Flora of Dominica, Part 2 - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

NUMBER^
fern allies), Gymnosprmae, and Monocotyledoneae. I have
taken the liberty of summarizing his extensive (50 pages)
prefatory comments in the preceding sections of the Introduction.
Particular thanks are due to Bruce Bredin and John Archbold
who, in 1964, established the Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian
Biological Survey of Dominica that financed about 60
scientists (including assistants) to spend up to three months
each working on their specialties. George Steyskal (USDA at
the Smithsonian) is preparing a summary of results.
I am grateful to the Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological
Survey of Dominica for permitting me to spend three
months on Dominica at the end of 1964. In early 1969 Mrs.
Irene Morden, through the Morden-Smithsonian Expedition to
Dominica, enabled Robert DeFilipps, Mason Hale (lichens),
and me to spend a month on Dominica. I am also grateful to the
Earthwatch program that gave me another month, particularly
in the Syndicate-Mome Diablotins area, on Dominica in
connection with study of parrots by Holly and Thomas Nichols.
I would like to thank Mr. Christopher Maximea, Chief
Forester of Dominica. He took a personal interest and, on
repeated occasions, arranged for guides. In appreciation for the
unfailing courtesy and hospitality I dedicate this work to the
people of Dominica.
One of the goals of the Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian
Biological Survey of Dominica was to complete Part 2 of the
Flora of Dominica, covering the rest of the higher plants, the
Dicotyledoneae or Magnoliopsida. This task fell to me. In 1964
Richard Howard, former Director of the Arnold Arboretum of
Harvard University, who was initiating the Flora of the Lesser
Antilles, contributed a checklist of all dicots then known from
Dominica. I want to thank Dr. Howard for this and also for
continuing cooperation, such as sharing drafts of families and
proof of his last two volumes.
I also am deeply indebted to the reviewers of the first draft,
Dr. C.D. Adams and F. Raymond Fosberg. Both took much
time to provide many constructive suggestions.
Various people contributed treatments of particular families:
(1) W.G. D’Arcy of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis
(Solanaceae); (2) the late P. Boiteau of the Museum National
d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (Apocynaceae, initial treatment);
(3) K. Chambers of Oregon State University in Corvallis (some
Asteraceae); (4) R. DeFilipps, who assisted for a year
(Apiaceae, Araliaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Balsaminaceae, Bombacaceae,
Burseraceae, Cactaceae, Caricaceae, Caryophyllaceae,
Chloranthaceae, Cochlospermaceae, Connaraceae,
Cunoniaceae, Cyrillaceae, Dichapetalaceae, Dilleniaceae,
Erythroxylaceae, Hemandiaceae, Lentibulariaceae, Loganiaceae,
Magnoliaceae, Myoporaceae, Nymphaeaceae, Olacaceae,
Rhamnaceae, Sabiaceae, Sterculiaceae, lkmeraceae,
and Zygophyllaceae); (4) H.H. 11th of the University of
Wisconsin (Capparaceae); (5) R. Kiger of the Hunt Botanical
Institute in Pittsburgh (Caprifoliaceae and Flacourtiaceae); (6)
Alice C. Nicolson, an able volunteer (Bignoniaceae, Boragina-
ceae, Lamiaceae, Melastomataceae, Myrsinaceae, Sapotaceae,
and Verbenaceae); (7) Dulcie Powell, formerly an assistant at
the Smithsonian Institution in Washington (Convolvulaceae);
(8) C. Sastre of the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle of
Paris (Apocynaceae, final revisions); (9) L. Skog of the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington (Lobeliaceae and
Gesneriaceae); (10) John Utley now of the University of New
Orleans (Marcgraviaceae); Katherine Burt-Utley of the Same
(Begoniaceae); (12) D. Wasshausen of the Smithsonian
Institution in Washington (Acanthaceae); (1 3) G. Webster of
the University of California at Davis (Euphorbiaceae).
Other specialists reviewed particular families, such as Alwyn
Gentry of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis
(Bignoniaceae) and John Wurdack of the Smithsonian Institution
in Washington, D.C. (Melastomataceae). All such conhibutions
are recognized in the appropriate family treatment.
Treatments not ascribed to a contributor fell to me.
This is Contribution 1 of the Archbold Tropical Research
Center, Dominica.
Keys to Groups and Dicotyledonous Families
This key is intended to assist in identifications of unknown
vascular plants from Dominica. In short, the key aims to define
native taxa as they occur only on Dominica. Cultivated and
introduced plants may not key out correctly.
1. Plants reproducing by spores, not seeds ..... Group 1
1. Plants reproducing by seeds, not spores.
2. Stigma none; the single ovule and drupe-like seed not
enclosed in an ovary, borne on the face of a fleshy scale
or bract ..................... Group 2
2. Stigma(s) present; ovules and seeds enclosed in an
ovary.
3. Stem solid central pith with scattered vascular
strands; flowers usually 3-merous; leaf-venation
usually striate; cotyledon 1 ......... Group 3
3. Stem hollow or with a central strandless pith; flowers
usually 4-5-merous; leaf-venation usually reticulate;
cotyledons usually 2.
4. Perianth absent (achlamydeous) or uniseriate
(monochlamydeous) ........... Group 4
4. Perianth biseriate or multiseriate.
5. Petals all united, at least at base .... Group 5
5. Petals free or only some united.
6. Ovary inferior or only half-inferior ......
.................... Group 6
6. Ovary superior.
7. Stamens more than twice as many as petals
................... Group 7
7. Stamens twice as many as petals or fewer
................... Group 8
GROUP 1. FERNS AND FERN ALLIW
For Dominica, this group is covered by Hodge (1954) with
195 species in 51 genera and 10 families. For a more recent and