1. Distribution Maps Mary E. Barkworth Intermountain Herbarium, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5305 Mary@biology.usu.edu

2. Distribution maps Are the last phase in a taxonomic study. The order of events should be: Decide what the taxa are Determine the correct names to use Prepare the maps The last two phases can be conducted simultaneously, but one must know the taxa before one can map them.

3. The ideal Examine all available specimens and conduct fieldwork About 3000 specimens/species in North American herbaria 666 separate herbaria in North America Borrowing, annotating, and returning specimens requires time and money Field work requires time and money Get real! People want the maps now, not 10 years from now.

4. Getting Real Monographic work All your own work Borrow from “representative” herbaria Which herbaria? Use other publications as a guide for loans Floristic work Examine as many as possible within time costraints Take data from published works Databases Here be problems ….

5. Three situations Unchanged, easily recognized taxa No sweat, even if name changes Unchanged, difficult taxa Sweat, whether or not names changed Changed taxa Lumped? See ‘unchanged’ Split or shifted? MAJOR PAIN; concentrate efforts here.

6. An example of splitting Hitchcock included Echinochloa muricata in E. crusgalli (and used a specimen of E. muricata to illustrate the combined taxa). Many regional floras followed suit Next slide shows maps based on literature records Note political boundaries, and absence of E. muricata from states where E. crusgalli is widespread.

7. Echinochloa – “original” E. crusgalliE. muricata

8. Improving the maps Borrowed 600+ specimens from representative herbaria of states where E. muricata appears to have been included in E. crusgalli Concluded separation of E. crusgalli and E. muricata much easier than many other in the genus Maps improved, but a LONG way from good – see next slide

9. Echinochloa – 600 specimens later

10. Persistent problems Eliminating record – DIFFICULT UNLESS DATA ARE LINKED TO SPECIMENS Adding records is EASY (time consuming, but easy) The number of specimens one needs to examine

11. Towards a solution Herbaria need to share data – ASPT Initiative? Distribution maps should come from herbaria. Accept for mapping purposes, a standard taxonomic treatment Different standards for different regions Identify required fields for mapping Suggest additional fields that might be useful No coercion – at least, not without money

12. Benefits of herbaria-based distribution map center Focus attention on specimens and herbaria Provide correctable and verifiable maps Improve distributional information Stimulate interest in regional flora Make feedback and sharing of data entry feasible

13. Feedback New state or county records New distribution records for taxon Occurrence of apparent duplicates with different names Occurrence of apparent duplicates with different lat/lon data

14. Ground rules - suggestions MUST assist, encourage, persuade, promote involvement by all herbaria Must not restrict freedom of herbaria Encourage regional and state level initiatives Charge for access beyond basic data? People in other countries learn more about US because US makes data available for free. Do we want to stimulate interest and encourage institutional support?

15. Basic Fields - Suggestions Herbarium code, accession number FNA_name, Herbarium_name State/Province, County, Region? Dec. lat, dec. lon, UTM, TRS Collectors, collection number Annotater, annotation date Day, month, year

16. Optional Fields Locality, (landmark, adjective) Elevation, units Ecology (physical, substrate, biological, associates) Past names

17. Conclusions Distribution maps have scientific value, public appeal, and outreach potential Distribution maps should be tightly linked to herbarium specimens We need to encourage databasing The ASPT should take the lead in encouraging this endeavor

18. POSTSCRIPT Please send comments to mary@biology.usu.edu. mary@biology.usu.edu Feel free to copy them to Lynn Clark, President of ASPT (lgclark@iastate.edu), and Gerald Guala, Chairman of the ASPT’s Internet Communcations committee (stinger@fairchildgarden.org).