the vascular flora of the natchez trace parkway - NPS Inventory and ...

After the economic progression of the south in the 1950’s, interest in a descriptive flora gained
more interest (Frodin 2001). This interest led to the beginning of the Vascular Plants for the Southeastern
United States project at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Frodin 2001). The goal of this
project was to bring the flora of the southeast up-to-date following the style of the very successful Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas (Radford et al. 1968). However, only two volumes have been completed
to date: Volume 1 ASTERACEAE (Cronquist 1980) and Volume 2, Part 3 Leguminosae (Fabaceae) (Isley
1990).
Godfrey and Wooten published Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States,
which consisted of two volumes: Monocotyledons (Godfrey and Wooten 1979) and Dicotyledons (Godfrey
and Wooten 1981). This work covers North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana.
The most current flora in production is the Flora of North America North of Mexico which is being
compiled by the Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNAEC). Upon completion, there will be 30
volumes. Volume 1 (background information for understanding patterns in the flora) and Volume 2
(treatments of ferns and gymnosperms) were published in 1993 (FNAEC 1997). Volumes 3-26 are
angiosperms and are arranged using Cronquist’s classification system (FNAEC 1997). Volumes 3-5, 19-
23, and 25-26 are currently published. At the present time, Volumes 6-11 and 24 are in production.
Volumes 27-29 will cover Bryophytes, and Volume 30 will be the cumulative bibliography and index
(FNAEC 1997). This large flora will cover all of North America north of Mexico, so will therefore be very
useful in terms of filling the gap of state floras in the southeastern United States.
3.2 Herbaria Search
Requests were sent to 42 herbaria in the eastern and southeastern U.S. Responses were
received from 20 (47.6%) of these herbaria. Of the responses received, 15 out of the 20 (75.0%) were
unable to provide any specimen data in accordance with the criteria set forth. However, specimen data
was received from 6 herbaria in the form of downloaded database records, photocopies of specimen labels,
e-mail references, etc., which are summarized in Table 4 below. Data was received in different forms, and
the level of detail varied between records. All of the records received were analyzed for possible verifiable
NATR collections. Of the 231 actual specimen records received, none were able to provide a verifiable
location within the boundaries of the NATR.
20