domingo, 24 de marzo de 2024

Delphinium in Monterey County, California

Working notes, as I learn...

D. patens ssp. montanum on Fort Ord?

D. patens was described in 1849, then subsumed under D. decorum in 1887, then resumed at species rank possibly around 1945, ignored in 1944 and 1951, adopted again in 1959 as sustained since then. Subspecies montanum began under parryi in 1932 with characters described relative to parryi; then moved under patens in 1942, making the type characters described under parryi unhelpful in the patens context. It was this switch that probably set the scene for it not to have been clearly discriminated since (or at least not perhaps until 1993). Munz 1959 didn't mention the pedicels, for example; and they were perhaps first mentioned by Warnock in 1993 and repeated in 1997, and 2012 (with Koontz). Matthews followed suit in 1997 and 2015. But the fact that plants on Fort Ord seem to key to montanum suggests that Warnock's characters could be improved. There are several relevant side stories. Keil & Hoover (2022) included montanum in SloCo noting that it had previously been ID'ed by Hoover in 1970 who "misapplied" the name hepaticoideum. Ewan described the ssp. but some of his other work has been lightly shaded by Warnock (1995) and Fosberg (1942); perhaps not surprising given the impossibly huge task Ewan undertook to monograph the genus in North America ending in 1945. It's a tricky genus. Gray (1887) specificaly remarked on the "intermediate forms" preventing patens from achieving species rank beside D. decorum. Several hybrids are named that involve patens. Caution is advised in interpreting seasonally dependent characters, at least in parryi but probably also in patens (see Keil & Hoover's note under "2022" in the taxonomic history below).

So, morphologically, perhaps we have montanum on Fort Ord. We should revisit those plants. But systematically, maybe we have some kind of undescribed intermediate.

Relevant observations:

Incomplete taxonomic history of Delphinium with bias toward D. patens

1849: Bentham. D. patens. Type description, from Sacramento Valley. Collected by Hartweg.

1887: Gray. Included epithet patens under D. decorum as D. decorum var. patens, with the telling note: "It would be taken for a quite distinct species, except for the intermediate forms.".

1925: Duthie. Subsumed D. patens under D. decorum var. patens.

1932: Munz. D. parryi ssp. montanum. New variety. Stems and leaves glabrous. Type locality: San Gabriel Mtns.

1942: Ewan. D. patens ssp. montanum. New combination. Classified under Series Echinatae of Subsection Subscaposa.

1942: Fosberg. Critical of Ewan's interchangeable usage of terms 'subspecies' and 'variety'. Warnock (1995) was also a bit critical of Ewan, e.g. in not listing a type specimens for a new subsection of the genus.

1944: Abrams. Did not mention D. patens. Presumably considered it under decorum (sensu. Gray).

1945: Ewan. ~200-page treatment of the genus in North America. I don't have this yet. I'm guessing it re-establishes D. patens at species rank.

1945: Lewis & Epling. Mentions various hybrids involving parryi and patens in southern Central California coastal areas.

1951: Jepson. Did not mention D. patens. Presumably considered it under decorum (sensu. Gray).

1959: Munz.

  • D. patens ssp. montanum: "Rather stout, 2.5-3.5 dm tall, glabrous; lvs mostly basal and with main divisions shallowly-lobed, a few lvs cauline and deeply palmatisect; racemes compacts, 6-12 fld. Ar 5000-7500 ft; Yellow Pine Forest; Ventura Co. to San Bernadino Co. May-June".
  • D. p. greenei: "Stems 2-4.5 dm tall, glandular-pubescent in infl.; lvs tripartite, 3-5 cm wide; racemes 3-12 fld.; sepals pale lavender, sparingly glandular pubescent; follicles glandular-pubescent, ca. 1 cm long. Wooded canyons below 4500 ft; Foothill Wd.; Kern Co. to Sutter Co. May"
  • D. p. hepaticoideum: "Stems slender, procumbent, 2-5(-9) dm long, glabrous; lvs nr base long-petioled, 4-7(-9) cm wide, with 3 broadly ovate primary divisions, the cent. shallowly 3-lobed, the lateral 2-lobed; racemes lax, with long pedicels; sepals 13-15 mm long, glabrous; follicles 13-144 mm long. Shaded canyons, mostly below 5000 ft. Chaparral, S. Oak. Wd.; Santa Barabara Cp. to San Diego Co.; L. Calif. April-May.

1970: Hoover. Vas. pl. of SloCo. D. p. hepaticoideum listed as only ssp. of patens in SloCo. But see 2nd edition (2022) where this is changed to D. p. montanum.

1993: Warnock in TJM1. D. patens ssp. montanum: "Pedicels puberulent, gen glandular; SW". Ssp. patens (and patens x decorum): "Pedicels gen glabrous; not SW".

1995: Warnock. Published somewhat as a deliberate alternate to his forthcoming FNA treatment, including non-morphological characters and keying based on most-effective-character first (neither of which is allowed in FNA). Subsection Grumosa: new combination; containing D. patens. Subsection Subscaposa: containing D. parryi.

1997: Warnock in FNA. Includes ssp. patens, montanum, & hepaticoideum. Ssp. montanum: "Pedicels puberulent, usually glandular; most leaf blades with more than 7 ultimate lobes."

1997: Matthews. Includes D. patens but no subspecies. Although cites TJM1 as mentioning D. patens ssp. greenei with glandular pubescent inflorescence; but TJM1 mentions greenei not under patens but as a synonym for D. gracilentum. Confusing.

2015 Matthews & Mitchell. Includes D. patens ssp. patens & ssp. hepaticoideum.

2022: Keil & Hoover. Vasc. pl. of Slo Co. Includes S. patens ssp. montanum as the only ssp. of patens in SloCo with "pedicels puberulent". Notes that D. p. hepaticoideum has been misapplied as a name for D. p. montanum (at least in SloCo). (Incidentally, Keil & Hoover make a helpful statement under D. parryi that I think has value elsewhere in the genus: "The Jepson Manual, is unreliable-dependent largely on the time in the growing season when a collection was made. Plants flowering in early spring generally have basal leaves; proximal leaves have generally withered in plants from the same locality collected later in the season.")

Publicado el domingo, 24 de marzo de 2024 a las 05:51 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

viernes, 22 de marzo de 2024

Carex Section Acrocystis in Monterey County California

These working notes may change as I learn more. I'm not a Carex expert!

In Monterey County, Carex Section Acrocystis includes C. globosa and C. zikae (syn. brevicaulis) (Matthews & Mitchell 2015). It might also include C. rossii; Poindexter (2019, Ch.2) mapped it as such, but possibily only in the sense that Poindexter also concluded that C. zikae should be subsumed as a subspecies under C. rossii. Poindexter's maps also suggest that C. brainerdii could potentially occur in the far east of the county.

Carex zikae is the new name for Carex brevicaulis Mack. (Global Carex Group 2015).
Carex zikae may soon be subsumed under Carex rossii (Poindexter's 2019 PhD dissertation).

Carex zikae is addressed in FNA and TJM as Carex brevicaulis; the name change post-dates those floras.

FNA - key, then descriptions for globosa and brevicaulis:

TJM - key, then descriptions for globosa and brevicaulis:

Styer's 2019 "Flora of Fort Ord" says the widespread caespitose Carex of the Fort Ord chaparral is C. globosa. Styer's notes report that it was previously thought to be brevicaulis, but then this position was revised. Styer's list does not include brevicaulis (and therefore does not include zikae).

Fort Ord would be at the very southern limit for zikae. For example, Adams (1923) drew the southern limit at Santa Cruz, and the northern at Brittish Columbia. Poindexter (2019, Fig. 15D) drew it a little farther south, encompassing Monterey County, and north into BC. Fort Ord is in the center of the range for globosa, which is coastal Alta California and a little into northern inland Baja California. Matthews & Mitchell (2015) report globosa in "wooded & brushy slopes", and zikae (brevicaulis) in "rocky & sandy places near coast".

Both species have an interesting two-part inflorescence. The most obvious part with most of the spikes is at the upper end of a long stem; its bracts are considered cauline. But there's also a more inconspicuous part with one or two additional spikes at the the base of the stem. The terms 'cauline' ('non-basal') and 'basal' are interpreted in this context.

The keys distinguish globosa and carex by the vein count (nerve count) on the perigynia and pistillate flower bracts, with globosa having nerves that are more prominent and more numerous. This distinction is also what Mackenzie used in the original 1913 treatment.

One can discern other distinctions by comparing the species descriptions, particuarly within FNA, which is generally the more comprehensive reference for Poales. Globosa culms reach to 47 cm, whereas zikae culms extend to 19 cm. Globosa culm bases are more fibrous. Globosa leaf blades are usually shorter than the stems; zikae leaves exceed the stems. Proximal bracts of the main (distal) part of the inflorescence (not the basal part of inflorescence) are leaf-like in globosa, and scale-like in brevicaulis. Pistillate perigynia number 3-10 per spike in globosa and 1-6 in zikae. Staminate scales are ovate to lanceolate in globosa, and only lanceolate in zikae. Anthers can be longer in globosa than in zikae.

Example observations:

Publicado el viernes, 22 de marzo de 2024 a las 04:25 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

lunes, 29 de enero de 2024

Close-ups

See also: journal post on Arctostaphylos, which links to many observations with close-ups of stomata and trichomes

Publicado el lunes, 29 de enero de 2024 a las 02:32 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

domingo, 17 de diciembre de 2023

Arctostaphylos

A working post. Continually updated.

This post primarily focuses on Arctostaphylos near Monterey, California.

Please consider intellectual property before re-using any original content here. I'm working toward journal paper that involves some of the ideas. Acknowledgements: Keith, Alex, Yerba, Henrik, Paul, Morgan and others with whom I've communicated about Arctostaphylos on iNat.

Taxonomic organization of the Arctostaphylos genus

Knowing how species within the genus are grouped helps with wrapping one's mind around the numerous taxa that can sometimes co-occur. There are three main groups (Boykin et al. 2005, Wahlert et al. 2009, Parker et al. 2020), and generally, taxa within the same group do not densely co-occur (Parker et al. 2020). The three main groups are: 'small clade' diploids, 'large clade' diploids, and 'large clade' tetraploids. The small clade is so named because it has a smaller number of taxa - about 18, compared with 87 in the large clade, 2 of unknown clade, and 1 named hybrid. Within the large clade, there are 52 diploids and 35 tetraploids and many of the tetraploid taxa in particular are subspecies. (There are also outliers to the three main groups: a small clade tetraploid, perhaps two species that occur as both diploids and tetralpoids, and two tetraploids for which the clade affiliation is not yet known)

The 'groups' above are informal divisions; they are not yet formal 'sections' within the genus. There were previous attempts to divide the genus formally (e.g. Roof, 1970s, as cited by Keeley et al. 2017; Wells 1992, 1993, 2000. But these divisions are not used in subsequent presentations of the genus (e.g. Parker et al. 2007) and they do not align with the contemporary, genetically-based groupings (Boykin et al. 2005, Wahlert et al. 2009, Parker et al. 2020).

I like to use abbreviations for the three groups: S2, L2, and L4.

Arctostaphylos observations on Fort Ord and nearby

More detail on selected taxa

Small-clade diploids (S2)

Burl absent.

Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri

A. hookeri is the only member of it's group in the Monterey Area. It does its own thing.

Large-clade diploids (L2)

Burl absent.

Each large-clade diploid species keeps mainly to itself. The notable exceptions are pumila and montereyensis; each has it's own broad geographic region of exclusivity within the L2 group; but there's also a specific zone of interface that I'm mapping out in detail. There's also overlap between the Fort Ord pajaroensis and montereyensis, but not at particularly high densities. I haven't noticed any overlap between the other L2s, e.g. pungens and hookeri, or pumila and edmundsii.

Arctostaphylos pumila

Stem prostrate. Leaves wider distally (unlike edmundsii), tomentose abaxially (unlike edmundsii). Coastal, centered on Fort Ord.

See also 'tall pumila', below.

Notable observations:

Arctostaphylos montereyensis

Stem erect. Leaves isofacial, glabrous, erect. Toro Park and eastern Fort Ord

Arctostaphylos pajaroensis

Stem erect. Leaves bifacial, basally lobed, short-petioled. Pajaro Hills (e.g. Manzanita County Park) with a small region of outliers in northern Fort Ord

Arctostaphylos edmundsii

Stem prostrate. Leaves glabrous abaxially(unlike pumila) and widest more proximally than pumila. Not on Fort Ord. Occurs in Big Sur, right on the coast

Arctostaphylos glauca

Stem erect. Leaves glaucous. Not on Fort Ord. Occurs in inland.

Arctostaphylos pungens

Stem erect. Leaves green (unlike glauca). Nascent inflorescence club-like on long axis (unlike hookeri). Not on Fort Ord. Occurs inland.

Arctostaphylos gabilanensis

Stem erect. Leaves isofacial (unlike pajaroensis), short-petioled, green (unlike glauca). Not on Fort Ord. Occurs inland.

Potential hybrids within the large diploid clade

Large-clade tetraploids (L4)

Burl present. Sometimes the burl is obvious. Many times not. A little crawling and scratching is sometimes helpful.

Arctostaphylos tomentosa

Leaves bifacial.

The definitive character for A. tomentosa is: "Old stem bark persistent, gray, shredding" (Parker et al. in Jepson). It's important to note the word "old" here. Many small and medium-sized plants cannot be reliably identified because they do not exhibit sufficiently "old" stems. While some A. tomentosa have gray-shreddiness on stems of all ages, many (at least in Fort Ord) have young stems that are smooth, and old stems that are rough.

For more on this, see below under "good reference points for the range of variation in old stem bark".

Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. tomentosa

Twig hairs short only. Leaves tomentose abaxially.

This is usually a pretty straightforward taxon to identify on Fort Ord and the Monterey Peninsula if you have a photo of twig and leaf underside, because no other short-twig-haired abaxially-tomentose burl-formers are yet known from this region. Further south toward Big Sur, you would need to consider other short-twig-haired taxa like cushingiana, rosei, and maybe eastwoodiana- depending on how well your photo showed the abaxial leaf surface.

There's an idea that A. tomentosa have a notable propensity for above-ground burls e.g.:
-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/197637269 Morse Preserve

Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. bracteosa

Old stem rough. Twig hairs short and long, glandular.

Interesting observations or discussions about A. t. bracteosa
Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. hebeclada

Leaf abaxially glabrous, or at least less than fully tomentose.

Distribution centered on the Monterey Peninsula (Jacks Peak), although two putative hebeclada have been documented in eastern Fort Ord:
- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146865033 Crescent Bluff Rd
- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/196089660 Trail 36 (nr Jacks Rd / Engineer Saddle)

Taxonomic history of Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. hebeclada

Best seen at Jacks Peak. Not well-knowm at Fort Ord, but here's two candidates:

Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. hebeclada can have hairier leaf undersides than the most recent literature (incorrectly, in my opinion) suggests. Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. hebeclada is known in the contemporary literature as the subspecies with the glabrous abaxial side of the leaves (and no long twig hairs). Interestingly, the simple "glabrous abaxially" description only appeared very recently, in 2009. Prior to 2009, the description had been consistently more hirsute from the moment it was first described under species tomentosa in 1940. Particularly odd is that the switch happened in the dead of night, so to speak, between Parker et al.'s peer-reviewed journal revision of the genus, and the same authors' treatment in Flora of North America. From memory, it is not uncommon for FNA to be more brief than state and regional keys. So it seems plausible that hebeclada lost its hairs in the literature merely as an editorial consequence. There does not seem to be any evidence that the switch was motivated by an actual re-examination of specimens or of fresh collections.

Given that the current keys leave a gap between "glabrous" and "tomentose", and that all historic keys that have encompassed the contents of the gap did so with hebeclada, I think it is reasonable to conclude that a less-than-fully tomentose specimen qualifies more as hebeclada than ssp. tomentosa i.e. specimens deserving any of the qualifiers used prior to 2009 i.e. : "nearly glabrous", "tomentulose", "puberulent", "glabrate", or "sparsely pubescent".

Here's the history:

- 1833 (Douglas) - First collected
- 1839 (De Candolle) - First described, but as one of two varieties (trichclada and hebeclada) in a species called Andromeda bracteosa. In this context, abaxial leaf hairs were not mentioned because, adjacent to bracteosa, only the glandular hairs needed to be addressed.
- 1934 (Eastwood) - Moved genus from Andromeda into Arctostaphylos, but still as a variety of bracteosa, and thus abaxial leaf hairs not relevant nor mentioned.
- 1939 (Adams) - Dissertation, succeeded in 1940 by a journal publication (see below). Not seen yet. McMinn saw it, and referenced it in Arctostaphylos species descriptions.
- 1939 (McMinn) - Book. Leaves "tomentulose, puberulent, or nearly glabrous beneath". McMinn is almost certainly borrowing this text from Adams' 1939 dissertation, which I have not seen.
- 1940 (Adams) - Moved into species tomentosa for the first time in a journal publication (but see McMinn, above), creating the first need to address abaxial leaf hairs as the basis of difference with the nominate variety. Thus, hebeclada abaxial leaf surface defined for the first time by: "nearly glabrous to a tomentulose condition" and "glabrous, puberulent, or tomentulose".
- 1958 (Munz) - "glabrate to tomentulose beneath"
- 1993 (Wells) - "glabrate to tomentulose beneath"
- 2007 (Parker et al.) - "glabrous or sparsely pubescent"
- 2009 (Parker et al.) - "glabrous abaxially". To me, this is an error resulting from brevity - to drop the possibility of any pubescence without any apparent re-examination of specimens or re-treatment of the genus.
- 2012 (Parker et al.) - "glabrous abaxially"
- 2015 (Kauffmann et al.) - "glabrous abaxially"

Note to self: need to look at "hebeclada" at Jacks with long non-glandular twig hairs.

Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. daciticola

Old stem rough. Twig hairs short and long, non-glandular.

A. t. daciticola is a rare taxon that is generally understood to be restricted to the Morro Bay region. I've found a quite few plants on Fort Ord that key out to daciticola, e.g..
- A. t. daciticola on the eastern margin of Fort Ord Good discussion in the comments.
- A. t. daciticola in central northern Fort Ord
- A. t. daciticola 20 feet from the one above
- A. t. daciticola about 2000 feet from 8th & Gigling

Arctostaphylos tomentosa that don't quite fit

Of the various plausible combinations of long twig hairs, glands, and abaxial leaf vestiture, there's one combination of characters in species tomentosa that I think is plausible, but hasn't yet been described. I think I'm seeing it occasionally on Fort Ord. It's a (1) burl-former, with (2) old stem bark that is persistent, gray, shredding, (3) abaxial leaf surfaces that are glabrous or nearly so, (4) long twig hairs, and maybe cryptic glands.. It differs from four other subspecies by only a single character. Thus, it's like a bracteosa (the sub-glabrous version) without glands, or a hebeclada with long twig hairs, or a daciticola with glabrous leaf undersides, or a ssp. crustacea with shreddy bark.

Arctostaphylos crustacea

Leaves bifacial. The definitive character for distinguishing Fort Ord crustacea from tomentosa is: "Old stem smooth or peeling, +- red" (Parker et al. in Jepson). The key word here is "old". If you don't have old stems, you cannot reliably ID a smooth-stemmed plant as A. crustacea.

For more on this, see below under "good reference points for the range of variation in old stem bark".

In my experience, clearly identified A. crustacea on Fort Ord are limited to the eastern corner. To be undisputable - in my opinion - there needs to be large, undamaged stems that are "smooth or peeling, +- red". By "very large", I mean somewhere in the region of 8 cm to 10 cm diameter or larger. The literature never specifies this and type specimens never (?) recorded it. So we are left to interpret it. If we allow stems smaller than, say, 6 cm to define crustacea, this results in too much overlap between crustacea and tomentosa under the allopatry hypothesis of Parker et al. (2021). So, smooth stems less than about 6 cm in A. tomentosa areas are probably not A. crustacea.

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. crustacea

Twig with long twig hairs (that are generally non-glandular). Leaves glabrous abaxially.

In eastern Fort Ord, a long-twig-haired abaxially-glabrous-leaved burl former is very likely to be A. crustacea ssp. crustacea. Although, if any gray-shreddy stems are in the immediate vicinity, one might also consider a cryptic-glanded A. tomentosa ssp. bracteosa.

In western Fort Ord, I'm skeptical that any A. crustacea ssp. crustacea occur west of Hennekens Ranch Rd. Unless the stem is large and smooth, A. tomentosa ssp. bracteosa can't easily be ruled out unless glands have been ruled out with a macro lens or better.

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. crinita

Twig with long hairs (that are generally non-glandular). Leaves tomentose abaxially.

In my opinion, the westward extent of A. crustacea ssp. crinita may have at times been over-stated due to a tendency to want to identify plants to species level or better. The reality is that smooth bark on small to medium stems on Fort Ord is inconclusive, even if there are long twig hairs. Such a plant could be either: (1) A. crustacea ssp. crinita, (2) A. tomentosa ssp. bracteosa too with stems that are not "old" enough to reliably exhibit bark that is "persistent, gray, shredding", and with glands that weakly expressed and too small to be seen with typical optics, or even (3) A. tomentosa. ssp. daciticola.

Taxonomic history of Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. crinita
  • McMinn (1939) is the first publication of crinita, specifically as. A. t. var. crinita, with "long spreading bristle-like hairs" and an illustration of the same.
  • McMinn referred to Adams work as "Ms" i.e. still in manuscript form (presumably a dissertation) and not yet published.
  • Adams (1940 journal publication) gave it a different name - A. c. var. tomentosiformis, "with spreading white bristly hairs;". There doesn't appear to be an explanation for why Adams seems to have changed epithets (from crinita to tomentosiformis) and species (from tomentosa to crustacea) between the manuscript version that McMinn had access to (1939) and the published version (1940). As seen below, the taxon has wavered a few times between species tomentosa and species crustacea (because it is generally viewed as being somewhat intermediate between the two).
  • Wells (1968) was the next major treatment, and he combined McMinn's and Adams' (and also Munz's) nomenclature to yield A. t. ssp. tomentosiformis.
  • Munz (1959) went with A. t. var. tomentosiformis in a state-wide flora.
  • Gankin (1971) noted the mix-up with the names and that McMinn should prevail. But Gaskin also noted something quite interesting: insulicola in the Channel Islands sometimes have long setose hairs. On this basis, Gankin argued that the insulicola should be regarded as crinita, much farther south than where crinita had previously been described. One thing we can take from this is that the long hairs have been regarded as definitive for crinita, not merely incidental.
  • Wells (1987) seems to have recognized Gankin (according to Parker et al. 2007). But I don't have Wells (1987) yet; it's a hard one to get.
  • Wells stayed the crinita course in his 1993 Jepson treatment (under a lumped species tomentosa that included what we now separate out under species crustacea), still with "long, white bristles".
  • Then came Parker et al. (2007), which is essentially the treatment we live by today. They flipped it to A. c. ssp. crinita, but still "with long, non-glandular bristles above a short pubescence".
Interesting observations or discussions about A. c. crinita
Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. rosei

Old stem smooth. Twig with short hairs only. Leaves abaxially glabrous (but see notes below). Pedicel, ovary generally short-nonglandular-hairy.

Perhaps the first thing to know about rosei is that it's distribution appears to have been grossly over-stated, owing to a divergence in the literature that originated with an article by Roof in 1964. The upshot is that, as far as I have been able to determine, no verifiable records exist of the taxon currently described as rosei anywhere beyond its type locality at Lake Merced in San Francisco. If you know of one, let me know; it would need to have evidence of an old stem with bark that is generally smooth or peeling. I've studied all the iNat records, all the CCH sheets that have been digitized, and all the literature, and while that study is still in progress, I'm pretty sure the outcome is that there's zero verifiable evidence of rosei other than at the type locality. And even the standing of the type population is questionable, potentially being more properly considered as a northern outlier of hebeclada.

The story is complicated. In a nutshell, Roof (1964) proposed synonymizing rosei and hebeclada under species rosei, but Roof's proposal was never accepted. Despite this, shortly after Roof's publication, historical CCH sheets in Monterey County were changed to rosei, and new and recent collections of "rosei" in Monterey County were labelled as such. The Field Guide (Kauffmann et al., two editions) published range maps of rosei in Monterey County based in part on the locations of the CCH sheets labelled rosei. However, all of this is predicated on Roof's proposal, which was never accepted in any other publication. There was a divergence. The published literature continued to recognize rosei and hebclada as separate taxa. But the CCH records and the maps in the Field Guide persist as a relic of Roof's position. For a time, iNaturalist records were identified as "rosei" in Monterey County. But on closer examination, none have been found that clearly match the current taxonomic description of the taxon.

The story is ongoing and not fully resolved.

Taxonomic history of leaf vestiture in Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. rosei

This section was written a while ago, before the idea emerged that rosei barely exists, if at all.

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. rosei is another taxon (like hebeclada) where the main contemporary diagnostic character is not the same as the main original diagnostic character, because of the genus-level reorganizations that have occurred. Thus, the contemporary focus on abaxial leaf hairs was not particularly relevant in the original literature, nor even mentioned in some cases.

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. rosei was first described by Eastwood in 1933 as Arctostaphylos rosei, with "dorsal" (adaxial) leaf hairs mentioned, but abaxial leaf hairs not mentioned. It was first included in a key a year later, where Eastwood (1934) placed it adjacent to Arctostaphylos crustacea, separable by presence of bristly-hairs on the stem - not mentioning leaf hairs at all, nor needing to mention them particularly. McMinn moved it to a variety of cructacea in 1939, but this didn't change how it needed to be keyed e.g. by Adams in 1940 or Munz in 1959.

The first time the abaxial leaf hairs needed to be mentioned was in Wells' 1968 revision of the genus, where everything was lumped under tomentosa. Thus, compared to insulicola, rosei had "glabrous" leaves in 1968. Wells refined this in his 1994 Jepson treament to "lower lf surface +/- glabrous" - i.e. some hairs allowed.

Most recently, the Parker et al. revision and subsequent publications have stuck with just "glabrous" (2007, 2009 in FNA, 2021 in the Kauffmann et al. book).

Thus, the hairiest interpretation of the abaxial leaf of a rosei in the literature is "+/- glabrous".

Could a Monterey County ssp. rosei grade into a ssp. insulicola? Perhaps. Intergradation is often postulated for this group - e.g. by Wells (1968). Subspecies insulicola is generally restricted to the Channel Islands, but exceptions are noted. Parker et al. (2007) state "some individuals have been found in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains". CalFlora has five collections by Jeff Bisbee at Tilden Park just east of Berkeley. I've observed several putative insulicola in Monterey County (see links in the section below).

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. insulicola

(Old stem smooth. Short hairs only. Abaxially tomentose.)

Arctostaphylos crustacea ssp. subcordata

(Old stem smooth. Densely glandular hairy.)

Arctostaphylos glandulosa

Leaves isofacial. These are tough to find on Fort Ord, because isofacial burl-former leaves don't exactly jump out at you from the chaparral. Several times I've need a compound microscope to resolve uncertainty. Furthermore, the isofacial:bifacial character is not a dichotomy. To be precise, one really needs to quantify the ratio of adaxial stomates to abaxial stomates. A value of 0.0 is bifacial. A value of 1.0 is the highest likely. But values as low as 0.37 have been published as sufficiently high to be considered to be on the isofacial end of the gradient (Keely et al. 2009, Table 2).

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. glandulosa

Occurs on Fort Ord.

Note to self: Need to work up notes on the apparently bifacial "glandulosa" population at Garland.

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. howelli

Big Sur, generally on the coast side.

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. cushingiana

Big Sur, generally on the inland side.

Potential diploid x tetraploid hybrids within the large clade

(Need some discussion here. Should referece parryana & uva-ursi.)

Arctostaphylos pumila x tomentosa

Arctostaphylos montereyensis x tomentosa ?

-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/197855079 ???

Arctostaphylos montereyensis x crustacea

-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/196393775 Hobbit Trail in central northern Fort Ord (my internal FID: 3267 & 3264).

Interesting observations with unresolved identification

Notes on mophological characters

Need large stems to reliably distinguish A. tomentosa from A. crustacea

How large? About 6 cm to 10 cm. I'll make a list of observations here to underscore this point.

Observations with images that provide good reference points for the range of variation in old stem bark

Branch-like structure in long setose hairs

Are glandular secretions sometimes only seasonally evident?

Microscope images of glandular secretions, or not

- Glandular secretions clearly evident
-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/147658681 Clear to amber
-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146727002 Amber
-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/195975891 Dark (appearing black under hand lens)
- Glandular secretions not clearly evident
-- https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146312734

Variation in ratio of adaxial to abaxial stomates in tetraploids

Zero or low ratios are exhibited by A. tomentosa and A. crustacea.
High ratios are exhibited by A. glandulosa.

Microscope images of leaf hairs

Confirmation bias






Publicado el domingo, 17 de diciembre de 2023 a las 05:41 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 5 comentarios | Deja un comentario

jueves, 14 de diciembre de 2023

Pyracantha

This journal entry compares a few different keys to Pyracantha. I prepared it in order to facilitate identification of some Pyracantha from Monterey County, California.

A case study would be in distinguishing P. koidzumii and P. fortuneata. Nesom (2010) distinguishes these based on leaf margin, with P. koidzumii margins entire or with only very shallow teeth. I find Zika (2012) to be a bit more ambiguous, apparently only admitting shallow teeth near the tip of the leaf for koidzumii. Lance & Zika (2015) follows suit. Feng et al. (2021) use a different character altogether: abaxial pubescence, with P. koidzumii being minutely pubescent vs P. fortuneata being glabrous.

Feng et al. (2021) A taxonomic revision of the Pyracantha crenulata complex (Rosaceae, Maleae). Phytotaxa 478 (2): 239–252.
Key is for taxa occurring in China, so it excludes P. atalatioides, for example.
1a. Corymbs dense; pedicel 1–2 mm long; hypanthium abaxially densely tomentose --> 2
1b. Corymbs loose; pedicel 4–10 mm long; hypanthium abaxially glabrous or slightly pubescent --> 3
2a. Leaf apically acute, blade oblong to oblong-obovate; petiole 4–6(–9) mm long; branches usually unarmed --> P. inermis
2b. Leaf apically obtuse or truncate, blade obovate to obovate-elliptic; petiole to 2 mm long; branches with short thorns --> P. densiflora
3a. Leaves abaxially densely tomentose --> P. angustifolia
3b. Leaves abaxially glabrous or pubescent --> 4
4a. Leaf blade abaxially minutely pubescent --> P. koidzumii
4b. Leaf blade abaxially glabrous --> P. crenulata complex (P. crenulata, P. fortuneata, P. loureiroi)

Lance & Zika. 2015. Pyracantha. Flora of North America.
1 Leaf margins crenulate, crenulate-serrulate, or serrulate (at least 1/2 length of blades) --> 2
1' Leaf margins usually entire, rarely remotely serrulate distally or with minute teeth near apices --> 4
2 Leaf blades oblanceolate or obovate, apices obtuse, emarginate, or short-apiculate. --> Pyracantha fortuneana
2' Leaf blades lanceolate, oblong, oblanceolate, ovate-lanceolate, elliptic, or ovate, apices usually acute or short-apiculate --> 3
3 Young twigs gray-hairy, glabrescent later; hypanthia finely hairy. --> Pyracantha coccinea
3 Young twigs brown-hairy, glabrescent later; hypanthia glabrous. --> Pyracantha crenulata
4 Calyces and leaf abaxial surfaces persistently gray-tomentose. --> Pyracantha angustifolia
4 Calyces and leaf abaxial surfaces brown- or yellowish brown-puberulent when young, glabrescent --> 5
5 Leaf blades elliptic, oblong, or oblong-obovate (usually widest near middle), apices obtuse, apiculate, or aristate, abaxial surfaces glaucescent. --> Pyracantha atalantioides
5 Leaf blades oblanceolate or narrowly obovate (usually widest distal to middle), apices usually truncate or retuse, abaxial surfaces pale green but not glaucescent. --> Pyracantha koidzumii

Zika. 2012. Pyracantha. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of Califorina, 2nd ed.

  1. Leaf generally serrate to crenate over much of margin --> 2
  2. Leaf tip obtuse or ± notched, oblong-obovate to obovate; pedicels glabrous or sparsely hairy in flower; stones ± black --> P. fortuneana
    2' Leaf tip generally acute, generally oblong-elliptic to lanceolate, elliptic, or ovate (rarely oblanceolate in some Pyracantha coccinea); pedicels generally hairy in flower; stones brown --> 3

  3. Hypanthium hairy in flower; new growth gray-hairy; leaves on vigorous shoots generally elliptic --> [P. coccinea]
    3' Hypanthium glabrous in flower; new growth rusty-hairy; leaves on vigorous shoots narrow-oblong-elliptic --> [P. crenulata]
    1' Leaf generally entire or with a few well separated low or rounded teeth toward tip --> 4

  4. Sepals in fruit, young leaves densely gray-hairy abaxially; leaves generally narrowly oblong
    to ± oblanceolate --> P. angustifolia
    4' Sepals in fruit, young leaves ± glabrous or ± rusty- or yellow-brown-hairy abaxially; leaves narrowly oblanceolate to elliptic --> 5

  5. Leaves generally widest near middle, tips generally obtuse or abruptly soft-pointed; petals generally ovate, 4–5 mm --> [P. atalantioides]
    5' Leaves generally widest above middle, tips generally truncate or ± notched; petals generally round or widely elliptic, 3–4 mm --> P. koidzumii

Nesom (2010) Pyracantha (Rosaceae) naturalized in Texas and the southeastern United States. Phytoneuron 2010-2: 1-6.

  1. Leaf blades 4–8 mm wide, abaxially densely and persistently tawny-puberulent to puberulentvillous, margins entire --> Pyracantha angustifolia
  2. Leaf blades 5–25 mm wide, abaxially glabrous or quickly glabrescent, margins entire or crenate to
    crenulate-serrate or apiculate. --> 2

  3. Leaf margins entire or occasionally 1–3(5) very shallow teeth per side, apices rounded to truncate,
    usually retuse --> Pyracantha koidzumii

  4. Leaf margins usually crenate to crenulate or crenulate-serrate with numerous teeth or apiculae,
    apices mostly acute or obtuse to rounded or truncate, rarely retuse. --> 3

  5. Leaf blades narrowly elliptic to rhombic-elliptic, sometimes narrowly so, apices acute, margins
    crenate to crenulate --> Pyracantha coccinea

  6. Leaf blades narrowly obovate to obovate-oblanceolate (widest above the middle) or oblong to elliptic (widest at the middle), apices obtuse to rounded, truncate, or retuse, margins very shallowly to minutely serrulate, crenulate-serrate, or apiculate, less commonly apparently entire in P. atalantioides.--> 4
  7. Leaf blades narrowly obovate to obovate-oblanceolate (widest above the middle)--> Pyracantha fortuneana
  8. Leaf blades oblong to elliptic (widest at the middle) --> Pyracantha atalantioides
Publicado el jueves, 14 de diciembre de 2023 a las 02:28 AM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

domingo, 10 de diciembre de 2023

Malva in Califorina

So far, this is just a very rough post for scrawling some notes while chatting about Malva with @truthseqr .
On Malva multiflora (vs nicaensis):

  • M. mutiflora is a newly resurrected epithet. Most of the literature has it as M. pseudolavatera, or M. cretica, or Lavatera cretica.
  • Butler and Reinders (2021) has great photos (thanks for the link @truthseqr ). In particular, they show a distinct difference between the fruits (schizocarps and mericarps) of M. multiflora and M. nicaensis. I spent a little time trying to find a more authoritative botanical illustration of the way multiflora has those rounded mericarps. I haven't come up with much on that yet, other than what can be read in text descriptions.
  • A genetic study places multiflora right next to nicaensis (Forbes Ray 1995)
  • The Wayne's World site by @mrwolffia has great photos of key structures in the genus, and evidence for an undescribed California taxon between multiflora/pseudolavatera and nicaensis.
    https://www.waynesword.net/traug99d.htm

  • For keying Malva in California, I thinkTJM is easiest and clearest (https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_keys.php?key=9580). But I think FNA has better species descriptions -e.g. for things like the ridges on mericarps (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=119571)
Publicado el domingo, 10 de diciembre de 2023 a las 03:19 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 10 comentarios | Deja un comentario

sábado, 21 de octubre de 2023

Xanthium (cocklebur) in Monterey County, California

UPDATE 7-March-2024. Some time in the last few months, Jepson was updated to recognize X. orientale and eliminate X. strumarium. Great!

ORIGINAL POST 21-October-2023 (and maybe some edits after that):

As far as I can tell from the literature, all the plants formerly known as Xanthium strumarium should now be recognized as Xanthium orientale.

The primary reference is Tomasello (2018) which includes the key that I have reproduced at the bottom of this post. Californian concurrence with Tomasello can be seen in Keil & Hoover's (2022) "Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California", which is the most recent flora published in California. Note that one of the authors (Keil) is also an editor of the Jepson Manual. All the other major Xanthium references applicable to California pre-date Tomasello. These pre-Tomasello authorities include Baldwin (2012) in "The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed." which is in turn "adapted from" Strother (2006) in "Flora of North America: Vol 21", and Matthews & Mitchell (2015) "Plants of Monterey County". Styer's (2019) "Flora of Fort Ord" post-dates Tomasello, but only by a few months. So it is easy to imagine how Tomasello's revision might not have influenced Styer. Styer's book also does not have a key or species descriptions; instead, it has maps of occurrence and notes on collections.

In Tomasello's key, Xanthium orientale burs are large, generally hirsute, with uncinate prickles, and beaks strait or curved. By contrast, Xanthium strumarium burs are small, glabrous, sparse-prickled, and straight beaked.

So among the non-spined Xanthium, if you have a large hirsute bur with a curved beak, it's a Xanthium orientale.

Keil & Hoover (2022) specifically note that the epithet "strumarium" has in the past been "misapplied" to orientale. They also include X. spinosum (which is very spiny and looks completely different). They don't include X. strumarium as occurring in San Luis Obispo County, other than as a "misaplied" name to what is actually X. orientale.

Since I learned of Tomasello in 2023, I've been checking every non-spined cocklebur I find in Monterey County, and so far they have all easily keyed to orientale. I've checked numerous previous "strumarium" in the field and on iNaturalist and so far there's been no evidence that would support strumarium, in light of Tomasello. I think strumarium simply doesn't exist in Monterey County, and that as Keil & Hoover noted, the term is simply a "misapplication".

Links:

Key to Xanthium (worldwide) from Tomasello (2018):

"
1 Stems with spines. Leaf blade lanceolate to ovate. Burrs bearing 0-1 apical beak (if 2, then unequal)........................ 2

1’ Stems without spines. Leaf blade cordate to orbicular. Burrs bearing 2 equal beaks ............... 3

2 Erect to decumbent annual reaching 50-100 cm in height. Leafs 3-4 times longer than broader, burrs only lightly hairy................... Xanthium spinosum L.

2’ Decumbent annual reaching 20-30 cm in height; leaves pinnatifid, twice as long as broad. Burrs woolly-hairy .......................... Xanthium ambrosioides Hook & Arn.

3 Burrs glabrous and small, rarely exceeding 1 cm in length, with few, thin prickles and strait beaks. Leaves to a large extent cordate................Xanthium strumarium L.

3’ Burrs glabrous or hirsute, 1 to 3 cm long; densely covered by prickles (if not, then burrs longer than 1 cm and with strong prickles and beaks), with strait or curved beaks. Leaves mostly cuneate-ovate .................................... 4

4 Burrs generally hirsute, up to 3 cm long (including beaks); prickles uncinate; beaks strait or curved .................. Xanthium orientale L.

4’ Burrs generally glabrous, (also subhirsute), seldom exceeding 2 cm in length (including beaks); prickles mostly strait, hooked just in the terminal part; beaks strait ............... Xanthium chinense Mill.
"

Publicado el sábado, 21 de octubre de 2023 a las 12:13 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 3 comentarios | Deja un comentario

martes, 27 de junio de 2023

Grindelia in Monterey County, California

Just some notes for now - a place to assemble information on local Grindelia taxonomy. Inspired by observations like this one: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/117539735 and associated comments by @yerbasanta.

Initially, the emphasis is on separating hirsutula and platyphylla, particularly in light of a tricky population on Fort Ord near Watkins Gate Rd.

Taxonomic history:

  • Styermark (1934) wrote the main key that splits Grindelia into perhaps over 100 taxa worldwide - with perhaps more splitting than is now considered warranted. Stother & Wetter writing for FNA Vol. 20 (2006) explictly call Steyermark's granularity into question. Styermark's key is very long, and consequently difficult to follow if one is just interested in a particular geography. For example, it splits G. stricta var. platyphylla into two "forms" that occur in completely different parts of the key.
  • Keck (1959) was perhaps (?) the first to distill Styermark down to California - including 12 species. G.stricta var. platyphylla occurs under the name G. latifolia ssp. platyphylla. The split between hirsutula and platyphylla is at the top of Keck's key.
    " A. Tips of phyllaries erect or spreading, some gradually curved but not sharply reflexed. --> hirsutula etc.
    AA. Tips of phyllaries (at least of some middle and outer ones) sharply reflexed or looped). --> stricta etc."

  • Lane (1992, 1993) was probably the next author to tackle a Californian key. First Lane published a 1992 paper that combined some Gridelia taxa together to arrive at 6 species. Then Lane authored the TJM1 treatment in 1993, in which the hirstula/platyphylla split also occurred at the top level, but upon different characters to those used by Keck. Thus:
    "1. Pappus awns > 0.3 mm wide at base, minutely serrate, V-shaped in X-section; lvs +- fleshy; coastal. --> stricta var. platyphylla, etc.
    1'. Pappus awns < 0.3 mm wide at base, entire, U-shaped in X-section or flat; lvs gen not fleshy; inland. --> hirustula etc."
    Lane also suggested various platyphylla hybrids e.g. that maritima may have arisen from platyphylla x hirsutula.

  • Matthews (1997) includes: hirsutula (vars h. and maritima), latifolia, sticta var. platyphylla, and camporum. The split between hirsutula and platyphylla is made at the first couplet, based on phyllary hairiness (platyphylla glabrous) and shape, leaf fleshiness, and head width. The details are helpful. The part about phyllary hairiness is interesting, because it doesn't seem to show up much in other keys.
  • Stother & Wetter (2006, FNA) lumped platyphylla under hirsutula, not as a distinct infra-species taxon, but offered some infra-specific notes on what had to date been called "platyphylla", including reference to Lane's notes on hybrids: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250066812
  • Moore (2012, TJM2) recognizes about 8 species, and several subspecies. The hirsutula/platyphylla split is made near the top, on the basis of habitat and leaf fleshiness:
    " 2. Plants of dunes, salt marshes, coastal bluffs, tidal flats, sloughs; leaves ± fleshy. --> platyphylla etc.
    2' Plants of fields, grassland, woodland, serpentine soils, disturbed areas, or interior wetlands; leaves not fleshy; widespread (absent from Suisun delta). --> hirsutula etc."

  • Moore also wrote a dissertation (2010) and two papers (2012, 2014) on Grindelia genetics. These are a great read, but they don't directly inform the question of how to ID a plant that could be hirsutula or stricta var. platyphylla. One or two relevant points from Moore et al.'s results are: (i) hirsutula and stricta var. platyphylla are closely related, (ii) geographic variation is pronounced in the genus, and variation is marked between populations and limited within populations.
  • Matthews & Mitchell (2015) generall follow Moore (2012) (i.e. not the original Matthews (1997) edition). They include four taxa: angustifolia, platyphylla, hirsutula, and camporum. There's some good info in their text.
  • Yeager & Mitchell (2016) just include platyphylla, but theirs is not intended to be an exhuastive list for the County.
  • Styer (2019) suggests most Fort Ord Grindelia are platyphylla, and the presence of hirsutula is uncertain. This make sense when you realize that most Fort Ord Grindelia occur west of Hwy 1 in the most dune-like habitats. But it leaves interior Fort Ord Grindelia in question - the inland plants are on ancient dunes, and in grasslands that are somewhat interior.

Summarizing all this for use on Fort Ord in Monterey County, California, if one were to simultaneously accept Keck (1959), Lane (1993), and Moore (2012), it seems that for a plant to be hirsutula, it should have: phyllaries not sharply reflexed; awns that are narrow, entire, and U-shaped or flat; leaves (gen.) not fleshy and a location that is perhaps more like interior grassland than coastal dune. On the other hand, if one were to dismiss all but the most recent author, a hirsutula would simply need to be interior and non-fleshy-leaved.

Note that POWO currently subsumes platyphylla under hirsutula, but iNat recognizes platyphylla as a distinct taxon. The two are supposed to align, but this is not always the case. In such situations, I think it is best to ID to the taxa available in iNat (i.e. platyphylla or hirsutula, depending on characters), and if a lumping is deciding later in iNat, the IDs can be automatically lumped as well.

Disclaimer: I haven't searched beyond the literature I cited. There may be pertinent literature that I haven't looked at yet.

Maybe some other day I'll dig out the text from a few of the regional floras for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo counties...

Publicado el martes, 27 de junio de 2023 a las 05:07 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 4 comentarios | Deja un comentario

viernes, 21 de abril de 2023

Aphanes and Alchemilla in Monterey County, California

There's some taxonomic plasticity going on with Aphanes and Alchemilla. Genus Aphanes has been considered for inclusion in the broader genus Alchemilla (see notes under Aphanes in FNA). Perhaps just one taxon is relevant to Monterey County? But a second epithet, arvensis, has been used in iNat in Monterey County. Perhaps we need to flip some arvensis to occidentalis?

  • POWO accepts Alchemilla occidentalis and Alchemilla arvensis, and notes that Aphanes arvensis is a synonym for Alchemilla arvensis
  • iNat includes Alchemilla occidentalis and arvensis
  • FNA includes 11 Alchemilla taxa and three Aphanes taxa.
  • Jepson only includes Aphanes, with one taxon: Aphanes occidentalis
  • CalFlora lists Aphanes occidentalis, with synonyms Alchemilla occidentalis, and Aphanes arvensis.
  • Matthews & Mitchell only includes Aphanes occidentalis
  • Styer only includes Aphanes occidentalis.

The FNA key describes arvensis as generally the larger plant in several aspects: flowers, leaves, stems, and hairs.

A small plant with leaves < 4mm and hairs always < 1mm would be occidentalis.

Thoughts anyone?

Publicado el viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 04:59 PM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

lunes, 16 de enero de 2023

Witch's Butter on the Central Coast of California

These notes arose from a thread between me and @yerbasanta. It seems correct. But let me know if you know otherwise. Note: There's a particular focus on Fort Ord, because that's where we live and work. Most of the information is from Desjardin et al. (2015).

There are at least three "Witch's Butter" fungi that occur on the Californian Central Coast. Distinguishing them visually is difficult, if not impossible. But they can be distinguished on the basis of where they grow.

  1. Naematelia aurantia, syn. Tremella aurantia, "Witch's Butter", "Golden Ear" (sometimes incorrectly ID'ed as Tremella mesenterica). A mycoparasite on Stereum hirsutum fruitbodies, which in turn grow on hardwood branches.
  2. Tremella mesenterica, "Witch's Butter". A mycoparasite on Peniophora, a crust fungus known as "Giraffe Spots". At the time of writing, Peniophora has not yet been observed on Fort Ord. But it has been observed nearby. (Stereum hirsutum on the other hand is very common on Fort Ord.)
  3. Dacrymyces chrysospermus, syn. Dacrymyces palmatus, "Witch's Butter", "Orange Jelly Spot". A saprotroph mostly on conifer wood, and "seldom on hardwoods".

So the situation in our region would appear to be like this:

  1. If it is on Stereum fruiting bodies, it's N. aurantia
  2. If it's on Peniophora it's T. mesenterica. And note, although Peniophora is close by, it has not yet been observed on iNat on Fort Ord.
  3. If it's on wood and the above two hosts are not evident, it's D. chrysospermus. Note that MykoWeb says that a field mark for D. chrysospermus is white attachment points. I haven't looked for these, yet...

Remaining uncertainty: we seem to have a lot of witch's butter on Fort Ord on various woody substrates that not are coniferous, and without Stereum or Peniophora. If these are all D. chrysospermus, then they all must be encompassed by Desjardin et al's note: "seldom on hardwoods". Hmmm...

References: Mostly from Desjardin et al. (2015).
Obs threads e.g.: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/146481455#activity_comment_e09477eb-4c03-444e-af1b-ddf95c997ee3

Publicado el lunes, 16 de enero de 2023 a las 01:58 AM por fredwatson fredwatson | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario