From aceska at telus.net Mon Jan 26 17:17:30 2009 From: aceska at telus.net (Adolf & Oluna Ceska) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:17:30 -0800 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 402 Message-ID: <000401c97fd9$f9d338d0$ed79aa70$@net> This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 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 =20 No. 402 January 26, 2009 =20 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- =20 BOTANY BC 2009 - MUNCHO LAKE PARK/LIARD HOT SPRINGS BOTANY BC 2009 will take place from the evening of Wednesday July 15th through Saturday, July 18th, 2009 , based out of Muncho Lake Provincial Park Campground and Northern Rockies Lodge approximately 200km northwest = of Fort Nelson. Transportation from Prince George in vans will be available (leaving Tuesday July 14th returning Sunday July 19th). Field trips will visit sites on alluvial flood plains, the alpine, and wetlands. Many = unique plants, spectacular scenery and incredible wildlife viewing. =20 BOTANY BC is an annual meeting of botanists and plant enthusiasts of = British Columbia and is open to anyone interested in plants regardless. Although BOTANY BC meetings are focused to British Columbia, we welcome all the = plant enthusiasts from the neighbouring provinces/states, and from elsewhere = in the world.=20 Botany BC Registration and detailed program are expected to be posted to = the Botany BC website by February 28, so please keep checking the website: http://members.shaw.ca/dmeidinger/botanybc/ =20 If you have not attended a recent Botany BC and wish to receive = notification when additional details and registration forms for Botany BC 2009 are available on the Botany BC website please contact:=20 Elizabeth Easton (250) 953-3488=20 e-mail: Elizabeth.Easton@gov.bc.ca=20 =20 _POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM_ (DRYOPTERIDACEAE) FOUND AGAIN ON TEXADA = ISLAND, BRITISH COLUMBIA From: Adolf Ceska, Oldriska Ceska, John Dove, Terry Ludwar, James Mack, = & David H. Wagner c/o [aceska@telus.net] For the accompanied photos see: http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf=20 _Polystichum californicum_ (D.C. Eaton) Diels was first collected in = British Columbia in August, 1897 on =93Rocks=94 at Texada Island by W.B. = Anderson (coll. No. 666). A single, relatively small frond was deposited in the = herbarium of the Royal British Columbia Musem (V 178). The specimen was originally identified as _Polystichum scopulinum_ (D.C. Eaton) Maxon and was = listed as such in Taylor (1963, 1970). In 1976, D.H. Wagner identified the W.B. Anderson=92s specimen as _Polystichum californicum_ with a note: =93This = is the only record of this sp. from B.C.=94 This was the only specimen that = supported the claim that _Polystichum californicum_ occurred in British Columbia = and Canada (Wagner 1979). Whereas Cody & Britton (1989) followed Wagner = (1979) and included _P. californicum_ in the flora of Canada, Ceska (1991, = 2000) treated this species among the species excluded from the flora of = British Columbia and Canada. Texada Island is the largest of the Gulf Islands between Vancouver = Island and the British Columbia Mainland. Because of its size and limited accessibility, Texada Island is still poorly known botanically, although good collecting efforts have been made lately by John Dove and Terry = Ludwar. Harvey and Pamela Janszen with Marie Fontaine and Patrick Williston made three visits of Texada Island (with Marie Fontaine in June 1997, another = in July 1997, and one trip with Patrick Williston in 1999) and collected several species of _Botrychium_ and found several new locations for _Ophioglossum pusillum_ Raf. Their effort was aimed at pteridophytes = and the highland plateau of Texada Island as the possible habitats of = moonworts (Janszen 1999). On August 26, 2007, Terry Ludwar found a single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ growing on a vertical rock wall several meters above high tide. On May 19, 2008, Adolf & Oluna Ceska took advantage of the = opportunity presented when BOTANY BC 2008 was based in Powell River, and joined = Terry Ludwar, John Dove and James Mack for a field trip to see this single = plant. Adolf Ceska broke off three fronds and sent them to David H. Wagner, who confirmed the identification. The voucher specimens (A&OC # 34986) were deposited in the UBC (2 fronds) and OSC (1 frond) herbaria. When = collecting these specimens, we realized that W.B. Anderson also might have seen = only a single plant and therefore collected the minimum amount necessary for identification. Collection data: _Polystichum californicum_ (D.C. Eaton) Diels - Dryopteridaceae Canada, British Columbia: Texada Island, Van Anda municipality, Maple = Bay, N of Favada Point.=20 49=B0 45.595=B4 N. 124=B0 38.049=B4 W. UTM 10U 382265 E 5511367 N = (NAD 83) On vertical basaltic rock (Karmutsen Formation), about 2 m above the = base of the coastal cliff. Collection date: May 19, 2008=20 Collectors: Adolf & Oldriska Ceska, Terry Ludwar, John Dove and James = Mack Coll. No.: A&OC # 34986 (UBC, OSU) Identified by David H. Wagner Note: This is a single plant that was found by Terry Ludwar on August = 27, 2007.=20 _Polystichum californicum_ is an allopolyploid species that originated = from hybridization between a species with entire pinnae (_P. imbricans_ [D.C. Eaton] D.H. Wagner) and a completely bipinnnate species (_P. dudleyi_ = Maxon) with consequent doubling of chromosomes. Thus, its pinnae are incised = but not fully divided; its pinnules are never distinct and upper pinnae are nearly entire in small individuals. Two species of similar form (and parentage) are _P. scopulinum_ and _P. andersonii_ Hopkins. _Polystichum scopulinum_ has parents with short scales below, which it inherits. _P. californicum_, however, has slender, hair like infralaminar scales = [small, fuzzy scales found on the underside of the pinna] similar to those on = _P. dudleyi_. _Polystichum californicum_ is usually bigger = than _P. scopulinum_ but the size range of these two overlap. Both of these = are mainly chasmophytes, growing in cracks in rocks. _Polystichum = andersonii_ is a much bigger fern than _P. californicum_ and is generally a forest = floor fern. Like _P. californicum_, it has filiform scales on its = under-surface; however, it ALWAYS has a bulbil on the rachis in the upper 1/5 of the = frond. Sometimes more than one bulbil is present but at least one is always present. Neither _P. californicum_ nor _P. scopulinum_ produce bulbils. Northern _Polystichum setigerum_ is a forest floor species that has all pinnae incised to the costa. For the key to the North American = _Polystichum_ species see Wagner (1993): http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1 &taxon_id=3D126461 . Note: We should be aware that the _Polystichum californicum_ = illustration by Jeanne Janish in Hitchcock et. al. (1969, p. 88) is actually a drawing = of a sterile hybrid between _Polystichum munitum_ and _P. scopulinum_. I = have seen the specimen (it is at WS) and also plants in the field from the = same (or nearby) locality in Kittitas County. This hybrid looks like _P. californicum_; the critical features are, again, the filiform = infralaminar scales in _P. californicum_ which are lacking in the hybrid and the = aborted sporangia on the hybrid. =96 D.H. Wagner The range of _Polystichum californicum_ in California extends from California from San Bernardino County north: Outer North Coast Ranges, Sierra Nevada, Central Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, Outer South Coast Ranges, San Bernardino Mountains (Smith & Lemieux 1993). In Oregon it occurs in Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Linn Counties (Oregon Plant = Atlas - online). In Washington is rarer and it is known from Thurston & Pierce Counties (Burke Museum =85 2006, Washington Natural Heritage Program). There is a striking similarity between the distribution of _Polystichum californicum_ and the distribution of _Woodwardia fimbriata_, = especially in Oregon and Washington. In British Columbia, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ = is known only from Lasqueti and Texada Islands and from Saanich Inlet near Victoria. On Texada Island, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ is unusually = abundant. The closest site of _W. fimbriata_ is only about 500 m from the _Polystichum californicum_ locality. It should be noted that the first collection of _Woodwardia fimbriata_ in British Columbia was made by = W.B. Anderson, probably also close to his _Polystichum californicum_ site. = W.B. Anderson=92s collection number for _Woodwardia fimbriata_ was # 668, = vs. # 666 for _Polystichum californicum_. Acknowledgements We would like to thank to Ed Alverson, Elizabeth Easton, and Jan Kirkby = for their help with this note. References Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. 2006. _Vascular Plant Database._ http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/collections/vascular/search= .ph p=20 Ceska, A. 1991. Pteridophytes. Pp. 111-137 in Douglas, G.W., G. B. = Straley & D. Meidinger [editors]. _The vascular plants of British = Columbia. Part 3 =96 Dicotyledons (Primulaceae through = Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._ Special Report Series, no. 3, British Columbia = Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC, Canada. 177 p. Ceska, A. 2000. Pteridophytes. Pp. 260-343 in Douglas, G.W., D. = Meidinger & J. Pojar [editors]. _Illustrated flora of British Columbia. Volume 5 Dicotyledons (Salicaceae through Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._ British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks & Ministry = of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 389 p. Cody, W.J. & D.M. Britton. 1989. _Ferns & fern allies of Canada._ Publication 1829/E, Research Branch, Agriculture = Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 430 p. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, & J.W. Thompson. 1969. = _Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons._ Univ. of Washington Press, = Seattle. Janszen, H. 1999. Rare Fern Research on Texada Island. _The Log_, = Autumn 1999: 4-5. http://www.ecoreserves.bc.ca/newsletters/log9912.pdf =20 Oregon Plant Atlas - Version 3.0 Copyright (C) 1999-2007. Oregon Flora Project. http://www.oregonflora.org/atlas.php =20 Smith, A.R. & T. Lemieux. 1993a. Blechnaceae Deer Fern family. P. 90 = in Hickman, J.C. [ed.] _The Jepson manual: higher plants of California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, California. 1400 p. =20 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?11,14,15 =20 Smith, A.R. & T. Lemieux. 1993b. Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern family. Pp. = 91-94 in Hickman, J.C. [ed.] _The Jepson manual: higher plants of California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, California. 1400 p. =20 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?19,31,32 =20 Taylor, T. M. C. 1963. _The ferns and fern allies of British Columbia. British Columbia._ Prov. Mus. Handbook No. 12. Victoria, = Canada. 172 p. Taylor, T. M. C. 1970. _Pacific northwest ferns and their allies._ Univ. Toronto Press. Toronto. 247 p. Wagner, D. H. 1979. Systematics of _Polystichum_ in western North = America north of Mexico. _Pteridologia_ 1: 1-64.=20 Wagner, D.H. 1993. 12, _Polystichum_ Roth =85 Pp. 290-299 in Flora of = North America Editorial Committee. _Flora of North America North of = Mexico, Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms._ Oxford = University Press, Oxford & New York. 475 p. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1 &taxon_id=3D126461=20 Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land = Management. _Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington._=20 http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm For the illustration to this article see: http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf=20 Plate 1. Top: Site of _Polystichum californicum_ on Texada Island. = Photo: A. Ceska Bottom: Single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ known = on Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska Plate 2: Abaxial and adaxial sides of a single frond from the specimen collected on Texada Island. Photo: David H. Wagner Plate 3: Top: Detail of a fresh frond from the specimen collected on = Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska Bottom: W.B. Anderson=92s collection from Texada = Island, August 1897. Photo: A. Ceska =20 WHERE HAVE ALL THE BUTTERFLIES GONE? An interview of Frederik Velinsky (FV) (Czech Radio =96 Cesky Rozhlas = Sever) with Dr. Martin Konvicka (MK) (Entomologist, South Bohemian University, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic) for the magazine Planetarium of the = Czech Radio =96 Cesky Rozhlas Sever on June 15, 2008. The original program is available in Czech language at http://www.rozhlas.cz/planetarium/priroda/_zprava/467853=20 [Translated by Adolf Ceska and edited by James Miskelly] FV: The decline of the butterflies in the Czech Republic and in Europe = as a whole is so obvious that it is conspicuous not only to the specialists, = but to the laymen alike. What is the reason for this decline? Entomologists = have already collected enough data to allow the decline not only to be = monitored and evaluated, but also explained, at least to some degree. Martin = Konvicka, of the Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences and the South-Bohemian University in Ceske Budejovice, is one of those = specialists who study the ecology of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). FV: How much have butterflies declined in Europe and especially in the = Czech Republic? MK: Butterflies are the most attractive group of insects. From their = survey, we can judge the well being not only of this group, but also the = well-being of other insects and other animal groups. For almost a half-century, entomologists have been witnessing a decline, in some cases fast, in = other cases slower, of butterflies in central and western Europe. In my = estimate, about 20% of the European butterflies are endangered. In the Czech = Republic, it is about one third of all the butterfly species. One hundred years = ago, about 161 species of butterflies were known in the area of the Czech Republic. From that number, 18 species have become extirpated. That=92s = about 11%. Of the rest, about 50% of butterflies are endangered. Even more important and more obvious is that we are not losing only the rare butterflies that used to live at a few sites. From year to year, we can = also see the rapid decline of other, previously common species, those that we were able to see in meadows, fields and gardens. Those species are = rapidly declining, not only in the Czech Republic, but also in the whole of = Europe. FV: When did people start to study this decline more systematically? MK: Butterflies are a very attractive group, and have caught the = attention of artists, naturalists and butterfly collectors, as we can see from the many parodies that have ridiculed entomologists. Thus, we can rely on = the large number of people who have noticed this decline in butterflies. = More precise data about the decline of butterflies are available in Europe = since about the 1980=92s. In the Czech Republic, zoologists Ivo Novak and = Karel Spitzer wrote in the 1980=92s that twenty years before, in the 1960=92s, = one could see about 40 species of butterflies on a stroll through meadows = and field, whereas in 1980=92s this number dropped down to about 10 or 11 = species. This situation has not improved, rather it has gotten worse. =20 FV: You mentioned that 18 species of butterflies have been extirpated = from the Czech Republic. What are the most striking examples? MK: We have good information on many of the butterflies. For instance, = the Danube Clouded Yellow, _Colias myrmidone_ (Esper), lived in the warmer = areas of the entire Czech Republic, but recently it is seen occasionally only = in the White Carpathian Mountains. The Apollo butterfly, _Parnassius = apollo_ L., that is in the logo of the [Czech] Nature Conservancy, used to live = at several tens of localities in the Czech Republic. Today, we know it only from one site where it has been artificially re-introduced. Another = example is the Tree Grayling, _Hipparchia statilinus_ (Hufnagel), a relatively large butterfly living in sandy habitats along the river Elbe. Today, = both the sandy habitats and the butterflies are gone. Those were just a few examples of the =91day=92 butterflies. Probably even more significant is the decline of moths that are, with = about 3,000 species, far more numerous than the butterflies. Unfortunately, we = do not know the precise numbers of this group, since the moths are more = cryptic than the true butterflies. However, we can name several tens of species, both large and small, that used to be quite common one hundred years = ago, but are almost unknown today. FV: Is this decline specific for butterflies or does it touch other = small animals? MK: Unfortunately, the situation is bad with all the small animals. The _Red book of invertebrates of the Czech Republic_ that appeared in 2006 contains all the data, not only for butterflies, but also for beetles, = bees, wasps, etc. We have lost about 15% of scarab beetles of the family Scarabaeidae, 5% of long-horned beetles of the family Cerambycidae, and = 15% of wasps and bees. If you look at the numbers, you can see that in all = the well-known groups about 5 to 10 percent of species have disappeared from = our fauna. We have to project those percentages into the absolute numbers. = If we have about 30,000 species of insect in the Czech Republic, those 5 to 10 percent represent the loss of 2,000 or 3,000 species that have = disappeared from our area. The situation is similar among the smaller vertebrates, = such as birds, especially those that feed on insects. FV: What is the reason for this decline? Is it a broader trend = concerning all of Europe or is it a result of small local threats that added = together have had this negative impact? MK: This is a broader problem, but I have to say a few words for explanation. Many rare species are persisting better than before and = their protection has had positive results. This is most obvious in birds, = mammals and all the larger vertebrates. The situation is also relatively good = with vascular plants. We have a large number of endangered species in these groups, but we do not see such a rapid decline as we can witness in = insects and other invertebrates. Present-day nature conservation, landscape management and landscape ecology address the protection of plants, = birds, and mammals reasonably well, but we fail to protect insects. This is alarming, since the number of insect species is much larger than that of birds or other vertebrates. At the same time, insect species are = involved in a number of interwoven ecological interactions. We have to realize that pollination of many economically important plants depends on insects and that insects play an important role in soil processes, control of = harmful insects, etc.=20 Now I am going back to your question that relates to this. What has = happened in the last fifty years in central and western Europe? We have = significantly changed the structure of natural environments and landscapes. Intensification of agriculture and forestry resulted in homogenization = of the landscape. The former mosaic of small fields, meadows, forest = margins, hedges, small quarries, and sand pits has been replaced with large homogenous areas with sharp boundaries between them. Why is this = important? Those 3,000 species of insect, all that huge diversity of organisms, has lived in our area thanks to the great specialization of the different species. Many species are narrowly specialised. For instance, the Alcon Blue, _Maculinea alcon_ (Denis & Schiffermueller), needs a gentian for = its caterpillars. The adult butterflies, on the other hand, do not need the gentian any more, but require nectar of other plants. They also need = shrubs for cover from their enemies. Butterflies are not too mobile. We see the butterfly flying around, but it=92s not so simple as it looks. Most butterflies do not fly over long distances. In what used to be a mosaic = of small areas in the landscape, butterflies used to have all they needed = close together, nectar, cover and host plants. That has changed and today we = have extensive meadows and extensive fields. Forests are all managed the same = way over large areas, planted with the same few tree species and the same agricultural and sylvicultural techniques are being used. In this way, = we have homogenized the landscape and removed a large number of suitable = sites for many species that have nowhere to live anymore.=20 FV: Even after all you have said, there is no doubt that there are = serious intentions to protect nature both in Europe and in the Czech Republic. = In spite of the number of serious projects, some of them are not working = for the insects and butterflies as well as we would like them to work. What = are we doing wrong? MK: We can explain it better if we compare insects with birds or plants, where the conservation measures really work. When we want to protect = certain plant species, we protect them in a nature reserve. We call this =93in = situ=94. There, we can control the ecological conditions to suit the needs of the plant. Such a way, we can keep the plant there for a long, if not = infinite, time, about the same way as if we kept it in a botanical garden or on = the rockery. This is how many reserves work. People do not realize it, but = the protection reserves are in fact botanical gardens. The situation is different in birds. Even though birds are quite = specialized and have special requirements, they are mobile, have a longer life span = and are, to some degree, intelligent. Such a vertebrate can actively look = for suitable habitat for its survival and reproduction. It is likely that, = with its longer life span, it will eventually find it. The insect can move = as well, we cannot keep it in the garden, but its radius is smaller, in = average no more than several hundred hectares. On one hand, this is a larger = area than we could artificially adjust for their requirements. On the other = hand, insects cannot actively seek suitable habitats over large areas. When we destroy the natural habitat of a certain locality, we can transplant a plant, or the birds could seek out another suitable habitat. The insect species, on the other hand, usually die out when their habitats are destroyed. FV: According to Martin Konvicka, butterflies could help to facilitate a return of the natural mosaic in the landscape. Sometimes one does not = need too much. One can leave patches of uncut lawn in a city park or a few = raw logs on the ground. Around the supermarkets, one can plant Crataegus, = wild roses or spiraea instead of introduced trees. This can be done in = private gardens as well. A patch of stinging nettle in a garden corner will = attract tortoiseshell or peacock butterflies. With the help of the general = public, The Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences is = collecting the information about the butterfly distribution. Why? MK: We, entomologists, need as much information about the butterflies as = we can get. We need it from the whole area of the Czech Republic and from different times of the year. This cannot be achieved by a small number = of professional entomologists. This is why we are trying to involve the = general public. We are trying to recruit people to send us their observations of butterflies either via e-mail or by snail mail. One does not have to be = a specialist, nor know all of our 143 butterfly species. It is enough if = the people interested in this project can recognize a few butterflies, tortoiseshells, swallowtails, sulphurs. The project has its own web = page: www.lepidoptera.cz where one can find all that is needed for this collaboration. I would like to stress that we appreciate every record = you can send us, even if it be the only single observation you made, such as that you saw a Peacock Butterfly, Inachis io Linn=E9, at your cottage. Volunteer observers have been sending us tens of thousands observations every year. We can then analyze those data statistically and we can = trace the correlations between the occurrence of the butterflies and weather = to see the impact of various land management methods. Or, to be more = precise, we hope that we will be able to do such analyses. In order to illustrate what we are aiming to, I would like to give an example of our colleagues = in Great Britain, where a similar project has been running for more than = twenty years. The British entomologists are getting almost 250,000 observations every year. Such a giant data set contains a lot of valuable = information. FV: Those who would like to send their observations to the databank entomologists do not even have to know butterflies. It is enough if = people take a photo of a butterfly and note where and when the photo was taken. = Is that right? MK: Digital photography is a great help. One does not have to know butterflies. It is possible to take a picture of the butterfly, even if = held in hand in the case of smaller or more timid species. We will respond to every record we receive, will identify the butterfly for the sender, and will put the information into our database. FV: What should be the result of this project? MK: A new atlas of butterfly distribution will be one of the results of = this project. It is planned to appear in 2012. We published a similar Atlas = in 2002, but that one was not complete, since it lacked broader public participation. This time we expect better coverage of the area, a finer mapping grid, and a host of other information, such as annual = fluctuation of butterflies, ten-year trends, etc. We have already been working with = those data. Another feature of the butterfly distribution data is that they = are available upon request to anyone who asks for them. For instance, if you want to know which butterflies are known from the Jindrichuv Hradec = area, you can contact us on our web pages and we will send you a list. We are sending this information to the nature conservation organizations, municipalities, district and regional offices and to anyone who asks for = it. For non-commercial purposes, this information is provided = free-of-charge. The data are already widely used. When there is some development planned = for a certain area, or if there is a new road being built, we are asked if = this would result in the destruction of an important butterfly locality. = Plans are then adjusted accordingly. The data were also used in the = designations of new protected areas within the action _Natura 2000_. My colleague = Jiri Benes is in charge of answering those requests and he would be able to = tell you about many interesting aspects of his work. ________________________________________________________________ =20 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/ ________________________________________________________________ =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 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. 402           &nbs= p;            = ;      January 26, 2009

 

 aceska@telus.net   &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;     Victoria, B.C.

 ----------------------------------------------= -------------

  Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, = B.C. Canada V8W 3S2

 ----------------------------------------------= -------------

 

BOTANY BC 2009  = -  MUNCHO LAKE PARK/LIARD HOT SPRINGS

BOTANY BC = 2009   will take place from the evening of Wednesday July 15th through Saturday, = July 18th, 2009 , based out of  Muncho Lake Provincial Park Campground and = Northern Rockies Lodge approximately 200km northwest of Fort Nelson. = Transportation from Prince George in vans will be available (leaving Tuesday July 14th = returning Sunday July 19th). Field trips will visit sites on alluvial flood = plains, the alpine, and wetlands. Many unique plants, spectacular scenery and = incredible wildlife viewing. 

BOTANY BC is an annual = meeting of botanists and plant enthusiasts of British Columbia and is open to = anyone interested in plants regardless. Although BOTANY BC meetings are focused = to British Columbia, we welcome all the plant enthusiasts from the = neighbouring provinces/states, and from elsewhere in the world. =

Botany BC Registration = and detailed program are expected to be posted to the Botany BC website by February = 28, so please keep checking the website: http://members.shaw.= ca/dmeidinger/botanybc/ 

If you have not = attended a recent Botany BC and wish to receive notification when additional details and registration forms for Botany BC 2009 are available on the Botany BC = website please contact:

Elizabeth Easton (250) = 953-3488
e-mail: Elizabeth.Easton@gov.bc.ca=

 

_POLYSTICHUM = CALIFORNICUM_  (DRYOPTERIDACEAE) FOUND AGAIN ON TEXADA ISLAND, BRITISH = COLUMBIA

From: Adolf Ceska, = Oldriska Ceska, John Dove, Terry Ludwar, James Mack, & David H. Wagner c/o =   [aceska@telus.net]

For the accompanied = photos see: h= ttp://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf

_Polystichum = californicum_ (D.C. Eaton) Diels was first collected in British Columbia in August, 1897 on “Rocks” at Texada Island by W.B. Anderson (coll. No. 666). A single, relatively small frond was deposited in the herbarium of the = Royal British Columbia Musem (V 178). The specimen was originally identified = as _Polystichum scopulinum_  (D.C. Eaton) Maxon and was listed as such = in Taylor (1963, 1970). In 1976, D.H. Wagner identified the W.B. = Anderson’s specimen as _Polystichum californicum_ with a note: “This is the = only record of this sp. from B.C.” This was the only specimen that = supported the claim that _Polystichum californicum_ occurred in British Columbia = and Canada (Wagner 1979).  Whereas Cody & Britton (1989) followed = Wagner (1979) and included  _P. californicum_  in the flora of = Canada,  Ceska (1991, 2000) treated this species among the species excluded from = the flora of British Columbia and Canada.

Texada Island is the = largest of the Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia = Mainland. Because of its size and limited accessibility, Texada Island is still = poorly known botanically, although good collecting efforts have been made lately by = John Dove and Terry Ludwar. Harvey and Pamela Janszen with Marie Fontaine and Patrick Williston made three visits of Texada Island (with Marie = Fontaine in June 1997, another in July 1997,  and one trip with Patrick = Williston in 1999) and collected several species of _Botrychium_ and found several = new locations for _Ophioglossum pusillum_ Raf. Their effort was aimed at pteridophytes  and the highland plateau of Texada Island as the = possible habitats of moonworts (Janszen 1999).

On August 26, 2007, = Terry Ludwar found a single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ growing on a vertical = rock wall several meters above high tide. On May 19, 2008, Adolf & Oluna = Ceska took advantage of the opportunity presented when BOTANY BC 2008 was = based in Powell River, and joined Terry Ludwar, John Dove and James Mack for a = field trip to see this single plant.  Adolf Ceska broke off three fronds = and sent them to David H. Wagner, who confirmed the identification. The = voucher specimens (A&OC # 34986) were deposited in the UBC (2 fronds) and = OSC (1 frond) herbaria. When collecting these specimens, we realized that W.B. Anderson also might have seen only a single plant and therefore = collected the minimum amount necessary for identification.

Collection = data:

_Polystichum = californicum_  (D.C. Eaton) Diels - Dryopteridaceae

Canada, British = Columbia:  Texada Island, Van Anda municipality, Maple Bay, N of Favada Point.
 49=B0 45.595=B4 N.  124=B0 38.049=B4 W.  UTM  10U = 382265 E  5511367 N (NAD 83)
On vertical basaltic rock (Karmutsen Formation), about 2 m above the = base of the coastal cliff.
Collection date: May 19, 2008
Collectors:  Adolf & Oldriska Ceska, Terry Ludwar, John Dove = and James Mack   Coll. No.:  A&OC # 34986   (UBC, OSU)
Identified by David H. Wagner
Note:  This is a single plant that was found by Terry Ludwar on = August 27, 2007.

_Polystichum = californicum_ is an allopolyploid species that originated from hybridization between a = species with entire pinnae (_P. imbricans_ [D.C. Eaton] D.H. Wagner) and a completely bipinnnate species (_P. dudleyi_ Maxon) with consequent doubling of chromosomes. Thus, its pinnae are incised but not fully divided; its = pinnules are never distinct and upper pinnae are nearly entire in small = individuals. Two species of similar form (and parentage) are _P. scopulinum_ and _P. = andersonii_ Hopkins. _Polystichum scopulinum_ has parents with short scales below, = which it inherits. _P. californicum_, however, has slender, hair like = infralaminar scales [small, fuzzy scales found on the underside of the pinna] =  similar to those on _P. dudleyi_.  = _Polystichum californicum_ is usually bigger           &= nbsp;  than _P. scopulinum_ but the size range of these two overlap. Both of = these are mainly chasmophytes, growing in cracks in rocks. _Polystichum = andersonii_ is a much bigger fern than _P. californicum_ and is generally a forest floor = fern. Like _P. californicum_, it has filiform scales on its under-surface; = however, it ALWAYS has a bulbil on the rachis in the upper 1/5 of the frond. = Sometimes more than one bulbil is present but at least one is always present. = Neither _P. californicum_ nor _P. scopulinum_ produce bulbils.  Northern = _Polystichum setigerum_ is a forest floor species that has all pinnae incised to the = costa. For the key to the North American _Polystichum_ species  see Wagner (1993):
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D= 126461 .

Note: We should = be aware that the _Polystichum californicum_ illustration by Jeanne Janish in = Hitchcock et. al. (1969, p. 88) is actually a drawing of a sterile hybrid between _Polystichum munitum_ and _P. scopulinum_.  I have seen the = specimen (it is at WS) and also plants in the field from the same (or nearby) = locality in Kittitas County. This hybrid looks like  _P. californicum_; the = critical features are, again, the filiform infralaminar scales in _P. = californicum_ which are lacking in the hybrid and the aborted sporangia on the hybrid. – D.H. Wagner

The range of _Polystichum californicum_ in California extends from = California from San Bernardino County north: Outer North Coast Ranges, Sierra Nevada, = Central Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, Outer South Coast Ranges, San Bernardino Mountains  (Smith & Lemieux 1993).  In Oregon it occurs in = Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Linn Counties (Oregon Plant Atlas - online). = In Washington is rarer and it is known from Thurston & Pierce Counties = (Burke Museum … 2006, Washington Natural Heritage = Program).

There is a  = striking similarity between the distribution of _Polystichum californicum_   and the distribution of  = _Woodwardia fimbriata_,  especially in Oregon and Washington.  In British Columbia,  _Woodwardia fimbriata_  is known only from Lasqueti = and Texada Islands and from Saanich Inlet near Victoria.  On Texada Island,  _Woodwardia fimbriata_ is unusually abundant.  The = closest site of  _W. fimbriata_  is only about 500 m from the = _Polystichum californicum_ locality. It should be noted that the first collection of _Woodwardia fimbriata_  in British Columbia was made by W.B. = Anderson, probably also close to his _Polystichum californicum_ site.  W.B. Anderson’s collection number for _Woodwardia fimbriata_  was = # 668, vs. # 666 for _Polystichum californicum_.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank = to Ed Alverson, Elizabeth Easton, and  Jan Kirkby for their help with = this note.

References

Burke Museum of Natural = History and Culture. 2006. _Vascular Plant Database._             &= nbsp;   http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/collections/v= ascular/search.php

Ceska, A.  1991. Pteridophytes. Pp. 111-137 in Douglas, G.W., G. B. Straley & D. = Meidinger [editors].        _The vascular plants of  British Columbia. Part 3 – Dicotyledons (Primulaceae through             &= nbsp; Zygophyllaceae) and  Pteridophytes._  Special Report Series, = no. 3,  British Columbia Ministry of             = Forests, Victoria, BC, Canada.  177 p.

Ceska, A. 2000.  Pteridophytes. Pp. 260-343 in Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger & J. Pojar [editors]. _Illustrated flora of British Columbia. Volume 5 Dicotyledons (Salicaceae through   Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._  = British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks   & Ministry = of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.  389 = p.

Cody, W.J. & D.M. = Britton. 1989. _Ferns & fern allies of Canada._  Publication = 1829/E,  Research Branch,             &= nbsp;   Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.  430 = p.

Hitchcock, C.L., A. = Cronquist, M. Ownbey, & J.W. Thompson. 1969.  _Vascular plants of the Pacific            Northwest. = Part 1: Vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons._ Univ. of =     Washington Press, Seattle.

Janszen, H.  1999. = Rare Fern Research on Texada Island. _The Log_, Autumn 1999: 4-5.
            &= nbsp;   http://www.= ecoreserves.bc.ca/newsletters/log9912.pdf 

Oregon Plant Atlas - = Version 3.0 Copyright (C) 1999-2007. Oregon Flora Project.
            &= nbsp;   http://www.oregonflora.org/= atlas.php 

Smith, A.R. & T. = Lemieux. 1993a.  Blechnaceae Deer Fern family. P. 90  in Hickman, J.C. = [ed.] _The             = Jepson manual: higher plants of California._  University of California = Press, Berkeley & Los =            Angeles,  California.  1400 p.
            &= nbsp;   = http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?11,14,15 =

Smith, A.R. & T. = Lemieux. 1993b. Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern family. Pp. 91-94 in Hickman, J.C. = [ed.]      _The  Jepson manual:  higher plants = of California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los           Angeles,  California.  1400 p.
            &= nbsp;   = http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?19,31,32 =  

Taylor, T. M. C. 1963. = _The ferns and fern allies of British Columbia. British Columbia._  Prov. Mus.            Handbook = No. 12. Victoria, Canada.  172 p.

Taylor, T. M. C. 1970. = _Pacific northwest ferns and their allies._ Univ. Toronto Press. Toronto.  = 247 p.

Wagner, D. H. 1979. = Systematics of _Polystichum_ in western North America north of Mexico.   _Pteridologia_  1: 1-64.

Wagner, D.H. 1993. 12, _Polystichum_ Roth … = Pp. 290-299 in Flora of North America Editorial =       Committee. _Flora of North America North of Mexico, Volume 2: = Pteridophytes and             &= nbsp; Gymnosperms._  Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. 475 = p.
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D= 126461

Washington Natural = Heritage Program and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.
           &nbs= p;    _Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington._
            &= nbsp;   http://= www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm

For the illustration to = this article see: h= ttp://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf

Plate 1. Top:  = Site of _Polystichum californicum_ on Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska
            &= nbsp;   Bottom: Single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ known on Texada = Island. Photo: A. Ceska

Plate 2: Abaxial and = adaxial sides of a single frond from the specimen collected on Texada Island. Photo:             &= nbsp; David H. Wagner

Plate 3: Top: Detail of = a fresh frond from the specimen collected on Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska
            &= nbsp;   Bottom:  W.B. Anderson’s collection from Texada Island, = August 1897. Photo: A. Ceska

 

WHERE HAVE ALL THE BUTTERFLIES GONE?

An interview of Frederik Velinsky (FV) (Czech Radio = – Cesky Rozhlas Sever) with Dr. Martin Konvicka (MK) (Entomologist, South Bohemian University, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic) for the magazine Planetarium of the Czech Radio – Cesky Rozhlas Sever on June 15, = 2008. The original program is available in Czech language at
http://= www.rozhlas.cz/planetarium/priroda/_zprava/467853
[Translated by Adolf Ceska and edited by James Miskelly]

FV: The decline of the butterflies in the Czech = Republic and in Europe as a whole is so obvious that it is conspicuous not only to = the specialists, but to the laymen alike. What is the reason for this = decline? Entomologists have already collected enough data to allow the decline = not only to be monitored and evaluated, but also explained, at least to some = degree. Martin Konvicka, of the Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences and the South-Bohemian University in Ceske Budejovice, is one = of those specialists who study the ecology of butterflies (Lepidoptera: = Rhopalocera).

FV: How much have butterflies declined in Europe = and especially in the Czech Republic?

MK: Butterflies are the most attractive group of = insects. >From their survey, we can judge the well being not only of this group, = but also the well-being of other insects and other animal groups. For almost a half-century, entomologists have been witnessing a decline, in some = cases fast, in other cases slower, of butterflies in central and western Europe. In = my estimate, about 20% of the European butterflies are endangered. In the = Czech Republic, it is about one third of all the butterfly species. One = hundred years ago, about 161 species of butterflies were known in the area of the = Czech Republic. From that number, 18 species have become extirpated. = That’s about 11%. Of the rest, about 50% of butterflies are endangered. Even = more important and more obvious is that we are not losing only the rare = butterflies that used to live at a few sites. From year to year, we can also see the = rapid decline of other, previously common species, those that we were able to = see in meadows, fields and gardens. Those species are rapidly declining, not = only in the Czech Republic, but also in the whole of Europe.

FV: When did people start to study this decline = more systematically?

MK: Butterflies are a very attractive group, and = have caught the attention of artists, naturalists and butterfly collectors, as we = can see from the many parodies that have ridiculed entomologists. Thus, we can = rely on the large number of people who have noticed this decline in butterflies. = More precise data about the decline of butterflies are available in Europe = since about the 1980’s. In the Czech Republic, zoologists Ivo Novak and = Karel Spitzer wrote in the 1980’s that twenty years before, in the 1960’s, one could see about 40 species of butterflies on a stroll = through meadows and field, whereas in 1980’s this number dropped down to = about 10 or 11 species. This situation has not improved, rather it has gotten worse. 

FV:  You mentioned that 18 species of = butterflies have been extirpated from the Czech Republic. What are the most striking = examples?

MK: We have good information on many of the = butterflies. For instance, the Danube Clouded Yellow, _Colias myrmidone_ (Esper), = lived in the warmer areas of the entire Czech Republic, but recently it is = seen occasionally only in the White Carpathian Mountains. The Apollo butterfly,  _Parnassius apollo_ L., that is in the logo of = the [Czech] Nature Conservancy, used to live at several tens of localities = in the Czech Republic. Today, we know it only from one site where it has been artificially re-introduced. Another example is the Tree Grayling, = _Hipparchia statilinus_  (Hufnagel), a relatively large butterfly living in = sandy habitats along the river Elbe. Today, both the sandy habitats and the butterflies are gone. Those were just a few examples of the = ‘day’ butterflies.

Probably even more significant is the decline of = moths that are, with about 3,000 species, far more numerous than the butterflies. Unfortunately, we do not know the precise numbers of this group, since = the moths are more cryptic than the true butterflies. However, we can name = several tens of species, both large and small, that used to be quite common one = hundred years ago, but are almost unknown today.

FV: Is this decline specific for butterflies or = does it touch other small animals?

MK: Unfortunately, the situation is bad with all = the small animals.  The _Red book of invertebrates of the Czech = Republic_  that appeared in 2006 contains all the data, not only for butterflies, but = also for beetles, bees, wasps, etc. We have lost about 15% of scarab beetles of = the family Scarabaeidae, 5% of long-horned beetles of the family = Cerambycidae, and 15% of wasps and bees. If you look at the numbers, you can see that in = all the well-known groups about 5 to 10 percent of species have disappeared from = our fauna. We have to project those percentages into the absolute numbers. = If we have about 30,000 species of insect in the Czech Republic, those 5 to 10 percent represent the loss of 2,000 or 3,000 species that have = disappeared from our area. The situation is similar among the smaller vertebrates, such = as birds, especially those that feed on insects.

FV: What is the reason for this decline? Is it a = broader trend concerning all of Europe or is it a result of small local threats = that added together have had this negative impact?

MK: This is a broader problem, but I have to say a = few words for explanation. Many rare species are persisting better than before and = their protection has had positive results. This is most obvious in birds, = mammals and all the larger vertebrates. The situation is also relatively good with = vascular plants. We have a large number of endangered species in these groups, = but we do not see such a rapid decline as we can witness in insects and other invertebrates. Present-day nature conservation, landscape management and landscape ecology address the protection of plants, birds, and mammals reasonably well, but we fail to protect insects. This is alarming, since = the number of insect species is much larger than that of birds or other vertebrates. At the same time, insect species are involved in a number = of interwoven ecological interactions. We have to realize that pollination of many economically important plants depends on insects and that insects play = an important role in soil processes, control of harmful insects, etc. =

Now I am going back to your question that relates = to this. What has happened in the last fifty years in central and western Europe? = We have significantly changed the structure of natural environments and landscapes. Intensification of agriculture and forestry resulted in homogenization of the landscape. The former mosaic of small fields, = meadows, forest margins, hedges, small quarries, and sand pits has been replaced = with large homogenous areas with sharp boundaries between them. Why is this important? Those 3,000 species of insect, all that huge diversity of = organisms, has lived in our area thanks to the great specialization of the = different species. Many species are narrowly specialised. For instance, the Alcon = Blue,  _Maculinea alcon_ (Denis & Schiffermueller), needs a gentian for its caterpillars. The adult butterflies, on the other hand, do not need the gentian any more, but = require nectar of other plants. They also need shrubs for cover from their = enemies. Butterflies are not too mobile. We see the butterfly flying around, but it’s not so simple as it looks. Most butterflies do not fly over = long distances. In what used to be a mosaic of small areas in the landscape, butterflies used to have all they needed close together, nectar, cover = and host plants. That has changed and today we have extensive meadows and = extensive fields. Forests are all managed the same way over large areas, planted = with the same few tree species and the same agricultural and sylvicultural = techniques are being used. In this way, we have homogenized the landscape and = removed a large number of suitable sites for many species that have nowhere to = live anymore.

FV: Even after all you have said, there is no doubt = that there are serious intentions to protect nature both in Europe and in the = Czech Republic. In spite of the number of serious projects, some of them are = not working for the insects and butterflies as well as we would like them to = work. What are we doing wrong?

MK: We can explain it better if we compare insects = with birds or plants, where the conservation measures really work. When we = want to protect certain plant species, we protect them in a nature reserve. We = call this “in situ”.  There, we can control the ecological conditions to suit the needs of the plant. Such a way, we can keep the = plant there for a long, if not infinite, time, about the same way as if we kept it = in a botanical garden or on the rockery. This is how many reserves work. = People do not realize it, but the protection reserves are in fact botanical = gardens.

The situation is different in birds. Even though = birds are quite specialized and have special requirements, they are mobile, have a = longer life span and are, to some degree, intelligent. Such a vertebrate can = actively look for suitable habitat for its survival and reproduction. It is = likely that, with its longer life span, it will eventually find it.  The insect = can move as well, we cannot keep it in the garden, but its radius is = smaller, in average no more than several hundred hectares. On one hand, this is a = larger area than we could artificially adjust for their requirements. On the = other hand, insects cannot actively seek suitable habitats over large areas. = When we destroy the natural habitat of a certain locality, we can transplant a = plant, or the birds could seek out another suitable habitat. The insect = species, on the other hand, usually die out when their habitats are = destroyed.

FV: According to Martin Konvicka, butterflies could = help to facilitate a return of the natural mosaic in the landscape. Sometimes = one does not need too much. One can leave patches of uncut lawn in a city park or = a few raw logs on the ground. Around the supermarkets, one can plant = Crataegus, wild roses or spiraea instead of introduced trees. This can be done in = private gardens as well. A patch of stinging nettle in a garden corner will = attract tortoiseshell or peacock butterflies. With the help of the general = public, The Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences is collecting = the information about the butterfly distribution. Why?

MK: We, entomologists, need as much information = about the butterflies as we can get. We need it from the whole area of the Czech = Republic and from different times of the year. This cannot be achieved by a small = number of professional entomologists. This is why we are trying to involve the = general public. We are trying to recruit people to send us their observations of butterflies either via e-mail or by snail mail. One does not have to be = a specialist, nor know all of our 143 butterfly species. It is enough if = the people interested in this project can recognize a few butterflies, tortoiseshells, swallowtails, sulphurs. The project has its own web = page: www.lepidoptera.cz where one can = find all that is needed for this collaboration. I would like to stress that we appreciate every record you can send us, even if it be the only single observation you made, such as that you saw a Peacock Butterfly, = Inachis io Linn=E9, at your cottage. Volunteer observers have been sending us tens = of thousands observations every year. We can then analyze those data = statistically and we can trace the correlations between the occurrence of the = butterflies and weather to see the impact of various land management methods. Or, to be = more precise, we hope that we will be able to do such analyses. In order to illustrate what we are aiming to, I would like to give an example of our colleagues in Great Britain, where a similar project has been running = for more than twenty years. The British entomologists are getting almost 250,000 observations every year. Such a giant data set contains a lot of = valuable information.

FV: Those who would like to send their observations = to the databank entomologists do not even have to know butterflies. It is = enough if people take a photo of a butterfly and note where and when the photo was = taken. Is that right?

MK: Digital photography is a great help. One does = not have to know butterflies. It is possible to take a picture of the butterfly, = even if held in hand in the case of smaller or more timid species. We will = respond to every record we receive, will identify the butterfly for the sender, and = will put the information into our database.

FV:  What should be the result of this = project?

MK: A new atlas of butterfly distribution will be = one of the results of this project. It is planned to appear in 2012. We published a similar Atlas in 2002, but that one was not complete, since it lacked = broader public participation. This time we expect better coverage of the area, a = finer mapping grid, and a host of other information, such as annual = fluctuation of butterflies, ten-year trends, etc. We have already been working with = those data. Another feature of the butterfly distribution data is that they = are available upon request to anyone who asks for them. For instance, if you = want to know which butterflies are known from the Jindrichuv Hradec area, you = can contact us on our web pages and we will send you a list. We are sending = this information to the nature conservation organizations, municipalities, = district and regional offices and to anyone who asks for it. For non-commercial purposes, this information is provided free-of-charge. The data are = already widely used. When there is some development planned for a certain area, = or if there is a new road being built, we are asked if this would result in = the destruction of an important butterfly locality. Plans are then adjusted accordingly. The data were also used in the designations of new = protected areas within the action _Natura 2000_.  My colleague Jiri Benes is in = charge of answering those requests and he would be able to tell you about many interesting aspects of his work.

____________________________________________________= ____________

 

Subscriptions: http://victoria.tc.= ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l

Send submissions to aceska@telus.net

BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/bo= tany-micro/ben/

____________________________________________________= ____________

 

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0--