DOCSLIB.ORG

ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SAN Franciscoa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SAN Franciscoa ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCOa View of San Francisco, formerly Yerba Buena, in 1846-7, before the discovery of gold (Library of Congress) Third Edition June 2021 Compiled by Mike Wood, Co-Chairman, Rare Plants Committee California Native Plant Society - Yerba Buena Chapter ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO FOOTNOTES This Checklist covers the extirpated and extant native and non-native plants reported from natural and naturalistic areas within the City and County of San Francisco. These areas include lands falling under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco (e.g., the Recreation and Parks Department, the Real Estate Division, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the a Department of Public Works, and the San Francisco Unified School District); the National Park Service (e.g., the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Presidio Trust); the California Department of Parks and Recreation; the University of California, San Francisco; the University of San Francisco; and privately owned parcels. References and data sources are listed in APPENDIX 1. b FAMILY: Family codes, family names and all genera mentioned in the Checklist are listed in APPENDIX 3. SCIENTIFIC NAME: Scientific names and taxonomy conform to the Jepson Flora Project (JFP, 2021). Taxa in BOLD TYPE are listed as endangered, threatened or rare (federal / state / CNPS). Nomenclature used in Howell, et al. (1958) is UNDERLINED. c Taxa highlighted in GRAY are indigenous to San Francisco, but which are presumed extirpated (i.e., those which have not been reported here since 1980, other than those that have been reintroduced). Extirpated indigenous taxa that have been reintroduced are indicated with "(r)". COMMON NAME: common names conform to JFP (2021), which includes a range of common names for most species; only a single common name is included in the Checklist. An explanation of abbreviations and acronyms can be found inside the back cover. NOTES: Synonyms and misapplied names are shown between square brackets [] and conform to JFP (2021), Hrusa (2006), and/or USDA (2021). Where differing from JFP, botanical nomenclature conforming to Plants of the World Online (POWO, 2019), the source utiliZed by iNaturalist.org, is shown as "pending". Historic Distribution: historic San Francisco occurrences are per Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH), A Flora of San Francisco (Howell, et al., 1958), and the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS, 2021). Historical occurrences are those which predate 1980; dates shown indicate earliest known collection or report. Extant Distribution: extant San Francisco occurrences are based on field notes and personal communications with knowledgeable persons; CCH, Calflora.org, iNaturalist.org (research grade d observations only), and published and unpublished technical reports. Taxa reported from 1980 or later are presumed to be extant. Place names for all historic collections or records are listed for each taxon. Up to 20 place names for all contemporary reports are also listed. See APPENDIX 2 for a complete list of San Francisco place names cited in the Checklist. RARITY STATUS conforms to CNDDB (2020, 2021a, 2021b), CNPS (2021), and USFWS (2021). INVASIVE STATUS conforms to Cal-IPC (2021), SFWMA (2010), CDFA (2009), and USDA (2021). See the list of abbreviations and acronyms inside the back cover for an explanation of rarity and invasive status codes. Butterfly host plants conform to O'Brien (2009, pers. comm.) and Caldwell (2020). For an explanation of the CNPS ranking system, click here → https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks e LIFE FORM: conforms to JFP (2021): f = fern or other pteridophyte; h = herb; g = grass or graminoid; gp = geophyte; ss = subshrub; s = shrub; t = tree; v = vine f DURATION: conforms to JFP (2021): a = annual; b = biennial; p = perennial; e = evergreen; d = deciduous HABIT AND ECOLOGY: growth habit, habitats, and elevational ranges conform to JFP (2021). g Wetland Indicator Status (WET) conforms to USACE (2018). Serpentine Affinity Ratings (SERP) conform to Safford and Miller (2020). h # OCCURRENCES: Indicates the number of San Francisco places where each taxon is presumed extant. i FLOWERING PERIOD: conforms to JFP (2021): sp = spring; sum = summer; fall = fall; win = winter; e = early; l = late j ENDEMIC, NATIVE: Endemic and local indigenous status are based on review of Howell, et al. (1958), CCH and JFP (2021). 3rd edition, version dated June 1, 2021 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO TABLE OF CONTENTS Footnotes -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------inside front cover Explanation of Abbreviations and AcronyMs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------inside back cover page Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 What's New ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 By The NuMbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 The Extirpated Plants of San Francisco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 Plant Collecting -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 AcknowledgeMents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 List of Tables Table 1. CoMparison of the 2nd and 3rd Editions of the Checklist ---------------------------------------------------------- 3 Table 2. CoMposition of the Flora of San Francisco ----------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Table 3. Rare Species of San Francisco ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Table 4. Natural and Naturalized Areas with the Highest Diversity of Indigenous Plant Taxa ----------------- 7 Table 5. Natural and Naturalized Areas with the Highest Diversity of Nonnative Plant Taxa ------------------ 7 Table 6. Natural and Naturalized Areas with the Highest Diversity of Invasive Plant Taxa --------------------- 8 Table 7. Most Frequently Occurring Indigenous Plant Taxa ----------------------------------------------------------------8 Table 8. Frequency of Extant Indigenous Plant Taxa --------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Table 9. Most Frequently Occurring Nonnative Plant Taxa -----------------------------------------------------------------9 Table 10. Most Frequently Occurring Invasive Plant Taxa ------------------------------------------------------------------10 Table 11. SuMMary of the Extirpated Flora of San Francisco ---------------------------------------------------------------12 Table 12. Rare and Extirpated Taxa Reintroduced to San Francisco ----------------------------------------------------- 13 Table 13. Newly and Rediscovered Indigenous Taxa -------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Table 14. Taxa for Which San Francisco HerbariuM Voucher SpeciMens are Needed------------------------------- 17 Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Francisco -----------------------------------------------------------------------middle section - pp. 1-95 Appendix 1. References and Data Sources Appendix 2. San Francisco Place NaMes Appendix 3. Plant FaMilies and Genera Included in the Checklist 3rd Edition, version dated June 1, 2021 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF SAN FRANCISCO INTRODUCTION TO THE CHECKLIST T By Mike Wood, Co-Chairman, Rare Plants Committee California Native Plant Society, Yerba Buena Chapter Third Edition, June 1, 2021 At the start of 2020 my wife and I were all set to begin exploring recorded on loose sheets of paper stuffed into files, folders, and the South Pacific. Starting year three of our nomadic life we cabinets, and tucked into the pages of dog-eared copies of A were headed for New Caledonia (to see the serpentine soils and California Flora (Munz and Keck, 1973) and The Jepson Manual native stands of Araucaria), then to island-hop our way towards (Baldwin, et al., 1993). Southeast Asia. But after a month and a half of car camping in Japan, two months of the same in New Zealand, and with ty- The last flora of San Francisco County was completed in 1958 phoon season about to start in the South Pacific we decided to (Howell, et al.). Other local floras to which we frequently refer taKe a breaK in Hawaii before picKing up the trail again. Then include those covering San Bruno Mountain (McClintocK, et al. the world shut down due to the Coronavirus pandemic. 1990) and the Santa Cruz Mountains (Thomas, 1961). Marin County has its updated flora (Howell, et al. 2007) as does the To be sure, there are worse places to get stucK. And we counted East Bay (Ertter and Naumovich, 2013). I asked my colleagues our blessings that we weren’t in the Solomon Islands when the if we shouldn’t undertaKe the effort to compile the species lists pandemic hit. But I needed something to fill my days while we that had been amassed. I was “volunteered” for the job. The 1st waited and hoped for the world to reopen. After
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Fitness FAQ (Updated: 8/23/20)
    Outdoor Fitness FAQ (Updated: 8/23/20) Outdoor Fitness FAQ Contents 1. What is the difference between small and large group fitness? .......................................................... 1 2. Can I apply for both the small group license and a large group permit?.............................................. 1 3. What is the fee for a small group license? ............................................................................................ 1 4. What certifications are required for a small group license? ................................................................ 2 5. What equipment can I bring to the workout and setup ....................................................................... 2 6. What is the fee for a large group permit? ............................................................................................ 2 7. Do all applicants for a large group permit, with and without studios, participate in the lottery? ....... 2 8. What locations are reservable under a large group permit? ................................................................ 2 9. What is a lottery slot? ........................................................................................................................... 2 10. How will the lottery for large group permits work? ............................................................................. 3 11. What is the cost for each slot? ............................................................................................................. 3 12. Are these classes still only
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
    2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 McLaren Bike Park Opening Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager, Recreation and Parks 415‐581‐2554, [email protected] Ananda Hirsch, Capital Manager, Port of San Francisco 415‐274‐0442, [email protected] 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Program Budget Project Revenues 2 Project Expenditures 4 Project Schedules 6 Project Status Summaries 8 Citywide Programs 2930 Citywide Parks 3334 Executive Summary San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Bond Program Budget $M Neighborhood Parks In November 2012, 71.6% of voters approved Proposition B for a Angelo J. Rossi Playground 8.2 $195 million General Obligation Bond, known as the 2012 San Balboa Park 7 Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (the “bond”). Garfield Square 11 George Chri s topher Playground 2.8 This funding will continue a decade of investment in the aging Gilman Playground 1.8 infrastructure of our park system. Specifically, the bond Glen Ca nyon Park 12 allocates: Hyde & Turk Mini Park 1 Joe DiMaggio Playground 5.5 Margaret S. Hayward Playground 14 $99 million for Neighborhood Parks, selected based on Moscone Recreation Center 1.5 community feedback, their physical condition, the variety of Mountain Lake Park 2 amenities offered,
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Spring/Summer Newsletter
    Debbie’s Farewell Party Taking Flight: News From The Ridge 2012 On Saturday April 14th, we wished Debbie (Waters) Petersen all the best on her Board of Directors new journey post-Hawk Ridge. Over 50 were in attendance to celebrate, roast, Spring/Summer Issue | 2012 and say good-bye. Debbie will be teaching secondary life science in Walker, MN Chair: this fall. She has established a great education foundation for Hawk Ridge. We Golden Eagle by Mark MartellRidge Karen Stubenvoll thank her for her 11 years of hard work and dedication. Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in North America are primarily found in the west- Treasurer: ern United States and Canada from Alaska south into north-central Mexico. Historically, small Molly Thompson breeding populations also occurred in eastern North America from Canada south into the U.S. through the Appalachian and Adirondack Mountains, but currently are found only in Canada. There are no breeding records from any upper Mid- Secretary: western state. Jan Green A very large raptor, Golden Eagles have brown plumage which in the adults is complemented by a golden crown and gray bars on the tail. Juveniles have plumage similar to the adults but with whit at the base of the secondaries and inner primaries and a large patch of white on the tail. Golden Eagles are typically birds of hilly or mountainous open coun- Member: try. However in Eastern North America they are found in forested areas that have small openings which the birds use for David Alexander hunting. This eagle feeds mainly on medium sized mammals such as hares, rabbits, squirrels and prairie dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Devonian Plant Fossils a Window Into the Past
    EPPC 2018 Sponsors Academic Partners PROGRAM & ABSTRACTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Scientific Committee: Zhe-kun Zhou Angelica Feurdean Jenny McElwain, Chair Tao Su Walter Finsinger Fraser Mitchell Lutz Kunzmann Graciela Gil Romera Paddy Orr Lisa Boucher Lyudmila Shumilovskikh Geoffrey Clayton Elizabeth Wheeler Walter Finsinger Matthew Parkes Evelyn Kustatscher Eniko Magyari Colin Kelleher Niall W. Paterson Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos Benjamin Bomfleur Benjamin Dietre Convenors: Matthew Pound Fabienne Marret-Davies Marco Vecoli Ulrich Salzmann Havandanda Ombashi Charles Wellman Wolfram M. Kürschner Jiri Kvacek Reed Wicander Heather Pardoe Ruth Stockey Hartmut Jäger Christopher Cleal Dieter Uhl Ellen Stolle Jiri Kvacek Maria Barbacka José Bienvenido Diez Ferrer Borja Cascales-Miñana Hans Kerp Friðgeir Grímsson José B. Diez Patricia Ryberg Christa-Charlotte Hofmann Xin Wang Dimitrios Velitzelos Reinhard Zetter Charilaos Yiotis Peta Hayes Jean Nicolas Haas Joseph D. White Fraser Mitchell Benjamin Dietre Jennifer C. McElwain Jenny McElwain Marie-José Gaillard Paul Kenrick Furong Li Christine Strullu-Derrien Graphic and Website Design: Ralph Fyfe Chris Berry Peter Lang Irina Delusina Margaret E. Collinson Tiiu Koff Andrew C. Scott Linnean Society Award Selection Panel: Elena Severova Barry Lomax Wuu Kuang Soh Carla J. Harper Phillip Jardine Eamon haughey Michael Krings Daniela Festi Amanda Porter Gar Rothwell Keith Bennett Kamila Kwasniewska Cindy V. Looy William Fletcher Claire M. Belcher Alistair Seddon Conference Organization: Jonathan P. Wilson
    [Show full text]
  • Presidio of San Francisco an Outline of Its Evolution As a U.S
    Special History Study Presidio of San Francisco An Outline of Its Evolution as a U.S. Army Post, 1847-1990 Presidio of San Francisco GOLDEN GATE National Recreation Area California NOV 1CM992 . Special History Study Presidio of San Francisco An Outline of Its Evolution as a U.S. Army Post, 1847-1990 August 1992 Erwin N. Thompson Sally B. Woodbridge Presidio of San Francisco GOLDEN GATE National Recreation Area California United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Denver Service Center "Significance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" Brian W. Dippie Printed on Recycled Paper CONTENTS PREFACE vii ABBREVIATIONS viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNINGS, 1846-1861 5 A. Takeover 5 B. The Indians 8 C. The Boundaries 9 D. Adobes, Forts, and Other Matters 10 CHAPTER 2: CIVIL WAR, 1861-1865 21 A. Organizing 21 B. Keeping the Peace 22 C. Building the Post 23 CHAPTER 3: THE PRESIDIO COMES OF AGE, 1866-1890 31 A. Peacetime 31 B. The Division Comes to the Presidio 36 C. Officers' Club, 20 46 D. Other Buildings 47 E. Troop Duty 49 F. Fort Winfield Scott 51 CHAPTER 4: BEAUTIFICATION, GROWTH, CAMPS, EARTHQUAKE, FORT WINFIELD SCOTT, 1883-1907 53 A. Beautification 53 B. Growth 64 C. Camps and Cantonments 70 D. Earthquake 75 E. Fort Winfield Scott, Again 78 CHAPTER 5: THE PRESIDIO AND THE FORT, 1906-1930 81 A. A Headquarters for the Division 81 B. Housing and Other Structures, 1907-1910 81 C. Infantry Terrace 84 D. Fires and Firemen 86 E. Barracks 35 and Cavalry Stables 90 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Eriogonum Visheri A
    Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project December 18, 2006 Juanita A. R. Ladyman, Ph.D. JnJ Associates LLC 6760 S. Kit Carson Cir E. Centennial, CO 80122 Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006, December 18). Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumvisheri.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The time spent and help given by all the people and institutions listed in the reference section are gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, in particular Christine Dirk, and the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, in particular David Ode, for their generosity in making their records, reports, and photographs available. I thank the Montana Natural Heritage Program, particularly Martin Miller, Mark Gabel of the Black Hills University Herbarium, Robert Tatina of the Dakota Wesleyan University, Christine Niezgoda of the Field Museum of Natural History, Carrie Kiel Academy of Natural Sciences, Dave Dyer of the University of Montana Herbarium, Caleb Morse of the R.L. McGregor Herbarium, Robert Kaul of the C. E. Bessey Herbarium, John La Duke of the University of North Dakota Herbarium, Joe Washington of the Dakota National Grasslands, and Doug Sargent of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands - Region 2, for the information they provided. I also appreciate the access to files and assistance given to me by Andrew Kratz, Region 2 USDA Forest Service, and Chuck Davis, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 7Th Edition
    ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names th 7 Edition ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori Published by All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be The Internation Seed Testing Association (ISTA) reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted Zürichstr. 50, CH-8303 Bassersdorf, Switzerland in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior ©2020 International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) permission in writing from ISTA. ISBN 978-3-906549-77-4 ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names 1st Edition 1966 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Prof P. A. Linehan 2nd Edition 1983 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. H. Pirson 3rd Edition 1988 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. W. A. Brandenburg 4th Edition 2001 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 5th Edition 2007 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 6th Edition 2013 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. J. H. Wiersema 7th Edition 2019 ISTA Nomenclature Committee Chair: Dr. M. Schori 2 7th Edition ISTA List of Stabilized Plant Names Content Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Symbols and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Genus Lotus (Leguminosae, Loteae): Evidence from Nrits Sequences and Morphology
    813 Phylogeny of the genus Lotus (Leguminosae, Loteae): evidence from nrITS sequences and morphology G.V. Degtjareva, T.E. Kramina, D.D. Sokoloff, T.H. Samigullin, C.M. Valiejo-Roman, and A.S. Antonov Abstract: Lotus (120–130 species) is the largest genus of the tribe Loteae. The taxonomy of Lotus is complicated, and a comprehensive taxonomic revision of the genus is needed. We have conducted phylogenetic analyses of Lotus based on nrITS data alone and combined with data on 46 morphological characters. Eighty-one ingroup nrITS accessions represent- ing 71 Lotus species are studied; among them 47 accessions representing 40 species are new. Representatives of all other genera of the tribe Loteae are included in the outgroup (for three genera, nrITS sequences are published for the first time). Forty-two of 71 ingroup species were not included in previous morphological phylogenetic studies. The most important conclusions of the present study are (1) addition of morphological data to the nrITS matrix produces a better resolved phy- logeny of Lotus; (2) previous findings that Dorycnium and Tetragonolobus cannot be separated from Lotus at the generic level are well supported; (3) Lotus creticus should be placed in section Pedrosia rather than in section Lotea; (4) a broad treatment of section Ononidium is unnatural and the section should possibly not be recognized at all; (5) section Heineke- nia is paraphyletic; (6) section Lotus should include Lotus conimbricensis; then the section is monophyletic; (7) a basic chromosome number of x = 6 is an important synapomorphy for the expanded section Lotus; (8) the segregation of Lotus schimperi and allies into section Chamaelotus is well supported; (9) there is an apparent functional correlation be- tween stylodium and keel evolution in Lotus.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado
    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
    [Show full text]