The Middle Miocene Alum Bluff Flora, Liberty County, Florida

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Middle Miocene Alum Bluff Flora, Liberty County, Florida THE MIDDLE MIOCENE ALUM BLUFF FLORA, LIBERTY COUNTY, FLORIDA By SARAH LYNN CORBETT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004 For Daddy, who grew up under the shade of a big live oak and taught me the value of all things in nature 01/02/47-10/23/03 The Peace of Wild Things When despair for the world grows in me And I wake in the night at the least sound In fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be, I go and lie down where the wood drake Rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds. I come into the peace of wild things Who do not tax their lives with forethought Of grief. I come into the presence of still water. And I feel above me the day-blind stars Waiting with their light. For a time I rest in the grace of the world, and am free. -Wendell Berry ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Steven R. Manchester, for help with fieldwork, processing samples, examining leaf material critically, and for general advice along the way. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Walter Judd, Dr. David Dilcher, and Dr. Michelle Mack, for reviewing my work and making much needed suggestions. Several other persons and organizations deserve acknowledgment as well. The Nature Conservancy provided a permit for me and others to collect fossil plants on their property, and Greg Seamon of The Nature Conservancy helped to arrange access to the property. The Florida Paleontological Society Gary Morgan Award committee and the Southwest Florida Fossil Club provided monetary support for fieldwork and research. Dr. David Jarzen provided help with identification of some palynomorphs, provided access to modern reference pollen collections and palynological reprints, and made revisions to the pollen section. Student assistant, Sabrina Khouri helped with pollen counts, cuticle extraction, databasing, and photography. Global Geolabs of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, and Russ Harms processed pollen samples and generously processed those samples for free. The University of Florida Electron Microscopy Core Laboratory provided their facilities at no cost, and Fred Bennett and Karen Kelly of the EM lab provided excellent training and technical support. Roger Portell answered ii questions on Alum Bluff geology and reviewed revisions of the geology section. Dr. Jon Bryan and Harley Means offered useful conversations on panhandle geology and allowed me to accompany them on several field trips. Dr. Bill Elsik, Dr. Vaughn Bryant, Dr. John Wrenn, and Dr. Fred Rich shared information and reprints on eastern Miocene palynofloras. J. Yoder, R. Portell, K. Schindler, T. Sweet, S. R. Manchester, T. A. Lott, the 1999 Paleobotany Class, the 2002 Phytogeography Class, and members of the Florida Paleontological Society (2003) collected fossils from Alum Bluff. Laura Corbett McGuire provided her photographic efforts and an occasional push in the right direction. Tamika Robinson offered advice and answered many late night frantic phone calls. Lastly, I would like to recognize my parents. I extend appreciation to my mother, Janice Corbett, for extensive photocopying of references, support through this project and always, and an enormous amount of tolerance and patience. And to my father, the late Richard Larry Corbett, I express deep gratitude for always providing much needed graduate school survival advice, being interested in my work, being attentive to my questions, and instilling the interest in me to begin with. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………… ii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………....... vi LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………. vii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….. ix INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….… 1 Modern Flora of Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines……………………. 2 Geology………………………………………………………………….... 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………………….. 8 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………….…… 13 Leaf Macrofossils………………………………………………………… 13 Fruits and Seeds……………………………………………………….… 22 Spores and Pollen……………………………………………………….. 23 Spores…………………………………………………………….. 23 Pollen………..……………………………………………….……. 27 Fungi………………………………………………………………………. 36 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………….. 71 Comparison with Other Miocene Floras………………………….……. 71 Paleoecological Implications………………………………….………… 73 Biogeographical Implications…………………………………………… 77 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………….……. 79 APPENDIX A SELECTED WOODY TAXA OCCURRING IN AND AROUND THE APALACHICOLA BLUFFS AND RAVINES AREA AND THEIR TYPICAL HABITATS……………………………………………….…… 82 APPENDIX B EXPLANATION OF PALYNOMORPH TERMINOLOGY…... 85 iv REFERENCES…...……………………………………………………….……… 90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………...……….96 v LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Examples of historical names of the stratum currently known as the Alum Bluff Group, undifferentiated and their corresponding publication………………………………………………………………… 7 2 Terrestrial Miocene palynomorph localities from eastern North America used for comparison with Alum Bluff palynomorphs………. 24 3 Taxa shared between Alum Bluff and other Miocene localities……... 74 4 Summary of taxa identified at Alum Bluff……………………………… 81 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Map showing Alum Bluff and surrounding area………………………. 38 2 Apalachicola River and Alum Bluff exposure…………………………. 39 3 Alum Bluff exposures showing Pleistocene to Miocene age sediments………………………………………………………….……… 39 4 Lithostratigraphy of Alum Bluff………………………………….………. 40 5 Summary of geochronology, showing temporal relationships between Torreya and Chipola Formations, and the Alum Bluff Group, undifferentiated………………………………………………….. 41 6 Fossil plant strata at the Alum Bluff exposure…………………….…... 42 7 Leaflets of Carya (Juglandaceae)………………………..……….…..... 43 8 Lauraceous leaf ………...……………………………………………….. 44 9 Leaves of Paliurus (Rhamnaceae) .. ………………………..………… 45 10 Leaves and ‘wood’ of Sabalites (Arecaceae)……………………….… 46 11 Graduate student Xin Wang with a very large example of a Sabalites leaf from Alum Bluff…………………………………………... 47 12 Leaves of Ulmus (Ulmaceae) ………………………………………….. 48 13 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotype AB1 ………………………………………. 49 14 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotype AB2 ………………………………………. 50 15 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotype AB3 ………………………………………. 51 16 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotypes AB4, 5, 6, and 7………………………... 53 vii 17 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotypes AB8 and 9 ……………………………… 54 18 Alum Bluff leaf Morphotypes AB10, 11, and 12…………………..…... 55 19 Fruits and seeds from Alum Bluff………………………………………. 56 20 Pie chart showing pollen count summary for Alum Bluff…………….. 57 21 Fern spores from Alum Bluff……………………………………………. 59 22 Gymnosperm and Poaceae type pollen from Alum Bluff……….……. 61 23 Liliaceae, Magnoliaceae type, and miscellaneous dicotyledonous pollen from Alum Bluff………………………………………….………... 63 24 Fagaceae and Ulmaceae pollen from Alum Bluff…………………….. 64 25 Miscellaneous dicotyledonous pollen from Alum Bluff……….………. 66 26 Unknown palynomorphs and dinoflagellate cyst from Alum Bluff…... 68 27 Fungal sporomorphs from Alum Bluff……………………………….…. 70 viii Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THE MIDDLE MIOCENE ALUM BLUFF FLORA, LIBERTY COUNTY, FLORIDA By Sarah Lynn Corbett December 2004 Chair: Steven R. Manchester Major Department: Botany The Miocene flora of Alum Bluff, Liberty County, Florida, is significant because of the relative rarity of Tertiary, and especially Miocene, fossil plant localities in eastern North America. After conducting a paleofloristic study including leaves, seeds, fruits, and pollen at Alum Bluff, implications for understanding Miocene climate, biogeography, and paleoecology of the region were inferred. The first study of the flora of the Alum Bluff site was conducted on leaf impressions by E.W. Berry in the early twentieth century. Berry studied only leaf macrofossils and identified 12 leaf species. Recent collections and further examination of specimens reveals 22 identified taxa, 7 morphotypes of uncertain taxonomic affinity, and 21 examples of unknown taxonomic affinity are also ix present in the flora. Berry described the flora as being tropical with some temperate elements found in the Florida panhandle today; however, recent finds such as Paliurus, which is extinct in North America but present in Eurasia today, suggest different floristic affinities and indicate that the flora was warm- temperate. The composition of the flora was compared with modern floras and other Miocene floras to determine the environmental conditions present at Alum Bluff in the Miocene. It was found that the Alum Bluff flora an elm-hickory- cabbage palm forest (similar to that of North central Florida today) occurring along a river or near a river delta. Biogeographical implications of the Florida panhandle region during the Miocene were inferred based on the floral composition of Alum Bluff. The use of fruit, seeds, pollen, and leaves increased the known diversity of the Alum Bluff flora, making it a paleobotanically important case. x INTRODUCTION Miocene floras are poorly known in eastern North America. In the southeast U.S., Tertiary paleobotanical deposits are even less common, though there are a number of marine Tertiary deposits in the region. The Brandon lignite flora of Vermont, the Brandywine flora of Maryland, and the Alum Bluff flora of Florida are some examples of the few eastern North American Miocene localities with good preservation
Recommended publications
  • Department of Planning and Zoning
    Department of Planning and Zoning Subject: Howard County Landscape Manual Updates: Recommended Street Tree List (Appendix B) and Recommended Plant List (Appendix C) - Effective July 1, 2010 To: DLD Review Staff Homebuilders Committee From: Kent Sheubrooks, Acting Chief Division of Land Development Date: July 1, 2010 Purpose: The purpose of this policy memorandum is to update the Recommended Plant Lists presently contained in the Landscape Manual. The plant lists were created for the first edition of the Manual in 1993 before information was available about invasive qualities of certain recommended plants contained in those lists (Norway Maple, Bradford Pear, etc.). Additionally, diseases and pests have made some other plants undesirable (Ash, Austrian Pine, etc.). The Howard County General Plan 2000 and subsequent environmental and community planning publications such as the Route 1 and Route 40 Manuals and the Green Neighborhood Design Guidelines have promoted the desirability of using native plants in landscape plantings. Therefore, this policy seeks to update the Recommended Plant Lists by identifying invasive plant species and disease or pest ridden plants for their removal and prohibition from further planting in Howard County and to add other available native plants which have desirable characteristics for street tree or general landscape use for inclusion on the Recommended Plant Lists. Please note that a comprehensive review of the street tree and landscape tree lists were conducted for the purpose of this update, however, only
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing the Genetic Variation in Seven Species of Deciduous Native Azaleas and Identifying the Mechanism of Azalea Lacebug Resistance in Deciduous Azalea
    CHARACTERIZING THE GENETIC VARIATION IN SEVEN SPECIES OF DECIDUOUS NATIVE AZALEAS AND IDENTIFYING THE MECHANISM OF AZALEA LACEBUG RESISTANCE IN DECIDUOUS AZALEA by MATTHEW RANDOLPH CHAPPELL (Under the direction of Dr. Carol Robacker) ABSTRACT Despite the ecologic and economic importance of native deciduous azaleas (Rhododendron spp. section Pentanthera), our understanding of interspecific variation of North American deciduous azalea species is limited. Furthermore, little is known concerning intraspecific or interpopulation genetic variation. The present study addresses questions of genetic diversity through the use of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. Twenty-five populations of seven species of native azalea were analyzed using three primer pairs that amplified a total of 417 bands. Based on analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) and estimates of Nei’s coefficients of gene diversity (HS, HT, and GST), the majority of variation in deciduous azalea occurs within populations. Both among species and among population variation was low, likely the effect of common ancestry as well as frequent introgression among members (and populations) of section Pentanthera. The majority of populations were grouped into species based on Nei’s unbiased genetic distances viewed as a UPGMA phenogram. The significance of these results is discussed in relation to breeding in section Pentanthera. In addition to the lack of information concerning genetic variation in North American native azaleas, little is known concerning the insect-plant interaction between the primary azalea pest in the United States, azalea lace bug (ALB) (Stephanitis pyrioides Scott), and deciduous azalea. Azaleas are largely resistant to predation by insects, with the exception of ALB. Within deciduous azalea (Rhododendron section Pentanthera) varying levels of resistance to ALB is observed with a continuous distribution from susceptible to highly resistant.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Revision of Rhododendron L. Section Pentanthera G
    A TAXONOMIC REVISION OF RHODODENDRON L. SECTION PENTANTHERA G. DON (ERICACEAE) BY KATHLEEN ANNE KRON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987 , ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the supervision and encouragement given to me by Dr. Walter S. Judd. I thoroughly enjoyed my work under his direction. I would also like to thank the members of my advisory committee, Dr. Bijan Dehgan, Dr. Dana G. Griffin, III, Dr. James W. Kimbrough, Dr. Jonathon Reiskind, Dr. William Louis Stern, and Dr. Norris H. Williams for their critical comments and suggestions. The National Science Foundation generously supported this project in the form of a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant;* field work in 1985 was supported by a grant from the Highlands Biological Station, Highlands, North Carolina. I thank the curators of the following herbaria for the loan of their material: A, AUA, BHA, DUKE, E, FSU, GA, GH, ISTE, JEPS , KW, KY, LAF, LE NCSC, NCU, NLU NO, OSC, PE, PH, LSU , M, MAK, MOAR, NA, , RSA/POM, SMU, SZ, TENN, TEX, TI, UARK, UC, UNA, USF, VDB, VPI, W, WA, WVA. My appreciation also is offered to the illustrators, Gerald Masters, Elizabeth Hall, Rosa Lee, Lisa Modola, and Virginia Tomat. I thank Dr. R. Howard * BSR-8601236 ii Berg for the scanning electron micrographs. Mr. Bart Schutzman graciously made available his computer program to plot the results of the principal components analyses. The herbarium staff, especially Mr. Kent D. Perkins, was always helpful and their service is greatly appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States
    Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States Poisonous Plants of the Southern United States Common Name Genus and Species Page atamasco lily Zephyranthes atamasco 21 bitter sneezeweed Helenium amarum 20 black cherry Prunus serotina 6 black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 14 black nightshade Solanum nigrum 16 bladderpod Glottidium vesicarium 11 bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum 5 buttercup Ranunculus abortivus 9 castor bean Ricinus communis 17 cherry laurel Prunus caroliniana 6 chinaberry Melia azederach 14 choke cherry Prunus virginiana 6 coffee senna Cassia occidentalis 12 common buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 25 common cocklebur Xanthium pensylvanicum 15 common sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 19 common yarrow Achillea millefolium 23 eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia 18 fetterbush Leucothoe axillaris 24 fetterbush Leucothoe racemosa 24 fetterbush Leucothoe recurva 24 great laurel Rhododendron maxima 9 hairy vetch Vicia villosa 27 hemp dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 23 horsenettle Solanum carolinense 15 jimsonweed Datura stramonium 8 johnsongrass Sorghum halepense 7 lantana Lantana camara 10 maleberry Lyonia ligustrina 24 Mexican pricklepoppy Argemone mexicana 27 milkweed Asclepias tuberosa 22 mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia 6 mustard Brassica sp . 25 oleander Nerium oleander 10 perilla mint Perilla frutescens 28 poison hemlock Conium maculatum 17 poison ivy Rhus radicans 20 poison oak Rhus toxicodendron 20 poison sumac Rhus vernix 21 pokeberry Phytolacca americana 8 rattlebox Daubentonia punicea 11 red buckeye Aesculus pavia 16 redroot pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus 18 rosebay Rhododendron calawbiense 9 sesbania Sesbania exaltata 12 scotch broom Cytisus scoparius 13 sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia 6 showy crotalaria Crotalaria spectabilis 5 sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia 12 spotted water hemlock Cicuta maculata 17 St. John's wort Hypericum perforatum 26 stagger grass Amianthum muscaetoxicum 22 sweet clover Melilotus sp .
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany Geologic Map of the Apache Canyon 7.5
    GEOLOGIC MAP AND DIGITAL DATABASE OF THE APACHE CANYON 7.5’ QUADRANGLE, VENTURA AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA By Paul Stone1 Digital preparation by P.M. Cossette2 Pamphlet to accompany: Open-File Report 00-359 Version 1.0 2000 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U. S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U. S. Government. This database, identified as "Geologic map and digital database of the Apache Canyon 7.5’ quadrangle, Ventura and Kern Counties, California," has been approved for release and publication by the Director of the USGS. Although this database has been reviewed and is substantially complete, the USGS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. This database is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U. S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its use. U.S. Geological Survey 1 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2 West 904 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 1 CONTENTS Geologic Explanation............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3 Stratigraphy................................................................................................................................ 4 Structure ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oreodonts of the Tick Canyon Formation , Southern California
    PALE0B10s Contributions from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley No. I June 15, 1967 OREODONTS OF THE TICK CANYON FORMATION , SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA by David P. Whistler OREODONTS OF THE TICK CANYON FORMATION, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY DAVID P. WHISTLER In 1940, Richard H. Jahns reviewed the stratigraphy of the nonmarine Mint Canyon Formation in the eastern part of the Ventura Basin and separated from it a new formation and fauna. Previous to this work, a controversy existed as to the age of the Mint Canyon Formation, for it contained vertebrates considered indicative of both the Miocene and Pliocene (Kew, 1924, Maxson, 1930, and Stirton, 1933). As a partial solut,ion to this controversy, Jahns demonstrated the presence of an erosional unconformity low in the nonmarine sequence which indicated a shift in source area. He redefined the beds below the unconformity as the Tick Canyon Formation (Jahns, 1940, pp. 163-66). Additional fossils discovered in the Tick Canyon Formation since Maxson's work, and certain of the forms described by Maxson, comprise the Tick Canyon fauna. Only two specimens described by Maxson are from the Tick Canyon Formation, UCMP 30046, the type of Miolabis californicus and UCMP 23852, a dentary fragment of a Parahippus. Neither of these permitted a definitive age determination. The additional fauna described by Jahns indicates an Arikareean mammalian age (early Miocene), and there is a noteworthy temporal hiatus between the Tick Canyon fauna and the over­ lying Mint Canyon fauna. In addition, faunas comprising three mammalian ages, late Barstovian, and earlier and late Clarendonian, are now recognized from the Mint Canyon Formation, but this is not the principal concern of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit Specimen List FLORIDA SUBMERGED the Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Eocene (145 to 34 Million Years Ago) PARADISE ISLAND
    Exhibit Specimen List FLORIDA SUBMERGED The Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Eocene (145 to 34 million years ago) FLORIDA FORMATIONS Avon Park Formation, Dolostone from Eocene time; Citrus County, Florida; with echinoid sand dollar fossil (Periarchus lyelli); specimen from Florida Geological Survey Avon Park Formation, Limestone from Eocene time; Citrus County, Florida; with organic layers containing seagrass remains from formation in shallow marine environment; specimen from Florida Geological Survey Ocala Limestone (Upper), Limestone from Eocene time; Jackson County, Florida; with foraminifera; specimen from Florida Geological Survey Ocala Limestone (Lower), Limestone from Eocene time; Citrus County, Florida; specimens from Tanner Collection OTHER Anhydrite, Evaporite from early Cenozoic time; Unknown location, Florida; from subsurface core, showing evaporite sequence, older than Avon Park Formation; specimen from Florida Geological Survey FOSSILS Tethyan Gastropod Fossil, (Velates floridanus); In Ocala Limestone from Eocene time; Barge Canal spoil island, Levy County, Florida; specimen from Tanner Collection Echinoid Sea Biscuit Fossils, (Eupatagus antillarum); In Ocala Limestone from Eocene time; Barge Canal spoil island, Levy County, Florida; specimens from Tanner Collection Echinoid Sea Biscuit Fossils, (Eupatagus antillarum); In Ocala Limestone from Eocene time; Mouth of Withlacoochee River, Levy County, Florida; specimens from John Sacha Collection PARADISE ISLAND The Oligocene (34 to 23 million years ago) FLORIDA FORMATIONS Suwannee
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Illinois Native Trees
    Technical Forestry Bulletin · NRES-102 Checklist of Illinois Native Trees Jay C. Hayek, Extension Forestry Specialist Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences Updated May 2019 This Technical Forestry Bulletin serves as a checklist of Tree species prevalence (Table 2), or commonness, and Illinois native trees, both angiosperms (hardwoods) and gym- county distribution generally follows Iverson et al. (1989) and nosperms (conifers). Nearly every species listed in the fol- Mohlenbrock (2002). Additional sources of data with respect lowing tables† attains tree-sized stature, which is generally to species prevalence and county distribution include Mohlen- defined as having a(i) single stem with a trunk diameter brock and Ladd (1978), INHS (2011), and USDA’s The Plant Da- greater than or equal to 3 inches, measured at 4.5 feet above tabase (2012). ground level, (ii) well-defined crown of foliage, and(iii) total vertical height greater than or equal to 13 feet (Little 1979). Table 2. Species prevalence (Source: Iverson et al. 1989). Based on currently accepted nomenclature and excluding most minor varieties and all nothospecies, or hybrids, there Common — widely distributed with high abundance. are approximately 184± known native trees and tree-sized Occasional — common in localized patches. shrubs found in Illinois (Table 1). Uncommon — localized distribution or sparse. Rare — rarely found and sparse. Nomenclature used throughout this bulletin follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System —the ITIS data- Basic highlights of this tree checklist include the listing of 29 base utilizes real-time access to the most current and accept- native hawthorns (Crataegus), 21 native oaks (Quercus), 11 ed taxonomy based on scientific consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
    March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]