DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered and Threatened Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS In the Matter of Proposed Amendment to and Repeal of Rules Governing Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES August 10, 2012 Conclusion Based upon the following, the proposed amendments to and repeal of rules are both needed and reasonable. Dated: August 15, 2012 /S/ Tom Landwehr, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources STATE OF MINNESOTA Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012 Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES In The Matter Of Proposed Amendment to and Repeal of Rules Governing Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS General Statement Introduction Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species (List) was created in 1984, amended in 1996, and has remained unchanged since. The List, established under the authority of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute, draws attention to species that are at greatest risk of extinction within the state; special regulations are applied to those listed as endangered or threatened. By alerting resource managers and the public to species in jeopardy, activities can be reviewed and prioritized to help preserve the diversity and abundance of Minnesota’s flora and fauna. Because of the importance of this List in influencing resource use and management activities in Minnesota, it is critical that it reflect the most current information regarding the distribution, abundance, and security of species within the state. In this document, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) describes and explains the changes it proposes to make to the status of 302 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, mollusks, jumping spiders, butterflies and moths, caddisflies, tiger beetles, leafhoppers, dragonflies, vascular plants, lichens, mosses and liverworts, and fungi. History of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute Minnesota law pertaining to endangered species dates to Laws of Minnesota 1971, Ch. 825, which listed several animal species as endangered, and granted authority to the DNR’s commissioner to add or delete animals by rule. Laws of Minnesota 1974, Ch. 465 added a threatened category to the statute and dropped the listing of specific species in statute. Laws of Minnesota 1981, Ch. 285 added a special concern category to the statute, and added plants to the statute’s protection. The statute, entitled Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species was codified into its current form (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895) in 1986 (Laws of Minnesota 1986, Ch. 386, art. 4, s. 9). Content of Minnesota’s Endangered and Threatened Species Statute and Associated Rule Minnesota's Endangered and Threatened Species Statute provides protection to species at risk of extinction within Minnesota, and reflects the Legislature’s intent that the DNR manage these species in such a way as to prevent their extinction and restore their viability within the bounds of the state, and thus maintain all elements of the state’s native flora and fauna. The statute identifies those activities from which an endangered species is protected (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 1), specifies that violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 9), and authorizes peace officers or conservation officers to enforce the statute (Minn. Stat., secs. 84.0894 and 84.0895, subd. 6). It authorizes the DNR commissioner to conduct studies to support species conservation (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 4), to develop programs, orders, and rules to recover species from threatened or endangered status (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 5), and to designate species as endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 3, see below). While the statute and associated rule provide protection from prohibited acts to all endangered or threatened species, species of special concern receive no such protection. The statute also provides exemptions from its stated prohibitions for: 1) plants on land classified for property tax purposes as class 2a or 2b agricultural land, or on ditches and roadways; 2) noxious weeds designated as such under statute or weeds otherwise designated as troublesome by the Department of Agriculture; 3) noxious weed control; 4) the application of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals on land adjacent to class 3 or 3b agricultural land; and 5) the accidental taking of endangered and threatened plants where the existence of the plant is not known at the time of the taking (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 2). It also provides for the capture or destruction of a protected species, without permit, to avoid an immediate and demonstrable threat to human life or Proposed Amendment of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134: Endangered and Threatened Species Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012 Page 2 property (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(c)). Further, the statute authorizes the DNR commissioner to issue permits, including general permits, that allow the prohibited acts if: 1) the act is for purposes of zoological, educational, or scientific study; 2) the act enhances the propagation or survival of the affected species; 3) the act prevents injury to persons or property (provided that all alternatives, including live trapping and transplantation, have been evaluated and rejected); or 4) the social and economic benefits of the act outweigh the harm caused by it (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7). The statute also authorizes the DNR commissioner to prescribe conditions to propagate a species or subspecies (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(b)), and allows the commissioner to issue permits for forest management (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 7(d)). Finally, the statute specifies that it does not apply retroactively to, or prohibit importation into the state of species (or their parts) that are legally acquired from elsewhere (Minn. Stat., sec. 84.0895, subd. 8). Rules governing permits for the taking, possession, and disposition of endangered species were first promulgated in 1974 (Commissioners Order No. 1901; July 31, 1974). These were substantially expanded in 1985, and extended protection and permit requirements to threatened species as well (Commissioners Order No. 2204; May 30, 1985). The provisions of Commissioners Order No. 2204 were codified into rule in 1993 (18 S.R. 83; July 12, 1993), and are found at Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300. The permit scheme, including the application process, limits on possession of specimens or their offspring, reporting, and expiration or cancellation of permits is detailed in Minn. Rules, part 6212.1800. Permitting for the rehabilitation of living specimens, possession of previously acquired specimens or specimens acquired as a result of emergency taking, and other activities otherwise prohibited is detailed in Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1900 to 6212.2300. Note that Minn. Rules, parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 are not the subject of this rulemaking. History of Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species The authority to designate state endangered animals by rulemaking was first given to the DNR commissioner in Laws of Minnesota 1971, Ch. 825, although this authority was not exercised until 1984. However, the 1971 law listed several species as endangered, and provided that an “endangered” designation by the Secretary of the Interior (pursuant to federal endangered species law) would be prima facie evidence for a state designation by the commissioner. The category of threatened animals was added to the authority to designate species in Laws of Minnesota 1974, Ch. 465. The 1974 amendment reaffirmed the DNR commissioner’s authority to designate state endangered and threatened animals, and dropped the statutory list of species created in 1971, but provided that “...until the commissioner adopts such a regulation, those species designated as endangered by Section 4(c)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) at the time of enactment thereof shall be considered endangered within the meaning of this section.” The special concern category was added to the statute in 1981, as was the application of all three categories to plants (Laws of Minnesota 1981, Ch. 285). The 1981 amendment once again directed the DNR commissioner to promulgate by rule a state List, required the convening of a voluntary Technical Advisory Committee to assist in developing the List, and specified that the List be promulgated by January 1, 1984. The 1981 amendment also provided that this committee would terminate upon adoption of the resulting rule, but in no event later than January 1, 1984. As a result, the advisory committee provision is not a part of the current statute. Minnesota’s List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species was adopted on March 5, 1984. Promulgation of this List resulted in the legislature deleting the language incorporating the federal list into Minnesota law (Laws of Minnesota 1986, Ch. 386). The 1981 amendment also added the requirement that “The commissioner shall reevaluate the designated
Recommended publications
  • Cercidospora Trypetheliza Und Einige Weitere Lichenicole Ascomyceten Auf Arthrorhaphis

    Cercidospora Trypetheliza Und Einige Weitere Lichenicole Ascomyceten Auf Arthrorhaphis

    Cryptogamie, Bryol.Lichénol. 1995, 16(3): 177-190 177 CERCIDOSPORA TRYPETHELIZA UND EINIGE WEITERE LICHENICOLE ASCOMYCETEN AUF ARTHRORHAPHIS J. HAFELLNER & W. OBERMAYER Institut für Botanik, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Holteigasse 6, A-8010 GRAZ, Austria ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - Neonorrlinia trypetheliza, ein bisher als Flechte betrachteter Organismus, wird als eine auf Arthrorhaphis lebende Sippe der Pilzgattung Cercidospora erkannt und mit anderen Beispielen falsch interpretierter Beziehungen zwischen Flechten und lichenicolen Pilzen diskutiert. Damit ist die Familie Arthrorhaphidaceae monotypisch und Neonorrlinia ein Synonym von Cercidospora. Cercidospora soror Obermayer & Triebel und Stigmidium arthrorhaphidis Hafellner & Obermayer werden als neue, auf Arthrorhaphis parasitierende Arten vorgestellt. Ein Schlüssel für die bisher bekannten lichenicolen Pilze auf Sippen der Gattung Arthrorhaphis wird präsentiert. SUMMARY - Neonorrlinia trypetheliza, hitherto regarded as a lichenized fungus, has turned out to be a lichenicolous Cercidospora species on Arthrorhaphis, thus the Arthrorhaphidaceae becoming monotypic and Neonorrlinia becoming a synonym of Cercidospora. Types of misinterpreted relationships between lichens and lichenicolous fungi are discussed. Cercidospora soror Obermayer & Triebel and Stigmidium arthrorhaphidis Hafellner & Obermayer, both lichenicolous on Arthrorhaphis, are new to science. A key to fungi growing on Arthrorhaphis is provided. EINLEITUNG Das biologische Beziehungsgefüge zwischen einem lichenisierten Thallus und
  • Phylogeny of the Cetrarioid Core (Parmeliaceae) Based on Five

    Phylogeny of the Cetrarioid Core (Parmeliaceae) Based on Five

    The Lichenologist 41(5): 489–511 (2009) © 2009 British Lichen Society doi:10.1017/S0024282909990090 Printed in the United Kingdom Phylogeny of the cetrarioid core (Parmeliaceae) based on five genetic markers Arne THELL, Filip HÖGNABBA, John A. ELIX, Tassilo FEUERER, Ingvar KÄRNEFELT, Leena MYLLYS, Tiina RANDLANE, Andres SAAG, Soili STENROOS, Teuvo AHTI and Mark R. D. SEAWARD Abstract: Fourteen genera belong to a monophyletic core of cetrarioid lichens, Ahtiana, Allocetraria, Arctocetraria, Cetraria, Cetrariella, Cetreliopsis, Flavocetraria, Kaernefeltia, Masonhalea, Nephromopsis, Tuckermanella, Tuckermannopsis, Usnocetraria and Vulpicida. A total of 71 samples representing 65 species (of 90 worldwide) and all type species of the genera are included in phylogentic analyses based on a complete ITS matrix and incomplete sets of group I intron, -tubulin, GAPDH and mtSSU sequences. Eleven of the species included in the study are analysed phylogenetically for the first time, and of the 178 sequences, 67 are newly constructed. Two phylogenetic trees, one based solely on the complete ITS-matrix and a second based on total information, are similar, but not entirely identical. About half of the species are gathered in a strongly supported clade composed of the genera Allocetraria, Cetraria s. str., Cetrariella and Vulpicida. Arctocetraria, Cetreliopsis, Kaernefeltia and Tuckermanella are monophyletic genera, whereas Cetraria, Flavocetraria and Tuckermannopsis are polyphyletic. The taxonomy in current use is compared with the phylogenetic results, and future, probable or potential adjustments to the phylogeny are discussed. The single non-DNA character with a strong correlation to phylogeny based on DNA-sequences is conidial shape. The secondary chemistry of the poorly known species Cetraria annae is analyzed for the first time; the cortex contains usnic acid and atranorin, whereas isonephrosterinic, nephrosterinic, lichesterinic, protolichesterinic and squamatic acids occur in the medulla.
  • The Lichens' Microbiota, Still a Mystery?

    The Lichens' Microbiota, Still a Mystery?

    fmicb-12-623839 March 24, 2021 Time: 15:25 # 1 REVIEW published: 30 March 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.623839 The Lichens’ Microbiota, Still a Mystery? Maria Grimm1*, Martin Grube2, Ulf Schiefelbein3, Daniela Zühlke1, Jörg Bernhardt1 and Katharina Riedel1 1 Institute of Microbiology, University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany, 2 Institute of Plant Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Graz, Austria, 3 Botanical Garden, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany Lichens represent self-supporting symbioses, which occur in a wide range of terrestrial habitats and which contribute significantly to mineral cycling and energy flow at a global scale. Lichens usually grow much slower than higher plants. Nevertheless, lichens can contribute substantially to biomass production. This review focuses on the lichen symbiosis in general and especially on the model species Lobaria pulmonaria L. Hoffm., which is a large foliose lichen that occurs worldwide on tree trunks in undisturbed forests with long ecological continuity. In comparison to many other lichens, L. pulmonaria is less tolerant to desiccation and highly sensitive to air pollution. The name- giving mycobiont (belonging to the Ascomycota), provides a protective layer covering a layer of the green-algal photobiont (Dictyochloropsis reticulata) and interspersed cyanobacterial cell clusters (Nostoc spec.). Recently performed metaproteome analyses Edited by: confirm the partition of functions in lichen partnerships. The ample functional diversity Nathalie Connil, Université de Rouen, France of the mycobiont contrasts the predominant function of the photobiont in production Reviewed by: (and secretion) of energy-rich carbohydrates, and the cyanobiont’s contribution by Dirk Benndorf, nitrogen fixation. In addition, high throughput and state-of-the-art metagenomics and Otto von Guericke University community fingerprinting, metatranscriptomics, and MS-based metaproteomics identify Magdeburg, Germany Guilherme Lanzi Sassaki, the bacterial community present on L.
  • Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012

    Statement of Need and Reasonableness: August 10, 2012

    CADDISFLIES ONLY Notations Used E Endangered T Threatened SC Special Concern N None (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) N (X) None, and probably extirpated from Minnesota (location records maintained by DNR, in most cases) -- None (location records not yet maintained by DNR) * Change in scientific name accompanies change in status CHANGE IN STATUS; STATUS SHEET PROVIDED Common Name Scientific Name Current Proposed Status Status A Species of Northern Caddisfly Anabolia ozburni -- SC * A Species of Northern Caddisfly Asynarchus rossi SC T A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Ceraclea brevis SC N Vertrees's Ceraclean Caddisfly Ceraclea vertreesi SC N Headwaters Chilostigman Caddisfly Chilostigma itascae E T A Species of Caddisfly Goera stylata -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila novicola SC N A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila quinola -- SC A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila rono -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Hydroptila waskesia -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Ironoquia punctatissima -- T A Species of Caddisfly Lepidostoma libum -- T A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus janus -- E A Species of Northern Caddisfly Limnephilus secludens -- E A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Ochrotrichia spinosa -- E A Species of Long Horned Caddisfly Oecetis ditissa -- T A Species of Purse Casemaker Caddisfly Oxyethira ecornuta SC T A Species of Netspinning Caddisfly Parapsyche apicalis -- T A Species of Tube Casemaker Caddisfly Polycentropus glacialis -- T A Species
  • Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements

    Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements

    Draft Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared for: US Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest Minnesota Department of Natural Resources May 2014 US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation This Biological Evaluation was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. For additional information, please contact the team leader for the US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Project. Ms. Christine Brown Chippewa National Forest Address: 200 Ash Avenue NW Cass Lake, MN 56633 Phone: (218) 335-8600 TTY: (218) 335-8632 FAX: (218)335-8637 Prepared by: ______________________________________ _______________ Antony Randazzo, HDR Engineering, Inc. Date Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Kirk W. Larson, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Cory Mlodik, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest May 2014 Signature Page Page i US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ..............................................................................................................................
  • Cuivre Bryophytes

    Cuivre Bryophytes

    Trip Report for: Cuivre River State Park Species Count: 335 Date: Multiple Visits Lincoln County Agency: MODNR Location: Lincoln Hills - Bryophytes Participants: Bryophytes from Natural Resource Inventory Database Bryophyte List from NRIDS and Bruce Schuette Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acarospora unknown Identified only to Genus Acarosporaceae Lichen Acrocordia megalospora a lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Amandinea dakotensis a button lichen (crustose) Physiaceae Lichen Amandinea polyspora a button lichen (crustose) Physiaceae Lichen Amandinea punctata a lichen Physiaceae Lichen Amanita citrina Citron Amanita Amanitaceae Fungi Amanita fulva Tawny Gresette Amanitaceae Fungi Amanita vaginata Grisette Amanitaceae Fungi Amblystegium varium common willow moss Amblystegiaceae Moss Anisomeridium biforme a lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Anisomeridium polypori a crustose lichen Monoblastiaceae Lichen Anomodon attenuatus common tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Anomodon minor tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Anomodon rostratus velvet tree apron moss Anomodontaceae Moss Armillaria tabescens Ringless Honey Mushroom Tricholomataceae Fungi Arthonia caesia a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthonia punctiformis a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthonia rubella a lichen Arthoniaceae Lichen Arthothelium spectabile a lichen Uncertain Lichen Arthothelium taediosum a lichen Uncertain Lichen Aspicilia caesiocinerea a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen Aspicilia cinerea a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen Aspicilia contorta a lichen Hymeneliaceae Lichen
  • A New Species of Allocetraria (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) in China

    A New Species of Allocetraria (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) in China

    The Lichenologist 47(1): 31–34 (2015) 6 British Lichen Society, 2015 doi:10.1017/S0024282914000528 A new species of Allocetraria (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota) in China Rui-Fang WANG, Xin-Li WEI and Jiang-Chun WEI Abstract: Allocetraria yunnanensis R. F. Wang, X. L. Wei & J. C. Wei is described as a new species from the Yunnan Province of China, and is characterized by having a shiny upper surface, strongly wrinkled lower surface, and marginal pseudocyphellae present on the lower side in the form of a white continuous line or spot. The phylogenetic analysis based on nrDNA ITS sequences suggests that the new species is related to A. sinensis X. Q. Gao. Key words: Allocetraria yunnanensis, lichen, taxonomy Accepted for publication 26 June 2014 Introduction genus, as all ten species have been reported there (Kurokawa & Lai 1991; Thell et al. The lichenized genus Allocetraria Kurok. & 1995; Randlane et al. 2001; Wang et al. M. J. Lai was described in 1991, with a new 2014). During our taxonomic study of Allo- species A. isidiigera Kurok. & M. J. Lai, and cetraria, a new species was found. two new combinations: A. ambigua (C. Bab.) Kurok. & M. J. Lai and A. stracheyi (C. Bab.) Kurok. & M. J. Lai (Kurokawa & Lai 1991). The main distribution area of Allocetraria Materials and Methods species was reported to be in the Himalayas, A dissecting microscope (ZEISS Stemi SV11) and com- including China, India, and Nepal. pound microscope (ZEISS Axioskop 2 plus) were used Allocetraria is characterized by dichoto- to study the morphology and anatomy of the specimens. Colour test reagents [10% aqueous KOH, saturated mously or subdichotomously branched lobes aqueous Ca(OCl)2, and concentrated alcoholic p- and a foliose to suberect or erect thallus with phenylenediamine] and thin-layer chromatography sparse rhizines, angular to sublinear pseudo- (TLC, solvent system C) were used for the detection cyphellae, palisade plectenchymatous upper of lichen substances (Culberson & Kristinsson 1970; Culberson 1972).
  • Monitoring Air Quality in Class I Wilderness Areas of the Northeastern United States Using Lichens and Bryophytes Alison C

    Monitoring Air Quality in Class I Wilderness Areas of the Northeastern United States Using Lichens and Bryophytes Alison C

    United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring Air Quality in Class I Wilderness Areas of the Northeastern United States Using Lichens and Bryophytes Alison C. Dibble, James W. Hinds, Ralph Perron, Natalie Cleavitt, Richard L. Poirot, and Linda H. Pardo Forest Service Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-165 December 2016 1 Abstract To address a need for air quality and lichen monitoring information for the Northeast, we compared bulk chemistry data from 2011-2013 to baseline surveys from 1988 and 1993 in three Class I Wilderness areas of New Hampshire and Vermont. Plots were within the White Mountain National Forest (Presidential Range—Dry River Wilderness and Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire) and the Green Mountain National Forest (Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont). We sampled epiphyte communities and found 58 macrolichen species and 55 bryophyte species. We also analyzed bulk samples for total N, total S, and 27 additional elements. We detected a decrease in Pb at the level of the National Forest and in a subset of plots. Low lichen richness and poor thallus condition at Lye Brook corresponded to higher N and S levels at these sites. Lichen thallus condition was best where lichen species richness was also high. Highest Hg content, from a limited subset, was on the east slope of Mt. Washington near the head of Great Gulf. Most dominant lichens in good condition were associated with conifer boles or acidic substrates. The status regarding N and S tolerance for many lichens in the northeastern United States is not clear, so the influence of N pollution on community data cannot be fully assessed.
  • 1307 Fungi Representing 1139 Infrageneric Taxa, 317 Genera and 66 Families ⇑ Jolanta Miadlikowska A, , Frank Kauff B,1, Filip Högnabba C, Jeffrey C

    1307 Fungi Representing 1139 Infrageneric Taxa, 317 Genera and 66 Families ⇑ Jolanta Miadlikowska A, , Frank Kauff B,1, Filip Högnabba C, Jeffrey C

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 79 (2014) 132–168 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A multigene phylogenetic synthesis for the class Lecanoromycetes (Ascomycota): 1307 fungi representing 1139 infrageneric taxa, 317 genera and 66 families ⇑ Jolanta Miadlikowska a, , Frank Kauff b,1, Filip Högnabba c, Jeffrey C. Oliver d,2, Katalin Molnár a,3, Emily Fraker a,4, Ester Gaya a,5, Josef Hafellner e, Valérie Hofstetter a,6, Cécile Gueidan a,7, Mónica A.G. Otálora a,8, Brendan Hodkinson a,9, Martin Kukwa f, Robert Lücking g, Curtis Björk h, Harrie J.M. Sipman i, Ana Rosa Burgaz j, Arne Thell k, Alfredo Passo l, Leena Myllys c, Trevor Goward h, Samantha Fernández-Brime m, Geir Hestmark n, James Lendemer o, H. Thorsten Lumbsch g, Michaela Schmull p, Conrad L. Schoch q, Emmanuël Sérusiaux r, David R. Maddison s, A. Elizabeth Arnold t, François Lutzoni a,10, Soili Stenroos c,10 a Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0338, USA b FB Biologie, Molecular Phylogenetics, 13/276, TU Kaiserslautern, Postfach 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany c Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland d Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 358 ESC, 21 Sachem Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA e Institut für Botanik, Karl-Franzens-Universität, Holteigasse 6, A-8010 Graz, Austria f Department of Plant Taxonomy and Nature Conservation, University of Gdan´sk, ul. Wita Stwosza 59, 80-308 Gdan´sk, Poland g Science and Education, The Field Museum, 1400 S.
  • Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska

    Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska

    The Lichenologist (2020), 52,61–181 doi:10.1017/S0024282920000079 Standard Paper Lichens and associated fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska Toby Spribille1,2,3 , Alan M. Fryday4 , Sergio Pérez-Ortega5 , Måns Svensson6, Tor Tønsberg7, Stefan Ekman6 , Håkon Holien8,9, Philipp Resl10 , Kevin Schneider11, Edith Stabentheiner2, Holger Thüs12,13 , Jan Vondrák14,15 and Lewis Sharman16 1Department of Biological Sciences, CW405, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada; 2Department of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, University of Graz, NAWI Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria; 3Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA; 4Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA; 5Real Jardín Botánico (CSIC), Departamento de Micología, Calle Claudio Moyano 1, E-28014 Madrid, Spain; 6Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden; 7Department of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen Allégt. 41, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; 8Faculty of Bioscience and Aquaculture, Nord University, Box 2501, NO-7729 Steinkjer, Norway; 9NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; 10Faculty of Biology, Department I, Systematic Botany and Mycology, University of Munich (LMU), Menzinger Straße 67, 80638 München, Germany; 11Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; 12Botany Department, State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany; 13Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; 14Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic; 15Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic and 16Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, P.O.
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
  • Biodiversity of Minnesota Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera)

    Biodiversity of Minnesota Caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera)

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services Minnesota Department of Natural Resources BIODIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CADDISFLIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY DAVID CHARLES HOUGHTON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ralph W. Holzenthal, Advisor August 2002 1 © David Charles Houghton 2002 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As is often the case, the research that appears here under my name only could not have possibly been accomplished without the assistance of numerous individuals. First and foremost, I sincerely appreciate the assistance of my graduate advisor, Dr. Ralph. W. Holzenthal. His enthusiasm, guidance, and support of this project made it a reality. I also extend my gratitude to my graduate committee, Drs. Leonard C. Ferrington, Jr., Roger D. Moon, and Bruce Vondracek, for their helpful ideas and advice. I appreciate the efforts of all who have collected Minnesota caddisflies and accessioned them into the University of Minnesota Insect Museum, particularly Roger J. Blahnik, Donald G. Denning, David A. Etnier, Ralph W. Holzenthal, Jolanda Huisman, David B. MacLean, Margot P. Monson, and Phil A. Nasby. I also thank David A. Etnier (University of Tennessee), Colin Favret (Illinois Natural History Survey), and Oliver S. Flint, Jr. (National Museum of Natural History) for making caddisfly collections available for my examination. The laboratory assistance of the following individuals-my undergraduate "army"-was critical to the processing of the approximately one half million caddisfly specimens examined during this study and I extend my thanks: Geoffery D. Archibald, Anne M.