P
LANT
S
CIENCE
Bulletin
Fall 2011 Volume 57 Number 3
Science, sharing, symposia, and more...
BSA President Steve Weller’s address at
the close of Botany 2011 ...........page 85
BSA welcomes new staff
member.......page 91
In This Issue..............
Dr. Ann Hirsch receives prestigious
BSA Merit Award ................. page 82
Botany in Action!
Service project volunteers at Botany 2011....... page 125
From the Editor
Fall 2011 Volume 57 Number 3
PLANT SCIENCE
BULLETIN
Editorial Committee
Volume 57
Jenny Archibald
(2011)
Department of Ecology
& Evolutionary Biology
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
jkarch@ku.edu
Root Gorelick
(2012)
Department of Biology &
School of Mathematics &
Statistics
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1H 5N1
Root_Gorelick@carleton.ca
Elizabeth Schussler
(2013)
Department of Ecology &
Evolutionary Biology
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996-1610
eschussl@utk.edu
Christopher Martine
(2014)
Department of Biology
State University of New York
at Plattsburgh
Plattsburgh, NY 12901-2681
martinct@plattsburgh.edu
It’s the end of summer and many of us are trying
to shift gears in preparation for another academic
year. It’s a good time to reflect back on summer
activities and consider what we can incorporate
into our classes to excite our students about botany.
The Society itself provides some good examples,
some of which we highlight in this issue. First and
foremost is to recognize outstanding accomplish-
ment at all levels, from the BSA’s Merit Award to
outstanding presentations by graduate students in
individual sections. As demonstrated in President
Weller’s address, the Society continues to promote
excellence in botanical research through the AJB,
and we continue to extend support and encour-
agement to fellow societies throughout the world,
such as our Brazilian friends (who will be hosting
the next Latin American Botanical Congress). Our
discipline is thriving.
Also in this issue are two articles, one long and one
brief, that provide interesting historical perspectives
on plants in society. In the past, when I wanted to
demonstrate the influence of plants on the culture
of a country, my immediate example was tulips and
the Dutch Golden Age. The article by Soediono
and colleagues on the orchid ‘Kimilsungia’ provides
an interesting and more immediately relevant ex-
ample of which I was completely unaware.
Christianson’s brief article emphasizes two points
that I stress with my students. First, once something
is published, as in a textbook, we tend to accept it
without question. But questioning can often lead to
a more thorough and more correct understanding.
Second, even today, and even in science, there con-
tinues to be value in
having knowledge of
a language other than
English.
Carolyn M. Wetzel
(2015)
Department of Biological
Sciences & Biochemistry
Program
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063
Tel. 413/585-3687
-Marsh
81
Table of Contents
Society News
The Botanical Society of America’s Merit Award ..................................82
Awards presented at Botany 2011 ...........................................................82
Botany 2011 Presidential Address—Dr. Steve Weller ............................85
Letter to Acta Botanica Brasilica............................................................89
Welcome new BSA staff member ..........................................................91
BSA Science Education News & Notes
PlantingScience ......................................................................................92
Editor’s Choice Reviews .........................................................................95
Personalia
Diane R. Campbell .................................................................................96
Helen Kennedy .......................................................................................96
John Kiss ..............................................................................................97
Award Opportunities
American Philosophical Society.............................................................98
Courses, Meetings, Symposia
Undergraduate Course in Hawaiian Natural History..............................99
Other
Missouri botanical garden part of collaborative effort to digitize
Charles Darwin’s personal library .........................................................99
Missouri Botanical Garden instrumental in creating and maintaining
Taxonomic Name Resolution Service...................................................100
58th Annual Systematics Symposium, Missouri Botanical Garden......102
Reports and Reviews
‘Kimilsungia’: How an Indonesian orchid oecame a revered symbol
in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea after
its name was changed ............................................................................103
“Lavish in variety, thrifty with innovation”:
Darwin’s paraphrase of Milne-Edwards ..............................................112
Book Reviews
................................................................................................114
Books Received
.............................................................................................123
Botany 2011
....................................................................................................124
Get Ready for Botany 2012
Call for Symposia and Workshops now at
www.botanyconference.org
Submission sites open September 1, 2011
Botany 2012 The Next Generation
Columbus, Ohio July 7 - 11, 2012
82
The Botanical Society of
America’s Merit Award
The Botanical Society of America’s Merit Award
is the highest honor our Society bestows. Each year,
the Merit Award Committee solicits nominations,
evaluates candidates, and selects those to receive
an award. Awardees are chosen based on their
outstanding contributions to the mission of our
scientific Society. The committee identifies recipients
who have demonstrated excellence in basic research,
education, or public policy, who have provided
exceptional service to the professional botanical
community, or who may have made contributions
to a combination of these categories. Based on
these stringent criteria, the 2011 BSA Merit Award
recipient is:
Dr. Ann Hirsch
University of California,
Los Angeles
Dr. Hirsch is recognized for her outstanding
contributions in the research of plant–microbe
interactions, bridging the interactions among genes,
plant growth regulators, signal transductions, and
microbes. Her research is truly exceptional in
combining field aspects of basic research and classical
knowledge with molecular aspects, especially in legume–microbe interactions; she has been described as a
bold and fearless experimentalist. Ann has also had a long and outstanding record in education where she
has set very high standards, and her passion for research has created a stimulating laboratory environment
for many undergraduate students, graduate students, post-docs, and visiting scholars to start or pursue
careers in science. Dr. Hirsch has excelled in all aspects of her professional life and is richly deserving of
the 2011 Merit Award.
Awards Presented at Botany 2011
Society News
Charles Edwin Bessey Award
(BSA in association with the Teaching Section
and Education Committee)
Dr. Susan Singer,
Carleton College.
Dr. Singer is the Laurence McKinley Gould
Professor of the Natural Sciences at Carleton
College. She has served as Co-director of the
Carleton Interdisciplinary Science and Math
Initiative as well as the Director of the Perlman
Learning and Teaching Center. At the national level,
Dr. Singer has served as a program director for the
National Science Foundation and recently worked
on the American Association for the Advancement
of Science’s recent publication “Vision and Change.”
This document is a call to action that is already
impacting the future of biology teaching. Dr. Singer
has received numerous grants, which have often
resulted in publications including student authors.
Her recent work as a member of the Education,
Outreach, and Training Committee of the iPlant
Collaborative epitomizes the national impact
her actions have had on creating innovative and
effective approaches to teaching botany.
83
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Special Awards
Dr. Kent Holsinger,
BSA Past-President
The Botanical Society of America presents a
special award to Dr. Holsinger expressing gratitude
and appreciation for outstanding contributions
and support for the Society. Kent has provided
exemplary contributions to the Society in terms of
leadership, time, and effort.
Rachel Meyer
BSA Student Representative to
the Board, New York Botanical
Garden
The Botanical Society of America presents a
special award to Rachel expressing gratitude and
appreciation for outstanding contributions and
support for the Society.
Isabel Cookson Award
(Paleobotanical Section)
Established in 1976, the Isabel Cookson Award
recognizes the best student paper presented in the
Paleobotanical Section
Jeffrey Benca
University of Washington
Advisor, Dr. Caroline Stromberg, is the
2011 award recipient for the paper entitled,
“Morphological variation in the panglobal
Devonian lycopsid genus Leclercqia: A new species
from Washington State, Co-authors: Caroline
Stromberg and Maureen Carlisle.
Darbaker Prize
The Darbaker Prize in Phycology is given each year in
memory of Dr. Leasure K. Darbaker. It is presented to a
resident of North America for meritorious work in the
study of microscopic algae based on papers published in
English by the nominee during the last two full calendar
years. This year the Darbaker Award for meritorious work
on microscopic algae is presented to:
Dr. Sallie (Penny) Chisholm,
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Dr. Chisholm’s recent and past publications are
on the significant role of the microalgal group
Prochlorococcus. She and her collaborators have
elucidated their wide distribution in the oceanic
environment and have demonstrated essential
critical environmental factors, including light and
nutrients, which account for the varied distribution
certain ecotypes and species. Their most recent
emphasis is on the genomic characterization with
respect to phosphate uptake, and the potential
involvement of the cyanophages in the transfer
of genetic material. She has also offered her well-
considered opinion in influential scientific journals
to discourage oceanic iron fertilization since it
likely will seriously impact the ecosystem.
Lawrence Memorial Award
The Lawrence Memorial Fund was established at the
Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie
Mellon University, to commemorate the life and
achievements of its founding director, Dr. George H. M.
Lawrence. Proceeds from the Fund are used to make
an annual award in the amount of $2000 to a doctoral
candidate to support travel for dissertation research in
systematic botany or horticulture, or the history of the
plant sciences.
The recipient of the Award is selected from candidates
nominated by their major professors. Nominees may
be from any country and the Award is made strictly on
the basis of merit, i.e., the recipient’s general scholarly
promise and the significance of the research proposed.
The Award Committee includes representatives from
the Hunt Institute, The Hunt Foundation, the Lawrence
family, and the botanical community.
Brian Sidoti
student of
Dr. Kenneth Cameron
University of Wisconsin
A Delicate Balance in a Dangerous Place
Submitted by Cassandra Coleman, 2011 Tri-
arch Botanical Images Student Travel Award
84
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Margaret Menzel Award
(Genetics Section)
The Margaret Menzel Award is presented by
the Genetics Section for the outstanding paper
presented in the contributed papers sessions of the
annual meetings.
Matthew Parks
Oregon State University
Advisor, Aaron Liston, for the paper “Separating
the Wheat from the Chaff: Mitigating the Effect of
Noisy Data in Plastome Phylogenomic Analyses.”
Co-authors: Richard Cronn and Aaron Liston.
Maynard Moseley Award
(Paleobotanical and
Developmental and Structural
Sections)
The Maynard F. Moseley Award was established in 1995
to honor a career of dedicated teaching, scholarship, and
service to the furtherance of the botanical sciences. Dr.
Moseley, known to his students as “Dr. Mo” died January
16, 2003, in Santa Barbara, California, where he had been
a professor since 1949. He was widely recognized for
his enthusiasm for and dedication to teaching and his
students, as well as for his research using floral and wood
anatomy to understand the systematics and evolution
of angiosperm taxa, especially waterlilies. (PSB, Spring,
2003). The award is given to the best student paper,
presented in either the Paleobotanical or Developmental
and Structural sessions, that advances our understanding
of plant structure in an evolutionary context.
John Benedict
Arizona State University,
Advisor, Kathleen Pigg, is the 2011 Moseley
Award recipient, for his paper “The fossil history of
Zingiberales and new insights based on fossil and
extant members.”
Emanuel D. Rudolph Award
(Historical Section)
The Emanuel D. Rudolph Award is given by the
Historical Section of the BSA for the best student
presentation/poster of a historical nature at the
annual meetings.
Nuala Caomhanach
University of Missouri
Advisor, Kim Kleinman, for her presentation:
“Thomas Nuttall and 19th century botany: The St.
Louis connection.”
George R. Cooley Award
(Systematics Section and the
American Society of Plant
Taxonomists)
George R. Cooley award for best contributed paper
in plant systematics. The ASPT’s Cooley Award is given
for the best paper in systematics presented at the annual
meeting by a botanist in the early stages of his/her career.
Awards are made to members of ASPT who are graduate
students or within five years of their postdoctoral
careers. The Cooley Award is given for work judged to
be substantially complete, synthetic, and original. First
authorship required; graduate students or those within
five years of finishing their Ph.D. are eligible; must be a
member of ASPT at time of abstract submission; only one
paper judged per candidate.
Erin Tripp
Rancho Santa Ana
For the talk entitled “Physacanthus
(Acanthaceae): a heteroplasmic, intergeneric,
interlineage hybrid?” Co-authors: Lucinda McDade,
Siti Fatimah Isa, and Iain Darbyshire
Katherine Esau Award
(Developmental and Structural
Section)
This award was established in 1985 with a
gift from Dr. Esau and is augmented by ongoing
contributions from Section members. It is given to
the graduate student who presents the outstanding
paper in developmental and structural botany at
the annual meeting.
Natalia Pabon-Mora
New York Botanical Garden
Advisor, Amy Litt, for the paper “Functional
redundancy of non-core eudicot FUL-like
paralogs in regulating flowering time and petal
development.” Co-author: Amy Litt.
Honorable Mention
Chi-Chih Wu
University Of Colorado
Boulder,
Advisor, Pamela Diggle, for the paper “The impact
of the lower genetic relatedness of endosperm to its
compatriot embryo on maize seed development.”
Co-authors: Pamela Diggle and William Friedman.
85
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Edgar T. Wherry Award
(Pteridological Section and
the American Fern Society)
The Edgar T. Wherry Award is given for the best
paper presented during the contributed papers
session of the Pteridological Section. This award is
in honor of Dr. Wherry’s many contributions to the
floristics and patterns of evolution in ferns.
Monique McHenry
University of Vermont,
Advisor and co-author David S. Barrington, for
her paper; “Investigating morphological diversity
of Andean Polystichum (Dryopteridaceae): seeking
explanations for incongruence between sequence
variation and morphological variation”
The 2011 Grady L. Webster
Award
This award was established in 2006 by Dr.
Barbara D. Webster, Grady’s wife, and Dr.
Susan V. Webster, his daughter, to honor the
life and work of Dr. Grady L. Webster. The
American Society of Plant Taxonomists and
the Botanical Society of America are pleased
to join together in honoring Grady Webster.
Dr. Sherwin Carlquist
Xylem heterochrony: an unappreciated key to
angiosperm origin and diversifications
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009,
161, 26–65
Botany 2011 Presidential Address
Dr. Steve Weller
My goal tonight is to share some personal reflections about who we are as a scientific society, and the
kinds of changes that I believe will help our society to remain relevant as we look to the future. My
curiosity about the composition of the Society and the range of research interests represented among us
stems from reading and publishing papers in the American Journal of Botany over many years, and serving
as an associate editor in recent years.
The journal is especially rich in papers on ecology, reproductive biology, systematics, population biology,
anatomy and morphology, and genetics. The content of the American Journal of Botany, and the nature of
the membership of the Society both reflect a fundamental interest in using plants to test hypotheses, and
we come together at these meetings because of this interest. Many of us belong to other societies and attend
those meetings as well, but we appreciate the opportunity to attend Botanical Society of America meetings
and enjoy the interchange with others who have the same plant-centric focus. We also influence a broad
array of disciplines, however, including many whose members publish their work in diverse journals.
Two examples illustrate the point of how our members broadly influence science. My first example
highlights the importance of phylogenetic information for understanding the role of self incompatibility in
the explosive radiation of flowering plants in the Cretaceous Period—Darwin’s “abominable mystery”. Self-
incompatibility (SI), was first suggested by Whitehouse in 1950 as the cause of angiosperm diversification.
The idea has been impossible to test until phylogenies of the flowering plants became available, produced
by members of this society. These phylogenies have revealed remarkable evolutionary insights.
Boris Igic and Josh Kohn have found identical RNases controlling the expression of mating types in
gametophytic self-incompatibility (GSI) in divergent plants families. Their work, using phylogenetic
trees, shows that these RNases are identical by descent in the Plantaginaceae, Solanaceae, and Rosaceae,
suggesting that gametophytic self-incompatibility evolved in the common ancestor of the Asteridae
and Rosidae. Families included in these lineages constitute about 75% of non-monocot families, which
suggests that this type of self-incompatibility evolved early in the evolution of flowering plants. Despite
the widespread occurrence of gametophytic self-incompatibility, we also know that many families in the
86
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Asteridae and Rosidae have other forms of self-
incompatibility. Sporophytic self-incompatibility
(SSI) in the Asteraceae and other families is one
example. These additional instances of self-
incompatibility systems evolved independently and
show no homology with GSI. Clearly, phylogenetic
information has played an enormously important
role in understanding these evolutionary questions.
But have we addressed Darwin’s “abominable
mystery”—the diversification of the flowering
plants? To answer that question, we need to
go deeper into the evolutionary history of the
flowering plants, to those earliest branching
lineages, represented here by Amborella and
Anemopsis, and assess the occurrence of SI in these
lineages. When we do that, we find several types
of self-incompatibility in basal angiosperm clades
(Allen and Hiscock, 2008). These patterns suggest
that different types of self-incompatibility may
have evolved early in the evolutionary history of
the angiosperms, and may have been important in
the evolutionary diversification of the angiosperms.
But the point I am making is the importance of
phylogenetic trees to the entire exercise—without
them, we could not take these approaches, and
we would have no basis for speculation about
the role of self-incompatibility in the evolution
of the flowering plants. Molecular evolutionary
approaches have given us important insights into
the evolution of flowering plants, but we need our
phylogenetic framework to interpret this work. Of
course, Amborella, the most basal of angiosperm
lineages, is dioecious, suggesting even more
complexity to the story.
For my second example of how we, as members
of the Botanical Society, influence a broad
spectrum of research, I turn to the other end of the
biological spectrum. We all recognize how changes
at the global scale are having profound effects on
ecosystems due to climate change, introduction of
invasive species, and other human activities that
affect the world. How does our work address these
important questions? I approach this question
using a study of an invasive species that has had
profound effects on native plant communities, and
the people who depend on these plant communities.
Pennisteum setaceum, or fountain grass, is
native to the Mideast and invasive in parts of the
southwestern United States and Hawaii. In Hawaii
it has had a huge impact on dry forest ecosystems
because it is a fire promoter. Even a single fire cycle
results in death of the canopy forest, and conversion
to nonnative grassland in Hawaii. Loss of these
native forests results in desertification of large
regions of Hawaii, and loss of species important to
native Hawaiians. Recent efforts to restore of dry
forests in Hawaii are directly attributable to the
leadership of native Hawaiians. Is fountain grass
equally invasive throughout its range? The answer
appears to be no. In contrast to Hawaii, fountain
grass seems much less invasive along highways in
southern California, where unfortunately it has
been planted by the State Highway Department.
Populations in southern Arizona seem to have an
intermediate level of invasiveness.
We asked whether genetic variability or
phenotypic plasticity was associated with these
differences in invasion, information fundamental
for understanding the nature of invasiveness.
Fountain grass was known to be apomictic, but
we expected that there would be some genetic
variation due to occasional sexual reproduction.
An analysis using ISSR markers, which should be
very sensitive to genetic variation, instead indicated
that populations across this region were genetically
identical (Poulin et al., 2005). But would molecular
approaches be sufficient to rule out relevant genetic
differences? Several common garden experiments,
one in a field plot and another in a greenhouse,
were used to check for genetic variation that
could not be detected using molecular markers.
Results from the common garden experiments
demonstrated that plants from different regions
had identical growth and reproduction (Poulin
et al., 2007). On this basis, plants from these
different regions appear to be genetically identical,
at least in those traits influencing invasiveness.
Phenotypic plasticity, related to differences in
summer rainfall, is primarily responsible for the
differences in invasiveness across the range that
we sampled. Watering treatments in a common
garden mimicked natural differences in rainfall
in California, Arizona, and Hawaii. Results from
the experiment demonstrated reduced growth and
reproduction under conditions resembling rainfall
patterns in California, the region where fountain
grass is least invasive. The take-home lessons from
this example are several-fold. First, fountain grass
has an enormous effects in ecosystems because it
promotes fires and converts native to completely
exotic habitat. Second, our ability to understand
the invasiveness of fountain grass depends
on understanding the breeding system of this
species and the interplay between the genetic and
environmental controls on the phenotype. This
research was published in the American Journal of
87
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Botany, and it is hard to imagine a more appropriate
journal.
Recent data confirm that the papers we publish
in the American Journal of Botany increasingly
impact science. The 2010 Journal Citation Report
from Thomas Reuters shows that our impact factor
is now 3.052, above 3.0 for the first time in the
journal’s history and up from 2.684 last year. The
journal now ranks 27th among 187 journals in
plant science, two rankings higher than last year.
Special issues such as the Darwin Centennial issue
in 2009 and the Biodiversity issue in 2011 have
undoubtedly contributed to the steady increase in
impact factor of AJB because of the greater breadth
of topics in these issues. For example, half the papers
in the Biodiversity issue focused on community
and ecosystem ecology, topics that are not normally
as well represented in the journal. Indexing by
PubMed, initiated in 2010, will also increase the
impact of the journal. We have our outstanding
editors, Judy Jernstedt and Amy McPherson, the
AJB staff, the organizers of species issues, and of
course all the contributors who submit their best
papers, to thank for the increasing influence of our
journal.
How do we continue to maintain the vitality
of our field, and provide the insights critical to
other disciplines? This question brings me to the
second part of my talk—the kinds of changes that
are taking place in the workforce, and how they
will affect our Society. Two influential reports,
published 10 years apart, have addressed this issue.
The first report, entitled “Ensuring a Strong U.S.
Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Workforce
in the 21st Century,” was published in 2000 by the
National Science and Technology Council, under
the Executive Office of the President. A second
report, “Expanding Underrepresented Minority
Participation,” from the National Academy of
Science, was published in 2010. Both reports
emphasize that participation of all ethnic and
gender groups in the scientific workforce must grow
to maintain strength in science and technology in
the United States. We can use these reports to see
how the population and science and technology
workforce have changed over the last 10 years.
In recent history, non-Hispanic white males
have formed the bulk of the U.S. science, technical,
engineering, and mathematics (or STEM)
workforce. For example, in 1997 white non-Hispanic
males formed 36% of the population, but 65% of
the science, technical, and engineering workforce.
In contrast, white, non-Hispanic women formed
about 38% of the population, and 18% of the STEM
workforce. Women have fared somewhat better in
the biological disciplines, where they received 42%
of doctoral degrees in biology in 1996, relative to
32% of the doctorates in the STEM workforce, and
presumably constituted a greater part of the biology
workforce relative to other science and engineering
disciplines. A very small proportion of under-
represented minorities pursued advanced degrees
in science and engineering. In 1997 Hispanic males
constituted about 5% of the population, but less
than 3% of the STEM workforce, and for Hispanic
women, the percentage of the workforce in science
and technology was less than 2%. These individuals
occurred in such low numbers in the STEM
workforce that they have limited opportunities to
serve as role models or mentor other minorities.
How is the population changing, and what does
this mean for the future of the science, technical,
and engineering workforce? Based on the 2000
report, the most significant change in the projected
population from 1995 to 2050 is both a relative
and absolute decline of non-Hispanic white males
and females from about 74% of the population in
1995 to a projected value of 52% in 2050. What
ethnic groups are increasing during this period?
By far, Hispanics are projected to show the largest
increase, from about 10% (men and women
combined) to 24% of the population in 2050. The
African-American workforce will increase from
12% to 14%, and the Asian-American workforce
from 4% to 9%. The Native American portion
of the workforce is expected remain the same at
less than 1%. In summary, over this period the
minority portion of the populations is expected
to increase from about 25% to 48%. If we are to
maintain a leadership role in the sciences, then it is
clear that we must encourage more representation
of women and minorities in the sciences, and in
the Botanical Society of America. If we simply
continue to train people in science and technology
as we have in the past, we could see a 9% decline in
the percentage of 22-year-olds receiving bachelor
degrees in science and technology from 1995 to
2050 because of the increase in minorities who are
less likely to graduate in these areas. This projection
could change, depending on how successful we are
in training underrepresented groups.
Where do we stand at present, 10 years after
the publication of the first report? The 2010
report, “Expanding Underrepresented Minority
88
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
forefront of science and technology. As a Society,
we do our best to achieve better representation of
women, minorities, and people with disabilities
because we recognize their contributions to our
discipline. Unless these individuals are encouraged
to participate, the science that we value will be
relegated to an increasingly smaller segment of the
workforce.
Allen, A. M. and S. J. Hiscock. 2008. Evolution
and phylogeny of self-incompatibility systems in
angiosperms. Pp. 73-101 in V. E. Franklin-Tong
(ed.), Self-incompatibility in flowering plants—
evolution, diversity, and mechanisms. Springer,
Berlin.
Igic, B. and J. R. Kohn. 2001. Evolutionary
relationships among self-incompatibility RNases.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
98: 13167-13171.
National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.
2010. Expanding underrepresented minority
participation. The National Academies Press.
Washington, D.C.
National Science and Technology Council. 2000.
Ensuring a strong U.S. scientific, technical, and
engineering workforce in the 21st century. Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Poulin, J., S. G. Weller, and A. K. Sakai. 2005.
Genetic diversity does not affect the invasiveness of
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) in Arizona,
California and Hawaii. Diversity and Distributions
11: 241-247.
Poulin, J., A. K. Sakai, S. G. Weller, and T.
Nguyen. 2007. Phenotypic plasticity, precipitation,
and invasiveness in the fire-promoting grass
Pennisetum setaceum (Poaceae). American Journal
of Botany 94: 533-541.
Whitehouse, H. L. K. 1950. Multiple-allelomorph
incompatibility of pollen and style in the evolution
of the angiosperms. Annals of Botany 14: 199-216.
Participation”, points out that although the United
States once led in the attainment of postsecondary
education in the world, the country is now
in 11th place in the world. At the same time
minority groups underrepresented in science
and engineering continue to be the most rapidly
growing part of the U.S. population. In 2006,
underrepresented minorities (African Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans) constituted
28.5% of the population but only 9.1% of the science
and engineering workforce. As expected based
on demographic trends, minority representation
increased dramatically between 1972 and 2007 in
public schools, particularly among Hispanics. At
the same time we see a progressive decline in the
representation of underrepresented minorities as
we proceed up the academic ladder, from 38.8%
underrepresented minorities in K-12 public
enrollment, to only 5.4% receiving doctorates.
Retention of minorities in programs is a critical
issue. The 2010 report noted that only about 20% of
undergraduate minority students enrolled in STEM
disciplines completed their bachelors degrees,
compared to 33% of white students in these areas.
Based on the 2010 report, enrollments of minority
students are increasing at both the undergraduate
and graduate level, so we have reason to believe
that trends are in the right directions, although the
base for these percentage calculations is quite small.
Retention of minorities in these areas of studies is
viewed as critical. What can be done to increase
retention of students? Redesign of undergraduate
courses to include active learning and collaboration,
increased social support, and more mentoring
have all been suggested as ways to increase
retention of minorities. Needless to say, increased
spending will be essential for these programs to
be implemented and continued, and in today’s
economic and political climates, the uncertainties
are tremendous. In the Botanical Society, we have
continued to support the PLANTS program to
bring undergraduates to our national meeting, with
the generous support of the Society and a National
Science Foundation grant that was just funded to
support the PLANTS program. Doug and Pam
Soltis, with support from the National Science
Foundation, have provided significant support to
increase diversity at our meeting. PlantingScience
is a major form of outreach for the Society. We
strive to increase diversity, not only because
we know it’s the right thing to do, but because
we must if the United States is to remain at the
89
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Upon the occasion of the 25
th
year of publication of
Acta Botanica Brasilica (ABB) by the Brazilian Botanical
Society, we off er some refl ections on the importance of
the American Journal of Botany to the Botanical Society of
America. As the primary scientifi c journal of our society,
publication began in 1914, 21 years aft er the society was
founded in 1893. Our journal, as does ABB, accepts papers
on every aspect of plant science. Th e journal is particularly
rich in papers that focus on organismal approaches. Papers
on plant genomics, molecular evolution, and community
and ecosystem ecology are less well-represented, although
research published in the journal informs these topics.
Because of its organismal focus, the journal is an important
resource for those researchers looking for information on
plants. Our journals also attract interest in our societies,
as researchers become aware of others sharing common
research interests. Attendance at national meetings and
interactions with other researchers is one outcome of publi-
cation of our journals. For many of us who were trained as
botanists, our fi rst introduction to the society was through
meetings as students. For us, the journal has played a role
as the venue to publish our research and for information on
the important research of others in botany. Journals are the
basic resource for fundamental research in science; most
major scientifi c societies support some publication that
contributes to the scientifi c compendium of knowledge in
the world. However, as we approach our hundredth year of
publication and as you celebrate your 25
th
year, the publi-
cation world is changing rapidly due to electronic access.
Th is rapidly changing landscape raises important questions
for authors, societies, publishers, and researchers. Will the
journal remain the important work, or will the actual article
become the more important item for consideration? How
will societies survive on a new business model, independent
of the income from the purchase of the journal? If access
to journals is free, who pays for costs of the peer review
and editing to ensure that papers are of the highest quali-
ty? Time alone will answer these questions, but societies
must be ready and carefully consider now how to meet the
challenges ahead. Researchers need to think about paying
to publish, rather than paying for the published material.
As we think about our journal and its importance for
our society, the defi nitions of journal provide thought- pro-
voking material. Of course, a defi nition of “journal”, as the
defi nition of” acta”, is a periodical presenting articles on a
particular subject such as plant science. Th e word “journal”
however, has additional meanings, such as a personal record
of occurrences, experiences, and refl ections kept on a regular
basis; a diary. And isn’t that exactly what our journal does
for our society? It presents the experiences and knowledge
of our various researchers who have published their hy-
potheses, data, and conclusions over time in the journal.
Looking back through the topics of the journal, we can
trace the important emphases of the fi eld of botany – from
discovery of species and their geographical occurrences, the
accumulation of these species into fl oras, and the growth
patterns and processes of these organisms, to more detailed
morphological and anatomical studies, through genetic and
physiological processes infl uencing the form and structure of
plants, to broad ecosystem relationships among all organisms
including the plants and the physical factors that infl uence
these organisms. At all levels of botanical investigation, we
see shift s in experimental approaches with increasing use
of molecular tools for studies on phylogenies, gene action,
and cellular processes. Th us, the journal becomes a personal
refl ection of the growth and development of the society over
the last century, and provides valuable information about
the scientifi c process in plant biology. Th is observation leads
directly to another defi nition of the word “journal” as an
offi cial record of daily proceedings, as of a legislative body or
a ship’s log. Perhaps not daily, but the monthly publication of
the journal has provided an offi cial record of the proceedings
happening throughout the diverse research disciplines of the
society. Th e journal provides an important historical thread
that ties the society members together with all who have
preceded us, and which we hope will continue to form that
bond with future botanists.
In addition, the journal provides a record of the best
in scientifi c research produced by a researcher. An article
written according to strict guidelines and peer reviewed to
provide validity for the results becomes part of the scientifi c
record. Journal articles document the complete research
Acta bot. bras. 25(2): 253-254. 2011.
253
Acta Botanica Brasilica 25(2): 253-254. 2011.
Editorial / Editorial
Refl ections on the role of publications by scientifi c societies in
celebration of the 25th year for Acta Botanica Brasilica
From your sister society to the north: the Botanical Society of America
90
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Nota Científi ca / Scientifi c Note
Acta Botanica Brasilica 25(1): 1. 2011.
Acta bot. bras. 25(2): 253-254. 2011.
254
process and provide a means of repeating the research to
verify the results. Students reading and discussing these
articles in journals learn the scientifi c method and the rules
for scientifi c publication, as students have for centuries. Th ey
will continue to do so, whether these articles are produced in
printed format on paper or in electronic online publications,
which is certainly the way most scientists now are accessing
scientifi c literature. Given the ubiquity of information on the
web, endorsement of articles by a scientifi c society becomes
even more critical to verify the authenticity and value of the
work. A web-based, “rate this article” approach may work in
some cases, but not in scientifi c disciplines.
Journals have another role as well- they can lead the way
by encouraging research directions that are likely to lead to
new and promising results. For example, the editors of jour-
nals and the members of a society can solicit contributions
for special issues of a journal that bring together papers on
topics that are important to a fi eld, but may not have been
well-represented in the journal. Th ese special issues may have
synergistic eff ects by heightening an awareness of research
approaches especially benefi cial to a discipline. Special is-
sues may also be useful for refl ecting on the status of a fi eld,
and integrating research approaches over a broad range of
disciplines. Two recent issues of the American Journal of
Botany exemplify these approaches. Th e journal celebrated
the Darwin Bicentennial by publishing a special issue in 2009
on Darwin’s “abominable mystery,” the apparently sudden
appearance of fl owering plants in the Cretaceous Period.
Th is issue of the journal contained a very broad array of
papers, emphasizing topics ranging from paleobotany to
molecular genetics. A reader of this issue would gain a very
comprehensive approach to research questions surrounding
the evolution of fl owering plants, and perspective on how
scientists in other disciplines apply their approach to the
problem. A more recent issue of the journal published in 2011
was devoted to biodiversity- in the broadest sense possible.
Topics covered included diversifi cation of ecosystems throu-
ghout paleohistory, evolutionary diversifi cation of fl owering
plants, diversity in microbial communities, and the eff ects
of species invasion on biodiversity. Ecosystem and global
change issues were especially well represented, and might
generate more attention to these topics in future issues of
the American Journal of Botany. Th ese special issues, which
have been highly cited, indicate the role of a journal in con-
tributing to the growth of a particular discipline or area of
research, and indicate that even in an age when most readers
download articles rather than issues, the synthesis of ideas in
a single location, electronic or otherwise, can be infl uential.
We live in an age where communication oft en seems ins-
tantaneous, and the fl ow of ideas so rapid that new research
directions rapidly gain momentum. Th e same forces that
promote this exchange of information may have negative
consequences for our societies, unless we think carefully
about new business models for our journals. Several models
exist, such as the traditional approach where the reader/
user pays, models where the author pays for publishing,
institutional sponsorship methods, marketing support (but
these do not work well for specialized scientifi c articles),
providing portions of articles or special articles for free but
requiring payment for complete articles or issues of journals,
or hybrid models of these methods. Th e American Journal of
Botany off ers free access aft er one year to all the articles but
if researchers or libraries wish to have more instantaneous
access, they pay. All these models have issues that have been
discussed in great detail. As scientifi c societies we need to
be part of the discussion on the business models of open-
access publishing because we must generate the resources to
continue to produce solid, verifi able scientifi c articles that are
openly accessible to all. We owe it to those who established
the high standards for our society publications and we owe
it to the students and researchers of the future to provide
a continuous, historical, reliable, and trusted resource and
outlet for the best of botanical information.
Judith E. Skog
BSA President
Stephen G. Weller
BSA President-elect
91
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Welcome New BSA Staff Member
Beth Parada
Online Publication Editor
Beth joined the AJB editorial team in July 2011 to manage
the review, editorial, and production process of the online-only
section AJB Primer Notes & Protocols in the Plant Sciences.
Before joining the BSA, Beth was Managing Editor at the
Missouri Botanical Garden Press, where she managed the
editorial and production process for the Garden’s two quarterly
journals, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden and Novon,
as well as for titles published in the series Monographs in
Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden and the
many flora projects published by the Garden. Her background
in scientific publishing also includes five years of experience
with Elsevier as Issue Manager for the Annals of Emergency
Medicine and coordinating the development and production of
online courseware.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
BULLARD FELLOWSHIPS IN FOREST RESEARCH
Each year Harvard University awards a limited number of Bullard Fellowships to individuals
in biological, social, physical, and political sciences to promote advanced study, research, or
integration of subjects pertaining to forested ecosystems. The fellowships, which include stipends
up to $40,000, are intended to provide individuals in mid-career with an opportunity to utilize the
resources and to interact with personnel in any department within Harvard University in order
to develop their own scientific and professional growth. In recent years Bullard Fellows have been
associated with the Harvard Forest, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and the J.
F. Kennedy School of Government and have worked in areas of ecology, forest management, policy,
and conservation. Fellowships are available for periods ranging from six months to one year after
September 1st. Applications from international scientists, women, and minorities are encouraged.
Fellowships are not intended for graduate students or recent postdoctoral candidates. Information
and application instructions are available on the Harvard Forest website (http://harvardforest.fas.
harvard.edu). Annual deadline for applications is February 1st.
92
BSA Science Education
News & Notes
Master Plant Science Team
Thanks to 2010-2011 Master Plant Science Team
We extend our gratitude to the 2010-2011
Master Plant Science Team, a special cohort of
PlantingScience mentors who commit to mentor
about 4 teams in both the fall and spring session.
The Botanical Society of America sponsored:
Lorraine Adderley, Rob Baker, Kate Becklin,
Amanda Birnbaum, Angelle Bullard-Roberts,
Katie Clark, Rafael Rubio de Casas, Melissa Gray,
Eric Jones, Allison Kidder, Haley Kilroy, Laura
Lagomarsino, Chase Mason, Dr. David Matlaga,
Arjit Mukherjee, Kelly O’Donnell, Taina Price,
Emily Sessa, Kate Sidlar, and Lindsey Tuominen.
The American Society of Plant Biologists
sponsored: Robert Barlow, Betsy Justus, Sasha
Ricaurte, Madhura Siddappaji, and Erica Fishel.
Thank you for your valuable mentoring efforts.
Thanks also to those helping field-test for your
insights on the new inquiries. Your extra efforts
are a big boost to the PlantingScience community!
Call for 2011-2012
Applications
The Master Plant Science Team (MPST) is
designed to provide compensation for a cohort of
graduate students and post-doctoral researchers
who make a substantial contribution as an online
mentor during an academic year. To support your
extra efforts, there are extra benefits and support
systems. MPST members receive free membership
to the Botanical Society of America for the year
commitment and 50% off meeting registration fees.
BSA Science Education News and Notes is a quarterly update about the BSA’s education efforts and the
broader education scene. We invite you to submit news items or ideas for future features. Contact: Claire
Hemingway, BSA Education Director, at chemingway@botany.org or Marshall Sundberg, PSB Editor, at
psb@botany.org.
PlantingScience—BSA-led student research and science
mentoring program
Joining the 2011-2012 team involves:
• participating in online mentorship training
mentoring about 4 student teams via the web
during BOTH fall and spring sessions (each
session lasts about two months)
• posting to student teams about three times per
week
• providing extra support and facilitating
communication for one classroom teacher and
his/her class
An application is available online:
www.plantingscience.org/MPSTApplication.html
If you’d like to spark scientific curiosity and
understanding in today’s youth, but the MPST isn’t
a good fit for you, consider joining as a regular
PlantingScience mentor:
http://PlantingScience.org/NewMentor/
2011 PlantingScience Summer
Institute for Teachers
2011 Summer Institute teachers and plant science
leaders share a bit of shade under a famous old
oak on Texas A&M University campus.
93
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
The learning fun was sizzling hot in
College Station, Texas, at this summer’s fourth
PlantingScience Institute for Teachers (June 23-30,
2011). We were once again mightily impressed with
the number and quality of workshop applicants.
Having to accept only 32% of the deserving
applicants made for some hard choices. Nineteen
teachers traveled from 13 U.S. states and as far away
as Seoul, South Korea, to share the experience of
plant inquiry immersion with Dr. Marsh Sundberg
of Emporia State University and Dr. Larry Griffing
of Texas A&M University. Adding to the rich
learning environment were teacher leaders Kim
Parfitt of Cheyenne Central High School and
Randy Dix of Olathe North High School, who
field-tested modules last year, and seven teachers
who previously attended a summer institute and
participated in online mentored inquiry sessions.
These are sure signs of a vibrant PlantingScience
community and a cohort of teachers eager for
opportunities to engage in deep thinking about
plant biology and scientific inquiry.
A discussion of the essay “The Importance of
Stupidity in Scientific Research” kicked off the
session and, following a visit to the greenhouse
to examine plant diversity, teachers were off and
running on plant investigations that culminated
in teacher team presentations. Microscopy and
ImageJ were tools introduced for both plant
investigation themes. Another feature in common
was the high value placed on mucking-around time
as an important phase for building background
knowledge and allowing, sometimes unanticipated
ideas to surface and connect. Following the
five-day inquiry immersion, the focus shifted to
classroom implementation. Larry and his wife
kindly hosted a sumptuous BBQ party for all at
their farm on the penultimate night, where the
participants surprised Larry and Claire with
birthday wishes. Conversations among workshop
teachers are continuing on the PlantingScience
Institute Facebook group set up by Dick Willis.
Larry Griffing (who also co-led the 2009
institute) introduced teachers to the plant genetics
workhorse, Arabidopsis, and the use of recombinant
inbred lines for classroom research on population
variation and teasing apart roles of genetics and
environment. Working with a large amount of new
information, such small seeds, and classroom sets
of plants can be challenging, but Larry achieved
his aim for the module of moving genetics beyond
Mendel and bringing quantitative reasoning and
data visualization into prominence. In fact, the
teachers investigations were so productive that
Larry awarded two prizes: the Araba-daba-do award
for the most innovative data collection and Araba-
daba-data award for the most comprehensive data
analysis.
Marsh Sundberg (who also co-led the 2008 and
2010 institutes) employed his extensive skill in
asking guiding questions as teacher teams sought
to cause and explain celery curling in the celery
challenge, which integrates cell types, osmosis, and
transpiration. As one might expect for an open-
ended inquiry such as this, teacher teams explored
some relationships such as geometry and physics of
the celery segments that have not previously been
explored by teams. For the five returning teachers
who had experienced the celery challenge last year,
Marsh posed a related and special challenge to
design an inquiry for their classrooms using ferns
to examine osmosis and transpiration. In keeping
with tradition established last year, the presentation
of their work included a song-and-dance routine
about transpiration. A number of teachers are
continuing the labshop challenge with Marsh by
distance.
Teacher teams with their “Tri-comb” awards created
and bestowed by Larry Griffing for most innovative
data collection (top) and most comprehensive data
analysis (bottom) of their Arabidopsis investigations.
94
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
PlantingScience Student
Posters at Botany 2011
Kara Butterworth displayed at Botany 2011
four posters created by student teams in her
Honors Biology class at Combs High School in
Arizona. During the spring 2011 PlantingScience
online session, Kara had 13 teams of 9th and 10th
graders investigating C-Ferns. With advice from
their online mentors and Kara’s support in the
classroom, the students asked diverse questions
including the role of pollution on spores, effects of
space and density on sex ratios, and relationships
between pH and timing of life cycle stages and
rate of growth. Kara, now living in Colorado, will
bring the PlantingScience experience to a new set
of students, and she hopes to bring high school
students to talk about their posters at future Botany
meetings.
This last workshop under our current NSF award
(DRL-0733280) was again expertly hosted by co-PI
Dr. Carol Stuessy, Texas A&M University Associate
Professor of Teaching, Learning, and Culture.
Carol, her graduate student Cheryl Ann Peterson,
and other members of the TAMU research team are
examining the impact of the teacher professional
development workshops and interactions in the
online community. Cheryl Ann Peterson shared
preliminary data of her dissertation research at the
Botany 2011 meeting. Tantalizing findings include
that a greater percentage of teams whose teachers
attended the 10-day workshops compared to non-
workshop teachers post evidence of scientific
thinking regarding particular elements of their
inquiry projects, such as mentioning confounding
variables in their experimental design or connecting
their conclusions of the experiment to the data that
were collected. It is exciting to see data on the
PlantingScience model of scientist-student-teacher
partnership accumulate as the current grant cycle
begins to come to a close and we plan for the future.
Kara Butterworth showcases posters created by
her high school team “The Beatles” on their inves-
tigation of pH level of agar on spore development.
Note the students’ acknowledgement of their mentor
Laura Lagomarsino.
Deliberating options for the fern transpiration
inquiry with Marsh Sundberg (far right).
95
Editor’s Choice Reviews
The End Of The Botany Degree in
The UK.
Drea, S. 2011. Bioscience Educa-
tion 17(2)
The decline of botany noted in the pages of PSB
since its inaugural issue more than 50 years ago
has not been a phenomenon unique to the United
States. According to the author of this article, “The
last student enrolled in a pure ‘Botany’ degree in
the UK began in the University of Bristol this year,
2010.”
Exploring the Complexity of Tree
Thinking Expertise in an Under-
graduate Systematics Course
Hal-
verson, K.L., C.J. Pires, and S.K. Abell. 2011.
Science Education 95(5): 794-823.
The authors use multiple assessments, both
quantitative and qualitative, to uncover student
misunderstandings involving phylogenetic tree
interpretations in a plant systematic course.
Natural Antibiotics: A Hands-on Ac-
tivity on Garlic’s Antibiotic Proper-
ties.
Joāo Fonseca, M. and F. Tavares. 2011.
T
he American Biology Teacher 73: 342-346.
There are a number of protocols out there for
examining antibiotic properties of a variety of
organisms, but what I like most about this one
(aside from the garlic) is that kitchen utensils
and ingredients are used, along with some basic
scientific glassware. The media is “from scratch,”
starting with boiling meat on the stove, then adding
sugar and salt (and some agar). How do you get
your garlic extract? Start with a garlic press! Can
you just use a garlic clove? Either you try it or read
the article.
What’s Inside a Sweet Pepper Fruit?
Thinking About the “Insides” in
Plants.
Kemel, D., B. Druzina, and T.
McCloughlin. 2011. Journal of Biological
Education 45(1): 29-36.
The simple question in the title of this paper opens
up to inquiries of the nature of the gas inside
the chambers of a sweet pepper and alternative
approaches to testing hypotheses. For instance, is
the pepper hollow? How could you test this non-
destructively? If it is hollow, is it empty? What
does empty mean? How can this be tested? The
simple sweet pepper provides all the living material
needed for a semester-long inquiry to answer the
initial question!
Perceptions of Strengths ond De-
ficiencies: Disconnects Between
Graduate Students and Prospective
Employers.
Sundberg, M., P. DeAngelis,
K. Havens, B. Zorn-Arnold, A.T. Kramer, K.
Holsinger, K. Kennedy, R. Muir, P. Owell, K.
Schierenbeck, and L. Stritch. 2011. BioSci-
ence 61(2): 133-138.
A surprising result of the Botanical Capacity
Assessment Project, which surveyed academic
botanists, botanists in federal and state agencies
and NGOs, and botany graduate students, was
that many of the skills and content areas viewed by
graduate students as their greatest strengths were
seen by potential employers as areas in need of
additional training.
96
Personalia
Diane R. Campbell
elected Fellow, AAAS
Dr. Diane Campbell, a Professor in the
Depatment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology,
University of California, Irvine, has been named
a Fellow by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Campbell, who studies
evolution in natural plant populations and plant-
pollinator interactions, is known for her work
on plant hybrid zones, the evolution of plant
breeding systems, and the evolution of floral
traits. We apologize for her omission in the list of
new AAAS Fellows in the last issue of PSB.
Dr. Helen Kennedy Honored
by Society of Woman
Geographers.
Dr. Helen Kennedy, Honorary Research Associate
in the Deptartment of Botany and Honorary
Curator of Vascular Plants in the UBC Herbarium
from 1998-2003, has received an Outstanding
Achievement Award from the Society of Woman
Geographers, stating: “Your many years of studying
prayer plants in the fast disappearing rain forests
all over the world is an inspiration to us all. And
hopefully your work and possibly introducing
them for cultivation will keep these unique plants
from going extinct.” She was presented the award
at the Society’s triennial convention in Boulder,
Colorado, in May 2011.
The Society of Woman Geographers was
established in 1925 at a time when women were
excluded from membership in many professional
organizations, particularly the Explorers Club,
which did not admit women until 1981. The Society
of Woman Geographers has previously awarded
only 33 Outstanding Achievement Awards.
The Next Generation
July 7-11, 2012
Columbus, Ohio
97
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
John Kiss
awarded Distinguished
Professor title
John Kiss, professor of botany, was awarded the title
of Distinguished Professor by Miami University’s
Board of Trustees Friday, June 24, effective July 1.
Established by Miami’s trustees in 1981 to attract
and retain the most eminent professors, the title
of Distinguished Professor carries with it a $6,000
annual stipend for professional expenses. A faculty
committee screens nominations and conducts
rigorous appraisals, including evaluations by
nationally known scholars.
Kiss, professor of botany and a faculty member at
Miami University since 1993, earned tenure in 1997
and was promoted to full professor in 1999. In 2008,
he was named chair of the department of botany. He
is internationally known for his research in botany
and space biology.
One of his nominators explained that Kiss’ “work
… contributes to America’s STEM initiatives by stimulating student interest in science and technology,
recruiting them into undergraduate and graduate programs, providing stimulating didactic learning and
‘hands on’ experience in research on Earth and, in some instances, opportunities to utilize the International
Space Station environment for plant biology experiments.”
Most noted among his research is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-funded
project, Tropi-2, designed to better understand how plants integrate sensory gravity input from multiple
light and gravity perception systems. The goal of the project is to determine plants’ potential use as a food
source during prolonged human time in space. The project highlight was two, six-day experiments on the
space shuttle Endeavor to the International Space Station in February 2010. For his work, he earned the
2010 NASA Honor Award. He also earned a 2007 NASA Ames Honor Award.
Kiss’ research also includes 89 published peer-reviewed articles, 122 book reviews and almost 200 invited
talks at professional meetings and other academic institutions. In addition, he has earned funding support
of $5 million from more than a dozen major agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA.
In many of his projects, Kiss includes his students in the research. He has taught more than 10 different
courses to graduate and undergraduate students, advised some 36 undergraduate students’ independent
research projects, 11 master’s students, seven doctoral students, and five postdoctoral scholars. His
dedication to his students and to his research was honored by several awards: Miami’s Alumni Enrichment
Award (1997); University Distinguished Scholar (2006); Distinguished Scholar of the Graduate Faculty
(2005); and 2001 Researcher of the Year by Miami University’s Sigma Xi, an international scientific and
research honor society.
98
Eligibility - Applicants are expected to have a
doctorate or to have published work of doctoral
character and quality. Ph.D. candidates are not
eligible to apply, but the Society is especially
interested in supporting the work of young scholars
who have recently received the doctorate.
Award From $1,000 to $6,000.
Deadlines - October 1, December 1; notification
in February and April.
Lewis and Clark Fund for
Exploration and Field Research
Scope - The Lewis and Clark Fund encourages
exploratory field studies for the collection of
specimens and data and to provide the imaginative
stimulus that accompanies direct observation.
Applications are invited from disciplines with a large
dependence on field studies, such as archeology,
anthropology, biology, ecology, geography, geology,
linguistics, and paleontology, but grants will not be
restricted to these fields.
Eligibility - Grants will be available to doctoral
students who wish to participate in field studies for
their dissertations or for other purposes. Master’s
candidates, undergraduates, and postdoctoral
fellows are not eligible.
Award - Grants will depend on travel costs but
will ordinarily be in the range of several hundred
dollars to about $5,000.
Deadline - February 1; notification in May.
Contact information
Questions concerning the FRANKLIN and LEWIS
AND CLARK programs should be directed to:
Linda Musumeci
Director of Grants and Fellowships
American Philosophical Society
104 S. Fifth Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-440-3429
www.amphilsoc.org/grants
LMusumeci@amphilsoc.org
215-440-3429
American Philosophical Society
Research Programs
All information and forms for all of the Society’s
programs can be downloaded from our website,
http://www.amphilsoc.org. Click on the “Grants”
tab at the top of the homepage
INFORMATION about ALL
PROGRAMS
Awards are made for non-commercial research
only. The Society makes no grants for academic
study or classroom presentation, for travel to
conferences, for non-scholarly projects, for
assistance with translation, or for the preparation
of materials for use by students. The Society does
not pay overhead or indirect costs to any institution
or costs of publication.
Eligibility
Applicants may be residents of the United States
or American citizens resident abroad. Foreign
nationals whose research can only be carried out in
the United States are eligible, although applicants to
the Lewis and Clark Fund for Exploration and Field
Research in Astrobiology must be U.S. citizens,
U.S. residents, or foreign nationals formally
affiliated with a U.S. institution. Grants are made
to individuals; institutions are not eligible to apply.
Requirements for each program vary
Tax information
Grants and fellowships are taxable income, but the
Society is not required to report payments. It is
recommended that grant and fellowship recipients
discuss their reporting obligations with their tax
advisors.
BRIEF INFORMATION ABOUT
INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS
Franklin Research Grants
Scope - This program of small grants to scholars is
intended to support the cost of research leading to
publication in all areas of knowledge. The Franklin
program is particularly designed to help meet the
cost of travel to libraries and archives for research
purposes; the purchase of microfilm, photocopies or
equivalent research materials; the costs associated
with fieldwork; or laboratory research expenses.
Award Opportunities
99
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Undergraduate Course in Hawaiian Natural History
(Summer 2012)
The Department of Biological Sciences at
Campbell University is now accepting applications
from undergraduate students for a 4-week field
course to be held on the Hawaiian Islands of
Hawaii, Kauai, and Oahu from May 19 to June 17,
2012. Course participants will explore the origins
of the Hawaiian archipelago, the diversity of plant
and animal life across Hawaiian ecosystems,
evolutionary processes in oceanic island systems,
and the roles that plant species play in Hawaiian
culture. Students participating in the program can
earn four undergraduate credits.
For additional information, please contact
course instructor Dr. Christopher Havran by e-mail at havran@campbell.edu or by phone at 740-893-
1732. Additional information, including a tentative course syllabus, is available at the course website:
http://www.campbell.edu/academics/study-abroad/programs/.
Courses
Missouri Botanical Garden
Part Of Collaborative Effort
To Digitize Charles Darwin’s
Personal Library
(ST. LOUIS): The Missouri Botanical Garden,
along with other members of the Biodiversity
Heritage Library (BHL) consortium, has joined
the Cambridge University Library, the Darwin
Manuscripts Project at the American Museum
of Natural History in New York, and the Natural
History Museum in London in a collaborative effort
to digitize the personal scientific library of Charles
Darwin. The collaboration marks the first time that
notes and comments scribbled by Darwin on the
pages and margins of his own personal library will
be available online.
The majority of Darwin’s personal scientific
library is held at the Cambridge University Library
in England. In total, Darwin’s library amounted
to 1,480 books, of which 730 contain abundant
research notes in their margins. These annotated
books are now in the process of being digitized. The
first phase of this project has just been completed,
with 330 of the most heavily annotated books
launched online at the Biodiversity Heritage Library
for all to read at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/
collection/darwinlibrary.
“The Darwin collections are among the most
important and popular held within Cambridge
University Library,” said Anne Jarvis, university
librarian. “While there has been much focus on his
manuscripts and correspondence, his library hasn’t
always received the attention it deserves…for it is
as he engaged with the ideas and theories of others
that his own thinking evolved.”
Because Darwin’s evolutionary theory covered
so many aspects of nature, reading served him as
a primary source of evidence and ideas. Darwin
once complained that he had become a “machine
for grinding general laws out of large collections of
facts.”
The pages of Darwin’s library, smothered in
his scrawl, give a direct view of the Darwinian
intellectual machine in action. With the Charles
Darwin Library online, now everyone can retrace
how Darwin systematically used reading to advance
his science.
Most of Darwin’s personal library rests at
Cambridge University Library and at Down House.
Although the majority of the books are scientific,
some are humanities texts on subjects that Darwin
transformed into scientific topics.
The series of transcriptions accompanying each
page allows everyone to see which passages Darwin
found relevant to his work, stimulated his thinking,
or just annoyed him as he read the work of others.
For example, his friend Charles Lyell wrote in his
100
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
famous “Principles of Geology” that there were
definite limits to the variation of species. Darwin
wrote alongside this, “If this were true adios theory.”
The online transcribed marginalia relies on the
work of two scholars, Mario A. Di Gregorio and
Nick Gill, published in the 1990s and now greatly
enhanced by Gill. In addition to images of the
books and transcribed jots, the information is fully
indexed so that people can search for topics and
ideas relevant to their interests or work.
“Getting to make these historic books available
to the world for the first time is quite an honor,” said
Chris Freeland, director of the Missouri Botanical
Garden’s Center for Biodiversity Informatics.
Freeland and his team of programmers built the
technology components needed to deliver Darwin’s
digitized library and handwritten annotations
to users all over the world. Working closely with
project scholars, they built new interfaces to handle
transcriptions and annotations into the existing
Biodiversity Heritage Library web portal, a freely
available digital library of more than 90,000 texts
dating from the 15th century.
The digitization project was jointly sponsored
by the Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC) and National Endowment of the Humanities
through a Transatlantic Digitization Collaboration
Grant.
For more information about the Missouri
Botanical Garden, visit www.mobot.org. For more
information on the Biodiversity Heritage Library,
visit www.biodiversitylibrary.org.
Missouri Botanical Garden
Instrumental in Creating and
Maintaining Taxonomic Name
Resolution Service
Computerized Tool Helps
Researchers Standardize Lists
of Biological Names
(ST. LOUIS): The Missouri Botanical Garden has
been instrumental in aiding iPlant Collaborative, the
Botanical Information and Ecology Network, and
others to create the Taxonomic Name Resolution
Service (TNRS) which assists researchers in
correctly identifying biological names.
Biological names are compared against those
in Tropicos®, a database created by the Missouri
Botanical Garden containing more than 1.2
million scientific names and 3.9 million individual
specimen records. Tropicos® is actively maintained
and updated by taxonomic experts at Missouri
Botanical Garden and around the world.
In 1753, Carl Linnaeus published Species
Plantarum, which introduced Latin binomials to
the world and laid the foundation for how we name
species and make sense of the diversity of life. This
taxonomic naming system is still in place three
and a half centuries later. Today, scientific names
remain the necessary bond joining observations
to organisms and data sets to each other. Scientific
names are the currency of communication for
ecologists studying tropical diversity, crop scientists
searching for biological control and systematists
assembling the Tree of Life. However, it turns out
that a large fraction of the names that biologists are
using are incorrect.
“Scientific names are the cornerstone of
communication in the field of plant science.
Surprisingly, a large fraction of the names that
biologists are using are actually misapplied, making
it next to impossible to accurately describe the
number of species in a particular area. TRNS,
using the authoritative data from Tropicos®, has the
ability to quickly and efficiently solve this problem,”
said Chris Freeland, director of bioinformatics at
the Missouri Botanical Garden.
Misspelled, outdated, or ambiguous names are
common and can lead to mismatched observations,
erroneous conclusions, and an inability to make
predictions across space and time. Large databases,
such as Global Biodiversity Information Facility
and GenBank, suffer from high rates of taxonomic
Zapatitos Submitted by Pamela Puppo
2011 Triarch Botanical Images Student
Travel Award
101
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
error, with up to 30% of names unmatched to any
published species name.
Even for published names, 5% to 20% are out-
of-date names. The TNRS provides a web service
to standardize taxon names so that biologists can
ensure they are using the correct species names.
The TNRS works by taking names submitted by
the user and breaking each down to its simplest
parts. Users submit lists of scientific plant names
to the TNRS. The names are passed through cycles
of exact matching, parsing (breaking the name into
its component parts), more matching, and finally
“fuzzy” matching. Fuzzy matching searches for
near matches and enables the TNRS to correct even
badly misspelled names. Once the names have been
matched to published scientific names, the TNRS
converts any out-of-date names (called synonyms)
to the authoritative, currently accepted name.
“The Taxonomic Name Resolution Service is
an important step forward for researchers across
biology. For years, we have been trying to check
species names for errors and bring them to a
common taxonomy, painstakingly doing this name
by name. Now we can do both steps for thousands
of taxa at one online web service,” said Dr. Amy
Zanne, of the University of Missouri, St. Louis.
While the process sounds simple, it turns out
that it is a difficult computational problem to solve.
Originally, cleaning a list of taxonomic names
would have to be done manually; a researcher
would look up each name individually to confirm
its accuracy. In recent years, some of these steps
have been automated, but as separate processes.
The TNRS performs all of these tasks together,
simplifying and accelerating the chore of taxonomic
name standardization.
While the TNRS currently resolves names only
against Tropicos®, in the future it will be extended
to include other taxonomic databases, such as the
USDA list of names for plants in the United States,
with the goal of including all published plant
names. Because the software’s source code is being
released with an open source license, developers
will be able to expand it to resolve scientific names
of other organisms such as animals and fungi.
iPlant collaborated with researchers Brian
Enquist and Brad Boyle from Botanical Information
and Ecology Network, Zhenyuan Lu from Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory, Sheldon McKay from
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and later the
University of Arizona, and Bill Piel from Yale’s
Peabody Museum to solve the names problem.
They created a unique technical design that lead to
the creation of the TNRS. The Missouri Botanical
Garden provided vital access to the contents of
their Tropicos® database of plant names. The
TNRS builds on the work of Dmitry Mozzherin
of the Marine Biological Laboratory, whose
name parser from the Global Names Initiative
was modified to break submitted names into
constituent parts for the matching process, and
Tony Rees of the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation in Australia,
whose TaxaMatch algorithm was adapted to
perform fuzzy matching of misspelled names.
Recently, a new Global Names Architecture effort
received National Science Foundation funding,
and iPlant looks forward to collaborating closely
with this group to tackle the remaining challenges
in taxonomic name standardization.
For more information about the Missouri
Botanical Garden’s Tropicos® database visit: http://
www.mobot.org/press/Assets/FP/tropicos.asp.
For general Missouri Botanical Garden
information visit: www.mobot.org.
102
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
58th Annual Systematics Symposium
Missouri Botanical Garden
7-8 October 2011
Trees
The United Nations has declared
2011 to be the Year of the Forest
Organizing committee: P. Mick Richardson and Amy Zanne
Registration must be accompanied by a $50.00 registration fee, which also covers the cost of refreshments
at the Friday mixer and lunch (but not dinner) on Saturday. The cost of the dinner on Saturday is an
additional $50.00.
Information on local hotels and motels will be available to registrants. No refunds will be granted after
24 September. There is no guarantee of food being available if you register after 24 September.
Please use electronic registration and payment, at http://www.mobot.org/MBGSystematicsSymposium.
With support from the National Science Foundation
Friday 7:30 – 9:30 PM
Informal mixer in Ridgway Center
Saturday 8:30 AM – 8:30 PM
Talks in Ridgway Center
Andrew Groover (USDA, Davis)
What genes make a tree a tree?
David Hibbett (Clark U.)
Mycorrhizae and fungal breakdown of lignin
David Kenfack (Harvard U.)
50-Hectare plots
Elisabeth Wheeler (NC State)
Inside Trees. 100 Million Years of Wood Structure
Speaker to be decided
Ecophysiology/climate change
Allison Miller (SLU) &
Briana Gross (USDA, Fort Collins)
Domestication of tree crops
Martin Gardner (RBG, Edinburgh)
Evening speaker: Conservation of conifers
103
flower “had previously been named after a great
man” (Kim, 2007). A number of orchids were
named after great men well before Dendrobium
Kimilsungia, and some after. Several examples
which come to mind easily are Cattleya General
Patton, the multigeneric hybrid genus Darwinara,
Dendrobium Madam Curie, Paphiopedilum
Winston Churchill, Sophrolaeliocattleya
Tchaikovsky, Vanda Eisenhower, and Vandaenopsis
Nelson Mandela There are many others.
History
Dendrobium Clara Bundt (aka Dendrobium
Kimilsungia; Fig. 2A, 2B, 2D, 3G, 8E, 10A) was bred
(Fig. 1) by C. L. Bundt (Fig. 3E), owner of an orchid
establishment on 15A Djalan Muchtar Luthfi (now
spelled Jalan Mochtar Lutfi), Makassar (Unjung
Pandang, the island of Sulawesi), Indonesia. The
establishment still exists. Two of us (NS, JA) visited
it in 1981 with our friend George Risakotta on our
way home in Jakarta from the islands of Banda
Reports and Reviews
Fig. 1. Pedigree of Dendrobium Clara Bundt, aka
Dendrobium Kimilsungia.
Kimilsungia: How an Indonesian
Orchid Became a Revered Symbol in
the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea After Its Name was Changed
Noes Soediono
1
, Joseph Arditti
2
and
Rubismo Soediono
1
1
Flora Sari Orchids, Jakarta, Indonesia (rba-
runa@cbn.net.id, rubismo@cbn.net.id)
2
Department of Developmental and Cell
Biology, University of California, Irvine (jar-
ditti@uci.edu)
1
Received 15 October, 2010.
Accepted 12 April, 2011.
Introduction
Strange events, controversies and weird stories
often result from interference by religion, politics,
government, dogma and cults of personality in
science, technology, horticulture and other areas
which must remain free from such interference. A
state visit, a meeting between two heads of state,
and a personality cult are the reasons why the
Indonesian orchid Dendrobium Clara Bundt (Fig. 1,
2A, 2B, 2D, 3G, 8E, 10A) was renamed Dendrobium
Kimilsungia in honor of the “Great Leader” and
“Eternal President” Kim Il Sung (1912-1994; Fig.
3A, 5A, 5B, 8A, 9, 10B) of the Democratic (sic)
People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRNK), where
it is revered. A book (Fig. 4) tells the story of this
orchid from the DPRNK point of view (Kim and
Pang, 1999). A fascinating story emerges when
information about this orchid from inside and
outside NDPRNK and in the book are combined.
Before we proceed it is necessary to debunk the
most obvious inaccuracy, one propounded by Kim
Il Sung himself, which is that: 1) “a flower named
after a great man for the first time in the thousands
of years of human history came in the world” with
the naming of Dendrobium Kimilsungia, and 2) no
3
3
We thank Dr. Tim Wing Yam, Singapore Botanic Gardens for reading and commenting on the manuscript, the
pedigree chart of Dendrobium Clara Bundt and for clarifying nomenclatural practices; Dr. Irawati (some Indonesians
use only one name) former Director, Bogor Botanical Gardens (Kebun Raya Indonesia) for Sujana Kasan’s photograph
and information about him; Sofie Birri, Kebun Raya Indonesia for photographs of the plaque in Fig. 9 and information
regarding the director of KRI; and Coralie Hills for a copy of Chequer and Chequer, 2007..
104
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
and Ambon in the Malukku Archipelago. By
then it was owned by his daughter Clara (Fig. 3D,
8B). In 1964 Bundt registered his hybrid with the
Royal Horticultural Society Orchid Registration
Authority as required for orchid hybrids (Wreford,
1972) naming it Dendrobium Clara Bundt after his
daughter (Fig. 10A).
Because of the registration of the hybrid with
the Royal Horticultural Society Orchid Register
(http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/
orchidregister/orchidregister.asp; Fig. 10A), its
name, which conforms with the rules of orchid
hybrid nomenclature (Cribb, Greatwood and
Hunt, 1985), is recognized internationally and was
valid in the orchid world when Kim Il Sung visited
the Bogor (which the book consistently misspells
as Bogoru) Botanical Gardens (BBG) in Indonesia
in April 1965 (Fig. 3H, 9). He was accompanied by
Indonesian President Sukarno (1901-1970; Fig. 3B,
3H, 8A; in office from 1945 until being deposed in
1967). Kim saw (or was shown) the orchid and liked
it. According to one account Sukarno named it after
Kim on the spot despite 1) not having the authority
to name this or any other orchid hybrid, and 2) the
fact that the orchid was already named. That much
is fact. Other stories about how Dendrobium Clara
Bundt became Dendrobium Kimilsungia “---aroma
of flower symbolic of a great man everlasting---”
(Kim and Pang, 1999; Fig. 4A, 4B) in North Korea
Fig. 2. Dendrobium Clara Bundt, aka Dendrobium Kimilsungia (A, B,
D) and (C) Begonia Kimjongilia (source: World Wide Web).
are fanciful completely or in part. It is also not true
that Dendrobium Kimilsungia is one of two national
flowers of DPRNK (Chequer and Chequer, 2007).
Some of the story details the Kimilsungia book
tells/adds are convoluted and at best questionable.
According to the book the Great Leader saw the
orchid on his visit to BBG, liked it, and modestly
demurred (“I have done nothing extraordinary”)
when Sukarno proposed to name it after him, but
was overruled (“Your respected Excellency has
already rendered enormous services to mankind”).
Thus Dendrobium Clara Bundt got its DPRNK
name, Dendrobium Kimilsungia
whereupon “enthusiastic
applause and cheers arose . . .
[and a] children’s chorus began
to sing the Song General Kim
Il Sung,” and a “new variety of
flower was named after the great
man” (Kim and Pang, 1999).
One cannot help but wonder
where the children’s choir came
from. Was the choir prescient
and came to BBG knowing that
an orchid would be (re)named
in honor of Kim Il Sung? And,
how would Indonesian children
in Bogor know a North Korean
song? This part of the story
is hard to accept as fact. It is
also hard to believe that the
Great Leader who allowed or
maybe even encouraged great
adulation and a personality
cult for himself would be too
modest to allow an orchid to be
named for him.
Kim Il Sung’s son, Kim Jong Il, the Dear Leader,
has a slightly different version (Kim, 2007) of the
story (our comments are in bold face in brackets).
“Forty years have passed since then, but I still
recall with deep emotion the days when I visited
Indonesia with President Kim Il Sung . . . When
visiting the Bogor Botanical Garden, I felt more
deeply how much President Sukarno respected
and revered President Kim Il Sung. With a long
history, this world-renowned botanical garden
was well worth visiting. With flowers of the orchid
family, cactuses, and other rare tropical flowers
in full bloom, I felt as if I were visiting a world
flower fair. When we approached a display in a
greenhouse of the botanical garden, Sukarno took
a pot of flowers [presumably as shown in Fig. 8A]
105
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Fig. 3. Individuals and orchids associated with
Dendrobium Clara Bundt, aka Dendrobium Kimil-
sungia. A. President Kim Il Sung of the Democratic
People’s Republich of North Korea. B. President Su-
karno of Indonesia. C. Sujana Kasan, Director of
the Bogor Botanical Garden (Kebun Raya Indone-
sia) at the time. D. Clara Bundt. E. C. L. Bundt.
F. Dendrobium moniliforme. G. Dendrobium Clara
Bundt, aka Dendrobium Kimilsungia. H. President
Kim Il Sung (left wearing white hat) and President
Sukarno (right wearing a black traditional Indone-
sian songkok hat) accompanied by aides meeting in
the orchid house at the Bogor Botanical Gardens
(source: A, B, C, E-H, World Wide Web; D, courtesy
Dr. Irawati, Bogor Botanical Gardens).
Fig. 4. The book Kimilsungia by I. G. Kim and H. J.
Pang (translated into English by K. J. Coe and J. H.
An). Published by the Foreign Languages Publish-
ing House, Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Repub-
lic of Korea. A. Cover. B. Title page (source: scans
of a copy of the book owned by J. A.).
from the director [Sujana Kasan (27 December
1916 to 15 February 1974) was the director of the
Bogor Botanical Gardens from 1959 until 1969]
of the botanical garden, and asked President Kim Il
Sung how he liked the flowers [this is one version,
another is that Kim Il Sung was attracted by the
flowers and approached them]. The director
explained that it was a variety of the orchid family
a famous florist of the garden [another claim is
that the breeder was Sujana Kasan (old spelling
Soedjana Kasan) himself, the director of the
garden at the time, but the actual breeder was C. L.
Bundt in Makasar who was not part of the garden
staff] had bred after long, painstaking research
[orchid breeding may benefit from experience
by the breeder, intuition and some luck, but
“painstaking research” is not required to breed
a simple hybrid like Dendrobium Clara Bundt],
and it was a peculiar flower in that it blossomed
twice a year, being in bloom for two to three
months [it is not uncommon for Dendrobium
hybrids to bloom for long periods because not all
inflorescences come into bloom at the same time,
each flower opens slowly and flowers can last a
long time]. After looking at the flower for a while,
President Kim Il Sung said that it was very beautiful
and expressed thanks to his host for showing him
such a fine flower. Then, Sukarno said sincerely
that he wanted the flower [sic, the hybrid] to be
named after President Kim Il Sung. The director
of the botanical garden, too, expressed his wish to
call it Kimilsungia. President Kim Il Sung gently
declined their suggestion, saying that he had done
nothing so special and that there was no need to
name a flower after him. Sukarno replied, ‘No. You
have rendered enormous services to mankind, so
you deserve a high honour.’ He refused to withdraw
his request. Back in Jakarta, he repeatedly brought
the matter to us. On receiving a report about
it, President Kim Il Sung said that if President
Sukarno and the Indonesian people wished it so
sincerely, he would accept the suggestion as a token
of their esteem for our people ... President Sukarno
promised that he would ensure that the technique
of cultivating the flower would be completed
[no special techniques are required to grow a
Dendrobium plants in Indonesia; developing
a specific method for growing a tropical orchid
in North Korea may require time, but it must be
developed there, not in the tropics] and that it
would be sent to our country in one or two years.
But the flower failed to come to our country for
several years . . . the director of the Bogor Botanical
Garden and the florist who had bred the flower
disappeared without a trace [simply not true, the
106
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Fig. 5. Images of Great Leader Kim Il Sung (left)
and Dear Leader Kim Jong Il (right) standing be-
hind Dendrobium Kimilsungia (purple) and Bego-
nia Kimjongilia (red) with a young couple (A) and
mothers and their children (B). C, D. Dendrobium
Kimilsungia exhibits (source: World Wide Web).
Fig. 6. Cultivation of Dendrobium Kimilsungia in
the Democratic People’s Republich of North Korea.
A. External view of the Kimilsungia greenhouse
in the Central Botanical Garden. B. Interior of the
Kimilsungia greenhouse (source: scans of a copy of
the book owned by J. A.).
passing of Sujana Kasan’s in 1974 was known
and mourned, and the C. L. Bundt orchid garden
remained in existence]. However, convinced that
Kimilsungia would have been preserved and grown
with care . . . I sent officials to Indonesia in 1974
to find the flower. They traced the flower with the
assistance of the local people, found it and fetched
two pots of the flower to our country. Looking at
the flowers I could confirm that they were identical
with the Kimilsungia I had seen 10 years previously
at the Bogor Botanical Garden. Kimilsungia is a
beautiful flower; the more one looks at it, the more
one feels attracted and attached to it. Flowers of
the orchid family are known for their beauty but
Kimilsungia, with its pinkish-purple petals and
graceful and elegant shape, is extraordinarily
beautiful [Dendrobium Clara Bundt aka
Dendrobium Kimilsugia is an attractive but
certainly not an “extraordinarily beautiful”
hybrid and according to Dr. Irawati a former
recent director of the Bogor Botanical Garden, it
does not grow well there], and evokes ennobling
emotions . . . After its arrival in our country, I
ensured that the flower was sent to the Central
Botanical Garden for study of the methods of its
cultivation and propagation. It was no easy task to
adapt the flower to the climatic and soil conditions
of our country, and propagate it [Dendrobium
species and hybrids are easy to propagate clonally
both horticulturally and in vitro]. But, convinced
that the officials and researchers of the Central
Botanical Garden would succeed, I ensured that
they were given positive assistance by the Party:
A special greenhouse was built; an institute with
highly qualified researchers was organized and
the latest equipment and materials necessary for
their work were provided; and many seedlings of
pure breed were also provided [plants, mature or
seedlings other than those of Kimilsungia would
not be needed]. The researchers [presumably
the group shown with Ms Clara Bundt in Fig.
8B], after repeated painstaking study and research
under our Party’s deep concern and care, found
at long last many methods for propagating in our
country the flower that had been bred in a tropical
zone. They succeeded in finding the method of
propagation by tissue culture, which thus made it
possible to produce many seedlings [sic, plantlets]
of the flower at one time. The flower was officially
registered [Fig. 8C, 8D] in a scientific name with
an international orchid-related society in Britain
[the orchid hybrid register is maintained by the
Royal Horticultural Society, not by an orchid
society: see the Nomenclature and Registration
section below for further discussion] in
the early 1980s, coming to be known as a
particularly celebrated flower [this is true only
in DPRNK]” (http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/
Newspaper/english/2007/2007-06-20-r2.htm).
One claim in the book is that President Sukarno
107
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Fig. 7. Dendrobium Kimilsungia stamps (A) and (B)
song (sources: A, World Wide Web; B, Kim and Pang,
1999).
prepared for Kim Il Sung’s visit by asking for a new
flower (i.e., hybrid) to be ready for the occasion.
Bundt supposedly came up with “Dendrobium
moniliforme which he had recently produced” at a
request by “Sujanakasan” [a misspelling of Sujana
Kasan (Fig. 3C; 1916-1974)]. This is clearly
impossible because Dendrobium moniliforme (L.)
Sw. (Fig. 3F) is not a hybrid which can be “produced”
by a breeder, or anyone else for that matter. It is
a natural species, ironically native to Korea (and
also China and Taiwan. Furthermore, Dendrobium
moniliforme is not part of the breeding line (Fig.
1) of Dendrobium Clara Bundt (aka Dendrobium
Kimilsungia) and does not even resemble it (Fig.
2A, 2B, 2D 3G vs Fig. 3F).
In addition to this account of events in Bogor in
1965, the book adds a secondary and an even more
improbable report that Kim Il Sung received the
orchid in 1975 (but see the annotated citation above
from http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/Newspaper/
english/2007/2007-06-20-r2.htm). The book states
that a “deeply moved” Bundt “finally succeeded in
breeding Kimilsungia and sent it to Pyongyang in
1975.” If the hybrid existed and plants were in flower
when Kim Il Sung visited Indonesia in 1965 (Fig.
9), Bundt would not have had to “finally succeed”
in 1975. Nor would he have to re-breed an existing
and thriving hybrid. Also, why would Bundt send
to Pyongyang in 1975 an orchid he named after his
daughter in 1964? Furthermore, since Sukarno
was deposed in 1967 and died in 1970 and Sujana
Kasan passed away in 1974, they could not send an
orchid to Pyongyang. Moreover, if the hybrid was
registered in 1964 (Fig. 10A) and bloomed in 1965,
it was bred before that, not in 1975. And finally,
if Bundt came up with Dendrobium moniliforme
in 1965, why would he bother or need to produce
another orchid in 1975? This part of the book
makes no sense. Altogether, three different and
contradictory accounts regarding the origin of
Dendrobium Kimilsungia are described in the
DPRNK book:
1. The Great Leader visited BBG, saw
Dendrobium Clara Bundt, liked it and President
Sukarno named it after him. This possible and
likely, but does not render the name Dendrobium
Kimilsungia valid (Cribb et al., 1985; Fig. 10B).
2. Dendrobium moniliforme was produced
for Kim Il Sung’s visit to Bogor by C. L. Bundt at
the behest of Sujana Kasan. This is impossible as
explained above.
3. C. L. Bundt produced Dendrobium
Kimilsungia and sent it to Pyongyang in 1975.
This makes little sense.
As presented in the book the history of
Dendrobium
Kimilsungia
is convoluted,
inconsistent, replete with contradictions, rife with
inaccuracies and loaded with invented “facts.”
Sukarno and Soejana Kasan are dead and cannot
tell their sides of the story, but Kimjongilia, a
Begonia named after Kim Il Sung’s son, Dear Leader
Kim Jong Il and introduced in 1988, can tell about
itself and by implication also about Dendrobium
Kimilsungia.
One of the perks DPRNK leaders have seems to
be at least one namesake plant. The Great Leader has
his orchid, Dendrobium Kimilsungia. His son Kim
Jong Il, the Dear Leader, has Begonia Kimjongilia
(Fig. 2C, 5A, 5B). According to information from
DPRNK, Begonia Kimjongilia was bred by the
Japanese horticulturist Mototeru Kamo (b. 1930)
who was reported to have produced another Begonia
in 2010 in honor of Kim Jong Eun (also spelled
as Kim Jong Un), the Dear Leader’s son and heir
108
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
apparent (will it be named Kimjongunia?). Bomi
Lim, a reporter for Bloomberg reached Mototeru
Kamo by telephone at his home in Kakegawa, Japan
and reported that “Kamo . . . said he has visited
North Korea about 10 times, [but] denied sending
a new flower to commemorate Kim Jong Un, [and]
neither had the 1988 begonia been intended for the
father [of Kim Jong Un i. e., Kim Jong Il]. Kamo
also said that ‘At the time, no one knew anything
about Kim Jong Il . . . Therefore, there’s no way I
could create a flower to suit his image.’” He added
further that “Horticulture and politics should
be separate” (http://www.humanflowerproject.
com/index.php/weblog/comments/february_16_
dictator_theorists/). Thus, if the North Koreans
contrived stories about two begonias, they probably
did the same for one Dendrobium.
How an Indonesian orchid found its way to
North Korea where it was given a new name, is
cultivated in a special facility (Fig. 6A, 6B), became
revered (Fig. 5A, 5B) and lavishly exhibited (Fig.
5C, 5D) in a festival named after it every April, put
on stamps (Fig. 7A), and memorialized in song (Fig.
7B) will probably remain a mystery. An account
that contains at least some of the real plausible facts
associated with this story has been circulating for
a long time. It suggests that seeing Kim Il Sung’s
admiration for the flower, Sukarno told him that it
was a newly bred hybrid at BBG and still unnamed.
He named it Kimilsungia on the spot. After that
plants were probably taken or shipped to North
Korea. Soejana Kasan did not breed this hybrid.
One of us (JA) knew him as a very pleasant and
erudite man, a great story teller and an excellent
horticulturist (and cook) who knew orchids well,
but was not interested enough in them to breed
any. The orchid Sukarno named Kimilsungia was
and still is Dendrobium Clara Bundt.
The 1999 Kimilsungia show (perhaps similar to
the one in Fig. 6C and 6D), held to honor the 87
th
birthday of the “revered President Kim Il Sung,”
contained 2,000 flowers, was visited by 260,000
people and included speeches by international
dignitaries praising the “unparalleled great man”
and the “revolutionary flower.” A report in the
German magazine Spiegel Online International
24 October 2010
,
carries a description dated 19
October 2010 by Andreas Lorenz about a recent
show: “On the 60th anniversary of the North
Korean Communist Party, Kim Jong Il wallows
in a cult of personality. In an auditorium on the
Taedong River in Pyongyang, two special blooms
appear in an ocean of flowers: the violet Kimilsungia
and the red Kimjongilia. Cross-bred from orchids
and begonias, the special flowers are named after
the “Dear Leaders” of North Korea -- Kim Il Sung,
President for Eternity, who died in 1994, and his
son, Kim Jong Il. Thousands of people push past
the flowerpots and have their photographs taken
for 600 won (about four dollars) in front of giant
paintings of the two Kims.” (http://www.spiegel.de/
international/0,1518,380385,00.htm
l
).
Another description of this show can be found
in the Economist, 14 October 2010. “Sometimes
there are Kimilsungia exhibitions. Sometimes
there are Kimjongilia ones. Citizens of Pyongyang
are also treated to combined Kimilsungia and
Kimjongilia shows. One such got underway at
the beginning of this month, at the Kimilsungia-
Fig. 8. Dendrobium Kimilsungia personali-
ties and documentation. A. President Sukarno
(right) showing and orchid plant (presumably
the oneto be named Dendrobium Kimilsungia)
to Great Leader Kim Il Sung in the Bogor Bo-
tanical Gardens (Kebun Raya Indonesia) orchid
house. B. Clara (misspelled as Klara) Bundt
interacting with the Kimilsungia Research
Group. C. Application for the registration of
Dendrobium Kimilsungia with the Royal Hor-
ticultural Society International Orchid Register
on 20 April 1982. The photograph is not clear
enough to be read. D. Guntur Sukarno Putra
(President Sukarno’s son) signing the application
for registration. E. Grouped Kimilsungia flow-
ers (Sources: A-D, http://songunpoliticsstudy-
group.org/0409/RedSun09/KIMILSUNGIA, E,
World Wide Web).
109
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Kimjongilia Exhibition House: innumerable pots
filled with the same two kinds of plant, a monotony
alleviated only by a guide’s prediction that North
Korea will one day get a third variety. . . Kim Il
Sung officially remains president, against the
odds, but the Kimjongilia, a giant red begonia,
somehow leaves its visual stamp on Pyongyang
even more pervasively than the Kimilsungia, a
normal-sized purple orchid. It might be said that
the Kimjongilia’s bouffant petals echo the hairstyle
of North Korea’s eponymous ruler, but a guide
at the exhibition has a more politically correct
explanation of the flower’s appearance. Its bright
red hue, she says, reflects Kim Jong Il as a ‘person of
passion, with a very strong character....’ A journalist
asked whether different temperature requirements
made it difficult to keep begonias and orchids
together. “We grow them with our hearts,” said the
guide. In August North Korea’s Kimilsungia and
Kimjongilia Research Centre came up with what
might be a more reliable way of getting the best out
of the Kimjongilia. After “years of research,” said
the state news agency KCNA, it devised a chemical
agent that could lengthen the blooming period
by a week in summer or by 20 days in winter. . .
One display was of potted Kimjongilias supposedly
donated by foreign diplomatic missions. China’s
was uppermost, together with a photograph of
Kim Jong Il shaking hands with China’s president,
Hu Jintao. Individual European countries were
conspicuous by their absence, but there was one
pot plant there in the name of the European Union.
Oddly for plants that have acquired such crucial
political significance in North Korea—the army has
its own huge breeding centre for them—since both
are actually foreign creations. The Kimilsungia
was presented in 1965 by Indonesia’s founding
president, Sukarno, and the Kimjongilia arrived in
1988, courtesy a Japanese botanist. Kim Jong Un,
Kim Jong Il’s anointed successor, who was seen by
foreign journalists for the first time on October
9th and 10th, has yet to acquire a flower. ‘In future
we will have one,’ assures the guide” (http://www.
economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/10/north_
korean_iconography).
Scientific meetings regarding Kimilsungia were
or are also being held in DPRNK. One example
is a seminar held in 2005 “to commemorate the
40th anniversary of Kimilsungia, the flower of the
sun” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/
news/dprk/2005/dprk-050416-kcna04.htm). It
included talks on “Photosynthesis Features of
Kimilsungia and Environmental Conditions for
the Cultivation Based on Them”, “Researches into
Nurturing Pure Line of Kimilsungia”, “Ways of
Blooming Kimilsungia on the Day of the Sun” and
the “Researches into Ways of Bringing Kimilsungia
into Full Bloom on the Day of the Sun and Other
Days”
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/
library/news/dprk/2005/dprk-050416-kcna04.
htm; http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200504/
news04/16.htm). “Prior to the seminar leader Kim
Jong Il’s famous work ‘Kimilsungia Is an Immortal
Flower Blooming in the Hearts of Humankind in
the Era of Independence’ . . . was conveyed” (Kim,
2007; http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200504/
news04/16.htm).
We were not able to find and obtain
published papers based on these presentations.
The meeting in 2006 and ones held in 2006, 2007,
and 2009 are reported to have been attended by a
person named Ri Pyong Sang who is described as
being the “chairman of the American Kimilsungia-
Kimjongilia association (http://www.kcna.co.jp/
item/2005/200504/news04/16.htm; http://www.
kcna.co.jp/item/2006/200604/news04/13.htm;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/
dprk/2007/dprk-070414-kcna03.htm; http://www.
kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200904/news13/20090413-
27ee.html).
A search on Google found: 1) no
information about a Ri Pyong Sang, 2) no evidence
for the existence of an American Kimilsungia-
Kimjongilia association, and 3) that the North
European Kimjongilia Association was formed in
Sweden in 1995, followed by the establishment of
the Mongolian Kimjongilia Association in 1997,
formation of the Japanese Kimjongilia Fanciers
Society in 1998 and founding of the American
Kimilsungia-Kimjongilia Association in the United
States in 2004. Therefore it was not possible
to contact Ri Pyong Sang and the American
Kimilsungia-Kimjongilia Association (even if they
do exist).
Nomenclature and
Registration
C. L. Bundt registered Dendrobium Clara
Bundt (Dendrobium Ale Ale Kai × Dendrobium
Pompadour) in 1964 (http://apps.rhs.org.uk/
horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/orchiddetails.
asp?ID=57200; Fig. 10A). This is the hybrid
President Sukarno named Kimilsungia in 1965 in
honor of Kim Il Sung. Thus, the name Dendrobium
Kimilsungia is considered a synonym by the Royal
Horticultural Society Orchid Register (http://apps.
rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/
110
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Fig. 9. A plaque in the Bogor Botanical Gardens (Ke-
bun Raya Indonesia) orchid house commemorating
DPRNK president Kim Il Sung’s visit and Indonesian
President Sukarno’s presentation to him of the orchida-
ceous hybrid which is called Kimilsungia in North Ko-
rea. The name of the orchid on the plaque is incorrect.
Dendrobium Clara Bundt, not Dendrobium Kimil-
sung Flower was renamed Dendrobium Kimilsungia
(photograph of the plaque Sofie Biri at the request of
Dr. Irawati, both at the Bogor Botanical Garden).
orchiddetails.asp?ID=130396; Fig. 10B). According
to Gruss (2003) Dendrobium Kimilsungia is an
invalid grex (Gruss, 2003) and not a cultivar of
Dendrobium Clara Bundt. If so, which is probable,
Part II, Rule 13 on page 14 of The Handbook on
Orchid Nomenclature and Registration [(Cribb,
Greatwood and Hunt, 1985) should be followed.
“The specific, collective or grex epithet must never
be omitted when citing or publishing the cultivar
name of an orchid except where to context makes the
identity of species, natural hybrid or grex clear (e.g.
in a list of cultivars of the one particular species or
one particular grex)] which governs orchid hybrid
nomenclature, a cultivar name would have to be
written as Dendrobium Clara Bundt ‘Kimilsungia.’
An attempt to register Dendrobium Kimilsungia
was made on 3 July 2003 (http://apps.rhs.org.uk/
horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/orchiddetails.
asp?ID=130396) or 20 April 1982 (Fig. 8C, 8D), but
it only succeeded in affirming its synonym status
(Fig. 10B). Be all this as it may, Ms Clara Bundt
does not seem to be upset by the effort to rename
the orchid her father named for her. She even
visited a Kimilsungia festival and interacted with
the research group (Fig. 8B) which works with the
orchid (http://songunpoliticsstudygroup.org/0409/
RedSun09/KIMILSUNGIA/left6.htm).
According to the Royal Horticultural Society
Orchid Registrar, at one time it was not clear
whether the Kimilsungia which is celebrated in
DPRNK, is the Dendrobium Clara Bundt grex
itself or a cultivar derived from it. The registrar
added the following note to the list of new orchid
hybrids list for March 2003: “Dendrobium
Kimilsungia. Periodically the registrar receives
queries about this plant. The name is widely used
in North Korea for a hybrid Dendrobium derived
from Den. Ale Ale Kai × Den. Pompadour, which
grex was originally registered as Den. Clara Bundt
by the originator in 1964 [Fig. 10A]. This plant was
also named Kimilsungia by Indonesian President
Sukarno, in honour of Kim Il Sung of North Korea
on the occasion of his visit to Indonesia in April
1965. It is not clear to the registrar whether the
name Kimilsungia applies to the grex or a cultivar
derived from it. There is also a similarly named
grex, Den. Kimilsung Flower, which is derived
from Den. Ale Ale Kai x Den. Lady Constance.” The
registrar subsequently changed his mind about
the “not clear” above. Dendrobium Kimilsungia
is listed as a synonym (Fig. 10B) on the current
Royal Horticultural Society Orchid Register web
site (http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/
orchidregister/orchiddetails.asp?ID=130396) .
If claimed to be the grex itself, Dendrobium
Kimilsungia is invalid or “wrong” (Gruss,
2003). And, if it is a cultivar the proper name
is Dendrobium Clara Bundt ‘Kimilsungia’, not
Dendrobium Kimilsungia (see quote in brackets
above and Cribb et al., 1985). More confusion
is added to this nomenclatural circus by the
Dendrobium Kimilsung Flower (Dendrobium Ale
Ale Kai × Dendrobium Lady Constance) which
is mentioned above. It is a hybrid related to
Dendrobium Clara Bundt which was originated by
C. Bundt (since an “L.” is not part of the name this
could be Clara itself rather than her farther C. L.)
and registered in 1982 by G. Putera, (http://apps.
rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/
orchiddetails.asp?ID=63165). Despite its name
this hybrid is not revered anywhere. We could not
locate a photograph.
Cultivation, Propagation and
111
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Fig. 10. Dendrobium Clara
Bundt (A) and Dendrobium
Kimilsungia (B) registration. Ar-
rows point to the synonym status
of the grex names.
Horticulture
Dendrobium Clara Bundt was bred to be grown
outdoors in the tropical climate of Sulawesi,
Indonesia. As “Kimilsungia . . . the immortal
flower symbolizing the sun, the great man . . .” (Fig.
2E) it must be grown in greenhouses (Fig. 6A, 6B)
in a country with a climate which is anything but
tropical. To their credit, it seems that DPRNK
orchid specialists studied this hybrid very carefully
and developed appropriate cultivation techniques.
They also formulated methods which bring the
plants into flower at specific times and year around.
One of the flower-inducing methods utilizes a
lanolin paste containing 0.25-0.5% benzyladenine
(BA). Altogether the horticultural approach
to the orchid in DPRNK seems to be excellent.
Dendrobium growers in countries with a similar
climate can learn from it.
In recent years investigators and growers in
other parts of Asia found that BA can bring about
flowering in Dendrobium (for a review see Chia
et al., 1999). However, 1) the time Dendrobium
Clara Bundt (aka Dendrobium Kimilsungia) was
taken to Pyonyang (sometime between 1965 and
1975), and 2) the likelihood that Western or even
Asian journals are probably not be available in
DPRNK raise the possibility that the discovery may
have been made independently in North Korea.
Useful clonal (in vitro and by division) and seed
propagation for this type Dendrobium were also
developed in DPRNK
.
Dendrobium Clara Bundt did not become
very popular and was/is not cultivated widely
throughout the world. The same is true for it as
Dendrobium Kimilsungia. However in DPRNK
it became, and still is, a revered orchid, which is
grown and displayed in large numbers.
Dedication
Joseph Arditti dedicates his efforts to Vince
Galasso, a friend and neighbor for more than a
quarter of a century.
Literature Cited
Chequer, G., and G. Chequer. 2007. Orchids as
national and local floral icons. Orchids Australia 19:
38-42.
Chia, T. F., J. Arditti, M. I. Segern, and C. S. Hew.
1999. In vitro flowering of orchids. Lindleyana 14:
60-76.
Cribb, P. J., J. Greatwood, and P. F. Hunt. 1985.
Handbook on orchid nomenclature and registration.
The Royal Horticultural Society, London.
Gruss, O. 2003. Kimilsungia, eine
Orchideenhybride mit falschen Namen. Die
Orchidee 54: [117].
Hansen, E. 2000. Orchid fever. Vintage Books,
New York.
Kim, I. G., and H. J. Pang. 1999. Kimilsungia.
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Translated
by Coe, K. J., and An, J. H.
Kim, J. I. 2007. Kimisungia is an immortal flower
that has bloomed in the hearts of mankind in the
era of independence. Talk delivered to the Senior
Officials of the Information Department of the
Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea,
April 6, Juche 94 (2005). http://www.uriminzokkiri.
com/Newspaper/english/2007/2007-06-20-r2.htm.
Wreford, M.(Registrar). 1972. Sander’s list of
orchid hybrids. The Royal Horticultural Society,
London.
Note: Some of the figures are of very low quality
112
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
1859). Whether one is interested in finding Milne-
Edwards’ original text to up-grade Darwin’s
paraphrase for modern audiences, or to see how
well Darwin’s paraphrase captured the meaning of
Milne-Edward’s, actual words, one needs to find the
original Milne-Edwards, source.
Perhaps because Darwin thought that his 1859
book, On the Origin of Species, was a mere outline
of a longer work that was to follow, it is a book
remarkably free from any citations to literature
quoted, paraphrased or otherwise referred to in
the text. Fortunately, the scientific literature is
increasingly well indexed, and the University of
California libraries are sufficiently comprehensive
that I was able to find and peruse works by Milne-
Edwards that pre-date the 1859 publication of
Origin of Species.
One such work contains text that could be
translated or paraphrased as Darwin did (p 437,
Milne-Edwards, 1867, quoting verbatim a work of
1851). Much of Darwin’s library has been digitized
(www.biodiversitylibrary.org) and inspection of
Darwin’s copy of Milne-Edwards (1851) finds the
quoted passage to have underlined phrases and a
marginal notation referring to further comments
by Darwin. I provide the entire paragraph for
context, with what appears to be the portion used
by Darwin in boldface.
“Mais, lorsqu’on vient à étudier avec plus
d’attention cette multitude d’animaux variés, on
ne tarde pas à s’apercevoir que la nature, tout
en satisfaisant si largement à la loi de la diversité
des organisms, n’a pas eu recours à toutes les
combinaisons physiologiques qui auraient été
possibles. Elle se montre, au contraire, toujours
sobre d’innovations. On dirait qu’avant de recourir
à des ressources nouvelles elle a voulu épuiser en
quelque sorte chacun des procédés qu’elle avait mis
en jeu; et autant elle est prodigue des variétés
dans ses créations, autant elle paraît économe
dans les moyens qu’elle emploie pour diversifier
ses oeuvres.” (p 8-9, Milne-Edwards, 1851)
Given that Milne-Edwards is referring to the
rhetorical Mother Nature, his use of the adjective
“économe,” or “thrifty,” alludes to its use as a
noun meaning “housewife.” Had Milne-Edwards
intended to suggest the stinginess conveyed by the
English word ‘”niggard” he would have used any
of the several words with that meaning in French,
e.g., ciche, ladre, pingre, mesquin. Similarly,
because “prodigal” in modern English includes the
Brief Note to Plant Science
Bulletin
“Lavish in variety, thrifty
with innovation”: Darwin’s
paraphrase of Milne-Edwards
1
Michael L. Christianson
2
Department of Plant Sciences
One Shields Avenue
University of California, Davis CA 95616
Manuscript received 4/25/2011.
Revision accepted 5/29/2011.
1
I appreciate the library holdings at the Davis
and the Berkeley campuses in the University of
California system, and gratefully acknowledge
support from the Grady L. Webster Memorial
Research Fund; this paper is a consequence of
access to first and subsequent editions of Origin of
Species at the University of Kansas and the emphasis
placed by my major professors at Michigan State
University, Drs. L. W. and R. P. Mericle, on the
importance of seeing original sources.
2
author for correspondence, e-mail: mxianson@</p>
pacbell.net.
ABSTRACT
Premise: Darwin repeats his paraphrase of Milne-
Edwards’ words twice in Origin of Species.
Tracking down the original Milne-Edwards source
not only finds the work that influenced Darwin,
it provides an independent check on the accuracy
of his translation and allows for a translation into
modern, not Victorian, English.
Modern work to understand the evolution of
development is largely a story of extant genes
re-purposed to produce novel morphologies or
evolutionary innovation (e.g., Carroll, 2008).
As modern as this idea is, it was an evolutionary
concept already recognized by Darwin (1859).
Darwin credits Milne-Edwards as the source of
the idea that Mother Nature is “prodigal in variety,
but niggard in innovation” (p 194, Darwin, 1859).
Further, Darwin found the observation sufficiently
important to also refer to it in the Recapitulation
with which the book concludes (p 471, Darwin,
113
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
LITERATURE CITED
Carroll, S. B. 2008. Evo-Devo and an expanding
evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of
morphological evolution. Cell 134: 25-36.
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation
of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John
Murray, London, England. (in facsimile edition,
with forward by E. Mayer, 1964, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts)
Milne-Edwards, M. 1851. Introduction á la Zoologie
Générale, ou Considerations sur les Tendances de
la Nature dans la Constitution du Regne Animal.
Victor Masson. Paris, France.
Milne-Edwards, M. 1867. Rapport sur les Progrès
récents des Sciences Zoologiques en France.
L’Imprimerie Impériale. Paris, France.
connotation of imprudence, a modern translation
of “prodigue” might use the word “lavish.”
Incorporating these changes, Darwin’s paraphrase
would credit Mine-Edwards with the observation
that nature is lavish in variety, but thrifty with
innovation. Indeed, a loose translation of the
entire Milne-Edwards’ phrase, strengthening the
metaphor of Mother Nature as housewife, could
be “as lavish as she is with the banquet of (bio)
diversity, Mother Nature seems correspondingly
thrifty with the ingredients she uses.”
It is certainly useful to have an alternative
translation of Milne-Edwards’ words. It precludes
confusion between “niggard” and other words
beginning with N. It also removes the value
judgment contained in the word “prodigal” and
the implication of stinginess, a character trait that a
Mother Nature might have, but not one possible for
a modern conception of an impersonal nature or
natural selection. Ultimately, the importance of this
alternative translation lies in capturing an accurate
sense of the original text. “Lavish in variety, thrifty
with innovation” shows exactly how perceptive a
naturalist in the first half of the nineteenth century
could be, and helps us understand the context that
gave rise to the special genius of Darwin.
The United Nations
declares
2011 International
Year of Forests
114
Books Reviewed
Developmental and Structural
Atlas of Stem Anatomy in Herbs, Shrubs, and Trees...............................................114
Ecological
Carnivorous Plants and their Habitats, Volumes 1 and 2........................................ 118
Historical
Catalogue (of the) Thirteenth International Exhibition of Botanical Art and
Illustration ............................................................................................................... 119
Discovering New World Orchids ............................................................................ 119
Systematic
Bamboos at TGBRI ................................................................................................ 121
Flora of China, Volume 25, Orchidaceae.................................................................122
Book Reviews
Developmental and
Structural
Atlas of Stem Anatomy in Herbs,
Shrubs and Trees.
Schweingruber, F., A. Börner, and S. Ernst-
Detlef. 2011. Vol. 1.
(Cloth US$139) 495 pp. Springer, Heidel-
berg. pp. 495.
This remarkable book is the first of two volumes
that represent the fruit over 40 years work
by Fritz Schweingruber on the stem anatomy
of dicotyledonous herbs, shrubs and trees. It
represents a monumental effort to document stem
anatomy across a wide range of dicotyledonous,
and to make this information accessible for
future generations. The first volume covers the
Magnoiliids and Eudicots, but excludes most of the
Asterids which are covered in the forthcoming Vol.
2. I emphasize the accessibility of the work because
the presentation of this research extends beyond
the physical volumes published by Springer to the
online Xylem Database and accompanying data
tables, parts of which predate the publication of the
book (Schweingruber and Landolt, 2005-2010). I
will return to a discussion of these online resources
after reviewing the book.
The Atlas differs from the Anatomy of the
Dicotyledons (Metcalfe and Chalk, 1983) in
several important respects. First, although some
taxa without secondary growth are included in
the Atlas, the emphasis is on those with secondary
growth. This is not to say that all of the study
species are “woody” in a traditional sense, as many
would have been classified as “herbaceous” before
the production of this work. In fact, many so-called
herbaceous plants produce at least some secondary
growth, and sometimes have abundant secondary
growth (Dulin and Kirchoff, 2010). For instance,
individuals of Arenaria biflora (Caryophyllaceae)
in the alpine and sub-alpine zones have been
found with up to 43 annual rings. Clearly, this is
no ordinary herb. As long as we restrict ourselves
to a simplistic understanding of plant growth that
divides plants into those with secondary growth
(woody plants) and those without (herbs), we will
never understand the full range of plant growth
forms, or be able to realistically relate these growth
forms to anatomical structures. Sherwin Carlquist
has been making this point for years with respect to
shrubby, suffrutescent, pachycaulous, and lianoid
growth growth forms (Carlquist, 1962, 2001).
The Atlas extends this work to cover so-called
herbaceous plants, while confirming and enlarging
our knowledge of stem anatomy in shrubs and trees.
The book’s use of standardized character
descriptions leads to the second difference with
the Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. The authors use,
and extend, the International Association of Wood
Anatomist’s (IAWA) character definitions (a type of
controlled vocabulary) to describe the structure of
the xylem (Wheeler et al., 1989), and produce their
115
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
own standard characters for the description of the
bark. Though my co-authors and I have pointed out
the limitations of controlled vocabularies when used
across wide ranges of taxa and structures (Kirchoff
et al., 2008), I believe controlled vocabularies have
a place of when their domain of applicability can
be clearly circumscribed, such as in the description
of wood. In most cases the wood anatomical
structures described in the Atlas are relatively
homogeneous, at least with respect to the wide
range of variation in structures one finds in, for
instance, flower structure across the angiosperms.
There may be disagreements about the best way to
describe a libriform fiber, or the degree of vessel
size difference must be present between the early
and latewood for the wood to be called ring porous,
but these types of discrepancies pale in comparison
to the difficulties encountered when trying to find
a single set of terms that allow the determination
of homologies between flowers as diverse as those
of Euphorbia and Magnolia (Kirchoff et al., 2008).
If controlled vocabularies are to be used, they are
best when each term is illustrated, preferably with
multiple examples (Leggett and Kirchoff, 2011).
The original IAWA term descriptions employ this
practice to good effect (Wheeler et al., 1989), and
the Atlas follows the same example, improving
on it in some ways. Approximately 20 pages at
the front of the Atlas are devoted to illustrated
definitions of technical characters. Using the IAWA
classification as a starting point, the authors extend
the characters to take new data into account. For
instance, Character 2 in the IAWA classification
is “Growth ring boundaries indistinct or absent,”
but this character definition does not differentiate
between annual plants with second growth, and
plants with no secondary growth. Both types of
plants are covered in the Atlas. Because of this, the
authors create two new sub-characters (character
states): 2.1 “Only one ring (Annual plants)” and
2.2 “Without secondary growth.” Character 2.1 is
illustrated with 12 photographs, while Character
2.2 is illustrated with six.
1
I am pleased to see this
use of multiple illustrations, as my colleagues and
I have advocated the use of multiple photographs
to document character and character state variation
(Kirchoff et al., 2007; Kirchoff et al., 2011; Leggett
and Kirchoff, 2011). When multiple illustrations
are used in this way, problems with interpreting
the meaning of the verbally defined characters
are mitigated (Stevens, 1991). In addition to
Character 2, many of the other IAWA characters
are also refined for use in the Atlas. In this way, the
Atlas serves not just as a repository of anatomical
descriptions, but also as an updated character and
character state reference, similar to the original
IAWA publication (Wheeler et al., 1989).
The heart of the Atlas consists of xylem and bark
anatomical descriptions arranged by family. Each
family chapter begins with a brief summary of
the number of species studied, the life forms of
the species, and the vegetation zones in which
they are found. The opening page also contains
representative images of the study species. The
body of each chapter consists of lavishly illustrated
descriptions of the characteristics of the xylem, and
of the phloem and cortex of the covered species.
If ecological trends emerged from the study, then
these are noted in a separate section. There is also a
brief discussion of the previous literature on xylem
and bark anatomy of the family. Each chapter
ends with a frequency table of characters found in
the family. For instance, of the 161 species of the
Brassicaceae that are investigated 105 had growth
rings that were distinct and recognizable (character
1), 18 had growth rings there are indistinct or
absent (character 2), and 36 had only one ring
(character 2.1). The astute reader will notice that
this tabulation leaves two species unaccounted for.
It also leaves open the question of how many of the
18 species that have growth rings that are indistinct
or absent also lack secondary growth (character 2.2,
which does not appear in the table). These types of
discrepancies are perhaps inevitable when dealing
with huge data sets like this, though they are always
frustrating and one hopes that the authors have
taken every precaution to minimize them.
Before going on to some limitations and technical
problems with the Atlas, I want to return to the
Xylem Database and its downloadable list of
anatomical features (Schweingruber and Landolt,
2005-2010). All of the images in the Atlas are
available in the Xylem Database, and may be
used royalty-free in other publications (Fritz
Schweingruber, personal communication). Newly
1
A complete (unillustrated) list of the character definitions can be downloaded in a Word document from
the online Xylem Database Schweingruber, F. H., and W. Landolt. 2005-2010. The xylem database. Swiss
Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. Birmensdorf, Switzerland. http://www.wsl.ch/
dendro/xylemdb/index.php.
116
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
available from the Database (as of April 1, 2011) is
a character by taxon matrix in the form of an Excel
file with 3357 entries. Each entry row represents
a species, while each column contains presence
or absence information on each wood and bark
character. The wood characteristics are listed by
their extended IAWA code, while the bark features
are classified according to the new character
descriptions provided in the Atlas. This detailed
character by taxon information is not available in
the Atlas, which only provides summary tables
as discussed above. The availability of the full
matrix makes it possible to conduct correlation
analyses that are not included in the Atlas. Dr.
Schweingruber is to be commended for making
this data freely available, something that few other
scientists have ever done.
Having covered many of the strong points of the
Atlas, I now turn to a brief consideration of some
of its weaknesses. While the production quality of
the Atlas is, on the whole, excellent, the resolution
of some of the images has been degraded because
of they are oversaturated in the magenta (Fig. 1).
Comparison of the published images with those
available from the Xylem Database shows that these
are clearly production errors, and are not due to the
original quality of the images. One expects better
from Springer.
A second unusual feature of Springer’s production
relates to their release of the Atlas through the
SpringerLink website.
2
Although Springer offers
this book through SpringerLink to subscribing
institutions, only the title pages, table of contents,
list of abbreviations, and the index, are available
online. The whole text of the book is missing from
the online version. One wonders at the thought
process behind the decision to place the book
online, but exclude all of its contents.
While I am very happy with the visual treatment of
character definitions in the Atlas, I still feel that more
can be done to clarify characters through visual
means (Kirchoff et al., 2007; Leggett and Kirchoff,
2011). For instance, the distinction between
ring porous (character 3) and semi-ring porous
(character 4) secondary growth has always been a
matter of degree. How much difference in vessel
size must exist between the early and late wood for
a species to be classified as ring porous? Neither
the IAWA character definitions nor the Atlas deal
with this problem. One approach to this seemingly
intractable problem is to define the character states
based solely on visual criteria. This can be done
by creating groups of images that represent the
two main categories, ring porous and semi-ring
porous. Intermediate states between these two
main categories can also be represented by groups
of images. In this approach the groups of images
themselves become the character definitions. Terms
are used only as secondary labels for the groups
of images. This procedure is illustrated for the
inudentum of oak leaves in Fig. 2. The black (and
grey) boxes in this figure represent the character
states for this character. These character states are
not described verbally, but labeled with letters (A –
E) so that they may be easily referenced. The image
groups themselves define the character states. In
one case, character state E, there are subsidiary
states (groups) within the main character state. This
subdivision of character state E illustrates the fine
type of distinctions that can be made with visual
definitions. Using a visual approach it is possible
to define characters and character states in very
precise ways, yet at the same time show the variation
within each state. As visual character definitions are
used in practice, new images can be added to the
character state groups so that a record is kept of the
variation within each character state. In this way it
is possible to continually reevaluate the viability of
each state as new data (images) are added. It is also
possible for new investigators to quickly evaluate
the quality of the characters and character states
that have been used in previous studies. I hope that
method such as this will come into wider use in the
near future.
In summary, the Atlas of Stem Anatomy in Herbs,
Shrubs and Trees is an important new contribution
to our knowledge of stem anatomy, and particularly
to our knowledge of the occurrence of secondary
growth in so-called herbaceous plants. In addition
to completely changing our concept of what it means
to be herbaceous, the Atlas provides important
information on the structure of the bark in many
species that have not been previously studied.
Coupled with the information available through
the online Xylem Database, the Atlas has to be
viewed as one of the most important publications
in plant anatomy and morphology of recent years.
2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-642-11637-7
117
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Figure 1: Simulation comparing a normal image (A) with one with oversaturated magenta (B). The
fine details (pits, etc.) are obscured in the oversaturated image. The images are from Fig. 6 (Ambroella
trichopoda) from the chapter of the Atlas on the Ambrollaceae (Schweingruber et al., 2011). The photo-
graph is of a radial section showing upright ray cells with bordered pits in uniseriate axial rows. To pro-
duce the figure the raw image was downloaded from the Xylem Database (Schweingruber and Land-
olt, 2005-2010), duplicated and brought into Photoshop CS. The RGB image was converted to CMYK,
after which a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer was used to adjust the magenta +8 points so that the digi-
tal images were as close as possible to the published image in hue. The channel mixer was then used with
a clipping mask on the right image (B), and magenta was increased to +114% on the magenta channel.
The resulting right image (B) matched the detail that is visible in the printed original.
Figure 2: Visual character description – inudentum on abaxial surface of oak leaves. Character states are
defined by the images in each box, not verbally. Inclusion of multiple images is used to show variability in the
state. In this example each character state is denoted by a letter (A-E), and one (E) has two sub-states (E1,
E2). Species identification follow. A, Quecus alba. B, Q. muehlenbergii (left),
Q. macrocarpa (right). C,
Q. bi-color (above), Q. prinus (below left), Q. michauxii (below right). D. Q. stellata (above), Q. falcata (be-
low). E1, Q. velutina. E2, Q. schumardii (above left), Q. phellos (above right), Q. palustris (below left), Q. nigra
(below right).
118
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Carlquist, S. 1962. A theory of paedomorphosis in
dicotyledonous woods. Phytomorphology 12: 30-45.
Carlquist, S. 2001. Comparative wood anatomy:
systematic, ecological, and evolutionary aspects of
dicotyledon wood, 2nd. edition. Springer, Berlin.
Dulin, M., and B. K. Kirchoff. 2010. Paedomorphosis,
Secondary Woodiness, and Insular Woodiness in
Plants. Botanical Review 76: 405-490.
Kirchoff, B. K., R. Leggett, V. Her, C. Moua, J.
Morrison, and C. Poole. 2011. Principles of visual
key construction with a visual identification key to
the Fagaceae of the southeastern United States. AoB
Plants: doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plr005.
Kirchoff, B. K., E. Pfeifer, and R. Rutishauser. 2008.
Plant structure ontology: How should we label
plant structures with doubtful or mixed identities?
Zootaxa 1950: 103-122.
Kirchoff, B. K., S. J. Richter, and D. L. Remington.
2007. Characters as groups: A new approach to
morphological characters in phylogenetic analysis.
Taxon 56: 497-492.
Leggett, R., and B. K. Kirchoff. 2011. Image use
in field guides and identification keys: review
and recommendations. AoB Plants: doi: 10.1093/
aobpla/plr004.
Metcalfe, C. R., and L. Chalk. 1983. Anatomy of
the Dicotyledons, 2nd edition. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Schweingruber, F., A. Börner, and S. Ernst-Detlef.
2011. Atlas of stem anatomy in herbs, shrubs and
trees. Springer, Heidelberg.
Schweingruber, F. H., and W. Landolt. 2005-
2010. The xylem database. Swiss Federal Institute
for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research.
Birmensdorf, Switzerland. http://www.wsl.ch/
dendro/xylemdb/index.php
Stevens, P. F. 1991. Character states, morphological
variation, and phylogenetic analysis: a review.
Systematic Botany 16: 553-583.
Wheeler, E. A., P. Bass, and P. E. Gasson. 1989.
IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood
identification. IAWA Journal 10: 219-332.
-Dr. Bruce Kirchoff, Department of Biology, UNC
Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402
kirchoff@uncg.edu
Received: 5/18/2011
Accepted: 5/25/2011
Ecological
Carnivorous Plants and their Habi-
tats Volumes One and Two.
McPherson, Stewart. 2011. (£34.99 each)
1441 pages, 799 images total. www.red-
fernnaturalhistory.com
Stewart McPherson, the author of Carnivorous
Plants and their Habitats Volumes One and Two,
frightens me. This is a good thing, as I work
on carnivorous plants, and Stewart’s incredible
output to date, 8 volumes of 500-plus pages each,
is a wonderful motivator. Thank God he’s not a
physiologist or I soon might not have anything
to work on. His work is even more remarkable
when one considers the quality (reams of gorgeous
and informative photos, eminently readable text,
detailed history, current phylogenetic approach,
etc.).
These two volumes cover carnivorous plants, first
conclusively confirmed to be such by Darwin, in
total and in detail. McPherson begins with overall
discussions of the history of our understanding
of these plants and a general overview of
currently accepted groups. He then considers
their evolution, associated organisms other than
prey, and habitats in a general sense. The various
groups of carnivorous plants are considered by
the type of trap (e.g. pitcher plants) rather than
taxonomically, and, finally, their future, troubled as
it is by habitat degradation and loss. The Appendix,
Bibliography, and Index round out this two-volume
set. The grouping by trap type makes great sense
given the similar habitats of plants with similar
traps and the way that enthusiasts of carnivorous
plants usually think about these green monsters.
This is a very complete work, in many ways the
most complete work on carnivorous plants done
by anyone, anywhere. McPherson even works
in the newly identified carnivorous and barely
known genus Philcoxia (there have been no
more than a tiny handful of papers on it) with
lovely habitat shots and closeups. He includes UV
reflection images of various traps to indicate the
view that insects receive. He includes many, many
genera (briefly) of sub-/proto-/hemicarnivorous
plants. The taxonomic discussion is deep and
119
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
thoroughly in line with the most current systematic
information—and on and on. At most one might
niggle at one or two of the hundreds of photos, such
as the one or two too-dark images of Darlingtonia
in the field, but really one has to hunt for errors
or items to negatively criticize. This work is a
tremendous accomplishment. It belongs, given
the general interest in carnivorous plants and their
value in promoting botany to non-botanists and to
students, on every university library shelf and on
every professional bookshelf. Get a copy today.
-Douglas Darnowski, Department of Biology, Indi-
ana University Southwest
Historical
Catalogue [of the] 13th Interna-
tional Exhibition of Botanical Art &
Illustration.
Bruno, Lugene B.
2010. ISBN 978-0-913196-84-7 (Paper
US$25.00) 198 pp. Hunt Institute for
Botanical Documentation, 5th Floor, Hunt
Library, Carnegie Mellon University, 4909
Frew Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890.
The Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation,
one of top two or three repositories of botanical
art in the world, has produced the catalog of
their 13th International Exhibition, displayed
in the Fall of 2011. Once again, the catalog
is worth having if you are at all interested in
botanical art, a colorful delight full of both
scientific information and aesthetic pleasure.
One interesting change, perhaps related to the
maturation of the ongoing renaissance in botanical
illustration, is the increase in the fraction of the
volume which is dedicated to works other than
those created using watercolor or gouache on
paper. One often first thinks of watercolor on paper
(or perhaps vellum) as the medium of choice for
portraying plants—think of Ehret and Redoute,
among others. Here, however, there seem to be
represented many more works on vellum as well
as quite a few more prints of various sorts than in
past catalogs from the Hunt. Watercolor pencil also
features more heavily than in prior years. These
different types of illustrations are not formally set
off, but they are, however, mostly grouped together
as one proceeds through this work. Some especially
striking works, at least to the eye of this reviewer,
include the Hawthorne with searingly red fruits (p.
20), the Nasturtiams on p. 23 (though the leaves,
as opposed to the flowers, are rather dull), the Iris
germanica on p. 108, and the ripe sunflower on the
cover, with its strikingly vibrant and warm earth
tones. If you like plants as both art and science, get
a copy today.
-Douglas Darnowski, Department of Biology, Indi-
ana University Southwest.
Discovering New World Orchids.
Manning, S.
2010. ISBN 978-0-9565594-0-1 (Hard cover,
US$96). Published by the author at 4 The
Cedars, Nantwich, Cheshire, CA5 5GZ, UK
An old adage and the title of a science fiction novel
about the conquest of earth by space aliens I read a
long time ago are that when new lands/planets are
discovered the three M (missionaries, merchants,
military) arrive quickly in the order listed and
colonize them. What the adage leaves out is orchid
collectors who were among the first to arrive in
newly discovered lands on earth in past centuries to
explore, collect (we would call it poach and pillage
at present) and ship vast numbers of plants (many
of which perished en route) to dealers in Europe
and the UK. And, as the author of this book so
aptly puts it, “Every one of the estimated 25,000
to 30,000 different orchids . . . has a (sic) history
. . . those of tropical America carry with them
exciting, thrilling, fascinating and at times almost
unbelievable stories.” Actually orchids from other
areas also carry fascinating stories, but this book
happens to deal with the Americas.
These stories are associated with the adventurers/
collectors who often risked and sometimes lost life
and limb (and still do) to find new and rare orchids.
The stories of these individuals are not always
well known. Or, one has to be steeped in orchids
and orchid literature and have access to rare and
obscure books and journals to find the stories. Not
many have this luxury.
This book, although it emphasized the author’s
genus of interest, Masdevallia, tells the story of
120
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
(Ossenbach, 2008a, 2008b; for a review see Arditti,
2009) is inevitable. Ossebach paints a larger canvas,
tells a much broader story and places orchid history
in the context of general historical developments.
His books are designed more conservatively to
good advantage. They are very well illustrated, but
contain no color and are produced modestly. This
book is more sumptuously produced, has color and
is less concerned with general history. Ideally, those
interested in orchids and orchid history should read
both works because they complement each other.
As a rule self-published books must be approached
with caution. Many pursue specific agendas, ride
hobby horses and/or are merely ego food. This
book is an exception. It is informative, well written,
nicely produced and fun to read despite its quirks.
Literature Cited
Arditti, J. 2009. Orchids and orchidology in Central
America. Plant Science Bulletin 55: 173.
Ossenbach, C. 2008a. History of orchids in central
America, vol. I. Carlos Ossenbach, Sabanilla
de Montes de Oca-Horquetas de Sarapiqui, San
Jose, Costa Rica.
Ossenbach, C. 2008b. History of orchids in central
America, vol. II. Carlos Ossenbach, Sabanilla de
Montes de Oca-Horquetas de Sarapiqui, San Jose,
Costa Rica.
many collectors, adventurers and some rascals
(and their sponsors, antagonists, friends and
enemies) who went to the New World (actually
mainly Central and South America) in the 1700s,
1800s, and even 1900s in search of orchids. The
book is excellently illustrated with new and very
old (some of these are fuzzy) color and black-and-
white images of orchids, non-Orchidaceous plants,
indigenous people, various individuals, schools,
houses, graves, grave stones, stamps, waterfalls,
mountains, rocks, birds, slaves and masters,
flags, coins, steamboats, locales, advertisements,
structures and assorted odds and ends.
There are many stories in the book including that
of the Czechoslovakian collector Benedikt Roezl,
who was tall, bronzed, had a flaxen moustache and
a hook in place of his right arm which was lost in
a machine. His “dexterity with that curved piece of
iron was something to marvel at.” Interestingly, a
statue of Roezl in Charles Square near the Botanic
Gardens in Prague shows him with both arms.
Another interesting individual was Benjamin “Ben”
Williams whose image in the book suggests that he
too may have been an adventurer/collector or even
an individual to stay away from. In fact, he was a
home-bound excellent writer on orchid cultivation,
an orchid grower for a man of wealth and later the
owner of a famed orchid establishment. He was
certainly not a person to stay away from. Not
to be forgotten are the odd kings, despots, sea
captains, emperors, empresses, nobles and wealthy
individuals who funded expeditions, supported
collectors and/or collected and grew orchids. Their
pictures and stories are also in the book.
The book is not free of problems. Its design,
fonts, use of text boxes, placement and labeling
of footnotes, reference to cited literature and the
listings of references are unusual and quirky.
There are also illustrations which add little
or nothing to the book, clutter pages and
could, or even should, have been left
out. Further, it would have been good
to provide the birth and death dates of
all, not just some, individuals in the text
and/or in figure captions. Such information
is not always easy to find, but it is available
for many, perhaps most of the individuals
mentioned in the book. Should there be a
second edition, it would benefit greatly from
a professional copy editor and designer.
A comparison with Carlos Ossenbach’s two-
volume History of Orchids in Central America
121
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Bamboos at TBGRI.
Koshy, K.C.
2010. ISBN 978-81-920098-0-3 (paperback)
104 pp. Tropical Botanic Garden and Re-
search Institute, Palode, Kerala, India.
This is a wonderful book on a developing
bambusetum, a living collection of bamboo
species. The site is part of the Tropical Botanic
Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI) in Kerala,
India, in the foothills of the Ghat Mountains in the
country’s southwest. The Garden was founded in
1979 and the bambusetum in 1987. It is the latter’s
founder, K.C. Koshy, who is the book’s author, and
his passion for the collection comes through in his
description of its development. He began with a
small plot of about 2 acres with a handful of species.
Over the years, the area has grown to 16 acres with
68 species and 12 hybrids. The growth was thanks
to over 900 accessions.
Koshy tells the story of the project in a
straightforward fashion, discussing the obstacles
encountered and the successes achieved. He notes
the advantages of a bambusetum: the accessibility
of a collection for scientific study including the
flowering cycle, the availability of material for
farmers or foresters, and the possibility of studying
the other species which form communities with
bamboo. He also describes bamboo-collecting
expeditions and their fruits.
Among other notes on these plants, Koshy makes
clear the major hurdle to studying bamboos: they
flower very rarely, and in many cases only once in
a life cycle. Since the vegetative forms of many
species look very similar to each other, it was
difficult for Koshy to even know how many species
he had, particularly at the early stages of the project.
In addition, such infrequent flowering makes it not
easy to create hybrids, though his team has managed
to produce twelve, which are all listed here.
Also included are short discussions about the roles
a number of botanists played in developing the
collection. There is even a short section on the
VIPs who have visited the bambusetum, including
Ghillian Prance, then Director of the Royal Botanic
Gardens at Kew.
Following this introductory material, Koshy then
presents the heart of the book, an annotated list
of the bamboos species at TBGRI. Many of the
descriptions, which include information both on
the living plants and herbarium specimens, are
accompanied by photographs. There are data here
on when the plants were accessioned, on flowering
if known, and statistics on length of internodes
and the size of leaves. These descriptions are brief
and are presented more as lists than narratives.
However, they would be useful to those studying
bamboos and having some knowledge of the family.
After this section, which takes up about three-
quarters of the book, there is information about the
TBGRI’s bamboo museum and about its nursery.
The book ends with a discussion of future plans as
well as a list of references, and finally an index to
bamboo scientific names.
This 104-page paperback is beautifully produced
with many photographs, including a number of
full-page ones showing close-ups of particular
species as well as views of the TBGRI. The volume
was obviously a labor of love for Koshy and for
the Garden. It is not a general introduction
to bamboos, but it would be a shame if it were
missed by someone seeking to learn more about
these plants. The introductory material as well as
the explanations of how hybrids were developed
provide excellent general descriptions. The detailed
information on each species would be interesting
to an expert, and in the years ahead it will serve as
documentation for what this bambusetum held at a
particular moment in its history.
-Maura Flannery, Department of Biology, St. John’s
University.
122
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Flora of China Volume 25 Orchidaceae
Chen Xinqi, Liu Zhongjian, Zhu Guanghua,
Lang Kaiyong, Ji Zhanhe, Luo Yibo, Jin Xiao-
hua, Phillip J. Cribb, Jaffrey J. Wood, Stephan
W. Gale, Paul Omerod, Jaap J. Vermeulen,
Howard P. Wood, Dudley Clayton, and Alex-
andra Bell.
Text volume, 2009. ISBN 978-7-03-025533-
4/Q-2353.0101, 978-1-930723-90-0 (V. 25),
9278-0-915279-34-0 (entire work), Hard
cover, 570 pages, one map, $125.
Illustrations volume, 2010. ISBN 978-7-03-
025959-2/Q-2374, 978-1-930723-89-4 (V. 25),
9278-0-915279-34-0 (entire work),
Hard cover, 642 illustrations, 666 pages, one
map, $175.
Science Press, Beijing, China and the
Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis,
MO, USA.
A third of a century has passed since the “ping pong
diplomacy” that opened China to the West and
China has changed dramatically. Orchid businesses
flourish and large international orchid shows which
contain many western hybrids and native Chinese
species attract huge crowds (Arditti, 2011). Orchid
books are published freely (for example, Perner
and Luo, 2009). Robust research programs study all
aspects of the Orchidaceae and result in numerous
publications in international peer reviewed
journals. The two volumes under review here deal
with the 1,388 orchid species (491 endemic) in
China.
As can be expected, a work which covers that many
orchids is very large (1,236 pages total). Still, space
is at a premium. Therefore descriptions of species
are sorted and in most cases do not exceed 130
words. However, they are complete, informative
and describe every species adequately. This is
accomplished in part by using a concise style and
small (I would guess 6-8 point), but easily readable
print as well as not providing ethymology for
both generic names and specific epithets. These
would have been nice to have, but are not strictly
necessary. Besides, this information can be found
easily on the World Wide Web with a few clicks of
a mouse.
Chromosome numbers are included if available.
The number of species and their distribution as well
as those found in China and endemic taxa are given
for every genus. Distribution in China is given at
the provincial level.
Also included are Chinese names followed by
pinyin transliterations, synonyms, a reference to the
original/first description and relevant comments
when necessary. I read many (though not all)
descriptions in the book. Some were of species
with which I was familiar and others that were
new to me. In both cases I found the descriptions
to be well written, easy to read and satisfactory. A
master key to genera is included in the text volume.
There are also keys for each genus. I did not have
an opportunity to test any of the keys with living
plants, but they seem workable.
A vexing problem with the descriptions is that they
do not contain references to the illustrations. This
would not be a problem if the illustrations were
arranged alphabetically, but they are not. They are
arranged according to tribes, genera and species.
This required hunting through the volume, or
referring to the index, both of which waste time.
A list of new nomenclature, indexes to Chinese,
pynyin and scientific names and plant families in
the Chinese flora conclude the text volume.
Some, perhaps most, of the 642 line drawing plates
in the illustrations are of one species, others are of
two, three or more. Therefore many more species
than 642 are illustrated. The illustrations are by 48
artists whose styles are different. This is inevitable
in a large work like this one and does not detract
from it scientifically, but is unpleasant to the eye.
What does detract somewhat is that some of the
drawings (page 1 for example) do not show enough
detail to be useful and many do not contain scales.
The amounts of information, levels of detail and
number structures shown in different illustrations
also vary. Indexes to Chinese, pynyin and scientific
names and families in the Chinese flora conclude
the illustrations volume.
This is a major work with a minimal number of
minor, perhaps insignificant, flaws which are easy
to compensate for, not miss or overlook. One
improvement which would benefit a possible
second edition would be to place the illustrations
next to the relevant species. This would still result
in two volumes but it would be nice to be able to
look an illustration while reading the description to
which it pertains, or vice versa.
-Joseph Arditti, University of California, Irvine.
Literature Cited
Arditti, J. 2011. Conservation through propagation.
Orchids 80: 114-116.
Perner, H. and Y. Luo. 2009. Orchids of Huandong.
Sichuan National Park, Sichuan Publishing
Group, Sichuan Art Publishing House.
123
Books Received
The Future of the Western Hemisphere, the Next Fifty Years,
the Path to Sustainability.
Thorhaug, Anitra, et al. (Paper US$25.00) Greater Carib-
bean Energy and Environment Foundation, Inc. 1359 SW 22 TER, Suite1, Miami, FL 33145.
An Illustrated Guide To Common Plants Of San Salvador Island, Bahamas,
3rd edition
Lee B. Kass. 2009. ISBN 0-935909-85-0 ($25.00) 183 pp. The Gerace Re-
search Centre, San Salvador Island, Bahamas.
Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic History of Latin American Vegetation and
Terrestrial Environments.
Graham, Alan. 2010. ISBN 978 1 930 72368 9 (Cloth
US$95.00) 618 pp. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299.
A Natural History of the New World. The Ecology and Evolution of Plants
in the Americas.
Graham, Alan. 2010. ISBN 978 0 226 30679 7 (Cloth US$110.00) 408
pp. University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 USA.
Pollination and Floral Ecology
Willmer, Pat. 2011. ISBN 978-0-691-12861-0. (Cloth
US$95.00) 828 pp. Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey
08540-5237.
RNAi and Plant Gene Function Analysis: Methods and Protocols.
Kodama,
Hiroaki; Komamine, Atsushi (Eds). 2011. ISBN 978-1-61779-122-2 (Cloth US$119.00). Hu-
mana Press. 333 Meadowlands Parkway, Secaucus, NJ 07094.
Spatio-Temporal Heterogeneity: Concepts and Analyses.
Dutilleul, Pierre R.
L. 2011. ISBN 978-1-107-40035-1 (Paper US$57.00) 393pp. Cambridge University Press, 32
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013.
News from the International Botanical Congress
Botanists have brought plant taxonomy into the 21st century. The international botanical
code was amended to allow on-line publication of new species, rather than solely print
publication. Furthermore, the plant description may now be either in Latin or English.
(Yes, scientific names remain in Latin.)
The immediate response in Nature 475: 424 “Zoologists should follow botanists…”
Scientific conferences are not actually about the science; they’re about
the people who do science. You can learn about the science of botany
from published papers and books, but you can only learn about the
people who do the science of botany by attending botany conferences
-Dr. Joseph Armstrong, member, Botanical Society of America
Plant Science Bulletin 57(3) 2011
Plant Science Bulletin
Featured Image
Fall 2011 Volume 57 Number 3
Plant Science
Bulletin
ISSN 0032-0919
Published quarterly by
Botanical Society of America, Inc.
4475 Castleman Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
The yearly subscription rate
of $15 is included in the BSA
membership
Periodicals postage is paid at
St. Louis, MO and additional
mailing offices.
Send address changes to:
POSTMASTER:
Botanical Society of America
Business Office
P.O. Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
bsa-manager@botany.org
Address Editorial Matters (only)
to:
Marshall D. Sundberg
Editor
Department of Biological
Sciences
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial St.
Emporia, KS 66801-5057
Phone 620-341-5605
psb@botany.org
The Botanical Society of America
is a membership society whose
mission is to: promote botany, the
field of basic science dealing with
the study and inquiry into the form,
function, development, diversity,
reproduction, evolution, and uses of
plants and their interactions within
the biosphere.
Botany in Action!
At Botany 2011 a group of enthausitic botanist volunteers braved
the sweltering St. Louis heat and gathered to help support the efforts
of Gateway Greening, the non-profit organization promoting urban
neighborhood gardening.
Gateway Greening is a non-profit organization celebrating 27 years of
promoting urban neighborhood vitality and stability, healthy living and
quality of life through community food projects, education and wellness
programs and civic greening.
Gateway Greening forms alliances with non-profit organizations,
faith-based institutions, institutions of higher learning and
neighborhood groups to provide resources for citizen-managed open
spaces that encourage healthier, safer and more enriched lives. Gateway
Greening provides the resources and knowledge that enable them
to develop food-producing gardens and landscaped areas on public
land. Gateway Greening also works with area schools and institutions
of higher learning to bring gardening programs into the classroom;
educating children on the wonders of gardening.
This first time event at a Botany 2011 was a major success and one that
we hope to continue at future conferences—the spirit of giving back to
our host cities!
Much more about Botany 2011 in future issues of the Plant Science
Bulletin.
July 7-11 2012
Columbus Convention Center
Columbus, Ohio
Make your plans NOW!
View PDF
