Distribution Maps

Mary E. Barkworth

Intermountain Herbarium, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5305

Mary@biology.usu.edu

Distribution mapsAre the last phase in a taxonomic study. The order of events should be: Decide what the taxa are Determine the correct names to use Prepare the maps

The last two phases can be conducted simultaneously, but one must know the taxa before one can map them.

The ideal Examine all available specimens and

conduct fieldwork About 3000 specimens/species in North

American herbaria 666 separate herbaria in North America Borrowing, annotating, and returning

specimens requires time and money Field work requires time and money

Get real! People want the maps now, not 10 years from now.

Getting RealMonographic

work All your own work Borrow from

“representative” herbaria

Which herbaria? Use other

publications as a guide for loans

Floristic work Examine as many

as possible within time costraints

Take data from published works Databases

Here be problems ….

Three situations Unchanged, easily recognized taxa

No sweat, even if name changes Unchanged, difficult taxa

Sweat, whether or not names changed

Changed taxa Lumped? See ‘unchanged’ Split or shifted? MAJOR PAIN;

concentrate efforts here.

An example of splitting Hitchcock included Echinochloa

muricata in E. crusgalli (and used a specimen of E. muricata to illustrate the combined taxa).

Many regional floras followed suit Next slide shows maps based on

literature records Note political boundaries, and absence

of E. muricata from states where E. crusgalli is widespread.

Echinochloa – “original”

E. crusgalli E. muricata

Improving the maps Borrowed 600+ specimens from

representative herbaria of states where E. muricata appears to have been included in E. crusgalli

Concluded separation of E. crusgalli and E. muricata much easier than many other in the genus

Maps improved, but a LONG way from good – see next slide

Echinochloa – 600 specimens later

Persistent problems Eliminating record – DIFFICULT

UNLESS DATA ARE LINKED TO SPECIMENS

Adding records is EASY (time consuming, but easy)

The number of specimens one needs to examine

Towards a solution • Herbaria need to share data – ASPT

Initiative? Distribution maps should come from herbaria.

• Accept for mapping purposes, a standard taxonomic treatment

• Different standards for different regions• Identify required fields for mapping• Suggest additional fields that might be

useful• No coercion – at least, not without money

Benefits of herbaria-based distribution map center Focus attention on specimens

and herbaria Provide correctable and verifiable

maps Improve distributional information Stimulate interest in regional flora Make feedback and sharing of data

entry feasible

Feedback New state or county records New distribution records for taxon Occurrence of apparent duplicates

with different names Occurrence of apparent duplicates

with different lat/lon data

Ground rules - suggestions MUST assist, encourage, persuade,

promote involvement by all herbaria Must not restrict freedom of herbaria Encourage regional and state level

initiatives Charge for access beyond basic data?

People in other countries learn more about US because US makes data available for free. Do we want to stimulate interest and encourage institutional support?

Basic Fields - Suggestions Herbarium code, accession number FNA_name, Herbarium_name State/Province, County, Region? Dec. lat, dec. lon, UTM, TRS Collectors, collection number Annotater, annotation date Day, month, year

Optional Fields Locality, (landmark, adjective) Elevation, units Ecology (physical, substrate,

biological, associates) Past names

Conclusions Distribution maps have scientific

value, public appeal, and outreach potential

Distribution maps should be tightly linked to herbarium specimens

We need to encourage databasing The ASPT should take the lead in

encouraging this endeavor

POSTSCRIPT

Please send comments to mary@biology.usu.edu.

Feel free to copy them to Lynn Clark, President of ASPT (lgclark@iastate.edu), and Gerald Guala, Chairman of the ASPT’s Internet Communcations committee (stinger@fairchildgarden.org).