wg JOURNAL — OF THE KENTUCKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Official Publication of the Academy ff “*"4 Volume 61 Meee ear ONIAR Number 2 \ FEB 5 2001 Fall 2000 LIBRARIES Oe A OO The Kentucky Academy of Science Founded 8 May 1914 GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2000 President: Blaine R. Ferrell, Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101 President Elect: Ron Rosen, Department of Biology, Berea College, Berea, KY 40404 Vice President: Jerry W. Warner, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099 Past President: Gordon K. Weddle, Department of Biology, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, KY 42718 Secretary: Stephanie Dew, Department of Biology, Centre College, Danville, KY 40422 Treasurer: William E. Houston, 161 Morningstar Court, Bowling Green, KY 42103 Executive Secretary (ex officio): Donald Frazier, Science Outreach Center, University of Kentucky, Lex- ington, KY 40536-0078 Editor, JOURNAL (ex officio): John W. Thieret, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099; (859) 572-6390 Editor, NEWSLETTER (ex officio): Maria K. Falbo, Department of Physics and Geology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099 Chair, Junior Academy of Science (ex officio): Elizabeth K. Sutton, Department of Chemistry, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, KY 42718 Program Director (ex officio): Robert O. Creek, Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475 COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS Editor and John W. Thieret, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Chair: Highland Heights, KY 41099 Associate Editor: James O. Luken, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099 Index Editor: Varley Wiedeman, Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 Abstract Editor: Robert Barney, Community Research Service, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601 Editorial Board: John P. Harley, Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475 Marcus T. McEllistrem, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0055 J.G. Rodriguez, Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091 John D. Sedlacek, Community Research Service, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601 Gordon K. Weddle, Department of Biology, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, KY 42718-2799 All manuscripts and correspondence concerning manuscripts should be addressed to the Editor. The JOURNAL is indexed in BIOSIS, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, and in State Academies of Science Abstracts. Membership in the Academy is open to interested persons upon nomination, payment of dues, and election. Application forms for membership may be obtained from the Secretary. The JOURNAL is sent free to all members in good standing. Annual dues are $25.00 for Active Members; $15.00 for Student Members; $35.00 for Family; $350.00 for Life Mem- bers. Subscription rates for nonmembers are: $50.00 domestic; $60.00 foreign. Back issues are $30.00 per volume. The JOURNAL is issued semiannually in spring and fall. Two numbers comprise a volume. Correspondence concerning memberships or subscriptions should be addressed to the Executive Secretary. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-992 (Permanence of Paper). INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATES Fellow University of Kentucky University of Louisville Sustaining Member Eastern Kentucky University Northern Kentucky University Morehead State University Western Kentucky University Murray State University Member Bellarmine College Cumberland College Berea College Somerset Community College Campbellsville University Southeast Community College Centre College Associate Member Georgetown College Midway College Jefferson Community College | Owensboro Community College Kentucky State University Spalding University Kentucky Wesleyan College Thomas More College Maysville Community College Transylvania University INDUSTRIAL AFFILIATES Associate Patron Ashland Oil, Inc. Member Corhart Refractories Corporation MPD, Inc. Associate Member All-Rite Pest Control Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory, Inc. JOURNAL OF THE KENTUCKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ISSN 1098-7096 Continuation of Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science Volume 61 Fall 2000 Number 2 J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):67-76. 2000. Conservation Status and Nesting Biology of the Endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma percnurum, in the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Kentucky David J. Eisenhour Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 and Brooks M. Burr Department of Zoology and Center for Systematic Biology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6501 ABSTRACT In September 1995 and May and June 1998 and 1999 we conducted an intensive survey of a middle reach of Big South Fork of the Cumberland River in Kentucky with the goal of finding the duskytail darter, Etheostoma percnurum, a federally endangered species. Seventy-one specimens were observed in a 19-stream km reach from the mouth of Station Camp Creek, Scott County, Tennessee, to the mouth of Bear Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Using underwater observation and a kick-seining technique around slabrocks, we concur with others that the primary habitat of E. percnurum includes clear, silt-free pools immediately above riffles where it seeks cover undeér cobbles and slabrocks. Most Kentucky specimens (31 of 35) and all nests were found in a 3-km reach from just upstream of the mouth of Troublesome Creek to the mouth of Oil Well Branch. On 26 May 1998 five nests were found at two sites. All nests were located immediately above riffles in silt-free glides with slabrock and cobble substrates and were guarded by males. Eggs, de- posited in a monolayer on the underside of slabrocks, numbered from 79-103 eggs per nest. Slabrocks with eggs had mean dimensions of 24 X 19 X 4.1 cm and were located in shallow water (51-70 cm) in areas of low flow (5-14 cm/s). Because of the rarity of this darter within its restricted range in Kentucky, we rec- ommend that it be added to Kentucky’s list of protected species as endangered. Morphological comparison of E. percnurum from across its range revealed that specimens from Big South Fork have more lateral-line scales, are larger, and are shaped differently than specimens from other populations. The morphological and biological comparisons, along with zoogeographic evidence, indicate that the Big South Fork population of E. percnurum is an independent evolutionary unit. INTRODUCTION 1985; Page 1985). It is a member of one of Etheostoma percnurum (Perciformes: Per- three recognized complexes in the subgenus, cidae), the duskytail darter, is one of 18 spe- the flabellare complex, which includes the stri- cies in the darter subgenus Catonotus petail darter, Etheostoma kennicotti, and the (Braasch and Mayden 1985: Page et al. 1992), fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare, in addi- a group characterized by a derived spawning tion to E. percnurum. The duskytail darter, habit of clustering eggs in a monolayer on the long known only by its common name, was underside of slabrocks (Braasch and Mayden formally described and distinguished from its 67 68 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) closest relative, the wide-ranging E. flabellare, by R. E. Jenkins in 1994 (Jenkins and Burk- head 1994:877-881). At that time, E. percnu- rum was known from six relict populations in drainages of the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers: one in Virginia, Copper Creek; and five in Tennessee, Citico Creek, Abrams Creek, Little River, South Fork Holston River, and Big South Fork of the Cumberland River. Populations in South Fork Holston River and Abrams Creek are believed extirpated (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The only known site of occurrence in the Cumberland River drainage is Big South Fork. Because of this relict distribution, the presumed extirpation of two populations, and threats to water quality in streams it is known to inhabit, E. percnurum is listed as Federally Endangered (Biggins 1993). Biggins and Shute (1994), Burkhead and Jenkins (1991), Etnier and Starnes (1993), Jenkins (in Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), Layman (1984, 1991), and Simon and Layman (1995) summarized aspects of life history, development, distribu- tion, and abundance based largely on popula- tions in either Copper Creek or Little River. Despite numerous and intensive fish collec- tions made over the past 40 years, E. perc- nurum has been reported from only one lo- cality on Big South Fork, the mouth of Station Camp Creek, Scott County, Tennessee. In 1995, we were contracted by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) to conduct a status survey of E. percnurum in the Kentucky reach of Big South Fork. In this paper we document the status of this species in Kentucky by present- ing distributional, abundance, reproduction, and recruitment data. We describe the habitat and nesting biology for the species in Ken- tucky. Finally, we identify unique morpholog- ical, behavioral, and ecological features that indicate the Big South Fork population may be an independent evolutionary unit. METHODS Status Survey From 7-9 Sep 1995 we conducted a nearly comprehensive survey of a middle reach of Big South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky and Tennessee. We surveyed 14 sites judged to have suitable habitat for E. percnurum in a 19-km reach from the mouth of Station Camp Creek, Scott County, Tennessee, to the mouth of Bear Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Four of these sites were resampled and two new sites in Big South Fork were surveyed in spring 1998 and 1999 during trips designed to gather information on the nesting biology of E. percnurum. Near the Tennessee-Kentucky border, Big South Fork is a medium-sized riv- er, 30-50 m wide, that flows through a deep (200-300 m) gorge of the Cumberland Pla- teau. Pools are long and deep, with house- sized boulders and bedrock substrates; riffles are fast, well defined, and flow over a substrate of cobbles, boulders, and some pea gravel and coarse sand. The mainstem has a completely forested riparian zone and is protected as a National River and Recreation Area under management of the National Park Service. Be- cause of limited access in this area, nearly all sites required travelling via canoe. Underwater visual sampling with snorkeling gear was used at all sites for locating individ- uals of E. percnurum. As many as 10 people were involved in underwater sampling at one time, thus increasing the efficiency of the search. In suitable habitat, snorkelers fanned out and turned over slabrocks in pools above and below riffles, macrohabitats known to har- bor the species (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Layman 1991). This method was supplement- ed at selected sites by kick-seining (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) isolated rocks serving as potential cover for E. percnurum. About 20- 60 minutes of snorkel and/or kick-seining time were spent at each site. Standard physical hab- itat features (width, depth, area sampled) were recorded at each site. The size of large spec- imens observed was measured or judged to the nearest millimeter with a plastic ruler. Young-of-the-year (YOY) generally were noted but not measured. Initially, identifications of E. percnurum observed by snorkeling were confirmed by capturing individuals with a dip- net. We quickly discovered that even YOY were easily identifiable while we were snor- keling because of the distinctive appearance of E. percnurum, the only member of Catonotus present in Big South Fork mainstem. Nesting Biology Our initial status survey aided in the iden- tification of potential nesting sites for E. perc- Duskytail Darters—Eisenhour and Burr 69 nurum. Six sites were surveyed for nests in a 27-km reach between Station Camp Creek and Blue Heron, McCreary County, Kentucky, on 25-26 May 1998, 24 Jun 1998, and 18 Jun 1999. Underwater visual observation with snorkeling gear was used to locate nesting adults. Snorkelers concentrated on appropri- ate habitat above riffles, turning over rocks suitable for use as nesting substrate. About 60-230 minutes of snorkeling time were spent at each site, and up to six people were in- volved in underwater visual observation. All E. percnurum adults observed were captured with dipnets, measured, photographed, and released. The number of eggs in a nest was counted, and the diameter of eggs, nest rocks, and other physical parameters of nest sites were measured with a small plastic ruler or meter tape. Current velocity was measured over the nest with a Swoffer model 2100 flow- meter at 0.6 of the depth above a nest site. Systematics To better understand the evolutionary units under protection, we examined and compared specimens from the drainages of the Cumber- land and Tennessee rivers. Seventeen meristic and 27 morphometric variables were taken from 65 and 39 specimens, respectively, of E. percnurum. Measurements and counts of me- ristic features follow the methods of Hubbs and Lagler (1974) except that scales above the lateral-line were counted diagonally from the origin of the second dorsal fin. Vertebrae were visualized by the aid of soft x-rays (3A, 30 my, 15 seconds) and were counted using the meth- ods of Jenkins and Lachner (1971). Cephalic lateral pore counts followed the methods of Page (1983). Truss-geometric protocol (Humphries et al. 1981; Strauss and Bookstein 1982) was used in part to archive body form and included 17 measurements distributed among three sagit- tal truss cells with appended anterior and pos- terior triangles. Ten additional measurements were included in the morphometric analysis. Multivariate analysis of the morphometric data was accomplished using sheared principal component analysis (PCA) (Bookstein et al. 1985; Humphries et al. 1981) to eliminate overall size effects. Principal components were factored from a covariance matrix of log-trans- formed morphometric variables following the recommendations of Bookstein et al. (1985). Multivariate analyses were conducted with programs available in SAS 6.01 (SAS Institute, Inc. 1985) and as modified by D. L. Swofford. Preliminary morphometric analysis revealed strong sexual dimorphism and seasonal varia- tion associated with reproduction in the Cop- per Creek specimens (the only ones collected in the spring). To reduce confounding varia- tion associated with reproduction, we removed the Copper Creek material from the analysis, and only compared material from collections made outside of the breeding season (August— February). RESULTS Status Survey We observed 60 individuals of E. percnu- rum in September 1995 and 11 individuals in May 1998 in the 19 stream km reach of the Big South Fork between the mouth of Station Camp Creek, Scott County, Tennessee, and the mouth of Bear Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky (Figure 1). Environmental condi- tions were ideal because the river was at base flow, water clarity was excellent (at least 2 m), direct sunlight was present, and water tem- perature was warm, averaging 22.2°C in Sep- tember 1995 and 22.5°C in May 1998. All sites sampled in Tennessee produced 1-10 E. perc- nurum, but only 6 of 10 sites sampled in Ken- tucky produced individuals, ranging from 1— 11 including both adults and YOY (Table 1). Most (31 of 35) individuals observed in Ken- tucky were in a 3-km reach from just above the mouth of Troublesome Creek to the mouth of Oil Well Branch. Etheostoma percnurum, not common at any site, was probably the least common darter species observed. Considering that we ade- quately sampled only 25-50% of the suitable habitat at any one site, the species is presum- ably more abundant than our results (Table 1) might otherwise suggest. Our professional judgment is that at least 5-10 times the num- bers we observed almost certainly inhabit a given site. This conservative estimate would yield a total population of 300-600 individuals of E. percnurum in a 19-km stretch of Big South Fork. Underwater observation proved to be a pro- ductive method of finding and observing E. 70 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) @ E. percnurum present O E. percnurum absent kilometers No Business Creek Figure 1. Tennessee, and McCreary County, Kentucky. percnurum in most habitats. For comparison, we kick-seined isolated rocks judged to poten- tially harbor E. percnurum at three sites in Kentucky. Initially, our success rate was high, as 3 of 6 rocks sampled yielded E. percnurum (site 8). Subsequently, at sites 9 and 11 only 2 of 14 rocks and 1 of 14 rocks sampled, re- spectively, yielded E. percnurum. At these three sites our yield per unit effort for kick- seining (1 fish per 23.3 person-minutes) was considerably higher than for underwater ob- servation (1 fish per 80.8 person-minutes). However, the stacked slabrocks and boulders of most areas precluded sampling by the kick- seining method. Habitat All E. percnurum were observed in silt-free pools or raceways with low, but evident flow, immediately above riffles where cobbles, boul- ders, and slabrocks were available. These pools averaged about 25 X 40 m in area and about 54 cm deep, although specimens were observed as deep as 1.5 m. All individuals were under cover of cobbles, boulders, or sla- brocks. Cover rocks ranged from fist-sized Sampling sites for Etheostoma percnurum along Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Scott County, cobbles to 76 X 76 cm slabrocks and boulders, with an average thickness of 5 cm. Eleven oth- er darter species were found in association with E. percnurum, including Etheostoma baileyi, emerald darter; Etheostoma blennioi- des, greenside darter; Etheostoma camurum, bluebreast darter; Etheostoma caeruleum, rainbow darter; Etheostoma cinereum, ashy darter; Etheostoma sanguifluum, bloodfin darter; Etheostoma stigmaeum, speckled dart- er; Etheostoma tippecanoe, tippecanoe darter; Etheostoma zonale, banded darter; Percina caprodes, logperch; and Percina copelandi, channel darter. Nesting Biology Five nests were located in 44.7 person- hours of snorkeling, for a rate of one nest per 8.9 hours of snorkeling. Three nests were found at site 8, just above the mouth of Trou- blesome Creek, and two nests were found at site 10, mouth of Annie Branch, all on 26 May 1998 (Table 2). All nests were in pools and raceways, 5-50 m above riffles. Nests were in water 51-70 cm (mean = 62 cm) deep with current velocity at 5-14 cm/s (mean = 10 cm/ Duskytail Darters—Eisenhour and Burr 7 Table 1. Geographic location, date, number of individuals observed while snorkeling, unit of effort (snorkelers x minutes), and approximate size of specimens of Etheostoma percnurum, Big South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky and Tennessee. Geographic location numbers correspond to those in Figure 1. Sexable adults are divided into males (M) and females (F). Number of Size of Geographic individuals Unit of specimens location Date (sex) effort (mm, TL) 1. Mouth of Station Camp 7 Sep 1995 6 9 x 60 35-50 + YOY Creek, Scott Co., TN 25 May 1998 oF 8 X 30 50 2. Mouth of Parched Corn 7 Sep 1995 6 9 X 60 40-50 Creek, Scott Co., TN 3. Halfway between Cold Spring 7 Sep 1995 10 9 X 60 30-50 + YOY and Big Branch, Scott Co., T™ 4. Big Island, Scott Co., TN 7 Sep 1995 10 9 X 90 35-50 + YOY 5. Just above mouth of Williams 8 Sep 1995 1 9 X 60 30 Creek, Scott Co., TN 6. Near mouth of Hurricane & Sep 1995 1 9 X 60 35 Creek, Scott Co., TN 7. Mouth of Difficulty Creek, 8 Sep 1995 ] 9 X 60 40 McCreary Co., KY 25 May 1998 8) 6 X 60 35 8. 1 km above mouth of Trou- 8 Sep 1995 ll 9 X 110 40-60 YOY blesome Creek, McCreary Co., KY 25-26 May 1998 3M, 1F 6 X 180 50-65 9. Mouth of Troublesome 9 Sep 1995 0 10 X 75 30-55 + YOY Creek, McCreary Co., KY 10. Mouth of Annie Branch, 26 May 1998 2M, 1F 6 X 35 54-67 McCreary Co., KY 11. Mouth of Oil Well Branch, 9 Sep 1995 6 10 < 20 40-60 + YOY McCreary Co., KY 12. Huling Ford, McCreary Co., 9 Sep 1995 0 10 X 20 = KY 13. Mouth of second unnamed 9 Sep 1995 0 10 X 30 = tributary below Huling Ford, McCreary Co., KY 14. Mouth of tributary near Slav- 9 Sep 1995 0 10 X 30 = en’s Branch Trail, Mc- 26 May 1998 0 2x 20 = Creary Co., KY . 15. Mouth of Bear Creek, Mc- 9 Sep 1995 1 10 X 120 50 mm Creary Co., KY 16. Blue Heron, McCreary Co., 24 Jun 1998 0 2x 90 = KY 18 Jun 1999 0 2X 150 — Table 2. Summaries of physical habitat features and nest characteristics of five nests of Etheostoma percnurum at sites 8 and 10 (see Figure 1 and Table 1) in Big South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky, 26 May 1998. Nest parameter Mean Range Length of nest rock 186 mm 150-300 mm Width of nest rock 240 mm 180-400 mm Thickness of nest rock 41 mm 37-50 mm Depth of nest 62 mm 51-70 mm Height of nest rock cavity 21 mm 15-25 mm Size of guardian male 57 mm 55-58 mm Water temperature oly 22a © Length and width of egg mass 40 X 50 mm 30 X 40 mm-—50 X 75 mm Diameter of eggs 9-3 mm 9-3 mm Number of eggs in nest 101 79-132 Current velocity 9.6 cm/s 5.0-14 cm/s 72 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 3. Frequency distribution of lateral-line scales in four populations of Etheostoma percnurum, Virginia and Tennessee. Population 39 40 41 42 43, 44 45 46 47 45 49 50 n Mean SD Copper Creek, VA 2 ] 5 3} 5 3 l 20 §©642.05 1.67 Big South Fork, TN 2 1 i 2 = ] 8 46.38 2.07 Little Rock, TN 3 ] 5 6 8 4 2 = 1 ] Ol) 43755) 2105 Citico Creek, TN ] i — ] ] 2, 6 4400 2.10 s). All nest rocks were slab-sided and ranged from 15 X 18 cm to 30 X 40 cm and averaged 4.1 cm in thickness. A cavity 15-25 mm deep was between the substrate (sand, coal, and de- tritus) and the bottom of the nest rock. Nests were located in a relatively small area at each site; nests ranged from 2.4—7.0 m apart. Water temperature was 22.5°C at both sites. Eggs were adhesive, round, 2-3 mm in di- ameter, and amber. They were deposited in a monolayer on the underside of the nest rocks except one nest had one egg laid on top of another egg. Four of the five clutches con- tained “eyed” embryos rapidly moving inside their chorions. The number of eggs in the nest clutches (or the complement of eggs) ranged from 79-132 (mean = 101). Clutches were oblong to round, ranged in size from 30 < 40 mm to 55 X 75 mm, and generally placed near the center of the underside of the nest rock. Each of the five nests was guarded by a sin- gle male with nuptial colors and morphology similar to other members of Catonotus. The knobs on the tips of the first dorsal fin were bright gold to amber, and the edges of the pectoral, soft dorsal, and caudal fins were dis- tinctly peppered with black margins. All males had strong vertical bar development on their sides and blackened heads. The bases of their caudal and pectoral fins were light amber to salmon; pelvic fins were an iridescent white. Standard length (SL) for the five guarding males ranged from 55-58 mm (64-67 mm to- tal length). The four adult females (50-54 mm SL) were found under rocks well away from nests. None of the females were swollen with mature ova and apparently already had spawned. Parasites In May 1998 we observed black-spot dis- ease in five of six specimens examined closely. The number of black spots ranged from 1-4, except that one female had about 25 spots. This female was covered in fungus and ap- peared to be near death. Black-spot disease was present in only three of the eight speci- mens vouchered in September 1995; the num- ber of black spots ranged from 1-5. Systematics The Big South Fork population had higher mean lateral-line scales than other populations (Table 3). Specimens from Citico Creek were distinctive in having fewer principal caudal rays, scales above the lateral line, scales below the lateral line, scales around the caudal pe- duncle, and lateral-line scales and more pored » lateral-line scales (Table 4). Other meristic characters examined showed little intraspecific variation. Principal component analysis of the meristic variables was not informative. Sheared PCA of the morphometric vari- ables separated individuals from the Cumber- land and Tennessee drainages into non-over- lapping clusters, with most separation occur- ring along the sheared PC 2 axis (Figure 2). Examination of loadings indicates Big South Fork specimens have shorter soft dorsal and anal fins, a shorter anal fin base, a more pos- teriorly placed anal fin, and a more robust body (Table 5). In addition, a larger maximum size was attained by males from Big South Fork (58 mm SL) and Little River (56 mm SL; Etnier and Starnes 1993) than males from Copper Creek (48 mm SL; Jenkins and Burk- head 1994). Females attained a larger maxi- mum size in Big South Fork (maximum 54 mm SL) than Copper Creek (45 mm SL, Jen- kins and Burkhead 1994) and Little River (47 mm SL; Layman 1991). DISCUSSION Conservation Status Etheostoma percnurum occupies a greater range in the Big South Fork than previously known. We have established the existence of the species over a 19-stream km reach at six Duskytail Darters—Eisenhour and Burr 73 Table 4. Meristic counts displaying little intraspecific variation of 65 Etheostoma percnurum from four populations in the drainages of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, Virginia and Tennessee. Means are followed by ranges in parentheses. Copper Creek, VA Meristic n = 20 Dorsal spines 6.9 (6-8) Dorsal rays 11.50 (11-13) Pectoral rays 12.75 (12-13) Pelvic rays 6 Anal spines 1.95 (1-2) Anal rays 7.25 (6-8) Principal caudal rays 17.85 (17-18) Pored lateral-line scales 94.20 (17-28) Scales above lateral line 6.80 (6-8) Scales below lateral line 8.95 (7-10) Scales around caudal peduncle 94.05 (22-27) Interorbital pores 6.05 (6-7) Preoperculomandibular pores 10.00 (9-11) Total vertebrae 33.55 (33-35; n = 11) Precaudal vertebrae 13.82 (13-15; n = 11) Caudal vertebrae 19.73 (19-20: n = 11) sites in the Tennessee reach of Big South Fork (five of these not previously reported) and re- port it here for the first time from six sites in the Kentucky reach of Big South Fork. A re- cent survey by Shute et al. (unpublished data) located E. percnurum as far upstream as the mouth of Blevins Branch, Tennessee, expand- ing the known range in the Big South Fork to a 22-stream km reach. However, most Ken- tucky specimens are known only from a 3-km reach, and additional populations in Kentucky are unlikely to be present. The Big South Fork harbors the only known population of E. perc- nurum in the Cumberland River drainage. = = a Less robust body Taller soft dorsal and anal fins More anterior anal fin Longer anal fin base o o 2S a |=Cl = 0 -0.05 -0.1 Sheared PC 3 -0.15 -0.15 0.1 -0.05 O 0.05 0.1 Sheared PC 2 0.15 Figure 2. Morphometric scores on sheared PC axes 2 and 3 for 27 Etheostoma percnurum from Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Little River, and Citico Creek, Tennessee. Big South Fork, Little Rock, Citico Creek, TN TN n= 8 ny oll n=6 7 6.61 (6-7) 6.50 (6-7) 11.75 (11-12) 11.62 (11-13) 11.67 (11-12) 13 12.52 (12-13) 12.67 (12-14) 6 6 6 2 2 2 7.25 (7-8) 7.19 (7-8) 7.50 (7-8) 17.25 (16-18) 17.87 (17-18) 16.33 (16-17) 27.63 (25-30) 25.94 (23-30) 31.00 (29-34) 6.63 (6-7) 6.48 (6-7) 6.00 (5-7) 8.25 (7-9) 8.71 (8-10) 8.00 (7-9) 23.13 (22-25) 23.52 (21-27) 21.83 (20-25) 6 6 6 10.13 (10-11) 10.03 (9-12) 9.50 (9-10) 33.63 (33-35) — = 14.13 (13-15) — — 19.50 (18-20) — — The few other streams in this drainage that might harbor a relict population of this species have been well sampled (Burr and Warren 1986; Etnier and Starnes 1993). Our popula- tion estimate (300-600) over a 19-km stretch, though conservative, indicates considerably lower density in Big South Fork than Little River, Tennessee, where Layman (1991) esti- mated a population of 1023 E. percnurum in a 200-m reach in 1983. The highly restricted and localized distribution (mostly in about 3 stream km) of E. percnurum in Kentucky as well as its general rarity argue strongly for its immediate inclusion on the Kentucky state en- dangered/threatened species list as an endan- gered species. The small distribution and population size of E. percnurum in Kentucky appears to be due to limited suitable habitat in Kentucky. Extensive alluvial streamside deposits (Pom- erane 1964) are present from the mouth of Oil Well Branch to about 0.5 km above the mouth of Troublesome Creek, the reach with the largest Kentucky populations of E. percnurum. Similar alluvial deposits are almost entirely ab- sent along the remainder of unimpounded portions of Big South Fork in Kentucky. Be- low the mouth of Bear Creek, suitable habitat continues to decline. Big South Fork narrows and becomes a series of long rapids strewn with large boulders, essentially lacking cobble and small boulder shoals. At Blue Heron, the 74 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 5. Sheared principal component loadings for 27 morphometric variables for 27 Etheostoma percnurum from Big South Fork Cumberland River, Little River, and Citico Creek, Kentucky and Tennessee. Measurement Standard length Head length Gape width Pectoral fin length Pelvic fin length First dorsal fin height Second dorsal fin height Anal fin height at third ray Interorbital width Snout to occiput Snout to origin of pelvic fin First dorsal fin base length Second dorsal fin base length Pelvic fin origin to anal fin origin Anal fin base length Second dorsal fin insertion to hypural Anal fin insertion to hypural First dorsal fin origin to anal fin origin Pelvic fin origin to second dorsal fin origin Second dorsal fin origin to anal fin insertion Anal fin origin to second dorsal fin insertion Occiput to pelvic fin origin First dorsal fin origin to pelvic fin origin Second dorsal fin origin to anal fin origin Second dorsal fin insertion to anal fin insertion Head width Body width under second dorsal fin origin river widens, and some suitable habitat is pre- sent, although E. percnurum was not observed from this area. Below Blue Heron are the im- pounded waters of Lake Cumberland, certain- ly unsuitable for E. percnurum. Although the mainstem of Big South Fork is protected from disturbances by the National Park Service, several tributaries (e.g., Bear Creek) are discharging low-quality because of mining in their watersheds. On 26 May 1998, following a rain the previous night, we ob- served extremely turbid water discharging from Bear Creek into the otherwise clear Big South Fork. Improvement in these impacted streams will help maintain the high-quality habitats in Big South Fork that are required by E. percnurum and other species (e.g., No- tropis sp. “sawfin shiner” and E. cinereum) with restricted distributions in Kentucky. We suggest periodic monitoring of the dis- tribution and abundance of Kentucky E. perc- nurum. We consider both underwater obser- vation and kick-seining around potential rock cover, our primary means of sampling in Big South Fork, as effective and non-lethal. We Sheared PC 2 Sheared PC 3 —0).005 —0.023 (0), ILI) 0.067 0.190 0.303 0.103 0.222 0.144 0.179 —(0.162 0.281 0.392 0.337 0.228 0.367 0.089 —0.099 —0.220 0.066 —(0.044 0.010 0.143 0.034 0.042 —0.161 —().344 0.068 0.334 — 0.258 —0.037 0.118 0.055 —0.290 —0.133 —0.012 —0.054 0.097 —0.178 —0.161 0.296 —0.197 —0.025 —0.126 —0.138 —(.045 —(0.007 —0.108 0.110 —0.411 =O 27 0.022 —0.352 0.103 recommend that electrofishing not be used to sample this rare species because of the poten- tial harm it can do to fishes (Snyder 1995). Natural History Medium to large streams with silt-free rocky pools in the vicinity of riffles seem to be requirements for viable populations of E. percnurum. As pointed out by Etnier and Starnes (1993), the habitat of E. percnurum is essentially the same as that occupied by E. ci- nereum, a species we found almost invariably associated with E. percnurum in Big South Fork. Our general habitat description is simi- lar to the habitat of E. percnurum in Little River (Etnier and Starnes 1993) and Copper Creek (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Egg counts in Big South Fork (79-132; mean = 101) were higher than in Little River (23-200; mean = 79; Layman 1991). The higher egg counts per nest in Big South Fork may be attributed to the larger body size of those females. Using the equation of Layman (1991) log C = —1.154 + 1.686 log SL, fe- males observed in this study would have 51- Duskytail Darters—Eisenhour and Burr 75 61 mature ova, as compared to the 19-44 ova for the smaller females of Little River. Also, nest rock size typically was larger in Big South Fork (mean 24 X 19 em) than in Little River (mean = 16 X 12 cm; Layman 1991). Larger nest rock size in Big South Fork may simply reflect an abundance of larger nest sub- strata available. Alternately, this may be a be- havioral adaptation in choosing more stable nest rocks in an area with high flows and prone to flash flooding. Additional studies are needed to explore these possibilities. Other nesting biology observations are generally con- sistent with those of Layman (1991) from Lit- tle River, Tennessee and Jenkins and Burk- head (1994) from Copper Creek, Virginia, ex- cept Jenkins and Burkhead reported nuptial males from moderate to swift runs. The heavy infestations and high rate of in- fection of the black-spot disease observed in this study indicate that it may be an important source of mortality for E. percnurum. Al- though not previously documented for E. percnurum, the disease has been reported from many species of North American fresh- water fishes. We observed belted kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon) and snails, required in- termediate hosts for the strigeid flukes that cause black-spot disease (Berra and Au 1978), to be common in Big South Fork. Heavy in- festations have been reported to cause mor- talities, particularly during the winter months, in Esox lucius, northern pike (Harrison and Hadley 1982), Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill (Lemly and Esch 1984), and Campostoma an- omalum, central stoneroller (Ferrara and Cook 1998). Monitoring of the Big South Fork pop- ulation of E. percnurum should include as- sessment of the extent of black-spot disease. Systematics The differences in squamation, body shape, maximum size, and nesting biology reported here indicate that Big South Fork populations certainly represent an independent evolution- ary unit. Considering the relict distribution of this species it seems unlikely that any gene flow has occurred between Cumberland and Tennessee forms in thousands of generations. The morphological variation uncovered in this analysis supports the presence of deep phylo- genetic partitions in E. percnurum. This pat- tern suggests that most of the overall diversity is located among the populations rather than within populations (Meffe and Vrijenhoek 1988). Because the loss of even one of the remaining four populations of E. percnurum would cause a substantial loss in diversity of the species, conservation efforts should be di- rected to preserving as many populations as possible. Protection of the Big South Fork population seems particularly important in maintenance of diversity of E. percnurum be- cause of the population’s unique morphology and ecology. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Success in finding E. percnurum would not have been possible without the assistance of many people and agencies. We are especially appreciative of the underwater expertise of J. R. Shute, P. W. Shute, P L. Rakes, and K. Harpster (Conservation Fisheries, Inc.). Steve Bakaletz and R. Emmott (National Park Ser- vice) provided logistical support, canoes, and river guidance. We thank T. Slone and D. Ste- phens (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources) and K. M. Cook, D. B. Henry, J. B. Ladonski, K. R. Piller, and J. G. Stewart (Southern Illinois University at Car- bondale), K. A. McCafferty, (Morehead State University), and L. V. Eisenhour for assistance in field work. Permits to study E. percnurum were provided by Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. R. E. Jenkins, via D. W. Nelson and D. A. Etnier, loaned spec- imens of E. percnurum for comparative pur- poses. LITERATURE CITED Berra, T. M., and R-J. Au. 1978. Incidence of black spot disease in fishes in Cedar Fork Creek, Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 78:318—322. Biggins, R. E. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered status for the duskytail darter, palezone shiner and pygmy madtom. Federal Register 58:25758-25763. Biggins, R. E., and P. W. Shute. 1994. Recovery plan for Duskytail Darter (Etheostoma [Catonotus] sp.). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. Bookstein, F. L., B. Chernoff, R. L. Elder, J. M. Hum- phries Jr., G. R. Smith, and R. E. Strauss. 1985. Mor- phometrics in evolutionary biology. Spec. Publ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 15:1-277. Braasch, M. E., and R. L. Mayden. 1985. Review of the subgenus Catonotus (Percidae) with descriptions of two new darters of the Etheostoma squamiceps species 76 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) group. Occas. Paper Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 119: 1-83. Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia’s en- dangered species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Comm. Sci. Techn. Ser. 4. Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Ten- nessee. Univ. Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Ferrara, A. M., and S. B. Cook. 1998. Comparison of black-spot disease metapopulations in the central sto- nerollers of two warm-water streams. J. Freshwater Ecol. 13:299-305. Harrison, E. J., and W. F. Hadley. 1982. Possible effects of black-spot disease on northern pike. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.111:106—109. Hubbs, C. L., and K. F. Lagler. 1974. Fishes of the Great Lake region. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Humphries. J. M., F. L. Bookstein, B. Chernoff, G. R. Smith, R. L. Elder, and S. G. Poss. 1981. Multivariate discrimination by shape in relation to size. Syst. Zool. 30:291—308. Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Jenkins, R. E., and E. A. Lachner. 1971. Criteria for anal- ysis and interpretation of the American fish genera No- comis Girard and Hybopsis Agassiz. Smithsonian. Contr. Zool. 90:1—15. Layman, S. R. 1984. The duskytail darter, Etheostoma (Catonotus) sp. confirmed as an egg-clusterer. Copeia 1984:992-994. Layman, S. R. 1991. Life history of the relict, duskytail darter, Etheostoma (Catonotus) sp., in Little River, Ten- nessee. Copeia 1991:471—-485. Lemly, A. D., and G. W. Esch. 1984. Effects of the trem- atode Uvulifer ambloplites (Hughes, 1927) on juvenile bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus: ecological impli- cations. J. Parasitol. 70:475—-492. Meffe, G. K., and R. C. Vrijenhoek. 1988. Conservation genetics in the management of desert fishes. Conser- vation Biol. 2:157—169. Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of darters. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Publications, Neptune City, NJ. Page, L. M. 1985. Evolution of reproductive behaviors in percid fishes. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 33:275-295, Page, L. M., P. A. Ceas, D. L. Swofford, and D. G. Buth. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within the Etheostoma squamiceps complex (Percidae; subgenus Catonotus) with descriptions of five new species. Copeia 1992:615— 646. Pomerane, J. B. 1964. Geology of the Barthell Quadrangle and part of the Oneida North Quadrangle, Kentucky. U.S. Geol. Surv. Geol. Quad. Map GQ-314. Poss, S. G., and B. B. Collette. 1995. Second survey of fish collections in the United States and Canada. Copeia 1995:48-70. SAS Institute. 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics, 1985 edi- tion. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Simon, T. P., and S. R. Layman. 1995. Egg and larval development of the striped fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare lineolatum (Agassiz), and duskytail darter, E. percnurum Jenkins, with comments on the Etheostoma flabellare species group. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 56: 28-40. Snyder, D. E. 1995. Impacts of electrofishing on fish. Fisheries (Bethesda) 20:26—27. Strauss, R. E., and F. L. Bookstein. 1982. The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Syst. Zool. 31: 113-135. APPENDIX Specimens of E. percnurum used in mor- phological comparisons. Museum abbrevia- tions follow Poss and Collette (1995). Paren- thetical numbers after catalog numbers refer to the number of specimens used in the me- ristic and morphometric analyses, respectively. Big South Fork of the Cumberland River. McCreary County, Kentucky: SIUC 24744 (1,1), SIUC 24761 (1,1), SIUC 24773 (5,5). Scott County, Tennessee: SIUC 24739 (1,1). Copper Creek. Scott County, Virginia: UMMZ 22038 (20,12). Little River. Blount County, Tennessee: UT 91.2719 (7,2), UT 91.2720 (9,4), UT 91.2721 (15,10). Citico Creek. Mon- roe County, Tennessee: UT 91.2558 (3,3), UT Hh ses) (BO). J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):77-85. 2000. Scientists of Kentucky David Wendel Yandell, M.D. Every autumn when the banks along the Ohio blaze in color, the University of Louis- ville invites to the Falls City one of the nation’s renowned surgeons as guest speaker for the annual Yandell Lecture.* The event celebrates the career of David Yandell (1826-1898), who taught clinical medicine and surgery at the school for more than 30 years. Because he cared passionately about improving medical education, Yandell led a relentless crusade to expand the knowledge of his professional col- leagues and to upgrade the quality of care available to their patients.” Born near Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Yan- dell spent his childhood in Lexington, where his father, Lunsford, taught chemistry at Tran- sylvania University. In 1837 the elder Yandell and several of his colleagues founded the Lou- isville Medical Institute and the family moved to that city. The school attracted students from across the South and throughout the Ohio Val- ley because of its easy access and its fine fac- ulty, which included Charles Caldwell, Jede- diah Cobb, Daniel Drake, Samuel Gross, and Lunsford Yandell. By 1844 when David ma- triculated, the institute claimed an enrollment of 350. Despite a growing number of medical schools throughout the nation, few 19th cen- tury physicians were well trained. Anyone could call himself a doctor and practice med- icine. Most medical men learned their trade by serving a 2-year apprenticeship to a prac- titioner-preceptor. Some apprentices undoubt- edly went along on house calls with their pre- ceptors and thus learned to diagnose and medicate; others probably did little more than drive the doctor's buggy, attend his horse, and sweep out his office. Apprenticeships may have been inferior to medical schools, but no licensing board measured the knowledge of those that took advantage of either—or nei- ther—program. Throughout most of the century, medical schools had no entrance requirements. They were generally proprietary institutions plagued by feuding faculties, financial handicaps, com- Teel petition for students, limited curricula, and in- adequate teaching aides. To receive a degree, students were required to attend two 4-month sessions (an apprenticeship could be substi- tuted for one session), pass an oral exam, and pay a graduation fee. The exam, apparently the only testing done by the faculty, could be a frightening experience. One of Yandell’s classmates compared it to swallowing poison “with no stomach pump about, or [sleeping] with a man with smallpox.” He described the examining professors as “dried up specimens of humanity who looked as if they had de- scended for the occasion from some anatom- ical museum and who have looked upon death, suffering and the annual ranks of med- ical aspirants” until their hearts were hard as stone. Although one of Yandell’s professors labeled him a “damned unpromising specimen,” he nevertheless passed the exam and graduated from the Louisville Medical Institute in March 1846. A few weeks later he sailed to Europe to further his education in the schools of Lon- don and Paris. Many of his letters to his family appeared in the Western Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Louisville Journal. The cocky Kentuckian greatly admired Sir Robert Lister’s surgical techniques and described them in considerable detail, but he sneered at English students who were neither as “intel- ligent looking” nor as “fine in appearance” as his peers at home. He praised the politeness of French students and found the Parisian professors far more eloquent and interesting that their English brethren. Awed by the teaching hospitals, clinics, and internships available in Paris, Yandell claimed that in a sin- gle morning an industrious student could ac- company professors through both the medical and surgical wards. And, if “fleet of limb he may follow Roux though his wards at the Ho- tel Dieu, Jobert through his at St. Louis and hear Velpeau lecture at La Charité!” By the time he returned to Louisville in au- tumn 1848, Yandell enjoyed a reputation for excellence among both practitioners and lay- 78 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) men. His medications probably were no more successful than those of his colleagues, but his credentials and charm convinced many Louis- villians that he was very knowledgeable. Con- Figure 1. David Wendel Yandell, ca. 1875. sequently, medical apprentices as well as pa- tients flocked to him. One of the problems facing would-be doc- tors was the lack of a practical method of David Wendel Yandell—Baird 79 studying anatomy and surgical techniques. To aid them—and anyone else who desired the instruction—Yandell and a friend opened a dissection laboratory where they conducted classes in anatomy, physical diagnosis, and sur- gery. Following his marriage in summer 1851, Yandell closed the facility and moved briefly to Middle Tennessee. However, on his re- turned to Louisville in the mid 1850s, he opened a free outpatient clinic for Louisville’s indigents. Modeled after the private clinics of Paris and financed by the fees of medical ap- prentices and university students, the dispen- sary supplemented rather than competed with university offerings. Consequently, it and its founder received considerable praise from lo- cal practitioners and from doctors who toured it during the 1859 state medical conclave in Louisville. The success of the dispensary was partially responsible for Yandell being offered a posi- tion on the faculty, the realization of a decade- long dream. His major accomplishment as professor of clinical medicine was to talk the faculty into creating three “internships” for the university's top graduates. Unfortunately, the Civil War prevented implementation of the internships. In summer 1861 Yandell resigned his pro- fessorship and received a commission in the Confederate medical department. He spent a few weeks with General Simon Bolivar Buck- ner’s forces at Bowling Green, Kentucky, and then accepted the medical directorship of Al- bert Sidney Johnston’s Army of the West, a command that extended from the Appalachian Mountains to Indian Territory. The task for this military monstrosity would have been a difficult one for a medic with many years of military experience and adequate resources; it was a gargantuan job for a novice. Epidemic diseases, shortage of medical supplies, inade- quate hospital facilities, and poorly trained and inexperienced doctors plagued Johnston's army. To care for those felled by measles and other infectious diseases, respiratory ailments, and a variety of illnesses caused by bad food, contaminated water, and inadequate clothing, Yandell commandeered churches, public buildings, and vacant homes across southern Kentucky. When the number of ill exceeded space in the Kentucky facilities, he arranged with the L&N railroad to transport hundreds of them to the hospitals and convalescent cen- ters he created in the Nashville area. Yandell also supervised the employment of medical personnel. Regiments generally se- lected their own officers, including their reg- imental physician. Acknowledging the system's fallacy, Yandell created a examining board to screen all medical corps as well as civilian con- tract applicants. He headed the board and ap- parently was merciless in his questioning. When asked what he would do for a “shot right through there,” the medical director pointing to his own knee, the victim of his grilling about wounds answered, “Well, sir, if it was you that was shot through there, I would not do a d[amne]d thing.” In mid February 1862 the Army of the West retreated into central Tennessee and then to the Corinth, Mississippi, area. In early April the army encountered the enemy near Shiloh Church, about 20 miles north of Corinth. More than 1700 Confederates died during the 2-day Battle of Shiloh; General Albert Sydney Johnston was among them, the victim of a torn popliteal artery. Earlier that morning Yandell had issued tourniquets to all of Johnston's staff, but no one thought to use the lifesaving device. With Johnston’s death Yandell lost a friend as well as his coveted position in the Confederate medical department. The Army of the West was renamed and placed under the leadership of General P.G.T. Beauregard, who chose his own medical director. Yandell joined William J. Hardee's corps and traveled with the tactician’s forces into Kentucky in au- tumn 1862. Following the battle of Perryville, he worked day and night administering to the wounded. In spring 1863 Yandell was sent to Jackson, Mississippi, to “watch over” the health of Gen- eral Joseph E. Johnston. The two men shared quarters, and the doctor often served as the general's aide, reading aloud his dispatches and writing the replies he dictated. Following the fall of Vicksburg, Yandell analyzed the sad state of affairs in Mississippi that culminated in the river town’s loss; he laid the blame on officials in Richmond. His unwise comments reached Confederate president Jefferson Da- vis. Sensitive to criticism, Davis “banished” Yandell to the Trans Mississippi where the meddling doctor would have “less opportunity for exercising undue influence on the army 80 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) DEPARTMENT. BITE DICAT. Figure 2. and community.” Yandell served the remain- der of the war as medical director for the army of Edmund Kirby Smith. Yandell labeled the Civil War a “great though terrible school.” During his 4 years with the army he treated many medical and surgical problems and broadened his under- standing of hospital management. He also made valuable contacts and won the admira- tion of physicians and laymen on both sides. The war's most profound effect, however, was to sharpen Yandell’s awareness to the nation’s large number of poorly trained and incompe- tent doctors. To the correction of this short- coming, he dedicated the remainder of his life. Returning to Louisville and his medical practice in July 1865, Yandell opened the Lou- isville Clinic, a large and efficiently organized facility; in 1869 he rejoined the University of Louisville’s medical department. During the war the university had built a small dispensary and contracted two local doctors to operate it. Within a few weeks after Yandell rejoined the faculty, the contract doctors began to com- plain. They believed that his position on the CORNER OF EIGHTH AND CHESTNUT STREETS. Medical Department, University of Louisville, Kentucky, ca. 1870. faculty gave Yandell’s Louisville Clinic an “im- mense advantage” over the one they operated. Yandell offered to “divide the influence of his name and services equally between the two dispensaries, to lecture an equal number of times at each and receive no fee from either.” His university colleagues refused his offer and passed a resolution that prohibited professors from teaching private classes. Yandell com- plained bitterly about the ex post facto ruling and refused to sever his connection with the Louisville clinic. Faculty pressure, however, forced him to rescind his decision. Because the university's dispensary was too small to accommodate the students in small groups, much less for class instruction, Yandell began to push for an enlarged university clinic and adjoining amphitheater. Clinical teaching was the “alpha and omega’ of a good educa- tion, he insisted. By studying medicine “in the laboratory, under the microscope, at the dis- section-table, in the wards of the hospital, and in the dispensaries where patients are seen, examined and prescribed for students David Wendel Yandell—Baird 81 learn the diagnosis of disease as well as its treatment,” he insisted. When his colleagues whined that Yandell’s building scheme would bankrupt them, he suggested that perhaps the university could convert its academic building, occupied rent- free by Male High School, into a hospital maintained by the city. Indigents could receive free care provided by the faculty and could be studied by students. The scheme would have created one of the first teaching hospitals in the nation. Yandell’s colleagues liked the idea but unfortunately the city declined to consider it. Disappoined but not discouraged, Yandell commenced talks with wealthy Louisvillian Shakespeare Caldwell and convinced him that a hospital was an appropriate memorial to his recently deceased wife. At this facility, Yandell argued, the university's faculty could provide medical and surgical services for impoverished patients and allow students to aid in treating patients and to gain bedside experience. The university offered land near the medical school for the facility. Caldwell agreed to the plan but vetoed the proposed site. Saints Mary and Elizabeth Hospital opened in 1874 but Yandell’s plan proved unsuccessful. The dis- tance of several miles between the school and hospital discouraged students from visiting it, and many of the professors could not or would not contribute time beyond their classroom responsibilities to care for patients and super- vise students. Undaunted, Yandell continued his nagging. He suggested that each professor make a con- tribution and that the faculty thus underwrite the construction of a clinic. The opposition was overwhelming. In frustration, Yandell sub- mitted his resignation with a blistering attack on his colleagues, whom he accused of being disinterested in the quality of medical educa- tion. Undoubtedly a few of his harrassed col- leagues welcomed Yandell’s decision but oth- ers knew the university could ill afford to loose its most distinguished professor. Yandell edit- ed the widely read American Practitioner, had been elected president of the American Med- ical Association in 1872, served as its repre- sentative to the 1881 International Confer- ence in London, and was one of the founders of the American Surgical Association (and would be its president in 1889). Consequently, his colleagues promised that if he rescinded his resignation, they would reconsider his plea and try to finance the clinic. Yandell agreed. The university’ treasurer cashed city bonds that the school had held for years and the fac- ulty secured a loan for the remainder. H.P. McDonald Brothers received a contract to de- sign and build the clinic and amphitheater. The facility for which Yandell crusaded for nearly 2 decades opened in 1888. Yandell fought with equal zeal for entrance requirements, an expansion of the curriculum, and a lengthened school year. Unfortunately, competition for students was keen among the citys many medical schools (10 medical schools operated in Louisville during the post- war decades); changes that might increase overhead, raise tuition, or limit admission threatened enrollment and thus the salaries of the proprietary faculty. Yandell’s demand for internships likewise met with resistance. The various hospitals were eager to implement the post-graduate positions but wished to make them available to all of the citys medical schools. After years of haggling on how the recipients should be chosen and who would supervise them, the university and the Ken- tucky Medical School agreed to base the se- lection on academic merit. Unfortunately, there were only a half-dozen positions for the several hundred graduates eager for the ex- perience. Yandell’s campaign for a more rigorous medical curriculum transcended the common- wealth’s borders. In his 1872 presidential ad- dress before the delegates to the American Medical Association in Philadelphia, he spoke about the shortcomings of the nation’s edu- cational system in general and medical edu- cation in particular. ... there are grave defects in the education of many of our students and many of our practitioners of med- icine. Not a few of them, I am afraid, have a very slight acquaintance with grammar or physical geog- raphy and too many of them know little about ety- mology and are bad spellers. It is a pity that this is so and I should be glad to see a different state of things.” Answering colleagues who urged the addition of math and Greek to the medical school cur- riculum, Yandell championed the creation of better primary and secondary schools, not the 82 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) a A a - Mi in if Figure 3. Medical Department, University of Louisville, Kentucky, ca. 1890. The wing on the left is the clinic for which David Yandell fought for 20 years. teaching of “irrelevant topics” in medical school. Instead, he urged the extension of the lecture term, expansion of the requirements for graduation, increase in the number of pro- fessorships and course offering, and more in- struction by demonstration. The graduates of the newly inaugurated system at Harvard, he stated, “may know less of Greek and mathe- matics, [but] are far better trained than they formerly were in clinical medicine and surgery and are better qualified to enter their duties as practitioners.”¢ Although medical education began in the halls of academia, Yandell believed it should continue throughout a doctor's professional life. For 25 years he was the active senior ed- itor of the American Practitioner, a monthly journal that had 2000 subscribers in 1876 and nearly 6000 by 1890. He filled the journal with original articles, reviews of American and Eu- ropean publications, synopses of clinical cases gleaned from other journals, and miscella- neous notes, editorials, and minutes of meet- ings of local, state, and national medical or- ganizations. Yandell gave his readers a gener- ous and well-balanced feast of medical knowl- edge and urged his readers to keep current with developments in the profession. “Life is too short and science too long to permit time to be wasted,” he frequently admonished. As an classroom teacher Yandell had “few equals and no superiors,” his students re- called, for he enriched their minds, made them wish to learn more, and flavored his lec- tures with bits of medical history and witty ad- vice. A strong believer in human dignity, Yan- dell constantly reminded students that indi- gents deserved the same care and respect as the wealthy. He also urged these future doc- tors to stay abreast of and keep an open mind to new techniques but to use discretion in adopting them. “If one half of all the certain cures were but certain, the practice of medi- cine would be too simple to demand special study or require trained followers,” he pointed out. Yandell also advised that practitioners must know when to act with haste and when to pro- ceed with deliberate caution. He delighted in telling about George IV, whose regular physi- cian was too busy to attend to a small tumor on the royal derriére. Another doctor was called, the growth was removed, and the new doctor was knighted by his grateful sovereign. David Wendel Yandell—Baird 83 The reward might have been excessive, Yan- dell suggested, but a caring doctor never post- poned “until the afternoon ... messages left for you in the morning.” In their reminiscences, his former students lauded not only his teaching ability but also wrote of Yandell’s surgical skills. He “cut to the line and to the required depth with geometric precission,” one recalled. For demonstration purposes minor procedures were performed on hospital inmates and dispensary patients but for more difficult operations Yandell used cadavers. Most of the students sat 15 to 30 feet away yet claimed that their teacher's ar- ticulate and detailed explanations compensat- ed for what they could not see. Student mem- oirs also recalled that Yandell always wore a freshly laundered coat in the “operating” room, scrubbed his hands and instruments with green soap before each procedure, and treated all incisions with compounds of iodine, bromine, and carbolic acid to prevent infec- tion. He advised his students to do likewise. Prior to the general acceptance of antiseptic surgery, such cleanliness was unusual. Yandell’s admirers included personal friends and private patients, who recalled the bou- quets he gave to shut-ins and the groceries he took to indigent families under the tactful guise that the patient needed special foods. Involved in community organizations, he served two terms on the city’s school board, discussed history and literature with fellow members of the Filson and Salmagundi clubs, and founded the Louisville Kennel Club and Louisville Surgical Society. He counted among his close friends attorney Reuben Durrett, ed- itor Henry Watterson, and former Confeder- ates Basil Duke, William Preston, John B. Castleman, and Governor J. Proctor Knott, who appointed Yandell as surgeon general of the Kentucky militia. During one of his trips to Europe to attend a medical conclave, the British Medical Journal proclaimed that Yan- dell was a great favorite in local circles. The Medical Society of London elected him to honorary membership in 1883 and _ shortly thereafter the London Medical-Chirurgical Society named him an honorary fellow. When an Englishman referred to him as a Yankee, Yandell protested, assuring that all of his blood “flowed through southern veins.” The staunch Democrat served as one of Ken- tucky’s hosts during the visits of three Repub- lican presidents—Ulysses S. Grant, Ruther- ford B. Hayes, and Chester A. Arthur. At an official dinner in Louisville, Yandell enter- tained Grant with tales of his own Civil War escapades. While accompanying Arthur from Washington to Louisville, a newsman mistook the doctor for the president. Amused by the error, Yandell declared he was the “next best thing” to being president. He was the “Great Presidential Fetcher.” An articulate lecturer, talented surgeon, dedicated educator, and highly respected citi- zen, David Yandell was the most progressive and influential member of the university’s medical faculty in the postwar era. In 1887 as part of the organization’s celebration of its hundredth birthday, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Philadelphia elected 10 American doctors to honorary membership. David Yandell was the only Kentuckian so honored. In spring 1895 the University of Louisville gratefully acknowledged his services when it placed “upon the brow of this our greatest son” the highest degree within its power, the degree of Doctor of Laws.° Nancy Disher Baird Kentucky Library Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101 ENDNOTES a. Further information about David Yandell is available in: Nancy Disher Baird, David Wendel Yandell, phy- sician of old Louisville (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1978). The major sources of information for the book-length biography and this article were the Yandell Family Papers (The Filson Club, Louis- ville); the Minutes of the Board of Trustees of the University of Louisville (University Archives); the Minutes of the Medical Faculty (Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, Louisville); General and Staff Offi- cers File, Old Army Section (National Archives, Washington); Andrew J. Foard Collection (Virginia State Library, Richmond); and Louisville’s newspapers and Yandell’s various published writings and speeches. b. Few Kentucky families have had greater influence on medical education than the Yandells of Louisville. Lunsford Pitts Yandell (1798-1878) taught chemistry and pharmacy at Transylvania’s medical department, was one of the founders and teachers of the Louisville Medical Institute (renaned the Medical Department of the University of Louisville in 1846), edited two medical journals, and preduced more than 100 sci- 34 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Figure 4. Plaster bust of David Yandell by his niece Enid Yandell. Presented to the University of Louisville ca. 1925. entific treatises relating to medicine and paleontology. His sons followed in his professional footsteps. Wil- liam (1844-1901) became a well-known health officer in El Paso and led a campaign to improve sanitation and curb the spread of disease along the Texas-Mex- ican border. Lunsford Jr. (1837-1885) taught medi- cine for nearly two decades at the University of Lou- isville. For additional information about Yandell’s fam- ily members, see (1) Nancy Disher Baird, “A Ken- tucky Physician Tennessee Examines Memphis, David Wendel Yandell—Baird 85 History Quarterly (autumn 1979), which concerns the early career of David's brother, Lunsford, Jr.; (2) “There Is No Sunday in the Army: The Civil War Let- ters of Lunsford Pitts Yandell, Jr,” The Filson Club History Quarterly (October 1980); (3) “Enid Yandell: Kentucky Sculptor,” The Filson Club History Quar- terly (January 1988). The best-known works by Enid (Lunsford Jrs. daughter) are the statue of Daniel Boone at the entrance to Louisville’s Cherokee Park, Hogan’s Fountain inside the park, and the statue of John Thomas in Nashville’s Centennial Park. The Fil- son Club, Kentucky Historical Society, Georgetown College, Speed Museum, and Vanderbilt University (as well as scores of museums, parks, and private col- lections from Maine to Missouri) also own pieces of her works; and (4) Janet Brockmoller, “Doctor Wil- liam Martin Yandell,” Password, 21 (1976). Password is the quarterly publication of the El Paso County (Texas) Historical Society. In spring 1846 the state legislature created the Uni- versity of Louisville. The “Academical Department” did not materialize until 1907 but the law department opened in autumn 1846 and the Louisville Medical Institute was incorporated as the university's medical department. The transaction for the latter was merely a legal form, for the faculty members continued to elect their own officers, choose new professors (whom the university's trustees automatically approved), col- lect student fees, and assess themselves when funds were needed for repairs and improvements on their building. In reality the medical school remained au- tonomous; only its name changed. d. In closing his presidential address, Yandell comment- ed on admitting women to medical school. He could find no satisfactory reason, he said, why women might not succeed “in some line of our profession” for they were “able nurses,” but he predicted that a female invasion of the traditional male domain would prob- ably “end in no great results.” Certainly he hoped that women would never embarrass the AMA by request- ing membership. “I could not vote for that,” he prom- ised! Thirteen years later he addressed the graduation class of the short-lived Louisville School of Pharmacy for Women and gave a reason why he believed women might not be competent physicians or pharmacists: “Silence secures accuracy,” and women were never quiet, he believed. Wishing the members of his au- dience good luck, he warned them against mixing a career and marriage, for “if you require your husbands to broil their own chops, you may expect them to wish at least to bray you in one of your own mortars.” Yandell’s last few years were marred by arterioscle- rosis, which affected his memory and personality. In 1896 a stroke destroyed his remaining facilities. For nearly 2 years his family nursed the empty shell of a man who once charmed presidents and awed green- horn medical students. Surrounded by those he loved best, David Yandell died 2 May 1898. Two days later a cortege of friends, colleagues, Confederate veterans, and a regiment of state militia conducted his remains to Louisville's Cave Hill Cemetery, where he was bur- ied on a tree-dotted hillside overlooking a picturesque lake. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):86-87. 2000. A Field Checklist of Kentucky Butterflies (Lepidoptera) Charles V. Covell Jr. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292-0001 On this and following page is the updated listing of all butterflies known from Kentucky. This supersedes the listing in Covell (1974), and consists of 144 butterfly species, 11 of which are either strays that rarely occur in the Commonwealth, or are known from old re- cords and are not likely to be found in Ken- tucky now. In my opinion, the known resident and regularly transient butterfly fauna of Ken- tucky now stands at 133 species. Scientific names follow Opler (1992), and English (common) names follow Glassberg (ed., 1992). Detailed records and remarks are available in Covell (1999). I intend for this list to be photocopied by anyone wishing a pocket-sized list of Kentucky butterflies to use in the field. Anyone finding additions or suspected additions to this list is urged to contact me at the above address or at my e-mail address: covell@louisville.edu. I am sure there are a few other butterfly species native to or occasionally established temporar- ily in Kentucky. LITERATURE CITED Covell, C. V., Jr. 1974. A preliminary checklist of the but- terflies of Kentucky. J. Lepid. Soc. 28:253-256. Covell, C. V., Jr. 1999. The butterflies and moths (Lepi- doptera) of Kentucky: an annotated checklist. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Comm. Sci. Techn. Ser. 6. Glassberg, J. (ed). 1995. North American Butterfly Asso- ciation (NABA) checklist and English names of North American butterflies. North American Butterfly Asso- ciation, Morristown, NJ. Opler, P. A. 1998. A field guide to eastern butterflies. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. FIELD CHECKLIST OF KENTUCKY BUTTERFLIES by Charles V. Covell Jr., Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Lou- isville, Louisville, KY 40292-0001 Phone: (502) 852-5942. Locality Dates Recorded by Epargyreus clarus (Silver-spotted Skipper) A 86 Pee OPP AECEEEECPEE TPE EEA EEE Bei Urbanus proteus (Long-tailed Skipper) S Autochton cellus (Gold-banded Skipper) U Achalarus lyciades (Hoary Edge) U Thorybes bathyllus (Southern Cloudywing) C Thorybes pylades (Northern Cloudywing) C Thorybes confusis (Confused Cloudywing) U Staphylus hayhurstii (Hayhurst’s Scallopwing) U Erynnis icelus (Dreamy Duskywing) C Erynnis brizo (Sleepy Duskywing) A Erynnis juvenalis (Juvenal’s Duskywing) A Erynnis horatius (Horace’s Duskywing) C Erynnis martialis (Mottled Duskywing) U Erynnis zarucco (Zarucco Duskywing) R Erynnis funeralis (Funereal Duskywing) R Erynnis lucilius (Columbine Duskywing) R Erynnis baptisiae (Wild Indigo Duskywing) A Pyrgus centaurae (Grizzled Skipper) R Pyrgus communis (Common Checkered Skipper) C Pholisora catullus (Common Sootywing) C Nastrai lherminier (Swarthy Skipper) U Lerema accius (Clouded Skipper) U Ancyloxipha numitor (Least Skipper) A Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper) F Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper) F Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper) F Hesperia metea (Cobweb Skipper) U [Hesperia sassacus (Indian Skipper)| E Polites peckius (Peck’s Skipper) A Polites themistocles (Tawny-edged Skipper) A Polites origenes (Crossline Skipper) F Wallengrenia otho (Southern Broken-dash) S Wallengrenia egeremet (NorthernBroken-dash) A Pompeius verna (Little Glassywing) U Atalopedes campestris (Sachem) A Anatrytone logan (Delaware Skipper) U Poanes hobomok (Hobomok Skipper) F Poanes zabulon (Zabulon Skipper) C Poanes yehl (Yehl Skipper) C Poanes viator (Broad-winged Skipper) R Euphyes dion (Dion Skipper) F Euphyes dukesi (Duke’s Skipper) R Euphyes vestris (Dun Skipper) C Atrytonopsis hianna (Dusted Skipper) U Amblyscirtes hegon (Pepper and Salt Skipper) U Amblyscirtes aesculapius (Lace-winged Roadside Skipper) U Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper) U Amblyscirtes belli (Bells Roadside Skipper) U Lerodea eufala (Eufala Skipper) R Panoquina ocola (Ocola Skipper) U Battus philenor (Pipevine Swallowtail) A PATELLA EEE EEE ETT Checklist of Kentucky Butterflies—Covell [Battus polydamas (Polydamas Swallowtail)] S Eurytides marcellus (Zebra Swallowtail) C Papilio polyxenes asterius (Black Swallowtail) C Papilio joanae (Joan's Swallowtail) R Papilio cresphontes (Giant Swallowtail) F Papilio glaucus (Tiger Swallowtail) C Papilio troilus (Spicebush Swallowtail) C Papilio palamedes (Palamedes Swallowtail) R Pontia protodice (Checkered White) U Pieris virginiensis (West Virginia White) C Pieris rapae (Cabbage White) C Euchloe olympia (Olympia Marble) U Anthocharis midea (Falcate Orange Tip) C Colias philodice (Clouded Sulphur) A Colias ewrytheme (Orange Sulphur) A Colias cesonia (Southem Dogface) U Phoebis sennae (Cloudless Sulphur) C [Phoebis philea (Orange-barred Sulphur)] S [Phoebis agarithe (Large Orange Sulphur)] S [Kricogonia lyside (Lyside Sulphur)| S Eurema lisa (Little Yellow) F Eurema nicippe (Sleepy Orange) F Nathalis iole (Dainty Sulphur) U Feniseca tarquinius (Harvester) U Lycaena phlaeas americana (American Copper) Lycaena hyllus (Bronze Copper) F Atlides halesus (Great Purple Hairstreak) R Satyrium titus mopsus (Coral Hairstreak) C [Satyrium acadicum (Acadian Hairstreak)] S Satyrium edwardsii (Edwards Hairstreak) C Satyrium calanus falacer (Banded Hairstreak) C Satyrium caryaevorum (Hickory Hairstreak) U Satyrium liparops (Striped Hairstreak) U Satyrium favonius ontario (Northem Hairstreak) U Callophrys grynea (Juniper Hairstreak) C Callophrys augustinus (Brown Elfin) U Callophrys irus (Frosted Elfin) R Callophrys henrici (Henry's Elfin) C Callophrys niphon (Eastern Pine Elfin) U Parrhasius m-album (White-M Hairstreak) R Erora laetus (Early Hairstreak) R Calycopis cecrops (Red-banded Hairstreak) U Strymon melinus (Gray Hairstreak) C Leptotes marina (Marine Blue) R Everes comyntas (Eastern Tailed Blue) A Celastrina argiolus ladon (Spring Azure) C Celastrina ebenina (Dusky Azure) C Celastrina neglectamajor (Appalachian Blue) U Glaucopsyche lygdamus (Silvery Blue) U Calephelis borealis (Northern Metalmark) U Calephelis mutica (Swamp Metalmark) R Libythaena carinenta bachmanii (American Snout Butterfly) C Agraulis vanillae (Gulf Fritillary) U 87 Euptoieta claudia (Variegated Fritillary) C Speyeria diana (Diana Fritillary) C Speyeria cybele (Great-spangled Fritillary) A Speyeria aphrodite (Aphrodite Fritillary) U Speyeria idalia (Regal Fritillary) E Boloria bellona (Meadow Fritillary) C [Boloria selene myrina (Silver-bordered Fritil- lary)] S Chlosyne gorgone (Gorgone Checkerspot) R Charidryas nycteis (Silvery Checkerspot) C Phyciodes tharos (Pearl Crescent) A Phyciodes batesii (Tawny Crescent)] R Euphydryas phaeton (Baltimore Checkerspot) U Polygonia interrogationis (Question Mark) C Polygonia comma (Eastern Comma) C Polygonia faunus smythi (Green Comma) R Polygonia progne (Gray Comma) R [Nymphalis vau-album j-album (Compton Tor- toise Shell)] S$ —— Nymphalis antiopa (Mourning Cloak) F ——— Aglais milberti (Milbert’s Tortoise Shell) S —— Vanessa virginiensis (American Lady) U — Vanessa cardui (Painted Lady) C — Vanessa atalanta (Red Admiral) C ——_ Junonia coenia (Common Buckeye) C —— Anartia jatrophae White Peacock) S — Limenitis arthemis arthemis (White Admiral)S —— Limenitis arthemis astyanax (Red Spotted Pur- ple) C —— Limenitis archippus (Viceroy) C (KYS STATE BUTTERELY) Anaea andria (Goatweed Leafwing) U Asterocampa celtis (Hackberry Emperor) C Asterocampa clyton (Tawny Emperor) C Enodia portlandia missarkae (Southern Pearly- Eye) U Enodia anthedon (Norther Pearly-Eye) C Enodia creola (Creole Pearly-Eye) U Satyrodes appalachia (Appalachian Brown) C Cyllopsis gemma (Gemmed Satyr) U Hermeuptychia sosybius (Carolina Satyr) U — Megisto cymela (Little Wood Satyr) C Cercyonis pegala (Common Wood-Nymph) C Danaus plexippus (Monarch) C [Danaus gilippus (Queen)] S Additions: [brackets indicate questionable specimens or sight records for Ky.| A = Abundant; C = Common: F = Frequent; U = Un- common; R = Rare; E = probably endangered or extir- pated; S = stray, not native to Kentucky. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):88-98. 2000. Notes on North American Elymus Species (Poaceae) with Paired Spikelets: I. E. macgregorii sp. nov. and E. glaucus ssp. mackenzii comb. nov. Julian J.N. Campbell The Nature Conservancy (Kentucky Chapter), 642 West Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40508 ABSTRACT Elymus macgregorii R. Brooks & J.J.N. Campbell, sp. nov., is here described. Though widespread in eastern North America, it has been generally confused with E. virginicus and E. glabriflorus. It has a more open spike, with long awns, and there are other slight differences. It flowers about a month earlier and occurs in woodlands on relatively mesic, fertile soils. The new combination E. glaucus Buckley ssp. mackenzii (Bush) J.J.N. Campbell is provided for plants of rocky calcareous glades in the Ozark-Ouachita region, disjunct by 800 km from the main range of E. glaucus in western North America. Compared to other subspecies, ssp. mackenzii usually has narrower, pubescent leaf blades and longer glume awns. INTRODUCTION Elymus L. has been one of the most diffi- cult genera of North American grasses to un- derstand taxonomically. Published treatments range from simplistic (e.g., Gould 1975) to intricate (e.g., Bowden 1964). Elymus virgin- icus L. and closely allied taxa—a group char- acterized by relatively large, thick, basally in- durate, bowed-out glumes that disarticulate from erect spikes—have been especially trou- blesome, although improvements in their treatment were advanced by the master’s the- sis of Brooks (1974). Variation within E. glau- cus Buckley, a large complex species, also re- mains poorly understood (Snyder 1950, 1951; Stebbins 1957). I am currently completing a treatment of North American Elymus species with paired spikelets for the new Manual of North American Grasses (M.E. Barkworth, K.M. Kapels, and L.A. Vorobik, in prepara- tion), which has already necessitated some taxonomic notes (Campbell 1995, 1996). This paper continues by (1) describing the follow- ing new species related to E. virginicus and (2) by providing a new subspecific combina- tion in E. glaucus. 1. ELYMUS MACGREGORII sp. nov. In the late 20th century, it is rare to rec- ognize a new species of vascular plant that is widespread in eastern North America. Nev- ertheless, based on much morphological and phenological study, Brooks (1974) showed that the plants described below are distinct. He initially treated them as Elymus virgini- 88 cus var. minor Vasey ex L.H. Dewey (1892, p. 550), but later (in McGregor et al. 1986, p. 1171) he noted that further study was needed. The type of E. virginicus var. minor has proven difficult to interpret: collected in “northern Texas” [without date] by /S.B./ Buckley s.n. (US 1020445), it consists of just one spike with an upper culm section and a few leaves. Its rachis internode lengths and awn lengths suggest that this specimen may be transitional between the species described below and E. virginicus var. jejunus (Ramal- ey) Bush. Moreover, “minor” cannot be used as a new specific epithet in this genus be- cause it has already been used for a different species, as E. minor (J.G. Smith) M.E. Jones (1912), a name based on Sitanion minus J.G. Smith, which is now an accepted synonym of E. elymoides (Raf.) Swezey [=S. hystrix (Nutt.) J.G. Smith. ]. Elymus macgregorii R. Brooks & J.J.N. Campbell, sp. nov. Figure la. Plantae caespitosae, plerumque glauco- pruinosae. Culmi 40-120 cm longi, erecti vel leviter decumbentes; nodi plerumque nudi. Foliorum vaginae glabrae vel raro villosae; ligulae minus quam 1 mm; auriculae 2-3 mm, purpurascentae vel nigrescentae; laminae 7— 15 mm lata, laxae, supra glabrae vel interdum villosae, nitido-atrovirides sub pruina pallido- glauca. Spicae 4-12 cm longae, 2.5—-4 cm la- tae, erectae, exsertae; nodi 9-18, unusqu- isque 2(3) spiculis; internodiae 4-7 mm lon- gae, tenuiae (sectionibus angustissimis ca. 0.3 New Elymus Taxa—C ampbell 89 mm), sine angulis dorsalis prominentis. Spic- ulae 10-15 mm longae (minus aristae), effu- sae, glaucae vel maturite stramineae-fuscae, cum (2)3-4 flosculis, flosculus infirmus cad- ens cum glumae et basa rachillae affixae. Glu- mae 8-16 mm longae, 1—-1.8 mm latae, bas- alia 1-3 mm induratae (nervis obscuris) et moderate exarcuatae, corpe lineari-lanceola- to, plerumque glabro vel scabro, venis (2)4— 5(8), arista 10-25 mm longa, stricta vel inter- dum contorta in spiculae infimae; lemmae 6-— 12 mm longae, plerumque glabrae vel sca- brae vel interdum villosae ad hirsutae, arista (15)20-30 mm, stricta; paleae 6-10 mm lon- gae, obtusae; antherae 2-4 mm longae, pler- umque manifestae e mensis quintus serotinus ad mensis sextus medius; chromosomatum numerum, 2n = 28. Plants cespitose, usually glaucous-prui- nose. Culms 40-120 cm, erect or slightly de- cumbent; nodes mostly exposed. Leaf sheaths glabrous or rarely villous; ligules under 1 mm; auricles 2-3 mm, purplish to black; blades 7— 15 mm wide, lax, glabrous or occasionally vil- lous above, dark glossy green under the pale glaucous waxy bloom. Spikes 4-12 cm long, 2.5-4 cm wide including awns, erect, exsert- ed: nodes 9-18, each with 2(3) spikelets; in- ternodes 4-7 mm, thin (narrowest section ca. 0.3 mm), without prominent dorsal angles. Spikelets 10-15 mm (minus awns), spreading, glaucous then maturing to pale yellowish brown, with (2)3-4 florets, the ‘lowest floret disarticulating with glumes and rachilla base attached. Glumes subequal, 8-16 mm long, 1-1.8 mm wide, the basal 1-3 mm indurate (with veins hidden) and moderately bowed out, the body linear-lanceolate, usually gla- brous or scabrous, (2)4—5(8)-veined, the awn 10-25 mm, straight or occasionallly contorted in the lowest spikelets; lemmas 6-12 mm, usually glabrous or scabrous, occasionally vil- lous to hirsute, the awn (15)20-30 mm, straight; paleas 6-10 mm, obtuse; anthers 2— 4 mm, usually evident from mid-May to mid- June. Chromosome number, 2n = 28 (Brooks 1974). TYPE: U.S.A., KENTUCKY, Fayette Co., wooded banks of West Hickman Creek near Armstrong Mill Road, 31 May 1998, J. Camp- bell 98-001 (HOLOTYPE: US; ISOTYPES: KY, KANU, KNK, MADI, MO, NCU, WIS). I have annotated many collections at KANU, KNK, KY, ISC, MADI, MO, NCU, OKL, TEX, UARK, US, UTC, VDB, WIS, and elsewhere with the above name or with the earlier suggested names E. virginicus var. minor and “E. interior” ined. A distribution map is provided in Figure 1b, and recorded counties are listed in the Appendix. Elymus macgregorii occurs mostly in the Mississippi River and Ohio River drainages (Texas to South Dakota, Alabama to Ohio), but it also extends eastward to the Piedmont and New England (North Carolina to Maine), and westward to central Texas (Figure 1b). It has not yet been confirmed from Canada, but there is a possible atypical specimen from Nova Scotia (see Appendix), and the illustra- tion of “Elymus hystrix L.” in Dore and McNeill (1980) appears to be E. macgregorii, based on the long awns, distinct glumes, and upward-pointing spikelets. Its typical habitats are in mesic woodlands and thickets on fertile alluvium or, in a few regions (such as the “Bluegrass” of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio), on unusually fertile, base-rich upland resid- uum. In range and habitat, this species is somewhat similar to two widespread oaks (Little 1971), Quercus macrocarpa Michx. (excluding Q. mandanensis Rydb.) and Q. muhlenbergii Engelm. (excluding Q. prino- ides Willd.). Elymus macgregorii has been overlooked largely because its morphological distinctions are often not obvious at first inspection, es- pecially in the herbarium. Yet, in 20 years of experience with this species in Kentucky, near the center of its range, I have found that, in addition to having some slight visible differ- ences, it consistently flowers about a month earlier than its closest relatives, E. glabriflorus (Vasey ex L.H. Dewey) Scribn. & C.R. Ball and E. virginicus, including var. jejunus (Ra- maley) Bush and var. intermedius (Vasey ex A. Gray) Bush. By recording dates of anthesis in the field and herbarium, I have confirmed the results of Brooks’s (1974) garden studies that first demonstrated this phenological differ- ence. I have also observed that the habitat of E. macgregorii is more restricted to woodlands on highly fertile, mesic soils, which, due to their productivity, are prone to much biotic disturbance. For example, this species appears to have been particularly abundant before set- tlement, along with the globally threatened 90 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) A ae S 7 B f ‘ i * q a | New Elymus Taxa—C ampbell 91 aa nuunaaeeeie We a a Figure Hb. Elymus macgregorit: mapped county records (eastern North America). Solid dots show counties recorded with typical plants; open dots show counties recorded with only atypical plants that may be transitional to E. virginicus var. jejunus (see text); crosses show counties with other atypical plants of uncertain identification, which may be hybrids in some cases. This map is based on herbarium specimens examined by the author (see Appendix) (a complete search of all major state herbaria has not yet been made). 40 $ oan BS s Roxy oO RS oO Kese9 rege! eee D RS 2 sees = 10 RS ‘Wy BEE 4 Ypres BOW 9 L_-EEEZZONN_ EEBY7ZSON REZ NY Weanling Adult Aged oO = 2 iL a} (= a 2 ; Y/ = 7 @O >. fo) £ 7 WA Weanling Adult Figure 1. Feed intake (A), weight gain (B), and feed ef- ficiency (C) of weanling, adult, and aged rats fed Zn0 (Zn4 for adult rats), Znl12PF, Zn60, and Zn12 (control) for 4 weeks (8 weeks for adult rats). Means + SD: n = 18 (weanling and adult groups). Means + SD; n = 9 (aged groups). Means in different diet groups not sharing the same superscript are significantly different at (P < 0.05). rats fed low and high zinc diets for 8 weeks are presented in Figure 1A, 1B, 1C. Weight gain and FE of rats fed Zn4 and Zn12PF diets were 40% and two-fold lower than those fed the control diet (P = 0.05), respectively. There was no significant difference in Fl among all the groups (P = 0.05). Aged rats showed a similar BW and FI pattern as adult rats (Fig- ure 1A, 1B, 1C). Feed intake was comparable Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) among aged rats in the different diet groups irrespective of zinc level, but WG was 60% and 43% lower in ZnO and Zn12PF groups than the control or Zn60 group (P = 0.05). Rats (especially the ZnO fed groups) experi- enced a day-to-day increase or decrease in feed consumption, which indicated cycling of feed intake. Due to wide variation in Fl, FE values of aged rats could not be calculated ac- curately and therefore are not reported here. Low-level oral exposure to lead or cadmium had no effect on growth and FI of weanling, adult, or aged rats. Tissue weights of rats are presented in Ta- ble 1. In weanling rats (experiment 1), average liver weights were about 54% lower in the Zn0 and Znl2PF groups than in the control or Zn60 groups (P = 0.05). Similarly, kidney weights were a third lower in the ZnO and Znl2PF groups compared to the control (P = 0.05). Also, mean liver and kidney wet weight/ body weight ratios were comparable among all dietary groups. Such differences in tissue weights were not observed in adult or aged rats. Lead and cadmium exposure had no ef- fect on tissue weights. Water intake data of rats for experiments 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2. There was sig- nificant interaction between dietary zinc levels and the concentration of lead and cadmium in drinking water, especially in the zinc-deficient group. Water intake was significantly lower in weanling and adult rats given lead and cad- mium in drinking water than those given so- dium in water (control), regardless of the level of zinc in the diet (P < 0.05). The data also indicated that, in weanling rats, WI was sig- nificantly influenced not only by the presence of lead and cadmium in drinking water but also by the amount of zinc in the diet. Water intake for experiment 3 could not be accu- rately measured because of excessive spillage, so these data are not presented. DISCUSSION Cellular homeostasis, 2 major regulator of zinc metabolism, ensures that over a wide range of zinc intake, tissue or cellular zinc lev- els are maintained at physiological concentra- tions by either enhancing absorption or de- creasing loss through the gastrointestinal tract (Golden 1989). In our study, we found that ZnO diet significantly decreased feed intake, Zn, Pb and Cd Effect on Rats—Bebe and Panemangalore ul Table 1. Tissue weights of weanling (n = 18), and aged (n = 9) rats fed zinc deficient (ZnO), high zinc (Zn60), or control (Zn12) zine diets for 4 weeks, and adult rats (n = 18) fed low zinc (Zn4), high zine (Zn24), and control zinc (Zn12) for 8 weeks. Data are presented as Mean + SD. Zinc levels in the diet Parameters Experiment Zn 0 Zn12PF' Zn 60 Zn12! Liver, ¢ 1 (W)? 5.4 + 0.8? ‘Hl se 11 ODe=leae OWiesaaleos 2 (A) WAG, BE Mss) 10.4 + 1.1 16 = 15 11-8 = 1.5 3 (AG) M8) 223 16.8 + 2.4 179 = 0:8 Wi/ PA 3E 2D) Kidney, g 1 (W)? 1.2 + 0.1 1.3 + 0.2> 8) ae (O22 19) = 10128 2 (A) Dep, ae (OIL Pil se OY 2.2 + 0.02 D2) = OY, 3 (AG) 3.9 + 0.9 3.1 = 0.5 3.2 = 0.01 3.2 + 0.4 Liver wt/body wt ratio 1 (W)? 0.04 + 0.007 0.03 = 0.005 0.04 + 0.002 0.04 + 0.003 2 (A) 0.03 + 0.004 0.03 + 0.002 0.03 + 0.002 0.03 + 0.003 3 (AG) 0.04 + 0.005 0.03 + 0.005 0.04 = 0.003 0.03 + 0.004 Kidney wt/body wt ratio 1 (W)? 0.01 + 0.001 0.01 = 0.001 0.01 + 0.001 0.01 + 0.001 2 (A) 0.01 + 0.001 0.01 + 0.005 0.01 + 0.004 0.01 + 0.003 3 (AG) 0.01 + 0.003 0.01 + 0.001 0.01 + 0.001 0.01 + 0.001 Dennen eee eee ee ee eee ee eee ee ee ee eee eee eee Data were grouped ignoring Pb, Cd, exposure as no significant differences were observed between these groups. Means in rows with letter superscripts indicate significant differences; absence of letters indicates means are not significantly different at P = 0.05. | Rats in pair-fed (Zn12PF) control group were fed control diet (Zn12) in the amount equal to that eaten by either Zn0 or Zn4 groups. 2W = weanling; A = Adult; AG = Aged rats (see materials and methods for details. body weights, and feed conversion efficiency of weanling rats and that long-term (8 week) Zn4 feeding also reduced body weights with- out a concomitant decline in Fl, which sug- gests alteration of zinc homeostasis or a de- crease in the availability of zinc for growth and maintenance. While exposure to low levels of lead and cadmium did not affect Fl] or BW in any age group, it decreased WI significantly in weanling and adult rats. Guigliano and Millward (1984) reported that in zinc deficient animals, zinc-may be re- distributed from bone and conserved in mus- cles, being released only for the growth and vital functioning of essential tissues in a cata- bolic state. It is not clear if the failure of zinc- deprived rats to grow is a result of zinc on appetite or an effect of impaired cell division on growth (O'Dell and Reeves 1989). Rains and Shay (1994) initially suggested that re- duced FI in Zn deficient rats could be because of impaired function of neuropeptide Y, a known stimulator of appetite and carbohy- drate consumption. More recently, neuropep- tide Y has been shown to increase in zinc de- ficiency, probably to restore normal FI, but this is prevented by receptor binding of this peptide (Lee et al. 1998). Our data suggest that reduction in growth could be due to re- duced FI as well as impaired cell division chief- ly in weanling rat, since pair-fed groups lost less weight than did the Zn0 (weanling) and Table 2. Water intake of weaning rats fed zinc-deficient (ZnO) or high zinc (Zn60) diets for 4 weeks, or adult rats fed low zine (Zn4) or high zinc (Zn24) diets for 8 weeks, and exposed to lead or cadmium in drinking water. Means + SD; n = 18/group. Zinc levels in the diet (ml water intake/wk Experiment Metals in water Zn 0 Zn 12 PF! Zn 60 Zn12!' 1 (W)? Na 130 + 7! 140 = 28s! 161 + 13*° 178 = 16*4 Pb 100 + 22> 131 + 10> 153 + 9b.d 162 + 15>4 Cd 89 + 20°! 118 + 1l6c,e 150 + 13b,d IE, Se jane! 2 (A)? Na 180 + 27" 167 + 35" 160 + 158 166 + 20* Pb 154 + 20> 149 + 20> 160 + 11" 148 + 1l* Cd 150 + 25» 144 + 20> 130 + 15> 144 = 13> ANOVA indicates interaction between zinc levels, and lead and cadmium in water. a, b, c, denote significant differences in each row; d, e, f, denote significant differences in each column (P = 0.05), within each experiment. ' Rats in pair-fed (Zn12PF) control group were fed control diet (Zn12) in the amount equal to the intake by either ZnO or Zn4 groups. (See materials and methods for details). 2W = weanling; A = Adult. Data for Experiment 3 are not available. 112 Zn4 (adult) rats, respectively. Thus, the higher weight loss in the ZnO group may be attribut- ed partly to zinc deprivation and lowered FI; that in the pair-fed group, to lowered FI. Numerous reports (Abdel-Mageed and Oehme 1991; Faraji and Swendseid 1983; Guigliano and Millward 1984) attest to the sig- nificant decline of Fl and growth in Zn0 wean- ling rats and support our observations. In our study, aged rats on ZnO diet for 4 weeks also lost weight but, unlike weanling and adult rats, without a significant decrease in Fl. One rea- son for this may be the variation and cycling of Fl we found in all groups of aged rats ir- respective of zinc level in the diet; whereas, cycling of FI was found only in zinc-deficient weanling and adult rats. However, recent stud- ies analyzing food-intake patterns of zinc de- ficient rats have shown that the characteristic cyclical variation in FI and body weight chang- es were found not only by group but also in each individual rat fed zinc-deficient diets (Ta- maki et al. 1995) and that body weight change is generally well synchronized with that of FI (Aiba et al. 1997). The reduction in feed con- version efficiency we found in weanling rats was reported previously by William and Mills (1970). Conflicting reports in the literature suggest that zinc levels as high as 1000 wg/g diet fed for 8 weeks do not alter F! or growth, while zinc levels up to 2500 wg/g diet for 3 weeks decrease growth (Abdel-Mageed and Oehme 1991; Song et al. 1986; Story and Gre- ger 1987). Toxicity of such high zinc levels may have influenced their results. Our results support those of Abdel-Mageed and Oehme (1991), since moderately high zinc (60 wg/g) diets did not produce any change in growth or FI. In our study, low levels of lead and cadmi- um in drinking water did not alter feed intake or body weight when dietary zinc levels were deficient or low or when the diets contained high zinc levels, indicating a lack of interaction between zinc and toxic metals. Previous re- ports have shown that high levels of lead and cadmium administered through drinking wa- ter or parenterally reduce zinc absorption and thereby body weight (Kunifuji et al. 1987; Ta- naka et al. 1995) or increase the toxic effect of cadmium (Sato and Nagai 1989). High zinc intake is known to protect against toxic effects of lead (Cerklewski and Forbes 1975). In rats Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) fed normal zinc diets, Kirchgessner et al. (1987) found that age did not modify the ef- fects of increasing levels of lead or cadmium in the diet. This report supports our observa- tions that at low levels of lead or cadmium exposure there is no interaction between die- tary zinc levels or age of the animal on body weight and feed intake. Although organ weight is known to decline with BW, higher organ to BW ratios in wean- ling rats fed zinc-deficient diets have been re- ported (Abdel-Mageed and Oehme 1991; Meydani et al. 1983), but our data do not com- pletely agree with these observations since we found that, in weanling rats, liver and kidney weights were significantly lower in Zn0 or pair- fed groups as compared to the controls. This parallel and proportional decrease or increase in organ and body weights is indicated by the similar kidney and body weight ratios of all groups in the three experiments irrespective of age; it refutes the effect of zine deficiency on decline of only skeletal mass suggested by Abdel-Mageed and Oehme (1991) who did not include a pair-fed group for comparison. Our observation that lead and cadmium had no significant effect on organ weights in all age groups is similar to reports by Rader et al. (1981), Vyskocil et al. (1991), and Cory-Slech- ta et al. (1989) in weanling, adult, and aged rats, respectively. Age-related changes begin to accelerate in rodents after 16 months of age (Cory-Slechta et al. 1989). The aged rats in our study were 18 months old and yet showed no adverse effects of short-term exposure to low lead and cadmium levels. Addition of low levels of toxic metals in drinking water is assumed not to alter WI, but our data demonstrate that WI decreased sig- nificantly in both weanling and adult rats when low levels of lead and cadmium salts were add- ed to drinking water. These data are largely supported by the reports of Vyskocil et al. (1990) in weanling rats, Kotsonis and Klaassen (1978) in adult rats, and Cory-Slechta (1990) in aged rats using much higher (10-100 times) concentrations of lead or cadmium than we used. We were unable to measure WI accu- rately in aged rats; thus the decrease in WI in this group cannot be confirmed. It is apparent that reduced FI produced by Zn0 diet also sig- nificantly decreased WI in weanling rats, while increasing Zn in the diet did not alter WI. We Zn, Pb and Cd Effect on Rats—Bebe and Panemangalore found no such changes in adult or aged rats, indicating a direct relationship between FI and WI in weanling rats. From our data, it is apparent that zinc-de- ficient or low-zinc diets fed for a prolonged period can significantly decrease weight gain and feed conversion efficiency in weanling and adult rats, respectively. These effects may be attributed to impaired cell division and metab- olism caused by altered Zn homeostasis due to Zn deficiency, as well as reduced FI resulting from loss of appetite. Low-level oral lead and cadmium exposure was not toxic to all age groups of rats. Significant reduction in water intake after addition of lead or cadmium sug- gests that this may not be an appropriate method of oral exposure when quantitative toxic metal exposure is critical, as actual intake may vary significantly within and between groups. Addition of toxic metals to the diet may perhaps be a preferable method. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Joyce Owens (Animal Facilities manager), and students K. Mahal, A. Mutiso, and C. Moore for assisting with animal exper- iments. This research was funded by USDA Grant 90-38814-5540. LITERATURE CITED Abdel-Mageed, A.B., and F.W. Oehme. 1991. The effect of various dietary zinc concentrations on the biological interactions of zinc, copper and iron in rats. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 29:239-256. Aiba, K., M. Kimura, S. Sakata, K. Matsuda, M. Kaneko, S. Onosaka, Y. Yamaoka, and N. Tamaki. 1997. Cosinor analysis of feed intake cycle of rats fed a zinc deficient diet and the effect of zinc supplementation. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 43:327—343. Bebe, F.N., and M. Panemangalore. 1996. Modulation of tissue trace metal concentrations in weanling rats fed different levels of zinc and exposed to oral lead and cadmium. Nutr. Res. 16:1369-1380. Cerklewski, F.L., and R.M. Forbes. 1975. Influence of di- etary zinc on lead absorption in the rat. J. Nutr. 106: 689-696. Coppen-Jaeger, D.E., and M. Wilhelm. 1989. The effects of cadmium on zinc absorption in isolated rat intestinal preparations. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 21:207—212. Cory-Slechta, D.A. 1990. Alterations in tissue lead distri- bution and hematopoietic indices during advanced age. Arch. Toxicol. 64:31—37. Cory-Slechta, D.A., B. Weiss, and C. Cox. 1989. Tissue distribution of lead in adult vs old rats: a pilot study. Toxicology 59:139-150. 113 Faraji, B., and M.E. Swendseid. 1983. Growth rate, tissue zinc levels and activities of selected enzymes in rats fed a zinc deficient diet by gastric tube. J. Nutr. 113:447— 455. Friberg, L., C.G. Elinder, T. Kjellstrom, and G. Nordberg. 1985. Cadmium and health. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Golden, M.H.N. 1989. Diagnosis of zinc deficiency. Pages 393-332 in C.F. Mills (ed). Zinc in human biology. Springer-Verlag, London, U.K. Guigliano, R., and D.J. Millward. 1984. Growth and zinc homeostasis in the severely zinc-deficient rat. British J. Nutr. 52:545-560. Kirchgessner, M., A.M. Reichlmayr-Lais, and K. Stockl. 1987. Retention of lead in growing and adult rats on varying lead supply. Pages 689-690 in L.S. Hurley, C.L. Keen, B. Lonnerdal, and R.B. Rucker (eds). Trace el- ements in animals and man. Plenum, New York, NY. Kotsonis, F.N., and C.D. Klaassen. 1978. The relationship of metallothionein to the toxicity of cadmium after pro- longed oral administration to rats. Toxicol. Appl. Phar- macol. 46:39-54. Kunifuji, Y., T. Nakamura, and M. Takasugi. 1987. Influ- ence of cadmium in the distribution of essential trace elements in the liver and kidneys of rats. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 14:237-248. Lee, R.G., T.M. Rains, C. Towar-Palacio, J.L Beverly, and N.F. Shay. 1998. Zinc deficiency increases hypothalamic neuropeptide Y and neuropeptide Y mRNA levels and does not block neuropeptide Y-induced feeding in rats. J. Nutr. 128:1218—-1223. Mahaffey, K.R., S.G. Caper, B.C. Gladen, and B.A. Fowl- er. 1982. Concurrent exposure to lead, cadmium and arsenic. Effect on toxicity and tissue metal concentra- tions in the rat. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 66:463-481. Meydani, S.N., M. Meydani, and J. Dupont. 1983. Effect of prostaglandin modifiers and zine deficiency on pos- sibly related functions in rats. J. Nutr. 113:494—500. O'Dell, B.L., and B.G. Reeves. 1989. Zinc status and food intake. Pages 173-179 in C.F. Mills (ed). Zinc in human biology. Springer-Verlag, London, U.K. Panemangalore, M. 1993. Interaction among zinc, copper and cadmium in rats: effect of low zinc and copper diets and oral cadmium exposure. J. Trace Elem. Exp. Med. 6:125-139. Rader, J.I., J.T. Peeler, and K.R. Mahaffey. 1981. Com- parative toxicity and tissue distribution of lead acetate in weanling and adult rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 42:187-195. Rains, T.M., and N.F. Shay. 1994. Macronutrient prefer- ence in the rat during zinc deficiency-induced anorexia. FASEB J. 8:A730. Reeves, P.G., F.H. Nielsen, and G.C. Fahey, Jr. 1993. AIN 93 purified diets for laboratory rodents: final report of the American Institute of Nutrition ad hoc writing com- mittee on reformulation of AIN 76 rodent diet. J. Nutr. 123:1939-1951. Sabbioni, E., E. Marafante, L. Amantini, L. Ubertalli, and 114 R. Pietra. 1978. Cadmium toxicity under long term low level exposure (LLE) conditions. Metabolic patterns in rats exposed to present environmental dietary levels of cadmium for two years. Sci. Total Environ. 10:135-161. Sandstead, H.H., L.K. Henrickson, J.L. Greger, A.S. Pra- sad, and R.A. Good. 1982. Zinc nutriture in elderly in relation to taste acuity, immune response and wound healing. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 36:1046-1059. Sato, M., and Y. Nagai. 1989. Effect of zinc deficiency on the accumulation of metallothionein and cadmium in the rat liver and kidney. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxi- col. 18:587-593. Song, M.K., N.F. Adham, and M.E. Ament. 1986. Levels and distribution of zinc, copper, magnesium and cad- mium in rats fed different levels of dietary zinc. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 11:75-88. Story, M.L., and J.L. Greger. 1987. Iron, zine and copper interactions: chronic versus acute responses of rats. J. Nutr. 117;1434—-1442. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Tamaki, N., S. Fujimoto-Sakata, M. Kikugawa, M. Kane- ko, S. Onosaka, and T. Takagi. 1995. Analysis of cyclic feed intake in rats fed on a zinc deficient diet and the level of dihydropyrimidinase. Brit. J. Nutr. 73:71 1-722. Tanaka, M., M. Yanagi, K. Shirota, Y. Une, Y. Nomura, T. Masaoka, and F Akahori. 1995. Effect of cadmium in the zinc deficient rat. Vet. Human Toxicol. 37:203-208. Underwood, E.J. 1979. Environmental sources of heavy metals and toxicity to man. Prog. Water Technol. 11: 33-45. Vyskocil, A., Z. Fiala, V. Lacinova, and E. Ettlerova. 1991. A chronic study of lead acetate in female rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 11:385-386. Vyskocil, A., Z. Fiala, E. Ettlerova, and I. TeRejnorova. 1990. Influence of chronic lead exposure on hormone levels in developing rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 10:301—302. Williams, R.B., and C.F. Mills. 1970. The experimental production of zinc deficiency in the rat. Brit. J. Nutr. 24:989-1003. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):115-132. 2000. Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ABSTRACT The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission has updated and revised the lists of rare and extinct or extirpated biota last published in 1996 and updated in 1997 and 1999. The newly revised lists include a lichen, and 389 plant and 282 animal taxa considered rare in Kentucky, and 4 plant and 42 animal taxa considered extirpated from Kentucky or extinct. INTRODUCTION The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Com- mission (KSNPC) is mandated to identify and protect natural areas to conserve Kentucky's natural heritage. To accomplish this mandate KSNPC works in cooperation with many sci- entific authorities in the public, private, and academic sectors. To help focus its conserva- tion activities, KSNPC has developed a list of taxa native to the state that are considered rare. A list of species presumed extinct or ex- tirpated from Kentucky is also maintained to document the loss of biodiversity, much of which is attributable to human activities. The overall goal of publishing these lists is to assist in the recovery and preservation of Kentucky's rich natural diversity. KSNPC uses The Nature Conservancy's standardized Natural Heritage Program (NHP) methodology (TNC 1988) to manage distributional and ecological information on rare taxa, high quality natural communities, and other unique natural features in map, manual, and computer files. This information is used to locate aggregations of these entities for monitoring and protection. The NHP methodology is well suited for the revision process outlined below. METHODS Each taxon listed by KSNPC (1996, 1997, 1999), as well as other unlisted organisms, were evaluated to assign a conservation status. The evaluation criteria used included the number, age, and accuracy of occurrences; his- torical and present geographic distribution; habitat requirements; threats to the taxon in- cluding habitat loss; and ecological fragility. The information used to make the evaluation was that available as of 1 Jan 2000. The re- sultant list and proposed status designations were submitted to knowledgeable individuals for peer review and suggestions for taxa to add and delete. All comments received were con- sidered and in many cases discussed with the reviewer before the list was finalized. Sources consulted for the plant and lichen names are: Anderson (1990); Crum et. al. (1990); Egan (1987); and Kartesz (1994). The sources consulted for the common and scien- tific names of animals are as follows: gastro- pods—Hubricht (1985) and Turgeon et al. (1998): freshwater mussels—Gordon (1995) and Turgeon et al. (1998); crustaceans—Barr (1968), Holsinger (1972), Taylor and Sabaj (1998), USFWS (1994), and Williams et al. (1989): insects—Amett (1983); Barr (1996), Cassie et al. (1995), Krekeler (1973), Mc- Cafferty (1996), Miller (1992), Morse (1993), Paulson and Dunkle (1999), Schuster (1997), and Schweitzer (1989); fishes—Ceas and Page (1997), Page and Burr (1991), Robins et al. (1991), USFWS (2000), and Warren (1992): amphibians and reptiles—Collins (1990), Frost (1985), and King and Burke (1989); breeding birds—AOU (1998); mammals— Hall (1981), Jones et al. (1992), and Wilson and Reeder (1993). Status Designations The intent of assigning status designations is to (1) indicate the degree of rarity of the taxon, (2) indicate the degree of threat to the continued survival of the taxon, and (3) aid in establishing conservation priorities. The five KSNPC status designations defined below have no legal or statutory implication. Endangered (E). A taxon in danger of extira- tion and/or extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range in Kentucky. 115 116 Threatened (T). A taxon likely to become en- dangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range in Kentucky. Special Concern (S). A taxon that should be monitored because (1) it exists in a limited geographic area in Kentucky, (2) it may be- come threatened or endangered due to modification or destruction of habitat, (3) certain characteristics or requirements make it especially vulnerable to specific pressures, (4) experienced researchers have identified other factors that may jeopardize it, or (5) it is thought to be rare or declining in Kentucky but insufficient information ex- ists for assignment to the threatened or en- dangered status categories. Historical (H). A taxon that has not been re- liably reported in Kentucky since 1980 but is not considered extinct or extirpated—see next designation. Extinct/Extirpated. A taxon for which habitat loss has been pervasive and/or concerted ef- forts by knowledgeable biologists to collect or observe specimens within appropriate habitat have failed. Federal statuses (NMFS 1999: USFWS 1999, 2000) are defined below. Non-breeding birds with a federal status occurring as mi- grants or visitors in Kentucky (e.g., Charad- rius melodus, Mycteria americana) are not in- cluded on the list. Endangered (E). “... any species ... in dan- ger of extinction throughout all or a signif- icant portion of its range ...” (USFWS 1992). Threatened (T). “... any species .. . likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a sig- nificant portion of its range” (USFWS 1992). Proposed Endangered (PE). A taxon proposed for listing as endangered. Candidate (C). Taxa for which the USFWS has “... sufficient information on biological vul- nerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened” (USFWS 1999). DISCUSSION The list of rare biota includes a lichen and 389 plant and 282 animal taxa considered rare Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) in Kentucky (Tables 1, 2). Based on generally accepted estimates of the number of native taxa in Kentucky and excluding extinct/extir- pated members of each group, the following approximate percent of the groups indicated can be considered Endangered, Threatened, of Special Concern, or Historical: vascular plants—16.5%, gastropods—9.7%, freshwater mussels—42.9%, fishes—26.6%, amphibians and reptiles—28.4%, breeding birds—30.6%, and mammals—21.5%. Although KSNPC con- tinues to refine and expand this list to include new groups, the list does not adequately treat or include several groups of organisms found in Kentucky. The fungi, liverworts, insects, amphipods, isopods, and other groups are im- portant elements of our natural heritage but are poorly known in Kentucky. Researchers are encouraged to continue to gather and pub- lish information about these groups to assist in the evaluation and inclusion of rare taxa on future lists. Four plants and 42 animals are presumed extinct or extirpated from Kentucky (Tables 2, 3). Most extinct or extirpated animals are freshwater mussels or fishes that have experi- enced range-wide declines caused by habitat destruction, stream modification, and pollu- tion (Richter et al. 1997). Extirpation and ex- tinction are difficult to prove definitively, so biologists should continue to seek these plants and animals during field activities. We invite recommendations from knowl- edgeable individuals regarding native taxa they believe deserve a status change or should be added to or deleted from the list. Each rec- ommendation should include the scientific name of the organism, its habitat require- ments, collection information (i.e., localities, number of specimens, dates, disposition of specimens), historical and present distribu- tion, whether the taxon has been specifically sought during field work, threats to its surviv- al, and recommended status. Recommenda- tions should be forwarded to the Director, KSNPC, who will pass the information on to appropriate staff members for timely review and response. -KSNPC intends to publish updated lists in the Journal every 4 years. The present lists will be updated annually by submitting a note to the Journal listing status and name changes. Interested persons can contact KSNPC for the Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC Ee Table 1. Endangered, threatened, special concern, and historical biota of Kentucky, 2000. KSNPC KSNPC US OE ——————————————— Lichens Ageratina luciae-brauniae S — Phaeophyscia leana E Lucy Braun's white snakeroot iaieiormallernal lic ere Agrimonia gryposepala il — Tall hairy groovebur Plants Amianthium muscitoxicum AP — Mosses Fly-poison Abietinella abietina T Amsonia tabernaemontana var. T = Wire fern moss gattingeri Anomodon rugelii T Eastern blue-star A moss Anemone canadensis H — Brachythecium populeum E Canada anemone Matted feather moss Angelica triquinata E = Bryum cyclophyllum E Filmy angelica A moss Apios priceana E a Bryum miniatum E Price's potato-bean A moss Arabis hirsuta var. adpressipilis E — Cirriphyllum piliferum T Hairy rock-cress A moss Arabis missouriensis E —= Dicranodontium asperulum E Missouri rock-cress A moss Arabis perstellata T E Entodon brevisetus E Braun’s rock-cress A moss Aristida ramosissima H = Herzogiella turfacea E Branched three-awn grass A moss Armoracia lacustris a = Neckera pennata T Lake cress A moss Aster acuminatus T — Oncophorus raui E Whorled aster A moss Aster concolor T — Orthotrichum diaphanum E Eastern silvery aster A moss Aster drummondii var. texanus T — Polytrichum pallidisetum T Texas aster A haircap moss Aster hemisphericus E _ Polytrichum piliferum 1D Tennessee aster A haircap moss Aster pilosus var. priceae T — Polytrichum strictum E White heath aster A haircap moss Aster pratensis S — Sphagnum quinquefarium 13 Barrens silky aster A peatmoss Aster radula E _ Tortula norvegica E Low rough aster A tortula Aster saxicastellii T = Vascular Plants Rockcastle aSEr Aureolaria patula S — Acer spicatum E Spreading false foxglove Mountain maple Baptisia australis var. minor S — Aconitum uncinatum T aha walldl indigo Blue monkshood ’ Baptisia bracteata var. leucophaea S = Adiantum capillus-veneris T Cream wild indigo Southern maidenhair fern Baptisia tinctoria T es Adlumia fungosa E Yellow wild indigo Climbing fumitory Bartonia virginica T — Aesculus pavia T Yellow screwstem Red buckeye Berberis canadensis E = Agalinis auriculata E Avmersigern berinteiiey Earleaf False F oxglove Berchemia scandens Tt — Agalinis obtusifolia E Supplejack Ten-lobe false foxglove Botrychium matricariifolium E — Agalinis skinneriana E Nintcieanat grapefern Pale false foxglove Nor Botrychium oneidense E — Agastache scrophulariifolia S Purple giant hyssop Blunt-lobe grapefern 118 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama Boykinia aconitifolia Brook saxifrage Cabomba caroliniana Carolina fanwort Calamagrostis canadensis var. macouniana Blue-joint reed grass Calamagrostis portert ssp. insperata Reed bent grass Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri Porter's reed grass Callirhoe alcaeoides Clustered poppy-mallow Calopogon tuberosus Grass-pink Calycanthus floridus var. glaucus Sweetshrub Calylophus serrulatus Yellow evening primrose Carex aestivalis Summer sedge Carex alata Broadwing sedge Carex appalachica Appalachian sedge Carex atlantica ssp. capillacea Prickly bog sedge Carex austrocaroliniana Tarheel sedge Carex buxbaumii Brown bog sedge Carex comosa Bristly sedge Carex crawei Crawe’s sedge Carex crebriflora Coastal Plain sedge Carex decomposita Epiphytic sedge Carex gigantea Large sedge Carex hystericina Porcupine sedge Carex joorii Cypress-swamp sedge Carex juniperorum Cedar sedge Carex lanuginosa Woolly sedge Carex leptonervia Finely-nerved sedge Carex reniformis Reniform sedge Carex roanensis Roan sedge Carex rugosperma Umbel-like sedge KSNPC S ili lef SS] SS] [es nN | a Continued. Carex seorsa Weak stellate sedge Carex stipata var. maxima Stalkgrain sedge Carex straminea Straw sedge Carex tetanica Rigid sedge Carya aquatica Water hickory Castanea dentata American chestnut Castanea pumila Allegheny chinkapin Castilleja coccinea Scarlet indian paintbrush Ceanothus herbaceus Prairie redroot Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama lip fern Cheilanthes feei Fée’s lip fern Chelone obliqua var. obliqua Red turtlehead Chelone obliqua var. speciosa Rose turtlehead Chrysogonum virginianum Greeen-and-gold Chrysosplenium americanum American golden-saxifrage Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane Circaea alpina Small enchanter’s-nightshade Clematis crispa Blue jasmine leather-flower Coeloglossum viride var. virescens Long-bract green orchis Collinsonia verticillata Whorled horse-balm Comptonia peregrina Sweet-fern Conradina verticillata Cumberland rosemary Convallaria montana American lily-of-the-valley Corallorhiza maculata Spotted coralroot Coreopsis pubescens Star tickseed Corydalis sempervirens Pale corydalis Cymophyllus fraserianus Fraser's sedge Cyperus plukenetii Plukenet’s cyperus Cypripedium candidum Small white lady’s-slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense Kentucky lady’s slipper KSNPC en] fan} [esl N Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC 119 Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC US KSNPC US Cypripedium parviflorum T Gentiana flavida E Small yellow lady’s-slipper Yellow gentian Cypripedium reginae H Gentiana puberulenta E Showy lady’s-slipper Prairie gentian Dalea purpurea S Glandularia canadensis T Purple prairie-clover Rose verbena Delphinium carolinianum T Gleditsia aquatica S Carolina larkspur Water locust Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. glauca E Glyceria acutiflora dl Tufted hair grass Sharp-scaled manna grass Deschampsia flexuosa T Gnaphalium helleri var. micradenium He Crinkled hair grass Small rabbit-tobacco Dichanthelium boreale S Gratiola pilosa T Northern witch grass Shaggy hedge-hyssop Didiplis diandra S Gratiola viscidula S Water-purslane Short’s hedge-hyssop Disporum maculatum S Gymnopogon ambiguus S Nodding mandarin Bearded skeleton grass Dodecatheon frenchii S Gymnopogon brevifolius E French's shooting-star Shortleaf skeleton grass Draba cuneifolia E Halesia tetraptera T Wedge-leaf whitlow-grass Common silverbell Drosera brevifolia E Hedeoma hispidum a Dwarf sundew Rough pennyroyal Drosera intermedia H Helianthemum bicknellii le Spoon-leaved sundew Plains frostweed Dryopteris carthusiana S Helianthemum canadense E Spinulose wood fern Canada frostweed Dryopteris ludoviciana H Helianthus eggertii T Southern shield wood fern Eggert’s sunflower Echinodorus berteroi T Helianthus silphioides E Burhead Silphium sunflower Echinodorus parvulus E Heracleum lanatum E Dwarf burhead Cow-parsnip Eleocharis olivacea \S Heteranthera dubia S Olivaceous sedge Grassleaf mud-plantain Elodea nuttallii T Heteranthera limosa S Waterweed Blue mud-plantain Elymus svensonii S Heterotheca subaxillaris var. latifolia T Svenson’s wild rye Broad-leaf golden-aster Eriophorum virginicum E Hexastylis contracta E Tawny cotton-grass Southern heartleaf Eryngium integrifolium E Hexastylis heterophylla S Blue-flower coyote-thistle Variable-leaved heartleaf Erythronium rostratum S Hieracium longipilum T Golden-star Hairy hawkweed Eupatorium maculatum H Houstonia serpyllifolia E Spotted joe-pye-weed Michaux’s bluets Eupatorium semiserratum E Hydrocotyle americana E Small-flowered thoroughwort American water-pennywort Eupatorium steelei E Hydrolea ovata E Steele’s joe-pye-weed Ovate fiddleleaf Euphorbia mercurialina T Hydrolea uniflora S Mercury spurge One-flower fiddleleaf Fimbristylis puberula T Hydrophyllum virginianum S Hairy fimbristylis Virginia waterleaf Forestiera ligustrina T Hypericum adpressum H Upland privet Creeping St. John’s-wort Gentiana decora S Hypericum crux-andreae T Showy gentian St. Peter’s-wort 120 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Hypericum nudiflorum Pretty St. John’s-wort Hypericum pseudomaculatum Large spotted St. John’s-wort Tris fulva Copper iris Isoetes butleri Butler's quillwort Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot quillwort Juglans cinerea White walnut Juncus articulatus Jointed rush Juncus elliottii Bog rush Juncus filipendulus Long-styled rush Juniperus communis var. depressa Ground juniper Koeleria macrantha June grass Krigia occidentalis Western dwarf dandelion Lathyrus palustris Vetchling peavine Lathyrus venosus Smooth veiny peavine Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata Glade cress Leavenworthia torulosa Necklace glade cress Leiophyllum buxifolium Sand-myrtle Lespedeza capitata Round-head bush-clover Lespedeza stuevei Tall bush-clover Lesquerella globosa Lesquereux’s bladderpod Lesquerella lescurii Lescur’s bladderpod Leucothoe recurva Fetterbush Liatris cylindracea Slender blazingstar Lilium philadelphicum Wood lily Lilium superbum Turk’s cap lily Limnobium spongia American frog’s-bit Liparis loeselii Loesel’s twayblade Listera australis Southern twayblade Listera smallii Kidney-leaf twayblade Lobelia appendiculata var. gattingeri Gattinger’s lobelia KSNPC H H a) tes} tes Sy) fac Nn mA A HoH 4A | Continued. Lobelia nuttallii Nuttall’s lobelia Lonicera dioica var. orientalis Wild honeysuckle Lonicera reticulata Grape honeysuckle Ludwigia hirtella Hairy ludwigia Lycopodiella appressa Southern bog club-moss Lycopodiella inundata Northern bog club-moss Lycopodium clavatum Running-pine Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia radicans Trailing loosestrife Lysimachia terrestris Swamp-candles Maianthemum canadense Wild lily-of-the-valley Maianthemum stellatum Starry false solomon-seal Malus angustifolia Southern crabapple Malvastrum hispidum Hispid false mallow Marshallia grandiflora Barbara’s-buttons Matelea carolinensis Carolina anglepod Melampyrum lineare var. latifolium American cow-wheat Melampyrum lineare var. pectinatum American crow-wheat Melanthera nivea Snow melanthera Melanthium parviflorum Small-flowered false hellebore Melanthium virginicum Virginia bunchflower Melanthium woodii False hellebore Minuartia cumberlandensis Cumberland sandwort Minuartia glabra Appalachian sandwort Mirabilis albida Pale umbrella-wort Monarda punctata Spotted beebalm Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap Muhlenbergia bushii Bush's muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains muhly Muhlenbergia glabriflora Hair grass KSNPC 1 2 | Sl lel oles! OE es) des} a is Sit! ea] ie] | les} =} a N Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC AL Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC US KSNPC US Myriophyllum heterophyllum S = Platanthera cristata T oss Broadleaf water-milfoil Yellow-crested orchid Myriophyllum pinnatum H = Platanthera integrilabia WD C Cutleaf water-milfoil White fringeless orchid Najas gracillima S — Platanthera psycodes E _ Thread-like naiad Small purple-fringed orchid Nemophila aphylla T = Poa saltuensis E = Small-flower baby-blue-eyes Drooping blue grass Nestronia umbellula E = Podostemum ceratophyllum S = Conjurer’s-nut Threadfoot Oenothera linifolia E — Pogonia ophioglossoides E — Thread-leaf sundrops Rose pogonia Oenothera oakesiana H — Polygala cruciata E = Evening primrose Cross-leaf milkwort Oenothera perennis E — Polygala nuttallii H = Small sundrops Nuttall’s milkwort Oenothera triloba aD; — Polygala paucifolia E — Stemless evening-primrose Gaywings Oldenlandia uniflora 12 — Polygala polygama ab — Clustered bluets Racemed milkwort Onosmodium molle ssp. E — Polymnia laevigata E == hispidissimum Tennessee leafcup Hairy false gromwell Pontederia cordata T == Onosmodium molle ssp. molle E — Pickerel-weed Soft false gromwell Potamogeton illinoensis S = Onosmodium molle ssp. occidentale E = Illinois pondweed Western false gromwell Potamogeton pulcher T = Orobanche ludoviciana H — Spotted pondweed Louisiana broomrape Prenanthes alba E = Orontium aquaticum T — White rattlesnake-root Goldenclub Prenanthes aspera E — Oxalis priceae H — Rough rattlesnake-root Price’s yellow wood sorrel Prenanthes barbata E _— Parnassia asarifolia E — Barbed rattlesnake-root Kidney-leaf grass-of-parnassus Prenanthes crepidinea T — Parnassia grandifolia B — Nodding rattlesnake-root Largeleaf grass-of-parnassus Psoralidium tenuiflorum E _ Paronychia argyrocoma E — Few-flowered scurf-pea Silvering Ptilimnium capillaceum T = Paspalum boscianum S — Mock bishop’s-weed Bull paspalum Ptilimnium costatum S == Paxistima canbyi T — Eastern mock bishop’s-weed Canby’s mountain-lover Ptilimnium nuttallii E — Pedicularis lanceolata H — Nuttall’s mock bishop’s-weed Swamp lousewort Pycnanthemum albescens E — Perideridia americana T = White-leaved mountain-mint Eastern eulophus Pycnanthemum muticum tt == Phacelia ranunculacea S — Blunt mountain-mint Blue scorpion-weed Pyrola americana H — Philadelphus inodorus T — American wintergreeen Mock orange Ranunculus ambigens S — Philadelphus pubescens E = Water-plantain spearwort Hoary mock orange Rhododendron canescens E — Phlox bifida ssp. bifida 1 -- Hoary azalea Cleft phlox Rhynchosia tomentosa E = Phlox bifida ssp. stellaria T “= Hairy snout-bean Starry cleft phlox Rhynchospora globularis S — Plantago cordata H = Globe beaked-rush Heartleaf plantain Rhynchospora macrostachya E — Tall beaked-rush 122 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC US KSNPC US Rubus canadensis E Silene regia E Smooth blackberry Royal catchfly Rubus whartoniae T Silphium laciniatum var. laciniatum E Wharton’s dewberry Compassplant Rudbeckia subtomentosa E Silphium laciniatum var. robinsonii T Sweet coneflower Compassplant Sabatia campanulata E Silphium pinnatifidum S Slender marsh-pink Tansy rosinweed Sagittaria graminea T Silphium wasiotense S Grass-leaf arrowhead Appalachian rosinweed Sagittaria platyphylla w Solidago albopilosa Tr Delta arrowhead White-haired goldenrod Sagittaria rigida E Solidago buckleyi S Sessile-fruit arrowhead Buckley's goldenrod Salix amygdaloides H Solidago curtisii T Peachleaf willow Curtis’ goldenrod Salix discolor H Solidago gracillima S Pussy willow Southern bog goldenrod Salvia urticifolia E Solidago puberula S Nettle-leaf sage Downy goldenrod Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens E Solidago roanensis T Red elderberry Roan Mountain goldenrod Sanguisorba canadensis E Solidago shortii E Canada bumet Short'’s goldenrod Saxifraga michauxii iD Solidago simplex ssp. randii S Michaux's saxifrage Rand's goldenrod Saxifraga micranthidifolia E Solidago squarrosa H Lettuce-leaf saxifrage Squarrose goldenrod Saxifraga pensylvanica H Sparganium eurycarpum E Swamp saxifrage Large bur-reed Schisandra glabra E Sphenopholis pensylvanica S Bay starvine Swamp wedgescale Schizachne purpurascens T Spiraea alba var. alba E Purple-oat Narrow-leaved meadowsweet Schwalbea americana H Spiraea virginiana a American chaffseed Virginia spiraea Scirpus expansus E Spiranthes lucida T Woodland beak-rush Shining ladies’-tresses Scirpus fluviatilis E Spiranthes magnicamporum T River bulrush Great Plains ladies’-tresses Scirpus hallii E Spiranthes ochroleuca S Hall’s bulrush Yellow nodding ladies’-tresses Scirpus heterochaetus 19, Spiranthes odorata E Slender bulrush Sweetscent ladies’-tresses Scirpus microcarpus E Sporobolus clandestinus T Small-fruit bulrush Rough dropseed Scirpus verecundus E Sporobolus heterolepis E Bashful bulrush Northern dropseed Scleria ciliata var. ciliata E Stachys eplingii E Fringed nut-rush Epling’s hedge-nettle Scutellaria arguta T Stellaria fontinalis T Hairy skullcap Water stitchwort Scutellaria saxatilis I Stellaria longifolia Ss Rock skullcap Longleaf stitchwort Sedum telephioides a Streptopus roseus var. perspectus E Allegheny stonecrop Rosy twistedstalk Sida hermaphrodita S Symphoricarpos albus E Virginia-mallow Snowberry Silene ovata il Talinum calearicum E Ovate catchfly Limestone fameflower Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC 123 Table 1. Continued. Status KSNPC US KSNPC US Talinum teretifoliwm iE _— Vitis labrusca S be Roundleaf fameflower Northern fox grape Taxus canadensis ar a8 Vitis rupestris T pe. Canadian yew Sand grape Tephrosia spicata E — Woodsia appalachiana E zs Spiked hoary-pea Mountain woodsia Thaspium pinnatifidum T — Xerophyllum asphodeloides H = nas phy p Cutleaf meadow-parsnip Eastern turkeybeard Thermopsis mollis E = Xyris difformis E os Soft-haired thermopsis Carolina yellow-eye-grass Thuja occidentalis T — Zizania palustris var. interior H ae Northern white-cedar Indian wild rice Torreyochloa pallida E — Zizaniopsis miliacea ah pe Pale manna grass Southecnwild ice Toxicodendron vernix E ag acer t Poison sumac Cen Tragia urticifolia E we P Nettle-leaf noseburm Anguispira rugoderma ih == Trepocarpus aethusae T ty Pine Mountain tigersnail Trepocarpus Antroselatus spiralis S a Trichostema setaceum E nay Shaggy cavesnail Narrow-leaved bluecurls Appalachina chilhoweensis S feel Trientalis borealis E en Queen crater Northern starflower Fumonelix wetherbyi S = Trifolium reflexum E ome Clifty covert . Buffalo clover Glyphyalinia raderi S va Trifolium stoloniferum T E Maryland glyph Running buffalo clover Glyphyalinia rhoadsi T et Trillium nivale E wat Sculpted glyph Snow trillium Helicodiscus notius specus T ae Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanum E — A snail Ozark least trillium Helicodiscus punctatellus S = Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E es Punctate coil Least trillium Leptoxis praerosa S _ Trillium undulatum cE 5S Onyx rocksnail Painted trillium Lithasia armigera S —_ Triplasis purpurea H 29 Armored rocksnail Purple sand grass Lithasia geniculata S ee. Ulmus serotina S ay Omate rocksnail September elm Lithasia salebrosa S aa Utricularia macrorhiza E ie Muddy rocksnail Greater bladderwort Lithasia verrucosa S = Vallisneria americana S Ls, Varicose rocksnail Eel-grass Mesomphix rugeli TT al Vernonia noveboracensis S = Wrinkled button New York ironweed Neohelix dentifera ar = Veronica americana H ne: Big-tooth whitelip American speedwell Patera panselenus S =5 Viburnum molle Ast, Virginia bladetooth Missouri arrow-wood Pilsbryna sp. E = Viburnum nudum E ac} A snail (undescribed) Possum haw viburnum Pleurocera alveare S == Viburnum rafmesquianum var. T = Rugged hornsnail rafinesquianum Pleurocera curta S = Downy arrowwood Shortspire hornsnail Viola septemloba var. egglestonii S a Rabdotus dealbatus i = Eggleston's violet Whitewashed rabdotus Viola walteri T a Rhodacme elatior S _ Walter's violet Domed ancylid 124 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo Vitrinizonites latissimus Glassy grapeskin Webbhelix multilineata Striped whitelip Freshwater Mussels Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Anodontoides denigratus Cumberland papershell Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian combshell Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Catspaw Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern riffleshell Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox Fusconaia subrotunda subrotunda Longsolid Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Lampsilis ovata Pocketbook Lasmigona compressa Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona subviridis Green floater Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slabside pearlymussel Obovaria retusa Ring pink Pegias fabula Littlewing pearlymussel Plethobasus cooperianus Orangefoot pimpleback Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Pleurobema clava Clubshell Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid pigtoe Potamilus capax Fat pocketbook KSNPC E E C3 | 3) Continued. Potamilus purpuratus Bleufer Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted kidneyshell Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander mussel Toxolasma lividus Purple lilliput Toxolasma texasiensis Texas lilliput Villosa fabalis Rayed bean Villosa lienosa Little spectaclecase Villosa ortmanni Kentucky creekshell Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean Villosa vanuxemensis Mountain creekshell Crustaceans Barbicambarus cornutus Bottlebrush crayfish Bryocamptus morrisoni elegans A copepod Caecidotea barri Clifton cave isopod Cambarellus puer A dwarf crayfish Cambarellus shufeldtii Cajun dwarf crayfish Cambarus parvoculus A crayfish Cambarus veteranus A crayfish Gammarus bousfieldi Bousfield’s amphipod Macrobrachium ohione Ohio shrimp Orconectes australis A crayfish Orconectes bisectus Crittenden crayfish Orconectes burri A crayfish Orconectes inermis A crayfish Orconectes jeffersoni Louisville crayfish Orconectes lancifer A crayfish Orconectes palmeri A crayfish Orconectes pellucidus A crayfish Palaemonias ganteri Mammoth Cave shrimp KSNPC Soo Sl isl ial Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC Table 1. Continued. 125 oe ee nn Status Procambarus viaeviridis A crayfish Stygobromus vitreus An amphipod Insects Calephelis mutica Swamp metalmark Callophrys irus Frosted elfin Celithemis verna Double-ringed pennant Cheumatopsyche helma Helma’s net-spinning caddisfly Dryobius sexnotatus Sixbanded longhorn beetle Ephemerella inconstans An ephemerellid mayfly Erora laeta Early hairstreak Euphyes dukesi Duke's skipper Litobrancha recurvata A burrowing mayfly Lordithon niger Black lordithon rove beetle Lytrosis permagnaria A geometrid moth Manophylax butleri A limnephilid caddisfly Nicrophorus americanus American burying beetle Ophiogomphus aspersus Brook snaketail Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail Papaipema eryngit Rattlesnake-master borer moth Phyciodes batesii Tawny crescent Polygonia faunus Green comma Polygonia progne Gray comma Pseudanophthalmus audax Bold cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus calcareus Limestone cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus catoryctos Lesser Adams cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus conditus Hidden cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus desertus major Beaver cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus exoticus Exotic cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus frigidus Icebox cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus globiceps Round-headed cave beetle KSNPC T S ec al jae N N fsb: Steele etme eetacl ge. jact mac i aenil3| ie fede cele ey is US Pseudanophthalmus horni abditus Concealed cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus horni caecus Clifton Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus horni horni Garman’s cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus hypolithos Ashcamp cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus inexpectatus Surprising cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus parvus Tatum Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus pholeter Greater Adams Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus pubescens intrepidus A cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus puteanus Old Well Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus rogersae Rogers’ cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus scholasticus Scholarly cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus simulans Cub Run Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus tenebrosus Stevens Creek Cave beetle Pseudanophthalmus troglodytes Louisville cave beetle Pyrgus wyandot Appalachian grizzled skipper Raptoheptagenia cruentata A heptageniid mayfly Satyrium favonius ontario Northern hairstreak Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary Stenonema bednariki A heptageniid mayfly Stylurus notatus Elusive clubtail Traverella lewisi A leptophlebiid mayfly Fishes Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Alosa alabamae Alabama shad Amblyopsis spelaea Northern cavefish Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter Atractosteus spatula Alligator gar Cyprinella camura Bluntface shiner Cyprinella venusta Blacktail shiner KSNPC T 1 S isl Sl tel 4 it IS) Sh he teh Te tS N US 126 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC US KSNPC US Erimystax insignis E — Macrhybopsis gelida H ©} Blotched chub Sturgeon chub Erimyzon sucetta T = Macrhybopsis meeki H C Lake chubsucker Sicklefin chub Esox niger S = Menidia beryllina T = Chain pickerel Inland silverside Etheostoma chienense E E Moxostoma poecilurum E — Relict darter Blacktail redhorse Etheostoma cinereum S — Nocomis biguttatus S — Ashy darter Hornyhead chub Etheostoma fusiforme E — Notropis albizonatus E E Swamp darter Palezone shiner Etheostoma lynceum E = Notropis hudsonius S — Brighteye darter Spottail shiner Etheostoma maculatum T = Notropis maculatus T —- Spotted darter Taillight shiner Etheostoma microlepidum E = Notropis sp. E == Smallscale darter Sawfin shiner (undescribed) Etheostoma nigrum susanae E C Noturus exilis E — Johnny darter Slender madtom Etheostoma parvipinne E — Noturus hildebrandi E = Goldstripe darter Least madtom Etheostoma percnurum E E Noturus phaeus E — Duskytail darter Brown madtom Etheostoma proeliare il = Noturus stigmosus S == Cypress darter Northern madtom Etheostoma pyrrhogaster E = Percina macrocephala T = Firebelly darter Longhead darter Etheostoma swaini E — Percina squamata E — Gulf darter Olive darter Etheostoma tecumsehi T — Percopsis omiscomaycus S = Shawnee darter Trout-perch Fundulus chrysotus E = Phenacobius uranops S — Golden topminnow Stargazing minnow Fundulus dispar E = Phoxinus cumberlandensis T T Northern starhead topminnow Blackside dace Hybognathus hayi E — Platygobio gracilis S — Cypress minnow Flathead chub Hybognathus placitus S — Rhinichthys cataractae E — Plains minnow Longnose dace Hybopsis amnis H — Scaphirhynchus albus E E Pallid shiner Pallid sturgeon Ichthyomyzon castaneus S — Thoburnia atripinnis S = Chestnut lamprey Blackfin sucker Ichthyomyzon fossor Tr _— Typhlichthys subterraneus S — Northern brook lamprey Southern cavefish Ichthyomyzon gagei H — Umbra limi T — Southern brook lamprey Central mudminnow Ichthyomyzon greeleyi in = Amphibians Mountain brook lamprey Ictiobus niger S ee Amphiuma tridactylum E = Bieceipatelo Three-toed amphiuma Lampetra appendix T = Cryptobranchus alleganiensis S = American brook lamprey alleganiensis Lepomis marginatus E _ _Eastern hellbender olla ene Eurycea guttolineata T = Lepomis miniatus T iy Three-lined salamander Redspotted sunfish Hyla GO WO Ce T rey Tatailoin S aes Bird-voiced treefrog Burbot Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC Hyla cinerea Green treefrog Hyla gratiosa Barking treefrog Hyla versicolor Gray treefrog Plethodon cinereus Redback salamander Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle’s salamander Rana areolata circulosa Northern crawfish frog Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Reptiles Apalone mutica mutica Midland smooth softshell Chrysemys picta dorsalis Southern painted turtle Clonophis kirtlandii Kirtland’s snake Elaphe guttata guttata Corn snake Eumeces anthracinus anthracinus Northem coal skink Eumeces anthracinus pluvialis Southem coal skink Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink Farancia abacura reinwardtii Western mud snake Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides Scarlet kingsnake Macroclemys temminckii Alligator snapping turtle Nerodia cyclopion Mississippi green water snake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Copperbelly water snake Nerodia fasciata confluens Broad-banded water snake Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus Eastern slender glass lizard Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus Northern pine snake Sistrurus miliarius streckeri Western pigmy rattlesnake Thamnophis proximus proximus Western ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sauritus Eastern ribbon snake Breeding Birds Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow KSNPC S S ep) lel ey n ie) 4 n ea] =] SI Table 1. US Continued. Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Anas discors Blue-winged teal Ardea alba Great egret Ardea herodias Great blue heron Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Asio otus Long-eared owl Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Certhia americana Brown creeper Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren Corvus corax Common raven Corvus ossifragus Fish crow Dendroica fusca Blackbumian warbler Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Egretta caerulea Little blue heron Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon Fulica americana American coot Gallinula chloropus Common moorhen Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi kite Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron Status KSNPC S E W E Zp) al est esl | jseh desl 3 at StS 127 US 128 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 1. Continued. Status Status KSNPC. US KSNPC US Pandion haliaetus T — Mammals Osprey ; Clethrionomys gapperi maurus S — Passerculus sandwichensis S — Kentucky red-backed vole Savannah sparrow Corynorhinus rafinesquii S — Phalacrocorax auritus H a Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Double-crested cormorant Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus E E Pheucticus ludovicianus S — Virginia big-eared bat Rose-breasted grosbeak Mustela nivalis S — Picoides borealis E E Least weasel Red-cockaded woodpecker Myotis austroriparius E = Podilymbus podiceps E — Southeastern myotis Pied-billed grebe Myotis grisescens E E Pooecetes gramineus 10; = Gray myotis Vesper sparrow Myotis leibii T = Rallus elegans E aan Eastern small-footed myotis King rail Myotis sodalis E E Riparia riparia S = Indiana myotis Bank swallow Nycticeius humeralis T — Sitta canadensis E — Evening bat Red-breasted nuthatch Peromyscus gossypinus T — Sterna antillarum KE E Cotton mouse Least tern Sorex cinereus S) = Thryomanes bewickii S = Masked shrew Bewick’s wren Sorex dispar blitchi E — Tyto alba S) ao Long-tailed shrew Barn owl Spilogale putorius S = Vermivora chrysoptera ai = Eastern spotted skunk Golden-winged warbler Ursus americanus S 7 Vireo bellii S = Black bear Bell’s vireo Wilsonia canadensis S = Canada warbler current status of Kentucky's rare organisms. Information about delisted and other taxa are maintained in manual files for use in the event that changes in distribution or status occur. Each edition of these lists (Branson et al. 1981; Warren et al. 1986; KSNPC 1996, 1997, 1999) has been refined and enhanced with sta- tus changes and the addition of new taxonomic groups. As previously noted, these lists are im- portant conservation tools used by KSNPC to focus protection efforts. We hope this infor- mation is used by planners and decision mak- ers to conserve Kentucky's unique natural her- itage through research, protection, and avoid- ance. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the following contributors to this effort: Danny Barrett, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Steve R. Bloemer, Tennessee Valley Authority; Hal D. Bryan, Eco-Tech, Inc.; Brooks M. Burr and Jeff G. Stewart, Southern Illinois University at Car- bondale; Samuel M. Call and Michael C. Compton, Kentucky Division of Water; Julian J.N. Campbell, Kentucky Chapter of TNC; Ross C. Clark, Ronald L. Jones, Guenter A. Schuster, and Matthew R. Thomas, Eastern Kentucky University; H. Carl Cook, Florida State Collection of Arthropods; Charles V. Covell, Jr., University of Louisville; David J. Eisenhour, Les E. Meade, and Allen C. Risk, Morehead State University; Loran D. Gibson; James D. Kiser; Lewis E. Kornman, Kerry W. Prather, Douglas E. Stephens, Steven C. Thomas, and Traci A. Wethington, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; James B. Layzer, Tennessee Technological University; John R. MacGregor and David D. Taylor, United States Forest Service; Christine 129 ‘(0006 OANSM) sfeurueur pur ‘sp.iiq SuUIpsalq ‘sopndax ‘sueiqrydure “Sous “sjassnul LIJEMYSLY ‘spodoxjse3 ‘(S66I Ad|[PaN) sjurjd Ivjnosea *(8gET [Be 12 TEplUs “EGET ASH) Sessour ssotoadsexv} SALLU JO S[e}O} LO} SoOINOS ‘suauttoads [ISSoj UO paseq Ayonquey WOOL} papsloda1 satoads apnjour jou op s[PIOL, ‘s[PULURUL pure ‘sp.iq SuIpadtq ‘sapydax ‘suriqryduie ‘syuryd Ap[NOsRA ‘sassoul ‘suUsYI] LO} satoads ATuo Jnq seysy puR ‘sfassnul 1ayeMYsesy ‘spodo.yses JO} saaLeA pur satoadsqns aaygounstp au0s apnypoul speyoy, O i Z YD ne t 0 0 0 0 Fr 0 0 Z Q@ & 0 0 ayepipue’y [elope jurj}xXq 3 00 00 00 00 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 00 00 0/0 0/0 pouayeart{], 10 is) porosuepuy pesodorg Aypesrope,f 5 poyedinxg que] ns o/E C/E 0/0 0/0 0/S O/T 0/1 S/F 0/0 0/01 0/0 0/0 POU AS PATTI os JO parosurpuy ATpe1ope,f = poyedinxy jquery | 3 c 9 it 0 9 I 0 6L 0 Ff 0 0 poyedinxy 10 jouNXY poumnsorg ac) 0 V 0 0 iZ oll 0 I 0 8 0 0 [POO STH ONS no) 9 OT Ei: Li 91 Il 9 4 VI L9 0 0 uzaou0, jeloeds OdNS¥ g (S II 8 G 1 0G s) G Seoul g 0 pousresr4, OdNSH Qu g 81 € 6 8G V 6 9G ie (SIL GL I pezesuepuy OdNSM 5 ial 6F SI Il 19 SV 0G Os GG GLE LL I oreYy Se potoyUuoW OANSYH ig g v I 0 €G yen yeaa 0 Ol Sik; 0 team o0xy ao) OL 891 6S 1g LEG qe fen €or 6S6 ~ 6966 9CE jean oAQRN = STPRULUIE JAY Sp1iq, sanday sueiqnyduny SOS] SyOosuyT SUBIDP}STLIT) S[essnut spodonsey sjurd SOSSO| susyory {PX} 10 satoads Ayonjuay jo Joquinyy © SUIpeatg JoyMYSaly Ie[noseA, a fae ‘000G ‘Ayonjuey ur surstue's10 Jo sdnois 1o0feur ay} Jo snjzeys UORAISUOD puR AYISIOAIG, “Z I[GRL, 130 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Table 3. Plants Caltha palustris var. palustris Marsh marigold Orbexilum stipulatum Stipuled scurf-pea Physostegia intermedia Slender dragon-head Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie parsley Animals Freshwater Mussels Dromus dromas Dromedary pearlymussel Epioblasma arcaeformis Sugarspoon Epioblasma biemarginata Angled riffleshell Epioblasma flexuosa Leafshell Epioblasma florentina florentina Yellow blossom Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan riffleshell Epioblasma haysiana Acornshell Epioblasma lewisii Forkshell Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua White catspaw Epioblasma personata Round combshell Epioblasma propinqua Tennessee riffleshell Epioblasma sampsonii Wabash riffleshell Epioblasma stewardsonii Cumberland leafshell Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Tubercled blossom Hemistena lata Cracking pearlymussel Leptodea leptodon Scaleshell Plethobasus cicatricosus White wartyback Quadrula fragosa Winged mapleleaf Quadrula tuberosa Rough rockshell Insects Pentagenia robusta Robust pentagenian burrowing mayfly US Status Plants and animals presumed extinct or extirpated from Kentucky. Fishes Ammocrypta vivax Scaly sand darter Crystallaria asprella Crystal darter Erimystax x-punctatus Gravel chub Etheostoma microperca Least darter Hemitremia flammea Flame chub Moxostoma lacerum Harelip sucker Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater redhorse Percina burtoni Blotchside logperch Reptiles Masticophis flagellum flagellum Eastern coachwhip Breeding Birds Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker Chlidonias niger Black tem Conuropsis carolinensis Carolina parakeet Ectopistes migratorius Passenger pigeon Elanoides forficatus forficatus Swallow-tailed kite Tympanuchus cupido Greater prairie-chicken Vermivora bachmanii Bachman’s warbler Mammals Bos bison American bison Canis lupus Gray wolf Canis rufus Red wolf Cervus elaphus Elk Puma concolor couguar Eastern puma Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky—KSNPC A. Mayer and Christopher A. Taylor, Illinois Natural History Survey; Robert F.C. Naczi and John W. Thieret, Northern Kentucky Uni- versity; Ralph Thompson, Berea College; and Charles E. Wright, Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforce- ment. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, L. E. 1990. A checklist of Sphagnum in North America north of Mexico. Bryologist 93:500-501. [AOU] American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds, 7th ed. American Ornitholo- gists Union, Washington, DC. Amett, R. H., Jr. (ed). 1983. Checklist of the beetles of North and Central America and the West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, FL. Barr, T. C., Jr. 1968. Ecological studies in the Mammoth Cave system of Kentucky. I. The biota. Int. J. Speleol. 3:147-204. Barr, T. C., Jr. 1996. Cave beetle status survey and prel- isting recovery project. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, KY. Branson, B. A., D. F. Harker, Jr, J. M Baskin, M. E. Medley, D. L. Batch, M. L Warren, Jr., W. H. Davis, W. C. Houtcooper, B. L. Monroe, Jr., L. R. Phillipe, and P. Cupp. 1981. Endangered, threatened, and rare animals and plants of Kentucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 42:77-89. Cassie, B., J. Glassberg, P. A. Opler, R. K. Robbins, and G. Tudor. 1995. North American Butterfly Association (NABA) checklist and English names of North Ameri- can butterflies. North American Butterfly Association, Morristown, NJ. Ceas, P: A., and L. M. Page. 1997. Systematic studies of the Etheostoma spectabile complex (Percidae; subgenus Oligocephalus), with descriptions of four new species. Copeia 1997:496—-522. Collins, J. T. (ed). 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles, 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetol. Circ. 19. Crum, L. A., H. A. Anderson, and W. R. Buck. 1990. List of mosses of North America north of Mexico. Bryologist 93:448—499. Egan, R. S. 1987. A fifth checklist of the lichen-forming and allied fungi of the continental United States and Canada. Bryologist 90:77-173. Frost, D. R. (ed). 1985. Amphibian species of the world: a taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press and the Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, KS. ; Gordon, M. E. 1995. Anodontoides denigratus (Lea) (Biv- alvia: Unionoida) from the upper Cumberland River system. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 131 Holsinger, J. R. 1972. The freshwater amphipod crusta- ceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Water Pollution Control Research Series 18050 ELD04/72. U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Hubricht, L. 1985. The distributions of the native land mollusks of the eastern United States. Fieldiana: Zool. 24:1-191. Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffmann, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occas. Papers Mus. Texas Tech Univ. 146. Kartesz, J. T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vas- cular flora of the United States, Canada, and Green- land, 2nd ed. Timber Press, Portland, OR. King, W. F., and R. L. Burke (eds). 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Col- lections, Washington, DC. Krekeler, C. H. 1973. Cave beetles of the genus Pseudan- ophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) from the Kentucky bluegrass and vicinity. Fieldiana: Zool. 62:35-83. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1996. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:69-91. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1997. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky: 1997 update. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 58:96— 99. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1999. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky: 1999 update. J. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 60:124-126. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2000. Kentucky natural heritage database, Frankfort, KY. McCafferty, W. P. 1996. The Ephemeroptera species of North America and index to their complete nomencla- ture. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 122:1—54. Medley, M. E. 1993. An annotated catalog of the known or reported vascular flora of Kentucky. Ph.D. Disser- tation. University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Miller, J. Y. (ed). 1992. The common names of North American butterflies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Morse, J. C. 1993. A checklist of the Trichoptera of North America, including Greenland and Mexico. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 119:47-93. [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Endan- gered and threatened species; revision of candidate spe- cies list under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 64:33466—33468. Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to fresh- water fishes. North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Paulson, D. R., and S. W. Dunkle. 1999. A checklist of North American Odonata: including English name, et- ymology, type locality, and distribution. Slater Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Puget Sound Occas. Paper 56. Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, and L. L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biol. 11:1081—1093. 132 Risk, A. C. 1999. Notes on new and rare mosses to Ken- tucky. Evansia 16:49-58. Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1991. Com- mon and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada, 5th ed. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20. Schuster, G. A. 1997. Description of a new species of ter- restrial limnephilid caddisfly eee from Ken- tucky and West Virginia (USA). Pages 417-424 in R. W. Holzenthal, and O. S. Flint, Jr. (eds). Proceedings of the Sth International Symposium on Trichoptera, 1995. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, OH. Schweitzer, D. F. 1989. A review of category 2 Insecta in USFWS regions 3, 4, 5. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corners, MA. Snider, J. A., S. M. Studlar, and M. Medley. 1988. A list of Kentucky bryophytes. Bryologist 91:98—105. Taylor, C. A., and M. H. Sabaj. 1998. A new crayfish of the genus Orconectes from the Blood River drainage of western Kentucky and Tennessee (Decapoda: Cae idae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 111:645-652. [TNC] The Nature Conservancy. 1988. Natural heritage program operations manual. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B.-Roth, A Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquat- ic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2nd ed. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended through the 100th Congress. Department of the Interior, Wash- ington, DC. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or threat- ened species, proposed rule. Federal Register 59: 58982-59028. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on recycled petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; proposed rule. Federal Reg- ister 64:57533-570547. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. De- partment of the Interior, Washington, DC. Warren, M. L., Jr. 1992. Variation of the spotted sunfish, Lepomis punctatus complex (Centrarchidae): meristics, morphometrics, pigmentation and species limits. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 12. Warren, M. L., Jr., W. H. Davis, R. R. Hannan, M. Evans, D. L. Batch, B. D. Anderson, B. Palmer-Ball, Jr., J. R. MacGregor, R. R. Cicerello, R. Athey, B. A. Branson, G. J. Fallo, B. M. Burr, M. E. Medley, and J. M. Baskin. 1986. Endangered, threatened, and rare plants and an- imals of Kentucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 47:83- 98. Williams, A. B., L. G. Abele, D. L. Felder, H. H. Hobbs, Jr., R. B. Manning, P. A. McLaughlin, and I. P. Farfante. 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic inver- tebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic ref- erence, 2nd ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, DC. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):133-145. 2000. First Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky Benjamin K. Malphrus, Michael S. Combs, Michael A. James, D. Shannon Murphy, and D. Kevin Brown Morehead Astrophysical Laboratory, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 Jeff Kruth Kruth-Microwave Electronics, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 R. Douglas Kelly Louisville Male High School, Louisville, Kentucky 40213 ABSTRACT Herein we report initial astronomical observations made with the Morehead Radio Telescope (MRT). The first radio signals from space were observed with the Morehead Radio Telescope in 1997. The MRT has to date observed a variety of cosmic objects, including galactic sources such as supernova remnants, emission nebula, planetary nebula, extended HI emission from the Milky Way, and the sun, and extragalactic sources such as quasars and radio galaxies. Observations of galactic sources herein reported include Taurus A, Cygnus X, and the Rosette Nebula. Additionally, we report observations of extragalactic phenomena, including Cyg- nus A, 3C 147, and 3C 146. These initial observations serve as a performance and capability test-bed of the MRT. In addition to the astronomical results of these experiments, tests of the positional accuracy, system sensitivity, and receiver response are inherent in this series of experiments. This paper provides a brief overview of the MRT, including upgrades of major systems, performance characteristics, and a brief discus- sion of these initial observations. INTRODUCTION The Morehead Radio Telescope (MRT), Morehead State University, is an instrument designed by faculty and students of Morehead State University and industrial partriers to pro- vide a research instrument for undergraduate astronomy and physics students. The MRT also serves as an active laboratory for physics, engineering, and computer science under- graduates and faculty. The telescope operates in the radio regime at a central frequency of 1420 MHz, which corresponds to the hyper- fine transition of atomic hydrogen (HI). The HI spatial distribution and flux density asso- ciated with cosmic phenomena can be ob- served with the instrument. The dynamics and kinematics of objects in space can be investi- gated by observing over a range of frequen- cies. The sensitivity and versatility of the tele- scope design facilitate investigation of a wide variety of astrophysically interesting phenom- ena. The MRT design provides an instrument capable of supporting scientific research in ob- servational astrophysics at radio frequencies. First light was achieved in October of 1997 with routine observations beginning in January 1998. A brief overview of the current MRT instrumentation, description of major subsys- tems (antenna, alt-azimuth drive and control systems, receiver systems, and controlling computer and interface), is provided that fo- cuses on instrumentation upgrades at the MRT, followed by a discussion of the first ob- servations and results. A more detailed tech- nical overview of the instrument has been pre- viously published (Malphrus et al. 1998). A brief discussion of the instrumentation is in- cluded here, as several major systems have evolved beyond the previously described sys- tems. The 21 cm Atomic Hydrogen Line The MRT is designed to operate over a fre- quency band centered at the 21 cm (1420 MHz) spectral line of atomic hydrogen. Van de Hulst first suggested that the 21 cm line might be detectodl in the interstellar medium (ISM) in 1945 (Van de Hulst 1945). Unfortu- nately, Van de Hulst was working in occupied Holland at the time. Searches ensued after 133 134 WWII in both the Netherlands and the U.S. The first unambiguous detection of the 21 cm line in the ISM occurred in the U.S. in 1951 and is credited to Ewen and Purcell (Ewen and Purcell 1951). Their experiments were performed with a horn antenna and a sensitive superheterodyne receiver. Subsequently, the HI distribution associated with an ever- in- creasing number of galactic and extragalactic phenomena have been extensively explored. The 21 cm emission line arises from a spin- parity reversal of hydrogen in the atomic state that corresponds to a transition between the F = 0 and F = 1 hyperfine structures of the electron ground state 1°S,,.. A transition can occur between the two hyperfine states be- cause they differ slightly in energy, owing to the interaction between the electron spin and the nuclear spin. When the spin parities align, a higher energy state is achieved at F = 1. The electron spin parity reversal to the lower hyperfine state occurs naturally on the order of once every 10 million years. Atomic colli- sions in the radiant medium can greatly ac- celerate this process to the point of producing a continuous emission. Although the emission frequency can be calculated in terms of well- understood fundamental constants, a correc- tion for the electron spin g factor must be in- cluded. Realization that this anomalous factor must be accounted for resulted when compar- isons of the 21 cm line first made in 1947 did not agree with the theoretical value. The dis- crepancy between the theory and empirical values led to the development of quantum electrodynamics (QED). The currently ac- cepted standard frequency of the 21 cm spec- tral line is 1420.40575186(30) MHz (Storey et al. 1994). The MRT operates a receiver with a 6 MHz bandwidth centered on this frequen- cy. The science of cm-wave astronomy has pro- vided significant insight into the structure and evolution of cosmic phenomena and afforded a new perspective of the universe. This per- spective is considered significant as roughly three-quarters of the material in the universe exists in the form of hydrogen. The MRT sci- entific goals are predicated upon low resolu- tion, high sensitivity views of the distribution of HI associated with cosmic phenomena. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) MRT INSTRUMENTATION The basic design of the MRT includes a wire-mesh parabolic reflecting antenna, alt-az- imuth tracking positioner, control and drive systems, receiver and signal processing system, a controlling computer with an interface de- vice, and supporting electronics and hardware. The system is designed around a total power receiver that converts radiation from space concentrated by the antenna system to an electrical signal, which is amplified, modified and interpreted. The basic measurement that the telescope is capable of is an induced an- tenna temperature, which is translated into an output voltage at the post-detection stage of the back-end receiver. This voltage corre- sponds to the total integrated flux density in- trinsic to the object over the observed fre- quency band. A detailed technical overview of the instrument has been previously published (Malphrus et al. 1998). A brief discussion of the instrumentation is included here, as sev- eral major systems have evolved beyond the previously described systems. The MRT system is positioned by a now- second generation system incorporating a con- trolling computer, optical isolation system, and robotic drive and control systems developed by MSU faculty and students. The current controlling computer is a 450 MHz Pentium II processor with 128 MB of RAM and 9 GB of hard disk space. A multifunction analog, digital, and timing Input/Output (I/O) data ac- quisition board is installed in the computer. It contains a 12-bit successive approximation A/ D converter with 16 analog inputs, two 12-bit D/A converters with voltage outputs, 8 lines of transistor-transistor logic compatible I/O, and two counter/timer channels for timing I/O. The board has a 500kS/s single channel sam- pling rate. The controlling computer positions the telescope, instructs it in robotic tracking of cosmic sources, and controls data collection and storage. The data from a particular exper- iment are then transferred via ftp to a Sun Sparcstation or high-end PC for imaging and analysis. Parabolic Reflecting Antenna The MRT employs a high-gain 40 X 11 foot antenna designed for L-Band operation. A Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. surplused Army NIKE-Hercules ANS-17 Ra- dar antenna was obtained and modified for ra- dio astronomy applications. The antenna was selected because of its relatively large aper- ture, excellent aperture efficiency (afforded by its innovative offset feed design), and low cost. It includes a parabolic reflector, feed horn and waveguide assembly, and azimuth and eleva- tion positioning system. The positioning sys- tem provides azimuth coverage of 360° and el- evation coverage of now greater than 0-90°. Improvements beyond the previously de- scribed system (Malphrus et al. 1998) include the inclusion of a waveguide dehydrator and second-generation digital electronics that drive the positioning system. MRT Receiver System The MRT receiver system design and fab- rication program was a joint effort between MSU faculty and Kruth-Microwave Electron- ics Company of Ellicott City, Maryland. The system design is comprised of single receiver with integral low-noise amplifier directly cou- pled to the waveguide terminus of the MRT antenna system. The overall receiver system design utilizes a low noise, sensitive, stable re- ceiver to convert the 1420 MHz Hydrogen line frequency to a frequency region suitable for processing by standard laboratory equip- ment. The system is comprised of two major subsystems—the front and back-end receiver systems. The front-end receiver is coupled to the waveguide terminus, which is mounted on the focal feed support of the MRT superstruc- ture. The MRT front-end receiver system in- corporates a GaAs FET low-noise amplifier (LNA) design. The back-end IF receiver con- sists of a processor with four output signals is housed in the Astrophysics Laboratory Control Room. These output singals consist of 3 RF output ports and one DC detector output. The RF output ports provide accessible signals at 160 MHz (6 MHz bandwidth), 21.4 MHz (6 MHz bandwidth), and 21.4 MHz (2 MHz bandwidth). This strategy permits flexibility in signal processing as evolving experimental needs require. The back-end processor also utilizes a frequency synthesizer, associated power supplies, monitor circuitry, and the con- trolling computer. The DC voltage is derived from an envelope detector and incorporated 135 into the final stage. Upgrades of the receiver system include a second detector scheme—a digital square law detector, from which the fi- nal DC voltage is derived and transmitted to the data acquisition board. All initial observa- tions were made with the MRT receiver sys- tem operating in total power mode, using the square law detector. Performance Characteristics The MRT primary system performance characteristics have been empirically mea- sured to assist in understanding the results of astronomical observations. The primary sys- tem performance characteristics include sys- tem temperature, antenna radiation pattern, and antenna gain. The overall system temper- ature is measured at a respectable 67.3 K (Kruth 1994). The antenna radiation pattern, which is essentially its directivity function on the sky, has been extensively mapped in 2-D and 3-D to determine the main beam and si- delobe structure. These experiments indicated an elliptical beam pattem with a half-power beamwidth (HPBW) of 0.9° and 3.62° for the major and minor axes respectively (Malphrus et al. 1999). This measurement implies good spatial resolution along the horizontal axis of the antenna and less than ideal resolution along the minor axis. The gain of the antenna has been measured at 41dB, which correlates to good sensitivity to objects with relatively low radio frequency flux. Observations The performance characteristics of the tele- scope have made possible observations of a va- riety of cosmic phenomena. Observations of Taurus A, Virgo A, Cygnus A, Cygnus X, the Rosette Nebula, and two quasars—3C 196 and 3C 147—are herein reported. Analysis of the data is very encouraging in that the transit pro- files and maximum voltage deflections mea- sured for objects are comparable to values ob- tained from observations of the same objects on different days and from observations made with other instruments. Reproducibility in the transit profiles of these objects is apparent. In addition, data taken on consecutive days reveal a sidereal shift in the peaks expected as the earth progresses through the ecliptic plane. The observation techniques are described be- 136 low. Samples of these data are presented in the Results section. Three basic modes of observation of celes- tial objects available with the MRT were used in these experiments: transit, tracking, and mapping. Observing celestial objects in transit mode simply involves pointing the telescope due south (180° azimuth), to the appropriate altitude and observing the object as the rota- tion of the earth moves (apparently) the object through the telescope’s field of view (meridian transit). Observing celestial objects in tracking mode involves using the positioning system of the telescope to compensate for the earth’s ro- tation. The computer controls the telescope’s motion as it tracks an object as the object (ap- parently) moves across the sky. Mapping the HI distribution of a radio source involves scan- ning the telescope’s beam across the source’s position repeatedly in a manner similar to the raster scan process utilized to produce televi- sion images. Each observational mode is de- scribed in some detail below. Transit Observations After a target object is selected, the position of the object must be determined as well as the time of meridian transit. Some understanding of coordinate systems is essential to these as- tronomical observations. The sky operates on the Equator Coordinate System. The MRT op- erates on the Horizon Coordinate System (as the antenna is alt-azimuth mounted). There- fore, an object's celestial position must be con- verted to local horizon coordinates to be ob- served. The values, then, that are important for observing in transit mode are the object’s alti- tude (converted from declination) and local si- dereal time of meridian transit. Determination of transit times in L.S.T. For the given date and zone time (Z.T.) the local sidereal time (L.S.T.) can be calculated for the observer's longitude. L.S.T. is the local hour angle (L.H.A.) of the vernal equinox, that is, the right ascension of the ob- servers meridian. To calculate L.S.T. from E.S.T. is non-trivial. The following is one of numerous algorithms that may be used: eS eo Ke ee O02 7309 (Ua) (0.06570982 28™ 18s +12° 40" 126 28” 18s 64.4° 970 Taurus A O05 31™ 305 +21° 58™ 05" 31™ 305 TE 1,420 Rosette Nebula 06" 29" 18: +04° 57™ 06" 29" 18° 56.7° 105 3C 147 05> 38™ 43.25 +49° 49.6™ 05 38™ 43.25 78.4° 58 3C 196 08 10™ 00.15 +48° 22™ 08" 10™ 00.15 79.8° 59 Cygnus A 19" 57™ 45s +40° 36™ 19" 57™ 45s 87.4° 8,100 Cygnus X 20" 19" 36 +40° 06" 20" 19" 36° 87.4° 410 Cygnus B 20 48™ 12s +29° 30™ 20' 48™ 125 82.3° 252, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 3 RF fluxes at 20 cm reported are taken from the Third Cambridge Catalog (3C) produced by the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University, UK. propriate position for each object. Pre- and post detection gains were set (on the back-end receiver IF processor and square law detector, respectively) based upon published values for the flux density at 20 cm for each of the ob- served sources (Kraus 1986). These values are reported in Table 1. for each astronomical source. Each source was observed for approx- imately one hour to provide baseline data be- fore and after each meridian transit. The pro- cedures followed for tracking and mapping runs involve the same initial procedures as those for transit observations, but also include additional, more elaborate procedures de- scribed below. _ Tracking Observations Tracking observations involve continuously calculating the object’s azimuth and elevation as time progresses and driving the telescope to the calculated position. The telescope can also be “manually” driven from the back-end with the drive and control system to maintain “peak on source”. A combination of using the computer-generated coordinates and nudging the telescope with the manual drive system has proven most effective thus far. All peak voltages herein reported were measured dur- ing tracking observations utilizing a variety of integration times. Mapping Observations Observing with the MRT in mapping mode is the most challenging but rewarding obser- vational procedure. A pre-determined area (usually rectangular) is scanned with the tele- scope beam as the object is tracked across the sky. The target area is scanned in a manner similar to the raster scan process utilized by monitors and television sets to produce im- ages. A single eleveation is scanned over a pre- determined range of azimuths in one direction (i.e. CW). The telescope is then driven to a lower elevation (typically 1°) and the same range of azimuth values is scanned by driving the telescope in the opposite (CCW) direc- tion. This process is repeated until the entire target area is scanned. 2-D (contour) and 3-D (topographic) maps of the HI associated with the astronomical object can be produced with these data. These maps represent the spatial distribution of HI in the target region (inte- grated over the entire receiver post-detection bandwidth). The data reduction and imaging software utilized in these experiments is the HiQ package developed by National Instru- ments. Additional software that allows the ob- server to reduce and edit the data as well as transform the raw data into an appropriate matrix format was developed by MSU stu- dents. A more detailed description of the map- ping procedure, including the details of data reduction, is described in a later publication. RESULTS To date, observations of a variety of cosmic phenomena have been undertaken. Herein, we describe observations of Virgo A, the Cyg- nus A Complex, Taurus A, the Rosette Neb- ula, 3C 196, and 3C 147. Telescope receiver 138 Table 2. Integra- Post-detec- tion tion gain time (s) Pre-detec- Cosmic object tion gain Virgo A (M87) 40% 900x IIs Taurus A 40% 900x 10° Rosette Nebula 40% 1000x Is 3C 147 40% 1000x ls 3C 196 40% 1000x Is Cygnus A 50% 900x lis Cygnus X 50% 900x is Cygnus B 50% 900x ks settings, integration times, and other obser- vational parameters such as time on source are listed in Table 2. Also listed are induced volt- ages, and calculated signal-to-noise ratios. Pre- detection gain, post-detection gain, and inte- gration time are telescope values set by the observer. Time on source (TOS) is determined by the spatial extent of the object when ob- os in transit mode. V,,,., Nin, AV, and S/ N represent experimental results. V,,,,, repre- sents the maximum or peak voltage induced by the cosmic object and is proportional to the flux density of the object as explained below. Nyns is the baseline width, which also corre- sponds to the rms noise temperature of the system. AV is the peak voltage minus the av- eraged baseline voltage level. The peak voltage AV, the basic measure- ment in total power mode is a function of the induced antenna temperature (AT). The an- tenna and front- and back-end receivers of a radio telescope system together act as a radi- ometer for measuring the temperature of dis- tant regions of space coupled to the system through the radiation resistance of the anten- na. The temperature of the radiation resis- tance is determined by the temperature of the emitting region seen by the beam of the an- tenna as defined by its directivity function, i.e., its radiation pattern. The temperature of the antenna radiation resistance is referred to as induced antenna temperature. A mathematical expression describing induced antenna tem- perature demonstrates that the induced tem- perature is a function of the cosmic radiator convolved with the antenna’s directivity func- tion (Kraus 1986): Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Telescope settings and results obtained for the initial astronomical observations made with the Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky by Malphrus et al. from 1997-2000. TOS AV... INC S/N 2160s 4.1v 0.3v 13.6/1 864s 4.9v O.1v 49/1 684s 5.7v 0.05v 114/1 1200s 3.8v 1.5v 2.5/1 1200s 5.8v 0.3v 19.3/1 2400s 2. 5v O.1v 25/1 1080s 0.5v O.1lv 5/1 2400s 0.3Vv 0.1v 3/1 AV = kAT = Ww 7 [| B(0, b)Pn(0, b) dO where: AV = induced post-detection volt- age, volts AT = induced antenna tempera- ture, K w = received power per unit bandwidth, w < Ble! B(8, 6) = source brightness distribu- tion, dimensionless Pn(8, 6) = antenna radiation pattern, dimensionless Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 139 Virgo A 1/05/99 — 1/05/99 Virgo A Figure 1. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY. A transit observation of Virgo A taken with the MRT on January 5, 1999. dQ = sind d@ dd = element of solid angle, rad? It follows that ASsimplifies to ZEAE Ae ‘ A relative value as opposed to an absolute value for AT, and therefore ASwas obtainable during these experiments. AT can be calibrat- ed against a standard induced voltage or as- tronomical flux calibrator in future experi- ments. The S/N,,,., however, can be measured from the voltage profiles because AV.,,, cor- responds to the signal (S), and N,,,, the rms noise corresponds to the baseline width. The calculated S/N values for each observation are given in Table 2. The S/N is expressed as a ratio. A variety of graphical representations of the data as well as a brief description of the astronomical objects observed are provided below. j AS Virgo A Virgo A is the fifth brightest radio object in the sky, with a flux density of 970 Jy. The ob- ject is a radio galaxy with some strange fea- tures that make it highly visible in the radio spectrum. Virgo A has an odd jet that extends from the west-side of the nucleus. This jet, apparent at extremely high spatial resolutions, is thought to be associated with material eject- ed from the nucleus. The system is an ex- tremely powerful emitter of both waves and X-rays. A transit observation of Virgo A taken with the MRT on 5 Jan 1999 is provided in Figure 1. Taurus A Taurus A is a supernova remnant (SNR) in the constellation Taurus; it is also known as the Crab Nebula. Taurus A is located about 6300 light years away and is the fourth bright- est radio object in the sky. It has a flux density of 1420 Jy. Successive transit observations of Taurus A were made on 19-20 Aug 1997. These observations are provided in Figure 2. An expected sidereal shift of 4 minutes of time in the transit peaks is observed. The Rosette Nebula The Rosette nebula is a supernova remnant (SNR) within our galaxy that has some inter- 140 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Taurus A 8/19 & 20/97 = C/G == SIZ0ISiG Figure 2. Taurus A made on August 19th and 20th, 1997. esting features. It is also classified as an emis- sion nebula—a cloud of high temperature gas. The atoms in the cloud are energized by ul- traviolet light from a nearby star and emit ra- diation as they fall back into lower energy states; hence we can see the Rosette Nebula in the radio regime. Emission nebulae are usually sites of star formation; the Rosette Nebula does in fact have star formation oc- curring in its outer regions. A transit obser- vation made of the Rosette Nebula is shown in Figure 3. 3C 147 3C 147 (also known as [HB89] 0538 + 498 and QSO OG +465) is a distant quasar that has been previously observed by numerous in- vestigators. The quasar is extremely distant and faint in the optical spectrum exhibiting a visual magnitude of 17.8 and a redshift of z = 0.54500 79 (NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Data- base (NED), 1999). It is optically variable and unresolved by most instruments. The object shows an unusually complex, nonlinear struc- ture that varies with time. Superluminal sep- Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY. Successive transit observations of aration of two components in the core region has been observed. A jet is embedded in the diffuse emission region. VLA images at 1 GHz indicate a weak component north of the main component opposite the jet with respect to the core. Although the object is spatialy unre- solved by the MRT, its luminous output in the radio spectrum is well above the detection limits of the instrument. Figure 4 depicts a transit observation of 3C 147 in which a fa- vorable signal to noise ratio of 2.5:1 was achieved. 3C 196 3C 196 (also known as [HB89] 0809+483) is a distant quasar in the constellation Lynx. It is an extremely distant and faint object, exhib- iting a redshift of z = 0.87100 and an apparent visual magnitude of 17.79 79 (NASA/TPAC Ex- tragalactic Database (NED) 1999). The object has a famous and well-studied absorption sys- tem at z = 0.43685, which gives rise to a host of metal line species. The 21 cm absorption is especially significant because it occurs in a re- solved background source, which allows useful Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 141 Rosette Nebula 6/25/98 — Rosette Nebula 6/25/98 Figure 3. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY. A transit observation of the Rosette Nebula taken with the MRT on June 25, 1998. 3C 147 4/08/99 — 147B 4/08/99 Ss Sloe = Go Sr o © © Ne ed x Azimuth Figure 4. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY. A scan observation made of the quasar 3C 147 on April 8, 1999. 142 3C 196 6/21/99 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Voltage — 3C 196 6/21/99 Onn an © O - SFE I~ CF} O&O] SS & x lo Coe) ©) ~ hn CO CO OO OO O CO CO CO Swot CA Ar Se i ee ee ae A Azimuth Figure 5. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State 196 on June 21, 1999. limits to be placed on the absorber size. There is also an associated absorber in this object at z = 0.8714 with an apparent infall velocity of 100 kmsec~!. A transit observation made with the MRT of 3C 196 is presented in Figure 5. The Cygnus A Complex The Cygnus A Complex, a very active region in the radio sky, contains at least three major components, Cygnus A, Cygnus B, and Cyg- nus X. Cygnus A is a distant radio galaxy ap- proximately 1 billion light years away. It is one of the best-known radio sources in the sky but it has no bright visible object that corresponds to the radio emission. No visible object was associated with the radiation until 1951 when astronomers at the Palomar Observatory found an object that appeared as a pair of un- resolved 18th magnitude objects. Cygnus A is the second most luminous radio object that is observable, with a flux density of 8100 Jy, sec- ond only to Cassiopeia A. Cygnus A represents the largest peak in the topographical repre- sentation of the data. Cygnus X, the second strongest peak in the data, is associated with 190.9 192.3 193.6 194.9 196.2 196.5 University, Morehead, KY. A scan observation made of 3C the famous Cygnus X black hole. The radio waves emanate from the accretion disk asso- ciated with the black hole. The accretion disk is produced as the black hole’s gravity well ac- cretes matter from its companion star, swirling it into a flattened disk and heating the infalling material to 10° K, causing it to radiate in the X-ray and radio regions. Cygnus X is consid- ered among the most convincing candidates for a galactic black hole. Since Cygnus X lies close to the line of sight of Cygnus A, it is almost impossible to observe one object and not the other in a transit observation. Since these objects lie close to each other in line of sight, but not in physical space, their com- bined observable radiation is called the Cyg- nus A Complex. We interpret the component labeled Cygnus B in the data to be associated with the Cygnus Loop, an ancient supernova remnant in the galaxy some 770 pc distant from earth. A transit profile of the Cygnus complex as well as three other perspectives of the HI distribution as produced with the MRT is shown in Figure 6. Complex structural de- Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 143 uol}eAS|3 Figure 6. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY. Four perspectives of a map of the spatial distribution of HI associated with the Cygnus A, B, and X radio sources. tail is evident in the HI associated with these regions. DISCUSSION Results of these initial observations are very promising. The HI profiles and distributions compare favorably to transit profiles and HI distribution maps produced with comparable instruments. Transit profiles of the Cygnus A Complex and Virgo A are extremely similar in structure to ones produced with the NRAO Green Bank 40-foot Radio Telescope and the University of Indianapolis 5-meter antenna. The HI distribution map compares very fa- vorably to those produced with the NRAO Green Bank 40-ft. Radio Telescope and the Ohio State University “Big Ear.” These HI profiles and maps compare favorably to pre- viously produced images despite the MRT's rather elliptical beam. Results of these initial observations are en- couraging in that they attest to the perfor- mance characteristics of the MRT. The repro- ducibility apparent in the data attests to the MRT receiver stability and pointing accuracy. The results of these initial experiments are very exciting in that the capabilities of the in- strument to perform more extensive and per- 144 spicacious experiments is realized. Challenges still exist, however, in the procedural elements of each observing mode. The results of obser- vations in transit mode are haunted by the el- liptical, vertically-oriented beam. Circular beams are ideal for these type experiments. Observations made in scanning mode are chal- lenging in that it is difficult to scan the tele- scope at a constant rate and produce the same number of data points for each scan. Reducing the data and preparing the data matrix for 3- D maps is complicated by this problem. In tracking mode, there are the inherent prob- lems of pointing accuracy. Even still, these early observations are encouraging and indi- cate that the MRT systems have, even at this formative stage, exceeded expectations. A limitation of the current data is that the observations are essentially unclaibrated. Fu- ture experiments may attempt to “bracket” observations of the astronomical sources with observations of known flux calibrators, a strat- egy utilized at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’ Very large Array (VLA). Other possibilities include injecting a noise source of a standard voltage directly into the waveguide to coaxial transition via a hardware (calibra- tion) switch. This strategy is employed with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s 40-foot Radio Telescope. Still another possi- bility involves generating a test (calibration) signal with an RF generator in the Laboratory Control Room and coupling it to a quasi-di- rectional test antenna. Observations of the as- tronomical sources could then be bracketed by observations of the calibration signal. Next Experiments A next generation of experiments is indicat- ed as a result of analysis of these early data. MRT systems experiments to be performed include determining the electrical focus of the antenna system, determining the mechanical focus of the antenna system, empirically de- termining the minimum detectable flux den- sity, and mathematically modelling the anten- na surface. The future, in terms of the possi- bilities of astronomical observations, is very exciting. The instrument is capable of observ- ing many of the most exotic and energetic as- tronomical phenomena in the universe. Astro- nomical investigations include observations of Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) a wider variety of cosmic sources (including such galactic objects as black holes, pulsars, supernova remnants, starbirth nebulae, and extragalactic objects such as active galaxies, ra- dio galaxies, and interacting galaxy systems), the production of a map of the HI distribution associated with the Milky Way, an all-sky northern hemisphere map, and SETI projects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Morehead Radio Telescope Project was funded by the National Science Foundation under the Instruments and Laboratory Im- provements Program, NASA and by More- head State University. The MRT receives con- tinued support from Morehead State Univer- sity’s College of Science and Technology, De- partment of Physical Sciences and Department of Industrial Education and Technology and from Kruth-Microwave Elec- tronics of Hanover, Maryland, and Dan Puck- ett Engineering, Morehead, Kentucky. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Ex- tragalactic Database (NED), which is operat- ed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Califor- nia Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration. LITERATURE CITED [ARRL] The ARRL antenna book. 1998, 18th ed. The American Radio Relay League, Newington, CT. Ewen, H. I., and E. M. Purcell. 1951. Observation of a line in the galactic radio spectrum. Nature 168(4270): 356-358. Kraus, J. D. 1986. Radio Astronomy, 2nd ed. Cygnus-Qua- sar Books, Powell, OH. Kruth, J. 1994. A receiver system for radio astronomy. Kruth Microwave Corporation. Internal Document, El- licott City, MD. Malphrus, B. K., M. S. Combs, R. P. Lillard, and J. Kruth. 1999. Empirical measurements of the antenna radiation pattern of the Morehead Radio Telescope. J. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 60:113-123. Malphrus, B. K., E. Thomas, M. S. Combs, B. Ratliff, B. Roberts, C. Pulliam, J. Carter, D. Preece, V. Hullur, R. Brengelman, D. Cutts, C. J. Whidden, R. Stanley, W. Grizes, D. Henderson, D. Puckett, and J. Kruth. 1998. The Morehead Radio Telescope: design and fabrication of a research instrument for undergraduate faculty and student research in radio frequency astrophysics. J. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 59:77-92. Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 145 [NED] NASA/IPAC extragalactic database. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration, Pasadena, CA. Van de Hulst, H. C. 1945. Radio waves from space. Ned. Tijdschr. Natuurk. 11:201—202. Malphrus, B. K. 1996. The history of radio astronomy and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory: evolution toward big science. Krieger Publishers, Melbourne, FL. Storey, J. W., M. C. B. Ashley, M. Naray, and J. P. Lloyd. 1994. 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen. Am. J. Phys. 62(12):1077-1081. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):146-162. 2000. Agrimonia (Rosaceae) in Kentucky with Notes on the Genus Mark V. Wessel and John W. Thieret Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099 ABSTRACT The genus Agrimonia (Rosaceae) consists of about 15 species worldwide, 7 in the U.S., and 4 in Kentucky: A. gryposepala, A. parviflora, A. pubescens, and A. rostellata. The reported presence in Kentucky of three additional species—A. eupatoria, A. microcarpa, and A. striata—could not be verified. Included are a key to and descriptions of the Kentucky taxa and notes on biology and uses of Agrimonia. INTRODUCTION The genus Agrimonia (Rosaceae), with about 15 species, occurs in North America, South America, Eurasia, and South Africa. Be- cause of the problems of identification of some species of the genus and the uncertainty concerning which species actually occur in Kentucky, we decided to examine the Ken- tucky species to determine their taxonomy and distribution. Additionally we began a survey of previous work on Agrimonia, presenting here stray notes—not an exhaustive literature re- view—on the genus. AGRIMONIA IN KENTUCKY Species of Agrimonia—the agrimonies— were early recorded as components of the Kentucky flora. M’Murtrie (1819), in his Flo- rula Louisvillensis, listed three: A. eupatoria (a European taxon, almost certainly a misiden- tification for one of the native Kentucky spe- cies), A. parviflora, and A. sylvatica (the last mentioned name we have as yet been unable to trace). Short, Peter, and Griswold’s (1833) catalog of the phaenogamous [sic] plants of Kentucky—which, so far as we are aware, is the earliest attempt to account for the flora of a U.S. state—has two: A. eupatoria and A. parviflora. The following year Short and Peter (1834) changed A. parviflora to A. suaveolens (the latter now regarded as a synonym of the former). According to Medley (1993), Short’s specimens labelled A. eupatoria and deposited at PH have been annotated as A. striata, an identification we regard as suspect. Kentucky specimens collected in the 1830s by either Short or Peter and sent to us on loan from PH are A. parviflora, A. pubescens, and A. rostel- lata; A. striata was not represented, Price (1893) had only A. eupatoria for Warren County; almost certainly this too is a misiden- tification. Half a century later McFarland (1942) listed the four species that we recog- nize as representing the genus in Kentucky; Braun (1943) listed only three, not including A. gryposepala. Browne and Athey (1992) list- ed seven species for the state: the four we rec- ognize in our paper and three others—A. eu- patoria, A. microcarpa, and A. striata—the oc- currence of which in Kentucky we have not been able to confirm; the listing of these three is, we believe, based on misidentification. In the most recent summary of the Kentucky flo- ra Medley (1993) accepted for the state A. gryposepala, A. microcarpa, A. parviflora, A. pubescens, and A. rostellata. MATERIAL AND METHODS The data herein are based on 421 herbari- um specimens (ca. 12% misidentified) of Ken- tucky Agrimonia borrowed from 14 herbaria; on the 46 collections of Agrimonia we and col- leagues made from 1996 through 1999 in 18 counties of Kentucky (specimens in KNK); and on previously published accounts of the genus (Bicknell 1896, 1901a, 1901b; Bush 1916; Fernald 1950; Gleason and Cronquist 1991: Kline and Sgrensen 2000; K.R. Robert- son 1974; Robinson 1900, 1901; Rydberg 1913; Skalicky 1973; Svenson 1941; Torrey and Gray 1838-1840). From herbarium sheets we recorded the following data: county, location, collector(s), date; leaf length; leaflet count, length, and width; sepal length; hair length; and fruit length and width (“fruit” = fruiting hypanthium with enclosed achene(s) but ex- cluding bristles and sepals). When collecting specimens of Agrimonia, one should be certain to obtain the roots, which are helpful in identification, and, if pos- 146 Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret sible, mature, fully reflexed fruits that are at least half mature. We saw no specimens of Agrimonia from 35 of Kentucky's too many (120) counties: Adair, Boyd, Carroll, Christian, Clay, Cumberland, Elliott, Fulton, Graves, Grayson, Hancock, Harrison, Henderson, Hopkins, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Leslie, Livingston, Logan, Mar- tin, Mason, Mercer, Metcalfe, Monroe, Ows- ley, Perry, Russell, Scott, Shelby, Simpson, Trimble, Union, Washington, and Webster. TAXONOMY In North America Agrimonia can easily be distinguished from other, sympatric genera of the Rosaceae by its herbaceous habit, its five yellow petals, its five sepals, and its hypanthi- um (“fruit”) armed with hooked bristles. To identify Agrimonia correctly, one must learn to distinguish the different types of stem ves- titure (see Jain and Singh [1973] for a study of the hairs of A. eupatoria): (1) minute gland- tipped hairs, the stalk short, few-celled; (2) long, straight or curved, eglandular hairs 1.0— 4.0 mm; and (3) short, often curved, some- times matted, eglandular hairs < 0.5 mm. Our species of Agrimonia flower from July to August or September. Individuals are rare to frequent, but never, in our experience, common or abundant. Figures 1 and 2 are of Agrimonia parviflora, a representative member of the genus. XX Agrimonia Linnaeus Herbs perennial, erect, hemicryptophytic, with crystals of calcium oxalate in parenchy- matous tissues (Murata and Umemoto 1983). Roots fibrous, sometimes with fusiform tu- bers. Stems branched or unbranched. Leaves alternate, stipulate, odd 1-pinnate, of 2 main sizes, major (larger) leaflets 3-19(21), toothed, terminal leaflet often the largest, minor (small- er) leaflets 0-37, sometimes bractletlike, in- terspersed among major leaflets. Inflores- cence racemose, terminal and often axillary, few to many flowered; flowers nearly sessile, pedicels bracteate at base, ascending, stipe spreading or reflexed in fruit. Flowers subop- posite to alternate, 4-9 mm in diameter, bi- bracteolate, perigynous; sepals 5, persistent, forming a beak in fruit; petals 5, yellow (very rarely white); stamens 5-20; pollen 3-colpor- ate; ovaries 2, enclosed by hypanthium, styles 147 exserted. Fruit (i.e., fruiting hypanthium plus enclosed achene[s] but excluding bristles and sepals) constricted at the throat, indurate, hemispheric to top-shaped, stipitate, rim bear- ing erect to reflexed, hooked bristles; achenes 1 or 2. Type species: Agrimonia eupatoria L. For illustrations of this species see Phelouzat (1963) and Ross-Craig (1956). Key to Kentucky Species of Agrimonia The |:w data in the key and in each descrip- tion below refer to the average length:width ratio (plus range of values) of the blade of the largest terminal leaflet on a plant. 1. Major leaflets mostly 9-19; l:w = 4.0 (3.3- AES) oe: acs Pe he ek ae eee A. parviflora 1. Major leaflets mostly leaves 3-9; I:w < 3.0 TT So ARO ec nN Ns 2, 2. Rachis of inflorescence copiously pubes- cent, eglandular or nearly so or the glands concealed by hairs; leaflets downy pubescent beneath; roots with fusiform tubers ........ A. pubescens 2. Rachis of inflorescence glandular, pu- bescence sparse or absent; leaflets glan- dular beneath, glabrous to sparsely hir- sute along veins; roots with or without fusiform tubers 3. Rachis of inflorescence with glands and long spreading hairs to 2 mm; fruits more than 6 mm, the bristles to 4.0 mm; sepals in fruit 2-3 mm; roots without fusiform tu- bers A. gryposepala 3. Rachis of inflorescence with glands only or also with a few hairs to 1 mm; fruits less than 5 mm, the bristles 2 mm or less; sepals in fruit 1.5-1.8 mm; roots with fusiform tu- DCiSHeE Alta pote tee. A. rostellata 1. Agrimonia gryposepala Wallr. [Greek grypos, curved, and New Latin sepalum, sepal] Figures 3, 7, 11 Herb 3-18 dm, roots without tubers. Stem: vestiture of 2 types: (1) minute, gland-tipped hairs; and (2) long, stiff hairs to 3.2 mm. Leaves: to 21 cm; major leaflets 3-9, ovate or obovate to elliptic or rhombic, 1-10.5 X 0.8— 5.2 cm, adaxially glabrous or nearly so or with a few scattered long hairs, abaxially with 148 ( LAY Ny hg D Ww 42 Za qj Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Figure 1. Agrimonia parviflora, a representative species of the genus, X %. From Zardini 1971, with permission. fo} fo) gland-tipped hairs and with long hairs 0.5-2 mm; |:w = 2.0 (1.8—2.5): minor leaflets 0-9, to 2.3 cm, 0-3 pairs between major leaflets. Inflorescense abundantly glandular and with sparse, long, stiff hairs to 2 mm. Fruit (ex- cluding bristles sepals) 6.8-7.5 X 3.5-5.8 mm, glandular, the hypanthium top-shaped to cam- panulate, deeply grooved, the ridges, base, and pedicel with a few scattered, stiff, white hairs to 0.5 mm, the grooves glandular, oth- erwise glabrous; sepals in fruit 2-3 mm; bris- tles 2.5-3.7(4.0) mm, in 4-5 rows, lowermost row sharply reflexed. 2n = 56 (Brittan 1953). Woodland margins, thickets, clearings, fields, and disturbed sites. Agrimonia gryposepala is rare and of lim- ited occurrence in Kentucky. Harlan is the only Kentucky county from which we have seen a herbarium specimen to document the occurrence of the species in the state. Agrimonia gryposepala is considered a threatened species in Kentucky (KSNPC 1996). Kline and Sgrensen (1990) discussed lectotypification and synonymy of this species. 2. Agrimonia parviflora Sol. In Ait. [Latin Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret 149 Figure 2. Agrimonia parviflora. Details of flower and leaflet. (A) Flower with 2 forward petals removed, X 10. (B) Longitudinal section through flower, with bracteoles, X 10. (C) Stamen, X 15. (D) “Fruit,” with bracteoles, < 10. (E) Achene, X 10. (F) Leaflet, adaxial surface, X 2. (G) Leaflet, abaxial surface, X 2. (H) Trichome from abaxial surface of leaflet, X 20. From Zardini 1971, with permission. parvus, small, and flos, flower, alluding to size of the flowers] Figures 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 15 Herb 5-20 dm; roots without tubers. Stem: vestiture of 3 types, each sometimes sparse: (1) minute, gland-tipped hairs; (2) long, + stiff hairs to 3.5(4) mm; and (3) short hairs < 0.5 mm. Leaves: to 28 cm; major leaflets (5)9- 19(21), lanceolate or oblanceolate to narrowly elliptic (rhombic), 1-8.5 X 0.6-2.5 cm, adax- ially minutely pubescent, abaxially with copi- ous gland-tipped hairs and with long hairs 1— 3 mm; l:w = 4.0 (3.3-4.8): minor leaflets 15— 43, to 2.5 cm, 1 pairs between major leaf- lets. Inflorescence minutely glandular, with sparse, short hairs < 0.5 mm and long, stiff, more or less straight or curved hairs to 2 mm. Fruit (excluding bristles and sepals) 2.3- 4.0(5.0) X 2.5-4.0(4.5) mm, glandular, the hy- panthium top-shaped to campanulate, shal- lowly grooved, the ridges, base, and pedicel often with a few scattered, stiff, white hairs to 0.5 mm, the grooves glandular, otherwise gla- brous; sepals in fruit 1.5—1.7 mm; bristles 1.0- 3.0 mm, in 3-4 rows, lowermost row spreading to ca. 90° or reflexed. 2n = 28 (Hara and Ku- rosawa 1968). Moist or wet soil at swamp or stream edges, grassy areas, meadows, thickets, and roadside ditches; sometimes in dry, open places. Agrimonia parviflora is widely distributed in Kentucky. The documented county-distri- bution of the species in the state is as follows: Allen, Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Breckinridge, But- ler, Calloway, Campbell, Casey, Clark, Ed- monson, Fleming, Floyd, Franklin, Garrard, 150 Greene, Hardin, Harlan, Jackson, Jefferson, Kenton, Laurel, Lee, Lincoln, Lyon, Madison, Magoffin, Marion, McCracken, McCreary, Meade, Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Rockcas- tle, Rowan, Trigg, Warren, Whitley, and Wolfe. A study of the reproductive success and breeding system of A. parviflora was recently completed by Brann (1998) (see under Biol- ogy: Pollination below). 3. Agrimonia pubescens Wallroth [Latin pubis, downy] Figures 5, 9, 13 Herb 3-16 dm; roots with fusiform tubers. Stem: vestiture of 2 or 3 types: (1) minute, gland-tipped hairs, these sparse or sometimes lacking; (2) long, stiff hairs to 3 mm, these often sparse; and (3) short hairs < 0.5 mm; types 2 and 3 not always clearly distinguished. Leaves: to 24 cm; major leaflets (3)5—-9(13), lanceolate or oblanceolate to oblong or elliptic or sometimes obovate, 1.4—10.7 X 24.9 cm, adaxially sparsely pubescent, abaxially downy- pubescent, the hairs 1-2 mm; I:w = 2.2 (1.7— 3.0); minor leaflets 4-11, to 1.7 cm, 1-3 pairs between major leaflets. Infloresence minute- ly glandular, the glands often sparse or even lacking, with short hairs < 0.5 mm and long, stiff hairs to 2 mm, the long hairs sometimes sparse or even lacking. Fruit (excluding bris- tles and sepals) 4.0-5.5(6.0) X 2.34.0 mm, glandular (sometimes sparsely so), the hypan- thium top-shaped to campanulate, shallowly to deeply grooved, the ridges, base, and pedicel with a few scattered, stiff, hairs 0.5-0.8 mm, the grooves often with a strip of conspicuous to inconspicuous white, upwardly appressed hairs <0.5 mm (rarely seemingly white fari- nose); sepals in fruit 1.5-1.7 mm; bristles 1.0— 3.2 mm, in 3-4 rows, lowermost row spreading to ca. 90°. Dry to mesic woodlands, woodland edges, disturbed sites. Agrimonia pubescens is widely distributed in Kentucky. The documented county-distri- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) bution of the species in the state is as follows: Anderson, Barren, Boone, Boyle, Bracken, Breathitt, Breckinridge, Bullitt, Caldwell, Campbell, Clark, Clinton, Edmonson, Estill, Fayette, Floyd, Franklin, Gallatin, Green, Greenup, Hardin, Harlan, Hart, Henry, Jack- son, Jefferson, Jessamine, LaRue, Laurel, Letcher, Lincoln, Lyon, Madison, Marshall, McLean, McCreary, Meade, Menifee, Muhl- enberg, Nelson, Nicholas, Ohio, Oldham, Owen, Pendleton, Pike, Pulaski, Robertson, Todd, Trigg, Warren, Wayne, Wolfe, and Woodford. 4. Agrimonia rostellata Wallroth [Latin ros- tellum, beak, alluding to the connivent se- pals on the fruit] Figures 6, 10, 14 Herb 2-10 dm; roots with fusiform tubers. Stem: vestitute of 3 types: (1) minute, gland- tipped hairs, these sparse to abundant; (2) long, stiff hairs to 2.5(3) mm, these sometimes sparse; and (3) sparse, short hairs < 0.5 mm. Leaves: to 24 cm; major leaflets 3-9(11), ob- ovate to broadly elliptic, 2.5-10.5 X 1.5-5.6 cm, adaxially glabrous or sometimes with a few long hairs, abaxially with copious gland-tipped hairs and with long hairs + 1 mm; l:w = 1.9 (1.6-2.5); minor leaflets 0-8, to 2.5 cm, 1(0— 2) pair between major leaflets. Inflorescense sparingly to copiously glandular, with sparse, short hairs < 0.5 mm and long, stiff hairs to 1 mm, both types sometimes absent. Fruit (excluding bristles and sepals) 3.2-4.0 x 2.0— 3.0 mm, obscurely to conspicuously glandular, otherwise glabrous or sometimes with a few short hairs <0.2 mm at base or on the pedicel, the hypanthium hemispherical, shallowly grooved; sepals in fruit 1.5-1.8 mm; bristles 1.7-2.0 mm, in 3-4 rows, lowermost row spreading to ca. 90°. Dry to mesic woodlands, woodland edges, disturbed sites. Agrimonia rostellata is widely distributed in Kentucky. The documented county-distribu- tion of the species in the state is as follows: - Figures 3-6. Agrimonia. Median portions of stems, showing vestiture. Figure 3, A. gryposepala (stem diam. 2.5 mm). Figure 4, A. parviflora (stem diam. 3.5 mm). Figure 5, A. pubescens (stem diam. 2 mm). Figure 6, A. rostelllata (stem diam. 2 mm). Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret U4 Ee bah bn £64 So ~~ | te Ae Cee a ” 5 BS A, Shee, . =“ . o. <, . =e. Nos ries 4 7 3 ” oe, aaa j + ee D a Loa oe} o oO =) a oO WY ey ie) = = ) oO ia] 1S) < & oO = +) = o 2 ed) -& ee Qe e) E = iS) J 153 Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret Figures 11-14. Agrimonia. “Fruits.” Figure 11, A. gryposepala (length 7 mm). Figure 12, A. parviflora (length 3 mm). Figure 13, A. pubescens (length 4.5 mm). Figure 14, A. rostelllata (length 3.2 mm). Hardin, Hart, Hickman, Jefferson, Jessamine, Kenton, LaRue, Laurel, Lawrence, Letcher, Lewis, Lyon, Madison, McCreary, McLean, Meade, Menifee, Morgan, Nelson, Nicholas, Oldham, Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Robertson, Allen, Anderson, Ballard, Barren, Bath, Bell, Breathitt, Breckinridge, Bullitt, Caldwell, Cal- loway, Campbell, Carlisle, Carter, Clark, Clin- ton, Crittenden, Daviess, Edmonson, Estill, Fayette, Floyd, Garrard, Grant, Greenup, con Figures 7-10. Agrimonia. Median portions of inflorescence axis, showing vestiture. Figure 7, A. gryposepala (axis diam 1.5 mm). Figure 8, A. parviflora (axis diam. 2 mm). Figure 9, A. pubescens (axis diam. 2 mm). Figure 10, A. rostelllata (axis diam. 1 mm). 154 Rockcastle, Rowan, Spencer, Taylor, Todd, Trigg, Warren, Wayne, and Woodford. EXCLUDED SPECIES Agrimonia eupatoria L. Agrimonia eupatoria has been ascribed to Kentucky several times starting with M’Murtrie (1819), but no documenting Ken- tucky specimens are known to us. The species may not even be naturalized in North America (Kline and Sgrensen 1990) in spite of the many reports that it is so. It was, however, recorded in 1924 as a wool-waste plant from Massachusetts (Weatherby 1924), which may explain, in part, Fernald’s (1950) attributing it to “waste places and old fields, local, Mass., Wisc. and Minn.” (We have seen century-old Minnesota specimens at MU labelled as A. eu- patoria; they are A. gryposepala.) Gleason and Cronquist (1991) wrote merely that the spe- cies is “occasionally intr. In our range.” Kar- tesz and Meacham (1999) ascribed the spe- cies, in eastern North America, to three Ca- nadian provinces and eight U.S. states (but not Kentucky); and, in the west, to one province and two states; most of these reports are based on literature records, not on first-hand study of specimens. But Kline and Sgrensen (n.d.), in their account of Agrimonia for Flora of North America, excluded the taxon from the FNA area: “Agrimonia eupatoria, a European species, has been sporadically cultivated in the flora area. We can find no evidence that this introduced species, which rarely escapes cul- tivation, has become an established element of the flora.” Earlier, Bicknell (1896) reached the same conclusion: “... the true Agrimonia Eu- patoria is not known at all as an American plantnees Of A. eupatoria Weatherby (1924) wrote that “it resembles our native A. gryposepala in that the stem and the rachis of the inflores- cence are clothed with minute glandular pub- erulence mixed with long, non-glandular hairs. It is readily recognized, however, by its com- monly more compact habit, the lower inter- nodes of the stem tending to be short, thus bringing the leaves close together, by its gen- erally smaller leaflets, and by the characters of the fruiting calyx. The body of the mature hy- panthium is rather narrowly top-shaped and measures from the base to the point of inser- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) tion of the hooked bristles about 5 mm. In A. gryposepala the corresponding measurement is about 3 mm.” With respect to Kentucky, the species is one that could have been—or is—cultivated here in medicinal plant or other gardens. But we know of no evidence for such cultivation. (Seeds said to be of A. eupatoria are available from several websites.) In 19th century U.S. floristic literature the accounts of Agrimonia were hopelessly con- fused as to both nomenclature and taxonomy (Bush 1916), with “A. eupatoria” being often a catch-all name for any U.S. agrimony except the distinct A. parviflora. Clarification of the nomenclature and taxonomy of the U.S. rep- resentatives of the genus began in the last years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century (Bicknell 1896, 1901a, 1901b; Britton and Brown 1897: Robinson 1900, 1901; Robinson and Fernald 1908; Ryd- berg 1913). Some authors, though, are still somewhat confused; we hide their identity to protect the guilty. The 19th century confusion in Agrimonia is best illustrated by the accounts of the genus published in the 1890s in two major floristic works for northeastern U.S. The sixth edition of Gray's Manual (Gray 1890) includes only two species of the genus—A. eupatoria and A. parviflora. The first edition of the Britton and Brown Illustrated flora (Britton and Brown 1897) includes six species, excluding A. eupa- toria and commenting that “The European A. Eupatoria L. differs markedly in foliage and fruit from any of our species.” Following the lead of the Illustrated flora, the 7th edition of Grays manual (Robinson and Fernald 1908) included six species but not A. eupatoria. The most recent edition of the Manual (Fermald 1950) includes seven, A. eupatoria having been reinstated—probably in error—as a member of the flora. Agrimonia microcarpa Wall. This species has been ascribed to Kentucky in several works (e.g, Browne and Athey 1991; Fernald 1950; Greenwell 1935; Kearney 1893; Medley 1993; Radford et al. 1968). Even a county of occurrence—Bullitt—has been mentioned. We made an unsuccessful at- tempt to locate confirming specimens. Ac- cording to Kline and Sgrensen (1990), this Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret southeastern species ranges north to North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri. Agrimonia microcarpa would key to A. pu- bescens in the key above. Although recognized as a distinct taxon by various authors, its dis- tinguishing characters seem to us to be rather weak, overlapping in most cases with those of A. pubescens; it has been considered a variety of that species (Ahles 1964; Radford et al. 1968). To separate A. microcarpa from A. pu- bescens the following features have been among those used: stem hairs 3-4 mm (m) vs. 1-3 mm (p); major leaflets 3-7 (m) vs. 3-13 (p); major leaflets broadly rounded distally (m) vs. acute to obtuse (p); stipules + falcate to + half round and deeply incised (m) vs. + broad- ly half ovate, incised but not deeply (p); and mature hypanthium with a distinct rim and as broad as long (m) vs. mature hypanthium with a obsolete rim and usually longer than broad (p). Agrimonia striata Michx. Agrimonia striata is a northern and western species ranging south, in eastern U.S., to Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Penn- sylvania, and New Jersey (Kline and Sgrensen 1995). Its roots are slender (non-tuberous); it has (3)5-9(11) major leaflets; its abaxial leaflet surfaces are sparingly pubescent, the hairs to 1 mm and confined mostly to veins; its inflo- rescence is glandular and pubescent, the hairs 1-2 mm; and its hypanthium grooves have a strip of minute, appressed hairs. Voss (1985) pointed out that the stipules of its mid-cauline leaves usually have a prolonged lanceolate ter- minal tooth or lobe. BIOLOGY Biological data on Agrimonia, at least on our North American species, are relatively scarce. The best sources of such data on the European species known to us are the ac- counts of Agrimonia in two editions of Hegi (1923, 1995). Only A. eupatoria, long used medicinally in Europe and elsewhere, has been studied with any degree of thoroughness. Pollination Few observations on pollination of agrimo- nies are available. The species, at least in Eu- rope, bears pollen flowers, which do not pro- duce nectar and are visited by pollen-eating 155 insects. “Flies and bees are attracted to the slender spikes of flowers [of A. eupatoria] by a scent reminiscent of apricots” (RDA 1981). The pollination mechanism of A. eupatoria was described thus by Knuth (1908): At the base of the two styles in this species there is a fleshy ring that looks like a nectary, though no se- cretion has been observed. The 5-7 stamens on the margin of this disk attain the same level as the stig- mas, and their anthers dehisce laterally. The anthers incline inwards, and therefore come into contact with the stigmas. The individual flowers bloom for a single day only, and open very early in the morning. The stamens, which are at first divergent, bend inwards in the course of the day, until they touch one another and the stigmas. Comparatively few insects visit the flowers, but these may bring about either cross- or self-pollination. From the above description it is clear that the latter occurs automatically, and it is obviously effective. Palynological data on Agrimonia (i.e., A. eu- patoria) are included in Hegi (1995; light mi- croscope and SEM photos of pollen); Erdt- man (1952; description of pollen); and Reits- ma (1966; line drawings of pollen). The pollen of A. eupatoria was described thus by Erdtman (1952): “3-colpor(oid)ate (constricticopate), prolate (48 X 31 w). Sexine thicker than nexine, tegillate; endosexine con- siderably thinner than ectosexine. The latter finely striate.” We include, as Figure 15, a photomicro- graph of pollen of A. parviflora. Mueller (1883) recorded as pollinators of European A. eupatoria the following: Dip- tera—Syrphidae, nine species representing six genera (Ascia, Eristalis, Melanostoma, Meli- threptus, Rhyngia, Syritta); Muscidae, one species (Anthomyia); and Hymenoptera—Api- dae (a “small” species of Halictus). To these Knuth (1908) added a species of Syrphus (Diptera: Syrphidae) and a species of Apis, one of Bombus, and one of Prosopis (Hyme- noptera: Apidae). Clapham et al. (1987) men- tioned “Diptera and Hymenoptera.” North American data on pollination of ag- rimonies are even fewer than those from Eu- rope. Indeed, we have found only two reports: C. Robertson (1928), working near Carlinville, Illinois, recorded a species of Chloralictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) as a visitor to A. striata: and Macroberts and Macroberts (1997) wrote that “captured pollinators [of A. 156 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) AccV(:--- =a 00 ae 20.0 kV POLLEN2K.TIF oui ae ad f. Figure 15. Agrimonia parviflora. Pollen grains, X 2000. (Voucher: Thieret 52394, Rowan County, Kentucky, 29 Aug 1980 [KNK]). Photomicrograph by Brenda K. Racke. Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret incisa, a southeastern U.S. species] were small bees of the subfamily Halictinae (Hymenop- tera, Apoidea, Halictidae), all probably the same species.” In a study of the breeding system of A. par- viflora, Brann (1998) found the species to be self-compatible. Its flowers opened by 0900 and closed by 1400 and were open for only 1 day. Once a flower opened, the availability of its pollen for dispersal and the receptivity of its stigmas were synchronous. Dispersal The fruits of Agrimonia, with their hooked bristles, are dispersed by animals, including humans, to the fur or clothing of which they readily become attached (Coffey 1993; Keville 1991; Macroberts and Macroberts 1997; RDA 1981; Ridley 1930; S.M. Robertson 1973). Dispersal even by birds on rare occasions might be possible as suggested by the follow- ing quote from Swink and Wilhelm (1994): “The senior author once rescued a Goldfinch that was hopelessly trapped in the prickly fruits of [A. gryposepala].” Macroberts and Macroberts (1997) suggested that many of the fruits, though seemingly well adapted for long- range dispersal, probably simply drop near the parent stem. Such in-situ dispersal, it seems to us, would result in close groups of plants, but—except in one instance, a group of ca. 20 individuals of A. parviflora—the agrimonies we have seen in Kentucky occur as scattered plants. Dispersal by water, at least for streamside plants, is presumably possible, the fruits being able to float for about a week, at least in the case of A. eupatoria (Ridley 1930). Tuberous Rocts Half of the North American species of Agri- monia (A. incisa, A. microcarpa, A. pubescens, and A. rostellata) have tuberous roots the function of which is unknown. Macroberts and Macroberts (1997) suggested that “all of these species might occur in fire-dependent or droughty areas where food reserves or the al- ternatives of clonal reproduction might be im- portant.” Perhaps water storage is important, too: Our Kentucky species, except often A. parviflora, grow in dry—sometimes impres- sively dry—sites. 157 Cytology The base chromosome number of Agrimon- ia is x = 7 (Darlington and Wylie 1955; Hegi 1995; Iwatsubo et al. 1993). The U.S. species with reported counts are A. parviflora, a tet- raploid (2n = 28; Hara and Kurosawa 1968), A. gryposepala, an octoploid (2n = 56; Brittan 1953), and A. striata, a tetraploid or octoploid (2n = 28, 56; Hegi 1995). Agrimonia in Japan includes species at the 4X, 6X, and 8 levels. In Eurasia, A. eupatoria is a tetraploid (2n = 28) and A. pilosa is an octoploid (Hegi 1995; Léve and Léve 1961). A hybrid, A. eupatoria x A. procera, is a hexaploid (2n = 42) as is A. nipponica X A. pilosa var. japonica (Iwat- subo et al. 1993). MEDICINAL The best-known species of Agrimonia is the Eurasian A. eupatoria. In older herbal litera- ture it was almost panacean, being used in a number of ways for an impressive array of ills from A (asthma) almost to Z (warts) (Hegi 1995). In recent literature (e.g., Bartram 1995; Bown 1995; Duke 1985, 1997: Foster and Duke 2000; Keville 1991; Ody 1993; Schauen- berg and Paris 1977; Swanston-Flatt et al. 1990; Wood 1997) it is said to have been used to treat a diversity of ailments including amen- orrhea, bed-wetting, conjunctivitis, cystitis, di- abetes, diarrhea, eczema, gallstones, gout, hemorrhoids, incontinence, laryngitis, mi- graines, nosebleed, rheumatism, skin inflam- mation, sore throats, and ulcers. A somewhat more restrained assessment of the virtues of the species (LRNP 1995) concludes that “it does appear to have justifiable use as a mild antiseptic and topical astringent” but cautions that “internal uses of this herb require further verification.” Commission EF approves A. eu- patoria to treat diarrhea, inflamed mucous membranes of the mouth and throat, and mild, superficial inflammation of the skin (Blu- menthal 1998). The astringent properties of A. eupatoria presumably derive from its high tan- nin content: roots, 25.8%; rhizome, 16.4%; leaves, 16%; and stem, 5.8% (Hegi 1995). Wood's (1997) 27-page discussion of the medicinal and other virtues of Agrimonia is the most detailed and wide-ranging that we have seen. A tea made from A. eupatoria has been 158 used to treat dysentery (Anonymous 1856). The plant, in a mixture of powdered frogs and human blood, was once “recommended for all internal hemmorrhages” (Johnson 1862). Hartwell (1982), in a survey of plants used against cancer, included many data from his- torical literature on A. eupatoria. Langer and Kubelka (1998) described rhi- zome anatomy of A. eupatoria in comparison to that of Potentilla erecta (Radix Tormentil- lae), another medicinal plant. Within the past 2 decades or so, A. pilosa, another Eurasian species, has been increasing- ly written about, e.g., the effect of a water ex- tract of the plant on tumors (Miyamoto et al. 1987) and acute pulmonary thrombosis (Hsu et al. 1987). In Chinese herbal medicine A. pilosa is used to expel tapeworms (Nigg and Seigler 1992, and “Agrimonia” is one of the herbs that “regulate” the blood (Ehling and Swart 1996). The mention of A. eupatoria in older liter- ature on North American medicinal plants may or may not refer to this European species, which is quite similar to some of our indige- nous taxa of the genus. The plant may well have been introduced early to the continent as a medicinal plant (S.M. Robertson 1973), but problems with identification remain. Eri- chsen-Brown (1989) referred these early re- cords unequivocally to the native A. striata. Why she chose this species and not any of the several other indigenous ones is not explained; her selection is another unverifiable datum. Agrimonia was early noted in reports of the uses of American medicinal plants by Euro- peans. In the “first systematic publication con- cerning the American materia medica” (Lloyd in Smith 1812), that of Johann David Schoepf (1787), A. eupatoria is described as having as- tringent, roborant, prophylactic, diuretic, and vulnerary properties; the name A. eupatoria is probably a misidentification for one of the North American taxa. Cutler (1785), in his work on some of the “vegetable productions” of New England, wrote of Agrimonia (no spe- cific epithet given but presumably a native species) as growing “by fences” and being use- ful to treat fevers and jaundice. Smith (1812), in his “dispensatory” on Ohio Valley plants, described “agrimoney” (again no species in- dicated) as “a native of the woods [and thus certainly an indigenous species], but friendly Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) to cultivation.” Its virtues included being use- ful as a tonic and in diabetes, involuntary emission of urine, and dysentery and “other fluxes.” Rafinesque (1828) called A. eupatoria a “mild astringent, tonic, and corborant” and noted its use for diarrhea, dysentery, “relaxed bowels,” and asthma. He included a color il- lustration in his account of the species, but this is unidentifiable to species. His descrip- tion of the range and habitat of the plant— “The Agrimonia Eupatoria is spread from Canada to Missouri and Carolina, and grows in woods, fields, glades and near streams”—is obviously based on an indigenous species. In several Shaker communities (1847-1874) A. eupatoria was “highly recommended in bowel complaints, gravel, asthma, coughs, and gon- orrhea.” Again, that this “A. Ewpatoria” was a native U.S. species is made almost certain by the statement that it was “found by the road- sides and borders of fields, Can. and U.S.” (Miller 1976). Eastern and central North American Native Americans included at least two species of Agrimonia—A. gryposepala and A. parviflo- ra—among the plants they used medicinally (Erichsen-Brown 1989; Moerman 1998). Snakebite, jaundice, diabetes, nosebleed, uri- nary troubles, nephritis, and diarrhea were among the problems for which the agrimonies were taken; they were also used—confiictingly, it seems to us—as an antidiarrheal medication and as an emetic, though probably not simul- taneously. “Agrimony” (presumably A. eupatoria) is one of the the “Twelve Healers” divinely re- vealed to the British physician Edward Bach, M.D. (Harrar and O'Donnell 1999). Bach wrote of this herb in his system of healing with flower essences: “An herb ... for cheerful, peaceful people who loathe discord and whose jovial exterior covers inner torment, some- times resulting in problems with drugs or al- cohol.” Various “Agrmonia” websites list sources of seeds (A. eupatoria, A. pilosa) and medicinal preparations and uses including even a ho- meopathic remedy from A. eupatoria. MISCELLANEOUS Although the species of Agrimonia, as we know them in Kentucky, are anything but “weedy,” at least A. gryposepala can, on oc- Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret casion, be troublesome. Of this species Muenscher (1955) wrote: “badly infested fields should be plowed and planted to a cul- tivated crop for a season.” A color illustration of this species is given in Alexander (1932). Drawings of the seedling stages of A. grypo- sepala are given in Kummer (1951). Agrimonia eupatoria was even used as a sleep aid, as the following Old English verse testifies (Addison 1985): If it be leyd under a mann’s head He shall sleepyn as he were dead. He shall never drede ne wakyn, Till fro under his head it be taken. Almost certainly any of our North American species would be as soporifically efficaceous. Anti-ophidian properties were even as- cribed to A. eupatoria (Law 1973). The plant was used in a charm to ward off snakes. One of its old English names was. sticklewort, hence this bit of doggerel: He that hath sticklewort by Knows no snake shall draw him nigh. Agrimonia eupatoria was implicated by O’Donovan (1942) in the production of phy- tophotodermatitis in humans, but he estab- lished a probable connection between plant and patient in only one of 14 cases. Mitchell and Rook (1979) suggested that irritation (from the plant’s trichomes?) rather than pho- tosensitization was the cause of the condition. Later research showed that an alcoholic ex- tract of A. eupatoria has “a very slight photo- sensitizing action” (Dijk 1963). Dijk and Ber- rens (1964) “assumed” but did not demon- strate that “Agrimonia contain[s] photosensi- tizing furocoumarins” as do other, much more potent photosensitizing plants, e.g., Ammi ma- jus, Pastinaca sativa, and Ruta graveolens. Ob- viously more study of the problem is needed. A tea can be made by steeping leaves and stems of A. parviflora and A. rostellata in boil- ing water, cooling, and serving with sugar or lemon (Cheatham and Johnston 1995). A sim- ilar tea, from A. eupatoria, is used in Britain as a “purifier of the blood” (Hulme 1912) and is said to be “particularly adapted to people who live poorly, and imperfectly digest their bad food” (Anonymous 1856). Agrimonia eupatoria (leaves and stems) is a 159 minor dye plant, giving a stable yellow, gold, or orange depending on the mordant (Addison 1985; BBG 1984; Hutchinson 1972; S.M. Rob- ertson 1973; Keville 1991: Lushchevskaya 1937; Usher 1974) and on the month of har- vest (Johnson 1862). Our native species would probably be similarly useful. Agrimonia eupatoria “contains tannin, and has been used in dressing leather” (Pratt 1905). Flowers of the species, with their “hon- ey flavour,” were once added to mead; the dried plant, with its fragrance, was included in “sweet sachets and pot-pourri” (Huxley 1992). Several abnormalities have been noted in the development of flowers/inflorescences of Agrimonia, the reports all European (and thus the plant being probably A. eupatoria). Mas- ters (1869) wrote that the genus is among those in which suppression of the androecium occurs most frequently and that leaves may develop in the center of a flower. Anomalies in the number of sepals, the position of bracts, and the number of bractlets are known (Phel- ouzat 1963). Fasciation in the inflorescence results in a compact, terminal mass of flowers, the whole being somewhat reminiscent of a head of a member of the Asteraceae (Phel- ouzat 1963; Schimper 1854). Fusion of two petals can form a structure similar to the keel of a legume flower (Moquin-Tandon 1842). The petals of A. eupatoria, normally yellow, can on rare occasions, be white. Seeds of this white-flowered fon when planted, “bred true to white flower-colour” (Nelmes 1929). Of the origin of the name Agrimonia we may choose from the four possibilities listed by Quattrocchi (2000): “Possibly from the Greek argemone, argemon, ancient name used by Dioscorides, Plinius and Galenus for the poppy; or from argemonion ancient Greek name applied by Dioscorides to the anemone; or from agros “field” and monos “alone, lone- ly’; or from agrios, agrimaios (agra) “wild.” Another source (HcVN 2000) derived “agri- mony” from a “Greek word describing plants which healed the eyes.” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the Lloyd Library, Cincinnati, Ohio, for literature; Dr. David M. Branden- burg, Dr. Jerry H. Carpenter, Dr. David Hew- itt, Dr. Miriam S. Kannan, Dr. Genevieve J. Kline, Brenda K. Racke, Annette D. Skinner, 160 Dr. Paul Sgrensen, Dr. Ralph Thompson, and Dr. Michael A. Vincent for aid; Dr. Elsa M. Zardini for permission to reproduce her draw- ings of A. parviflora as Figures 1 and 2; and the curators of the following herbaria for loans of specimens: APSC, BEREA, Cumberland College, DHL, EKY, KSNPC, KNK, KY, MDKY, MOR, MU, NCU, PH, WKU, and private herbarium of Randy Seymour, Upton, Kentucky (repeated requests [by phone, FAX, and e-mail] for loan of specimens from Mur- ray State University went unacknowledged). LITERATURE CITED Addison, J. 1985. The illustrated plant lore. Sidgwick and Jackson, London, U.K. Ahles, H. E. 1964. New combinations for some vascular plants of southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soe. 80:172-173. Alexander, E. J. 1932. Agrimonia gryposepala. Addisonia 17:19-20, plate 554. Anonymous. 1856. Agrimony tea. Gard. Chron. 1856:584. Bartram, T. 1995. Encyclopedia of herbal medicine. Grace Publishers, Christchurch, Dorset, U.K. [BBG} Brooklyn Botanic Garden. 1984. Handbook on dye plants and dyeing. Brooklyn Bot. Gard. Rec. 20(3). Bicknell, E. P. 1896. The North American species of Agri- monia. Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 23:508-523. Bicknell, E. P. 1901a. The nomenclature of the New Eng- land agrimonies. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 28:102-108. Bicknell, E. P. 1901b. Still further notes on the agrimo- nies. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 28:514-518. Blumenthal, M., senior ed. 1998. The complete Commis- sion E monographs. American Botanical Council, Aus- tin, TX; Integrative Medicine Communications, Boston, MA. Bown, D. 1995. Encyclopedia of herbs and their uses. Dorling Kindersley, London, U.K. Brann, M. 1998. The reproductive success and breeding system of Agrimonia parviflora Aiton under different environmental conditions. M.S. Thesis. Truman State Univ., Kirksville, MO. Braun, E. L. 1943. An annotated catalog of spermato- phytes of Kentucky. Published by the author, Cincin- nati, OH. Brittan, N. H. 1953. Cytotaxonomy of some species of Agrimonia L. Proc. Seventh Internat. Bot. Congr. [1950]: 278. Britton, N. L., and A. Brown. 1897. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Pos- sessions. Volume II: Portulacaceae to Menyanthaceae. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY. Browne, E. T., Jr., and R. Athey. 1992. Vascular plants of Kentucky. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Bush, B. F. 1916. The Missouri agrimonies. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 3:309-318. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Cheatham, S., and M. C. Johnston. 1995. The useful wild plants of Texas. Useful wild plants, Austin, TX. Clapham, A. R., T. G. Tutin, and D. M. Moore. 1987. Flora of the British Isles. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Coffey, T. 1993. The history and folklore of North Amer- ican wildflowers. Facts on File, New York, NY. Cutler, M. 1785. An account of some of the vegetable productions naturally growing in this part of America li.e., New England]. Reprint, with biography of Ma- nasseh Cutler by J.U. Lloyd, as Bull. Lloyd Libr. 7 (Re- production Ser. 4). 1903. Darlington, C. D., and A. P. Wylie. 1955. Chromosome atlas of flowering plants. George Allen and Unwin, Lon- don, U.K. Dijk, E. van. 1963. Phytophotodermatitis. Excerpta Med., Sect. 13, Dermatol. Venereol. 18:371-373. Dijk, E., and L. Berrens. 1964. Plants as an ecological factor in phytophotodermatitis. Dermatologica 129: 321-328. Duke, J. A. 1985. CRC handbook of medicinal herbs. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Duke, J. A. 1997. The green pharmacy. Rodale Press, Em- maus, PA. Ehling, D., and S. Swart. 1996. The Chinese herbalist’s handbook. InWord Press, Santa Fe, NM. Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen morphology and plant taxono- my. Angiosperms. Chronica Botanica, Waltham, MA. Erichsen-Brown, C. 1989. Medicinal and other uses of North American plants. Dover Publications, New York, NY. Reprint of a work first published in 1979. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. American Book Co., New York, NY. Foster, S., and J. A. Duke. 2000. A field guide to medicinal plants and herbs of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY. Gleason, H. A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vas- cular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, New York, NY. Gray, A. 1890. Manual of the botany of the northern Unit- ed States. 6th ed., revised by S. Watson and J.M. Coul- ter. Ivison, Blakeman, and Company, New York, NY. Greenwell, R. A. 1935. A flora of Nelson County, Ken- tucky. Nazareth College, Louisville, KY. Hara, H., and S. Kurosawa. 1968. Cytotaxonomical notes on some Asiatic species of Agrimonia. J. Jap. Bot. 43: 392-400. Harrar, S., and S. A. O'Donnell. 1999. The woman’s book of healing herbs. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. Hartwell, J. L. 1982. Plants used against cancer. Quart- erman Publications, Lawrence, MA. (HeVN) HeVN Health and Healing Tips. 2000. Agrimonia eupatoria. Website (hcvn.com) accessed 15 Aug 2000. Hegi, G. 1923. Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa. Vol- ume 4(2). A. Pichler’s Witwe & Sohn, Wien, Austria. Hegi, G. 1995. Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa. Vol- ume 4(2A). 3rd ed. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Agrimonia in Kentucky—Wessel and Thieret Hsu, M. F,, J. H. Young, J. P. Wang, and C. M. Teng. 1987. Effect of hsien-ho-t’sao (Agrimonia pilosa) on ex- perimental thrombosis in mice. Am. J. Chin. Med. 15: 43-51. [Original not seen; abstract in Medline (su: Agri- monia, 88074110), accessed 6 Jun 2000.] Hulme, F. E. 1912. Familiar wild flowers. Cassell and Company, London, U.K. Hutchinson, J. 1972. British wild flowers. Volume 1. David and Charles, Newton Abbot, U.K. Huxley, A., editor-in-chief. 1992. The new Royal Horti- cultural Society dictionary of gardening. Macmillan, London, U.K. Iwatsubo, Y., M. Mishima, and N. Naruhashi. 1993. Chro- mosome studies of Japanese Agrimonia (Rosaceae). Cy- tologia 58:453-461. Jain, D. K., and V. Singh. 1973. Structure and develop- ment of hairs in Agrimonia eupatorium [sic] L. Curr. Sci. 42:434-436. Johnson, C. P. 1862. The useful plants of Great Britain. William Kent, London, U.K. Kartesz, J. T., and C. A. Meacham. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora. Version 1.0. CD-ROM. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Kearney, T. H., Jr. 1893. Notes on the flora of southeast- em Kentucky, with a list of plants collected in Harlan and Bell counties in 1893. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 20: 474-485. Keville, K. 1991. The illustrated herb encyclopedia. Mal- lard Press, New York, NY. Kline, G. J., and P. D. Sgrensen. 1990. Lectotypification and synonymy of Agrimonia gryposepala Wallroth (Ro- saceae). Taxon 39:512-515. Kline, G. J., and P. D. Sgrensen. 2000. The genus Agri- monia (Rosaceae) in Illinois. Erigenia 18:13-19. Kline, G. J., and P. D. Sgrensen. n.d. Agrimonia. Account prepared for and submitted to Flora of North America. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO. Knuth, P. 1908. Handbook of flower pollination. Translat- ed by J.R. Ainsworth Davis. Volume 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1996. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:69-91. Kummer, A. P. 1951. Weed seedlings. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Langer, R., and W. Kubelka. 1998. Rhizomanatomie von Vertretern der Gattungen Potentilla, Geum, Agrimonia, and Filipendula im Vergleich mit Radix Tormentillae. Sci. Pharm. 66:387-398. Original not seen; abstract in ArticleFirst, su: Agrimonia; accessed 6 Jun 2000. Law, D. 1973. The concise herbal encyclopedia. St. Mar- tin’s Press, New York, NY. Love, A., and D. Léve. 1961. Chromosome numbers of central and northwest European plant species. Opera Bot. 5:1-581. [LRNP] Lawrence Review of Natural Products. 1995. Ag- 161 rimony. In Lawrence Review of Natural Products, Au- gust 1995. Lushchevskaya, G. 1937. Dyestuff-yielding plants in the Ukraine S.S.R. Chem. Abstr. 31:6883. (Abstract.) Macroberts, M. H., and B. R. Macroberts. 1997. The ecol- ogy of Agrimonia incisa Torrey & A. Gray (Rosaceae) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 82:114—128. Masters, M. T. 1869. Vegetable teratology. Robert Hard- wicke, London, U.K. McFarland, F. T. 1942. A catalogue of the vascular plants of Kentucky. Castanea 7:77-108. Medley, M. E. 1993. An annotated catalog of the known or reported vascular flora of Kentucky. Ph.D. disserta- tion. Univ. Louisville, Louisville, KY. Miller, A. B. 1976. Shaker herbs. Clarkson N. Potter, New York, NY. Mitchell, J., and A. Rook. 1979. Botanical dermatology. Greengrass, Vancouver, Canada. Miyamoto, K., N. Kishi, and R. Koshiura. 1987. Antitumor effect of agrimoniin, a tannin of Agrimonia pilosa Led- eb., on transplantable rodent tumors. Jap. J. Pharmacol. 43:187-195. [Original not seen; abstract in Medline (su: agrimonia) 87199472. Accessed 4 Jun 2000.] M’Murtrie, H. 1819. Sketches of Louisville and its envi- rons. S. Penn Jr., Louisville, KY. [“Florula Louisvillen- sis,” 207-229. | Moerman, D. E. 1998. Native American ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Moquin-Tandon, A. 1842. Pflanzen-teratologie. Translated from the French by J. C. Schauer. Haude und Spener- sche Buchhandlung, Berlin, Germany. Mueller, H. 1883. The fertilisation of flowers. Translated and edited by D. W. Thompson. Macmillan and Com- pany, London, U.K. Muenscher, W. C. 1955. Weeds. Cornell Univ. Press, Ith- aca, NY. Murata, G., and K. Umemoto. 1983. Critical notes on the Asiatic Agrimonia with special reference to the distri- bution of calcium oxalate crystals. Acta Phytotax. Geo- bot. 34:166—-177. (In Japanese.) Nelmes, E. 1929. Agrimonia eupatoria Linn. with white flowers. J. Bot. 67:341. Nigg, H. N., and D. Seigler. 1992. Phytochemical resoure- es for medicine and agriculture. Plenum Press, New York, NY. O'Donovan, W. J. 1942. Dermatitis bullosa striata praten- sis. Agrimony dermatitis. Brit. J. Dermatol. Syph. 54: 39-46. Ody, P. 1993. The complete medicinal herbal. Dorling Kindersley, London, U.K. Phelouzat, R. 1963. Morphologie, Phyllotaxie, ontogénie de trois rosacées. Agrimonia eupatoria L., Poterium sanguisorba L., Geum urbanum L. Rev. Cytol. Biol. Vég. 26:101-347, 15 plates. [A. eupatoria, 115-293. | Pratt, A. 1905. The flowering plants. Grasses, sedges and ferns of Great Britain. Frederick Warne & Company, London, U.K. 162 Price, S. F. 1893. Flora of Warren County, Kentucky. Pub- lished by the author. Quattrocchi, U. 2000. CRC world dictionary of plant names. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Car- olina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Rafinesque, C. S. 1828. Medical flora. Volume 1, A-H. Atkinson and Alexander, Philadelphia, PA. [RDA] Reader's Digest Association. 1981. Field guide to the wild flowers of Britain. Reader's Digest Association, London, U.K. Reitsma, T. 1966. Pollen morphology of some European Rosaceae. Acta Bot. Neerl. 15:290-307. Ridley, H. N. 1930. The dispersal of plants throughout the world. L. Reeve and Company, Ashford, Kent, U.K. Robertson, C. 1928. Flowers and insects. n.p., Carlinville, IL. Robertson, K. R. 1974. The genera of Rosaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold. Arbor. 55:303— 332, 344-401, 611-662. Robertson, S. M. 1973. Dyes from plants. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. Robinson, B. L. 1900. The nomenclature of the New Eng- land agrimonies. Rhodora 2:235-238. Robinson, B. L. 1901. Further notes on the agrimonias. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 28:295-300. Robinson, B. L., and M. L. Fernald. 1908. Gray’s new manual of botany. American Book Company, New York, NY. Ross-Craig, S. 1956. Agrimonia eupatoria L. Drawings of British plants IX Rosaceae (2): plate 9. G. Bell, London, U.K. Rydberg, P. A. 1913. North Am. FI. 22(5):391-396. Schauenberg, P., and F. Paris. 1977. Guide to medicinal plants. Keats Publishing, New Canaan, CT. Schimper, C. 1854. Discentration (unzureichend Fascia- tion genannt). Flora 37:76. Schoepf, J. D. 1787. Materia medica americana. Reprint, with biography of Johann David Schoepf by E. Kre- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) mers, as Bull. Lloyd Libr. 6 (Reproduction Ser. 3). 1903. Short, C. W., R. Peter, and H. A. Griswold. 1833. A cat- alogue of the native phaenogamous plants and ferns of Kentucky. Reprint in R. L. Stuckey, Scientific publica- tions of Charles Wilkins Short. Arno Press, New York, NY, 1978. Short, C. W., and R. Peter. 1834. A supplementary cata- logue of the plants of Kentucky. Transylvania J. Med. Assoc. Sci. 7:598—-600. Skalicky, V. 1973. Amerikanischer Arten der Gattung Agrimonia L. ser. Tuberosae ser. nova. Folia Geobot. Phy- totax. 8:95—-104. Smith, P. 1812. The Indian doctor’s dispensatory. Reprint, with biography of Peter Smith by J. U. Lloyd, as Bull. Lloyd Libr. 2 (Reproduction Ser. 2). 1901. Svenson, H. K. 1941. Report of the local flora committee. Torreya 41:3-7. Swanston-Flatt, S. K., C. Day, C. J. Bailey, and P. R. Flatt. 1990. Traditional plant treatments for diabetes. Diabe- tologia 33:462—464. [Original not seen; abstract in Med- line (su: Agrimonia, 91006942); accessed 4 Jun 2000.] Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago region. 4th ed. Indiana Academy of Science, Indian- apolis, IN. Torrey, J., and A. Gray. 1838-1840. Agrimonia. Pages 430-431 in A flora of North America. Volume 1. Wiley and Putnam, New York, NY. Usher, G. 1974. A dictionary of plants used by man. Haf- ner Press, New York, NY. Voss, E. G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II Dicots (Saurur- aceae—Cornaceae). Cranbrook Institute of Science (Bul- letin 59) and University of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor, MI. Weatherby, C. A. 1924. Two more wool-waste plants from Westford, Mass. Rhodora 26:38-39. Wood, M. 1997. The book of herbal wisdom. North At- lantic Books, Berkeley, CA. Zardini, E. M. 1971. Especies nuevas o criticas de la flora Jujenia II. Bol. Soc. Argentina Bot. 14:107—110. [A. par- viflora. | J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):163-164. 2000. NOTE Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Feeding Habits at Yellow- bank Wildlife Management Area, Breckinridge County, Kentucky.—This study used pellet analysis to determine feeding habits of barn owls (Tyto alba) at the Yellowbank Wildlife Management Area (YWMA), Breck- inridge County, Kentucky. We found that barn owl diets at YWMA consisted mainly of voles (Microtus spp.). These results are consistent with many past barn owl feeding habit studies. Past studies suggest that barn owls consume a preva- lence of small mammals (1, 2). However, larger animals (e.g., birds, reptiles, and amphibians), and insects (e.g., grasshoppers, beetles) are also often eaten (2, 3). Little is known, however, about barn owl feeding habits in the east-central U.S. We are unaware of any reports of barn owl feeding habits for Kentucky and Indiana, and there are only single reports for southern Illinois (4) and Ohio (5). The purpose of this study was to determine whether prey selection of barn owls in YWMA is consistent with other barn owl feeding habit studies. Feeding habits of barn owls are generally examined through the dissection of regurgitated pellets. Bam owls consume their prey whole or largely so. Relatively weak digestive fluids secreted in the stomach dissolve the nu- tritious soft parts of the prey (1, 2). This is followed by the regurgitation of a tightly packed pellet consisting of indigestible fur, bones, insect exoskeleton, and/or feathers. Typically, two pellets are formed and cast each day, ca. 6.5 hr after ingestion of prey. One pellet is cast at a ha- bitual roosting or nesting area, the other at night while the owl is foraging (6). Consumption of more than one meal during a 6.5-hr period may result in the casting of larger pellets containing remains of multiple meals (6). Thus, a record of past meals is created frem undigested portions of prey (2, 7). The proportion of prey items cap- tured by barn owls closely matches the proportion regur- gitated, providing a relatively unbiased sampling of feed- ing habits (1, 2). Pellets were gathered from beneath a nesting platform at YWMA during the 1998 nesting season. Two adult barn owls and seven young regurgitated the pellets. Each dry pellet was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g, mea- sured along the longest and shortest axes to the nearest 1 mm, soaked in water, then dissected using tweezers and dissecting probes. Skull and lower mandible remnants were counted and identified. Small mammal capture records for YWMA and a list of mammal species occurring in Breckinridge County (both provided by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wild- life) were used as a guide for preliminary identification. We used a reference skull collection (Mammal Collection, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale) to assist in spe- cies identification of bone fragments (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). We determined the percentage of each species within pellets by number and by mass, with estimates of mean mass (14, 15). Skull and mandible counts from large pel- lets (= 2.0 g) were compared to those of small pellets (< 2.0 g) with one-tailed t-tests adjusted for unequal sample size. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relation- ship between pellet mass and the number of prey items per pellet. Species proportions between small and large pellets were examined with chi-square, with a 2.0 g cut- off arbitrarily chosen after inspection of the distribution of pellet masses. We examined 52 large and 151 small pellets for a total of 203 pellets. An average dry pellet weighed 1.6 + 0.1 g, and was 29.8 + 0.5 mm long X 20.9 + 0.4 mm wide. Small pellets contained fewer skulls (mean = 0.63) than large pellets (mean = 1.49); t,, = —6.79, P < 0.001). Small pellets also had fewer mandibles (mean = 0.94) than large pellets (mean = 3.06; t,, = —7.80, P < 0.001). The most common genus among all pellets was Micro- tus (64%), primarily M. ochrogaster (n = 87), and M. pi- netorum (n = 36; Table 1). Southern bog lemmings (Syn- aptomys cooperi; n = diversity increased as a function of pellet mass (r? = 0.24, P < 0.001). We were unable to classify remains from 29 of the 203 (14%) pellets. The proportion of unidentified specimens in small pellets was higher than in large pellets (27.9 vs. 3.8%, respectively; x? = 20.02, P < 0.001). The proportion of unidentified microtines in small pellets was nearly double that of large pellets (13% vs. 7.5%), though this difference was not significant, (x? = 1.60, P < 0.21). Composition of identified species was similar between small and large pellets, aside from a greater number of southern bog lemmings in the smaller pellets (13.0 vs. 2.0; xX? = 6.35, P < 0.01). Pellets were rarely devoid of bones (n = 4). The only apparent difference in prey composition between pellet class sizes was in proportion of southern bog lemmings. Barn owls are opportunistic foragers. Prevalence of prairie and woodland voles in the barn ow] diet is likely a function of their relative ease of capture, concurrence of predator and prey activity periods, and prey abundance. Barn owls are most active at night and favor open country for foraging (3). Likewise, prairie and woodland voles re- main on the ground (versus escaping up into the trees) when pursued. Woodland voles are also common in most stages of forest succession (12). Our data suggest that pop- ulations of shrews (Blarina sp.; Sorex spp.) and harvest mice (Reithrodontomys spp.) are not active during the same time period that barn owls hunt, do not forage in 15) were also prevalent. Species the same areas as barn owls, or use specific habitat com- ponents successfully to evade predation. In conclusion, our results indicate a preponderance of microtines in the diet of barn owls at YWMA and are consistent with other barn owl feeding habit studies (2, 4, 5, 16, 17). We thank Dr. G. A. Feldhamer, and J. C. Whittaker, Department of Zoology, SIUC, and Dr. Alan Woolf, Co- operative Wildlife Research Laboratory and Department 163 164 Table 1. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Numbers and percentages of known prey species found in 203 pellets from a pair of barn owls and their seven young at Yellowbank Wildlife Management Area, Breckinridge County, Kentucky. Species (mean live mass [g]) Common name Number % by number % by mass! Microtus ochrogaster (42.5) Prairie vole 87 50 61 Microtus pinetorum (32) Woodland vole 36 21 19 Synaptomys cooperi (35.5) Southern bog lemming 15 9 9 Blarina brevicauda (21.5) Short-tailed shrew 9 5 3 Mus musculus (20.5) House mouse 8 5 3 Cryptotis parva (5.3) Least shrew W 4 One specimen was likely a red-winged blackbird (Ageaius phoeniceus). ‘Excluding plant and insect contents. of Zoology, SIUC, and numerous volunteers for laboratory assistance. LITERATURE CITED. (1) Bunn, D. S., A. B. War- burton, and R. D. S. Wilson. 1982. The barn owl. Buteo, Vermillion, SD. (2) Taylor, I. 1994. Barn Owls, predator- prey relationships and conservation. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK. (3) Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 170:140-153. (4) Feldhamer, G. A. 1985. Summer feeding habits of barn owls (Tyto alba) from White Coun- ty, Illinois. Trans. Illinois Acad. Sci. 78:133-137. (5) Col- vin, B. A., and E. B. McClean. 1986. Food habits and prey specificity of the common barn owl in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 86:76-80. (6) Marti, C. D. 1992. Barn owl. Pages 1— 16 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (eds). The birds of North America. The American Ornithologists’ Union and Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. (7) Sparks, J., and T. Soper. 1970. Barn owls, their natural and unnatural history. Taplinger, New York. (8) Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. (9) Martin, R. A. 1974. Fossil mammals from the Coleman IIA fauna, Sum- ter County. Pages 35-99 in S. D. Webb (ed). Pleistocene mammals of Florida. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. (10) Hazard, E. B. 1982. The mammals of Minnesota. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. (11) Carraway, L. N. 1995. A key to recent Soricidae of the western Unit- ed States and Canada based primarily on dentaries. Occas. Papers Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas. 175. (12) Hoffmeis- ter, D. F. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. (13) Feldhamer, G. A., L. C. Drickamer, S. H. Vessey, and J. F. Merritt. 1999. Mammalogy. McGraw- Hill, Boston, MA. (14) Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossen- heider. 1980. A field guide to the mammals, North Amer- ica north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin, New York. (15) Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. Knopf, New York. (16) Wallace, G. J. 1948. The barn owl in Michigan. Page 61 in Craighead, J. J., and F. C. Craighead, Jr. (eds). Hawks, barn owls, and wildlife. Dover, New York. (17) Craighead, J. J., and F. C. Craighead, Jr. 1969. Hawks, barn owls, and wildlife. Dover, New York.—Anita T. Morzillo, Department of Zoology; Hetti A. Brown, De- partment of Biological Sciences; Wayne E. Thogmartin, Department of Zoology & Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory; and Jennifer H. Herner-Thogmartin, Co- operative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Ilinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):165-172. 2000. Abstracts of Some Papers Presented at the 1999 Meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Science AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES Pesticide residue in soil and runoff: measurement and mitigation. GEORGE F. ANTONIOUS, Community Re- search Service, Atwood Research F acility, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Kentucky State University, Frank- fort, KY 40601. Soil erosion and runoff are some of the major means by which pesticides from agricultural fields enter streams, ponds, or lakes. The Water Quality Project at Kentucky State University (KSU) is evaluating best management practices for the growing of vegetable crops on highly erodible land (10% slope). Studies were conducted to de- termine the influence of landscape features on pesticide movement into runoff and infiltration water. Soil treat- ments (black plastic mulch and living fescue mulch) were used to reduce soil erosion and surface water runoff. Pes- ticides infiltration into the vadose zone were monitored using pressure-vacuum lysimeters (n = 27). A tipping bucket metering apparatus was used to collect runoff wa- ter following natural rainfall events. The impact of the soil mulches on movement of clomazone (a soil applied her- bicide), dacthal (a pre-emergence non-systemic herbi- cide), and endosulfan (an insecticide) was measured under field conditions. Black plastic covers had no clear effect on reducing runoff volume or concentration of clomazone in runoff, while grass strips of 30-cm wide were very ef- fective at reducing amounts of sediment in runoff. Plots planted with pepper intercropped with tomato as cover crop had 72% less runoff water and 79% less runoff sed- iment compared to plots planted with pepper only. Results indicated the vertical movement of clomazone, dacthal, and endosulfan through the soil into the vadose zone. Cul- tivation of turf reduced runoff but did not reduce leaching of pesticides into the vadose zone. Our future objective at KSU is to study the potential of using soil amendments to improve soil quality, detoxify contaminants, and reduce erosion. Identification of molecular markers that segregate in a simple Mendelian fashion in controlled crosses of pawpaw (Asimina triloba). SHAWN BROWN,* TERA M. BON- NEY, SNAKE C. JONES, and KIRK W. POMPER, Ken- tucky State University, Atwood Research Facility, Frank- fort, KY 40601-2335. The pawpaw (Asimina triloba) is a native plant found mainly in the southeastern and eastern United States. Its fruit has great potential as a new high-value crop in these regions. Although there are about 45 named pawpaw cul- tivars, breeding for improvement of desirable traits, such as improved fruit size and quality, is desirable. Our long- term goal is to utilize molecular marker systems to identify markers that can be used for germplasm diversity analysis and for the construction a molecular genetic map, where markers are correlated with desirable pawpaw traits. The objective of this study was to identify random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers that segregate in a simple Mendelian fashion in a controlled A. triloba cross. DNA was extracted from young leaves collected from field-planted parents and 20 progeny of the cross 1-7-1 X 2-54, as well as 10 progeny of the reciprocal cross. The DNA extraction method used gave acceptable yields of about 7 pg g_! of leaf tissue. Additionally, sample 260/280 ratios were about 1.4, which indicated that the DNA was of high enough purity to be subjected to the RAPD meth- odology. Screening of 10-base oligonucleotide RAPD primers with template DNA from the parents and progeny of the cross is proceeding in an effort to identify RAPD markers that segregate in a simple Mendelian fashion. The effect of transport density on survival of juvenile freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). SHAWN COYLE, JAMES H. TIDWELL, AARON VANARN- UM,* and CHARLES WEIBEL. Aquaculture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601. In production of the freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii, prawns (20.3 g) are nursed in indoor tanks then transported to ponds for growout. Stress during transport can produce immediate and undetected mortal- ity after pond stocking. This study was designed to eval- uate the effect of density on transport survival. Nine rep- licate styrofoam transport containers were prepared. Each contained a plastic bag with oxygen-saturated 22°C water with an atmosphere of 10-liter pure oxygen. Juvenile prawns weighing 0.26 + 0.02 g were randomly stocked inte each of three replicate transport containers at 10, 25 or 50 g/liter of water, then sealed for 8 hours (maximum in-state transport period). At 8 hours post-stocking, bags were opened, water was sampled, and live and dead ani- mals were separated and counted. Total ammonia-nitro- gen and nitrite-nitrogen were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in containers stocked at 50 g/liter than in containers stocked at either 10 or 25 g/liter, which were also signif- icantly different (P < 0.05). Dissolved oxygen was signif- icantly lower (P < 0.05) in transport containers stocked at 50 g/liter (1.3 mg/liter) than those stocked at 25 g/liter or 10 g/liter (1.6 mg/liter and 3.2 mg/liter, respectively), which were also significantly different (P < 0.05). Survival was significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in transport contain- ers stocked at 50 g/liter (86.6%). Survival in containers stocked at 25 g/liter (93%) was significantly lower than containers stocked at 10 mg/liter (97.2%). These data in- dicate that transport densities greater than 10 g/liter should be avoided for transport =8 hours. Suitability of the copepod Orthocyclops modestus as a live food for larval freshwater prawns, Macrobrachium ro- 165 166 senbergii. SHAWN COYLE,* JAMES H. TIDWELL, AARON VANARNUM, and CHARLES WEIBEL, Aqua- culture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601. The cyclopoid copepod Orthocyclops modestus was evaluated for its suitability as a live food for larval fresh- water prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). Orthocyclops modestus was identified in preliminary screening as one of the few indigenous zooplanktors which tolerated the temperature (28—30°C) and salinity (10-14 ppt) conditions of larval prawn culture. To evaluate the suitability of these copepods as live food for larval prawns, mixed zooplank- ton were collected from a reservoir with a 250 wm zoo- plankton net. Zooplanktors were held at 10 ppt salinity for 24 hours to remove cladocerans and then screened (335 ym) to remove rotifer species leaving only copepods. The test system consisted of nine individual 250 ml rearing units in a recirculating system, with three replicates of each of three treatments. Treatment | contained only lar- val prawns (five 10-d old larvae, Stage 5.4 + 0.9), Treat- ment 2 contained only copepods (185), and Treatment 3 a combination (5 larval prawns and 185 copepods). Den- sities for prawns were based on recommended prawn hatchery practices. Densities for copepods were based on recommended artemia feeding rates for Stage 5 prawn larvae. After 48 hours, prawn survival in Treatment 3 (87%) was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than in Treat- ment 1 (100%). Copepod survival was not significantly dif- ferent between treatments (93.7%) indicating copepods were not consumed. Reduced prawn survival in Treatment 3 was likely due to high energy demands or physical trau- ma as prawn larvae attempted to capture active and well- armored copepods. It appears that indigenous zooplank- ton show little promise as live foods in prawn hatchery production. Use of hempseed meal, poultry by-product meal, and canola meal in practical diets without fish meal for sun- shine bass. ANN M. MORGAN,* CARL D. WEBSTER, KENNETH R. THOMPSON, and EBONY J. GRISBY, Aquaculture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601. Sunshine bass (Morone chrysops X M. saxatilis) is one cross of hybrid striped bass. Diets for sunshine bass use high percentages of fish meal (FM); however, FM is the most expensive ingredient in aquaculture diets. If FM can be replaced, diet costs may decrease. Four practical float- ing diets were formulated to contain 40% protein, similar energy levels, and without FM. A fifth diet was formulated to contain 30% FM and served as the control diet. Ten fish (21 g) were stocked into each of twenty 110-liter aquaria and were fed twice daily (07.30 and 16.00 hr) for 10 weeks. Diets were formulated to contain: Diet 1, soy- bean meal (SBM) and meat-and-bone meal (MBM): Diet im 2, SBM + MBM + hempseed meal (HSM); Diet 3, SBM and poultry by-product meal (PBM); and Diet 4, and SBM + MBM + canola meal (CM). At the conclusion of the feeding trial, percentage weight gain of fish fed Diet Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) 1 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher (299%) compared to fish fed Diet 3 and Diet 4, but not different from fish fed Diet 2 and Diet 5. Percentage survival, amount of diet fed, and hepatosomatic index (HSI) of sunshine bass were not different (P > 0.05) among treatments and averaged 95%, 111 g of diet/fish, and 2.0% of body weight, respec- tively. Results from the present study indicate that diets without FM have potential for use in growing juvenile sunshine bass. Further research needs to be conducted on the diet formulations used in the present study and should be conducted in ponds. The Kentucky State University pawpaw (Asimina trilo- ba) project. KIRK W. POMPER,* SNAKE C. JONES, EDDIE B. REED, and TERA M. BONNEY, Kentucky State University, Atwood Research Facility, Frankfort, KY 40601-2355. Kentucky State University (KSU) has had a compre- hensive pawpaw (Asimina triloba) research project since 1990, with the goal of developing the pawpaw into a new high-value tree fruit crop for limited resource farmers in Kentucky. An overview of recent developments at KSU concerning pawpaw variety trials, propagation, web site development, and germplasm collection and assessment, was presented. A pawpaw regional variety trial (RVT) was planted at KSU in 1998, consisting of 8 replicate trees of 28 standard pawpaw cultivars and advanced selections from the PawPaw Foundation breeding program. The RVT establishment rate, flowering, and growth data by variety was reported. The positive influence of shade on the growth and development of pawpaw seedlings in con- tainer production was discussed. A web site, http:// www.pawpaw.kysu.edu, has been developed and expanded for the dissemination of information on pawpaw to sci- entists, commercial growers and marketers. The National Clonal Germplasm Repository for Asimina spp. is located at KSU and hence, germplasm evaluation, preservation, and dissemination are a high priority for our program. In the spring of 1999, volunteers collected pawpaw leaf sam- ples from 270 trees in 17 different states that will be used in molecular marker methodologies in order to assess ge- netic diversity across the pawpaw’s native range. Pawpaw seedlings with promising fruit characteristics have been identified in our germplasm collection and have been propagated for further evaluation as potential cultivars for release by KSU. Relative effectiveness of plant and animal source oils for control of air breathing insects. LEIGH ANNE VI- TATOE,* AARON VANARNUM, SHAWN COYLE, and JAMES TIDWELL, Aquaculture Research Center, Ken- tucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601. Freshwater prawn juveniles (Macrobrachium rosenber- gii) are stocked into ponds at extremely small sizes (0.2— 0.5 g) and predation by air breathing insects can be a significant problem. The use of petroleum products to cre- ate a thin surface film and prevent insect respiration is an effective control but causes environmental concern. If Abstracts, 1999 Annual Meeting proven effective, plant- or animal-based oils may be safer. Menhaden fish oil (MO) and corn oil (CO) were evaluated at two application rates and compared to previously rec- ommended petroleum product mixes for their ability to eliminate air-breathing insects. Petroleum product appli- cations (controls) included 2:1 motor oil/diesel fuel com- bination (PCI) and 1:20 motor oil/diesel fuel combination (PCII) (previously recommended procedures). Glass aquaria with 0.107 m? surface area were used and filled with 6 liters of reservoir water. Each tank was stocked with five adult notonectids. Low rate applications were applied at 0.01 ml/m? and high rate applications at 0.03 ml/m’. There were three replications per treatment. Control tanks were stocked but not treated with oil. At the low rate the PCII and MO treatments both produced com- plete mortality by 2 hours post treatment while treatments PCI and CO did not result in complete mortality. At the high rate there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) among treatments in amount of time required to attain complete mortality. Menhaden fish oil appears to be an effective alternative to petroleum products for control of predaceous air breathing insects in larval shrimp and fish ponds. At a high rate of application corn oil may also be effective. The effect of water temperature on the survival of adult freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) held in tanks. CHARLES WEIBEL,* JAMES H. TIDWELL, SHAWN COYLE, and AARON VANARNUM, Aquacul- ture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frank- fort, KY 40601. Pond production of freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) is becoming increasingly popular in Kentucky. As a seasonal crop, prawns must be harvested by mid- October to prevent losses. However, the highest demand for the product is during the holiday period of November through December. The ability to hold live freshwater prawns would allow producers to address this lucrative market. Temperature directly affects the metabolism of poikilothermic animals and reduced temperatures might increase survival under stressful conditions. Also, females carrying eggs at harvest are not considered desirable by some consumers and temperature could affect this trait. To address this, the effect of temperature on survival of adult freshwater prawns was evaluated under controlled conditions in tanks for 11 weeks. Freshwater prawns re- cently harvested from ponds (21.3 + 1.7 g) were randomly stocked into nine 5700-liter tanks at 500 prawns/tank. There were three replicate tanks per temperature (17, 20, and 23°C). Prawns were fed a percentage of body weight at maintenance levels. After 76 days, average weight was not significantly different (P > 0.05) between treatments. Survival was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for animals held at 20° and 23°C (58 and 56%, respectively) than at 17°C (29%). The percentage of berried (egg carrying) fe- males was significantly greater (P < 0.05) at 23° (13.2%) than at 20° or 17°C (0.2 and 0%, respectively). These data indicate that 20°C may be optimum for holding freshwater 167 prawns for market if berried females are undesirable. Holding temperatures near 17°C appear to represent stress conditions and result in high mortality. BOTANY & MICROBIOLOGY Inheritance of morphological and physiological charac- teristics in Taraxacum officinalee ANTON M. CLEM- MONS#* and DAVID L. ROBINSON, Department of Bi- ology, Bellarmine College, Louisville, KY 40205. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), an asexual species, produces achenes (seeds) apomictically. Three experi- ments were performed to explore the genetic variability and heritability of various morphological/ physiological traits that occur in natural populations. In the first study, achenes from a single dandelion population were subject- ed to a warm temperature treatment (37°C) for different time periods (0, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16 d), followed by a 4- d incubation at 21°C, and a final cold treatment (5°C). Germination was assessed at the end of each temperature treatment. The experimental control (constant 21°C) ex- hibited the highest percent germination. In the other treatments, a positive correlation was found between the percent of ungerminated achenes and the duration of ex- posure to high temperature. To examine the heritability of achene heat tolerance, germinated achenes exposed to 8 d at 37°C, and then 21°C, were collected, grown to maturity, and allowed to flower and set seed. Achenes from these heat-tolerant plants (as well as control plants) were grown to maturity to evaluate the next generation. In the second study, achenes collected from dandelion populations occurring in five U.S. states were germinated and grown to maturity in a controlled environment. Anal- ysis of leaf morphology revealed more variability between the five populations than within them. In the third exper- iment, achenes from 19 different fasciated (deformed) plants were germinated and grown in a controlled envi- ronment to examine the inheritance of their expressed fas- ciation. These experiments help to delineate the amount of genetic diversity in dandelion populations. Biological effects of volatile emissions from cut turf. MARIA L. DAVIS* and DAVID L. ROBINSON, Biology Department, Bellarmine College, Louisville, KY 40205. Current research on the volatile emissions emanating from recently-mowed turfgrass indicates that these gases may have a significant impact on the environment. The primary purpose of this study was to observe the effect of gaseous emissions from different species on the rate of seed germination. In the first study, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima [Eu- patorium rugosum]) seeds were placed into sealable, plas- tic bags containing the freshly harvested foliage (cut into ca. 4 cm lengths) from a species of plant that commonly grows in turf. Seeds were treated with the emissions from one of seven plant species: Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Lolium perenne, Leptochloa fascicularis, Taraxacum offt- cinale, Trifolium repens, Glechoma hederacea, or Plantago lanceolata. Germination rates were examined over a 18-d 168 period, and the foliage-gas treatments that incurred the greatest effects were examined in more detail in a second experiment. In that study, A. altissima seeds were germi- nated in a replicated trial in the presence of cut foliage from one of four different species (L. perenne, T. officin- ale, T. repens, P. lanceolata) or an experimental control. No statistically significant differences were observed for rate of germination in any of the foliage treatments (in- cluding the control). In addition, the effect of these gases on crickets, a common grass-dwelling insect, will be dis- cussed. Identification of fecal coliform species from Lee’s Branch at Midway, Kentucky. BEVERLY W. JUETT,* DEBORAH EVEN, and GLENDA MARKER, Depart- ment of Biological Sciences, Midway College, Midway, KY 40347. Coliform species were isolated and identified from 60 total coliform counts performed in Lee’s Branch at Mid- way, KY. Water sampling was conducted six different times beginning in July 1996 and ending in September 1997. Total coliform counts were determined by the Standard Total Coliform Membrane Filter Procedure. Coliform species isolated from Endo agar plates were transferred to trypticase soy and MacConkey agar. The isolates were identified by conventional biochemical methods and En- terotube II. Identification of bacterial species in stream water provides basic knowledge of the microbial environ- ment of freshwater and may serve as baseline data in de- termining if the fecal contamination of this stream is from animals or humans. Continuation of a study on inheritance of achene char- acteristics in Ageratina altissima. JOANN M. LAU* and DAVID L. ROBINSON, Department of Biology, Bellar- mine College, Louisville, KY 40205. Seed dormancy is a powerful means by which plants control when and where they occur. Three major sources for a population’s variability for dormancy are genetic di- versity, somatic polymorphism, and microsite/temporal/bi- ological variability. The goal of this research was to explore the relative importance of these sources in regulating achene (seed) germination and dormancy in white snake- root (Ageratina altissima [Eupatorium rugosum). Last year, white snakeroot achenes were selected for different germination and dormancy traits, grown to maturity and allowed to reproduce. The progeny (achenes) of these se- lections were then examined for different germination characteristics. Most (54%) of the progeny germinated be- fore any cold treatment, whereas 12% germinated after a single cold treatment. Although, on average, there were no noticeable differences between the parental groups, there were obvious differences between individual selec- tions. For instance, one plant (from a non-cold-requiring achene) produced achenes that exhibited 100% germina- tion at room temperature, whereas another plant's prog- eny (selected for germination after 1 cold treatment) ex- hibited 32, 20 and 16% germination after 0, 1, and 2 cold Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) treatments, respectively. In another study, the effect of achene size on germinability was examined by partitioning achenes from a single population into four size categories. Even though the weight of the largest achenes was more than double the smallest there were no statistically signif- icant differences in cumulative germination between any of the size categories. Therefore, if there is somatic poly- morphism for achene dormancy in white snakeroot it may involve characteristics other than achene size. CELLULAR & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY The GABAc rhol and rho2 subunit genes are differ- entially expressed during pre- and postnatal development in the mouse. CHRISTY COLE,* Transylvania University, Lexington, KY 40508; and MAUREEN McCALL, Uni- versity of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Most inhibitory neurotransmission in the central ner- vous system (CNS) is mediated either by glycine or gam- ma aminobutyric acid (GABA). GABA inhibition is me- diated by one of three receptors: GABAa, GABAb, or GA- BAc. In the rodent, the GABAc receptor regulates the flow of chloride ions in the bipolar cells of the retina. The GABAc receptor may be made up of three types of sub- units: rhol, rho2, and rho3. The GABAc rho2 subunit is predominant throughout the CNS, however, the GABAc tho] subunit seems to be predominant in only the bipolar cells of the retina. These subunits are expressed at differ- ent times in the development of the mouse. To determine at which point in the development of the mouse the GA- BAc rhol and rho2 subunits are expressed, total RNA was extracted from mice at embryonic ages (E): E12.5, E14.5, E17.5 and from retinas of mice at postnatal ages (P): P1, P6, P13, P20. cDNA was reverse transcribed from all RNA samples and used in a PCR based strategy to deter- mine the time course of the expression of both the GA- BAc rhol and rho2 subunit genes. As a control for the amount of cDNA transcribed from each RNA sample, beta-actin was amplified from each cDNA sample. The expression of all three genes were tested individually using PCR, and the amplified products were visualized using electrophoresis. We have found that the GABAc rhol gene and the rho2 gene are differentially expressed during pre- and postnatal development of the mouse. The GA- BAc rhol gene appears to begin to be expressed between Pl and P6. The GABAc rho2 expression is present in the youngest sample that we tested, E12.5. Although the GA- BAc rhol and rho2 genes are thought to assemble into functional receptors in the adult, their differential expres- sion during development suggests that the GABAc rho2 gene may play a different role in the developing embryo -and may assemble homomeric receptors or associate with other GABA subunits to assemble functional receptors. These results will also aide in further research with trans- genic and knockout mice which are being tested to de- termine the function of the GABAc receptor in retinal processing. Abstracts, 1999 Annual Meeting CHEMISTRY Photoacoustic measurements in biological tissues and fluids. ANGELA L. NEWCOMB,* Department of Sci- ence, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, KY 49718: and JOEL MOBLEY and TUAN VO-DINH, Life Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. The photoacoustic (PA) effect is the generation of acoustic waves by electromagnetic radiation. The magni- tude of the PA response in a material is determined by its optical absorption. We have investigated the thermally- mediated PA response of mammalian brain tissue and glu- cose solutions to explore the utility of PA methods for biomedical sensing applications. We measured the PA spectra of tissues from the cerebrum of sheep between 500-700 nm using a tunable pulsed laser for excitation. We were able to differentiate between the gray and white matter in our samples, which could be useful in minimally invasive surgery. We were also able to detect the presence of glucose in solution, which may lead to a noninvasive method of measuring blood sugar. HEALTH SCIENCES Analysis of a functional digital model of the mammalian basilar membrane. SHELLY FERRELL,* MATTHEW E. KOGER, DAVID RICE, KENNETH M. MOOR- MAN, and PEGGY SHADDUCK PALOMBI, Transylva- nia University, Lexington, KY 40508. The human auditory system functions as a processor of sound. The processing occurs in an analog setting where the sound stimulus is generated from a source and is di- rected toward the ear. From the pinna, the sound travels in the outer ear to the middle ear, through the cochlea where the basilar membrane vibrates to stimulate the hair cells. In this pathway the signal is transduced from a wave front to an electrical signal. This is also the critical point where the information is translated into a signal that the brain can process. The sound signal has a non-linear re- lation to the cochlear output. For a fully functioning com- puter model to simulate the process of basilar membrane function, it must contain the non-linear properties that the basilar membrane incorporates into the signal processing. Other minor inputs to the main sound wave are from sources such as pinna vibration, skull vibration, ossicular vibration, and residual tympanic membrane vibration. We attempted to evaluate a “best” computer model of audi- tory processing for accurate models that incorporate con- sistent non-linear properties and accurately use the other input conditions to fine tune and purify the simulation. We determined that the LUTEar model developed by Ray Meddis and his colleagues, contains a developed program that has moderately accurate non-linear properties. The consistency of the digital diagrams compared to physio- logical data is not as accurate as we would like. The overall processing shape is similar; however, the actual numbers are not within an acceptable percent error. Our next steps will be to reprogram portions of the models to achieve a 169 more accurate model, to correct minor non-linear prop- erty errors, and to increase incorporation of other stimuli to the processing output. Examination of the validity of the pre-emphasis filter in an auditory system model. MATTHEW E. KOGER,* SHELLY FERRELL, DAVID RICE, KENNETH M. MOORMAN, and PEGGY SHADDUCK PALOMBI, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY 40508. LUTEar, a mammalian auditory system computer mod- el, was examined to determine whether it could be ma- nipulated to correctly model aged hearing. The validity of the pre-emphasis filter in LUTEar was investigated using previously published physiological data. The pre-emphasis filter corresponded with the outer and middle ear in the mammalian auditory system. It takes the input signal and passes it through a mathematical filter. This output is next sent to the basilar membrane filter. An investigation of the literature led to an understanding of the structure and function of the outer and middle ear; based on this un- derstanding, physiological data was gathered from the lit- erature and compared to data from LUTEar gathered by Meddis and Hewitt (1991). It was determined that LU- TEar amplified incoming sound in the outer and middle ear ten to twenty decibels less than what physiological data has found. However, it was determined that the basic filter shape of the amplification curve of the pre-emphasis filter closely matched the curve in physiological data. Next, the feasibility of altering the parameters of the pre- emphasis filter for aged hearing was explored. The pre- emphasis filter is a mathematical equation derived from a digital band-pass filter. The difficulty in altering this equa- tion to accurately represent aged hearing was centered in the non-physiological based variables in the filter. It was determined that a greater study of this was needed. Therefore, changes that incorporate biological variables will have to be made to the digital band-pass filter in order to correctly model aged hearing. A radioprotective drug combination in mice. K. S. KU- MAR, V. SRINIVASAN, D. L. PALAZZOLO,* E. P. CLARK, and T. M. SEED, Radiation Medicine Depart- ment, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Be- thesda, MD 20889; and Pikeville College School of Os- teopathic Medicine, Pikeville, KY 41501. Thiol drugs are very effective radioprotective agents. However, the doses required to protect are also very toxic. One approach to minimize toxicity is to combine low dos- es of thiols with other non-thiol radioprotective agents. The thiol drug used was S-2-(3-methylaminopropylami- no)-ethylphosphorothioic acid (WR-3689; 50 mg/kg), a methylated derivative of amifostine, which is used in che- motherapy to reduce the cis-platinum-induced nephrotox- icity. The non-thiols used were monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL, 0.5 mg/kg), an immunomodulator, and two pros- taglandins—iloprost (ILO, 0.1 mg/kg), and misoprostol (MIS, 0.1 mg/kg). Individually, these doses of WR-3689 and MPL are known to be non-toxic, while ILO and 170 MISO are known to be toxic. In this study, male CD2F1 mice were given these agents intraperitoneally (IP) 30 minutes before irradiation with 10 Gy of 60Co at 1 Gy/ minute, and survival was monitored for 30 d. When given individually, none of drugs were protective, as indicated by 0% survival. However, when all four agents were com- bined and given as a single IP injection, the survival rate increased to 50% and a dose reduction factor of 1.23 was calculated indicating significant radioprotection. In addi- tion, the combined drug treatment appeared to be less toxic. These results indicate that the toxicity of radiopro- tectants at higher doses can be reduced by combining them at lower doses without compromising the radiopro- tective efficacy. MATHEMATICS Superficial coset curiosities. JAMES B. BARKSDALE JR., Department of Mathematics, Western Kentucky Uni- versity, Bowling Green, KY 42101. This presentation exhibits several rudimentary propo- sitions conceming coset notions from elementary group theory. Superficial curiosities which result from slight statement modifications of these fundamental theorems and relationships are then noted and discussed. Such pre- sentation content could serve as an enrichment theme (or as a special project topic) for undergraduate mathematics courses. Open mindedness to low-tech teaching methods. AUS- TIN FRENCH, Department of Mathematics/Physics/ CSC, Georgetown College, Georgetown, KY 40324. An effective teaching method involving (1) no note-tak- ing by students (but the students have a clear set of notes), (2) no homework grading by the instructor for outside work, (3) a text that costs a maximum of $9, (4) a system where it is extremely hard for a student to cheat and where the student's grade measures what the student knows (not that the student was in a group with someone that knew something and they got that student's grade), (5) a mixture of practice and creativity is expected by the student, (6) knowing absolutely perfectly some hard prob- lem types is rewarded, (7) where two overhead projectors are used, and (8) transparencies are made from neat pen- cil-written notes . . . will be introduced. The concept of overheads as the text will be shown. Surgical strike class questions, microquizzes, presentations, and jugular prob- lems will be described in this unique grading system, which is simply fun to teach by and does not squeeze all of the blood out of the teacher's turnip to use this method. Two overheads are used in conjunction with transparen- cies from pencil-written overheads comprising the text for the course. This talk should help you to inform the tech- nologically gullible that just because something involves high-tech methods, it does not necessarily mean it is best to use technology and that all need to be open-minded about other teaching methods. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY Searching for hydrogen gas in shell galaxies. SEPPO LAINE,* Department of Physics and Astronomy, Univer- sity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, STEPHEN T. GOTTESMAN and KARL E. HAISCH JR., Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; and BENJAMIN K. MALPHRUS, Department of Physical Sciences, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY 40351. Recent images of the hydrogen line emission from shell galaxies have given new clues about the origin of the shells. Detection of gaseous material associated with these optical features gives us an opportunity to investigate the formation mechanism of shells and even of the associated lenticular or elliptical galaxies. Therefore, we sought to expand the sample of shell galaxies that could be mapped in the 21-cm hydrogen line. We used the 140-ft telescope of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank, WV to attempt to detect the 21-cm emission line in 9 shell galaxies. The observations were centered at the frequency of the spectral line, corresponding to the sys- temic velocity of the underlying galaxy. The total on- source integration times varied between 3 and 11 hours. We detected emission from the direction of two shell sys- tems, NGC 3610 and NGC 4382. However, NGC 4382 has a nearby disk galaxy within the 20 aremin beam of the telescope. Therefore, the more likely candidate for detec- tion of gas associated with shells is in NGC 3610. Since the signal extends over a rather narrow range of velocities and the optical images show a small, possibly interacting galaxy within the radio telescope beam, the explanation for this detection is unclear. Recent Very Large Array 21- cm observations of NGC 3610 should resolve the source of the hydrogen line emission. PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY Effect of Tamoxifen, Genistein, and vitamin E on the activity of the cysteine proteases Cathepsin L and Ca- thepsin B and their endogenous inhibitors in human an- drogen-independent prostate cancer cell lines. T. BURC- CHIO,* E. HUGO, M. MARKEY, B. PHILLIPS, A. BURNS, D. DARIA, J. THOMPSON, T. HOLDEN, E. McDONOUGH, G. HENSON, D. FRITZ, B. HURST, and J. H. CARTER, Wood Hudson Cancer Research Lab- oratory, Newport, KY 41071. Metastatic prostate cancer is a leading cause of death in men. Initially, most forms of this cancer are repressed by the removal of androgens and several treatment cours- es are based on this phenomenon. Growth inhibition by androgen removal, however, is often transient, with the carcinoma growth becoming independent of exogenous androgens. The proliferation of tumor cells correlates with the levels of the lysosomal proteases Cathepsin B (CB) and Cathepsin L (CL) as well as the endogenous inhibitors (CPI) of these enzymes. The role of these proteins in the progression of prostate carcinoma (CaP) is most likely one of protein turnover, however, we cannot rule out the pos- Abstracts, 1999 Annual Meeting sibility of some interaction with the process of metastasis. We have previously demonstrated that Tamoxifen ((Z)2- [4-(1,2-diphenyl-1-buteny]) phenoxy]-N, N-dimethyle- thanamine 2-hydroxy-1,2,3- propanetricarboxylate) (Tam), an antiestrogen, Genistein (4",5,7-trihydroxyisoflavone) (Gen), a soy phytoestrogen, and vitamin E (a-tocopherol succinate) (VitE) have a potent growth inhibitory effect on three cell lines derived from metastatic prostate ad- enocarinomas: LNCaP, DU-145, and PC-3. In this study, we have examined the effects of these compounds on the levels of CB, CL and CPI both intracellularly and secreted into the medium. We find that after exposure to these compounds the levels of CB and CL drop below the level of detection. CPI levels, while falling dramatically, remain detectible and are found to have the same specific activity (% protease inhibition/mg protein) as in growing cells. Examination of the stability of the acidic domain of N- arginine dibasic convertase, an opioid specific peptidase. KELLI CARPENTER* and EVA CSUHAI, Department of Chemistry, Transylvania University, 300 North Broad- way, Lexington, KY 40508. N-arginine dibasic convertase (NRDc) is a metallopep- tidase. NRDc has been cloned and sequenced and has been shown to contain an unusually large number of acid- ic residues. It has been suggested that polyamines may regulate the activity of NRDc by binding to acidic residues located at the anionic domain of the enzyme [Csuhai et al. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 3787-3794]. The acidic do- main of NRDe was produced and purified as a GST fusion protein in these experiments in order to run stability tests in the future by placing the fusion protein in a variety of media. The GST fusion proteins containing the acidic do- main of mouse NRDc or human NRDc, as well as a con- trol containing GST alone were scanned in a Circular Di- chroism Spectrophotometer with and without the poly- amine spermine in order to determine any structural ef- fects spermine may have on the enzyme. There was no significant change in the percentage of alpha-helix, beta- turn, beta-sheet, or random portions in the enzyme. Therefore, spermine does not appear to have any signifi- cant effect on the secondary structure of the fragment containing the acidic domain of NRDc. Mouse NRDc was scanned in a Circular Dichroism Spectrophotometer with a temperature gradient in order to determine the effect that spermine has on the enzyme’s heat stability. A con- centration of 1 mM of spermine was used in the tests. There was no distinct heat transition observed under these conditions. Therefore, based on these results, spermine does not appear to affect the structure and stability of the acidic domain of NRDc. SCIENCE EDUCATION Classroom cheating: A survey. JOHN G. SHIBER, Prestonsburg Community College, Prestonsburg, KY 41653. A survey of 877 high school students from four eastern Kentucky counties was conducted to determine the stu- ial dents’ attitude toward classroom cheating. Results: 38% said cheating in school is alright; 62% said it is wrong but 82% have done it; 95% have witnessed it; 67% would let friends copy their test answers if asked; 81% agreed pla- giarism is cheating, and 56% admitted having done it, al- though 34% didn’t know at the time they were plagiariz- ing; 33% do not regard copying friends’ homework as cheating; 65% believe teachers cheat when they give grades higher or lower than students earn; 41% have been given a higher grade than they deserved at one time or other but only half brought it to the teacher's attention: and 47% have noticed teachers overlooking cheating, and, of these, 41% attribute it to teachers not caring what stu- dents do, 35% to favoritism, and 24% to their not wanting to embarrass the student or their desire to help the stu- dent pass the course. Compared to responses of 630 com- munity college students to the same survey questions (Shi- ber 1999), those reported here suggest that high schoolers have a far more liberal attitude towards cheating and much greater experience with it than their older counter- parts. The two groups’ ideas about why students cheat are similar, however, with laziness to do work ranking first, lack of study time due to extra-curricular activities or fam- ily/job obligations second, too much pressure on good grades third, ineffective test-monitoring fourth, and, fi- nally, many said students cheat because everybody cheats. Megalitter: An Appalachian deformity. J. SMITH* and J. SHIBER, Prestonsburg Community College, Prestons- burg, KY 41653. Three designated points, located on or near the banks of eastern Kentucky’s Paintsville Lake, were systematically investigated for the first time for the presence, type, and abundance of megalitter over a 2-month period. Megal- itter was collected by hand from each site every 2 weeks in March/ April 1999. It was sorted according to the type of material it was made from, counted, and recorded. By far, the most abundant type of megalitter was plastic, then styrofoam, paper/clothing, metals, and glass. As the weath- er warmed and more people frequented the park, the oc- currence of megalitter tripled at the three locations. The incidence of plastic more than quadrupled. This pilot study indicates that a severe megalitter problem continues to exist within the environs of Paintsville Lake Park, de- spite the annual community clean-ups and daily efforts of the park personnel. The seriousness of illegal dumping and littering, not only in this park, but all over eastern Kentucky and other regions of the state, as witnessed by volunteers in the government-funded P.R.LD.E. Program, makes it imperative that a mandatory educational program on waste management be implemented by the Common- wealth in the earliest stages of public schooling and main- tained within the science curriculum throughout high school. Furthermore, appropriate penalties for littering and dumping can only be truly effective if more manpow- er is provided to enforce them, both in our public recre- ation facilities and the outlying communities. 172 ZOOLOGY & ENTOMOLOGY The effects of pH levels on diversity and density of aquatic microorganisms. CHRIS ALTMAN and POLLY FROSTMAN,* Department of Biology, Transylvania Uni- versity, Lexington, KY 40508. To look at the potential effects of acid rain, we designed an experiment to determine whether or not there is a sig- nificant correlation between pH levels and diversity and/ or density of aquatic microorganisms. Water was collected from a man-made lake and divided into nine equal sam- ples. Each sample was examined to determine density and diversity under normal pH conditions. Then 20 ml of each sample (1-9) were removed. Half of these samples had their pH lowered to 6-6.5 and the other half had their pH lowered to 4 by adding aqueous sulfuric acid (H2S04). Then the density and diversity of microorgan- isms present in each acidified sample was examined. Each set of data showed significant differences between the control samples and the acidified samples suggesting that the pH levels do affect the diversity and density of aquatic microorganisms. The pH levels used in this experiment are comparable to levels that could be caused by acid rain suggesting that acid rain can overcome the buffering ca- pacity of water and affect aquatic ecosystems. Optimal foraging in chickens (Gallus domesticus). SU- MEET R. BHATT and BRIAN A. CAUDILL,* Department of Biology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, 40508. We conducted a series of experiments to determine wheth- er domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were able to forage optimally under three different feeding conditions. Our study was conducted on three barnyard roosters and 10 hens fed at two feeding stations 3 m apart. In our first ex- periment, the chickens were presented with three times as much food at one feeding station as at the other. In the second experiment, chickens were fed twice as fast at one station as at the other. And in the third experiment, whole com kemels were fed at one station, and an equivalent num- ber of half com kemels were fed at the other. The chickens showed a significant preference for feeding at the high quan- tity feeding station (first experiment) and the high feeding rate station (second experiment), but showed no significant preference for large food items over small (third experiment). This suggests that chickens are capable of making some basic decisions about where to forage to maximize their energy intake per unit time, although they did not seem very capable at discriminating between different sizes of food items that were presented in equal quantities. Effects of continual food restriction on reproductive de- velopment and body organs in male house mice (Mus mus- culus). MICHAEL B. BOONE* and TERRY L. DERTING, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071. Prior research has shown that moderate levels of inter- mittent food restriction have no negative effect on the repro- ductive development of male house mice. We determined the effects of moderate but continual food restriction on de- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) velopment of the reproductive and digestive systems in post- weaning male house mice. We tested the null hypothesis that continual food restriction does not affect the level of testos- terone or the masses of reproductive and body organs. Food intake of post-weaning males was restricted daily in a manner that prevented growth in overall body mass of the male. The males were sacrificed after 21 d and their level of testoster- one and the wet and dry masses of their reproductive and other body organs were measured and compared with similar data from control males. The wet and dry masses of the testes were significantly lower in the food-restricted males. In con- trast, testosterone levels of the food-restricted males were 55% higher, but not significantly different, compared with control males. The wet and dry mass of the stomach, but not the cecum, small intestine, and colon, was significantly heavi- er in food-restricted males compared with control males. Our results, in combination with those of studies using intermit- tent food-restriction, indicate that when food resources are limited energy is allocated preferentially to processes neces- sary for reproduction (e.g., testosterone production for sper- matogenesis). A negative impact of food restriction on repro- ductive processes in mammals may only occur when food restriction is severe. Richness of terrestrial vertebrate species in Kentucky. MATTHEW L. COLE,* TERRY L. DERTING, and HOW- ARD WHITEMAN, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, KY 40271. To explore the diversity of terrestrial vertebrate species in Kentucky, we examined the distribution of species using rich- ness (number of species) as an index of diversity. We evalu- ated species richness for amphibians, breeding birds, mam- mals, reptiles, and all terrestrial vertebrates combined using two different regional delineations from the US Forest Ser- vice: ecoregions and physiographic provinces. Using species ranges obtained from the scientific literature, species richness was calculated for each pixel (600 X 600 m) across the state. We overlaid the species richness maps with coverages of the ecoregions and provinces of Kentucky using a geographic in- formation system (GIS). Among the ecoregions and provinc- es, mean species richness differed most for reptiles, partic- ularly among the squamates. Mean species richness was high- est for reptiles in the Mississippi Embayment and lowest in the Cumberland Mountains, a difference of 78%. In contrast, mean species richness was highest for amphibians and mam- mals in the Cumberland Mountains and lowest in the Blue- grass Region, a difference of approximately 20%. The varia- tion in mean species richness for breeding birds was minimal, differing by no more than 10% among the physiographic provinces. Largely due to the high number of reptile species, mean species richness was 10-15% higher in the western- most ecoregion and provinces compared with other geo- graphic areas. Areas of highest species richness of terrestrial ‘vertebrates were the Mississippi Embayment, Mississippi Al- luvial Basin, and Cumberland Mountains. Management plans that protect these “hotspots” of species diversity will be nec- essary if the biodiversity of vertebrates in Kentucky is to be maintained. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):173. 2000. List of Reviewers for Volume 61 of Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science David M. Brandenburg Laura Burford Jerry Carpenter Sunni L. Carr Ronald R. Cicerello Maria Falbo Blaine Ferrell Michael A. Flannery Larry A. Giesmann Stanley Hedeen Miriam S. Kannan Laurie Lawrence Barney Lipscomb James O. Luken Brainerd Palmer-Ball Debra K. Pearce 173 Thomas C. Rambo Patrick Schultheis Thomas Sproat Karl Vogler Mel L. Warren Jr. Gordon K. Weddle Gary L. Uglem George Yatskievych J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(2):174-194. 2000. INDEX TO VOLUME 61 Compiled by Varley Wiedeman Abies fraseri, 52 Abietinella abietina, 117 ABSTRACTS FROM 1999 KAS MEETING, 165-172 Acadian, 87 Accipiter striatus, 127 Acentrella ampla, 20 Acer pensylvanicum, 54 A. rubrum, 11, 54 A. saccharum, 11, 54 A. spicatum, 117 Achalarus lyciades, 86 Acipenser fulvescens, 125 Acleris youngana, 106 Aconitum uncinatum, 117 Acornshell, 130 Acorus calamus, 23, 26, 27 Acrobasis vaccinii, 106 Acroneuria, 14, 15 A. caroliniensis, 20 Actinastrum gracillimum, 36, 37 Actitis macularia, 127 Adams cave beetle, lesser, 125 ADAMS, KELLY, 62, 99 Adiantum capillus-veneris, 117 Adlumia fungosa, 117 Admiral red, 87 white, 87 Aeschnidae, 21 Aesculus octandra, 11 A. pavia, 117 Agalinis auriculata, 117 A. obtusifolia, 117 A. skinneriana, 117 Agalis milberti, 87 Agastache scrophulariifolia, 117 Ageaius phoeniceus, 164 Ageratina altissima, 167, 168 inheritance of achene character- istics in, 168 A. luciae-brauniae, 117 Agraulis vanillae, 87 Agricultural sciences, 165—167 Agrimonia, 146-162 in Kentucky, 146-162 A. eupatoria, 144, 147, 154, 155, 157-159 A. eupatoria X A. procera, 157 A. gryposepala, 117, 146, 147, 150, 151-154, 157, 158 A. incisa, 156 A. microcarpa, 146, 154, 155, 157 A. nipponica x A. pilosa var. japoni- ca, 157 A. parviflora, 146-148, 150, 151— 158 A. pilosa, 157, 158 A. pubescens, 146, 147, 150, 151— 153, 157 . rostellata, 146, 147, 150, 151-153 . striata, 146, 155, 157, 158 . suaveolens, 146 > Sr PSS . sylvatica, 146 Agropyron spicatum, 92 Aimophila aestivalis, 127 Air breathing insects, control of, 166-167 Alabama lip fern, 118 Alabama shad, 125 Alasmidonta marginata, 124 A. atropurpurea, 124 Algae, of Land Between the Lakes, 34-45 Allegheny chinkapin, 118 Allegheny stonecrop, 122 Alligator gar, 125 Alligator snapping turtle, 127 Allocapnia sp., 20 Alloperla sp., 20 Alosa alabamae, 125 ALTMAN, CHRIS, 171 Amblyopsis spelaea, 125 Amblyscirtes aesculapius, 86 A. belli, 86 A. hegon, 86 A. vialis, 86 Amelanchier laevis, 54 Ameletidae, 20 Ameletus, 15 A. sp., 20 American barberry, 117 American bison, 130 American bitten, 127 American brook trout, 126 American burying beetle, 125 American chaffseed, 122 American chestnut, 52, 118 American coot, 127 American copper, 87 American cow-wheat, 120 American crow, 53, 54 American crow-wheat, 120 American frog’s-bit, 120 American golden-saxifrage, 118 American goldfinch, 56 174 American lady, 87 American lily-of-the-valley, 118 American redstart, 56 American snout butterfly, 87 American speedwell, 123 American water-pennywort, 119 American wintergreen, 121 Amianthium muscitoxicum, 117 Ammi majus, 159 Ammocrypta clara, 125 A. vivax, 130 Ammodramus henslowii, 127 Amphibians, 126-127 Amphinemura, 15 A. delosa, 20 Amphipod, 125 Amphipod, Bousfield’s, 124 Amphiuma, three-toed, 126 Amphiuma tridactylum, 126 Amsonia tabernaemontana var. gat- tingeri, 117 Anaea andria, 87 Anartia jatrophae, 87 Anas clypeata, 127 A. discors, 127 Anatrytone logan, 86 Ancylid, domed, 123 Ancyloxipha numitor, 86 Anemone, Canada, 117 Anemone canadensis, 117 Angelica, filmy, 117 Angelica triquinata, 117 Angled riffleshell, 130 Anglepod, Carolina, 120 Anguispira rugoderma, 123 Anhinga, 130 Anhinga anhinga, 130 Animal source oils, 166—167 effectiveness on air breathing in- sects, 166-167 Animals, 123-128, 130 Ankistrodesmus falcatus, 34, 35 A. spiralis, 36, 37 Anodontoides denigratus, 124 Anomodon rugelii, 117 Antaeotricha osseela, 105 Anthocharis midea, 87 Anthomyia, 155 ANTONIOUS, GEORGE F., 23, 165 Antroselatus spiralis, 123 Apalone mutica mutica, 127 Apamea, undescribed species, 107 Aphrodite fritillary, 87 Apidae, 155 Apioblasma haysiana, 130 Apios priceana, 117 Apis, 155 Aporrectodea, 3 Appalachian blue, 87 Appalachian brown, 87 Appalachian bugbane, 118 Appalachian grizzled skipper, 125 Appalachian rosinweed, 122 Appalachian sandwort, 120 Appalachian sedge, 118 Appalachina chilhoweensis, 123 Aquatic microorganisms, 171 density, 171 diversity, 171 effects of pH levels on, 171 Arabis hirsuta var. adpressipilis, 117 A. missouriensis, 117 A. perstellata, 117 Archilochus colubris, 53 Ardea alba, 127 A. herodias, 127 Aristida ramosissima, 117 Armoracia lacustris, 117 Armored rocksnail, 123 Arrow head, 27 Arrow-wood, Missouri, 123 Arrowhead, delta, 122 grass-leaf, 122 sessile-fruit, 122 Arrowwood, downy, 123 Arthrodesmus convergens, 40, 41 A. extensus, 40, 41 A. octocomis, 40, 41 Artificial nest density, 46-49 effect on Canada Goose, 46-49 Ascia, 155 Asellidae, 22 Ashcamp cave beetle, 127 Ashy darter, 70, 126 Asimina triloba, 163, 164 Asio flammeus, 127 A. otus, 127 Aster barrens silky, 117 eastern silvery, 117 low rough, 117 Rockcastle, 117 Tennessee, 117 Texas, 117 white heath, 117 whorled, 117 Aster acuminatus, 117 A. concolor, 117 A. drummondii var. texanus, 117 A. hemisphericus, 117 Index to Volume 61 A. pilosus var. priceae, 117 A. pratensis, 117 A. radula, 117 A. saxicastellii, 117 Asterocampa celtis, 87 A. clyton, 87 Atalopedes campestris, 86 Atlides halesus, 87 Atractosteus spatula, 125 Atrichapogon sp., 21 Atrytonopsis hianna, 86 Auditory system model, 169 pre-emphasis filter in, 169 Aureolaria patula, 117 Autochton cellus, 86 Azalea, hoary, 121 Azure dusky, 87 spring, 87 Azygiidae, 60-62, 99-104 Baby-blue-eyes, small-flower, 121 Bachman’s sparrow, 127 Bachman’s warbler, 130 Baetidae, 20 Baetis sp., 20 B. flavistriga, 20 B. intercalaris, 15, 20 B. tricaudatus, 15, 20 BAIRD, NANCY DISHER, 83 Bald eagle, 127 Baltimore checkerspot, 87 Bambusina brebissonii, 44, 45 Banded darter, 70 Banded 87 Bank swallow, 128 Baptisia australis var. minor, 117 B. bracteata var. leucophaea, 117 B. tinctoria, 117 Barbara’s-buttons, 120 Barbed rattlesnake-root, 121 Barberry, American, 117 Barbicambarus comatus, 124 Barking treefrog, 127 BARKSDALE, JAMES B., JR., 170 Barn owl, 128 feeding habits, 163-164 Barrens silky aster, 117 Bartonia virginica, 117 Bartramia longicauda, 127 Bashful bulrush, 122 Bass hybrid striped, 166 sunshine, 166 diets for, 166 Basswood, 54 Bat evening, 128 Rafinesque’s big-eared, 128 Virginia big-eared, 128 Battus philenor, 86 B. polydamas, 87 175 Bay starvine, 122 Beak-rush, woodland, 122 Beaked-rush globe, 121 tall, 121 Bean Cumberland, 124 rayed, 124 Bear, black, 128 Bearded skeleton, 119 Beaver cave beetle, 125 BEBE, F. N., 108 Beebalm, spotted, 120 Beetle American burying, 125 Ashcamp cave, 125 beaver cave, 125 bold cave, 125 cave, 125 Clifton cave, 125 concealed cave, 125 Cub Run Cave, 125 Garman’s cave, 125 Greater Adams Cave, 125 hidden cave, 125 icebox cave, 125 lesser Adams cave, 125 limestone cave, 125 Louisville cave, 125 Old Well Cave, 125 Roger's cave, 125 round-headed cave, 125 scholarly cave, 12 sixbanded longhorn, 125 Stevens Creek Cave, 125 surprising cave, 125 Tatum Cave, Little Black Moun- tain, 50-59 Bird-voiced treefrog, 126 Birds, breeding, 127-128, 130 Bishops-weed eastern mock, 121 mock, 121 Nuttall’s mock, 121 Bison, American, 130 Bittern ~ American, 127 least, 127 Bivalva, 20 Black bear, 128 Black buffalo, 126 Black locust, 54, 56 Black lordithon rove beetle, 125 Black swallowtail, 87 Black tern, 130 Black-and-white warbler, 56 Black-crowned night-heron, 127 Black-throated blue warbler, 54-56 Blackberry, smooth, 122 Blackbird, red-winged, 164 Blackburnian warbler, 50, 53, 55, 127 Blackfin sucker, 126 Blackfoot quillwort, 120 176 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Blackside dace, 126 Blacktail redhorse, 126 Blacktail shiner, 125 Bladderpod Lescur's, 120 Lesquereux’s, 120 Bladderwort, greater, 123 Bladetooth, Virginia, 123 Blarina sp., 163 B. brevicaudad, 164 Blazingstar, slender, 120 Bleufer, 124 Bloodfin darter, 70 Blossom tubercled, 130 yellow, 130 Blotched chub, 126 Blotchside logperch, 130 Blue grass, drooping, 121 Blue heron great, 127 little, 127 Blue jasmine leather-flower, 118 Blue jay, 54 Blue monkshood, 117 Blue mud-plantain, 117 Blue scorpion-weed, 121 Blue water I., 23, 26, 27 Blue wild indigo, 117 Blue Appalachian, 87 eastern tailed, 87 marine, 87 silvery, 87 Blue-flower coyote-thistle, 119 Blue-headed vireo, 55 Blue-joint reed 118 Blue-star, eastern, 117 Blue-winged teal, 127 Blue-winged warbler, 55 Bluebreast darter, 70 Bluecurls, narrow-leaved, 123 Bluegill, 73 Bluets clustered, 121 Michaux’s, 119 Blunt mountain-mint, 121 Blunt-lobe grapefern, 117 Bluntface shiner, 125 Bobolink, 127 Bog club-moss northern, 120 southern, 120 Bog goldenrod, southern, 122 Bog lemming, southern, 163, 164 Bog rush, 120 Bog sedge brown, 118 prickly, 118 BOIADGIEVA, EMILIA 62, 99 Bold cave beetle, 125 Boloria bellona, 87 B. selene myrina, 87 Boluteloua curtipendula, 118 Bombus, 155 Bonasa umbellus, 53 BONNEY, TERA M., 165, 166 BOONE, MICHAEL B., 171 Borer moth, rattlesnake-master, 125 Bos bison, 130 Botany & Microbiology, 167—168 Botaurus lentiginosus, 127 Botrychium matricariifolium, 117 B. oneidense, 117 Botryococcus braunii, 36, 37 Bottlebrush crayfish, 124 Bottomland lichen, 117 Bousfield’s amphipod, 124 Boyeria vinosa, 21 Boykinia aconitifolia, 118 Brachythecium populeum, 117 Branched three-awn 117 Branta canadensis, 46 Braun’s rock-cress, 117 Breeding birds, 127-128, 130 Brighteye darter, 126 Brilla sp., 22 Bristly sedge, 118 Broad-banded water snake, 127 Broad-leaf golden-aster, 119 Broad-winged skipper, 86 Broadleaf water-milfoil, 121 Broadwing sedge, 118 Broken-dash northerm, 86 southern, 86 Bronze copper, 87 Brook lamprey mountain, 126 northern, 126 southern, 126 Brook saxifrage, 118 Brook snaketail, 125 Brook trout, American, 126 Broomrape, Louisiana, 121 Brown bog sedge, 118 Brown creeper, 127 Brown elfin, 87 Brown madtom, 126 Brown, Appalachian, 87 BROWN, D. KEVIN, 133 BROWN, HETTI A., 164 BROWN, SHAWN, 165 Brown-headed cowbird, 50, 54, 56 Bryocamptus morrisoni elegans, 124 Bryum cyclophyllum, 117 B. miniatum, 117 Bubulcus ibis, 127 Buckeye common, 87 red, 117 Buckley's goldenrod, 122 Buffalo clover, 123— running, 123 Buffalo, black, 126 Bugbane, Appalachian, 118 Bulbochaete varians, 36, 38 Bull paspalum, 121 Bulrush bashful, 122 Hall’s, 122 river, 122 slender, 122 softstem, 23, 26, 27 Bunchflower, Virginia, 120 Bunting, indigo, 56 Bur-reed, large, 122 Burbot, 126 Burhead, 119 dwarf, 119 Burnet, Canada, 122 BURNS, A., 170 BURRCCHIO, T., 170 Burrowing mayfly, 125 robust pentagenian, 130 Burying beetle, American, 125 Bush’s muhly, 120 Bush-clover round-head, 120 tall, 120 Butler's quillwort, 120 Buttercup, 27 Butterflies, Kentucky, 86-87 Butterfly, American snout, 87 Button, wrinkled, 123 Cabbage white, 87 Cabomba caroliniana, 118 Caddisflies, 15 Helma’s net-spinning, 125 limnephilid, 125 Cadmium, effect of on rats, 108— 114 Caecidotea sp., 22 C. barri, 124 Cajun dwarf crayfish, 124 Calamagrostis canadensis var. ma- couniana, 118 C. porteri ssp. insperata, 118 C. porteri ssp. porteri, 118 Calephelis borealis, 87 C. mutica, 87 Calla lily, 27 Callirhoe alcaeoides, 118 Callophrys augustuius, 87 C. grynea, 87 C. henrici, 87 C. irus, 87 C. niphon, 87 Calopogon tuberosus, 118 Calopterygidae, 21 Calopteryx sp., 21 Caloptilia fraxinella, 105 Caltha palustris var. palustris, 130 Calycanthus floridus var. glaucus, 118 Calycopis cecrops, 87 Calylophus serrulatus, 118 Cambarellus puer, 124 C. shufeldtii, 124 Cambaridae, 22 Cambarus parvoculus, 124 C. veteranus, 124 CAMPBELL, JULIAN J. N., 88 Campephilus principalis, 130 Campostoma anomalum, 75 Canada anemone, 117 Canada burnet, 122 Canada frostweed, 119 Canada goose, 46-49 effect of artificial nest density on, 46-49 effect of wetland size on, 46-49 in constructed wetlands, 46-49 Canada warbler, 50, 53, 55, 128 Canadian yew, 123 Canby’s mountain-lover, 121 Canis lupus, 130 C. rufus, 130 Canola meal, 166 in diets for fish, 166 Capniidae, 20 Caprifoliaceae, 30-33 Cardinal flower, 27 Cardinal, northern, 53, 56 Cardinalis cardinalis, 53 Carduelis tristis, 53, 56 Carex aestivalis, 118 . alata, 118 appalachica, 118 . atlantica ssp. capillacea, 118 . austrocaroliniana, 118 buxbaumii, 118 comosa, 118 crawei, 118 crebriflora, 118 decomposita, 118 gigantea, 118 hystericina, 118 joonii, 118 juniperorum, 118 lanuginosa, 118 leptonervia, 118 reniformis, 118 roanensis, 118 rugosperma, 118 . seorsa, 118 stipata var. maxima, 118 . Straminea, 118 . tetanica, 118 Carolina anglepod, 120 Carolina fanwort, 118 Carolina larkspur, 119 Carolina parakeet, 130 Carolina satyr, 87 Carolina wren, 56 Carolina yellow-eye, 123 CARPENTER, KELLI, 171 Carya spp., 11, 54 Carya aquatica, 118 Castanea dentata, 52, 118 C. pumila, 118 Castilleja coccinea, 118 Catchfly ovate, 122 royal, 122 QNNNAANANNANAAANAAAANANANANAO Index to Volume 61 Catharus fuscescens, 53, 55 Catspaw, 124 white, 130 Cattails, 23-27 Cattle egret, 127 CAUDILL, BRIAN A., 171 CAUDILL, TERESA L., 46 Cave beetle, 125 Ashcamp, 125 beaver, 125 bold, 125 Clifton, 125 concealed, 125 Garman’s, 125 hidden, 125 icebox, 125 lesser Adams, 125 limestone, 125 Louisville, 125 Roger's, 125 round-headed, 125 scholarly, 125 surprising, 125 Cave isopod, Clifton, 124 Cavefish northerm, 125 southern, 126 Cavesnail, shaggy, 123 Ceanothus herbaceus, 118 Cedar sedge, 118 Celastrina argiolus ladon, 87 Celastrina ebenina, 87 C. neglectamajor, 87 Celephelis mutica, 125 Celithemis verna, 125 Cellular & Molecular Biology, 168 Central mudminnow, 126 Central stoneroller, 75 Centroptilum sp., 20 Ceratopogonidae, 21 Ceratopsyche spama, 21 Cercyonis peagala, 87 Certhia americana, 127 Cerulean warbler, 50, 53 Cervus elaphus, 130 Chaetophorales, 36 Chaffseed, American, 122 Chain pickerel, 126 Chalosyne gorgone, 87 Channel darter, 70 Charadrius melodus, 116 Charidryas nycteis, 87 Chat, yellow-breasted, 53 Checkered white, 87 Checkerspot Baltimore, 87 Gorgone, 87 silvery, 87. Cheilanthes alabamensis, 118 C. feei, 118 Chelone obliqua var. obliqua, 118 var. speciosa, 118 Chestnut lamprey, 126 177 Chestnut, American, 52, 118 Chestnut-sided warbler, 54, 55, 56 Cheumatopsyche sp., 21 C. helma, 125 Chickens, optimal foraging in, 171 Chinkapin, Allegheny, 118 Chionodes, undescribed species, 105 . adamas, 106 . aruns, 106 . baro, 106 . hapsus, 105 . sevir, 106 . suasor, 105 Chlidonias niger, 130 Chironomidae, 22 Chloralictus, 155 Chlorococcales, 34 Chlorogonium euchlorum, 34, 35 Chloroperlidae, 20 Chlorophyta, 34-45 Chondestes grammacus, 127 Chrysemys picta dorsalis, 127 Chrysogonum virginianum, 118 Chrysosplenium americanum, 118 Chub blotched, 126 flame, 130 flathead, 126 gravel, 130 hornyhead, 126 sicklefin, 126 sturgeon, 126 Chubsucker, lake, 126 Cimicifuga rubifolia, 118 Cinygmula, 15 C. subaequalis, 20 Circaea alpina, 118 Circus cyaneus, 127 Cirriphyllum piliferum, 117 Cistothorus platensis, 127 CLARK, E. P., 169 Classroom cheating, 171 Cleft phlox, 121 starry, 121] Clematis crispa, 118 CLEMMONS, ANTON M.., 167 Clethrionomys gapperi maurus, 128 Clifton cave beetle, 125 Clifton cave isopod, 124 Clifty covert, 123 Climbing fumitory, 117 Clioperla clio, 20 Cloak, mourning, 87 Clonophis kirtlandii, 127 Closteriopsis longissima, 36, 37 Closterium abruptum, 36, 39 C. ehrenbergii, 36, 39 C. setaceum, 36, 39 Clouded skipper, 86 Clouded sulphur, 87 Cloudless sulphur, 87 Cloudywing confused, 86 AAOAAE© 178 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) northern, 86 southern, 86 Clover buffalo, 123 running buffalo, 123 Club-moss northern bog, 120 southern bog, 120 Clubshell, 124 Tennessee, 124 Clubtail, elusive, 125 Clustered bluets, 121 Clustered poppy-mallow, 118 Coachwhip, eastern, 130 Coal skink northern, 127 southern, 127 Coastal Plain sedge, 118 Cobweb skipper, 86 Coccyzus americanus, 53 Coelastrum cambricum, 36, 37 C. microporum, 36, 37 Coeloglossum viride var. virescens, 118 Coil, punctate, 123 Colaptes auratus, 53 COLE, CHRISTY, 168 COLE, MATTHEW L.., 171 Coleochaete orbicularis, 36, 38 C. scutata, 36, 38 Coleoptera, 21 Colias cesonia, 87 C. eurytheme, 87 C. philodice, 87 Collinsonia verticillata, 118 Columbine duskywing, 86 COMBS, MICHAEL S., 133 Combshell Cumberlandian, 124 round, 130 Comma buckeye, 87 checkered skipper, 86 eastern, 87 gray, 125 green, 87, 125 gray, 87 Common moorhen, 127 Common raven, 127 Common roadside skipper, 86 Common silverbell, 119 Common sootywing, 86 Common wood-nymph, 87 Common yellowthroat, 53 Compassplant, 122 Compton tortoise shell, 87 Comptonia peregrina, 118 Concealed cave beetle, 125 Conchapelopia sp., 22 Coneflower, sweet, 122 Confused cloudywing, 86 Conjurers-nut, 121 Conradina verticillata, 118 Constempellina sp., 22 Constructed wetlands, 23-29 Canada Goose in, 46—49 Contopus virens, 53 Conuropsis carolinensis, 130 Convallaria montana, 118 Coot, American, 127 Copepod, 124 Copper iris, 120 Copper American, 87 bronze, 87 Copperbelly water snake, 127 Coral, 87 Corallorhiza maculata, 118 Cordulegaster, 14 C. sp., 21 Cordulegasteridae, 21 Coreopsis pubescens, 118 Cormorant, double-crested, 128 Corn snake, 127 Corvus brachyrhynchos, 53 C. corax, 127 C. ossifragus, 127 Corydalidae, 21 Corydalis, pale 118 Corydalis sempervirens, 118 Corynoneura sp., 22 Corynorhinus rafinesquii, 128 C. townesendii virginianus, 128 Cosmarium baileyi, 39, 40 . bipunctatum, 39, 40 . biretum, 39, 40 . blyttii, 39, 40 . botrytis, 39, 40 . depressum, 39, 40 . granatum, 39, 40 margaritatum, 39, 40 meneghinii, 40, 41 . moniliforme, 40, 41 nymannianum, 40, 41 obtusatum, 40, 41 . orthostichum, 40, 41 . ovale, 40, 41 . phaseolus, 40, 41 . porrectum, 40, 41 . portianum, 40, 41 . pyramidatum, 40, 41 . subtumidum, 40, 41 . turpinii, 40, 41 Cosmocladium pusillum, 40, 41 Cotton mouse, 128 Cotton- tawny, 119 COVELL, CHARLES V., JR., 86, 105 Covert, cliflty, 123 Cow-parsnip, 119 Cow-wheat, American, 120 Cowbird, brown-headed, 50, 54, 56 COYLE, SHAWN, 165, 166, 167 Coyote-thistle, blue-flower, 119 Craba cuneifolia, 119 Crabapple, southern, 120 Cracking pearlymussel, 130 Crambidae, 105, 106 QEIGICIO CIGISIO |G GElelol@ Glelel@ Crater, queen, 123 Crawe’s sedge, 118 Crawfish frog, northern, 127 Crayfish, 124, 125 bottlebrush, 124 Cajun dwarf, 124 Crittenden, 124 dwarf, 124 Louisville, 124 Cream wild indigo, 117 Creek heelsplitter, 124 Creekshell Kentucky, 124 mountain, 124 Creeper, brown, 127 Creeping St. John’s-wort, 119 Creole pearly-eye, 87 Crescent pearl, 87 tawny, 87, 125 Cress glade, 120 lake, 117 necklace glade, 120 Cricotopus trifascia, 22 Crinkled hair 119 Crittenden crayfish, 124 Cross-leaf milkwort, 121 Crossline skipper, 86 Crow American, 53, 54 fish, 127 Crow-wheat, American, 120 Crucigenia tetrapedia, 36, 37 Crustacea, 22 Crustaceans, 124-125 Cryocopus pileatus, 53 Cryptobranchus allaganiensis alle- ganiensis, 126 Cryptotis parva, 164 Crystal darter, 130 Crystallaria asprella, 130 CSUHAI, EVA, 171 Cub Run Cave beetle, 125 Cuckoo, yellow-billed, 53 Cumberland bean, 124 Cumberland elktoe, 124 Cumberland leafshell, 130 Cumberland papershell, 124 Cumberland rosemary, 118 Cumberland sandwort, 120 Cumberlandia monodonta, 124 Cumberlandian combshell, 124 Cupped vertigo, 124 Curtis’ goldenrod, 122 Cut turf, 167-168 volatile emissions from, 167-168 Cutleaf meadow-parsnip, 123 Cutleaf water-milfoil, 121 Cyanocitta cristata, 53, 54 Cyllopsis gemma, 87 Cymophyllus fraserianus, 118 Cynodon dactylon, 167 Cyperus plukenetii, 118 Cyperus, Plukenet’s, 118 Cypress darter, 126 Cypress minnow, 126 Cypress-swamp sedge, 118 Cyprinella camura, 125 C. venusta, 125 Cypripedium candidum, 118 C. kentuckiense, 118 C. parviflorum, 119 C. reginae, 119 Cyprogenia stegaria, 124 Dace blackside, 126 longnose, 126 Dainty sulphur, 87 Dalea purpurea, 119 Danaus gilippus, 87 D. plexippus, 87 Dandelion, 167 western dwarf, 120 DARIA, D., 170 Dark-eyed junco, 50, 53, 55, 127 Darter ashy, 70, 126 banded, 70 bloodfin, 70 bluebreast, 70 brighteye, 126 channel, 70 crystal, 130 cypress, 126 duskytail, 67-76, 126 emerald, 70 firebelly, 126 goldstripe, 126 greenside, 70 gulf, 126 johnny, 126 least, 130 longhead, 126 olive, 126 rainbow, 70 relict, 126 scaly sand, 130 Shawnee, 126 smallscale, 126 speckled, 70 spotted, 126 swamp, 126 tippecanoe, 70 westerm sand, 125 Darters, 60 DAVIS, MARIA L., 167 Decapoda, 22 Delaware skipper, 86 Delicate vertigo, 124 Delphinium carolinianum, 119 Delta arrowhead, 122 Dendroica caerulescens, 53, 54 D. cerulea, 50, 53 D. coronata, 53 D. fusca, 50, 53, 127 D. pensylvanica, 53, 54 Index to Volume 61 D. tigrina, 53 D. virens, 53 Dero nivea, 20 DERTING, TERRY L., 171 Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. glauca, 119 D. flexuosa, 119 Desmidium aptogonum, 44 D. grevillii, 44 D. swartzii, 44, 45 Dewberry, Wharton's, 122 Diamesa sp., 22 Diana fritillary, 87 Diasemiodes nigralis, 106 Dichanthelium boreale, 119 Dicranodontium asperulum, 117 Dicranota sp., 22 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum, 36, 37 Didiplis diandra, 119 Digenea, 99-104 Digenetic trematode, 60-63 Digital model analysis of, 169 of mammalian basilar membrane, 169 DILLARD, GARY E., 34 Dion skipper, 86 Diplectrona, 10, 13, 15 D. modesta, 21 Diplocladius sp., 22 Diploperla robusta, 20 Diptera, 21, 155 Disporum maculatum, 119 Dixa sp., 22 Dixidae, 22 Docidium baculum, 36, 39 D. undulatum, 36, 39 Dodecatheon frenchii, 119 Dogface, southern, 87 olichonyx oryzivorus, 127 Dollar sunfish, 126 Domed ancylid, 123 Double-crested cormorant, 128 Double-ringed pennant, 125 Dove, mourning, 53 Downy arrowwood, 123 Downy goldenrod, 122 Dragon-head, slender, 130 Dreamy duskywing, 86 Dromedary pearlymussel, 130 Dromus dromas, 130 Drooping blue 121 Dropseed northern, 122 rough, 122 Drosera brevifolia, 119 D. intermedia, 119 Dryobius sexnotatus, 125 Dryopidae, 21 Dryopteris carthusiana, 119 D. ludoviciana, 119 Duke's skipper, 86, 125 Dun skipper, 86 Dusky azure, 87 179 Duskytail darter, 67-76, 126 Duskywing columbine, 86 dreamy, 86 funereal, 86 Horace’s, 86 Juvenal’s, 86 mottled, 86 sleepy, 86 wild indigo, 86 zarucco, 86 Dusted skipper, 86 Dwarf burhead, 119 Dwarf crayfish, 124 Cajun, 124 Dwarf dandelion, westem. 120 Dwarf sundew, 119 Eagle, bald, 127 Eallophrys irus, 125 Earleaf false foxglove, 117 Early 87, 125 Earthworms, 1—5 Eastern blue-star, 117 Eastern coachwhip, 130 Eastern comma, 87 Eastern eulophus, 121 Eastern hellbender, 126 Eastern mock bishop’s-weed, 121 Eastern phoebe, 53 Eastern pine elfin, 87 Eastern puma, 130 Eastern ribbon snake, 127 Eastern silvery aster, 117 Eastern slender glass lizard, 127 Eastern small-footed myotis, 128 Eastern spotted skunk, 128 Eastern tailed blue, 87 Eastern turkeybeard, 123 Echinodorus berteroi, 119 KE. parvulus, 119 Kclipidrilus sp., 20 Ectopistes migratorius, 130 Ectopria, 15 E. nervosa, 21 Edward’, 87 Fel-grass, 123 Eggert’s sunflower, 119 Eggleston's violet, 123 Egret cattle, 127 great, 127 Egretta carulea, 127 EISENHOUR, DAVID 67 Hiseniella, 3 Elanoides forficatus forficatus, 130 Elaphe guttata guttata, 127 Elaphria cornutinis, 107 E. festivoides, 107 Eleocharis olivacea, 119 Elfin brown, 87 eastern pine, 87 frosted, 87 180 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Henry's, 87 Elimia ebenum, 60-63 E. semicarinata, 60, 61 Elk, 130 Elktoe, 124 Cumberland, 124 Elm, September, 123 Elmidae, 21 Elodea nuttallii, 119 Elusive clubtail, 125 Elymus species, 88-98 E. elymoides, 88 E. glabriflorus, 88, 89, 92 E. glaucus, 88, 92, 93 ssp. glaucus, 96 ssp. jepsonii, 93, 96 ssp. mackenzii comb nov., 88-98 ssp. virescens, 93 var. minor, 88 . macgregorii sp. nov., SS—98 . mackenzii, 93 . stebbinsii, 92 . svensonii, 119 . trachycaulus, 93, 95 . villosus, 92 . virginicus, 88, 89, 92 var. glabriflorus, 92 var. intermedius, 89, 92 var. jejunus, 88, 89, 92 var. minor, 92 Emerald darter, 70 Emperor hackberry, 87 tawny, 87 Empididae, 22 Empidonax minimus, 127 E. virescens, 53 Enchanter'’s-nightshade, small, 115 Endopiza yaracana, 106 Enodia anthedon, 87 E. creola, 87 E. portlandia missarkae, 87 Entodon brevisetus, 117 Epargyreus clarus, 86 Epeorus, 10, 15 E. prob. namatus, 20 Ephemera guttulata, 20 E. simulans, 20 Ephemerella, 10, 15 E. inconstans, 125 E. prob. auravilii, 20 Ephemerellid mayfly, 125 Ephemerellidae, 20 Ephemeridae, 20 Ephemeroptera, 20 Epioblasma arcaeformis, 130 . biemarginata, 130 . brevidens, 124 . capsaeformis, 124 . flexuosa, 130 . florentina florentina, 130 . florentina walkeri, 130 . lewisii, 130 . obliquata obliquata, 124 AAmMAA ee AAAAAAe eS eomecomcsmecsmicoMcs mesic] E E Eremosphaera viridis, 34, 35 E E E E E E Eryngium intergrifolium, 119 E E AAAAA Ae E E E E . obliquata perobliqua, 130 . personata, 130 . propinqua, 130 . Sampsonii, 130 . stewardsonii, 130 . torulosa rangiana, 124 . torulosa torulosa, 130 . triquetra, 124 piphytic sedge, 118 pling’s hedge-nettle, 122 rimystax insignis, 126 rimystax x-punctatus, 130 rimyzon sucetta, 126 riophorum virginicum, 119 ristalis, 155 rora laetus, 87, 125 rynnis baptisiae, 86 rynnis brizo, 86 . funeralis, 86 . horatius, 86 . icelus, 86 . juvenalis, 86 . lucilius, 86 . martialis, 86 . zarucco, 86 rythronium rostratum, 119 sox lucius, 75 . niger, 126 theostoma spp., 60 E. baileyi, 70 . blennioides, 70 . caeruleum, 70 . camurum, 70 . chienense, 126 . cinereum, 70, 126 . flabellare, 67, 68 . fusiforme, 126 . lynceum, 126 maculatum, 126 . microlepidum, 126 . microperca, 130 nigrum susanae, 126 . parvipinne, 126 . percnurum, 67—76, 126 . proeliare, 126 . pyrrhogaster, 126 sanguifluum, 70 . stigmaeum, 70 . swaini, 126 . tecumsehi, 126 . tippecanoe, 70 . virgatum, 60, 61 . zonale, 70 uastrum abruptum, 40, 43 . affine, 40, 43 . ansatum, 40, 43 . binale, 40, 43 . denticulatum, 40, 43 . didelta, 40, 43 . elegans, 40, 43 . evolutum, 40, 43 . insulare, 40, 43 E. verrucosum, 40, 43 Euchloe olympia, 87 Eufala skipper, 86 Eukiefferiella spp., 22 Eulophus, eastern, 121 Eumeces anthracinus anthracinus, 127 E. anthracinus pluvialis, 127 E. inexpectatus, 127 Eupatorium maculatum, 119 E. rugosum, 167 E. semiserratum, 119 E. steelei, 119 Euphorbia mercurialina, 119 Euphydryas phaeton, 87 Euphyes dion, 86 E. dukesi, 86, 125 E. vestris, 86 Euptoieta claudia, 87 Eurema lisa, 87 E. nicippe, 87 European skipper, 86 Eurycea guttolineata, 126 Eurylophella funeralis, 20 Eurytides marcellus, 87 EVEN, DEBORAH, 168 Evening bat, 128 Evening primrose, 121 yellow, 118 stemless, 121 Everes comyntas, 87 Extirpated biota of Kentucky, 115- 132 Fagus grandifolia, 11 Falcate Orange Tip, 87 Falco peregrinus, 127 Falcon, peregrine, 127 False foxglove earleaf, 117 pale, 117 spreading, 117 ten-lobe, 117 False gromwell hairy, 121 soft, 121 western, 121 False hellebore, 120 small-flowered, 120 False mallow, hispid, 120 False solomon-seal, starry, 120 Fameflower limestone, 122 roundleaf, 123 Fanshell, 124 Fanwort, Carolina, 118 Farancia abacura reinwardtii, 127 Fat pocketbook, 124 Fecal coliform species, 168 from Lee’s Branch, 168 identification of, 168 Fée’s lip fern, 118 Feniseca tarquinius, 87 Fem Alabama lip, 118 Fée’s lip, 118 southern maidenhair, 117 southem shield wood, 119 spinulose wood, 119 FERRELL, SHELLY, 169 Fescue, 56 Festuca arundinacea, 56 F. elatior, 27 Fetterbush, 120 Few-flowered scurf-pea, 121 Fiddleleaf one-flower, 119 ovate, 119 Fiery skipper, 86 Filmy angelica, 117 Fimbristylis, hairy, 119 Fimbristylis purberula, 119 Finely-nerved sedge, 118 Fir, Fraser, 52 Firebelly darter, 126 Fish crow, 127 Fishes, 125-126, 130 Five-lined skink, southeastern, 127 Flame chub, 130 Flathead chub, 126 Floater, green, 124 Fluted kidneyshell, 124 Fly-poison, 117 Flycatcher, least, 127 Forcipomyia sp., 21 Forestiera ligustrina, 119 Forkshell, 130 Fox grape, northern, 123 Foxglove earleaf false, 117 pale false, 117 spreading false, 117 ten-lobe false, 117 Fraser fir, 52 Fraser's loosestrife, 120 Fraser's sedge, 118 Fraxinus americana, 54 French's shooting-star, 119 FRENCH, AUSTIN, 170 Freshwater mussels, 124, 130 Freshwater prawns, 165, 166 copepods as live food for, 165— 166 effect of water temperature on survival, 167 transport density on survival, 165 Fringed nut-rush, 122 Fringeless orchid, white, 121 Fritillary Aphrodite, 87 Diana, 87 great-spangled, 87 gulf, 87 meadow, 87 regal, 87, 125 silver-bordered, 87 variegated, 87 FRITZ, D., 170 Index to Volume 61 Frog’s-bit, American, 120 Frog northern crawfish, 127 northern leopard, 127 Frosted elfin, 87, 125 FROSTMAN, POLLY, 171 Frostweed Canada, 119 plains, 119 Fulica americana, 127 Fumitory, climbing, 117 Fumonelix wetherbyi, 123 Fundulus chrysotus, 126 F. dispar, 126 Funereal duskywing, 86 Fusconaia subrotunda subrotunda, 124 GABaAc rhol subunit genes, 168 in the mouse, 168 GABaAc rho2 subunit genes, 168 in the mouse, 168 Gallinula chloropus, 127 Gallus domesticus, 171 Gammarus bousfieldi, 124 Gar, alligator, 125 Garman’s cave beetle, 125 Gastropods, 123-124 ' Gattinger’s lobelia, 120 Gaywings, 121 Gelechiidae, 105 Gemmed satyr, 87 Genistein, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin B, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin L, 170-171 effect on cysteine proteases, 170- 171 Gentian prairie, 119 showy, 119 yellow, 119 Gentiana decora, 119 G. flavida, 119 G. puberulenta, 119 Geometrid moth, 125 Geometridae, 105, 107 Geothlypis trichas, 53 Gian hyssop, purple, 117 Giant swallowtail, 87 GIBSON, LORAN D., 105 Gillmeria pallidactyla, 107 Glade cress, 120 necklace, 120 Glandularia canadensis, 119 Glass lizard, eastern slender, 127 Glassy grapeskin, 124 Glassywing, little, 86 Glaucopsyche lygdamus, 87 Glechoma hederacea, 167 Gleditsia aquatica, 119 Globe beaked-rush, 121 Gloeocystis planctonica, 34, 35 Glossosoma sp., 21 Glossosomatidae, 21 181 Glyceria acutiflora, 119 Glyph Maryland, 123 sculpted, 123 Glyphyalinia raderi, 123 G. rhoadsi, 123 Gnaphalium helleri var. micraden- ium, 119 Goatweed leafwing, 87 Goera sp., 21 Goeridae, 21 Goerita, 15 G. betteni, 21 Gold-banded skipper, 86 Golden topminnow, 126 Golden-aster, broad-leaf, 119 Golden-crowned kinglet, 55 Golden-saxifrage, American, 118 Golden-star, 119 Golden-winged warbler, 50, 53, 55, 128 Goldenclub, 121 Goldenrod Buckley's, 122 Curtis’, 122 downy, 122 Rand’s, 122 Roan Mountain, 122 Short’s, 122 southern bog, 122 squarrose, 122 white-haired, 122 Goldfinch, American, 56 Goldstripe darter, 126 Golenkinia radiata, 36, 37 Gomphidae, 21 Gonatozygon brebissonii, 36, 39 Gorgone checkerspot, 87 GOTTESMAN, STEPHEN T., 170 Gracillariidae, 105 Grama, side-oats, 118 Grape honeysuckle, 120 Grape northem fox, 123 sand, 123 Grapefern blunt-lobe, 117 matricary, 117 Grapeskin, glassy, 124 Grass bearded skeleton, 119 blue-joint reed, 118 branched three-awn, 117 crinkled hair, 119 drooping blue, 121 hair, 120 June, 120 northern witch, 119 pale manna, 123 Porter's reed, 118 purple sand, 123 reed bent, 118 reed canary, 23, 26, 27 sharp-scaled manna, 119 182 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) shortleaf skeleton, 119 tufted hair, 119 Grass-leaf arrowhead, 122 Grass-of-parnassus kidney-leaf, 121 largeleaf, 121 Grass-pink, 118 Grassleaf mud-plantain, 119 Gratiola pilosa, 119 G. viscidula, 119 Gravel chub, 130 Gray comma, 87, 125 Gray hairstreak, 87 Gray myotis, 128 Gray treefrog, 127 Gray wolf, 130 Great blue heron, 127 Great egret, 127 Great Plains ladies’-tresses, 122 Great purple, 87 Great-spangled fritillary, 87 Greater Adams Cave beetle, 125 Greater bladderwort, 123 Greater prairie-chicken, 130 Greater redhorse, 130 Grebe, pied-billed, 128 Green comma, 87, 125 Green floater, 124 Green orchis, long-bract, 118 Green treefrog, 127 Green water snake, Mississippi, 127 Green-and-gold, 118 Greenside darter, 70 GRISBY, EBONY J., 166 Grizzled skipper, 86 Appalachian, 125 Gromwell hairy false, 121 soft false, 121 western false, 121 Groovebur, tall hairy, 117 Grosbeak, rose-breasted, 50, 53, 55, 56, 128 Ground juniper, 120 Gulf darter, 126 Gulf fritillary, 87 Gymnopogon ambiguus, 119 G. brevifolius, 119 Hackberry emperor, 87 Hair 120 Hair crinkled, 119 tufted, 119 Haircap moss, 117 Hairstreak Acadian, 87 banded, 87 coral, 87 early, 87, 125 Edward's, 87 gray, 87 great purple, 87 hickory, 87 juniper, 87 northern, 87, 125 red-banded, 87 striped, 87 white-m, 87 Hairy false gromwell, 121 Hairy fimbristylis, 119 Hairy groovebur, tall, 117 Hairy hawkweed, 119 Hairy ludwigia, 120 Hairy rock-cress, 117 Hairy skullcap, 122 Hairy snout-bean, 121 HAISCH, KARL E., JR., 170 Halesia tetraptera, 119 Haliaeetus leucocephalus, 127 Halictidae, 155 Halictus, 155 Hall’s bulrush, 122 Haploperla sp., 20 Haplotaxida, 20 Harelip sucker, 130 Harrier, northern, 127 Harvest mouse, 163, 164 Harvester, 87 Hawk, sharp-shinned, 127 Hawkweed, hairy, 119 Hayhurst’s scallopwing, 86 Health Sciences, 169-170 Heartleaf plantain, 121 Heartleaf southern, 119 variable-leaved, 119 Heath aster, white, 117 HEDEEN, STANLEY E., 6 Hedeoma hispidum, 119 Hedge-hyssop shaggy, 119 Short’s, 119 Hedge-nettle, Epling’s, 122 Heelsplitter, creek, 124 Helianthemum bicknellii, 119 H. canadense, 119 Helianthus eggertii, 119 H. silphioides, 119 Helichus fastigiatus, 21 Helicodiscus notius specus, 123 H. puntatellus, 123 Hellbender, eastern, 126 Hellebore false, 120 small-flowered false, 120 Helma’s net-spinning caddisfly, 125 Helmitheros vermivorus, 53 Helvibotys pseudohelvialis, 105 Hemerodromia sp., 22 Hemistena lata, 130 Hemitremia flammea, 130 Hempseed meal, 166. in diets for fish, 166 Henry's elfin, 87 Henslow’s sparrow, 127 HENSON, G., 170 Heptageniid mayfly, 125 Heptageniidae, 20 Heracleum lanatum, 119 Hermeuptychia sosybius, 87 HERNER-THOGMARTIN, JEN- NIFER H., 163 Heron great blue, 127 little blue, 127 Herzogiella turfacea, 117 Hesperia leonardus, 86 H. metea, 86 H. sassacus, 86 Heteranthera dubia, 119 H. limosa, 119 Heterotheca subaxillaris var. latifol- ia, 119 Hexastylis contracta, 119 H. heterophylla, 119 Hexatoma sp., 22 Hickory, 87 water, 118 Hidden cave beetle, 125 Hieracium longipilum, 119 Hispid false mallow, 120 Hoary azalea, 121 Hoary edge, 86 Hoary mock orange, 121 Hoary-pea, spiked, 123 Hobomok skipper, 86 HOLDEN, T., 170 Homoeosoma deceptorium, 107 Honeysuckle grape, 120 wild, 120 Hooded merganser, 127 Hooded warbler, 54-56 Horace’s duskywing, 86 Homsnail rugged, 123 shortspire, 123 Hornyhead chub, 126 Horse-balm, whorled, 118 House mouse, 164 body organs, 171 effect of food restriction, 171 male, 171 reproductive development, 171 Houstonia serpyllifolia, 119 HUGO, E., 170 Hummingbird, ruby-throated, 53 HUBST, B., 170 Hyalotheca dissiliens, 44 H. mucosa, 44 Hybognathus hayi, 126 H. placitus, 126 Hybopsis amnis, 126 Hybrid striped bass, 166 Hydrobaenus sp., 22 Hydrocotyle americana, 119 Hydrogen gas in shell galaxies, 170 Hydrolea ovata, 119 H. uniflora, 119 Hydrophyllum virginianum, 119 Hydropsyche betteni, 21 Hydropsychidae, 21 Hyla avivoca, 126 H. cinerea, 127 H. gratiosa, 127 H. versicolor, 127 Hylephila phyleus, 86 Hylocichla mustelina, 53 H. mustelina, 56 Hymenoptera, 155 Hypericum adpressum, 119 H. crux-andreae, 119 H. nudiflorum, 120 H. pseudomaculatum, 120 Hyssop, purple giant, 117 Icebox cave beetle, 125 Ichthyomyzon castaneus, 126 I. fossor, 126 I. gagei, 126 I. greeleyi, 126 Icteria virens, 53 Icterus spurius, 53 Ictinia mississippiensis, 127 Ictiobus niger, 126 Illinois pondweed, 121 Immyria nigrovittella, 106 Indian paintbrush, scarlet, 118 Indian skipper, 86 Indian wild rice, 123 Indiana myotis, 128 Indigo bunting, 56 Indigo blue wild, 117 cream wild, 117 yellow wild, 117 Inland silverside, 126 Insecta, 20, 105-107 Insects, 125, 130 air breathing, control of, 166-167 Iris fulva, 120 I. pseudacorus, 27 I. versicolor, 23, 26, 27 Iris blue water, 23, 26, 27 copper, 120 yellow water, 27 Ironoquia punctatissima, 21 Ironweed, New York, 123 Isoetes butleri, 120 I. melanopoda, 120 Isoperla holochlora, 20 Isopod, Clifton cave, 124 Isopoda, 22 Ivory-billed woodpecker, 130 Ixobrychus exilis, 127 JAMES, MICHAEL A., 133 Jay, blue, 54 Joan’s swallowtail, 87 Joe-pye-weed spotted, 119 Steele’s, 119 Johnny darter, 126 Jointed rush, 120 Index to Volume 61 JONES, BRITTNEY, 1 JONES, SNAKE C., 165, 166 JUETT, BEVERLY W., 168 Juglans cinerea, 120 Junco hyemalis, 50 J. hyemalis, 53, 127 Junco, dark-eyed, 50, 53, 55, 127 Juncus articulatus, 120 J. elliottii, 120 J. filipendulus, 120 June, 120 Juniper, 87 ground, 120 Juniperus communis var. depressa, 120 Junonia coenia, 87 Juvenal’s duskywing, 86 KALISZ, PAUL J., 1 Kentucky creekshell, 124 Kentucky lady’s-slipper, 118 Kentucky red-backed vole, 128 KENTUCKY STATE NATURE PRESERVES COMMISSION, 115 Kentucky vertebrate species, 171 Kidney-leaf grass-of-parnassus, 121 Kidney-leaf twayblade, 120 Kidneyshell, fluted, 124 King rail, 128 Kingfisher, belted, 69 Kinglet, golden-crowned, 55 Kingsnake, scarlet, 127 Kirchneriella lunaris, 34, 35 K. obesa, 34, 35 Kirtland’s snake, 127 Kite Mississippi, 127 swallow-tailed, 130 \Koeleria macrantha, 120 KOGER, MATTHEW E., 169 Kricogonia lyside, 87 Krigia occidentalis, 120 KUMAR, K. S., 169 Lace-winged Roadside Skipper, 86 LACKI, MICHAEL J., 50 Ladies’-tresses Great Plains, 122 shining, 122 sweetscent, 122 yellow nodding, 122 Lady’s-slipper Kentucky, 118 showy, 119 small white, 118 small yellow, 119 Lady ; American, 87 painted, 87 Laetilia fiskeella, 107 LAINE, SEPPO, 170 Lake chubsucker, 126 Lake cress, 117 183 Lake sturgeon, 125 Lampetra appendix, 126 Lamprey chestnut, 126 mountain brook, 126 northern brook, 126 southern brook, 126 Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides, 247/ Lampsilis abrupta, 124 L. ovata, 124 Large bur-reed, 122 Large orange sulphur, 87 Large sedge, 118 Large spotted St. John’s-wort, 120 Largeleaf grass-of-parnassus, 121 Lark sparrow, 127 Larkspur, Carolina, 119 Lasmigona compressa, 124 L. subviridis, 124 Lathyrus palustris, 120 L. venosus, 120 LAU, JOANN M.., 168 Layside sulphur, 87 Lead, effects of on rats, 108-114 Leafcup, Tennessee, 121 Leafshell, 130 Cumberland, 130 Leafwing, goatweed, 87 Least bittern, 127 Least darter, 130 Least flycatcher, 127 Least madtom, 126 Least shrew, 164 Least skipper, 86 Least tern, 128 Least trillium, 123 Ozark, 123 Least weasel, 128 Leather-flower, blue jasmine, 118 Leavenworthia exigua var. laciniata, 120 L. torulosa, 120 Leiophyllum buxifolium, 120 Lemming, southern bog, 163, 164 Lenthus sp., 21 Leonard's skipper, 86 Leopard frog, northern, 127 Lepidoptera, 105-107 Lepidostoma sp., 21 Lepidostomatidae, 21 Lepomis macrochirus, 75 L. macrochirus, 100 L. marginatus, 126 L. miniatus, 126 Lepotes marina, 87 Leptochloa fascicularis, 167 Leptodea leptodon, 130 Leptophlebiid mayfly, 125 Leptophlebiidae, 20 Leptoxis praerosa, 123 Lerema accius, 56 Lerodea eufala, 86 Lescur’s bladderpod, 120 184 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Lespedeza capitata, 120 L. stuvei, 120 Lesquerella globosa, 120 L. lescurii, 120 Lesquereux’s bladderpod, 120 Lesser Adams cave beetle, 125 Lettuce-leaf saxifrage, 122 Leucania calidior, 107 Leucothoe recurva, 120 Leucrocuta, 15 L. prob. thetis, 20 Leuctra, 10, 13, 15 L. sp., 20 Leuctridae, 20 Lexingtonia dolabelloides, 124 Liatris cylindracea, 120 Libythaena carinenta bachmanii, 87 Lichens, 117 Lilium philadelphicum, 120 L. superbum, 120 Lilliput purple, 124 Texas, 124 Lily calla, 27 Turk’s cap, 120 wood, 120 Lily-of-the-valley American, 118 wild, 120 Limenitis archippus, 87 L. arthemis arthemis, 87 L. arthemis astyanax, 87 Limestone cave beetle, 125 Limnephilid caddisfly, 125 Limnephilidae, 21 Limnobium spongia, 120 Limnophila sp., 22 Limnophyes sp., 22 Limstone fameflower, 122 Lip fen Alabama, 118 Fée’s, 118 Liparis loeselii, 120 Liriodendron tulipifera, 11, 54 Listera australis, 120 L. smallii, 120 Lithasia armigera, 123 L. geniculata, 123 L. salebrosa, 123 L. verrucosa, 123 Litobrancha recurvata, 125 Little blue heron, 127 Little glassywing, 86 Little spectaclecase, 124 Little wood satyr, 87 Little yellow, 87 Littlewing pearlymussel, 124 Lizard, eastern slender glass, 127 Lobelia appendiculata var. gattin- geri, 120 L. flabellaris, 27 L. nuttallii, 120 Lobelia Gattinger’s, 120 Nuttall’s, 120 Locust black, 54, 56 water, 119 Loesel’s twayblade, 120 Logperch, 70 blotchside, 130 Lolium perenne, 167, 168 Long-bract green orchis, 118 Long-eared owl, 127 Long-styled rush, 120 Long-tailed shrew, 128 Long-tailed skipper, 86 Longhead darter, 126 Longhorn beetle, sixbanded, 125 Longleaf stitchwort, 122 Longnose dace, 126 Longsolid, 124 Lonicera dioica var. orientalis, 120 L. reticulata, 120 Loosestrife Fraser's, 120 trailing, 120 Lophodytes cucullatus, 127 Lordithon niger, 125 Lordithon rove beetle, black, 125 Lota lota, 126 Louisiana broomrape, 121 Louisville cave beetle, 125 Louisville crayfish, 124 Lousewort, swamp, 121 Low rough aster, 117 Low-tech teaching methods, 170 open mindedness to, 170 Lucy Braun’s white snakeroot, 117 Ludwigia hirtella, 120 Ludwigia, hairy, 120 Lumbricidae, 1-5 Lumbriculidae, 20 Lumbricus, 3 Luperina trigona, 107 Lycaena hyllus, 87 Lycaena phlaeas americana, 87 Lycopodiella appressa, 120 L. inundata, 120 Lycopodium clavatum, 120 Lygropia tripunctata, 106 Lype diversa, 21 Lysimachia fraseri, 120 L. radicans, 120 L. terrestris, 120 Lytrosis permagnaria, 125 Macrhybopsis gelida, 126 M. meeki, 126 Macrobrachium ohione, 124 M. rosenbergii, 165-167 Macroclemys temminckii, 127 10-22 Madtom brown, 126 least, 126 Macroinvertebrate communities, northern, 126 slender, 126 Magnolia acuminata, 54 Maianthemum canadense, 120 M. stellatum, 120 Maindenhair fern, southern, 117 Malirekus hastatus, 20 Mallow, hispid false, 120 MALPHRUS, BENJAMIN K., 133 Malus angustifolia, 120 Malvastrum hispidum, 120 Mammals, 128, 130 Mammoth Cave shrimp, 124 Mandarin, nodding, 119 Manna grass pale, 123 sharp-scaled, 119 Manophylax butleri, 125 Maple red, 54, 56 sugar, 54 Mapleleaf, winged, 130 Marble, Olympia, 87 Marigold, marsh, 130 Marine blue, 87 MARKER, GLENDA, 168 MARKEY, M., 170 Marsh marigold, 130 Marsh-pink, slender, 122 Marshallia grandiflora, 120 Maryland glyph, 123 Masked shrew, 128 Masticophis flagellum flagellum, 130 Matelea carolinensis, 120 Mathematics, 170 Matricary grapefern, 117 Matted feather moss, 117 Mayfly burrowing, 125 ephemerellid, 125 heptageniid, 125 leptophlebiid, 125 robust pentagenian burrowing, 130 McCALL, MAUREEN, 168 McDONOUGH, E., 170 Meadow fritillary, 87 Meadow vole, 164 Meadow-parsnip, cutleaf, 123 Meadowsweet, narrow-leaved, 122 Megaceryle alcyon, 71 Megalitter, 171 an Appalachian deformity, 171 Megisto cymela, 87 Melampyrum lineare var. latifolium, 120 M. lineare var. pectinatum, 120 Melanostoma, 155 Melanthera nivea, 120 Melanthium parviflorum, 120 M. virginicum, 120 M. woodii, 120 Meleagris gallopavo, 53 Melithreptus, 155 Menidia beryllina, 126 Mercury spurge, 119 Merganser, hooded, 127 Meropleon cosmion, 107 Mesomphix rugeli, 123 Metalmark northem, 87 swamp, 87, 125 Mice, radioprotective drug combi- nation in, 167—170 Michaux’s bluets, 119 Michaux’s saxifrage, 122 Micrasterias americana, 40, 43 M. apiculata, 43, 44 M. denticulata, 43, 44 M. laticeps, 43, 44 M. pinnatifida, 43, 44 M. truncata, 44 Micropsectra sp., 22, Microspora pachyderma, 36, 38 Microsporales, 36 Microtendipes pedellus gp., 22 M. rydalensis gp., 22 Microtus ochrogaster, 163, 164 M. pennsylvanicus, 164 M. pinetorum, 162, 164 Midland smooth softshell, 127 Milbert’s tortoise shell, 87 Milkwort eross-leaf, 121 Nuttall’s, 121 racemed, 121 Mimulus floribundus, 96 Minnow cypress, 126 plains, 126 stargazing, 126 Minuartia cumberlandensis, 120 M. glabra, 120 Mirabilis albida, 120 Mississippi green water snake, 127 Mississippi kite, 127 Missouri arrow-wood, 123 Missouri rock-cress, 117 Mniotiilta vara, 53, 56 MOBLEY, JOEL, 169 Mock bishop’s-weed, 121 eastern, 121 Nuttall’s, 121 Mock orange, 121 hoary, 121 Molanna, 15, 18 M. blenda, 21 Molannidae, 21 Molothrus ater, 50, 54 Monarch, 87 Monarda punctata, 120 Monkshood, blue, 117 Monotropsis odorata, 120 Montain birds, long-term conserva- tion, 50-59 Moorhen, common, 127 MOORMAN, KENNETH M., 169 Morehead radio telescope, 133-145 Index to Volume 61 first observations, 133-145 MORGAN, ANN M., 166Morone chrysops X M. saxatilis, 166 Morus rubra, 54 MORZILLO, ANITA T., 164 Mosses, 117 Moth geometrid, 125 rattlesnake-master borer, 125 Moths, Kentucky, 105-107 Mottled duskywing, 86 Mougeotia boodlei, 36, 38 M. sphaerocarpa, 36, 38 Mountain brook lamprey, 126 Mountain creekshell, 124 Mountain maple, 117 Mountain woodsia, 123 Mountain-lover, Canby’s, 121 Mountain-mint blunt, 121 white leaved, 121 Mourning cloak, 87 Mourning dove, 53 Mouse cotton, 128 harvest, 163, 164 house, 164, 171 Moxostoma lacerum, 130 M. poecilurum, 126 M. valenciennesi, 130 Mucket, pink, 124 Mud snake, western, 127 Mud-plantain blue, 119 grassleaf, 119 Muddy rocksnail, 123 Mudminnow, central, 126 Muhlenbergia bushii, 120 M. cuspidata, 120 M. glabriflora, 120 Muhly Bush's, 120 plains, 120 MURPHY, D. SHANNON, 133 Mus musculus, 164, 171 Muscidae, 155 Mussel oyster, 124 salamander, 124 Mussels, freshwater, 124, 130 Mustela nivalis, 128 Mycteria americana, 116 Myotis austroriparius, 128 M. grisescens, 128 M. leibii, 128 M. sodalis, 128 Myotis b eastern small-footed, 128 gray, 128 Indiana, 128 southeastern, 128 Myriophyllum heterophyllum, 121 M. pinnatum, 121 185 N-arginine dibasic convertase, 17] stability of acidic domain of, 171 Naiad, thread-like, 121 aididae, 20 ajas gracillima, 121 annyberry, 30-33 Narrow-leaved bluecurls, 123 Narrow-leaved meadowsweet, 122 Nastra ilherminier, 86 Nathalis iole, 87 Neargyractis slossonalis, 106 Neckera pennata, 117 ecklace glade cress, 120 emophila aphylla, 121 emouridae, 20 eohelix dentifera, 123 eophylax, 15 eophylax sp., 21 ephopterix crassifasciella, 107 . vesustella, 106 ephrocytium obesum, 34, 44 erodia cyclopion. 127 . erythrogaster neglecta, 127 . fasciata confluens, 127 Nest density, artificial, 46-49 effect on Canada Goose, 46-49 Nestronia umbellula, 121 Net-spinning caddisfly, Helma’s, 125 Netrium digitus, 36, 39 Nettle-leaf noseburn, 123 N N PG PE y AZAAAAAAAZAZAAZ! Jettle-leaf sage, 122 New available names, moths, 105— 107 New York ironweed, 123 NEWCOMB, ANGELA L.., 169 Nicrophorus americanus, 125 Night-heron black-crowned, 127 yellow-crowned, 127 Nigronia, 14 N. fasciatus, 21 Nilotanypus sp., 22 Nitrobacter, 27 Nitrosomonas, 27 Nocomis biguttatus, 126 Noctuidae, 105, 107 Nodding ladies’-tresses, yellow, 122 Nodding mandarin, 119 Nodding rattlesnake-root, 121 Northern bog club-moss, 120 Northem broken-dash, 86 Northern brook lamprey, 126 Norther cardinal, 53, 56 Northem cavefish, 125 Northern cloudywing, 86 Northern coal skink, 127 Northern crawfish frog, 127 Northern dropseed, 122 N N N N N Northern fox grape, 123 Northern hairstreak, 87, 125 Northern harrier, 127 Northern leopard frog, 127 Northern madtom, 126 Northern metalmark, 87 186 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Northern pearly-eye, 87 Northern pike, 75 Northern pine snake, 127 Northern riffleshell, 124 Northern shoveler, 127 Northern starflower, 123 Northern starhead topminnow, 126 Northern white-cedar, 123 Northern witch, 119 Noseburn, nettle-leaf, 123 NOTES, 163-164 Notropis sp., 126 N. albizonatus, 126 N. hudsonius, 126 N. maculatus, 126 Noturus exilis, 126 N. hildebrandi, 126 N. phaeus, 126 N. stigmosus, 126 Nut-rush, fringed, 122 Nuthatch, red-breasted, 55, 128 Nuttall’s lobelia, 120 Nuttall’s milkwort, 121 Nuttall’s mock bishop’s-weed, 121 Nyctanassa violacea, 127 Nycticeius humeralis, 128 Nycticorax nycticorax, 127 Nyctiphylax sp., 21 Nymphalis antiopa, 87 Nymphalis vaualbum j-album, 87 Nyssa sylvatica, 54 Obovaria retusa, 124 Ocola skipper, 86 Odonata, 21 Oecophoridae, 105 Oedogoniales, 36 Oedogonium boscii, 36, 38 O. capilliforme, 36, 38 O. cardiacum, 36, 38 O. grande, 36, 38 Oenothera linifolia, 121 O. oakesiana, 121 O. perennis, 121 O. triloba, 121 Ohio shrimp, 124 Oidaematophorus eupatorii, 107 Old Well Cave beetle, 125 Oldenlandia uniflora, 121 Olethreutes tiliana, 106 Oligia mactata, 107 Oligochaeta, 1-5, 20 Olivaceous sedge, 119 Olive darter, 126 Olympia marble, 87 Oncophorus raui, 117 One-flower fiddleleaf, 119 Onosmodium molle ssp. hispidissi- mum, 12] O. molle ssp. molle, 121 O. molle ssp. occidentale, 121 Onychonema laeve, 44 Onyx rocksnail, 123 Oocystis parva, 34, 35 O. solitaria, 34, 35 Ophiogomphus aspersus, 125 O. howei, 125 Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus, 127. Ophorornis formosus, 53 Orange sulphur, 87 Orange tip, falcate, 87 Orange, hoary mock, 121 Orange, mock, 121 Orange, sleepy, 87 Orange-barred sulphur, 87 Orangefood pimpleback, 124 Orbesilum stipulatum, 130 Orchard oriole, 53 Orchid small purple-finged, 121 white fringeless, 121 yellow-crested, 121 Orchis, long-bract green, 118 Orconectes burri, 124 O. inermis, 124 O. jeffersoni, 124 O. lancifer, 124 O. palmeri, 124 O. pellucidus, 124 Oriole, orchard, 53 Ornate rocksnail, 123 Orobanche ludoviciana, 121 Oronectes australis, 124 O. bisectus, 124 Orontium aquaticum, 121 Orthocladius annectens, 22 Orthocyclops modestus, 165-166 Orthotrichum diaphanum, 117 Osprey, 128 Ostrocerca prob. truncata, 20 Oulimnious latiusculus, 21 Ovate catchfly, 122 Ovate fiddleleaf, 119 Ovenbird, 53 Owl barn, 128 feeding habits, 163-164 Owl long-eared, 127 short-eared, 127 Oxalis priceae, 121 Oxydendrum arboreum, 54 Oyster mussel, 124 Ozark least trillium, 123 Paintbrush, scarlet Indian, 118 Painted lady, 87 Painted trillium, 123 Painted turtle, southern, 127 Palaemonias ganteri, 124 Palamedes swallowtail, 87 PALAZZOLO, D. L., 169 Pale false foxglove, 117 Pale manna grass, 123 Pale umbrella-wort, 120 Palezone shiner, 126 Pallid shiner, 126 Pallid sturgeon, 126 PALOMBI, PEGGY SHADDUCK, 169 Palpomyia sp., 21 Pale corydalis, 118 Pandion haliaetus, 128 PANEMANGALORE, MYNA, 108 Panoquina ocola, 86 Papaipema eryngii, 125 Papershell, Cumberland, 124 Papilio cresphontes, 87 P. joanae, 87 P. palamedes, 87 P. polyxenes asterius, 87 P. troilus, 87 Papilo glaucus, 87 Parachaetocladius sp., 22 Paragnetina sp., 20 Parakeet, Carolina, 130 Paraleptophlebia, 10, 13, 15 P. prob. ontario, 20 Parametriocnemus, 15 P. lundbecki, 22 Parapediasia decorella, 106 Parnassia asarifolia, 121 P. grandifolia, 121 Paronychia argyrocoma, 121 Parrhasius m-album, 87 Parsley, prairie, 130 Parus bicolor, 53 Parus carolinensis, 53 Paspalum, bull, 121 Paspalum boscianum, 121 Passenger pigeon, 130 Passerculus sandwichensis, 128 Passerina cyanea, 53, 56 Pastinaca sativa, 159 Patera panselenus, 123 Pawpaw, 165, 166 controlled crosses, 165 Kentucky State University pro- ject, 166 molecular markers, 165 Paxistima canbyi, 121 Peachleaf willow, 122 Peacock, white, 87 Pearl crescent, 87 Pearly-eye Creole, 87 northern, 87 southern, 87 Pearlymussel cracking, 130 dromedary, 130 littlewing, 124 slabside, 124 Peatmoss, 117 Peavine smooth veiny, 120 vetchling, 120 Peck’s skipper, 86 Pediastrum boryanum, 36, 37 P. duplex, 36, 37 P. simplex, 36, 37 Pedicularis lanceolata, 121 Pegias fabula, 124 Peltoperla arcuata, 20 Peltoperlidae, 20 Penium margaritaceum, 36, 39 Pennant, double-ringed, 125 Pennyroyal, rough, 119 Pentagenia robusta, 130 Pentagenian burrowing mayfly, ro- bust, 130 Pepper and salt skipper, 86 Percina burtoni, 130 P. caprodes, 70 P. copelandi, 70 P. macrocephala, 126 P. squamata, 126 Percopsis omiscomaycus, 126 Peregrine falcon, 127 Perideridia americana, 121 Perlidae, 20 Perlodidae, 20 Peromyscus gossypinus, 128 Pesticide residue, 165 in soil, 165 measurement, 165 mitigation, 165 runoff, 165 Phacelia ranunculacea, 121 Phaeophyscia leana, 117 Phalacrocorax auritus, 128 Phalaris arundinacea, 23, 26, 27 Phenacobius uranops, 126 Pheucticus ludovicianus, 50 P. ludovicianus, 53, 128 Philadelphus inodorus, 121 P. pubescens, 121 PHILLIPS, B., 170 Philopotamidae, 21 Philtraea monillata, 107 Phlox bifida ssp. bifida, 121 P. bifida ssp. stellaria, 121 Phlox cleft, 121 starry cleft, 121 Phoebe, eastern, 53 Phoebis agarithe, 87 P. philea, 87 P. sennae, 87 Pholisora catullus, 86 Photoacoustic measurements, 169 in biological fluids, 169 in biological tissues, 169 Phoxinus cumberlandensis, 126 Phyciodes batesii, 87, 125 P. tharos, 87 Physics & Astronomy, 170 Physiology & Biochemistry, 170-172 Physostegia intermedia, 130 Picea rubens, 52 Pickerel weed, 23, 26, 27 Pickerel, chain, 126 Pickerel-weed, 121 Picoides borealis, 128 P. pubescens, 53 Index to Volume 61 P. villosus, 53 Pied-billed grebe, 128 Pieris rapae, 87 P. virginiensis, 87 Pigeon, passenger, 130 Pigmy rattlesnake, western, 127 Pigtoe pyramid, 124 rough, 124 Pike, northern, 75 Pilaria sp., 22 Pilsbryna sp., 123 Pimpleback, orangefoot, 124 Pine Mountain tigersnail, 123 Pine snake, northern, 127 Pine, Virginia, 5D Pines, 52 Pinesap, sweet, 120 Pink mucket, 124 Pink, ring, 124 Pinus virginiana, 52, 54, 55 Pipevine swallowtail, 86 Pipilo erythrophthalmus, 53, 54 Piranga olivacea, 53 Pisidium sp., 20 Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleu- cus, 127 Plains frostweed, 119 Plains minnow, 126 Plains muhly, 120 Planariidae, 20 Planktosphaeria gelatinosa, 34, 35 Plant oils, effectiveness on air breathing insects, 166-171 Plantago cordata, 121 P. lanceolata, 167, 168 Plantain, heartleaf, 121 Plants, 117, 130 Platanthera cristata, 121 ‘Pp. integrilabia, 121 P. psycodes, 121 Platygobio gracilis, 126 Plecoptera, 20 Plethadon hoffmani, 8 P. wehrlei, 8 Plethobascus cicatricosus, 130 P. cooperianus, 124 P. cyphyus, 124 Plethodon cinereus, 6-9, 127 P. electromorphus, 6 P. richmondi, 6—9 P. shenandoah, 8 P. wehrlei, 127 Pleurobema clava, 124 P. oviforme, 124 P. plenum, 124 P. rubrum, 124 Pleurocera alveare, 123 P. curta, 123 Pleurocercidae, 60-63 Pleurotaenium constrictum, 39, 40 P. ehrenbergii, 39, 40 P. nodosum, 39, 40 Plukenet’s cyperus, 118 187 Poa saltuensis, 12] Poaceae, 88 Poanes hobomok P. viator, 86 P. yehl, 86 P. zabulon, 86 Pocketbook, 124 fat, 124 Podilymbus podiceps, 128 Podostemum ceratophyllum, 121 Pogonia, rose, 121 Pogonia ophioglossoides, 121 Poison sumac, 123 Polioptila caerulea, 53 Polites origenes, 86 P. peckius, 86 P. themistocles, 86 Polycentropodidae, 21 Polycentropus sp., 21 Polydamas swallowtail, 87 Polygala cruciata, 121 P. nuttallii, 121 P. paucifolia, 121 P. polygama, 121 Polygonia comma, 87 P. faunus, 125 P. faunus smythi, 87 P. intearrogationis, 87 P. progne, 87, 125 Polymnia laevigata, 121 Polypedilum aviceps gp., 22 P. convictum gp., 9) P. fallax gp., 22 P. haltarare gp., 22 Polytaenia nuttalli, 130 Polytrichum pallidisetum, 117 P. piliferum, 117 P. strictum, 117 Pompeius verna, 86 POMPER, KIRK W., 165, 166 POND, GREGORY J., 10 Pondweed Illinois, 121 spotted, 121 Pontederia cordata, 23, 26, 27, 121 Pontia protodice, 87 Pooecetes gramineus, 128 Poppy-mallow, clustered, 118 Porcupine sedge, 118 Porter's reed 118 Possum haw viburnum, 123 Potamilus capax, 124 Potamilus purpuratus, 124 Potamogeton illinoensis, 121 P. pulcher, 121 Potato-bean, Price’s, 117 Potentilla erecta, 155 Potthastia sp., 22 Poultry by-product meal, 166 in diets for fish, 166 Prairie gentian, 119 Prairie parsley, 130 Prairie redroot, 115 Prairie vole, 161, 164 188 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Prairie-chicken, greater, 130 Prairie-clover, purple, 119 Prawns, freshwater, 165, 166 copepods as live food for, 165— 166 effect of water temperature on survival, 167 transport density on survival, 165 Pre-emphasis filter, auditory system model, 169 Prenanthes alba, 121 P. aspera, 121 P. barbata, 121 P. crepidinea, 121 Pretty St. John’s-wort, 120 Price’s potato-bean, 117 Price’s yellow wood sorrel, 121 Prickly bog sedge, 118 Primrose evening, 121 yellow evening, 118 Pristina aequisita, 20 Privet, upland, 119 Procambarus viaeviridis, 125 Prosimulium sp., 22 Prosopis, 155 Prostate cancer cell lines, 170-171 Proterometra albacauda, 103 P. autraini, 102 P. catenaria, 103 P. dickermani, 102 P. edneyi, 60-63, 103 P. macrostoma, 99-104 development in host, 99-104 distome emergence, 99-104 P. sagittaria, 103 P. septimae, 103 Prunus serotina, 54 Psephenidae, 21 Psephenus herricki, 21 Pseudanophthalmus audax, 125 P. calcareus, 125 P. catoryctos, 125 P. conditus, 125 P. desertus major, 125 P. frigidus, 125 P. globiceps, 125 P. horni abditus, 125 P. horni caecus, 125 P. horni horni, 125 P. hypolithos, 125 P. inexpectatus, 125 P. parvus, 125 P. pholeter, 125 P. pubescens intrepidus, 125 P. puteanus, 125 P. rogersae, 125 P. scholasticus, 125 P. simulans, 125. P. tenebrosus, 125 P. troglodytes, 125 Pseudolimnophila sp., 22 Pseudoroegneria spicata, 92 Pseudostenophylax uniformis, 21 Psoralidium tenuiflorum, 121 Pterophoridae, 105, 107 Ptilimnium capillaceum, 121 P. costatum, 121 P. nuttallii, 121 Ptychobranchus subtentum, 124 Puma concolor couguar, 130 Puma, eastern, 130 Punctate coil, 123 Purple giant hyssop, 117 Purple lilliput, 124 Purple prairie-clover, 119 Purple sand grass, 123 Purple, red spotted, 87 Purple-fringed orchid, small, 121 Purple-oat, 122 Pussy willow, 122 Pycnanthemum albescens, 121 P. muticum, 121 Pycnopsyche gentilis, 21 Pycnopsyche prob. guttifer, 21 Pygmy snaketail, 125 Pyramid pigtoe, 124 Pyrausta signatalis, 106 Pyrgus centaurae, 86 P. communis, 86 P. wyandot, 125 Pyrola americana, 121 Quadrigula chodatii, 36, 37 Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, 124 Q. fragosa, 130 Q. tuberosa, 130 Queen, 87 . Queen crater, 123 Quercus alba, 11, 54 . coccinea, 1] . falcata, 54 . macrocarpa, 89 . mandanensis, 89 . montana, 11 . muehlenbergii, 54, 89 . prinoides, 89 . prinus, 54 Q. rubra, 54 Question mark, 87 Quillwort blackfoot, 120 Butler's, 120 OOOO OCC CPO Rabbit-tobacco, small, 119 Rabbitsfoot, 124 Rabdotus dealbatus, 123 Rabdotus, whitewashed, 123 Racemed milkwort, 121 Radio telescope, Morehead, 133- 145 Radioprotective drug combination in mice, 169-170 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, 128 Rail, king, 128 Rainbow darter, 70 Rallus elegans, 128 Rana areolata circulosa, 127 Rana pipiens, 127 Rand's goldenrod, 122 Ranunculaceae, 64 Ranunculus ambigens, 121 Raptoheptagenia cruentata, 125 Rare biota of Kentucky, 115-132 Rats adult, 108-114 aged, 108-114 body and tissue weights, 108-114 effects of cadmium on, 108-114 effects of lead on, 108-114 effects of zinc on, 108-114 weanling, 108-114 Rattlesnake, western pigmy, 127 Rattlesnake-master borer moth, 125 Rattlesnake-root barbed, 121 nodding, 121 rough, 121 white, 121 Raven, common, 127 Rayed bean, 124 Red admiral, 87 Red buckeye, 117 Red elderberry, 122 Red maple, 54, 56 Red spotted purple, 87 Red spruce, 52 Red turtlehead, 118 Red wolf, 130 Red-backed vole, Kentucky, 128 Red-banded, 87 Red-breasted nuthatch, 55, 128 Red-cockaded woodpecker, 128 Red-eyed vireo, 54, 55 Red-winged blackbird, 164 Redback salamander, 127 Redhorse blacktail, 126 greater, 130 Redroot, prairie, 118 Redspotted sunfish, 126 Redstart, American, 56 Reed bent grass, 118 Reed canary grass, 23, 26 Reed grass, blue-joint, 118 Porter's, 118 REED, EDDIE B., 166 REEDER, BRIAN C., 46 Regal fritillary, 87, 125 Regulus satrapa, 55 Reithrodontomys megalotis, 164 Reithrodontomys spp., 163 Relict darter, 126 Reniform sedge, 118 Reptiles, 127, 130 Rheotanytarsus sp., 22 Rhinichthys cataractae, 126 Rhodacme elatior, 123 Rhododendron canescens, 121 Rhyacionia aktita, 106 Rhyacophila carolina, 21 R. invaria gp., 21 R. torva, 21 R. vibox, 21 Rhyacophilidae, 21 Rhynchosia tomentosa, 121 Rhynchospora globularis, 121 R. macrostachya, 121 Rhyngia, 155 Ribbon snake eastern, 127 western, 127 RICE, DAVID, 169 Rice Indian wild, 123 southern wild, 123 Riffleshell angled, 130 northern, 124 tan, 130 Tennessee, 130 Wabash, 130 Rigid sedge, 118 Ring pink, 124 Riparia riparia, 128 River bulrush, 122 Roan Mountain goldenrod, 122 Roan sedge, 118 Robinia pseudoacacia, 54 ROBINSON, DAVID L., 167, 168 Robust pentagenian burrowing may- fly, 130 : Rock skullcap, 122 Rock-cress Braun's, 117 hairy, 117 Missouri, 117 Rockcastle aster, 117 Rockshell, rough, 130 Rocksnail armored, 123 muddy, 123 onyx, 123 ornate, 123 varicose, 123 Roger's cave beetle, 125 Rosaceae, 146-162 Rose pogonia, 121 Rose turtlehead, 118 Rose verbena, 119 Rose-breasted grosbeak, 50, 53, 55, 56, 128 Rosemary, Cumberland, 118 ROSEN, RONALD, 62, 99 Rosinweed, Appalachian, 122 Rosinweed, tansy, 122 Rosy twistedstalk, 122 ROTH, LAUREN, 62 Rough aster, low, 117 Rough dropseed, 122 Rough pennyroyal, 119 Rough pigtoe, 124 Rough rattlesnake-root, 121 Rough rockshell, 130 Round combshell, 130 Round-head bush-clover, 120 Index to Volume 61 Round-headed cave beetle, 125 Roundleaf fameflower, 123 Rove beetle, black lordithon, 125 Royal catchfly, 122 Rubus canadensis, 122 R. whartoniae, 122 Ruby-throated hummingbird, 53 Rudbeckia subtomentosa, 122 Rufous-sided towhee, 54, 56 Rugged hornsnail, 123 Running buffalo clover, 123 Running-pine, 120 Rush bog, 120 jointed, 120 long-styled, 120 Ruta graveolens, 159 Rye, Svenson’s wild, 119 Sabatia campanulata, 122 Sachem, 86 Sage, nettle-leaf, 122 Sagittaria graminea, 122 S. latifolia, 27 S. platyphylla, 122 S. rigida, 122 Salamander mussel, 124 redback, 127 three-lined, 126 Wehrle’s, 127 Salebriaria atratella, 106 S. tenebrosella, 106 Salix amygdaloides, 122 S. discolor, 122 S. nigra, 54 Salvia urticifolia, 122 Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens, 122 _ Sand darter scaly, 130 western, 125 Sand grape, 123 Sand grass, purple, 123 Sand-myrtle, 120 Sandpiper spotted, 127 upland, 127 Sandwort Appalachian, 120 Cumberland, 120 Sanguisorba canadensis, 122 Santhidium armatum, 40, 42 Sapsucker, yellow-bellied, 53 Sassafras, 56 Sassafras albidum, 54, 56 Satyr Carolina, 87 gemmed, 87 little wood, 87 Satyrium acadicum, 87 S. calanus falacer, 87 S. caryaevorum, 87 S. edwardsii, 87 S. favonius ontario, 87, 125 189 S. liparops, 87 S. titus mopsus, 87 Satyrodes appalachia, 87 Savannah sparrow, 128 Sawfin shiner, 126 Saxifraga michauxii, 122 S. micranthidifolia, 122 S. pensylvanica, 122 Saxifrage brook, 118 lettuce-leaf, 122 Michaux’s, 122 swamp, 122 Sayornis phoebe, 53 Scaleshell, 130 Scallopwing, Hayhurst’s, 86 Scaly sand darter, 130 Scaphirhynchus albus, 126 Scarlet indian paintbrush, 118 Scarlet kingsnake, 127 Scenedesmus bicaudatus, 36, 37 S. dimorphus, 36, 37 S. obtusus, 36, 37 S. quadricauda, 36, 37 Schisandra glabra, 122 Schizachne purpurascens, 122 Scholarly cave beetle, 125 Schroederia setigera, 34, 35 SCHUSTER, JESSICA, 62, 99 Schwalbea americana, 122 Science Education, 171 Scientists of Kentucky, 77-85 Scirpus expansus, 122 . fluviatilis, 122 . hallii, 122 . heterochaetus, 122 . microcarpus, 122 . validus, 23, 26, 27 . verecundus, 122 Scleria ciliata var. ciliata, 122 Scorpion-weed, blue, 121 Screwstem, yellow, 117 Scrophulariaceae, 96 Sculpted glyph, 123 Scurf-pea stipuled, 130 few-flowered, 121 Scutellaria arguta, 122 S. saxatilis, 122 Sedge wren, 127 Sedge Appalachian, 118 bristly, 118 broadwing, 118 brown bog, 118 cedar, 118 Coastal Plain, 118 Crawe's, 115 cypress-swamp, 118 epiphytic, 118 finely-nerved, 118 Frasers, 118 large, 118 olivaceous, 119 ANNNNNMN porcupine, 118 190 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) prickly bog, 118 reniform, 118 rigid, 118 roan, 118 stalkgrain, 118 straw, 118 summer, 118 Tarheel, 118 umbel-like, 118 weak stellate, 118 woolly, 118 Sedum telephioides, 122 SEED, T. M, 169 Seiurus aurocapillus, 53 Selenastrum gracile, 34, 35 Selenisa sueroides, 107 Semotilus atromaculatus, 11 September elm, 123 Sessile-fruit arrowhead, 122 Setophaga ruticilla, 53, 56 Shad, Alabama, 125 Shaggy cavesnail, 123 Shaggy hedge-hyssop, 119 Sharp-scaled manna grass, 119 Sharp-shinned hawk, 127 Shawnee darter, 126 Sheepnose, 124 Shell galaxies, hydrogen gas in, 170 SHIBER, JOHN G., 170 Shiner blacktail, 125 bluntface, 125 palezone, 126 pallid, 126 sawfin, 126 spottail, 126 taillight, 126 Shining ladies’-tresses, 122 Shooting-star, French’s, 119 Short’s goldenrod, 122 Short'’s hedge-hyssop, 119 Short-eared owl, 127 Shortleaf skeleton 119 Shortspire hornsnail, 123 Shoveler, northern, 127 Showy gentian, 119 Showy lady’s-slipper, 119 Shrew, 163 least, 164 long-tailed, 128 masked, 128 Shrimp Mammoth Cave, 124 Ohio, 124 Sicklefin chub, 126 Sida hermaphrodita, 122 Side-oats grama, 118 Silene ovata, 122 S. regia, 122 Silky aster, barrens, 117 Silphium sunflower, 119 Silphium laciniatum var. laciniatum, 122 S. laciniatum var. robinsonii, 122 S. pinnatifidum, 122 S. wasiotense, 122 Silver-bordered fritillary, 87 Silver-spotted skipper, 86 Silverbell, common, 119 Silvering, 121 Silvery aster, silvery, 117 Silvery blue, 87 Silvery checkerspot, 87 Simpsonaias ambigua, 124 Simuliidae, 22 Simulium sp., 22 Sistrurus miliarius streckeri, 127 Sitanion hystrix, 88, 89, 92 S. minus, 88 Sitta canadensis, 55, 128 S. carolinensis, 53 Sixbanded longhorn beetle, 125 Skeleton grass bearded, 119 shortleaf, 119 Skink northern coal, 127 southeastern five-lined, 127 southern coal, 127 Skipper Appalachian grizzled, 125 Bell’s roadside, 86 broadwinged, 86 clouded, 86 cobweb, 86 common checkered, 86 common roadside, 86 crossline, 86 Delaware, 86 Dion, 86 Duke's, 86, 125 Dun, 86 dusted, 86 Eufala, 86 European, 86 fiery, 86 gold-banded, 86 grizzled, 86 hobomok, 86 Indian, 86 lace-winged roadside, 86 least, 86 Leonard’s, 86 long-tailed, 86 Ocala, 86 Peck’s, 86 pepper and salt, 86 silver-spotted, 86 swarthy, 86 tawny-edged, 86 Yehl, 86 Zabulon, 86 Skullcap hairy, 122 rock, 122 Skunk, eastern spotted, 128 Slabside pearlymussel, 124 Sleepy duskywing, 86 Sleepy orange, 87 Slender blazingstar, 120 Slender bulrush, 122 Slender dragon-head, 130 Slender glass lizard, eastern, 127 Slender madtom, 126 Slender marsh-pink, 122 Small enchanter’s-nightshade, 118 Small lady’s-slipper, yellow, 119 Small purple-fringed orchid, 121 Small rabbit-tobacco, 119 Small sundrops, 121 Small white lady’s-slipper, 118 Small yellow lady’s-slipper, 119 Small-flower baby-blue-eyes, 121 Small-flowered false hellebore, 120 Small-flowered thoroughwort, 119 Small-footed myotis, eastern, 128 Small-fruit bulrush, 122 Smallscale darter, 126 SMITH, J., 171 Smooth blackberry, 122 Smooth softshell, midland, 127 Smooth veiny peavine, 120 Snail, 60-63, 121 Snake broad-banded water, 127 copperbelly water, 127 corn, 127 eastern ribbon, 127 Kirtland’s, 127 Mississippi green water, 127 northern pine, 127 western mud, 127 western ribbon, 127 Snakeroot Lucy Braun's white, 117 white, 167 Snaketail brook, 125 pygmy, 125 Snapping turtle, alligator, 127 Snout-bean, hairy, 121 Snow melanthera, 120 Snow trillium, 123 Snowberry, 122 Snuffbox, 124 Soft false gromwell, 121 Soft-haired thermopsis, 123 Softshell, midland smooth, 127 Softstem bulrush, 23, 26, 27 Solidago albopilosa, 122 S. buckleyi, 122 . curtisii, 122 . gracillima, 122 . puberula, 122 . roanensis, 122 . shortii, 122 . simplex ssp. randii, 122 S. squarrosa, 122 Solomon-seal, starry false, 120 Sootywing, common, 86 Sorastrum americanum, 36, 37 Sorex spp., 163 NNNNANNM S. cinereus, 128 S. dispar blitchi, 128 Sorrel, Price’s yellow wood, 121 Southeastern five-lined skink, 127 Southeastern myotis, 128 Southern bog club-moss, 120 Southern bog goldenrod, 122 Southern bog lemming, 163 Southern broken-dash, 86 Southern brook lamprey, 126 Southern cavefish, 126 Southern cloudywing, 86 Southern coal skink, 127 Southern crabapple, 120 Southern dogface, 87 Southern heartleaf, 119 Southern maidenhair fern, 117 Southern painted turtle, 127 Southern pearly-eye, 87 Southem shield wood fern, 119 Southern twayblade, 120 Southern wild rice, 123 Soyedina sp., 20 Sparganium eurycarpum, 120 Sparrow Bachman’s, 127 Henslow’s, 127 lark, 127 Savannah, 128 vesper, 128 Spearwort, water-plantain, 121 Speckled darter, 70 Spectaclecase, 124 little, 124 Speedwell, American, 123 Speyeria aphrodite, 87 S. cybele, 87 S. diana, 87 S. idalia, 87, 125 Sphaeriidae, 20 Sphaerocystis schroeteri, 34, 35 Sphaerozosma aubertianum, 44 Sphagnum quinquefarium, 117 Sphenopholis pensylvanica, 122 Sphyrapicus varius, 53 Spicebush swallowtail, 87 Spiked hoary-pea, 123 Spilogale putorius, 128 Spinulose wood fern, 119 Spiraea alba var. alba, 122 S. virginiana, 122 Spiraea, Virginia, 122 Spiranthes lucida, 122 S. magnicamporum, 122 S. ochroleuca, 122 S. odorata, 122 Spirogyra communis, 36, 38 S. pratensis, 36, 38 S. varians, 36, 38 Spirotaenia condensata, 36, 39 Spondylosium moniliforme, 44 Spoon-leaved sundew, 119 Sporobolus clandestinus, 122 S. heterolepis, 122 Index to Volume 61 Spottail shiner, 126 Spotted beebalm, 120 Spotted coralroot, 118 Spotted darter, 126 Spotted joe-pye-weed, 119 Spotted pondweed, 121 Spotted sandpiper, 127 Spotted skunk, eastern, 128 Spreading false foxglove, 117 Spring azure, 87 Spruce, red, 52 Spurge, mercury, 119 Squarrose goldenrod, 122 SRINIVASAN, V., 169 St. John’s-wort creeping, 119 large spotted, 120 pretty, 120 St. Peter’s-wort, 119 Stachys eplingii, 122 Stalkgrain sedge, 118 Staphylus hayhurstii, 86 Star tickseed, 118 Starflower, northern, 123 Stargazing minnow, 126 Starhead topminnow, northern, 126 Starry cleft phlox, 121 Starry false solomon-seal, 120 Starvine, bay, 122 State records, moths, 105-107 Staurastrum alternans, 40, 42 S. arctiscon, 40, 42 . botryophilum, 40, 42 . brasiliense, 40, 42 . chaetoceros, 40, 42 . crenulatum, 40, 42 . curvatum, 40, 42 . dickiei, 40, 42 . hexacerum, 40, 42 . leptocladum, 40, 42 . limneticum, 40, 42 S. setigerum, 40, 42 Steele’s joe-pye-weed, 119 Stellaria fontinalis, 122 S. longifolia, 122 Stellate sedge, weak, 118 Stemless evening-primrose, 121 Stenacron interpunctatum, 20 Stenelmis sp., 21 S. crenata, 21 Stenonema bednariki, 125 S. meririvulanum, 20 S. meririvulanum, 15 S. vicarium, 20 Stenoptilodes brevipennis, 107 Sterna antillarum, 128 Stevens Creek Cave beetle, 125 Stipuled scurf-pea, 130 Stitchwort longleaf, 122 water, 122 Stonecrop, Allegheny, 122 Stonefly, 18 Stoneroller, central, 75 NANNNNANNAURHNMN 191 Straw sedge, 118 Streptopus roseus var. perspectus, 122 Striped bass hybrid, 166 Striped hairstreak, 87 Striped whitelip, 124 Strymon melinus, 87 Sturgeon chub, 126 Sturgeon lake, 125 pallid, 126 Stygobromus vitreus, 125 Stylogomphus, 14 S. albistylus, 21 Stylurus notatus, 125 Sucker blackfin, 126 hairlip, 130 Sugar maple, 54 Sugarspoon, 130 Sulphur clouded, 87 cloudless, 87 dainty, 87 large orange, 87 Layside, 87 orange, 87 orange-barred, 87 Sumac, poison, 123 Summer sedge, 118 Sundew dwarf, 119 spoon-leaved, 119 Sundrops small, 121 thread-leaf, 121 Sunfish dollar, 126 redspotted, 126 Sunflower Eggert’s, 119 silphium, 119 Sunshine bass, 166 diets for, 166 Superficial coset curiosities, 170 Supplejack, 117 Surprising cave beetle, 125 Svenson’s wild rye, 119 Swallow bank, 128 polydamas, 87 Swallow-tailed kite, 130 Swallowtail black, 87 giant, 87 Joan's, 87 palamedes, 87 pipevine, 86 spicebush, 87 tiger, 87 zebra, 87 Swamp darter, 126 Swamp lousewort, 121 Swamp metalmark, 87 192 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) Swamp metalmark, 125 Swamp saxifrage, 122 Swamp wedgescale, 122 Swamp-candles, 120 Swarthy skipper, 86 Sweet birch, 54 Sweet coneflower, 122 Sweet flag, 23, 26, 27 Sweet pinesap, 120 Sweet-fern, 118 Sweetscent ladies’-tresses, 122 Sweetshrub, 118 Sweltsa, 15 S. sp., 20 Symphoricarpos albus, 122 Synaptomys cooperi, 163, 164 Synclita tinealis, 106 Synorthocladius sp., 22 Syritta, 155 Syrphidae, 155 Syrphus, 155 Taillight shiner, 126 Talinum calcaricum, 122 Tall beaked-rush, 121 Tall bush-clover, 120 Tall fescue, 27 Tall hairy groovebur, 117 Talnium teretifolium, 123 Tamoxifen, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin B, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin L, 170-171 effect on cysteine proteases, 170— 171 Tan riffleshell, 130 Tansy rosinweed, 122 Tanytarsus, 15 Tanytarsus sp., 22 Taraxacum officinale, 167, 168 inheritance of morphological characteristics, 167 inheritance of physiological char- acteristics, 167 Tarheel sedge, 118 Tatum Cave beetle, 125 Tawny cotton-grass, 119 Tawny crescent, 87, 125 Tawny emperor, 87 Tawny-edged skipper, 86 Taxus canadensis, 123 Teal, blue-winged, 127 Teilingia excavata, 44 Telescope, Morehead radio, 133- 145 Ten-lobe false foxglove, 117 Tennessee aster, 117 Tennessee clubshell, 124 Tennessee leafcup, 121 Tennessee riffleshell, 130 Tephrosia spicata, 123 Tern black, 130 least, 128 Terrestrial vertebrate species, 171 richness of, 171 Tetgrasporales, 34 Tetmemorus brebissonii, 39, 40 Tetraedron minimum, 34, 35 T. regulare, 34, 35 Texas aster, 117 Texas lilliput, 124 Thalictrum clavatum, 62 T. mirabile, 62 chromosome number of, 62-63 Thamnophis proximus proximus, W27/ T. sauritus sauritus, 127 Thaspium pinnatifidum, 123 Theliopsyche, 15, 18 T. sp., 21 Thermopsis mollis, 123 soft-haired, 123 Thienimanniella sp., 22 THIERET, JOHN W., 146 Thoburnia atripinnis, 126 THOGMARTIN, WAYNE E., 164 THOMPSON, J., 170 THOMPSON, KENNETH R., 166 Thoroughwort, small-flowered, 119 Thorybes bathyllus, 86 T. confusis, 86 T. pylades, 86 Thread-leaf sundrops, 121 Thread-like naiad, 121 Threadfoot, 121 Three-awn grass, branched, 117 Three-lined salamander, 126 Three-toed amphiuma, 126 Thrush, wood, 56 Thryomanes bewickii, 128 Thryothorus ludovicianus, 53, 56 Thuja occidentalis, 123 Thymelicus lineola, 86 Tickseed, star, 118 TIDWELL, JAMES H., 165, 166, 167 Tiger swallowtail, 87 Tigersnail, Pine Mountain, 123 Tilia spp., 54 Tillium nivale, 123 Tippecanoe darter, 70 Tipula sp., 22 Tipulidae, 22 Topminnow golden, 126 northern starhead, 126 Torreyochloa pallida, 123 Tortoise shell, compton, 87 Milbert’s, 87 Tortricidae, 105, 106 Tortula, 117 Tortula norvegica, 117 Towhee, rufous-sided, 54, 56 Toxicodendron vernix, 123 Toxolasma lividus, 124 T. texasiensis, 124 Tragia urticifolia, 123 Trailing loosestrife, 120 Traverella lewisi, 125 Treatment, wastewater, 23-29 Treefrog barking, 127 bird-voiced, 126 gray, 127 green, 127 Trematode, digenetic, 60-63 Trepocarpus, 123 Trepocarpus aethusae, 123 Trichoptera, 21 Trichostema setaceum, 123 Tricladia, 20 Trientalis borealis, 123 Trifolium reflexum, 123 T. repens, 167, 168 T. stoloniferum, 92, 123 Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanur 123 T. pusillum var. pusillum, 123 T. undulatum, 123 Trillium least, 123 Ozark least, 123 painted, 123 snow, 123 Triplasis purpurea, 123 Troglodytes troglodytes, 55 Trout, American brook, 126 Trout-perch, 126 Tryphlichthys subterraneus, 126 Tsuga canadensis, 11] TUAN, VO-DINH, 169 Tubercled blossom, 130 Tubificidae, 20 Tufted hair, 119 Turbellaira, 20 Turk’s cap lily, 120 Turkeybeard, eastern, 123 Turtle alligator snapping, 127 southern painted, 127 Turtlehead red, 118 rose, 118 Tvetenia bavarica gp., 22 Tvetinia discloripes gp., 22 Twayblade kidney-leaf, 120 Loesel’s, 120 southern, 120 Twistedstalk, rosy, 122 Tympanuchus cupido, 130 Typha latifolia, 23-27 Tyto alba, 128, 163-164 Uenoidae, 21 Ulmus serotina, 123 Umbel-like sedge, 118 Umbra limi, 126 Umbrella-wort, pale, 120 Upland privet, 119 Upland sandpiper, 127 Urbanus proteus, 86 Ursus americanus, 128 Utricularia macrorhiza, 123 Vallisneria american, 123 VANARNUM, AARON, 165, 166, 167 Vanessa atalanta, 87 V. cardui, 87 V. virginiensis, 87 Variable-leaved heartleaf, 119 Varicose rocksnail, 123 Variegated fritillary, 87 Vascular plants, 117-123 Veery, 55 Veneroida, 20 Verbena, rose, 119 Vermivora bachmanii, 130 V. chrysoptera, 50, 53, 128 V. pinus, 55D Vernonia noveboracensis, 123 Veronica americana, 123 Vertigo cupped, 124 delicate, 124 Vertigo bollesiana, 124 V. clappi, 124 Vesper sparrow, 128 Vetchling peavine, 120 Viburnum lentago, 30—33 V. molle, 123 V. nudum, 123 V. prunifolium, 30-32 V. rafinesquianum var. rafinesquian- um, 123 V. rufidulum, 30-32 Viburnum, possum haw, 123 Viceroy, 87 Villosa fabalis, 124 V. lienosa, 124 V. ortmanni, 124 V. trabalis, 124 V. vanuxemensis, 124 Viola septemloba var. egglestonii, 123 V. walteri, 123 Violet Eggleston's, 123 Walter's, 123 Vireo bellii, 128 V. flavifrons, 53 V. griseus, 53 V. olivaceus, 53, 54 V. solitarius, 53, 54 Vireo Bell’s, 128 blue-headed, 55 red-eyed, 54, 55 white-eyed, 53 Virginia big-eared bat, 128 Virginia bladetooth, 123 Virginia bunchflower, 120 Virginia pine, 55 Virginia spiraea, 122 Virginia waterleaf, 119 Index to Volume 61 Virginia-mallow, 122 Vitamin E, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin B, 170-171 effect on Cathepsin L, 170-171 effect on cysteine proteases, 170- 171 VITATOE, LEIGH ANNE, 167 Vitis labrusea, 123 V. rupestris, 123 Vitrinizonites latissimus, 124 Volatile emissions biological effects of, 167-168 from cut turf, 167-168 Vole Kentucky red-backed, 128 meadow, 164 prairie, 163, 164 woodland, 163, 164 Volvocales, 34 Wabash riffleshell, 130 WALCK, JEFFREY L., 63 Wallengrenia egeremet, 86 W. otho, 86 Walnut, white, 120 Walter's violet, 123 Warbler Bachman’s, 130 black-and-white, 56 black-throated blue, 54 black-throated blue, 55 black-throated blue, 56 Blackburnian, 50, 53, 55, 127 blue-winged, 55 Canada, 50, 53, 55, 128 cerulean, 50, 53 chestnut-sided, 54-56 golden-winged, 50, 53, 55, 128 hooded, 54-56 yellow-rumped, 53 WARNER, RICHARD C., 23 Wartyback, white, 130 Wastewater treatment, 23-29 Water hickory, 118 Water locust, 119 Water snake broad-banded, 127 copperbelly, 127 Mississippi green, 127 Water stitchwort, 122 Water-milfoil broadleaf, 121 cutleaf, 121 Water-pennywort, American, 119 Water-plantain spearwort, 121 Water-purslane, 119 Waterleaf, Virginia, 119 Waterweed, 119 Weak stellate sedge, 118 Weasel, least, 128 Webbhelix multilineata, 124 WEBSTER, CARL D., 166 WECKMAN, TIMOTHY J., 30 Wedge-leaf whitlow, 119 193 Wedgescale, swamp, 122 Welhrle’s salamander, 127 WEIBEL, CHARLES, 1655, 166 WESSEL, MARK YV., 146 West Virginia white, 87 Western dwarf dandelion, 120 Wester false gromwell, 121 Western mud snake, 127 Western pigmy rattlesnake, 127 Western ribbon snake, 127 Wester sand darter, 125 Westland size, effect on Canada Goose, 46—49 Wetlands, constructed, 23-29 Wharton’s dewberry, 122 White admiral, 87 White catspaw, 130 White fringeless orchid, 121 White heath aster, 117 White laldy’s slipper, small, 118 White peacock, 87 White rattlesnake-root, 121 White snakeroot, 167 White snakeroot, Lucy Braun’s, 117 White walnut, 120 White wartyback, 130 White cabbage, 87 checkered, 87 West Virginia, 87 White-cedar, northern, 123 White-eyed vireo, 53 White-haired goldenrod, 122 White-leaved mountain-mint, 121 White-m, 87 Whitelip, big-tooth, 123 Whitelip, striped, 124 WHITEMAN, HOWARD, 171 Whitewashed rabdotus, 123 Whitlow- wedge-leaf, 119 Whorled aster, 119 Whorled horse-balm, 118 Wild honeysuckle, 120 Wild Indigo duskywing, 86 Wild indigo blue, 117 cream, 117 yellow, 117 Wild lily-of-the-valley, 120 Wild rice Indian, 123 southern, 123 Wild rye, Svenson’s, 119 Willow, 55 peachleaf, 122 pussy, 122 Wilsonia canadensis, 50, 53, 128 W. citrina, 53 Winged mapleleaf, 130 Winter wren, 55 Wintergreen, American, 121 Wire fern moss, 117 Witch northern, 119 Wolf 194 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 61(2) gray, 130 red, 130 Wood fern southern shield, 119 spinulose, 119 Wood lily, 120 Wood sorrel, Price’s yellow, 121 Wood thrush, 56 Wood-nymph, common, 87 Woodland beak-rush, 122 Woodland vole, 163, 164 Woodpecker ivory-billed, 130 red-cockaded, 128 Woodsia appalachiana, 123 Woodsia, mountain, 123 Woolly sedge, 118 Wormaldia prob. moesta, 21 Wren Bewicks, 128 Carolina, 56 sedge, 127 winter, 55 WRIGHT, DONALD J., 105 Wrinkled button, 123 Xanthidium antilopaeum, 40, 42 Xerophyllum asphodeloides, 123 Xyris difformis, 123 Yandell, David Wendel, M. D., 77— 85 Yehl skipper, 86 Yellow blossom, 130 Yellow evening primrose, 118 Yellow gentian, 119 Yellow nodding ladies’-tresses, 122 Yellow screwstem, 117 Yellow water I., 27 Yellow wild indigo, 117 Yellow wood sorrel, Price’s, 121 Yellow, little, 87 Yellow-bellied sapsucker, 53 Yellow-billed cuckoo, 53 Yellow-breasted chat, 53 Yellow-crested orchid, 121 Yellow-crowned night-heron, 127 Yellow-eye, Carolina, 123 Yellow-poplar, 54, 56 Yellow-rumped warbler, 53 Yellowthroat, common, 53 Yew, Canadian, 123 Yugus, 18 Yugus sp., 20 Zabulon skipper, 86 Zantedeschia aethiopica, 27 Zarucco duskywing, 86 Zebra swallowtail, 87 Zenaida macroura, 53 Zenaida macroura, 53 Zinc, effects of on rats, 108-114 Zizania palustris var. interior, 123 Zizaniopsis miliacea, 123 Zoology & Entomology, 171 Zygnema decussatum, 36, 38 Zygnematales, 36 ‘Wil iii 01304 3401 CONTENTS ARTICLES Conservation Status and Nesting Biology of the Endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma Percnurum, in the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River, Kentucky. David J. Eisenhour and Brooks M. Burr ..................++ 67 Scientists of Kentucky David Wendel Yandell, M. D. Nancy Disher Baird .................0.0seeseeee0s 77 A Field Checklist of Kentucky Butterflies. Charles V. Covell Jr. ............ 86 Notes on North American Elymus Species (Poaceae) with Paired Spikelets: I. E. macgregorii sp. nov. and E. glaucus ssp. mackenzii comb. nov. Julian -J..N. Campbell oso. 60.0.5 Seceecona note cha vavee aucnaNenk cnuaueadesssunern ea secu meee 88 Proterometra macrostoma (Digenea: Azygiidae): Distome Emergence From the Cercarial Tail and Subsequent Development in the Definitive Host. Ronald Rosen, Kelly Adams, Emilia Boiadgieva, and Jessica SCRUSEER: | 2h si cisance dei ebm tans cab eehganemesae eoaces psbonewoneeetsetese aedemersadae aaa 99 New State Records and New Available Names for Species of Kentucky Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera). Charles V. Covell Jr., Loran D. Gibson, and: Donald J. Wright: ..cic5c cece eee on tie loeb tebe na sla de eees cease ence aae 105 Comparative Effects of Zinc, Lead, and Cadmium on Body and Tissue Weights of Weanling, Adult, and Aged Rats. F. N. Bebe and Myna Panemangalore ooo. cose cs ises ahd cn oes eed edna eat sy oes ea ceeen nesta ena 108 Rare and Extirpated Biota of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves COMMISSION: 5 sic ccooboveccsesedaseyeadducwicasdceadan das bsakecduadeaetssucdeqsesees cea ebeeenaa meme 115 First Observations with the Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Benjamin K. Malphrus, Michael S. Combs, Michael A. James, D. Shannon Murphy, D. Kevin Brown, Jeff Kruth;, and R: Douglas Kelly. °. .i.cc.06c sci Stes acatcat ences caueeduseauseeaseeaeme 133 Agrimonia (Rosaceae) in Kentucky with Notes on the Genus. Mark V. Wessel and John- W. Thieret ioc. 5... eck. Sea ccowcnsndtecodcnesns es onaensnadat dauaponwabae 146 NOTE Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Feeding Habits at Yellowbank Wildlife Management Area, Breckinridge County, Kentucky. Anita T. Morzillo, Hetti A. Brown, Wayne E. Thogmartin, and Jennifer H. Herner-Thogmartin ................ 163 Abstracts of Some Papers Presented at the 1999 Meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Science | ...s. ce ceeds aeaae lan ah nde cnsce utile Ceuta eeaacee sn eeeeena nena 165 List of Reviewers for Volume 61 .0.............cccececscecececscececccecececececssccececsceses 173 Index'to' Volume G1 2352 eo aaa ens SAP AU eth Doc) 174