Gymnosperm Database
Link to jump to start of content Home Topics Bookstore Links Site Map Contact Us

Search the Database


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

Conifer-Hunting in Mexico


Supplemental Material


Review of Mexican Pines

Supplemental Material

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.

We have the waypoints from Bob's GPS, and I have plotted them on a Microsoft Streets & Trips file, along with our route map. A more detailed map is in the Guia Roja atlas, which Bob has.

Bob recorded the following tree measurements:

SpeciesDiam (cm) Ht (m)Locale
Abies religiosa175 31.7Mexico, NW slopes of Popocatepetl
Pinus montezumae111 38.4Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl
P. ayacahuite var. veitchii137 32.0Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl
P. ayacahuite var. veitchii105 42.1Mexico, NE slopes of Popocatepetl
P. ayacahuite var. ayacahuite72 37.2Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan
P. montezumae106 45.4Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan
P. chiapensis116 47.9Oaxaca, S of Valle National
Abies religiosa109 47.9Oaxaca, N of Ixtlan
Abies religiosa114 47.5Mexico, NW slopes of Nevada de Toluca
Abies religiosa140 43.3Mexico, NW slopes of Nevada de Toluca
Pinus montezumae118 43.3Jalisco, N slopes of Nevada de Colima
Pinus pseudostrobus109 36.0Jalisco, N slopes of Nevada de Colima
Taxodium mucronatum? 38.3Mexico 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.

Review of Mexican Pines: Perry, Farjon, and Conclusions

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. 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. jeffreyi Agree.  
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. cooperi
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. engelmannii Agree.  
P. hartwegii Farjon lumps all three into undifferentiated P. hartwegii, with considerable discussion of this decision. I agree with Farjon.
P. rudis
P. donnell-smithii
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. estevezi
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. oaxacana
P. nubicola
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. maximinoi Agree.  
P. lumholtzii Agree.  
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. praetermissa
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. jaliscana Agree.  
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. martinezii
P. lawsonii Perry calls it "lawsoni." I agree with Farjon.
P. pringlei Agree.  
P. teocote Agree.  
P. muricata var. muricata Agree.  
P. radiata var. binata Agree.  
P. attenuata Agree.  
P. greggii Agree.  
P. coulteri Agree.  
P. ayacahuite var. ayacahuite Agree.  
P. ayacahuite var. veitchii Agree.  
P. lambertiana 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. rzedowskii Agree.  
P. maximartinezii Agree.  
P. nelsonii Perry calls it "nelsoni." I agree with Farjon.
P. pinceana Agree.  
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 [1979], 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. discolor
P. johannis
P. cembroides subsp. lagunae Perry calls it a species, Farjon a subspecies. I agree with Perry.
P. lagunae
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. caterinae
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.
P. juarezensis

go back to "Conifer Hunting in Mexico"

Last Modified 2011-05-22