Conifer-Hunting in Mexico
I took about 800 photographs and also have copies of many of Bob's photos. A huge number of photographs showing technical details of conifer structure are available.
Bob recorded the following tree measurements:
|Species||Diam (cm)||Ht (m)||Locale|
|Abies religiosa||175||31.7||Mexico, NW slopes of Popocatepetl|
|Pinus montezumae||111||38.4||Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl|
|P. ayacahuite var. veitchii||137||32.0||Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl|
|P. ayacahuite var. veitchii||105||42.1||Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl|
|P. ayacahuite var. ayacahuite||72||37.2||Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan|
|P. montezumae||106||45.4||Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan|
|P. chiapensis||116||47.9||Oaxaca, S of Valle National|
|Abies religiosa||109||47.9||Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan|
|Abies religiosa||114||47.5||Mexico, NW slopes of Nevada de Toluca|
|Abies religiosa||140||43.3||Mexico, NW slopes of Nevada de Toluca|
|Pinus montezumae||118||43.3||Jalisco, N slopes of Nevada de Colima|
|Pinus pseudostrobus||109||36.0||Jalisco, N slopes of Nevada de Colima|
|Taxodium mucronatum||?||38.3||Mexico DF, Chapultepec Park|
Carvajal, S. and R. McVaugh. 1992. Pinus L. In R. McVaugh, Flora Novo-Galiciana 17:32-100. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Herbarium.
Coe, Andrew. 2001. Archeological Mexico. Avalon Travel.
Farjon, Aljos and Styles, Brian T. 1997. Pinus (Pinaceae). Flora Neotropica 75. New York Botanical Garden.
Malusa, James. 1992. Phylogeny and biogeography of the pinyon pines (Pinus subsect. Cembroides). Systematic Botany 17(1):42-66.
Noble, John, et al. 2004. Mexico. Lonely Planet.
Perry Jr., Jesse P. 1991. The Pines of Mexico and Central America. Timber Press.
Zanoni, T.A. and R.P. Adams. 1979. The genus Juniperus (Cupressaceae) in Mexico and Guatemala: Synonymy, key, and distributions of the taxa. Bol. Soc. Bot. México 38: 83-131.
Travelers seeking to identify the pines of Mexico will normally carry one of two books: Perry (1991) or Farjon and Styles (1997). In fact, both are invaluable, presenting significantly different information. The problem is, they also present significantly different suites of species. The following table helps to understand this problem and will be extremely useful to anyone seeking to reconcile the differences between the two books. The first column lists all of the taxa identified by either author as occurring within Mexico; the second column summarizes differences between the two accounts; and the third column describes how I have resolved the conflict in the Gymnosperm Database. As soon as I put this online, Michael Frankis immediately weighed in with his perspective, and I have incorporated his notes as well, both to provide further understanding of Perry's and Farjon's perspectives, and also to suggest some different taxonomic notions.
|Species||Perry vs. Farjon||Determination|
|P. leiophylla||Farjon reduces P. chihuahuana to a variety of P. leiophylla.||I agree with Farjon, but "subspecies" also has merit.|
|P. leiophylla var. chihuahuana|
|P. contorta subsp. murrayana||Farjon calls it a variety.||I agree with Perry.|
|P. herrerae||Perry spells it "herrerai."||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. caribaea var. hondurensis||Agree.||Frankis suggests that it warrants treatment as a separate species P. hondurensis, since its cones and seedlings differ from other P. caribaea taxa.|
|P. ponderosa var. scopulorum||Farjon describes it; Perry says P. ponderosa does not occur in Mexico.||I have my own way of treating the P. ponderosa group.|
|P. arizonica var. arizonica||Agree.|
|P. arizonica var. cooperi||Perry calls it P. cooperi, but Farjon (1997) described it as a variety of P. arizonica.||I agree with Farjon (Frankis agrees with Perry).|
|P. arizonica var. stormiae||Agree.||Frankis suggests it should be treated as a distinct species P. stormiae, as the foliage and cones differ from P. arizonica.|
|P. hartwegii||Farjon lumps all three into undifferentiated P. hartwegii, with considerable discussion of this decision.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. pseudostrobus var. pseudostrobus f. pseudostrobus||Farjon lumps all taxa into the type P. pseudostrobus, with some discussion of var. coatepecensis.||I agree with Farjon, but haven't closely studied the problem. Frankis regards P. estevezii as a good species, with P. pseudostrobus var. coatepecensis as a synonym.|
|P. pseudostrobus var. megacarpa|
|P. pseudostrobus var. coatepecensis|
|P. pseudostrobus var. apulcensis||Farjon (pg 129) lumps P. oaxacana and P. nubicola into P. pseudostrobus var. apulcensis.||I agree with Farjon. Frankis also lumps the three taxa, but raises apulcensis to the rank of species.|
|P. pseudostrobus var. pseudostrobus f. protuberans||Agree.|
|P. montezumae var. montezumae||Agree. Farjon describes P. montezumae as polymorphic, with continuously variable properties leading to P. devoniana.|
|P. douglasiana||Agree.||It is very similar to P. maximinoi, often misidentified on herbarium sheets; we very possibly saw it without realizing this. I will tentatively agree with Farjon, but Frankis argues that this should be a synonym of the earlier-described taxon P. gordoniana, arguing that "The very distinctive cones of this taxon are well illustrated by Hartweg in the protologue of P. gordoniana, and the type location (Saddle Mt., near Tepic, Nayarit) is in the range of P. douglasiana, and well outside the range of P. montezumae (also see below under P. montezumae var. gordoniana).|
|P. devoniana||Farjon (pg 141) reduces all of P. michoacana to synonymy with P. devoniana. See also Carvajal and McVaugh 1992.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. michoacana var. michoacana|
|P. michoacana var. cornuta|
|P. michoacana var. quevedoi|
|P. michoacana f. procera|
|P. michoacana f. nayaritana|
|P. montezumae var. gordoniana||Farjon makes a Code-type argument for calling this taxon gordoniana instead of lindleyi.||Frankis argues that P. gordoniana is a clearly distinct species and unrelated to P. montezumae, while var. lindleyi is not distinct from the type variety of P. montezumae.|
|P. montezumae var. lindleyi|
|P. oocarpa var. oocarpa||Agree|
|P. oocarpa var. trifoliata||Agree.|
|P. oocarpa var. microphylla||Farjon and Styles reduce P. oocarpa var. microphylla to synonymy with P. praetermissa, but say Perry's map shows too wide a range. But he also says its distribution must still be relatively unknown so how can Perry's map be wrong?||I need to review this further.|
|P. patula var. patula||Agree.|
|P. patula var. longipedunculata||Agree. Frankis, though, thinks it is more closely related to P. tecunumanii (below), perhaps as an undescribed variety.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. tecunumanii||Farjon lumps both under P. tecunumanii||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. oocarpa var. ochoterenai|
|P. durangensis||Farjon lumps both under P. durangensis and, pg 175, makes remarks on type locality.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. lawsonii||Perry calls it "lawsoni."||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. muricata var. muricata||Agree.|
|P. radiata var. binata||Agree.|
|P. ayacahuite var. ayacahuite||Agree.|
|P. ayacahuite var. veitchii||Agree.|
|P. flexilis var. flexilis||Farjon notes that P. flexilis and P. strobiformis form a cline. Farjon (and Frankis) think var. flexilis does not occur in Mexico but Perry thinks it does, as did Shaw and Martinez. Farjon dismisses their conclusions as mistaken P. strobiformis or mistaken P. flexilis var. reflexa.||Frankis subsequently described a new species, P. stylesii, further complicating this issue. See discussion under P. flexilis.|
|P. flexilis var. reflexa|
|P. strobiformis||Farjon (pg 215) points out both are based on the same type, so lumps them under P. strobiformis.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. ayacahuite var. brachyptera|
|P. chiapensis||Perry calls it a species, Farjon a variety.||I agree with Perry; Frankis tells me that Farjon does also, now.|
|P. strobus var. chiapensis|
|P. nelsonii||Perry calls it "nelsoni."||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. cembroides subsp. cembroides var. cembroides||Agree, though Perry does not require such a complex subdivision of the species.|
|P. cembroides subsp. cembroides var. bicolor||Perry identifies the two spp.; Farjon reduces both to synonymy with var. bicolor, which was orig. described as discolor (bicolor is the earlier name [Little, 1968]; when Bailey and Hawksworth raised it to species rank , Pinus bicolor already existed so they had to use a new name).||Malusa (1992) finds that discolor and johannis are extremely similar to each other, but that neither is similar to cembroides, with which they are sympatric although disjunct from each other. Actually they are closest to culminicola. Both johannis and discolor have been described as varieties of culminicola (Farjon pg 234); I might support that. Frankis, though, concerned that they do not hybridize with P. culminicola, suggests that P. johannis is a good species and that discolor/bicolor requires P. johannis var. bicolor comb. nov. That combination has not yet been published though, and in the meantime I treat discolor as a species.|
|P. cembroides subsp. lagunae||Perry calls it a species, Farjon a subspecies.||I agree with Perry.|
|P. cembroides subsp. orizabensis||Agree.||Farjon points out that it is sympatric with typical P. cembroides, an odd situation to sustain a species/subspecies differentiation. Frankis uses this point to argue that it warrants treatment as a distinct species Pinus orizabensis, closer to P. johannis than to P. cembroides. I find merit in this argument.|
|P. edulis||Perry shows it just entering Mexico in extreme NW Chihuahua.||Frankis says Styles couldn't find it in Mexico; evidently Perry could.|
|P. culminicola||Agree.||See remarks above under P. discolor and P. johannis.|
|P. remota||Farjon reduces P. caterinae to synonymy with P. remota.||I agree with Farjon.|
|P. monophylla||Agree.||Frankis agrees too, and notes that the Mexican plants are referrable to P. monophylla var. californiarum (D. K. Bailey) Zavarin.|
|P. quadrifolia||Perry recognizes both as species, Farjon lumps P. juarezensis into synonymy.||I agree with Farjon, but see discussion under P. quadrifolia.|
go back to "Conifer Hunting in Mexico"
Last Modified 2011-05-22