June 2000 North American Native Orchid Journal

NORTH AMERICAN
NATIVE ORCHID JOURNAL

______________________________________
Volume 6 June
Number 2 2000
a quarterly devoted to the orchids of North America
published by the
NORTH AMERICAN
NATIVE ORCHID ALLIANCE
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
IN THIS ISSUE:
GALEANDRA BICARINATA, A NEW SPECIES FROM
FLORIDA AND THE GREATER ANTILLES
REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
SOME GREEN PLATANTHERAS
PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA IN ARIZONA
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA - Part 2……..and more!
1
NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE
ORCHID JOURNAL
(ISSN 1084-7332)
published quarterly in
March June September December
by the
NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID ALLIANCE
a group dedicated to the conservation and promotion of our
native orchids
Editor:
Paul Martin Brown
Assistant Editor: Nathaniel E. Conard
Editorial & Production Assistants:
Philip E. Keenan
Stan Folsom
Nancy Webb
The Journal welcomes articles, of any length, of both a scientific

and general interest nature relating to the orchids of North
America. Scientific articles should conform to guidelines such as
those in Lindleyana or Rhodora. General interest articles and notes
may be more informal. Authors may include line drawings
and/or black and white photographs. Color inserts may be
arranged. Please send all inquiries or material for publication to
the Editor at PO Box 772121, Ocala, FL 34477-2121 (late May -
early Oct. Box 759, Acton, ME 04001-0759).
2000 Membership in the North American Native Orchid Alliance,

which includes a subscription to the Journal, is $26 per year in the
United States, $29US in Canada and $32US other foreign
countries. Payment should be sent to Nancy A. Webb, 84 Etna
St., Brighton, MA 02135-2830. Claims for lost issues or canceled
memberships should be made to the editorial office within 30
days.
2
NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE
ORCHID JOURNAL
Volume 6 June
Number 2 2000
CONTENTS
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR
75
GALEANDRA BICARINATA (CYRTOPODIINAE:
ORCHIDACEAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM FLORIDA
AND THE GREATER ANTILLES
Gustavo A. Romero-González & Paul Martin Brown
77
REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

SOME GREEN PLATANTHERAS
Charles J. Sheviak
88
LOOKING FORWARD:
September 2000
92
HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS FROM

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Eric E. Lamont
93
A PRELIMINARY POPULATION STUDY OF

PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA (HIGGINS & WELSH)
KARTESZ & GANDHI (ORCHIDACEAE) AT NAVAJO
NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA
Laura E. Hudson, Ronald A. Coleman,& Shauna Charles
103
3
ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA - Part 2
Anne B. Wagner, Ken Wagner & Paul Martin Brown
119
THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED

The Slow Empiricist
133
AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
139
AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE

ORCHIDACEAE OF ARKANSAS
George P. Johnson
140
RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL

NOTES FROM FLORIDA 7.
The Genus Habenaria
Paul Martin Brown
142
5th ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID

CONFERENCE
154
Unless otherwise credited, all drawings in this issue are by Stan Folsom
Color Plates:
Plate 1, page 155 Galeandra bicarinata
Plate 2, page 156 Platanthera zothecina, P. dilatata var. albiflora x P. stricta
Plate 3, page 157 Habenaria distans, H. repens, H. odontopetala
Plate 4, page 158 Habenaria macroceratitis, H. quinqueseta
The opinions expressed in the Journal are those of the authors. Scientific
articles may be subject to peer review and popular articles will be examined for
both accuracy and scientific content.
Volume 6, number 2, pages 75-158; issued June 20, 2000.
Copyright 2000 by the North American Native Orchid Alliance, Inc.
Cover: Calopogon multiflorus by Stan Folsom
4
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR
As summer is coming upon us, many of our

members are preparing to attend the 5th Annual North
American Native Orchid Conference in Washington
State this July. Despite excessive rain in the Northeast
and drought in parts of the Southeast and mid west, the
Pacific Northwest promises an abundance of orchids
for our meeting. Only a few spaces remain, so if you
are considering attending, do not hesitate to call about
registration.
This issue presents a wide variety of articles -

from field research, to a new species, to revalidation of
a species, to some interesting historical notes and the
second installment of the Wagner's series on rare,
threatened and endangered orchids in North America.
Both the September and December issues will continue
the series as well as publish the proceedings from the
conference and several new taxa.
Despite a serious injury to myself in May in

Everglades National Park, work continues on the
Florida Native Orchid Project, and by the time you read
this we will have returned to Maine for the summer. I
will be returning to Florida in late June and early
75
September for a few days each to continue the research
for the project. We plan to migrate south in early
October this year. Please remember that if you are
trying to reach us during July we will be driving to
Washington and back for the conference. I will try to
access email periodically when possible.
Paul Martin Brown, editor

PO Box 759
Acton, Maine 04001
207/636-3719
naorchid@aol.com
76
Romero-González & Brown: GALEANDRA BICARINATA
GALEANDRA BICARINATA
(CYRTOPODIINAE: ORCHIDACEAE), A
NEW SPECIES FROM FLORIDA AND
THE GREATER ANTILLES
Gustavo A. Romero-González
and
Paul Martin Brown
Abstract: Galeandra bicarinata, a new species in section

Campestridae, is described and illustrated. Herbarium material of
Galeandra bicarinata was formerly referred to G. beyrichii
throughout its geographical range (Florida and Cuba). It differs
from Galeandra beyrichii and G. coxinnensis in having a bicarinate
callus, confluent toward the base and divergent toward the apex
of the lip.
Resumen: Se describe y se ilustra Galeandra bicarinata, una

nueva especie de la sección Campestridae, anteriormente conocida
como G. beyrichii en todo su rango geográfico (Florida y Cuba). Se
diferencia de esta especie y de G. coxinnensis por tener un callo en
el labelo con dos carinas confluyentes hacia la base y divergentes
hacia el ápice del labelo.
Resumo: Descreve-se e ilustra-se Galeandra bicarinata, uma

nova espécie da seção Campestrinae, anteriormente conhecida
como G.beyrichii da Flórida e Cuba. Diferencia-se desta espécie e
de G.coxinnensis por ter um calo no labelo com duas carinas
convergentes em direção à base e divergentes em direção ao ápice
do labelo.
77
The genus Galeandra Lindl. & Bauer is divided

into two major groups: the epiphytic species, bearing
articulate leaves and flowers pollinated by Euglossa spp.
bees, with their center of diversity in the Amazon and
Orinoco river basins, and encompassing about 20
species, and the terrestrial species, a group bearing non-
articulate leaves the pollination of which has so far not
been documented, with the center of diversity in the
Brazilian Shield, encompassing approximately 8 species.
These two groups were formally recognized as sections
Galeandra and Campestridae Cogn., respectively (sensu
Senghas, 1990: 1449). Section Campestridae is composed
of two groups: one bearing leaves and one leafless at
anthesis. Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f., the type of section
Campestridae (designated by Senghas, 1990: 1449), has
been a catch-all name applied to the terrestrial,
“leafless” Galeandras throughout their geographical
range: Florida, the Greater Antilles, Central and South
America to southern Brazil. The following species
appeared to be distinct, but a formal description awaited
suitable fresh and herbarium material, recently made
available to the authors.
Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown,

sp. nov. TYPE: UNITED STATES. Florida: Miami-
Dade County, Castellow’s Hammock, Near Silver
Spring, "pale green, edge turned back, white with
narrow reddish-purple stripes, capsules 3 cm long”, 2
November 1946, Roy Woodbury & Karl Kramer s.n.
(Holotype: FTG; photograph of live flowers from type
material, AMES). Fig. 1--2.
78
Ex affinitate G. beyrichii Rchb.f. et specierum affinium

callo angusto bicarinato carinis crebis distinguenda
Plants terrestrial, the leafy shoot to 60 cm tall,

leaves absent at anthesis. Roots white, numerous, thick,
fleshy. Rhizome abbreviate. Pseudobulbs
subterranean, corm-like, ovoid, covered with scales.
Leaves 1--2, non-articulate, plicate, 3-ribbed, linear-
lanceolate, the blade to 25 cm long and 3.0 cm wide, the
petiole to approximately 15 cm long. Inflorescence
terminal, erect, borne after the leafy shoot, sometimes
branched, to 20-flowered and 1.0 m tall, with several
small, imbricating bracts at the base; peduncle purple,
with several leaf-like bracts, to 7.0 cm long; rachis green;
floral bracts scarious, lanceolate, to 2.0 cm long.
Flowers resupinate, light green; pedicellate ovary to
2.5 cm long; sepals and petals spreading, the sepals
keeled; sepals oblanceolate, to 2.4 cm long and 0.7 cm
wide; petals oblanceolate, slightly oblique, to 2.0 cm
long and 0.7 cm wide; labellum subquadrate, slightly
trilobate at the apex when spread, to 2.0 cm long and
2.5 cm wide, the base produced into a short, slightly
uncinate, obtuse, nearly cylindrical spur; margins
crenate, covered with short trichomes, the apex
reflexed; disc with a narrow callus, covered with short
trichomes, bicarinate, the keels merging toward the
base, diverging toward the apex; column erect, slightly
arcuate, trigonous, with a prominent foot, to 1.0 cm
long and 0.3 cm wide; anther green, cucullate, acute, the
margins and the apex papillose, to 0.2 cm long and 0.3
cm wide; pollinaria with no discernable viscidium or
79
stipe and two yellow, spherical pollinia, 1.0 mm in

diameter. Capsule pendent, ellipsoid, to 3.0 cm long
(description based on pickled flowers).
Etymology: from the Latin bi-, two, and carina, keel,

ridge, for the callus with two keels.
Distribution: Tropical Florida and Cuba.

Additional specimens cited: UNITED STATES.
Florida: Miami-Dade County, Castellow's Hammock, 19
October 1988, R. Hammer s.n. (leaves only; FTG);
Everglades National Park, Mosier Hammock, 13
October 1991, "Collected from colony of 38 plants in
bloom", sub R. & J. Seavey 1091 (Herbarium of
Everglades National Park); Everglades National Park,
Long Pine Key, Mosier Hammock, southwest quadrant,
"tropical hardwood hammock, in leaf litter over oolitic
limestone substrate", 15 September 1990, C. J.
McCartney, Jr. s.n. (Herbarium of Everglades National
Park). CUBA. September 1859-January 1860, C. Wright
1698 (AMES).
Galeandra bicarinata is closely related to G. beyrichii,

but it differs in the narrow, bicarinate callus (see Luer,
1972: 244, plate 74, Fig. 6), versus the wide callus with
four ridges in G. beyrichii (described and/or illustrated in
Hoehne, 1912: 15; Dunsterville and Garay, 1963, 1979:
80
Figure 1. Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown.

Drawing by Bobbi Angell based on pickled flowers collected by
P. M. Brown, Miami-Dade County, Florida October--November
1999.
81
320; Dodson and Dodson, 1982, also reproduced in

Senghas, 1990: 1451; 1; Senghas, 1991). A second
“leafless” species, Galeandra coxinnensis Hoehne, also
bears flowers with a bicarinate callus, but its
inflorescences are highly congested, and the ridges of
the callus are confluent toward both the base and the
apex of the labellum (Hoehne, 1912: 15--17, t. 70).
Galeandra bicarinata was first observed in Florida

in 1946, when a group of students went collecting in
Castello Hammock, Miami-Dade County ("Dade
County, Castellow's Hammock" in the original
correspondence and herbarium labels), near Silver Palm,
south of Miami. According to a note affixed to the
isotype at AMES, written by A. D. Hawkes to Professor
Ames and dated 5 November 1946, "Karl Kramer, one
of my fellow students who is very interested in orchids,
found an orchid which stumped us for a while, but
which I am almost certain is Galeandra Beyrichii". On the
same sheet, a note addressed to Charles Schweinfurth,
dated 11 December 1946, Hawkes related the following
information: "Enclosed is a photograph of a terrestrial
orchid collected in Castelow's Hammock, several miles
south of Miami. I have talked to Prof. Ames about it (he
has not seen the photo, though) and he seems to think
it is Galeandra Beyrichii. Dr. Walter Buswell of the
University [of Miami] and I have compared the live
plant with a description and sketch in Fawcett &
Rendle's Flora of Jamaica. Several discrepancies are noted
by Dr. Buswell… If the photo is not sufficient for
identification, I shall send you a description.
Unfortunately, we have only one flower, so I will not be
82
able to submit that to you. The area has been searched

thoroughly since this plant's discovery, and no more
specimens have been located. Hope you can give us an
identification on this. We are all very puzzled by its
discovery in such a well-known location". Hawkes
reported this finding in the literature the following year
(Hawkes, 1947): he illustrated his article with a plate
drawn by Gordon Dillon and commissioned by Oakes
Ames, showing flowers with a wide callus with four
ridges. This plate, however, was "redrawn from
Cogniaux" (Hawkes, 1947; also published in Correll,
1950: 313). Although "Cogniaux" is not cited further in
Hawke's or Correll's "Selected Bibliography" (Correll,
1950: 390--393), the reference is undoubtedly to plate
74 in Cogniaux's treatment of Galeandra for Flora
Brasiliensis (Cogniaux, 1895), a drawing based on
Brazilian material of Galeandra beyrichii (actually Barbosa
Rodrigues' rendition of his Galeandra viridis; Barbosa
Rodrigues, 1996), thus explaining the four ridges in the
callus. Fawcett and Rendle (1910: 47, t. 7) also described
and clearly showed a labellum with four ridges.
Herbarium material from Jamaica (W. Harris 9780;
AMES, NY) and the Dominican Republic (R. A. & E.
S. Howard 8954 & 9719, AMES, US) also unequivocally
shows four ridges in the callus, and it appears that
Galeandra beyrichii and G. bicarinata are both found in the
Greater Antilles. Detailed examination of material from
Puerto Rico is necessary to determine which of the two
species is found on that island.
An argument developed over the years whether

the so-called “leafless” species of Galeandra bore leaves.
83
Reichenbach f. (1849) did not mention them in his

protologue of G. beyrichii. According to Barbosa
Rodrigues (1882: 177), his Galeandra viridis "… est
hystéranthe" (from the Greek hysteros, after, later, and
anthos, flower), and he included a leaf in his illustration
of this species (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1996). The Gordon
Dillon plate cited above (Hawkes, 1947; Correll, 1950:
313) also included a leaf, but it as mentioned above, it
appears that Dillon was copying Cogniaux’s and
ultimately Barbosa Rodrigues's plate. Hoehne pointed
out, however, in a note published by Hawkes (1953),
"According to Cogniaux in Martius Flora Brasiliensis,
Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f. possesses a single plicate leaf,
produced after the flowers fade. This is in complete
error; I have never encountered it with leaves. These
have been reduced to the small, closly (sic) appressed
sheathing bracts of the peduncle. The species exists as a
native in he forests of our Jardim Botânico (in São
Paulo), living only by means of its subterranean
pseudobulbs, which grow beneath the detritus and
annually form a new bulb, separated from the others by
an isthmus; these pseudobulbs produce from their
apices a raceme of flowers, furnished with the above-
noted appressed sheaths, the inflorescences sometimes
reaching a height of almost two meters (above 7 feet)".
More recently Luer (1972: 245, plate 74, Fig. 8; see also
page 246) showed a photograph of the leafy shoot of G.
bicarinata, and Dodson and Dodson (1982) illustrated
that of a Galeandra beyrichii specimen from Ecuador and
described the leaves as "… not present during
flowering, thin, veined on the underside". One of us
(PMB) was able to follow the development of leaves in
84
several plants in southern Florida, finally solving this

riddle. The youngest pseudobulb produces a leafy shoot
in the late spring/fall. The fully developed leaves last six
to eight weeks and later drop and disappear, leaving
behind a small pseudobulb, from which the
inflorescence develops 4--12 weeks later. Thus, the
"leafless" Galeandras are leafy after all!
The pollinator of this group of Galeandra species

is not known, but the pollinarium in flowers of
Galeandra beyrichii presents a well-developed viscidium
and stipe (Barbosa Rodrigues, 1996; Dunsterville and
Garay, 1963; Rodríguez, 1986: plate on page 173);
examination of flowers from herbarium specimens
suggests they are not autogamous (Ackerman, 1995: 79).
In contrast, in a number of fresh flowers of Galeandra
bicarinata examined under a dissecting scope, no
discernable stipe or viscidium could be found, and one
or both pollinia were in contact with the stigmatic
surface: all the examined flowers appeared to be
autogamous.
Finally, the present study suggests that Galeandra

fiebrigii Schltr., a species from Bolivia, with six minute,
subparallel keels on the labellum callus (Schlechter,
1922) may not be referable to G. beyrichii, as it has been
previously assumed (Dunsterville and Garay, 1965: 134).
Acknowledgments.
The authors are grateful to the following herbaria for
providing access to their collections: FTG, MO, NY, PORT, US,
VEN, W, and the Everglades National Park. We thank Bobbi
85
Angell for figure 1, V. P. Castro N. for the Portuguese translation

of the abstract, R. Clusman for assistance in locating plants of G.
bicarinata in Miami-Dade County, Florida, G. Carnevali and L. M.
Campbell, C. H. Dodson, and R. L. Dressler for valuable
comments to the manuscript, and P. & E. Burgher for financial
support (to PMB).
Literature cited
Ackerman, J. D. 1995. Orchid Flora of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 73: 1--203.
Barbosa R., J. 1882. Genera et Species Orchidearum Novarum 2.
Tipografía Nacional, Rio de Janeiro.
_____. 1996. Galeandra beyrichii Rchb.f. (originally as G. viridis).
Page 153 in S. Sprunger (ed.), Iconographie des Orchidées du
Brésil. Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, Basle.
Cogniaux, A. 1895. Galeandra. Fl. Bras. 3, 4: 293--310, t. 69--74.
Correll, D. S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America. Chronica
Botanica Company, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Dodson, C. H. and P. M. Dodson. 1982. Galeandra beyrichii. Icon.
Pl. Trop. 5: t. 434. The Marie Selby Botanical Garden,
Sarasota, Florida.
Dunsterville, G. C. K. D. and L. A. Garay. 1963. Venezuelan
Orchids --- Galeandra Beyrichii. Orch. Rev. 71: 112--113.
_____. 1965. Venezuelan Orchids Illustrated III. Andre Deutsch,
London.
_____. 1979. Venezuelan Orchids, an Illustrated Field Guide. Botanical
Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Fawcett, W. and A. B. Rendle. 1910. Orchidaceae. Flora of Jamaica
1: 1--150, t. 1--32. Longmans & Co., London.
Hawkes, A. D. 1947. An orchid new to the United States. Amer.
Orchid Soc. Bull. 16: 234--236.
_____. 1952. An orchid new to Panama. Orch. J. 1: 149--150.
_____. 1953. Further notes on Galeandra beyrichii. Orch. J. 2: 133.
Hoehne, F. C. 1912. Galeandra. Relat. Commiss. Linhas. Telegr.
Estrateg. Matto Grosso Amazonas, Annexo 5, Bot. pt. 4: 13--
17, t. 70.
86
Luer, C. A. 1972. The Native Orchids of Florida. The New York

Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.
Reichenbach f., G. H. 1849. Galeandra beyrichii. Linnaea 22: 854.
Rodríguez C., R. L. 1986. Galeandra beyrichii. Orquídeas de Costa
Rica. Editorial Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa
Rica.
Schlechter, R. 1922. Galeandra fiebrigii. Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg.
Beih. 10: 47.
Senghas, K. 1990. Galeandra. Pages 1447--1452 in F. G. Brieger,
R. Maatsch, and K. Senghas, Die Orchideen, ed. 3. 1. Verlag
Paul Parey, Berlin.
____. 1991. Galeandra. Pages 188--191 in R. Escobar (Ed.), Native
Colombian Orchids 2. Editorial Colina, Medellín, Colombia.
Gustavo A. Romero-González, Curator, Oakes Ames Orchid

Herbarium, Harvard University Herbaria, 22 Divinity Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. E-mail: romero@oeb.harvard.edu
Paul Martin Brown, Research Associate, Florida Museum of

Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117800,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A. E-mail: naorchid@aol.com
87
Sheviak : REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME
GREEN PLATANTHERAS
REFINEMENTS IN OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF SOME GREEN
PLATANTHERAS
Charles J. Sheviak
During last year's annual meeting (Tampa,

Florida, April 11-16, 1999), I presented an overview of
the so-called Platanthera hyperborea - P. dilatata complex as
I have come to see it over a few decades of study
(Sheviak, 1999). As I mentioned then, I think that
considerable progress has been made in our
understanding of this seemingly intractable complex,
enough that I have real hope that we can ultimately
make some sense of the group. The present note is a
case in point: it is unusual to be able so quickly to revise
a previous account, but the past season's field work
focused on one aspect of the problem and its results
both support the synopsis presented earlier and
necessitate some revision of it.
One focus of last year's presentation was the

identity of certain ambiguous plants from the southern
Cordillera. These plants of rather generalized
morphology, with lax inflorescence, lanceolate green
lips, clavate spurs slightly shorter than the lip, and a
sweet-pungent fragrance, are locally rather common
88
GREEN PLATANTHERAS
plants in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona; rather

similar plants are known from the Sierra Nevada in
California. Last year I presented evidence that the
plants in Colorado are generated through hybridization
of Platanthera dilatata (Pursh) Lindl. ex Beck. var. albiflora
(Cham.) Ledeb. and P. purpurascens (Rydb.) Sheviak &
Jennings. I compared them to a photograph of a plant
from northwestern Wyoming published by Luer (1975)
as P. hyperborea (L.) Lindl. var. gracilis (Lindl.) Luer.
Although P. gracilis Lindl. is a synonym of P. stricta Lindl.
and not appropriately applied to these plants, the
biological, not nomenclatural, identity of Luer's plant
was of primary interest. I suggested that from what
could be determined from the published illustration, the
plant appeared to represent the same hybrid that I had
documented in Colorado.
The one difficulty with this determination lay in

the known range of Platanthera purpurascens, which had
not been documented so far north. My primary goal for
the field season of 1999, then, was to document the
occurrence of this species northward from Colorado
across Wyoming, and to attempt to locate hybrids and
verify the identity of Luer's plant. Additionally, since P.
stricta was known to range southward into northwestern
Wyoming, I hoped to see how these two similar species
behaved where their ranges overlapped.
Accordingly, seemingly suitable habitat was

surveyed from the Medicine Bow Mountains on the
Colorado border northwestward along the length of the
Wind River Range, and across the Big Horn Mountains
89
GREEN PLATANTHERAS
to the northeast. In general, Platanthera dilatata var.

albiflora and P. huronensis (Nutt.) Lindl. proved to be
widespread, frequent, and abundant throughout many
of the montane areas surveyed. Platanthera aquilonis
Sheviak was more limited, being located few times at
lower elevations in the Wind River Valley and in the Big
Horns. In contrast, P. purpurascens was very rare, being
located only twice, both times in the southern Medicine
Bow, and then only as a few plants at each site. The
abundance of other species and seemingly suitable
habitat that was found throughout the area suggests that
the perceived absence of P. purpurascens is real and not
merely apparent. Although my field experience isn't
adequate to establish a range, it agrees with herbarium
studies that indicate that the species barely enters
Wyoming from the south. It is apparent then that P.
purpurascens and P. stricta are probably not sympatric in
Wyoming.
What then is Luer's plant? In the absence of

Platanthera purpurascens, some other origin would seem
more reasonable than hybridization involving this
species. A fortuitous find in the Big Horns provides a
plausible explanation. On the mountains' east slope a
springy hillside meadow was found supporting a large
colony of P. stricta with a few plants of P. dilatata var.
albiflora intermixed. Two clearly intermediate, evidently
hybrid plants were found, and these agreed well with
Luer's photograph. In particular, the columns seemed
comparable. This was the only feature evident in Luer's
photograph that I had found to be out-of-keeping with
my original determination. His photograph shows
90
GREEN PLATANTHERAS
rather prominent anther sacs more suggestive of P.

stricta than of P. purpurascens and P. dilatata. Without
scale, however, the feature was difficult to assess in the
photo, and I had weighted it accordingly. The similarity
of the columns of the two evident hybrids that I found
with the plant in Luer's photograph suggests that his
plant was of the same parentage as my Big Horn plants.
Hybridization of Platanthera dilatata with either P.

stricta or P. purpurascens evidently produces very similar
plants with essentially identical lanceolate, green lips,
despite markedly different parental lip shapes and
colors. This supports the hypothesis that I advanced at
the meeting. The rather generalized morphology of the
hybrids can be viewed as an atavistic expression of an
unspecialized, ancestral condition. Such morphologies,
then, can arise through diverse means that break-down
specializations resulting from different genetic
conditions that arose along different evolutionary
pathways.
Literature Cited:
Luer, C. A. 1975. Native Orchids of the United States and Canada,

excluding Florida. New York
Botanical Garden.
Sheviak, C.J. 1999. Platanthera hyperborea and a reappraisal of
green Platantheras. No. Am. Native Orchid Journ. 5:117-141; 198.
Acknowledgements:
The general course of field work was developed from past study
of specimens at the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University of
91
GREEN PLATANTHERAS
Wyoming [RM], and I wish to thank the curator and staff for
their assistance during my visit. Additional valuable suggestions
of promising areas for investigation were provided by William
Jennings, and his continuing assistance is greatly appreciated.
Contribution number 806 of the New York State Museum
Charles. J. Sheviak, Biological Survey, New York State Museum, Albany,

NY 12230 e-mail: csheviak@MAIL.NYSED.GOV
LOOKING FORWARD
SEPTEMBER 2000
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH ANNUAL
NOPRTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID
CONFERENCE

ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA PART 3
and more……..!
92
Lamont: HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS FROM
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS

FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Eric E. Lamont
Giovanni da Verrazano was the first European to

set eyes on the land we now know as Brooklyn, New
York. The year was 1524, and the Italian explorer was
drawn across the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean by
stories of virgin lands overflowing with riches, and
schools of fish so thick they could thwart a ship’s
passage. On April 17th of that year, Verrazano piloted
his ship, the Dauphine, through a narrow cut between
two land masses he did not know were islands and
entered a wide, deep bay sheltered by thickly forested
lands. He was in what would later be called New York
Harbor; he was the first European to see the wooded
western end of Long Island on the harbor’s eastern
shore.
Describing his trip in a letter to his patron king of

France, Francis I, Verrazano spoke of a land “covered
with immense forests of trees, more or less dense,
various in colors and delightful and charming in
appearance.” The land was so filled with an abundance
of animals, birds, forests and flowers that its “rich
93
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
perfume wafted out to sea at great distance.” The letter

was written in an almost breathless tone.
Years later, other explorers and settlers

confirmed the land’s rich natural history and beauty.
Eventually, botanists visited this land we now call
Brooklyn. They observed plants of southern affinities
that had crepted northward on the sandy soils of the
Atlantic coastal plain. They also found species growing
in the rich soils of northern Brooklyn, soils deposited by
glaciers originating far to the north. Small streams
flowed southward from the humble Brooklyn hills and
fanned out to form vast swamps and marshlands on the
flat coastal lowlands, before flowing through endless
salt marshes that eventually emptied into the Atlantic
Ocean. Such diversity of habitats provided the
opportunity for the development of a rich and diverse
flora.
Today, Brooklyn constitutes one of the five

boroughs of New York City. Located in the
southwestern extremity of Long Island, Brooklyn (aka
Kings County) occupies a relatively small area of land.
The irregularly shaped borough has a total land area of
only 71 square miles; if Brooklyn was shaped as a
rectangle it would extend less than 9 miles from east to
west and less than 8 miles from north to south. But
within that small area of land our botanical forefathers
documented the occurrence of 20 species of native
orchids.
94
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Probably the most significant collection of all the

Brooklyn orchids is the spotted coralroot (Corallorhiza
maculata). The genus Corallorhiza was first delimited in
1760 by the French botanist Jean Jacques Chatelain,
who in the same 1760 publication designated the
northern coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida [=Ophrys
corallorhiza L.]) as the type species for the genus.
Sometime during the early 1800s, a large robust
specimen of coralroot was collected from the “shady
woods of Long Island, near Flatbush [Brooklyn].”
Eventually, the collection from Brooklyn made its way
into the hands of the eccentric French botanist
Constantine Samuel Rafinesque who in 1817
proclaimed it to be an undescribed species, new to
science. Rafinesque initially placed the new orchid from
Brooklyn in the genus Cladorhiza, but then transferred it
to Corallorhiza where we still know it today as
Corallorhiza maculata, the spotted coralroot.
The last verified report of the spotted coralroot

from Brooklyn was documented by S. Calverley who
collected a specimen in 1858. Calverley also collected
the inconspicuous, more southern Corallorhiza
odontorhiza from Brooklyn in 1857. Calverley’s Brooklyn
collections of the two species of Corallorhiza have been
deposited in the herbarium at the Brooklyn Botanic
Garden (BKL).
It is impossible for present day botanists to

determine the exact locations of the historical orchid
collections from Brooklyn. Almost all of our
information comes from hand written notes recorded
95
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
on herbarium labels, and these records are scanty and

incomplete at best. Most herbarium labels from the late
1800s provide locality data that simply state “Brooklyn,”
or “swampy places” near a named town, or rarely (as in
the case of a collection of Platanthera psycodes) “meadow
near bone boiling factory, New Lots, Brooklyn.”
We can deduce, however, that the rich woodland

loving orchids probably occurred in the northern
morainal hills of Brooklyn, in the vicinity of present day
Cypress Hills and Brooklyn Heights. Sometimes these
locations were listed on herbarium labels, as in the
collection of the lily-leaved twayblade (Liparis lilifolia);
but most often we are left to speculate, as in the
Brooklyn collections of the long-bracted orchid
(Coeloglossum viride var. virescens), pink lady’s slipper
(Cypripedium acaule), yellow lady’s slipper (C. parviflorum)
and large whorled pogonia (Isotria verticillata).
The “Brooklyn Barrens” was a stretch of land

located between the rich hills of northern Brooklyn and
the sandy, outer coastal plain to the south. The town of
Flatbush sprang up in The Barrens and orchid
collections from this vicinity include the downy
rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens) and green
adder’s mouth (Malaxis unifolia).
As the human population of Brooklyn

significantly increased during the late 1800s, land
suitable for development became more and more
scarce. The extensive system of swamps and
marshlands located in the southeastern portion of
96
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Brooklyn became the last safe haven for orchids. A rich

diversity of orchid species occurred in this region,
including dragon’s mouth (Arethusa bulbosa), grass-
pink (Calopogon tuberosus), white fringed orchid
(Platanthera blephariglottis), yellow fringed orchid (P.
ciliaris), tubercled rein-orchid (P. flava var. herbiola),
ragged fringed orchid (P. lacera), small purple
fringed orchid (P. psycodes) and rose pogonia (Pogonia
ophioglossoides).
The last orchid specimen collected from

Brooklyn dates back to 1911, when J. McCallum
collected spring ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes vernalis) from
moist sands at the world famous Coney Island.
Nodding ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes cernua) and
southern slender ladies’ tresses (S. lacera var. gracilis)
were also known to occur in Brooklyn, the final
collections date back to 1892 and 1889, respectively.
Sadly, all of the Brooklyn wetlands were filled in

by the turn of the century and today, of the 20 species
of native orchids historically known to have occurred in
Brooklyn, not a single species has survived. Ironically,
during the past two decades the non-native broad-
leaved helleborine orchid (Epipactis helleborine) has
invaded Brooklyn and is vigorously colonizing disturbed
roadsides and the borders of woodlands.
97
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
dragon’s mouth
Arethusa bulbosa
98
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
spotted coralroot
Corallorhiza maculata
99
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
large whorled pogonia

Isotria verticillata
100
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Appendix
Selected Herbarium Collections of

Native Orchids from Brooklyn, New York
__________________________________________________
Year Name of
Species Collected Location Collector Herbarium
__________________________________________________
Arethusa bulbosa 1871 New Lots Leggett NY

Calopogon tuberosus 1888 Canarsie Eccles NYS
Coeloglossum viride 1879 New Lots ? CU
Corallorhiza maculata 1859 Brooklyn Calverley BKL
Corallorhiza odontorhiza 1857 Brooklyn Calverley BKL
Cypripedium acaule 1890 Forbells Hulst BKL
Landing
Cypripedium parviflorum 1866 Greenwood Brainerd BKL
Goodyera pubescens 1890 Flatbush Zabriskie BKL
Isotria verticillata 1891 Forbells Hulst BKL
Landing
Liparis liliifolia 1890 Cypress Hills
Hulst BKL
Malaxis unifolia 1889 Flatbush Zabriskie BKL
Plantanthera blephariglottis 1892 New Lots Hulst BKL
Plantanthera ciliaris 1890 New Lots Zabriskie BKL
Plantanthera flava 1877 New Lots Schrenk NY
var. herbiola
Plantanthera lacera 1867 New Lots Brainerd BKL
Plantanthera psycodes 1863 New Lots Brainerd BKL
Pogonia ophioglossoides 1888 Canarsie Eccles NYS
Spiranthes cernua 1889 New Lots Fernie BKL
Spiranthes lacera 1889 Cypress Hills Fernie BKL
var. gracilis
Spiranthes vernalis 1911 Coney Island McCallum BKL
__________________________________________________
101
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
The following orchid publications are available upon request, compliments of

the author.
Lamont, E. E. 1998. Notes on wild orchids of Long Island, New York. Long
Island Botanical Society Newsletter 8(6): 36.
Lamont, E. E. 1996. Atlas of the orchids of Long Island, New York. Bulletin of
the Torrey Botanical Club 123: 157-166.
Lamont, E. E. 1996. One hundred years of change in the orchid flora of Long
Island, New York. Proceedings of the New York Natural History Conference
4: 20.
Lamont, E. E. 1995. Fanny Mulford’s orchid collections from the late 1890’s.
Long Island Botanical Society Newsletter 5(2): 7-9.
Lamont, E. E. 1994. The weed orchid (Epipactis helleborine) on Long Island,

New York. Long Island Botanical Society Newsletter 4(2): 12.
Lamont, E. E. 1992. East Hampton orchids: will they survive? Long Island
Botanical Society Newsletter 2(6): 4-5
Lamont, E. E., J. M. Beitel and R. E. Zaremba. 1988. Current status of orchids

on Long Island, New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 115:
113-121.
[Reprints of orchid publications may be obtained by writing to:

Eric Lamont, Department of Biology, Riverhead High School,
Riverhead, New York 11901]
102
Hudson, Coleman, & Charles: PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA
A PRELIMINARY POPULATION STUDY OF

PLATANTHERA ZOTHECINA (HIGGINS &
WELSH) KARTESZ & GANDHI
(ORCHIDACEAE) AT NAVAJO NATIONAL
MONUMENT, ARIZONA
Laura E. Hudson, Ronald A. Coleman,& Shauna Charles
• INTRODUCTION
Platanthera zothecina, alcove bog orchid, is a

recently described western member of this genus. The
alcove bog orchid is in a group of species that have
been placed in three different genera over time:
Habenaria, Limnorchis, and Platanthera (Colorado Native
Plant Society, 1997). Welsh (1986; Welsh et al., 1987)
described and named it based on a specimen from
Grand County, Utah. Before their description, it had
been considered a variant of P. sparsiflora (Hevly, 1961).
This study was initiated by the National Park Service
after the alcove bog orchid was identified in Arizona
during a threatened and endangered species survey at
103
Navajo National Monument (Drost, 2000). Its status is

listed as Category 2 (species of special concern) by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Category 3 (likely to
become endangered) by the Navajo Nation. Scientists
from the Biological Resources Division of U.S.
Geologic Service recommended the development of
monitoring protocols to address number, distribution,
and condition of these orchids. Because P. zothecina is a
fairly new taxon, and little is known about its ecology,
this study will document baseline information on the
number, size and distribution of P. zothecina populations
as well as flowering and fruit set rates for the first year.
• MORPHOLOGY
Platanthera zothecina can be easily distinguished from P.

sparsiflora based on several morphological characteristics
(Fig. 1). The plants are from 15-60 cm tall in Colorado
(Spackman et al., 1997), but the tallest found in Arizona
was 35cm. Leaves are dimorphic on P. zothecina with
basal leaves more oval with obtuse leaf tips (Spackman
et al., 1997) and there are 1 to 2 leaf-like bracts between
the leaves and flowers. In general, the leaves on P.
zothecina are much more rounded, and clustered nearer
the bottom of the stem than those on P. sparsiflora.
Mature plants bear up to 30 laxly spaced pale green
104
flowers. The flowers can be distinguished from P.

sparsiflora by the shape of the lip and length of the spur.
The lip of P. zothecina is usually linear elliptic, while the
lip of P. sparsiflora is linear. Spur length in P. zothecina is
proportionally greater, from 1.5-2.5 times the length of
the lip. In P. sparsiflora, the spur ranges from slightly
shorter than the lip to 1.5 times as long. The flowering
and fruiting period extends from July-August into late
August, early September depending on climate and
moisture conditions (Atwood et al., 1991).
• DISTRIBUTION
Presently, Platanthera zothecina appears to be mostly

confined to the upper Colorado River watershed in
southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, and extreme
western Colorado (Colorado Native Plant Society,
1997). The first Arizona collections of this orchid were
made in 1935 by John Wetherill in the Tsegi Canyon
drainage of Navajo National Monument (Rothman,
1991). The data from these collections and other
publications from Colorado and Utah suggest that P.
zothecina is restricted to an elevational range of
approximately 1300 to 2700 m (Drost, 2000; Spackman
et al., 1997; Welsh et al., 1987). The authors identified
several habitat types where the orchid occurs; all
characterized by a continual supply of moisture. The
105
first habitat, implied by the common name of alcove

bog orchid, consists of damp to wet areas of alcoves
tucked in the backs of, or on the walls of, the sandstone
canyons prevalent in the four corners region. A second,
but similar habitat called hanging gardens, consists of
wet areas on canyon walls. A third habitat is along the
banks of streams in oak lined canyons.
• STUDY AREA
Geology and Vegetation
Holiday (1998) summarized the geology and

vegetation of Tsegi Canyon, where the orchid is known
to occur. It generally consists of Navajo sandstone,
which is porous and allows percolation into the Kayenta
formation where seeps occur. Exfoliation of the
sandstone above the seeps causes the formation of
alcoves. The main component of the vegetation
assemblages around the alcoves consists of Quercus
gambelii. These oak terraces usually occur in side canyons
draining from west to east and include shrubs such as
Ribes cereum and Prunus viginiana. The alcoves, hanging
gardens, and seeps are a very specialized subcomponent
of the canyon and often harbor endemic, rare, and
endangered plant species.
106
Climate
Holiday (1998) summarized the climate of Tsegi

Canyon as arid with cold winters and hot summers. The
daily average temperature is 10 C. Temperatures vary
from highs of 34 to 38 C in July to lows of -23 to 13 C
in the winters. The frost-free season averages about 155
days. Precipitation in the canyon is variable with a range
of 17.3 cm to 47.7 cm annually. Most of the
precipitation is during infrequent monsoon rain events.
• METHODS
Five personnel (one botanist, one orchid specialist,

and three assistants) systematically surveyed one small
alcove drainage within Tsegi Canyon where the orchid
had been collected by Wetherhill in 1935, and where a
recent study proved it still extant over 70years later
(Drost, 2000). The entire drainage is approximately 76m
wide (west to east) by 152m long (north to south). We
started the survey inside the alcove, working our way
downhill, including a survey of both east and west side
slopes. We only found orchids where moisture was
present. We identified four main populations; marked
study site parameters with rebar, and photographed
study sites (Fig. 2).
107
All four sites are located at approximately 2056m in

elevation. The transect line length and width was chosen
to encompass all visible orchid plants on each site (Fig.
3). Sites 1 and 2 are located on two separate hanging
garden/seeps inside the alcove along obvious cracks in
the wall. Site 1 is the highest seep and is 4.6m long. Site
2 is along a seep below Site 1 and is 6.9m long. Site 3 is
located along a mostly dry east side-slope outside the
alcove. Site 3 has one section where a small spring flows
downhill, disappears underground, and reappears again
at Site 4. Due to the size of this population, Site 3 was
subdivided into 5m sections with a total length of 55m
long. Each subdivision was squared off to include all
visible orchids uphill from the transect line (5m long x
1.5m wide). Site 4 is found south and downhill from the
alcove in an accumulation zone. After major rain events,
floodwaters run through here and leave behind layers of
sediment. Site 4 is 12m long and is directly on the spring
that reappears after going underground near Site 3. Site
4 was squared off to include all visible orchids along
both sides of the spring (8.0m long x 0.5m wide).
On June 24, 1999, we counted the total number of

individuals (or ramets) of Platanthera zothecina on all four
study sites. Other information we collected on this date
was the number of leaves for each plant. On July 9th,
108
we recorded the number of flowers and height of spike

for each plant on all four sites. On August 10th, we
counted the number of capsules per spike for all four
sites. On September 6th, we counted all capsules again
and noted those with seeds present or obviously
released (fruit set). Either the capsules were split and the
seeds could be seen or we could shake those that
weren't completely split to determine fruit set. We also
documented other factors possibly affecting the survival
of the orchid population such as trampling, herbivory,
and flooding on all four sites.
• RESULTS
Basic descriptive statistics were used to analyze the

first-year data (Table 1). A complete count of all visible
orchids on all four sites totaled 1,944 individuals with an
average of four leaves per plant. Flowering was
observed as early as July 3rd and continued through
August 10th. For all study sites, the average number of
flowers per plant was four and the average spike height
during flowering was 22 cm. Flowering was quite
variable and ranged from 74% on Site 3 to 9% on Site 4.
However, of the plants that did flower, 81%
successfully produced seeds (excluding Site 4). Seed
capsules began to split around the last week of August
and the first week of September. The average number
109
of capsules was four (excluding Site 4). Seed dispersal
occurred early to mid-September. We documented
herbivory and trampling effects for all four sites as well
as a flooding event in August, which destroyed the
aboveground orchid biomass on Site 4.
alcove rein orchid

Platanthera zothecina
110
Table 1. First-year data on the life history and

phenological characteristics for Platanthera zothecina at
Navajo National Monument.
Study Number of Mean# of Mean# Mean

Site plants leaves of spike
Ramets) (SD) flowers height
6/24/99 (SD) (cm)
(SD)
1 43 3.3 (0.76) 4.3 (2.97) 19.6
(7.82)
2 320 3.7 (0.69) 2.6 (2.35) 21.7
(4.70)
3 1019 3.7 (2.42) 6.4 (5.80) 23.9
(7.52)
4 562 3.8 (3.04) 3.8 (1.74) 21.0
(5.82)
Study %of plants Mean # of %of flowering
Site to flower capsules per plants that set
plant fruit
(SD)
1 34.8% 4.8 (1.5) 75%
2 12.5% 2.0 (1.8) 83%
3 74.0% 5.3 (3.0) 84%
4 9.1% *0 *0
* Flood debris covered site prior to 8/10/99 data
collection.
111
• DISCUSSION
One of our most important observations in the field

was the extensive herbivory and trampling of spikes
before they ever flowered. And, even after plants
flowered, many spikes were either grazed or trampled.
Intense disturbances that remove seed heads are
detrimental to long-term recruitment (Bowles, 1983).
These observations were confirmed when looking at the
percent of plants that flowered (survivorship ranged
from 74% to 9%), and then additional reductions
occurred from the flowering stage to setting fruit
(success averaging 81%). It becomes apparent that many
of these orchids are not able to complete their life cycle
due to these outside factors.
Site 4, in particular, was heavily grazed and

trampled. We surmised a colony of pack rats may live
on this study site since there is a large rodent hole right
above the site. In addition, Site 4 also was basically
destroyed aboveground after a flooding event, which
covered the site in sediments. These types of
disturbances such as grazing, flooding, and fires may be
required to remove competing shrubs and provide open
microsites or regeneration niches for orchids (Bowles,
1983). Increased light and decreased competition could
stimulate growth and flowering in terrestrial orchids,
112
assuming the appropriate amount of moisture is

available (Stoutamire, 1974).
We also observed a spider web-like substance

surrounding the majority of split capsules, holding in
the seeds, and limiting their dispersal. It is unclear to us
whether this web is from an insect; it may be a
Hymenoptera (Drost, pers. comm.). It is also unclear if
the relationship is mutualistic (facultative or obligate) or
parasitic with regards to pollination. In the case of the
western prairie fringed orchid, Platanthera praeclara, the
hawk moth appears to have a mutualistic relationship as
a pollen vector (Sieg, 1997). On the other hand, an
introduced weevil (Stethobaris commixta) was found eating
flower buds on these same orchids and appeared to be
parasitic (Sieg, 1993).
Another unknown to consider for the future is

dormancy. Dormancy is a mechanism to avoid
seasonally harsh conditions and has been reported in
many orchid species (Lesica & Steele, 1997). Initial
surveys by Drost (2000) suggested that this study's
orchid population one year earlier was in the 100's, but
our counts were much higher. It is possible that
dormancy was a factor in these increased numbers, and
could be a factor in the future. Sieg and Wolken (1997)
have shown that the western prairie fringed orchid,
113
had very high mortality and a shorter life span than

previously thought once they excavated orchids from
their plots that appeared to be dormant. Furthermore,
once an orchid disappeared, it rarely reappeared (Sieg &
King, 1995). This unknown can make it very difficult to
monitor orchids over the long-term.
Finally, the effects of climate on the alcove

environment of seeps and hanging gardens are not well
understood. The complexities of measuring amount and
duration of water flows each year combined with
directional aspect, amount of sunlight received, depth of
alcove, and soil types make that topic very difficult to
address. However, seasonal moisture fluctuations may
be extremely important in determining the future
survival of this orchid species. Exposure to
environmental stressors can influence not only the first
year survival, but also subsequent years (Lesica & Steele,
1994). For Platanthera, flowering may be related to
precipitation (Bowles, 1983; Mehrhoff, 1989). The most
significant factor influencing western prairie fringed
orchid numbers was soil moisture (Sieg, 1997).
• CONCLUSIONS
Due to its unknown distribution and low

numbers in northern Arizona, the National Park Service
114
is concerned about the alcove bog orchid population.

Because its habitat appears to be limited to seeps and
associated springs, it is also important to continue
surveying for other populations where water sources
may be found. This preliminary data indicates that there
is a need to better quantify the impacts of herbivory and
to examine whether there is a need to protect some
portion of this population. This will require further data,
and a better understanding of both the impacts and
potential solutions. Other recommendations for future
monitoring and research include marking individual
plants to provide baseline demographic data, looking at
pollination rates and other impediments to seed set, and
identify hydrologic parameters to measure. Populations
were much larger than expected, so these sites will be
subdivided for future sampling and analysis.
The information derived from a long-term

monitoring program would provide park managers with
data to effectively work with federal and state agencies
as well as the Navajo Nation toward promoting the
conservation of the alcove bog orchid.
115
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Carolyn Hull-Sieg for her time spent reviewing and
commenting on this article as well as the Superintendent at Navajo National
Monument and the National Park Service for providing us with the funding
and the personnel to implement this project.
Literature Cited:
Atwood, D.N., J. Holland, R. Bolander, B. Franklin, D.E. House, L.

Armstrong, K. Thorne, and L. England. 1991. Utah Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. U.S. Forest Service
Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Utah Natural Heritage Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Navajo Nation, and Skull
Valley Goshute Tribe.
Bowles, M.L. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.)
Lindl. and Cypripedium candidum Muhl. Ex Willd.: some aspects of
their status, biology, and ecology, and implications toward
management. Nat. Areas J. 3:14-37.
Colorado Native Plant Society. 1997. Rare Plants of Colorado, 2nd ed. Falcon
Press Publishing, Helena, Montana.
Drost, C. 2000. Inventory of threatened, endangered, and candidate species at Navajo
National Monument. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science
Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff.
Hevly, R. H. 1961. Notes on the orchids of northern Arizona Plateau. Plateau
33:83-87.
Holiday, S. 1998. A flora of Tsegi Canyon. M.A. Thesis, Northern Arizona
University.
Lesica, P. and B.M. Steele. 1994. Prolonged dormancy in vascular plants and
implications for monitoring studies. Nat. Areas J. 14:209-212.
Mehrhoff, L.A. 1989. The dynamics of declining populations of an endangered
orchid, Isotria
medeoloides. Ecology 70:783-786.
Rothman, Hal K. 1991. Navajo National Monument: a place and its people, an
administrative history. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional
Papers No. 40, Santa Fe, NM.
116
Sieg, C. Hull. 1993. Stethobaris commixta Blatchley (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
collected from a species of orchid, Platanthera praeclara Sheviak and
Bowles, in North Dakota tall-grass prairie. Prairie Naturalist 25(1):81.
Sieg, C. Hull. 1997. The mysteries of a prairie orchid. Endangered Species Bull.
July/Aug 1997, 22(4):12-13.
Sieg, C. Hull and R.M. King. 1995. Influence of environmental factors and
preliminary demographic analyses of a threatened orchid Platanthera
praeclara. Am. Midl. Nat. 134(2):307-323.
Sieg, C. Hull and P.M. Wolken. 1997. Dynamics of a threatened orchid in
flooded wetlands. North American Prairie Conference 16:193-201.
Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C.
Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program.
Stoutamire, W.P. 1974. Terrestrial orchid seedlings. Pp. 101-128 in: C.L.
Withner, ed. The Orchids: Scientific Studies. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Welsh, S.L. 1986. New Plant Taxa and Combinations. Great Basin Naturalist
46(2):259.
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1987. A Utah Flora,
2nd edition, revised. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Laura E. Hudson, IMDE-NT

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy
Lakewood, CO 80228.
Ronald A. Coleman, 11520 E. Calle Del Valle,
Tucson, AZ 85749-8865
e-mail: ronorchid@aol.com
Shauna Charles, c/o IMDE-NT
12795 W. Alameda Pkwy
Lakewood, CO 80228.
117
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.1
Fig. 3
118
Wagner, Wagner & Brown: RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGED
ORCHIDS IN NORTH AMERICA
Part 2. Kentucky - North Dakota
RARE, THREATENED AND

ENDANGED ORCHIDS IN NORTH
AMERICA
Part 2. Kentucky-North Dakota
Anne B. Wagner, Ken Wagner, Paul Martin Brown
In continuing the four-part article on the listed

orchids in North America, the data accumulated by
Anne & Ken Wagner for Kentucky - New Jersey is
presented. Please remember in reading this information
it is essential to know that each state or province has its
own criteria and definitions of rare, threatened and
endangered. Unfortunately personal opinions and
priorities often color the makeup of these lists. We are
trying to give references wherever possible for the
plants that are listed. Some states update continually
other as far apart as 10 years! Very few states afford
legal protection to the plants. Websites are given and a
contact person when known. The nomenclature used is
as it was received from the various sources and often
does not agree with contemporary usage. In the
December Journal a complete list of cross-reference for
the names will be given as well as a summary by species.
If a given species is not listed for a given state or
province it means that the status has not been
determined - and that for any number of reasons.
119
When available, the status within the state or province is
given. Although abbreviations are not always consistent
the following usually are reliable: (may be preceded by a
S for state)
E = Endangered S1
T = Threatened S2
R=Rare S3
SC= Special Concern S3
X= extirpated
H = historical
U = unknown
For precise definitions and current status readers are
encouraged to contact the sources listed for each state
and province.
KENTUCKY
Deborah.white@mail.state.ky.us
Www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/ksnpc/index.htm .
Orchids listed on Kentucky state nature preserves commission’s
endangered, threatened and special concern
Calopogon tuberosus e
Coeloglossum viride var. virescens h
Corallorrhiza maculata e
Cypripedium candidum e
Cypripedium kentuckiense s
Cypripedium parviflorum t
Cypripedium reginae h
Liparis loeselii t
Listera australis e
Listera smallii t
Platanthera cristata t
Platanthera integrilabia t
Platanthera psycodes e
Pogonia ophioglossoides e
Spiranthes lucida t
120
Spiranthes magnicamporum t
Spiranthes odorata e
LOUISIANA
David Brunet
Brunet_DP@wlf.state.la.us>
Calopogon barbatus s1
Calopogon multiflorus s1
Calopogon pallidus s1s2
Cleistes divaricata s1
Corallorrhiza odontorhiza s1
Cypripedium kentuckiense s1
Habenaria quinqueseta s1
Isotria verticillata s2s3
Platanthera blephariglottis var. conspicua s1
Platanthera integra s2s3
Platanthera lacera s1
Platythelys querceticola s1
Pteroglossaspis ecristata s2
Spiranthes magnicamporum s1
Triphora trianthophora s1
MAINE
Sarah.H.Evans@state.me.us
Amerorchis rotundifolia s1
Corallorhiza odontorhiza s1
Cypripedium arietinum s1
Cypripedium reginae s2s3
Galearis spectabilis s1
Goodyera oblongifolia s1
Isotria medeoloides s2
Isotria verticillata sx
121
Listera auriculata s1
Malaxis monophyllos s1
Platanthera flava s2
Platanthera leucophaea s1
Spiranthes lacera var. gracilis sh
Spiranthes lucida s1
MASSACHUSETTS
Paul Somers, Ph.D., State Botanist
Natural Heritage & Endangered Species
Program
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
Rte. 135, One Rabbit Hill Rd.
Westboro, MA 01581
508/792-7270 x149
paul.somers@state.ma.us
Aplectrum hyemale E
Arethusa bulbosa T
Corallorhiza odontorhiza Sc
Cypripedium arietinum E
Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum E
Cypripedium reginae Sc
Goodyera repens E
Isotria medeoloides E
Listera cordata E
Malaxis bayardii E
Malaxis brachypoda T
Platanthera cristata E
Platanthera dilatata T
Platanthera flava var. herbiola T
Spiranthes romanzoffiana E
Spiranthes vernalis Sc
Tipularia discolor E
Triphora trianthophora E
122
MARYLAND
Lynn Davidson
Natural Heritage Information Manager
MD DNR, Wildlife & Heritage Division
Arethusa bulbosa sh
Calopogon tuberosus s1
Coeloglossum viride s1
Corallorrhiza trifida s1
Corallorrhiza wisteriana s1
Cypripedium candidum s1
Cypripedium reginae sh
Goodyera repens sh
Goodyera tesselata sh
Hexalectris spicata sh
Isotria medeoloides sh
Liparis loeselii s3
Listera australis s3
Listera cordata sh
Listera smallii s1
Platanthera blephariglottis s2
Platanthera ciliaris s2
Platanthera cristata s2
Platanthera flava s1
Platanthera grandiflora s2
Platanthera peramoena s1
Platanthera psycodes sh
Pogonia ophioglossoides s3
Spiranthes laciniata su
Spiranthes ochroleuca s1
Spiranthes odorata sh
Spiranthes ovalis s?
Spiranthes praecox s1
Spiranthes tuberosa s3
Triphora trianthophora sh
123
MICHIGAN
Extracted from file downloaded from web(michiganlist.doc).
State list of endangered species:
Amerorchis rotundifolia
Isotria medeoloides
Platanthera leucophaea
State list of threatened species:
Calypso bulbosa
Cypripedium candidum
Galearis spectabilis
Isotria verticillata
Platanthera ciliaris
Spiranthes ovalis
Tipularia discolor
Triphora trianthophora
MINNESOTA
Extracted from Web page (plants.html) in Minn folder
Last updated 7/31/96
Endangered:
Listera auriculata
Malaxis paludosa
Platanthera flava var. herbiola
Platanthera praeclara
Cypripedium arietinum
Special concern:
Cypripedium candidum
Listera convallarioides
Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda
Platanthera clavellata
MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, 111 N. Jefferson,
Jackson, MS 39202
ronald wieland - ecologist heritage@mmns.state.ms.us
124
Aplectrum hyemale s1
Calopogon barbatus 2s3
Cypripedium pubescens s2s3
Cypripedium kentuckiense su
Epidendrum conopseum s2
Orchis spectabilis s1
Goodyera pubescens s1
Hexalectris spicata s2
Platanthera blephariglottis s2
Platanthera integra s3s4
Platanthera integrilabia s1
Platanthera lacera s1s2
Platanthera peramoena s2s3
Erythrodes querceticola s1?
Ponthieva racemosa s2?
Eulophia ecristata s1s2
Spiranthes longilabris s2s3
Spiranthes magnicamporum s2s3
Spiranthes ovalis s2s3
Triphora trianthophora s2s3
MISSOURI
Tim E. Smith, botanist
Mo Dept. Of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, Mo 65102-0180
573/751-4115 ext. 200
fax 573/526-5582
smitht2@mail.conservation.state.mo.us
13 Sep 1999
Coeloglossum viride var. virescens s1

Corallorhiza trifida var. verna srf
Cypripedium reginae s2s3
125
Isotria medeoloides sx
Isotria verticillata s1s2
Liparis loeselii s2
Malaxis unifolia s3
Platanthera clavellata s2
Platanthera flava var. flava s2
Platanthera flava var. herbiola s2
Platanthera leucophaea sx
Platanthera praeclara s1
Platanthera psycodes sx
Pogonia ophioglossoides s1
Spiranthes ovalis var. erostellata s2
Tipularia discolor s1
MONTANA
extracted from web info(mtplantlist.xls)
Amerorchis rotundifolia s2s3
Cypripedium fasciculatum s2
Cypripedium parviflorum s3
Cypripedium passerinum s2
Cypripedium xcolumbianum hyb
Epipactis gigantea s2
Goodyera repens s3
Liparis loeselii s1
Spiranthes diluvialis s2
NEBRASKA
Extracted from plants.html in Nebr folder
Corallorrhiza maculata s1
Corallorrhiza odontorhiza s1
126
Cypripedium calceolus s1
Cypripedium candidum s1s2
Galearis spectabilis s2
Goodyera oblongifolia s1
Habenaria hyperborea s2
Liparis loeselii s1s2
Platanthera praeclara s1
Spiranthes lacera s1
Spiranthes romanzoffiana sh
Spiranthes vernalis s2s3
Species of concern from elements.html in Nebr folder
Same as above plus:
Habenaria viridis var. bracteata s1
NEVADA
James D. Morefield, Ph.D., botanist
Nevada Natural Heritage Program
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
1550 east college parkway, suite 145
Carson City NV 89706-7921 u.s.a.
Http://www.state.nv.us/nvnhp/
Email: jdmore@govmail.state.nv.us
Tel: (775) 687-4245 or 423-6769
Extracted from sensplants.htm#monocots in Nev folder. This
reflects what is reported in the email.
Spiranthes diluvialis sh
Spiranthes infernalis s1
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sara Cairns
Data Manager / biologist
NH Natural Heritage Inventory
(603) 271-3623
E Arethusa bulbosa
E Calypso bulbosa
127
T Coeloglossum viride
E Corallorrhiza odontorhiza
E Cypripedium arietinum
E Cypripedium parviflorum
T Cypripedium pubescens
E Cypripedium reginae
T Galearis spectabilis
E Isotria medeoloides
E Isotria verticillata
E Liparis liliifolia
T Liparis loeselii
E Listera auriculata
T Listera convallarioides
T Listera cordata
E Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda
T Malaxis unifolia
E Platanthera ciliaris
T Platanthera flava var. herbiola
E Spiranthes casei
T Spiranthes lucida
E Spiranthes vernalis
T Triphora trianthophora
NEW JERSEY
Aplectrum hyemale s1
Arethusa bulbosa s2
Corallorrhiza trifida s2
Corallorrhiza wisteriana sx.1
Cypripedium parviflorum sr
Cypripedium parviflorum var. makasin s2
Cypripedium reginae s1
Goodyera tesselata s1.1
Listera cordata s1
Listera smallii s1.1
128
Malaxis bayardii sh
Malaxis monophyllos sh
Malaxis unifolia s2
Platanthera flava var. flava s1
Platanthera flava var. herbiola s2
Platanthera hookeri s1
Platanthera hyperborea sx
Platanthera integra s1
Platanthera nivea sh
Platanthera orbiculata s1
Platanthera psycodes s3
Spiranthes laciniata s1
Spiranthes ochroleuca s3
Spiranthes odorata s2
Spiranthes tuberosa s3
Spiranthes vernalis s1
Tipularia discolor s3
NEW MEXICO
Sara J. Gottlieb
Science Information Coordinator
New Mexico Natural Heritage Program
Biology Department
University of New Mexico
851 University, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Phone: (505) 272-3545 ext. 225
FAX: (505) 272-3544
Email: gottlieb@unm.edu
WWW: http://nmnhp.unm.edu
Corallorrhiza striata s4?

Corallorrhiza striata var striata s3
Cypripedium calceolus s1
129
Cypripedium pubescens s2?

Epipactis gigantea s2?
Hexalectris nitida s1
Hexalectris spicata var arizonica s?
Malaxis ehrenbergii s4
Malaxis macrostachya s?
Malaxis tenuis s3?
Habenaria unalascensis s1
Habenaria dilitata s2
Spiranthes magnicamporum s3?
Spiranthes parasitica s3
Spiranthes romanzoffiana s2?
NEW YORK
Michael Birmingham (mjbirmin@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
NYS-DEC, Region 5
Division of Lands and Forests
Ray Brook, NY 12977
(518) 897-1200 (518) 897-1370 (FAX)
http://www.dec.state.ny.us
Amerorchis rotundifolia SX
Aplectrum hyemale S1
Arethusa bulbosa S2
Calypso bulbosa SH
Corallorhiza striata S1
Cypripedium arietinum S2
Cypripedium candidum S1
Isotria medeoloides SH
Liparis lilifolia S2
Listera auriculata S1
130
Listera australis S1S2

Listera convallarioides SH
Malaxis bayardii S1
Platanthera ciliaris S1
Platanthera cristata S1
Platanthera hookeri S1S2
Platanthera leucophaea SH
Spiranthes vernalis S1
Tipularia discolor S1
Triphora trianthophora S1
NORTH CAROLINA
Orchids listed by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(nc nhp)
October 27, 1999
Cleistes bifaria s2?

Cypripedium parviflorum s3
Cypripedium pubescens s3
Cypripedium reginae sh
Goodyera repens s2s3
Habenaria repens s2
Listera cordata sh
Triphora trianthophora s2?
Epidendrum conopseum s2
Malaxis bayardii sh
Malaxis spicata s1
Platanthera flava var. herbiola s1?
Ponthieva racemosa s2
Spiranthes brevilabris var. floridana sx?
Spiranthes ochroleuca sh
Platanthera integra s1
Platanthera nivea s1
131
Coeloglossum viride var. virescens s1

Liparis loeselii s1
Spiranthes laciniata s1
Spiranthes longilabris s1
Arethusa bulbosa s1
Calopogon multiflorus s1
Platanthera integrilabia sx
Pteroglossaspis ecristata s1
NORTH DAKOTA
Date: fri, 19 nov 1999 16:41:59
-0600
Reply-to: heritage@state.nd.us
From: "chris jaeger"
<heritage@state.nd.us>
To: naorchid@aol.com
Subject: nd state rare plant list
Mime-version: 1.0
Cypripedium candidum S2S3
Cypripedium parviflorum S2S3
Cypripedium planipetalum S2
Cypripedium reginae S2S3
Liparis loeselii S2
Platanthera clavellata Sh
Platanthera praeclara S2
Pogonia ophioglossoides Sh
Spiranthes cernua S1
Spiranthes romanzoffiana S1
132
Empiricist: THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED
THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED
The Slow Empiricist
When I put together the compiled writings of the

Slow Empiricist I mentioned that I was contemplating
another foolers column. This was prompted by several
requests for another such article. As I have thought
about some of my more recent forays into hunting for
particular orchids, I came to this conclusion. I have
decided that rather than make an expanded list of plants
that fool the observer into thinking he/she has found
some new orchid species for the area, I might be better
off to write about the confusion that occurs in spotting
plants when orchidists are out in the field.
Last fall, here in Florida, I was with Paul Martin

Brown looking for Michaux's orchid, Habenaria
quinqueseta at the newly named Marjorie Harris Carr
Cross Florida Greenway. We were in a section called the
Ross Prairie that has a lower part than the surrounding
area because back in the 1930's as part of the WPA, it
was decided to create a cross Florida canal by employing
men who had lost their jobs due to the Great
Depression. Unfortunately they were given picks and
shovels to dig out to approximately 30 feet in depth the
133
course for the waterway. Since this area is mostly

limestone that lies precariously close to the surface the
project never got very far and was eventually
abandoned. The men did, however dig some mighty big
stretches of channel through this part of Florida.
Eventually then the entire project area was set aside as a
green area that goes across Florida. It has preserved a
great deal of land of a diverse nature.
The area we were exploring went down into the

diggings where there is a totally different habitat from
the normal habitat that surrounds the diggings. It is rich
with ferns and moist and humid. It also can be quite
shady under the overhanging canopy. Needless to say I
was very frustrated in my search. Conditions seem to
work against my finding any of the orchids. I was
plagued by fruiting stems of the golden aster, which had
just finished flowering and, which, in fruit look like a
Habenaria quinqueseta in bud. I did find a large stand of
the orchid after several heart-quickening, false sightings
of the look alike. The point I am trying to make is that
when you are exploring new territory for an orchid you
will probably have many such misleading mimickers of
your quarry. Hence, the reason this column will dwell
more on the general area of mistaken identities rather
than on specific plants that are often taken for a
particular orchid and are not. Rather than let these
failures deter you, I have often urged you to be patient
and persevere. Those who are persistent often are
rewarded for their diligence.
134
There are other considerations to remember

when you are in a frustrating situation and have been
following false leads in your quest. One of the most
significant ones is to have a really good idea of what you
are hunting for. Many people who are less trained and
intuitive about orchids find that once they have seen a
particular orchid they have much better success in
finding others. It, therefore, behooves you to be as
knowledgeable about the orchid you are looking for
before you venture to find it in the wild if you want to
be more successful. If you can look at actual
photographs and read about the plant's habits and the
general idea as to what habitats it prefers you will be less
likely to be misled in the field.
Now, even knowing a lot about the plant cannot

prevent you from being fooled. On another excursion
with Paul, I kept mistaking slender grass stalks that
reflected the late afternoon light back to my eyes as the
tops of white Spiranthes spikes. The frustrating thing for
me was that when I stopped to look at a totally
unrelated plant my gaze finally discovered the Spiranthes
we were looking for almost next to the plant that
originally piqued my interest. As I was the first one to
spot any Spiranthes that day I was elated at the find but
chagrined that I hadn't seen it before I spotted the
unrelated eye-catcher. This time there was no fooler
involved and I probably would have missed the orchid
if I hadn't been diverted toward the intriguing plant that
did take my attention.
135
It seems many Spiranthes like roadside habitats,

unfortunately. Spiranthes seem to have many imitators
whenever I try to spot them along a roadside. This
means you either have to crawl along busy
thoroughfares in your car trying to catch sight of them,
or keep pulling off to the side of the road to do a
walking search of what seems to be a good area for
them. When you are going up to speed spotting can be
nigh impossible, at least for me. The foolers that have
made me stop and back up include the dried stalks of
shepherd's purse mustard, bleached slender stalks of
dock, the white aletris, white lobelia and lots of others.
I'm sure you have all had some fooler get you when it
came to scouting for Spiranthes.
Since I have been speaking of Spiranthes, I want to

relate that this is one group of orchids that has many
closely related species. You really have to know the
characteristics of what you are seeing to be sure of a
correct identification. I will relate one such
misidentification that occurred that I know about. A
Spiranthes that has a colored spotting on the lips was
identified as coming from Asia when it was later proved
to be just a virused form of a common Spiranthes. Even
experts can be fooled sometimes. If you read my
column on herbarium specimens, there are often many
examples of mystery orchids that crop up in their files.
Paul is writing the section that describes the Spiranthes of
North America for the Flora of North America and
hopefully it will help to sort out some of the confusions
that there are in this family.
136
Another really frustrating occurrence for me is

looking for tiny orchids. I find that there are just as
many, if not more, foolers in the miniature size range as
bigger orchids have. The problem here is you have a lot
of competition because there seem to be many more
small plants to sort through than you have with the
larger varieties. Spotting a royal lady's-slipper,
Cypripedium reginae, with its large vibrant blossom seems
to me a lot easier than spotting the newly named
Spiranthes eatonii, Eaton's ladies'- tresses, which is so
slender that it blends in with other spikes of grass and
plantains. This is not a tiny orchid plant but it is so slim
that it is hard to pick one out from the surrounding
vegetation. A truly tiny orchid that is less than 3 inches
high, Rickett's three birds orchid, Triphora rickettii,
could be entirely missed let alone having a mimicker to
muddy the spotting. I really don't know how one could
spot one out of flower. You must have really super eyes
to pull out that particular growth pattern of green leaves
and stem from all the other green leaves and stems that
surround it on the forest floor. Twayblades, Listera
spp. are another group that can be well camouflaged in
their habitats, especially when their neighbors like the
ferns grow up and conceal them entirely.
Possibly the most embarrassing spotting is when

you mistake a piece of detritus or garbage that has been
thrown out by some careless and insensitive person to
the environment and you slow your vehicle to find that
you have not found a bearded grass pink, Calopogon
barbatus, but only a discarded piece of pink paper that
137
once held some fast food items. Potato chip bags are
another eye catcher especially the bright magenta ones. I
remember when my children were younger, my wife and
I took a trip to Florida and in the course of our travels
were intrigued with the white cattle egrets that often
lined the roadsides and fields in the rural sections of the
state. My wife thought at first that they were scraps of
facial tissue that had been indiscriminately thrown from
other cars onto the roadside. The children and I
gleefully pointed out that they were birds. From then on
we called the cattle egrets, Kleenex birds. That time,
mistaken identification worked in reverse and we all had
a good laugh at the confusion.
So you see it takes a lot of hard searching to find

some orchids. It also takes a good knowledge of what
you are looking for. Then there is no guarantee that you
won't come up with a fooler or two in your searching. I
guess I would advise you to keep on looking and if you
are a lazy sort go out with some others who have good
eyes and are good spotters. This will ensure you a
greater chance of success without a great deal of effort
on your part. Of course, to me that would be cheating
and takes a lot of the fun out of actually finding your
specimen for yourself. If you can laugh at yourself when
you do make an error you will feel better because you
have finally realized that you are not the only one to
have misidentified that particular plant (or bird).
The Slow Empiricist
138
Brown: AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
In the December 1999 issue of the North American

Native Orchid Journal (pp. 358-362), I published
Spiranthes xaustralis, a hybrid between S. praecox and S.
vernalis. Unfortunately I was unaware of the existence of
S. australis (R. Brown) Lindley (1824) which rendered
illegitimacy to S. xaustralis P.M. Brown when published.
The latter is replaced with a nomen novum as published
below:
Spiranthes xmeridionalis P.M. Brown nom. nov.
Replaced Synonym: Spiranthes xaustralis P.M. Brown
N.A. Nat. Orch. J. 5(4): 358-62 10 Dec. 1999. The
meaning of the epithet is till the same – southern –
referring to the presence of the hybrids in the
southwestern United States.
Paul Martin Brown
Note: Special thanks to Chuck Sheviak and Dr. K. Gandhi for

their assistance in correcting this error.
139
Johnson: AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE
AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO

THE ORCHIDACEAE OF ARKANSAS
George P. Johnson
While examining herbarium specimens for the

Vascular Flora of Arkansas Project, I have made two
discoveries which necessitate: the need to add a new
taxon to the State's orchidaceous flora, Platanthera flava
(Linnaeus) Lindley var. herbiola (R. Brown) Luer,
northern tubercled orchis; and, the need to delete
another, Spiranthes laciniata (Small) Ames, lace-lipped
ladies'-tresses.
The documented presence of the northern

tubercled orchis in Arkansas is based on a voucher
specimen at the University of Arkansas at Monticello,
UAM, labeled only as Platanthera flava. Label data are as
follows: Getz, E. M., #373, 10 June 1993, Camp Joseph
T. Robinson, S. of Jim Creek, west of Clinton Road,
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Det. Donald E. Culwell. The
Camp Robinson population consists of a hundred or
more plants that have been assumed to be var. flava, the
southern tubercled orchis (Carl Slaughter pers. comm.).
The plant from Camp Robinson is clearly not var. flava
and has the characteristic leaf number, bract length, and
140
labellum shape of var. herbiola. The specimen at UAM
was distributed from the Herbarium at the University of
Central Arkansas, UCAC.
The inclusion of the lace-lipped ladies'-tresses

in the State's orchidaceous flora was based on a
misidentified specimen of Spiranthes vernalis Engelmann
& A. Gray, the grass-leaved ladies'-tresses, at the
University of Arkansas, UARK (Smith 1988). The
features of the plant that confirm it is not Spiranthes
laciniata are: the trichomes of the inflorescence are
pointed and not capitate; the basal callosities of the lip
are pubescent and not curved; and, the margin of the lip
is not laciniate. Label data for the specimen in question
are as follows: Carter, B., #281, 23 June 1969, Sebastian
County, Arkansas. The specimen was annotated by J.
C. Stevenson in 1972 as Spiranthes laciniata (Small) Ames.
At present, 40 taxa of the Orchidaceae are known to
occur in Arkansas.
Literature Cited:
Smith, E. B. 1988. An Atlas and Annotated List of the Vascular Plants of
Arkansas. 2nd ed. Kinko's Copies. Fayetteville, Arkansas.
George P. Johnson Herbarium (APCR)

Biology Department Arkansas Tech University
Russellville, AR 72801 george.johnson@mail.atu.edu
141
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: TAXONOMIC
AN ADDITION AND AND DISTRIBUTIONAL
A DELETION NOTES
TO THE
FROM FLORIDA 7. OF
ORCHIDACEAE Genus Habenaria
TheARKANSAS
142
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: AN TAXONOMIC
ADDITION ANDANDADISTRIBUTIONAL
DELETION TO THENOTES
FROM FLORIDA 7. The
ORCHIDACEAE OFGenus Habenaria
ARKANSAS
RECENT TAXONOMIC AND

DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES FROM
FLORIDA 7.
The Genus Habenaria

Paul Martin Brown
The genus Habenaria is a very distinct and specific

genus with five species that are found throughout
Florida and two of those species in the southeastern
United States. The genus is often confused with the
genus Platanthera but is readily distinguished from the
latter by the following criteria:
Habenaria has swollen tuberoid roots; the petals are
dived into two parts (always entire in Platanthera) and the
central portion of the lip divided into three linear
segments (the divisions are reduced in H. odontopetala)
and is primarily tropical in distribution, whereas
Platanthera is primarily temperate in distribution. The lip
in Platanthera may be divided into three parts, and often
fringed, but never into three linear segments. In
addition one of the major differences that you cannot
easily see, especially in the field, is that Habenaria has
prominent stigmatic processes and in Platanthera they are
143
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: TAXONOMIC
AN ADDITION ANDAND DISTRIBUTIONAL
A DELETION TO THENOTES
FROM FLORIDA 7.OF
TheARKANSAS
not prominent. Habenaria species in the United States all

produce initial rosettes that may persist for several years
until the individual plants flower. Often these rosettes
can cover large areas and are comprised of over 100
plants!
The five species in Florida are easily recognizable.

Three, Habenaria repens, H. quinqueseta and H. odontopetala,
are widespread throughout most of the state and the
remaining two, H. macroceratitis and H. distans are very
restricted in their distribution.
Key to the genus Habenaria in the United States
1 lip and/or petals divided into linear, thread-like

segments…2
1 lip and/or petals merely toothed…2. H. odontopetala
2 leaves essentially basal or rapidly reduced upward;

spur swollen…1. H. distans
2 leaves extending up the stem and gradually reduced
in size, spur not swollen…3
3 spur equal to the ovary; plants of wet habitats…5. H.

repens
3 spur distinctly longer than the ovary…4
144
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: AN TAXONOMIC
ADDITION ANDANDADISTRIBUTIONAL
DELETION TO THENOTES
FROM FLORIDA 7. The
ORCHIDACEAE OFGenus Habenaria
ARKANSAS
4 Anterior division of the lateral petal less than twice

(10-18mm) the length of the posterior division (6 -
9mm); spur typically less than 10 cm (in living material);
plants of open pinelands, hedgerows and fields …4. H.
quinqueseta
4 Anterior division of the lateral petal more than twice

(20-24mm) the length of the posterior division (8-
11mm); flowers, when view straight on, with a distinct
rectangular aspect; spur often greater than 10 cm (in
living material); plants of rich mesic hardwood
hammocks …4. H. macroceratitis
1. Habenaria distans Grisebach, the false water-

spider orchid, is currently restricted in southern
Florida to Collier County. Historical specimens are
known form Lee and Highlands Counties with a
literature reference to Manatee County. It is widespread
in the West Indies, Central America and north South
America.
2. Habenaria macroceratitis Willdenow (syn.:

Habenaria quinqueseta var. macroceratitis (Willdenow) Luer),
the long-horned habenaria, is very rare and local in
rich, moist, hardwood hammocks in central Florida in
Alachua, Sumter, Citrus, Hernando and (historically)
Orange Counties. Although some colonies are very large
and vigorous, most counties have only one or two sites.
145
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: TAXONOMIC
FROM FLORIDA 7.OF
TheARKANSAS
Widespread in central and southern Mexico, adjacent

Central America, and in suitable habitat in Cuba,
Jamaica and perhaps some of the other West Indies.
This taxon was originally described as a species

by Willdenow in 1805 and then over the years merged
within the similar Habenaria quinqueseta. The most
striking aspect of H. macroceratitis is the very long spur,
but this is not the critical distinguishing aspect between
these two species. In a future issue more evidence will
be presented to revalidate H. macroceratitis as a species,
but for now suffice it to say that here in Florida they are
two very different species in morphology, pollination
and habitat. The primary character, which is used in the
key and was carefully noted by Luer (1972) is the
proportional length of the segments of the lateral petals.
More than that, the flowers of H. quinqueseta have a very
'square' aspect to them whereas those of H. macroceratitis
have a very 'rectangular' aspect to them (see
illustrations). Continued examination of specimens
from the West Indies, Central America and Mexico
appear to be consistent with these findings. Spur length
is the most problematic of the criteria that have been
traditionally used to separate the two species as there
can be 'short-spurred' H. macroceratitis and 'long-spurred'
H. quinqueseta. The epithet macroceratitis means long-
horned rather than long-spurred! One of the most
exciting aspects of this species in Florida is the presence
of a large colony in Sumter County that was first
146
Brown: RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL NOTES
Johnson: AN ADDITION
FROM AND
FLORIDA Genus Habenaria
A DELETION
7. The TO THE
document in 1874 and is still present today. It is

vigorous and produces many spectacular flowering
plants each year. One of the three colonies in
Hernando County, near Brooksville, can, in a good year,
produce several hundred flowering stems some up to 75
cm tall!
3. Habenaria quinqueseta (Michaux) Eaton,

Michaux's orchid, is widespread and locally common
throughout all of Florida and then becoming very rare
and local from South Carolina west to east Texas (where
historical). This is a plant of primarily damp pinelands
and hedgerows. The greenish-white flowers are
produce on a spike to 30cm tall and with up to 14
flowers, but more often with 6-8 flowers. The spur
typically is shorter than 5 cm. Large colonies of non-
flowering plants are often encountered, especially in
open pine flatwoods.
4. Habenaria odontopetala Reichenbach f. (syn:

Habenaria strictissima Reichenbach f. var. odontopetala
(Reichenbach f.) L.O. Williams; Habenaria floribunda
Lindley misapplied), the toothed habenaria, is
common in central and southern Florida, becoming
very rare from Marion County northward with single
records from St. John & Duval Counties in northeastern
Florida but no records north of Marion County in
central or western Florida. It is widespread in Mexico,
the West Indies, and Central America.
147
FROM AND
A DELETION
7. The TO THE
5. Habenaria repens Nuttall, water spider orchid,

is one of the few truly aquatic orchids to be found.
Masses of several hundred floating plants can be found
and it will also frequently colonize wet roadside ditches
and canals. This species produces fewer sterile colonies
than the other four species, and is also the most wide-
ranging of the five species in the United States. It is
found throughout Florida and northward to
southeastern North Carolina and westward to Arkansas
and Texas. It is also found throughout Mexico, the
West Indies and Central America.
Paul Martin Brown

Research Associate,
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida Herbarium
PO Box 117800
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800
naorchid@aol.com
148
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: TAXONOMIC
FROM FLORIDA 7.OF
TheARKANSAS
Habenaria distans
false water-spider orchid
149
Johnson: ANFROM
ADDITION AND
FLORIDA 7. A Genus Habenaria
DELETION
The TO THE
Habenaria macroceratitis
long-horned habenaria
150
RECENT
Johnson:
Brown: TAXONOMIC
AN ADDITION AND AND DISTRIBUTIONAL
A DELETION NOTES
TO THE
FROM FLORIDA 7. OF
TheARKANSAS
Habenaria odontopetala
toothed habenaria
151
Brown: RECENTORCHIDACEAE
TAXONOMIC ANDOF DISTRIBUTIONAL
ARKANSAS NOTES
FROM FLORIDA 7. The Genus Habenaria
Habenaria quinqueseta
Michaux's orchid
152
FROM AND
A DELETION
7. The TO THE
Habenaria repens
water spider orchid
153
5th ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID

CONFERENCE
Olympic National Park
Port Angeles, Washington
July 16-20, 2000
Speakers will include:

Larry Zettler, Scott Stewart, Chuck Sheviak, Carol Ferguson &
Kathleen Donham; Cliff Pelchat; Penny Latham; Paul Martin
Brown, Ron Coleman, Lorne Heshka and special speaker Joe
Liggio author of Wild Orchids of Texas who will speak on the
Genus Hexalectris, as well as a very special presentation form
Europe on the bee orchids.
Field Trip highlights will
include:
Piperia candida
Piperia elegans
Piperia transversa
Piperia unalascensis
Epipactis gigantea
Cephelanthera austiniae
Listera caurina
Corallorhiza mertensiana
Platanthera hyperborea complex
Platanthera dilatata complex And
a special trip on the 20th to Lake
Elizabeth east of Seattle for
Platanthera chorisiana
Registrations should be sent to:
North American Native Orchid
Alliance
PO Box 759
Acton, ME 04001-0759
154
PlateJohnson: AN&ADDITION
1: Romero ANDbicarinata
Brown: Galeandra A DELETION TO THE
Figure 2. Galeandra
bicarinata G. A. Romero
& P. M. Brown.
Photographs from
Mosier Hammock,
Everglades National
Park, Miami-Dade
County, Florida October-
-November 1999.
155
Plate 2: Sheviak; Hudson, Coleman & Charles
Sheviak:
Figure 1: Platanthera dilatata
var. albiflora × P. stricta: Big
Horn Mountains, Sheridan
County, Wyoming. Sheviak &
Sheviak 6327 [NYS].
Hudson, Coleman &

Charles:
alcove rein orchid
Platanthera zothecina
Ron Coleman
156
Plate 3: Brown: Habenaria
false water spider

orchis
Habenaria distans
long-horned rein
orchis
Habenaria
macroceratitis
All Habenaria photos by

P.M. Brown
157
Plate 4: Brown: Habenaria
left:
Michaux's rein
orchis
Habenaria quinqueseta
below:
toothed rein
orchis
Habenaria
odontopetala
below:
water spider orchis
Habenaria repens
158

June 2000 North American Native Orchid Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2000 North American Native Orchid Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORTH AMERICAN

NATIVE ORCHID JOURNAL

The Journal welcomes articles, of any length, of both a scientific

2000 Membership in the North American Native Orchid Alliance,

REFINEMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS FROM

A PRELIMINARY POPULATION STUDY OF

THOSE PESKY FOOLERS REVISITED

AN ADDITION AND A DELETION TO THE

RECENT TAXONOMIC AND DISTRIBUTIONAL

5th ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN NATIVE ORCHID

As summer is coming upon us, many of our

This issue presents a wide variety of articles -

Despite a serious injury to myself in May in

Paul Martin Brown, editor

Abstract: Galeandra bicarinata, a new species in section

Resumen: Se describe y se ilustra Galeandra bicarinata, una

Resumo: Descreve-se e ilustra-se Galeandra bicarinata, uma

The genus Galeandra Lindl. & Bauer is divided

Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown,

Ex affinitate G. beyrichii Rchb.f. et specierum affinium

Plants terrestrial, the leafy shoot to 60 cm tall,

stipe and two yellow, spherical pollinia, 1.0 mm in

Etymology: from the Latin bi-, two, and carina, keel,

Distribution: Tropical Florida and Cuba.

Galeandra bicarinata is closely related to G. beyrichii,

Figure 1. Galeandra bicarinata G. A. Romero & P. M. Brown.

320; Dodson and Dodson, 1982, also reproduced in

Galeandra bicarinata was first observed in Florida

able to submit that to you. The area has been searched

An argument developed over the years whether

Reichenbach f. (1849) did not mention them in his

several plants in southern Florida, finally solving this

The pollinator of this group of Galeandra species

Finally, the present study suggests that Galeandra

Angell for figure 1, V. P. Castro N. for the Portuguese translation

Luer, C. A. 1972. The Native Orchids of Florida. The New York

Gustavo A. Romero-González, Curator, Oakes Ames Orchid

Paul Martin Brown, Research Associate, Florida Museum of

During last year's annual meeting (Tampa,

One focus of last year's presentation was the

plants in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona; rather

The one difficulty with this determination lay in

Accordingly, seemingly suitable habitat was

to the northeast. In general, Platanthera dilatata var.

What then is Luer's plant? In the absence of

rather prominent anther sacs more suggestive of P.

Hybridization of Platanthera dilatata with either P.

Luer, C. A. 1975. Native Orchids of the United States and Canada,

Contribution number 806 of the New York State Museum

Charles. J. Sheviak, Biological Survey, New York State Museum, Albany,

RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

HISTORICAL ORCHID COLLECTIONS

Giovanni da Verrazano was the first European to

Describing his trip in a letter to his patron king of

perfume wafted out to sea at great distance.” The letter

Years later, other explorers and settlers

Today, Brooklyn constitutes one of the five

Probably the most significant collection of all the

The last verified report of the spotted coralroot

It is impossible for present day botanists to

on herbarium labels, and these records are scanty and

We can deduce, however, that the rich woodland