|
UC/JEPS Home
Jepson eFlora home
Interchange home
|
|
Spartina anglica C. E. Hubb.
|
| · |
POACEAE
·
|
|
Initial Editorial Analysis
17 Aug 2011
|
|
Notes on Publication of Name
|
Bot. J. Linn. Soc., 76(4): 364 (1978)
|
|
Source of Report for California
|
|
|
a
|
1985 Madrono, as cited in Kartesz & Meacham
|
|
b
|
Preston e-mail of 5 Jul 2000, "Cord grass. Naturalized in CA. Tidal marsh; SnFrB; California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC). 1999. Exotic pest plants of greatest concern in California. Oct, 1999. San Juan Capistrano, CA"
|
|
c
|
Hrusa et al., ms later published in Madrono 49(2)61-98. 2002: DISTRIBUTION: CCo.; STATUS: established.; NOTES: Only known site in San Francisco Bay. Probably introduced to Creekside Park during marsh restoration work in 1976; "...Creekside Park adjacent to Corte Madera Creek...Growing in low-flow channel of coastal salt marsh...00..."
|
|
d
|
Hrusa et al., Madrono 49(2)61-98. 2002: DIST: CCo: Hrusa et al. Current Status: Naturalized in wildlands: DOC: Marin Co.: Creekside Park adjacent to Corte Madera Creek, Greenbrae. Growing in low-flow channel of coastal salt marsh, assoc. with Distichlis spicata and Spartina densiflora. May 6, 2000, S. Klohr s.n. (CDA, DAV): NOTES: Only known site in California. More likely introduced to Creekside Park during marsh restoration work in 1977 sensu Spicher and Josselyn (1985) than via natural dispersal from Washington sensu Bossard et al. (2000).
|
|
Initial Editorial Comments
|
in no way mentioned in Munz, Munz Supplement, The Jepson Manual [Ed. 1]; indicated only for CA, noxious in WA in Kartesz & Meacham; according to Source d, in California naturalized in wildlands, in CCo (28 Feb 2003).
|
|
Correspondence and Comments Subsequent to Initial Analysis
|
|
Correspondence 1
|
Treatment and author notes submitted for The Jepson Manual [Ed. 2] see Comment 1
|
|
Editorial Comments 1
|
Correspondence 1indicates, in a note under the genus, that Spartina anglica C. E. Hubb. is "introduced to SnFrB (Creekside Park, Marin Co.)", but with no indication of its status relative to the flora of California (e.g., naturalized? waif?) beyond that. [If the pls are considered naturalized, the taxon should have been treated fully; if the pls are considered active waifs, the taxon should have been included in the key to members of the genus, with a description only online; the fact that the taxon was not treated in either way is confusing, and suggests that a Current Status of unresolved is most appropriate at this time.]
|
|
Editorial Summary and Current Status
|
|
