DOCSLIB.ORG

Wild Species 2015 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wild Species 2015 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA Wild Species 2015 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. 2016. Wild Species 2015: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 128 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2015: la situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract In this report, the conservation status of 29 848 species has been assessed in Canada among 34 different taxonomic groups: selected macrofungi, macrolichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, sponges, corals, freshwater bivalves, terrestrial and freshwater snails and slugs, spiders, mayflies, dragonflies and damselflies, stoneflies, grasshoppers and relatives, lacewings, beetles, ants, bees, yellowjacket wasps, caddisflies, moths and butterflies, scorpionflies, black flies, mosquitoes, horse flies, bee flies, flower flies, decapods, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Results indicate that the majority of species in Canada are secure. In fact, among species that are critically imperiled, imperiled, vulnerable, apparently secure or secure, 80% of species have a national rank of apparently secure or secure. However, 1659 species were identified as may be at risk in Canada. Of these, 1032 species have only a small part of their range in Canada (10% or less) and 498 are intermediary (from 11% to 74%). However, 129 species have 75% or more of their range in Canada, of which 99 species are thought to be endemic to Canada. A priority score was determined for each of the 1659 species that may be at risk, and 296 species had the highest priority scores (between 1 and 5). Some of these species have already been assessed in details by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and the remaining could be prioritized as potential candidates for detailed assessments. Results also underlined the presence of a large number of exotic species in Canada. In this report, a total of 2394 species were identified as exotic at the national level. Most of the exotic species are vascular plants (1315 species; 25% of all species of vascular plants in Canada are exotic). In total, 10 687 species were ranked as unrankable or unranked at the national level because of a lack of knowledge. We identified 578 migratory species in this report. Furthermore, the conservation status of species that were included in previous Wild Species reports was updated. Among the taxonomic groups that were reassessed in this report, 3301 species had a change in their national rank. A total of 449 species had an increased level of risk, 414 species had a reduced level of risk, and 1382 species were changed from or to the ranks unrankable, unranked, or not applicable. Also, 595 species have been added to the list and 461 have been deleted from the list. Most of the changes (50%) are due to an improved knowledge of the species. English and French common names were developed for several species. In the future, the Wild Species series will continue to consolidate our knowledge of species in Canada. iii Table of contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 Why a report on species in Canada?......................................................................................................... 1 How many species in Canada? .................................................................................................................. 2 Previous Wild Species reports ................................................................................................................... 6 SECTION 2 – METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 7 National General Status Working Group .................................................................................................. 7 NatureServe .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Process for species assessment ................................................................................................................ 8 Ranking system ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Factors underlying general status assessments ...................................................................................... 13 Development of regional ranks............................................................................................................... 14 Development of national ranks .............................................................................................................. 17 Ranking migratory species ...................................................................................................................... 17 Categories of trends ................................................................................................................................ 18 Helping COSEWIC to identify priority species ......................................................................................... 20 Development of common names ........................................................................................................... 22 Wild Species website ............................................................................................................................... 23 SECTION 3 – RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Assessed taxonomic groups .................................................................................................................... 24 FUNGI KINGDOM .................................................................................................................................... 28 Selected macrofungi ........................................................................................................................... 29 Macrolichens ...................................................................................................................................... 31 iv PLANT KINGDOM .................................................................................................................................... 33 Bryophytes .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Vascular plants ................................................................................................................................... 36 ANIMAL KINGDOM .................................................................................................................................. 39 Sponges ............................................................................................................................................... 40 Corals .................................................................................................................................................. 42 Freshwater bivalves ........................................................................................................................... 44 Terrestrial and freshwater snails and slugs ....................................................................................... 46 Spiders ................................................................................................................................................ 48 Mayflies .............................................................................................................................................. 50 Dragonflies and damselflies ............................................................................................................... 52 Stoneflies ............................................................................................................................................ 54 Grasshoppers and relatives................................................................................................................ 56 Lacewings ............................................................................................................................................ 58 Beetles ................................................................................................................................................ 60 Ants ..................................................................................................................................................... 62 Bees ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Yellowjacket wasps ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
    Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichens and Associated Fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska
    The Lichenologist (2020), 52,61–181 doi:10.1017/S0024282920000079 Standard Paper Lichens and associated fungi from Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska Toby Spribille1,2,3 , Alan M. Fryday4 , Sergio Pérez-Ortega5 , Måns Svensson6, Tor Tønsberg7, Stefan Ekman6 , Håkon Holien8,9, Philipp Resl10 , Kevin Schneider11, Edith Stabentheiner2, Holger Thüs12,13 , Jan Vondrák14,15 and Lewis Sharman16 1Department of Biological Sciences, CW405, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada; 2Department of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, University of Graz, NAWI Graz, Holteigasse 6, 8010 Graz, Austria; 3Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA; 4Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA; 5Real Jardín Botánico (CSIC), Departamento de Micología, Calle Claudio Moyano 1, E-28014 Madrid, Spain; 6Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden; 7Department of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen Allégt. 41, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; 8Faculty of Bioscience and Aquaculture, Nord University, Box 2501, NO-7729 Steinkjer, Norway; 9NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; 10Faculty of Biology, Department I, Systematic Botany and Mycology, University of Munich (LMU), Menzinger Straße 67, 80638 München, Germany; 11Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK; 12Botany Department, State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany; 13Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; 14Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Zámek 1, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic; 15Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic and 16Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Generic Delimitations in Collemataceae (Peltigerales, Lecanoromycetes) Mycokeys, 47: 17-33
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in MycoKeys. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Kosuthova, A., Westberg, M., Otálora, M A., Wedin, M. (2019) Rostania revisited – testing generic delimitations in Collemataceae (Peltigerales, Lecanoromycetes) MycoKeys, 47: 17-33 https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.47.32227 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:nrm:diva-3330 A peer-reviewed open-access journal MycoKeys 47: 17–33 (2019)Rostania revised: testing generic delimitations in Collemataceae 17 doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.47.32227 RESEARCH ARTICLE MycoKeys http://mycokeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Rostania revised: testing generic delimitations in Collemataceae (Peltigerales, Lecanoromycetes) Alica Košuthová1, Martin Westberg2, Mónica A.G. Otálora3, Mats Wedin1 1 Department of Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Swe- den 2 Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE-752 36, Uppsala, Sweden 3 Plant Eco- logical Genetics, Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland Corresponding author: Alica Košuthová ([email protected]) Academic editor: T. Lumbsch | Received 6 December 2018 | Accepted 18 January 2019 | Published 20 February 2019 Citation: Košuthová A, Westberg M, Otálora MAG, Wedin M (2019) Rostania revised: testing generic delimitations in Collemataceae (Peltigerales, Lecanoromycetes). MycoKeys 47: 17–33. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.47.32227 Abstract Here, we test the current generic delimitation of Rostania (Collemataceae, Peltigerales, Ascomycota) utilizing molecular phylogeny and morphological investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biodiversity of Flying Coleoptera Associated With
    THE BIODIVERSITY OF FLYING COLEOPTERA ASSOCIATED WITH INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) IN INTERIOR DOUGLAS-FIR (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco). By Susanna Lynn Carson B. Sc., The University of Victoria, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Zoology) We accept this thesis as conforming To t(p^-feguired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2002 © Susanna Lynn Carson, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Increasing forest management resulting from bark beetle attack in British Columbia's forests has created a need to assess the impact of single species management on local insect biodiversity. In the Fort St James Forest District, in central British Columbia, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco) (Fd) grows at the northern limit of its North American range. At the district level the species is rare (representing 1% of timber stands), and in the early 1990's growing populations of the Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuage Hopkins) threatened the loss of all mature Douglas-fir habitat in the district.
    [Show full text]
  • Neotropical Species of Dietta (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Leiodinae: Estadiini) 810
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Neotropical species of Dietta (Coleoptera: Leiodidae: Leiodinae: Estadiini) 810 Stewart B Peck,1 Joyce Cook Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada The Canadian Entomologist 135: 775 – 810 (2003) Abstract—The genus Dietta Sharp, 1876 was previously known in the Neotropics only by D. sharpi Matthews, 1887 from Panama. This paper describes a new subge- nus of Dietta, Mesodietta subgen. nov., occurring in Middle America and northern South America west of the Andes, composed of D.(M.) sharpi Matthews and eight additional new species: D.(M.) esmeraldas sp. nov., D.(M.) latidens sp. nov., D.(M.) lobidens sp. nov., D.(M.) mesoamerica sp. nov., D.(M.) mexicanus sp. nov., D.(M.) puntarenas sp. nov., D.(M.) rectispina sp. nov., and D.(M). uncinata sp. nov. Additionally, seven new species of Dietta, subgenus Dietta, are described: D.(D.) argentinensis sp. nov., D.(D.) atlantica sp. nov., D.(D.) geraisensis sp. nov., D.(D.) guiana sp. nov., D.(D.) huanuco sp. nov., D.(D.) pauloensis sp. nov., and D.(D.) sucumbios sp. nov. Peck SB, Cook J. 2003. Les espèces néotropicales de Dietta (Coleoptera : Leiodidae : Leiodinae : Estadiini). The Canadian Entomologist 135 : 775–810. Résumé—Jusqu’à maintenant, on ne connaissait qu’une seule espèce néotropicale du genre Dietta Sharp, 1876 soit D. sharpi Matthews, 1887 du Panama. On trouvera ici la description d’un nouveau sous-genre de Dietta, Mesodietta subgen. nov., qui habite l’Amérique centrale et le nord de l’Amérique du Sud, à l’ouest des Andes et qui comprend D.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichens and Allied Fungi of the Indiana Forest Alliance
    2017. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 126(2):129–152 LICHENS AND ALLIED FUNGI OF THE INDIANA FOREST ALLIANCE ECOBLITZ AREA, BROWN AND MONROE COUNTIES, INDIANA INCORPORATED INTO A REVISED CHECKLIST FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA James C. Lendemer: Institute of Systematic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 USA ABSTRACT. Based upon voucher collections, 108 lichen species are reported from the Indiana Forest Alliance Ecoblitz area, a 900 acre unit in Morgan-Monroe and Yellowwood State Forests, Brown and Monroe Counties, Indiana. The lichen biota of the study area was characterized as: i) dominated by species with green coccoid photobionts (80% of taxa); ii) comprised of 49% species that reproduce primarily with lichenized diaspores vs. 44% that reproduce primarily through sexual ascospores; iii) comprised of 65% crustose taxa, 29% foliose taxa, and 6% fruticose taxa; iv) one wherein many species are rare (e.g., 55% of species were collected fewer than three times) and fruticose lichens other than Cladonia were entirely absent; and v) one wherein cyanolichens were poorly represented, comprising only three species. Taxonomic diversity ranged from 21 to 56 species per site, with the lowest diversity sites concentrated in riparian corridors and the highest diversity sites on ridges. Low Gap Nature Preserve, located within the study area, was found to have comparable species richness to areas outside the nature preserve, although many species rare in the study area were found only outside preserve boundaries. Sets of rare species are delimited and discussed, as are observations as to the overall low abundance of lichens on corticolous substrates and the presence of many unhealthy foliose lichens on mature tree boles.
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Annual Report
    COMMITTEE ON THE COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION STATUS OF ENDANGERED DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL WILDLIFE IN CANADA AU CANADA ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CANADIAN ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION COUNCIL (CESCC) MAY 2003 COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN CANADA (COSEWIC) MARCO FESTA-BIANCHET CHAIR 1 PREFACE COSEWIC was given its mandate in 1976 by recommendation 6 of the 40th Federal- Provincial Wildlife Conference. In June, 1988, the Canadian Wildlife Directors directed COSEWIC to report to their Committee. In March 1999 the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) released new Terms of Reference for COSEWIC. COSEWIC determines the status in Canada of wildlife species whose future may be in doubt and releases to the public the information upon which the designation of status is based. The twenty-sixth annual report of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is herein provided to you, the Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee, for your review and comment. ----- ----- ----- 2 PART 1 November 25-29, 2002 meeting General Information The fall, 2002, meeting of COSEWIC took place at the Cartier Place Suite Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario, chaired by Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet. All members were in attendance. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canadian Nature Federation and Canadian Wildlife Federation attended the meeting as continuing observers. Workshop/Presentation/Special Meeting On November 25 during the afternoon a Workshop entitled “Approaches to Status Assignments Below the Species Level” took place. All members were in attendance as well as a number of observers. Several presentations were made by members and invited guest speakers. On November 26 in the evening, a meeting took place between members of COSEWIC as well as some observers at the Species Assessment Meeting, Lynda Maltby, director of the Species at Risk Branch of the Canadian Wildlife Service and two representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee (CWDC), Bruce Morgan, British Columbia and Steve Bowcott, Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Ours to Save: the Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species
    Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Suggested citation: Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Lichen Traits and Species As Indicators of Vegetation and Environment
    Lichen traits and species as indicators of vegetation and environment Nelson, P. R., McCune, B., & Swanson, D. K. (2015). Lichen traits and species as indicators of vegetation and environment. The Bryologist, 118(3), 252-263. doi:10.1639/0007-2745-118.3.252 10.1639/0007-2745-118.3.252 American Bryological and Lichenological Society Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Lichen traits and species as indicators of vegetation and environment Peter R. Nelson1,2,4, Bruce McCune1 and David K. Swanson3 1 2082 Cordley Hall, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.; 2 Arts and Sciences Division, University of Maine-Fort Kent, 23 University Drive, Fort Kent, ME 04743, U.S.A.; 3 National Park Service 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709, U.S.A. ABSTRACT. Lichens in the Arctic play important ecological roles. They also face the threats of increasing fire and shrub and tree expansion, exacerbated or caused by climate change. These forces may lead to changes not only in lichen community composition but also in the abundance, diversity and distribution of lichen functional traits. We sought to connect landscape-scale patterns of lichen community composition and traits to environmental gradients to both monitor lichen communities and clarify community-trait- environment relationships. We measured lichens throughout one of the largest and most remote U.S. National Parks within the Arctic. We then analyzed lichen community composition and species richness within ecologically informative lichen trait groups along environmental and vascular vegetation gradients. Macrolichen species richness in 0.4 ha plots averaged 41 species with a total landscape level observed gamma diversity of 262 macrolichen species.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Coleoptera and the Importance of Habitat Structural Features in a Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer Forest
    COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY Biodiversity of Coleoptera and the Importance of Habitat Structural Features in a Sierra Nevada Mixed-conifer Forest 1 2 KYLE O. APIGIAN, DONALD L. DAHLSTEN, AND SCOTT L. STEPHENS Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, 137 Mulford Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720Ð3114 Environ. Entomol. 35(4): 964Ð975 (2006) ABSTRACT Beetle biodiversity, particularly of leaf litter fauna, in the Sierran mixed-conifer eco- system is poorly understood. This is a critical gap in our knowledge of this important group in one of the most heavily managed forest ecosystems in California. We used pitfall trapping to sample the litter beetles in a forest with a history of diverse management. We identiÞed 287 species of beetles from our samples. Rarefaction curves and nonparametric richness extrapolations indicated that, despite intensive sampling, we undersampled total beetle richness by 32Ð63 species. We calculated alpha and beta diversity at two scales within our study area and found high heterogeneity between beetle assemblages at small spatial scales. A nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination revealed a community that was not predictably structured and that showed only weak correlations with our measured habitat variables. These data show that Sierran mixed conifer forests harbor a diverse litter beetle fauna that is heterogeneous across small spatial scales. Managers should consider the impacts that forestry practices may have on this diverse leaf litter fauna and carefully consider results from experimental studies before applying stand-level treatments. KEY WORDS Coleoptera, pitfall trapping, leaf litter beetles, Sierra Nevada The maintenance of high biodiversity is a goal shared Sierras is available for timber harvesting, whereas only by many conservationists and managers, either be- 8% is formally designated for conservation (Davis cause of the increased productivity and ecosystem and Stoms 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Historical Biogeography of Geraniaceae In
    Systematic Botany (2008), 33(2): pp. 326–342 © Copyright 2008 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists Phylogeny and Historical Biogeography of Geraniaceae in Relation to Climate Changes and Pollination Ecology Omar Fiz, Pablo Vargas, Marisa Alarcón, Carlos Aedo, José Luis García, and Juan José Aldasoro1 Real Jardín Botanico de Madrid, CSIC, Plaza de Murillo 2, 28014 Madrid, Spain 1Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Communicating Editor: Mark P. Simmons Abstract—Chloroplast (trnL–F and rbcL) sequences were used to reconstruct the phylogeny of Geraniaceae and Hypseocharitaceae. According to these data Hypseocharitaceae and Geraniaceae are monophyletic. Pelargonium and Monsonia are sisters to the largest clade of Geraniaceae, formed by Geranium, Erodium and California. According to molecular dating and dispersal-vicariance analysis, the split of the stem branches of Geraniaceae probably occurred during the Oligocene, in southern Africa or in southern Africa plus the Mediterranean area. However, their diversification occurred during the Miocene, coinciding with the beginning of major aridification events in their distribution areas. An ancestor of the largest clade of Geraniaceae (Geranium, Erodium, and California) colonised a number of habitats in the northern hemisphere and in South American mountain ranges. In summary, the evolution of the Geraniaceae is marked by the dispersal of ancestors from Southern Africa to cold, temperate and often disturbed habitats in the rest of world, where only generalist pollination and facultative autogamy could ensure sufficient seed production and survival. Keywords—autocompatibility, dispersal-vicariance, drought-tolerance, molecular dating, nectaries, P/O indexes. The Geraniaceae are included in the order Geraniales along are characteristic of the Afro-Arabian land mass (Hutchin- with the families Francoaceae, Greyiaceae, Ledocarpaceae, son 1969).
    [Show full text]
  • Endemic Genera of Bryophytes of North America (North of Mexico)
    Preslia, Praha, 76: 255–277, 2004 255 Endemic genera of bryophytes of North America (north of Mexico) Endemické rody mechorostů Severní Ameriky Wilfred Borden S c h o f i e l d Dedicated to the memory of Emil Hadač Department of Botany, University Boulevard 3529-6270, Vancouver B. C., Canada V6T 1Z4, e-mail: [email protected] Schofield W. B. (2004): Endemic genera of bryophytes of North America (north of Mexico). – Preslia, Praha, 76: 255–277. There are 20 endemic genera of mosses and three of liverworts in North America, north of Mexico. All are monotypic except Thelia, with three species. General ecology, reproduction, distribution and nomenclature are discussed for each genus. Distribution maps are provided. The Mexican as well as Neotropical genera of bryophytes are also noted without detailed discussion. K e y w o r d s : bryophytes, distribution, ecology, endemic, liverworts, mosses, reproduction, North America Introduction Endemism in bryophyte genera of North America (north of Mexico) appears not to have been discussed in detail previously. Only the mention of genera is included in Schofield (1980) with no detail presented. Distribution maps of several genera have appeared in scattered publications. The present paper provides distribution maps of all endemic bryophyte genera for the region and considers the biology and taxonomy of each. When compared to vascular plants, endemism in bryophyte genera in the region is low. There are 20 genera of mosses and three of liverworts. The moss families Andreaeobryaceae, Pseudoditrichaceae and Theliaceae and the liverwort family Gyrothyraceae are endemics; all are monotypic. A total of 16 families of mosses and three of liverworts that possess endemic genera are represented.
    [Show full text]