[PCA] Dandelion follow-up & Phragmites

Thu Aug 30 09:10:41 CDT 2012

James: The biological species concept will not be used for plants - certainly in our lifetimes and probably not ever. For example: all Baptisia, Echinacea, and Sarracenia taxa would each be considered individual species! Johnny

Johnny Randall, Ph.D.
Director of Conservation Programs
North Carolina Botanical Garden
CB 3375
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599
ncbg.unc.edu
(W) 919-962-0522
(C) 919-923-0100

From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of James Trager
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:55 PM
To: Pyle, Charlotte - NRCS, Tolland, CT; Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [PCA] Dandelion follow-up & Phragmites

I will make the following comment from the perspective of one who works in both the plant and animal systematics fields:
For now, we're stuck with them, but really, the plant systematists need to make an effort to rid the system of these trinomials (both subspecies and varieties, for goodness sakes!), by elevating entities such as the Taraxacum subspecies to species (also Phragmites, Achillea, etc.) as warranted, and synonymizing them where not warranted (no way reliably to discern them). These populations behave genetically like what zoosystematists call biological species (á la Ernst Mayr), a concept that has the appearance of somehow never having caught on with botanists. One can certainly point to all sorts of difficult cases and imperfections in the use of the biological species paradigm, but I still think it would be an improvement over the mess of infraspecific taxa that now so heavily burdens plant taxonomy. The botanists need to "get with the program".

Now as for defining "native" and "non-native" - not something I wish to rant about at the moment!

James C. Trager, Ph. D.

Biologist - Naturalist

Shaw Nature Reserve

P.O. Box 38

Gray Summit MO 63039

636-451-3512 ext. 6002

________________________________
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]<mailto:[mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]> On Behalf Of Pyle, Charlotte - NRCS, Tolland, CT
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:13 PM
To: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov<mailto:Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov>; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
Subject: Re: [PCA] Dandelion follow-up & Phragmites

One thing about the USDA PLANTS database is that you have to understand how its data layers work.

For example, if you go to Taraxacum officinale (the genus and species for Common Dandelion), you will get a distribution map for the genus/species.  Note that at the top of the screen there is an indication of the Native Status.
  At the genus/species level, this taxa (Taraxacum officinale) is both Native and Introduced in the Lower 48 states of the USA (L48) because one subspecies (ceratophorum) is native and the other (officinale) is introduced.
   http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=TAOF

  Below the map of the genus/species, there are separate clickable maps of each subspecies.  Using scientific names, these maps and associated information clear up any confusion as to which taxa is native and which is introduced in the Lower 48 area.**
          However, there is a different problem which is that PLANTS does not have unique Common Names for each taxa, so both the genus/species and its two subspecies are all referred to as "Common Dandelion".

**************************
I believe there is a somewhat similar issue with the question of the nativity/invasiveness of Phragmites australis in the sense that the native Phragmites is a subspecies of a genus/species (Phragmites australis).
  Phragmites australis subspecies australis is not native in the USA.

It is unfortunate that a common botanical convention is to use just the binomial (genus/species name) when referring to the "typical" subspecies (the one whose subspecies name is the same name as the species).  Thus we say P. australis is invasive when we actually mean P. australis ssp. australis is invasive.
  And this gets me to the issue that it is important to use trinomials (genus/species plus subspecies or variety) when talking about plants that have subspecies or varieties even if you only have one of the subspecies in your own area.  (Incidentally, this concept also is important when making lists of native plants that serve as alternatives to invasive species.!)

  Here is a reference for Phragmites that explains the changes in the ways people have thought about Phragmites australis.  It also gives a key to the subspecies:  http://herbarium.usu.edu/treatments/Phragmites.htm

************
** Finally, unrelated to the present issue, but something I will mention anyway:  there is a different mapping issue with PLANTS which relates to the overlaying of (1) the dataset for Native vs Introduced which is done in huge polygons (L48 = the entire 48 states of the continental USA as one polygon) on top of the (2)  the state by state distribution map of presence/absence of a particular species.
  Currently, if you look at Blue Spruce (Picea pungens), it is characterized as Native in L48 (by virtue of its being native in the Rocky Mountain states).  It is mapped as present in quite a few states.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch

  When you hit the View Native Status button below the state by state distribution map, the database overlays the nativity status map (Native in L48; Introduced in Canada) on top.  This gives you a map that makes it "appear" that Blue Spruce is native in Massachusetts whereas what PLANTS is trying to show is that it native (somewhere) in the Lower 48 states, but introduced everywhere it is found in Canada!

I have heard  that PLANTS database hopes to be getting the funding to fix this glitch.

Cheers,
  Charlotte Pyle

Charlotte Pyle, PhD
Landscape Ecologist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
344 Merrow Road
Tolland, CT  06084

phone:  (860) 871-4066
fax: (860) 871-4054
email:  charlotte.pyle at ct.usda.gov<mailto:charlotte.pyle at ct.usda.gov>
www.ct.nrcs.usda.gov/plants.html<http://www.ct.nrcs.usda.gov/plants.html>

NOTICE to Hispanic or Women Farmers: If you believe USDA improperly denied you farm loan benefits during 1981-2000, visit farmerclaims.gov<http://www.farmerclaims.gov/>.

From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]<mailto:[mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]> On Behalf Of Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov<mailto:Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:57 AM
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
Subject: [PCA] Dandelion follow-up

My last post prompted another listserver to send me a correction to the dandelion comment (please see below). Thank you, Richard. I stand corrected. Perhaps Richard could also let us know how these maps are attributed (I forgot to ask).

Meanwhile, I'll take the opportunity to say that, despite their bad rep in some circles, dandelions also have a long-standing reputation as an important part of the herbalists medicine cabinet. But that's a discussion for the Medicinal Plant Working Group list!

Thanks, Patricia

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife Service-International Affairs
Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276

Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal<http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>>

Follow International Affairs
> on Twitter  http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl
> on Facebook   <http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl> http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs
----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 08/29/2012 11:49 AM -----
"Richard Old" <rold at pullman.com<mailto:rold at pullman.com>>

08/29/2012 11:38 AM

To

<Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov<mailto:Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov>>

cc

Subject

FW: Images

Patricia:
The link which you sent to the lists reflects the typically outdated status of the USDA PLANTS site.
What is referred to there as Taraxacum officinale ssp. ceratophorum is now considered a separate native species (T. ceratophorum).
Please note the attached distribution maps.
Richard

Richard R. Old, Ph.D.
XID Services, Inc.
www.xidservices.com<http://www.xidservices.com/>
800 872 2943
509 332 2989

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120830/227055fe/attachment.html>