DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution and Relationships of Utah Brome Grasses in Western North America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution and Relationships of Utah Brome Grasses in Western North America Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1973-04-01 Distribution and relationships of Utah brome grasses in western North America Jerry B. Anderson Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Anderson, Jerry B., "Distribution and relationships of Utah brome grasses in western North America" (1973). Theses and Dissertations. 8012. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/8012 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DISTRIBUTIONAND RELATIONSHIPS OF UTAHBROME GRASSES IN WESTERNNORTH AMERICA A Thesis Presented to the Department of Botany and Range Science Brigham Young University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Jerry B. Anderson April 19'i3 ii This thesis by Jerry B. Anderson is accepted in its present form by the Department of Botany and Range Science ·of Brigham Young University as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made for the valuable suggestions and assistance given by the chairman of my advisory committee, Dr. Stanley Welsh, and to Dr. Wilmer W. Tanner, the other member of my graduate committee. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Walter P. Cottam, without whose encouragement I would never have entered the field of Botany. Special thanks are due the curators of the many herbaria of the Intermountain Region for making specimens available for study. Thanks also to Larry C. Higgins who drew and furnished copies of the map of Utah. To my wife, LaPrele, deepest appreciation is expressed for her untiring devotion, patient help for these several years, and cooperation. She also assisted in the preparation of the drawings. TABLEOF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iii f· LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES . vi INTRODUCTION 1 MATERIALSAND METHODS . 2 Historical account 3 Distribution and ecology 5 General morphology 6 Cytology and generic relations 8 TAXONOMICTREATMENT_. 15 LIST OF REFERENCES . 72 APPENDIX-Index of Synonyms 81 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Nomenclature and historical development of the genus and sub generic taxa in Bromus . 7 2. Sub-families and Tribes of the Family Gramineae 11 3. Chromosome numbers reported for Utah Bromus 13 vi LIST OF FIGURES F_igures Page 1. Illustration of Bromus marginatus .. 26 2. Illustration of Brornus willdenowii 30 3. to 6. Maps of distribution for Bromus marginatus, B. marginatus var. polyanthus, ~- willdenowii, and B. 1.nermis . • . • . 32 7. Illustrations of Bromus carinatus, B. porteri, and B. trinii . .- . 38 8. Illustration of Bromus canadensis 41 9. Illustration of Bromus vulgaris 44 10. to 13. Maps of distribution for Brcmus porteri, ~- canadensis, ~-· j aponicus, and B. commutat:us 48 14. Illustrations of Bromus commutatus and B. japonicus so 15. Illustration of Bromus hrizaeforr.tis ... 56 16. to 19. Maps of distribution for Bromus racemos 1.1s, ~- mollis, B. brizaeformis, and~- trinii .. 58 20. Illustrations of Bromus tectorum and B. rubens 62 21. Illustration of Bromus sterilis 66 22. to 25. Maps of distribution for Bromus tectorum, B. sterilis, .Q_.rub~~~-., and B. dianarus .... 68 1 INTRODUCTION Since the revision of Bromus by Shear (1900) and publication of the Manual of Grasses of the United States (Hitchcock, 1935) a consider- able amount of new study material has become available. Wagnon (1952) did a revision of one of the five sections, and there have been some cytological studies of parts of the genus. There has been a variety of treatments by a number of authors, and some disagreement in interpretation of entities. Specific and generic delimitations have varied from one author to another with a resulting proliferation of name proposals. Bromus has continued to be a problem genus in Utah, and there has been a need for a comprehensive study. This study is an investigation of the taxonomy and biogeography of Bromus in Utah. In gen~-ral the treatment is concerned with plants at the species level, but some infraspecific taxa have been included. I have attempted to present a useful definition of the species within the genus for those concerned with problems of classification in Utah. In some aspects it is preliminary since detailed and lengthy investiga- tions of individual species and s-pecies complexes will be required for definitive solution to a number of problems. The problems concerning nomenclature of the entities involved in this study have been partially solved by previous authors (Stapf, 1928; Hitchcock, 1935; Wagnon, 1952) and I have adocted their work as a basis for my nomcnclatural treatment. 2 MATERIALSAND METHODS The materials used in this study are largely the dried and pressed specimens in herbarium collections. Over 1000 specimens were carefully examined to provide accurate and consistent descriptions of ,t the taxa, to obtain information on habitat and other useful data, and to determine distribution and variability in the constituent groups. Because of the large number of specimens examined, citation of all of them has not been attempted. The original descriptions of our species were examined with illustrations and commentaries concerning the type specimens wherever possible. Lack of time and funds precluded any first-hand study of the type specimens, most of which are available only in Europe. Taxonomic criteria relating to size, length, and shape were evaluated through measurements of plant structures with the aid of low- power binocular microscopes and a 15 cm, ruler graduate~ in millimeters. Herbaria from which spedmens have been seen, with the standard abbreviations (Lanjow & Stafleu, 1964) by which they are referred to in the text are as follows: ASC Arizona State College, Fl2.gsta.ff, Arizona. BRY Brighar.1 Young University, Provo. Utah. CCH Colorado College, Pueblo, Colorado. DAV University o_f California, Davis California. DIX Dixie Junior College, St. George, Utah DS Dudley Herbarium, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. ISC Iowa State College, Alnes, Iowa. 3 JEPS .Jepson Herbarium, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. MIN . University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. NCU University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. Carolina. NY New York Botanical Garden, New York; New York. OKLA Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. RIK Rick's College, Rexburg, Idaho. RM Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. SLP Slippery Rock State College, Slippery Rock, Penn. SUSC Southern Utah State College, Cedar City, Utah. UC University of California, Berkeley, Califor·nia. UC! University of California, Irvine, California. UT University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. UTC Intermountain Herbarium, Utah State University, Logan, Ut. USFS Forest Service Herbarium, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. WES Weber State College, Ogden, Utah. WTS West Texas State University, Canyon, Texas. Historical Account The modern origin of the name Brom~ is revealed by Linneaus in his Philosophia Br::itani~a (1751:188). Bromus was derived from the ancient Greek word ~pwµ.a:meaning food, and from that w:ird also comes the name l3rot"-oi;meaning ,: oat". Linneaus indicates that Theophrastus and Dioscorides used the latter term. It appears that Linneaus was the first modern author to apply the name as currently used, but he does cite the earlier works of •Monti and Scheuchzer as showing representa-- tives of Bromus on various plates of their separate works. 4 Professor S.M. Tracy at the AMS meeting ln 1893 reported on the distribution of the 20 species known in the United States at that time, and noted that half of the number were innnigrants (Beal, 1896:668). Shear (1900) describes 40 species and 20 yarieties, while 42 species and 12 varieties are listed for the United States in Hitchcock's manual (1951). Shear listed 18 species as indigenous, and Hitchcock's manual recognizes 22. A compilation of the species in the Genus, as at present recognized in the wider sense throughout the world, would yield a total probably just short of 100. The first revisionary treatment of Bromus was that of Shear (1900). He treated the North American species occurring North of Mexico. A very significant stride forward in agrostology crune with the publica- tion of Hitchcock's (1935) Manual of Grasses of the United States. The publication of this manual has given a degree of confidence to students of the grass family, and herbarium collections and the number of re- search papers on grasses h;ive increased enormously since the advent of that treatment. Both Shear (!900) and Hitchcock (1935) accepted Bromus secalinus as the type of the genus on the l:,asis of its being the first species listed in the first edition of Species Plantarum of Linneaus (1753). Wagnon (1952) in his revision of the section Bromopsis argues that B. arvensis is the type of the genus. The controversy has been a factor leadirtg to the acceptance of the concept of a "standard" species for Bromus. Stapf '(1928), Hitchcock (1935), and i'!agnon (1952) all accept B. sterilis as the standard species, that is, the species that best represents the taxonomist's concept of a brome grass. Stapf (1928) reviewed the nomenclature of B-ro:r.usand presented a table in his work that shows the historical development of the concept 5 of the genus from. 1737 to 1913. It points out the trend that has de- veloped since the work of Parlatore in 1844, to replace Linneaus' B. secalinus and its allies with the B. sterilis group as the true Bromi. Some authors entirely eliminated the B. secalinus group from the genus, but since about 1935 there has come to be an increasing amount of evidence that the genus as it is now recognized in its wider sense is probably a valid natural grouping.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Types of American Grasses
    z LIBRARY OF Si AS-HITCHCOCK AND AGNES'CHASE 4: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM oL TiiC. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE United States National Herbarium Volume XII, Part 3 TXE&3 OF AMERICAN GRASSES . / A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN SPECIES OF GRASSES DESCRIBED BY LINNAEUS, GRONOVIUS, SLOANE, SWARTZ, AND MICHAUX By A. S. HITCHCOCK z rit erV ^-C?^ 1 " WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM Issued June 18, 1908 ii PREFACE The accompanying paper, by Prof. A. S. Hitchcock, Systematic Agrostologist of the United States Department of Agriculture, u entitled Types of American grasses: a study of the American species of grasses described by Linnaeus, Gronovius, Sloane, Swartz, and Michaux," is an important contribution to our knowledge of American grasses. It is regarded as of fundamental importance in the critical sys- tematic investigation of any group of plants that the identity of the species described by earlier authors be determined with certainty. Often this identification can be made only by examining the type specimen, the original description being inconclusive. Under the American code of botanical nomenclature, which has been followed by the author of this paper, "the nomenclatorial t}rpe of a species or subspecies is the specimen to which the describer originally applied the name in publication." The procedure indicated by the American code, namely, to appeal to the type specimen when the original description is insufficient to identify the species, has been much misunderstood by European botanists. It has been taken to mean, in the case of the Linnsean herbarium, for example, that a specimen in that herbarium bearing the same name as a species described by Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum must be taken as the type of that species regardless of all other considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Weeds of the Appalachian Region
    $10 $10 PB1785 PB1785 Invasive Weeds Invasive Weeds of the of the Appalachian Appalachian Region Region i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments……………………………………...i How to use this guide…………………………………ii IPM decision aid………………………………………..1 Invasive weeds Grasses …………………………………………..5 Broadleaves…………………………………….18 Vines………………………………………………35 Shrubs/trees……………………………………48 Parasitic plants………………………………..70 Herbicide chart………………………………………….72 Bibliography……………………………………………..73 Index………………………………………………………..76 AUTHORS Rebecca M. Koepke-Hill, Extension Assistant, The University of Tennessee Gregory R. Armel, Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist for Invasive Weeds, The University of Tennessee Robert J. Richardson, Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, North Caro- lina State University G. Neil Rhodes, Jr., Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, The University of Ten- nessee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who have contributed their time, advice, financial support, and photos to the crea- tion of this guide. We would like to specifically thank the USDA, CSREES, and The Southern Region IPM Center for their extensive support of this pro- ject. COVER PHOTO CREDITS ii 1. Wavyleaf basketgrass - Geoffery Mason 2. Bamboo - Shawn Askew 3. Giant hogweed - Antonio DiTommaso 4. Japanese barberry - Leslie Merhoff 5. Mimosa - Becky Koepke-Hill 6. Periwinkle - Dan Tenaglia 7. Porcelainberry - Randy Prostak 8. Cogongrass - James Miller 9. Kudzu - Shawn Askew Photo credit note: Numbers in parenthesis following photo captions refer to the num- bered photographer list on the back cover. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE Tabs: Blank tabs can be found at the top of each page. These can be custom- ized with pen or marker to best suit your method of organization. Examples: Infestation present On bordering land No concern Uncontrolled Treatment initiated Controlled Large infestation Medium infestation Small infestation Control Methods: Each mechanical control method is represented by an icon.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument
    Schmidt, Drost, Halvorson In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument Plant and Vertebrate Vascular U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Open-File Report 2006-1163 Southwest Biological Science Center Open-File Report 2006-1163 November 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument By Cecilia A. Schmidt, Charles A. Drost, and William L. Halvorson Open-File Report 2006-1163 November, 2006 USGS Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 Note: This document contains information of a preliminary nature and was prepared primarily for internal use in the U.S. Geological Survey. This information is NOT intended for use in open literature prior to publication by the investigators named unless permission is obtained in writing from the investigators named and from the Station Leader. Suggested Citation Schmidt, C. A., C. A. Drost, and W. L. Halvorson 2006. Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Montezuma Castle National Monument. USGS Open-File Report 2006-1163.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology of Bromus Rigidus : Interference in Winter Wheat, Seed
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jean Ann Gleichsner for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy inCrop Sciencepresented on June 27, 1988 . Title: Biology of Bromus rigidus: Interference in Winter Wheat, Seed Longevity in the Soil, and Vernalization Requirements for Flowering Abstract approved:!Redacted for Privacy / 1 Arnold P. Appleby Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to examine various biological aspects of ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus Roth). A field experiment was conducted to measure the grain yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. Stephens') at various ripgut brome and wheat plant densities. Wheat yield decreased as ripgut brome density increased at all wheat seeding rates (56, 112, 168, and 224 kg/ha). Grain yield was unaffected by wheat seeding rate in the absence of brome. Increasing seeding rates above 112 kg/ha to reduce wheat yield loss caused by ripgut brome is ineffective. In the field, both surface-sown and buried (1 to 30 cm) ripgut brome seed were depleted within 15 months. Persistence of surface-sown seed declined slowly during the first year, falling from 83 to 62 to 23% after 1, 9, and 12 months, respectively. Seed covered by soil, however, germinated more rapidly, with less than 10% of the initial population ungerminated after 1 month at all depths. The mode of seed disappearance was closely related to whether or not seed were covered with soil. Seed loss at depths of 1 to 30 cm was primarily due to germination in situ, with little effect from viability loss or enforced or induced dormancy. In contrast, the persistence of surface-sown seed was due primarily to induced dormancy for up to 12months, with nonviability loss and enforced dormancy becoming important thereafter.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline Common Name Version
    Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline Common Name Version A Photographic Guide Sorted by Form, Color and Family with Habitat Descriptions and Identification Notes Photographs and text by Wilde Legard District Botanist, East Bay Regional Park District New Revised and Expanded Edition - Includes the latest scientific names, habitat descriptions and identification notes Decimal Inches .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 .5 2 .5 3 .5 4 .5 5 .5 6 .5 7 .5 8 .5 9 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 1/2 2 1/2 3 1/2 4 1/2 5 1/2 6 1/2 7 1/2 8 1/2 9 English Inches Notes: A Photographic Guide to the Wild Plants of Big Break Regional Shoreline More than 2,000 species of native and naturalized plants grow wild in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most are very difficult to identify without the help of good illustrations. This is designed to be a simple, color photo guide to help you identify some of these plants. This guide is published electronically in Adobe Acrobat® format so that it can easily be updated as additional photographs become available. You have permission to freely download, distribute and print this guide for individual use. Photographs are © 2014 Wilde Legard, all rights reserved. In this guide, the included plants are sorted first by form (Ferns & Fern-like, Grasses & Grass-like, Herbaceous, Woody), then by most common flower color, and finally by similar looking flowers (grouped by genus within each family). Each photograph has the following information, separated by '-': COMMON NAME According to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (JM2) and other references (not standardized).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List for Web Page
    Stanford Working Plant List 1/15/08 Common name Botanical name Family origin big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Aceraceae native box elder Acer negundo var. californicum Aceraceae native common water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica Alismataceae native upright burhead Echinodorus berteroi Alismataceae native prostrate amaranth Amaranthus blitoides Amaranthaceae native California amaranth Amaranthus californicus Amaranthaceae native Powell's amaranth Amaranthus powellii Amaranthaceae native western poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum Anacardiaceae native wood angelica Angelica tomentosa Apiaceae native wild celery Apiastrum angustifolium Apiaceae native cutleaf water parsnip Berula erecta Apiaceae native bowlesia Bowlesia incana Apiaceae native rattlesnake weed Daucus pusillus Apiaceae native Jepson's eryngo Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum Apiaceae native coyote thistle Eryngium vaseyi Apiaceae native cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum Apiaceae native floating marsh pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Apiaceae native caraway-leaved lomatium Lomatium caruifolium var. caruifolium Apiaceae native woolly-fruited lomatium Lomatium dasycarpum dasycarpum Apiaceae native large-fruited lomatium Lomatium macrocarpum Apiaceae native common lomatium Lomatium utriculatum Apiaceae native Pacific oenanthe Oenanthe sarmentosa Apiaceae native 1 Stanford Working Plant List 1/15/08 wood sweet cicely Osmorhiza berteroi Apiaceae native mountain sweet cicely Osmorhiza chilensis Apiaceae native Gairdner's yampah (List 4) Perideridia gairdneri gairdneri Apiaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon City Nuisance Plant List
    Nuisance Plant List City of Oregon City 320 Warner Milne Road , P.O. Box 3040, Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 657-0891, Fax: (503) 657-7892 Scientific Name Common Name Acer platanoides Norway Maple Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Aegopodium podagraria and variegated varieties Goutweed Agropyron repens Quack grass Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Alliaria officinalis Garlic Mustard Alopecuris pratensis Meadow foxtail Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass Arctium minus Common burdock Arrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass Bambusa sp. Bamboo Betula pendula lacinata Cutleaf birch Brachypodium sylvaticum False brome Bromus diandrus Ripgut Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Bromus inermis Smooth brome-grasses Bromus japonicus Japanese brome-grass Bromus sterilis Poverty grass Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Buddleia davidii (except cultivars and varieties) Butterfly bush Callitriche stagnalis Pond water starwort Cardaria draba Hoary cress Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Carduus nutans Musk thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Carduus tenufolius Slender flowered thistle Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed Chelidonium majou Lesser Celandine Chicorum intybus Chicory Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Clematis ligusticifolia Western Clematis Clematis vitalba Traveler’s Joy Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field Morning-glory 1 Nuisance Plant List
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Grasses and Grasslike Plants of the Oak Openings, Lucas County
    A LIST OF THE GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS OF THE OAK OPENINGS, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO1 NATHAN WILLIAM EASTERLY Department of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 4-3403 ABSTRACT This report is the second of a series of articles to be prepared as a second "Flora of the Oak Openings." The study represents a comprehensive survey of members of the Cyperaceae, Gramineae, Juncaceae, Sparganiaceae, and Xyridaceae in the Oak Openings region. Of the 202 species listed in this study, 34 species reported by Moseley in 1928 were not found during the present investigation. Fifty-seven species found by the present investi- gator were not observed or reported by Moseley. Many of these species or varieties are rare and do not represent a stable part of the flora. Changes in species present or in fre- quency of occurrence of species collected by both Moseley and Easterly may be explained mainly by the alteration of habitats as the Oak Openings region becomes increasingly urbanized or suburbanized. Some species have increased in frequency on the floodplain of Swan Creek, in wet ditches and on the banks of the Norfolk and Western Railroad right-of-way, along newly constructed roadsides, or on dry sandy sites. INTRODUCTION The grass family ranks third among the large plant families of the world. The family ranks number one as far as total numbers of plants that cover fields, mead- ows, or roadsides are concerned. No other family is used as extensively to pro- vide food or shelter or to create a beautiful landscape. The sedge family does not fare as well in terms of commercial importance, but the sedges do make avail- able forage and food for wild fowl and they do contribute plant cover in wet areas where other plants would not be as well adapted.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Phylogeny of Poaceae Based on Matk Gene Sequences
    Chapter 5 Phylogeny of Poaceae Based on matK Gene Sequences 5.1 Introduction Phylogenetic reconstruction in the Poaceae began early in this century with proposed evolutionary hypotheses based on assessment of existing knowledge of grasses (e.g., Bew, 1929; Hubbard 1948; Prat, 1960; Stebbins, 1956, 1982; Clayton, 1981; Tsvelev, 1983). Imperical approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction of the Poaceae followed those initial hypotheses, starting with cladistic analyses of morphological and anatomical characters (Kellogg and Campbell, 1987; Baum, 1987; Kellogg and Watson, 1993). More recently, molecular information has provided the basis for phylogenetic hypotheses in grasses at the subfamily and tribe levels (Table 5.1). These molecular studies were based on information from chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) restriction sites and DNA sequencing of the rbcL, ndhF, rps4, 18S and 26S ribosomal DNA (rDNA), phytochrome genes, and the ITS region (Hamby and Zimmer, 1988; Doebley et al., 1990; Davis and Soreng, 1993; Cummings, King, and Kellogg, 1994; Hsiao et al., 1994; Nadot, Bajon, and Lejeune, 1994; Barker, Linder, and Harley, 1995; Clark, Zhang, and Wendel, 1995; Duvall and Morton, 1996; Liang and Hilu, 1996; Mathews and Sharrock, 1996). Although these studies have refined our concept of grass evolution at the subfamily level and, to a certain degree, at the tribal level, major disagreements and questions remain to be addressed. Outstanding discrepancies at the subfamily level include: 1) Are the pooids, bambusoids senso lato, or herbaceous bamboos the
    [Show full text]
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA
    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
    [Show full text]
  • Ornamental Grasses for the Midsouth Landscape
    Ornamental Grasses for the Midsouth Landscape Ornamental grasses with their variety of form, may seem similar, grasses vary greatly, ranging from cool color, texture, and size add diversity and dimension to season to warm season grasses, from woody to herbaceous, a landscape. Not many other groups of plants can boast and from annuals to long-lived perennials. attractiveness during practically all seasons. The only time This variation has resulted in five recognized they could be considered not to contribute to the beauty of subfamilies within Poaceae. They are Arundinoideae, the landscape is the few weeks in the early spring between a unique mix of woody and herbaceous grass species; cutting back the old growth of the warm-season grasses Bambusoideae, the bamboos; Chloridoideae, warm- until the sprouting of new growth. From their emergence season herbaceous grasses; Panicoideae, also warm-season in the spring through winter, warm-season ornamental herbaceous grasses; and Pooideae, a cool-season subfamily. grasses add drama, grace, and motion to the landscape Their habitats also vary. Grasses are found across the unlike any other plants. globe, including in Antarctica. They have a strong presence One of the unique and desirable contributions in prairies, like those in the Great Plains, and savannas, like ornamental grasses make to the landscape is their sound. those in southern Africa. It is important to recognize these Anyone who has ever been in a pine forest on a windy day natural characteristics when using grasses for ornament, is aware of the ethereal music of wind against pine foliage. since they determine adaptability and management within The effect varies with the strength of the wind and the a landscape or region, as well as invasive potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Nymphaea Folia Naturae Bihariae Xli
    https://biblioteca-digitala.ro MUZEUL ŢĂRII CRIŞURILOR NYMPHAEA FOLIA NATURAE BIHARIAE XLI Editura Muzeului Ţării Crişurilor Oradea 2014 https://biblioteca-digitala.ro 2 Orice corespondenţă se va adresa: Toute correspondence sera envoyée à l’adresse: Please send any mail to the Richten Sie bitte jedwelche following adress: Korrespondenz an die Addresse: MUZEUL ŢĂRII CRIŞURILOR RO-410464 Oradea, B-dul Dacia nr. 1-3 ROMÂNIA Redactor şef al publicațiilor M.T.C. Editor-in-chief of M.T.C. publications Prof. Univ. Dr. AUREL CHIRIAC Colegiu de redacţie Editorial board ADRIAN GAGIU ERIKA POSMOŞANU Dr. MÁRTON VENCZEL, redactor responsabil Comisia de referenţi Advisory board Prof. Dr. J. E. McPHERSON, Southern Illinois Univ. at Carbondale, USA Prof. Dr. VLAD CODREA, Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Prof. Dr. MASSIMO OLMI, Universita degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy Dr. MIKLÓS SZEKERES Institute of Plant Biology, Szeged Lector Dr. IOAN SÎRBU Universitatea „Lucian Blaga”,Sibiu Prof. Dr. VASILE ŞOLDEA, Universitatea Oradea Prof. Univ. Dr. DAN COGÂLNICEANU, Universitatea Ovidius, Constanţa Lector Univ. Dr. IOAN GHIRA, Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Prof. Univ. Dr. IOAN MĂHĂRA, Universitatea Oradea GABRIELA ANDREI, Muzeul Naţional de Ist. Naturală “Grigora Antipa”, Bucureşti Fondator Founded by Dr. SEVER DUMITRAŞCU, 1973 ISSN 0253-4649 https://biblioteca-digitala.ro 3 CUPRINS CONTENT Botanică Botany VASILE MAXIM DANCIU & DORINA GOLBAN: The Theodor Schreiber Herbarium in the Botanical Collection of the Ţării Crişurilor Museum in
    [Show full text]