Status of Solidago erecta (Asteraceae) in New York Author(s): Eric E. Lamont Source: The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 135(4):595-599. 2008. Published By: Torrey Botanical Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3159/08-RA-098.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3159/08-RA-098.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 135(4), 2008, pp. 595–599 Status of Solidago erecta (Asteraceae) in New York1 Eric E. Lamont2,3 Local Flora Committee, Torrey Botanical Society, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 LAMONT, E. E. (Local Flora Committee, Torrey Botanical Society, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458). Status of Solidago erecta (Asteraceae) in New York. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 135: 000–000. 2008.—Solidago erecta has long been considered a member of the flora of New York, but recent studieshave revealed that the six known voucher collections of S. erecta from New York had been misidentified and have been reassigned to S. speciosa or S. puberula. The earliest published reports of S. erecta from New York were partially based on the misapplication of scientific names and a misunderstanding of the taxonomy of the S. speciosa/S. erecta complex. Solidago erecta should be excluded from the flora of New York because it has not been documented from the state with voucher specimens. Key words: Asteraceae, goldenrod, New York flora, Solidago erecta. The northern range limit of Solidago erecta 28 taxa of goldenrods including Solidago Banks ex Pursh (slender goldenrod) has been erecta. During the course of those investiga- reported to extend into southeasten New York tions I located only six voucher specimens and southern New England. The first report from New York that had been originally (Peck 1899) of S. erecta from north of New identified as S. erecta. Upon critical examina- Jersey was based on a collection from Long tion I reassigned all six specimens to either S. Island, New York [Suffolk Co., sandy soil, speciosa Nutt. or S. puberula Nutt. Baiting Hollow Station, Sept 1898, Peck s.n. It became apparent to me that Solidago (NYS)]. Peck’s 1898 collection apparently was erecta should possibly be excluded from the the source for Jelliffe’s (1899) inclusion of S. flora of New York. This possibility was erecta in The Flora of Long Island. During the discussed with state botanist Richard Mitchell early 1900s, New York was considered to be who was also independently considering the the northern limit of S. erecta (Robinson and possibility. Conversations with Arthur Cron- Fernald 1908, Britton and Brown 1913, Taylor quist revealed that he had previously arrived at 1915, House 1924) but in 1950 the range was the same conclusion because he had never seen extended into southern New England (Fernald a voucher specimen of S. erecta from New 1950). From 1950 to present, most regional York. Cronquist considered New Jersey to be and local floras have listed New York and/or the northern range limit of S. erecta with southern New England as the northern range disjunct populations in coastal Massachusetts limit of S. erecta (Fernald 1950, Cronquist (Cronquist 1952, 1980, Gleason and Cronquist 1952, Gleason and Cronquist 1963, 1991, 1963, 1991). Dowhan 1979, Mitchell 1986, Seymour 1989, Consequently, Mitchell and Tucker (1997) Young 1992, Magee and Ahles 1999, Semple excluded Solidago erecta from the flora of and Cook 2006). New York and noted that all New York In the early 1990s, while preparing Guide to specimens of S. erecta examined by them had the Goldenrods of Long Island, New York been reassigned to S. puberula. Young (1997) (Lamont 1992), I visited major herbaria in the also excluded S. erecta from the New York Northeast and collected distribution data on Rare Plant Status List. Additionally, Sorrie and Somers (1999) excluded S. erecta from the 1 This report is the sixth in a continuing series of flora of Massachusetts and reassigned histor- floristic studies produced by the Local Flora ical collections to S. bicolor L. and S. puberula. Committee of the Torrey Botanical Society. For Despite the exclusion of Solidago erecta historical and background information contained in earlier reports, see Lamont and Young (2006). from the flora of New York by Mitchell and 2 Appreciation is expressed to Charles Sheviak for Tucker (1997), Cronquist (1952, 1980), and arranging loans and providing data from the plant Gleason and Cronquist (1963, 1991), the specimen records on file at the New York State species continues to be reported from the state Museum in Albany. (Magee and Ahles 1999, Weldy and Werier 3 E-mail: [email protected] Received for publication August 10, 2008, and in 2005, Semple and Cook 2006, Weakley 2008, revised form September 15, 2008. USDA Plants Database 2008). The purpose of 595 596 JOURNAL OF THE TORREY BOTANICAL SOCIETY [VOL.135 this paper is to clarify and reinforce with under the name Solidago speciosa var. angu- specific documentation the past and present stata T. & G., but it is now classed as a distinct status of S. erecta in New York. species.’’ Recognition of Solidago speciosa var. angu- Taxonomic History. Pursh (1813) first de- stata as a synonym of S. erecta was short lived. scribed Solidago erecta as a distinct species From the early to mid-1900s, var. angustata and ascribed the name to Joseph Banks. was often recognized as a valid, narrow leaved Within less than 25 years, the specific epithet variety of S. speciosa distinct from S. erecta, would be applied to three other species of primarily occurring in mid-western prairies Solidago by three different botanists: 1) from ‘‘Ohio to South Dakota, and southward’’ Solidago erecta Nutt., Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: (Robinson and Fernald 1908, Fernald 1950). 161. 1818. [5 S. petiolaris Aiton], 2) Solidago Semple and Ringius (1992) continued to erecta Elliott, Sketch Bot. S. Carolina, ii. 385. recognize S. s. var. angustata as valid, but 1823. [5 S. speciosa Nuttall], and 3) Solidago Kartesz (1994) listed it as a synonym of S. s. erecta de Condolle, Prodr. 5: 340. 1836. [5 S. var. rigidiuscula Torr. & A. Gray. Semple and bicolor L.]. These later homonyms caused Cook (2006) concluded that S. s. var. angu- confusion in botanical literature especially stata should be treated as a synonym of S. s. during the mid-1800s (Wood 1855). var. speciosa and noted, ‘‘Narrower-leaved Morphological similarities between Solidago plants [of S. s.var.speciosa] have been treated erecta and S. speciosa coupled with a wide as var. angustata; the type material comes range of morphological variation within S. from eastern states, but the name has been speciosa have contributed to additional taxo- misapplied to plants of var. rigidiuscula (with nomic and nomenclatural confusion within the persistent narrow basal leaves) from the S. speciosa/S. erecta complex. By the early prairies and prairielike habitats along the 1900s, synantherologists began to sort out the western edge of the eastern deciduous forest confusing array of binomials that are currently in the United States.’’ applied to the S. speciosa/S. erecta complex, The most current taxonomic evidence re- including S. chandonnettii E. S. Steele, S. veals that Solidago erecta and S. speciosa var. conferta P. Mill., S. harperi Mackenzie ex angustata are distinct taxa. I studied Peck’s Small, S. jejunifolia E. S. Steele, S. pallida 1898 collection of ‘‘S. erecta’’ (5 S. s. var. (Porter) Rydb., S. porteri Small, S. rigidiuscula angustata sensu Peck) from Long Island and Torr. & A. Gray, and S. venulosa Greene. reassigned it to S. s. var. speciosa. I agree with In 1892, MacMillan recognized the close Semple and Cook (2006) and Cronquist (1980) affinities between Solidago erecta and S. that S. s. var. angustata should be listed as a speciosa by proposing the new combination synonym of S. s. var. speciosa. Even if one S. speciosa var. erecta (Pursh) MacM. The were to include S. erecta within a broadly inclusion of S. erecta as a variety in S. speciosa defined S. speciosa (ITIS 2008), Peck’s Long is currently controversial but is followed by Island goldenrod collection would still be Integrated Taxonomic Information System determined as S. s. var. speciosa,notS. s. (ITIS 2008). var. erecta. The taxonomic status of Solidago speciosa var. angustata Torr. & A. Gray played a Specimens Examined. During the course of significant role in the early reports of S. erecta this study I examined and annotated hundreds from New York. The goldenrod that Charles of Solidago collections at major New York Peck collected from Long Island in 1898 was herbaria, including BKL, CU, NY, NYS, and initially identified by him as S. s. var. OBPF, and also at HUH (abbreviations angustata, according to the original label on follow Holmgren et al. 1990). I located only the voucher specimen at NYS. However, when six voucher specimens collected from New Peck (1899) published his Report of the State York that had been originally identified as or Botanist for 1898, he considered S.