Panarctic Flora

Distribution table

Organization

The order and the enumeration of taxa in the distribution table follow that of the main text. All taxa considered native in the Arctic or persistent adventives are included. Included are also taxa recorded from the Borderline Arctic only or with uncertain arctic occurrence. Presence and frequency is reported in the 21 biogeographical regions and the six bioclimatic zones described and delimited in Chapter 2 above. A short-cut version:

Biogeographic regions

Bioclimatic zones (Elvebakk's concepts, see Elvebakk 1999)

The sources of distribution data are largely the same as for names and taxonomic information. However, special surveys have been made in some areas.

Iceland. The recent, detailed mapping by Kristinsson (2008, http://vefsja.ni.is/website/plontuvefsja) of all Icelandic vascular plants is among the best geographic surveys available for any of the nations with arctic areas. The main results are summarized by Kristinsson (2010). The Iceland records are based on this survey and on some revisions by Solstad and Elven in 2009 and 2010. The earlier accounts by Á. Löve have proved unreliable. Löve reported from Iceland about ten species and numerous races never seen there by anyone else, in spite of search at the reported localities. These plants were presumed either to be Ice Age relics or to be extensions of American taxa. Even if there are few professional botanists in Iceland, those there are have a good knowledge of their country's flora, and the unconfirmed Löve records should be discounted.

Norway. The records for the Norwegian arctic islands are based partly on published accounts (Lid 1964: Jan Mayen; Engelskjøn and Schweitzer 1970: Bear Island; Rønning 1996: Svalbard) but mostly on a now complete data entry of all significant Norwegian herbarium collections from these islands. Data for Svalbard (incl. Bear Island) are available on http://svalbardflora.net. The records are considered exhaustive as far as the current knowledge reaches. For mainland Norway, nearly all herbarium vouchers from the arctic parts (in TROM, TRH, BG, and O) have been inspected and the majority entered in data bases. The digitized records are considered to be almost complete and up-to-date but not all data are available yet (2010) on the relevant website: http://artskart.artsdatabanken.no. Even if there is a decline, Norway still has qualified staff in some of its major herbaria with arctic collections, and several scientists are familiar with the arctic parts of their country.

Russia (European Russia, Siberia, and the Russian Far East). The records are based on the Russian PAF drafts, Tolmachev and Yurtsev (1960–1987, the entire Russian Arctic), Gorodkov and Pojarkova (1953–1966, northwestern European Russia), Tolmachev (1974–1977, northeastern European Russia), Krasnoborov et al. (1987–1997, Siberia), Kharkevicz (1985–1996, the Russian Far East), and especially on Sekretareva (1999, 2004) which is an updated floristic summary for the entire Russian Arctic. There are, however, more entries of 'uncertain' and of 'present but frequency unknown' for the Russian areas than for other areas. There are also many discrepancies among the Russian reports, especially between those made by the St. Petersburg botanists and by the botanists in Siberia and the Russian Far East for the Asian regions. We assume that this is due to different sources of data (herbaria etc.) being utilized, and we assume that when one source reports occurrence in a region, whereas others do not, the plant is probably present there. Other discrepancies can be noted between the maps of Hultén (1958, 1962, 1971a) and Hultén and Fries (1986) on one side and the Russian sources on the other. We assume that Hultén had sources available (not least the large collections from Russia made by Swedes and deposited in Swedish herbaria) to support these records.

Many of the Russian records are old; there is comparatively little current floristic and taxonomic work done in the arctic parts. This implies problems when taxonomic opinions change and the herbarium material is too old for, e.g., genetic study.

Alaska. Hultén (1968a) is still a baseline even if more than 40 years old, but very many records have been added to the Checklist due to more recent field work and study of the collections in the Fairbanks (ALA) herbarium. There has, however, not been a full systematic survey of this herbarium or of other U.S. or Canadian herbaria with more recent Alaskan collections. We suspect that Alaska might be an area where more additions to the Checklist could be made just by an inventory of existing data and material. Our experience is that even if there are competent local Alaskan botanists, this state and its flora is given too little attention by most botanists stationed in the 'Lower Forty-eights', and that the locals are too few to cover taxonomy and biogeography in this large and floristically very rich region.

Canada. The baseline for the arctic parts is still mainly Porsild and Cody (1980) supplied by the modern flora of Aiken et al. (2007), and for the Yukon Territory the modern flora of Cody (1996, 2000). However, Aiken and Cody organized for the Checklist a systematic survey of the major collections in Ottawa (CAN, DAO) and partly in Montreal (MT) and other herbaria. They have also added records from the Yukon Territory archives and from ongoing provincial flora projects in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, and the Arctic Archipelago (Nunavut and NWT). The Canadian records in the Checklist are therefore assumed to be up-to-date as far as current knowledge reaches. However, only smaller parts of these arctic collections have been critically revised for taxonomic complexities. Also in Canada the attention given to the northernmost parts has been declining, especially as a formerly very important institution with a huge arctic competence – DAO – now focuses more on agriculture and less on general land-use, diversity, and conservation.

North America in general. The ongoing Flora of North America generally updates the information for both Alaska and Canada appreciably. The project is just now (2010) half completed and we have had access to some treatments not yet published. Another important source for North America for an important family is Soreng et al. (2003, Catalogue of New World Grasses).

Greenland. The single most important source of information for Greenland is the Copenhagen herbarium (C). This unique arctic collection is currently and for the foreseeable future without attached staff specializing in arctic plants. The Panarctic Flora project has had no collaborator active in Copenhagen or Greenland and no resources for the Checklist editors to consult the Copenhagen herbarium systematically (or for extensive travel in Greenland). This means that we must rely on the published accounts, which are relatively up-to-date with maps for all plants recorded in southern, western, and northern Greenland (Feilberg 1984a; Fredskild 1996; Bay 1992) but not published yet for eastern Greenland. These accounts are, however, based on the taxonomic conclusions from 20–50 years ago and insufficient for several major groups (e.g., Cerastium, Papaver, Poa, Potentilla, and Puccinellia). It also means that in the cases where these treatments apply a wider or a different circumscription of taxa from what we apply for the Checklist, we have not been able to adjust it. The Flora of North America project includes Greenland but this part of North America (sensu lato) is in general given little attention by the majority of the FNA authors.

In summary, the Checklist probably presents an adequate survey of the current knowledge and documentation of the arctic flora, except for Greenland.

Symbols

The following symbols are used in the distribution table: