ISSN 0096-4158 1 N?tyX NH' The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49, Number 1 Summer 2008 Published in 2010 rc^'h'^vO Contents The distribution of Hoperius planatus Fall (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia . . . 1 C. L. Staines The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Fort Washington and Piscataway National Parks, Maryland . . . ^ C. L. Staines Champion Trees of Maryland, with New Records for Wicomico County . . . . . . n Joan E. Maloof and Ronald A. Lindblom A Publication of the Natural History Society of Maryland The Maryland Naturalist A Publication of the Natural History Society of Maryland Managing Editor Graphics & Typesetting Joel W. Snodgrass Holli Friedland The Maryland Naturalist Department of Biological Sciences Towson University Towson, MD 21252, USA The Maryland Naturalist is a peer-reviewed, publication of the Natural History Society of Maryland, Inc., a 501(c)(3) scientific and educational non-profit organization. Funding for publication is provided by membership dues. Membership in the Society is open to all individuals or institutions interested in natural history. Dues are paid an¬ nually and are as follows: individual - $25.00; family - $35.00; contributing - $65.00; sustaining - $120.00; life - $750.00; institutional - $50.00. Contact information can be found at the bottom of this page. The Maryland Naturalist seeks to publish original research concerning the natu¬ ral history and ecology of Maryland and adjacent states. Full-length manuscripts may deal with subject matter including the geology, chemistry, and biology of the Maryland region. Short communications should describe unusual observations. Instructions for preparation of manuscripts can be found in the back of this journal. Board of Trustees Chairman of the Board: Charles A. Davis Patricia Comman Joan DeSimone, PhD. Ralph Eshelman, PhD. Carl (Bud) Herb Timothy Eldredge Hoen Fife Hubbard Joseph McSharry Richard G. Milter Albert A. Tysor, D.D.S. Officers for 2008 President: Joseph McSharry Secretary: Patricia Comman Treasurer: Carl (Bud) Herb Published by the Natural History Society of Maryland, Inc. P.O. Box 18750 6908 Belair Road Baltimore, MD 21206 www.marylandnature.org Printed by Grace Printing and Publications Baltimore, MD 21206, USA The Maryland Naturalist 49(1): 1-4 Summer 2008 The distribution of Hoperius planatus Fall (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia C. L. Staines Department of Entomology, MRC 187, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P. O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012 (stainesc@si.edu) Abstract -The insect collections at University of Delaware, Smithsonian Institu¬ tion, and Virginia Museum of Natural History were examined for specimens of Hoperius planatus Fall. A total of 105 specimens were found from coastal plain counties in all three states. Adult beetles are active year round when the water is not frozen. The genus Hoperius was erected by Fall (1927) for the new species H. planatus from Hope, Arkansas. The species has been reported from South Carolina (Kirk 1969), Georgia (Tumbow & Smith 1983), Maryland and Virginia (Spangler 1973, Michael & Matta 1977), Alabama (Folkerts & Donavan 1974), and Texas (Knight- Jasper & Vogtsberger 1996). Kirk (1969) noted that H. planatus was attracted to light and had been found on the beach. Spangler (1973) described the larva and pupa and noted that the species was found in seasonal woodland pools lacking vegetation but containing decaying leaves. Knight- Jasper & Vogtsberger (1996) collected adults in a swamp with emergent trees but no other emergent vegetation, a firm sandy substrate, decaying leaves, and a depth of less than 20 cm. The species is uncommon in the mid-Atlantic area appearing to be restricted to the coastal plain. It is a candidate for threatened or endangered species status in Maryland, Arkansas, and Delaware (Anonymous 2003, 2005, 2007). Methods The insect collections at the University of Delaware (UDCC), Smithsonian Insti¬ tution (USNM) and the Virginia Museum of Natural History (VMNH) were examined for specimens of H. planatus. Results A total of 105 specimens of H. planatus were found in the USNM and VMNH collections. No specimens were found in the UDCC collection. Delaware: Sussex County: Blackbird State Forest, 30 June 1997, C. M. Heckscher (1, USNM). Maryland: Anne Arundel County: Patuxent Research Refuge, 1 June 2000, C. L. Staines & W. E. Steiner, at blacklight (2, USNM). Dorchester County: Lecompte Wildlife Management Area, 21 May 1997, C. L. & S. L. Staines, sphagnum swamp (15, USNM). Prince George’s County: National Colonial Farm, 30 May 2003, J. D. Glaser, at blacklight (1, deposited in National Park Service collection); Oxon Hill, 11 July 1972, G. F. Hevel, at light (1, USNM). Talbot County: Easton, Seth State Forest, 13 June 1967 , J. L. Heilman (2, USNM), 19 July 197 1 , P. Spangler (2, USNM), 6 May 1 C. L. Staines 1972, P. & P. Spangler (1, USNM), 8 May 1973, P. & P. Spangler (5, USNM), 19 July 1971, R. D. Gordon (6, USNM), 26 September 1971, J. Utmar (1, USNM), 29 July 1973 Spangler & Cross (8, USNM), 5 May 1997, W. E. Steiner (2, USNM), 8 June 1997, W. E. Steiner (1, USNM), 9 June 1997, W. E. Steiner, at blacklight (4, USNM), 1 1 June 1997, W. E. Steiner, at blacklight (9, USNM), 21 November 1997, W. E. Steiner (1, USNM); Third Haven Wood TNC Preserve, 11 November 1997, J. M. McCann (1, USNM); Wittman, 26 May 1973, W. E. Steiner (1, USNM), 25 May 1991, W. E. Steiner & J. M. Swearingen (1, USNM), 24 May 1997, W. E. Steiner (4, USNM), 28 June 1997, W. E. Steiner (1, USNM). Worcester County: Pocomoke State Forest, 18 May 1997, W. E. Steiner, at blacklight (3, USNM), 19 May 1997, at blacklight (2, USNM); 8 km WNW Snow Hill, 12 June 1994, W. E. Steiner (1, USNM). Virginia: Chesapeake City: 9 March 1971, Anthony (1, USNM), 9 March 1971, Blum (2, USNM), 25 November 1972, Nolan (1, USNM); Stumpy Lake, 18 April 1973, AEM (2, USNM). Greensville Co.: DF site at end of VA 666, 1 mi NE Claresville, 3 June 1993, VNMNH survey (1, VMNH). Isle of Wright Co.: ponds 2 km E. of Windsor, pond 1, 22 May 1993, M. D. Noman (1, VMNH). King & Queen Middlesex Cos.: Dragon Swamp, Big Island, 1.5 mi SE VA Rte. 602, 19 May 2000, Chris Hobson & Anne C. Chazal (2, VMNH). Norfolk City: 1 April 1970, D. Crandall (1, USNM). Southampton Co.: 2.5 mi NE Ivor, Pompei Swamp Reserve, off Rte. 617, 8 Aug 1996, S. M. Robie & R. L. Hoffman (1, VMNH). Suffolk City: Dismal Swamp, 11 June 1970, Matta (1, USNM), 30 June 1970, Matta (2, USNM), 30 September 1972, Sorey (2, USNM), 30 September 1972, Walsh (2, USNM), 30 May 1973, Pair (1, USNM), 2 July 1973, AGM (1, USNM), 11 May 1983, Matta (1, USNM); GDSNWR, West Ditch, 16 May 1998, S. M. Robie (1, VMNH); GDSNWR, West Ditch, 16 May 1998, S. M. Robie & E. L. Quinter, UV (2, VMNH). York Co., Grafton Ponds, Middle Drift Fence, 20 Dec 1990, VDNH survey, K. A. Buhlmann (1, VMNH). Virginia Beach: 7 February 1973, AM (1, USNM), 7 June 1973, AM (2); Oceana Naval Air Station, 3 May 1989, Va. Div. Nat. Hert, Surv. (1, USNM); Dam Neck Naval Base, Lovetts Marsh, 30 Dec 1990, D. A. Young & K. A. Buhlmann (1, VMNH). Discussion From the data presented, H. planatus is widely distributed on the coastal plain of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Map 1). Collecting dates range from 7 February to 30 December indicating, that as with many water beetles, adults are active whenever the water is not frozen. The number of collecting dates by month is as follows: February- 1 , March- 2, April- 2, May- 17, June- 12, July- 5, August- 1, September- 3, November- 3, and December- 2. The majority of specimens with collecting information were from black light or UV light. The only other habitat mentioned was a sphagnum swamp in Dorchester County, Maryland. Most of the specimens are from recent surveys of specific habitats, so it appears that the species is widespread and more common than was originally thought. Additional collecting is likely to reveal additional localities. 2 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The distribution of Hoperius planatus Fall (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Acknowledgments I thank C. R. Barlett, University of Delaware, W. E. Steiner, Smithsonian Institu¬ tion, and R. L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History, for access to the collec¬ tions under their care. Susan L. Staines provided field and editorial assistanace. Literature Cited Anonymous. 2003. Rare, threatened, and endangered animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife and Heritage Service, http:// www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife. Accessed 4 June 2007. Anonymous. 2005. Animals of special concern. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commis¬ sion. http://www.naturalheritage.org/pdf/ANIMALS-all-2005.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2007. Anonymous. 2007. Delaware’s rare animal species of conservation concern. Dela¬ ware Natural Heritage Program, http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/animal. htm#Xnsects. Accessed 4 June 2007. Fall, H. C. 1927. A new genus and species of Dytiscidae. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 35:177-178. Folkerts, G. W. & L. A. Donavan. 1974. Notes on the ranges and habitats of some little-known aquatic beetles of the southeastern U.S. (Coleoptera: Gyrini- dae, Dytiscidae). Coleopterists Bulletin 28(4):203-208. Kirk, V. M. 1969. A list of beetles of South Carolina. Part 1- northern coastal plain. South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 1033. 124 pp. Summer 2008 3 • • C. L. Staines Knight-Jasper, S. & R. C. Vogtsberger. 1996. First Texas records of five genera of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera: Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae) with habitat notes. Entomological News 107(l):49-60. Michael, A. G. and J. F. Malta. 1977. The Dytiscidae of Virginia ( Coleoptera : Adeph- aga) ( Subfamilies : Laccophilinae, Colymbetinae, Dytiscinae, Hydaticinae, and Cybistrinae). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Re¬ search Bulletin 124. 53 pp. Spangler, P. J. 1973. The bionomics, immature stages, and distribution of the rare predacious water beetle, Hoperius planatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Pro¬ ceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 86:423-434. Tumbow, R. H. & C. L. Smith. 1983. An annotated checklist of the Hydradephaga (Coleoptera) of Georgia. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 18:429-443. Accepted: March 2, 2010 4 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The Maryland Naturalist 49(1):5- 12 The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Fort Washington and Piscataway National Parks, Maryland C. L. Staines Department of Entomology, MRC 187, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P. O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA, stainesc@si.edu Abstract- An inventory of the Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Fort Washington and Pisca¬ taway National Parks was conducted. A total of 39 species were found; 14 Dytiscidae, 1 Gyrinidae, 1 Haliplidae, 1 Helophoridae, 1 Hydrochidae, and 21 Hydrophilidae. Four species which are under review as Maryland threatened/endangered species were found: Agabetes acuductus (Harris), Hoperius planatus Fall, Hydrocolus deflatus (Fall) (Dytiscidae), and Helocombus bifidus (LeConte) (Hydrophilidae). Introduction The Dytiscidae (predaceous diving beetles) are predators and scavengers as lar¬ vae and adults and are found in both lentic and lotic habitats. Many species are good fliers and are able to quickly colonize new bodies of water or disperse if their habitat dries up. Most genera require males and genitalia extraction for species determinations. The North American fauna of 500 species is well studied (Larson et al. 2000); Staines (1986a) reported 84 species from Maryland. According to the Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Hoperius planatus Fall and Laccophilus schwarzi (Fall) are candidates for endangered or threatened species in the state. Species of concern are Agabetes acuductus (Harris) and Hydroporus deflatus Fall (Anonymous 2003). The Gyrinidae (whirligig beetles) are named for the circular patterns in which the adults swim, their swimming is aided by a secreted surfactant. Many species congregate in large numbers on the surface of ponds and streams. However, when disturbed they quickly dive or scatter widely. Other species cling to the roots of undercut stream banks. Adults are scavengers on dead and dying insects floating on the water surface. Larvae are predaceous, feeding on immature stages of aquatic insects. Gyrinids are easy to identify at the generic level, but species determinations require males for genitalic extractions. The 56 species known from North America are fairly well studied (Roughley 2001a). Staines (1986a) reported 20 species in two genera from Maryland. The Haliplidae (crawling water beetles) is easily distinguished by the enlarged hind coxal plates. Adults are feeble swimmers; they are most often found crawling along submerged vegetation. Haliplids of all stages are found on the edge of small ponds, lakes or quiet streams and often found in mats of filamentous algae, Chara, or other similar vegetation. Adults feed on insect eggs, algae, and Hydrozoa polyps; larvae are algophagous. Adults are active all year when weather permits and egg laying takes place from spring to early summer and again in the fall. There are 67 species known from North America and are fairly well studied (Roughley 2001b). Genera are easy to Summer 2008 5 C. L. Staines distinguish but species determinations require males for examination of the genitalia. Staines (1984, 1986a) reported 13 species in two genera from Maryland. Helophoridae are small beetles whose adults are aquatic but the larvae are found in soil or vegetation, not in the water (Van Tassell 2001). There are 43 species in North America (Smetana 1985). Staines (1986b) reported one genus and three species from Maryland. The family Hydrochidae consists of small (1.5 to 5.5 mm) species which live in pools and ponds. There are 26 species in North America (Van Tassell 2001). Staines (1986b) reported 13 species from Maryland. The Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles) are mainly aquatic but the subfamily Sphaeridiinae is terrestrial and lives in animal dung, fungi, and decaying plant material. Aquatic species are found in stagnant pools, littoral areas of lakes and ponds, shallow quiet water of streams, and springs. Aquatic species are predaceous as larvae; adults are predaceous on snails or other small invertebrates, omnivorous or phytophagous. Ac¬ cording to the Maryland Natural Heritage Program, Hydrochar a occulata d’Orchymont, Hydrochus spangleri Heilman, and Sperchopsis tessellatus Ziegler are candidates for endangered or threatened species in the state. Helocomhus bifidus (LeConte) is a species of concern. The 258 North America species are fairly well known (Van Tassell 2001). Many genera require males and examination of genitalia for species determinations. Staines (1986b) reported 87 species from Maryland. Of these 59 are aquatic and 28 terrestrial. Fort Washington National Park consists of 341 acres surrounding the historic fort and is located in Fort Washington, Maryland (Prince George’s County, 38°71185’N 77°03040’W). Piscataway National Park encompasses 4625 acres stretching for 6 miles along the Potomac River from Piscataway Creek to Marshall Hall and is in Prince George’s and Charles Counties (38°69222’N 77°01410’W). The parks consist of lowland mixed hardwood-conifer forest predominated by Liriodendron, Quercus , Fagus , and Pinus with tracts of agricultural land. The elevation varies from 0 to 55 m. The Fort Washington site is dominated by the coastal fort which was an active military base from 1809 to 1946. Methods Aquatic beetles were collected by three methods. A standard aquatic net was used along pool margins as well as in deeper or more interior sections of the pool. The “floatation” method involved stirring and agitating the submerged leaf litter along the pool margin by hand and holding it submerged for about a minute, causing beetles to float to the surface where they were easily visible and could be captured with a fine- mesh net. This is very effective for the smaller species. Finally, black lights were used to capture numerous species. Field work was conducted from 24 April to 25 August 2003. Voucher specimens have been placed in the collection of the National Park Ser¬ vice, National Capital Area. Results A total of 39 species were found. There were 14 Dytiscidae, 1 Gyrinidae, 1 Halipli- dae, 1 Helophoridae, 1 Hydrochidae, and 21 Hydrophilidae (17 aquatic, 4 terrestrial). 6 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae Dytiscidae Agabetes acuductus (Harris) is a woodland pool specialist (Spangler & Gordon 1973) and is a candidate for threatened or endangered status in Maryland (Anonymous 2003); adults are sometimes taken at lights. One specimen was taken on 31 July 2003 at black light at Mockley Point. Agabus gagates Aube is most commonly found in woodland pools as well as beaver ponds, flooded pastures, and stream margins; adults are taken at lights (Michael & Matta 1977). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Bidessonotus inconspicuus (LeConte) has been found in ditches, ponds, streams, woodland pools, and at lights (Larson et al. 2000). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 June 2003 at Mockely Point. Copelatus glyphicus (Say) is abundant in temporary pools; adults are commonly taken at lights (Spangler 1962). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Farmington Landing and at black light at Colonial Farm on 30 May 2003 and Mockely Point on 30 June 2003. Coptotomus interrogatus (Fabricius) has been found in lakes, ditches, and at lights (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Heterostenata pulcher (LeConte) has been found on clay, sand, or gravel along the margins of streams (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken on 31 July 2003 at black light at Mockely Point. Hoperius planatus Fall has been found in woodland pools and wooded swamps without emergent vegetation, and at lights (Spangler 1973; Knight- Jasper & Vogtsberger 1996) and is a candidate for threatened or endangered status in Maryland (Anonymous 2003). One specimen was taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Hydrocolus deflatus (Fall) has been found in spring seepages, swamps, and at lights (Ciegler 2003) and is a candidate for threatened or endangered status in Maryland (Anonymous 2003). One specimen was taken in a woodland pool on 2 June 2003 at Fort Washington. Hydroporus niger (Say) has been found among the emergent vegetation of sunny ponds (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 20 May 2003 at Marshall Hall. Ilybius oblitus Say has been found in lakes, ponds, ditches, and swamps (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and on 3 1 July 2003 at Mockley Point. Neoporus clypealis (Sharp) is a generalist, found in almost any aquatic habitat; adults are attracted to lights (Hilsenhoff 1995). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Neoporus undulatus (Say) has been found in rivers, lakes, and ponds (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 20 May 2003 at Marshall Hall. Thermonectes basillaris (Harris) is most commonly found in temporary pools with clear water and no vegetation; it is considered a pioneer species; adults are at¬ tracted to lights (Michael & Matta 1977). Specimens were taken at black light on 20 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Summer 2008 7 C. L. Staines U varus granarius (Aube) is found on mats of vegetation along shallow bodies of water; they are especially common in woodland pools and bogs (Larson et al. 2000). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Marshall Hall. Gyrinidae Dineutus emarginatus Say has been found in ponds, lakes, rivers, and at lights (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken in woodland ponds on 20 May 2003 at Marshall Hall. Haliplidae Peltodytes sexmaculatus Roberts has been found in lakes, slow streams, ditches, pools, and on mud flats (Ciegler 2003). Specimens were taken in a farm pond on 24 April 2003 at Colonial Farm and in woodland ponds on 20 May 2003 at Marshall Hall. Helophoridae Helophorus linearis LeConte has been found in a variety of aquatic habitats (Smetana 1985). A single specimen was taken in a seep on 2 June 2003 at Fort Wash¬ ington. Hydrochidae Hydrochus excavatum LeConte is a coastal plain species which is found in a variety of pools, ponds, and streams; adults are attracted to lights (Heilman 1975). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 12 May 2003 at Marshall Hall. Hydrophilidae Berosus exiguus Say is found in the margins of rainwater pools and other tem¬ porary situations but it not commonly collected (Van Tassell 1966). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Colonial Farm and at black light on 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Berosus peregrinus (Herbst) prefers quiet water along streams or ditches but can be occasionally found in temporary pools (Van Tassell 1966). Specimens were taken at black light on 3 1 July 2003 at Mockely Point. Berosus striatus (Say) has been taken in rivers, lakes, ponds, ditches, and at lights (Van Tassell 1966). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Marshall Hall, 3 1 July 2003 at Colonial Farm, and 3 1 July 2003 at Mockley Point. Cercyon haemorrhoidalis (Fabricius) has been found in dung, carrion, leaf litter, compost piles, and at lights (Smetana 1978). Specimens were taken in cow dung on 12 May 2003 at Mockley Point. Cercyon praetextatus (Say) is found on carrion and dung; adults are attracted to lights (Smetana 1974). Specimens were taken in cow dung on 31 July 2003 at Mockley Point. Cercyon pygmaeus (Illiger) is found in dung, fungi, carrion, and compost piles; adults are attracted to lights (Smetana 1978). Specimens were taken in cow dung on 12 May 2003 at Mockley Point. Cercyon roseni Knisch is associated with Carex swamps and wet moss; adults have also been collected in leaf litter and debris; they are attracted to lights (Smetana 8 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The Bytiscidae, Gyrmidae, FIaliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae 1978). Specimens were taken at black light on 31 July 2003 at Mockley Point. Cymbiodyta rotunda (Say) has been found in woodland pools (Ciegler 2003). A single specimen was taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Enochrus cinctus (Say) is commonly collected in very shallow woodland tempo- rary pools with abundant rotting vegetation (Gunderson 1978). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Enochrus consortus Green is not common but is found in pools with a layer of debris on the bottom (Gunderson 1978). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Marshall Hall and 29 April 2003 at Farmington Landing. Enochrus ochraceus (Melsheimer) is a widespread and locally abundant species; they are sometimes collected in large numbers in any weedy or debris-clogged shal¬ low water (Gunderson 1978). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Enochrus perplexus (LeConte) is common in temporary pools of various types; it flies readily when taken from water (Gunderson 1978). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Marshall Hall and at black light on 3 1 July 2003 at Mockley Point and 25 August at Colonial Farm. Enochrus pygmaeus nebulosus Say is found in quiet waters with rotting leaves and other plant debris (Gunderson 1978). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2004 at Marshall Hall and at black light on 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point and 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Helochares maculicollis Mulsant has been found in thin-bladed, grassy vegeta¬ tion at the margins of ponds and lakes (Testa & Lago 1994). Specimens were taken on swamp margins on 24 April 2003 at Marshall Hall. Helocombus bifidus (LeConte) is found in streams, ditches, woodland pools, and edges of lakes; adults are attracted to lights (Perkins & Spangler 1981) and is a candidate for threatened or endangered status in Maryland (Anonymous 2003). Speci¬ mens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and on 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Hydrochara obtusata (Say) adults commonly come to lights (Smetana 1980). Specimens were taken in woodland pools on 24 April 2003 at Marshall Hall and at black light on 3 1 July 2003 at Mockley Point. Hydrochara soror Smetana is found on ponds, streams, and ditches; adults com¬ monly come to lights (Smetana 1980). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm. Paracymus subcupreus (Say) is found in a wide variety of aquatic habitats but prefers shallow, standing water with abundant organic matter (Wooldridge 1966). Specimens were taken at black light on 3 1 July 2003 at Mockely Point. Tropisternus blatchleyi d’Orchymont seems to prefer shallow pools and ponds but may be found in any quiet water habitat; adults are attracted to lights (Malta 1974). Specimens were taken at black light on 20 May 2003 at Marshall Hall, 30 June 2003 at Mockely Point, and 25 August 2003 at Colonial Farm. Tropisternus co Haris (Fabricius) has been found in shallow standing water with other Tropisternus species; adults are attracted to lights (Malta 1974). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point and Colonial Farm on 25 August 2003. Summer 2008 9 C. L. Staines Tropisternus lateralis nimbalis (Say) is very common and can be found in shallow standing water; it prefers areas with dense rooted vegetation and may occur in running water if the vegetation at the margin is thick enough; adults are attracted to lights (Matta 1974). Specimens were taken at black light on 30 May 2003 at Colonial Farm and on 30 June 2003 at Mockley Point. Discussion A total of 39 species were found. There were 14 Dytiscidae, 1 Gyrinidae, 1 Haliplidae, 1 Helophoridae, 1 Hydrochidae, and 21 Hydrophilidae. This is 17.7% of the Maryland fauna. The aquatic component is a combination of 31 habitat general¬ ists and four woodland pool specialists. The four terrestrial hydrophilids are habitat generalists. Four species which are under review for listing as Maryland threatened/endangered species were found: Agabetes acuductus (Harris), Hoperius planatus Fall, Hydrocolus deflatus (Fall) (Dytiscidae), and Helocombus bifidus (LeConte) (Hydrophilidae). Acknowledgments Funding for the inventory work was a grant from the National Park Service to C. L. Staines. Brent Steury and Stephan Syphax, National Park Service, provided assistance in obtaining permits and access to the parks. Susan L. Staines provided editorial and field assistance. John Glaser assisted in field work. Literature Cited Anonymous. 2003. Rare, threatened, and endangered animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife and Heritage Service, http:// www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife. Ciegler, J. C. 2003. Water beetles of South Carolina (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Heteroceridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodac- tylidae, and Chelonariidae). Biota of South Carolina. Volume 3. Clemson University, Clemson. 207 pp. Gunderson, R. W. 1978. Nearctic Enochrus biology, keys, descriptions, and distribu¬ tion (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Privately published. 54 pp. Heilman, J. L. 1975. A taxonomic revision of the genus Hydrochus of North Ameri¬ ca, Central America, and West Indies. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Maryland. 44 1 pp. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1995. Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera). VI. Distribution, habitat, life cycle, and identification of species of Hydroporus Clairville sensu lato (Hydroporinae). Great Lakes Entomologist 28:1-23. Knight- Jasper, S. & R. C. Vogtsberger. 1996. First Texas records of five genera of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera: Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae) with habitat notes. Entomological News 107(l):49-60. Larson, D. J. Y. Alarie, & R. E. Roughley. 2000. Predacious diving beetles (Cole¬ optera: Dytiscidae ) of the Nearctic Region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Press. Ottawa. 982 pp. 10 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae, and Hydrophilidae Malta, J. F. 1974. The aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research Bulletin 94. 44 PP- Michael, A. G. & J. F. Malta. 1977. The Dytiscidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adeph- aga) (Subfamilies: Laccophilinae, Colymbetinae, Dytiscinae, Hydaticinae, and Cybistrinae). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Re¬ search Bulletin 124. 53 pp. Perkins, P. D. & P. J. Spangler. 1981. A description of the larvae of Helocombus bifi- dus (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 57:52-56. Roughley, R. E. 2001a. Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810. pp. 133-137 in R. H. Arnett & M. C. Thomas (eds.). American beetles Volume 1 : Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press. New York. Roughley, R. E. 2001b. Haliplidae Aube, 1836. pp. 138-143 in R. H. Arnett & M. C. Thomas (eds.). American beetles Volume 1: Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press. New York. Smetana, A. 1974. Revision of the genus Cymbiodyta Bed. (Coleoptera: Hydrophili¬ dae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 93:1-112. Smetana, A. 1978. Revision of the subfamily Sphaeridiinae of America north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 105:1-292. Smetana, A. 1980. Revision of the genus Hydrochar a Berth. (Coleoptera: Hydrophi¬ lidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 111:1-100. Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the subfamily Helophorinae of the Nearctic Region (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 131:1-154. Spangler, P. J. 1962. Natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. XIV. Biological notes and description of the larva and pupa of Copelatus glyphicus (Say) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washing¬ ton 75:19-24. Spangler, P. J. 1973. The bionomics, immature stages, and distribution of the rare predacious water beetle, Hoperius planatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Pro¬ ceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 86:423-434. Spangler, R J. & R. D. Gordon. 1973. Descriptions of the larvae of some predacious water beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Proceedings of the Biological Soci¬ ety of Washington 86:261-278. Staines, C. L. 1986a. A preliminary checklist of the Hydradephaga (Coleoptera) of Maryland. Insecta Mundi 1(3): 118, 155. Staines, C. L. 1986b. A preliminary checklist of the Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Maryland. Insecta Mundi l(4):259-260. Testa, S. & P. K. Lago. 1994. The aquatic Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) of Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Stations Technical Bul¬ letin 193:1-71. Van Tassell, E. R. 1966. Taxonomy and biology of the subfamily Berosinae of North and Central America and the West Indies. Unpublished PhD thesis. Catholic University of America. Summer 2008 11 C. L. Staines Van Tassell, E. R. 2001. Hydrophilidae Latreille, 1802. pp. 187-208 in R. H. Ar¬ nett & M. C. Thomas (eds.). American beetles Volume 1: Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press. New York. Wooldridge, D. P. 1966. Notes of Nearctic Paracymus with descriptions of new species (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 39:712-725. Accepted: March 2, 2010 12 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 The Maryland Naturalist 49(1): 13-20 Champion Trees of Maryland, with New Records for Wicomico County Joan E. M aloof1 and Ronald A. Lindblom Salisbury University, Department of Biological Sciences, Salisbury, MD 21801, 1 Author for correspondence: jemaloof@salisbury.edu Abstract - Most people are aware that there is a National Big Tree Registry, celebrating the largest trees of each species in the United States, but fewer are aware that this Registry was started in Maryland, and that Maryland had the first official State Big Tree Registry. Within Maryland some counties have registries and some do not. In this paper we review the current status of the Big Tree registries at the county level. We also present updated records for Wicomico County, including the discovery of four new State Champion trees. Introduction National Big Tree Registry The United States hosts the oldest, largest, and tallest trees on the planet, but it was not until 1940 that we started documenting them. As Charles Darwin noted in his classic text, The Origin of Species, there is individual variation within every species (Darwin 1859). As a result of the genetic differences of individuals, as well as differ¬ ences in environmental factors where individuals are located, there is, somewhere, a size champion for each species on earth - the largest living specimen of that particular species. Humans seem especially interested in finding the largest of each tree species. The National Register of Big Trees is managed by the American Forests organization (formerly known as the American Forestry Association). Because trees continually grow, and eventually die, the list of big trees is always in flux. As a result, boxing terms such as: contender, champion, challenger, and title; are used in describing the status of a tree. The largest of each tree species is considered the national champion. If another tree of the same species ranks within five points it is considered a co-champion (see methods for full description of point system). Information on current champions is published bi-y early in hard copy and electronically (American Forests 2006). State Big Tree Registry Maryland holds a historic distinction regarding big trees — it was the first state in the nation to have an official state registry. The registry was the idea of Maryland’s first State Forester, Fred W. Besley. It was started with a Big Tree Contest in 1924. The contest proved to be so popular that he urged the American Forestry Association to develop a national contest. The American Forestry Association was also inspired by forester Joseph Steams who wrote, “If anything can be done to locate, save, protect, and publicize our largest remaining tree specimens, in each species, now is the time to act” (1940). As a result, the first National Big Tree Contest was held in 1940, and the second was held in 1955. Maryland had an advantage in the early national contests because records were already being collected for the state registry and the largest trees of each species in the state had already been identified. As a result of this early start Summer 2008 13 Joan E. M aloof and Ronald A. Lindblom Maryland had more champions in the 1955 contest (45) than any other state (Bronaugh 2004). Eventually the other states established their own lists and Maryland was no longer the record holder, but even so — considering its diminutive size (42nd out of 50) — Maryland still makes an impressive showing on the list of national champions. In part this is because Maryland has many diverse habitats in a relatively small area. This diversity is one reason Maryland is sometimes called “America in miniature.” Maryland has species that were pushed southward by glacial events, as well as species that spread northward from refugia after the glaciers retreated (Brown and Brown 1972). All fifty states now have their own Big Tree Registries. Although individuals may nominate a tree for the National Big Tree Registry, most nominations are made by the Big Tree coordinators in each state. Maryland’s registry is managed by the De¬ partment of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Service and it may be viewed on their website (DNR 2007). As of this writing there are 1,953 trees and shrubs on the registry representing 281 species. A tree can be on the State Big Tree Registry without being a champion. Trees are rated on a point system which is described below. Trees are also eligible to be on the registry if they have at least 300 points or 70% of the points of the current state champion tree of that species. Since the demise of the Wye Oak, the largest tree in Maryland is a silver maple located in Cecil County. Although trees from every county have been nominated for the state registry not every county has a separate registry documenting its champion trees. County Big Tree Registries In addition to the National Big Tree Registry, and the State Big Tree Registry, should a county bother to keep a County Big Tree Registry? We say yes. By not record¬ ing where the biggest trees of each species are located it is possible, and probable, that champions are being cut unknowingly. In many cases the pride of being a champion tree owner has overshadowed the bother and expense of caring for a mature tree and persuaded a property owner to spare the axe. In many instances trees that are the larg¬ est in the county turn out also to be the largest in the state — and sometimes even the largest in the nation — so documenting the biggest trees in a county makes the other registries more robust. Besides bragging rights, what difference does it make if a tree is a county cham¬ pion? Is there any protection for a national, state, or county champion tree? Regulations vary according to jurisdiction, but in general there is little legal protection for champion trees at any level. Maryland passed a Forest Conservation Act in 1 99 1 . Under the regula¬ tions resulting from that act developers in all counties except Allegany and Garrett are required to submit a Forest Stand Delineation to their county planning office document¬ ing the extent and condition of existing forest on a site where development is planned. The Forest Stand Delineation must show priority retention areas. Priority retention areas include, among other things, trees “designated as National, State, or local Champion Tree, and trees which have a diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (DBH) of 30 inches, or 75% of the DBH of the current State Champion of that species” (Howell and Ericson 1997). A county champion, therefore, should be included in a priority retention area as a local champion; but if no county big tree list is kept there is no way to know where the local champions are. Maryland counties that maintain a big tree list are therefore more likely to have priority retention areas on their Forest Stand Delineations. The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 14 Champion Trees of Maryland, with New Records for Wicomico County Before development is allowed a Forest Conservation Plan must be approved which shows the extent of planned forest clearing and retention. Developers are expected to make “every effort” to retain the priority retention areas (M. Honeczy, personal com¬ munication 5/30/07), although they may show an unreasonable burden or propose an alternative and still have the plan approved. So the champion trees are legally recognized, but not necessarily protected, under Maryland’s state law. Local governments, however, are able to impose stricter ordinances. For instance, Montgomery County passed a bill in October, 2006, which clarifies and strengthens protection for county champion trees (County Council 2006). Despite the benefits of having a County Big Tree Registry, in Maryland only six counties out of 23 have developed one. (See Table 1). The county registries that have been completed so far have been done as a result of one or two people, passionate about big trees, working independently or as a member of their local forest board. In 1943, out of concern for the State’s dwindling forest resources, a Forest Conservancy District Board (hereafter called forest board) was created in every county to promote appreciation and concern for forests and trees (Blake 2004; see http://www.mdforest. sailorsite.net/ for a list of contacts for Maryland’s forest boards). Initially the boards practiced oversight and regulation of logging, but most of those duties have now been taken over by the state and only some counties require their forest boards to approve logging plans. (Except in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas where forest board ap¬ proval is mandatory for harvests on private land.) Forest board members are volunteers who are appointed by the Director of the DNR Forest Service after recommendation by the local board. The initial term of appointment is three years, or until a replacement is found, and members are frequently reappointed numerous times. On every board there Table 1 . Maryland counties with active big tree registries. County List Available Number of Trees Entered Maintained Calvert http://calvertforestry.org/Big-Trees.pdf Booklet available by calling 410-535-5327 160 County Natural Resource Division Cecil http://www.cecilfb.sailorsite.net/cecil_ big_ tree_list.pdf 215 County Forestry Board Howard http : // w w w. hcforest . s ailorsite . net / Champions/champions. html and booklet 76 County Forestry Board Montgomery http://www.mcmdforestryboard.org/ paged, html and booklet 173 County Forestry Board Prince George’s http : //pgparks . com/info/pdf /bigtreechamp.pdf 128 County Park Rangers Wicomico http://www.wicomicobigtrees.info 76 Salisbury University Summer 2008 15 Joan E. Maloof and Ronald A. Lindblom is a local DNR project forester who is a non-voting member that serves as the Secretary to the local forest board. At present there is wide discrepancy among the forest boards in terms of size, composition, action, and focus. Some boards have only five or six members, but others, like Montgomery County, have up to a dozen. Some boards meet regularly, apply for grant funding, and are very active; other boards meet infrequently and rarely question any proposed logging activities. Some boards have placed their emphasis on public education and environmental concerns, while other boards are more concerned with logging regulations. In some counties it is the forest board that has taken on the task of managing the County Big Tree Registry, while in other counties the forest board does not address this at all. In three of the six counties that have Big Tree Registries it is the local forest board that manages the registry. The forest boards of Frederick and Anne Arundel counties have excellent systems for processing state nominations but do not maintain a registry of their own. Here we will review the current status of the County Big Tree Registries and dis¬ cuss our expansion of a registry for Wicomico County on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Materials and Methods Wicomico County Big Tree Registry When this project began, in the summer of 2006, there were 1 1 native or natural¬ ized trees occurring in Wicomico County on the State Big Tree Registry maintained by the Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Division. Through newspaper an¬ nouncements and personal searching co-author Lindblom sought out additional large trees in the county to build the Wicomico County Big Tree Registry. The point system for measuring and ranking trees was developed by Fred Besley, the first state forester, in preparation for his first statewide Big Tree Contest. Today the same system, with minor modifications, is used nationwide: 1) the tree circumference points are calculated by measuring the circumference in inches at 4.5 feet above the ground; 2) the height points are calculated by measuring the height in feet, (we used a Suunto clinometer model PM-5/1520); 3) the crown points are calculated by measuring, in feet along the ground, the widest spread of the canopy, then measuring the widest canopy spread perpendicular to the first measurement and finding the mean of these two measurements. This mean is then divided by four. The circumference, height, and crown points are then added together to get a total point score. Champions are deter¬ mined by this point system. Between August 2006 and April 2007, 75 trees of 33 species were measured. Thirty-three of these trees qualified for entry into the State Big Tree Registry (see Table 2). Four qualified because they were state champions and the other 29 qualified either because they had 70% of the points of the current state champion or at least 300 total points. Of Wicomico County’s original 1 1 native or naturalized trees on the state registry, four remained as the largest of that species in the county and seven were replaced by larger champions we discovered. Each tree was photographed and its position was recorded by GPS. A map with the GPS positions of the champions was provided to the county planner in charge of 16 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 Champion Trees of Maryland, with New Records for Wicomico County Table 2. New state ranked big trees in Wicomico County. Of the 75 trees in our county big tree registry the 33 new discoveries shown here qualify for entry in the state registry. Four placed as champion trees (largest in the state), four were the second largest tree of that species in the state. State ID Common Name Latin Name Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Acer rubrum Carya illinoensis Carya illinoensis Ilex opaca Juniper us virginiana Juniperus virginiana Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Liriodendron tulipifera Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia virginiana Morus rubra Pinus taeda Pinus taeda Pinus taeda Pinus taeda Populus deltoids Quercus falcata Quercus falcata Quercus nigra Quercus nigra Quercus phellos Quercus phellos Quercus velutina Quercus velutina Sassafras albidum Taxodium distichum Taxodium distichum Taxodium distichum Ulmus americana County Rank State Rank Points 1 7 271 2 8 268 3 14 238 1 2, tied 314 2 5 287 1 3 168 1 2 214 2 5 204 1 4 254 2 23 349 3 55 291 1 2 232 2 3 211 1 5 92 1 1 216 1 1 230 2 2 225 3 3 213 4 6 193 1 3 272 1 9, tied 320 2 20 295 1 1 246 2 4 193 1 13 343 2 21 304 1 13 299 2 23 272 1 1 1 , tied 156 1 1 369 2 4 346 3 10, tied 278 1 7 274 BT-1747 Red Maple BT-1749 Red Maple BT-1754 Red Maple BT-1771 Pecan BT-1772 Pecan BT-1756 American Holly BT-1757 Red Cedar BT-1746 Red Cedar BT-1745 Sweetgum BT-1740 Yellow-poplar BT-1765 Yellow-poplar BT-1744 Southern Magnolia BT-1755 Southern Magnolia BT-1739 Sweetbay Magnolia BT-1751 Red Mulberry BT-1766 Loblolly Pine BT-1750 Loblolly Pine BT-1741 Loblolly Pine BT-1748 Loblolly Pine BT-1742 Eastern Cottonwood BT-1767 Southern Red Oak BT-1743 Southern Red Oak BT-1769 Water Oak BT-1768 Water Oak BT-1752 Willow Oak BT-1761 Willow Oak BT-1760 Black Oak BT-1738 Black Oak BT-1770 Sassafras BT-1735 Baldcypress BT-1736 Baldcypress BT-1737 Baldcypress BT-1759 American Elm Summer 2008 17 Joan E. Maloof and Ronald A. Lindblom reviewing the Forest Conservation Plans. A website was designed and launched to share our Big Tree list with the general public (Lindblom 2007). Discussion In the 85 years since Maryland’s Big Tree Registry began there have been many changes in the political climate, in the environmental regulations, and in the landscape. Some changes that impact Maryland’s trees include the development of the forest boards in 1943 and the Forest Conservation Act passed in 1991. The Forest Conservation Act recognizes local champion trees as a priority for conservation during development, but in most places local champion lists either do not exist, or are not readily available. In this research we have collected together, possibly for the first time, information about which Maryland counties have Big Tree Registries and how to access those registries. In addition we have created the first Big Tree Registry for Wicomico County. We urge those counties that have not maintained a Big Tree Registry to do so. Without knowledge of the location of county champions it is probable that they are not being given recognition and protection. Until 2007 the Department of Natural Resources DNR Forest Service assigned someone to be the Big Tree Coordinator on the State level - with responsibilities for reporting to the National Big Tree Coordinator - but in recent years the DNR has experienced cuts in staffing and through a Memorandum of Understanding dated 7/23/07 transferred the Maryland Big Tree Program responsibili¬ ties to the Maryland Association of Forest Conservancy District Boards, a volunteer group that works to support the activities of the DNR Forest Service. The Cecil County Forestry Board volunteered to accept responsibility for funding and management of the program. Cecil Forestry Board member John Bennett has taken over this duty with the understanding that he will be assisted by other local forestry boards. DNR project foresters may assist local boards with training and species identification assistance but may no longer participate directly in the program. Currently there are 16 project for¬ esters for the 23 counties. Local county forest boards are encouraged to create county registries and to respond to new nominations for big trees to be measured. If present forest board members are not inclined to create a registry, a tree loving citizen may want to volunteer to serve on their local forestry board with the objective of creating and managing a registry. There is no limit to the number of members a forest board may have, so there is always the possibility of expanding a board to include those who are interested in big tree work. One need not be a board member, however, to begin, expand, or maintain a registry; county park rangers or citizen scientists can also play an important role. In the case of Wicomico County, where there was no prior county registry, our student-faculty research team decided to take on the challenge. Perhaps faculty and students in other parts of the state will decide to follow our lead and create other reg¬ istries, where needed. Tree species identification skills are necessary for creating a registry, but expert botanists are often available to confirm identifications if assistance is needed. For instance Howard County uses staff from the University of Maryland Cooperative Ex¬ tension Service to assist with identifications (Steve Parker, personal communication 5/25/2007). At Salisbury University we are establishing a section of our herbarium 18 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 Champion Trees of Maryland, with New Records for Wicomico County specifically for specimens collected from the champion trees. With these specimens in hand, identifications can be confirmed at any time of the year. The skills needed to measure trees can be learned in a few hours from any trained forester. Most forestry boards contain a registered forester able to train measurers. Only trees that qualify as State Champions are required to be measured by a registered forester. Beyond the consideration of who collects the county big tree records is the consideration of how the information is shared. Once a registry is created the list of champions should be easily accessible. Many champion trees are on private property out of sight from the road. Having an easily accessible champion tree list allows big tree hunters and private property owners to judge if they may have a contender that should be measured. A few counties have produced informative and attractive websites describing their Champion Trees (see Table 1). Howard County has a particularly well crafted website with photographs of their Champion Trees. Howard County Forestry Board member Jim Rose designed this website and the one for Montgomery County. The Howard County Forest Board has also produced a booklet with information about their champion trees. Printing costs were covered by many sponsors and supporters ranging from tree maintenance companies to private individuals. In Calvert County a big tree booklet was paid for entirely by the county. It is also important for the champion tree data to be shared with the County Plan¬ ning and Zoning Department. Each county has at least one person who reviews the Forest Conservation Plans submitted to the planning department prior to development. If this person is not aware of the location of the County’s Champions, permission could be granted, unknowingly, for their destruction. The planning office will need information in a different format than that provided to the general public. A GIS layer with GPS locations of the champion trees will probably be most useful to planners. Also, the planners will need more complete addresses than are generally given out to the public. In some counties the forestry board and the county planners work closely to make sure there are no information gaps. In other counties the planner in charge of reviewing the Forest Conservation Plan is not aware of a County list, if one exists. In addition to our GPS data we know of at least two counties, Montgomery and Prince George, which have produced GIS layers of their champion trees. As we have learned, big tree scouting is rewarding work for a Maryland natural¬ ist, and there is much left to be done. Acknowledgements We thank Lyman Hoffman in Cape May County, New Jersey, who was the original inspiration for this research project. We applaud those individuals who have enthusiastically given their time and energy to create a Big Tree Registry, many of whom we communicated with during the course of our research, particularly John Bennett and Tom Frederick in Cecil County, Brian Knox and Terry Galloway in Anne Arundel County, Joe Howard in Montgomery County, Jim Rose and Steve Parker in Howard County, and John Zyla in Calvert County. Most especially we thank Dave Reineke for checking and documenting our measurements. Thanks to Joseph Fehrer for assistance with locating the state champion bald cypress. We thank Kim Mitchell of the Daily Summer 2008 19 Joan E. M aloof and Ronald A. Lindblom Times for sharing our work with the public. We thank the many people who took the time to contact us regarding big trees in Wicomico County. Finally, we thank Salisbury University’s Henson School for an undergraduate student research grant. Literature Cited American Forests. 2006. National Register of Big Trees 2006-2007. Big Tree Reg¬ ister. Spring 2006. Also available on the web page: www.americanforests. org/resources/bigtrees. Blake, J. 2004. History of the forestry boards, http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/ download/FBhistory.pdf. Created 10/25/2004. Accessed 5/29/2007. Bronaugh, W. 2004. Stature beyond size: don’t let its small size fool you; Maryland is the nation’s matriarch of monumental trees. American Forests . Spring 2004. Brown, R. G. and M. L. Brown. 1972. Woody Plants of Maryland. University of Maryland Bookstore: College Park, MD. County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland. 2006. Expedited Bill No. 45-06 to amend Montgomery County Code, Chapter 22A, Forest Conservation -Trees, Sections 22A-3, 22A-4, and 22A-12. Darwin, C. 1859. (Our copy was published in 1889). The Origin of Species. Appleton and Co., New York, NY. DNR 2007. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Big Tree Champions of Maryland, http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/trees/bigtree.html. Created 3/7/2005. Accessed 5/29/2007. Howell, G.P. and T. Ericson. 1997. State Forest Conservation Technical Manual, third edition. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Lindblom, R. 2007. Wicomico County Big Tree Registry. http://www.wicomicobig- trees.info. Steams, J. L. 1940. Let’s find and save the biggest trees. American Forests, Septem¬ ber: 413-416. Accepted: March 2, 2008 20 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 Erratum Due to circumstances beyond the control of the author, errors in the following manuscript were published in the last issue of The Maryland Naturalist : McAvoy. W. A. 2007. The lycophytes, monilophytes, and gymnosperms of the Del- marva Peninsula, an annotated checklist. The Maryland Naturalist 48(1): 1-48. In order for readers of this manuscript to have the most up to date and accurate information available, a corrected version can be found at the following web address http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/services/ListsForms.shtml. Summer 2008 21 Joan E. Maloof and Clem L. Counts Instructions to Authors The Maryland Naturalist is a peer reviewed biannual publication of the Natural History Society of Maryland. The Maryland Naturalist seeks to publish original research concerning the natural history and ecology of Maryland and adjacent states. Two types of manuscripts are considered for publication: 1) full length contributions describing the results of original research, and 2) short communications reporting unusual natural history observations. Full-length manuscripts may deal with subject matter including, but not limited to, the geology, chemistry, and biology of the Maryland region. Short communications should describe unusual observations; for example, the occurrence of a rare organism or geological formation, or the occurrence of an organism or population that extends the known range of a species. The Maryland Naturalist will occasionally publish biographies of naturalists of regional significance. Individuals wishing to write a biography should email the editors, Joan Maloof (jemaloof@salisbury.edu) and Clem Counts (clcounts@salisbury.edu). Electronic submissions are encouraged and should be made to the editors at the above email addresses. In order of preference, word processing software is Microsoft Word and WordPerfect. Manuscripts should be double-spaced throughout (including tables), with 1” margins on all sides, and all pages (including tables) should be num¬ bered. Use metric units unless English measures are appropriate, in which case metric equivalents should be given in parentheses. A cover page with the title of the paper, addresses of all authors, and the name and complete address (including email and zip code) of the corresponding author should be included. Full-length contributions should have an abstract of no more than 300 words. Short communication should not have an abstract and should be limited to 2500 words. Avoid undue formatting of the manuscript. Limit italicized text to scientific names of species. Literature citations in the text should use the name-and-year system (e.g., one author— Smith 1980; two authors— Smith & Smith 1980; more than two authors Smith et al. 1980) with semicolons separating individual citations (e.g., Smith 1980; Jones et al. 1982), and the Literature Cited section should follow the main body of the manuscript. Consult a recent issue of the journal for formatting of the Literature cited section. All tables should appear on separate pages following the literature cited, have brief headings, be double spaced, and not include vertical lines. All figures should be submitted as separate files and lettering should be uniform among figures. Photographs and hand-draw illustrations should be of sufficient resolution for publication (i.e., 600 dpi), but not excessive in size (i.e., < lmb). Only black and white figures, illustrations and photographs will be published. Figures should be legible after 50-66% reduction. Figure legends should be typed on a separate page, double-spaced, and appear just before the figures. The author’s name and figure number should be included in the file name. In their cover letter authors should identify at least three potential reviewers with expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript and without close personal working ties 22 The Maryland Naturalist Volume 49 Instructions to Authors with the author(s). The cover letter should also indicate that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Authors should indicate the intended manuscript category in their cover letter. Voluntary pages charges will be assessed when authors have grant, institute, or other funds available. Ability to pay page charges will in no way influence whether or not a manuscript is accepted for publication. Do not include page charge information in your cover letter. Authors of published articles are expected to transfer copyrights for the published material to the Natural History Society of Maryland. Prompt review of copyedited manuscripts and page proofs is the responsibility of the senior author. Joan E, Maloof Clem L. Counts Editors Summer 2008 23 24 rYUa XTafriral-i ct \/o1iimp. 4Q SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES 3 9088 01624 9138