The common ash of NW Baja California is usually called Fraxinus trifoliata, as in Wiggins\u27 (1980) flora of Baja California. That name is a misspelling of F. trifoliolat, which is a later homonym of F. rriJoliolara W. W. Smith (1916). The Baja Californian ash is therefore renamed Fraxinus parryi. It has also been misidentified as F. jonesii. The common name is  crucecilla . This ash barely extends into San Diego County, California

Moran, Reid

Reid Moran

Crossref

Aliso

Fraxinus Parryi, Nom. Nov., of NW Baja California, Mexico

Scholarship@Claremont

Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary BotanyVolume 20 | Issue 1 Article 42001Fraxinus Parryi, Nom. Nov., of NW Baja California,MexicoReid MoranSan Diego Museum of Natural HistoryFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/alisoPart of the Botany CommonsRecommended CitationMoran, Reid (2001) "Fraxinus Parryi, Nom. Nov., of NW Baja California, Mexico," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and EvolutionaryBotany: Vol. 20: Iss. 1, Article 4.Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol20/iss1/4Aliso. 20( J), pp. 17-20© 200 I, by The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA 917 J 1-3157FRAXINUS PARRYI, NOM. NOV., OF NW BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICOREID MORANSan Diego Museum of Natural HistorySan Diego, Calif. 92112e-mail: aboersma@inreach.comAB STRACTThe common ash of NW Baja California is usually called Fraxinus trifoliata, as in Wiggins' (1980)flora of Baja C alifo rn ia. That name is a misspelling of F. trifoliolata. which is a later homonym ofF. rriJoliolara W. W. Smith (1916). The Baja Californian ash is therefore renamed Fraxinus parryi. Ithas also been misidentified as F. jonesii. The co mmon name is "crucecilla" . This ash barely extendsinto San Diego County. California.Key words: Baja California, California, Fraxinus, new name, Oleaceae, San Diego County.INTRODUCTIONTwo species of Fraxinus grow in northwest BajaCalifornia, Mexico: (I) two forms of F. velutina Torr.,which are rather uncommon along streams southwardto below the middle of the peninsula, and (2) F. di-petala var. trifoliolata Torr. or F. "trifoliata" (Torr.)Lewis and Epling, which is widespread and commonin the northwest. It is the latter species that I am con-cerned with here.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONFraxinus trifoliolataTorrey (1859) named F. dipetala H. & A. var.? tri-foliolata (sic) from a specimen collected by C. C. Par-ry in 1850 in "sterile mountains a few miles south ofthe Mexican line in Lower California". Torrey re-marked that since the flowers of this ash and the fruitof F. dipetala were unknown, he was uncertain wheth-er the two were distinct or were only extreme formsof one species. Sudworth (1908) and Standley (1924)listed the Baja Californian shrub as F. dipetala trifo-liolata, Little (1953) called it variety trifoliolata, andMurray (1985) made it subspecies trifoliolata. Miller(1955) and Little (1979) called it a synonym of F.dipetala. Goldman (1916) misidentified it as F. atten-uata M. E. Jones.Lewis and Epling (1940) described this Baja Cal-ifornian ash and compared it in detail with F. dipe-tala H. & A. of Alta California, calling it a separatespecies rather than a variety. They found the leavesconspicuously different, with 1-3 leaflets rather than(3-) 5-9 and so averaging only 4.5-cm long as com-pared to 11 .2 ern, the terminal leaflet averaging 1.5times as long as the laterals rather than just as long,and the margins subentire rather than serrate. Theyalso found small floral differences, notably the petalsaveraging 3.3 mm wide, rather th an 2.2 mm; the pet-als and filaments fused into a tube 0.6-1.5 mm long,rather than fused lightly at the base or rarely forminga tube ; the fi laments 0.4-1.0 mm long above the fu-sion , rather than 0.8-2.8 mm long; the style aver-aging as long as the stigma, rather than 1.4 times aslong. Wiggins (1964, 1980) and others likewise havetreated this ash as a distinct species, and I agree.Wiggins (1980) showed a drawing of it as his figure413.Lewis and Epling (and likewise Wiggins and others)wrote the name as F. "trifoliata ' ' (Torr.) Lewis & Epl.Because they were making a new combination, how-ever, and not intentionally coin ing a new name, theirname is correctly spelled"F. trifoliolata"; as shown,for example, by Little (1953, 1979). It is therefore alater homonym of F. trifoliolata W. W. Smith (1916),a Chinese ash. Since this Baja Californian species thusseems to have no legitimate name, I propose to call itFraxinus parryi, nom. nov., based on F. dipetala var.?trifoliolata Torr. (1859: 167); holotype: Lower Cali-fornia , lat. 32°, C. C. Parry, 1850, Torrey Herbarium(NY). It is named for the first collector, C. C. Parry(1823-1890), botanist and plant explorer.Fraxinus parryiFraxinus parryi is a shrub or small tree widespreadin NW Baja California (Fig. I), from near sea levelto at least 950 m near Valle Trinidad toward the westbase of the Sierra Juarez, and to 1200 m near EI So-corro, in the western foothills of the Sierra San PedroMartir: and from just north of the Mexican boundarynear Lyons Valley, San Diego County, California(Beauchamp 1986), south to Cerro San Juan de Dios(30 009'N) at 1360 m and to near Rancho Arenoso(30005'N) at 450 m. It is often common, especiallyon north slopes, in open mixed chaparral and in thechaparral-sagescrub interface, standing conspicuously18 Moran ALISO116 0ARIZONA1100m•MEXICOBAJACALIFORNIAUNITED STATES: 950~ .900m·800m·0 : .220m .1200m8 m:: ·525mSan Quintin: !II .100m• 450m•875m .1175m: 660m .1000m___ . ... : . . !t _700m :. .800rnend•10m• .490m140m150m·100m50mCALIFORNIA!II: Tijuana:250m. 475m, ... 550m31 0. . - - - - - -EI Rosario 900m:300 __: , . __ !II . . .• . . . . _'_1_~Qm_ .: nd:. ,Fig. I. Distribution of Fraxinus porryi, based on specimens in the herbarium of the San Diego Museum of Natural History (SO).above most or all the other shrubs . Lewis and Epling(1940) wrote that it does not usually grow within typ-ical chaparral but is generally peripheral or associatedwith, but apparently not genuinely a part of, the coast-al sage. Towards its upper limit it sometimes growswith Adenostoma sparsifolium Torr. and with Juni-penis californica Carr.; and southward it barely entersthe desert, growing with Fouquierla columnaris(Kell .) Curran and Pachycereus pringlei (Engelm .)Britt. & Rose . Baja Californians at several widelyseparated places called it "crucecilla", and no othercommon name is recorded .California flora s overlooked this ash until Beau-champ (1986) listed it as rare in San Diego County,known only from a collection [SO!] from between Ly-ons Valley and Lawson Valley. I later collected it inthe same area (Moran 31094 SO). Simpson and Reb-man (2001) now show it for San Diego County, butthe Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) omits it.Fraxinus jonesiiBeauchamp (1986) identified the San Diego Countyash with F. trifoliolata (Torr.) Lewis & Epl. non W.W. Sm ., but he took up for it the name of F. jonesiiLingelsh. Lingelsheim (1920: 35) based F. jonesii ontwo collections, without naming either as the holotypeand without citing any herbarium. Dr. W. Stojanowska,curator of Lingelsheim 's home herbarium (WRSL),wrote me in 1992 that the type specimen of F. jonesiiwas not there; he supposed that part of the collectionof Oleaceae was lost during World War II. The twocollections Lingelsheim cited for F. jonesii, and thusthe two syntypes, are: Valley of Palms, Mexico, Jones3740 ex parte; and Chihuahua, Pringle 137 ex parte.Since he said flowers and fruit were unknown, bothspecimens must be sterile. Hence it may seem recklessfor him to have based a new species on these collec-tions or even to call them the same species. Althoughthe epithet jonesii might suggest that the Jones collec-VOLUME 20 , NUMBER I Fraxinus parryi 19tion be selected as lectotype, that is not an automaticchoice,Marcus E. Jones's own herbarium at Pomona hasone specimen (POM 76344) of Jones 3740, Valley ofPalms, Lower California, April 8, 1882. This has gla-brous leaves with 1-3 unequal leaflets , the leaflets-especially the terminal one-markedly attenuate-pe-tiolulate: and it bears flowers with two petals: clearlyit is F. parryi. However, Lingelsheim's description ofF. jonesii includes the phrases "folia 1-2-juga"and "foliola ... sessilia vel fere sessilia utrinque,imprimis subtus, long ius albido-pilosa" : His rathercrude figure 9G shows a leaf with 5 subequal and sub-sessile leaflets and with conspicuous spreading shortpubescence. Lingelsheim's description and figurecould not be based on Jones 3740 as that is representedat POM and also at CAS and OS; so F. jonesii Lingels.clearly has nothing to do with F. parryi.On the other hand, remarkably, Lingelsheim (1920:33) based F. schiedeana var. palmarum Lingelsh. onJones 3740 ex parte from the Valley of Palms, and hisfigure 9A of this variety shows a flowering plant likeF. parryi, though one leaf has five leaflets! Again hecited no herbarium. Lingelsheim (1920: 32) also listedF. dipetala var. trifoliolata Torr., which he said wasunknown to him but was perhaps an independent spe-cies.What could be the source of the confusion? At ornear the Valley of Palms (Valle de las Palmas) onApril 8, 1882, Marcus E. Jones collected not only F.parryi (number 3740) but also two forms of F. ve-lutina. His number 3741 he labeled as F. pistaciae-folia Torr. var. but later (Jones 1908) named F. at-tenuata n. sp . Specimens I have seen of 3741 (CAS,OS, POM) have 3-5 attenuate glabrous leaflets.Jones also made two unnumbered collections of apubescent form of F. velutina with 5-7 wider leaf-lets, one (OS, POM) also on April 8 but labeled"Northern Lower California", the other (CAS) atValley of Palms but on the return trip, April 15. Pos-sibly the syntype of F. jonesii that Lingelsheim list-ed as Jones 3740 ex parte was mislabeled and in-stead corresponded to the pubescent second unnum-bered collection of F. velutina-though the pubes-cence is not spreading as in Lingelsheim's figure 9G,and the leaflets number more than 3-5 . The locationof this specimen is unknown.Lingelsheim's other syntype of Fraxinus jonesii wasPringle 137 ex parte, whose location also is unknown.According to Lingelsheim (1920: 26), Pringle 137 oth-erwise is F. cuspidata Torr. from Chihuahua, whichseems to differ from F. jonesii in its glabrous long -petiolulate and long-acuminate leaflets. But what Prin-gle 137 ex parte may be remains a mystery.CONCLUSIONSThus known specimens of Jones 3740 and Pringle137 are both quite different from the description anddrawing of F. jonesii. By a remarkable and unfortunatecoincidence, both syntypes of F. jonesii, cited as Jones3740 ex parte and Pringle 137 ex parte, evidently werelabeled incorrectly as to the collector's field number,making those collections even more difficult to trackdown. Possibly these two syntypes of F. jonesii werelost with other specimens, as in the Berlin herbariumduring World War II. On the other hand, perhaps asmore collections are entered into databases, these twolost syntypes may come to light, the name of Fraxinusjonesii can be lectotypified, and this name can find itsproper place in synonymy. What is important here,however, is that F. jonesii clearly has nothing to dowith F. parryi and so can be excluded from the dis-cussion of this Baja Californian ash.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am grateful to the curators at CAS\DH, RSA-POM, SO, and UC for the use of their specimens, andto Pat Holmgren (NY) and W. Stojanowska (WRSL)for information about specimens in their herbaria; toColleen Sudekum for making the map; and to FrankAlmeda, Tom Daniel, Peter Fritsch, Judy Gibson,Chuck Quibell , and Jon Rebman for checking the man-uscript or parts of it at various stages and for makinghelpful suggestions.LITERATURE CITEDBEAUCHAMP, R. M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County, California.Sweetwater River Press, National City. California. 240 p.GOLDMAN, E. A. 1916. Plant rec ords of an expedition to Lower Cal-ifornia. Contr. U. S. Natl. Herb. 16: 309-37 I.JONES, M. E. 1908. New species and notes. Contr. Wesl. BOl. 12: 1-100.LEWIS. H., AND C. EPLING. 1940 . Three species pairs from southernand Lower California. Amer. Midland Nat . 24: 743-749.LINGELSHEIM , A. 1920 . Oleaceae-Oleoideae-Fraxineae, pp . 1-65. InA. Engler, Dos Pfian zenreich IV. 243 I. Wilhelm Engelmann ,Leipzig.LiTTLE, E. L. 1953. Checklist of native and naturalized trees of theUnited States (including Alaska) . Agriculture Handbk, No. 41 .U.S.D.A., Washington . 472 p.--. 1979. Checklist of United States tree s (native and natural-ized). Agriculture Handbk. 541. U.S.D.A., Washington. 375 p.MILLER, G. N. 1955. The genus Fraxinus, the ashes, in North Amer-ica north of Mexico. Cornell Unlv. Agric. Exp. Sta. Mem. 335 .64 p.MURRAY, E. 1985. Notae Sperrnatophytae No .5. Kalmia t5: II.SIMPSON, M. G ., AND J. P. REBMAN. 2001. Checklist of the vascularplants of San Diego County, Third Edition. SDSU HerbariumPress, San Diego, California. 100 p.SMITH, W. w. 1916. Diagnoses specierum novarum in herbario HortiRegii Botanici Edinburgensis cognitarum CLI--CCL. NOles Roy.BOl. Go rd. Edinburgh 9: 71-144 .STANDLEY, P C. 1924. Trees and shrubs of Mexico, pan 4 (Passiflor-aceae-Scrophulariaceae). Contr. U.S. Natl . Herb . 23: 849-1312.20 Moran ALISOSUOWORTH. G. B. 1908. Forest trees of the Pac ific slope . U.S. ForestService. Wash ington. 441 p.TORR EY. J . 1859. Botany of {he boundary, pp . 27- 270. In W. H.Emory, Report on {he Un ited States and Mex ican Boundary Sur-vey, 2. Washington.WtGGINS, l. L. 1964. Flora of {he Sonoran Desert, pp. 187-1740. InF. Shreve and I. L. Wiggins, Vegetation and flora of the Sonorandesert. Stanford Un iversit y Press, California .- --. 1980. Flora o f Baja Californ ia . Stanford University Press,California. 1025 p.

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=aliso

Fraxinus Parryi, Nom. Nov., of NW Baja California, Mexico

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Scholarship@Claremont