|BOTANICAL ELECTRONIC NEWS|
|No. 510 October 18, email@example.com||Victoria, B.C.|
Accompanying plate: http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/510/ben510_plate.pdf
The WTU Foray Program turned 20 this year. The first Foray was June 6-10, 1996, to Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. In March of that year I sent out an announcement saying: "The staff of the UW Herbarium are planning the first of what is hoped to be an annual event and invites interested members of the Herbarium and Botany Department community to participate."
I went on to say that WTU is the "home herbarium for the Vascular Flora of the Pacific Northwest, the standard reference manual for plants of a large region encompassing all of the state of Washington, much of Oregon and parts of Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. The herbarium houses many historically important collections that were critical for the preparation of the Flora, but no systematic collecting of the region encompassed by the Flora has occurred since the middle of this century. The role of a regional herbarium should be to provide a continual record of the flora of the region it covers.
Concerns about biodiversity and the state of our native flora have increased dramatically during the time since the Flora was written, but our collections essentially represent a still picture of its status at that time. To this end, it is my hope that during the coming years we will visit all of "our" region with organized collecting in mind, to update our collections." The announcement wrapped up by noting: "I think this will be a fun and productive outing that can help build a community around the Herbarium and its role in documenting the biodiversity of the Pacific Northwest. Please contact me if you are interested in participating." At the time I wrote that, I don't think I would have believed that, 20 years and 21 forays later, all that I had hoped for and more has been accomplished and that the Foray program has become central to so much that we do in the Herbarium today. A total of 172 individuals have joined our "community" by participating in forays and over 12,000 specimens have been collected, most of them in triplicate for exchange with other herbaria. Collecting and documenting our regional flora has once again become an important mission of the Herbarium, with growth rates comparable to those of the Hitchcock years. The development of a specimen database (subsequently integrated into a regional Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria data portal) and an image library (with over 56,000 photos, species descriptions, and range maps) has led to a project to revise Hitchcock & Cronquist's Flora of the Pacific Northwest with an anticipated publication date in 2018.
The Foray has grown and matured in those 20 years, but its mission remains the same, and I look forward to the next 20 years of documenting our regional flora and finding new ways that information about the plants we collect for the herbarium can be applied to both scientific research and projects that benefit the public.
For the 20th year in a row, and 21st time overall, the Herbarium held its Annual Foray, which this year took place in a large watershed of the Bitterroot Mountains that contains the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River. An outstanding group of 25 volunteers from Washington, Idaho, and Montana spent three days collecting throughout the river valley and surrounding mountain slopes and ridges. Six in the group (24%) were first-time participants, including two undergraduate students. We had mostly good weather - this is not a group to be put out by cloudy, cool conditions - and made a total of 625 collections. Most collections were made in triplicate, so the replicate specimens will be sent to our colleagues at other herbaria in Idaho (Boise State University and University of Idaho).
Results from the Ken Davis Memorial Dessert Contest were mixed - delicious, outstanding, excellent, remarkable, unsurpassed, superb. In a Foray first, the Herbarium-sponsored dinner on Saturday changed the entree from spaghetti to salmon. Many thanks to Rene Dufour for his culinary expertise in cooking the salmon to perfection over open flame on steel grating in a campground fire pit (see photo above).
Special thanks to Peg Pearson for her generous support of the Foray program. Photo: Participants in 2016 Foray with full presses after three days of collecting.
Many thanks to all of this year's participants: John Bassett, Julia Bent, Pam Camp, Mike Carlson, Tom Duebendorfer, Jim Duemmel, J.P. Dufour, Rene Dufour, Don Estberg, David Giblin, Robert, Goff, Evan Kelley, Regina Johnson, Shannon Kimball, Terri Knoke, Ben Legler, Sara Legler, Wendy McClure, Dick Olmstead, Sheila Olmstead, Ashley Powell, Richard Robohm, Crystal Shin, Cindy Spurgeon, Clayton Wiley, Veanna Willard, Doug Williams, Gabe Wisswaesser. Canine participants: Duke, Lolly.
The Foray Work Parties start on October 20th and continue every third Thursday (except December) through March. It will be a challenge to get through so many specimens, so please join us even if you didn't go on the Foray.
Additional Information: For the video of the BOTANY 2016 presentation see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zynI6qXktQI [excuse a low quality of the recording] The list of the first 19 forays (1996-2014) is given in BEN # 479 http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/ben479.html The 2015 Foray was to Boise and Payette National Forests in central Idaho.
I have received a sufficient number of questions about the "validity" of this taxon to warrant a brief discussion. Questions are not surprising since European Reed, Phragmites australis subsp. australis, is one of the major invasive aliens of natural habitats over much of North America. These questions relate to (1) the "tautonym rule", (2) priority, (3) the origin of a type specimen, (4) the "autonym rule", and (5) variation within Phragmites australis.
(1) the "tautonym rule" and priority
A binomial name in botany cannot be based on a genus name with an identical specific epithet resulting in a tautonym (ICN article 23.4). In 1753 Linnaeus called the plant Arundo phragmites so when transferred to the new genus Phragmites, the name Phragmites phragmites had to be rejected. The next available name was thought to be Phragmites communis Trinius published in 1820.
Although the name Phragmites communis was used for a long period, it was discovered that the name Phragmites australis would have priority. This name, published as Arundo australis Cavanilles in 1799, is based on a type from Australia (Clayton 1967, 1968). Clayton studied the genus Phragmites in depth. He noted that the European plants and the temperate Australian plants were conspecific. He had someone check characteristcs of the type of Arundo australis at Madrid and was also sent a portion of this type which he again confirmed was conspecific. In the genus Phragmites the correct name is thus Phragmites australis. The earlier (1753) Cenchrus frutescens Linnaeus has been removed from consideration (Greuter & Scholz 1996).
(3) "australis" a European plant despite the origin of the type
The type of Arundo australis, according to the original description was found … "in water and on the banks of the river, which is half a league before reaching Botany Bay coming from Jackson. All collected in April, Don Luis Née." Jackson and Botany Bay are at Sydney, Australia. The site was first visited by Europeans in 1770 with James Cook and soon after became a famous penal colony and the first European settlement in Australia. Of course it is true that Arundo australis was described only 29 years after the first visit to Botany Bay by Europeans, but this was probably quite long enough for this aggressive plant, spreading by seeds, stolons, and floating fragments, to become well and widely established in the area. Thus the name Phragmites australis applies to an Australian plant from Europe.
(4) "autonym rule"
When an infraspecific variant is named within a plant species for the first time, two infraspecific taxa are established. One, which includes the type specimen of the species, is the typical taxon and bears the same epithet as that of the species, e.g. P. australis subsp. australis. The infraspecific name derived in this way is called an autonym (ICN article 26, and it is not an avowed substitute or replacement name – ICN article 7.3). The newly recognized variant taxon would have its own holotype and epithet different from the specific epithet, e.g. P. australis subsp. americanus (or any earlier subspecific taxon). The type of the autonym is the same as that of the name from which it was derived (ICN article 7.6). The type of subsp. australis is the same as that of P. australis, i.e. the type in Madrid collected at Botany Bay (perhaps better described as Jackson) that is considered to be the European plant (as noted above).
(5) variation within Phragmites australis
We have a subspecies australis which is considered to be the European plant and which is different from the native North American plant which is subsp. americanus Saltonstall, P.M. Peterson and Soreng (2004), but there is sometimes lingering discomfort. Of North American plants, Phragmites berlandieri E. Fourn is considered closest to the European plants and has been treated as a synonym. The name berlandieri was published in 1877 and if conspecific with the European plants as treated, then australis published in 1799 has priority (see Catling 2006 and the nomenclatural summary therein). Regarding variation in European Phragmites, P. australis subsp. altissimus (Benth.) Clayton, also known as P. communis subsp. maximus Clayton (or as Phragmites isiacus Kunth), is native to the Mediterranean region and North Africa. This taxon intergrades with subsp. australis, is difficult to distinguish and has been considered unworthy of recognition (Clayton 1967, Tutin 1980, Clevering & Lissner 1999). The recently described Phragmites frutescens H. Scholz (Greuter & Scholz 1996, Scholz & Böhling 2000) from parts of Greece is believed to be specifically distinct and have evolved from the tropical P. mauritianus Kunth which was recognized by Clayton.
Thus, European Phragmites australis, as presently understood, essentially includes the single subsp. australis. However, there may be a taxon in parts of northern Eurasia that at least somewhat resembles P. australis subsp. americanus with reddish stems and relatively long first glumes (Finland, 60° 40' N, 21° 31" E, 22 Aug. 1976, K. Alho, DAO 323869). However, the European plants, as known to Clayton, are unlikely to be this boreal plant, which may even be introduced Phragmites australis subsp. americanus.
Across Europe and Asia and even worldwide, there may be a number of more or less distinctive ecotypes, cytotypes and/or haplotypes of Phragmites australis (e.g. Clevering & Lissner 1999). Their elucidation will contribute to an understanding of the evolution and to the optimal classification of the group. Not all of them will deserve formal taxonomic recognition and some may be grouped under a single subspecies. Authors have stressed the continuously intergrading nature of these plants. For example, it is noted in the Flora of China (Lu Wei Shu 2006): "This is an extremely polymorphic, cosmopolitan reed with numerous chromosomal variants and ecotypes. Plants from the high Himalayas sometimes form short, leafy tufts with strongly distichous, short, pungent leaf blades. Similar variants occur elsewhere in the world in extreme conditions." An example of the latter is a specimen from Kashmir (Lamayuru, Ladak, 9,500', 29 Aug. 1931, W. Koelz 2719, DAO 25380).
For the present Phragmites australis subsp. australis based on an Australian collection conspecific with the European plants (as determined by an expert), which are essentially the same as introduced North American plants, will serve as a valid autonym.
Mushrooms of the Redwood Coast—a comprehensive guide to the fungi of coastal northern California. By Noah Siegel & Christian Schwarz. 2016. Ten Speed Press [Crown Publishing Group], Berkeley CA http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/tenspeed/. 608 p. with ~855 color photos, ISBN 978-1-60774-817-5 US$35 (soft cover), ISBN 978-1-60774-817-2 $18.99 (e-book)
Two and a half decades of sequence analyses have 'steam-rollered' rapid name changes in fungi, often leaving mushroomers and field taxonomists perplexed and decidedly behind the nomenclatural curve. There was a time in the not too distant past that comprehensive regional field guides limited coverage to relatively few species representing the larger and more commonly encountered macrofungi. Fortunately, the recent upsurge of beautifully illustrated and nomenclaturally up-to-date regional field guides (e.g., Trudell & Ammirati 2009, Desjardin & al. 2015) have made life for west coast North American mushroomers a lot easier by including revised nomenclature along with striking photos of less commonly encountered fungi.
Mushrooms of the Redwood Coast [advertised by the press as "A comprehensive and user-friendly field guide for identifying the many mushrooms of the northern California coast, from Monterey County to the Oregon border"] is a glorious addition to this new pantheon of field guides. The print copy is a hefty 24 × 19 × 3.8 cm and provides full treatments of over 750 species and references hundreds more. Unfortunately the attractive paper cover on my copy soon separated from the glue strip on the front page, foreshadowing a duct-tape repair in the not too distant future. Glossy inside pages display the sharp clear photos to their best advantage.
The 22-page introductory text is necessarily brief but more than adequately covers the basics. A one-page introduction entices the non-initiated to further coastal forest explorations and precedes an outline of mushroom morphology, fungal ecology, a life cycle diagram, and human-fungal relationships. Six pages devoted to the 'redwood coast' offer a map of the five regions (Far North Coast; North Coast; San Francisco Bay Area & East Bay Hills; Santa Cruz & Peninsula Mountains; and Monterey County and southernmost redwoods) and tree descriptions and superb photos of the ectomycorrhizal northern conifers [Sitka spruce, western hemlock, grand fir], ectomycorrhizal hardwoods [3 live oaks, two deciduous oaks, tanoak, chinquapin, madrone, manzanita], widespread ectomycorrhizal conifers [Douglas-fir, five pine species], and non-ectomycorrhizal trees [the coast redwood itself (!), Monterey cypress, California bay laurel). Two and a half pages are dedicated to collection practices: finding, collecting, and identifying mushrooms, making spore prints, a list of necessities (basket, field notebooks, tackle boxes, waxed paper bags [for which I would substitute aluminum foil], hand lenses, KOH, camera, and food dehydrator), making collections, photographic tips, and collecting for the table. The introduction ends with an excellent overview on "How to read the species descriptions" (the sort of instruction too often ignored by eager wouldbe identifiers), "General format of the species descriptions" (see below), an explanation of "How to use the pictorial key to the major sections" followed by the six-page pictorial key itself.
Photos paired with descriptions serve as the sole key to species, making this volume definitely geared to the browse-and-point mode of identification. While I do miss more formal keys to species, participation in enough forays and mushroom collecting expeditions suggests that a photo matching routine is perhaps the wisest and most efficient route for would-be identifiers lacking microscopes and reagents—particularly when so many run into dead ends using written keys. The pictorial key is based on visual appearance, primarily stature and spore print color. Given the rapid name changes and generic shifts, this works relatively well, although my 'generically' trained brain sometimes found itself confused at discovering a species in one section I anticipated in another. The authors sub-divide some of the more unwieldy sections: for example, the notorious 97-page 'white-spored multitude' (divided pictorially into 'large' vs. 'small') is synoptically apportioned into groups A–N, while the well populated bolete section is helpfully sorted according to its 16 long-accepted (Boletus, Leccinum, Suillus) and quite recent (Butyriboletus? Rubroboletus?) genera. The other 27 sections include chanterelles & gomphoids; Amanita; Cystoderma + Cystodermella; Lepiota & allies; Agaricus + Melanophyllum; dark-spored mushrooms; brown-spored decomposers; mycorrhizal brown spored mushrooms (3 sections: Inocybe, Hebeloma, Phaeocollybia); Cortinarius; Entoloma (2 sections: large, small); Pluteus and allies; Russula; Lactarius; waxy caps (2 sections: I, II); pleurotoids; gilled boletes; polypores and allies; shelflike, conklike, and rosette-forming polypores; crusts; toothed; corals; clubs; puffballs, earthballs & earthstars; stinkhorns; bird's nests; truffles; jellies; morels, false morels & elfin saddles; and cup fungi. I was pleased to see a gratifyingly large number of small to tiny mushrooms over which I have puzzled for years. The species represented seem comprehensive, although one local forayer has observed that as the authors collected during California's recent and very long drought, there are undoubtedly a great many species they never had the opportunity to capture. Nonetheless I was personally charmed by the inclusion of six beautifully photographed Phaeocollybia species (all accurately identified) with reference to 14 others!
Each section outlines its genera with their diagnostic characters. Individual species treatments each provide a color photo, Latin name and authority, often a "common" name (some actually common, the remainder useful inventions), and a formal technical description of cap, gills/other fertile surfaces, stipe, veil (including partial veil & volva), flesh, odor & taste, KOH or other chemical reactivity, spore deposit, and microscopic details (always spore shape & size; other diagnostic characters when helpful). Noting that the microcharacters provided are minimal, Siegel & Schwarz wryly observe: "There's still much to be learned about the range and significance of variation in microscopic features of mushrooms—our data are representative but not definitive. Please seek out measurements from other sources and tell us what you learn!" Each treatment is rounded out with information on ecology (more comprehensive than usually found in field guides), edibility, the all-important comments paragraph, and synonyms, misapplications, and other nomenclatural notes.
Each major species entry (1–2 per page) consists of a photo paired with text. The photography is stellar throughout, especially noticeable in the introductory three large full-page plates and numerous half-page photos; the smaller (~1/6 page) photos accompanying most species descriptions appear equally clear, but fans (I am one) of the volume should consider also purchasing the online version so as to zoom these smaller photos for details not easily seen on the printed page. With no photographers credited (either by the photos or in the acknowledgments), we should assume that the two author-photographers deserve kudos for capturing so many fine photos in the field.
The authors have adopted Arora's (1986) term 'group' (e.g., Lyophyllum Decastes group, Xerocomus subtomentosus group, Scutellinia scutellata group) and have introduced placeholder names (e.g., Craterellus tubaeformis, Hygrocybe punicea, Russula cyanoxantha, here all followed by 'sensu CA'), particularly useful when depicting taxa known to differ from their European sobriquets but which are yet to be described. [What made Arora's 'group' so wonderful for so many years is that it satisfied those anxious to name a specimen while simultaneously indicating that more research is needed to suss out the 'real' identification.] No doubt equally satisfying to the 'namers' among us is that the authors are not shy about providing provisional names by enclosing unpublished epithets (e.g., Dendrocollybia "pycnoramella", Leptonia "Ruby Grapefruit", Xerocomellus "diffractus") and new combinations ("Phaeoclavulina" myceliosa, "Gliophorus" flavifolius, "Xerocomellus" mendocinensis) in quotation marks. Exceedingly helpful to the field mycologist, this also suggests a degree of nomenclatural trust on the part of Siegel & Schwarz that unethical competitors will not rush to publish the names ahead of them.
Regarding misapplications and synonomies, the authors note, "Californian mushrooms are often quite different in morphology, microscopic features, ecology, and genetics from their European namesakes, but until a new name is published, the most effective way of referring to them may be to use an epithet we know to be incorrect. We recommend taking a practical view of things: incorrect names will be used to convey information, and if they succeed in doing so without creating any new confusion, don't worry too much about it." Thus noting that Cortinarius percomis is a European name long misapplied for C. citrinifolius, Neoalbatrellus (Albatrellus) caeruleoporus is an eastern North American name misapplied for N. subcaeruleoporus, and Lactarius N. vinaceorufescens & L. chrysorrheus are both eastern North American names misapplied for L. xanthogalactus help link a familiar image and the new correct name together. Synonyms serve a similar function (e.g., Atheniella adonis = Mycena adonis; Lichenomphalia umbellifera = Omphalia ericetorum [somewhat baffling to me, given that the US government's Northwest Forest Plan listed Omphalina ericetorum]; Mycetinus copelandii = Marasmius copelandii, with a highly informative note citing recent genetic work that supports the species in Gymnopus; Bolbitius titubans = B. vitellinus). Some 'newer' names lack synonyms—the earlier placement of Tapinella atrotomentosa in Paxillus and Annulohypoxylon thouarsianum in Sphaeria are not noted—but such omissions are few. In general, I greatly appreciated finding so many 'hot-off-the-press' names with origins in multi-gene sequence analyses; these no doubt owe their presence in the volume to the careful review of Else Vellinga, whom Siegel & Schwarz thank first in their acknowledgments.
The volume closes with a list of future directions (mycofloristics, conservations, climate change, biogeography, systematics, sequence database quality, evolutionary and ecological synthesis), a 3-page glossary, resources for the mycophile, bibliography, general index, and genus & species index. Overall the field guide is engagingly written and with understated humor highly appreciated here). I highly recommend this book.
Exeter, R.L, J. Harpel & D. Wagner. 2016. Rare Bryophytes of Oregon. Salem District, Bureau of Land Management, Salem, Oregon. ISBN-13:978-0-9791310-4-2. 378 p.
Notice of this new book was released recently on Bryonet and in BEN # 509. It needs a few extra words. A cooperative venture funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the project was five years in the making. It includes one hornwort, 39 liverworts, and 102 mosses that were included in the 2013 edition of the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center's Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon, plus changes reflected in the 2016 edition. It contains approximately 1,350 photos on 153 plates.
Of immediate impact are the fabulous photos, most of them color photomicrographs, with up to a dozen per species. A few original drawings of liverworts by Dave Wagner round out the selection. These are of great help in identifying some of these species that otherwise are scarce and poorly represented in other guide books. Creation of the photos alone, taken by Judy Harpel, Dave Wagner, and a few other contributors, was a colossal task and outstanding achievement that surpasses any previously published guide to bryophytes of the Pacific Northwest. As pointed out in the front matter, many of the 142 species in the book occur elsewhere in the region, so the book is useful well beyond the borders of Oregon.
Introductory material traces the listing history of bryophytes by the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, including species that have been dropped from lists since 1983. This is followed by an annotated list of indispensable references needed for identification and habitat information, a brief overview of life histories and ecology, threats, conservation concerns, data gaps, distribution within Oregon by ecoregion, and a table showing the current taxonomic disposition of species included in the book. Treatments of the 142 species comprise the meat of the book—320 pages—each providing current taxonomy, distinctive characteristics, a technical description, similar species, ecology, references, and global and state distribution. The species treatments are followed by county distribution maps, a key to abbreviations and acronyms, a list of vascular plants mentioned in the text, and literature cited.
The book does not provide identification keys, so users will need to use other technical sources that are referenced throughout the book. Keys to just these 142 species would make no sense anyway when taken out of context of the state's bryoflora, which requires inclusion of the nearly 700 species known to occur here.
This book should be on the shelf or hard drive of anyone interested in the bryoflora of the Pacific Northwest, and particularly in species of conservation concern. The book comes with a CD containing both low and high resolution pdf versions of the printed book. Priced at $42 USD, this is a bargain and includes shipping to anywhere. For details about how to purchase hardcopy or download pdfs, please refer to BEN #509 of 22 September 2016 (http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben509.html#2).
Send submissions to firstname.lastname@example.org
BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/