CANOTIA Volume 4, issue 1 Contents Canotia holacantha on Isla Tiburon, Gulf of California, Mexico Benjamin T. Wilder, Richard S. Felger, Thomas R. Van De vender, and Humberto Romero-Morales A Preliminary Checklist of Arizona Slime Molds Scott T. Bates and Anne Barber May 2008 Vascular Plant Herbarium School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University CANOTIA QL 184 . C25 C36 2008 Volume 4, issue 1 Contents Canotia holacantha on Isla Tiburon, Gulf of California, Mexico Benjamin T. Wilder, Richard S. Felger, Thomas R. Van Devender, and Humberto Romero-Morales 1 A Preliminary Checklist of Arizona Slime Molds Scott T. Bates and Anne Barber 8 May 2008 Vascular Plant Herbarium School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University tM .c*r C2(o J.00% CANOTIA Editor: Leslie R. Landrum P. O. Box 874501 School of Life Sciences Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-4501 (les.landrum@asu.edu) Associate Editor: Orbelia R. Robinson Botany Department California Academy of Sciences 875 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103-3009 (orobinson@calacademy.org) Production Editor: S.T. Bates School of Life Sciences Arizona State University PO Box 874601 Tempe, AZ 85287-4601 (scott.bates@asu.edu) Canotia publishes botanical and mycological papers related to Arizona. These may include contributions to the Vas- cular Plants of Arizona project, checklists, local floras, new records for Arizona and ecological studies. All manu- scripts are peer-reviewed by specialists. Acceptance for publication will be at the discretion of the editor. At least 30 printed copies of each issue are distributed to libraries in the United States, Europe, and Latin America. Anyone may download copies free of charge at http://lifesciences.asu.edu/herbarium/canotia.html. Canotia is named for Canotia holacantha Torr. (Celastraceae), a spiny shrub or small tree nearly endemic to Ari- zona. ISSN 1931-3616 LIBRARY NEW YORK BOTANICAL QAftPiN Canotia holacantha on Isla Tiburon, Gulf of California, Mexico Benjamin T. Wilder Desert Laboratory University of Arizona 1675 W. Anklam Rd, Building 801 Tucson, Arizona 85745 (bwilder@email.arizona.edu) Richard S. Felger University of Arizona Herbarium (ARIZ) P.O. Box 210036 Tucson, Arizona 85721 (rfelger@ag.arizona.edu) Thomas R. Van Devender Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 N. Kinney Rd. Tucson, Arizona 85743 Humberto Romero-Morales Comunidad Seri, Punta Chueca, Sonora, Mexico ABSTRACT Canotia holacantha Torrey is reported from the Gulf of California, Mexico on Isla Tiburon. This population is isolated from its closest conspecifics in northern Sonora by 230 km and is best explained as a Pleistocene relict. Previous reports of this species on Tiburon and differences between other “crucifixion thorns” are explained. INTRODUCTION We report Canotia holacantha Torrey (crucifixion thorn, corona de cristo, junco\ Celastraceae) from the heart of the Sonoran Desert on the high peaks of Isla Tiburon. Previously, Turner et al. in Sonoran Desert Plants: An Ecological Atlas (1995: 145) reported Canotia on Isla Tiburon based on collections of Castela polyandra Moran & Felger made by Richard Felger (9359, 10135, ARIZ). In recent conversations and data checking with Ray Turner it became clear that these collections were incorrectly ascribed to Canotia holacantha in the Atlas. It is with pleasure that we now report, with vouchers, the intriguing occurrence of C. holacantha on the island: Canotia holacantha on Isla Tiburon. CANOTIA 4(1): 1-7, 2008. ©2008 Benjamin T. Wilder et al. 7 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 Mexico. Sonora, Isla Tiburon: exposed upper ridges of the Sierra Kunkaak, 825 m, to 1.3 m tall and wide, 28°57’49.08”N, 1 12°19’40.37”W, B. Wilder 07-549 with Brad Boyle, Richard Felger, and Jose Ramon Torres (ARIZ, SD, MEXU); east-facing slope just below high ridge, 800 m, ca. 1/2 ! m tall, population of ca. 10 individuals, 28°57’57.27”N, 1 12°19,47.75”W, B ' ,n Wilder 07-528 with Brad Boyle, Richard Felger, and Jose Ramon Torres (ARIZ, USON). DISCUSSION Two local subpopulations of C. holacantha were encountered at the highest elevations on the island, each with several shrubs, mostly ca. 1 m tall. These individuals are notably smaller than those that are encountered throughout the primary range of the species in central and northern Arizona, where it is often a thick-trunked “shrub or small tree 2-6 (occasionally 10) m tall” (Turner et al. 1995: 145). Browsing by the large population of bighorn sheep, introduced on the island in 1975, might be responsible for the relatively dwarfed stature of these plants, or it is very likely caused by the harsh conditions that the plants are subjected to in this locality with windswept rock ridges and minimal soil (Figs. 1, 2). Canotia holacantha has a distribution that is transitional into higher, more northern vegetation types in and to the north of the Sonoran Desert. This discovery is the southernmost locality for the species, and extends its range 230 km to the southwest. The nearest populations are on the mainland in northern Sonora, where it is known from a few small populations, such as those in the foothills southeast of Magdalena de Kino, the nearby Sierra Babiso, and the Altar-Tubutama area (Turner et al. 1995, Felger et al. 2001). It has also recently been collected in the Sierra Madera near Imuris in northern Sonora (Fig. 3, A.L. Reina-G. 2005-654, ARIZ, USON). The presence of C. holacantha on an island in the Gulf of California is best explained as a Pleistocene relict (Turner et al. 1995) that is indicative of a historic vegetation much different than the current suite of desert species found there. Reconstruction of Pleistocene vegetation through much of what is now the Sonoran Desert, by analysis of fossil packrat middens, confirms that in the late Wisconsin (the last glacial period prior to 11,000 yr B.P.) a relatively mesic woodland vegetation and flora was present in the low desert regions (Betancourt et al. 1990). Ice age dominants included Pinus monophylla Torrey & Fremont (singleleaf pinyon; Pinaceae), Juniperus osteospemia (Torrey) Little (Utah juniper; Cupressaceae), Quercus turbinella Greene (shrub live oak; Fagaceae), and Yucca brevifolia Engelmann (Joshua tree; Agavaceae). The early Holocene from 11,000 to about 9,000 yr B.P. was a transitional period with some mesic species, including Juniperus californica Carriere (California juniper) and Y. brevifolia in the Tinajas Altas Mountains in southwestern Arizona. The only published packrat midden records from Sonora are 10,000 year Holocene sequences from the Homaday Mountains in 2008 CANOTIA HOLOCANTHA ON ISLA TIBURON 3 the Gran Desierto in northwestern Sonora, and the Sierra Bacha on the coast of the Gulf of California (Van Deveeder 1990, Van Devender et al. 1994). Ice age climates with greater winter rainfall and cooler summers favored the expansion of northern and higher elevation species southward and into what are now desert lowlands. No paleovegetation analysis, however, has been conducted for any island in the Gulf of California, a prospect made even more intriguing via this discovery. The flora of Isla Tiburon, especially the extensive and rugged Sierra Kunkaak (ca. 1 ,000 m elevation), has biogeographical connections to the entirety of the Sonoran Desert, including the central and southern Baja California peninsula and the northern and southern edges of the desert. Examples of disjunct Sierra Kunkaak populations are: species with nearest populations to the south in the more “tropical” parts of the Guaymas region (e.g., Lantana velutina M. Martens & Galeotti; Verbenaceae); species at a higher elevation than the desert in northeastern Sonora (e.g., Fraxinus gooddingii Little; Oleaceae); species primarily in Baja California Norte with populations on Tiburon and a few other Midriff islands, and extremely limited localities in Sonora (e.g., Sideroxylon leucophyllum S. Watson; Sapotaceae); species with wide distribution in Baja California Sur and isolated Sonoran populations (e.g., Tetramerium fruticosum Brandegee; Acanthaceae); and species in Baja California Sur in the Cape Region and Isla Cerralvo (e.g., Diospyros intricata (A. Gray) Standley; Ebenaceae). This biogeographically heterogeneous flora of a “sky island” within an island shows evidence of a high degree of connectivity at the center of the Sonoran Desert. The presence of the northerly-distributed Canada holacantha, among the most recent of botanical discoveries on Tiburon (Wilder et al. 2007), adds a Pleistocene temporal dimension to these enigmatic “sky island” populations. The only fossil record for Canada holacantha is from an 11,100 yr B.P. midden from Picacho Peak, Pinal County, Arizona (Van Devender et al. 1991), reflecting a southeastward expansion of this species in the late Wisconsin woodlands. Subsequently a relict population of Canada holacantha was discovered in the Waterman Mountains in Pima County about 50 km southeast of Picacho Peak ( Van Devender 2002-1152, ARIZ). The isolated populations near Tubutama and Magdalena de Kino, and the newly-discovered population in the Sierra de la Madera suggest that during the winter rainfall Pleistocene glacial periods, Canada holacantha and other more cold- tolerant scrub, chaparral, and woodland species were present throughout the modem Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. The record of C. holacantha on Isla Tiburon is a remarkable range extension from the north into a zone that, as has been reported, was more like Baja California during the Pleistocene (Van Devender et al. 1994). Modem desert communities were present for only about five percent of the 2.4 million years of the Pleistocene, while ice age woodlands in the desert lowlands persisted for about ninety percent of this period (Van Devender 2000). Considering this, isolated populations of C. holacantha and other ice age expanders are relicts of an era when woodlands were the predominant vegetation in Sonoran Desert area, and the Arizona Upland was greatly contracted. Canada holacantha is one of three unrelated “crucifixion thorn” shrubs on Isla Tiburon, each with a distinctive growth-form. Canada holacantha occurs at 4 CANOTIA Vol. 4 (1) 2008 peak elevations and has terete stems, bisexual flowers, and persistent woody capsules, 1.5-2 cm long, with 5 carpels that split apically into awned valves. Koeberlinia spinosa Zuccarini and Castela polyandra occur only at lower elevations. Koeberlinia has slender, terete twigs, bisexual flowers, and non- persistent, rounded fruits 3-3.5 mm in diameter that dry capsule-like. It is common on the Agua Dulce Valley floor (southward from Tecomate) where it often becomes a small tree ca. 4 m tall (Felger & Moser 1985). It is an infrequent low shrub in the Valle de Aguila at the northeast part of the island and in Arroyo Sauzal at the south end of the island. Castela polyandra occurs on the eastern bajada of the island in a narrow band parallel to the shore, just inland from the Frankenia zone and extending into the lower mixed desertscrub vegetation (Felger & Lowe 1976). It is a low, spreading shrub, reaching up to ca. 1 m in height, that has laterally compressed stems, a sparse foliage of leaves, often 0.5-2. 5 cm long, that quickly become deciduous, male and female flowers are on separate plants, and the fruits are 1-1.5 cm long, fleshy and not persistent (Moran & Felger 1968). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful for the assistance and support of Ana Luisa Rosa Figueroa-Carranza of CONANP. Exequiel Ezcurra of the San Diego Natural History Museum, and Ana L. Reina-Guerrero. Leslie Landrum and David Brown provided constructive reviews. Ray Turner determined the collection history of C. holacantha and his, J. Betancourt, J. Bowers, T. L. Burgess, and R. Hastings work has greatly added to our knowledge of past and present distributions of desert plants. Collections have been made under Mexican Federal Collecting permit NOM-126-SEMARNAT- 2000. Funding for this project has been received by Wilder from the University of Arizona, Arizona- Nevada Academy of Science, the Research Committee of the Cactus and Succulent Society of America, and T&E Inc. Felger and Wilder received support from the World Wildlife Fund in collaboration with El Area de Proteccion de Flora y Fauna (APFF) “Islas del Golfo de California” en Sonora, CONANP. LITERATURE CITED BETANCOURT, J.L., T.R. VAN DEVENDER and P.S. MARTIN. 1990. Packrat Middens: The last 40,000 years of biotic change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. FELGER, R.S., M.B. JOHNSON and M.F. WILSON. 2001. Trees of Sonora, Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York. FELGER, R.S. and C.H. LOWE. 1976. The Island and Coastal Vegetation and Flora of the Gulf of California, Mexico. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Contributions in Science No. 285. FELGER, R.S. and M.B. MOSER. 1985. People of the Desert and Sea: Ethnobotanv of the Seri Indians. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Reprinted 1991). 2008 CANOTIA HOLOCANTHA ON ISLA TIBURON 5 MORAN, R. and R.S. FELGER. 1968. Caste/a polyandra, a new species in a new section; union of Holacantha with Castela (Simaroubaceae). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 15(4): 31-40. TURNER, R.M., J.E. BOWERS and T.L. BURGESS. 1995. Sonoran Desert Plants: An Ecological Atlas. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. V AN DE VENDER, T.R. 1990. Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of the Sonoran Desert, United States and Mexico. Pp. 134-165. In: J.L. Betancourt, T.R. Van Devender and P.S. Martin (eds.). Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. VAN DEVENDER, T.R. 2000. The deep history of the Sonoran Desert. Pp. 61-69. In S.J. Phillips and P.W. Comus (eds.). A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press, Tucson and University of California Press, Berkeley. VAN DEVENDER, T.R., T.L. BURGESS, J.C. PIPER and R.M. TURNER. 1994. Paleoclimatic implications of Holocene plant remains from the Sierra Bacha, Sonora, Mexico. Quaternary Research 4: 99-108. VAN DEVENDER, T.R., J.L MEAD and A.M. REA. 1991. Late Quaternary plants and vertebrates from Picacho Peak, Arizona, with emphasis on Scaphiopus hammondi (western spadefoot). Southwestern Naturalist 36: 302-314. WILDER, B.T., R.S. FELGER, H. ROMERO-MORALES and A. QUIJADA- MASCARENAS. 2007. New plant discoveries for the Sonoran Islands, Gulf of California, Mexico. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1: 1203-1227. 6 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 Canotia holocantha on Isla Tiburon Figure 1 . Canotia hulacantha on the exposed upper ridges of Isla Tiburon (image by Benjamin Wilder 26 October 2007). 2008 CANOTIA HOLOCANTHA ON ISLA TIBURON Canotia holocantha on Isla Tiburon Figure 2. This plant ( Wilder 07-549) is 1.3 m tall and was the largest individual of Canotia holacantha seen on the island ( image by Benjamin Wilder 26 October 2007). Canotia holocantha on Isla Tiburon Figure 3. Distribution of: Canotia holacantha ( modified from Turner et al. 1995 and used with permission of Raymond M. Turner). A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS Scott T. Bates and Anne Barber School of Life Sciences Arizona State University P. O. Box 874601 Tempc, AZ 85282-4601 ABSTRACT A checklist of 147 species of slime molds is presented for the state of Arizona. This total represents approximately one-tenth of all species known from the eukaryotic slime mold groups. This is remarkable in that a majority of the records here have been derived from studies focusing on arid-lands. The checklist was compiled primarily from records of Arizona slime molds in scientific publications and was supplemented with data from the U.S. National Fungus Collection, the Global Biodiversity of Eumycetozoans database, as well as personal herbaria. Fifteen species, Arcyria veriscolor W. Phillips, Badhamia foliicola Lister, Echinostelium elachiston Alexop., Hemitrichia leiocarpa (Cooke) Lister, Licea variabilis Schrad., Lindbladia tubulina Fr., Perichaena microspora Penz. & Lister, Physarum bitectum G. Lister, Physarum confertum T. Macbr., Physarum crateriforme Petch. Physarum echinosporum Lister, Physarum flavicomum Berk., Physarum newtonii T. Macbr., Stemonitis nigrescens Rex, and Trichia alpina (R.E. Fr.) Myel., are considered as new records for the state, although identifications of these species have not been verified by the authors. The data presented here contributes to our understanding of slime mold biodiversity and biogeography. INTRODUCTION The term ‘slime mold’ has been applied to several groups of organisms characterized by a life cycle that includes motile amoebae-like cells, that normally aggregate to form multinuclcate or multicellular structures (assimilative and/or reproductive), and produce sessile or stalked sporulating structures. Although slime molds share this common generalized life cycle, they are not all closely related, and modem phylogenetically based classification schemes place them within five different subgroups of three major eukaryotic clades (see Baldauf 2003). An additional prokaryotic group, the myxobacteria (5 proteobacteria; not treated here), are also similar in that individual cells aggregate and eventually form spores; however, these organisms lack flagella and achieve motility by ‘gliding’ (Shimkets & Woese 1992, Dworkin & Kaiser 1993). Historically it has been acknowledged that slime molds comprise distinct groups, and their polyphyletic nature has been speculated for over a century (de A Preliminary Checklist of Arizona Slime Molds. CANOTIA 4 (1): 8-19, 2008. ©2008 S.T. Bates and A. Barber 2008 CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS 9 Bary 1887). Alexopoulos et al. (1996) recognized five separate phyla: the Labyrinthulomycota (net slime molds), Plasmodiophoromycota (cndoparasitic slime molds), Dictyosteliomycota (dictyostelid cellular slime molds), Acrasiomycota (acrasid cellular slime molds), and Myxomycota (true slime molds or myxomycetes). Although the nomenclature surrounding these organisms suggests relatedncss to the Ewnycota (true fungi), they are not contained in the opisthokonts clade (i.e., animals + fungi; Baldauf 2003); however, mycologists have traditionally been involved in their study (Ainsworth 1976). To distinguish the core monophyletic group of slime molds (myxomycetes, dictyostelids, and protostelids) as a distinct group, separate from the fungi, the terms mycetozoans or eumycetozoans has been informally used by some authors (e.g., Olive 1975, Spiegel et al. 1995). Slime mold diversity is perhaps best reflected in the variety of forms that are exhibited by their fruiting structures. Though minute (many less than 2 mm tall), these forms can be quite beautiful (Fig. 1; and see the Eumycetozoan Project, http://slimemold.uark.edu), if one takes the time to examine them closely. The most recognizable slime molds are found within the Myxomycota, and this group contains the majority of described species (ca. 1000; Schnittler et al. 2006), their plasmodia (Fig. lb, multinucleate assimilative phase) can be large and colorful, and their fruiting bodies, unlike those found in other groups (e.g., Dictyosteliomycota ), are often visible to the unaided eye. Others are also familiar; for example, the ‘slug’ forming ‘social amoeba’ Dictyostelium discoideum is a well-known model organism used by researchers to study cell differentiation (Alexopoulos et al. 1996). In general, these organisms are phagotrophic microbial predators, the vegetative phase feeding on microscopic organisms such as bacteria, fungi, or protozoans. As with fungi, the substrata (e.g., bark, dung, decaying wood) on which slime molds are found may be of importance as these organisms can be associated with specific macro- or micro -habitats (e.g., ‘succulenticolous’ myxomycetes can be encountered in arid-lands on decaying succulents, Lado et al. 2002). Slime molds have been recorded throughout the world and are well known from temperate forests, although they occur in a wide range of habitats - from tropical forests to alpine and arctic ecosystems (e.g., Martin & Alexopoulos 1969, Ing 1994, Alexopoulos et al. 1996, Stephenson & Laursen 1998, Schnittler & Stephenson 2000). Because these organisms require moisture for an extended period of time in order to complete their life cycles, their occurrence in deserts may seem remarkable; however, several studies have documented a notable diversity of slime molds from arid regions around the globe (e.g., Evenson 1961, Faurel et al. 1965, Ramon 1968, Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980a & 1984, Novozhilov & Golubeva 1986, Schnittler & Novozhilov 2000, Schnittler 2001, Lado et al. 2002, Novozhilov et al. 2003, Novozhilov et al. 2006). In these arid systems, slime molds are likely to be encountered on dead plant tissue of cacti and agaves, which can retain moisture long enough to support slime mold growth (Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980a, Ing 1994, Lado et al. 2002). The majority of Arizona slime mold records have originated within studies that focused on arid-lands in general and the Sonoran Desert in particular, and most of these studies have relied primarily on the use of ‘moist-chamber cultures’ to induce plasmodial and sporulating structures (see Gilbert & Martin 1933, Alexopoulos 1964). 10 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 The first accounts of Arizona slime molds come from Evenson (1961), who recorded 63 species that were “...observed in an area that is within a radius of 90 miles of Tucson....” Blackwell and Gilbertson (1980a) again focused on localities near Tucson and reported on 52 species. Within the twentieth century, other reports were sparse (e.g., Olive & Stoianovitch 1966, Cavender & Raper 1968, Ranzoni 1968, Raper & Alexopoulos 1973, Cooke 1985, IVfGuinness & Haskins 1985, Clark & Haskins 1998); however, records from central and northern Arizona were accumulated and species new to science were reported from the state (e.g., Keller & Brooks 1976a-b & 1977, Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980b, Whitney & Keller 1980, Whitney 1980, Cox 1981). The twenty-first century brought more records from the northern parts of the state. Brian (2000) reported on two species from the Grand Canyon (only one identified to species) and the study of Novozhilov et al. (2003) from the Colorado Plateau brought 48 additional records. METHODS The methods used in this paper follow, for the most part, those of Bates (2006). The literature search was aided considerably by the appearance on-line of early editions of journals, such as Mycologia, and technology allowing for journal content searches (e.g., JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org; Google Scholar, http://scholar.googlc.com). On-line searches for slime mold records in the Planetary Biodiversity Inventories (PBI): Global Biodiversity of Enmycetozoans database (http://slimcmold.uark.edu) and for specimens in the U.S. National Fungus Collections (BPI; Farr et al. 2007) were also carried out. From this effort, 55 species records for Arizona were obtained. A number of species cited from the literature are also deposited as specimens in herbaria (e.g., Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980a). Data from the literature and herbarium databases were supplemented by records acquired from the author’s personal herbarium (hb. Bates) and also that of Y.K. Novozhilov (hb. Novozhilov). A database was compiled from all of the individual records located (303 in total). Each entry in the database cited the source of the record and the binomial as it originally appeared in publication or in a database record. Synonymy, currently accepted names, and the classification system used conform to Lado (2001), the ‘On-Line Nomcnclatural Information System of the Eumycetozoans (http://www.eumycetozoa.com), and the CABI Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org). Entries in the checklist published here are followed by annotations in brackets, which indicate the record source/s for each species included (see Annotation Key below). If no previous published report of the species’ occurrence in Arizona existed, then the annotation ‘NR’ indicates a new record. The on-line Checklist of Arizona Macrofungi has been relocated to a new URL (http://www.azfungi.org/chccklist) and has been restructured to include slime mold records published here in addition to more than one-thousand species of macrofungi documented previously from the state (see Bates 2006). The on-line checklist will continue to be updated as additional records become available. 2008 CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS 11 Results, Discussion, and Conclusions Records of one hundred forty-seven Arizona slime molds from 14 families, 3 phyla ( Labyrinthulomycota , Dictyosteliomycota, and Myxomycota), and 2 major eukaryotic groups (Chromista and Protozoa) are reported in this checklist. While the majority of these (—90%) have been previously reported from the literature, a total of fifteen species, Arcyria veriscolor W. Phillips, Badhamia foliicola Lister, Echinostelium elachiston Alexop., Hemitrichia leiocarpa (Cooke) Lister, Licea variabilis Schrad., Lindbladia tubulina Fr., Perichaena microspora Penz. & Lister, Physarum bitectum G. Lister, Physarum confertum T. Macbr., Physarum crateriforme Petch, Physarum echinosporum Lister, Physarum flavicomum Berk., Physarum newtonii T. Macbr., Stemonitis nigrescens Rex, and Trichia alpina (R.E. Fr.) Myel., are reported from the state for the first time. These new records are tentative, however, as the authors have not been able to verify the validity of these identifications, most of which originated from the BPI specimen database and Global Biodiversity of Eumycetozoans database. Furthermore, it was beyond the scope of this project and the expertise of the authors to confirm identifications for each record; therefore, the checklist should be considered preliminary and some inaccuracies may exist. Despite these faults, we feel that publishing a preliminary checklist such as this serves a purpose in that it provides a starting point from which future studies can precede - errors, once discovered, can then be corrected in the on- line checklist (http://www.azfungi.org/checklist). In the very least, this publication serves to catalog the slime mold literature for the state. The extent of global slime mold diversity is still poorly known; however, it appears that their numbers are less than fungi, which estimates place at 700,000 to 1.5 million species world-wide, or more (Hawksworth 2001, Schmit & Mueller 2007). Considering that less than 1500 species of slime molds are described (Schnittler et al. 2006), it is remarkable that this checklist, based primarily on studies of arid-lands, contains approximately one-tenth of all known species. On going studies such as the Tree Canopy Biodiversity in the Great Smoky > Mountains National Park (see Snell & Keller 2003, Keller et al. 2004) and the PBI: Global Biodiversity of Eumycetozoans project (see Schnittler et al. 2006) continue to make contributions to our understanding of slime molds and new species are being described; however, comprehensive knowledge of their diversity is still lacking. We hope this paper will encourage further study of these unique organisms within Arizona (or elsewhere) as it is likely that, with concentrated effort and exploration of additional habitats (e.g., mid- to high-elevation mesic forests of the state), new species will be discovered and additional records can be obtained. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Martin Schnittler for helping us contact Yuri Novozhilov. Special recognition is due to Dr. Novozhilov who, while on expedition in the Kazakh desert, graciously emailed (via satellite) a database of his Arizona collections. We thank Dr. Elizabeth “Betsy” Arnold and the staff at ARIZ who allowed us access to the collections. Dr. Steven L. Stephenson suggested several ways in which to improve the manuscript. We are grateful to workers at BPI who have made specimen data available on-line. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their time and comments which have helped to improve the quality of this publication. 12 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 Slime molds Figure 1. Diversity in slime molds (forms visible to the unaided eye): (a) Mucilago sp., an example of the spore forming phase of the slime mold life cycle; (b) Slime mold plasmodium, an example of the assimilative phase of the slime mold life cycle; (c) Physarum sp. sporangia on wood; (d) Lycogala epidendrum sporangia on rotting wood. PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS □ CHROMISTA • LABYRINTHULOMYCOTA LABYRINTHULOMYCETES LABYRINTHUL ULALES Labyrinth ulaceae Labyrinthula terrestris D.M. Bigelow, M.W. Olsen & Gilb. [1] □ PROTOZOA • DICTYOSTELIOMYCOTA DICTYOSTELIOMYCETES DICTYOSTELIALES Dictyosteliaceae Polysphondylium pallidum Olive [6] • MYXOMYCOTA MYXOMYCETES ECHINOSTELIALES Echinosteliaceae Echinostelium apitectum K.D. Whitney [20,27] Echinostelium arboreum H.W. Keller & T.E. Brooks [14] Echinostelium coelocephalum T.E. Brooks & H.W. Keller [15,17,20,24,27] Echinostelium colliculosum K.D. Whitney & H.W. Keller [2,20,24,25,27] Echinostelium corynophorum K.D. Whitney [20,27] Echinostelium elachiston Alexop. [NR,26] Echinostelium fragile Nann.-Bremek. [17,24] Echinostelium minutum de Bary [2.7.12.20.26.27.29] LICEALES Cribrariaceae Cribraria cancellata (Batsch.) Nann.-Bremek. [12.29] Cribraria violacea Rex [20,27] Lindbladia tubulina Fr. [NR, 29] Liceaceae Licea belmontiana Nann.-Bremek. [20,27] Licea castanea G. Lister [20,27] Licea denudescens H.W. Keller & T.E. Brooks [20,27] Licea inconspicua T.E. Brooks & H.W. Keller [20,27] Licea kleistobolus G.W. Martin [12,20,27] Licea nannengae Pando & Lado [20,27] Licea parasitica (Zukal) G.W. Martin [2,20,27] Licea pedicellata (H.C. Gilbert) H.C. Gilbert [2] Licea pseudoconica H.W. Keller & T.E. Brooks [2,18] Licea tenera E. Jahn [20,27] Licea testudinacea Nann.-Bremek. [20,27] Licea variabilis Schrad. [NR, 26] Reticulariaceae Lycogala epidendrum (J.C. Buxb. ex L.) Fr. [5.10.12.26.28.29] Lycogala flavofitscum (Ehrenb.) Rostaf. [13] Tubifera ferruginosa (Batsch) J.F. Gmel. [10] PHYSARALES Didymiaceae Diderma effusum (Schwein.) Morgan [2] Diderma radiatum (L.) Morgan [12,26] Diderma simplex (Schroet.) G. Lister [2] Diderma trevelyanii (Grev.) Fr. [12] Didymium anellus Morgan [2,12,20,27] Didymium difforme (Pers.) Gray [20,27] Didymium dubium Rostaf. [2,12,20,27] Didymium eremophilum M. Blackw. & Gilb. [2,3,4] Didymium inconspicuum Nann.-Bremek. & D.W. Mitch. [20,27] Didymium iridis Fr. [2,20,27] Didymium karstensii Nann.-Brem. [2] Didymium melanospermum (Pers.) T. Macbr. [12.29] Didymium mexicanum G. Moreno, Lizarraga & Illana [20,27] Didymium minus (Lister) Morgan [12] Didymium nigripes (Link) Fr. [2,23] Didymium quitense (Pat.) Torrend [20,27] Didymium squamulosum (Alb. & Schwein.) Fr. [20,27] Didymium vaccinum (Durieu & Mont.) Buchet [2,12] Didymium verrucosporum A.L. Welden [20,27] Lepidoderma carestianum (Rabenh.) Rostaf. [12] Mucilago Crustacea P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg. [12,26,28] 14 CANOTIA Vol. 4 (1) 2008 Physaraceae Badhamia affinis Rostaf. [2] Badhamia apiculospora (Hark.) Eliasson & N. Lundq. [20,27] Badhamia foliicola Lister [NR, 26] Badhamia gracilis (Macbr.) Macbr. [2,4,9,26] Badhamia macrocarpa (Ces.) Rostaf. [2,12,26] Badhamia melanospora Speg. [20,27] Badhamia panicea (Fr.) Rostaf. [2,12] Badhamiopsis ainoae (Yamash.) T.E. Brooks &H.W. Keller [17] Craterium leucocephalum (Pers.) Ditmar [2] Craterium minutum (Leers) Fr. [12] Fuligo cinerea (Schw.) Morgan [2,20,27,29] Fuligo intermedia T. Macbr. [10,26] Fuligo megaspura Sturgis [2] Fuligo septica var. septica (L.) F.H. Wigg. [2.12.29] Leocarpus fragilis (Dicks.) Rostaf. [12,29] Physarum auriscalpium Cooke [2,29] Physarum bitectum G. Lister [NR, 29] Physarum bivalve Pers. [20,27] Phvsarum cinereum (Batsch) Pers. [12.20.27.29] Physarum compressum Alb. & Schwein. [2,12] Physarum confertum T. Macbr. [NR,29] Physarum crateriforme Petch [NR, 29] Physarum decipiens M.A. Curtis [20,27] Physarum didermoides (Ach. ex Pers.) Rostaf. [2] Physarum echinosporum Lister [NR,29] Physarum flavi comum Berk. [NR,29] Physarum galbeum Wingate [12] Physarum lateritium (Berk. & Ravenel) Morgan [2] Physarum leucophaeum Fr. [2,20,27,29] Physarum leucopus Link [2] Physarum luteolum Peck [2] Physarum mutabile (Rostaf.) G. Lister [2,12] Physarum newtonii T. Macbr. [NR,26] Physarum notabile T. Macbr. [2,12,20,27,29] Physarum nucleatum Rex [2] Physarum nudum T. Macbr. [20,27] Physarum nutans Pers. [12,29] Physarum ovisporum G. Lister [11] Phvsarum pusillum (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) G. Lister [2,12,29] Physarum straminipes Lister [2,4] Physarum tenerum Rex [12] Physarum vernum Sommerf. [2] Protophysarum phloiogenum M. Blackwell & Alexop.’ [4,20,27,29] Willkommlangea reticulata (Alb. & Schwein.) Kuntze [20,27] Stemonitidaceae Clastoderma debaryanum A. Blytt. [12,29] Collaria arcyrionema Rostaf. [12] Collaria lurida (Lister) Nann.-Bremek. [2.12.19.29] Colloderma oculatum (Lippert) G. Lister [2] Comatricha irregularis Rex [12] Comatricha laxa Rostaf. [2,8,12,20,27,29] Comatricha nigra (Pers.) J. Schrot. [2,12,29] Comatricha pulchella (C. Bab.) Rostaf. [2.12.20.27.29] Comatricha tenerrima (M.A. Curtis) G. Lister [12] Enerthenema papillatum (Pers.) Rostaf. [20,27] Lamproderma sauteri Rostaf. [ 1 2] Macbrideola decapillata H.C. Gilbert [20,27] Macbrideola declinata T.E. Brooks & H.W. Keller [20,27] Macbrideola scintillans H.C. Gilbert [20,27] Paradiacheopsis cribrata Nann.-Bremek. [20,27] Paradiacheopsis fimbriata (G. Lister & Cran) Hertel ex Nann.-Bremek. [20,27,29] Stemonitis axifera (Bull.) T. Macbr. [10,12] Stemonitis flavogenita E. Jahn [2,12] Stemonitis fusca Roth [12,29] Stemonitis nigrescens Rex [NR,26] Stemonitis pallida Wingate [12] Stemonitis smithii T. Macbr. [10] Stemonitis virginiensis Rex [12] Stemonitopsis aequalis (Peck) Y. Yamam. [12] Stemonitopsis typhina (F.H. Wigg.) Nann.- Bremek. [12,29] Incertae sedis Kelleromyxa ftmicola (Deam. & Bisby) Eliasson [2,12] TRICHIALES Arcyriaceae Arcyria cinerea (Bull.) Pers. [2,10,12,26] Arcyria denudata (L.) Wettst. [10] Arcyria incarnata (Pers.) Pers. [12] Arcyria insignis Kalchbr. & Cooke [2,12] Arcyria nutans (Bull.) Grev. [12,26,29] Arcyria veriscolor W. Phillips [NR,26] Dianemataceae Calomyxa metallica (Berk.) Nieuwl. [12] Trichiaceae Hemitrichia calyculata (Speg.) M.L. Farr [12] Hemitrichia clavata (Pers.) Rostaf. [12] 2008 CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS 15 Hemitrichia leiocarpa (Cooke) Lister [NR, 26] Hemitrichia serpula (Scop.) Rostaf. [12,26] Met atrichia vesparium (Batsch.) Nann.- Bremek. ex G.W. Martin & Alexop. [10.12.26.29] Perichaena chrvsosperma (Curr.) Lister [2.12.29] Perichaena corticalis (Batsch) Rost. [2.4.12.20.27] Perichaena depressa Lib. [2,12,20,27] Perichaena microspora Penz. & Lister [NR,26] Perichaena quadrata T. Macbr. [20,27] Perichaena vermicularis (Schwein.) Rostaf. [2.12.20.26.27] Trichia affinis de Bary [12] Trichia alpina (R.E. Fr.) Myel. [NR,26] Trichia botrytis (J.F. Gmel.) Pers. [12] Trichia favoginea (Batsch) Pers. [10] Trichia persimilisV . Karst. [12,26,29] Trichia pusilla (Hedw.) G.W. Martin [12] Trichia subfusca Rex [20,27] Trichia varia (Pers.) Pers. [12,26] PROTOSTELIOMYCETES PROTOSTELIALES Ceratiomyxaceae Ceratiomyxa fruticulosa var. fruticulo s a (O.F. Mull.) T. Macbr. [12] Protosteliaceae Protosteliopsis fimicola (L.S. Olive) L.S. Olive & Stoian. [21,22] Annotation Key. Annotations [in brackets] follow each taxon. These indicate records that are new for Arizona (e.g., have not previously been published in the literature) and cite the source of each record with a number (see Literature Cited): NR - New Record for Arizona; 1 - Bigelow et al. 2005; 2 - Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980a; 3 - Blackwell & Gilbertson 1980b; 4 - Blackwell & Gilbertson 1984; 5 - Brian 2000; 6 - Cavender & Raper 1968; 7 - Clark & Haskins 1998; 8 - Clark & Haskins 2002; 9 - Clark et al. 2003; 10 - Cooke 1985; 11 -Cox 1981; 12 - Evenson 1961; 13 - Gilbertson et al. 1972; 14 - Haskins & McGuinness 1989; 15 - Haskins et al. 2000; 16 - Keller & Brooks 1976a; 17 - Keller & Brooks 1976b; 18 - Kel- ler & Brooks 1977; 19 - McGuinness & Haskins 1985; 20 - Novozhilov et al. 2003; 21 - Olive 1967; 22 - Olive & Stoianovitch 1966; 23 - Raper & Alexopoulos 1973; 24 - Whitney 1980; 25 - Whitney & Keller 1980; 26 - BPI; 27 - hb. Novozhilov; 28 - hb. Bates; 29 - The PBI: Global Biodiversity of Eumycetozoans database, http://slimemold.uark.edu/ 16 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 LITERATURE CITED AINSWORTH, G.C. 1976. Introduction to the History of Mycology \ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ALEXOPOULOS, C.J. 1964. The rapid sporulation of some Myxomycetes in moist chamber culture. Southwestern Naturalist 9: 155-159. ALEXOPOULOS, C.J., C.W. MIMS and M. BLACKWELL. 1996. Introductory - Mycology'. 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York. BALDAUF, S.L. 2003. The deep roots of Eukaryotes. Science 300: 1703-1706. BATES, S.T. 2006. A preliminary checklist of Arizona macrofungi. Canotia 2: 47-78. BIGELOW, D.M., M.W. OLSEN and R.L. GILBERTSON. 2005. Labyrinthula terrestris sp. now, a new pathogen of turf grass. Mycologia 97: 185-190. BLACKWELL, M. and R.L. GILBERTSON. 1980a. Sonoran Desert Myxomycetes. Mycotaxon 11: 139-149. BLACKWELL, M. and R.L. GILBERTSON. 1980b. Didymium eremophilum : A new Myxomycete from the Sonoran Desert. Mycologia 72: 791-797. BLACKWELL, M. and R.L. GILBERTSON. 1984. Distribution and sporulation phenology of Myxomycetes in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. Microbial Ecology' 10: 369-377. BRIAN, N. 2000. Checklist of non-vascular plants of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Kingdoms Monera, Protista, Fungi, and Plantae (Phylum Bryophyta). Notulae Naturae 474: 1-20. CAVENDER, J.C. and K.B. RAPER. 1968. The occurrence and distribution of Acrasieae in forest of subtropical and tropical America. American Journal of Botany 55: 504-513. CLARK, J. and E.F. HASKINS. 1998. Heterothallic mating systems in the Echinostelium minutum complex. Mycologia 90: 382-388. CLARK. J. and E.F. HASKINS. 2002. Reproductive systems of the myxomycetes Comatricha laxa and Lamproderma arcyrionema. Nova Hedwigia 75: 237-240. CLARK, J., E.F. HASKINS and S.L. STEPHENSON. 2003. Biosystematics of the Myxomycete Badhamia gracilis. Mycologia 95: 104-108. COOKE, W.D. 1985. The 1980 Arizona Foray. Mycologia 77: 168-171. COX, J.J. 1981. Notes on coprophilous Myxomycetes from the western United States. Mycologia 73: 741-747. DE BARY, A. 1 887. Comparative Morphology and Biology' of the Fungi. Mycetozoa and Bacteria. Clarendon Press, London. 2008 CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS 17 DWORKIN, M. and D. KAISER (eds). 1993. Myxobacteria II. American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington, DC. EVENSON, A. 1961 . A preliminary report of the Myxomycetes of Southern Arizona. Mycologia 53: 137-144. FARR, D.F., A.Y. ROSSMAN, M.E. PALM and E.B. MCCRAY. 2007. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USD A. http://nt.ars- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ (Accessed 2007 July 24). FAUREL, L.G., J. FELDMANN and G. SCHOTTERS. 1965. Catalogue des Myxomycetes de 1' Afrique du Nord. Bulletin de la Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de V Afrique du Nord 55: 9-35. GILBERT, H.C. and G.W. MARTIN. 1933. Myxomycetes found on the bark of living trees. University of Iowa Studies in Natural History 15: 3-8. GILBERTSON, R.L., E.R. CANFIELD and G.B. CUMMINS. 1972. Notes on fungi from the L.N. Goodding Research Area. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 7: 129-138. HASKINS, E.F. and M.D. MCGUINNESS. 1989. Sporophore ultrastructure of Echinostelium arboreum. Mycologia 81: 303-307. HASKINS, E.F., M.D. MCGUINNESS and J. CLARK. 2000. Heterothallic mating systems in the Echinosteliales II. Echinostelium coelocephalum. Mycologia 92: 1080-1084. HAWKSWORTH, D.L. 2001. The magnitude of fungal diversity: The 1.5 million species estimate revisited. Mycological Research 105: 1422-1432. ING, B. 1994. The phytosociology of myxomycetes. New Phytologist 126: 175-201. KELLER, H.W. and T.E. BROOKS. 1976a. Corticolous Myxomycetes IV: Badhamiopsis, a new genus for Badhamia ainoae. Mycologia 68: 834-841. KELLER, H.W. and T.E. BROOKS. 1976b. Corticolous Myxomycetes V: Observations on the genus Echinostelium. Mycologia 68: 1204-1220. KELLER, H.W. and T.E. BROOKS. 1977. Corticolous Myxomycetes VII: Contribution toward a monograph of Licea, five new species. Mycologia 69: 667-684. KELLER, H.W., M. SKRABAL, U.H. ELIASSON and T.W. GAITHER. 2004. Tree canopy biodiversity in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park: ecological and developmental observations of a new myxomycete species of Diachea. Mycologia 96: 537— 47. LADO, C. 2001. Nomenmyx. A nomenclatural taxabase of Myxomycetes. Cuadernos de Trabajo Flora Micoldgica Iberica 16: 1-221. LADO, C., A. ESTRADA-TORRES, M. RAMIREZ and E. CONDE. 2002. A study of the succulenticolous Myxomycetes from arid zones of Mexico. Scripta Botanica Belgica 22: 58. 18 CANOTIA Vol. 4(1) 2008 MARTIN, G.W. and C.J. ALEXOPOULOS. 1969. The Myxomycetes. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. MCGUINNESS, M.D. and E.F. HASKINS. 1985. Genetic analysis of the reproductive system of the True Slime Mold Comatricha lurida. Mycologia 77: 646-653. NOVOZHILOV, Y.K. and O.G. GOLUBEVA. 1986. Epiphytic myxomycetes from the Mongolian Altai and the Gobi desert. Micologia i fitopatologia 20: 368-374 [in Russian]. NOVOZHILOV, Y.K., D.W. MITCHELL and M. SCHNITTLER. 2003. Myxomycete biodiversity of the Colorado Plateau. Mycologica Progress 2: 243-258. NOVOZHILOV, Y.K., I.V. ZEMLIANSKAIA, M. SCHNITTLER and S.L. STEPHENSON. 2006. Myxomycete diversity and ecology in the arid regions of the Lower Volga River Basin (Russia). Fungal Diversity’ 23: 193-241. OLIVE, L.S. 1967. The Protostelida: A new order of the Mycetozoa. Mycologia 59: 1-29. OLIVE, L.S. 1975. The Mvcetozoans. Academic Press, New York. OLIVE, L.S. and STOLANOVITCH. 1966. Protosteliopsis, a new genus of the Protostelida. Mycologia 58: 452-455. RAMON, E. 1968. Myxomycetes of Israel. Israel Journal of Botany 17: 207-21 1. RANZONI, F.V. 1968. Fungi isolated in culture from soils of the Sonoran Desert. Mycologia 60: 356-371. RAPER, K.B. and C.J. ALEXOPOULOS. 1973. A Myxomycete with a singular myxamoebal encystment stage. Mycologia 65: 1284-1295. SCHMIT, J.P. and G.M. MUELLER. 2007. An estimate of the lower limit of global fungal diversity. Biodiversity and Conser\’ation 16: 99-1 1 1. SCHNITTLER, M. 2001. Ecology of Myxomycetes of a winter-cold desert in western Kazakhstan. Mycologia 93: 653-669. SCHNITTLER, M. and Y.K. NOVOZHILOV. 2000. Myxomycetes of the winter-cold desert in western Kazakhstan. Mycotaxon 74: 267-286. SCHNITTLER, M. and S.L. STEPHENSON. 2000. Myxomycete biodiversity in four different forest types in Costa Rica. Mycologia 92: 626-637. SCHNITTLER, M., M. UNTERSEHER and J. TESMER. 2006. Species richness and ecological characterization of myxomycetes and myxomycete-like organisms in the canopy of a temperate deciduous forest. Mycologia 98: 223-232. SHIMKETS, L. and C.R. WOESE. 1992. A phylogenetic analysis of the myxobacteria: basis for their classification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89: 9459- 9463. 2008 CHECKLIST OF ARIZONA SLIME MOLDS 19 SNELL, K.L. and H.W. KELLER. 2003. Vertical distribution and assemblages of corticolous myxomycetes on five tree species in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Mycologia 95: 565-576. SPIEGEL, F.W., S.B. LEE and S.A. RUSK. 1995. Eumycetozoans and molecular systematics. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: s738-s746. STEPHENSON, S.L. and G.A. LAURSEN. 1998. Myxomycetes from Alaska. Nova Hedwigia 66: 425-434. WHITNEY, K.D. 1980. The Myxomycete genus Echinostelium. Mycologia 72: 950-987. WHITNEY, K.D. and K.W. KELLER. 1980. A new species of Echinostelium. Mycologia 72: 640-643. New York Botanical Garden Library 3 5185 00291 564