P

LANT 

S

CIENCE

Bulletin

SUMMER 2015 Volume 61 Number 2

In This Issue..............

Naomi Volain honored as a 

top 10 nominee for the Global 

Teacher Prize.... p. 58

Award winners announced for 

Botany 2015.... p. 30

1st place triarch  

botanical images student travel awards

Jennifer dixon, iowa state university

Flowers from 

eragrostis cilianensis (stinkgrass)

Post-doc unionization at the 

University of California... p. 40

From the Editor

                                                                    Summer 2015 Volume 61 Number 2

PLANT SCIENCE  

BULLETIN  

Editorial Committee  

Volume 61

Kathryn LeCroy  

(2018) 

Biological Sciences, Ecology and 

Evolution 

University of Pittsburgh 

4249 Fifth Avenue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 

kalecroy@gmail.com

Lindsey K. Tuominen 

(2016) 

Warnell School of Forestry & 

Natural Resources 

The University of Georgia 

Athens, GA  30605 

lktuomin@uga.edu

Daniel K. Gladish 

(2017) 

Department of Botany &  

The Conservatory 

Miami University  

Hamilton, OH  45011 

gladisdk@muohio.edu

Carolyn M. Wetzel 

(2015) 
Biology Department 

Division of Health and  

Natural Sciences 

Holyoke Community College 

303 Homestead Ave 

Holyoke, MA 01040 

cwetzel@hcc.edu

As the Summer 2015 Plant Science Bulletin goes to 

press, many of us are transitioning from the spring 

semester into the summer. I find this an especially 

bittersweet time of year as I wrap up classes and say 

goodbye to Creighton’s graduating seniors. It is a time 

to reflect on the past academic year, celebrate achieve-

ments, and eat University-catered petit fours. 

Fortunately, this time of year also means honoring 

members of the Botanical Society with well-earned 

awards. In this issue, we are proud to announce the 

winners of the Kaplan Memorial Lecture and Public 

Policy Awards. We also present the winners of sev-

eral student awards, including the Karling and BSA 

Graduate Student Research, Undergraduate Stu-

dent Research, Cheadle Travel, and Young Botanist 

Awards. You can find the winning Triarch images on 

pages 33-34 and I encourage you to view all the Tri-

arch submissions at https://botany.org/PlantImages/

ConantSTA2015.php. 

Congratulations to all of these commendable 

botanists! The Society will be considering many ad-

ditional awards over the next few months and we will 

profile more winners in the Fall issue. These will in-

clude those named to the Society’s highest honor, Dis-

tinguished Fellow of the Botanical Society of America 

(previously the Merit Award).

In addition to these award winners, I am particu-

larly pleased to draw your attention to two articles in 

this issue that focus on diversity in botany. The article 

by Michael J. Dockry (page 35) discusses the value 

of human diversity and inclusion for science and ex-

plores strategies for fostering diversity in scientific re-

search. The essay by Jessica M. Budke (page 40) also 

speaks to strategies for achieving inclusion by enhanc-

ing postdoc visibility and facilitating professional suc-

cess at this critical career stage. Both of these articles 

should provide ample food for thought. 

Also in this issue, you’ll find news from the Edu-

cation, Investment, and Public Policy committees and 

I encourage you to participate in the survey developed 

by the Public Policy Committee (link on page 63). 

This committee needs your responses to help guide 

their activities and shape the role of our in society in 

the public policy arena. 

As July approaches, I am looking forward to head-

ing North for this year’s Botany meeting. I hope that 

many of you will be able to join me and, as always, 

the Plant Science Bulletin will bring you the highlights. 

                                               See you in Edmonton! 

Melanie Link-Perez  

(2019)

Department of Biology  

Armstrong State University 

11935 Abercorn Street 

Savannah, GA  31419    

melanie.link-perez@armstrong.edu

29

Table of Contents

Society News

Botanical Society of America Award Winners .................................................................30

Enhancing institutions and research through human diversity: Reflections on  

diversity, inclusion, and the future of plant and natural resource sciences ...............35

Postdocs: Improving our Visibility in the Research Workforce .......................................40

Grady Webster Euphorbiaceae Virtual Herbarium and Publications ................................44

The Bryological Works of Rudolf M. Schuster ................................................................45

Mesophytification, not mesophication ..............................................................................55

BSA Science Education News and Notes

Math and Biology: Improving Students’ Quantitative Literacy .......................................57 

BSA Member Naomi Volain honored in the Global Teacher Prize ..................................58

PlantingScience as “Broader Impacts” .............................................................................59

BSA Committees in Action

Where Goes the BSA Endowment:  A Legacy Yet to be Written .....................................61

A Word from the Education Committee  ..........................................................................62

Public Policy News ...........................................................................................................63

Student Section

A Word from the Student Representatives ........................................................................64

Announcements

In 

Memoriam - James (Jim) Lauritz Reveal .....................................................................66

Book Reviews

Ecological  ........................................................................................................................68

Economic Botany  ............................................................................................................70

Physiological  ...................................................................................................................72

Systematics  ......................................................................................................................73

Shaw Convention Centre - Edmonton

July 25 - 29, 2015

Registration Site now open  

 www.botanyconference.org

30

The BSA Graduate Student 

Research Awards

The BSA Graduate Student Research Awards 

support graduate student research and are awarded 

on the basis of research proposals and letters of 

recommendations. Within the award group is the 

J. S. Karling Graduate Student Research Award. 

This award was instituted by the Society in 1997 

with funds derived through a generous gift from 

the estate of the eminent mycologist, John Sidney 

Karling (1897-1994), and it supports and promotes 

graduate student research in the botanical sciences.

J. S. Karling Graduate Student 

Research Award

Anne Lucy Stilger Virnig, New York Botanical 

Garden & The Graduate Center of the City 

University of New York (Advisor, Dr. Amy Litt), 

“From molecular systems to human systems: An 

interdisciplinary approach to evaluating antioxidant 

activity and conservation in the neotropical 

blueberries”

BSA Graduate Student Research 

Awards

Daniella Allevato, Cornell University (Advisor, 

Dr. Kevin C. Nixon), “Modeling the evolution 

of phytochemical diversity in Pilocarpus  via a 

combined phylogenetic and environmental analysis”

Jennifer Blake, Rutgers University (Advisor, Dr. 

Lena Struwe), “Temporal, spatial, and environmental 

dimensions of variable sex expression in striped 

maple, Acer pensylvanicum (Sapindaceae)”

Katharine Cary, University of California, Santa 

Cruz (Advisor, Dr. Jarmila Pittermann), “Small 

trees, big problems: leaf function under extreme 

edaphic stress in the pygmy forests of northern 

California”

Chloe P. Drummond, University of Wisconsin-

Madison (Advisor, Dr. Kenneth J. Sytsma), “Great 

Lakes-Western North America Disjuncts: a study on 

the phylogeography, timing, and climate niche space 

of three representative lineages”

Katherine Eisen, Cornell University (Advisor, 

Dr. M. A. Geber, “Ecological and evolutionary 

consequences of pollinator sharing in flowering plant 

communities”

Claire Ellwanger, Northwestern University 

& The Chicago Botanic Garden (Advisor, Dr. 

Jeremie Fant), “Genetic assessment of management 

and restoration practices of the federally threatened 

orchid, Platanthera leucophaea (The Eastern Fringed 

Prairie Orchid)”

Nicole J. Forrester, University of Pittsburgh 

(Advisor, Dr. Tia-Lynn Ashman), “Do doubled 

genomes double species’ ranges? Implications for 

plant invasions”

Jacob M. Heiling, Dartmouth College (Advisor, 

Dr. Rebecca Irwin), “Ecological significance of pollen 

secondary chemistry”

Julie Herman, University of California, 

Santa Cruz (Advisor, Dr. Kathleen M. Kay), “A 

phylogenetic approach to plant chemical defense”

Israel Jimenez, California State University, Los 

Angeles (Advisor, Dr. Kirsten Fisher), “Meiotic 

sex ratios in the Mojave Desert moss Syntrichia 

caninervis”

Joshua Scott Lynn, University of New Mexico 

(Advisor, Dr. Jennifer Rudgers), “King of the Hill? 

Potential for novel biotic interactions to limit plant 

elevational distributions”

Nora Mitchell, University of Connecticut 

(Advisor, Dr. Kent Holsinger), “Using natural 

hybrids to investigate trait-environment associations 

and stress response in an evolutionary radiation”

Nabil Nasseri, University of Vermont (Advisor, 

Dr. Alison K. Brody), “Ant-hemipteran mutualisms: 

host plant antagonist or ‘budding’ mutualist?”

Juliet Oshiro, University of California, Santa 

Cruz (Advisor, Dr. Laurel Fox), “Predicting 

flowering phenology responses to climate: integrating 

long-term data, plant traits and experiments”

Amber Paasch, Richard Gilder Graduate 

School, American Museum of Natural History 

(Advisors, Drs. Eunsoo Kim and Susan Perkins), 

“Characterization of a unique method of bacteria 

ingestion in green algae by fluorescence and electron 

microscopy”

Society News

Botanical Society of America  

Award Winners

31

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Vernon I. Cheadle Student 

Travel Awards

(BSA in association with the 

Developmental and Structural 

Section)

This award was named in honor of the memory 

and work of Dr. Vernon I. Cheadle. The Cheadle 

awards are given by the BSA in association with the 

Developmental and Structural Section

Jessica Chu, Humboldt State University (Advisor, 

Dr. Alexandru M.F. Tomescu), for the Botany 2015 

presentation: “Reappraising the flora of the Battery 

Point Formation (Québec) – additional diversity of 

Early Devonian permineralized plants” Co-author: 

Alexandru M.F. Tomescu

Mario Coiro, ETH Zurich (Advisor, Dr. Elisabeth 

Truernit), for the Botany 2015 presentation: 

“Epidermal morphology and the diversification of 

the cycads” Co-authors: James E. Mickle and Maria 

Rosaria Barone Lumaga

Jacob Landis, University of Florida (Advisor, Dr. 

Pamela Soltis), for the Botany 2015 presentation: 

“Investigating the genetic underpinnings of 

corolla cell size and shape differences in Saltugilia 

(Polemoniaceae)” Co-authors: Rebecca O’Toole, 

Kayla Ventura, Douglas Soltis, and Pamela Soltis

Aniket Sengupta, Kansas University (Advisor, 

Dr. Lena Hileman), for the Botany 2015 

presentation: “Testing the role of bilateral flower 

symmetry genes in eudicot lineages with radial 

flowers” Co-author: Lena Hileman

The BSA Undergraduate Student  

Research Awards

The BSA Undergraduate Student Research 

Awards support undergraduate student research 

and are determined on the basis of research 

proposals and letters of recommendation. The 2015 

award recipients are:

Alexander C. Bippus, Humboldt State University 

(Advisor, Dr. Alexandru M.F. Tomescu): “Exploring 

phylogenetic relationships in the Polytrichaceae 

(Bryophyta) using fossils and morphology”

Wilnelia Recart, University of California, 

Irvine (Advisor, Dr. Diane Campbell), “Beyond the 

ecological: can presence of an invader affect floral 

selection in a native species?”

Anthony Slominski, Montana State University 

(Advisor, Dr. Laura Burkle), “The effects of climate-

driven phenological shifts on plant-pollinator 

interactions and plant and pollinator reproductive 

success”

Rebecca Stubbs, Florida Museum of Natural 

History and University of Florida (Advisors, Drs. 

Nico Cellinese and Doug Soltis), “Understanding 

the Arctic flora: Using a model plant group to study 

evolution at high latitudes”

Brittany L. Sutherland, University of Virginia 

(Advisor, Dr. Laura F. Galloway), “Interploid gene 

flow at independent contact zones in Campanula 

rotundifolia”

Christine Urbanowicz, Dartmouth College 

(Advisor, Dr. Rebecca E. Irwin), “The influence 

of neighboring plants on pollination and plant 

reproduction across a stress gradient”

Donald R. Kaplan Memorial 

Lecture

The Kaplan Lecture consists of a synthetic talk in 

the area of comparative development that reviews 

a topic for a general botanical audience while 

providing novel insights based on new or newly 

analyzed data.

This year’s lecture will be given by Dr. Juerg 

Schoenenberger, Department of Botany and 

Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Vienna 

“Who dares to call oneself a plant morphologist?”

BSA Public Policy Award

The Public Policy Award was established in 2012 

to support the development of tomorrow’s leaders 

and a better understanding of this critical area. The 

2015 recipients are Andrew Pais, North Carolina 

State University, and Ingrid Jordon-Thaden, a 

postdoc at Bucknell University.

32

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Nicolas Diaz, Bucknell University (Advisor, Dr. 

Christopher T. Martine), “Determining the invasive 

potential of cultivated Ilex opaca”

Emma Frawley, Bucknell University (Advisors, 

Drs. Christopher T. Martine and Ingrid Jordon-

Thaden), “Solanum  ‘bullita’: the biological and 

political processes of defining a new species”

Laryssa Gavala, Bucknell University (Advisor, 

Dr. Christopher T. Martine), “Effect of fire on seed 

germination in Solanum beaugleholei”

Daniel Hayes, Bucknell University (Advisors, 

Drs. Christopher T. Martine and Ingrid Jordon-

Thaden), “Flow cytometric seed screen of the 

apomictic alpine mustard, Draba oligosperma 

Hook, from the North American Cordillera”

Jens Johnson, University of Washington 

(Advisor, Dr. Verónica S. Di Stilio), “Mechanisms of 

polyploidy and their effect on flower diversification”

L. Mae Lacey, Bucknell University (Advisors, 

Drs. Christopher T. Martine and Elizabeth 

Capaldi), “Exploring the potential for Solanum fruit 

ingestion and seed dispersal by macropod species in 

the Northern Territory, Australia”

Sean Peña, Florida International University 

(Advisor, Dr. Suzanne Koptur), “Diurnal and 

nocturnal pollination of the rough-leaf velvetseed, 

Guettarda scabra (Rubiaceae)”

Amanda M. Salvi, University of Michigan—

Ann Arbor (Advisor, Dr. Selena Y. Smith), “Effect 

of canopy shading on morphology, physiology, and 

self-shading in spiral gingers (Costus)”

The BSA Young Botanist Awards

The purpose of these awards is to offer individual 

recognition to outstanding graduating seniors 

in the plant sciences and to encourage their 

participation in the Botanical Society of America. 

The 2015 “Certificate of Special Achievement” 

award recipients are:

Christa Unger, Humboldt State University 

(Advisor, Dr. Alexandru M. Tomescu)

Kolby Lundgren, Humboldt State University 

(Advisor, Dr. Alexandru M. Tomescu)

Steven Unger, Florida International University 

(Advisor, Dr. Bradley Bennett)

Christine Carson, University of Missouri 

(Advisor, Dr. Candace Galen)

Jessica Kettenbach, University of Missouri 

(Advisor, Dr. Candace Galen)

Dan Evanich, Connecticut College (Advisor, Dr. 

Chad Jones)

Tory Stewart, Connecticut College (Advisor, Dr. 

Chad Jones)

Morgan Roche, Bucknell University (Advisor, 

Dr. Chris Martine)

Ally Boni, Bucknell University (Advisor, Dr. 

Chris Martine)

Ian Gilman, Bucknell University (Advisor, Dr. 

Chris Martine)

L. Ruth Rivkin, University of Guelph (Advisor, 

Dr. Christina Caruso)

Ben Kerb, University of Kansas (Advisor, Dr. 

Daniel J. Crawford)

Kristine Altrichter, Creighton University 

(Advisor, Dr. Mackenzie Taylor)

Margarita Hernandez, University of Florida 

(Advisor, Dr. Pamela S. Soltis)

E. Geretz, Rutgers University (Advisor, Dr. Myla 

Aronson)

Michael Coe, University of Hawaii (Advisor, Dr. 

Tom A. Ranker)

Monica Dittbern, University of Hawaii (Advisor, 

Dr. Tom A. Ranker)

Katie Ann Smith, University of Hawaii (Advisor, 

Dr. Tom A. Ranker)

The BSA PLANTS Grant Recipients

The PLANTS (Preparing Leaders and Nurturing 

Tomorrow’s Scientists: Increasing the diversity of 

plant scientists) program recognizes outstanding 

undergraduates from diverse backgrounds and 

provides travel grants and mentoring for these 

students.

Alicia Butko, Widener University (Advisor, Dr. 

Kate Goodrich)

Emma Fryer, Humboldt State University 

(Advisors, Drs. Michael Mesler and Alexandru 

Tomescu)

Patrick Gallagher, The College of New Jersey 

(Advisor, Dr. Wendy Clement)

Jose Miguel Hernandez Ochoa, University of 

Wisconsin (Advisor, Dr. Juan Zalapa)

33

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Angelina Viviana Martinez, University of 

Florida (Advisors, Drs. Christine Davis and Pamela 

Soltis)

Jesus Medina, California State University - Los 

Angeles (Advisor, Dr. Craig Barrett)

Madeline Metten, University of Northern 

Colorado (Advisor, Dr. Mitchel McGlaughlin)

Andre Naranjo, University of Miami (Advisor, 

Dr. Barbara Whitlock)

Chelsea Pretz, Harris-Stowe State University 

(Advisors, Drs. John MacDougal and Allison 

Miller)

Mercedes Santiago, Kansas State University 

(Advisor, Dr. Carolyn Ferguson)

Maryan Sedaghatpour, George Mason 

University (Advisors, Drs. Jorid van der Ham and 

Andrea Weeks)

Gary Sur, University of Hawaii - Hilo (Advisor, 

Dr. Elizabeth Stacy)

Imena Valdes, Florida International University 

(Advisor, Dr. Suzanne Koptur)

Joshua Wiese, University of Nebraska at Kearney 

(Advisor, Dr. Bryan Drew)

Economic Botany Section 

Student Travel Awards

Elliot Gardner, Northwestern University / 

Chicago Botanic Garden (Advisor, Nyree Zerega) 

for the Botany 2015 presentation: “Basic research 

with practical applications: Phylogenomics and 

pollination biology in a genus of underutilized tree 

crops (Artocarpus, Moraceae)” Co-author: Nyree 

Zerega 

Colin Khoury, Wageningen University (Advisor, 

Paul Struik) for the Botany 2015 presentation 

“Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies, 

agricultural research funding, and recommendations 

for diversifying food systems”

1st Place: A Flower of a Different 

Color

Jennifer Dixon 

Iowa State University

Grass flowers are rarely seen and often 

misunderstood. Most people who think of 

flowers imagine colorful petals and a multitude 

of arrangements, while in the grasses, flowers 

are tiny but can be just as diverse and beautiful 

as other flowering plants. This image is indeed a 

flower—actually, several tiny flowers called florets. 

Here we see the delicate “petals” called a palea and 

lemma, which enclose the reproductive structures 

within. Grass specialists (agrostologists) can often 

identify a species of grass just by looking at these 

tiny inflorescences. Note the purple shades at 

the tip of each floret, the serrated edges, and the 

cream-colored veins. This image was taken from 

dried specimens moistened with Pohl’s solution, a 

mix of water and detergent that is used to soften 

dried specimens so they are easier to dissect. The 

darkened shaped within the delicate “petals” are the 

ovary and stamen of these delicate grass flowers.

Triarch “Botanical Images” 

Student Travel Awards 

Established by Dr. Paul Conant, and supported 

by TRIARCH Incorporated, this award provides 

acknowledgement and travel support to BSA 

meetings for outstanding student work coupling 

digital images (botanical) with scientific 

explanations/descriptions designed for the general 

public. 

Family: Poaceae; Taxon: Eragrostis cilianensis; 

Common Name: stinkgrass; candy grass; gray 

lovegrass

34

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

3rd Place: The Largest 

Pollination Event on Earth

Alaina Petlewski 

Humboldt State University 

An almond tree (Prunus dulcis) in an orchard 

outside Visalia, CA being pollinated by a honeybee 

(Apis mellifera). Roughly half of all flowering plants 

are self-incompatible, meaning that fertilization by 

gametes originating from the same plant or a close 

relative cannot occur. The almond tree (Prunus 

dulcis) is a prime example of a self-incompatible 

plant. Pollen must somehow make it from the 

stamen of an almond flower to the stigma of 

another, unrelated almond flower. Strictly from 

a statistical point of view, the likelihood of this 

happening without outside interaction seems 

slim. So, how does this potentially delicate system 

involving a self-incompatible plant, not pollinated 

by wind, make up an $11 billion industry in 

California? The answer is simple: honeybees, and 

lots of them. An estimated 1.6 million colonies are 

required every year to pollinate the 790,000 acres of 

almond trees in California. This could easily be the 

largest coordinated pollination event worldwide.

2nd Place: Bright Colors and 

Strong Scents

Rebecca Povilus 

Harvard University

Flowers of Illicium floridanum are showstoppers, 

both for eyes and noses. The vivid crimson of I. 

floridanum flowers distinguishes it from the other 

North American Illicium species (I. parviflorum), 

which has more demure, pale-yellow flowers. But 

that’s not the only tip-off: flowers of I. floridianum 

smell like fresh fish. Furthermore, flowers of I. 

floridanum are thermogenic, meaning that they 

produce heat though internal, metabolic reactions. 

Warm flowers may help to make their unique 

scent even stronger and have been hypothesized 

to provide a cozy retreat for midges, which are a 

common pollinator for this species. And perhaps 

the smelly flowers are not so surprising after all—

Illicium species around the world are known for 

their fragrances, whether as part of the flowers, 

leaves, bark, or fruit (you may have seen and tasted 

the fruits of the south-Asian I. verum as the spice 

star anise).

Family: Schisandraceae; Taxon: Illicium floridanum; 

Common Name: Stink-bush

Family: Rosaceae; Taxon: Prunus; Common Name: 

Almond

35

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Feature Article

Enhancing institutions and 

research through human 

diversity: Reflections on 

diversity, inclusion, and the 

future of plant and natural 

resource sciences

1

By Michael J. Dockry 

US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 

Saint Paul, MN 

E-mail: mdockry@fs.fed.us 

DOI: 10.3732/psb.1500002 

Submitted 27 February 2015. 
Accepted 15 April 2015.

Abstract

Many research institutions and professional 

societies are looking to enhance the diversity of 

their members, employees, and scientists. To do 

this, their efforts often focus on recruitment and 

retention of minority employees and employees 

from protected classes (e.g., race, religion, sex, age); 

however, recruitment and retention efforts can 

prove difficult and do not capture the full potential 

of increasing institutional diversity. In this essay, 

I discuss how we can foster human diversity and 

improve our research simultaneously. Based on 

the literature and personal experiences, I  suggest 

that increasing diversity is crucial to improving 

the capacity of our institutions to provide service 

to others. For this reason institutions should make 

diversity a core part of their missions.

Key Words: diversity; human diversity; 

inclusion; institutional missions; science research; 

service

Human diversity, inclusion, equity, difference, 

campus climate, cultural transformation, inclusive 

excellence… these are all words that have been 

used by individuals and institutions to address 

disparities in scholastic achievement, health 

outcomes, social and economic status, and the 

composition of our institutions. People view these 

words from many different perspectives. Some 

of us view them as civil rights issues. Some view 

them as irrelevant for a modern day merit-based 

society. Still others view them as important issues 

for our institutions to tackle. Oftentimes I hear 

people either reject diversity or promote diversity 

“for diversity’s sake.” No matter how we view these 

words, everyone is affected by them. In this essay 

I use personal experiences and relevant literature 

to suggest that promoting and increasing diversity 

is a crucial ingredient to improving the capacity of 

our institutions to provide service to others. I then 

show that for this reason institutions should make 

diversity a core part of their mission. This essay is 

based on a panel presentation I gave at the Edward 

A. Bouchet Graduate Honor Society meeting at 

Yale University in 2011 and a keynote presentation 

I gave at the Botany 2014 Enhancing Scientist 

Diversity in Plant Biology Luncheon in Boise, ID. 

Over the course of my career I have cared 

deeply about collaboration and the inclusion of 

multiple perspectives in my work. As a US Peace 

Corps volunteer in Bolivia in the late 1990s, I saw 

firsthand how multiple perspectives could come 

together through collaborative planning for a 

public/private protected area bordering a national 

park. When working as the assistant forest planner 

for the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National 

Forests in the early 2000s, I worked with a team 

to revise the national forest plans based on the 

premise of collaboration, shared learning, and 

inclusion. In both these planning processes, we 

believed that the greater the number of perspectives 

we could get to the table to discuss the issues and 

possible solutions for forest management, the 

better forest management plans we could develop. 

We strove not only to include different voices in the 

discussion, but we provided different opportunities 

for involvement. Collaboration and inclusion were 

core principles of our projects and were deliberately 

incorporated throughout the entire planning 

process.

More recently, I have been reflecting upon 

the value of diversity and inclusion for scientific 

research. As a member of the Citizen Potawatomi 

Nation, one of the 566 federally recognized 

American Indian tribes in the United States, I have 

been acutely aware of the lack of tribal voices in 

many research projects, formal education, and our 

institutions (for the entire list of federally recognized 

tribes, see Department of Interior [2014]). When I 

was studying ecology in the early 1990s, it was not 

uncommon for scientists to view historical tribal 

influences upon the land and forest resources as 

minimal. Debates over the amount of influence 

tribes had on forest and ecosystem structure before 

the United States was founded would devolve into 

36

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

discussions about historical human population 

numbers. More people, according to many 

researchers at the time, equaled more impact and 

fewer people meant less impact. Because I studied 

forestry and ecology, these discussions often 

revolved around fire. As a student, I remember 

thinking, “How many people does it take to start a 

large forest fire?” For me, debates about American 

Indian historical population sizes did not focus 

on the right question. The right question was how 

did and how do tribal people think about their 

relationship to the land and what do those cultural 

values mean for land management now and in 

the past. In the early and mid-1990s it felt like 

my perspective was in the minority. Today, there 

are many people asking these broader questions 

and we are better off as a scientific community 

because of it. While not new to American Indian 

communities, Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

is now an accepted and growing area of innovative 

and inclusive research (see Pierotti and Wildcat, 

2000; Berkes, 2012; Kimmerer, 2013; Emery et 

al., 2014; Whyte, 2014 for some recent examples). 

These personal experiences illustrate the power of 

incorporating a diversity of perspectives into our 

research. Different perspectives allow us to ask 

novel questions and gain new insights. 

So, why is diversity and inclusion important for 

our institutions and for science? For one thing, our 

country is diverse and changing. According to US 

Census Bureau estimates, the 2015 US population 

is around 321 million people; 50.7% female; 61.7% 

white non-Hispanic; 17.7% Hispanic; 13.2% 

Black; 5.5% Asian; and 1.5% American Indian/

Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian (US Census 

Bureau, 2014). In other words, the non-white and 

Hispanic population today is about 38% of the US 

population and is expected to grow in the next 

several decades to the point where white non-

Hispanics are projected to comprise less than 50% 

of the population by 2045 (US Census Bureau, 

2014). These are important trends for our society, 

universities, public institutions, scientific research, 

and for the plant sciences and natural resources. 

These demographic shifts will change what people 

expect from our institutions, how people think 

about natural resources, what their goals are for 

natural resource management, and their views on 

what are our most pressing research problems and 

how to solve them.

At the same time, our society is becoming more 

globalized. Not only are there people from every 

corner of the world living in the United States, but 

our environmental and social problems have become 

global in nature. Climate change and biodiversity 

loss are both global processes. Solutions to global 

problems require multiple perspectives to develop 

solutions. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, and 

erosion of social cohesion are all issues that we must 

solve together. They can only be solved with the 

support of inclusive research. Furthermore, these 

global problems are complex historically, socially, 

economically, institutionally, and ecologically, and 

they require diverse interdisciplinary teams to 

come up with innovative solutions. The inclusion 

of social and citizen scientists within a plant science 

research team can approach these challenges more 

effectively, as no one discipline can solve these 

wicked problems and no one perspective can either 

(see Rittel and Webber, 1973; Brown, Harris, and 

Russell, 2010; Thompson and Whyte, 2012). 

These experiences and literature show us that 

diversity and inclusion can improve an institution’s 

capacity to provide service to others. Research 

in particular can be understood as service. I am 

Potawatomi, a product of land grant universities, 

and a public servant. I see research as service. To me, 

service is a way to bring our scholarship, leadership, 

and advocacy together. Why do we research what 

we do? Why do we work on the subjects we do? For 

me, it has to do with service. Research for many is a 

calling to find answers to some of the most complex 

issues of our time. Research is enhanced by bringing 

distinct perspectives together to develop research 

questions, methods, analysis, and dissemination. 

Only when our research is of interest to diverse 

communities will we achieve truly groundbreaking 

results and interpretations to solve pressing complex 

problems. If we start to engage in research that is 

responsive to and guided by the needs and questions 

of diverse communities, we will begin to see a 

change in the people engaged with our institutions 

 If we start to engage in research 

that is responsive to and guided by 

the needs and questions of diverse 

communities, we will begin to see 

a change in the people engaged 

with our institutions and our 

institutions themselves.

37

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

and our institutions themselves. A critical mass of 

diverse employees within an institution is needed 

for this to happen, but the research also needs to 

be of interest to diverse communities to attract new 

students and employees to the pursuit. In the long 

run, if we work to answer questions of interest to 

minority communities, we will improve diversity 

within our own institutions and—maybe more 

importantly—these diverse institutions will give 

us new perspectives with which to solve the global 

environmental and social problems we face today. 

I would like to share one more example to close 

my discussion on approaching diversity as a way 

to improve our institutional capacities to provide 

service to others. For nine years I had the privilege 

to be the Forest Service’s liaison to the College of 

Menominee Nation, a tribal college located on 

the Menominee Reservation in Keshena, WI. 

The College of Menominee Nation and Forest 

Service have had a formal partnership since 2001 

to do research and education based on sustainable 

forestry. Our goal is to work collaboratively with 

tribes and tribal communities to address tribal 

concerns. The partnership was specifically created 

outside of the USDA civil rights program. We did 

this, not because we did not support civil rights 

initiatives, but because we believed that if the 

partnership supported good research and education 

that meets tribal needs, everyone will benefit from 

the questions and answers. 

We incorporated undergraduate students in 

all partnership projects. We had student interns 

working on the effects of Emerald Ash Borer 

on American Indian communities, Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge, climate change, and 

sustainable development. Students saw and worked 

with American Indian role models like myself 

who value their opinions and ideas, share values, 

and respect them. This partnership provided an 

opportunity for American Indian students to see 

that research and education can benefit them and 

their communities. Some students never thought 

that they could get a college degree or go to 

graduate school as a way to support their families 

and community. After their internships many 

students continued on with their educations and 

are now in positions of leadership throughout their 

tribal communities and beyond. This partnership 

shows that projects that embrace inclusion as a 

way to produce better results, address minority 

concerns from minority perspectives, and include 

minority students, faculty, and staff can create 

positive feedback loops that will simultaneously 

improve our research, our institutions, and our 

communities. 

As this example shows, service can be a way to 

improve our research and management of natural 

resources and a way to increase the diversity within 

the Forest Service and professional societies. 

Service is listening to the community and using our 

expertise to answer questions of interest to them. 

Service is mentoring students. Service is engaging 

communities collaboratively. Service is teaching. 

When diversity and service are approached in 

this manner, students and communities become 

involved when they see scientists working on 

interesting projects that will have impacts within 

their communities. Some students will go on for 

more schooling and advanced degrees. Eventually 

these students enter into the tribal, Forest Service, 

or university work force where they become role 

models for others and the cycle continues. 

All of these examples and research imply that 

institutions are strengthened by viewing diversity 

and inclusion as a core part of their mission. Scott 

Page (2008) argues that “[w]e should look at diversity 

as something that can improve performance, not 

as something that we have to be concerned about 

so that we don’t get sued” (p. xxii). I would add 

that we should look at diversity as something that 

can help us achieve our core research, education, 

and land management missions. All too often 

diversity initiatives started by federal agencies, 

university campuses, and private industries focus 

on recruitment and retention---as if numbers of 

people add up to a diverse, welcoming, and inclusive 

environment. Furthermore, even if recruitment 

of diverse candidates is successful, retention and 

overall organizational performance may not 

improve if institutions do not view diversity as a 

means to achieve their mission.

This is beginning to change, however, as 

businesses have begun to make strong cases for 

diversity as a core part of their missions. While 

diversity is difficult to research within companies, 

some scholars argue that diversity provides an 

opportunity to learn better how to achieve a 

company’s mission (Kochan et al., 2003). Some 

studies show that diversity can increase a company’s 

revenue, market share, customer base, and creativity 

and innovation (Robinson and Dechant, 1997; 

Herring, 2009). Additionally, a whole new phrase 

has grown up from work on diversity, inclusion, 

and big-data—the wisdom of crowds—that argues, 

38

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

among other things, that cognitive diversity 

facilitates better decision making by expanding the 

range of possible solutions to problems (Surowiecki, 2005).

Researchers have also been making a strong case 

for including diversity as a core part of the mission 

of the academy. Books and academic journals such 

as the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 

are devoted to the subject. Journals have devoted 

special issues and individual articles to the topic 

(e.g.,  Uriarte et al., 2007; Allison and Schneider, 

2008; Chin, 2010; Cheruvelil et al., 2014; Moss-

Racusin et al., 2014). Many of these studies have 

shown that our research, problem solving, and 

outcomes can be improved with diversity, with 

collaborative teams, and with multiple perspectives. 

Diversity and inclusion are not just civil rights 

issues; it is imperative for us to ask the right 

research questions, to analyze the data from many 

different angles, and to develop robust solutions. In 

essence, research indicates that diversity, inclusion, 

and collaboration contribute to better science, 

better results, and stronger institutions.

Many of our institutions are taking these 

research findings seriously. Diversity and 

inclusion are becoming part of how we achieve 

our core missions and not only as a means to 

fulfill civil rights obligations. For example, the 

US Department of Agriculture and the Forest 

Service have embarked on a program called “cul-

tural transformation” (http://www.dm.usda.gov/

ct.htm). Leaders believe that they are better able 

to meet our mission for the public and employees 

by transforming the institutional culture to value 

and support inclusion as a way to promote a 

high-performance organization. Diversity is also 

important to the Botanical Society of America 

(BSA) where the issue is discussed through the 

Human Diversity Committee, and workshops and 

symposia sponsored by several sections of the 

Society (e.g., http://botany.org/diversity/). 

In addition to student travel awards provided 

by sections, the PLANTS (Preparing Leaders 

and Nurturing Tomorrow’s Scientists) program 

provides travel awards for undergraduates to attend 

conferences and a mentors program designed to 

increase diversity at BSA meetings and within the 

profession. These initiatives are all supported by 

research that indicates institutional leadership, 

funding, and mentorship programs are important 

strategies for increasing student, faculty, and staff 

diversity (Milem, Chang, and Antonio, 2005; 

Turner, González, and Wood, 2008; Hurtado et al., 

2009; Byars-Winston et al., 2011; Allen-Ramdial 

and Campbell, 2014).

Institutions that make progress toward diversity 

and inclusion have leaders that support these 

efforts by their words, actions, and development 

of collaborative plans to integrate diversity into 

their core missions. They provide support for 

student, faculty, and staff mentoring; support 

for transdisciplinary and collaborative research; 

support for including diversity as a topic of research; 

and support for working with communities. They 

also provide meaningful training on inclusion, 

collaboration, and building high-performing 

teams. Our leaders have important roles to play by 

setting the tone and providing support for creating 

diverse and inclusive institutions. 

Leaders cannot do this on their own; we all need 

to come together to learn from one another, build 

community around our common institutional 

purposes, and take time to know each other and 

foster connections. One way to do this is to work 

together to build a community—a community of 

support and collaboration around inclusion and 

high-quality research. Offering a space to openly 

discuss inclusion is one way to build community. 

Another is through mentorship programs—

for students, faculty members, and scientists. 

For example, BSA has an excellent mentorship 

program that aims to have their “[m]entors work 

with PLANTS students and attend talks with 

them, introduce them to colleagues, network and 

generally make the meetings a welcoming place 

for them” (http://botany.org/awards_grants/

detail/PLANTS.php). My experience at the Human 

Diversity Luncheon in 2014 was that students, 

mentors, and BSA members were all excited to 

learn from one another, share experiences, and 

build productive relationships for future research. 

Society members report that undergraduates 

involved in these programs often go on to 

graduate school or biological professions. BSA’s 

commitment to building a diverse community is 

exemplified through financial support for students 

to attend conferences, volunteer mentors, the 

Human Diversity Committee, Enhancing Scientist 

Diversity in Plant Biology Luncheon, and the 

PLANTS program. 

In conclusion, there are several things we can 

do to foster diversity and inclusion within our 

institutions. First, we can view research as service. 

One way to do this is to foster collaborations with 

minority serving institutions—maybe institutions 

39

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

and community organizations we have not worked 

with in the past. Second, we can make diversity and 

inclusion part of our core institutional missions. 

This can be done by building inclusive communities 

within our institutions. We can develop specific 

plans to continue to move our institutions toward  

collaboration, inclusion, and interdisciplinary 

research. We can also provide space to share 

our personal experiences and support employee 

and student mentorship programs—particularly 

programs centered around research projects that 

are of interest to diverse communities. Finally, 

we need to believe that diversity and inclusion of 

perspectives enriches us all and that none of us 

can do this alone. We are living in an era where we 

cannot afford to leave out different perspectives. 

None of us can solve our unprecedented 

environmental and social problems alone. If we do 

not have diverse people with diverse perspectives 

within our institutions, and if we do not include 

diverse communities in our research, I fear we may 

not have the time needed to develop solutions to 

solve our problems. In the end, diversity affects all 

of us—our institutions, our communities, and our 

world.

Literature Cited

Allen-Ramdial, S.-A. A., and A. G. Campbell. 2014. 

Reimagining the pipeline: Advancing STEM diversity, 

persistence, and success. Bioscience. DOI: 10.1093/

biosci/biu076.

Allison, M. T., and I. E. Schneider. 2008. Diversity and 

the recreation profession: organizational perspectives. 

Revised Edition. Venture Publishing, Inc., State 

College, PA.

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological 

knowledge and resource management (3rd ed.). 

Routledge, New York, NY.

Brown, V. A., J. A. Harris, and J. Y. Russell. 2010. Tackling 

wicked problems through the transdisciplinary 

imagination. Earthscan, London, Washington, DC.

Byars-Winston, A., B. Gutierrez, S. Topp, and M. Carnes. 

2011. Integrating theory and practice to increase 

scientific workforce diversity: A framework for career 

development in graduate research training. CBE-Life 

Sciences Education 10: 357-367.

Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, K. C. Weathers, P. C. 

Hanson, S. J. Goring, C. T. Filstrup, and E. K. Read. 

2014. Creating and maintaining high-performing 

collaborative research teams: the importance of 

diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment 12: 31-38.

Chin, J. L. 2010. Introduction to the special issue on 

diversity and leadership. American Psychologist 65: 

150.

Department of Interior. 2014. Indian entities recognized 

and eligible to receive services from the United States 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register 4748-4753.

Emery, M. R., A. Wrobel, M. H. Hansen, M. Dockry, 

W. K. Moser, K. J. Stark, and J. H. Gilbert. 2014. 

Using Traditional ecological knowledge as a basis 

for targeted forest inventories: Paper Birch (Betula 

papyrifera) in the US Great Lakes Region. Journal of 

Forestry 112: 207-214.

Herring, C. 2009. Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and 

the business case for diversity. American Sociological 

Review 74: 208-224.

Hurtado, S., N. L. Cabrera, M. H. Lin, L. Arellano, 

and L. L. Espinosa. 2009. Diversifying science: 

Underrepresented student experiences in structured 

research programs. Research in Higher Education 50: 

189-214.

Kimmerer, R. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous 

wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of 

plants. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, MN.

Kochan, T., K. Bezrukova, R. Ely, S. Jackson, A. Joshi, K. 

Jehn, J. Leonard, et al. 2003. The effects of diversity 

on business performance: Report of the diversity 

research network. Human Resource Management 42: 

3-21.

Milem, J. F., M. J. Chang, and A. L. Antonio. 2005. 

Making diversity work on campus: A research-based 

perspective.  Association American Colleges and 

Universities Washington, DC.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. van der Toorn, J. F. Dovidio, V. 

L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2014. 

Scientific diversity interventions. Science 343: 615-

616.

Diversity and inclusion are 

not just civil rights issues; it is 

imperative for us to ask the right 

research questions, to analyze 

the data from many different 

angles, and to develop robust 

solutions. In essence, research 

indicates that diversity, inclusion, 

and collaboration contribute to 

better science, better results, and 

stronger institutions.

40

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Page, S. E. 2008. The difference: How the power of diversity 

creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. 

Princeton University Press, NJ.

Pierotti, R., and D. Wildcat. 2000. Traditional ecological 

knowledge: the third alternative (commentary). 

Ecological Applications 10: 1333-1340.

Rittel, H. W., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a 

general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-169.

Robinson, G., and K. Dechant. 1997. Building a business 

case for diversity. The Academy of Management 

Executive (1993-2005) 11: 21-31.

Surowiecki, J. 2005. The wisdom of crowds. Anchor Books, 

New York.

Thompson, P. B., and K. P. Whyte. 2012. What happens to 

environmental philosophy in a wicked world? Journal 

of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 485-498.

Turner, C. S. V., J. C. González, and J. L. Wood. 2008. 

Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of 

literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher 

Education 1: 139.

Uriarte, M., H. A. Ewing, V. T. Eviner, and K. C. Weathers. 

2007. Constructing a broader and more inclusive 

value system in science. Bioscience 57: 71-78.

US Census Bureau. 2014. Table 10. Projections of the 

Population by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race for 

the United States: 2015 to 2060 [online]. Website 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/

national/2014/summarytables.html [accessed 6 April 

2015].

Whyte, K. P. 2014. Justice forward: Tribes, climate 

adaptation and responsibility. Climatic Change 120: 

518-530.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my family friends, mentors, and 

colleagues who have helped me think deeply about 

diversity and inclusion, to the US Forest Service for 

letting me be a part of transforming our agency to 

be inclusive and expansive in our scientific agenda, 

and to the University of Wisconsin Madison 

Graduate School for inducting me into the Edward 

A. Bouchet Graduate Honor Society and inviting 

me to give a panel presentation on “The Future 

of the Academy: Maintaining and Strengthening 

Academic Diversity in the Midst of the Current 

Economic and Political Climate.” I would also like 

to thank the Botanical Society of America, the 

Human Diversity Committee, and Brenda Molano-

Flores, Chair of the committee, for supporting my 

travel to the Botany 2014 conference as the invited 

speaker for the Enhancing Scientist Diversity in 

Plant Biology Luncheon.

Postdocs: Improving our 

Visibility in the Research 

Workforce

Do you know how many postdocs work at 

your institution? When I started my postdoctoral 

fellowship over two years ago, I had no idea 

that there are more than 6,000 postdocs in the 

University of California system with 600 of those 

postdocs working at the Davis campus. Over the 

past 30 years the number of postdoctoral positions 

in the United States has steadily increased to over 

63,000 at more than 300 institutions (Einaudi et 

al., 2013). Postdocs are not only at large research 

universities, but we are working at primarily 

undergraduate universities such as Bucknell 

University and Willamette University, as well as 

research institutions such as The Field Museum 

and the Smithsonian. Despite the prevalence of 

postdoctoral researchers, we are often an invisible 

component of the research workforce. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National 

Postdoctoral Association (NPA) define a 

postdoctoral position as “a temporary and defined 

period of mentored advanced training to enhance 

the professional skills and research independence 

needed to pursue his or her chosen career path.” 

Although additional training acquired during a 

postdoc is an asset to our careers, it is important 

to remember that

postdocs are PhD-holding, early-

career researchers who contribute significantly 

to both our research groups and institutions. The 

contributions of postdocs often extend beyond the 

lab bench. Postdocs write grants and papers, mentor 

undergraduate and graduate students, present 

research at seminars and conferences, and teach 

courses in addition to our research responsibilities. 

Despite these contributions, the temporary nature 

of postdoc work, as well as the “trainee” rather than 

“staff” status, has been often used to justify low 

pay and minimal benefits for postdocs (Cain et al., 

2014). 

By Jessica M. Budke, Kather-

ine Esau Postdoctoral Fellow, 

University of California – Davis; 

jessica.m.budke@gmail.com

41

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Postdoc Unionization At The 

University Of California

In order to push back against the undervaluing 

of our contributions, postdocs at the University 

of California voted in 2008 to form a stand-alone 

postdoctoral researchers’ union: UAW 5810 (http://

uaw5810.org/). Previously, postdocs negotiated 

individually for salary and benefits, resulting in 

uneven pay rates within and across departments and 

campuses. Salaries stagnated and in one instance, 

a full-time postdoc at the University of California 

was paid an annual salary of only $18,000 (Cain et 

al., 2014).  After more than a year of negotiating, we 

won a 5-year contract that established a minimum 

salary scale, guaranteed annual salary increases, 

comprehensive health benefits at low cost, and a 

one-year minimum contract, in addition to many 

other benefits (Figure 1). These steps forward have 

significantly improved the postdoc experience at 

and beyond the University of California.

Figure 1. Union rights equal postdoc wins (Cain et 

al., 2014). The University of California (UC) Postdoc 

Union (UAW 5810) achieved a number of improve-

ments for postdocs. Postdocs are now paid minimum 

salaries guided by the NIH NRSA Fellowship scale 

and receive guaranteed annual raises. Previously, 

time off was at the PI’s discretion and there was no 

guaranteed leave. Now, postdocs at UC can have up 

to 6 weeks off at 70% pay for maternity leave. Post-

docs have 24 days of personal time off (PTO) per 

year, in addition to 12 sick days and 13 UC “pub-

lic” holidays. Postdocs and dependents also receive 

comprehensive health, dental, and vision insurance. 

Postdocs must be appointed for at least 1 year and 

many are appointed for longer.

 I see unions not only as a progressive force 

advocating for early-career researchers, but I am 

also excited about the positive inroads unions can 

make  for  women  in  science.  Significant  biases 

against  women  still  exist,  which  can  influence 

both the evaluation and hiring of female scientists 

(Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Jones and Urban, 

2013). For university faculty, one way unions 

address these biases is by increasing transparency 

in the tenure and promotion process. Clarifying 

and communicating expectations equally to all 

faculty may be one reason why unionized faculty 

have a significantly higher percentage of women at 

the associate and full professor ranks compared to 

non-unionized faculty (May et al., 2010). Faculty 

unions also improve pay equity due to the presence 

of non-discrimination clauses in union contracts, 

resulting in a smaller salary gap between men and 

women (Rhoades, 1998). As a woman in science, I 

appreciate that the postdoc union at the University 

of California negotiated an experienced-based, 

minimum salary scale mirroring that of the 

National 

Research Service Award

 Fellowships (National 

Institutes of Health, 2014). These pay standards 

value the contributions of all postdocs equally and 

help to eliminate gender biases in pay. 

Policies including maternity/paternity leave 

and subsidized childcare are not only critical for 

the retention of women in science, but they help 

to make science a more family-friendly career 

path for everyone. The median age of people 

finishing  their  PhDs  in  2013  was  31.8  years  old 

(

Fiegener, 2014

). This places many postdocs in 

the middle of prime parenting years when they are 

having and raising young children. In California 

the average cost of childcare is over $1000 per 

month (Child Care Aware of America, 2013), and 

at expensive campuses such as San Francisco, 

Berkeley, and Davis it can be up to $2000. For a 

starting postdoc making $3500 per month, these 

expenses can consume one third to one half of 

their  salary,  representing  a  significant  financial 

cost. For University of California postdocs there is 

currently no reimbursement for childcare expenses 

and few campuses have university-sponsored 

childcare services with discounts for university 

affiliates such as postdocs. This places significant 

financial  pressure  on  postdocs’  decisions  to  start 

and maintain a family while continuing to work. 

This pressure may be especially acute for women, 

who often bear a larger proportion of childcare 

responsibilities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). 

A priority area for the postdoctoral union at the 

42

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

University of California is to push for cost-of-living 

adjusted childcare subsidies or reimbursements 

for postdocs in our next contract. Decreasing the 

financial strains on postdoc families may also help 

to stem the flow of women leaving science during 

the postdoctoral phase of their careers. 

Postdocs Taking Action

The postdoctoral union also gives members a 

voice in political decisions that directly impact our 

work. We launched a campaign to push for increased 

federal funding of science in the United States. 

Postdocs took photos of themselves with whiteboard 

signs stating why we support science funding and 

posted them to social media (Figure 2), similar to 

BSA’s #iamabotanist campaign. Additionally we 

supported a “Dear Colleague” letter written by 

Figure 2. University of California postdoctoral researchers sharing why we support 

science funding through a whiteboard campaign.

Congressional Representatives Jim McDermott 

(WA) and George Miller (CA) calling for congress 

to restore science and research funding that was cut 

from the 2013 federal budget during the sequester 

(http://uaw5810.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/

McDermott_Miller_Letter_Color.pdf). This letter 

was ultimately signed by 39 members of Congress 

and then distributed to all congressional offices. 

In conjunction with other organizations around 

the nation, this campaign helped to restore US 

science funding to pre-sequester levels. By bringing 

together a group of people with common concerns 

and goals, the postdoc union enables us to have an 

impact on important issues beyond the University 

of California. 

Another way postdocs are taking action to 

increase our visibility is by establishing new venues 

43

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

for sharing our research. In 2013, postdocs at UC 

Davis started a seminar series for postdoctoral 

scientists studying plants. This seminar series has 

featured postdocs from many fields including 

Botany, Plant Pathology, Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology, Plant Biology, and Genomics, just to 

name a few. We have also hosted postdocs from 

nearby institutions, such as the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, Stanford University, and UC 

Berkeley, thanks to the financial support of the UC 

Davis Plant Biology Department. In a similar vein, 

postdocs in the Plant Biology Department led the 

organizing of a Postdoctoral Research Symposium 

at UC Davis in May 2015 (https://sites.google.com/

site/ucdavisprs/home). This included a full day of 

research talks, a networking lunch, poster session, 

and awards ceremony that featured the research 

of postdocs from many departments across 

campus. Through these events, postdocs have 

taken action to create professional development 

opportunities for sharing our research and honing 

our presentation skills in preparation for national 

and international conferences.  By increasing the 

visibility of our research, postdocs demonstrate the 

value and importance of our contributions to the 

wider campus community.

postdocs moving forward

Within the sometimes hidden postdoctoral 

community I have found a passionate and engaged 

group of peers who have played a significant role in 

improving the postdoc experience at the University 

of California. By forming a union we not only came 

together to gain better working conditions for 

postdocs, but we also joined our voices to advocate 

for wide reaching issues, such as science funding 

and family-friendly workplaces. These experiences 

have broadened my perspective on what it means 

to be an active member of the scientific community. 

Identifying challenges and issues that impact 

science and scientists is an important first step that 

is best followed by actionable plans that move us 

forward toward progressive polices and solutions 

that can reverberate at and beyond our home 

institutions. 

Our first postdoctoral contract at the University 

of California will expire in September 2015 

(University of California, 2010)

.

 In the coming 

months I will be joining together with postdocs from 

across the ten University of California campuses 

to engage in the collective bargaining process 

with the university. During these negotiations we 

1.  Start the discussion by talking to your 

colleagues.  

•  Do you share concerns about your 

working conditions?  

•  Are there common themes?  

•  Compile a list of concerns and issues 

•  It’s best to have these discussions 

during non-work hours in a place where 

everyone can openly share their thoughts 

and opinions.

2.  Building support for a union.. 

•  Develop an active and engaged group of 

colleagues from across your institution to 

form a core organizing committee. 

•  Formulate a list of improvements you 

would like to achieve. 

•  Evaluate the support for a union 

around your key issues by talking to a 

wide array of colleagues. 

3.  Contact an organization that can help 

with the next steps of forming a new 

union.  Groups that have helped postdocs 

with unionization:  

•  American Association of University 

Professors - American Federation of 

Teachers (AAUP-AFT)  

•  The Canadian Union of Public 

Employees (CUPE) 

•  Public Service Alliance of 

Canada(PSAC) 

•  United Automobile, Aerospace, and 

Agricultural Implement Workers of 

America (UAW) 

•  University Health Professionals (UHP)

Tips for Building a Union 

will continue to increase our visibility through 

public statements and petitions, outreach to state 

and federal elected officials, and

 demonstrations, 

which will build support for our next contract. Our 

goals are to negotiate a contract that supports the 

professional and personal lives of postdocs so that 

we can continue to produce cutting edge research 

that expands our knowledge of the world. Having 

the support of the broader scientific community, 

including botanists, will be critical toward our 

achieving these goals. 

44

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Mackenzie Taylor for inviting me 

to contribute my perspectives in this article. This 

piece is dedicated to my postdoctoral colleagues in 

the United States and abroad. I hope that each of 

you obtain a permanent position that enables you 

to continue to follow your scientific and botanical 

passions. 

References 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. American Time Use 

Survey—2013 Results, USDL-14-1137. Unites States 

Department of Labor. Website http://www.bls.gov/

news.release/pdf/atus.pdf[accessed 10 April 2015].

Cain*, B., J. M. Budke*, K. J. Wood, N. T. Sweeney, and 

B. Schwessinger. 2014. How postdocs benefit from 

building a union. eLife  3: e05614. (* equal co-first 

authors)

Child Care Aware of America. 2013. Parents and the 

High Cost of Child Care 2013 Report. Website http://

usa.childcareaware.org/sites/default/files/cost_of_

care_2013_103113_0.pdf [accessed 10 April 2015].

Einaudi, P., R. Heuer, and P. Green. 2013. Counts of 

Postdoctoral Appointees in Science, Engineering, and 

Health Rise with Reporting Improvements, NSF 13-

334.  National Science Foundation, National Center 

for Science and Engineering Statistics, Arlington, 

VA. Website http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/

nsf13334/ [accessed 10 April 2015].

Jones, C. S., and M. C. Urban. 2013. Promise and pitfalls of 

a gender-blind faculty search. BioScience 63: 611-612.

May, A. M., E. A. Moorhouse, and J. A. Bossard. 2010. 

Representation of women faculty at public research 

universities: Do unions matter? Industrial and Labor 

Relations Review 63: 699-718.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. 

Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty’s 

subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474–16479.

National Institutes of Health. 2014.  Ruth L. Kirschstein 

National Research Service Award (NRSA) Stipends, 

Tuition/Fees and Other Budgetary Levels Effective 

for Fiscal Year 2014, NOT-OD-14-046. Website 

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-

OD-14-046.html [accessed 10 April 2015].

Rhoades, G. 1998. Managed Professionals: Unionized 

Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor. Albany, 

NY: State University of New York Press.

University of California. 2010. UCnet: Current contract 

for Postdoctoral Scholars Bargaining Unit. Website 

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/

bargaining-units/px/contract.html [accessed 12 April 

2015].

Grady Webster Euphorbiaceae 

Virtual Herbarium and 

Publications 

UC Davis Professor Dr. Grady Webster (1927-

2005) was an internationally recognized expert on 

the Euphorbiaceae who helped countless scientists 

identify their Euphorbiaceae collections. Due to 

Dr. Webster’s efforts, the herbarium at the UC 

Davis Center for Plant Diversity has a large, well-

identified collection of Euphorbiaceae (>40,000 

specimens). Now, we are pleased to announce 

that the Grady Webster Euphorbiaceae Virtual 

Herbarium and Taxonomic Resources site is 

available for use at our website: http://herbarium.

ucdavis.edu/taxonomicresources.html.

This website, created with the support of the 

National Science Foundation (Award no. 1057391), 

provides specimen images of the genera Croton, 

Dalechampia, Euphorbia, and Phyllanthus and 

some of their segregate genera. We have provided 

at least one specimen image of each species that we 

house in our herbarium. Specimens were chosen 

for imaging by Dr. Paul Berry, Dr. Ken Wurdack, 

and Dr. Scott Armbruster; we thank them for their 

help. 

In addition to the Virtual Herbarium, we have 

provided a list of Dr. Webster’s publications as well 

as a list of his unfinished manuscripts with links to 

pdf versions, if allowed by the journal’s publisher. In 

addition, we curated all Dr. Webster’s unmounted 

specimens and databased all specimens associated 

with his Vascular Flora of Maquipucuna, Ecuador; 

label data from those specimens are available at 

our specimen search engine at: http://museums.

ucdavis.edu/GIS_dataoption_mdb.aspx.

It is our hope that by providing these images, 

publications, manuscripts, and label data, we 

will both assist and inspire another generation of 

botanists to continue Grady’s work.
—Ellen Dean, Curator, UC Davis Center for Plant 

Diversity, eadean@ucdavis.edu

45

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

The Bryological Works of 

Rudolf M. Schuster

by John J. Engel, Matt von Konrat, and Yarency Ro-

driguez, Science & Education, The Field Museum, 

Chicago, Illinois, USA

Qiu et al. (2013) wrote a detailed article in 

memory of the late Dr. Rudolf M. Schuster, who 

was an eminent botanist, hepaticologist, scholar, 

and world explorer. Dr. Schuster’s career spanned 

almost six decades and had a major impact on 

botany, specifically hepaticology (the study of 

liverworts, Marchantiophyta, and hornworts, 

Anthocerotophyta). A major contribution was the 

astounding new diversity of liverworts he added 

to our knowledge. Mostly by himself and through 

collaboration with a small number of colleagues, he 

described 463 species, 83 genera, and 15 families 

new to botany (Qiu et al., 2013). He was ranked 

in the top ten authorities who had described the 

most liverwort taxa in botanical history and ranked 

number one in the 20th century (von Konrat et al., 

2010).

Dr. Schuster also provided detailed analysis and 

evaluation of a number of subjects ranging from 

comparative anatomy to evolution, phylogeny and 

classification. Perhaps his best known works include 

the two multi-volume treatments, the Hepaticae 

and Anthocerotae of North America, east of the 

hundredth meridian, and Austral Hepaticae as 

well as two treatises on the hepatics of Greenland. 

As discussed by Qiu et al. (2013), R. M. Schuster’s 

contribution to botany went beyond the study 

of liverworts. He provided pioneering historical 

biogeographical analyses discussing continental 

drift, Wallace’s Line, and dispersal patterns 

(Schuster, 1969, 1972). Here we complement Qiu et 

al. (2013) with an exhaustive bibliography of R. M. 

Schuster with an effort to establish the effective date 

of publication (as defined by the I.C.B.N. for many 

of the references). Effective dates are included in 

parentheses at the end of the reference. Schuster’s 

extensive publication record is reflected in over 250 

publications that includes eight books, 11 chapters, 

several reviews, and 22 papers that are book-like 

in length, here assessed at over 100 printed pages. 

His papers appeared in over 30 scientific journals. 

Of equal significance and almost unparalleled 

by any other botanist in the 20th century was the 

countless hours painstakingly preparing a total 

of over 1500 illustrative plates throughout his 

career. As described by Qiu et al. (2013), these 

received outstanding reviews. The Field Museum 

is fortunate to have the original plates along with 

the recent acquisition of his entire herbarium of 

over 50,000 specimens. To help increase utility, 

URLs are provided to abstracts or full papers. The 

Biodiversity Heritage Library is greatly thanked for 

making many of these available.

References

Qiu Y.-L., M. von Konrat, and J.J. Engel. 2013. In 

Memoriam.   Rudolf Mathias Schuster.   1921-

2012. Plant Science Bulletin 59: 165-168, 1 photo.

Schuster R. M. 1969. Problems of Antipodal distribution 

in lower land plants. Taxon 18: 46–91, maps 1–24. 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/1218591]

Schuster R. M. 1972. Continental movements, “Wallace’s 

Line,” and Indomalayan–Australasian dispersal 

of land plants: some eclectic concepts. Botanical 

Review 38: 3–86, f. 1–31. [http://link.springer.

com/article/10.1007/BF02872352; DOI: 10.1007/

BF02872352]

von Konrat, M., L. Söderström, L., M.A.M., Renner, A. 

Hagborg, and L. Briscoe. 2010. Early Land Plants 

Today (ELPT): How many liverwort species are there? 

Phytotaxa 9: 22–40.

B r y o l o g y   P u b l i c at i o n s   b y  

R .   M .   S c h u s t e r

1949

Schuster, R. M. 1949. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae I. 

Dianthelia steerei gen. et sp. n., a critical endemic of 

the Appalachians, with notes on the relationships of the 

genus. Bryologist 52: 101–120, f. I–II, tab. I. (20 Oct.). 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3238941]

Schuster, R. M. 1949. The ecology and distribution of 

Hepaticae in central and western New York. American 

Midland Naturalist 42: 513–712, pl. 1–18, f. 1–13 

(reprinted in book form, with pagination from 1–201). 

(29 Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2421930]

1951

Schuster, R. M. 1951. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. III. A 

conspectus of the family Lophoziaceae, with a revision of 

the genera and subgenera. American Midland Naturalist 

45: 1–117, pl. 1–28. (21 Feb.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/2421711]

Schuster, R. M. 1951. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae IV. 

Scapania spitzbergensis and Scapania convexula in 

North America. Bryologist 54: 162–180, f. A-B, 1 map. 

(19 Oct.). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3240300]

Schuster, R. M. 1951. The Hepaticae of the east coast of 

Hudson Bay. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. II. National 

Museum of Canada Bulletin 122 (1950): [i–vi], 1–62, pl. 

I–VIII.

46

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

1952

Schuster, R. M. 1952. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. V. The 

status of Lophozia gracillima Buch and its relationships 

to Lophozia longidens, Lophozia porphyroleuca and 

Sphenolobus ascendens. Bryologist 55: 173–185. (29 

Sept.). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3239846]

1953

Schuster, R. M. 1953. Boreal Hepaticae. A manual of the 

liverworts of Minnesota and adjacent regions. American 

Midland Naturalist 49: [i–v], 257–684, f. 1–16, pl. 1–110. 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2422531]

Schuster, R. M. 1953. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. VII. 

Lophozia (Dilophozia) latifolia sp. nov. Bryologist 56: 

257–276, pl. I–II. (30 Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3240457]

1954

Schuster, R. M. 1954. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. VIII. 

Lejeuneaceae Holostipae of North America. Journal of 

the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 70: 42–56, f. 1–6. (18 

June). 

Schuster, R. M., and S. Hattori. 1954. The oil–bodies of the 

Hepaticae. II. The Lejeuneaceae. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 11: 11–86, pl. I–XV. (4 Oct.).

1955

Schuster, R. M. 1955. Dr. Karl Müller—an appreciation. 

Bryologist 58: 311–316. (29 Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3240313]

Schuster, R. M. 1955. North American Lejeuneaceae. I. 

Introduction; keys to subfamilies and genera. Journal 

of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 71: 106–126. (28 

June).

Schuster, R. M. 1955. North American Lejeuneaceae. II. 

Paradoxae: The genera Aphanolejeunea and Leptocolea. 

Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 71: 126–

148, f. I–V. (28 June).

Schuster, R. M. 1955. North American Lejeuneaceae. III. 

Paradoxae: Cololejeunea, Sectio Minutissimae. Journal of 

the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 71: 218–247, f. VI–

XI. (22 Nov.).

Schuster, R. M. 1955. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. IX. 

The relationships of the genus Gyrothyra. Bryologist 

58: 137–141, f. 1–2. (16 June). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3240429]

Schuster, R. M., and L.E. Anderson. 1955. Taxithelium 

planum (Brid.) Mitt., epiphyllous on sabal palmetto. 

Bryologist 58: 237–239. (13 Oct.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3239911]

Schuster, R. M., and H.L. blomquist. 1955. A comparative 

study of Telaranea nematodes. American Journal of 

Botany 42: 588–593, f. 1–23. (12 July). [http://www.jstor.

org/stable/2485316]

1956

Schuster, R. M. 1956. Aphanolejeunea cornutissima nom. 

nov. Bryologist 59: 217–218. (27 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M. 1956. North American Lejeuneaceae. IV. 

Paradoxae: Cololejeunea (concl.), Diplasiolejeunea. 

Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 72: 87–

125, f. XII–XIX. (24 May).

Schuster, R. M. 1956. North American Lejeuneaceae. V. 

Schizostipae: Ceratolejeunea. Journal of the Elisha 

Mitchell Scientific Society 72: 292–316, f. XX–XXIV. (11 

Dec.).

Schuster, R. M. 1956. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae X. A 

study of Cephaloziella rhizantha, C. floridae and C. 

ludoviciana. Bryologist 59: 130–140, f. I–II. (23 June). 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3239927]

Schuster, R. M. 1956. [Review of:] C. Vanden Berghen, 

Bryophytes. In Robyns, Flore Gérnérale de Belgique, vol. 

1, fasc. 1, i–iv, 1–131, f. 1–40. 1955. Bryologist 59: 230.

Schuster, R. M. 1956. [Review of:] D. Shimizu and S. Hattori, 

Marchantiales of Japan, I–IV. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 9: 32–44 (1953); 10: 49–55 (1953); 

12: 53–75 (1954); 14: 91–107 (1955), f. 1–23. Bryologist 

59: 232.

Schuster, R. M. 1956. [Review of:] Karl Müller, Die 

Lebermoose Europas. In Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamen-

Flora VI. Bryologist 59: 51–56.

Schuster, R. M. 1956. [Review of:] S. Hattori, Oil–bodies 

of Japanese Hepaticae, I and II. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 5: 69–97, pl. 1–5. l95l. Bryologist 

59: 231.

Schuster, R. M. 1956. [Review of:] T. Amakawa and S. Hattori, 

A revision of the Japanese species of Scapaniaceae. 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 9: 45–62 

(1953); 12: 91–112 (1954); 14: 71–90 (1955). Bryologist 

59: 230–231.  

1957

Schuster, R. M. 1957. Boreal Hepaticae, a manual of the 

liverworts of Minnesota and adjacent regions. II. 

Ecology. American Midland Naturalist 57(1–2): 203–

299, f. 17–23. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2422531]

Schuster, R. M. 1957. North American Lejeuneaceae. VI. 

Lejeunea: Introduction and keys; subgenus Lejeunea 

(I). Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 73: 

122–197, f. XXV–XXXIV. (26 June). 

Schuster, R. M. 1957. North American Lejeuneaceae. VI. 

Lejeunea: subgenus Lejeunea (II, concluded). Journal 

of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 73: 388–443, f. 

XXXV–XLIX.  

Schuster, R. M. 1957. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae, IX. A study 

of Plagiochila yokogurensis Steph. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory l8: 14–26, f. I–IV. (25 Oct.).

Schuster, R. M. 1957. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. XII. 

Marsupella paroica n. sp. Bryologist 60: 145–151. (16 

July).  

47

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1957. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae, XV. 

Herberta. Revue Bryologique et Lichenologique 26: 

123–145, f. 1–5. (April, 1958).

Schuster, R. M., and P. m. Patterson. 1957. Noteworthy 

Hepaticae from Virginia. Rhodora 251–259. (15 Nov.).

1958

Schuster, R. M. 1958. Boreal Hepaticae, A manual of the 

liverworts of Minnesota and adjacent regions. III. 

Phytogeography. American Midland Naturalist 59: 257–

332, f. 24–28.

Schuster, R. M. 1958. Keys to the orders, families and genera 

of Hepaticae of America north of Mexico. Bryologist 

61: 1–66, f. 1–7. (5 April). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3239967]

Schuster, R. M. 1958. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae VI. 

Phytogeographical relationships of critical species 

in Minnesota and adjacent areas of the Great Lakes. 

Rhodora 60: 209–234, f. 1–16. (30 Sept.); 60: 243–256, 

f. 17–18. (2 Oct.). [http://biodiversitylibrary.org/

page/626435]

Schuster, R. M. 1958. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. XIII. 

The genus Tritomaria (Lophoziaceae) in arctic Canada. 

Canadian Journal of Botany 36: 269–288, f. 1–3. (10 

March). [http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/

abs/10.1139/b58-023#.VSQawtLF9VI]

Schuster, R. M. 1958. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae, XIV. 

The Chonecoleaceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 20: 1–16, f. 1–2. (19 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M., and W. C. Steere. 1958. Hygrolejeunea 

alaskana sp. n., a critical endemic of northern Alaska. 

Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 85: 188–196, fig. 1. 

(17 June). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2483215]

1959

Schuster, R. M. 1959. A monograph of the nearctic 

Plagiochilaceae. I. Introduction and Sectio I.  

Asplenioides. American Midland Naturalist 62: 1–166, f. 

1–14. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2422546]

Schuster, R. M. 1959. A monograph of the nearctic 

Plagiochilaceae. Part II. Sectio Zonatae through Sectio 

Parallelae. American Midland Naturalist 62: 257–395, f. 

15–42. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2422533]

Schuster, R. M. 1959. Epiphyllous Hepaticae in the southern 

Appalachians. Bryologist 62: 52–55. (3 June). [http://

www.jstor.org/stable/3240409]

Schuster, R. M. 1959. Evolution in the Ptilidiinae. Proc. IX 

Intern. Bot. Congress, Montreal 2: 350.

Schuster, R. M. 1959. Studies on Hepaticae. I. Temnoma. 

Bryologist 62: 233–242. (30 Mar. 1960).

Schuster, R. M., W. C. Steere, and J. W. Thomson. 1959. 

The terrestrial cryptogams of northern Ellesmere Island. 

National Museum of Canada Bulletin 164: [i–iv], 1–132, 

pl. 1–4. 

1960

Schuster, R. M. 1960. Alexander W. Evans—an appreciation. 

Bryologist 63: 73–81, f. 1–2. (7 Sept.). [http://www.jstor.

org/stable/3240875]

Schuster, R. M. 1960. Alexander W. Evans (1868–1959). 

Revue Bryologique et Lichenologique 29: 132–139.

Schuster, R. M. 1960. A monograph of the nearctic 

Plagiochilaceae. Part III. Sectio Contiguae to conclusion. 

American Midland Naturalist 63: 1–130, f. 43–71. 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2422932]

Schuster, R. M. 1960. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae, XIX. 

The relationships of Blepharostoma, Temnoma and 

Lepicolea, with description of Lophochaete and 

Chandonanthus subg. Tetralophozia, subg. n. Journal of 

the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 23: 192–210, f. I–II. (22 

Mar. 1961).

Schuster, R. M. 1960. Studies on Hepaticae. II. The new family 

Chaetophyllopsidaceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 23: 68–76, f. 1–2. (22 Mar. 1961).

Schuster, R. M., and W. C. Steere. 1960. The hepatic genus 

Ascidiota Massalongo new to North America. Bulletin of 

the Torrey Botanical Club 87: 209–215, f. I–II. (21 June). 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2482767]

1961

Schuster, R. M. 1961. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. XVIII. 

New Lophoziaceae from the arctic archipelago of 

Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 39: 965–992, f. 

1–4.  (2 Aug.). [http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/

abs/10.1139/b61-081#.VSQdLtLF9VI]

Schuster, R. M. 1961. Studies in Lophoziaceae. I. The genera 

Anastrophyllum and Sphenolobus and their segregates. 

Revue Bryologique et Lichenologique 30: 55–73. (Nov.).

Schuster, R. M. 1961. Studies on Hepaticae III–VI. Bryologist 

64: 198–208.  (30 Nov.).

Schuster, R. M. 1961. The genera Thysananthus, Ptychocoleus, 

Tuzibeanthus, Phragmilejeunea and Brachiolejeunea 

(Lejeuneaceae holostipae). Bryologist 64: 156–167. (30 

Nov.).

Kachroo, P., and R. M. Schuster. 1961. The genus 

Pycnolejeunea and its affinities to Cheilolejeunea, 

Euosmolejeunea, Nipponolejeunea, Tuyamaella, 

Siphonolejeunea, and Strepsilejeunea. Journal of the 

Linnean Society. Botany 56: 475–511, f. 1–16. [http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1961.

tb02542.x/abstract; DOI:  10.1111/j.1095-8339.1961.

tb02542.x]

1962

Schuster R. M. 1962. A study of Cephaloziopsis with 

special reference to C. pearsoni and its distribution. 

Transactions of the British Bryological Society 4: 230–

246, f. 1–2.  (18 July). [http://www.maneyonline.com/

doi/abs/10.1179/tbbs.1962.4.2.230; DOI: http://dx.doi.

org/10.1179/tbbs.1962.4.2.230]

48

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster R. M. 1962. North American Lejeuneaceae. VII. 

Lejeunea (Lejeunea) blomquistii sp. nov. Journal of the 

Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 78: 64–68, fig. L.

Schuster R. M. 1962. North American Lejeuneaceae. VIII. 

Lejeunea, subgenera Microlejeunea and Chaetolejeunea. 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 25: 1–80, f. 

LI–LXIII.  (26 Nov.).  

1963

Schuster, R. M. 1963. An annotated synopsis of the genera 

and subgenera of Lejeuneaceae.  I. Introduction; 

annotated keys to subfamilies and genera. Beihefte zur 

Nova Hedwigia 9: 1–203.

Schuster, R. M. 1963. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae. I. 

Annotated keys to the genera of Antipodal Hepaticae 

with special reference to New Zealand and Tasmania. 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 26: 185–309. 

(29 Aug.).

Schuster, R. M. 1963. Studies on Hepaticae XI–XIII. 

On 

Temnoma, Vetaforma and Lophochaete 

(Blepharostomaceae; Hepaticae). Nova Hedwigia 5: 27–

46. (before 25 March).

1964

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae, IV. 

Metzgeriales. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 

183–216. (7 June).

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae. VI. 

The suborder Perssoniellinae: morphology, anatomy 

and possible evolution. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical 

Club 91: 479–490, fig. 1. (3 Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/2483915]

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Hepaticae XIV. The genus 

Austrolophozia Schust. Bryologist 67: 179–186, f. 1–2. (28 

July).

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Hepaticae. XVII. 

Trichotemnoma Schust., gen. n. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 27: 149–158, f. I–II. (7 June).  

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Hepaticae. XIX.–XX. 

Cephaloziopsis  (Spr.) Schiffn. and Andrewsianthus 

Schust. Nova Hedwigia 8: 201–209.

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Hepaticae. XXI. 

Cephaloziaceae, with particular reference to 

Metahygrobiella Schust. and Cephalozia Dumort. Nova 

Hedwigia 8: 211–223.

Schuster, R. M. 1964. Studies on Hepaticae. XXII.–XXV. 

Pleurocladopsis Schust., gen. n., Eoisotachis Schust., gen. 

n., Grollea Schust., gen. n., with critical notes on Anthelia 

Dumort. Nova Hedwigia 8: 275–296.

1965

Schuster, R. M. 1965. A note on Lejeunea capensis. 

Transactions of the British Bryological Society 4: 831. (16 

July).

Schuster, R. M. 1965. North American Lejeuneaceae. IX. 

Taxilejeunea.  Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific 

Society 81: 32–50, f. LXIV–LXVIII.  

Schuster, R. M. 1965. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae. II. 

Archeophylla Schuster and Archeochaete  Schuster, new 

genera of Blepharostomaceae. Transactions of the British 

Bryological Society 4: 801–817, f. 1–5. (16 July).

Schuster, R. M. 1965. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae, 

VII. Goebeliellaceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 28: 129–138, f. I–II. (30 Nov.).

Schuster, R. M. 1965. Studies on Hepaticae. XVI. The 

morphology and systematic position of the suborder 

Pleuroziinae. Transactions of the British Bryological 

Society 4: 794–800. (16 July). [http://www.maneyonline.

com/doi/abs/10.1179/006813865804812109; DOI: http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/006813865804812109]

Schuster, R. M. 1965. Studies on Hepaticae. XXVI. The 

Bonneria-Paracromastigum-Pseudocephalozia-

Hyalolepidozia-Zoopsis-Pteropsiella complex and its 

allies: a phylogenetic study (Part 1). Nova Hedwigia 10: 

19–61. (18 Aug.).  

Schuster, R. M. 1965. Studies on Hepaticae, XXVII. 

Xenocephalozia Schust.  Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 28: 139–145, f. I–II. (30 Nov.).  

1966

 Schuster, R. M. 1966. A memoir on the family 

Blepharostomataceae, I. Candollea 21: 59–136, f. 1–21. 

(25 Aug.).  

Schuster, R. M. 1966. A memoir on the family 

Blepharostomataceae, II. Candollea 21: 241–355, f. 22–

50. (25 Jan. 1967).

Schuster, R. M. 1966. On Adelanthus Mitten: A case of the 

International Rules versus the International Rules. Nova 

Hedwigia 12: 353–361, f. 1–4. (31 Jan. 1967).

Schuster, R. M. 1966. Studies in Lophoziaceae. 1. The 

genera Anastrophyllum and Sphenolobus and their 

segregates. 2. Cephalolobus gen. n., Acrolophozia gen. 

n. and Protomarsupella gen. n. Revue Bryologique et 

Lichenologique 34: 240–287, f. 1–4. (Oct.).

Schuster, R. M. 1966. Studies on Hepaticae, VII–X. On 

Adelanthus Mitten and Calyptrocolea Schuster, gen. 

n. Revue Bryologique et Lichenologique 34: 676–703. 

(June, 1967). 

Schuster, R. M. 1966. Studies on Hepaticae XXVIII. On 

Phycolepidozia, a new, highly reduced genus of 

Jungermanniales of questionable affinity. Bulletin of the 

Torrey Botanical Club 93: 437–449, f. 1–2. (7 Jan. 1967). 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2483417]

Schuster, R. M. 1966. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America east of the hundredth meridian, vol. 1, 

1–17, 1–802, f. 1–84. Columbia University Press, New 

York, New York, USA. (1 Oct.).

1967

Schuster, R. M. 1967. A note on the genus Gymnocolea Dum. 

Bryologist 70: 111–112.  (3 April).

Schuster, R. M. 1967. North American Lejeuneaceae. X. 

Harpalejeunea, Drepanolejeunea, and Leptolejeunea. 

Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 83: 192–

229, f. LXIX–LXXVII.

49

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1967. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae. 

IX. Phyllothalliaceae. Transactions of the 

British Bryological Society 5: 283–288, fig. 1. 

(1 Aug.). [http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/

abs/10.1179/006813867804804296; DOI: http://dx.doi.

org/10.1179/006813867804804296]

Schuster, R. M. 1967. Studies on Hepaticae XV. Calobryales. 

Nova Hedwigia 13: 1–63, f. I–XII. (1 May).

1968

Schuster, R. M. 

1968. Introduction (pp. 1–8) to H. Leitgeb, 

Untersuchungen Uber die 

Lebermoose. J. Cramer, 

Lehre. (Reprint).

Schuster, R. M. 1968. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae, X. 

Subantarctic Scapaniaceae, Balantiopsidaceae and 

Schistochilaceae. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, 

Tokyo 11: 13–31, f. 1–3. (15 Mar.).

Schuster, R. M. 1968. Studies on Hepaticae, XXIX–XLIV. A 

miscellany of new taxa and new range extensions. Nova 

Hedwigia 15: 437–529, pl. 1–19. (5 Dec.).

Schuster, R. M. 1968. Studies on Hepaticae. XLV. On Iwatsukia 

Kitagawa. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo 

11: 309–317, fig. 1.  (20 Sept.).

1969

Schuster, R. M. 1969. Anomomarsupella, a new genus of 

Gymnomitriaceae from Greenland. Nova Hedwigia 17: 

75–82, fig. 1. (4 Nov.).

Schuster, R. M. 1969. Problems of Antipodal distribution in 

lower land plants. Taxon 18: 46–91, maps 1–24. [http://

www.jstor.org/stable/1218591]

Schuster, R. M. 1969. Results of bryological field work in 

the Antarctic Peninsula, Austral Summer. 1968–1969. 

Antarctic Journal of the United States 4: 103–104.

Schuster, R. M. 1969. Studies on Hepaticae, XLVI–XLVII. On 

Alobiella (Spr.) Schiffn. and Alobiellopsis Schust. Bulletin 

of the National Science Museum, Tokyo 12: 659–683, f. 

1–3. (10 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M. 1969. Studies on Hepaticae. XLVIII. 

On  Anomacaulis  Schust.  Transactions of the British 

Bryological Society 5: 797–799. (17 July).

Schuster,   R. M. 1969. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America east of the hundredth meridian, vol. 2, 

1–12, 1–1062, f. 85–301. Columbia University Press, 

New York, New York, USA. (1 Nov.).

Schuster, R. M., and G. A. M. Scott. 1969. A study of the 

family Treubiaceae (Hepaticae; Metzgeriales). Journal of 

the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 32: 219–268, f. 1–12, 1 

tab. (25 June).

1970

Schuster, R. M. 1970. [Review of:]  Manual of the Leafy 

Hepaticae of Latin America.  Part III. By Margaret H. 

Fulford. Transactions of the British Bryological Society 

6: 161–164. (Aug.).

Schuster, R. M. 1970. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae, 

III. Jubulopsis Schuster, Neohattoria Kamimura and 

Amphijubula Schuster. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 33: 266–304, f. 1–6. (10 June).

Schuster,  R. M. 1970. Studies on Hepaticae. XVIII. The 

Family Jungermanniaceae, s. lat.: a reclassification. 

Transactions of the British Bryological Society 6: 

86–107, f. 1–2. (Aug.). [http://www.maneyonline.com/

doi/abs/10.1179/006813870804146491; http://dx.doi.

org/10.1179/006813870804146491]

Schuster,  R. M. 1970. Studies on Hepaticae, XLIX–LIII. New 

Lejeuneaceae from Dominica and Jamaica. Bulletin of 

the Torrey Botanical Club 97: 336–352, f. 1–6. (28 Jan. 

1971). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2483854]

1971

Inoue, h., and R.M. Schuster. 1971. A monograph of New 

Zealand and Tasmanian Plagiochilaceae. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 34: 1–225, f. 1–77.  (18 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M. 1971. On the genus Pleurocladopsis Schuster 

(Schistochilaceae). Bryologist 74: 493–495. (1 Feb. 1972). 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3241310]

Schuster, R. M. 1971. Studies of antipodal Schistochilaceae 

and Scapaniaceae. Bulletin of the National Science 

Museum, Tokyo 14: 609–660, f. 1–22. (22 Dec.).

Schuster, R. M. 1971. Studies on Cephaloziellaceae. Nova 

Hedwigia 22: 121–265, pl. 1–25. (23 Oct. 1972).

Schuster,   R. M. 1971. Studies on Cephaloziellaceae. II. 

Cylindrocolea madagascariensis. Nova Hedwigia 22: 266 

a–c. (23 Oct. 1972).

Schuster,  R. M. 1971. The ecology and distribution of 

Hepaticae in a Mahogany Hammock in tropical 

Florida. Castanea 36: 90–111. [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/4032309]

Schuster,  R. M. 1971. Two new Antipodal species of 

Haplomitrium (Calobryales). Bryologist 74: 131–143, f. 

1–29. (16 Aug.). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3241827]

1972

Schuster, R. M. 1972. Continental movements, “Wallace’s 

Line,” and Indomalayan–Australasian dispersal of land 

plants: some eclectic concepts. Botanical Review 38: 

3–86, f. 1–31. [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/

BF02872352; DOI: 10.1007/BF02872352]

Schuster, R. M. 1972. Evolving taxonomic concepts in the 

Hepaticae, with special reference to circum–pacific taxa. 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 35: 169–201. 

(23 Mar.).

Schuster, R. M. 1972. Phylogenetic and taxonomic studies 

on Jungermanniidae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 36: 321–405, f. 1–11. (5 Jan. 1973).

Schuster, R. M., and K. Damsholt. 1972. Lophozia 

(Orthocaulis) hyperborea (Schust.) Schust. in southwest 

Greenland. Lindbergia 1: 166–168, 1 map. [http://www.

jstor.org/stable/20149174]

1973

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1973. Austral Hepaticae I. 

Pigafettoa Mass. Bryologist 76: 511–515, f. 1–9. (26 

Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3241409]

50

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

1976

Schuster, R. M. 1976. Plate Tectonics and its bearing on the 

geographical origin and dispersal of Angiosperms. 

In Beck, C. B. [ed.], Origin and Early Evolution of 

Angiosperms, 48–138. Columbia University Press, New 

York, New York, USA.

Schuster,   R. M. 1976. [Review of:] S. R. Gradstein. A 

taxonomic monograph of the genus Acrolejeunea 

(Hepaticae), 1–162, pl. 1–24. Bryophytorum Bibliotheca 4.  J. 

Cramer, Lehre. 1975. Bryologist 79: 380–382.

1977

Schuster, R. M. 1977. [Review of:] Stotler, R. E. and B. 

Crandall–Stotler. A monograph of the genus Bryopteris 

(Swartz) Nees von Esenbeck. J. Cramer. 1974. Bryologist 

80: 555–556.

Schuster, R. M. 1977. The evolution and early diversification 

of the Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. In W. Frey, H. Hurka, 

and F. Overwinkler [eds.], Beiträge zur Biologie der 

niederen Pflanzen, 107–115. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 

Germany.

Schuster, R. M., and J. Engel. 1977. Austral Hepaticae,  V. 

The Schistochilaceae of South America. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 42: 273–423, f. 1–45. (21 June).

1978

Schuster, R. M. 1978. Studies on Venezuelan Hepaticae, I. 

Phytologia 39: 239–251. (27 May). [http://biostor.org/

cache/pdf/08/6c/a2/086ca23363a700106886fc1717da3

2e4.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1978. Studies on Venezuelan Hepaticae, II. 

Phytologia 39: 425–432. (10 July). [http://biostor.org/

cache/pdf/63/a1/a9/63a1a9ebcaf97bb6e2829901c77f

fe01.pdf]

Schuster, R. M., and O. Mårtensson. 1978. The genus 

Cryptocolea (Jungermanniales) new for Europe. 

Lindbergia 4: 203–205. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/

pdf/20149291.pdf]

1979

Schuster, R. M. 1979. The phylogeny of the Hepaticae. In G. C. 

Clarke and J. G. Duckett [eds.],  Bryophyte Systematics. 

Systematics Assoc., special vol. 14, 41–82. Academic 

Press, London, England, and New York, New York, USA.  

Schuster, R. M. 1979. On the persistence and dispersal of 

transantarctic Hepaticae. Canadian Journal of Botany 

57: 2179–2225, f. 1–17. [http://www.nrcresearchpress.

com/doi/abs/10.1139/b79-271#.VSQ7ruH3gtc] 

1980

Schuster, R. M. 1980. New combinations and taxa of 

Hepaticae, I. Phytologia 45: 415–437. (7 April). [http://

biostor.org/cache/pdf/5f/49/4f/5f494fbf3529d1b2dcee77

7acc934088.pdf] 

Schuster, R. M. 1980. Phylogenetic studies on 

Jungermanniidae. II. Radulineae (Part I). Nova Hedwigia 

32: 637–693. (15 Jan. 1981).

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1973. On some tidal zone 

Hepaticae from south Chile, with comments on marine 

dispersal. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 100: 29–

35, 1 tab. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2484523]

Schuster, R. M. 1973. A note on Scapania perssonii Schust. 

Bryologist 76: 572–573. (26 Dec.).

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1973. Austral Hepaticae II. 

Evansianthus, a new genus of Geocalycaceae. Bryologist 

76: 516–520, f. 1–9. (26 Dec.). [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3241410]

1974

Schuster, R. M. 1974. [Review of:] Hiroshi Inoue, Illustrations 

of Japanese Hepaticae. Bryologist 77: 659–660.

Schuster,   R. M. 1974. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae XI. 

The Chaetophyllopsidaceae: their taxonomy, phylogeny 

and phytogeographic affinities. Bulletin of the National 

Science Museum, Tokyo 17: 163–180, f. 1–2. (22 June).

Schuster,   R. M. 1974. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America east of the hundredth meridian, vol. 

III, i–xiv, 1–880, f. 302–475. Columbia University Press, 

New York, New York, USA. (1 Mar.).

Schuster, R. M., and H. Inoue. 1974. Cololejeunea subgen. 

Chlorolejeunea Benedix in Japan. Bulletin of the National 

Science Museum, Tokyo 17: 233–238, fig. 1. (22 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M., and H. Inoue. 1974. The taxonomic status of 

the genus Metacephalozia Inoue. Bulletin of the National 

Science Museum, Tokyo 17: 161–162.

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1974. A monograph of 

the genus Pseudocephalozia  (Hepaticae).  Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 38: 665–701, f. 1–17, tabs. 

1–2. (29 July).

Schuster, R. M., and K. Damsholt. 1974. The Hepaticae of 

West Greenland from ca. 66º N to 72º N. Meddelelser om 

Gronland, af Kommissionen for Ledelsen af de Geologiske 

og Geografiske Undersogelser i Gronland 199: 1–373, f. 

1–33, maps 1–80. (27 Nov.).

1975

Schuster, R. M., and H. Inoue. 1975. Studies on 

Pallaviciniaceae and Allisoniaceae (Metzgeriales) in 

Japan. 1. Introduction and genus Hattorianthus, gen. 

nov.  Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo. 

Series B, Botany l: 101–107, f. 1–11. (22 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1975. Austral Hepaticae III. 

Stolonophora, a new genus of Geocalycaceae. Fieldiana. 

Botany 36: 111–124, f. 1–6. (27 Aug.). [DOI: http://

dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.2627]

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1975. Austral Hepaticae, IV.  

Notes on Lophozia subgenus Protolophozia Schust., 

with diagnosis of a new South American species. Journal 

of Bryology 8: 465–474, f. 1–12. (1 Dec.). [http://www.

maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/jbr.1975.8.4.465; 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/jbr.1975.8.4.465]

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1975. Austral Hepaticae V. 

Studies on Schistochilaceae. Phytologia 30: 241–250. (21 

Feb.).

51

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1980. Studies on Hepaticae, LIV–LVIII. Kurzia 

v. Mart. [Microlepidozia (Spr.) Joerg.], Megalembidium 

Schust., Psiloclada Mitt., Drucella Hodgs., and 

Isolembidium Schust. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 48: 337–421, f. 1–19. (27 August).

Schuster, R. M. 1980. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America east of the hundredth meridian, vol. IV, 

i–ix, 1–1334, f. 476–774. Columbia University Press, New 

York, New York, USA. (1 Nov.).

1981

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1981. Austral Hepaticae XV. 

Brevianthaceae, fam. nov. and Brevianthus, gen. nov. 

from Tasmania. Phytologia 47: 317–318. (28 Jan). [http://

biostor.org/cache/pdf/23/eb/4e/23eb4e1bb979e3c7d1a4

00247c7e2511.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1981. Austral Hepaticae, VIII. 

Tuyamaelloideae. Phytologia 47: 301–308. (28 Jan.). 

[http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/63/a1/a9/63a1a9ebcaf97bb

6e2829901c77ffe01.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1981. Evolution and speciation in Pellia, with 

special reference to the Pellia megaspora–endiviifolia 

complex (Metzgeriales), I. Taxonomy and distribution. 

Journal of Bryology 11: 411–431, f. 1–2. (18 Feb. 1982). 

[http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/

jbr.1981.11.3.411; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/

jbr.1981.11.3.411]

Schuster, R. M. 1981. Late Pleistocene bryological relicts in 

Western Massachusetts. Rhodora 83: 441–448. [http://

biostor.org/cache/pdf/89/95/35/8995359f23c0424ffc4d6

83167a64c2e.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1981. Paleoecology, origin, distribution 

through time, and evolution of Hepaticae and 

Anthocerotae.  In K. J. Niklas [ed.], Paleobotany, 

Paleoecology, and Evolution, vol. 2, 129–191, f. 1–14. 

Praeger, New York, New York, USA.

Schuster, R. M. 1981. Studies on Hepaticae, LIX. Anastrepta 

(Lindb.) Schiffn. and Nothostrepta Schust. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 50: 83–94, f. 1–3. (1 Sept.).

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1981. Austral 

Hepaticae XIII. Two new genera of Geocalycaceae 

(Lophocoleaceae). Phytologia 47: 309–312. (28 Jan.).

1982

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1982. Austral Hepaticae 

XV. Brevianthaceae: A monotypic family endemic to 

Tasmania. Bryologist 85: 375–388, f. 1–39. (15 Mar. 

1983). [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3242903.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1982. Exogenous branching and its 

phylogenetic significance in Calobryales and 

Jungermanniales.  Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 51: 1–50, f. 1–6. (27 Jan.).

Schuster, R. M. 1982. Generic and familial endemism in 

the hepatic flora of Gondwanaland: origins and causes. 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 52: 3–35, f. 

1–2. (29 June).

Schuster, R. M. 1982. Richard Spruce (1817–1893): a 

biographical sketch and appreciation. Nova Hedwigia 36: 

199–208.

Schuster, R. M. 1982. Studies on Hepaticae, LIX. On 

Sandeothallus Schust., gen. n. and the classification of the 

Metzgeriales. Nova Hedwigia 36: 1–16. (1 June).

Schuster, R. M., and J.J. Engel. 1982. Austral Hepaticae XVI. 

Gondwanalandic Leptoscyphoideae (Geocalycaceae). 

Lindbergia 8: 65–74, f. 1–3. 

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1982. Austral Hepaticae 

XVII.  Pachyschistochila  Schust. et Engel, gen. nov. 

Phytologia 50: 177–180. (9 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M., and W. B. Schofield. 1982. On 

Dendrobazzania, a new genus of Lepidoziaceae 

(Jungermanniales).  Bryologist 85: 231–238, f. 1–11. (4 

Aug. 1982).

1983

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1983. Austral Hepaticae XVIII. 

Studies toward a revision of Telaranea subg. Neolepidozia 

(Lepidoziaceae). Fieldiana. Botany N. S. 14: i–v, 1–7, 

f. 1–3. (30 Dec.). [http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/

item/20483#page/9/mode/1up; DOI: http://dx.doi.

org/10.5962/bhl.title.2655]

Longton, R. E., and R. M. Schuster. 1983. Reproductive 

Biology.  In R. M. Schuster [ed.], New Manual of 

Bryology, vol. 1, 386–462, fig. 1, tabs. 1–11. Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan. (4 Jan. 1984).

Schuster, R. M [ed.], 1983. New Manual of Bryology, vol. 

1, i–v, 1–626. Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, 

Japan. (4 Jan. 1984).

Schuster, R. M. 1983. Notes on Nearctic Hepaticae, XVI. 

New taxa of Frullania from Eastern North America. 

Phytologia 53: 364–366. (16 June). [http://biostor.org/

cache/pdf/8d/71/bf/8d71bf0ec99c872216d8d92ef0762f

fd.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1983. Phytogeography of the Bryophyta. In R. 

M. Schuster [ed.], New Manual of Bryology, vol. 1, 463–

626, f. 1–79. Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, 

Japan. (4 Jan. 1984).

Schuster, 

 R. M. 1983. Reproductive biology, dispersal 

mechanisms, and distribution patterns in Hepaticae 

and Anthocerotae. In K. Kubitzki [ed.], Dispersal and 

Distribution: An International Symposium. Hamburg, 

Germany. Sonderbaende des Naturwissenschaftlichen 

Vereins in Hamburg 7: 119–162, f. 1–8.

1984

Engel, J. J., and R. M. Schuster. 1984. An overview and 

evaluation of the genera of Geocalycaceae subfamily 

Lophocoleoideae (Hepaticae). Nova Hedwigia 39: 385–

463, f. 1–10. (14 Jan. 1985).

Krassilov, V. A., and R. M. Schuster. 1984. Paleozoic and 

Mesozoic fossils. In R. M. Schuster [ed.], New Manual 

of Bryology, vol. 2, 1172–1193, f. 1–3. Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan. (20 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M. 1984. Comparative anatomy and morphology 

of the Hepaticae. In R. M. Schuster [ed.], New Manual 

of Bryology, vol. 2, 760–891, f. 1–35. Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan. (20 Feb.).

52

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1984. Diagnoses of some new taxa of 

Hepaticae. Phytologia 56: 65–74. (11 Aug.). [http://

biostor.org/cache/pdf/86/36/e7/8636e7f809384847f6afd

e0dfe3ea73c.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1984. Evolution, phylogeny and classification 

of the Hepaticae. In R. M. Schuster [ed.], New Manual of 

Bryology, vol. 2, 892–1070, f. 36–100. Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan. (20 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M. 1984. Morphology, phylogeny and 

classification of the Anthocerotae. In R. M. Schuster 

[ed.], New Manual of Bryology, vol. 2, 1071–1092, f. 1–3. 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, Japan. (20 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M [ed.], 1984. New Manual of Bryology, vol. 

2, 627–1295. Hattori Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, 

Japan. (20 Feb.).

1985

Schuster, R. M. 1985. Austral Hepaticae, XIX. Some taxa new 

to New Zealand and New Caledonia. Phytologia 56: 449–

464. (1 Feb.). [http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/d5/40/3d/

d5403d6db7b724494d9e8b50dcbf52b2.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1985. Some new taxa of Hepaticae. Phytologia 

57: 408–414. (16 July).

Schuster, R. M. 1985. Studies on Porellineae: New 

taxa of Jubulaceae. Phytologia 57: 369–373. (25 

June). [http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/d2/50/91/

d250913e010358cbefc4b73fbc270f13.pdf]

Schuster,, R. M. 1985. Studies on Venezuelan Hepaticae III. 

Families Blepharostomataceae and Balantiopsidaceae. 

Nova Hedwigia 42: 49–79, f. 1–8. (11 Feb. 1986).

Schuster,, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1985. Austral Hepaticae 

V(2). Temperate and subantarctic Schistochilaceae of 

Australasia. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 

58: 255–539, f. 1–76. (19 Sept.). 

1986

Schuster,, R. M. 1986. On the status of Cephalozia macrantha 

Kaal. & Nichols. and C. patagonica Fulford. Lindbergia 

12: 1–4.

Schuster, R. M. 1986. Gymnocolea borealis (Frisvoll & 

Moen) Schust. [Lophozia (Leiocolea) borealis Frisvoll & 

Moen] in North America. Lindbergia 12: 5–8. 

1987

Schuster, R. M. 1987. On Aureolejeunea Schust. and 

Brachiolejeunea paramicola Herzog. Phytologia 61: 

445–447. [http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/33/a7/e8/33a7e8

63e91bce70d634529f9934f471.pdf]

Schuster,, R. M. 1987. Phylogenetic studies on 

Jungermanniidae. II. Mastigophoraceae and 

Chaetophyllopsidaceae.  Memoirs of the New York 

Botanical Garden 45: 733–748. 1987.

Schuster, R. M. 1987. Preliminary studies on Anthocerotae. 

Phytologia 63: 193–201.    [http://biostor.org/cache/pdf/

af/28/6d/af286de194c65017e723a62f3e283180.pdf]

Schuster,, R. M. 1987. Studies on Metzgeriales: I. North 

American Aneuraceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 62: 299–329.

Schuster,, R. M. 1987. Venezuelan Hepaticae IV. 

Amphilejeunea Schust. and Aureolejeunea Schust. Nova 

Hedwigia 44: 1–23.

Schuster,, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1987. A monograph of 

Lepidoziaceae subfam. Lembidioideae (Hepaticae). 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 63: 247–350.

Schuster,, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1987. Austral Hepaticae 

XX. New species of Hygrolembidium (Lepidoziaceae). 

Phytologia 62: 9–12. (4 Feb.).

Schuster, R. M., and K. Damsholt. 1987. Some new taxa 

of Jungermanniales. Phytologia 63: 325–328. [http://

biostor.org/cache/pdf/0e/51/79/0e51796bc1bd83e69b82

ddd33b171d40.pdf]

1988

Engel, J., and R. M. Schuster. 1988. Studies of New Zealand 

Hepaticae. 1–6. Brittonia 40: 200–207, f. 1–18. [http://

www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2807005.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1988. The Hepaticae of South Greenland. 

Beihefte zur Nova Hedwigia 92: 1–255, f. 1–27.

Schuster, R. M. 1988. The aims and achievements of bryophyte 

taxonomists. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 

98: 185–202. [DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1988.tb02423.x] 

Schuster, R. M. 1988. Ecology, reproductive biology and 

dispersal of Hepaticae in the tropics. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 64: 237–269, f. 1–4.

1989

Schuster, R. M. 1989. Studies on the hepatic flora of the Prince 

Edward Islands. I. Aneuraceae. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 67: 59–108, f. 1–12.

Schuster, R. M., and J. A. Janssens. 1989. On Diettertia, 

an isolated Mesozoic member of the Jungermanniales. 

Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 57: 277–287, f. 1–2.

1990

Schuster, R. M. 1990. Origins of neotropical leafy Hepaticae. 

Tropical Bryology 2: 239–264. [http://core.ac.uk/

download/pdf/14529838.pdf]

1991

Schuster, R. M. 1991. Diagnoses of new taxa of Hepaticae. 

I. Jungermanniidae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 70: 143–150.

Schuster, R. M. 1991. On neotenic species of Radula. Journal of 

the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 70: 51–62, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M. 1991. Studies on Venezuelan Hepaticae V. 

On Pseudocephaloziella Schust. (Jungermanniaceae subf. 

Lophozioideae). Nova Hedwigia 53: 331–339, f. 1–2.  

1992

Schuster, R. M. 1992. On Megaceros aenigmaticus Schust. 

Bryologist 95: 305–315, f. 1–3. [http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3243489]

Schuster, R. M. 1992. Studies on Marchantiales, I–III. Journal 

of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 71: 267–287.

53

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1992. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America, vol. V, i–xvii, 1–854. Field Museum, 

Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Schuster, R. M. 1992. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of 

North America, vol. VI, i–xvii, 1–937. Field Museum, 

Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Schuster, R. M. 1992. The oil–bodies of the Hepaticae. 

I. Introduction. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 72: 151–162.

Schuster, R. M. 1992. The oil–bodies of the Hepaticae. 

II. Lejeuneaceae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 72:  163–359, f. 1–33.  

1993 

Schuster, R. M. 1993. On Cephalozia pachycaulis sp. nov. and 

the perimeters of Cephalozia. Bryologist 96: 619–625, f. 

1–2. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3243994]

Schuster, R. M. 1993. Studies on Hepaticae, LXII–LXIV. 

Lepidoziaceae subf. Zoopsidoideae (1). Nova Hedwigia 

56: 35–59, f. 1–3.

Schuster, R. M., and C. Giancotti. 1993. On Vitalianthus 

Schust. & Giancotti, a new genus of Lejeuneaceae. Nova 

Hedwigia 57: 445–456, f. 1–3.

1994

Engel, J., and R. M. Schuster. 1994. Studies of New Zealand 

Hepaticae. 7. The status of Steereomitrium. Bryologist 

97: 63–66, f. 1. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3243350]

Schuster, R. M. 1994. Studies on Lejeuneaceae, I.  Preliminary 

studies on new genera of Lejeuneaceae. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 75:  211–235, f. 1–4.

Schuster, R. M. 1994. Studies on Metzgeriales.  III.  The 

classification of the Fossombroniaceae and on 

Austrofossombronia Schust., gen. n. Hikobia 11:  439–

449, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M. 1994. [Review of:] Wilson N. Stewart and Gar 

W. Rothwell. Paleobotany and the evolution of plants. 

Second Edition. Bryologist 97: 463–464.   

1995

Schuster, R. M. 1995. Notes on Nearctic Hepaticae, XVII. 

Lophozia decolorans, new to North America and the 

Subgenus Isopaches. Bryologist 98: 246–250, f. 1.  [http://

www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3243311.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1995. Notes on nearctic Hepaticae. XX. 

On Schofieldia and evolution in the Cephalozioideae. 

Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica 40: 39–46, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M. 1995. On a new species of Gymnomitrion, G. 

mucrophorum Schust., sp. n. Bryologist 98: 242–245, f. 1. 

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3243310.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1995. Phylogenetic and taxonomic studies 

on Jungermanniidae, III.  Calypogeiaceae. Fragmenta 

Floristica et Geobotanica 40: 825–888, f. 1–15.

Schuster, R. M. 1995. Studies on Cephaloziellaceae III. On 

Cephalomitrion Schust., gen. n. Nova Hedwigia 61: 547–

559, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M. 1995. The Hepaticae of Prince Edward 

Islands. II. On Gymnocoleopsis  (Schust.) Schust., 

Lophozia cylindriformis (Mitt.) Steph. and the subgeneric 

classification of the genus Lophozia Dumort. Journal of 

the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 78:  119–135, f. 1–3.

Schuster,  R. M. 1995. Venezuelan Hepaticae VI. On 

Platycaulis Schust. (Jungermanniales). Nova Hedwigia 

61:  391–396, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M., and A. Schafer-Verwimp. 1995. On 

Pluvianthus (Lejeuneaceae:  Lejeuneoideae). Nova 

Hedwigia 60:  59–72, f. 1–3.

Schuster, R. M., and N. Konstantinova. 1995. Studies on 

Treubiales, I. On Apotreubia Hatt. et al. and A. hortonae 

Schust. & Konstantinova, sp. n. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 78:  41–61, f. 1–3.

1996

Schuster, R. M. 1996. On Jubulopsis Schust. (Jungermanniales: 

Jubulopsidaceae fam. nov.) and its relationships. 

Journal of Bryology 19: 297–310, f. 1–3. [http://www.

maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/jbr.1996.19.2.297; 

DOI: 10.1179/jbr.1996.19.2.297]

Schuster, R. M. 1996. On Olgantha Schust., gen. n. Isophylly 

and evolution of Jungermanniales. Nova Hedwigia 63:  

529–543, f. 1–2.  

Schuster, R. M. 1996. Studies on Antipodal Hepaticae. XII. 

Gymnomitriaceae.  Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 80: 1–147, f. 1–27.

Schuster, R. M. 1996. Studies on Cephaloziellaceae IV. On 

New Zealand taxa. Nova Hedwigia 63: 1–61, f. 1–13.

Schuster, R. M. 1996. Studies on Lejeuneaceae, II. Neotropical 

taxa of Drepanolejeunea (Spr.) Schiffn. Nova Hedwigia 

62:  1–46, f. 1–10.

Schuster, R. M. 1996. Venezuelan Hepaticae VI. On 

Lophonardia Schust. Nova Hedwigia 62:  437–442, f. 1.

Schuster, R. M., and J. J. Engel. 1996. Austral Hepaticae. 

XXI. Paracromastigum fiordlandiae (sp. nov.) and the 

delimitation of Paracromastigum and Hyalolepidozia 

(Lepidoziaceae). Brittonia 48:  165–173, f. 1. [http://

link.springer.com/article/10.2307%2F2807810/

lookinside/000.png; DOI: 10.2307/2807810]

Schuster, R. M., and N. Konstantinova. 1996. Studies on the 

distribution of critical arctic/subarctic Hepaticae with 

special reference to taxa found in Russia. Lindbergia 21: 

26–48, f. 1–10.

1997

Glenny, D., J. Braggins, and R. M. Schuster. 1997. Zoopsis 

nitida (Hepaticae: Lepidoziaceae), a new species from 

New Zealand. Journal of Bryology 19: 775–780, f. 1. 

[http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/

jbr.1997.19.4.775; DOI: 10.1179/jbr.1997.19.4.775]

Schuster, R. M. 1997. On Anastrophyllum stellatum Schust. 

(Jungermanniaceae, Lophozioideae). Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 83: 229–235, f. 1.

Schuster, R. M. 1997. On a new, microphyllous New 

Caledonian Acromastigum (Lepidoziaceae). Nova 

Hedwigia 64: 613–620, f. 1.

54

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Schuster, R. M. 1997. On Bragginsella, a new genus of 

Jungermanniales from New Zealand. Bryologist 

100: 362–367, f. 1–2. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/

pdf/3244506.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1997. On Campanocolea Schust. and asexual 

reproduction in the Geocalycaceae. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 82: 253–259, fig. 1.

Schuster, R. M. 1997. On Takakia and the phylogenetic 

relationships of the Takakiales. Nova Hedwigia 64: 

681–310.

Schuster, R. M., J. J. Engel. 1997. Austral Hepaticae 

XXIV. A Revision of Isotachis  Mitt. (Balantiopsaceae:  

Isotachidoideae) in New Zealand. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 83: 187–227, f. 1–15.

1998

Schuster, R. M. 1998. On Lejeunea (Papillolejeunea) pocsii 

Schust., sp. n. of New Zealand. Journal of the Hattori 

Botanical Laboratory 85: 83–87, f. 1.

Schuster, R. M. 1998. On the genus Scaphophyllum 

(Jungermanniaceae). Bryologist 101: 428–434, f. 1–2.  

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3244182.pdf]

Schuster, R. M. 1998. Venezuelan Hepaticae VII. 

Leptoscyphopsis Schust., a genus seemingly intermediate 

between Geocalycaceae and Plagiochilaceae 

(Jungermanniales). Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 85: 89–94, f. 1.

1999

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Harpalejeunea (Spr.) Schiffn. I. Studies 

on a new Andean species of Harpalejeunea. Journal of the 

Hattori Botanical Laboratory 87:  287–294, f. 1.  

Schuster, R. M. 1999. On Neogrollea E. A. Hodgs. 

(Lepidoziaceae) and the phytogeography of the 

Lepidoziaceae.  Haussknechtia : Mitteilungen der 

Thüringischen Botanischen Gesellschaft Beiheft 9: 333–

338, f. 1.  

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Studies on Hepaticae, LXV. 

Lepidoziaceae subfamily Zoopsidoideae (2):  Zoopsis. 

Nova Hedwigia 68: 1–63, f. 1–16.

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Studies on Hepaticae LXVI. 

Lepidoziaceae subfamily Zoopsidoideae (3):  Zoopsidella. 

Nova Hedwigia 69: 101–149, f. 17–30.

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Studies on Hepaticae, LXVII–

LXVIII. Lepidoziaceae subfamily Zoopsidoideae (4): 

Monodactylopsis and Pteropsiella.  Nova Hedwigia 69: 

517–540, f. 31–36.

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Studies on Jungermanniidae. 

IV. On Scapaniaceae, Blepharidophyllaceae and 

Delavayellaceae. Journal of Bryology 21: 123–132, f. 1–4. 

[http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/

jbr.1999.21.2; DOI: 10.1179/jbr.1999.21.2.123]

Schuster, R. M. 1999. Verdoornia and the phylogeny of the 

Metzgeriales. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 

86: 71–87. f. 1–3.

2000

Schuster, R. M. 2000. Austral Hepaticae. Part I. Beihefte zur 

Nova Hedwigia 118: 1–524, f. 1–211.

Schuster, R. M. 2000. On the genus Rhodoplagiochila Schust. 

(Plagiochilaceae). Nova Hedwigia 71: 395–403, f. 1–2.

Schuster, R. M. 2000. Studies on Lejeuneaceae, II. 

Rectolejeunea Evs. emend. Schust. (Lejeuneoideae). 

Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 89: 113–150, 

f. 1–3.

Schuster, R. M. 2000. Studies on Lejeuneaceae, III. 

Revisionary studies on Stenolejeunea Schust. Journal of 

the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 89: 151–171, f. 1–4.  

2001

Engel, J., and R. M. Schuster, R. M. 2001. Austral Hepaticae. 

32. A revision of the genus Lepidozia (Hepaticae) for 

New Zealand. Fieldiana. Botany N. S. 42: 1–107, f. 1–39. 

[http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20365#page/3/

mode/1up; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.

title.2543]

Schuster, R. M. 2001. On Amphilophocolea  Schust. and 

Cyanolophocolea (Schust.) Schust., new austral genera 

of Lophocoleoideae (Geocalycaceae). Nova Hedwigia 72: 

91–104.

Schuster, R. M. 2001. Revisionary studies on Austral 

Acrobolbaceae, I. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 90: 97–166, f. 1–29.

Schuster, R. M. 2001. Studies on Lejeuneaceae, IV. On 

the circumscription and subdivision of the subfamily 

Lejeuneoideae.  Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 91: 137–172.

Schuster, R. M. 2001. Studies on Hepaticae LXI. 

Trichocoleaceae. Nova Hedwigia 73: 461–486, f. 1–3.

2002

Schuster, R. M. 2002. Austral Hepaticae. Part II. Beihefte zur 

Nova Hedwigia 119: 1–606, f. 212–434.  

2006

Schuster, R. M. 2006. Studies on Lejeuneaceae. V. 

Leucolejeunea and allies. Journal of the Hattori Botanical 

Laboratory 100: 361–406, f. 1–11.  

2007

Hendry, T. A., B. Wang, Y. Yang, E. C. Davis, J. E. 

Braggins, R. M. Schuster, and Y-L Qiu. 2007. 

Evaluating phylogenetic positions of four liverworts 

from New Zealand, Neogrollea notabilis,  Jackiella 

curvata, Goebelobryum unguiculatum and Herzogianthus 

vaginatus, using three chloroplast genes. Bryologist 110: 

738–751.

˝

55

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Mesophytification, not mesophication 

Use of the term “mesophication” has increased over recent years in the ecological literature (Fig. 1).  

The term has been used to describe the process by which the species composition of a natural community 

changes to include a greater percentage of mesophytic species than before. Considering the ecological 

importance of these compositional changes (Nowacki & Abrams, 2008; Clewell, 2014), it is reasonable to 

assume that there will be continued interest in studying and understanding this process. 

Consequently, a brief note on the proper construction of the term used to describe the process is 

warranted and a brief review of pertinent suffixes is necessary.  The suffixes -ic, -ify, and -ification are 

quite useful in respectively forming adjectival, verb, and noun forms of certain conditions (e.g., acidic 

[adj.], acidify [v.], acidification [n.]; toxic [adj.], toxify [v.], toxification [n.]). In constructing these forms, 

it is important that the root is maintained, lest the meaning be obscured. For the adjective mesophytic, 

the proper verb form would be mesophytify, and the noun for the resulting state mesophytification 

(becoming more mesophytic in character).  Although the tonal equivalency of “ph” and “f” appears to 

make “mesophication” sound correct at first listen, further evaluation based on established standards of 

construction reveals that the term is incorrectly formed, as the root is not maintained. 

An appeal is made to continue to follow established standards and adopt “mesophytification” over 

“mesophication” when referring to an increase in the number of mesophytic species in a community.

Literature Cited

Clewell, A.F.  2014.  Forest development 44 years after fire exclusion in formerly annually burned oldfield pine 

woodland, Florida.  Castanea 79: 147–167.

Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams.  2008.  The demise of fire and “mesophication” for forests in the eastern United States. 

BioScience 58: 123–138.

— Alexander Krings, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 

NC 27695-7612. E-mail:  akrings@ncsu.edu

Fig. 1.  Number of citations returned from a search for “mesophication” in ISIS Web of 

Science by year. 

56

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Versatility for

Education 

and

 Research.

LI-COR Environmental Education Fund (LEEF) is a  
matching grants program that was developed to put  
research-grade instrumentation into the hands of undergraduates. 
Integrating the LI-6400XT Portable Photosynthesis System into your 
classroom means your students have access to the most referenced 
photosynthesis system in peer-reviewed literature, worldwide.  
Visit 

www.licor.com/LEEF

 to apply today.

www.licor.com/

leef

Matching Grants  

to Match Your Students’ Interest

57

BSA Science Education 

News and Notes

By Catrina Adams,  

Education Director

BSA Science Education News and Notes is a 

quarterly update about the BSA’s education efforts 

and the broader education scene. We invite you 

to submit news items or ideas for future features. 

Contact Catrina Adams, Education Director, at 

CAdams@botany.org.

Math and Biology: Improving 

Students’ Quantitative Literacy   

In the 21st century it is increasingly important 

for everyone to be able to make sense of data, 

understand how to reason quantitatively, and 

interpret a simple graph, regardless of whether they 

end up in a STEM career. Data are getting bigger 

and more easily shared, as when, for example, 

scientists begin harnessing the power of citizen 

scientists armed with GPS-capable and camera-

ready phones to help expand the reach of their data 

collection efforts. As charts, graphs, data-dense 

maps, and infographics abound, it’s important to 

empower our students both to be critical consumers 

of quantitative information, and to give them the 

tools to adequately use quantitative reasoning to 

support their own arguments. 

In my efforts with the PlantingScience online 

mentoring community, I see middle- and high-

school students struggle to use the data they have 

collected over the course of their experiments 

effectively in drawing conclusions about their 

studies. Some student groups have beautifully 

designed graphs and use some basic statistics, 

while others struggle with the best way to 

describe differences among their replicates. 

For many students, PlantingScience represents 

their first chance to draw their own conclusions 

using quantitative data. They are proud of 

the experimental designs they developed, but 

often struggle to make sense of their data. My 

observations from PlantingScience echo the 2009 

Nation’s Report Card, which noted, “Students were 

successful on parts of investigations that involved 

limited sets of data and making straightforward 

observations of that data. Students were challenged 

by parts of investigations that contained more 

variables to manipulate or involved strategic decision 

making to collect appropriate data. The percentage 

of students who could select correct conclusions from 

an investigation was higher than for those students 

who could select correct conclusions and also explain 
their results.” 

Whether you teach primary or secondary school, 

undergraduate students, graduate students—or 

even when discussing the latest infographic-heavy 

news story at a party—you may have found yourself 

in a position to help others become more informed 

about what it means to use quantitative reasoning 

effectively. 

Although basic quantitative literacy is important 

for all students to help them be informed citizens, 

it is even more essential for students pursuing 

a degree in biology to have a firm grasp of data 

analysis. Students entering graduate school in 

biology need substantial skills in quantitative 

analysis, and they may come to their undergraduate 

institution underprepared. Many of you are experts 

in bridging the gap between the quantitative 

literacy that students arrive with in introductory 

biology courses and what they leave with when they 

graduate to pursue a career in science or graduate 

school. 

Perhaps you have designed training programs or 

labs, or use particularly good (or particularly bad) 

examples to help people get up to speed quickly 

and add these skills to their toolkit. With so many 

biologists working to teach these same skills, there 

is a lot of potential for collaboration around best 

practices and developing resources. Many of you 

have created resources that could benefit students 

beyond your own classes or institution. Why not 

share and discuss these with a receptive community 

facing similar challenges? 

We are happy to announce that the BSA has 

recently joined the QUBES consortium and we 

are looking forward to sharing the efforts of this 

group towards improving quantitative literacy in 

undergraduate biology. I’d like to share a recent 

update from the QUBES leadership team. 

58

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

*****

QUBES stands for Quantitative Undergraduate 

Biology Education and Synthesis. We are a group 

working on developing a synergy of resources 

for faculty who are interested in incorporating 

biology into math and math into biology!  For 

example, QUBES facilitates a mentoring program 

to help instructors implement quantitative skills in 

biology programs. Two pilot mentoring networks 

are currently underway: an introductory biology 

mentoring network at Radford University and a 

POPULUS mentoring network at the University of 

Pittsburgh

.

BSA member and PlantingScience 

high school teacher Naomi Volain 

honored in Dubai as one of the 

top 10 teachers worldwide in the 

Global Teacher Prize

The Global Teacher Prize is an annual $1 million 

award presented by the Varkey Foundation to 

an exceptional teacher. US News has dubbed the 

award the Nobel Prize of Teaching. Naomi Volain 

of Springfield Central High School was one of the 

10 world finalists for the award, and one of three 

finalists from the United States. 

Naomi has been a BSA member since 2010 

and has been using PlantingScience regularly in 

her classroom since 2008. Her classes focus on 

environmental literacy and outdoor education, 

and she was instrumental in getting a greenhouse 

for her school, which she regularly used to teach 

botany. The greenhouse will be dedicated to Naomi 

QUBES near you: QUBES Leadership Team 

member D.B. Poli made an appearance at SICB 

this January.  We also recently co-sponsored a 

summit on undergraduate quantitative biology 

with a Data Inquiry RCN-UBE at NESCent in 

February 2015.  Upcoming talks and workshops 

with our leadership team this summer include: 

ASMCUE (both during and pre-conference), 

HHMI QuantiBio/BioQUEST, Gordon Research 

Conference on Undergraduate Biology Education, 

the Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical 

Biology, and the BOTANY 2015 meeting. Keep an 

eye out for us, and say hi!

*****

Science teacher Naomi Volain (center right) with former President Bill Clinton and the 9 other finalists 

for the Global Teacher Prize.  

this spring, as she leaves Springfield Central for 

California.

Naomi is a part of the NASA Network of 

Educator Astronaut Teachers, and she received 

the Presidential Award for Excellence in Math 

and Science and an Honorable mention for the 

Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental 

Educators. You can learn more about Naomi 

and her teaching in this video: http://www.

globalteacherprize.org/top-10-finalist/naomi-

volain

As botany classes become more rare, it is so 

important to have such a stellar teacher as a 

champion on the world stage for the importance 

of teaching about plants and ensuring that students 

understand the importance of the environment and 

the role plants play in their daily lives. 

Congratulations Naomi 

and thank you!

59

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

PlantingScience  

as “Broader Impacts”

Last June, a multidisciplinary group of biologists 

from the University of Illinois reported on their 

development of a graduate-level broader impacts 

training course (Heath et al., 2014).  The primary 

driving force was the recognition that federal grant 

proposals commonly include broader impacts 

criteria in evaluating grant proposals, and that 

future scientists—graduate students—are given 

little if any training in how to accomplish this. 

Among their course goals were to: (1) introduce 

NSF’s broader impact criteria and train students 

to design broader impacts into their proposals, (2) 

introduce how to design, implement and assess 

informal education outreach, (3) forge community 

connections, (4) promote communication of 

science to a broad audience, and (5) provide 

an authentic outreach experience. Post-course 

student surveys were highly favorable in response 

to questions about each of these goals. About half 

of the faculty mentors of the students in the course 

also responded to a post-course survey. Of these 

eight faculty members, three responded that they 

did not discuss the course with their students at 

all and three others discussed it only a little. Two 

discussed the course and broader impacts with 

their students a lot. Yet all eight responded that they 

would recommend the course to future advisees. 

by Marsh Sundberg, 

Department of Biology, 

Emporia State University, 

Emporia, Kansas

I suspect that the response of Illinois faculty is 

similar to what would be found at most institutions 

around the country. We all understand that to be 

successful, we must address broader impacts in our 

grant proposals, and it would be nice if somebody 

on campus taught our students how to do it and 

provided us with opportunities to easily participate. 

However, that’s time away from research that I 

can’t afford to take—much less to be involved in 

developing such a course at my institution.  

So, is there an alternative?  Yes, of course—

PlantingScience! 

PlantingScience is arguable the most effective 

training program developed by the Botanical 

Society in its 100+-year history. Designed in 

response to a challenge by then National Academies 

President Bruce Alberts, PlantingScience provides 

for many of the goals outlined by the Illinois group.  

It is an authentic outreach to schools, and the BSA 

has designed, and tested, the efficacy of the on-line 

format. The Master Plant Science Team program 

provides specific training to graduate student and 

post-docs on best practices for mentoring students 

in an inquiry-based format that introduces them 

to the nature and practice of science. The nature 

of  PlantingScience promotes development of a 

broader learning community consisting of student 

groups, school teachers and the scientist mentor 

that typically span across the country and even 

internationally. Master Plant Science training 

develops skills at communicating science at a level 

understandable by high school and middle school 

students—a necessary skill (and at about the right 

level) for communicating science to the general 

population.  

LITERATURE CITED

Heath, K. D., E. Bagley, A. J. M. Berkey, D. M. Birlenbach, 

M. K. Carr-Markell, J. W. Crawford, M. A. Duennes, 

et al.  2014.  Amplify the signal: Graduate training in 

broader impacts of scientific research. BioScience 64: 

517–523.

Be Sure to Attend BOTANY 2015: Science and Plants for People

www.botanyconference.org

There will be a great line-up of education workshops, including “Planting Inquiry in Science 

Classrooms“ and “Crowd sourcing and citizen science: engaging the public in natural history 

collections digitization.” On Monday afternoon check out a symposium on “Blended Learning and 

Educational Technology to Enhance Biology,” which includes D.B. Poli’s talk on QUBES. And don’t 

miss the PlantingScience mixer on Monday evening. We’ll also have a PlantingScience discussion 

section where you can learn more about this program and about mentoring more generally. The 

Teaching Section has a great lineup of papers and posters this year as well. Check the website for 

details and schedule updates. 

60

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

61

BSA COMMITTEES IN ACTION

As a longtime BSA member (64 years), I have 

attended all but two BSA annual meetings and have 

literally rubbed shoulders with some of the best and 

most famous botanists in the world (in audience 

at my first talk as a young graduate student were 

Ledyard Stebbins, Katherine Esau, Ernest Gifford 

and Vernon Cheadle)! How fortunate (and scared) 

can one be!  And now as a long-time member of 

BSA, I reflect on how I have committed part of my 

professional outside-of-the-university time in a 

variety of ways to the Society—they include financial 

support, oral and poster presentations, publications 

in  AJB, section chair, committee member, Board 

of Directors and Council member, Treasurer, and 

yes, President. All of these involvements have been 

extremely rewarding to me both professionally and 

personally.  

However, one of my most gratifying 

involvements has been to chair the Investment 

Committee (IC)—a committee that was created 

in the early 1990s from my concerns as Treasurer 

(1986-1992) that the Society funds at that time were 

not being adequately invested and overseen by any 

Society committee. This concern became clearer as 

I became President-elect in 1993-94. In 1993, the 

Financial Advisory Committee was established 

and consisted of: Joe Armstrong, Gary Floyd, 

Chris Haufler (Secretary, ex officio), Jack Horner 

(chair), Judy Jernstedt (Treasurer, ex officio) and 

Grady Webster (President, ex officio). The initial 

goals of the committee were to combine funds 

maintained in several, unrelated BSA accounts 

(total of $884,317) and to identify a professional 

investment firm to manage what has been called 

since then the BSA Endowment Fund. With the 

approval of the then Executive Committee, Smith 

Where Goes the BSA 

Endowment:  A Legacy Yet to be 

Written

by Harry T. (Jack) Horner, IC 

Chair, a Past President, and 

Distinguished Fellow of BSA

Barney Shearson Investment Firm was chosen to 

initiate and manage a financial plan that included 

a diversity of investments from conservative to 

moderately aggressive.

Since those ‘early’ days, the goals for the 

Endowment Fund have remained the same—to 

enhance growth and protect the Fund, as well as to 

provide limited funding for Society initiatives. The 

Financial Advisory Committee name was changed 

to the IC, the investment firm has remained the 

same but is now called Morgan Stanley, the IC 

membership has changed periodically, grown 

(to eight) and added a student member, and the 

endowment has grown to about $5 million. The 

Endowment today includes general BSA funds 

(largest portion), society section funds, and awards 

and scholarships funds. The Endowment Fund is 

diversely invested to optimize return, and the IC 

oversees and approves any changes recommended 

by the investment firm. 

However, with expanding Society outreach 

programs and other Society initiatives, and major 

changes in the publishing industry related to our 

publications and in particular, the flagship journal—

the American Journal of Botany—the Endowment 

Fund is increasingly becoming a source for needed 

funds to maintain the Society’s overall budget. As a 

result, growth of the Endowment has begun to slow 

(realizing also the impact on the global economy). 

These are concerns and challenges facing the Society 

leadership, and ultimately the BSA membership.  

Two major initiatives by the Society have been 

developed in recent years that hopefully will help 

to sustain and grow the Endowment Fund to where 

it needs to be ($20 million) to remain significant 

in meeting the present and certainly the future 

financial needs of the Society. The first is the 

Legacy Society and the second is the Development 

Committee. The latter group is represented by BSA 

members who are committed to developing and 

implementing ideas that enhance the financial 

well-being of the Society.  And the former group 

are BSA members committed to developing ways 

to financially support the Society by enlisting 

members who realize the importance of BSA to 

society and who are able to contribute financially 

in significant ways. Together, these two bodies 

represent the future welfare of BSA and its ability to 

serve Botany in the broadest sense.  

62

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

botany educators for the future. For example, one 

of our plans for the Botany 2016 meeting is to hold 

a friendly competition among our graduate student 

chapters to develop a “trunk activity” that can be 

used as an effective way to teach a botanical concept 

at a public outreach event. If all goes according to 

plan, not only will student chapters submit ideas, 

but we will also try to arrange for an outreach day 

at an appropriate local venue during Botany 2016 to 

let students take their projects to the public. These 

trunk activities could then possibly become a set 

of resources that the BSA can provide when our 

membership wants to participate in an outreach 

event.

During my time as Chair of the Education 

Committee, I see that the value of this committee 

is that it provides a way for the BSA to continue 

supporting education in our chosen field. I’m 

certain that many of us can think back to the 

person, perhaps a family member or mentor, who 

was important in saying something that sparked 

our interest and promoted desire to further our 

education in botany. Simply put, the goal of the 

Education Committee is to make sure that those 

botanical voices are always there.

Most importantly, it is all of the BSA members, 

like you and me (emeritus, regular and student 

members), who must embrace this concept 

because of who we are and what we believe in—

Botany. Such support includes contributing one’s 

time, talents, and (yes) money to the Society, not 

for just this generation but for future generations 

who love everything about plants and who realize 

their critical importance to all humankind. Our 

commitment, be it $5 a year or $5000 a year to the 

Endowment Fund, will make a difference! I ask you 

to become involved, be proactive and support your 

Society, like other BSA members and I are doing. It 

is up to you.

A Word from the Education 

Committee 

When I began taking on different service 

activities with the BSA, one of the first things I 

encountered that caused a bit of confusion was the 

existence of both a Teaching Section and Education 

Committee. While they are both very similar and 

their memberships unified in their ultimate goals of 

promoting and improving botany education, they 

approach this goal in slightly different ways.  

In terms of the Education Committee, our 

mission is to serve as the face and voice of the BSA 

and the botanical sciences in national discussions 

of STEM education. For example, NSF has 

recently solicited input from the BSA Education 

Committee to provide information on how our 

society has responded to the Vision & Change 

Report that has been an influential guidepost for 

innovating and revitalizing STEM education. The 

Education Committee has also worked with related 

professional societies to put forth effective ideas 

about how to more effectively spread information 

about botanical education at outreach events such 

as the USA Science and Engineering Festival. 

We constantly work within the BSA to develop 

activities that will promote how our membership 

thinks about formal and informal botany education 

and how the BSA can support the development of 

by Phil Gibson, Education 

Committee chair

Recent Education 

Committee Activities 

•  BSA Booth at USA Science & Engineer-

ing Festival, Washington DC 

•  Reviewing and publishing education ma-

terials on PlantED Digital Library  

http://planted.botany.org 

•  Promoting plant walks on Fascination of 

Plants Day 

•  Vision & Change in Botany Education 

Symposium at Botany 2014 

•  Botany In A Trunk Education Outreach 

Contest for Botany 2015 

•  Member of Life Discovery Conference 

Organizing Committee

63

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

In order to better serve the members of the BSA, 

the Public Policy Committee needs your input to 

build toward a public policy mission that is in line 

with the wishes and vision of our membership. 

In order to do so, we need your help! The Public 

Policy Committee has put together a very brief, 

5- to 10-minute survey that asks you to share your 

view of the role public policy plays in botany and 

the role that botany should have in public policy! 

Your responses will help us pursue activities that 

reflect the advocacy needs of the Botanical Society 

of America.

the survey can be found at 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/

dr9gg8c.

Note: ASPT members, we know that you recently 

took a similar survey, and since many of our 

members overlap, we will be coordinating or at least 

communicating on our policy efforts with ASPT’s 

Environmental Policy Committee. However, your 

response to this survey will still be a great help!

Public Policy News

by Marian Chau, and Morgan Gostel   

Public Policy Committee Co-Chairs

The Public Policy Committee would also like to 

extend our congratulations to the awardees of the 

2015 Public Policy Award, Andrew Pais and Dr. 

Ingrid Jordon-Thaden.

Andrew Pais is a Ph.D. Candidate in Plant 

and Microbial Biology at North Carolina State 

University, and Dr. Ingrid Jordon-Thaden is 

the David Burpee Postdoctoral Fellow, working 

with Dr. Chris Martine at Bucknell University. 

Dr. Jordon-Thaden also currently serves on the 

Environmental Policy Committee of the American 

Society for Plant Taxonomists (ASPT).

On May 13 and 14, 2015 Andrew and Ingrid 

traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with their 

elected Congressional Representative and Senators 

to discuss the importance of federal funding for 

basic scientific research. We are proud to support 

travel and attendance to the Congressional Visits 

Day (CVD), organized by the Biological and 

Ecological Sciences Coalition (BESC) and the 

American Institute for Biological Sciences (AIBS) 

for these early career botanists, who have a chance 

to speak with policy makers about the critical role 

of scientific research as constituents, botanists, and 

high-achieving, early-career researchers. 

Keep an eye out for a report on their experiences 

in the next issue of the Plant Science Bulletin! For 

more information on CVD, visit http://www.aibs.

org/public-policy/congressional_visits_day.html 

and please consider participating next year! Very 

few researchers actually discuss their work directly 

with policy makers and our voices, as both botanists 

and constituents make a profound difference! 

60 Years Ago: 

Dr. Ralph Wetmore made the following remarks regarding the status of Botany in his  

address as retiring president of the Botanical Society of America.

“We need offer no apologies for our existence. Physics may have, for some time, to be concerned in destruction; 

botany is concerned in survival. I do believe we must recognize Botany for what it is, a science so concerned 

in man’s affairs that we must see to it that all recognize its value. We must make it command the respect of the 

administrators, and of our zoological colleagues as well. . . (PSB 1(2):2-3) 

50 Years Ago:   

BSA Merit Awards were presented at the Urbana meeting to:

Daniel Israel Arnon for his contributions to our knowledge of the mineral nutrients of plants and for his 

distinguished pioneering work on the way green plants utilize the energy of sunlight. 

Harold Charles Bold for his classical research on morphology, cytology, and cultivation of unicellular algae and 

his scholarly surveys of the plant kingdom; an outstanding teacher and considerate editor. (PSB 11(2):5) 

25 Years Ago:   

 The BSA publishes a Resolution Critical of Transplantation as a Primary Means of Plant    

Preservation, adopted at the August 1989 BSA Council Meeting in Toronto, Ontario

From the 

PSB Archives

64

STUDENT SECTION

by Angela McDonnell and Jon Giddens,  

Student Representatives

A Word from the Student 

Representatives

How to get the most out of 

the Botany 2015 conference

It’s that time of year again! Our society’s annual 

conference will be held July 25-29 at the Shaw 

Conference Centre in Edmonton, Alberta. This 

year, the theme is “Science for Plants and People.” 

To get more information about the talks, symposia, 

and workshops and to register for the conference, 

be sure to visit the website (www.botanyconference.

org) and the conference app (available this 

summer). For this issue of the Bulletin, our focus 

is to provide advice and tips on how to have a 

productive (and fun!) meeting and how to keep the 

momentum going after the conference is over.

Pre-conference: Funding

With registration, room, travel, and other costs 

associated with meeting attendance as they are, you 

should think of the conference as an investment of 

sorts. Think about things you can do in advance 

that will help you get the most out of the short 

time you’re there. It’s also important to think ahead 

about seeking support from multiple funding 

sources. This skill is useful while you’re a student, 

of course, but it’s also a technique many faculty 

and professionals still utilize to aid their own 

attendance at professional meetings. While it might 

be too late this year to apply for funds by the time 

this issue comes out, remember to apply for the 

annual BSA sectional grants, enter the Triarch Plant 

Images photo contest, and seek funding from your 

own institution. Student Government Associations, 

including Graduate and Professional organizations, 

many departments, and various clubs will often 

award grants-in-aid for conference travel. If you’re 

a member of the ASPT, their travel lottery can also 

be a great resource in allowing students to pull 

together funding. By pooling monies from different 

sources, you can really reduce your out-of-pocket 

meeting attendance costs. To see the BSA’s award 

application and nomination deadlines, go to http://

botany.org/Awards/index.php#deadlines.

Pre-conference: Planning how 

you’ll use your time

Other things to consider before the meeting 

include utilizing digital media to your advantage. 

Be sure to follow the societies you are a member of 

on social media. It’s even a good idea to follow the 

societies you aren’t a member of if you know they’ll 

have a presence at the meeting. You never know 

what sorts of events you could attend or what sorts 

of information you’ll glean! Be sure to find BSA on 

Twitter (@Botanical_) and Facebook (Botanical 

Society of America), as there are often posts that 

are relevant to students, including reminders 

about various deadlines and events that are of 

broad interest. Don’t forget about the ‘Students of 

the Botanical Society of America’ Facebook page, 

too! We’ll be posting there in the weeks before the 

meeting to remind you about opportunities at the 

meeting. Another important digital item to keep 

track of is the conference app. You can look up the 

conference schedule, find a map of the venue, select 

items you’re interested in attending, and create your 

own personal schedule via the app. It’s also possible 

to create your schedule through the conference 

website. In reading abstracts and creating a schedule 

in advance, you’ll be less likely to miss events and 

you’ll make the most of your time there. 

At the conference: Important 

Student Events & Opportunities

While you’re at the meeting, you’ll probably 

have a slew of talks and sessions that you want to 

attend. Those are definitely important, but you 

should also attend coffee breaks, poster sessions, 

banquets, and other events as your schedule 

allows. Those events are where you’re most likely 

to meet people and connect. There are also a few 

student events we’d like to highlight. First, there is 

the annual “Careers in Botany: Interactive Career 

Panel & Luncheon” event that’s organized by your 

student representatives. We’ll have panelists from 

different botanical career backgrounds available to 

meet with students and give brief synopses of what 

65

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

they do along with tips and guidance about how to 

succeed in different career tracks. This event will 

happen Monday, July 27, from noon to 1:30 and 

is $5 for students (it also includes a great lunch!). 

Second, we’ll have our annual Student Social Mixer 

on the evening of Monday, July 27, from 9:00 

pm to midnight. This year, we have many more 

participating societies than usual, so we’re making 

this event a collaboration between the American 

and Canadian Societies and should be a great 

party-like atmosphere. The event is $5 and includes 

a drink ticket and appetizers. We hope you’ll join 

us for networking and socializing! Finally, we’re 

also planning a brief Students of BSA meeting, with 

the date and time to be announced via Facebook.  

We hope you’ll join us and give us suggestions and 

feedback to make the conference and the society 

better for students!

Post-conference:  

Keep the good things going

After the meeting is over, try not to lose the 

energy and momentum you may have gained. 

Follow up with the contacts you made (both 

faculty and the other students) via email. Don’t be 

afraid to ask for more information about talks that 

piqued your interest. If you were a PLANTS grant 

recipient, stay in touch with your mentors. They 

can be a valuable resource as you develop your 

career goals and plans. The people you meet at the 

conference can be instrumental in terms of future 

research collaborations and career possibilities. The 

key is to stay in touch and be connected. Be sure to 

visit and interact with BSA online for society news, 

links to news articles and current publications, 

information on job vacancies, and so much more. 

We look forward to seeing you soon.

Student Events at Botany 2015

Professional Development Workshop: Graduate School - How to Ap-

ply and What to Expect

Sunday, July 26  1:00 pm to 3:00 pm

Non-Academic Botanical Career Panel

Sunday, July 26  3:15 pm to  5:15 pm

Interactive Career Panel & Luncheon 

Monday, July 27  noon to 1:30 pm 

Student Social & Mixer

Monday, July 27  9:00 pm to midnight at the Craft Beer Market  

Sponsored in part by the participating societies and IJPS

66

ANNOUNCEMENTS

James (Jim) Lauritz Reveal 

(1941-2015)

Professor James Lauritz Reveal, popularly known 

to the botanical community as Jim Reveal, died on 

the 9th of January 2015, at age 73.  Jim’s unexpected 

death sent a short wave within the botanical 

community, triggering emotional comments such 

as “Jim was much too young to abandon us,” “even 

the most vigorous are mortal,” and “one of the most 

energetic, dedicated, and productive people was 

lost.”

By and large, Jim’s research and writing pertained 

to the Polygonaceae subfamily Eriogonoideae, 

commonly known as the wild buckwheats in which 

he had contributed significantly, including volume 

5 of the Flora of North America, published in 2005. 

Jim is recognized for his imprint on his special 

groups, as well as for his reviews of hundreds of 

articles that helped professionals and students alike. 

Jim was born in Reno Nevada in March 1941 

and graduated from Sonora Union High School in 

Sonora, CA in the spring of 1959. After graduation, 

he spent the summer working for the U.S. Forest 

Service in the Toiyabe National Forest.  That fall, 

he joined the Utah State University with a major 

in forestry. In 1961, perhaps influenced from a 

meeting with Dr. Arthur H. Holmgren, Professor 

of Botany, he changed his major to botany and 

chose to study Eriogonum. In this regard, besides 

Prof. Holmgren, Jim received guidance from John 

Thomas Howell (CAS), Arthur Cronquist (NY), 

and George J. Goodman (OKL).  For his senior 

Thesis, submitted in the spring of 1963, he prepared 

a checklist of the Intermountain Flora.

Jim continued his studies at Utah State and 

received his M.S. in 1965. For his doctoral program, 

Jim went to Brigham Young University where he 

worked with Stanley L. Welsh (botany) and LeRoy 

R. Hafen (western American history). Along with 

Noel Holmgren (NY; then a Ph.D. student at 

Columbia University), Jim traveled throughout the 

West collecting plants for the Intermountain Flora 

project and their doctoral studies. [Jim’s passion 

for plant collection started quite early; in his high 

school days, he had collected plants for his advanced 

biology class.] During his 1966-67 academic year, 

Jim received a pre-doctoral fellowship from the 

Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., so 

he could study numerous critical specimens of 

Eriogonum. During the summer of 1968, along with 

Janice C. Beatley, an ecologist, Jim worked on the 

flora of the Nevada Test Site, and this study led to 

the discovery of five new varieties confined to that 

site.

Jim had a distinguished botanical career 

spanning more than four decades. He 

spent three 

productive decades of his professional career at the 

University of Maryland (1969--1999). I

mmediately 

after completing his Ph.D. degree

 in 1969, Jim 

accepted an assistant professor position at the 

University of Maryland; in 1981, he became a full 

professor. For two decades (1979-1999), Jim served 

as director of the Norton-Brown Herbarium of the 

University of Maryland.  

Besides teaching and herbarium administration, 

he focused his research on the flora of the 

Intermountain West, Eriogonum and its near 

relatives, the flora of Maryland, the history of 

scientific (especially botanical) explorations and 

discoveries in the West, and detailed examination of 

the suprageneric names, which eventually resulted 

in an important database. In this regard, he received 

funding from the National Science Foundation and 

other federal agencies. His interest and knowledge 

on American botanical history led to a project 

on the colonial flora of Maryland (1680-1725); 

Jim spent 18 months (1989-90) at The Natural 

History Museum in London (BM) and focused on 

American plants named by Carl Linnaeus (1753-

1778). This led to Jim’s participation in BM’s project 

on the typification of Linnaean names, especially 

generic names.  Jim was instrumental in enabling three 

In 

memoriam

67

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

exhibitions of Sloane Herbarium’s collections of these 

Maryland plant specimens in Maryland in 1983.

Jim’s research on endangered and threatened 

species brought him into connection with the 

following institutions: Atomic Energy Commission 

(University of California at Los Angeles), the 

Endangered Species Committee of the National 

Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian 

Institution), and the Office of Endangered 

Species and International Affairs (United States 

Department of the Interior). Jim was instrumental 

in attaining the addition of endangered plant species 

to the original Endangered Species Act.  At the 16

th

International Botanical Congress (IBC), held at 

St. Louis, MO in Jul-Aug 1999, at the concluding 

session, a resolution was passed urging the world 

community to recognize plant conservation as an 

outstanding global priority, and Jim urged the IBC 

President, Peter H. Raven, to communicate the 

same to the United Nations Organization. 

Although a proposal on registration of plant 

names in the 16

th

 IBC was defeated, Jim was of the 

opinion that it was only a matter of time for the 

acceptance of this concept.  True to his thought, this 

principle is mandatory in Mycology and currently 

being discussed for the Algal and plant groups.  

In late 1999, after thirty years at Maryland, Jim 

chose to retire; the university bestowed on him 

the honor of “Emeritus Professor.” He and his 

wife, Carmen Rose Broome, moved to Montrose, 

Colorado. 

From 1999 until 2007, he and Rose traveled 

widely, collecting throughout the West.  From 

2003 to 2005 they also visited much of the Pacific 

Northwest and the Great Plains including sites 

where Meriwether Lewis and William Clark 

collected plants from 1804-1806. Jim contributed 

much to the Discovering Lewis & Clark project; he 

coauthored with Scott Earle the 2003 publication of 

Lewis and Clark’s Green World: The Expedition and 

its Plants.

In 2007, Jim chose to move back to the east coast 

and accepted an adjunct professorship at Cornell 

University. 

Perhaps because of his association with 

BHL, Jim encountered hundreds of names, which 

were validly published, but remained buried in the 

horticultural literature. He brought the same to the 

attention of the International Plant Name Index 

(IPNI) editors.

He was very generous with his time and always 

willing to share his knowledge and discuss ideas. 

Jim was very supportive of the Eriogoum Society 

and served as a mentor to the society’s members.  

Dealing with plant nomenclatural discussions 

on a daily basis was a routine for Jim, and in this 

regard, he had an excellent relationship with 

Werner Greuter (B), John McNeill (E), John 

Wiersema (BARC), and Kanchi Gandhi (GH). His 

comprehension of complex problems and finding/

accepting solutions were usually quick. In 1991 

(or so), Jim argued for the authorship of “Nutt. 

in Torrey and A. Gray” for a name provided by 

Torrey and A. Gray to which Nuttall provided a 

description. When Gandhi responded stating that 

it was Torrey and Asa Gray, who provided a species 

name to Thomas Nuttall’s description, that they did 

not ascribe the name to Nuttall, and that they are 

the authors. Jim recognized the logic and instantly 

agreed.

Jim’s skills in fieldwork, floristic studies, 

taxonomic treatments, nomenclature, reviews for 

journals, teaching, and lecturing made him one 

of the few botanists recognized and respected 

internationally. His long working hours led him to 

be a prolific publisher, though this may also imply 

that he spent almost all of his time in academics.

 Not 

only he was 

a teetotaler and a non-smoker, he also 

avoided caffeine drinks. 

Jim’s unique personality is 

a reflection of his modesty in all walks of his life 

and congeniality, which drew appreciation from 

everyone. 

Jim authored and/or coauthored more than 

700 plant names at various ranks (infraspecies—

superorder).  The 1982 publication of Trillium 

pusillum  var.  monticulum Bodikin & Reveal, 

reported from Virginia, received media attention, 

because for almost four decades there had not 

been any discovery of new taxa along the eastern 

seaboard

Jim will long be remembered for his relentless 

attention to detail and dedication to high standards, 

along with a refreshing smile. His enthusiasm 

for the botanical world captivated those around 

him for many decades. His website on vascular 

plant suprageneric names, the only such website 

(http://www.plantsystematics.org/reveal/pbio/fam/

allspgnames.html) available on the web, had made 

him a 

formidable

 figure in plant systematics. As in 

line with other major international databases, such 

as the IPNI and Tropicos, Jim updated the data 

regularly. A summary of his professional career 

may be found at http://www.plantsystematics.org/

reveal/pbio/WWW/cvjlr.html.

In Jim’s death, we have lost a great gifted-mind 

far too soon. Ave atque vale!
---Kanchi N. Gandhi

68

Book Reviews

Ecological 

Darwin’s Orchids Then & Now ........................................................................................68

Essentials of Conservation Biology, 6th edition ...............................................................69

Economic Botany 

Ireland’s Generous Nature: The Past and Present Uses of Wild Plants in Ireland ...........70

Physiological

Plant Behaviour and Intelligence  .....................................................................................72

Systematics

CITES and Cacti: A User’s Guide ....................................................................................73

Anatomy of the Monocotyledons, Vol. X: Orchidaceae ...................................................75

Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Bolivia, Vols. 1–2 ................................................76

Weeds of North America  .................................................................................................77

Darwin’s Orchids Then & Now

Retha Edens-Meier and Peter Bernhardt, 

editors

2014. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-04491-0 (cloth)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-17364-1 (e-book)

Cloth, US$55.00. 384 pp.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 

USA

Reading this book took much longer than I 

expected because it contains a tremendous amount 

of interesting and valuable information and also 

because it stimulates thinking and challenges the 

imagination. A good subtitle for the book could 

be a modification of the title of Chapter 2 (by 

Giovanni Scopece, Salvatore Cozalino [both of the 

University of Naples Federico II, Italy], and Amots 

Dafni [University of Haifa, Israel]): “Darwin [snip]: 

What He Taught Us and What We Can Tell Him 

Today,” because most chapters start with Darwin’s 

work or a reference to it and proceed logically to 

modern concepts and current research. 

Much can be learned from every chapter, because 

of both the content and the logical progression in 

which information is given—from Darwin’s work 

and times to the present. This being said, I think 

that trying to imagine Darwin’s reaction to being 

told “what we can tell him today” is fascinating. I 

often stopped while reading the book and tried to 

imagine Darwin being told of what is known today. 

I also tried to imagine what it would it have been like 

to have a conversation with Darwin about orchids 

while standing in his Down House greenhouse (it 

has been restored and still exists).

My view is that he would greatly enjoy this book, 

learn from it, be amazed by the advances  orchid 

science has made since his day, be fascinated by 

the techniques and apparatus used at present, 

be gratified but not surprised by the fact that all 

progress did is prove him right, and perhaps be 

bored by some discoveries made after 1882. Why? 

Because he predicted at least three of them. 

One prediction was his “notion (no … firm 

conviction)” that germinating seeds “are parasites 

in early youth on cryptogams!!”, i.e., fungi (Darwin, 

1863). This was a prediction of the dependency 

of orchid seeds on mycorrhizae for germination, 

which was discovered in 1899 (36 years later) by 

the French botanist Noël Bernard (for a review and 

discussion see Yam et al. [2009]). 

Another, perhaps less direct predication was that 

pollen contains and/or initiates the production of 

hormones (now known as auxin and ethylene), 

which bring about the senescence and death 

of the perianth of most orchid flowers. Darwin 

described the effects of pollen as “injurious and 

poisonous” (Darwin, 1880, 1890) as a result of 

his correspondence with Fritz Müller (1821–

1897), who resided in Brazil. Müller’s extensive 

correspondence with Darwin and his influence on 

him are discussed in the book.  However, Müller’s 

“poisonous pollen” idea is not discussed at length, 

even if perhaps alluded to.

Darwin was interested in the rostellum and 

wrote about it. He would certainly be amazed to 

ECOLOGICAL

69

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

learn of its physiological functions and its role in 

the “injurious and poisonous” effects of pollen.  

The fact that one substance involved in this is the 

same substance that causes the bending of oat 

seedlings toward light would have intrigued him. 

The rostellum is discussed in this book, but its 

physiological functions are largely ignored.

His prediction of an insect with a long proboscis 

that pollinates Angraecum sesquipedale (“good 

heavens what insect can suck it” [Darwin, 1862, pp. 

209–211]) brought ridicule at the time and caused 

Wallace to come to Darwin’s defense (Arditti et al., 

2012). He would be gratified to learn that today 

we can tell him that he was right and would be 

fascinated by photographs and videos showing 

Xanthopan morganii praedicta sucking a flower. 

How would he react to the use of his prediction in 

“intelligent design” discussions? And there is more. 

How would he react to modern orchid genetics, 

molecular taxonomy of orchids, cladistics and 

the concepts of ingroups and outgroups in orchid 

taxonomy, current views regarding plant phylogeny, 

intergeneric hybrids, and the current popularity of 

orchids?

As should be obvious from the preceding 

paragraphs, a short review would not do justice 

to this excellent collection of chapters. This book 

requires an essay that would not be appropriate 

for the Plant Science Bulletin and, even if it was, I 

am not prepared to write it. Therefore, I will limit 

myself to simply stating that this is an excellent 

anthology that not only imparts information and 

knowledge, but also challenges the mind and 

stimulates the imagination. With that said, I have 

a complaint about the title vs. the contents. Darwin 

was interested in much more than orchid flowers 

and pollination, but this is what the book deals with 

mostly.
–Joseph Arditti, Professor Emeritus, Department 

of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of 

California, Irvine, California, USA

 LITERATURE CITED

Arditti, J., J. Elliott, I. J. Kitching, and L. T. Waserthal. 

2012. “Good heaves what insect can suck it”—Charles 

Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan 

morganii praedicta. Botanical Journal of the Linnean 

Society 169: 403–432.

Darwin, C. R. 1862. The various contrivances by which 

British and foreign orchids are fertilized by insects 

and on the good effects of intercrossing. John Murray, 

London, United Kingdom.

Darwin, C. R. 1863. Letter 4185–Darwin, C. R., to Scott, 

John, 25 & 28 May 1863. In: F. Burkhardt et al. (eds.). 

2003. The correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 

11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom.

Darwin, C. R. 1880. The variations of animals and 

plants under domestication, Vol. II. D. Appleton and 

Company, New York, New York, USA.

Darwin, C. R. 1890. The variations of animals and plants 

under domestication. D. Appleton and Company, New 

York, New York, USA.

Yam, T. W., J. Arditti, and K. M. Cameron. 2009. “The 

orchids have been a splendid sport”: An alternative 

look at Charles Darwin’s contribution to orchid 

biology.  American Journal of Botany 96: 2128–2154.

Essentials of Conservation Biology, 

6th edition

Richard B. Primack

2014. ISBN-13: 978-1-60535-289-3

Hardcover, US$94.95. 603 pp.

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachu-

setts, USA

Having not read the earlier editions of this book, 

I decided to try to compare it to a similar book that 

I have read. The Principles of Conservation Biology 

(3rd edition) text by the same publisher but by 

different authors covers largely the same material 

(Groom et al., 2006). The current volume is directed 

more toward undergraduates, whereas the volume 

by Groom et al. is meant for more advanced courses 

based on reviews that I found on each volume. I 

have read sections of the volume by Groom et al. for 

graduate courses and think that it is probably a little 

more technical, with specific statistical methods 

and more in-depth case studies. 

Essentials of Conservation Biology does have a 

lot to offer and is a well-written text, with current 

examples up to and including papers from 2014. 

Terms are well defined in the text, and the history 

of conservation biology as a field is well explained. 

Chapters are engaging and well thought out, 

including box articles, summaries, and suggested 

readings for each chapter. Terms such as biopiracy 

(collecting specimens without a permit) show the 

author’s commitment to current events. 

A great article (Box 6.2) in Chapter 6 discusses 

the role religion plays in conservation and how the 

attitude has begun to change over the years from 

one of dominion to that of stewardship. This chapter 

on ethical values also includes a discussion on the 

70

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

intrinsic value of a species. Chapters on extinction, 

vulnerability to extinction, and habitat destruction 

tie together well the myriad of issues, including 

climate change, that endemic and imperiled species 

are facing. The discussion of the minimum viable 

population concept in Chapter 11 includes a recent 

study from 2013 that showed long-lived species 

such as turtles can stay viable even at smaller 

population sizes than expected. 

Chapter 12 includes a reference to the new field 

of using environmental DNA (eDNA) to determine 

the potential presence of rare or cryptic species 

that can be difficult to locate during audio or visual 

surveys. An interesting section in Chapter 13 details 

how rare plants can be difficult to reintroduce due 

to their potentially requiring specific conditions 

(e.g., soils, light, nutrients). The section discusses 

how transplanting adult plants may work better 

than seeds but care should be taken to match donor 

sites with suitable transplant sites. 

Chapters 15–17 deal with protected areas and the 

challenges they face. These areas need to include 

corridors between suitable habitats that are also 

protected to allow for areas to be re-populated in 

the event of a fire or other disturbance, as well as 

to promote gene flow between populations. Using a 

rapid biodiversity assessment tool is also discussed 

as a means to inventory the communities and species 

present, like a BioBlitz event tries to accomplish. 

The debate between single large or several small 

(SLOSS) protected areas is also discussed, although 

which approach is preferred seems to depend 

on the needs of the target species. Chapter 19 on 

restoration ecology discusses the importance of 

reference sites and knowing the potential a site 

can hold. This could probably be tied into what 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service has 

done in the western United States with ecological 

site descriptions (NRCS, 2014). Chapter 20 dives 

into the debate about conservation and sustainable 

development, which relies upon regulation and 

finding common ground (e.g., changing zoning 

to allow for cluster development) that includes 

conservation easements and open space. Finding 

ways to benefit both parties encourages stakeholder 

participation. Chapter 22 closes the volume with 

a discussion of the importance of citizen science 

in determining trends and providing valuable 

data. These data can be used in management 

decisions and would be costly to obtain without 

volunteers. This book would be a useful addition 

to any class—undergraduate or graduate—on this 

topic, especially with the suggested readings and 

incorporation of current research.

–David W. MacDougall, CWB Consulting Biologist 

(https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dave-macdougall-

cwb/a/385/160)

LITERATURE CITED

Groom, M. J., G. K. Meffe, and C. R. Carroll. 2006. 

Principles of conservation biology, 3rd

edition. Sinauer 

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture. 2014. National Ecological 

Site Handbook, 1st edition. Website http://directives.

sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=35306 [accessed 

6 April 2015].

ECONOMIC BOTANY

Ireland’s Generous Nature: The 

Past and Present Uses of Wild 

Plants in Ireland

Peter Wyse Jackson

2014. ISBN-13: 978-0-915279-78-4

Hardcover, US $60.00. xii + 750 pp.

Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, 

Missouri, USA

This volume on Ireland’s ethnobotany is generous 

in size, in breadth of coverage, and in interesting 

information about how the Irish have used plants 

since ancient times. Peter Wyse Jackson served for 

several years as director of the National Botanic 

Gardens of Ireland, at Glasnevin, Dublin. He has 

since become president of the Missouri Botanical 

Garden in St. Louis, and it is that garden’s press 

that produced this well-organized volume. In the 

interests of full disclosure, I should say that both 

my parents were raised on farms in Ireland, and I 

am old enough to remember visiting Ireland when 

thatched cottages were not just tourist attractions 

and when peat fueled the fires we sat around in 

kitchens and parlors. I should also note at this point 

that Wyse Jackson’s Ireland is a geographical rather 

than a political unit; he is referring to the entire 

island, including Northern Ireland, which is part of 

the United Kingdom. 

Wyse Jackson is almost a decade younger than 

me, but he too remembers some of the traditional 

uses of plants that have faded away in Ireland as 

elsewhere. He also draws on the work of many others 

who over the years have documented medicinal and 

other plant uses by the Irish. The book is definitely 

in the tradition of works attempting to preserve 

71

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

and encourage the native Irish culture, a culture 

that over centuries was suppressed by British 

occupation. This is where my prejudices surface, 

having lived with a very patriotic Irish mother. 

However, Wyse Jackson himself plainly makes this 

point in his introduction. He also notes that after 

the country recovered from the potato famine, the 

use of wild plants as food was denigrated because 

it was considered a sign of poverty and triggered 

memories of when foraging was a necessity. 

A work that is meant to be as comprehensive 

as Wyse Jackson has aimed for here must be well 

organized if it is to be at all useful. He manages this 

successfully and begins with a brief introduction 

followed by a chapter on historical plant use. 

Then there are lengthy chapters on the use of 

plant materials in construction and crafts, as food, 

and as medicine. There are brief treatments on 

horticulture, plants as symbols (have to get the 

shamrock in there), and non-native plants; one 

on drift seeds and fruits is particularly interesting 

because the Gulf Stream carries tropical seeds to 

Ireland’s western shores. 

The bulk of the remainder of the book is devoted 

to a systematic list of Ireland’s wild plants and 

their ethnobotanical uses, although even plants 

that have no known uses are given a mention. 

Not surprisingly, flowering plants receive the 

most attention, although the chapters on conifers 

and ferns have fascinating information, such as 

the use of pine logs dug up from peat bogs, and 

bracken mixed with straw as bedding for livestock. 

There is also a catch-all chapter on “Algae and 

Miscellaneous.” With such a long coastline and 

a poor population, Ireland made good use of the 

seaweed that ended up on its shores for everything 

from medicine to food and even seaweed tea.

The entries are alphabetical by genus, with the 

full scientific name given. This ordering can be a 

little annoying because it would be nice to easily 

compare the uses of plants in the same family. 

However, the family name is provided along with 

common names, both English and Gaelic. Since 

the founding of the Republic of Ireland in the 

1920s, there has been a serious effort to maintain 

the Gaelic language and to encourage its use. Wyse 

Jackson mentions the need to document Gaelic 

plant names as one of the aims of his book, and he 

not only gives the names, but references for each. 

He also draws on a wide variety of sources in his 

descriptions of how plants have been employed 

since ancient times, when that information is 

available. He doesn’t neglect the plants the druids 

used in ancient times nor Viking habits when 

such information is available. For example, he 

mentions that wild celery roots were found in 

deposits dating back more than one thousand years 

in excavated pits at Fishamble Street in Dublin. In 

many cases, he writes about his own experiences—

encounters with people who remember plant use 

in the past, meetings with those who still make 

such concoctions as jelly from hawthorn berries, 

and descriptions of various wild plant recipes he 

has prepared and eaten. He obviously relishes his 

subject and spent years amassing the information 

found here.

A book on plants that is aiming for a wide 

audience needs images, and this book is richly 

supplied. While there isn’t a photograph for each 

plant, there is usually one for those with substantial 

entries. In addition, there are many photos of 

plant products, such as a chair with a straw-rope 

seat, an early 20th-century willow lobster pot, 

and a traditional boat called a coracle made from 

hazel rods. At the beginning of each chapter as 

well as scattered throughout the book are color 

reproductions of botanical watercolors done by 

Lydia Shackleton who worked as an illustrator 

at Glasnevin for 23 years, until 1907. These are a 

beautiful addition and another way in which Wyse 

Jackson is attempting to preserve Ireland’s cultural 

heritage. And there is one more visual aspect that is 

particularly helpful: a pictogram system to denote 

plant use. In small black squares are such symbols 

as a white cross for medicinal use, a knife and fork 

for food, a flower for horticulture, even a harp to 

represent plants that are used to make musical 

instruments—harps, flutes, and bagpipes. These 

symbols would be particularly useful when leafing 

through the book with a particular function in 

mind. 

Ireland’s Generous Nature is definitely meant 

to be browsed rather than read straight through. 

Almost every page has something intriguing as 

Wyse Jackson doesn’t limit himself to Irish uses 

of plants, but mentions ethnobotanical practices 

in other regions. However, his focus is on Ireland, 

the country he obviously loves and whose plants he 

knows intimately. While this is not an inexpensive 

book, it is definitely worth the price, not only 

because of its sturdy construction, profusion of 

illustrations, appendix of plant names that appear 

in Irish place names, and excellent bibliography, 

but because of the vast amount of information it 

72

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

contains. In his introduction, Wyse Jackson writes 

that he undertook this project because when he 

went looking for information on Irish ethnobotany, 

he failed to find one usable resource; he had to 

go hunting in many. His solution was to write 

his own book, and he has definitely achieved his 

purpose, providing a comprehensive and heavily 

documented guide. 
—Maura C. Flannery, Division of Computer Sci-

ence, Mathematics and Science, St. John’s University, 

Jamaica, New York, USA. flannerm@stjohns.edu

PHYSIOLOGICAL

Plant Behaviour and Intelligence 

Anthony Trewavas

2014. ISBN-13: 978-0-19-953954-3

Hardcover, US$94.95. 320 pp. 

Oxford University Press, New York, New 

York, USA

The current volume is engaging, interesting, and 

thought provoking, with deep commitment and 

introspection into the world of plant behavior and 

intelligence from a multi-disciplinary and multi-

dimensional perspective and is, most possibly, 

the first volume of its kind. The author explains 

the topic with simplicity, focusing predominantly 

on angiosperms (dicots) for the majority of his 

argument, a philosophical quest regarding plant 

intelligence that possibly raises more questions 

than answers. The volume is an intelligent mix of 

plant signaling, ecology, and behavior from the 

perspective of the latest research and traditional 

observations in plant sciences. 

The volume is divided into an excellent preface 

and foreword (prologue), followed by 26 chapters 

and a helpful index at the end. Each chapter has a 

synopsis of the content at the beginning and a short 

reference section at the end. The author goes back 

to basics first and traces a well-worded evolutionary 

pathway for the plant, including establishment 

of multicellularity, convergent evolution, and 

the complexity of plant life in the context of 

angiosperms (Chapters 1–7). Next, the author 

steps into varied aspects of plant behaviors and 

self organization (Chapters 8–16), interpretation 

of game theory from the perspectives of plant 

competition (Chapter 17), ecological competition 

and cooperation between plants and recognition 

of self (Chapter 18), and finally elaborates on plant 

intelligence (Chapters 19–26). The language is kept 

simple and engaging, but is technical at necessary 

points.

The central theme of the volume stems from 

an outstanding observation by Nobel laureate Dr. 

Barbara McClintock: “A goal for the future would 

be to determine the extent of knowledge the cell 

has of itself and how it uses that knowledge in a 

thoughtful manner when challenged.” The author 

explains how that challenge is responded to by 

plants, in the form of intelligent behavior, in order to 

cope with the challenges presented by the external 

and internal environment. The author establishes 

the concept quite meaningfully, with numerous 

examples from the natural world where plants are 

exposed to innumerable challenges and obstacles 

to successfully carrying-out and completing their 

normal life cycles. Several plant responses to their 

immediate environment and the unique ecosystems 

of which they are an integral part are conceived as 

intelligence and meticulously explored from the 

perspective of complex cellular architecture and 

metabolism, as well as from the standpoint of 

evolution. The author convincingly explains that 

the perpetual question of the animal brain as the 

cornerstone of the animal nervous system does not 

exist in plants and has been replaced by a highly 

intelligent genome that has shaped and designed 

itself in its evolutionary path to establish plant 

intelligence through numerous adaptations over 

the geologic past. 

The basic questions are: Does intelligence always 

have to be equated with a nervous system? Can a 

biological system operate successfully without the 

so-called nervous system as observed in animals? 

The author must be commended for coming up 

with this fundamental idea and in opening a new 

field in plant science based on the integration 

of plant signaling, behavior, and behavioral 

ecology. By formulating these ideas, the author 

has jumped into an ocean of critical arguments 

and in-depth discussion explaining plant behavior 

and intelligence from a novel angle. To illustrate 

his points, the author discusses several pertinent 

examples from the plant world, highlighting 

morphological and anatomical adaptations, 

complexity of tissue systems and organizations, 

and the roles of different organs. Critical analysis 

of the physiological, biochemical, molecular, and 

genetic aspects of plant metabolism; sexual and 

reproductive systems and breeding behaviors; 

roles of different plant hormones and genetic 

regulation of plant behaviors; molecular signaling; 

73

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

and advances in genomic sciences are all taken 

into consideration. The author highlights different 

scenarios of severe competition and cooperation 

between plants in the wild, their ecological 

implications, and how plant behavior moderates/

regulates such behaviors, indicating different 

forms of intelligence in them. The author must 

be commended for his relative ease in moving 

back and forth among different kingdoms of 

life forms (bacteria, myxomycetes, fungi) and 

connecting them to his elaborate arguments. 

It has been delightful to note how the author 

successfully connects and balances his arguments, 

incorporating notes and observations made by 

Lamarck and Darwin, extensive studies on the 

plant nervous system by Sir J. C. Bose, and thought-

provoking suggestions made by McClintock, to the 

latest modern-era plant genomic researchers with 

elegance and criticism. 

The author convincingly suggests that the central 

dogma of intelligence is not simply restricted to the 

brain and nervous system, but has a more complex, 

multi-dynamic plant perspective that is overlooked 

by the majority of our scientific community. 

The author successfully links ecological and 

evolutionary perspectives of plant intelligence with 

highly advanced genomic sciences in exploiting the 

concept of “intelligent genetics” and “intelligent 

genomes.” The author moves a step forward from 

the context of present-day science in explaining 

why plants behave in a specific manner under 

specific ecological and environmental conditions 

based on evidence provided through the latest 

molecular, biochemical, molecular genetic, and 

genomic research. The author provides a much 

broader definition of intelligence in the real sense 

of the term, stretching it beyond our brain-oriented 

and nervous system–specific notions.  

The edition would be improved by the 

incorporation of additional plant groups, such as 

bryophytes, pteridophytes, and gymnosperms, into 

the discussion. Adding representative plant images, 

word diagrams, and flow charts to present some 

of the more-complex theories would better enable 

students and non-academic plant enthusiasts to 

understand the underlying principles with ease. In 

addition, more discussion of allelopathy and the 

different types of symbiosis observed in the plant 

kingdom and how these are associated with plant 

intelligence would have been greatly appreciated. 

The volume will be useful for both undergraduate 

and graduate students of botany, plant science, 

forestry, plant ecology, and evolution. This could 

also be helpful for introductory courses in biology, 

biological sciences, life sciences, and environmental 

sciences and as an introductory resource for 

agriculture courses. Enthusiastic readers outside 

academia interested in plant life, ecology, and 

evolution will also find this volume engaging. 
—Saikat Kumar Basu, University of Lethbridge, 

Alberta, Canada

SYSTEMATICS

CITES and Cacti: A User’s Guide 

Maurizio Sajeva, H. Noel McGough, Lucy 

Garrett, Jonas Lüthy, Maurice Tse-Laurence, 

Catherine Rutherford, and Guilia Sajeva

2013. ISBN-13: 978-1-84246-485-4

Paperback with CD, US$50.00. 90 pp.

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Sur-

rey, United Kingdom

This is not a book, but a PowerPoint presentation 

that was printed and bound regarding the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) data as 

applied to the cactus family. Notes to the presenter 

are included at the bottom of a few of the slides, but 

no real analysis or synthesis is provided.

The CD-ROM contains all of the images in the 

book, plus some other tangentially related files. The 

disk contains corresponding volumes on CITES and 

succulents, CITES and carnivorous plants, CITES 

and orchids, etc. This is a real bonus. However, I 

could not figure out how to make the CD-ROM 

searchable, which is regrettable given that the book 

lacks an index.

There are a few excellent notes on trade of 

various species, including method of propagation 

and comparisons over history, which I assume are 

from the CITES trade database. Some taxa have 

one year in which there were many more recorded 

exports than other years. However, I cannot discern 

any patterns. Are these export peak years due 

to fad for a taxon? Are these export peaks due to 

increased interdiction? It would have been nice to 

know which export numbers were for legally versus 

illegally exported plants.

Perusal of this book/slides surprisingly indicates 

that from 1998–2008 my home (Canada) was the 

world’s leading exporter of most Appendix II cacti, 

such as Astrophytum, Copiapoa, Echinocactus, 

74

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Echinocereus, Eriosyce, Escobaria, Ferocactus, 

Frailea, Leuchtenbergia, Mammillaria, Matucana, 

Melocactus, Neolloydia, Parodia, Rebutia, and 

Thelocactus. The book/slides also states that 

Canada was one of the three leading exporters 

of Appendix I cacti from 1998–2008. [Thanks to 

Catherine Rutherford who verified that the CITES 

trade database shows that Canada was indeed 

a huge exporter of cacti.] I have hardly ever seen 

cacti commercially grown or sold in Canada, so 

am shocked. Canadian climates are not conducive 

for growing cacti (Gorelick et al., 2015). As I write 

this, it is -25°C outside (without wind chill), and 

I am only 100 km north of the U.S. border. Who 

in Canada was doing the exporting? Was it legal or 

illegal? Did it vary from year to year? Can we see 

the import, export, and re-export data, as was done 

by McCarthy (1987)? The data are tantalizing, but 

narrative and explanation are desperately needed.

All cacti are native to the Americas except for one 

species, yet the authors are solely European. Local 

knowledge matters (Kimmerer, 2013; Demaio and 

Chiapella, 2014), with lack of local knowledge 

frequently to the authors’ detriment. Maps in this 

book/slides fail to include Alaska as part of the 

United States. The authors describe how cultivated 

Pachycereus militaris cuttings of reproductive 

shoots “cease to grow as cuttings start to branch with 

time below the cephalium. The plant then directs 

all resources to the new shoots and the cephalium 

withers.” Well, that is also exactly what happens on 

perfectly healthy attached shoots of plants in the 

wild, in which mature cephalia naturally abscise 

(Mauseth et al., 2005). European bias also shows in 

the assertion that, “Until recently there was some 

confusion over boundaries between Coryphantha 

and related genera.” Judging from the vigorous 

debates between Europeans and North Americans 

about whether Escobaria is a genus versus subgenus 

or section of Coryphantha  (Gorelick, 2015), it is 

disingenuous to claim that the confusion is resolved. 

The authors also seem to entirely disregard the 

raging debate about whether Trichocereus is a valid 

genus, separate from Echinopsis (Albesiano and 

Kiesling, 2012). While usually the name game is not 

important, it is important to know synonyms when 

looking for illegally exported plants, especially 

because  Trichocereus and Eulychnia are the main 

sources for rainsticks.

Having maps with a resolution only to country 

is probably appropriate for a political document 

such as this, but can be misleading. The map 

of global abundance of cacti herein has a huge 

number of African countries and Sri Lanka with 

the same number of species of cacti (here 1–75), 

as do countries in Central America and northern 

South America. Yet Africa and Sri Lanka only 

have one native cactus species, Rhipsalis baccifera. 

Similarly, distribution of the narrow endemic 

Astrophytum asterias is shown as all of Mexico and 

the United States, which could needlessly minimize 

conservation concerns.

This book/slides contains outdated 

nomenclature, such as Opuntia ursina, which is 

almost universally considered a shaggy-spined 

form of Opuntia polyacantha (Pinkava, 2003). 

There are old notions about Pereskia, which 

probably should be segregated into the two separate 

genera Pereskia and Leuenbergera (Edwards et al., 

2005), and old notions about Maihunenia, whose 

two species probably deserve their own subfamily, 

Maihuenioideae (Parfitt and Gibson, 2003). Equally 

curiously, the page/slide on leaf-bearing cacti 

mentions  Pereskia, Quiabentia, and Pereskiopsis, 

but not Maihuenia.

The second page/slide lists the bullet point, “AP 

vs. wild,” where we later learn that “AP” stands for 

“artificially propagated.” For one taxon, we read, 

“All trade is recorded as artificially propagated 

and is mainly in seeds.” What exactly is artificial 

about propagation by seed? In the taxon-specific 

slides, the dichotomy is sometimes instead couched 

as “wild vs. propagated,” sometimes as “habitat 

vs. propagated,” and sometimes with all three 

designations (“wild, habitat, propagated”). Another 

false dichotomy occurs in the bar charts for 

exports, for which data are given for both “live” and 

“seeds.” I assume “live” means “live shoots,” even 

though seeds are also alive. That said, in Appendix 

II slides for a small minority of the taxa presented, 

bar charts for exports instead provide the more 

reasonable dichotomy of “stems vs. seeds.”

This may make for a decent slide show, but 

more editing and reviewing should have occurred. 

For example, the specific epithet is inadvertently 

capitalized in Matucana madisoniorum. We read 

the nonsensical sentence, “Recently there has been 

some concern expressed by experts that there may 

be some element of detriment in the trade” of 

rainsticks. The authors state that Strombocactus is 

monotypic and Pelecyphora contains two species, 

but then seem genuinely surprised that only 

one species of Strombocactus and two species 

of  Pelecyphora are listed in the CITES trade 

records. Some statements are utterly antithetical, 

75

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

such as that Blossfeldia is endemic to Bolivia and 

northwestern Argentina, but that all wild collected 

plants are exported from Peru, not from either of its 

native countries.

Because this is a user’s guide of PowerPoint 

slides, a revision could be published with relative 

ease. There is a genuine need for such multimedia 

presentations on CITES and cacti. Several experts 

from the Americas would undoubtedly be willing 

to help.
—Root Gorelick, Department of Biology, School of 

Mathematics and Statistics, and Institute of Interdis-

ciplinary Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada

LITERATURE CITED

Albesiano, S., and R. Kiesling. 2012. Identity and 

neotypification of Cereus macrogonus, the type species 

of the genus Trichocereus (Cactaceae). Haseltonia 17: 

24–34.

Demaio, P., and J. O. Chiapella. 2014. New species in 

Gymnocalycium: A call for common sense. Cactaceae 

Systematics Initiatives 32: 4–5.

Edwards, E. J., R. Nyffeler, and M. J. Donoghue. 2005. 

Basal cactus phylogeny: Implications of Pereskia 

(Cactaceae) paraphyly for the transition to the cactus 

life form. American Journal of Botany 92: 1177–1188.

Gorelick, R. 2015. Coryphantha orcuttii (synonym: 

Escobaria orcuttii) is a variety, not a subspecies, of 

Coryphantha sneedii (synonym: Escobaria sneedii) 

(Cactaceae). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute 

of Texas 9: in press.

Gorelick, R., T. D. Drezner, and K. Hancock. 2015. Freeze-

tolerance of cacti (Cactaceae) in Ottawa, Ontario, 

Canada. Madroño 62: 32–44.

Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous 

wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of 

plants. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

USA.

Mauseth, J. D., T. Terrazas, M. Vázquez-Sánchez, and S. 

Arias. 2005. Field observations on Backebergia and 

other cacti from Balsas Basin, Mexico. Cactus and 

Succulent Journal 77: 132–143.

McCarthy, K. 1987. International trade in succulent 

plants: An analysis of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

data. In D. Fuller and S. Fitzgerald (eds.), Conservation 

and commerce of cacti and other succulents, 126–184. 

World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland.

Parfitt, B. D., and A. C. Gibson. 2003. 37. Cactaceae 

Jussieu—Cactus family. In Flora of North America 

Editorial Committee (eds.), Flora of North America, 

vol. 4, 92–257. Oxford University Press, New York, 

New York, USA.

Pinkava, D. J. 2003. Opuntia (Cactaceae) Miller. In Flora 

of North America Editorial Committee (eds.), Flora 

of North America, vol. 4, 123–149. Oxford University 

Press, New York, New York, USA.

Anatomy of the Monocotyledons, 

Vol. X: Orchidaceae

William Louis Stern

2014. ISBN-13: 978-0-19-968907-1

Hardcover, UK£95.00. 288 pp.

Oxford University Press, Oxford, United 

Kingdom

This book is the latest addition to the Anatomy 

of the Monocotyledons after the publication of 

the previous volume in 2002 (on Acoraceae and 

Araceae) and is the result of over 30 years of effort 

and devotion by William Louis Stern, a renowned 

botanist who has conducted multiple studies in 

wood anatomy and identification, tropical forestry, 

and lately about relationships among members of 

the orchid family. Orchidaceae are one of the most 

cosmopolitan vascular plant families and, by far, 

the largest group of seed plants when considering 

the number of species described. Recent studies 

estimate an occurrence of 26,972 species of orchids 

distributed into 619 genera that are found in a wide 

variety of habitats. It is likely that even more occur 

in nature as new species are described every year, 

not to mention the thousands of varieties that have 

been produced in past decades. Orchid culture 

is nowadays a billion-dollar global enterprise 

with beguiled buyers. But, surprisingly, much 

information is still lacking about basic biological 

features like the type of mycorrhizal associations or 

even the type of pollination. This book is, therefore, 

a good addition to fill this gap by revealing the 

most important anatomic features within the main 

groups of orchids.

Within the book, the reader will find the 

most-comprehensive study of the vegetative 

anatomy of orchids, with specific notes about 

the structure and relationships among cells and 

tissues of leaves, stems, and roots across members 

of the orchid family. Within 255 pages, the work 

provides an up-to-date analysis of the vegetative 

anatomy of this family and, unlike other studies, 

it is organized systematically according to the 

latest orchid classification expressed in Genera 

Orchidacearum. Because it is illustrated with 

more than 100 photographs and detailed cellular 

illustrations, it is easy to differentiate structures 

76

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

between different species of orchids. The drawings 

and SEM photographs are of excellent quality and 

clearly reflect the writings emphasized in the main 

text. Within each tribe and subtribe studied, there 

is a detailed description of the material examined 

together with a very instructive section about other 

reports from the literature. Taxonomic notes and 

the latest phylogenetic results are also included, as 

well as six tables containing a resumé of diagnostic 

characters.

I recommend this book for any botanist who 

wants to learn more about the anatomy of orchids 

but, above all, it should definitely be used when 

teaching the anatomy of orchids to young research 

students and orchid scientists.
—Isabel Marques, Biodiversity Research Centre, 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada

Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares 

de Bolivia, Vols. 1–2

Peter Møller Jørgensen, Michael Harley Nee, 

and Stephan Georg Beck, editors

2014. ISBN-13: 978-1-930723-71-9

Hardcover, US$125.00. 1741 + viii pp. 

Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, 

Missouri, USA

In terms of botanical publications, Bolivia has 

been somewhat behind many other South American 

countries. Publications of several multivolume 

Floras were in progress for a long time (e.g., 

Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guianas, 

Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela), and some extensive 

catalogues of vascular plants have been published 

recently (Cono Sur, Ecuador, Guiana Shield, Peru, 

Venezuela).  Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de 

Bolivia fills in a big gap in our knowledge of the 

South American flora.

The introduction (pp. 1–81) presents a 

description of the vegetation zones in the area, a 

history of botanical collections, and, in 11 tables, 

extensive numerical analyses of the flora. In the two 

volumes of this catalogue, 15,345 accepted species 

are listed alphabetically by families (286) and 

genera (2782), and documented with bibliographic 

citations, references to herbarium specimens, and 

information on their distribution, habit, native 

status, elevation ranges, and synonymy. More than 

22,300 synonyms are treated in this catalogue, and 

all are listed in the index (p. 1381–1721). There 

are 2343 endemic species (16.2% of the native 

flora) and 694 commonly cultivated species in 

Bolivia. It is not clear what makes the distinction 

between adventitious (adventicias) and naturalized 

(naturalizadas) species (267 and 221 species, 

respectively, p. 33). Many species classified as 

adventitious are most likely fully naturalized (e.g., 

Arundo donax, Hyparrhenia rufa, Malva parviflora,  

Melinis minutiflora, M. repens, Panicum maximum, 

Rubus rosifolius, Vulpia myuros). Therefore, the 

number of naturalized species will be probably 

         Area (km

2

) 

Native species

Naturalized species

Angola

1

1,246,700

6735

226

Bolivia

1,098,581

14,508

221+

Chile

2

756,096

4295

743

Ecuador

3

283,560

16,461

251

Peru

4

1,285,216

ca. 18,000

200+

Queensland

5

1,852,642

8344

1191

South Africa

6

1,221,037

19,581

915

1

Figueiredo and Smith, 2008; 

2

Moreira-Muñoz, 2011, Fuentes et al., 2013; 

3

Jørgensen and León-Yánez, 1999, 

Ulloa Ulloa and Neill, 2004; 

4

Brako and Zarucchi, 1993; 

5

Bostock and Holland, 2007; 

6

Germishuizen et al., 

2006.

77

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

around 300. The widespread orchid Oeceoclades 

maculata is not native (p. 955), but naturalized, 

introduced from Africa (Cohen and Ackerman, 

2009; Kolanowska, 2014).

Comparison with six other areas of the Southern 

Hemisphere puts the species richness of the 

Bolivian flora into a broader perspective.

Considering areas of the countries listed above, 

the flora of Bolivia is among the richest, but, 

obviously, there is a gradient of increasing plant 

species richness toward the equator in South 

America and the richness of the South African 

flora is truly exceptional. Unfortunately, we will still 

have to wait for reliable numbers of vascular plant 

species from two South American plant diversity 

superpowers—Brazil and Colombia.

The Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Bolivia 

is a monumental achievement. Together with other 

catalogues recently produced by the Missouri 

Garden Press, it will be an irreplaceable source of 

information for botanists and ecologists working in 

tropical South America.
–Marcel Rejmánek, Department of Evolution and 

Ecology, University of California, Davis, California, USA

LITERATURE CITED

Bostock, P. D., and A. E. Holland (eds.). 2007. Census 

of the Queensland Flora. Queensland Herbarium, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, 

Australia.

Brako, L., and J. Zarucchi. 1993. Catalogue of the Flowering 

Plants and Gymnosperms of Peru. Missouri Botanical 

Garden Press, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.   

Cohen, I. M., and J. D. Ackerman. 2009. Oeceoclades 

maculata, an alien tropical orchid in a Caribbean 

rainforest. Annals of Botany 104: 557–563.

Figueiredo, E., and G. F. Smith. 2008. Plants of Angola/

Plantas de Angola. Strelitzia 22: 1–279.

Fuentes, N., A. Pauchard, P. Sanchez, J. Esquivel, and A. 

Marticorena. 2013. A new comprehensive database of 

alien plant species in Chile based on herbarium records. 

Biological Invasions 15: 847–858.

Germishuizen, G., N. L. Meyer, Y. Steenkamp, and M. 

Keith (eds.). 2006. A Checklist of South African Plants. 

Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report 

No. 41. SABONET, Pretoria, South Africa.

Jørgensen, P. M., and S. León-Yánez (eds.). 1999. Catálogo 

de las Plantas Vasculares del Ecuador. Missouri 

Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.   

Kolanowska, M. 2014. The naturalization status of 

African Spotted Orchid (Oeceoclades maculata) in the 

Neotropics. Plant Biosystems 148: 1049–1055.

Weeds of North America

Richard Dickinson and France Royer

2014. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-07644-7

Paperback, US$35.00. 656 pp.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 

USA

Weeds of North America is a comprehensive 

field guide including over 600 plants that are 

common weedy species across the continent. 

In general, I would expect that a field guide to 

plants of North America would be too broad 

a geographic area to be very useful. But weeds 

are the exception; they are often generalists by 

nature and spread quickly, and therefore tend to 

be ubiquitous and widespread, making a useful 

continent-wide field guide to weeds possible. 

I usually prefer field guides with dichotomous 

keys, which this book does not have. But 

dichotomous keys can be limiting for the layperson 

not trained in biology or botany, and there can be a 

certain value in a key that is friendlier to untrained 

users. This guide does have a key, based upon 

plant type (trees, shrubs, herbs, vines, etc.), leaf 

arrangement, and flower color. It is surprisingly 

easy to use, particularly because a thumbnail 

photo is included in the key itself for each plant 

listed. Once the reader determines the plant type, 

leaf arrangement, and flower color, one can easily 

glance over the thumbnails of the plants that fit that 

combination of characteristics and find the one(s) 

that match the plant one is identifying. 

The key then sends the reader to the page for that 

plant in the guide, where the reader finds a host of 

great information about many of the species. About 

250 plants are covered in a very extensive, full 

entry, while another 350 are described in a more 

abbreviated form. Scientific and common names 

are listed, including authorities and synonyms. 

For each full entry, there is an extensive, detailed 

description of the species, including characteristics 

of the seed, seedling, leaves, flowers, and fruits. 

Full-color photos (or, in some cases, line drawings) 

accompany each main species entry, including 

Moreira-Muñoz, A. 2011. Plant Geography of Chile. 

Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Ulloa Ulloa, C., and D. A. Neill. 2004. Cinco Años de 

Adiciones a la Flora del Ecuador 1999–2004. Missouri 

Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.   

78

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

pictures of seeds, seedlings, and full-grown plants, 

as well as, in many cases, key characteristics such as 

fruits or flower structures. Information is also given 

on origin, life cycle, weed designations, and reasons 

for concern. 

Within the guide, species descriptions are 

arranged by family, and the first page of each 

family section includes a good description of 

family characteristics. In addition to the key 

species featured within each family section, there 

is a section on “Other species of concern” in each 

family where more species are listed with shorter 

entries that include origin, species descriptions, 

weed designations, and in many cases, a drawing 

or photograph. 

The back of the book includes a glossary of terms 

used, including illustrations for many of the terms. 

There is also an index listing species by common 

and scientific names, and I am pleased to find that 

species are listed by all common names listed in the 

entries, as well as by synonyms of scientific names. 

In general, this guide is well organized, easy to 

use, and very informative. I often find that field 

guides are either geared well to amateurs or to 

botanists but not both. In this case, the authors 

have done an unusually admirable job straddling 

the line between being user-friendly to non-

scientific audiences and being a relevant and well-

researched resource for scientific audiences. Both 

audiences will find this guide a desirable addition 

to the botanical library. 
–Amy Boyd, Department of Biology, Warren Wilson 

College, Asheville, North Carolina, USA

79

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

80

Plant Science Bulletin 61 (2) 2015

Have you made your plans for 

Botany 2015?

July 25 - 29  

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada!

www.botanyconference.org

The Synergy of 14 Scientific Societies

Amazing Field Trips

Scientific and Educational Workshops

Dynamic Exhibits

All-Society Poster Session 

Networking Events!

Come share your science !

Can’t wait to see you there!

Plant Science Bulletin

Featured Image

The Botanical Society of 

America is a membership 

society whose mission  is to: 

promote botany, the field of 

basic science dealing with the 

study & inquiry into the form, 

function, development, diversity, 

reproduction, evolution, & uses 

of plants & their interactions 

within the biosphere.

ISSN 0032-0919 

Published quarterly by  

Botanical Society of America, Inc.  

4475 Castleman Avenue 

St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 

Periodicals postage is paid at  

St. Louis, MO & additional  

mailing offices. 

POSTMASTER: 

Send address changes to:

Botanical Society of America 

Business Office 

P.O. Box 299 

St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 

bsa-manager@botany.org 

The yearly subscription rate of  

$15  is included in the membership  

Address Editorial Matters (only) to: 

Mackenzie Taylor 

Editor 

Department of Biology 

Creighton University

2500 California Plaza

Omaha, NE 68178

Phone 402-280-2157 

psb@botany.org

Plant Science 

Bulletin

                                                                              Summer 2015 Volume 61 Number 2

The Triach Award, established by Dr. Paul Conant and supported 

by Triarch Inc., provides acknowledgement and travel support to 

BSA meetings for outstanding student work in the area of creating 

botanical digital images. The Botanical Society of America is 

committed to supporting all our members in every career stage. To 

this end, the Society distributes a number of merit-based awards 

each year, distributing over $80,000 in awards each year!

Conference Registration at

www.botanyconference.org

Including the best  

Scientific Conference of the Summer   

Register now!

Edmonton has  

something for everyone!