DOCSLIB.ORG

Forsskål and the Interpretation of Article 23 Author(S): C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forsskål and the Interpretation of Article 23 Author(S): C Forsskål and the Interpretation of Article 23 Author(s): C. Jeffrey Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 144-147 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1221579 . Accessed: 23/07/2012 03:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org FORSSKAL AND THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 23 C. Jeffrey' Summary Article 23 is shown to be equivocal with respectto the validity of specificnames publishedin the 'FloraAegyptiaco-Arabica' of ForsskAl(1775) and similarworks. Burdetand Perret(1983) have concludedthat, under the provisionsofArt. 23.6(c)of the International Code of BotanicalNomenclature (Voss et al., 1983), all the specificnames first publishedin certain worksof Asso, Aublet,Forsskil and Grimmmust be regardedas not validly published,on the grounds thatthese areworks in whichthe Linnaeansystem of binarynomenclature for speciesis not consistently employed.Their interpretation of this Articleis supportedby Friiset al. (1984), who rightlyemphasize the undesirablenomenclatural consequences of such a conclusion and invite comments as to how they might best be avoided. Greuter(1984) however disagreeswith the conclusionsof these authors, arguingthat it is neither the intention, nor the implication, of Art. 23.6(c) that all the species in a work must be designatedby Linnaeanbinomials, but that only the named species need be. We arethus confrontedwith two differentinterpretations of Art. 23.6(c),and it is necessarytherefore to examine Art. 23 to identify the featuresresponsible for such equivocation. Study of the papersof Burdetand Perret,Friis et al. and Greuterreveals that there are three areas of doubt with respectto Art. 23 and that they concernthe terms 'name', 'epithet'and 'consistently'. These will thereforebe examined in turn. The Meaning of 'Name' Art. 6.6 states that, unless otherwiseindicated, the word 'name' as employedin the Code means a name that has been validly published. Unfortunately,the Code largely ignores this provision of otherwiseindication; for example, the word 'name' in Art. 32 cannot be interpretedas 'a name that has been validly published'without makingnonsense of the whole Article. Friis et al. concludethat Art. 6.6 implies that names may be either validly publishedor invalidlypublished and that therefore a species may be 'named'in a work irrespectiveof whetheror not the name of the species has a form which complies with the provisions of Art. 23. This conclusion is certainlysupported by the broad sense in which we must interpretthe word name as being employed in Art. 32. They thus conclude that, under the Code, the fact that a species is not binary-namedin a work does not imply that it is un-named.Friis et al., like Burdet& Perret,therefore consider that if a publishedwork includeseven only one name that is not binary(and which is thereforeinvalid underArt. 32.1), then all the names in that work are to be regardedas not validly publishedunder Art. 23.6(c). On the other hand, Art. 23.1 defines the name of a species as a binarycombination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet. Leaving aside for the moment what is meant by 'a singleepithet', we may concludethat it followstherefore that any otherkind of designation of a species is not to be regardedas a name in the sense of Art. 23.1, but must be regardedas a means of referenceto an un-named species in the sense of the Code. Thereforeany species so designated must be consideredto be an un-namedspecies in the sense of Art. 23.1, its designationto consist of words not intended as "names" under Art. 23.6(a), and thereforeits post-initial terms not to be regardedas specificepithets underArt. 23.6. On this interpretation,which is the one implicit in the argumentof Greuter,the cases fallingunder Art. 23.6(c) are eitherworks in which all species are un- named in the sense of Art. 23.1 or works in which there is a mixture of binary-namedspecies and un-namedspecies otherwisedesignated. It follows that in the latter,insofar as the named species in this sense areconcerned, the Linnaeansystem of binarynomenclature must be regardedas consistently employed. Thus any work in which even only one species is given a properLinnaean binomial, and the rest designatedin otherways, must be regardedas consistentlyusing the Linnaeansystem of binary nomenclaturefor the species it did in fact name. Thus we have two conflictinginterpretations of Art. 23.6(c), one, that a work in which only one speciesdesignation is not binarycannot be regardedas a vehicle of valid publicationof specificnames, the other, that a work in which at least one name is binary can be regardedas a vehicle of valid publicationof the binaryspecific names it does contain. EitherBurdet and Perretand Friis et al. are The Herbarium,Royal Botanic Gardens,Kew, Richmond,Surrey, UK. 144 TAXON VOLUME 34 right, in which case, as Greuterpoints out, the nomenclaturalconsequences would be disastrous,or Greuteris right,in which case the Article is virtuallymeaningless. There is no logical half-wayhouse (Greuter,to his credit, tries to inhabit a commonsensicalone!). The only unequivocalconclusion is that the presentwording of the Article is unsatisfactory. The Meaning of 'Epithet' This conclusion is reinforcedby considerationof the use of the term epithet in Art. 23. As Friis et al. point out, Art. 23.1 rules that if an epithet consists of one or more words, these are to be united or hyphenated,and this seems to be in conflict with Art. 23.6(c), for the Code gives no guidanceon how to distinguishbetween phrasesintended as single specificepithets but consistingof two or more separatewords when originallypublished, and the post-genericterms of otherdesignations not intended as specific epithets. Example 1 of Art. 23 makes it seem that by epithet, it is the equivalent of a Linnaeannomen triviale that is implied.Also, Art. 23.6 rulesthat wordsnot intended[by their authors] as epithets are not to be regardedas specific epithets. Together, these two provisions imply that designationsof species consistingof a genericname followed by one or more words not intendedas specific epithets (such as provisional designationsof species by numbers,letters, vernacularsor de- scriptivephrases, and Linnaeannomina specificalegitima and comparablepolynomials, consisting of a generic name followed by a descriptive phrase of one or more words) are not to be regardedas specificnames. Furthermore,Example 10 implies that designationsof species consistingof a generic name followed by a double or multiple epithet of two or more separatewords that have no mutual relationship(other than grammatical)are also not to be regardedas specificepithets, though as Donk (1962) points out, they are not to be confusedwith biverbalor multiverbalepithets which, as Example 1 makesclear, are to be regardedas specificepithets and are,under Art. 23. 1, to be unitedor hyphenated (as appropriateto the provisions of Art. 73). It is clearthat the distinctionsbetween these differentcategories of designationsare important,and they couldwith advantagebe set out moreexplicitly in the Article.As shownbelow, they areparticularly relevantto any considerationof the work of ForsskAl(1775). The Meaning of 'Consistently' Murray(1893) gives threesenses in whichthe wordconsistently can correctlybe used-in accordance or compatibly with something;in accordancewith itself; or uniformly,with persistentuniformity. Clearly,in Art. 23.6(c), it cannot be understoodas being employed in either of the first two senses; otherwise, I could consistently employ Linnaeanbinary nomenclatureif I used it for every other species, or every tenth species, or for species occurringin Africa, in any account I wrote, provided only that I pointed out in the work that I intended to do so. It can be taken as employed in only the thirdsense, i.e., constantly,exclusively, without exception. Thus, in contrastto whatGreuter concludes, the Frenchversion of the Code does renderthe intendedmeaning accurately ('d'une fagon constante'), and the works of Asso, Aublet, Forsskil and Grimm cannot be excludedfrom the categoryof works not consistentlyemploying Linnaeanbinary nomenclature on such semantic grounds.In view of the uncertaintygenerated, however, it would perhapsbe better to revise the wordingof the Article such that the word consistentlyneed no longerbe employed. The Workof Forsskdl(1775) It would also be an improvementif the Articledistinguished more clearly,and dealt with in separate sections, the differentcategories of worksto which Art. 23.6(c) applies,and which were distinguished by Greuter.The firstcategory consists of works Pre-Linnaeanin the sense that they do not have a set of Linnaeanbinary names but only descriptivepolynomials or nomina specificalegitima, amongst which, by chance, one or more may be reducedto a single word. As Greuterstates, these are ruled out under Art. 23.6(a). The second
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Project: 2003-NPS-305-P Seed Fates of Arctomecon Californica By
    Project: 2003-NPS-305-P Seed Fates of Arctomecon californica By: Laura Megill & Dr. Lawrence Walker University of Nevada, Las Vegas Final Report Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan June 30, 2006 ** A copy of the finished thesis and subsequent publications will be sent upon completion. INTRODUCTION The Las Vegas bearpoppy, Arctomecon californica Torr. and Frem., is a rare herbaceous perennial endemic to the Mojave Desert that mainly inhabits gypsum outcrops. The Las Vegas bearpoppy is listed as Critically Endangered by the State of Nevada (Mistretta et al., 1995). A vital aspect of the life history of the bearpoppy that has been overlooked in previous studies is the fate of seeds. The unknown fate of the bearpoppy seeds provides an information gap in conservation management plans that is critical to plan mitigation measures (Powell and Walker 2003). Therefore, the objective of this research project is to determine the seed fates of the Las Vegas bearpoppy to further promote conservation efforts. The scope of this project follows seed fates through seed production, seed dispersal, and granivory to incorporation within the soil seed bank. In addition, seed viability testing will occur throughout the project to substantiate seed fate data. The research data will be collected from four study areas with an additional area added for soil seed bank studies traversing the natural range of the Las Vegas bearpoppy over a two-year consecutive period. The following hypotheses will be addressed in this research study: (1) Seed production corresponds to capsule size and number of rosettes. (2) Primary seed dispersal declines leptokurtically from the source.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plant Press the ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
    The Plant Press THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Volume 36, Number 1 Summer 2013 In this Issue: Plants of the Madrean Archipelago 1-4 Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Conference 5-8 Abstracts of Botanical Papers Presented in the Madrean Archipelago Conference Southwest Coralbean (Erythrina flabelliformis). Plus 11-19 Conservation Priority Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Setting for Arizona G1 Conference and G2 Plant Species: A Regional Assessment by Thomas R. Van Devender1. Photos courtesy the author. & Our Regular Features Today the term ‘bioblitz’ is popular, meaning an intensive effort in a short period to document the diversity of animals and plants in an area. The first bioblitz in the southwestern 2 President’s Note United States was the 1848-1855 survey of the new boundary between the United States and Mexico after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 ended the Mexican-American War. 8 Who’s Who at AZNPS The border between El Paso, Texas and the Colorado River in Arizona was surveyed in 1855- 9 & 17 Book Reviews 1856, following the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Besides surveying and marking the border with monuments, these were expeditions that made extensive animal and plant collections, 10 Spotlight on a Native often by U.S. Army physicians. Botanists John M. Bigelow (Charphochaete bigelovii), Charles Plant C. Parry (Agave parryi), Arthur C. V. Schott (Stephanomeria schotti), Edmund K. Smith (Rhamnus smithii), George Thurber (Stenocereus thurberi), and Charles Wright (Cheilanthes wrightii) made the first systematic plant collection in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. ©2013 Arizona Native Plant In 1892-94, Edgar A. Mearns collected 30,000 animal and plant specimens on the second Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Sunflower Tithonia Diversifolia
    Invasive plant Japanese sunflower Tithonia diversifolia Japanese sunflower is native to Central America. It is a Legal requirements serious environmental weed, forming dense thickets and out-competing native vegetation. Japanese sunflower is not a prohibited or restricted invasive plant under the Biosecurity Act 2014. However, Japanese sunflower is commonly a weed on roadsides by law, everyone has a general biosecurity obligation and embankments in coastal Queensland and northern (GBO) to take reasonable and practical steps to minimise coastal New South Wales. It is widespread and common the risks associated with invasive plants under their in far north Queensland, particularly on roadsides, control. embankments, unmanaged lands and fire degraded hillsides. Local governments must have a biosecurity plan that A similar species Tithonia rotundifolia is known as Mexican covers invasive plants in their area. This plan may include sunflower. This weed is smaller in height and flower size, actions to be taken on certain species. Some of these and its distribution as an environmental weed is similar to actions may be required under local laws. Contact your Japanese sunflower in Queensland but not as common in local government for more information. New South Wales. Description situations specified on the product labels. A permit held by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries allows Japanese sunflower stands up to to 3 m. Flowers are people generally to use some herbicide products to control sunflower-like heads up to 10 cm across, with yellow flower Japanese sunflower as an environmental weed in various centres and reddish-orange petals 4–5 cm long. The stems situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Sfblake and Tithonia Diversifolia
    Prospective agents for the biological control of Tithonia rotundifolia (Mill.) S.F.Blake and Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A.Gray (Asteraceae) in South Africa D.O. Simelane1*, K.V. Mawela1 & A. Fourie2 1Agricultural Research Council-Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X134, Queenswood, 0121 South Africa 2Agricultural Research Council-Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X5017 Stellenbosch, 7599 South Africa Starting in 2007, two weedy sunflower species, Tithonia rotundifolia (Mill.) S.F.Blake and Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A.Gray (Asteraceae: Heliantheae), were targeted for biological control in South Africa. Surveys conducted in their native range (Mexico) revealed that there were five potential biological control agents for T.rotundifolia, and three of these are currently undergoing host-specificity and performance evaluations in South Africa. Two leaf-feeding beetles, Zygogramma signatipennis (Stål) and Zygogramma piceicollis (Stål) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), are the most promising biological control agents for T. rotundifolia: prelimi- nary host-specificity trials suggest that they are adequately host-specific. The stem-boring beetle, Lixus fimbriolatus Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is also highly damaging to T. rotundifolia, but its host range is yet to be determined. Two other stem-boring beetles, Canidia mexicana Thomson (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and Rhodobaenus auctus Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), have also been recorded on T. rotundifolia, and these will be considered for further testing if L. fimbriolatus is found to be unsuitable for release in South Africa. Only two insect species were imported as candidate agents on T. diversifolia, the leaf-feeding butterfly Chlosyne sp. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), and an unidentified stem-boring moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): the latter was tested in quarantine but rejected because it attacked several sunflower cultivars.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Archaeoparasitology By
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE DIGGING DEEPER: ENHANCING ARCHAEOPARASITOLOGY BY COMBINING MOLECULAR METHODS WITH TRADITIONAL MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACHES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By LAUREN MARIE CLEELAND Norman, Oklahoma 2015 DIGGING DEEPER: ENHANCING ARCHAEOPARASITOLOGY BY COMBINING MOLECULAR METHODS WITH TRADITIONAL MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACHES A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Cecil M. Lewis, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Susan C. Vehik, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Tassie Hirschfeld ______________________________ Dr. Patrick Livingood ______________________________ Dr. Paul Lawson © Copyright by LAUREN MARIE CLEELAND 2015 All Rights Reserved. I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my husband, Peter Riley Cleeland (1966-2012). Acknowledgements I offer my deepest gratitude to the members of my committee, who have encouraged and supported me through the doctoral process. Especially, I thank Dr. Cecil Lewis and Dr. Susan Vehik for their guidance and the gift of their knowledge, and supporting me through the loss of my husband, which delayed this process. I thank Dr. Tassie Hirschfeld for her insight and direction in thinking about the modern implications of prehistoric parasite work. I thank Dr. Patrick Livingood for his wisdom and enthusiasm and his willingness to always discuss a variety of topics. I thank Dr. Paul Lawson for bringing a broader ecological consideration to the study of prehistoric parasitism. I thank the University of Oklahoma Graduate School for providing the opportunity for me to study and gain the experience I need to master the concepts that have culminated in this dissertation. I thank the Department of Anthropology for their support and guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican Sunflower, Tithonia Rotundifolia
    A Horticulture Information article from the Wisconsin Master Gardener website, posted 6 Aug 2018 Mexican sunfl ower, Tithonia rotundifolia The genus Tithonia in the daisy family (Asteraceae) includes 10-15 species of bushy annuals, perennials and shrubs native to Mexico and Central America that have large, brightly colored daisy-like fl owers on thick stems. Mexican sunfl ower, T. rotundifolia, is a vigorous, drought tolerant warm season annual that is easy to grow in the ornamental garden with other common names of red sunfl ower of just tithonia. Tithonia plants grow 4-6+ feet tall, with a large central stalk and a somewhat gangly branching habit. The stems can be brittle. The dark green leaves are ovate to deltoid (triangular) in shape, with serrate to crenate margins. The coarse leaves are usually entire but occasionally will be three lobed. Mexican sunfl ower, Tithonia rotundifolia, is a tall plant. The foliage and stems are covered with a soft downy fuzz, and the underside of The foliage of Mexican sunfl ower is coarse and hairy (L); the ovoid to deltoid the leaves are hairy. leaves have serrate margins and are usually entire (C) but may be three lobed (R). Flowers are produced from mid-summer until frost. The solitary fl owers are borne on fragile hollow peduncles (fl ower stems) that are susceptible to being bent and are often broken by birds. Each 3-inch blossom has a number of bright red to orange ray fl owers surrounding the central yellow disk fl owers. Thick, fuzzy buds (L) open (LC) to reveal bright red to orange ray fl owers (C) surrounding yellow disk fl owers (RC) that remain for a while after the ray fl owers fall off (R).
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of the Genus Tithonia •. • •
    .;. .• • • REVISION OF THE GENUS TITHONIA •. • • By S. F. BLAKE. INTRODUCTION. The genus Tith01lia, originally described in 1789 in Jussieu's Genera 1 without citation of species, was adopted by J. F. Gmelin' two years later, and the single known species was given the binomial T. unijWra, a name which has been universally displaced by the later Tithooia tagetijlqra, published by Desfontaines in 1802 with a full description and plate. The same plant, grown by Philip Mi lIer in his Chelsea garden from seed sent presumably from Veracruz by William Houstoun, had been described in the eighth edition of the Gardeners' Dictionary in 1768 as Tagetes rotundifolia, and as this is the earliest binomial given the species it must now be known as Tithonia rOflundifolia. It is a showy annual with large, orange or golden-yellow heads, much like the common sunflower in appearance except for the yellow disk, and seems worthy the attention of horticulturists. As here recognized, the genus Tithooia includes ten species, native from northern Mexico to Panama. One species, T. rotundifolia, occurs also in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and in Venezuela (where certainly introduced), and another, T. diversifolia, has become a weed in Ceylon and Burma and at Singapore. As the relationships of the genus to Helianthus and Viguiera have already been COn­ sidered in some detail by the writer in another publication,' only brief notice of them is necessary here. The typical pappus-bearing members of the genus are separated from H elianthU8 by their per­ sistent pappus of awns and squamellae, and from Viguiera chiefly by their fistulose peduncles and by certain details of involucre.
    [Show full text]
  • Flórula Vascular De La Sierra De Catorce Y Territorios Adyacentes, San Luis Potosi, México
    Acta Botanica Mexicana 78: 1-38 (2007) FLÓRULA VASCULAR DE LA SIERRA DE CATORCE Y TERRITORIOS ADYACENTES, SAN LUIS POTOSI, MÉXICO ONÉSIMO GONZÁLEZ COSTILLA1,2, JOAQUÍN GIMÉNEZ DE AZCÁRATE3, JOSÉ GARCÍA PÉREZ1 Y JUAN RogELIO AGUIRRE RIVERA1 1Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Instituto de Investigación de Zonas Desérticas, Altair 200, Fraccionamiento El Llano, Apdo. postal 504, 78377 San Luis Potosí, México. 2Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Departamento de Biología Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Madrid, España. [email protected] 3Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Departamento de Botánica, Escuela Politécnica Superior, 27002 Lugo, España. RESUMEN La Sierra de Catorce, localizada en el norte del estado de San Luis Potosí, reúne algunas de las principales cimas del Desierto Chihuahuense cuyas cotas superan los 3000 metros. Ello ha favorecido que la Sierra sea una importante área de diversificación de la flora y las fitocenosis de dicha ecorregión. A partir del estudio fitosociológico de la vegetación del territorio, que se está realizando desde 1999, se ha obtenido un catálogo preliminar de su flora. Hasta el momento la lista de plantas vasculares está conformada por 526 especies y cuatro taxa infraespecíficos, agrupados en 293 géneros y 88 familias. Las familias y géneros mejor representados son Asteraceae, Poaceae, Cactaceae, Fabaceae, Fagaceae y Lamiaceae, así como Quercus, Opuntia, Muhlenbergia, Salvia, Agave, Bouteloua y Dyssodia, respectivamente. Asimismo se señalan los tipos de vegetación representativos del área que albergan los diferentes taxa. Por último, con base en diferentes listas de flora amenazada, se identificaron las especies incluidas en alguna de las categorías reconocidas. Palabras clave: Desierto Chihuahuense, estudio fitosociológico, flora, flora ame- nazada, México, San Luis Potosí, Sierra de Catorce.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List
    Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Disclaimer Lake Havasu City has revised the recommended landscaping plant list. This new list consists of plants that can be adapted to desert environments in the Southwestern United States. This list only contains water conscious species classified as having very low, low, and low-medium water use requirements. Species that are classified as having medium or higher water use requirements were not permitted on this list. Such water use classification is determined by the type of plant, its average size, and its water requirements compared to other plants. For example, a large tree may be classified as having low water use requirements if it requires a low amount of water compared to most other large trees. This list is not intended to restrict what plants residents choose to plant in their yards, and this list may include plant species that may not survive or prosper in certain desert microclimates such as those with lower elevations or higher temperatures. In addition, this list is not intended to be a list of the only plants allowed in the region, nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list of all desert-appropriate plants capable of surviving in the region. This list was created with the intention to help residents, businesses, and landscapers make informed decisions on which plants to landscape that are water conscious and appropriate for specific environmental conditions. Lake Havasu City does not require the use of any or all plants found on this list. List Characteristics This list is divided between trees, shrubs, groundcovers, vines, succulents and perennials.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Mexican Sunflower
    The Native Mexican Sunflower By Ray Novitske, Fairfax Master Gardener Tithonia, also known as a Mexican sunflower, sounds more like a city in Michigan or an eastern European country than a native Mexican sunflower. The plant was named for Tithonus, a man loved by Aurora, goddess of the dawn in Roman mythology. Of the two major species, Tithonia diversifolia and Tithonia rotundifolia, I am growing the later for the first time this summer. There are a handful of popular cultivars available such as ‘Fiesta del Sol,’ ‘Goldfinger,’ and ‘Torch.’ This member of the Aster family is a native of Mexico and Central America. It appealed to me because of its by author by sizzling orange flowers and its large stately presence in a garden that can’t be missed. It is noted as a pollinator photo: photo: magnet, attracting hummingbirds because of its color, along with bees and butterflies for the pollen. While Tithonia rotundifolia tending to my Tithonia, I swatted away a hummingbird from my head, initially thinking it was a bee. The bumblebees prefer my Echinops and Echinacea, but the small bees adore the Tithonia. I planted these from seed indoors and transplanted them into my heat garden along the sunny south-facing side of a brick house. They are drought tolerant, prefer full sun and average soil and love hot weather. Rich soil tends to produce weak stems and lush foliage at the expense of the flowers. They are fast growers, and now stand at 5 feet (1.5 m) tall in my garden. I have them growing in average but well-drained soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Tracking List
    Nevada Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2021 The Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) A separate list, the Plant and Animal Watch List, systematically curates information on Nevada's contains taxa that could become at-risk in the future. endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare, and at-risk plants and animals providing the most comprehensive Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are source of information on Nevada’s imperiled organized by taxonomic group, and presented biodiversity. alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Currently, there are 639 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, Nevada's health and economic well-being depend 209 invertebrates, 65 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 27 birds, and 37 mammals. challenge increases as population and land-use pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top Documentation of population status, locations, or 10 states for both the diversity and the vulnerability of other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on its living heritage. With early planning and responsible this list are always welcome. Literature citations with development, economic growth and our biological taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are resources can coexist. NDNH is a central source for also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site information critical to achieving this balance. Survey Report form is available on our website under Management priorities for the state’s imperiled the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for biodiversity are continually assessed, providing submitting information to NDNH.
    [Show full text]
  • Naomi S. Fraga Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
    The California Deserts: Plant Life at the Extremes Naomi S. Fraga Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Red Pass, Death Valley NP Eastern Kern County, California Western Mojave Desert 29 million acres (45,000 sq mi), or 28% of California's landmass. GIS layer source: Omernick ecoregions level 3 Great Basin Mojave Sonoran A Conspiracy of Extremes Bruce Pavlick- 2008 The California Deserts - Topography: 14,246 to -279 ft. - Geology: Limestone, granite, sand dunes - Temperature: below freezing to 134°F (1913) - Changing history over the past 12,000 years - Transition to modern desert complete by 8,500 to 5,000 years ago Krascheninnikovia lanata (winterfat) “Water, water, water....There is no shortage of water in the desert but exactly the right amount, a perfect ratio of water to rock, water to sand, insuring that wide free open, generous spacing among plants and animals, homes and towns and cities, which makes the arid West so different from any other part of the nation. There is no lack of water here unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.” ― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness Dutch Cleanser Mine, Red Rock Canyon SP Desert Flora - 2377 taxa native to desert (37% of the CA flora) - 785 taxa that do not occur elsewhere in CA (33%) - 232 naturalized taxa (9%) when compared CA (17%) Sources Desert Jepson Manual (2002) Jepson e-flora (2017) Pavlick (2008) Hesperocallis undulata (desert lily) Topographic diversity= species diversity Great Basin 1363 Taxa Mojave 1409 Taxa Sonoran 709 Taxa Remarkable Flora Dr. Frank Vasek’s students circling King Clone on April 1, 1979.
    [Show full text]