DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ladies' Botany of Professor Lindley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ladies' Botany of Professor Lindley 'iMlmllkilML LI B R.AR.Y OF THL U N 1 VERSITY or ILLINOIS 3&0 V.I NAVuhhi. '^* HISTORY JAN 1 ' ' HflfHERllj Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/ladiesbotanyofpr01lind /p.r«) LADIES' BOTANY: A FAMILIAR INTROD UCTIOjNT ^0 tilt ^ttttTj) OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM OF BOTANY. BY JOHN LINDLEY, Ph.D. F.E.S. ETC. ETC. ETC. PROFESSOR OP BOTANT IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON. Dich verwiiTet, Geliebste, die taiisendfaltige Miscliung, Dieses Blumengewiihls fiber dem Garten umher; Viele Nanieii hbrest du an, und imraer vcrdranget Mit barbarischom Klang, einer den andein im Ohr. AUeGestalten ?ind ahnlich, und keine gleichetder andern; Und so deutet das Chor auf ein geheimes Gesetz, Auf ein heiliges Rathsel. O ! konnt ich dir, liebliche Freundinn, Ueberliefern sogleich gliicklich das losende Wort.— Gothe. IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. I. FIFTH EDITION. m%' LONDON: JAMES RIDGWAY AND SONS, PICCADILLY. 5^0^''^ ' H.Hi< INDSX , 1 V. 1 CLASS I DICOTYLEDONS I THALAMIFLORAE Page Plate Bab. Ranunculaceae 1.5 I 1 Berberidaceae 11.11 XXVI 2 Nymphaeaceae ,, 210 XLIX 3 Papaveraceae 1.19 I 4 Cruciferae 1.55 IV V 6 Resedaceae 11.36 XXIX 7 ^Cistaceae ,, 70 XXXII 8 ;5Violaceae 1.64 IV 9 Droseraceae 11.81 XXXIII 10 Polygalaceae 11.50 XXVIII 12 ^ Caryophyllaceae 1.96 VII 14 cr> Malvaceae 1.86 VI 15 ^Hypericaceae 1.82 V 17 ^ Geraniaceae 1.36 II 19 ^0 Linaceae 11.129 XXXIX 22 "-7 oj I^I.Caliciflorae- ^ Rhamnaceae II. 18 XXXVIII 24 •5 Legiiminosae 1.123 VIII 25 1.107 26 ^ Rosaceae > , ^ Lythraceae 11.66 XXXII 27 ^ Tamariscaceae ,, 78 XXXIII 26 ^ Onograceae 1.46 III 2S ^ Cucurbitaceae 11.51 XXX 3: ^ Portulaceae 1.102 Vii 3^2 ^ Crassulaceae 11.106 XXXVII 34 "^^ Grossulariaceae^Ribes ,,16 XXVII 3£ -4 Saxifragaceae ,, 112 XXXVII 3( ^ Umbelli ferae 1.26 II 3"; ^ III. COROLTJF'LORAE ^ Caprifoliaceae 1.175 XIV 4] ^ Rubiaceae 11.171 XLIV 42 ^ Dipsacaceae ,, 175 XLIV 44 -j^ Compositae 1.199 XVII 4£ Gampanulaceae, 1.170 XIV 4 Ericaceae 1158 XII 4 I 1 1 6649 ..o-I t t r 11 Oleaceae ^ .1.166 ?1 ,XIII Bab .49 Gentianaceae ,,164 XIII 51 Polemoniaceae II 164 XLIII 52 Convolvulaceae I 161 Xii 53 Boraginaceae I 180 XV 64 Solanaceae I 185 XV55 ScropiLulareacae I 194 XVI 57 Labiatae I 191 XVI 58 Primulaceae I 187 II 157 XLII 61 Plantaginaceae I 208 XVII 63 IV MONOCHLMIYDEAE PAGE PLATE BABJNGTON Amaranthaceae I 133 IX 64 Chenopodiaceae II 143 XL 65 Polygoneaceae II 140 XL 66 Euphorbiaceae II 124 XXXVIII 72 Urticaceae I 148 XI 75 Amentiferae I 155 XI 78 V;*GYIIN0SPEPJ/IAE ConiferaS (Oak) I 128 X CLASS II MONOCOTYLEDQNS II i?'LORIDAE Orchidaceae I 223 XIX 83 Iridaceae I 219 XVIII 84 Amaryllidaceae I 216 XVIII 85 Alisiy^ceae I 247 XXI 86 9 » II2206 XLIX Liliaceae I 231 XIX 88(Asplioc > > I 237 XX , , (Tulip) Melanthaceae I 239 89 Juncaceae I 241 XX 90 Typhaceae I 244 XXI 92 Araceae II 192 XLVI 93 Lenmaceae I 249 XXI 94 Ill GLULIIPBIRAS Cyperaceae Pa[ge I 262 PI. XXII Bab .97 Gramineae I 252 XXII 98 CLASS III CRYPTOGAI.IEAE Filices I 266 XXIII 100 Lycopodiace^ae I 273 XXIII 102 vei.I (Page) VOL.1 51 Myrtle 71 Passion Flower 92 Orange 130 Protea 136 Marvel of Peru 275 Moss 280 Jungermannia 282 Lichen 285 Mushroom 287 Sea-Weed 212 Distinction of Di cotyledon & Monocotyledon VOL II VOL II 6 Magnolia 20 Vine 26 Pittosporum 40 Caper 44 Cactus 56 Begonia 60 Pig Marigold 87 Venus Fly Trap 98 Horse Chestnut 101 Walnut 136 Rue 150 Mezereum 153 Cinnamon 161 Epacris 167 Trumpet Flower 179 Jasmine 182 AsclepisB 188 Birthwort 196 Pitcher Plants Pl.L Mango \ PREFACE. This little book has been wTitten in the hope that it may be found useful as an elementary introduction to the modem method of studying systematic Botany. There are many works, of a similar description, to explain or illustrate the artificial system of Linnaeus, the simplicity of which might have rendered such labours superfluous ; but no one has, as yet, attempted to render the unscientific reader familiar with what is called the Natural System, to which the method of Linnaeus has universally given way among Bota- nists. All seem curious to know something about this celebrated System, and many, no doubt, take infinite pains to understand it ; but it is to be feared, that a large part of those who make the attempt, are far from meeting with the success their industry deserves. On all hands they are told of its diflficul- ties ; books, instead of remo\dng those difiiculties, only perplex the reader by multitudes of unknown words, and by allusions, which, however clear they IV PREFACE. may be to the experienced Botanist, are anything rather than illustrative in the eyes of a beginner, who is often fairly lost in a labyrinth of resemblances, differences, and exceptions. One would think mo- dern Botany was like "the art unteachable, un- taught," only to be understood by inspiration. The cause of this lies, not in the science itself, so much as in the books that are written concerning it. Since the appearance of my Introduction to the Natural System of Botany in 1880, several works of great merit have been published on the same subject, both in this country and abroad, so that the student is abundantly supplied with guides ; and if his object be to understand it, as an important branch of Natural Science, they are sufficiently well adapted to his purpose ; but for those who would become acquainted with Botany as an amusement and a re- laxation, these works are far too difficult. Treating the subject, as they do in great detail, and without consideration for the unlearned reader, the language, the arguments, and the illustrations employed in them must be unintelligible to those who have no previous acquaintance with Botany ; the characters of the Natural Groupes or Orders, into which the Vegetable Kingdom is divided, are not as a whole, susceptible of such an analysis as a young student is capable of PREFACE. V following ; and I can quite understand how the whole system may appear to be an unintelligible mass of confusion. It has, therefore, occurred to me that if, without sacrificing Science, the subject should be divested of the many real and of the still greater number of imaginary difficulties that frighten stu- dents, and if they could be taught to recognize the Natural tribes of plants, not by mere technical cha- racters, but by those simple marks of which the prac- tised Botanist exclusively makes use, a work in which such objects are attained might be found of some utility. It is now admitted on all hands that the principles of the artificial system of Linnaeus, which were so important and useful at the time when they were first propounded, are altogether unsuited to the present state of science ; and in the latest work that has been published in this country, upon that system, the learned and amiable author is forced to rest his defence of his still following it upon " the facility with which it enables any one, hitherto unpractised in Botany, to arrive at a knowledge of the genus and species of a plant." But if a system of Botany is to be nothing more than a contrivance to help those who will not master the elements of the science, to deter- mine the name of a plant ; and if it is really neces- VI PREFACE. sary to have a mental rail-road on which such per- sons may be impelled without any exertion of their own ; then indeed the analytical tables of the French are infinitely better contrivances than the Sexual System : because if well executed they meet every case and lead with certainty to positive results. I have, however, been always at issue with the Linnean school of Botany as to their system accom- plishing even the little that it pretends to ; and if I may be permitted to appeal to my own personal experience of the difficulties of a beginner who is unassisted by a tutor, (and few could have had fewer difficulties to contend against than myself,) I should say that it is totally opposed to such a conclusion. I began with the Linnean system, which I was taught to believe little less than an inspired production ; I had plenty of books compiled according to that system to consult, and I was fairly driven to seek refuge in the Natural System from the difficulties and inconsistencies of that of Linnaeus. It seems to me that there is a confusion of ideas in what is urged in favour of the Linnean system, and that its theoretical simplicity is mistaken for prac- tical facility of application. That the principles of the Linnean system are clear, and simple, and easily remembered is indisputable ; that student indeed PREFACE. Vll must be remarkably dull of apprehension, who could not master them in a day. But is its application equally easy ? that is the point. When, for example, a specimen of a Monopetalous plant has lost its corolla, or when the stamens or pistils are absent, either acci- dentally, or constitutionally, as in Dioecious plants, what Linnean Botanist can classify the subject of inquiry ? Or where a genus comprehends species varying in the number of their stamens, as for in- stance, Polygonum, Salix, Stellaria, and hundreds of others, who is to say which of the species is to deter- mine the classification of the rest ? or when this point has been settled, how^ is the student to know what passed in the mind of the Botanical Systematist ? The latter puts a genus into Octandria, because out of ten species, one has constantly, and two occa- sionally, eight stamens, and he includes in the same class and order, all the other species of the genus, although they have five, six, or ten stamens.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • William Herbert (1778--1847) Scientist and Polymath, and His Contributions to Curtis's Botanical Magazine
    WILLIAM HERBERT (1778–1847) SCIENTIST AND POLYMATH, AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CURTIS’S BOTANICAL MAGAZINE Alison Rix ‘Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, in the fourth volume of the ‘Horticultural Transactions’, 1822, and in his work on the ‘Amaryllidaceae’ (1837, pp. 19, 339), declares that ‘horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties’. He extends the same view to animals. The Dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing species’. [Preface to the third edition (1860) of On the Origin of Species,by Charles Darwin] The Hon. and Rev. William Herbert, often known as Dean Herbert, to whom Vol. 65 (1839) of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine was dedicated, was an exceptional polymath – a poet and classical scholar, linguist, reforming MP, clergyman – as well as amateur botanist and botanical artist. His best-known botanical work, illustrated with 48 of his own paintings, was the two volume work Amaryllidaceae, quoted above by Darwin. Although this extraordinary man counted botany as just one of his many interests, his output was prodigious; in addition to studying and breeding plants, such as Crocus, Gladiolus, Hippeastrum, Narcissus and Rhododendron, he also wrote and drew prolifically for journals such as Curtis’s Botanical Magazine and its rival publication, Edwards’s Botanical Register. In addition to Darwin, he corresponded with many other notable people, including Sir William Hooker and William Fox Talbot, and his letters paint a picture of a rather serious and industrious character.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 30 Origins of Horticultural Science
    Lecture 30 1 Lecture 30 Origins of Horticultural Science The origin of horticultural science derives from a confl uence of 3 events: the formation of scientifi c societies in the 17th century, the creation of agricultural and horticultural societies in the 18th century, and the establishment of state-supported agricultural research in the 19th century. Two seminal horticultural societies were involved: The Horticultural Society of London (later the Royal Horticulture Society) founded in 1804 and the Society for Horticultural Science (later the American Society for Horticultural Science) founded in 1903. Three horticulturists can be considered as the Fathers of Horticultural Science: Thomas Andrew Knight, John Lindley, and Liberty Hyde Bailey. Philip Miller (1691–1771) Miller was Gardener to the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries at their Botanic Garden in Chelsea and is known as the most important garden writer of the 18th century. The Gardener’s and Florist’s Diction- ary or a Complete System of Horticulture (1724) was followed by a greatly improved edition entitled, The Gardener’s Dictionary containing the Methods of Cultivating and Improving the Kitchen, Fruit and Flower Garden (1731). This book was translated into Dutch, French, German and became a standard reference for a century in both England and America. In the 7th edition (1759), he adopted the Linnaean system of classifi cation. The edition enlarged by Thomas Martyn (1735–1825), Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, has been considered the largest gardening manual to have ever existed. Miller is credited with introducing about 200 American plants. The 16th edition of one of his books, The Gardeners Kalendar (1775)—reprinted in facsimile edition in 1971 by the National Council of State Garden Clubs—gives direc- tions for gardeners month by month and contains an introduction to the science of botany.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Transactions (A)
    INDEX TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS (A) FOR THE YEAR 1889. A. A bney (W. de W.). Total Eclipse of the San observed at Caroline Island, on 6th May, 1883, 119. A bney (W. de W.) and T horpe (T. E.). On the Determination of the Photometric Intensity of the Coronal Light during the Solar Eclipse of August 28-29, 1886, 363. Alcohol, a study of the thermal properties of propyl, 137 (see R amsay and Y oung). Archer (R. H.). Observations made by Newcomb’s Method on the Visibility of Extension of the Coronal Streamers at Hog Island, Grenada, Eclipse of August 28-29, 1886, 382. Atomic weight of gold, revision of the, 395 (see Mallet). B. B oys (C. V.). The Radio-Micrometer, 159. B ryan (G. H.). The Waves on a Rotating Liquid Spheroid of Finite Ellipticity, 187. C. Conroy (Sir J.). Some Observations on the Amount of Light Reflected and Transmitted by Certain 'Kinds of Glass, 245. Corona, on the photographs of the, obtained at Prickly Point and Carriacou Island, total solar eclipse, August 29, 1886, 347 (see W esley). Coronal light, on the determination of the, during the solar eclipse of August 28-29, 1886, 363 (see Abney and Thorpe). Coronal streamers, observations made by Newcomb’s Method on the Visibility of, Eclipse of August 28-29, 1886, 382 (see A rcher). Cosmogony, on the mechanical conditions of a swarm of meteorites, and on theories of, 1 (see Darwin). Currents induced in a spherical conductor by variation of an external magnetic potential, 513 (see Lamb). 520 INDEX.
    [Show full text]
  • Watsonia 23, 221-230
    W((/sollia 23: 221-230 (2000) 221 Book Reviews A Flora of Norfolk. G . Beckett and A. Bull pp. 320. G. Beckett 1999. Price £38.00. ISBN 0- 9534999-0-1 Just when recent county Floras, such as Hampshire and Cumbria, had set new standards in content. mapping and presentation that seemed unlikely to be easily surpassed, along comes this new Flora. covering all political and Watsonian areas of Norfolk and incorporating bryophytes as well as vascular plants and ferns. It is a superbly integrated work. produced over a relatively short period at a price I consider quite acceptable. The introductory chapters have a particularly valuable section on man's inlluence on the various habitats. showing a deep and welcome understanding of the subject. This is supplemented by chapters on habitats using the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and on soils. reminding readers of the wealth and diversity of habitats, particularly wetlands. created by drift deposits. calcareous and acid, overlaying chalk. There is an excellent section on Norfolk botanists which manages to place predecessors into context rather than just be a recital of names. These introductory chapters end with an excellent and welcome map, an unaccountable rarity in modern Floras. Because of this there is no gazetteer, which would have been useful if only to locate the places named in the illustrations. It would also have been useful to have had an indication of where political and vice-county boundaries differ. The species accounts cover the bulk of the book; vascular plants and ferns. 215 pages. and bryophytes 22 pages. These are supplemented by maps on a tetrad sC:lle for the plants and on a 10 km scale for the bryophytes, showing only records made during the survey (1985 to, I assume, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Helen Beatrix Potter
    THE LMNEAN 1 Editorial Beatrix Potter is probably best known to the world at large for her beautifully illustrated children’s books. In this issue of The Linneun we examine her contribution to natural history. When W. Phillip Findlay wrote Wayside and WoodlandFungiin 1967 he illustrated it with 59 paintings by Beatrix Potter, commenting: “But Beatrix Potter was more than an enthusiastic amateur collector and artist. She had the mind of a professional scientist and biologist - which is what she undoubtedly would have been had she lived in a later age; unless she had taken up archaeology in which she also took a very keen interest”. Further research has shown that Beatrix not only made accurate documentation of all the fungi she illustrated, but that she also carried out pioneer studies on germination of fungal and lichen spores, the role of algae in the lichenized fungi and the asexual stages in the life cycle of macromycetes. The legacy of her contributions to mycology is to be found in the folios of illustrations deposited in the Armitt Trust, Ambleside, the Perth Museum, and in the Victoria and Albert Museum. We in the Linnean Society, however, were already aware of her contribution to mycology through her paper presented in April 1897 entitled “Germination of the spores ofthe Agaricineae” which although well received at the time was returned to her for modification. Sadly it was never resubmitted. Although Findlay suggested that Beatrix Potter might have taken up archaeology it is now clear that she was far more interested in palaeontology. Moreover the accurate and detailed documentation of her fossils shows that she enjoyed collecting them every bit as much as her fungi.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Vernacular Names
    Appendix 1 Vernacular Names The vernacular names listed below have been collected from the literature. Few have phonetic spellings. Spelling is not helped by the difficulties of transcribing unwritten languages into European syllables and Roman script. Some languages have several names for the same species. Further complications arise from the various dialects and corruptions within a language, and use of names borrowed from other languages. Where the people are bilingual the person recording the name may fail to check which language it comes from. For example, in northern Sahel where Arabic is the lingua franca, the recorded names, supposedly Arabic, include a number from local languages. Sometimes the same name may be used for several species. For example, kiri is the Susu name for both Adansonia digitata and Drypetes afzelii. There is nothing unusual about such complications. For example, Grigson (1955) cites 52 English synonyms for the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) in the British Isles, and also mentions several examples of the same vernacular name applying to different species. Even Theophrastus in c. 300 BC complained that there were three plants called strykhnos, which were edible, soporific or hallucinogenic (Hort 1916). Languages and history are linked and it is hoped that understanding how lan- guages spread will lead to the discovery of the historical origins of some of the vernacular names for the baobab. The classification followed here is that of Gordon (2005) updated and edited by Blench (2005, personal communication). Alternative family names are shown in square brackets, dialects in parenthesis. Superscript Arabic numbers refer to references to the vernacular names; Roman numbers refer to further information in Section 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Bentham and Hooker Classification Faculty Name - Dr Piyush Kumar Rai Email – [email protected]
    Course - B.Sc. Botany Semester - II Paper Code - BOT GE202 Paper Name – Plant Ecology and Taxonomy Topic - Bentham and Hooker Classification Faculty Name - Dr Piyush Kumar Rai Email – [email protected] Bentham and Hooker Classification George Bentham (1800 – 1884) Joseph Hooker (1817 – 1911) It was Proposed by George Bentham ( 1800 – 1884 ) and Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817 – 1911 ) in their Genera Plantarum published during July (1862 ) & April ( 1883 ) George Bentham (1800 – 1884) and Joseph Dalton Hooker ( 1817 ) – 1911) , the two British botanist who were associated with the Royal Botanic garden at kew ( England) gave most important and easily workable system of classification of angiosperms and published it in three volume of ‘Genera plantarum ‘ The first part of Genera plantarum appeared in July 1882 and the last part in April 1883 . This was the greatest taxonomic work ever produced in the united kingdom and ever since been an inspiration to generations of kew botanists . Although Bentham and Hooker’s system of classification was based on that of A.P. de Candolle but greater stress was given on contrast between free and fused petals . Their symptom was widely accepted in Britain and commonwealth countries but in Europe and North America it did not hold the much ground . Bentham and Hooker divided the seed plants into Dicotyledons, Gymnosperms and Monocotyledons. They placed Ranales in beginning and grasses at the end . The following is the summary of Bentham & Hooker’s system. DICOTYLEDONS : A . Polypetalae ( petals are free ) Series l Thalamiflorae Order 1. Ranales eg. Ranunculaceae, Magnollaceae e.t.c Order 2. Parietales eg. Papaveraceae , Cruciferae e.t.c Order 3.
    [Show full text]
  • POLYPETALAE – Petals Separate THALAMIFLORAE – Sepals, Petals and Stamens All Attached to Receptacle
    POLYPETALAE – petals separate THALAMIFLORAE – Sepals, Petals and Stamens all attached to receptacle. Gynoecium apocarpous. RANUNCULACEAE (Herbaceous, leaves 3-parted) BERBERIDACEAE* (Carpel solitary, Anthers with flaps). Parietal placentation. [NOT Natural. Convergent evolution: Papaveraceae close to Ranunc., but remainder scattered amongst Rosids] PAPAVERACEAE* (Sepals 2, petals 4) CRUCIFERAE* (Petals 4, Stamens 6, ovary 2) CAPPARACEAE* (Ovary stalked) RESEDACEAE (Ovary open, 3-parted) CISTACEAE VIOLACEAE Ovary 2-3 septate. PITTOSPORACEAE* POLYGALACEAE. Axile placentation. CARYOPHYLLACEAE* PORTULACACEAE (Sepals gland-fringed) Stamens numerous; Calyx imbricate. GUTTIFERAE/CLUSIACEAE* THEACEAE Stamens numerous; Calyx valvate. MALVACEAE* (Anthers 1-celled) STERCULIACEAE TILIACEAE. DISCIFLORAE – Ovary superior, immersed in disk of flower. Ovule pendulous, raphe ventral;multiple series of stamens. LINACEAE; GERANIACEAE*; RUTACEAE Ovule pendulous, raphe dorsal OLACACEAE; AQUIFOLIACEAE*. Ovule erect, raphe ventral CELASTRACEAE; RHAMNACEAE*; VITACEAE. Ovule ascending, raphe ventral to reversed SAPINDACEAE*; ANACARDIACEAE CALYCIFLORAE – Stamens fused to Calyx of flower Ovaries separate, rarely united LEGUMINOSAE ROSACEAE* [SAXIFRAGALES. Carpels ±fused, separate styles: SAXIFRAGACEAE* (2 carps) CRASSULACEAE (5-6 carps) HAMAMELIDACEAE (2)] [: HYDRANGEACEAE – opp leaves, syncarpous. ESCALLONIACEAE – alt leaves dry pod => ASTERIDS Ovary syncarpous; divided into locules. MYRTACEAE (stamens numerous) LYTHRACEAE* ONAGRACEAE*. Ovary syncarpous; Parietal placentation LOASACEAE; TURNERACEAE; PASSIFLORACEAE; CUCURBITACEAE*; BEGONIACEAE; DATISCACEAE. Ficoidales – Ovary syncarpous; sub-basal placentation [the basal placentation is critical in placing these families among the Caryophyllids see above] CACTACEAE; AIZOACEAE.] Umbellales – Ovary syncarpous; 1 ovule per locule. [these families belong amongst the basal Asterids. Inferior ovaries but with separate petals] UMBELLIFERAE (2-locules); ARALIACEAE (5-locules); CORNACEAE. .
    [Show full text]
  • (Largeflower Triteleia): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): A Technical Conservation Assessment © 2003 Ben Legler Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project January 29, 2007 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Ladyman, J.A.R. (2007, January 29). Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/triteleiagrandiflora.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and the help given by all the people and institutions mentioned in the References section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the Colorado Natural Heritage Program for their generosity in making their files and records available. I also appreciate access to the files and assistance given to me by Andrew Kratz, USDA Forest Service Region 2. The data provided by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and by James Cosgrove and Lesley Kennes with the Natural History Collections Section, Royal BC Museum were invaluable in the preparation of the assessment. Documents and information provided by Michael Piep with the Intermountain Herbarium, Leslie Stewart and Cara Gildar of the San Juan National Forest, Jim Ozenberger of the Bridger-Teton National Forest and Peggy Lyon with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program are also gratefully acknowledged. The information provided by Dr. Ronald Hartman and B. Ernie Nelson with the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Teresa Prendusi with the Region 4 USDA Forest Service, Klara Varga with the Grand Teton National Park, Jennifer Whipple with Yellowstone National Park, Dave Dyer with the University of Montana Herbarium, Caleb Morse of the R.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytosociological Study of Coastal Flora of Devbhoomi Dwarka District and Its Islands in the Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat
    International Journal of Scientific Research in _______________________________ Research Paper . Biological Sciences Vol.6, Issue.3, pp.01-13, June (2019) E-ISSN: 2347-7520 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26438/ijsrbs/v6i3.113 Phytosociological study of coastal flora of Devbhoomi Dwarka district and its islands in the Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat L. Das1*, H. Salvi2, R. D. Kamboj 3 1,3Gujarat Ecological Education and Research Foundation, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India 2Department of Botany, Songadh Government Science College, Tapi, Gujarat, India *Corresponding Author: [email protected]; Tel.: +91-7573020436 Available online at: www.isroset.org Received: 16/May/2019, Accepted: 02/Jun/2019, Online: 30/Jun/2019 Abstract- The study described the diversity and phytosociological attributes of plant species (trees, shrubs and herbs) in coastal areas of Devbhoomi Dwarka District and its islands in the Gulf of Kachchh. A random sampling method was employed in this study. A total of 243 plant species were recorded of which trees and shrubs represented with 30 specieseach. Grasses & sedges were also represented by 30 species and 29 species were climbers. Among the tree and shrub species, Prosopis juliflora showed the highest density (373.51 ind. /ha), frequency (63.50.67%), relative density (30.19.7%), relative frequency (24.41%) and relative abundance (7.68%).Regarding herb species, Aristida redacta represented the highest density (3.97ind./sq.m) and frequency (39.02%). Moreover, the highest importance value index was measured in Prosopis juliflora (62.28) among trees & shrubs and Aristida redacta (31.51) among herbs. The Abundance/Frequency ratio of trees, shrubs and herb species showed contagious distribution pattern within the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • John Lindley's Ignored Orchid Names
    JOHN LINDLEY’S IGNORED ORCHID NAMES GUSTAVO A. ROMERO-GONZÁLEZ1, 2 AND DELSY TRUJILLO3, 4 In the early 1990s, when the senior author consulted the collection is presumed new to this country; there John Lindley Orchid Herbarium, kept separately at the Royal are about 60 species, many of them exceedingly Botanic Gardens, Kew, it became apparent that Lindley had beautiful, and dried specimens and drawings of names available for some Peruvian orchids later described those seen in flower by Mr. W. will be produced by H. G. Reichenbach f. and J. R. Warszewicz.5 At that at the sale; descriptive catalogues may be had time, an auction catalogue, the source of Lindley’s names, of Mr. J. C. Stevens, 38, King Street, Covent could not be located; the validity of Lindley’s names was Garden, London.” uncertain, and some authors treated the names as not validly The catalogue, based on the previous advertisement, had published (e.g., Catasetum secundum Lindl. in Romero and already been printed by May 7, 1853. John Lindley (1853a), Jenny, 1992: 246). editor of the Gardeners’ Chronicle (of “The Horticultural The catalogue was published by the famous auction Part”), added separately: house of J. C. Stevens, at “38, King Street, Covent Garden, “A fresh supply of Orchids has been received London” (for other auctions of Orchidaceae, see Allingham, from Mr. Warczsewicz, and is about to be sold at 1924: 92–127), which announced the sale of a great lot of Stevens’s rooms. (See advertisement.) Having Warszewicz’s orchids in an advertisement appearing in this time had an opportunity of examining Gardeners’ Chronicle and the April 30, 1853, issue of the carefully the dried specimens sent home with Agricultural Gazette (Stevens, 1853a): them, we are able to say with confidence that the “As the dried specimens and drawings of following are undoubtedly quite new, viz.:— such as Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Numbers in Italic Refer to Figures, Numbers in Bold Refer to Tables
    Index Numbers in italic refer to figures, numbers in bold refer to tables acetate peel technique 219, 243, 251 British Antarctic Survey, collaboration with Sheffield Alethopteris decurrens 70, 71,121 Palynology School 265,266 Alethopteris lonchitica Sternberg 43, 44 British Association for the Advancement of Science Alps, Venetian, work of Baron Achille de Zigno 87-88, meetings 91 1870 Liveqgool 114 Andersson, J.G. (1874-1960) 294, 296 1887 Manchester 234, 236 angiosperms 1889 Newcastle upon Tyne 155 work of Marie Stopes 130-131 1904 Cambridge 209 see also dicotyledons work of Arthur Raistrick 164 Annularia 9 British Museum (Natural History) collections, Antarctica, discovery of Glossopteris 129, 156 Williamson 150, 251 Aptian, permineralized wood 130-131 Brongniart, Adolphe (1801-76) 32, 42, 53, 55, 59, 114, Araucarioxylon arizonicum 98 116 Arber, Edward Alexander Newell (1870-1918) 149, Histoire des v~g~taux fossiles 53-59 209 Brookes, Richard (c. 1750) 10, 11 Argentina 281-289, 283 Natural History 7, 8, 11 Argentine scientists 288-289 Brora, Sutherland, fossil collection of Hugh Miller 69, C6rdoba University 285 73-74 early naturalist-explorers 281-284 Buckland, Dean William (1784-1856) 20, 49 Germanic School of Sciences 284-287 Buckland, Mary see Morland, Mary gold rush 289 Burdiehouse, limestone 70 Arizona Territory, fossil forests 96--98, 100-101 Burmeister, Hennann (1807-92) 284, 285 Artisia 47 Butterworth, John 140, 142 Ashmolean Museum 7, 8 Buxus balearica 29 Asteria 8 Asterophyllites equisetiformis 42, 43, 154 Calamites 51,
    [Show full text]