Vol. 31, No. 2 April 2003 FREMONTIA

F R E M O N T I A 1V O L U M E 3 1 : 2 , A P R I L 2 0 0 3

A JOURNAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

FREMONTIA

$5.00 (Free to Members)

Vol. 31, No. 2 April 2003

IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:IN THIS ISSUE:

THROUGH OTHER EYES THROUGH OTHER EYES THROUGH OTHER EYES THROUGH OTHER EYES THROUGH OTHER EYES by Marjorie Schmidt (1905–1989) 5 5 5 5 5

CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW! CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW! CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW! CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW! CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW! by Jacob Sigg 8 8 8 8 8

TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAIN MEADOWS TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAIN MEADOWS TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAIN MEADOWS TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAIN MEADOWS TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAIN MEADOWS by Michael P. Murray 13 13 13 13 13

THE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYTHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYTHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYTHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYTHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

by Elizabeth McGee 19 19 19 19 19

JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICS by Thomas J. Rosatti 23 23 23 23 23

GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA AND AND AND AND AND DENDROMECONDENDROMECONDENDROMECONDENDROMECONDENDROMECON

(PAPAVERACEAE)(PAPAVERACEAE)(PAPAVERACEAE)(PAPAVERACEAE)(PAPAVERACEAE) by Nevin Smith 30 30 30 30 30

2 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 1 : 2 , A P R I L 2 0 0 3

The California Native Plant Society(CNPS) is an organization of lay-persons and professionals united by aninterest in the native plants of Cali-fornia and is open to all. Its principalaims are to preserve the native floraand add to the knowledge of membersand the public at large by monitoringrare and endangered plants throughoutthe state; by acting to save endangeredareas through publicity, persuasion,and on occasion, legal action; by pro-viding expert testimony to governmentbodies; and by supporting financiallyand otherwise the establishment ofnative plant preserves. Much of thiswork is done by volunteers throughCNPS Chapters throughout the state.The Society’s educational work in-cludes: publication of a quarterly jour-nal, Fremontia, and a quarterly Bulletinwhich gives news and announcementsof Society events and conservationissues. Chapters hold meetings, fieldtrips, and plant and poster sales. Non-members are welcome to attend.

Money is provided through memberdues and funds raised by chapter plantand poster sales. Additional donations,bequests, and memorial gifts fromfriends of the Society can assist greatlyin carrying forward the work of theSociety. Dues and donations are tax-deductible.

Fremontia logo (by L.A. Vorobik) reprintedfrom The Jepson Manual, J. Hickman,Ed., 1993, with permission from theJepson Herbarium, UC. © Regents of theUniversity of California.

CALIFORNIA NATIVECALIFORNIA NATIVECALIFORNIA NATIVECALIFORNIA NATIVECALIFORNIA NATIVEPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETYPLANT SOCIETY

Dedicated to the Preservation ofthe California Native Flora

VOL. 31, NO. 2, APRIL 2003

FREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIA

Copyright © 2003California Native Plant Society

Linda Ann Vorobik, Editor

Bob Hass, Copy Editor

Beth Hansen-Winter, Designer

CONTACTSCNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1Sacramento, CA 95816-5113(916) 447-CNPS (2677)Fax: (916) [email protected]

Sacramento Office Staff:Executive Director . . . . Pamela C.

Muick, PhDDevelopment Director . . . Michael

TomlinsonMembership Coordinator . . Marin

LemieuxSales Manager . . . . . . . Paul MaasBookkeeper . . . . Lois Cunningham

Fremontia Editor . . . . . Linda AnnVorobik, PhD

Sr. Policy Analyst . . . . . . . EmilyRoberson, PhD

So. California Regional Botanist . . .Ileene Anderson

Rare Plant Botanist . . . Dave TiborVegetation Ecologist . . Julie EvensVegetation Ecologist . . Anne KleinSan Bruno Mtn. Project Coordinator

Mary PetrilliLegislative Advocate .Vern GoehringEarth Share Liaison . . Halli MasonLegal Advisor . . . . Sandy McCoyWebsite Coordinator . Carol WithamBulletin Editor . Michael Tomlinson

BOARD OF DIRECTORSDirectors:Carol Baird, Sue Britting, SteveHartman, Lori Hubbart, Lynne Kada,Betsey Landis, David L. Magney,Sandy McCoy, Patt McDaniel, J.Spence McIntyre, Carol Witham

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYCALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETYwww.cnps.org

MEMBERSHIP

Dues include subscriptions to Fremontia and the Bulletin.

Bristlecone Pine . . . . . . . . . . $1,000Benefactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500Patron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250Plant Lover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Supporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75Family, Group, International . . . $45Individual or Library . . . . . . . . . $35Student/Retired/Limited Income . $20

CHAPTER COUNCILAlta Peak (Tulare) . . . . Joan StewartBristlecone (Inyo-Mono) . . . . . . . . .

Stephen IngramChannel Islands . . . . . . Lynne KadaDorothy King Young (Mendocino/Sonoma Coast) . . . . . Lori HubbartEast Bay . . . . . . . . . Tony MoroscoEl Dorado . . . . . . . . . Amy HoffmanKern County . . . . . Laura StocktonLos Angeles/Santa Monica Mtns . . .

Betsy LandisMarin County . . . . . . . . Bob SoostMilo Baker (Sonoma County) . . . . .

Leanna SimsMojave Desert . . . . . . Tim ThomasMonterey Bay . Julie Anne DelgadoMount Lassen . . . . . . . . Jim BishopNapa Valley . . . . . . Marcie DannerNorth Coast . . . . . . . Larry LevineNorth San Joaquin . . . . Bob BarzanOrange County . . . Daniel SongsterRedbud (Grass Valley/Auburn) . . . .

Richard HanesRiverside/San Bernardino counties . .

Katie BarrowsSacramento Valley . . Diana HicksonSan Diego . . . . . . Carrie SchneiderSan Gabriel Mtns . . . . Lyn McAfeeSan Luis Obispo . . . . Dirk WaltersSanhedrin (Ukiah) . Chuck WilliamsSanta Clara Valley . . Mary SimpsonSanta Cruz County . Janell HillmanSequoia (Fresno) . . . . Marion OrvisShasta . . . . . . . . . . . Dave DuBoseSierra Foothills (Tuolumne, Cala-veras, Mariposa) . . . . Patrick StoneSouth Coast (Palos Verdes) . . . . . .

Barbara SattlerTahoe . . . . . . . . . . Michael HoganWillis L. Jepson (Solano) . . . . . . .

Mary ShawYerba Buena (San Francisco) . . . . .

Randy Zebell

MATERIALS FOR PUBLICATIONMembers and others are invited to submit material for publication in Fremontia.Instructions for contributors can be found on the CNPS website, www.cnps.org,or can be requested from Fremontia Editor, Linda Ann Vorobik, [email protected], or c/o University and Jepson Herbaria, 1001 Valley Life Sciences Bldg.#2465, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2465.

Prepress by ScanArt / Printed by Craftsman Trade Press


THE COVER: Mosaic carpet of wildflowers, including blue larkspurs (Delphinium sp.) against a field of yellow composites.Photograph by J. Game.

CONTENTSGUEST EDITORIALGUEST EDITORIALGUEST EDITORIALGUEST EDITORIALGUEST EDITORIAL ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 44444

THROUGH THROUGH THROUGH THROUGH THROUGH OOOOOTHER EYES THER EYES THER EYES THER EYES THER EYES by Marjorie Schmidt ............................. 55555With the knowledge that natural habitats continue to decline in both size and number,it is especially important to celebrate them and the beauty of their native plants. In thisarticle, Marjorie Schmidt does just that, through the writings of John Muir, AliceEastwood, Willis Jepson, and others.

CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEYCONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEYCONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEYCONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEYCONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEYGROW! GROW! GROW! GROW! GROW! by Jacob Sigg ....................................................................................... 88888Part of understanding native plants is considering their habitat, which is diminishing withevery setting sun. Jacob Sigg writes of the challenges to native species by exotic invasive plants,and asks us to especially watch those weeds that may be wiping out native populations as theyclaim habitat that once belonged to species native to California.

TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAINTREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAINTREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAINTREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAINTREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATH MOUNTAINMEADOWS MEADOWS MEADOWS MEADOWS MEADOWS by Michael P. Murray ............................................ 1313131313With climate change comes a response from vegetation. This look at loss of meadowhabitat to invading montane or subalpine trees and shrubs provides an overview ofthe Klamath Mountain meadow habitat and composition, as well as evidence anddiscussion of how these meadows are changing.

THE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVETHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVETHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVETHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVETHE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVEPLANT SOCIETY PLANT SOCIETY PLANT SOCIETY PLANT SOCIETY PLANT SOCIETY by Elizabeth McGee .......................................................... 1919191919This first in a series of articles about individual CNPS chapters highlights the state’s northernmostchapter, with history, personalities, activities, and events.

JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICSJEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICSJEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICSJEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICSJEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA FLORISTICSby Thomas J. Rosatti .............................................................................................. 2323232323Do you want to report a plant as new to the state or to a county in California? Do you want to findout why the scientific name of your favorite plant has changed, again? Tom Rosatti of the JepsonHerbarium (UC Berkeley) describes this new, comprehensive, and innovative online resource forreporting and obtaining information about the plants of California.

GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN: ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ROMNEYA ANDANDANDANDANDDENDROMECON DENDROMECON DENDROMECON DENDROMECON DENDROMECON (PAPAVERACEAE) (PAPAVERACEAE) (PAPAVERACEAE) (PAPAVERACEAE) (PAPAVERACEAE) by Nevin Smith ............... 3030303030Learn to grow two of California’s giant poppies, the matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri)and the tree poppy (Dendromecon rigida), with horticultural tips from Nevin Smith.

FROM THE ARCHIVESFROM THE ARCHIVESFROM THE ARCHIVESFROM THE ARCHIVESFROM THE ARCHIVES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3333333333

NOTES AND COMMENTSNOTES AND COMMENTSNOTES AND COMMENTSNOTES AND COMMENTSNOTES AND COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3434343434

BOOKS RECEIVEDBOOKS RECEIVEDBOOKS RECEIVEDBOOKS RECEIVEDBOOKS RECEIVED ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3434343434

BOOK RBOOK RBOOK RBOOK RBOOK REEEEEVVVVVIIIIIEEEEEWWWWW ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3535353535


GUEST EDITORIAL

his issue begins on page five with achingly beautiful eyewitness accounts ofCalifornia wildflower scenes in Marjorie Schmidt’s “Through Other Eyes.”

Many of those scenes are no longer visible because of development or conver-sion to other uses, and those that remain are threatened by a more subtle force:invasive non-native weeds.

The best techniques for coping with invasive weeds are early detection andrapid response. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) serves as an example ofwhat can happen if there is inadequate early response. It was detected as a con-taminant of alfalfa seed mixes in the late 19th century, but there was no responseas it slowly proliferated over the landscape. It wasn’t until a century later, whenyellow starthistle began having major economic, natural resource, and recre-ational impacts, that people began to do something. By the time invasions reachthat scale—in California alone yellow starthistle now infests 22 million acres,a fifth of the state—they are much more expensive to manage.

What of the weeds that arrived in the late 20th century? Have we learnedfrom experience? For the danger remains as clear and present now as before.The rate of accidental introductions as a result of rapidly increasing trade andtravel or new plants being introduced casually by the horticultural industry hasonly increased, not fallen. Not all of these introductions succeed in naturalizing,but when they do, they may have drastic impacts. The result is a homogenizingof the world’s flora and a corresponding loss of biological diversity parallelingthe loss of cultural diversity.

There are some shining examples of early detection and rapid response oflate. In an illustration of what should be routine operating procedure, scientistsin southern California detected the invasive seaweed, Caulerpa taxifolia, and re-sponded rapidly. Caulerpa has devastated Mediterranean ecosystems and waspoised to do the same here, except that alert and concerned people noticed itand did an exceptional job of very quickly trying to limit its spread. Although itis too early to declare success, this action may have prevented an ecological di-saster of major proportions.

Members of the California Native Plant Society can play a vital role in suchefforts as frontline first-responders. If you notice new plants, enlist help by get-ting information and positive identification, and appeal to agencies or landown-ers to take control steps if necessary. The California Department of Food andAgriculture, unknown to the general public, has saved us much harm and griefby the early detection and rapid response function of its Weed and VertebrateProgram, which does exactly what it is supposed to do. Sadly, it never gets creditfor being successful—how can the public know about problems averted? Ironi-cally, this tremendously cost-effective approach—detection and response beforethe costs of control become exorbitant—was first on the chopping block in the2003 and 2004 California budget imbroglio.

The article on page eight examines another little-noticed aspect of wildlandweeds. It may strike a somewhat pessimistic note, and yet it holds out hope thata rapidly changing society will recognize that weeds are a problem that must beaddressed, and will therefore devise clever solutions to what is widely recog-nized as a crisis. Meanwhile, bring back early detection and rapid response!

Jacob SiggPast President, CNPS

USEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESUSEFUL WEBSITESAND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACTAND CONTACTINFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATIONINFORMATION

Weed websites:See “Notes and Comments,” p. 34

California Native PlantSociety:www.cnps.org, with links toconservation issues, chapters,publications, policy, etc.To sign up for “NPCC News,”e-mail news on native plantscience and conservation, senda request to [email protected].

For updates on conservationissues:Audubon Society www.audubon.orgCenter for Biological Diversitywww.sw-center.orgNatural Resources DefenseCouncilwww.nrdc.orgSierra Clubwww.sierraclub.orgWilderness Societywww.wilderness.org

For voting information:League of Women Voterswww.lwv.org, includes online voterguide with state-specific nonparti-san election and candidateinformation.

US Senatewww.senate.gov

US House of Representativeswww.house.gov

California State Senatewww.sen.ca.gov

California State Assemblywww.assembly.ca.gov

To write letters:President George W. BushThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20500

Senator Barbara Boxeror Senator Diane FeinsteinUS SenateWashington, DC 20510

Your CA RepresentativeUS House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515

T


THROUGH OTHER EYESby Marjorie Schmidt (1905–1989)

[Reprinted with permission fromPacific Horticulture, Volume 50,No.1, Spring 1989.]

he tragedy is that knowl-edgeable appreciation ofCalifornia’s flora came al-

most too late, and some plants havebecome rare or are facing extinc-tion before their beauty has beenwidely recognized or their useful-ness evaluated. Many a newcomerto this state has never seen a Febru-ary field filled with coppery orangepoppies, sky-blue lupines, yellowtidytips, rose-purple owl’s clover,soft yellow cream cups, and manymore. These free-flowering annu-als once formed mosaic carpetsstretching for miles from the greatCentral Valley to the foothills. The

few records of personal observationthus become increasingly precious.

Can you imagine, to begin with,the area now dominated by build-ings to the south of San Franciscodescribed by an observer during themid-1800s:

“The first thing that arrested at-tention after leaving the sandy shoresof San Francisco was the flowers . . .Here they have flowers in May, notshy, but rampant, as if nothing else hadthe right to be; flowers by the acre,flowers by the square mile, flowers asthe visible carpet of an immense moun-tain wall. You can gather them inclumps, a dozen varieties at one pull.You can fill a bushel-basket in fiveminutes. And the colors are as charm-ing as the numbers are profuse. Yellow,purple, violet, pink, and pied, are spread

around you, now in separate levelmasses, now two or three combined in aswelling knoll, now intermixed in gor-geous confusion. Imagine yourself look-ing across to a hundred acres of wildmeadow, stretching to the base of hillsnearly two thousand feet high—thewhole expanse swarming with littlestraw-colored wild sunflowers, orangepoppies, squadrons of purple beauties,battalions of pink—and then the moun-tain, unbroken by tree or rock, glowingwith the investiture of all these hues,softened and kneaded by distance. Thisis what I saw on the road to San Mateo.”

John Muir, one of the mostquoted of our naturalists, foundsimilar scenes further inland:

“The Great Central Plain of Cali-fornia, during the months of March,April, and May, was one smooth,

Yellow violet, sometimes called Johnny-jump-up (Viola pedunculata). All photographs by L. Vorobik.

T


continuous bed of honey-bloom, so mar-velously rich that, in walking from oneend of it to the other, a distance of morethan 400 miles, your foot would pressabout a hundred flowers at every step.Mints, gilias, nemophilas, castillejas,and innumerable compositae were socrowded together that, had ninety-ninepercent of them been taken away, theplain would still have seemed to anybut Californians extravagantly flow-ery. The radiant, honeyful corollas,touching and overlapping, and risingabove one another, glowed in the livinglight like a sunset sky—one sheet ofpurple and gold, with the bright Sac-

ramento [river] pouring through themidst of it from the north, the SanJoaquin from the south, and their manytributaries sweeping in at right anglesfrom the mountains, dividing the plaininto sections fringed with trees.”

In the 1940s, Alice Eastwood, abotanist at the Academy of Sciencesin San Francisco, walked the hillsfrequently and wrote about her trav-els as well as about the plants seenby others more than half a centuryearlier. How sad to read her com-ments and the list of plants thatonce existed, most of which are nowgone:

“In the 1850s the open countryeverywhere around San Francisco wasa beautiful wildflower garden in thespring. In the region near Lake Mercedthe wildflowers were so thick that itwas impossible to avoid stepping onthem. There were California poppies,nemophilas, violets, cream cups, owls-clover, mouse-ear chickweed, Indianpaintbrush, clovers, etc. The yellow vio-let, Viola pedunculata, was especiallycommon, known to children as Johnny-jump-up. Today, new roads, golf links,vegetable fields, and human habita-tions have driven them away and it isdoubtful if a single native flower per-sists. A solitary madrone grew in agulch leading to the lake, the sides ofwhich were covered with dense chapar-ral. Ceanothus incanus formed athicket together with hazel, manza-nita, low oaks, and other shrubs. Climb-ing over them was the Dutchman’spipe, Aristolochia californica.

“The Bay View Hills near southSan Francisco was the home of someflowers not found elsewhere in the city.These were the climbing nemophila [fi-esta flower, Nemophila aurita, nowin the genus Pholistoma]; the whiteflax-flowered gilia, Linanthus lini-florus; islay cherry, Prunus ilicifolia;the tall larkspur, Delphinium cali-fornicum; the stinging phacelia,Phacelia malvaefolia. On the rockysummit, now known as Bay View Park,were rose cress, Arabis blepharo-phylla; the downy-leaved paint brush,Castilleja foliolosa; pennyroyal,Monardella villosa; and later severalcomposites and eriogonums. In themeadow below was a garden similar tothat at Lake Merced. In some placesnear Visitacion Valley the ground waswhite with the pelican flower, Ortho-carpus versicolor [now Triphysariaversicolor], and in other places the areaswere pink tinged from owls-clover,Orthocarpus densiflorus [now Cas-tilleja densiflora]. These common nameswere given to these flowers by Dr.Kellogg, the latter because each flowerformed the face of an owl. Everywheregolden poppies and amsinckias.

“On the hills back of Ingleside, then

Fiesta flower (Pholistoma auritum var. auritum).


known as Sunset Heights, and on thehills rising from the mission, a greatmany flowers could be found. ThePotrero Hills, too, were then coveredwith flowers. The white Fritillarialiliaceae grew there and in a wet placeMiss Cannon discovered a long-lost spe-cies, Sanicula maritima. At HuntersPoint, now entirely covered by a hous-ing project, this fritillaria was found afew years ago by Lewis S. Rose, and Ifound the fragrant Dodecatheonbernalinum there in 1916. This wasstill on Bernal Heights a few years ago.

“In the early 1890s, the presidiowas as beautiful a wildflower garden asLake Merced . . . In olden times a lowform of Zigadenus fremontii whit-ened the ground, the blue-violet as wellas the yellow was common, as were alsotwo species of Orthocarpus not foundin any other part of San Francisco; anda dark red onion and clumps of the blueDouglas iris loved rocky ridges. Besidesthere were flowers common elsewhere.However, the yellow-flowered bushlupine, the blue-flowered Chamissolupine, and the broad clumps ofCeanothus thyrsiflorus still hold theirown. Not long ago, Lewis S. Rose evenadded a species of fern allies known asquillwort, Isoetes nuttallii. This hadnever been found in the San Franciscoarea and it was not a common plant.The wax myrtle too, may yet be grow-ing along Lobos Creek or MountainLake.”

Willis Linn Jepson is widely re-spected as the father of Californiabotany, and his early Manual of Flow-ering Plants is now being revised[now The Jepson Manual, J. Hickman,Ed., 1993]. In addition to being afine botanist, he was amazingly ac-curate in predicting the conserva-tion movement among lovers of thenative flora. He wrote in 1917:

“In the long run protection mustcome by the devices and resources ofunited effort, high intelligence, andcareful handling. We must work for it,plan for it, strive for it. It is a nobleobject. If the beauty and glamour of theGolden Land in its youth can be pre-served and harmonized with the prac-

tical phases of our civilization, then wemay proudly say that our race was fit toenjoy it and to keep it, rising to thespirit and glad wonder of Nature inthe valleys, mountains and canyons ofour California.”

And by the stream and in thecanyons, Charles Francis Saunders,another of my favorite nature writ-ers, observes fall’s first rains insouthern California in the 1920s:

“Hard upon this first substantialstorm, which may last for two or threedays with varying intensity, and soaksthe ground to the root of things, thecanyons awake. Dormant springs re-new their waters; brooks move morebriskly; their sluggish pools, clogged withthe summer’s accumulation of leavesand fallen acorns, overflow and fillagain with musical tinkle the stretchesof gravelly channel long silent. Underthe magic of the rain the selaginellabeds, which throughout the dry seasonwere as shriveled rags and tatters uponthe sunburnt sides of the canon, aretransformed in a night to bright greenmats; the clenched fists of the goldbackferns as quickly become outstretchedpalms, and the polypody ferns, Westerncousins to Thoreau’s ‘cheerful colonists’of New England woods, thrust up ea-ger croziers from the mould, and un-curl their whole length in an incrediblyshort time, elbowing and overlappingtill the shady sides of the canyon havethe appearance of being shingled withthe massed fronds.”

In the San Fernando Valley, in1913 already being surveyed for thecoming rush of building, J. SmeatonChase, on a slow-paced horsebacktrip from the Mexican border toOregon, describes flower scenes, afew of which might exist today inremote places:

“The summer was . . . full of flow-ers. The beautiful tree-poppy grew freelyin many places, bearing shallow cups ofpalest gold twice a man’s height. By theroadside bloomed the great golden Mari-posa tulip, flecked with brown, a trulymagnificent blossom. Mountain lilac wasjust breaking into clouds of fragrantazure, and wild roses, daintily simple,

gleamed from every thicket. Poppies,mimulus, brodiaeas, and many moreadded their cheerful colors to the sum-mer show.”

For their appreciation of whatthe wild flora means to countrysideand to the enjoyment and enrich-ment of our lives, many more au-thors deserve inclusion here. Youngactivists of today who are puttingtheir deep love of nature into fresh,beautiful phrases will, no doubt, beexcerpted in future anthologies.There is now great concern for allwildlife and for fragile natural re-sources which, up to now, we havegobbled up with little thought forrenewal. Maybe if we can imaginewhat we have lost, we may be moreeager to preserve those lovely andflower-filled places that remainintact.

Blue flowers of lupine (Lupinus nanus)(top). • Flower of tree poppy (Dendro-mecon rigida) (bottom).


CONSIDER THE WEEDS OF THE FIELD—MY, HOW THEY GROW!

by Jacob Sigg

“There is a trend toward uniformity inenvironment, people, and ways of lifeall over the earth. This trend is inimi-cal to life, including human life. . . .Diversity has always characterized thebiosphere to which man belonged. Inliving systems, complexity brings sta-bility and ability to withstand change.The future survival of man may welldepend on the continuing complexity ofthe biosphere . . . ”

Raymond Dasmann,A Different Kind of Country

t is difficult to pinpoint exactlywhere or when people becameaware of the ecological conse-

quences of moving organisms fromone ecosystem to another. A hun-dred years after Charles Darwin andother 19th century naturalists be-gan to articulate the problem, Brit-ish ecologist Charles Elton pub-lished a landmark synthesis. His1958 work, The Ecology of Invasionsby Animals and Plants, remains in-sightful today. Weeds had long been

known to humanity—think of thebiblical parable of the tares, a weedof eastern Mediterranean wheatfields now thought to be Loliumtemulentum—but after Elton, ourunderstanding of weeds expandedbeyond the field and garden to thewoods and wilds.

I have had intimate knowledgeof weeds ever since I chose the gar-dening profession in 1957—just ayear before Elton published hisgreat work. Nevertheless, it took

A fairly advanced stage of a grassland invasion by hairy dandelion (Hypochaeris radicata) and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata).There will be no grasses at this site within a decade or two. All digital images by M. Bors.

I


me thirty years before I began toreally see how wildland weeds weretransforming those natural areas ofSan Francisco that I had come toknow and love. I became active inthe California Native Plant Society(CNPS) in large part because of mynewfound concern about impactsof weeds on the native flora. Myodyssey was paralleled in the largerworld, as government programs andgrassroots activism focusing onwildland weeds expanded rapidly.By 1993, my singular preoccupa-tion with invasive exotic speciespushed other conservation issues tothe margins; since that time thestudy of weeds has grown from apreoccupation to the major focus ofmy life.

Once again, the world seemedto mirror my inner perception. Dra-matic as the increase in awarenesswas up to 1993, the ten years afterrepresent an explosion in terms ofpublic awareness, programs, edu-cation, and funding to combat thehavoc created by invasive weeds. Itis worth remembering and celebrat-ing such accomplishments. Unliketen years ago, one now might tell aparable of the iceplant and not bemisunderstood.

But I write today, sadly, not tosing praise. Instead, I must sound awarning. I ask you to consider thelittle things, not the bugs and otherinvertebrates that turn the world,in E.O. Wilson’s nice phrase, butthe microweeds that through sheernumbers may be playing a signifi-cant role in the decline of nativespecies. Unlike Wilson, I am not ascientist reporting results, just a gar-dener sharing some observationsbased on ongoing intimate experi-ence working directly with the land.

For simplicity’s sake, I will il-lustrate my points using a singlesystem: coastal grasslands. Theyhave taken lots of abuse in the lastfew centuries, but even in San Fran-cisco they still harbor dozens of na-tive species. Weed management ingrasslands is currently focused on

human-scale weeds that pose obvi-ous threats such as brooms, gorse,fennel, and yellow starthistle. Thismakes sense, of course, particularlyat the present level of funding. Iwish to draw your attention, how-ever, to what I see happening onthe gardener-scale. Here, down onhands and knees in a coastal grass-land, the microweeds are takingover. Sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella),hairy dandelion (Hypochaeris radi-cata), English plantain (Plantagolanceolata), and others are increas-ing their numbers at the expense ofnative species.

I first noticed this dynamic onBernal Hilltop, site of a long-running volunteer stewardship pro-gram now in its 17th year. Everymonth we would go out and keepthe fennel and wild radish at bayfrom its coastal prairies of shootingstars and other forbs. In this wehave largely succeeded. Meanwhile,a less visible invasion was imper-ceptibly transforming the grassland.A half-dozen years ago I visited onewonderful population of shootingstars and marveled at its steadfastbeauty. Just a few years later, it wasgone, and in its place were a knittedweave of several perennial forbs—sheep sorrel, hairy dandelion, En-glish plantain, and yellow oxalis(Oxalis pes-caprae). Every San Fran-cisco gardener knows these plants,but I never expected them to becapable of creating such havoc.

Time-lapse photographs mighteasily document such invasions, butI was far more focused on human-scale weeds, like fennel, to worryabout microweeds. In retrospect,the invasion is most visible whenthey are flowering. The plants listedabove all flower prodigiously, onstalks standing well above the herb-age, and hence show up in photo-graphs. I don’t think that anyonehas tried to document the phenom-enon using repeat photographs.

Once I became aware of suchdynamics involving microweeds, Ibegan noticing it elsewhere in San

Francisco grasslands. Invasions byannual grasses from the Mediterra-nean have been well-documented,but I grew concerned when I wit-nessed an annual grass move intorocky grasslands that had been pre-viously relatively untouched by an-nual grasses. Previously unreportedin San Francisco, false brome(Brachypodium distachyon) material-ized overnight, exploding in thethousands this year in these vitalrocky grasslands as if seeded by he-licopter. Such areas had provided arefuge for natives such as buck-wheats, dudleyas, and various spe-cies of Lomatium, especially laceparsnip (L. dasycarpum). False bromewent from unreported to unstop-pable in just one year. In this case,even early detection and response—one of our best tools for combating

Native plants present in this picture: reinorchid (Piperia elegans), coast buckwheat(Eriogonum latifolium), blue-eyed grass(Sisyrinchium bellum), purple needlegrass(Nassella pulchra), plus the weedy hairydandelion and English plantain. In a fewyears the dandelion and plantain willdisplace the native plants.

1 0 F R E M O N T I A V O L U M E 3 1 : 2 , A P R I L 2 0 0 3

This red fescue (Festuca rubra) is probably many decades old on this harsh, windy site, pictured here with author. The thatch buildupin the grass clump makes an ideal nursery for weeds, such as the hairy dandelion shown below it, whose seeds are wind-dispersed.Once there, the dandelion rosette will produce offsets and spread its leaves flat on the grass, while its taproot will compete withthe grass for soil resources.

invasions—would not have worked.The last decade has been mostly

wet, and that’s good for weeds. Thelong-present perennial velvet grass(Holcus lanatus) exploded in Bay Areawildlands during the El Niño year1998 and suddenly ratcheted up inour awareness. Velvet grass has beenaround for many decades in culti-vated parks and other disturbedplaces, but had not been considereda wildland problem. Its overnightappearance in large numbers inwidely scattered locations in the SanFrancisco Bay Area drew attentionfrom everyone concerned withgrasslands and scrublands. It has awide range of cultural tolerances: itcan survive much drought, but alsoenjoys having its roots in water-

logged soil. Its perennial naturemeans that it can increase bytillering as well as by seed and as-sures that roots are able to pen-etrate to deeper levels, thus ensur-ing greater durability and competi-tion with deep-rooted natives. Indry years young plants will persistin a semi-dormant state, then bur-geon in a wet year, when the dor-mant seedbank also explodes.

Of all the microweeds, only in-vasive annual grasses have been stud-ied thoroughly. Among the manystudies is a recent one by Dr. StuartWeiss who investigated invasion dy-namics in a coastal grassland atEdgewood Natural Preserve in SanMateo County. He studied the de-cline and disappearance of the fed-

erally-listed Bay checkerspot butter-fly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Thestudy identified the weedy annualItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum,as the culprit because of its displace-ment of the butterfly’s larval foodplant—the tiny dwarf plantain (Plan-tago erecta) and other plants vital tothe system’s fabric—through shad-ing and root competition. He foundthat Italian ryegrass and other weedyannual grasses are proliferating be-cause of nitrogen deposition fromauto exhaust on Interstate 280, whichcuts through the preserve.

These invasions are less dramaticand less visible than gorse gone wild,but it seems to be happening never-theless. Losing a grassland to a fastand furious invasion by yellow

F R E M O N T I A 1 1V O L U M E 3 1 : 2 , A P R I L 2 0 0 3

starthistle is no different than los-ing one to the slow and stealthydisplacement of native herbs andgrasses by other, less noticeableweeds. Our landscapes and our livesare either way impoverished.

Attempting to save tiny urbanremnants of the original landscapemay strike some as being quixotic.But what is happening in San Fran-cisco may be a harbinger of thingsto come. I’ve witnessed it myself inthe more extensive grasslands of SanBruno Mountain, where oxalis,hairy dandelion, and other micro-weeds are contributing to ecosys-tem decline.

Documentation of the thesis of this article would not be difficult: Take a series ofsnapshots over time of scenes like this and watch the English plantain (Plantagolanceolata) slowly gain the upper hand over the tough native bunchgrass. The grassmust share its energy with the foodchain, whereas the plantain shares little or none,giving it a competitive advantage.

The diversity portrayed here by farewell-to-spring (Clarkia rubicunda), dudleya (Dudleya farinosa), coast buckwheat (Eriogonumlatifolium), native dandelion (Agoseris apargioides), and bunchgrass (purple needlegrass, Nassella pulchra) will trend to the simple asthe English plantain claims more and more of the available resources; the natives will slowly drop out, one by one.

Such dynamics are not limitedto urban coastal grasslands. Evenredwood forests, where you’d thinkthat the dim light and thick acidiclitter would spare them from in-vasives, are being overwhelmed inplaces by English and Algerian ivy(Hedera helix, H. canariensis) andEnglish holly (Ilex aquifolium). Can’tbelieve that English ivy can harm a350-foot redwood? Well, giventime, it will climb into the crown,cutting off light and weighing itdown with biomass, in addition tocompeting fiercely with the red-wood’s own shallow root system.Other aggressive invaders that


thrive in this environment areehrharta (Ehrharta erecta) and wind-borne Cape ivy (Delairea odorata).

Deserts, too, are not immune.Saharan mustard (Brassica tourne-fortii) is usurping vital desert washes,and of even greater concern are twospecies of Schismus—annual grassesfrom the Mediterranean—thatcause widespread destruction bycarrying fire from one widely-spaced shrub to another, like cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) in the GreatBasin.

Of all the invasive species thatI’ve mentioned, only two, Cape ivyand English ivy, are on the Califor-nia Exotic Pest Plant Council A-list. I’m not arguing that these oth-ers should be included on that list,or that smaller weeds receive asmuch attention and funding as themore troublesome plants. I am justtrying to draw your attention to theless visible invasions that are alsotransforming California plant com-munities.

Some will think me too pessi-mistic, perhaps citing studies thatmay indicate other conclusions. Ireport what I see, and my experi-ence can be corroborated by manyresource managers. I do not think

the picture is exaggerated, only un-popular, and one we would ratherdeny. Call me Cassandra—but re-member that, despite the currentpejorative intent, she was right, tothe Trojan’s rue. After all, Troydid fall.

So why am I adding yet anotherdepressing note to the long list ofproblems threatening to overwhelmus? I have tremendous respect forhuman creativity. The same crea-ture that caused the problem maybe capable of fixing it; only recog-nition and will is required. I amimpressed with the strategies, thethinking, and the research that havealready occurred. Members of theCalifornia Native Grass Association,for example, have been ingeniousin meeting some of the challengesof grassland restoration. The Cali-fornia Exotic Pest Plant Council,an organization devoted exclusivelyto wildland weeds of California, isgathering steam in its ability to or-ganize political support for wild-land weed control. Researchers areshowing tremendous creativity inferreting out the achilles heel oftroublesome plants. Give themmoney and institutional support andsee what they can do.

There are not many technolo-gies presently known for control-ling microweeds on a landscapescale. Manual or mechanical meth-ods are not applicable on this scale.Fire and herbicides have their ownproblems, but both are tools thatcan be used in an integrated man-ner to help address the problem(see for example “The Role of Her-bicides in Preserving Biodiversity”in Fremontia, October 1998). It fol-lows that we should consider bio-control. Many weeds have becomeso widespread and all-pervasive thatonly one technology offers hope tocontrol them: biological agents. Butit too is not a panacea. Althoughclassical biocontrol has a goodrecord, it is not without its critics.To the extent that the criticisms arevalid, concerns can and should beaddressed, even if that means in-creasing the costs of an expensivetechnology. I see biocontrol as theonly hope for controlling many in-vasive plants.

But I digress. Returning to mygardener’s eye, grown practicedover 46 years, I’m reporting what Isee, and it’s not cheering. I see spe-cies wink out one by one: first theshooting stars and saxifrages, thenthe violas and checkerbloom. Thespunky survivors that are the last togo are the bunchgrasses, yarrow,morning glories, and buckwheats.Consider the lilies of the field, howthey grow; they toil not, neither dothey spin. To keep weeds from over-taking a field of lilies is neither toilnor joy, but simply a matter of ex-istence, as important to me as healthcare, the economy, and other cen-tral human concerns.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thanks go to Pete Holloran forhis invaluable help with editing themanuscript.

Jacob Sigg, 338 Ortega Street, San Fran-cisco, CA 94112

Hairy dandelion, a.k.a. cat’s ears (Hypochaeris radicata), like the lawn dandelion, has adeep taproot and offsets prodigiously, its many rosettes smothering most plants growingadjacent to it.


TREE ENCROACHMENT ON KLAMATHMOUNTAIN MEADOWS

by Michael P. Murray

igh mountain meadows areremarkable ecosystems ofthe Klamath Mountains.

They are valuable habitat for wild-life such as mountain beaver, bear,elk, hummingbirds, lizards, and avariety of pollinating insects. Rareand diverse meadow flora includewing-seed draba (Draba ptero-sperma), mountain hairgrass (Vahlo-dea atropurpurea), Siskiyou sedge(Carex gigas), Klamath gentian(Gentiana plurisetosa), and long-

haired star-tulip (Calochortus longe-barbatus var. longebarbatus). Over-all, meadows support a higher di-versity and richness of plants thanneighboring high elevation forest,aquatic, or shrubland communities.People value meadows for their easeof passage and open campsites af-fording sweeping views of themountain landscape and starry skies.

The distinct mountain agglom-eration known as the Klamath-Siskiyou region straddles northwest-

ern California and southwesternOregon. Often referred to as “theKlamaths,” the central location ofthese mountains explains, in part,the flora which is a convergencefrom the Cascades, Sierras, GreatBasin, and Rocky Mountains. Thisintermixing of plants is probablythe most important factor afford-ing it a high species richness. In thenorth central portion of the MarbleMountain Wilderness, over 200species of vascular meadow plants

The Klamath Mountains prominently support a variety of high-mountain meadow systems, such as this ridgeline mosaic in theMarble Mountain Wilderness. All photographs by author.

H


occur within a square mile. Corre-sponding to a high species diversityin the region, there is also an im-pressive system of montane and sub-alpine meadow community types.

At least six general meadowcommunities exist here, includingsedge, dry meadow, sedge-bunch-grass, lush-herbaceous, corn-lily,and bentgrass. Sedge meadows arefound on soils at the upper extremesof moisture. Places such as lakemargins, microbasins, and late-ly-ing snowbanks commonly supportsedge communities, but in theKlamaths, these meadows do notreach the immense sizes of thesprawling Sierra sedgelands. Themost abundant sedges are smooth-beaked (Carex integra), and Kelloggsedge (Carex kelloggii).

Dry meadows are common onupper slopes and ridge tops wherelow, matted plants resemble alpinetundra. Principal species are Idahofescue (Festuca idahoensis), dwarf sage-brush (Artemisia arbuscula), large-fruited lomatium (Lomatium macro-carpum), spreading phlox (Phloxdiffusa), bottlebrush squirreltail(Elymus elymoides), sulphurflowers(Eriogonum umbellatum var. good-manii and var. argus), and Douglasbuckwheat (E. douglasii).

Sedge-bunchgrass meadowssupport Idaho fescue, columbia stipa(Stipa columbiana), big sage (Arte-misia tridentata), and sedges whichhave not been identified to speciesbut probably include thick-headed(Carex mariposiana) and many-ribbed sedge (C. multicostata).

The remarkable lush-herba-ceous meadows are verdant junglesof towering flowers set on soils thatremain damp throughout the sum-mer. Common species are angelica(Angelica tomentosa), blue stickseed(Hackelia micrantha), alpine knot-weed (Polygonum phytolaccaefolium),Martin’s paintbrush (Castilleja mar-tinii), Thalictrum’s meadow-rue

(Thalictrum fendleri), Californiabrome (Bromus carinatus), and Or-egon checker-mallow (Sidalceaoregana).

Corn-lily meadows are similarand are found on valley bottomsand wetter slopes. Typical speciesare corn-lily (Veratrum californica),horse-mint (Agastache urticifolia),yellow-staining collomia (Collomiatinctoria), California waterleaf (Hy-drophyllum occidentale), and moun-tain thistle (Circium calilepsi).

During the mid-1900s, ecolo-gists began to note young trees es-tablishing along forest edges and asclumps well within meadows of thePacific Northwest (Brink 1959;

Wing-seed draba (Draba pterosperma) isendemic to dry ridgecrest subalpinemeadows underlain by marble. Photo-graph from the Marble MountainWilderness.

Although meadows tend to be resistant to tree invasion, changes in the environmentsuch as decreased snowpack or livestock grazing can cause prolific expansion of conifersincluding these Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica var. shastensis). Photograph from theRussian Peaks Wilderness.


Franklin and others 1971). Weknow that meadows have alwayssupported occasional trees—eitherin patches or just a few hardy indi-viduals scattered about. Woody pio-neers are able to gain a toeholdwhere most others have succumbedto fire, drought, deep snow, rodents,and a variety of other tree inhibi-tors which help maintain them. Butrecently we have seen numerouspatches of young trees proliferatingin pockets here and there on theopen landscape. This phenomenonis not restricted to the PacificNorthwest, having been subse-quently observed in the RockyMountains and Sierra Nevada.

The ostensibly recent incursionhas important implications. Plantswhich thrive in meadows prefertheir sunlight unfiltered by invad-ing conifers. As trees mature andshade more area beneath their ex-panding canopies, we expect shade-intolerant plants to dwindle in num-bers. Moreover, unlike mature trees,most middle-aged trees tend togrow a canopy right down to theground surface. Meadow plants aresimply unable to thrive in this newalien environment. Each tree cre-ates a no-grow zone. Multiply thisby the thousands of trees invading ameadow, and we begin to realizehow meadows are losing ground.Tree establishment can also altersoil nutrient ratios, fire dynamics,and hydrology while generating theloss of wildlife habitat.

A FIRST LOOK ATA FIRST LOOK ATA FIRST LOOK ATA FIRST LOOK ATA FIRST LOOK ATTHE KLAMATHTHE KLAMATHTHE KLAMATHTHE KLAMATHTHE KLAMATHMEADOWSMEADOWSMEADOWSMEADOWSMEADOWS

My interest in tree invasion wasborn doing graduate study ofmeadow species composition in theMarble Mountain Wilderness of theKlamath National Forest. Whileinventorying plots, I noticed patchesof young Shasta red fir (Abiesmagnifica var. shastensis), mountainhemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and

willows (Salix spp.) thriving in themeadows. Like any ecologist, I won-dered what caused their seeminglyrecent establishment. But not be-ing part of my study, I remainedfocused on classifying meadow veg-etation.

Ten years later, I found myselflooking at an aerial photograph ofthis same area taken in 1944. As Iexamined the timberline mosaic thatI professed to know so well, I wasastonished. My meadows appearedin a barely recognizable form! I wasseeing broad expanses of open coun-try vaguely familiar to me. Com-paring closely with a recent photo,it was apparent how dramatic themosaic had changed. Small incon-spicuous saplings alone in the mead-ows had become patches of maturetrees surrounded by new saplings.Meadowed lakeshores were nowshaded with 30-foot tall firs. For-ests, speckled with an understory ofshrubs visible through the canopy,were now dense and shaded.

Such dramatic changes made animpression on me. I wanted to knowjust how extensive this shift had beenacross the surrounding mountain

landscape. Although the publishedliterature contained numerous dis-cussions of causation, there re-mained a conspicuous void ofknowledge regarding the actualscope of invasion at a landscape-scale. Rapidly improving remotesensing and imaging technology af-forded me the opportunity to effec-tively assess these changes acrossbroad areas.

I randomly selected six meadowsites to examine. All were withinthe Marble Mountain WildernessArea, except Morris Meadow whichrests in the Trinity Alps Wilder-ness (Table 1, p. 17). The KlamathNational Forest provided full ac-cess to their collection. Both sets(1944 and 1999) were 9✕9-inch atapproximately 1:16,000 scale,black-and-white and color respec-tively. Each photo was digitized,georectified, and analyzed within ageographic information system(GIS) utilizing ArcView softwareand the Image Analysis extension.Canopies of meadow trees (sq.meters) were calculated and com-pared between 1944 and 1999 toestimate meadow loss.

Since 1944, 4–26% of Klamath meadows have been converted to tree or willow coveras illustrated in this valley bottom mosaic. Photograph from the Marble MountainWilderness.


FINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDFINDINGS ANDIMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

Based on comparing 1944 with1999 photographs, tree cover hasincreased 2–13% among meadows(Table 2, p. 17). Although some oc-currences of isolated tree mortalitywere observed, no meadows sup-port an overall loss of tree areawithin their boundaries. The pat-tern of invasion is similar among

meadow sites. Scarce young treeswhich existed in 1944 have maturedand are now surrounded by densepatches of progeny. While we wouldexpect pronounced invasion alongthe forest edges, a significant amountof invading trees are well withinmeadow boundaries, thus affectingmeadow loss near their centers.

Shrub change was not measured,but increases were observed on pho-tographs. Rate of increase appears

to be slightly less than tree inva-sion. Whereas trees colonized pre-viously unoccupied microsites,shrub cover has increased predomi-nantly from existing 1944 patchedges. Combining shrub increaseswith tree results, meadow loss isapproximately 4–26% among thesix meadow sites.

An overall increase of 4–26%may not seem like a dramaticchange; however, the actual foot-print of impact is greater than thecanopy measurement alone. Wemust consider a tree’s ability tomodify the immediate surroundingsby shading, water uptake, litterfall,etc. Such changes can be detrimen-tal to meadow flora. Groves of treesnear lakes tend to attract recrea-tionists who create campsites andtether packstock, thus intensifyingdamage to the herbaceous layer.Low-impact camping techniques,such as camping at least 100 feetfrom water and avoiding sensitiveherbaceous vegetation, are seldomadhered to.

In Klamath Wilderness Areasthere has been a shift in use fromtraditional campsites sited at appro-priate distance from lakes in ma-ture forest, to campsites set up atthe invading lakeside groves. Find-ings also indicate that computeranalysis is not necessary to detectmeadow loss. Instead, casual obser-vation of paired photographs canprovide remarkable insight of treeinvasion, even at low intensities(Figure 1, p. 18).

Besides measuring the overallpercentage of invading trees, it isuseful to understand precisely wheretrees tend to colonize within mead-ows. My results indicate that newtrees tend to appear in somewhatdiscrete patches rather than a uni-form dispersal. This is at least partlya reflection of pioneering trees mod-erating the environment, andthereby making conditions moreconducive for new tree recruitment.Miller and Halpern (1998) docu-ment this in the Cascades and sug-

Invading conifers eliminate meadow plants and our scenic views, Paradise Lake, MarbleMountain Wilderness.


gest that establishment may con-tinue even during subsequent peri-ods of unfavorable climate. Onceinvading trees are established withinmeadows, the rate of establishmentcan increase dramatically.

Patterns of established youngtrees may also be guided by pre-invasion biological and physical con-ditions. Meadow sites are typicallymosaics of different plant commu-nities and topoedaphic (relating tothe soil surface) nuances. In all like-lihood, these contrasting habitatsalso differ in their vulnerability toinvasion. It would be useful to knowwhere high vulnerability corre-

TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX MEADOW SITES ANALYZEDTABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX MEADOW SITES ANALYZEDTABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX MEADOW SITES ANALYZEDTABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX MEADOW SITES ANALYZEDTABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX MEADOW SITES ANALYZEDIN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS.IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS.IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS.IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS.IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS.

Meadow Site Meadow Lifeform Landform Elevation (ft) Location (UTM,NAD83)

Big Ridge Bunchgrass – Sedge Mosaic Ridgecrest 6,640-6,988 481270, 4610835

Cuddihy Lakes Sedge – Thin Bentgrass Cirque Basin 6,560-6,880 473005, 4600252

Meteor Lake Sedge – Thin Bentgrass Cirque Moraine 5,720-5,920 471093, 4597874

Morris Meadow Mosaic Glacial Valley Bottom 4,400 503935, 4535707

Paradise Lake Thin Bentgrass Cirque Moraine 6,080 482577, 4606787

Sky High Lakes Thin Bentgrass Cirque Moraine 5,760-5,900 485094, 4600175

TABLE 2. PERCENT MEADOW LOSS TO TREE INVASION FOR SIXTABLE 2. PERCENT MEADOW LOSS TO TREE INVASION FOR SIXTABLE 2. PERCENT MEADOW LOSS TO TREE INVASION FOR SIXTABLE 2. PERCENT MEADOW LOSS TO TREE INVASION FOR SIXTABLE 2. PERCENT MEADOW LOSS TO TREE INVASION FOR SIXMEADOW SITES IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS, 1949 TO 1999.MEADOW SITES IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS, 1949 TO 1999.MEADOW SITES IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS, 1949 TO 1999.MEADOW SITES IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS, 1949 TO 1999.MEADOW SITES IN THE KLAMATH MOUNTAINS, 1949 TO 1999.

Meadow Site Meadow Site 1944 Tree 1999 Tree MeadowArea (ha) Area (sq.m) Area (sq.m) Loss

Meteor Lake 14.5 92 398 2.1%

Sky High Lakes 38.3 436 13,582 3.4%

Paradise Lake 4.5 690 2,212 3.4%

Cuddihy Lakes 31.0 625 1,936 4.2%

Morris Meadow 183.1 3,812 16,791 7.1%

Big Ridge 206.8 2,210 29,990 13.4%

sponds with habitat for rare plants.For a separate long-term study inthis region, I installed monitoringtransects and discovered the veryrare and unique bud saxifrage(Saxifraga bryophora). This popula-tion was actively being invaded bymountain hemlock.

What is causing this widespreadencroachment? It is probably re-lated to climatic shifts, domesticgrazing, or fire suppression. Ratherthan assume one dynamic is respon-sible for the entire region, it is bestto evaluate each site individually toreveal site-specific relationships. Bydetermining ages of encroaching

trees, we can compare this data withhistorical records of land use andclimate.

For example, the curtailment ofheavy overgrazing between 1910and 1935 likely provided the op-portunity for seedlings to establishin denuded meadow vegetation.This has been suggested in thesouthern Cascades and Sierra(Miller and Halpern 1995, Taylor1990, and Vale 1981). Two lakebasins, Sky High and Paradise, ap-pear to have been heavily denudedat one time. I’m confident thatanalysis of tree ages and grazingrecords would identify grazing as a


persuasive agent. Decreased snow-pack in the spring over the pastseveral decades is a likely cause atnorth-facing meadows where late-lying snow has historically inhib-ited trees.

Fire exclusion is most importantin meadow types with high naturalfire frequencies, such as the lowerelevation grassy meadows. In thisregard, Morris Meadow deserves aclose look. Many mountain mead-ows of the Klamaths are within fed-erally protected wilderness areas. Ifhuman impacts are to blame, thenappropriate management responses,including restoration, should beconsidered to protect the integrityof meadows.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSION

This analysis verifies that theKlamath-Siskiyou Region shares thephenomenon of tree invasion withother subalpine regions of the west-ern US. Based on six meadow sitesexamined, it is estimated that 2–

13% of meadow acreage has beenconverted to tree cover since 1944.A nearly equal additional amounthas been usurped by increases inwillow. Thus, total meadow loss isestimated to range from 4% to 26%among meadows. These sites arewithin Congressionally-designatedWilderness Areas managed to pro-tect natural conditions. Furtherwork is warranted to identify causesof invasion and impacts on meadowcommunities, and to predict futuretrends. Such additional insight willhelp managers understand and pro-tect these vital plant communities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very thankful to CNPS formaking this work possible with aneducational grant from the Shar-smith Fund. My thanks also go toJennifer Gossett, Bob Jester, andFrank Kottenbach of the KlamathNational Forest, who cheerfullyprovided access to and assistancewith aerial photographs.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

Brink, V.C. 1959. A directional changein the subalpine forest-heath eco-tone in Garibaldi Park, British Co-lumbia. Ecology 40(1):10–16.

Franklin, J.F., W.H. Moir, G.W. Dou-glas, and C. Wiberg. 1971. Invasionof subalpine meadows by trees in theCascade Range, Washington, andOregon. Arctic and Alpine Research3(3):215–224.

Miller, E.A. and C.B. Halpern. 1998.Effects of environment and grazingdisturbance on tree establishment inmeadows of the Central CascadeRange, Oregon, USA. Journal ofVegetation Science 9:265–282.

Taylor, A.H. 1990. Tree invasion inmeadows of Lassen Volcanic Na-tional Park, California. ProfessionalGeographer 42(4):457–470.

Vale, T.R. 1981. Ages of invasive treesin Dana Meadows, Yosemite Na-tional Park, California. Madroño28:45–47.

Michael P. Murray, Crater Lake NationalPark, PO Box 7, Crater Lake, OR [email protected].

Figure 1. Comparison of aerial photographs shows that the meadow site at Sky High Lakes has lost about 3.3% of its area to invadingShasta red fir since 1944. Traditionally a popular destination for recreational visitors, new campsites have been created beneath theburgeoning canopies.


THE NORTH COAST CHAPTER OFTHE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY

by Elizabeth McGee

ou may already know thatthe north coast of Californiais home to giant redwoods,

large stands of Douglas-fir, duneplant communities, serpentinemountains, and numerous endemicspecies, but did you also know itwas home to the “Arcata Mafia?”During the early months of 1970,James P. Smith, John Sawyer, andVirginia Rumble met on theHumboldt State University (HSU)campus (in Arcata) to discuss orga-nizing a chapter of the CaliforniaNative Plant Society on the northcoast. With enthusiastic support of

then statewide president LedyardStebbins, the chapter was estab-lished in March of 1970. The firstNorth Coast Chapter president wasJohn Sawyer.

All three of the founders workedat the state level in various capaci-ties and implemented changes thatwere not always well received.While making changes to meetingtimes and places, formulating state-wide field trips, and creating a rareplant botanist position, Jim, John,and Virginia were sometimes not soaffectionately called the “Arcata Ma-fia.” However, their extraordinary

vision is what makes our chapterwhat it is today: a group of peopleexcited about native flora and dedi-cated to conserving and educatingothers about native plant speciesand their habitats.

One of the best ways to share anenthusiasm for plants is to explorewith other enthusiasts on field tripsand share information through pre-sentations by knowledgeable speak-ers. These educational activities havebeen the foundation of our chapter.At the very first meeting of theNorth Coast Chapter, new mem-bers were treated to a slide presen-

North Coast Chapter members replanting the rare western lily (Lilium occidentale) in January, 2001. Photograph by D. Imper.

Y


tation on local spring wildflowersby botany professor Dennis Ander-son (who would later lead a trip toHawaii in 1972). A total of 28 mem-bers signed up at this first meeting,and in April of 1970 several mem-bers attended the first field trip.

The Stony Creek trail off ofState Route 199 in the Smith Riverarea was their destination. Alongwith many other species, one of thehighlights of this trail is a view ofthe California pitcher plant (Dar-lingtonia californica), a rare plant inCalifornia (CNPS List 4 species).This trip, although rainy, was en-joyable for all attendees and becamean annual event in subsequent years.

Sometimes a sheet cake waspacked along to celebrate the birth-day of Earl Rumble (VirginiaRumble’s husband). It was on someof these earlier excursions that folkslearned the field survey methodchapter members called “40 mphtaxonomy,” or the skill of identify-ing plants from a moving car. Earl,a truck driver on occasion, becameso adept at this method that hewould point out shrubs and flowersin bloom to other truckers over hisCB radio.

Through the years we have hadmany outstanding field trips andevening programs. Several timesduring the 1970s and 1980s LedyardStebbins returned to the north coastto give a lecture on flowering plants.Our evening programs now occur

monthly and are always informa-tive and entertaining. A February2002 symposium that the chapterorganized, titled “The Ecology andManagement of Rare Plants ofNorthwestern California,” was anambitious full-day event that drewparticipants from all over the stateand Oregon. With 31 speakers andover 200 participants, the sympo-sium was an unmitigated success.In December of 2002 the chapterreceived an award from the stateCNPS president, Sue Britting, fordeveloping and organizing this in-formative event.

Other educational activities thatthe North Coast Chapter has spon-sored include a monthly newsletter,the annual spring wildflower show,native plant gardening and schoolscience fairs, and a display booththat is used at events to educate thepublic about CNPS and nativeplants. The chapter newsletter orig-inally was called the “CaliforniaNative Plant Society North CoastChapter Newsletter” (whew!) butbecame the “Darlingtonia” in 1974.

Just recently we cosponsored the20th Annual Spring WildflowerShow. We have been cosponsors ofthis event along with the NatureDiscovery Volunteers since 1995and have involved school groups,Friends of the Dunes, RedwoodInterpretive Association, and Cali-fornia Indian Basketweavers Asso-ciation. Each year we also give anaward to the best Humboldt Countyscience fair project that focuses onnative plants. We helped to estab-lish a native plant garden at PacificUnion Elementary School in 1994,which continues to be an educa-tional tool for the students. In 2000we sponsored a native plant propa-gation and restoration program atWinship Junior High School. Overthe years we have worked at estab-lishing native plant gardens on theHSU campus, at roadside areas, theArcata community center, and theUnited Indian Health ServicesPotowat Clinic.

Our display booth can be foundat many of the fairs and eventsthroughout Humboldt County,where it serves to educate peopleabout native plants on the NorthCoast. At two of these events wealso have a plant sale, our primaryfundraiser. Although the idea for achapter plant sale germinated dur-ing the 1980s, the first plant saledid not take place until 1992. JohnMcRae, Chris Blumstrom (nowChris Jenican-Beresford), alongwith Steve and Carol Matthewsspearheaded the first sale. It hasbeen a great success ever since.

In addition to the many enter-taining educational activities of thechapter, we also engage in the seri-ous (and sometimes not so serious)business of conservation. The chap-ter has been active in the conserva-tion of native plant species and theirhabitat throughout this region ofNorthern California. The chapterhas been kept extremely busy deal-ing with the conservation needs ofits varied plant communities, in-cluding hardwood and conifer for-ests, serpentine landscapes andmeadows of the Klamath and

Western lily (Lilium occidentale), one ofthe special plants of northwestern Cali-fornia. Photograph by A. Pickart.

A rare wallflower of northwestern Cali-fornia, Menzies or Humboldt Baywallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp.eurekense), named for its type locality nearthe city of Eureka. Photograph by A.Pickart.


Siskiyou Mountains and CoastRanges, beach and dune plant com-munities, and coastal prairies.

Some conservation efforts overthe years have included establish-ing and expanding wilderness ar-eas, taking inventories of rare plants,protecting delicate serpentine planthabitat, and using all means avail-able to preserve individual speciesas well as the habitat of two en-demic endangered plants. Through-out the 1970s and 1980s our chap-ter actively attended meetings andwrote letters to establish the Trin-ity Alps Wilderness area and to addacreage to existing wilderness areasthrough the Forest Service RoadlessArea Review and Evaluation (RAREII) process.

At the Six Rivers National For-est the chapter influenced the es-tablishment of several botanicalareas including Horse Mountain,North Fork, Smith River, and BearBasin Butte. During the 1970s, J.P.Smith spent many years collectingdata in our area and throughoutthe state for the first edition ofthe CNPS Inventory of Rare andEndangered Vascular Plants of Cali-fornia. Many members, includingmany HSU botany graduate stu-dents, were kept busy filling outforms and traveling throughout thenorth coast to determine whichplants warranted inclusion in theInventory. This effort continues to-day with the participation of manyarea botanists on the state CNPS

Rare Plant Scientific AdvisoryCommittee.

The largest areas of serpentinehabitat in the state are found in theSmith River area just south of theOregon border. On Gasquet Moun-tain, the site of 40 CNPS-listedspecies, Cal-Nickel Corporationplanned a mining operation to stripthe mountain for nickel, cobalt,chromium, and magnesium depos-its. In 1977 the chapter was alertedto these plans, and in 1979 joinedwith the Smith River Alliance tohead off the project. In 1984 DwainGoforth resigned from his positionas chapter president to work on thisissue full-time. Although this landis still owned by Cal-Nickel, it isnow protected in many ways by theWild and Scenic status of the SmithRiver and the establishment of theSmith River National RecreationArea in 1990.

Since the early 1980s, protec-tion of the western lily (Liliumoccidentale) and its natural habitatshas been a part of our conservationgoals. The western lily grows pri-marily along the coast in boggyareas, wetlands, and coastal prai-ries. It is threatened by housingdevelopment and by competitionfrom the overgrowth of shrubs inbogs and in coastal prairie or coastalscrub. Key members of the NorthCoast Chapter have tended tothe small populations of westernlily in Humboldt and Del Nortecounties.

Through the leadership of Daveand Kim Imper and a grant fromthe Nature Conservancy, a smallpatch of western lily habitat wasfenced in Humboldt County in1985. A larger area (1.5 acres) wasfenced in 1994 and monitoring andhabitat improvement projects con-tinue today. Every winter Dave en-tices many of us to venture into lilyhabitat for shrub and tree removal,building fences, planting bulbs, andfor the first time this year, burning.

Another species that has been atthe forefront of our conservation

Map of CNPS Chapters; the North Coast Chapter is located in the far northwestcorner of the state.


program has been the Menzies orHumboldt Bay wallflower (Erysi-mum menziesii ssp. eurekense). Thisis a state- and federally-listed spe-cies that is found in the fore dunessurrounding Humboldt Bay. In1976 the Army Corps of Engineersplanned to deposit the spoils fromharbor dredging onto the sanddunes on the Samoa Peninsula.

In 1977, through the leadershipof John Sawyer, seeds were collectedand whole plants were moved tonew locations at the LanphereChristensen Dunes Preserve. TheArmy Corps of Engineers alsoagreed to preserve some of the habi-tat that would initially have beencovered with dredged material. By1979 relocated plants were doingwell and the protected populationwas also thriving. The monitoringof the plant continued throughoutthe 1980s. An annual activity forchapter members has been to countindividuals in each of the Menzieswallflower populations.

In 1984 our chapter celebratedwhen the wallflower was listed asendangered by the California De-

partment of Fish and Game, andagain in 1992 when it was desig-nated as endangered by the US Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS).Presently, conservation issues arefocused on addressing sensitiveplant issues in the timber harvestreview process in Humboldt andDel Norte counties, and reviewingcounty management plans. We alsopartner with the USFWS to collectmonitoring data on several of therare species in our area.

Part of our efforts to maintainrare plant populations and nativeplant habitat has been to controlexotic plant species. With theCALTRANS development of theState Route 101 corridor through-out the 1960s and 1970s, many ex-otic species were introduced to sta-bilize the dunes and roadsides. Al-though the chapter has focused onmany exotic plant issues, in the earlyyears the main concern was the in-vasive plants in the dune communi-ties at the Nature Conservancy’sLanphere Christenson Dunes Pre-serve. Pampas grass (Cortaderiajubata), English ivy (Hedera helix),

and yellow bush lupine (Lupinusarboreus) are threats to the nativeplants of the dunes.

In 1977 the chapter advertised a“plant destroying trip” to the dunes.In subsequent years these search-and-destroy trips with a “Pulaski”(axe) would be known as “lupinebashes.” In the spring 1998 issue ofDarlingtonia, it was suggested thatthe lupine bashes were no longerneeded in some parts of the dunesbecause of all the work done in pre-vious years. Dune restoration con-tinues today with weed eradicationworkdays sponsored mainly by theFriends of the Dunes, a local duneconservation organization. In recentyears we have formed partnershipswith the Humboldt County WeedManagement Area in educating thepublic about the invasive exotic spe-cies in their own backyard. We alsohave cosponsored California Inva-sive Weed Awareness Week and aguide to Humboldt County Weeds.

The success of our chaptercomes from the many hard-work-ing and dedicated volunteers thatare found here on the north coast.We have had 21 presidents in thelast 33 years with many serving morethan one term. What started as anoutgrowth of the HSU botany de-partment has become a part of thesurrounding community with meet-ings, field trips, and other activitiesheld throughout Humboldt and DelNorte counties.

If you are ever in our area, pleasecome and visit us. Our businessmeetings and evening programs areheld the second Wednesday of themonth, and always include a pre-sentation. You can also check usout online at www.northcoast.com/~cnps/. We currently have 291 mem-bers, including 21 board members.Contact information for all of ourboard members, including our newchapter president, Carol Ralph, islisted within our website.

Elizabeth McGee, 2707 L St., Eureka,CA 95501. [email protected]

North Coast Chapter members join other conservation groups bashing invasive lupine(Lupinus arboreus) in coastal dune areas. Photograph by S. Van Hook.


JEPSON ONLINE INTERCHANGE FORCALIFORNIA FLORISTICS

by Thomas J. Rosatti

he Jepson Online Inter-change For California Flo-ristics, developed and main-

tained within the Jepson FloraProject (JFP) at the University andJepson Herbaria (UC/JEPS), Uni-versity of California, Berkeley (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html), is a place where knowledgeabout the flora of California is in-terchanged among all interestedparties. It incorporates informationfrom many sources, including butnot limited to specimens, The JepsonManual: Higher Plants of California(Hickman 1993), specialists in theplant groups involved, visitors toour website, and other online re-sources. It is an attempt to presentwhat is currently known, as well asoutline what remains to be deter-mined, about the vascular plant re-sources of the state.

The Jepson Online Interchangeessentially comprises all online in-formation at UC/JEPS that bearson the flora of California. Its pri-mary components are: the Index toCalifornia Plant Names (ICPN);The Jepson Manual (TJM), in-cluding taxonomic treatments, dis-tribution maps, species lists, andcorrections; MEKA (electronic,multiple-entry identification) Keysto California Plants; and links todata associated with about 350,000specimens in UC/JEPS, as main-tained in the Specimen Manage-ment System for California Her-baria (SMASCH). At present, theJepson Interchange may be queriedby plant name (scientific or com-mon) or by geography (bioregionor county); additional search op-tions are available through theSMASCH interface.

The Jepson Online Interchangeincludes links to various external

online. Such activity, which has thepotential to change the list of ac-cepted names for plants occuringoutside of cultivation in California,appears in ICPN as soon as we be-come aware of it, so that this indexis as current as any such compre-hensive resource can be. At present,names usually are added to theICPN only as issues regarding themcome up; inclusion of all names everapplied to California plants is a long-term goal of the Jepson FloraProject.

Each entry in ICPN includesthe scientific name with author ci-tation, the family in which the taxonis included according to classifica-tion adopted by the Jepson FloraProject (i.e., that used in TJM, asupdated by subsequent advances inplant systematics), an Initial Edito-rial Analysis, and an Editorial Sum-mary and Current Status (Figure 1,p. 26).

Editorial Summary is a more orless standardized account of the like-lihood that a name will be acceptedor rejected as representing a nativeor naturalized plant in California(i.e., as representing a member ofthe flora), followed by a statementsummarizing the status of the namerelative to TJM (e.g., addition, fortaxon described since TJM; possibleaddition, minor variant in TJM;probable rejection, infraspecific taxanot recognized in TJM). EditorialSummary is an attempt to provideusers with a quick way to put thename in context relative to TJM,and allows us to compute estimatesof the kinds and numbers of changesthat have been proposed or con-firmed since TJM (Table 1, p. 24).

Whereas Editorial Summaryaddresses the status of a name rela-tive to TJM, Current Status (Table

web resources as well, including:Cal Photos (Digital Library Project,UC Berkeley); International PlantName Index (The Plant NamesProject, a consortium of: TheHarvard University Herbaria; TheRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew; andthe Australian National Herbar-ium); Tropicos (Missouri BotanicalGarden); Flora of North America(many institutions); and the Inven-tory of Rare and Endangered Plantsof California (California NativePlant Society).

INDEX TOINDEX TOINDEX TOINDEX TOINDEX TOCALIFORNIA PLANTCALIFORNIA PLANTCALIFORNIA PLANTCALIFORNIA PLANTCALIFORNIA PLANTNAMES (ICPN)NAMES (ICPN)NAMES (ICPN)NAMES (ICPN)NAMES (ICPN)

The Index To California PlantNames (ICPN) includes names thathave been applied to Californiaplants, for the most part in and sinceTJM. Of about 12,000 names pres-ently included, nearly 3,500 arefrom sources other than TJM (e.g.,specimens, checklists, and otherfloristic resources). The primary in-tention is to account for namespeople are most likely to encoun-ter, from whatever source, and tocharacterize the status of such nameswith respect to the first printing ofTJM (1993), as well as to the floraof California as we understand ittoday.

New names for taxa alreadyknown to occur in the state, reportsof taxa previously known to sciencebut not known from California, thepublication of names for taxa newto science, and many other kinds ofchanges or potential changes ap-pear in the literature of botany muchmore frequently than floras are pub-lished, or even more frequently thanupdated floristic treatments appear

T


2, p. 25) has to do with the status ofa name relative to the flora of Cali-fornia as we understand it currently,a different and more absolute con-cept. A name that has an EditorialSummary that reads, “addition, fortaxon described since TJM” and onefor which is indicated, “addition, indifferent genus since TJM” mayboth have a Current Status categoryof “JFP-1, accepted name for taxonnative to CA.” Conversely, nameswith the same Editorial Summarystatements (e.g., “addition, in dif-ferent genus since TJM”) may havedifferent Current Status categories(e.g., for Tetraneuris acaulis (Pursh)Greene, JFP-1, accepted name fortaxon native to CA, or, for Pericallishybrida B. Nord, JFP-2, acceptedname for taxon naturalized in CA).

Some of the changes that havebeen proposed or confirmed sinceTJM result from changes in taxo-nomic philosophy, either on the partof individual specialists regardingtheir particular group or groups, oron the part of the editors of theJepson Flora Project regarding plantsystematics and the flora of Cali-fornia as a whole. Refinements inphilosophy have been adopted inlight of the importance of floristicinformation to the management ofbiodiversity in California, as suchinformation is gathered and man-aged at UC/JEPS.

One of these refinements hasto do with ever-changing ideasabout the relationship between evo-lution and classification in plants.Opinions do and probably alwayswill vary on this subject, but anattempt is being made within theJepson Flora Project—insofar as ispractical and to the extent that databearing on this matter are avail-able—to recognize only groups inwhich all members have evolvedfrom a single, common ancestor(i.e., to recognize only monophyl-etic groups). Such a philosophy isin keeping with modern systematicpractice as well as with the needs ofsociety for classifications that are

A. Names in ICPN representing changes or possible changesrelative to TJM include:

addition, minor variant in TJM: 1; e.g., Helianthus exilis A. Gray

possible addition, minor variant in TJM: 255

possible addition, possibly naturalized in CA: 147

probable addition, evidently or probably or reportedly naturalizedin CA: 101

addition, in different genus since TJM: 92; e.g., Ismelia carinata(Schousb.) Sch. Bip., Croton setigerus Hook., Funastrum cynan-choides (Decne.) Schltr.

addition, naturalized in CA: 52; e.g., Dittrichia graveolens (L.) Greuter,Lasiospermum bipinnatum (Thunb.) Druce, Cabomba carolinianaA. Gray

addition, for taxon described since TJM: 19; e.g., Lomatium observa-torium Constance and Ertter, Deinandra bacigalupii B.G. Baldwin,Harmonia guggolziorum B.G. Baldwin, Packera buekii Trock &T.M. Barkley, Twisselmannia californica Al-Shehbaz, Pseudostellariasierrae Rabeler & R.L. Hartm., Trifolium jokerstii Vincent & Rand.Morgan, Polygonum hickmanii H.R. Hinds & Rand. Morgan

probable addition, for taxon described since TJM: 17

possible addition, for taxon described since TJM: 22

addition, different rank since TJM: 7

B. Names in ICPN not or probably not representing changesrelative to TJM include:

rejection, treated as syn in TJM: 322

rejection, infras not recognized in TJM: 258

rejection, different rank in TJM: 160

rejection, different position, rank in TJM: 102

rejection, in different genus since TJM: 92

rejection, based on erroneous report: 36

rejection, not naturalized in CA, a waif: 21

rejection, based on erroneous report and/or misidentification: 2;e.g., Quercus toumeyi Sarg. (see sidebar on page 28)

TABLE 1: A SELECTION OF EDITORIALTABLE 1: A SELECTION OF EDITORIALTABLE 1: A SELECTION OF EDITORIALTABLE 1: A SELECTION OF EDITORIALTABLE 1: A SELECTION OF EDITORIALSUMMARIES IN THE INDEX TOSUMMARIES IN THE INDEX TOSUMMARIES IN THE INDEX TOSUMMARIES IN THE INDEX TOSUMMARIES IN THE INDEX TOCALIFORNIA PLANT NAMES (ICPN), WITHCALIFORNIA PLANT NAMES (ICPN), WITHCALIFORNIA PLANT NAMES (ICPN), WITHCALIFORNIA PLANT NAMES (ICPN), WITHCALIFORNIA PLANT NAMES (ICPN), WITHTHE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NAMESTHE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NAMESTHE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NAMESTHE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NAMESTHE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NAMESINDICATED FOR EACH.INDICATED FOR EACH.INDICATED FOR EACH.INDICATED FOR EACH.INDICATED FOR EACH.


predictive; that is, that allow us topredict or suspect characteristics(e.g., medicinal uses) of a plant byunderstanding its true genetic, evo-lutionary relationships. This crite-rion for recognition of taxonomicgroups is not new, and it was cer-tainly applied to some extent inTJM. What is new is the extent to

which it now is applied in the clas-sifications we employ.

The entries in ICPN forEriophyllum nevinii A. Gray andConstancea nevinii (A. Gray) B.G.Baldwin (Figure 1, p. 26) are ex-amples of changes that have beenconfirmed since TJM, and that haveresulted at least in part from the

increased emphasis on monophylydiscussed above. In short, investi-gations by Baldwin (1999) indicatethat not all species included inEriophyllum in TJM evolved from asingle, common ancestor (i.e., thatEriophyllum as circumscribed inTJM is polyphyletic).

In particular, phylogenetic anal-yses of evidence from morphology,cytology, and ribosomal DNA in-dicate that E. nevinii appears to bethe sole representative of a lineagethat diverged from related generalong ago, and that it thereforeshould be placed in its own genus.Since such a genus had never be-fore been named and described,it was up to Baldwin to do so. Hetook the opportunity to name hisnew genus Constancea B.G. Baldwin,in honor of the late ProfessorEmeritus Lincoln Constance,world-renowned plant systematist(Ertter 2001), who had not onlystudied Eriophyllum as a disserta-tion topic (under Willis LinnJepson), but recognized E. neviniias a particularly distinct species eventhen (Constance 1937).

A more detailed account of theICPN, including discussion of itscomponents, development, andmaintenance, is available at theJepson Herbarium website (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/about_ICPN.html). Users are encouraged to visitthe site, both for frequent updatesand to submit their own contribu-tions.

THE JEPSON MANUALTHE JEPSON MANUALTHE JEPSON MANUALTHE JEPSON MANUALTHE JEPSON MANUAL(TJM)(TJM)(TJM)(TJM)(TJM)

The Jepson Online Interchangeincludes treatments from the firstedition, third (corrected) printingof TJM (1996), plus corrections thathave accumulated since, with par-ticular emphasis on the verificationof geographic data with voucherspecimens. These treatments maybe accessed from the main Inter-change page or from entries within

TABLE 2. CURRENT STATUS CATEGORIESTABLE 2. CURRENT STATUS CATEGORIESTABLE 2. CURRENT STATUS CATEGORIESTABLE 2. CURRENT STATUS CATEGORIESTABLE 2. CURRENT STATUS CATEGORIESIN ICPN.IN ICPN.IN ICPN.IN ICPN.IN ICPN.

About 28 different Current Status categories are represented in theIndex to California Plant Names, the most commonly representedof which are indicated below. For each category, the number indi-cates whether the name applies to a native plant (1), a naturalizedplant (2), a waif and/or garden escape (3), an agricultural or gardenweed (4), a greenhouse weed (5), etc. A letter, if present, indicatesthat the name is a taxonomic or nomenclatural synonym (a) or anunpublished, invalidly published, illegitimate, or rejected name (b).The absence of a letter indicates that a name is the accepted namefor the plant. A Current Status designation is accepted (i.e., is non-tentative) if it is consistent with The Jepson Manual and there hasbeen no subsequent challenge to it, or if it represents a changerelative to The Jepson Manual that has been sanctioned either by theauthor of the group involved or by one or more of the editors of theJepson Flora Project (JFP). The Current Status of approximately495 names remains tentative (assignment to a likely Current Statuscategory possible, but confirmation by the author involved pend-ing), while another 1,430 are still unresolved (not even a tentativeassignment made).

JFP-1, accepted name for taxon native to California, 7110 (plus 172tentative)

JFP-1a, taxonomic or nomenclatural synonym (alternate but notaccepted name) for taxon native to California, 1,348 (plus 161tentative)

JFP-2, accepted name for taxon naturalized (not native to butoccurring and reproducing outside of cultivation) in California,1,171 (plus 161 tentative)

JFP-2a, taxonomic or nomenclatural synonym for taxon naturalizedin California, 106 (plus 28 tentative)

JFP-3, accepted name for taxon occurring only as a waif and/orgarden escape (i.e., not native and not naturalized but sometimesfound outside of cultivation) in California, 31 (plus 78 tentative)

JFP-8, accepted name for taxon not occurring in California (errone-ous reports, misapplication of names, misidentifications, other ex-clusions), 100 (plus 29 tentative); e.g., Quercus toumeyi Sarg. (seesidebar on page 28)


JEPSON FLORA PROJECT: JEPSONJEPSON FLORA PROJECT: JEPSONJEPSON FLORA PROJECT: JEPSONJEPSON FLORA PROJECT: JEPSONJEPSON FLORA PROJECT: JEPSONINTERCHANGEINTERCHANGEINTERCHANGEINTERCHANGEINTERCHANGE

Notes on Publication of Name Madroño 46:160. 1999

Source of Report for California Added manually by Rosatti

Initial Editorial Comments Treated as Eriophyllum neviniiA. Gray in The Jepson Manual, butas Constancea nevinii (A. Gray)B.G. Baldwin since The JepsonManual

Editorial Summary and Current StatusEditorial Summary addition, in different genus since

The Jepson Manual

Current Status JFP-1, accepted name for taxonnative to CA

Current Status Authority Bruce G. Baldwin, as Author,Jepson Flora Project

Current Status Date 9 Jun 2000

FEEDBACK

List of names for the CurrentStatus category

List of all names in Constancea

Initial Editorial Analysis, 9 June 2000

Constancea nevinii (A. Gray) B.G. BaldwinASTERACEAE

Resources of the Jepson Flora Project

Index to California Plant Names

UC/JEPS specimen database (SMASCH)

Cal Photos images

IPNI Nomenclatural & bibliographic information(Internation Plant Names Index)

Tropicos Taxonomic information from the MissouriBotanical Garden

External Links

the ICPN. Treatments of some taxamay be accessed (on an experimen-tal basis, to users with recently up-dated web browsers) from a hyper-bolic tree in which the taxa are ar-ranged hierarchically in two dimen-sions (hyperbolically) rather thanone (as in a conventional, linear list-ing of families, genera, species, etc.).

The display for each speciesshows treatment not only of thattaxon, but also of the genus andfamily in which it was placed inTJM; the display for each subspe-cies and variety shows, as well, treat-ment of the species in which it wasplaced. In addition, each display in-cludes a map of California, on whichis indicated the California distribu-tion as given in TJM, or as subse-quently revised.

The display for each species,subspecies, and variety also provideslinks to: the ICPN; a comparison ofthe map based on the treatment inTJM with the county distributionmap based on specimens fromSMASCH (Figure 2, p. 27); a list-ing of other taxa with the same Cali-fornia distribution; and a readymeans (under FEEDBACK), withinstructions, for users to submittheir own contributions to ourknowledge of the plant in question.In cases where proposed or con-firmed changes in taxonomy ornomenclature have occurred sinceTJM, there is a link to the entry inICPN for the other name(s) in-volved. Corrections to TJM, as pub-lished by Wilken and Wetherwax(1996, 1997, 1998), are also includedin the Jepson Online Interchangeas a separate listing.

As indicated by the discussionunder Index to California PlantNames, there has been and contin-ues to be a high level of activityregarding our knowledge of theflora of California. Revised treat-ments will appear on the JepsonOnline Interchange as they becomeavailable, leading to publication ofa second, revised edition of TJM.

The Jepson Manual was intended

Figure 1. One of two entries in the Index to California Plant Names (ICPN) for namesthat have been applied to the same plant. Eriophyllum nevinii A. Gray was used in TheJepson Manual, but the plant subsequently has been placed in a different, new genusand currently is known as Constancea nevinii (A. Gray) B.G. Baldwin. In addition to asummary of such activity that has occurred since The Jepson Manual, each entry includeslinks to other relevant resources.


to be a field guide, and as such wasproduced within some rather se-vere limitations of space. Produc-tion of a true flora of California andmaking it available online are otherlong-term goals of the Jepson FloraProject. An online flora offers usersconsiderable advantages over ahardcopy version. Some of the ele-ments that can be displayed morecompletely and extensively onlineinclude descriptions of morphologyas well as of the habitats in whichthe plants occur, lists of alternatenames (synonyms) under which theplants have been known, and cita-tions of specimens belonging to each

plants of California also are pre-sented in the Jepson Online Inter-change, in forms including distri-bution maps and species lists. Suchdepictions exclude any reports thatare not documented either directlyor indirectly by specimens. Indica-tions that a plant occurs in a givenarea that are based on unsubstanti-ated reports in the literature or un-documented verbal interactionsmay appear, for example, underCorrespondence in the ICPN, butsuch information is not included inour official maps and lists until theidentity of underlying voucherspecimens is confirmed.

The requirement that reportsof the occurrence of plant taxa bebased on properly curated speci-mens is critically important to flo-ristic botany and responsible landmanagement. Initial determina-tions that a plant occurs at a par-ticular locality are subsequentlymodified or completely undone ona fairly regular basis, so that it isoften necessary to re-examine ma-terial on which such reports arebased. Reasons for this may be con-sidered under two general catego-ries: those involving mistakes of onekind or another, on one hand, andthose due to advances in the sci-ence of plant classification, on theother (both types represented inthe example in sidebar, p. 28). Un-der the first category, misidenti-fications of plant material and mis-management of information (e.g.,pasting the wrong label onto a cor-rectly identified specimen, mistakesin transcribing field notes, com-puter glitches and other artifactualdata) are, unfortunately, difficultto avoid completely, and obviouslyrequire re-examination of the plantmaterial involved.

Other reasons for the require-ment that plant occurrence data bevouchered by specimens have to dowith the fact that botanists are con-tinually asking questions about theplants they study—especially as theypertain to the genetic relationships

Figure 2. Maps of bioregional distributions of Isoetes occidentalis based on treatmentsin The Jepson Manual (left) and of county distributions based on specimens in SMASCH(right). Comparisons of the two kinds of maps are used to identify potentially significantdiscrepancies in geographic information. The county map indicates a specimen orspecimens from San Diego County that, if confirmed, would significantly expand therange of this species as shown in The Jepson Manual. Clicking on the mark in San DiegoCo. brings up one record from the SMASCH database. Examination of this speci-men reveals that in 1998 it was annotated as Isoetes occidentalis by W. Carl Taylor,coauthor of Isoetes for The Jepson Manual, so that the bioregional map has been updatedaccordingly.

The maps shown also reveal other artifacts of the data. For example, occurrences ofa plant in a given county are indicated by a mark that is usually placed near the centerof that county, regardless of how widespread the plant is in that county. In this example,I. occidentalis is indicated for Inyo Co., most of which is included in SNE and DMoj, tworegions not indicated in the bioregional map. In fact, the western edge of Inyo Co. isincluded in SNH, which is indicated for the species in the bioregional map. Similarly,indications that a plant occurs in a particular bioregion in California can be clarified byexamination of a map of county distribution. Ultimately, specimen records in SMASCHeach will be connected by geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude) to digitized mapsof California, yielding a more accurate and informative depiction of geography.

taxon. Online treatments can beprepared so that users will be ableto generate lists of taxa satisfyingwhatever criteria they wish (e.g., allplants with yellow flowers growingin vernal pools in GV), and to keyout specimens using electronic,multiple-entry identification keys(see MEKA, below), with only afew key strokes and clicks of amouse. These and other plans forthe management and presentationonline of information about the floraof California have been discussedin greater detail by Rosatti andDuncan (1995).

Geographic data about the


and evolutionary histories in-volved—and are finding new waysto answer them. Consequently,changes in taxonomic circumscrip-tion (e.g., deciding that a group ofspecies comprise two genera insteadof one, or that populations of a spe-cies in part of its range actually rep-resent a second, separate species)

MEKA KEYS TOMEKA KEYS TOMEKA KEYS TOMEKA KEYS TOMEKA KEYS TOCALIFORNIA PLANTSCALIFORNIA PLANTSCALIFORNIA PLANTSCALIFORNIA PLANTSCALIFORNIA PLANTS

The electronic keys included inthe Jepson Online Interchange havebeen developed using the interac-tive Multiple-Entry Key Algorithm(MEKA and MEKAEDIT), as de-veloped by Meacham (1994). Theyare based primarily on treatments inThe Jepson Manual, but include modi-fications supported by specimens aswell as other published taxonomictreatments. Multiple-entry keys ofthe kind provided are preferable todichotomous ones in several (but notnecessarily all) ways (Rosatti andDuncan 1995). The most importantof these is the fact that they do notrequire that each of a fixed series ofchoices be made correctly in orderto arrive at an identification; insteadof having to make determinationsabout structures (e.g., flowers, fruits)that are not always present, it is of-ten possible to arrive at a correctanswer based on structures that arealways or usually present (e.g., stems,leaves).

For example, the structuresneeded to completely distinguishChaenactis santolinoides (withinChaenactis) using MEKA are fewerin number, more easily character-ized, and more frequently presentthan those required in The JepsonManual: in the MEKA key, twocharacter states (longest primary leaflobes near blade middle; primarylobes of largest leaves gen > 9 pairs)completely distinguish this species(within this genus), whereas in TheJepson Manual at least five characterstates, including technical aspectsof the flowers, must be determined.Similarly, Artemisia tridentata subsp.tridentata may be distinguished by3 character states with MEKA, but34 character states must be deter-mined using The Jepson Manual.

MEKA keys to most groupswithin the Asteraceae, from tribesto subspecies and varieties, are pres-ently available. Contingent on addi-tional funding, MEKA keys for the

DOES DOES DOES DOES DOES QUERCUS TOUMEYIQUERCUS TOUMEYIQUERCUS TOUMEYIQUERCUS TOUMEYIQUERCUS TOUMEYI OCCUR IN OCCUR IN OCCUR IN OCCUR IN OCCUR INCALIFORNIA? THE VALUE OF VOUCHERCALIFORNIA? THE VALUE OF VOUCHERCALIFORNIA? THE VALUE OF VOUCHERCALIFORNIA? THE VALUE OF VOUCHERCALIFORNIA? THE VALUE OF VOUCHERSPECIMENS.SPECIMENS.SPECIMENS.SPECIMENS.SPECIMENS.

n an attempt to identify potential additions to the flora of Califor-nia, a comparison was made between the list of names accepted

for California in The Jepson Manual and the list of names in theIndex to California Plant Names. After eliminating differencesbetween the lists that represent nothing more than “taxonomicnoise” (e.g., a plant listed as a variety in one list, but a subspecies inanother), hundreds of potentially more significant discrepanciesremained.

One of these is the case of Quercus toumeyi. Two specimens ofoak in UC/JEPS were entered in SMASCH (one of the sources ofnames for ICPN) under the name Quercus toumeyi, with data indicat-ing they were collected in California. This species occurs only inArizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico according to the Flora ofNorth America North of Mexico, Volume 3 (Nixon & Muller 1997). Ifthe two UC sheets were actually Q. toumeyi, they would represent asignificant range extension and an addition to California’s flora.

The first sheet bears a label with the header “Plants of Califor-nia” and the collection location “Santa Rita Mtns.” The Santa Ritasare in Arizona and within the range of Q. toumeyi as cited above.Clearly that specimen has a label error and isn’t from California.The second sheet, annotated as Q. toumeyi in 1946, is correctlylabeled as to the collection location (Descanso, San Diego Co.).However, careful determination of its identity, using keys anddescriptions in The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) and Flora ofNorth America North of Mexico, Volume 3 (Nixon & Muller1997), as well as comparison with other specimens in UC/JEPS,shows that it is actually Q. cornelius-mulleri, a California species notrecognized and named until 1981. Quercus toumeyi, among NorthAmerican oaks known at the time of the annotation in 1946, was themost similar in appearance to this specimen. Therefore the annota-tor quite reasonably determined that the material belonged to thatspecies. Without access to the voucher specimens on which thesetwo reports were based, we would remain more unsure aboutwhether or not Q. toumeyi is part of California’s flora. With thevoucher specimens at hand, we are able to say definitely that thesetwo reports do not document the occurrence of this species inCalifornia.

—Jeffrey Greenhouse

and/or the names by which plantsare known occur on a frequent, on-going basis. Thus, even in caseswhere plant material has been cor-rectly identified and the pertinentdata otherwise has been properlymanaged, it is sometimes necessaryto re-examine the material on whicha plant occurrence report is based.

I


remainder of the flora of Californiawill be developed within the JepsonFlora Project, in collaboration withspecialists in the groups involved.

SUMMARY ANDSUMMARY ANDSUMMARY ANDSUMMARY ANDSUMMARY ANDCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

The Jepson Online Interchangeis a regularly updated resource inwhich issues regarding the flora ofCalifornia and the various steps in-volved in their resolution are pre-sented and maintained over time.Such activity is archived and madeavailable to anyone with Internetaccess in order to minimize the ex-tent to which effort is duplicatedwithin the community of people in-terested in the plant resources of

the state. By consulting the JepsonOnline Interchange, users are ableto get answers, with supportingdocumentation, to many of thequestions they would otherwise haveto research themselves. Specialistscontributing to the Jepson FloraProject, including future editionsof The Jepson Manual, not only pro-vide resolution to issues raised inThe Jepson Online Interchange, butmake use of such questions andanswers themselves in developingand updating their treatments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The idea of distributing infor-mation about the flora of Califor-nia over computer networks was firstenvisioned during the SMASCHproject (1992–2000), which wasconceived by Tom Duncan andfunded by the National ScienceFoundation. Barbara Ertter deservescredit for refining the concept of afloristic “clearinghouse” and for giv-ing it momentum in the years thatfollowed. The Jepson Online In-terchange would not have been de-veloped without the generous sup-port of the William R. Hewlett Re-vocable Trust; Dick Moe is the rea-son it works, from a technical stand-point; and Jeff Greenhouse andMargriet Wetherwax have beenmajor contributors of informationabout the plants involved. Alsogreatly appreciated are the effortsof Bruce Baldwin, Kim Kersh, StaciMarkos, Chris Meacham, BrentMishler, Dan Post, Alan Smith,John Strother, Linda Vorobik, andother students of California flor-istics too numerous to list.

REFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCESREFERENCES

Baldwin, B.G. 2000 [1999]. Constancea:a new genus for Eriophyllum nevinii(Compositae—Heliantheae s. lat.).Madroño 46:159–160.

Constance, L. 1937. A systematic studyof the genus Eriophyllum Lag. Uni-

versity of California Publications inBotany 18:69–135.

Ertter, B. 2001. Memories of Lincoln.Fremontia 29(2):13–22.

Nixon, K.C., and C.H. Muller. 1997.Quercus. In Flora of North AmericaNorth of Mexico, Vol. 3, Magnolio-phyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae,eds., Flora of North Amerca Edito-rial Committee, pp. 471–506. Ox-ford University Press, New York,Oxford.

Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The JepsonManual: Higher plants of California.University of California Press, Ber-keley. [Third Printing, 1996].

Meacham, C.A. 1994. MEKA forWindows (Version 3.1): A general-purpose multiple-entry key algo-rithm. Unpublished manuscript andsoftware available through theJepson Herbarium, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Rosatti, T.J. and T. Duncan. 1995.Floristic Information System forCalifornia Tracheophytes (FISCT).Madrono 42:189–196.

Wilken, D. and M. Wetherwax. 1996,1997, 1998. Jepson Manual correc-tions. The Jepson Globe 7(1):5–6; 7(2):5–6; 7(3):5–6; 8(1):5–6; 8(2):5–6;8(3):5–6; 9(1):5–6; 9(2):5; 9(3):5–6.

WEBSITESWEBSITESWEBSITESWEBSITESWEBSITES

Cal Photos (Digital Library Project,UC Berkeley). http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu

Flora of North America (many insti-tutions). http://flora.huh.harvard.edu

International Plant Name Index (ThePlant Names Project, a consortiumof: The Harvard University Her-baria; The Royal Botanic Gardens,Kew; and the Australian NationalHerbarium). www.ipni.org

Inventory of Rare and EndangeredPlants of California (California Na-tive Plant Society). www.northcoast.com/~cnps/

Tropicos (Missouri Botanical Garden).www.mobot.org

Thomas J. Rosatti, Jepson Herbarium,University of California, 1001 ValleyLife Sciences Building #2465, Berkeley,CA 94720-2465. [email protected]

T

A NEW ERA OFA NEW ERA OFA NEW ERA OFA NEW ERA OFA NEW ERA OFCALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIAFLORISTICSFLORISTICSFLORISTICSFLORISTICSFLORISTICS

he Jepson Herbariumhas initiated a major

campaign to bring Californiafloristics into a new era. Overthe next five years, our goal isto produce a scientifically re-vised edition of The JepsonManual: Higher Plants of Cali-fornia, one that is both taxo-nomically current and fully in-tegrated with online resources.The new Jepson Manual willbe enhanced with electronicresources such as interactivekeys, improved distributionmaps, phylogenetic interfaces,and searchable character andecological databases.

Support through dona-tions or volunteer work is wel-come and needed. To learnmore or to find out how youcan be involved, call StaciMarkos (510) 643-7008 orvisit our web site (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu).


GROWING NATIVES IN THE GARDEN:ROMNEYA AND DENDROMECON

(PAPAVERACEAE)by Nevin Smith

[Reprinted, with updates, fromFremontia 19(4). October 1991.]

alifornia is justly famousfor its spring displays ofannual poppies, such as

Eschscholzia californica and its kind,which paint our hills and valleyswith gold. Only native plant enthu-siasts know it, too, as the home ofsome of the largest, least typical,

and most beautiful perennials of thepoppy family. These “giant pop-pies” are far from being the easiestof our natives to manage in a typicalgarden, yet they are treasured bygardeners for their bold displays.Let us have a further look at them.

Romneya coulteri and R. tricho-calyx share the common name ofmatilija poppy. Both belong prima-rily to coastal sage scrub and chap-

arral communities, the first from SanDiego to Orange counties, the sec-ond from Baja California to VenturaCounty. Both form large thickets—often many feet across—from oddunderground rhizomes, or root-stocks. Each shoot has a woody base,which may branch into a shrub-likescaffold, but its main body is anherbaceous, often well-branchedstem usually four to eight feet tall.

Matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri), a colony-forming perennial herb, grows to be up to 2 meters tall and is sometimes called friedegg plant, named for its large flowers with white petals surrounding yolk-colored stamens. Photograph by L. Vorobik.

C


Loosely set along the stems are blue-to gray-green leaves up to eightinches long, usually divided intothree to five flat, conspicuouslytoothed leaflets. Specialized flower-ing stalks are borne at and near theshoot tips, each stalk bearing a singlefat bud which opens into a snow-white, broad-petalled blossom, upto eight inches across. The petalsopen widely, exposing a centralglobe of golden stamens. Each petalis intricately crinkled, much likecrepe paper. The total impression isbreathtaking, even for people withlittle interest in plants or gardening.This pageant begins in early sum-mer and goes on for many weeks,especially if the plants get an occa-sional, deep irrigation. Even thebroadly urn-shaped seed capsules aredecorative in dried arrangements.

Dendromecon rigida, bush or treepoppy, is another chaparral dweller,preferring dry, exposed sites anddistributed from Sonoma Countysouth to Baja California. It is a trueshrub, up to ten feet or so tall (rarelyfifteen feet or more), round tospreading in form and often closelybranched. The slender twigs are cladin pale tan to grayish bark. Adorn-ing them are stiff, pale green togray-green, usually narrow leaves.It blooms much of the spring andsummer (or most of the year in cul-tivation), at times lighting up wholehillsides with masses of bright yel-low, broad-petalled blossoms. In-dividual blossoms are generallyaround two inches across and pre-sented on individual stalks. Thetwo- to four-inch pods which fol-low are narrowly cylindrical, withtapered ends, and rupture explo-sively when ripe.

Dendromecon harfordii, which hasalso been listed at times as D. rigidassp. harfordii, is a similar shrubfound on Santa Cruz and SantaRosa islands, growing in more orless open chaparral. It differs fromD. rigida in its broader, blunt-tipped, often dark green leaves andlarger flowers. It also appears to

have a longer blooming season,though this could be due as muchto a less stressful environment as togenetics. In any case, this speciesaccounts for nearly all of the plantsavailable commercially.

USES AND CULTUREUSES AND CULTUREUSES AND CULTUREUSES AND CULTUREUSES AND CULTURE

Like all too many of our showiernatives, these are dubious candidatesfor the “postage stamp” garden.Once established, a matilija poppywill easily gallop over 20 feet of openground and overpower any smallerplant in its path. Shoots of my ownhome plant are now burstingthrough the asphalt of an adjacentroad. However, this same featuremakes them valuable for coveringlarge banks and untended lots. Asizeable colony in bloom is one ofthe world’s great floral spectacles,and even occasional trimming willproduce an attractive show of foli-age most of the year.

In the case of the bush poppies,we are concerned not with invasivepotential but with the simple di-mensions of the shrub. Some formsof Dendromecon rigida are relativelyrestrained, but a healthy plant of D.harfordii will easily spread eight tofifteen feet. Only in large countryor commercial landscapes, wherethey can be grouped with the likesof large manzanitas, blueblossoms,and flannel bushes (Fremontoden-dron), can either of these giant pop-pies be said to blend with othershrubs in the landscape. In smallerplots, they are guaranteed to be thedominant feature and, if unre-strained, ultimately the only feature.

All this said, many gardenersfind these plants irresistible regard-less of limited space and restrainthem through digging, in the caseof Romneya, or frequent pruning, inthe case of Dendromecon. The firsttechnique is reasonably easy (Rom-neya should even be cut to theground every couple of years, justto keep it lush and remove dead

stems). However, pruning of anyDendromecon should be limited totip-pinching of the younger shootsand thinning of the old, or some-thing resembling a pile of sticks willresult.

Cultural tolerances are anothermatter. Both Romneya and Dendro-mecon are dryland plants, adapted torocky or sandy soils. In cultivationtheir drought tolerance is guaran-teed, as is heat tolerance for all savethe island bush poppy. Once estab-lished, Romneya thrives in a wideassortment of soils, with a variety ofwatering regimes; irrigation simplyencourages faster spread. Oddlyenough, younger plants (which inmost species are the more adapt-able) are often lost to fungous rotsbefore they can form their moredurable structures, accounting fortheir reputation as “temperamen-tal.” Dendromecon is more suscep-tible to these same organisms at anystage, especially with summer irri-gation. Unfortunately, some suchirrigation is unavoidable in estab-lishing plants during their first yearin the ground. However, D. harfordiiis decidedly more adaptable thanmainland, and especially interior,forms of D. rigida.

In other respects, both groupsare quite easy to grow. There is nopoint pampering them with fertil-izers, for they thrive in very leansoils. All are only slightly troubledby insects and animal pests, thoughspider mites are occasionally a cos-metic problem, discoloring the fo-liage.

PROPAGATIONPROPAGATIONPROPAGATIONPROPAGATIONPROPAGATION

Both matilija and bush poppiesare challenging subjects to propa-gate, though both yield abundantmaterial for us to try. Both are usu-ally raised from seeds. Seed cap-sules of the matilijas are held up-right and open at their summit.

Hundreds of tiny black seeds—about the size of coarse grains of


sand—are easily poured from eachcapsule when it dries. Pods of thebush poppies fling their shot-likeseeds for several feet in all direc-tions; your best chance of successwill be with pods yellow to tan incolor but not yet dried, pluckedwhole and put in closed paper bags.In both cases the seeds have a hard,dense coat which requires physicalor chemical damage to permit ab-sorption of water. This is accom-plished by fire in the wild, and atraditional technique for gardenersand nurserymen has been to scatterseeds on the surface of flats or potsof planting soil, pile hay or pineneedles over them, and light it. Bothseeds and ashes are then coveredwith a little more planting mix andkept moist until sprouted. Of course,it is difficult to do just the rightamount of damage to most of theseeds, so it pays to start with gener-ous quantities. A somewhat morecontrollable but erratically success-ful technique (I have never figured

out why) involves soaking the seedsin drugstore-strength hydrogenperoxide for up to one hour, thenrinsing and planting them in thenormal manner; in the case ofDendromecon, agitating the seedsfirst in a bath of white (never leaded)gasoline will help dissolve a densewax covering the seed coat itself. Along, cool period, easily providedby fall planting, seems to boost ger-mination.

Once the seedlings are largeenough to pot, there comes thehurdle of transplanting. Theyshould be teased apart with care notto break their delicate roots, pottedwith plenty of soil intact, and put ina cool, shady place to recover fromthe ordeal. The consequence of bro-ken roots is nearly instant wiltingand heavy losses.

A particularly successful methodfor the matilijas is division. One sim-ply attacks an established colony af-ter the weather cools in fall, diggingup shoots with lengths of healthy

rhizome attached and replantingthem in the ground or in containers.Broken sections of rhizome with in-cipient vegetative buds, planted shal-lowly in either soil or a commercialpotting medium, often generate newplants; however, they require somefaith and patience on the gardener’spart, as new shoots may not appearuntil mid to late spring.

If you have a flair for experi-mentation, you might try stem cut-tings, using shoots which have justcompleted a wave of growth andbegun to “firm up.” Each cuttingshould have three or four leavesintact and a couple of leafless nodesat the base. If kept moist in a shady,protected spot, some of these justmay root and provide duplicates ofsuperior parent plants. We nurseryfolk have found the results tantaliz-ing but woefully erratic.

Nevin Smith, Suncrest Nurseries, Inc.,Watsonville, CA 95076. [email protected]

Tree poppy (Dendromecon rigida), a showy shrub for dry-land gardens, grows to be 1-2 meters tall. Photograph by L. Vorobik.


FROM THE ARCHIVES:INSECTS AND PLANTS

f you enjoyed the recent issue oninsects and plants (FremontiaVolume 30, Numbers 3 and 4,

July and October 2002, with Con-vening Editor Gordon Frankie),there are many other Fremontiaarticles that deserve reading or re-reading. Several of these articles arelisted here.

Butterflies of Northern CaliforniaSerpentines, by S. Harrison (thengraduate student of the Biology De-partment, Stanford University) andA.M. Shapiro (then professor of Zo-ology at UC Davis, and noted au-thority on California butterflies).

The cuckoo bee (Holcopasites ruthae) onthe cover of Fremontia Volume 23, No.4, the October 1995 special issue oncoastal sage scrub.

10(2):21–23. July 1982. A discus-sion of the California native moth,its larvae (oakworms), and their as-sociation with our native coastaloaks.

Native Bee Pollinators of VernalPool Plants, by R.W. Thorp (authorof article in Volume 30, Numbers 3and 4, mentioned above, and thenemeritus professor of Entomologyat UC Davis) and J.M. Leong (thenpost-doctoral student in Dr. Thorp’slab). Fremontia 23(2):3–7. April1995. As there are endemic insectsto serpentine regions and the plantsthey harbor, so are there endemicinsect pollinators to vernal poolplants.

What’s Bugging Coastal SageScrub, by G.R. Ballmer (then pro-fessor in the Department of Ento-mology at UC Riverside). Fre-montia 23(4):17–26. October 1995.The article covers biodiversity, pol-linators, carnivores, recyclers, andends with comments on the vulner-ability of the coastal sage scrub habi-tat. The article may inspire you toread this entire special issue oncoastal sage scrub.

Insect/Plant Relationships: A Pho-tographic Essay, by E.S. Ross (thencurator emeritus in the Departmentof Entomology at the CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences, Golden GatePark). Fremontia 24(2):3–22. April1996. A beautiful series of illustra-

Eggs of spined predacious stink bug(Podisus maculiventris) on the cover ofFremontia Volume 24, No. 2, the April1996 issue.

tions and comments including sec-tions on foliage eaters, flower eat-ers, sap tappers, gall makers, beetlesand flowers, legume tripping, beesand flowers, nectar seekers, nectarthieves, predation in flowers, preda-tor avoidance in flowers, mating inflowers, insect mimicry, and eventsin a flower of bush monkeyflower(Mimulus auranticus).

Fremontia 15(4):17–20. January1980. Learn that some of Cali-fornia’s insects are endemic to ul-tramaphic soils (serpentine), as aretheir plant hosts.

Oakworms and What to Do AboutThem, by C.S. Koehler (then ento-mologist with the Cooperative Ex-tension, UC Berkeley). Fremontia

I

BCOMPLETE YOUR SETCOMPLETE YOUR SETCOMPLETE YOUR SETCOMPLETE YOUR SETCOMPLETE YOUR SET

ack issues of Fremontia are available for sale from the CNPSOffice, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacramento, CA 95816; phone

(916) 447-2677. Issues for Volume 28 and later (2000-present): $5each or $10 for three. Issues before Volume 28: $2.50 each or $6 forthree. Double issues priced as two single issues; shipping costsdetermined upon order placement.


NOTES AND COMMENTS

IN MEMORIAM:IN MEMORIAM:IN MEMORIAM:IN MEMORIAM:IN MEMORIAM:WAYNE RODERICKWAYNE RODERICKWAYNE RODERICKWAYNE RODERICKWAYNE RODERICK

Bulb specialist, CNPS Fellow, andwonderful person Wayne Roderickpassed away on Sunday, August 10th,after two strokes within one month.CNPS expresses sympathy to his lovedones, and will honor Wayne with atribute in Fremontia Volume 31, No.4 (the October 2003 issue).

LEARN MORE ABOUTLEARN MORE ABOUTLEARN MORE ABOUTLEARN MORE ABOUTLEARN MORE ABOUTWEEDSWEEDSWEEDSWEEDSWEEDS

Websites with information on weedsand how they affect us are listed be-low:

Information on wildland weeds inCalifornia can be found at www.caleppc.org, including a definitive list ofinvasive plants, annual Symposia pro-ceedings, and detailed species accountsfrom the book Invasive Plants ofCalifornia’s Wildlands.

The website of The Nature Con-

servancy’s Wildland Invasive SpeciesTeam, http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, has awealth of information on invasiveplant biology and control.

The California website of the Na-tional Biological Information Infra-structure, http://cain.nbii.gov, has agood section on invasive species, in-cluding interactive GIS maps.

A gateway to information on all fed-eral efforts regarding invasive speciesis www.invasivespecies.gov.

USDA Federal Noxious WeedProgram website, www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/, includes the FederalNoxious Weeds List, Action Plans,Fact Sheets, Weed Alerts, and otherinformation, including links to an In-vasive Weeds page, and to the WeedScience Society of America website.

The USDA Invaders DatabaseSystem can be found at http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/, and pro-vides a searchable database of the nox-ious weed lists for all the United Statesand for six southern provinces ofCanada. The database can be searchedby plant name, state name, or by click-ing on a map.

The Bureau of Land Managementhosts a site at www. blm.gov/education/weed/weed.html entitled, “What’sWrong with This Picture; InvasiveWeeds: A Growing Pain.” This siteincludes information on weeds andtheir impacts. The page, “Native ornon-native?” outlines a series of ac-tivities useful for elementary schoolteachers wishing to educate their stu-dents about native versus non-nativeplants.

The University of California hosts aCalifornia Weeds and Restoration siteat http://groups.ucanr.org/calnatives/,which is a new website that will featuredifferent projects related to restoringCalifornia native plants to combatweeds.

Another starting point for learningmore about weeds in your area isUC Davis’s Agriculture and NaturalResources Department site calledCommServe, found at http://commserv.ucdavis.edu/. This site canbe used to find your local extensionagency, Master Gardener’s program,and links to sites of other relatedprograms.

BOOKS RECEIVED

Native Plants for High-ElevationWestern Gardens, by J. Busco andN.R. Morin. 2003. Fulcrum Publish-ing in partnership with the Arboretumat Flagstaff, Golden, CO. 352 pp., 250color photographs. This book treats150 plants with one or two photo-graphs, written description, range,season of bloom, outstanding features,culture, landscape uses, wildlife attrac-tion features, and historical and mod-ern uses. Price $29.95, paper.

California Natural HistoryGuides. UC Press, Berkeley, hasbeen revising their popular series ofbooks on various aspects of the natu-ral history of California, with newphotographs, and revision of text.Congratulations to past FremontiaEditor, Phyllis M. Faber, who has beenintegral to the completion of this

project. The size for all is a handy 4.5by 7.25 inches. The series includes:

Introduction to California PlantLife, by R. Ornduff, P.M. Faber, andT. Keeler-Wolf. Revised edition, 2003.UC Press, Berkeley. 176 pp., 156 colorillustrations, 7 line illustrations, 4maps, and 8 tables. Price $29.95, cloth;$16.95, paper.

Introduction to Trees of SanFrancisco Bay Region, by G.Keator. Revised Edition, 2003. UCPress, Berkeley. 264 pp., 250 photo-graphs, 1 map. Price $29.95, cloth;$14.95, paper.

Introduction to CaliforniaMountain Wildflowers, by P.A.Munz. Edited by D. Lake and P.M.Faber. New introduction by R.Ornduff. Revised edition, 2003. UCPress, Berkeley. 154 pp., 187 color

photographs, 2 maps. Price $39.95,cloth; $16.95, paper.

Introduction to Shore Wildflow-ers of California, Oregon, andWashington, by P.A. Munz. Edited byD. Lake and P.M. Faber. New intro-duction by R. Ornduff. Revised edi-tion, 2003. UC Press, Berkeley. 256pp., 181 color photographs, 180 lineillustrations, 2 maps. Price $39.95,cloth; $16.95, paper.

Pests of the Native CaliforniaConifers, by D.L. Wood, T.W.Koerber, R.F. Scharpf, and A.J. Storer.2003. UC Press, Berkeley. 304 pp.,211 color photographs. D.L. Woodand A.J. Storer contributed an articleto the special issue of Fremontia (Vol-ume 30, No. 3 and 4) on plants andinsects. Price $48.95, cloth; $19.95,paper.


BOOK REVIEW

The Sunflower Forest: Ecologi-cal Restoration and the New Com-munion with Nature, by William R.Jordan III. 2003. University of Cali-fornia Press, Berkeley, CA. 264 pages.Price: $27.50, cloth.

Ecological restoration is a conceptof land management that is fast becom-ing a recognized profession. It also fig-ures prominently nowadays in discus-sions about various approaches to land-scape protection and preservation.

Author William R. Jordan III, whocoined the term “restoration ecology,”has been in the forefront of this dis-cussion for over 25 years. Jordan is thefounding editor of the journal, Ecologi-cal Restoration, founding member ofthe Society for Ecological Restoration,and currently directs the New Acad-emy for Nature and Culture.

In his book, Jordan presents histhoughts on the emerging role of res-toration as a legitimate land manage-ment practice. This is clearly not a“how-to” book, but one that looksdeeply into the philosophy behindhumankind’s relationship with the en-vironment. As Jordan explains, “Theaim of the restorationist is to erase themark of his own kind from the land-scape. Yet through the process of res-toration he enters into a peculiarlyprofound and intimate relationshipwith it.”

The key to understanding this bookis in its subtitle: Ecological Restorationand the New Communion with Nature.This engaging concept provides someindication of the profound scope of itscontents. Jordan states that “Onlysince the mid or late 1980s have envi-ronmentalists and conservation prac-titioners begun to take restoration se-riously as a conservation strategy.”He goes on to argue that “ . . . resto-ration properly understood turns outto be the key to survival [or preserva-tion] of all natural landscapes, not justthose that have obviously been de-graded or abused.”

As you can imagine, this is not lightreading, but a book that requires studyand contemplation. In fact, there is nota single picture, map, or chart in itsentire 264 pages. It is also heavily foot-

noted, drawing not only from techni-cal references but also from sourcesthat might be read in classes on phi-losophy, literature, ethics, anthropol-ogy, and the like. It offers readers away past a sentimental approach to-ward nature by exploring the spiritualbenefits of participating in the processof ecological restoration.

There is a possibility that years fromnow people will talk about this bookas they still do about Aldo Leopold’sA Sand County Almanac. There is a cer-tain irony in this because Jordan’s in-sight and understanding grew and de-veloped while he worked for the Uni-versity of Wisconsin Arboretum—thevery place where, in the 1930s,Leopold and others pioneered system-atic efforts to recreate several “his-toric” ecological communities.

Jordan spent 22 years guiding the

CLASSIFIED ADS

Classified ad rate: $1.00 per word,minimum $15; payment in advance.Address advertising inquiries and copy to:CNPS, 2707 K Street, Suite 1, Sacra-mento, CA 95816-5113. (916) 447-2677or fax (916) 447-2727.

PUBLICATIONS

Flora & Fauna Books, 121 First AvenueSouth, Seattle WA 98104, Tel. (206)623-4727, Fax (206) 623-2001, [email protected], Specializing in Botany,Gardening, Birding, and Ecology, bothnew and out-of-print. We carry a largeinventory of floras, keys, and field guidesfor the west coast and worldwide. Alarge selection of our inventory is nowavailable on the web: www.abebooks.com/home/FFBOOK/.

NURSERIES AND SEEDS

Telos Rare Bulbs. Bulbs for your gar-den, restoration projects, landscaping.Many Calif. native species, includingCalochortus, Fritillaria, Brodiaea rela-tives, Erythronium. Catalog $3.00. Free

shipping in USA. P.O. Box 4978, Arcata,CA 95518. www.telosrarebulbs.com.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION

Native California grassland and desertecological restoration standards andcosts, plus pictures showing results.www.ecoseeds. com/standards.html.

ART

California wildflower prints & freewildflower screensavers. Visit www.wildflowergreetings.com or call Alice(877) 432-2999 toll-free.

Notecards, Prints, and Originals.Visit www.VorobikBotanicArt.com.PO Box 866, Lopez Island, WA 98261

SERVICES

Nature landscape design. LandscapeDesign that celebrates the rich heritageof California’s native flora. Duber Land-scape Design, CA license #4316. (510)524-8665.

Arboretum’s public outreach and wascaught up in the question of what does,and does not, constitute successful res-toration. While there he also noticedthat only a handful of people had anyinterest in the Arboretum’s restorationactivities. “Environmentalists almostuniversally ignored it, seeing it at bestas a distraction from the serious workof preservation, and at worst as athreat”—a false promise that could beused to undermine arguments forpreservation.” So the scene was set andan advocate emerged.

I agree with reviewer ErnestCallenbach’s statement that this book“ . . . proposes nothing less than tochange the focus of [the environmen-tal movement] from ‘defense’ to ‘of-fense’.” This is not to imply that thisis a strident book, but it gives us newinsights that should be in the forefrontof the thinking of legislators, policy-makers, practitioners, and those whocare about the environment.

Norden H. (Dan) CheathamSanta Cruz County Chapter


California N

ative Plant S

ociety2707 K

Street, S

uite 1S

acramento, C

A 95816-5113

Address S

ervice Requested

nities have been protected or other-wise survive the impacts of humans.

This article (reprinted with permis-sion from Pacific Horticulture) was re-quested by Jacob Sigg as an “absolutelyessential” lead-in and contrast to hisarticle on weeds and their impact onnative plants, an impact which can beslow, but in the end is far from subtle.

Michael Murray writes of anotherchange in vegetation: montane mea-dow loss due to encroaching trees andshrubs, and not exotic species. Murray’sstudy sites are within the region em-braced by the North Coast Chapter ofCNPS, and the article which follows

that of Murray tells about this chap-ter, their people, and events.

Possibly one of the more challeng-ing articles in this issue is TomRosatti’s thorough description of theJepson Interchange, an online sitewhere anyone with Internet access caneither submit or obtain the most re-cent information about the plants ofCalifornia.

The last article, Nevin Smith’s con-tribution on growing our largest na-tive poppies, is full of valuable ideasabout how to incorporate these gor-geous plants into your garden.

Linda Ann Vorobik, Editor

FROM THE EDITOR

FREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIAFREMONTIA EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDEDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Ann Bradley, Travis Columbus, Susan D’Alcamo-Potter,Ellen Dean, Kathleen Dickey, Phyllis M. Faber, BartO’Brien, John Sawyer, Jim Shevock, Teresa Sholars, NevinSmith, Dieter Wilken, John Willoughby, Darrell Wright

CONTRIBUTORS

Jeffrey Greenhouse, retired systems programmer, is nowproject research specialist for the Jepson Online Interchangeat University and Jepson Herbaria, UC, Berkeley.

Jacob Sigg, past president of the California Native PlantSociety (CNPS), is currently chair of the CNPS InvasiveExotics Committee and conservation chair of the CNPSYerba Buena Chapter.

Liz McGee is membership chair of the North Coast Chap-ter of CNPS.

Michael P. Murray, PhD, is terrestrial ecologist at CraterLake National Park in Oregon.

Thomas J. Rosatti, PhD, is one of six editors of the JepsonFlora Project, scientific editor of the Jepson Online Inter-change, and editor of the Index to California Plant Names.He works at the Jepson and University Herbaria, Univer-sity of California, Berkeley.

Marjorie Schmidt (1905-1989), author of Growing Cali-fornia Native Plants, was a frequent contributor of Fremontiahorticultural articles.

Nevin Smith, member of the Fremontia Editorial Board,has contributed to Fremontia many articles about growingCalifornia native plants, and is working on a book coveringthe same topic.

ative plants versus weeds, sub-alpine trees marching intoKlamath Mountain mead-

ows, the North Coast Chapter ofthe California Native Plant Society(CNPS), an electronic interchange fortaxonomic information on plants ofthe state: this is an eclectic issue ofFremontia! How can I, as editor, guideyou through these articles?

The issue begins with an article bythe late Marjorie Schmidt which looksthrough the eyes of Jepson, Muir, andothers, to see a California that we-the-living only glimpse as shadows of thepast, in areas where natural commu-

NN

onprofit Org.

U.S

. Postage

PA

IDO

akland, CA

Perm

it # 3729

Documents

Vol. 31, No. 2 April 2003 FREMONTIA