Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.157006
Element CodePDMAL0K060
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassDicotyledoneae
OrderMalvales
FamilyMalvaceae
GenusIliamna
Concept ReferenceFlora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2015. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 6. Magnoliophyta: Cucurbitaceae to Droserceae. Oxford University Press, New York. 496 pp + xxiv.
Taxonomic CommentsFormer synonyms include Sphaeralcea acerifolia Nutt, S. remota (Greene) Fernald, and Phymosia remota (Greene) Britton. Iliamna remota is included in Iliamna rivularis var. rivularis by Kartesz (1994, 1999). Iliamna corei is also included by Kartesz in I. rivularis var. rivularis; those plants are sometimes included in the species I. remota (distinct from I. rivularis), and sometimes treated as a distinct species of their own, differing from both I. remota and I. rivularis. Gleason and Cronquist (1991) considered I. remota to be distinct from I. rivularis, and included I. corei within it. Fernald (1950) considered all three to be distinct species. This record follows Fernald (1950) and FNA (vol. 6, 2015) and represents I. remota excluding I. corei material.
Results from use of random amplified polymorphic DNA techniques suggest that I. corei may be more appropriately classified as a subspecies of I. remota (Stewart et al. 1996). Tracy Slotta (pers. comm.) at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg is presently working on this question. According to Sherff (1949), I. remota and I. corei are distinguished by the fact that the flowers of I. remota are fragrant and those of I. corei are not. The morphology of the leaves of the two taxa is also somewhat different. The blades of I. corei are narrower and have a "terminal lobe oblong or subcuneatley narrowed below and subtended with sharp sinuses," whereas the leaves of I. remota are broader with shallower, less pronounced sinuses (Sherff 1946).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2015-12-08
Change Date1998-01-30
Edition Date2015-12-08
Edition AuthorsNielsen, Eric M. (2/00), rev. A. Treher (2015)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank ReasonsAbout ten occurrences. During surveys in 2010, plants weren't seen at several sites and plant numbers are low at other sites. Although the plant is known from one location in Elkhart County Indiana, and several locations along the James and New Rivers in Virginia, it is possible that only the original Kankakee River site in Illinois is a native occurrence. Populations are threatened by competition with native and exotic species, by herbivory, and by human disturbance.
Range Extent CommentsKankakee River, Illinois; Elkhart County, Indiana; several locations near the James and New Rivers, Virginia. In Illinois, restricted to the Kankakee River (Randy Heidorn pers. comm.), on a small, gravelly island near the town of Altorf (Strausbaugh and Core 1932, Sherff 1946). The plant has been found in two locations in Elkhart County, Indiana, only one of which is apparently extant. The first discovery in Virginia was along the upper James River in Botetourt County (Keener 1964). Now, several occurrences are known along the James, and one on the New River (Judy Dunscomb pers. comm.). Many authors believe that the Indiana and Virginia populations are introduced by humans. Scherff (1949) states that "the Wildflower Preservation Society of Chicago (circa 1919), recognizing that Iliamna was in danger of extinction because of its isolation, obtained a liberal quantity of seeds from [the original location] and scattered them far and wide, perhaps from windows of moving trains, in the hope of spreading the species. The presence of both the Indiana and Virginia stands near railroads seems to substantiate this." However, the discovery of another population in Indiana (in apparently appropriate native habitat) may provide evidence that the plant is native there (Mike Homoya pers. comm.). In Virginia, Judy Dunscomb (pers. comm.) feels that there is no good evidence either way; the stewardship program there manages it as if it were native but opinions are divided.
Occurrences CommentsAbout 10 occurrences are known. Illinois: two occurrences; Indiana: one occurrence in Elkhart County, consisting of seven clumps (Tony Swinehart pers. comm.); Virginia: 6 or 7 occurrences (Judy Dunscomb pers. comm.).
Threat Impact CommentsA major threat is competition from invasive exotic and native shrubs such as bush honeysuckle, multiflora rose, smooth sumac, and some herbs such as garlic mustard and purple loosestrife (Bill Glass pers. comm., Judy Dunscomb pers. comm., Tony Swinehart pers. comm., Schwegman 1984, Evans n.d.). Other threats are allelopathic reactions from species such as Solidago canadensis, deer browsing of flower heads (Schwegman 1984, Bill Glass pers. comm.), weevil destruction of seed (Schwegman 1984), flooding, herbicide application (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), destruction by farming equipment, and railroad maintenance operations (Tony Swinehart pers. comm., Schwegman 1984).