Vol. 16 No. 1 Long Island Botanical Society The Quarterly Newsletter Winter 2006 Radical Changes in the Classification of Flowering Plants Eric Lamont Maples (Acer) are members of the Maple Family (Aceraceae), fight? And elderberry (Sambucus) and ar- row-wood ( Viburnum ), they’re both members of the Honeysuckle Family (Caprifoliaceae), right? How about butter-and-eggs (Unaria vulgaris ), with its typical snapdragon flower, and turtlehead (Che lone glabra ), and foxglove ( Digitalis purpurea ), and beard- tongue ( Penstemon spp.), and European snapdragon ( Antirrhinum majus)\ they’re all members of the Snap- dragon Family (Scrophulariaceae), right? Of course! They must be! Well, I have news for you. These plants have been misunderstood all their lives, and now they have an identity crisis. They don’t even know who their parents are anymore. What am I talking about? Let me try and explain, but it won’t be easy. Our smartest botanists have been hard at work looking at plant DNA and other molecules, and playing overtime with computers; many also have been influenced by a philosophy called cladis- tics. And here’s what they’ve apparently discovered: Maples are no longer members of the Maple Family; they, along with horse-chestnut and buckeye, are actually members of the largely tropical Soapberry Fam- ily (Sapindaceae). And what about elderberry and ar- row-wood? Well, they’re members of the tiny Mo- schatel Family (Adoxaceae). But butter-and-eggs, come on! It’s gotta be a snapdragon, doesn’t it? Nope! Get ready, this may be hard to swallow: butter-and-eggs, turtlehead, foxglove, beard-tongue, and European snapdragon are all actually members of the Plantain Family (Plantaginaceae). What?! You gotta be kidding; you mean those weedy species of Plantago ? Yep! You got it. (See Lamont continued on page 3) Changes in Plant Classifications: Getting to the Crux of the Flux Gerry Moore Eric Lamont has highlighted a number of strik- ing — and at times dizzying (at least to me) — changes that have recently been proposed in plant taxonomy. As I will try to explain, these changes are due not just to new data sources, such as nucleic acid (e.g., DNA) se- quences, but also to a fundamental philosophical shift by some taxonomists regarding how plant classifica- tions should be constructed — a shift that I suspect many traditional, field-oriented botanists will not fully embrace. A group of taxonomists called cladists recognize only monop hyletic groups or taxa (singular taxon; a taxon is simply any taxonomic group) above the rank of species. A monophyletic taxon (clade) is any group of organisms that includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. A paraphyletic taxon is a group of organisms that includes a common ancestor and some but not all of its descendants. A polyphyletic taxon is a group of organisms that does not include the com- mon ancestor of the included groups. These terms are further discussed and illustrated in Fig. 1 (page 6). Taxonomists have generally rejected polyphyletic taxa. However, many taxonomists have either implicitly or explicitly recognized paraphyletic taxa. The shift by some in requiring a monophyly-only requirement for classifications means that monophyly must always be given primacy over degree of similarity, even when the two strongly conflict. As one paper authored by cladists (Cantino et al., 1999) put it: “...a cladist would not give formal recognition to a clearly paraphyletic group even if it were separated by a large gap....” Therefore, no matter how distinct a group may be, it will not be recognized in a monophyly-only (i.e., cladis- (See Moore continued on page 5) Page 2 Long Island Botanical Society Founded: 1986 Incorporated: 1989 The Long Island Botanical Society is dedicated to the promotion of field bot- any and a greater understanding of the plants that grow wild on Long Island, New York. Visit the Society’s Web site www.libotanical.org Executive Board President Eric Lamont Vice President Skip Blanchard Treasurer Carol Johnston Recording Secretary Barbara Conolly Corresponding Secretary John Potente Committee Chairpersons Local Flora Steven Clemants Field Trips } enny Ulsheimer Skip Blanchard Programs Rich Kelly Membership Lois Lindberg Conservation Andrew Greller Education Mary Laura Lamont Hospitahty Jane Blanchard Zu Proly Dorothy Titus Newsletter Editor Margaret Conover Newsletter Layout & Design William Krol Webmaster Donald House webmaster@hbotanical.org Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Society News The election of officers was held at the November 8 meeting. All incum- bents were reelected. ♦ LIBS President Eric Lamont reports that the membership renewals have been sent out and are coming in nicely, including one that included a $50 donation. Donations are always welcome! ♦ Members are urged to share in LIBS’s traditional Members’ Night on January 10. This is your chance to “show and tell”! Who recalls the time someone brought in a durian to taste? Please call Rich Kelly if you plan to participate this year. ♦ LIBS member Ann Carter announced that two internships are being of- fered by the Long Island Central Pine Barrens Commission, in coopera- tion with The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Weed Management Area. Interns will conduct field work for a six-month Invasive Plant Inventory and Assessment Project that begins in April. Applications are due Febru- ary 28. More information can be found at: http://pb.state.ny.us/plc/ internship_announcement_2005.pdf or by e-mail to keichelberger@pb. state.ny.us ♦ Anyone interested in assisting in a “big tree survey” should contact Marga- ret Conover. ♦ Long time LIBS member Elsa L’Hommedieu sent her greetings and wrote to report on the long list of botanical trips she completed in California in the past year. ♦ On the matter of the Grace Forest, LIBS member Andy Greller reports that the project has been halted, as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Long Island Pine Barrens Society and the North Shore Land Alliance. An article about the flora of this property, which Andy published in botanical Gazette, in 1978, was the basis on which the suit succeeded, on the grounds of “irreparable damage or loss” to save what remains of this unique non-oak-dominated forest. The property in question is just east of New Hyde Park Road on land between the Northern Parkway and the Ex- pressway. ♦ LIBS has registered a formal objection with DEC regarding the use of heavy machinery on high salt marshes in order to create open ponds. ♦ At the December 13 LIBS meeting, Skip Blanchard passed around copies of a 1991 LIBS newsletter in which Lois Lindberg was quoted as warning us about the possibility of invasion by mile-a-minute weed — 14 years ago! Lois commented from the back of the room, “Don’t say I didn’t warn you!” ♦ See page 10 for members’ recent plant sightings. Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Page 3 Lamont (continued from page 1) Want to hear some more? Try these. Are you familiar with those little aquatic duckweeds in the genus Lemna ? They’re now in the same family as jack-in-the- pulpit (Mrisaema triphyllutn), the Arum Family (Araceae). Hackberry ( Celtis ) is no longer a member of the Elm family (Ulmaccac); it’s either in the Indian Hemp Family (Cannabaceae) with marijuana ( Cannabis sativa ), or it should be placed in its own family, the Celtidaceae. Sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflud) is no longer in the Witch-hazel Family (Hamamehdaceae); it’s in the Altin- giaceae, a family centered in eastern Asia. Had enough? Not yet? Here’s another. Sand- plain gerardia (Agalinis acuta) is one of New York’s rar- est plants. It has delicate, showy, pinkish-purple flowers and is a typical member of the Snapdragon Family. Oops, sorry! Try again. It’s a member of the Broom- rape Family (Orabanchaceae), along with cancer-root ( Orabanche uniflora ), squawroot (Conopholis americana ), and beech drops (Epifagus virginiana). Now, I must confess that I’m not being com- pletely fair, because historically many of these plant groups or taxa (singular taxon, defined as “any taxo- nomic entity, of whatever rank”; e.g., species, genus family, etc.) have been long considered to be “isolated fringe groups.” That is, they have been thought to be related to another taxon (e.g., family or genus), but be- cause the fringe group is so morphologically different from the majority of members in the other taxon, the fringe group has been maintained as a distinct family or genus. For example, even the most conservative bota- nists have recognized that the duckweeds (Lemnaceae) are related to and probably derived from the Araceae; but historically, botanists have tended to maintain sepa- rate families. Likewise, members of the Maple Family have been thought to be related to die Sapindaceae; and maple and horse-chestnut have been thought to be re- lated to each other. But because of obvious morpho- logical differences, traditional botanists have maintained three separate families. Other fringe groups have been thought to be similar enough to the majority of individuals within a family, that they have been all lumped together. For example, the Elm Family has traditionally included two morphologically interconnected subfamilies, the Ul- moideae (including Ulmus, elm) and Celtidoideae (including Celtis , hackberry). The Honeysuckle Family has traditionally included Sambucus and Viburnum. , even though they are morphologically different from other members of the family. And Eiquidambar and Mltingia have been long thought to form a fringe group within the Hamamehdaceae. Cladistic philosophy dictates, however, that these smaller groups be separated from Why has duckweed (left) been placed in the same family as jack-in-the-pulpit (right)? USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. Illustrated flora of the northern states and Canada. Vol. 1 : 442 , 448 . the larger families, and some of these changes have not caused much controversy among traditional field bota- nists. But other recent developments in plant taxon- omy have been much more controversial and hard to swallow especially for traditional botanists. Among the most radically recircumscribed families are the Plantain Family and the Lopseed Family (Phrymaceae). Histori- cally, the Plantain Family consisted of three genera of very unequal size: the familiar cosmopolitan genus Plan- tago with about 250 species; Uttorella. , with only three species; and monotypic Bougueria. Recently, the family has been greatly expanded to include about 120 genera! Many genera of the Snapdragon Family have been transferred to the Plantaginaceae, and the Water- starwort Family (Calhtrichaceae) also has been sub- merged into it. Traditionally, the monotypic (a genus with only one species) genus Phiyma has been included in the monogeneric (a family with only one genus) fa mi ly Phrymaceae, the Lopseed Family. However, not all botanists have recognized the Phrymaceae as a distinct family, but have submerged it into the Verbenaceae, the Vervain Family. Recently, the Phrymaceae has gone from rags to riches; it has been radically circumscribed to now include about 20 genera and 240 species, includ- ing L Jndemia, Magus, and Mimulus , traditionally included in the Snapdragon Family. Let’s move on to another controversial family, the Lily Family (Liliaceae). Traditionally, the Lily Fam- (Continued on page 4) Page 4 Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 (Continued from page 3) ily, as broadly defined, included about 280 genera and more than 4000 species. Today, many plant taxono- mists support the extensive dismemberment of the tra- ditionally defined Liliaceae, and in recent years the fam- ily has been split into more than 30 segregate families! Here is a short list of some of the more commonly ac- cepted segregate families (with some representative gen- era): Alliaceae (Allium)-, Amaryllidaceae ( Narcissus ); As- paragaceae ( Asparagus ); Colchicaceae ( Uvularia ); Hemerocallidaceae ( Hemerocallis ); Hostaceae (. Aosta ); Hyacinthaceae (Hyarinthus, Mus- cari, Omithogalurn)-, Hypoxidaceae (Hj/poxis) ; Melanthiaceae ( Veratrum , Zigadenus); Narthe- ciaceae (Aletris, Eophiola, Narthe- cium ); Ruscaceae (i Convallaria , Maianthemum, Polygonatum); Smila- caceae (Smilax); and Trilliaceae (Trillium) . Recognition of the Medeolaceae (Clintonia, Medeola ) as a segregate family has been much debated, and recognition of the Convallariaceae has been recently supported by molecular studies. After the dust settles, it appears that the Liliaceae comprises only nine genera, including Erythronium, Ulium, Streptopus, and Tulipa, all restricted to die Northern Flemi- sphere. Are you thoroughly con- fused yet? If not, here are 12 more examples of recent changes in plant classification of which every botanist should be aware: (1) There appears to be overwhelming evidence favoring the combination of the Milkweed Family (Asclepiadaceae) into the Dogbane Family (Apocynaceae). (2) The Butterfly-bush Family (Buddlejaceae) is now included by some in the radically redefined and re- structured Snapdragon Family (Scropulariaceae). (3) Historically, the Dodder Family (Cuscutaceae) has been variously treated as a monogeneric family, or as a component of the Morning-glory Family (Convolvulaceac) . Recent molecular evidence supports the treatment of Cuscuta as a derived member of the Convolvulaceae. (4) Crowberry (Empetrum) has been traditionally placed in the Crowberry Family (Empetraceae). Many botanists have expressed doubt about the naturalness of the Empetraceae and its distinction from the Heath Family (Ericaceae). Molecular data have corroborated that concern, and shown Empetrum and the rest of the Empetraceae to be better included in a broader Erica- ceae. (5) There is universal agreement in re- submerging the Mimosa Family (Mimosaceae) and the Caesalpinia Family (Caesalpiniaceae) into the Legume Family (Fabaceae). (6) The segregation of Indian Pipe ( Monotropa ) into the Indian Pipe Family (Monotropaceae) or its in- clusion in the Heath Family (Ericaceae) has been con- troversial. Recent studies sug- gest that its inclusion in the Eri- caceae is warranted. (7) Ditch-stonecrop (Penthorum) has been variously placed in the Stonecrop Family (Crassulaceae), the Saxifrage Family (Saxifragaceae), or in the Ditch-stonecrop Family (Pcnthoraccae). Recent ana- tomical evidence suggests that Penthorum is best treated in a monogeneric Penthoraceae. Among those who do not favor a monotypic family, there is nearly evenly divided opinion between placement in the Cras- sulaceae and Saxifragaceae; this in itself perhaps supports segre- gation in the Penthoraceae. Molecular evidence supports the recognition of the Pentho- raceae, and suggests closer af- finities with the Water-milfoil Family (Haloragaceae) than with either the Crassulaceae or the Saxifragaceae. (8) There has been dis- agreement over whether the empress-tree ( Paulownia ) is best placed in the Snapdragon Family (Scrophulariaceae), the Trumpet Creeper Family (Bignoniaceae), or its own Empress-tree Family (Paulowniaceae). Superficially, it closely resembles Catalpa of the Bignoniaceae, but some botanists have concluded that Paulownia’ s affinities he with the Scrophulariaceae, based on floral anatomy, em- bryo morphology, and seed morphology. Recent mo- lecular studies provide evidence that Paulownia is best retained in its own family. (9) The inclusion of shinleaf ( Pyrola ) in the Heath Family (Ericaceae) or its recognition as a separate family (Continued on page 5) Should we place empress-tree ( Paulownia ) in the Snapdragon Family or in the Trumpet Creeper Fam- ily? Perhaps neither? USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. Illustrated flora of the north- ern states and Canada. Vol. 3: 189. Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Page 5 (Continued from page 4) (Pyrolaceae) has been controversial. Recent studies sug- gest that it is best resubmerged in the Ericaceae. (10) Water-pimpernel ( Samolus ) was previously generally treated as an aberrant component of the Prim- rose Family (Primulaceae). In order to create mono- phyletic groups, Samolus has been recently placed in the tropical Theophrasta Family (Theophrastaceae) . How- ever, Samolus remains aberrant in Theophrastaceae and is basal; it is probably best placed in its own Water- pimpernel Family, Samolaceae. (11) The monogeneric Bur-reed Family (Sparganiaceae) is now included by some in the Cat-tail Family (Typhaceae). (12) The Water-chestnut Family (Trapaceae) has been traditionally treated as a monogeneric family of one highly polymorphic or up to 15 or more narrowly defined species in the genus Prapa. The Trapaceae is now included by some in the Loosestrife Family (Lythraceae). The examples discussed in this article are just a few of the many recently proposed changes in the clas- sification of flowering plants. Changes are occurring so quickly that it’s difficult to keep up. Are botanists get- ting any closer to an ideal system of plant classification? I’m not sure that we are. I may be too set in my ways, but for me, butter-and-eggs will always be a member of the Snapdragon Family! Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that all categories of classification above the species level are creations of the human mind and are subject to differences of opinion. For a further discussion of the reasons behind these name changes, see Gerry Moore's article, beginning on page 1 of this issue. Moore (continued from page 1) tic) classification if it is paraphyletic. See Fig. 2 (page 7) for a hypothetical example of this problem. This shift in philosophy has as much to do with the radical changes being proposed in plant taxonomy as it does with the new molecular data sets. I suspect that the new classifications that are causing the most frustration among field botanists are those that can be represented by Fig. 2. When field botanists are compar- ing plants in the wild they are not comparing their phy- logenetic histories, but rather their relative similarities. Humans are hard-wired to consider degree of similarity (phenetic gaps) when classifying, and when things are classified in a manner that is contrary to their relative degrees of similarity, the classification will seem coun- terintuitive. Members of the laurel genus Palmia possess a number of unique floral character states (e.g., gamopeta- lous, saucer-shaped corolla, anthers fitted into corolla sacs in bud) that nicely diagnose the genus. However, recent evidence suggests that in order to avoid para- phyly, the two monospecific genera Peiophyllum and Poiseluria must be merged into Kalmia (Kron and King, 1996). Once this is done, the floral characters that were diagnostic for Kalmia are no longer so, as neither P eio- phyllum buxifolium ( —Kalmia buxifolia) nor ~Loiseleuria pro- cumbens (=Ka/mia procumbens) possesses these floral char- acters. Poise leuria is gamopetalous, but it lacks corolla sacs; Peiophyllum is not even gamopetalous. It has long been suspected that these three genera were close phy- logenetically — note their close positions in two fre- quently used field manuals (Fernald, 1950; Gleason and Cronquist, 1991) — but they have been maintained as separate genera due to their morphological dissimilari- ties. Other recent taxonomic cases that, to me, also seem to be counterintuitive include some aspects of the radical shifting proposed for the Buddlejaceae, Callitricha- ceae, Orobanchaceae, Phymaceae, Plantaginaceae , and Scrophu- lariaceae\ merging the Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae into the Sapindaceae\ lumping the grass genus Peptoloma into Digitaria; and the merging of Pemnaceae into Araceae. However, many changes in classifications to ac- commodate a monophyly requirement do not present difficulties when it comes to accommodating degree of similarity, and can even be an improvement. I have no problem merging the genera Maianthemum and Smilacina under the name Maianthemum. To me, the two are quite close, the latter simply being a smaller, 4-merous ver- sion of the former. The two’s closeness can nicely be seen in Fernald’s (1950) description of Maianthemum: “Perianth 4-parted, and stamens 4. Ovary 2-locular; stigma 2-lobed. Otherwise as in SmilacinaP Likewise, I like the idea of moving Piquidambar (and the tropical tree genus Altiginia ) into a separate family (Altiginiaceae), leaving our local flora with the type ge- nus Hamamelis as the only representative of the Hama- melidaceae. Prior to this split, the genera included within Hamamelidaceae were quite disparate and by us- ing simple morphology it was difficult to see how they should be placed in the same family. When I taught dendrology, students would often question the inclusion of Hamamelis and Piquidambar into one family, the dis- similarities of the two genera seemingly outweighing the similarities. When separated, the two families are easy to characterHe, the Altiginiaceae having stipules on the petiole base, leaves spirally arranged, flowers with no (Continued on page 6) Page 6 Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 (Continued from page 5) perianth, and capsules arranged in a tight, globose head; the Hamamelidaceae having stipules attached to the stem, leaves two-ranked, perianth parts present, and capsules not arranged in globose heads. Other recent changes that seem to me to make good sense both from a phylogenetic as well as a phenetic grade sense include: transferring Sambucus and Viburnum out of Caprifoli- aceae, the placement of Empetraceae (Corema, Empetrum) into Ericaceae, and the recognition of the genus Nuttal- lanthus (JJnaria canadensis) as distinct from Vnaria (e.g., L. vulgaris). The opinions expressed above are just that — my opinions. Others will see it differently because a major problem of constructing classifications that include paraphyletic taxa is determining when to recognize a paraphyletic group; that is, how long must a branch be (i.e., how dissimilar) before it is carved out of the group? The example in Fig. 2 is an extreme example; what if lineage I Ps branch was longer but just slightly? Recognizing only monophyletic taxa eliminates one having to make the arbitrary decision as to when the degree of modification in one lineage is so great that A. D E G H J K it warrants the recognition of a paraphyletic group. However, even if taxonomists were to agree on a mono- phyly-only approach to classification, this would not result in all taxonomists classifying organisms the same way. Cladograms (e.g., Fig. 1) are simply a hypothesis of the organisms’ phylogeny. They do not represent the phylogeny of the organisms (unknowable without a time machine). Indeed, phylogenetic research on the same group of organisms can yield different results when dif- ferent data sources or different methods of phyloge- netic reconstruction are employed. Furthermore, even if there is an agreed upon phylogeny, taxonomists may disagree on how the classification is to be constructed. For example, one taxonomist may decide to achieve a monophyletic classification by splitting out a number of lineages (i.e., give these lineages separate names at the same rank), while another may achieve a monophyletic classification by lumping all the lineages under one name (see discussion in the Fig. 2 caption). In sum- mary, the diversity one is seeing in our plant classifica- tions is the result of the diversity of opinion among tax- onomists on how classifications should be constructed (Continued on page 7) FIG. 1. Phylogenetic tree (cladogram). A, B, C, F, I, represent hypothetical ancestors. D, E, G, H, J, K represent the taxa (taxonomic groups) sampled (probably extant species). A. The shaded area represents a monophyletic taxon (taxonomic group) or clade because it is a group of organisms (B, C, D, E, F, G, H) that includes a common ancestor (B) and all of its de- scendants (C, D, E, F, G, H). Other clades present in this cladogram include CDE, FGH, and UK. B. Shaded area (taxon comprising I and K) is a paraphyletic taxon because it repre- sents a group of organisms that includes a common ancestor (I) and some but not all of its descendants (K but not J). Inclu- sion of J in the taxon would make it a monophyletic group as taxon UK is a clade. C. Shaded area (taxon comprising C, D, E, and I, J, K) is a polyphyletic taxon because it does not in- clude the common ancestor (A) of the groups (C, D, E, I, J, K). Inclusion of the common ancestor (A) would make the taxon paraphyletic; in order for the taxon to be monophyletic B, F, G, and H would also have to be included in the taxon. Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Page 7 (Continued from page 6) and how phytogenies should be reconstructed. Plant taxonomy does have a single, universal system on how plants are to be named, and this is pre- sented in the International Code of botanical Nomenclature (Greuter et al., 2000) (there is a small group of biolo- gists that wants to abandon our current rank-based sys- tem of nomenclature and replace it with one that is solely based on phytogeny; see www.ohiou.edu/ phylocode). However, the International Code of botanical Nomenclature does not mandate how plants should be classified. Principal IV of the Code states, “Each taxo- nomic group with a particular circumscription, posi- tion, and rank can bear only one correct name....” Therefore, when there are disagreements regarding cir- cumscription, position (working across a classification, such as determining in what genus a species should be placed), or rank (working up and down the classifica- tion; such as determining whether a taxon should be recognized as a family, subfamily, or tribe), different names may be applied to the same taxon. For example, sickle-leaved golden aster can go by the name Chrysopsis falcata or Pityopsis falcata depending on whether one cir- cumscribes the genus Chrysopsis broadly or narrowly (with some members that were once placed in Chysopis being placed in other genera such as Pityopsis). These discrepancies can perhaps be put into perspective by looking at how people can disagree in classifications that occur in everyday life. A doctor may classify a patient as one who needs to have surgery in order to correct a problem; however, another doctor may classify that same patient as one who does not need surgery. I have had a number of students in class whom I classified as “B” students; however, they clas- sified themselves as “A” students. Like the patient, but not like the students, those using plant names are al- ways free to choose from among the competing classi- fications that best serve their needs. They are under no obligation to adopt the most recent revision of a group. I know many feel as though they are drowning in all these new systems of classification that are now available. However, don’t hold your breath waiting for plant taxonomists to develop a single, universally agreed-upon system of classification; if you do, you will surely suffocate. Literature Cited Cantino, P. D., S. J. Wagstaff, and R. G. Olmstead. 1999. “ Caryopteris (Lamiacae) and the conflict between phylogenetic and pragmatic considerations in botanical nomenclature,” Systematic Botany 23(3):369— 386. FIG. 2. Phylogenetic tree (hypothetical ancestors not shown). D, E, G, H represent sampled taxa (say species). Branch lengths represent degree of modification. Lineage H’s long branch indicates that there is a significant phenetic gap be- tween it and D, E, and G. Previously, species D, E, and G may have been placed in a genus while species H might have been placed in a monospecific genus due to its morphological dis- tinctiveness. However, this taxonomy is not allowed under a monophyly-only approach because a taxon comprised of D, E, and G but exclusive of H is a paraphyletic taxon (G shares a more recent common ancestry with H than it does with D and E). In order to achieve a monophyletic classification there would have to be recognition of either: (1) a single genus com- prised of D, E, G, and H; (2) two genera, one comprised of D and E, another of G and H; or (3) all four species (D, E, G, H) as four monospecific genera. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray’s Manual of Botany, 8th ed. (American Book Co., New York), 1632 pp. Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vas- cular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Can- ada, 2nd ed. (New York Botanical Garden, Bronx), 910 pp. Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F. R. Barrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras, D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, J. E. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland, and D. L. Hawk- sworth. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth Interna- tional Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July- August 1999. Regnum Veg. 138:1—474. Kron, K. A. and J. M. King. 1996. “Cladistic relation- ships of Kalmia, Ueiophyllum, and Uoiseleuria (Phyllodoceae, Ericaceae) based on rbcL and nrlTS data,” Systematic Botany 21 (1):17 — 29. Gerry Moore is the director of the Department of Science at Brooklyn Botanic Garden. His research interests center on the taxonomy and nomenclature of vascular plants, particu- larly the northeastern United States. Page 8 Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Summary of Recent Generic Changes in our Native Composites Eric Lamont How many different species of Aster occur on Long Island? The last time I counted, there were about 30 (see Table 1). But many 21st-century botanists are telling me that I can’t count. Based upon new evidence, including DNA studies, and a relatively new philosophy called cladistics, they claim that there are no true asters on Long Island. That’s right, ZERO! Certainly, there must be some mistake. All of us are familiar with those delicate autumn wildflowers that add splashes of white, purple, and blue to our meadows and roadsides. Nope, say the cladists. They claim that the only true asters in the genus Aster occur across the Atlantic in the Old World. So, what are we supposed to call all those species that used to be called Aster? No problem, those species are now placed in the genera Doellingeria, Furybia, lonac- tis, Oclemena, Sericocarpus , and Symphyotrichum (Table 1). Have you ever seen golden ragwort ( Senecio aureus) on Long Island? In his 1899 Flora of Long Island, Smith Ely Jelliffe reported it as “common throughout the island,” but today it’s a rare treat to find this showy spring wildflower. Anyhow, the cladists claim that (Continued on page 9) TABLE L A list of the asters of Long Island, New York. Traditional Most Recently Proposed Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Aster acuminatus Whorled Aster Oclemena acuminata Aster concolor Eastern Silvery Aster Symphyotrichum concolor Aster cordifolius Blue Wood Aster Symphyotrichum cordifolium Aster divaricatus White Wood Aster Furybia divaricata Aster dumosus Long-stalked Aster Symphyotrichum dumosum Aster ericoides Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides Aster firmus Shining Aster Symphyotrichum firmum Aster infirmus Cornel-leaved Aster Doellingeria infirma Aster laevis Smooth Blue Aster Symphyotrichum laeve Aster lanceolatus Eastern Lined Aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Aster lateriflorus Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Aster linariifolius Stiff-leaved Aster lonactis linariifolia Aster lowrieanus Lowrie’s Blue Wood Aster Symphyotrichum lorvrieanum Aster macrophyllus Bigleaf Aster Furybia macrophylla Aster nemoralis Bog Aster Oclemena nemoralis Aster novae-angliae New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae Aster novi-belgii New York Aster Symphyotrichum novi-belgii Aster patens Clasping Aster Symphyotrichum patens Aster paternus Toothed White-topped Aster Sericocarpus asteroides Aster pilosus Awl Aster Symphyotrichum pilosum Aster praealtus Willow Aster Symphyotrichum praealtum Aster puniceus Purple-stemmed Aster Symphyotrichum puniceum Aster racemosus Small White Aster Symphyotrichum racemosum Aster radula Swamp Aster Furybia radula Aster schreberi Schreber’s Aster Furybia schreberi Aster solidagineus Flax-leaf White-topped Aster Sericocarpus linifolius Aster spectabilis Showy Aster Furybia spectabilis Aster subulatus Annual Saltmarsh Aster Symphyotrichum subulatum Aster tenuifolius Perennial Saltmarsh Aster Symphyotrichum tenuifolium Aster umbellatus Flat-topped Aster Doellingeria umbellata Aster undulatus Wavy-leaf Aster Symphyotrichum undulatum Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Page 9 (Continued from page 8) golden ragwort is no longer a true member of the genus Senecio ; rather, it should be placed in the genus Packera ( Packera aurea). Sweet everlasting ( Gnaphalium obtusifolium) is a common Long Island wildflower that cladists have transferred to the genus Pseudognaphalium, and its cousin, the rare purple everlasting ( Gnaphalium purpureum) has been transferred to the genus Gamochaeta . One of our rarest goldenrods, the stiff-leaf gold- enrod ( Solidago rigida), has been transferred to the genus Oligoneuron. White snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum) is a plant associated with rich woodlands on Long Island’s north shore. This species has been shown to be the cause of the “milk sickness” of pioneer days; the plants contain a poison that is transmissible to humans through cow’s milk. Recent DNA evidence suggests that white snake- root should be transferred to the genus Ageratina . Usu- ally, the new name would be Ageratina rugosa, but that name is preoccupied (that is, the name already is being used for another species). Therefore, the oldest name available (in the genus Ageratina) for our white snake- root is Ageratina altissima. Are you familiar with the Joe-pye-weeds in the genus Eupatoriumi We have three species on Long Is- land: three-nerved Joe-pye-weed (E. dubium ), hollow- stem Joe-pye -weed ( E.fistulosum ), and purple-node Joe- pye-weed (E. purpureum). Reports of spotted Joe-pye- weed (E. maculatum) from Long Island are based upon misidentifications of E. dubium . In 1970, Robert King and Harold Robinson from the Smithsonian Institute proposed a new genus for the Joe-pye-weeds, Eupatoria- delphus (meaning, “brother of Eupatorium’’). But in 1987, King and Robinson changed their minds and returned the Joe-pye-weeds to Eupatorium. In 1999 and 2000, Edward Schilling and colleagues from the University of Tennessee took a close look at DNA from Joe-pye- weeds and concluded that they really did not belong in the genus Eupatorium , and returned them to Eupatoriadel- phus. To further complicate the story, in 1836 the French botanist Constantine Rafinesque proposed the genus Eutrochium for the Joe-pye-weeds, but neither King and Robinson nor Schilling et al. were aware of this earlier name when they originally transferred spe- cies into Eupatoriadelphus. When I was asked to write the Flora of North America treatment for the Joe-pye- weeds, I had to transfer all of the species into the genus Eutrochium. Although DNA evidence confirms that the Joe-pye-weeds are different from the eupatoriums , the data can be interpreted in different ways, leaving the possibility that the Joe-pye-weeds should actually re- main in the genus Eupatorium. Poinsettia David R. Hershey, Ph.D. Every Christmas, the myth resurfaces that poin- settia ( Euphorbia pulcherrima ) is a poisonous plant. Par- ents with young children sometimes do not even buy poinsettias because they’re afraid their children might be get sick. Poinsettia’s poisonous reputation apparently originated in 1919 when a child in Hawaii was errone- ously reported to have died from eating the plant. Re- searchers at Ohio State and other universities have found poinsettia is not poisonous when fed to rats, and the American Medical Association has found either no toxic effect or occasional vomiting induced by children who ate poinsettia. The plant does not contain the poi- sonous diterpenes found in some species in the Eu- phorb Family. Poinsettia is the number one potted flowering plant sold in the U.S. Even though it is sold only during the Christmas holidays, it outsells plants, such as chry- santhemum, that are sold year round. If poinsettia was capable of causing death if eaten, common sense indi- cates that the government would require a warning la- bel. The Consumer Products Safety Commission re- fused to require a warning label due to lack of evidence that poinsettia is poisonous. A few other Christmas plants are potentially fatal if eaten. Mistletoe ( Phoradendron spp .) contains a toxic lectin, phoratoxin. Eating the mistletoe berries is the usual cause of poisoning. The fruits of holly (Ilex spp.) contain poisonous saponins. The bulbs of papenvhite narcissus and amaryllis ( Hippeastrum spp.) contain poi- sonous alkaloids. There are many common plants that can cause death. The leaf blades of rhubarb have killed people yet rhubarb is widely grown for its edible petioles. The cas- tor bean plant ( Ricinus communis) is grown as an orna- mental and a source of castor oil. Its seeds contain the lectin, ricin, one of the most toxic poisons. Poinsettia is not sold as an edible plant. Its leaves and bracts do not taste good, but eating a few would not kill a person. David R. Hershey, Ph.D., is a biology education consultant and has published over three dozen teaching articles in sci- ence teaching journals. You can view his list of publications at http.Y/www. angelfire. com/ab6/hershey/bio. htm Page 10 Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 INVASIVE PLANT NOTES Marilyn Jordan, Ph.D. The Nature Conservancy on Long Island Trapa natans (water chestnut). First confirmed oc- currence on Long Island in Mill Pond, Wantagh, Nassau County. Hand-pulling to be done spring 2006. We need to be fully proactive in eradicating this aggressive inva- sive before it can spread. Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian water milfoil). Found and confirmed by Scott Kishbaugh, DEC Al- bany, in North and South Twin Lakes, Wantagh. First confirmed occurrence in Nassau or Suffolk Counties that I know of. Not much we can do to control this plant. Salix cinerea (European gray willow). Widespread in New England and three New York counties. Reported by Tom Rawinski (Forest Service, NH) and confirmed by Gerry Moore at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (gerrymoore@bbg.org). Gerry would appreciate speci- mens suspected to be S. cinerea. A threat to rare wetland plants. Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam; Orna- mental jewelweed). Reported in a talk at the IPANE Weed Summit (Framingham, MA, September 2005) by Nava Tabak. For pictures go to http:/ /webapps.lib. uconn.edu/ipane/search.cfm and select Impatiens gladulif- era. More info about known established invaders: Phellodendron amurense (Amur cork-tree). Orna- mental spreading in Massachusetts with the potential to spread over long distances and compete with natives. Reported in a talk at the IPANE Weed Summit (Framingham, MA, September 2005) by Lou Wagner. Invasive potential supported by Tim Wenskus, NYC Parks. Aralia data (Japanese angelica). Confirmed by Gerry Moore, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, who reports: “The woody Aralia in our area is Aralia elata and it is terribly invasive. The species was previously confused with the native Aralia spinosa, which occurs south of the New York City metro area.” From Ann Rhoads, Morris Ar- boretum of the University of Pennsylvania: “The inflo- rescence of A. spinosa has a distinct central axis whereas that of A. elata branches from very close to the base.” Please report suspected new occurrences of these spe- cies to me and also to Kathy Schwager. Plant Sightings Erratum: The reported sighting of mile-a-minute weed at Whelan Field in Malverne (LIBS Vol. 15, No. 4, page 30) was erroneous. ♦ At the William Cullen Bryant Park preserve in Roslyn on October 1, LIBS members observed bitternut hickories ( Carya cordiformis), American beech ( Vagus gran - difolia ), and black walnuts, (Juglans nigra), as well as a magnificent field of showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) and smooth aster (Aster laevis). In addition, many huge arboretum specialties were growing there: Torreya, Cedrus, Catalpa, Paulownia, osage orange, Kentucky cof- fee tree, Ewdia, and huge pines. ♦ On October 29, Ray Welch led a LIBS field trip to the “Gamma Forest” at the Brookhaven National Labora- tory in Upton. Members viewed the devastated area bombarded for 17 years by gamma rays. The site, aban- doned for 20 years, is slowly experiencing succession with much of the damaged area a Pennsylvania sedge meadow. A circular grove of pitch pines has developed on the central core, terrain made sterile by the most in- tense radiation nearest the source, but pines have failed to establish slightly farther from the central area, where the sedges survived the irradiation. ♦ On an ad hoc LIBS field trip to Kings Point on Novem- ber 5, Andy Greller, Skip and Jane Blanchard, Rich Kelly, Barbara Conolly, Joanne Tow, and Helen McClure identified 100 plant species, including the fol- lowing: Euonymus americanus (h carts -a-bu s tin 7 ) , Betula ni- gra (river birch; cultivated), and Woodwardia areolata (netted chain fern; in profusion). ♦ Zu Proly reported a stand of water hyacinth in the northwest corner of Mill Pond in Oyster Bay. ♦ Rich and Skip recently rediscovered a stand of silvery spleenwort in Caleb Smith Park after an absence of re- ports for the last 20 years. Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Page 1 1 The Flora of Long Island Project Submitted by the Flora Committee Project History The Flora Committee began meeting soon after LIBS was formed in the late 1980s. The initial impetus was to capture location information on rare plants that was being held in various people’s gray matter. These meetings concentrated on a few families, Orchids, Scrophs, etc. Beginning in 1989, a more formal process was begun, which involved meeting every fourth Tuesday, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Planting Fields Library, where we had access to their books and herbarium informa- tion, but occasionally at other places. At each meeting we marched through species, beginning with ferns and culminating in orchids. Assuming we worked nine days a year over 15 years, we averaged about 18 species a night. For each species we dis- cussed the taxon- omy, and re- corded what in- formation we had on the towns the species oc- curred in, distin- guishing between historical records (pre-1980) and current records, and between observa- tions, literature, and specimen-based records. Some of the larger towns were broken down into smaller, com- parable units (see map). Those who contributed to this process include: Skip Blanchard, Barbara Conolly, Carol Johnston, A1 Lindberg, Lois Lindberg , Betty Lotowyc 2 , Joe Beitel, Steve Clemants, with participation of Tom Delendick, Andy Greller, Jane Hoar, Rich Kelly, Eric Lamont, Chris Mangels, Vince Puglisi, and Bob Zaremba. Over the years, several portions of the prelimi- nary atlas were published in the Long Island Botanical Society Newsletter: Ferns & Fern Allies, (1994, Vol. 4, No. 3), Gymnosperms (1995, Vol. 5, No. 3) Magno- liideae (1996, Vol. 6, No. 6) Ranunculaceae (1997, Vol. 7, No. 6) Berberidaceae (1998, Vol. 8, No. 7), Platana- ceae through Myricaceae (1999, Vol. 9, No. 5), Fagaceae (2001, Vol. 11, No.l), and Betulaceae through Cacta- ceae (2002, Vol. 12, No. 1). Current Status of the Project We have recently completed the first run through the entire flora and have published a preliminary draft atlas. The draft atlas is 351 pages long, with 10 distribu- tion maps on each page. Families are arranged taxo- nomically and genera within them are ar- ranged alpha- betically. The results of the preliminary at- las show 2489 species in 164 families of vas- cular plants growing on Long Island. Seventy-six percent of these species are native. Review copies of the draft atlas have been dis- tributed and we are now in the process of revising and updating based on new data. (After 15 years we cer- tainly hope there are new data.) We also plan a trip to the New York State Museum to fill in missing historic data. 9 October 2005 To the Editor: Enjoyed, if that’s the word, Ray Welch’s article on the two spe- cies of bittersweet ( Celastrus ), and his account of the near total disappear- ance of our native species, C. scan- dens (LIBS Quarterly Newsletter, 2005, Vol. 15, No. 4, 32-34). He mentions never having seen it “anywhere.” During approximately 10 years of fairly intensive botanical searching throughout the northeast- ern states, I have only once come upon this myself. On 21 September 2001, we had a satisfactory identifi- cation of C. scandens at Cape May, New Jersey, and noted the charac- teristic leaves and the terminal fruit clusters. It was growing along the westernmost trail at Higbee Beach Wildlife Management Area. Since then, the increasing pro- liferation of both porcelain-berry and Clematis temiflora — which seem to be smothering even the orbicu- lata \ — makes it unlikely to be found again. Guy Tudor Forest Hill s, New York P.S. That horrid, big infestation of mile-a-minute vine out on Narrow River Road, Orient, has not abated. P.P.S. Stop water chestnut now! (You ought to see the Hudson River way up in Columbia County.) Page 12 Long Island Botanical Society Vol. 16 No. 1 Upcoming Programs Tuesday, 7:30 p.m. Members are invited to bring slides, stories, specimens, and tales of peculiar sightings of favorite plants. A great opportunity to show what you have found while explor- ing on Long Island or elsewhere. Please call Rich Kelly in advance to advise as to the approximate number of slides/images that you would like to show. Thanks. Location: Bill Paterson Nature Center Muttontown Preserve, East Norwich February 14, 2006* Tuesday, 7:30 p.m. Scott Kishbaugh: “Invasive Aquatic Plants of Concern on Long Island.” Scott is an environmental engineer in the Lake Services Section of New York State DEC. He is the invasive aquatic plant liaison and conducted field studies in Nas- sau County in 2005. Location: Bill Paterson Nature Center Muttontown Preserve, East Norwich March 14, 2006* Tuesday, 7:30 p.m. Jerry Carlson: “Exotic Pests and Pathogens as Threats to New York Forests.” Jerry is the DEC Chief of Forest Health and Protection for New York State. This program will cover insect pests and pathogens, such as Sudden Oak Death (SOD). Location: Bill Paterson Nature Center Muttontown Preserve, East Norwich January 10, 2006* Members’ Night Botany There should be no monotony In studying your botany; It helps to train And spur the brain — Unless you haven’t gotany. It teaches you, does Botany, To know the plants and spotany, And learn just why They live or die — In case you plant or potany. You learn, from reading Botany, Of wooly plants and cottony That grow on earth, And what they’re worth, And why some spots have notany. You sketch the plants in Botany, You learn to chart and plotany Like corn or oats— You jot down notes. If you know how to jotany. Your time, if you'll allotany, Will teach you how and what any Old plant or tree Can do or be— And that's the use of Botany! Berton Braley Science News Letter March 9, 1929 Used with permission of the heirs of Berton Braley www. BertonBraley. com April 11, 2006* Tuesday, 7:30 p.m. John Potente: “The Marshes of Long Island.” A brief overview of the remaining Long Island marsh- lands. Attention will be paid to the troubles that beset them and attempts that are made to aid them. John is a board member of the Long Island Botanical Society, di- rector of Native America, and currently sits on the Coun- cil of Environmental Quality, a legislative-appointed posi- tion within the Suffolk County Department of Planning. Location: Bill Paterson Nature Center Muttontown Preserve, East Norwich * Refreshments and informal talk begin at 7:30 p.m. Formal meeting starts at 8:00 p.m. Join LIBS today! Annual Membership is $20 payable to: Long Island Botanical Society Mail your dues to: Lois Lindberg Membership Chairperson Letters to the Editor, Articles, and News may be submitted to: Margaret Conover Long Island Botanical Society PO Box 507 Aquebogue, NY 11931