There are some 3000 flowering plants in the Colorado flora. From these the author selects, for his two volumes, about 600 species which "the average person might find". Volume 1 covers plants of the Colorado plains and foothills (from 3500 to 8000 feet elevation), and this volume under review includes plants found above 8000 feet in the montane, subalpine, and alpine zones. As the author admits in his preface he interprets "wildflowers" broadly, and includes a few grasses and sedges and some trees and shrubs as well as wildflowers per se.
The plant descriptions are brief but include the common name, scientific name and some synonyms, the plant family, plant kind, size, flowers, fruits, leaves, habitat, flowering time and life zones where found. In the introduction the author explains the book arrangement. "I grouped the plants by color and then I split off trees/shrubs from herbs. Lastly I listed the plants alphabetically by family, and within each family alphabetically by common name." He expands upon this in the text along with a short discussion of Colorado life zones. The book includes a glossary, indexes of common and scientific names, and a bibliography.
It is difficult to produce a really comprehensive
field guide to plants of a region. In the Northeast we are fortunate
in having two: the Peterson and the Newcomb wildflower guides.
Both eliminate grasses and sedges and therefore cover a flora
of about 3000 taxa. Each illustrates over 1200 plants, a ratio
of about one plant in three. There are several wildflower guides
for the Rocky Mountain region, some old, some new. With a flora
of probably 4000 taxa even after eliminating grasses, sedges,
and trees, these books are all highly selective, and most achieve
a coverage ratio of only one to six or seven. For example in the
venerable Peterson series: A Field Guide to Rocky Mountain
Wildflowers by the Craigheads covers 600 plants and
only half are illustrated. The classic Handbook of Rocky Mountain
Plants by Ruth Ashton Nelson, 2nd. ed., keys out 970
plants with one third illustrated. Later editions may include
more. The recent handsomely illustrated, but slim, three volume
set by Dr. Dee Strickler, Prairie Wildflowers, Forest Wildflowers
and Alpine Wildflowers together only cover 400
species, as does the equally well illustrated Alpine Wildflowers
of the Rocky Mountains by Joseph Duft. In his introduction
Guennel says he used more than fifty books to identify Coloradoís
plants. He hoped to reduce this need with his new volumes. Their
coverage ratio of perhaps one in three is an improvement but I
do not think they will eliminate the need for several companion
field guides to identify all the plants you are likely to meet
in an excursion from the Colorado foothills to Trail Ridge Road.
Time will tell. — Mary M. Walker, New England Wild Flower Society Library, Framingham, MA.
Niebla and Vermilacinia (Ramalinaceae) from California and Baja California. Spjut, R.W., 1996. ISSN 0833-1475 (paper, no price given) 208
pp. Sida, Botanica Miscellany: 14. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Inc.
Spjut started this systematic study in the mid 1980s
and collected more than 1000 specimens of the Niebla complex
in the following ten years. The Niebla complex in California
and Baja California is here considered to consist of seventy-two
taxa (including one undescribed species), organized into two genera
— Niebla and Vermilacinia — with the
latter genus divided into two subgenera. Fifty-three of these
taxa (74%) are new to science: 36 species and one variety in Niebla
and 16 species in Vermilacinia. An overview of the
taxonomy of Niebla, Vermilacinia and Ramalina
opens the systematic portion of this publication. For each genus,
Spjut discusses the species concepts applied prior to presenting
the character-state concepts he used. Species descriptions are
preceded by a discussion on the variation in morphological and
chemical characters in both genera and on the species concepts
applied within each genus. Two keys to all 72 taxa are provided.
The first key emphasizes morphological characters and uses secondary
chemistry mainly to distinguish species. The alternative key
relies primarily on chemical attributes derived from thin layer
chromatography to define species groups which are then distinguished
based on morphological features. The actual species descriptions
occupy the next 136 pages. Species are arranged alphabetically
within each genus or subgenus. For each species, a description
of morphological and chemical characters is presented, and the
variation and diagnostic characters are briefly discussed. Type
material was examined for all previously published species except
for V. procera, V. tuberculata, and V. tigrina.
The treatment is richly illustrated and includes a) 11 introductory
plates of color photographs of general habitats and species habit,
b) illustrations accompanying the keys and 3) black and white
photographs of individual species that complement the species
descriptions. The photographs are of good quality and appear
to be correctly labeled (except for plate 11 C & D). By contrast
the drawings, prepared by four different authors, are of rather
poor quality, ranging from mere pencil sketches to ink drawings
with discontinuous outlines and excessive or inadequate shading.
The distribution of the species is briefly described and represented
by a list of selected collections; unfortunately maps for individual
distributions are not provided. A glossary to the terminology
mainly used in the species description and discussion completes
this publication.
The taxonomy of Niebla relies on both chemical
and morphological characters. Secondary metabolites are primary
characters, in the sense that they define species groups. The
42 species of Niebla are arranged into 11 chemical groups
of which the three main ones are: the divaricatic acid group (22
species), the sekikaic acid group (10) and salazinic acid group
(6). Within these groups, species are differentiated by morphological
characters. These morphospecies thus represent morphotypes within
a chemical group. Although this approach is compared by the author
to a phylogenetic species concept within which chemical characters
serve as diagnostic features, a formal discussion of relationships
among the species is not given, nor is a discussion on the metabolic
relationships among these chemicals provided in support of their
taxonomic or phylogenetic use. It is thus not clear whether species
within a chemical group are indeed more closely related to each
other than are similar morphotypes with distinct chemical profiles.
Monophyly of chemical groups is tentatively supported by Spjut
by such characters as erect free branches, strong yellowish-pigmented
holdfast (in the depsides group), versus interwoven branches and
no colored pigmentation of the cortex (depsidone-group). Within
each of these two groups, however, morphological differentiation
between chemically related sub-groups is however less clear.
Morphological characters are not only very variable and thus overlapping
between groups, but also very plastic within the chemical groups
as morphological differences supporting the taxonomic distinction
of some species disappear when these species are growing together.
Chemically related species also tend to have similar preferences
for substrate-type; how the various substrate types actually differ
is not made very clear, however. In summary, morphologically
similar but chemically and thus ecologically distinct populations
of Niebla are recognized as distinct species. The alternative
hypothesis, that species vary morphologically and chemically along
an ecological "gradient" is rejected mainly because
of its impracticality: morphological character variation could
not be broken down into "discrete" classes without
the integration of chemical characters. Nevertheless, morphological
characters may be indicative of phylogenetic relationships across
chemical groupings: "Many species of Niebla within
a chemical subgroup appear to have siblings in other chemical
subgroups, but morphological differences within species or related
chemo-complexes are not parallel." "Not parallel"
does not, however, exclude the possibility that morphological
variation in species may be overlapping, and may thus represent
tendencies correlated with chemical variation. Excessive splitting
of morphosyndromes into morphospecies certainly leads to species
that are so cryptic (defined by narrow classes of morphological
character variation) that addressing relationships based on morphology
becomes nearly impossible. Whether these morphotypes should have
been recognized at an infraspecific rather than a specific level
is uncertain, and subjective in the absence of experimental data
defining the species limits in a biological, ecological or phylogenetic
scenario. What is needed, and is lacking in this treatment, is
a synopsis of the species, with a clear proposal of species relationships
within or between chemical or morphological groups.
Relationships among species of Vermilacinia
appear much clearer than in Niebla, as they are formally
arranged into two subgenera that are best defined by cortical
and medullary characters. Eighteen saxicolous species compose
the type subgenus in the studied area, whereas subgenus Cylindricaria
includes 20 primarily corticolous species. Most species are defined
by a particular morphotype rather than a chemotype, and thus a
species of Vermilacinia can be represented by a chemosyndrome
(a suite of chemotypes). However, morphological intergradation
still remains a problem (e.g., among V. polymorpha, V.
procera, V. paleoderma and V. reptilioderma)
and some species can be identified reliably only by their chemical
profile (V. reptilioderma and V. paleoderma are
here considered sibling species differing mainly in the nature
of their terpenoids).
With this publication, the Niebla complex
has moved from obscurity to the forefront of lichenology in western
North America. Indeed, with 42 species to its name, Niebla
has become one of the largest macrolichen genera in North America
including Baja California. Certainly the author deserves credit
for his detailed observations, and extensive chemical studies.
Whether the taxonomic conclusions drawn from these are biologically,
ecologically or phylogenetically meaningful remains to be tested;
one earnestly hopes the required studies will be undertaken prior
to the description of more taxa in this group. — Bernard
Goffinet, Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708
The Biology of Grasses. Chapman, G.P., 1996. ISBN 0-85199-111-4 (cloth US$85) 273 pp. CAB International, 198 Madison Avenue, New York NY 10016
The two major themes of the book are 1) the immense
morphologic, physiological and ecological diversity found at every
taxonomic level in the grass family, and 2) the implications of
this diversity to grass taxonomy and phylogeny. Chapman favors
the view that the subfamily Bambusoideae, which includes bamboo
and rice, is phylogenetically most basal and illustrates nearly
every chapter with some example from the bamboos. Chapman also
seems to have a fondness for the unusual and exceptional. While
this is one of the characteristics that makes the book so delightful,
students may need to be reminded of the rarity of such exceptions.
However, some material that one would expect to find
in a book titled "The Biology of Grasses" is conspicuously
absent. Chapman makes no apologies for this. The back cover calls
this book a bridge between introductory texts and technical papers.
Chapman explicitly states in the Preface that his intent was
not to duplicate material in any of his other well-known grass
texts. He calls "The Biology of Grasses" an "individual
perspective," a reaction to the abundant grass literature
he is expert in, a chance to make connections between narrow fields
within grass biology and draw attention to unexplored territories.
As such, its coverage of some areas seems shallow while other
topics are not included at all. His description of embryo and
leaf development is accurate but brief. Inflorescence and floret
development is never mentioned. Photosynthesis is discussed only
in the context of its mechanistic diversity and the insights it
provides into evolutionary relationships. Except for a mention
of secondary metabolites, these is no further discussion of grass
physiology or biochemistry what so ever. The most glaring omission
is the huge amount of research into carbohydrate storage and partitioning
in grasses. In some of these areas, Chapman quickly refers the
reader to the appropriate reviews and then moves on.
Though there are superb line drawings of grasses
to illustrate subfamilies and some of the specifically discussedgrass species, illustrations are missing at other points where
they would be helpful, such as the discussion of embryo and leaf
development, and the involvement of Tripsacum and teosinte in
the evolution of maize. His written descriptions are fabulous
and conjured up accurate pictures of plants and their organs in
my mind, but I am a plant morphologist. A student may need the
extra help of a drawing. His final chapter on maize domestication
is quite evocative and very nicely summarizes the competing hypotheses
about maize evolution without reference to any of the difficult
molecular data on the subject. Botanical and grass-specific terms
are used without definition throughout the text. This facilitates
the flow of reading and is appropriate to an intermediate-level
text, as students can refer to the excellent glossary.
Because of the absence of discussion of carbohydrate
storage and partitioning, I would not recommend this book for
use in classes with an agronomic focus. However, "The Biology
of Grasses" would make a good companion text to a taxonomy
or grass systematics manual in an agrostology or grass systematics
class. It introduces students to the diversity, value and wonder
of grasses, and provides an introduction into how traits other
than conventional morphologic and molecular data, such as ecological
function, geographic distribution and physiology, can be useful
in phylogenetic reconstruction. — Rebecca
A. Sherry, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia
Rare Lilies of California. Fiedler, P. L. 1996. ISBN 0-943460-30-1 (paper) California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California
Rare Lilies is a book
by a botanist with a mission. Fiedler sets out to "document
and articulate" rarity in the diverse and beautiful California
Liliaceae, a large plant family with 34 native genera in California
and dozens of species found only in the state. She documents
her topic with an appropriate mix of prose, tables, and graphics.
She articulates her work to readers through a series of gorgeous
full color plates. Fiedler and her illustrator, Catherine M.
Watters, combine visual poetry with hard science in examples of
species that demonstrate the beauty and the evolutionary complexity
of the California lilies.
This is a most attractive book, accessible to non-specialists
and useful as well for scientists. Fiedler presents hard questions
in soft sentences like, "What makes a lily a lily?"
and "What does it mean to be rare?" By asking these
questions, she challenges the reader to puzzle out answers for
difficult topics such as endemism and relictualism, and their
role in an evolutionary framework. More questions go unanswered
than resolved as Fiedler outlines the causes and consequences
of rarity but significantly, we are invited to construct a model
that goes beyond the organisms she studies. We learn about more
than lily biogeography and conservation here.
The book has broad appeal for students in many areas
of plant biology. Its contents will surely find their way into
new textbooks that touch on the subject of floral variation and
evolution, patterns of endemism and rarity, and monocot biology
and taxonomy. The excellent work of Randy Zebell, which Fiedler
highlights throughout the book, was done at SF State while he
was struggling to support himself as a graduate student, driving
a cab at night. Rare Lilies of California is a testament
to the continued ability of the California State University system
to produce first rate scientific research as well as accomplished
students. It builds on the strong tradition of collaboration
between the California Native Plant Society and the academic community.
It also illustrates the great and ongoing potential of California
as a hotbed of plant evolution. — Samuel
Hammer, College of General Studies, Boston University