DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Assessment for Torrey's Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Assessment for Torrey's Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum Conservation Assessment for Torrey’s Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth.) Steven R. Hill, Ph.D. Division of Biodiversity and Ecological Entomology Biotic Surveys and Monitoring Section 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region (Region 9), Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests INHS Technical Report 2007 (54) Date of Issue: 2 November 2007 Cover photo: Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth., from the NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia website, Photo by Troy Weldy, New York Natural Heritage Program. http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/nhpeli.jsp This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 2 Conservation Assessment for Torrey’s Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth.) Table of Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................5 Nomenclature and Taxonomy..........................................................................................................6 Description of the Species................................................................….……..................................7 Habitat and Ecology.........................................................................................................................8 Distribution and Abundance..........................................................................................................11 Protection Status............................................................................................................................14 Life History....................................................................................................................................16 Population Biology and Viability..................................................................................................17 Potential Threats............................................................................................................................18 Research and Monitoring...............................................................................................................20 Restoration.....................................................................................................................................22 Summary........................................................................................................................................23 References......................................................................................................................................24 Websites Consulted........................................................................................................................27 Contacts..........................................................................................................................................28 Appendix 1. Representative specimens of Pycnanthemum torreyi examined or cited in the literature............................………………….................................................…................30 Appendix 2. The distribution of Pycnanthemum torreyi in the United States. Information from herbarium specimens and the literature.........………………………................................31 Appendix 3. Natural Diversity Database Element Ranking System..............................................33 3 Conservation Assessment for Torrey’s Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth.) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the staffs of the United States Forest Service, Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests, for the opportunity to compile these conservation assessments and for their invaluable assistance with data and field opportunities. Beth Shimp and Steve Widowski have been particularly helpful in facilitating these cost share agreements. I would also like to thank the grants and contracts staff of the Illinois Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois, Champaign, for their assistance with logistics necessary to complete these reports. Curators of several herbaria, cited in the appendices to this report, were very helpful in allowing access to the collections to obtain data on this plant. Several people also assisted by contributing information on this locally rare plant, including Kanchi Gandhi at Harvard University, George Yatskievych in Missouri, Mike Homoya in Indiana, Henrietta and Ken Chambers in Oregon, Phil Cantino and Mike Vincent in Ohio, and Andy Nelson in New York. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region, under Cost Share Award No. AG03-CS-11090804-024. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region. 4 Conservation Assessment for Torrey’s Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Conservation Assessment is a review of the taxonomy, distribution, habitat, ecology, and status of Torrey’s Mountainmint, Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth. (often seen as ‘torrei’), throughout the United States and in the U.S.D.A. Forest Service lands, Eastern Region (Region 9), in particular. This document also serves to update knowledge about the potential threats and conservation efforts regarding Torrey’s Mountainmint to date. Torrey’s Mountainmint is a fragrant perennial herb normally found in drier uplands, and it has rather conspicuous whitish to purplish flowers clustered in dense heads on its sparse branches. There may be some taxonomic problems with this plant. There are only about 20 living populations extant, and the species is known only from the United States; it has a somewhat scattered distribution in the south-central and eastern states, and it is known historically from sixteen to twenty states plus the District of Columbia, depending on one’s interpretation of the species, from New Hampshire west to Kansas, south to Tennessee and Georgia. It has greatly declined in recent decades. Globally, its ranking is G2 (Imperiled world-wide); its National status in the United States is N2 (Imperiled nationally). While rare everywhere, it is, or was, probably most common in Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Jersey. Torrey’s Mountainmint is listed as Endangered in six states, Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania and it has been listed as a plant of Special Concern in Tennessee. It may have become extirpated in at least the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and New Hampshire. In Forest Service Region 9, Torrey’s Mountainmint is included on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list (RFSS) for the Shawnee National Forest (though it has not been seen since 1987) but not the Hoosier National Forest where it has not been found. It is at risk everywhere in its range. In addition to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or species of Concern by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service lists species that are Sensitive within each region (RFSS). The National Forest Management Act and U.S. Forest Service policy require that National Forest System land be managed to maintain viable populations of all native plant and animal species. A viable population is one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the entity throughout its range within a given planning area. The objectives of this document are to: -Provide an overview of the current scientific knowledge on the species. -Provide a summary of the distribution and status on the species range-wide and within the Eastern Region of the Forest Service, in particular. -Provide the available background information needed to prepare a subsequent Conservation Approach. 5 Conservation Assessment for Torrey’s Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum torreyi Benth.) NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY Scientific Name: Pycnanthemum torreyi Bentham [as ‘torrei’] [1834] Common Names: Torrey’s Mountainmint; Torrey’s Mountain Mint; Torrey Mountain Mint. Synonymy: Koellia torreyi (Benth.) Kuntze [as ‘torrei’] [1891] Class: Magnoliopsida (Flowering Plants - Dicotyledons) Family: Lamiaceae (= Labiatae; The Mint Family) Plants Code: PYTO (USDA NRCS plant database, W-1) http://plants.usda.gov/ The mint genus Pycnanthemum contains approximately 17 - 20 species, depending on its interpretation, all of which grow only in North America (Chambers 1961; Mabberley 1987). Most of the species grow in the eastern United States, with the center of diversity for the genus located in the mountains of North Carolina
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Experimental Evidence That Evolutionarily Diverse Assemblages Result in Higher Productivity
    Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity Marc W. Cadotte1 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4; and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3B2 Edited by Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved April 22, 2013 (received for review January 28, 2013) There now is ample experimental evidence that speciose assemblages in polyculture against the expected performance from its mono- are more productive and provide a greater amount of ecosystem cultures (22, 23). Polycultures also might appear more productive services than depauperate ones. However, these experiments often compared with monocultures via a selection effect—if highly conclude that there is a higher probability of including complemen- productive species dominate the polyculture, displacing low- tary species combinations in assemblages with more species and lack productivity species (22). Thus, if distantly related species show a priori prediction about which species combinations maximize reduced resource overlap, then we should observe greater com- function. Here, I report the results of an experiment manipulating plementarity when they are combined. the evolutionary relatedness of constituent plant species across Here, I report the results of a biodiversity–ecosystem func- a richness gradient. I show that assemblages with distantly re- tion experiment that explicitly manipulated the phylogenetic
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Survey of the Yegua Knobbs Preserve
    VEGETATION SURVEY OF THE YEGUA KNOBBS PRESERVE, BASTROP AND LEE COUNTIES, TEXAS by Diana K. Digges, B.A. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with a Major in Biology August 2019 Committee Members: David E. Lemke, Chair Paula S. Williamson Sunethra Dharmasiri COPYRIGHT by Diana K. Digges 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Diana K. Digges, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my family and friends who have been understanding and patient as I pursued my degree. Your support has meant so much to me. A big thank you to my boyfriend, Swayam Shree, for his unwavering belief in me and for keeping me laughing. I am grateful to the Biology faculty at Texas State University, especially Drs. David Lemke, Paula Williamson, Sunethra Dharmasiri, and Garland Upchurch who helped me further my study of botany. A special thank you to Dr. Lemke for allowing me to pursue this project and his continued support during my time as a graduate student.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Mary K. Oxley Nature Center, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
    Oklahoma Native Plant Record 29 Volume 13, December 2013 A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE MARY K. OXLEY NATURE CENTER, TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Amy K. Buthod Oklahoma Biological Survey Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory Robert Bebb Herbarium University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-0575 (405) 325-4034 Email: [email protected] Keywords: flora, exotics, inventory ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of an inventory of the vascular flora of the Mary K. Oxley Nature Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A total of 342 taxa from 75 families and 237 genera were collected from four main vegetation types. The families Asteraceae and Poaceae were the largest, with 49 and 42 taxa, respectively. Fifty-eight exotic taxa were found, representing 17% of the total flora. Twelve taxa tracked by the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory were present. INTRODUCTION clayey sediment (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1977). Climate is Subtropical The objective of this study was to Humid, and summers are humid and warm inventory the vascular plants of the Mary K. with a mean July temperature of 27.5° C Oxley Nature Center (ONC) and to prepare (81.5° F). Winters are mild and short with a a list and voucher specimens for Oxley mean January temperature of 1.5° C personnel to use in education and outreach. (34.7° F) (Trewartha 1968). Mean annual Located within the 1,165.0 ha (2878 ac) precipitation is 106.5 cm (41.929 in), with Mohawk Park in northwestern Tulsa most occurring in the spring and fall County (ONC headquarters located at (Oklahoma Climatological Survey 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Pycnanthemum Albescens Torr. & A.Gray
    Conservation Assessment for the Whiteleaf Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum albescens Torr. & A.Gray) Steven R. Hill, Ph.D. Division of Biodiversity and Ecological Entomology Biotic Surveys and Monitoring Section 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region (Region 9), Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests INHS Technical Report 2007 (52) Date of Issue: 25 October 2007 Cover photo: Pycnanthemum albescens Torr. & A.Gray, from the PLANTS Database, U.S.D.A., photographer: Larry Allain @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov/java/largeImage?imageID=pyal_001_avp.tif This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 2 Conservation Assessment for the Whiteleaf Mountainmint (Pycnanthemum albescens Torr. & A.Gray)
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plants Which Support Insects
    Native Meadow Plants for Butterflies, Moths and Other Insects Dry Meadow Perennials Agastache foeniculum (Anise hyssop) Allium cernuum (Nodding onion) Antennaria spp. (Pussy-toes) Aquilegia canadensis (Columbine) Aruncus dioicus (Goats beard) Asclepias spp. (Milkweed) Ionactis linariifolia (Flax-leaf white top aster) Baptisia tinctoria (Yellow wild indigo) Callirhoe spp. (Poppy mallow) Campanula rotundifolia (Thread-leaf bellflower) Chrysopsis villosa (Golden hairy aster) Coreopsis verticillata (Tickseed) Dicentra spp. (Bleeding heart) Echinacea spp. (Coneflower) Eryngium yuccifolium (False Yucca) Geranium maculatum (Wild geranium) Helianthus mollis (Sunflower) Heliopsis helianthoides (Oxeye) Lupinus perennis (Sundial lupine) Monarda punctata (Horsemint) Opuntia humifusa (Eastern prickly pear) Penstemon digitalis (Foxglove beardtongue) Pycnanthemum tenuifolium (Narrow leaf mountain mint) Ratibida spp. (Mexican hat) Rudbeckia spp. (Black-eyed Susan) Solidago spp. (Goldenrod) Vernonia letermannii (Ironweed) Viola pedata (Birds foot violet) Courtesy of Dan Jaffe Propagator and Stock Bed Grower New England Wild Flower Society [email protected] Native Meadow Plants for Butterflies, Moths and Other Insects Moist Meadow Perennials Amsonia spp. (Blue star) Asclepias incarnata (Swamp milkweed) Boltonia asteroides (False aster) Chelone glabra (White turtlehead) Conradina verticillata (False rosemary) Eutrochium spp. (Joe-Pye weed) Filipendula rubra (Queen of the prairie) Gentiana clausa (Bottle gentian) Liatris novae-angliae (New England
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2004.Pmd
    The Lady-Slipper, 19:4 / Winter 2004 1 The Lady-Slipper Kentucky Native Plant Society Number 19:4 Winter 2004 A Message from the President: It’s Membership Winter is upon us. I hope everyone had some opportunity to experience the colors of Fall and now some of us will turn our attention to winter botany. While I was unable to Renewal Time! attend, I understand that our Fall meeting at Shakertown Kentucky Native Plant Society with Dr. Bill Bryant from Thomas More College as the guest EMBERSHIP ORM speaker was a great success. M F Our Native Plant Certification program was relatively successful this Fall. Plant taxonomy failed to meet Name(s) ____________________________________ because the NKU’s Community Education Bulletin was Address ____________________________________ mailed too late for anyone to sign up for the course. The woody plants course did, however, have a successful run. City, State, Zip ______________________________ This coming Spring, we will be offering Basic Plant Taxonomy, Plant Communities and Spring Wildflowers of KY County __________________________________ Central Kentucky. Tel.: (home) ______________________________ You will see in this issue that we are promoting “Chinquapin” the newsletter of the Southern Appalachian (work) ______________________________ Botanical Society (SABS). SABS is an organization E-mail _______________________________ largely made up of professional botanists and produces a quarterly scholarly journal. The newsletter “Chinquapin” o Add me to the e-mail list for time-critical native plant news has more of a general interest approach much like our o Include my contact info in any future KNPS Member Directory newsletter but on a regional scale. In this issue we have Membership Categories: provided subscription information on page 7.
    [Show full text]