re ba ied ae Be the Ae iiy PEAY Taye oe En Oy in AY FH in fore cS Ie ta rete aN PAT 4 elite Gy Ae the B: vagal Bi toe bs te eliatied re Ws edit Fal ws it tr ibs ¥ pte Hulton ie . iad eda Satie y Me Aerie blest § wate Soon Fickiwhel adyeie da Bee tha I Moteviv sh o% LIS ei re ES as 6 . Guaeeedire date face fu ade be eh Sat Aes srk fo Tesiak tata eave be fafa Ba hasiatn ree fe Seteterhehe ieleiuba tebe iene 5 tr nventa sat rules Sette: te fa Hob S wip in beeter neti tials ede Ne an San ede carat ba TEM aA She Be i iy Een Sonscean gee tittle ae ee Legation: ory. fee SDN PRAY EY Pi RESTS ATTA ¢ VMN artont end ray e vi Nan i ANUS Besy stirs 996 Bs ate Yan MAN AeeVareet hw) Pet salted, Ais abies Nay ea 2 borer ere ras SNS ya Chimes tt rere dev d Neue Dy Sean dRay, 3a Bere 2d tate Sar ceweie Lewd ods Ld Se ore ee ae ee ee ee, Tesh ih oN alah sh NOC wih Mb atretosibe gn Sipe AWA vhaGh Se A abated tA Chee eee Miah LAD Aire Fate LVS 3 ‘be PRAT BES Ts. ERASE WS tba MGT abe z Rhine Pah Tedd oA eae, TSMGY yd A abe Lh ePID ee eA RAN Ma AY OL Ee ch chat IA Viabhe hee x BNR eUcnatecvid was ie Sha reins hap iect Steg as Nyse thea waht cy ay San ssyietlaaty 3a wh stra Sov au thet sRabahsh chatty i oo Aero a Sh hy a WARE Pe ere om ER apie pliner ESAs ARN ADELE Ye AB, “Sgnstadeooctinie ch iain atte Pei aa BRASS 6 4 Wd T AE diraih ate ANA whe re. vias voce. a SRN NI a TLE SR Aveta we, S hawW iy hh a tihslived xf Sexe Be ey aes Sect air eesrohe siete iat weenie 4sfealed Levee Suances ibm Rn Sentenson ra Fah 2 thts enatieton Sa Frye fev bwiehew ahs Feo BO a NAN thee g cone dine AF Aieahavies ae! b CONTENTS ARTICLES Continuing Decline in the Freshwater Unionid (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Fau- na in the Cumberland River Downstream from Cumberland Falls, Ken- tucky. Ronald R. Cicerello and Ellis L. Laudermilk ........................ 55 Characterization of Tall Fescue Plantlets Regenerated from Cultured Panicle Segments/Anthers for Meiotic, Isozyme, and DNA Changes. Georgia C. Eizenga and Timothy D. Phillips ............0....0c.ccccceseseeeee 60 Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera) of the Mainstem of the Kentucky River, Kentucky. Ronald E. Houp and Guenter A. Schuster ....................+- 67 Noteworthy Vascular Plant Discoveries from Kentucky. Gary W. Libby, Randy L. Mears, and C. Tom BIOOm ..............0..cccccccccceccecccccccesconss 74 Effects of Acidic Minesoil on Nodulation of the Legume Sericea Lespe- deza (Lespedeza cuneata; Fabaceae) by Bradyrhizobium Nitrogen-fix- ing Bacteria. Gary R. Cline and Anthony F. Silvernail .................... 80 Structure and Composition of Three Swamp Forests on the Mississippi Alluvial Plain of Kentucky’s Jackson Purchase Region. William S. Bry- IE ee Aas LOTION SEUNG 0 SI OS SM Lek IL a) AUR UTA CE CU GROG OR 85 Planning a Trip. John S. Spraker, Daniel C. Biles, and Mark P. Rob- PN SOM Eee ees IS Ua aU a SRR LS Cis aC LIN ae ea ec ONC BM 92 NOTES Blue Catfish (Ictalurus furcatus; Ictaluridae) Predation on the Zebra Mussel in the Ohio River near Paducah, Kentucky. Jeffrey J. Herod, Tricia L. Frye, and James B. Sickel .................cccccccccccccccscceccccecccoes 96 Rare and Extirpated Plants and Animals of Kentucky: 1997 Update. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission .................ecececeeceeess 96 Epilobium brachycarpum (Onagraceae) in Kentucky. John T. Kartesz, — Peter Allen, and John W. Thieret ...............cccccccccccccccccccccccccecccesces 99 Horned-Pondweed, Zannichellia palustris (Zannichelliaceae) from Northern and Central Kentucky. Les Meade, Brian Binion, Peggy Mea- sel, Brenda Hamm, and Patricia Dalton Haragan ..................+.++0++- 99 List of Reviewers for Volume 58) 302.) ON GG SUN US Nae 101 Index: to Volume 58) (00055 05 SONGS BEA ane Je aise aah FU eed ER gO ra 103 Pret. KHAaXx A JOURNAL ll OF THE KENTUCKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Official Publication of the Academy Volume 59 Number 1 Spring 1998 The Kentucky Academy of Science Founded 8 May 1914 GoveERNING Boarp FoR 1998 Executive COMMITTEE President: Patricia K. Doolin, Research, Applications and Development, Ashland Petroleum Company, P.O. Box 391, Ashland, KY 41114 President Elect: Gordon K. Weddle, Department of Biology, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, KY 42718 Vice President: Blaine Ferrell, Department of Biology, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101 Past President: Marcus T. McEllistrem, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0055 Secretary: Joseph W. Wilson, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506- 0055 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; (606) 572-6390 Editor, NEWSLETTER (ex officio): Maria K. Falbo-Kenkel, Department of Physics and Geology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099 Director, Junior Academy of Science (ex officio): Vincent A. DiNoto Jr., Department of Physics, Jefferson Community College SW, 1000 Community College Drive, Louisville, KY 40272 Program Coordinator (ex officio): Robert O. Creek, Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475 MEMBERS, GOVERNING BOARD Robert J. Barney 1999 Barbara L. Rafaill 1999 Charles N. Boehms 2001 J.G. Rodriguez 1998 James F. Hopgood 1998 AAAS/NAAS Representative Bruce A. Mattingly 2000 Lee A. Roecker 2000 James Ross 2001 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 Editorial Board: Patricia K. Doolin, Research, Applications and Development, Ashland Petroleum Company, Ashland, KY 41114 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. ; All manuscripts and correspondence concerning manuscripts should be addressed to the Editor. The JOURNAL is indexed in BIOSIS 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: $45.00 domestic; $50.00 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 Secretary. © This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (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 59 Spring 1998 Number 1 J]. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):1. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Introduction Undergraduate education in the biological sciences has changed dramatically during the last 20 years. With the call for greater linkages between teaching and research (National Re- search Council 1996) and the need for im- proved teaching of science process, colleges and universities in Kentucky responded with a variety of approaches and courses all designed to get students doing biology rather than sim- ply learning about the discipline. Indeed, what was once considered to be solely within the domain of graduate education is now rapidly becoming a standard component of the un- dergraduate experience. Granted, undergraduate research has long been a tradition in the small liberal arts col- leges. Only recently have the state colleges and universities come to the conclusion that yes, undergraduate students are capable of conducting innovative research, and yes, this research is of value in the educational process. Not surprisingly though, the means whereby small colleges, regional universities, and re- search universities achieve more undergradu- ate research are many and varied. It is the purpose of this special section of the Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Sci- ence to examine the various approaches that have been taken to facilitate undergraduate research in Kentucky, to cite difficulties in- volved in this curricular transition, and to point out synergisms that might develop in the future among various educational institutions. Getting undergraduates to appreciate the en- terprise of science, to think as scientists, and to work like scientists is not easy. I hope, though, that the different programmatic fea- tures described in this series of articles will be of some value as teachers in Kentucky colleges and universities strive to bring more research opportunities to their students. Sixteen Kentucky colleges and universities were invited to contribute to this special issue: Asbury College, Berea College, Campbellsville College, Centre College, Cumberland Col- lege, Eastern Kentucky University, George- town College, Kentucky State University, Ken- tucky Wesleyan College, Morehead State Uni- versity, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Thomas More. College, University of Kentucky, University of Louis- ville, and Western Kentucky University. Some of these were unable to participate. James O. Luken Department of Biological Sciences Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, KY 41099 LITERATURE CITED National Research Council. 1996. From analysis to ac- tion: undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology—report of a convocation National Research Council/National Science Founda- tion Convocation, April 9-11, 1996, Washington, DC. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):2-5. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences A Program for Facilitating Undergraduate Research in Biology Jerry W. Warner Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099-0400 ABSTRACT During the year-long introductory course for biology majors at Northern Kentucky University, students are exposed to research interests of faculty and are required to conduct a series of laboratories of an investigative nature. A sophomore course in information resources helps them develop the skills they need for conducting literature research. As juniors they are encouraged to take courses in biological techniques that they can then apply to directed research projects. As seniors they must present two seminars that can be based on their research. They are also encouraged to present their research results at meetings of the Kentucky Academy of Science, Beta Beta Beta, or other appropriate organizations. INTRODUCTION The Department of Biological Sciences at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) has about 425 undergraduate majors. About half begin as declared majors in general biology or teacher education in biology. The others, at least initially, are pre-professionals of one type or another. Because the professional programs they are working toward are very selective, many will not be successful in getting into the program of their choice and will remain at NKU to finish a degree in biology. Others, once they gain some insight into career op- portunities available to biologists, will change their major to general biology early in their first year. Still others will change to a major not related to the biological sciences. The faculty of the department consists of 14 full-timers plus myself. Although the primary mission of NKU has always been undergrad- uate instruction, members of the faculty are encouraged to remain active scholars. Over the years, many of the faculty have maintained ongoing research programs and most of these have a history of involving students in their research. When I became department chair in 1990, there was evidence of a division in the faculty along the lines of those who were involved in research and those who were not. One of my first endeavors was to look for ways to over- come this problem and bring the faculty to- gether to work toward common goals that would benefit students and make us a much stronger department. This was accomplished in part by encouraging and making it possible for all faculty to participate in some sort of scholarly activity. In addition to this new em- phasis, we began to explore curricular changes that were affordable and that would make re- search an integral part of each major’s degree program. STEPS FOR ASSURING SUCCESS The process that ensued has been of an evo- lutionary nature. We recognized from the start that we already had some basic components in place that would be useful in this transition. We also realized that these components might require some alterations and that we would need to add other important parts. We knew that if we were to be successful in having un- dergraduate students do meaningful research, we would need to introduce them to scientific research and the research process early during their first year of college and that we would need to build on that foundation each suc- ceeding year. The components, already in place were as follows: BIO 150 & BIO 151 Introduction to Biol- ogy I & I (10 semester hours; required cours- es) BIO 240 Library Resources in Biological Sciences (1 semester hour; required course) BIO 401 Seminar (1 semester hour; re- quired course) BIO 496 Independent Study (1—3 semester hours each, up to a total of 6 semester hours; elective course) Northern Kentucky University—Warner 3 BIO 497 Techniques of the Biological Sci- ences (1-2 semester hours each, up to a total of 4 semester hours; elective course) Although we had these basic components in place we did not have a clear plan of how to best use them to assure a meaningful research experience for our students. We realized that the sequence of courses was important and that, while the sequence was appropriate for some students, much was being left to chance. Therefore, we set about to restructure our curriculum in a logical way that would stimu- late interest in undergraduate research. Over a period of several years we made changes that we believe have made notable improvements. These changes are designed to introduce biology majors to research. Students are led step-by-step to the point where they are doing research, making presentations, and, by the time they graduate, publishing scientific papers (with a faculty member). The first thing we did was to reevaluate the way we deliver our introductory courses (BIO 150 & BIO 151). After meticulous examina- tion we changed the way lecture instruction is provided, thoroughly revised the laboratory experience, and added a new component. The details are as follows. Lecture For almost 20 years a single instructor had sole responsibility for two sections of lecture per semester. BIO 150 & BIO 151 had be- come identified as his course rather than the department's course. In the early 1990s we changed this by having another instructor work with the established professor. Teaching responsibility was divided so that each taught about one-half of the course. In following se- mesters more faculty members became in- volved. The original professor was relieved of having to teach these courses on a continual basis and, instead, became one of several course instructors. We now have six faculty members who have taught BIO 150 & BIO 151 in various team combinations. This re- structuring has brought a variety of faculty into contact with our majors during their crit- ical first year, and it has resulted in faculty working closely with one another in the class- room. Laboratory Prior to this revision, we used a commer- cially available laboratory manual that was de- signed to have students learn a lot of factual material about biology. While much of it was good-to-know information, students were not required to use the scientific process or to de- velop critical thinking skills. In preparation for this new approach, laboratory time was re- structured from two 2-hour sessions per week to one, 3-hour session per week. This larger block of time better accommodates the inves- tigative approach that was installed. Faculty teaching the laboratories wrote new exercises that require students to collect data, to analyze it using computers, and to draw conclusions about their findings. This process enables us to achieve our goal of having new majors learn about the research process by doing research. Recitation This new course component is designed to provide beginning biology majors an orienta- tion to the discipline. It meets once a week for 1 hour. Departmental faculty come as guests to talk about the upper-level courses they teach and the research they do. Students are provided an opportunity to get to know faculty at an early stage. One requirement of recitation is that students are assigned scien- tific papers to read and respond to. They be- come familiar with different types of publica- tions (i.e., review articles, primary articles, popular articles, etc.) and the appropriate use of each. Following completion of BIO 150 & BIO 151, biology majors must take BIO 240 Infor- mation Resources in Biological Sciences as soon as possible. This course, formerly called Library Resources in Biological Sciences, has changed as the Steely Library has incorporat- ed new methods of information retrieval such as on-line searches, use of the internet, etc. Successful completion of this course provides students with the basic skills they require to perform a search of the literature. One of the important additions that we made to our curriculum was the establishment of a new, required course, BIO 390 Principles of Research. This course was added as a ve- hicle for teaching modern scientific method- ology including problem selection, experimen- 4 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) tal design, survey of scientific literature, and development of a research proposal. Students are to take BIO 390 as soon as they complete BIO 240, that is, in the spring semester of their sophomore year or in the junior year. One immediate outcome of this course is that some students use their proposals, with some elaboration, to successfully apply for research grants from sources such as Beta Beta Beta and Sigma Xi as well as for summer research grants available from NKU. Following completion of BIO 390 (and sometimes concurrent with it) majors are en- couraged to register for BIO 397 Techniques of the Biological Sciences. Students in BIO 397 work directly with a faculty member to learn basic techniques necessary for conduct- ing research in a specific area. This is not a required course and it may not be necessary for all students who want to do research. The next step is to actually get involved in a research project with a faculty member. Stu- dents can do this by registering for BIO 496 Directed Research (an optional course). This involves the student working with a faculty member on some aspect of that faculty mem- ber’s ongoing research. Students are encour- aged to present the results of their research effort at a scientific meeting such as that of the Kentucky Academy of Science, national or regional meetings of Beta Beta Beta, or others as appropriate. This research will often result in a publication with the student as co-author with the faculty member. All biology majors are required to take BIO 401 Seminar usually in their senior year. If they have followed the route as above de- scribed, seminar is rather anticlimactic. They may base their presentations on the research they have done. Those who do not follow this route must select topics, do thorough litera- ture searches, and give presentations based on the literature rather than on their original re- search. RESULTS At the 1996 annual meetings of the Ken- tucky Academy of Science 69 undergraduate students from throughout the state entered the undergraduate research competition. Of these the NKU Department of Biological Sci- ences had 10 students who made presenta- tions and four others who jointly presented a poster. Five of these students were recipients of awards as follows: Botany and Microbiology section, 2nd and 3rd place winners; Cellular and Molecular Biology section, 1st place win- ner (co-winner); Zoology and Entomology sec- tion, 2nd place winner; and Undergraduate Poster Competition, 1st place winner; This is an impressive showing especially when you consider that undergraduate presenters from our Department of Biological Sciences won recognition in every section in which they par- ticipated. No other single department in the state did as well. In December 1996 three of our students were awarded research grants totaling $1999 from the Beta Beta Beta Research Foundation (national biology honor society). A fourth student received a $600 Grant-in- Aid of Research from Sigma Xi to support re- search in Costa Rica on a hybrid of the genus Heliconia. As a result of work in summer 1996 he was invited to spend three weeks in sum- mer 1997 at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The 6 February 1997 issue of USA Today listed the results of its annual Academic AIll- Stars competition. One of the honorable men- tion winners was a biology major from North- ern Kentucky University who was selected as a result of his work on cancer research. This student was the only undergraduate selected from Kentucky at any level. As an Honorable Mention Winner, he was in good company with students from such schools as Brandeis, Harvard, Notre Dame, and Princeton. In April 1997 two of our students attended the annual meetings of the National Confer- ence on Undergraduate Research in Austin, Texas, where they gave presentations based on their research. During this same time, five other students traveled to Furman University to make presentations on their research at the regional meetings of Beta Beta Beta. Three of our majors received Greaves Un- dergraduate Summer Research Stipends of $2500 plus $500 for supplies for summer 1997. Five such awards, based on competitive research proposals submitted by the students, were made by NKU. FUNDING STRATEGIES Funding for the support of these activities came from several sources as follows: (1) small Northern Kentucky University—Warner 5 amount from the operating budget of the De- partment of Biological Sciences; (2) Small amount from faculty grants of mentors; (3) grants awarded to students from sources such as Sigma Xi and Beta Beta Beta; (4) Greaves Summer Research Stipends provided by NKU from an endowment for support of the sci- ences; and (5) considerable sum from alumni donations (amounting to several thousand dol- lars per year that goes to a departmental foun- dation account used for supplies, travel ex- penses of students to meetings, etc.). CONCLUSIONS Although Northern Kentucky University is primarily an undergraduate institution, the faculty of the Department of Biological Sci- ences strongly believes that research should be an integral part of the curriculum. To develop an environment in which our students wel- come research activity as a basic component of their education, we begin during the fresh- man year to expose them to research and its importance. The plan outlined here has al- ready resulted in impressive accomplishments. We fully expect that student interest in re- search will continue to grow and that the ben- efits to our students will be significant. Al- though the number of majors in relation to the number of faculty and the available facilities currently prevents us from requiring research participation as a graduation requirement, we hope to move in that direction. It is important to note that these successes have been possi- ble because of dedicated, enthusiastic faculty members being willing to put in many extra hours. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):6-11. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Using Water Quality Monitoring as a University-Level Teaching Tool Brian C. Reeder Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 ABSTRACT Juniors and seniors at Morehead State University gathered water quality data for a variety of monitoring projects from 1994 to 1997. This research experience indicated that intermediate-level students benefitted most. These students were more attentive to detail in lab than normal, and the majority of the data collected was reliable and accurate, as long as the analysis techniques were simple. Most students were less reliable at gathering data that required more complex procedures, such as measuring total phosphorus and nitrogen. Although student involvement increases the supply costs, the educational benefits suggest government/uni- versity collaborations of this type can be beneficial for all participants. INTRODUCTION Students learn more about the scientific method by being actively engaged in research than they do by reading about it. Undergrad- uate students gain confidence, skill, and an ap- preciation of the scientific method by being involved in research projects (Lanza and Smith 1988; Lord 1989). Although the virtues of student involvement in scientific research are well known, most projects rely on academ- ically exceptional students, usually working one-on-one with a researcher. Over the last 3 years I have engaged in the experiment of using large (20 to 40 students) undergraduate laboratory classes to monitor water quality for various government agencies. These projects encouraged students to think critically (i.e., gather information, process in- formation, Evaluate evidence, draw conclu- sions) in an active learning environment. My goal was to use the ideals of scientific inquiry ase on logic and the evaluation of evi- dence) to increase student appreciation and understanding of water analysis, which they had previously thought was complicated, bor- ing, and sometimes even dangerous. An ad- ebual goal was for students cs gain an un- derstanding and appreciation of how new knowledge | is obtained. Students were asked to learn both content and process. Although most professors agree that learning the scenaee process is impor- tant, few integrate class research, which is one of the best ways to teach how knowledge is gained (Foster 1989; Janners 1988; Postleth- wait 1980). My definitions of active learning and critical thinking are more traditional than some current education experts espouse. Iron- ically, many contemporary proponents of “crit- ical thinking” fail to use the scientific method when making claims of success (Morgan 1995). Similarly, “active learning” is not un- known to those of us who have been im- mersed in laboratory experiences throughout our educational careers. Field activities are not prevalent at the post- secondary level, despite the evidence that stu- dents find field biology exciting and engaging (Hall 1996). Research suggests that field ex- periences allow students to concentrate on process skills in a non-distractive environment and encourages camaraderie among students as well as student-professor interactions (Hall 1996; Wheater 1989). It has been suggested that student participation in monitoring pro- jects enhances student interest and learning (Zaimi et al. 1994) Unlike a pre-prepared laboratory exercise, the projects used in this study enabled the stu- dents to engage in research that could have consequences on how water resources in the region would be managed. The merging of learning and performance goals should moti- vate students and enhance learning success (Dweck 1986). Additionally, since the stu- dents’ water analyses could have important consequences (beyond performing for a grade), material retention should increase (Ca- rey 1986). Based upon the theory that a field research experience would increase learning, Morehead State University—Reeder 7 this study endeavors to use a large number of undergraduate students for environmental monitoring projects and to discover benefits and pitfalls of the educational experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants included all the students taking four ecology courses (required of all biology majors, including pre-professional students and environmental science majors) and two limnology courses (required of all environ- mental science majors; an elective for biology majors). Over 120 undergraduate students, with various interests and abilities, participat- ed in the projects. The average ACT compos- ite score for the students involved was 23.2— better than the average MSU student (1992 to 96 mean composite ACT = 19.8); and the na- tional mean for undergraduates (1992-1996 composite national norm = 21.4). The mini- mum prerequisites for the courses were junior or greater rank, college algebra, and eight se- mester hours of college chemistry, botany, and zoology; therefore all the students were fa- miliar with the chemical and biological equip- ment that would be used for their research. Three water quality monitoring projects in- volved students: (1) appraising local streams for the Health Department during 1994-1995 to make recommendation on sewage up- grades; (2) assessing the trophic status and wa- ter quality of Grayson Lake during the 1995—- 1997 growing seasons to determine the effects of different management schemes; and (3) monitoring the effects of different types of fertilizer on ponds at the Minor Clark Fish Hatchery during spring 1997. Before working on the research project, stu- dents had two or three 2-hour lab periods dur- ing which they practiced field sampling and the chemical analysis of soluble reactive phos- phate (SRP), nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia. Limnology students also learned how to mea- sure total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl ni- trogen (TKN), total suspended solids, and chlorophyll a. Students used standard methods (APHA 1985) or the simplified Hach equiva- lents (Hach Company 1994). All students were required to take field water samples and be- come familiar with operation and calibration of field instruments to measure dissolved ox- ygen, pH, conductivity, and Secchi depth. Stu- dents always worked in groups of two to five. After all the samples were analyzed by the stu- dent groups, I or a graduate student repeated the analyses to check for reliability. After the project, each student was required to write a report (including results and statis- tical analysis) using a scientific format (i.e., in- troduction, materials and methods, results, recommendations, amd literature cited) that was suitable for submission to the funding agency. Students knew their reports would not only be graded but possibly given to the agen- cy to aid in decision-making. Reports were generally worth about 20% of their lab grade; lab grades were worth about 1/3 of their final grade for the course. Student outputs were analyzed to see if there was any learning enhancement for a par- ticular group. I compared their overall ACT score to their scores on both the laboratory project and their final score in the class. Data included all the students involved in the pro- ject for which all scores were available (ACTs were not on file for some transfer students). Since more than 30 students took both ecol- ogy and limnology, I included their scores from only the first time they did the project so there would be no bias toward those re- peating the assignments and activities. Grad- uate students, too, were removed from the data set. RESULTS As most people who have taught or taken laboratory courses know, one of the common problems creating poor results is that many students try to “cookbook” their way through procedures in the fastest possible manner. This also usually results in students not un- derstanding the underlying assumptions be- hind much of what they did or how the results apply to the hypothesis tested. In contrast, the laboratory atmosphere during most of our pro- jects was extraordinarily dynamic. Compared with other labs, students tended to be much more attentive to details and much more concerned with doing procedures cor- rectly. For example, it was not uncommon for a student to question if or how they may have done something wrong and to repeat proce- dures until they were satisfied with the out- comes. Students recognized the lab proce- dures when questioned about them on exams and were able to interpret results with relative 8 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) =2.203 +4. R“2 = 336 O O 70 Course Score 60 50 40 30 Oo 8 oO 944 * X -11.799 + 6.483 R*2 .229 b) 12 14 16 418 Figure 1. 20 22 2:6 50. eS2 Overall 24 26 Relationship between overall ACT scores and student performance in water monitoring projects at More- head State University. Best-fit of second-order regressions between ACT and (a) final score in the course and (b) score on a research report based upon the research activity. accuracy in reports. I assumed this attention to detail was because the students knew that their data were going to be used for a man- agement decision in the region. A comparison of ACT scores to their per- formance on their research reports showed that students with high ACT scores tended to perform better than those with low ACT scores (Figure 1). It is interesting to look at the performance by mid-range and high-per- forming students (arbitrarily chosen as stu- dents with a composite ACT > 19). Mid-level students (abitrarily chosen as students with ACT scores 20 to 26) achieved scores just as high or higher than the ‘A’ students when giv- en a problem-solving activity. A linear regres- sion slope of ACT vs. lab score for students with ACT composite scores greater than 19 is only 0.72 (correlation r = 0.22; n = 65). The slope for these same students vs. their final score in the course is 1.28 (correlation r = 0.41; n 65), showing that mid-range stu- dents performed better on the research pro- ject than on other course projects and exams. Morehead State University—Reeder 9 pg/L SRP ug/L Figure 2. Site Results from water monitoring projects at Morehead State University. Student measurements of dissolved oxygen (D.O.), total phosphorus (TP), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) concen- trations in 13 sites along Triplett Creek and its tributaries from Sep 1994 to Aug 1995. Error bane represent one standard deviation. A concern when using students for moni- toring and research is whether the data they collect are reliable and accurate. Most stu- dents were able to perform well on simple tasks, and data from different lab groups usu- ally agreed fairly well (Figure 2). Measure- ments that required the use of electronic me- ters (e.g., Hydrolab, YSI D.O., conductivity meters, and pH meters) or a Secchi disk in the field were always accurate. In the lab, stu- dents were equally competent with spectro- photometric measurements using Hach Ac- cuvac ampules or 1-2 step Chemical proce- dures. On more complex analyses, such at TP and TKN digestions, or nitrate using cadmium re- duction columns, students were much less ef- fective at obtaining accurate information. When the data were incorrect, values often deviated from standards by an order of mag- nitude; these problems could usually be traced to contamination, errors during sampling, or errors in specific procedures. Not all classes were able to perform even the simple tasks effectively; the limnology class from spring semester 1997 had a greater than 40% failure rate in lab work. This class was less attentive to detail and more cavalier in attitudes toward the project than previous classes. DISCUSSION Lanza and Smith (1988) suggested that the success of undergraduate research projects should be gauged by the quality of the re- search and the amount of student growth. Our projects were usually successful at increasing both. More importantly, the data suggest that middle-range students gained more from this experience than other students did. Poor stu- dents did not increase in performance; no harm was done to successful students. This could be an important area to explore with a more controlled study. From the standpoint of the instructor, run- ning a laboratory as part of a monitoring pro- 10 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) ject increases the time commitment, since quality must be ensured. However, college professors of ecology and limnology routinely gather vast amounts of field data in teaching students the techniques of collecting and an- alyzing ecological information. It only takes a bit more effort to make this data gathering Srealee The obvious educational advantage of this approach is that students will tend to be much more attentive and motivated than when they are performing less consequential analyses. Cheating should most likely be reduced since the emphasis is on solving a relevant problem rather than simply getting a number to put in a box. Lord (1989) even suggested that pro- fessors who have lost their love of exploration as a result of teaching the same course for many years may rediscover the excitement of learning when they get undergraduate stu- dents involved in research. There are important considerations for tak- ing on a project like this. To do the checks, train the students, and allow for multiple groups to analyze the same samples, we per- formed at least four times as many tests as we would have if monitoring under normal con- ditions. Consequently our material and supply costs increased about four-fold. To some ex- tent these financial costs were offset (i.e., I would have run some of these tests as part of the labs for teaching purposes under normal circumstances). Since water analysis labs are included in all the major limnology ad ecology laboratory manuals, I assume many other pro- fessors would be in a similar situation. It could be assumed that I simply took money that would be “wasted” and put it to a more prac- tical use (Zaimi et al. 1994). This study also has implications for the use of citizens in water quality monitoring. Like our students, citizens and school children are often highly motivated to monitor lakes and streams. It should be noted that our students sometimes failed at relatively simple tasks, al- though their training in chemistry and using instrumentation was far in excess of average persons. Furthermore, some of my students’ errors occurred due to contamination of sam- ple containers in the field. Citizen volunteers usually limit the water analysis they perform to fairly simple techniques and measurements, and they send water and chlorophyll filters off to a lab to be analyzed (Ely 1997; Simpson 1991). Our study suggests that complex chem- ical analyses would be difficult for citizens to perform. Although the main tenet of “active learn- ing,” which many of us in the sciences call “lab,” is to foster understanding and compre- hension of material by using problem-solving activities, this type of attentiveness is not com- mon for the majority of students in most tra- ditional labs. Although it is a subjective obser- vation, I feel that when students are given the opportunity to confront a real problem in their geographic area, combined with knowing that their results are important (and may be sub- mitted to a government agency), it greatly en- hances the learning experience. Additionally, our environmental science majors, many of whom may eventually be employed in the Commonwealth, gain the type of “real world” experience they need to understand their cho- sen field. Involving students in solving com- munity problems has been beneficial for the students, the agency, and the community. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank all the students involved, especially graduate students John Cox, Stephen Davis and Chris Goshorn. Funding was provided by the Kentucky Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Morehead State University Research and Creative Productions Committee, and the USEPA through the Kentucky Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Water and Gateway Regional Health Department. LITERATURE CITED [APHA] American Public Health Association, American Water Works Associate, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1985. Standard methods for the examina- tion of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Carey, S. 1986. Cognitive science and science education. Am. Psychol. 41:1123-1130. Dweck, C.S. 1986. Motivation processes affecting learn- ing. Am. Psychol. 41:1040—1048. Ely, E. 1997. Volunteer lake monitoring. Lakeline 17:12, 13, 60, 61. Foster, J.M. 1989. Teaching experimental science: en- zymes and the laboratory. Pages 39-46 in F.R. Weaver (ed). Promoting inquiry in undergraduate learning. New directions in teaching and learning no. 38. Jossey- Bass, San Francisco, CA. Morehead State University—Reeder 11 Hach Company. 1994. DR/2000 spectrophotometer handbook. Hach Company, Loveland, CO. Hall, D.W. 1996. Bringing hands-on experience to teach- ing insect field biology. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 24:195-200. Janners, M.Y. 1988. Inquiry, investigation, and commu- nication in the student-directed laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 17:32-35. Lanza, J.. and G.C. Smith. 1988. Undergraduate re- search: a little experience goes a long way. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 17:118-121. Lord, T.R. 1989. Promoting student research at the two year college. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 18:174-177. Morgan, W.R. 1995. ‘Critical Thinking—What does that mean? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 24:336-340. Postlethwait, S.N. 1980. Improvement of science teach- ing. Bioscience 30:601-604. Simpson, J.T. 1991. Volunteer lake monitoring: a meth- ods manual. EPA 440/4-91-002. Wheater, C.P. 1989. A comparison of two formats for terrestrial behavioural ecology field courses. J. Biol. Educ. 23:223-229. Zaimi, O., A.C. Blizzard, and G.J. Sorger. 1994. Teaching water quality analysis with community collaboration. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 23:105-110. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):12-14. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences A Summary of 25 Years of Undergraduate Research at the Thomas More College Biology Field Station: What Became of the Students? William S. Bryant and John W. Ferner Department of Biology, Thomas More College, Crestview Hills, Kentucky 41017 ABSTRACT A total of 101 of the 116 students who worked as undergraduate researchers at the Thomas More College Biology Field Station from 1971 through 1996 received their bachelor’s degrees. The other 15 students were still in school in 1996. This paper summarizes the post-bachelor’s choices of the 101 graduates and discusses some of the reasons that over 85% of them attended graduate or professional schools. INTRODUCTION Carter et al. (1990) wrote that, ‘Students must participate in the doing of science in both the laboratory and field.’ That was the view at the center of the Thomas More Col- lege (TMC) Department of Biology’s initial grant application to study microbial popula- tions in the Ohio River (Budde et al. 1971). The grant was funded by the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company; the base or control site for that research was the TMC Ohio River Bi- ology Field Station near California, Campbell County, Kentucky. The station was the former Lock 35 property and was acquired by the College in 1967; it has been upgraded over the years. The Department of Biology has re- ceived grants for various research projects at the station from 1971 to the present (exclud- ing 1993). A major stipulation of the first re- search grant was that undergraduate students would be involved in all areas of data collec- tion and analysis. Over the years, research projects at the sta- tion have focused on various aspects of the Ohio River including bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, fishes, zebra mussels, water chemistry, ash drainage, thermal pollu- tion, and impingement. The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company has never dictated what aspects to consider for research; however, pro- ject selection generally has centered around the impact of electric power plants on the Ohio River. A total of 116 undergraduate students have participated on the 25 projects from 1971 to 1996 (excluding 1993). Of that total, 101 stu- 12 dents had graduated from Thomas More Col- lege by the end of summer 1996. This paper reports on the post-bachelor’s career choices of those 101 graduates and discusses the role that their undergraduate research experience at the station may have played in their choices. STUDENT SELECTION PROCESS The selection of undergraduates for partic- ipation in the summer research projects at the station involves a number of steps. Beginning in January of each year, applications are made available to interested students. After appli- cations have been returned by the specified date, all biology faculty members, not just those who will be involved with the research project, review the applications. The recom- mendation from each faculty member is con- sidered in student selection. Students are cho- sen not just on the basis of academics (e.g., high grade-point average). Other factors con- sidered are previous experience, ability to swim or handle a motor boat, courses taken, interests, personality, and grade level. We seek a mix of ye seniors—and a mix of those with previous ex- perience to those without experience. The stu- dents selected, generally four to 10 per sum- mer, are notified immediately. They receive a stipend plus room and board for the period of research. The base of operations is the TMC Ohio River Biology Field Station. RESULTS Of the 101 TMC graduates who worked as undergraduate researchers on grant-supported projects at the station between 1971 and 1996, Thomas More College—Bryant and Ferner I} Table 1. A summary of the post-baccalaureate educational choices of the 101 undergraduate researchers at the Thomas More College Biology Field Station from 1971-1996. Graduate school (M.S. and/or Ph.D. programs) 47.5% Medical school and related (M.D., D.O., D.P.M., D.V.M., D.D.S., D.C., Pharmacy, Nursing, Med. Tech) Law (J.D.) Other (M.B.A., Theology) None (Have not pursued a formal educational program at this time) 34.7% 3.0% 4.0% 10.9% 58 were male and 43 were female. Of the 101, eighty-six (85.5%) continued their education beyond the bachelor’s degree. A majority of former undergraduate re- searchers, 47.5%, have attended graduate school, 34.7% continued in a medical field, 3.0% in law, 4.0% in other areas (e.g., busi- ness, theology); 10.9% have not pursued fur- ther formal education (Table 1). Five of those who, as of yet, have not pursued further ed- ucation degrees are involved in environmental work or research. Thirty-nine students (38.6%) have completed or are in terminal de- gree programs. Currently, 43 (42.6%) of the former undergraduate researchers are working in an environmental field. That number does not include two attorneys who are practicing environmental law. DISCUSSION Two-thirds of the students attending liberal arts colleges plan to attend either graduate or medical school (Carter et al. 1990). Over the past 10 years at TMC, 20% of the graduates from all majors entered graduate or profes- sional school; however, a much larger num- ber—71.2%—of biology graduates did so. Since over 85% of students who participated as undergraduates in the Ohio River research projects have continued their education, we felt that the undergraduate research experi- ence may have had a positive influence re- garding their decisions; field station partici- pants entered graduate or professional schools at significantly higher rates than biology ma- jors (z test; 0.05 level). Although we have not systematically sampled each former under- graduate researcher, we did question a num- ber about their decisions. We also questioned and discussed this with faculty members. Some of the factors that seem to have influ- enced our former undergraduate researchers in terms of their career choices or in their de- cision to continue their education are dis- cussed below. 1. Students who participated in research can see science as an active process, one that is continued beyond the classroom. They were involved in data collection and analysis, equip- ment repair, and maintenance—not just in note taking and memorization of facts. Seago (1992) noted the importance of research and discovery to the cognitive process. 2. A close working relationship between students and faculty develops at the station. The small number of students encourages co- operation. These students see faculty in a dif- ferent light than those whose only contact with faculty is through lecture courses. Students see that faculty enjoy their work, especially re- search. Seymour and Hewitt (1994) found that students who condemned faculty obsession with research changed their ideas dramatically when they were allowed to observe or partic- ipate in that research. The few students who had this experience liked the pleasant and open way in which faculty treated undergrad- uates in research relationships, compared with their apparent indifference to them ina teach- ing context. Five of the eight TMC faculty who have worked on summer research grants at the station are still on the TMC faculty; stu- dents recognize the importance of this conti- nuity. 3. Students build confidence and learn from practice rather than from theory only. The attitude of the student is important (Sea- go 1992). Doing hands-on activities, using tax- onomic keys, and learning from other students who have had previous work experience at the station are vitally important. The mixing of year levels at the station is important, too, as students learn from each other. 4. Students are given a stipend for their re- search participation. This is an incentive to earn tuition money for next year in a summer 14 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) research project. The students may also choose to live at the station in dorm-style housing and to receive free board. Some stu- dents have also received academic credit for a portion of their research work. 5. Because the research is funded by in- dustry, students begin to see the importance of environmental work to industry. Students also learn how industry works to achieve en- vironmental compliance. 6. The time that the research is ongoing, i.e., summers for 8 to 10 weeks, is generally a time when students are not in school. They do not have to concentrate on other courses but can devote their entire energies to their pro- jects. The students also learn to handle a mo- tor boat, electro-shocking equipment, water chemistry tests, etc. And they have some free time to enjoy the water. 7. All participants are given joint authorship of the final report submitted to the sponsoring industry. This provides students with a signif- icant addition to their résumés. Often this type of documented research may give students an advantage as they apply for graduate/profes- sional schools or for jobs. When students put the research findings in written form for oth- ers to read, the act of communication forces students to produce a better perspective of the process and the project (Seago 1992). 8. In recent years some of the students have presented portions of their research re- sults at the Argonne Undergraduate Research Symposium in Chicago. Science favors the prepared mind (Bruner 1973), and learning to discuss and conduct research is a major part of developing that prepared mind (Seago 1992). A number of other factors may also enter into the equations that influence students to continue their education. Preparing this paper has brought this to our attention. We hope to analyze these factors systematically in the fu- ture by surveying all of the former undergrad- uate researchers who have worked on summer research projects at the TMC Biology Field Station. LITERATURE CITED Bruner, J.S. 1973. The act of discovery. Pages 402-412 in J.M. Anglin (ed). Jerome S. Bruner: beyond the in- formation given. W.W. Norton, New York, NY. Budde, M.L., R. Beck, L. Finke, G. Hater, and M.J. Stag- genborg. 1971. An investigation of the effect of heated water discharge from the Beckjord Electric Plant on the microorganisms in the Ohio River. TMC Biology Field Station Bull. 1. Carter, J.L., F. Heppner, R.H. Saigo, G. Twitty, and D. Walker. 1990. The state of the biology major. Biosci- ence 40:678-683. Seago, J.L., Jr. 1992. The role of research in undergrad- uate instruction. Am. Biol. Teacher 54:401—405. Seymour, E., and N. Hewitt. 1994. Talking about leaving: factors contributing to high attrition rates among sci- ence, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate ma- jors. Bureau of Sociological Research, Univ. Colorado, Boulder, CO. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):15-19. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research in Biology: A Developmental Approach Robert W. Kingsolver and David F. Oetinger Department of Biology, Kentucky Wesleyan College, Owensboro, Kentucky 42302-1039 ABSTRACT Undergraduate research can be improved by introducing skills and concepts incrementally over a 4-year college biology curriculum. Extensive firsthand experience with biological systems, along with a formal in- troduction to scientific practices and professions early in a student's education, facilitates applications of ideas and techniques encountered in subsequent course work. Integration of learning, both within the sciences and with other disciplines, is essential. Gradual transfer of responsibility for laboratory study to the student develops the ability to conduct quality research, demonstrated by an independent project and a senior seminar presentation. EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY A distinguishing feature of liberal arts edu- cation at 4-year colleges is that the unit of in- struction is not the course, or even the major, but the entire undergraduate curriculum. Fre- quent contact between faculty from different disciplines facilitates coordinated educational effort, and continuity of the student—faculty relationship over 4 years allows faculty to ap- proach complex educational objectives incre- mentally, by building one experience on an- other over the student’s college career. This developmental approach to undergraduate ed- ucation holds many advantages for the stu- dent, but it is especially effective in teaching and coordinating the array of concepts and skills required to conduct meaningful scientific research. Scientists often refer to their research as an art form rather than a reproducible method (Thomas 1974). While it is true that a re- searcher's creativity and insight cannot be cap- tured in matrices of curricular objectives, we believe that the challenge in teaching students to conduct research lies not in its indefinable nature but in its complexity. Like swimming or flying a plane, research is not a single skill but a suite of attitudes and abilities that must be developed one at a time. The ‘sink or swim’ model with which neophytes are frequently in- troduced to research throws the entire chal- lenge at them in one assignment, typically de- manding a research report or science fair pro- ject as the only measure of success and leaving them to negotiate dozens of difficult steps in 15 the process as best they can. The unfortunate result is polarization of student attitudes; those who survive are exhilarated, but many are left bewildered and alienated by the scientific pro- cess. Among the skills and concepts prerequisite for successful undergraduate research are (1) observing natural phenomena, with the un- derstanding that scientific concepts are ulti- mately derived from nature; (2) finding biblio- graphic sources, with the understanding that scientists build on the work of others; (3) read- ing scientific papers, with the understanding that published material is peer-reviewed but not infallible; (4) generating testable hypoth- eses, with an understanding of the appropriate scope of a student project; (5) designing ex- perimental methods, with an understanding of the importance of controls and replicates; (6) developing a research proposal, with an un- derstanding of the limits and sources of fund- ing; (7) performing experiments, with an un- derstanding of safety, cooperation, and ethical treatment of research subjects; (8) recording data, with an understanding of the importance of honesty and accuracy; (9) interpreting re- sults, with an understanding of the appropriate statistical methods; (10) presenting the work in written, oral, and graphic formats, with an understanding of the power of effective com- munication; (11) critiquing the work of others, with an understanding that ideas, not col- leagues, are subject to rejection; and (12) learning from mistakes, with the understand- ing that experimentalists learn more from sur- prising failure than from anticipated success. 16 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Although these steps are listed in order of their application, they are not necessarily mas- tered in this sequence. ‘Ontogeny does not re- capitulate phylogeny’ in the development of scientists. The research proposal, for example, is a primary step for professionals but not an ideal introductory challenge for students. There are also good reasons to teach reading and writing of research papers as a unit in bi- ology classes, even though these tasks are sep- arated in the research cycle. Kentucky Wesleyan College’s biology pro- gram expects every undergraduate student to master research skills and conduct research as a requirement for graduation. We therefore avoid the common practice of selecting a few talented students and placing them with re- search mentors as if they were already in grad- uate school. Mentoring of selected students provides valuable experience for participants (e.g., Cortinas et al. 1996; Rodriguez and West 1995), but this strategy does not serve the ma- jority of undergraduates. It also tends to en- gage students in the collection of data but not in the earlier stages of hypothesis forming and research design. A simple project of the stu- dent’s own invention can be more heuristically valuable than performing a pre-determined role in a more sophisticated project (Lanza 1988; Soprano 1990). We have also resisted the common practice of denying undergraduate research experience to pre-medical and other allied health pre-pro- fessionals. While these students may not in- tend to pursue research careers, we believe that they should be trained in the mechanisms of science. In short, we see undergraduate re- search as an essential component of liberal arts education and not just a specialized vo- cational program. A DEVELOPMENTAL STRATEGY Our strategy for developing research abili- ties is to immerse freshmen in direct, broad experience with biological systems, to create awareness of research practices in a sopho- more seminar for biology majors, to foster component skills in sophomore and junior lab- oratories, to supervise research projects in the junior or senior year, and to create a venue for oral presentations of research in a required se- nior seminar. The serial prerequisites of most science curricula follow a developmental mod- el to some extent, so we will limit this discus- sion to elements of our program intentionally altered from the standard major requirements. At the end of their first year of college, Ken- tucky Wesleyan biology majors have typically completed 10 credit hours of a general biology sequence designed specifically for pre-profes- sional scientists and incorporating two 2-hour laboratory periods each week. A_ similarly structured general chemistry sequence, taken concurrently by most majors, contributes to the total of 240 hours of laboratory time that freshmen receive. Laboratory sessions are taught by the same faculty who teach the lec- ture/discussion meetings, establishing conti- nuity and flexibility in these courses. Topics in general biology laboratories range from bio- chemistry to ecosystems, include a diversity of taxa, and vary in approach from controlled ex- periments to histological observations to field data collection. The theme of the freshman year is direct sensory experience of biological systems. Secondary sources of information, such as computer simulations and videotape presentations are employed later in the cur- riculum. These technologies are used sparing- ly at first, though, because representations of this sort convey limited meaning to a student unfamiliar with the natural phenomena they symbolize (Schrock 1985). Freshman courses outside the natural sci- ences lend valuable support to our program. Writing workshop is a six credit-hour se- quence emphasizing verbal reasoning, com- position, and bibliographic research. This En- glish department offering is required of all students, maintains small class sizes, and in- volves weekly writing practice. The research paper produced in the second semester can be adapted to the student's major interest, and biology students often pursue a scientific problem. A research adviser from outside the English department helps each student with the paper's content; biology faculty frequently serve in this capacity. English faculty have also cooperated with us in presenting unique as- pects of scientific writing, such as the embed- ded citation style and the common use of pas- sive voice in research reports. Kentucky Wes- leyan’s integrated studies requirement bridges the ‘two cultures’ of science and humanities (Snow 1959) by teaming faculty from different academic backgrounds for interdisciplinary Kentucky Wesleyan College—Kingsolver and Oetinger 17 courses. Science faculty have collaborated in four of these: ‘Health Ethics and Society, a laboratory-based “Environmental Science’ course, a seminar called “Catalytic Thinkers in Environmental Science, and the freshman studies course titled ‘Profiles in Leadership.’ In support of our objectives, integrated study demonstrates the social environment in which science is conducted and casts the scientist’s world view in a clearer light through contrast with other perspectives. A 1-hour seminar required of all sophomore biology majors brings the second-year cohort together at a time when most have decided on a major but not the details of a career choice. Sophomore Seminar is centered on the re- search proposal, which lends itself to discus- sions of many issues relevant to a scientific vo- cation. Research objectives, bibliographic searching and citation styles, interpreting jour- nal articles, preparing tables and figures, oral presentations, writing strategies, ethical con- siderations, rules for handling animals and hu- man subjects, statistical methods, experimen- tal design, computer applications, graduate/ professional school requirements, and career options are among the topics we discuss. Stu- dent participation is evaluated as part of the college’s core oral communications require- ment. Each component of the student's re- search proposal is submitted and evaluated in weekly assignments, and the entire proposal is re-written and re-evaluated at the end of the course. The intent of Sophomore Seminar is to give students an overview of the scientific process so that they can see the relevance of the biology curriculum, set their own educa- tional objectives for the next five semesters, and direct their scholastic efforts over the long term. Upper-division biology courses at Kentucky Wesleyan are fairly typical in their content but exceptional in the depth of laboratory experi- ence provided. The 3-hour time block set aside for the typical laboratory is supplement- ed by open lab hours for extensive indepen- dent work. The location of science faculty of- fices in or near the student laboratories allows supervision of independent research activity, and students pursue increasingly challenging laboratory problems on their own. The genet- ics, microbiology, immunology, and embryol- ogy courses, in particular, engage students in ongoing research efforts requiring student- generated work schedules, team collaboration, and maintenance of experimental apparatus and records over weeks or months. During this period, students assume greater respon- sibility for their investigations, and they come to see the laboratory as a facility for creative activity rather than a class to attend for a fixed number of minutes each week. To balance the types of research experience, all majors are also required to participate in a field course, which may be chosen from ecology, field bot- any, entomology, or marine biology. Support courses in chemistry and physics are similar in their laboratory-intensive, problem-solving ap- proach, and the three departments collaborate extensively to help individual students, tailor schedules, and coordinate curricula. Because of the growing competence of bi- ology majors and their accumulation of labo- ratory and field skills, the independent project functions as a capstone activity rather than a novel experience. Students often meet this re- quirement by conducting the research they proposed in the sophomore seminar. Others participate in off-campus research fellowships or collaborate with faculty on new projects. Each student writes a short proposal for the research before the project begins, and a writ- ten report follows the project's completion. The student researcher and faculty adviser sign a research contract to ensure that re- search objectives and completion dates for project milestones are well defined at the out- set. This practice facilitates scheduling and evaluation of the research. Sample topics from student projects over the past few years in- clude biomonitoring of water quality, coelomic infections by acanthocephalan parasites, mi- crobial communities in cooling systems, growth of black band disease in coral reefs, macroinvertebrate population dynamics, ge- netic bases for sterility in Drosophila, flora of a reclaimed landfill, and spatial pattern in whirligig beetle assemblies. Senior seminar focuses on oral presentation of student research. Seniors in the course are provided guidance in organizing their materi- al, methods for oral presentations, and help in producing 35 mm slides. The course culmi- nates in a half-hour presentation from each student, clocked and followed by questions from seminar participants in the format of sci- 18 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) entific meetings. Three biology faculty attend all seminars and provide independent evalua- tions of each presentation. Feedback from peers is an important part of the process as well. Invitations to the campus community create opportunities to demonstrate our stu- dents’ accomplishments outside the depart- ment, and videotapes of each presentation are kept as a reference library for others. Co-curricular programs are also instrumen- tal in developing student research efforts. Our pre-professional science society helps students make the transition from college to graduate or professional school. Guest speakers orient students to a variety of scientific careers, as do annual tours of university medical, dental, pharmacy, and graduate schools. Meetings with alumni already placed in graduate pro- grams, always included in these trips, are es- pecially instructive for students with parallel post-graduate aspirations. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS This educational program was not estab- lished as an experiment; it contains too many variables for objective evaluation of the merits of each curricular component. We can, how- ever, provide subjective judgments on aspects of the program that have worked more or less effectively. An obvious cost of this kind of cur- riculum is the high faculty-to-student ratio re- quired for its success. Although we enjoy ex- tensive contact with undergraduates, the time and energy demanded of faculty are easy to underestimate. Our approach is feasible in the small college context but is probably not a re- alistic model for larger institutions emphasiz- ing faculty research (Carter et al. 1990). An- other drawback to a 4-year curricular strategy is that students forget lessons learned in one semester before being asked to apply them in another. This is especially true of theoretical concepts as opposed to laboratory techniques. The problem must be addressed by frequent cross-referencing and appropriate review. The sophomore seminar, a keystone of the devel- opmental plan, is frequently criticized in stu- dent evaluations as too much work for 1 hour of credit. Their appreciation for the sopho- more experience tends to grow over time, though, and we get much more positive ret- rospective remarks from seniors. Advantages of a 4-year strategy are most ap- parent when we place more advanced students in contact with beginners. Sophomores are en- couraged to attend senior seminar presenta- tions, for example, and the results have been so beneficial that we plan to formalize this ar- rangement in the future. Juniors and seniors often serve as tutors or laboratory assistants to freshmen and sophomores. This kind of peer mentoring is good for the newer students but also provides valuable review for the more ex- perienced undergraduates. We note that stu- dents who have gone through this program generate original research ideas and ask per- mission surprisingly often to continue research projects after the grading period is over. The practice of keeping textbooks and course ma- terials for future reference has been growing among our students, and we have seen an in- crease in citations of earlier readings or exer- cises in the bibliographies of upper-level re- search reports. Ultimately, of course, the proof of any un- dergraduate program is in the performance of its graduates. Our student population is com- paratively small, and evidence is necessarily anecdotal, but our alumni consistently ac- knowledge that this program has contributed to their success. Steve Wilt, a 1992 graduate, was singled out in the 1996 Plenary address to the Kentucky Academy of Science as a key contributor in organizing the neuro-molecular biology program at the University of Louisville (McLaughlin 1996). Presentations by our un- dergraduates and recent graduates in meet- ings of the Kentucky Academy of Science (e.g., Melcher and Townsend 1996; Novotny and Rawls 1996), and The Southeastern So- ciety of Parasitologists (Bassett and Oetinger 1996) are consistent with the conclusion that a developmental approach enhances meaning- ful undergraduate research. LITERATURE CITED Bassett, R., and D.F. Oetinger. 1996. Interactions be- tween rats and intraperitoneally-implanted Moniliformis moniliformis. Annual Meeting, Southeastern Society of Parasitologists, April 24-26, Murray State University, KY. Carter, J.L., F. Heppner, R.H. Saigo, G. Twitty, and D. Walker. 1990. The state of the biology major. Biosci- ence 40:678-682. Cortinas, J.V., J.M. Straka, W.H. Beasley, J.M. Schneider, and C.M. Machacek. 1996. The research experiences for undergraduates program: the 1995 program at the Kentucky Wesleyan College—Kingsolver and Oetinger 19 Oklahoma Weather Center. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77:2925-2936. Lanza, J. 1988. Whys and hows of undergraduate re- search. Bioscience 38:1 10-112. McLaughlin, B. 1996. A model of networking. Plenary Session II., 82nd annual meeting, Kentucky Academy of Science, November 14—16. Frankfort, KY. Melcher, H.L., and L.H. Townsend. 1996. Gynandro- morph of the introduced pine sawfly, Diprion similis (Hartig) (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Abstracts, Zool- ogy and Entomology Section, 82nd Annual Meeting, Kentucky Academy of Science, November 14-16. Frankfort, KY. Novotny, N., and J. Rawls. 1996. Screening for mutations causing failures in the RNA sorting system in spermi- ogenesis. Cellular and Molecular Biology Section, 82nd Annual Meeting, Kentucky Academy of Science, No- vember 14-16. Frankfort, KY. Rodriguez, E., and J.E. West. 1995. International re- search on biomedicines from the tropical rain-forest. Intersciencia 20:140-143. Schrock, J.R. 1984. Computers in science education: Can they go far enough? Have we gone too far? Am. Biol. Teacher 46:252-256. Snow, C.P. 1959. The two cultures and the scientific rev- olution. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Soprano, K.J. 1990. Recombinant DNA: technology and applications. Chatauqua short course for college teach- ers. University of Dayton Field Center. October 10-12. Dayton, OH. Thomas, L. 1978. The lives of a cell. Penguin Books, New York, NY. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):20-22. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Doing it: The Thing That Makes Science Make Sense Philip H. Crowley and William S. Cohen T.H. Morgan School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0225 ABSTRACT For undergraduate life-science majors, research projects can be more than just another way to earn college credit. Undergraduate research experiences shift the emphasis from the professor as wildemess guide to the student as explorer. Student researchers learn to take responsibility for a project, use available methods and guidance to collect and analyze data, draw appropriate conclusions, communicate effectively with other researchers at all levels of experience, and contribute in their own way to the body of scientific knowledge. Current life-sciences initiatives in undergraduate research at the University of Kentucky (UK) emphasize what we call horizontal and vertical integration of research and training: extending these opportunities to a larger and more diverse group of biology majors and a broader range of life-sciences researchers, encouraging graduate students to serve as primary mentors for undergraduates, and exposing students to the research enterprise very early in their undergraduate careers. INTRODUCTION “Textbook science” is an oxymoron. Science is fundamentally an experiential process, a subtle, improvisational game in which nature is cajoled into self-revelation. Though the ba- sic conceptual methods of science are relative- ly general and accessible, the actual route to obtaining a particular meaningful and convinc- ing result usually depends on a groping pro- cedure that can accurately be called ‘system- atic blundering. The tools and techniques keeping this uncertain process on the rails can be fully understood only by finding some of the boundaries beyond which they fail; for ex- ample, principles of experimental design be- come vivid when a major effort is undercut by inadequate controls or insufficient replication. Other people’s scientific victories—-or de- feats—-just cannot pack the same punch. So reading about science, listening to learned practitioners, and conducting set-piece “exper- iments’ in an instructional laboratory are not enough, even for beginners. Like the rest of us, beginners need the chance to experience the doing of science and the scope to make constructive errors in a ‘real’ research project of their own. In this article, we outline an approach to incorporating undergraduates into an active research environment; we describe some ini- tiatives now underway to implement this in bi- ological sciences at the University of Ken- 20 tucky. These approaches are still evolving rap- idly at our institution and at others in Ken- tucky and across the country. We welcome the exchange of ideas in this special issue and en- courage comments and suggestions on the points made here. PHILOSOPHY Unlike the monastic image of brilliant in- sight achieved in isolation (a la Mendel), con- temporary science is highly interactive, and the metaphor of a critical mass of ideas gen- erating an explosion of understanding seems more apt for today. Researchers addressing the same or similar problems within a labo- ratory, research group, academic unit, univer- sity—or (especially in this electronic age) be- yond—may interact with sufficient intensity to approach this explosive threshold. This is a process of horizontal integration that can gen- erate and winnow ideas efficiently and mesh complementary contributions. But there are also vertical structure and dynamics in a re- search environment, corresponding to inter- actions among individuals at different levels of experience and responsibility. As researcher- educators, we aspire in our own groups to achieve vertical integration of research and training, in which individuals at different lev- els in this hierarchy all contribute to the over- all research effort while gaining appropriate knowledge and experience in the process. The result can be an even more stimulating and University of Kentucky—Crowley and Cohen 21 productive intellectual environment. But how can we bring this off? IMPLEMENTATION This time of rapidly increasing demand for undergraduate instruction in the biological sci- ences (e.g., see The Chronicle of Higher Ed- ucation, 13 Dec 1996, p. A12) coincides with the advent of powerful molecular and com- uter-aided methods and of new environmen- tal and health concerns that must be ad- dressed. Getting undergraduates into research laboratories fills in the active and concrete side of their learning cycles (Kolb 1984) and im- proves our chances of maintaining a scientific talent pool for the future. In the Morgan School at UK, we coordinate an undergradu- ate research program in the life sciences (URLS) by attempting to match many of the 900 biology majors with the ca. 400 faculty life-scientist researchers on campus. In recent years, about half of our biology graduates have conducted an undergraduate research project by the time they graduate, most of them earn- ing three to six credit hours in the undergrad- uate research course, BIO 395. We hope to raise this proportion significantly in the near future. The matchmaking between students and re- searchers begins with the campus-wide re- quest for a brief program overview and for sketches of possible projects from life scien- tists, which are then made accessible to stu- dents through written materials and postings on the World Wide Web. Students wanting BIO 395 credit for the project must fill out a one-page ‘contract, signed by student and mentor, describing the project and its tentative timetable. Expenses associated with these pro- jects are borne by research-grant funds, REU grants and supplements (the National Science Foundation’s Research Experiences for Un- dergraduates Program), the UK Undergradu- ate Studies office, the University’s Hughes project (see below), or the budgets of academ- ic units. Plans are now being developed, with funds from the Morgan School's Ribble En- dowment, to expand the University’s Life Sci- ences Day to include a poster session for all URLS participants and scholarship awards for the best projects. The UK-Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Undergraduate Research Program is a campus-wide effort to promote research and academic careers in the biological sciences, funded by a 5-year, $1M grant. The goal, as for URLS activities in general, is to provide interested and qualified students the oppor- tunity to join a research group and to partici- pate in contemporary biological research un- der the direction of faculty sponsors drawn from the diverse array of life-sciences special- ties at this land-grant university. The Academ- ic Year Research program supports part-time research during a period of two consecutive semesters; students receive academic credit for this through BIO 395 or one of the un- dergraduate research courses in other aca- demic units. At the end of each semester, stu- dents completing their projects present post- ers describing the approach, results, and im- plications—the highly successful exercise that we intend to extend to all URLS participants. The Summer Research Program, focused on molecular cell biology, draws students from both inside and outside the University. Sum- mer projects are full time for 2 months, with subsequent presentations by student partici- pants at the fall HHMI poster display and at the annual meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Science. But these URLS and HHMI research pro- jects provide opportunities mainly for upper- level undergraduates and, though of central importance, cannot by themselves ensure the full range of vertical research integration that we believe to be desirable. For this reason, we have recently launched initiatives aimed above and below this advanced undergraduate co- hort to help complete the picture. Graduate students, particularly those fo- cused on becoming faculty members in the fu- ture, need experience in designing and men- toring projects conducted by neophyte re- searchers. We have therefore proposed a new one-credit graduate course, Mentoring Un- dergraduate Research Projects in Biology, in- tended mainly for advanced graduate students who have already completed the doctoral qualifying examination. The course instructor, ordinarily the graduate student’s research su- pervisor, is the faculty member most appro- priate for overseeing the undergraduate pro- ject and for guiding students along the way. This potentially opens new project opportu- nities for undergraduate students, documents 22, Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) the graduate student’s contribution in the transcript, and inevitably deepens the gradu- ate student’s understanding of the research it- self and of what constitutes a viable project. This kind of mentoring opportunity could in some cases be extended to talented master’s students or even to experienced undergradu- ates, perhaps with more extensive faculty over- sight. At the other end of the experience spec- trum—incoming freshmen—we have a stu- dent group with little concept of research ac- tivities and opportunities at a research univer- sity whose mission is strongly linked to the life sciences. Often, the situation is most acute for members of groups under-represented in sci- ence. To address this, we have begun a fresh- man orientation course in the life sciences, BIO 101, in which researchers and advisers from some of the University’s many life-sci- ences programs describe research opportuni- ties and career possibilities within their fields. This year, in collaboration with the University’s Office of Minority Affairs, we are piloting a biointern program designed to give some in- coming biology students a work space within a research laboratory and early exposure to the active research enterprise. We hope that the relationships and experiences developing from this arrangement will improve retention of these students, encourage their interest in sci- ence, and attract them into conducting re- search projects of their own. CONCLUSION Understanding science as an active process depends on committing and recognizing those constructive errors that move a research pro- ject forward. Moreover, undergraduates con- ducting such projects can be significant con- tributors to the research enterprise, particu- larly when slotted appropriately into an inter- active continuum of research expertise. But the best way to facilitate these outcomes is to continue the educational meta-experiment: perhaps the ongoing undergraduate research initiatives across the country will begin to con- verge on approaches that most effectively ex- pand opportunities for students, while making them real participants in the advancement of science. LITERATURE CITED Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, En- glewood Cliffs, NJ. ]. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):23-28. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research in Biology at Centre College Christine K. Barton and Anne E. Lubbers Division of Science and Mathematics, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky 40422 ABSTRACT Centre College is an undergraduate liberal arts institution that promotes active research in which the main objective is education of the student rather than publication of papers. Small class size and the absence of a graduate program enhance our ability to provide the type of high quality research experience that makes our students well-qualified candidates for graduate school. The level of undergraduate research in the Biology (BIO) and the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (BMB) programs has grown since 1988, primarily due to greater availability of funding. Since 1991, ca. 30% of BIO and BMB majors have undertaken a formal research project, either on campus or at another school. Nearly half of these students continued their education in a biology- or health-related field. Success of an undergraduate research program requires adequate compensation for both students and faculty in the form of stipends, funding for supplies and equipment, and awarding of academic or teaching credit for time spent. As availability of funds declines and demand for undergraduate research opportunities increases, one creative solution to the conflict may be the development of collaborative programs between graduate and undergraduate institutions. INTRODUCTION In accordance with our liberal arts philos- ophy of training ‘the whole person, we at Centre College view undergraduate research as complementary to our primary task of teaching. Not only does faculty research help us bring current scientific concepts and ex- citement to our classrooms; when done collab- oratively with students it provides them with the tools and self-confidence to find answers to questions on their own. Recognizing that previous research experience is one of the cri- teria used by graduate institutions in selecting new graduate students, we are committed to providing such experience to our students to improve their chances of postgraduate suc- cess. Indeed, our programs uniquely suit us to providing high-quality undergraduate research experiences. One of the advantages of doing research in the smaller-college environment is that undergraduates are not competing with graduate students for money, equipment, and attention. Moreover, because our class sizes are restricted to fewer than 30 students, and we often have the same students in more than one course, we get to know our students well and can easily identify and encourage those who would most profit from doing research with us. In turn, students feel comfortable 23 enough to approach us about doing research, often based on a continuation of a project be- gun in class. An added advantage is that we have detailed knowledge of what the student has experienced in the classroom so we can better build on that knowledge during the re- search project itself. Another major difference between under- graduate research programs at small colleges and those done where graduate programs exist is that the student, rather than publishable re- search itself, is our final product. Students can play an active role from design to presentation of their research. Even where the faculty member determines the subject and goals of the study, the project is more likely to be self- contained rather than a less well-defined com- ponent of a large study. Undergraduate research programs do in- volve a variety of costs. The cost most com- monly addressed is that of funding for equip- ment, supplies, and stipends. If and when such funding is provided, however, other costs come to the forefront. For instance, the in- creased expectation by students for research opportunities may outstrip the availability of major facilities (laboratory space, dormitory rooms) and faculty time. As student research becomes more successful, there is danger that the administration will increase the pressure on faculty to maintain their level of commit- 94 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) ment, so that faculty feel obliged to spend more of their summers in a continuation of their teaching role. At the same time, the ad- ministration may expect that publication and grant proposal-writing should increase. It should not be forgotten that the time faculty spend in student research is more akin to teaching than research; the amount of pub- lishable research accomplished is often re- duced, and when done in the summer it cuts short the ‘rejuvenation’ period between aca- demic years. These costs suggest that optimal rather than maximal research levels must be defined and pursued. HISTORY Prior to 1988, undergraduate research in bi- ology was encouraged at Centre College but the lack of readily available funding often lim- ited the scope of these efforts, particularly in summer. From 1988 to 1991, two of the bi- ology faculty at Centre (M. Barton and C. Bar- ton), in collaboration with selected faculty from the University of Kentucky (P. Crowley, A. Sih, C. Sargent), served as Co-PI’s for an NSF REU Grant. During each of the four summers from 1988 to 1991, two or three Centre College students participated in sum- mer research projects at the UK Aquatic Re- search Facility under the mentorship of fac- ulty from Centre and the University of Ken- tucky. Since summer 1992 Centre College un- dergraduate research projects have been funded through a 5-year grant to the college from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Individual faculty members have also obtained external grants that have funded some collab- orative research projects. In addition, Centre College has a long-standing tradition of inter- nally supporting individual faculty requests for collaborative research projects through the Faculty Development Committee. THE PRESENT STATUS Currently, Centre College offers two differ- ent majors in the biological sciences: Biolo- gy(BIO) and Biochemistry/Molecular Biology (BMB). There are seven full-time and one part-time faculty members teaching in the BIO and BMB programs. Each year, about 30 students (15% of the senior class) graduate with either a BIO or a BMB major (Table 1). Although our majors are not required to do an Table 1. The number of graduating students majoring in the biological sciences over the past 6 years and the total number (and percentage) of students pursuing undergrad- uate research projects during either the summer months or during the academic year at Centre College. “For cred- it” indicates those students who received academic credit for their summer research; “No credit” indicates those students who did not receive academic credit for their research. Number of students pursuing research projects ; Summer only Number of = Year graduates Total For credit No credit — School year 91-92 26 10 4 (40) 0 (0) 6 (60) 92-93 22 12 2 (16) 1 (8) 9 (75) 93-94 34 8 3 (38) 2 (25) 3 (38) 94-95 4] rh 1 (14) 2) (29) 4 (57) 95-96 45 13 6 (46) 0 (0) 7 (54) 96-97 31 9 5 (56) 0 (0) 4 (44) Totals 179 59 21 (36) 5 (8) 33 (56) independent research project, we have a strong record of student participation in un- dergraduate research. Overall, it would be fair to state that currently all BIO and BMB ma- jors who seriously want to undertake an un- dergraduate research project are able to pur- sue such an opportunity at some time during their 4 years at Centre. Since the 1991-1992 academic year, over 30% of all Centre students majoring in either biology or biochemistry/molecular biology have elected to undertake a formal research project (Table 1). The majority of these stu- dents pursued research during the school year (Table 1). This level of student participation in undergraduate research has been facilitated by the availability of both internal and external funding provided through sources such as NSF, EPSCoR, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, USDA, Lilly Foundation, and the Teagle Foundation (Table 2). This funding has been especially pivotal in the establishment of a strong summer research program at Centre. The Hughes grant is a particularly notewor- thy example of the very positive impact that funding can have on the establishment of a strong undergraduate research program at a small college. With the Hughes funding, we have been able to support annually four or five students working on biological research pro- jects and another six or seven students pur- suing other areas of scientific research during Centre College—Barton and Lubbers 25 Table 2. The sources of both internal and external funding used to support undergraduate research projects at Centre college from 1991 to 1996. Source of funding External funds NSF-REU grant (Summer 1991) Hughes Medical Institute (1992-1996) Other external sources (NSF, USDA, EPSCoR) Intemal Funds J. C. Young Scholars Program Unfunded Total each of the past five summers. Students se- lected to conduct these summer research pro- jects receive a stipend and a housing allow- ance; in addition, they can elect to continue the summer project during the fall term by registering for independent study credit. Gen- erally, if the preliminary results of the research project seem promising, the student is en- couraged to complete the data analysis and to prepare the results for presentation at the fall meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Science. During the school year, students can elect to pursue undergraduate research projects un- der three different programs. The John Young Scholars program allows the strongest stu- dents to pursue a year-long project during their senior year. This college-wide, competi- tive honors program is open to qualified se- niors interested in undertaking an extensive research project in their major field of study. Students competing annually for the six to eight Young scholars positions submit and de- fend their research proposals at the end of their junior year. If they are selected as Young scholars, they spend two of their final three terms completing the research project and presenting the results as part of a campus- wide symposium in May of their senior year. In addition, the formal papers written by the Young scholars are published annually by the college. Although the Young scholars program does not provide a stipend for student re- searchers, there is a modest supplies budget that is awarded with this honor. Students who do not qualify as Young scholars may elect to pursue a non-honors research project during any academic term, particularly in the junior or senior year. Generally, these students will receive academic credit for their independent Total number of students supported research project. Finally, Centre College has an active internship program providing select- ed off-campus research opportunities for our BIO and BMB majors. During the 6-week- long winter term, students have pursued on- going research projects in areas such as mo- lecular genetics, plant pathology, and cancer research at institutions such as the University of Arizona, University of Arkansas, Vanderbilt University, University of Kentucky, or Wash- ington University. Currently, the internship program emphasizes molecular areas of study; in the future, we would like to establish new internship opportunities focusing on organis- mic areas of research. In addition to the on-campus research op- portunities available to biology majors at Cen- tre College, several of our majors participate in a number of summer research programs conducted at other institutions. In the past several years, we have had Centre students en- gaged in summer research projects at the Uni- versity of Kentucky, University of Louisville, Miami University (Ohio), Vanderbilt Univer- sity, University of Georgia, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, and Cranberry Lake Bi- ological Station, among others. IMPACT OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCES ON STUDENTS Of the Centre students choosing to pursue undergraduate research projects in the biolog- ical disciplines, nearly half continue their bi- ology education in some type of postgraduate programs relating to biology (Table 3). Of the 25 students who continued their education, 13 enrolled in graduate programs in the biologi- cal sciences. Female graduates are more likely 26 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Table 3. Post-graduate pursuits for students receiving academic credit for undergraduate research at Centre College over the past 6 years. Post-graduate pursuit Medical school Graduate school in biological sciences Other professional school relevant to biological sciences! Lab tech/researcher Hospital technician Pharmaceutical sales High school biology teacher State/Federal Biologist Unknown or non-biological pursuits Totals ' Dental, veterinary, and pharmacy schools. to continue these studies in a graduate school program, whereas male graduates tend to con- tinue their education in medical school. A sig- nificant proportion of our undergraduate re- searchers did not immediately continue their education following graduation from Centre College. This trend is reflected in the large number of students in the unknown/other cat- egory. Included among these 15 students are six students who have pursued research pro- jects during the current academic year but have not yet focused their future career plans. During the past 6 years, seven students have received academic credit for participat- ing in two undergraduate research projects. These students account for the discrepancy between the total number of students in the three tables. The opportunity to participate in more than one research project is readily avail- able to motivated students at small undergrad- uate institutions, allowing these students to narrow their broad interests in biology before applying to graduate schools. FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY AND STUDENT RESEARCH PARTICIPATION Clearly, the availability of external and in- ternal funding largely defines the potential level of undergraduate research at Centre. Once funding is available, however, other fac- tors will We rerine whether or not students decide to take advantage of the opportunity to do research. For instance, we advertise re- search opportunities during advising sessions and through announcements, and we specifi- cally identify and encourage particularly prom- Number of students Females NS OR ke Fe WwW OO SS ON. bo = SS) Oo ising students to join us. There also are the added incentives of receiving academic credit for research done during the academic year and stipends for that done during the summer. A more subtle influence is the atmosphere created, which may entice students to get in- volved. We bring in seminar speakers and cre- ate enthusiasm by hosting an annual poster session in which students can display the re- sults of their work to the college community. The occasion of the annual KAS meeting re- quires practice sessions and travel as a group to the meeting itself. As a result, we have seen a growing sense of camaraderie and pride among our young researchers and a greater acceptance of the importance of including this experience during their 4 years at Centre. It also is essential to make undergraduate research attractive to the faculty. In general, faculty at undergraduate institutions welcome the opportunity to do research; in fact, tenure and promotion are usually tied to some level of research. Research, however, necessarily draws time and attention away from our pri- mary teaching mission. At Centre, student re- search projects are possible primarily through the dedication of faculty to the students, with only occasional faculty compensation for these research efforts. During the summer months, we may receive a nominal stipend in conjunc- tion with our collaborative research participa- tion. Both the Hughes grant and the EPSCoR program have allowed Centre faculty to re- ceive some release time in conjunction with collaborative research efforts during the past 5 years. Centre College—Barton and Lubbers 27 An additional factor that influences faculty participation in undergraduate research at small colleges is isolation from their colleagues at the large institutions. Commonly, each fac- ulty member at a small college is the expert in a particular area of biology. The establishment of new collaborative research efforts between faculty at small colleges and those at research institutions may be desirable in order to broaden the types of undergraduate research projects undertaken at both institutions. THE FUTURE During the past 5 years, Centre’s strong commitment to undergraduate research in bi- ological disciplines has been possible due to a number of factors: availability of funding, dedication of the faculty, and qualified stu- dents. In the future, we anticipate an on-go- ing demand for a strong, visible undergrad- uate research program in the biological sci- ences. To ensure the maintenance of a wide range of high-quality research experiences, we expect that we will be faced with a num- ber of challenges in the years to come. Fund- ing clearly will be a significant challenge. The college-wide demand for the available in- house funds far exceeds the supply and there is increased competition for the limited funds available each year. Moreover, our major ex- ternal source of funding for summer under- graduate research in the biological sciences over the last 5 years, the Hughes grant, will run out this year. Since the summer projects supported by these funds are most likely to generate the types of results that will allow students to present their research at scientific meetings, the overall visibility of undergrad- uate research may decline if funding for sum- mer programs is not continued. Currently, we are faced with the challenge of obtaining ad- ditional sources of funding for the on-going support of the undergraduate research pro- gram that has become established at Centre College over the past decade. In addition to funding, adequate compen- sation for faculty is essential for the contin- ued maintenance of strong undergraduate re- search programs. As the demand for under- graduate research escalates, undergraduate institutions, where the teaching load is tra- ditionally very heavy, will need to develop curricular mechanisms for systematically compensating faculty for their collaborative research efforts. Ironically, with the end of the funding and faculty release time provided through the Hughes grant, BIO and BMB faculty at Centre College are facing greater student demand for research opportunities. The attractiveness of undergraduate re- search opportunities to qualified students de- pends on a wide variety of factors. Compen- sation in terms of stipends and academic credit is essential. The continued availability of funding is critical for the continuation of summer research programs since most stu- dents cannot afford to participate in research unless they are paid a stipend. At Centre, the 3 hours of academic credit that most students earn in conjunction with research projects can be applied toward the requirements of the major. In addition, there is in-house mon- ey available for sending students to meetings if they obtain results worthy of either a paper or a poster presentation. Undergraduate stu- dents also need reassurance that funded re- search opportunities will continue to exist at the graduate school level in all biological dis- ciplines. The importance of undergraduate research opportunities needs to be continually empha- sized to the administrations of primarily un- dergraduate institutions. At Centre, we are fortunate enough to receive administrative support for the John Young Honors Program that has successfully allowed several of our strongest students to pursue research during the academic year. Over the years, this pro- gram, which is funded through in-house monies, has experienced a number of signif- icant budget cuts, reducing the number of students who can be funded and also reduc- ing the total amount of funding available for research supplies, etc. Graduate and profes- sional schools need to continually remind un- dergraduate institutions of the need for con- tinuing in-house support for these research opportunities. In the future, faculty at small colleges and larger research institutions will need to col- laboratively address the increasing demands for undergraduate research programs. We would challenge the larger research institu- tions to consider providing additional oppor- tunities for professional activities that would strengthen the ties between the undergrad- 28 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) uate and graduate institutions in this region. For example, regional symposia focusing on particular areas of research would permit ex- change of ideas and presentation of results based on collaborative studies. Advertised speaker’s bureaus would provide a readily available list of faculty willing to visit the small colleges to share the results of their re- search and also to witness the types of re- search being done by our undergraduates. Collaborative funding of undergraduate re- search programs may provide one creative so- lution to the impending funding crisis facing all scientific research efforts. The NSF-fund- ed REU program, a collaborative effort be- tween the University of Kentucky and Centre College, could serve as a model for this type of cooperative research experience. Success- ful funding for undergraduate research pro- grams will be essential as we in the biological sciences continue to train our future graduate students. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):29-32. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research in the Biological Sciences at Kentucky State University Karan Kaul Division of Mathematics and Sciences and Community Research Service, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 and Paul A. Weston Community Research Service, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ABSTRACT The bulk of undergraduate research in the biological sciences at Kentucky State University is done by students enrolled in Special Problems in Biology, a two-credit-hour course required for all biology majors. Most students conduct laboratory research projects with research scientists in KSU’s Land Grant Program or with a biology faculty member. The undergraduate research program has proven to be rewarding for students as well as for their mentors and has resulted in numerous presentations at scientific conferences and several publications in refereed journals. INTRODUCTION Kentucky State University (KSU), the small- est of the eight public universities in Ken- tucky, has a student enrollment of about 2500. The biology curriculum is administered through the Division of Mathematics and Sci- ences; currently there are about 120 students majoring in biology. During the 1988-1989 ac- ademic year, after a review of the biology cur- riculum, a committee consisting of three bi- ology faculty members recommended that Special Problems in Biology (BIO 410) be a required, one-semester, two-credit-hour course for students seeking a B.S. in biology from KSU. Before this time, this course was offered as an elective. The recommendation was supported by the biology faculty as a whole; after due process BIO 410 was listed as a required course for biology majors in the 1990-1992 KSU catalog. The biology faculty felt that undergraduate research would pro- vide students with practical experience in how scientific knowledge is accumulated by for- mulation of hypotheses, experimental testing of these hypotheses, collection of experimen- tal data, and interpretation of data to draw log- ical conclusions. It was our hope that the ex- perience would encourage some students to 29 consider graduate school as an option after graduating from KSU. During the 23 semesters from fall 1989 to spring 1997, a total of 163 students took BIO 410 (an average of about seven students per semester). The other avenue available to bi- ology majors for getting involved in research at KSU is to get part-time employment in re- search projects that are part of either the Land Grant Program (LGP), which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the Minority Biomedical Research Support Pro- gram (MBRS), which is sponsored by the Na- tional Institutes of Health. The LGP supports agricultural research and extension projects designed to remedy problems faced by farm- ers, especially limited-resource farmers, in Kentucky. The program encourages involving undergraduate students in research and exten- sion projects. The main emphasis of the MBRS program is facilitating involvement of students in biomedical research at predomi- nantly minority institutions, such as KSU, and helping them learn about careers in the bio- medical research area. All biology majors take BIO 410 once dur- ing their junior or senior year; some take it a second time as a biology elective course. Stu- dents in the course have the option of doing 30 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) a library or laboratory research project. In the first option students write a detailed paper based on their library research on a particular topic; in the second option they complete a laboratory research project and write a report in a journal format. Almost all students choose the second option. A biology faculty member is in charge of the course each semester. This faculty member supervises and evaluates all li- brary research projects. Laboratory research projects are supervised and evaluated by the individual in whose laboratory the student does the work. These supervisors include members of biology faculty or, more often, one of the research scientists working in the Land Grant Program at KSU. Rarely, students choose an off-campus venue for their project. Students often present an expanded version of their project in a seminar as part of a required, one-credit hour Biology Seminar. Students are also encouraged to present their research find- ings at scientific meetings. On an average, five to 10 poster and oral presentations per year are made by KSU biology majors at annual meetings of Kentucky Academy of Science; at Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences; at National Minority Research Symposium; and at other scientific conferences. Students are also co-authors of many other presentations. During the period 1992 to 1996, undergraduates co-authored eight research publications in refereed scien- tific journals. RESEARCH PROJECTS AT KSU Ongoing research projects at KSU provide students with an opportunity to gain experi- ence in a variety of research areas such as plant physiology, sustainable agriculture, be- havioral entomology, stored grain entomology, horticulture, apiculture, water quality/environ- mental science, animal and human nutrition, aquaculture, and toxicology. In our experience, a research project in any area can be suitable for undergraduate re- search as long as (1) it is part of ongoing re- search so the supervisor has an added incen- tive to spend time with the student and (2) it is well defined so that the student clearly un- derstands the scope of her/his project and gets the satisfaction of having completed the pro- ject at the end of the semester. Care must be taken to choose only such projects for under- graduate research that will be very likely to yield meaningful data within a relatively short period of time (10 to 12 weeks). A well- planned, detailed follow-up on a promising preliminary experiment will have an excellent possibility of becoming a successful under- graduate research project. One of the most suitable groups of organ- isms for undergraduate projects in zoological research is stored-product insects, particularly beetles. These insects require very little space, no specialized equipment, and minimal main- tenance. The life cycle of these insects is typ- ically 4-5 weeks, and there exists a large body of literature concerning various aspects of the biology of these organisms, particularly the red and confused flour beetles (Tribolium cas- taneum and T. confusum, respectively). Rear- ing materials are inexpensive and easily ob- tained (e.g., mason jars, flour, corn meal, oats, and other common grocery items). One piece of equipment that one might wish to purchase is a brass sieve (cost ca. $50) for separating insects from the dietary medium, but one can easily substitute a kitchen or homemade sieve for this purpose. Although a controlled tem- perature environment might be required for rearing studies, room conditions are perfectly adequate for many other types of studies pro- vided that temperature fluctuations are not great. The short life cycle of these insects means that, with careful planning, experiments span- ning two or three generations can be con- ducted within the time limits of a semester. Because of their modest living requirements and the fact that stored-product insects natu- rally inhabit environments not significantly dif- ferent from conditions existing in a mason jar in a laboratory, ecological studies with a fair degree of relevance to natural systems can readily be conducted in the laboratory. Pro- jects dealing with physiology, behavior, and community ecology are a few types of studies that can be readily conducted. A number of influential studies on animal population dy- namics have been conducted with Tribolium spp. (Dawson 1968; Park 1948, 1962; Sokoloff and Lerner 1967; Watt 1955). An additional advantage of working with in- sects as test organisms is that insects have gen- erated little concern regarding animal rights. This does not mean that one is free to abuse Kentucky State University—Kaul and Weston Sill insects, but it does mean that no special per- mits are required to conduct research projects using insects as test animals. In addition, in- sects can be humanely euthanized by freezing them, and no special handling is required for disposal of their carcasses (dead insects are not considered biohazardous waste). BENEFITS TO STUDENTS Opportunities for conducting research at the undergraduate level provide an extremely important dimension to the overall scientific education process. The benefits to students are so numerous it is difficult to justify not offering such opportunities to undergraduates. The contributions to the education process ex- ist at a variety of levels, as enumerated below. Living the Scientific Method The most obvious benefit of engaging un- dergraduates in research projects is to allow them to experience the scientific method in ways that coursework, even in laboratory courses, cannot provide. Perhaps the most sat- isfying research experience is one allowing in- vestigation of a phenomenon that has yet to be studied. Guidance from the research advi- ser is usually required to direct students in the development of hypotheses and experimental design, but the thrill of discovery that novel research provides is an incomparable experi- ence for students. Appreciation of the History of Science Having to go through the process of gen- erating, testing, and revising hypotheses also provides students with a unique perspective on the history of scientific thought. Even though the evolution of various scientific con- cepts is often taught in the classroom, the ex- perience of testing hypotheses where the out- come is unknown in advance increases one’s appreciation of the processes involved in the scientific explorations that led to the devel- opment of such important concepts as the cell, gene, evolution, etc. The experience no doubt helps students to evaluate scientific papers more critically. Professional Development The contribution of the research experience to professional development is probably the most tangible outcome. For students planning to pursue a career (or at least graduate stud- ies) in science, the benefits of engaging in re- search at an early point in their education are incomparable; gaining an understanding of how to conduct experiments, analyze data, and prepare scientific presentations and manu- scripts are just a few. And of course, being able to put a scientific paper on one’s curric- ulum vitae during the undergraduate years is a great confidence-and-credential builder. Application of Multidisciplinary Skills Aside from the strictly scientific educational benefits provided by involvement with a re- search project, exposure to a number of other skills and discipline areas is extended to stu- dents. The research project demands that stu- dents exercise logic in developing hypotheses, designing experiments, and interpreting re- sults. Although great depth is not possible with a project conducted within the confines of one semester, fundamental statistical concepts and rudimentary analyses can be introduced nat- urally in the course of the project. Finally, computer skills and experience with various types of software applications (word process- ing, spread sheets, data analysis, and graphics) can be introduced to students in the logical course of their project. The early experience with all of these multidisciplinary skills can constitute a real advantage later in their aca- demic careers because it allows students to fo- cus on more advanced topics. Overall, the involvement of undergraduates in research projects at Kentucky State Uni- versity has been a win-win proposition. Re- searchers have had additional hands and minds to conduct research projects that might never have had high enough priority to receive their attention; more importantly, students have had their educational experiences richly enhanced by conducting research in the lab- oratory of career scientists. Although recruit- ment of students into scientific careers is one desirable outcome of this learning experience, merely increasing the student's appreciation of the scientific method by hands-on involvement in research is enough to justify the continua- tion of the symbiotic relationship created by opportunities for undergraduate research such as those through Special Problems in Biology. 32 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) LITERATURE CITED Park, T. 1962. Beetles, competition, and populations. Sci- ence 138:1369-1375. Dawson, P.S. 1968. Xenocide, suicide, and cannibalism in Sokoloff, A., and ILM. Lerner. 1967. Laboratory ecology Aig aoe lee tu AteeeNT ace 07-2105" and mutual predation of Tribolium species. Am. Natu- ralist 101: 261-276. Watt, K.E.F. 1955. Studies on population productivity. I. Three approaches to optimum yield problem in popu- lations of Tribolium confusum. Ecol. Monogr. 25:269- 299. Park, T. 1948. Experimental studies of interspecific com- petition. I. Competition between populations of the flour beetles, Tribolium confusum Duval and Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Ecol. Monogr. 18:265-308. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):33-36. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research in Biology (1987-1997) At Berea College Ronald B. Rosen and Ralph L. Thompson Department of Biology, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky 40404 ABSTRACT A synopsis of undergraduate research in the Department Of Biology at Berea College in 1987-1997 is presented. Forty-five students and nine faculty members have been involved in 40 research projects. Through research participation, these students have improved their communication skills, applied the scientific meth- od, and enhanced their success in graduate and professional schools; faculty members have increased pro- fessional growth activities. Berea College has promoted and supported scholarly research opportunities over the last decade utilizing several new grant sources and the College Labor Program. Currently, results from undergraduate research have been incorporated into 20 presentations, 9 published abstracts, and 7 refereed articles, each having multiple student authors. INTRODUCTION This paper summarizes the last decade (1987-1997) of undergraduate research in the Department of Biology at Berea College. The current biology faculty is composed of seven members. Five full-time personnel are an an- imal behaviorist, botanist, developmental bi- ologist, microbiologist-geneticist, and parasi- tologist. An adjunct member is an agronomist in the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and a part-time faculty biologist teaches primarily anatomy and physiology and introductory biology. Fourteen to 20 students have graduated from the department each year during the last decade. Limited research was conducted in the de- partment between 1962 and 1987. A few stu- dents were involved in research projects under the direction of two faculty members in co- operation between Berea College and the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Experi- ment Station in Berea from 1982 to 1987. Un- fortunately, the USDA research lab closed down in 1991, ending opportunities and finan- cial support for undergraduate and faculty re- search at that facility. New grant sources and departmental personnel over the last 10 years have significantly increased opportunities for undergraduate research in biology at Berea. The majority of these research projects have been conducted in summer, but several have continued as independent studies or labor as- signments into the regular academic year. Where continuation into the regular academic 33 year has not been possible, several summers have usually been required for project com- pletion. Marked faculty-student interaction, a characteristic of all of these studies, ranges from an initial, intensive training period to dai- ly interaction. Students have continued ongo- ing projects and, in a number of cases, have assisted in designing new studies. Following completion of projects, students have usually been required to analyze their data and pre- pare it for presentation at department and professional meetings. UNDERGRADUATE PROJECTS, PRESENTATIONS, AND POSTGRADUATE STATUS Undergraduate research in biology at Berea has involved 45 students (11 of whom partic- ipated in multiple projects) and nine different faculty members over the last decade (Table 1). Research results have been incorporated into 18 oral presentations and two poster ses- sions at state, regional, and national meetings (Kentucky Academy of Science, Association of Southeastern Biologists, Northwest Scientific Association, and National Council for Under- graduate Research). Nine research abstracts have been published in the Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science, Bulletin of the Association of Southeastern Biologists, and Northwest Scientific Association. Seven stu- dent articles with or without faculty co-authors have been published in the Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science, American So- ciety of Surface Mining and Reclamation Pro- 34 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Table 1. Undergraduate biology research conducted by the Department of Biology at Berea College during 1987— 1997. Multiple authors are always involved. Discipline Projects Students Presentations Abstracts Articles Botany 14 12 9 fo) 2} Cell and molecular 2 2 2 = = Developmental 2 7 1 = a Environmental 6 Wh = = 1 Entomology ] ] = = = Herpetology 4 is 1 = = Microbiology 5 9 = = = Ornithology 2 1 ] 1 1 Parasitology 4 10 6 = 3 Total 40 56 20 9 a ceedings, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, The Kentucky Warbler, Cas- tanea, and Parasitology. Over 95% of these undergraduate partici- pants have graduated or will graduate from Berea College. Most of these students have attended or will attend graduate school and other professional schools. During the last de- cade, students from this group pursued ad- vanced degrees in biology, agriculture, or the professional and allied health fields at Auburn University, Easter Kentucky University, In- diana University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Florida, University of Kentucky, University of Kansas, University of Minnesota, University of Notre Dame, University of Rochester, University of Tennessee, University of Toledo, Washington State University, and Washington University at St. Louis. Graduate fellowships, teaching assistant- ships, and/or research assistantships have been awarded to all of these graduates who have entered advanced degree programs. Special scholarships have been available to those en- tering allied health fields, e.g., medical schools, physician assistant programs, physical therapy, medical technology, and advanced nursing programs. Special awards on the col- lege and national level have also been based in part on undergraduate research activities. Two of the last three Thomas J. Watson Fel- lowships awarded at Berea College for travel and study abroad have been to biology majors; one of these individuals also received a Na- tional Phi Kappa Phi Fellowship. Each of these students had made presentations and has published abstracts and at least one article as a result of their undergraduate research ex- perience in the Department of Biology. Berea College honors awarded to biology majors in- volved in faculty/student research include the Stanton King Research Award, Austin Scholar, Wood Scholar, Bangson Biology Award, Brann Biology Award, and Crawford Conservation Prize. FUNDING The Department of Biology has benefitted from several recent research grants. In 1986, the Jessie Ball duPont Religious, Charitable, and Educational Fund provided Berea College with a $150,000 grant for 3 years of under- graduate research in the sciences. In 1990, the W.M. Keck Foundation awarded the college a grant of $85,000 to support 3 years of faculty/ student research in the sciences. About 43% of the duPont funds and 30% of the Keck grant were ultimately committed to biology re- search. The department was also the recipient of a Merck Company Foundation Undergrad- uate Science Program Grant in 1987 that pro- vided $22,500 over 3 years; this grant was sub- sequently renewed for $39,000 over 3 addi- tional years. In all three cases, science/biology faculty were required to submit research pro- posals for an “in-house” review by the aca- demic dean and a grant review committee composed of science faculty. An individual grant from Research Corpo- ration (Cottrell College Grant) was awarded to a faculty member in 1988 for $16,000 over two summers. Beginning in 1995, the Appalachian College Association (ACA) began to adminis- ter individual grants from the Andrew Mellon Foundation Trust for successful undergradu- ate research proposals to liberal arts faculty at 33 participating Appalachian colleges from five states. To date, $22,230 has been awarded to Berea College—Rosen and Thompson 35 Berea biology faculty from this source. The college has matched these grants with funds from the Berea College Labor Program to cover student stipends. Berea College has recently set aside ca. $18,000 annually for undergraduate research in all disciplines. These Faculty-Undergradu- ate Research Grants are contingent on faculty initially seeking support from external sources. Proposals are evaluated by the college’s Pro- fessional Growth Committee. The biology ad- junct has received $6400 from this source over the last 2 years. During this decade, it should be noted that the Berea College Labor Pro- gram has routinely provided funds for under- graduate research assistants in the summer and the regular academic year. In 1992, The Kresge Foundation approved a $150,000 Science Initiative Grant toward the purchase of new scientific equipment at Berea College to be used in teaching and research. This money was awarded on a challenge basis and required the college to raise an additional $600,000, creating a permanent endowment for the purchase and maintenance of such equipment. Coupled with this initiative, the Department of Environmental Science and Technology hired an expert in science instru- mentation in 1995 to assist the College in maintaining equipment across campus. Thus, science faculty now experience very little “down time” in their research because of equipment failure. BENEFITS OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH The Department of Biology (i.e., faculty and students) and Berea College all benefit from a viable undergraduate research pro- gram. Students are provided with an oppor- tunity to increase their knowledge and appre- ciation of experimental design, techniques, and trends through actual participation in re- search activities. They learn by observing, re- cording, analyzing, and interpreting scientific research data. Communication skills are in- creased through reading primary literature, oral presentations, poster sessions, and prep- aration of manuscripts. Undergraduate re- search enhances application and acceptance to graduate and professional schools and also in- creases student competitiveness in the job market. One of the most common recommendations that recent graduates provided in our 10-year departmental self-study was to increase op- portunities for undergraduate research. Given the limitations on personnel and time within our department, an expansion of our research program would likely be best handled by a re- search methods course or by increasing op- portunities for research projects in courses in our current curriculum. Either of these strat- egies, coupled with both our current on-cam- pus projects and off-campus research oppor- tunities (e.g., research internships and field studies at other institutions, companies, etc.), should provide the majority of our majors with a research experience prior to their gradua- tion. Although not a focus of this paper, off- campus experiences have also been valuable to our undergraduates, and about half of our bi- ology majors have participated in these activ- ities at some point in their undergraduate ex- perience. Undergraduate research is also an essential part of the teaching and continued profession- al growth of faculty. The ‘professional isola- tion’ and stagnation that faculty frequently ex- perience at small schools is often countered by research programs that provide stimulation and support for further professional develop- ment. Interaction with colleagues maintaining similar research interests is increased and may even result in new off-campus opportunities for undergraduates. In addition to the con- structive process of generating new research proposals and submitting manuscripts for pub- lication, innovative laboratories, lecture topics, and field exercises have been developed and have become important elements in our cur- riculum. Finally, the biology undergraduate research program contributes to the overall reputation of Berea College as an institution where schol- arly research is both supported and valued. Donors are attracted to institutions with active undergraduate research programs. Presenta- tions, abstracts, and articles are by-lined from the Department of Biology of Berea College. SUMMARY Active undergraduate research programs in the Science Division have long been the stan- dard at Berea, and there are indications that such programs are rapidly spreading to other 36 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) departments because of the obvious benefits. Recognition of these benefits in Berea’s new strategic plan has led to the recommendation that the College establish an Undergraduate Research and Creative Projects Program (URCPP) that would support faculty/student research and creative project activity across all disciplines. The excitement and knowledge ac- quired through these opportunities is best summarized by a former student: “There al- ways existed a new task or question to explore . several real-world attributes were required while working in such a research environment including discipline, patience, oral and written communication [skills], teamwork, leadership, repetition, and creativity.” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Dr. Dawn Anderson and Dr. Megan Morgan-Carr, Department of Bi- ology, aad Dr. Tern Beebe, Department of Chemistry, for their thoughtful review of this paper. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Steve Boyce, Academic Vice-President and Provost, and Dr. Larry Blair, Dean of F aculty, for re- viewing the final manuscript. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):37-38. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research at Asbury College John A. Brushaber and Richard B. Reznik Asbury College, Wilmore, Kentucky 40490 ABSTRACT The science faculty at Asbury College recognized several years ago the importance of undergraduate research as a component of our academic program. We found that research experience was becoming a more common criterion for admission of our students to graduate school. At that time our students were carrying out laboratory exercises in most of their science classes but were not doing intensive, integrated investigations of biological or chemical phenomena. Only the occasional student was doing research as an independent study. We decided that actually doing research is important in the education of science majors, whether their career goals are teaching, re- search, or the health professions. With this in mind, beginning with the 1992-1993 school year, we began requiring senior research of all science majors, except those in pre-nursing or medical technology tracks. To facilitate the re- search program three new required courses were added to our biology and chemistry ma- jor requirements: BIO/CHE 392 (1) Introduction to Re- search. A practical experience introducing stu- dents to the methods of scientific research and writing. The topic for an independent research project is chosen, and a literature search is ini- tiated. BIO/CHE 400 (2) Senior Research. Stu- dents will under faculty supervision, indepen- dently design and carry to completion an in- dependent research project of a biological or chemical nature. BIO/CHE 475 (1) Senior Seminar. De- signed to provide practical experience in the oral presentation of a scientific paper. Stu- dents will prepare and present a seminar on their research projects. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT The administration has supported under- graduate research by granting each faculty member a 2-hour course load credit each fall semester for supervising students doing senior research. We are also appreciative of the col- lege’s willingness to help finance purchase of major pieces of equipment needed for in- house research. 37 LOCATION OF RESEARCH Most of our students meet their research requirement in one of three ways. About half of them do their research at the University of Kentucky (UK) in conjunction with laborato- ries and professors there. About a quarter of them conduct some sort of project using As- bury College’s facilities. The remainder fulfill their research requirement doing summer re- search at a university, spending a semester in a tropical biology program, or participating in a research project at various government agencies. For example, we had two students who spent a semester doing research with the U.S. Department of Energy. We encourage our more capable students to apply for sum- mer fellowship programs in undergraduate re- search that are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). These programs have the advantage of giving the students a long-term research experience with other gifted students a challenging setting. Typically the students conduct research that is on a graduate school level. Several students have been awarded NSF fellowships, and they have all done well. There is a trade off of benefits between do- ing research on our campus and doing it at UK. At UK our students typically do relatively sophisticated research in an established labo- ratory with an ongoing project directed by a scientist doing significant research. The down- side of being assigned a piece of an established research project is that it sometimes requires little creativity or independence on the part of the student. Left to their own devices, stu- dents typically have a hard time envisioning 38 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) and choosing an avenue for investigation. Our own facilities limit the types of research stu- dents can do at Asbury. Research done at our campus, although perhaps more creative on the part of the student, is often less sophisti- cated, at least in the biological sciences. How- ever, our chemistry department has an ongo- ing project on transition metal catalysis of pep- tide synthesis. Another advantage of work at UK is the regular scheduling of lab hours. Stu- dents doing their research at Asbury without a fixed schedule are more inclined to procras- tinate. EXPECTATIONS AND EVALUATION Students must complete a research project and write a paper to meet the requirements of the research course. We expect students to put in about 90 hours of time on their project and paper. They are given a syllabus with eval- uation forms and the criteria by which both the research and paper will be evaluated. Stu- dents also receive a Style Format for Senior Papers in Biology/Chemistry. All students choose a research adviser at Asbury College even if they work elsewhere. The adviser is responsible for determining the student’s course grade. This is done by an evaluation of the student's laboratory work (50% of grade) by the adviser and/or supervisor if done else- where. A rough draft of the research paper (10% of grade) must be submitted to the ad- viser. Upon completion, the paper is evaluated by the research adviser and one other faculty member for the remaining 40% of the grade. The senior papers are kept on file in our di- vision office. PROBLEMS AND DIFFICULTIES The most serious problems originate with the unstructured nature of the research ex- perience. Most of our students carry out a good research project. Some have obtained employment in laboratories because of the quality demonstrated while doing their re- search. The most rewarding comment we re- ceive from employers is ‘Do you have any more students like that.’ However, there is al- ways a minority of students lacking self-moti- vation who simply accomplish little in an un- structured environment. These students tend to avoid research at UK or other institutions; some of them we deliberately steer into re- search here so our students do not get a bad reputation at other institutions. Regular con- tact with the research adviser does help. In the Biology Department we have a policy that reg- ular weekly meetings can be part of the course grade. The Asbury College Library, although gen- erous in purchasing scientific periodicals, is not fully adequate as a source of literature to support research. Students can do a comput- erized search at our library, but most students typically utilize the library at UK or some oth- er institution. Occasionally there is disagreement among the faculty about whether a particular project qualifies as independent scientific research. A small minority of projects could have been better described as reviews rather than origi- nal research. Because of the inherent nature of research and where students do it, we have found it necessary to be flexible with the deadlines giv- en in the course syllabus. Students frequently are given incomplete grades at the end of the fall term to allow additional time to complete the research and paper. Occasionally students who do research in summer or in a research semester elsewhere actually complete their re- search before taking the Introduction to Re- search course. CONCLUSION Although the process is time consuming and occasionally stressful, we feel that our under- graduate research program is a real asset. It provides students with an opportunity to un- derstand the scientific method and scientific writing by actually doing them. They are well prepared to enter research if they attend grad- uate school. Some students have found their chosen field by the experience of doing re- search. Others have found employment in lab- oratories where they have demonstrated their competence. We are strongly convinced that our undergraduate research program is a suc- cess and should be continued. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):39-43. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research Experiences at an Independent Cancer Research Institute Julia H. Carter and Diane S. Collier Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory, 931 Isabella Street, Newport, Kentucky 41071 ABSTRACT Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory, an independent, not-for-profit [501(c)(3)] organization ded- icated to the study and research of cancer, has a unique Undergraduate Research Education Program (UREP). UREP provides opportunities for students to learn research techniques and to develop critical thinking skills through “hands-on” participation in ongoing cancer research projects at the Laboratory. Stu- dent involvement in ongoing research at Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory began in 1982; since then 108 students have participated in the program. The objective of UREP is to encourage undergraduate students to remain in biology and to go on to careers in science and medicine; therefore UREP addresses the nationally recognized problem of a decline in the interest of students for careers in science. UREP provides opportunities for undergraduate students to develop the skills identified by business and industry in Kentucky as being essential for all employees. Thus UREP serves not only as an introduction to biomedical research but also as a stepping stone from the undergraduate college laboratory to the world of research and development in a highly competitive global economy. INTRODUCTION Undergraduate research in the biological sciences offers an educational experience not only at colleges and universities but also at government agencies and not-for-profit re- search institutions throughout the United States (Russo 1997). Each institute of the Na- tional Institutes of Health of the U.S. Public Health Service offers a summer internship program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also provides research experiences for undergraduates. Many of the 85 independent not-for-profit research institutions that are members of the Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI)—including the Whitehead Institute, the Oklahoma Medical Research Institute, the McLaughlin Research Institute for Biomedical Sciences, and Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory (the only AIRI institution in Kentucky)—provide educational opportunities for undergraduates. Student involvement in research at Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory began in 1982 with three students. Wood Hudson’s Un- dergraduate Research Education Program (UREP) facilitates student learning of re- search techniques and developing of critical thinking skills through “hands-on” participa- tion in ongoing cancer research projects. In 39 1987, with financial assistance from the Ralph E. Mills Foundation (Frankfort, Kentucky) and the James Graham Brown Foundation (Louisville, Kentucky), UREP became part of the three-pronged mission of the Laboratory. To date, 108 students (ca. 16-22 students per year) from 19 colleges and universities have participated in UREP. The objective of UREP is to give under- graduates “hands-on” experience in biomedi- cal research and thereby to encourage them to remain in biology and to go on to careers in science and medicine. Of the UREP partic- ipants who remained in the biological science major and received the bachelor’s degree, 94% have gone on to careers in scientific research, technology, science education, and medicine. PROGRAM OVERVIEW Statement of Need In recent decades there has been a decline in the number of students planning to pursue careers in science and medicine. According to Frank H.T. Rhodes, President of Cornell Uni- versity and member of the National Science Board, if this trend continues, by the first de- cade of the 21st century the United States may be faced with a 700,000-person shortfall in the number of technically trained individuals, in- 40 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) cluding 400,000 with the degree of Bachelor of Science (B.S.). The anticipated shortage of doctoral-level scientists may be as high as 9600 per year. As Dr. Rhodes stated, “shortages of this magnitude would be a crippling national handicap.” Unfortunately, attrition rates from collegiate science programs are very high (Fort 1993). Undergraduates cite boredom with lectures as one reason for leaving science (Russo 1997). American society and, indeed, the entire world community depend on increasingly complex technologies. More than 50% of the new laws passed by Congress involve an aspect of science or technology; continued increases in that percentage are expected (Shen 1975). The fact that American businesses must now compete, in a global economy, with nations whose youth often have received outstanding training in science and mathematics necessi- tates an American work force with technical expertise. Because the nature of technical problems to be solved continues to change rapidly as knowledge advances, the successful workers of today and tomorrow must possess not only technical skills and mastery of facts but also the ability to “think like scientists.” They must be able to think logically and critically, have a knowledge base that has integrated informa- tion from multiple fields of study, be able to apply mathematics in problem-solving, and be proficient in use of computers. The study of science at the college level is compartmentalized into subject areas, such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Subjects are taught sequentially and in isolation from one another rather than concurrently and with rec- ognition of interrelationships among various scientific disciplines. Furthermore, because of an emphasis on tests and test performance, rote learning and memorization—necessary but not sufficient components of science ed- ucation—are the primary focus of many col- lege science courses (Fisher 1992; Fort 1993). For instance, students may learn to “plug in” figures from a memorized formula, but they may not be able to determine when and why that particular formula should be used to solve a given problem (Michel 1993). Finally, col- lege course work is, for the most part, not ex- perientially based. Vice President Al Gore has remarked that “college students frequently have no clear conception of ways in which they can practice the science they are study- ing” (Gore 1992). Studies by both the National Science Foun- dation (1986) and the American Council on Education (1985) have found that “hands-on” experience in active research is one of the most effective techniques for training under- graduates. According to Tobias (1990), college science courses (including introductory cours- es) designed to prepare students for careers in science should be experientially-based. Many practicing scientists and engineers began their careers in science through presently defunct undergraduate research programs. Today, al- though research experience is sought increas- ingly by employers in pharmaceutical and oth- er industries, as well as by graduate and med- ical schools, undergraduate research experi- ence has become difficult to obtain. To quote one student, “Everyone wants someone with experience but no one is willing to provide it.” In addition to “hands-on” experience and mastery of scientific facts, there is a third es- sential component of science education: the teaching of critical thinking skills. By working with knowledgeable scientists, students not only learn the technical skills involved in con- ducting an experiment, but also begin to learn how that scientist has designed the experiment to answer a particular question (as well as how he or she determined which question to ask), and, once the experiment is completed, how to analyze the data and interpret the results and how to identify new questions arising from those results. Furthermore, by experi- encing the actual practice of science in ongo- ing research projects, students can experience the excitement of acquiring new knowledge through rigorous experimentation. Finally, as Fort (1993) pointed out, ap- proaching science and technology through “themes with clear social relevance” appears to be a promising strategy. Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory approaches sci- ence education in exactly this fashion. In 1997 alone, more than 1.2 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed. Students working at Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory are aware of the relevance and importance of their work to society. Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory—Carter and Collier 4] Program Goals The ultimate goal of UREP is to encourage college students to pursue careers in science and medicine. Intermediate goals are to pro- vide opportunities for students to (a) learn specific laboratory techniques; (b) develop critical thinking skills; (c) participate in ongo- ing biomedical research serving a worthy pur- pose; (d) experience the excitement of scien- tific discovery by working with practicing sci- entists; (e) gain valuable work experience that will give them advantages when seeking em- ployment or admission to graduate and pro- fessional schools; and (f) earn income that, in many cases, is needed for them to remain in college. Program Objectives To achieve the goals of the program, several objectives have been set. The first objective is to provide students in UREP with “hands-on” training and experience in specific laboratory techniques used in investigations of abnormal and normal cell and tissue structures and functions, including techniques of biochemis- try, cell biology, histochemistry, immunohis- tochemistry, molecular biology (including DNA isolation), tissue culture, quantitative microscopy, and computer imaging. The second objective is to introduce stu- dents in UREP to the practice of science (as opposed to study of scientific facts), including experimental design (necessity for controls, standards, adequate numbers of specimens, etc.), use of library resources, and preparation of data for publication. As part of learning the practice of science, UREP students are taught critical thinking and communication skills through interactions with practicing scientists conducting ongoing research projects and through student participation in weekly meet- ings of “journal club” (held to discuss and cri- tique a current journal article). The third objective is to increase student responsibility, self-accountability, and self- monitoring by providing structured laboratory experiences with progressive levels of student independence. In addition to laboratory safety policies, incoming students are required to be- come familiar with the Wood Hudson policies on scientific integrity. Computer skills, includ- ing effective use of word processing, spread- sheet, and relational database programs, are taught or reinforced. The fourth objective is to provide a sup- portive yet intellectually demanding environ- ment for learning. Competent practicing sci- entists, of both sexes, make themselves avail- able for impromptu discussions of research problems and techniques and serve as role models. Although UREP participants come to the program with an interest in science and medicine, many report that their UREP ex- perience has served as a stimulus for contin- uation of interest and involvement in research. Finally, the program provides gainful em- ployment for undergraduate science majors who are working their way through college. Generous, multi-year UREP support from 20 foundations, corporations, individuals, and government agencies has permitted Wood Hudson to pay UREP participants salaries that help to meet college expenses. Job Description for Student Research Assistants Student research assistants work where needed in research programs at the Labora- tory; their assignments include both scientific and administrative laboratory work. Scientific laboratory work involves culture of mammali- an cells, recombinant DNA procedures, bio- chemical assays (protein, DNA, and enzyme assays), cell fractionation techniques, histolog- ic staining procedures, and computerized im- age analysis of microscopic sections. Admin- istrative laboratory work includes assistance with preparation of grants, manuscripts, and literature searches. A Procedures Manual is provided to help students learn laboratory procedures used in experiments. Students also learn computer applications in word process- ing, spreadsheets, and statistical analysis. Students should have as prerequisites some background in biological science and an inter- est in biological research. Generally, they should have 1 year of college biology and 1 year of college chemistry. They must be able to work carefully with scientific equipment and be accurate and precise in collecting and recording data. Finally, they must be able to work independently in collecting and studying published papers relevant to ongoing research projects. Each of the students in the program works 42 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) 10 hours per week at the Laboratory during the school year and 20 hours per week during the summer. Work schedules are flexible to ac- commodate exams and term papers. Students work a minimum of a 16-week semester; most students work in UREP for | or 2 years. Students Served by UREP UREP participants typically attend colleges and universities in the Greater Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky area (Xavier University, University of Cincinnati, Thomas More Col- lege, Northern Kentucky University) and/or are residents of the area. Many students who reside in the area attend colleges throughout the United States and participate in UREP during their summer breaks. To date, UREP has drawn 108 students from 19 colleges and universities across the United States. Most have begun in UREP as juniors or seniors, al- though a few have been freshmen or sopho- mores; two outstanding high school graduates were permitted to participate during the sum- mer prior to their beginning college. Few have had prior exposure to a research environment. Selection of students for participation is based upon recommendation of a professor, courses completed, and personal interviews. Students with the highest grade-point aver- ages are not necessarily the most resourceful UREP participants. Each student is given a chance to prove himself or herself, but, once in the program, carelessness in technique or with data is unacceptable. Students are ex- pected to be self-starters and to show intellec- tual curiosity about the work; a questioning at- titude is strongly encouraged. Because women are under-represented in science (women comprise nearly half the work force but only 15% of practicing scientists), they are sought as participants in UREP. To date, nearly half (45%) of UREP students have been women. Members of minority groups are sought for the same reason. In addition, UREP students are often the first generation to attend college. Without exposure to research as undergradu- ates, these students might never see them- selves as scientists. STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF UREP Students are asked to evaluate the program at least once a year. This permits adjustments to be made in emphasis and to ensure that the program continues to meet student needs. The following comments were selected from these evaluations to indicate, in students’ own words, what UREP has meant to the partici- pants. “I truly enjoy working at Wood Hudson because I learn interesting things about re- search in general, cancer specifically, and the actual techniques and procedures involved.” “I feel that my position at Wood Hudson not only strengthened my application for accep- tance to medical school but also strengthened my appreciation for scientific research.” “Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory has been my most rewarding job to date. The program has provided me with a general un- derstanding of how research is done. I found this job rather inspiring for the goals I have set.” “I have gained more knowledge this sum- mer, through hands-on lab training, than I will ever hope to gain in the classroom alone.” “My experience as a student research assistant at Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory has been a great opportunity. ... As I prepare to graduate and apply to graduate school in molecular biology, the work I have done at the Lab has given me the background I need.” “I had begun to despair of ever gaining the ex- perience that medical and graduate schools emphasize. I found myself running into the timeless problem: everyone wants someone with experience but no one is willing to pro- vide it.” “One of the things that I like about this program [UREP] is the independence that I am given. In the labs at college, students constantly have teaching assistants looking over their shoulders. Here, we are given the chance to spread our wings and try things for ourselves.” LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP OF UREP PARTICIPANTS While UREP provides gainful employment, its most valuable benefit is research experi- ence for the students. Research experience is sought by graduate schools and employers in the pharmaceutical and other industries. As a result, UREP has been very successful in reaching its stated goals. Of the 66 participants who have completed the degree of Bachelor of Science to date, 94% have gone on to pur- sue careers or postgraduate courses in science and medicine. Four are practicing medicine locally and five are practicing in other states. Wood Hudson Cancer Research Laboratory—Carter and Collier 43 Twelve former UREP students are in master’s or doctoral programs and nine have earned advanced degrees in a scientific discipline. Al- together, 71% of UREP participants who have earned the bachelor’s degree have obtained postgraduate education. Many former UREP participants are currently employed by local pharmaceutical companies, university labora- tories, hospitals, and other science-related or- ganizations. CONCLUSION The objective of UREP is to encourage un- dergraduate students to remain in biology and to go on to careers in science and medicine; therefore UREP addresses the nationally rec- ognized problem of a decline in the interest of students for careers in science. Success of UREP is measured by several criteria includ- ing (a) the percentage of UREP participants with the degree of Bachelor of Science who pursue careers in science and medicine; (b) student evaluations of UREP; (c) the number of times individual UREP students are asso- ciated with published (peer-reviewed) re- search, including authorship, presentation of research findings at scientific meetings, and ci- tations for contributions to published work; (d) the number of students referred to the program by college biology department chair- persons; and (e) the number of students ob- taining college credit for participation in UREP. During the past 16 years, UREP has been eminently successful as judged by these criteria. As Kentucky participates in a global econ- omy, businesses and industries within the state have identified several needs for all employees including area-specific skills (e.g., chemistry, mathematics, etc.), communication skills, in- terpersonal skills, problem solving, computer skills, organizational skills, and flexibility (Kis- er 1997). UREP provides undergraduate stu- dents the opportunities to develop each of these skills. The Undergraduate Research Ed- ucation Program at Wood Hudson Cancer Re- search Laboratory serves not only as an intro- duction to biomedical research but also as a stepping stone from the undergraduate col- lege laboratory to the world of scientific re- search in a highly competitive global economy. LITERATURE CITED American Council on Education. 1985. National priorities for undergraduate science and engineering education. National Higher Education Associations Task Force, American Council on Education, Washington, DC. Fisher, A. 1992. Why Johnny can’t do science and math. Popular Sci. 241:50-55, 98. Fort, D.C. 1993. Shy, science savvy, science smart. Phi Delta Kappan 74:674-683. Gore, A., Jr. Education for science. 1992. Address given at University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 28 Oct 1992. Kiser, M.D. 1997. Required educational changes in the Commonwealth: an industry perspective. Address given at the Annual Meeting of the Kentucky Academy of Science, 13 Nov 1997. Michel, F.C. 1993. Science literacy at the college level. Physics Today 46:69-71. National Science Foundation. 1986. Undergraduate sci- ence, mathematics and engineering education, Report of the National Science Board Task Committee on Un- dergraduate Science and Engineering Education. Na- tional Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Russo, E. 1997. Undergraduate summer research provides taste of laboratory life. The Scientist 11(17):1, 9. Shen, B. 1975. Scientific literacy and the public under- standing of science. Pages 44-52 in S. Day (ed). Com- munication of scientific information. Karger, Basel. Tobias, S. 1990. They're not dumb, they're different: stalk- ing the second tier. Research Corporation, Tucson, AZ. ]. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):44-46, 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Encouraging New Biologists Ross C. Clark Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky 40475 ABSTRACT The world of the future will offer many opportunities for biological research. Eastern Kentucky University provides a supportive environment for undergraduate biology research and a faculty dedicated to student development. Student research projects focus on many topics, from the molecular to the ecosystem level. Involvement in research equips students with many skills and habits that are strong assets for successful careers. INTRODUCTION It has been said that the 20th century has been the century of physics and that the 21st will be the century of biology. This is an ov- ergeneralization, of course. In the future, all areas of science will continue to uncover new insights and arrive at further syntheses of how the natural world functions. As new scientific insights and relationships emerge and the re- sulting technology advances, we can also con- fidently predict that ethical dilemmas will sharpen and we shall be forced into recasting our assumptions about our relationships with each other and with the other inhabitants of our planet. Although these inevitable developments will result from integrating discoveries in all branches of science, they will devolve primar- ily from what is happening in biology. In a very short time, we have come from a grasp of Mendelian genetics to the point where we now argue only relatively fine points of evo- lution and map our own genome; from puz- zling over the fossil record to constructing mo- lecular phylogenies; from dependence on wild food sources and the jungle as “heart of dark- ness” to unalterable ecosystem fragmentation, habitat destruction, and a major planetary ex- tinction episode; and from broad susceptibility to fatal diseases, to their control, and back to susceptibility. Since there is considerable evidence that within the lifetime of our students the study of living systems will preoccupy us as never before, we should choose carefully the ele- ments of training that will enable students to function effectively in a very different future. 44 Involvement in research involving natural phe- nomena is what sets science apart from other disciplines. As such, it is essential training for all seriously aspiring biologists. Research, like the arts, requires both training and practice. Anyone with curiosity who can grasp complex relationships and procedures can do research, but a disciplined approach to the design, ex- ecution, and analysis of inquiry is most likely to produce meaningful results. The disciplined approach is best learned from example. A DIVERSE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Although many important scientific advanc- es have emerged under less than ideal condi- tions, providing a conducive environment is fundamental to encouraging research. Some Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) biology students come to us with a narrowly focused view of where they want to go, but many oth- ers come to us un-preprogrammed. We con- sider it our mission to maintain a supportive learning environment that gives students many choices of where to go in biology and the op- portunities to develop themselves along what- ever pathways they choose. Maintaining diver- sity in the learning environment is a key con- sideration. We consider ourselves fortunate in that many of our students come from backgrounds where their curiosity has been piqued by life- long casual observation of organisms; that is, they still retain meaningful connections to the natural world. The natural curiosity with which they arrive is congruent with the great- est strengths of our program. While we strive not to be a specialized department, we do Eastern Kentucky University—Clark 45 have an emphasis. The strength of EKU bi- ology lies in field-based studies of adaptive be- havior and relationships, ecosystem structure and function, and biodiversity. We believe there always will be a market for biologists who recognize and understand organisms and how they function in natural systems. In our program the molecular approach, instead of being an end in itself, is a powerful, essential tool to understanding. We offer formal majors in biology, biology teaching, microbiology, environmental re- sources, wildlife management, aquatic biology, and cell and molecular biology. In addition, students may specialize in other areas (e.g., botany, zoology, premedical studies). To en- courage faculty collaboration and students’ in- dividual choices, we are not organized into special interest departmental subgroups. Our 20 faculty members all have doctorates from different schools, which results in a variety of viewpoints, contacts, and collaborative ar- rangements useful for student development. In addition to the normal core biology cur- riculum required for all undergraduate majors, we regularly offer 26 advanced courses that are available to undergraduates. A number of those courses include a required research component. Classes are limited in size; ad- vanced undergraduate classes usually have fewer than 15 students enrolled. Advanced undergraduates often enroll in our formal un- dergraduate research courses, BIO 489 (Field Studies in Wildlife) and BIO 598 (Special Problems). These courses can be taken more than once for credit. A statistics course, pro- viding the tools for assessing many experi- ments, is required for all undergraduate biol- ogy majors. In addition, we encourage student participation in Phi Sigma biology honorary; in our student chapter of the Wildlife Society; in our genetics, evolution, and molecular biology journal club (GEMS); and in Sigma Xi. This diverse learning environment encourages close student-to-faculty contact and the devel- opment of mentoring relationships, which of- ten lead to participation in research. We consider it our responsibility to give all of our majoring students encouragement and opportunity to do research. All wildlife man- agement graduates are required to complete a formal research project. These studies often are of publishable quality. Even though our other degree programs do not specifically re- quire formal research, we advise all students interested in continuing their studies past the bachelor’s level that they should gain research experience. However, the choice is up to them. In fact, the majority of our graduating seniors have formal research experience. THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT Most undergraduate biology research at EKU is locally or regionally focused. A sam- pling of projects within the last 2 years (listed in no particular order) includes ecological and adaptive behavior studies on endangered bats and birds: habitat utilization studies of water- fowl, game, and non-game mammals; analysis of endangered goldenrod populations; preda- tor-prey behavior in reptiles; effects of sewage on aquatic organisms; biodiversity surveys of aquatic organisms and vascular plants in dis- turbed and undisturbed ecosystems; popula- tion, mating, and nesting behavior of various bird species; chloroplast genome studies; and studies in isolation, structure, and diversity of respiratory enzymes. Additional similar studies and projects on waterborne microbial patho- gens and adaptive behavior in fishes are in in- cipient stages. While working on their projects, undergrad- uates either are guided by faculty members directly or work as members of teams involv- ing faculty and one or more graduate students. Our student chapter of the Wildlife Society typically involves its members in several re- search projects during their undergraduate ex- perience. In addition, students who show an interest are strongly encouraged to seek sum- mer jobs involving research. Financial support for projects at EKU may come from several sources, including direct support from the de- partment, university faculty development grants, or external grants and contracts. Fac- ulty members typically include student sup- port in the proposals they submit for grant and contract funding. THE PAYOFF We find that the opportunity to be person- ally involved in research is usually the main factor that propels students through the piv- otal transition from passive learning to a dif- ferent level of dedication to the study of bi- ology. This is true whether they aspire to ca- 46 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) reers in medicine, other specialized biological fields, teaching, working in natural resource management agencies, environmental assess- ment, or many other career options. Inexperienced students typically regard re- search as a potentially exciting but somewhat mysterious pursuit. Many are interested in try- ing it but are somewhat hesitant at the begin- ning. By actually doing research, they discover that behind every moment of revelation are many long hours in the field and/or laboratory doing rather repetitive and elementary tasks. On the other hand, sustained involvement in research also teaches students to work co- operatively and patiently, to accept construc- tive criticism, to assess results and make judg- ments more carefully and independently than they ever have before, and to organize thoughts coherently and succinctly for presen- tation to others. In addition, they learn that to complete projects successfully, one must put in whatever time it takes: dedicated research- ers often must work while others play. They learn that one must be clear about what ques- tions one seeks to answer and that one must sometimes start again from the beginning to make necessary adjustments or to correct mis- takes. If they work in a relaxed, supportive en- vironment, they also learn that scientists, con- trary to popular stereotype, interact in thoughtfulness and humor with other human beings. These lessons and_ habits invariably serve students well as they graduate to jobs and professional or graduate programs and as they later interact professionally with col- Pe their own students, administrators, an the general public. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):47-50. 1998. Undergraduate Research in Kentucky: Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research Experiences in Biology at Murray State University and the Hancock Biological Station Tom J. Timmons and David S. White Department of Biological Sciences and Hancock Biological Station, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky 42071-0009 ABSTRACT Undergraduate research experiences at Murray State University occur on campus in the broader aspects of biological sciences and at the Hancock Biological Station on Kentucky Lake (HBS) in the more focused area of ecosystem ecology. All biology faculty conduct research and are expected to mentor students infor- mally or through formal undergraduate research courses. Students then are encouraged and given support to present their research results at local, regional, and national meetings and to publish in appropriate journals. HBS, in association with the Center of Excellence for Reservoir Research and a number of Federal grants, has provided unique undergraduate research opportunities. Since 1988 more than 100 students have received financial support while participating in research. Students attending HBS come not only from Murray State but also from throughout Kentucky and the eastern United States. Research experiences through the department and the station have made the participating students more competitive and suc- cessful when applying to graduate schools or entering careers. The most effective way to understand the principles of research is to participate in all of its phases. Universities introduce students to the beginnings of science through experi- ments, creative laboratory research projects, and the web. But the true introduction to re- search comes in undergraduate research courses requiring independent study. Many students are surprised to discover that if any- thing can go wrong, it probably will: samples become contaminated in the growth chamber; half the fathead minnows die in the aquarium (often the control); the plants are overwatered and all die: someone stole all the artificial sub- strates from the stream. Undergraduate re- search provides students the first opportuni- ties to actually develop hypotheses, develop methods to test the hypotheses, experiment, analyze the data, and then come to conclu- sions. Some students have their first experi- ence with a literature review. They have to learn not only how to find the relevant litera- ture but also how to critically evaluate what has been written. Undergraduate research is not required of Murray State University (MSU) biology stu- dents, but we strongly encourage them to ex- plore topics in their area of biology, particu- A7 larly in their junior or senior years. Faculty members in biology at MSU average one stu- dent per year enrolled in our undergraduate research courses. Students can register for 1 to 4 hours of credit (BIO 491—BIO 494). The undergraduate research projects often result from interests developed in upper-level cours- es or interactions with other students actively involved with research. Students must find a professor with the equipment and facilities for the project. They are required to write a pro- posal within 2 weeks of the start of the se- mester describing the research and have it ap- proved by the faculty member. A copy of the proposal is also filed with the chair of the De- partment of Biological Sciences. Students work closely with their professors, usually meeting at least weekly to discuss progress or problems. They may work daily in the labo- ratory, depending upon the nature of their re- search. The entire faculty in the department is in- volved with research; therefore, there are many opportunities for students to interact. There is no course budget allocated for un- dergraduate research, so students must rely on supplies and equipment from faculty, and most faculty support undergraduate research 48 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) with supplies or funds already available from research grants. Faculty occasionally help stu- dents to write proposals to request funds from organizations such as Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, or the Council for Under- graduate Research. Faculty may request funds e purchase equipment through MSU’s Com- mittee for Institutional Studies and Research. Many field projects can be done at little cost. For example, students can study fishes by just borrowing a seine or using available micro- scopes and equipment. Many behavioral stud- ies can be done in the field with binoculars and patience. Murray State University undergraduates have a unique opportunity to participate in re- search. The Hancock Biological Station (HBS) on Kentucky Lake, a component of the De- partment of Biological Sciences, has a primary mission to present students with opportunities for individualized instruction, independent re- search, and close interactions with research- ers. No detailed records of undergraduate re- search at HBS were kept between 1972 and 1988, although we are aware that many stu- dents were part of research activities. Since the inception of the Center of Excellence for Reservoir Research (CRR) in 1988, under- graduate research is well documented. HBS is a year-around research and teaching facility with state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment for environmental and ecological studies. There is a nationally recognized sum- mer field program that attracts students and faculty from throughout the eastern United States. HBS serves as the base for the Eco- logical Consortium of Mid-America (ECO- MA), a group of eight universities and colleges that use the station as a base of operation for field trips and research throughout the year. CRR provides funding for much of the infra- structure, conducts a long-term monitoring program on Kentucky Lake, and maintains an extensive regional ecological database. Under- graduates from MSU and other universities are integrated into each of the research com- ponents through hourly employment, research for credit, internships, and a modified re- search experience program for undergradu- ates. Beginning students need to be able to ob- serve and participate in an active research pro- gram prior to developing and pursuing indi- vidual research questions, which is a goal of the CRR program. CRR undergraduates help in collecting and analyzing data for long-term monitoring and in maintaining the database. In turn, the data and parts of the database are available for use by students for research questions. For example, our reservoir data were used by three undergraduates at Ten- nessee Tech this past semester. Parts of the database are often used by students who wish to use real-world data in advanced statistics. From 1988 to the present, 56 undergradu- ates have received hourly wages through CRR. Many students work up to 20 hours per week during the academic year and up to 40 hours per week in summer. Training students to be- come proficient in the field and laboratory of- ten takes up to 6 months or longer. Students also develop an understanding of the methods and goals of specific research projects. They are encouraged to ask questions and are al- lowed to progress at their own rates with men- toring from M.S. and Ph.D. graduate students, CRR professional staff, postdoctoral associ- ates, and research faculty. About a third of these students have completed a semester or more of research for credit. Research for cred- it requires that the students consider the de- sign of CRR programs and produce a well thought out research paper. There has been a rapid growth of externally funded research at HBS over the past 10 years; the more seasoned and skilled students are often in demand to participate. External research has involved 8 to 10 students per year over the past 5 years. Most of these students enroll for research credit during the academic year or summer semester. Many summer stu- dents come from other universities with the goal of conducting research in a field setting, an experience not usually available at their home institutions. These students either are integrated into ongoing research at HBS or accompany their adviser who will be teaching or conducting summer research at the station. There is a growing number of students from other universities who carry out their intern- ship requirements at HBS. These students conduct research questions through a faculty mentor at HBS but enroll for credit at their home institutions. Included have been stu- dents from Center College, Long Island Uni- versity, Kennesaw State, Southern Illinois Uni- Murray State University—Timmons and White 49 versity, Central Florida, University of South Florida, Austin Peay State University, and Madisonville Community College. HBS/CRR plans to submit a grant proposal this coming year to the National Science Foundation to establish a Research Experi- ences for Undergraduates (REU) program. As a prelude to the proposal, we created our own “REU” program for one summer with excel- lent success. Six very promising undergradu- ates from throughout the midwest were se- lected from a pool of 21 applicants. Each stu- dent attended the American Society of Lim- nology and Oceanography meeting (at the beginning of the summer session). Learning from the presentations attended, each student designed and conducted a research experi- ment over the following 8 weeks. Four of the six students subsequently enrolled in advanced degree programs in aquatic ecology. Undergraduate research projects often lead to posters, presentations, and publications. Recent papers (Dreves et al. 1996; King et al. 1989) and published abstracts (Derting et al. 1995; Derting and Carter 1995) in this journal were the result of projects initiated by under- graduates. Undergraduate research has result- ed in recent papers in other journals, e.g., American Malacological Bulletin (Blalock and Sickel 1996), Canadian Journal of Zoology (Derting and Noakes 1995), and Journal of Mammalogy (Derting and Bogue 1993). The list of oral and poster presentations by under- graduates is too lengthy to include here. Fac- ulty encourage and help students travel to pro- fessional meetings to present papers; some meetings are limited to student presenters. For example, aquatic biology undergraduates travel to the Annual Fisheries Student Collo- quium sponsored by the American Fisheries Society. Many of our undergraduates give pa- pers at the annual meeting of the Association of Southeastern Biologists and state societies such as the Kentucky Academy of Science or the Tennessee Academy of Science. Many professional societies have state chapters that encourage students to give the first presenta- tion. MSU and Austin Peay State University sponsor a biannual 2-day joint symposium on natural history of the lower Tennessee River basin. The meeting, held in the Land Between the Lakes, attracts faculty and students from throughout the midwest. The first day of the symposium highlights presentations by inter- nationally known scientists. Undergraduates are then encouraged to present results of their research in sessions on zoology, botany, or ecology. Beyond the abstracts, students may publish their results in the symposium pro- ceedings, gaining experience in writing and editing. Undergraduates also present papers at national meetings in association with results from research by professors. Undergraduate and graduate student re- search is encouraged by the MSU chapter of Sigma Xi, which each year sponsors the Sigma Xi Research Symposium and Poster Compe- tition day. Students conducting research in any science-related discipline across campus can compete. The event provides students with a forum to present research results and to have faculty evaluate the presentations and com- ment on the student work. An award for the Outstanding Undergraduate Research is pre- sented at the Sigma Xi Annual Banquet. Another great advantage of undergraduate research is the opportunity for undergraduates to travel to collect data or present papers and posters at national or regional meetings. Un- dergraduates interested in paleontology re- cently have had summer opportunities to trav- el to Kansas and Spain. Students interested in field ecology have enrolled in undergraduate research during the summer and traveled to Belize and Ecuador. Undergraduates in aquat- ic biology often travel to coastal field stations to study ocean communities. One of our fac- ulty travels to the arctic each summer; he has involved undergraduate researchers. Many of our national societies provide travel or lodging assistance for students giving papers at distant locations. Even within colleges or depart- ments, we work harder to find money for promising students who are presenting papers. Faculty find undergraduate research a unique way to interact with students. The work may not always be recognized by the ten- ure and promotion committee or provide any release time for faculty, but we enjoy working with students, especially in our area of re- search. Research experience is the best way to mentor a student. After a student has gradu- ated, and lectures have been forgotten, the re- search experience will be long remembered. The faculty member also will remember the 50 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) student and can write meaningful letters of recommendation. The undergraduate research experience is important for both students and faculty. Stu- dents learn how to conduct all aspects of re- search; they discover if research is the field for them. Research allows students an opportu- nity to explore areas of interest in greater depth than any course can offer. Students who have a research background and are accepted to graduate school and other professional schools have an advantage over students with- out research experience. Students who do not become researchers also benefit. One student who traveled to Alaska is now a high school teacher and incorporates material on arctic tundra ecology in her science classes. Some of our students who conducted undergraduate research at HBS now bring their classes to HBS to study ecology or chemistry. Although faculty may benefit from an undergraduate project, the professional interaction between student and professor is most important. The mentoring experience affects students throughout their future career. LITERATURE CITED Blalock, H.N., and J.B. Sickel. 1996. Changes in mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna within the Kentucky portion of Lake Barkley since impoundment of the lower Cum- berland River. Am. Malacol. Bull. 13:111—116. Derting, T.D., T.P. Begin, and M.L. Carter. 1995. Changes in gut capacity of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:65. Derting, T.D., and B.A. Bogue. 1993. Morphological re- sponses of the gut to moderate energy demands in a small herbivore, Microtus pennsylvanicus. J. Mammal. 74:59-68. Derting, T.D., and M. Carter. 1995. Increased gut capac- ity in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): a response to metabolic demand or food intake? Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:66. Derting, T.D., and E.B. Noakes. 1995. Seasonal changes in gut capacity in the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvan- icus). Canad. J. Zool. 73:243-252. Dreves, D.P., T.J. Timmons, and J. Henson. 1996. Age, growth, and food of freshwater drum, Aplodinotus grunniens (Sciaenidae), in Kentucky Lake, Kentucky/ Tennessee. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:22-26. King, J.M., C.D. Wilder, and J. McCandless. 1989. Sea- sonal variations in orthophosphate and inorganic nitro- gen in a western Kentucky cypress swamp ( Murphy's Pond). Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 50:51-54. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):51-63. 1998. Distributional Records for Fishes of the Coastal Plain Province, Ballard and McCracken Counties, in Western Kentucky Michael G. Ryon Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 and Brian A. Carrico 6146 Cougar Drive, Knoxville, TN 37921 ABSTRACT One hundred and forty-two collections were made at 37 sites located on streams within the Coastal Plain Province, Ballard and McCracken counties, Kentucky, from 1990 to 1997. Most samples were taken near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant as part of its Biological Monitoring Program, but additional collections were made from six watersheds spanning the Ohio and Mississippi River coastal plain north of Mayfield Creek and west of the Clarks River. These collections include 112,722 specimens representing 71 species, 40 genera, and 15 families. Compared to published distributional information, the ranges of 59 species were expanded and three species were added to the stream fauna of this region. Included in these expanded ranges are new localities for the redspotted sunfish (Lepomis miniatus) and the black buffalo (Ictiobus niger), two species listed as threatened and of special concern, respectively, by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. INTRODUCTION The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) has supported a Biological Monitor- ing Program for streams bordering its facilities since 1987 (Birge et al. 1990; Kszos 1994). This program includes a fish community task group that monitors the changes in fish com- munities in Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks and compares these changes with communi- ties in area streams (Kszos 1994, 1996a, 1996b: Kszos et al. 1994). As a result of this monitoring program, extensive fish survey in- formation has been gathered by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for the region since 1990. Published information on fish distributions in the immediate vicinity of PGDP was limited. Burr and Warren (1986) reported on distributions in the general area, but no specific distributional studies have re- ported on streams in this section of western Kentucky. Therefore, data generated for the monitoring study were supplemented by sam- pling in additional streams to provide a better understanding of the fish fauna of this region. The PGDP is located in McCracken County within 6.3 km of the Ohio River (Figure 1). It 51 lies within the Coastal Plain Province as de- fined by Burr and Warren (1986) with the lo- cal streams draining the Mississippi Alluvial, Eastern Gulf Coastal, and Tennessee River plains. This province is an area of lowland plains with only limited relief provided by roll- ing hills and minor ridges. The geology reflects a sedimentary origin dating back to the Cre- taceous seas and includes loose deposits of gravel, sand, and clay (Burr and Warren 1986; Mengel 1965). Oxbows, sloughs, and swamps become more common and the stream chan- nels become more entrenched adjacent to the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. The province includes several streams that have been widely sampled, including Clarks River, Mayfield Creek, Obion Creek, Bayou de Chien, and Terrapin Creek (Burr and War- ren 1986; Kuhajda and Warren 1985; Sisk 1969). Considerable effort has also been ex- pended to sample Metropolis Lake, oxbows, small floodplain lakes, and main channels of the Ohio River and Mississippi River in this province (Burr and Mayden 1979; Burr and Warren 1986; Burr et al. 1990; Krumbholz 1981: Pearson and Krumholz 1984; Rice et al. 52 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) EO (€C4 nee Cre =f S 7 oO Somer poShaw Figure I. collection sites near the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reservation and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP). 1983). However, the streams in McCracken and Ballard counties north of Mayfield Creek and west of the Clarks River have not been surveyed so extensively. Some of this lack of attention can be attributed to (1) the generally mundane appearance of the streams, (2) the considerable areas of habitat modification as- sociated with agricultural activity, and (3) the restricted access for streams near PGDP. Ma- jor streams in this region include Perkins, Massac, Little Bayou, Big Bayou, Newtons, Clanton, Humphrey, and Shawnee creeks (Figure 1). These streams are west of the Ten- nessee River divide and flow into the Ohio River, except for Shawnee Creek, which enters the Mississippi River. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fish distribution surveys were conducted using backpack electrofishers in two standard procedures. When sampling was conducted as ORNL $7-1073B/Imh Big Bayou Creek 3 Little Bayou Creek S Metropolis Lake . Paducah Gaseous S2<_ Diffusion Plant i Fran ot SI ais OQ Sample Locations “4 DOE Reservation Boundary 5 0 ZY Rivers and Streams Kilometers Streams in the Coastal Plain Province in McCracken and Ballard counties, Kentucky, and locations of fish- part of the quantitative PGDP biomonitoring, the electrofishing sample involved a three-pass removal estimate at standard sampling sites of ca. 100 m in length. For each sample, the sites were isolated by 0.64-cm-mesh seines, two or three backpack electrofishers followed by three to five netters were used to make up- stream passes through the site, and all stunned fishes were removed for processing. Fishes were identified, measured, and returned alive to the sampling location. Voucher or verifica- tion specimens were taken for species unique to that location or for species particularly dif- ficult to identify. Quantitative samples were collected on a spring and fall schedule at five standard sites. When sampling was part of the qualitative biomonitoring, the electrofishing sample in- volved a single upstream pass through 100 to 200 m of stream or for a sampling effort of 1 to 2 hours. One or two backpack electrofishers Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 53 were used with two or three netters. Captured fishes were identified, counted (in most sam- ples), and returned alive to the stream. Vouch- er specimens were taken as per the quantita- tive sites with additional specimens usually taken to represent each species present at the sampling location. Qualitative samples were made throughout the year, at various sites, from one to 11 times per site. Specimens were also obtained at a PGDP treatment lagoon during fish kill investigations. These speci- mens were retrieved using a small boat and dipnets. All voucher specimens were preserved in 10% formaldehyde, washed, transferred to 60% ethanol, and cataloged in the ORNL Fish Reference Collection. Identification of unusu- al specimens was verified by Dr. David Etnier, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. All sam- pling was conducted following standard oper- ating procedures (Schilling et al. 1996). Descriptive ratings were used to categorize the distribution and abundance of individual species. Distribution categories, based on Smith (1965), include generally distributed (any suitable habitat within the area should yield species with sufficient collection effort), occasional (suitable habitat within the area may or may not yield species even after pro- longed searches), and sporadic (the encoun- tering of species cannot be predicted at all). Relative abundance was categorized following Ryon (1994) and included rare (one specimen taken per collection), uncommon (two to 20 specimens taken per collection), common (Qh to 99 specimens taken per collection), and abundant (greater than 99 specimens taken per collection). COLLECTION SITES Collection sites were concentrated in the watersheds of Big Bayou, Little Bayou, and Massac creeks, but all major watersheds in the province were sampled. The following site de- scriptions include stream name, location of the sample site (stream kilometers to site from mouth of stream and position relative to map landmarks), county, and date(s) sampled. Rel- ative locations are shown in Figure 1 with numbers indicating each sample site. 1. Perkins Creek at KY 305 (km 4.1), 0.6 km w of intersection of KY 45 and 358, McCracken County. Jul 1996. 2. Massac Creek at KY 1420 (km 3.2), 8.5 km w of Paducah, McCracken County. Jun 1992 and Jul 1996. 3. Massac Creek at KY 358 (km 6.4), 8.5 km w of Paducah, McCracken County. Jun 1993, Aug 1994, and Jul 1996. 4. Massac Creek at KY 62 (km 13.8), 5.5 km sw of Paducah, McCracken County. Thirteen occasions from Dec 1990 through Mar 1997. 5. Massac Creek at KY 339 (km 16.9), 8 km sw of Paducah, McCracken County. Jul 1996. 6. Blacks Branch at KY 1565 (km 2.0), 7 km w of Paducah, McCracken County. Jun 1993. 7. West Fork Massac Creek at confluence with Massac Creek (km 6.6), 0.3 km sw of KY 358 and 8.5 km w of Paducah, McCracken County. Jun 1993. 8. Middle Fork Massac Creek at KY 62 (km 2.4), 8 km sw of Paducah, McCracken County. Aug 1994. 9. Little Bayou Creek adjacent to settling ponds at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Shawnee Steam Plant (km 1.3), 11 km n of Future City, McCracken County. Jun 1992. 10. Little Bayou Creek at unnamed rd (km 4.3), 2 km w of KY 996 and 9.2 km n of Future City, McCracken County. Nine occasions from Dec 1990 through Apr 1996. 11. Tributary to Little Bayou Creek from PGDP outfall K003 (km 5.0), 8.1 km n of Fu- ture City, McCracken County. Dec 1990. 12. Little Bayou Creek at KY 358 (km 7.2), 6 km n of Future City, McCracken County. Twelve occasions from Dec 1990 through Mar 1997. 13. Little Bayou Creek at McCaw Rd (km 9.0), 5.2 km n of Future City, McCracken County. Ten occasions from Jun 1992 through Nov 1995. 14. Big Bayou Creek at Boldry Rd (km 2.8), 6.3 km ne of Ragland, McCracken County. Jun 1992 and Jul 1996. 15. Big Bayou Creek at KY 358 (km 6.9), 8.7 km ne of Kevil, McCracken County. Jun 1992. 16. Big Bayou Creek at unnamed rd (km 9.1), 0.9 km e of Bethel Church Rd, and 1.2 km sw of KY 358, McCracken County. Thir- teen occasions from Dec 1990 through Mar 1997. 17. Big Bayou Creek at unnamed rd (km 54 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) 9.4), 1.2 km e of Bethel Church Rd and 1.3 km sw of KY 358, McCracken County. Nine occasions from Nov 1993 through Nov 1995. 18. Tributary to Big Bayou Creek from PGDP outfall KO0O1 (km 9.5), 1.4 km e of Bethel Church Rd and 1.3 km sw of KY 358. McCracken County. Nine occasions from Nov 1993 through Nov 1995. 19. Big Bayou Creek at unnamed rd (km 10.0), 3.3 km e of KY 725 and 1.7 km s of KY 358, McCracken County. Twelve occasions from Sep 1991 through Mar 1997. 20. C-611 Treatment Lagoons near Big Bay- ou Creek (km 10.1), 3.3 km e of KY 725 and 2.0 km s of KY 358, McCracken County. Jan 1992 and Mar 1992. 21. Big Bayou Creek at Water Works Rd (km 10.4), 3.7 km w of KY 996 and 2.5 km s of KY 358, McCracken County. Six occasions from Aug 1994 through Nov 1995. 22. Big Bayou Creek downstream of S. Acid Rd (km 12.5), 3.3 km w of KY 996 and 3.3 km s of KY 358, McCracken County. Thirteen oc- casions from Dec 1990 through Mar 1997. 23. Big Bayou Creek at KY 725 (km 14.5), 0.6 km w of intersection KY 725 and KY 1154, McCracken County. Jun 1992. 24. Newtons Creek at Grief Rd (km 4.4), 2.2 km n of KY 358, McCracken County. Dec 1990. 25. Newtons Creek at KY 358 (km 6.5), 12.2 km w of Metropolis, IL, McCracken County. Jul 1996. 26. Nasty Creek at KY 358 (km 5.0), 10.7 km sw of Metropolis, IL, McCracken County. Jul 1996. 27. Clanton Creek at KY 358 (km 13.8), 5.8 km se of Monkey’s Eyebrow, Ballard County. Jul 1996, 28. Clanton Creek at Goose Haven Lane (km 5.7), 1.5 km n of Oscar, Ballard County. Jul 1996. 29. Humphrey Creek at KY 1105 (km 9.0), 2.7 km sw of Oscar, Ballard County. Apr 1996. 30. Humphrey Creek at KY 60 (km 20.4), 1.0 km ne of La Center, Ballard County. Dec 1990. 31. Humphrey Creek at Mosstown Rd (km 23.7), 3.3 km se of La Center, Ballard County. Apr 1996. 32. Humphrey Creek at Brookings Rd (km 30.8), 8.8 km se of La Center, Ballard County. Apr 1996. 33. Mud Slough at KY 310 (km 3.7), 3.3 km nw of Oscar, Ballard County. Jul 1996. 34. Hazel Creek at unnamed rd (km 7.8), 4.5 km n of Barlow, Ballard County. Jul 1996. 35. Shawnee Creek at KY 60 (km 7.1), 0.8 km s of Barlow, Ballard County. Apr 1996. 36. Shawnee Creek Slough at unnamed rd (km 5.0), 3.5 km w of KY 60 and 5.8 km sw of Barlow, Ballard County. Apr 1996. 37. Cane Creek at KY 60 (km 4.6), 6 km s of Barlow, Ballard County. Apr 1996. ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES Collections from these 37 localities yielded 112,722 specimens representing 71 species, 40 genera, and 15 families. For each species, the entry lists collection sites by number (see Fig- ure 1) and, in parentheses, the number of specimens collected and the number of vouch- er specimens. Additional comments about unique habitats or conservation status are giv- en when appropriate. Species names are based on guidelines in Etnier and Starnes (1993) and Robins et al. (1991). Comparisons to pub- lished literature refer to the distributional studies of Burr and Warren (1986), unless oth- erwise indicated. LEPISOSTEIDAE—Gars Lepisosteus oculatus (Winchell). Spotted gar. Sites: 2 and 28. (3 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from Massac and Clanton creeks but has been found in the Ohio River near the mouth of Massac Creek and in Metropolis Lake. Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus). Longnose gar. Site: 2. (1 large specimen collected and released.) Not reported previously from Mas- sac Creek but has been taken from the Ohio River in the vicinity of Massac Creek and in Metropolis Lake. Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque. Short- nose gar. Sites: 2, 28, and 33. (4 specimens collected; 3 vouchers.) Not reported previous- ly from Massac Creek and Mud Slough but has been collected in the Ohio River, Metrop- olis Lake, and Clanton Creek. AMIIDAE—Bowfins Amia calva Linnaeus. Bowfin. Sites: 2, 14, and 16. (4 specimens collected and released.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Massac creeks. Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 55 CLUPEIDAE—Herrings Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur). Gizzard shad. Sites: 2-4, 10, 14, 16-18, 20-22, and 27— 29. (666 specimens collected; 64 vouchers.) Occasional and locally common in streams within the coastal plain. Dorosoma petenense (Guenther). Threadfin shad. Site: 33. (1 specimen collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from Mud Slough although many records exist for the Ohio River in that vicinity. CYPRINIDAE—Carps and minnows Campostoma anomalum pullum (Agassiz). Central stoneroller. Sites: 2-8, 10, 12-19, 21— I= G0=32° 35, and 37. (44,831 speci- mens collected; 669 vouchers.) Abundant and generally distributed in Massac, Little Bayou, and Big Bayou creeks but less numerous and only occasional in other coastal plain water- sheds. Not reported previously from Big Bay- ou, Little Bayou, and Clanton creeks. Carassius auratus (Linnaeus). Goldfish. Site: 4. (1 specimen collected and released.) Not reported previously from Massac Creek. Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes). Grass carp. Site: 17. (1 specimen collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from any tributaries of the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province north of Mayfield Creek al- though records from the Ohio and Mississippi rivers were known. Our specimen was proba- bly an escapee from fishing ponds located on the Western Kentucky Wildlife Management Area (WKWMA) where the species has been stocked for control of aquatic vegetation. Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard). Red shiner. Sites: 2-4, 7-10, 12-22, 27, 30, and 31. (2853 specimens collected; 552 vouch- ers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks but considered com- mon and generally distributed in small tribu- taries to the lower Ohio River. Cyprinella spiloptera (Cope). Spotfin shin- erusites: 2913579, 10, 14,°15, and 28. (120 specimens collected; 117 vouchers.) Not re- ported previously west of the Clarks River. Our specimens represent the first verified rec- ords from the Coastal Plain Province in Ken- tucky. The absence of spotfin shiners from coastal plain ecoregions was also noted for Missouri (Pflieger 1975) and Tennessee (Et- nier and Starnes 1993), although Smith (1979) documented their presence in lowland areas of Illinois. The spotfin shiner usually occurred in collections with the steelcolor shiner, al- though they were not as common or as widely distributed. Four hybrid specimens between these two Cyprinella species were also taken. Cyprinella whipplei Girard. Steelcolor shin- er. Sites: 2-4, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 22. (650 specimens collected; 493 vouchers.) Not re- ported previously from Big Bayou Creek. Generally distributed and common in Massac and Big Bayou creeks but only occasional in Little Bayou Creek. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus. Common carp. Sites: 1-4, 10, 14, 16-18, 28-31, and 33. (53 specimens collected; 35 vouchers.) Not re- ported previously from Perkins, Massac, Big Bayou, Little Bayou, Clanton, and Humphrey creeks. Generally occasional in distribution and uncommon at a specific site. Hybognathus nuchalis Agassiz. Mississippi silvery minnow. Sites: 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, and 29. (3358 specimens collected; 716 vouchers.) Not reported previ- ously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Generally distributed and locally abundant when found in its preferred habitat of slow runs and shallow pools with sand or soft sub- strates. Lythrurus fumeus (Evermann). Ribbon shiner. Sites: 3, 4, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 28-30. (604 specimens collected; 272 vouch- ers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou, Little Bayou, Clanton, and Humphrey creeks. Generally distributed in the province but usu- ally uncommon at specific sites. Lythrurus umbratilis (Girard). Redfin shin- er, Sites: on) 9213916198 215 22) 2529-3. and 35. (1343 specimens collected; 324 vouch- ers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Generally distributed throughout the province and often common to abundant at specific locations. Macrhybopsis storeiana (Kirtland). Silver chub. Site: 29. (1 specimen collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from Humphrey Creek but reported from the Ohio and Mississippi rivers in the Coastal Plain Province. Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill). Golden shiner. Sites; 1-4, 7, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 21, 22, 25-30, and 34-36. (198 specimens collected; 56 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) 36 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Although its distribution was widespread, numbers were generally uncommon at most sites. Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque. Emerald shiner. Sites: 2, 10, 20, and 29. (55 specimens collected and vouchered.) Distribution was sporadic and usually rare to uncommon in our samples. The species prefers larger streams and rivers, which were not sampled intensively in these collections. Notropis blennius (Girard). River shiner. Site: 10. (9 specimens collected and vouch- ered.) Not reported previously from tributar- ies to the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province. Its preference for larger rivers would indicate that our specimens were tran- sients in lower Little Bayou Creek. Notropis stramineus (Cope). Sand _ shiner. Site: 10. (1 specimen collected and vouch- ered.) Not reported previously from tributar- ies to the Mississippi and lower Ohio rivers except for Mayfield Creek. Generally uncom- mon or absent from lowland tributaries in II- linois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Notropis volucellus (Cope). Mimic shiner. Site: 3. (1 specimen collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from tributaries to the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province of Kentucky. Infrequently seen in coastal plain streams of Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard). Sucker- mouth minnow. Sites: 3, 4, 7, 10, 12-14, 16— 19, 22, and 30. (537 specimens collected; 105 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Only occasion- al with most samples having uncommon num- bers per collection. Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque). Bluntnose minnow. Sites: 2-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 22, 25, 27, and 29-32. (7897 specimens collected; 812 vouchers.) Not reported previously from any tributaries of the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province west of Massac Creek. Gener- ally distributed and common to abundant in our collections. Pimephales promelas Rafinesque. Fathead minnow. Sites: 4, 12, 19, and 22. (59 speci- mens collected; 14 vouchers.) Sporadic and uncommon in Big Bayou and Massac creeks. Not reported previously in any streams west of Clarks River and north of Mayfield Creek. Its rarity or absence in coastal plain streams of neighboring states was also noted by Etnier and Starnes (1993), Smith (1979), and Pflieger (1975). Specimens may have been introduced into Little Bayou and Big Bayou creeks by fishing activities associated with numerous small ponds on WKWMA. Pimephales vigilax (Baird and Girard). Bull- head minnow. Sites: 2, 3, and 29. (52 speci- mens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from tributaries in the Coastal Plain Province north of Mayfield Creek; sporadic in our samples. This sporadic distribution for the bullhead minnow in coastal plain streams of Kentucky contrasts greatly to its distribution in similar habitats in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Et- nier and Starnes 1993), where it was widely distributed and often very abundant. Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill). Creek chub: Sites: 426) 8=10, 12.1135 1621952125) 27, 29-32, 35, and 37. (5355 specimens col- lected; 45 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou, Little Bayou, and Clanton creeks. Generally distributed and more com- mon in small streams and the upper reaches of larger watersheds. CATOSTOMIDAE—Suckers Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque). River carp- sucker. Sites: 2 and 16. (4 specimens collected; 2 vouchers.) Not reported previously for any tributaries to the Ohio River in the coastal plain, but several collections are listed for the Ohio River in the vicinity of Massac Creek. Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur). Quillback. Sites: 2 and 3. (4 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from coastal plain tributaries of Kentucky; primarily a large stream and river species. Also rare in coastal plain streams in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Et- nier and Starnes 1993) with most records oc- curring in larger rivers. Our specimens ranged in size from 8 to 17 cm TL, suggesting that young and juvenile quillback may use the low- er reaches of coastal tributaries for rearing and feeding areas. Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede). White sucker, Sites: 3. 4:, 6-8. 12. 16,117 19) 2122; and 30-32. (99 specimens collected; 13 vouch- Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 57 ers.) Within the province, reported previously only from Massac Creek. Occasional and un- common in our samples. The widespread dis- tribution of the white sucker in coastal plain streams of Kentucky contrasts with its distri- bution in coastal plain streams of and Missouri (Pflieger 1975) and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993) where it was absent or restrict- ed to a few drainages. Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill). Creek chub- sucker. Sites: 2-13, 16-19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29- 32, and 35-37. (905 specimens collected; 65 vouchers.) Reported previously from streams of the Coastal Plain Province; locally common in our samples. Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque). Smallmouth buffalo. Sites: 1-3, 16, 28, and 33. (48 speci- mens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from Perkins, Big Bayou, and Mas- sac creeks but present in a few other Coastal Plain Province streams. As with other buffalo species taken in our samples, the majority of specimens were juveniles (mean = 5.3 cm TL), indicating that the coastal streams are used as nursery or rearing grounds for many of the fishes of the Ohio River in this province. Ictiobus cyprinellus (Valenciennes). Big- mouth buffalo. Sites: 1-3, 16, 17, and 27. (29 specimens collected; 15 vouchers.) Not re- ported previously from Massac and Big Bayou creeks. Most of our specimens were from deep pools in medium to large streams, al- though juveniles were taken in a small shallow section of upper Clanton Creek. Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque). Black buffalo. Sites: 2, 10, 16, 17, and 27. (9 specimens col- lected and vouchered.) Not reported previ- ously from Massac, Big Bayou, and Little Bay- ou creeks. Generally considered rare in coastal plain areas of Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Because of its limited distri- bution, the black buffalo is listed as special concern for Kentucky (KSNPC 1996; Warren et al. 1986). Our specimens were taken from pools or backwater areas in medium to large streams over clay and sand substrates. A few, larger specimens (up to 26 cm TL) were col- lected, suggesting the coastal tributaries are used for more than just rearing areas. Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque). Spotted sucker. Sites: 2-4, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, 29, and 30. (132 specimens collected; 16 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Little Bayou, Big Bayou, and Humphrey creeks. Occasional but uncommon in our collections. Moxostoma duquesnei (Lesueur). Black re- dhorse. Sites: 3 and 4. (16 specimens collected and released.) Not reported previously west of the Clarks River in any coastal plain stream in Kentucky; generally absent from coastal plain streams in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In our sampling, the black re- dhorse occurred in Massac Creek sites over gravel and sand substrates in deep pools. Mas- sac Creek, the most upland stream in the Coastal Plain Province, includes more typical black redhorse habitat than other watersheds. The specimens were encountered in two sep- arate sampling events (1991 and 1993); most were large specimens (26 to 32 cm TL) iden- tified in the field by lateral-line scale counts and body shape. Repeated efforts to obtain voucher specimens in later collections were unsuccessful, so these records should be con- sidered suspect but not impossible given our success in documenting new locations for oth- er sucker species. Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque). Gold- en redhorse. Sites: 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 21. (145 specimens collected; 43 vouchers.) Not reported previously from coastal plain streams west of Massac Creek and north of Mayfield Creek. Occasional and uncommon in our samples. As with black redhorse, the gold- en redhorse was generally absent from coastal plain streams in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missou- ri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). ICTALURIDAE—Bullhead catfish Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque). Black bull- head Sites: S10; 12 16. 17519) 21 9007 28, and 36. (34 specimens collected; 12 vouch- ers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou Creek. Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur). Yellow bull- head: ‘Sites: 2=6) S=10) 122119) 91=93 95-31 33, and 35. (1655 specimens collected; 74 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Generally dis- tributed and common in our sampling, occur- ring from small tributaries to the largest streams. Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur). Brown bull- 58 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) head. Site: 28. (3 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously in Clan- ton Creek. This location was a typical lowland stream habitat, with soft mud substrates. Specimens of all three bullhead species were taken in this sample. The limited distribution of brown bullheads in this province of Ken- tucky is very similar to the distribution in Il- linois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), where the brown bullhead was also the least common of the three bullhead species. Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque). Channel catfish. Sites: 2, 3, 14, and 29. (8 specimens collected; 7 vouchers.) Not reported previous- ly from Massac and Big Bayou creeks. Noturus gyrinus (Mitchill). Tadpole mad- tom. Sites: 3, 9, 10, and 29. (9 specimens col- lected; 7 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Little Bayou Creek. Noturus nocturnus Jordan and Gilbert. Freckled madtom. Sites: 2 and 14. (7 speci- mens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from tributaries in the coastal plain north of Mayfield Creek. Restricted to sites adjacent to the Ohio River in our sampling. ESOCIDAE—Pikes Esox americanus vermiculatus Lesueur. Grass pickerel. Sites: 2-4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 19, 29, 34, and 36. (43 specimens collected; 12 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Little Bayou, Big Bayou, and Humphrey creeks. Oc- casional but usually uncommon in our sam- pling. APHREDODERIDAE—Firate perches Aphredoderus sayanus (Gilliams). Pirate perch. Sites: 1=4) (8=1.0: 19-16, 19721) 122,25: 28-31, 33, 34, and 36. (281 specimens col- lected; 37 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Gen- erally distributed and locally common in our sampling. CYPRINODONTIDAE—Killifishes Fundulus olivaceus (Storer). Blackspotted topminnow. Sites: 2-6, 8-10, 12-19, 21-23, 25-27, 29-33, and 35-37. (8892 specimens collected; 121 vouchers.) Reported previously from all coastal plain streams. Generally dis- tributed, usually common, and locally abun- dant in our samples. POECILIIDAE—Livebearers Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard). West- ern mosquitofish. Sites: 1-5, 8-10, 12-17, 19, 21, 22, 25-31, and 33-36. (4199 specimens collected; 126 vouchers.) Occasional and lo- cally common in Coastal Plain Province streams. ATHERINIDAE—Silversides Labidesthes sicculus (Cope). Brook silver- side. Sites: 2-4, 33, and 36. (14 specimens col- lected; 11 vouchers.) Occasional in the coastal plain streams, usually associated with larger streams. PERCICHTHYIDAE—Temperate basses Morone chrysops (Rafinesque). White bass. Sites: 2, 3, 28, and 29. (15 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not reported previously from Massac and Humphrey creeks. Morone mississippiensis Jordan and Eigen- mann. Yellow bass. Sites: 2, 29, and 33. (4 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not re- ported previously from Massac and Humphrey creeks. CENTRARCHIDAE—Sunfishes Centrarchus macropterus (Lacepede). Flier. Sites: 3; 10,12, 14,16, 17,.21.,, 25, 26, 34, and 36. (53 specimens collected; 8 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Massac, Big Bayou, and Little Bayou creeks. Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque. Green sun- fish. Sites: 2-6, 8-10. 12-23, 25-31-33: and 35. (3994 specimens collected; 52 vouchers.) Reported previously from all Coastal Plain Province streams. Occasional and locally com- mon in our sampling. Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier). Warmouth. Sites: 9- A. 8-10 ISG 19 21 2925. 264,28 —olle 34, and 36. (206 specimens collected; 20 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Occasional and usually uncommon in our sampling. Lepomis humilis (Girard). Orangespotted sunfish. Sites: 10, 17, 28, and 33. (16 speci- mens collected; 13 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou Creek. Sporadic and rare in our sampling. Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque. Bluegill. Sites: 2-6, 8-23, 26, 28-33, and 36. (2556 specimens collected; 68 vouchers.) Reported previously from all Coastal Plain Province Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 59 streams. Generally distributed and abundant in our sampling. Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque). Longear sunfish. Sites: 2-6, 8-23, 27-31, 33, and 36. (19,242 specimens collected; 148 vouchers.) Reported previously from all Coastal Plain Province streams. Generally distributed and abundant in our sampling. Lepomis microlophus (Guenther). Redear sunfish. Sites: 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, and 28-30. (37 specimens collected; 5 vouchers.) Not report- ed previously from Big Bayou, Little Bayou, and Clanton creeks. Lepomis miniatus Jordan. Redspotted sun- fish. Sites: 10, 12, 14, 29, and 36. (7 specimens collected; 5 vouchers.) Not reported previous- ly (under spotted sunfish, Lepomis punctatus) from Big Bayou, Little Bayou, and Humphrey creeks. This species is recognized as a threat- ened species in Kentucky (KSNPC 1996; War- ren et al. 1986). Our specimens were collected in a variety of stream habitats: small to large streams, over clay, sand or rock substrates, in shallow streams (<30 cm depth) or in deep pools (>1 m depth), and in turbid or clear water. In most samples, they were found in areas of slower velocity near pools or deeper sloughs. The sporadic distribution and rare to uncommon abundance of redspotted sunfish throughout the Coastal Plain Province support its threatened status. The variety of habitats in which the species was found, however, sug- gests that it may be flexible in habitat prefer- ences. Micropterus punctulatus (Rafinesque). Spotted bass. Sites: 2-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 30. (517 specimens collected; 41 vouch- ers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede). Large- mouth bass. Sites: 1-5, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, ONES 956.9799, 31 33, and (34. (281 specimens collected; 56 vouchers.) Reported previously from all Coastal Plain Province streams. Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque. White crap- pie. Sites: 2, 3, 14-16; 18, 21. and’ 30.: (28 specimens collected; 14 vouchers.) Not re- ported previously from Big Bayou and Massac creeks. Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur). Black crappie. Sites: 2, 28, 33, and 36. (29 specimens collected and vouchered.) Not reported pre- viously from Massac Creek. PERCIDAE—Perches Etheostoma asprigene (Forbes). Mud dart- er. Sites: 2, 10, 14, 29, and 36. (34 specimens collected; 31 vouchers.) Not reported previ- ously from Massac, Big Bayou, Little Bayou, and Humphrey creeks. Sporadic but could be common locally in our sampling. Etheostoma chlorosomum (Hay). Bluntnose darter. Sites: 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 28, 29, and 36. (79 specimens collected; 35 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Sporadic and generally uncom- mon in our sampling. Etheostoma gracile (Girard). Slough darter. Sites: 3—>: 6-10) 12-1406. 18) 19) 22°25. 28: 32, 33, 36, and 37. (315 specimens collected; 70 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks. Occasional in our sampling but could be common at cer- tain sites. Perca flavescens (Mitchell). Yellow perch. Site: 14. (1 specimen collected and vouch- ered.) Not reported previously in the Coastal Plain Province or any streams west of the Ten- nessee River in Kentucky. Our specimen was a juvenile (5.5 cm TL) at a site within 3 km of the Ohio River. The distribution of yellow perch in neighboring states is also limited, with no records in coastal plain tributaries of Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), or Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Percina caprodes (Rafinesque). Logperch. Sites: 2-5, 10, 19, and 33. (85 specimens col- lected; 17 vouchers.) Not reported previously from Massac, Big Bayou, and Little Bayou creeks. Sporadically distributed and generally uncommon in our sampling. In coastal plain streams in other states, the logperch is absent or rare in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflieger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Percina maculata (Girard). Blackside darter. Sites: 3, 4, and 7. (53 specimens collected; 11 vouchers.) Not reported previously from trib- utaries to the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province in Kentucky; our specimens in Mas- sac Creek represent the first in this region. Although not listed by Burr and Warren (1986), the blackside darter was reported from Obion Creek, a tributary to the Mississippi 60 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) River (Smith and Sisk 1969). The species was also found infrequently in coastal plain sam- pling in Illinois (Smith 1979), Missouri (Pflie- ger 1975), and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), where it was becoming less widely dis- tributed. Locally common in our sampling; most frequently collected over gravel and sand substrates in runs and shallow pools. Percina shumardi (Girard). River darter. Site: 2. (1 juvenile specimen (3.6 cm TL) col- lected and vouchered.) Not reported previ- ously from tributaries to the Ohio River in the coastal plain. Absent from the coastal plain of Illinois (Smith 1979), confined to larger chan- nels of direct tributaries to the Mississippi Riv- er in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), but common in tributaries in Missouri (Pflieger 1975). Stizostedion canadense (Smith). Sauger. Site: 2. (13 specimens collected and vouch- ered.) Not reported previously from tributar- ies to the Ohio River in the Coastal Plain Province. Our specimens were juveniles and were common in the one collection. SCIAENIDAE—Drum Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque. Fresh- water drum. Sites: 2, 20, and 33. (7 specimens collected; 3 vouchers.) Not reported previous- ly from Big Bayou Creek, Massac Creek, and Mud Slough. DISCUSSION Many of the species discussed have not been reported previously from specific stream locations in the coastal plain (Burr and Warren 1986). However, their occurrence in the gen- eral area was inferred based on habitat pref- erences and known localities within the Ohio River, Mississippi River, or some tributaries in the Coastal Plain Province. Our sampling rec- ord provides details on exact stream locations for many species and adds three species to the known fauna of the area. The spotfin shiner, black redhorse, and yellow perch were not re- ported previously from the Coastal Plain Prov- ince in Kentucky. In our sampling, the spotfin shiner was occasional in the province, occur- ring in several larger streams. The black red- horse was found only in Massac Creek and was generally uncommon. Our sampling also extended the known range for eight species from just the large riv- ers to include smaller tributaries in the Coastal Plain Province. The threadfin shad, grass carp, river shiner, mimic shiner, river carpsucker, quillback, sauger, and river darter were not re- ported previously from coastal streams or trib- utaries to the Ohio River. Most of these spe- cies are more commonly associated with large- river habitats, which would partially explain their rarity in the sampled streams, while the grass carp is an introduced species whose range is being expanded by the activities of people. An additional 14 species were found in new locations in the Coastal Plain Province north of Mayfield Creek and west of the Clarks Riv- er, where previously they had been known only from the large rivers and/or one other locality such as Metropolis Lake, Mayfield Creek, Obion Creek, or Massac Creek. These species included spotted gar, goldfish, ribbon shiner, sand shiner, fathead minnow, bullhead minnow, bluntnose minnow, white sucker, spotted sucker, golden redhorse, brown bull- head, freckled madtom, blackside darter, and logperch. The bluntnose minnow, white suck- er, spotted sucker, and golden redhorse were reported previously only from Massac Creek; all of these species are more widespread in the coastal plain. Additional locations are also documented for the black buffalo and redspotted sunfish, species designated as being rare in Kentucky (KSNPC 1996). These species were collected in low numbers but in a variety of streams, indicating that their presence may be more widespread in the Coastal Plain Province than previously thought. Many of these new rec- ords are a result of repeated sampling at set locations rather than single collections spread over a wide area. Also the use of electrofishing gear probably resulted in more efficient col- lection of larger fishes, such as the sucker spe- cies. The 71 species recorded in our study rep- resent 69% of the species reported by Burr and Warren (1986) for this area of the coastal plain. The majority (78%) of the species we did not find are primarily species of large riv- ers and would be encountered with less fre- quency in the streams that were the focus of most of our effort. Some of the species we did not find—e.g., pugnose minnow (Opsopoeo- dus emiliae) and blackstripe topminnow (Fun- Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 61 dulus notatus )—are more common in smaller streams and bayous and are usually associated with aquatic vegetation, a cover type not fre- quently encountered in our sampling. Other stream species that are listed for this area of the coastal plain, but that we did not find, in- clude several species listed as threatened or of special concern (KSNPC 1996); their rarity may be responsible for our failure to locate them. The collection records also provide useful information on the general nature of the wa- tersheds within the Coastal Plain Province. Al- though there was much overlap in species common to all of the streams, the larger sys- tems had unique species within their fish com- munities. Massac Creek differs from most streams within the Coastal Plain Province. Although structurally similar to the other streams, it does tend to have the highest gradients in the region. This might explain the occurrence of several species that might be considered atyp- ical for the province. For example, both the black redhorse and blackside darter occurred only in Massac Creek; the typical habitat for these species is more upland i in character than that found in most streams in the coastal plain. Also, there are many species more common in upland streams (e.g., golden redhorse and log- perch) that occur with greater frequency in Massac Creek than in other streams. Con- versely, species more typical of lowland streams (e.g., flier, orangespotted sunfish, and mud darter) occur at lower frequencies or are absent in Massac Creek. These collection re- cords reinforce the designation of Massac Creek as part of the Tennessee River Plain (Burr and Warren 1986) with a mixture of both upland and lowland species. Massac Creek had the greatest number of species, 60, in our collections of coastal plain streams. Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks, more lowland in character than Massac Creek, have some species reflecting the influence of the recreational fisheries of the WKWMA. The presence of the grass carp and fathead min- now is likely to be a result of such manage- ment activity. The presence of the two pro- tected species in the watershed also suggests that impacts associated with the PGDP may be quite limited and restricted to areas im- mediately adjacent to outfalls or to brief pe- riods when streams conditions are unfavor- able; it also demonstrates the value of the wa- tershed for species diversity within the prov- ince. The similar number of total species in this watershed (50 species in Big Bayou Creek and 33 species in Little Bayou Creek) com- pared to others in the province (38 species in Humphrey Creek and 33 species in Clanton Creek) reinforces this conclusion. The impact of other activities in the prov- ince was demonstrated substantially by the re- duced faunas in some areas of Newtons and Perkins creeks, where total numbers of spe- cies were only 17 and 8, respectively. One sur- vey of Newtons Creek was limited to one specimen of one species. This reduced fish community may be due to agricultural impacts such as high levels of sediment associated with runoff from fields, reduced riparian cover, and channelization of stream sections. The possi- ble input of pesticides, herbicides, or fertiliz- ers with resulting impacts on the fish com- munities also cannot be discounted. Perkins Creek has been impacted by urban develop- ments such as sewage discharges. This stream was similar in size and habitat to parts of Mas- sac Creek but contained far fewer species (8) than the mean number of species (20) for a comparable site in Massac Creek. In general, the fish fauna of the northern section of the Coastal Plain Province was quite diverse given the limited habitat complexity of the lowland streams. This diversity was also evident when compared to coastal plain streams in Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee where many of the species found in our sur- veys were absent or present at only a few lo- cations. The influence of the large rivers bor- dering the coastal plain was great, with many species collected in our surveys represented only by juveniles, which may be utilizing the tributaries for feeding or rearing areas. We also noted a connection between flooding or elevated flows in the Ohio River and an in- creased number of specimens and species at some sites where samples where taken at reg- ular intervals. The role of the smaller tribu- taries in coastal plain streams should include that of safe haven during such periods of stress in the main river. Many species in our sam- pling were represented by only one or a few specimens, indicating that further sampling 62 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) would probably continue to add to the species record. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge many people who helped with our collection efforts and those who helped on species identifications and manu- script preparation. For assistance with field sampling we thank A. Anderson, C.A. Bran- son, B.F. Clark, R.L. Hinzman, R.P. Hoff- meister, J.R. Khyme, W.C. Kyker, J.M. Loar, M.K. McCracken, M.J. Petersen, R.B. Petrie, R.A. Redden, W.K. Roy, W.H. Schacher, E.M. Schilling, D.W. Smith, J.G. Smith, M.R. Smith, L.M. Stubbs, A.L. Thomas, and WS. Wilkerson. For assistance with species identi- fications we thank E.M. Schilling and D.A. Et- nier. For assistance with manuscript prepara- tions and reviewer comments we thank L.A. Kszos, E.M. Schilling, and P.L. Henry. This work was partially funded by Environmental Management, Lockheed Martin Energy Sys- tems, Inc. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is managed by the Lockheed Martin En- ergy Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05- 840OR21400. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Re- search Corp. for the U.S. Department of En- ergy under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464. This paper is publication No. 4681, Environ- mental Sciences Division, ORNL. LITERATURE CITED Birge, W.T., T.M. Short, and J.E. Lauth. 1990. Biological monitoring program for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Three-year report. University of Kentucky, Lex- ington, KY. Burr, B.M., and R.L. Mayden. 1979. Records of fishes in western Kentucky with additions to the known fauna. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 40:58-67. Burr, B.M., and M.L. Warren Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserv. Comm. Sci. Techn. Ser. 4. Burr, B.M., M.L. Warren Jr, G.K. Weddle, and R.R. Ci- cerello. 1990. Records of nine endangered, threatened, or rare Kentucky fishes. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 51: 188-190. Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Ten- nessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, IN. Krumholz, L.A. 1981. Observations on changes in the fish populations of the Ohio River from Rafinesque to 1980. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 42:1—-15. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1996. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:69-91. Kszos, L.A. (ed). 1994. Report on the biological moni- toring program at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, December 1990 to November 1992. ORNL/TM-12338. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Kszos, L.A., R.L. Hinzman, M.J. Peterson, M.G. Ryon, J.G. Smith, and G.R. Southworth. 1994. Report on the biological monitoring program at Paducah Gaseous Dif- fusion Plant, December 1992 to November 1993. ORNL/TM-12716. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Kszos, L.A. (ed). 1996a. Report on the biological moni- toring program at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, December 1993 to December 1994. ORNL/TM-12942. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Kszos, L.A. (ed). 1996b. Report on the biological moni- toring program at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, January—December 1995. ORNL/TM-13190. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Kszos, L.A., R.L. Hinzman, M.J. Peterson, M.G. Ryon, ].G. Smith, and G.R. Southworth. 1994. Report on the biological monitoring program at Paducah Gaseous Dif- fusion Plant, December 1992 to November 1993. ORNL/TM-12716. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Kuhajda, B.R., and M.L. Warren Jr. 1985. Clarks River revisited: additions to the ichythyofauna. Trans. Ken- tucky Acad. Sci. 46:144-145. Mengel, R.M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. Am. Omi- thol. Union Ornithol. Monogr. 3:1-518. Pearson, W.D., and L. A. Krumholz. 1984. Distribution and status of Ohio River fishes. ORNL/Sub/99-7831/1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri De- partment of Conservation, Western Publishing Com- pany, Jefferson City, MO. Rice, S.P., J.R. MacGregor, and W.L. Davis. 1983. Dis- tributional records for fourteen fishes in Kentucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 44:125—-128. Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, ].R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes of the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20. Ryon, M.G. 1994. Table 5.5, pages 5-13 in L.A. Kszos (ed). Report on the biological monitoring program at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, December 1990 to November 1992. ORNL/TM-12338. Oak Ridge Nation- al Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Schilling, E.M., B.A. Carrico, R.P. Hoffmeister, W.K. Roy, and M.G. Ryon. 1996. Biological monitoring and abatement program (BMAP) fish community studies, standard operating procedures. QAP-X-90-ES-067. En- vironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Sisk, M.E. 1969. The fishes of west Kentucky. I. Fishes of Clark’s River. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 30:54-59. Smith, P.L., and M.E. Sisk. 1969. The fishes of west Ken- Fish Distribution Coastal Plain Province Kentucky—Ryon and Carrico 63 Warren, M.L., Jr., W.H. Davis, R.R. Hannan, M. Evans, D.L. Batch, B.D. Anderson, B. Palmer-Ball, 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. tucky. HI. The fishes of Obion Creek. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 30:60-68. Smith, P.W. 1965. A preliminary annotated list of the lampreys and fishes of Illinois. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Biol. Notes 54:1—12. Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):64-75. 1998. Distribution and Population Estimates of the Federally Endangered Relict Darter, Etheostoma chienense, Bayou du Chien, Kentucky Kyle R. Piller’ and Brooks M. Burr Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 ABSTRACT The relict darter, Etheostoma chienense, is a federally endangered species endemic to upper reaches of the Bayou du Chien drainage of western Kentucky. Between fall 1994 and spring 1996 we conducted a study to determine present distribution and to assess population size and abundance of E. chienense. Sixteen of 28 sites sampled harbored E. chienense. Estimates of the total drainage-wide population were between 9533 and 31,293 individuals. The species was considered common to abundant at five sites but rare or uncommon at the remaining 11. Length-frequency estimates revealed four age classes; age groupings reported here are comparable to what has been reported for other species of Etheostoma subgenus Catonotus. INTRODUCTION Etheostoma subgenus Catonotus (Pisces: Percidae) includes 17 described species com- mon in rocky strewn headwater streams of eastern North America (Braasch and Mayden 1985; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Kuehne and Barbour 1983; Page 1983; Page et al. 1992). Species of Catonotus attach and guard eggs on the underside of flattened substrates (Page 1983; Page et al. 1992). Kentucky har- bors 11 species in the subgenus (Burr and Warren 1986; Page 1983; Page et al. 1992). Many species, e.g., the fantail darter, Etheos- toma flabellare, are widely distributed in the state, while others including the relict darter, E. chienense, are restricted in distribution (Biggins 1993; Warren et al. 1994). The relict darter, Etheostoma chienense Page and Ceas, is a recently described species (Page et al. 1992) endemic to the Bayou du Chien drainage of western Kentucky (Biggins 1993; Webb and Sisk 1975; Warren et al. 1994); prior to 1994 little information was available regarding life-history traits (Piller and Burr n.d.; Warren et al. 1994). Etheostoma chienense is restricted in terms of its range. Previous surveys of the Bayou du Chien drainage conducted by Webb and Sisk (1975) and by Warren et al. (1994) revealed that the species occurred at only nine sites and was known to spawn in only one tributary in the upper reaches of the drainage. As a result of its limited distribution, the relict darter was ' Present address: Tulane University Museum of Natu- ral History, Belle Chasse, LA 70037. 64 listed as federally endangered in 1993 (Biggins 1993). In addition to the species’ restriction to a small watershed, two other factors including the lack of suitable spawning substrate and, at the time of listing, only one reported spawning reach also contributed to the federally endan- gered status (Warren et al. 1994). Distributional studies of rare taxa are nec- essary when researchers attempt to formulate appropriate management decisions. Our study was undertaken to document the present dis- tribution and to determine population esti- mates for E. chienense. STUDY AREAS The Bayou du Chien is a gravel, mud, cob- ble, and sand-bottomed Coastal Plain system that is a direct tributary of the Mississippi Riv- er. The entire watershed is privately owned and is used principally for agriculture. This drainage lacks the slabrocks characteristically used for spawning by most species of Caton- otus (Warren et al. 1994) and, as a result, E. chienense is opportunistic in terms of egg de- position substrates and will deposit its eggs on the underside of almost any hard substrate (Piller and Burr n.d.). The entire Bayou du Chien drainage served as the study area (Figure 1). It originates in southwestern Graves County and flows in a northward arc through Hickman and Fulton counties to its confluence with the Mississippi River near Hickman, Kentucky. It drains ca. 554 km2, most of which is fertile farmland (Burr and Warren 1986). Many of the common problems affecting the streams of eastern North America have Relict Darter—Piller and Burr 65 A Fulgham 14 13 42 11 5 8 O © Moscow 10 O 15 9 L3G 16 6) D Water 4 Valley 3 1 H 2 A Obion Creek E Cane Creek B Bayou du Chien F Sand Creek C Mud Creek G Jackson Creek D Little Bayou du Chien © Record stations from previous surveys Figure 1. H South Fork Bayou du Chien e@ Record stations from recent (1994-1996) surveys Distribution of Etheostoma chienense, Bayou du Chien drainage, Graves, Hickman, and Fulton counties, western Kentucky, 1994-1996. Numbers refer to localities of occurrence (see text). also affected Bayou du Chien. Stream chan- nelization has lead to a loss of appropriate or suitable habitat and change in stream flow pat- terns. All but the final 8-10 km of the system has been channelized (Webb and Sisk 1975). The Bayou du Chien, presumably once a free- flowing stream with numerous riffles, runs, and gently flowing pools, has been converted to a deep ditch with sluggish, turbid water. More importantly, many stream reaches in the drainage have had riparian vegetation com- pletely removed. Such vegetation normally shades the stream, decreases silt load, and, most notably, provides spawning substrate for darters. Warren et al. (1994) believed that the lack of woody riparian vegetation and the low availability of suitable spawning substrates have adversely impacted relict darter popula- tions. METHODS Monthly visits were made to Bayou du Chien and many of its tributaries in late sum- mer and early fall 1994 and 1995 to assess dis- tribution and population status of the relict darter. Collection localities were primarily sites sampled by Webb and Sisk (1975) and Warren et al. (1994), but several others within the drainage were sampled in an effort to dis- cover new localities of occurrence. Because of the endangered status of the species, no spec- imens were vouchered from any new sites. Sampling was accomplished using standard minnow seines (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993) and dip nets, and all captured darters were measured to the nearest millimeter (SL) and then released. Length data were used to ana- lyze population structure by way of length-fre- quency estimation. In spring 1996 we obtained a population es- timate for each site where E. chienense was captured. All estimates are based on 200 linear meter reaches (100 m along each stream bank). Areas in the middle reach of a stream were excluded because of the affinity of E. chienense for undercut banks and other near- bank cover (Piller and Burr n.d.). Several 10- 20 m reaches were measured and sampled at each site. We attempted to capture darters within each section by “kicking” around in- stream objects and beneath undercut banks. A block net was used in small tributaries to help increase catch rate and avoid darter escape. After sampling several sections, we obtained a 66 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Table 1. Sites surveyed in 1994-1996 in the Bayou du Chien drainage that produced Etheostoma chienense with habitat data, population estimates, and population status for each site of occurrence. Site numbers refer to numbered sites in Figure 1] and the text. Locality Site 1. Trib. of Bayou du Chien, Rt. 94/45 Site 2. South Fork Bayou du Chien, Kingston Rd. Site 3. South Fork Bayou du Chien, Pea Ridge Rd. Site 4. Bayou du Chien, 2422 Rd. Site 5. Bayou du Chien, Bard Rd. Site 6. Bayou du Chien/Jackson Creek/South Fork BDC Site 7. Jackson Creek, Lawrence Rd. Site 8. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 1283 Site 9. Unnamed trib., Bayou du Chien, Rose Rd. Site 10. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 307 Site 11. Sand Creek, Rt. 307 Site 12. Bayou du Chien, Davis Rd. Site 13. Bayou du Chien, Howell Rd. Site 14. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 51 Site 15. Cane Creek, Howell Rd. Site 16. Cane Creek, Coolie Rd. mean darter density for each site by averaging the results obtained from each 10-20 m sec- tion sampled. In addition, the amount of suit- able habitat (i.e., undercut banks or instream cover) was also estimated for each 200 m study area. Population estimates were ob- tained by multiplying the mean darter density by the amount of suitable habitat at each site. In addition to a population estimate for each site, we obtained a drainage-wide popu- lation estimate by averaging the results from the site-by-site analysis. The total linear stream meters inhabited were multiplied by the average amount of suitable habitat ob- tained in the areas where E. chienense was captured to arrive at the total amount of suit- able habitat. The lower range of the popula- tion estimate was determined by multiplying the total amount of suitable habitat by the av- erage darter density within the drainage. The resultant population estimate should be less than the actual number because not all darters were captured and because the relict darter probably inhabits additional stream kilome- ters. To determine an upper range, we used the greatest darter density and multiplied it by the total amount of suitable habitat. The site-by-site population estimates were obtained from a one-time sampling effort, which may not accurately describe the popu- lation status of E. chienense. To account for the single- census bias, we used the following Suitable Darters habitat Density (darters/ Population Riparian (m/200 m) — (darters/m) 200 m) status zone (m) 120 0.000 0 Rare 1-2 20 0.100 2 Rare 1-2 80 0.100 8 Uncommon 0-1 60 0.256 15 Common 1-2 10 0.100 1 Rare 0 88 0.200 2, Uncommon |-2 140 0.755 106 Abundant 4-6 140 0.430 60 Common 3-4 50 0.200 10 Uncommon 3-4 130 0.500 65 Common OF 100 0.000 0 Rare 2-3 130 0.375 49 Common 2-3 100 0.066 Th Uncommon O-] 100 0.230 23 Uncommon 2-3 40 0.500 20 Uncommon 0-1 100 0.066 7 Rare 2-3 categories to classify the abundance of relict darters at each site over the 2-year sampling period: (1) Rare—species captured or vouch- ered only once or very infrequently; (2) Un- common—captured semi-regularly, but usu- ally only in small numbers; (3) Common—col- lected regularly and usually found in moderate to large numbers; and (4) Abundant—com- monly collected in large numbers, one of the dominant species. RESULTS The relict darter was most commonly col- lected in the upper reaches of the drainage in both the mainstem of Bayou du Chien and many of its smaller tributaries. Sixteen of the 28 sites sampled or reconnoitered within the drainage produced E. chienense adults, juve- niles, and/or nests (Figure 1)(Table 1). (See Piller [1996] for a complete listing of all sites sampled.) Etheostoma chienense presently in- habits a total of 94,200 linear meters of stream (47,100 m for each stream bank); population estimates suggest that the total drainage pop- ulation is between 9533 and 31,293 individu- als. Following is a summary of all known sites of occurrence of E. chienense. Each section gives the population estimates taken in spring 1996, the population abundance status at each site as observed over the 2-year sampling pe- riod, and a detailed habitat description of each locality of occurrence. Relict Darter—Piller and Burr 67 Site 1. Tributary to Bayou du Chien, near intersection of Rt. 45 and Rt. 94, 0.5 km s of Water Valley, Graves Co., rare. Two unguard- ed nests were found on 9 Apr 1994, and a single nest was discovered on the underside of a broken piece of concrete on 15 Apr 1995. Although it is evident that reproduction occurs at this site, it is likely that few individuals in- habit this locality. Habitat modification and degradation at this site are acute. Cultivated fields extend to the edge of the stream, and only a few scattered trees remain along the bank. The tributary has been channelized, and the stream flow velocity is low. The bottom substrate consists entirely of mud and silt. Re- turn trips to collect additional specimens proved unsuccessful. It is possible that the spawning adults may have been waifs washed downstream during a flood. No darters were captured at this site in the 1996 survey; there- fore we have a population estimate of zero in- dividuals for this site. Site 2. South Fork Bayou du Chien, Kingston Rd., Graves Co., rare. This site was sampled on 27 Aug 1994 and 11 Mar 1995 and failed to produce any E. chienense, but on 2 Apr 1996 a 66-mm male and a 46-mm female were captured beneath a small log anchored to the bank. Both were in breeding condition and were apparently ready to spawn. Addi- tional sampling failed to produce other E. chi- enense. Suitable habitat and instream cover are limited. The substrate consists entirely of sand, and virtually no undercut bank habitat is available. We conservatively estimate 1 m of suitable habitat per 10 linear meters of stream. A narrow ]—2 m riparian zone exists, but trees are sporadic along the stream bank. From the low darter densities and the lack of suitable habitat, we estimate that two E. chienense in- habit the sample area. Site 3. South Fork Bayou du Chien, Pea Ridge Rd., 2.4 km e of Water Valley, Graves Co., uncommon. This site was sampled by Webb and Sisk (1975) and Warren et al. (1994): both failed to capture any E. chi- enense. In our study, the site was sampled three times and initially produced two adults (71 and 62 mm SL) on 11 Mar 1996 that were collected ca. 40 m downstream from the bridge under a partially submerged railroad tie. Two other individuals (74 and 58 mm) were collected in a deep undercut bank in wa- ter 0.75-1 m deep. The riparian zone up- stream from the bridge has been removed, and the stream bed has been channelized. Subsequent sampling trips produced only small numbers of individuals and no more nests. Downstream from the bridge are long stretches of sand raceways and numerous deep pools. Few undercut banks or spawning habitat are available and, although a narrow riparian zone remains, it consists largely of herbaceous vegetation. We estimate that eight E. chienense inhabit the 200 linear meters sampled. Site 4. Bayou du Chien, 2422 Rd., 3.2 km ne of Water Valley, Graves Co., common. This locality is one of the uppermost sites surveyed in the main channel of Bayou du Chien. The stream averages 2—3 m in width; the substrate consists entirely of sand and gravel. The ma- jority of suitable habitat lies upstream from the bridge. A 1-2 m wide woody riparian zone is present on both sides. The downstream reach has been significantly modified. Culti- vated fields extend to the stream’s edge, and woody bankside vegetation has been almost completely removed. We conservatively esti- mate that 15:E. chienense occupy the sample area. Site 5. Bayou du Chien, Bard Rd., Graves Co., rare. This site averages ca. 1-2 m in width, and no woody riparian zone is present (Figure 2A). The stream has been dredged and straightened and little or no undercut bank habitat is available. The only instream cover is a few scattered pieces of limestone rip-rap used for bank stabilization. This is the most anthropogenically modified site sampled in the drainage. The amount of suitable hab- itat and darter density is extremely low. We estimate that one darter occupies the 200 lin- ear m reach sampled. Site 6. Bayou du Chien, Jackson Creek, and South Fork Bayou du Chien, Rt. 45, Graves Co., uncommon. These localities were lumped into a single site because of their geo- graphic proximity. All three sites merge within a 100 m reach. This site maintains water year- round due to several coldwater springs feeding South Fork Bayou du Chien. The site was eu- trophic with many filamentous green algae present along the stream bottom, even during mid April. Eutrophication is likely a conse- quence of the extremely small riparian zone 68 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Figure 2. Contrast in localities where Etheostoma chienense was collected during the 1994-1996 survey. (A) site 5, a highly modified reach, Bayou du Chien, Bard Rd., Graves Co., KY; (B) Site 7, ideal habitat, Jackson Creek, Lawrence Rae key. Relict Darter—Piller and Burr 69 and the agricultural field that borders the south side of the stream. The north side has an adequate riparian zone ca. 3-4 m wide. On 16 Apr 1995 this site yielded a single male guarding a nest attached to the underside of a rubber tire. No other darters were captured during the study. We estimate that two darters occupy the sample area. Site 7. Jackson Creek, northeast of Water Valley on Lawrence Rd. (formerly Roy Law- rence Dr.), Graves Co., abundant. Prior to 1994 Jackson Creek was the only stream in the Bayou du Chien drainage known to harbor a spawning population of E. chienense (Biggins 1993; Warren et al. 1994). One of the upper- most sites surveyed in the drainage, it is the type locality of E. chienense (Page et al. 1992). Jackson Creek is a first-order tributary that av- erages 1-3 m in width. Substrate consists of sand and gravel; although no slabrocks are present, a few areas contain small concentra- tions of cobble (64-256 mm). Downstream from the bridge, there is an extensive tree can- opy covering the stream and a substantial amount of undercut bank habitat. The riparian zone, consisting of deciduous trees and her- baceous vegetation, extends 4—6 m in width on both sides (Figure 2B). Above the bridge, a cattle pasture borders both sides of the stream, and although a few large trees are still present along the surrounding fenceline, the riparian zone has been significantly reduced. A substantial amount of woody debris existing in the riparian zone (above and below the bridge) is deposited into the stream. This in turn provides a surplus of spawning substrate and cover for darters and other aquatic spe- cies. Jackson Creek has been relatively unaf- fected by anthropogenic modifications; the pristine nature of the stream undoubtedly contributes to the healthy population at this site. Extrapolating, we estimate that 106 dart- ers occupy the site. This population is the larg- est in the drainage and is one of the primary areas of recruitment. Site 8. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 1283, 4.5 km n of Water Valley, Hickman/Graves Co., com- mon. This site has been subject to a variety of human modifications. Above the bridge, the stream is ca. 4-6 m wide, and a narrow woody riparian zone exists on both sides of the stream. There are ca. 20 m of suitable habitat immediately upstream from the bridge, but the remaining reach has been channelized and little suitable habitat is present. Silt-covered substrates, sluggish flow, and lack of hetero- geneity undoubtedly contribute to low densi- ties. Although the area below the bridge has been partially channelized, the stream flows more freely, has a higher velocity, and harbors a greater density of E. chienense. Sand is the dominant substrate below the bridge, but there is a small area (100 m?) near the bridge that has many cobble-sized rocks available for spawning. The woody riparian zone has been significantly reduced, but the remaining veg- etation extends about 1-2 m on either side of the stream. We estimate that 60 individuals occupy the sample area, which stretches from ca. 25 m above the bridge to 75 m below. Site 9. Unnamed tributary, Bayou du Chien, Rose Rd., 6.7 km se of Fulgham, Hick- man Co., uncommon. This site failed to yield specimens in both of the previous surveys, but several adults and nests were discovered on 31 Mar 1996. There is an abundance of woody material available for nesting, but little under- cut bank habitat exists. Flow is extremely low, and it is likely that this small tributary dries completely in the late summer and early fall. Several females also were collected on 9 Apr 1996, but no other nests were discovered. The population estimate for this site is 10 individ- uals. Site 10. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 307, 4.5 km s of Fulgham, Hickman Co., common. The Rt. 307 site yielded darters during both of the previous surveys, and E. chienense was rela- tively common in the present study. A multi- tude of spawning habitat and cover is available including tree roots extending into the water, logs and sticks deposited from the overhang- ing tree canopy (2-3 m riparian zone), and deep undercut banks. This reach of Bayou du Chien has been partially straightened and wid- ened. We estimate that 65 darters occupy the sample area, which stretches from 50 m above the bridge to 50 m below. Site 11. Sand Creek, Rt. 307, 4.0 km s of Fulgham, Hickman Co., rare. This small stream can be classified as ephemeral or in- termittent. The stream commonly lacks water or dries to isolated pools in summer and early fall. Sand Creek was sampled nine times dur- ing the study. Several adults were captured in 1994, but few individuals since. Four nests 70 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) were found in the 3- year study. No individuals were found during the Warren et al. (1994) study, but Webb and Sisk (1975) reported cap- tures, although vouchers remain unavailable. The riparian zone averages ca. 1-2 m in width, and an ample amount of undercut bank hab- itat is available. Although it was shown that spawning does occur, it is likely that many E. chienense larvae become trapped in isolated pools in times of low water. No E. chienense were captured in 1996, and few others were captured in previous visits. We estimate that zero darters occupy this site. Low water levels and the intermittent nature of the stream seem to be the main reasons that few individ- uals or nests have been discovered at this lo- cality. Site 12. Bayou du Chien, Davis Rd., 4.8 km sw of Fulgham, Hickman Co., common. The Davis Rd. site yielded three specimens for Webb and Sisk (1975) and Warren et al. (1994). On 8 Aug 1995, 15 individuals were collected in fewer than 30 minutes, while on 23 Mar 1996 only four individuals were col- lected in the same time frame. Several nests were photographed in 1995 and 1996. Reach- es above and below the bridge are similar. An ample woody riparian zone remains along the stream’s edge, but channelization is evident. A substantial amount of spawning habitat is present, and many undercut banks exist. For the sample area, which extends from imme- diately below the bridge to 100 m down- stream, we estimate that 60 darters inhabit the reach. Site 13. Bayou du Chien, Howell Rd., Hickman Co., uncommon. This site has a mainstem character averaging 7-8 m wide with a strong flow. There are no alternating stretches of riffle-pool habitats, and undercut bank microhabitat is limited. The site failed to yield specimens, but two unguarded nests at- tached to small sticks were found on 2 May 1996. Below the bridge the south stream bank almost completely lacks woody vegetation with only a few scattered trees present along the bank. On the north side a riparian zone great- er than 5-6 m extends along the bank. Above the bridge, a buffer zone 3-4 m wide borders both sides of the stream. Although a suitable riparian zone is present at this site, the chan- nel has been straightened and ditched. No adults were ever captured, but two nests were discovered in the area sampled. We estimate that two darters occupy the area. Site 14. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 51, 0.8 km se Clinton, Hickman Co., uncommon. Prior to our study, the farthest downstream localities of occurrence were Bayou du Chien, 6.4 km n Cayce, Hwy. 239, Fulton Co., and Bayou du Chien, 0.8 km n of Moscow, Hickman Co. Ad- ditional sampling efforts at these localities proved unsuccessful. Bayou du Chien, Rt. 51, is presently the farthest downstream site of oc- currence. This new locality was first discov- ered on 27 Aug 1995. Five individuals (28-45 mm) were captured near the bridge. Subse- quent collections also have yielded specimens but always in low numbers. Little spawning habitat is available. Undercut banks are scat- tered, and some woody material has been de- posited into the stream from the remaining woody vegetation. Upstream from the bridge, the riparian zone remains intact, but the stream channel has been ditched and straight- ened. The sampled area stretches 50 m above and below the bridge. We estimate that 23 darters occupy the area. Site 15. Cane Creek, Howell Rd., uncom- mon. Two nests were found in 1994, a single nest was discovered on 31 Mar 1995, and sev- eral others were found in 1996. The area be- neath the bridge and immediately upstream contained the only suitable habitat or cover within 200 m of the bridge. The spawning habitat consisted of several pieces of limestone rip-rap and small rocks. The area downstream has an extremely low flow rate and little un- dercut bank habitat. Riparian buffer zones ex- tend 1-2 m to either side, and siltation is ex- tremely high. Several silt-tolerant species were collected downstream including Ameiurus na- talis and Lepomis cyanellus. The area up- stream lacks a riparian zone; and tilled fields extend up to the stream’s edge. The popula- tion estimate for this site may be misleading, because all suitable habitat occurs immediate- ly below the bridge within a 5-6 m linear reach. We estimate that 20 darters occupy the sample area, most occurring in the vicinity of the limestone rip-rap. Site 16. Cane Creek, Coolie Rd., rare. This site was sampled three times and failed to yield any adult E. chienense. Two nests at- tached to the underside of a large wooden board were discovered on 2 May 1996, but no Relict Darter—Piller and Burr 71 males were guarding the eggs at the time of discovery. This site has been moderately de- veloped. A small 2-3 m buffer zone borders both sides of the creek. The creek averages 2— 3 m wide and is fairly shallow but probably maintains flow year round. Much woody de- bris is scattered throughout the stream, but little undercut bank habitat is present. Be- cause no darters were ever captured and only two unguarded nests were discovered, we es- timate that two darters occupy the site. Length-Frequency Estimation Length—-frequency estimates of all individ- uals captured from fall 1994 to spring 1996 revealed four age classes (Figure 3A). Sepa- rate length-frequency estimates were then de- termined for males (Figure 3B) and females (Figure 3C) from spring 1995 and 1996. Males were ca. 40 mm SL by age one and between 52 and 62 mm SL by age two. Age-three males ranged from ca. 63 to 76 mm SL. On the other hand, females were slightly smaller than males at each age class. Females were almost 35 mm SL by age one and ranged from 47 to 54 mm SL by age two. Age-three females were 55 to 68 mm SL. DISCUSSION Our results demonstrate that the distribu- tion and abundance of E. chienense are both a function of the availability of quality habitat and the amount of suitable spawning substra- ta. The most viable populations were found in reaches having gently flowing water, abundant undercut bank habitat, low silt load, and a suit- able quantity of spawning substrata or in- stream cover. Adults occurred almost exclu- sively in reaches with appropriate cover and spawning substrata and were absent or in low abundance at sites that lacked these features. It is difficult to ascribe aquatic-habitat deg- radation to one or even two sources, but chan- nelization and the removal of riparian vege- tation are two factors that have reduced hab- itat heterogeneity in streams of the midwest- ern and southeastern United States (Karr and Schlosser 1977: Schlosser 1991; Warren and Burr 1994: Williams et al. 1989). Channeliza- tion is a common and biologically controversial practice aimed primarily at controlling flood- ing and increasing drainage rate of agricultural land. Stream channelization has severely im- pacted Bayou du Chien by changing stream flow patterns, reducing in-stream flows, and decreasing aquatic habitat complexity. Historically, Bayou du Chien was presum- ably a free-flowing stream with alternating ar- eas of riffles, runs, and pools. Although a few of these reaches remain, much of the stream has been converted to a deep ditch with uni- form depth, velocity, and substrate. In times of high water or flooding, velocity rates are at their most extreme through channelized reaches of the stream. Straightening of the stream is aimed at increasing the drainage, but it also destroys and removes much of the in- stream cover. Many aquatic organisms cannot withstand increased flow rate and often seek alternative shelter during floods (Brookes 1988; Hynes 1970). Furthermore, channelized sections of stream often have little or no flow when water levels are below normal. Many aquatic organisms, including darters, prosper in flowing waters and cannot withstand stag- nant or low oxygenated waters. In addition, the removal of streamside veg- etation, a common practice associated with stream channelization, is executed to increase the amount of tillable agricultural land. Streamside vegetation is critical in maintaining water quality. First, the tree canopy normally shades the stream, thus helping to maintain normal water temperatures (Hansen 1971; Karr and Gorman 1975). Second, rooted bank- side vegetation assists in reducing bank ero- sion and stream turbidity by decreasing soil loss (Emerson 1971; Hansen 1971). Finally, woody vegetation provides allochthonous in- put into the stream and, most importantly, provides spawning substrate and cover for darters and other aquatic organisms. The major impacts of anthropogenic modi- fications on the North American ichthyofauna have been well documented. Burr and Warren (1986) noted that, in Kentucky, stream chan- nelization and the concomitant removal of woody vegetation have most negatively affect- ed streams in the lowland regions of the lower Green River and Coastal Plain, including Bay- ou du Chien. Several other studies, including those of Congdon (1971), Etnier (1972), and Trautman and Gartman (1974), have docu- mented the decrease of fish and invertebrate biomass following stream channelization. Although no pre-modification data are avail- q2 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) 20 Frequency 3S —+ 0 | --}——+—_fl 0 57) 10) 559208 25-30. 35") 405-45" 7 500 2555 (60) 5655 708 755 180 Length (mm SL) B 20 4 15 + a> F SO eo ive 5+ eA | Mle 0 Sy W107 lS 1 20'2255- 30) 350-40)" 45) 250) 55.60" 65-270 75780 Length (mm SL) c : 20 - Frequency = + 0+ t t t t + “= Os 5,102 SF 205725) 1300 S55 40 455 508555 160) 165 970580 Length (mm SL) Figure 3. Length—frequency graphs of Etheostoma chienense based on (A) all individuals captured 1994-1996, (B) males spring of 1995 and 1996, and (C) females spring 1995 and 1996 from the Bayou du Chien drainage, western Kentucky. Relict Darter—Piller and Burr 1s able for comparison, several reaches of stream within Bayou du Chien have been channelized and deforested to different degrees, thus al- lowing comparisons within the drainage. Eth- eostoma chienense is abundant at only one site in the drainage, Jackson Creek, an unchan- nelized stream with a wide (4-6 m) riparian zone. A plethora of woody debris at this site provides an abundance of spawning substrata, and consequently Jackson Creek harbors the most viable population of E. chienense. The species is considered common at four addi- tional localities. These sites have been mod- erately modified but still have adequate quan- tities of spawning materials and instream cov- er. At 11 of the remaining sample sites the species is rare or uncommon. Stream reaches such as those at South Fork Bayou du Chien, Pea Ridge Rd. (Site 3), and Bayou du Chien, Bard Rd (Site 5) have been radically modified and lack suitable riparian zones, and therefore contain low numbers of E. chienense. Welsch (1992) provided minimum require- ments for the reforestation of open lands and for the management of existing streamside buffer zones for the purpose of sediment re- moval, input of organic material into the stream, and maintenance of suitable water temperatures. According to these require- ments, streamside buffer zones should consist of three distinct zones. Zone 1, nearest the streambank, should be ca. 5 m in width and left unmanaged. It should consist of a mix of native riparian trees and shrubs that can pro- vide organic input into the stream in the form of leaf fall, large woody debris, and detritus. Zone 2 also should consist of native trees and shrubs but should have an average width of 20 m. The purpose of zone 2 is for filtration, de- nitrification, and sediment and nutrient re- moval from runoff. Zone 2, known as the man- aged forest zone, should have trees and shrubs periodically harvested to help maintain consis- tent vegetation growth. The runoff control zone (Zone 3) should be at the outward edge of zone 2 and average 6 m in width. The veg- etation should consist of grasses and shrubs that need to be periodically mowed or grazed to help maintain growth. As mentioned be- fore, the Bayou du Chien watershed is used presently for tillable agriculture; because of this, most of the streamside vegetation has been removed. Most sample sites on Bayou du Chien have a buffer zone of only 2-3 m rather than the 30 m proposed by Welsch (1992). An increase in the riparian zone of only 10 addi- tional meters could positively benefit the E. chienense population. The results of our length-frequency esti- mation indicate that the age groupings of E. chienense are similar to those reported for two other species of Catonotus, E. squamiceps (Page 1974) and E. olivaceum (Page 1980). Al- though age groupings here are comparable to what has been previously reported, age deter- mination by length-frequency estimation is of- ten unreliable (Jearld 1983). Without large sample sizes (500+ individuals) it is difficult to delineate age-classes because of overlap- ping groups among year classes. The low sam- ple sizes in our study weaken the reliability of the age-classes. STATUS, THREATS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS In our 2-year study, seven additional sites of occurrence of E. chienense were discovered; it is likely that other, intervening areas not sam- pled also harbor viable populations. Historic localities, including two sites near Moscow, Kentucky, still remain void of relict darters. Collections by Webb and Sisk in the 1970s are the only vouchered specimens this far down- stream; the species seems to be extirpated from these localities. Because the habitat is ex- tremely sluggish and swamplike, the occur- rence of E. chienense downstream of the Bay- ou du Chien, Rt. 239 bridge is extremely un- likely. At the time of the Warren et al. (1994) sur- vey, conducted in the fall, many of the small tributaries including Sand Creek, Rt. 307 and Cane Creek, Coolie Rd were totally dry or comprised of only isolated pools. Although several of these localities produced individuals during this study, it is likely that these inter- mittent streams contribute little to recruit- ment. In periods of low rainfall, nests may be- come desiccated because of low water levels, or young-of-the-year may become trapped in isolated pools and become subject to preda- tion by birds or other organisms. Etheostoma chienense is presently maintain- ing an effective population size; the potential for downlisting from federally endangered to federally threatened is conceivable in the fu- 74 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) ture. Several factors relevant to retention of the species endangered status include the fol- lowing: (1) two sites that yielded specimens for Webb and Sisk (1975), Bayou du Chien, Hwy. 239 and Little Bayou'du Chien, Hwy. 239 (Figure 1), failed to produce any speci- mens in our study; (2) range restriction of the species to only the upper reaches of the Bayou du Chien drainage; (3) the continuing effects of natural flooding and drought at several points along the stream, including drying of small tributaries during times of low flow; (4) evidence of pesticide and sediment runoff; (5) potential for heavy predation of larval E. chi- enense in the primary nesting areas (Piller 1996); (6) potential for further habitat alter- ation (i.e., dredging, snag removal, channeli- zation, reduction of buffer zones); and, most importantly, (7) the lack of knowledge regard- ing the degree of recruitment of individuals into the population. No larval E. chienense were discovered in our study, and only a few juveniles were captured in late spring and ear- ly summer. After determining the habitat of larval E. chienense and the degree of recruit- ment into the existing population, an informed decision regarding endangered or threatened status should be made. Etheostoma chienense has persisted in spite of various threats, but it cannot be assumed that its viability will remain indefinitely. A sin- gle toxic chemical spill into Jackson Creek or an extremely dry spring and summer could have devastating effects on population num- bers. We recommend that the following steps be implemented and that E. chienense be monitored for several years. 1. Known sites of occurrence should be sam- pled periodically to determine trends in distribution and population abundance. 2. Habitat preferences of juvenile and larval E. chienense should be determined. AlI- though we have documentation that nest- ing occurs at several localities in the upper reaches of the drainage, the biology of lar- vae is unknown, and consequently recruit- ment estimates are lacking. 3. Habitat quality should be maintained throughout the drainage. The proper au- thorities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- sources) should attempt to closely monitor the entire drainage and limit the number of permits granted to snag, channelize, or modify the existing watershed. 4. In the future, voluntary planting of woody riparian vegetation should be done along stream banks to help decrease sedimenta- tion, to provide suitable habitat for terres- trial organisms, and, most importantly, to provide spawning substrata for relict dart- ers should be strongly suggested to private landowners. The specifications proposed by Welsch (1992) are perhaps unrealistic for the Bayou du Chien. The entire watershed is in private ownership, with agriculture be- ing the primary use of the watershed. The creation of large buffer zones, even an in- crease of 10 m of woody streamside vege- tation, would almost certainly be beneficial to the species. 5. Spawning substrate (i.e., ceramic tiles) should be added annually. As shown pre- viously (Piller and Burr n.d.), the artificial spawning substrate provides an effective management tool that increases nest pro- ductivity and presumably enhances survi- vorship and recruitment. Seeding stream reaches throughout the upper portion of the drainage for several consecutive years may significantly increase or at least main- tain current population numbers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the following for assistance in the field: D.J. Eisenhour, A.B. Mowery, T.R. Piller, R.M. Strange, W.J. Poly, J.M. Maushard, K.M. Cook, Z.U. Campbell, M.J. De Jesus, and A.K. Wilson. Funding for this project was made possible through a grant from the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to B.M. Burr. This article is a portion of an orig- inal thesis by K.R. Piller submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Science at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. LITERATURE CITED Biggins, R. G. 1993. Endangered species status for the relict darter (Etheostoma chienense) and bluemask dart- er (Etheostoma (Doration) sp.). Fed. Reg. 58(26): 8480-68486. 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 Relict Darter—Piller and Burr D group. Occas. Papers Mus. Natl. Hist., Univ. Kansas 119:1-83. Brookes, A. 1988. Channelized rivers: perspective for en- vironmental management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Burr, B.M., and M.L. Warren Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Comm. Sci. Tech. Ser. 4. Congdon, J.C. 1971. Fish populations of channelized and unchannelized sections of the Chariton River, Missouri. Pages 52-62 in E. Schneberger and J.L. Funk (eds). Stream channelization: a symposium. Spec. Publ. 2, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Omaha, NB. Emerson, ].W. 1971. Channelization: a case study. Science 173: 325-326. Etnier, D.A.1972. The effect of annual rechanneling on a stream fish population. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101:372- 375. Hansen, D.R. 1971. Stream channelization effects of fish- es and bottom fauna in the Little Sioux River, Iowa. Pages 29-51 in E. Schneberger and J.L. Funk (eds). Stream channelization: a symposium. Spec. Publ. 2, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Omaha, NB. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. Ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. Jearld, JN [fie 1983. Age Determination. Pages 301-324 in L.A. Nielson and D.L. Johnson (eds). Fisheries tech- niques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fish- es of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Karr, J.R., and O.T. Gorman. 1975. Effects of land treat- ment in the aquatic environment. Pages 120-150 in R.G. Christensen (ed). Non-point pollution seminar. EPA 905/9-75-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. Karr, J.R., and LJ. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream morphology on water quality and stream biota. EPA 600/3-77-097, Ecological Research Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. Kuehne, R.A., and R.W. Barbour. 1983. The American darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Page, L.M. 1974. The life-history of the spottail darter, Etheostoma squamiceps, in Big Creek, Illinois, and Fer- guson Creek, Kentucky. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Biol. Notes 89:1-20. Page, L.M. 1980. The life-histories of Etheostoma oliva- ceum and Etheostoma striatulum, two species of darters in central Tennessee. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Biol. Notes 113:1-14. Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. T.F.H. Publica- tions, Neptune City, NJ. 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. Piller, K.R. 1996. Distribution, population estimates, nest- ing biology, and spawning habitat improvement of the relict darter, Etheostoma chienense, Bayou du Chien, Kentucky. M.S. thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL. Piller, K.R., and B.M. Burr. n.d. Reproductive biology and spawning habitat supplementation of the relict darter, Etheostoma chienense, a federally endangered species. Symposium. Behavior and fish conservation: case stud- ies and applications. Env. Biol. Fishes. In press. Schlosser, [.J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape per- spective. Bioscience 41:704—712. Trautman, M.B., and D.K. Gartman. 1974. Re-evaluation of the effects of man-made modifications on Gordon Creek between 1887 and 1973 and especially as regards its fish fauna. Ohio J. Sci. 74:162-173. Warren, M.L., Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of fresh- water fishes of the United States: overview of an im- periled fauna. Fisheries 19:6-19. Warren, M.L., Jr, B.M. Burr, and C.A. Taylor. 1994. The relict darter, Etheostoma chienense (Percidae): status review of a Kentucky endemic. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 55:20—27. Webb, D.H., and M.E. Sisk. 1975. The fishes of west Ken- tucky. III. The fishes of the Bayou du Chien. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 36:63-70. Welsch, D.J. 1992. Riparian forest buffers: function and design for protection and enhancement of water re- sources. Forest Service, Northeastern Area, USDA, Randor, PA. Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S$. Con- treras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14:2—20. ]. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(1):76-92. 1998. The Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky: Design and Fabrication of a Research Instrument for Undergraduate Faculty and Student Research in Radio Frequency Astrophysics Benjamin Malphrus, Eric Thomas, Michael Combs, Brian Lewis, Bob Ratliff, Brian Roberts, Chad Pulliam, Jennifer Carter, John Pelfrey, Dara Preece, and Viju Hullur Morehead Astrophysical Observatory, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 Russell Brengelman, David Cutts, and Charles Whidden Department of Physical Sciences, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 Rodney Stanley, Robert Hayes, and William Grise Department of Industrial Education and Technology, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 Drew Henderson Information Technology, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 Daniel Puckett ACE Engineering, Morehead, Kentucky 40351 and Jeff Kruth Kruth-Microwave Electronics, Hanover, Maryland 21076 ABSTRACT Faculty and students of the Departments of Physical Sciences and Industrial Education and Technology at Morehead State University have designed and assembled the Morehead Radio Telescope (MRT) to provide a research instrument for undergraduate astronomy and physics students and an active laboratory for physics, engineering, and computer science undergraduates and faculty. The telescope functions as a research and educational instrument for undergraduate students, faculty, and science teachers throughout Kentucky. The goals of the MRT program are to enhance curricula in physics, physical science, electronics, and science education programs by serving to provide (1) a research instrument for investigations in astronomy and astro- physics; (2) an active laboratory in astronomy, physics, electrical engineering, and computer science; and (3) a research instrument and laboratory for science teacher education and in-service programs. The telescope in- corporates a modular design in which components may be easily removed for use in laboratory investigations and in student research and design projects. The performance characteristics of the telescope allow a varied and in-depth scientific program. The sensitivity and versatility of the telescope design facilitate the investigation of a wide variety of astrophysically interesting phenomena. The MRT provides hands-on experience in research and instrumentation technology in a cutting-edge science, one that is in the midst of scientific revolution. INTRODUCTION was achieved on 12 Oct 1996. An overview of The design of the Morehead Radio Tele- the MRT instrumentation, detailed descrip- scope (MRT), Morehead State University _ tion of major subsystems (antenna, alt-azimuth (MSU), Morehead, Kentucky, provides an in- drive and control systems, optoisolator circuit- strument capable of supporting scientific re- ry, receiver systems, and controlling computer search in observational astrophysics at radio and interface), theoretical performance char- frequencies. The design and fabrication of the _ acteristics, intended scientific programs, and basic MRT systems are complete; first light project significance is provided herein. 76 Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. oN mae pet ea A < Nh a iia z Waveguide System Focal Feed S rt Ney ed Suppo = Waveguide to Coax Transition SAY, Front-End Receiver Astronomer (to scale) Limit switches Dimensions and Motion 44 ft * 11 ft (13.42 m * 3.35 m) Reflecting Surface: Total Surface Area: Focal Distance: Moving Weight: Total Weight: 3.50m 1,155 kg 4,527 kg Positioner: Elevation Range: Azimuth Range: Slew Rates: 0 Degrees to 90 Degrees 20 min/360Degrees Az. 10 min/ 90 Degrees El. Automated tracking and transit modes Data Collection: Figure 1. Morehead Radio Telescope (MRT), Morehead 409 ft squared (38m squared) Cal. Reflecting Surface Precision Clinometer t 17 Zh — Superstructure LSS = Elevation Axis and Bearings YT ae Elevation Stop Block Counterweights Elevation Control Box Elevation Postioning System Azimuth Indicator East End Access Panel Pedistal: Azimuth Drive System Translators Power Supplies Optical Encoders Opto-isolator Circuitry Supporting Electronics Automated Az.-alt. system 0 Degrees to 360 Degrees State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Morehead Radio Telescope systems and subassemblies. Major systems and subassemblies are identified in the diagram as well as di- mensions of the instrument and positioning characteristics. 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, controlling computer sorta an interface device, and supporting electronics and hardware (Fig- ure 1). 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, modi- fied, and interpreted. The MRT system is con- trolled by a Macintosh IIsi controlling com- puter and utilizes a National Instruments Lab NB interface board, optical isolation system, and robotic drive and control systems devel- oped by MSU faculty and students. The con- trolling computer positions the telescope, in- structs it in robotic tracking of cosmic sources, and controls data collection and storage. The data from a particular experiment are then transferred via ftp to a Sun Sparcstation for imaging and analysis (Malphrus et al. 1992). Antenna The MRT employs a high-gain, 40-foot an- tenna designed for L-Band operation. A sur- plused Army NIKE-Hercules ANS-17 radar antenna was obtained and modified for radio astronomy applications. The antenna was se- lected because of its large aperture, excellent aperture efficiency (afforded by its innovative offset feed design), and low cost. The original system included a parabolic reflector, antenna feed horn, waveguide system, and azimuth po- sitioning system. The unmodified positioning system provided azimuth coverage of 360 de- 78 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Mac IIsi Controlling Computer Decoder Position Indication System De O) Figure 2. Azimuth Translator _ Drive and 1] Control Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. MRT azimuth control and drive system. This schematic diagram outlines drive and control system as well as the indication system designed to position the telescope in azimuth. grees at a continuous antenna rotation speed of six revolutions per minute. The main purpose of the antenna system is to track objects in space and to collect and concentrate radio signals from space. These radio signals are then focused by the reflector to a single focal point on the antenna horn where a waveguide system transmits the elec- tromagnetic wave to a terminus at which the front-end receiver is located. A probe inserted into the waveguide to coax transition converts the electric field of the radio wave to an elec- trical signal via electromagnetic induction. The electrical signal is then amplified and condi- tioned by the receiver front-end, which then sends the data to the back-end receiver and controlling computer to be further condi- tioned and analyzed. Azimuth and Elevation Drive and Control Sys- tems Positioning the telescope is accomplished by alt-azimuth and elevation drive and control systems designed and built by MSU faculty and students and Automation Concepts and Engineering (ACE). The systems utilize a common controlling computer and interface board, independent electromechanical drive- train, and positioning control systems. A block diagram of the azimuth drive and control sys- tems is provided in Figure 2. The azimuth drive system incorporates a translator, stepper motor, and gearing system that drives a 6-foot diameter bull gear inside a rotating turret to which the telescope superstructure, antenna, and feed support system (the moving compo- nents of the telescope) are attached. The el- evation drive system incorporates a more rad- ical rod-and-reel type design. A fixed axle is positioned at the center of gravity of the mov- ing component of the telescope. The axle is affixed to rotating couplers located on top of a supporting elevation positioning assembly. Motion in elevation is accomplished by con- trolling the motion about this axle with a rod- and-reel assembly positioned at the base. Ca- bles attached to pick points on the focal feed support structure are reeled in and out around a rod driven by the elevation control assembly. The elevation control assembly consists of a translator, stepper motor, gearing, and cou- pling system that control the rotation of the rod, motion of the cables, and ultimately mo- tion of the telescope about the elevation axis (Figure 3) (Malphrus 1996). Multiple-Use Systems Macintosh IIsi controlling computer. The Macintosh controlling computer is a standard Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 79 Mac IIsi Controlling Computer | Position Indication | System Precision Bi-axial Clinometer Saag Tar Ee Figure 3. Opto- Isolators = Elevation Translator Drive and Control Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. MRT elevation control and drive system. This schematic diagram outlines drive and control system as well as the indication system designed to position the telescope in elevation. microcomputer that utilizes a Motorola 6040 microprocessor and has 16 MB of RAM and 1 GB of hard disk memory with a mathematics co-processor. A multi-function analog, digital, and timing I/O (input/output) board is in- stalled in the computer. It contains a 12-bit, successive approximation A/D converter with eight analog inputs, two 12-bit D/A converters with voltage outputs, 24 lines of transistor- transistor logic compatible I/O, and three counter/timer channels for timing I/O. The multifunction interface board is controlled by LabVIEW, a software system featuring inter- active graphics, a state-of-the-art user inter- face, and a powerful graphical programming language “G.” This software is used (1) to send the input pulses to both the azimuth and el- evation translators; (2) to move the telescope; (3) to analyze the data collected from the op- tical encoder and clinometer; and (4) to collect data from the receiver system. The signal path from the controlling computer to the drive and positioning systems is outlined in Figure 4. Interface board. A National Instruments LAB-NB Interface Board is used to interface the computer with the electromechanical hardware. It is used primarily to interface the computer's I/O board with the hard wiring of the telescope’s drive, control, and receiver sys- tems. Optoisolators. The optoisolators are elec- tronic circuits designed and built by MSU stu- dents and faculty and ACE Engineering. The purpose of the optoisolators is to isolate high voltage components of the system from low voltage components of the system. There are two types of optoisolators: transmitters, which transmit the signals from low voltage circuits, and receivers, which receive the signals from high voltage circuits. A system of optoisolators is incorporated into the drive and control cir- cuitry for total optical isolation. A schematic diagram of the MRT optoisolator system as wired is given in Figure 5. Drive and Control Systems zimuth translator. The azimuth transla- tor is a self-contained unit incorporating the power circuits and logic elements needed for bi-directional control of a stepper motor. The azimuth translator was designed and built by MSU students in cooperation with ACE En- gineering. It can be triggered by pulses from an internal oscillator or from an external pulse source and will drive the motor at a rate of up to 1,000 steps per second. The unit can be 80 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) Azimuth Signal Drive MAC II Si CABLE | CABLE 2 CABLE 3 CABLE7 CABLE 8 Elevation Signal Drive CABLE | CABLE 2 CABLE 3 CABLE 7 CABLE 16 MAC II Si Return Signal From Clinometer CABLE 18 CABLE 2 CABLE 1 Clinometer Return Signal From Encoder CABLE 18 CABLE 3 TS2 Terminal Strip 2 OT1 Optoisolator Circut IB1 Interface Block 1 Figure 4. CABLE 2 CABLE 1 MAC II Si TLI1 Translator 1 TL2 Translator 2 M1 Motor | M2 Motor 2 Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Telescope drive and posi- tioning systems signal path. This schematic diagram summarizes the signal path for the azimuth drive signal, the elevation drive signal, the return signal from the elevation clinometer, and the return signal from the azimuth encoder. operated in ambient temperatures from 0°C to +40°C. The azimuth translator is used to control the azimuth stepper motor; a similar elevation translator is used to control the el- evation stepper motor. Stepper motors. The SLO-SYN stepper motors operate as phase-switched DC motors. The motor shaft advances 200 steps per rev- olution (1.8° per step) when a four-step input sequence (full-step mode) is used and 400 steps per revolution (0.9° per step) when an eight-step input sequence is used. Logic de- vices are normally used for switching the speeds. Counterclockwise rotation is obtained 81 Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. ‘sos.ins 1amod a[qeilsopun sulese pus-yorq aq} yojoid 0} 1dAtada1 puo-yuoy 980} [0A ysry oy} WO Iojyoautooods puv aloo. pud-yorq IBLIOA-MO] ayy JPLOSI Aqpeando oO} poustsop St MOAT 10}e,0s10}do ay Moro 1oyrjos1o}dG, ‘Ayon}UOy ‘pRaya1oyy ‘APSAIIATU 9321S peoyoioy “(LYIN) adoosafay, oIpey proys1oyy “CG aInsy 07 Md = CND 0761 SLLI 91 SI pt el 201 O1 Ud = As+ 0000000000 7 Adans sobod'sitSd 0000000000 1Td = GND 1 Ud = As+ 1 Aiddns Mog = [Sd edoosefay, wory mdu] 61 8h Lb aL pOS TPL 8 GOL LL CL SL WL Ob LE SL eL OL AS+ @Sd 6 OL LL CLE! vIL SL Ob Oto Sh pL Sb 2b Joyndarog oy nding 0¢ Wd = GND 0261 SILI 91 SI HL El ZIT O1 Md = Ast 0000000000 2 Aiddas saMod = 2S 0000000000 IT =aNo 1 Wd = Ast ol6é 8 LYS bETT 1 Addins smog = 1§d saqndueg wor] yduy Ob Vb EL 2b 6 OL LL ZLEL vl SL OL 6 OL LL CL EL WE Sb OL 6} 8b 21 9b edooseiqy, 0} sing 82 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) by reversing the order of the switching steps of the clockwise rotation. Gear reduction system. The gear reduc- tion system utilizes precision-built parallel shaft speed reducers specifically designed to provide long, trouble-free service on heavy- duty, low speed, high torque applications. They are directly coupled to the stepper mo- tors in the drive trains of both axes. For the azimuth system, three speed reducers with ra- tios 12.5:1, 30:1, and 10:1 are coupled back to back to provide a gear reduction of 3,750:1. This elaborate gear reduction system allows the drive train to move the azimuth axis of the telescope at the rate of one revolution per 23 hours 56 minutes (sidereal day) in the tracking mode and at the rate of one revolution in 25 minutes in the slew mode. One speed reducer with ratio of 15:1 is incorporated into the el- evation system and is sufficient to drive the telescope at an appropriate tracking rate and at a slew rate of 10° per minute. Position Indication Systems Azimuth indication system. The azimuth indication system is based on measuring the rotation of an axle in the drive system with an optical incremental shaft encoder. The optical incremental shaft encoder is a noncontacting, rotary-to-digital, position feedback device mounted on the azimuth drive shaft at the stepper motor assembly. The internal mono- lithic electronic module converts the real-time shaft position angle, speed, and direction into TTL-compatible outputs. The encoder is used to count the rotations of the stepper motor shaft. This datum basically provides feedback as it is used to determine if the shaft rotation count is equal to the number of pulses sent to the stepper motor. The number of steps per degree of sky was empirically determined for the azimuth system. The resulting indication system provides feedback for the telescope position in azimuth to an accuracy of 0.10° and allows the telescope to position itself to any desired azimuth. Elevation indication system. The elevation indication system is based on precisely mea- suring the tilt of the antenna focal plane with a high-precision biaxial clinometer. The Model 9000 precision biaxial clinometer developed by Applied Geomechanics is a low-cost biaxial clinometer designed for a wide variety of in- dustrial and scientific applications (Figure 6). A precision electrolytic transducer comprises the sensing element. It has two orthogonal tilt angles (X and Y tilt) and one temperature channel as its output channels. The unit has an operating temperatue range of = 10° ‘to +50°C. The clinometer is mounted on the parabolic reflector of the MRT, and one of the orthogonal tilt angles (Y tilt) is used for ele- vation positioning. As the antenna is moved from the local horizon to the zenith, the elec- trolytic transducer’s voltage changes accord- ingly; this value is collected by the computer, and the software converts this value to the de- grees to determine precisely the inclination of the antenna. MRT Receiver System Overview. The MRT receiver system de- sign and fabrication program was a joint effort between MSU faculty and Kruth-Microwave Electronics Company (K-MEC). The program to design, fabricate, and test a complete radio astronomy receiver system for the reception of signals in the 1,420 MHz region was under- taken in 1993 and completed in 1995. A mod- ular, flexible approach was chosen to permit simple upgrades as evolving experimentation needs require. Standard microwave/RF com- ponents were used where possible to reduce development time and to increase reliability. Custom low-noise amplifiers were built to mate with existing antenna feed assemblies. Initial design work was performed by MSU faculty; all additional work was performed at the Maryland facilities of K-MEC. The system design is comprised of a single receiver with integral low noise amplifier directly mated to the existing waveguide flange of the MRT an- tenna. System design. The overall receiver sys- tem design utilizes a low noise, sensitive, sta- ble receiver to convert the 1,420 MHz hydro- gen line frequency to a frequency region suit- able for processing by standard laboratory equipment. A DC voltage derived from an en- velope detector is incorporated in the final stage. In this context, low noise means less than 100 K. Ultimately, a noise factor of 40 K was attained for the receiver system. Tradi- tionally, this would have required cryogenic cooling of the first stage semiconductor am- plifier. However, advances in GaAs FET tech- Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 83 Ground Black X-output Green Y-output Blue Temperature Figure 6. Transducer ICs ee june 5-pin header Signal and Power Connection Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Biaxial precision clinometer basic diagram. A high precision biaxial clinometer is utilized in the elevation positioning feed-back system. As the instrument tilts in elevation, the level of an electrolytic liquid contained in a vial on the circuit board changes accord- ingly. This change in liquid level causes a corresponding change in potential difference among the electrodes in the vile. The circuit board then interprets this potential difference as a position angle. nology allowed the fabrication of amplifiers with 35 K noise temperatures with the device junctions at room temperature (Kruth 1994). The MRT receiver system incorporates a low noise Amplifier (LNA) that utilizes a field effect transistor (FET). The system is com- prised of two major subsystems: the front and back-end receiver systems. The front-end re- ceiver is mounted at the waveguide terminus mounted on the focal feed support of the MRT superstructure. A back-end, intermedi- ate frequency (IF) processor consisting of one channel of 160-21.4 MHz and one channel of 21.4-1 MHz conversion is utilized for back- end processing with associated power sup- plies, monitor circuitry, and controlling com- puter. A block diagram of the overall system design is provided in Figure 7. Major receiver components include the following: LNA as- sembly, assembled with front-end receiver; re- ceiver down converter, 1,420 MHz to 160 MHz; W] IFC-162 160 MHz to 21.4 MHz IF converter; 21.4 MHz to baseband IF proces- sor; Fluke 6160 synthesizer for microwave os- cillator control; 5 MHz frequency standard; power supply/housing for IF processor; and miscellaneous RF circuitry, cabling, filters, at- tenuators, etc. A triple conversion system is used with a first IF of 160 MHz and a bandwidth at the first IF of 23 MHz. The second conversion translates to a frequency of 21.4 MHz, with a bandwidth of 1 MHz. The frequency of 21.4 MHz is a standard IF for surveillance radios and one for which a great variety of filters (both crystal and LC) is available, so the IF 84 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) RCVR DWN-CNV Cable Bundle SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM Figure Tf Power Supply + Control IF PROCESSOR = Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. MRT receiver system block diagram. This schematic diagram outlines the major components of the front-end and back-end receiver systems. bandwidth can be easily modified. The final conversion is to baseband, essentially DC-1 MHz. This final conversion is easily modifiable to allow a flexible choice of final IF before detection. This strategy permits direct digiti- zation (FFT processing on PC based plat- forms) as well as experimentation with parallel filter bank approaches. The receiver system consists of two major components: (1) Remote receiver front-end containing RF circuitry de- signed to down convert the 1,420 MHz band to 160 MHz; and (2) The back-end receiver, consisting of monitor circuitry for the con- verter, additional IF converter stages, refer- ence oscillator for coherent locking of the re- ceiver front-ends, and additional test equip- ment. A key feature of this system is that all of the frequency generation components used in the various conversion stages are phase locked to common reference frequency. This reference source consists of a high-quality, 5 MHz, tem- perature-compensated crystal oscillator and associated buffer amplifiers. Additionally, the 5 MHz source can be derived from a rubidium or cesium beam clock, affording the utmost in stability and accuracy, if such a source be- comes available. A commercial synthesizer drives the phase-locked oscillator in the re- mote receivers and, in turn, is locked to the 5 MHz standard. The use of a common refer- ence frequency scheme such as this permits the remote receiver to be locked on the re- ceive channel, regardless of external pertur- bations, e.g., weather conditions and seasonal temperature. This is particularly desirable in the event that a second receiver is added to the system for the purpose of interferometric measurements. This design will permit the phase coherent manipulation of the signals from the down converter box (second receiv- er) for interferometry-based observations and experimentation. A more detailed discussion of the circuitry and theory of operation of the front-end and back-end receivers is provided below. Front-end receiver. The front-end receiver consists of the LNA, image reject band-pass filter, mixer, IF pre-amplifier, IF roofing filter, level set variable attenuator, IF post-amplifier, local oscillator, and required power supply regulators and control circuitry (Figure 8). The front-end receiver is housed in a box suit- able for outdoor mounting at the terminus of the waveguide mounted on the antenna focal feed support structure (Kruth 1994). High electron mobility transistor (HEMT) FET devices are used for the first stage, fol- lowed by GaAs FET gain blocks. The device utilized for the first stage application is the Nip- Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 85 AVANTEK PREAMP pOSTAMP AVANTEK POSTAMP TO ALL COMPONENTS POWER SUPPLY Figure 8. ATTN. 160 MHZ 160 MHZ OUTPUT = L.O. SAMPLE PLO O REFERENCE INPUT O PHASE LOCK INDICATOR 22-30 VDC INPUT Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Front-end receiver diagram. This schematic diagram illustrates the major components of the front-end receiver system. The front-end receiver is a superheterodyne receiver designed around a low noise amplifier that utilizes an extremely low noise high electron mobility field effect transistor. pon Electric Company (NEC) NE32684AF ultra-low noise pseudomorphic hetero-junc- tion FET. This device has a measured noise figure of 0.3 dB (approximately 30 K) at room temperature, with an associated gain of 22 dB at 1,400 MHz. This value represents excellent performance. Care in the amplifier design and fabrication was exercised to preserve these val- ues. The first stage amplifier achieves 0.5 dB noise figure and 18 dB gain using this device. The design of the input matching stage for this amplifier is critical as any losses from mis- match or attenuation may directly degrade the noise figure. A simple circuit incorporating the WG-microstrip transition is utilized, with a single tuned circuit response. With this ap- proach, it is not possible to provide much fil- tering, so a filter is added between the follow- ing stages. This stage is followed by an Avantek pack- aged gain block pair consisting of a UT02012 and a UT02013 amplifier cascade. This com- bination provides good gain (20 dB), excellent intercept point (P-sat = +21 dBm fundamen- tal), and a modest noise figure of 2.5 dB. This effectively controls the noise figure degrada- tion due to second stage contribution. Due to the high gain and wideband nature of the first stage amplifier, a front-end pre-selection filter is necessary to block out terrestrial interfer- ence. This interference is from diverse sources such as TACAN, radar, cellular phone har- monics, INMARSAT uplinks, and others. The bandwidth of the selected filter is on the order of 150 MHz, centered at 1,420 MHz; the in- sertion loss is 2 dB. A standard double-bal- anced mixer is used for the first converter stage. A standard drive level type is appropri- ate to this application; the conversion loss is 6 dB. The 160 MHz IF amplifiers are of conven- tional design. A coaxial bandpass filter is used to establish the bandwidth of the first con- verter system. Since the desired bandwidth is 2 MHz, a filter of at least five times this value must be used to permit future expansion of the experimental system. The bandwidth of the system is preserved down to the final stage; it is possible to use wider filters should experimental needs require. A 2 MHz filter is 86 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) used to preserve the 2 MHz system bandwidth all the way down to final detection. The level set attenuator that is included in the design allows manual control of the gain of the receiver in order to coarsely equalize the gain of the two receivers when used to- gether. Fine gain is controlled in the IF pro- cessor system. The calculated end-to-end gain of the front-end is 68 dB. The calculated noise figure is 0.535 dB based on a 0.5 dB first stage and a 2.5 dB second stage. An overall noise figure of <0.4 dB (approximately 40 K), was attained. The local oscillator, a phase-locked (PLO) cavity tuned type made by California Micro- wave, utilizes a “brick” style oscillator. This os- cillator is a fundamental L band cavity using a low noise bi-polar transistor as the oscillator element. It incorporates a reference multipli- er/harmonic mixer arrangement to permit locking. The oscillator is driven by a synthe- sizer at 105.0835 MHz and, as the PLO as- sumes the phase noise and stability character of the oscillator directly, a reference signal of high quality is therefore produced. The front-end receiver package is housed in a waterproof aluminum box approximately 12 in’, with all electrical connections made on one face. Thermal insulation and heating blan- kets are used to provide a relatively constant temperature environment for the outdoor re- ceiver unit. An integral power supply that op- erates from 22-30 VDC, and uses well-fil- tered, regulated DC-DC converters provides the various voltages required by the system. This permits a single low-voltage feed to the receiver package, for simplicity and safety. Back-end receiver. The back-end receiver is comprised of a synthesizer used to generate reference signals for the down-converter, an IF processor with crystal oscillator for condi- tioning of the IF signal, a down-converter power supply, an optoisolation system, a con- trolling computer, and interface device. A high-quality Fluke synthesizer that can gen- erate the 105 MHz range reference signal for the receiver converters is incorporated into the back-end receiver system. This is an ad- aptation of the popular 6160A series that has been modified to use an external 5 MHz stan- dard. The output of the remote receiver at 160 MHz is transmitted by low loss 50 ohm coaxial cable to the indoor rack. Here the signal is buffered and split. A sample of the 160 MHz “wideband” IF is available on the front panel of the control box. The other leg of the power splitter is applied to the 160-21.4 MHz IF converter system. This system element used is a Watkins-Johnson IFC-162 IF converter module, a self-contained system. This device converts the signal to a frequency of 21.4 MHz without degrading the signal-to-noise ra- tio. The internal crystal oscillator used to con- vert the signal was modified so that the signal can be phase-locked to the reference 5 MHz oscillator. Refer to Figure 9 for a schematic diagram of the back-end receiver (Kruth 1994). Additional filtering is then used to establish the desired final bandwidth before detection. The final conversion brings the 21.4 MHz down to “baseband” by beating against a crys- tal-controlled oscillator. The frequency of the synthesized oscillator can be changed, along with the 21.4 MHz filtering, to allow obser- vations at different bandwidths at the final de- tection stage. Buffered sample ports are avail- able at all pertinent points in the signal path for access to the signal. This is a useful feature for built-in tests as well as experimentation. The complete receiver system concept is shown in block diagram form in Figure 7, which provides an overview of the intercon- nection of the various system elements. A reg- ulated high current supply provides 26 VDC nominal for operating the outdoor receiver package. A calibrated semiconductor noise source is incorporated into the front-end LNA wave- guide port of the receiver package to inject a precise amount of excess noise for calibration purposes. A precision coupler and attenuator is used to precisely set the injection level of the noise source into the first amplifier. The coupler was manufactured as part of the am- plifier to minimize the impact of additional in- sertion loss. In fact, the scheme used did not noticeably denigrate the noise temperature. MRT Operator Program The computer operator program developed for the MRT is responsible for positioning the telescope in azimuth and elevation, tracking of cosmic objects as the sky apparently rotates, determining telescope position in altitude and azimuth via independent feedback loops, and controlling data collection and storage in ad- Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 87 21.4 MHz SAMPLE WJ IFC-162 LF. SAMPLE WIDEBAND 160 MHZ OUTPUT I.F. PROCESSOR Figure 9. 2MHZ BPF WIDEBAND 21.4MHZ OUTPUT BASEBAND OUTPUT TO DETECTOR 4MHZ LPF Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. Intermediate frequency (IF) processor block diagram. The IF processor is designed around an internal crystal oscillator phase-locked to an external reference 5 MHz oscillator. The 160 MHz IF signal is mixed with the internally generated signal and down-converted to 21.4 MHz. The final conversion brings the 21.4 MHz signal down to baseboard by beating against a controlled crystal oscillator. The synthesized oscillator can be adjusted to allow different bandwidths at the final detection stage. dition to controlling additional experimental parameters. The initial design of the control- ling program was developed by MSU students and faculty. The program has evolved from its initial design in order to compensate for op- erational characteristics of the positioning sys- tems, which have developed as these systems have matured. This evolution has been carried out by students, along with MSU staff, after performing operational tests of the positioning system components. The controlling program has been devel- oped with the Labview Virtual Instrumenta- tion software package, which provides a graph- ical programming environment “G,” with built in accessibility to the functions of the National Instruments LAB NB interface card. The graphically intensive language “G” is ideally suited to the production of programs used in data collection and analysis as it was initially designed to communicate with interface tech- nologies. Virtual instruments developed with this package actually mimic hardware compo- nents such as spectrum analyzers and oscillo- scopes by conditioning the signal in exactly the same way that the hardware counterpart would. This package reduces the need for ex- pensive and space-consuming hardware. The program determines positioning re- quirements based on the current Universal Time, as well as the destination coordinates (right ascension and declination) provided by the operator. After determining the local si- dereal time based on this input data, and con- verting the coordinates of the object of inter- est to its current azimuth and altitude, the op- erator program provides the necessary control signals to the azimuth and elevation translators via digital I/O ports on the interface card. The necessary positional accuracy is achieved by monitoring the azimuth encoder and elevation clinometer. Positional accuracy of 0.10 arcde- grees is achieved via this feedback loop. The operator program performs transit op- erational mode by positioning the antenna to the target location, then monitoring the analog signal from the receiver. Tracking mode ad- ditionally incorporates an algorithm to monitor the deviance of the antenna’s position from the desired position, with the intention of achieving the aforementioned positional ac- curacy. It was necessary for the operator pro- gram to evolve based on experiments per- formed with the mechanical elements of the positioning system. The number of TTL puls- es required to position the telescope in ele- vation and azimuth was determined empiri- cally from numerous experiments. These val- ues were then programmed into the program to automate positioning of the telescope. Schematics of the major components and al- 88 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) ogrithms of the operator program are provid- ed in Figures 10 through 12. THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE CHAR- ACTERISTICS OF THE MRT The minimum detectable flux density, the weakest detectable radio frequency signal from space (As,,,,, ), expressed in Janskys (1 Jansky = 10° wm” Hz ') may be calculated (Kraus 1986): A ge KSI where: AS,,,,. = minimum detectable flux density Ks = receiver constant (= 1) T.,, = system temperature K = Boltzman’s constant (1.38-10-°3J-K~') €,, = aperture efficiency (0 < €,, < 1) dimensionless A = aperture area (m?) Av = pre-detection bandwidth in Hz At = post-detection integration time Values for the MRT subsystems are ob- tained from laboratory measurements of the MRT front-end receiver furnished by Kruth Microwave Electronics Corporation (K- MEC); values for the antenna system are taken from AORG (1968). The following val- ues are substituted: Ta Olean Av = 2-10° MHz Ks = 1 Cae 00 A = 38 m? These values produce a value of 5.35 * 10° = 5.35 Janskys assuming a one-second post- detection integration time. The total system temperature (T,,,) includ- ing noise contributions due to the waveguide and other factors is described by (Kraus 1986): Se a ast T_,L(1/e) — 1] + (1/e) Ty where: T,,, = system temperature T, = antenna temperature T,,, = physical temperature of waveguide € = transmission efficiency T, = receiver temperature Values: T, = 40.31° (from Kruth Microwave Electronics Corp. K-MEC) € = 0.9923 (from MDL Component) Book (Waveguide Manufacturer) For WR-650, Aluminum Loss* 0.233 dB/100 at 1,421 MHz 15’ of W.G. = 0.3345 dB loss Assume for dipole array efficiency = 50% Efficiency of WG = 10(—loss/10) = 10(—0.03345/10) = 0.9923 T,, = 290° T, = 25° (see below) The antenna temperature (T,) was calculated in the following manner (5): T, = 3K (3K cosmic microwave background radiation) 3K (atmosphere) 2K (scattering from feed support structure) 2K (diffraction spillover to ground) 5K (Ohmic losses) 10K | haere (scattering by inappropriate surface geometry) Applying these values gives: T,, = 25° + 2.242° + 40.31° = 67.73° Solving for the minimum detectable cosmic temperature: Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 89 Telescope Control Tracking Desired Azimuth} |Desired Elevation Data Collection] Sampling Rate Figure 10. Morehead Radio Telescope, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky. MRT operator program positioning system front-end. The MRT operator program utilizes virtual instruments that incorporates a strip chart recorder with the positioning and data collection system. The user-end control panel is shown in the diagram. ae Ks.-T,,, eae (Av)(At) Recalculated system minimum sensitivity: = (.04787° K ZAM. AS nin ray wl E, pA AS, = 5.349 X 10-% = 5.35 Janskys The spatial resolution (expressed as half- power beamwidth-HPBW) is determined from the following relationship: aEBW = D(m) where: HPBW = Half-power beamwidth in degrees d = Operating wavelength in meters D = Aperture diameter in meters Calculation of the HPBW of the existing MRT system must be performed in two steps as the antenna is symmetric about a major and a mi- nor axis (Malphrus and Bradley 1987). HPBW of the Major Axis: (58)(0.211 m) 13.42 (m) HPBW = 0.91192° HPBW = Repeating the calculation for the minor axis reveals: (58)(0.211 m) 3:355_ (mm) HPBW = 3.647° HPBW = SCIENCE PROGRAMS The MRT will be employed in a widely var- ied scientific program. Research programs will range from investigating single cosmic phenomena to measuring secular variation of radio sources to mapping structures and areas of sky. The MRT will be utilized in research programs in planetary, galactic and extraga- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(1) 90 ‘UeISPIP dy} UL UMOYs st aued joryUOd pud-rasN ay} IO} apoo oYT, “5, ‘asensury yeorydess & ul Ud}ALIM syUOUIMsUI JENA sazyN Ip 94} Ul OYs ST | | [PA 4} MD cess [ [Bory I I ty I 19 ueisoid s0ye10do [YW ey] pue-yorq waysds Suruontsod wressoid zoye1odo PY Apnquey ‘peoyssoyy ‘Aysroatuy, oxe}g peoyssoy ‘adoosajay, opey peoyos0yy HSS SOS [REC Ae 7 SORA RR 1 - [ sssvsoHuoney | Lhyenraraaa Bee ret) : SSESEROERRORPREEE ~~ HEAL | S 4 i = ——— { : i a i ‘ > a Ee ET 2. | é [chia feel el Sal Sal ll Sel Sell Sl Sell Sal ll ll all all Sal Sal ell alll Be A] c 5 Fer RaaratatRacat 7 a Seagesecorcseced@| ONL |Pecrcasceccnnnms cunow H ‘TT omsig Morehead Radio Telescope—Malphrus et al. 91 kal I ap Local Sidereal t [ DBL | | Right Ascension eH | 26 | =rh rm/60 rs/3600); Te ian ‘ ea A seeey = raz] | | 38 Tz] T I 32 fs 3] | | ; | } Indianapolis AS az» «\ Columbus Rp, 5 3, = 3 Gy S . 8 A\ i VIRGINIA Kentucky localities (except Clarksville, Tennessee) recorded by Rafinesque in his Life of Travels (1836), for his route to the Tennessee River, May 1823. [18] Lexington; (1) Harrodsburg; (2) Cedar Lick, Lincoln County; Muld- raugh’s Hill (large area); Green River; (3) Rochester; (4) Elk Lick, Hart County; (5) Bowling Green; Cumberland River; (6) Elkton, Todd County; (7) “West Union, a village of Shakers” = South Union [?]; (8) Russellville; (9) Hopkinsville; (10) Clarksville, Tennessee; (11) Canton, Trigg County; [9] Hopkinsville; [8] Russellville; [7] “West Union”; [5] Bowling Green; (12) C[h]ameleon Spring, Warren County; (13) Mammoth Cave; Green River; (14) Cedar Lick, Marion County; (15) Knob Lick, Lincoln County; (16) Gov. Isaac Shelby’s, Lincoln County; (17) Col. David Meade’s, Jessamine County; (18) Lexington. erary journals that were never firmly estab- lished, or in publications created by himself. His first communications on newly discovered genera and species were in letters to his friend Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill, who as editor pub- lished them in the American Monthly Maga- zine and Critical Review, issued in New York. Although Rafinesque began publishing in that journal in 1817, his first article? on new plants from the Ohio Valley appeared there in 1818. It was a letter, dated 20 July 1818 from Louisville, in which he outlined his discoveries in natural history made during his journey ear- lier that year. In the botanical portion of this letter, Rafinesque provided names and de- tailed descriptions for four new genera, each with a representative species. He also noted having 35 new species, but listed names for only 20 of them. On 5 October, in a letter?” from Lexington, he wrote that he had 12 new genera and about 80 new species. One new genus, Nevrosperma (=Momordica L.) was fully described, as was a single species, N. cus- pidata (=M. balsamina L.). He observed that it was an annual plant, cultivated under the name “balsam apple” in Kentucky, where he had collected specimens and seeds of the plant. He also named, adequately character- ized, and provided information on habitats and localities for three other new species in other genera. In a paper”? in the January 1819 issue of the American Monthly Magazine, Rafin- esque noted that he had discovered two new genera and 25 new species of monocotyledons Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey °45°" American Manual of the Grape Vine (1830),°°> New Flora and Botany of North America (1836-[1838]),°° Flora Tel- luriana (1836 [1837-1838]),°*° Alsographia Americana (1838),°°° Sylva Telluriana (1838),5°° American Manual of the Mulberry Trees (1839),5% and Autikon Botanikon (1840) 897 Much of Rafinesque’s taxonomic work in botany remained obscure until Merrill pub- lished his comprehensive Index Rafinesqui- anus (Merrill 1949). Several years in the mak- ing, this invaluable index lists all of the known names proposed by Rafinesque, their sources of publication, and their modern equivalents when known. This single most important and indispensable compendium unlocks the infor- mation that Rafinesque so widely, yet obscure- ly, published in North America and Europe. In a study limited to the plants of Indiana, Friesner (1953), also using Merrill's Index, de- termined that Rafinesque had named 22 plants from Indiana, and that, of these, only one name, Oenothera pilosella, was still rec- ognized in the flora of that state. The nomen- clature Friesner used was according to the eighth edition of Gray’s Manual (Fernald 1950). All 22 names, along with their sources of publication and modern equivalents, if 125 known, were listed in Friesner’s paper. Fries- ner further reported that Rafinesque proposed 1210 names for the plants known in the 1950s to grow in Indiana, but only 33 (or 2.73%) were still in use at that time. To gain a similar idea of the number of spe- cies that Rafinesque named and described from the Ohio Valley, I tallied the plant names that Merrill noted with the abbreviations “descr.” or “nom. nota” for the Ohio Valley states. The totals were 70 from Illinois, 19 from Indiana, 320 from Kentucky, 166 from Ohio, and 37 from Tennessee, for a total of 612 new taxa. The 166 taxa named from Ohio included 118 from along the Ohio River and along Lake Erie. When these 118 names are excluded, 48 names remain. Forty of these 48 are species in which four epithets are retained, with two in their original genera and two transferred to other genera. Twenty-four of the specific names have been placed into syn- onymy, and twelve remain unknown. The re- maining eight names are varieties, and their identities also remain unknown. Rafinesque’s two accepted species described from the Ohio flora are Acalypha rhomboidea and Tradescan- tia ohiensis, and the two whose epithets have been transferred to other genera are Camassia scilloides (Raf.) Cory and Isopyrum biterna- tum (Raf.) Torr. & Gray, although the latter has been returned to Enemion (Ford 1977). In a broader perspective for eastern North America, Call (1895) wrote that 13 genera, 8 subgenera, and 16 species established by Raf- inesque appeared in the sixth edition of the Manual of the Botany of the North United States by Gray, Watson, and Coulter (1890). He predicted that others would be added with the advance of time and that “the full sum of tardy justice eventually will be reached.” Ex- amination of the eighth, most recent, and most geographically comprehensive edition of Gray's Manual (Fernald 1950) indicates a cur- rent recognition of 18 genera, 84 species, and 13 varieties, as determined by me. BOTANICAL ASSOCIATES AND CORRE- SPONDENTS IN THE OHIO VALLEY As was his practice everywhere he traveled, Rafinesque sought to meet and socialize with botanists of the Ohio Valley and to obtain in- formation about plants from them. Further- more, he was always quick to express his 126 thanks to others. As a result of this practice, he left several more or less detailed invento- Ties?>1.554,749,788,563,565 of contemporary American botanists; from these lists, the range and na- ture of his personal associations may be largely reconstructed. Boewe has provided identifying annotations for many of the more obscure per- sons that Rafinesque named in his autobiog- raphy (Rafinesque 1987). The acknowledgements in Rafinesque’s Medical Flora (1828)°°* are especially note- worthy in that some of the names there do not appear in any of Rafinesque’s other lists. Of the 16 persons named, seven were from the Ohio Valley. Otherwise, the proportion of westerners in the remaining lists is invariably lower. For example, in Rafinesque’s “Account of the botanical collections ...,°°"** pub- lished in 1832, he named 57 persons who had contributed to his herbarium. Forty-four were Americans, and only 11 of these are known to have resided in the Ohio Valley at any time. In his last known list, the “Historical sketch” at the beginning of the second part of his New Flora ... (1837),°° Rafinesque named 25 American collectors who had contributed to his herbarium. Only nine of these are known to have resided in the Ohio Valley at any time. These statistics indicate that, although Rafin- esque was the most prolific collector of plants in the Ohio Valley, he still relied heavily on botanists of Europe and the eastern seaboard to supply him with specimens. Ohio Valley residents acknowledged as sources of information on medicinal plants by Rafinesque in his Medical Flora (1828)°*' were Drs. Short and Brown of Lexington, Dr. Eoff of Wheeling, Dr. Miiller of New Harmony, Dr. Drake of Cincinnati, Dr. Crockett of Frank- fort, and Dr. Graham of Harrodsburg. The Ohio Valley residents who contributed to his herbarium were identified by Rafinesque in subsequent publications? **5° as follows: Bradbury, Dr. “Crockatt” [in 1832] or “Crock- et” [in 1837], “Mrs. Mary Holley born Austin,” Dr. Locke, Dr. “Miller” [Miller], Dr. Short, Miss Jane Short, John C. Short, Ridgely, Stein- hauer, and Dr. Ward. Of the western contrib- utors to Rafinesque’s herbarium, all except John Locke, Frederick Ridgely, and Daniel Steinhauer are discussed below. Dr. Crockett, like Rafinesque’s other students, is discussed Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) below in the sub-section on “Botanical In- struction.” OK OK As early as 1810, the English plant collector John Bradbury (1768-1823) had explored the Missouri Country, at the particular encourage- ment of Thomas Jefferson (True 1929; Rickett 1950). Bradbury’s subsequent book, Travels in the Interior of America, was published in Lon- don in 1817, and few readers could have been more susceptible to that book’s sense of ad- venture than Rafinesque. This book could only have served to reinforce any pre-existing thoughts that Rafinesque may have had of re- locating to the trans-Allegheny region. In his Life of Travels (1836, pp. 57, 64), Rafinesque recalled visiting “my friend Brad- bury” as he passed through Middletown dur- ing his first foray into Kentucky in 1818, and then recalled that “In 1822 Bradbury came to see me: he had sold me in 1817 many new plants of Missouri, and I had written a florula missurica, which I sent to Swainson [the zo- ologist and traveler William Swainson (1789- 1855)| in England, whom I fear never re- ceived it.” Thus, his most significant interac- tion with Bradbury had already taken place by the time Rafinesque came to the Ohio Valley in 1818. Rafinesque sought to commemorate Brad- bury in the new genus Bradburya, published in the Florula Ludoviciana in 1817, but the genus Wisteria, named by Nuttall in 1818, was later conserved over Rafinesque’s name. Raf- inesque continued to acknowledge Bradbury, who was among eight named “Botanical Au- thors ... who have added to my N.Amer. herbals” (Rafinesque 1832).7°75* Five years af- ter making this acknowledgement, Rafinesque (1837)%°° named Bradbury repeatedly in his exhaustive lists of writers, “friends and assis- tants” from whom “... I have received much help by gifts or exchanges of specimens, new facts and observations,” and “Botanical trav- elers who ... come to explore our Plants in order to send them to European Gardens or Herbals... .” * OK OK The traveling English naturalist Thomas Nuttall (1786-1859), then based in Philadel- Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey phia, suggested to Rafinesque that he should make the acquaintance of the young Kentucky physician Charles Wilkins Short (1794-1863), who was just beginning his illustrious botanical career (Perkins 1938; Davies 1945). Nuttall had been impressed with Short’s knowledge of plants when they botanized together in the vi- cinity of Lexington during the summer of 1816. Arriving in Cincinnati in the summer of 1818, Rafinesque met Dr. Short’s older broth- er, the lawyer John Cleves Short (1792-1864), and the two men spent a day at John Short’s residence at North Bend, on the Ohio River about 15 miles below Cincinnati. Botanist Short was not present at this meeting. The previous year he had moved from Lexington to Hopkinsville, a small Christian County town, in the barrens of western Kentucky, where he expanded his medical practice and speculated in land. Upon his arrival in Louisville, Rafinesque wrote his first letter to Dr. Short on 17 July 1818. Concerning plants, he stated: I regret exceedingly that I cannot visit your part of the country and see your herbarium, as it is my wish to become acquainted with the geographical range of all the plants of the western country. I have seen a few of your plants at your brother's and have deter- mined most of them, having with me Pursh’s Flora & Persoon’s sinopsis. I am able to determine any plant that I see. I will mention the Orchis spectabilis of Llinnaeus]. as an instance, which you sent to your brother as an unknown plant. Rafinesque proposed to Short that he send his herbarium, or any part of it, to Lexington, where later in the summer Rafinesque would be able to provide the names for all of Short’s plants, and to exchange duplicate specimens. On 15 September 1818, Short reportedly re- turned a letter and a parcel of 44 specimens, to which Rafinesque gave names, and of which 12 were new to science (Perkins 1938). Raf- inesque’s notes on the plants were enclosed in a letter of 27 September 1818. With this ex- change began a correspondence that spanned the next 19 years. Twelve letters from Rafin- esque to Short (Perkins 1938; Davies 1949; Boewe 1980) and one from Short to Rafin- esque (Boewe 1961) are known to have sur- vived. Short’s handwritten “Memoranda of Letters” (1816-1824) contains notations of at least four other letters written to Rafinesque between 1818 and 1822. 127 Rafinesque’s letters covered many topics— for example, exchanges of plants and publi- cations, identifications of and notes about plants, comments on his travels, and his work at Transylvania University. In addition to hay- ing Short collect and send him plants, es- pecially the vernal ones of western Kentucky, Rafinesque, in a letter of 27 September 1818, outlined many other projects, which “may in- crease your meritorious labours.” As Short was a good artist, Rafinesque wanted a drawing “of any other rare, peculiar, new or doubtful plant” of Kentucky. Later, on 15 June 1820, Rafinesque again urged Short to illustrate plants, for “We may afterwards do something with them for the advantage of science.” Still later, on 16 November 1827, when Rafinesque was writing his Medical Flora (1828- tions of rare medicinal plants and general in- formation on materia medica, a subject Short had been teaching at Transylvania University since 1825. Rafinesque asked Short to obtain data from distant students who knew of me- dicinal uses of plants, and he wanted Short’s former students from Alabama to send him plants from that state. Rafinesque must have been grateful for Short’s contributions of spec- imens and illustrations, for he dedicated his Medical Flora to John Torrey, Short, and Ste- phen Elliott, three American botanists he held in high esteem. During the course of his writ- ings, Rafinesque commemorated Short’s name in one genus, Shortia (S. dentata), and in two specific epithets, Myosurus shortii (=M. min- imus L.) and Gentiana shortiana (=G. sapon- aria L..). Rafinesque and Short met on two occasions: in Lexington in September 1821, and in Hop- kinsville in the early summer of 1823. The meetings were described briefly in Rafin- esque’s Life of Travels (1836, pp. 64, 69).°° Traveling in Short’s carriage on the Ridge Road, the two men botanized along the 82- mile route from Lexington to Cincinnati and on to North Bend, where they explored at the mouth of the Big Miami River and visited Short’s brother and his uncle William Henry Harrison (1773-1841), a general and later the ninth United States president. Rafinesque’s activities in this neighborhood were not forgotten. More than 50 years later, on 27 December 1879, Dr. John A. Warder, 128 who had purchased a part of the Harrison es- tate, wrote to George Engelmann of St. Louis regarding the recognition of Catalpa speciosa as a distinct species: and right here (North Bend) where Gov. Harrison had introduced it, the plant seems to have escaped the notice of all the botanists, Clark, Thos. Lea, R. Buchanan, Drs. Locke & Riddell, Dr Wm Short [sic] of Kentucky who often visited his brother near us, who had planted many trees obtained from Genl. Harrison, and even Rafinesque himself who bota- nized in this region— From North Bend, Rafinesque went on horseback to explore Big Bone Lick, about 18 miles south of Cincinnati, noting in a later ar- ticle®™ that he “collected several plants,” and that “Many pretty plants are found in the val- ley and hills, but no saline plants.” After Raf- inesque had explored the area for several days, Short met him there, and together they re- turned to Lexington. This first visit must have been cordial, as Rafinesque wrote to Short on 1 February 1822 that Short’s “renewed invi- tation to visit your part of the Country, Bar- rens &c meets my long delayed wishes.” These wishes later came true during Rafinesque’s travels into western Kentucky in 1823, when he and Short together studied plants of the barrens. No letters passed between Rafinesque and Short after their parting in Hopkinsville in 1823, until Short reportedly sought to renew the exchange of dried plant specimens and in- formation on medicinal plants in letters of 16 November 1827 and 5 August 1834 (Perkins 1938). Meanwhile, Rafinesque had moved to Philadelphia and Short to Lexington. On 7 September 1834, Short replied that, for the past 3 or 4 years, he had “been very industri- ously engaged in collecting and preserving the plants of Kentucky ...” and that he had sent about 5000 specimens of about 600 species to various correspondents in Europe and Amer- ica. He was already honor bound to send plants to these botanists during the forthcom- ing winter, but because his supply of speci- mens was sufficient, he would have plants enough for Rafinesque. Short imposed one condition: he wanted at least one parcel of plants containing Rafinesque’s novelties from Kentucky before he would exchange any more plants with him. Rafinesque had apparently Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) promised to send specimens to Short and none had been received. On 25 October 1834, in response to Short’s condition, Rafinesque promised a small pack- age, but in reality he needed money and want- ed the affluent Dr. Short to buy his plants. He wrote: You will see in the last [letter] that I offer my whole Herb[arium]. for sale, the whole or in parts at specific prices; and it is for this that I reserve my numerous & rarest Discoveries. I shall not be able to send you for Exchange all my N[ew]. Splecies]. & G[enera]. because I have already disposed of most Duplicates & expect New]. Sp[ecies]. or very rare ones in re- turn. But you may expect some if you send me New things, or you may buy my standard Monographs. However my N[ew]. Splecies]. from Kentucky may be found again by you, & I will willingly acquaint you with their location that you may look for them, & comply thus with your request. Nay I look upon you to supply me again with some very rare plants which I have sent to Europe & have only single specimens left. But this will be only for next year[’s] herboriza- tions. This year you can only supply me the Gentians or such as you have collected & have to spare. By the numerous list of your correspondents to whom you are to send plants, I am afraid you will have few left for me, & hardly time to attend to my Demands. Yet I recommend you to send any Doubtful plant from Kentucky, as I know them so well that I can more easily give you their names than anybody else. This passage certainly reveals the self-center- edness in Rafinesque’s approach to botany. He did comply with Short’s condition by sending a small package which, as recorded in his let- ter of 15 November 1834, consisted of sets of 54 American plants and twelve “Oriental plants ... from Egypt, Palestine & Greece ... sent as a Sample.” The American plants were chiefly from the seashore, the barrens, the Al- legheny Mountains, and the Carolinas, but none was from Kentucky. My search in July and August 1965 at the Herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sci- ences of Philadelphia, where Short’s herbari- um is deposited, revealed 49 specimens of eastern North American plants that Short had obtained from Rafinesque (Stuckey 1971a). With the exception of three specimens, all of them contain locality data, including 20 from the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania, but none of the specimens had the name of a Ken- tucky locality or even the name “Kentucky” itself. These specimens bear the original blu- Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey ish gray labels with the names of the plants and their localities in Rafinesque’s handwrit- ing, along with the printed stamp, “C. S. Raf- inesque Philadelphia, Pa.,” usually in the bot- tom left-hand corner. Rafinesque also stated in his letter of 15 November 1834 that he had put aside 100 other plants for Short, but ap- parently they were not sent. Nor, apparently, did Short ever receive any of Rafinesque’s specimens from Kentucky. Of the few specimens that he received from Rafinesque, Short had nothing positive to re- late. Writing to John Torrey on 11 August 1835, Short stated that Rafinesque’s package “contained a miserable parcel of things, most of them as familiar to me as a ‘thrice told tale’, together with some faded fragments of exotic affairs, rendered imposing and venerable by being labelled from ‘Etna’, ‘Egypt’, and ‘Pal- estine’ &.c&.c” On 10 May 1841, in a letter to William Darlington of West Chester, Pennsyl- vania, Short described Rafinesque’s plants as “so miserably bad that they have been eye- sores to me whenever I have met them ... .” As also noted in his letter of 11 August 1835 to John Torrey, Short had sent a considerable collection of plants to Rafinesque that spring, but it is not known if these were received. On 7 November 1837, in his last known let- ter to Short, Rafinesque expressed annoyance toward Short for not having sent specimens of rare plants from Illinois and western Ken- tucky, as supposedly promised. He made ad- ditional demands of Short by insisting that Short purchase his published works and the rare plants he had recently acquired from the herbarium of Zaccheus Collins. Rafinesque wanted specimens of all the gentians and oth- er rare plants of Kentucky and Illinois, includ- ing specimens of those taxa that he had al- ready described. He begged for Short’s pub- lications and new botanical information on Kentucky. As a favor, Rafinesque also asked for the names of all the botanists and botanical collectors known to Short in the west and south, because he wished “to make a complete list of Authors, Works, pamphlets, collections, herbals, gardens, Collectors, travellers &c in N. America.” Because only one of Short’s letters to Raf- inesque is known to survive, Short remains the silent partner in their botanical interactions prior to 1834. It appears that Rafinesque ex- 129 tracted from Short as much botanical infor- mation as possible and that Short, with his characteristic reserve and quiet manner, cal- culated the situation carefully and was com- pletely generous and cooperative. Even in Short’s one surviving, and apparently last, let- ter of 7 September 1834, he displays a sense of annoyance because Rafinesque had not ful- filled his earlier promises to send specimens and provide localities of his new plants from Kentucky. Short evidently was not about to purchase Rafinesque’s books and plants just to confirm information on a flora he already knew quite well. After 1835, as is well docu- mented from Short’s letters to John Torrey, William Darlington, and Asa Gray, the metic- ulous Dr. Short became totally disenchanted with the erratic Rafinesque and his slipshod and self-aggrandizing botanical work (Stuckey 1986). Apparently Short responded to no more of Rafinesque’s demands after 1835. ok OOK OK In 1818, at New Harmony, on the banks of the Wabash River in southern Indiana, Raf- inesque met Dr. Johann Christopher Miiller (1777-1845), the doctor, schoolmaster, and of- ficial musician of the Harmony Society. Miiller had accompanied the Rev. George Rapp, the Society's founder, to Economy, Pennsylvania, in 1803. From 1814 to 1824, the Society func- tioned at New Harmony. In 1825, Rapp sold the community to Robert Owen and returned to Economy with Miiller, who there served as Curator of the Museum of Natural Curiosities (Pitzer and Elliott 1979). As noted in Rafin- esque’s Life of Travels (1836, p. 56),°° Miiller “had a fine herbal [herbarium] and gave me some fine plants: we went together to herbor- ize in the meadows.” Over the course of his career, Rafinesque published species of plants that he and Miller collected together from the Wabash country in 1818, or that Miiller later gave to Rafinesque. These plants were: Amorpha tomentosa (=A. canescens Pursh),°” Collinsia purpurea (=C. verna Nutt.),"?° Cus- cuta aphylla (=? C. glomerata Choisy),? Do- decatheon angustifolium,?” Helichroa fuscata, H. crocea, (both =Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench),*° Lophactis uniflora (=Silphium - sp.)*°* and Tradescantia rupestris (= T. vir- giniana L.).”° In his paper on Collinsia,*° Raf- 130 inesque wrote that Miiller was the first to dis- cover a species in this genus, the plants having come from Economy near Pittsburgh. Miiller had sent the plants to the Rev. Henry Muhl- enberg of Lancaster, who mistook them for a new species of Herpestis. Miiller was the first to discover Rafinesque’s new C. purpurea (=C. verna Nutt.) on the Wabash in Indiana. It is not known if Miiller’s own herbarium has survived, but a few of his specimens were giv- en to Dr. William Darlington in 1816 and to the Rev. Lewis David von Schweinitz in 1831, when these two botanists visited Economy during westward journeys. A few of Miiller’s specimens are now in the Darlington Herbar- ium (DWC) at West Chester State College, Pennsylvania, and in the Schweinitz Herbari- um at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (PH). * OK OK Rafinesque corresponded with Ohio histo- rian and antiquarian Caleb Atwater (1778- 1867), who was the postmaster at Circleville. Atwater’s publications include several pioneer- ing papers on the prairies of Ohio (Atwater 1818, 1827, 1831, 1838). In his Life of Travels (1836, p. 62),°° Rafinesque commented that he had “sent a florule of Ohio” to Atwater, probably no later than 1819, but nothing was ever learned by its author concerning the fate of this work. It may have been titled “Flora of the State of Ohio or Catalogue of its plants,” which appeared as item number 66 in the cat- alogue of 100 works, essays, and manuscripts that Rafinesque appended to his 15 February 1824 letter to Thomas Jefferson, as part of an application for a faculty appointment in the newly created University of Virginia (Betts 1944). Although Atwater included lists of plants in his History of the State of Ohio (At- water 1838), the information is credited to other individuals who evidently were the au- thors. As mentioned earlier, Boewe (1987a) has presented evidence that Atwater was among those individuals who warned Benjamin Silli- man of Rafinesque’s scientific indiscretions. The first evidence of animosity between At- water and Rafinesque appeared in Atwater’s Archaeologia Americana (Atwater 1820a). Al- though it was based on careful field examina- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) tion, this survey of prehistoric Indian mounds included acknowledgements to many contrib- utors. Among them was Rafinesque’s friend and patron John D. Clifford, but no mention of Rafinesque was made, even though he and Atwater had been in correspondence on the subject of antiquities for some time. Rafin- esque (1820)°°> reviewed Atwater’s survey in the Western Review and Miscellaneous Mag- azine, published in Lexington in September 1820, and when Atwater saw the review, he became furious with Rafinesque, and in a let- ter of 20 October 1820 to Isaiah Thomas (1749-1831), the president of the American Antiquarian Society, Atwater stated that Raf- inesque had inserted into the review “more than one hundred base falsehoods as were ever uttered by man.” Atwater’s malice, as expressed to Silliman, was undoubtedly a primary factor in the de- struction of Rafinesque’s reputation. In_ his Life of Travels (1836, p. 62),°°° Rafinesque seemed to gloss over the whole matter by not- ing simply that Atwater “quarrelled with me when he found that I was likely to take up the subject [of antiquities].” In a letter’ of 7 Jan- uary 1821 to Bory St. Vincent (1778-1846), editor of the Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques of Brussels, Rafinesque described Atwater as “an able man; but a diffuse writer, his style being deprived of order, perspicuity and elegance.” * OK OK The Indiana botanist identified only as “Dr. Ward” has received inordinate attention from researchers due to his involvement with the Walam Olum, an alleged Delaware Indian tribal chronicle the pictographic part of which he is supposed to have obtained and given to Rafinesque sometime between 1820 and 1822. No fewer than four possible “Drs. Ward” have been named in the literature, but in no in- stance is there an exact or compelling corre- spondence between Rafinesque’s own sketchy description of his source and the biographical data otherwise available (Weer 1942, 1954; Barlow and Powell 1986; Boewe 1987b). The candidates are Dr. John Russell Ward, Dr. William Ward, and the Rev. John Ward, all of Kentucky, and Dr. Malthus A.W. Ward, who did indeed reside briefly in Indiana. Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey Rafinesque apparently made his first refer- ence to “Ward” in a letter of 24 September 1822, to Zaccheus Collins, in which he an- nounced his intention to name in Ward’s hon- or a St. John’s-wort, Hypericum wardianum (Barlow and Powell 1986; Boewe 1987b). Boewe pointed out that “Hypericum wardian- um is a manuscript name that never saw pub- lication ...,” and regarded this eponymy as evidence for the possibility that Ward was the collector. In his article “... On 12 Nlew]. Splecies]. of Plants from Illinois, &c.,” Rafinesque (1832)° wrote that “they were chiefly discov- ered in 1818, or given me since by Dr. Muller and Dr. Ward.” Although this sentence is hopelessly ambiguous, the person responsible for the eight Illinois plants collected in 1818 may well have been Rafinesque himself. When Rafinesque (1824)** first published the genus Lophactis, he mentioned only that the plant was very rare in Kentucky and that “it has been found near Harmony on the Wa- bash by Dr. Miller” [Miiller]. When he wrote about the plant 8 years later, Rafinesque (1832)** redescribed it as Lophactis uniflora (=Silphium sp.) and added: “I noticed in 1818 this plant on the Wabash, but out of blossom|;] in 1821 Dr. Ward brought me a perfect [flow- ering] specimen from White Rliver]. Indiana.” Rafinesque is not known to have visited this locality, but Ward supposedly obtained the Delaware pictographs there. In his list of the 12 new Illinois species, Raf- inesque (1832)° provided the dates when he first obtained them. Assuming that Rafinesque himself was responsible for the specimens col- lected in 1818, and that Miiller was responsi- ble for at least one and no more than three of the remaining plants collected in subsequent years, then Rafinesque’s cumulative attribu- tions would indicate that Ward was responsi- ble for a total of as few as three and for no more than five of Rafinesque’s “new species.” In 1833, Rafinesque listed Ward as one of three contributors to the collection listed in the “Florula Centralis or Illinoensis.”*!! Since Rafinesque provided no further information on collectors and localities in this publication, it is impossible to adjust the figures already suggested as to the extent of Ward’s contri- bution to Rafinesque’s herbarium. It might be noted, however, that the three plant names 131 Collinsia purpurea, Plantago gonophylla, and P. atrofusca occur both here and in the 1832 list. As noted earlier, the Collinsia is more likely to have come from Miller. Rafinesque (1833)"*"5> included Ward in a list of “Professors and Doctors” who had “add- ed to my N. Amer. herbals.” And then in his New Flora and Botany of North America, Vol. 2, Rafinesque (1837, pp. 9, 13)5°> mentioned Dr. Ward twice, first in a list of botanical friends and collectors from whom he had “re- ceived much help by gifts or exchanges of specimens, new facts and observations,” and then in a list of the botanists “who have fallen victims to their zeal in arduous travels, or from diseases contracted by their labors.” This last item of information would seem to coincide with Rafinesque’s (1836)°°°*°° reference to “the late Dr. Ward of Indiana” as the source of the Delaware pictographs. As mentioned earlier, none of the candi- dates suggested by researchers is a perfect match for “Dr. Ward” as described by Rafin- esque. In the standard critical edition of the Walam Olum, Weer (1954) presented what was known of the biography of Dr. John Rus- sell Ward (?-1834), who resided in Kentucky at Cynthiana, Harrison County, as early as 1808, and then at Carlisle, Nicholas County, from 1816 to 1829. Rafinesque wrote in his Life of Travels (1836b, p. 71) that in 1824, “My friend Mr. Ward took me to Cynthiana in a gig, where I surveyed other ancient monu- ments, and found a fine locality of fossils.” A writer less cautious than Weer might have as- sumed that this “Mr. Ward” and the Nicholas County physician were one and the same. However, Boewe (1987b) has presented evi- dence to suggest that the gig-driver was the Lexington Episcopal clergyman John Ward, the brother-in-law of Rafinesque’s late patron John D. Clifford. This individual may well be the same Ward of whom Rafinesque, as su- perintendent of the Transylvania Botanical Garden, would have occasion to write in 1825, “Received many presents of seeds and plants from Messrs. Clay, Ward, Fowler and Mego- wan” (Harrison 1913; Weer 1954), although the generic term “Messrs.” might possibly have subsumed the more specific title “Doc- tor.” From Carlisle, Dr. John Russell Ward moved to Missouri, where he died at Fulton, Callaway County. 132 Another suggestion is William Ward, from Mason County, Kentucky, who was a medical student at Transylvania University from 1823 to 1826 and earned his medical degree just 2 months before Rafinesque permanently left Lexington (Boewe 1987b). Little else is known of William Ward, and Boewe was unable to find specific instances of direct connections or written communications with Rafinesque. Malthus A. W. Ward (1794-1863) would be the ideal candidate were it not for the fact that Rafinesque described his “Dr. Ward” as “late” in 1836. Various attempts have been made to read this adjective as referring to Ward's place of residence, that is, as “lately” of Indiana, or perhaps as referring to Ward's profession, that is, as no longer practicing medicine, but Raf- inesque’s (1837)** allusion to Ward as one of the botanists “who have fallen victims to their zeal in arduous travels, or from diseases con- tracted by their labors” strongly suggests that Rafinesque believed him to be dead. According to Barlow and Powell (1986), Malthus Ward .. was born at Haverhill, New Hampshire, in 1794. After studying under a local physician and attending the Medical Institution at Dartmouth College, he set- tled in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, in 1815, then moved to Pittsburgh in 1816. In 1819 he located to Hindos- tan, a pioneer Indiana village on the east fork of the White River near the contemporary town of Shoals, in Martin County [where he probably remained until late 1822]. Ward's lengthy and detailed letters written during this period reveal his interest and erudition in both botany and zoology. His interests in these two sciences developed during his student days from 1812 to 1814 at Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont. After receiving his medical degree at the Med- ical School of Maine in 1823, Ward practiced medicine and continued his interest in botany and natural history throughout the remainder of his life. He lived at Salem, Massachusetts, from 1823 to 1832 and at Athens, Georgia, where he was appointed professor of natural history. He died in Athens in 1863 (Barlow and Powell 1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1986). Mal- thus Ward appears never to have mentioned Rafinesque in his letters or manuscript notes (Boewe 1987b). Rafinesque very possibly interacted with two or more Wards, at least one from Ken- tucky and one from Indiana, whose discrete Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) identities were lost when he failed to record anything other than their last names. This speculation becomes all the more plausible by noting that references to the various candi- dates provide no indication that any one of them had both a Kentucky connection and an interest in floristic botany, the isolated ex- change of 1825, as cited by Harrison (1913), being horticultural rather than botanical. When acknowledging other persons, Rafin- esque characteristically used their last names only, and therefore the name “Dr. Ward” could easily, but misleadingly, apply to more than one person. * OK OK The relationship between Rafinesque and Dr. Daniel Drake (1785-1852), early Cincin- nati’s preeminent physician, educator, and sci- entist, was not a particularly productive one. By 1818, at age 33, Drake held undisputed leadership as a scientist and botanist of the Ohio Valley. He was the first Ohio Valley res- ident to publish information on local vascular plants in his books, Notices Concerning Cin- cinnati (Drake 1810-1811) and Picture of Cin- cinnati and the Miami Country (Drake 1816). On 8 May 1818, in Cincinnati, he was appar- ently the first to give public lectures on botany, a venture that proved to be of great interest, with 40 subscribers enrolling in his initial course (Horine 1961, p. 153). Thomas Nuttall visited Drake at Cincinnati in 1816 and 1818 and later referred to him as “one of the most scientific men west of the Allegheny Moun- tains” (Nuttall 1821). Drake was also involved in organizing Cincinnati's Western Museum Society, established in 1818. Rafinesque’s letter of 8 July 1820 was his earliest known contact with Drake (Horine 1961, p. 141). Addressed to Drake as the sec- retary of the Western Museum Society, the letter offered marine shells, botanical speci- mens, and publications in exchange for mounted birds and quadrupeds of the West. Although Drake reportedly replied on 29 Au- gust, the assumption is that nothing came of the proposal, for Rafinesque wrote in a let- ter’? of 7 January 1821 to Bory St. Vincent, in an apparent reference to these kinds of sci- entific institutions, “Many of their puffs are mere tricks, for instance, they have established Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey a Museum, which has issued proposals of ex- change; but when applied to, they had nothing to give, but were very greedy to receive!” In this same letter, Rafinesque addressed himself more specifically to the subject of Drake by saying that he “has shown himself an author of capability in his first work called Picture of Cincinnati; although that work is not free from defects and even errors: but he has not published anything since, except small rhetor- ical pamphlets; he aims at knowledge however, and if he does not know how to reach it, it is perhaps because he has a share of the unfor- tunate shortsight.” Drake’s biographer, Emmet Field Horine (1961, pp. 141-144, 195-196), described other non-scientific interactions and caustic com- ments exchanged between the two individuals in literary publications. Horine pointed out that, although Drake taught materia medica and botany in the Medical Department at Transylvania from 1823 to 1825, he seems to have had little contact with Rafinesque, who taught in the Academic Department. Both men were members of the Kentucky Institute and read papers‘ before that scientific and literary organization in Lexington in 1823. Drake was a subscriber to Rafinesque’s short-lived Transylvania Botanical Garden in 1824 (Peter 1905, p. 38). Upon leaving Tran- sylvania to return to Philadelphia in 1826, Raf- inesque passed through Cincinnati, sought out Drake, and visited Joseph Dorfeuille’s West- ern Museum with him on 9 May (Rafinesque 1987, p. 19). Rafinesque’s final mention of Drake came some years later, in the passing acknowledgements at the beginning of the Medical Flora (1828).>>* ok OK Ok In an account of his botanical collections,”** Rafinesque also noted that several ladies, in- cluding Mrs. Mary (Austin) Holley, wife of Transylvania University President Horace Hol- ley, and Miss Jane Short, half-sister of Dr. Charles W. Short, contributed to his herbari- um. In a letter of 15 June 1820 to Dr. Short, Rafinesque wrote from Lexington: “Your sister gave me sometime ago a fine Trillium collect- ed near Hopkinsville, which differs from. T. sessile by having petiolated leaves, yet it is not the Tr. petiolatum of Pursh. I should like to 133 have more of it.” He described it further as “a beautiful species differing from Tr. sessile, by its petiolated leaves, reflexed calyx and pale purple petals,” as he commented in a letter®”! of 1 December 1820 to DeCandolle. The plant on which Rafinesque based his Trillium reflexcum was a specimen he had obtained from Jane Short (1803-1841), who in 1839 married James Weir of Greenville, Kentucky. Rafinesque’s letter to DeCandolle was pub- lished in 1821 in his Western Minerva (Raf- inesque 1820b) with the identical diagnosis as in the letter. Fox (1900), in his synopsis of Raf- inesques Western Minerva, quoted Rafin- esque’s diagnosis verbatim, thereby validating the plant's name. Because the Western Miner- va was suppressed during printing and no cop- ies were placed in circulation, it would follow, according to an item in the Botanical Gazette (Anonymous 1900) and according to the Code of Botanical Nomenclature, that valid publi- cation of Rafinesque’s Trillium reflexum was not attained until his diagnosis appeared in the article by Fox (1900). The taxonomic status of this Rafinesque species in the flora continues to remain in doubt, as this entity was not dis- cussed in the most recent study of the sessile- flowered trilliums (Freeman 1975). 7k OK OK A member of one of the most aristocratic families in early Kentucky, Dr. Samuel Brown (1769-1830) could claim to be the first pro- fessor of medicine west of the Alleghenies, having been named to the chairs of surgery, anatomy, and chemistry and pharmacy at Transylvania in 1799 (Peter 1905). However, medical classes at the University did not meet on a regular basis for another 20 years. Dr. Daniel Drake thought enough of Brown’s tal- ents to offer him a professorship at Cincin- nati’s newly founded Medical College of Ohio in 1818, but Brown chose to remain in Lex- ington, where he served as Professor of The- ory and Practice of Medicine until his retire- ment from public life in 1825 (Horine 1961, pp. 157-159, 206). Brown's interest in botany appears to have been mostly with useful plants, especially commercial ginseng. Ewan (1967a) summa- rized Brown’s botanical correspondence with Thomas Jefferson, who described him as 134 “more conversant in Botanical researches” than Jefferson. Rafinesque must have befriended Brown at a fairly early date, as indicated by the fact that in 1818 he listed Brown as one of the residents of Lexington through whom plants might be forwarded to him while on his first trip to Kentucky (Perkins 1938). He acknowledged Brown on at least three occasions. In 1821, in an article’! in the Western Minerva, Rafin- esque wrote: Dr Samuel Brown having procured and shown me the plant which is said to occasion in Kentucky the Milk Fever, I have ascertained that it is the Ewphor- bia peploides (E. peplus of Pursh, not Linnaeus), which is not uncommon on the cliffs and rocky sit- uations in Kentucky. When eaten by cows through chance, it gives them a fever, and their milk becomes poisonous, producing the milk fever in those who drink it. Rafinesque expressed his indebtedness to Brown, among others, in his Medical Flora (1828). In 1830, in his American Manual of the Grape Vines, Rafinesque named Brown in his inventory of Americans who were at- tempting to practice viticulture on a large scale. GROWTH OF RAFINESQUE’S WESTERN HERBARIUM Rafinesque’s zeal for field botany is readily shown in the rapidity with which he collected plants and assembled an herbarium of western plants. The growth of his herbarium is well documented in his letters to Zaccheus Collins (Pennell 1942) and Charles W. Short (Perkins 1938) as well as in his publications. The first indications of this effort are contained in the letters he wrote to Collins in the summer of 1818, during his first trip into the Ohio Valley. On 12 August 1818, while visiting Audubon at Henderson, he commented: “In Botany, my discoveries are really extensive, I have collect- ed or seen nearly 600 sp[ecies] of plants with- in 2 months, among which are about 20 N[ew]. Splecies].” Writing to Short on 27 Sep- tember 1818 from Lexington, he added: “And in Botany I have collected more than 600 sp. of Plants of which one tenth part at least are new.” In his first published paper?” on west- ern botany, a letter to editor Samuel L. Mitch- ill, dated 20 July 1818, Rafinesque wrote: Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) The vegetation of the Western States has some pe- culiar features—the most striking is its monotony, a few species being spread by millions over large tracts of country, while but few spots rich in a variety of plants are to be met with. I have collected, however, a rich herbarium both on the Ohio and in crossing the Alleghany mountains. In a later published letter,” dated 5 October 1818, Rafinesque added: “I have collected about 700 species of plants in the western states, while only 200 had been stated to be found there.” On 25 August 1823, Rafinesque noted in a letter to Collins that he had “col- lected nearly 2,000 specimens” of western plants that season. A memorandum at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, dated 1 January 1824, reveals that his herbar- ium of North American plants consisted of 5,000 species and 23,050 specimens (Pennell 1942, p. 29; Merrill 1949, p. 34). In 1826, the year in which he left Lexington, Rafinesque wrote in a letter of 12 January to Collins: “I have the finest herbarium in the United States, upwards of 25,000 specimens.” This figure is in agreement with a later report™* in his Herbarium Rafinesquianum (1833), where he stated: “My own herbals contain now about 4,200 N[orth]. American species, 5,000 varie- ties, and 25,000 specimens, nine tenths of which have been collected by myself, and after exchanging or selling already 10,000 speci- mens. While living in Kentucky, Rafinesque also built an extensive herbarium of foreign plants. He boasted of this achievement in an article**! in the Kentucky Gazette for 4 April 1822: My rich herbarium has . . . been lately increased with about 3,000 foreign specimens, and this is I believe the first instance of such valuable vegetable collec- tions being brought to the western country, where I hope that it may become the foundation of the most extensive botanical collection in the United States, if it is not so already. He credited large numbers of specimens to the following sources: 500 specimens of French plants from Prof. A.P. DeCandolle of Geneva, 810 specimens of English plants from Adrian Hardy Haworth (1788-1833) of Lon- don, 300 species of European plants from Wil- liam Swainson of Liverpool, 200 from Prof. William J. Hooker (1785-1865) of Glasgow, several hundred from the Imperial Museum of Vienna, and 748 German plants from “Prof. Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey Schultze” of Augsburg, probably Josef August Schultes (1773-1831), Professor of Natural History and Botany at the University of Lands- hut in Bavaria from 1809 to 1831 (fide Charles Boewe, pers. comm.). An item by “Reporter” (1823) appeared in the Western Monitor for 30 December 1823, and contained the notice that Dr. C.G.D. Nees von Esenbeck (1776— 1858), Professor of Natural History in the University of Bonn, Germany, had sent to Raf- inesque “a splendid collection consisting of 500 plants from Egypt—100 from Palestine— 700 from Greece and Crete—600 from Bo- hemia—and 600 from Austria and Hungary, making in all 2,500 specimens.” In the article in Herbarium Rafinesquianum (1833),"*° Raf- inesque added: “My foreign herbals contain about 3,000 species and 8,000 specimens from Europe, Asia, Africa, Polynesia, South Amer- ica and Mexico.” Rafinesque’s entire herbarium of domestic and foreign plants consisted of 12,745 species and 37,740 specimens, as recorded in his memorandum of 1 January 1824 (Pennell 1942, p. 29; Merrill 1949, p. 34), and about 10,000 species and 40,000 specimens as noted in his First Catalogues ... of the Botanical Garden of Transylvania University (1824).4°° Toward the end of his life, Rafin- esque estimated in his New Flora and Botany of North America (1836-[1838])°* that his herbarium totaled about 50,000 specimens. After he left Lexington, Rafinesque’s her- barium was placed in storage in Philadelphia, where it remained from 1827 until the end of 1831. To his friend John Torrey of New York, Rafinesque wrote on 2 January 1832: “I find upon an average one tenth of the plants lost or Spoiled, but not many of my new or rare ones.” He sought to enlist Torrey’s help in finding buyers in New York for his specimens, and offered him a present of “all my western Grasses which I have put aside; they are 5 or 600 Species, mostly not determined; many may be new or very rare... . Meanwhile I will be very busy this Winter in surveying, labelling & putting up.” Writing to the Moravian cler- gyman-botanist Lewis David von Schweinitz on 26 March 1833, Rafinesque complained of having to label his plants, saying that it “is a mechanical labor too great. It took me 2 days to label those 117 I sent you . . . .” These state- ments reflect the poor condition and lack of 135 organization of Rafinesque’s herbarium. As noted above, Charles W. Short had nothing positive to say about Rafinesque’s specimens. Short did not hesitate to speak harshly of their quality, and perhaps some of these unkind comments reached Rafinesque through Torrey or other of Short’s correspondents. Rafinesque tried to justify his situation and the quality of his specimens to Short, to whom he wrote on 5 August 1834, “You probably botanize in a good Carriage with a press for the plants while I had, like a Pioneer, to botanize on foot & carry my plants on my shoulders.” The history of Rafinesque’s herbarium, like many facets of his life, is a pathetic one. The story has been told in detail by Merrill, in the introduction to the Index Rafinesquianus (Merrill 1949, pp. 33-37). During Rafin- esque’s later years and after his death in Sep- tember 1840, his herbarium was stored in a garret, and rats destroyed part of it. In 1841, Elias Durand, curator of the herbarium at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, purchased the collection and proceeded to discard virtually all of the specimens as trash because they were damaged, not well pressed, very poorly prepared, or lacked labels with the names of the plants. Pennell (1942, 1945) and Stuckey (197la, 1971b) have added other de- tails of this history. Rafinesque certainly de- serves credit for realizing the importance of assembling dried plant specimens for purposes of study and documentation even though he used very poor judgment in drawing conclu- sions from the specimens and did not give proper care to their maintenance and perma- nent preservation. RAFINESQUE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FLORA, PHYTOGEOGRAPHY, AND IDEA OF PLANT SUCCESSION IN KENTUCKY Rafinesque was the first individual to study thoroughly the plant life of Kentucky, the first state west of the Allegheny Mountains. Based on his extensive field work, his catalogues of the flora, outlines of phytogeographical regions, and discussion of plant succession in the limestone region were the first efforts at these kinds of botanical studies for Kentucky. Writing Local Floras A flora in its simplest form is a list of plants. In North America, the Rev. Manasseh Cutler 136 (1742-1823) of Ipswich, Massachusetts, was among the first to compose a local flora, for the plants of New England (Cutler 1785). Pri- or to 1800, the Rev. Henry Muhlenberg (1753-1815) of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, pre- pared floras of his neighborhood. Muhlenberg was convinced that knowledge of the entire flora of North America could best be assem- bled through the production of local floras by botanists working in their own neighborhoods (Youmans 1894, 1896). He had several follow- ers who accepted this viewpoint and published their own local floras. Rafinesque visited Muhlenberg in Lancaster in 1803, but it is not known if Muhlenberg influenced the young, self-educated botanist to prepare local floras. By his own admission, Rafinesque’s first es- says on North American plants, prepared in 1804, were catalogues‘ of the plants of the District of Columbia and the State of Dela- ware (Little 1943; Tucker and Dill 1989). But after submission and announcement for pub- lication, these works were suppressed by Ben- jamin Smith Barton (1766-1815), editor of the Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal (Barton 1805). Rafinesque’s first published flo- ra was his controversial Florula Ludoviciana (1817),?°’ which he created by assigning sci- entific names to a list of common names of carefully described plants that the French clergyman and explorer Claude C. Robin (1750-1794) had appended as a “Flore Louis- ianaise” to a book in which he recounted his travels made during 1802-1806 along the Gulf Coast from present-day Louisiana to western Florida. Rafinesque thus named 30 “new gen- era” and 169 “new species.” However, the naming of new taxa without having seen her- barium specimens or visiting the region to see the living plants was totally unacceptable to the larger botanical community, and for this armchair effort Rafinesque suffered severe criticism in letters and reviews (Mitchill 1818; Ewan 1967b; Stafleu 1968; Stuckey 1968). This publication became a major source of dif- ficulty in his relationships with other botanists and editors of journals. As noted above, Raf- inesque claimed to have written florulas of Missouri and Ohio, but apparently these were never published. Early Catalogues of the Flora of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley At the time of Rafinesque’s arrival in the Ohio Valley, very little published material ex- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) isted on the botany of the region. Dr. Daniel Drake had published floral calendars of the local spring plants and some notes on medic- inal plants in his Notices of Cincinnati (Drake 1810-1811) and Picture of Cincinnati and the Miami Country (Drake 1816). In the latter book, Drake listed 61 genera and 102 species of woody plants growing in the Miami River Valley. Rafinesque’s first effort at preparing a local flora in the Ohio Valley may have been the “Florula Louisvillensis” (1819),2% a list of 400 genera and 600 species of the plants growing in the vicinity of Louisville. Arranged alpha- betically by scientific name with each corre- sponding common name, this catalogue ap- peared as part of a 255-page book describing the town of Louisville, written by Dr. Henry McMurtrie (1793-1865), first historian and promoter of the town (Thomas and Conner 1969). Some question exists as to who pre- pared the plant catalogue. In the Western Re- view and Literary Magazine for 1820, a re- viewer inscribed only as “B.” wrote that McMurtrie (1819) was “indebted to Rafin- esque for most [of the names] ..., or at least for their proper determination and classifica- tion.” This reviewer has now been identified as the Reverend Mr. Birge (1797-1820), an Episcopal minister of Lexington, from a letter of 25 February 1820 by Horace Holley (Charles Boewe, pers. comm.). The reviewer criticized the work because some of the plants listed did not occur within 30 or even 50 miles of Louisville, others were listed twice under different names, and distinctions should have been made as to which ones grew in Indiana and which ones in Kentucky, or on the Silver Hills, in the Barrens, and on the flat plain sur- rounding the Falls of the Ohio River (Birge 1820). In 1821, in Rafinesque’s Western Mi- nerva, a notice’ of McMurtrie’s book ap- peared with the following statement: “An un- couth compilation full of errors; the new facts are so drowned in them that they cannot easily be perceived.” This statement, which makes no specific reference to the “florula” itself, was probably written by Rafinesque even though it is signed “W.M.” [=Western Minerva]. Rafinesque’s “Florula Kentuckiensis” (1824),*°* which encompassed the entire state of Kentucky, was one part of a 3-part brochure that described a projected botanical, agricul- Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey tural, and medical garden for Transylvania University. The “Florula” was indeed more than a simple list of plants. It was divided into three lists or sub-catalogues: (1) the principal trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants; (2) use- ful plants, shrubs, and trees, whether medici- nal, tinctorial, or economical; and (3) orna- mental, fragrant, or “singular” plants, shrubs, and trees. The first group, which is the flora of Kentucky and the only group discussed in detail here, contained the new, rare, or pecu- liar plants to be offered by the botanical gar- den to the public, whereas the second and third groups were plants wanted for the gar- den. Rafinesque arranged the lists in the sub- catalogues alphabetically, but in the first he di- vided the plants into two further groups of 43 species of trees and shrubs and 269 species of herbaceous plants. He noted all of the genera and species he had already named or was plan- ning to name, with the abbreviation “Raf.” or, if the genus was new, with “N. G. Raf.” Of the 43 woody plants listed, he marked the genera Cardiolepis and Cladrastis and 17 species as new, and of the 269 herbaceous plants listed, he noted 10 genera and 154 species as new. He had already validly published some of the taxa and others were later validly published. Other new names are known only from this list as nomina nuda and have no validation in botanical nomenclature. Rafinesque did not provide names of the authors for the other taxa listed. The “Florula Kentuckiensis” can be considered a working list of those Kentucky plants that Rafinesque considered to be new to science, but it also provided an index to the scope of his floristic knowledge of the state after 5 years of residence there. Rafinesque immediately criticized the next known flora of Kentucky, published by Short, Peter and Griswold (1833-1837), as “very de- ficient.” He made this comment to Short in a letter of 5 August 1834, when he also wrote: “Are you aware that I printed one in 1820 |[ac- tually 1819] and another in 1824 where you will find many things you have omitted.” Short’s reply of 7 September 1834 showed some surprise, but he defended his own pub- lication. I was certainly not apprized of your having published a catalogue of Kentucky plants, much less two of them; In that which we made out, and to which you 137 refer, we did not pretend to give a perfect list, but one of those plants only which we had actually met with here, intended for the convenience of our cor- respondents in making out a list of their desiderata. Where are your catalogues to be had, I should like much to possess them? In his letter of 25 October 1834, Rafinesque answered that his “Botany of Kentucky,” °° which was actually a phytogeographic essay al- though Rafinesque called it a “flora,” had been published in the first volume of the Western Review in 1819, and that his “Florula Ken- tuckiensis” (1824),*°%* had appeared as a part of the circulars of the botanical garden in Lex- ington. In a wider geographical perspective, Rafin- esque was the first to take inventory of the prairie flora of central North America, in a work entitled “Florula Centralis or Illinoen- sis,"*'' which appeared as part of the Herbar- ium Rafinesquianum (1833)° and listed ... 171 new plants from the Central Region, around the junction [the mouths?] of the Rivers Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Wabash, Cumberland, Tennessee, and Arkansas, including West Kentucky and West Ten- nessee, East Arkansas and East Missouri, the South of Indiana and nearly the whole of Illinois. This Re- gion is one of Plains and Glades called Western prai- ries and barrens, with some knobby hills: it has the same vegetation throughout, with many Southern and Western plants. “Nearly all” of these 171 plants had been col- lected by Rafinesque between 1818 and 1826; “some” had been contributed by Drs. Miiller, Short, and Ward. Rafinesque’s Florula Wasiotana (1833)>™ was a list of 33 “new plants” that he collected on the western slopes of “the Wasioto or Cum- berland mts. of West[ern] Virginia, East Ken- tucky, and East Tennessee.” Those names Raf- inesque considered as new species have no va- lidity, as no descriptions are associated with any of the names. The plant list was prepared primarily to advertise specimens for sale, at $7 per set. Phytogeographical Regions of Kentucky Although described as a floristic catalogue in his letter of 5 August 1834 to Short, Raf- inesque’s paper on the principal features of the “Botany of Kentucky ...” (1819)°° is in reality an outline of the major phytogeograph- ical or vegetational regions of the state. He 138 divided Kentucky into four natural sections, or botanical regions, each distinguished by some floristic peculiarities. They were: (1) the flu- viatile region comprising all the valleys and floodplains of the large rivers, a tract rich in species of trees; (2) the central region, com- prising the limestone area between the valley of the Ohio River and the hilly ridges and knobs, a section remarkably poor in the num- ber of plants, perhaps no more than 500 spe- cies; (3) the hilly region, comprising the hills and ridges dividing the waters of the Ken- tucky, Green, Licking, Cumberland, and Big Sandy rivers, a section rich in plants similar, so he had been told, extending to the Alle- gheny regions of Virginia and Pennsylvania; and (4) the barrens, comprising an open, ex- tensive range, particularly in the western and southern parts of the state, with “islands” scat- tered among the central and hilly regions, des- titute of trees, or with few scattered small ones, but thickly covered with a luxuriant growth of herbaceous plants. For each vege- tational region, Rafinesque listed both the sci- entific and common names of representative or characteristic species as used in Kentucky. The most striking feature of the vegetation of Kentucky, compared with the vegetation of eastern United States, was, according to Raf- inesque, the “propensity which many [herba- ceous] plants and trees exhibit of growing in a social state, to the almost total exclusion of every other .... Many extensive spaces of ground are covered with one or a few crowded species, to the exclusion of many others ... .” Rafinesque’s letter of 25 October 1834 to Short largely repeated this phytogeographic outline, indicating that Rafinesque’s ideas on the subject were basically unchanged since 1819 (Perkins 1938). Rafinesque’s efforts in describing the botan- ical regions of Kentucky were related to pres- ent-day vegetational studies in a recent paper by Bryant (1997). He considered Rafinesque’s publication to be of great ecological signifi- cance but thought it unfortunate that Rafin- esque did not engage in further study before the rush of settlement. Rafinesque’s 1819 paper on the “Botany of Kentucky ...” was reprinted by Stuckey and Pringle (1997), as part of a larger study toward understanding Rafinesque’s botanical work in the Ohio Valley. The Stuckey-Pringle paper fo- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) cused on the comparative value of common names of plants appearing in pioneer floristic and vegetational studies published by natural- ists and botanists in early 19th-century eastern North America, and those names applied to plants now. Without direct evidence, it can be inferred that Rafinesque’s common names were provided to him by established residents or that he created them himself. To make Raf- inesque’s paper more useful to present-day botanists, Stuckey and Pringle supplied the currently accepted Latin names and added the common names now in use. Pringle wrote no- menclatural notes for 14 of the species. As noted earlier, Short wanted the names of the Kentucky localities from which Rafinesque had obtained new plants, but he never re- ceived specific information on them. In his let- ter of 25 October 1834, Rafinesque replied: “Instead of the localities of some few plants, I am going to give you a general acc[oun|]t of the best localities of Kentucky to my knowl- edge.” Rafinesque probably could no longer remember sites for certain species, but he did remember well the general botanical geogra- phy, even though he had been gone from the state for 8 years. Referring to his paper’? in the Western Review for 1819, Rafinesque again outlined the state’s four botanical regions: (1) mountains and sandstone hills, (2) barrens and glades, (3) limestone basin, and (4) alluvial tracts, and he noted that each re- gion had “peculiar rare plants.” His descrip- tion of each region mentioned the names of specific mountains, rivers, creeks, and towns and a few of the distinctive plants he recalled finding at these places. The treatment is an- other good general outline of the phytogeo- graphic regions. It can be used to augment the earlier published paper and should aid the present-day geographer of Kentucky plants. From Short’s point of view, the outline must have been less than he had hoped, since Raf- inesque urged him to visit these places and find the rare plants himself, as well as more new ones. Rafinesque told Short that he could publish any of the sketch if he so chose, but “give me ‘credit for it ..\. .7 Plant Succession in the Limestone Region of Kentucky Rafinesque briefly sketched the four botan- ical regions in a popular article, “The Cos- Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey monist-No. 8. On the botany of the western limestone region,”‘! published in the Ken- tucky Gazette for 4 April 1822. Because Raf- inesque knew relatively more about the flora of this western limestone region, where the town of Lexington is located, he described its flora in greater detail than that of the other three regions. One of the most remarkable features was the paucity of species, of which no more than 600 grew within 15 miles of Lexington, while a similarly sized circle around Philadelphia would yield about three times as many, or 1800 species. Ferns, mosses, lichens, and members of the orchid and lily families also had few species. To compensate, he noted the large numbers of a few kinds of plants, such as grasses, deep-rooted herbs, and trees, each of which grew in “compact social clusters, covering many acres of ground, and with the utmost luxuriance.” According to him, the vegetation of this region “may be as- cribed [as] having been covered formerly with an extensive growth of Canes (Miegia arun- dinaria) |=Arundinaria gigantea (Walt.) Chapm.] forming almost a general canebrake under the forests, where but few plants could take a stand.” He continued by stating that another remarkable feature ... is the casual change of the prevailing [herbaceous] plants and trees upon many peculiar spots of grounds. It has been observed by the ancient settlers that the following plants have followed each other in succession in many plants [i.e., places] as the prevailing growth. The Canes, or Miegia arundinaria. The Butterweed, or Eupatorium urticefolium [= E. rugosum Houtt.]. The Ironweed, or Vernonia prealta. The Nimblewill, or Panicum dactylon. The Hardgrass, or Panicum glaucum. the wild Camomile, or Anthemis cotula, &c. There is therefore a kind of natural perennial change of vegetation; when a species has exhausted the soil of a peculiar nutrition which it requires, it gives way to another for a series of years. &c. These statements present a very clearly stated concept of ecological succession, and repre- sent a very early, if not the first, appearance of this idea in the North American literature. RAFINESQUE’S BOTANICAL WORK AT TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY Botanical Instruction As the first professor of botanical science west of the Allegheny Mountains, Rafinesque 139 was in a most enviable position to promote study of the science and to make known all aspects of the region’s original flora. He came to this situation after visiting his long-time ac- quaintance John D. Clifford, who had a pri- vate museum of natural history in Lexington. Here Rafinesque became thoroughly occupied in study during a 3-week stay in early fall of 1818. Clifford, a local merchant, distinguished citizen, and trustee at Transylvania University, secured the professorship for Rafinesque dur- ing the winter of 1818-1819. Rafinesque ac- cepted the appointment as professor of botany and natural history on 25 April 1819. Although the appointment was without salary, he had the privilege of free room, board, firewood, and candles at the University’s Commons and was permitted to obtain whatever remunera- tion he could through paid subscriptions to his courses of lectures. Subscribers were to pay $10 for his courses, and he invited ladies and gentlemen from the community and students from the Academic and Medical departments in the University. To provide appeal to medical students, he added some lectures on medical botany to the botany course and lowered the price to $5. He also attached general botanical lectures to other lecture series, as, for exam- ple, those on theory of knowledge, the human mind, natural science, materia medica, and medical botany. He believed women “capable of higher education without risk to their deli- cate minds” (Boewe 1983) and so encouraged them to attend his classes in botany. Rafinesque arrived at Transylvania Univer- sity to begin work in the fall of 1819. He took his oath of office on 18 November (Bradford 1993, p. 242) and during December was much involved in writing his lectures, as document- ed from his letters to Collins and Short. An undated broadside,” outlining his two courses of 20 lectures each on natural history and bot- any, apparently circulated in the early autumn of 1819. The lectures were to be delivered be- tween noon and | p.m., beginning the first week of November, the ones on natural history on Mondays and those on botany on Thurs- days. Tickets for each course of lectures sold for $10. Much of this same information ap- peared in an advertisement** in the Kentucky Reporter for 6 October 1819, with the added note that the lectures were available not only to students in the Academic Department but 140 also to medical students and to ladies and gen- tlemen of the community. This announcement suggests that Rafinesque’s courses were not a part of the university's regular curriculum be- cause they were available to anyone willing to pay to attend them. For some unknown rea- son, as stated in a letter of 21 December 1819 to Short and later noted in the Life of Travels (1836, p. 61),°° the course of lectures on bot- any was delayed until the spring of 1820. The titles of the lectures on botany, as taken from the broadside, are listed below: 1. Introductory. On Botany in general and its uses. 2. On the organs of Plants, Roots, Stems, Trees, &c. 3. On the organs of Leaves. 4. On the organs of Flowers. 5. On the organs of Fruits and Seeds. 6. On the physiology and anatomy of Plants. 7. On Vegetable elements & productions. 8. On the qualities & diseases of Plants. 9. On Agriculture & Horticulture, or the cul- tivation of Plants. 10. On the Geography of Plants. 11. On botanical history, writers & works. 12. On botanical classifications. 13. On the Linnean System. 14. On the natural arrangement of Plants. 15. On the properties of Plants. 16. On botanical names or nomenclature. 17. On the Botany of North America. 18. On the practical study of Plants. 19. Demonstration of American Plants. 20. Valedictory. On the means of cultivating & fostering the study & science of botany. The spectrum of titles suggests a very full course covering the entire discipline in both its scientific and applied aspects. By today’s standards, the outline of topics touched upon the broad array of a discipline now expanded in North American universities into many courses within a single department of botany or biology, or into several departments. Raf- inesque’s handwritten outlines and notes of 12 of these lectures survive in a small bound book, Lectures on Various Subjects, owned by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel- phia but on permanent loan to the library of the American Philosophical Society. Boewe (1983) edited and published the full text of Rafinesque’s “First Lecture On Botany,” with Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) an introduction and notes, for the bicentennial commemoration of Rafinesque’s birth, held at Transylvania University on 21 October 1983 (Rafinesque, Reynaud, and Reynaud 1984). In addition to serving as a souvenir of that oc- casion, the published lecture aids in the un- derstanding of Rafinesque as a pioneer teach- er of botany. Rafinesque (1820a) aimed in his first lecture to convince his listeners that plants were pleasing objects for contemplation. He began by discussing human knowledge and reducing it to three kinds of science: (1) rational, ar- rived at through man’s sensations within his mind without the need for natural objects; (2) testimonial, arrived at through man’s experi- ences with other people who have made ob- servations and statements; and (3) experimen- tal, arrived at through man’s own reasoning, experiences, and personal observations and through previous observations and testimoni- als of others. Natural history is a science that is derived from experimental knowledge; it is the individual history of any living body exist- ing in the natural world. Rafinesque further defined the essential functions of living organ- isms. They are nutrition, which allows for plants to live and grow; reproduction, which allows for the perpetuation of the individual organism; and death, which comes to every in- dividual organism. Similar kinds of organisms, however, collectively have a kind of immortal- ity and continue to remain on earth. Plants, he stated, possess a kind of passive life, as com- pared to the active or mobile life of animals. His comparisons between plants and animals revealed many obvious differences, although many organisms, especially the “lower” ones, showed connecting links between the two groups. Rafinesque continued by defining various terms that apply to plants. Botany, or phytol- ogy, is the name given to the “entertaining study of all the vegetable bodies; and of all their numberless faculties, properties, and phenomena.” Mankind is indebted to plants for food, vestments, and dwellings, “besides the remedies which relieve our diseases.” Bot- any is studied both for amusement or for in- struction in the usefulness of plants to man- kind; Rafinesque gave examples of plants in both of these groupings. As an academic study, botany is further di- Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey vided into other sub-units, as follows: (1) Tax- onomy refers to the alphabet of the science, the laws of order, or the classification system, the Linnaean System being the preferred sys- tem of organization by botanists at Rafin- esque’s time. (2) Glossology refers to technical language used in describing plants. (3) No- menclature refers to the naming of plants. (4) Synonymy refers to the names given by dif- ferent authors to the same plants. (5) Phytog- raphy refers to the descriptions of plants com- posed of the terms from Glossology. (6) Pho- tocreny refers to the practical use of plants through the investigation of their qualities and properties. They provide (a) the food and drink for mankind: (b) clothing, buildings, fuel, furniture, weapons, dyes, and many others; (c) remedies or palliatives for human dis- orders; and (d) food for domestic animals and wild an- imals. Rafinesque concluded that botany can be studied “as an amusement or as a temporary occupation” and that it should be accom- plished through “zeal and satisfaction.” Rafinesque continued to give lectures on natural history and botany, but he also taught French, Italian, and Spanish. In 1821, he be- gan presenting public lectures, in Lexington, on botany, “elements of useful knowledge,” geometry, map-drawing, phrenology, and cra- niology, as noted by Dupre (1945, pp. 16, 30- 33) from announcements in the Kentucky Re- porter and from dated manuscripts of selected lectures. Rafinesque, however, was not the first to present public lectures in botany in the Ohio Valley. That enterprise, as noted above, had been inaugurated in Cincinnati by Daniel Drake in May 1818 (Horine 1961, p. 153). At Transylvania University, the curriculum was divided among the Academic, Medical, and Law departments. Rafinesque, whose ap- pointment was in the Academic Department, sought the Medical Department's chair of ma- teria medica and medical botany when it be- came available. As noted by Rafinesque in the Life of Travels (1836, p. 65),°°° President Hor- ace Holley (1781-1827) denied him that op- portunity because he did not have a medical degree. Rafinesque persisted, as noted in let- ters of 1 and 12 February 1822 to Short, by 141 offering to develop a botanical garden and museum for the University, on the condition that it would annex his existing professorship to the Medical Department. The chair of ma- teria medica and medical botany went to Dr. Daniel Drake, who had already held it in 1817 and 1818 and now occupied it again from 1823 to 1825, after which he was transferred to the chair of theory and practice and to a simulta- neous deanship of the Medical Department until his resignation in 1827. Dr. Charles W. Short was elected to the chair of materia med- ica and medical botany in August 1825 and continued in that position until his resignation in 1837, simultaneously serving as dean from 1828 until 1837. By some unknown arrangement, Rafinesque gave a course on medical botany to a class of medical students in 1822. On 1 February 1822, he wrote to Short that he was currently delivering a course on medical botany and that he would give another course on botany in the spring. In an advertisement“* in the Kentucky Gazette for 17 October 1822, Rafinesque in- vited medical students to attend his course of lectures on medical and systematic botany to be given twice a week at convenient hours during the coming medical session. In his Life of Travels (1836, p. 73),5° he wrote that his first course of lectures on medical botany be- gan in the winter of 1823-1824 and included an exhibition of specimens of useful medicinal plants he had obtained through his own col- lecting and from friends or pupils from Mis- souri, Illinois, and Arkansas. By employing this technique of demonstration and display, Raf- inesque was pioneering in the methods of teaching materia medica and botany. In Feb- ruary 1824 he was lecturing on botany to 108 medical students. His medical lectures contin- ued through the winter of 1825-1826. The lectures of Drake and Short were also held during the winter months and coincided with those of Rafinesque, and yet no evidence is available to reveal that Rafinesque was in contact with these individuals at those times. He had earlier corresponded with both gen- tlemen, had botanized with Short as they trav- eled between Lexington and Cincinnati in 1821, and had visited Short at his home in Hopkinsville in 1823. Even though much has been written on the association of Rafinesque with Transylvania University’s Academic De- 142 partment and on the history of its distin- guished Medical Department, little if any in- teraction appears to have existed between these two components of this great university (Peter and Peter 1896; Peter 1905; Dupre 1945; Sonne 1939; Jennings 1955; Wright 1975; Gobar and Hamon 1982). Apparently these departments were largely content to ig- nore each other during the 1820s but began to function cooperatively in the 1830s, after Transylvania’s finest days were past (Christian- son 1981). Little is known of the quality of Rafin- esque’s lectures and of the response from stu- dents and townspeople to the lectures. No reportorial or editorial notices of them ap- peared in local newspapers (Call 1895, p. 46). Call did quote from a letter by George W. Jones, one of Rafinesque’s former students, who wrote that Rafinesque “often lectured to the students in the College and in a most en- tertaining manner to the great delight of his audiences,” and who then proceeded to de- scribe an entertaining lecture about ants (Call 1895, p. 43). Another letter came from Johan- na Peter, daughter of the Robert Peter (1805— 1894) who served in the Medical Department as librarian, teacher of chemistry and phar- macy, dean, and writer of its history. She de- scribed Rafinesque’s lecture room as “the scene of the most free and easy behavior, made possible by the total absorption ... of the lecturer, who was always totally oblivious to his surroundings when occupied with his favorite pursuits.” Those pursuits included botany, of which “he was an enthusiast” (Call 1895, p. 63). Judge Belvard J. Peters, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, must have consid- ered Rafinesque a kind of “ecologist.” He wrote: “... I think Botany was his favorite study. He spent much time in the mountains of Kentucky . . . investigating the quality of the different soils and their adaptability to the production of various plants, vegetables, etc.” (Call 1895, p. 67). Little is known of any students who may have studied botany with Rafinesque. Al- though no records of contacts have been lo- cated, Josiah Hale (ca. 1791-1856), a Louisi- ana botanist and graduate of the Medical De- partment of Transylvania University in March 1822, is supposed to have been a private pupil of Rafinesque’s, and “imbibed from him his Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) passion for botany” (Ewan 1977). In arti- cles*?!“°! in the Western Minerva, Rafinesque also acknowledged receiving information on the medicinal properties of two _liliaceous plants “communicated by Mr. Crockett, a medical student.” Several valuable additions to his herbarium were also made by a “Mr. Crockett.” This individual may have been Dr. G.J.H. Crockett of Hendersonville, Scott County, Kentucky, who purchased one share of stock in the Transylvania Botanical Garden and who later practiced medicine at Frankfort, where he was located when Rafinesque thanked him for information used in the Med- ical Flora (1828).>°*4 The Transylvania Botanical Garden Having been acquainted with botanical gar- dens at universities in Europe and with the private gardens of John Bartram and Hum- phrey Marshall near Philadelphia, Rafinesque desired to establish a botanical garden at Tran- sylvania University. There he could assemble native and exotic plants for scientific study and practical research. His master plan for the project included several attached buildings for operation of a greenhouse, a museum, and a library. As described in his Life of Travels (1836, p. 72),5° he went to Frankfort to solicit financial aid from the State Legislature. This aid was approved by the Senate but not the Representatives. Though disheartened by this action, he did not relinquish the idea of a gar- den, and so to divert his attention away from it, he was appointed Librarian of the Univer- sity and Keeper of the Museum where the late John Clifford’s natural history collections were kept. Despite these political actions, Rafinesque assembled a group of university officials and private citizens of Lexington who petitioned the General Assembly for a charter for the es- tablishment in or near Lexington of a public botanical, agricultural, and medical garden to be known as “The Botanical Garden of Tran- sylvania University.” The charter, approved on 7 January 1824 by Govemor John Adair, pro- vided for a corporation with stockholders, the details of which were explained in a published Prospectus, By-Laws & Charter (1824).*° The garden would offer a number of advantages, according to the Prospectus. First, to the town of Lexington, it would be a pleasant and Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey healthful resort where citizens and visitors could take walks while observing living plants in an educational setting. Second, to the farm- ers of Kentucky, as well as all other citizens of the western country, it would provide a labo- ratory for experimentation with and improve- ment of fruit trees, garden produce, and grain- crops. Third, for the University’s medical stu- dents, the opportunity would be available to study “the Medical plants of North-America and Europe, and acquire thereby an accurate knowledge of them; while the sons of our farmers will witness experiments and success- ful cultivation, receive instruction on the prac- tical and scientific principles of husbandry and gardening, imbibing thus a taste for an im- proved cultivation of our bountiful soil.” Fourth, the shareholders would receive finan- cial dividends, for it was expected that “the single article of Opium, might it [be] needful, [could] be made to cover all the annual ex- penses of the garden.” The garden was to be planted with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants procured by collection, exchange, or purchase. Among them were fruit trees, useful ornamental or medicinal plants, and economic vegetable and grain crops. The entire grounds, not to exceed 25 acres at first or 50 ultimately, were to be divided into an ornamental garden, orchard, shrubbery, groves, nursery, medical and agri- cultural garden, meadow, and park. The struc- tures mentioned were houses, halls, galleries, stores, cabins, walls, fences, gates, pavements, cisterns, wells, fish-ponds, aviaries, and em- bellishments. A museum would house dried specimens of all the plants cultivated in the garden, and a library would include books on agriculture, gardening, domestic economy, veterinary medicine, botany, mineralogy, and natural resources. Lectures and practical dem- onstrations were to be given on these subjects. Students and visitors had access to all of these facilities although they were to be charged a small fee of 25 cents per day or one to five dollars per year for daily access to it. At spec- ified times, plants would be sold for distribu- tion throughout the state or country. The by-laws section of the Prospectus (1824)*°° of the Transylvania Botanic-Garden Company provided for the formation of a Board of Directors, to which Dr. William H. Richardson (?-1845), professor of obstetrics in 143 Transylvania’s Medical Department, was named as president, and to which Rafinesque was named as secretary. The by-laws also pro- vided for capital stock, sold by subscription at $50 per share, with payments made in $10 in- stallments over a period of 4 years. In his handwritten Subscription Book (1824b), Raf- inesque included the date, signature, and number of shares purchased by each share- holder. Thirty of the subscribers were resi- dents of Lexington, and 37 were from else- where in Kentucky. Rafinesque purchased five shares, President Holley one share, and Pro- fessor Richardson three shares. Ohio Valley botanists whose names appeared on the list were Dr. Daniel Drake, who was subscribed for two shares by Richardson, and Nicholas Longworth (1782-1863), a wealthy Cincinnati lawyer turned horticulturist, who was to pay for his six shares in “trees, plants & seeds.” The book records that 97 shares were sold. In a public notice,*° Rafinesque calculated that the sale of 100 shares would put the institution into operation and that the stock would be- come profitable because it was “contemplated to cultivate in the garden, many valuable prod- ucts suitable to the climate, such as Opium, Castor Oil, Ginseng, Vines, Madder, &c. be- sides all kinds of Fruit trees, Ornamental trees and plants, medical roots, &c.” Rafinesque was to be superintendent and director of the garden. As defined in the by- laws,‘ the superintendent “shall act as man- ager of the garden, secretary and clerk of the board of directors, architect of the buildings and improvements, keeper of the museum, li- brarian, professor of the Institution, agent for collecting subscriptions and collector of ob- jects for the garden.” He also had to hold five shares of stock and could be removed from the position only by vote of three-fourths of the Board of Directors. To advertise and explain the work of the garden, Rafinesque had printed a 24-page pamphlet titled First Catalogues and Circulars of the Botanical Garden (1824).° It consisted of three parts: first, a three-page “Circular of the Directors” written in both English and French, which described the contemplated ac- tivities of the garden and requested donations of living plants and other gifts for the museum and library; second, a three-page “Circular of C. S. Rafinesque,” also in English and French, 144 to his friends and correspondents in America and Europe, describing his own professional pursuits and including places traveled, num- bers of new species discovered and described, number of plants in his herbarium, and the extent of his manuscripts written or published; third, the “Florula Kentuckiensis,” being a cat- alogue of the principal trees, shrubs, and her- baceous plants of Kentucky, as described above. This catalogue consisted of three sub- catalogues. The first was the checklist of the plants of Kentucky, as described earlier; the second, an alphabetical list of scientific names of the useful plants, shrubs, and trees medical, tinctorial, or economical wanted for the gar- den; and the third, an alphabetical list of sci- entific names of the ornamental, fragrant, or singular herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees wanted by the Botanic Garden. Another advertisement for assistance in de- veloping the garden appeared in the Kentucky Gazette for 3 February and 10 February 1825 (Rafinesque 1825a), and listed six tasks that needed to be completed: To Grub and plough about 7 acres of ground. To pave about 60 square yards with flat stones. To lay about 100 Cubic yards of a stone fence. To put up a Board fence 7 feet high, around part of the ground. To Cart Tan bark and other objects by the day by the load. To procure and plant One Thousand young trees, Shrubs and Vines, from the woods. An account of the early development of the garden was published by Harrison (1913), whose information was based primarily on minutes of meetings of the Board of Directors and on a manuscript journal of garden-related activities kept by Rafinesque (1825b). Harri- son quoted from most of the daily journal en- tries from 15 March through 20 April 1825. Although published as if the entries were quoted verbatim, a comparison with the orig- inal text reveals that some words and phrases were omitted from Harrison’s published ver- sion. The garden itself had become a reality by September 1824, with the purchase from one Joseph Megowan of a lot of about 10 acres on East Main Street, for $1000, payable in 5 years. As recorded in the journal, Rafinesque (1825b), as superintendent, began developing the garden in the spring of 1825. On 15 March Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) he engaged James Stuart as gardener for a month at $20, in addition to two other workers who were set to work pulling corn stalks. The journal gives a nearly daily account of clearing ground and planting trees, among which were cherries, weeping willows, locusts, and ashes. On 14 April, on an acre of ground, castor oil beans were planted and seeds of marsh mal- lows, chamomile, anise, and other medicinal plants were sown later. On 19 April, the day before the journal ended, Rafinesque received “200 valuable fruit trees and shrubs, and 27 pots from Mr. Nicholas Longworth,” which were all planted the next day. In June 1825, Rafinesque departed from Lexington for Washington, D.C., leaving the garden in the care of Joseph Ficklin. During his absence, the garden must have been neglected, and fi- nancial difficulties arose when several sub- scribers did not pay their installments. As noted in his Life of Travels (1836, p. 75),°° Rafinesque made this trip east primarily to seek new employment, for he was finding it “impossible to struggle against the influence of the foes of science.” Upon returning to Kentucky in the fall of 1825, he learned while in Frankfort that Holley had reassigned one of his two rooms to students and had heaped his books and scientific collections together in the other room. Holley also deprived him of his position as Librarian and his board at the Col- lege. Rafinesque then took lodging in the town. He abandoned the botanical garden “since the company would not support it prop- erly, and thus it has been destroyed” (Life of Travels, 1836, pp. 78-79).5° The minutes for March 1826 stated that the property was to be sold and the proceeds divided proportionally among those shareholders who had paid their installments. Rafinesque officially retained his professorship and gave his course of lectures on medical botany in the winter. In the spring of 1826, he left Transylvania University and made Philadelphia his permanent base of op- eration. The Botanical Garden of Transylvania Uni- versity was a grandiose undertaking for a small school on the western frontier of the United States and for a community that was not ready to understand, accept, use, and support it. It was another of Rafinesque’s plans that was ahead of its time in that the ideas embodied in the undertaking became realities with the Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey development of agricultural and horticultural programs in the midwestern land-grant uni- versities later in the century. THE KENTUCKY INSTITUTE The Kentucky Institute, a scientific and lit- erary society organized in Lexington in Janu- ary 1823, consisted initially of 24 members, half of whom were professors at Transylvania University and the others residents of the town (Venable 1891, p. 169). According to Raf- inesque’s Life of Travels (1836, p. 72),°° this organization grew out of a literary club that had formed a year earlier. The institute met weekly, and at least one essay or paper was read and discussed at each meeting. An arti- cle*! in the Cincinnati Literary Gazette for 13 March 1824 listed the titles of 13 essays and the names of the lecturers. Among these were three lectures by Rafinesque: “History and traditions of the Shawanoe [or Shawnee] Na- tion,” “American Population,” and “Geology of Kentucky.” Daniel Drake had lectured on the “Influence of climate upon the character of man,” and Horace Holley had also given two lectures. Holley was president of the organi- zation, and Rafinesque served as secretary. Raf- inesque gave another lecture entitled “On a new medical plant Prenanthes opicrina and a new kind of opium—Opicrine” before the In- stitute on 11 February 1824. This lecture‘ was published in the Cincinnati Literary Ga- zette for 10 July 1824. Rafinesque listed seven of his lectures, mostly on the subject of ge- ography, in a Catalogue of his principal works sent to Thomas Jefferson on 15 February 1824 (Betts 1944). The lecture on Prenanthes opi- crina was the only one on a botanical subject. The Kentucky Institute was supposedly “the first scientific society formed within the state, and one of the first, if not the first, west of the Alleghenies” (Call 1895, p. 35). The or- ganization had a short existence, but the date of its last meeting has not been learned. In the Life of Travels (1836, p. 72),5° Rafinesque contended that his communications to the Kentucky Institute were “too learned,” and thus he had “to become a Poet... .” AN AMERICAN CALENDAR OF FLORA, AN UNFINISHED PROJECT Rafinesque’s total involvement with all as- pects of botany in the Ohio Valley naturally 145 resulted in some contemplated projects he never began or never completed. A very pop- ular approach to botanical study during the first half of the 19th century, as noted from the large number of papers appearing in sci- entific, literary, and medical journals, was the preparation of floral calendars. These calen- dars recorded the phenological events in se- lected species on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Usually they were prepared during spring, when plants were breaking dormancy. Among items noted were the times when buds began to swell, leaves appeared, flowers opened, and fruits formed. The Rev. Henry Muhlenberg, who promoted the preparation of local floras, also suggested to Dr. Jacob Big- elow (1787-1879) of Boston that much infor- mation on the changes of climate in the Unit- ed States could be acquired by recording in- formation on the flowering times of common fruit trees and other plants. Bigelow issued a circular in which he requested that such ob- servations be made during the spring of 1817 in various parts of the United States; a year later he published the results of these obser- vations (Bigelow 1818a, 1818b). Rafinesque was unable to respond to Bigelow’s request in 1817, but in Silliman’s Journal in 1818 he pub- lished an article?” recording the daily progress of vegetation from 20 February through 20 May of 1816 for the Philadelphia area. This paper had obvious usefulness in the fields of agriculture and gardening but was also a con- tribution toward a local vernal flora of the area and the much larger endeavor of compiling an “American calendar of flora.” Upon Rafinesque’s arrival west of the Alle- gheny Mountains, the only known floral cal- endars for the area were those of Dr. Daniel Drake, who had published observations for the spring seasons of 1809 and 1815 in his books Notices Concerning Cincinnati (Drake 1810-1811) and Picture of Cincinnati ... (Drake 1816), respectively. Rafinesque, in- tending to compile a floral calendar for the western states, begged information for it from Dr. Short, as recorded in his letter of 21 De- cember 1819 from Lexington: Since you mean to watch your vegetation closely next year, I would advise you and even beg, that you may at the same time keep a kind of Journal of the prog- ress of vegetation in the blossom’g, budding, folia- tion, &c of your plants, shrubs & trees, noticing when 146 you shall first see in blossom every plant. I am going to keep the same kind of Journal here. I have already two such Journals from near Pittsburg & the banks of the Wabash kept by Dr. Muller; and from all those I hope to be enabled to draw a comparative Vernal calendarium of the Western States. You know that such Journals are very interesting in many points of view, & particularly in acquiring a comparative knowledge of climates. I invite you to begin yours in January, carry it as far as the end of May, and then throughout the whole year oc[c]asionally; if it is use- ful to know the first flowers of Spring, it is not less to know the last ones of Autumn. Short probably never complied with this re- quest, and Rafinesque’s contemplated western floral calendar, although it may have been par- tially assembled or even written, has never been discovered in manuscript or listed as a published contribution. WHY RAFINESQUE LEFT TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY Transylvania University professors Gobar and Hamon (1982, pp. 21-22) have attempted to summarize the reasons for which Rafin- esque left the school in 1826. First, Rafin- esque had hoped to establish a museum of natural history that would contain his exten- sive herbarium, but the Trustees would not fund it. Second, his prolonged absences from the campus, even though many of his excur- sions were to study and obtain specimens of plants and animals in the field, strained his relationship with President Holley, who, ac- cording to Rafinesque’s perception, was not in- terested in supporting science. Third, his “for- eign” demeanor made him an easy target for prejudice, and his personal faults did not help his reputation, already subject to mistrust and suspicion among his contemporaries. And fourth, as an author he was expansive and al- lowed his interest in novelty to lead him ev- erywhere, creating the impression that he was at times a dabbler. Huntley Dupre (1961, pp. 82-83), formerly a Professor of History at Transylvania, wrote the following of Rafinesque’s leaving that uni- versity: Rafinesque felt himself to be unappreciated in Lexington and he became increasingly frustrated and disappointed. He felt that he was surrounded by foes of science, among whom he came to number Presi- dent Holley .... Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) William Leavey, a contemporary [and strong sup- porter of Holley], very likely reflected the opinions of the substantial citizens of the community in these words: “Though learned and enthusiastic in Botany and the Sciences he professed, Professor Rafinesque was esteemed generally a visionary man. He was wholly unsuccessful in all his undertakings, and left Lexington with scarcely any means,—subscriptions were raised for him by friends on his leaving.’ SUMMARY More has been written to describe and an- alyze the life and work of Rafinesque than of any other North American naturalist. Versa- tile, enthusiastic, eccentric, and egotistical he was; but “mad,” “crazy,” or “insane” he was not, as judged simply on the basis of his pro- ductivity. To his botanical contemporaries and their immediate followers, he was extremely controversial and thus for the most part they ignored him, but to the taxonomic botanists of the following century his contributions were objects that had to be evaluated. An individual with truly remarkable native mental ability and tremendous energy, he too frequently dem- onstrated a lack of appreciation of the realities of life. Rafinesque considered himself a trav- eler, and to him all of his scientific, linguistic, and historical pursuits were episodes within his larger life’s joumey (Boewe 1988). Of the sciences, he made it known that botany was his favorite, and he studied it more intensely and thoroughly than any of his other interests. Everywhere Rafinesque went he discovered “new” plants. He sorted out minute morpho- logical variations as indications of distinct en- tities. In an era in which naturalists often achieved recognition through describing what was new, Rafinesque wasted no time in mak- ing known his newly discovered plants. Con- sequently, he proposed new names for about 2,700 genera and 6,700 species—more than any other botanist. Simultaneously, he pub- lished discussions of new systems of classifi- cation, nomenclatural procedures, and_pro- cesses of gradual changes in plants through time. Contemporary botanists and their im- mediate followers, led by Asa Gray, were quick to criticize Rafinesque and his innovative ap- proaches. With reference to his new taxa, he was accused of not having made necessary comparisons with related or similar plants, of not having reviewed or cited the literature, and of not having the specimens to support Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey his conclusions. Yet examination of many of his publications, particularly his earlier ones, reveals that indeed he did make comparisons with related taxa. He did use the literature; citations are given to European and American authors and their works. Furthermore, he had written extensive reviews criticizing and mak- ing numerous corrections to eight of the major contemporary taxonomic botanical works of North America. He had the largest herbarium of any contemporary botanist, Bat it was lack- ing in organization; his plants were insuffi- ciently labeled and apparently were not ar- ranged into any usable system. Rafinesque firmly believed that his desig- nations of new taxa and his nomenclatural changes were valid contributions to science, but no botanist during his lifetime or for a century later could actually make the proper evaluations, as the world’s flora was not suffi- ciently known and the definitive literature was not at hand. However, evaluation became nec- essary with the adoption, in 1867, and gradual refinement of the International Code of Bo- tanical Nomenclature. It then followed that all of Rafinesque’s proposed names had to be in- dexed, their descriptions read and compared with other taxa, and the specimens docu- menting these names located, if possible. This process of determining the validity and prior- ity of plant names is often a frustrating task and will continue to be so. Surviving copies of Rafinesque’s publications were few in number, widely scattered, or difficult to obtain, at least before reprinting processes became available. Nearly all of his herbarium was discarded as trash, and so it has been necessary for bota- nists to seek documentation from the herbaria of botanists to whom he sent specimens (Pen- nell 1942, 1945; Merrill 1949; Stuckey 1971b). Rafinesque’s botanical pursuits in the Ohio Valley are those of an active 8-year period dur- ing the middle of a very busy life. As the re- gion’s premier resident professor-naturalist, Rafinesque was the first to investigate all as- pects of its natural history, but his botanical publications were the most varied and exten- sive. His discoveries of new plant taxa from the region were actually very few even though he named at least 612 taxa. For that series of poor judgments he deserves little praise. As the first resident professor of botany at a uni- versity in the Ohio Valley, he had the oppor- 147 tunity to expand and diffuse botanical knowl- edge through lectures, field work, and publi- cations. Some may contend that he also failed in these efforts, but he must be considered a pioneer, some of whose accomplishments in these areas have not yet been fully evaluated or understood. He was the first to prepare checklists of the vascular-plant flora of Ken- tucky and of the prairies and barrens of the lower Ohio Valley. He was the first to outline and describe the phytogeographic regions of Kentucky and to list their characteristic spe- cies. He was the first to write an account of plant succession, now a fundamental tenet of plant ecology. Unfortunately, these innovative contributions, like so many of his publications, appeared in obscure scientific, literary, or pop- ular journals, and thus they have been ig- nored, overlooked, and forgotten. Even Asa Gray (1841) admitted that he had not seen some of Rafinesque’s publications printed in Kentucky, for they were marked as “unknown” to him. Rafinesque’s efforts at establishing a botanical garden, although ending in failure, showed that he had the considerable foresight to plan and establish an elaborate facility for the general appreciation, study, and improve- ment of medicinal, horticultural, and agricul- tural plants. While he interacted personally with many of the botanists in the Ohio Valley, he begged and appropriated from them for his personal use all the information that he could obtain. Rafinesque evidently lacked social skills and leadership qualities and had difficulty in work- ing with associates. When editors of the more reputable scientific journals rejected his pa- pers, when his own Western Minerva was “suppressed,” and when his lectures before the Kentucky Institute were not well received, he claimed in all of these instances that the papers were “too learned.” He admitted that his Atlantic Journal (1833)"5> “was too learned” for the common reader but boasted that it was “chiefly patronized by enlightened or learned men... .” This “reason” was a nat- ural product of the self-centered personality that alienated so many of Rafinesque’s associ- ates. Many of his papers, however, contained new ideas that were considered unorthodox and were judged by some editors and publish- ers to be unworthy of publication. In many instances, Rafinesque’s pioneering efforts were 148 not ready for acceptance, nor were his readers prepared to grasp or see the relevance of the new information being provided. Actually, in many respects he was distinctly ahead of the botanical writers of his time. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful appreciation is given to the follow- ing individuals who helped in various capaci- ties to complete this study: David Armstrong, Carol and Jerry Baskin, Charles Boewe, Wil- liam R. Burk, David Campbell, J. Perry Ed- wards, Joseph Ewan, John W. Frederick, Gary Kirkpatrick, Dorothy I. Lansing, James S. Pringle, Marvin L. Roberts, the late Emanuel D. Rudolph, Nancy Ryan, Alfred E. Schuyler, Ay Ee Spreitzer, David Stansbery, John W. Thieret, Edward Toth, Edward G. Voss, and Judith Warnement. REFERENCES CITED The references cited are arranged into two groups: The first group lists all of the cited papers that Rafinesque wrote and that have corre- sponding numbers in Fitzpatrick (1911) or in Boewe (1982). These numbers appear as su- perscripts throughout the text where refer- ence is made to Rafinesque’s own publications. A repetitive Boewe number is indication of a reprinting. The second group lists all other citations. Specifically, it contains (1) papers and manu- scripts written by Rafinesque that do not have assigned numbers and are not listed in Fitz- patrick (1911) or in Boewe (1982), (2) letters written to or by Rafinesque, and (3) secondary publications about Rafinesque and his work. References to Rafinesque’s Publications Cited with the Numbers of Fitzpatrick (1911) or Boewe (1982) Fitzpatrick 4. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1805. [Announcement of a catalogue of the plants of the State of Delaware and of the District of Columbia.] The Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal 2(1):177. Fitzpatrick 5. | Rafinesque, C. S.] 1806. Additions to Mi- chaux’s Flora of North-America. In a letter from Mr. Rafinesque, to Dr. Mitchill, dated Palermo, in Sicily, Sth August, 1805. The Medical Repository, second hexade, 3:422-423. Fitzpatrick 8. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1808. Prospectus of Mr. Rafinesque Schmaltz’s two intended works on North-American botany; the first on the new genera Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) and species of plants discovered by himself, and the second on the natural history of the funguses, or mush- room-tribe of America. The Medical Repository, second hexade, 5:350-356. Fitzpatrick 9. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. G. [S.] 1808. Es- sential generic and specific characters of some new gen- usses and species of plants observed in the United States of America, in 1803 and 1804. By Mr. C. G. Rafinesque Schmaltz. In a communication to Dr. Mitchill, dated Palermo, Sept. Ist, 1807. The Medical Repository, second hexade, 5:356-363. Fitzpatrick 10. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. S. 1808. Notice on the medical properties of some North-American plants: addressed to Dr. Mitchill by C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz. The Medical Repository, second hexade, 5: 493-424. Fitzpatrick 19. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. [S.] 1810. Prog- ress in American Botany. By a letter from C. Rafinesque Schmaltz, Esq., of Palermo, in Sicily, to Dr. Mitchill, dated May 30, 1809, the following botanical information is received. The Medical Repository, third hexade, 1: 197 [297]. Fitzpatrick 21. Rafinesque Schmaltz, C. S. 1811. An es- say on the exotic plants, mostly European, which have been naturalized, and now grow spontaneously in the Middle States of North America. The Medical Reposi- tory, third hexade, 2:330-345. (Reprinted, 1978. In Ronald L. Stuckey, ed. Essays on North American Plant Geography from the Nineteenth Century. Arno Press, New York.) Boewe Bibliography 21. Fitzpatrick 22. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1811. Botanical in- formation concerning two families of Plants. I. Species of the genus Callitriche. 11. North American species of the genus Potamogeton. The Medical Repository, third hexade, 2:407-409. Fitzpatrick 230. Rafinesque-Schmaltz, C. S. 1814. Precis des Decouvertes et Travaux Somiologiques entre 1800 et 1814 ou choix raisonne de ses principales Decouver- tes en Zoologie et en Botanique, pour servir dintroduction A ses ouvrages futurs. Palerme. 56 pp. (Reprinted with editorial remarks, 1814. Desvaux’s Journal de Botanique 4:268-276. [=Fitzpatrick 231)) (Reprinted, 1948. With foreword by Elmer D. Merrill. Peter Smith, New York. [=Boewe Bibliography 230]) (Reprinted, 1990. In Constantine Samuel Rafinesque Schmaltz on Classification: A Translation of Early Works by Rafinesque with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Arthur J. Cain. Tryonia No. 20. Depart- ment of Malacology, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 240 pp.) Fitzpatrick 237. R[afinesque], C. S. 1817. [Review of] Flora Philadelphica Prodromus, or Prodromus of the Flora Philadelphica, exhibiting a list of all the plants to be described in that work which have as yet been col- lected. By Dr. William P. C. Barton. Philadelphia. 1815. 100 pp. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 1:356—359. Fitzpatrick 241. R[afinesque], C. S. 1817. [Review of] A Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey 149 Manual of Botany for the Northern States, comprising generic descriptions of all Phenogamous and Cryptog- amous plants to the north of Virginia, hitherto de- scribed, &c. &c. Compiled by the Editor of Richard’s Botanical Dictionary. Albany. Webster & Skinners. 1817. 164 pp. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 1:426—430. Fitzpatrick 249. |Rafinesque, C. S.] 1817. First decade of undescribed American plants, or Synopsis of new species, from the United States. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2:43-44. Fitzpatrick 251. R[afinesque, C. S.] 1817. Survey of the progress and actual state of natural sciences in the Unit- ed States of America, from the beginning of this century to the present time. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2:81—89. (Reprinted, 1974. Edited by Keir B. Sterling. Amo Press, New York.) Boewe Bibliography 251. Fitzpatrick 252. Rafinesque, C. S. 1817. Description of the Ioxylon pomiferum, a new genus of North American tree. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Re- view 2:118—119. Fitzpatrick 253. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1817. Second de- cade of undescribed American plants. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2:119-120. Fitzpatrick 256. R[afinesque], C. S. 1817. [Review of] Descriptio uberior Graminum et Plantarum Calamari- arum Americae septentrionalis, indigenarum et cicu- rum. By D. Henrico Muhlenberg. 1 vol., 295 pp. Sol. W. Conrad, Philadelphia. 1817. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2:143-144. Fitzpatrick 257. Rafinesque, C. S. 1817. Florula Ludoy- iciana; or, a flora of the state of Louisiana. Translated, revised, and improved, from the French of C. C. Robin, by C. S. Rafinesque .... C. Wiley & Co., New York. 178 pp. (Facsimile ed., 1967. With introduction by Jo- seph Ewan. Hafner Publishing Co., New York and Lon- don. xl, 178 pp.) Boewe Bibliography 257. Fitzpatrick 258. R{afinesque], C. S. 1818. [Review of] Flora Americae Septentrionalis, or a systematic ar- rangement and description of the plants of North America, &c. By Frederick Pursh, 2 vols. with 24 en- gravings, London, 1814. The American Monthly Mag- azine and Critical Review 2:170-176. Fitzpatrick 264. Rlafinesque], C. S. 1818. [Review of] Flora Americae Septentrionalis, or a systematic ar- rangement and description of the plants of North America, &c. By Frederick Pursh, 2 vols. with 24 en- gravings, London, 1814. The American Monthly Mag- azine and Critical Review 2:265-269. Fitzpatrick 265. R[iafinesque], C. S. 1818. [Review of] Florula Bostoniensis. A collection of plants of Boston and its environs, with their generic and specific char- acters, synonymes, descriptions, place of growth, and time of flowering, and occasional remarks. By Jacob Bigelow, M. D. Boston, 1814. 280 pp. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 2:342-344. Fitzpatrick 267. R[afinesque], C. S. 1818. [Review of] A Sketch of the Botany of South-Carolina and Georgia. By Stephen Elliott, Esq. &c &c. Charleston, 1817. 100 pages, with some plates; to be continued. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 3:96-101. Fitzpatrick 270. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the western region of the United States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq. Addressed to Samuel L. Mitchill, president and the other members of the Ly- ceum of Natural History, in a letter dated at Louisville, Falls of Ohio, 20th July, 1818. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 3:354-356. Fitzpatrick 272. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818. Farther account of discoveries in natural history, in the westem states, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq. communicated in a letter from that gentleman to the editor. The Amer- ican Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:39-42. Fitzpatrick 275. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818. A journal of the progress of vegetation near Philadelphia, between the 20th of February and the 20th of May, 1816, with oc- casional zoological remarks. By C. S. Rafinesque. The American Journal of Science 1:77-82. Fitzpatrick 279. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818. Memoir on the Xanthium maculatum, new species from the state of New-York, &c. by C. S. Rafinesque, Esq. The American Journal of Science 1:151-153. Fitzpatrick 281. Description of a new genus of American grass. Diplocea barbata, by C. S. Rafinesque, Esq. The American Journal of Science 1:252-254. Fitzpatrick 284: Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Description and natural classification of the genus Floerkea, by C. S. Rafinesque. The American Journal of Science 1:373- 376. Fitzpatrick 285. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Descriptions of three new genera of plants, from the state of New-York. Cylactis, Nemopanthus, and Polanisia, by C. S. Rafin- esque. The American Journal of Science 1:377-379. Fitzpatrick 286. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Notice on the Myosurus shortii. The American Journal of Science 1: 379-380. Fitzpatrick 288. R[afinesque], C. S. 1819. [Review of] The Genera of North-American plants and a catalogue of the species to the year 1817. By Thomas Nuttall, F. L. S. &c. &c. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1818. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:184-196. Fitzpatrick 289. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Result of the botanical discoveries made in the western states by C. S. Rafinesque. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:207-208. Fitzpatrick 291. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. On some new genera of American plants. Extract of the third letter of C. S. Rafinesque, to Mr. Decandolle, Professor of Botany at Ginevra [Geneva], and author of the new Species Plantarum, dated Philadelphia, 25th Feb. 1819. Translated from the French. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:356-358. Fitzpatrick 292. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. On the intro- duction and cultivation of the tea-plant, in three letters 150 from C.S. Rafinesque, Esq. to the Hon. S. L. Mitchill. Read before the Lyceum of Natural History, Feb. §, 1819. Letter I. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:382-383. Fitzpatrick 293. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Letter II. On the several species of tea, their discriminating charac- ters, and their places of growth. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:383—384. Fitzpatrick 294. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Letter HI. To Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill, on the cultivation of tea in the United States. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:384. Fitzpatrick 295. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Letter to the editor of the American Monthly Magazine, on the date- tree, or palm. The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 4:465—467. Fitzpatrick 298. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1819. Florula Louis- villensis, sive Plantarum Catalogus, vicinitate urbis. Henrico M’Murtrie, M. D. &c. (Reprinted, 1969. With epilogue, pp. I-15. G. R. Clark Press, Louisville, Ken- tucky. ) Fitzpatrick 300. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome des nouveaux genres de plantes observés en 1817 et 1818 dans lintérieur des états-Unis d’Amérique. Par C. S. Rafinesque, Professeur de Botanique et d'Histoire na- turelle dans Université de Lexington. Journal de Phy- sique, de Chemie, d'Historie Naturelle et des Arts 89: 96-107. (Reprinted, 1820, Litterarischer Anzeiger (Jena) ? :236-244. [=Fitzpatrick 338]) Fitzpatrick 303. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Miscellany. Bot- any of Kentucky. On its principal features, by C. S. Raf- inesque, Professor Botany and Natural History in Tran- sylvania University. The Western Review and Miscel- laneous Magazine 1:92-95, 128 [errata]. (Reprinted with annotations, 1997. In Ronald L. Stuckey and James S. Pringle. Common names of vascular plants reported by C. S. Rafinesque in an 1819 descriptive outline of four vegetation regions of Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 58:9-19.) Fitzpatrick 305. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Remarques cri- tiques et synonymiques sur les Ouvrages de MM. Pursh, Nuttall, Elliott, Jorrey [Torrey], Barton, Muhl- enburg, etc., sur les plantes des Etats Unis. Journal de Physique, de Chemie, d’Histoire Naturelle et des Arts 89:256-261. Fitzpatrick 307. Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Botany. De- scriptions of two new shrubs from Kentucky, &c. by C. S. Rafinesque, Professor Botany, &c. in Transylvania University. The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine 1:228-230. Fitzpatrick 340. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Prodrome d'une monographie des rosiers de !Amerique septentrionale, contenant la description de quinze nouvelles especes et vingt varietes. Par M. C. S. Rafinesque, Professor de botanique de d’hist. nat. dans Universite Transylvane de Lexington en Kentucky... Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 5:210-220. (Reprinted, 1820. De Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) l'Imprimere de Weissenbruch pére, a Bruxelles. [=Fitzpatrick 362)) Fitzpatrick 341. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Sur le genre Houstonia et description de plusieurs especes nouvelles, etc. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 5:224— 227. (Reprinted, 1820. De lImprimere de Weissen- bruch pére, a Bruxelles. [=Fitzpatrick 362]) Fitzpatrick 345. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Remarques sur les rapports naturels des genres Viscum, Samolus et Vi- burnum. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 5: 348-351. Fitzpatrick 346. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Tableau analy- tique des ordres naturels, familles naturelles et genres, de la classe endogynie, sous classe corisantherie. Par C. S. Rafinesque, Professeur de botanique a Lexington. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 6:76—89. (Reprinted, 1820. De lImprimere de Weissenbruch peére, a Bruxelles. [=Fitzpatrick 364]) Fitzpatrick 350. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1820. [Remarques sur le genre Jeffersonia.| Annales Générales des Sci- ences Physiques 7:18. Fitzpatrick 351. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1820. [Sur le nou- veau genre Enemion.| Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 7:15—19. Fitzpatrick 353. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1820. [Nouveau car- actere de lIrillium sessile = Trillium sessile.| Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 7:19. Fitzpatrick 356. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Sur les genres Tridynia, Steironema, Lysimachia, etc. avec la descrip- tion d'une nouvelle espece. Par M. Rafinesque, prof. a lUniv. de Lexington. Annales Générales des Sciences 7:192-193. (Reprinted, 1820. De l'Imprimere de Weissenbruch pére, a Bruxelles. | =Fitzpatrick 367]) Fitzpatrick 359. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1820. Botanique; genres Chetyson, Enemion et Stylypus. Annales Génér- Physiques ales des Sciences Physiques 7:387. Fitzpatrick 368. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Description dun nouveau genre de plantes, Enemion, et remarques botaniques; par M. C. S. Rafinesque, Professeur de Bo- tanique et d'Histoire naturelle dans l'Universite de Lex- ington en Kentucky, et membre de plusieurs societes savantes, etc. Journal de Physique, de Chemie, d Histoire Naturelle et des Arts 91:70-72. Fitzpatrick 370. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Annals of nature or annual synopsis of new genera and species of ani- mals, plants, &c. discovered in North America. Printed by Thomas Smith, Lexington, Kentucky. 16 pp. (Re- printed, 1908. With foreword by T. J. Fitzpatrick. Pri- vately by T. J. Fitzpatrick, Iowa City, Iowa. |=Fitzpat- rick 939]) Fitzpatrick 374. Rafinesque, C. S. 1821. Remarques sur les Convolvulacees, etc. Par M. Rafinesque, prof. a PUniv. de Lexington. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques 8:268-272. Fitzpatrick 375. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1821. Western Mi- nerva, or American Annals of Knowledge and Litera- ture, un peu de tout. food for the mind. first volume. Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey 151 for 1821. Published for the editors, by Thomas Smith. Lexington, Kentucky. 88 pp. Fitzpatrick 390. 1821. Original scientific intelligence, or discoveries and remarks on natural sciences; extracted from a letter of Dr. John Torrey, vice-president of the Lyceum of Nat. History of New-York, to Professor Raf- inesque. Western Minerva 1(1):38—40. Fitzpatrick 391. Rlafinesque], C. S. 1821. Botany. Bo- tanical discoveries made in Kentucky in 1820, by Prof. Rafinesque, extracted and translated from a letter to Prof. Decandolle of Geneva in Switzerland, author of the New Species Plantarum, &c. Western Minerva (1): 40-42. Fitzpatrick 392. Rafinesque, C. S. 1821. On the several species of the genus Clintonia, addressed to Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, in a letter dated 26th September, 1819. Western Minerva 1(1):42—-43. Fitzpatrick 401. Rlafinesque], C. S. 1821. Notices of ma- teria medica, or new medical properties of some Amer- ican plants. Western Minerva 1(1):58—59. Fitzpatrick 406. “W. M.” [C. S. Rafinesque]. 1821. West- ern literature. Works published in the western states in 1820. Western Minerva 1(1):66-67. Fitzpatrick 413. Rafinesque, C. S. 1821. Fragments of a letter to Mr. Bory St. Vincent at Paris (member of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, author of travels in the islands of Africa, &c.) on various subjects —Translated from the French. Western Minerva 1(1):72—76. Fitzpatrick 432. [Rafinesque, C. S. 1821. Notice of the suspension of The Western Minerva.]| The Kentucky Reporter (Lexington), 28 January. Fitzpatrick 441. Rafinesque, C. S. 1822. The cosmon- ist—no. VII. On the botany of the western limestone region. Kentucky Gazette, new series, 1(14):2-3. 4 April. Fitzpatrick 442. Rafinesque, C. S. 1822. The cosmon- ist—no. IX. On two new genera [Enemion and Styli- pus] of vernal plants from Kentucky. Kentucky Gazette, new series, 1(15):3. 11 April. Fitzpatrick 447. Rafinesque, C. S. 1822. The cosmon- ist—no. XIV. On the roses of the United States. Ken- tucky Gazette, new series, 1(32):3. 8 August. Fitzpatrick 448. Rafinesque, Prof. [C. S.] 1822. [An- nouncement of a course of lectures on medical and sys- tematic botany and natural history in] Transylvania Uni- versity. Kentucky Gazette, new series, 1(42):2. 17 Oc- tober. Fitzpatrick 452. Rafinesque, C. S. 1824. Neophyton, No. 1. On a new tree of Kentucky forming a new genus Cladrastis fragrans. The Cincinnati Literary Gazette 1: 60. Fitzpatrick 453. Rafinesque, C. S. 1824. Neophyton, No. II. On the genus Collinsia, and two new species of it. The Cincinnati Literary Gazette 1:54—85. Fitzpatrick 454. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Kentucky In- stitute. The Cincinnati Literary Gazette 1:86—87. Fitzpatrick 455. | Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Botanical Gar- den of Lexington. The Cincinnati Literary Gazette 1: 87. Fitzpatrick 463. Rafinesque, C. S. 1824. Neophyton, No. HI. On a new medical plant, Prenanthes opicrina, and a new kind of opium—Opicrine. (Read before the Ken- tucky Institute, Feb. 11.) The Cincinnati Literary Ga- zette 2:10-11. Fitzpatrick 464. Rafinesque, C. S. 1524. Neophyton, No. IV. On the new genus Lophactis. The Cincinnati Lit- erary Gazette 2:28. Fitzpatrick 468[a]. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Circular of the directors of the botanic garden, pp. 2-5. In First Catalogues and Circulars of the Botanical Garden of Transylvania University at Lexington in Kentucky for the year 1824. Printed for the Botanical Garden Com- pany, by John M. M’Calla, Lexington, Ky. (English ver- sion, pp. 2, 4: French version, pp- 3, 5.) Fitzpatrick 468[b]. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Circular of C. S. Rafinesque to his friends and correspondents in America and Europe, pp. 4-11. In First Catalogues and Circulars of the Botanical Garden of Transylvania Uni- versity at Lexington in Kentucky for the year 1824. Printed for the Botanical Garden Company, by John M. M’Calla, Lexington, Ky. (English version, pp. 4, 6, 8, 10; French version, Pp: oss. 9, Tals) Fitzpatrick 468[c]. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Florula Kentuckiensis. Catalogue of the principal trees, shrubs, and plants of Kentucky, pp. 12-16. In First Catalogues and Circulars of the Botanical Garden of Transylvania University at Lexington in Kentucky for the year 1824. Printed for the Botanical Garden Company, by John M. M’Calla, Lexington, Ky. Fitzpatrick 469. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824. Prospectus, By-Laws & Charter, of the Transylvania Botanic-Gar- den Company, Lexington, Ky. 16 pp. Fitzpatrick 474. Rafinesque, C. S. 1825. Neogenyton, or indication of sixty-six new genera plants of North Amer- ica. By C. S. Rafinesque, Professor of Botany and Nat- ural History in the University of Lexington, in Ken- tucky. Dedicated to Professor Decandolle, of Geneva. [Published by the author, Lexington, Kentucky.] 4 pp. Fitzpatrick 554. Rafinesque, C. S. 1828. Medical Flora; or, Manual of the Medical Botany of the United States of North America. Containing a selection of above 100 figures and descriptions of medical plants, with their names, qualities, properties, history, &c.: and notes or remarks on nearly 500 equivalent substitutes. Vol. 1. Printed and published by Atkinson & Alexander, Phil- adelphia. xii, 268 pp. + 52 pls. (Reprinted, 1841, under the title, Manual of the Medical Botany of the United States; containing a description of fifty-two medical plants, with their names, qualities, properties, history, &c. with remarks on nearly 500 substitutes and fifty- two coloured plates. [Published by the author], Phila- delphia. xii, 259 + 52 pls. [=Fitzpatrick 925] Boewe Bibliography 554. Fitzpatrick 557. Rafinesque, C. S. 1830. Medical Flora; or Manual of the Medical Botany of the United States 152 of North America. Containing a selection of above 100 figures and descriptions of medical plants, with their names, qualities, properties, history, &c.: and notes or remarks on nearly 500 equivalent substitutes. Vol. 2. Published by Samuel C. Atkinson, Philadelphia. 276 pp. + pls. 53-100. Boewe Bibliography 557. Fitzpatrick 558. Rafinesque, C. S. 1830, American Man- ual of the Grape Vines and the Art of Making Wine: including an account of 62 species of vines, with nearly 300 varieties. Printed for the author, Philadelphia. vi, 66 pp. + 2 pls. Fitzpatrick 609. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Visit to Big- Bone Lick, in 1821. The Monthly American Journal of Geology and Natural Science, conducted by G. W. Featherstonhaugh 1:355-358. (Facsimile ed., 1969. In- troduction by George W. White. Hafner Publishing Co., New York and London.) Fitzpatrick 623. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Selection of twenty-four out of one hundred new species of plants of North America, sent to Europe in 1828. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:16-18. Fitzpatrick 661. Rafinesque, C. S. [ed.] 1832. Botany and Horticulture. Extracts of a letter from Dr. John Torrey of New York, to Prof. Rafinesque of Philadel- phia, March 1832. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:78. Fitzpatrick 727. R[afinesque], C. S. 1832. On 3 sp[ecies] of Typha. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1: 148-149. Fitzpatrick 728. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1832. Two new gen- era of Umbelliferous plants from Kentucky. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:149. Fitzpatrick 729. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. On 12 N[ew] Splecies] of plants from Illinois, &c. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:149-151. Fitzpatrick 731. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Vernasolis a new genus. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1152: Fitzpatrick 732. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Lophactis Niew] G[enus]. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowl- edge 1:152-153. Fitzpatrick 749. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Account of the botanical collections of Professor C. S. Rafinesque. At- lantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:167—170. Fitzpatrick 757. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1832. G[enus] Do- decatheon or Meadia. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:179-180. (Reprinted, 1833. Pp. 26-29. In Herbarium Rafinesquianum. [=Fitzpatrick 795)) Fitzpatrick 779. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Chronological index of the principal botanical works and discoveries published by C. S. Rafinesque. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge 1:206—208. (Reprinted, 1833. Pp. [33]-37. In Herbarium Rafinesquianum. [=Fitzpat- rick 800]) Fitzpatrick 785. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832-1833. Atlantic Journal and Friend of Knowledge: Containing about 160 original articles and tracts on Natural History and Historical Sciences, the Description of about 150 New Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Plants ... by C. S. Rafinesque. [Published by the au- thor], Philadelphia. [iv], 212 pp. (Published in 8 num- bers, with an extra of number 3 and of number 6; the latter, paged separately (pp. 1-80), titled Herbarium Rafinesquianum. |=Fitzpatrick 786]) (Reprinted, 1946. Armold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain.) Boewe Bib- liography 785. Fitzpatrick 786. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Herbarium Raf- inesquianum. Prodromus—pars prima. rarissim. plant nov. herbals; or botanical collections of C. S. Rafin- esque, Professor of Botany, &c. &c. &c. [Published by the author], Philadelphia. 80 pp. Fitzpatrick 788. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Account of the botanical collections of Professor C. S. Rafinesque. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 3-10. Fitzpatrick 795. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Glenus] Dode- cathon or Meadia. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 26-— 29. Fitzpatrick 797. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. G[enus] Kuhn- ia, revised. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 29-30. Fitzpatrick 798. Rafinesque, C. S$. 1833. Genus] Heli- chroa, Raf. 1825. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 30- 32. Fitzpatrick 800. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Chronological index of the principal botanical works and discoveries published by C. S. Rafinesque. Herbarium Rafines- quianum, pp. 33-37. Fitzpatrick 802. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Monograph of the species of Glenus] Samolus, in my herbarium. Her- barium Rafinesquianum, pp. 41-43. Fitzpatrick 803. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Genus Cypri- pedium. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 43-44. Fitzpatrick 804. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Genus Spiran- thes. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 44-45. Fitzpatrick 805. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. G[enera] Jef- fersonia and Podophyllum. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, p. 46. Fitzpatrick 811. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Florula Cen- tralis or Illinoensis. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 59-63. Fitzpatrick 814. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Florula Wasi- otana. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 66-67. Fitzpatrick 817. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. New genera of Orchideous [orchids]. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 70-74. Fitzpatrick 818. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. New species of Nforth] Amerlican] Orchideons [orchids]. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 74-77. Fitzpatrick 819. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. New Umbeli- fera. Herbarium Rafinesquianum, pp. 77-7. Fitzpatrick 858, 859. Rafinesque, C. S. 1836. The Amer- ican Nations; or, Outlines of their General History. 2 vols. [Published by the author], Philadelphia. [iv], 260 pp.; [4], 5-292 pp. (Reprinted, 1974, University Micro- films, Ann Arbor.) Boewe Bibliography 858, 859. Fitzpatrick 863. Rafinesque, C. S. 1836. A Life of Trav- els and Researches in North American and South Eu- rope, or outlines of The Life, Travels and Researches Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey 153 of C. S. Rafinesque, A.M. Ph. D. Printed for the author, printed, 1942. Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain.) by F. Turner, Philadelphia. 148 pp. (Reprinted, 1944. Boewe Bibliography 897. With foreword, critical index and explanatory comments Boewe Bibliography 948. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1819. Lec- by Elmer D. Merrill. Chronica Botanica 8:291-360. tures on Natural History and Botany. Kentucky Re- [=Boewe Bibliotheca 378, 417]) (Facsimile ed., porter (Lexington), 6 October. 1978. In Rafinesque: Autobiography and Lives. With Boewe Bibliography 949. Rafinesque, C. S. [Undated]. introduction by Keir B. Sterling. Amo Press, New Prospectus of Two Courses of Lectures on Natural His- York.) Boewe Bibliotheca 480; Boewe Bibliography tory and Botany, to be delivered at the Transylvania 863. University by professor C.S. Rafinesque. Broadside, | Fitzpatrick 868. Rafinesque, C. S. “1836” [1836-1838]. page. Copy seen in the Library, Transylvania University. New Flora and Botany of North America or a Supple- Boewe Bibliography 958. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1820. [Re- mental Flora, additional to all the Botanical Works on view of] Archaeologia Americana: Transactions and Col- North America and the United States. Containing 1000 lections of the American Antiquarian Society ... Vol- New or Revised Species ... in rota parts. I. Lexicon ume 1. Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine 3:89-112. and Monographs. II. Neophyton &c. IH. New Sylva &c. IV. Neobotanon &c.—with Introductions, Sketches, Notes, Indexes, &c. [Published by the author], Phila- delphia. (Reprinted, 1946. Amold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain.) Boewe Bibliography 868. Fitzpatrick 873. Rafinesque, C. S. “1836” [1837-1838]. Flora Telluriana Centur. I-XIJ. Mantissa Synoptica 2000 Nlew] Ord[ers|-N[ew] Genlera]—N[ew] Splecies]. Plantarum in Orbis Tellurianum. [Published by the au- thor], Philadelphia. (Reprinted, 1946. Amold Arbore- tum, Jamaica Plain.) Boewe Bibliography 873. Atwater, Caleb. 1818. On the prairies and barrens of the Fitzpatrick 883. Rafinesque, C. S. 1838. Alsographia West. American Journal of Science and Arts 1:116-125. Americana, or an American Grove of new or revised Atwater, Caleb. 1820a. Description of the antiquities dis- Other References Cited, Including Letters and Publications by Rafinesque Not Cited in Fitzpatrick (1911) or Boewe (1982) [Anonymous]. 1817-1818. Remarks by the Publishing Committee. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sci- ences of Philadelphia 1:485-486. [Anonymous]. 1900. [Discovery of a unique copy of Raf- inesque’s Western Minerva.] Botanical Gazette 30:216. trees and shrubs of the genera Myrica, Calycanthus, Salix, Quercus, Fraxinus, Populus, Tilia, Sambucus, Vir- burnum, Cornus, Juglans, Aesculus &c., with some new genera, monographs, and many new sp[ecies]. in 330 articles, completing 1405 G[enera] and Splecies] as a covered in the State of Ohio and other western states. Archaeologia Americana [Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society] 1:105-267. (Re- printed, 1833. In The Writings of Caleb Atwater. Co- lumbus.) Atwater, Caleb. 1820b. Letter to Isaiah Thomas, 12 Oc- tober, from Circleville. Holograph at American Anti- quarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts. (Selected portions quoted in The Kentucky Review 7:46. 1987. Charles Boewe.) Atwater, Caleb. 1827. Prairies in Ohio. Western Journal of Medicine and Physical Science 1:85-92. Atwater, Caleb. 1831. Prairies in Ohio, pp. 211-217. In Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien; thence to Washington City, in 1829. Isaac N. Whiting, Colum- bus, Ohio. 296 pp. Atwater, Caleb. 1838. Prairies in Ohio, pp. 25-30; Botany, pp. 71-92. In A History of the State of Ohio, Natural continuation of the Sylva Telluriana and North America Trees & Shrubs, by C. S. Rafinesque, A. M.—Ph. D. [Published by the author], Philadelphia. 76 pp. Fitzpatrick 885. Rafinesque, C. S. 1838. Sylva Telluriana. Mantis, synopt. new genera and species of trees and shrubs of North America, and other regions of the earth, omitted or mistaken by the botanical authors and compilers, or not properly classified, now reduced by their natural affinities to the proper natural orders and tribes. By C. S. Rafinesque, AM—Ph.D. Printed for the author and publisher, Philadelphia. (Reprinted, 1943. Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain.) Boewe Bib- fiosraphy, 885. ; psi» and Civil. Stereotyped by Glezen & Shepard, Cincin- Fitzpatrick 894. Rafinesque, C. S. 1839. American Man- nati, 407 pp. (Reprinted, without change, as 2nd ed., ual of the mulberry trees. Their history, cultivation, 1838.) properties, diseases, species and varieties &c, with hints on the production of silk from their barks &c. by C. S. Rafinesque, A. N. Ph. D. [Published by the author], Philadelphia. 96 pp. Audubon, John James. 1832. The eccentric naturalist, pp. 455460. In Ornithological Biography, Vol. 1. Judah Dobson and H. H. Porter, Philadelphia. Barlow, William, and David O. Powell. 1977. Malthus A. Fitzpatrick 897. Rafinesque, C. S. 1840. Autikon Botan- Ward, frontier physician, 1815-1823. Journal of the ikon or Botanical Illustrations of 2500 New, Rare or History Medicine and Allied Sciences 32:280-291. Beautiful Trees, Shrubs, Plants, Vines, Lilies, Grasses, Barlow, William, and David O. Powell. 1978a. Frontier Ferns, &c, of all regions, but chiefly North America, medicine and life: Kittanning, Pennsylvania, in 1815 with Descriptions &c. and 2500 self figures or speci- and 1816. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine mens .... [Published by the author], Philadelphia. (Re- 61:17-30. 154 Barlow, William, and David O. Powell. 1978b. The early life of a University of Georgia professor: Malthus A. Ward, M.D., 1794-1831. Atlantic Historical Journal 22: 68-71. Barlow, William, and David O. Powell. 1986. “The late Dr. Ward of Indiana”: Rafinesque’s source of the Walam Olum. Indiana Magazine of History $2:185-193. Barnhart, John Hendley. 1921. Biographical notices of persons mentioned in the Schweinitz-Torrey correspon- dence. Memoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club 16(3): 290-300. Barton, Benjamin Smith. 1805 [“1806"]. Miscellaneous facts and observations No. 25. Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal 2(1):177. Betts, Edwin M. 1944. The correspondence between Con- stantine Samuel Rafinesque and Thomas Jefferson. Pro- ceedings of the American Philosophical Society §7:368— 380. Bigelow, Jacob. 1818a. Facts serving to shew the compar- ative forwardness of the spring. Memoirs of the Amer- ican Academy of Arts and Sciences 4:77-85. Bigelow, Jacob. 1818b. On the comparative forwardness of the spring, in different parts of the United States, in 1817. American Journal of Science and Arts 1:76-77. Blirge]. 1820. [Review of] Sketches of Louisville and its environs, including, ... a Florula Louisvillensis. West- ern Review and Literary Magazine 2:86—90. Boewe, Charles. 1961. Rafinesque and Dr. Short. Filson Club History Quarterly 35:28-32. Boewe, Charles. 1980. Editing Rafinesque holographs: The case of the Short letters. Filson Club History Quar- terly 54:37-49, Boewe, Charles. 1982. Fitzpatrick’s Rafinesque: A Sketch of His Life with Bibliography. Revised and enlarged. M & S Press, Weston, Massachusetts. 327 pp. Boewe, Charles. 1983. Introduction and notes, pp. i-viii. In C. S. Rafinesque “First Lecture on Botany” (1820). The Whippoorwill Press, Frankfort, Kentucky. viii, 19 PP- Boewe, Charles. 1987a. The fall from grace of that “Base Wretch” Rafinesque. Kentucky Review 7 (Fall/Winter): 39-53. Boewe, Charles. 1987b. The Walam Olum and Dr. Ward, gain. Indiana Magazine of History 83:344-359. Heed John. 1993. The Voice of the Frontier: John Bradford's Notes on Kentucky. Edited by Thomas D. Clark. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Bryant, William S. 1997. Some comments on Constantine Rafinesque’s 1819 description of botanical regions of Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 58:20-22. Cain, Arthur J. 1990. Constantine Samuel Rafinesque on Classification: A Translation of Early Works by Rafin- esque with Introduction and Notes. Tryonia No. 20. Department of Malacology, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 240 pp. Call, Richard Ellsworth. 1895. The Life and Writings of Rafinesque. Filson Club Publication No. 10. John P. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Morton & Co., Louisville. xii, 227 pp. + portraits, plates. (Reprinted, 1978. In Keir B. Sterling, ed. Raf- inesque: Autobiography and Lives. Arno Press, New York.) Christianson, Eric H. 1981. The conditions for science in the Academic Department of Transylvania University, 1799-1857. Register of the Kentucky State Historical Society 79:305-325. Cutler, Manasseh. 1785. An account of some of the veg- etable productions, naturally growing in this part of America, botanically arranged. Memoirs of the Ameri- can Academy of Arts & Sciences 1:396—493. (Reprinted, 1903, under the title “An account of some of the veg- etable productions, naturally growing in this part of America, botanically arranged by the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, F.A.A. and M.S. and member of the Philosoph- ical Society at Philadelphia.” Bulletin of the Lloyd Li- brary, Reproduction Ser. 4, 7:396—493.) Davies, P. Albert. 1945. Charles Wilkins Short, 1794— 1863, botanist and physician. Filson Club History Quar- terly 19:131-155, 208-249. Davies, P. Albert. 1949. An unpublished Rafinesque letter. Filson Club History Quarterly 23:199-201. Drake, Daniel. 1810-1811. Notices concerning Cincin- nati. John W. Brown & Co., Cincinnati. (Reprinted, 1908. Quarterly Publication of the Historical and Philo- sophical Society of Ohio 3:1—60, i-vi.) (Reprinted, 1970. Pp. 5-56. In Henry D. Shapiro and Zane L. Miller, eds. Physician to the West: Selected Writings of Daniel Drake on Science and Society. University Press of Ken- tucky, Lexington.) Drake, Daniel. “1815” [1816]. Natural and _ Statistical View, or Picture of Cincinnati and the Miami Country, Illustrated by Maps. With an Appendix Containing Ob- servations on the Late Earthquakes, the Aurora Bo- realis, and Southwest Wind. Looker & Wallace, Cincin- nati. (Portions reprinted, 1970. Pp. 67-124. In Henry D. Shapiro and Zane L. Miller, eds. Physician to the West: Selected Writings of Daniel Drake on Science and Society. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.) Dupre, Huntley. 1945. Rafinesque in Lexington 1819- 1826. Kentucky Monographs IH. Bur Press, Lexington. xii, 99 pp. Dupre, Huntley. 1961. Transylvania University and Raf- inesque. Filson Club History Quarterly 35:110-121. Ewan, Joseph. 1967a. A bibliography of Louisiana botany. Southwestern Louisiana Journal 7(1—4):2-83. Ewan, Joseph. 1967b. Introduction, pp. i-xl. In C. S. Raf- inesque. Florula Ludoviciana, or, A Flora of the State of Louisiana. Facsimile ed. Hafner Publishing Co., New York. 178 pp. Ewan, Joseph. 1977. Josiah Hale, M.D., Louisiana bota- nist, Rafinesque’s pupil. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 8:235-243. Fernald, Merritt L. 1932. Some genera and species of Raf- inesque. Rhodora 34:21—28. Femald, Merritt L. 1944a. Overlooked species, transfers and novelties in the flora of eastern North America. Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey 155 Rhodora 46:1-21, 32-57 + pls. 807-816. (Reprinted, 1944. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium No. CL: Si ate pls. 807-816.) Fernald, Merritt L. 1944b. Two of Rafinesque’s species of Tradescantia. Rhodora 46:310-311. Fernald, Merritt L. 1946. Technical studies on North American plants. I. Some species in Rafinesque’s “Her- barium Rafinesquianum.” Rhodora 48:5-13 + pls. 993— 994. (Reprinted, 1946. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium No. CLX:5-13 + pls. 993-994.) Femald, Merritt L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany. 8th ed. American Book Co., New York. Ixiv, 1632 pp. (Re- printed, 1970. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York.) Fitzpatrick, T. J. 1911. Rafinesque: A Sketch of His Life with Bibliography. The Historical Department of Iowa, Des Moines. (Reprinted, 1978. In Keir B. Sterling, ed. Rafinesque: Autobiography and Lives. Amo Press, New York.) (Reprinted, 1982. In Charles Boewe, ed. Fitz- patrick’s Rafinesque: A Sketch of His Life with Bibli- ography. Revised and enlarged. M & S Press, Weston, Massachusetts. ) Ford, Bruce A. 1997. Enemion Rafinesque ..., pp. 246— 249. In Flora of North America North of Mexico, Vol. 3: Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Ox- ford University Press, New York. xxiii, 590 pp. Fox, William J. 1900. Rafinesque’s Western Minerva; or, American Annals of Knowledge and Literature. Science new series 12:211]—215. Freeman, John D. 1975. Revision of Trillium subgenus Phyllantherum (Liliaceae). Brittonia 17:1-62. Friesner, Ray C. 1952. The pioneer period in the study of Indiana vascular flora. Butler University Botanical Stud- ies 10:144-152. Friesner, Ray C. 1953. Rafinesque and the taxonomy of Indiana vascular plants. Butler University Botanical Studies 11:14. Gobar, Ash, and J. Hill Hamon. 1982. C. S. Rafinesque, pp. 15-22. In A Lamp in the Forest: Natural Philosophy in Transylvania University, 1799-1859. Transylvania University Press, Lexington, Kentucky. xv, 198 pp. G[ray], A[sa]. 1841. Notice of the botanical writings of the late C. S. Rafinesque. American Journal of Science and Arts 40:221-241. (Reprinted and repaged, 1-21.) Gray, Asa, Sereno Watson, and John M. Coulter. 1890 [“1889"]. Manual of the Botany of the Northern United States, including the District East of the Mississippi and North Carolina and Tennessee. 6th ed. American Book Co., New York. 760 pp. + xxv pls. Harrison, Ida Withers. 1913. The Transylvania Botanic Garden. Journal of American History 7:901—909. Holley, Horace. 1820. Letter to Orville Holley, 25 Feb- ruary. Holograph in Crosby Papers, University of Lou- isville. [non vide] Horine, Emmet Field. 1961. Daniel Drake (1785-1852) Pioneer Physician of the Midwest. University of Penn- sylvania Press, Philadelphia. 425 pp. Jefferson, Thomas. 1804. Letter to C. S. Rafinesque, 15 December, from Washington, D.C. Holograph in Jef- ferson Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (Published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 87:369-370. 1944. Edwin M. Betts.) Jennings, Walter Wilson. 1955. Transylvania: Pioneer Uni- versity of the West. Pageant Press, New York. x, 321 pp. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1943. A note on Rafinesque’s Florula Columbica. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 56:57-66. McMurtrie, Henry. 1819. Florula Louisvillensis, sive Plan- tarum Catalogus vicinitate urbis, pp. 207-230. In Sketches of Louisville and Its Environs; including, among a great variety of miscellaneous matter, a Florula Louisvillensis; or, A catalogue of nearly 400 genera and 600 species of plants, that grow in the vicinity of the town, exhibiting their generic, specific, and vulgar En- glish names. To which is added an appendix .... Ist ed. S. Penn, Louisville. viii, 255 pp. (Reprinted, 1969, with Epilogue. G. R. Clark Press, Louisville.) Meijer, Willem. 1973. The contribution by Rafinesque to the early botanical exploration of Kentucky. Castanea 38:26 1-265. Merrill, Elmer D. 1942. A generally overlooked Rafin- esque paper. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 86:72-90. (“Bibliotheca Rafinesquiana,” p. 77.) Merrill, Elmer D. 1943. Rafinesque’s publications from the standpoint of world botany. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 87:110-119. Merrill, Elmer D. 1948a. Nomenclatural notes on Rafin- esque’s published papers 1804-1840. Journal of the Ar- nold Arboretum 29:203-214. Merrill, Elmer D. 1948b. C. S. Rafinesque, with notes on his publications in the Harvard Libraries. Harvard Li- brary Bulletin 2:5-21. Merrill, Elmer D. 1949. Index Rafinesquianus: The Plant Names Published by C. S. Rafinesque with Reductions, and a Consideration of His Methods, Objectives, and Attainments. Amold Arboretum, Harvard University, Jamaica Plain. ix, 296 pp. [Mitchill, Samuel L.] 1818. Review of C. S. Rafinesque, Florula Ludoviciana, or a Flora of the State of Louisi- ana .... American Monthly Magazine and Critical Re- view 11:366. Nuttall, Thomas. 1821. A Journal of Travels into the Ar- kansa Territory, during the Year 1819. With occasional observations on the manners of the aborigines .... Thomas H. Palmer, Philadelphia. 296 pp. (Reprinted, 1905. In Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed. Early Western Travels 1748-1846, Vol. 13. Arthur H. Clark, Cleve- land.) (Reprinted, 1980. Edited by Savoie Lottinville. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.) Pennell, Francis W. 1942. The life and work of Rafin- esque. Transylvania College Bulletin 15:10-70. Pennell, Francis W. 1945. How Durand acquired Rafin- esque’s herbarium. Bartonia 23:43-46. Perkins, Samuel E., III. 1938. Letters by Rafinesque to Dr. Short in the Filson Club Archives. Filson Club His- tory Quarterly 12:200-239. 156 Peter, Robert. 1905. The History of the Medical Depart- ment of Transylvania University. Filson Club Publica- tion No. 20. John P. Morton, Louisville. 193 pp. Peter, Robert, and Johanna Peter. 1896. Transylvania Uni- versity, Its Origin, Rise, Decline and Fall. Filson Club Publication No. 11. John P. Morton, Louisville. 202 pp. Pitzer, Donald E., and Josephine M. Elliott. 1977. New Harmony’s first Utopians, 1814-1824. Indiana Maga- zine of History 75:225—300. Porter, Charlotte M. 1986. The Eagle’s Nest: Natural His- tory and American Ideas, 1812-1842. The University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama. xii, 251 pp. Rafinesque, C. S. 1804. Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 27 November, from Philadelphia. Holograph in Tucker- Coleman Collection, Department of Research and Rec- ord, Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., Williamsburg, Virgin- ia. (Published in Proceedings of the American Philo- sophical Society 87:369. Edwin M. Betts.) Rafinesque, C. S. 1818a. Letters to Samuel L. Mitchill, 20 July, from Louisville; 5 October, from Lexington. Ho- lographs not known. (Published in The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review 3:354—-356, 445-447. 1818. C.S.R.) | =Fitzpatrick 270, 272] Rafinesque, C. S. 1818b. Book 17th of Notes—Travels in [October of] 1818. Handwritten manuscript, 7 pp. Li- brary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Rafinesque, C. S. 1818-1826. Letters to Zaccheus Collins, 12 August 1818, from Henderson, Kentucky; 24 Sep- tember 1822, from Lexington; 25 August 1823, from Lexington; 12 January 1826, from Lexington. Holo- graphs in Rafinesque Papers, Manuscript Collection No. 616, Library, American Philosophical Society, Phil- adelphia. (Published in part in Transylvania College Bulletin 15(7):20-21, 28-29, 35-36. Francis W. Pennell. The letter of 24 September 1882 is cited by Boewe 1987b.) Rafinesque, C. S. 1818-1837. Letters to Charles W. Short, 17 July 1818, from Louisville; 27 September 1818, 20 November, 21 December 1819, 15 June 1820, 1 Feb- ruary, 12 February 1822, all from Lexington; 16 No- vember 1827, 5 August, 25 October, 15 November 1834, 7 November, 17 November 1837, all from Phil- adelphia. Holographs in Charles W. Short Manuscript Collection, Library, The Filson Club, Louisville, Ken- tucky. (Published in Filson Club History Quarterly 12: 200-239. 1938. Samuel E. Perkins III. The letter for 7 November 1837 was published in Filson Club History Quarterly 23:199-201. P. Albert Davies. For commen- tary on editing and publishing of these letters, see Fil- son Club History Quarterly 54:37-49. 1980. Charles Boewe. ) Rafinesque, C. S. 1§20a. Introductory: On botany in gen- eral and its uses. In Lectures on Various Subjects. Handwritten manuscript. Library, American Philosoph- ical Society, Philadelphia. (Published, 1983, under the title First Lecture On Botany (1820). Edited with an introduction and notes by Charles Boewe. The Whip- poorwill Press, Frankfort, Kentucky. viii, 19 pp.) Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Rafinesque, C. S. 1820b. Letter to Augustin P. De- Candolle, 1 December, from Lexington. Holograph not known. (Published in Western Minerva 1:40-42. 1821. C.S.R.) | =Fitzpatrick 391] Rafinesque, C. S. 1821. Letter to Bory St. Vincent, 7 Jan- uary, from Lexington. Holograph not known. (Published in Western Minerva 1:72-76. 1821. C.S.R.) [=Fitzpat- rick 413] Rafinesque, C. S. 1824a. Catalogue of the principal works, essays & manuscripts published or written by C. S. Raf- inesque A.M., Doctor of Philosophy, Profr in Transyl- vania University, member of 15 learned or literary So- cieties in the United States or in Europe &c., in the year 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822 & 1823. Jefferson Papers, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. (Pub- lished in Edwin M. Betts. The correspondence between Constantine Samuel Rafinesque and Thomas Jefferson. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 87: 368-380. 1944. See pp. 377-379.) [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1824b. Subscription book of the Tran- sylvania Botanic Garden Company. Handwritten docu- ment, 9 pp. Manuscript collection, Library, Transylvania University, Lexington, Kentucky. [Rafinesque, C. S.] 1825a. Botanic Garden: Proposals will be received for the following Work. Kentucky Gazette (Lexington) new series, 3 February, p. [3]; 10 February, p. [4]. Rafinesque, C. S. 1825b. Journal of the Transylvania Bo- tanic Garden. Handwritten manuscript, 6 pp. Manu- script collection, Library, Transylvania University, Lex- ington, Kentucky. Rafinesque, C. S. 1826. Journal of my travels in 1826. Handwritten manuscript, 9 pp. Library, Smithsonian In- stitution, Washington, D.C. Rafinesque, C. S. 1832. Letter to John Torrey, 2 January, from Philadelphia. Holograph in John Torrey Letters, Manuscript Collection, Library, The New York Botani- cal Garden, The Bronx. Rafinesque, C. S. 1833. Letter to Lewis David von Schweinitz, 26 March, from Philadelphia. Holograph in Manuscript Collection No. 438, Library, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Rafinesque, C. S. 1987. Précis ou Abrégé des Voyages, Travaux, et Recherches de C. S. Rafinesque (1833) The Original Version of A Life of Travels (1836). Edited with an introduction and notes by Charles Boewe, Georges Reynaud and Beverly Seaton. North-Holland Publish- ing Co., Amsterdam, Oxford and New York. 113 pp. Rafinesque, Jean, Nicole Reynaud, and Georges Reynaud. 1984. Un savant marseillais honoré au Kentucky: Le bicentenaire de Rafinesque. [Revue Municipale] Mar- seille no. 135:86—90. “Reporter.” 1823. Prof. C. S. Rafinesque. Western Moni- tor (Lexington), 30 December. Rickett, Harold W. 1950. John Bradbury's explorations in Missouri Territory. Proceedings of the American Philo- sophical Society 94:59-89. Rafinesque in the Ohio Valley—Stuckey NS Rudd, Velva E. 1971. Studies in the Sophoreae (Legu- minosae) I. Phytologia 21:327. Short, Charles W. 1816-1824. Memoranda of Letters. Manuscript. Library, Filson Club Historical Society, Louisville, Kentucky. Short, Charles W. 1834. Letter to C. S. Rafinesque, 7 Sep- tember, from Lexington. Holograph owned by The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and de- posited at the American Philosophical Society. (Pub- lished in Filson Club History Quarterly 35:28-32. 1961. Charles Boewe.) Short, Charles W. 1835. Letter to John Torrey, 11 August, from Lexington. Holograph in John Torrey Letters, Manuscript Collection, Library, The New York Botani- cal Garden, The Bronx. Short, Charles W. 1841. Letter to William Darlington, 10 May, from Louisville. Holograph in William Darlington Papers, Library, The New-York Historical Society, New York. Short, Charles W., Robert Peter, and Henry A. Griswold. 1833-1837. A catalogue of the native phaenogamous plants and ferns of Kentucky. Transylvania Journal of Medicine and the Associate Sciences 6:490-501, 7:598— 600, 8:575—-582, 10:435—440. (Reprinted, 1978. In Ron- ald L. Stuckey, ed. Scientific Publications of Charles Wilkins Short. Ammo Press, New York.) Silliman, Benjamin. 1841. [Return of manuscripts sub- mitted for publication by C. S. Rafinesque], p. 237. In Al[sa] G[ray]. Notice of the botanical writings of the late C. S. Rafinesque. American Journal of Science and Arts 40:221-241. Sonne, Niels Henry. 1939. Liberal Kentucky 1780[—]1828. Columbia University Press, New York. xii, 287 pp. Stafleu, Frans. 1968. Rafinesque’s Caratteri and Florula Ludoviciana. Taxon 17:296—299. Sterling, Keir B. 1978. Introduction, pp. i-xv. In Rafin- esque: Autobiography and Lives. Amo Press, New York. Pagination varies. Stuckey, Ronald L. 1968. Review of reprint of Florula Lu- doviciana, 1967. Ohio Journal of Science 68:128. Stuckey, Ronald L. 1971a. C. S. Rafinesque’s North Amer- ican vascular plants at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Brittonia 23:191-208. Stuckey, Ronald L. 1971b. The first public auction of an American herbarium including an account of the fate of the Baldwin, Collins, and Rafinesque herbaria. Taxon 20:443-459. Stuckey, Ronald L. 1986. Opinions of Rafinesque ex- pressed by his American botanical contemporaries. Bar- tonia 52:26-41. Stuckey, Ronald L. 1998. The beginnings of written floras and taxonomic monographs in North American botany (1800-1840) [abstract]. Ohio Journal of Science 98(1): A-10. Stuckey, Ronald L., and James S. Pringle. 1997. Common names of vascular plants reported by C. S. Rafinesque in an 1819 descriptive outline of four vegetation regions of Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 58:9-19. Stuckey, Ronald L., and John R. Wehrmeister. 1979. Bo- tanical excerpts from three letters of Rev. Christian Frederick Denke to the botanist Schweinitz. Bartonia 46:15-21. Thomas, Samuel W., and Eugene H. Conner. 1969. Henry McMurtrie, M.D.: First historian and promoter of Lou- isville. Filson Club History Quarterly 43:311—-324. True, Rodney H. 1929. A sketch of the life of John Brad- bury, including his unpublished correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. Proceedings of the American Philo- sophical Society 68:133-150. Tucker, A. O., and N. H. Dill. 1989. Rafinesque’s Florula Delawarica. Bartonia 55:4—14. Venable, W. H. 1891. Beginnings of Literary Culture in the Ohio Valley: Historical and Biographical Sketches. Robert Clarke, Cincinnati. xv, 519 pp. (Reprinted, 1949. P. Smith, New York.) Warder, John A. 1879. Letter to George Engelmann, 27 December, from North Bend, Ohio. Holograph in George Engelmann Papers, Library, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis. Weer, Paul. 1942. Provenience of the Walam Olum. Pro- ceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science [for 1941] 51:55-69. Weer, Paul. 1954. History of the Walam Olum manuscript and painted records, pp. 243-272. In Glenn A. Black, Eli Lilly, Georg K. Neumann, Joe E. Pierce, Carl F. Voegelin, Erminie W. Voegelin and Paul Weer. Walum Olum, or Red Score: The Migration Legend of the Len- ni Lenape or Delaware Indians: A New Translation, In- terpreted by Linguistic, Historical, Archaeological, Eth- nological, and Physical Anthropological Studies. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. xiv, 379 pp. Wright, John D., Jr. 1975. Transylvania: Tutor to the West. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. xviii, 445 pp. Youmans, William Jay. 1894. Sketch of Gotthilf Heinrich Ermst Muhlenberg. Popular Science Monthly 45:689- 798. Youmans, William Jay. 1896. Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg 1753-1815, pp. 58-70; Constantine Sam- uel Rafinesque 1783-1840, pp. 182-195. In Pioneers of Science in America: Sketches of Their Lives and Sci- entific Work. D. Appleton & Co., New York. viii, 508 pp. (Facsimile ed., 1978. Arno Press, New York.) J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(2):158—-167. 1998. Scientists of Kentucky Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers: Simon and Abraham Flexner of Louisville, Kentucky SIMON FLEXNER (1863-1946) It is rare to find within one family individ- uals as important to the sciences as were Simon and Abraham Flexner. The first of this talented duo arrived as the fourth child of Morris and Esther Flexner in Louisville, Ken- tucky, on 23 March 1863.* Starting out as a Jewish immigrant peddler, Morris Flexner eventually became a prosperous wholesaler in the lively river community, allowing him to give his children a reasonably sound educa- tion. Simon Flexner (Figure 1) attended Louis- ville public schools until apprenticing himself to a druggist. His advanced studies began at the Louisville College of Pharmacy; he grad- uated there in 1882. He followed up his ed- ucation by studying medicine at the University of Louisville. Calling it an “old-fashioned med- ical school,”” Flexner had little opportunity for formal laboratory work. Nonetheless, he ob- tained a microscope and began studying pathological tissues for physicians who fre- quented his older brother's pharmacy. In 1890 he followed his younger brother Abraham’s suggestion to remove to Baltimore and attend the progressive Johns Hopkins University. It was a decision that would change his life forever. There he met William Henry Welch (1850-1934), one of the founders of that university's outstanding medical school. Through Welch and his coterie of colleagues trained in the more advanced bacteriological laboratories of Europe, Flexner was intro- duced to systematic pathology and to the con- tributions of Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of medicine. Simon quickly became one of Welch's prize students. In 1892 he received a fellowship and became first assistant in the pathology depart- ment. There he found the working conditions and collegial atmosphere fostered under Welch’s watchful eye stimulating and condu- cive to independent study. “If a student who listened to him possessed the soul of an in- vestigator,” Flexner recalled, “sooner or later some problem would catch his imagination and all by himself he would get down to work. Then Welch would come to his assistance; a lead found, Welch kept the interest at white heat and guided the work into the most re- warding channels. He was alert and helpful, and always encouraging.”© These early days with Welch at Johns Hopkins would foster a lasting friendship. Under Welch’s guidance Flexner blossomed into a mature scientific investigator. His edu- cation was furthered with a trip to Europe in 1893 where he was introduced to the work of leading scientists like the German pathologist Friedrich von Recklinghausen (1833-1910). Upon his return to the United States, Flexner again joined the pathology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital where by 1899 he achieved the rank of full professor. That year saw the close of the Spanish- American War with official cession of the Phil- ippine Islands to the United States on 6 F eb- ruary. This conflict resulted in 5462 deaths, only 379 of which were due to combat.‘ Dys- entery, malaria, and typhoid fever devastated American troops stationed in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Such losses prompt- ed interest on the part of bacteriologists to in- vestigate the etiology of these illnesses, and Flexner spent several months in Manila study- ing various pathogens for the newly created U.S. Army’s board for the investigation of tropical diseases. His patient investigations were rewarded with the isolation of what he originally called “the Bacillus Dysenteriae,” a lapse in nomenclature to which Welch quickly responded: “‘I notice you usually write it the Bacillus Dysenteriae. It should be Bacillus dy- senteria, leaving out the ‘the’, and having the generic names always begin with a capital, and the specific one with a small letter.’ Welch was a purist concerning nomenclature. He con- sulted [Walter] Migula in this case and noted that he had given the name I used to Ogata’s bacillus, and if he had done so before Shiga wrote, his name would be the one to stand, 158 Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers—Flannery 159 Figure 1. Simon Flexner. Photo credit: The Alan Mason Chesney Medical’ Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. but Migula wrote in 1900 and Shiga in 1898, so that the form Welch suggested was cor- rect. © Later this was further corrected by naming this Gram-negative bacterium Shigella dysen- teriae after its rightful discoverer, Japanese bacteriologist Kiyoshi Shiga (1870-1957). Nonetheless, it is still often referred to as the “Flexner bacillus.”! Upon his return to the United States, Flex- ner accepted an offer to organize a pathology department at the University of Pennsylvania. While there he surrounded himself with young, promising students like Hideyo Nogu- chi (1876-1928), who began investigations into snake venoms and later isolated Lepto- spira icteroides as the bacterium responsible for yellow fever.‘ In 1901 John D. Rockefeller had tentatively established what would become the Institute for Medical Research that would bear his name. Toward that end a director was sought. First Dr. Theobald Smith (1859-1934), who had performed pathfinding studies on Texas fever in cattle, was asked to head the Institute, but Smith declined, suggesting that the re- search facility envisioned by Rockefeller should encompass “the study of infectious dis- eases from all points of view.” Smith added that his “interest for years in animal pathology . might give an impress to the work of the laboratory which might eventually arouse ad- verse criticism.” Welch, who had been in- volved in the Rockefeller Institute from the beginning, then wrote to his old friend Dr. T. Mitchell Prudden (1849-1924), who was vice president of the Institute's board of directors: “T think that Flexner is inclined to consider an offer such as we made to Smith, and if he could be secured I believe we could not find a better man.” Flexner accepted the position in June 1902 and left his tenured faculty post at the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania for the uncertainty of heading up a fledgling laboratory devoted solely to research. Although entering the new job with some understandable misgivings, he 160 led the Rockefeller Institute with his charac- teristic “vision and audacity.) Here Flexner battled a host of human scourges. In 1906 he produced a serum against cerebrospinal meningitis that re- mained the treatment of choice until the de- velopment of sulfanilamide compounds (so- called sulfa drugs) in the 1930s.‘ Four years later he responded to a polio epidemic in New York City by successfully transferring the po- liomyelitis virus between monkeys through their infected mucosa. As insignificant as this might seem, it represented a real break- through in the fight against polio. Not only did it prove that the virus could be found in na- sopharyngeal mucosa, thus demonstrating the possibility of respiratory transmission of the disease, but this method of perpetuating the virus was later replicated less expensively in hens’ eggs, leading ultimately to the develop- ment of protective polio vaccines in the 1950s. In addition, Flexner made great strides in ep- idemiology by observing “mouse-villages” where he carefully noted outbreaks of infec- tion and the phenomenon of mass immunity response. He found that epidemics in the “vil- lage” could be triggered by the reintroduction of newly infected individuals or “susceptibles” into the group! Besides his research work, Flexner also ed- ited the important Journal of Experimental Medicine, a task he took over from the found- ing editor William Henry Welch in 1902 and held for the next 15 years. Furthering the work of the Rockefeller In- stitute for Medical Research remained Flex- ner’s passion until his retirement in 1935. Shortly thereafter he began work on the bio- graphical tribute to his mentor, William Henry Welch. Originally published in 1941, the book has been described as “a fitting final volume for his life history as [well as] for the great leader of his age.”™ Simon Flexner married Helen Whitall Tho- mas in 1903. They had two sons: William Welch, who became a physicist, and James Thomas, who with his father co-authored Wil- liam Henry Welch and went on to become an important historian of American culture. Flexner’s work in bacteriology and com- municable diseases remains an important con- tribution to the fields of pathology and medi- cine. Upon his death on 12 June 1946, a long Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) line of illustrious eulogizers including John D. Rockefeller Jr., Judge Learned Hand, and Dr. Herbert Gasser gave testimony to the keen mind and gentle spirit of Simon Flexner. Among those who mourned the loss was Simon’s younger brother Abraham. He too contributed mightily to the field of medicine, but in a very different and more controversial way. ABRAHAM FLEXNER (1866-1959) On 13 November 1866 Abraham Flexner (Figure 2) was born in Louisville into a home that stressed the importance of education and a strong work ethic. It is little wonder, then, that Abraham exhibited the same taste for learning and tenacity of purpose as his older brother Simon. In high school he sent articles to The Nation and by 1883 the precocious 17 year old was attending Johns Hopkins Univer- sity, preceding his older brother Simon there by 7 years." Abraham earned his bachelor’s de- gree in just 2 years but not before he became familiar with William Welch, who was busy as- sembling the famous Johns Hopkins medical department. In 1886 Abraham returned to Louisville where he regaled his family with stories of the brilliant, German-trained faculty at Johns Hopkins. He encouraged Simon to go to that university. By 1893 the enterprising young Abraham had started his own school in the bustling Kentucky river town, a venture that was successful enough to send his brother Ja- cob to medical school. In 1905 Abraham Flexner sold his school and used the proceeds to attend Harvard. While in Germany for 2 years of additional study he wrote his first book, The American College: A Criticism (1908); in it he empha- sized the importance of critical scholarship over the functional didactic techniques prev- alent in America. This early work formed the foundation upon which Abraham Flexner would build his most famous and enduring legacy. He was urged by Dr. Henry Pritchett (who was im- pressed by Flexner’s first book) to initiate a comprehensive study of medical colleges across the country for the Carnegie Founda- tion. Flexner agreed; the result was the foun- dation’s bulletin number four, the now famous Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers—Flannery 161 Figure 2. Abraham Flexner. Photo credit: The Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. (or infamous) Medical Education in the United States and Canada (1910) (Figure 3). Flexner described in detail how in 1908 he began the arduous task of assessing the status of American medical education, and he left no doubt about his standard of comparison: Having finished my preliminary reading, I went to Baltimore—how fortunate for me that I was a Hop- kins graduate!—where I talked at length with Drs. Welch, Halsted, Mall, Abel, and Howell, and with a few others who knew what a medical school ought to be, for they had created one. I had a tremendous advantage in the fact that I became thus intimately acquainted with a small but ideal medical school em- bodying in a novel way, adapted to American condi- tions, the best features of medical education in En- gland, France, and Germany. Without this pattern in the back of my mind I could have accomplished little. With it I began a swift tour of medical schools in the United States and Canada—155 in number, every one of which I visited. I had no fixed method of pro- cedure. I have never used a questionnaire. I invari- ably went and saw the schools and talked with teach- ers of medicine and the medical sciences and their students.° There is little doubt that Flexner visited these schools with Johns Hopkins as the pre- conceived benchmark of comparison. There is also no question that the report was issued with the expressed purpose of eliminating a sizeable portion of America’s degree-granting institutions. In Flexner’s opinion the number 162 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA A-REPORT LO THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ABRAHAM FLEXNER WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY HENRY S: PRICCHETS PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION BULLETIN NUMBER FOUR 576 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK CITY Figure 3. Title page of Abraham Flexner’s Medical Education in the United States and Canada (1910). needed to be reduced from 155 to 31 with an average annual graduating class for each school set at about 70.P Flexner’s chief complaint was against the large number of proprietary schools that had proliferated throughout the country during the 19th century. Operating essentially on a for-profit basis, these proprietary schools in his opinion represented a harmful “commercial treatment of medical education” that fostered crass promotional schemes abounding “in ex- aggeration, misstatement, and half-truths” de- signed to encourage enrollment and, ultimate- ly, overproduction of physicians. Indeed he suggested that many of the deans of such schools “know more about modern advertising than about modern medical teaching.”* Although undeniably true, this sweeping in- dictment is overly simplistic and belies the his- torical context for the development of propri- etary medical schools. “As of 1800,” wrote not- ed medical historian John Duffy, “it was ob- vious that the number of graduates from the existing medical colleges was hopelessly inad- Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers—Flannery equate for America’s burgeoning population .... Under these conditions, the traditional concept of professional medical training had no validity. Entrance requirements were vir- tually eliminated, and the emphasis was placed upon practical skills and knowledge. Many of the professors were themselves products of the apprentice system, and they could see lit- tle value in laboratories or libraries. The cali- ber of these schools varied widely,” Duffy add- ed, “depending upon the educational back- ground and conscientiousness of the profes- sors, but ... in even the best schools it was possible to acquire an easy degree.” Nevertheless, Flexner was correct in char- acterizing the general state of medical educa- tion in the early 1900s as “ill manned and poorly equipped.” In some of the schools, conditions were bad almost beyond descrip- tion. For example, Flexner described the in- dependent Maryland Medical College thus: The school building is wretchedly dirty. Its so- called laboratories are of the worst existing type: the neglected and filthy room is set aside for bacteriology, pathology, and histology: a few dirty test-tubes stand around in pans and old cigar boxes. The chemical laboratory is perhaps equal to the teaching of ele- mentary chemistry. The dissecting-room is foul. This description completely exhausts its teaching facilities. There is no museum or library and no teaching ac- cessories of any sort whatsoever.' Shutting down institutions like the Mary- land Medical College became Flexner’s special mission. After another of his visits, this time to the Medical School of Maine, Flexner con- cluded that that entire operation was “a dis- graceful affair.” When Dr. William Thomas Councilman (1854-1933) of Harvard Univer- sity, who had recently toured the Maine facil- ity and praised it highly, read Flexner’s report he predicted that “even Flexner will break down when it comes to Louisville.” Faithfully following his Johns Hopkins University stan- dard, Flexner did not break down even with his brother’s old alma mater, calling the Uni- versity of Louisville medical department a school riddled with “radical defects for which there is no end in sight.” Assessing the con- ditions in Kentucky, Flexner stated that “the situation is a simple one. The homeopathic school is without merit. Its graduates deserve no recognition whatsoever, for it lacks the most elementary teaching facilities. The Uni- 163 versity of Louisville has a large, scattered plant, unequal to the strain which numbers place upon it.” On the whole Flexner con- cluded, “The outlook [for Kentucky] is not promising.’ The Flexner Report was not the first or only effort at assessing medical schools in America. As Robert P. Hudson pointed out, the Amer- ican Medical Association (AMA) “had educa- tional reform as the principal raison d’étre from its beginnings in 1848.” Despite its de- sires to fashion medical education in its own image, the AMA made little progress in estab- lishing nationally recognized standards of training for physicians. In 1890, however, the newly reorganized American Medical College Association (AMCA) began to press for change. By 1904 the AMA established a stand- ing Council on Medical Education, a body that began to actively inspect and grade various schools. In 1907 the Council gave its first re- port, causing the overly optimistic chairman Arthur Dean Bevan to proclaim a great “wave of improvement” in the state of America’s medical colleges.* These earlier efforts have caused some historians like Howard S. Berli- ner to conclude that the Flexner Report “has received attention far out of proportion to its actual contribution to medical education and the constant dwelling on the report serves only to mask the real dynamics of the period.” But most historians disagree. Thomas Ne- ville Bonner pointed out that “the history of American medical education would surely have been different without Flexner .... Not only did he use philanthropy more imagina- tively than any of this contemporaries, he built an enduring model of national policy-mak- ing.”” Unlike the brief and only moderately ef- fectual forays by the AMA and the AMCA against inadequate—even fraudulent—propri- etary schools, Flexner’s report represented more than a mere raiding party in the attack for substantive educational reform in Ameri- can medicine. This report had power behind it. With his brother Simon well positioned within the Rockefeller Foundation, Abraham had access to the inner circle of that wealthy and influential organization. In fact it was the association of Abraham Flexner’s study with the equally impressive Carnegie Foundation that opened a number of college doors to his whirlwind survey. Many administrators, lured 164 by the carrot of grant dollars, were more than willing to show Flexner around. “While the Flexner report would undoubtedly have cre- ated a stir,” insisted John Duffy, “it might well have aroused a brief flurry of attention and then faded away had it not been that Flexner was able to persuade the Rockefeller Foun- dation to make grants that eventually totaled almost 50 million dollars to those schools that Flexner considered worthwhile. Rockefeller’s contributions in turn stimulated other philan- thropists to support medical education, with most money going to those institutions desig- nated by Flexner as worthy of support.”** An- other historian even called the report “the manifesto of a program that by 1936 guided 91 million dollars from Rockefeller’s General Education Board (plus millions from other foundations) to a select group of medical schools.”>» In attempting to establish medical educa- tion on what he considered a sound scientific basis, Flexner was unquestionably influenced by the same forces that helped develop Johns Hopkins into a leader of both medical edu- cation and modern graduate training. In the main these new currents in academic educa- tion were coming from Europe, especially Germany. Specifically in medicine they stressed clinical training and laboratory re- search over older didactic classroom methods. In emphasizing this new scientifically based curriculum, it is not inaccurate to consider Flexner an educational elitist more interested in making medicine a rigorous discipline weathered by only a few of the nation’s best and brightest than in ensuring that medicine remained a field of egalitarian opportunity open to all. In this sense it is easy to appre- ciate Robert Hudson's description of this sig- nificant report as “Flexner’s genteel thunder- bolt.” Flexner’s impact was and is unmistakable. While it is true that invigorated state licensing boards and increased economic pressures were closing the more marginal proprietary schools and forcing others to be absorbed into area universities prior to 1910, the report caused closures to accelerate. By 1915, only 96 of Flexner’s original 155 medical schools survived; by 1920 the number had fallen to 85; and 10 years later the number stood at 76.“ This was still short of Flexner’s desired goal of Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) 31, but by 1930 the report had clearly done its intended job. Looking strictly at the course of events, there is the temptation to see Flexner as the hired gun of a collusion between the founda- tion behemoths of industrial America and an AMA anxious to strengthen and consolidate its power over the medical profession. But this conspiracy theory fails on closer examination. Flexner held very specific ideas of what a good medical education should be; the animating spirit of his report was that “all colleges and universities, whether supported by taxation or by private endowment, are in truth public ser- vice corporations, and that the public is enti- tled to know the facts concerning their admin- istration and development .. . .”" It may come as a surprise to some that Flex- ner had no special love for the AMA. By the 1920s he was revealing his disdain for the Chi- cago-based organization in private correspon- dence to the Rockefeller Foundation’s secre- tary, Edward Embree, calling it the “advertis- ing center in medical education” that “for years tried to make the world think that Chi- cago was the medical center of this country.”%% In fact, there is some indication that by 1921 Flexner’s enthusiasm for the Johns Hopkins medical school had considerably moderated; astonishingly, he referred to it in at least one letter to Embree as “a rather pitiful institu- tion.” These privy communications, however, were never reflected in Flexner’s public state- ments. Years later Flexner saw himself as an integral player in what he and his brother Simon viewed as the “heroic period in Amer- ican medicine.”" The truth is that the Flexner Report lies somewhere between the extremes of a nefar- ious plot out to destroy the allopathic (regular) profession’s competition and America’s official declaration of medical excellence. This report was needed. Certainly by the 20th century the proprietary model had long outlived its use- fulness as a method for training America’s health care professionals. The increasing fi- nancial demands of acquiring and maintaining an expensive laboratory overhead and clinical apparatus forced many marginal institutions out of existence; Flexner’s report merely has- tened the inevitable, and rightfully so. Yet Flexner’s work was not flawless. There is a nagging sense that he forced, whether in- Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers—Flannery tentionally or not, American medical educa- tion into an inflexible mold fashioned after the image of the allopathic Johns Hopkins Uni- versity. When Flexner did come upon a sec- tarian (irregular) institution worthy of the des- ignation “medical school,” he was prone to dis- miss it out of hand. For example, he admitted that the Eclectic Medical Institute (EMI) of Cincinnati did justice to its own creed of using botanical medicines but he castigated that creed as “drug mad.” So in the end it was in fact not just the state of the facilities and fac- ulty that mattered (he admitted that the Cin- cinnati eclectic school had “a new and attrac- tive building, thus far meagerly outfitted”), but it was also the philosophical underpin- nings of the school itself that in some measure determined the verdict. The problem is that Flexner’s own allopathic preferences made the mere prospect of financial assistance to a po- tentially worthy sectarian school virtually out of the question. With the flow of foundation dollars to institutions essentially of Flexner’s own choosing, his dismissal of the EMI as the bastion of a “drug mad” minority ensured that the “meagerly outfitted” buildings would in- deed remain “meagerly outfitted.” His asser- tion that the eclectics were overly dependent upon their pharmaceutical armamentarium was at its heart a medical and scientific opin- ion rendered by a layman; Flexner would have been ill-equipped to defend it on clinical grounds. He had overstepped his bounds; he was not by training or background competent to allege that any group of medical practition- ers was “drug mad.” Be that as it may, the Flexner Report had another more far reaching flaw: its influence caused medical schools to concentrate in the major metropolitan centers of America, cre- ating an increasing disparity in the quality of health care between rural and urban America. “Flexner insisted in his report that a kind of ‘spontaneous dispersion’ would spread the graduates of the top medical schools to the four winds. On this matter,” wrote Paul Starr, “he was quite wrong. Doctors gravitated strongly to the wealthier areas of the country. A 1920 study by the biostatistician Raymond Pearl showed that the distribution of physi- cians by region in the United States was close- ly correlated with per capita income.” The reduced production of physicians encouraged 165 by the Flexner Report certainly aggravated this situation. In the final analysis the report presents a mixed picture. On the one hand it served to provide a workable national standard upon which modern medical science could build. On the other hand the wholesale closure of sectarian schools reduced the nation’s thera- peutic choices; the fallout of the report was not beneficial for all Americans, especially those dependent upon country doctors for their primary care. Only recently has the role of alternative and complementary medicine been seriously revisited. The establishment of the Office of Alternative Medicine under the aegis of the National Institutes of Health in 1992 and the work of important researchers like David M. Eisenberg at Beth Israel Dea- coness Medical Center in Boston have moved therapies previously deemed unworthy of con- sideration back within the realm of respecta- ble investigation and discussion." Despite the problems created by Flexner’s report, these costs were not immediately ap- parent. Taken in its entirety, health care in America became better for it. “Flexner did not so much instigate reform,” wrote John Haller, “as provide a rationale for what should be, as well as what already existed in the form of im- proved medical instruction and the gradual elimination of marginal schools. His report produced a landmark policy statement that served as a catalyst for medical reform in the years to come." Today its historical significance is under- scored by the fact that, like most examples of literature that have become classics in their respective fields, it is more often cited than read. This is unfortunate because Medical Ed- ucation in the United States and Canada is a window into the state of American medicine at the beginning of this century unparalleled in its detail and singular influence upon the profession. It represents an unusually frank (if imperfect) assessment of American medicine from an outside observer. Following the publication of his magnum opus, Flexner remained in the forefront of American education. In 1913 he became secretary of the Rockefeller Foundation’s General Education Board, rising in 1925 to the position of board director. In 1930 he expanded his critique of American education 166 to encompass all of academia in a book titled Universities—American, English, German. That same year he established the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a project he directed until his retirement in 1939. When Abraham Flexner died on 21 Sep- tember 1959 at Falls Church, Virginia, Amer- ican medicine lamented the loss of the last of two remarkable brothers who gave their all in pursuit of better medicine. The Flexners left an indelible mark on the medical profession. Kentucky can be proud that their formative years were spent in Louisville and that this city on the Ohio River provided them with the ini- tial opportunities that would ultimately make them both famous. Michael A. Flannery Lloyd Library and Museum 917 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 ENDNOTES a. Biographical information on Simon Flexner is avail- able in George W. Corner, s.v. “Flexner, Simon,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972); and S. Bayne-Jones, s.v. “Flexner, Simon,” The American Philosophical Society Year Book, 1946 (Philadelphia: The Society, 1947). Addi- tional autobiographical material is presented in Simon and James Thomas Flexner’s William Henry Welch and the Heroic Age of American Medicine (1941; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). b. Qtd. in Flexner, William Henry Welch, p. 160. c. Flexner, William Henry Welch, p. 165. d. Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 345. e. Flexner, William Henry Welch, p. 246. f. Shiga’s discovery occurred in 1897. Flexner’s date of 1S98 must refer to Shiga’s published results, not his actual discovery. See Kiyoshi Shiga, Sekiri byogen Kenkyu hokoku [Report on the bacterial studies re- lating to the origin of dysenteries] (Tokyo: Densen- byo Kenkyusho, 1898). For Flexner’s work on dys- entery see his “On the Etiology of Tropical Dysen- tery.” Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull. 11 (1900):231-242. g. For Flexner and Noguchi’s work on snake venom see their “Snake venom in relation to haemolysis, bac- teriolysis, and toxicity,” J. Exp. Med. 2 (1909): 277— 301. Biographical information is available on Nogu- chi in Claude E. Dolman, s.v. “Noguchi, Hideyo,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography. \ h. Qtd. in Flexner, William Henry Welch, p. 280. i. Qtd. in Flexner, William Henry Welch, p. 280. m. lal u. W. (oley, Joumal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Bayne-Jones, American Philosophical Society, p. 293. This new class of antibacterial agents was heralded in by the German chemist-pharmacologist Gerhard Domagk (1895-1964) in 1935 when he discovered the specific compound responsible for Prontosil’s an- tibacterial action against streptococcal infections. See Kremers and Urdang’s History of Pharmacy, rev. ed. Glenn Sonnedecker (Phildelphia: Lippincott, 1976), pp- 50-56; and Eric Posner, s.v. “Domagk, Gerhard,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography. For Flexner’s ce- rebrospinal meningitis antiserum see his article “Concerning a Serum Therapy for Experimental In- fection with Diplococcus intracelluraris,” J. Exp. Med. 9 (1907):168-1S5: and Simon Flexner and James Wesley Jobling, “Serum Treatment of Epi- demic Cerebro-spinal Meningitis,” J. Exp. Med. 10 (1908):141—203. Bayne-Jones, American Philosophical Society, p. 295. See also Simon Flexner and Paul A. Lewis, “Exper- imental poliomyelitis in monkeys: active immuniza- tion and passive serum protection,” JAMA 54 (1910): 1780-1782. S. Bayne-Jones, American Philosophical Society. p. 296. David Banta, “Abraham Flexner—A reappraisal,” Soc. Sci. & Med. 6 (1971):655-661. Abraham Flexner, Abraham Flexner: An Autobiog- raphy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), pp. 74— 75. Originally published in 1940 as I Remember: An Autobiography. Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A report to the Carnegie Foun- dation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 4 (New York: Carnegie Foundation, 1910), p. 151. Flexner, Medical Education, pp. 18-19. John Duffy, From Humors to Medical Science: A His- tory of American Medicine, 2nd ed. (Urbana: Uni- versity of Illinois Press, 1993), pp. 133-134. Flexner, Medical Education, p. xii. Flexner, Medical Education, p. 237. Flexner, Abraham Flexner: An Autobiography, p. 81. Flexner, Medical Education, pp. 230-231. Robert P. Hudson, “Abraham Flexner in Historical Perspective,” in Beyond Flexner: Medical Education in the Twentieth Century, Barbara Barzansky and Norman Gevitz, eds. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), p. 6. Qtd. in Howard S. Berliner, “New Light on the Flex- ner Report: Notes on the AMA-Caregie Founda- tion Background,” Bull. Hist. Med. 51 (Winter 1977): 604. Berliner, “New Light on the Flexner Report,” p. 608. Thomas Neville Bonner, “Abraham Flexner and the Historians,” J. Hist. Med. & Allied Sci. 45 (1990):7. Duffy, From Humors to Medical Science, p. 209. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), p. 121. Robert P. Hudson, “Abraham Flexner in Perspective: dd. ee. Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers—Flannery American Medical Education, 1865-1910.” Bull. Hist. Med. 46 (November/December 1972): 545. Hudson, “Abraham Flexner in Historical Perspec- tive,” p. 8. This has been suggested more than once, not only by proponents of alternative medicine but also by some revisionist historians. See, for example, Paul Bergner, foreword to Official Herbs: Botanical Substances in the United States Pharmacopoeias, 1820-1990, by Wade Boyle (East Palestine, OH: Buckeye Naturopathic Press, 1991). p. xv: George Cody, “History of Naturopathic Medicine,” in A Textbook of Natural Medicine, Joseph E. Pizzorno Jr. and Michael T. Murray, eds. (Seattle: Bastyr University Press, 1993). pp. 6-7: and Gerald Mar- kowitz and David Rosner, “Doctors in Crisis: A Study of the Use of Medical Education Reform to Establish Modem Professional Elitism in Medi- cine,” Am. Q. 25 (1973):53-90. ff. gg. bh. bs mm. 167 Flexner, Medical Education, p. ix. Qtd. in Daniel M. Fox, “Abraham Flexner’s Unpub- lished Report: Foundations and Medical Education, 1909-1928.” Bull. Hist. Med. 54 (Winter 1980):493. Qtd. in Fox, “Flexner’s Unpublished Report.” 495. Flexner, Medical Education, p. 163. Flexner, Medical Education, p. 162. Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medi- cine, p. 125. See David M. Eisenberg. “Unconventional Medicine in the United States,” New Engl. J. Med. 325 (Jan. 28, 1993):246-252: and David M. Eisenberg, “Ad- vising Patients Who Seek Alternative Medical Ther- apies,” Ann. Int. Med. 127 (July 1, 1997):61-69. John S. Haller Jr., American Medicine in Transition, 1840-1910 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981), p. 229. List of Reviewers for Volume 59 of Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science Carol C. Baskin Jerry M. Baskin Charles Boewe David M. Brandenburg William S. Bryant Michael A. Flannery J.D. Jack Edmund D. Keiser Robert F.C. Naczi Brainard L. Palmer-Ball Debra K. Pearce James S. Pringle Craig Seither Thomas C. Rambo Jerry W. Warner Richard White J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(2):168-173. 1998. Winter-bird Communities in a Western Mesophytic Forest and Two Proximate Urban Habitats David L. Hedeen Department of Entomology and Applied Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19717 and Stanley E. Hedeen Department of Biology, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207 ABSTRACT Winter-bird communities in Cincinnati, Ohio, were compared along 500 m transects in three habitats: a Western Mesophytic Forest remnant, a residential area with lawns holding scattered shrubs and trees, and a railroad corridor with a railway track bordered on each side by strips of herbaceous vegetation, seral woodland, and backyard lawns. Bird surveys were conducted between 9 Nov and 3 Feb for four winters, 1990-1994. Compared to the forest, the residential area held fewer bark-feeding individuals and more ground-feeding birds, most of which were non-natives. The high populations of non-natives caused the residential area to have a larger abundance of birds than the forest but also a lower Simpson index of species diversity. Species richness totaled 31 in the forest, 34 in the residential area, and 41 in the railroad corridor. Of the three habitats, the railroad corridor supported the greatest abundance of birds, probably due to its greater variety and amount of food-producing vegetation. INTRODUCTION The Western Mesophytic Forest Region, covering the western two-thirds of Kentucky and Tennessee, extends from northern Missis- sippi and Alabama north to southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Braun 1950). Changes in land use have vastly influenced the region’s bi- otic community. For example, the avifauna of the Cincinnati metropolitan area in northern Kentucky and southwestern Ohio has been al- tered by deforestation and urbanization (Kem- sies 1948; Trautman 1977). Beissinger and Os- borne (1982) documented that the summer- bird community of a residential district near Cincinnati is significantly different from that of a local climax forest. Urbanization also might change the struc- ture of the region’s winter-bird communities. Although there have not been previous studies of such alterations in any deciduous forest re- gion, winter avian populations in natural and urban habitats have been compared in a coast- al sage-scrub zone in California (Guthrie 1974), a coniferous forest area of Washington (Gavareski 1976), and a southeastern pine re- gion in Georgia (Yaukey 1996). Our objective in this study in Cincinnati, Ohio, was to con- trast the winter-bird community of a Western Mesophytic Forest remnant with such com- munities in a city residential area and an urban railroad corridor. MATERIALS AND METHODS Our study was conducted in the southeast quarter of Section 21, Fractional Range 2, Township 4, City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. At the time of Cincinnati's set- tlement, this 65-ha area was covered by decid- uous forest (Gordon 1966). A 15-ha_ old- growth forest remains within the city park that occupies the southern portion of the study area. Braun (1950) gave a detailed account of this Ault Park woodland as a typical example of a Western Mesophytic Forest stand. The structure and tree species composition of this climax forest show little evidence of past hu- man or natural disturbance (Bryant 1987). The northern portion of the study area was cleared and developed as a residential area. Most of the residences are detached single- family homes built during the 1920s. Original forest vegetation was replaced by lawns with scattered shrubs and trees. The residential area is bisected by a 30-m wide east-west railroad right-of-way cleared in the 1880s. The infrequently used train route ends in a nearby industrial area. Chemical 168 Winter-bird Communities—Hedeen and Hedeen sprays and flail mowers maintain a ca. 10-m wide herbaceous community centered on the train track at the middle of the right-of-way. Secondary succession has reestablished shrubs and trees along the ca. 10-m wide margins of the right-of-way. The backyard lawns border- ing the outside edges of the right-of-way com- plete the railroad corridor. We established a 500-m census transect in the climax woodland. The small size of the for- est remnant precluded the establishment of more than one transect in the stand. Two oth- er 500-m transects were established: one along a city street in the residential area and one along the train track in the railroad corridor. Between 1100 and 1500 on a count day, we walked together at a speed of 1 km/hr to cen- sus a transect in 30 min. This pace allowed all three transects to be censused within a 2-hr period. Except for gulls and waterfowl flying over the transects, all birds seen or heard were counted. Due to the winter absence of leaves, lines of sight and sound were equivalent along all three transects. The recorded species were assigned to one of 10 winter foraging guild categories defined by DeGraaf et al. (1985). A foraging guild is composed of species with similar habitat-use patterns as defined by pri- mary food, feeding substrate, and feeding be- havior. Because patterns of diversity and abun- dance may vary within a season (Kricher 1975), 10 counts were made over the course of a winter, with an average span of 10 days between counts. Because winter-bird popula- tions and communities also may vary from year to year due to numerous factors (Block and Brennan 1993; Smith 1984; Weins 1989), counts were conducted over four consecutive winters from 1990-1991 through 1993-1994. The census dates varied from one winter to the next, but all counts were completed be- tween 9 Nov and 3 Feb to minimize the ef- fects of food shortages later in the winter that may cause movement to feeders (Rollfinke and Yahner 1990). Species diversity for each transect was cal- culated by using Simpson’s index of diversity (Brower et al. 1990; Simpson 1949). This in- dex incorporates the number of species (index of species richness) and the equitability of bird numbers among the species (index of species evenness). 169 RESULTS The 10 feeding guilds were not equally rep- resented in all three habitats (Table 1). The forest, for example, supported more insectiv- orous bark gleaners and fewer seed-eating ground foragers. Overall, the greatest number of bark feeders and the least number of ground feeders were recorded in the forest (Figure 1). Compared to the forest, the residential area held about twice as many individual birds, while the railroad corridor supported about three times as many. The larger bird popula- tions in the urbanized habitats were largely due to increased numbers of exotic birds. Non-native rock doves, European starlings, house finches, and house sparrows together averaged 65.6 birds in the residential area, 65.9 birds in the railroad corridor, and 5.9 birds in the forest. Of the total individuals in each habitat, the proportion of non-natives was 68% in the residential area, 48% in the railroad corridor, and 12% in the forest. The forest had the least species richness and the most evenness of bird numbers among its species (Table 2). The forest’s species di- versity index was significantly greater than that of the residential area (t,, = 2.08, P < 0.05), but was not significantly different from the in- dex of the railroad corridor (t., = 0.62, NS). DISCUSSION The site of Cincinnati was entirely covered by deciduous forest when it was initially sur- veyed in 1788 (Gordon 1966; Symmes 1926). Two centuries later, urban development has reduced the old-growth forest to a few rem- nants such as the stand in Ault Park (Bryant 1987). In contrast to the climax woodland, trees in Cincinnati's residential neighborhoods are widely dispersed, existing only where they provide shade, privacy, landscape scenery, or some other benefit to the human residents. In our study, the sparsely wooded residen- tial area supported fewer bark-feeding birds than did the adjacent climax forest (Figure 1). Species associated with woody plants typically decrease in abundance as forested areas un- dergo housing development (Beissinger and Osborne 1982; DeGraaf and Wentworth 1981; Lancaster and Rees 1979). This downward trend is the opposite of what occurs during 170 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Table 1. Foraging guilds and mean number of each species detected along a 500 m transect in each of three winter habitats in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9 Nov—3 Feb, 1990-1994. Species Climax forest Residential area Railroad corridor Insectivorous Bark Excavator Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 0.48 0.03 0.08 Insectivorous Bark Gleaners Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus ) 2.43 0.38 0.95 Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 0.45 0.10 0.13 Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 2.15 0.55 1.40 Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 0.90 0.05 0.18 Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) — 0.03 — White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) 1.35 0.15 0.50 Brown creeper (Certhia americana) 1.23 0.03 0.25 Omnivorous Crown Foragers Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus ) 0.10 0.03 0.18 Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) 8.08 4.35 e238) Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) 2.40 0.83 1.58 Insectivorous Crown Gleaners Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 2.30 0.33 2.30 Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 0.48 0.18 0.20 Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) 0.05 — 0.03 Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata) = — 0.03 Frugivorous Crown Foragers Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) a 1.25 1.28 Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 0.90 0.33 0.98 Seed-eating Crown Gleaner Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) == Le 0.30 Omnivorous Ground Foragers Rock dove (Columba livia) 1.05 1.80 4.75 Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 0.58 0.50 1.03 American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 4.63 2.63 4.65 Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 0.03 _ a Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) — 0.03 = American robin (Turdus migratorius) 7.38 5.50 10.58 European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 3.15 33.20 32.33 Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 0.03 = 0.15 Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 0.03 0.10 0.03 Insectivorous Ground Gleaner Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) == — 0.03 Carnivorous Ground Hawkers Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) 0.03 — 0.13 Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) — 0.05 0.05 Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 0.20 0.03 0.23 American kestrel (Falco sparverius) = = 0.03 Barred owl (Strix varia) = — 0.03 Seed-eating Ground Foragers Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) — 2.05 5.75 Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 2.20 2.08 13.78 Fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca) — — 0.03 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 0.08 0.15 1.83 White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 0.40 — 6.45 Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) 0.50 1.38 4.63 Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) — 0.63 0.03 Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) 0.03 2.98 1.60 House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 1.65 6.90 18.63 American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) 1.95 2.60 3.63 House sparrow (Passer domesticus) = 23.73 10.23 Total 47.22 96.69 138.24 Winter-bird Communities—Hedeen and Hedeen WW = < oc 5 RESIDENTIAL AREA ee Bark # 1.3 (ap) Crown Ee O Ground § = O = RAILROAD CORRIDOR Oo Bark Bf 3.5 a Crown | Ground § fal MEAN NUMBER OF BIRDS PER 500 M TRANSECT Figure 1. residential development in deserts, grasslands, and shrublands, where the propagation of ar- tificially watered woody vegetation increases the arboreal avifauna (Emlen 1974; Guthrie 1974). The winter abundance of ground-feeding birds is positively associated with the density of non-woody vegetation (Tilghman 1987). In more open tree stands, the fuller development of the herbaceous layer provides more seeds that persist in winter for ground foragers. The association of open terrain with ground-feed- ing species was evident in our study where the proportion of birds that were ground feeders rose from 51% in the Ault Park forest to 89% in the lawn-dominated residential area (Figure 1). DeGraaf (1991) reported similar figures from Amherst, Massachusetts, where the pro- portions of winter ground feeders were 45% in a suburban woodland and 92% in a suburb with large lawns and few shrubs or trees. Summarizing several breeding and non- breeding season studies on avifaunal change caused by urbanization, Cicero (1989) con- cluded that natural habitats have higher spe- cies richness than do nearby urban neighbor- Table 2. Bird community indices in three winter habitats in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9 Nov—3 Feb, 1990-1994. Climax Residential Railroad Index forest area corridor Species diversity 11.65 5.18 9.43 Species evenness 0.37 0.15 0.23 Species richness 31 34 4] Bird abundance by foraging substrate in three winter habitats in Cincinnati, Ohio, 9 Nov—3 Feb, 1990-1994. hoods. However, in a study of the winter avi- fauna of neighborhoods in Amherst, Massa- chusetts, DeGraaf (1991) found that the number of species was smaller in a wooded zone (24 species) than in either of two resi- dential areas with lower tree densities (26 spe- cies each). The slightly lower avian species richness in natural woodland also was the pat- tern found in our study (Table 2), perhaps re- flecting a less heterogeneous flora in the closed Ault Park forest than in the landscaped yards of the residential area. Although the residential area had a slightly greater species richness than the climax forest, it nonetheless had a significantly smaller index of species diversity due to its much lower spe- cies evenness. Species evenness typically de- clines in urban areas because the extensive habitat modification associated with urbaniza- tion allows the proliferation of exotic species (Cicero 1989; Williamson and DeGraaf 1980). In our study (Table 1), the non-native Euro- pean starlings, house sparrows, house finches, and rock doves represented 12% of the resi- dential area’s total species and 68% of its total individuals. In contrast, exotics constituted 10% of the forest’s species and 12% of the forest’s individuals. The European starling alone composed one-third of the total of the birds in the resi- dential area. The residential area’s lawns pro- vided the species with large expanses of grass, the starling’s preferred foraging habitat (Feare 1984). A quarter of the birds in the residential area were house sparrows, a species not found 172 in the Ault Park forest. The absence of house sparrows from woodlands also has been re- corded in Columbia, Maryland, and Vancou- ver, British Columbia, although they are abun- dant in the residential areas of these cities (Geis 1974; Lancaster and Rees 1979). Throughout the world, the house sparrow has an affinity for developed areas (Summers- Smith 1963). The introduced rock dove and house finch also had populations that were higher in the residential area than in the forest. These two birds are like the European starling and house sparrow in that they are ground-foraging om- nivorous and seed-eating species that are ev- erywhere associated with the built environ- ment (Gilbert 1989; Guthrie 1974; Williamson 1974). Goldstein-Golding (1991), summarizing several studies on the effect of urbanization on birds, concluded that the dramatic population increases of exotic species cause urban areas to have a greater density of individuals than do nearby natural areas. In our study, the abundance of non-native individuals in the residential area resulted in a total bird count that was double the total found in the forest. In comparison to the forest and residential area, the railroad corridor supported the greatest bird abundance and species richness, reflecting its vegetation structure. The herba- ceous plant community along the train track at the center of the right-of-way is bordered on each side by a seral woodland community. Beyond the wooded margins of the right-of- way are located the lawns of adjacent back- yards. Due to increased light penetration through the open spaces above the train track and the fringing lawns, the shrub and herba- ceous layers are more fully developed below the trees in the right-of-way than they are in the closed climax forest or in the mowed and manicured residential area. The increased volume and diversity of fo- liage probably were responsible for the greater avian abundance and larger number of species occurring in the railroad corridor. In North American deciduous forests, increased growth in the fruit- and seed-producing shrub and herbaceous layers during the growing season leads to a greater density and variety of winter bird life (McComb and Moriarity 1981; Quay 1947; Tilghman 1987). Elevated avian abun- dance and higher bird species richness also Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) have been noted in the heterogeneous vege- tation of railroad corridors in Britain (Gilbert 1989). Our study’s findings must be considered as preliminary, as it only was possible to establish single transects in each of the three locally re- stricted habitat types. However, the results suggest that urbanization alters the size and composition of the winter-bird community in a deciduous forest region. LITERATURE CITED Beissinger, S. R., and D. R. Osborne. 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:75-83. Block, W. M., and L. A. Brennan. 1993. The habitat con- cept in ornithology: theory and applications. Pp. 35-91. In D. M. Power (ed.) Current ornithology. Vol. 11. Ple- num Press, New York, New York. Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Brower, J., J. Zar, and C. von Ende. 1990. Field and lab- oratory methods for general ecology. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. Bryant, W. S. 1987. Structure and composition of the old- growth forests of Hamilton County, Ohio and environs. Pp. 317-324. In R. L. Hay, F. W. Woods, and H. DeSelm (eds.) Proceedings of the Central Hardwood Forest Conference VI. University of Tennessee, Knox- ville, Tennessee. Cicero, C. 1989. Avian community structure in a large urban park: controls of local richness and diversity. Landscape Urban Plann. 17:221—240. DeGraaf, R. M. 1991. Winter foraging guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird communities. Landscape Urban Plann. 21:173—180. DeGraaf, R. M., N. G. Tilghman, and S. H. Anderson. 1985. Foraging guilds of North American birds. Envi- ronm. Managem. 9:493-536. DeGraaf, R. M., and J. M. Wentworth. 1981. Urban bird communities and habitats in New England. Trans. North Am. Wildlife Nat. Resources Conf. 46:396-413. Emlen, J. T. 1974. An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, and regulation. Condor 76:184-197. Feare, C. 1984. The starling. Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, United Kingdom. Gavareski, C. 1976. Relation of park size and vegetation to urban bird populations in Seattle, Washington. Con- dor 78:375-382. Geis, A. D. 1974. Effects of urbanization and type of ur- ban development on bird populations. Pages 97-105. In J. H. Noyes and D. R. Progulske (eds.) Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Natural Re- sources Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Winter-bird Communities—Hedeen and Hedeen Gilbert, O. L. 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chap- man and Hall, New York, New York. Goldstein-Golding, E. L. 1991. The ecology and structure of urban greenspaces. Pages 392-411. In S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky (eds.) Habitat struc- ture: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. Gordon, R. B. 1966. Natural vegetation map of Ohio at the time of the earliest land surveys. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. Guthrie, D. A. 1974. Suburban bird populations in south- em California. Am. Mid]. Naturalist 92:461—466. Kemsies, E. 1948. Birds of Cincinnati and southwestern Ohio. Ohio Audubon Society, Cincinnati, Ohio. Kricher, J. C. 1975. Diversity in two wintering bird com- munities: possible weather effects. Auk 92:766-777. Lancaster, R. K., and W. E. Rees. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canad. J. Zool. 57: 2358-2368. McComb, W. C., and J. J. Moriarity. 1981. Winter bird densities in eastern Kentucky forests. Kentucky Warbler 57:67-71. Quay, T. L. 1947. Winter birds of upland plant commu- nities. Auk 64:382-388. Rollfinke, B. F., and R. H. Yahner. 1990. Effects of time of day and season on winter bird counts. Condor 92: 215-219. Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688. 173 Smith, P. G. R. 1984. Observer and annual variation in winter bird population studies. Wilson Bull. 96:561— 574. Summers-Smith, J. D. 1963. The house sparrow. Collins, London, United Kingdom. Symmes, J. C. 1926. Letter to Jonathon Dayton, Novem- ber 4, 1790. Page 134. In B. W. Bond Jr. (ed.) The correspondence of John Cleves Symmes. Macmillan Co., New York, New York. Tilghman, N. G. 1987. Characteristics of urban woodlands affecting winter bird diversity and abundance. Forest Ecol. Managem. 21:163-175. Trautman, M. B. 1977. The Ohio country from 1750 to 1977—a naturalist’s view. Ohio Biol. Surv. Biol. Notes 10:1—25. Weins, J. A. 1989. The ecology of bird communities. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Williamson, R. D. 1974. Birds in Washington, DC. Pages 131-135. In J. H. Noyes and D. R. Progulske (eds.) Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Holdsworth Natural Resources Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Williamson, R. D., and R. M. DeGraaf. 1980. Habitat as- sociations of ten bird species in Washington, DC. Urban Ecol. 5:125-136. Yaukey, P. H. 1996. Patterns of avian population density, habitat use, and flocking behavior in urban and rural habitats during winter. Professional Geogr. 48:70-81. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(2):174-177. 1998. Observations of Forest-interior Bird Communities in Older-growth Forests in Eastern Kentucky Michael J. Lacki and Michael D. Baker Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40546 ABSTRACT Quantitative data on the composition of forest-interior bird communities in older-growth forests of eastern Kentucky are needed to assess the status of potential source populations of birds for an increasingly frag- mented-forest landscape. We surveyed forest-interior bird communities in Robinson Forest, Breathitt Coun- ty, and Lilley Comett Woods, Letcher County, Kentucky, in May and June 1994 and 1995. Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens), and acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) in that order were the four species most frequently recorded. Two additional species, solitary vireo (V. solitarius) and common raven (Corvus corax), were observed in Breathitt County, where breeding populations of these species have not been reported. Although only a single brown- headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) was noted in surveys, it does indicate that this species enters intact blocks of forest in eastern Kentucky; a need exists for information on nest success and parasitism levels by brown- headed cowbirds in such forests in eastern Kentucky. INTRODUCTION Conservation of habitat for forest-interior birds has focused on identification and protec- tion of intact blocks of older-growth forest (i.e., core areas with mature timber +70 years in age; Hagan 1995) to provide for source pop- ulations of forest-interior birds occurring in heavily fragmented landscapes (Donovan et al. 1995; Hagan et al. 1996; Robinson et al. 1995). Fragmentation of forests has reduced nesting success of forest-interior birds through habitat loss (Hagan et al. 1996; Robbins et al. 1989; Temple and Cary 1988), increased nest pre- dation (Gates and Gysel 1978; Wilcove 1985; Yahner and Scott 1988), increased parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Brittingham and Temple 1983; Hoover and Brittingham 1993; Robinson et al. 1995), and disruption of pair- ing success and habitat selection (Porneluzi et al. 1993; Van Horne et al. 1995; Villard et al. 1993). The required size of forest blocks and the landscape context necessary for fragments of forest to support source populations of for- est-interior birds remains largely unresolved (Brawn and Robinson 1996; Donovan et al. 1995). Because requirements are likely to vary among physiographic regions (Robinson et al. 1995), information on status of breeding-bird communities and forest conditions is needed from interior forests representing a variety of forest types and physiographic locations. Eastern Kentucky is a predominantly for- ested landscape comprised of rich mesophytic forest, giving way to mixed pine-hardwoods at southerly latitudes and on ridges (Braun 1950; Palmer-Ball 1996). Because of its extensive forests, eastern Kentucky may be a conserva- tion area for forest-interior birds inhabiting these forest ecosystems. Logging, surface min- ing, and clearing of land for agriculture and settlement continue to alter forests in eastern Kentucky, and many locations now support second-growth forest or early successional vegetation (Palmer-Ball 1996). Historical pat- terns of land use in eastern Kentucky suggest that fragmentation of forests can be expected to continue; thus, identification and protection of forest blocks containing older-growth forest and associated bird communities are necessary to ensure the long-term conservation of forest- interior birds in this region. We present data on forest-interior bird communities from two older-growth forests in eastern Kentucky, with an emphasis on species composition and the occurrence of the brown-headed cowbird. STUDY AREA Robinson Forest, which covers ca. 5,000 ha in Breathitt, Knott, and Perry counties, Ken- tucky, is owned in trust by the University of Kentucky. This tract is an island of second- growth forest surrounded by both active and reclaimed surface coal mines. Logging ceased on the forest in 1923; stands chosen for our surveys have been undisturbed since 1915 and were ca. 79 years in age at the start of surveys. 174 Forest-interior Birds in Kentucky—Lacki and Baker Lilley Cornett Woods is a 104-ha tract of vir- gin timber situated in Letcher County, Ken- tucky, with protected status as a Kentucky state forest (Martin 1975). This tract is sur- rounded by a combination of secondary forest, small areas of cultivated land, and surface coal mining operations. Both forests have steep slopes and narrow ridges and valleys, have el- evations ranging from 244 to 588 m, and sup- port a mixed mesophytic vegetation complex (Braun 1950). Vegetation is characterized by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow-poplar (Liri- odendron tulipifera), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white oak (Quercus alba), north- em red oak (Q. rubra), cucumber tree (Mag- nolia acuminata), basswood (Tilia spp.), and upland hickories (Carya spp.) in the overstory. Understories are comprised of flowering dog- wood (Cornus florida), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), haw- thorns (Crataegus spp.), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), redbud (Cercis cana- densis), serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), and rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.). At least 69 species of woody plants are known to occur in Lilley Cornett Woods (Martin and Shep- herd 1973). METHODS Birds were surveyed in Robinson Forest on 17 May and 14 June 1994 and on 13 May and 10 June 1995. Surveys in Lilley Cornett Woods were conducted on 18 May and 15 June 1994 and on 12 May and 9 June 1995. Four representative stands (i.e., no history of fire or recent disturbance) were selected for sampling in each forest. Each stand was sur- veyed at one point in both May and June dur- ing both years of the survey. A modified, fixed- radius point-count method (Hutto et al. 1986) was used to survey birds, primarily of singing males, with data partitioned into <50 m and >50 m concentric distance bands. All survey points were >200 m apart and >150 m from any forest edge. All birds seen or heard during surveys were recorded. Surveys were con- ducted between 0630 and 0930 EDST. Survey periods were 12 minutes long. We waited 3 minutes from the time of arrival at the survey point before collecting data to permit dis- turbed birds to resume normal singing activity. 175 Surveys took place only when the weather was favorable. Data provided an estimate of the relative abundance of species and were organized into two community indices: abundance (number of individual birds/point) and richness (num- ber of species/point). Forests were compared using community indices derived from data for the <50-m distance bands. Comparisons were based on Student's t-tests, with differ- ences considered significant at p<0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A total of 44 species of birds was recorded, 36 in Robinson Forest and 34 in Lilley Cor- nett Woods (Table 1). In general, avifaunal composition was comparable with 26 species found at both forests. Notable differences were the presence of a common raven (Cor- vus corax) and a solitary vireo (Vireo solitar- ius) in Robinson Forest. The raven was heard flying over Deadman’s Hollow on 10 June 1995 shortly after 0630. Historically, this spe- cies was a resident on the Cumberland Plateau but was presumed extirpated from the region by the 1950s (Mengel 1965). A recent obser- vation in Leslie County, Kentucky (Palmer- Ball 1996), and the location of a nest site in Letcher County, Kentucky (Fowler et al. 1985), suggest that common ravens are in- creasing in frequency in this state. Our obser- vation, the first modern record from Breathitt County, suggests that this species is beginning to extend its range to the northwest. The com- mon raven is presently listed as endangered in Kentucky (KSNPC 1996). The solitary vireo is believed to be a summer resident only at high- er elevations in Kentucky and is not docu- mented in summer from Breathitt County (Palmer-Ball 1996); however, this species was recently discovered at many sites across the Cumberland Plateau and also appears to be extending its summer range (Palmer-Ball 1996). The community indices of birds in these forests were similar. Abundance at Robinson Forest (x = 14.6 (SE = 0.72)) and Lilley Cor- nett Woods (x = 13.7 (SE = 0.94)) was not different (t= 0.79, P = 0.44), and species rich- ness at Robinson Forest (x = 8.81 (SE = 0.53)) and Lilley Cornett Woods (x = 9.44 (SE = (0.61)) was not different ({ = 0.77, P = 0.44). For the combined data set, the most 176 Table 1. dance, recorded by distance from sampling points in two older-growth forests in eastern Kentucky, 1994 and 1995. Species and numbers of birds, in order of abun- Data are based on 16 surveys per site. Lilley Cormett Woods Robinson Forest Species <50 m >50m <50m >50m Vireo olivaceus 51 39 8 Seiurus aurocapillus 40 9 Dendroica virens 16 95 3 Empidonax virescens 28 15 Corvus brachyrhynchos 6 2 Hylocichla mustelina Dryocopus pileatus Parus bicolor Parula americana Piranga olivacea Wilsonia citrina Sitta carolinensis Colaptes auratus Melanerpes carolinus Vireo flavifrons Mniotilta varia Polioptila caerulea Dendroica cerulea Dendroica magnolia! Cardinalis cardinalis Contopus virens i Catharus ustulatus! Helmitheros vermivorus Coccyzus americanus Parus carolinensis Dendroica dominica Setophaga ruticilla Dendroica pinus Zenaida macroura Strix varia 1 ] Picoides pubescens 2 Picoides villosus 1 ] Cyanocitta cristata 1 ] Oporornis formosus 1 ] Piranga rubra 1 1 Buteo lineatus 1 Meleagris gallopavo ] Sayornis phoebe 1 Corvus corax ] Sialia sialis 1 Dumetella carolinensis Vireo solitarius 1 Seiurus motacilla Molothrus ater 1 ype hie = 52) co bo bo = os —_— ee bop & WW We COS WwW — NON UHR WEDWHEAO EK Ww bo wb NWN UU NYBWWKE DB UO cee — bo Ww — ' Probable migrant (Palmer-Ball 1996). frequently recorded species were red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird (Seiurus au- rocapillus), black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens), and acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) in that order (Table 1), with red-eyed vireos and ovenbirds being the most numerous in each forest. Data on rela- Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) tive abundance of red-eyed vireos and oven- birds were consistent with historical (Mengel 1965) and recent trends (Palmer-Ball 1996) for these two species in eastern Kentucky. The American crow (Corvus brachyrhyn- chos) was third and the black-throated green warbler and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) were fourth in relative abundance at Robinson Forest; most of the crows were recorded at >50 m from sample points. At Lilley Cornett Woods, the black-throated green warbler and the wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) were third and fourth in relative abundance. Wet- more (1940) suggested that black-throated green warblers were locally common in Letch- er County, Kentucky; however, surveys at Lil- ley Cormett Woods in the 1970s (Hudson 1971, 1972) produced only four records of black-throated green warblers. Further, sur- veys in 1955 along Clemon’s Fork in Robinson Forest (Barbour 1956) produced few of the warblers. Palmer-Ball (1996) suggested that this species has only slightly decreased in abundance in eastern Kentucky. The abun- dance of the black-throated green warbler in our surveys, and in recent surveys in oak-hick- ory forest further north in Bath County, Ken- tucky (Baker and Lacki 1997), indicates that this species is locally common in older-growth forests in eastern Kentucky. We heard one male brown-headed cowbird in the 32 surveys: on 15 June 1994 in Lilley Cornett Woods within 50 m of the sampling point. This observation indicates that the brown-headed cowbird does enter interior por- tions of smaller forest blocks in eastern Ken- tucky. Hahn and Hatfield (1995) documented nest parasitism by cowbirds in a 1,300-ha forest block in New York and suggested that regional differences exist in habitat use and selection of hosts by cowbirds. Given that cowbirds are known to make use of reclaimed strip mines in spring and summer in eastern Kentucky (Claus et al. 1988) and that strip mining continues to be a major source of habitat fragmentation in this region, increased pressures on host species in nearby forest fragments are likely. Claus et al. (1988) postulated that many cowbirds in- habiting reclaimed strip mines are unpaired, non-breeding birds; however, no data exist to support or refute this hypothesis. The two species recorded most frequently in our study, red-eyed vireo and ovenbird, are Forest-interior Birds in Kentucky—Lacki and Baker positively correlated with the size of forested area around survey points in the middle At- lantic states (Robbins et al. 1989). Further, rates of nest parasitism of these two species by cowbirds are also associated with the fre- quency of detection of cowbirds in Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, including both contiguous and fragmented forests (Donovan et al. 1995). We recommend studies to assess the extent that the the cowbird affects nest success of forest-interior birds in eastern Ken- tucky, particularly stands in close proximity to reclaimed strip mines. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by the Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky. We thank personnel of Robinson Forest and Lilley Cor- nett Woods for logistical support. B. Palmer- Ball provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Our investigation (97-09- 10) is connected with a project of the Ken- tucky Agricultural Experiment Station and is published with approval of the director. LITERATURE CITED Baker, M.D. and M_J. Lacki. 1997. Short-term changes in bird communities in response to silvicultural prescrip- tions. Forest Ecol. Managem. 96:27—-36. Barbour, R.W. A preliminary list of the summer birds of Clemon’s Park, Breathitt County, Kentucky. Kentucky Warbler 32:3-11. Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner, New York, New York. Brawn, J.D. and S.K. Robinson. 1996. Source-sink popu- lation dynamics may complicate the interpretation of long-term census data. Ecology 77:3-12. Brittingham, M.C. and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33:31— 35. Claus, D.B., W.H. Davis, and W.C. McComb. 1988. Bird use of eastern Kentucky surface mines. Kentucky War- bler 64:39-43. Donovan, T.M., F.R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, and J.R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biol. 9:1380— 1395. Fowler, D.K., J.R. MacGregor, S.A. Evans, and L.E. Schaaf. 1985. The common raven returns to Kentucky. Am. Birds 39:852-853. Gates, J.E. and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledgling success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:87 1-883. Hagan, J.M. 1995. Private industrial forests and bird con- servation in the northeastern United States. Endan- gered Species Update 12(1&2):1-5. Lag Hagan, J.M., W.M. Vander Haegen, and P.S. McKinley. 1996. The early development of forest fragmentation effects on birds. Conservation Biol. 10:188—202. Hahn, D.C. and J.S. Hatfield. 1995. Parasitism at the land- scape scale: cowbirds prefer forests. Conservation Biol. 9:1415-1424. Hoover, J.P. and M.C. Brittingham. 1993. Regional vari- ation in cowbird parasitism of wood thrushes. Wilson Bull. 105:228—238. Hudson, J.E. 1971. Some notes on the birds of Lilley’s Woods. Kentucky Warbler 47:27-28. Hudson, J.E. 1972. A comparison of breeding bird pop- ulations at selected sites in the southern Appalachians and the Boston Mountains. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer- sity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Hutto, R.L., S.A. Pletschet, and P. Hendricks. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk 103:593-602. [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 1996. Rare and extirpated plants and animals of Ken- tucky. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 57:69-91. Martin, W.H. 1975. The Lilley Cornett Woods: a stable mixed mesophytic forest in Kentucky. Bot. Gaz. 136: 171-183. Martin, W.H. and C. Shepherd. 1973. Trees and shrubs of Lilley Cornett Woods, Letcher County, Kentucky. Castanea 38:327—335. Mengel, R.M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. A.O.U. Monographs 3. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Palmer-Ball, B.L., Jr. 1996. The Kentucky breeding bird atlas. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Pomeluzi, P., J.C. Bednarz, L.J. Goodrich, N. Zawada, and J. Hoover. 1993. Reproductive performance of territorial ovenbirds occupying forest fragments and a contiguous for- est in Pennsylvania. Conservation Biol. 7:618—622. Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, and B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monogr. 103:1—34. Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson HI, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest frag- mentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987—1990. Temple, S.A. and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented land- scapes. Conservation Biol. 2:340-347. Van Horne, M.A., R.M. Gentry, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Patterns of ovenbird (Seiwrus aurocapillus) pairing suc- cess in Missouri forest tracts. Auk 112:98—106. Villard, M., PR. Martin, and C.G. Drummond. 1993. Habitat fragmentation and pairing success in the ov- enbird (Seiurus aurocapillus). Auk 110:759-768. Wetmore, A. 1940. Notes on the birds of Kentucky. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 88:529-574. Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211— 1214. Yahner, R.H. and D.P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest frag- mentation on depredation of artificial avian nests. J. Wildlife Managem. 52:158-161. ]. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(2):178-184. 1998. Characterization of the Woody Strata in the Xeric-site Chestnut Oak Forest Community, Northwestern Highland Rim, Kentucky and Tennessee Edward W. Chester, Christine E. Harris, and Sandra Gonzalez Department of Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee 37044 and Keri K. Denley Department of Biology, Delta State University, Cleveland, Mississippi 38733 ABSTRACT Forests dominated by xerophytic oaks, especially chestnut (mountain) oak (Quercus prinus = Q. montana), occupy many rocky-gravelly, nutrient-poor ridges and upper slopes between the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers in southwest-central Kentucky (Lyon and Trigg counties)and northwest-central Tennessee (Stewart County). Those xeric-site remnants that are least disturbed may represent some of the best remaining examples of pre-settlement forests of the region. We here characterize the woody strata of 10 such forest stands in the three-county area of Land Between The Lakes. Stands were specifically and non-randomly selected based on topography and xeric conditions, the presence of numerous and mature chestnut oaks in the canopy, and lack of recent disturbance. Based on data from 45 0.04-ha plots, all strata are dominated by Q. prinus, and mesophytic species such as sugar maple are mostly lacking in the understory, suggesting stability in these remnants. INTRODUCTION The eastern deciduous biome is dominated by temperate hardwood forest types except for peripheral areas (Abrams 1996; Braun 1950). In the hardwood-dominated forests, oaks (Quercus) are most often encountered (Abrams 1996; Monk et al. 1990). Quercus prinus (Q. montana), chestnut or mountain oak, the subject species in this study, ranges over much of the biome north and west of the Coastal Plain (Nixon and Muller 1997) and is one of six oak species of particular significance because of high dominance in eastern North America (Abrams 1996). It is a major com- ponent of two Society of American Foresters cover types (Eyre 1980) and an important member of several of the forest regions of Braun (1950). The considerable significance of Q. prinus in Kentucky and Tennessee forests was discussed in Baskin et al. (1987) for Ken- tucky, in Chester (1989) for Tennessee, and in the forest region summaries for southeastern United States in Martin et al. (1993). In Land Between The Lakes (LBL), the 68,000-ha peninsula between the lower Cum- berland and Tennessee rivers, many xeric ridg- es and upper slopes are dominated by chest- nut oak. Franklin and Fralish (1994), based on research by Fralish et al. (1991) in southern Illinois, suggested that such xeric-site oak stands may best represent pre-European set- tlement conditions in the region. We have col- lected considerable data on the composition and characteristics of successional and mature chestnut oak forests in LBL. The purpose of our paper is to present analyses of the woody strata in 10 non-randomly selected mature stands. The Study Area Land Between The Lakes is within and at the western edge of the Western Highland Rim Subsection, Highland Rim Section, In- terior Low Plateaus Province (Quarterman and Powell 1978). The landscape is heavily dissected with narrow ridges (often <10 m wide and locally referred to as hogbacks), steep slopes (often >50%), and narrow ra- vines. Elevations range from ca. 108 to 185 m. Bedrock is predominantly cherty limestones of the Mississippian System. Tuscaloosa white chert gravels and McNairy Sand (Cretaceous) occur at higher elevations and brown gravels (Tertiary-Quatemary) and silty loess (Pleisto- is Chestnut Oak Forests—Chester et all. cene) veneer some uplands. Patches of gravel and conglomerate frequently are exposed on slopes and ridges. Soils have developed in a variety of parent materials, especially thin lo- ess over gravel and chert, and are mostly in- fertile and droughty (Harris 1988). Vegetation- ally, LBL is within the transitional Western Mesophytic Region of Braun (1950) and is characterized by a mixture of flora and vege- tation types. METHODS Site Selection Based on the stated objective to character- ize the woody strata of the most mature chest- nut oak stands in the area, sites were non-ran- domly selected based on (1) topography and xeric conditions, (2) the presence of numerous and mature chestnut oaks (235-45 cm dbh; Franklin and Fralish 1994) and (3) few if any signs of human disturbance. One of the se- lected sites is in Lyon County, Kentucky; sev- en are in Trigg County, Kentucky; and two are in Stewart County, Tennessee. Field Sampling During summer 1997, each site was floris- tically surveyed and sampled by three to six (total of 45) permanently-marked 0.04 ha (0.1 acre) plots established along the center of ridges or along mid-slope transects for slopes. Plots were separated minimally by 10 m and were placed well within the forest to avoid edge effects. Within each plot all woody stems (except vines) with a diameter at breast height (dbh) =2.54 cm (1 inch) were measured to the nearest 0.25 cm (0.1 inch) and recorded by species. Shrubs and woody seedlings (dbh <2.54 cm) were counted by species within a circular plot of 0.004 ha (0.01 acre) at the cen- ter of each 0.04-ha plot; species of Carya, Quercus, and Vaccinium <2.54 cm were not separated because of uncertainty in identifi- cation (oaks were separated into the “white oak group” and the “red/black oak group”). Taxa were categorized into three strata based on dbh: canopy (£10.16 cm), saplings/small trees (2.54 to 10.15 cm), and seedlings/shrubs (<2.54 cm). Taxonomy and nomenclature fol- low Gleason and Cronquist (1991). 9 Data Analyses Presence (percent of stands in which a spe- cies occurred) was calculated, and each spe- cies was assigned to a presence class (Oosting 1956): 1 (rare, occurring in 1-20% of the stands); 2 (seldom present, 21-40%); 3 (often present, 41-60%); 4 (mostly present, 61— 80%); 5 (constantly present, 81-100%). Per- centages were compared with normal distri- butions (Oosting 1956). Richness (Krebs 1985) was determined and compared with published values. The degree of similarity between stands was calculated with three indices of community similarity, comparing the 45 pairwise combi- nations for canopy species. These included the Sorenson Index (IS,) based on presence (Bar- bour et al. 1987; Mueller-Dombois and Ellen- berg 1974) and the Jaccard Index as modified by Ellenberg (IS,) for percent density and percent basal area (Mueller-Dombois and E]- lenberg 1974). Species diversity was calculated by the Shannon-Wiener Index using the equations from Krebs (1985). This index allowed for comparison with published index values from various regions of the Eastern Deciduous For- est. Community structure was derived from av- erage dbh, density, relative density, basal area, relative basal area, frequency, and relative fre- quency for species in the canopy and sapling/ small tree stratum. Summation of the relative values gave an importance value (IV) with a maximum of 300 (Barbour et al. 1987). Den- sity, relative density, frequency, relative fre- quency, and importance value (IV maximum of 200) were used to characterize the woody seedling stratum. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Presence and Richness Nine species (31%), including Amelanchier arborea, Carya glabra, Cornus florida, Junip- erus virginiana, Oxydendrum arboreum, Quercus prinus, Q. velutina, Sassafras albi- dum, and Vaccinium arboreum, occurred in presence class 5 (9 or 10 stands). Six species (21%), including Carya tomentosa, Diospyros virginiana, Nyssa sylvatica, Quercus alba, Q. marilandica, and Q. stellata, were in class 4 (7 or 8 stands). Two species (7%), Prunus sero- 180 tina and Ulmus alata, were in class 3 (5 or 6 stands). Class 2 (3 or 4 stands) included 3 spe- cies (10%) and class 1 (1 or 2 stands) nine species (31%). Normally, class 1 (rare) will in- clude about 56% of the species and classes 3, 4, and 5 combined about 28%. Here, only 31% of the taxa occurred in class 1, and classes 3, 4, and 5 accounted for 60%, indicating a community with a higher than normal per- centage of species that are regularly to con- stantly present in representative stands and fewer than normal percentage of species that are not regularly encountered. Richness per stand for all taxa ranged from 12 to 22, average 16.5, total 29. For the shrub/ seedling stratum, the range was 9 to 13 (taxa of Carya, Quercus, and Vaccinium not differ- entiated), average 10.5, total 20; and for the sapling/small tree stratum, the range was 10 to 19, average 14.4, total 25. For canopy species, richness ranged from 9 to 13, average 11.2, total 16. This total is comparable for chestnut oak communities outside of LBL, e.g., 15 for stands on the Western Highland Rim south of LBL (Wheat and Dimmick 1987) and 15 for the dry ridge communities just east of LBL (Chester et al. 1995). Elsewhere, Condley (1984) found species numbers to vary from 6 to 17 on ridgetop chestnut oak communities of the Ridge and Valley Province from Ala- bama to Vermont. Community Similarity Indices Community similarity indices may range from 0 (complete difference) to 100 (identity) and any two plots with a value 250 represent the same association (Barbour et al. 1987). Our Sorenson Index (IS,), ranged from 25 to 89 with a mean of 66; 6 of the 45 comparisons were below 50. However, stand similarity is not only a function of species in common but also the amount of each species present (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Jac- card’s Index as modified by Ellenberg (IS,,) for percent density ranged from 59 to 95 with an average of 86. For percent basal area, IS, ranged from 75 to 98 with an average of 92. Thus, some site variation occurs in canopy flo- ristic composition but there is close similarity in percent density and basal area. Diversity Indices The Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’) is based on two components of diversity: (1) Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) number of species and (2) equitability or even- ness of allotment of individuals among species (Krebs 1985). Values may range from 0 for a community of one species to >7 for very rich communities (Barbour et al. 1987). In eastern North America, H’ values for Braun’s nine regions of the Eastern Deciduous Forest ranged from 1.84 in the Beech-Maple Region to 3.40 in the diverse Mixed Mesophytic Re- gion (Monk 1967). Within the Interior Low Plateaus, values ranged from 2.49 to 3.09. Our H’ values of 2.79 (canopy), 3.43 (saplings/ small trees), and 2.33 (seedlings/shrubs) gen- erally are within the range for the area. The increase in H’ from seedlings to saplings/small trees and from seedlings to canopy are indi- cators that these forest stands are mature or are in late successional stages (Monk 1967). Community Structure A total of 2,017 stems with dbh =2.54 cm representing 20 genera and 26 species was measured. About half of these stems (1,007, 49.93%) were in the 2.54 to 10.15 cm dbh size class; 1,010 stems (50.07%) had a dbh =10.16 cm. The average diameter of all stems was 15.10 cm; for stems 210.16 cm, the average was 25.37 cm. The largest trees sampled were individuals of Q. prinus (dbh in cm of 94.7, 81.8, 8 specimens 71 to 81, 4 specimens 61 to 70). Counts of annual rings in 10 freshly cut chestnut oak stumps from a stand adjacent to one of our sampling sites in Stewart County, Tennessee, showed that trees in the dbh range of 60 to 65 cm were over 100 years old. The canopy included 16 species within 10 genera (Table 1). Density was 548.9 stems/ha and basal area 34.6 m?/ha. Dominance was clearly assumed by Q. prinus (59.2% of IV). A second and much lower tier of contributing species included Oxydendrum arboreum (8.1%), Q. velutina (6.7), Carya glabra (5.1), Q. marilandica (4.5), Q. stellata (4.2), and Q. alba (3.6). These 7/16 species accounted for 91.4% of IV. At the generic level, Quercus (6 species) accounted for almost 80% of IV. No species with canopy-size individuals were found in floristic surveys that were not found in the sampling plots. The sapling/small tree stratum included 25 species representing 19 genera (Table 2). Density was 547 stems/ha and basal area 1.3 m*/ha. This stratum also was dominated by Q. Chestnut Oak Forests—Chester et all. 181 Table 1. Species composition and structure of the canopy layer (=10.16 cm dbh) in 10 xeric-site chestnut oak forests, Northwestern Highland Rim, Kentucky and Tennessee. Avg. Basal Rel. No. dbh Density Rel, area basal No. Rel. LV. % of Taxa stems (cm) (No./ha) density (m2/ha) area plots Freq. freq. (300) LV. Quercus prinus 699 28.24 379.89 69.21 28676 82.84 45 100.00 25.42 177.48 59.159 Oxydendrum arboreum 85 14.09 46.20 8.42 0.827 9.39 24 53.33 13.56 24.36 8.122 Quercus velutina 43 24.63 23.37 4.26 1.326 3.83 21 46.67 11.86 19.95 6.651 Carya glabra dD 17.24 29.89 5.45 0.851 2.46 13 28.89 7.34 15.25 5.083 Quercus marilandica 8220 Ame i395 23s, 201682 E97. 15) 33:38" 58.47) 13:61 4.538 Quercus stellata 27 22.63 14.67 2.67 0.720 2.08 14 Sy ladUll 7.91 12.66 4,221 Quercus alba 21 28.93 11.41 2.08 0.869 Qe al 24.44 6.21 10.80 3.601 Cornus florida I] 11.91 5.98 1.09 0.067 0.19 9 20.00 5.08 6.37 22.9; Nyssa sylvatica 12 20.37 6.52 1.19 0.246 OR ai, 15.56 3.95 5.85 1.951 Quercus coccinea ft AT29 3.80 0.69 0.103 0.30 11.11 2.82 3.82 1.272 5 Carya tomentosa 8 20.09 4.35 0.79 0.153 0.44 38 6.67 1.69 2.93 0.976 Juniperus virginiana 3 11.76 1.63 0.30 0.018 0.05 3 6.67 1.69 2.04 0.681 Sassafras albidum oy Ey 1.63 0.30 0.011 0.03 38 6.67 1.69 2.02 0.675 Fraxinus americana 2 15.24 1.09 0.20 0.021 0.06 2 4.44 1.13 1.39 0.463 Liquidambar styraciflua 1h 29:97 0.54 0.10 0.039 Ot QZ 0.56 0.78 0.259 Ostrya virginiana 1 11.68 0.54 0.10 0.006 0.025 el 2.22 0.56 0.68 0.227 Totals 1010 25.35 548.90 100.00 34.615 100.00 100.00 300.00 100.000 prinus (16.5% of IV). Other dominants were These 6/25 taxa accounted for almost 70% of Vaccinium arboreum (14.2), Carya glabra IV. At the generic level, the six species of (12.1), Oxydendrum arboreum (10.1), Cornus Quercus accounted for 29.9% of IV and two florida (8.9), and Sassafras albidum (7.5). species of Carya for 14.2%. Only one taxon, Table 2. Species composition and structure of the sapling/small tree layer (2.54-10.15 cm dbh) in 10 xeric-site chestnut oak forests, Northwestern Highland Rim, Kentucky and Tennessee. Avg. Basal Rel. No. dbh Density Rel. area basal No. Rel. LV. % of Taxa stems (em) (No./ha) density (m*/ha) area plots Freq. freq. (300) LV. Quercus prinus 151 5.97 82.07 15.00 0.263 20.15 39 8667 1450 49.65 16.549 Vaccinium arboreum 249) 93228) 35:88: 9 24:73" OWI25 9.58 22 48.89 8.18 4248 14.161 Carya glabra BASS ile Coe l3:ol- O80 2 aSi79) Pom oD:06 929 3639 12.131 Oxydendrum arboreum 102 5.28 55.43 10.13 0.147 11.26 24 53.33 8.92 30.32 10.105 Cornus florida 71 5.99 38.59 7.05 0.122 935 28 62.22 1041 2681] 8.936 Sassafras albidum 79. 4.37 42.93 7.85 0.079 6:05 23-5111 8.55 22.45 7.483 Quercus velutina 27 5.23 14.67 2.68 0.038 2.91 18 40.00 6.69 12.28 4.095 Quercus alba Ta oS 3.80 0.70 0.121 9.27 6 13.33 2.23 12.20 4.066 Amelanchier arborea 38 4.27 20.65 3.77 0.035 2.68 12 26.67 446 10.92 3.639 Nyssa sylvatica 26 5.49 14.13 2.58 0.038 2.91 12 26.67 4.46 9.95 3.318 Quercus marilandica 17 5.59 9.24 1.69 0.026 1.99 14 31.11 5.20 8.88 2.962 Ulmus alata 36 439 19.57 3.57 0.035 268 7 15.56 2.60 8.86 2.953 Juniperus virginiana 16 4.65 8.70 1.59 0.017 130 11 24.44 4.09 6.98 2.327 Carya tomentosa 14 5.79 7.61 1.39 0.024 1.84 8 17.78 2.97 6.20 2.068 Quercus stellata 12 6.60 6.52 1.19 0.024 IY SG MIREER 2.23 5.26 1.754 Diospyros virginiana Li BOB 3.80 0.70 0.003 0235 7s 6.67 Le, 2.04 0.680 Acer saccharum 6 3.89 3.26 0.60 0.005 OSSirar2 4.44 0.74 EAD, 0.574 Quercus coccinea 3 5.66 1.63 0.30 0.004 OFS, 4.44 0.74 1.35 0.449 Cercis canadensis 4 3.30 2.17 0.40 0.002 0.15 1 QED; 0.37 0.92 0.307 Ostrya virginiana Oy AED 2. 1.63 0.30 0.003 0.23 ] 2b22, 0.37 0.90 0.300 Celtis laevigata I Soul 0.54 0.10 0.004 0.31 1 D2.) 0.37 0.78 0.259 Prunus serotina 1 9.65 0.54 0.10 0.004 0.31 ] Dn22} 0.37 0.78 0.259 Tilia heterophylla 1 9.14 0.54 0.10 0.004 0.31 1 212.9) 0.37 0.78 0.259 Liquidambar styraciflua seo 0.54 0.10 0.001 0.008 1 OR) 0.37 0.55 0.183 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 4.06 0.54 0.10 0.001 0.08 1 ).O)9) 0.37 0.55 0.183 Totals 1007 4.80 547.28 100.00 1.305 100.00 100.00 300.00 100.000 182 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Table 3. Species composition and structure of the shrub/woody seedling layer (<2.54 em dbh) in 10 xeric-site chestnut oak forests, Northwestern Highland Rim, Kentucky and Tennessee. No. Density No. Rel. LV. % of Taxa stems (No./ha) density plots Freq. freq. (200) LV. Quercus/whites 1430 7945.08 33.65 45 100.00 16.67 50.32 25.16 Vaccinium spp. 1477 §206.21 34.76 37 82.22 13.70 48.46 24.2.3 Quercus/blks.-reds 482, 2677.99 11.34 44 97.78 16.30 27.64 13.82 Sassafras albidum 450 2500.20 10.59 29 64.44 10.74 ies 10.67 Carya spp. 146 811.18 3.44 32 71.11 11.85 15.29 7.65 Amelanchier arborea 123 683.39 2.89 25 59.06 9.26 12.15 6.08 Diospyros virginiana 24 133.34 0.56 12 26.67 4.45 5.01 2.51 Oxydendrum arboreum 45 250.02 1.06 10 22.29, 3.70 4.76 2.38 Nyssa sylvatica 27 150.01 0.64 8 17.78 2.96 3.60 1.80 Prunus serotina 8 44.45 0.19 6 13.33 229.9; 2.41 1.21 Ulmus alata 16 88.90 58) 5 11.11 1.85 DOR) 1.12 Cornus florida 7 38.89 0.16 4 8.89 1.48 1.64 0.82 Juniperus virginiana 4 29722, 0.09 4 8.89 1.48 1.57 0.79 Cercis canadensis 3 16.67 0.07 2 4.44 0.74 0.81 0.41 Acer saccharum 2, 11.11 0.05 5) 4.44 0.74 0.79 0.40 Ceanothus americanus ] 5.56 0.02 ] DOW) 0.37 0.39 0.20 Fraxinus americana 1 5.06 0.02 1 p22} 0.37 0.39 0.20 Liriodendron tulipifera I 5.56 0.02 1 a2) 0.37 0.39 0.20 Rhus copallina 1 5.56 0.02 1 D229) 0.37 0.39 0.20 Robinia pseudoacacia 1 5.56 0.02 1 SXO8) 0.37 0.39 0.20 Total 4249 23,607.46 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.05 Malus angustifolia (crabapple), was found in floristic studies that did not appear in sam- pling plots. The shrubAvoody seedling stratum included 20 taxa or taxa groups (Carya, Quercus, Vac- cinium) (Table 3); 4,249 stems were counted, giving a density of 23,607 stems/ha. Domi- nants included Quercus-white oak group (25.16% of IV), Vaccinium spp. (V. arboreum mostly with some V. pallidum, V. stamineum; rarely Gaylussacia baccata) (24.23%), Quer- cus-black/red oak group (13.82%), and Sassa- fras albidum (10.67%); these taxa accounted for 74% of IV. Taxa limited to this stratum were Ceanothus americanus, Liriodendron tu- lipifera, and Rhus copallina. Successional Status and Stability Numerous recent literature accounts sug- gest (1) that fire was a major factor in main- taining oak dominance in eastern United States before European settlement and (2) that many current oak forests in eastern North America are being replaced by other, mostly more mesophytic species (Abrams 1992, 1994, 1996; Fralish et al. 1991: Lorimer 1989: McGee 1986; Olson 1996; Parker 1989). Lor- imer (1989) summarized the principal causes of oak regeneration failure as the sluggish growth of oak seedlings, allowing them to be over-topped by other species, primarily be- cause a lack of fire allows shade-tolerant com- petitors to thrive. In addition, the dramatic rise in numbers of white-tailed deer (Odocoi- leus virginianus), which selectively browse oak seedlings, may exacerbate the oak regenera- tion problem (Abrams 1996). Thus, most oak- dominated forests at the time of settlement were successional in nature or a disturbance climax maintained by fire. An exception may be those on xeric or nutrient-poor sites that are an edaphic climax (Abrams 1992, 1994). Thus, most literature supports the conclusion of Abrams (1996) that fire exclusion this cen- tury has facilitated the invasion of most oak understories by later successional species, which are over-topping seedlings, and that a major loss of oak dominance should be antic- ipated in the next century. The Northwestern Highland Rim clearly is an area where fire and other factors have been important in current vegetation patterns and the successional nature of most oak forests in the absence of fire is documented (Fralish et al. 1993; Franklin et al. 1993). Annual burning by Native Americans was apparently practiced throughout the area (Baskin et al. 1994; Ches- ter et al. 1997; Franklin 1994; Olson 1996). Chestnut Oak Forests—Chester et al. Lightning-caused fires in some cases (Olson 1996) and large herds of herbivores (bison, deer, elk) had some impact through trampling and grazing (Chester et al. 1997; Franklin 1994). After settlement, woodland fires con- tinued to be commonplace in the LBL region for a number of reasons, including land-clear- ing, controlling “broomsedge” (Andropogon spp.), and hunting. In addition, wildfires fre- quently resulted from iron manufacturing (charcoal production and blast furnaces), se- creted whiskey stills, “plantbeds” for tobacco seedlings (woodland areas burned for weed control in which tobacco seedlings were then grown), and numerous others (Schibig and Chester 1988; Franklin 1994; Wallace 1988, 1992). However, over the past 100 years fires were not an annual occurrence in many wood- lands because the farmers in the mostly agrar- ian region recognized the importance of forest fire prevention. Fires have been virtually ab- sent since the early 1960s. Since the onset of fire suppression the oak- dominated woodlands have apparently under- gone significant changes. Extensive studies in LBL, summarized by Fralish et al. (1993) and Franklin et al. (1993), pointed out that most mesic sites currently dominated by oaks are being replaced by mesophytic species, notably sugar maple. Upland, xeric landscapes, as studied here, that were more open (Olson 1996) and may have been savanna and/or bar- ren-like and dominated by prairie grasses with only scattered oaks “have succeeded to closed forest with a depleted herbaceous layer” (Franklin 1994; Franklin and Fralish 1994). The question of stability in the xeric-site chestnut oak stands is not clear. Wheat and Dimmick (1997), referencing stands on the Western Rim in Tennessee, noted that “the importance of chestnut oak in all forest strata suggests stability in this community”; Fralish and Crooks (1988, 1989) expected chestnut oak to dominate such sites indefinitely. Cer- tainly, the importance of chestnut oak in all strata, and the scarcity of sugar maple and oth- er mesophytic species in the understory, as re- vealed in this study, suggest compositional sta- bility. Yet Abrams (1992, 1994) pointed out that oaks are being replaced even in some communities containing a substantial number of oak seedlings. Also, Abrams (1996) ob- served that while oak forests on xeric and nu- 183 trient-poor sites (as in our study) may repre- sent an edaphic climax, “they may alternatively be exhibiting slow rates of successional re- placement and thus not have long-term sta- bility in the absence of fire.” Our permanent plots in 10 such stands will provide an excel- lent opportunity for us (and others) to docu- ment compositional changes in publicly- owned, fire-controlled stands over an extend- ed time frame. LITERATURE CITED Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. BioScience 42:346-353. Abrams, M.D. 1994. Fire and the successional status of eastern oak forests. Abstract. Am. J. Bot., Suppl., 81: 116. Abrams, M.D. 1996. Distribution, historical development and ecophysiological attributes of oak species in the eastern United States. Ann. Sci. Forest. 53:487-512. Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts. 1987. Terres- trial plant ecology. 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Menlo Park, California. Baskin, J.M., C.C. Baskin, and R.M. Jones (eds). 1987. The vegetation and flora of Kentucky: a symposium sponsored by the Kentucky Academy of Science. Ken- tucky Native Plants Society, Eastern Kentucky Univer- sity, Richmond, Kentucky. Baskin, J.M., C.C. Baskin, and E.W. Chester. 1994. The Big Barrens Region of Kentucky and Tennessee: further observations and considerations. Castanea 59:226—254. Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Publ. Co., New York, New York. Chester, E.W. (ed). 1989. The vegetation and flora of Ten- nessee: proceedings ofa symposium. J. Tennessee Acad. Sci. 94:57-207. Chester, E.W., R.J. Jensen, and J. Schibig. 1995. Forest communities of Montgomery and Stewart counties, northwestern Middle Tennessee. J. Tennessee Acad. Sci. 70:82-91. Chester, E.W., B.E. Wofford, J.M. Baskin, and C.C. Bas- kin. 1997. A floristic study of barrens on the south- western Pennyroyal Plain, Kentucky and Tennessee. Castanea 62:161-172. Condley, B.C. 1984. The ridge top chestnut oak forest community of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Prov- ince and adjacent areas. M.S. Thesis, University of Ten- nessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Eyre, F.H. (ed). 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. Fralish, J.S. and F.B. Crooks. 1988. Forest communities of the Kentucky portion of Land Between The Lakes: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 164-175. In D.H. Snyder (ed). Proceedings of the first annual symposium on the natural history of lower Tennessee and Cumberland 184 River valleys. Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. Fralish, J.S. and F.B. Crooks. 1989. Forest composition, environment, and dynamics at Land Between The Lakes in northwest Middle Tennessee. J. Tennessee Acad. Sci. 64:107-111. Fralish, J.S., F.B. Crooks, J.L. Chambers, and F.M. Harty. 1991. Comparison of presettlement, second-growth and old-growth forest on six site types in the Illinois Shaw- nee Hills. Am. Midl. Naturalist 125:294-309. Fralish, ].S., $.B. Franklin, P.A. Robertson, S.M. Kettler, and F.B. Crooks. 1993. An ordination of compositionally stable and unstable forest communities at Land Be- tween The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Pp. 247— 267. In J.S. Fralish, R.P. McIntosh, and O.L. Loucks (eds). John T. Curtis, fifty years of Wisconsin plant ecol- ogy. Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts & Letters, Madison, Wisconsin. Franklin, $.B. 1994. Late Pleistocene and Holocene veg- etation history of Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 55:6—-19. Franklin, $.B. and J.S. Fralish. 1994. The chestnut oak and post oak woodland communities of Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Pp. 341-346. In J.S. Fralish, R.C. Anderson, J.E. Ebinger, and R. Sza- foni (eds). Proceedings of the North American confer- ence on barrens and savannas. Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Franklin, $.B., P.A. Robertson, J.S. Fralish, and S.M. Ket- tler. 1993. Overstory vegetation and successional trends of Land between the lakes, U.S.A. J. Vegetation Sci. 4: 509-520. Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vas- cular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Harris, S.E., Jr. 1988. Summary review of geology of Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee. Pp. 26— 83. In D.H. Snyder (ed). Proceedings of the first annual symposium on the natural history of lower Tennessee and Cumberland River valleys. Center for Field Biol- ogy, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennes- see. Krebs, C.J. 1985. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance, 3rd ed. Harper and Row, New York, New York. Lorimer, C.G. 1989. The oak regeneration problem: new evidence on causes and possible solutions. Pp. 23-40. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual hardwood symposium of the Hardwood Research Council, Devil's Head Resort, Merrimac, Wisconsin. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) McGee, C.E. 1986. Loss of Quercus spp. dominance in an undisturbed old-growth forest. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 102:10—-15. Martin, W.H., S.B. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht (eds). 1993. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: upland terrestrial communities. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. Monk, C.D. 1967. Tree species diversity in the eastern deciduous forest with particular reference to north-cen- tral Florida. Am. Naturalist 101:173-187. Monk, C.D., D.W. Imm, and R.L. Potter. 1990. Oak for- ests of eastern North America. Castanea 55:77-96. Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Nixon, K.C., and C.H. Muller. 1997. Quercus Linnaeus sect. Quercus. White oaks. Pp. 471-506. In Flora of North America Editorial Committee. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Mag- noliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Olson, $.D. 1996. The historical occurrence of fires in the central hardwoods, with emphasis on southcentral In- diana. Nat. Areas J. 16:248-256. Oosting, H.J. 1956. The study of plant communities, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman and Co.,San Francisco, California. Parker, G.R. 1989. Old-growth forests of the central hard- wood region. Nat. Areas J. 9:5-11. Quarterman E., and R. L. Powell. 1978. Potential ecolog- ical-geological natural landmarks on the Interior Low Plateaus. U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Schibig, J., and E.W. Chester. 1988. Vegetation and flo- ristic characterization of a mixed hardwoods-shortleaf pine stand in Stewart County, Tennessee. J. Tennessee Acad. Sci. 63:83-88. Wallace, B.J. 1988. History of Land Between The Lakes. Pp. 84-144. In D.H. Snyder (ed). Proceedings of the first annual symposium on the natural history of lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. Wallace, B. J. 1992. Between the rivers: history of The Land Between The Lakes. Misc. Publ. 8, Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. Wheat, R.M., Jr., and R. Dimmick. 1987. Forest com- munities and their relationships with landtypes on Western Highland Rim of Tennessee. Pp. 377-383. In R.L. Hay, FW. Woods, and H. DeSelm (eds). Central Hardwood Forest Conference VI. University of Ten- nessee, Knoxville, Tennnessee. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 59(2):185-194. 1998. 7,12 dimethylbenzanthracene apoptosis in livers of rats receiv- ing, 106 proliferation in livers of rats re- ceiving, 106 Abstracts, 93-110 Acadian flycatcher, 174 Acalypha rhomboidea, 125 Acanthocephalus dirus, infection of Lirceus lineatus, 108 Accipiter cooperii, 170 striatus, 170 Acer, 96 rubrum, 97 saccharum, 175, 181, 182 Afrocrania, 96 Agelaius phoeniceus, 170 Agricultural science, 93-94 Agrostis palustris, 93 cv. Cato, 93 cv. Crenshaw, 93 cv. Penncross, 93 cv. Pennlinks, 93 Alnus serrulata, 97 American bullfrogs, effects of argi- nine vasotocin on, 106 Ameiurus melas, 57 natalis, 57, 70 nebulosus, 57 Amelanchier arborea, 179, 181, 182 sp., 175 American beech, 175 American crow, 170 American goldfinch, 170 American hornbeam, 175 American kestrel, 170 American robin, 170 Amia calva, 54 Amiidae, 54 Ammonoid fauna from the Boyle Dolomite, 103 from the Middle Devonian (Giv- etian), 103 Amorpha canescens, 129 tomentosa, 129 ANDERS, CONSTANCE M., 94 Andropogon, 96, 183 Aneura maxima, 97 Anopsilana crenata comparison of feeding patterns, 108 comparison of growth patterns, 108 Anthemis cotula, 139 INDEX TO VOLUME 59 Compiled by Varley Wiedeman Antioxidant activity, of resveratrol, 105 Antioxidant effects, of tamoxifen, 105 ANTONIOUS, GEORGE F., 93 Aphredoderidae, 58 Aphredoderus sayanus, 58 Aplodinotus grunniens, 60 Arginine vasotocin, effects on devel- oping American bullfrogs, 106 ARNSPERGER, A., 106 Aronia melanocarpa, 97 Arundinaria gigantea, 139 Asbury College, 37 Astrophysics, radio frequency, 76— 92 Atherinidae, 58 BADIKA, NDOFUNSU M.., 101 Bahalana geracei comparison of feeding patterns, 108 comparison of growth patterns, 108 BAKER, MICHAEL D., 174 BARNETT, GLEN C., 103 Barred owl, 170 - BARTON, CHRISTINE K., 23 Bass largemouth, 59 spotted, 59 white, 58 yellow, 58 Basses, temperate, 58 Basswood, 175 Bath County, 97 Bentgrass creeping, as turf and fairway grasses, 93 Berea College, 33 Bermudagrass, 93 BETTENHAUSEN, LORI, 99 Betula rupestris, 122 BEZOLD, TODD N., 94, 95 Bidens, 96 Bigmouth buffalo, 57 Biological sciences, undergraduate research in, in Kentucky, 1-50 Biology Field Station, Thomas More College, 12-14 Bird communities in eastern Kentucky, 174-177 in older-growth forests, 174-177 Black buffalo, 51, 57 Black bullhead, 57 Black crappie, 59 Black redhorse, 57, 61 Black-throated green warbler, 174 BLACKBURN, CODY, 102 185 186 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Blackpoll warbler, 170 Blackside darter, 59, 61 Blackspotted topminnow, 58 Blackstripe topminnow, 60 BLANK, SARAH M., 109 Blue jay, 170 Bluegill, 58 Bluntnose darter, 59 Bluntnose minnow, 56 Body weight effects of dietary energy restric- tion, 104 effects of exercise, 104 of female rats, 104 Bombycilla cedrorum, 170 Bone mineral content effects of dietary energy restric- tion, 104 effects of exercise, 104 in Fischer 344 rats, 104 BORTHS, CHRISTOPHER J., 101 BORUSKE, V., 107 Botanical insecticides, 93 BOTANY & MICROBIOLOGY, 94-97 Bowfins, 54 Bradburya, 126 BRENGELMAN, RUSSELL, 76 Brook silverside, 58 Broomsedge, 183 Brown bullhead, 57-58 Brown creeper, 170 Brown-headed cowbird, 170, 174 BRUSHABER, JOHN A., 37 BRYANT, DANIEL S., 102 BRYANT, WILLIAM S., 12 Bryophyte flora, of Hog Hollow Seeps, 97 Buffalo bigmouth, 57 black, 51, 57 smallmouth, 57 Bullhead catfish, 57 Bullhead minnow, 56 Bullhead black, 57 brown, 57-58 yellow, 57 BURR, BROOKS M.., 64, 110 Buteo jamaicensis, 170 lineatus, 176 BUTTERFIELD, D. ALLAN, 99 Butterweed, 139 BYERS, MATTHEW E., 93 Callitriche, 115 terrestris, 115 Camassia scilloides, 125 Camomile, 139 Campostoma anomalum pullum, 55 Canes, 139 Canis familiaris, detection of hybridiza- tion with Canis latrans, 109 latrans, detection of hybridization with Canis familiaris, 109 Carassius auratus, 55 Carex, 94 Cardinalis cardinalis, 170, 176 Cardiolepis, 137 Carduelis pinus, 170 tristis, 170 Carex atlantica subsp. atlantica, 97 crinita, 97 debilis, 97 lurida, 97 seorsa, 97 seorsa X C. atlantica, 97 CARGER, J., 107 Camivorous ground hawkers, 170 Carolina chickadee, 170 Carolina larkspur, 97 Carolina wren, 170 Carp common, 55 grass, 59, 61 CARPENTER, JERRY H., 108 Carpinus caroliniana, 175 Carpiodes carpio, 56 cyprinus, 56 Carpodacus mexicanus, 170 Carps, 55 Carpsucker, river, 56 CARRICO, BRIAN A., 51 CARTER, J., 106 CARTER JENNIFER, 76 JULIA H., 39 Carya, 179 glabra, 179-181 spp., 175, 182 tomentosa, 179, 181 Caryophyllaceae, 97 Catalpa speciosa, 128 Catfish bullhead, 57 Catfish, channel, 58 Catharus guttatus, 170 ustulatus, 170, 176 Catonotus, 73 Catostomidae, 56 Catostomus commersoni, 56 Ceanothus americanus, 182 Cedar waxwing, 170 Cell-cell cross-linker, 101 CELLULAR & MOLECULAR BI- OLOGY, 97 Celtis laevigata, 181 Central stoneroller, 55 Centre College, 23 Centrarchidae, 58 Centrarchus macropterus, 58 Cercis canadensis, 175, 181, 182 Certhia americana, 170 CHANG, EDWARD C., 107 Channel catfish, 58 CHD gene, sex in house sparrows, 101 CHEMISTRY, 101 Chemosignals role of in female odor-prefer- ences, 109 role of in social-preferences, 109 CHESTER, EDWARD W.,, 178 Chestnut oak, 178 Chestnut oak forest community, 178-184 Chub creek, 56 silver, 55 Chubsucker, creek, 57 Cirolanidae, 108 Cladrastis, 124, 137 fragrans, 124 kentuckea, 124 kentukea, 124 lutea, 124 CLARK, ROSS C., 44 Clintonia, 125 Clupeidae, 55 Coal spoils plant succssion on, 96 soil changes on, 96 Coccyzus americanus, 176 COHEN, WILLIAM S., 20 Colaptes auratus, 170, 176 Colcium homeostasis, in the adoles- cent male rat, 107 COLLIER, DIANE S., 39 Collinsia, 124, 129 alba, 124 bicolor, 124 purpurea, 124, 129-131 verna, 124, 129, 130 Columba livia, 170 COMBS, MICHAEL, 76 Common carp, 55 Common grackle, 170 Common raven, 174 Constructed wetland onsite demonstration, 93-94 for water quality improvement, Contopus virens, 176 Convolvulaceae, 122 COOK, R. FRANK, 100 Cooper's hawk, 170 Coreopsis, 124 Cornaceae, 96 Cornus, 96 florida, 175, 179, 181, 182 obliqua, 122 phylogenetic placement of Afri- can, 96 volkensii, 96 Corvus brachyrhynchos, 170, 176 Index to Volume 59 corax, 174, 176 COX, JOHN J, 109 Coyote, detection of hybridization with the domestic dog, 109 CPSase, allosteric regulation of, 97 Crabapple, 152 Crappie black, 59 white, 59 Crataegus spp., 175 Creek chub, 56 Creek chubsucker, 57 Creeping bentgrass as turf and fairway grasses, 93 CROWLEY, PHILIP H., 20 CS1 course effect of closed lab on achieve- ment, 105 effect of closed lab on retention, 105 Ctenopharyngodon idella, 55 Cucumber tree, 175 Cuscuta aphylla, 129 glomerata, 129 CUTTS, DAVID, 76 Cyanocitta cristata, 170, 176 Cynodon dactylon, 93 as turf and fairway grasses, 93 cv. 419, 93 cv. Quicksand, 93 cv. Vamont, 93. Cyperaceae, 94 Cyprinella lutrensis, 55 spiloptera, 55 whipplei, 55 Cyprinidae, 55 Cyprinodontidae, 58 Cyprinus carpio, 55 Cystaster stellatus, 103 Danthonia, 96 Dark-eyed junco, 170 Darter blackside, 59, 61 bluntnose, 59 mud, 59, 61 river, 60 slough, 59 DAVIDSON, JEFF, 97 DAVIS, MICHAEL, 93 Delphinium carolinianum, 97 DEMOSS, D.L., 107 Dendroica cerulea, 176 dominica, 176 magnolia, 176 pinus, 176 striata, 170 virens, 174, 176 DENLEY, KERI K., 178 Deoxynucleotidyl transferase, 99 DERTING, TERRY L., 109 187 188 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Diospyros virginiana, 179, 181, 182 Dodecatheon angustifolia, 121 angustifolium, 129 Dogwood, 96, 175 Domestic dog, detection of hybrid- ization with the coyote, 109 Dorostoma cepedianum, 55 petense, 55 DOTSON, P., 93 Downy woodpecker, 170 DRAKE, JENNIFER, 99 Drosophila melonogaster, 98 spermatogenesis, 98 x-linked male-sterile insertional mutations, 98 Drum, freshwater, 60 Drycopus pileatus, 176 Dryocopus pileatus, 170 Dumetella carolinensis, 176 Duskytail darter in Big South Fork of the Cum- berland River, 110 status of survey, 110 Dysphoria relations to coping, 107 relations to adjustmant, 107 relations to appraisals, 107 Eastern hemlock, 175 Eastern hophornbeam, 175 Echinacea purpurea, 129 Edwardsiella ictaluri, 95 lux homologues of Vibrio fischeri in, 95 EISENHOUR, DAVID J., 110 Emerald shiner, 56 Empidonax virescens, 174, 176 Enemion, 122, 124, 125 biternatum, 122, 123, 124 Environmental education, support for mandatory, 107 Equine infectious anemia virus, Wy- oming strain, 100 Erimyzon oblongus, Dit Eriophorum virginicum, 97 Escherichia coli, 98 Esocidae, 58 Esox americanus vermiculatus, 58 ESTILL, JAMES C., 97 Etheostoma asprigene, 59 chienense, 64—75 distribution of, 64-75 federally endangered, 64-75 in Bayou du Chien, 64-75 population estimates of, 64-75 chlorosomum, 59 gracile, 59 percnurum, 110 in Big South Fork of the Cum- berland River, 110 status of survey, 110 squamiceps, 73 subgenus catonotus, 64 ETTENSOHN, FRANK R., 103 Eupatorium rugosum, 139 urticefolium, 139 European starling, 170 EVANS, MARC, 103 Fagus grandifolia, 175 Falco sparverius, 170 FANNIN, ARLINDA J., 102 Faresol, utilization for protein iso- prenylation, 100 Fathead minnow, 56, 61 FERNER, JOHN W,, 12 Fishes distributional records for, 51-63 in westem Kentucky, 51-63 of Ballard and McCracken coun- ties, 51-63 of the Coastal Plain Province, 51— 63 Flexner Abraham, 160-166 Simon, 158—160 Flier, 58, 61 FLUKER, WILLIAM J., 99 Forest sedges, 94 Forest-interior bird communities, 174-177 Forestiera ligustrina, 97 Fossil cephalopod hard parts from the Lower Mis- sissippian, 102 mineral composition of, 102 Fox sparrow, 170 Fraxinus americana, 181, 182 Freckled madtom, 58 Freshwater drum, 60 Frugivorous crown foragers, 170 FULTZ, M.E., 106 Fundulus notatus, 60-61 olivaceus, 58 Gambusia affinis, 58 Gar longnose, 54 shortnose, 54 spotted, 54 GARLAND, B. NICHOLAS, 103 Gaylussacia baccata, 182 GEARNER, GEOFFREY W., 95 Gentiana puberulenta, 97 saponaria, 127 shortiana, 127 GEOLOGY, 102 Geranylgeraniol, utilization for pro- tein isoprenylation, 100 Geum vernum, 124 Gizzard shad, 55 Glucocorticoids, 98 Glyceria striata, 97 Glycosylation effects of on cardiac sodium channels, 106 effects of on skeletal muscle, 106 Gnathodus typicus, 102 Golden redhorse, 57, 61 Golden shiner, 55 Golden-crowned kinglet, 170 Goldfish, 55 GONZALEZ, SANDRA, 178 Grass carp, 55, 61 Grass pickerel, 55 Grass-endophyte symbioses bio-protective alkaloid in, 99 genetics of, 99 Green sunfish, 58 GRISE, WILLIAM, 76 Hairy woodpecker, 170 HALE, KERRY L, 97 HALELY, BOYD E., 101 HALPIN, EMILY M., 101 HAMMONDS, JASON, 98 HAMPTON, C. TONY R., 94, 95 Hardgrass, 139 HARRIS, CHRISTINE E., 178 HARTIG, M., 106, 107 HAUBNER, AARON, 97 Hawthorns, 175 HAYES, ROBERT, 76 HEALTH SCIENCES, 104 HEDEEN DAVID L., 168 STANLEY E., 168 HEEG, LORI A., 94, 97 Helichroa crocea, 129 fuscata, 129 Heliconia imbricata, 94, 96 latispatha, 94-96 extrafloral nectar, 94 morphological comparisons of, 95 Heliconiaceae, 94, 95 Helmitheros vermivorus, 176 HENDERSON, DREW, 76 Hermit thrush, 170 Herpestis, 130 Herrings, 55 Hickories, upland, 175 Histosols, Kentucky's missing, 103 HOEL, ERIC, 108 Hog Hollow Seeps, 97 HOGSTRAND, CHRISTER, 98 HOLTSBERG, RICK W., 99 House finch, 170 House sparrow, 101, 170 Houstonia, 122 HULLUR, VIJU, 76 Human prostate cancer cells, Ta- moxifen inhibits, 107 HURST, B., 106 Hybognathus nuchalis, 55 Index to Volume 59 Hylocichla mustelina, 176 Hypericum wardianum, 131 Hypoxia, a stimulus for age-depen- dent induced hatching, 109 Ictaluridae, 57 Ictalurus punctatus, 58 Ictiobus bubalus, 57 cyprinellus, 57 niger, 51, 57 Ilex verticillata, 97 Insecticides botanical, 93 synthetic, 93 Insectivorous bark excavator, 170 Insectivorous bark gleaners, 170 Insectivorous crown gleaners, 170 Insectivorous ground gleaner, 170 Interleukin-6, 98 Ironweed, 139 Isopod, marine cave, 108 Isopoda, 108 Isopyrum biternatum, 124, 125 ISSEL, CHARLES J., 100 JACOBS, EDWARD TODD, 95 Jeffersonia, 122 JENSEN, MARK C., 95 Junco hyemalis, 170 Juniperus virginiana, 179, 181, 182 JUST, JOHN J., 106, 109 KARATHANASIS, A. (TASOS), 103 KAUL, KARAN, 29 Kentucky State University, 29 Kentucky's missing histosols, 103 Killifishes, 58 Kinderhookian age-AA fauna, range extensions, 104 Kinderhookian-Osage boundary based on odonts, 102 in southeastern Ohio, 102 KINGSOLVER, ROBERT W.,, 15 KOPPAL, TANUJA, 99 KRUTH, JEFF, 76 Labidesthes sicculus, 58 LACKI, MICHAEL J., 174 Land drainage, comparison with joint systems, 102 Largemcuth bass, 59 Lepisosteus oculatus, 54 osseus, 54 platostomus, 54 Lepomis cyanellus, 58, 70 gulosus, 58 humilis, 58 macrochirus, 58 megalotis, 59 microlophus, 59 miniatus, 51, 59 punctatus, 59 189 190 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Leptospira icteroides, 159 LEWIS, BRIAN, 76 LIERMAN, R. THOMAS, 102 Lindera benzoin, 97, 175 Liquidambar styraciflua, 181 Lirceus lineatus, 108 altered protein compositon of, 108 infected by Acanthocephalus di- rus, 108 Liriodendron, 96 tulipifera, 175, 182 EUS E.'93 Livebearers, 58 Logperch, 59, 61 Longear sunfish, 59 Longnose gar, 54 Lophactis, 124, 131 uniflora, 124, 129, 131 LUBBERS, ANNE E., 23 LUKEN, JAMES O., 1 Lysimachia, 122 Lysophoshatidic acid, 99 Lythrurus fumeus, 55 umbratilis, 55 Macrhybopsis storeiana, 55 Madtom freckled, 58 tadpole, 58 Magnolia acuminata, 175 MAGRANE, D.T, 105, 106 MALLORY, ALLISON C., 99 MALPHRUS, BENJAMIN, 76 Malus angustifolia, 152 Marine cave isopod, 108 MASON, CHARLES E., 102-104 MATHEMATICS, 105 Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers, 158-167 MEISENHEIMER, JOHN L., 101 Melanerpes carolinus, 170, 176 Meleagris gallopavo, 176 Melospiza melodia, 170 Metallothionein gene transcription, 98 Micropterus punctulatus, 59 salmoides, 59 Middle ordovician edrioasteroid firmground, 103 paleoecology of, 103 taphonomy of, 103 Miegia arundinaria, 139 Mimus polyglottos, 170 Minnow bluntnose, 56 bullhead, 56 fathead, 56, 61 Mississippi silvery, 55 pugnose, 60 suckermouth, 56 Minnows, 55 Minytrema melanops, 57 Mississippi silvery minnow, 55 Mniotilta varia, 176 Molothrus ater, 170, 174, 176 Momordica, 120 balsamina, 120 minimus, 12] Moniliformis moniformis, 109 effects of omentectomy on, 109 Morehead radio telescope, 76-92 design of, 7-92 fabrication of, 76—92 for student research, 7-92 for undergraduate faculty re- search, 76-92 in radio frequency astrophysics, 76-92 Morone chrysops, 58 mississippiensis, 58 Mosquitofish, western, 58 Mountain bog soils, 103 Mountain oak, 178 Mourning dove, 170 Moxostoma duquesnei, 57 erythrurum, 57 Mud darter, 59, 61 MURRELL, ZACK E, 94, 96, 97 MYERS, SCOTT A., 96 Myosurus minimus, 127 shortii, 121, 127 N, N’-bis(1-naphthylmethylidene)- alpha, omega-diaminoalkanes, 101-102 Na+, K+-ATPase role in antennal gland osmoregu- latory role in the crayfish, 106 role in gill osmoregulatory role in the crayfish, 106 NACZI, ROBERT E.C., 94, 97 Neurospora crassa, 98 biochemical analysis of, 98 functional analysis of, 95 Nevrosperma, 120 cuspidata, 120 NGF-differentiated PC6 cells, 99 Nimblewill, 139 Northern cardinal, 170 Northern flicker, 170 Northern mockingbird, 170 Northern red oak, 175 Notemigonus crysoleucas, 55 Notropis atherinoides, 56 blennius, 56 stramineus, 56 volucellus, 56 Noturus gyrinus, 58 nocturnus, 58 Index to Volume 59 191 Nyssa sylvatica, 97, 179, 181, 182 Pickerel, grass, 58 Picoides Odontoschisma, 97 pubescens, 170, 176 Oenothera pilosella, 114, 125 villosus, 170, 176 OETINGER, DAVID F., 15, 108, Pikes, 58 109 Pileated woodpecker, 170 Omentectomy, effects on ectopic PILLAR, KYLE R., 64 Moniliformis moniformis, 109 Pimephales Omnivorous crown foragers, 170 notatus, 56 Omnivorous ground foragers, 170 promelas, 56 Oporonis formosus, 176 vigilax, 56 Opsopoeodus emiliae, 60 Pine siskin, 170 Orangespotted sunfish, 58, 61 Pipilo erythrophthalmus, 170 Orconectes putnami, 106 Piranga Na+, K+-ATPase role in, 106 olivacea, 176 ORZALI, J, 106 rubra, 176 Osmunda Pirate perch, 58 cinnamomea, 97 Plagiomnium ciliare, 97 regalis, 97 Plant succession, on coal spoils, 96 Ostrya virginiana, 175, 181 Plantago OTTE, ELIZABETH, 101 atrofusca, 131 OUSLEY, JACK R., 97 gonophylla, 131 Ovenbird, 174 Platanus, 96 Oxydendrum arboreum, 179-182 Pleuridium palustre, 97 Poeciliidae, 58 Polioptila caerulea, 176 Pallavicinia lyellii, 97 pagieee Panicum dactylon, 139 annularis, 59 ea: 139 nigromaculatus, 59 5 ) Parula americana, 176 Potamogeton, 115 Parus petiolaris, nS bicolor, 170, 176 Prairie gentian, 97 Prairie voles, role of male chemosig- : nals in female preferences, 109 Passer domesticus, 101, 170 PREECE, DARA. 76 Passerella iliaca, 170 PC6 cells, 99 ee ae PELFREY, JOHN, 76 crepidinea, 12 opicrina, 124 Pentagramma, 95 é : : : ; E } se cae Professional Geologist Registration infrageneric relationships in, 95 5 carolinensis, 170, 176 mode of speciation in, 95 BGs ie : ; Ree etional biology aa o5 PRP3SP, in spliceosome maturation, ve 101 Perca flavescens, 59 Prunus serotina, 179, 181, 182 ce PSYCHOLOGY, 107 pirate, 58 eee eee yellow, 59 teridaceae, 9! PUCKETT, DANIEL, 76 Pugnose minnow, 60 PULLIAM, CHAD, 76 Percichthyidae, 58 Percidae, 59 Percina caprodes, 59 maculata, 59 Quercus, 179 shumardi, 60 alba, 175, 179-181 Peroxynitrite black-red oak group, 182 effects on cytosolic proteins, 99 coccinea, 181 effects on membrane proteins, 99 marilandica, 179-181 PFEIFFER, BRENT J., 98 MOueaNa, 178 Pharciceras prinus, 178-181 n. sp., 103 rubra, 175 tridens, 103 stellata, 179-181 Phenacobis mirabilis, 56 velutina, 179-181 PHILLEY white oak group, 182 JOHN C., 104 Quillback, 56 MELISSA L., 98 Quiscalus quiscula, 170 PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMIS- TRY, 105 Radio frequency astrophysics, 76-92 192 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) Radio telescope, Morehead, 76-92 Rafinesque’s botanical pursuits in the Ohio Valley, 111—157 Rafinesquina “alternata,” 103 Rainbow trout, 98 RAMBO, ELINOR E., 94, 95 RAMBO, THOMAS C., 94, 95 Rana catesbeiana, 106 effects of arginine vasotocin on, 106 Rat bone density, measured by dual- energy X-ray absorptiometer, 105 RATLIFF, BOB, 76 RAWLS, JOHN, 98 Raymond Athey Barrens State Na- ture Preserve, vascular flora of, 97 Red shiner, 55 Red-bellied woodpecker, 170 Red-breasted nuthatch, 170 Red-eyed vireo, 174 Red-tailed hawk, 170 Red-winged blackbird, 170 Redbud, 175 Redear sunfish, 59 Redfin shiner, 55 Redhorse black, 57, 61 golden, 57, 61 Redspotted sunfish, 51, 59 REEDER, BRIAN C., 6 REES, P., 107 Regulus calendula, 170 satrapa, 170 Research, undergraduate, in biolog- ical sciences in Kentucky, 1-50 Resveratrol, antioxidant activity of, 105 REZNIK, RICHARD B., 37 Rhododendron, 175 Rhus copallina, 182 Ribbon shiner, 55 RILEY, JOHN T., 96 RISK, ALLEN C., 96, 97 River carpsucker, 56 River darter, 60 River shiner, 56 ROBERTS, BRIAN, 76 Robinia pseudoacacia, 181, 181 Rock dove, 170 Rosa, 122 virginiana, 124 viscida, 124 Rosaceae, 94 ROSEN, RONALD B., 33 Rubus, 96 Ruby-crowned kinglet, 170 Rufous-sided towhee, 170 RYMOND, BRIAN, 101 RYON, MICHAEL G., 51 Samolus, 122 Sand shiner, 56 Sassafras, 175 albidum, 175, 179, 181, 182 SATIN, J., 106 Sauger, 60 SAXON, D. J, 105 Sayornis phoebe, 176 SCHARDL, C.L., 99 Sciaenidae, 60 Sedges, forest, 94 Seed-eating crown gleaner, 170 Seed-eating ground foragers, 170 Seiurus aurocapillus, 174, 176 motacilla, 176 Semotilus atromaculatus, 56 Serviceberry, 175 Setophaga ruticilla, 176 Shad gizzard, 55 threadfin, 55 SHARP, DAMON, 104 Sharp-shinned hawk, 170 SHERIDAN, J., 107 SHIBER, JOHN G., 107 Shigella dysenteriae, 159 Shiner emerald, 56 golden, 55 mimic, 56 red, 55 redfin, 55 ribbon, 55 river, 56 sand, 56 spotfin, 55 steelcolor, 55 Shortia, 127 dentata, 127 Shortnose gar, 54 Sialia sialis, 176 SCIENCE EDUCATION, 107 Silene stellata, 97 taxonomic status of, 97 var. scabrella, 97 var. stellata, 97 Silphium, 124, 131 sp., 129 Silver chub, 55 Silverside, brook, 58 Silvery minnow, Mississippi, 55 Siphonodalla isosticha, 102 Sitta canadensis, 170 carolinensis, 170, 176 Skeletal participation, in calcium homeostasis, 107 Slough darter, 59 Smallmouth buffalo, 57 Soil changes, on coal spoils, 96 SOLBERG, D.I., 93 Solidago, 96 Solitary vireo, 174 Song sparrow, 170 SPECK, D., 106 SPENCER, MICHAEL L., 99 Spermatogenesis, analysis of, 98 Sphagnum cuspidatum, 96 morphometric studies of, 96 lescurii, 97 magellanicum, 97 mississippiense, 96 trinitense, 96 Sphyrapicus varius, 170 Spicebush, 175 Spiraea virginiana, 94 genotypic variation in, 94 phenotypic variation in, 94 Spliceosome maturation, role of Prp38p, 101 Spotfin shiner, 55 Spotted bass, 59 Spotted gar, 54 Spotted sucker, 57 Spotted sunfish, 59 STANLEY, RODNEY, 76 Starry campion, taxonomic status of, 97 Steelcolor shiner, 55 STEINER, SHELDON M., 99 Steironema, 122 STERGIOU, ANGELO, 109 Stizostedion canadense, 60 vitreum, 109 hypoxia as a stimulus for age-de- pendent hatching, 109 Stoneroller, central, 55 Strix varia, 170, 176 STRUNK, DANIEL R., 107 STUCKEY, RONALD L., 111 Sturnus vulgaris, 170 Stylypus vernus, 123 Sucker, 56 spotted, 57 white, 56 Suckermouth minnow, 56 Sugar maple, 175 Sunfish, 58 green, 08 longear, 59 orangespotted, 58, 61 redear, 59 redspotted, 51, 59 spotted, 59 Swainson’s thrush, 170 Synthetic insecticides, 93 Tadpole madtom, 58 Tamoxifen and growth of DUI45 human prostate cancer cells, 107 antioxidant effects of, 105 apoptosis in livers of rats receiv- ing, 106 proliferation in livers of rats re- ceiving, 106 Index to Volume 59 193 Telaranea nematodes, 97 Telescope, Morehead radio, 76-92 Temperate basses, 58 THAI, LONG B., 100 The thing that makes science make sense, 2-22 Thomas More College Biology Field Station, 12-14 THOMAS, ERIC, 76 THOMPSON, RALPH L., 33 Threadfin shad, 55 Thryothorus ludovicianus, 170 Thuidium delicatulum, 97 Tilia heterophylla, 181 spp., 175 TIMMONS, TOM J., 47 Topminnow blackspotted, 58 blackstripe, 60 Tornoceras n. sp., 103 Tradescantia canaliculata, 116 ohiensis, 116, 125 rupestris, 129 virginiana, 129 Tridynia, 122 Trillium, 122 reflexum, 133 Troglodytes troglodytes, 170 Tsuga canadensis, 175 TUERK, CRAIG, 99, 109 Tufted titmouse, 170 Turdus migratorius, 170 Ulmus alata, 180-182 Undergraduate research in Ken- tucky: Biological Sciences, 1— 50 a developmental approach, 15-19 at an independent cancer re- search institute, 39-43 at Asbury College, 37-38 at Berea College, 33-36 at Centre College, 23-28 at Hancock Biological Station, 47-50 at Kentucky State University, 29- 32 at Murray State University, 47—50 at Thomas More College Biology Field Station, 12-14 encouraging new biologists, 44— 46 facilitating, 2-5 University-level teaching tool, 6-11 using water quality monitoring, 6-11 Upland hickories, 175 Upland-privet, 97 Vaccinium, 179 arboreum, 179, 181, 182 pallidum, 182 194 Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 59(2) spp., 182 stamineum, 182 Vascular flora, of Hog Hollow Seeps, 97 Vernonia prealta, 139 Vibrio fischeri, 95 Viburnum, 122 Vireo flavifrons, 176 olivaceus, 174, 176 solitarius, 174, 176 Virus, equine infectious anemia, 100 Viscum, 122 WAECHTER, CHARLES J., 100 Walleye, hypoxia as a stimulus for age-dependent hatching, 109 WANT, CHANGZHENG, 104, 105 WARD, RYAN L., 104 Warmouth, 58 WARNER, JERRY W., 2 WARSHAWSKY, D., 106 Water quality, improvement from constructed wetlands, 93 WEAVER, JEFF, 109 Western mosquitofish, 58 WESTNEAT, DAVID F.,, 101 WESTON, PAUL A., 29 Wetland onsite constructed, 93-94 constructed, for water quality im- provement, 93 WHIDDEN, CHARLES, 76 White bass, 58 White crappie, 59 White oak, 175 White sucker, 56 WHITE, DAVID S., 47 White-breasted nuthatch, 170 White-throated sparrow, 170 WHITFORD, O., 106 WIDIASTUTI, ENDANG L., 106 WILED, JENNIFER L., 109 WILKINSON, HEATHER, 99 WILLIAM, BRAD, 100 WILSON, CAROL W.,, 105 Wilsonia cirtina, 176 WINSTEAD, JOE E., 96 Winter wren, 170 Winter-bird communities and two proximate urban habitats, 168-173 in western mesophytic forest, 168-173 Wisteria, 126 WOODWARD, JASMIHN, 105 Woody strata, in the xeric-site chest- nut oak forest community, 178— 184 WORK, DAVID M., 103 WRIGHT, G. L., 107 X-linked male-sterile insertional mutations, 98 X-ray absorptiometer, rate bone density measure by, 105 Xeric-site chestnut oak forest com- munity, 178-184 Yellow bass, 58 Yellow bullhead, 57 Yellow perch, 59 Yellow-bellied sapsucker, 170 Yellow-poplar, 175 YOUNG, FRANK, 93 YOUNG, FRANK S. III, 93 Zenaida macroura, 170, 176 ZHANG, YI, 104—106 Zonotrichia albicollis, 170 ZOOLOGY & ENTOMOLOGY, 108 ZOURARAKIS, DEMETRIO P., 103 PUBLICATION John Uri Lloyd: The Great American Eclectic, by Michael A. Flannery, has just been published. A hard- cover book of 234 pages, this biography covers the life of an adopted son of Kentucky who rose from humble origins in Florence, Boone County, to become a pharmaceutical manufacturer and researcher of international renown. In addition, Lloyd was the leading founder of the Cincinnati-based library of botany, horticulture, and pharmacognosy that bears his name. The book, fully indexed, includes five appendices and 14 pages of illustrations. It is available from Southern Illinois University Press, P.O. Box 3697, Carbondale, IL 62902: ISBN 0-8093-2167-X; price $34.95 plus $3.50 shipping. Phone orders: (618) 453-2281. CONTENTS ARTICLES Special Paper Rafinesque’s Botanical Pursuits in the Ohio Valley (1818-1826). Ron- GIDL. Stuckey: iio. b. eee rea tls loakaceenensesdins secceos's stsuvebaddeusecdecssasens 111 Scientists of Kentucky Medicine’s Remarkable Brothers: Simon and Abraham Flexner of Lou- isville, Kentucky. Michael A. Flannery .................ccccceccceccccsccccecccees 158 Winter-bird Communities in a Western Mesophytic Forest and Two Proxi- mate Urban Habitats. David L. Hedeen and Stanley E. Hedeen ........... 168 Observations of Forest-interior Bird Communities in Older-growth Forests in Eastern Kentucky. Michael J. Lacki and Michael D. Baker ............... 174 Characterization of the Woody Strata in the Xeric-site Chestnut Oak Forest Community, Northwestern Highland Rim, Kentucky and Tennessee. Ed- ward W. Chester, Christine E. Harris, and Sandra Gonzalez ............... 178 List of. Reviewers for Volume: 9 o..3220 orbs cco ec ceediced cece ce vedeweudtSeaccosnccecsedece 167 Index to Voltime 598 22 ee es Oe MOORS A MeN eine ates ON 185 HECKMAN ll BINDERY INC. =e OCT 99 \ | Bound -To-Pleas® +N. MANCHESTER, l Mh) l| | reyes VAM, ers SOUS WREST Mrs way thane eae be Waeriewinettcs sie eure por cerns de eroe CEUE RANMA Woe Le SAPNA whe LDA URNA PA ABR ap oy TE PARRENES AGP SPAR APS! SA phrase pat bsp it arog permet were ts ae peak uAys SES PAPAES TAP asn Rew aete PRONDER AE HAD VE Pea Arve 7s 2 Pane k PAPEL N PRE ARP AL EA Or REE PN roe Ante wag aan SYA DANE AT HEROES NA RD Pe AaNeVINEA IN trae Spapat gy LINEAR ADA paren SSN EEN SEMZOST CARER ERD IS papers PAY S2R PEA MEERA PAPE ae Se TRE ALAIN AE Ug SE NU pean Me MAU ARE pe AERP RSED AE Chae hevpry. arenes lee rae tn se ete yrnes, SEE BO Sf Sheers tet we ben nuet Fahe nek pelle =o ABMS PIAS Mp EE nly sey Seong Yon tt Belsterar atin ret aT : ADDS AU RSE ER ENA G GS RGET Ee Sat Sere ty air SILT MAU MG AN MER Heir pene tes