B844: Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Maine Third Revision

This is the third revision of the Checklist of Vascular Plants of Maine. Like its predecessors, it lists all ferns and related plants, conifers, and flowering plants native and naturalized in Maine and records their county-level distribution in the state. The first Check- list (Ogden et al. 1948) was based on specimens in herbaria at the University of Maine (hereafter referred to as MAINE), Portland Society of Natural History, New England Botanical Club, Gray Herbarium of Harvard University, and the private collection of Glen D. Chamberlain of Presque Isle, Maine (now part of MAINE). Bean et al. (1966) revised the checklist to include additions to the flora and update the nomenclature to follow Fernald (1950). Richards et al. (1983) added many new state and county records in the second revision. The purpose of this revision is twofold. First, we have included many new county and state records. Since Richards et al. (1983) there has been considerable collecting in Maine, much of it directed at searching for new state and county records in relatively neglected regions of the state. Second, there have been numerous changes in the scientific names of Maine plants since Fernald (1950), the nomenclatural basis of Richards et al. (1983). We have largely followed Kartesz\u27s (1994) nomenclature (see Taxonomy and Nomenclature section). Recent work on rare plants and establishment of an official list of endangered and threatened plants in Maine (Dibble et al. 1989; Maine State Planning Office 1990) also motivate updating the known distribution and taxonomy of Maine\u27s flora.https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_bulletin/1121/thumbnail.jp

Diversity of saprobic microfungi

The data needed to derive an accurate estimate of saprobic microfungi are insufficient, incomplete and contradictory. We therefore address issues that will ultimately reveal whether there are 1.5 million global fungal species, which is the generally accepted working estimate. Our data indicates that large numbers of fungi occur on host families, such as Musaceae, host genera such as Nothofagus and individual host species such as Eucalyptus globulus, and that fungi may be specific or recurrent on different plant groups. Recent studies have shown that fungal numbers on hosts may be larger than originally thought as saprobes are organ-specific/-recurrent and changes in fungal communities occur as substrata decays. Other issues, such as the impact of geography, of methodology and of taxonomy are also addressed. There is evidence that fungi on the same host at different locations also differs; site-specific factors and geographic distance may be more important than host/substrate in shaping fungal assemblages. Methodology impacts on estimates of species diversity with many more taxa observed using indirect isolation protocols as compared to direct isolations from leaves. Our understanding of fungal species numbers in speciose genera is important. In some fungal groups accepted species have been reduced to a few species, while in other groups many cryptic species are being uncovered. While we make a number of generalisations from the studies reported here, this review also highlights some of the limitations mycologists currently have to contend with. A large body of knowledge exists for certain groups of microfungi or for microfungi occurring on certain substrata/hosts. However, it is likely that we are drawing conclusions from data that are somewhat biased toward fungi and host/substrata that are of interest to human endeavours. The discrepancy between the numbers of fungi described from only one economically important genus, Eucalyptus, and all the other members of the Myrtaceae is but one example of this bias. By incorporating the large body of work that is already available and adding appropriate complementary studies, we can accelerate our understanding of microfungal diversity and this will eventually lead us to a realistic estimate of global fungal species numbers.