December 2012 Number 1 - Utah Native Plant Society

Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1
sequently, distribution maps of rare species are highly
reliable as to the total range of a species.
When mapping from herbarium vouchers, botanists
have the advantage of having a verifiable report that can
be re-examined (and re-mapped) if the distribution is
questionable. There is much biological and climatically
important information to be gained from the mapping of
a species distribution, but the user of a map should understand
how the data are collected in order to understand
what kinds of analyses can be performed. The
first thing a user should understand is that a dot on a
map will not guide the user to a specific spot on the
ground. Imprecise location data for older herbarium
specimens makes it impossible to map most reported
plant distributions at a fine scale. New herbarium records,
however, generally provide location data collected
by global positioning systems. While these readings
might be off by a hundred meters or so, the level of
accuracy represents a considerable improvement over
the older records. In order to understand how to interpret
the reported distributions, one must first understand
that the maps represent ranges of species rather than
precise locations on the landscape.
In developing the first atlas for Utah plants (Albee et
al. 1988), the authors were fully aware that development
of a collection database would be preferable to simply
creating dot maps. However, constraints of time, cost of
equipment, and limits of available technology in the
“early days” of computers made it impossible to consider
the development of a collection database. By our
rough estimate, we calculated that such an undertaking
would take at least twenty years. In addition, we knew
that we would be overwhelmed by the problems inherent
in mapping from a literal translation of herbarium
data. We chose instead to spend our time checking the
identification of each specimen, using the most current
monographic or floristic treatments available. If a collection
could not be mapped to the accuracy of township
and range, we did not represent it with a dot. We could
not map between twenty and thirty percent of all collections,
and specimens from locations that were already
mapped were not mapped again. We did, however,
color-code each dot as to the herbarium from which the
record was obtained. A questionable distribution, or
one of particular interest, can thus be traced by consulting
the archived maps at the University of Utah. A correction
of distribution maps thus requires re-examination
of specimens – a procedure that is highly recommended
in the event of new studies or generic revisions.
The lack of database-generated maps is not a great
handicap at this time, but there should be considerable
improvement in the future. If we (the authors) had access
to a graphics tablet or a system for creating bar
codes when we initiated the project, we would have
simply placed a bar code on the specimen and linked it
to a dot on a base map underlain by a graphics tablet.
That kind of system would have been time-efficient,
allowing later linkage to a database. Undoubtedly, new
maps will be generated as collection databases are developed,
and we can only hope that they will represent
greater scale as well as a better way to track species distributions
through time.
For the present, the digitized atlas provides good estimates
of species ranges within Utah, a mechanism for
generating species lists for any specified area, relatively
current nomenclature, and highly accurate estimates as
to the number and distribution of rare species in the
state. The authors of this paper encourage the use of the
digitized atlas and invite readers to visit the “Virtual
Utah” website at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/utah/.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A grant from the Bureau of Land Management made
this modern (post-2005) digital revision possible. Curators
of the S.L. Welsh Herbarium of Brigham Young
University (BRY), the Garrett Herbarium of University
of Utah (UT), and the Intermountain Herbarium of Utah
State University (UTC), provided enormous support
throughout the years of examination of specimens.
Since 2004, digital records from UTC and Utah Valley
University (UVSC) have been added, for which we
thank Michael Piep and Renee Van Buren. Staff associated
with collections housed with various National
Parks, Forests, and Bureau of Land Management offices
in the state helped by providing access to collections. R.
Douglas Ramsey had the vision to see the potential in
developing the geospatial format and provided the technical
support that made the project happen. Ben Franklin
of the Division of Wildlife Resources sent records of
rare species collections and observations in buffered,
digitized format--a contribution of inestimable value.
Walt Fertig provided his voucher data for Grand Staircase
Escalante Monument, specimens deposited at BRY
and UTC. Bonnie Banner, Thad Tilton, Tom Van Neil,
Kent Braddy, and Chris Garrard of the Remote Sensing
Lab of USU helped develop the geo-referenced database
and create the original digital interface. Wanda
Lindquist provided the programming expertise that allowed
us to incorporate nomenclatural revisions, link to
new data layers, and create species checklists. She designed
the new web interface and integrated the complex
system of new data layers.
LITERATURE CITED
Albee, B.A., L.M. Shultz, and S. Goodrich. 1988.
Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Utah. Univ. of Utah Museum
of Nat. History, Occasional Publ. no.7. 670 p.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee,
eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico.
12+ vols. New York and Oxford. (Vol. 1, 1993;
125