June 2000 North American Native Orchid Journal

1

NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID JOURNAL

______________________________________ Volume 6 June Number 2 2000

a quarterly devoted to the orchids of North America published by the

NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID ALLIANCE

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * IN THIS ISSUE: GALEANDRA BICARINATA, A NEW SPECIES FROM FLORIDA AND THE GREATER ANTILLES REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME GREEN PLATANTHERAS PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA IN ARIZONA RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA - Part 2��..and more!

2


(ISSN 1084-7332) published quarterly in

March June September December by the

NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID ALLIANCE a group dedicated to the conservation and promotion of our

native orchids

Editor: Paul Martin Brown

Assistant Editor: Nathaniel E. Conard Editorial & Production Assistants:

Philip E. Keenan Stan Folsom Nancy Webb

The Journal welcomes articles, of any length, of both a scientific and general interest nature relating to the orchids of North America. Scientific articles should conform to guidelines such as those in Lindleyana or Rhodora. General interest articles and notes may be more informal. Authors may include line drawings and/or black and white photographs. Color inserts may be arranged. Please send all inquiries or material for publication to the Editor at PO Box 772121, Ocala, FL 34477-2121 (late May - early Oct. Box 759, Acton, ME 04001-0759). 2000 Membership in the North American Native Orchid Alliance, which includes a subscription to the Journal, is $26 per year in the United States, $29US in Canada and $32US other foreign countries. Payment should be sent to Nancy A. Webb, 84 Etna St., Brighton, MA 02135-2830. Claims for lost issues or canceled memberships should be made to the editorial office within 30 days.

3


Volume 6 June Number 2 2000

CONTENTS NOTES FROM THE EDITOR

75 GALEANDRA BICARINATA (CYRTOPODIINAE:

ORCHIDACEAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM FLORIDA AND THE GREATER ANTILLES

Gustavo A. Romero-González & Paul Martin Brown 77

REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME GREEN PLATANTHERAS

Charles J. Sheviak 88

LOOKING FORWARD: September 2000

92

HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

Eric E. Lamont 93

A PRELIMINARY POPULATION STUDY OF PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA (HIGGINS & WELSH) KARTESZ & GANDHI (ORCHIDACEAE) AT NAVAJO

NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA Laura E. Hudson, Ronald A. Coleman,& Shauna Charles

103

4

RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA - Part 2 Anne B. Wagner, Ken Wagner & Paul Martin Brown

119

THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED The Slow Empiricist

133

AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION 139

AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE

ORCHIDACEAE OF ARKANSAS George P. Johnson

140

RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES FROM FLORIDA 7.

The Genus Habenaria Paul Martin Brown

142

5th ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID CONFERENCE

154 Unless otherwise credited, all drawings in this issue are by Stan Folsom

Color Plates: Plate 1, page 155 Galeandra bicarinata Plate 2, page 156 Platanthera zothecina, P. dilatata var. albiflora x P. stricta Plate 3, page 157 Habenaria distans, H. repens, H. odontopetala Plate 4, page 158 Habenaria macroceratitis, H. quinqueseta

The opinions expressed in the Journal are those of the authors. Scientific articles may be subject to peer review and popular articles will be examined for

both accuracy and scientific content. Volume 6, number 2, pages 75-158; issued June 20, 2000.

Copyright 2000 by the North American Native Orchid Alliance, Inc. Cover: Calopogon multiflorus by Stan Folsom

75

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR

As summer is coming upon us, many of our members are preparing to attend the 5th Annual North American Native Orchid Conference in Washington State this July. Despite excessive rain in the Northeast and drought in parts of the Southeast and mid west, the Pacific Northwest promises an abundance of orchids for our meeting. Only a few spaces remain, so if you are considering attending, do not hesitate to call about registration.

This issue presents a wide variety of articles - from field research, to a new species, to revalidation of a species, to some interesting historical notes and the second installment of the Wagner's series on rare, threatened and endangered orchids in North America. Both the September and December issues will continue the series as well as publish the proceedings from the conference and several new taxa.

Despite a serious injury to myself in May in Everglades National Park, work continues on the Florida Native Orchid Project, and by the time you read this we will have returned to Maine for the summer. I will be returning to Florida in late June and early

76

September for a few days each to continue the research for the project. We plan to migrate south in early October this year. Please remember that if you are trying to reach us during July we will be driving to Washington and back for the conference. I will try to access email periodically when possible. Paul Martin Brown, editor PO Box 759 Acton, Maine 04001 207/636-3719 [email protected]

Romero-González & Brown: GALEANDRA BICARINATA

77

GALEANDRA BICARINATA (CYRTOPODIINAE: ORCHIDACEAE), A

NEW SPECIES FROM FLORIDA AND THE GREATER ANTILLES

Gustavo A. Romero-González

and Paul Martin Brown

Abstract: Galeandra bicarinata, a new species in section Campestridae, is described and illustrated. Herbarium material of Galeandra bicarinata was formerly referred to G. beyrichii throughout its geographical range (Florida and Cuba). It differs from Galeandra beyrichii and G. coxinnensis in having a bicarinate callus, confluent toward the base and divergent toward the apex of the lip.

Resumen: Se describe y se ilustra Galeandra bicarinata, una

nueva especie de la sección Campestridae, anteriormente conocida como G. beyrichii en todo su rango geográfico (Florida y Cuba). Se diferencia de esta especie y de G. coxinnensis por tener un callo en el labelo con dos carinas confluyentes hacia la base y divergentes hacia el ápice del labelo.

Resumo: Descreve-se e ilustra-se Galeandra bicarinata, uma

nova espécie da seção Campestrinae, anteriormente conhecida como G.beyrichii da Flórida e Cuba. Diferencia-se desta espécie e de G.coxinnensis por ter um calo no labelo com duas carinas convergentes em direção à base e divergentes em direção ao ápice do labelo.


78

The genus Galeandra Lindl. & Bauer is divided

into two major groups: the epiphytic species, bearing articulate leaves and flowers pollinated by Euglossa spp. bees, with their center of diversity in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins, and encompassing about 20 species, and the terrestrial species, a group bearing non-articulate leaves the pollination of which has so far not been documented, with the center of diversity in the Brazilian Shield, encompassing approximately 8 species. These two groups were formally recognized as sections Galeandra and Campestridae Cogn., respectively (sensu Senghas, 1990: 1449). Section Campestridae is composed of two groups: one bearing leaves and one leafless at anthesis. Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f., the type of section Campestridae (designated by Senghas, 1990: 1449), has been a catch-all name applied to the terrestrial, �leafless� Galeandras throughout their geographical range: Florida, the Greater Antilles, Central and South America to southern Brazil. The following species appeared to be distinct, but a formal description awaited suitable fresh and herbarium material, recently made available to the authors.

Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown, sp. nov. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Florida: Miami-Dade County, Castellow�s Hammock, Near Silver Spring, "pale green, edge turned back, white with narrow reddish-purple stripes, capsules 3 cm long�, 2 November 1946, Roy Woodbury & Karl Kramer s.n. (Holotype: FTG; photograph of live flowers from type material, AMES). Fig. 1--2.


79

Ex affinitate G. beyrichii Rchb.f. et specierum affinium

callo angusto bicarinato carinis crebis distinguenda Plants terrestrial, the leafy shoot to 60 cm tall, leaves absent at anthesis. Roots white, numerous, thick, fleshy. Rhizome abbreviate. Pseudobulbs subterranean, corm-like, ovoid, covered with scales. Leaves 1--2, non-articulate, plicate, 3-ribbed, linear-lanceolate, the blade to 25 cm long and 3.0 cm wide, the petiole to approximately 15 cm long. Inflorescence terminal, erect, borne after the leafy shoot, sometimes branched, to 20-flowered and 1.0 m tall, with several small, imbricating bracts at the base; peduncle purple, with several leaf-like bracts, to 7.0 cm long; rachis green; floral bracts scarious, lanceolate, to 2.0 cm long. Flowers resupinate, light green; pedicellate ovary to 2.5 cm long; sepals and petals spreading, the sepals keeled; sepals oblanceolate, to 2.4 cm long and 0.7 cm wide; petals oblanceolate, slightly oblique, to 2.0 cm long and 0.7 cm wide; labellum subquadrate, slightly trilobate at the apex when spread, to 2.0 cm long and 2.5 cm wide, the base produced into a short, slightly uncinate, obtuse, nearly cylindrical spur; margins crenate, covered with short trichomes, the apex reflexed; disc with a narrow callus, covered with short trichomes, bicarinate, the keels merging toward the base, diverging toward the apex; column erect, slightly arcuate, trigonous, with a prominent foot, to 1.0 cm long and 0.3 cm wide; anther green, cucullate, acute, the margins and the apex papillose, to 0.2 cm long and 0.3 cm wide; pollinaria with no discernable viscidium or


80

stipe and two yellow, spherical pollinia, 1.0 mm in diameter. Capsule pendent, ellipsoid, to 3.0 cm long (description based on pickled flowers). Etymology: from the Latin bi-, two, and carina, keel, ridge, for the callus with two keels. Distribution: Tropical Florida and Cuba. Additional specimens cited: UNITED STATES. Florida: Miami-Dade County, Castellow's Hammock, 19 October 1988, R. Hammer s.n. (leaves only; FTG); Everglades National Park, Mosier Hammock, 13 October 1991, "Collected from colony of 38 plants in bloom", sub R. & J. Seavey 1091 (Herbarium of Everglades National Park); Everglades National Park, Long Pine Key, Mosier Hammock, southwest quadrant, "tropical hardwood hammock, in leaf litter over oolitic limestone substrate", 15 September 1990, C. J. McCartney, Jr. s.n. (Herbarium of Everglades National Park). CUBA. September 1859-January 1860, C. Wright 1698 (AMES). Galeandra bicarinata is closely related to G. beyrichii, but it differs in the narrow, bicarinate callus (see Luer, 1972: 244, plate 74, Fig. 6), versus the wide callus with four ridges in G. beyrichii (described and/or illustrated in Hoehne, 1912: 15; Dunsterville and Garay, 1963, 1979:


81

Figure 1. Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown. Drawing by Bobbi Angell based on pickled flowers collected by P. M. Brown, Miami-Dade County, Florida October--November 1999.


82

320; Dodson and Dodson, 1982, also reproduced in Senghas, 1990: 1451; 1; Senghas, 1991). A second �leafless� species, Galeandra coxinnensis Hoehne, also bears flowers with a bicarinate callus, but its inflorescences are highly congested, and the ridges of the callus are confluent toward both the base and the apex of the labellum (Hoehne, 1912: 15--17, t. 70). Galeandra bicarinata was first observed in Florida in 1946, when a group of students went collecting in Castello Hammock, Miami-Dade County ("Dade County, Castellow's Hammock" in the original correspondence and herbarium labels), near Silver Palm, south of Miami. According to a note affixed to the isotype at AMES, written by A. D. Hawkes to Professor Ames and dated 5 November 1946, "Karl Kramer, one of my fellow students who is very interested in orchids, found an orchid which stumped us for a while, but which I am almost certain is Galeandra Beyrichii". On the same sheet, a note addressed to Charles Schweinfurth, dated 11 December 1946, Hawkes related the following information: "Enclosed is a photograph of a terrestrial orchid collected in Castelow's Hammock, several miles south of Miami. I have talked to Prof. Ames about it (he has not seen the photo, though) and he seems to think it is Galeandra Beyrichii. Dr. Walter Buswell of the University [of Miami] and I have compared the live plant with a description and sketch in Fawcett & Rendle's Flora of Jamaica. Several discrepancies are noted by Dr. Buswell� If the photo is not sufficient for identification, I shall send you a description. Unfortunately, we have only one flower, so I will not be


83

able to submit that to you. The area has been searched thoroughly since this plant's discovery, and no more specimens have been located. Hope you can give us an identification on this. We are all very puzzled by its discovery in such a well-known location". Hawkes reported this finding in the literature the following year (Hawkes, 1947): he illustrated his article with a plate drawn by Gordon Dillon and commissioned by Oakes Ames, showing flowers with a wide callus with four ridges. This plate, however, was "redrawn from Cogniaux" (Hawkes, 1947; also published in Correll, 1950: 313). Although "Cogniaux" is not cited further in Hawke's or Correll's "Selected Bibliography" (Correll, 1950: 390--393), the reference is undoubtedly to plate 74 in Cogniaux's treatment of Galeandra for Flora Brasiliensis (Cogniaux, 1895), a drawing based on Brazilian material of Galeandra beyrichii (actually Barbosa Rodrigues' rendition of his Galeandra viridis; Barbosa Rodrigues, 1996), thus explaining the four ridges in the callus. Fawcett and Rendle (1910: 47, t. 7) also described and clearly showed a labellum with four ridges. Herbarium material from Jamaica (W. Harris 9780; AMES, NY) and the Dominican Republic (R. A. & E. S. Howard 8954 & 9719, AMES, US) also unequivocally shows four ridges in the callus, and it appears that Galeandra beyrichii and G. bicarinata are both found in the Greater Antilles. Detailed examination of material from Puerto Rico is necessary to determine which of the two species is found on that island. An argument developed over the years whether the so-called �leafless� species of Galeandra bore leaves.


84

Reichenbach f. (1849) did not mention them in his protologue of G. beyrichii. According to Barbosa Rodrigues (1882: 177), his Galeandra viridis "� est hystéranthe" (from the Greek hysteros, after, later, and anthos, flower), and he included a leaf in his illustration of this species (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1996). The Gordon Dillon plate cited above (Hawkes, 1947; Correll, 1950: 313) also included a leaf, but it as mentioned above, it appears that Dillon was copying Cogniaux�s and ultimately Barbosa Rodrigues's plate. Hoehne pointed out, however, in a note published by Hawkes (1953), "According to Cogniaux in Martius Flora Brasiliensis, Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f. possesses a single plicate leaf, produced after the flowers fade. This is in complete error; I have never encountered it with leaves. These have been reduced to the small, closly (sic) appressed sheathing bracts of the peduncle. The species exists as a native in he forests of our Jardim Botânico (in São Paulo), living only by means of its subterranean pseudobulbs, which grow beneath the detritus and annually form a new bulb, separated from the others by an isthmus; these pseudobulbs produce from their apices a raceme of flowers, furnished with the above-noted appressed sheaths, the inflorescences sometimes reaching a height of almost two meters (above 7 feet)". More recently Luer (1972: 245, plate 74, Fig. 8; see also page 246) showed a photograph of the leafy shoot of G. bicarinata, and Dodson and Dodson (1982) illustrated that of a Galeandra beyrichii specimen from Ecuador and described the leaves as "� not present during flowering, thin, veined on the underside". One of us (PMB) was able to follow the development of leaves in


85

several plants in southern Florida, finally solving this riddle. The youngest pseudobulb produces a leafy shoot in the late spring/fall. The fully developed leaves last six to eight weeks and later drop and disappear, leaving behind a small pseudobulb, from which the inflorescence develops 4--12 weeks later. Thus, the "leafless" Galeandras are leafy after all!

The pollinator of this group of Galeandra species

is not known, but the pollinarium in flowers of Galeandra beyrichii presents a well-developed viscidium and stipe (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1996; Dunsterville and Garay, 1963; Rodríguez, 1986: plate on page 173); examination of flowers from herbarium specimens suggests they are not autogamous (Ackerman, 1995: 79). In contrast, in a number of fresh flowers of Galeandra bicarinata examined under a dissecting scope, no discernable stipe or viscidium could be found, and one or both pollinia were in contact with the stigmatic surface: all the examined flowers appeared to be autogamous.

Finally, the present study suggests that Galeandra

fiebrigii Schltr., a species from Bolivia, with six minute, subparallel keels on the labellum callus (Schlechter, 1922) may not be referable to G. beyrichii, as it has been previously assumed (Dunsterville and Garay, 1965: 134).

Acknowledgments.

The authors are grateful to the following herbaria for providing access to their collections: FTG, MO, NY, PORT, US, VEN, W, and the Everglades National Park. We thank Bobbi


86

Angell for figure 1, V. P. Castro N. for the Portuguese translation of the abstract, R. Clusman for assistance in locating plants of G. bicarinata in Miami-Dade County, Florida, G. Carnevali and L. M. Campbell, C. H. Dodson, and R. L. Dressler for valuable comments to the manuscript, and P. & E. Burgher for financial support (to PMB). Literature cited Ackerman, J. D. 1995. Orchid Flora of Puerto Rico and the

Virgin Islands. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 73: 1--203. Barbosa R., J. 1882. Genera et Species Orchidearum Novarum 2.

Tipografía Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. _____. 1996. Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f. (originally as G. viridis).

Page 153 in S. Sprunger (ed.), Iconographie des Orchidées du Brésil. Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, Basle.

Cogniaux, A. 1895. Galeandra. Fl. Bras. 3, 4: 293--310, t. 69--74. Correll, D. S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America. Chronica

Botanica Company, Waltham, Massachusetts. Dodson, C. H. and P. M. Dodson. 1982. Galeandra beyrichii. Icon.

Pl. Trop. 5: t. 434. The Marie Selby Botanical Garden, Sarasota, Florida.

Dunsterville, G. C. K. D. and L. A. Garay. 1963. Venezuelan Orchids --- Galeandra Beyrichii. Orch. Rev. 71: 112--113.

_____. 1965. Venezuelan Orchids Illustrated III. Andre Deutsch, London.

_____. 1979. Venezuelan Orchids, an Illustrated Field Guide. Botanical Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fawcett, W. and A. B. Rendle. 1910. Orchidaceae. Flora of Jamaica 1: 1--150, t. 1--32. Longmans & Co., London.

Hawkes, A. D. 1947. An orchid new to the United States. Amer. Orchid Soc. Bull. 16: 234--236.

_____. 1952. An orchid new to Panama. Orch. J. 1: 149--150. _____. 1953. Further notes on Galeandra beyrichii. Orch. J. 2: 133. Hoehne, F. C. 1912. Galeandra. Relat. Commiss. Linhas. Telegr.

Estrateg. Matto Grosso Amazonas, Annexo 5, Bot. pt. 4: 13--17, t. 70.


87

Luer, C. A. 1972. The Native Orchids of Florida. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

Reichenbach f., G. H. 1849. Galeandra beyrichii. Linnaea 22: 854. Rodríguez C., R. L. 1986. Galeandra beyrichii. Orquídeas de Costa

Rica. Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.

Schlechter, R. 1922. Galeandra fiebrigii. Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 10: 47.

Senghas, K. 1990. Galeandra. Pages 1447--1452 in F. G. Brieger, R. Maatsch, and K. Senghas, Die Orchideen, ed. 3. 1. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin.

____. 1991. Galeandra. Pages 188--191 in R. Escobar (Ed.), Native Colombian Orchids 2. Editorial Colina, Medellín, Colombia.

Gustavo A. Romero-González, Curator, Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium, Harvard University Herbaria, 22 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Paul Martin Brown, Research Associate, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Sheviak : REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME GREEN PLATANTHERAS

88

REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME GREEN

PLATANTHERAS

Charles J. Sheviak

During last year's annual meeting (Tampa, Florida, April 11-16, 1999), I presented an overview of the so-called Platanthera hyperborea - P. dilatata complex as I have come to see it over a few decades of study (Sheviak, 1999). As I mentioned then, I think that considerable progress has been made in our understanding of this seemingly intractable complex, enough that I have real hope that we can ultimately make some sense of the group. The present note is a case in point: it is unusual to be able so quickly to revise a previous account, but the past season's field work focused on one aspect of the problem and its results both support the synopsis presented earlier and necessitate some revision of it.

One focus of last year's presentation was the identity of certain ambiguous plants from the southern Cordillera. These plants of rather generalized morphology, with lax inflorescence, lanceolate green lips, clavate spurs slightly shorter than the lip, and a sweet-pungent fragrance, are locally rather common


89

plants in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona; rather similar plants are known from the Sierra Nevada in California. Last year I presented evidence that the plants in Colorado are generated through hybridization of Platanthera dilatata (Pursh) Lindl. ex Beck. var. albiflora (Cham.) Ledeb. and P. purpurascens (Rydb.) Sheviak & Jennings. I compared them to a photograph of a plant from northwestern Wyoming published by Luer (1975) as P. hyperborea (L.) Lindl. var. gracilis (Lindl.) Luer. Although P. gracilis Lindl. is a synonym of P. stricta Lindl. and not appropriately applied to these plants, the biological, not nomenclatural, identity of Luer's plant was of primary interest. I suggested that from what could be determined from the published illustration, the plant appeared to represent the same hybrid that I had documented in Colorado.

The one difficulty with this determination lay in the known range of Platanthera purpurascens, which had not been documented so far north. My primary goal for the field season of 1999, then, was to document the occurrence of this species northward from Colorado across Wyoming, and to attempt to locate hybrids and verify the identity of Luer's plant. Additionally, since P. stricta was known to range southward into northwestern Wyoming, I hoped to see how these two similar species behaved where their ranges overlapped.

Accordingly, seemingly suitable habitat was surveyed from the Medicine Bow Mountains on the Colorado border northwestward along the length of the Wind River Range, and across the Big Horn Mountains


90

to the northeast. In general, Platanthera dilatata var. albiflora and P. huronensis (Nutt.) Lindl. proved to be widespread, frequent, and abundant throughout many of the montane areas surveyed. Platanthera aquilonis Sheviak was more limited, being located few times at lower elevations in the Wind River Valley and in the Big Horns. In contrast, P. purpurascens was very rare, being located only twice, both times in the southern Medicine Bow, and then only as a few plants at each site. The abundance of other species and seemingly suitable habitat that was found throughout the area suggests that the perceived absence of P. purpurascens is real and not merely apparent. Although my field experience isn't adequate to establish a range, it agrees with herbarium studies that indicate that the species barely enters Wyoming from the south. It is apparent then that P. purpurascens and P. stricta are probably not sympatric in Wyoming.

What then is Luer's plant? In the absence of Platanthera purpurascens, some other origin would seem more reasonable than hybridization involving this species. A fortuitous find in the Big Horns provides a plausible explanation. On the mountains' east slope a springy hillside meadow was found supporting a large colony of P. stricta with a few plants of P. dilatata var. albiflora intermixed. Two clearly intermediate, evidently hybrid plants were found, and these agreed well with Luer's photograph. In particular, the columns seemed comparable. This was the only feature evident in Luer's photograph that I had found to be out-of-keeping with my original determination. His photograph shows


91

rather prominent anther sacs more suggestive of P. stricta than of P. purpurascens and P. dilatata. Without scale, however, the feature was difficult to assess in the photo, and I had weighted it accordingly. The similarity of the columns of the two evident hybrids that I found with the plant in Luer's photograph suggests that his plant was of the same parentage as my Big Horn plants.

Hybridization of Platanthera dilatata with either P. stricta or P. purpurascens evidently produces very similar plants with essentially identical lanceolate, green lips, despite markedly different parental lip shapes and colors. This supports the hypothesis that I advanced at the meeting. The rather generalized morphology of the hybrids can be viewed as an atavistic expression of an unspecialized, ancestral condition. Such morphologies, then, can arise through diverse means that break-down specializations resulting from different genetic conditions that arose along different evolutionary pathways. Literature Cited: Luer, C. A. 1975. Native Orchids of the United States and Canada, excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden. Sheviak, C.J. 1999. Platanthera hyperborea and a reappraisal of green Platantheras. No. Am. Native Orchid Journ. 5:117-141; 198. Acknowledgements: The general course of field work was developed from past study of specimens at the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University of


92

Wyoming [RM], and I wish to thank the curator and staff for their assistance during my visit. Additional valuable suggestions of promising areas for investigation were provided by William Jennings, and his continuing assistance is greatly appreciated. Contribution number 806 of the New York State Museum Charles. J. Sheviak, Biological Survey, New York State Museum, Albany, NY 12230 e-mail: [email protected]

LOOKING FORWARD SEPTEMBER 2000

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH ANNUAL

NOPRTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID CONFERENCE

RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA PART 3

and more��..!

Lamont: HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

93

HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS

FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

Eric E. Lamont

Giovanni da Verrazano was the first European to set eyes on the land we now know as Brooklyn, New York. The year was 1524, and the Italian explorer was drawn across the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean by stories of virgin lands overflowing with riches, and schools of fish so thick they could thwart a ship�s passage. On April 17th of that year, Verrazano piloted his ship, the Dauphine, through a narrow cut between two land masses he did not know were islands and entered a wide, deep bay sheltered by thickly forested lands. He was in what would later be called New York Harbor; he was the first European to see the wooded western end of Long Island on the harbor�s eastern shore. Describing his trip in a letter to his patron king of France, Francis I, Verrazano spoke of a land �covered with immense forests of trees, more or less dense, various in colors and delightful and charming in appearance.� The land was so filled with an abundance of animals, birds, forests and flowers that its �rich


94

perfume wafted out to sea at great distance.� The letter was written in an almost breathless tone. Years later, other explorers and settlers confirmed the land�s rich natural history and beauty. Eventually, botanists visited this land we now call Brooklyn. They observed plants of southern affinities that had crepted northward on the sandy soils of the Atlantic coastal plain. They also found species growing in the rich soils of northern Brooklyn, soils deposited by glaciers originating far to the north. Small streams flowed southward from the humble Brooklyn hills and fanned out to form vast swamps and marshlands on the flat coastal lowlands, before flowing through endless salt marshes that eventually emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. Such diversity of habitats provided the opportunity for the development of a rich and diverse flora. Today, Brooklyn constitutes one of the five boroughs of New York City. Located in the southwestern extremity of Long Island, Brooklyn (aka Kings County) occupies a relatively small area of land. The irregularly shaped borough has a total land area of only 71 square miles; if Brooklyn was shaped as a rectangle it would extend less than 9 miles from east to west and less than 8 miles from north to south. But within that small area of land our botanical forefathers documented the occurrence of 20 species of native orchids.


95

Probably the most significant collection of all the Brooklyn orchids is the spotted coralroot (Corallorhiza maculata). The genus Corallorhiza was first delimited in 1760 by the French botanist Jean Jacques Chatelain, who in the same 1760 publication designated the northern coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida [=Ophrys corallorhiza L.]) as the type species for the genus. Sometime during the early 1800s, a large robust specimen of coralroot was collected from the �shady woods of Long Island, near Flatbush [Brooklyn].� Eventually, the collection from Brooklyn made its way into the hands of the eccentric French botanist Constantine Samuel Rafinesque who in 1817 proclaimed it to be an undescribed species, new to science. Rafinesque initially placed the new orchid from Brooklyn in the genus Cladorhiza, but then transferred it to Corallorhiza where we still know it today as Corallorhiza maculata, the spotted coralroot. The last verified report of the spotted coralroot from Brooklyn was documented by S. Calverley who collected a specimen in 1858. Calverley also collected the inconspicuous, more southern Corallorhiza odontorhiza from Brooklyn in 1857. Calverley�s Brooklyn collections of the two species of Corallorhiza have been deposited in the herbarium at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BKL). It is impossible for present day botanists to determine the exact locations of the historical orchid collections from Brooklyn. Almost all of our information comes from hand written notes recorded


96

on herbarium labels, and these records are scanty and incomplete at best. Most herbarium labels from the late 1800s provide locality data that simply state �Brooklyn,� or �swampy places� near a named town, or rarely (as in the case of a collection of Platanthera psycodes) �meadow near bone boiling factory, New Lots, Brooklyn.� We can deduce, however, that the rich woodland loving orchids probably occurred in the northern morainal hills of Brooklyn, in the vicinity of present day Cypress Hills and Brooklyn Heights. Sometimes these locations were listed on herbarium labels, as in the collection of the lily-leaved twayblade (Liparis lilifolia); but most often we are left to speculate, as in the Brooklyn collections of the long-bracted orchid (Coeloglossum viride var. virescens), pink lady�s slipper (Cypripedium acaule), yellow lady�s slipper (C. parviflorum) and large whorled pogonia (Isotria verticillata). The �Brooklyn Barrens� was a stretch of land located between the rich hills of northern Brooklyn and the sandy, outer coastal plain to the south. The town of Flatbush sprang up in The Barrens and orchid collections from this vicinity include the downy rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens) and green adder�s mouth (Malaxis unifolia). As the human population of Brooklyn significantly increased during the late 1800s, land suitable for development became more and more scarce. The extensive system of swamps and marshlands located in the southeastern portion of


97

Brooklyn became the last safe haven for orchids. A rich diversity of orchid species occurred in this region, including dragon�s mouth (Arethusa bulbosa), grass-pink (Calopogon tuberosus), white fringed orchid (Platanthera blephariglottis), yellow fringed orchid (P. ciliaris), tubercled rein-orchid (P. flava var. herbiola), ragged fringed orchid (P. lacera), small purple fringed orchid (P. psycodes) and rose pogonia (Pogonia ophioglossoides). The last orchid specimen collected from Brooklyn dates back to 1911, when J. McCallum collected spring ladies� tresses (Spiranthes vernalis) from moist sands at the world famous Coney Island. Nodding ladies� tresses (Spiranthes cernua) and southern slender ladies� tresses (S. lacera var. gracilis) were also known to occur in Brooklyn, the final collections date back to 1892 and 1889, respectively. Sadly, all of the Brooklyn wetlands were filled in by the turn of the century and today, of the 20 species of native orchids historically known to have occurred in Brooklyn, not a single species has survived. Ironically, during the past two decades the non-native broad-leaved helleborine orchid (Epipactis helleborine) has invaded Brooklyn and is vigorously colonizing disturbed roadsides and the borders of woodlands.


98

dragon�s mouth Arethusa bulbosa


99

spotted coralroot Corallorhiza maculata


100

large whorled pogonia Isotria verticillata


101

Appendix Selected Herbarium Collections of Native Orchids from Brooklyn, New York __________________________________________________ Year Name of Species Collected Location Collector Herbarium __________________________________________________ Arethusa bulbosa 1871 New Lots Leggett NY Calopogon tuberosus 1888 Canarsie Eccles NYS Coeloglossum viride 1879 New Lots ? CU Corallorhiza maculata 1859 Brooklyn Calverley BKL Corallorhiza odontorhiza 1857 Brooklyn Calverley BKL Cypripedium acaule 1890 Forbells Hulst BKL

Landing Cypripedium parviflorum 1866 Greenwood Brainerd BKL Goodyera pubescens 1890 Flatbush Zabriskie BKL Isotria verticillata 1891 Forbells Hulst BKL

Landing Liparis liliifolia 1890 Cypress Hills Hulst BKL Malaxis unifolia 1889 Flatbush Zabriskie BKL Plantanthera blephariglottis 1892 New Lots Hulst BKL Plantanthera ciliaris 1890 New Lots Zabriskie BKL Plantanthera flava 1877 New Lots Schrenk NY

var. herbiola Plantanthera lacera 1867 New Lots Brainerd BKL Plantanthera psycodes 1863 New Lots Brainerd BKL Pogonia ophioglossoides 1888 Canarsie Eccles NYS Spiranthes cernua 1889 New Lots Fernie BKL Spiranthes lacera 1889 Cypress Hills Fernie BKL

var. gracilis Spiranthes vernalis 1911 Coney Island McCallum BKL __________________________________________________


102

The following orchid publications are available upon request, compliments of the author. Lamont, E. E. 1998. Notes on wild orchids of Long Island, New York. Long

Island Botanical Society Newsletter 8(6): 36. Lamont, E. E. 1996. Atlas of the orchids of Long Island, New York. Bulletin of

the Torrey Botanical Club 123: 157-166. Lamont, E. E. 1996. One hundred years of change in the orchid flora of Long

Island, New York. Proceedings of the New York Natural History Conference 4: 20.

Lamont, E. E. 1995. Fanny Mulford�s orchid collections from the late 1890�s.

Long Island Botanical Society Newsletter 5(2): 7-9. Lamont, E. E. 1994. The weed orchid (Epipactis helleborine) on Long Island,

New York. Long Island Botanical Society Newsletter 4(2): 12. Lamont, E. E. 1992. East Hampton orchids: will they survive? Long Island

Botanical Society Newsletter 2(6): 4-5 Lamont, E. E., J. M. Beitel and R. E. Zaremba. 1988. Current status of orchids

on Long Island, New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 115: 113-121.

[Reprints of orchid publications may be obtained by writing to: Eric Lamont, Department of Biology, Riverhead High School, Riverhead, New York 11901]

Hudson, Coleman, & Charles: PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA

103

A PRELIMINARY POPULATION STUDY OF PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA (HIGGINS &

WELSH) KARTESZ & GANDHI (ORCHIDACEAE) AT NAVAJO NATIONAL

MONUMENT, ARIZONA

Laura E. Hudson, Ronald A. Coleman,& Shauna Charles

• INTRODUCTION

Platanthera zothecina, alcove bog orchid, is a recently described western member of this genus. The alcove bog orchid is in a group of species that have been placed in three different genera over time: Habenaria, Limnorchis, and Platanthera (Colorado Native Plant Society, 1997). Welsh (1986; Welsh et al., 1987) described and named it based on a specimen from Grand County, Utah. Before their description, it had been considered a variant of P. sparsiflora (Hevly, 1961). This study was initiated by the National Park Service after the alcove bog orchid was identified in Arizona during a threatened and endangered species survey at


104

Navajo National Monument (Drost, 2000). Its status is listed as Category 2 (species of special concern) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Category 3 (likely to become endangered) by the Navajo Nation. Scientists from the Biological Resources Division of U.S. Geologic Service recommended the development of monitoring protocols to address number, distribution, and condition of these orchids. Because P. zothecina is a fairly new taxon, and little is known about its ecology, this study will document baseline information on the number, size and distribution of P. zothecina populations as well as flowering and fruit set rates for the first year.

• MORPHOLOGY Platanthera zothecina can be easily distinguished from P. sparsiflora based on several morphological characteristics (Fig. 1). The plants are from 15-60 cm tall in Colorado (Spackman et al., 1997), but the tallest found in Arizona was 35cm. Leaves are dimorphic on P. zothecina with basal leaves more oval with obtuse leaf tips (Spackman et al., 1997) and there are 1 to 2 leaf-like bracts between the leaves and flowers. In general, the leaves on P. zothecina are much more rounded, and clustered nearer the bottom of the stem than those on P. sparsiflora. Mature plants bear up to 30 laxly spaced pale green


105

flowers. The flowers can be distinguished from P. sparsiflora by the shape of the lip and length of the spur. The lip of P. zothecina is usually linear elliptic, while the lip of P. sparsiflora is linear. Spur length in P. zothecina is proportionally greater, from 1.5-2.5 times the length of the lip. In P. sparsiflora, the spur ranges from slightly shorter than the lip to 1.5 times as long. The flowering and fruiting period extends from July-August into late August, early September depending on climate and moisture conditions (Atwood et al., 1991).

• DISTRIBUTION

Presently, Platanthera zothecina appears to be mostly confined to the upper Colorado River watershed in southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, and extreme western Colorado (Colorado Native Plant Society, 1997). The first Arizona collections of this orchid were made in 1935 by John Wetherill in the Tsegi Canyon drainage of Navajo National Monument (Rothman, 1991). The data from these collections and other publications from Colorado and Utah suggest that P. zothecina is restricted to an elevational range of approximately 1300 to 2700 m (Drost, 2000; Spackman et al., 1997; Welsh et al., 1987). The authors identified several habitat types where the orchid occurs; all characterized by a continual supply of moisture. The


106

first habitat, implied by the common name of alcove bog orchid, consists of damp to wet areas of alcoves tucked in the backs of, or on the walls of, the sandstone canyons prevalent in the four corners region. A second, but similar habitat called hanging gardens, consists of wet areas on canyon walls. A third habitat is along the banks of streams in oak lined canyons.

• STUDY AREA Geology and Vegetation

Holiday (1998) summarized the geology and vegetation of Tsegi Canyon, where the orchid is known to occur. It generally consists of Navajo sandstone, which is porous and allows percolation into the Kayenta formation where seeps occur. Exfoliation of the sandstone above the seeps causes the formation of alcoves. The main component of the vegetation assemblages around the alcoves consists of Quercus gambelii. These oak terraces usually occur in side canyons draining from west to east and include shrubs such as Ribes cereum and Prunus viginiana. The alcoves, hanging gardens, and seeps are a very specialized subcomponent of the canyon and often harbor endemic, rare, and endangered plant species.


107

Climate

Holiday (1998) summarized the climate of Tsegi Canyon as arid with cold winters and hot summers. The daily average temperature is 10 C. Temperatures vary from highs of 34 to 38 C in July to lows of -23 to 13 C in the winters. The frost-free season averages about 155 days. Precipitation in the canyon is variable with a range of 17.3 cm to 47.7 cm annually. Most of the precipitation is during infrequent monsoon rain events.

• METHODS

Five personnel (one botanist, one orchid specialist, and three assistants) systematically surveyed one small alcove drainage within Tsegi Canyon where the orchid had been collected by Wetherhill in 1935, and where a recent study proved it still extant over 70years later (Drost, 2000). The entire drainage is approximately 76m wide (west to east) by 152m long (north to south). We started the survey inside the alcove, working our way downhill, including a survey of both east and west side slopes. We only found orchids where moisture was present. We identified four main populations; marked study site parameters with rebar, and photographed study sites (Fig. 2).


108

All four sites are located at approximately 2056m in

elevation. The transect line length and width was chosen to encompass all visible orchid plants on each site (Fig. 3). Sites 1 and 2 are located on two separate hanging garden/seeps inside the alcove along obvious cracks in the wall. Site 1 is the highest seep and is 4.6m long. Site 2 is along a seep below Site 1 and is 6.9m long. Site 3 is located along a mostly dry east side-slope outside the alcove. Site 3 has one section where a small spring flows downhill, disappears underground, and reappears again at Site 4. Due to the size of this population, Site 3 was subdivided into 5m sections with a total length of 55m long. Each subdivision was squared off to include all visible orchids uphill from the transect line (5m long x 1.5m wide). Site 4 is found south and downhill from the alcove in an accumulation zone. After major rain events, floodwaters run through here and leave behind layers of sediment. Site 4 is 12m long and is directly on the spring that reappears after going underground near Site 3. Site 4 was squared off to include all visible orchids along both sides of the spring (8.0m long x 0.5m wide).

On June 24, 1999, we counted the total number of individuals (or ramets) of Platanthera zothecina on all four study sites. Other information we collected on this date was the number of leaves for each plant. On July 9th,


109

we recorded the number of flowers and height of spike for each plant on all four sites. On August 10th, we counted the number of capsules per spike for all four sites. On September 6th, we counted all capsules again and noted those with seeds present or obviously released (fruit set). Either the capsules were split and the seeds could be seen or we could shake those that weren't completely split to determine fruit set. We also documented other factors possibly affecting the survival of the orchid population such as trampling, herbivory, and flooding on all four sites.

• RESULTS

Basic descriptive statistics were used to analyze the first-year data (Table 1). A complete count of all visible orchids on all four sites totaled 1,944 individuals with an average of four leaves per plant. Flowering was observed as early as July 3rd and continued through August 10th. For all study sites, the average number of flowers per plant was four and the average spike height during flowering was 22 cm. Flowering was quite variable and ranged from 74% on Site 3 to 9% on Site 4. However, of the plants that did flower, 81% successfully produced seeds (excluding Site 4). Seed capsules began to split around the last week of August and the first week of September. The average number


110

of capsules was four (excluding Site 4). Seed dispersal occurred early to mid-September. We documented herbivory and trampling effects for all four sites as well as a flooding event in August, which destroyed the aboveground orchid biomass on Site 4.

alcove rein orchid Platanthera zothecina


111

Table 1. First-year data on the life history and phenological characteristics for Platanthera zothecina at Navajo National Monument. Study Site

Number of plants Ramets) 6/24/99

Mean# of leaves (SD)

Mean# of flowers (SD)

Mean spike height (cm) (SD)

1 43 3.3 (0.76) 4.3 (2.97) 19.6 (7.82)

2 320 3.7 (0.69) 2.6 (2.35) 21.7 (4.70)

3 1019 3.7 (2.42) 6.4 (5.80) 23.9 (7.52)

4 562 3.8 (3.04) 3.8 (1.74) 21.0 (5.82)

Study Site

%of plants to flower

Mean # of capsules per plant (SD)

%of flowering plants that set fruit

1 34.8% 4.8 (1.5) 75% 2 12.5% 2.0 (1.8) 83% 3 74.0% 5.3 (3.0) 84% 4 9.1% * 0 * 0 * Flood debris covered site prior to 8/10/99 data collection.


112

• DISCUSSION

One of our most important observations in the field

was the extensive herbivory and trampling of spikes before they ever flowered. And, even after plants flowered, many spikes were either grazed or trampled. Intense disturbances that remove seed heads are detrimental to long-term recruitment (Bowles, 1983). These observations were confirmed when looking at the percent of plants that flowered (survivorship ranged from 74% to 9%), and then additional reductions occurred from the flowering stage to setting fruit (success averaging 81%). It becomes apparent that many of these orchids are not able to complete their life cycle due to these outside factors.

Site 4, in particular, was heavily grazed and trampled. We surmised a colony of pack rats may live on this study site since there is a large rodent hole right above the site. In addition, Site 4 also was basically destroyed aboveground after a flooding event, which covered the site in sediments. These types of disturbances such as grazing, flooding, and fires may be required to remove competing shrubs and provide open microsites or regeneration niches for orchids (Bowles, 1983). Increased light and decreased competition could stimulate growth and flowering in terrestrial orchids,


113

assuming the appropriate amount of moisture is available (Stoutamire, 1974).

We also observed a spider web-like substance surrounding the majority of split capsules, holding in the seeds, and limiting their dispersal. It is unclear to us whether this web is from an insect; it may be a Hymenoptera (Drost, pers. comm.). It is also unclear if the relationship is mutualistic (facultative or obligate) or parasitic with regards to pollination. In the case of the western prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera praeclara, the hawk moth appears to have a mutualistic relationship as a pollen vector (Sieg, 1997). On the other hand, an introduced weevil (Stethobaris commixta) was found eating flower buds on these same orchids and appeared to be parasitic (Sieg, 1993).

Another unknown to consider for the future is dormancy. Dormancy is a mechanism to avoid seasonally harsh conditions and has been reported in many orchid species (Lesica & Steele, 1997). Initial surveys by Drost (2000) suggested that this study's orchid population one year earlier was in the 100's, but our counts were much higher. It is possible that dormancy was a factor in these increased numbers, and could be a factor in the future. Sieg and Wolken (1997) have shown that the western prairie fringed orchid,


114

had very high mortality and a shorter life span than previously thought once they excavated orchids from their plots that appeared to be dormant. Furthermore, once an orchid disappeared, it rarely reappeared (Sieg & King, 1995). This unknown can make it very difficult to monitor orchids over the long-term.

Finally, the effects of climate on the alcove environment of seeps and hanging gardens are not well understood. The complexities of measuring amount and duration of water flows each year combined with directional aspect, amount of sunlight received, depth of alcove, and soil types make that topic very difficult to address. However, seasonal moisture fluctuations may be extremely important in determining the future survival of this orchid species. Exposure to environmental stressors can influence not only the first year survival, but also subsequent years (Lesica & Steele, 1994). For Platanthera, flowering may be related to precipitation (Bowles, 1983; Mehrhoff, 1989). The most significant factor influencing western prairie fringed orchid numbers was soil moisture (Sieg, 1997).

• CONCLUSIONS Due to its unknown distribution and low numbers in northern Arizona, the National Park Service


115

is concerned about the alcove bog orchid population. Because its habitat appears to be limited to seeps and associated springs, it is also important to continue surveying for other populations where water sources may be found. This preliminary data indicates that there is a need to better quantify the impacts of herbivory and to examine whether there is a need to protect some portion of this population. This will require further data, and a better understanding of both the impacts and potential solutions. Other recommendations for future monitoring and research include marking individual plants to provide baseline demographic data, looking at pollination rates and other impediments to seed set, and identify hydrologic parameters to measure. Populations were much larger than expected, so these sites will be subdivided for future sampling and analysis. The information derived from a long-term monitoring program would provide park managers with data to effectively work with federal and state agencies as well as the Navajo Nation toward promoting the conservation of the alcove bog orchid.


116

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Dr. Carolyn Hull-Sieg for her time spent reviewing and commenting on this article as well as the Superintendent at Navajo National Monument and the National Park Service for providing us with the funding and the personnel to implement this project. Literature Cited: Atwood, D.N., J. Holland, R. Bolander, B. Franklin, D.E. House, L.

Armstrong, K. Thorne, and L. England. 1991. Utah Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Natural Heritage Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Navajo Nation, and Skull Valley Goshute Tribe.

Bowles, M.L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindl. and Cypripedium candidum Muhl. Ex Willd.: some aspects of their status, biology, and ecology, and implications toward management. Nat. Areas J. 3:14-37.

Colorado Native Plant Society. 1997. Rare Plants of Colorado, 2nd ed. Falcon Press Publishing, Helena, Montana.

Drost, C. 2000. Inventory of threatened, endangered, and candidate species at Navajo National Monument. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Hevly, R. H. 1961. Notes on the orchids of northern Arizona Plateau. Plateau 33:83-87.

Holiday, S. 1998. A flora of Tsegi Canyon. M.A. Thesis, Northern Arizona University.

Lesica, P. and B.M. Steele. 1994. Prolonged dormancy in vascular plants and implications for monitoring studies. Nat. Areas J. 14:209-212.

Mehrhoff, L.A. 1989. The dynamics of declining populations of an endangered orchid, Isotria

medeoloides. Ecology 70:783-786. Rothman, Hal K. 1991. Navajo National Monument: a place and its people, an

administrative history. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers No. 40, Santa Fe, NM.


117

Sieg, C. Hull. 1993. Stethobaris commixta Blatchley (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) collected from a species of orchid, Platanthera praeclara Sheviak and Bowles, in North Dakota tall-grass prairie. Prairie Naturalist 25(1):81.

Sieg, C. Hull. 1997. The mysteries of a prairie orchid. Endangered Species Bull. July/Aug 1997, 22(4):12-13.

Sieg, C. Hull and R.M. King. 1995. Influence of environmental factors and preliminary demographic analyses of a threatened orchid Platanthera praeclara. Am. Midl. Nat. 134(2):307-323.

Sieg, C. Hull and P.M. Wolken. 1997. Dynamics of a threatened orchid in flooded wetlands. North American Prairie Conference 16:193-201.

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program.

Stoutamire, W.P. 1974. Terrestrial orchid seedlings. Pp. 101-128 in: C.L. Withner, ed. The Orchids: Scientific Studies. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Welsh, S.L. 1986. New Plant Taxa and Combinations. Great Basin Naturalist 46(2):259.

Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1987. A Utah Flora, 2nd edition, revised. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Laura E. Hudson, IMDE-NT 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy Lakewood, CO 80228. Ronald A. Coleman, 11520 E. Calle Del Valle, Tucson, AZ 85749-8865 e-mail: [email protected] Shauna Charles, c/o IMDE-NT 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy Lakewood, CO 80228.


118

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 3

Wagner, Wagner & Brown: RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGED ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA

Part 2. Kentucky - North Dakota

119

RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGED ORCHIDS IN NORTH

AMERICA Part 2. Kentucky-North Dakota

Anne B. Wagner, Ken Wagner, Paul Martin Brown

In continuing the four-part article on the listed

orchids in North America, the data accumulated by Anne & Ken Wagner for Kentucky - New Jersey is presented. Please remember in reading this information it is essential to know that each state or province has its own criteria and definitions of rare, threatened and endangered. Unfortunately personal opinions and priorities often color the makeup of these lists. We are trying to give references wherever possible for the plants that are listed. Some states update continually other as far apart as 10 years! Very few states afford legal protection to the plants. Websites are given and a contact person when known. The nomenclature used is as it was received from the various sources and often does not agree with contemporary usage. In the December Journal a complete list of cross-reference for the names will be given as well as a summary by species. If a given species is not listed for a given state or province it means that the status has not been determined - and that for any number of reasons.



120

When available, the status within the state or province is given. Although abbreviations are not always consistent the following usually are reliable: (may be preceded by a S for state) E = Endangered S1 T = Threatened S2 R=Rare S3 SC= Special Concern S3 X= extirpated H = historical U = unknown For precise definitions and current status readers are encouraged to contact the sources listed for each state and province. KENTUCKY [email protected] Www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/ksnpc/index.htm . Orchids listed on Kentucky state nature preserves commission�s endangered, threatened and special concern Calopogon tuberosus e Coeloglossum viride var. virescens h Corallorrhiza maculata e Cypripedium candidum e Cypripedium kentuckiense s Cypripedium parviflorum t Cypripedium reginae h Liparis loeselii t Listera australis e Listera smallii t Platanthera cristata t Platanthera integrilabia t Platanthera psycodes e Pogonia ophioglossoides e Spiranthes lucida t



121

Spiranthes magnicamporum t Spiranthes odorata e LOUISIANA David Brunet [email protected]> Calopogon barbatus s1 Calopogon multiflorus s1 Calopogon pallidus s1s2 Cleistes divaricata s1 Corallorrhiza odontorhiza s1 Cypripedium kentuckiense s1 Habenaria quinqueseta s1 Isotria verticillata s2s3 Platanthera blephariglottis var. conspicua s1 Platanthera integra s2s3 Platanthera lacera s1 Platythelys querceticola s1 Pteroglossaspis ecristata s2 Spiranthes magnicamporum s1 Triphora trianthophora s1 MAINE [email protected] Amerorchis rotundifolia s1 Corallorhiza odontorhiza s1 Cypripedium arietinum s1 Cypripedium reginae s2s3 Galearis spectabilis s1 Goodyera oblongifolia s1 Isotria medeoloides s2 Isotria verticillata sx



122

Listera auriculata s1 Malaxis monophyllos s1 Platanthera flava s2 Platanthera leucophaea s1 Spiranthes lacera var. gracilis sh Spiranthes lucida s1 Triphora trianthophora s1 MASSACHUSETTS

Paul Somers, Ph.D., State Botanist Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & WildlifeRte. 135, One Rabbit Hill Rd. Westboro, MA 01581 508/792-7270 x149 [email protected] Aplectrum hyemale E

Arethusa bulbosa T Corallorhiza odontorhiza Sc Cypripedium arietinum E Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum E Cypripedium reginae Sc Goodyera repens E Isotria medeoloides E Listera cordata E Malaxis bayardii E Malaxis brachypoda T Platanthera cristata E Platanthera dilatata T Platanthera flava var. herbiola T Spiranthes romanzoffiana E Spiranthes vernalis Sc Tipularia discolor E Triphora trianthophora E



123

MARYLAND Lynn Davidson Natural Heritage Information Manager MD DNR, Wildlife & Heritage Division Arethusa bulbosa sh Calopogon tuberosus s1 Cleistes divaricata s1 Coeloglossum viride s1 Corallorrhiza trifida s1 Corallorrhiza wisteriana s1 Cypripedium candidum s1 Cypripedium reginae sh Goodyera repens sh Goodyera tesselata sh Hexalectris spicata sh Isotria medeoloides sh Liparis loeselii s3 Listera australis s3 Listera cordata sh Listera smallii s1 Platanthera blephariglottis s2 Platanthera ciliaris s2 Platanthera cristata s2 Platanthera flava s1 Platanthera grandiflora s2 Platanthera peramoena s1 Platanthera psycodes sh Pogonia ophioglossoides s3 Spiranthes laciniata su Spiranthes lucida s1 Spiranthes ochroleuca s1 Spiranthes odorata sh Spiranthes ovalis s? Spiranthes praecox s1 Spiranthes tuberosa s3 Triphora trianthophora sh



124

MICHIGAN Extracted from file downloaded from web(michiganlist.doc). State list of endangered species:

Amerorchis rotundifolia Isotria medeoloides Platanthera leucophaea State list of threatened species: Calypso bulbosa Cypripedium candidum Galearis spectabilis Isotria verticillata Platanthera ciliaris Spiranthes ovalis Tipularia discolor Triphora trianthophora MINNESOTA Extracted from Web page (plants.html) in Minn folder Last updated 7/31/96 Endangered: Listera auriculata Malaxis paludosa Platanthera flava var. herbiola Platanthera praeclara Cypripedium arietinum Special concern: Cypripedium candidum Listera convallarioides Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda Platanthera clavellata MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 111 N. Jefferson, Jackson, MS 39202 ronald wieland - ecologist [email protected]



125

Aplectrum hyemale s1 Calopogon barbatus 2s3 Cleistes divaricata s3 Cypripedium pubescens s2s3 Cypripedium kentuckiense su Epidendrum conopseum s2 Orchis spectabilis s1 Goodyera pubescens s1 Hexalectris spicata s2 Platanthera blephariglottis s2 Platanthera cristata s3 Platanthera integra s3s4 Platanthera integrilabia s1 Platanthera lacera s1s2 Platanthera peramoena s2s3 Erythrodes querceticola s1? Ponthieva racemosa s2? Eulophia ecristata s1s2 Spiranthes longilabris s2s3 Spiranthes magnicamporum s2s3 Spiranthes ovalis s2s3 Triphora trianthophora s2s3 MISSOURI Tim E. Smith, botanist Mo Dept. Of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, Mo 65102-0180 573/751-4115 ext. 200 fax 573/526-5582 [email protected] 13 Sep 1999 Coeloglossum viride var. virescens s1 Corallorhiza trifida var. verna srf Cypripedium candidum s1 Cypripedium reginae s2s3



126

Isotria medeoloides sx Isotria verticillata s1s2 Liparis loeselii s2 Malaxis unifolia s3 Platanthera ciliaris s1 Platanthera clavellata s2 Platanthera flava var. flava s2 Platanthera flava var. herbiola s2 Platanthera leucophaea sx Platanthera praeclara s1 Platanthera psycodes sx Pogonia ophioglossoides s1 Spiranthes ovalis var. erostellata s2 Tipularia discolor s1

MONTANA extracted from web info(mtplantlist.xls) Amerorchis rotundifolia s2s3 Cypripedium fasciculatum s2 Cypripedium parviflorum s3 Cypripedium passerinum s2 Cypripedium xcolumbianum hyb Epipactis gigantea s2 Goodyera repens s3 Liparis loeselii s1 Spiranthes diluvialis s2 NEBRASKA Extracted from plants.html in Nebr folder Coeloglossum viride s1 Corallorrhiza maculata s1 Corallorrhiza odontorhiza s1 Corallorrhiza wisteriana s1



127

Cypripedium calceolus s1 Cypripedium candidum s1s2 Galearis spectabilis s2 Goodyera oblongifolia s1 Habenaria hyperborea s2 Liparis loeselii s1s2 Platanthera praeclara s1 Spiranthes lacera s1 Spiranthes romanzoffiana sh Spiranthes vernalis s2s3 Triphora trianthophora s1 Species of concern from elements.html in Nebr folder Same as above plus: Habenaria viridis var. bracteata s1 NEVADA James D. Morefield, Ph.D., botanist Nevada Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 1550 east college parkway, suite 145 Carson City NV 89706-7921 u.s.a. Http://www.state.nv.us/nvnhp/ Email: [email protected] Tel: (775) 687-4245 or 423-6769 Extracted from sensplants.htm#monocots in Nev folder. This reflects what is reported in the email. Spiranthes diluvialis sh Spiranthes infernalis s1 NEW HAMPSHIRE Sara Cairns Data Manager / biologist NH Natural Heritage Inventory (603) 271-3623 E Arethusa bulbosa E Calypso bulbosa



128

T Coeloglossum viride E Corallorrhiza odontorhiza E Cypripedium arietinum E Cypripedium parviflorum T Cypripedium pubescens E Cypripedium reginae T Galearis spectabilis E Isotria medeoloides E Isotria verticillata E Liparis liliifolia T Liparis loeselii E Listera auriculata T Listera convallarioides T Listera cordata E Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda T Malaxis unifolia E Platanthera ciliaris T Platanthera flava var. herbiola E Spiranthes casei T Spiranthes lucida E Spiranthes vernalis T Triphora trianthophora NEW JERSEY Aplectrum hyemale s1 Arethusa bulbosa s2 Cleistes divaricata s1 Coeloglossum viride s2 Corallorrhiza trifida s2 Corallorrhiza wisteriana sx.1 Cypripedium candidum s1 Cypripedium parviflorum sr Cypripedium parviflorum var. makasin s2 Cypripedium reginae s1 Goodyera tesselata s1.1 Isotria medeoloides s1 Listera cordata s1 Listera australis s2 Listera smallii s1.1



129

Malaxis bayardii sh Malaxis monophyllos sh Malaxis unifolia s2 Platanthera ciliaris s2 Platanthera cristata s2 Platanthera flava var. flava s1 Platanthera flava var. herbiola s2 Platanthera grandiflora s3 Platanthera hookeri s1 Platanthera hyperborea sx Platanthera integra s1 Platanthera nivea sh Platanthera orbiculata s1 Platanthera peramoena s1 Platanthera psycodes s3 Spiranthes laciniata s1 Spiranthes lucida s2 Spiranthes ochroleuca s3 Spiranthes odorata s2 Spiranthes tuberosa s3 Spiranthes vernalis s1 Tipularia discolor s3 Triphora trianthophora s1 NEW MEXICO Sara J. Gottlieb Science Information Coordinator New Mexico Natural Heritage Program Biology Department University of New Mexico 851 University, SE Albuquerque, NM 87131 Phone: (505) 272-3545 ext. 225 FAX: (505) 272-3544 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://nmnhp.unm.edu Corallorrhiza striata s4? Corallorrhiza striata var striata s3 Cypripedium calceolus s1



130

Cypripedium pubescens s2? Epipactis gigantea s2? Hexalectris nitida s1 Hexalectris spicata s2 Hexalectris spicata var arizonica s? Malaxis ehrenbergii s4 Malaxis macrostachya s? Malaxis tenuis s3? Habenaria unalascensis s1 Habenaria dilitata s2 Spiranthes magnicamporum s3? Spiranthes parasitica s3 Spiranthes romanzoffiana s2? NEW YORK Michael Birmingham ([email protected]) NYS-DEC, Region 5 Division of Lands and Forests Ray Brook, NY 12977 (518) 897-1200 (518) 897-1370 (FAX) http://www.dec.state.ny.us Amerorchis rotundifolia SX Aplectrum hyemale S1 Arethusa bulbosa S2 Calypso bulbosa SH Corallorhiza striata S1 Cypripedium arietinum S2 Cypripedium candidum S1 Isotria medeoloides SH Liparis lilifolia S2 Listera auriculata S1



131

Listera australis S1S2 Listera convallarioides SH Malaxis bayardii S1 Platanthera ciliaris S1 Platanthera cristata S1 Platanthera hookeri S1S2 Platanthera leucophaea SH Spiranthes vernalis S1 Tipularia discolor S1 Triphora trianthophora S1 NORTH CAROLINA Orchids listed by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (nc nhp) October 27, 1999 Cleistes bifaria s2? Corallorrhiza wisteriana s2 Cypripedium parviflorum s3 Cypripedium pubescens s3 Cypripedium reginae sh Goodyera repens s2s3 Habenaria repens s2 Listera australis s3 Listera cordata sh Triphora trianthophora s2? Epidendrum conopseum s2 Hexalectris spicata s2 Malaxis bayardii sh Malaxis spicata s1 Platanthera flava var. herbiola s1? Platanthera grandiflora s2 Ponthieva racemosa s2 Spiranthes brevilabris var. floridana sx? Spiranthes ochroleuca sh Platanthera integra s1 Platanthera nivea s1



132

Coeloglossum viride var. virescens s1 Liparis loeselii s1 Platanthera peramoena s1 Spiranthes laciniata s1 Spiranthes longilabris s1 Spiranthes lucida s1 Arethusa bulbosa s1 Calopogon multiflorus s1 Isotria medeoloides s1 Platanthera integrilabia sx Pteroglossaspis ecristata s1 NORTH DAKOTA Date: fri, 19 nov 1999 16:41:59 -0600 Reply-to: [email protected] From: "chris jaeger" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: nd state rare plant list Mime-version: 1.0 Cypripedium candidum S2S3 Cypripedium parviflorum S2S3 Cypripedium planipetalum S2 Cypripedium reginae S2S3 Liparis loeselii S2 Platanthera clavellata Sh Platanthera praeclara S2 Pogonia ophioglossoides Sh Spiranthes cernua S1 Spiranthes romanzoffiana S1

Empiricist: THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED

133

THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED

The Slow Empiricist When I put together the compiled writings of the Slow Empiricist I mentioned that I was contemplating another foolers column. This was prompted by several requests for another such article. As I have thought about some of my more recent forays into hunting for particular orchids, I came to this conclusion. I have decided that rather than make an expanded list of plants that fool the observer into thinking he/she has found some new orchid species for the area, I might be better off to write about the confusion that occurs in spotting plants when orchidists are out in the field. Last fall, here in Florida, I was with Paul Martin Brown looking for Michaux's orchid, Habenaria quinqueseta at the newly named Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. We were in a section called the Ross Prairie that has a lower part than the surrounding area because back in the 1930's as part of the WPA, it was decided to create a cross Florida canal by employing men who had lost their jobs due to the Great Depression. Unfortunately they were given picks and shovels to dig out to approximately 30 feet in depth the


134

course for the waterway. Since this area is mostly limestone that lies precariously close to the surface the project never got very far and was eventually abandoned. The men did, however dig some mighty big stretches of channel through this part of Florida. Eventually then the entire project area was set aside as a green area that goes across Florida. It has preserved a great deal of land of a diverse nature.

The area we were exploring went down into the diggings where there is a totally different habitat from the normal habitat that surrounds the diggings. It is rich with ferns and moist and humid. It also can be quite shady under the overhanging canopy. Needless to say I was very frustrated in my search. Conditions seem to work against my finding any of the orchids. I was plagued by fruiting stems of the golden aster, which had just finished flowering and, which, in fruit look like a Habenaria quinqueseta in bud. I did find a large stand of the orchid after several heart-quickening, false sightings of the look alike. The point I am trying to make is that when you are exploring new territory for an orchid you will probably have many such misleading mimickers of your quarry. Hence, the reason this column will dwell more on the general area of mistaken identities rather than on specific plants that are often taken for a particular orchid and are not. Rather than let these failures deter you, I have often urged you to be patient and persevere. Those who are persistent often are rewarded for their diligence.


135

There are other considerations to remember when you are in a frustrating situation and have been following false leads in your quest. One of the most significant ones is to have a really good idea of what you are hunting for. Many people who are less trained and intuitive about orchids find that once they have seen a particular orchid they have much better success in finding others. It, therefore, behooves you to be as knowledgeable about the orchid you are looking for before you venture to find it in the wild if you want to be more successful. If you can look at actual photographs and read about the plant's habits and the general idea as to what habitats it prefers you will be less likely to be misled in the field. Now, even knowing a lot about the plant cannot prevent you from being fooled. On another excursion with Paul, I kept mistaking slender grass stalks that reflected the late afternoon light back to my eyes as the tops of white Spiranthes spikes. The frustrating thing for me was that when I stopped to look at a totally unrelated plant my gaze finally discovered the Spiranthes we were looking for almost next to the plant that originally piqued my interest. As I was the first one to spot any Spiranthes that day I was elated at the find but chagrined that I hadn't seen it before I spotted the unrelated eye-catcher. This time there was no fooler involved and I probably would have missed the orchid if I hadn't been diverted toward the intriguing plant that did take my attention.


136

It seems many Spiranthes like roadside habitats, unfortunately. Spiranthes seem to have many imitators whenever I try to spot them along a roadside. This means you either have to crawl along busy thoroughfares in your car trying to catch sight of them, or keep pulling off to the side of the road to do a walking search of what seems to be a good area for them. When you are going up to speed spotting can be nigh impossible, at least for me. The foolers that have made me stop and back up include the dried stalks of shepherd's purse mustard, bleached slender stalks of dock, the white aletris, white lobelia and lots of others. I'm sure you have all had some fooler get you when it came to scouting for Spiranthes. Since I have been speaking of Spiranthes, I want to relate that this is one group of orchids that has many closely related species. You really have to know the characteristics of what you are seeing to be sure of a correct identification. I will relate one such misidentification that occurred that I know about. A Spiranthes that has a colored spotting on the lips was identified as coming from Asia when it was later proved to be just a virused form of a common Spiranthes. Even experts can be fooled sometimes. If you read my column on herbarium specimens, there are often many examples of mystery orchids that crop up in their files. Paul is writing the section that describes the Spiranthes of North America for the Flora of North America and hopefully it will help to sort out some of the confusions that there are in this family.


137

Another really frustrating occurrence for me is looking for tiny orchids. I find that there are just as many, if not more, foolers in the miniature size range as bigger orchids have. The problem here is you have a lot of competition because there seem to be many more small plants to sort through than you have with the larger varieties. Spotting a royal lady's-slipper, Cypripedium reginae, with its large vibrant blossom seems to me a lot easier than spotting the newly named Spiranthes eatonii, Eaton's ladies'- tresses, which is so slender that it blends in with other spikes of grass and plantains. This is not a tiny orchid plant but it is so slim that it is hard to pick one out from the surrounding vegetation. A truly tiny orchid that is less than 3 inches high, Rickett's three birds orchid, Triphora rickettii, could be entirely missed let alone having a mimicker to muddy the spotting. I really don't know how one could spot one out of flower. You must have really super eyes to pull out that particular growth pattern of green leaves and stem from all the other green leaves and stems that surround it on the forest floor. Twayblades, Listera spp. are another group that can be well camouflaged in their habitats, especially when their neighbors like the ferns grow up and conceal them entirely. Possibly the most embarrassing spotting is when you mistake a piece of detritus or garbage that has been thrown out by some careless and insensitive person to the environment and you slow your vehicle to find that you have not found a bearded grass pink, Calopogon barbatus, but only a discarded piece of pink paper that


138

once held some fast food items. Potato chip bags are another eye catcher especially the bright magenta ones. I remember when my children were younger, my wife and I took a trip to Florida and in the course of our travels were intrigued with the white cattle egrets that often lined the roadsides and fields in the rural sections of the state. My wife thought at first that they were scraps of facial tissue that had been indiscriminately thrown from other cars onto the roadside. The children and I gleefully pointed out that they were birds. From then on we called the cattle egrets, Kleenex birds. That time, mistaken identification worked in reverse and we all had a good laugh at the confusion. So you see it takes a lot of hard searching to find some orchids. It also takes a good knowledge of what you are looking for. Then there is no guarantee that you won't come up with a fooler or two in your searching. I guess I would advise you to keep on looking and if you are a lazy sort go out with some others who have good eyes and are good spotters. This will ensure you a greater chance of success without a great deal of effort on your part. Of course, to me that would be cheating and takes a lot of the fun out of actually finding your specimen for yourself. If you can laugh at yourself when you do make an error you will feel better because you have finally realized that you are not the only one to have misidentified that particular plant (or bird).

The Slow Empiricist


139

AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION

In the December 1999 issue of the North American Native Orchid Journal (pp. 358-362), I published Spiranthes xaustralis, a hybrid between S. praecox and S. vernalis. Unfortunately I was unaware of the existence of S. australis (R. Brown) Lindley (1824) which rendered illegitimacy to S. xaustralis P.M. Brown when published. The latter is replaced with a nomen novum as published below: Spiranthes xmeridionalis P.M. Brown nom. nov. Replaced Synonym: Spiranthes xaustralis P.M. Brown N.A. Nat. Orch. J. 5(4): 358-62 10 Dec. 1999. The meaning of the epithet is till the same � southern � referring to the presence of the hybrids in the southwestern United States. Paul Martin Brown Note: Special thanks to Chuck Sheviak and Dr. K. Gandhi for their assistance in correcting this error.

Brown: AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION

Johnson: AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE ORCHIDACEAE OF ARKANSAS

140

AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE ORCHIDACEAE OF ARKANSAS

George P. Johnson

While examining herbarium specimens for the

Vascular Flora of Arkansas Project, I have made two discoveries which necessitate: the need to add a new taxon to the State's orchidaceous flora, Platanthera flava (Linnaeus) Lindley var. herbiola (R. Brown) Luer, northern tubercled orchis; and, the need to delete another, Spiranthes laciniata (Small) Ames, lace-lipped ladies'-tresses.

The documented presence of the northern tubercled orchis in Arkansas is based on a voucher specimen at the University of Arkansas at Monticello, UAM, labeled only as Platanthera flava. Label data are as follows: Getz, E. M., #373, 10 June 1993, Camp Joseph T. Robinson, S. of Jim Creek, west of Clinton Road, Pulaski County, Arkansas, Det. Donald E. Culwell. The Camp Robinson population consists of a hundred or more plants that have been assumed to be var. flava, the southern tubercled orchis (Carl Slaughter pers. comm.). The plant from Camp Robinson is clearly not var. flava and has the characteristic leaf number, bract length, and


141

labellum shape of var. herbiola. The specimen at UAM was distributed from the Herbarium at the University of Central Arkansas, UCAC.

The inclusion of the lace-lipped ladies'-tresses in the State's orchidaceous flora was based on a misidentified specimen of Spiranthes vernalis Engelmann & A. Gray, the grass-leaved ladies'-tresses, at the University of Arkansas, UARK (Smith 1988). The features of the plant that confirm it is not Spiranthes laciniata are: the trichomes of the inflorescence are pointed and not capitate; the basal callosities of the lip are pubescent and not curved; and, the margin of the lip is not laciniate. Label data for the specimen in question are as follows: Carter, B., #281, 23 June 1969, Sebastian County, Arkansas. The specimen was annotated by J. C. Stevenson in 1972 as Spiranthes laciniata (Small) Ames. At present, 40 taxa of the Orchidaceae are known to occur in Arkansas. Literature Cited: Smith, E. B. 1988. An Atlas and Annotated List of the Vascular Plants of

Arkansas. 2nd ed. Kinko's Copies. Fayetteville, Arkansas. George P. Johnson Herbarium (APCR) Biology Department Arkansas Tech University Russellville, AR 72801 [email protected]


142

Brown: RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES FROM FLORIDA 7. The Genus Habenaria


143

RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES FROM

FLORIDA 7.

The Genus Habenaria

Paul Martin Brown

The genus Habenaria is a very distinct and specific

genus with five species that are found throughout Florida and two of those species in the southeastern United States. The genus is often confused with the genus Platanthera but is readily distinguished from the latter by the following criteria: Habenaria has swollen tuberoid roots; the petals are dived into two parts (always entire in Platanthera) and the central portion of the lip divided into three linear segments (the divisions are reduced in H. odontopetala) and is primarily tropical in distribution, whereas Platanthera is primarily temperate in distribution. The lip in Platanthera may be divided into three parts, and often fringed, but never into three linear segments. In addition one of the major differences that you cannot easily see, especially in the field, is that Habenaria has prominent stigmatic processes and in Platanthera they are



144

not prominent. Habenaria species in the United States all produce initial rosettes that may persist for several years until the individual plants flower. Often these rosettes can cover large areas and are comprised of over 100 plants!

The five species in Florida are easily recognizable. Three, Habenaria repens, H. quinqueseta and H. odontopetala, are widespread throughout most of the state and the remaining two, H. macroceratitis and H. distans are very restricted in their distribution.

Key to the genus Habenaria in the United States 1 lip and/or petals divided into linear, thread-like segments�2 1 lip and/or petals merely toothed�2. H. odontopetala 2 leaves essentially basal or rapidly reduced upward; spur swollen�1. H. distans 2 leaves extending up the stem and gradually reduced in size, spur not swollen�3 3 spur equal to the ovary; plants of wet habitats�5. H. repens 3 spur distinctly longer than the ovary�4



145

4 Anterior division of the lateral petal less than twice (10-18mm) the length of the posterior division (6 -9mm); spur typically less than 10 cm (in living material); plants of open pinelands, hedgerows and fields �4. H. quinqueseta 4 Anterior division of the lateral petal more than twice (20-24mm) the length of the posterior division (8-11mm); flowers, when view straight on, with a distinct rectangular aspect; spur often greater than 10 cm (in living material); plants of rich mesic hardwood hammocks �4. H. macroceratitis

1. Habenaria distans Grisebach, the false water-spider orchid, is currently restricted in southern Florida to Collier County. Historical specimens are known form Lee and Highlands Counties with a literature reference to Manatee County. It is widespread in the West Indies, Central America and north South America.

2. Habenaria macroceratitis Willdenow (syn.: Habenaria quinqueseta var. macroceratitis (Willdenow) Luer), the long-horned habenaria, is very rare and local in rich, moist, hardwood hammocks in central Florida in Alachua, Sumter, Citrus, Hernando and (historically) Orange Counties. Although some colonies are very large and vigorous, most counties have only one or two sites.



146

Widespread in central and southern Mexico, adjacent Central America, and in suitable habitat in Cuba, Jamaica and perhaps some of the other West Indies.

This taxon was originally described as a species by Willdenow in 1805 and then over the years merged within the similar Habenaria quinqueseta. The most striking aspect of H. macroceratitis is the very long spur, but this is not the critical distinguishing aspect between these two species. In a future issue more evidence will be presented to revalidate H. macroceratitis as a species, but for now suffice it to say that here in Florida they are two very different species in morphology, pollination and habitat. The primary character, which is used in the key and was carefully noted by Luer (1972) is the proportional length of the segments of the lateral petals. More than that, the flowers of H. quinqueseta have a very 'square' aspect to them whereas those of H. macroceratitis have a very 'rectangular' aspect to them (see illustrations). Continued examination of specimens from the West Indies, Central America and Mexico appear to be consistent with these findings. Spur length is the most problematic of the criteria that have been traditionally used to separate the two species as there can be 'short-spurred' H. macroceratitis and 'long-spurred' H. quinqueseta. The epithet macroceratitis means long-horned rather than long-spurred! One of the most exciting aspects of this species in Florida is the presence of a large colony in Sumter County that was first



147

document in 1874 and is still present today. It is vigorous and produces many spectacular flowering plants each year. One of the three colonies in Hernando County, near Brooksville, can, in a good year, produce several hundred flowering stems some up to 75 cm tall!

3. Habenaria quinqueseta (Michaux) Eaton, Michaux's orchid, is widespread and locally common throughout all of Florida and then becoming very rare and local from South Carolina west to east Texas (where historical). This is a plant of primarily damp pinelands and hedgerows. The greenish-white flowers are produce on a spike to 30cm tall and with up to 14 flowers, but more often with 6-8 flowers. The spur typically is shorter than 5 cm. Large colonies of non-flowering plants are often encountered, especially in open pine flatwoods.

4. Habenaria odontopetala Reichenbach f. (syn: Habenaria strictissima Reichenbach f. var. odontopetala (Reichenbach f.) L.O. Williams; Habenaria floribunda Lindley misapplied), the toothed habenaria, is common in central and southern Florida, becoming very rare from Marion County northward with single records from St. John & Duval Counties in northeastern Florida but no records north of Marion County in central or western Florida. It is widespread in Mexico, the West Indies, and Central America.



148

5. Habenaria repens Nuttall, water spider orchid, is one of the few truly aquatic orchids to be found. Masses of several hundred floating plants can be found and it will also frequently colonize wet roadside ditches and canals. This species produces fewer sterile colonies than the other four species, and is also the most wide-ranging of the five species in the United States. It is found throughout Florida and northward to southeastern North Carolina and westward to Arkansas and Texas. It is also found throughout Mexico, the West Indies and Central America. Paul Martin Brown Research Associate, Florida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Herbarium PO Box 117800 Gainesville, FL 32611-7800 [email protected]



149


Habenaria distans false water-spider orchid


150


Habenaria macroceratitis long-horned habenaria


151


Habenaria odontopetala toothed habenaria


152


Habenaria quinqueseta Michaux's orchid


153


Habenaria repens water spider orchid


154

5th ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID CONFERENCE

Olympic National Park Port Angeles, Washington

July 16-20, 2000 Speakers will include: Larry Zettler, Scott Stewart, Chuck Sheviak, Carol Ferguson & Kathleen Donham; Cliff Pelchat; Penny Latham; Paul Martin Brown, Ron Coleman, Lorne Heshka and special speaker Joe Liggio author of Wild Orchids of Texas who will speak on the Genus Hexalectris, as well as a very special presentation form Europe on the bee orchids. Field Trip highlights will include: Piperia candida Piperia elegans Piperia transversa Piperia unalascensis Epipactis gigantea Cephelanthera austiniae Listera caurina Corallorhiza mertensiana Platanthera hyperborea complex Platanthera dilatata complex And a special trip on the 20th to Lake Elizabeth east of Seattle for Platanthera chorisiana Registrations should be sent to: North American Native Orchid Alliance PO Box 759 Acton, ME 04001-0759


155

Figure 2. Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown. Photographs from Mosier Hammock, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida October--November 1999.

Plate 1: Romero & Brown: Galeandra bicarinata


156

Sheviak: Figure 1: Platanthera dilatata var. albiflora × P. stricta: Big Horn Mountains, Sheridan County, Wyoming. Sheviak & Sheviak 6327 [NYS].

Hudson, Coleman & Charles: alcove rein orchid Platanthera zothecina Ron Coleman

Plate 2: Sheviak; Hudson, Coleman & Charles


157

Plate 3: Brown: Habenaria

false water spider orchis Habenaria distans

long-horned rein orchis Habenaria macroceratitis All Habenaria photos by P.M. Brown


158

Plate 4: Brown: Habenaria

left: Michaux's rein orchis Habenaria quinqueseta below: toothed rein orchis Habenaria odontopetala

below: water spider orchis Habenaria repens

Documents

June 2000 North American Native Orchid Journal