Coosawattee Bluffs Field Trip
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Wild Hyacinth (Camassia Scilloides) in Canada
PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Adopted under Section 44 of SARA Recovery Strategy for the Wild Hyacinth (Camassia scilloides) in Canada Wild Hyacinth 2015 Recommended citation: Environment Canada. 2015. Recovery Strategy for the Wild Hyacinth (Camassia scilloides) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 21 pp. + Annexes. For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public Registry1. Cover illustration: © Gary Allen Également disponible en français sous le titre « Programme de rétablissement de la camassie faux-scille (Camassia scilloides) au Canada [Proposition] » © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2015. All rights reserved. ISBN Catalogue no. Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. 1 http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR THE WILD HYACINTH (CAMMASSIA SCILLOIDES) IN CANADA 2015 Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada. In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of Ontario has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Recovery Strategy for the Wild Hyacinth (Camassia scilloides) in Ontario (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). -
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. -
(Cruciferae) – Mustard Family
BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Plant: herbs mostly, annual to perennial, sometimes shrubs; sap sometimes peppery Stem: Root: Leaves: mostly simple but sometimes pinnately divided; alternate, rarely opposite or whorled; no stipules Flowers: mostly perfect, mostly regular (actinomorphic); 4 sepals, 4 petals often forming a cross; 6 stamens with usually 2 outer ones shorter than the inner 4; ovary superior, mostly 2 fused carpels, 1 to many ovules, 1 pistil Fruit: seed pods, often used in classification, many are slender and long (Silique), some broad (Silicle) – see morphology slide Other: a large family, many garden plants such as turnip, radish, and cabbage, also some spices; often termed the Cruciferae family; Dicotyledons Group Genera: 350+ genera; 40+ locally WARNING – family descriptions are only a layman’s guide and should not be used as definitive Flower Morphology in the Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) - flower with 4 sepals, 4 petals (often like a cross, sometimes split or lobed), commonly small, often white or yellow, distinctive fruiting structures often important for ID 2 types of fruiting pods: in addition, fruits may be circular, flattened or angled in cross-section Silicle - (usually <2.5x long as wide), 2-valved with septum (replum) Silique - (usually >2.5x long as wide), 2- valved with septum (replum) Flowers, Many Genera BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Sanddune [Western] Wallflower; Erysimum capitatum (Douglas ex Hook.) Greene var. capitatum Wormseed Wallflower [Mustard]; Erysimum cheiranthoides L. (Introduced) Spreading Wallflower [Treacle Mustard]; Erysimum repandum L. (Introduced) Dame’s Rocket [Dame’s Violet]; Hesperis matronalis L. (Introduced) Purple [Violet] Rocket; Iodanthus pinnatifidus (Michx.) Steud. Michaux's Gladecress; Leavenworthia uniflora (Michx.) Britton [Cow; Field] Cress [Peppergrass]; Lepidium campestre L.) Ait. -
Dyuhei Sato Division of Genetics, Bot. Inst. Faculty of Science, Tokyo
ANALYSIS OF THE KARYOTYPES IN YUCCA, A GA VE AND THE RELATED GENERA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PHYLOGENETIC SIGNIFICANCEI~ Dyuhei SATo Divisionof Genetics, Bot. Inst. Faculty of Science, Tokyo Imperial University McKelvey and Sax (2933) have called attention to the existence of taxonomic and cytological similarities of the genera Yucca, Hesperoyucca, Gleistvucca,Hesperoaloe and Samuela of the Liliaceae with the genera Agave and Fourcroya which belong to a related family, Amaryllidaceae. Wh.itaker (1934) also has reported that Polianhes and Fourcroya have exactly the same chromosome constitution as the Yucca-Abave karyotype (5 long and 25 short chromosomes) (Figs. 1, 2). These observations when considered in respect to taxonomic resemblances, seem to indicate that the genera mentioned above are more closely related than it is shown by their classifica- tion into distinct families. Whitaker also has remarked that Dasylirion (2n=38) and ATolina(2n=36) in Yucceae and Doryanthes (2n=36) in Agavoideae are of different karyotypes from the Yucca-Agave type. In the present work an analysis of the karyotypes in Liliaceous plants has been attempted and several karyotypes have been found in Scilloideae. Eucornis and Carassia have been selected with the purpose of discovering a possible connecting link between these genera and the Yucca-Agave group. In the present paper an analysis of the karyotypes of the following species is given. LILIACEAE Scilloideae 211 Fig. Euconis undulata 60=8L+8M+44S (4b)2) 3 Euconsispallidi ora 60=8L+8M+44S (4b) 4 Eucomispunctata 60=8L±8M+44S (4b) 5 Camassiaescrema 30=6L+24S (2b) 6 Yucceae Yuccafilamentosa 30 60=1OL+50S (2b) 1, 7 Yuccarecurvifolia 30 60=1OL+50S (2b) 2, 8 Yuccaaloifolia 60=1OL+50S (2b) 9 „ var. -
Landscaping with Native Plants by Stephen L
SHORT-SEASON, HIGH-ALTITUDE GARDENING BULLETIN 862 Landscaping with native plants by Stephen L. Love, Kathy Noble, Jo Ann Robbins, Bob Wilson, and Tony McCammon INTRODUCTION There are many reasons to consider a native plant landscape in Idaho’s short- season, high-altitude regions, including water savings, decreased mainte- nance, healthy and adapted plants, and a desire to create a local theme CONTENTS around your home. Most plants sold for landscaping are native to the eastern Introduction . 1 United States and the moist climates of Europe. They require acid soils, con- The concept of native . 3 stant moisture, and humid air to survive and remain attractive. Most also Landscaping Principles for Native Plant Gardens . 3 require a longer growing season than we have available in the harshest cli- Establishing Native Landscapes and Gardens . 4 mates of Idaho. Choosing to landscape with these unadapted plants means Designing a Dry High-Desert Landscape . 5 Designing a Modified High-Desert Landscape . 6 accepting the work and problems of constantly recreating a suitable artificial Designing a High-Elevation Mountain Landscape . 6 environment. Native plants will help create a landscape that is more “com- Designing a Northern Idaho Mountain/Valley fortable” in the climates and soils that surround us, and will reduce the Landscape . 8 resources necessary to maintain the landscape. Finding Sources of Native Plants . 21 The single major factor that influences Idaho’s short-season, high-altitude climates is limited summer moisture. Snow and rainfall are relatively abun- dant in the winter, but for 3 to 4 months beginning in June, we receive only a YOU ARE A SHORT-SEASON, few inches of rain. -
Plant Propagation Protocol for Camassia Quamash ESRM 412
Plant Propagation Protocol for Camassia quamash ESRM 412 - Native Plant Production Spring 2020 Figure 1 Photo by Gary A Monroe from CalPhotos. Web. 6 May 2020 Figure 2 Plants Database. Camassia quamash. USDA, n.d. Web. Figure 3 Plants Database. Camassia quamash. USDA, n.d. Web. 6 May 2020. 6 May 2020. North American Distribution Washington Distribution TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Liliaceae1 Common Name Lily family1 Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene1 Varieties No information found Sub-species Camassia quamash ssp. azurea (A. Heller) Gould – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. breviflora Gould – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. intermedia Gould – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. linearis Gould – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. maxima Gould – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. quamash (Pursh) Greene – small camas Camassia quamash ssp. utahensis Gould – Utah small camas Camassia quamash ssp. walpolei (Piper) Gould – Walpole's small camas2 Cultivar No information found Common Synonym(s) Camassia esculenta Lindl. Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene subsp. teapeae (H. St. John) H. St. John Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. azurea (A. Heller) C.L. Hitchc. Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. breviflora (Gould) C.L. Hitchc. Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. intermedia (Gould) C.L. Hitchc. Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. linearis (Gould) J.T. Howell Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. maxima (Gould) B. Boivin Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. quamash Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. utahensis (Gould) C.L. Hitchc. Quamassia quamash (Pursh) Coville4 Common Names Southern Lushootseed (Coast Salish Language) for camas: blue camas, crow potato, Camassia spp.: c̕ábid. camas, Camassia quamash, C. leichtinii: qʷəɬúʔəl. camas roots that are processed and dried: s√x̌əʤəb. -
Agavaceae Subf. Chlorogaloideae)
Taylor, D.W. and D.J. Keil. 2018. Hooveria , a new genus liberated from Chlorogalum (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae). Phytoneuron 2018-67: 1–6. Published 1 October 2018. ISSN 2153 733X HOOVERIA , A NEW GENUS LIBERATED FROM CHLOROGALUM (AGAVACEAE SUBF. CHLOROGALOIDEAE) DEAN W. TAYLOR Redwood Drive Aptos, California 95003-2517 [email protected] DAVID J. KEIL Professor Emeritus Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California 93407 [email protected] ABSTRACT Molecular phylogenetic analyses have indicated that Chlorogalum (sensu lato) (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae) comprises more than one lineage. A recently published study indicated that Chlorogalum is paraphyletic, with two well-supported clades that are successive sister groups to the remainder of the Chlorogaloideae. The first is composed of three vespertine-flowering species (Chlorogalum sensu stricto), and the second comprises two diurnally flowering species. Additional morphological and cytological evidence independently support recognition of two lineages. Hooveria , gen. nov. , is proposed to accommodate the diurnally flowering species of the second lineage. Three taxa are transferred from Chlorogalum to the new genus: Hooveria parviflora (S. Wats.) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. , H. purpurea (Brandeg.) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. , and H. purpurea var. reducta (Hoover) D.W. Taylor & D.J. Keil, comb. nov. A neotype is designated for Chlorogalum parviflorum S. Wats. Chlorogalum Kunth (Agavaceae subf. Chlorogaloideae) as treated traditionally is a genus of five species with nine terminal taxa (Jernstedt 2002; Callahan 2015a, b; Table 1). Chlorogalum is endemic to the California Floristic Province, extending from its northern limit in southern Coos County, Oregon (Callahan 2015b), southward to extreme northwestern Baja California (Rebman et al. -
CAMASSIA Stella Exley
Issue 37 Cornucopia Spring 2016 CAMASSIA Stella Exley I’ve often read in the horticultural press that the genus Camassia is the perfect gap filler in gardens between the end of spring and the beginning of summer. Whilst this is the time of year that camassia are in full flight, I shudder at the thought of these beauties being labelled in such a way. In my opinion, they are worthy of stand-alone recognition for their beauty and grace, and stunning additions to a plethora of planting schemes. Camassia is a genus of bulbous perennials with 5/6 species groups. They are extremely hardy and will thrive in most conditions: sunny and moist, to drier with some shade. I have found they easily adapt and flourish in heavy damp soils as well as drier conditions, and to date I have never experienced problems with pests or diseases. What’s not to love? They hail from North America and at one time many moons ago were, apparently, a food staple for indigenous folk, who used to roast them. Although I haven’t tried this, I’m led to understand that when roasted, they taste something similar to a sweet potato. The name camassia was derived from kamas, used by native Americans. They look fabulous in virtually any planting scheme, from formal to informal, woodland areas, damp meadows and alongside ponds and streams, as well as wildflower meadows. I also use them in containers large and small to brighten up shadier areas. They are a perfect fit for naturalistic planting. Once established, they create a calming visual feast for the eyes as their star-like six-petalled blooms slowly open from the bottom upwards along their lofty spires, reaching heights of between 40cm and 120cm. -
Species List For: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species
Species List for: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location NA List NA Nomination and subsequent visits Jefferson County Glade Complex NA List from Gass, Wallace, Priddy, Chmielniak, T. Smith, Ladd & Glore, Bogler, MPF Hikes 9/24/80, 10/2/80, 7/10/85, 8/8/86, 6/2/87, 1986, and 5/92 WGNSS Lists Webster Groves Nature Study Society Fieldtrip Jefferson County Glade Complex Participants WGNSS Vascular Plant List maintained by Steve Turner Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Aesculus glabra var. undetermined Ohio buckeye Sapindaceae 5 -1 Agalinis skinneriana (Gerardia) midwestern gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Allium canadense var. mobilense wild garlic Liliaceae 7 5 Allium canadense var. undetermined wild garlic Liliaceae 2 3 Allium cernuum wild onion Liliaceae 8 5 Allium stellatum wild onion Liliaceae 6 5 * Allium vineale field garlic Liliaceae 0 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 3 Ambrosia bidentata lanceleaf ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 4 Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 -1 Amelanchier arborea var. arborea downy serviceberry Rosaceae 6 3 Amorpha canescens lead plant Fabaceae/Faboideae 8 5 Amphicarpaea bracteata hog peanut Fabaceae/Faboideae 4 0 Andropogon gerardii var. -
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E. -
Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D. -
Floristic Quality Assessment Report
FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.