Maytennus magellanica in California?

This post pertains to UC1755439, my number 21,098, collected 28 October 2010. The report may be the first detection of a second non-native Maytenus for California.

Maytenus magellanica (Lam.) Hook. f. (Celastraceae) is a large shrub native to the southern portion of South America (Argentina and Chile). Enciclopedia de la Flora Chilena (2010) attributes it to south of 36^oS. The genus Maytenus consists of about 225 species, according to Maberly, topical to warm Old World and Australasian distribution, with only Maytenus phyllanthoides Benth. being native to the se U.S.

I have had this putative taxon of Maytenus under observation for many years. A small colony, consisting of multiple age cohort plants, grows in Aptos, Santa Cruz County. The plants are tall shrubs to ca. 4 meters tall and with multiple branched stems to ca. 15 cm basal diameter.

Photographs of authentic Chilean material show a taxon with bright red flowers, whereas the plants under discussion here have greenish and less showy flowers. In this respect, the Aptos plants of Maytenus are more similar in appearance to the USDA Plants database photo of Maytenus cymosa Krug & Urb., which is native to the Caribbean. Maytenus boaria Molina is a commonly seen plant in coastal California gardens, known for its distinctive pendant branches; it is now sparingly naturalized in California. Clearly, our plant is not this taxon.

The taxonomic assignment of UC1755439 DWT#21098 requires assessment of a monographer, and awaits treatment of Celastraceae for FNA. Regardless, the report herein is an early detection and requires monitoring and assessment for invasibility.

What is the magnitude of introduction of non-native plants in California?

here is the calculus I use:

 

1. there are on the order of 450,000 species of vascular plants

 

2. perhaps half of those are adapted to places that are too warm or too cold to grow in California, that leaves 225,000

 

3. let us for sake of sanity, cut 225,000 in half and we will sleep better

 

4. in California we have ca. 2000 non native plants and 7000 natives, total ca. 9000

 

5. Subtract 9000 from 125,000 and we get 116,000 plants that might some day come hither

 

6. the challenge of introductions is daunting. Which become invasive, if only 1% of those might be invasive, that is far too many: amongst the 1160 of the 1% there are going to be a host of horror stories. Halloween and botany do not mix well (except for the requirement of fully ripe pepos). Early detection and eradication is the most economical solution to the problem. Detect the zebra mussel early – after all it had stripes – and you save a bundle. Fail to provide botanists whom can make detections, fail to allow the detection botanists to roam, and you guarantee the next star-thistle will be on our doorstep.

 

The problem seems daunting but daunting problems are a fun element of challenge.

Red Berries coastal California, winter it is not, coincidence neither

An obvious feature of coastal central California settings at the turn of the new year is the presence of both native and introduced shrubs and trees with fully ripe, red fruits. Red fruit = bird dispersal. At this time of year in coastal central California it is hardly winter for many vascular plants, as temperature is suitable for growth and moisture is no longer limiting. In the Santa Cruz Mountains we have toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) as the sole native red berried shrub. Close by one finds madrone (Arbutus menziesii) which in some regions this year are very heavily laden with ripe pendant clusters of fruit. One of the common names of toyon is Christmas berry.

Non-native shrubs, largely Rosaceae, are juxtaposed against the natives: cotoneaster (C. franchetii and C. pannosa) and pyrracantha (P. angustifolia). Often one can see mixed stands of both native and non-native red berried shrubs. One can, and I do, also point to a non-rosaceous, but relatively rarely encountered red fruited shrub, Ilex aquifolium, English holly (Aquifoliaceae), an asterid eudicot contrasts to the others, which are rosids. Coincidence of red fruits? No. Clearly selection for bird dispersal which has produced this syndrome in unrelated lineages.

Interesting, there are known genetic variants of both native and non-native rosaceae with orange rather than red fruit. The photo is such a variant of pyrracantha, perhaps P. fortuneana. A named race of toyon, H. arbutifolia var. cerina (Jepson) E. Murry with yellow fruits is a similar genetic variant. In the case of the pyrracantha in the photo, the variant is orange vs. red

Plant taxonomists are a wishy-washy bunch, as if they do not want to be ever caught with their names in parenthesis, so the yellow variant of toyon is not considered a 'taxon'. Get real folks, it is genetically based, is it not? Ought names be coined to facilitate our use, and ought not those names, when used, be taken to refer to specific genome features? Taxonomists: recognize H. arbutifolia var. cerina please, and get over species denial.

Branching in Camissonia seedlings

Branching in Camissonia lacustris begins at the cotyledonary node (at red arrow, the cotyledons at yellow arrows, 80 day old seedlings). At this age, the cotyledons are still fully functional and are, after post germination maturation, identical to the first formed foliage leaves. Precious branching is not uncommon throughout angiosperms, indicating that the feature is adaptive in specific environments, and can be selected out of a genome again and again. In Onagraceae, within Camissonia as delimited by Raven (1969), the differences in growth features between rosette annuals (now treated within Chylisma and Eremothera) and Camissonia sensu stricto are manifold, and support the dismemberment of the Raven genus concept. Done. Remember, Raven dismembered the Munz' genus Oenothera with the occasional raised eye-brow typical of the pre-DNA era of systematics. In thinking about the expression of branching control in Camissonia seedlings, the feature of flowers at basal nodes in Gayophytum, where G. diffusum, which branches distally and is very common, contrasts to G. decipiens and its basal branching and relative rarity comes to mind: perhaps the grazing lips of a herbivore ought to be brought into the mix: lateral gene transfer? {by that I mean that there is a distance above the ground surface which grazing influence does not penetrate, the lip-o-the-grazer distance. Branch below that distance, and survive.

Plants are cool!

Top: Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola from Little Yosemite Valley, DWT #20938 16 July 2010 Bottom: Camissonia lacustris Wawona (vouchered by DWT 18082, JEPS109727)

There are distinct differences in the seedlings of two species of Camissonia in the Yosemite Region. In Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola Little Yosemite Valley, the colytedons are of quite different shape from those in C. laucustris Wawona, as pictured (red arrow in each photo).

In C. sierrae, the cotyledons are initially rhombic in shape, but later become lanceolate; they lack ciliate margins which can be seen on the first foliage leaves, and are entire margined. The plants at 7 weeks of age form a distinct rosette.

By contrast, C. laucustris Wawona produces cotyledons which are linear and distinctly emarginate. Moreover, during development, their cotyledons elongate markedly, becoming 15-20 mm long and are similar to the first foliage leaves.

The differences in early development of these two species makes their seedlings relatively easy to identify, if one could find them in the field.

More species need to be grown out to ascertain if these differences form morphological classes within the genus, and if the morphological differences have classificatory and/or phylogenetic value.

central Sierra Camissonia seedlings

Top:

Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola

Little Yosemite Valley

DWT #20938 (JEPS, YM) 16 July 2010

Bottom:

Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola
Little Yosemite Valley

DWT #20938 (JEPS, YM)

There are distinct differences in the seedlings of two species of Camissonia in the Yosemite Region. In Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola Little Yosemite Valley, the colytedons are of quite different shape from those in C. laucustris Wawona, as pictured (red arrow in each photo).

In C. sierrae, the cotyledons are initially rhombic in shape, but later become lanceolate; they lack ciliate margins which can be seen on the first foliage leaves, and are entire margined. The plants at 7 weeks of age form a distinct rosette.

By contrast, C. laucustris Wawona produces cotyledons which are linear and distinctly emarginate. Moreover, during development, their cotyledons elongate markedly, becoming 15-20 mm long and are similar to the first foliage leaves.

The differences in early development of these two species makes their seedlings relatively easy to identify, if one could find them in the field.

More species need to be grown out to ascertain if these differences form morphological classes within the genus, and if the morphological differences have classificatory and/or phylogenetic value.

Camissonia lacustris

Where is the type population of Lewisia congdonii?

Basionym: Oreobroma congdonii Rydb., N. Amer. Fl. 21(4): 322. 1932.

Protologue: "Type collected on the Hennesay [sic] Ranch, Mariposa County, California, May 31, 1883, Congdon (Dudley herb. Stanford Univ. 45334)."

The type and UC/JEPS isotype specimens are labeled "Hennesey Trail", which indicates that the specimen was taken in the ascent from Henness Ranch, located on the floor of the canyon in present day El Portal, up the south rim of the canyon. The Henness Trail appears on the 1897 edition of the Yosemite 30-minute USGS quadrangle, but is not named until the reprinted 1929 edition. The trail ascended the canyon wall and the exact station of the type collection has never been relocated.

The MIN Isotype is labeled "Hite's Cove and Yosemite Trail"

At one time, Hennesey Trail was a major but secondary route for visitors to gain access into Yosemite Valley. The trail is shown on the 30-minute USGS quadrangles: on the 1887 first editon, and on other editions issued between 1903 and 1911, the trail is depicted, but not named. On the 1923 edition, the trail name appears. On the 1956 first edition of the 15-minute quadrangle, the trail is no longer mapped. In that era, visitors using the Yosemite Valley Railroad, which opened in 1907, would come to El Portal and thence would be taken by mule train to Yosemite Valley via the Hennesey Trail, and that fact would be consistent with the trail having been mapped with a placename on the 1923 map.

Congdon, being a lawyer traveling through the region, is well documented by his trail of specimens to have visited much of Mariposa County, and no doubt would have rode horseback up the trail into the Valley via that route. Congdon's labels for that period bear out his route, a few examples:

May 31, 1883
MIN235214 Iris hartwegii
MIN235935 Hosackia crassifolia
MIN236268 Draperia stystyla Hite's Cove and Yosemite Trail
MIN237456 Clarkia heterandra Yosemite Trail
MIN238487 Calyptridium umbellatum Hite's Cove and Yosemite Trail and Yosemite Valley.

June 1, 1883 – pretty clearly, Congdon went into Yosemite Valley, based on these labels
MIN231619, MIN237891, MIN238314, MIN238976 Yosemite Valley
MIN235470 Yosemite Trail
MIN236100 River Trail to Yosemite Valley
MIN237643 Yosemite Valley and Glacier Point
MIN238521 Cascades, Yosemite Valley
MIN238593 Yosemite Trail, Merced River,
MIN238976 Yosemite Valley
MIN239486 Cascades and Yosemite Valley

Propositon: on this basis, the type station for Lewisia congdonii is probably NOT the well know population on the rocks at the base of Pigeon Gulch, along present day Highway 140. It is more probable that the type specimen was collected along the ascent route of the Hennessay Trail, which would suggest that another, presently uncodumented population is located on the steep, north facing wall of the Merced Canyon, perhaps even near Chinquipin Falls, on the present day Yosemite National Park boundary.