2023 Applications for the NY Flora Association Student Research Grant are now Open. Check out the Grants and Awards page for more details.

Available Here to Members. Editor’s Note: Our lead article in this issue is designed to get everyone ready to look closely at the weedy bedstraws this upcoming season – and help determine the extent of Galium album vs. G. mollugo in NY. Dan Spada, our new NYFA president, has a message to the members on page 20. We finish with sad news: two ������ýAPP State botanists passed away recently; see page 26 for remembrances of Ken Hull and Nancy Slack. Lastly, I’d like to thank all you who contribute articles and photos, as well as those who perform the important and sometimes onerous task of proofreading the newsletter every issue.

Torrey’s Mountain Mint (Pycnanthemum torreyi)

Seven species of mountain mint (Pycnanthemum spp.) are found in ������ýAPP. Of these, four are state listed as either threatened or endangered. These mountain mints include: blunt (P. muticum), whorled (P. verticillatum var. verticillatum), basil (P. clinopodioides), and Torrey’s (P. torreyi). Outside of ������ýAPP, only the last two are widely regarded as rare.

Range and Protective Status

Torrey’s mountain mint currently ranges along the Appalachians from northern Georgia to New Hampshire. A southern arc extends from this same chain to the western reaches of Kentucky, Tennessee, and southern Illinois. There are only around 35 extant occurrences of this species. With such low numbers, it receives a G2 rating of “imperiled” on the global conservation scale. It is state endangered. While always rare, habitat loss caused by both development and succession, along with deer browse, has considerably reduced its range over the years. In ������ýAPP, it is confined to the southeastern portion of the state where it continues to hold on in a few strongholds, such as in the southern Hudson Highlands.

Pycnanthemum torreyi (Torrey’s mountain mint).

Identifying Characteristics

Since many species in the genus Pycnanthemum look similar and possess relatively minor distinguishing characteristics, not to mention their often-great morphological variation and propensity to easily hybridize, it can be a challenge to positively identify this species. Recent work cataloging herbarium specimens has revealed that numerous specimens identified as Torrey’s mountain mint have been mislabeled. Most of these erroneous classifications have proven to be P. torreyi’s closest congener, whorled mountain mint (P. verticillatum).

Lanceolate calyx teeth 1.0 – 2.0 mm in length.

The florets of Torrey’s mountain mint usually have strongly exserted pollen-rich stamens, in contrast to the shorter and often abortive stamens of whorled mountain mint. Plants are in bloom from late June through September.

Another diagnostic feature is that the stem is covered with fine, uniformly distributed hairs on both the faces and angles. Other species have glabrous or densely hoary stems, or those with hairs more prominent on the stem angles.

What’s more, the top of the leaves of P. torreyi are glabrous (vs. the canescence of P. verticillatum). The bottoms of the leaves are sparsely pubescent, usually following along the midvein. The leaf margins may be entire or possess a few low teeth. Narrow, lanceolate leaves are borne on short petioles. Leaf width does not surpass 1.5 cm. Whorled mountain mint generally has slightly wider leaves than P. torreyi.

Not counting the unusual green violet (Hybanthus concolor), there are 78 documented taxa in the violet family (Violaceae) in ������ýAPP. This number includes hybrids (of which there are many) and some lower taxa. If we only count violet species, NY has a total of 29. While many species are common, there are some that are quite rare and a few are thought to be extirpated.

Violets can be divided (artificially perhaps) into those that have leafy stems (leaves and flowers arising from an above-ground stem) and those that don’t (leaves and flowers arise directly from an underground stem or rhizome). The latter group is easily identified as the flowers and leaves appear to arise directly from ground level (unless the rhizome happens to be exposed but it is usually at least partially buried).

The stemmed violets are the smallest group, represented by 9 species, of which only 7 are native. The pansies, V. arvensis and V. tricolor, are the non-natives and are distinguished by the presence of large, leafy stipules and petals that form a flat face. We do have one native that fits into the “pansy” group and that is V. bicolor, which is quite rare and restricted to extreme southern NY and a few spots in western NY. These three are also the only annual species that occur in North America.

The stemless violets are a large group, with 20 species represented in NY. The sweet violet (Viola odorata) is the only non-native that has naturalized, though it is very common, especially in lawns, and is one of the first species to bloom in the spring. The only species in this group that has yellow flowers is the round-leaved violet (Viola rotundifolia), making it easy to identify in flower, though the round leaves are often overlooked later in the growing season. A few species have white flowers and these can be more difficult to identify, and the most challenging to separate are usually V. pallens and V. blanda. Occasionally blue violets can have white flowers as well. But the focus here is going to be those that have blue flowers.

So how many of the violet species that occur in NY are stemless blue violets? Based on what is recognized in the atlas, 14 of the 29 total species would fit into this group, which is just a little more than half of all Viola spp. This makes this group a challenge, as many are similar in appearance to the common blue violet (Viola sororia). Identifying the V. sororia look-alikes are beyond the scope of a single blog post, so I am going to focus on those that have deeply divided leaves. This is a small group that is frequently misidentified because there is a tendency to just call them all V. palmata because the leaves are palmately divided.

This brings the list down to 4-5 species:

• Viola pedata
• Viola sagittata
• Viola palmata
• Viola brittoniana
• Viola subsinuata

The one with the most unique flowers is V. pedata (bird’s foot violet), which has a limited distribution in NY, found at least historically on Long Island, Staten Island, and in Queens and ������ýAPP Counties. There are also sparse records from Erie and Albany Counties that should probably be rechecked. The preference is for soil that is on the acid side and with excellent drainage, so sandy or rocky upland soils are most typical for this species.

In flower it is easy to identify as this is the only species of stemless blue violet with palmately divided leaves that has petals that are completely hairless. The petals also tend to be a softer blue than the other species, with the spur petal often with some white near the base and purple veins. Occasional plants will have the upper two petals a dark blue-purple, a striking form (f. bicolor) that I have not seen personally. The orange stamens are also conspicuous in this species, being more exserted from the flower.

Viola sagittata sometimes keys out close to the other species treated here, though any lobes are restricted to the base of the leaf blade and these are often small enough to be interpreted as teeth rather than lobes. This species has two varieties, var. sagittata and var. ovata, the latter of which is sometimes treated as a distinct species (V. fimbriatula). Early season leaf blades are said to be similar in both varieties and leaf shape is probably not a reliable characteristic when the plants are producing chasmogamous flowers. Mid-season leaf blades of var. sagittata tend to be less densely pubescent, often glabrous, and are more strongly sagittate, hastate, or cordate. Petiole length has been used to differentiate the varieties (those of var. ovata said to be shorter), however petiole length has been found experimentally to vary with available light, with plants receiving more sunlight developing considerably shorter petioles relative to blade length than those growing in woods.

Possibly the most reliable characteristic would be the sepals of the flowers, which are said to be ciliate in var. ovata and without cilia in var. sagittata. While this is best observed with a hand lens, if consistent would seem to be a reliable characteristic to go by. Even though this species barely made the list, the two varieties are probably worthy of further scrutiny in ������ýAPP.

Although there are only three other palmately-lobed species that are recognized in ������ýAPP, the taxonomy gets really messy from here on out because the variability in form of the leaves has given rise to innumerable names of dubious validity. Without getting into all of them, worth mentioning will be some of the names that have been applied to what is now recognized as Viola palmata.

Viola palmata can be a little difficult to identify in mid-summer when the leaves can look all alike (look for smaller leaves near the base, as these are the spring leaves), as what sets this species apart from the others is that the leaves are heterophyllous (hetero = different, phyll = leaf). The first leaves to emerge in the spring are unlobed and resemble those of V. sororia, however by the time of flowering the plants will begin producing lobed leaves. Therefore, during or a little past flowering, plants should have a mix of lobed and unlobed leaves present. Unlobed leaves are said to be produced again late in the growing season.

Some Viola palmata plants can have leaves with many, deeply cut lobes and these have been called V. falcata or V. triloba var. dilatata. Such plants are now considered to just be a form (forma dilatata) of V. palmata. Plants with three primary lobes have been called V. triloba. The problem is that the depth and number of the lobes is so highly variable there is no definite demarcation. Therefore, all of these names (and many more!) have been combined under a single, variable species by most authorities. A search on JSTOR Global Plants for the name Viola triloba and V. palmata will turn up photos of numerous type specimens for other names that have been applied, all seemingly variations on the same general leaf form.

Two varieties of V. palmata are sometimes recognized, based mostly on whether or not the leaves and petioles are hairless (var. palmata) or pubescent (var. heterophylla). The former is also said to have the middle leaf lobe acute (pointed) and in the latter the middle lobe is blunt or obtuse. These varieties are not recognized in ������ýAPP or New England.

The remaining species have, for the most part, homophyllous leaves. That is, the lobes of the early and later leaves are quite similar in pattern and appearance though the sinuses can be shallower, with lobes more like rounded teeth on the earlier leaves.

Viola brittoniana is primarily a coastal species that is limited to extreme southern ������ýAPP. A single population is currently known in the state, on Long Island where it was once widespread. It has leaf blades and petioles that are essentially hairless, and slender sepals that gradually taper to the apex. The sepals also lack hairs on the margins (eciliate). This species prefers acid, sandy soils.

A close relative of V. brittoniana but with toothed rather than lobed leaves is V. pectinata, and where the two species occur together they are said to hybridize. It has only been collected in Nassau and Richmond Counties in ������ýAPP and the most recent records are from the early 1900’s, so it is now considered to be historic. The leaves of V. pectinata are similar to those of V. sagittata except they are heart-shaped rather than elongate and the teeth extend further up the blade.

Finally, we have Viola subsinuata, which many people confuse with the heterophyllous species V. palmata. This species is similar to V. brittoniana but has sepals that are usually ciliate (hairs along margin) and that are relatively wide and round or obtuse at the apex. It also tends to be hairier, with pubescent leaf blades (at least on the underside) and petioles. It can be found scattered in the state on richer soil, often associated with limestone. It is similar to many forms of V. palmata but does not produce unlobed leaves in the spring (the lobes are shallower, sometimes resembling rounded teeth, but are present in the first leaves).

That covers all of the lobed, stemless blue violets in ������ýAPP, at least how they are currently recognized. Harvey Ballard (Ohio University) has proposed a number of new names (or resurrection of older names), two of which that might apply in ������ýAPP according to an article he wrote for the Spring 2016 NYFA newsletter. One is V. baxteri, which is considered part of the heterophyllous V. subsinuata species complex and may replace that species in some parts of western ������ýAPP. Photos of V. baxteri on a website maintained by Ballard seem to show leaves that are more deeply divided, similar to V. brittoniana, but with hirsute foliage and broad obtuse sepals. A search of iNaturalist turns up some observations of V. subsinuata (including at least one identified as V. palmata) in west-central NY, on the edge of the indicated range of V. baxteri, but these are not obviously different in appearance from typical V. subsinuata. Perhaps the best way to tell them apart is by the color of the cleistogamous seeds, which are said to be much lighter in color (ivory) in V. baxteri than in V. subsinuata (light brown).

The other he called Viola pseudo-brittoniana, and it was said to possibly occur in dry woodlands near the coast in southern NY. This name does not show up on his new website (), so it is not clear if that name has changed or has been dropped. The absence of this taxon from his map for the subsinuata group suggests the latter. That’s about as far as I could get with that, so the currently recognized species in the atlas are probably the most sensible to go by for now.

A Brief History of Colonization and the Loss of Northeastern Old-Growth Forests

The first Europeans to arrive to eastern North America were greeted with what some have recently called the “Great American Forest.” This mainly uninterrupted wall stretching from the Atlantic to the Great Plains was composed of trees of every shape and dimension, from tiny saplings and mid-sized individuals that we’re accustomed to seeing in our forests today, to truly titanic and venerable specimens, some of which seemed to be as ancient as the very earth itself. The lushness, fecundity, and diversity of the scene overwhelmed the senses to those coming from the exhausted and overly tilled countryside of the Old World. While looked upon as a verdant Eden by some, to many of the early settlers, this untamed land, beset with wild animals and aboriginal inhabitants, and where even at noon, a perpetual twilight held sway underneath the dense and lofty canopy, was a fearsome wilderness that needed to be brought to heel and cultivated to satisfy Christian ideals.

Adriaen van der Donck, an early resident of ������ýAPP, was enraptured by every feature of his new home, from the native plants and wildlife, to the geology and even culture of its aboriginal inhabitants, documenting his experiences in his 1655 treatise,��A Description of New Netherland. Despite his obvious love of the land, he quickly dismissed those who thought it prudent to make more liberal use of the forests, as he believed they contained “such an abundance of wood that it will never be wanting.” He further mentions that it was a common exercise of settlers to construct huge bonfires of wood, just because the material was in their way. The cornucopia appeared to be endless and inexhaustible. And so, the slaughter began.

While later generations would prove to be less wasteful of natural resources as quantities did inevitably begin to dwindle, this didn’t stop the razing of forests. Trees were cut for the production of boards and paper, with larger individuals, especially the exceedingly tall and lanky white pines, being used for ship masts; hemlocks were stripped of their tannin-rich bark for the leather industry; and a variety of trees were axed simply for use as firewood, hickory being especially prized.

Even the most ancient of trees weren’t spared. Early reports document eastern forests being filled with grand and stately trees of dimensions most Americans have never seen and can scarcely visualize. The botanist William Bartram in the late 1700’s described encountering a grove of black oaks in Georgia, some of which “measured eight, nine, ten, and eleven feet diameter five feet above the ground.” In the same area he encountered tulip trees and beeches that “were equally stately.” White Pines in Maine and elsewhere attained heights of 200 feet or more. A grove in Pennsylvania supposedly had some that hit the 230-foot mark. And the mast producing chestnut trees prized by everyone for its tasty nuts occasionally reached diameters of a dozen feet in moist and rich soils of sheltered mountain hollows. Forests took on a cathedral-like atmosphere.

Additionally, the scents that emanated from the forests and meadows possessed a potency that surprised newly arrived explorers. Robert Juet, a member of Henry Hudson’s 1609 expedition that first sailed up the river that would later be named in his captain’s honor, noted in his journal after speaking to those who had taken a small boat to explore the area near Manhattan: “The Lands they told us were as pleasant with Grasse and Flowers, and goodly Trees, as ever they had seene, and very sweet smells came from them.” Over a century later the taxonomist Peter Kalm would report a “most odoriferous effluvia” wafting in from a flower filled river bank in upstate ������ýAPP.

Over the years, logging and the clearing of land for crops and pasture gradually reduced forest cover by as much as 80% in the Northeast. By the 1850’s the damage was mostly complete. The elimination of forest and the ravenous killing of majestic apex predators, such as wolves, bears, and mountain lions, which were largely, if not wholly, extirpated from the sunny and open confines of Henry David Thoreau’s hometown of Concord, Massachusetts, made him lament the destruction wrought by his ancestors and contemporaries. He felt as though he was cheated and robbed. To him, such action was akin to desecrating a poem, in which his “ancestors have torn out many of the first leaves and grandest passages, and mutilated it in many places.” As a result, his “wish to know an entire heaven and an entire earth” was unable to be met.

Today around only one-half of one percent of original, untouched forest remains in the Northeast. These fragmented patches of old-growth forest are often located in inaccessible locations where it wasn’t possible or worth the trouble to clear the land. ������ýAPP holds the largest quantities of old-growth, the majority of it located in the Adirondack Preserve, followed behind by Maine, and then Pennsylvania.

Within the Adirondacks, the bulk of old-growth tracts reside in Hamilton County. Superb examples can be hiked through in the Ferris Lake Wild Forest. Most of the trails along the Powley-Piseco Road in Stratford pass through ancient forests composed of red spruce, sugar maple, and yellow birch.

Remnants also exist downstate—an old-growth hemlock stand resides at the Dover Stone Church Preserve in Dutchess County. ��

And not far away, in Ulster County, centuries old dwarf pitch pine barrens repose atop the rare plant haven that is known as the Shawangunk Ridge.��

In 2016 I was fortunate enough to consult for the Adirondack Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.�� My job involved exploring Noblewood Park at the mouth of the Boquet River in Willsboro, NY, and documenting the plants growing there.�� Noblewood Park is owned and administered by the Town of Willsboro, but TNC advises the town on property use and management.

The park is not that large but is quite diverse with plant communities ranging from eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) dominated flats perched above the river to shrub swamp and emergent wetlands in the floodplain of the river, sugar maple (Acer saccharum) dominated slopes in between, and Lake Champlain and Boquet River shoreline. The land has had a long history of human use dating back to the early 1700’s.�� There are reports of a very early brick manufactory on the banks of the river on the westerly border of the property.�� Many of the plant species I found there were very common in the Adirondacks, but some not so much.

The river side emergent marsh had a large population of yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus).�� It’s unclear when or where this invasive came from but was very widespread throughout the open marsh.

It was good to see one of my favorite native wetland species, tufted loosestrife (Lysimachia thyrsiflora).�� This plant is not all that common in the central Adirondacks.�� I’ve only seen it once before in a marsh near Paul Smith’s College.

Finally, I came across a unique find.�� Near the mouth of the river, its floodplain is segmented into low ridges separated by old river channels both of which parallel the contemporary river channel.�� In cross-section the floodplain looks corrugated.�� Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) occur on the ridges, while the old channels are dominated by herbaceous aquatic species.�� Scattered throughout the ridges were individuals of black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).�� There were adult trees, saplings, and seedlings present.��Nyssa is a relatively common species in downstate NY, but it is almost non-existent in the Adirondacks.�� I know of several specimens on the westerly shore of Lake George but finding it here at the mouth of the Boquet River extends the northerly range in NY by approximately 50 miles. Is this the furthest north that Nyssa occurs in NYS?�� Possibly.����

Geum macrophyllum is an attractive, late spring- to early summer-flowering species that is listed as endangered in the State of ������ýAPP. There are two varieties, a widely distributed var. macrophyllum (with shallowly lobed leaves), and a more western var. perincisum (with more deeply incised leaves). The only variety that occurs in the northeast, including NY, is var. macrophyllum.

If you are an iNaturalist user you will find that observations of Geum macrophyllum extend well south of the range of this species documented by other sources. The BONAP (www.bonap.org) range map, which is based primarily on specimen data, indicates that in the Northeast G. macrophyllum does not occur south of WI, MI, NY, VT, or NH. A few counties shown on the map for NY are also probably in error. For example, the specimens that form the basis for the Chemung County records are G. laciniatum that were probably misidentified based on large basal leaves produced late in the season…more on that later.

On the iNaturalist map the states and provinces shaded in green represent areas where observations are “research grade”, that is ones where there is consensus among users as to the identity of plants pictured in the observation. Notice all the red dots south of the aforementioned states are in need of ID. These all contain photos of plants without flowers or fruit and are typically of basal leaves taken late in the season and are most certainly not Geum macrophyllum.

Based on the first map it is evident that Geum macrophyllum is a primarily northern species that is seemingly intolerant of high summer temperatures. In growing this species from seed I have managed to get plants to flower after a year but they get smaller and smaller in subsequent years and will likely not survive long term. They seem to struggle the most during the heat of summer. In the southern part of its range it is mostly confined to cool microclimates and is unlikely to be found in open areas as is G. aleppicum. The southernmost location in ������ýAPP is the Peekamoose Valley where cold headwater streams from the Catskill High Peaks drain into Rondout Creek. On one visit in the middle of July the temperature was in the mid 80’s entering the valley but where G. macrophyllum was growing was closer to 70°F!

Geum macrophyllum is probably the most frequently misidentified species of the genus in the northeast and the specific epithet and common name likely play a role in this. The basal leaves are actually not all that large compared to other species most of the year. The name derives from the large terminal leaflet that is indeed much larger than the lateral leaflets (a shape known as lyrate) and this leaf shape tends to be consistent throughout the growing season. Other Geum spp. tend to produce more pinnately lobed or lacerate basal leaves early in the season, however the basal leaves produced from around the time of flowering through the remainder of the growing season are frequently much enlarged and can look quite similar to and exceed the size of the basal leaves of G. macrophyllum. These other species include G. aleppicum, G. canadense, G. urbanum, G. laciniatum, and G. vernum. The latter, because of its early bloom time, actually starts producing large basal leaves as early as late May!

The fruit of several species are also frequently confused with those of G. macrophyllum. The main ones are G. aleppicum and G. laciniatum because they are equally large, while other Geum spp. tend to have smaller fruit or the fruit that looks quite different.

Two characteristics can be used to separate the fruit of G. macrophyllum from the other large-fruited species. One is the presence of stipitate glands on the persistent style of the achene (sometimes called the ‘beak’).

Geum aleppicum has hairs on the styles but they are eglandular. Geum laciniatum sometimes has eglandular hairs (var. trichocarpa) but they are mostly confined to the body of the achene and the very base of the style.

A few other species can have stipitate glands on the fruit. These include G. rivale and G. vernum, however both of these species have the head of achenes elevated on a stipe (short stem). Another species that can sometimes have glands is Geum canadense, though this species and G. vernum have much fewer achenes and thus the head is significantly smaller.

Another unique characteristic of the fruit (and also the flowers) of G. macrophyllum is the lack of epicalyx bractlets. These are small green structures that alternate with the sepals. Occasionally an individual flower of G. macrophyllum can have a few, very poorly developed bracts but I have never seen them well-developed as in other species. The only other Geum species in ������ýAPP that lacks epicalyx bracts is G. vernum but it has much smaller achenes that are fewer in number and the head of achenes, as previously mentioned, is elevated on a stipe.

Finally, the shape of the middle stem leaves of G. macrophyllum var. macrophyllum can be useful in separating this species from other similar yellow-flowered species, particularly G. aleppicum. They tend to have three rounded, relatively shallow lobes. The variety of G. macrophyllum with more deeply incised stem leaves (var. perincisum), which might be confused with G. aleppicum, is not found within our range.

If you have not use the iNaturalist app to enter plant photographs and location information you haven’t had the opportunity to use the automatic identification feature. For those of us who have, we are increasingly amazed at how good it is at identifying the plant to species, especially those that are not grasses, sedges, or rushes. This feature works with computer machine learning that compares your photo to the millions of others in the database that have been confirmed by others to pick the closest match. It is not uncommon now to be on plant walks where people are using the app to identify plants instead of using plant ID books or to supplement them. The same thing is happening with other groups of organisms like birds that can be identified on a phone app by their song or call or by app keys like Merlin. It will be interesting to see how automatic ID progresses and how it will change what we use to identify plants. If you register for iNaturalist and enter an observation you can click on the species field and the program will give you a choice of species to select and the first species selected is often correct (see photo). If it is not correct then other people who use the site and know the correct identification can enter that. Then the computer can add that correct identification done by a human into its memory to refer to next time. The only challenge this auto ID has is that it can’t tell you why that is the species it chose, what the identifying characters are so you can learn them for next time. Maybe that feature will be included in the future. Check it out and let us know what you think.