
to a given plant attnbute. Likewise, the second part also contains several keys which will be
useful to students in determining what terms may be applicable to something they're
studying; these keys cover "Common types of leaf divisions" (p. 137), "Common leaf margin
types" (p. 140), "Common inflorescence types" (p. 157), and so forth. I, for example, still
have trouble with some of the "more involved" inflorescence types, and try to clarify them
for myself every now and then ( — Thank God for the occasional spike or raceme.'...).

My potential detracting comments are minimal. One error that 1 did notice was that
in Part Two, in regard to leaf shapes, the same hastate leaf outline was accidently used to
illustrate both "hastate" and "sagittate" (p. 135). The verbal defimuons are clear enough, but a
student glancing at the visual examples may be confused. A sagittate leaf does, however,
correctly appear in the alphabetical listing of Part One (p. 87). Another item that bothered
me a bit was the punctuation used in some of the entries with figure numbers. If only one
definition or application of the term is given, the punctuation is generally unambiguous, e.g.,
"Lobe. A rounded division or segment of an organ, as of a leaf. Figure 537." However,
when more than one definition is given along with figure numbers, the use of a period to
separate the definition from its figure number, and then the use of a semi-colon to separate
that figure number from the next definition visually suggests that the figure number given
applies to the definition which follows, e.g., "Ligule. A tongue-shaped or strap-shaped
organ. Figure 527; the flattened part of the ray corolla in the Compositae (Asteraceae).
Figure 528; the membranous appendage arising from the inner surface of the leaf at the
junction with the leaf sheath in many grasses and some sedges. Figure 529; a tongue-like
projection..." etc. Examination of the noted figures indicates that they relate to the
definitions preceding the number; however, 1 found it a bit disorienting at first. Maybe it’s
just me. .. In a book covering so many terms and including so many illustrations it was
obviously necessary to be as concise with definitions as possible while maintaining clarity.
In this I think the authors did a marvelous job. I found only a very small numbers of entries
that I thought could stand expansion or improvement. One that I thought could use
improvement was Cultivar, which is defined here as "a form of plant originating under
cultivation." Based on my concept of what constitutes a cultivar, I thought this might more
appropriately be defined as: "a cultivated variety of plant, generally chosen for a desirable
trait or suite of traits, which may have originated in cultivation or may have been selected
from wild stock." Many named cultivars, for example, are clones selected from the wild,
propagated asexually, and cultivated for ornament or used in breeding programs to impart
their desired charactenstic(s).

Aside from these minor comments, some of which are more stylistic than substantive,
I really like this book. In the couple of years since it was published I have seen several
students and botanists carrying it or making reference to it at their desks. This certainly
speaks for its success and utility. I would heartily recommend it to students taking field
botany courses ( — too infrequently taught these days—), to those professional botanists who
did not get a strong enough background in phytography during their schooling, and to those
self-motivated "amateur botanists" who leam well enough on their own but simply need
reliable references. I believe that each will find this to be an excellent resource for botanical
terms, and a darn good deal for the price.

— Timothy S. Ross. Herbarium (RSA), Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1500 N.
College Avenue. Claremont. CA 91711.

76

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

LEGENDS FOR PLATES I - IV.

- (CENTERFOLD PAGES) -

PLATE I — Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei (Caryophyllaceae), re-collection of an
obscure Californian taxon [see pp. 65-71). — UPPER PHOTO) One of the specimens
which forms part of Kusche's original collection, part of the holotype housed at CAS.
Unfortunately the photographs included here are too general to illustrate the densely
stipitate-glandular peduncles, pedicels, and calyces; however, note the congested
inflorescences. Also note that the stems are leafy throughout, with the longest
intemodes occunng below the inflorescences. LOWER PHOTO) One of the plants
occurring in the recently discovered population on Liebre Mountain. Note the dense
overall aspect of the taxon. For convenient comparison with another variety see the
photo of A. macradenia var. parishiorum on Plate IV.

PLATE II — Encelia 'Cadiz Reveille' (Asteraceae), a natural hybrid selected for xeric
Southern California gardens [see pp. 72-74], — The putative parent species of
'Cadiz Reveille,' photographed on the same trip during which the cultivar was found.
UPPER PHOTO) Encelia farinosa, typically with very gray leaves, branched
inflorescences, and capitula bearing both disk and ray florets. LOWER PHOTO)
Encelia fruiescens, which has fairly green leaves, peduncles bearing solitary capitula,
and capitula which bear only disk flowers.

PLATE III — Encelia 'Cadiz Reveille' (Asteraceae), a natural hybrid selected for xeric
Southern California gardens [see pp 72-74], — UPPER PHOTO) A partial view
photograph of the original clone in the southern Cadiz Valley, shortly before cuttings
were taken and before deliberation began on a seemingly appropriate cultivar name.
LOWER PHOTOS) Tw o flow er heads on the author's plant in Ontario, selected to show
the range of variation in number of "bugle-florets." LOWER LEFT) A capitulum with
few "bugles” being happily visited by one of our native bees. LOWER RIGHT) A well-
developed capitulum with a large number of outer florets. Note the informal variation
in these semi-tubular/serm-ray flowers.

PLATE IV. — Additions to the flora of mainland Los Angeles County, California [see
pp. 77-94], — I would like to have illustrated many more of the additions to the
county flora, but have limited myself here to two of the additions from Adobe
Mountain, which straddles the Los Angeles/San Bernardino county line, in the
Mojavean portion of L A. County. UPPER PHOTO) Arenaria macradenia var.
parishiorum. a distinctive, very grade variety of this wide-ranging species. The
plants are mostly herbaceous above ground, with narrow, acicular leaves; the primary
stems often produce non-flowering leafy shoots (proliferations); and the flowering
stems produce few leaf-pairs below the inflorescence. Note also that the longest
intemodes are in the inflorescence, where the leaves have been reduced to bracts,
providing a very open and "airy" appearance. LOWER PHOTO) Echinocaclus
polycephalus ; an old, "many -headed" clump on the south slope of the mountain w hich
illustrates the specific epithet. This photograph is oriented NNE, toward the summit
of Adobe Mountain.

Cost of color centerfold plates borne by T.S Ross, in accordance with editorial policy

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

PLATE I.

PLATE II.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

•tN ' w2i

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn- Winter 1996

PLATE III.

PLATE IV.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

77

ADDITIONS TO THE FLORA OF
MAINLAND LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY S. ROSS

Herbarium (RSA), Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
1500 North College Avenue
Claremont, California 91711

ABSTRACT As part of an on-going study of the vascular flora of Los Angeles County, California,
this paper presents information on 32 taxa which have been recently collected within mainland
portions of the county, or which were documented earlier but have been largely overlooked in more
recent botanical references covering the region Of these 32 taxa, 21 are native within the county , and
1 1 are introduced Distributional data are provided from recent major botanical references, and are
discussed where relevant

KEY WORDS: Arenana, California, Calochorlus, Calystegia, Caesalpima , Cistus, Colutea,
Cryptantha, Cynosurus, Echinocactus, Elaeagnus, Eragrostis, Encameria, Enogonum, Erodium,
Fesluca, flora, floristics, Gilia, Heracleum, Liebre Mountains, Linanthus, Lomalium, Lonicera, Los
Angeles County, Madia, Malva, Opuntia, Pentagramma, phytogeography, Poa, San Gabriel
Mountains, Sanicula, Santa Monica Mountains, Senna, Southern California, Sphenosciadium, Slipa,
Torilis, Tragopogon, vascular plants

The flora of Los Angeles County undoubtedly ranks very high among the floras of the
world that are most often taken for granted. Why this is so remains unclear. Over the
decades, many excellent field botanists have gotten their start collecting plants within the
borders of L.A. County prior to moving onward physically or professionally. A survey of
herbarium collections made within the county reads like a veritable "Who's Who" of
California botanists and includes many who went on to make significant botanical
contributions nationally and even internationally. Consequently, it may seem surprising that
there has never been a published Flora for the county, and that the last published species list
specifically for L.A. County is now no less than a century old (Davidson 1896)! Needless to
say, this 100-year-old species list is woefully incomplete and the nomenclature badly
outdated. The most recent specimen-based Floras or checklists published for significant
areas within the county now appear to be the Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains, 2nd
edition (Raven, Thompson, and lYigge 1986 [currently out-of-print ]) and the recent vascular
plant checklist for the Glendora Foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains (Swinney 1994).

Flonstic projects specifically related to the San Gabriel Mountain Range — which
holds a tremendous amount of the vascular plant diversity in the county— have been "in the
works" off and on since at least the 1930s, but none has ever been completed and published.
After moving to Southern California in 1980, I began most of my hiking and botanizing in
San Antonio Canyon of the San Gabriel Mountains and was quite surprised to discover that a
Flora for the range had never been published, despite its proximity to such a vast population.
After finding out about Munz's Flora of Southern California (1974), I purchased a copy and
took it with me in my backpack whenever I left for the field. With "Munz" as my vade
mecum, I began keying out my discoveries and gradually gained a working knowledge of the
most common plants, especially in and below the chaparral belt In the late '80s and earl\
'90s, while working in the RSA herbarium, I fostered the idea of working on a much-needed
Flora of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, at the same time, I was becoming
increasingly aware of the need for a Flora— or at least an updated vascular plant checklist—
specifically for Los Angeles County. Many botanists argue that Floras should cover natural
physiographic areas or features— not necessarily political units. I agree to a point. Although

78

CROSSOSOK1A 22(2), Autumn-Winter 19%

counties are usually somewhat arbitrarily derived political entities, I have become convinced
that checklists and Floras covering such units (and based on documented collections) are
valuable in providing data on occurrences, regional abundance of particular taxa, and in
refining knowledge of phytogeographic patterns at a fairly local level. The larger the
geographic scope of a Flora, the more generalized the information (necessarily?) becomes.
That said, I have endeavored over the last few years ("in my ample free time") to compile
information on the L.A. County flora in the hope that others will someday be as fascinated
with its diversity as I am, and will be inspired to preserve its native plant diversity before it is
converted to one, giant, showcase of weeds.

It is, perhaps, unfair of me to tally additions here to a county Flora that has never been
written. Nevertheless, I am convinced that a large percentage of the flora (i.e., the locally
dominant natives and more widespread adventives) should already be reasonably well-known
to any local botanical students who have made honest attempts to key and learn the local
vascular plants. It is not my intention here to document these taxa which are well-known but
which have never been formally reported for the county, nor is it my purpose to try to rectify
all of the distributional deficiencies of The Jepson Manual (Hickman ed., 1993), particularly
those entries which might suggest the absence of particular taxa w hich have been more than
adequately documented within the county ( Galium anguslifolium ssp. angustifoliurn ,
Malacolhrix clevelandii , etc.). Instead, my intention here is to cite substantiation or
information for some of the taxa which appear to be scarce in L.A. County, or which may
have been for one reason or another overlooked in the literature.

The taxa included here are from mainland portions of L.A. County, and form only a
subset of the additions to the county flora. Recent additions to the Floras of San Clemente
Island (Ross et al. 1997) and Santa Catalina Island (S. Junak et al., in prep.), or additions to
the flora w hich may be of interest beyond the local level (e.g., Ross and Boyd 1996) have
been, or likely will be. published elsew here. The taxa reported here include both natives and
non-natives, and serve to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of distribution patterns at
a more local, pragmatic level. The non-native plants should be of interest to those wanting to
keep abreast of potential new weeds in our area, and the native plants will tend to be of
interest to botanists who are genuinely interested in Californian phytogeographic patterns.
These reports are intended to provide more precise statements of plant occurrences and
distributions locally , and should — hopefully— help to clarify some of the more generalized
distributions given in the literature. For most of the entries below I have quoted the
geographic distributions given in Munz (1974) and Hickman (ed., 1993), with other
occasional references if deemed potentially relevant. Although I would normally cite the
specific authors of treatments in The Jepson Manual, I have resorted here to simply citing
"Hickman" in order to reduce the number of bibliographic entries. Also, while many
additional references and monographs could be cited, 1 have largely tried to limit myself to
those botanical references best known, or most accessible, to botanists in Southern
California. This note is intended to be informally informative— not a scholarly treatise.

Whether or not convenient, taxa being reported below are arranged alphabetically by
binomial w ith the family name appended parenthetically. Also, following a useful and rather
widely used convention, non-native taxa are indicated by a preceding asterisk (*). At least
one voucher specimen is cited in substantiation of each report, and relatively brief
commentary is appended. If taxa have been identified or verified by a specialist in the group.
1 have tried to remember to include an annotation to that effect in that specific entry. All
vouchers cited below are housed at RSA (Herbarium of the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Garden, Claremont, California). Duplicates of some of these collections, where existent,
have been disseminated to other herbaria, but no effort is made here toward a complete
itemization of these additional herbaria. For those cited, official acronyms follow Holmgren
el al. ( 1990).

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

79

Should any of these voucher specimens be competently re-identified at some point in
the future (especially if the taxon at hand were thus to be eliminated from the known flora of
Los Angeles County), 1 request that I be informed, and that a note indicating the change be
submitted to CROSSOSOMA for clarification to other botanists in Southern California.

If, in this note, it becomes apparent to the reader that I have overlooked an earlier note
or account of a given taxon for L.A. County, I would appreciate being informed of the
literature citation. My goal here is not to present an exhaustive list of additions, but rather to
try to fill perceived gaps in our knowledge of the Southern California flora, especially as it
relates to the political entity of Los Angeles County. Correspondence regarding oversights,
or new county records ( documented with processed herbarium specimens), would be
welcomed by the author.

ADDITIONS:

ARENARIA MACRADENIA S. Watson var. PARISHIORUM Robinson — (CARYOPHYLL-
ACEAE) — (Centerfold Plate IV). Southwestern Mojave Desert. Adobe Mountain:
rocky southerly slope about 200 m S of the summit (3458 ft). Adobe Mtn USGS 7.5’
Quadrangle; T7N R8W, near ctr E/4 NW/4 NE/4 & ctr W/4 NE/4 NE/4 section 13;
elevation ca. 3300-3370 ft. Herbaceous to slightly suffrutescent perennial with
innovations rather freely produced on the lower stems, occurring in a localized
population; herbage largely glandular pubescent, leaves 15-30 mm long, largely
ascending, sometimes arcuate; pedicels scarcely glandular; sepals glabrous, 5.5-7 mm
long, dull muted green; petals cream-white; ovary yellow; basal glands golden, 1-1.3 mm
long; capsule dehiscing into 6 teeth; possibly with some introgression from var. arcuifolia
Maguire. Associated with Stipa speciosa, Eriogonum fasciculatum polifolium,
Caulanthus cooperi, Bromus berterianus, Plagiobothrys arizonicus, etc. IS. Ross 6091 ,
4 April 1992 (RSA, CAS, MICH, US).

Previous knowledge: This variety is apparently scarce in the western Mojave Desert,
but is scattered from the San Bernardino Mountains (the type locality) northward and
eastward. For Kern County, Twisselmann (1967) provides data on one collection: "Rare
on the ridge along the east summit of Tunis Canyon in the Tehachapi Mountains ( T4600 ),
an isolated occurrence of this distinctive variety that ranges from Inyo County to Arizona
and New Mexico." Munz (1974) cites the variety as: "Our most common form, 3000-
7000 ft.; mostly in Joshua Tree Wd., Pinyon-Jumper Wd.; Inyo Co.; Nev., Anz.” As
treated in Hickman (ed., 1993), the variety is relegated to a parenthetical note under var.
macradenia, as follows: "Pis called var. parishiorum Robinson, with petals ± = sepals
and < 5 cauline If pairs, intergrade completely and should be considered a synonym.”
Needless to say, I do not concur with the latter assessment.

*CAESALP1NIA GILLIESII (Hooker) D. Dietrich — (FABACEAE) — Lower Soledad Canyon
[between the Liebre and San Gabriel mountain ranges]: Soledad Canyon Road 1.5 road-
miles E of Highway 14; Agua Dulce USGS 7.5' Quad.; T4N R14W, SW/4 SW/4 SE/4
NW/4 sect. 16; elev. ca. 1950 ft. Young plant ca. 8 dm tall, adventive at roadside on
sandy berm, with Datura wrightii, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Lotus scoparius, etc. , petals
yellow; stamens red. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 2791, 1 June 1990.

Previous knowledge: Widely cultivated in portions of Southern California, but
apparently not often escaping. Not included in Munz's (1974) Flora of Southern
California. Included in Hickman (ed., 1993) with the following data: "Uncommon.
Disturbed areas, urban and rural areas; < 300 m. SnJV, expected elsewhere; native to
Argenuna."

CALOCHORTUS WEEDII Wood var. INTERMEDIUS Ownbey — (LlLIACEAE) — Elephant
Hill: northernmost point of the Puente Hills complex; Miocene volcanic (rhyolite)

80

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

substrate eroding to clay— part of what is known to local geologists as "the Glendora
Volcanoes." Western Pomona; San Dimas USGS 7.5' Quad., T1S R9W, SE/4 NE/4
SW/4 SW/4 sect. 26 (projected); ca. 970 ft elev. Localized, variable population on the
NW slope of the hill, associated with Dudleya multicaulis, Erigeron foliosus foliosus,
Zigadenus fremontii, Chlorogalum pomeridianum, C. parviflorum (scarce in L.A.Co.),
Stipa pulchra, Lotus scoparius, Amsinckia intermedia, etc. Petals broadly cuneate, pale
lilac at the extremities, merging to pale cream-yellow at their bases with numerous dark
purple punctulations. Tnchomes on the inner faces of the petals yellow, grading into
purple toward the petal summits; petal summits minutely dentate and densely ciliate. T.S.
Ross & A.H. Ross 5525A, 3 June 1991. — [Same locality and information, except:]
Petals broadly obovate, pale lilac above, merging to pale cream-yellow in the lower
halves but fairly dark purple at their very bases and with numerous dark purple
punctulations throughout. Sepals similarly colored with dark purple bases. T.S. Ross &
A.H. Ross 552SB, 3 June 1991 .

Previous knowledge: This variety was described by Ownbey (1949) in his

monograph of the genus Calochortus, and considered by him to be restricted to Orange
County. I have looked very closely at his monograph and it seems apparent that he had
reference to no collections from the Puente Hills— a natural flonstic bridge, with the San
Jos£ Hills, between the Santa Ana Mountains and the south base of the San Gabriel
Mountains. This artifact apparently led to his conclusion that C. weedii var. intermedius
was restricted to Orange County and was geographically isolated from C. plummerae
E.L. Greene, which now appears to be an erroneous assumption. Munz (1974) and
Hickman (ed., 1993) follow Ownbey in citing only Orange County. The plants at the
Elephant Hill site are quite variable, suggesting hybridization between C. weedii var.
intermedius and C. plummerae. Both extremes w ere represented as well as intermediates.
It is likely that there are other populations of C. weedii var. intermedius in the Puente
Hills, especially E and SE toward the Santa Ana Mountains, and also very likely that C.
weedii var. intermedius occurs on the rhyolitic portions of the San Jose Hills to the north.
Unfortunately, both physiographic regions have been very poorly botanized, and
extensive portions have been rapidly disappearing under housing developments.
Additional collections of Calochortus from the area would be valuable in understanding
the distributions of these taxa, and especially in gaining a better grasp of the relationship
between C. plummerae and what has been treated as the C. weedii complex (all in
Calochortus section Cyclobothrya).

CALYSTEGIA PURPURATA (E.L. Greene) Brummitt — (CONVOLVULACEAE) — Santa
Monica Mountains: Tnunfo Pass USGS 1.5' Quad.; T1S R19W, ctr NE/4 SW/4 SW/4
sect. 9; W side of Yerba Buena Road ca. 360 m NNW of intersection w ith Mulholland
Highway; elev. ca. 1600 ft, herbaceous perennial on roadside embankment, the flowers
cream with rose midribs. T.S. Ross A M. Bell 6050, 22 March 1992. — [A seed
collection of this species was also made at the site of Madia elegans ssp. densifolia (see
below) and was grown at the collector's home in Ontario, San Bernardino Co. It grew too
rampantly and after 2 or 3 years was eliminated before any herbarium vouchers had been
pressed ( shame on me!). The only persisting evidence of this latter collection is a pressed
flow ering peduncle w hich I use as a Calyslegia page marker in my 1974 Munz, and a few
seeds to be sown again in the future].

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) cites the distribution as: "Chaparral near the
coast, Ventura Co. to n Calif." The species is not recorded in the Flora of the Santa
Monica Mountains (Raven el al. 1986) and would appear to be an addition to that range.
Hickman (ed., 1993) treats two subspecies (the collection at hand would be the typical
ssp. purpurata ) and indicates the geographic range as: "NCo, NCoRO, GV (Sutter
Buttes), CCo, SnFrB, SCoRO, n SCo, s WTR."

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

81

‘CISTUS SALVIFOLIUS L. — (ClSTACEAE) — Western San Gabriel Mountains: San
Fernando 7.5' USGS Quad.; T3N R15W, NE/4 NW/4 NE/4 NE/4 sect. 15; ca. 3320 ft
elev. Southerly draw ca. 515 m SSW of May Canyon Saddle, draining to Wilson
Canyon; disturbed area on N side of Loop Canyon Road with chaparral and coastal sage
scrub elements. Low, rounded shrubs 3-4 dm tall; petals white with yellow bases.
Introduced by the Forest Service and naturalizing. First time I have seen this species
introduced into the range. T.S. Ross & W. Appleby 6822, 15 April 1993.

Previous knowledge: Not included in Munz's Flora of Southern California (1974).
Hickman (ed., 1993) lists the species as: "Uncommon. Disturbed places; < 300 m. s
CCo; native to s Eur."

*COLUTEA ARBORESCENS L. — (FABACEAE) — San Gabnel Mountains: Bear Divide
Station, at roadside in chaparral; shrub ca. 1 m with yellow flowers; possibly planted;
elev. ca. 2700 ft. R.F. Thorne & C.W. Tilforth 39919, 17 June 1971. - San Gabnel
Mtns: along old road from Chantry Flat to East Fork Santa Ana [sic; Anita] River; erect,
open, deciduous shrubs, naturalized on steep slope; flowers yellow ; introduced. C.W.
Tilforth & W. Wisura 2193, 10 December 1981. — San Gabnel Mtns: Big Santa Anita
Canyon, near Chantry Flat; shrub, naturalized on hillsides. B. Kelley s.n., 1 June 1983.
— San Gabnel Mtns: Santa Anita Canyon, junction of Sturdevant Falls Trail and trail to
Sturdevant Camp & Mt. Wilson; elev. ca 1800 ft; canyon floor in alluvium in shade of
coast live oak & alder, or in full sun, with Cytisus canariensis\ shrub to 8 ft high; flowers
yellow. D. Kucera 92-1, 4 June 1992. — Western San Gabnel Mtns: Bear Divide; off
the W side of Little Tujunga Road, just E of the Forest Service Station; San Fernando 7.5'
Quad., T3N R14W, near ctr W/2 sect. 7; at head of draw draining SE to Pacoima Canyon;
distributed between 2600 and 2680 ft elev. Shrubs to ca. 16 dm tall locally; flowers
yellow with fine reddish pattern on lower portion of banner; pods inflated, reddish;
doubtless introduced by the Forest Service and obviously naturalizing on a recently
burned W and SW slope with Eriodictyon crassifolium, Eriogonum fasciculatum
foliolosum, Salvia mellifera, Yucca whipplei caespitosa, etc. T.S. Ross & W. Appleby
7373, 8 June 1993.

Previous knowledge: This European species is not included in Munz (1974). In
Hickman (ed., 1993) its distribution is given as: "n SNF, SnFrB ." From the collections
cited here it is evident that the species in naturalized in two areas of the San Gabriels, and
might be watched for elsew here in the range.

CRYPT ANTHA NEVADENSIS Nelson & Kennedy var. NEVADENSIS — (BORAGINACEAE) —
Southwestern Mojave Desert: Black Butte, El Mirage USGS 7.5' Quad.; T5N R8W,
NW/4 NE/4 sect. 4; elev. ca. 3150-3550 ft. Steep rocky easterly and northeasterly
slopes; fairly open with mostly low tortured shrubs or subshrubs including Larrea
tridenlata, Hymenoclea salsola, Ericameria cooperi, Ephedra nevadensis, Lycium
andersonii, Salazaria mexicana, Lepidium fremontii, etc. Locally scattered annual. An
unusual occurrence; usually supplanted in the countv by C. n. var. rigida I.M. Johnston.
T.S. Ross 4703B, 27 April 1991.

Previous knowledge; Munz (1974) recognizes both var. nevadensis and var. rigida
for Southern California. The distribution given for the typical variety is: "deserts from
Inyo Co. to L. Calif., Anz., Utah," while the distribution given for var. rigida is: "w .
Mojave Desert; to s. cent. Calif; Ariz." Twisselmann (1967) cites both varieties for Kem
County with var. nevadensis "common on the desert...; rare west to the east slope of the
Greenhorn Range," and var. rigida "common in the shrubby Upper Sonoran associations
in the Temblor Range; occasional south and east through the mountains to the desert
ranges where it is scarce.. ." The treatment found in Hickman (ed., 1993) does not
distinguish varieties, placing var. rigida parenthetically as a synonym. I do not purport to
be a Crypiantha expert, nor do I feel comfortable in keying out many of our species;

82

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winier 1996

however, I do believe that the variety rigida is sufficiently distinctive to be worthy of
taxonomic recognition at or above the varietal level. More collections are needed to
better understand its distribution and morphological variation. More importantly,
how ever, we need a careful taxonomist w ho can approach the level of understanding in
the genus Cryptantha not held since Ivan Johnston studied and annotated our collections
decades ago.

*CYNOSURUS ECHINATUS L. — (P3ACEAE) — Western San Gabriel Mountains: 530 m
WNW of Wilson Canvon Saddle; 340 m NNE of the Radio Facility; San Fernando 7.5'
USGS Quad., R15W T3N, NW/4 NW/4 SE/4 sect. 9; 3280-3370 ft elev. Apparently
fairly localized population on open, disturbed, WNW slope draining to Whitney Canyon;
on coarse granitic soil in association with Senecio flaccidus douglasii; Eriogonum fasci-
cuiatum, Lotus grandiflorus, Agropyron sp., Eriophyllum confertiflorum. Stephanomeria
virgata, Bromus diandrus, etc. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 7383, 29 June 1993. Venf. J.R.
Reeder (ARIZ).

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974), without citing specific localities, gives the
distribution of this European weed as: "Common locally in fields, waste places, etc."
However, despite this statement, the taxon appears to be relatively uncommon in
Southern California. Hickman (ed., 1993) gives the California distribution as: "NW,
SNF, CW, WTR; to B.C., e U.S." For Southern California, I have seen the following
quantities of documenting specimens in the RSA-POM herbarium: L.A. County 1;
Orange Co. 1; San Bernardino Co. 2; San Diego Co. 3. That's all! This grass has
reportedly been used in the past as part of post-fire seeding mixes (Smith 1976) and mas
have arrived at the San Gabriels site, above, as part of such a seed mix.

ECHINOCACTUS POLYCEPHALES Engelmann & Bigelow — (C.ACTACEAE) — (Plate IV).
Southwestern Mojave Desert: Adobe Mountain; southwesterly extension of the

mountain; Adobe Mtn USGS 7.5' Quad.; T7N R8W, NEJ4 SW/4 sect. 13; elev. ca. 3040-
3200 ft. Low , eroded granitic slopes dominated by Larrea tridenlata and other scattered
low shrubs. Multi-headed globular cactus scattered locally on the rocky slopes. T.S.
Ross 4741, 28 April 1991. [Also see entry for Opunlia ramosissima. below .]

Previous knowledge: This attractive and well-known cactus is scarce in the western
Mojave Desert and barely gets into Los Angeles County, whence it apparently has not
been reported before. Munz (1974) gives its range as: "n Colo. Desert, Mojave Desert
from Randsburg, San Bernardino Mts. and Panamint Mts. e.; to Utah, Anz." The
distribution cued in Hickman (ed., 1993) differs but slightly: e SnBr, DMoj, n DSon; to
AZ, Mex." Twisselmann (1967) cites a few isolated colonies in the central eastern
portion of Kern County, although I might expect it also to occur in the SE comer. The
\anet\ reported here is the typical var. polycephalus

* ElaE AGNES ANGESTIFOL1A L. — (ELAEAGNACEAE) — San Gabriel Mountains, NE side:
Big Pines Highway; roadside ca. 900 m ESE from Jackson Lake, just on the W side of
upper Mescal Creek drainage; Mescal Creek 7.5' USGS Quad.; T4N R8W, near ctr of
NE/4 SEJ4 sect. 33; elev. ca. 6160 ft. Arborescent shrubs or small trees, (presumably
introduced and) naturalizing locally on mesic slope below the road. Leaves silvery;
flow ers pale golden-yellow . T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 3496. 18 June 1990.

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) cites this temperate Eurasian species as an

"occasional escape in wet places, as at Victorville, San Bernardino Co., Inyo Co., etc." In
Hickman (ed., 1993) its distribution is given as "SnJV, SnFrB, SNE, DMoj." Very thorm
material, as is the case with the collection cited above, has been called var. spinosa (L.)
O. Kuntze.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

83

*ERAGROSTIS CURVULA (Schrader) Nees — (POACEAE) — San Gabnel Mountains: divide
between Oak Spring Canyon and Cottonwood Canyon, off Little Tujunga Canyon; T3N
R14W, NE/4 sect. 34; elev. 2700 ft.; planted on cleared sunny sandy loam; N slope. L.C.
Wheeler s.n., 1 July 1968. — San Gabnel Mtns: Yerba Buena Ridge, Angeles National
Forest, Tujunga Ranger Distnct, T3N R14W, SE/4 NW/4 Sect. 36, ca. 3820 ft elev.;
disturbed grassy ndgetop surrounded by chaparral. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 2472, 14 May
1990.

Previous knowledge: It would seem that Munz (1974) may not have had access to
any specific collections, and indicated in his Flora only: "Reported from San Diego,
Fuller and cent. Calif.; s states; introd. from Africa." The treatment in Hickman (ed.,
1993) cites the California distribution as: "CaRF, GV, SCoRO, SnBr, PR, DMoj." The
entry in Hickman specifies "var. curvula ," which the collections cited here appear to be.
However, a second variety of E. curvula has now been documented in Southern
California, and has been reported in the botanical literature (Sanders 1996). At the Yerba
Buena Ridge site— a heavily disturbed OHV area— there is no doubt that the species was
introduced for erosion control purposes. It undoubtedly occurs more widely on the
Tujunga Ranger District of the Angeles National Forest, and may possibly be found
elsewhere in the San Gabriels.

ER1CAMERIA CUNEATA (A. Gray) McClatchie var. SPATHULATA (A. Gray) H.M.Hall —
(ASTERACEAE) — Southwestern Mojave Desert: Lovejoy Buttes; NE portion of the main
buttes ± west of Lovejoy Springs (destroyed by development); Lovejoy Buttes USGS 7.5'
Quad.; T6N R9W, NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 sect. 17; elev. ca. 3040-3090 ft. Lower slopes
dominated by Larrea tridentata, rocky slopes including Larrea, Eriogonum fasciculatum,
Lycium andersonii. Ambrosia dutnosa, Ephedra nevadensis, Ericameria cooperi, Grayia
spinosa, Hymenoclea salsola, Salazaria mexicana, Stipa speciosa, etc. Low, mounded
shrub in rock outcrops; scattered locally but not common. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 4257, 23
March 1991. — SW Mojave Desert: Adobe Mountain; southwesterly extension of the
mountain; Adobe Mtn USGS 7.5' Quad ; T7N R8W, NE/4 SW/4 sect. 13; elev. ca. 3040-
3200 ft. Low, eroded granitic slopes dominated by Larrea tridentata and other scattered
low shrubs. Locally uncommon shrublet in rock outcrop; basal trunk ca. 7.5 cm
diameter; sterile voucher for floristic studies. T.S. Ross 4763, 28 April 1991 .

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) did not recognize this variety, and treated it as a
synonym under Haplopappus cuneatus A. Gray, sensu lalo. Shortly after Munz's Flora
appeared, Urbatsch (1976) completed a study of the variation in Ericameria cuneala and
proposed the recognition of three varieties. The treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) thus
follows Urbatsch's scheme and gives the distribution of E. c. var. spalhulata as: "SCoRl,
Teh, D; s NV, AZ, nw Mex." In Los Angeles County, var. spathulata appears to be
scarce and limited to rocky crevices and slopes out on Mojavean buttes and outcrops,
while var. cuneala is of scattered occurrence in the San Gabnel and Liebre mountains.
The latter tends to occur in montane coniferous forest, but may also extend down into the
chaparral belt along cold air drainages, rarely to as low as 2400 ft. elevation.

Eriogonum inflatum Torrey & Fremont var. inflatum — (Polygonaceae) —
"Harold," ["Harold" is a histoncal name for a very small population center and railroad
stop along the Southern Pacific Railroad. It is on the San Andreas Fault, at the NE end of
the Liebre Mountains, S of Palmdale, just SE of Lake Palmdale; Palmdale USGS 7.5'
Quad.; T5N R12W, SW/4 sect. 2; elev. ca. 2830 ft; 34°32'42"N-1 18°06'3 1" W.] A.
Davidson s.n., 12 May 1893 (RSA ex LAM). — Southwestern Mojave Desert: Adobe
Mountain; Adobe Mtn USGS 7.5' Quad., T7N R8W, near SW/4 SW/4 NE/4 NE/4 sect.
13, ca. 3200 ft elev.; highly localized herbaceous perennial. T.S. Ross 60S7, 4 Apnl
1992.

84

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

Previous knowledge: This is another familiar plant of the California deserts which is
apparently scarce in L A. County. Interestingly, just north of our border, Twisselman
(1967) indicates that in Kem County this species is "common in rocky places from the
desert southwest to Ml. Pinos." Munz (1974) gives the distribution of this species as:
"Mojave and Colo, deserts, n. to Mono Co.; to Colo., Anz., L. Calif." The distribution
cited in Hickman (ed., 1993) is somew hat similar, but also makes it difficult to ascertain a
reasonable understanding of the taxon's phytogeographic limits: "GB, D; to Colorado,
NM, nw Mex."

After 1 made my Adobe Mtn collection, I was unable to locate any other earlier
collections from L.A. Co. in the RSA-POM herbarium, but thought it unusual that mine
should be the first However, 1 found that Anstruther Davidson had included this
distinctive species in his catalogue of Los Angeles County plants (1896), and I assumed
that there had to be a basis for it. After an extensive search in the herbarium, I
encountered the "Harold" collection, cited above, which had been misfiled. These,
however, remain the only two collections of this taxon that I have seen for the county.

[For those interested in "common names," Davidson & Moxley (1923) indicate that
this species is "locally known as the 'cigarette plant,' its inflated stems making convenient
cigarette holders."]

ERODIUM TEXANUM A. Gray — (GERAN1ACEAE) — Southwestern Mojave Desert: Black
Butte; El Mirage USGS 7.5' Quad.; T5N R8W, NE/4 NE/4 NE/4 NW/4 sect. 4; elev. ca.
3550-3580 ft. Steep, rocky, easterly and northeasterly slopes; fairly open with mostly
low tortured shrubs or subshrubs including Larrea tridenlata, Hymenoclea salsola,
Ericameria cooperi. Ephedra nevadensis, Lycium andersonii, Salazaria mexicana,
Lepidium fremontii , etc. Annual, occurring in a small localized population on slight
easterly slope just off the summit. T.S. Ross 4726, 27 April 1991.

Previous knowledge: E and SE of our area this species is reasonably well known;
however, in the W portion of its range occurrences appear to be localized and relictual.
Twisselmann (1967), in his Kem Co. Flora, reported it as reaching "its northwestern
limits at the mouth of Last Chance Canyon in the El Paso Range where a highly localized
colony grows on a gravelly desert fan (T4441). Apparently it is not otherwise known
from the Mojave Desert northwest of the Calico Mountains." Munz (1974) gave the
overall distribution of this species as: "Colo, and e. Mojave deserts, Jurupa Hills near
Riverside; to Tex., L. Calif." The distribution given in Hickman (ed., 1993) reflects the
fact that a couple of outlier colonies have apparently been documented in the San Joaquin
Valley: "s SnJV, s SCo, D; to TX, n Mex." Excluded from these distributional

statements is a very interesting collection made in 1901 by Blanche Trask on Santa
Catalina Island (vidi!), which was reported by Wallace (1985). This was the only known
collection from the Channel Islands, but regrettably the taxon is likely now extirpated
there. At the Black Butte site, I searched the adjacent area after discovering the Erodium
texanum, but found no additional colonies. Surrounding the colony, however, E.
cicutariuni (L.) L’Hdntier was abundant.

[Possibly of interest to some. Fjs cultivated by the collector in Ontario, San
Bernardino Co., were apparently all apetalous but self-fertile; F2S produced some
apetalous plants, but also several with normal chasmogamous flowers. I was unable to
discern any environmental cause for the difference.]

*Festuca trachyphylla (Hackel) Kraj. — (POACEAE) — Western San Gabriel
Mountains: 220 m SSW of May Canyon Saddle and 380 m WNW of May Peak [3948-
ft] ; San Fernando 7.5’ USGS Quad.;'R15W T3N, SW/4 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 sect. 10; ca.
3650 ft elev. Locally scarce tufted perennial in an area being type-converted by the
Forest Sen ice [on my label 1 admittedly put "Semce" in quotation marks] from chaparral
to weedv grassland, one of about three tufts seen; associated with Bromus diandrus.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winler 1996

85

Bromus hordeaceus, Dactylis glomerata, Agropyron spp., and relictual Adenosloma
fasciculalum. T.S. Ross & W. Appleby 7145, 14 May 1993. [Distributed as Festuca cf.
ovina L.]. Det. C.G. Reeder (ARJZ).

Previous knowledge: This European perennial is not reflected in Munz (1974), and
apparently represents a more recent addition to the continually expanding palette of
weeds intentionally introduced to our area. The species is recorded in Hickman (ed.,
1993) with the following distribution and data: "NCoRO, n SNH, expected elsewhere; to
e N.Am; .... Used for erosion control, esp on ski slopes."

GlLIA MALIOR A. Day & V. Grant — (POLEMON1ACEAE) — Southwestern Mojave Desert:
Northeastern-most comer of Los Angeles County, ca. 3 mi SSE of Jackrabbit Hill (Kern
Co.), in area marked with numerous mines and prospects (ca. 1.45 mi S of Kem Co. line
and 0.2-0. 5 mi W of San Bernardino Co. line); Jackrabbit Hill USGS 7.5' Quad.; T8N
R8W, SW/4 and SE/4 of NE/4 sect. 12; elev. ca. 2880-2900 ft; Larrea divaricata scrub
with scattered Yucca brevifolia\ topography characterized by shallow draws and scattered
knolls or low ridges to ca. 8 ft tall; locally scattered annual with dark throat, blue pollen.
T.S. Ross <& S. Boyd 4282, 23 March 1991. — SW Mojave Desert: Adobe Mountain;
T7N R8W sect. 13; Adobe Mtn USGS 7.5' Quad.; elev. between 3040 (near SW base)
and 3458 ft (summit); mapped as Mesozoic granitic rocks; glabrous annual; corolla limb
pale blue-lavender, tube purplish; pollen white. T.S. Ross 6079, 4 April 1992. All det. A
Day (CAS).

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) cites the distribution of this species as: "w.
Mojave Desert from Mohave, Inyokem, Death V., etc. to ne. Calif., nw . Nev." For Kem
Co., Twisselmann (1967) lists the species as: "Scarce in sandy places in the creosote
bush association, southwest through the and Upper Sonoran associations to the Temblor
Range.” The treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) gives the taxon's range as: "Teh, s SnJV,
SCoRJ, SNE, DMoj; NV, OR." Despite its relatively "broad" range, the species appears
to be scarce in our area, the collections above being the first that 1 have seen for L.A.
County. Interestingly, the treatment in Hickman indicates that this species is
"intermediate between G. minor and G. aliquanla both of w hich were found growing
sympatncally w ith the collection on Adobe Mountain [G. minor A.D. Grant & V. Grant,
Ross 6080, G. aliquanta A.D. Grant & V. Grant ssp. breviloba Grant & Grant > ssp
aliquanla, Ross 6078. All det. A. Day].

HERACLEUM LANATUM Michaux — (A PI ACE AE) — Liebre Mountains: Atmore Meadows,
between Liebre and Sawmill mountains; streams draining southward to the North Fork of
Fish Canyon; Burnt Peak 7.5’ USGS Quad.; T7N R16W, (sections not demarcated); near
34041'31"N-1 18°36'15"W; elev. ca. 4320-4350 ft. Locally uncommon herbaceous
perennial along riparian strip; stems fistulose. Sterile voucher for flonstic studies. T.S.
Ross & S. Boyd 7796, 1 1 May 1994 (RSA, 2 sheets).

Previous knowledge: This robust and distinctive apiad has a rather broad distribution
in temperate North America, but is uncommon in Southern California Munz (1974),
under the synonym H. sphondylium L. ssp. monlanum (Schleicher ex Gaudin) Bnquel,
indicated its occurrence here as: "Moist places below 9000 ft.; Montane Coniferous F. ;
San Jacinto and San Bernardino mts.; to Alaska, Atlantic Coast." The distribution given
in Hickman (ed., 1993) unfortunately obfuscates the phytogeographic pattern in
California: "CA-FP, GB; to AK, e US, AZ." Though the species might be expected to
occur in the San Gabriel Mountains, it has not yet been discovered there; consequently,
the localized occurrence in the Liebre Mountains came as an interesting surprise. At
present, Atmore Meadows is also the only known locality in the Liebres for Ribes
nevadense Kellogg (Grossulanaceae). Despite the relatively low elevation of the site,
various physiographic factors appear to have made Atmore Meadows a small, localized
refugium.

86

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

LINANTHUS AUREUS (Nuttall) EL. Greene var. DECORUS (A. Gray) Jepson — (FOLEMONI-
ACEAE) — Southwestern Mojave Desert: Black Butte Basin Road, on the S margin of
the Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks; ca. 1.75 miles and ca. 148° SW of Three Sisters
[buttes]; El Mirage USGS 7.5' Quad.; T5N R8W, SE/4 SE/4 SE/4 NW/4 SW/4 sect. 4;
elev. ca. 3210-3220 ft; open desert of Larrea iridentaia co-dominated by Yucca
brevifolia\ locally scarce annual with w hite corollas. T.S. Ross 4732, 28 April 1991.

Previous knowledge: Munz's (1974) description of this species' distribution largelv
focuses on the typical, yellow -flowered variety. The white-flowered variety appears as a
postscript with the following statement: "A form with whitish corolla and often with a
dark throat, the corolla 7-15 mm long, occurs with the yellow form, but often in separate
areas of some extent. It is var. decorus (Gray) Jeps." Twisselmann (1967) cites only the
typical yellow-flowered form for Kern County. The treatment provided in Hickman (ed.,
1993) is somewhat simplified. The overall habitat and range for the species, Linanthus
aureus, is given as: "Desert flats; < 2000 m. D; to NM, Baja CA. Both sspp. occur in
gen same range but rarely occur together." The two color forms, treated there as
subspecies, appear in "The Jepson Manual" as follows:

"ssp aureus FL: corolla tube, lobes bright yellow , throat gen brighter yellow
or maroon. 2n=18. Habitat and range of sp. &TRY.
ssp. decorus (A. Gray) H. Mason FL: corolla tube, lobes w hite or cream,
throat maroon. 2n=18. Habitat and range of sp. &TRY."

However. 1 was convinced that the geographical distribution of the white-flowered
variety was considerably more limited, despite published statements suggesting that both
varieties shared essentially the same distributional range. Consequently, I went to the
RSA-POM herbarium collection to examine specimens and conduct a quick, informal
assessment of their ranges. Though cursory and un-scientific, a survey of the collection
indicated the follow ing provenances for the specimens ( — for those w ho can: envision
the distribution patterns mentally; for those who can't, refer to a county map of the
American Southwest):

Var aureus [corolla limbs usually clear to bright yellow ; the throats usually a richer
yellow, golden, or orange]: Inyo Co. ± 14; Kern Co. ± 22; L A. Co. ± 29; Orange Co.

1 ; Riverside Co. 6; San Bernardino Co. ± 74; Ventura Co. ± 18; Arizona ± 18;

Nevada ± 3; New Mexico 5.

Var decorus [corolla limbs usually white, or "cream-w hue," with throats burgundy,
"maroon," or dark purple]: L.A. Co. 1 ; San Bernardino Co. ± 30; Riverside Co. 2;

San Diego Co. l ;so. Nevada 3; Arizona 1.

0\erall, the white-flowered var. decorus appears to have a much more restricted
distribution centered in the heart of the Mojave Desert. It is not known to enter the
cismonlane as is the case with var. aureus ( — the latter has been documented from the
Los Angeles Basin, the San Fernando Valley, and along the and south foothills of the San
Gabnei Mountains, but has largely if not entirely been eliminated there by agnculture and
urbanization). At RSA-POM there is a senes of collections made by our important early
field botanist, Carl B. Wolf, documenting local occurrences of either or both of these two
vaneties at vanous places in the Mojave Desert. At some localities both vaneties co-
occurred, while at others only one color-form was represented. It seems relatively clear
that San Bernardino County is the center of distnbulion for both vaneties, although one
must also remember that it is the largest county in the contiguous 48 states. This
considered, I examined about 4 collections of the species that could, with little or no
doubt, be considered intergrades betw een the two vaneties... all, of course, collected in
San Bernardino Co. One label cited plants in a local population as having "white, cream-
w hite, cream-yellow , or yellow flow ers," rather clearly suggesting that the tw o vaneties
were hybndiztng locally.

Unfortunately, aside from corolla color, there appear to be virtually no morphological
characters by w hich one mat consistently differentiate the two laxa. This is the bane of

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

87

attempting to apply anthropogenic taxonomic concepts upon natural variation, especially
when applied to entities that are at an early stage of evolutionary' diversification. To
some degree, this situation is similar to that of the blue- and white-flowered forms of
Linanthus parryae (A. Gray) E.L. Greene, and Phacelia viscida (Bentham) Torrey
(Hydrophyllaceae). Although, aside from corolla color, "units toward taxonomic merit"
cannot be visually discerned from the specimens themselves, this is where a critical
assessment of geographic and/or ecological distributional patterns can be helpful. In the
case at hand, I believe that treating the two color forms at the vanetal level is not
unreasonable; however, treating them as subspecies (a taxonomic rank above variety, and
which is not conceptually synonymous with "variety") is, I believe, a case of taxonomic
inflation.

These "asides" aside, the collection of Linanthus aureus var. decorus cited above
appears to be the most westerly, and— at present— the only documentation of the taxon
within Los Angeles County.

LOMATIUM CALIFORNICUM (Nuttall ex Torrey & A. Gray) Mathias & Constance —
(AP1ACEAE) — Liebre Mountains: Liebre Mtn.: N slope, along upper portions of the
Pacific Crest Trail which follows the ridge just E of Horse Camp Canyon; elev. between
4880-5680 ft. Area locally dominated by Quercus spp. and chaparral elements, with
scattered Pinus sabiniana and Aesculus californica, and occasional openings with grasses
and herbs. Herbaceous perennial ; scattered and occasional here. T.S. Ross et al. 3881, 27
June 1990. — Liebre Mountain: southerly slopes to the S and SW of the West Summit
and ridge to its W; Liebre Mtn 7.5' USGS Quad.; T7N R17W, E/2 NE/4 sect. 9; elev. ca.
4560-5520 ft. [West Summit here construed as the 5605-foot knoll near the intersection
of sections 3, 4, 9, 10.] Herbaceous perennial on granitic ridge at ca. 5360 ft; relatively
uncommon locally. T.S. Ross, O. Mistretta, & A. Quid 3993, 28 June 1990. — [Same
locality:] Locally uncommon herbaceous perennial; southwesterly slope on loose granitic
substrate; due S of West Summit at ca. 5020 ft elev. T.S. Ross, O. Mistretta, & A. Quid
4003, 28 June 1990. — Liebre Mtns: Sawmill Mountain: center summit area, along
Maxwell Truck Trail; ca. 410 m SE of Upper Shake Campground; Burnt Peak 7.5' USGS
Quad.; T7N R16W, (sections not demarcated); near 34°41'18"N-1 18°3T34"W; elev. ca.
4900 ft. Northwesterly slope of decomposed granite colluvium; chaparral dominated by
Quercus wislizeni, also associated with Keckiella ternata seplentrionalis, Agoseris
retrorsa, and Claytonia parviflora parviflora. A few scattered plants locally; herbage
glaucous; root with strong celery smell when cut; flowers yellow-green. T.S. Ross & S.
Boyd 7828, 1 1 May 1994. All venf. L. Constance (UC).

Previous knowledge: Previously known from the Western Transverse Ranges (of
which the Liebre Mountains form the easternmost extension), northward, but apparently
not documented within L.A. County until these collections. Munz (1974) gives the
distribution as: "Ventura and Kern cos. n. to Ore." The treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993)
provides the following data: "KR, NCoR, s SNH, Teh, SCoR, WTR; s OR."

LONICERA HISPIDULA Douglas var. VACILLANS A. Gray — (CAPRJFOLIACEAE) — San
Gabriel Mountains, above Madrono Rats, E fork Santa Anita Canyon; local; climbing
over brush; shaded canyon bottom, 3500 ft, J.A. Ewan 7863, 4 July 1933. Det. T.S.
Ross; venf. D.L. Banks. [Joe was out collecting on the 4th of July: a true botanist!]

Previous knowledge: While Lonicera hispidula is not an entirely new report for the
county, this taxon is relictual in Southern California; hence, specific information on its
distribution provides valuable insight into past plant migrations and overall
phytogeographic patterns in the Californian flora. This is one of several species w hich
occurs on California's Channel Islands, but which on the mainland is distributed
predominantly in the Coast Ranges from Santa Barbara Co. northward. Munz (1974)
gives the Southern California distribution as: "Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and Santa

88

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Cruz ids., Santa Ynez Mts.; to s. Ore." However, it is known on San Clemente Island
from only one collection (P.H. Raven 17714, 10 May 1962), and has not been recorded
there again. Likewise, on Santa Cruz Island (S. Junak et al. 1995), the species is listed as
"scarce; moist N-facing slopes, shaded canyon walls...." Raven el al. (1986) report the
taxon from one small area in the Santa Monica Mountains; "Malibu Canyon south of
Tapia Park" (based on one collection?). This is apparently the only previous report for
mainland L.A. County. In San Diego County, Beauchamp (1986) reports the taxon as
"rare, known in the county only at Hot Springs Mountain."

The Ewan collection had originally been idenufied as L. interrupta Bentham, and had
remained filed under that name in the RSA herbarium for the past six decades. I was
pleasantly surprised to stumble upon it when — having made a collection of L. interrupta
in the Liebre Mtns which clearly showed introgression from L. hispidula — \ went to the
RSA-POM herbarium collection to examine the range of morphological variation in L.
interrupta. I find it interesting that Ewan's collection was made in the vicinity of
madrones ( Arbutus menziesii, Ericaceae), another Pacific Coast taxon that occurs only
relictually in Southern California. Just recently, Darin Banks (pers. comm.) made a
collection of Lonicera hispidula in NW San Diego County, also in association w ith a
relictual madrone colony. The Lonicera treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) unfortunately,
due to a priori philosophical constraints of the work, summarizes the important outlier
populations in Southern California by simply stating "SW."

Madia ELEGANS D.Don ex Lindley ssp. DENSIFOLIA (E.L. Greene) Keck —
(ASTERACEAE) — Santa Monica Mountains: north slope of the range, S of Lake Eleanor
along Decker Road 1.0 mile S of the Los Angeles-Ventura County line; T1S R19W,
SW/4 NE/4 NE/4 sect. 3; elev. ca. 1475-1550 ft. Local vegetation dominated by
Quercus agrifolia and semi-open scrubland. Localized annual herb to ca. 20 dm tall in
vemally moist ditch on W side of road; inflorescence open, well-branched, stipitate-
glandular, w ith branches spreading 40-85° from axis; ray and disk florets yellow ; anthers
dark; almost completely past flowering locally. Positive identification derived from Fi
progeny cultivated by the collector in Ontario, San Bernardino County (q.v.). T.S. Ross
5992, 5 October 1991 — [Data from cultivated specimens.) Annual with a basal rosette,
blooming at 4-20 dm in height (average height ca. 16-17 dm); lower stems fistulose;
entire plant heavily glandular with dark, capitate glands; inflorescence predominantly
terminal, but some plants producing additional flowering stems below; disk and ray
flowers yellow ; rays deeply 3-lobed (2/5 to 1/2 the length of the ray); ray flowers fertile,
opening in morning, closing about noon, re-opening in evening; disk flowers sterile;
anthers dark brown to nearlv black. T.S. Ross 5992s, [Collected from cultivation:] 12
July 1992.

Previous knowledge: This robust annual is considered by Munz (1974) to be
"occasional in cismontane s. Calif., more abundant n." I have seen no other specimens
collected within L.A. County and therefore have chosen to report the taxon here. The
species. Madia elegans, is reported in the Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains (Raven el
al. 1986); however, no subspecies is indicated, and the erroneous description of the taxon
as a "Perennial herb" creates further ambiguity. The distribution cited for M. e. ssp.
densifolia in Hickman (ed., 1993) is, unfortunately, broadly described as: "CA-FP, GB;
to OR." In Southern California, this distinctive taxon tends to occur at lower elevations
in the chaparral belt, coastal sage scrub, and openings amid oak woodland. It may be
more w idespread in our area than currently known. However, it blooms in late summer
or autumn w hen very few botanists are out in the field, and much of its potential local
habitat has already been converted to agriculture, or has been urbanized.

Madia ELEGANS D.Don ex Lindley ssp. VERNALIS Keck — (ASTERACEAE) — Liebre
Mountains: northeast summit of Grass Mountain: north slopes draining toward Elizabeth

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

89

Lake; south slopes toward Green Valley; Lake Hughes 7.5' USGS Quad.; T6N R14W,
NW/4 NW/4 sect. 6; elev. ca. 4540-4560 ft. Somewhat flattened summit dominated by
grassland with a rich diversity of herbs; unfortunately, also heavily invaded by non-native
annual grasses, probably introduced by post-fire seeding after a recent local fire.
Descending slopes clad in chaparral. Annua], locally common in western portion of
grassland. Rays clear yellow, showy, lobed/toothed ca. 30-35% their length; involucre
villous with little or no glandularity evident to the naked eye. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 7659,
4 May 1994. — [Same locality:] Annual ...; disk flowers sterile; ray flowers ca. 16-18,
yellow, about 14 mm long. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 7847, 24 May 1994.

Previous knowledge: This attractive subspecies is not included in Munz's Flora of
Southern California (1974), but is recorded in A California Flora (Munz & Keck 1959) as
occurring "in cismontane Calif, from Kern and San Luis Obispo cos. n. to Ore." The
treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) is generalized, and gives the distribution as: "CA-FP;
OR." The locality cited here appears to be the most southerly now known for this taxon.
Unlike the preceding subspecies, this one normally blooms in spring to early summer.

*MALVA NEGLECTA Wallroth — (MALVACEAE) — San Gabriel Mountains: Verdugo Pines
Camp; northerly draw draining to Jackson Lake; Mescal Creek USGS 7.5' Quad.; T4N
R8W, NW/4 SW/4 sect. 33, between 6160-6280 ft elev.; annual, or possibly biennial [or
short-lived perennial?], localized, staminal tube pubescent, petals ca. 12 mm long,
pinkish. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 3483, 18 June 1990.

Previous knowledge: Not recorded for Southern California in Munz (1974). The
Malva treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) gives this species' distribution as: "n&c CA;
native to Eurasia." At the locality cited above, it occurred in a fairly localized but
vigorous colony in mesic granitic soil at the base of a chaparral -covered slope, at the
disturbed margin of the campground. Based on the material observed and collected,
some individuals appeared to have persisted for more than 1 year.

OPUNTIA ramosissima Engelmann — (CACTACEAE) — Southwestern Mojave Desert:
northeastern-most comer of Los Angeles County, ca. 3 miles SSE of Jackrabbit Hill
(Kern Co.), in area marked with numerous mines and prospects (ca. 1.45 miles S of Kern
Co. line and 0. 2-0.5 mile W of San Bernardino Co. line); Jackrabbit Hill USGS 7.5'
Quad.; T8N R8W, SW/4 and SE/4 of NE/4 sect. 12; elev. ca. 2880-2900 ft. Larrea
divaricata scrub with scattered Yucca brevifolia ; topography characterized by shallow
draws and scattered knolls or low ridges to ca. 8 ft. tall. Locally scattered cactus. Other
cacti noted here include Echinocactus polycephalus, Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris, and
O. cf. echinocarpa. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 4275, 23 March 1991.

Previous knowledge: This, the familiar pencil cactus of our local deserts, appears to
be one more species that barely gets into L.A. County. Munz (1974) cites its occurrence
as: "Calif, deserts; to Nev., Son." Similarly, the distribution given in Hickman (ed.,
1993) is also general: "D; NV, AZ." It appears to be scarce in the western Mojave,
however, as it apparently has not been reported or documented within L.A. County
previously, and Twisselmann (1967) does not include it in his Kem County Flora.

PENTAGRAMMA TRIANGULARIS (Kaulfuss) Yatskievych, Windham, & E. Wollenweber
ssp. MAXONII (Weatherby) Y„ W., & W. — (ADIANTACEAE) — Southeastern Liebre
Mountains: Parker Mtn and ridge to the SW; SW of Acton and NNE of Ravenna; Acton
7.5' USGS Quad.; T4N R13W; W edge sect. 2, E and SE edge sect. 3, NNE edge sect. 10;
between 3670-4131 (summit) ft. elev. Desert Transition Chaparral on decomposed
granite substrate; Juniperus californica common on lower slopes of mountain; area
recently burned. Locally uncommon herbaceous perennial in mesic rock crevices. T.S.
Ross, S. Boyd, & L. Arnseth 4858, 29 April 1991.

90

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) indicates the distribution of this subspecies as:
"e. Mojave Desert, Colo. Desert; to L. Calif., Anz., Son." The distribuUon given in
Hickman (ed., 1993) is similar "SnBr, SnJt, DMtns; AZ, Baja CA." Twisselmann
(1967) does not cite it from Kern County, and it would appear that the taxon has never
been known from the extreme western Mojave Desert. This collection then, near the
headwaters of the Santa Clara River, would appear to be the most westerly one known.

*Poa BULBOSA L. — (POACEAE) — Los Angeles Co.: off dirt road leading into Hungry
Valley, 0.1 mile from the junction with the 2-lane paved Peace Valley Road; W of
Gorman; base of grassy hillside badly damaged by RVs; elev. ca. 4100 ft. R. Gustafson
889, 2 May 1978 (RSA ex LAM). — San Gabriel Mountains: Verdugo Pines Camp;
Mescal Creek USGS 7.5' Quad., T4N R8W, NW/4 SW/4 sect. 33; elev. ca. 6160-6280 ft.
Seeds collected 18 June 1990 from withered plants in order to get better material for
identification and herbarium specimens [= Original source information]. Cultivated in
Ontario, San Bernardino County, by the collector. Seeds sown 1 January 1991 in a
vemally mesic site on the N side of the house; these specimens being F2S. Grown as a
voucher for flonstic studies. 7. S. Ross & S. Boyd 3493s , [Collected from cultivation:] 25
April 1992.

Previous knowledge: Munz (1974) indicates that in Southern California this

European taxon has occurred at "scattered localities as at Murrieta, Riverside Co. and
Tehachapi Mts." The treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) states: "CA; ± worldw ide temp;
... sporadic in CA."

[It might be worth noting here that numerous vouchers of 3493s were pressed for
distribution, but that any and all plants remaining in my yard were extirpated to prevent
local dissemination.]

SANICULA GRAVEOLENS Poeppig ex DC. — (APIACEAE) — Liebre Mountains: Liebre
Mtn.: N slope, along upper portions of the Pacific Crest Trail which follows the ridge
just E of Horse Camp Canyon; elev. between 4880-5680 ft. Area locally dominated b\
Quercus spp and chaparral elements with scattered Pinus sabiniana and Aesculus
californica and occasional openings with grasses and herbs. Herbaceous perennial;
locally uncommon and largely dessicated at this time. T.S. Ross el al. 3853, 27 June
1990. — Liebre Mtn.: N slope, between Cow Spring Canyon and Horse Camp Canvon;
Liebre Mtn 7.5' USGS Quad.; T8N R17W, SEJ4 SW/4 sect. 35; and T7N R17W, NE/4
NW/4 sect. 2; elev. 4390-5150 ft. Locally uncommon herbaceous perennial in dappled
shade; plants largely toasted locally. T.S. Ross, O. Mistretta, A A. Quid 3888, 27 June
1990. — Saw mill Mtn.: N slope of the W summit area, about headwaters of West Fork
Devils Gulch; Burnt Peak 7.5’ USGS Quad.; T7N R16W, (sections not demarcated); near
34°42’02"N-1 18°34'00" W; elev. ca. 4920-5080 ft. Mesic northerly slope with
woodlands dominated by Quercus kelloggii, Pinus ponderosa, and Pseudolsuga
macrocarpa. Herbaceous perennial; scattered & relatively uncommon; corollas yellow.
T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 7821, 1 1 May 1994. — West Summit of Liebre Mtn. [West Summit
here construed as the rounded knoll 100 m S of the intersection of sections 3, 4, 9, & 10];
Liebre Mtn. 7.5' USGS Quad.; T7N R17W; elev. ca. 5525-5605 ft. Local vegetation a
mosaic of oak woodland, oak-dominated chaparral, and open grasslands nch in annual
and perennial herbaceous taxa. Herbaceous perennial, locally common in openings amid
oak chaparral on slight northerly or northwesterly slope. Rosette prostrate; branches
spreading; flowers clear yellow. T.S. Ross & S. Boyd 7901, 25 May 1994. Nos. 3853,
3888 det. L. Constance (UC); 7821, 7901 venf. L. Constance.

Previous know ledge: According to Lincoln Constance (pers. comm ), this species is
rare in Southern California, and — prior to examining our collections — he had seen no
previous collections from L.A. County. Munz (1974) cited the distribution as: "mts. San
Diego Co., Santa Ana mts., etc. n. to B.C." The distribution cited in Hickman (ed..

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winler 1996

91

1993) — perhaps abbreviated during the editorial process— is: "NW, SNH; to B.C., MT; s
S.Am."

*SENNA ARTEMISIOIDES (Gaudichaud ex DC.) Randell — [ Cassia a. Gaudichaud ex DC ]

— (FABACEAE) — San Gabriel Mountains: N of Claremont; along Burbank Fire Road in
Burbank Canyon; W of Palmer Canyon; small shrub, flowers yellow, growing near edge
of gravel road; naturalized in area. T.S. Elias 12445, 24 January 1993.

Previous knowledge: This Australian shrublet is very popularly cultivated in

Southern California gardens for its silvery-gray foliage, yellow flowers, and drought-
tolerance. However, it does have the tendency to seed heavily, and is beginning to turn
up as an occasional escape. The species is not included in Munz (1974) or Hickman (ed.,
1993), but has been recently reported for Orange County (Boyd et al. 1995).

SPHENOSCIADIUM CAPITELLATUM a. Gray — (APIACEAE) — San Gabriel Mountains:
Big Pines Park, B.C. Templeton 5005, 20 July 1932, (RSA ex LAM). — San Gabriel
Mtns: ca. 200 yards E of foot of Holiday Hill Ski Lift; wet semi-sunny meadow ; up to 2
m tall; flowers white. L.C. Wheeler s.n., 17 September 1967.

Previous knowledge: This robust, distinctive apiad is generally well-known to those
who have hiked through montane meadow s in the Sierra Nevada and various other ranges
of California. However, its occurrence in the San Gabriel Mountains appears to have
been overlooked in recent botanical references covering our area. Munz and Keck ( 1959)
give its overall habitat and distribution as: "Swampy places, 3000-10,400 ft.; Yellow
Pine F. to Subalpine F., San Jacinto and San Bernardino mts., Glenn to Mendocino,
Siskiyou, and Modoc cos.; to e. Ore., Ida., w. Nev., n. L. Calif.” Munz (1974), in
providing the distribution of the species in Southern California, listed the same So. Calif,
mountain ranges but again excluded the San Gabriel Mountains, apparently being
unaware of any collections made in the range. The distribution given for Southern
California in Hickman (ed., 1993) is merely encapsulated in the abbreviation "SW," an
overly broad area within which the species is exceedingly limited in its occurrence.

However, a century ago Anstruther Davidson (1896) reported the species from the
San Gabriels as: " Selinum capitellaium B. & H. Cienega at Big Rock Creek, 5,000 feet "
It was again reported in Davidson and Moxley's (1923) Flora of Southern California as:
" Sphenosciadium eryngi/oliurn C. & R. [= Sph. capit. var. e. (Coulter & Rose) Jepson]
Frequent on the borders of cienegas in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mts.; desert
slope of the San Antonio Mts.” [As a note of clarification: "San Antonio Mountains" is a
name that was early applied to that portion of the San Gabriel Mountains between the
East Fork of the San Gabriel River and Cajon Canyon, the summit, of course, being San
Antonio Mountain (Mt. Baldy).] Unfortunately, these reports seem to have gone un-
noticed. It is unclear whether there was originally a specimen collected in substantiation
of Davidson's reports as I have been unable to locate one. [1 personally believe that there
was a voucher, probably collected by Davidson and H.E. Hasse on their early botanical
collecting venture to Big Rock Creek Canyon, but that the specimen did not survive.]
Fortunately, there are the Templeton and Wheeler collections, cited here. Without them,
the natural response of floristic botanists is to assume that earlier reports w ere based on a
misidentification. [Must I once again preach the virtues of vouchers and duplicate
specimens? I think not.] On a more somber note... the Big Pines area of the San Gabriel
Mountains has been heavily visited over the past several decades, and has been severely
modified for skiing and other popular wreck-reational purposes. This species has not
been documented in the range for three decades, and may possibly be extirpated here.

STIPA LAT1GLUMIS Swallen — (POACEAE) — Liebre Mountains: Liebre Mtn.: N slope,
between Horse Camp Canyon and Robinson Canyon; elev. 4840-5160 ft. Liebre Mtn
1.5' USGS Quad ; T8N R17W, center S/4 SE/4 sect. 34; and T7N R17W, ctr N/2 NE/4

92

CROSSOSO.UA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

seel. 3. Tufted perennial; lemma ca. 9.0 mm long, palea ca. 4.5-5.0 mm long, pubescent.
T.S. Ross. S. Boyd. <£■ P. Frilsch 3876, 27 June 1990. Venf. J.R. Reeder (ARIZ).

Previous knowledge: Munz and Keck (1959) describe the distributional range of this
species as: "San Jacinto Mts., Sierra Nevada n. to Tuolumne Co." The data given in
Munz (1974) also reflect this same general pattern. Between the Sierra Nevada and L A.
County, Twisselmann (1967) records it in his Kem County Flora only as: "Scarce near
the Greenhorn Mountain Park headquarters (Howell 38,394)." In Hickman (ed., 1993),
where the taxon is treated as " Achnatherum laiiglumis (Swallen) Barkworth" (correctly
spelled latiglume when treated thus], the distribution is given as: "c&s SN, TR." At
present, the collection cited above appears to be the only documentation of this taxon in
L.A. County. In fact, the species appears to be quite uncommon throughout its range, and
is certainly very poorly documented. Vouchers of the species housed at RSA-POM tally
as follows: L.A. County 1; San Bernardino Co. 3; Riverside Co. l;Tulare Co. 1.

[Personal taxonomic note: When the new combinations were published in Nassella
for some of our native Stipa species, I adopted them and began to use them on my
collection labels. However, in the intervening years, I have not seen sufficient evidence
presented to justify the fragmentation of the genus Stipa and have, accordingly, returned
to recognition of Stipa in the broad sense.]

*TORIUS ARVENS1S (Hudson) Link ssp. PURPUREA (Tenore) Hayek — (APIACEAE) — San
Gabriel Mountains: upper Winter Creek Trail, between Chantry Rat and Hoegee Camp
(on Winter Creek), on the W side of Santa Anita Canvon; Mt. Wilson 7.5' USGS Quad.;
TIN R1 1W, NW/4 NW/4 NE/4 SW/4 sect. 3; elev. ca. 2560-2600 ft. Chaparral on NE
slope, with Ceanolhus oliganlhus, Quercus wislizeni. Malosma laurina. Keckiella
cordifolia, Galium grande. Arbutus menziesii. Hieracium arguturn parishii. Solatium
xanti intermedium, etc. Localized annual along trail margin; petals white with pinkish
tinge; umbel bracts absent, or rarely 1; rays (2-) 3; schizocarps 4-5 mm long inch
prickles; prickles barbed, especially apically. T.S. Ross 7351 . 1 June 1993. Venf. L.
Constance (UC).

Previous knowledge: Munz and Keck (1959) record this species as "Natur. in nw.
Calif.; from Eu.," and it is excluded from Munz's Rora of Southern California (1974)
Distnbuuon and habitat in Hickman (ed., 1993) are given as: "Disturbed places; 40-1600
m. CA-FP (esp NW, CW, n SNF); name to c&s Eur. Rapidly spreading ..." So far, the
only other collection that I have seen from Southern California is Clifton Smith 12148
from Santa Barbara County.

*TRAGOPOGON DUBIUS Scopoli — (ASTERACEAE) — East side of Pasadena, vicinity of
Arcadia, just E of Michiliinda Avenue; Santa Fe Railroad grade in full sun; flowers
yellow . L.C. W heeler 8697, 12 June 1965. — San Gabriel Mountains: E slope of Thom
(tnangulation point. 5499-ft); west margin of road to Barley Rats (ca. 0.5 air-mile E of
Barley Rats), draining to Big Tujunga Creek; Chilao Rat USGS 1.5' Quad.; T2N R1 1 W,
near ctr NW/4 NW/4 sect. 8; elev. ca. 5180-5200 ft. Disturbed shoulder of road.
Taprooted (annual or) biennial; several localized plants; (immature) achene body 13-14
mm long; beak ca. 13-15 mm, pappus ca. 30 mm No capitula were open w hen the
specimens were collected (late afternoon), so ligule color could not be recorded. T.S.
Ross. S. Boyd, & P.W. Frilsch 2985, 8 June 1990.

Previous know ledge: Munz. and Keck ( 1959) cited this species only as: "occasionally
reported; native of Eu.," and Munz (1974) excluded this species from his Rora of
Southern California, presumably because he was not aware of any collections made
w ithin the Rora area. The generic treatment in Hickman (ed., 1993) goes the California
distribution as: "n SN, SnJV, SnFrB, SCoRO, SnBr, GB."

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 19%

93

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the original two reviewers who made constructive comments on the initial
draft— what was originally intended to be the first of two installments on additions to the
L A. County flora. 1 also thank Dr. J. Travis Columbus and Annette H. Ross for proof-
reading and commenting on this expanded, essentially re-written version. Any persisting
errors or politically incorrect comments are, of course, mine.

Also, I hereby express my appreciation to the various friends and colleagues who
provided accompaniment and assistance to me in the field, and who are cited as co-collectors
on some of the various specimens cited above. Regrettably, I cannot now offer appropriate
thanks to my friend and former RSA colleague, Walter Appleby, who only recently fell
victim to cancer. Memories of Walter's generosity, sense of humor ( — sometimes jovially at
my expense—), and gentle spinl, will be treasured. May he rest in peace.

LITERATURE CITED

Beauchamp, R. Mitchel. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River
Press, National City, California.

Boyd, Steve, Timothy S. Ross, and Fred M. Roberts, Jr. 1995. Additions to the vascular
Flora of the Santa Ana Mountains, California. Aliso 14(2): 105-108.

Davidson, Anstruther. 1896. Catalogue of the plants of Los Angeles County, Part /—
Phaenogamia. B.R. Baumgardt & Co., Los Angeles, California.

and George L. Moxley. 1923. Flora of Southern California. Times-Mirror Press,

Los Angeles.

Hickman, James C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Holmgren, Patricia K., Noel H. Holmgren, and L.C. Barnett (eds. ). 1990. Index herban-
orum. Part 1: The herbaria of the world, 8th ed. Regnum Vegelabile Vol. 120.

Junak, Steve, Tina Ayers, Randy Scott, Dieter Wilken, and David Young. 1995. A Flora of
Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, in collaboration
with the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press,
Berkeley.

, in collaboration with David D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of

California Press, Berkeley.

Ownbey, Marion A. 1949. A monograph of the genus Calochorlus. Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Garden 27: 371-580.

Raven, Peter H., Henry J. Thompson, and Barry A. Pngge. 1986. Flora of the Santa Monica
Mountains, California. 2nd ed. Southern California Botanists, Special Publication
No. 2. University of California, Los Angeles.

Ross, Timothy S. & Steve Boyd. 1996. [Noteworthy collections from California:] Galenia
pubescens var. pubescens (Aizoaceae), Lasiospermutn bipinnatum (Asteraceae),
Stylocline masonii (Asteraceae), Coronilla valenlina (Fabaceae), Geranium
rotundifolium (Geraniaceae), Scrophularia peregrina (Scrophulanaceae). Madrono
43(3): 432-436.

, , and Steven A. Junak. 1997. Additions to the vascular flora of San

Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, California, with notes on clarifications and
deletions. Aliso 15(1): 27-40.

Sanders, Andrew C. 1996. [Noteworthy collections from California:] ...Eragroslis curvula
var. conferta (Poaceae).... Madrono 43(4): 524-532.

Smith, Clifton F. 1976. A Flora of the Santa Barbara region, California. Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.

94

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winier 19%

Swinney, Dick. 1994. Glendora Foothills plant checklist, San Gabriel Mountains.

Theodore Payne Foundation, Sun Valley, California.

Twisselmann, Emest C. 1967. A Flora of Kern County, California. The University of San
Francisco, San Francisco, California. [Reprinted from The Wasmann Journal of
Biology 25 (\&2): 1-395.]

Urbatsch, Lowell E. 1976. Systematics of the Ericameria cuneala complex (Compositae,
Astereae). Madrono 23: 338-345.

Wallace, Gary D. 1985. Vascular plants of the Channel Islands of Southern California and
Guadalupe Island, Baja California, Mexico. Contributions in Science, No. 365,
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles.

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

95

BOOK REVIEW

A Systematic Treatment of Fruit Types. By RICHARD W. SPJUT. 1994. Memoirs of the
New York Botanical Garden, Volume 70. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New
York 10458. 181 pp., 53 figs., key to fruit types. Softcover, $24.95. ISBN: 0-89327-383-X.
[Order No. MEM 70. P & H $3.50 + 5% of subtotal, for U.S. orders; $4.50 + 6% of subtotal,
for non-U.S. orders.]

Although published a little over two years ago, I only recently acquired a copy of this
book and have found it to be an impressive reference— one which is clearly based upon an
in-depth scholarly study and assessment of earlier carpological schemes and nomenclature,
coupled with contemporary knowledge of the developmental morphology of fruits.
Traditionally, the taxonomic schemes employed in vascular plants, especially at the generic
and familial levels, have relied heavily on the morphology of flowers and fruits. For
example, while the flowers of plants in the Rosaceae (the Rose family) are at a fundamental
level quite similar, the differences in fruit types have resulted in the past recognition of such
segregate families as the Malaceae (the Apple family, bearing pomes); and the
Amygdalaceae (the Peach family, with "stone fruits"). However, while the botanical
nomenclature employed for corollas and variations in floral structure has advanced
considerably over the past 250 years, the nomenclature associated with fruit types and fruit
morphology has remained largely vague and unstandardized. Critical to the advancement of
knowledge in a given field is the standardization and definition of precise terminology (so
that "we all know what we're talking about”), and the establishment of a taxonomic scheme
that also allows for the growth of knowledge and, hence, allows for the standardization of
new terms that conform to the established taxonomic structure, whether this is done by the
assignment of new terms which conform to the old nomenclature, or the use of prefixes,
suffixes, or enclitics appended to earlier terms.

Out of necessity for specific, unambiguous terms which could be used in the
discussion and definition of fruit types ("...necessity is the mother of invention...."), Richard
Spjut undertook a concerted study of the taxonomy and nomenclature used by botanists in
earlier, seminal works, along with an assessment of their reliability, accuracy, and lack of
ambiguity. The result is a beautifully prepared overview and — much more importantly— the
establishment of a new systematic treatment for fruit types, one with a cohesive,
comprehensive nomenclatural scheme which can be built upon if and w hen necessary .

In this work, Spjut has proposed several new names for fruits which have not
previously had an appropriate and discrete term applied, or for types which have been known
in the earlier literature by amiguous nomina confusa. He has also proposed a new senes,
Anthecocarpi , for fruits not properly treated within other fruit types proposed earlier. This
new senes encompasses a diversity of grass genera, including Aegilops, Agrostis, Cenchrus,
Chloris, Eragrostis, Hordeum, Munroa, and Phalaris. ...

I have often stated that a background in the classical languages (Latin and Greek) is
profoundly important— if not indispensible — to students who want to pursue careers in the
natural sciences (including the medical field). Such a knowledge of etymologies and
morphemes will certainly be useful in referencing this treatment. As part of the taxonomy
and nomenclature, distinctions are made between fruit types which are simple, derived from a
schizocarpous gynoecium, or multiply derived. For example, a bacca (berry, L. 1751) is "an
indehiscent pencarpium, or simple fruit, consisting of one or more seeds embedded in a solid
fleshy mass supported by epicarp less than 2 mm thick, the pericarp not differentiated
internally by a hardened endocarp or air-space" [e.g. Solanum douglasii] ; a baccarium is "a
fruit derived from a schizocarpous gynoecium consisting of fleshy-indehiscent fruitlets
(monocarps) with a pericarp of a uniform texture and a determinate shape ..." [e.g.

96

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winler 1996

Anemopsis californica\\ and a baccetum is "a multiple fruit consisting of fleshy-indehiscent
carpels (apocarps) with an undifferentiated pericarp of a determinate shape...." [e.g. Drimys
winter i\

This book is very nicely organized, with a brief but solid introduction; broad
definition of the terms employed; extrapolation of philosophy; a key to the types of fruits;
and a dictionary -like itemization of the "Accepted kinds of fruits" arranged in alphabetical
order with their etymologies and definitions. The entries for specific terms include
references to the originating authors); nomenclature applied to types of fruit (with dates)
which are considered synonymous with a more appropriate or unambiguous term; notes
related to the term and its specific application; selected literature relating to the term or its
concept; and selected vascular plant tax a whose fruits are considered "typical" of the concept
and configuration under discussion. This work provides an extensive assortment of
"literature cited," but also provides three appendices, the first two of which are particularly
useful. Appendix A lists the genus (and family) names cited as examples in the text, along
with the relevant fruit types discussed for those particular taxa; Appendix B lists the family
(and genus) names (with the associated fruit types) mentioned or discussed in the text.
Appendix C briefly indicates the abbreviations for the fionstic literature cited.

This is certainly not a general reference for just anyone with a casual interest in
botany or the types of fruits found on plants. However, I would consider it essential and
indispensible to well-rounded botanists who, among other things, have a genuine interest in
fruit types, their developmental morphology , and their classification.

In the RSA herbarium workroom, staff members and volunteers occasionally bring in
bags of fruits from their yards to share with others who pass through the workroom. These
often range from grapefruits to jujubes. Recently, how ever, someone brought in a bag of npe
pomegranate fruits to share. Not content to merely consume the fruits, the question raised
among the herbarium employees was, "what type of fruit is a pomegranate?" While most
individuals who have had an introductory course in botany can usually shout out
"hesperidium!" when a tangerine is held up, or " aggregate fruit!" when a raspberry is
displayed, we were all equally stymied as to what exactly a pomegranate fruit was.... That
evening, I went home and looked it up in Spjut's treatment. The answer was— in relative
terms— actually quite straight-forw ard. [Though I run the risk here of over-quoting in a book
review, I think that the example presented gives a good idea of the level of information
presented in this excellent reference book]:

"Balausta (Greek: pomegranate flower) Desvaux (1813). An indehiscent,

anthocarpous fruit composed of a coriaceous exocarp (nnd), a spongy endocarp, and
sarcotestas (fleshy seed coats). Balausta (Balauste, Balaustia, Balaustfdio,
Balaustidium, Granafrucht) de Candolle (1819), A. Richard (1819), Lindley (1832),
Schleiden (1849), Watzel (1852), Henfrey & Masters (1870, p.p.), Dug6s (1882),
Hertel (1959), Radford (1974), Takhtajan (1991). Typical— Punica granaturn L.
Synonyms. Bale (Berry ) Guibourt (1848), Judd (1985).

Notes. The balausta of Punica spp., derived from an inferior ovary, has
characteristics of a pome and a hesperidium. The persistent calyx is reminiscent of
the Mespilus pome whereas the texture of the endocarp is similar to the Mai us pome.

On the other hand, the membranous partitions, juicy seed vesicles, and the leathery
exocarp are more like a hesperidium. In Punica granaturn, the white-glossy endocarp
is divided into a lower and upper region by a transverse diaphragm, and into
numerous cavities bordered by spongy membranous layers of thin, white longitudinal
dissepiments. Punica prolopunica Balf /., however, has only axile placentation
(Cronquist, 1981). Therefore, the only distinguishing characteristic of the balausta
would appear to be the sarcotestas. Fleshy-coated seeds also occur in Cyclomorpha
(Cancaceae), a similar fruit that is derived from a superior ovary . Radford (1974)
classified the balausta as a dry indehiscent fruit with a tough leathery pericarp, but the

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

97

pomegranate (Punica granatum), specifically associated with this name, is generally a
fleshy fruit,... (pp. 43^44)."

Overall, the number of typographical errors which I encountered in this work are
exceedingly minimal. In no cases did I encounter "typos" which would lead to ambiguities—
e.g., " Hunulus (Cannabaceae) " [p. 33, for Humulus], and "Aetoxicaceae" [p. 93, for
Aextoxicaceae]. The broad scope of this book invites the occasional "typo;" however,
considering the wealth of information presented, this book is remarkably well edited.

Even though I am not a professor of botany, I believe that this work would make an
excellent textbook for a graduate-level course on carpology. A student graduating with a
Ph D. in botany should— 1 believe— have gained a reasonable understanding of the range of
morphological variation exhibited in plants, and not merely a working knowledge of the
contemporary lab techniques that will help them to get a job. A certified "botanist" who is
familiar with contemporary lab techniques but who doesn't know much of anything about the
plants around them is— I think— a sorry excuse for a "botanist." As part of a compensatory
routine of study, I believe that this book would be integral to the education of any such
botanical misfit.

Along with its potential value to general students of botany. I'm sure that this
treatment will also be of considerable use to palaeobotanists, who may often find themselves
attempting to correlate unusual fossilized fruit structures with extant plant families or genera.
In this respect, the key to fruit types, and the detailed discussions of which tissues are
involved in the formation of the fruits, will be indispensible.

I consider this work to be an invaluable and seminal reference for vascular plant
studies, and whole-heartedly recommend it to those who intend to spend their lifetimes
studying the diversity and relationships of the plants that occur around them. This book is a
rarity in that it constitutes a critically important botanical reference published in our
generation.

— Timothy S. Ross, Herbarium (RSA), Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1500 N.
College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711.

98

CROSSOSOMA 22(2). Autumn-Winter 1996

CREATIVE EXERCISE:

Editors who put together publications in this folded, stapled format must verify that
the total number of printed pages is divisible by four. If these are not divisible by four, the
result in the published product is one, two, or even three blank pages. Consequently, many
editors have found ways of "filling the voids" with designs, illustrations, or concocted "filler
pieces."

As a way of using the next couple of pages, and simultaneously personalizing this
issue of CROSSOSOMA, I would suggest that the reader grab a pencil and engage in one of the
following as a (hopefully) creative exercise:

A) Make a list of some of the botanical observations that you've made which you
personally consider interesting or unusual. Contemplate whether any of them could
be w ntten up in a "NOTE" form, submitted to the Editor of CROSSOSOMA , and shared
with other SCB members.

[I'll offer one tidbit example here: In June of 1993, while botanizing in the
western San Gabriel Mtns, I stopped to examine a Scrophularia californica Chamisso
& Sclechtendal which was in "full bloom." Because I rarely saw this species with
flowers, I examined the corollas closely to get a better sense of their distinctive
morphology. Due to the unusual shape and color (± maroon or burgundy) of the
flowers, I was perplexed as to w hat might possibly be the functional pollinator...

— w asps, perhaps? On the other hand, w hile I was not there long enough to observe a
pollinator, what I did find particularly interesting was that the styles of recently
opened flowers (w hich had not yet been pollinated) projected straight forward out of
the mouth of the corolla; however, after pollination (the stigmatic surfaces of the
styles clearly had pollen on them), the style bent downward and wrapped around the
lower limb of the corolla, out of the way. Presumably this would signal to subsequent
Msitors that the flower had already been visited. With this given as an example, I
w ould point out that very little is known about the pollination ecology of our native
plants. This is an arena where someone could make some important contributions,
especially if they also have a concomitant interest in entomology.]

B) If there is a flonsticaliy interesting area in or near Southern California where you
enjoy hiking, or if there is a trail that you've hiked only once but found the plants and
scenery worth sharing with others, draw up some notes on it. Consider whether this
might make an interesting and worthwhile hike for some of the other SCB members
( — even if it takes 2 days to complete). If so, consider leading an SCB field trip to or
through the area. Y ou do not have to be an expert on the local flora in order to lead a
fieldtnp. Part of the fun of this kind of hike is crowding around a plant that no one
recognizes, w hile several members of the party try to key it out so that all participants
may learn. If you think that y ou w ould like to lead such a tnp ( — again, you do not
have to be any kind of "expert” — ), write up the information for the proposed hike and
send it to Alan Romspert (address on inner cover) so that he can present the idea to
the SCB Board of Directors at their next meeting.

C) Make a list of some of the types of articles that you believe would be informative
and helpful to the SCB membership, and which you would like to see published in

CROSSOSOMA.

Next, write down ideas for activities, or workshops, that you would like to see
offered by The Southern California Botanists. Be realistic. If one of your proposed
activities were to be offered, sponsored, or fostered by the SCB, w ould you yourself

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 19%

99

participate? Under what circumstances would you? Under what circumstances
would you not?

Finally, on a philosophical level, make notes on what you would like to see the
SCB do that you believe it could do, but is not doing. [Remember that, as a non-
profit organization, The SCB Inc. cannot engage in political advocacy and similar
matters....] Write an essay on the topic of "How the organization known as 'The
Southern California Botanists Inc.' could assist me and other SCB members in
learning more about our local flora, and how we can preserve our native plants,
particularly those which are scarce or near extinction." Such notes and/or essays can
and should be sent both to the current Editor of CROSSOSOMA, and to the SCB Board
of Directors, c/o Alan Romspert (address on inside cover).

Most organizations are founded with an idealistic vision of their precepts, what they
represent, and what they hope to accomplish ( — a Mission). Remember that "The Southern
California Botanists Inc." was established with specific purposes, which implicitly includes
the edification of its membership.

Before I became Editor of CROSSOSOMA, I somewhat indirectly suggested that a
survey of the membership be conducted so as to identify the general composition, as well as
the needs and desires of the SCB members. The survey was conducted in conjunction with a
year-end ballot; the results were compiled and presented to the Board of Directors; and that
pretty much seemed to be the end of it. When all was said and done, the survey appeared to
be largely an exercise in statistics. I was, of course, disappointed.

If you are a paid member in good standing, then this is TOUR organization. SCB was
not founded specifically for its Board members, but should, rather, reflect the interests and
needs of its broad membership. As an SCB member, do not be shy about expressing your
opmion(s) to the SCB Board of Directors. The Board needs to hear from its members.

In recent times the SCB Board seems to have had its share of Idea People [w hich is
good], but also is in desperate need of Board members who are Doers [which is critical]. If
you believe that you can be a positive, productive force in the SCB, and would like to "run"
for a particular position on the SCB Board, please review and apprehend the SCB Bylaws
(printed in CROSSOSOMA 22( 1); a copy should also be available from the SCB Treasurer or
the CROSSOSOMA Editor). Consider which position you might possibly want to fill, and then
submit your name to the Board in accordance w ith the Bylaws.

The Southern California Botanists Inc. has an important role to play, and also has a
productive future ahead, i/its members contribute their time and talents appropriately, and if
the SCB Board members are willing to abide by the SCB Bylaws and conduct their business
in accordance with them.

[— T.S.Ross, Editor]

100

CROSSOSOMA 22(2), Autumn-Winter 1996

V

ADDENDA

□ In the Instructions for Contributors, CROSSOSOMA 22(1): 48-52, the section on "Page
Charges and Reprints" contained some discussion of page charges but failed to make any
mention of reprints. At present, 15 reprints are provided to authors without cost. Authors
desiring a larger number of reprints should inform the Editor (in writing) of the quantity
desired. The Editor will then estimate the extra cost in consultation with our printer. When
the cost has been figured, the Editor will inform the author by means of a bill citing the
number of reprints (beyond the original 15) and their cost. This cost must be paid prior to the
issue going to press. Costs for reprints requested after the specific issue has gone to press
may be higher.

□ In the same section on Page Charges and Reprints, we should indicate that color
reproduction (if used in an article) w ill usually be done by means of color photocopies. If an
author requests color reproduction by another means, it should be understood that the cost—
to be borne by the author(s) — w ill probably be significantly higher. We are willing,
however, to accomodate any such special arrangements. [ — Ed ]

NOTE REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF CROSSOSOMA

Please note that, despite the long delay in publishing this issue, the two issues of
CROSSOSOMA Volume 23 (Spring-Summer 1997; Autumn-Winter 1997) will follow it
within two weeks. Also, beginning with Volume 24 (1998), Carl Wishner— whom many of
you already know — has bravely accepted the position of Editor, and has been approved by
the SCB Board of Directors. More on that in Vol. 23 No. 2 [ — Ed ]

New York Botanical Garden Library

3 5185 00268 0542

Southern California Botanists, Inc.

— Founded 1927 —

MEMBERSHIPS, SUBSCRIPTIONS, BACK ISSUES

Individual Memberships in the SCB are $8.00 per calendar year, domestically (or
$13.00 per year to foreign addresses). Memberships include two issues of CROSSOSOMA
per year, and 5 or 6 issues of Leaflets , the newsletter of the SCB. Leaflets provides time-
dated information on activities and events that may be of interest to our general
membership. A subscription to CROSSOSOMA is available to libraries and institutions at
the domestic rate of $15.00 per calendar year ($20.00 to foreign institutions). Back issues
(Vols. 18-present) are available for $3.00 an issue or $6.00 a volume, postpaid. Prior to
Volume 18, CROSSOSOMA included time-dated notices to the membership and was
published six times a year; these back issues are $1.00 each, or $6.00 per volume,
postpaid. Some back issues are out-of-stock and may be provided as photocopies.

SCB SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

No. 1. A flora of the Santa Rosa Plateau, by Earl w. Lathrop &

Robert F. Thome, 39 pp $7.00

No. 3. ENDANGERED PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Proceedings of the 15th Annual SCB Symposium, edited by

Allan A. Schoenherr, 114pp $12.00

Book prices include California state sales tax, handling, and domestic postage.
[Please note that our Special Publication No. 2, FLORA OF THE SANTA MONICA
MOUNTAINS, 2nd ed., by Peter H. Raven, Henry J. Thompson, & Barry A. Prigge, is now
out-of-print. Members seeking copies of this publication are encouraged to contact some
of the larger botanical book-dealers as some may yet have small quantities available.]

Applications for membership; book purchases; or requests for subscriptions or back
issues, should be sent to: Alan Romspert, Treasurer, Southern California Botanists,
Department of Biology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834, U.S.A.
Make your check or money order payable to "Southern California Botanists” or "SCB."

Name or address corrections, and requests for replacement of CROSSOSOMA issues lost
or damaged during mail delivery, should also be sent to our SCB Treasurer at the address
listed above.

LIBRARY

>

a.

Cl

n

o

3

m

ct

a.

o

3

JB

ft

-o

O

•? cu S

£?

?no

C ft) fp
& &)
5 § a

3

ro

CO 2.
SL ft) o
y

§ C®

i. a g-

o» 3 ' O

C

in

>

C/5

O

c

y

o

3

o

SL

o'

3

s

09

O

Z

3

NOV - 0 *998

i'^tW YORK
oUImivjiCAL GARDEN