DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Health and Ecological Effects Risk Assessment, Imazapyr Risk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Health and Ecological Effects Risk Assessment, Imazapyr Risk HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS RISK ASSESSMENT Imazapyr Risk Assessment Washington State Submitted to: Washington State Department of Agriculture Olympia, WA Submitted by: AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. Lynnwood, WA June 2009 Project 14858.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS.................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ES-i PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. ES-i HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ ES-ii ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT................................................................................. ES-ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 IMAZAPYR APPLICATION IN FRESHWATER RIPARIAN AREAS............................... 5 2.1 CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS .................................. 6 2.2 APPLICATION METHODS ........................................................................................ 8 2.3 APPLICATION RATES ............................................................................................. 8 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERSISTENCE AND MOBILITY ...................................................... 9 2.4.1 Persistence and Mobility of Imazapyr in Aquatic Environments............ 10 2.4.2 Persistence and Mobility of Imazapyr in Soil......................................... 11 2.4.3 Persistence of Imazapyr in Tissues....................................................... 11 3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT....................................................................... 13 3.1 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH ................................................................................... 13 3.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Mechanism of Action............................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Kinetics and Metabolism ....................................................................... 14 3.2.4 Acute Oral Toxicity ................................................................................ 15 3.2.5 Subchronic or Chronic Toxicity.............................................................. 16 3.2.6 Endocrine System Effects ..................................................................... 17 3.2.7 Immune System Effects ........................................................................ 17 3.2.8 Nervous System Effects........................................................................ 17 3.2.9 Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects .................................................. 18 3.2.10 Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity.......................................................... 18 3.2.11 Dermal Exposure Effects....................................................................... 19 3.2.12 Inhalation Exposure Effects................................................................... 20 3.2.13 Inert Ingredients and Adjuvants............................................................. 20 3.2.14 Impurities ....................................................................................... 25 3.2.15 Metabolites ....................................................................................... 26 3.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 Workers ....................................................................................... 27 3.3.3 General Public....................................................................................... 31 3.4 DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 39 3.4.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 39 3.4.2 Existing Guidelines for Chronic Exposure ............................................. 39 3.4.3 Acute RfD ....................................................................................... 40 3.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION.................................................................................... 40 3.5.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 40 3.5.2 Workers ....................................................................................... 41 3.5.3 General Public....................................................................................... 42 AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. p:\wsda\14858-000 noxiousplant eis\3000 reports\imazapyrriskassessment\hhra&era_063009.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.5.4 Sensitive Subgroups ............................................................................. 44 3.5.5 Synergistic Effects of Imazapyr in Combination with Other Herbicides and Adjuvants........................................................... 44 3.6 DATA GAPS AND UNCERTAINTY ........................................................................... 44 4.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 47 4.1 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH ................................................................................... 47 4.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................... 47 4.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 47 4.2.2 Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms........................................................... 48 4.2.3 Aquatic Organisms................................................................................ 51 4.2.4 Adjuvant and Inert Ingredient Toxicity to Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Receptors......................................................... 54 4.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 56 4.3.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 57 4.3.2 Terrestrial Animals ................................................................................ 58 4.3.3 Terrestrial Plants ................................................................................... 63 4.3.4 Soil Organisms...................................................................................... 67 4.3.5 Aquatic Organisms................................................................................ 67 4.4 DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 67 4.4.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 67 4.4.2 Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms........................................................... 69 4.4.3 Aquatic Organisms................................................................................ 71 4.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION.................................................................................... 73 4.5.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 73 4.5.2 Terrestrial Organisms............................................................................ 73 4.5.3 Aquatic Organisms................................................................................ 77 4.5.4 Federally Listed Species and State Species of Concern ...................... 78 4.6 UNCERTAINTIES AND DATA GAPS ........................................................................ 80 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 83 TABLES Table 1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Imazapyr and its Isopropylamine Salt Table 2 Water, Sediment, and Tissue Concentrations of Imazapyr in Missouri and Florida Treatment Ponds Table 3 Imazapyr Toxicity to Mammals Table 4 Summary of Modeled Concentrations of Imazapyr in a Pond and Stream Table 5 Oral Toxicity of Imazapyr to Birds Table 6 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Amphibians Table 7 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Terrestrial Invertebrates Table 8 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Terrestrial Plants Table 9 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Fish Table 10 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Aquatic Invertebrates AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. p:\wsda\14858-000 noxiousplant eis\3000 reports\imazapyrriskassessment\hhra&era_063009.doc ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 11 Toxicity of Imazapyr to Aquatic Plants Table 12 Summary of Acetic Acid Toxicity Tests Table 13 Surfactant Toxicity Summary Table 14 Acute Toxicity of Nonylphenol to Aquatic Biota Table 15 Imazapyr Exposure Scenarios for Mammals and Birds FIGURES Figure 1 Imazapyr Human Health Risk Assessment Conceptual Model Figure 2 Imazapyr Ecological Risk Assessment Conceptual Model APPENDICES Appendix A Imazapyr Activity in Soil Appendix B Risk Assessment Worksheets Appendix C Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species in Washington State AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. p:\wsda\14858-000 noxiousplant eis\3000 reports\imazapyrriskassessment\hhra&era_063009.doc iii AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. p:\wsda\14858-000 noxiousplant eis\3000 reports\imazapyrriskassessment\hhra&era_063009.doc
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Botany, Invasive Plants, Native Plants, Genetics
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest FY-16 Region Program Accomplishments Calochortus umpquaensis, Umpqua mariposa lily, is found only in the Umpqua River watershed of Botany southwestern OR. A big "anthophorid" bee is tucked into the flower. Invasive Plants Native Plants Genetics U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Chloroplast Genomes Shed Light on Phylogenetic
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Complete chloroplast genomes shed light on phylogenetic relationships, divergence time, and biogeography of Allioideae (Amaryllidaceae) Ju Namgung1,4, Hoang Dang Khoa Do1,2,4, Changkyun Kim1, Hyeok Jae Choi3 & Joo‑Hwan Kim1* Allioideae includes economically important bulb crops such as garlic, onion, leeks, and some ornamental plants in Amaryllidaceae. Here, we reported the complete chloroplast genome (cpDNA) sequences of 17 species of Allioideae, fve of Amaryllidoideae, and one of Agapanthoideae. These cpDNA sequences represent 80 protein‑coding, 30 tRNA, and four rRNA genes, and range from 151,808 to 159,998 bp in length. Loss and pseudogenization of multiple genes (i.e., rps2, infA, and rpl22) appear to have occurred multiple times during the evolution of Alloideae. Additionally, eight mutation hotspots, including rps15-ycf1, rps16-trnQ-UUG, petG-trnW-CCA , psbA upstream, rpl32- trnL-UAG , ycf1, rpl22, matK, and ndhF, were identifed in the studied Allium species. Additionally, we present the frst phylogenomic analysis among the four tribes of Allioideae based on 74 cpDNA coding regions of 21 species of Allioideae, fve species of Amaryllidoideae, one species of Agapanthoideae, and fve species representing selected members of Asparagales. Our molecular phylogenomic results strongly support the monophyly of Allioideae, which is sister to Amaryllioideae. Within Allioideae, Tulbaghieae was sister to Gilliesieae‑Leucocoryneae whereas Allieae was sister to the clade of Tulbaghieae‑ Gilliesieae‑Leucocoryneae. Molecular dating analyses revealed the crown age of Allioideae in the Eocene (40.1 mya) followed by diferentiation of Allieae in the early Miocene (21.3 mya). The split of Gilliesieae from Leucocoryneae was estimated at 16.5 mya.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017… Program of Work
    2017… PROGRAM OF WORK. Umatilla National Foresttt View from Oregon Butte - Pomeroy Ranger District United States Department of Agriculture FOREST SERVICE 1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Umatilla National Forest 2017 Program of Work 2016 Forest Staff and Accomplishments………………....…….. Page 5 South Zone Program of Work: Heppner Ranger District.………..…………………………..……….….. Page 7 North Fork John Day Ranger District………………………….…..….… Page 21 North Zone Program of Work: Pomeroy Ranger District …………………………..…………………… Page 33 Walla Walla Ranger District…………….……………………………..... Page 41 Forest-Wide Program of Work: Forest-wide projects…………………………………….…………….…
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2010/347 ON THE COVER Mount Rainier and meadow courtesy of 2007 Mount Rainier National Park Vegetation Crew Vascular Plant Inventory of Mount Rainier National Park Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCCN/NRTR—2010/347 Regina M. Rochefort North Cascades National Park Service Complex 810 State Route 20 Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284 June 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrates
    State Wildlife Action Plan Update Appendix A-5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Fact Sheets INVERTEBRATES Conservation Status and Concern Biology and Life History Distribution and Abundance Habitat Needs Stressors Conservation Actions Needed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015 Appendix A-5 SGCN Invertebrates – Fact Sheets Table of Contents What is Included in Appendix A-5 1 MILLIPEDE 2 LESCHI’S MILLIPEDE (Leschius mcallisteri)........................................................................................................... 2 MAYFLIES 4 MAYFLIES (Ephemeroptera) ................................................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia jenseni) ............................................................................................................ 4 [unnamed] (Siphlonurus autumnalis) .............................................................................................................. 4 [unnamed] (Cinygmula gartrelli) .................................................................................................................... 4 [unnamed] (Paraleptophlebia falcula) ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho's Special Status Vascular and Nonvascular Plants Conservation Rankings
    Idaho's Special Status Vascular and Nonvascular Plants Conservation Rankings 1 IDNHP Tracked Species Conservation Rankings Date USFS_ USFS_ USFS_ 2 Scientific Name Synonyms Common Name G-Rank S-Rank USFWS BLM Ranked R1 R4 R6 Abronia elliptica dwarf sand-verbena G5 S1 Feb-14 Abronia mellifera white sand-verbena G4 S1S2 Feb-16 Acorus americanus Acorus calamus var. americanus sweetflag G5 S2 Feb-16 Agastache cusickii Agastache cusickii var. parva Cusick's giant-hyssop G3G4 S2 Feb-14 Agoseris aurantiaca var. aurantiaca, Agoseris lackschewitzii pink agoseris G4 S1S2 4 S Feb-16 A. aurantiaca var. carnea Agrimonia striata roadside agrimonia G5 S1 Feb-16 Aliciella triodon Gilia triodon; G. leptomeria (in part) Coyote gilia G5 S1 Feb-20 Allenrolfea occidentalis Halostachys occidentalis iodinebush G4 S1 Feb-16 Allium aaseae Aase's Onion G2G3+ S2S3 2 Oct-11 Allium anceps Kellogg's Onion G4 S2S3 4 Feb-20 Allium columbianum Allium douglasii var. columbianum Columbia onion G3 S3 Feb-16 Allium madidum swamp onion G3 S3 S Allium tolmiei var. persimile Sevendevils Onion G4G5T3+ S3 4 S Allium validum tall swamp onion G4 S3 Allotropa virgata sugarstick G4 S3 S Amphidium californicum California amphidium moss G4 S1 Feb-16 Anacolia menziesii var. baueri Bauer's anacolia moss G4 TNR S2 Feb-20 Andreaea heinemannii Heinemann's andreaea moss G3G5 S1 Feb-14 Andromeda polifolia bog rosemary G5 S1 S Andromeda polifolia var. polifolia bog rosemary G5T5 S1 Feb-20 Anemone cylindrica long-fruit anemone G5 S1 Feb-20 Angelica kingii Great Basin angelica G4 S1 3 Mar-18 Antennaria arcuata meadow pussytoes G2 S1 Mar-18 Argemone munita ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION 4 Delaware Road, Morristown, NJ 07960
    NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY ASSOCIATION 4 Delaware Road, Morristown, NJ 07960 tel. 973-285-0907 fax 973-285-0936 web: www.naba.org 41st ANNUAL NABA BUTTERFLY COUNT - 2015 INSTRUCTIONS (CANADA) COUNTERS & COUNT CIRCLES Please report your 2015 count results directly to NABA through Unless your count is an existing 1st of July count started before our online count form at www.naba.org. The online form 2008, at least 4 adult observers must participate. One or more allows compilers to enter all data for their counts through the groups of counters always produce better results. It is usually Web and also allows the regional editors to review and edit the desirable to visit several habitats and areas within a count circle, reports more efficiently. Most importantly, Butterfly Count which may be done best by several parties. Since counts are information will be entered and stored in a database which in the open for public participation, we encourage you to publicize future will allow it to be available online to NABA members your count plans! and the public. All compilers are now requested to enter the data A count is held at one or more selected sites within a for their counts through the online count form. If this presents 15-mile diameter CIRCLE. Groups starting a new count MUST any difficulty, please contact NABA for assistance. designate this 15-mile diameter circle. No count circles may overlap—that is, count centers must be a minimum of 15 miles COUNT PROGRAM OVERVIEW apart. Groups repeating a count held a previous year MUST use In order to encourage increased participation in the NABA the same circle, and count the same sites and habitats as before Butterfly Count Program and to encourage even more so far as practical.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Coulter's Californian Exsiccata
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 37 Issue 1 Issue 1–2 Article 2 2019 Plantae Coulterianae: Thomas Coulter’s Californian Exsiccata Gary D. Wallace California Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Wallace, Gary D. (2020) "Plantae Coulterianae: Thomas Coulter’s Californian Exsiccata," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol37/iss1/2 Aliso, 37(1–2), pp. 1–73 ISSN: 0065-6275 (print), 2327-2929 (online) PLANTAE COULTERIANAE: THOMAS COULTER’S CALIFORNIAN EXSICCATA Gary D. Wallace California Botanic Garden [formerly Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden], 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 ([email protected]) abstract An account of the extent, diversity, and importance of the Californian collections of Thomas Coulter in the herbarium (TCD) of Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, is presented here. It is based on examination of collections in TCD, several other collections available online, and referenced literature. Additional infor- mation on historical context, content of herbarium labels and annotations is included. Coulter’s collections in TCD are less well known than partial duplicate sets at other herbaria. He was the first botanist to cross the desert of southern California to the Colorado River. Coulter’s collections in TCD include not only 60 vascular plant specimens previously unidentified as type material but also among the first moss andmarine algae specimens known to be collected in California. A list of taxa named for Thomas Coulter is included.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Butterflies and Their Biology to Forward Such for Inclusion in the Larger Study
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(2). 1985. 95-118 NEV ADA BUTTERFLIES: PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION GEORGE T. AUSTIN Nevada State Museum and Historical Society, 700 Twin Lakes Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 ABSTRACT. The distribution by county of the 189 species (over 300 taxa) of but­ terflies occurring in Nevada is presented along with a list of species incorrectly recorded for the state. There are still large areas which are poorly or not collected. Nevada continues as one of the remaining unknown areas in our knowledge of butterfly distribution in North America. Although a com­ prehensive work on the state's butterflies is in preparation, there is sufficient demand for a preliminary checklist to justify the following. It is hoped this will stimulate those who have any data on Nevada butterflies and their biology to forward such for inclusion in the larger study. Studies of Nevada butterflies are hampered by a paucity of resident collectors, a large number of mountain and valley systems and vast areas with little or no access. Non-resident collectors usually funnel into known and well worked areas, and, although their data are valu­ able, large areas of the state remain uncollected. Intensive collecting, with emphasis on poorly known areas, over the past seven years by Nevada State Museum personnel and associates has gone far to clarify butterfly distribution within the state. The gaps in knowledge are now more narrowly identifiable and will be filled during the next few sea­ sons. There is no all encompassing treatment of Nevada's butterfly fauna. The only state list is an informal recent checklist of species (Harjes, 1980).
    [Show full text]