DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council. The names of some of these contributors appear below, and we apologize to those who have been inadvertently omitted, for their contributions are certainly valued. This work builds upon the efforts of many others who have worked to identify, describe, and classify natural habitats. In particular, this classification is strongly influenced by the work of John T. Curtis and Burton V. Barnes. This classification is an update of several earlier versions and benefits greatly from the contributions of current and former MNFI ecologists including William Rose, Gary Reese, Lawrence Brewer, Patrick Comer, William MacKinnon, Richard Corner, Jodi Spieles, Glenn Palmgren, Alan Tepley, Adrienne Bozic, Jacqueline Courteau, and Jeffrey Lee. We express our sincere gratitude to Michael Penskar, MNFI Lead Botanist, for supporting this effort over many years by providing mentoring, encouragement, and valuable input. The lists of rare plants and rare animals contained in the community descriptions were derived from several sources over many years, but mostly from the collected knowledge of our much appreciated current and former MNFI colleagues and collaborators, some of whom include Michael Penskar, Phyllis Higman, Ryan O’Connor, Erica Choberka, Beverly Walters, Dave Cuthrell, Yu Man Lee, Michael Monfils, Bradford Yocum, Jeffrey Cooper, Mary Rabe, John Legge, James Bess, Peter Badra, Amy Derosier, David Stagliano, Reuben Goforth, Patrick Comer, William MacKinnon, Adrienne Bozic, Lyn Scrimger, Judith Soule, Leni Wilsmann, Kim Herman, Lawrence Masters, Susan Crispin, Mary Klein, Herbert Wagner, Edward Voss, Anton Reznicek, and many others to whom we owe our thanks. This rare species habitat information is now available on the MNFI Web site via the Rare Species Explorer. We thank Kraig Korroch, MNFI, for developing the Web pages to display this information, along with photographs and related links, on the MNFI Web site. Helpful editorial support was provided by Martha Gove, Jacqueline Courteau, Kaysie Cox, Adrienne Bozic, and Jeffrey Lee. Much appreciated administrative support was provided by Sue Ridge, Connie Brinson, Lyn Scrimger, Nancy Toben, and Patrick Brown. Several publications proved invaluable in developing the community descriptions. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the following resources: “Michigan Flora” by Edward G. Voss; “Floristic Quality Assessment Program for Michigan” by Kim Herman, Linda Masters, Michael Penskar, Anton Reznicek, Gerould Wilhelm, William Brodowicz, and Kevin Gardiner; “Vegetation of Michigan circa 1800” map by Patrick Comer, Dennis Albert, Heather Wells, Barbara Hart, Jodi Spieles, David Price, Daniel Kashian, Richard Corner, and David Schuen; and “Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States” by NatureServe. In addition to the authors, contributors of Michigan natural community element occurrence data include: Heidi Appel Gerard Donnelly Barbara Madsen Anton Reznicek Harvey Ballard David Ewert David Mahan William Rose Tyler Bassett Roy Gereau Janet Marr Darcy Rutkowski James Bess Steve Grund Laura Mattei Leon Schaddelee Adrienne Bozic Donald Henson Michael Mayfield Michael Scott Lawrence Brewer Kim Herman Kimberly Medley Gary Snyder William Brodowicz Phyllis Higman Daniel Nepstad Jodi Spieles Marie Bruegmann Daria Hyde Ryan O’Connor Sylvia Taylor Frederick Case Emmet Judziewicz Wendy O’Neil Alan Tepley Roberta Case Margaret Kohring Stuart Ouwinga Hannah Dunevitz Texler Elaine Chittenden Kathleen Kron Glenn Palmgren Paul Thompson Patrick Comer Helen Kuhn John Paskus Lucinda Thomson Richard Corner William Larsen Douglas Pearsall Mark Tomboulian Jacqueline Courteau Jeffrey Lee Michael Penskar Steve Voice Erica Choberka YuMan Lee Ursula Petersen Edward Voss Christopher Clampitt John Legge Robert Pleznac Beverly Walters Susan Crispin Donald Les Gary Reese Guerin Wilkinson David Cuthrell William MacKinnon Carol Reschke Leni Wilsmann ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Natural Community Global and State Ranks .................................................................................. 2 Global and State Element Ranking Criteria .................................................................................... 3 Natural Communities by Ecological Groups................................................................................... 4 Key to the Natural Communities of Michigan ................................................................................ 5 Soil pH Ranges.............................................................................................................................. 16 Community Descriptions............................................................................................................... 17 PALUSTRINE COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................. 18 MARSH COMMUNITIES........................................................................................................ 18 Submergent Marsh ........................................................................................................... 18 Emergent Marsh ............................................................................................................... 21 Great Lakes Marsh ........................................................................................................... 25 Northern Wet Meadow..................................................................................................... 29 Southern Wet Meadow..................................................................................................... 33 Inland Salt Marsh ............................................................................................................. 37 Intermittent Wetland......................................................................................................... 39 Coastal Plain Marsh.......................................................................................................... 43 Interdunal Wetland........................................................................................................... 47 WET PRAIRIE COMMUNITIES............................................................................................. 51 Wet Prairie........................................................................................................................ 51 Wet-mesic Prairie............................................................................................................. 54 Wet-mesic Sand Prairie.................................................................................................... 57 Lakeplain Wet Prairie....................................................................................................... 61 Lakeplain Wet-mesic Prairie ............................................................................................ 65 FEN COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 69 Prairie Fen ........................................................................................................................ 69 Northern Fen .................................................................................................................... 75 Coastal Fen....................................................................................................................... 81 Patterned Fen...................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Bwsr Featured Plant Minnesota's Milkweeds

    Bwsr Featured Plant Minnesota's Milkweeds

    BWSR FEATURED PLANT MINNESOTA’S MILKWEEDS Publication Date: 6‐1‐13 Milkweeds play a key role in wetlands, prairies, savannas and forests in Minnesota. The genus (Asclepias) is particularly important as a nectar and larval food source for a wide range of insect species. The best known example is the monarch butterfly whose larvae appear to feed only on milkweeds. Milkweeds have a unique pollination mechanism where pollen grains are enclosed in waxy sacs called “pollina” that attach to the legs of butterflies, moths, bees, ants and wasps and are then deposited in another milkweed flower if they step into a specialized anther opening. Most milkweeds are toxic to vertebrate herbivores due to cardiac glycosides that are in their plant cells. In addition to supporting insect populations, Butterfly Milkweed milkweeds also provide other landscape benefits due to their extensive root systems (sometimes deep roots, sometimes horizontal) that Photos by Dave Hanson decrease compaction, add organic material to the soil and improve unless otherwise stated water infiltration. Common milkweed is probably the best known milkweed species as it is found in all counties of the state and was included on some county prohibited noxious weed lists. The species was considered a common agricultural weed as its extensive root network made it difficult to remove from agricultural fields with cultivators. Now the species is effectively removed from genetically modified corn and soybean fields that are sprayed with herbicide. This practice has contributed to significant declines in milkweed species, with an estimated 58% decline in the Midwest between 1999 and 2010 and a corresponding 81% decline in monarch butterfly production (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2013).
  • New Moths from Texas (Noctuidae, Tortricidae)

    New Moths from Texas (Noctuidae, Tortricidae)

    1968 Joltrnal of the Lepidopterists' Societu 133 NEW MOTHS FROM TEXAS (NOCTUIDAE, TORTRICIDAE) ANDRE BLANCHARD 3023 Underwood, Houston, Texas As a retirement hobby, I decided, six years ago, to catalog the moths of Texas. My wife and I have been collecting moths all over Texas for the last four years. As the work progressed, I came to realize that I may have to settle, more modestly, for a "Contributions Toward A Catalog of the Moths of Texas." The number of species in my collection which had apparently never been taken in Texas is quite large, and the number of those which seem to be new to science, particularly from the mountain ranges and desert areas of West Texas, is much larger than I ever expected. I have been fortunate in interesting several specialists in describing some of these new species: Dr. C. L. Hogue (196S), Mr. McElvare ( 1966), Dr. E. L. Todd (1966) have described three. Difficult cases are now and, in the future, will be submitted to experts. I have de­ scribed the male of a fourth species (1966), the female of which was described by Dr. F. H. Hindge (1966). While getting more material for my intcnded catalog, I shall describe as many of the new species as I can name without becoming guilty of adding to the confusion which already exists in some genera. In the present paper, I describe six new noctuids and one tortricid species. All types were collected by A. &. M. E. Blanchard. Acronicta vallis cola Blanchard, new species (PI. I, fig. J; PI.
  • Types of American Grasses

    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.
  • C10 Beano1senn.Mimosa.Amo-Des

    C10 Beano1senn.Mimosa.Amo-Des

    LEGUMINOSAE PART ONE Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae, Papilionoideae, Amorpha to Desmodium Revised 04 May 2015 BEAN FAMILY 1 Amphicarpaea CAESALPINIACEAE Cassia Anthyllis Cercis Apios Chamaecrista Astragalus Gleditsia Baptisia Gymnocladus Caragana Senna Cladrastus MIMOSACEAE Desmanthus Coronilla Mimosa Crotalaria Schrankia Dalea PAPILIONACEAE Amorpha Desmodium un-copyrighted draught --- “No family of the vegetable kingdom possesses a higher claim to the attention of the naturalist than the Leguminosae, wether we regard them as objects of ornament or utility. Of the former, we might mention the splendid varieties of Cercis, with their purple flowers, the Acacias, with their airy foliage and silky stamens, the Pride of India, Colutea, and Cæsalpina, with a host of others, which, like the Sweet Pea, are redolent with perfume. Of the latter, the beans, peas, lentils, clover, and lucerne, are too well known to require recommendation. Among timber trees, the Rosewood (a Brazilian species of Mimosa), the Laburnum, whose wood is durable and of an olive-green color, and the Locust of our own country are preëminent. The following are a few important officinal products of this order. In medicine; liquorice is the product of the root of Glycyrrhiza glabra of S. Europe. The purgative senna consists of leaves of Cassia Senna, C. acutifolia, C. Æthiopica, and other species of Egypt and Arabia. C. Marilandica is also a cathartic, but more mild than the former. The sweet pulp tamarind, is the product of a large and beautiful tree (Tamarindus Indica) of the E. and W. Indies. Resins and Balsams: Gum Senegal is yielded by Acacia Verek of the River Senegal; Gum Arabic, by several species of Acacia of Central Africa; Gum Tragacynth, by Astragalus verus, &c., Persia.
  • City of Keene, New Hampshire CONSERVATION COMMISSION

    City of Keene, New Hampshire CONSERVATION COMMISSION

    City of Keene, New Hampshire CONSERVATION COMMISSION Monday, April 19, 2021 4:30 PM ZOOM Commission Members Alexander Von Plinsky, IV, Chair Councilor Robert Williams Eloise Clark, Vice Chair Brian Reilly, Alternate Kenneth Bergman Thomas P. Haynes, Alternate Art Walker Steven Bill, Alternate Andrew Madison John Therriault, Alternate This meeting will be conducted using the online meeting platform, Zoom. The public may view the meeting online by visiting www.zoom.us/join and enter the Meeting ID: 868 3840 7352.* More info on how to access this meeting is available on the Conservation Commission webpage at https://ci.keene.nh.us/conservation-commission If you encounter any issues accessing this meeting, please call (603) 209-4697 during the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes – March 15, 2020 3. Communication and Notifications a. National Grid – Herbicide Use Notification b. Antioch University New England Proposal – Michael Akresh, PhD. Wild bee assemblages of New Hampshire peatland ecosystems 4. Informational a. Subcommittee reports Outreach Subcommittee Arm Fund Subcommittee 5. Discussion Items a. Greater Goose Pond Forest Management Stewardship Committee – Mayor Hansel b. Garlic Mustard Challenge c. Old Gilsum Rd – Goose Pond Forest 6. New or Other Business *In Emergency7. Adjournment Order #12,– Next issued meeting by the date Governor Monday, pursuant May 17,to Executive 2021 Order #2020-04, which declared a COVID-19 State of Emergency, the requirement that a quorum of a public body be physically present at the meeting location under RSA 91-A:2, III(b), and the requirement that each part of a meeting of a public body be audible or otherwise discernible to the public at the meeting location under RSA 91-A:2, III(c), have been waived.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1

    Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1

    Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
  • Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan

    Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan

    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 16 Number 3 - Fall 1983 Number 3 - Fall 1983 Article 5 October 1983 Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan Mark F. O'Brien The University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation O'Brien, Mark F. 1983. "Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 16 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol16/iss3/5 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. O'Brien: Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan 1983 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 87 BIBLIOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS OF MICHIGAN Mark F. O'Brienl ABSTRACT Papers dealing with distribution, faunal extensions, and identification of Michigan insects and other terrestrial arthropods are listed by order, and cover the period of 1878 through 1982. The following bibliography lists the publications dealing with the distribution or identification of insects and other terrestrial arthropods occurring in the State of Michigan. Papers dealing only with biological, behavioral, or economic aspects are not included. The entries are grouped by orders, which are arranged alphabetically, rather than phylogenetic ally , to facilitate information retrieval. The intent of this paper is to provide a ready reference to works on the Michigan fauna, although some of the papers cited will be useful for other states in the Great Lakes region.
  • Legumes of the North-Central States: C

    Legumes of the North-Central States: C

    LEGUMES OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL STATES: C-ALEGEAE by Stanley Larson Welsh A Dissertation Submitted, to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Systematic Botany Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. artment Signature was redacted for privacy. Dean of Graduat College Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa I960 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 8 TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURE TREATMENT 13 REFERENCES 158 APPENDIX A 176 APPENDIX B 202 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Duane Isely for assistance in the selection of the problem and for the con­ structive criticisms and words of encouragement offered throughout the course of this investigation. Support through the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and through the Industrial Science Research Institute made possible the field work required in this problem. Thanks are due to the curators of the many herbaria consulted during this investigation. Special thanks are due the curators of the Missouri Botanical Garden, U. S. National Museum, University of Minnesota, North Dakota Agricultural College, University of South Dakota, University of Nebraska, and University of Michigan. The cooperation of the librarians at Iowa State University is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are due Dr. G. B. Van Schaack of the Missouri Botanical Garden library. His enthusiastic assistance in finding rare botanical volumes has proved invaluable in the preparation of this paper. To the writer's wife, Stella, deepest appreciation is expressed. Her untiring devotion, work, and cooperation have made this work possible.
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations

    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations

    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
  • Phylogeny and Subfamilial Classification of the Grasses (Poaceae) Author(S): Grass Phylogeny Working Group, Nigel P

    Phylogeny and Subfamilial Classification of the Grasses (Poaceae) Author(S): Grass Phylogeny Working Group, Nigel P

    Phylogeny and Subfamilial Classification of the Grasses (Poaceae) Author(s): Grass Phylogeny Working Group, Nigel P. Barker, Lynn G. Clark, Jerrold I. Davis, Melvin R. Duvall, Gerald F. Guala, Catherine Hsiao, Elizabeth A. Kellogg, H. Peter Linder Source: Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Summer, 2001), pp. 373-457 Published by: Missouri Botanical Garden Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3298585 Accessed: 06/10/2008 11:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mobot. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
  • Winter 2014-2015 (22:3) (PDF)

    Winter 2014-2015 (22:3) (PDF)

    Contents NATIVE NOTES Page Fern workshop 1-2 Wavey-leaf basket Grass 3 Names Cacalia 4 Trip Report Sandstone Falls 5 Kate’s Mountain Clover* Trip Report Brush Creek Falls 6 Thank yous memorial 7 WEST VIRGINIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY NEWSLETTER News of WVNPS 8 VOLUME 22:3 WINTER 2014-15 Events, Dues Form 9 Judy Dumke-Editor: [email protected] Phone 740-894-6859 Magnoliales 10 e e e visit us at www.wvnps.org e e e . Fern Workshop University of Charleston Charleston WV January 17 2015, bad weather date January 24 2015 If you have thought about ferns, looked at them, puzzled over them or just want to know more about them join the WVNPS in Charleston for a workshop led by Mark Watson of the University of Charleston. The session will start at 10 A.M. with a scheduled end point by 12:30 P.M. A board meeting will follow. The sessions will be held in the Clay Tower Building (CTB) room 513, which is the botany lab. If you have any pressed specimens to share, or to ask about, be sure to bring them with as much information as you have on the location and habitat. Even photographs of ferns might be of interest for the session. If you have a hand lens that you favor bring it along as well. DIRECTIONS From the North: Travel I-77 South or 1-79 South into Charleston. Follow the signs to I-64 West. Take Oakwood Road Exit 58A and follow the signs to Route 61 South (MacCorkle Ave.).