STB117 Common Names of a Selected List of Plants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae Including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae)
Peterson, P.M., K. Romaschenko, and Y. Herrera Arrieta. 2020. A phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae). Phytoneuron 2020-81: 1–13. Published 18 November 2020. ISSN 2153 733 A PHYLOGENY OF THE HUBBARDOCHLOINAE INCLUDING TETRACHAETE (CYNODONTEAE: CHLORIDOIDEAE: POACEAE) PAUL M. PETERSON AND KONSTANTIN ROMASCHENKO Department of Botany National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected]; [email protected] YOLANDA HERRERA ARRIETA Instituto Politécnico Nacional CIIDIR Unidad Durango-COFAA Durango, C.P. 34220, México [email protected] ABSTRACT The phylogeny of subtribe Hubbardochloinae is revisited, here with the inclusion of the monotypic genus Tetrachaete, based on a molecular DNA analysis using ndhA intron, rpl32-trnL, rps16 intron, rps16- trnK, and ITS markers. Tetrachaete elionuroides is aligned within the Hubbardochloinae and is sister to Dignathia. The biogeography of the Hubbardochloinae is discussed, its origin likely in Africa or temperate Asia. In a previous molecular DNA phylogeny (Peterson et al. 2016), the subtribe Hubbardochloinae Auquier [Bewsia Gooss., Dignathia Stapf, Gymnopogon P. Beauv., Hubbardochloa Auquier, Leptocarydion Hochst. ex Stapf, Leptothrium Kunth, and Lophacme Stapf] was found in a clade with moderate support (BS = 75, PP = 1.00) sister to the Farragininae P.M. Peterson et al. In the present study, Tetrachaete elionuroides Chiov. is included in a phylogenetic analysis (using ndhA intron, rpl32- trnL, rps16 intron, rps16-trnK, and ITS DNA markers) in order to test its relationships within the Cynodonteae with heavy sampling of species in the supersubtribe Gouiniodinae P.M. Peterson & Romasch. Chiovenda (1903) described Tetrachaete Chiov. with a with single species, T. -
<I>Onobrychis Avajensis</I> (Fabaceae)
Plant Ecology and Evolution 143 (2): 170–175, 2010 doi:10.5091/plecevo.2010.431 REGULAR PAPER Meiotic chromosome number and behaviour of Onobrychis avajensis (Fabaceae): a new species from western Iran Massoud Ranjbar*, Roya Karamian & Saeydeh Afsari Department of Biology, Herbarium Division, Bu-Ali Sina University, P.O. Box 65175/4161, Hamedan, Iran *Author for correspondence: [email protected] Background and aims – The present study is focused on the cytogenetic and morphological criteria allowing to distinguish a new taxon from Onobrychis sect. Heliobrychis. This section is the largest section in O. subg. Sisyrosema represented with 21 species in Iran. The new species belongs to the O. subsect. Boissierianae characterized by perennial plants with well-developed stems and O. andalanica group with uniformely yellow corolla. Methods – The morphological features and meiotic chromosome number and behaviour were studied in O. avajensis Ranjbar. Key results – The novelty Onobrychis avajensis Ranjbar, endemic to Iran, is described and illustrated from two collections from a single locality between Avaj and Abgram in Qazvin Province in the west Zagros. It is closely related to O. andalanica Bornm. but differs from it in a few morphological characters. In addition, meiotic chromosome number and behaviour were studied in O. avajensis. This report is the first cytogenetic analysis of this taxon. O. avajensis is a diploid plant and possesses 2n = 2x = 16 chromosomes, consistent with the proposed base number of x = 8. The general meiotic behaviour of the species was regular, with bivalent pairing and normal chromosome segregation at meiosis. Meiotic abnormalities were observed included a varying degree of sticky chromosomes with laggards, precocious division of centromeres in metaphase I, bridges in anaphase I and multipolar cells in telophase II. -
Flora of Oakmont Park, City of Fort Worth Tarrant Co
Flora of Oakmont Park, City of Fort Worth Tarrant Co. Updated 09 April 2015 150 species Oakmont Park FLOWER STATE/FED FAMILY OLD FAMILY LATIN NAME COMMON NAME BLOOM PERIOD Expr1006 COLOR RANK Amaryllidaceae Alliaceae=Liliaceae Allium drummondii Drummond's Onion ++345++++++++++ White/Pink Amaryllidaceae Alliaceae=Liliaceae Nothoscordum bivalve Crow-Poison +F345+++910++++ White Apiaceae Chaerophyllum tainturieri var. Smooth Chervil ++34+++++++++++ White tainturieri Apiaceae Cymopterus macrohizus Bigroot Cymopterus JF34+++++++++++ White/Pink Apiaceae Eryngium leavenworthii Leavenworth Eryngo ++++++789++++++ Purple Apiaceae Polytaenia nuttallii=texana Prairie Parsley +++45++++++++++ Yellow Apiaceae Sanicula canadensis Canada Sanicle +++456+++++++++ White Apiaceae Torilis arvensis Hedge Parsley +++456+++++++++ White Apiaceae Torilis nodosa Knotted Hedge-Parsley +++456+++++++++ White Apocynaceae Asclepidaceae Asclepias asperula ssp. capricornu Antelope Horns +++45678910++++ White Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Possum Haw ++345++++++++++ White Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca arkansana Arkansas Yucca +++45++++++++++ White Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca necopina Glen Rose Yucca ++++5++++++++++ White S1S2 S1S2 Asparagaceae Agavaceae Yucca pallida Pale Leaf Yucca ++++5++++++++++ White S3 S3 Asteraceae Ambrosia psilostachya Western Ragweed +++++++891011++ Inconspicuous Asteraceae Amphiachyris Common Broomweed ++++++7891011++ Yellow dracunculoides=Gutierrezia Asteraceae Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. mexicana Mexican Sagebrush +++++++++1011++ Yellowish White Asteraceae -
A List of Oxfordshire Rare Plants in Alphabetical Order
Oxfordshire Rare Plant Register, all species studied, in alphabetical order, 28 April 2015 National Status Oxfordshire status (not complete) Latin name English name (not vice-county) Least Concern Adiantum capillus-veneris Maidenhair Fern RPR Endangered Adonis annua Pheasant’s-eye RPR Waiting List Aethusa cynapium ssp. agrestis Fool's Parsley Not studied Waiting List Agrostemma githago Corn Cockle Introd since 1992 Least Concern Agrostis canina Velvet Bent RPR Least Concern Agrostis curtisii Bristle Bent RPR Least Concern Agrostis vinealis Brown Bent RPR Least Concern Aira caryophyllea Silver Hair-grass RPR Least Concern Aira praecox Early Hair-grass RPR Least Concern Alchemilla filicaulis Hairy Lady’s-mantle RPR Least Concern Alchemilla xanthochlora Pale Lady's-mantle Last in 1988 Least Concern Alisma lanceolatum Narrow-leaved Water-plantain RPR Least Concern Alopecurus aequalis Orange Foxtail RPR Vulnerable Anacamptis morio Green-winged Orchid RPR Data Deficient Anagallis foemina Blue Pimpernel RPR Least Concern Anagallis tenella Bog Pimpernel RPR Introduced since 1500 Anisantha madritensis Compact Brome Introduced Endangered Anthemis arvensis Corn Chamomile RPR Vulnerable Anthemis cotula Stinking Chamomile Not studied Least Concern Anthriscus caucalis Bur Chervil RPR Introduced since 1500 Apera interrupta Dense Silky-bent RPR Least Concern Apera spica-venti Loose Silky-bent RPR Least Concern Aphanes australis Slender Parsley-piert RPR Least Concern Apium graveolens Wild Celery RPR Vulnerable Apium inundatum Lesser Marshwort RPR Europe Protected Apium repens Creeping Marshwort RPR Least Concern Aquilegia vulgaris Columbine Not Scarce Near Threatened Arabis hirsuta Hairy Rock-cress RPR Introduced since 1500 Aristolochia clematitis Birthwort RPR Iconic Extinct in the Wild Arnoseris minima Lamb's Succory Last in 1971 Least Concern Artemisia absinthium Wormwood RPR Least Concern Arum italicum ssp. -
Heathland 700 the Park & Poor's Allotment Species List
The Park & Poor's Allotment Bioblitz 25th - 26th July 2015 Common Name Scientific Name [if known] Site recorded Fungus Xylaria polymorpha Dead Man's Fingers Both Amanita excelsa var. excelsa Grey Spotted Amanita Poor's Allotment Panaeolus sp. Poor's Allotment Phallus impudicus var. impudicus Stinkhorn The Park Mosses Sphagnum denticulatum Cow-horn Bog-moss Both Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum papillosum Papillose Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum squarrosum Spiky Bog-moss The Park Sphagnum palustre Blunt-leaved Bog-moss Poor's Allotment Atrichum undulatum Common Smoothcap Both Polytrichum commune Common Haircap The Park Polytrichum formosum Bank Haircap Both Polytrichum juniperinum Juniper Haircap The Park Tetraphis pellucida Pellucid Four-tooth Moss The Park Schistidium crassipilum Thickpoint Grimmia Poor's Allotment Fissidens taxifolius Common Pocket-moss The Park Ceratodon purpureus Redshank The Park Dicranoweisia cirrata Common Pincushion Both Dicranella heteromalla Silky Forklet-moss Both Dicranella varia Variable Forklet-moss The Park Dicranum scoparium Broom Fork-moss Both Campylopus flexuosus Rusty Swan-neck Moss Poor's Allotment Campylopus introflexus Heath Star Moss Both Campylopus pyriformis Dwarf Swan-neck Moss The Park Bryoerythrophyllum Red Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Barbula convoluta Lesser Bird's-claw Beard-moss The Park Didymodon fallax Fallacious Beard-moss The Park Didymodon insulanus Cylindric Beard-moss Poor's Allotment Zygodon conoideus Lesser Yoke-moss The Park Zygodon viridissimus Green Yoke-moss -
Conserving Europe's Threatened Plants
Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Suzanne Sharrock and Meirion Jones May 2009 Recommended citation: Sharrock, S. and Jones, M., 2009. Conserving Europe’s threatened plants: Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK ISBN 978-1-905164-30-1 Published by Botanic Gardens Conservation International Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW, UK Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Acknowledgements The work of establishing a consolidated list of threatened Photo credits European plants was first initiated by Hugh Synge who developed the original database on which this report is based. All images are credited to BGCI with the exceptions of: We are most grateful to Hugh for providing this database to page 5, Nikos Krigas; page 8. Christophe Libert; page 10, BGCI and advising on further development of the list. The Pawel Kos; page 12 (upper), Nikos Krigas; page 14: James exacting task of inputting data from national Red Lists was Hitchmough; page 16 (lower), Jože Bavcon; page 17 (upper), carried out by Chris Cockel and without his dedicated work, the Nkos Krigas; page 20 (upper), Anca Sarbu; page 21, Nikos list would not have been completed. Thank you for your efforts Krigas; page 22 (upper) Simon Williams; page 22 (lower), RBG Chris. We are grateful to all the members of the European Kew; page 23 (upper), Jo Packet; page 23 (lower), Sandrine Botanic Gardens Consortium and other colleagues from Europe Godefroid; page 24 (upper) Jože Bavcon; page 24 (lower), Frank who provided essential advice, guidance and supplementary Scumacher; page 25 (upper) Michael Burkart; page 25, (lower) information on the species included in the database. -
Jason Giessow Testimony
Raszka Shelley From: Gallagher Chuck Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:50 AM To: Raszka Shelley Subject: FW: testimony on HB 2183 Attachments: Cal-IPCNews_Winter2015.pdf From: Jason Giessow [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:49 AM To: Gallagher Chuck Subject: testimony on HB 2183 Hi Chuck- I was the primary author on this Impact Assessment for CA. It is posted at this web site: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/research/arundo/index.php Basically- no one should be growing Arundo, it is destroying riverine systems in CA and Texas. There are entire conferences about how to control Arundo and tamarisk (the Deadly Duo). In the report is a CBA for coastal watersheds in CA and estimates $380 million dollars in damage . It destroys habitat- but also severely impacts flooding, fire, and water (the impact report has a chapter on each). That is why folks from both sides of the isle work on eradicating this plant. Planting it for commercial use is exceedingly dangerous, should be banned, or bonded at very high levels. CA has spent about $100 million dollars dealing with Arundo and its impacts (mostly state bond funds dealing with water: conservation, conveyance, and improvement). New state funding (Proposition 1) for water conservation and river conveyance will likely increase state funding for Arundo control to over $200 million dollars. Don’t let Oregon follow this trajectory. This recent article (attached- page 10) on the Salinas River Arundo program is one example of the impacts caused by Arundo, the complicated regulatory approval required to work on the issue, the high cost of the program, and most important- the farmers and landowners who pay the price for the impacts caused by Arundo (flooding, less water, fire, etc….). -
Facilitation of Yucca Brevifolia Recruitment by Mojave Desert Shrubs
UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1998 Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs Steve B Brittingham University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Brittingham, Steve B, "Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs" (1998). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 950. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/ms22-zauw This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. -
El Género Muhlenbergia
www.unal.edu.co/icn/publicaciones/caldasia.htm CaldasiaGiraldo-Cañas 31(2):269-302. & Peterson 2009 EL GÉNERO MUHLENBERGIA (POACEAE: CHLORIDOIDEAE: CYNODONTEAE: MUHLENBERGIINAE) EN COLOMBIA1 The genus Muhlenbergia (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae: Muhlenbergiinae) in Colombia DIEGO GIRALDO-CAÑAS Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Apartado 7495, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. [email protected] PAUL M. PETERSON Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, U.S.A. [email protected] RESUMEN Se presenta un estudio taxonómico de las especies colombianas del género Muhlenbergia. Se analizan diversos aspectos relativos a la clasificación, la nomenclatura y la variación morfológica de los caracteres. El género Muhlenbergia está representado en Colombia por 14 especies. Las especies Aegopogon bryophilus Döll, Aegopogon cenchroides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., Lycurus phalaroides Kunth y Pereilema crinitum J. Presl se transfi eren al género Muhlenbergia. El binomio Muhlenbergia cleefi i Lægaard se reduce a la sinonimia de Muhlenbergia fastigiata (J. Presl) Henrard. Las especies Muhlenbergia beyrichiana Kunth, Muhlenbergia ciliata (Kunth) Trin. y Muhlenbergia nigra Hitchc. se excluyen de la fl ora de Colombia. Se presentan las claves para reconocer las especies presentes en Colombia, así como también las descripciones de éstas, sus sinónimos, la distribución geográfi ca, se comentan algunas observaciones morfológicas y ecológicas, los usos y los números cromosómicos. Del tratamiento taxonómico se excluyen las especies Muhlenbergia erectifolia SwallenSwallen [[== Ortachne erectifolia (Swallen)(Swallen) CClayton]layton] y Muhlenbergia wallisii Mez [= Agrostopoa wallisii (Mez) P. M. Peterson, Soreng & Davidse]. Palabras clave. Aegopogon, Lycurus, Muhlenbergia, Pereilema, Chloridoideae, Poaceae, Gramíneas neotropicales, Flora de Colombia. -
Proper Listing of Scientific and Common Plant Names In
PROPER USAGE OF PLANT NAMES IN PUBLICATIONS A Guide for Writers and Editors Kathy Musial, Huntington Botanical Gardens, August 2017 Scientific names (also known as “Latin names”, “botanical names”) A unit of biological classification is called a “taxon” (plural, “taxa”). This is defined as a taxonomic group of any rank, e.g. genus, species, subspecies, variety. To allow scientists and others to clearly communicate with each other, taxa have names consisting of Latin words. These words may be derived from languages other than Latin, in which case they are referred to as “latinized”. A species name consists of two words: the genus name followed by a second name (called the specific epithet) unique to that species; e.g. Hedera helix. Once the name has been mentioned in text, the genus name may be abbreviated in any immediately subsequent listings of the same species, or other species of the same genus, e.g. Hedera helix, H. canariensis. The first letter of the genus name is always upper case and the first letter of the specific epithet is always lower case. Latin genus and species names should always be italicized when they appear in text that is in roman type; conversely, these Latin names should be in roman type when they appear in italicized text. Names of suprageneric taxa (above the genus level, e.g. families, Asteraceae, etc.), are never italicized when they appear in roman text. The first letter of these names is always upper case. Subspecific taxa (subspecies, variety, forma) have a third epithet that is always separated from the specific epithet by the rank designation “var.”, “ssp.” or “subsp.”, or “forma” (sometimes abbreviated as “f.”); e.g. -
Phylogeny and Evolution of Achenial Trichomes In
Luebert & al. • Achenial trichomes in the Lucilia-group (Asteraceae) TAXON 66 (5) • October 2017: 1184–1199 Phylogeny and evolution of achenial trichomes in the Lucilia-group (Asteraceae: Gnaphalieae) and their systematic significance Federico Luebert,1,2,3 Andrés Moreira-Muñoz,4 Katharina Wilke2 & Michael O. Dillon5 1 Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Biologie, Botanik, Altensteinstraße 6, 14195 Berlin, Germany 2 Universität Bonn, Nees-Institut für Biodiversität der Pflanzen, Meckenheimer Allee 170, 53115 Bonn, Germany 3 Universidad de Chile, Departamento de Silvicultura y Conservación de la Naturaleza, Santiago, Chile 4 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Instituto de Geografía, Avenida Brasil 2241, Valparaíso, Chile 5 The Field Museum, Integrative Research Center, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Federico Luebert, [email protected] ORCID FL, http://orcid.org/0000000322514056; MOD, http://orcid.org/0000000275120766 DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/665.11 Abstract The Gnaphalieae (Asteraceae) are a cosmopolitan tribe with around 185 genera and 2000 species. The New World is one of the centers of diversity of the tribe with 24 genera and over 100 species, most of which form a clade called the Luciliagroup with 21 genera. However, the generic classification of the Luciliagroup has been controversial with no agreement on delimitation or circumscription of genera. Especially controversial has been the taxonomic value of achenial trichomes and molecular studies have shown equivocal results so far. The major aims of this paper are to provide a nearly complete phylogeny of the Lucilia group at generic level and to discuss the evolutionary trends and taxonomic significance of achenial trichome morphology. -
Joshua Tree 3 11 05
Vegetation Classification of Joshua Tree National Park, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California A report submitted to National Park Service Tasha LaDaux, Chief of Resources Joshua Tree National Park 74485 National Park Drive Twentynine Palms, California 92277-3597 by California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch Sacramento, California by Todd Keeler-Wolf Sau San Diana Hickson March 2005 Section Page Table of Contents Section Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 Background and Standards............................................................................................ 1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 3 Timeline......................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS..................................................................................................................... 4 Vegetation Sampling and Classification....................................................................... 4 Development of the Preliminary Classification ................................................... 4 Integration of Existing Data Sets.......................................................................... 4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 Sample Allocation