Taxonomy | NYFA

Lobed Blue Violets

Michael Hough — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 23:30:14 +0000

Not counting the unusual green violet (Hybanthus concolor), there are 78 documented taxa in the violet family (Violaceae) in 91��Ƭ��. This number includes hybrids (of which there are many) and some lower taxa. If we only count violet species, NY has a total of 29. While many species are common, there are some that are quite rare and a few are thought to be extirpated.

Violets can be divided (artificially perhaps) into those that have leafy stems (leaves and flowers arising from an above-ground stem) and those that don’t (leaves and flowers arise directly from an underground stem or rhizome). The latter group is easily identified as the flowers and leaves appear to arise directly from ground level (unless the rhizome happens to be exposed but it is usually at least partially buried).

The stemmed violets are the smallest group, represented by 9 species, of which only 7 are native. The pansies, V. arvensis and V. tricolor, are the non-natives and are distinguished by the presence of large, leafy stipules and petals that form a flat face. We do have one native that fits into the “pansy” group and that is V. bicolor, which is quite rare and restricted to extreme southern NY and a few spots in western NY. These three are also the only annual species that occur in North America.

The stemless violets are a large group, with 20 species represented in NY. The sweet violet (Viola odorata) is the only non-native that has naturalized, though it is very common, especially in lawns, and is one of the first species to bloom in the spring. The only species in this group that has yellow flowers is the round-leaved violet (Viola rotundifolia), making it easy to identify in flower, though the round leaves are often overlooked later in the growing season. A few species have white flowers and these can be more difficult to identify, and the most challenging to separate are usually V. pallens and V. blanda. Occasionally blue violets can have white flowers as well. But the focus here is going to be those that have blue flowers.

So how many of the violet species that occur in NY are stemless blue violets? Based on what is recognized in the atlas, 14 of the 29 total species would fit into this group, which is just a little more than half of all Viola spp. This makes this group a challenge, as many are similar in appearance to the common blue violet (Viola sororia). Identifying the V. sororia look-alikes are beyond the scope of a single blog post, so I am going to focus on those that have deeply divided leaves. This is a small group that is frequently misidentified because there is a tendency to just call them all V. palmata because the leaves are palmately divided.

This brings the list down to 4-5 species:

Viola pedata
Viola sagittata
Viola palmata
Viola brittoniana
Viola subsinuata

The one with the most unique flowers is V. pedata (bird’s foot violet), which has a limited distribution in NY, found at least historically on Long Island, Staten Island, and in Queens and 91��Ƭ�� Counties. There are also sparse records from Erie and Albany Counties that should probably be rechecked. The preference is for soil that is on the acid side and with excellent drainage, so sandy or rocky upland soils are most typical for this species.

In flower it is easy to identify as this is the only species of stemless blue violet with palmately divided leaves that has petals that are completely hairless. The petals also tend to be a softer blue than the other species, with the spur petal often with some white near the base and purple veins. Occasional plants will have the upper two petals a dark blue-purple, a striking form (f. bicolor) that I have not seen personally. The orange stamens are also conspicuous in this species, being more exserted from the flower.

Typical Viola pedata. Some populations have leaves with more slender lobes, and these are sometimes called forma lineariloba and might be confused with other species, though the petals are consistently hairless.

Viola pedata f. lineariloba photographed near Lake Michigan in IL

Viola sagittata sometimes keys out close to the other species treated here, though any lobes are restricted to the base of the leaf blade and these are often small enough to be interpreted as teeth rather than lobes. This species has two varieties, var. sagittata and var. ovata, the latter of which is sometimes treated as a distinct species (V. fimbriatula). Early season leaf blades are said to be similar in both varieties and leaf shape is probably not a reliable characteristic when the plants are producing chasmogamous flowers. Mid-season leaf blades of var. sagittata tend to be less densely pubescent, often glabrous, and are more strongly sagittate, hastate, or cordate. Petiole length has been used to differentiate the varieties (those of var. ovata said to be shorter), however petiole length has been found experimentally to vary with available light, with plants receiving more sunlight developing considerably shorter petioles relative to blade length than those growing in woods.

Possibly the most reliable characteristic would be the sepals of the flowers, which are said to be ciliate in var. ovata and without cilia in var. sagittata. While this is best observed with a hand lens, if consistent would seem to be a reliable characteristic to go by. Even though this species barely made the list, the two varieties are probably worthy of further scrutiny in 91��Ƭ��.

Viola sagittata var. sagittata. Though the leaves might be interpreted as having lobes, notice that they rather small and restricted to the lower half of the blade. This variety tends to have much less hairy leaves on longer, more rounded petioles.

Viola sagittata var. ovata. The green circle indicates the sepals, which are ciliate in this variety. This characteristic can be easier to see with a hand lens. This variety tends to have more densely pubescent foliage and petioles that are at least a bit flattened or ‘winged’.

Although there are only three other palmately-lobed species that are recognized in 91��Ƭ��, the taxonomy gets really messy from here on out because the variability in form of the leaves has given rise to innumerable names of dubious validity. Without getting into all of them, worth mentioning will be some of the names that have been applied to what is now recognized as Viola palmata.

Viola palmata can be a little difficult to identify in mid-summer when the leaves can look all alike (look for smaller leaves near the base, as these are the spring leaves), as what sets this species apart from the others is that the leaves are heterophyllous (hetero = different, phyll = leaf). The first leaves to emerge in the spring are unlobed and resemble those of V. sororia, however by the time of flowering the plants will begin producing lobed leaves. Therefore, during or a little past flowering, plants should have a mix of lobed and unlobed leaves present. Unlobed leaves are said to be produced again late in the growing season.

Viola palmata, with mix of lobed and unlobed leaves, photographed in Albany County, NY.

Flower of Viola palmata. Note petals are bearded, a trait common to all of the species covered here except V. pedata.

Some Viola palmata plants can have leaves with many, deeply cut lobes and these have been called V. falcata or V. triloba var. dilatata. Such plants are now considered to just be a form (forma dilatata) of V. palmata. Plants with three primary lobes have been called V. triloba. The problem is that the depth and number of the lobes is so highly variable there is no definite demarcation. Therefore, all of these names (and many more!) have been combined under a single, variable species by most authorities. A search on JSTOR Global Plants for the name Viola triloba and V. palmata will turn up photos of numerous type specimens for other names that have been applied, all seemingly variations on the same general leaf form.

Two varieties of V. palmata are sometimes recognized, based mostly on whether or not the leaves and petioles are hairless (var. palmata) or pubescent (var. heterophylla). The former is also said to have the middle leaf lobe acute (pointed) and in the latter the middle lobe is blunt or obtuse. These varieties are not recognized in 91��Ƭ�� or New England.

Deeply lobed form of V. palmata that has been called V. falcata, V. triloba var. dilatata, among other names. In New England this is referred to as the dilatata form.

The remaining species have, for the most part, homophyllous leaves. That is, the lobes of the early and later leaves are quite similar in pattern and appearance though the sinuses can be shallower, with lobes more like rounded teeth on the earlier leaves.

Viola brittoniana is primarily a coastal species that is limited to extreme southern 91��Ƭ��. A single population is currently known in the state, on Long Island where it was once widespread. It has leaf blades and petioles that are essentially hairless, and slender sepals that gradually taper to the apex. The sepals also lack hairs on the margins (eciliate). This species prefers acid, sandy soils.

Comparison of the flowers of V. brittoniana (left) and V. palmata (right). Note that the flower stem is hairless in V. brittoniana and somewhat hairy in V. palmata. Also notice the sepals of V. brittoniana are narrower, long tapered and pointed at the apex, and lack cilia on the margins. The structures at the base of the sepals (auricles) are also a bit larger in V. brittoniana. The sepals of V. subsinuata are similar to those of V. palmata.

Leaves of Viola brittoniana. They are similar to those of V. subsinuata but typically with deeper sinuses and no hairs.

A close relative of V. brittoniana but with toothed rather than lobed leaves is V. pectinata, and where the two species occur together they are said to hybridize. It has only been collected in Nassau and Richmond Counties in 91��Ƭ�� and the most recent records are from the early 1900’s, so it is now considered to be historic. The leaves of V. pectinata are similar to those of V. sagittata except they are heart-shaped rather than elongate and the teeth extend further up the blade.

Holotype of V. pectinata. It has not been seen in 91��Ƭ�� for over 100 years but might still be present on Long Island.

Finally, we have Viola subsinuata, which many people confuse with the heterophyllous species V. palmata. This species is similar to V. brittoniana but has sepals that are usually ciliate (hairs along margin) and that are relatively wide and round or obtuse at the apex. It also tends to be hairier, with pubescent leaf blades (at least on the underside) and petioles. It can be found scattered in the state on richer soil, often associated with limestone. It is similar to many forms of V. palmata but does not produce unlobed leaves in the spring (the lobes are shallower, sometimes resembling rounded teeth, but are present in the first leaves).

A garden grown V. subsinuata. Wild plants are not usually this robust.

That covers all of the lobed, stemless blue violets in 91��Ƭ��, at least how they are currently recognized. Harvey Ballard (Ohio University) has proposed a number of new names (or resurrection of older names), two of which that might apply in 91��Ƭ�� according to an article he wrote for the Spring 2016 NYFA newsletter. One is V. baxteri, which is considered part of the heterophyllous V. subsinuata species complex and may replace that species in some parts of western 91��Ƭ��. Photos of V. baxteri on a website maintained by Ballard seem to show leaves that are more deeply divided, similar to V. brittoniana, but with hirsute foliage and broad obtuse sepals. A search of iNaturalist turns up some observations of V. subsinuata (including at least one identified as V. palmata) in west-central NY, on the edge of the indicated range of V. baxteri, but these are not obviously different in appearance from typical V. subsinuata. Perhaps the best way to tell them apart is by the color of the cleistogamous seeds, which are said to be much lighter in color (ivory) in V. baxteri than in V. subsinuata (light brown).

Type specimen of V. baxteri collected in Ontario County by Homer D. House, the first State Botanist of 91��Ƭ��.

The other he called Viola pseudo-brittoniana, and it was said to possibly occur in dry woodlands near the coast in southern NY. This name does not show up on his new website (), so it is not clear if that name has changed or has been dropped. The absence of this taxon from his map for the subsinuata group suggests the latter. That’s about as far as I could get with that, so the currently recognized species in the atlas are probably the most sensible to go by for now.

The Nonnative Crab Grasses (Genus Digitaria) of 91��Ƭ��

David Werier — Sun, 01 Nov 2020 18:48:19 +0000

In 91��Ƭ�� State there are three nonnative crab grasses, Digitaria ciliaris, D. ischaemum, and D. sanguinalis. These annual grasses begin flowering in mid-summer and continue to flower and fruit until frost knocks them back.��The native range of D. ciliaris is unclear. Recent authors (e.g., Wipff 2003, Shouliang and Phillips 2006) considered it to be widespread in tropical and warm-temperate parts of the world. Digitaria ischaemum and D. sanguinalis are native to Eurasia (Wipff 2003). All three are widespread and common throughout 91��Ƭ�� and occur in a variety of native and nonnative disturbed habitats. They all look superficially similar in that they have long finger-like branches of the inflorescences radiating from the summit or near the summit of the stem.

��

Inflorescence of Digitaria ciliaris

Each inflorescence branch has numerous spikelets that occur on short pedicels.

Inflorescence branch of Digitaria ischaemum

A closer look reveals that the spikelets are grouped together. In D. ischaemum the spikelets are grouped in threes and in D. ciliaris and D. sanguinalis they are grouped in pairs. The paired spikelets of the latter two species have the spikelets on different length pedicels, one very short and the other longer.

Digitaria ischaemum with spikelets occurring in groups of three.�� Some spikelets were removed and some were spread apart from each other for ease of observation.

Digitaria ciliaris with spikelets occurring in pairs. Some spikelets were spread apart from each other for ease of observation.

Digitaria ischaemum is also quite different from the latter two species in numerous other ways including:

	Digitaria ischaemum	**Digitaria ciliaris and D. sanguinalis**
��2nd lemma	black, dark purple, or dark brown and mostly hidden behind the second glume	yellow, green-gray, or blue-gray often suffused with purple, the upper portion readily visible
2nd glume	as long as or slightly shorter than the 2nd lemma	about 40-75% as long as the 2nd lemma
1st glumes	absent or vestigial, when present a thin translucent truncate membrane ≤ 0.2 mm long;	small but apparent, thick, opaque, 0.1-0.8 mm long
spikelets	1.8-2.3 mm long	2.3-4.0 mm long

Spikelet of Digitaria ischaemum

��

Spikelet of Digitaria ciliaris

Once one becomes familiar with these species the relatively small spikelets of D. ischaemum make it doable to distinguish it from the other two species from a distance. When necessary a quick closer examination of the plants can confirm the determination.

Digitaria ciliaris and D. sanguinalis are very similar species and the two can easily be confused. They are best distinguished by observing the lateral veins of the first lemmas. In D. ciliaris the lateral veins are smooth or sometimes have just a few small spicules while in D. sanguinalis many of the lateral veins are roughened at least in the upper half. The rough texture, created by numerous small spicules, can be difficult to discern without good lighting and magnification.

��

Spikelets of Digitaria sanguinalis (left) and D. ciliaris (right)

Additionally the upper surface of the uppermost leaf blades of D. ciliaris are sometimes scabrous but otherwise are glabrous or have only a few papillose-based hairs especially towards the base versus the upper surface of the uppermost leaf blade moderately or densely pubescent with papillose-based hairs in D. sanguinalis.

Upper surface of leaf blades of Digitaria sanguinalis (top) and D. ciliaris (bottom)

There are other differences too such as the relative length of the second glume to the spikelet and absolute length of the spikelet although there is some overlap with these characters. And, in 91��Ƭ��, I have occasionally encountered intermediates. Intermediate plants have been reported from other areas and these have been hypothesized to be hybrids or represent some level of introgression between the two species (Ebinger 1962, Gould 1963, Webster and Hatch 1981).

The first lemma of Digitaria ciliaris and D. sanguinalis possess interesting hairs. The main hairs are soft, supple, and white (sometimes fading to off-white or pale brown). When young these hairs are densely packed together and appressed against the surface of the lemma. They primarily occur in two places, along the margins and in between the two inner lateral veins. When young they lie parallel to the veins and appear like another vein but when mature they fluff up and project out from the surface of the lemma, their tips often joined together.

Spikelets of Digitaria ciliaris immature (left) and mature (right)

In addition to the supple white hairs, the first lemmas of Digitaria ciliaris and D. sanguinalis sometimes also have stiff glassy yellow hairs, although I have not seen specimens of D. sanguinalis from 91��Ƭ�� with such hairs. When present, the stiff glassy yellow hairs usually occur with the supple white hairs between the two inner lateral veins and generally project well beyond the supple white hairs.

Spikelet of Digitaria ciliaris

There is a lack of consensus within the botanical community as to whether plants of D. ciliaris with stiff glassy yellow hairs are worthy of taxonomic recognition. Henrard (1950), in his worldwide monograph of the genus Digitaria, recognized these plants at the specific rank as D. chrysoblephara. Wipff (2003), in his treatment of Digitaria in the Flora of North America North of Mexico, recognized these plants as D. ciliaris var. chrysoblephara but noted that further study was needed. Shouliang and Phillips (2006), in the Flora of China noted that this “form” was sometimes distinguished as a variety. Wilhalm (2009), in his review of D. ciliaris in Europe, considered the plants with stiff glassy yellow hairs to represent only a form. Veldkamp (1973), in his revision of Digitaria of Malesia, considered D. ciliaris to never possess yellow glassy hairs and considered such plants to be part of the variability of the closely related D. bicornis. Webster (1987), in his revision of species closely related to D. ciliaris from North America, recognized that D. ciliaris can be variable for the presence or absence of glassy yellow hairs but did not give taxonomic recognition to plants of D. ciliaris with such hairs. In terms of application of names, Webster considered the name D. ciliaris var. chrysoblephara to be synonymous with D. bicornis while Wipff (2003) and Shouliang and Phillips (2006) placed it with D. ciliaris.

In specimens of D. ciliaris from 91��Ƭ�� that I have observed, when present, there are usually not a lot of these glassy yellow hairs per lemma and sometimes many of the lemmas appear to lack these hairs while others possess just one or two. It can be difficult to accurately assess if a specimen possesses such hairs because these hairs develop the yellow color as they mature and when immature are mixed in with the white supple hairs and are appressed with them against the lemma body, making them hard to discern. In 2020, I collected ten specimens of D. ciliaris from western, central, northwestern, and northeastern regions of 91��Ƭ��. Upon a thorough examination of these specimens all turned out to possess at least some stiff glassy yellow hairs. This appears to be in contrast with Wipff’s (2003) statement that plants of D. ciliaris without stiff glassy yellow hairs are more common in North America north of Mexico than plants with these hairs.

Digitaria ischaemum and D. sanguinalis have long been known to be common in 91��Ƭ�� (e.g. House [1924]). On the other hand, Smith (1965), in his Checklist of The Grasses of 91��Ƭ��, may have been the first to report D. ciliaris (as D. ascendens) from 91��Ƭ��. He noted that it was only found as a waif in the southeastern part of the state. The NYS Museum Cards, a series of large manila cards that NYS Museum botanists used to record and map species distribution in the state, reflect Smith’s assessment of the species at the time; the NYS Museum Card map for D. ciliaris shows three sites for the species all in the southeastern part of the state.

NYS Museum Card map of Digitaria ciliaris showing three populations (black dots), which are restricted to the SE portion of the state.

But Digitaria ciliaris has since become widespread and common throughout much if not all of the state; between 2003 and 2020 I collected this species from all regions of the state and it was never too hard to find.

Map of NY showing where I collected herbarium vouchers for Digitaria ciliaris. Note that I have observed this species elsewhere in the state and there are herbarium specimens documenting other populations too.

It appears that this species has spread rapidly in the state in the recent past although a thorough review of herbarium specimens is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Yatskievych (1999) reported a similar recent (since 1963) spread of this species in Missouri. Digitaria ciliaris likely has spread beyond the borders of 91��Ƭ�� into some regions that have yet to report this species such as Ontario (Oldham 2017) and Vermont (Gilman 2015).

In 91��Ƭ��, similar to D. ischaemum and D. sanguinalis, D. ciliaris grows in naturally disturbed habitats such as gravel and sand bars in rivers and draw-down zones of ponds, lakes, and rivers as well as in human disturbed sites such as agricultural fields, roadsides, and cracks in sidewalks in urban areas.

Habitat for Digitaria ciliaris in 91��Ƭ��. Draw-down on edge of Lake Champlain, Clinton Co., NY

Habitat for Digitaria ciliaris in 91��Ƭ��. Draw-down on edge of the Cayuga Inlet, Tompkins Co., NY

Habitat for Digitaria ciliaris in 91��Ƭ��. Village of Friendship, Allegany Co., NY

Habitat for Digitaria ciliaris in 91��Ƭ��. Agricultural field in Tompkins Co., NY

One final note. In preparing this blog post I realized that some of my recent collections of D. ciliaris appear to have at least some characteristics of the closely related as well as controversial species D. bicornis. Webster and Hatch (1981) provided some evidence that these two species are distinct and many authors continue to recognize them as such although with differing circumscriptions (Veldkamp 1973, Wipff 2003, Shouliang and Phillips 2006, Weakley 2015, Boonsuk et al. 2016). Others are a bit more skeptical (Wilhalm 2009). Digitaria bicornis is reported to be widespread in the tropics and subtropics of the world (Webster 1987) as well as to be common on the coastal plain of the southeastern United States, perhaps growing as far north as Virginia or Maryland (Wipff 2003). Clearly a modern revision of the D. ciliaris complex is needed. So stay tuned for more crab grass stories!

Literature cited:

Boonsuk, B., P. Chantaranothai, and T. R. Hodkinson. 2016. A taxonomic revision of the genus Digitaria (Panicoideae: Poaceae) in mainland Southeast Asia. Phytotaxa 246:248–280.

Ebinger, J. E. 1962. Validity of the grass species Digitaria adscendens. Brittonia 14:248–253.

Gilman, A. V. 2015. New flora of Vermont. Memoirs of the 91��Ƭ�� Botanical Garden 110:1–615.

Gould, F. W. 1963. Cytotaxonomy of Digitaria sanguinalis and D. adscendens. Brittonia 15:241–244.

Henrard, J. T. 1950. Monograph of the genus Digitaria. Universitaire Pers Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands.

House, H. D. 1924. Annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of 91��Ƭ�� State. 91��Ƭ�� State Museum Bulletin 254. The University of the State of 91��Ƭ��, Albany, NY, USA.

Oldham, M. J. 2017. List of the vascular plants of Ontario’s Carolinian zone (Ecoregion 7E). Carolinian Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

Shouliang, C., and S. M. Phillips. 2006. Digitaria Haller. Pages 539–547 in Z. Y. Wu, P. H. Raven, and D. Y. Hong, editors. Flora of China. Vol. 22 (Poaceae). Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Smith, S. J. 1965. Checklist of the grasses of 91��Ƭ�� State. 91��Ƭ�� State Museum Bulletin 403. The University of the State of 91��Ƭ��. The State Education Department, Albany, NY, USA.

Veldkamp, J. F. 1973. A revision of Digitaria Haller (Gramineae) in Malesia. Notes on Malesian grasses VI. Blumea 21:1–80.

Weakley, A. S. 2015. Flora of the southern and mid-Atlantic states. Working draft of 21 May 2015. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Webster, R. D. 1987. Taxonomy of Digitaria section Digitaria in North America (Poaceae: Paniceae). Sida 12:209–222.

Webster, R. D., and S. L. Hatch. 1981. Taxonomic relationships of Texas specimens of Digitaria ciliaris and Digitaria bicornis (Poaceae). Sida 8:34–42.

Wilhalm, T. 2009. Digitaria ciliaris in Europe. Willdenowia 39:247–259.

Wipff, J. K. 2003. Digitaria Haller. Pages 358–383 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, M. E. Barkworth, K. M. Capels, S. Long, and M. B. Piep, editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico, volume 25, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. Oxford University Press, 91��Ƭ��, NY, USA.

Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark’s flora of Missouri. Volume 1. Revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO, USA.

Amaze Your Friends With The Meaning of Scientific Plant Names!

admin — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:17:13 +0000

If you have ever sought the meaning behind the scientific name of a plant there is an easy website to use called Botanary (botanical dictionary) to look them up. It’s part of the gardening site “Dave’s Garden”. Keep it handy on your smartphone to use when guiding plant walks and someone says, “That’s a long scientific name. What does it mean?”

For the website .

Upcoming bryology workshops

admin — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:37:12 +0000

There are three upcoming bryological courses and excursions this spring! They’re not being held in our region, but many bryophytes are quite cosmopolitan so it’s likely that you’d encounter species that occur in 91��Ƭ��. Certainly the lab skills and camaraderie would be worth the trip.

Intermediate Bryology will be offered by Dr. David Wagner on the University of Oregon campus on March 21-23. The objective of this workshop will be a fairly intensive practice using the contemporary keys pertinent to the area. Most of the time will be spent in the teaching lab, with an afternoon excursion on the first day for field experience. Time will be available for participants who bring personal collections to work on them under expert supervision. Tuition is $300. Contact Dr. Wagner for more information (541-344-3327 / davidwagner@mac.com).

The 16th Annual SO BE FREE foray will be held in the lower elevations of the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains near Quincy, California on March 23-26.�� The area offers great sites for montane coniferous, mixed coniferous-hardwood forests; canyon oak forests; rocky outcrops; and chaparral, all in the steep North Fork of the Feather River canyon.�� There will be flat trails and roadside areas to visit for easy access.�� Bryophyte diversity will span from California’s spring ephemerals, bryophytes of springs, streamlets, and rivers to the great diversity found on rocky outcrops.�� Beginning bryologists are welcome, and they are planning some special activities for beginners, as well as serious fieldtrips�� that will be exciting for the hard-core. for more info.

An Introduction to Bryophytes will be offered by Dr. Stephen Timme in the botany lab on the Pittsburg (Kansas) State University campus on April 2-3. It is designed to provide an introduction to basic characteristics and techniques for identification of some of the more common species found in the prairie, oak/hickory forests, and rock outcrops in the central U.S.�� Techniques will include the proper use of the microscope, free-hand sections, terminology, and making semi-permanent mounts. The workshop will be topped off with a field trip. Contact Dr. Timme for more information (417-658-5473 / slt@pittstate.edu).

The Plant List. A New Listing of the World’s Flora.

admin — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:16:38 +0000

From theplantlist.org website:

The Plant List is a working list of all known plant species. Version 1 aims to be comprehensive for species of Vascular plant (flowering plants, conifers, ferns and their allies) and of Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts).

Collaboration between the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden enabled the creation of The Plant List by combining multiple checklist data sets held by these institutions and other collaborators.

The Plant List provides the Accepted Latin name for most species, with links to all Synonyms by which that species has been known. It also includes Unresolved names for which the contributing data sources did not contain sufficient evidence to decide whether they were Accepted or Synonyms.

For the website .

For 91��Ƭ��’s flora we recommend following the taxonomy of the 91��Ƭ�� Flora Atlas – Steve Young

Yes, Old Pressed Plants Are Really Useful

admin — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:06:34 +0000

CLICK HERE to see an article about how ecologists are using herbarium specimens to study global warming.�� Brooklyn Botanic Garden is featured.

Like 91��Ƭ��, Canada Needs Taxonomists

admin — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:08:15 +0000

From NatureServe US: A new report released by the Council of Canadian Academies warns of significant risks to the country’s biodiversity if there is no increased focus and investment in biodiversity science and taxonomic expertise. The report was authored by an expert panel of biodiversity scientists that included Doug Hyde, executive director of NatureServe Canada. to see the report.

91��Ƭ�� State has been without an official State Botanist for years and other taxonomists at the State Musum are set to retire in a few years. We are in a similar situation to Canada.

Great Website for the Systematics and ID of Moonworts, Botrychium subgenus Botrychium

admin — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:11:41 +0000

Dr. Donald Farrar from Iowa State University has a website with detailed information and factsheets on the moonworts.�� This is a valuable resource for anyone that comes across these botanical gems in the field.�� For the website.

The rare Botrychium minganense near Syracuse. Photo Steve Young.

In Search of Long Island Rare Plants 3 – Southern Arrowwood

admin — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:12:45 +0000

From Steve Young – NY Natural Heritage Program. In 91��Ƭ�� two varieties of Viburnum dentatum are found, var. lucidum, northern arrowwood, also called Viburnum recognitum in some books, and var. dentatum, southern arrowwood.�� Viburnum dentatum var. dentatum is found south of 91��Ƭ��. Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum is found throughout the state while Viburnum dentatum var. venosum is found only in Suffolk County in 91��Ƭ�� and mostly on the very eastern end of Long Island. It is presently considered a rare plant by the 91��Ƭ�� Natural Heritage Program and ranked as S2 – threatened. In June I surveyed the area around Montauk west to Southampton on the South Fork of Long Island to see how common this shrub really is.�� On Eastern Long Island it occurs in maritime shrubland with the more common var. lucidum but it can be distinguished fairly easily by leaf and reproductive characters.�� It flowers and fruits about two weeks later than var. lucidum and its leaf petioles and undersides are covered with stellate hairs that are absent on var. lucidum. The photos below show the difference.

Northern and southern arrowwood beside each other. Northern on the left in bloom and southern on the right in bud in early June.

Northern arrowwood is in bloom,

When southern arrowwood is in bud.

Southern arrowwood has stellate petioles and twigs.

Northern arrowwood has glabrous twigs and petioles or with small straight hairs in the petiole groove.

Can you tell which species is which here?

Variety venosum on the top and var. lucidum on the bottom.

The brown rough bark with white lenticels looks similar on both varieties.

Because these plants flower at different times, their leaf characters are different, and they occur together instead of separated geographically, I would tend to call them different species rather than varieties.�� Variety venosum has been described as a species,�� Viburnum venosum, in the past and I would tend to agree with that taxonomy from what I have seen on Long Island.�� I surveyed many roadsides and shrublands on the South Fork in June and southern arrowwood was present in good numbers in most of them. I am now recommending that its rank be lowered from threatened to rare and it put on the Heritage Watch List.�� Even though it is more common than we thought it should still be monitored because the non-native viburnum leaf beetle (Pyrrhalta viburni) has been completely defoliating this and a few other viburnum species in parts of 91��Ƭ��.

Time to Refresh Your Memory on Aster and Goldenrod Scientific Names

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:13:15 +0000

Many scientific name changes have been made in the Aster Family lately and there are a number of places you can go to refresh your memory on the changes to asters and goldenrods. Here are some websites where you can read up on them:

A list of name changes in Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide can be found on the sidebar of this blog.

This is a website of Asters and Goldenrods of New England:

Here is a list of aster synonyms from Humboldt University:

This is a website describing John Semple’s taxonomy of the asters and goldenrods:

This is the aster family treatment in the flora of North America:

Time to go in the field and test your memory!

Showy aster, Eurybia spectabilis, on Long Island. Photo Steve Young