Yosemite Rare Plants are encountered less-frequently than common plants

Accepting the assumption that a herbarium specimen is randomly gathered (a tenuous proposition), then we can determine if “rare” plants are encountered less often compared to “common” plants (rare plants defined as being on the CNPS list).

In the central Sierra Nevada region centered about Yosemite (Tuolumne, Mariposa, Madera and Mono Conties), with a total of 70,966 herbarium specimens to analyze, the results is that: yes, rare plants are collected less often as compared to common plants.

The difference is significant (using the non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test) at p=0.003.  Box plot below...

Those rare plants with the but a single specimen are:

Botrychium paradoxum

Carlquistia muirii

Cuscuta jepsonii

Potamogeton praelongus

Streptanthus gracilis

Viburnum ellipticum

The most frequently collected “rare” plants are (a.. >70 total specimens)

Agnorhiza elata

Astragalus kentrophyta var. danaus

Bolandra californica

Carex congdonii

Ceanothus fresnensis

Diplacus pulchellus

Erythranthe filicaulis

Erythranthe laciniata

Hulsea brevifolia

Lupinus spectabilis

Perhaps being infrequently collected does not diagnose rarity: there are 464 non-rare species in the Yosemite region which have been collected only once.  

2 Million Herbarium Specimen Records for California

Continued efforts to database California vascular plant records in herbaria have narrowed in on the 2-million mark.  As of 31 January 2014, the Consortium of California Herbaria offer up 1,909,005 records.  Major non CCH records are: Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria 29,142 records, and MO-Tropicos 33,098 records.  

A total of 1971,246 specimen records.

Since 2006, the addition of records to the CCH database has averaged 480 records per day, and is trending upwards.  Hard to keep up with...

Taxonomic and floristic studies of the California flora are now greatly facilitated by these riches of data.  The challenge now is not so much data acquisition, but is rather data analysis.  Differences between data providers contributing to CCH need to be standardized.  Nomenclature, which generally reflects the “as filed” taxon name for each specimen, needs attention.   Many CCH data providers use different formats for date, different names for collectors, many have missing data such as the collection number.   Maturation of the herbarium specimen data for California is awaited with baited breath...

USFWS again fails to list California endangered plants

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service published a revised list of Candidate Plants under the Federal Endangered Species Act on November 22, 2013.  Six California endemic plants remain formal Candidates (including their number of documented occurrences):

               Family                  Taxon                                                 Occurrences

               Brassicaceae         Rorippa subumbellata                                  29          

                                         Streptanthus bracteatus                                 8

               Liliaceae               Calochortus persistens                               5

               Nyctaginaceae       Abronia alpina                                             1

               Pinaceae               Pinus albicaulis                                       >10,000?

None of these six are particularly endangered: Pinus albicaulis shows no direct evidence of decline in the Sierra (unlike in the northern Rocky Mountains, suggesting genetics).  Rorippa subumbellata, endemic to the beaches of Lake Tahoe, now trampled and stranded, is uncommon but not critical.  Streptanthus bracteatus is a rare serpentine endemic, but has not declined in recent times.  Calochortus persistens is very rare, but is the subject of active USFS management, recently formalized in a signed directive.  Perhaps of the 6 candidates, only Abronia alpina might be considered threatened.

The USFWS revised Candidate List also removed two California plants from Candidate status: Hazardia orcuttii (Asteraceae) with ca. 15 extant occurrences, and Phacelia stellaris (Hydrophyllaceae) also with about 15 extant occurrences.

What the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service failed to do in revision of the list of Candidate Plants is to in any way advance to candidacy the nearly 100 California endemic plants that are biologically endangered or threatened BUT WHICH ENJOY NO LISTING STATUS.

The list below are those CA endemics with three or fewer known occurrences, and which are not State Listed.  Some of these are not now in danger of extinction, as they occur in remote areas, and hence ought to be listed as Threatened (N is the number of extant occurrences).  

California harbors more endangered plants than the remainder of the coterminous United States combined (absent Florida and Hawaii, and excluding tropical Pacific protectorates).   

USFWS - do triage, get with the program, list these plants.  

Family	Scientific Name	N	CNPS	S	G
Alliaceae	Allium marvinii	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Apiaceae	Lomatium shevockii	2	1B.3	S2	G2
Asteraceae	Ancistrocarphus keilii	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Asteraceae	Baccharis plummerae ssp. glabrata	3	1B.2	S2	T2
Asteraceae	Deinandra bacigalupii	3	1B.2	S1	G1
Asteraceae	Dieteria canescens var. ziegleri	2	1B.2	S1	T1
Asteraceae	Erigeron calvus	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Asteraceae	Erigeron serpentinus	3	1B.3	S2	G2
Asteraceae	Harmonia guggolziorum	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Asteraceae	Helianthus inexpectatus	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Asteraceae	Heterotheca monarchensis	3	1B.3	S2	G1
Asteraceae	Malacothrix foliosa ssp. crispifolia	2	1B.2	S1	T1
Asteraceae	Malacothrix foliosa ssp. philbrickii	3	1B.2	S1	T1
Asteraceae	Malacothrix junakii	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Boraginaceae	Cryptantha excavata	3	1B.3	S2	G2
Boraginaceae	Cryptantha incana	3	1B.3	S1	G1
Boraginaceae	Phacelia cookei	3	1B.1	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera hirshbergiae	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera peirsonii	3	1B.2	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera rubicundula	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera shevockii	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera ultraalsa	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Boechera yorkii	3	1B.3	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. barbarae	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Brassicaceae	Smelowskia ovalis	3	1B.2	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii	2	1B.3	SH	TH
Brassicaceae	Streptanthus oblanceolatus	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Streptanthus vernalis	1	1B.2	S1	G1
Brassicaceae	Tropidocarpum californicum	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Cactaceae	Cylindropuntia munzii	2	1B.3	S1	G3
Cactaceae	Echinocereus engelmannii var. howei	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Campanulaceae	Nemacladus calcaratus	3	1B.2	S1	G1
Caryophyllaceae	Minuartia decumbens	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Convolvulaceae	Calystegia collina ssp. tridactylosa	3	1B.2	S1	T1
Convolvulaceae	Cuscuta jepsonii	1	1B.2	SH	GH
Crassulaceae	Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. insularis	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Crassulaceae	Dudleya cymosa ssp. costatifolia	2	1B.2	S2	T2
Crassulaceae	Dudleya cymosa ssp. crebrifolia	1	1B.2	S1	T1
Crassulaceae	Dudleya gnoma	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Cupressaceae	Hesperocyparis macrocarpa	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Cyperaceae	Eleocharis torticulmis	2	1B.3	S1	G1
Ericaceae	Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. eastwoodiana	3	1B.1	S2?	T2?
Ericaceae	Arctostaphylos gabilanensis	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Ericaceae	Arctostaphylos mendocinoensis	1	1B.2	S1	T1
Ericaceae	Arctostaphylos osoensis	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Ericaceae	Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. daciticola	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Fabaceae	Acmispon argyraeus var. notitius	3	1B.3	S2	T2
Fabaceae	Astragalus ravenii	3	1B.3	S2	G2
Fabaceae	Lathyrus biflorus	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Fabaceae	Lupinus constancei	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Iridaceae	Iris hartwegii ssp. columbiana	2	1B.2	S2	T2
Juncaceae	Juncus digitatus	3	1B.1	S1	G1
Lamiaceae	Lepechinia rossii	3	1B.2	S1	G1
Lamiaceae	Monardella australis ssp. jokerstii	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Lamiaceae	Monardella boydii	3	1B.2	S2	G2
Lamiaceae	Monardella undulata ssp. arguelloensis	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Liliaceae	Calochortus syntrophus	2	1B.1	S1	G1
Liliaceae	Erythronium taylorii	1	1B.2	S1	G1
Liliaceae	Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana	2	1B.1	S1	T1
Malvaceae	Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. napensis	2	1B.1	S1	T1
Malvaceae	Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. pillsburiensis	1	1B.2	S1	T1
Onagraceae	Clarkia concinna ssp. raichei	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Onagraceae	Clarkia tembloriensis ssp. calientensis	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Orchidaceae	Piperia elegans ssp. decurtata	2	1B.1	S1	T1
Orobanchaceae	Castilleja ambigua var. meadii	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Papaveraceae	Platystemon californicus var. ciliatus	1	1B.2	S1	T1
Pinaceae	Pinus torreyana ssp. insularis	2	1B.2	S1	T1
Pinaceae	Pinus torreyana ssp. torreyana	3	1B.2	S1	T1
Plantaginaceae	Penstemon tracyi	3	1B.3	S1	G1
Poaceae	Agrostis lacuna-vernalis	3	1B.1	S1	G1
Poaceae	Puccinellia howellii	1	1B.1	S1	G1
Polemoniaceae	Gilia yorkii	1	1B.2	S1	G1
Polemoniaceae	Navarretia gowenii	3	1B.1	S1	G1
Polemoniaceae	Navarretia myersii ssp. deminuta	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium	3	1B.2	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum microthecum var. lacus-ursi	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum nudum var. psychicola	1	1B.1	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum ovalifolium var. monarchense	1	1B.3	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum spectabile	2	1B.2	S1	G1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum umbellatum var. lautum	2	1B.1	S1	T1
Polygonaceae	Eriogonum wrightii var. olanchense	2	1B.3	S2	T2
Rhamnaceae	Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus	3	1B.1	S1?	T1
Rosaceae	Drymocallis cuneifolia var. cuneifolia	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Rosaceae	Horkelia daucifolia var. indicta	3	1B.1	S1	T1
Rosaceae	Ivesia longibracteata	1	1B.3	S1	G1
Rosaceae	Petrophytum caespitosum ssp. acuminatum	3	1B.3	S2	T2
Rubiaceae	Galium hypotrichium ssp. tomentellum	1	1B.3	S1	T1
Themidaceae	Brodiaea matsonii	2	1B.1	S1	G1

Two species masquerading as Tauschia glauca?

Tauschia glauca is a serpentine endemic limited the California Floristic Province of far southwestern Oregon and northwestern California.    Two flower color forms are known: plants with yellow flowers occur in Jackson, Josephine and Del Norte counties.    Plants with purple flowers are more narrowly distributed, being restricted to Trinity County.

The purple flowered taxon was described as Velea glauca var. purpurascens J.T. Howell (Leaf. W. Bot. 2:185. 1939).  The purple-flowered taxon escaped the attention of Abrams (1951): then, there was only one California specimen, of the yellow flowered form (DS310004), at this disposal.   The purple-flowered taxon also escaped the attention of Munz (1959): again, he had access only to the yellow flowered taxon (RSA470298).  Jepson (1936) also did not treat Tauschia glauca as occurring in California, and in point of fact, his key to genera (p. 613) makes Velea yellow flowered!  The image below is my #21,353 from Gasquet, Del Norte County (Calphotos 0000 0000 0813 2445 (2013-08-22)

This basionym has not been transferred to Tauschia, as it might well ought to be.

The protologue of Velea glauca var. purpurascens J.T. Howell, using a practice that remained acceptable at the time, designated types for both flowering and fruiting material.  Here, I consider the fruiting material, CAS255381, is considered as a syntype, and the flowering specimens are considered as the lectotype (lectotype CAS255378, isolectotypes CAS255379, NY406299, GH77821, POM251762).

The flower color of imaged specimens from Oregon specimens in flowering condition are all yellow (cf. SOC-VP-6465, REED-VP-3429, CIC-VP-40792, HPSU-VP-1130).    On Calphotos, the two posted yellow- flowered images [6249 3022 3948 0001 (1997-01-16) and  0000 0000 0813 2445 (2013-08-22)] are from Del Norte County.  By contrast, the Trinity County posted images [0000 0000 1211 0870 (2011-12-09) and  0000 0000 0711 1165 (2011-07-14)] are purple flowered.

The key uncertainty in my analysis is this: four specimens (shown on the map as red, three at: HSC38883. HSC49986 and HSC65900), are situated geographically intermediate between the centers of distribution of clearly yellow and clearly purple flower color forms.  What color might these be?   Might they be intermediate?  Might they be a third taxon?   The disposition of flower color forms in Tauschia glauca makes it necessary to go hither. 

Yosemite Valley? – the highest density of herbarium specimens in North America?

On-line herbarium specimen databases are becoming an important tool for studies of plant biogeography.  They will increasingly point directions for plant conservation.   Specimen records are not equally distributed between areas, and many herbaria are not yet functionally digitized..  As pointed out before, the variance in herbarium specimen density between counties within California is high.  

As of today, my data compilation of specimen records for for Yosemite National Park stands at 30,149 specimens, a density of 9.8 specimens/square kilometer – about twice the specimen density for the state as a whole.

Yosemite Valley is perhaps one of the most visited sites on Earth.  A total of ca. 5,450 specimens can be directly or strongly attributed to Yosemite Valley.  Allowing that the area of the Valley floor, and abutting vertical walls, is uncertain,  the area of the Valley is about 20 square kilometers (8 miles long, one mile wide).  Thus, a vascular plant herbarium specimen density for Yosemite Valley is about 272 specimens/square kilometer.

Comparative is San Francisco city and county, with ca. 7800 specimens at ca. 75 specimens/square kilometer.  Also comparative is Bronx County, New York (via Consortium Northeast Herbaria) at 3479 specimens, at 24 specimens/square kilometer.

Yosemite Valley is the most highly collected location in North America. Moreover, in some respects, Yosemite Valley is functionally as urbanized as San Francisco and the Bronx.  

Perennial Erythranthe glaucescens [...Sheild bracted monkeyflower, is, probably, 2 species. II]

Erythranthe glaucescens (nee Mimulus g.) - CNPS List 4 is, in your revised Jepson Manual (2012) - annual.  Nesom (2012) also circumscribes Erythranthe glaucescens as annual.  The type specimen of Erythranthe glaucescens is clearly an annual.  

As Nesom noted (p. 61) Macnair (1996) "behaves as a perennial in the glasshouse".  Furthermore, Nesom cited one specimen (Heller s.n. July 2, 1914) from "canyon Big Chico Creek" as a stoloniferous perennial.

Plants from the Middle Fork Feather River diversion dam, JEPS109856 (DWTaylor #19554) 6/28/2006 are without doubt perennial (see post August 3rd 2013)

Recently, Nesom (2013) discoursed on the duration races of other monkeyflowers:  he observed E. microphylla to be invariably annual, while E. guttata was clearly perennial.  The genomic mechanisms that integrate developmental patterns in higher plants must by definition differ greatly between annual and perennial plants (viz. the vernalization FLC gene pathway in Arabidopsis) - a rosette annual has to have genes that vernalization turns on about when its time...a fruit tree needs cold to fix other vernalization  genes in preparation for flowering each spring...A Sequoiadendron needs to NOT fail to flower each and every year for 3,000 years (a rosette-bearing Sequoia is an extinct Sequoia).  

Within monkeyflowers, a single natural taxon that switches between annual (or "facultative annual", if there is such a thing) and perennial duration is not likely.  Darwin would not approve of the notion of a "facultative annual".

For this reason, perennial Erythranthe 'glaucescens' are best judged an undescribed species.

Below: plants from JEPS109856 under cultivation: note the stolons which grow in directly horizontal radius (grown in pots in sand, these plunged in water). The stolons grow laterally, rooting at the nodes readily, and in this instance, only become negatively geotropic once the side of the pot is reached.  

References:
Macnair, M.R. 1996. The Mimulus page. Pictures of Mimulus species. Mimulus guttatus complex.
Accessed Jan 2012.
Nesom, GL 2012.  Phytoneuron 40:1-123.
Nesom, GL. 2013.  Phytoneuron 2013-68:1-8
Thompson, D. 2012.  Mimulus, pp. 988-998 in: Baldwin etc. revised Jepson Manual

The longest Sugar Pine cone?

Pinus lambertiana has, without doubt, the longest cone of any conifer.  How long? 

• Botany of California (Brewer, Watson & Gray 1880) – 18 inches
• Sudworth 1908 – Forest Trees Pacific Slope – to 23 inches
• Jepson – Silva of California – 1910 – 18 inches
• Jepson 1923 Manual – 18 inches
• Flora North America Vol 2 (1993)  – to 50 cm (19.7 inches)
• Haller & Vivertte in TJM2 – to 60 cm (23½ inches)
• Wikipedia – to 26 inches

The stated range seems to be on the order of 18-26 inches – variation of about factor of nearly 1.5.  Maximal cone length therefore seems to be a statistic which bears investigation.   For example, in the best on-line conifer cone image collection, Arboretum de Villardebelle  (pinetum.org), their cone is only 13 inches long. 

Given the range of cone size estimates, it becomes evident that Sugar Pine cones 26 inches long need to be fully documented: geographic location, herbarium specimen, publication,  posted photographs.    In most conifers, cone volume is roughly correlated with number of seed.  In white pines, cone length, volume and seeds per cone are under strong genetic control (1).  Hence, record a Sugar Pine with cones >23 inches or so merits publicity.

References:

1. Critchfield, W. B., and B. B. Kinloch. 1986. Sugar pine and its hybrids. Silvae Genetica 35(4):138-145

N.B.  Cone length will likely vary by a small factor related to wet weight - perhaps as much as 10%?  Report dry weight %.