From aceska@telus.net Fri Feb 10 00:50:13 2006 From: aceska@telus.net (Adolf Ceska) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:50:13 -0800 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 356 Message-ID: <001001c62ddb$f3ea1590$f1dcb440@xphome> BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X BB B EE NNN N BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS No. 356 February 9, 2006 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- MYRMECOCHORY IN SOME SPECIES OF THE GENUS ERYTHRONIUM From: Art Guppy In the first paragraph of his monograph on the _Erythronium_ of western North America, E.I. Applegate (1935) suggested that the _Erythronium_ of Europe, Asia, and eastern North America form a different natural group from the _Erythronium_ of western North America. He did not elaborate on the difference. Others also have recognized the two groups, and Shevock et al. (1990) suggested they perhaps correspond to subgenera. However, the recognition of the two groups seems to have been largely intuitive, and no one has described their distinguishing characteristics. After some 20 years of observing _Erythronium_ in my garden, and for the last 15 years observing the reaction of ants to the fresh seeds of some _Erythronium_ species, I can report that the principal distinguishing feature between the two groups is that the _Erythronium_ of Europe, Asia, and eastern North America (which I will call Group 1) are myrmecochorous, that is their seeds are dispersed by ants, while the _Erythronium_ of western North America (which I will call Group 2) disperse their seeds by a sort of catapult action when the erect capsules on tall, wiry stems are shaken by wind or a passing animal. The seeds of the Group 1 species that I have examined all have elaiosomes, that is, fleshy protuberances that are attractive to ants, while I have examined the seeds of all the Group 2 species and none have elaiosomes. It is obvious from the behavior of an ant when a fresh seed with an elaiosome is dropped close to it, that the elaiosome emits a scent attractive to the ant. It is presumed that the ant carries the elaiosome, with the attached seed, to its nest where the elaiosome is consumed. Over the years, mainly by raising them from seed, I have acquired the bulbs of all the _Erythronium_ of Europe, Asia, and eastern North America except _E. propullans_ and _E. rostratum_, and all have produced fresh seeds for me to test with ants except those two and _E. sibiricum_, which has flowered, but failed to set seeds. With all the species that produced seeds, I tested the seeds immediately after the capsules dehisced with several local ant species. In all cases, ants immediately seized the seeds and carried them away, proving the species to be myrmecochorous. I obtained seeds of _E. sibiricum_ from three different sources, and all the seeds had elaiosomes, so we can safely assume that species is myrmecochorous. _Erythronium propullans_ is reported to only reproduce vegetatively and not to produce seeds, but a study by Pleasants and Wendel (1989) concluded that the species derived from _E. albidum_ not over 9,000 years ago, so those two species must be very closely related, and I tested _E. albidum_ and found it to be myrmecochorous. Parks and Hardin (1963) concluded that at some time in the distant past, _E. rostratum_ and _E. umbilicatum_ hybridized to produce the tetraploid species _E. americanum_. As I found that the seeds of the latter two species have elaiosomes which are very attractive to ants, it seems almost certain the same would be true of _E. rostratum_. It is safe to conclude from all my observations over the years that all the known _Erythronium_ species of Europe, Asia, and eastern North America belong together in a group distinguished by being myrmecochorous. As none of the species of western North America have elaiosomes on their seeds, and as I have tested the seeds of several of those species with ants, and found that ants ignore them, we can safely say that the western species form a group distinguished by not being myrmecochorous. As we would expect, there are differences in the seeds and seed capsules of the two groups associated with their different methods of dispersing their seeds. Aside from the obvious difference of the presence or absence of elaiosomes, the seeds of the two groups differ in having different germination patterns. As that difference is extremely important to anyone growing _Erythronium_ from seed, I will deal with it in some detail below. While testing the seeds of Group 1 species with ants, I noticed that the elaiosomes lost their ability to attract ants quite soon after they were exposed to air by the dehiscence of the seed capsule. Evidently a volatile substance produces the attractive scent, and it quickly dissipates, often within less than two hours on a warm day. To allow for this quick loss of the ability to attract ants, the seed capsules have evolved to make the seeds available to ants very quickly after dehiscence. Generally the mature capsules are held in a nodding position or may lie prostrate on the ground, and the walls of the capsules are leathery and roll back quickly to expose the seeds. In contrast, the mature capsules of Group 2 species are erect and have relatively firm walls to hold the seeds as in a cup until a sufficiently strong shake can catapult the seeds to some distance from the parent plant. There are other characteristics which distinguish between the two groups. Group 1 species produce only one flower per mature bulb, while a Group 2 bulb may have several flowers. Also, the leaf mottling is different. All the species of Group 1 have plants with mottled leaves, though with both _Erythronium sibiricum_ and _E. mesochoreum_ some individual plants and perhaps some populations have unmottled leaves. The mottling in this group is formed of apparently random spots and blotches. In Group 2 there are species with mottled leaves and species with completely unmottled leaves, and two species with only a slight trace of mottling because they originated as tetraploid hybrids between a mottled and an unmottled species. The mottling in Group 2 has a somewhat symmetrical appearance, as it follows the veins of the leaf. A few conclusions based on my observations still need to be mentioned. The actual mechanism of the attractive power of _Erythronium_ elaiosomes needs to be studied. In general elaiosomes contain lipids which provide food for ants, but in some cases an elaiosome may contain a substance that works directly on an ant's instinct to carry an object to its nest. For example, oleic acid, which is present in the elaiosomes of at least some _Trillium_ species, is believed to trigger the corpse- carrying instinct in ants (Lanza et al. 1992). While watching ants with _Erythronium_ seeds, I often saw an ant carry a seed for some distance, only to drop and abandon its burden. Other ants that passed close to the abandoned seed would simply ignore it. Evidently the elaiosome on the seed had lost its attractive power. That raises two questions. If the elaiosome contained real food, rather than merely a substance that worked on the ant's instinct to carry the object, why would the ants abandon food? One also wonders why over time the elaiosomes had not evolved a longer-lasting attractive substance. I suspect the quickly-dissipated scent is actually advantageous for _Erythronium_. In addition to myrmecochory providing for the dispersal of seeds, it serves to prevent seeds accumulating near the parent plant in numbers that would attract birds and other seed-predators. If all the seeds collected by a colony of ants were carried to the nest, they would accumulate in the nest or in a nearby midden, and might be an even greater attraction for predators. When an ant abandons a seed part way to its nest, the elaiosome has served its purpose in an ideal way and there is a good chance the seed has been left where it can grow into a new plant. In the process of raising _Erythronium_ bulbs from seed so I could study the different species, I have learned that the seeds of the two subgenera need to be treated differently. The seeds of Group 2 species have evolved to withstand sitting in an open capsule, exposed to the weather, for weeks or even months. Consequently they are very durable. They can withstand a considerable amount of dehydration, and often will remain viable after being stored in a fridge for two or three years. Always, the germination process should be started in the fall so the seeds will have a period of winter coolness and will germinate early in spring. If seeds arrive in mid-winter, they should be stored in the fridge until the following fall. Group 1 seeds require a very different treatment. They are adapted to being deposited on the ground in midsummer, and consequently they require two or three months of moist warmth followed by the coolness of winter in order to germinate in early spring. To some extent those periods of warmth and coolness can be telescoped. I received _Erythronium sibiricum_ seeds at the end of October. I gave them two months embedded in moist, sterilized sand in a room with a daytime temperature of about 22 deg. C and a night temperature several degrees cooler. Then I moved them to a fridge at about 4 deg. C. I got almost 100 per cent germination in the fridge over the period from early February to early March. If I can collect Group 1 seeds myself, I give them about a week in moderately dry conditions and then sow them outdoors where they can go through the seasons naturally. Group 1 seeds are not very durable, but with a little luck they will survive a year stored in a fridge. References Applegate, E.I. 1935. The genus _Erythronium_: a taxonomic and distributional study of the western North American species. _Madrono_ 3: 58-113. Lanza, J., M.A. Schmitt, & A.B. Awad. 1992. Comparative chemistry of elaiosomes of three species of Trillium. _J. Chem. Ecol._ 18: 209-222. Parks, C.R. & J.W. Hardin. 1963. Yellow _Erythronium_s of the eastern United States. _Brittonia_ 15: 245-259. Pleasants, J.M. and J.F. Wendel. 1989. Genetic diversity in a clonal narrow endemic, _Erythronium propullans_, and its widespread progenitor, _Erythronium albidum_. _Am. J. Bot._ 76: 1136-1151. Shevock, J.R., J.A. Bartel, & G.A. Allen. 1990. Distribution, ecology, and taxonomy of _Erythronium_ (Liliaceae) in the Sierra Nevada of California. _Madrono_ 37: 261-273. CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT: RIP UP KYOTO CONTRACT? NOT SO FAST From: Ian Richler - Originally published in the Toronto Star - Feb. 6, 2006. [posted in BEN with permsission] During the election campaign, the Conservatives were coy about climate change. Their official platform spoke of developing a "made-in-Canada plan" to address greenhouse gas emissions, but didn't mention the Kyoto Protocol at all. Still, it's quite clear that Stephen Harper [Canada's new Prime Minister] is no fan of the agreement. Now that he's in power, could he tear it up? The answer is: not very easily. That's because the protocol sets out a timetable for backing out of the deal. A party must wait three years from the date on which the protocol entered into force before it can announce its withdrawal. Since the agreement only entered into force on Feb. 16, 2005, Canada cannot announce its withdrawal before Feb. 16, 2008. On top of that, the withdrawal would not take effect until one year after it is announced. So Canada is locked into Kyoto until Feb. 16, 2009. There may be a couple of ways around this. First, Canada could pull out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty to which the Kyoto Protocol is a protocol. A country that forsakes the UNFCCC is automatically withdrawn from Kyoto. The UNFCCC sets out a similar timetable: There is a three-year waiting period before a party can announce its withdrawal, then another year before that announcement takes effect. Because the UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, Canada could announce its withdrawal today and then be formally relieved of both its UNFCCC and Kyoto obligations in a year. That would be risky. Virtually every country in the world has ratified the UNFCCC, including many countries such as the United States that have spurned Kyoto. Repudiating the UNFCCC would make Canada an international pariah, with only Somalia and a handful of tiny or dysfunctional countries to keep us company. It would also cut us off from future international discussions on climate change. The second way Canada could withdraw from Kyoto without having to wait until 2009 would be to beg all the other parties to let us go. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which governs how international agreements are interpreted, a party to a treaty may withdraw at any time with the consent of all the parties. But obtaining the consent of all 157 other parties would be nearly impossible. Why should Norway take pains to meet its emissions reduction target but let Canada off the hook? And who knows what trade-offs other countries might demand in return for their indulgence? Whether he likes it or not, Harper is probably stuck with Kyoto for at least a few more years. So what can he do about it? One option is to do nothing at all. More specifically, instead of trying to pull out of the protocol, Harper could just ignore it. He could pursue his made-in-Canada approach to global warming without worrying about whether that approach would actually be enough to achieve our emissions reduction target under the protocol. And what if it isn't? Well, there would be no real penalty. Under the rules developed by the parties to the protocol, the punishment for exceeding your emissions quota in the first "compliance period" (2008-2012) is that your excess emissions are multiplied by 1.3 and then subtracted from your quota in the second compliance period. You may also be barred from participating in the emissions trading system and be forced to develop a plan to achieve compliance. But these are hardly effective disincentives if you have no intention of participating in the second compliance period. Neither Canada nor any other country has signed on for that second compliance period. It's unlikely Harper would ever agree to it if it meant an extension of Kyoto. This strategy may seem highly cynical. Openly flouting the protocol probably wouldn't do much for Canada's international reputation. And it certainly wouldn't bring us any closer to solving the climate change problem. Then again, it would perhaps be more honest than the outgoing government's approach. Although the Liberals deserve credit for devising some highly creative, market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not many of them would tell you with a straight face that their plan would have been enough to meet Canada's ambitious Kyoto target. While Harper may find it easier to renounce Canada's Kyoto obligations than to make a good-faith effort to live up to them, simply ignoring them would be easier still. But no policy should be judged on the basis of easiness alone. [Ian Richler is a Toronto environmental lawyer.] XVII INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS: SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE NOMENCLATURAL SECTION OF THE CONGRESS - VIENNA, AUSTRIA 12-16 JULY, 2005. From: John McNeill, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Address: Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.; jmcneill@rgbe.org.uk Congress Action on Nomenclatural Proposals: The Section on Nomenclature of the XVII International Botanical Congress met in the Uni-Campus Lecture Hall C1, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Vienna, on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 at 9 a.m. and daily thereafter until Saturday, 16 July. The sessions continued until around 6.00 p.m. each day (with half hour breaks in the morning and afternoon and an hour's break for lunch), except on Saturday when the sessions concluded at the end of business, around 3.30 p.m., and were followed by the General Assembly of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. The Bureau of Nomenclature (see Division III of the Code) comprised the Rapporteur-general, John McNeill (Edinburgh, Scotland), appointed by the XVI Congress in St. Louis in 1999, and the following, appointed by the Organizing Committee of XVII Congress, the President, Dan H. Nicolson (Washington, U.S.A.), the Vice-Rapporteur, Nicholas J. Turland (St. Louis, U.S.A.), and the Recorder, Tod Stuessy (Vienna, Austria). In addition, five vice-presidents were appointed by the Section: Barbara Briggs (Sydney, Australia); Richard K. Brummitt (Kew, UK), Herve Burdet (Geneve, Switzerland), Walter Gams (Utrecht, Netherlands), and Paul Silva (Berkeley, USA). The Section approved the _Saint Louis Code_ as published as the basis of its deliberations. For the revised Code arising from this Congress (the _Vienna Code_, thus distinguished from the 1905 _Vienna Rules_), the Editorial Committee was given the usual power to alter wording, examples, or location of Articles and Recommendations in so far as the meaning was not affected, but was requested to retain the present numbering in so far as possible. The Section adopted the now traditional procedures of requiring a 60% majority of the votes cast for any proposal to amend the Code to be accepted, and of not considering any proposal which received more than 75 per cent 'No' votes in the Preliminary Mail Ballot. In addition it approved the procedure that has been adopted since the Tokyo Congress of 1993 by which any new proposal or any attempt to debate a proposal rejected by 75 per cent of the mail ballot, would require the support of at least 5 members of the Section. In general, the Section followed the sequence of the Code in considering the 312 proposals to amend the Code, published in Taxon between February 2002 and November 2004, of which a Synopsis, along with the Rapporteurs' comments, appeared in Taxon 54: 215-250 (February 2005). Of this 312, no less that 147 were related in some degree to orthography, 142 being in two sets of proposals by a single author. The Section identified some 20 of these proposals upon which it wished to take definitive action (usually to reject) and referred the remainder to the Editorial Committee. Only the major topics addressed in the remaining 165 proposals are outlined here (the full list of actions on each proposal will appear in the November issue of Taxon, along with the results of the Preliminary mail ballot). Unlike at some previous Congresses few, if any, issues of major impact on the rules of nomenclature came before the Vienna Congress (but see below for two relating to fungi). The one that might have, the proposal to abandon a description in Latin as a requirement for the valid publication of the name of a new taxon, received more than 90% `No' votes in the mail ballot and was not considered further. Probably the most conceptually fundamental decision taken in Vienna was the introduction into the Code of an entirely new concept in botanical nomenclature, although one that is well- established in zoological nomenclature. This is the provision for binding decisions on the application of the Code, in this case the interpretation of Art. 32.1(c) of the ICBN, dealing with whether or not a descriptive statement meets the requirement of that Article for a "description or diagnosis" - the so-called "nomina subnuda" situation. Previously the Code provided for rulings on whether or not two names or epithets are confusable, and, of course, on "disadvantageous nomenclatural change" in the conservation and rejection of names, but not on interpretation of the Code itself. The procedure established is the same as that for judgement on whether names or epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused (Art. 53.5) and the General Committee will probably need to establish mechanisms to ensure that proposed rulings coming from the different Permanent Committees are reasonably consistent in their interpretation of Art. 32.1(c). In addition to this step, some clarification on what constitutes a description or diagnosis was also accepted: statements on usage of plants, on cultural and cultivation features, and on geographical origin or geological age are not acceptable, nor is the mere mention of features but not their expression. Clarification and extension of some of the rules dealing with valid publication of new combinations (Art. 33) were also accepted. An important step was to deal, at long last, with names appearing in theses submitted for a higher degree. As soon as these ceased to be typewritten with carbon copies, or as soon as they were made available commercially by photo-reproduction, they had to be treated as effectively published under the Code as currently worded. In most countries this was not the intent of the authors and names appearing in such theses were normally published later in more regular publications. The difficulty in resolving this question arose from the fact that in some other countries, notably, the Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries, theses, to be accepted, must be produced in substantial numbers, and are intended as effectively published media. It was agreed that no thesis submitted for a higher degree on or after 1 January 1953 is considered an effectively published work, without a statement to that effect or other internal evidence (e.g. an ISBN, or a commercial publisher). One of only two Special Committees to report to the Vienna Congress was the Committee on Electronic Publication. Both its (alternative) proposals received more than 75% "No" votes in the mail ballot, but the Section agreed to a discussion of the issues and eventually accepted a proposal arising from the work of an ad hoc group meeting during the Congress that commended publication, under certain conditions, of taxonomic novelties in electronic journals that also distributed a printed version. A very important change in the Code, as it affects certain groups of organisms now recognized as fungi, was the extension to fungi of the provision of the second sentence of Art. 45.4, previously applicable only to algae. This deals with the names of taxa originally assigned to a group not covered by the ICBN, but which are now considered to be either algae - or now also fungi. To be accepted as validly published under the ICBN, such names need only meet the requirements of the pertinent non- botanical Code. The particular situation that triggered the proposal was that of the Microsporidia, long considered protozoa and now recognized as fungi. In addition, species names in the genus _Pneumocystis_ (Archiascomycetes), containing important human and other mammalian pathogens, none of which were validly published under the St. Louis Code (usually because of the lack of a Latin diagnosis or description), are now also to be treated as validly published. The change may have negative effects on a few names in groups longer established as fungi such as slime moulds, labyrinthulids and trichomycetes, at least on authorship, but the numbers and importance are considered small compared with the benefits for the microsporidians and the species of _Pneumosystis_. The Code has long provided for a dual nomenclature for fungi with a pleomorphic life history. Proposals to amend the article involved (Art. 59) in order to facilitate a single name for fungal taxa for which the anamorph-teleomorph relationship is known had not received support from the Committee for Fungi, but did receive documented support from a considerable number of mycologists unable to attend the Congress. Mycologists present agreed on one very significant change in Art. 59, through which, by using the epitype concept, a name, currently only applicable to an anamorph, may be applied in the future to the whole organism (the holomorph). A Special Committee to report to the next Congress was also established to address broader issues of the nomenclature of fungi with a pleomorphic life history. The Section also agreed to the establishment of a Special Committee to report to the next Congress in 2011 on the nomenclature of cyanobacteria / cyanophyta jointly with relevant appointees from the Commission on Prokaryote Nomenclature (probably through the International Association for Cyanophyte Research). At St. Louis, the rather ambiguous restriction on illustrations as types of names published after the type method entered the Code was clarified by prohibiting illustrations as types of names published on or after 1 January 1958, unless "it is impossible to preserve a specimen", a condition that most felt hard to define unambiguously. Many also felt that this "clarification" had had the effect of retroactively devalidating names published after 1957 with an illustration as type. It was decided that for names of microscopic algae and microfungi for which preservation of a type was technically difficult, the type might be an illustration, but that for all other organisms, names published on or after 1 January 2007 would require a specimen as type. A proposal to permit illustrations as types of names of microfossils, even although inherently rather similar to that covering microscopic algae and fungi, was not successful. Stemming from the _Report of the Special Committee on Suprageneric Names_ set up at the St. Louis Congress, it was agreed that the starting date for valid publication of suprageneric names of spermatophytes, pteridophytes and bryophytes (excl. those mosses already with a 1801 starting date) be 4 August 1789, the date of publication of Jussieu's _Genera plantarum_. This restores the original basis of spermatophyte family names in App. IIB, dating to the Montreal Congress of 1959, which had never been included in any article of the Code, and which had had to be changed in the St. Louis Code as a result of the Tokyo Congress failing to support a proposal similar to this one and the St. Louis Congress deleting a protecting footnote. The Section also established that double author citation is not justified or permitted at suprageneric ranks. The rules determining when a rank is denoted by a misplaced term (and hence not validly published) were clarified and made more practical. This introduced the concepts of "minimum invalidity", by which only those names with rank-denoting terms that must be removed to provide the correct sequence would be considered not validly published, and of "informal usage", for situations in which the same term was used for several different non- sequential ranks; such names are to be treated as validly published but unranked. It was established that having the ranks of both order and family in a work precluded application of Art. 18.2 (and similarly Art. 19.2 in the cases of suborder and subfamily), and that sequential use of the same rank did not preclude valid publication. The Section also agreed to a rephrasing of the rules dealing with morphotaxa, which, as defined in the St. Louis Code, covered all fossil taxa. There will now be an exception to this in that a taxon that, when first described, is indicated as including more than one part, life-history stage, or preservational state, will not be treated as a morphotaxon. Clarification was made of several matters, already inherent in the Code, such as the fact that a name (e.g. an autonym) being validly published does not imply recognition of any particular taxonomic circumscription, and the fact that the name of a taxon of Recent organisms does not displace an earlier homonym applicable to a fossil taxon. A proposal to extend conservation of names to all ranks (as is currently the case for rejection of names) failed to gain a 60 per cent majority, and a proposal to protect names of subdivisions of conserved families was also unsuccessful. A proposal from the floor to restrict the application of Art. 20.2 to Latin technical terms was successful, which has the practical implication that _Cleistogenes_ (Poaceae) is established as validly published, a matter that has long been in dispute. (The replacement name, _Kengia_, is thus illegitimate). The Section supported the suggestion that a glossary, strictly limited to those terms appearing and defined in the Code, be included in the Vienna Code. Finally, with regard to Proposals, the Section devoted a very considerable amount of time - and even took a card vote - on a matter that was apparently of great consequence to some present, namely the position of the multiplication sign (x) before a nothogeneric formula or in front of a nothospecific or notho- infraspecific epithet. Eventually good sense prevailed and all attempts to rule on printing details were defeated, and it was agreed that the sign should be placed so as to express that it belonged with the name or epithet but was not actually part of it. Reports of Permanent Committees: The reports of the Permanent Committees for Algae, Bryophyta, Fossil Plants, Fungi, Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta were received. The Report of the Committee for Pteridophyta included a recommendation that the Committee be dissolved as its work load was extremely light and none of the current members was prepared to serve as Secretary. The Congress accepted this recommendation and amended Division III.2 accordingly and renamed the Committee for Spermatophyta the "Committee for Vascular Plants", reflecting its new, wider role. In view of the widespread interest expressed in the taxonomic community in the proposal to conserve the name _Acacia_ with a new type, the Report of the General Committee was presented in two parts, the first, dealing with all matters except that approving Committee for Spermatophyta Report no. 55 (_Taxon_ 53: 826-829. 2004), was approved without discussion. In the second part it was reported that the General Committee had approved the recommendation of the Committee for Spermatophyta that the name _Acacia_ be conserved with _A. penninervis_ Sieber ex DC., applicable to a species of the Australian subgenus _Phyllodineae_, as type, replacing the currently cited type, _A. scorpioides_ (L.) W. F. Wight, universally treated as a synonym of _A. nilotica_, a species widely distributed in Africa. It was proposed from the floor that the decision of the General Committee be overturned. The President noted that this would require a 60 per cent majority, as this was analogous to a proposal to amend the Code, and after extensive and very well- reasoned discussion, the proposal to overturn the decision failed, gaining a vote of 247 : 203, a majority of only 54.9 per cent. Consequently the type of the name _Acacia_ is confirmed as _A. penninervis_ and, if the some 160 species of the former _Acacia_ subg. _Acacia_ are treated as a separate genus, the correct name is _Vachellia_, whereas the 1000 or so species of what was _Acacia_ subg. _Phyllodineae_ will retain the name _Acacia_. Regardless of the conservation proposal, adopting the recent widely accepted taxonomic splitting means that over 200 other Acacia species, some 70 in Africa, are segregated as _Senegalia_. [As explained by the Rapporteur-general, in answer to a question in the final plenary session of the full Congress, the reason for the requirement of a 60 per cent% vote to overturn the decision of the General Committee was that Art. 14.14 of the Code makes clear that the de facto decision on conservation and rejection of names rests with the General Committee, in that botanists are authorized to adopt such names in the sense of the conservation, pending the decision of a later IBC, and that such names often appear in editions of the Code, prefixed by an asterisk (see, e.g. the Berlin Code - _Regnum Veg._ 118: 111. 1988). Whereas the Nomenclature Section has the final decision, overturning a decision of the General Committee is clearly a momentous step and, like an amendment to the Code, is not to be taken lightly.] Nominations to the, now only seven, Permanent Nomenclatural Committees (see Division III of the Code) were approved (details have been published in the November 2005 issue of _Taxon_) and John McNeill was re-appointed Rapporteur-general for the XVIII Congress, which the final session of the full Congress later agreed would be in Melbourne, Australia from 24-30 July 2011 - with the Nomenclature Section presumably in the preceding days. As usual the final plenary session of the Congress resolved that the decisions of its Nomenclature Section with respect to the _International Code of Botanical Nomenclature_, as well as the appointment of officers and members of the nomenclature committees, made by that section during its meetings, 12-16 July, be accepted. ________________________________________________________________ Subscriptions: http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l Send submissions to aceska@telus.net BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ ________________________________________________________________ From aceska@telus.net Thu Feb 16 17:15:02 2006 From: aceska@telus.net (Adolf Ceska) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:15:02 -0800 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 357 Message-ID: <000801c6331c$87230d40$f1dcb440@xphome> BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X BB B EE NNN N BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS No. 357 February 16, 2006 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- WORKSHOP: ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF ECOLOGICAL DATA Special Three-day Workshop May 15-17, 2006 ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508 Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data Using JUICE Software: How to Use the JUICE Package in Combination with Turboveg, Twinspan, PC-ORD, MULVA, SYN-TAX, D-MAP, CANOCO and Others to Extend the Possibilities of these Programs The workshop will be conducted by Dr. Lubomir Tichy, Department of Botany, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Description: This three-day course will combine lectures with hands-on application to teach the basic concepts and advanced features of the JUICE 6.3 freeware, computing package based on the Microsoft WINDOWS platform. The workshop will include: 1. Databases as Important Sources of Ecological Information - Differences between Small and Large Data Sets. 2. The Basics of Working with Vegetation Tables. 3. Available Classifications, Ordinations and other Analyses. 4. Synoptic Tables, the Fidelity Concept, Similarity Indices, Beta-Diversity etc. 5. Parameterization of Species and Vegetation Units with Using Environmental Variables. 6. Finalization of Results for Publication. 7. Published Sample Data (e. g. non-forest vegetation classification of the Czech Republic - ca. 20.000 records; a vegetation data set combined with mollusk data - about 150 records; a large data set with measured environmental variables - about 500 records). The workshop will be held at Alaska Pacific University and be limited to 10 participants. Cost of workshop: $200 (a special price is available for fulltime students). Checks, Visa, or purchase order should be made payable to "Alaska Pacific University" and sent to: JUICE Workshop, Environmental Science, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508; telephone contact for payment is L. A. Piper, Environmental Science Office @ (907) 564-8207; FAX (907) 562- 4276; email: . Classes from 9:00 -12:00 and 1:00 - 4:00 pm. Participants should bring their own laptop computers. Further information concerning the JUICE package may be found on the Web homepage (http://www.sci.muni.cz/botany/juice.htm); a JUICE Manual will be available for distribution two weeks prior to the workshop. Questions concerning the workshop should be addressed to: Stephen Talbot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; phone (907) 786-3381, fax (907) 786- 3905, email: stephen_talbot@fws.gov. THE REDISCOVERY OF ONE OF CANADA'S RAREST PLANTS: YUKON DRABA (_DRABA YUKONENSIS_ PORSILD) From: B.A. Bennett, NatureServe, Yukon Yukon Draba or Yukon Whitlow-grass (_Draba yukonensis_ Porsild) has morecommon names than populations. It is only known from a single site in the vicinity of Haines Junction outside of Kluane National Park. It was first collected in 1944 by Hugh M. Raupand his wife L.G. Raup. In 1957 it was collected again by Dr. Wilf Schofield and H.A. Crum from just outside their tentswhile camping near the Alaska Highway. This was likely the same site as where Raup had collected it 13 years earlier. At that time the collection was called _Draba oligosperma_, a species which still grows in abundance in the area. It wasn't until 1975 that the species Draba yukonensis was recognized and its description was published by Alf Erling Porsild, based on the collection made by Dr. Schofield. That is all that was known about the species until 2005. In 2000 a very enthusiastic amateur botanist from New York City decided to come to the southwest Yukon and volunteer to look for plants on behalf of Kluane National Park & Preserve. With the knowledge of the approximate location and a short description of the way to separate this species from 28 other species of _Draba_ in the area, Phil Caswell began searching. His search came up fruitless, but he did discover that arctic ground squirrels feed on the seed heads of _Draba_, often consuming the entire above ground portion of the plant. Phil's search raised the interest of locals and park staff alike. But still no plants were found. Each year 100's of _Draba_ collections were examined from the area. Many new locales of other globally rare _Draba_ species such a _Draba scotteri_, _Draba ventosa_ and _Draba porsildii_ were found but _Draba yukonensis_ remained elusive. In the fall of 2004, _Draba yukonensis_ was listed as Globally Historic (GH); the only species with this designation at that time in Canada. This is one step away from being declared extinct. It was felt that after four years of searching and 47 years with no new collections, the population type locality must have been lost; still there was hope that somewhere a new population of this distinctive species would be found. In the spring of 2005, Wilf Schofield provided precise directions to his original collection site, which despite being near to the Alaska Highway had not altered much in the subsequent 48 years. Just as these new instructions were being emailed to the Parks office, Phil and longtime park warden Lloyd Freese were on the search for the elusive endemic _Draba_. Phil was showing Lloyd its closest look alike, _Draba cana_, when Lloyd showed Phil some freshly collected plants. To their great surprise they had rediscovered the secret stand of _Draba yukonensis_, in the same location that it had been found by others half a century before. At that time 18 plants were counted in two small populations, not counting the 3 that had been inadvertently collected. However 4 days later only 13 plants could be found. It was thought that perhaps some had been overlooked on the second count as they are difficult to see and the vegetation had advanced over the long days of the Yukon summer. By early June the plants had gone to seed but by now only 8 plants could be found. Photographs were taken of all the individuals to capture some of their individual characteristics. Arrangements were made to attempt to collect the maturing seed and propagate them in the greenhouse of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. There was some concern that if these plants were indeed the last of their kind, and the original description that referred to them as biennials was correct, collecting the seed could further jeopardize the population. However, when the plants were surveyed again in late June to look for mature seed it was discovered that all the plants had now disappeared. They had likely become forage for the arctic ground squirrel. In the fall of 2005, Dr. G.A. Mulligan with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food in Ottawa was reviewing collections at the National herbarium (DAO). He discovered a fourth collection made by G.W. & G.G.Douglas, in June 27th, 1973. Two specimens of _Draba yukonensis_ were mixed with nine specimens of _Draba cana_; once again apparently from the type locality. It remains to be seen whether the species has survived. Further attempts to find individuals will be made in the spring of 2006. Sadly, soon after confirming the identity of his long sought quarry, Phil Caswell passed away on November 12, 2005. He will be sorely missed by his friends and colleagues, especially those who had the pleasure to work with him over the last 20 years in Yukon and Alaska. JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE, AN ADDITION TO THE PRIORITIZED LIST OF THE INVASIVE ALIEN PLANTS OF NATURAL HABITATS IN CANADA From: Paul M. Catling(1), Brendon M. H. Larson(2), and Gerry Waldron(3) (1) Biodiversity, National Program on Environmental Health, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Wm. Saunders Bldg., Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6 [catlingp@agr.gc.ca ]; (2) Center for Population Biology, 2310 Storer Hall, University of California, Davis, California, USA 95616 (3) 7641 County Road 20, R. R. #1, Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada N9V 2Y7 Japanese honeysuckle (_Lonicera japonica_ Thunb. ex Murray) was not reported for Ontario by either Soper and Heimburger (1982) or Morton and Venn (1989), nor for Canada by Scoggan (1979). This is not surprising since the earliest mention is that of Maycock et al. in 1976 in an unpublished report. The earliest collections of plants evidently established on their own in a natural setting were the collection of C. A. Campbell in 1974 near Scudder on Pelee Island in Essex County (CAN), followed by the collection of Reznicek et al. in 1976 from Point Pelee in Essex County (the basis for Maycock's report, specimen at CAN) followed by the collection of M.J. Oldham on Cedar Creek in Essex County in 1981 (TRTE). Since the shrubs of the Carolinian zone were relatively well studied (e.g. Soper and Heimburger 1982), there is reason to believe that it established in the natural environment of Ontario only recently during the 1970s and 1980s. By the early 1990s it had been found in several locations in Essex county and near London in Middlesex County (MICH, TRTE), Port Bruce Provincial Park in Elgin County (Oldham et al. 1993, UWO), and in Kent County (MICH). The first collection from the eastern Lake Erie region was from Fort Erie in 2000 (DAO). The first published literature report for Ontario was that of Botham (1981), with more recent published literature reports including those of Oldham et al. (1993), Catling (1997) and Newmaster et al. (1998). Although present and well-known in Ontario by1996, it was not enough of a problem to be included by respondents to the national survey of invasive plants (Haber 1996) and it was not evaluated for the prioritized list of invasive alien plants of natural habitats in Canada (Catling 2005). However, based on current knowledge Japanese honeysuckle is clearly worthy of evaluation. Thus the elaborate and detailed invasive species assessment protocol (Morse et al. 2004), which was used to generate Canada's list, was applied to it. Japanese honeysuckle was found to be the fifty-third most significant invasive alien of natural habitats in Canada (Catling 2005). The invasive species assessment protocol developed by Morse et al. ( 2004) includes 20 questions grouped into four sections: Ecological impact (1), Current Distribution and Abundance (2), Trend in Distribution and Abundance (3), and Management Difficulty (4). Based on numerical scores a subrank is calculated for each section. An overall I-rank indicating impact on native biodiversity in the region of interest is then calculated from the subranks. With regard to Section 1, since Japanese honeysuckle has only recently established, impact is limited and scores for various factors are in the moderate to low range. Notable aspects are influence on light availability and tendency to overtop native vegetation. Since it occurs in parks and protected areas containing significant biodiversity, the threat is substantial but impact on native species in Canada needs to be quantified. Section 2 of the evaluation assesses current distribution and abundance in the region. Since Japanese honeysuckle occurs only in a small part of southern Canada within a single ecoregion and its impacts occur over a small part of the current Canadian range, the score for this section is low. Section 3 evaluates trend and here Japanese honesuckle is highly significant. High scores in this section indicate species with a major potential to spread further and to cause greater damage. The range of Japanese honeysuckle is expanding. Although it is essentially confined in Canada to the Carolinian zone, a restricted region of extreme southern Ontario, the plant hardiness zone (5b) that it occurs in extends throughout much of Nova Scotia and into southern British Columbia. Consequently, less than 10 per cent of its potential Canadian range is occupied. Expansion into this range could occur through dispersal by birds and people, which is likely effective over long distances. Finally, a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow Japanese honeysuckle to spread up to 400 km northward and to be an even more serious competitor as a result of increased growth rate (Sasek and Strain 1990, 1991). The final section of the evaluation considers management difficulty and here Japanese honeysuckle has a low to moderate significance. Since it is semi-evergreen it can be readily located in late fall and early winter for control applications, but it does resprout readily after cutting. In a case like this where an invasive plant scores very high in trend and relatively low in management difficulty, it is suggested that it can benefit from early detection and quick action aimed at control or eradication. For more information on Japanese honeysuckle see Nuzzo (1997) and Larson et al. (2006). References Botham, W. 1981. _Plants of Essex County - a preliminary list._ Essex Region Conservation Authority. 124 p. Catling, P.M. 1997. The problem of invading alien trees and shrubs: some observations in Ontario and a Canadian Checklist. _Canadian Field-Naturalist_ 111: 338-342. Catling, P.M. and G. Mitrow. 2005. A prioritized list of the invasive alien plants of natural habitats in Canada. _Can. Bot. Assoc. Bull._ 38(4): 55-57. Haber, E. 1996. _Invasive plants of Canada: 1996 national survey results._ Biodiversity Convention Office. http://24.114.142.233/nbs/ipcan/survey.html Larson, B.M.H., P.M. Catling and G. Waldron. 2006. Biology of Canadian Weeds. _Lonicera japonica_. _Can. J. Pl. Sci._ (in prep.). Maycock, P.F., Reznicek, A.A., and Gregory, D.R. 1976. _Point Pelee dryland vegetation resource analysis._ Unpublished report, Parks Canada. Morse, L. E., J. M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert and S. Lu. 2004. _An invasive species assessment protocol - evaluating non- native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1._ NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/getData/plantData.jsp Morton, J.K. and J.M. Venn. 1989. _A synonymized checklist of the flora of Ontario- vascular plants._ Dept. of Biology, University of Waterloo. Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray, and M.J. Oldham. 1998. _Ontario plant list._ Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario), Forest Research Information Paper 123. Nuzzo, V. 1997. _Element stewardship abstract for Lonicera japonica._ The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/lonijapo.html Oldham, M.J., W.G. Stewart, and D. McLeod. 1993. Additions to "_A Guide to the Flora of Elgin County, Ontario_" for 1992. _The Cardinal_ 151:18-20. Sasek, T. W. and Strain, B. R. 1990. Implications of atmospheric CO2 enrichment and climatic change for the geographical distribution of two introduced vines in the U.S.A. _Clim. Change_ 16: 31-51. Sasek, T. W. and Strain, B. R. 1991. Effects of CO2 enrichment on the growth and morphology of a native and an introduced honeysuckle vine. _Am. J. Bot._ 78: 69-75. Scoggan, H.J. 1979. _The flora of Canada, part 4 - Dicotyledoneae (Loasaaceae to Compsitae)._ National Museum of Natural Sciences Publications in Botany No. 7(4): 1117- 1711. Soper, J. H. and M. L.Heimburger. 1982. _Shrubs of Ontario._ Royal Ontario Museum Publications in Life Sciences. 495 p. Voss, E.G. 1996. _Michigan flora, part III, Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae)._ University of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 622 p. ________________________________________________________________ Subscriptions: http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l Send submissions to aceska@telus.net BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ ________________________________________________________________ From aceska@telus.net Mon Feb 27 19:30:21 2006 From: aceska@telus.net (Adolf Ceska) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:30:21 -0800 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 358 Message-ID: <003b01c63bd4$3ff600b0$f1dcb440@xphome> BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X BB B EE NNN N BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS No. 358 February 27, 2006 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- COMING CONFERENCE: VERNAL POOLS IN THE CHICO AREA Butte Environmental Council presents The Vernal Pool Complexes of the Northstate: Biology, Conservation, and Management Conference When: March 23 and 24, 2006 Where: Sierra Nevada Brewery, 1075 E. 20th Street, Chico, CA Butte Environmental Council (BEC) is hosting this conference and tours on March 23rd and 24th from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Sierra Nevada Brewery in Chico. There will be presentations by eminent scholars and agency representatives concerning plant and animal species dependent on the vernal pool ecosystem, conservation efforts and needs, and what management techniques have been used to enhance the viability of certain sites. If you wonder why you need to attend, consider some of these facts. California has lost 95% of the estimated five |million acres of wetlands that were present in the 1780's (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Four million original Central Valley wetland acres have been filled or degraded, leaving only 380,000 acres (Daly, Sundquist, Waldeck 1992). Vernal pools have been severely impacted. It is commonly accepted that vernal pool habitat losses are over 90% throughout their historic range (Wright 2002). With the Central Valley growing at twice the rate as the rest of the state this habitat continues to be lost at an alarming rate. The conference will assist planners, ranchers, conservationists, students, and builders to understand the importance of the vernal pool landscape and what mechanisms exist or are currently under development to protect the ecosystem. For more info: http://www.becnet.org/nodes/events/other/conf_vernalpools_2006.htm A KEY TO _JUNCUS_ SECTION _JUNCOTYPUS_ IN BRITISH COLUMBIA From: Peter F. Zika, WTU herbarium, Box 355325, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5325, U.S.A. The most recent classification of _Juncus_ section _Juncotypus_ Dumort. (syn. section _Genuini_) is found in Kirschner et al. (2002) and Balslev (1996). Members of the group are distinctive in having a seemingly lateral inflorescence and an erect inflorescence bract that resembles a continuation of the stem. In our area most of the species are leafless, and look like "stick- figures" with bladeless sheaths (cataphylls) and green, photosynthetic stems (culms). Some are important components of wetland and montane plant communities, like _J. balticus_ Willd., _J. effusus_ L., and _J. drummondii_ E. Mey. The _Juncus effusus_ complex was left unresolved in the treatment by Brooks (2000) in the _Flora of North America_. Starting with the work of Lint (1977) the Pacific Northwest species have gradually been elucidated, but the taxa are still poorly known to most botanists in the region. A global perspective of _J. effusus_ taxa and their relatives was provided by (Kirschner et al. 2002). To grasp the species in our area, it helps to examine the width of the stems. Our broad- stemmed members include introductions such as _Juncus conglomeratus_ L. of Eurasia, and _J. pylaei_ Laharpe of eastern North America. In British Columbia our common coastal native with a stout stem is _J. effusus_ subsp. _pacificus_ (Fernald & Wiegand) Piper & Beattie, but until recently it was confused with two introduced subspecies. These were sorted out nicely by Hamet-Ahti (1980), who discussed eastern North American taxa naturalized in British Columbia, while Zika (2003) illustrated and mapped the native subspecies of _Juncus effusus_ on the west coast. I agree with the European view that _Juncus effusus_ is represented by a Eurasian subspecies, an African subspecies, and in North America by an eastern subspecies. Two more subspecies are found in western North America, one on the Mexican border, and the other from California to British Columbia (Zika 2003). These subspecies are united by their stout smooth stems, weak stem striations, similar fruits and tepal lengths. The subspecies show discrete distributions, but these have become more obscure due to their weedy tendencies where recently introduced and naturalized in the Pacific Northwest. The subspecies can be differentiated by native range and habit, as well as anther and sheath characters (Kirschner et al. 2002). There are three slender-stemmed species of Juncus closely related to _J. effusus_ in western North America (Snogerup et al. 2002). Two of these are found in British Columbia, _J. laccatus_ Zika (syn. _J. effusus_ var. _gracilis_ Hook.), and _J. hesperius_ (Piper) Lint (syn. _J. effusus_ var. _bruneus_ Engelm.). As Ceska (2001) points out these are easily separated from _J. effusus_ by several sheath features, but they also differ in tepal color, stem width, fresh stem texture, and the number of stem striations or ridges when dry. Their ranges overlap broadly, and they often grow side by side while maintaining their differences, so I do not agree with other treatments that consider them geographic varieties of _J. effusus_. Hybrids between these taxa, and between them and _J. effusus_ s. str. are quite rare. Their ranges also differ. _Juncus hesperius_ is coastal in British Columbia, like _J. laccatus_, but to the south they diverge. In the Cascade Mountains and Sierra Nevada _J. laccatus_ becomes montane, while _J. hesperius_ is essentially coastal, all the way to southern California. With distinct morphology and discrete ranges, it is not surprising these taxa were recognized by early botanists like Englemann, Hooker, and Piper. But the emphasis on floral characters in regional works, like Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) has obscured their prominent differences in stem and sheath structure. Another trouble spot in _Juncus_ section _Juncotypus_ has long been the complex involving _Juncus balticus_ Willd. and _J. arcticus_ Willd. (see Ceska 2001). The concepts followed here are those of Snogerup et al. (2002), who showed we have one subspecies representing each taxon in western North America. These are separable by their stamens and by the shape of their ripe capsules. Both range far north into the American arctic. _Juncus balticus_ grows further south, reaching Mexico. It is more much common than _J. arcticus_ in our province, and _J. balticus_ is the only member of section _Juncotypus_ that grows in salt marshes. Both _J. balticus_ and _J. arcticus_ are found in eastern and northeastern British Columbia. There are some closely related species that muddy the marsh. One is the coastal _Juncus haenkei_ E. Mey. (syn. _J. arcticus_ subsp. _sitchensis_ Engelm.), found in the Russian Far East as well as southeastern and southwestern Alaska, and south to the Queen Charlotte Islands. The strong fruit beak immediately differentiates it from _J. arcticus_ subsp. _alaskanus_ Hulten, while short anthers distinguish it from _J. balticus_ subsp. _ater_ (Rydb.) Snogerup (syn. _J. arcticus_ var. _balticus_ (Willd.) Trautv.; _J. balticus_ var. _vallicola_ Rydb.; and _J. balticus_ var. _montanus_ Engelm.). Lint (1977) believed that the varieties of _J. balticus_ might be worth recognizing in our area, and this still needs investigation. Our plants vary considerably in inflorescence size, stem diameter, sheath height, color and luster, but I have not found consistent ecogeographic patterns. A fourth species in this group is _Juncus breweri_ Engelm. (_J. lescurii_ Bol. misapplied in Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973), which is found from the Queen Charlotte Islands south to California. _Juncus breweri_ is restricted to coastal sand, and has a uniquely large and thickened perianth and dense flower head, among other differences. A key is provided below to serve as a summary. The key is designed for mature plants, with roots, intact leaf sheaths with undamaged summits, and ripe fruits with seed. Anthers and filaments are preserved under the perianth (tepals), even late in the season when the plants are fruiting, so there is no need to make collections of flowering plants. I have verified at least one British Columbia herbarium specimen for each taxon. Representative specimens for taxa not included in Ceska (2001). _Juncus balticus_ subsp. _ater_ (Brayshaw 4075 V) _Juncus effusus_ subsp. _effusus_ (Zika 16569 PRA, WTU) _Juncus effusus_ subsp. _pacificus_ (George & Clark s.n. UVIC) _Juncus effusus_ subsp. _solutus_ (Ceska & Mitchell s.n. UC) _Juncus haenkei_ (Calder et al. 36659 WTU) _Juncus hesperius_ (T.M.C. Taylor 92 GH) _Juncus laccatus_ (Calder, Savile & Taylor 23234 DAO, UBC, UC) _Juncus pylaei_ (Malte s.n. CAN) A key to _Juncus_ section _Juncotypus_ in British Columbia * = introductions 1. Long-rhizomatous, plants in linear or loose colonies. 2. Fruiting perianth 6 - 8 mm long. 3. Anthers equaling or 1.5 x as long as the 0.5 - 1.0 mm long filaments; stems round and erect; inflorescence sparse and usually slightly loose; from the Queen Charlotte Islands north to coastal Alaska and northeast Asia ............................ _J. haenkei_ E. Mey. 3. Anthers 4 - 5 x as long as the 0.2 - 0.4 mm long filaments; stems often slightly flattened and arching; inflorescence usually dense and hemispherical to globular; from the Queen Charlotte Islands south to California ...................... _J. breweri_ Engelm. 2. Fruiting perianth 3.0 - 5.5 mm long. 4. Tepals and capsules green, pale brown, or pale reddish; anthers shorter than or equal to 0.5 - 0.9 mm long filaments; inflorescence usually near or below half way point from base of stem to tip of involucral bract ................................... _J. filiformis_ L. 4. Tepals and capsules with dark brown to blackish coloration; anthers longer than 0.3 - 1.0 mm long filaments; inflorescence usually well above half way point from base of stem to tip of involucral bract. 5. Anthers 1.2 - 2.2 mm long, 2 - 6 x as long as 0.3 - 0.7 mm long filaments; inflorescence usually diffuse; mature fruit usually shorter than tepals _J. balticus_ Willd. subsp. _ater_ (Rydb.) Snogerup [see Editorial Note below] 5. Anthers 0.6 - 1.2 mm long, slightly longer than 0.5 - 1.0 mm long filaments; inflorescence usually compact; mature fruit usually longer than tepals. 6. Capsule blunt to truncate, abruptly tapered to very short persistent stylar beak 0.0 - 0.2 mm long; inner tepals blunt, margins broadly scarious; inflorescence bract less than 6 cm long . _J. arcticus_ Willd. subsp. _alaskanus_ Hulten 6. Capsule acute to acuminate, gradually tapered to prominent beak, beak + persisting style 0.3 - 1.0 mm long; inner tepals acuminate, margins narrowly scarious; inflorescence bract usually 10 - 20 cm long ....................... _J. haenkei_ E. Mey. 1. Cespitose, plants in dense tufts like a bunchgrass. 7. Stamens 6; seeds blunt (1 species) or with long tails nearly equaling seed body. 8. Seeds blunt; inflorescence usually near or below half way point from base of stem to tip of involucral bract ................................... _J. filiformis_ L. 8. Seeds with long tails; inflorescence well above half way point from base of stem to tip of involucral bract. 9. Sheaths bladeless, apex with hair-like bristle; capsule apex notched ...... _J. drummondii_ E. Mey. 9. Sheaths with well-developed leaf blades resembling the stems; capsule apex acute .. _J. parryi_ Englem. 7. Stamens 3; seeds with blunt or short-apiculate tips. 10. Fresh upper stems dull or matt, evidently ridged near inflorescence (roll several stems together to feel ridges); dried stems usually coarsely ridged, ridges visible in high relief on dried stems; dried ridges capped with shiny papillose cells (use 10x magnification). 11. Inflorescence bract swollen at base of inflorescence; in fruit bract often somewhat reflexed; sheath bases warm reddish-brown; upper sheaths 15-23 cm long; inflorescence capitate or lobed; 18-24 ridges visible on one side of stem ......................... _J. conglomeratus_ L. * 11. Inflorescence bract not swollen; in fruit bract erect; sheath bases dark red-brown to more usually purplish-black; upper sheaths 5-12 cm long; inflorescence usually open; 8 -16 ridges visible on one side of stem ....... _J. pylaei_ Laharpe * 10. Fresh upper stems shiny, smooth or nearly so near inflorescence, striations inconspicuous until dried, dried stems usually with finer ridges, these visible in lower relief on dried stems; dried ridgetops lined with low dull cells. 12. Upper sheath apex strongly asymmetrical on fruiting stems. 13. Sheath apex strongly thickened, with a raised rim; sheath dark brown to black; fruiting stems stout, 2.2- 4.9 mm thick just above upper sheath apex; tepals usually pale to medium brown _J. effusus_ L. subsp. _pacificus_ (Fernald & Wiegand) Piper & Beattie 13. Sheath apex thin with broad membranous wings; sheath green (fresh) to pale or medium brown (dried); fruiting stems slender, 0.8-2.0 mm thick just above upper sheath apex; tepals with dark brown to black stripes ................. _J. hesperius_ (Piper) Lint 12. Upper sheath apex essentially symmetrical on fruiting stems. 14. Fruiting stems slender, 0.8-2.0 mm thick just above upper sheath apex; fresh perianth striped with medium to dark brown; stems with 8-12 coarser striations visible on one side; upper sheath thickened, glossy, dark brown, castaneous, or black; sheath veins inconspicuous or obscure; native, coastal .......................... _J. laccatus_ Zika 14. Fruiting stems stout, 2.2-4.9 mm thick just above upper sheath apex; perianth usually pale brown; stems with 18-26 fine striations visible on one side (most easily seen when stem is dried); upper sheaths thin and membranous, matt, green (fresh) to light brown (dried), sometimes with darker margins; sheath veins conspicuous when dry, raised; widespread introductions along the coast and inland. 15. Sheath margins on fruiting stems overlapping 2-4 cm from apex (i.e., overlapping in the distal third); sheaths of fertile stems usually 6-14 cm long, upper sheath margins usually with dark marginal band; tepals spreading or curving away from mature capsule; mature sheaths clasping stem; Eurasian introduction ...... _J. effusus_ L. subsp. _effusus_ * 15. Sheath margins on fruiting stems split deeply, often more than half the sheath, sometimes to base; longer sheaths of fertile stems usually 15-27 cm long, upper sheath margins usually lack dark marginal band; tepals erect or appressed to mature capsule; mature sheaths often loose or lax, flattened or unrolled, and not clasping stem; eastern North American introduction _J. effusus_ L. subsp. _solutus_ (Fernald & Wiegand) Hamet-Ahti * Editorial Note: In this concept presented here, _Juncus balticus_ subsp. _ater_ contains both the plant of saline coastal habitats and that of the oligotrophic shores of inland lakes. In his Ph.D. thesis, Lint (1977) described the former as "_J. balticus_ subsp. _occidentalis_", but the name has never been validly published. Although the author of this key does not agree with treating the coastal plants as a different taxon, the BEN editor suspects that there may be a case for this division, and he urges plant taxonomists on the West Coast of North America to have another look at this problem. - AC References Balslev, H. 1996. Juncaceae. _Flora Neotropica Monograph_ 68: 1- 168. Brooks, R.E. 2000. _Juncus_ Linnaeus subg. _Genuini_. Pp. 212- 217. In: _Flora of North America north of Mexico, volume 22, Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part), and Zingiberidae_. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY. Ceska, A. 2001. _Juncaceae_. In: Douglas, G. W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, Eds. Illustrated _Flora of British Columbia, Volume 6, Monocotyledons (Acoraceae Through Najadaceae)_. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Hamet-Ahti, L. 1980. The _Juncus effusus_ aggregate in eastern North America. _Ann. Bot. Fennici_ 17: 183-191. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. _Flora of the Pacific Northwest_. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Kirschner, J., B. Ertter, L. Hamet-Ahti, L.J. Novara, V.S. Novikov, S. Snogerup, K.L. Wilson, and P.F. Zika. 2002. _Juncus_ subg. _Agathryon_ sect. _Juncotypus_. Pp. 57-145, in: Kirschner, J., Ed. _Juncaceae 3: Juncus subg. Agathryon, Species Plantarum: Flora of the World Part 8_. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia. Lint, H.L. 1977. _A revision of Juncus subgenus _Genuini_ (Juncaceae) in the Pacific States_. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Snogerup, S., P.F. Zika, and J. Kirschner. 2002. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on _Juncus_. _Preslia_ 74: 247-266. http://www.parkpruhonice.cz/preslia/P023CSno.pdf Zika, P.F. 2003. The native subspecies of _Juncus effusus_ (Juncaceae) in western North America. _Brittonia_ 55: 150- 156. ANNOUNCEMENT: MALASPINA EXPEDITION AND TADEO HAENKE From: Adolf Ceska [aceska@telus.net] Opatrny, Josef [editor] 2005. _La Expedicion de Alejandro Malaspina y Tadeo Haenke_. Ibero-Americana Pragensia Supplementum 14/2005. Universita Karlova, Praha. 175 p. ISBN 80-246-0962-2 [soft cover] Price: Kc 160.00 (= ca. US$7.00) Order from: edice@ff.cuni.cz This is a collection of papers presented at a symposium in Prague on November 5, 2004. The symposium was to commemorate 250 years since Malaspina's birthday. Eight contributions dealt with several specific aspects of the Malaspina expedition and Haenke's participation in this expedition. Two issues of BEN (# 287 & # 288) were dedicated to the legacy of Tadeo Haenke, and one of the BEN articles is cited twice in this collection. After a broad introduction by Josef Opatrny, editor of this collection, different authors cover several aspects of Malaspina's Expedition (3 articles), Haenke and his professional connection, his Alma Mater (Charles University in Prague), the fate of his collections in the Hiecke, Rautenstrach & Zienke trading company, and finally an extensive article covers Haenke and Haenke's tradition in the Bolivian town Cochabamba. This collection of papers contains a wealth of material about Malaspina's expedition and various aspects of Haenke's life and his scientific activities. However, I had great difficulty getting through this volume because it is written entirely in Spanish and none of the articles include an English abstract. In addition, the articles do not have any summaries, not even in Spanish, and readers have to scan the whole article in order to get a sense of what it contains. References and other additional information are given in the footnotes that sometimes take up half of the page. For us, the low-brow botanists, this creates additional obstacles, since most of the notes are more interesting to read than the actual text and so detract from the actual themes of each single paragraph. In spite of the difficulties in getting through this collection of papers, this opus was worth the trouble. The Malaspina expedition was marred by its tragic end, when Alejandro Malaspina was called back to return to Spain after which he was put in jail. Some results of his expedition were only first published in the 1850's, and there has been a constant trickle of new facts and findings in the archives of the Museo Naval and Royal Botanical Garden in Madrid. This collection of papers is another significant contribution to the body of Haenke & Malaspina research. A final note on this subject: the very first English translation of Malaspina's journals was recently published by the Hakluyt Society, London, in association with the Museo Naval, Madrid. For more information see: http://www.hakluyt.com/bibliography/bibliography-third-series.htm11 ________________________________________________________________ Subscriptions: http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l Send submissions to aceska@telus.net BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ ________________________________________________________________