Page 1 of 13 A/ S2^ The New Mexico Botanist Issue Number 10, January 12, 1999 • Knapweeds, Starthistles, and Basket flowers • In Memoriam: Barton H. Warnock, 191 1-1998 • Botanical Literature of Interest • New Plant Distribution Records Knapweeds, Starthistles, and Basketflowers KNAPWEEDS, STARTHISTLES, AND BASKETFLOWERS OF NEW MEXICO by Kelly W. Allred & Richard D. Lee New Mexico State University Introduction Knapweeds, starthistles, and basketflowers are primarily weedy and often noxious invaders of range lands, roadsides, old fields, and disturbed sites. Knapweeds and starthistles are all alien plant species in New Mexico, coming originally from the Mediterranean and Eurasian regions of the Old World. Many of these species are now found throughout much of the world, though, having adaptations that aid in dispersal, rapid germination and growth, and avoidance of predation. They are detrimental invaders of range lands, being low in palatability as forage and poor protectors of the soil against erosion. Basketflowers, however, are indigenous to North America, and often occur in less disturbed or less weedy habitats. Belonging to the tribe Cynareae of the family Asteraceae, the species of this group are characterized by an absence of ray flowers, the disk flowers at the periphery of the head being enlarged to simulate rays, and an oblique attachment of the achene on the receptacle (except for one species). Phyllaries are spiny, fringed, or chaffy, and are sometimes long and stout, capable of inflicting a pernicious wound. Each disk flower in the head produces an achene. The pappus may be absent or present as a crown of stiff bristles at one end. There are about 450 species of knapweeds, starthistles, and basketflowers in the world, mostly in the Old World. The taxonomy of this group is complex and difficult, and the species are sometimes classified in several different genera. We follow a more traditional approach here, placing all of the New Mexico species but one in the genus Centaurea, with Russian knapweed assigned to the genus Acroptilon. The name Centaurea commemorates the centaur, the mythical creature of Hippocrates, half horse and half man. The name Acroptilon (meaning feathery tip) refers to the plume-like bristles at the tip of the phyllaries. Indentification Key to the Species http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 ' 10 Page 2 of 1 3 1 Flower heads strongly and conspicuously spiny, the spines 5-25 mm long ... go to 2 1 Flower heads lacking spines, or if slightly spiny, the spines less than 5 mm long ... go to 4 2 Stems not winged; flowers purplish; achenes without a pappus ... 1 . PURPLE STARTHISTLE 2 Stems winged; flowers yellow; at least the achenes in the center of the head with a pappus ... go to 3 3 Terminal spine of the phyllaries 5-10 mm long; both marginal and central florets with a pappus 1.5-3 mm long ... 2. MALTA STARTHISTLE 3 Terminal spine of the phyllaries 10-25 mm long; marginal florets lacking a pappus, the central florets with a pappus 3-5 mm long ... 3. YELLOW STARTHISTLE 4 Plants rhizomatous; phyllaries entire with translucent margins, not toothed nor fringed ... 4. RUSSIAN KNAPWEED 4 Plants lacking rhizomes; phyllaries toothed, fringed, or slightly spiny ... go to 5 5 Leaves, at least the lower ones, dissected ... go to 6 5 Leaves entire or only toothed ... go to 7 6 Phyllaries both fringed and with a short terminal spine or lobe 1-4 mm long; pappus absent ... 5. DIFFUSE KNAPWEED 6 Phyllaries fringed but without a terminal spine or lobe; pappus 2-3 mm long ... 6. SPOTTED KNAPWEED 7 Flower heads 1-2 cm wide ... 7. CORNFLOWER 7 Flower heads 2-5 cm wide ... go to 8 8 Phyllaries medium to dark brown, bearing 9-15 pairs of lobes at the tips ... 8. ROTHROCK'S BASKETFLOWER 8 Phyllaries straw colored, bearing 4-8 pairs of lobes at the tips ... 9. AMERICAN BASKETFLOWER 1 . PURPLE STARTHISTLE (Caltrop, maize thorn) Centaurea calcitrapa Linnaeus Description: Plants bushy, normally biennial, but sometimes also annual or short-lived perennial, from a taproot. Stems rigid, highly branched, with longitudinal white lines but not winged from the leaf bases, cobwebby-hairy to glabrous, 20-80 cm tall. Basal and stem leaves divided once or twice into spiny- toothed segments, generally 2-4 cm long but smaller near the flower heads. Flower heads urn-shaped, 1 - 2.3 cm tall. Phyllaries straw-colored, ending in a stout spine grooved or flattened on the upper surface and 1-3 cm long, with 2-3 pairs of lateral spines at the base. Flowers purple, the peripheral flowers not enlarged. Achenes tan to light brown with darker shading, 2.5-3 mm long, lacking a pappus. Habitat and Distribution: Indigenous to the Mediterranean region and introduced to North America in California as a seed contaminant; adventive in New Mexico along roadsides and in disturbed ground of farms and cropland [Chaves, Otero counties]. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from IMLS LG-70-15-0138-15 https://archive.org/details/newmexicobotanis1016newm Page 3 of 13 10 Comments: Purple starthistle is very similar to Iberian starthistle (Centaurea iberica Trev.), not yet found in New Mexico, and which differs in having achenes topped by a pappus. This species is also sometimes confused with malta starthistle, which has a much less bushy growth form. The young heads of purple starthistle are reportedly edible like an artichoke. The specific epithet, calcitrapa (Latin, "heel-traps"), alludes to its resemblance to caltrops, iron balls with four spikes that were used during warfare to empede cavalry or armored vehicles. 2. MALTA STARTHISTLE (Tocalote, Napa starthistle) Centaurea melitensis Linnaeus Description: Plants annual or biennial from an unbranched taproot. Stems erect, branched, rough-hairy, winged by the decurrent leaf bases, 30-100 cm tall. Basal leaves lobed, spatula-shaped in outline, with a short stalk, rough- scabrous, 3-5 cm long. Stem leaves narrowly lanceolate, entire or sparsely toothed, sessile, 1-4 cm long, the base of the leaf running down the stem as wings (decurrent). Flower heads ovoid, solitary or 2-3 clustered at the tips of the branches, 1.5-2 cm tall. Phyllaries straw-colored but tinged with purple or brown, with sparse wooly hairs, ending in a stiff, flattened spine 5-10 mm long, with 2-4 short lateral spines at the base and a pair of shorter lateral spines about mid-length. Flowers yellow, the peripheral ones not enlarged. Achenes light brown with longitudinal lines, about 3 mm long, with a pappus of unequal bristles 1 .5-3 mm long, the base with a slight hook. Habitat and Distribution: Indigenous to southern Europe and introduced in North America; now found in scattered localities in the western states; adventive in southern New Mexico along roadsides, abandoned crop fields, and along ditches [Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Luna, Otero counties]. Comments: Both malta and yellow starthistles have winged stems and yellow flowers, but malta starthistle differs in having shorter phyllary spines with a tiny pair of lateral spines about midlength. Purple starthistle is much more bushy in its growth form. The specific epithet, melitensis, refers to its occurrence on Malta. 3. YELLOW STARTHISTLE (St. Bamaby's thistle) Centaurea solstitialis Linnaeus [Leucantha solstitialis (L.) Love & Love, Calcitrapa solstitialis (L.) Lam.] Description: Plants annual or biennial from stout taproots, usually flowering the first year. Stems stiffly upright, freely branched, winged by decurrent leaf bases, with sparse cottony hairs, 20-100 cm tall. Basal leaves spatula-shaped in outline, deeply lobed, early deciduous, similar to dandelion rosettes. Stem leaves linear to lanceolate, entire, sessile, cottony-hairy and grayish, the base of the leaf running down the stem as wings (decurrent). Flower heads solitary at the tips of the branches, ovoid, 1.5-2 cm tall. Phyllaries straw-colored, ending in a stiff round spine 1-3 cm long, with 2-4 short lateral spines at http ://web . nmsu . edu/~kallred/herb web/newp age26 . htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 4 of 13 the base. Flowers yellow, the peripheral ones not enlarged. Achenes dark brown to tan, 2.5-4 mm long, of two types; inner achenes with a pappus of stiff bristles 2-5 mm long; peripheral achenes lack a pappus. Habitat and Distribution: Native to Eurasia and introduced to the United States in California sometime between 1824 and 1869, presumably with alfalfa seed; adventive in New Mexico along roadsides and disturbed ground [Chaves, Grant, San Miguel counties]. Comments: Yellow starthistle may cause "chewing disease" in horses (see discussion under russian knapweed). The inner, plumed achenes of yellow starthistle drop from the flower heads when mature, are blown for short distances by the wind, and germinate readily with the first favorable conditions. The peripheral, plumeless seeds are not released, however, and remain within the flower head until the phyllaries deteriorate during the fall or winter; these seeds germinate under higher temperatures and produce seedlings with longer roots. It is suspected that some seeds of yellow starthistle can remain viable in the soil for up to 12 years. Various song birds feed heavily on the seeds and contribute to the spread of yellow starthistle across the western United States. The specific epithet, solstitialis alludes to the summer flowering period. 4. RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (Turkestan thistle, creeping knapweed) Acroptilon repens (L.) DeCandolle [Centaurea repens L., Centaurea picris Pall.] Description: Plants perennial, forming dense colonies from shoots arising from the widely spreading black roots. Stems erect, openly branched, 20-100 cm tall, with loose cobwebby hairs when young. Basal leaves spatula-shaped, entire to toothed, thinly hairy, bluish green, 3-8 cm long, 1-2 cm wide. Stem leaves shallowly lobed or toothed, 1-5 cm long, 2-7 mm wide, becoming smaller and entire near the flower heads. Flower heads numerous, terminating the branches, 1-2 cm tall. Phyllaries greenish to straw-colored, not spiny, the lower (outer) phyllaries with a broad translucent tip, the upper (inner) phyllaries with a narrowed plume-like tip. Flowers pink or purplish, the peripheral ones not enlarged. Achenes ivory-white, 3-3.5 mm long, attached horizontally at the base rather than at an angle as in the other knapweeds, with long (6-1 1 mm) white bristles at the tip (pappus) when young, but these deciduous from the achene as it matures. Habitat and Distribution: Native to Eurasia, russian knapweed was introduced to North America in 1898 with alfalfa seed; it now occurs in every western state and in many of the eastern ones; adventive in New Mexico mostly along roadsides, but also in pastures, crop fields, and orchards; our most common knapweed [Bernalillo, Catron, Cibola, Lincoln, McKinley, Otero, Quay, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, Santa Fe, Socorro, Taos counties]. Comments: Russian knapweed and yellow starthistle are toxic to horses, producing a neurological disorder known as "chewing disease." The disease is characterized by an acute inability of the animal to eat or drink, and resembles Parkinson's disease in humans. Chewing disease occurs suddenly after prolonged ingestion of the plants over many days. Russian knapweed is usually not palatable to horses because of its bitter quinone-like taste, but some animals may acquire a preference for yellow starthistle http ://web . nmsu . edu/~kallred/herb web/newpage26 .htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 5 of 13 and eat it even though other good forage is available. Infestations of russian knapweed may survive almost indefinitely because of it's ability to produce aerial shoots from the spreading root system. A stand in Saskatchewan, Canada, has persisted for almost 100 years. The specific epithet, repens, refers to the creeping growth of the rootstocks. 5. DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (spreading knapweed, tumble knapweed) Centaurea diffusa Lamarck [Acosta diffusa (Lam.) Sojak] Description: Plants generally biennial, but sometimes annual or perennial. Stems upright, 10-60 cm tall from a deep taproot, highly branched, angled with short stiff hairs on the ridges, eventually breaking off and rolling in the wind to disperse the achenes. Basal leaves stalked and divided into narrow hairy segments, 3-8 cm long, 1-3 cm wide, deciduous. Stem leaves smaller and less divided, sessile, becoming bract-like near the flower clusters. Flower heads broadly urn-shaped, solitary or in clusters of 2-3 at the ends of the branches, 1 .5-2 cm tall. Phyllaries yellowish with a brownish margin, sometimes spotted, fringed on the sides and terminating in a slender bristle or spine 1-5 mm long. Flowers white, rose- purple, to lavender, the peripheral ones not enlarged. Achenes tan to brown, about 2.5 mm long, lacking a pappus, or bristles rarely present to about 1 mm long. Habitat and Distribution: Endigenous to the Mediterranean region but now found scattered throughout much of the northern United States, less common elsewhere; adventive in New Mexico along roadsides [Colfax, San Miguel counties]. Comments: Diffuse knapweed is a highly competitive and aggressive plant that threatens to over-run pastures and range lands in the western United States. It is especially adept at moving along right-of- ways and fann roads and can spread rapidly through an area. Its spread into vegetated areas is retarded (though not prevented) by associated grasses that remove moisture and nutrients from the rooting zone of diffuse knapweed seedlings. There is some evidence that diffuse knapweed chemicals have the potential to inhibit the germination of other seeds, thereby giving it a competitive advantage in the soil. This species may hybridize with spotted knapweed, making identification of some specimens difficult. Occasionally, diffuse and other knapweeds are sold in floral bouquets. The specific epithet, diffusa, describes the open branching pattern of mature plants. 6. SPOTTED KNAPWEED Centaurea biebersteinii DeCandolle [Centaurea maculosa and Acosta maculosa of various works] Description: Plants perennial, sometimes short-lived, from a stout taproot. Stems erect, 1 -several from the base, branched above, ridged, loosely cobwebby, 30-80 cm tall. Basal leaves spatula-shaped in outline, usually deeply divided, 5-15 cm long. Stem leaves divided into narrow segments 1-3 mm wide. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 6 of 1 3 glabrous or usually wooly-hairy, becoming bract-like near the flower heads. Flower heads broadly urn- shaped, solitary at the ends of the branches, 1-2 cm tall, sparsely hairy or glabrous. Phyllaries with vertical veins below the black-spotted tip (often colorless in white-flowered forms), the tips fringed with comb-like lobes, the terminal lobe shorter than the others, not spiny. Flowers pink to purple, sometimes white, the peripheral ones enlarged and sterile. Achenes dark, with lines, 2. 5-3. 5 mm long, usually with a pappus of stiff bristles 2-3 mm long. Flabitat and Distribution: Native to Europe and coming to North America as a contaminant in alfalfa and clover seeds, now widespread throughout much of the United States; adventive in New Mexico along roadsides [Colfax County], Comments: Spotted knapweed is a serious pest of range lands, pastures, and open fields in many areas in the northern United States. It spreads rapidly along roads and into disturbed areas, the achenes and flower heads being carried by the wind, foraging animals, or trucks driving through knapweed patches. Studies indicate that spotted knapweed is capable of invading not only disturbed sites, but also ungrazed, good condition range land. In addition, seeds of spotted knapweed remain viable in the soil for at least eight years, and probably longer. 7. CORNFLOWER (Bachelor's-button, blue-bottle, hurtsickle) Centaurea cyanus Linnaeus [Leucacantha cyanus (Lam.) Nieuwland & Lunell] Description: Plants annual or winter annual from taproots. Stems upright, 2-10 cm tall, loosely wooly- hairy when young but losing this as they mature. Basal leaves lanceolate, lobed or toothed. Stem leaves narrow, linear to lanceolate, not divided or toothed, white-wooly on the lower surface, 4-15 cm long, 2-5 mm wide. Flower heads urn- or bowl-shaped, solitary at the ends of the branches, 1-2 cm tall. Phyllaries ovoid to lanceolate, with fine vertical lines, the edges papery and fringed, lacking spines. Flowers blue, purple, pink, or white, the peripheral ones funnel-shaped and enlarged but sterile. Achenes yellowish- brown to blackish, 3.5-4 mm long, tipped by orange-brown pappus of bristles 2-4 mm long. Habitat and Distribution: Introduced from the Mediterranean region as a flower-garden ornamental; adventive in New Mexico along roadsides, fields, disturbed ground, and waste places; known definitely as an escape only in southern New Mexico, but expected elsewhere [Dona Ana County]. Comments: A favorite garden flower, cornflower is an easily cultivated annual that has many varieties and colors. Because of it ornamental value, it has spread throughout the world. The flowers retain their color upon drying and are often used in arrangements of dried flowers or in wreaths. The common name of hurtsickle comes from Europe, where the tough stems of plants infesting wheat field blunted the sickles of farmers. The specific epithet, cyanus, refers to the striking blue color of its flowers. 8. ROTHROCK'S BASKETFLOWER http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 7 of 13 Centaurea rothrockii Greenman Description: Plants annual (or biennial?), from a taproot. Stems erect, ridged, glabrous, sparingly branched above, 30-100 cm tall. Basal and stem leaves lance- to spatula-shaped, entire to slightly toothed, glabrous to somewhat sandpapery, 3-12 cm long. Flower heads solitary at the ends of the stems, broadly bowl-shaped, 3-5 cm tall, 2-5 cm wide. Phyllaries composed of two parts: lower part entire, tan to light green with vertical lines; upper part medium brown to dark brown, the edges fringed with 9-15 pairs of elongate papery lobes. Flowers usually either all purple or all yellow, sometimes a mixture, the peripheral ones much enlarged. Achenes brown to black, 4-5 mm long, tipped by a pappus of bristles 6- 14 mm long. Habitat and Distribution: Endigenous to North America, from southwestern United States to south- central Mexico; in New Mexico in mountain meadows, wooded canyons, and along streams and roadsides [Grant, Sierra, Socorro counties]. Comments: Rothrock's basketflower is relatively little known in New Mexico, hiding in wooded canyons in the southwestern mountains. It is not at all weedy, and prefers natural, undisturbed habitats, in contrast with American basketflower, which is often found in old fields and along roads. It takes its name from Joseph Trimble Rothrock, surgeon and botanist for the Wheeler Expedition to southwestern United States in 1873-1875. 9. AMERICAN BASKETFLOWER (American knapweed, thornless thistle) Centaurea americana Nuttall Description: Plants annual, from a taproot. Stems simple or branched in the upper portion, ridged, glabrous, 30-180 cm tall. Basal and stem leaves narrowly spatula-shaped to lanceolate, sand-papery, entire or sparsely toothed, 3-8 cm long, 5-15 mm wide. Flower heads solitary at the ends of the main stem or branches, broadly bowl-shaped, 3-5 cm tall, 2-6 cm wide. Phyllaries composed of two parts: lower part entire, straw-colored to light green with vertical lines; upper part light to dark straw-colored, the edges fringed with 4-8 pairs of elongate papery lobes. Flowers usually of two kinds: the central ones yellow or white; the peripheral ones purple or pink and much enlarged. Achenes dark-colored, 4-5 mm long, tipped by a pappus of bristles 6-14 mm long. Habitat and Distribution: Endigenous to North America from central United States to east-central Mexico; in New Mexico in prairies, plains, open fields, and roadsides, often in disturbed ground [Chaves, Doha Ana, Eddy, Grant, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Quay, San Miguel, Socorro, Torrance counties]. Comments: American basketflower typically occupies weedy, disturbed habitats, but it is not a noxious invader, such as the knapweeds and starthistles. Its showy flower heads make beautiful dried flower arrangements. ADDITIONAL READING http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 8 of 13 Roche, B.F, Jr. Knapweed Newsletter. Washington Interagency Knapweed Committee, Cooperative Extension, Washington State University. Roche, C.T. & B.F. Roche, Jr. 1993. Identification of Knapweeds and Starthistles in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Extension Publ. 432. & In Memoriam: Barton H. Warnock, 1911-1998 Barton H. Warnock, 1911-1998 by Billie Turner, University of Texas at Austin Reprinted from Plant science Bulletin 44(l):78-80. 1998. His body was found slumped over the steering wheel of his car, face peering pensively out of the windshield across a section or two of Creosote bushes. He died of a heart attack about 20 miles northeast of Alpine, Texas along the highway to Fort Stockton (the place of his birth), the motor of his four wheel drive Bronco still running (how appropriate!). The Department of Public Safety in Alpine was alerted by some anonymous truck driver on the morning of June 16 that he had observed a car beyond the road shoulder that had apparently been driven through a barbed wire fence, coming to rest about 100 yards off the tarmac: "maybe you should check it out." And they did, not knowing that the newly purchased vehicle was purring away the passing of a legendary Botanist. As soon as the state troopers peered into the window of the car they were startled, one of them remarking, "By damn, why it's the doc," very casual like Southwestemers are prone to be facing death. Nearly everyone in Texas west of the Pecos River knew Barton as the doc. To them he was a legend. And that's what the byline on the front page of the Alpine Avalanche read, BOTANICAL LEGEND IN WEST TEXAS DIES AT 86. And The Big Bend Quarterly (vol. II, No. 4) headed their eulogy of the man with this masthead, "LIKE TAKING A WALK WITH THE CREATOR." Clearly the man was a revered figure, to them at least, those who still trod the open range in scuffed boots and rusty spurs, driving pickups and cursing the blue skies "cause it ain't gonna rain today, maybe never," looking at their new growth of gramma grasses (they were botanists too!) with hope and fear (not showing either in their faces, true Texans). Barton belonged to the ranchers. He was their systematist. From El Paso to the Pecos, Barton knew them all, who owned what spread, how many sections, what kind of plants dominated, and why; he even knew the history of their places better than they did, having outlived most of the original owners. Interestingly, Barton spent much of his time after retiring from his Professorship at Sul Ross State University, Alpine, as a plant collector and "curator" of ranch herbaria. He set up numerous small collections in one or two herbarium cases at the ranch headquarters of the bigger spreads in the trans- Pecos so that the ranch owner, or his manager, or the owners children (now too remote from ranching to be concerned) might know what their land grew and where. Dr. Warnock was always an enigma to me, mainly because he seemed such a simple cuss to sport a Ph.D. I was an acquaintance of his for fully fifty years and in our many one-on-one conversations, never managed to probe successfully into any of his views on things psychological. Sometimes he would dumbfound me, however, with a remark from out of nowhere, "Turner, do you believe that there are really homosexuals in this world?" And after some briefly expressed incredulousity on my part as to the question itself, he would let the topic drop, as if the question was merely the flicker of a moment. I http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 9 of 13 mention this because, to me, he was one of the most intellectually naive professors to pass his shadow over my shoulder. Indeed, the mention of some of the more banal intellectual questions in our discussions, such as "the meaning of life? why we do what we do?" etc., would nearly always result in his retreat into some avuncular world unfamiliar to me: quoting homilies, or inventing these on the spot. Such conversations lived short lives. But he did channel the course of my professional life. As a prelaw student at Sul Ross State College in 1947, age 22 and fresh out of the military, feeling my future, thinking I'd be a great lawyer, fighting the cases that counted, putting my learning on the line for the "...scorned, the rejected, the men hemmed in by the spears..." I was ever an idealist! So constituted in frame and bent, I enrolled in a freshman biology course at Sul Ross. Barton was the teacher. Meeting Dr. Wamock (aged 36 at the time, fresh out of graduate school at The University of Texas, Austin, with a Ph.D. in plant ecology, his doctoral thesis entitled "A vegetational study of the Glass Mountains" [a sliver of elevated limestone about 30 miles east of Alpine, aligned in a north-south direction, beginning near Marathon and extending northwards into Pecos Co., where it soon peters out into flat lands dominated by Creosote and Black Brush]), changed my career, if not my life. How? He wooed me with words, smiles, and competition; noting that I excelled in his class with little effort and much enthusiasm, he began to ask me out on his collecting forays. Weird fellow, I thought, collecting plants in sets of four? I asked. "For exchange," he replied. "What's that?" I replied, "I mean 'for exchange' ?" And so it would go mile after mile, picking up the beginnings of botany, the names of plants, where the grew, what they were related to, those kinds of beginnings... And he talked about other aspects of life too, the trivial aspects, often foolishly stated, like "Your wife nearly always knows what's best," uttered with a sincere little laugh, and a mischievous look, as if joshing. But he wasn't; for him this was seemingly true; for me it was idle chatter. Anyway, I loved those field trips, beautiful landscapes, botanical unknowns, populations of this or that species strewn along highways and mountain crests, some of them even undescribed, Barton would venture, often adamantly so. "Now I know this plant is new, but every time I send it off to Dr. Tharp [his doctoral mentor at The University of Texas] it always comes back as so-and-so, but I know damn well it's not." Lots of botany, laughter, teasing, and competition. I still remember one of his challenges: faced with an ascent of about 2000 feet up to the top of Altuda Peak, an isolated protrusion about 15 miles east of Alpine overgrown with oaks and miscellaneous shrubbery, Barton hollered out suddenly, "Beat you to the top Turner, you find your own way." And he took off in a trot up a broad gully at the base of the peak. I snickered, thinking, "Like hell, you will," and took off up my own little gully, knowing that my young legs would get there first. But they didn't. When I got to the top, there was the doc, smiling like a pig eating swill, remarking casually, "What took you so long. Turner? Been waiting here ten minutes or so." That kind of manner and mien in the man appealed to me: fully contagious, like teachers ought to be. That kind of contagion and teaching careened many a Sul Ross student into graduate schools in botany departments across the country. To name but a few (those introduced to botany via Barton's tutelage), other than myself: A. Michael Powell, currently Professor at Sul Ross, having replaced Dr. Wamock upon the latter's retirement; John Averett, currently Professor of Biology and Chairman at Georgia Southern University; John Bacon, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas, Arlington; Tom Watson, independent researcher, now retired; not to mention the numerous Masters Degree students who became high school science teachers, wildlife researchers and yet other dedicated biological workers of this or that ilk. http ://web .nmsu . edu/~kallred/herb web/ newpage26 .htm 8/14/2003 iO Page 1 0 of 1 3 While Dr. Warnock never published his doctoral thesis, noted in the above (a fine study for its day, the various plant communities beautifully documented with full page photographs, etc.), he did publish, a number of taxonomic papers, mostly having to do with new species from the trans-Pecos, often with co¬ authors, such as Dr. M. C. Johnston, who briefly occupied a faculty position at Sul Ross during his long and productive academic career. But such papers did not create his legendary status; rather, the latter was largely due to the publication of several books on the wildflowers of trans-Pecos, Texas. These include: 1970. Wildflowers of the Big Bend country, Texas. Sul Ross State Univ. 155 pp. 1974. Wildflowers of the Guadalupe Mountains and the Sand Dune Country, Texas. Sul Ross State Univ. 176 pp. 1977. Wildflowers of the Davis Mountains and the Marathon Basin, Texas. Sul Ross State Univ. 274 pp. At the time of his death he had put together a fourth volume on the wildflowers of the trans-Pecos region, and this should be published in due course by some press other than Sul Ross. At least I was informed by Barton that such a text was ready to go to press. All of the above wildflower books, except for the soon to be published text, were published in collaboration with Peter Koch, now deceased, who provided a large array of colored photographs for the books (several hundred or more to a text, six to a page, of varying quality, including everything from bryophytes to sunflowers). Probably, Dr. Warnock would not have ventured into the wildflower publication business except for a bit of personal vanity and competitiveness (the "I'll show them" syndrome). Barton, in the late 1960s, began to think of himself as the botanical guru of the trans-Pecos, which he was, in a sense, as noted in the above. At least, I think he thought that most taxonomists in the United States knew of his work in that area, might even be aware that he had personally collected over 26,000 numbers from this region and that they would surely back his proposal, submitted to the National Science Foundation, to produce a Flora of the trans-Pecos. Barton even gave a paper before the American Society of Plant Taxonomists in which he outlined his ambitious plans, beguiling the professional audience with 24 carat smiles, and charming them with cowboy quips and humbling homilies. I was in that audience and felt he did a wonderful job of salesmanship. He thought the same. But it wasn't to be. His trans-Pecos flora project was rejected by his peers, nearly all of whom had been in the audience. Why? Not because they thought he couldn't do it, but simply because they were all aware, as was Dr. Warnock, that there was to appear shortly A Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas by Correll and Johnston, this having been underwritten by the National Science Foundation over a ten year period or more. Dr. Warnock never recovered from this rejection by his peers. He became bitter towards the taxonomic community, irrationally so, refusing to loan specimens of his holdings to yet other institutions and, upon occasion, even refusing professional visitors the courtesy of examining the SRSC herbarium sheets, in situ. I tried to explain to him that the tax payers might see little point in supporting the production of two floras of the same region, albeit overlapping. Alas, to no avail; he saw all of this as a personal vendetta. To my knowledge he never forgave the taxonomic establishment; thereafter he strode his own path, never again collecting plants in sets of four for exchange purposes; indeed he became disdainful of academic institutions in general, especially the bigger ones that thought they could call the plays, lay down the rules, pass judgment on the little fellows, something like that I think, drove him into his alienation from the larger systematic community. But as Shakespeare put it, "Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous wears yet a precious jewel in its crown." Had not the doc suffered the ignominy of rejection he would surely have squandered years working on a mundane flora of the trans-Pecos that would have raised but few eyebrows. As it turned out, his competitive zeal and desire to show the academic elites that he didn't http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 11 of 13 need their support, made possible his trans-Pecos, if not statewide, sainthood. Dr. Wamock really has had appreciation aplenty. Numerous taxa from the trans-Pecos and elsewhere have been named in his honor, including an endemic Texas genus, Wamockia (Lamiaceae). In addition, a building on the Sul Ross campus bears his name, as does a state park facility along the Rio Grande in Presidio County, Texas; few botanists can claim such edificial honors. It is ironic, that had the legendary botanist, Art Cronquist, died of a heart attack driving in the environs of New York City (where he resided), car motor still purring away, it is likely that the first official persons on the scene might peer through the window and comment, "Boy, that's some big Swede," as if he had little legendary status on Long Island, an area infinitely smaller than the trans-Pecos region where the doc received instant recognition from the first persons on the scene. So who is the bigger legend? In the international community, of course, it was Cronquist; but in the confines of the trans- Pecos, it was Wamock. I would like to add that Cronquist is said to have had his heart attack while in a herbarium gazing down at a specimen of Mentzelia from his beloved state of Utah. Wamock had his heart attack in the field gazing across an expanse of Creosote (Larrea tridentata). How appropriate for both! And as to their legendary status? Each was an epic figure in their own milieu, as it should be. Botanical Literature of Interest Taxonomy and Floristics Allred, K.W., C. Darigo, & R.D. Worthington. 1998. Additions to the moss flora of New Mexico. Evansia 1 5(3 ):95-98. [reports 35 new records for the state] Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science: Installment 4 of treatments of the Arizona Flora, Vol. 30(2), Celastraceae, Convolvulaceae, Gentianaceae, Loasaceae, Molluginaceae, Oxalidaceae, Papaveraceae, Pontederiaceae. Ball, P.W. 1998. Carex mckittrickensis (Cyperaceae), a new species from western Texas. Novon 8 (3):220-224. [to be looked for in adjacent se NM] Burk, W.R. 1998. In Memoriam — Heinz Dietrich Lubrecht (1908-1997), botanical bookseller and friend. Sida 18(1):37 1-376. Corbridge, J.N. & W.A. Weber. 1998. A Rocky Mountain Lichen Primer. University Press of Colorado. 47 pp. Cuerrier, A., L. Brouillet, & D. Barabe. 1998. Numerical and comparative analyses of the modem systems of classification of flowering plants. Bot. Rev. 64(4):323-355. Ivey, R.D. 1998. Flowering Plants of New Mexico. 3rd ed., 4th printing. 505 pp. Publ. by the author, 931 1 Headingly Court NE, Albuquerque, NM 87111 [Eminently useful] Monro, A.K. & P.J. Stafford. 1998. A synopsis of the genus Echinopepon (Cucurbitaceae: Sicyeae), including three new taxa. Ami. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85(2):257-272. [with a key to species] Munoz, J. 1998. A taxonomic revision of Grimmia subgenus Orthogrimmia (Musci, Grimmiaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85(3):367-403. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 12 of 13 Peterson, P.M. & J. Ortiz-Diaz. 1998. Allelic variation in the amphitropical disjunct Muhlenbergia torreyi (Poaceae: Muhlenbergiinae). Brittonia 50(3):38 1-391. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1998. Evolution and Taxonomy of Southwestern Plants. 13th Annual Southwestern Botanical Systematics Symposium. Aliso 17(2). Snow, N. 1998. Caryopsis morphology of Leptochloa sensu lato (Poaceae, Chloridoideae). Sida 18 ( 1 ):27 1 -282. Stutz, H.C. & S.C. Sanderson. 1998. Taxonomic clarification of Atriplex nuttallii (Chenopodiaceae) and its near relatives. Sida 1 8(1): 193-212. Todsen, T.K. 1998. Penstemon metcalfei (Scrophulariaceae), a valid species. Sida 18(2):62 1-622. Trock, D.K. & T.M. Barkley. 1998. Seven new nomenclatural combinations and a new name in Packera (Asteraceae: Senecioneae). Sida 18(2):385-388. [auroid group of Senecio] Turner, B.L. 1998. Texas species of Glandularia (Verbenaceae). Lundellia 1 :3- 1 6. Turner, B.L. 1998. Plant Systematics: Beginnings and Endings. Aliso 17(2): 189-200. [delightful historical reading] Weakley, A.S. & P.M. Peterson. 1998. Taxonomy of the Sporobolus floridanus complex (Poaceae: Sporobolinae). Sida 1 8(1 ):247-270. Welsh, S.L. 1998. John Charles Fremont, Botanical Explorer. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants [There are numerous reports and discussions concerning rare New Mexico plants on the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council web site: http://biology.unm.edu/~chelo/nmrptcl.html] Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Ecology, Etc. Evans, H.E. 1997. The Natural History of the Long Expedition to the Rocky Mountains. Oxford University Press, New York. 268 pp. Hart, C.R., A. McGinty, & B.B. Carpenter. 1998. Toxic Plant Handbook. Texas Agric. Ext. Serv. B- 6072. 122 pp. Peterson, R.S. & C.S. Boyd. 1998. Ecology and management of sand shinnery communities: A literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-16. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.D.A., For. Serv. 44 pp. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 10 Page 13 of 13 Journals, Newsletters, Etc. Gila Native Plant Society Bulletin. P.O. Box 457, Silver City, NM 88062-0457. Lundellia: Journal of the Plant Resources Center of the University of Texas at Austin. Carol Todzia, Plant Resources Center, Dept. Botany, Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78713. [1st issue with articles on Glandularia and Hymenoxys.] Native Plant Society of New Mexico Newsletter. Tim McKimmie, 1 105 Circle Drive, Las Cruces, NM 88005. New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes. P. Knight & R. Sivinski, eds. Sponsored by Marron & Associates, Inc. 7809 Fourth St. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87107. (505) 898-8848. New Plant Distribution Records New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition (herbarium) of a specimen. Richard Spellenberg (Dept. Biology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003) Polygonum aubertii L. Henry (Polygonaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (NMC). — Kelly Allred (Dept. Animal & Range Sciences, New Mexico Staet University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 Bupleurum americanum Coult. & Rose (Apiaceae): Lincoln Co. (NMCR). — Richard Worthington (P.O. Box 13331, El Paso, TX 79913) Carex muriculata F.J. Hermann subsp. muriculata (Cyperaceae): Eddy Co. (NMCR). — James McGrath (P.O. Box 2605, Tijeras, NM 87059) Menyanthes trifoliata L. (Menyanthaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (UNM). Back to newsletter index http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage26.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 1 of 12 The New Mexico Botanist Issue No. 11, May 21, 1999 N.Y. BRONX New Mexico Solidagos : A Preliminary Look at a Difficult Problem, with a Tentative Key by Charles F. Keller 4470 Ridgeway, Los Alamos NM 87544 Introduction Solidago in the Southern Rockies is beset with influences from the Great Plains, Mexico, and the Northern Rockies. However, within New Mexico, special and isolated environments may separate some of its variants from these other areas. Because most of its taxonomy comes from these other states and regions, published keys and articles may not take into account the unique variations within our state. These can best be understood as a nearly continuous variation of species radiating from central hubs or complexes. The distinctions are often very fine, which has led to many misidentifications. In studying all the Solidago in the herbaria at UNM, COLO, and Randall Davey Audubon Society, I have become convinced that careful attention to phyllary shape and orientation can be of great assistance in identifying the species. Below I will define three species complexes and make a preliminary attempt to describe characteristics which separate the species contained therein. Finally I will present a key to Solidago that incorporates these observations. This genus in New Mexico may have some distinct varieties not present elsewhere. I hope this treatment will provide a basis for a more general study of these interesting taxonomic problems. botanical garden library NcW YORK 19458-5128 • Solidago in New Mexico • Botanical Literature of Interest • Penstemon pulchellus in New Mexico? • New Plant Distribution Records Complexes In New Mexico, variation in Solidago centers around three hubs or complexes which I denote by the species that seem to be central to each. It is gratifying that, after I had separated Solidago into these three complexes, I found that Guy Nesom (1993) had recognized nearly the same groups, and so I will note his terms for them as well as mine. (For brevity, only species epithets will be used when it is clear the discussion is about Solidago.) 1 . Simplex Complex Species included: simplex, speciosa, multiradiata, and missouriensis; included in section Solidago subsection Solidago by Nesom (1993), except for missouriensis , which he placed in section Unilaterales subsection Junceae. Here the gradation runs from speciosa var. pallida to simplex var. simplex , then forks in two directions to simplex var. nana and to multiradiata. I include missouriensis in this complex, as it is difficult to separate from multiradiata if its inflorescence is not secund, although multiradiata 's relatively larger phyllaries and ray flowers might suffice. 2. Velutina Complex Species included: mollis, nana, nemoralis, and velutina (including sparsiflora)', included in section Solidago subsection Nemorales by Nesom (1993). Here the gradation is less a continuous line and more a variation among individuals. All four were lumped together in velutina by Nesom (1989a), with an interesting discussion worth reading, but later treated as distinct (Nesom 1993). Certainly, they are difficult to separate, but I believe the attempt is at least instructive, and may serve to delineate some http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 2 of 12 variations unique to New Mexico. In several ways this is the most interesting and challenging complex in New Mexico. Geography plays a role in identification in this complex. As one goes east towards the Great Plains, the variation tends toward mollis and nemoralis. As one moves north to lower elevations (below 7,000 ft.) the connection is to nana. Phyllary shape is also important. If we require that velutina' s phyllaries be acute/acuminate, as most manuals do, New Mexico material of velutina seems to have two additional expressions (see III. Velutina Phyllary Types, below). One may correspond to Wooton and Standley’s (1915) more northerly howelii, and the other may represent an undescribed taxon. Also, I note that the Jemez Mountains seem to have a Great Plains signature with representation of both speciosa and nemoralis. Separation of the species in the velutina complex (especially mollis ) is difficult and a special treatment appears below in addition to the key. 3. Canadensis Complex Species included: altissima, canadensis, and gigantea\ included in section Unilaterales subsection Triplinerviae by Nesom (1993). The Canadensis Complex shows great variability and intergrading features (see Nesom 1989c), making species recognition difficult. For example, small specimens of canadensis (often with very narrow cauline leaves) and large specimens of velutina (in the velutina complex) are more often confused than heretofore recognized (Taylor & Taylor 1984), and occasionally mixed characters appear on the same specimen (collections I made around the town of Mogollon are particularly peiplexing, exhibiting well defined characteristics of both species). Phyllaries, a great aid in Solidago identification Features traditionally used to distinguish the species in Solidago are panicle type (open panicle with secund branches versus thyrse), stem and leaf pubescence, and leaf venation ( 1 or 3 prominent veins). Lamentably, all of these characters seem to have their exceptions. I strongly suggest the use of phyllaries as reliable indicators or at least tie breakers. Shape, surface nature, and degree of imbrication of the phyllaries are potentially robust indicators for distinguishing the various species and varieties. For example, phyllaries of canadensis differ so much from those of the velutina complex that, except in very rare cases, it is dead simple to separate the two even when other indicators are ambiguous. In nearly all cases there are additional features that correlate with phyllary characteristics so as to corroborate the identification. My point is that closer attention to phyllary characteristics is a powerful aid in taxonomy of New Mexico Solidago and perhaps elsewhere. Within the Velutina Complex the phyllary characteristics are even more significant and nearly always definitive. For example, the rounded, pale, and half-cylindrical shape of phyllaries of nemoralis sets it off from the rest of the complex (excepting nana which is nearly identical to nemoralis but for its compact thyrse-like inflorescence). When this characteristic is combined with other characteristics (basal leaves present at flowering and one-nerved leaves) it helps establish a strong argument that nemoralis is one of the dominant Solidago in the Jemez Mountains around Los Alamos, where these specimens had heretofore been lumped with velutina. In addition, phyllaries segregate velutina itself into two (and perhaps three) varieties. Finally separation of velutina from mollis and nana is aided by examination of the phyllaries. Within the Canadensis Complex phyllaries allow separation from hirsute specimens of gigantea. which in turn can be separated from missouriensis when sizes overlap. And the glutinous covering on phyllaries of simplex (when present) easily separates it from all species but it taller cousin, speciosa. The following table summarizes phyllary characteristics. Summary of Phyllary Characteristics (grouped by complex) Complex Species Shape Imbrication Surface simplex complex simplex rounded, inner acute 3-4 ranks usually glutinous speciosa rounded, inner bluntly acute 3-4 ranks sometimes glutinous muhiradiala long acuminate to acute 2-3 ranks papery, ciliate margins http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 3 of 12 l II IL IL missouriensis rounded 3 ranks similar to velutina #3, but thicker canadensis complex canadensis narrowly acuminate 4-5 ranks glandular altissima usually acute 4-5 ranks glandular gigantea acute to long attenuate 1-2 ranks glandular velutina complex velutina #1 rounded, innermost bluntly acute 3-4 ranks some glandular tips velutina #2 acute & broadly attenuate 4-5 ranks some glandular tips velutina #3 parallel with bluntly acute tips 3-4 ranks hardly glandular tips mollis similar to velutina #3, middle one broad 2-3 ranks similar to velutina #3 nemoralis rounded 3-4 ranks glabrous, lower half pale, middle often revolute nana rounded to bluntly acute 4 ranks usually like nemoralis Velutina Phyllary Types This species seems to have three distinct phyllary types, which I have named types 1, 2, and 3. Type 1 Phyllaries rounded excepting at times innermost bluntly acute. These are not common but deserve study. Could these be howelii ? Type 2 Phyllaries all broadly attenuate-acute. This is perhaps the standard velutina. Most manuals indicate that sparsiflora (now included in velutina) has this type of phyllary. Type 3 Phyllaries parallel and ending in a blunt point. Among the specimens at UNM this is the most common type-twice as common as type 2. UNM specimens of mollis exhibit this type. (COLO specimens of mollis do not, instead being thin and acute, more like type #2.) It would be well to find out if these types occur out of state, but in New Mexico we may indeed have a distinct variety in type 3. Complicating this, is the additional problem that a few plants are mixed type 2/3 or 1/3, but these are exceptions to a rather well-defined set. Additional characteristics. Specimens with type 2 phyllaries have leaves that are normally slightly narrower (4-6 times longer than wide) than those with type 3 (3-5 times longer than wide). Separation on the basis of leaf pubescence is less reliable since this varies from nearly glabrous to villous (when villous, it is well to be sure specimen is not mollis or nemoralis, which are generally much more hirsute). Note also that nearly all velutina cauline leaves are at least sparsely glandular, which further complicates separation from canadensis. Identification within the Velutina Complex The following is an attempt at a separation of the species based on my observations and the literature. Despite variations, out of all this comes a distillate that seems workable, with the proviso that there will always be the exceptional deviant. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 4 of 12 The four species can be completely divided by presence of creeping rhizomes and by mfloresence type. Open panicle with secund, recurved branches Thyrse, with few, if any, secund branches Creeping rhizomes velutina mollis Caudex or short rhizome nemoralis nana In addition, leaf features may help distinguish the species: Basal leaves early deciduous, 3-nerved: velutina and mollis. Basal leaves present at flowering time, 1 -nerved: nemorcilis and nana. Specimens of nemorcilis and nana from Colorado (at COLO) are nearly identical, differing only in inflorescence type, but being essentially identical in all other features. In New Mexico this may also be true (it seems to be so for the few specimens in my collection), but further study needs to be done. Interestingly, C. Taylor (pers. commun.) says she has seen few, if any, nemoralis in Colorado or New Mexico. The biggest problem in New Mexico Solidago is identifying mollis. In fact, New Mexico specimens referrable to mollis may represent a distinct variation, differing from those occuring in Colorado in having type #3 phyllaries (rather than type #2) and smaller, narrower cauline leaves. Generic Changes Several species formerly in Solidago have been moved to more appropriate genera (see References): Solidago graminea (Woot. & Standi.) Blake = Petradoria pumila (Nutt.) Greene subsp. graminea (Woot. & Standi.) L.C. Anderson Solidago occidentals (Nutt.) Torr. & Gray = Euthamia occidentalis Nutt. Solidago parryi (Gray) Greene = Oreochrysum parryi (Gray) Rydb. Solidago petradoria Blake = Petradoria pumila (Nutt.) Greene subsp. pumila Solidago rigida L. = Oligoneuron rigidum (L.) T.C. Porter Tentative Key to Solidago in New Mexico This key is designed as a guide to identification of Solidago in New Mexico. Thus, it omits several species from surrounding states and concentrates on some interesting variations that seem to occur only in New Mexico. Most Solidago keys begin by separating species by differences in shapes of the infloresence. While this is an important distinction in the evolutionary history of Solidago , I find it both confusing and often ambiguous (differing in young vs. mature plants), and so 1 have chosen to begin the key based on pubescence features. This characteristic is much easier for the observer to determine (although there are always odd cases), and follows the separation into complexes described above. This key is definitely "work in progress," and I would appreciate any comments on its accuracy, inadequacies, incisive modifications, etc. 1 Stems glabrous or nearly so 2 Flower heads secund or usually so http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 5 of 12 3 Plants short (<40 cm); basal lvs present at flowering time; cauline leaves few, narrowly oblanceolate, usually entire ... S. missouriensis (with three weak varieties; needs further study) 3 Plants tall (to >1 m); basal lvs absent at flowering time; cauline lvs abundant and large, lanceolate, usually dentate ... S. gigantea 2 Flower heads not secund 4 Achenes glabrous ... S. speciosa var. pallida 4 Achenes hirsute 5 Creeping rhizomes present ... S. missouriensis 5 Creeping rhizomes absent 6 Basal leaf petioles with ciliate margins; heads and ray flowers 13 in number ... S, multiradiata 6 Basal leaf petioles without ciliate margins; ray flowers 8 in number ... S. simplex 7 Plants tall (15-60 cm), occuring below 12,000 ft ... var. simplex 7 Plants short (about 15 cm), occurring above 1 1,000 ft ... var. nana 1 Stems hirsute 8 Inflorescence thyrse-like, flower heads not secund (some specimens of mollis slightly secund) 9 Leaves 1-nerved; middle to upper cauline leaves elliptical to ovate ... S. wrightii 10 Foliage and stems scabrous pubescent with stipitate glands ... var. adenophora 10 Foliage and stems lacking stipitate glands ... var. wrightii 9 Leaves 3-nerved ( mollis weakly so); middle to upper cauline leaves oblanceolate to linear 1 1 Basal leaves absent at flowering time; cauline leaves broad, some dentate; creeping rhizomes present; middle phyllaries broadly acute, in about 3 ranks; inflorescence a compact thyrse with occasional lower branches recurved with secund flowers ... S. mollis 1 1 Basal leaves present at flowering time; cauline leaves not much reduced, similar to basal leaves; caudex or short rhizome developed, creeping rhizome absent; phyllaries rounded, in 4 ranks, inflorescence a loose thyrse, flowers not secund ... S. nana 8 Inflorescence a panicle, the flower heads secund 12 Leaves 1-nerved; basal leaves on long petioles and present at flowering time; phyllaries rounded, usually pale ... S. nemoralis 12 Leaves 3-nerved; basal leaves absent at flowering time; phyllaries various, but not pale 13 Cauline leaves obviously reduced upwards, not noticeably crowded, entire to minutely dentate, oblanceolate becoming linear ... S. velutina ( S . mollis with slightly secund branches may occur here) http ://web . nmsu . edu/~kallred/herb web/newp age2 7 . htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 6 of 12 13 Cauline leaves uniform in size, crowded, often obviously dentate, lanceolate 14 Stems below inflorescence glabrous; phyllaries acute, in 1-2 ranks ... S. gigantea 14 Stems below inflorescence hirsute; phyllaries very long and attenuate, in 4-5 ranks 15 Heads 3-5 mm high ... S. altissima 15 Heads 2-3 mm high ... S. canadensis (with two weak varieties; needs further study) References Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland, 2 Vols. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Martin, W.C. & C.R. Hutchins. 1981. A Flora of New Mexico. Vol. 2. Vaduz, West Germany, J. Cramer. 1276 p. Nesom, G.L. 1989a. Taxonomy of Solidago velutina with a new, related species from Mexico. Phytologia 67 (4):297-303. _ . 1989b. Solidago simplex , the correct name for S. glutinosa. Phytologia 68: 155-157. _ . 1989c. The Solidago canadensis complex in Texas with a new species from Texas and Mexico. Phytologia 67(6): 441-450. _ . 1993. Taxonomic infrastructure of Solidago and Oligoneuron (Asteraceae: Astereae) and observations on their phylogenetic position. Phytologia 75(1): 1-44. Ringius, G.S. & J.C. Semple. 1987. Cytogeography of Solidago spathulata-glutinosa complex. Can. J. Bot. 65:2459-2462. _ . 1991. New combinations in Solidago simplex. Phytologia 70:396-399. Roalson, E.H. & K.W. Allred, K. 1998. A Working Index of New Mexico Plant Names (Incorporating changes from Supplements 1-4). 248 p. Semple, J.C., J.G. Chmielewski, & R.A. Brammall. 1990. A multivariate morphometric study of Solidago nemoralis and comparison with S. californica and S. sparsiflora. Can. J. Bot. 68:2070. Semple, J.C., J.G. Chmielewski, & C. Xiang. 1992. Chromosom number determinations in Family Compositae, tribe Astereae IV. Additonal reports and comments on the cytogeography and status of some species of Aster and Solidago. Rhodora 94:48. Taylor, C. & R.J. Taylor. 1983. New species, new combinations and notes on the goldenrods ( Euthamia and Solidago— Asteraceae). Sida 10:176-183. _ . 1984, Solidago in Oklahoma and Texas. Sida 10:176-251. Weber, W. A. & Wittmann. R.C. 1996. Colorado Flora, Eastern Slope (rev. ed.). Umv. of Colo. Press, Niwot. 524 p. Wooton, E.O. & P.C. Standley. 1915. Flora ofNew Mexico. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. Vol. 19. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 7 of 12 Species List Solidago altissima L. Solidago arizonica (Gray) Woot. & Standi. Solidago canadensis L. var. arizonica Gray Solidago canadensis L. var. canadensis Solidago canadensis L. var. gilvocanescens Rydb. Solidago gilvocanescens (Rydb.) Smith Solidago gigantea Ait. Solidago gigantea Ait. var. leiophylla Fem. Solidago pitcheri Nutt. Solidago missouriensis Nutt, var . fasciculata Holz. Solidago glaberrima Martens Solidago missouriensis Nutt. var. missouriensis Solidago marshallii Rothr. Solidago missouriensis Nutt. var. tenuissima (Woot. & Standi.) C. & J. Taylor Solidago tenuissima Woot. & Standi. Solidago mollis Bartl. Solidago multiradiata Ait. Solidago ciliosa Greene Solidago scopulorum (Gray) A. Nels. Solidago nan a Nutt. Solidago nemoralis Ait. var. decemflora (DC.) Fem. Solidago decemflora DC. Solidago simplex Kunth var. nana (Gray) Ringius Solidago spathulata DC. var. nana (Gray) Cronq. Solidago decumbens Greene Solidago simplex Kunth var. simplex http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 8 of 1 2 Solidago aureola Greene Solidago decumbens Greene var. oreophila (Rydb.) Fern. Solidago glutinosa Nutt. Solidago neomexicana Gray Solidago oreophila Rydb Solidago spathulata DC. subsp. glutinosa (Nutt.) Keck. Solidago spathulata DC. var. neomexicana (Gray) Cronq. Solidago speciosa Nutt. var. pallida Porter Solidago velutina DC. Solidago howellii Woot. & Standi. Solidago sparsiflora Gray Solidago trinervata Greene Solidago wrightii Gray var. adenophora Blake Solidago wrightii Gray var. wrightii Solidago bigelovii Gray Botanical Literature of Interest Taxonomy and Floristics: Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, & C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85(4):594-630. Isely, D. 1998. Native and Naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Brigham Young Univ. Press. 1007 pp. Phipps, J.B. 1998. Introduction to the red-fruited hawthorns ( Crataegus , Rosaceae) of western North America. Can. J. Bot. 1863-1899. Taylor, R.J. 1998. Desert Wildflowers of North America. Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, MT 59806. 359 pp. Wagner, W.L., R.A. Fletcher, & R.K. Shannon. 1999. Another look at Hymenoxys subgenus Plummera (Asteraceae: Heliantheae: Gaillardiinae) from Arizona and New Mexico. Bnttonia 51(1 ):79-86. [H. ambigens var. neomexicana Wagner] Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants: [There are numerous reports and discussions concerning rare New Mexico plants on the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council web site: http://biology.unm.edu/~chelo/nmrptcl.html] http : //web . nmsu . edu/~kallred/herb web/ne wpage2 7 . htm 8/14/2003 •11 Page 9 of 12 Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Ecology, Etc.: Chambers, J.C., S B. Vander Wall, & E.W. Schupp. 1999. Seed and seedling ecology of pinon and juniper species in the pygmy woodlands of western North America. Bot. Rev. 65(1): 1-38. Schofield, E.K. 1998. A history of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists, the first sixty years - 1936 to 1996. Amer. Soc. PI. Tax., Ag Press, Manhattan, KS. Journals, Newsletters, Etc.: Native Plant Society of New Mexico Newsletter. Tim McKimmie, 1 105 Circle Drive, Las Cruces, NM 88005. New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes. P. Knight & R. Sivinski, eds. Sponsored by Marron & Associates, Inc. 7809 Fourth St. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87107. (505) 898-8848. Penstemon pulchellus Lindl. [= P. campanulatus (Cav.) Willd.]: A Specious Member of New Mexico’s Flora John P. Hubbard Route 5, Box 431, Espanola, NM 87532 Penstemon campanulatus (Cav.) Willd. (Scrophulariaceae) is a Mexican species that ranges from the mountains bordering the northern plateau southeastward to the Trans-Volcanic region (Straw 1963). The only record attributed to the U.S. is based on two collections made by Edgar A. Meams, while he was with the U.S. -Mexico boundary survey of 1892-1894 (Meams 1907). These specimens (nos. 2112 and 2222) were collected on 5 and 1 1 September 1893 in the San Luis Mountains (Warren L. Wagner pers. comm.), a primarily Sonoran and Chihuahuan range with a minor extension into New Mexico. These supposed U.S. occurrences were first reported by Wooton and Standley (1915), who referred them to P. pulchellus Lindl.— which Straw (op. cit.) considers a synonym of the nominate subspecies of P. campanulatus. Although Nisbet and Jackson (1960) followed Wooton and Standley in attributing these specimens to New Mexico, they went on to state that the existence [of this taxon in the state] is very doubtful. They also questioned the validity of P. pulchellus as a species, pointing out its close resemblance to P. campanulatus of central Mexico. Straw (op. cit.) went further, first in assigning Meams 2222 to P. campanulatus ssp. chihuahuensis Straw, and then in attributing it to Chihuahua rather than New Mexico. However, he provided no explanation for the latter, nor did he make any mention of Mearns’s other 1893 collection (no. 2112). Presumably as a consequence, several recent works have continued to list P. campanulatus (or " pulchellus ”) as a member of the floras of New Mexico (e.g., Martin and Hutchins 1981, Roalson and Allred 1995) and the U.S. (e.g., Kartesz 1998). Nonetheless, the available evidence supports the positions of Nisbet and Jackson (op. cit.) and Straw (op. cit.), notably in showing that both Meams’s P. campanulatus specimens almost certainly came from Mexico. Given this and the absence of any other known U.S. collection) s) of this taxon, I recommend that it be removed forthwith as a member of the floras of New Mexico and the U.S. Thanks to W.L. Wagner (pers. comm.) of the U.S. National Herbarium (US), I was able to obtain the following details about these two Meams’s specimens of P. campanulatus ssp. chihuahuensis-. no. 2112 (US 232994), base of San Luis Mts. up to 6000 ft., Sept. 5, 1893; no. 2222 (US 233447), canon [on the] east side San Luis Mts., Sept. 1 1, 1893. Note that neither specimen has a state or country of origin, although Dr. Wagner informs me that 2112 was filed in the collection in a U.S./Canada folder and 2222 in a Mexican one. Unfortunately, this lack of geographic specificity typifies many plants and animals collected by Meams et al. in the San Luis Mountains and vicinity, in contrast with material obtained elsewhere during the 1892-1894 boundary survey. For example, state and country are lacking for most bird specimens I have examined from that range, as well the majority of mammals cited in the only biological report published from the survey (Meams 1907). I have no idea why material from this particular area so consistently lacks state/country of origin. However, it could simply result from an oversight that Mearns did not notice and obviously never corrected. For certain, I cannot believe that country of origin was omitted because of confusion about the boundary=s location, given the presence of surveyors and markers along the survey route. The same would have been true in locating New Mexico=s borders, although admittedly some confusion may have existed (and persisted) concerning the boundary between Chihuahua and Sonora. http ://web .nmsu. edu/~kallred/herb web/ newpage2 7 .htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 10 of 12 In attempting to determine the country/state of origin of these two Penstemon campanulatus specimens, two potential sources of information come to mind. One is Meams’s field notes for his botanical collections, which Dr. Wagner (pers. comm.) has consulted for me and finds inferior in detail to the following. The second is the afore-mentioned report published by Mearns (1907), which besides a treatise on mammals contains detailed information on itineraries, descriptions of sites, and the biological activities of that boundary survey. Although neither of Mearns’s specimens is mentioned, this report does detail collecting activities for the dates on which this material was taken. Starting with specimen no. 2222, Mearns (op.cit. : 1 5, 88-90, and 143-144) indicated that his party began the day it was collected (September 1 1, 1893) at White Water (Station 16). This was a camp located on an arroyo (probably El Desaije) about one mile south of Monument 61 in Chihuahua. On that morning, the party rode to San Francisco Canyon (Station 18) on the east side of the San Luis Mountains, about 10 miles south of the boundary. In fact, the latter is doubtlessly the diagonal (and horseback) distance to this canyon, for Mearns also said the site was five miles southwest of Monument 63. There is indeed a San Francisco Canyon on the east side of the San Luis Mountains of Chihuahua, with its western branches lying five to seven miles due south of the boundary. However, this is a rather minor drainage, and it does not penetrate deeply or reach the higher elevations of these mountains. Given this, I suspect that Mearns and his party were actually in a drainage about a mile to the north, namely Canon del Oso. Not only is this longer and deeper than San Francisco Canyon, but it clearly heads in the type of forested habitat (e.g., stands of Arizona cypress, Cupressus arizonica Green) mentioned by Mearns— and would more likely have contained the stream of water described. Whatever the case, Mearns indicated that "valuable collections were made here, as many of the species obtained belong to the Mexican fauna and flora, only crossing the United States line at a few points." After working its way up the canyon to "the high peaks" of the range (to ca. 7500 feet), the party apparently returned to camp lower down the drainage (or they might have returned to White Water). Either way, Mearns and the others remained in Chihuahua all day on September 1 1, 1893, meaning that specimen no. 2222 was indeed taken in that state— doubtlessly in the San Luis Mountains (as surmised by Straw 1963)— and quite likely in Canon del Oso rather than San Francisco Canyon. As for specimen no. 2112, it was collected on September 5, 1893-which was within a period (the first through ninth of that month) in which Mearns (op.cit.: 15, 89-93, and 144) and his party were camped at Lang’s Ranch (or San Luis Spring), elevation 5174 feet, in the Animas Valley (Station no. 20). This site is located in extreme southern Hidalgo County, New Mexico, just north of the Mexican border and yards north of the present settlement of El Valle, Chihuahua. From this camp, Mearns and others explored nearby areas, including what he termed the "west [= northern, apparently mainly west and north of the Continental Divide] slope from the base to the summit" of the San Luis Mountains. Concerning the latter area, Mearns (op.cit. :90) went on to write that "a camp at the spring in Turkey Canyon, at a corresponding altitude [to upper "San Francisco" Canyon (= Canon el Oso?) in the cypress zone] on the west side, [was a center] of collecting activity for several weeks [in 1892-1893]. A few lines later he indicated that he "made collections in the [San Luis] Mountains on. ..August 31 and September 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1893, west side from base to summit, in the vicinity of Turkey Canyon." Based on these comments, it is clear that Mearns collected specimens in Turkey Canyon when his no. 21 12 of P. campanulatus was taken (September 5, 1893). Furthermore, his plant list shows the site supported the type of habitats that would have favored this species, including the Arizona cypress and bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum Nutt.). Under the circumstances, I believe this specimen was indeed collected in that canyon, which almost certainly is what is now known as Canon del Diablo. If this assessment is correct, then specimen no. 2112 was taken in Chihuahua at a point some three to five miles due south of the U.S. boundary. Based on these reconstructions, both Meams’s specimens (nos. 2112 and 2222) of Penstemon campanulatus ssp. chihuahuensis were taken in Chihuahua, and therefore this taxon should be removed from the floras of the U.S. and New Mexico. If this recommendation is accepted, it will correct an error dating from the time of Wooton and Standley (1915). If not, then presumably proponents of a New Mexico origin of the material will marshal evidence contradicting the reconstruction presented here. In my opinion, not to be construed as such "evidence" would be Wooton and Standley’s decision considering these as U.S. specimens in the first place. This is because that decision was seemingly arbitrary and subjective, rather than based on close study of factors such as specimen data, Meams’s itinerary, and the habitat requirements of the plant. In fact, the same flawed approach probably attended their review of other Mearns’s specimens from the San Luis Mountains, with another likely error being attribution of Eriogonum atrovubens Engelm. to the U.S. flora (W. Hess pers. comm.). Furthermore, the misrepresentation of Meams’s records from there did not end with Wooton and Standley or plants, as is evident with some of the birds reported in Bailey (1928). Among the latter are three specimens of the blue-throated hummingbird, Lampornis clemenciae (Lesson), said to be from the Lang Ranch, July 1 1-12, 1892 (op.cit. :37 1 ). However, the labels state these came from the west side of the San Luis Mountains, where Mearns (1907:90) indicated a collecting camp was maintained in Turkey Canyon by his assistant Francis X. Holzner on July 11-23, 1892— exactly where this montane species would be expected. To return to P. campanulatus , just because Mearns did not collect it in New Mexico does not mean that it will not be found there some day. This would most likely occur during wet years, in which high seed production to the south and improved growing conditions everywhere might favor the species’s northward expansion. Perhaps the New Mexico area with the highest potential for this would be the upper parts of Lang, Whitewater, or other canyons in the northernmost spur of the San Luis Mountains. In fact, a specimen has been collected in the Chihuahuan portion of this spur, about a mile south of the international boundary. This is NMC 53383, taken by Richard Spellenberg and Rob Soreng on October 10, 1982, just south of Highway 2 in an east-draining canyon [= Canon de San Luis], However, that site is still http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 11 of 1 2 undeniably in Mexico, and so this taxon's occurrence in New Mexico (and the U.S.) will remain unproved until an unquestionable authentic record is obtained from north of the boundary! From a biological standpoint, whether Meams collected Penstemon ccimpanulatus in the San Luis Mountains of the U.S. or Mexico is of minor significance. After all, geopolitical boundaries have little to do with the natural world, as most are arbitrary and not expected to conform with or reflect patterns of biotic distribution. In fact many taxa in this particular region are shared between the two countries, including Mexican montane forms that extend into the border ranges in New Mexico and/or Arizona. On the other hand, regional biotas are typically defined in geopolitical terms, such as the flora of the U.S. or New Mexico. As a consequence, it is important to have the most accurate information possible on the ranges of component taxa. In addition, geopolitical boundaries can be a factor in the way taxa are managed, which may result in biological consequences. For example, a number of vertebrates common in Mexico are rare and local in the southwestern U.S., to the point of being listed as endangered or threatened taxa in states such as New Mexico. This listing in turn leads to improved management of wildlife habitat, which can benefit both listed and other organisms. Finally, some taxa do reach distributional limits in the U.S. -Mexican border region, as exemplified by the population of Penstemon campanulatus in the San Luis Mountains of Chihuahua (and doubtlessly adjacent Sonora). As such, these populations can provide insights into the parameters that control the distribution of given organisms, such as climate, resource availability, biological factors, and paleontological/historical events. I wish to acknowledge first and foremost Warren L. Wagner, who did much to elucidate the flora of New Mexico’s Animas Mountains (Master’s Thesis at the University of New Mexico), where Penstemon campanulatus has been long sought but apparently never found. Dr. Wagner provided me with crucial information on E. A. Meams’s two specimens (nos. 2112 and 2222) of this species, which are housed in the U.S. National Herbarium. In addition, I also thank William Hess, Richard Spellenberg, and Rob Soreng for information they provided on plants in the San Luis Mountains and vicinity. Finally, I salute the excellent work of Dr. Meams and his associates during the 1892-1894 boundary survey, without which we would not have these and many other biological specimens to study and leam from. I am certain they would be glad that the material is still being utilized, although not to the degree that it should be (or have been). In this regard, I would like to point out that Meams prepared an extensive report that detailed the biological and related findings from that survey (Hume 1942). Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress failed to appropriate funds to publish the full report, and so only the first volume was ever printed (Meams 1907). Perhaps the Smithsonian Institution or others should consider exhuming, updating, and publishing the remaining portion of the report, which would provide a unparalleled picture of the biota of the boundary at the close of the 19th century. Moreover, such a publication could also address other "specious" records like that of P. campanulatus, which persist even though over a century has passed since they were first obtained! Literature Cited Bailey, F.M. (with W.W. Cooke). 1928. The birds of New Mexico. N.M. Dept. Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. Hume, E.E. 1942. Ornithologists of the United States Army Medical Corps. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. Kartesz, J. 1998. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Online version (www.csdl.tamu.edu/ FLORA), including maps. Martin, W.C. and C.R. Hutchins. 1981. A flora ofNew Mexico, vol 2. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Germany. Meams, E.A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States. U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 56. Nisbet, G.T. and R.C. Jackson. 1960. The genus Penstemon in New Mexico. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 4 1(5):69 1-759. Roalson, E.H. and K.W. Allred. 1995. A working index ofNew Mexico vascular plant names, ed. 1. N. M. St. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 702. Straw, R.M. 1963. The penstemons of Mexico. III. Two subsections in the Section Fasciculus. Brittonia 15:49-64. Wooton, E.O. and P.C. Standley. 1915. Flora ofNew Mexico. Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb. 19:1-794. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 11 Page 12 of 12 New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition (herbarium) of a specimen. — David Bleakly (3813 Monroe, NE, Albuquerque, NM 871 10) Symphyotrichum ciliatum (Asteraceae): San Juan Co. (UNM). Atriplex heterosperma Bunge (Chenopodiaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (UNM). - — Kelly Allred (Box 3-1, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003) Daucosma I acini at a Engelm. & Gray (Umbelliferae): Hidalgo Co. (ARIZ). Cotula australis (Sieb. ex Spreng.) Hook. f. (Compositae): Lincoln Co. (NMCR). — Laird McIntosh (BLM, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, NM 88005) Hedypnois cretica (L.) Dum.-Cours. (Compositae): Dona Ana Co. (NMC) Back to newsletter index http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/newpage27.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 1 of 12 The New Mexico Botanist Issue No. 12, July 6, 1999 • Penstemon In New Mexico? • Salsola in New Mexico • Botanical Literature of Interest • New Plant Distribution Records N.Y. BOTANICAL GARDEN LIBRARY BRONX, NEW YORK 10458-5128 Penstemon spinulosus Wooton and Standley: New Mexico endemic, error, or introduction? John P. Hubbard Route 5, Box 431, Espanola, NM 87532 Penstemon spinulosus was described by Wooton and Standley (1913) on the basis of a George R. Vasey specimen (U.S. National Herbarium no. 156865), which was said to have been collected in June 1881 in the Magdalena Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico. Since its description, this taxon has been variously treated —including as a full species (e.g., Wooton and Standley op. cit., 1915); a subspecies of P. heterophyllus Lindl. (Keck 1932, Lodewick and Lodewick 1987); and a synonym of P. bridgesii Gray [=P. rostriflorus Kellogg] (Tidestrom and Kittell 1941, Martin and Hutchins 1981, Roalson and Allred 1995). In other instances, its existence as a New Mexico taxon has either been overlooked/ignored (e.g., Nisbet and Jackson 1960; Kartesz 1998) or disputed (Bleakly 1998), assuming the latter’s rejection of P. heterophyllus as a member of that flora actually refers to P. spinulosus —treated as a subspecies of that species. Given this range of opinions, a status review of this taxon would seem in order —if for no other reason than to summarize and update what is known about P. spinulosus for people interested in the plants of New Mexico. In describing Penstemon spinulosus , Wooton and Standley (1913) gave the following diagnosis: "Stems slender, ascending, 20 to 30 cm. high, purplish, minutely puberulent; leaves linear-oblanceolate to linear-lanceolate, numerous, obtuse or acute, slightly reduced upward, glabrous, narrowed at the base to sessile, 5 cm. long or less; bracts linear-lanceolate, 1 to 2 cm. long; inflorescence few-flowered; pedicels short, stout; sepals 7 mm. high, the lobes lanceolate, rather abruptly acuminate, not scarious, glabrous, the tips spreading; corolla 3 cm. long, dilated in the throat, not bearded, the spreading limbs 2 cm. wide; stamens included; anthers sagittate, dehiscent for half their length, finely spinulose along the sutures." They also stated that "This is more closely related to P. bridgesii than to any other southwestern species, but it may be separated by the glabrous instead of glandular inflorescence and the much dilated corolla tube. Whether the corollas are red as in that species cannot be told from the faded dried specimens." Although not stated as such, the basis for this presumed relationship undoubtedly had to do with the means by which the anthers open (dehisce) to disperse pollen in these two species. In both, dehiscence occurs via a short suture, slit, or orifice across the connective, with the free tips of the anthers remaining closed (e.g., Nisbet and Jackson 1960). By contrast, in other New Mexico penstemons the anthers open from the free tips all or part way to the connective region. Incidentally, I assume that Wooton and Standley (op. cit.) selected the name spinulosus for this taxon because of the spines along this suture, as quoted above. As far as I am aware, the next serious taxonomic treatment of Penstemon spinulosus following its description was by David D. Keck (1932), in the first of a series of landmark papers on the genus published through 1945. In the former, he accepted spinulosus as a valid taxon, but assigned it subspecific status under P. heterophyllus Lindl. of California. This determination was based on his study of the type specimen, which he cited as being from the Santa Magdalena Mountains of New Mexico. In discussing his findings, Keck (op. cit. :4 1 0) indicated that spinulosus was most like P. heterophyllus ssp. purdyi Keck of central and northern California, but differing in having the "teeth [spines] margining [the] orifice of the anthers stout, subulate, often curved, not crowded, [and] as much as 0.40 mm long." He further stated (op. cit.: 410 and 413) that "It cannot be said that spinulosus has any discemable strong morphological characters on which to stand. But it should be recalled that the only known collection came from a little-frequented portion of New Mexico so many years ago that it would seem certainly to be native to that region rather than an introduction by man. The type specimen is well faded and scarcely http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 2 of 12 complete enough to assure a complete comparison with purdyi. [However,] no California collection has been observed to have anthers directly comparable to those of spinulosus, so that the differences which at first appear trivial seem to be definite. Other characters have failed to disclose themselves but may be noted when the subspecies is recollected in New Mexico. Apparently this is a migrant from California at an early time when the desert region was a less imposing barrier to such a migration. At all events, spinulosus connects definitely with [P.] heterophyllus of California, rather than with any of the Utah or Great Basin species of the Section [ Saccanthera ]." Although my review is not exhaustive, Keck’s views on the taxonomic status of Penstemon spinulosus have apparently been accepted by most serious students of this genus. For example, in the most recent American Penstemon Society checklist (Lodewick and Lodewick 1987), spinulosus is listed as one of four accepted subspecies of P. heterophyllus —the others being restricted to California. However, for reasons that are not clear to me, Nisbet and Jackson (1960) made no mention of spinulosus in their monumental treatise on the penstemons of New Mexico. It is difficult to believe they overlooked it, for it certainly would have been noted in consulting Wooton and Standley (1913, 1915) during the course of their study. Perhaps instead they assumed that the taxon was described from an erroneously labelled specimen, i.e., one that had come from California rather than New Mexico. In fact, F.S. Crosswhite (pers. comm., Sep. 30, 1984) indicated to me that Keck may have later concluded this himself —although I have not found such a conclusion in print. Later works on New Mexico plants by Tidestrom and Kittell (1941), Martin and Hutchins (1981), and Roalson and Allred (1995) did treat Penstemon spinulosus , although all placed it in the synonomy of P. bridgesii Gray [=P. rostriflorus Kellogg], I suspect this resulted from oversight rather than any disagreement with views expressed by Keck (1932), for these two taxa have little in common beyond the way their anthers dehisce. Finally, in a publication I have not seen (i.e., U.S.D.A. 1994— or is it 1997?), P. heterophyllus is listed as a New Mexico species— presumably based on Keck’s (op. cit.) inclusion of spinulosus in that species. However, Bleakly (1998) rejects P. heterophyllus as a New Mexico species, whether the name is applied to the California species (as discussed above) or the Utah endemic P. sepalulus A. Nels. (of which he regards P. heterophyllus S. Wats, as a synonym; however, Lodewick and Lodewick [1987] consider the latter synonymous with P. azureus Benth. of Oregon and California). Based on what is now known, I believe Keck’s (1932) taxonomic assessment of Penstemon spinulosus is fundamentally correct -notably that this taxon is so similar to P. heterophyllus Lindl. as to be conspecific and thus included under that older name. As to whether spinulosus is a valid subspecies, it should be recalled that Keck found this taxon to differ in only minor degree from P. heterophyllus ssp. purdyi. In addition, spinulosus apparently remains known only from the unique type, which means its distinguishing characteristics rest on a single collection. As such, these could represent individual variation rather than the characteristics of an entire population. Thus, it seems safe to say that the infraspecific status of spinulosus is less certain than that at the species level. Beyond this, it should be empahsized that except for spinulosus, P. heterophyllus is otherwise a strict endemic of California. There, it is occupies an area extending from the southwestern to northwestern sections of the state (west of the Sierra Nevada), with an elevational range of 50 to 1600 m (Kartesz 1998). (It seems likely the species would also occur in northwestern Baja California, based on the availability of seemingly habitat there.) Given the species’s distributional metropolis in California, the authenticity of an alleged New Mexico specimen of Penstemon heterophyllus is certainly open to question —even if it does represent a distinct subspecies. Not only has spinulosus never been recollected, but P. heterophyllus is not known to occur in Arizona (Kearney and Peebles 1960) or even most of eastern California (Kartesz op. cit.). Surely, if the species were indeed relictual in western New Mexico (as presumed by Keck 1932), one would expect at least scatttered populations in the intervening area. In fact, a number of penstemons do display such a distribution, including P. rostriflorus, P. eatonii Gray, and P. pseudospectabilis M.E. Jones —which reach their eastern limits in western New Mexico. It should also be noted that P. heterophyllus is a member of the Section Saccanthera of the genus Penstemon, which contains 18-20 species found primarily in California and the Great Basin— with none in Arizona and only P. heterophyllus ssp. spinulosus allegedly from New Mexico (Lodewick and Lodewick 1987, Kartesz 1998). Taken together, this body of evidence suggests that regardless of its subspecific validity, it seems unlikely the type of spinulosus actually came from New Mexico. As a consequentce, the most likely explanation for the record is that the specimen was indeed mislabelled —having actually been taken in California rather than New Mexico. As indicated earlier, the collector of the type of P. spinulosus was George R. Vasey (1822-1893), a respected botanist especially known for his studies of North American grasses (e.g., Vasey [and Richardson] 1889). As for his collecting plants in New Mexico, there is no question that he indeed did so between May and September 1881 (e.g., Wooton and Standley 1913). In fact, in addition to Penstemon spinulosus, that material also provided types for seven other plants described by Wooton and Standley (op. cit.). Moreover, additional of his 1881 collections were cited by those authors in discussing distribution in other New Mexico plants, including from Socorro and the Magdalena Mountains (Socorro Co.), Glorieta (Santa Fe Co.), and the Organ Mountains (Dona Ana Co.). Except for the type of spinulosus, I find no case in which Vasey’s collection localities are at variance with those now known for plants in the state. Illustrative of this are other penstemons he collected there in 1881, of which I examined specimens of six species and subspecies (plus one hybrid) at the U.S. National Herbarium in 1991 . These included material from what Vasey called "Santa Magdalena Mountain," namely a specimen of P. jamesii ssp. ophianthus (Penn.) Keck and another of the hybrid P. thurberi Torr. X P. ambiguus Torr. The latter bore the http ://web . nmsu . edu/ ~kallred/herb web/ 1 2 . htm 8/14/2003 t 1 12 Page 3 of 12 additional term "plain" after the locality, no doubt in reference to grasslands north of the Magdalenas -where such a population was later studied by Nisbet and Jackson (1960). Although suggestive, the above obviously does not preclude the possibility that Vasey incorrectly labelled some of the New Mexico plants he collected in 1881, most notably in the case of the type of Penstemon spinulosus. The fact is that virtually all collectors occasionally mislabel specimens, and quite likely Vasey was no exception to this rule. In fact, other evidence might do more to advance this possibilty, such as a revelation that Vasey was a chronic mislabeler of specimens, or that some of his 1881 material became intermixed with other collections. On the other hand, in the absence of such findings and given that Vasey did indeed collect plants in the Magdalenas that year, it is possible he actually did secure the type of spinulosus there. If so, this would fit Keck’s (1932) perception of this taxon as a naturally-occurring population of P. heterophyllus, as disjunct from others in California it might be. However, another possibility is that the Magdalenas occurrence of this species resulted from an introduction by 1 9th-century humans. While Keck (1932) believed the early date of collection mitigated against Penstemon heterophyllus having been introduced into the Magdalenas, he may have underestimated the potential for this to have occurred. While there were certainly no easy means of transit or largescale human movements from California to the Magdalena region as of 1881, horseback and wagon travel by a select few was another matter. For example, prospectors, miners, and their ilk had been moving about the western U.S. since the 1840-1850's searching for mineral riches, and that travel was certainly not limited to an east-to-west direction. In fact, Stanley (1973) wrote that "soldiers from California stationed in New Mexico during the Civil War made unsuccessful efforts to locate gold, silver, [and] copper" [in the Magdalena Mountains] -which would have been 15-20 years before Vasey’s visit . By 1866, a promising mineral discovery had been made in the range, and an 1879 boom led by silver and then zinc resulted in the establishment of the mining town of Kelly (Julyan 1996). Miners and others flocked to the area from a variety of places, including California. By the beginning of 1880, at least 200 people were working in the area (Stanley op. cit.), and the population of Kelly eventually reached 3000 (Julyan op. cit.). Given these events, it is conceivable that seeds of P. heterophyllus could have found their way into wagons or packs in California, then been transported to establish a population of this species in the Magdalena Mountains. If this produced even a temporary population of the species there, Vasey could have collected specimens and never had an inkling the occurrence was anything out of the ordinary. If 19th-century humans indeed brought Penstemon heterophyllus from California into the Magdalena Mountains, this would constitute the earliest introduction of a non-native penstemon into the wild in New Mexico. However, it would not be the only or last such instance, and in fact the process may be escalating —as discussed below. Among other likely examples was a population of P. palmeri Gray documented by Nisbet and Jackson (1960) in 1959, growing along U.S. Highway 66, some 70 miles east of Albuquerque in the Pedemal Hills, Torrance County. This occurrence represented the first confirmed state record of this species, but even earlier may have been a population in eastern Santa Fe County. The latter was along the Santa Fe Trail east of Santa Fe, where pointed out to me in the 1980's by a longtime resident (and wildflower enthusiast) —who said the species had been there for decades and had not been planted by anyone to his knowledge. In both cases, the New Mexico "colonies" were some 300 miles east of central Arizona, the nearest place where natural populations of the species occur (Kearny and Peebles 1960). Another obvious introduction is that of P. cobaea Nutt, of the humid southern Great Plains and vicinity, wild populations of which have been found 150 or more miles to the west in Sandoval, Taos, and Santa Fe counties (occurrences in Quay County might represent a natural population). These records date from the 1 970’s and 1980's, which coincides with rising local popularity of penstemons as cultivated plants —a factor that obviously increases the potential for non-native species to spread into the wild. (An even earlier arrival of this species at Flagstaff, Arizona led to the collection of what became the type for P. hansonii A. Nels. [Kearney and Peebles I960]!). Finally, road and highway departments have also become agents in the extralimital dispersal of penstemons, namely through the inclusion of the seeds in mixes broadcast to stabilize and beautify transportation corridors. For example, there are several collections of P. strictus Benth. from along roadways in Catron and Grant counties, where this Rocky Mountain species is certainly not native and was unknown in the wild before the 1970's. Of the three scenarios discussed here, mislabelling is admittedly the most plausible explanation for the alleged occurrence of Penstemon heterophyllus in New Mexico’s Magdalena Mountains in 1881. While this scenario may not be supported by evidence presented here, it certainly deserves further examination —including along a number of additional avenues of inquiry. For example, if Vasey kept a catalog, journal, and/or notes, these might contain some indication of whether he indeed collected this penstemon in New Mexico. In addition, a comparison of the type of spinulosus with other Vasey material might also prove useful, including to confirm this was indeed one of his specimens. Yet other insights might be gained from examination of the U.S. National Herbarium catalog, such as determining when, by whom, and other details concerning the accessioning of the type into that collection. In the case of the date, this obviously could have been any time after the type was collected (1881) and before spinulosus was described (1913). It may be the longer it took to accession the specimen, perhaps the more likely it may have been mislabelled. As for Vasey himself, it would be would be interesting to know when and if he ever collected plants within the range of P. heterophyllus —especially prior to the accession date of the type of spinulosus. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 4 of 12 Clearly, if evidence emerges suggesting the type of Penstemon heterophyllus ssp. spinulosus did not come from New Mexico, then the taxon should be deleted from the flora of the state. However, if such is not forthcoming, then the possibility will remain that the record is valid on its face —which means the type could have indeed originated in New Mexico. Given this, what factors might help determine whether this represents a relictual or an introduced population? As indicated earlier, although Keck (1932) found only minor differences between spinulosus and other P. heterophyllus populations, he considered these adequate to accord the former subspecific status. However, a restudy of specimens might provide new insights into geographic variation in this complex, with particular emphasis applied to the anther characters used by Keck to distinguish spinulosus. Once completed, two possible outcomes might result —the first showing that spinulosus characters are also present in California populations of P. heterophyllus , and the second that they are not. If the characters hold up, this would support Keck's perception of spinulosus as a relictual population of this species. If they do not, this would argue for "spinulosus" resulting from a recent introduction of P. heterophyllus into New Mexico (or a mislabelled collection). However, a possible complication is that some characters in this complex may vary ecotypically, e.g., the teeth around the anther sutures could be better developed in plants growing in more arid areas. If this were the case, then a population of P. heterophyllus in the Magdalenas could prove divergent but still be introduced! My point is that no guarantee exists that further study will fully resolve questions concerning the origin of the type and thus the status of Penstemon heterophyllus ssp. spinulosus (Wooton and Standley) Keck. Thus, one may still end up having to choose among scenarios in seeking such resolution, which could then decide this taxon’s place in the state’s flora. Whatever the choice, hopefully it will be arrived at through the broadest and most objective approach possible, rather than subjective or arbitrary judgment. No taxon deserves the latter treatment, even though this has been the fate of Penstemon spinulosus by dent of its being ignored, incorrectly synonymized, or dismissed because of doubts about its legitimacy as a member of New Mexico’s flora. Indeed, until and even after its status is resolved, both the type and the taxon it spawned should continue to be matters of interest —if not attention —for New Mexico botanists. After all, the process of determining the status and relationships of living organisms is ongoing, and today’s dictum may be tomorrow’s erroneous conclusion. If anyone doubts this, a case in point is Penstemon metcalfei Wooton and Standley, a taxon described from the Black Range and long relegated to the synonymy of P. whippleanus Gray (e.g.. Keck 1945). Quite to the contrary, Todsen (1998) has shown that P. metcalfei is in fact a distinctive member of the Oliganthi alliance, which in New Mexico consists of four other nominal species (Crosswhite 1965). Oddly enough, no member of this group had previously been reported from the Black Range, and now we can see why! Who knows? Perhaps further inquiry will be equally revealing in the case of Penstemon heterophyllus ssp. spinulosus, which certainly populates New Mexico’s botanical archives —if not a site somewhere in the wild. Literature Cited Bleakly, D. 1998. A key to the penstemons of New Mexico. N. Mex. Bot. 9:1-6. Crosswhite, F.S. 1965. Revision of Penstemon section Penstemon (Scrophulariaceae) II. Western alliance in series Graciles. Amer. Mid. Nat. 74 (2):429-442. Julyan, R. 1996. The place names of New Mexico. Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Kartesz, J. 1998. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Online version (www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA), including maps. Kearney, T.H. & R.H. Peebles. 1960. Arizona flora, 2nd ed. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, and Los Angeles, CA. Keck, D D. 1932. Studies in Penstemon. A systematic treatment of the section Saccanthera. Univ. Calif. Pub. Bot. 16:367-426. Keck, D.D. 1945. Studies in Penstemon, VIII. A cytotaxonomic account of the section Spermunculus. Amer. Mid. Nat. 33: 128-206. Lodewick, K. & R Lodewick. 1987. Penstemon nomenclature. Amer. Penstemon Soc.:l-72. Martin, W.C. & C.R Hutchins. 1981. A flora of New Mexico, Vol. 2. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Germany. Nisbet, G.T. & R.C. Jackson. 1960. The genus Penstemon in New Mexico. Univ. Kan. Sci. Bull. 41(5):691-759. Stanley, F. 1973. The Magdalena, New Mexico story. Published by the author, Nazareth, TX. Roalson, E.H. & K.W. Allred. 1995 A working index of New Mexico vascular plant names. N. Mex. St. Univ. Agri. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 702. Tidestrom, I. & T. Kittell. 1941. A fora of Arizona and New Mexico. Catholic Univ. Amer. Press, Washing, DC. http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 5 of 12 Todsen, T.K. 1998. Penstemon metcalfei (Scrophulariaceae), a valid species. Sida 18(2): 621-622. U.S.D.A. 1994. Plants of New Mexico alphabetical listing. U.S. Dept. Agri. Soil Con. Serv. (not seen). Vasey, G. [& C. Richardson]. 1889. The agricultural grasses and forage plants of the United States. U.S. Gov. Printing Off : 1-148, plus 1 14 plates. Wooton, E.O. & P C. Standley. 1913. Descriptions of new plants preliminary to a report upon the flora of New Mexico Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus 5:109-196. Wooton, E.O. & P.C. Standley. 1915. Flora ofNew Mexico. Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb. 19. G3 An Investigation of Salsola L. (Chenopodiaceae) in New Mexico Adam C. Forbes and Kelly W. Allred Range Science Herbarium, Department of Animal & Range Sciences,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 Abstract There are currently only two verified species of Salsola in New Mexico: S. collina Pallas and S. tragus L. The former is a recent introduction characterized by elongate flowering branches, appressed flowering bracts, and wingless fruits. The latter has been known in New Mexico since 1894, has a checkered and difficult nomenclature, and is characterized by reddish stem stnations, soft and semi-succulent seedling leaves, long narrow cauline leaves, recurved flowering bracts, central perianth segments that are rounded, lax, and spreading, and winged fruits. Salsola paulsenii Pallas is not known definitely from New Mexico, but a few specimens may represent hybrid derivatives or intermediates suggestive of this species. Introduction Tire genus Salsola L., in the family Chenopodiaceae, comprises as many as 150 species world-wide, with both herbaceous and shrubby members. Of the six or seven species occurring in the United States, all may be considered alien introductions from Eurasia, some perhaps naturalized (Kartesz 1994; Mosyakin 1996). Tire species are widespread throughout much of North America, regularly occurring in disturbed, often dry and barren, habitats, and commonly considered undesirable or noxious weeds. They go by various common names, including Russian thistle, saltwort, saltbush, tumbleweed, wind witch, and Russian cactus. The genus is characterized by the following features: flowers bisexual and solitary (rarely in 2s or 3s) in the axils of bracts; perianth segments 5 (corolla lacking), at maturity covering the fruit and in many species developing wings, or wingless; stamens 5; styles and stigmas 2; pericarp adherent; seed horizontal. Until recently, it was thought that only a single species was present in New Mexico (Martin & Hutchins 1981). The report of a second in 1995 (Roalson & Allred 1995) and a third in 1996 (Mosyakin 1996) prompted this investigation. Our purposes were to verify what species were present in the state and to document their distributions. The investigation was not meant to be a taxonomic revision of the species, but more floristic in nature, as we were concerned strictly with New Mexico populations. Historical Aspects Salsola was first noticed in New Mexico in the fall of 1894. The October issue of "Southwestern Farm and Orchard" of that year carried an announcement that Russian thistle had been found at Santa Fe and included a warning to the farmers of the territory about its noxious character (Wooton 1895). A note affixed to a specimen (at NMC) collected in 1896 by S.S. McKibbin from Lamy, New Mexico, records that he "has seen it for two years in this locality," corroborating the 1894 observation. An early agricultural bulletin identified the plants as Salsola kali L. var. tragus (L.) Moq. and reported its occurrence in New Mexico Territory only in Santa Fe County and perhaps Chaves County, near Roswell (Wooton 1895). By 1915 the plant was reported as "one of the commonest introduced weeds, ...to be found in practically every locality in the State except in the higher mountains" (Wooton & Standley 1915). The most recent accounting for New Mexico characterized http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 6 of 12 the distribution as "widespread" and mapped its occurrence in 19 of the state’s 32 counties (Martin & Hutchins 1981 ). Beatley (1973) called attention to an over-looked species in western United States, Salsola paulsenii Pallas, and reported it from Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. It was not reported for New Mexico by either Wooton and Standley (1915) nor Martin and Hutchins (1981), but a specimen from Luna County seemed to fit this species and it was listed for the state by Roalson & Allred (1995). Salsola collina Pallas was first reported for the state by Mosyakin in 1996, but a search of herbarium specimens revealed the earliest collection of this species to be in 1952 from the Sacramento Mountains in Otero County, though it was not correctly identified until this review was undertaken. Previous Work and A Synopsis of the Diagnostic Features Uncertainty about the identity of Salsola species is presaged by a profusion of names and synonyms, at least for the common Russian thistle plant found throughout the state (Table 1). We follow here the classification scheme employed by Gleason and Cronquist (1991) and Mosyakin (1996), which recognizes the main taxa at the specific level, rather than a slightly more conservative approach that elaborates the variation at the subspecific level, as represented by Kartesz (1994). Salsola collina. Beginning with the first report for the United States (Moore 1938) and in subsequent early reports (Cory 1948; Gleason 1952; Schapaugh 1958) there has been no confusion about the identification of S. collina. This species is characterized by the following features (Table 2): flowering branches noticeably elongate and virgate, hardly prickly; bracts imbricate and appressed to the flowering branches, only spreading at the tips; central perianth segments rounded at the apices, lax, and spreading; fruiting wings absent or essentially so. Plants of S. collina are rather easily determined, and the difference in growth form is conspicuous when growing with S. tragus. The lack of perianth wings in fruit is especially diagnostic. Salsola pauhenii. Beatley’s (1973) characterization of S. paulsenii for North American plants has been followed in essentially all subsequent treatments (Table 2): plants prickly from the seedling stage through maturity, yellow-green when young, pale to straw-colored when mature; stems not or hardly striated; cauline leaves short (< 2 cm) and thick (> 1, mostly 1.5-2, mm), strongly stiff and spinose even when young; central perianth segments acute at the apices, spinose, and erect; fruiting wings prominent, 6- 1 2 mm in diameter. Salsola tragus. As seen by the overabundance of scientific names applied to this taxon, 5. tragus has been the source of confusion, both taxonomic and nomenclatural, since it was first found in the United States, having arrived with flax seed in South Dakota in 1873 or 1874. Although there is some overlap in features according to various authors who treat two or more of the species in question, this species has generally been characterized by the following (Table 2): plants soft and not at all prickly in the seedling stage, becoming stiff and prickly with maturity; stems with red striations; cauline leaves relatively long (2-8 cm) and narrow (< 1 mm), soft and succulent in young plants, rigid and spinose in mature plants; central perianth segments rounded at the apices, lax, and spreading; fruiting wings prominent, 3-6 mm in diameter (though Mosyakin [1996] allows up to 10 mm diameter in this species). The Identification of New Mexico Plants In an attempt to correctly determine which species occur in New Mexico, we examined all the specimens of New Mexico Salsola (132) from the herbaria at New Mexico State University (NMC and NMCR), San Juan College (SJC), University of New Mexico (UNM), and White Sands Missile Range, as well as a few representative specimens of 5. paulsenii from Missouri Botanical Garden (MO) that had been identified as such by Beatley or Mosyakin (none from New Mexico). Features emphasized by various authors as being diagnostic for one species or another (Table 2) were compared with the variation present in New Mexico plants, with the following observations. Salsola collina. Three plants were determined as Salsola collina, from Lincoln, Otero, and Santa Fe counties. In addition, this species was seen by Forbes in southern McKinley County in October 1998, but not vouchered by an herbarium specimen. Each specimen was typical, with elongate inflorescence branches, appressed bracts, and wingless fruiting perianth. Salsola tragus and Salsola paulsenii . Most of the remaining plants were easily identified as Salsola tragus , as characterized above. Many of the specimens were immature, without flowers or fruits, but with long, semi-succulent, soft leaves and prominent red striations on the stems typical of S. tragus. None of these immature specimens exhibited leaves or stems that resembled those of S. paulsenii-. short, stiff, thickened leaves and pale stems lacking striations. Occasionally, a small (but mature fruiting) specimen may mimic a paulsenii seedling in size and in having prickly leaves, but the presence of fruits http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 7 of 12 allows one to determine that the specimen is not a seedling and that the prickly leaves are not seedling leaves. This was the case with the plant that was the basis for the report off S. paulsenii in Roalson and Allred (1995). None of the specimens with mature fruits exhibited the spinose, erect-appressed, acute central perianth segments that both Fuller (1986) and Mosyakin (1996) emphasized as characteristic of Salsola paulsenii. Many authors (see Table 2) relied upon leaf width and fruiting perianth (wing) diameter to distinguish these two species. New Mexico specimens with both cauline leaves and mature fruiting structures were plotted for these two features (Fig. 1). Plants representative of S. paulsenii should fall in the larger circle, with wide leaves (> 1 mm) and large wing diameters (6-12 mm), and those representative of 5. tragus should fall in the smaller circle, with narrow leaves (< 1 mm) and smaller wing diameters (3-6 mm). Most of the plants aligned with S. tragus on these features; only one plant fell within the paulsenii plot. Tins was a plant gathered from Taos County in 1907 (Adair s.n., UNM) that seemed to be intermediate between these two taxa. Lack of stem striations, short thick leaves, and large wings implied paulsenii , though the leaves were not as thick and stiff as typical paulsenii ; central perianth segments that were blunt, lax, and not at all spinose suggested tragus. Beatley (1973) reported hybrid swarms between the two species where they grow together, but noted that S. paulsenii seemed to be the more common species at lower elevations. The Adair specimen is problematical. Perhaps it represents one of these intermediate hybrid derivatives that found its way to Taos in 1907 but has failed to survive? When compared with the verified specimens of typical S. paulsenii , we were unconvinced that it belonged to that species, and prefer to treat it as an intermediate form. We note also the numerous specimens with large wing diameters, but with narrow leaves (which were all longer than 2 cm) (Fig. 1 ). These would all be aligned with S. tragus by Mosyakin (1996), who extended wing diameter to 10 mm for this species and relied heavily on the spinose nature of the central perianth segments to identify 5. paulsenii. As with the Adair specimen, these might represent hybrid derivatives (not hybrids themselves) between the two species. There were a few other plants that might be mistaken for Salsola paulsenii because of their extremely prickly nature. These were all robust, mature plants with elongate inflorescences and well-developed fruits subtended by short thick flowering bracts suggestive of the cauline leaves of S. paulsenii. However, they had reddish stem striations, long narrow cauline leaves, small diameter fruiting wings, and non-spinose central perianth segments characteristic of S. tragus. None of their features in reality aligned with S. paulsenii; it was their extreme robustness that tended to confuse. Nomenclature and Synonymy We follow here the nomenclature and classification of Mosyakin (1996), and have taken the synonymy from him, Jones et al. ( 1 997), and Kartesz ( 1 994). Salsola collina Pallas Salsola tragus L., Cent. PI. 2:13. 1756. Salsola kali L. var. tragus (L.) Moquin-Tandon Salsola kali L. subsp. tragus (L.) Celakovsky Salsola kali L. subsp. tragus (L.) P. Aellen Salsola australis R. Brown Salsola kali L. subsp. tenuifolia I. Tausch, nomen nudum Salsola kali L. var. tenuifolia Moquin-Tandon Salsola kali L. var. angustifolia Fenzl Salsola kali L. var. leptophylla Bentham Salsola tragus L. subsp. iberica Sennen & Pau Salsola iberica (Sennen & Pau) Botschantzev ex Czerepanov http : //web . nm su . edu/~kallred/herb web/ 1 2 . htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 8 of 12 Salsola kali L. var. pseudotragus G. Beck Salsola pestifer A. Nelson Salsola ruthenica II ij in Salsola kali L. subsp. ruthenica (Ilijin) Soo von Bere Salsola kali L. var. austroafricana P. Aellen Literature Cited Beatley, J.C. 1973. Russian thistle ( Salsola ) species in western United States. J. Range Manage. 26:225-226. Botschantsev, V.P. 1974. A synopsis of Salsola (Chenopodiaceae) from south and southwest Africa. Kew Bull. 29:597-614. Correll, D.S. & M.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner. 1881 pp. Cory, V.L. 1948. Salsola collina Pall. In Colorado. Leaflets of Western Botany 5:104. Crompton, C.W. & IJ. Bassett. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 65. Salsola pestifer A.Nels. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:379-388. Fuller, T.C. 1986. Russian thistles east of the Sierra Nevada. Calif. Native Plant Soc., Bristlecone Chapter, Newsletter 5(3):4-5. Gleason, H.A. 1952. Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2:100. Lancaster Press, Penn. Gleason, H.A. & A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden. 910 pp. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 1392 pp. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 1400 p. Jones, S.D., J.K. Wipff, & P.M. Montgomery. 1997. Vascular Plants of Texas. Univ. Press of Texas, Austin. 404 pp. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Keamey, T.H. & R.H. Peebles. 1969. Arizona Flora. 2nd ed., inch supplement. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 1085 pp. Martin, W.C. & C.R. Hutchins. 1981. A Flora of New Mexico. Vol. 2. J. Cramer, Germany. Moore, J.W. 1938. Euphorbia dentata and Salsola collina in Minnesota. Rhodora 40: 1 35. Mosyakin, S.L. 1996. A taxonomic synopsis of the genus Salsola (Chenopodiaceae) in North America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 83:387-395. Munz, P.A. & D.D. Keck. 1968. A California Flora. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 1681 pp. Roalson, E.H. & K.W. Allred. 1995. A Working Index of New Mexico Vascular Plant Names. New Mexico State University Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 702. Schapaugh, W. 1958. Salsola collina Pall., new to Iowa. Iowa Acad. Sci. 65:1 18-121. Tidestrom, I. 1925. Flora of Utah and Nevada. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 25:1-665. Weber, W.A. & R.C. Wittmann. 1992. Catalog of the Colorado Flora: A Biodiversity Baseline. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 215 pp. Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, & L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora. 2nd ed. Brigham Young Univ. Print Services. 986 pp. Wooton, E.O. 1895. The Russian thistle. New Mexico Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 15:1-20. http ://web .nmsu. edu/~kallred/herb web/ 1 2 .htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 9 of 12 Wooton, E.O. & P C. Standley. 1915. Flora of New Mexico. ContT. U.S. Natl. Herb. 19:1-794. Table 1. Scientific Names' Applied to Salsola Species by Various Authors Salsola tragus Salsola paulsenii Salsola collina Wooton 1895 S. kali var. tragus - - Wooton & Standley 1915 S. pestifer - - Tidestrom 1925 S. pestifer - - Munz & Keck 1968 S. kali var. tenuifolia - - Kearney & Peebles 1969 S. kali var. tenuifolia - - Cornell & Johnston 1970 S. kali - - Beatley 1973 S. iberica S paulsenii S. collina Botschantzev 1974 S. australis - - Martin & Hutchins 1981 S. kali var. tenuifolia - - Crompton & Bassett 1985 S. pestifer S. paulsenii S. collina Fuller 1986 S. australis S. paulsenii ■ Gr. PI. Flora Assoc 1986 S. iberica - S. collina Gleason & Cronquist 1991 S. tragus - S. collina Weber & Wittmann 1992 S. australis - S. collina Welsh etal. 1993 S. pestifer S. paulsenii S. collina Hickman 1993 S. tragus S. paulsenii - Kartesz 1994 S kali subsp. tragus S. paulsenii S. collina Mosyakin 1996 S. tragus S. paulsenii S. collina Jones et al. 1997 S. tragus - - 1 Authorship of the names is supplied in the Nomenclature section. Table 2. Characterization of the species of Salsola attributed to New Mexico based on representative sources prior to this study1 S. tragus S. paulsenii 5. collina Plant color Blue-green3 Yellow-greenad Greene Seedling form Soft, lax, not pricklyab Branches not cruciform 3 Stiff, rigid, pricklyab Branches cruciform3 - http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 10 of 12 Mature form Stiff, pricklyab Stiff, Pricklyab Scarcely prickly3 Stem striations Reddishace Lacking, or pale reddishae Green or red-streakedce Leaves, pre-fruiting Lax, not rigid nor prickly3 Rigid & pricklyae Lax, not rigid nor prickly3 2a 0.5-1 .5a Cauline leaf length (cm) 2-8c 0.5-2d 2-6ce 1.5-6e Commonly 0.5, < lad 1-1. 5ad Cauline leaf width (mm) lc l-2d ice 0.3-0.8e Flowering bracts, mature Reflexedcde Reflexedd Appressed, imbricatecde Calyx segment apices Rounded, lax, spreadingbd Acute, spinose, erectbd Lax, not spinose, spreading11 Fruiting calyx wing < 2 ae 3-4 a Not wingedacde length (mm) 2-4 d 3-4b 6-7b Fruiting calyx wing diameter (mm) 3-5(6)c 7-12d Not wingedacde 4- 1 0d 1 According to 3Beatley (1973), bFul!er (1986), cGreat Plains Flora Assoc. (1986), dMosyakin (1996), and eWelsh et al. (1993) http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 Page 11 of 12 12 Fig. 1. Scatter Diagram of Leaf Width and Wing Diameter 12.0 11 0 10 0 9.0 6 80 e_, a5 7.0 "S3 S 6.0 cn c 5' 5.0 4.0 3.0 2,0 1.0 / r. "'-X \ / \ \ I "pauls \ i y enii* J 4 ► \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ / / f' * V > ♦ “ t 4 m . tv i , ! < ► ♦ . a, \ s “tragic V \ i/ 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 00 1.25 1.50 1 75 2.00 Leaf Width (mm) Botanical Literature of Interest Taxonomy and Floristics: Argus, G.W. 1999. Classification of Salix in the New World. BEN (Botanical Electronic News, http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/) No. 227:1-7. Columbus, J.T., M S. Kinney, R. Pant, & M E. Siqueiros-Delgado. 1998. Cladistic parsimony analysis of internal transcribed spacer region (nrDNA) sequences of Bouteloua and relatives (Gramineae: Chloridoideae). Aliso 1 7(2):99- 1 30. [evidence for the following proposal, and for not maintaining the genus Chondrosium] Columbus, J.T 1999. An expanded circumscription of Bouteloua (Gramineae: Chloridoideae): new combinations and names. Aliso 1 8( 1 ):6 1 -65. [proposal to include the genera Buchloe, Cathestecum , and others within Bouteloua ] Darbyshire, S.J & L.E. Pavlick. 1997. Nomenclatural notes on North American grasses. Phytologia 82(2):73-78. [ Festuca] Hatch, S.L., J.L. Schuster, & D.L. Drawe. 1999. Grasses of the Texas Gulf Prairies and Marshes. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 355 pp. McGrath, J. 1999. Botanical collections in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico during summer, 1998. [copies available at UNM] Rehfeldt, G.E. 1999. Systematics and genetic structure of Ponderosae taxa (Pinaceae) inhabiting the mountain islands of the southwest. Amer J. Bot. 86 (5):74 1 -752. Smith, S. G. 1999. What is Schoenoplectus americanusl BEN (Botanical Electronic News, http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/) No. 218. Soreng, R.J. & F.R. Barrie. 1999. Proposal to conserve the name Boa pratensis (Gramineae) with a conserved type. Taxon 48( 1 ): 1 57- 1 60. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants: http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 12 Page 12 of 12 [There are numerous reports and discussions concerning rare New Mexico plants on the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council web site: http://biology.unm.edu/~chelo/nmrptcl.html] Journals, Newsletters, Etc.: Native Plant Society of New Mexico Newsletter. Editor: Tim McKintmie, 1 105 Circle Drive, Las Cruces, NM 88005 D3 New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition (herbarium) of a specimen. — Robert Sivinski (Box 1948, Santa Fe, NM 87504), garden escapes: Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae): Santa Fe Co. (UNM). Nepeta cataria L. (Lamiaceae): Santa Fe Co. (observation). Pyracantlia coccinea Roemer (Rosaceae): Bernalillo Co. (UNM). — James McGrath (Box 2605, Tijeras, NM 87059) Phytolacca americana L. (Phytolaccaceae): Eddy Co. (UNM) Carex diandra (Cyperaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (UNM) Juncus hallii Engel. (Juncaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (UNM) £Q Back to newsletter index http://web.nmsu.edu/~kallred/herbweb/12.htm 8/14/2003 Number 13 September 1, 1999 A Newsletter for the flora of New Mexico, from the Range Science Herbarium and Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University. In This Issue — • Philadelphus in New Mexico ... 1 • New Plant Records ... 7 • Botanical Literature of Interest ... 8 Jgotnmce est ^cienrin ^yVauiralfs quae ^egct«bilium cogrritiorem tradit. — ^/liunaeus A Taxonomic Study of Philadelphus (Hydrangeaceae) as It Occurs in New Mexico* Christopher K. Frazier Dept, of Biology, University ofNcw Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, cfrazie@unm.edu Abstract All specimens of Philadelphus in the UNM herbarium from New Mexico were examined and measured to evaluate the representation of this genus in the state. Ninety-eight specimens were scored for 31 morphological characters to create a data set which was then used for principal component analysis. These multivariate analyses were combined with a review of the quality of characters used in previous monographs by Rydberg (1905), Hitchcock (1943) and Hu (1956) and an analysis of the geographic variation of character states in New Mexico. Together, these lines suggest that the current number of recognized Philadelphus taxa in the state (Martin and Hutchins 1980) is inflated. Examination of Philadelphus in the field and in other herbaria is necessary before this work may be considered complete, however, a tentative conclusion is that there are only 4 Philadelphus taxa in the state in 2 species: P. mearnsii, P. microphyUus subsp. microphyllus , P. microphyllus subsp. argenteus and P. microphyllus subsp. argyrocalyx. Introduction I Nine species of Philadelphus have been reported from New Mexico in the most recent floristic treatment for the state (Martin and Hutchins 1980) with one, P. microphyllus, having two recognized varieties. The nomenclature used in the Flora of New Mexico (Martin and Hutchins 1980) and in the latest checklist of New Mexico species (Kartesz 1994) follow the nomenclature and distributional notes in the most recent systematic treatment for the genus as a whole (Hu 1956). Seven of the New Mexico taxa are placed by Hu (1956) in the subgenus Philadelphus, section Microphyllus (Koehne) Hu: P. argenteus Rydb., P. argyrocalyx Woot., P. madrensis Hemsl., P. microphyllus Gray var. microphyllus , P. m. var. ovatus Hu, P. occidentals A. Nels. var. occidentals , and P. wootonii Hu. In the subgenus Deutziodes Hu, Hu placed three other New Mexico Philadelphus'. P. hitchcockianus Hu and P. mearnsii W. H. Evans ex Rydb. (in the section Pseudoserpyllifolius Hu) and P. serpyllifolius Gray (in the section Serpyllifolius Hu). Six of the ten taxa reported to be found in New Mexico by Hu have their type localities in-state, making study of the New Mexico specimens particularly germane to the systematics of these species. Taxonomic history of Philadelphus in New Mexico The first known xerophytic species of Philadelphus, P. microphyllus, was described in 1849 by Asa Gray, based on a collection by Fendler from Santa Fe. In the first monograph of the Philadelphus of North America, Rydberg (1905) referred to six New Mexico species, all placed in the Microphylli group of Philadelphus. This included the three previously described species, P. microphyllus A. Gray 1 849, P. serpyllifolius A. Gray 1852 and P. argyrocalyx Woot. 1898, as well as three species described by Rydberg (1905) from Southern New Mexico; P. argenteus Rydb., P. mearnsii W. H. Evans ex. Rydb. and P. ellipticus Rydb. The first Flora of New Mexico (Wooton and Standley 1915) listed only four New Mexico Philadelphus'. P. argyrocalyx, P. argenteus , P. microphyllus and P. mearnsii. Wooton and Standley argued that the type of P. ellipticus Rydberg 1905 had an incorrect locality and that the specimen was in all respects identical with the type of the previously described P. argyrocalyx Woot. P. serpyllifolius, listed by Rydberg (1905) as distributed from “rocky places of Western Texas and New Mexico” was not included in the Flora of Wooton and Standley, nor explicitly synonymized with any of the included species. * An expanded version of this paper including more detailed results of the analyses, taxa descriptions, distribution maps, materials examined and additional notes on taxon specific characters, biogeography and delimitation is available (Continued on page 2. Philadelphus) I (Philadelphus. Continued from page 1) upon request from the author. Hitchcock (1943) monographed the xerophytic Philadelphus of the southwest and reduced five of the Microphylli group species recognized by Rydberg into subspecies of P. microphyllus . This included two species from New Mexico, P. argyrocalyx and P. argenteus. Nevertheless, disregarding differences in rank, Hitchcock’s list of New Mexico species is the same as that of Wooton and Standley (1915). Hitchcock did cite one New Mexico locality for P. serpyUifolius in his “material seen” section, but this is for the type which is from “between western Texas and El Paso, New Mexico” (sic). Hitchcock’s distribution map for P. serpyUifolius (his Fig. 1) shows its range to be entirely within Texas. Hitchcock (1943) did offer some taxonomic changes affecting the understanding of Philadelphus in New Mexico. First, he included two Mexican species, P. palmeri Rydb. and P. tnadrensis Hemsl. 1908, in synonymy with the type of P. argenteus (P. microphyllus subsp. argenteus Rydb. (Hitchcock)). Hitchcock also suggests that the P. asperifolius Koern 1867 (recognized by Rydberg 1905), another Mexican species, may be synonymous with P. argenteus , although in absence of proof of its identity, he simply did not use the name. Hitchcock described a number of other subspecies of P. microphyllus, though none from our area. Interestingly, the distribution of P. microphyllus subsp. occidentalis (Nels.) Hitchcock (in which Hitchcock included P. occidentalis Nels., P. minutus Rydb. and P. nitidus Nels.) is shown in his Fig. 1 overlapping the far northwest corner of New Mexico. None of the 44 specimens cited under “material seen” for this taxon, however, is from New Mexico. Hu’s comprehensive monograph of the entire Philadelphus genus (1956) changes the taxonomy of New Mexico Philadelphus more than any revision this century. Hu moved P. serpyUifolius and P. mearnsii to separate subgenera from the rest of the Microphyllus group, and ranked the latter as one section within the Philadelphus subgenus. Within the Microphyllus section, Hu recognized all three Rydberg 1905 species from New Mexico at the specific rank and elevated all of Hitchcock’s subspecies of P. microphyllus to the specific rank as well. Hu described one new New Mexico species of Microphyllus section Philadelphus , P. wootonii , which is sympatric with and morphologically similar to the rare endemic P. argyrocalyx and two new varieties of P. microphyllus, var. ovatus from New Mexico and var. linearis from Arizona. Hu split P. minutus and P. nitidens out from P. occidentalis and placed them in the taxon P. occidentalis var. minutus. P. occidentalis var. occidentalis, which was originally described as a rare species from a single locality in Colorado by its author, was now given a range spanning from California to Texas, including localities in central and southern New Mexico. P. madrensis was resurrected out of P. argenteus and its range extended from Mexico into New Mexico. Hu also located P. serpyUifolius clearly within New Mexico on his distribution map for the section (near Columbus), but as with Hitchcock, his only cited material from New Mexico was the type specimen from “between western Texas and El Paso, New Mexico” (sic). Finally, P. mearnsii, which Hitchcock had split into two subspecies, was now split by Hu into four species, two of which, P. mearnsii and P. hitchcockianus Hu, were said to be found in New Mexico. Hu is thus responsible for swelling the number of New Mexico Philadelphus from the four taxa recognized from 1915 - 1956 to the ten taxa now currently accepted. P. mearnsii was removed from candidacy for the Federal Endangered Species List based on a status report (Spellenberg 1981) that indicated a much broader range in southern New Mexico, Texas and Mexico than previously indicated. This report, despite having mandated sections on taxonomy and nomenclature, did not discuss the relationship between P. mearnsii and the closely related or synonymous P. hitchcockianus. Furthermore, two of the cited populations for P. mearnsii were syntype localities for P. hitchcockianus. Evaluation of morphological characters in the classification of the genus A number of characters have been considered taxonomically important by one or more of the three main reviews of Philadelphus this century. There has not been agreement among these sources as to which characters are most effective in distinguishing taxa and authors have used characters in their treatments that they admit in other sections to be of suspect value for taxonomic decisions. In the following section, I evaluate a number of the characters stressed by others as taxonomically valuable, concentrating on those of Hu (1956), and discuss my interpretations of which are most useful and reliable. Growth form and stem characters: Plant habit is of limited importance with respect to an herbarium study of the genus since it cannot be directly observed on herbarium specimens. Hu (1956) characterized the sections Pseudoserpyllifolius and SerpyUifolius as “dwarf shrubs” in his synopsis of characters for subgenera and sections, although elsewhere he specifically downplayed the importance of habit for separating major groups of Philadelphus. Hu allowed that habit may be informative for distinguishing taxa up to the rank of species although it was not a key character for New Mexico species in any of the three major treatments (Hu 1956, Hitchcock 1943, nor Rydberg 1905). All three authors included habit in their species descriptions; Hu, for example, included information concerning plant height, growth form (erect, fibrous or calcarate) and branching structure (loose or spinescent). Since it is unclear whether any of these descriptions are based on observations in the field, they may be somewhat suspect with respect to this character. Hu (1956) discussed four subsets of stem characters: second year’s growth, current year’s growth, the axillary buds and the adventitious growth. Bark color and exfoliation, he states, are of little taxonomic use due to within-plant variation and the vagaries of sampling shrubs for herbarium specimens. Nevertheless, in Hu's keys, P. mearnsii is distinguished from P. earnestii in part by differences in bark color and exfoliation. Rydberg (1905) relied on bark characters twice in his key to distinguish New Mexico species. In his system, P. stramineus is distinct from P. microphyllus because its old stem bark is straw-colored versus gray and a Mexican species, P. asperifolius, is distinguished from the rest of the species in the Microphylli group because its second year bark does not exfoliate. Hitchcock (1943) considered the former distinction to be inaccurate and described the latter distinction as “inconclusive.” Hu (1956) employed a number of stem characters and character states in his species descriptions that are not directly comparable across taxa. For several taxa, for example, Hu (1956) gives a condition for a first or second year growth character, but not for both at the same time. In other cases he referred only to qualities of the bark or branchlets without distinguishing first from second year growth. Hu’s stem character states are equally confusing. For example, what is the difference between branchlets that are “fibrously striate” and those that are “longitudinally rimulose?” Is there really a difference between the “slowly exfoliating” bark of P. argenteus and the “closed, tardily exfoliating” bark of P. argyrocalyxl The presence or absence of axillary buds was taken by Hu (1956) as one of the key characters for delimiting subgenera. In one group, the axillary buds overwinter in nodal pouches at the base of the petioles. In other groups, the axillary buds are supposedly exposed and the remaining petiole base is strongly curved away from the stem. For the New Mexican species, where P. mearnsii and P. hitchcockianus are the only species from the exposed bud type, these basic distinctions seem to hold, though not exactly as described by (Continued on page 3, Philadelphus) (Philadelphus, Continued from page 2) Hu. While the second groups’ buds are, theoretically, exposed from the nodal pouch, in our forms at least, the bud is still enclosed by one or more protruding scales. Hu also stated that the species with enclosed buds have determinate shoots with no terminal bud and the exposed bud species have indeterminate shoots with a prominent terminal bud. 1 found no such difference in the New Mexico specimens. In all species examined, the terminal growing-point of a vegetative shoot eventually dies, leaving a short stem protruding from the previous node from which lateral growth continues in the next season; the terminus of fertile short-shoots blossom into one or more flowers. Leaves: Hu (1956) considered the size and shape of leaves to be of minimal taxonomic importance, a conclusion supported by my study. Leaf shape and size tend to be rather variable among populations within species and to be broadly overlapping between species. Nevertheless, Hu used these characters several times to distinguish New Mexico taxa. P. mearnsii , P. earnestii and the pair P. argenteus and P. palmeri are all keyed in part based on leaf shape character. Furthermore one of Hu’s new Mexico taxa, P. microphyllus var. ovatus, is distinguished based primarily on the characters of leaf size and shape. Hitchcock (1943) also used leaf size as an auxiliary character throughout his key and Rydberg (1905) used leaf shape to distinguish some New Mexico species. It is my belief that at least for the New Mexico forms leaf size and shape are of little taxonomic value. Hu (1956) suggested that the nature and density of indument on the leaf surfaces are rather constant and may be used as important criteria for distinguishing species or even sections and series. Both Rydberg (1905) and Hitchcock (1943) relied strongly on leaf indument in their keys. While some aspects of leaf indumentum distinguish some of the taxa relatively well, I have found that there is also significant environmental or populational variation differences within species in these characters. This within-species variation may have been under-appreciated in previous treatments. A second problem with indument involves ambiguous terminology. Hu, following Rydberg and Hitchcock, mixes various terms concerning indument texture and color and trichome shape and orientation inconsistently, such that the same character state (or set of states) is described with different terms for different taxa. Complicating this is the presence in several taxa of more than one trichome type on the same organ. These three problems concerning the character of indument have caused some of the greatest confusion in interpreting Philadelphus systematics. One other leaf character of importance is whether the two surfaces of the leaves are similar (isobilateral) or dissimilar (dorsiventral). The typical leaves of Philadelphus are dorsiventral, while P. mearnsii and P. hilchcockianus leaves are planar with identical surfaces and indument on both sides. Inflorescence: I observed no significant differences in the inflorescences of New Mexico taxa despite the fact that Hu (1956) places our species in two separate inflorescence types. All taxa in New Mexico have determinate, terminal inflorescences that contain from 1 to 3 flowers. These may be on very short shoots such that the inflorescences appear lateral, though the numerous accompanying leaves distinguishes this as a compressed shoot. Sepals: Hu indicated that sepal characters are of little taxonomic value, however, sepals of both P. hitchcockianus and P. mearnsii are deciduous in fruit in contrast with the retained sepals of ail other New Mexico taxa. Furthermore, the sepals of these two taxa are subglabrous and at most somewhat ciliate along the sepal margin, whereas species from the Microphyllus group are consistently tomentose or, more accurately, tomentulose, in a 1 to 2 mm border of the inside of the sepals. This seems to be a good distinguishing character. Other sepal characters seem to be either largely invariant or non-informative. Corolla and petals: Hu (1956) emphasized the taxonomic importance of the appearance of the corolla and the petals in his monograph and several of the species described by Hu (1956) are distinguished by whether the corolla is cruciform, discifonn or stellate. The character of corolla shape is taxonomically problematic for several reasons. First, petal shape is rarely preserved well in pressed specimens and determination of corolla shape from intact herbaria specimens requires even more guesswork. Furthermore, flowers that were known to be disciform in the field can appear for all purposes cruciform when pressed (R. Sivinski, pers. com ). Finally, my observations suggest that corolla shape is variable within population which are invariant with respect to all other observed characters. Thus, I disagree with Hu’s emphasis of this character for taxonomic decisions. Petal characters such as the size, margin and shape are difficult to determine accurately from pressed specimens. Nevertheless, some gross differences in petal size and shape were useful in distinguishing New Mexico taxa. Stamens: Stamen fusion and number have both been used as important key characters for New Mexico taxa. Rydberg ( 1 905) used stamen number in his key to distinguish the large differences between P. mearnsii (15 stamen) and the rest of the New Mexico species (25- 60 stamen) described at that point, although he did list specific stamen numbers and fusion states in the descriptions of most species. Hitchcock (1943) emphasized stamen number and fusion characters throughout his key, even though he explicitly recognized that “the stamens are so inconsistent in number that species cannot be distinguished in this manner.’’ Hu considered general patterns of stamen number to be an auxiliary character to distinguish morphologically different and geographically widely separated groups of species. He did not use stamen number to key species and only used stamen fusion as a key character once. I believe that stamen number and stamen fusion are of little use distinguishing species within the Microphylii group. When stamens number above 20, they are extremely difficult to count accurately on herbarium sheets without damaging the specimen. I am suspicious of the published stamen numbers that do not at least give a range of values. Furthermore, final stamen number in all Philadelphus is based on expansion from four initial stamen primordia (Andreas Winbauer, pers. com.). Variation in the final number is likely to reflect differences in flower size and environmental conditions and is of little primary taxonomic significance. Stamen fusion appears to be variable within plant and within population and I do not believe it is an important taxonomic character. Also, as Hu pointed out, stamen length, though variable, does not make a good character for distinguishing taxa of any rank in this group. Pistil: Hu believed that the position of the placentas can be used as an auxiliary criterion for the delimitation of subgenera and sections of Philadelphia . I found the character to be unreliable. Variability in the ontogenetic development of fruits on herbaria sheets leads to wide variability in the placement of the placenta and the apparent shape of the capsule. Fusion of the stigmas is also a highly variable character and except for the distinction between the P. mearnsii group with entirely fused (columnar) stigmas on very (Continued on page 4. Philadelphus) Jgotang is the natural science that transmits the knowledge of plants. w Page 4 11 (Philadelphus. Continued from page 3) short styles and the Microphyllus group with variable fusion and longer styles, there is no information in this character for distinguishing New Mexico taxa. Hu (1956) also uses hairs on the disc and style as an important character for distinguishing most New Mexico taxa from a few others and from Mexican species, but 1 never saw hairs on a style. It was thus of no value distinguishing the specimens at hand in my study. Capsule: Capsule shape and size is a difficult character to use taxonomically because of strong ontogenetic variability culminating in a destructive splitting of the capsule. The Microphylli group species have capsules that are roughly ellipsoidal at completion, although these are generally closer to obtriangular for most of their development (the portion above the insertion of the sepals appears to expand quite late in development and is present for only a short period before the capsule dehisces). The Mearnsii type capsule is more hemispheric in the portion below the sepal insertion and the subsequent expansion of the capsule above this point is not pronounced at final development. Seeds: Hu (1956) put a surprisingly large amount of emphasis on the character of seeds, specifically the presence and length of the tail. Seeds of Philadelphus are minute, ontologically variable in size and character and seldom observed on undisturbed herbarium sheets. I find Hu’s characters to be unreliable and extremely impractical for delimiting taxa. In conclusion, I believe that a more accurate pattern of the taxonomic variability among the New Mexico forms of Philadelphus can be achieved by using a smaller set of characters than has been applied by recent monographers. By excluding variable and inconsistent characters from the analysis and by using character state terminology more consistently, one finds fewer natural discontinuities in the New Mexico forms than perceived by Rydberg, Hitchcock or Hu. Morphological analysis Methods: Species descriptions for potential New Mexico taxa and their key characters (Hu 1956) were converted to a single table of characters and character states (available from the author) in order to better distinguish the taxa as interpreted in this monographic treatment. Twenty-three specimens from the UNM herbarium collection were then scored for all 84 of these characters, although the character states used varied somewhat from those of Hu when his appeared synonymous or ambiguous. The scores for these specimens were used to give a better basis for new descriptions of the New Mexico taxa and to detennine which characters are most useful for distinguishing New Mexico taxa in quantitative analyses. A subset of thirty-one characters were measured or scored (including derived ratios) for each of the 98 New Mexico Philadelphus specimens in the UNM herbarium collection. Sixteen of these characters were used in a subsequent principal components analysis of the covariance matrix for 91 specimens using Systat 5.2.1 and the varimax method. Results and discussion: The PCA results of this analysis are not entirely sensible when the specimen identities as given on the herbarium sheets are taken at face value (Fig. 1). Two distinct clusters are separated along the first axis, the smaller consisting of specimens labeled as P. mearnsii , P. woolonii , P hitchcockianus , P. microphyllus and Fendlera ulahensis (hereafter the Mearnsii group). The second, more spread-out cluster, consists of specimens labeled as P. microphyllus , P argenteus , P. argyrocalyx, P. madrensis , P. lewisii, P. occidenialis , and P. serpyllifolius (hereafter referred to as the Microphyllus group). Three characters, axillary bud type (exserted vs. enclosed), leaf face (isobilateral vs. dorsiventral) and inner sepal tomentosity (glabrous or ciliate vs. tomentose) are all perfectly correlated with each other and have factor loadings above 0.9 on the first axis (data not shown). They are thus the primary cause for the distinction between these two groups in this analysis. The substructuring of the Mearnsii group along the second axis follows a strict geographical pattern, with the specimens in the larger, lower cluster all from the Guadalupe Mts. The other specimens are all from the San Andreas Mts., except for the topmost point which is from the type location for P. mearnsii near the southeast corner of Luna County. The highest factor loadings along the second axis are for the hypanthium and calyx indument and its density (data not shown). The Guadalupe Mts. specimens have glabrous hypanthia and sepals. All but one of the San Andreas specimens have weakly strigose hypanthia and glabrous sepals, whereas the last two specimens (one from the San Andreas and the other the P. mearnsii topotype) have strigose hypanthia and sepals. For the San Andreas Mt. collection, the tomentum was sparse, for the P. mearnsii topotype it was at normal density. The character of the hypanthium tomentum was the only trait observed in this study which differed among the 15 specimens of the Mearnsii group. The three specimens labeled as P. woolonii, the four labeled as Fendlera ulahensis and the one labeled as P. microphyllus are clearly misidentified. If these labels were correct, the specimens would not have even one of the three character states used to distinguish the Mearnsii group in this analysis. The lack of clear substructuring within the Microphyllus group suggests that this cluster may represent a single species. Specimens labeled as P. microphyllus score low for the second factor (glabrous hypanthia or sparsely strigose), P. argenteus specimens are in the middle portion (strigose hypanthia) and P. argyrocalyx score higher (densely strigose-villous or villous hypanthia). The specimen labeled as P. lewisii was placed squarely in the center of the P. microphyllus cluster. This specimen does not have the appropriate leaf or inflorescence characters to be P. lewisii or even to be in that subgenus. It is therefore considered to be mislabeled. Most specimens labeled as P. occidenialis also overlapped the main P. microphyllus cluster precisely. These are likely to be misidentifications as well. The region along the second axis between the main P. microphyllus and P. argenteus clusters is filled with variously labeled specimens including a single specimen labeled P. madrensis and two labeled P. serpyllifolius. True P. serpyllifolius has enclosed buds and should cluster much nearer to the Mearnsii group than to the Microphyllus group. P. madrensis, according to its original description, should have leaves that are hispid above and spreading villose below. These character states were not observed in any of the New Mexico specimens including the one labeled as P. madrensis. Thus I believe then that these three specimens are misidentified. The P. occidentalis labeled specimens are more problematic. The original description of P. occidentalis fails to substantiate its distinction from a transition between P. microphyllus and what was later described as P. argenteus. Without seeing the type of P. occidentalis it is impossible to determine the relationship of these three taxa except to say that there is little evidence to suggest that all three exist as distinct entities in New Mexico as exemplified by the forms in this analysis. Only 5 specimens in the UNM collection were labeled P. argyrocalyx, but these all clustered together toward the top of the Microphyllus group based on their densely strigose-villous or villous hypanthia and sepals. Another specimen identified only as Philadelphus sp. compares well with the description of P. argyrocalyx as do the two specimens of P. microphyllus and one labeled P. argenteus that all cluster toward the top of the Microphyllus group. All specimens labeled as P. woolonii, a taxon morphologically near to P. argyrocalyx, clustered instead in the Mearnsii group. These specimens, as suggested before, are all misidentified members of the Mearnsii group. Fig. 2 shows the PCA results for the UNM herbarium specimens corrected for the putative misidentifications previously discussed. The Mearnsii group specimens show some geographic distinction in this analysis, but the characters involved (hypanthium and sepal indument) do not seem substantial enough to me to indicate important evolutionary (Continued on page 5, Philadelphus) Page 5 I (Philadelphus, Continued from page 4) divergence of the populations. With this in mind, I suggest that the prior name, P mearmii , be applied to all specimens in the group and that P. hitchcockianus be considered a taxonomic synonym. There is no evidence in the UNM collection for the existence of P. serpyllifolius in New Mexico and its inclusion in our flora appears to be based solely on the confusion of the type locality “between west Texas and El Paso, New Mexico.” The Microphyllus group seems to lack substantial morphological substructuring and may therefore represent a single species with variation among populations primarily in the indument of the hypanthium and calyx. There is no evidence in the UNM herbarium collection for P. madrensis. P. occidentalis may by synonymous with P. argenteus or with a form that is somewhat intermediate between P. argenteus and P. microphyllus with respect to the hypanthium and calyx tomentum. In either of these cases, P. occidentalis would have priority over the name P. argenteus , though not at the subspecific rank. The morphological and geographical variation within the Microphyllus group in New Mexico can be accounted for best by division into three groups which I believe are best given status at the subspecific level. P. microphyllus subsp. microphyllus pertains to the lower end of the group which includes mostly Northern and Central New Mexican specimens with mostly glabrous hypanthia and sepals, P. m. subsp. argenteus occupies the middle of the group including the Southern and Central New Mexican specimens with strigose hypanthia and sepals. The P. microphyllus in the Sacramento, White and Capitan mountains with particularly dense-villous (lanate) pubescence is subspecies argyrocalyx. There is no evidence in our collection for a distinct taxon, morphologically similar to P m. subsp. argyrocalyx, called P. wootonii. Table 1 compares several quantitative measurements for the taxa as identified in Fig. 2. There are no significant differences among taxa in the leaf and petal length/width ratios nor in the position of the sepal insertion point relative to the capsule height. Leaf and petal shape are not informative characters for the New Mexico taxa and if there are significant differences in the sepal insertion point, these differences are obscured by the sizable developmental variability in the capsule structure. Several of the measures show significant differences among at least some of the taxa with the trend in these data reflecting the general differences in size of organs (leaves, hypanthium, petals, capsules). P. mearnsii is the most diminutive of the New Mexican taxa followed by P. microphyllus subsp. argenteus, subsp. microphyllus, and finally, by the largest Philadelphus in New Mexico, subsp. argyrocalyx. Biogeography If one believes Hu’s account of species distributions (Hu 1956), a number of Philadelphus are widespread in the U.S. southwest with overlapping distributions. P. argenteus and P. occidentalis, for example, occur in California, Baja California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Mexico and Texas, oftentimes together. A number of other species appear to be sympatric such as P. microphyllus and P. occidentalis, P. argyrocalyx and P. wootonii, P. madrensis and P. microphyllus or P. argenteus and P. microphyllus and P. argenteus. Mearnsii group species show a similar pattern of long-disjunction and co-occurrence of species. Hitchcock (1943) suggested a much more orderly distribution of Philadelphus taxa in the Southwest. In his scheme, P. microphyllus subsp. argenteus served as a basal taxon to all other taxa in this region, with the other taxa arranged in various series of morphological evolution from this center. My study supports aspects of both of their studies. Like Hitchcock, I find a much more orderly arrangement of taxa in New Mexico. P. microphyllus subsp. microphyllus has the largest range in New Mexico, covering most of the north and central portions of the state. P. mearnsii and P microphyllus subsp. argenteus have smaller, mostly non-overlapping ranges in the southern end of the state. The range of subsp. argenteus in New Mexico is somewhat larger than indicated by Hitchcock, while the range of subsp. argyrocalyx is more limited. In this regard, Hu (1956) was somewhat closer to the mark, limiting argyrocalyx to Lincoln and Otero counties, although he did not give any New Mexico localities for argenteus. Hu (1956) only mapped points for P. mearnsii in Grant County, instead of Luna County where it should be. His point for P. serpyllifolius should be in Texas. Key to the Philadelphus of New Mexico 1 Axillary nodes with scales, buds exposed, leaves isofacial, sepals thin and caducous in fruit, stamen fewer than 20, stigmas columnar. Plant with maple syrup odor. (Subgenus Deutzioides, section Pseudoseipyllifolius) . P. mearnsii W.H. Evans ex Rydb. 1 Axillary buds in nodal pouches, buds enclosed, leaves with upper and lower surfaces different, sepals thickened and persistent in fruit, stamens > 20, stigmas at least partly divided. Plant (excluding flower) with no particular odor. (Subgenus Philadelphus, Section Microphyllus) 2 Hypanthium and sepals glabrous or with scattered trichomes at the base and/or angles . P. microphyllus Gray subsp. microphyllus 2 Hypanthium and sepals uniformly pubescent 3 Hypanthium strigose, the straight hairs sparse or dense, widespread in southern part of state . P. microphyllus subsp. argenteus (Rydb.) C.L. Hitchc. 3 Hypanthium densely tomentose (lanate), hairs matted into a uniform covering with some protruding longer hairs, S. Lincoln and N. Otero Counties . P. microphyllus subsp. argyrocalyx ( Woot.) C.L. Hitchc. Literature Cited Hitchcock, C. L. 1943. The xerophyllous species of Philadelphus in Southwestern North America. Madrono 7:35-56. Hu, S. 1956. A monograph of the genus Philadelphus. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 37:15-90. Martin, W. C. and Hutchins, C. R., 1980. A Flora of New Mexico. J. Cramer, Hirschberg, Germany. Rydberg, P. A. 1905. Philadelphus. North American Flora 22:162- 175. Spellendberg, R. W. 1981. Status Report on Philadelphus mearnsii. Submitted to the Endangered Species Botanist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Wooton, E. O. and Standley, P. C. 1915. Flora of New Mexico. Contributions from the United States National Herbarium 19:9-794. (Contined on page 6. Philadelphus) Page 6 ( Philadelphus , Continued from page 5) "Meamsii Group" + P. hltchcockianus X P. meamsii X Fendlera utahensls □ P. wootoni P mo cr rail tcpotypo "Microphyllus Group' -2 -1 0 Factor 1 o P. mlcrophylllus • P. m. var ovatvs 4 P. argenteus : 4 P. argyrocalyx ■ Philadelphus sp. 0 P. madrensis B3 P. lewisil □ P. occldentalls o P. serpyllifollus Fig. 1 PC A of Philadelphusdatasel showing the specimens as labeled in the UNM herbarium Table 1. A comparison of some of the quantitatively measured characters. Taxa with different letters are significantly different (Tukey-Kramer test, alpha = 0.05). P. microphyllus Character argyrocalyx microphyllus argenteus P. meamsii LeafLength/Width Ratio 2.0 ± 0.4 “ 2.3 + 0.4“ 2.2 ±0.4“ 2.3 ±0.5“ LeafLength (cm) 2.1 ± 0.5 “ 1.7+ 0.5 “b 1.5±0.5bc 1.1 ±0.4 c LeafWidth (cm) 1.1 ±0.1 “ 0.8 ±0.1 b 0.7 ±0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 c Hypanthium Height (mm) 2.9 + 0.4 a 2.4 + 0.2 “ 2.2 ±0.4“ 1.3 ±0.4 b Petal Length (cm) 1.7 ± 0.2 a 1.1 u 0.1 b 1.0 ± 0.4 ^ 0.8 ±0.1 c Petal Width (cm) 1.2 + 0.2“ 0.7 + 0.1 b 0.8 ±0.2 “b 0.4 ± 0.1 c Petal Length/ Width Ratio 1.5 ± 0.3 “ 1.6 ±0.1 a 1.4 ±0.6“ 1.8 ±0.4“ Capsule Height (mm) 6.8 ± 1.2“ 5.9 ± 0.4 a 5.4 ±0.6“ 3.8+ 1.1 b Sepal Position (Sepal/Caps) 0.6 + 0.4“ 0.6 ±0.4“ 0.6 ± 0.6 “ 0.6 ±0.4 “ New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition (herbarium) of a specimen. — Kelly Allred (MSC Box 3-1, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.) [Most of these records were included in “A Working Index of New Mexico Vascular Plant Names” by Roalson & Allred (1995 & supplements) as specimen citations, and are compliled here to provide a citable literature report. Names marked with an asterisk (*) are reported for New Mexico for the first time.] Apiaceae Bowlesia incaria Ruiz & Pavn: Grant Co. (NMC) Cyclospermum leptophyllum (Pers.) Sprague ex Britt. & Wilson: Hidalgo Co. (NMC) Spermolepis inermis (Nutt, ex DC.) Math. & Const.: Chaves Co. (NM Nat. Hist. Inst.) Apocynaceae Amsonia tharpii Woodson: Eddy Co. (UNM) Asclepiadaceae Asclepias verticillata L.: Dona Ana Co. (UNM) Asteraceae Brickellia parvula Gray: Luna Co. (NMC) *Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.: Lincoln Co. (UNM) Eriophyllum lanosum Gray: Hidalgo Co. (UTEP) Grindelia laciniata Rydb.: Sandoval Co. (UNM) *Hieracium crepidospermum Fries.: Lincoln Co. (NMC) Pectis cylindrica (Fern.) Rydb.: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR); Luna Co. (NMC) Rayjacksonia annua (Rydb.) Hartman & Lane: Socorro Co. (NMC) Symphyotrichum porteri (A. Gray) Nesom: Harding Co. (NMC) Tetraneuris scaposa (DC.) Greene var. villosa (Shinners) Shinners: Eddy Co. (UNM) Boraginaceae Lappula echinata Gilib. : Otero Co. (NMC) Pectocarya heterocarpa I.M. Johnston.: Luna Co. (NMC) Brassicaceae Brassica napus L.: Sierra Co. (NMCR) Iberis umbellata L.: San Miguel Co. (NMC), an occasional escape Lepidium latifolium L.: Guadalupe Co. (NMC) Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv.: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR) Mattliiola bicornis DC.: Dona Ana Co. (NMC), an occasional escape Buddlejaceae Buddleja scordioides H.B.K.: Eddy Co. (NMC) Caesalpiniaceae *Gleditsia triacanthos L.: Dona Ana & Lincoln Cos. (NMCR) Parkinsonia aculeata L.: Dona Ana Co. (NMC) Cannabaceae *Cannabis sativa L.: Otero Co. [observation] & Dona Ana Co. (NMCR) Caryophyllaceae Arenaria hookeri Nutt, ex Torr. & Gray: Torrance Co. (UNM) Cerastium viscosum L.: (UNM), Catron Co. (UNM) *Dianthus armeria L.: Mora Co. (NMCR) [weakly adventive] Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium cycloides A. Nels.: Roosevelt Co. (NMC) [addendum to report in issue 3:6] Cuscutaceae Cuscuta applanata Engelm.: Dona Ana Co. (NMC) Cuscuta cuspidafa Engelm.: Dona Ana Co. (NMC) Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia odontadenia Boiss.: Santa Fe Co. (NMC) Fabaceae Astragalus crassicarpus Nutt. var. paysonii (Kelso) Barneby: Colfax Co. (NMC) Coronilla varia L.: Union Co. (NMCR) Trifolium procumbens L.: Los Alamos Co. (UNM) Gentianaceae Sabatia angularis (L.) Pursh: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR), weakly adventive Haloragaceae Myriophyllum aquatic uni (Veil.) Verde.: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR), weakly adventive Lythraceae Ammannia coccinea Rottb.: Socorro Co. (R. Peterson, NM Nat. Hist. Inst.) Nyctaginaceae Commicarpus scandens (L.) Standi.: Grant Co. (NMC) Onagraceae Oenothera pallida Lindl. subsp trichocalyx (Nutt.) Munz & Klein McKinley Co. (UNM) Polygonaceae Rum ex pulcher L.: San Juan Co. (NMC) [addendum to earlier report in issue 7:6] Rosaceae *Pyrus communis L.: Lincoln Co. (NMCR) [persisting around old homesteads and orchards and occasionally escaping] Rubiaceae Diodia teres Walt. var. angustata Gray: Hidalgo Co. (NMC) Salicaceae Salix boothii Dorn: Sandoval Co. (Cuba Ranger Dist. Herbarium, Santa Fe Nat. For., determined by R. Dorn) Salviniaceae Salvinia minima Baker: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR) Scrophulariaceae Verbascum virgatum Stokes: Hidalgo Co. (NMC) Veronica arvensis L.: Lincoln Co. (NMC) Verbenaceae Verbena tenuisecta Briq.: Dona Ana Co. (NMC) Violaceae Viola rafinesquii Greene: Rio Arriba Co. (NMC) Alismataceae Alisma subcordatum Raf.: Rio Arriba Co. (NMC) Cyperaceae Cyperus Jlavicomus Michx.: Hidalgo Co. (NMC) Cyperus rotundus L.: Dona Ana Co. (NMCR) Eleocharis geniculata (L.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes: Dona Ana Co. (TAES, UTEP) Scirpus pendulus Muhl : San Miguel Co. (UNM) Liliaceae Calochortus flexuosus Wats.: San Juan Co. (UNM) Poaceae Festuca brachyphylla J.A. Schult. ex J.A. & J.H. Schult. subsp. coloradensis Frederiksen: San Miguel Co. (NMCR) Festuca calligera Piper: Lincoln Co. (NMCR) Festuca earlei Rydberg: San Miguel Co. (NMCR) Festuca trachyphylla (Hackel) Krajina: Rio Arriba Co. (NMCR) Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton foliosus Raf. var. macellus Fern.: Socorro Co. (NMC) m w Page 8 Publication and Subscription Information “The New Mexico Botanist” is published irregularly (as information accrues) at no charge. You may be placed on the mailing list by sending your name and complete mailing address to the editor: Kelly Allred The New Mexico Botanist Box 3-1, Dept, of Animal & Range Sciences New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 or Email: kallred@nmsu.edu All subscribers will be included in the “Directory of New Mexico Botanists.” Kelly W. Allred, Editor Botanical Literature of Interest Taxonomy and Floristics: Brummitt, R.K. 1999. A critique of some recent developments in plant nomenclature. Syst. Bot. 24( 1 ): 1 08- 1 15. Columbus, J.T. 1998(1999). Morphology and leaf blade anatomy suggest a close relationship between Bouteloiia aristidoides and B. (Chondrosium) eriopoda (Gramineae: Chloridoideae). Syst. Bot. 23(4):467-478. [argues against segregate genera from Bouteloua ] Diggs, G.M.,Jr., B.L. Lipscomb, & R.J. O’Kennon. 1999. Shinner’s and Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas. Sida, Botanical Miscellany, Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth. 1640 pp. [an exceedingly fine flora, though a bit out-of-range for New Mexico] Schmidt, C. 1999. Treatment of the genus Ceanothus in N. America. Available online at http://www.orst.edu.dept/botany/herbarium/projects/ ceanothus/index.html Simpson, B.B. & B. Miao. 1997. The circumscription of Hoffmannseggia (Fabaceae, Caesalpinioideae, Caesalpinieae) and it allies using morphological and cpDNA restriction site data. PI. Syst. Evol. 205:157-178. Simpson, B.B. 1998. A revision of Pomaria (F abaceae) in North America. Lundellia 1 :46-7 1 . [treatment of this segregate from Caesalpinia] Taylor, R.J. 1998. Desert Wildflowers of North America. Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, MT 59806. Tonne, P. & T.K. Lowrey. 1998. An analysis of taxonomic boundaries between Erigeron pulcherrimus and Erigeron bistiensis. Report for Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, State of New Mexico. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants: [There are numerous reports and discussions concerning rare New Mexico plants on the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council web site: http://biology.unm.edu/~chelo/nmrptcl .html] Journals, Newsletters, Etc.: Native Plant Society of New Mexico Newsletter. Editor: Tim McKimmie, 1 105 Circle Drive, Las Cruces, NM 88005 Oregon Flora Newsletter. Kenton Chambers, Department of Botany & Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Cordley Hall 2028, Corvallis, OR 97331-2902 email: sundbers@bbc.orst.edu 03 The New Mexico Botanist ¥ Range Science Herbarium and Cooperative Extension Service Box 3-1, New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer. All programs are available to everyone regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. New Mexico State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. .ht\ c BRONX, $-5X26 'TKexica Number 14 March 14, 2000 A Newsletter for the flora of New Mexico, from the Range Science Herbarium and Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University. in This Issue — • Orchids in New Mexico . 1 • Citing Use of Herbaria . 2 • Botanical Literature of Interest . 3 • New Plant Records ... . 4 Jgotanice est ^cientia ^/Vnturnlis qune ^ctjciobiJium cognitforem unriit. — ^/liooocus Artificial Key to the Orchids of New Mexico Thomas Todsen 2000 Rose Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005 1 Lip pouch- or slipper-like 2 Lip pouch-like, yellow . Cypripedium parviflora Salib. var. pubescens (Willd.) Knight 2 Lip slipper-like, white to pink.... Calypso bulbosa (L.) Oakes var. americana (R. Brown) Luer 1 Lip otherwise 3 Plants leafless at flowering time 4 Flowers white to pink 5 Flowers few, not in a dense twisted spike; lip with cinnabar blotch . . Schiedeella parasitica (A. Rich & Gal.) Schlt. 5 Flowers many, in a dense twisted spike; lip whitish, lacking a cinnabar blotch . . Spiranthes magnicamporum Sheviak 4 Flowers colored otherwise 6 Flowers green . Piperia utialascensis (Spreng.) Rydb. 6 Flowers other than green 7 Lip with 3 or more fleshy calluses; pollinia 8 8 Lip deeply 3-lobed, the sinuses 3 mm or more long . . Hexalectris revoluta Cornell 8 Lip not deeply lobed, the sinuses 2 mm or less long 9 Lip less than 1 cm long . Hexalectris nitida L.O. Wms. 9 Lip more than 1 .2 cm long 10 Flowers open, out-crossing . . Hexalectris spicata (Walt.) Bamh. var. spicata 10 Flowers closed, selfing . . Hexalectris spicata (Walt.) Bamh. var. arizonica Catling & Engel 7 Lip with 2 or fewer calluses; pollinia 4 1 1 Lip 3-lobed or at least with small lobes or teeth 12 Plant small, 10-15 cm tall; lip 3-5 mm long . Corallorhiza trifida Chat. 12 Plant taller, over 15 cm tall; lip 5-9 mm long 1 3 Lip little expanded; bracts less than 1 mm long . . Corallorhiza maculata Raf. var. maculata 13 Lip distinctly expanded; bracts more than 1 mm long . . Corallorhiza maculata Raf. var. occidentalis (Lindl.) Ames 1 1 Lip entire, without lateral lobes or teeth 14 Lip with involute margin; tepals striped . . Corallorhiza striata Lindl. var. vreelandii ( Rydb.) L.O. Wms. 14 Lip not involute; tepals not striped . Corallorhiza wisteriana Conrad 3 Plants with leaves at flowering time 1 5 Leaves basal only 16 Plants more than 20 cm tall . Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. 16 Plants less than 1 5 cm tall . Goodyera repens (L.) R. Brown 1 5 Leaves cauline or appearing so 17 Leaves plicate, thin 18 Lip 3-lobed . Epipactis gigantea Dougl. (Continued on page 2, Orchids) ¥ Page 2 (Orchids, Continued from page 1) 1 8 Lip not 3-lobed . Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz 17 Leaves not plicate, smooth 19 Leaf one, at mid-stem 20 Flowers red-purple . Malaxis porphyrea (Ridley) Kuntze 20 Flowers green 2 1 Flowers appressed to the rachis . Malaxis soulei L.O. Wins. 21 Flowers not appressed to the rachis . Malaxis tenuis (Wats.) Ames 19 Leaves more than one 22 Leaves 2 at mid-stem . Listera cordata (L.) R. Brown var. nephrophylla (Rydb.) Hulten 22 Leaves more than 2, borne along the stem 23 Flowers white, arranged in a dense spike; lip lacking a spur . Spiranthes romanzoffiana Cham. 23 Flowers mostly green, or if white, then arranged in a loose spike with lax flowers; lip prolonged backward into an evident spur 24 Orifice of the spur minute; base of lip with accessory nectarines . . Coeloglossum viride (L.) Flartman var. virescens (Muhl. ex Willd.) Luer 24 Orifice of the spur obvious; base of lip without accessory nectaries 25 Flowers white . Platanthera dilatata (Pursh) Lindl. ex Beck 25 Flowers green 26 Leaves short, almost bract-like . Platanthera hrevifolia (Greene) Kranzlin 26 Leaves longer, not at all bract-like 27 Column comparatively large, Vi or more the length of the dorsal sepal . . Platanthera sparsiflora (Wats.) Schl. 27 Column comparatively small, less than Vi the length of the dorsal sepal 28 Lip with a small basal protuberance . Platanthera limosa Lindl. 28 Lip without a protuberance 29 Spike densely flowered . Platanthera huronensis 29 Spike not densely flowered 30 Spur about equal to the lip . Platanthera hyperborea (L.) Lindl. 30 Spur about Vi or less the length of the lip . Platanthera purpurascens Citing Use of Herbaria Jane Mygatt Collection Manager, UNM Herbarium, University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 Recently, there have been several articles in scientific jour¬ nals, regional reports and newsletters written by New Mexico botanists who regularly use our local herbaria. Many authors are not citing use of herbaria in their acknowledgements. Walk-in visitors/botanists are expected to follow the same protocol and agreements as "off-site" researchers at institutions who formally borrow herbarium specimens. In general, the agreement for using or borrowing herbarium specimens is: 1) the researcher will cite use of the collections (using the appropriate acronym) in any publication they author or presentation they give; 2) the researcher will provide the herbar¬ ium with a copy of any publication in which the specimens are mentioned. Funding opportunities for herbaria are very competitive and smaller regional collections often are not viewed as a high prior¬ ity. For the UNM Flerbarium the budgetary allocations are, in part, apportioned by a show of how productive and well used the collections are. Part of this productivity is measured by docu¬ menting the research and publications of faculty, staff, research associates and the regional botanical community. Botanists need to show support for our state-funded re¬ sources by citing use of the collections facilities or specimens in the acknowledgment section of any published article or presenta¬ tion. [Ed. Note: Thanks to Jane Mygatt for this very appropnatc and timely reminder of our responsibilities as publishing authors.] Jgotang is the natural science that transmits the knowledge of plants. — ^ /linnaeus Page 3 w If Botanical Literature of Interest TAXONOMY AND FLORISTICS: Allred, K.W. 1999. Eponymy of New Mexico grass names. Desert Plants 1 5( 1 ):3- 1 0. Barkley, T.M. 1999. The segregates of Senecio, s.l., and Cacalia, s.l., in the flora of North America north of Mexico. Sida 1 8(3):66 1 - 672. Barlow-Irick, P. 1999. Cirsium ochrocentrum subsp. martinii (Asteraceae), a new subspecies of the Santa Fe thistle from the Gila River region of Arizona and New Mexico. Novon 9:318-322. Clevering, O.A. & .1. Lissner. 1999. Taxonomy, chromosome numbers, clonal diversity and population dynamics of Pbragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 64: 1 85-208. Darke, R 1999. The Color Encyclopedia of Ornamental Grasses. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 325 pp. Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1999. Flora of North America, vol. 22 (Butomaceae-Haemadoraceae). Oxford Univ. Press. 384 pp. Fox, W.E. Ill & S.L. Hatch. 1999. New combinations in Setaria Poaceae: Paniceae). Sida 18(4):1037-1 047. [Setaria reverchonii subsp. ramiseta] Harriman, N.A. 1999. Synopsis of New World Commicarpus (Nyctaginaceae). Sida 18(3):679-684. Henrickson, J. 1999. Studies in New World Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). Sida 18(3):783-807. Hoshizaki, B.J. & K.A. Wilson. 1999. The cultivated species of the fern genus Dryopteris in the United States. Amer. Fern J. 89( 1 ): 1 - 98. Judziewicz, E.J., L.G. Clark, X. Londono, & M.J. Stern. American Bamboos. Smithsonian Institution Press. 392 pp. Lammers, T.G. 1999. Plant systematics today: All our eggs in one basket? Syst. Bot. 24(3):494-496. Liggio, J. & A.O. Liggio. 1999. Wild Orchids of Texas. Univ. Texas Press, Austin. 228 pp. [magnificent photos] Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1999. The Illustrated Flora of Illinois, Sedges: Carex. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Nesom, G. 1999. Review of early nomenclature in Euthamia (Asteraceae: Astereae). Sida 1 8(4): 1 009- 1018. Nesom, G. & R.D. Noyes. 1999. Notes on sectional delimitations in Erigeron (Asteraceae: Astereae). Sida 1 8(4): 1 161-1165. [Erigeron rhizomatus ] O'Kane, S.L., Jr. 1999. Lesquerella navajoensis (Brassicaceae), a new species of the L. hitchcockii complex from New Mexico. Madrono 46:88-91. Peterson, R.S. & I.L. David. 1998 [1999]. Plants of Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Chaves County, New Mexico. New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes 1 (2): 1 -23 . Phipps, J.B. 1999. The relationships of the American black- fruited hawthorns Crataegus erythropoda , C. rivularis, C. saligna and C. brachyacantha to C. ser. Douglasianae (Rosaceae). Sida 18(3):647- 660. Pridgeon, A.M., P.J. Cribb, M.W. Chase, & F.N. Rasmussen. 1999. Genera Orchidacearum. Oxford Univ. Press. 224 pp. Sheley, R.L. & J.K. Petroff (eds.). Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. 438 pp. Sivinski, R.C. 1998. A note on Amsonia longiflora (Apocvnaceae). New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes l(2):32-33. Sivinski, R.C. 1998. Review and resurrection of Mentzelia springeri (Loasaceae). New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes l(2):43-45. Sivinski, R.C. 1999. A new variety of Pltysaria newberryi (Brassicaceae) from New Mexico. Sida 18(3):673-677. Spellenberg, R. & T. Wootten. 1999. Vascular plants on a gypsum outcrop in southern New Mexico: A listing, a new variety and taxonomic realignments in the Attulocaulis leiosolenus complex (Nyctaginaceae), and a new variety of Mentzelia huntilis (Loasaceae). Sida 1 8(4):987-999. Therrien, J.P. 1999. Genetic diversity in two rare milkweeds from the southwestern United States. Southwestern Naturalist 44 (3):247-255. [Asclepias sanjuanensis] Todsen, T.K. 1999. A new endemic species of Mentzelia sect. Bartonia (Loasaceae) from New Mexico. Sida 18(3):8 19-822. Torrell, M., N. Garcia-Jacas, A. Susann, & J. Valles. 1999. Phylogeny in Artemisia (Asteraceae, Anthemideae) inferred from nuclear ribosomal DNA (ITS) sequences. Taxon 48(4):72 1 -736. Wipff, J.K. & J.F. Veldkamp. 1999. Pennisetum advena sp. nov. (Poaceae: Paniceae): A common ornamental grass throughout the southern United States. Sida 1 8(4): 1 03 1-1 036. Yatskievych, G. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri. Rev. ed. Vol. 1 [pteridophytes, gymnosperms, monocots]. The Missouri Department of Conservation in cooperation with The Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 991 pp. MISCELLANEOUS: Al-Shehbaz, I. A. 1999. Reed Clark Rollins (7 December 1911 - 28 April 1998). Taxon 48(2):225-256. Carlson, S. 1999. Expert secrets for preserving plants. Scientific American (June):90, 92. Judd, W.S., C.S. Campbell, E.A. Kellogg, and P.F. Stevens. 1999. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. [introductory textbook] Lee, R.D. 1999. New Mexico's Invasive Weeds. New Mex. St. Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. [photo, descriptions, maps of 25 species; contact Cooperative Extension Service at MSC Box 3AE, Las Cruces, NM 88003] Ruzin, S.E. 1999. Plant Microtechnique and Microscopy. Oxford University Press. 322 pp. White, J.J., R. McVaugh, & R.W. Kiger. 1998. The Torner Collection of Sesse & Mocino Biological Illustrations. [CD-ROM] Carnegie Mellon CD Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [Contains 1 ,989 full-color digital reproductions of water color drawings from the 1787- 1803 Spanish Royal Expedition to New Spain] Wiersema, J.H, & B. Leon. 1999. World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 749 pp. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED PLANTS: [There are numerous reports and discussions concerning rare New Mexico plants on the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council web site: http://biology.unm.edu/~chelo/nmrptcl .html] Anonymous. 1998. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Bureau of Land Management (Albuquerque & Taos Field Office) & Ecosphere Environmental Services (Farmington), [line drawings, descriptions, & photos; contact BLM at 761-8700] WEB SITES OF INTEREST: Angelo, R : Botanical Index to the Journal of Henry David Thoreau. http://www.herbaria.harvard.edu/~rangelo/Botlndex/WebIntro. html — Revised: May 15, 1998 Peterson, R.H. A Guide to Botanical Nomenclature: A Tennessee Tutorial, http://fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/nom-index.htm R. J. Soreng, G. Davidse, P. M. Peterson, F. O. Zuloaga, E. J Judziewicz & T. S. Filgueiras: Catalogue of New World Grasses (Poaceae). http://mobot.mobot.org/Pick/Search/nwgc.html Miscellaneous maps: www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/ Topographic maps online: www.topozone.com Native Plant Society of New Mexico: http://npsnm.unm.edu/ ESI ¥ Page 4 Publication and Subscription Information "The New Mexico Botanist" is published irregularly (as inf ormation accrues) at no charge. You may be placed on the mailing list by sending your name and complete mailing address to the editor: Kelly Allred The New Mexico Botanist MSC Box 3-1 New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 or Email: kallred@nmsu.edu All subscribers will be included in the “Directory of New Mexico Botanists." Kelly Allred Range Plant Specialist New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition of a specimen (herbarium). — Richard Spellenberg & Tom Wootten (see Botanical Literature of Interest: Spellenberg & Wootten 1999) Anulocaulis leiosolenus (Ton .) Standi. Var. howardii Spellenb. & T. Wootten (Nyctaginaceae): Otero Co. (ARIZ, NMC, UNM). Mentzelia It until us (A. Gray) Dari. Var. guadalupensis Spellenb. (Loasaceae): Otero Co. (NMC, UNM). — Richard Worthington (P.o. Box 13331, El Paso.TX 79913) Lechea tenuifolia Michx. (Cistaceae): Eddy Co. (NMCR, UTEP). — Kelly Allred (MSC Box 3-1, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003) Carex planostachya Kuntze (Cyperaceae): Eddy Co. (MICH). — Robert Sivinski (P.O. Box 1948, Santa Fe, NM 87504) Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. var. lindheimeri Gand. (Polygonaceae): Eddy Co. (UNM). Physaria newberryi A. Gray var. yesicola Sivinski (Brassicaceae): Valencia & Cibola Cos. (NMC, UNM). [see also Botanical Literature of Interest, Sivinski 1999] - Thomas Todsen (2000 Rose Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005) Hexaiectrix revoluta Correll (Orchidaceae): Eddy Co. (photo & map on file at Guadalupe Mt. National Park Headquarters and verified by T. Todsen). Mentzelia conspicua T.K. Todsen (Loasaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (NMC, UNM). — Patricia Barlow-Irick (see Botanical Literature of Interest: Barlow-Irick 1999) Cirsium oehrocentrum subsp. martinii P. Barlow (Asteraceae): Catron, Grant, & Hidalgo Cos. (NMC, UNM). — Bill Hess (The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, II 60532) Forestiera shrevei Standi. (Oleaceae): Hidalgo Co. (NMC). — S.L. O Kane (sec Botanical Literature of Interest: O’Kane 1999) Lesquerella ttavajoensis O'Kane (Brassicaceae): McKinley Co. (NMC, UNM). Iffl Cooperative Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 'Hav TKcxica "SoUlttitf OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer. All programs are available to everyone regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. New Mexico State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Hew Htexica 'SotawAt Number 15 August 11, 2000 A Newsletter for the flora of New Mexico, from the Range Science Herbarium and Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University. In This Issue — • Advice for the plant collector ... 1 • Notes on Sparganium and Da lea in New Mexico ... 5 • Botanical Literature of Interest ... 6 • Annual Meeting of NPSNM ... 6 • New Plant Records ... 7 • Saul Bellow on botanists ... 8 Jgotftiiice est ^ctcnrid miralis qune ^egctdbilium cognitiotrcm tradit. — ^/linnacus Certainty and Uncertainly in Plant Identification J.R. HoskingA, G.R. Sainty13 and S.W.L. Jacobsc A NSW Agriculture, RMB 944, Tamworth, New South Wales 2340, Australia B PO Box 1219, Potts Point, New South Wales 201 1, Australia 1 National Herbarium of New South Wales, Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia Electronic version of Hosking, J. R.; Sainty, G. R.; Jacobs, S. W. L. (1996). Certainty and uncertainty in plant identification Proceedings of the Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference, 30 September - 3 October 1996, Melbourne, cd. R. C. H. Shepherd, pp. 464A67. [Communicated to The New Mexico Botanist by Tim Lowrey, UNM.] Summary Many plant specimens are not identified correctly or many of the names used for them are not applied correctly. There is a need for plant identifications to be checked by spe¬ cialists and specimens to be stored for future reference. This is particularly important for sur¬ vey data and the only adequate long term storage appears to be in herbaria. Identifications are made in the light of current taxonomic knowledge and this is constantly being revised. With¬ out access to the original specimens, results of previous surveys and research may not be of much use. Voucher specimens should therefore be a requirement for all plant research and this also applies to all weed research. Problems associated with use of data-based collections and long term storage of specimens, particularly the expense of maintaining collections, are dis¬ cussed. INTRODUCTION Even for those species that we now regard as being nomenclaturally stable or biologically well known, we have no idea what the future may bring in regards to new information and subse¬ quent improvement in our biological understanding. These principles apply to weed species possibly more than any other. Weeds are often first recorded as a problem in the field, passed on in the form of an inadequate specimen to an identification authority, with little or no idea of their origin. They are frequently either identified with species that have proven troublesome elsewhere or identified from inappropriate publications from wrong geographical areas. For species that have had a simple change of name there is not much problem. The synonymy can be quite straightforward and easily transferable. Where there has been a misidentification, at whatever level, or our knowledge has changed such that we now recognise two or more spe¬ cies in what was formerly one species (a good example is the 10 species and a number of hy¬ brids of blackberry that were formerly all called Rubus fruticosus) then it can be very difficult, if not impossible to track down what was the species actually being referred to. Collecting and lodging relevant voucher specimens in recognised herbaria is the only process that allows the biological integrity of any particular survey or study to be checked or updated. We present examples below of some of the commonly confused species and some examples where confusion has clouded the literature, we discuss the processes involved in storing and maintaining the specimens and some of the techniques or information sources that can be mis¬ used. Species names used here are as in Harden (1990-1993) except where that species is not covered, and then the authority is given. (Continued on page 2, Plant Id) \-( Page 2 ( Plant Id, Continued from page 1) CONFUSION There are many species that have been confused in the past and at present. Some examples of weed species commonly confused are given in Table 1. Table 1. Weed species commonly confused and often incor¬ rectly identified Family Astcraccac Genus Species Aster Convza subulatus spp. Erigeron spp. Bidens spp. Carduus tenuiflorus Carduus pycnocephalus Cassinia laevis Cassinia quinquefaria Centaureamelitensis Centaureasolstitialis Euchiton spp. (prev. part of Gnaphalium) Gamochaeta spp. (prev. part of Gnaphalium ) Gnaphalium spp. Hypochaeris glabra Hypochaeris radicata Onopordum acanthium Onopordum illyricum Senecio lautus subspecies Senecio madagascariensis Xanthium cavanillesii Xanthium italicum Xanthium occidental Xanthium orientate Caryophyllaccae Arenaria leptoclados Stellaria media Stellaria pallida Cerastium spp. Convolvulaceae Cuscuta spp. Cyperaceae Cyperus bifax Cyperus rotundatus Cyperus victoriensis Euphorbiaccae Fabaceae Chamaesyce spp. (Faboideae) Cytisus scoparius Genista (or Teline) monspt Genista (or Teline) stenopt Vicia spp. (Mimosoideae) Prosopis spp. Fumariaceae Fumaria spp. Iridaccac Homeria spp. Watsonia spp. Juncaccae Juncus spp. Malaceae Cotoneaster spp. Crataegus spp. Pyracantha spp. Oleaceac Ligustrum sinense Ligustrum vulgare Oxalidaceae Oxalis chnoodes Oxalis corniculatus Oxalis exilis Oxalis perennans Oxalis radicans Oxalis rubens Oxalis sp. A Papavcraceae Argemone mexicana Argemone ochroleuca Argemone subfusiformis Poaceae Avena spp. Digitaria ciliaris Digitaria sanguinulis Echinochloa spp. Eragrostis spp. Panicum spp. Phalaris spp. Vulpia spp. Polygonaccae Persicaria spp. Polygonum arenastrum Polygonum aviculare Rum ex spp. Rosaceae Rubus ' fruticosus ' Rubus chloocladus Rubus discolor [~R procerus] Rubus leightonii Rubus polyanthemus Rubus pyramidalis Rubus radula Rubus rosaceus Rubus selmeri Rubus ulmifolius Rubus ulmifolius hybrids Rubus vestitus Salicaccae Salix spp. Scrophulariaceac Orobanche spp. Striga spp. Solanaccae Physalis spp. Solanum elaegnifolium Solatium esuriale Thymclaeaceae Pimelea spp. Typhaceae Typha spp. Verbenaceae Phyla spp. Stachytarpheta spp. Verbena bonariensis Verbena incompta P.W. Michael Verbena caracasana Kunth Verbena litoralis Verbena officinalis Verbena quadrangularis Veil. (= brasiliensis misapplied) Zygophyllaccae Tribulus micrococcus Tribulus minutus Tribulus terrestris (introduced) Tribulus terrestris (native) In some cases confusion occurs between families, for example between Cascuta spp. (Convolvulaceae) and Cassytha spp. (Lauraceae or Cassythaceae). It is also interesting to note that due to difficulty in identifying species of Cuscuta, all species in this genus have been declared noxious in many States of Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). Native Cuscuta spp. are not considered to be a problem whereas C. campestris is considered to be a major problem (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). There are still a number of examples where species limits still need to be defined, for example at least two distinct entities are covered by the name Tribulus terrestris in Austra¬ lia (Morrison and Scott 1993). Misidentifications have resulted in delays to control programs for various weeds. This occurred in South Australia where So¬ latium elaeagnifolium was collected by J. M. Black in 1918 (Continued on page 3. Plant Id) (Plant Id, Continued from page 2) but it was believed to be Solatium esuriale at the time. In 1 947 Black sent specimens to Kew and they were identified as 5. elaeagnifolium (R. Carter personal communication). Co¬ ordinated control did not start until 1958 when the South Austra¬ lian Department of Agriculture started to refer to the species as introduced (R. Carter personal communication). Rapid spread of weeds may also occur through misidentifica- tions. A recent example is the rapid distribution of alligator weed, Alternanthera philoxeroides , by the Sri Lankan commu¬ nity in Australia. The species was distributed in the mistaken be¬ lief that it was the vegetable, mukunawanna, Alternanthera ses- silis (J. Dellow and R. Carter personal communications). Herbaria The only way to minimise the problems of misidenti- fications or subsequent classification changes is to collect voucher specimens and to lodged them in a herbarium where there is some chance of the collections being maintained in the long term. It is difficult for generalist Identification Officers, who are not specialists in any particular group, to correctly identify large numbers of specimens accurately. Such Officers deal with large numbers of enquiries for little or no charge, and are often very skilled. Mind reading, however, is not one of their skills and if you have some critical voucher specimens that should be re¬ tained then this information needs to be communicated. Most herbaria will not retain poor quality collections for any reason. If you have a research project where the lodging of voucher speci¬ mens is relevant, then you should arrange for the collaboration of an appropriate specialist beforehand. These days this often means including funds for identification. There is also a cost associated with storage of plant specimens and this needs to be recognised. This cost should particularly be built into projects where many specimens will be collected and stored for future reference. The need for constant curation of collections is also necessary as anyone who has looked at speci¬ mens in herbaria will realise. It is difficult for Identification Of¬ ficers who are not specialists in particular groups to be able to give the correct identification when a number of distinct species are included under the same name in collections. This is a com¬ mon occurrence in herbaria and results in a number of misidenti- fications, but it is also how progress is made in understanding the group. The need to constantly update names and identifications in the light of current taxonomic knowledge and to increase funding to maintain collections cannot be overemphasised. Collection of specimens There is a need for high quality plant specimens to be lodged in herbaria. In most cases this will mean flowering and fruiting sections of plants and in some cases other parts such as roots and bulbs. In some cases it is also desirable for collection of vegetative stages. This is particularly important for identification of forms of Chondrilla juncea (R. Groves per¬ sonal communication). In this case natural enemies such as the rust fungus, Puccinia chondrillina Bubak & Syd., and the chon¬ drilla gall mite, Aceria chondrillae (Canestrini) show specificity to particular forms of C. juncea (Groves and Cullen 1981). Databases are no substitute for looking at the specimens Da- tabasing of collections is increasing around Australia and this is desirable but it is no substitute for checking the specimens. Plants have often been misidentified, details from the collection typed in incorrectly and the location vague (could be applied to many areas). If using databases at least check outlying locations as these are most likely to be incorrect. It also pays to check whether there have been any problems with the database. This may mean that changes have been made in the collection but do not appear on the database. Use of voucher specimens Voucher specimens can be used to check previous identifications in the light of current taxonomic knowledge. For example the photograph of Verbena bonariensis in Auld and Medd (1987) was redetermined as Verbena in- compta (Michael 1995) because voucher specimens were lodged at the NSW Herbarium. Many species are not sent to herbaria for identification because people think that they know the species they are dealing with. This was the case with Chromolaena odorata (L.) R. M. King & H. Robinson, from the Tully area, which locals called giant billy goat weed in the mistaken belief that the species was a large form of Ageratum conyzoides. Many plant surveys, including weed surveys, have been pub¬ lished in the past where voucher specimens have not been lodged in a herbarium. We often have difficulty in believing some of the names on lists but there is no way to check the accuracy. Without specimens many of these records have to be disre¬ garded. Good voucher specimens take time to collect but are es¬ sential. No survey should be published without vouchers being lodged in a designated herbarium. Some plant books have excellent voucher specimens for the spe¬ cies photographed. For example Cunningham et al. (1981) and Auld and Medd (1987). A number of lists of plant species for various areas also have large numbers of voucher specimens lodged at various herbaria, for example McBarron (1955), Wil¬ liams (1979) and Hosking (1990). Misuse of voucher specimens It is essential that the policy of a herbarium with regard to specimens is understood. In some cases the number of specimens collected over time has been used to indicate whether a weed problem is increasing or decreasing. This is of little use if a herbarium considers that they have plenty of specimens for a particular area of the State and no longer re¬ tain additional collections. Most specimens sent in for identifica¬ tion are not retained by herbaria. Presence or absence of a spe¬ cies from an area based on herbarium specimens is also fraught with danger. So-called well known species are often rarely sent in tor identification resulting in absence of specimens from vari¬ ous locations. (Continued on page 4. Plant Id) < m (Plan! Id, Continued from page 3) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Importance of correct identifications In a number of cases the correct plant identification, and an understanding of its taxonomy and biogeography are important. These are particularly important for biological control programs. For example: 1 . Various strains of the blackberry rust, Phragmidium violaceutn , are likely to be more effective than others on differ¬ ent introduced Rubus spp. in Australia (Bruzzese and Hasan 1986, Bruzzese 1995). 2. The seed-feeding weevil, Erytenna consputa Pascoe, used to control Hakea sericea in South Africa was collected from Wil¬ son’s Promitory Peninsula in the mistaken belief that this was the same plant as the one causing the problem in South Africa ( Kluge and Neser 1991). Recent taxonomic study has shown that the plant from Wilson’s Promitory is Hakea decurrens R. Br. (Barker 1996). Populations of this weevil collected from H. sericea from south-eastern New South Wales, from the correct plant taxon, have successfully established on this plant in South Africa. 3. Early attempts to control this Salvinia molesta were not suc¬ cessful because the weevil, Cyrtobagous singularis Hustache was collected from Salvinia auriculata Aubl. in the mistaken be¬ lief that the plant species were the same (Room 1986). Salvinia weevil, Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder & Sands, collected from Salvinia molesta now successfully controls this water fern in many areas around the world. Correct identifications may also be important for chemical con¬ trol of weeds. For example various Fumaria spp. appear to have different susceptibilities to herbicides (McQuinn 1990). Another example is where irrigation managers at Emerald in the 1970s noted that Vallisneria gigantea was not being controlled by the accepted concentration of acrolein (C. Julian personal communi¬ cation). An investigation concluded that the ‘form’ of Vallis¬ neria present in the Emerald channels had a thicker than usual leaf and required a higher dose rate. This ‘form’ has been known as Vallisneria spiralis var. denseserrulata Makino. CONCLUSION Collect voucher specimens and others will know with certainty the species being referred to. Do not collect vouchers and you may as well not publish your results. We would like to thank Bill Barker for information on Hakea species in Australia. Suggestions and comments received from Richard Carter, Jim Dellow, Richard Groves, Rick Roush and Andy Sheppard have been noted and their assistance is acknowl¬ edged. REFERENCES Auld, B.A. and Medd, R.W. 1987. Weeds.' (Lnkata Press: Melbourne and Sydney). Barker, W.R. (1996). Novelties and taxonomic notes relating to Hakea Sect. Hakea (Proteaceae), mainly of eastern Australia. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens 17, 177-209. Bruzzese, E. (1995). Recent status of biological control ofEuropean blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) in Australia. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, pp. 297-9. Bruzzese, E. and Hasan S. (1986). The collection and selection in Europe of isolates of Phragmidium violaceum (Uredinales) patho¬ genic to species ofEuropean blackberry naturalized in Australia. Annals of Applied Biology 108, 527-33. Cunningham, G.M., Mulham, W.E., Milthorpe, P.L. and Leigh, J.H. (1981). Plants of Western New South Wales.' (NSW Government Printer, Sydney). Groves, R.H. and Cullen, J.M. (1981). Chondrilla juncea : the ecological control of a weed. In The ecology of pests', eds. R.L. Kitching and R.E. Jones, pp. 6-17. (CSIRO, Melbourne). Harden, G. (1990-1993). Flora of New South Wales.' Volumes 1-4. (New South Wales University Press, Sydney). Kluge, R.L. and Neser, S. (1991). Biological control of Hakea sericea (Proteaceae) in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi¬ ronment 37, 91-113. McBarron, E.J. (1955). An enumeration of plants in the Albury, Hol¬ brook and Tumbarumba districts of New South Wales. Contribu¬ tions from the New South Wales National Herbarium 2, 89-247. McQuinn, D J. (1990). Information on Fumaria species distribution in cereal crops in southern Australia and practical guidelines to aid identification. Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Weeds Confer¬ ence, p. 89. Michael, P.W. (1995). A new name for a widespread and misunderstood species of Verbena (Verbenaceae). Telopea 6, 181-3. Morrison, S.M. and Scott, J.K. (1993). Assessment of the origins of Tribulus terrestris in Australia. Proceedings of the 10th Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, pp. 388-91. Parsons, W.T. and Cuthbertson, E.G. (1992). Noxious Weeds of Austra¬ lia.' (Inkata Press, Melbourne). Room, P.M. 1986. Salvinia molesta - a floating weed and its biological control. In The Ecology of Exotic Animals and Plants.', ed. R.L. Kitching, pp. 164-86. (John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane). Williams, A.R. (1979). A survey of natural pastures in the North-west Slopes of New South Wales. Technical Bulletin No. 22. (Department of Agriculture, Sydney). £9 Jgotang is the natural science that transmits the knowledge of plants. — +£> innaeus Notes on Sparganium emersum and S. angustifolium James McGrath P.O. Box 2605, Tijeras, NM 87059 There is some confusion regarding two closely related species of Sparganium-. Sparganium emersum Rehmann and 5. angustifolium Michx. Kartesz (1994) considers 5. emersum and S. multipeduncula- tum (Morong) Rydb. As synonyms of 5. angustifolium. Martin and Hutchins (1980) does not include S. emersum , listing only 5. multipe- dunculatum as a synonym of S. angustifolium. Correll and Correll (1972) recognize both angustifolium and S. emersum , stating that the North American variety of S. emersum is var. multipedunculatum, and indicate that New Mexico is part of the range of 5. emersum. They call attention to the similarity of these species: “It is quite pos¬ sible that this concept [5. angustifolium ] should be united with S. emersum. Their separation, based primarily on size differences, is most tenuous.” Some recent floras, however, all recognize Sparganium angustifolium and S', emersum as two separate species (Hickman 1993; Weber & Wittmann 1996; Welsh et al. 1993). Finally, my experience supports the proposition that Sparganium an¬ gustifolium and S. emersum are two separate species. I have collect S. angustifolium from a population in a pond at the base of the eastern slope of the Brazos Ridge (10,600 ft) and at two other ponds in the Lagunitas Lakes area (10,400 ft). The leaves are narrow and thin and float on top of the water. Only the inflorescences stick above the wa¬ ter. In contrast, 1 have seen Sparganium emersum (growing without S. angustifolium ) in ponds near Canjilon Creek (9300 ft) and also at Trout Lakes (9300 ft). These plants have very rigid, thick stems and leaves that project vertically above the water. This feature is charac¬ teristic of all the plants in the population. Similarly, the weak, nar¬ row, floating leaves of S. angustifolium are characteristic of all the plants in their populations. On the basis of the above observations, I propose that Sparganium emersum be considered a separate species from 5. angustifolium , and be added to the list of New Mexico plants. Literature Cited Correll, D.S. & H.B. Correll. 1972. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southwest¬ ern United States. Stanford Univ. Press. Hickmann, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jcpson Manual. Berkeley: University of Cali¬ fornia Press. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2 Vols. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Martin, W.C. & C.R. Hutchins. 1980. A Flora of New Mexico. Vol. 1 . Vaduz, West Germany, J. Cramer. Weber, W.A. & R.C. Wittman. 1996. Colorado Flora. University Press of Colorado. Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, & L.C. Higgins (eds.). 1993. A Utah Flora. 2nd ed. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young Univ. Press. £33 On Da/ea com pacta in New Mexico Roger Peterson 1750 Camino Corrales, Santa Fe, NM 87505 Dctlea compacta Sprengel vars. compacta and pubescens (A. Gray) Barneby, as well as D. cylindriceps Bameby, are listed for New Mexico in the current draft of “A Working Index of New Mexico Vascular Plant Names” (Allred, ed., 1 999). There's a mix-up. Petcilostemon macrostachyum Torrey is (or was) a species ex¬ tending from South Dakota and Wyoming south to New Mex¬ ico. Torrey and Gray in 1 840 opined that it might be the same as D. compacta , a species of southeastern Oklahoma and adja¬ cent areas. Wooton and Standley (1915, Flora of New Mex¬ ico) and others accepted that speculation as fact. But accord¬ ing to Bameby (1977, N.Y. Bot. Gard. Memoirs 27: 227 and 268-270) the two species do not occur close to one another and are different; he separates them at Step 4 on p. 223. Also, the corollas of D. cylindriceps are ochroleucous to pink, those of D. compacta red-purple to rose. To put the species in Da/ea, Bameby provides a new name (D. cylindriceps), since there was already a D. macrostachya. The species is widespread in the eastern half of New Mexico. C. Keller, G. Cox, and I col¬ lected it in White Rock Canyon 10 July 1999, adding Los Ala¬ mos County to its distribution. Dalea compacta var. compacta has not been reported for New Mexico except on the out-of-date assumption that it is the cor¬ rect name for P. macrostachyum. Dalea compacta var. pubescens, which includes D. helleri Shinners (and its obligate synonym Petalostemon pulcherri- mum A. Heller), occurs in Oklahoma and eastern Texas west to Amarillo. Bameby thinks that Wemple's records ( 1 970, Iowa State Jour. Sci. 45: 1-102) of it in Trans-Pecos Texas and the Rio Grande valley are perhaps from introductions or mis- identifications. Isely's map (1998, Native and Naturalized Leguminosae p. 507) does show it in Torrance County, New Mexico, although his text has "Se and c TX (-s OK, -nw LA)." I believe that Dalea compacta should be omitted from the New Mexico flora until a definite specimen is located. 03 Botanical Literature of Interest Page 6 TAXONOMY AND FLORISTICS: Dorn, R.D. 2000. A taxonomic study of Salix sections Mexicanae and Viminella subsection Sitchenses (Salicaceae) in North America. Brittonia 52(1): 1-19. Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2000. Flora of North America, vol. 22. Oxford Univ. Press. 352 pp. [Butomales, Hydrocharitales, Najadales, Arecales, Arales, Commelinales, Eriocaulales, Juncales, Typhales, Bromeliales, Zingiberales] MacDonald, S.O. 2000. Common Grasses of Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico. Upper Gila Watershed Alliance. 63 pp. Toolin, L. & J.R. Reeder. 2000. The status of Setaria macrostachya and its relationship to S. vulpiseta (Gramineae). Syst. Bot. 25(l):26-32. Vitt, D.H. 2000. The classification of mosses: Two- hundred years after Hedwig. Nova Fledwigia 70( l-2):25-36. Worthington, R.D. 1999. Inventory of the flora of the New Mexico portion of the Guadalupe Mountains, Otero and Eddy Counties, New Mexico, [working first draft, available from the author] MISCELLANEOUS: Dorr, L.J. 2000. Joseph Andorfer Ewan (1909-1999). Taxon 49(1): 107- 112. Ryckman, R.E. & J.L. Zackrison. 1998. Son of the Living Desert: Edmund C. Jaeger. Publ. by senior author, 25877 Chula Vista St., Redlands, CA 92373. Weber, W.A. 2000. The American Cockerell: A Naturalist's Life, 1866-1948. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 352 pp. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED PLANTS: [See New Mexico Rare Plants, presented by the NM Rare Plant Technical Council: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu] WEB SITES OF INTEREST: Photo Gallery of flora of the Corona Ranch, New Mexico State University, Lincoln/Torrance Cos.: http://web.nmsu.edu/ ~kal!red/corona/ka_plants.htm Topographic maps for the entire United States available for free: http:. .www.topozone.com Location of herbaria in the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. and the southern provinces of Canada are mapped at http:// biology.usu.edu/herbarium/lierbne.htm Locate places, geographic features, counties, etc. at the Geographic Names Information System hosted by USGS: http:// mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/ 03 Annual Meeting Native Plant Society of New Mexico Sep 29-Oct 1, 2000 Las Cruces, New Mexico Holiday Inn Presentations: • Why creosotebush, Larrea tridentata, is "El Gubenador" in the Chihuahuan Desert by Walter G. Whitford • Lincoln County's Changing Faces, A photographic docu¬ mentation of historic vegetation changes by E. Hollis Fuchs » Landscape Processes and the Recovery of Desert Grasslands by Debra Peters • The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park: K-12 Environmental Science Education on the US-Mexico Border by Stephanie Bestelmeyer • Integrating Land Cover Mapping, Animal Distribution Pre¬ diction, and Stewardship Analysis for Conservation Plan¬ ning in the Southwestern Landscape by Bruce C. Thompson • New Mexico's First Botanist: TDA Cockerell by Carolyn Dodson and David L. Bleakly • SWEC proposes Mesilla Valley Bosque Park by Beth Bard- well • Birds of the Chihuahuan Desert by Mary Alice Root and Dale and Marian Zimmerman • National Park Service's new Chihuahuan Desert/Southem Shortgrass Prairie Exotic Plant Management Team by Renee West • The Vascular Flora of White Sands Missile Range by David Lee Anderson • Endangered Desert Diversity by Laura Foster Huenneke • Computer-aided Residential Landscape Design by Rolston St. Hilaire Keynote Speaker: Richard Spellenberg, “Charles Wright and the Native Plant Society of New Mexico.” Field Trips to the Organ Mountains, Bishop’s Cap area, and the Chihuahuan Desert Centennial Gardens in El Paso Information and a Registration Form maybe obtained at the Native Plant Society of New Mexico web site (http://npsnm.unm. edu/programs/newstate.htm#Section2) Contact: NPS/NM Annual Meeting 2000 c/o Lisa Mandelkem 5259 Singer Road Las Cruces, NM 88005 lisamand@zianet.com (505) 526-0917 - W Page 7 New Plant Distribution Records New records for New Mexico are documented by the county of occurrence and the disposition of a specimen (herbarium). — James McGrath [P.O. Box 2605, Tijeras, NM 87059] Antennaria corymbosa Nelson (Asteraceae): Rio Arriba Co. (UNM). Carex geyeri Boott (Cyperaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (MICH, UNM). Carex jonesii Bailey (Cyperaceae): Rio Arriba Co. (MICH, UNM). Potamogeton alpimis Balbis (Potamogetonaceae): Rio Arriba Co., Lagunitas Lakes wetland complex (UNM). Lemna turionifera Landolt (Lemnaceae): Rio Arriba Co., pond near Canjilon Creek (UNM). — Kelly Allred [MSC Box 3-1, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003] & Ken Heil [San Juan College, Farmington, NM 87402] Stipa arida Jones (Gramineae): San Juan Co., Navajo Nation, about 1.5 miles south of Beclabito on Beclabito Dome, near top of dome, Wingate formation, desert scrub community, T30N R2 1 W, 5800 ft, 26 May 1 995, K. Heil 8885 (SJC). Stipa speciosa Trin. & Rupr. (Gramineae): San Juan Co., Ute Mountain Indian Reservation, Cottonwood Canyon, T31N R15W Sec 5. 24 June 1985. M. Porter 1421 (SJC). This species was reported by Wooton & Standley (Flora of New Mexico), who cited Standley 7515 from the Carrizo Mts. in northwestern San Juan County, but this specimen has not been located. Martin & Hutchins (A Flora of New Mexico) also listed the species. No specimens validating these reports have been found until now. — Kelly Allred [MSC Box 3-1, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003] Ciclospermum leptophyllum (Pers.) Britton & E. Wilson (Apiaceae): Lea Co. (NMCR). This is the second occurrence in New Mexico for this cosmopolitan weed (previous report from Hidalgo Co.). — George W. Cox [13 Vuclta Maria, Santa Fc, NM 87501] & RogerS. Peterson [1750 Canuno Corralcs, Santa Fe.NM 87505; NMNH1 is at the Randall Davcy Audubon Center, Santa Fe.] Hesperis matronalis L. (Brassicaceae): San Miguel Co. (NMC, NMNHI). — Roger S. Peterson [1750 Camino Corralcs, Santa Fe, NM 87505; NMNHI is at the Randall Davcy Audubon Center, Santa Fe.] Agalinus calycina Pennell (Scrophulariaceae): Chaves Co. (NMC, NMNHI, Bitter Lake N.W.R.) Campanula rapunculoides L. (Campanulaceae): Colfax Co. (NMC, NMNHI); documents with a specimen the records of Atlas of the Flora of the Great Plains from Colfax, Taos, and Santa Fe counties. Carex angustior L. (or included in C. muricata L.) (Cyperaceae): Santa Fe Co. (NMC). Collected by I. L. David. Carex sprengelii Dewey (Cyperaceae): Colfax Co. (NMNHI). Determined by A. Reznicek, University of Michigan. Carum carvi L. (Apiaceae): Colfax Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Cuscuta warneri Yuncker (Cuscutaceae): Sierra Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Cymopterus purpurascens (Gray) Jones (Apiaceae): San Juan Co. (NMNHI): documents with a snecimen the renort of Welsh et al. 1993, A Utah Flora. Draba spectabilis Greene (Brassicaceae): Santa Fe Co. (collected by D. C. Lowrie in 1984), Mora Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Hypericum perforatum L. (Clusiaceae): Colfax Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Recorded also from Mora Co. (L. La Grange, N. M. Highlands University). Lonicera x bella Zabel (Caprifoliaceae): Santa Fe Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Lupinus argenteus Pursh var. argentatus (Rydb.) Barneby (Fabaceae): Colfax Co. (NMNHI); documents with a specimen the report of Barneby (1989), Intermountain Flora, vol. 3, pt. B. Osmorrbiza longistylis (Torrey) DC. (Apiaceae): Colfax Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Saccharum ravennae (L.) Murray (Poaceae): Chaves Co. reported by G. Warrick, determined by K. Allred (NMC, NMNHI, Bitter Lake N.W.R.). Silene latifolia Poir. subsp. alba (Miller) Greuter & Burdet (= Lychnis alba Miller) (Caryophyllaceae): Colfax, San Miguel counties (NMC, NMNHI). Stanleya viridijlora Nutt, ex Torr. & Gray (Brassicaceae): Sandoval Co. (NMNHI); San Juan Co. collected by H. L. Cannon in 1962 (NMC). Taraxacum scopulorum (A. Gray) Rydb. (Asteraceae): Mora Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Vitex agnus-castus L. (Verbenaceae): Socorro Co. (NMC, NMNHI). Reported forN. M. by Britton and Brown in 1913. — Richard Worthington [P.O. Box 13331, El Paso, TX 79913] Acer grandidentatum Nutt. var. sinuosum (Rehder) Little (Aceraceae): Hidalgo Co. (UNM); Eddy Co. (UNM) Oenothera triloba Nutt. (Onagraceae): Eddy Co. (TTC) Packera obovata (Muhl. ex Willd.) W.A. Weber & A. Love (Asteraceae): Eddy Co. (BRIT, UTEP) McArthur & Sanderson, 1999 [see Botanical Literature of Interest] Artemisia tridentata Nutt, subsp. wyomingensis Beetle & Young (Asteraceae): Taos Co. (SSLP) — Brady Allred [2015 Jordan Road, Las Cruces, NM 88001] Ligustrum vulgare L. (Oleaceae): San Miguel Co., South San Ysidro, northeast banks of Pecos River at junction with county road B43B, N35°26’48.8” W105°34’52.9”, 10.5 air miles southeast of Pecos; 27 June 2000, B, Allred 164 (NMCR). There were several plants persisting on both sides of the river, presumably as escapes from cultivation. • — Bill Hess [The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532] Spiranthes parasitica A. Rich. & Gal. (Orchidaceae): Grant Co: Black Range, Wright Cabin campground (WNMU). — Carson National Forest, Forest Service, USDA [208 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, NM 87571], in an April 2000 "scoping document" on invasive weeds: Carduus acanthoides L. (Asteraceae): Rio Arriba & Taos Cos. Vernonia noveboracensis (L.) Michx. (Asteraceae): Rio Amba co. m 41 ¥ Page 8 Publication and Subscription Information "The New Mexico Botanist" is published irregularly (as information accrues) at no charge. You may be placed on the mailing list by sending your name and complete mailing address to the editor: Kelly Allred The New Mexico Botanist MS C Box 3-1 New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 or Email: kallred@nmsu.edu "Why should they care about the histogenesis of the leaf, or adventitious roots? ... The public wants heart transplants, a cure for AIDS, reversals of senility. It doesn't care a hoot for plant structures, and why should it? Sure it can tolerate the people who study them ... They’re relatively inexpensive too. It costs more to keep two convicts in Statesville than one bota¬ nist in his chair." Saul Bellow “More Die by Heartbreak" All subscribers will be included in the "Directory of New Mexico Botanists." Kelly Allred Range Plant Specialist ¥ Cooperative Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 He 'J'lcw Tflcxico ‘Sotaxitt OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity employer. All programs are available to everyone regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. New Mexico State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Yf 'Hew ‘THexica 'SotcutiAt Number 16 December 6, 2000 A Newsletter for the flora of New Mexico, from the Range Science Herbarium and Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University. In This Issue — • The Brandegees . 1 • Calochortus in New Mexico . 4 • Alpine Potentilla . 5 • Botanical Literature of Interest . 6 • New Plant Records ....7 • Mistletoes on juniper .8 Botanice est Scientia N aturalis quae Vegetabilium cognitiorem tradit. — L innaeus The Botanical Brandegees and their Eponyms Christopher K. Frazier NM Natural Heritage Program, Dept, of Biology, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 & Kelly W. Allred Range Science Herbarium, Dept, of Animal & Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 The flora ofNew Mexico includes several taxa with epithets honoring the botanists Town- shend Stith Brandegee (1843- 1925, herein referred to as TS) or his wife, Mary Katharine (Layne) (Curran) Brandegee ( 1 844- 1 920, herein referred to as Kate). Most of these have tradi¬ tionally used the eponym “brandegei,” but recommendation 60C.3 of the 1994 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states that “In forming new epithets based on personal names, the original spelling of the personal name should not be modified unless it contains letters for¬ eign to Latin plant names or diacritical signs.” In accordance with this, for A Working Index to New Mexico Vascular Plant Names (Allred 2000) all of these epithets have been changed to “brandegeei.” In the course of reviewing these changes, we were surprised by the extent of botanical work completed by the Brandegees and the degree to which they were honored with eponyms. There are 9 eponyms currently in the flora ofNew Mexico honoring one or the other of them (it is unclear which, except for Elodea brandegeeae , where the feminine ending celebrates Kate) and another four eponymous types that are synonymous with New Mexico taxa (Table 1). Outside ofNew Mexico, there are an additional 1 1 1 species names with the epithet “brandegeei, ” or the combination of their name with a non-standard ending such as -ana, - anum, -ae, -ea, or -a. An additional 1 7 eponyms were published at the subspecific rank. There is one genus commemorating TS, the monotypic Brandegea in the Cucurbitaceae. The epo¬ nyms do not end there, however, since Kate had been an active botanist prior to her marriage (her second, at age 45) to TS. There are 67 eponyms honoring her as Kate Curran and another 7 based on "Layne" (2 at subspecific rank), her maiden name. TS Brandegee is the author of 5 New Mexico taxa (Table 2). Outside ofNew Mexico, how¬ ever, it becomes a much more laborious effort to determine which of the Brandegees described a given taxon. The authority abbreviation “Brandegee” is reserved for TS and “K. Brandegee” for Kate (Brummitt and Powell 1992); however, in practice “Brandegee” is often used to refer to either. In any case, 1 8 genera were described by the Brandegees (across 1 2 families) and 957 species or subspecific taxa (881 retrieved as Brandegee, 43 as K. Brandegee, 33 as Curran, all data from The Plant Names Project 1999). As far as we can tell, there are no taxa described by both (e.g. Brandegee et K. Brandegee), even though there are several groups worked on by both. For example. Astragalus haydenianus A. Gray ex Brandegee was collected by TS from SW Colorado, A. brandegeei Porter & J. M. Coult., from Colorado, was named after TS and A. coccineus from California was described by TS. On the other hand. Astragalus layneae Greene and Astragalus malacusvar. layneae Jones were named for Kate. Among the monkey- flowers, Mimulus layneae was named for Kate, M. brandegeei for TS (Crosswhite and (Continued on page 2, Brandegees) I (Brandegees. Continued from page 1) Crosswhite 1985). Four other species (M.androsaceus, M. nudatus, M. pictus, and M. kelloggii) were described by Kate under the authority “Curran” and one species, M. clevelandii, was described by TS. Townshend Stith Brandegee had a remarkable career first as a collector and later, under the influence of Kate, as a taxono¬ mist and more general plant scientist. Though his training was in civil engineering, he studied botany with D C. Eaton while at Yale. He became county surveyor and city engineer in Canon City, Colorado in 1871, and while there collected ferns for John H. Redfield (Elliott 1 979). Other unknown plants he sent to Asa Gray of Harvard (both Gray and Sir Joseph Hooker visited Brandegee in Canon City in 1877). In 1875, Gray recommended TS as a botanical collector for Ferdinand V. Hayden’s exploring expedition in SW Colorado and adja¬ cent Utah. He subsequently served as engineer for various railway surveys in the west including at least some work in New Mexico and a posting in Santa Fe (Setchell 1925, Slack 2000b). All the while he was botanizing. Asa Gray described Galium brandegeei in 1877 from material collected by TS in the “Valley of the Rio Grande, on the Los Pinos Trail” (there is a Los Pinos trail near the Puerco between Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties, 13 km N of Cuba, however, it is more likely the collection is from near the town of Los Pinos in the far north of Rio Arriba county near the Colorado border where there is also the C&T scenic railway). TS collected logs of wood of trees for Charles Sprague Sar¬ gent's “Report on the Forests of North America" as a side job. He published “The Flora of Southwestern Colorado” in 1 876 and was singled out in the preface to the first full flora of Colorado (Porter and Coulter 1 874) for “his large and fine col¬ lections from the southern part of the territory.” After leaving railway work, TS mapped the forests of the Adirondacks in New York state and then worked two years as a forest sur¬ veyor and botanical collector in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. In 1886 and 1887 he again collected tree trunks for Sargent , visiting Montana, Nevada and California among other states. Asked to collect logs of two species from Santa Cruz Island, TS took the opportunity to make “a complete col¬ lection of the plants of the island and also of those of Santa Rosa Island. California became my home state then and bot¬ any alone my study and work” (Setchell 1926). He settled in San Francisco, California, and began a study of the islands off the coast of California and Baja California. Beginning in 1889, he made many expeditions into Baja California and other regions ofMexico, becoming one of the earliest plant explorers and collectors in these regions (Slack 2000b). In San Francisco, TS became a member of the California Acad¬ emy of Sciences and came into the scientific circle of such men as H.W. Harkness, Albert Kellogg, E.L. Greene and Mary Katharine Curran. After his first trip to Baja, California in 1 889, he married Kate in San Diego. For the honeymoon, they walked back to San Francisco, botanizing all the way. At age 22, Kate, a school teacher, married an alcoholic consta¬ ble, Hugh Curran. When he died in 1874 Kate moved to San Francisco and entered medical school. She gained her M.D. in 1 878, but had little success as a medical doctor. Meanwhile, she spent a great deal of time in the California Academy of Sciences "making myself useful, especially around the herbar¬ ium" (from autobiographical notes quoted by Setchell 1925). She began to collect plants in 1882 and in 1 883 succceeded Albert Kellogg as curator of the CAS herbarium. The CAS was unusual among scientific organizations of the time in that it welcomed women members. Crosswhite and Crosswhite (1985) detail the extreme barriers in place during this time to women professionals (and to Kate specifically) and noted the difficulties that she faced as the highest placed female plant scientist of the time. As curator, Kate was very active in her¬ barium work and exploration. She took many botanical trips using the railroads, for which she enjoyed a general pass. Truly one of the leading authorities on California plants, she never completed a projected flora of the state, although she did provide a flora for Yosemite. She was extremely attentive to variation among plants, particularly among certain groups including the Cactaceae, Lupinus, Eriogonum, Oenothera , Quercus etc. She had broad species concepts and viewed plant variation as part of the evolutionary process. This put her at odds with other leading botanists, notably the western botanist E.L Greene, who was both a creationist and a “splitter”. Kate Brandegee has also been called a reformer (Crosswhite and Crosswhite 1985) and had little patience with careless or untidy botany. For example, she objected to the practice of re¬ porting new species at oral meetings that would be eventually “published” in the Proceedings of the CAS up to four years later. She helped to establish and then edited the Bulletin of the CAS as a more direct venue for publication. In its first volume she published a 22-page article giving the results of her identifications of each of the species proposed in the old Proceedings. To promote even freer discussion and criticism, she and her new husband (TS) founded the journal Zoe in 1 890. Kate is best known for her critical reviews that ap¬ peared here, most notably of the work of E.L. Greene and Na¬ thaniel Britton. She started the first West Coast botanical club in 1891. In 1894, Kate and TS moved to San Diego, turning over the curatorship of CAS to Kate's protege, Alice Eastwood. From their "botanical paradise" that was their home in San Diego, Kate continued her explorations in California, while TS con¬ tinued his explorations of Baja California and extended his ex¬ plorations into mainland Mexico. During this period C.A. Purpus began sending TS specimens from California and sur¬ rounding states, but later took up sending him specimens from Mexico, including the states of Vera Cruz, Oaxaca, and Cha¬ pas. Through an inheritance to TS, the Brandegees were largely of independent means, but in 1 897, TS accepted em¬ ployment mapping the Teton Forest Reserve in Wyoming. In (Continued on page 3. Brandegees) ' (Brandegees. Continued from page 2) 1 906, the Brandegees donated their botanical collection (>75,000 specimens) and botanical library to the University of Californ ia and moved to Berkeley, where they lived the rest of their lives. In these later years, Kate published less and completed less field work, but had a great effect on the maturation of her husband's professional career (Crosswhite and Crosswhite 1985). TS pub¬ lished extensive studies of the plants of Mexico, culminating in his best known work, the twelve volume Plantae mexicanae Pur- pusianae, published between 1909 and 1924. Together, the Brandegees had an important and lasting influence on western North American botany. They were integral in the matriculation of the Pacific school from reliance on the expertise of Eastern botanists and they played an important role in the maturation of general botanical thinking in the west. Outside of botany, Kate was at the leading edge of what was a very signifi¬ cant assertion of rights for women professionals (Crosswhite and Crosswhite 1985). Their work reflects a life-long and honest re¬ spect for nature as reflected in the diversity of plants, an interest that went well beyond the desire to have their names associated with as many botanical entities as possible. Table 1, Eponymy of New Mexico Plant Names (13) Astragalus brandegeei Porter Corydalis brandegeei S. Wats. ( =Corydalis caseana Gray subsp. brandegeei (S. Wats.) G. Ownbey) Dicoria brandegeei Gray ( =Dicoria canescens A. Gray var. brandegeei (Gray) Cronquist) Erigeron brandegeei A. Gray ( =Erigeron concinnus (Hook. & Am.) Torr. & A. Gray var. concinnus ) Eriogonum brandegeei Rydb. Cilia brandegeei A. Gray ( = Polemonium brandegeei (A. Gray) Greene) Hymenoxys brandegeei Porter ex A. Gray ( =Tetraneuris brande¬ geei (Porter ex A. Gray) Parker) Penstemon brandegeei Porter ex Rydb. ( =Penstemon glaber Pursh var. brandegeei (Porter ex Rydb.) Freeman Trifolium brandegeei S. Wats. Zuckia brandegeei (A. Gray) Welsh & Stutz Elodea brandegeeae St. John (= Elodea canadensis Michx. ) Galium brandegeei A. Gray (= Galium trifidum L. subsp. subbi- florum (Wieg.) Puff) Ranunculus macauleyi A. Gray var. brandegeei L. Benson ( =Ranunculus macauleyi Gray) Table 2, Authorship of New Mexico Plant Names (5) Helianthus niveus (Benth.) Brandegee subsp. canescens (A. Gray) Heiser [Mexico] Krynitzkia mexicana Brandegee ( =Cryptantha mexicana (Brandegee) I.M. Johnst.) [Coahuila, Mexico] Thelypodium purpusii Brandegee ( =Thelypodiopsis purpusii (Brandegee) Rollins) [Mexico] Hosackia plebeia Brandegee ( =Lotus plebeius (Brandegee) Ba- rneby) [Baja, Mexico] Scutellaria potosina Brandegee [Mexico] Note: Complete lists of all taxa used for this report may be ob¬ tained from Chris Frazier. Acknowledgements We thank Gwen Davis of the Association for Biodiversity Infor¬ mation for calling this epithet problem to our attention. Literature Cited Allred, K.W. 2000. A Working Index to New Mexico Vascular Plant Names. Published on the Internet: http://web.nmsu.edu/ -kallred/herbweb/lndex-web-title.htm Brummitt, R.K., and C.E. Powell. 1992. Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England. Crosswhite, F.S., and C.D. Crosswhite. 1985. The plant collecting Brandegees, with emphasis on Katharine Brandegee as a liberated woman scientist of early California. Desert Plants 7:128-139, 158-162. Elliott, C.A. 1979. Biographical dictionary of American Science. The 1 7* through 1 9th century. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut. Pages 39-40. Porter, T.C., and J.M. Coulter. 1 874. Synopsis of the Flora of Colorado. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. The Plant Names Project. 1999. International Plant Names Index. Published on the Internet: http://www.ipni.org Setchell, W.A. 1926. Townshend Stith Brandegee and Mary Katherine (Layne) (Curran) Brandegee. University of California Publications in Botany 13: 154-1 78. Slack, N.G. 2000a. Brandegee, Mary Katharine Layne Curran. American National Biography Online, http://www.anb.org/ articles/1 3/1 3-01 940. Oxford University Press. Slack, N.G. 2000b. Brandegee, Townshend Stith. American National Biography Online, http://www.anb.org/articles/13/13- 00185. Oxford University Press. £Q What’s In A Name? I sometimes ask students about the meaning of the specific epithet of Eragrostis cilianensis. Almost invariably, they respond that it signifies something about hairs, relying on their knowledge of the term ciliate. This allows me to take a little jaunt into the interesting world of botanical Latin and the use of adjectival suffixes to indicate geographic origin. Whenever we see the ending - ensis , we can be sure that the word is referring to a place, in this case, the Ciliani Estate in Italy, from whence came a specimen of stinkgrass. Other -ensis names from the New Mexico flora are Cheilanthes alabamensis, Juniperus coahulensis, Osmorhiza chilensis, Asclepias sanjuanensis, Helianthus arizonensis, Astragalus missouriensis, Cryptantha nevadensis, Lesquerella navajoensis, Echinocactus texensis, Escobaria organensis, Lonicera utahensis, and Penstemon alamosensis , to name just a few. There are no “ new-mexicensis” names. Rather, our fair state is commemorated by “ neomexicana” or “ novomexicana” (with appropriate endings to reflect gender), such as Stipa neomexicana, Cirsium neomexicanum, Erigeron neomexicanus. Delphinium novomexicanum, and Heuchera novomexicana. — ka A Key To Calochortus In New Mexico David Bleakly 3813 Monroe, NE, Albuquerque, NM 871 10 This key is offered as an alternative to existing keys; it is not revisionary. An exhaustive study was not made of the regional herbaria to obtain the most complete range data. Therefore, sego lilies may be found in more counties than those indicated below. When collecting, press the flowers so the inside of at least one petal is visible, preferably with the flower completely open. Note the color and gland charac¬ teristics of fresh flowers before pressing. Terminology: Bulbiferous = producing solitary bulblets in axils of lowest leaf or leaves, usually at or below ground level; the stems arise from deep-seated bulbs. Glands are usually depressed and encircled entirely or partially by a ± fringed membrane, and are densely short- hairy inside. Petal hairs are longer than the gland hairs located on the inner surface of the petals, and arelocated outside but near the gland. Hair tips of either type may be entire orsometimes dilated or branched, depending on the species. 1 Stems decumbent to weakly erect, often twining among other plants or straggling along ground, branched; plants rarely bulbiferous; petals white with lilac tinge to purplish, with transverse yellow band at the gland & usually with purple spot on claw below gland; glands not (or only slightly) depressed, transversely lunate to orbicular; membrane around gland none; petal hairs few, short, thick or petals glabrous; dry stony slopes & rocky mesas & flats; 1600-6600 ft; sw&nwNM (HI, SJ), swCO, nAZ, s&eUT, sNV, seCA; Apr- Jun . Calochortus flexuosus S. Wats. 1 Stems strict, erect; plants usually bulbiferous; petals white, purplish, yellow, sometimes or often with narrow curved purple band above gland & a purple spot on claw below gland \ petal hairs usually elongate, simple or branched; glands transversely elongate or circular, depressed; membrane partly or completely surrounding gland 2 Glands narrowly or broadly elongate transversely, bottom of gland not curved downward, usually arched upward or at least peipen- dicular to axis of petal (sometimes curved downward & gland orbicular in C. ambiguus ); petal hairs yellow, tips enlarged or branched & ± glandular, bases of petal hairs sometimes purplish; petals sometimes marked with many short, narrow purple striae that are often associated with the purple bases of petal hairs, particularly in C. gunnisonii; anther tips acute or obtuse 3 Glands narrow, oblong, elongate, usually arched; petal hairs elongate, tips branched; petals white to purple or yellow; sepals often with purple band & spot (but no gland); anther tips acute to apiculate; dry to moist slopes, primarily in Rocky Mountains; 7200-9200 (10,500) ft; Jurt-Aug . Calochortus gunnisonii S. Wats. 4 Petals white or purple; NM (BE [Sandia Mts], CA, CO, LA, MC [Chuska Mts], RA, SA [Jemez Mts], SJ [Chuska Mts], TA, TO [Manzano Mts], UN [Sierra Grande]), seAZ, eUT, CO, WY, MT, SD (Black Hills) . var. gunnisonii 4 Petals yellow; known only from nNM (MO, SM) . var. perpulclter Cockerell 3 Glands transversely lunate to orbicular;/?