$10.00 (Free to Members)

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2 • JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA JOURNAL OF THE NATIVE SOCIETY

THE NEW JEPSONJEPSON MANUALMANUAL THE FIRST FLORA OF CALIFORNIA NAMING OF THE FENS:FENS: AA REMARKABLEREMARKABLE HABITATHABITAT AND OTHER ARTICLES VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1; Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 FREMONTIA Phone: (916) 447-CNPS (2677) Fax: (916) 447-2727 Web site: www.cnps.org Email: [email protected] VOL. 40, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, MAY 2012 MEMBERSHIP Membership form located on inside back cover; Copyright © 2012 dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the CNPS Bulletin California Native Plant Society Mariposa Lily ...... $1,500 or Group ...... $75 Bob Hass, Editor Benefactor ...... $600 International or Library ...... $75 Patron ...... $300 Individual ...... $45 Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer Plant Lover ...... $100 Student/Retired/Limited Income . $25 Brad Jenkins, Cynthia Powell, CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL and Cynthia Roye, Proofreaders 10+ Employees ...... $2,500 4-6 Employees ...... $500 7-10 Employees ...... $1,000 1-3 Employees ...... $150 CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY STAFF – SACRAMENTO CHAPTER COUNCIL Executive Director: Dan Glusenkamp David Magney (Chair); Larry Levine Dedicated to the Preservation of Finance and Administration (Vice Chair); Marty Foltyn (Secretary) Manager: Cari Porter Alta Peak (Tulare): Joan Stewart the California Native Flora Membership and Development Bristlecone (Inyo-Mono): Coordinator: Stacey Flowerdew The California Native Plant Society Steve McLaughlin Conservation Program Director: (CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organi- Channel Islands: David Magney zation dedicated to increasing the Greg Suba Rare Plant Botanist: Aaron Sims Dorothy King Young (Mendocino/ understanding and appreciation of Vegetation Program Director: Sonoma Coast): Nancy Morin California’s native , and to pre- Julie Evens East Bay: Bill Hunt serving them and their natural Vegetation Ecologists: El Dorado: Sue Britting for future generations. Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Kendra Sikes Kern County: Dorie Giragosian CNPS carries out its mission through Education Program Director: Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns: science, conservation advocacy, educa- Josie Crawford Betsey Landis tion, and at the local, state, Administrative Asst: Marcy Millett Marin County: Carolyn Longstreth and federal levels. It monitors rare and Sales/Chapter Horticulture Milo Baker (Sonoma County): Lisa Giambastiani endangered plants and habitats; acts to Coordinator: Caroline Garland Mojave Desert: Tim Thomas save endangered areas through public- STAFF – AT LARGE Monterey Bay: Brian LeNeve ity, persuasion, and on occasion, legal Fremontia and CNPS Bulletin Editor: Mount Lassen: Catie Bishop action; provides expert testimony to Bob Hass Napa Valley: Gerald Tomboc government bodies; supports the estab- Legislative Consultant: North Coast: Larry Levine lishment of native plant preserves; spon- Vern Goehring North San Joaquin: Alan Miller East Bay Conservation Analyst: sors workdays to remove invasive plants; Orange County: Nancy Heuler Mack Casterman and offers a range of educational activi- Redbud (Grass Valley/Auburn): Development Consultant: ties including speaker programs, field Sandy McCoy Joan Jernegan trips, native plant sales, horticultural Website Coordinator: Mark Naftzger Riverside/San Bernardino: Katie workshops, and demonstration gardens. Barrows Since its founding in 1965, the tradi- PROGRAM ADVISORS Sacramento Valley: Glen Holstein tional strength of CNPS has been its Rare Plant Program Senior Advisor: San Diego: David Varner dedicated volunteers. CNPS activities Jim Andre San Gabriel Mountains: Orchid Black Vegetation Program Senior Advisor: San Luis Obispo: Kristie Haydu are organized at the local chapter level Todd Keeler-Wolf where members’ varied interests influ- Sanhedrin (Ukiah): Geri Hulse- Horticulture Program Chair: Stephens ence what is done. Volunteers from the Laura Camp Santa Clara Valley: Judy Fenerty 33 CNPS chapters annually contribute CNPS Press Director: Nancy Morin Santa Cruz County: Deanna Giuliano in excess of 97,000 hours (equivalent Poster Program: Bertha McKinley, Sequoia (Fresno): Paul Mitchell to 46.5 full-time employees). Wilma Follett Shasta: Ken Kilborn CNPS membership is open to all. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sierra Foothills (Tuolome/Calaveras/ Members receive the journal Fremontia Brett Hall (President); David Bigham Mariposa): Robert Brown three times a year, the quarterly state- (Vice President); Laura Camp (Secre- South Coast (Palos Verdes): wide CNPS Bulletin, and newsletters tary); Nancy Morin (Treasurer); At- David Berman from their local CNPS chapter. Large: Bill Hunt, Brian LeNeve, Vince Tahoe: Michael Hogan Scheidt, Alison Shilling, David Willis L. Jepson (Solano): Varner, Steve Windhager; Chapter Mary Frances Kelly-Poh Disclaimer: Council Representatives: Orchid Yerba Buena (): The views expressed by authors published Black, Steve Hartman Ellen Edelson in this journal do not necessarily reflect established policy or procedure of CNPS, MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATION and their publication in this journal should CNPS members and others are welcome to contribute materials for publication not be interpreted as an organizational in Fremontia. See the inside back cover for submission instructions. endorsement—in part or in whole—of their Staff and board listings are as of February 2013. ideas, statements, or opinions. Printed by Premier Graphics: www.premiergraphics.biz

FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012

ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012. PUBLICATION DATE: FEBRUARY 2013 CONTENTS

THE NEW JEPSON MANUAL AND ACCOMPANYING RESOURCES OF THE JEPSON FLORA PROJECT by Bruce G. Baldwin and Staci Markos ...... 2 The Jepson Manual has been revised and thoroughly updated. The second edition is greatly changed and the Jepson is building resources to help with the transition.

TWO CHAMPIONS OF CALIFORNIA : THE CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL SOCIETY AND THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY by Michael C. Vasey, V. Thomas Parker, and Staci Markos ...... 7 The California Botanical Society, currently celebrating its centennial, and the California Native Plant Society today share a common goal of better understanding and protecting the state’s native flora.

THE FIRST FLORA OF CALIFORNIA AND THE SERENO WATSON, WILLIAM BREWER, AND COLLABORATION by Liam H. Davis ...... 11 The two collated volumes of the first California Flora were produced in 1876 and 1880. It is a remarkable story involving many passionately curious botanists.

HOW THE GOT THEIR NAME by Robert E. Preston ...... 16 Did a botanical rivalry lead a British botanist to compromise his personal integrity and leave a legacy of over 200 years of nomenclatural confusion?

ENDLICHER’S SEQUENCE: THE NAMING OF THE GENUS SEQUOIA by Gary D. Lowe ...... 25 Where did the name for the genus Sequoia come from? While commonly linked to the name of the Cherokee man, Sequoyah, evidence from Endlicher’s writings convincingly indicates it is derived from the Latin for sequence.

FENS: A REMARKABLE IN THE SIERRA by Deborah Stout...... 36 In the , a combination of geology, Mediterranean climate, and time has produced fen peatlands, a rich and unique wetland community. CNPS staff share their most recent findings.

CONSTRUCTING ALL-YEAR FLORISTIC KEYS FOR SMALL AREAS by Christine M. Rodrigue ...... 41 Identifying plant outside of flowering season is challenging when floristic keys use flowers early in the identification process. Keys for small areas can be redesigned so they don’t depend on flowers.

THE FLORA OF by Nancy Morin ...... 47 Many California botanists are part of the 900+ team of specialists working on the Flora of North America, an important source of information about California plants and their relatives in a world-wide context.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE EARTH INVITES CNPS PARTICIPATION by Michael Hogan ...... 49 An exciting new online resource, the Encyclopedia of Earth, offers botanists, ecologists, and others a streamlined way of posting the latest scientific information and linking it together for easy, in-depth investigation.

NEW CNPS FELLOW: JIM BISHOP ...... 53 MYRTLE WOLF: 1913–2012 ...... 54 BOOK REVIEWS ...... 56

THE COVER: Towering coast redwoods () along the James Irvine Trail in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, Humboldt County, CA. Photograph by Spencer Dykstra, www.spencerdykstraphotography.zenfolio.com.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 1 THE NEW JEPSON MANUAL AND ACCOMPANYING RESOURCES OF THE JEPSON FLORA PROJECT by Bruce G. Baldwin and Staci Markos

n early January 2012, the Jepson traordinarily rapid pace of change with a special focus on plant groups Herbarium was pleased to an- in our understanding of the Califor- not included in Jepson’s unfinished nounce the publication of The nia flora had rendered much of the Flora. Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of 1993 Manual obsolete only a decade Rimo’s successor, Larry Heckard, ICalifornia, Second Edition (Baldwin after its publication. That situation carried on and expanded that role, et al. 2012). This thorough revision demanded action because The Jepson and hatched the plan with Jim of the 1993 Manual (Hickman 1993) Manual had become the primary ref- Hickman to produce a new state- was a product of years of effort by erence on California’s native and wide manual of Californian vascu- an international team of more than naturalized diversity lar plants, while the two were con- 300 authors and a dedicated group for science and society. ducting floristic work in the early of editors, staff, and illustrators, to- 1980s in the Snow Mountain region gether with the contributions of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND of the High Inner North Coast many generous donors, including Ranges (Heckard and Hickman numerous Friends of the Jepson The Jepson Herbarium’s lead role 1985). That effort became the Jepson Herbarium and members of CNPS. in producing the 1993 and 2012 Manual Project, which culminated manuals reflects our museum’s mis- in the 1993 work. Sadly, Larry did sion, as laid out by Willis Linn not live to see The Jepson Manual Jepson, who endowed the herbarium published and Jim died shortly after to carry on his life’s work in Califor- its release. One wonders if they could nia floristics. Jepson (1925) authored have predicted just how successful the first comprehensive statewide and influential the 1993 Manual manual on California vascular plant would become. diversity (A Manual of the Flowering Plants of California), among his many books and other publications. He THE JEPSON FLORA also wrote several volumes of his PROJECT more detailed A Flora of California (Jepson 1909–1943), which re- In 1994 the Director of the Uni- mained unfinished at the time of his versity and Jepson Herbaria, Brent death in 1946. The treatment of Mishler, and the Trustees of the , by Lauramay Dempster, Jepson Herbarium launched the became the last printed installment Jepson Flora Project. Its mission was of Jepson’s Flora, in 1979. to pursue a broad array of floristic Shortly after establishment of the initiatives for California, including Jepson Herbarium at UC Berkeley an eventual revision of The Jepson California species of death camas, such as in 1950, Philip Munz, at Rancho Manual and the development of a exaltatum, are now classi- Santa Ana Botanic Garden, published number of online resources. The fied in a different genus and a different A California Flora (Munz 1959) in Flora Project (see http://ucjeps. family (Melanthiaceae) than in the 1993 collaboration with David Keck, and berkeley.edu/jepsonflora) embodies Jepson Manual (previously in , in family ) based on a revised under- thereby preempted the need for the Jepson’s floristic mission for the her- standing of their relationships. Photograph Jepson Herbarium to go forward barium and has remained the by Barry Breckling. with a revision of Jepson’s (1925) overarching framework for our ef- manual. Instead, the first Jepson cu- forts. In addition to print resources The project was initiated shortly rator, Rimo Bacigalupi, concentrated (The Jepson Manual and The Jepson after publication of The Jepson Desert his efforts on baseline documenta- Desert Manual), the Flora Project Manual: Vascular Plants of Southeast- tion of California plants through includes a diversity of complemen- ern California (Baldwin et al. 2002), extensive collecting and description tary electronic resources that are when it became clear that the ex- of previously undescribed diversity, readily accessible through the Jepson

2 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Online Interchange for California phy section of the book) and re- Floristics (more below). sulted in the following outcomes:

• The Manual now includes treat- THE SECOND EDITION OF ments of all native and naturalized THE JEPSON MANUAL vascular plant taxa judged to be scientifically defensible, even if Summarizing how the second those taxa are difficult or impos- edition of The Jepson Manual differs sible to identify with 10x magnifi- from the 1993 Manual is difficult. In cation. addition to extensive taxonomic and • Keys to identification are improved nomenclatural changes (described and more consistent with descrip- in part below), there are important tions of taxa, making the Manual changes to geographic distributions, easier to use. elevational ranges, and the status of • The new Manual has been kept non-natives and to one volume of native taxa of spe- similar size to cial concern. The the 1993 Manual, glossary is ex- while the number panded, flowering of taxa that are de- times are given, scribed and illus- and over two- trated has been in- thirds of the taxa creased. are now illus- trated. Waifs (239 Another taxa)—aliens that change in philoso- are not reproduc- phy adopted in the ing sufficiently to new Manual was become estab- a stricter adher- lished parts of the ence to the crite- local flora—are rion of included in the (a monophyletic keys to identifica- group includes all tion. All of the in- descendants of a troductory sec- common ances- tions have been re- tor). That change vised, and there is required a major a new chapter that reclassification of discusses the geo- families, genera, logic, climatic, and and sometimes vegetation history species, subspe- of California. cies, and varieties. In addition, the overall organiza- PHILOSOPHICAL tion of families in CHANGES the 1993 Manual into larger plant Important phi- groups (, gym- losophical consid- nosperms, dicots, erations guided and monocots) re- revision of The quired revision. Jepson Manual TOP: Pilot Ridge fawn lily (Erythronium taylori) is an example of a California species This change was that was first collected by botanists after publication of the 1993 Jepson Manual. (discussed at more due, in part, to Photograph by Jennie Haas. • BOTTOM: Stinkwort ( graveolens) is an invasive length in the intro- composite that has become widely naturalized in California since publication of the recent evidence ductory philoso- 1993 Jepson Manual. Photograph by Robert E. Preston. showing that ferns,

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 3 FIGURE 1. THE EIGHT MAJOR GROUPS OF VASCULAR That serves as a the basis of new studies that led to PLANTS IN THE NEW JEPSON MANUAL. phylogenetic index taxonomic reassessment of previ- and an aid in identify- ously collected plants. That is, most ing plants to family. newly described taxa already resided The tree also shows in herbarium collections, where they graphically that the had been overlooked, misunder- new Manual classifies stood, or unresolved as to taxonomic taxa based on phylog- status. (“Hidden,” undescribed plant eny—their inferred diversity residing inside herbaria has evolutionary relation- increasingly become appreciated as ships based on analy- a major value of such collections; ses of DNA, morphol- see Bebber et al. 2010). ogy, and other lines of evidence. CRYPTIC DIVERSITY Other examples of “hidden” di- TAXONOMIC versity that are recognized in the CHANGES new Manual include taxa that are so difficult to distinguish from closely Perhaps the most related taxa that they were either challenging attributes undetected or, at most, equivocal The Jepson Manual, Second Edition, is organized to follow of the second edition prior to molecular (DNA) work. A current understanding of vascular plant phylogeny. Families are grouped into eight major clades of vascular plants are the taxonomic good example of such cryptic diver- (represented by different colors here), but in the text are changes, which are in sity is gracilis (), arranged alphabetically within each major group. part the result of a which had been treated as part of major revision of fam- L. californica (California goldfields) as treated previously, are not a natu- ily and generic classifications that until molecular studies showed that ral group if delimited to include followed from studies of phylogeny it was not even the closest relative lycophytes—club- (Lycopo- by scientists worldwide over the last of typical L. californica (Chan et al. diaceae), spike-mosses (Selaginella- 20 years. Major changes in classifi- 2000). The two species can be dis- ceae), and quillworts (Isoetaceae)— cation have also been necessary for tinguished by their pappus charac- which are no more closely related to species, with improved understand- teristics but only if pappus is present, ferns than to plants (Raubeson ing of relationships at finer scales. and it is often absent in both. They and Jansen 1992). In the new Manual, 6,502 native and have widely overlapping geographic Other studies have shown that 1,099 non-native species, subspe- distributions but are generally found Californian dicots include four cies, and varieties are recognized for in different soils where they co- monophyletic groups, two of which California. occur (Rajakaruna et al. 2001). Such (Ceratophyllales and ) may evolutionarily distinctive but mor- be more closely related to monocots TAXA NEW TO SCIENCE phologically indistinct species are than to the other two dicot groups important to recognize taxonomi- (Nymphaeales and magnoliids) (see Arguably the most exciting cally so that our classification of Cali- Soltis et al. 2010). Accordingly, plant changes in the new Manual are the fornia plants captures irreplaceable, families in the new Manual are orga- more than 130 species, subspecies, natural groups that warrant scien- nized (alphabetically by family) and varieties that were described as tific attention and conservation within each of eight major groups: new to science after treatments in (Baldwin 2000). lycophytes, ferns, gymnosperms, the 1993 Manual were completed. Nymphaeales, magnoliids, Cerato- Many of these new taxa are rare or ALIENS phyllales, eudicots, and monocots. narrowly distributed California The endpapers just inside the endemics, including striking, obvi- Another challenging of di- back cover are helpful because they ously novel finds that had not been versity to document in California is display a of Cali- collected prior to 1993, such as the the rapidly growing alien compo- fornian plant families, with the eight Pilot Ridge fawn lily (Erythronium nent, including naturalized and waif major groups (Figure 1) highlighted taylori; Liliaceae) and Guggolz’s har- taxa. Since the 1993 Manual was and page numbers indicated for each monia (Harmonia guggolziorum; published, some non-native plants of those groups and for each family. Asteraceae). Most were described on not recognized then as part of the

4 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FIGURE 2. JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS.

A sample page from this online resource, which contains floristic, taxonomic, nomenclatural, and conservation information for Californian plant taxa from the Jepson Flora Project and external resources, including the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. flora have become dangerous and ment the weed flora of agricultural have been used for native and natu- widespread invasives (e.g., stink- and other human-tended areas in ralized plants, often with citations of wort, ; - California—which include many literature where recent nomencla- aceae) or have become worrisome weeds not found in wildlands and tural and/or taxonomic changes were incipient invaders (e.g., giant sal- wildland interfaces—ensure that published or discussed. A simple vinia, Salvinia molesta; Salviniaceae). those plants will be possible to iden- search on a species, subspecies, or In consultation with California weed tify using other resources (e.g., varietal name through the Jepson experts, much effort was invested DiTomaso and Healy 2007). Mis- Interchange yields direct links to a during preparation of the new representing such plants as part of wide diversity of information on that Manual to distinguish between alien the California flora would have bal- from the Jepson Flora Project taxa that are truly naturalized, and looned the size and complexity of and from external resources. those that are sporadically occur- The Jepson Manual unnecessarily. Linked from those pages (and ring but not yet persistent by natu- elsewhere) are Jepson eFlora treat- ral reproduction (i.e., waifs). MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL ments, which closely parallel the Such decisions are complicated revised Jepson Manual treatments by the rapidly changing status of As part of the The Jepson Online and include additional unabridged non-native plants, and often by in- Interchange for California Floristics information (in blue text) that could sufficient documentation as to (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/inter- not be included within the page con- whether such plants have become change, Figure 2), resources are straints of the new printed Manual. established in natural areas. Further available to help users adapt to the The most significant unabridged complicating things are the some- new classifications in the second edi- content in the Jepson eFlora is full times difficult decisions about habi- tion. One of those resources, the In- treatment of nearly 240 species, sub- tats that qualify as sufficiently natu- dex to California Plant Names species, and varieties of waifs. The ral to be included in the flora. (ICPN), includes information on the eFlora treatments also provide de- Active efforts by others to docu- status of formal scientific names that tailed maps for each of the 7,601

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 5 for today’s world. Conservation of emy of Sciences, US. 107: 22169– the California flora would benefit 22171. significantly from having online flo- Chan, R., B.G. Baldwin, and R. Ornduff. ristic resources that are updated as 2002. Cryptic goldfields: A molecu- needed. That approach would make lar phylogenetic reinvestigation of lato and it possible to have at one’s finger- close relatives (Compositae: Helian- tips the most up-to-date informa- theae sensu lato). American Journal tion on California’s native plants of Botany 89: 1103–1112. and habitats. Dempster, L.T. 1979. Rubiaceae. Vol. To meet that need, the Jepson 4, Part 2 of A Flora of California. Flora Project will seek to update the Jepson Herbarium and Library, Ber- Jepson eFlora and the associated In- keley, CA. dex of California Plant Names on a DiTomaso, J.M., and E.A. Healy. 2007. regular basis. That task will require Weeds of California and Other West- continuing cooperation across the ern States. University of California botanical community and close Division of Agriculture and Natural monitoring of floristic discoveries. Resources, Oakland, CA. Heckard, L.R., and J.C. Hickman. 1985. Sierra foothills (Brodiaea sierrae) At the same time, we will continue The vascular plants of Snow Moun- is a Californian species that was described to develop other online resources of as new to science in 2006 based on recent tain, North Coast Ranges, Califor- taxonomic studies, more than 100 years the Jepson Flora Project, and to co- nia. Wasmann Journal of Biology 43 after it was first collected by botanists. operate with the Consortium of Cali- (1&2): 1–42. Photograph by George Hartwell. fornia Herbaria, which is the foun- Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson dation of vouchered floristic data on Manual: Higher Plants of California. native and naturalized taxa in- which we all depend. We also are University of California Press, Ber- cluded. seeking to facilitate development of keley, CA. Other helpful tools available new applications that make plant Jepson, W.L. 1909–1943. A Flora of through the Jepson eFlora include: identification easier, such as key California. Vols. 1–3. Associated Stu- 1) Dynamic Concordance, which al- parsing that takes advantage of plant dents Store, Berkeley, CA. lows input of plant names from the distributional data on regional and Jepson, W.L. 1925. A Manual of the Flowering Plants of California. As- 1993 Manual to search for changes local scales. sociated Students Store, Berkeley, in the second edition; 2) a search- We are grateful for the wide col- CA. able list of names that were included laboration that made it possible to Munz, P.A. 1959. A California Flora. in the 1993 Manual but are not in- produce the new Jepson Manual, and University of California Press, Ber- cluded in the second edition (i.e., look forward to continuing this part- keley, CA. superseded names); and 3) a mecha- nership across the California botani- Rajakaruna, N., et al. 2003. Edaphic nism to generate lists of names used cal community to meet the floristic races and phylogenetic taxa in the in the eFlora in a spreadsheet-com- challenges ahead. Lasthenia californica complex (Aster- patible format. Corrections to the aceae: ): An hypothesis of parallel evolution. Molecular Ecol- second edition of The Jepson Manual REFERENCES also are posted in the Jepson Inter- ogy 12: 1675–1679. change as errata (http://ucjeps. Baldwin, B.G. 2000. Roles for modern Raubeson, L.A. and R.K. Jansen. 1992. Chloroplast DNA evidence on the berkeley.edu/JM12_errata.html). plant systematics in discovery and conservation of fine-scale biodiver- ancient evolutionary split in vascu- sity. Madroño 47: 219–229. lar land plants. Science 255: 1697– 1699. WHAT’S NEXT? Baldwin, B.G., et al., eds. 2002. The Soltis, D.E., et al. 2010. Assembling the Jepson Desert Manual: Vascular The experience of producing the angiosperm tree of life: Progress and Plants of Southeastern California. new Manual taught us a great deal future prospects. Annals of the Mis- University of California Press, Ber- about the challenges of pursuing souri Botanical Garden 97: 514–526. keley, CA. floristics in a state the size of Cali- Baldwin, B.G., et al., eds. 2012. The fornia, in an age of rapid change in Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of Bruce G. Baldwin and Staci Markos, scientific understanding, environ- California. 2d ed. University of Cali- Jepson Herbarium, 1001 Valley Life Sci- mental conditions, and digital re- fornia Press, Berkeley, CA. ences Building #2465, University of Cali- sources. Tackling a revision of the Bebber, D.P., et al. 2010. Herbaria are a fornia, Berkeley, CA 94720-2465, Manual every decade or so is an major frontier for species discovery. [email protected]; smarkos@ immense task that moves too slowly Proceedings of the National Acad- berkeley.edu

6 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 TWO CHAMPIONS OF CALIFORNIA BOTANY: THE CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL SOCIETY AND THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY by Michael C. Vasey, V. Thomas Parker, and Staci Markos

hat was botany like was (and continues to be) a key in California one hun- element of the Society’s mission to dred years ago? Surely engage Californians (professionals, native plants were amateurs, and the public) in learn- Wmuch more abundant, the full magic ing about California’s remarkable of California’s flora was still rela- flora and taking measures to con- tively unknown, and the botanical serve native plants. community was limited. That same year, the Second In- By the mid- to late 1800s, rather ternational Phytogeographical Ex- than sending plant collections to cursion came to California in early or the eastern , September, 1913 (Beidleman 2009; a core group of California botanists see sidebar on page 8). Working began creating institutions to de- with Henry Cowles, a pioneering velop a California botany profession. plant ecologist from Chicago, as well Albert Kellogg, Katherine Brandegee, as other local botanists, Jepson laid Carl Purdy, E.L. Greene, Willis Linn the groundwork for this gathering Jepson, Alice Eastwood, William of botanical luminaries from around Dudley, Marcus Jones, and a hand- the world and, by all accounts, it ful of other botanists focused on was a smashing success and drew and publishing new international attention to California’s plant species for California. unique flora. They were mainly based in two Reflecting on the beginning years institutions with well-established of the California Botanical Society, herbaria: the California Academy of Jepson commented (Jepson 1938): Sciences in San Francisco and the The backbone of the Society, the University Herbarium on the UC most eligible and vital part of the Berkeley campus. While the task of membership, in the earliest years, identifying California’s diverse flora consisted in the main of those who ruled the day, experimental botany were not professional botanists in in Europe had begun to emerge in Willis Linn Jepson in 1897 at the age of 30 the strictest sense, but men in other while collecting in Ukiah. Jepson published the late 19th century and academic fields, most often in field of applied A Flora of California in 1899. He later institutions in California began to botany such as agriculture, horti- coordinated the founding of the California focus as well on this new science of Botanical Society in April 1913, and served culture, , silviculture, or plant physiology and plant ecology. as its first president from 1913–1915. He forestry; but also including men in In addition to documenting the was a native Californian and one of Cali- medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, fornia’s most distinguished early botanists. flora, these early botanists developed and various business occupations. Image courtesy of the University and Jepson organizations to gather together and Herbaria Archives, University of California, share their points of view. One ex- To summarize, the original im- Berkeley. ample was the California Botanical petus for the California Botanical Society, founded in 1913. Willis Linn Society was both to further the sci- remarkable flora and taking mea- Jepson initiated the effort to form ence of botany in California by, in sures to conserve California native the Society and envisioned a broad part, providing a professional jour- plants. Citizen science, then as now, organization that would promote nal (Madroño) to accomplish that played a major role in clarifying and botanical research and diffuse “ac- end, and also to engage a much conserving the complex and fasci- curate botanical knowledge, in an broader community of Californians nating plant diversity that is our trea- accessible form, amongst the people” (professionals, amateurs, and the sured botanical legacy. (Anon. 1916). The journal Madroño public) in learning about California’s By the early 1960s, a booming

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 7 mandate to protect California’s rare THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL PHYTOGEOGRAPHIC plants, and “The professional botani- EXCURSION cal societies were making gestures, September 1913 but not undertaking vigorous, con- certed action” (Stebbins 1990). fter visiting the East, Midwest, Colorado, and then the Pacific The rest, of course, is history. A Northwest, a party of internationally renowned botanists ar- CNPS now hosts approximately rived in the San Francisco Bay Area on September 6, 1913. Among 9,000 members in 33 chapters scat- them were some of the founders of plant sociology, geobotany, tered in every corner of California. community ecology, and ecosystem ecology. They came from Swit- A statewide staff and board coordi- zerland, , , the , the eastern United nates and provides support for the States, and elsewhere. This was the first visit of botanists of such great activities of these chapters. Native stature since Sir Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray visited the California plant sales, plant walks, posters, Academy of Sciences in 1880. conferences, Fremontia, the CNPS Included were such notables as Carl Schröter (Zurich), Ove Bulletin, monthly programs, and Paulsen (Copenhagen), Carl von Tubeuf (Munich), T.J. Stomps stewardship activities keep the pub- (Amsterdam), Arthur Tansley (Cambridge), Adolf Engler (Berlin), lic actively informed about the value Frederich Clements (Minneapolis), Henry Cowles (Chicago), and of and threats to our native plant Alfred Dachnowski (Columbus). The party left the next day for diversity. CNPS is a leader in veg- Yosemite and the Mariposa Big , later visiting Mount Tamalpais, etation studies and rare plant in- salt marshes near Redwood City, and the Monterey Peninsula before ventories in conjunction with the heading to . California Department of Fish and In honor of this group, Jepson arranged for the first banquet Wildlife. Most importantly, CNPS celebration of the California Botanical Society. Most of these visitors is vigilant in making sure that fed- spoke briefly to give their impressions of the California flora. Typical eral and state laws intended to pro- of these comments was one by Carl von Tubeuf, a pioneer in biologi- tect California native plants are en- cal control of plant pathogens: forced, and it partners with numer- ous other nonprofit environmental When a lad, I read in the geographies of your high mountains, wonder- groups to protect California’s na- ful trees, and fields of glorious bloom. It was the dream of my youth to tive plant legacy. see this paradise. Now, in this evening of my life, I come with my During the past 30 years there colleagues. We are not disappointed, we are astonished; what we find is has been an increased convergence finer than any dream. between CNPS and the California Many visitors commented on the energy Americans displayed in Botanical Society. Advances in un- their activities to develop our country. At the same time, they were derstanding biological diversity, perplexed at what they saw as rampant destruction without consider- such as insights provided by mo- ation of the future. They encouraged Americans to work toward lecular systematic biology, have conserving their landscapes and building botanic gardens. brought to light a clearer picture of species that are worthy of being conserved. Advances in community post-war recovery distracted the another became apparent, the Cali- ecology, conservation biology, and public from a looming ecological fornia Native Plant Society (CNPS) restoration ecology are providing a crisis. By the time it became clear was founded in 1965 as the organi- firmer foundation for building con- that California’s habitats were dis- zation dedicated to communicating servation strategies. Conservation appearing under these growth pres- California’s native plant diversity to policies such as the Natural Com- sures, some California plant species the public, developing various con- munities Conservation Planning Act were already extinct and many oth- servation tools for protecting that provide a strong conservation policy ers were in danger of going extinct. diversity, and mobilizing the public framework and have generated the Biological science had become more in the effort to appreciate and pro- need for more botanical consultants professionalized, experimental, and tect the California flora from heed- and agency biologists. centered in academia. There was a less development. The need for adaptive manage- desperate need for an organiza- At the time, G. Ledyard Stebbins ment and monitoring has also stimu- tion focused on native plant conser- recalled that no other organization, lated new opportunities for networks vation. such as the or The Na- of citizen scientists to work with pro- As one destructive project after ture Conservancy, had the specific fessional scientists to ramp up the

8 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 scale of conservation activities that will be necessary to achieve our con- servation goals. Furthermore, native plant propagation and conservation gardens are emerging as a key to conserving the California flora in the face of major challenges, including habitat loss and climate change. Today our continued under- standing of the flora is due in large part to the collective work of CNPS members working throughout the state who have published scientific research, descriptions of new taxa, and noteworthy collections in Ma- droño. By contributing to Madroño, CNPS members have long played an important role in the California Bo- tanical Society, and by providing access to research papers and other important floristic and ecological Group photograph of members of the 2nd International Phytogeographical Expedition at the General Sheridan Tree in Mariposa Grove, , on September 9, information, the California Botani- 1913. This party of distinguished plant scientists later attended the first annual banquet cal Society has helped inform the of the California Botanical Society in Oakland on September 12, 1913. Image courtesy of science-based conservation strate- the University and Jepson Herbaria Archives, University of California, Berkeley. gies adopted by CNPS—a truly syn- ergistic effort! we extend a warm invitation to at- ciety and because of the shared his- In April 2013, the California Bo- tend the centennial celebration of tory between the two groups, we are tanical Society will celebrate its cen- the California Botanical Society that offering a 25% discounted member- tennial and we are proud to share will be held in Berkeley, California ship fee for CNPS members. To take this achievement with the Califor- (April 12–14, 2013). We hope you part, please go to www.calbotsoc. nia Native Plant Society, our part- can join us! Additional details are org. Click the “membership” button ner in protecting and understand- provided in the sidebar below. at the top of the home page, and ing the native plants and habitats of Finally, in honor of the centen- then click on “pay-online.” The pull- California. To all CNPS members, nial for the California Botanical So- down menu for “membership type”

THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL SOCIETY April 12–14, 2013 eaching one hundred years is a significant accomplishment for any organization. The California Botanical RSociety is celebrating this achievement with special field trips, a professional symposium, “Botanical Frontiers: Past and Future,” and a meeting where current graduate students can present their research. The symposium will feature eight renowned scientists who work in evolutionary biology, ecology, conservation, and restoration ecology. These include Bruce Baldwin (UC Berkeley and convening editor of the second edition of The Jepson Manual) and Aaron Liston ( State University); ecologists Todd Keeler- Wolf (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Anna Jacobsen (CSU Bakersfield), and David Peterson (University of and the US Forest Service); invasive species experts Carla D’Antonio (UC Santa Barbara) and Ragan Callaway (University of , Missoula); and restoration ecologist Richard Hobbs (University of Western ). This stellar group of speakers will reflect on important topics that are likely to dominate the science of California botany well into the future. Following the symposium there will be a banquet presentation featuring Kent Holsinger (University of ), a plant evolutionary biologist and a native Californian. More information on each speaker and the centennial celebration can be found at http://www.calbotsoc.org/ centennial.html).

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 9 ABOVE: Brett Hall (left), president, CNPS, and Tom Parker (right), president, California Botanical Society, after an exploratory trip to the “ cave” (pictured below) at the Sierra Buttes, Sierra County, CA (background) to check on the status of the green spleenwort. This excursion was in advance of a well-attended Centennial botanical field trip to the Lakes Basin region of Sierra County on July 14, 2012. • RIGHT: Green spleenwort (Asplenium viride Huds.) growing in a limestone seam at the mouth of a cave on north-facing metavolcanic cliffs found on the south butte of the Sierra Buttes, Sierra County, CA. Originally discovered by prominent botanist G. Ledyard Stebbins in July 1953 (UC996165), this is the only known locality for this species in California. Although still present, fern individuals appear to be dying back, and their status should be monitored more frequently given their potential susceptibility to rapidly changing climate. Photograph by Michael Vasey. will have a special category for CNPS Jepson, W.L. 1938. Viae felicitatis: The members. This offer is good for the beginning years of the California Bo- 2013 centennial year! tanical Society. Madroño 4: 276–286. Stebbins, G.L. 1990. The California Native Plant Society: Then and now. REFERENCES Fremontia 18: 3–8. Anon. 1916. Founding of the Society. Madroño 1. Michael C. Vasey and V. Thomas Parker, [email protected]; [email protected]; Beidleman, R.G. 2009. To California both c/o Department of Biology, San Fran- Staci Markos, Jepson Herbarium, Univer- with Jepson’s “Phyto-Jogs” in 1913. cisco State University, 1600 Holloway sity of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; Madroño 56: 49–56. Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, [email protected].

10 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 THE FIRST FLORA OF CALIFORNIA AND THE SERENO WATSON, WILLIAM BREWER, AND ASA GRAY COLLABORATION by Liam H. Davis

n 1864 botanist William Henry ropean city of Heidelberg to study Whitney had been appointed in Brewer gave his California botani- chemistry with Robert Bunsen, and 1860 as the state geologist for Cali- cal collection to Asa Gray to house to Munich to study agriculture and fornia by the California State Legis- in the Gray Herbarium at Harvard organic chemistry with Justus von lature and was instructed to under- IUniversity. The large Brewer plant Liebig. take a comprehensive geologic sur- collection contained numerous Then in the summer of 1856 vey of the new state of California. specimens from his approximately we first learn of his botanical field Whitney had decided that his Cali- four years botanizing up and down interests. According California between 1860 and 1864. to a biographical Asa Gray, probably the best known memoir of Brewer, US botanist of the nineteenth cen- “During vacation tury, was mentor to young botanists periods he would who were actively cataloging newly do excursions described plant species throughout throughout Ger- the United States and its adjacent many and Switzer- frontiers. land studying bo- Along with Sereno Watson, who tanical specimens was later employed at the Gray Her- and minerals. . . . barium, these three botanists collabo- He walked six hun- rated on a taxonomic compilation dred miles through that became the most comprehen- Switzerland, bota- sive listing of California plants at that nizing in many lo- time. Subsequently Brewer, Watson, calities and collect- and Gray published the first Flora of ing a wealth of bo- California in two large volumes. Vol- tanical material” ume I (1876) presents the authors as (Chittenden 1927). Brewer, Watson, and Gray while the After returning subsequent Volume II (1880) cites to the United States Watson as sole author. The history in 1860, Brewer of this extraordinary collaboration is taught at what is a story of chance encounters with now Washington distinguishing personalities. and Jefferson Col- lege in Pennsylva- nia. Shortly thereaf- BREWER AND THE ter, his young wife CALIFORNIA SURVEY Angelina Jameson Some members of the 1864 California Geological Survey field party. From left to right: James T. Gardner, Richard D. Cotter, (1860–1864) died giving birth to William H. Brewer (seated), and Clarence King. The party sur- a stillborn son. That veyed and named Mount Brewer in their exploration of the As a student, Brewer entered Yale same year, a class- California High Sierra. University in 1848 to study chemis- mate and friend, try and agriculture. Although he George J. Brush, recommeded Brewer fornia survey would be different took a hiatus from his studies for a to Josiah Dwight Whitney who was from his previous state surveys. This short period to teach sciences, he heading up the newly formed Geo- one would not only cover geogra- later enrolled again at Yale and in logical Survey of California. Whitney phy and geology, but also botany, 1852 he graduated. A few years later invited Brewer to join the project zoology, and . Whitney in 1855 Brewer traveled to the Eu- and he enthusiastically accepted. reasoned that someone like Brewer,

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 11 with a multidisciplinary background KEY FIGURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE in several sciences, would fit nicely into Whitney’s California survey FIRST FLORA OF CALIFORNIA planning scheme. As the survey got underway, Sereno Watson (1826–1892) Whitney soon developed a profound Graduated from in regard for Brewer. As a result Brewer 1847, and after various jobs, traveled was given more responsibility and to California and joined Clarence King’s was asked to supervise several of the 40th Parallel Survey in 1866 as a bo- other scientists working on the tanical field assistant. In 1870 began project. At the same time, Brewer working with Asa Gray at the Gray pursued his expertise in botany on Herbarium of . An the Geological Survey of California. author of the two volumes of The Cali- Whitney’s California survey ex- fornia Flora. peditions periodically came into con- flict with the state legislature, which was primarily interested in obtain- William Henry Brewer (1828–1910) ing more information about Califor- nia gold. The Worked on the first California Geo- logical Survey during 1860–1864. In of 1848–1855 began in 1848 when 1865 he became the first chair of agri- gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill, a sawmill in Coloma, El Dorado culture at Yale University’s Sheffield Scientific School, where he served un- County. Estimates were that 300,000 til his retirement in 1903. Coauthored people flocked to California during that period. However, only a hand- the first of the two volumes of The California Flora. ful of people ended up with fortunes from the gold. But this mass insur- gence of people propelled California to qualify for statehood in 1850. Asa Gray (1810–1888) Whitney had argued in written Considered the most important and communications with the state leg- influential American botanist of the islature that the 1860 California state nineteenth century. Gray was instru- survey was not a prospecting party mental in unifying the taxonomic for gold. The legislature grew weary knowledge of the plants of North of his protests and Whitney’s bud- America. In 1870 he invited Sereno get began to dwindle. Brewer at- Watson to assist him at the Gray Her- tempted to keep his Geological Sur- barium at Harvard University. Coau- vey of California botanical endeav- thored the first of the two volumes of ors funded as best he could. While The California Flora. on the survey Brewer would give local talks when invited by audi- ences interested in his work. Clarence King (1842–1901) Brewer was the first botanist to American geologist, mountaineer, and visit and collect extensively through- art critic. Served under William Brewer out many of the remarkable and var- in the California Geological Survey dur- ied California plant habitats during ing 1863–1864. Later in 1866, King his four years on the Geological Sur- hired Sereno Watson as a botanical field vey of California. For example, assistant on the 40th Parallel Survey Brewer was fascinated when visiting across Nevada, Utah, and . the California High Sierra flora for King was the first director of the newly the first time. As he pressed plants formed United States Geological Sur- in his collection he posted ambi- vey from 1879–1881. tious letters to Asa Gray over the marvels of seeing giant sequoias for the first time.

12 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 In 1863 Brewer by chance met Clarence King, a young Yale gradu- William Whitman Bailey ate who was fascinated by nameless (1843–1914) California high mountains he had learned about in college. Both men Served as the first botanist on were on a steamer traveling from the 40th Parallel Survey. Was Sacramento to San Francisco. It was assigned a novice field assis- King who recognized Brewer based tant named Sereno Watson, on others’ recollections at Yale, who whom he supervised and had described Brewer’s tall, gaunt taught. Bailey became a botany appearance. The young King was instructor at Brown University hoping to meet up with Brewer at in 1877, where he remained the Whitney geologic survey head- until retiring as a professor in quarters in San Francisco, because 1906. King wanted to join the Geological Survey of California and climb those tall California mountains. Since Brewer was in charge of the California survey work, King approached this stranger and in- Daniel Cady Eaton (1834–1895) quired if he was indeed William H. After his bachelor’s degree at Yale Uni- Brewer. King then handed him a versity, studied botany under Asa Gray letter of recommendation from one at Harvard. Eaton returned to Yale and of his Yale professors who knew became botany professor and her- Brewer. barium curator. At Yale in 1869, Eaton This survey and King’s later suc- urged his friend and colleague, Sereno cessful 40th Parallel Survey (1866– Watson, to write to Asa Gray and offer 1869), together with his regular and to donate his plant specimens of the widely published Atlantic Monthly 40th Parallel Survey to the herbarium. articles on mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada, established his repu- tation as a young and extraordinar- ily successful explorer. King would later become the first director, at Josiah Dwight Whitney (1819– age 37, of the United States Geologi- 1896) cal Survey, serving from 1879 to 1881. Professor of geology at Harvard Uni- versity while also chief of the Califor- nia Geological Survey from 1860– KING AND THE 40TH 1874. Hired William Henry Brewer to PARALLEL SURVEY (1866– work on the Survey (1860–1864). 1869) Then returned to teach at Harvard’s Lawrence Scientific School. King proved so capable on the California survey that he asked Brewer to support King’s idea of a “40th parallel survey.” At that time At the meeting, King argued that appointed as geologist to head up the military was fully involved in the purpose of his proposed civilian the survey. any surveys of newly acquired fed- (not military) survey was simply to In 1864 Brewer’s California sur- eral (non-state) lands which were recommend a proposed best 40th vey ended. He housed his California being rapidly settled. Brewer then parallel route for the western sec- plant collection of about 2,000 spe- wrote Edwin Stanton, who was the tion of the transcontinental railroad cies with Asa Gray at Harvard. Secretary of War in Washington, system, Stanton supported the idea, Brewer stayed and worked with Gray D.C., asking him to meet with King, and soon afterward Congress passed on the collection from December and Stanton agreed. a bill authorizing it. King was then 1864 until April 1865. Then he re-

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 13 turned to his alma mater, Yale Uni- shown up at the King survey field the time, King directed Watson to versity, to accept the first Chair of encampment along the assist Bailey without salary. The 42- Agriculture at Yale’s Sheffield Scien- in Nevada seeking work. At the time year-old Watson was perhaps the tific School. Brewer oldest person in the had no idea when he survey party. Most would return to his were in their twenties, work on the California including King and flora. Bailey. From this re- markable beginning, the field assistant BREWER MEETS Sereno Watson would SERENO go on to be recognized WATSON as one of the great American botanists of After the Civil War the nineteenth century. ended, Watson trav- Despite contrasting eled to California. Ac- personalities, Bailey’s counts stated that he supervision of Watson had no definite idea melded into a profes- what he was going to sional relationship do there, although he built primarily on new- was aware that King Sereno Watson, prominent nineteenth century US botanist, in the Gray found mutual respect. was undertaking a 40th Herbarium at Harvard University. Watson played a leading role in developing Bailey enjoyed training parallel survey expedi- the first flora of California. Watson, and working tion. Brewer writes in under Bailey’s instruc- his biographical memoir on Watson: King, Bailey, and other team mem- tion, Watson’s field work developed bers were organizing the beginnings into a passionate love for botany. As He spent two or three months in of their survey. Given his past his- for Bailey, he found in Watson a the Sacramento Valley, and when tory, Watson seemed an unlikely can- combination of an eager field assis- at Woodville he heard that the ex- didate for a field assistant on a geo- tant and personal medical physician. pedition under Clarence King had logical survey. He had involved him- During the first year of the survey, started across the mountains. He self in a of business invest- an ailing Bailey posted a letter to Asa resolved to join it. From the termi- ments, none of which had worked Gray describing Watson thus: nus of the railroad he set out alone out. He had also tried a number of on foot, crossed the Sierra Nevada, I will give you an account of my sporadic, unrelated academic en- and found his way to the camp of summer’s work. It was much inter- deavors, and later devoted five years the party, which was then on the rupted by sickness, chiefly fever and to his brother’s insurance business, Truckee River. ague. . . . My associate in this depart- but still had not found his “niche.” ment, Mr. Watson, was well all the In 1866 King hired William In 1866 Watson stood before time—very energetic and industri- Whitman Bailey as the 40th parallel Clarence King unemployed, again ous—his herbarium probably con- survey botanist, and later hired with no career and no future. Ac- tains twice the number which I have Sereno Watson (who eventually be- counts state Watson was barefoot collected. I cannot speak in terms of came curator of the Gray Herbarium when he walked into the King en- too high praise of this gentleman. at Harvard University) as his bo- campment. Watson provided King . . . [He] works early and late and tanical field assistant. Bailey came with a letter of introduction, signed seems never tired or ruffled. with a written recommendation from by a friend of King’s from Hartford, Asa Gray, his former botany instruc- Connecticut. As Watson and King Bailey’s sickness persisted. After tor. The 25-year-old Bailey’s excit- conversed, King became aware that four more months of illness, Bailey able personality contrasted markedly both he and Watson had taken the tendered his resignation. King wrote with that of his new field assistant, same chemistry course at Yale. King in his letters, as quoted by Brewer: Sereno Watson, who was a quiet, found some commonality with this I then installed Watson in charge of middle-aged, resolute man (later to unusual man. botany. He was then as nearly per- became the principal botanist of the Watson offered King his services fectly happy as I have ever seen a first flora of California). for free. After considering the status human being . . . he wore a free, In 1866 Sereno Watson had of Bailey, who was sick with fever at careless air . . . till his connection

14 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 with the Fortieth Parallel Survey a collaboration strategy to publish To Field Collecting And Herbarium ceased. . . . This was technically the the California flora. Brewer con- Work. Kessinger Publishing Com- beginning of his professional career fessed that his solo attempt to do so pany, Whitefish, MT. as a botanist. had been unfruitful: “[My] Botany Brewer (William Henry) Papers. Ar- of California . . . work went on in- Later in 1869, Watson concluded chives, The LuEsther T. Mertz Li- termittently and was not completed.” his participation in the 40th parallel brary. The New York Botanical Gar- An extraordinarily large collection survey and found space at the Yale den Library, The Bronx, New York, of letters between Brewer and herbarium to begin work on his 40th NY. Watson from 1875 to 1879 details parallel plant collection, under its Brewer, W.H. 1966. Up and Down Cali- their work together on the Califor- curator Daniel Cady Eaton. Eaton fornia in 1860–1864, ed. Francis P. nia flora, as well as their close friend- warmly welcomed Watson. Eaton Farquhar. University of California ship. They are housed at the New and Watson had each separately Press, Berkeley, CA. York Botanical Garden. botanized on different occasions in Brewer, W.H., S. Watson, and A. Gray. Brewer stated that his California Utah. 1876. Botany of California, Vol. I. “work and that of Dr. Watson had With Brewer and Watson at Yale John Wilson and Son, University much in common. Geographically at the same time, it is reasonable Press, Cambridge, MA. they covered adjoining regions hav- that at the Yale herbarium, both Brewer, W.H. 1903. Biographical Mem- ing many physiographic and climatic Brewer and Watson began face-to- oir of Sereno Watson: 1820–1892. features in common. Many of the face discussions concerning each National Academy of the Sciences. species were the same.” In direct other’s botanical interests and par- Washington, D.C. reference to California itself, Brewer ticularly each other’s significant Chittenden, R.H. 1927. Biographical adds, plant collection. Memoir of William Henry Brewer: 1828–1910. National Academy of Eaton had done his graduate More than sixty government expe- Sciences, Washington, D.C. work under Asa Gray at Harvard. He ditions of our own country had Dupree, A. H. 1968. Asa Gray: 1810– urged Watson to share his 40th par- been into this region. . . . To col- 1888. Belknap Press of Harvard Uni- allel plant specimens with Gray for lect the American portions into one versity Press, Cambridge, MA. study. On December 9, 1869, Watson reference list would be an immense Gray, A. Letters Archives. Gray Her- wrote to Asa Gray introducing him- work . . . tedious, time-consum- barium Library. Harvard University, self and joked, “[You have heard] ing, uninteresting clerical drudg- Cambridge, MA. that I have been gathering weeds” ery. Dr. Watson did not shrink Hague, J.D., ed. 1904. Clarence King and offered Gray use of any of his from this. 40th parallel plant material. One can Memoirs. The Helmet of Mambrino. At the end of The California only imagine how eager Gray was to Century Association. G.P. Putnam’s Flora, Vol. II (pages 553–9) Brewer examine the entire collection. Sons, New York, NY. contributes a fascinating seven-page Watson was likewise determined King, C. 1997. Mountaineering in the account of the men and women who Sierra Nevada, ed. Francis P. to visit and examine the large and botanized chronologically in Cali- Farquhar. University of Nebraska prestigious Gray Herbarium collec- fornia and its adjacent boundaries Press, Lincoln, NE. tion and inquired whether this might (up to 1880). This unique report is Moore, J.G. 2006. King of the 40th Par- be possible. Asa Gray extended an not readily available and many allel. Stanford University Press, invitation, and Watson soon jour- people are not even aware of it. This Stanford, CA. neyed to Harvard. As it happened, comprehensive report can be found Watson, S. 1880. Botany of California, Watson then remained working at on the Internet at: http://www. Vol. II. John Wilson and Son, Uni- the Gray Herbarium for the rest of archive.org/details/botany__02 versity Press, Cambridge, MA. his life. The “Botany of the 40th geol. Wilson, R. 2006. The Explorer King. Parallel” by Sereno Watson was pub- Simon & Schuster Press, New York, lished in 1871 under the guidance NY. of Asa Gray. REFERENCES Wilkens, T. 1988. Clarence King, a Bi- Bailey (William Whitney) Papers. ography. University of New THE CALIFORNIA FLORA Brown University Library, Provi- Press, Albuquerque, NM. VOL. I (1876) AND VOL. II dence, RI. Henry E. Huntington Li- (1880) brary, San Marino, CA. New York Liam H. Davis, California Department of Botanical Garden Library, The Bronx, Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region, 7329 Beginning in 1875, Brewer and New York, NY. Silverado Trail, Napa, CA 94558, ldavis Watson began corresponding about Bailey, W.W. 1899. Botanizing: A Guide @dfg.ca.gov

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 15 HOW THE BRODIAEAS GOT THEIR NAME by Robert E. Preston

n the summer of 1792, Captain North America.” However, be- , in com- fore Smith could describe the mand of H.M.S. Discovery, led new species, he was beaten to it an expedition to chart the by his botanical rival Richard Icoast of the Pacific Northwest, Salisbury (1761-1829), which exploring and mapping the San started a nomenclatural dispute Juan Islands, Puget Sound, and that took nearly a century to re- other islands and waterways be- solve. tween there and what was later Formerly friends and even named . Aboard roommates, Smith and Salisbury was (1754- had a falling out over various 1842), the ship’s naturalist, a na- personal and professional differ- val surgeon by training but who ences, with Salisbury going so also came from a family of bota- far as to accuse Smith of plagia- nists. Menzies was sponsored by rizing Linnaeus’ generic treat- Sir (1743-1820), ments. In 1808, their enmity the great sponsor of British sci- came to a head. In the February ence and himself a ship’s natu- 1, 1808 edition of The Monthly ralist with Captain James Cook. Magazine, Samuel Frederick Gray (1766–1828), reporting on new species that had recently THE DISCOVERY OF been described in the English botanical literature, noted in BRODIAEAS Archibald Menzies (1754–1842), naturalist aboard HMS Discovery during the , an aside that former friends Menzies made good use of collected the first brodiaea specimens. Courtesy of Salisbury and Smith had become the time allotted him for natural the Linnean Society of . “inveterate enemies.” Salisbury history observations, collecting and Smith had argued over specimens of plants, animals, and story that has many classic elements: Salisbury’s claim to have suggested invertebrates, and taking copious intrepid explorers, rival botanists, a the name Smithia sensitiva (a mem- notes on their use by the native comedy of errors—and even pirates. ber of the with that peoples. Menzies reported in his It is also a story that reminds us that fold up when touched) in honor of journal on May 28, 1792, that he botany is a human endeavor, and Smith, and Salisbury’s account of the had observed native women gather- despite the alleged objectivity of the naming included an insinuation that ing “. . . a little bulbous root of a measurements, molecules, statistics, the name also befitted Smith’s per- liliaceous plant which on searching and cladograms that we now em- sonal character. Gray suggested that about for the flower of it I discov- ploy, it is a process subject to all of Salisbury’s version of the story was ered to be a new Genus . . . ” Al- the whims, foibles, and prejudices believable, although he tactfully ne- though Menzies recognized that his that plague our species. glected to mention Salisbury’s dig at collections included new genera and Upon returning to England, Smith. However, he did observe that many new species, he deferred the Menzies made his specimens, field Salisbury seemed to go out of his naming of his discoveries to others. notes, and drawings available to his way to “wound his former friend.” Menzies’ little lily-like plants are colleagues. James Smith (1759– Salisbury’s barbs must have now what we call brodiaeas. 1828) was the first to mention the stung, as Smith felt that his name- Brodiaeas include the genus new liliaceous species in his text- sake had been earned by careful Brodiaea, in the strict sense, but also book, An Introduction to Physiologi- work. Smith promptly responded in the closely related , cal and Systematical Botany. In his a letter to the editor of The Monthly and the name is also sometimes ap- discussion of the flowers of lilies Magazine, scolding Gray for seem- plied to the more distantly related and lily-like plants, Smith cited “two ing to take Salisbury’s side, calling . This is the story of how species of a new genus, found by Salisbury a “traitor” for twisting his the brodiaeas got their name. It is a Mr. Menzies on the west coast of account into a personal attack, and

16 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 further accusing him of calumny. of Hookera, or Brodiea [sic], we shall the formation and application of Salisbury fired back with his own not attempt to decide which will be botanical names. These rules were letter to the editor, who rejected it likely to be handed down to poster- adopted at the International Botani- on the grounds that it contained too ity . . . ” Unfortunately for Salisbury, cal Congress held in in Au- many “allegations and insinuations.” his unpopularity within the botani- gust, 1867. Known as the “Lois,” Not to be deterred, Salisbury self- cal establishment apparently led to these rules of nomenclature included published and distributed the letter. Smith’s fellow botanists entering a an Article establishing the principle On March 1, 1808, at the peak of gentleman’s agreement to ignore of nomenclatural priority. Article 15 the feud, Salisbury “scooped” Smith Hookera. For the next 75 years, the of the Lois stated that each group of by publishing the description of a name Hookera was disregarded in plants could have only one name, new genus, Hookera, giving the favor of the name Brodiaea. which was “the most ancient, names Hookera coronaria and whether adopted or given by Hookera pulchella to the plants that Linnaeus, or since Linnaeus.” The Menzies had collected and that Smith THE CONTROVERSY rule of priority set off a frenzy of had mentioned in his textbook. RENEWED historical research to discover and Salisbury named the genus for Will- resurrect the earliest known names iam Hooker (1779–1836), the pub- In the late 1860s, Alphonse de published for plant species, which lisher and illustrator of Paradisus Candolle was charged with devel- would supplant the later, often more Londinensis, where the description oping a set of formal rules to govern widely known names. was published. Salisbury disagreed with Smith on many points of floral morphology, and Salisbury used his description to rebut Smith’s inter- pretation of these species’ flowers. On March 4, 1808, just three days after the publication date of Hookera, Smith finished a paper describing ten species of a new genus, , named for his friend (1785–1865). The next day, on March 5, 1808, Smith completed his own descriptions of Menzies’ new species, which he read before the Linnean Society on April 19, 1808. Smith proposed the genus Brodiaea, in honor of his friend and mentor James Brodie (1744–1824), with two species, B. grandiflora and B. con- gesta, based on Menzies’ collections and field notes. Gray continued to drop snippets about the bad blood between Salisbury and Smith among his re- views of the latest taxonomic works, but by the September edition of The Monthly Magazine, he began to feel that his reporting about the feud was making it of more lasting im- portance than their respective con- tributions to botany. In the Monthly Botanical Report for December, 1808, Gray laid the Salisbury/Smith rivalry James Edward Smith (1759–1828) named the genus Brodiaea for his friend and mentor, the to rest with the following closing Scottish botanist James Brodie. In the portrait, sensitive smithia (Smithia sensitiva) appears remark: “With respect to the name on the left-hand page of the open book. Courtesy of the Linnean Society of London.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 17 TABLE 1. NAMES OF BRODIAEA SPECIES PUBLISHED IN THE BOTANICAL LITERATURE, 1808–2010.

SPECIES AUTHOR DATE OF PUBLICATION

Brodiaea coronaria (published as Hookera coronaria) Richard Salisbury 1808

Brodiaea grandiflora ( of B. coronaria) James E. Smith 1810

Brodiaea californica 1849 (published as Brodiaea grandiflora var. minor) 1857

Brodiaea terrestris Albert Kellogg 1859 Brodiaea stellaris Sereno Watson 1881

Brodiaea filifolia Sereno Watson 1881 Brodiaea rosea (published as Hookera rosea) Edward L. Greene 1886

Brodiaea orcuttii (published as Hookera orcuttii) Edward L. Greene 1886 Brodiaea leptandra (published as Hookera leptandra) Edward L. Greene 1887

Brodiaea synandra (synonym of B. leptandra) Amos A. Heller 1903 (published as Brodiaea synandra var. insignis) Willis Jepson 1922

Brodiaea nana Robert F. Hoover 1936

Brodiaea appendiculata Robert F. Hoover 1937 Brodiaea howellii (an invalid name) Alice Eastwood 1938

Brodiaea jolonensis Alice Eastwood 1938 Robert F. Hoover 1938

Brodiaea elegans Robert F. Hoover 1939 subsp. kernensis Robert F. Hoover 1939 (published as var. kernensis) var. australis (name applied to plants intermediate Robert F. Hoover 1957 between B. elegans and B. terrestris subsp. kernensis) Brodiaea kinkiensis Theodore F. Niehaus 1966

Brodiaea elegans subsp. hooveri Theodore F. Niehaus 1970 Brodiaea sierrae Robert E. Preston 2006

Brodiaea santarosae Tom Chester, 2007 Wayne Armstrong, and Kay Madore

Brodiaea matsonii Robert E. Preston 2010

Source: Compiled by the author from the original publications.

18 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 In 1886, James Britten off on Salisbury’s col- published an account of leagues. However, the cir- the Hookera vs. Brodiaea cumstantial evidence is controversy. Because fairly convincing that Hookera had been pub- Salisbury, rather than lished in 1808 but Smith’s Smith, really was the vil- Brodiaea description was lain of this story. not published until 1811, Smith’s treatments of Britten argued that, un- Hookeria and Brodiaea, der the rule of priority, completed on the heels Hookera had priority over of Salisbury’s description Brodiaea. Britten criti- of Hookera, may at first cized Smith’s conduct as glance seem to be an “unjustifiable” and vigor- attempt to discredit ously defended Salisbury, Salisbury’s publication. quoting Salisbury’s com- However, it seems highly plaints as evidence of the unlikely that Smith hurts he had suffered. He would have rushed to de- also suggested that the scribe a new moss genus, unpopular Salisbury had Hookeria, with ten spe- been the victim of a con- cies, and the genus spiracy to ignore and sup- Brodiaea, with two spe- press his botanical work cies, during a single and names. Britten’s de- weekend, just to discredit fense of Salisbury seems Salisbury. Smith was a bit overblown, for he known to be a slow and Richard Anthony Salisbury (1761–1829) beat his rival Smith to print had a political ax to grind, with the name Hookera. Salisbury’s rush to publish his descriptions careful worker, even be- being a strong proponent resulted in nearly two centuries of confusion over the names of ing criticized for his long of the rule of priority. brodiaeas. Courtesy of the Linnean Society of London. delays in getting publi- Over the subsequent de- cations to press. It is also cades all of the brodiaeas were named International Botanical Congress at likely that Smith had not yet seen or renamed as species of Hookera. in 1905. Salisbury’s treatment. Both Hookera and Brodiaea were Smith worked on his descrip- used in floras and new species de- tions from his home in , scriptions well into the 20th cen- WAS SALISBURY which is about 100 miles northeast tury, resulting in a proliferation of WRONGED? of London, and it would have taken competing names. The rule of no- at least a couple of days for the March menclatural priority was not uni- Britten may have been correct 1 issue of Paradisus Londinensis to versally accepted, however. One of about a conspiracy to suppress be delivered, even with the best mail the main points of disagreement Hookera, given Salisbury’s level of service (presuming that Smith was dealt with the practical aspects of notoriety. Salisbury was outspoken even a subscriber!). Samuel F. Gray replacing well-known names to ac- in his criticism of other botanists, reported that he had not received cept older, little-known names. A and he appeared to take delight in his copy with the treatment of compromise was reached in which provoking the sensibilities of his Hookera until April. Although Smith names could be exempted from the more prim and proper colleagues. had vowed to ignore anything writ- rule of priority if they had been used His social standing may also have ten by Salisbury, and he remained for so long that reverting to an ear- played against him. Salisbury, whose “utterly silent” about Salisbury’s lier name would cause considerable given surname was Markham, treatment of Hookera during the pre- confusion. Ultimately, the debate claimed to have accepted the sur- sentation to the Linnean Society, he over which genus name to use was name of “a very old maiden lady” in may simply have been unaware of settled in Smith’s favor. Because the exchange for an annuity, whereas Salisbury’s publication. name Brodiaea had been in accepted his botanical colleagues were gener- It seems far more likely that use for so long, it was proposed as a ally members of the moneyed classes. Salisbury knew of Smith’s pending nomina conservanda (conserved The hostility towards Salisbury was descriptions and rushed his own name) and accepted as such by the so strong that it sometimes rubbed names into print to upstage Smith.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 19 Not only had Smith revealed the named by Smith in honor of and drawings, Salisbury may have existence of Menzies’ undescribed Menzies, for no apparent reason simply assumed that Menzies’ col- species in his Introduction to Botany, other than spite, stating that “Noth- lections were from California. but he was also working on a new ing can sound more uncouthly than Although he had seen Menzies’ moss genus, which he hinted at in Menziesia smithii. . . . ” Shortly after specimens, Salisbury based his de- the Flora Britannica. If Salisbury’s this episode, Salisbury faced similar scription of Brodiaea coronaria on publication of Hookera was a pot- accusations of intellectual theft when fresh material collected from the shot at Smith, it accomplished dual he published a monograph on the garden at his home in Mill Hill, goals. By describing Menzies’ two Proteaceae, after hearing Robert Middlesex, England. Salisbury had species under the name Hookera, Brown read his own paper on the obtained from a Mrs. Salisbury preempted Smith’s descrip- Proteaceae at a series of Linnean Haliburton of Nova Scotia, which tion of the new species and also Society meetings. Salisbury seems were originally part of a cargo seized usurped the name that Smith was to have been exceedingly concerned by privateers from a Spanish ship (I proposing to use for his new moss about his botanical legacy and per- told you there were pirates in this genus. haps was willing to compromise ethi- story!). If the ship had been bound This was not the first time that cal boundaries for the sake of pos- from California, perhaps Salisbury Salisbury had tampered with Smith’s terity. assumed that Menzies had collected . Earlier he had renamed Salisbury made several errors in his specimens from there, as well. two species of the genus Menziesia, his descriptions that also indicate In his description of the genus that it was he, not Smith, who rushed Hookera, Salisbury also named to publication. First, Salisbury stated Hookera pulchella, which is now that the species had been collected treated as a synonym of Dichelo- in California, whereas Menzies’ notes stemma congestum. He provided a clearly state that, although he had diagnosis for the species, but he did wintered in California, his collec- not publish a full description until tions had been made in New Geor- later that year, after he observed gia, which was the mainland area plants in bloom. Salisbury commit- that is now the northwest coast of ted a fundamental error in his de- Washington and the southwest coast scription of H. pulchella, which is of British Columbia, well north of evident from his illustration of the the Spanish colony. As Smith was in flower. The figure shows six sta- possession of Menzies’ field notes mens inserted at two different lev- els, which is characteristic of some Triteleia species, but not Brodiaea. In addition, Salisbury noted that the anthers “fall off,” which is also char- acteristic of Triteleia but not Brodiaea or Dichelostemma. According to Chris Pires, who examined Menzies’ specimens dur- ing a post-doctoral position in Eng- land, the herbarium sheet contain- ing Menzies’ collection of Hookera pulchella—which is also the type specimen for Brodiaea congesta— consists of a mixed collection of D. congestum and T. grandiflora. Salisbury’s confusion over the appli- cation of the name Dichelostemma pulchellum cascaded down through the years, because many people mis- TOP: Garland brodiaea (Brodiaea coronaria), collected by Menzies in the Pacific Northwest, takenly assumed that Salisbury was was the first Brodiaea species to be named. All photos by the author unless otherwise describing blue dicks (D. capitatum), noted. • BOTTOM: Ookow (Dichelostemma congestum) was originally named Hookera pulchella by Salisbury, whose mistake in the description led to the name Dichelostemma pulchellum the widespread species later collected being erroneously applied to blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum). by Theodor Hartweg in California.

20 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Sierra foothills brodiaea (Brodiaea sierrae), described in 2006, occurs on basic and ultramafic substrates in Butte, Yuba, and Nevada Counties.

Dichelostemma capitatum does have other were placed within the genus be included in the various genera. six , although they are all at Brodiaea. Most are plants from Cali- This wide diversity of opinion left the same level on the corolla and the fornia and the western United States, many people wondering, “What is a anthers are not deciduous. but some South American species ‘brodiaea’?” were also formerly included within One of the main difficulties of A TANGLE OF NAMES Brodiaea. All of these species are working with brodiaeas (as with small geophytes that share a set of other liliaceous species) is that a A little more than 200 years have common features: flowers in an um- careful examination of the floral passed since Salisbury and Smith’s bel, corms rather than bulbs, and morphology, including the shape quarrel was fodder for the Monthly the lack of an onion-like smell. As and relative size of the stamens and Botanical Report, and although the more and more of these species were , may be needed to dis- dispute over the priority of Hookera described, however, the differences tinguish between some species. vs. Brodiaea has been settled, the between them led to a host of gen- However, as Smith and later bota- taxonomy of Brodiaea species has era being proposed within which nists have noted, herbarium speci- still not been fully resolved. Uncer- to place them, including Dichelo- mens are of limited utility for de- tainty about which species belong stemma, Triteleia, Suebertia, Calli- tailed comparative studies because in the genus Brodiaea and confusion prora, Hesperoscordum, Brevoortia, many of the diagnostic floral fea- over the correct names for several Stropholirion, and others. Most ma- tures are obliterated when specimens species has led to a tangle of names jor treatments of the lily family dur- are pressed and dried. Moreover, that is still being unraveled. ing the 1800s recognized the genus collecting across the range of bro- Nearly 100 species have been Brodiaea, but they differed widely diaea species can be logistically com- described that at one time or an- with regards to which species should plicated, making comparisons of

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 21 fresh material diffi- or later secondary cult. Progress towards treatments to try and resolving the Brodiaea put names on the taxonomy was not ef- brodiaeas they were fectively made until encountering for the botanists were present first time in the field. in California to do Understandably, the field work and their “best guess” was make the side-by-side sometimes wrong, comparison of fresh with the result that flowers from different later botanists com- species. pounded the mis- In 1886, Edward takes. Jepson, like Lee Greene published Greene and other a comprehensive re- California botanists view of the taxonomy before him, mistak- of brodiaeas in the Harvest brodiaea (Brodiaea elegans) was mistakenly called B. coronaria by enly applied the name Bulletin of the Califor- many California botanists prior to Robert Hoover’s 1939 monograph of Brodiaea. Brodiaea coronaria to nia Academy of Sci- harvest brodiaea, the ences, with the intent of resolving Brodiaea as a left large-flowered, common, most wide- the confusion. His solution was a Greene’s nomenclature in disarray. spread species. There were, in addi- compromise that recognized three Willis Jepson’s treatment of tion, many Brodiaea populations genera, Hookera, Brodiaea, and Brodiaea in A Flora of California par- in the Great Valley and adjacent Triteleia. Like Britton, Greene was alleled E.L. Greene’s treatment, al- foothills with small to medium- an advocate of the rule of priority though he recognized a single genus sized flowers that Jepson was un- and agreed with the proposal to with three subgenera, Hookera, able to put a satisfactory name on, resurrect Hookera, but he intro- Dichelostemma, and Triteleia. Un- and he resorted to lumping them duced a novel interpretation of the fortunately, Jepson’s treatment is the all under the name Brodiaea synan- genus Brodiaea. He argued that best example of the confusion over dra. We now know that this is actu- Salisbury’s Hookera grandiflora was the species’ names. Because the first ally a group of six to eight different the correct name for that species species were described in England species. because it had been published first, or in the eastern United States, the Jepson’s error was further com- and therefore Hookera should be earliest botanists in California did pounded by the fact that the name the correct genus name. Further- not have access to reference speci- Hookera synandra was originally more, he argued, Salisbury’s mens or illustrated floras. They de- given to a large-flowered North Hookera pulchella belonged to a dif- pended on the original descriptions Coast Range species by Amos Heller, ferent genus, and be- who was unaware that cause Smith’s Brodi- Greene had earlier de- aea congestum was the scribed the same spe- first published name cies as Hookera lep- for that species, tandra. Jepson was Brodiaea should be familiar with Hookera the correct name for leptandra but believed that genus, rather it to be the same spe- than Dichelostemma. cies as Brodiaea cali- Greene appears to fornica. Jepson had not have been on the right seen the type speci- track with respect to men of Hookera synan- the circumscription of dra, and he based his the genera, but his pa- use of the name on a per had little imme- misinterpretation of diate effect towards Heller’s written de- resolving the taxo- scription. nomic confusion, and Brodiaea matsonii, described in 2011, was named for its discoverer, the late It wasn’t until the the establishment of Gary Matson. late 1930s that Robert

22 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Hoover developed the modern con- ments of Brodiaea, Dichelostemma, to be described, and the one that has cept of the genus Brodiaea. Hoover and Triteleia in the first edition of continued to perplex botanists for completed his graduate studies at The Jepson Manual. More recently, over 200 years. We hope to bring UC Berkeley, and Willis Jepson, his Chris Pires, currently at the Univer- you the sequels to this story in the major professor, assigned him to sity of Missouri, Columbia, has in- not too distant future. work on groups of plants that Jepson vestigated relationships among himself was unable to resolve. Be- brodiaeas and their relatives using REFERENCES tween 1934 and 1939, Hoover trav- molecular and phylogenetic tech- eled extensively up and down the niques. His results have further con- Armstrong, W.P., T. Chester, and K. state collecting specimens for his firmed Hoover’s conclusions and Madore. 2009. The Santa Rosa Ba- research on endemism in the Cen- have given us a clearer picture of salt Brodiaea: a new species “hidden tral Valley, including specimens of how the genera are related. For ex- in plain sight”. Fremontia 37(2): 20– most of the California brodiaea spe- ample, Brodiaea and Dichelostemma 27. cies. Hoover came to essentially the species share many features in com- Britten, J. 1886. Hookera vs. Brodiaea: same conclusion that E.L. Greene mon and are closely related geneti- with some remarks on nomencla- had reached earlier, recognizing cally, whereas Triteleia species lack ture. Journal of Botany 24: 49–53. three closely related genera, Bro- many of those features and are only Gray, S.F. 1808. Monthly botanical re- port. The Monthly Magazine 25(1): diaea, Dichelostemma, and Triteleia. distantly related to Brodiaea. 90–92; 25(4): 380–382; 26(2): 197– He published monographs of all 198; 26(5): 501–505. three genera, and he concluded that A WORK IN PROGRESS Greene, E.L. 1886. Some genera which the South American species were have been confused under the name unrelated to the North American Currently, 21 species and sub- Brodiaea. Bulletin of the California ones. species are recognized in the genus Academy of Sciences 2: 125–144. Hoover was a careful observer, Brodiaea. But that’s not the end of Keator, G. 1987. Differentiating Cali- and he was able to resolve most of this story, as there is still a ways to fornia’s brodiaeas. Fremontia 14(4): the confusion over the species go before the monographic work 20–24. names. He determined that harvest started by Hoover and Niehaus is Mabberly, D.J. 1985. Jupiter Botanicus: brodiaea, the species previous Cali- completed. From recent study of Robert Brown of the . fornia botanists had mistakenly Brodiaea, several colleagues and I J. Cramer, Braunschweig, Germany. called Brodiaea coronaria, was not have found that some of the more Menzies, A. 1923. Menzies’ Journal of the same as the species Menzies had poorly known species actually con- Vancouver’s Voyage, April to October, 1792. Edited, with Botanical and Eth- collected in the Pacific Northwest, sist of two or more morphologically nological Notes, by C.F. Newcombe, but an undescribed species to which similar taxa that have separate geo- M.D., and a Biographical Note by J. he gave the new name Brodiaea graphic distributions, and that dif- Forsyth. William H. Cullin, Victoria, elegans. He also recognized and de- fer in chromosome numbers and B.C. scribed three other new Brodiaea habitat preferences. Preston, R.E. 2006. A reconsideration species and a new variety. Unfortu- Three new Brodiaea species have of Brodiaea minor (Benth.) S. Watson nately, Hoover’s treatment of the been described since the first edi- and Brodiaea purdyi Eastwood genera was largely ignored, and the tion of The Jepson Manual, and more (Themidaceae), with the resurrec- Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, new names are in the works. Wayne tion of Brodiaea nana Hoover. A California Flora, Vascular Plants Armstrong and Tom Chester, who Madroño 53(1): 46-54. of the Pacific Northwest, and many recently described Brodiaea santa- Salisbury, R.A. 1808. The Paradisus local floras continued to follow the rosae (with Kay Madore), are study- Londinensis. William Hooker, Lon- older treatment. Consequently, the ing another don, England. Smith, J.E. 1810. Characters of a new common name “brodiaea” is still taxon that has been confused with liliaceous genus called Brodiaea. widely used for many species that . Dale McNeal has Transactions of the Linnean Society 10: are no longer included within the been investigating chromosomal 1–5. genus. races in Brodiaea elegans. Chris Pires’ White, P. 1999. The purchase of knowl- In the 1960s, further graduate students have been using DNA mark- edge: James Edward Smith and the research at UC Berkeley by Glen ers to distinguish morphologically Linnean collections. Endeavor 23(3): Keator (on Dichelostemma) and cryptic Brodiaea populations that 126–129. Theodore Niehaus (on Brodiaea) may have multiple independent ori- concluded that Hoover had been gins via hybridization. I am currently Robert E. Preston, ICF International, 630 correct in his assessment. Their work working to resolve confusion over K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA became the basis of Keator’s treat- Brodiaea coronaria, the first brodiaea 95814, [email protected]

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 23 In 1794, Archibald Menzies was the first botanist to collect specimens of coast redwood near the mouth of the canyon of the San Lorenzo river, less than a league above the Mission Santa Cruz. Photograph by Gary D. Lowe.

24 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 ENDLICHER’S SEQUENCE: THE NAMING OF THE GENUS SEQUOIA by Gary D. Lowe

ustrian botanist Stephen specimens were not described until assignment. His final efforts along Frierdrich Ladislaus 1824 by Scottish botanist , this line were published in 1844 as Endlicher established the working in London, and published Foundations of Chinese Grammar, genus Sequoia in 1847. in ’s A De- thereby formally establishing him- Endlicher’sA failure to record why he scription of the Genus Pinus (Lam- self as a linguist (Rompel 1909). named the new genus Sequoia re- bert was then vice-president of the Stephen Endlicher died on March sulted in a significant body of litera- Linnaen Society and Don was the 28, 1849, less than two years after ture speculative of his reasons. The Society’s librarian). Don gave the completing Synopsis Coniferarum. genus Sequoia included two species coast redwood the Linnaean bino- In Synopsis Coniferarum, End- for 85 years. In 1939 one of these, mial name of sempervirens licher incorporated 290 species the giant sequoia of the Sierra Ne- (Beidleman 2006; Jepson 1910). among 31 genera as part of his reor- vada, was separated into the genus ganizations and reclassifications. He , and the coast red- followed his own understanding of was retained in the genus Se- ENDLICHER’S how plants should be described and quoia. The history of the origin of RECLASSIFICATION OF named, as did all of the botanists of the generic name Sequoia is a his- TAXODIUM SEMPERVIRENS the time. By 1847, systematic botany tory shared by both of these two was well along in breaking away native California plants. In 1836 Endlicher was made cu- from Linnaeus’s artificial system of rator of the botanical department of classification, and two natural sys- the Austrian Royal Natural History tems of plant classification had risen EUROPEANS’ FIRST Museum. In 1840, he was named to prominence: those of Jussieu and ENCOUNTER WITH professor of botany at ’s Uni- De Candolle. CALIFORNIA’S GIANT TREES versity of Vienna and director of the Among the 31 genera described university’s botanical garden. He in Synopsis Coniferarum, Endlicher Documentary mention of the published his monograph Synopsis included, as his own, four genera coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens Coniferarum, dated May 14, 1847. and 28 species. His four genera are [D. Don] Endl.) first appeared in Though French was the most im- , , Glypto- Fray Juan Crespi’s account of the portant language of science in the strobus, and Sequoia. He established overland expedition of Don Gaspar 17th through early 19th centuries, de Portola from San Diego to Latin still held dominance in Aus- Monterey in his diary entry dated tria. So this volume, along with his October 10, 1769. In September other botanical works, was published 1791, the first naturalist to encoun- in that language. In preparing Syn- ter the coast redwood, also near opsis Coniferarum he undertook the Monterey, was Thaddeus Haenke, a reorganizing and reclassifying of the member of the Spanish expedition and frequently included of 1789–1794 headed by Alessandro names, references, and passages in Malaspina. This encounter resulted the language in which they were in of the undescribed tree find- originally published or annotated on ing their way back to . herbarium sheets: Latin, of course, Concurrently, the British expe- but also Greek, English, Chinese, dition in the further quest for the and Japanese, all languages with Northwest Passage from 1790 to which he was familiar. The Linnaean Society headquarters/library 1795, under George Vancouver, in- Endlicher had begun studying at 32 Soho Square, London, from 1822 cluded Archibald Menzies as ship’s what he deemed “useful” languages through 1857, where David Don worked with Archibald Menzies’ specimen, a small surgeon and naturalist. Menzies col- in 1826, as part of his early theologi- sprig, the only material of coast redwood lected specimens from near present cal education, especially Chinese, available. Image courtesy of the Natural day Santa Cruz. However, Menzies’ presumably in hopes of a missionary History Museum, London.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 25 in book form in 1839 (Curry and obviously accepted the basis for the Kruska 1991), but did not see a wide name change, but thought the word circulation or raise any interest. senseless and not pleasing to the ear. The next published mention of Thus began the attempt to sort out Leonard’s “Red-wood species” in the the history of the origin of the ge- Sierra Nevada did not appear until neric name Sequoia. In June 1854, the spring of 1853 in the newspa- French botanist cor- pers of the gold rush mining camps, rected John Lindley’s assignment of from encounters in Calaveras the Mammoth Tree to a new genus, County. The international popula- and placed the species in the genus tion shift known as the California Sequoia, consequently merging the Gold Rush that had enabled the dis- social history of the two trees. covery of this tree also facilitated its John Lindley, the original taxo- being immediately and explosively nomic describer of the Mammoth brought to the attention of the Tree, had entered the service of the world. Shortly thereafter it would Horticultural Society of London in popularly be known as the Mam- 1823 as Secretary of the Garden at moth Tree or Big Tree and botani- Cheswick. In 1827, Lindley also took cally known as Sequoia gigantea from on a professorship at London Uni- David Don’s final description of Taxodium 1854 through 1939, and today as versity. The following year, some- sempervirens in the 1833 edition of Lam- . (The one was needed at Cheswick Gar- bert’s Description of the Genus Pinus. He history of the controversy over the den to perform those duties that raises the possibility of the coast redwood naming of the giant sequoia is a Lindley no longer had time for, and forming a new genus and suggests a new name for it: Condylocarpous. Image cour- subject unto itself, summarized by the Society hired George Gordon as tesy of the Gray Herbarium, Harvard Uni- Saint John and Krause 1954.) Other one of its gardeners, a prestigious versity. historic matters aside, English bota- position. Gordon stayed on at nist delivered speci- Cheswick until 1858, the year be- the genus Sequoia by reclassifying mens of this tree to London—at that fore the Society had to close Taxodium sempervirens. Endlicher time the horticultural/botanical Cheswick Garden (Fletcher 1969). generally did not explain why he capital of the world—where John That same year, Gordon issued the chose the names he selected for any Lindley published the first botani- first edition of his monograph The of the new genera and species listed cal description of this tree as a new Pinetum. In the 1858 edition, Gor- in Synopsis Coniferarum. There was genus on December 24, 1853 in The don—to the extent that he could no convention requiring this at the Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricul- ascertain—gives the derivation of the time. Though custom and tradition tural Gazette. had occasionally included record- In 1854 reports of the sheer mag- Sequoia sempervirens, the coast redwood, ing such naming honors, rules to be nificence of the Mammoth Tree was was first illustrated in the second edition followed were not available until establishing it firmly in the Ameri- of Lambert’s Description of the Genus Pinus in 1828. Image courtesy of 1867. That was the year Alphonse can conscience. The similarity of this Heritage Library and the Missouri Botanical De Candolle published Laws of Bo- inland species to the coastal species, Garden. tanical Nomenclature. combined with the simple fact that only one (William Lobb) of the bota- nists working in the early 1850s had ENCOUNTER WITH A actually seen mature living trees of SECOND GIANT TREE IN both species, inevitably led to confu- CALIFORNIA sion. In May 1854, in sorting out some of the confusion, Harvard Pro- In 1833 a tree of the “Red-wood fessor Asa Gray stated, in referring to species” was mentioned in Zenas the 1847 generic name change of the Leonard’s account of the overland coastal species, “. . . the Redwood of expedition of the Joseph Rutherford California, namely the Taxodium Walker party during their arduous sempervirens of Don, of late very prop- crossing of the Sierra Nevada. This erly distinguished as a separate ge- account was serially published in a nus under the unmeaning and not Pennsylvania newspaper and then euphonious name of Sequoia.” Gray

26 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 names of the genera that he lists. He the above particulars of Sequoyah’s records the naming of Endlicher’s history . . . we are indebted to Pro- four genera of 1847, as follows: fessor Brewer.” William H. Brewer, principal as- Widdringtonia.—The African Cy- sistant in charge of the botanical press.—“Named in compliment to department in the California State Capitan Widdrington (formerly Geological Survey (1860–1864) and Cook) who traveled in Spain.” professor of agriculture in the (Widdrington, born Cook, wrote Sheffield Scientific School at Yale extensively concerning Spain in (1864–1903), would have been fa- the late 1830-1840s and probably miliar with the scientific literature provided Endlicher his study ma- when Whitney was preparing The terials.) Yosemite Book. Later, revised edi- Libocedrus.—The Incense Cedar.— tions (renamed The Yosemite Guide- “derived from ‘Libanos,’ incense Book)—the ones that most people and ‘Cedrus,’ the Cedar. had access to—appeared in 1869 and Portrait of Stephen Endlicher, who estab- .—The Embossed Cy- lished the genus Sequoia in 1847. From 1870. It was undoubtedly due to press.—“derived from ‘Glypho,’ Haberlandt 1899 (correspondence between Brewer’s editorial assistance that embossed, and ‘strobus,’ a cone; and ). Whitney’s reference to Endlicher scales of the cone embossed on the having been “attracted” to the name face.” confusion resulting from the vari- Sequoia in an issue of the Country Sequoia.—The California Redwood. ability of the spelling is also an es- Gentleman was removed from these —“Name, not explained.” sential part of the history. later editions and replaced with Popularization of Endlicher’s “Endlicher, who named the genus, Thus, in naming his genera, possible derivation of the name Se- was not only a learned botanist, but Endlicher, to Gordon’s reckoning, quoia began in 1868 with publica- was eminent in ethnological re- named one for a colleague, one from tion of The Yosemite Book by the search, and was undoubtedly well a property, and one for a form, leav- Geological Survey of California, acquainted with Sequoia’s career.” ing one unknown, or, in Gray’s ini- authored by Josiah Dwight Whitney, The first issue of The Country Gentle- tial assessment, meaningless—Se- California state geologist and pro- man was published on November 4, quoia. None of Endlicher’s five spe- fessor in the Mining School at 1852 (Mott 1938), three-and-a-half cies and one genus occurring in Harvard. In his chapter on “The Big years after Endlicher’s death! China were named after a Chinese Trees,” Whitney states, “The genus There were no specialized scien- linguist, as would have been consis- was named in honor of Sequoia* or tific journals in the United States in tent with his earlier interests. Sequoyah, a Cherokee Indian of the middle of the nineteenth cen- mixed blood, better known by his tury. One of the few broad-based English name of George Guess . . . magazines that provided an outlet HISTORICAL DERIVATION known to the world by his invention for both casual observations and OF THE NAME SEQUOIA of an alphabet and written language some research was The Gardener’s for his tribe.” For the asterisked “Se- Monthly, Devoted to Horticulture, Endlicher did not explain his quoia,*” Whitney footnoted: Arboriculture, Botany & Rural Affairs. choice of a name for his genus Se- This journal was owned, edited, and This is the way the name was spelt quoia, and died before he could sub- published by Thomas Meehan in in an article published in the ‘Coun- sequently do so. Therefore, any ex- . Characteristic of the try Gentleman’ which attracted planation of the name Sequoia en- times, contributors generally signed Endlicher’s attention, and led him tails examining the history of how their submittals, either by their to adopt this name for the genus. It others perceived the derivation of name, their initials, or under a is also more generally spelt the word. Before reevaluating what penname. While this journal did not ‘Sequoyah,’ which is the English way Endlicher may have had in mind in serve as the publication of choice of writing it, while the other is what choosing the name Sequoia, it is first for the mainstream botanists Torrey it would naturally and properly be necessary to thoroughly understand and Gray, or even Brewer, it did in Latin. the accepted history of the word. In publish accounts by others. presenting this history, the original Furthermore, to his summary of One of the names advocated in spelling of names as used by the George Guess/Sequoyah’s career, 1854 for the giant sequoia had been various authors is retained, since the Whitney added the footnote, “For Washingtonia. In the March 1860

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 27 . . . the strong presumptive evi- dence drawn from the extensive philological attainments of the late distinguished Endlicher, warrant us in believing that the suspicion first awakened in the columns of the Country Gentleman, a few years since is correct. This is the article that Whitney had originally referenced, which had appeared in the column “The Fire- side” of The Country Gentleman for January 24, 1856. The Country Gentleman article bore the title, “The American Cad- mus: The Sequoia gigantea—The Great American Tree and the Great American Genius for Whom it is Named.” The article was anony- mous, attributed “to an esteemed correspondent in .” In the article the association of the name of the genus Sequoia with the origi- nator of the written Cherokee lan- guage is expressed with a noticeable Giant sequoias in the North Grove, Calaveras Big Trees State Park, September 2011. measure of uncertainty: English botanist William Lobb was familiar with all but one of the mixed forest Pray, Messrs. Editors, where does species at the headwaters of San Antonio creek in Calaveras County. There he noticed a splendid, unidentified cedar-like tree—what we now call the giant sequoia. He collected the name come from? Is it an inten- herbarium specimens, live saplings, and thousands of seeds in late July or August of 1853, tional thing, or is it an accident, and personally escorted them to London. Photograph by Gary D. Lowe. that the American tree should the name of an American who de- issue of The Gardener’s Monthly an then, he added, “Our intelligent cor- serves any such honor. . . . The article appeared with the title “Se- respondent, himself having family honor must be intentional; but if quoia versus Washingtonia” signed relationship with the Cherokees, ren- not, the accident is most gratifying. simply “L.” Of course “L.” is not to ders the history the more reliable.” The article then closed with the be confused with Linnaeus. This ar- The following May, Meehan pub- following statement: “If the huge ticle and its title show that the ge- lished a clarification that L. “does monuments erected by Nature—the nus name Sequoia was culturally not assume, as implied in our note, Sequoia gigantea, are dedicated to more associated with the giant se- to have been the first to suggest that his name, it is a thing well done.” It quoia than with the coast redwood. the name Sequoia was derived from appears that the historical basis for L.’s main thrust in his article was See-quah-yah,” but that he (Mr. L) the name of the genus Sequoia has supporting a tribute to the Cherokee ‘failed to detect any clue to any other heretofore been due to the fact that “See-quah-yah” (L.’s spelling) as the origin’ in the libraries, and among an anonymous writer merely wanted origin of the genus name Sequoia. the botanists of Philadelphia or it that way. He stated that, “Surely if the genus New York.” Author “L.” and editor were not named in his honor, it Meehan did not have any evidence should be now.” To this article, to support the conclusion that ACCEPTED DERIVATION OF editor Meehan appended a note Endlicher derived the name of the THE NAME SEQUOIA that included the statement that genus Sequoia from that of the PERSISTS Endlicher, “as he was no less noted Cherokee linguist Sequoyah. for his philological knowledge than Meehan’s note published in May The documentary sources of the his botanical, it is not at all unlikely 1860 also made reference to an ear- origin of the name Sequoia presented that he knew Sequoia’s history, and lier statement of the origin of the above has shown that derivation of that L. has hit on the secret.” And name Sequoia: the name from that of the Cherokee

28 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Moss growing on the side of a redwood trunk at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, Humboldt County. Photograph by Chris Johnson.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 29 linguist Sequoyah was merely the “Origin of the Name Sequoia,” desire of three authors (Anonymous Lemmon included one published 1856, “L.” 1860, and Meehan 1860). statement and the five letters he re- Consequently, it becomes necessary ceived in response to his inquiry. to explore why an unsubstantiated Two of these letters clearly did not conclusion has persisted into the even pretend to answer the question present century. that Lemmon had posed. In 1890, 30 years after Thomas From a statement published by Meehan published the article by “L.” in 1873 in a St. in The Gardener’s Monthly, the topic Louis, Missouri journal, Lemmon of the origin of the name Sequoia concluded that Engelmann “evi- Sequoiadendron giganteum was first was still a contentious subject, par- dently believed in the origin of the botanically illustrated as Wellingtonia gigantea in W.J. Hooker’s April 1, 1854 ticularly among California botanists, name as derived from the Cherokee, issue of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine (Vol. dendrologists, and foresters, and Sequoyah.” The letter from Joseph 10, 3rd Series, Vol. 80). The history of the particularly for John Gill Lemmon. D. Hooker stated, “My impression is naming of this tree is a story unto itself. Lemmon came to California in very strong that Dr. Gray accepted 1869, still recovering from the ef- the view of Sequoia being named in Sequoia ended by acceding that “we fects of imprisonment during the honor of the American who invented will be consoled by the last closing Civil War. While recovering he took the alphabet for his tribe language.” words of De Candolle, philosophi- up botanizing. In 1874 he had his Thomas Meehan, in his letter, re- cal, terse, and clearly restating the first paid assignment working with vealed the identity of “L.” as being scientific requisites of a good name,” plants (Beidleman 2006). By 1876 he J.H. Lippincott, with whom he had words that De Candolle had included was a contributing correspondent to close personal ties. Meehan wrote in the Laws of Botanical Nomencla- the Pacific Rural Press in a series titled Lemmon that Lippincott was “a very ture: “The essential things are: first, “Botanical Excursions.” In 1879 he learned and careful critic,” who “was that it be the expression of a natural contributed a six-part article titled personally acquainted with De genus; second, that it has not yet “The Cone-bearers, or Evergreen Candole, and possibly with some been employed before; and third, Trees of California.” Portions of this of the immediate associates of that the genus had not previously article eventually became part of his Endlicher.” Alphonse De Candolle received another name.” Handbook of West-American Cone- wrote that the “supposed origin of The historical understanding of Bearers (Lemmon 1892), that fol- the word Sequoia is entirely fanci- the origin of the name Sequoia has lowed Lemmon’s own system of clas- ful, having no basis.” De Candolle persisted into the present century sification for the conifers. closed his letter by stating “After all, based on learned opinion, not fact. In the 1879 article, Lemmon ex- it matters little, a name is a name.” pressed the opinion that the name of Lemmon placed considerable the genus Sequoia was “said to be emphasis on Meehan’s statement HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF derived from Sequoya, the celebrated that Lippincott “was personally ac- A LATIN DERIVATION Cherokee Indian; but this is no doubt quainted with De Candole, and pos- an afterthought and unworthy to be sibly with some of the immediate Another possible derivation of kept up.” He then methodically set associates of Endlicher.” With re- the name Sequoia that has histori- about finding out more. In 1888, gards to De Candolle, Lemmon cally been offered is that the name following the death of Albert Kellogg, merely stated that he “is eighty-four Sequoia came directly from the Latin Lemmon received the assignment of years of age, and was contemporary for “sequence,” with no connection “botanist for the California State with Endlicher, so is enabled to to the Cherokee linguist Sequoyah. Board of Forestry.” As part of his know as much about the origin of Two possible explanations have ap- duties to this state Board, Lemmon the word as any one.” peared in the literature. conducted an opinion poll concern- From his review of the opinions In the 1858 edition of The Pin- ing the origin of the name Sequoia of his contemporaries, Lemmon con- etum, George Gordon had indicated by collecting published statements cluded, “So the name is still a myth.” that he could find no explanation and by sending out letters of inquiry However, the strong weight of opin- for the name Sequoia. In the 1862 to the “principal dendrologists of the ion of most others who have investi- Supplement to Gordon’s Pinteum, and East and Europe.” His report was gated the derivation was that the again in the second edition of The published in 1890 in the forestry name was derived from the name of Pinetum, in 1875, Gordon added an board’s Third Biennial Report. the Cherokee linguist. Lemmon’s etymology for the genus Sequoia. He In his report concerning the report on the naming of the genus wrote: “The name Sequoia is prob-

30 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 ably derived from ‘Sequence,’ sepa- rated, or following in of suc- UNDERSTANDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIES cession, after Taxodium; from which Genus Professor Endlicher separated ll societies have given a name to each kind of living thing and it.” While this sounds plausible, it A have observed that living things fall naturally into groups, somewhat forces a sequential rela- which in turn form parts of larger groups. The act of arranging or tionship, and fails to mention that classifying living things into their several groups and naming them Endlicher had also named Glypto- accordingly, colloquially referred to as pigeonholing, is known as strobus, which was also “separated, taxonomy. Our name for a kind of living thing is from the Latin speci or following in order of succession, and is called “species,” e.g., Sequoia sempervirens, in the genus Se- after Taxodium.” Lemmon (1890) quoia. The full name includes the name of the genus because many quoted Gordon’s possible sequence living things may be given the same specific name; there are several but did not explore it any further. evergreen plants that have been named sempervirens. Thus, classifica- Instead, he reiterated his preference tion is an exercise in organizing a comparison of a single species to all first published in 1879. other species, or in Asa Gray’s (1872) terms, determining “their place In the aforementioned 1879 ar- in the ranks.” ticle, Lemmon emphatically stated, Each level in the ranks is given a name. For example, the highest “The generic name Sequoia was given level is named “kingdom,” thus the “Vegetable or Plant Kingdom.” by Endlicher because this genus is a Lower levels of classification have sequentially been named Subking- lone follower (‘sequi,’ to follow) of dom, Division, Class, Subclass, Order, Family (Endlicher’s level of vast colossal forests.” No authority Suborder), Genus, and Species. Early plant, animal, and mineral was provided for this statement in systematics, or classification systems, were based on the selection of a 1879. In the 1890 report Lemmon single arbitrary characteristic as an aid to classification, much like added: identification keys in modern popular guides, where flowers are arranged by color or trees by features. Linnaeus’s system was In 1877 Hooker and Gray made a considered artificial because it was based on a single characteristic, journey to the Pacific Coast and in the reproductive organs of plants. This limitation resulted in about a conversation with them, I asked quarter of the British genera containing species at variance with the which was the true origin of Se- characteristics of the Classes and Orders, the classification system quoia? Dr. Gray quickly replied that developed by the father of systematics, Swedish botanist . . . . undoubtedly Endlicher derived To many, the use of multiple characteristics seemed more natural. his name from sequi or sequor, Thus, natural systems of classification were developed that consid- alluding to the well known fact ered as many plant characteristics as possible, organized either from that our Redwoods are followers simple to complex forms (followers of Jussieu) or from complex to or remnants of several colossal ex- simple forms (followers of A.P. De Candolle). Each of these two tinct species. schools of thought had many adherents, each with their own natural However, both the letters from system of classification within the overall context. Lindley (1853) Thomas Meehan and J.D. Hooker summarized 29 natural systems of plant classification that had been questioned this as Gray’s interpreta- published by that date. Each of these natural systems was indepen- tion, suggesting that Lemmon had dent of the others. A researcher classified (i.e., organized) a genera misunderstood Gray. and/or its species as to where he felt it should be placed among the In 1872, Gray had published the several higher ranks, to suit his latest findings and opinions. Thus a statement that “I, for one, cannot species can be assigned to a genus by one investigator and then be doubt that the present existing spe- reassigned to a completely different, or new genus, by a later re- cies are the lineal successors of those searcher. All species are subject to later revisions since the process of that garnished the earth in the old classification is at once very subjective and very precise. time before man.” Gray (1872) had based his interpretation on paleobo- tanical publications that appeared “vast colossal forests,” what about China. Chaney noted that the last after 1854 by Heer, Lesquereux, and following in sequence after “several 50 pages of Endlicher’s Synopsis Newberry. Studies of these colossal extinct (fossil) species?” Coniferarum are devoted to fossil co- floras were, of course, unavailable Ralph W. Chaney (1951) revised nifers, and that Endlicher did not to Endlicher in 1847. Though End- the assignment of fossil sequoias fol- identify any of his fossil conifers as licher could know nothing of his lowing the discovery of the genus members of the genus Sequoia. Con- genus following in sequence after in Szechuan Province, cerning one fossil form (Taxites

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 31 Filtered light sometimes creates a magical feeling in redwood groves, as here in Muir National Monument, Marin County. Photo- graph by Stephen Joseph, www.stephenjosephphoto.com.

32 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 langsdorfii Brongn.), Chaney stated TABLE 1. ENLICHER’S SEQUENCE EXPLAINED. that, “Endlicher failed to recognize the resemblance of these leafy shoots to those of Sequoia sempervirens which he had described for the first time on a preceding page.” This fur- ther discredits Lemmon’s idea that the generic name Sequoia was given by Endlicher because the genus is a follower or remnant of vast colossal forests, which would have been com- posed of extinct (i.e., fossil) species. This understanding came long after Endlicher’s time.

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC DERIVATION THEORY

In summary, the foregoing has shown that the name of the genus Sequoia as a tribute to the Cherokee linguist Sequoyah is an unsubstan- tiated opinion, and that its deriva- tion from the Latin because the spe- cies followed from a sequence of fossil forms, or paleoforests, also does not withstand scrutiny. tially between 1836 and 1850) on all teenth century. In dealing with the Lemmon expressed his preference the genera of plants (Generum Plan- conifers (Endlicher’s Class Conife- for a sequence and then conceded to tarum). The supplement (Gen. Pl. rae), he chose morphological fea- the learned opinion of his corre- Suppl. IV) the printed date De- tures common to larger groupings spondents. The historic record sup- cember 1847 (Endlicher 1847b). He of plants to define his categories. ports Lemmon’s conclusion—the inadvertently enhanced later confu- Endlicher divided his conifers into origin of the name of the genus Se- sion on the subject by referencing five Orders, not all of which need quoia is an American myth. his second publication of the de- concern us. His Orders were divid- scription as an unpublished manu- ed into suborders, which were popu- ENDLICHER’S SEQUENCE script in his monograph. lated with the genera. Assigning a Endlicher’s unstated explanation specific plant within this hierarchy Clearly, Endlicher had to have for the name he chose, Sequoia, for is what Asa Gray (1872) called de- had something in mind when he the generic reassignment of Don’s termining “their place in the ranks.” named the genus Sequoia. Careful Taxodium sempervirens is couched In studying the California tree examination of his writings indicates in the science of his day. His expla- that David Don had named Taxodium that the name Sequoia indeed was nation is most readily apparent, sempervirens, Endlicher decided that derived from the Latin for sequence, through proximity, in Generum Plan- it was more like those he had placed although this documentation has tarum. The explanation can be found in his pine-like Order Abietineae inexplicably not been thoroughly ex- on page 5, two pages ahead of the than like those in his -like amined previously. description of the genus Sequoia. The Order Cupressineae, where he had Endlicher published his descrip- explanation is also present in Syn- assigned the swamp cypress of the tion of the genus Sequoia twice. It opsis Coniferarum on page 80, at a southeastern United States (Taxo- first appears in his monograph on considerable separation of 118 pages dium distichum). This reassignment the conifers (Synopsis Coniferarum) ahead of the description of the ge- stripped Don’s California tree of its that bears the printed date May 14, nus Sequoia. generic affiliation, necessitating that 1847 (Endlicher 1847a). It then ap- Plant classification is consider- it be reassigned. pears again in the fourth supplement ably different now compared to what Endlicher had divided his Order to his larger work (published sequen- it was in the middle of the nine- Abietineae into three Sub-Orders.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 33 4, and 7 (see page 33). In 1830, quence 1, 3, 4, and 7 in the median Alexander Braun had previously number of seeds per cone scale. In- found this sequence of numbers in stead, a new recursive sequence was the arrangement of the leaves and formed—1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, Endlicher’s cones of conifers. In his investiga- sequence. tion Braun had also found the ar- Endlicher named the genus for rangement of plant parts to follow the operation that he had conducted. in the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 The new genus fell in sequence with (Braun 1831). Braun had discovered the other four genera in his subor- that the growth patterns of plants der. For Stephan Endlicher to have frequently occur in one of two re- developed his systematics of the co- cursive numerical sequences. Over nifers at least partially on anatomi- TOP: Title page of The Country Gentleman (January 24, 1856) where an anonymous four decades later, these two recur- cally based mathematical patterns is resident of Maryland published his opinion sive sequences were respectively in complete holding with the science as to the origin of the genus name Sequoia. named the Lucas sequence and the of his times in the . • BOTTOM: Title page of The Gardener’s Fibonacci sequence. Monthly (March 1860) where “L.” published A close friend and colleague of his opinion as to the origin of the genus ENDLICHER’S SEQUENCE name Sequoia. Image courtesy of Biodi- Endlicher’s was fellow Austrian, versity Heritage Library and the University Franz Unger. In 1832 Endlicher and ESCAPES NOTICE of Massachusetts, Amherst Libraries. Unger were exchanging letters dis- cussing floral diagrams using Braun’s Endlicher’s sequence has lain When Endlicher reached this level mathematical methods in the con- hidden for the last 160 years. Bota- of his classification system, he pro- text of plant systematics (Haberlandt nists and others in America had little vided a table showing the diagnostic 1899). He retained these mathema- or no access to either of Endlicher’s features of the suborders and of the tical concepts of plant systematics publications, and would hardly have genera assigned to the Suborders. when working on Synopsis Conifer- sought out Endlicher’s second pub- The table was headed, in Latin, “Di- arum. When he recognized Don’s lication since he had indicated that agnosis Generum.” Endlicher as- California tree as a new genus with it was unpublished. The availabil- signed Don’s California tree to the 5 to 7 seeds per cone scale he had to ity of reference works was always a Suborder Cunninghamieae. place it somewhere in the hierarchy problem in mid-nineteenth century As listed in Endlicher’s Diagno- of his classification system. He America. In 1851, American bota- sis Generum, exclusive of the genus opened a gap in the sequence of nist wrote to an associ- Sequoia, Endlicher’s Suborder Cun- genera in his Suborder Cunning- ate that “in this place (Princeton) I ninghamieae comprised four previ- hamieae, between Arthrotaxis, with labor under many disadvantages— ously established and acceptable 3 to 5 seeds, and Sciadopitys, with 5 chiefly from the want of books.” In genera—Dammara, with 1 seed per to 9 seeds, to allow placement of the 1853 Louis Agassiz, world-renowned cone scale; , with 3 new genus with 5 to 7 seeds per geologist and zoologist, wrote that seeds; Arthrotaxis, with 3 to 5 seeds; cone scale. With the addition of the certain German works “are hardly to and Sciadopitys, with 5 to 9 seeds. new genus, the arrangement of the be seen in any American library.” In These four genera have median num- genera in his Suborder Cunning- 1855 he again lamented that “No bers of seeds per cone scale of 1, 3, hamieae no longer followed the se- one has felt more keenly the want of

TABLE 2. ENDLICHER’S SEQUENCE IN HIS SUBORDER CUNNINGHAMEAE: THE NUMBER OF SEEDS PER CONE SCALE.

Dammara Cunninghamia Arthrotaxis Sequoia Sciadopitys

Monospermae trispermae tri-pentaspermae penta-heptaspermae penta-enneaspermae

1 : 3 : 3-5 : 5-7 : 5-9(DG) / 7-8 (Txt)

Dammara is now known as Agathis. DG = From the “Diagnosis Generum.” Txt = From the description in Endlicher’s text. In later manuals (e.g., Bailey 1949), the number of seeds per cone scale of Sciadopitys is 7-9.

34 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 an extensive scientific library than I jor classification system in use at ——. 1872. Sequoia and its history. The have since I have been in the United the time the description of the giant American Naturalist 6(10): 577-596. States” (Bruce 1987). sequoia was published on Decem- Haberlandt, B., 1899, Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Unger und Stephan Those who concerned them- ber 24, 1853. The giant sequoia sub- Endlicher, Verlag von Gebrüder selves most with the derivation of sequently inspired numerous specu- Borntraeger, Berlin. the name Sequoia were not neces- lations as to the origin of the name Jepson, W.J. 1910. The Silva of Cali- sarily mainstream scientists and Sequoia. fornia. Memoirs of the University of would have had limited access to California 2: 480. Lemmon, J.G. 1879. The Cone-Bear- the libraries that were available. No REFERENCES one needs to be reminded that sci- ers, or Evergreen Trees of Califor- ence and technology were immea- Anonymous. 1856. The American nia.—No. 5; Cypress, Arbor-Vitae, Redwood, and Big Tree. The Pacific surably different in the third quarter Cadmus. The Sequoia Gigantea— The Great American Tree and the Rural Press 17(7): 107. of the nineteenth century compared ——. 1890. Redwoods. Report of the to the present. When a researcher Great American Genius for Whom it is Named. The Country Gentleman Botanist of the California State Board needed a reference, he had to first 7(4): 65. of Forestry, Third Biennial Report of locate a copy. Once a reference work Bailey, L.H. 1949. Manual of Cultivated California State Board of Forestry for was located, the researcher either Plants. The Macmillan Company, the Years 1889-1890. State Office, had to transcribe the text, or hire Toronto . Sacramento: 157-168 and 208-10. the services of a copyist. Making a Beidleman, R.G. 2006. California’s Lindley, J. 1853, 3d ed. The Vegetable Frontier Naturalists. University of Kingdom; or, The Structure, Classifi- manuscript copy of Endlicher’s de- cation, and Uses of Plants, Illustrated scription of Sequoia would inevita- California Press, Berkeley, CA. Braun, A., 1830. Vergleichen Unter- Upon the Natural System. Bradbury bly separate it from the whole of suchung über die Ordnung der & Evans, London. Endlicher’s Synopsis Coniferarum. Schuppen an den Tannenzapfen als “L.” (Lippincott, J.H.). 1860. Sequoia Consequently, Endlicher’s sequence einleitung zur Unterscuung der versus Washingtonia. The Gardener’s was probably not available to be blattstellung überhaupt: Nova Acta Monthly, Devoted to Horticulture, studied by those interested in the Physico-Medica, Academiae Caesar- Arboriculture, Botany & Rural Affairs 2(3): 75-77. origin of the name Sequoia. eae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, Vol. 25, 1831 (submit- Meehan, T. 1860. Sequoia. The Furthermore, a uniform system Gardener’s Monthly, Devoted to Horti- of plant classification was not yet ted 16 Jul. 1830). Bruce, R.V. 1987. The Launching of culture, Arboriculture, Botany & Ru- available. Each plant systematist had Modern American Science: 1846- ral Affairs 2(5): 148. his own hierarchy of the ranks of 1876. Alfred A Knopf, New York, NY. ——. 1879. Derivation of Sequoia. The plants. By July 21, 1853, six months Currey, L.W., and D.G. Kruska. 1992. Gardener’s Monthly and Horticultur- before the description of the giant Bibliography of Yosemite, the Central ist 21(6): 189. sequoia was published, Lindley had and the Southern High Sierra, and the Mott, F.L. 1938. A History of American Magazines, 1850-1865. The Balknap restudied the genera of Endlicher’s Big Trees:1839-1900. Dawson’s Book Press of Harvard University, Cam- Synopsis Coniferarum. Lindley dis- Shop, Los Angeles and William P. Wreden, Palo Alto, California. bridge, MA. agreed with Endlicher and rear- Endlicher, S. 1847a. Synopsis Conifer- Rompel, J. 1909, 421. Stephan ranged the conifers. Lindley thought arum. Apud Scheitlin & Zollikofer, Ladislaus Endlicher. The Catholic that Sequoia sempervirens was more Sangalli, Österreich. Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Com- cypress-like and less pine-like than ——. 1847b. Generum Plantarum pany, New York, NY. Endlicher had indicated, and so re- Supplementum Quartum. Apud Frid- Saint John, H. and R.W. Krauss. 1954. assigned the genus Sequoia to the ericum Beck, Universitatis Biblio- The Taxonomic Position and the Cupresseae, thus breaking End- polam, Vondobonae, Österreich. Scientific Name of the Big Tree Known as Sequoia gigantea. Pacific licher’s sequence of five genera ar- Fletcher, H.R. 1969. The Story of the Royal Horticultural Society, 1804- Science 8(3): 341-358. ranged by the number of seeds per 1968. Oxford University Press, Lon- Whitney, J.D. 1868. The Yosemite Book. cone scale. Lindley also did away don. Geological Survey of California. Pub- with Endlicher’s classification level Gordon, G. 1858. The Pinetum. Henry lished by Authority of the Legisla- (his suborders) that held the other G. Bohn, London. ture. Julius Bein, New York, NY. four genera of the sequence (includ- ——. 1862. A Supplement to Gordon’s ——. 1869, 1870. The Yosemite Guide- ing Endlicher’s suborder Cunning- Pinetum. Henry G. Bohn, London. Book. Geological Survey of Califor- hamieae). Lindley placed these four ——. 1875. The Pinetum. 2d ed. Henry nia. Published by Authority of the G. Bohn, London. Legislature. University Press, Cam- genera together with all of the other Gray, A. 1854. On the Age of the large bridge, MA. pine-like species in the Abieteae. tree recently felled in California. This last revision totally eliminated American Journal of Science Series 2, Gary D. Lowe, P.O. Box 2165, Livermore, Endlicher’s sequence from the ma- 17(51): 440-443. CA 94551-2165; [email protected]

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 35 Sloping fen in Sundew Meadow, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Photograph by Danielle Roach. FENS: A REMARKABLE HABITAT IN THE SIERRA NEVADA by Deborah Stout

ome of the most uncommon and remains saturated for most of habitats. Read on to learn more about and unusual meadow habi- the year. this rare and unusual habitat. tats across the western Over the past few years, the US United States are “bogs” and Forest Service has been collaborat- FENS VS. BOGS S“fens,” which are known for their ing with the CNPS Vegetation Pro- soppy wet organic soils often cov- gram, Colorado State University, Fens are a rare habitat type in ered by spongy blankets of moss. University of California at Davis, and California. Many people are more What distinguish bogs and fens from other partners to describe fen veg- familiar with the term “bog,” but other meadow habitats are their etation throughout the Sierra Ne- bogs and fens are two types of peat- thick layers of organic matter or vada. This collective research has land that are differentiated by their peat. Peat is partially decomposed fostered a better understanding of primary water sources. Bogs develop plant matter (best known by the how and why fens develop, what in temperate climates where rain- dried peat found at your local gar- vegetation types characterize them, fall is responsible for soil satura- den center) that forms in wetlands and the impacts and risks to fen tion. In California’s Mediterranean

36 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 climate, peatlands form where groundwater sur- groundwater (not rainfall) is the faces. This occurs primary source of water saturation, where the water and therefore our peatlands are tech- table intersects the nically fens. land surface, re- sulting in ground- HOW FENS DEVELOP water discharging directly to the land In saturated soils gases diffuse surface. Basin fens very slowly, which results in low- originated as lakes oxygen conditions that severely or ponds and hinder bacterial decomposition of formed as the dead plant matter. These conditions pond was filled over thousands of years allow or- with partially de- ganic matter to accumulate until it composed plant becomes the primary substrate or remains. Spring mounds are local- layer upon which plants grow, and ized areas where groundwater rises some specialized plants grow en- to the soil surface; they often sup- tirely within the peat layer without port small fens. The fourth type of access to mineral soil. In addition fen, lava bed discontinuities, is found to the presence of saturated low- where lava beds overlie each other, oxygen soils, there are other eco- such as in in logical conditions that play a role in the southern Cascade Range. When the formation of peatlands. Peat- lava is deposited over an older lava lands typically are associated with bed, the surface of the older bed is low soil temperatures, which also melted and forms an impermeable slow microbial decomposition of barrier when it cools. The overlying plant matter. Because peatlands are lava cracks as it cools, allowing sur- characterized by organic soils (his- face water to percolate down until it tosols), they only develop in areas hits the impermeable barrier. The where there is no regular deposition water is then forced to move hori- of inorganic sediments, such as de- zontally, where it emerges as springs composing granite and other mate- in the soil’s surface. rials that eventually break down into Watershed geology influences soil components like sands, silts, and the development of fens in more clays. subtle ways as well. The chemistry of groundwater varies from alkaline FEN LANDFORMS to acidic (high to low pH) depend- ing on the type of bedrock that un- Fens can develop in seemingly derlies a watershed. In areas with unusual places including on hill- granitic bedrock, fens are typically slopes, although this may seem acidic and nutrient-poor. These fens counterintuitive to their requirement contain curious carnivorous plants for saturated soils. Only a few spe- such as sundew (Drosera rotundi- cific landforms allow surface dis- folia) and California pitcher plant charges of groundwater at a rate slow (Darlingtonia californica), which enough to cause perennial satura- obtain from their prey nutrients that tion and the subsequent accumula- tion of peat. In the Sierra Nevada TOP TO BOTTOM: Some of the showier these conditions occur in four set- denizens of fens: Bees on Parish’s yampah tings: slopes, basins, spring mounds, (Perideridea parishii); a bumble bee perches and lava bed discontinuities. atop a sneezeweed (Helenium bigelovii); Sierra gentian (Gentianopsis holopetala); Sloping fens are the most com- and the brilliant but rare, showy raillar- mon type in the Sierra Nevada and della ( pringlei). Photographs by form at the base of hills where CNPS staff.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 37 are not available in the soil or avail- arcticus), and common spikerush tify where fens occur. Upon this able in insufficient amounts. Some (Eleocharis quinquefolia). These baseline of work, CNPS began col- woody plants, such as lodgepole pine plants can form discrete monotypic laborating with the Forest Service (Pinus contorta ssp. muricata), La- stands (containing only one species) and other partners to enhance and brador tea ( columbi- or intermixed stands with no single standardize approaches for survey- anum), and alpine laurel (Kalmia species dominant. ing fens and for characterizing their microphylla) can also grow in these Fens also sport more showy her- vegetation and related features. fens. In other areas where dolomite, baceous species, which draw a di- In 2010 and 2011, CNPS Veg- limestone, marble, and volcanic bed- versity of pollinators. Some of these etation Program staff implemented rock occur, the fens are alkaline and include Newberry’s gentian (Gen- nutrient-rich. tiana newberryi), Bigelow’s sneeze- weed (Helenium bigelovii), monkey- flowers (Mimulus spp.), bog aspho- DIVERSITY OF PLANTS/ del ( californicum), west- VEGETATION ern yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea), tundra aster ( alpige- The complexity of geology and num), purple elephant’s head (Pedi- climate found in California—not cularis groenlandica), and fragrant only at a watershed level but also bog orchid (Platanthera leuco- within individual watersheds—has stachys). resulted in a diversity of vegetation Unlike several other rare vegeta- associated with fens. Even an indi- tion types in California (e.g., vernal vidual fen can support a surpris- pools, serpentine vegetation, mari- ingly broad range of plant species, time ), the fen vegetation including non-vascular mosses, an- of California is comprised of species nual and perennial herbs, and even which, with only a few exceptions, woody and trees. What they have very broad ranges. However, all have in common is their ability since some species are restricted to tolerate waterlogged soils, acidi- largely to fens, they may be globally fied water, and low soil nutrients. widespread yet common nowhere. One of the best known peat- Other species may be common else- forming plants is moss where such as in the northern (Sphagnum spp.), which grows in portions of North America, but re- acidic peatlands. CNPS staff has col- stricted or even rare in California. lected three different species of sph- Of the species identified in fens agnums and more than 25 other throughout the Sierra Nevada, 29 moss species while working in fens. have a California Rare Plant Rank Other mosses common to fens in (CRPR) of 1 or 2 (considered rare, the Sierra Nevada include Aula- threatened, or endangered in Cali- comnium palustre, Bryum pseudotri- fornia and/or elsewhere). quetrum, Drepanocladus aduncus, and Philonotis fontana. (Most mosses do not have common names, which SYNTHESIS OF FEN is why none appear here.) INFORMATION Of the many vascular plant spe- cies that thrive in fens, sedges, An ecological understanding of rushes, and spikerushes are particu- fen systems and classification of their larly common. These include star associated vegetation is required if sedge ( echinata), short-beaked these unique wetland habitats are to sedge (C. simulata), southern beaked be conserved. Since 2001, National sedge (C. utriculata), inflated sedge Forests in the Pacific Southwest Re- (C. vesicaria), arctic rush (Juncus gion have initiated fieldwork to iden-

Ginny Lake, a basin fen on the Nevada side of the Basin Management Unit. Photograph by Kendra Sikes.

38 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 a newly revised survey protocol for water from all or part of a fen), and summarizing the current state of surveying fens and wet meadows in other details. These enabled us to knowledge of fens throughout the the Sequoia and Shasta-Trinity Na- compare and rank fen habitats on National Forests of the Sierra Ne- tional Forests, and throughout the their quality, uniqueness, biological vada. The draft assessment is based Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. diversity, and other values. on over 800 fen surveys conducted Revisions to the protocol include In addition to a standardized by researchers, Forest Service bota- additions of measurable disturbance protocol, a secondary goal of this nists, and CNPS staff. The report ratings such as grazing, off-highway broad collaboration was the devel- includes a review of existing litera- vehicle use, dewatering (diverting opment of an assessment report ture and unpublished studies, a

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 39 summary of USFS efforts to inven- the surveyed fens support one or EXPLORING FENS tory fen resources, an analysis of more of the CRPR-ranked rare plant data compiled from over 800 fen species. Overall plant diversity in If you have not yet had the op- surveys, and identification of data fens is impressive as well; approxi- portunity, we encourage you to ex- gaps. It also includes a classifica- mately 306 different taxa have been plore these amazing and unique tion and key to fen vegetation types identified in fens throughout the habitats. Some of our favorite loca- at both the alliance and association Sierra Nevada. Recent efforts to clas- tions are: levels, greatly expanding our exist- sify fen vegetation have also resulted ing knowledge of wetland vegeta- in the identification of 14 new veg- Butterfly Valley, Plumas National tion in California. The assessment etation alliances (or provisional alli- Forest, Plumas County – Highlights highlights the floristic biodiversity ances) since publication of the include large stands of the carnivo- and rarity of fens, provides a frame- Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd rous California pitcher plant. work for future management deci- edition, in 2009. Toad Lake, Shasta-Trinity National sions, and identifies research and While the assessment of mead- Forest – A well-established trail monitoring priorities. ows and fens continues throughout passes through a string of fen mead- Through collaboration and years the state, the next challenge is pro- ows on the way to Toad Lake. The of hard work conducted in the field, tection. Fens are threatened by a trail continues around the lake to our understanding of fens in Cali- number of activities that affect their the southeastern edge, which has a fornia has grown immensely in the associated watershed. Impacts re- beautiful and diverse meadow com- past few years. We now know, for ported from recent inventory sur- plex and offers a picturesque view. example, that approximately 470 veys include road and trail construc- Grass Lake, Eldorado National meadows throughout California tion, ground and surface water Forest – This incredible fen National Forests contain one or more pumping, and livestock grazing ac- meadow system is designated as fens, and this number is likely to tivities that increase bare peat or a Research Natural Area and sup- increase with additional surveying. cause significant stream erosion. ports the largest sphagnum peat- While all meadows in several forests Water pollution is also known to lands in California, as well as vari- have been fully inventoried, a few threaten fen ecosystems. This infor- ous uncommon and disjunct still need additional surveys and, for mation can now be used to deter- plants, three species of carnivorous some, assessments have yet to be mine future management strategies plants, and four species of orchids. initiated. that could avoid or mitigate for these We have also learned that 175 of impacts. REFERENCES Cooper, D.J., and E.C. Wolf. 2006a. Fens of the Sierra Nevada, California. Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship, Colo- rado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Unpublished report. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2d ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Sikes, K., et al. 2010. Fen conservation and vegetation assessment in the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada and adjacent mountains, California. Unpublished report. Weixelman, D.A., and D.J. Cooper. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California, A User Guide. General Technical Report R5-TP-028. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Sundews (Drosera rotundifolia) and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) thrive beneath a canopy of mud sedge (Carex limosa), CNPS Rare Plant Rank 2.2. All are found in fens Deborah Stout, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, around Silver Lake, . Photograph by Scott Batiuk. Sacramento, CA 95816, [email protected]

40 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Oblique view of Los Angeles County with Palos Verdes Peninsula in foreground. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL/NIMA, PIA03348, Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, February 2000. CONSTRUCTING ALL-YEAR FLORISTIC KEYS FOR SMALL AREAS by Christine M. Rodrigue

common problem for natu- and pamphlets about local or regional of species, leading to long chains ralists conducting field- species (e.g., Gales 1988; Rundel and (sometimes referred to as “trees” due work in their study sites Gustafson 2005). These can be orga- to their continual branching) of bi- is accurate identification nized by vegetation formation, life nary decisions. These become diffi- Aof plant species. Over the years, we form, or flowers, and they are vari- cult to keep track of, both for the become familiar with species of in- able in details and currency. Another, writer and for the reader. Authors of terest to us in a given area. Even so, more formal way is to consult a flora botanical keys find that it becomes we often come across species we may or a floristic key for the region. unwieldy to design the keys if flow- never have encountered before or, Floristic keys narrow down a ers are not used early in the process. annoyingly, species we once knew plant species identification through As a result, most keys cut quickly to but have since forgotten. This prob- a series of (usually binary) choices flower characteristics (e.g., Collins lem is challenging for educators at about observable traits. Most cover 1972 and 1974; Dole and all levels: They might like to use a large areas. These can be as large as 1996). site for field trips but find species an entire state, such as California Unfortunately for key users, identification a chore. Docents for (e.g., Stuart and Sawyer 2001) or however, plants do not obligingly park lands and interested laypeople regions within a state, such as South- flower all year round. It can be diffi- also face the identification challenge. ern California (e.g., Collins 1972 cult poring over several keys and One way to acquire familiarity and 1974). In regions of great bio- floras to identify a plant in the field with plant species is to consult books diversity, this can entail thousands that is no longer in its blooming

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 41 Photograph of Palos Verdes Peninsula landscape, including the ongoing Portuguese Bend landslide that activated in 1956. The landslide precluded further development in the affected area, resulting in the conservation of open land and coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat there. All photographs by Christine M. Rodrigue. season. What generally happens then not in flower. They note that the in the key. I used a native plant is that readers make guesses. They fourth key is difficult to use and checklist for the Palos Verdes Pen- go to the index at the back and look imprecise. insula that was created by Angelika up various guesses, and then go di- Designing an all-season key for a Brinkmann-Busi. rectly to the species’ descriptions. much smaller area might be another The second step involved con- This, of course, sabotages the whole way to reduce the number of species sulting several existing keys and flo- point of using a binary decision tree. involved so that flowers are not criti- ras and cross-referencing them to Adding to the challenge, plants’ cal to identification. This article re- identify basic traits for the new key blooming seasons do not match with ports on an attempt to construct such (Calflora 2012; CalPhotos 2012; one another, so use of a key may a key for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Collins 1972, 1974; Dole and Rose only be partially successful. Refresh- (~9,000 hectares or 22,230 acres) in 1996; Gale 1988; Hickman 1993; ing one’s familiarity with a species Los Angeles County. The Peninsula Munz 1974; Rundel and Gustafson in the wild is time consuming for contains 229 native species, with 125 2005). These included life form researchers, instructors, docents, already in the key. It is complete for (loosely defined), height of adult and the interested lay public. succulents, trees, shrubs, and sub- plants, branching habits, leaf shape This Catch-22 for readers might shrubs (small, many-branched plants and complexity, leaf margins, leaf be resolved by key authors giving that are woody only at the base with arrangement, color and texture of up early reliance on flowers. The soft, herbaceous branching above the leaves and stems, presence of spines only way that this becomes feasible base). The herb, fern, and monocot or thorns, as well as detailed infor- is by reducing the number of spe- section is about half done. mation on flowers and propagules. cies in the key. Dole and Rose (1996) The third step was field work, approached the problem by restrict- BUILDING THE KEY keys in hand. I collected small ing their key to cacti, trees, and samples of plants in the field and shrubs. They also provided four The first step in the process en- created an informal herbarium of separate sections, one each for cacti, tailed finding an existing checklist Palos Verdes native and exotic spe- trees, shrubs in flower, and shrubs for species that should be included cies. This was used for reference dur-

42 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 TABLE 1. SPECIES BLOOM TIMES ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

GENUS SPECIES LIFE FORM SUBTYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC URL*

Ribes californicum Small X X X 7107.html Marah macrocarpus Vine Herb X X X X 5363.html Dudleya lanceolata Succulent Herb X X X X X X X 2855.html Shrub Large X X X X X X 2433.html Isomeris arborea Shrub Small X X X X X X X X X X X X 4384.html fasciculatum Shrub Small + + + X X X X X X X X + 3243.html Eriogonum parvifolium Shrub Small + + + + + X X X X X X + 3346.html Eriogonum cinereum Shrub Small + + + + + X X X X X X X 3216.html Salix lasiolepis Shrub Large X X X 7277.html Crassula connata Succulent Herb X X X X 2407.html Rhus integrifolia Shrub Large X X X X 7090.html californica Shrub Small X X X X X 2963.html Succulent Herb X X X X X X 5913.html Lycium brevipes Succulent Shrub X X 3532.html Salix gooddingii Tree X X 7272.html Salix laevigata Tree X X X 7276.html kelloggii Vine Herb X X X 401.html Prunus ilicifolia subsp. lyonii Tree X X X 6896.html Rhus ovata Shrub Large X X X 7091.html Salix exigua Shrub Large X X X 7270.html Lycium californicum Succulent Shrub X X X X X 5235.html Mimulus aurantiacus Shrub Small X X X X X 5489.html ursinus Shrub Small X X X X X 7206.html chamissonis Shrub Small X X X X X 5125.html Lotus scoparius Shrub Subshrub X X X X X X 5072.html Sambucus mexicana Shrub Large X X X X X X X 7320.html Succulent Herb X X X X X X X 7713.html Heliotropium curassavicum Succulent Herb X X X X X X X X 4060.html Aphanisma blitoides Succulent Herb ` X X 421.html Prunus ilicifolia subsp. ilicifolia Shrub Large X X 6894.html Toxicodendron diversilobum Vine Liana X X 8015.html Dudleya virens Succulent Herb X X X 2870.html Lathyrus vestitus Vine Herb X X X 4626.html Lonicera subspicata Shrub Small X X X 5014.html Lupinus longifolius Shrub Small X X X 5174.html mellifera Shrub Small X X X 7311.html Symphoricarpos mollis Shrub Small X X X 7898.html Calystegia macrostegia Vine Herb X X X X 1353.html Cylindropuntia prolifera Succulent Cactus X X X X 9588.html Shrub Small X X X X 4522.html confertiflorum Shrub Subshrub X X X X X 3422.html Salicornia subterminalis Succulent Herb X X X X X X 7257.html Isocoma menziesii Shrub Small X X X X X X X X X 4370.html Succulent Herb X X X X X X X X 7534.html Calystegia peirsonii Vine Herb X X 1369.html Cuscuta californica Vine Herb X X X X 2528.html Opuntia littoralis Succulent Cactus X X 5940.html Opuntia oricola Succulent Cactus X X 5942.html Orobanche californica Succulent Herb X X X 5965.html Salvia leucophylla Shrub Small X X X 7310.html Rosa californica Shrub Small X X X X 7179.html Heteromeles arbutifolia Shrub Large X X 4140.html Cucurbita foetidissima Vine Herb X X X 2510.html Artemisia douglasiana Shrub Subshrub X X X X X 708.html Frankenia salina Shrub Subshrub X X X X X 3612.html Cuscuta pentagona Vine Herb X X X 2539.html Atriplex lentiformis Shrub Small X X X X 986.html squarrosa Shrub Small X X X X 4010.html Suaeda taxifolia Succulent Shrub X X X X 7879.html Epilobium canum Shrub Subshrub X X X X X 2984.html Brickellia californica Shrub Small X X X 1152.html Shrub Small X X X X 3080.html Artemisia californica Shrub Small m X X X X X 705.html Baccharis emoryi Shrub Large X X X X X 1030.html Baccharis pilularis Shrub Small X X X X X 1031.html Shrub Subshrub X X X X X 3088.html

Number blooming 8 13 29 43 46 40 33 28 23 19 12 10 Percentage blooming 12 20 44 65 70 61 50 42 35 29 18 15

Base URL: http://www.csulb.edu/geography/PV/ X = blooming season; + = dried retained; m = may do a secondary bloom Source: C.M. Rodrigue, June 2012, based on Brinkman-Busi, Calflora, Jepson Manual, Munz flora, Colllins key, and GDEP and class fieldwork.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 43 shape. In the case of the few native trees on Palos Verdes, just these three levels will lead to a positive identification! Clicking on one of these identification end-points then takes you to a species description that is quite detailed, to ensure con- fidence in plant identification. This description can include leaf size, tex- ture, color, veining, and margins. Detailed flower descriptions are also provided, so that if the plant is blooming, the flower can be used to confirm the identification at the end of the process, rather than as a start- ing point and potential dead-end. The online version of the key also provides links to the Calflora taxon report, the Jepson Manual treat- ment and species map, and the CSU, Long Beach biogeography students using all-season key in the field. Note student in CalPhotos collection of photos of back using her smartphone to access the online version of the key. that species. The CalPhotos link is particularly helpful to those using ing the construction of the key. Field dents could use their smart phones, the key online in the field, as it can work took place during various re- tablets, and netbooks to access it in provide instant affirmation of the search projects on the Peninsula, the field. The online edition was also species identification. field trips for a biogeography course, emailed to professional botanists The most common vegetation on and community field trips offered by working in the Palos Verdes Penin- the Palos Verdes Peninsula is Cali- the Geosciences Diversity Enhance- sula and another nearby conserva- fornia sage scrub, often called coastal ment Program (GDEP) at California tion area. Revisions were then made sage scrub (even far from the coast) State University, Long Beach. in response to feedback from both or CSS. This is a low vegetation type, The fourth step required con- professional and student/amateur typically 0.5–2.0 meters (1.5–6.0 structing a sequence of decisions for users. The most current version of feet) tall, and dominated by shrubs readers to make in using the new the key is available at http://www. and subshrubs. Many of these are key. I decided to relax the custom- csulb.edu/geography/PV/. capable of summer deciduousness, ary practice in botanical keys of only dropping all or some of their leaves giving two choices for each ques- HOW THE KEY WORKS if the stresses of California’s sum- tion, in order to shorten the process mer drought reach critical thresh- of identifying a plant. In my key, This process has yielded a work- olds. As such, CSS is a somewhat each identification question leads to able key, which is most functional unprepossessing vegetation that two or more choices. For instance, in its online version. The first deci- many settlers in California thought leaf shape could be linear, lanceolate, sion encountered by the user is sim- nothing of clearing. oblanceolate, oblong, etc. ply to select the life form of the Estimates are that some 85–90% The fifth step involved assessing plant in question: succulent, tree, of it has been destroyed by agricul- the evolving key, which has now shrub, subshrub, vine, or herb. In ture and urban development. CSS, gone through several iterations. Each this, the new Palos Verdes key fol- however, is critical habitat for a num- version was assessed for ease of use lows the common practice of most ber of endangered animal species. in various classes and GDEP proj- keys, in that it departs from the bi- These include the California Gnat- ects. Assessment focused both on nary (the forced two-choice-only catcher (Polioptila californica), the how readily students and amateurs question) at this first level. California Cactus Wren (Campy- could make positive identifications, For trees and shrubs, the key lorhyncus brunneicapillus), and the and on problems they reported in begins by asking whether the leaves Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Galu- using it. are simple or compound, then copsyche lygdamus palosverdesen- The most recent step has been whether they are alternate or oppo- sis). Given the nature of the vegeta- moving the paper key online, so stu- site, and then inquires about their tion, the most complex part of the

44 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 key was the shrub and subshrub section. For most of the larger true shrubs, as with trees, the user only has to work through three levels of decision-making before arriving at a positive identification. Large shrubs with ovate leaves, however, were broken down into two more levels. Subshrubs were more compli- cated to work through, however, being the visually dominant life form in CSS with nearly 30 species occur- ring in Palos Verdes. They require as many as six levels of decision- making, but that is still a small num- ber of choices to make, and none of them depend on flowering season. In one group of simple and alternate leafed plants, the buckwheats (Erio- gonum spp.), the key does inquire Summer research interns setting up a quadrat to census coastal sage scrub habitat on Palos about inflorescences. These species Verdes Peninsula for the Geoscience Diversity Enhancement Project. are distinctive in that they retain inflorescences all year—including numerous, with more than 180 na- access through the browser included dead and dried ones long after the tive plant species on Palos Verdes. with the phone works quite well, I flowering season has ended. After This has necessitated a more elabo- hope to write a software application deciding whether or not a plant rate key structure. This section starts that allows users to access it even retains these structures, the key with a division between forbs and more conveniently. reverts to leaf shape and then to graminoids and, within forbs, be- margins, completing identification tween ferns and angiosperms. These ASSESSMENT within six steps. divisions help organize the species Succulents were another com- into manageable numbers. In each The evolving key for the Palos plex group. I subdivided it by life division, the key then reverts to the Verdes Peninsula has been used by form: herbaceous (e.g., pickleweed, basic leaf attributes used as starting my students for field assignments in Salicornia subterminalis), shrubs points in other life forms. This sec- several sections of upper-division (e.g., boxthorn, Lycium californi- tion of the key is still under con- biogeography. It has also been used cum), and cacti (e.g., coastal prickly- struction, but the sections on suc- as an extra credit field project for pear, Opuntia littoralis). The herba- culents, trees, shrubs and subshrubs, students in danger of failing intro- ceous and shrub succulents then and vines are now complete. ductory physical geography. The key went on to leaf arrangement and I had always wanted to make the also served as a resource for several shape, while the cacti were instead key available to the public, which is years of summer research projects broken down by shape and size of why I began to put it online in 2010. with high school and community stem segments and spines. This turned out to make the key college interns. In each case, the Vines also needed to be subdi- vastly easier to use, particularly in students were successful in identi- vided by life form: lianas or woody an age of field work where data is fying several species put to them, vines (e.g., poison oak, Toxicoden- most easily recorded using the latest both dried specimens in the lab and dron diversilobum) and herbaceous technology. The botanical key can live plants in the field. vines (e.g., coyote gourd, Cucurbita be accessed by a smart phone, tab- The earlier versions of the key foetidissima; California morning let, netbook, notebook, and iPad were written in the concise botani- glory, Calistegia macrostegia; and using 3G or 4G wireless connec- cal language common to floras and chaparral dodder, Cuscuta califor- tions. The online format also allows keys and, as such, would require me nica). Past that subdivision, species users to link the key with the Cal- to be around to help students with are differentiated again by leaf size, Photos archive, so users can instantly definitions. The specialized language arrangement, and shape. visually confirm their plant identifi- reduced its ease of use, and created Herbaceous plants are far more cation decisions. While smartphone frustration among the students and

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 45 interns, so I rewrote the key. I started consuming than I had anticipated. nal Technical Report to California including informal definitions Even with just 229 species, the time Department of Fish and Game. De- within the species description pages required proved quite daunting. I partment of Geography, University every time a botanical term was used. am still working on the key each of California, Los Angeles, CA. While this increased clarity, it also summer, now some five years into Calflora. 2012. The Calflora Database. Available at http://www.calflora.org/. lengthened the key and created re- the process. I hope to have the last CalPhotos. 2012. The CalPhotos Col- dundancies from one description to category completed in the summer lection. Available at: http://www. the next. However, it also made it of 2013. While this is something of calflora.org/. easier for students to use the key a labor of love, I sometimes wonder Collins, B.J. 1972. Key to Coastal and independently. whether I would have started the Chaparral Flowering Plants of South- The students in my last section process, knowing then how much ern California. California State Uni- of biogeography (fall 2011) were not time it would take. versity Foundation, Northridge. only able to make identifications on Unfortunately the key does not ——.1974. Key to Trees and Wildflow- their own online, but also reported systematically include exotic species ers of the Mountains of Southern Cali- enjoying the process more. I have that are rampant throughout Cali- fornia. California State University Foundation, Northridge. also shared the online key with the fornia, and on the Palos Verdes Pen- Dole, J.W., and B.B. Rose.1996. An Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Con- insula in particular. Species richness Amateur Botanist’s Identification servancy and with the director of a field data indicate that roughly half Manual for the Shrubs and Trees of the company spearheading restoration the species in Palos Verdes are non- Southern California Coastal Region of the Los Cerritos Wetlands (Tidal native and often visually dominant, and Mountains. Foot-Loose Press, Influence, Long Beach, CA). My goal and several are quite invasive. No North Hills, CA. in doing so was to have profession- one has put together a non-native Gales, D.M. 1988. Handbook of Wild- als look the key over and notify me species checklist, so it would be far flowers, Weeds, Wildlife, and Weather of any errors. Feedback has been more difficult to work them into a of the South Bay and Palos Verdes Pen- enthusiastic, and I’m confident this key. However, I am considering an insula Including Tidepool and Sea- shore Life, 4th ed. FoldaRoll Com- will help in the training of interns, addendum to the key with brief de- pany, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA. docents, and volunteers in these con- scriptions of the exotics that I hap- Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson servation organizations. pen to recognize. Manual: Higher Plants of California. Even with these problems, the University of California Press, Ber- process of constructing a non- keley, CA. Also available online at TURNING FLORISTIC KEYS flower-dependent key proved fea- http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/. UPSIDE DOWN sible for the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern It would be less time-consuming for California. University of California It is possible to redesign floristic someone working in a less diverse Press, Berkeley, CA. keys that make no reference to flow- region or in a smaller area. All-year Rodrigue, C.M. 2012. Native plant identification key for the Palos ers and yet still allow users to iden- floristic keys make plant identifica- Verdes Peninsula, California. Avail- tify plant species accurately. A key tion much easier for non-profession- able at http://www.csulb.edu/geogra- can present a short sequence of man- als and educators. The implications phy/PV/. ageable choices regarding plant char- for developing similar keys for use Rundel, P.W., and R. Gustafson. 2005. acteristics that are visible all year. in many other areas open up new, Introduction to the Plant Life of South- As this Palos Verdes botanical key exciting possibilities for native plant ern California: Coast to Mountains. “experiment” has shown, this can conservation. Once this occurs, California Natural History Guides. even be accomplished during non- many more people will be able to University of California Press, Ber- flowering seasons without “cheat- use these simplified keys and de- keley, CA. Stuart, J.D., and J.O. Sawyer. 2001. Trees ing” (making guesses and then us- velop their interests in native plant and Shrubs of California. California ing an index to look up various pos- communities as well as support ef- Natural History Guides. University sibilities). forts to protect them. of California Press, Berkeley, CA. This approach is feasible for Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Evolution of areas under 10,000 hectares, even REFERENCES species diversity in land communi- in a biodiversity hotspot like Cali- ties. Evolutionary Biology 10: 1–67. Brinkmann-Busi, A.1999. Appendix A: fornia. Limiting the geographical Flora of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, area covered by the key reduces the a preliminary checklist. In Lipman, Christine M. Rodrigue, Department of number of native species that need A., et al. Habitat Evaluation and Re- Geography, California State University, to be included. That said, the pro- introduction Planning for the Endan- Long Beach, CA 90840-1101, rodrigue cess turned out to be more time- gered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly: Fi- @csulb.edu

46 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 LOCATIONS OF FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA AUTHORS IN THE US AND CANADA, 2012.

THE FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA by Nancy Morin

e are so lucky that Cali- tains information on the more than treatments for the Flora of North fornia, with its 8,000 20,000 species of native and natu- America, so in large part the rela- species of plants and ralized vascular plants and bryo- tionships and even the descriptions many outstanding bot- phytes in the continental US, of strictly California plants may be anistsW and botanical institutions, has Canada, Greenland, and the St. the same or very similar. An ex- long been a leader in floristics. Some- Pierre and Miquelon Islands. ample of how the information in times it seems like California is a The 16 volumes published to FNA can add to our knowledge of country unto itself with little need date, and website, provide carefully California plant groups can be found to look outside its boundaries. Its reviewed names, descriptions, dis- in the genus in Volume excellent published flora, The Jepson tributions, and discussions for more 7 of FNA. This volume, published Manual: Vascular Plants of Califor- than 11,000 species. They give a bo- in 2010, is the most recent in the nia (now in a new second edition) tanical context to the species and series. provides a statewide overview, and genera that occur in California, and Volume 7 covers 11 families, the local checklists and county floras are especially helpful in understand- largest of which are give regional detail. ing the distributions of California (mustard family), with a whopping There is a great deal to be gained Rare Plant Rank 2 species (CRPR, 97 genera and 744 species, and from having a broader view of plants, formerly called CNPS List 2) or the Salicaceae (willow family), with only however, and that view is finally relationships within their genera of 4 genera but 123 species. The sec- being made available through a other rare species. tion on Brassicaceae was written pri- massive effort to complete a Flora Many of the authors of The Jepson marily by Ihsan Al-Shehbaz—a of North America (FNA), which con- Manual revision are also doing the world-wide authority on the family,

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 47 and on staff at the Mis- officinale. Florida a task I took over in 2000. I circulate souri Botanical Gar- yellowcress (Nastur- manuscripts to the reviewers in our den—and presents the tium floridanum) is area—which includes California, results of his massive known only from wet Nevada, and Arizona, and compile overhaul of this enor- places in Florida. their comments, which are then re- mous and economically Thus, through the turned to the author for consider- important family. Typi- Flora of North America, ation. cally it takes many years Volume 7, we get a Volume 7 is dedicated to Grady, before the knowledge sense of how widely in honor of his many contributions from such research distributed N. officinale to our understanding of plants and makes it into floras. is, and that it poses a their distributions, especially in the Thanks to FNA the genetic hazard to N. spurge family, Euphorbiaceae. More knowledge is becoming gambelii. We also learn than 50 California botanists are au- available sooner. Gambel’s yellowcress, CRPR that this genus has an thors of treatments, and many other 1B.1. Courtesy of the Flora For example, if we of North America Associa- unusual geographic authors, editors, and reviewers have look up Nasturtium in tion, Yevonn Wilson-Ramsey, pattern, with two rela- California connections. The “busi- the index of Volume 7, illustrator. tively widespread spe- ness office” (basically a desk in my we find it is the com- cies and three very lo- home) is located in Point Arena. mon name of that fancy orange- cal species—one in California, one The Flora of North America re- flowered plant that grows profusely in Florida, and one in Morocco. ceived its first funding in 1986, and and drapes itself over gardens and More than 900 botanists in the since then 16 volumes have been creek banks. The introduced spe- US, Canada, and elsewhere are work- published by Oxford University cies majus, in the family ing on the Flora of North America. Press, USA (affiliated with Oxford Tropaeolaceae, is also treated in Vol- Editors, authors, and reviewers are University Press, UK). All the ferns ume 7. The section on Tropaeolum volunteers and work from their home and gymnosperms, all the mono- notes that it is naturalized in the institutions. Editorial centers at Mis- cots ( is in two volumes), all FNA area only in California, and is souri Botanical Garden, University the sunflower family (three vol- edible, rich in Vitamin C, and has of Kansas, University of Montreal, umes!), and most of the “lower” antibacterial properties. the Hunt Institute for Botanical (more primitive) dicots have been The true genus Nasturtium, or Documentation at Carnegie Mellon published. These cover 182 fami- watercress, is in the mustard family, University, and California Academy lies, 1,741 genera, and 11,000 spe- Brassicaceae, and has five species of Sciences host technical editors and cies. Work is progressing well on (four grow in the FNA area, and one botanical illustrators. Nomenclatural the remaining 14 volumes, with is found only in Morocco). As a re- and bibliographic reviewers check more than 60% of the remaining sult of Dr. Al-Shehbaz’s work, most that the scientific names and litera- treatments now in the editing and of the species formerly in Nastur- ture citations are correct. review process. tium are now in Rorippa, yellowcress. California botanists are involved Additional information on the Watercress (Nasturtium officinale), in this project in many ways. Re- project, the published volumes, and a non-native, occurs in California gional reviewers include Gary volumes in preparation, as well as and all the rest of North America Wallace at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic the content from all published vol- (except Greenland and the north- Garden, Margriet Wetherwax at UC umes can be found on the Web at ernmost provinces in Canada). It Berkeley, Jon Rebman at San Diego www.fna.org and is free to all. FNA was collected as early as 1877 in the Natural History Museum, and Fred treatments are also available through San Gabriel Mountains according to Hrusa at California Department of JSTOR, an online information re- herbarium records, and is consid- Food and Agriculture. John Strother source that also provides images of ered a weed. One-row yellowcress and Alan Smith at UC Berkeley have herbarium specimens and digital (N. microphyllum) also introduced, been part of the project since it files of related literature. JSTOR is a is found in a smattering of states started in 1983, and John is still a subscription service, but the speci- and provinces. special editor. men images and FNA files are avail- Our native Gambel’s yellowcress Deb Trock is heading up the edi- able without charge at http://plants. (Nasturtium gambelii) is of conser- torial center for Volumes 15 and 18 jstor.org. vation concern (CNPS list 1B.1 and at California Academy of Sciences. federally endangered), grows only For many years Grady Webster at Nancy R. Morin, Flora of North America in Central and Southern California, UC Davis coordinated the south- Business Office, P.O. Box 716, Point Arena, and sometimes hybridizes with N. west regional review of manuscripts, CA 95468, [email protected]

48 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 California fan palms (Washingtonia filifera) in a desert wash at Mountain Palm Canyon, Anza Borrego Desert State Park. This photo can be viewed online in a comprehensive EoE section on California. All photographs by the author. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EARTH INVITES CNPS PARTICIPATION by C. Michael Hogan

magine an Internet resource that links to many other Web pages. The Encyclopedia of Earth (EoE) is free to everyone and contains Imagine that this website is viewed provides just such an environmental thousands of peer reviewed articles by almost one million visitors each science website, one that contains a covering all aspects of environ- month, and that the content grows wealth of information on California Imental science, each containing by the hour. vegetation. This relatively new world-

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 49 wide network of hundreds of profes- socioeconomic issues. There are VALUE TO CNPS sional scientists brings together con- entries on individual species, eco- tent on ecology, hydrology, climate, regions, and ecological theory that So far five members of CNPS earth sciences, geography, and even address local to regional scale issues. have qualified and published as au-

This photo, taken during wildflower season at the St. Helena Palisades, accompanies an EoE entry titled “Flora of Napa County, California.” Lead author is Jake Ruygt, longtime rare plant chair for the Napa Valley Chapter of CNPS.

50 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 thors or editors of the EoE. Their cover national or even inter- articles cover such topics as Califor- national ecological issues. nia endemics, regional vegetative For example, Jake Ruygt, systems, and historical ecology in rare plant and conservation California. Some of the CNPS au- chair for the Napa Valley thors have also written articles that Chapter of CNPS, has al- ready contributed an article on the flora of Napa County, one on the historical distri- bution of oaks in Sonoma County, two on the Arcto- staphylos and Quercus gen- Homepage of the Encyclopedia of Earth: www. era, and an article on the eoearth.org. Cactaceae family. Other CNPS members who have contrib- We are also trying to create high- uted individual species articles in- quality genus level articles for plant clude Ann Howald, Roger Raiche, taxa in North America, , , Sarah Gordon, and C. Michael Europe, and South America. Hogan, all members of the Milo Qualifications for acceptance as Baker Chapter (Sonoma County). an author are based more on knowl- Since the California Floristic edge and expertise than simply aca- Province has intrinsic interest in- demic credentials. While a majority ternationally, the audience for this of the EoE authors are university California oriented content is quite faculty members, there are also large. Publication of articles with many from the private sector and the EoE by CNPS members with from government. The EoE wel- scientific backgrounds results in in- comes articles that are focused not creased publicity for CNPS and its only on individual species, but on programs, and may result in attract- plant communities. Articles may ing new members to the organiza- also be written by two or more au- tion. EoE entries also serve as an thors. additional means of communication Examples of content which among CNPS members, in a man- CNPS members might provide in- ner similar to that of Fremontia and clude articles stressing the need for the CNPS Bulletin, and the CNPS more thoughtful solar array siting e-Newsletter. in sensitive desert habitat; regional articles on areas containing a high percentage of endemic plants; meth- ARTICLE CONTENT AND ods of protecting rare species, or PROTOCOLS those of limited distribution; and discussions about the eradication or Each EoE article is reviewed by control of invasive plant species in one or more technical consultants, California. but overall quality is overseen by an all-scientist board of directors, two of whom are California-based. Be- INSTITUTIONAL CONTENT sides setting content quality and for- PARTNERS mat standards, the Board directs spe- cial projects, such as major pushes Another powerful aspect of for content expansion in certain ar- the Encyclopedia of Earth is the eas. Current priorities include a drive strength of its content partners. EoE to cover each of the over 700 world has formalized content partnerships ecoregions, and an initial push to with over two dozen agencies, al- address the ecology and hydrology lowing the use of most of the con- of major river basins of the world. tent available from such entities as

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 51 as using the internal EoE search en- gine. One of the most valuable fea- tures of becoming an EoE author is the ability to interact with members of one’s field all over the world. These interactions also extend to interdisciplinary discourse, since the core of the EoE philosophy is to integrate high-level content from related environmental disciplines. Within the EoE community of scholars are opportunities to find colleagues to coauthor a new paper, or simply to interact with a topic editor (a technical reviewer) to as- sist in evaluating and moving one’s article to publication. In preparing manuscripts for EoE, I have person- ally interacted with experts from Witches butter (Tremella mesenterica), a widespread decomposer parasitizing on rotting Egypt, England, Iran, Germany, oak limb at Bouverie Preserve, Sonoma County. An EoE entry sites its importance for Canada, Spain, Namibia, and Scot- nutrient recycling and soil manufacture within hardwood forests. land (as well as from the USA). CNPS members are strongly en- the US Environmental Protection regions, geographic features, and couraged to contribute articles to Agency, US Geological Survey, Cen- ecological theory. EoE. Inquiries should be sent to C. tral Intelligence Agency, National Michael Hogan at Luminatech@ Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- yahoo.com. istration, National Aeronautics and TECHNICAL DETAILS AND Space Administration, and the Na- THE EOE COMMUNITY Author’s Note: The Encyclopedia of tional Science Foundation. In most Life (http://eol.org/) is a kindred web- cases EoE has the right for our au- The EoE website encourages site and content partner of the Ency- thors to add content to an existing contributors to submit other media clopedia of Earth. However, the em- work by one of the content part- content along with the technical phasis of the Encyclopedia of Life is ners, after it has been reviewed by written content of their articles. This purely biology and is organized by senior EoE technical authors and typically includes such items as slide taxa to include detailed information editors. show photograph galleries, videos, on over one million organisms. Con- A key content partner is the news articles, curriculum modules, versely, the Encyclopedia of Earth World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and announcements of symposia or addresses all areas of the environ- whose data on over 750 ecoregions other events. The presence of pho- mental sciences including climate, worldwide forms a backbone of ar- tos, graphs, videos, and other im- earth science, physical science, and ticle content depicting plant com- ages within the text makes the in- environmental chemistry. It also ad- munities throughout the world. formation come alive, and lures the dresses more complex assemblies of Other EoE content enriches the reader into the subject matter. data, such as descriptions of com- WWF data, which can be searched The EoE platform has an ad- plete ecoregions, interactions of car- by country, river basin, national vanced online editing function that bon storage with climate, etc. There park, and other delineating bound- allows authors to enter all article are several key people active in both aries. The value of these article in- content, including text, graphics, sites in order to facilitate consider- terrelationships is magnified by the and metadata, and to add special able information sharing between rich hyperlinking to other EoE ar- effects such as bolding, italics, and them. ticles. Approximately 20 “clickable” image captions. Furthermore the links are provided within the text of author can assign the article to over C. Michael Hogan, Ph.D., President, an average EoE article, connecting 150 topic areas, allowing readers to Lumina Technologies, P.O. Box 1118, the reader to EoE articles on related search and find the content in a hi- Kenwood, CA 95452, Luminatech@yahoo. content of specific species, eco- erarchical browsing mode, as well com

52 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 NEW CNPS FELLOW: JIM BISHOP by Marjorie McNairn and Joan Stewart

im said once that while on a Mount Lassen Chapter field trip, someone asked him to be J the nominee for chapter presi- dent, although he had not previously been active in the chapter, nor a member of the executive board. He agreed, and jumped right in for a two-year stint as president from Janu- ary 1996 to December 1997. Two years later he was again elected as president for another two-year term. This story about Jim is a good example of his willingness to get involved, to shoulder responsibil- ity, and to continue to help when needed. As president, he was always organized, and conducted the chap- ter business with enthusiasm and energy. As a chapter member he has stimulated others to apply their skills and interests to chapter activities. When he was not acting as Jim Bishop in the embrace of an ancient and enduring bristlecone pine. Photograph by Mount Lassen Chapter president, Catie Bishop. Jim took on the role of program chair, a position he has held since ter delegate for a few years, also He served for two years on the 1998. He has participated in recruit- became vice president for adminis- state Governance/Elections Com- ing speakers for many interesting tration, organized Council meetings, mittee, and spent six years chairing and high quality educational pro- and was among those involved in the Program Policy Committee. grams. In addition, he has at times reorganizing the State CNPS Execu- Among his accomplishments are presented programs himself, which tive Board into the CNPS Chapter helping to revise the state Adminis- have been well researched and pro- Council and the CNPS Board of Di- trative Handbook. He was also part fessionally delivered. One of his talks rectors. Many times Jim has urged of the group that developed a Chap- described the ongoing international members of the Mount Lassen Chap- alpine monitoring project known as ter to attend state Chapter Council “GLORIA” and the first US site in meetings. He is always eager to edu- the Sierra Nevada and White Moun- cate our members about CNPS ac- tains, in which he and Catie Bishop tivities at the state level, and in re- have participated (see Fremontia, cruiting new people for state posi- 38.4/39.1). A related program was tions. on adaptations of plants to high He first served as Chapter Coun- elevation conditions. Other presen- cil vice-chair from 2004–2005, and tations were on the fens of Plumas then as its chair from 2006–2007. National Forest, bristlecone pines, This was a period of difficult strate- plant colors, and desert ecology. gic planning that built on work dat- While president of the Mount ing back to the late 1980s, and con- Lassen Chapter, Jim was introduced tinues to this day. It was not an easy to, and became active in the State time for CNPS. Jim often assumed Giving a presentation at the 2009 CNPS CNPS Executive Board. After his the role of peacemaker during heated Conservation Conference. Photograph by presidency he continued as the chap- discussions. Catie Bishop.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 53 clude, what you want to do, and if it does not compel us to do some- thing wrong, it is probably ready to use. Jim then signed the message, identifying himself as “your humble Program Policy Committee chair- person and policy development fa- cilitator.” Those of us who have worked with statewide CNPS programs are well aware of the contributions Jim has made, and of his accomplish- ments. He has skillfully conducted meetings, reviewed documents, and presented valuable information. And he has shared his “fellowship” in the best sense of the word. Jim some- Jim examining a deep cut into the peat of a fen in the . Photograph times miraculously moved us on to by Michelle Coppoletta. action, or to conclusions that recog- nized diversity of opinion, yet pro- ter Council Manual, which was con- CNPS native plant advocacy policy. duced a compromise result we could tinually being revised during 2002– Those who have participated in all support, with language such as, 2006. policy discussions know how tedious “It seems that…”, “Perhaps we can Jim continues to lead the impor- the process can be, and how much agree that…”, “Is this what we want tant, difficult work of reviewing and time can be spent debating phrase- to do now?”, or “Perhaps something developing our formally drafted ology. Toward the end of that pro- we can all support would be…” CNPS policies, which provide us cess, and in typical Jim Bishop style, Jim Bishop has an outstanding with the statements we quote, dis- he wrote to all Chapter Council record of service to the California tribute, and support on issues im- members: Native Plant Society both at the lo- portant to the mission of CNPS. His To be optimally effective on all the cal and state level. He is truly wor- leadership took us through a chal- things that demand CC’s [Chapter thy of the title CNPS Fellow. lenging, and sometimes divisive ef- Council’s] attention, please keep in fort to craft our policy on the use of mind that we do reach the point of Marjorie McNairn, 20 Wells Island Road, herbicides in 2008, a final policy in diminishing returns on detailed Chico, CA 95973, [email protected]; 2010 on native plants and fire safety, word-crafting adjustment. If the Joan Stewart, 37759 Highway 190, and in 2011 he helped finalize the policy enables, and does not pre- Springville, CA 93265, [email protected]

MYRTLE WOLF: 1913–2012 by Roger Raiche

he native plant community of picking wildflowers while her fa- dren to plants that was called Botany lost a long time enthusiast ther disked the peach orchards in For Beginners. Myrtle spent 36 years and supporter on March 2, fields near Winters in Yolo County. teaching life sciences and serving as 2012, when Myrtle Wolf died The family moved to Berkeley when a counselor in the Oakland School Tat the age of 98 in her Berkeley home she was a teenager, and she never District. after a long illness. Myrtle touched left. At UC Berkeley, she received a After retirement she dedicated so many lives with her passion and master’s degree in botany and her much of her time to causes she loved, love of horticulture and native plants teaching credentials in the mid especially horticulture and native that she will be sadly missed. 1930s. She even collaborated with plants. She referred to this phase as Myrtle always loved plants, of- Dr. Herbert Mason in writing a book the “dessert of her life.” Through ten recalling childhood memories to introduce elementary school chil- her long friendship with many of

54 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 the founders of Pacific Horticulture magazine, Myrtle found herself vol- unteering whenever help was needed with the struggling new journal. She assisted her good friend Olive Wa- ters with many tasks, from clerical to promotion and publicity events. She gave generously to make sure the magazine was financially stable. And she wrote a glowing tribute upon the passing of Marjorie Schmidt, another close friend and fellow lover of California’s native flora. She had strong ties to the two local botanical gardens—UC Botani- cal Garden at Berkeley (UCBG) and the East Bay Regional Parks Botani- cal Garden (EBRPBG) in Tilden Park—as well as to the young Cali- fornia Native Plant Society. Myrtle first fell in love with the UC Botani- cal Garden (UCBG) as a graduate student while at Berkeley, an affec- tion that continued for the rest of her life, and which she later repaid Myrtle Wolf spent most of her retirement years volunteering, and she especially loved many times over with her volunteer propagating plants. This group at the East Bay Regional Parks Botanical Garden in Tilden Park (circa 1980) helped the garden remain open without an admission fee after Proposition activities and financial support. She 13 caused massive cutbacks in its budget. Left-to-right: Phoebe Watts, Charlie Danielsen, was part of the first class of docents, Myrtle Wolf, Lillian Henningson, Wayne Roderick, Jane Owen, Pat Jowise, and Ruth served on the board of the new Fiske. Friends of the Botanical Garden, and was also active in the plant sales more appropriate than this oppor- truth. According to current garden that helped provide revenue for the tunity to honor a human “living director, Stephen Edwards, this ea- Garden. She was willing to do al- treasure” of the Garden, one of our ger group was instrumental in “cre- most anything, as she recalled in a most beloved friends and staunch- story she loved to relate about the est supporters. late Wayne Roderick, who was in charge of the California Collection At the Tilden Park native plant there. When she asked if she could garden she was instrumental in help- ing it remain open after Proposition help, he simply handed her a bucket 13 caused the park district to drasti- and said, “Start weeding!” cally cut the garden’s budget and The UCBG honored Myrtle with initiate an admission fee. The effect a Myrtle Wolf Day in October 1990, was to cut the number of visitors by when dozens of friends, family, and half. A group of friends of Wayne supporters showed up to thank her. Roderick, then Garden Director at In 2000, UCBG named its horticul- EBRPBG, decided to start propagat- tural library in her honor. The Gar- ing plants for an annual spring sale den newsletter stated, Two of the most influential women that at the Garden in lieu of charging an shaped the East Bay Chapter for many The devoted affection which Myrtle entry fee. Myrtle was one of the ear- decades, the late Jenny Flemming (CNPS holds for the Garden is held in turn liest and most active plant sale vol- Fellow, 1985) and Myrtle Wolf (CNPS for her by all associated with the unteers, as she loved propagating Fellow, 1987) at a CNPS picnic in Tilden Garden—staff, academics, and vol- plants, was very good at it, and loved Park in June 1989. Note Myrtle’s CNPS tee shirt, designed by artist Hisao Yokota, with unteers alike. Never could the nam- to share her expertise. She frequently the picture of a plant named in her honor, ing of a building at the University claimed she could “root broom- a selection of the Pajaro manzanita of California Botanical Garden be sticks,” which was not far from the (Arctostaphylos pajaroensis ‘Myrtle Wolf’).

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 55 out a new version of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of Califor- nia, Myrtle was there with her sup- port, both financial and personal. She was a great help to Susan D’Alcamo who was in charge of fundraising for the project, and fa- cilitated the effort of CNPS in start- ing the Friends of the Jepson Her- barium, a support group for this huge project. She was also instrumental in the decision for the new manual to in- clude horticultural information about every native plant mentioned, and played a key role in setting up the Horticultural Council chaired by Warren Roberts (Supervisor of the UC Botanical Garden at Davis. She also encouraged her old friend, Myrtle loved to attend field trips and to see native plants in the wild. Here she is resting, Emily Reid, then 80, to come out of during a local trip to Brines Reservoir in 1986. retirement to provide illustrations for the new manual. Emily ended ating a great annual plant sale that ence. She was an ardent supporter up doing over half (93) of the illus- would one day become the best na- of native plants, teaching people— trations, most of which have been tive plant sale in the state and a especially children—about them, re-used in the most recent update of critical source of funding for the how to protect them, and how to The Jepson Manual (2nd edition, garden.” use them in gardens. She was also 2012). Myrtle was associated with the active in the propagation and sale of Myrtle was a very loving and early California Native Plant Society native plants at the chapter’s annual giving person who made her friends which eventually transitioned to the sale. When folks at the sales had into an extended family. She was East Bay Chapter of CNPS, where questions, they were often told to one of those exceptional human be- she served on the board of directors “ask Myrtle.” Due to her decades of ings that made all who knew her for many years. She was friends with support for native plants, Myrtle was feel privileged to have been part of so many of the personalities that honored by being named a CNPS her life. shaped CNPS over its first 40 years, Fellow in 1987. even though she took a more be- In the late 1980s, when the Roger Raiche, 6600 Front Street, Forestville, hind-the-scenes position of influ- Jepson Herbarium decided to put CA 95436, [email protected]

BOOK REVIEWS

California Native Gardening , A Month- pages of California Native Gardening, to recognize seasonal rhythms and gar- By-Month Guide by Helen Popper. Helen Popper, long time native plant den by them. Anyone who is already 2012. University of California Press, gardener, presents information gleaned gardening with natives or is thinking Berkeley, CA. 224 pages. ISBN# 978- from her years of gardening, and from about it in the cismontane region of 0-520-26534-9, cloth; ISBN# 978-0- CNPS members of the Santa Clara Val- California—that part of California west 520-26535-6, paperback. Order online ley Chapter’s native gardening interest of the Sierra Nevada Crest that shares through CNPS. group. the weather pattern of dry summers Written in a conversational style, and wet winters—will find this a valu- If you have ever wished that an the book presents a year of gardening able book. Although the title suggests experienced native plant gardener advice that follows the seasonal rhythms that it is solely a gardening guide, its would take you under her wing and of the garden. In it one will find in- beautiful photography and descriptive share her gardening wisdom with you, structions on how to succeed in grow- writing make it a great choice for any- your wish has come true. For in the ing native plants, and insights on how one interested in California native flora.

56 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 rain…. give it to them from the garden 299, the local radio station claimed it hose.” was the 80th consecutive day of pre- At the end of each chapter we are cipitation on the northern coast of presented with a “What’s in Bloom” California, in what was a record wet section, in which the beauty of the year throughout the state. As a na- garden is described, combined with a scent young botanist just hired by Inyo bit of gardening inspiration. Septem- National Forest, and with a few weeks ber eloquently closes the gardening to burn before my summer employ- year with, “In the lowering light of ment began, I set out for Death Valley the afternoon, it is the glint of gold to study the ongoing epic bloom. It that bridges the seasons.” The prom- was there in a remote desert camp that ise of the new gardening year is on I read The Klamath Knot. the horizon. Ironically, it was also the spring of Following the 12 monthly chap- 1983 when Wallace first became curi- ters is a final one on landscape design. ous about the California deserts. That It is filled with observations on how spring he made trips to Red Rock Can- natives can fit into conventional gar- yon and described the formations there den designs. The book concludes with as “grotesque and unexpectedly en- January may start the new year on three additional sections: a list of sug- chanting.” He went to the Cima Cin- your inside calendar, but in the native gested timings for vegetative propaga- der Cones and found them far more plant garden October begins the new tion of certain species, a collection of alive and diverse than Darwin’s por- year, for according to Popper, that places to see native plantings, includ- trayal of young volcanic substrates. He is “when cismontane California leaves ing botanic gardens and university ar- visited the Providence Mountains of the dry season behind and prepares boreta, and a list of other native gar- the eastern Mojave Desert and was for its own green ‘spring.’” The chap- dening books for further reference. struck by the species diversity. It was ter for October and each subsequent There are many things that make not just the show of annuals from that one follows a simple yet effective for- this book unique. However, there are banner year of winter rain that got his mula. Each is designed to keep our three that I believe make it outstand- attention, but rather the seemingly gardening on track and to keep us ever ing. The first is the book’s month-to- endless number of cacti and shrubs. observant of our surroundings. month format that showcases the He later learned that the mid-eleva- First, we are greeted by a stunning garden’s rhythm. The second is Helen tions of the eastern Mojave Desert are garden photograph showing the beauty Popper’s skill in sharing with us the known to contain some of the highest of the season. Then we are treated to a “how to” advice garnered by many shrub diversity in all of California. delightful descriptive summary depict- long-time gardeners, and allowing us Prior to his 1983 jaunts into the ing the rhythm of the month. For in- to see the beauty of the garden through desert, Wallace’s impression was com- stance, May is described as being “Act their eyes. The third is how the book is parable to today’s popular opinion of II of the spring garden show,” when intentionally written as an invitation deserts as monotonous expanses of the annual flowers wane and peren- to learn the rhythm of the garden. “vacant land.” He was, at best, indif- nial blooms come onto the scene. Au- Popper’s formula is simple: come into ferent to the species-rich ecologically gust brings “a slow time. In the gar- the garden, keep your eyes and ears den, it is a season of quiet, of scent, of open, and the rhythm will unfold natu- sun-ripened berries, of small tasks, and rally. As it does, you will begin to rest. It is a season to enjoy.” garden with it and discover how it can With the rhythm dancing in our enrich your life. mind, we are ushered into a section —Abbie Blair that lists the tasks for the month in checklist format. This is followed by a Chuckwalla Land: The Riddle of detailed discussion of each activity that California’s Desert by David Rains incorporates sage advice gathered from Wallace. 2011. University of Califor- gardeners with years of gardening ex- nia Press, Berkeley, CA. 280 pp. perience. $35.00, hardcover. ISBN#: 978- Specific steps are given for certain 0520256163. activities such as planting. We are told precisely how to unpot, prepare the Passing through Arcata, Califor- roots, dig the hole, and so forth. For nia in the spring of 1983, I stopped by other tasks, we are advised to consult the Tin Can Mailman bookstore and the rhythm of the season for guidance. walked out with a newly published January’s rhythm, for example, usu- book titled, The Klamath Knot by David ally includes some rainy days. When it Rains Wallace. As I left town and drove does not, we are directed to “Fake the my VW east on a stormy Highway

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 57 wondrous landscape. In Chuckwalla challenging and complex questions Muir, Van Dyke, Jaeger, and Krutch, Land: The Riddle of the California Desert, surrounding the origin of the desert and presents the work of scientists he explains his revamped intellectual flora and fauna. With a John McPhee- Merriam, Clements, Janzen, Shreve, and philosophical appreciation of the like approach to inquiry, Wallace pre- and I.M. Johnston. He even draws rel- desert. He does so by using vivid ac- sents 31 short narratives which chron- evance from the scripts of Hollywood counts of field trips, where he com- icle the various hypotheses scientists B-movies filmed in the desert. Turn- pares and contrasts his observations have used to explain the evolution of ing to , Wallace learns to the concepts and theories of scien- life and landforms in the California that Darwin found deserts uninterest- tists, perhaps hoping to better com- deserts. And throughout the book he ing from an evolutionary standpoint, prehend the desert’s intricate natural deftly blends into the discussion the referring to them as an “evolutionary processes and enigmatic life forms. varying popular attitudes toward the backwater,” while more contemporary But this is not just another poetic desert over time. scientists saw them as an evolutionary field guide, and it’s certainly not a Early in the book he references frontier where aridity encourages se- book about the podgy chuckwalla liz- mythology and the observations of lection. ard. Instead, Wallace makes a bold early explorers of the US West such as Wallace dedicates a number of transformation from desert newbie in Garcés and Fremont. He reviews the chapters to the often conflicting views the early 1980s to tackling the very writings of naturalists such as Austin, of paleobotanist Daniel Axelrod, bota- nist G. Ledyard Stebbins (one of the founding members of the California Native Plant Society), and Jerry Rzedowski, a Mexican botanist. UC Davis botanist Michael Barbour said of his colleague Axelrod, “During an era when most scientists became more specialized, Axelrod retained an eco- system-level focus and curiosity. He asked, and answered, large ques- tions.” Axelrod’s Madro-Tertiary Geoflora concept challenged the idea that desert climates and floras were old. He al- leged that most California desert taxa had evolved during the past five mil- lion years as descendents of plants that had lived in the woodlands that preceded the area that is now desert. Those who sided with Axelrod identi- fied recently derived lineages as evi- dence of rapid speciation, and the unique morphological and physiologi-

58 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 cal adaptations to be evidence of re- Conifer Country: A Natural History cent origin. and Hiking Guide to 35 Conifers of the Rzedowski and others theorized Klamath Mountain Region by Michael that the flora developed from ancient Edward Kauffmann. 2012. 206 pages. invaders moving up from the south. Backcountry Press, Kneeland, CA. Recent studies show the Sierra Nevada $22.95, soft cover. ISBN# 978-0-578- to be older and higher in elevation 09416-8. Order online through CNPS. than Axelrod had assumed, casting a shadow (no pun intended) of doubt Conifer Country by Michael on the young flora concept. Kauffmann is the perfect guide to the At times Wallace seems determined conifers in the Klamath Mountain re- to settle the controversy posed by the gion. It is a fresh and personal journey vaguely understood origins of into one of the richest lands on earth. California’s desert. But the answers Few places in the world offer the di- don’t come easy, if they come at all. It versity in conifer genera and species as was after reading the book’s epilogue the Klamath Region will. Few regions that I realized Wallace does not seem on the planet are as rich in geologic bothered by the origin riddle. In fact, diversity and offer the range of eleva- it is the author’s ease with this uncer- tion gradients, aspects, habitat diver- tainty that I found most transcendent sity, and climatic profile. about the book. This is not a book of We can think of the Island of New answers, but rather one about the ebbs Caledonia in the Australasian region and flows of scientific inquiry. of the South Pacific where 43 or more to get into the field, explore wild places, Chuckwalla Land is highly recom- endemic conifers occur, many re- and understand why the Klamath mended for students in college-level stricted to serpentine soils. As Conifer Mountain region nurtures unique plant desert ecology courses, or those curi- Country describes, the Klamath Moun- diversity. ous about our desert’s geological and tains also host extensive serpentine In a world bombarded by smart evolutionary past. The book is loaded areas, and venturing a little east and phone applications and virtual reali- with interesting personalities, obser- west and north from the Klamath ties, Conifer Country challenges us to vations, and unique factoids that were Range easily brings the numbers of get back in touch with our ancestral new for me, so readers with a general conifers close to or surpasses those of adventuring roots. Michael Kauffmann interest in desert natural history will New Caledonia. While the Klamath entices us to go out to find these ma- not be disappointed. One minor ob- Mountains cannot boast as many jestic and wonderful conifer stands. jection that botanists will have is that endemics, there certainly are some Though he cautions us to prepare the terms “bushes” and “shrubs” are spectacular ones, like Brewer’s for rugged wilderness terrain in lands used interchangeably throughout. And (Picea breweriana), for example, as well devoid of cell phone towers and ac- while the book is not a plea for con- as many other rare and disjunct stands knowledges that fitness and wilder- servation, Wallace nudges readers and occurrences. ness skills are essential, he provides about the wisdom of the looming cata- Who is this book written for? On detailed maps of over 25 hikes and a strophic change being imposed upon the back cover the author explains: wealth of conifer education. The guide the desert by renewable energy devel- It is for plant lovers, hikers, and back- covers taxonomy, biogeography, pa- opment. packers—for the novice and expert leontology, human use, Native Ameri- Wallace writes about the time he botanist alike, it is for people who want can perspectives, fire ecology, local once consulted Stebbins about the ori- gin of the Angiosperms, Stebbins re- plied “If you can make this ‘can of worms’ authentic, up to date, and in- teresting to the non-biologist, it will be a major achievement.” Indeed that is Telos Rare Bulbs what Wallace has done with Chuck- The most complete offering of bulbs native to the walla Land; he presents the arguments about the origin of the desert as well as western USA available anywhere, our stock is any text on the subject. Those who propagated at the nursery, with seed and plants read Chuckwalla Land will be inspired from legitimate sources only. to visit the desert to observe the pupfish, ocotillo, packrats, fan palms, lizards, Telos Rare Bulbs and the clonal rings of creosote bush, P.O. Box 1067, Ferndale, CA 95536 and see them in a new and different way. And that is a major achievement. www.telosrarebulbs.com —Jim Andre

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA 59 history, and much more. It includes tion for Sawyer’s mentoring and friend- Dr. Sawyer was asked who might pre- color plates to aid in identification ship during his personal discovery of sent on this important topic, he imme- with generously interesting species this magical landscape. Many of us diately recommended the author, descriptions. Best of all, the book first met Michael Kauffmann during Michael Kaufmann. is grounded in Kauffmann’s direct the 2009 CNPS Conservation Confer- For those who don’t know Michael, experience exploring the Klamath ence in Sacramento. In planning the he lives with his wife and their new Region. Regional Session baby near Arcata. He teaches science Kaufmann starts out by giving spe- for the 2009 conference, we eagerly at Fortuna Middle School, lectures at cial thanks to a handful of individuals sought someone who could speak California State University, Humboldt, including the late Dr. John O. Sawyer, knowledgeably on the topic of north- and is also a member of CNPS. and expresses a tremendous apprecia- western California conifers. When —Brett Hall

60 FREMONTIA VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 Join Today! CNPS member gifts allow us to promote and protect California’s native plants and their habitats. Gifts are tax-deductible minus the $12 of the total gift which goes toward publication of Fremontia.

❏ $1,500 Mariposa Lily ❏ $600 Benefactor ❏ $300 Patron ❏ $100 Plant Lover ❏ $75 Family ❏ $75 International or Library ❏ $45 Individual ❏ $25 Limited Income CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL ❏ $2,500 10+ Employees ❏ $1,000 7-10 Employees ❏ $500 4-6 Employees ❏ $150 1-3 Employees

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

❏ Enclosed is a check made payable to CNPS Membership gift: ❏ Charge my gift to ❏ Mastercard ❏ Visa Added donation of:

Card Number TOTAL ENCLOSED: Exp. date Signature ❏ Enclosed is a matching gift form provided by my employer Phone ❏ I would like information on planned giving Email Please make your check payable to “CNPS” and send to: California Native Plant Society, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacra- mento, CA 95816-5130. Phone: (916) 447-2677; Fax: (916) 447-2727; Web site: www.cnps.org.; Email: [email protected]

CONTRIBUTORS (continued from back cover) Nancy Morin has been involved with the Flora of North America since its inception. SUBMISSION She is a member of the CNPS State Board and is president of the Dorothy King INSTRUCTIONS Young Chapter. CNPS members and others are invited to submit articles for pub- V. Thomas Parker is a professor of biology at San Francisco State University, and lication in Fremontia. If inter- ested, please first send a short current president of the California Botanical Society. summary or outline of what you’d like to cover in your ar- Robert E. Preston is a senior botanist with ICF International and is coauthor of the ticle to Fremontia editor, Bob new Brodiaea treatment for the second edition of The Jepson Manual. Hass, at [email protected]. Instruc- tions for contributors can be Roger Raiche is a landscape designer, field botanist, and author with a long history found on the CNPS website, www.cnps.org, under Publica- of cultivating native plants. He was named a CNPS Fellow in 2012. tions/Fremontia. Christine M. Rodrigue is professor of geography and director of the Environmen- tal Science and Policy Program at California State University, Long Beach. Fremontia Editorial Advisory Board Joan Stewart has worked with Jim Bishop for many years on the CNPS Chapter Susan D’Alcamo, Jim Andre, Council, and also coordinates the CNPS educational grants program. Ellen Dean, Phyllis M. Faber, Holly Forbes, Dan Gluesenkamp, Brett Hall, Todd Keeler-Wolf, Deborah Stout is an assistant vegetation ecologist at CNPS, where she surveys, David Keil, Pam Muick, Bart classifies, and maps vegetation of California. O’Brien, Roger Raiche, Teresa Sholars, Greg Suba, Dick Turner, Michael C. Vasey is a lecturer in biology at San Francisco State University, and past Mike Vasey, Carol Witham president and recording secretary for the California Botanical Society.

VOL. 40, NO. 1 AND VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012 FREMONTIA California Native Plant Society Nonprofit Org. 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5130 U.S. Postage PAID A.M.S.

CONTRIBUTORS FROM THE EDITOR

Jim Andre is the director of the UC Granite Mountains Desert he California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is all about Research Center, and senior advisor to the CNPS Rare Plant collaboration. We believe in working with others to Program. Tsolve problems and protect our native habitat. This fact, in itself, provides a compelling reason to become a member Bruce G. Baldwin is curator of the Jepson Herbarium, pro- of CNPS, and is one reason many long-time members re- fessor of integrative biology, and convening editor of the main more committed than ever to the organization. Jepson Flora Project at UC Berkeley. Collaboration takes many forms, can be found at all “levels” of governance, and occurs in vastly different arenas. Abbie Blair is a horticulturist, garden writer, and member Here are but a few examples to prove the point. of the Santa Cruz Chapter of CNPS. She lives and gardens Many CNPS members and their chapters have partici- in the Santa Cruz Mountains. pated in the public comment process when county general Liam H. Davis is a biologist with the California Department plans come up for review and renewal. Other conservation of Fish and Game. He is compiling an extensive book on organizations are often involved in these very important the Clarence King 40th parallel survey. public policy deliberations. Representatives from CNPS and like-minded groups frequently converse informally to share Brett Hall is the current State Board president of CNPS and notes and strategize, leading to a better conservation result. director of the UC Santa Cruz Arboretum, which grows one Similar opportunities present themselves with regional of the largest known collections of conifer genera anywhere. issues. For example, the CNPS Sacramento Chapter partici- pates in Habitat 2020, a coalition of organizations collabo- C. Michael Hogan is a physicist with three decades of prac- rating to protect wildlife and native plants. tical experience in population dynamics, ecological model- At the state level, CNPS has played a central role in ing, analysis of rare plant distributions, and modeling im- shaping the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, pacts upon plant species. in partnership with state and federal agencies and advo- cacy groups. The initiative is to protect desert wildlife and Gary D. Lowe is a hydrogeologist with a background in sensitive plant species, while expediting renewable energy paleopalynology, and is the author of five topical histories production. relating to the giant sequoia of the Sierra Nevada. CNPS has worked with a broad coalition to identify Staci Markos is development coordinator with the Jepson areas containing the most sensitive native habitat so they Herbarium at the University of California, Berkeley, and will be left undeveloped, and to develop plant priority lists. council member for the California Botanical Society. Thus, the Plan includes more species than would other- wise be the case. Collaboration can be an effective tool Marjorie McNairn has been an active member of the Mount whereby groups with shared interests leverage resources Lassen Chapter of CNPS for 30 years, and has held many for a common purpose. chapter offices, including serving two terms as president. —Bob Hass

FREMONTIA (continuedVOL. on 40, inside NO. back cover1 AND) VOL. 40, NO. 2, JANUARY 2012 AND MAY 2012