Solanum in Monterey County, California
Just a few links for now
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Solanum furcatum. I'm yet to see an example that convinces me. Pbs with good discussion:
Just a few links for now
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Solanum furcatum. I'm yet to see an example that convinces me. Pbs with good discussion:
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Query for observations with "Faciation=Yes" as an Observation Field:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?q=fasciation&verifiable=any
Specific examples of fasciation:
This obs has some good links in the comments by @hkibak: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/398314165
Just a quick brief post for now, about Cistus creticus.
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Subspecies creticus is the only one known from USA according to POWO:
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77228897-1
POWO recognizes two subspecies of C. creticus: ssp. creticus and ssp. eriocephalus. The former has glandular trichomes, the latter apparently does not (e.g. Papaedthimiou et al. 2014 citing Paolini et al. 2009). Falara et al. (2008, Fig. 1 ) provide a good photograph showing both the glandular trichomes, and the stellate trichomes common to both subspecies.
In observations from Monterey County, glandular trichomes are evident with the recognized morphology - ie. spherical heads at the tip of a long stalk:
Refs:
Observations with useful comments:
A few quick notes
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Super-quick post to record some quick notes about the weird colored ones...
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Please let me know if I'm missing something.
This post was initiated when I noticed about 25 Gastridium ventricosum ID's in Californnia on iNat. I've now suggested G. phleoides as an ID for all of them.
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
As far as I can discern from publications and floras, there's only one species of Gastridium currently regarded as occurring in California, and the currently accepted name for this species is Gastridium phleoides. It is native to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, non-native in North America, but widely distributed along the west coast.
Gastridium ventricosum is a separate species. It is native to Europe and north Africa, non-native in North America, found in Mexico (POWO), but not yet definitively recorded in USA.
The Flora of North America (Wipff 2007) says: "In North America, Gastridium phleoides has been mistakenly placed in G. ventricosum (Gouan) Schinz & Thell. It differs from that species in having densely pubescent lemmas and well-developed, densely pubescent rachilla prolongations."
To me, given the overlapping ranges in Europe for G. phleoides and G. ventricosum, it seems plausible that true G. ventricosum - i.e. as cirumscribed by Scoppola (2019) and Scoppola and Cancellieri (2019) - might show up in California or already may have done so. But it hasn't been reliable recorded yet.
Thus, all Gastridium in iNat in California are very best determined as G. phleoides.
Notes from specific references:
References:
Scoppola. 2019. "An annotated key to the species of Gastridium (Poaceae) with
distributional novelties to the Italian territory". Natural History Sciences. Atti Soc. it. Sci. nat. Museo civ. Stor. nat. Milano, 6 (2): 29-36, 2019 DOI: 10.4081.
Scoppola & Cancellieri. 2019. "Comparative morphometry as a diagnostic tool applied to species
delimitation in the genus Gastridium P. Beauv. (Poaceae)". Nordic Journal of Botany. e02377. doi: 10.1111/njb.02377
Nothing here yet.
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Observations with good discussion:
New post. Not much here yet
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
Stephanomeria confuse me, and this is perhaps in part due to problems with the TJM entry for Stephanomeria, which are noted by Tom Chester in about five pages on his site, for example in this page: https://tchester.org/plants/analysis/stephanomeria/virgata.html. For other Chester (& Wayne's World) pages, see links at bottom of this page. For example, something that I learned from Tom's page that is not apparent in TJM2 is that fruits are not simply grooved or not. Instead, there's a groove count which can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
Stephanomeria taxa in Monterey County according to Matthews & Mitchell (2015, 2nd ed., rev. 2025):
General distribution according to CalFLora:
Illustrations:
Observations with close-ups of fruit and/or pappus plumage:
Follow-ups worthwhile:
Other notes
FNA says the subspecies of S. virgata hybridize:
"The two subspecies of Stephanomeria virgata are often sympatric in southern California. Hybrids are found frequently."
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250067611
Observations with good discussion:
External links:
New page 8/23/26. Just started. Initially just covering Deinandra on Fort Ord.
(See also my other journal posts about particular taxa in Monterey County, California)
The basic idea of this post so far is that Fort Ord just has Deinandra corymbosa and Deinandra paniculata and that prior records of "Deinandra increscens" by Styer and by Keil should now be considered D. paniculata. Feel free to chime in, though.
Credit: @reodell was the first to establish on iNat that D. paniculata extends as far north as Fort Ord. This derived in part from @reodell's communications with Bruce Baldwin at the Jepson Herbarium regarding a 2009 study that I've subsequently followed up on with Bruce (see below).
Fort Ord has two Deinandra taxa: D. corymbosa and D. paniculata. A third taxon, D. increscens is now argued to not occur on Fort Ord, despite records by Keil and by Styer, and entries in various floras.
Regarding D. paniculata vs D. increscens on Fort Ord: Baldwin (pers. comm. to FW) made an unpublished (2009) genetic and morphologic comparison of D. paniculata & D. increscens populations from southern and central California, including plants from Fort Ord (Henneken Pools) and Old Stage road in Monterey County. The species were distinguished genetically on the basis of two 18S-26S rDNA ITS lineages, nominally referred to as "interior" and "coastal". Most D. paniculata populations exhibited just the "interior" lineages, whereas D. increscens populations exhibited either just the "coastal" lineage, or both lineages. With this genetic basis for assigning a species to most populations, morphological correlates could be established. A key genetically-supported morphological distinction could be made at the population level regarding variation in ray count, with D. paniculata populations consistently exhibiting 8 rays per head, and D. increscens populations including plants with a range of ray counts from 8 to 14. The Fort Ord population was noted as having a consistent 8-ray count, supporting a paniculata ID. It also had just the "interior" ITS lineage, also supporting paniculata, but with a note about this being tentative due to less sampling of the Fort Ord population than of other populations.
From what I've seen at Fort Ord so far, our paniculata (i.e. long-pappussed) populations consistently have 8 rays, and thus are paniculata (i.e. not increscens) given the best information we have on the question to date. Any time I've seen more than 8 rays and checked the pappus, the pappus has proven to be 0.0--0.9 mm i.e. D. corymbosa. D. corymbosa populations (i.e. short-pappussed populations) will apparently sometimes have some heads with as low as 8 or 9 rays. But they seem to be merely one end of a range of ray-counts that could be discovered by examining more heads in the population, especially at peak season in good years.
Regarding D. paniculata vs D. corymbosa in northern Monterey County: The necessary evidence seems to require a combination of ray counts and pappus morphology. Just using ray counts alone is uncertain, because ray counts can vary on a plant, can be quite variable within a taxon, and even extend outside the published count ranges. The three tables below attempt to illustrate the situation. The third one - "Expanded table" - is perhaps most useful. It illustrates how we can view plants where the ray count overlaps the ranges of two of the taxa in question here. We have plants with ray count > 15, and they are corymbosa. We have plants with ray count 14 (5/15/25a, 8/22/26), which - if that's all we knew - could be increscens or perhaps a corymbosa head where a ray is missing or hidden from view. But such plants on Ft Ord have short pappi, so they must be corymbosa (see obs linked in previous sentence). Here's a 9-rayed short-pappus plant that we're calling corymbosa as an example of how some corymbosa heads on Ft Ord can have fewer rays than Jepson indicates: 5/15/25b. There are several more of these few-rayed short-pappussed corymbosa in the links listed below. If we find a long-pappussed 11--15-rayed plant, the situation would need to be re-examined. We probably have plants with ray count 7, and they would be paniculata. That leaves please with ray count 8--10. We have these; they have long pappi; and if that's all we knew, they could be paniculata or increscens. But, since it seems we have no plants (so far) that are definitely increscens (i.e. 11--15 rayed and long-pappussed), it seems unlikely that any of the 8--10-rayed ones would be increscens.
I'm told that scent is a important discriminator, too (@reodell):
I've come to quite like the acrid creosote-like smell of corymbosa, but I recall not liking it at first snifff some years ago. Maybe it just reminds me of all the joys of late summer fieldwork. I'm still working on developing my own personal comparative sense of the scent of paniculata (vs *corymbosa).
Overall plant stature & habit also seems to be distinct. I haven't noticed this mentioned in the floras. But from what I've seen, D. paniculata stands tall with a prominent central axis sometimes extending at least half of the plant height before any substantial branching. D. corymbosa is branched much lower down, sometimes at the base or possibly even beneath the soil, giving the whole plant a somewhat tangled appearance.
Other characters of course have bearing too, but they are perhaps less diagnostic. D. paniculata can be taller than D. increscens. Leaf lobes, dentition, and vestiture can differ. D. paniculata inflorescences can be more open. *D. increscens: phyllaries can be longer. Etc.
Table of Jepson descriptions for ray count and pappus morphology
| Disk flower pappus | Ray flowers (7)8(10) | Ray flowers 8--13(15) | Ray flowers 15--35 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pappus 0 or crown-like, of irregular, entire to deeply cut scales 0.1--0.9 mm | - | - | corymbosa |
| Pappus of 5(14), linear, lance-linear, or oblong, fringed to deeply cut scales 1--2 mm, often >= 1/2 corolla length | - | increscens | - |
| Pappus of 6--12, oblong, fringed scales 1--2 mm, often >= 1/2 corolla length | paniculata | - | - |
Simplified table
| Disk flower pappus | Ray flowers (7)8(10) | Ray flowers 8--13(15) | Ray flowers >= 15 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pappus short | - | - | corymbosa |
| Pappus long | - | increscens | - |
| Pappus long | paniculata | - | - |
Expanded table
| Disk flower pappus | Ray flowers 7 | Ray flowers 8--10 | Ray flowers 11--15 | Ray flowers > 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pappus short | - | - | Few-rayed corymbosa. Occurs on Fort Ord, but as an exception to descriptions published to date |
corymbosa |
| Pappus long | - | Overlap | increscens (Arguably not known from Ft Ord) |
- |
| Pappus long | paniculata | Overlap | - | - |
Local pappus observations
On 8/22/26, I looked at the pappi on four Deinandra plants from four different locations in the area where Styer has both increscens and corymbosa mapped. Three of them had the short irregular pappus scales of corymbosa, and they otherwise also appeared as what we on iNat in the 2020s have been calling corymbosa (i.e. higher ray count, habitat often near moisture). One of them had the longer regular pappus scales of paniculata and otherwise also appeared as what we have been calling paniculata (lower ray count, drier habitat, sometimes taller plant with a long main stem before the branches branch out). These and other pappus record are listed below.
Deinandra obs with pappus photos:
Inconsistency between current thesis and prior records
That leaves the question of why Styer mapped increscens widely over this region in his 2019 "Flora of Fort Ord"
It seems to me that the Styer (2019) IDs are incorrect. Given the low ray count of both paniculata and increscens, and paniculata not being historically known from the region, it seems to me that Styer likely mapped paniculata as increscens, without always checking the pappi. He may have also mapped some low-count corymbosa as increscens, because his increscens map is much more extensive than where I've personally seen paniculata. Styer acknowledges the uncertainty by stating (under D. increscens) "Although I find this species difficult to separate in the field from Deinandra corymbosa, we seem to have widespread records. First Ft. Ord specimen: 5/28/2003, David J. Keil."
Apart from the Styer records, CalFlora has just two increscens records, by David Keil on 5/28/03. The location accuracy on these is weak (500m and 860m). I'd bet they are what we'd now call paniculata.
D. paniculata wasn't historically known to extend this far north. And TJM Online still (8/23/26) doesn't include Fort Ord in the Bioregional Distribution map.
A quick list of links to observations with comments that I'll eventually try to summarize here on this post:
CalFlora for D. increscns - likely incorrect if it still shows increscens on Fort Ord:
TJMO for Deinandra: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_keys.php?key=77577
Useful quote from @reodell: "Deinandra corymbosa often has < 15 ray flowers in the Monterey Bay area" https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/56650787
Another useful quote from @reodell: "I had some email discussion about this with Bruce Baldwin at UC Berkeley. A range-wide genetic study of populations of D. increscens and D. paniculata he conducted (unpublished, 2009) shows this population to be D. paniculata. Both D. increscens subsp. increscens and D. paniculata are present in Monterey County, even though Plants of Monterey County (Matthews and Mitchell) does not include D. paniculata." https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/61908019
I wondered "If D. increscens occurs in Mo Co, then where?". I think the answer is way down in the extreme southeast near Burro Mountain i.e. disjunct from all the northern Mo Co populations.
And from @leafybye: "D. paniculata was once a subspecies of D. increscens, and is quite similar. So, they are very similar. So, for me, I’m only very confident once I dissect a head or two, count the disks, and count the pappus scales. It seems the pappus scales are a good way to be sure." https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/61908019
Based on data downloaded from bryophyteportal.org / Consortium of Bryophyte Herbaria (CBH).
Referenced by Bryophytes in Monterey County, California
626 taxa, after lumping synonyms..
Each row includes: phylum, class, order, family, taxon, synonyms, taxon status, and counts of observations in four geographic areas.
The data processing involved here is: