Diario de fredwatson

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:

• http://floranorthamerica.org/Carex_sect._Acrocystis
• http://floranorthamerica.org/Carex_globosa
• http://floranorthamerica.org/Carex_brevicaulis

TJM - key, then descriptions for globosa and brevicaulis:

• https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_keys.php?key=8902
• https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=17450
• https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=17307

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:

• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/203426645 Carex globosa, as far as I've been able to discern so far.

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:

• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/157850266
• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/156687581

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.")