Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130. With 6 figures Quantitative botanical diversity descriptors to set conservation priorities in Bakhuis Mountains rainforest, Suriname BRUNO G. BORDENAVE1*, JEAN-JACQUES DE GRANVILLE2 and KATE STEYN3 1 BGB Consultance – Tropical Botany, 9 Route des Grandes Roches, 29910 Trégunc, France IRD – Herbier de Guyane, Route de Montabo – BP165 – 97323 Cayenne Cedex – Guyane 3 SRK Consulting, Cape Town, 183 Main Road, Albion Springs 7700 Rondebosch, South Africa 2 Received 6 January 2011; revised 6 May 2011; accepted for publication 10 June 2011 Within the framework of a flora and vegetation study carried out in the Bakhuis Mountains in Suriname, South America, descriptors of plant species and habitat biodiversity were used to set local-scale botanical conservation priorities. Species’ diversity and habitat heterogeneity indices, relative scarcity, fragility indices for habitats and ratios of species of concern, such as rare, endemic or subendemic taxa, were processed through a multi-criteria analysis to determine a conservation priority index. One of the main objectives of the study was the setting of defensible conservation priorities at a local and regional scale. Results are discussed, with a focus on land use planning and biodiversity conservation in one of the three major evergreen rainforest regions in the world. Among the 13 vegetation types described in the study perimeter, two that were restricted in area were considered to be of higher concern for wildlife conservation: meso-xeric dwarf thickets found on latero-bauxitic hardcap hilltops, with a distinctive floristic composition, and Buxus citrifolia mesic forest patches, described for the first time in Suriname. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: biodiversity – Buxus citrifolia – meso-xeric thickets – quantitative analysis – vascular plants – vegetation. INTRODUCTION Setting conservation priorities in a vegetation mosaic as complex and remote as an evergreen rainforest is both essential and a great challenge. An adequate knowledge of each of the ecosystem components is necessary to enable comparison and ranking of the various habitats for conservation planning purposes. Traditional field methods can be employed to assess vegetation typology, species’ composition, distribution and scarcity, species’ and habitat diversity and structural characteristics to inform this ranking. However, when the study area is large and inaccessible, field results must be interpolated over the entire study area, and this requires the application of more interpretative techniques. Furthermore, a comparison of *Corresponding author. E-mail: bruno.bordenave@wanadoo.fr 94 data at a regional scale is required to inform conservation planning, but this is limited by the heterogeneity of available datasets from other sites. The characterization of the vegetation and floristics that was undertaken as part of an Environment and Social Impact Assessment of a potential bauxite mining project in Suriname provided a unique opportunity to carry out this research. Extensive field surveys were undertaken to provide relevant baseline information for the prediction and management of the potential impact of bauxite mining over the largely unstudied area in the Bakhuis Mountains, Suriname. This required the characterization of the diversity of forest habitats and the determination of the species’ diversity and sensitivity of the terrestrial vegetation over an extensive area using standard analyses. However, the challenge arose in determining how to contextualize this information in a regional conservation framework. A © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME multi-criteria analysis tool was required to enable a comparative assessment and ranking of conservation priorities at the regional scale; both the different habitats and the sensitivity of vegetation types distinguished at a local scale had to be taken into account. A typology was proposed to distinguish the vegetation types observed in the study perimeter. Each vegetation type was characterized by the forest structure analysed through the population density and dimensions of the trees and woody climbers. Several quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators of species’ and habitat biodiversity were proposed: (1) species’ diversity and habitat heterogeneity indices; (2) ratio of species considered to be of concern for conservation; (3) habitat scarcity index; (4) habitat vulnerability index; and (5) ratio of monocotyledons to dicotyledons, the latter being paraphyletic. These indicators enabled an overall evaluation to be made of conservation importance, comparing these vegetation types through a unique multi-factor index combining them. One of the most important objectives of the study was the setting of defensible conservation priorities at local and regional scales. MATERIAL AND METHODS REGIONAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREA The Guiana Shield covers approximately 2.5 million km2 in the north-east of South America. The Shield is bordered by the Orinoco, Rio Negro and Amazon Rivers and lies between 4°S/11°N and 48°E/58°W. The Guiana Shield thus comprises the Venezuelan regions south and east to the Orinoco River (Bolivar, Amazonas and Delta Amaruco States), the part of Brazil north of the Rio Negro and Amazon Rivers (Amapa, Roraima, northern Para and Amazonas), eastern Columbia and an area referred to as ‘the Guianas’: Guyana (231 800 km2), Suriname (173 840 km2) and French Guiana (Guyane) (84 000 km2). Harbouring over 15 000 vascular plant species, approximately one-third of which are endemic, the Guianas are considered to be one of the three major tropical wilderness eco-regions in the world (Mittermeier et al., 1990). The Guianas region is characterized by its Precambrian bedrock, the Guiana Shield itself. In the upland interior, this bedrock formed a peneplain. The peneplain is largely eroded, with fragments of residual laterite hardcaps forming tabular hills and mountains. These hills and mountains are eroded and incised by the hydrographic network and are sometimes covered by detrital crystalline materials, such as white sands, which harbour dry forests and savanna vegetation. In the lower lying coastal plain, 95 Quaternary marine alluvia overlie the bedrock where it dips downwards. At a regional scale, the highest peaks are sandstone formations, such as the Roraima plateaus shared by Brazil, Guyana and Venezuela, the Pakaraima Mountains in Guyana, Tafelberg in Suriname and the tepuis in Venezuela (de Granville, 1991). The vegetation of the Guiana Shield is composed of a patchwork of natural and anthropogenic ecosystems (forest, swamps, savannas and agriculture), with evergreen tropical rainforests covering the vast majority of the territory: the forest continuum in the Shield constitutes 25% of the remaining rainforests worldwide. The main vegetation types encountered in the Guiana Shield can be listed as follows, according to Lindeman & Mori (1989): strand vegetation (beach vegetation), mangrove, savanna, herbaceous swamp, swamp forest, marsh forest, seasonal evergreen forest (or seasonal wet forest), mountain vegetation and inselberg (granite outcrop) vegetation. Suriname can be divided into three main geomorphological areas. The Coastal Plain is a strip of land along the coast, 50–70 km wide, lying 0–11 m above mean sea level (amsl). This area is differentiated into the ‘Young Coastal Plain’ (Demerara Formation), consisting largely of swampy, clay alluvial deposits, and the ‘Old Coastal Plain’ (Coropina Formation), consisting of swampy clays and sand ridges of marine and river origin. Mangroves cover the saltwater and brackish areas near the coastline, and are gradually replaced inland by fresh water swamps and shrub vegetation, followed by different types of herbaceous swamps, swamp forest and mesic forest on welldrained ground. The Savanna Belt (Zanderij Formation) is situated at about 10 m amsl. This area is characterized by poor sandy soils with variable clay content, covered by shrub savannas, xeric to mesic forest and, in places, swamp forest and herbaceous swamp vegetation. The Interior, covering some 85% of the country, consists of alternating hills and lowlands and low to medium mountains (reaching 1230 m at Juliana Top, the highest point), mostly covered by pristine evergreen tropical rainforests (FAO, 1996). The Bakhuis study area is located in the Interior (Fig. 1). Low population pressure has contributed to the impressive record of Suriname of having among the highest proportions of intact natural forest (> 80%) compared with other tropical countries. The forests form a continuum with those of neighbouring Guyana and French Guiana, which are also largely undisturbed. There is a large overlap between the Surinamese flora and those of its neighbouring countries and, although there is a low rate of endemism in the country itself, endemism is much more significant at © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 96 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. Figure 1. Map of Suriname with the location of the Bakhuis Mountains Bauxite Exploration Concession and Central Suriname Natural Reserve. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME the Guiana Shield regional scale (35%). In addition to the Bakhuis Mountains area, other ironstone and laterite-capped hills occur in the north-eastern and central parts of Suriname in the Brownsberg, Nassau and Lely Mountains and in the south-central parts of the country, to the west of Juliana Top and in the Kayser and Eilerts de Haan Mountains. Significant botanical data are available for Brownsberg, Lely and Nassau, but only limited and fragmentary knowledge exists for the southern regions. The Central Suriname Natural Reserve (CSNR) was declared in 1998 and was recognized as a World Heritage Site by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2000. At its nearest point, the western boundary of the CSNR lies approximately 15 km east of the Bakhuis study area. Covering some 1.6 million ha, the reserve comprises a vast tract of undisturbed tropical rainforest, encompassing a variety of ecosystems, including the upper watershed of the Coppename River. Its forests harbour a high diversity of plant and animal life, and the CSNR represents one of the largest protected areas of undisturbed, uninhabited primary forest in the tropics. As a result of the enormous size of the reserve and difficult access, a characterization of the vegetation types and a detailed floristic inventory have yet to be carried out in the reserve. LOCAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREA The study area extends over almost 2800 km2, representing approximately one-third of the Bakhuis Mountain range. The Bakhuis Mountains reach an elevation of 1000 m amsl in the most southerly extent, but are generally characterized by a series of hills and plateaus that reach a maximum elevation of 500 m amsl, interspersed with steep valleys and a few larger plains. Almost the entire area is covered with primary tropical rainforest. Except for the main track and network of secondary roads and exploration lines within the exploration concession area, the area is mostly inaccessible. The first recorded botanical survey undertaken in the northern section of the Bakhuis Mountains was led by Maas and Florchultz in 1964–65 with vouchers housed at Utrecht University, now transferred to the Leiden Herbarium. Several specimens are cited in the Flora of Suriname (Pulle et al., 1932–1984) and in the first issues of the Flora of the Guianas (Görts-van Rijn et al., 1985–2009). The lowlands in the northern and north-western areas of the Bakhuis Mountains were surveyed during the 1970s as part of the development of the Bakhuis–Apoera railroad, increasing the knowledge of the vegetation and flora between the Kabalebo area and the upper Nickerie River (Maas, 1971; FAO, 1996) and along the railroad track. The Suriname State Forest Service (SBB) carried out a 97 commercial timber inventory in 1985 in the north of the Bakhuis Mountains, with limited available quantitative data. Orchid collections were also made in the area with specimens housed at the BBS National Herbarium of Suriname (Werkhoven, 1986). In 1994, Teunissen & Van Troon studied the canopy trees in the northernmost area of the concession. The main vegetation in the concession can be broadly described as follows: Inundated forests (‘wetland forest’ or ‘forest on hydromorphic ground’): marsh forest on temporarily or seasonally flooded soil and swamp forest on permanently inundated soil. Until now, few data were available on these forest types in the area (Lindeman & Moolenaar 1959). Teunissen (1978) provided a vegetation map of the Apoera area showing marsh forest dominated by Mora excelsa Benth. bordering the Corantijn River region. Mesic forest (‘high dryland forest’ or ‘terra firme forest’), occurring on relatively well-drained soils on hilltops and slopes. Mesic forest is the most abundant vegetation type in the Bakhuis area, with high levels of biodiversity and of commercial timber. Mora bukea forests, dominated by Mora gonggrijpii (Kleinh.) Sandwith, are mentioned without detailed forest records available for the area. ‘Liana’ forests, reported as being the remnants of pre-Columbian shifting cultivation fields, are mentioned by Lands Bosbeheer (LBB, Suriname Forest Service). Meso-xeric vegetation (or ‘savanna’ forest) occurs on impermeable laterite and bauxite outcrops with sparse topsoil, alternately waterlogged during the rainy season and dry during the dry season. This vegetation type, ranging from medium height forest to dwarf brushy thicket, depending on soil depth, is the most mature sylvigenic state in all stony areas with very thin topsoil. FIELD SURVEYS AND SELECTION OF STUDY SITES Three field surveys were undertaken across a range of seasons: long dry season (24 September–21 October 2005), long rainy season (1–21 April 2006) and short rainy season (29 November–16 December 2006). To obtain a representative sample of the vegetation of the concession area, 50 study sites were selected for detailed assessment. Within the study sites, 10 transects with forest profiles and 11 plot series were studied. Additional floristic collections were carried out whilst traversing tracks and cut lines en route to study areas and in the vicinity of camps. FLORISTIC INVENTORY In order to understand the botanical diversity of the study area, a list of terrestrial vascular plant species, © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 98 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. including monocotyledons, dicotyledons and ferns, was compiled. Except for a few records, the aquatic vegetation of the area was not specifically studied. Cronquist’s classification of flowering plants, still commonly used by the flora of the Guianas botanists, was followed in this article (rather than APG III, 2009; the standard system used in this journal). Some plants were positively identified in the field and were thus not collected as herbarium specimens. Herbarium voucher specimens were collected and preserved, by pressing and drying, in order to deposit full sets at the University of Paramaribo Herbarium (BBS) with duplicates at the Cayenne Herbarium (CAY) and at the University of Utrecht Herbarium (U), now transferred to Leiden (L), when possible. In total, 626 vouchers were prepared, 308 in October 2005, 240 in April 2006 and 78 during December 2006. Vouchers were mainly identified on site and in CAY. Several taxonomic specialists also kindly contributed to the identification of some species. The species’ list and herbarium collections were increased by a large photographic collection. VEGETATION TYPOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION The vegetation types in the study area were described on the basis of the following factors. Physical features: (1) geomorphology; (2) topography; and (3) soil moisture. Floristic composition: (1) dominant and characteristic species (e.g. Croton argyrophylloides Müll.Arg., Mora gonggrijpii trees, Euterpe oleracea Mart. palms, terrestrial bromeliads); and (2) presence of distinctive life-forms (lianas, abundant mosses, palms, epiphytes). Population structure: (1) tree and liana diameter [diameter at breast height (dbh) ⱖ 5 cm for trees, dbh ⱖ 2 cm for lianas]; (2) class distribution, height and tree density; (3) average canopy height and heterogeneity; and (4) presence of emergent trees. PLOT SERIES: FOREST STRUCTURE AND BIODIVERSITY INDICES Forest structure and biodiversity indices (species’ diversity/alpha diversity and habitat heterogeneity/ beta diversity) were compared for different vegetation types in the study area using plot series sampling. This allowed an in-depth analysis of vegetation to be made over a relatively small surface area. All vascular plants in the plots were sampled, including the understorey layer, trees and woody climbers. The data provided by these plot samples complement the floristic inventory by including sterile plant specimens that were not otherwise collected (although their identification is more difficult than that of fertile specimens). This sampling protocol also provides additional detailed data at a large scale (over a small surface area) of the vegetation described in the forest profiles, with information on the composition, dimensions and density of the understorey plant populations. Eleven plot series, generally consisting of five 100-m2 plots per series (but, in a few cases, three, four or six plots), were delimited in patches of homogeneous vegetation representative of the variety of vegetation types in the study area. Individual plots were circumscribed by a line fixed to flag-taped stakes, enabling a complete inventory to be made of all accessible species rooted inside the perimeter. The following data were recorded for each plot: 1. Number and abundance of all vascular plants with preliminary identifications. 2. Number and abundance of individual trees (dbh ⱖ 5 cm) with preliminary identification based on vernacular names provided by local ‘tree spotters’ (Surinamese residents, not trained in formal botanical sciences, but with extensive and reliable knowledge of trees and plants with their vernacular names). 3. Diameter at breast height of trees (dbh ⱖ 5 cm) and lianas (dbh ⱖ 2 cm). 4. Estimated height of trees (dbh ⱖ 5 cm) and lianas (dbh ⱖ 2 cm) using a measured reference tree for calibration. 5. Vouchers for taxonomic identification in cases in which the local name was ambiguous, including samples of fallen leaves and fruits, and notes on the characteristics of the bark and trunk, including the presence and shape of buttresses, to aid further identification. Forest structure Forest structure is presented graphically for each plot series with dbh on the x-axis and estimated height on the y-axis. The tree density (number of individual trees with dbh ⱖ 5 cm per ha) is also indicated. Species’ diversity and habitat heterogeneity indices From the species’ count per plot and for each plot series at a study site, a graph of the average number of species (y-axis) was plotted against the surface area (x-axis), enabling the calculation of indices for species’ diversity and for habitat heterogeneity, on the basis of a semi-logarithmic normal model species–area curve [ y = l ln(x) + g], where y is the number of species and x is the surface area (Gleason, 1922; Fisher, Corbet & Williams, 1943; Preston, 1948; Palmer, 1990). The slope l is a determinant of the species’ diversity (SDI) and the ratio –g/l is a determinant of the habitat heterogeneity (HHI), both independent of the sampling area (Bordenave, 1996). Eleven plot series were © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME assessed for all accessible vascular plants (i.e. terrestrial herbs, shrubs, treelets, trees and climbers). Family importance value The family importance value (FIV; Mori et al., 1987) was calculated for each plot series. This index enables a comparison to be made of species’ composition with relative dominance (linked to tree size), relative abundance (linked to the number of individuals) and relative diversity (linked to the number of species) for families of trees (dbh ⱖ 10 cm) present in the plots. PROFILES – DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETATION TYPES At a smaller scale (over larger surface areas), the distribution of vegetation types was undertaken by generating forest profiles along transect lines. Sampling was limited to medium and large trees (dbh ⱖ 10 cm) and climbers (dbh ⱖ 5 cm). Nine profiles of 500–1000 m in length and 5 m in width were studied over forest transects, providing tree population structure and composition data over areas of 2500–5000 m2 (0.25–0.5 ha) each. The total surface area covered by these profiles is 2.5 ha (25 250 m2). Vegetation profiles showing the change in vegetation type in conjunction with topography, soil moisture and pedological features were compiled along eight transects (Fig. 2). An additional transect was made in a dwarf meso-xeric thicket found in the southern part of the study area. At each location, geomorphological features, such as rock outcrops, ridges, slopes, creeks and rivers, and soil moisture were noted. Linear distances and elevation were recorded or estimated by GPS, and were validated with a barometric altimeter. The average height of tree crowns, density of trees and lianas, and aspects of the undergrowth were also noted and sketched for each profile. SPECIES 99 range in French Guiana (Hoff et al., 2002); (4) listed on the French Guiana ‘Natural Heritage Plant Species List’ by the French Guiana Natural Heritage Scientific Board in1997 (CSRPN, Conseil Scientifique Régional du Patrimoine Naturel); (5) endemics at regional or country scale, or eco-endemics (endemism for a distinctive and restricted biota, e.g. inselberg outcrop or laterite hardcap) at the limit of or disjunct from their main distributional range or with a circum-Amazonian distribution [species with distributional ranges extending throughout northern South America and sometimes Central America, but with a large gap in the Amazonian region, explained by past climatic changes (Prance, 1973; de Granville, 1992, 1994)]. The CSRPN criteria for the determination of species with conservation value (Bordenave, 1997) are as follows. 1. Endemism to a country or phytogeographical region (e.g. the Guiana Shield). 2. Natural rarity of a species (including those present in well-represented habitats). 3. Limit/disjunction to main distributional range: subpopulations found in restricted areas. 4. Fragility as a result of seasonal dependence on different biota. 5. Link to a particularly restricted or threatened habitat. 6. Increasing rarity as a result of habitat reduction or exploitation, particularly for species with slow renewal of generations. 7. Unique characteristics of the species: cultural, pedagogic or historical value. 8. Particular agronomic, forestry, pharmaceutical or other economic value. 9. Phylogenetic uniqueness: single species representing a taxonomic group. 10. Vulnerability to pollution, particularly for riverine, aquatic and estuarine species. OF CONCERN FOR CONSERVATION Species of concern were designated on the basis of a number of criteria: (1) listed as ‘Rare’ or ‘Vulnerable’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Conservation Monitoring Center of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP-WCMC) and/or the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Trees Comity (CSMTC); (2) listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as species vulnerable to exploitation through trade; (3) listed as ‘totally protected’ in French Guiana (Ministry Bill, July 5th, 2001) – although most of these species are presumably also rare in Suriname, some may be more abundant outside French Guiana, especially if their distribution is disjunct from their main distributional QUANTITATIVE BIODIVERSITY INDICES FOR SETTING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES To be able to determine which vegetation types in the study area should be considered of premium, moderate or lower conservation importance, a number of criteria were used. Species diversity and habitat heterogeneity indices In each plot set, the number of vascular plant species is considered as the sampling area increases. The species diversity index (SDI), independent of surface area, is calculated from the slope of the lognormal species–area curve. In Bakhuis, it ranges from 18 to 40 in the most species-rich vegetation. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. Figure 2. Transect 8 (1000 ¥ 5 m) showing the gradient of vegetation habitats from foot to hilltop. 100 © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME The habitat heterogeneity index (HHI) is a descriptor of habitat diversity, independent of surface area, also calculated from the species–area curve equation (b/a) (Bordenave, 1996; Bordenave, de Granville & Hoff, 1998). In the study area, it ranges from 2.5 to 4.0 in the most heterogeneous vegetation. Ratio of species of concern Among the identified vascular plant species, the ratio of those determined to be of concern for conservation (according to the criteria presented above) was calculated for each vegetation type. This ratio (ratio of species of concern, RSC) is one of the indicators used to compare the relative conservation value of these vegetation types. Relative scarcity index The surface area of each primary vegetation type was estimated from the vegetation map. The more restricted is a vegetation type in the study area, the more important it is in terms of local conservation priorities. The relative scarcity index (RSI) is inversely proportional to the relative surface area related to the actual extent of each habitat. Habitat fragility index The ability of vegetation to recover after disturbance is quantified through a habitat fragility index (HFI). Regeneration processes studied along mining lines on the Kaw Mountain in French Guiana between 1997 and 2004 showed that forests recovered differently depending largely on the soil conditions. Taking into account the specificity of the geomorphology and soils of different forest vegetation types, an index ranging from 1 to 5 (Bordenave, Raes & de Granville, 2000) provides a semi-quantitative indicator of habitat fragility and potential recoverability. The index values are defined as follows: (1) very favourable forest regeneration potential; (2) favourable forest regeneration potential; (3) uncertain forest regeneration potential, significant risks of organic soil erosion; (4) low forest regeneration potential, high risks of organic soil erosion; (5) very low forest regeneration potential and obvious risks of soil erosion and desertification. Ratio of monocotyledons to dicotyledons The ratio of monocotyledons to dicotyledons (M/D) is a good indicator of the levels of environmental limitation (de Granville, 1984). In the case of temporarily or permanently inundated vegetation, more monocot species are expected to be present as they are able to tolerate flooding and high groundwater levels better than dicot species. This is also the case in water deficit conditions, with monocots more resistant than dicots. In both cases, the M/D ratio will be higher, 101 whereas a low M/D ratio is indicative of weak water stress, typical of mesic forest on deep, well-drained ground. Overall evaluation of the conservation importance of different vegetation types The analysis presented below combines the results of the five criteria described above, namely SDI, HHI, RSC, RSI and HFI. These five criteria provide quantitative and semi-quantitative data for this analysis. A determination index (DET) results from the multicriteria analysis of these indices for each habitat. DET is calculated as follows (Bordenave et al., 2000), with the choice of fixing an even weight to each individual index: DET (hab.) = SDI (hab.) HHI (hab.) RSC (hab.) + + + ∑ SDI ∑ HHI ∑ RSC RSI (hab.) HFI (hab.) + ∑ RSI ∑ HFI RESULTS FLORISTICS Species’ inventory In all, 584 vascular plant species were identified from voucher specimens (around 94% of the samples collected have been identified to species’ level). In addition, 177 common or distinctive species that could be identified with certainty in the field were recorded but not collected. The total number of vascular plant species identified in the study area was therefore 763 (de Granville, Bordenave & Gonzalez 2008). These were distributed among 337 genera belonging to 112 families of vascular plants. The species’ list for herbarium vouchers collected during this research is presented in the Appendix. Of the 584 species in herbarium collections, 542 were spermatophytes (seed-plants), 541 of which were angiosperms (flowering plants) and one was a gymnosperm (a species of Gnetum L.). Forty-one were pteridophytes and one was a bryophyte. Species of concern Among the 584 vascular plant species identified from herbarium vouchers, 53 were considered to be of concern for conservation issues: six species were listed as ‘totally protected’ in French Guiana (Ministry Bill, April 9th, 2001); three were listed in the CITES protected species’ lists; five were listed as ‘Rare’ or ‘Vulnerable’ by IUCN, UNEP-WCMC and/or CSMTC; 14 other species were listed on the French Guiana ‘Natural Heritage Plant Species List’ (CSRPN 2000) used as a reference tool for plant conservation © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 102 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. in the Guianas; the others were species’ endemics at regional or country scale, or eco-endemics in disjunction of their distributional range. Vegetation typology A classification of all vegetation observed in the area was proposed, derived from the present study. The vegetation types (five classes, 13 types) of the Bakhuis Mountains are listed below. A Inundated forest (IF) (forest on temporarily or permanently inundated soil). A.1 Marsh forest (IFM). A.2 Euterpe oleracea swamp forest (IFS). A.3 Riverine forest (IFR). B Mesic forest (MF) (forest on well-drained ground). B.1 Mesic forest on plateaus, hilltops and slopes (MF). B.2 Mesic Mora gonggrijpii forest (‘Mora bukea’ forests) (MF-M). B.3 Mesic Buxus citrifolia Spreng. forest on slopes (MF-B). C Low meso-xeric vegetation (LXV) (seasonally dry forests on laterite and bauxite hardcaps). C.1 Low meso-xeric Croton argyrophylloides Müll.Arg. forests on laterite hardcaps (LXF). C.2 Dwarf meso-xeric Myrtaceae and Euphorbiaceae thickets on hardcaps (DXT). D Liana forest (L) (disturbed forest with impeded regeneration because of dense liana populations). D.1 Liana forest on hydromorphic ground (IF-L). D.2 Mesic liana forests (MF-L). D.3 Low meso-xeric liana forests (LXF-L). E Secondary vegetation (SV) (early stages of forest regeneration after natural or anthropogenic disturbance). E.1 Low pioneer vegetation (LPV). E.2 Secondary forest (SF). PLOT COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF BIODIVERSITY INDICES FOR PLOT SAMPLES Table 1 presents a synthesis of the data treatment of the 11 plot series sampled during this study. The number of families and species recorded in each sample, the average number of species per 100 m2, and the M/D ratio, an indicator of the degree of environmental constraints of the habitat (de Granville, 1984), are given. The quantitative biodiversity indices SDI and HHI are provided, together with the log-normal correlation coefficients. These enable a comparative analysis to be made of biodiversity levels among samples and the estimated number of species per hectare for samples to be calculated. The average forest height and dimensions of the highest emerging trees are also noted, as well as the tree density for dbh ⱖ 10 cm. All species’ biodiversity indicators (total number of families and species in each plot series, average number of species per 100-m2 area, SDI and estimated number of species per hectare) demonstrate the following trends (Table 2). HHI mostly follows the same trend. The M/D ratios are also presented in the table. Species’ diversity by vegetation type can be ranked as follows: MF > IF >> LXF > MF-B > DXT. Habitat diversity can be ranked in the following order: MF > IF > MF-B >> LXF/DXT. The M/D ratio shows a value for inundated forests twice that for tall mesic forests, demonstrating the obviously stronger soil constraints in floodable vegetation. The values found in Buxus citrifolia forest and low meso-xeric forests are comparable with those of mesic forests. The most notable value is that for dry thickets showing the degree of specialization of the plant population to this habitat, which experiences high temperatures and dry conditions during parts of the year: monocot species are overwhelming here. SAMPLING: FOREST STRUCTURE AND BIODIVERSITY INDICES The structure of the vegetation in each plot series was elucidated through forest structure graphs, in which estimated plant height was plotted against trunk diameter measured at breast height (dbh). The density of trees and climbers, the average canopy height and the presence of emergent trees were represented in these graphs. An example is provided in Figure 3, but, because of the number generated in the study, each graph is not reproduced in this article. SDI, HHI and FIV (Fig. 4) were calculated from these datasets to illustrate species–area relationships (Fig. 5). FLORISTIC COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT VEGETATION TYPES The species’ and habitat diversity indices are useful for the analysis of the differences between distinct vegetation types, but it is noteworthy that the ratios of rare and endemic species (species of concern) do not necessarily follow the trends described above. The ratios of species of concern recorded in each of the various vegetation types were compared as a function of the total number of species collected in each vegetation type. Among the forest types described in the study area, the driest, meso-xeric thickets support the highest proportion of species of concern (16.7%). The Buxus citrifolia forest, never © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 Plot series FT No. Fam No. Sp No. Sp/ 100 m2 M/D Sample size SDI HHI R2 Estim Sp/Ha Canopy height (m) Emerg.T (m) Tree density Site 6 Site 8 Site 15 Site 19 Mean MF Site 10 Site 12 Site 14 Mean IF Site 13 Site 16 Mean LXF Site 18 Site 32 Average MF MF MF MF MF IF IF IF IF LXF LXF LXF MF-B DXT ALL 46 43 43 43 43.8 36 45 40 40.3 35 35 35 25 25 37.8 96 77 76 89 84.5 58 95 98 83.7 63 70 66.5 42 53 74.3 30 25 28 36 29.8 24 30 28 27.3 31 41 36 21 33 29.7 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.24 0.31 0.23 0.26 0.06 0.15 0.105 0.17 0.79 0.22 500 500 500 500 500 600 500 500 533 400 400 400 300 300 455.6 39.89 32.10 29.95 32.9 33.71 20.47 35.30 35.76 30.51 22.7 20.85 21.78 19.21 18.2 27.94 3.94 3.92 3.72 3.55 3.78 3.50 3.81 3.81 3.71 3.26 2.67 2.97 3.55 2.79 3.50 0.976 0.980 0.989 0.996 0.985 0.993 0.993 0.987 0.991 0.996 0.998 0.997 0.994 0.999 0.991 210 170 165 186 182.8 117 191 193 167 135 136 135.5 109 117 157.2 35–40 30 35–45 40 37 40 30 35–40 35.8 15 15–16 15 30–40 10–12 – 45 40 50 45–50 46 50 40–45 55 49 20 18 19 45 13 39 900 540 460 780 670 620 590 480 563 800 875 838 667 700 690 FT, forest type (DXT, dwarf meso-xeric thicket; IF, inundated forest; LXF, low meso-xeric forest; MF, mesic forest; MF-B, Buxus citrifolia mesic forest). No. Fam, number of families; No. Sp, number of species; No. Sp/100 m2, average number of species in 100 m2; M/D, ratio of monocots/dicots; Sample size, plot series surface area in m2; SDI, species diversity index; HHI, habitat heterogeneity index; R2, log-normal correlation coefficient; Estim Sp/Ha, estimated number of species per hectare; Canopy height (m), average canopy height in metres; Emerg. T (m), emerging tree height in metres; Tree density, number of trees (diameter at breast height = 10 cm)/ha. Bold type in indicates the most distinctive values. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 Table 1. Comparative summary of biodiversity indices for plot series samples 103 104 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. Forest structure graph - Site Bakhuis 006 - Plots 001 - 500 m² 50 H (m) 45 Strychnos eugeniifolia Swartzia arborescens Martiodendron parviflorum Eperua cf. rubiginosa Parabignonia sp. Platonia insignis Abuta rufescens Ocotea glomerata Norantea guianensis Eperua cf. rubiginosa 40 35 Chimaris turbinata Swartzia schomburkiana 30 Pouteria cf. glomerata 25 20 15 10 5 Astrocaryum scipohylum DBH (cm) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Forest structure graph - Site 013 Plots 005 - 400 m² 50 height (m) 40 30 Peltogyne paniculata Micrandra brownsbergii Machaerium 20 Crudia cf. glaberrima sp. 2 Myrtaceae sp. 5 10 diameter DBH (cm) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 F ore s t s tru c tu re g ra p h - S ite 01 5 - P lot s e rie 0 0 7 5 0 0 m² 60, 0 H (m ) Mora g rong rijp ii Mora g rong rijp ii H ip pocra teac eae sp. 50, 0 Co urata ri stel lata Cu rarea cand ida ns 40, 0 Ep erua falca ta S w artzi a sc homb urgk ii M ora g rongri jpi i 30, 0 20, 0 M acrol obi um ang ustifo liu m 10, 0 Astro acry um scio phy llu m D B H (cm ) 0, 0 0 ,0 2 0, 0 4 0, 0 6 0, 0 80, 0 10 0, 0 12 0, 0 Figure 3. Example of rainforest structure graphs in plot series in the Bakhuis area: plot 1, tall mesic forest on hill top; plot 3, tall ‘pina palm’ inundated forest; plot 5, low meso-xeric forest on laterite/bauxite hardcap; plot 6, tall inundated forest on flat alluvial ground; plot 7, tall mesic ‘Mora bukea’ forest; plot 9, Buxus citrifolia forest on bedrock. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME Structure graph - Site Bakhuis 010 - Plot serie 003 - 500 m² 60 H (m) Erisma cf. uncinatum Coussapoa sp. 1 Caraipa cf. densifolia 50 Tontelea cylindrocarpa Cordia cf. goeldiana 40 Apeib a echinata 30 Erisma cf. uncinatum Sclerolob ium cf. guianense var guianense 20 (broken tree) 10 DBH (cm) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Woody plant graph - Plots Bakhuis 006 500m² - GPS 014 60,0 Height (m) Licania densiflora Bignoniaceae sp. 50,0 Connaraceae sp. Cedrella odorata Licania densiflora Swartzia schomburgkii 40,0 Inga leiocalycina 30,0 20,0 10,0 DBH (cm) 0,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 Structure graph Area 18, plots 09 - 300 m² 50 Height m Eriotheca cf. Ecclinusa guianensis surinamensis Terminalia amazonica 40 Ecclinusa guianensis Peltogyne venosa 30 Tetrapteris sp. Micrandra brownsbergii 20 10 DBH cm 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 3. Continued © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 105 106 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. Figure 4. Examples of family importance value (FIV) graphs for trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) > 10 cm in plot set 3 – tall ‘pina palm’ (Euterpe oleracea) inundated forest – and for both trees with dbh > 10 cm and woody climbers with dbh > 2 cm in plot set 8 – low meso-xeric forest on laterite hardcap. DomR is the relative dominance, DivR is the relative diversity and AbR is the relative abundance. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 107 Species area curves in 7 pot sets 100 nb species site 16 plots 08 90 80 site 15 plots 07 70 60 Site 14 plots 06 50 Site 13 plots 05 40 30 Site 12 plots 04 20 10 area m² Site 8 plots 02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Figure 5. Examples of species–area curves in seven plot sets: plot 2, mature mesic forest on hill slope; plot 4, inundated forest on alluvial ground; plot 5, low meso-xeric forest on laterite/bauxite hardcap; plot 6, tall inundated forest on flat alluvial ground; plot 7, tall mesic ‘Mora bukea’ forest; plot 8, Buxus citrifolia forest on bedrock. Table 2. Average species’ diversity (SDI) and habitat heterogeneity (HHI) indices and monocot/dicot ratio (M/D) Vegetation type SDI HHI M/D Tall mesic forests Tall inundated forest Low meso-xeric forests Buxus citrifolia forest Dwarf meso-xeric thicket 33.71 30.51 21.78 19.21 18.2 3.78 3.71 2.97 3.55 2.79 0.13 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.79 Bold type indicates the most distinctive (highest) values. previously described in the Guianas region, vulnerable because of its restricted occurrence and high RSC (14.3%), is regarded as being of high conservation value. Tall mesic forest on ridges and slopes ranks third in terms of the proportion of species of concern, with a ratio of 8.9% of the total number of plants recorded. The low meso-xeric ‘Croton’ forests show a lower percentage of 6.3%. Lastly, swamp and marsh forests appear to harbour the lowest RSC, with only 4.7%. No sensitive species were identified in liana forests, a forest habitat that appears to be a deviation from the normal sylvigenic cycle following some disturbance: it occurs on a variety of pedo-geological conditions (rock outcrops, hydromorphic and well-drained ground) and in most of the main vegetation types. Some trends emerged from the comparison of the species of concern in each vegetation type: 1. Particularly in mesic forests, but also in inundated forests, the species of concern are mostly endemic and near-endemic species of the Guianas (eight for dryland and three for wetland forests), including two species restricted to the mountains of Suriname: Oxandra surinamensis Jans.-Jac. and Malmea surinamensis Chatrou. 2. Conversely, in drier low forests and dwarf thickets, as well as in Buxus citrifolia mesic forests on granite bedrock, the majority of species of concern recorded are species at the edge of their distributional range, some of which are listed as rare, sensitive or vulnerable species by various national and international bodies (CITES, UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, CSRPN). The species situated in the limit of their distributional range are almost exclusively species found in drier and more mountainous regions of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (Amphilophium cf. aschersonii Ule, Monotagma secundum K.Schum., Heisteria cf. insculpta Sleumer), sometimes reaching Central America (Buxus citrifolia, Dimerocostus strobilaceus Kuntze, Solanum aff. Adhaerens Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.). One species, rare in the Guiana Shield, shows a circum-Amazonian distribution [Selaginella cf. erythropus (Mart. Spring)]. Two species are, however, endemic to Suriname and © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 108 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. Table 3. Determination index (DET) for habitat conservation prioritization Habitats SDIr HHIr RSCr RSIr HFIr DET Dwarf meso-xeric thicket (DXT) Buxus citrifolia forest (MF-B) Tall mesic forest crest (MFc) Tall mesic forest slope (MFs) Low meso-xeric forest (LXF) Tall inundated forest (IF) Total 2.32 2.44 4.29 4.29 2.78 3.88 20.00 2.86 3.42 3.64 3.64 2.86 3.57 20.00 5.59 4.78 2.98 2.98 2.11 1.57 20.00 6.61 6.61 1.65 1.10 2.36 1.65 20.00 4.44 3.33 3.16 3.16 4.21 2.11 20.00 21.82 20.58 17.72 15.17 14.32 12.78 100% HFIr, relative habitat fragility index; HHIr, relative habitat heterogeneity index; RSCr, relative rare species of concern index; RSIr, relative scarcity index; SDIr, relative species diversity index. Bold type indicates the most distinctive values. restricted to these drier habitats: Oxandra surinamensis Jans.-Jac. and Byrsonima surinamensis W.R.Anderson. One species, Calycorectes batavorum McVaugh, is thought to be a strict endemic to the Bakhuis Mountains. Vegetation distribution In terms of the overall distribution, tall mesic forest is overwhelmingly dominant in the study area, covering some 50% of the total surface area. For the purpose of later analysis, mesic forests on slopes (MFs) and on crests (MFc) are differentiated. Inundated forest types also cover a significant proportion of the study area (20%), and are distributed evenly throughout the concession. The Buxus citrifolia mesic forest covers only 5% of the surface area (estimated from ground studies), and is restricted to a few sites in the northern half of the concession; the dwarf meso-xeric thicket also covers around 5% of the surface area, and is located mainly in the southern half of the area. QUANTITATIVE BIODIVERSITY INDICES FOR SETTING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES Species’ diversity and habitat heterogeneity indices Quantitative indicators of both species’ diversity (a diversity) and habitat heterogeneity (b diversity) for the various vegetation types are summarized and compared, providing crude SDI and relative (SDIr) values as a percentage of the overall cumulative values, as well as crude HHI and relative (HHIr) values. Ratio of species of concern The ratio of species of concern to the total number of species is recorded in each of the main forest habitats, as presented above. Relative scarcity index The scarcity index is also recorded in association with the relative surface area of each primary vegetation type. When considering RSI, Buxus citrifolia mesic forest and dwarf thickets are the most restricted habitats in terms of surface area. The values for low meso-xeric ‘Croton’ forest are moderately high in the Bakhuis area, although it seems to occur infrequently outside this mountain range. Habitat vulnerability index The highest values (4) are given for low and dry vegetation with the shallowest soils, intermediate values (3) for mesic forests on slopes, and lowest values (2) for forest on crests and inundated forests on flat ground with generally deep alluvial soils. Overall evaluation of the conservation importance of different vegetation types DET for the prioritization of habitats for conservation purposes, as calculated above, is presented in Table 3 and represented graphically in Figure 6, indicating the contribution of each criterion given as relative values (r). It enables a comparison to be made of a conservation value for each forest type. It should be noted that these values consider the forest types in relation to the other forest types in the study area, not to forest types outside the study area. The relative ratio of species of concern (RSCr) and the relative surface index (RSIr) appear to be the main drivers of DET. This comparative analysis of the main primary vegetation types described in this study highlights two restricted forest habitats as being of highest concern for habitat and species’ conservation: 1. Dwarf meso-xeric thicket is the most floristically distinct, vulnerable to disturbance and restricted vegetation type, very rich in rare and sensitive species, although its SDI and HHI are low. 2. Buxus citrifolia forest is equally restricted in surface area, less vulnerable to disturbance but harbours a large proportion of species of concern. Its species’ diversity is slightly higher and this © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 109 Figure 6. Multi-criteria analysis for a conservation priority determination index in the forest types in the study area. MF-B, Buxus citrifolia mesic forest; DXT, dwarf meso-xeric thicket; LXF, low meso-xeric forest; MFs, mesic forest on slopes; MFc, mesic forest on crests; IF, inundated forest. vegetation type is slightly more heterogeneous when compared with dwarf meso-xeric thicket. Tall mesic forest (MF) on both crests (MFc) and slopes (MFs) has intermediate DET. MF shows high species’ diversity and habitat heterogeneity and a significant proportion of species of concern, many of which are endemic to the region or the area. However, this forest type is widespread in the region, particularly MFs. Low meso-xeric forest also displays intermediate values for conservation issues. However, the scarcity of laterite plateaus (on which it stands together with DXT) as a habitat at a regional scale (not taken into account in the estimation of the relative surface area of vegetation types, which is restricted to the study area) should be considered for the conservation of this vegetation. Inundated forests have the lowest value. They are less species rich and more likely to recover from disturbance because of more favourable environmental factors. Furthermore, these forests host the lowest proportion of species of concern and cover a significant proportion of the study area (estimated at 20%). However, this vegetation is closely linked with the hydrological regime and its disturbance may have serious consequences for the biological and physical characteristics of the aquatic environment. It was noted in a few places that, where stream and river crossings were constructed in the concession without adequate drainage, the upstream-inundated forest was drowned, sometimes over significant areas. These forests are particularly sensitive to fairly small changes in water levels. Therefore, although showing the lowest conservation priority values, wetlands should be considered to be important for hydrological and ecological regulation. DISTINCTIVE VEGETATION DESCRIPTION Among the 13 vegetation groups found in the study area, the following two are the most distinctive, according to both physiognomy and biodiversity determination index. Buxus citrifolia mesic forest (MF-B) This highly restricted forest type has not yet been described in the Guianas region. It was only observed on three sites midway up hill slopes in the northern part of the study area. The pedological conditions were characterized by the presence of outcropping crystalline bedrock boulders. The generally low canopy (c. 15–25 m) is discontinuous, allowing significant light to reach the forest floor. The forest is characterized by the dominance of Buxus citrifolia (Buxaceae), a rare species in Suriname (UNEPWCMC ‘Rare’, at the easternmost limit of its distributional range), which is usually associated with Esenbeckia pilocarpoides Kunth (Rutaceae) and Vitex compressa Turcz. (Lamiaceae). The latter two species, present at each site, are small- to medium-sized trees. The understorey harbours many small trees, but the density of shrubs and herbs is low and the floristic composition is highly variable: in places, Rinorea cf. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 110 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. riana Kuntze (Violaceae) is generally dominant, whereas, elsewhere, a dense population of Conchocarpus heterophyllus (A.St.-Hil.) Kallunki & Pirani (Rutaceae) is present. In addition to Buxus citrifolia, two other very rare species are found in MF-B, namely Malmea surinamensis Chatrou (Annonaceae), endemic to the mountains of Suriname, and Selaginella aff. erythropus, which is a potentially new species or related/co-specific to S. erythropus, and therefore a new record for the Guiana Shield. Dwarf meso-xeric Myrtaceae and Euphorbiaceae thickets on hardcaps (DXT) This vegetation type occurs in very restricted patches in the southern part of the study area. It is characterized by shrubby growth along its margins and a very low tree layer (on average 5 m high). It represents the most reduced form of forest on laterite and bauxite hardcaps as a result of the following limiting environmental conditions: (1) an almost complete absence of organic soil over the outcropping hardcap; and (2) significant temporary drought during the dry season because of the minimal water retention capacity of the substrate. Physiognomically, it most closely resembles the thicket vegetation observed on granite inselbergs (rock savannas) in other parts of Suriname and the Guianas, despite growing on a quite different substrate. Only four patches of this vegetation type were encountered during the field surveys, although several other patches were seen during the aerial survey over the study area, and a number of other such patches were located during analysis of the satellite imagery. Although this thicket vegetation contains several species in common with low meso-xeric forest (LXF), significant differences in the species of treelets and shrubs present within the two plant families were noted. Many Myrtaceae (Myrcia guianensis DC., M. aff. pyrifolia, M. saxatilis (Amshoff) McVaugh, M. sylvatica DC.) and Rubiaceae (Chiococca nitida Benth., Guettarda spruceana Müll.Arg., Ixora graciliflora Benth., Psychotria bracteocardia Müll.Arg., P. hoffmannseggiana Müll.Arg. and the rare Rudgea crassiloba B.L.Rob.) were found only in the thicket. A rare, small-leaved treelet in Ochnaceae, Quiina aff. wurdackii Pires (potentially new to science), was relatively frequent and characteristic of this particular habitat. Another characteristic species is the small Malpighiaceae tree Byrsonima surinamensis, ‘Secrepatu kers’, endemic to Suriname, and probably an eco-endemic of laterite hardcaps. Woody climbers of moderate dimensions are also well represented: Mandevilla scabra K.Schum., Matelea cremersii Morillo, a species of Connaraceae, Norantea guianensis Aubl., Coccoloba sp. (potentially new to science) and, above all, Bignoniaceae species (Anemopaegma cf. chrysoleucum, Lundia erionema, Memora sp.). The species found in this vegetation type tend to be more restricted in occurrence compared with those found in the surrounding mesic and inundated forests. In addition to the species of concern listed above, the following species are considered rare and restricted to this vegetation type: Calliandra hymenioides (Fabaceae Mimosoideae), Neea cf. constricta Spruce ex J.A.Schmidt (Nyctaginaceae), Ouratea leblondii (Tiegh.) Lemée (Ochnaceae) and Phoradendron strongyloclados Eichler (Santalaceae). Dense populations of terrestrial bromeliads, well adapted to these dry conditions, may proliferate, sometimes forming almost monospecific undergrowth populations, e.g. Guzmania aff. lingulata Mez and Vriesea splendens (Brongn.) Lem. Aechmea bromeliifolia Baker ex Benth. & Hook.f., A. melinonii Hook. and Tillandsia flexuosa Mez also occurred in scarce populations. The presence of populations of two infrequent species of wild pineapple, Ananas ananassoides (Baker) L.B.Sm. and A. nanus (L.B.Sm.) L.B.Sm., must be highlighted, following World Bank Guidelines as wild gene banks for important agricultural plants: both of these relatively rare species are endemic to the Guiana Shield. Within this vegetation, at moderately high elevation (mostly > 300 m), the nocturnal dew and persistent mists favour the growth of herbaceous epiphytes, especially orchids and Araceae. In one single site, > 60 species of orchid, including two wild species of Vanilla Mill., were distinguished. Although some of the orchids found at Bakhuis are common with Brownsberg, Lely and Nassau Mountain species, several distinctive species, including some extremely rare taxa, were present. The other vegetation types, although showing some differences in species’ composition when compared at a regional scale, are more common and widespread throughout the Guianas. These were described in some detail in the original baseline study, but these descriptions are not presented in this article. DISCUSSION The conservation of rainforest biodiversity in the Guianas is a major challenge for the coming decades, as development progresses and population pressures increase (Gentry & Dodson 1987; Bordenave & de Granville 1998). How do we reconcile wildlife and biodiversity conservation with fair and equitable sustainable development in these tropical countries? The sound management of the natural heritage of the Guianas requires a combined effort from scientists, local and indigenous people, nature conservation institutions, nongovernmental organizations, corporations and institutional decision-makers. The method presented in this article to set localscale conservation priorities takes into account a © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME variety of biodiversity criteria (species’ and habitat diversity, proportion of rare species, relative surface area and regeneration capacity of habitats) at the scale of a large, but localized, study area. It identifies areas within the study area in which regional-scale conservation efforts should be focused. However, this method has its limitations. In this work, the study perimeter was large (2800 km2) and a significant proportion of the area was inaccessible. Therefore, the sampling undertaken for the study only provided a relatively small sample of the actual flora and vegetation of the area. A total area of 5000 m2 (0.5 ha), delimited in 11 plot sets in the various identified vegetation types, was comprehensively inventoried for all vascular plant species, which provides detailed information on the flora and vegetation in each habitat, over a small area. The diversity of understorey species is considered to be well represented over this area and captured by the plot samples. The larger, woody species (trees and large climbers) require a larger sampling area to gather in-depth floristic diversity data. To this end, transects and profiles were sampled, covering a much larger area of 2.5 ha. The difficulty in harvesting fertile vouchers (fertile specimens of trees and lianas are often at heights of 30–50 m above ground level) remains a major limitation to species’ identification in the field. The same limitation arises with tall-standing epiphyte species, which are hardly taken into account in forest species’ diversity. Vernacular names provided by skilled ‘tree spotters’ improve the evaluation of actual tree species’ diversity, but new species and subspecies are difficult to distinguish from similar known taxa in this manner. The collection of vouchers from low branches, juvenile trees and fallen flowers or fruit helps to identify taxa. However, there are unavoidable instances when fertile vouchers are lacking. Despite the limitations caused by the lack of regional-scale information, the conservation priority setting protocol and the resultant analysis, derived from a large set of field data (with precise species’ composition and structure of the various vegetation types present in a given area), provides an effective tool for the ranking of conservation priorities and for the consequent management of development programmes. The distribution of vegetation types in the study area is an intricate patchwork, determined largely by factors such as the type and degree of fracturing of the substrate, slope and soil drainage and seasonal changes in wetness of the habitat. Other factors, such as palaeoclimatic changes, dispersal limitations and density dependence (Volkov et al., 2005), and natural disturbances caused by storms and floods, may have played a role in structuring the present-day forest: a mosaic of vegetation types dominated by mesic and inundated forests, with distinctive remnants of xeric 111 flora, represented by low, dry thickets and by low Buxus citrifolia forest patches. Among the 13 vegetation types observed during this study, two habitats emerged as restricted in distribution, vulnerable to disturbance, with distinctive vegetation harbouring a significant proportion of rare and endemic species: dwarf meso-xeric thicket and Buxus citrifolia forest. According to the results of the multi-criteria analysis, these habitats are considered to be of a higher level of conservation concern at a regional scale than the other vegetation types present in the study area. In addition, low ‘Croton’ forest is also of conservation concern, as the potential for this forest to regenerate on its very thin topsoil is limited. The other vegetation types, more widespread at both the local and regional scale, nevertheless also require protection as far as possible: these forest types harbour a large set of plant species of different life forms, including rare and endemic species, and a rich fauna that is currently almost totally unexposed to human activity. An understanding of the changes that have occurred to the vegetation of the Guianas region through geological time can provide useful insights into the current distribution patterns and diversity of vegetation. Palaeoclimatic studies have elucidated the climate variations that occurred during the Quaternary era (Ab’Saber, De Boer, Van Geel & Tricart, cited by de Granville, 1994). The cold, drier climate that occurred during the Tertiary era glacial ages alternated with warmer, wetter interstadial periods. During the last long glacial episode (the Würm period between 22 000 and 13 000 BP), the ensuing drought probably caused a significant retreat of the rainforest in tropical South America, which remained only along rivers as gallery forests and in deep, sheltered valleys in hilly and mountainous areas. The remaining vegetation appeared to harbour an association of more drought-resistant species with semi-deciduous forests and more extensive savannas. At the end of these extended drying periods, the rainforest species once again spread from the remnant patches in which they had persisted, whereas the more xerophytic species retreated to drier, more exposed areas, namely the white sands, rocky outcrops and laterite hardcaps. This improves the prediction of the conservation priorities for the future, in the light of the adaptation potential of ecosystems and plant populations. Considering the potential for climate change and the consequent implications for conservation, it is also important to place the current distribution and pattern of vegetation types in a palaeo-historical context. For mid- to long-term conservation planning, it is important to consider that the maintenance of habitat diversity is essential to ensure adaptation potential for climate change: if the climate becomes drier, xeric © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 112 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. species found in meso-xeric dwarf thicket and low forest vegetation require adequate representation in gene and seed banks to facilitate a range extension; conversly, if the climate becomes wetter, remnant patches of more xeric vegetation will tend to disappear locally, increasing their conservation importance. The two xeric vegetation types present in the study area are ranked as the highest priority for conservation within this area. However, the vegetation types that dominate the study area, low and dry ‘Croton’ forest, tall mesic and inundated forests, also merit conservation and protection in terms of the maintenance of the high biodiversity that they support. CONCLUSIONS Reconciling development and land use planning pressures with biodiversity conservation needs remains one of the key challenges in one of the three major remaining evergreen rainforest eco-regions in the world. This often directly conflicting issue was highlighted by this study, where a vegetation type, such as the dwarf meso-xeric thicket, with a high conservation priority, is restricted to the substrate that contains a valuable mineral. A common limitation of detailed biological studies in remote and largely unstudied areas, such as the Bakhuis Mountains, is that the study area immediately becomes a ‘hot spot’ for biodiversity conservation, as the distribution and occurrence of species and habitats outside of the study area are poorly acknowledged. To ensure that the conservation value of species and vegetation types is properly understood and correctly prioritized in order to inform decisions regarding sustainable development of natural resources, it is essential that conservation prioritization at a local scale is integrated and contextualized at a regional scale. Given the small geographical area of each of the constituent countries of the Guiana Shield, this regional context generally extends beyond national boundaries. It is therefore essential that cooperation and knowledge sharing within the region should continue to be fostered, particularly in the fields of botany, forest ecology and conservation science. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The original flora and vegetation study of the Bakhuis Mountains was carried out as part of the environmental assessment of a proposed bauxite mining project led by BHP Billiton/Suralco. Our study was coordinated by SRK Consulting, who managed the Environment and Social Impact Assessment for the project. The authors wish to thank the following: Frits Van Troon, who provided invaluable input to tree identifications, with incomparable skill and great kindness; Pieter Teunissen, for his introduction to the Bakhuis vegetation and help with the listing of specimens, for voucher export purposes and contact with Suriname research and conservation administrations; Johnny James, who also contributed significantly to the tree identification and for his kind help in the botanical samplings; Imro Van Troon, for his efficient assistance in the botanical collections; all the BBS Suriname Herbarium team and, specifically, Joeliaka Beharie-Ramdas, Iwan E. Molgo and Gisla S. Doerga for their participation and help in the field; and the Cayenne Herbarium staff, especially Françoise Crozier and Michel Boudrie, who very diligently processed the herbarium vouchers with the help of the Flora of the Guianas Network of Taxonomic Specialists. Great thanks are due to Andy Witcomb, BHP Billiton Environment Supervisor, and to all the BHP Billiton team for their welcome at the Bakhuis base camp and constant help during our field work, especially to Steve Chin A. Foeng, Raouël, Delano, Dwight and Tony for their contribution and kind help in Bakhuis, for effective support and on-site coordination of the environmental studies, as well as for safely driving our team exactly where we needed, sometimes through difficult terrain, and for organizing the fly camps. Thanks are due to STINASU and SBB authorities for research and sample export permits. Special thanks are due to Suzanne Reuther and Christopher Dalgliesh of SRK Consulting for efficient coordination of the field and desk work, and to Mike Steyn of Aspire Solutions and Adriaan Van Niekerk of Stellenbosch University for their decisive contributions to the satellite imagery processing and vegetation mapping. REFERENCES APG III. 2009. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 105–121. Bordenave BG. 1996. Mesures de la diversité spécifique des plantes vasculaires en forêt sempervirente de Guyane. Thesis, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris 6. Bordenave BG. 1997. Réflexion sur les méthodes de détermination des espèces et des habitats patrimoniaux de Guyane – réunion du CSRPN de Guyane, 22, 23 et 24 octobre 1997. Cayenne: Conseil Scientifique Régional du Patrimoine Naturel (CSRPN). Ecobios Ed. Bordenave BG, de Granville JJ. 1998. Les mesures de biodiversité: outil de conservation en forêt guyanaise. JATBA, Revue d’Ethnologie 40: 433–446. Bordenave BG, de Granville JJ, HOFF M. 1998. Measurement of species richness of vascular plants in a neotropical rainforest, French Guiana. In: Dallemeier F, Comiskey J, eds. Forest biodiversity in North, Central and South America: research and monitoring. MAB Series Vol. 21. Paris: UNESCO, 411–425. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME Bordenave BG, Raes N, de Granville JJ. 2000. Etat initial de la végétation forestière de la Montagne de Kaw 2. Rapport de Mission ASARCO. Cayenne: IRD Report. FAO. 1996. Suriname: country report to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, 1996). Paramaribo: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. May 31 1995. Fisher RA, Corbet AS, Williams CB. 1943. The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology 12: 42–58. Gentry AH, Dodson C. 1987. Tropical forests biodiversity: distributional patterns and their conservational significance. Oikos 63: 19–23. Gleason HA. 1922. On the relation between species and area. Ecology 3: 158–162. Görts-van Rijn ARA, Jansen-Jacobs MJ, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 1985–2009. Flora of the Guianas, Series A: Phanerogams. Fascicle 1–53. Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. de Granville JJ. 1984. Monocotyledons and pteridophytes: indicators of environmental constraints in tropical vegetation. Candollea 39: 265–269. de Granville JJ. 1991. Remarks on the montane flora and vegetation of the Guianas. Willdenowia 21: 201–213. de Granville JJ. 1992. Un cas particulier de distribution: les espèces forestières péri-amazoniennes. Workshop Phytogéographie des Guyanes. Sept. 1990, UNESCO, Paris. Compte-Rendus de la Société Biogéographique 68: 1–33. de Granville JJ. 1994. Rainforest and xeric flora refuge in French Guiana. In: Prance GT, ed. Biological diversification in the tropics. New York: Columbia University Press, 159– 181. de Granville JJ, Bordenave BG, Gonzalez S. 2008. Bakhuis Mountains (Suriname) flora and vegetation study in the frame of the Environment, Social and Impact Assessment Study for a BMS bauxite mining project (BHP Billiton & Suralco). ATBC Symposium, 9–13 juin 2008 – Paramaribo (Suriname). In: Lucas E, ed. Flora of the Guianas Newsletter n°16, special workshop issue. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, 38. Hoff M, de Granville JJ, Lochon S, Bordenave B, Hequet V. 2002. Elaboration d’une liste de plantes à protéger 113 pour la Guyane française. Acta Botanica Gallica 149: 339– 354. Lindeman JC, Moolenaar SP. 1959. Preliminary survey of the vegetation types of northern Suriname. The vegetation of Suriname 1: 1.45. Lindeman JC, Mori SA. 1989. The Guianas. In: Campbell DG, Hammond HD, eds. Floristic inventory of tropical countries. New York: New York Botanical Garden, 375– 390. Maas PJM. 1971. Floristic observations on forest types in western Suriname I. Proceedings of the Konikl Nederl Akademie van Wetenschappen – Amsterdam, Series C 74: 269– 302. Mittermeier RA, Malone SA, Plotkin MJ, Baal FLJ, Mohadin K, MacKnight J, Werkhoven MCM, Werner T. 1990. Conservation Action Plan for Suriname. Conservation International, National Report of Suriname. FAO Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. 65. Mori SA, Black D, Boeke JD, Boom BM, Cremers G, Mitchell JD, Prance GT, de Zeeuw C. 1987. The Lecythidaceae of a lowland neotropical rainforest: La Fumée Mountain, French Guiana. Memoires of the New York Botanical Garden 44: 1–190. Palmer AR. 1990. Predator size, prey size, and the scaling of vulnerability: hatchling gastropods vs. barnacles. Ecology 71: 759–775. Prance GT. 1973. Phytogeographical support for the theory of Pleistocene forest refuge in the Amazon Basin. Acta Amazonica 3: 5–26. Preston FW. 1948. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology 29: 254–283. Pulle A, Lanjouw J, Stoffers AL, Lindeman JC. 1932– 1984. Flora of Suriname Vol. 1–4. Amsterdam: J.H. de Bussy Ltd. Teunissen PA. 1978. Reconnaissance soil map of Surinam lowland ecosystems. (Coastal Plain and Savanna Belt), Scale: 1/200,000, Sheet 1–8. Volkov I, Banavar JR, He F, Hubbell SP, Maritan A. 2005. Density dependence explains tree species abundance and diversity in tropical forests. Nature 438: 658–661. Werkhoven MCM. 1986. Orchids of Suriname. Paramaibo: VACO. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 114 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX: SPECIES’ LIST – BOTANICAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN A SURINAME RAINFOREST 1. SPERMATOPHYTA Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria ACANTHACEAE Anisacanthus secundus Leonard Anisacanthus secundus Leonard Anisacanthus secundus Leonard Aphelandra pulcherrima (Jacq.) Kunth Hygrophila costata Nees Justicia calycina (Nees) V.A.W.Graham Mendoncia hoffmannseggiana Nees Ruellia rubra Aubl. Ruellia rubra Aubl. Carpotroche surinamensis Uittien Carpotroche surinamensis Uittien cf. Carpotroche Hymenocallis tubiflora Salisb. Anacardium spruceanum Benth. ex Engl. cf. Anacardium sp. cf. Loxopterygium Loxopterygium sagotii Hook.f. Anaxagorea dolichocarpa Sprague & Sandwith Anaxagorea dolichocarpa Sprague & Sandwith Anaxagorea dolichocarpa Sprague & Sandwith Anaxagorea dolichocarpa Sprague & Sandwith Anaxagorea sp. Duguetia calycina Benoist Duguetia riparia Huber Duguetia riparia Huber Duguetia cf. riparia Huber Duguetia sp. Guatteria wachenheimii Benoist Malmea surinamensis Chatrou Malmea surinamensis Chatrou Oxandra surinamensis Jans.-Jac. Oxandra surinamensis Jans.-Jac. Oxandra surinamensis Jans.-Jac. Unonopsis glaucopetala R.E.Fr. Ambelania acida Aubl. Aspidosperma oblongum A.DC. Aspidosperma sp. Geissospermum argenteum Woodson Geissospermum sp. Himatanthus drasticus (Mart.) Plumel Lacmellea aculeata (Ducke) Monach. Malouetia tamaquarina (Aubl.) A.DC. Mandevilla scabra (Roem. & Schult.) K.Schum Mandevilla scabra (Hoffmanns. ex Roem. & Schult.) K.Schum. Mandevilla symphitocarpa (G. Mey.) Woodson Matelea cremersii Morillo Matelea cremersii Morillo Prestonia cayennensis (A. DC.) Pichon Prestonia aff. megagros (Vell.) Woodson Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle 8579 8008 8190 8042 8099 8460 8511 8171 8295 8358 8469 8056 NC 8302 NC 8538 8249 8287 8057 8070 8237 8223 8419 8102 8162 8216 NC 8027 8256 NC 8120 8179 NC 8463 8069 8039 NC 8483 NC 8186 NC 8043 8409 8426 LXF LXF LXF IF MF IF LF IF IF IF MF MF IF MF MF LXF LXF IF MF MF MF LXF MF IF IF IF MF IF MF-B MF IF LXF MF IF MF MF MF MF MF LXF MF IF DXT LXF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS 8459 8368 8567 8615 8108 8447 MF DXT LXF DXT MF LXF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, ACHARIACEAE AMARYLLIDACEAE ANACARDIACEAE ANNONACEAE APOCYNACEAE BBS, US L, NY, US, BBS L, NY, US, BBS L, US, BBS BBS BBS, L, K, US BBS, US L, US, BBS US, BBS BBS, L BBS CAY CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY L, K, NY, BBS L, BBS BBS BBS L, US, BBS BBS BBS L, NY, BBS L, K, NY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, NY, BBS CAY, L, MO, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, L, US CAY, P, L, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, P CAY, BBS BBS BBS BBS, MERF BBS, P BBS BBS, P © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 115 APPENDIX Continued Family ARACEAE ARECACEAE ASTERACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle Tabernaemontana albiflora (Miq.) Pulle Tabernaemontana angulata Mart. ex Müll.Arg. Tabernaemontana angulata Mart. ex Müll.Arg. Tabernaemontana heterophylla Vahl. Tabernaemontana macrocalyx Müll.Arg. Tabernaemontana undulata Vahl). 8547 8583 8624 8182 8395 8362 LXF DXT DXT LXF LXF MF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY 8276 MF CAY 8167 8528 B 8125 IF MF MF Tabernaemontana undulata Vahl) . Tabernaemontana sp. Anthurium gracile (Rudge) Schott Anthurium pentaphyllum (Aubl.) G.Don Anthurium trinerve Miq. Caladium bicolor (Aiton) Vent. Dieffenbachia sp. Dieffenbachia paludicola N.E.Br. ex Gleason Philodendron billietiae Croat Philodendron billietiae Croat Philodendron linnaei Kunth Philodendron linnaei Kunth Philodendron solimoesense A.C.Sm. Philodendron sp. 1 Philodendron sp. 2 Philodendron sp. 2 Syngonium podophyllum Schott Xanthosoma cf. conspurcatum Schott. Astrocaryum gynacanthum Mart. Astrocaryum sciophilum (Miq.) Pulle Attalea guianensis (Glassman) Zona Attalea maripa (Aubl.) Mart. Attalea microcarpa Mart. Attalea (s.l.) sp. Bactris acanthocarpa Mart. Bactris maraja Mart. Bactris maraja Mart. Bactris cf. maraja Mart.? Bactris simplicifrons Mart. Desmoncus cf. polyacanthos Mart. Euterpe oleracea Mart. Geonoma baculifera (Poit.) Kunth Geonoma leptospadix Trail Geonoma maxima (Poit.) Kunth Geonoma maxima (Poit.) Kunth Hyospathe elegans Mart. Hyospathe elegans Mart. Oenocarpus bacaba Mart. Oenocarpus bataua Mart. Socratea exorrhiza (Mart.) H.Wendl. Unxia camphorata L.f. 8215 NC 8326 8270 8433 NC NC 8118 8444 8456 8525 NC 8280 NC NC NC 8482 8510 NC NC 8630 NC NC 8194 NC 8142 NC NC NC NC NC NC 8481 8620 8496 8294 8388 NC NC NC 8570 CAY, L, P, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, P, K, NY, BBS CAY, P, BBS IF MF MF CAY, MF-B CAY LXF CAY, IF MF IF CAY, LXF CAY, LXF CAY, DXT CAY, LXF MF CAY, IF MF-B IF MF CAY, IF CAY MF/IF MF/IF MF CAY MF/IF MF/LXF LXF CAY MF/IF IF CAY MF MF MF/IF IF IF IF MF CAY, MF CAY, MF BBS IF CAY, MF CAY MF/IF IF IF/MF/MF-B LXF CAY, © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 BBS, P BBS BBS, P L, P, BBS BBS, L, P BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS, MO BBS, NY BBS AA, BBS BBS 116 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria BIGNONIACEAE Amphilophium cf. aschersonii Ule Anemopaegma cf. chrysoleucum (Kunth) Sandwith Anemopaegma sp. cf. Anemopaegma sp.? Arrabidaea aff. pubescens (L.) A.H.Gentry 8474 8373 LXF DXT CAY, BBS, L, K, MO CAY, BBS 8036 8512 8123 MF SV MF Arrabidaea trailii Sprague 8201 MF Ceratophytum tetragonolobum (Jacq.) Sprague & Sandwith Lundia erionema DC. Memora moringifolia (DC.) Sandwith Memora racemosa A.H.Gentry Memora racemosa A.H.Gentry Memora racemosa A.H.Gentry 8199 MF CAY, MO, BBS CAY, BBS, MO CAY, BBS, L, US, MO, K, B CAY, BBS, L, US, MO, K, B CAY 8370 NC 8007 8154 8172 cf. Memora cf. Memora sp. Pithecoctenium crucigerum (L.) A.H.Gentry Pleonotoma cf. clematis (Kunth) Miers Genus indet. Cordia laevifrons I.M.Johnston 8528 A NC NC 8105 8153 8127 Cordia laevifrons I.M.Johnston Cordia nodosa Lam. Cordia sp. Tournefortia bicolor Sw. Tournefortia cuspidata Kunth Varronia polycephala Lam. Varronia schomburgkii (DC.) Borhidi Aechmaea bromeliifolia (Rudge) Baker Aechmaea bromeliifolia (Rudge) Baker Aechmaea melinonii Hook. Ananas ananassoides (Baker) L.B.Sm. Ananas cf. nanus (L.B. Sm.) L.B.Sm. Ananas cf. nanus (L.B. Sm.) L.B.Sm. Araeococcus micranthus Brongn. Guzmania lingulata (L.) Mez. Mesobromelia pleiosticha (Griseb.) Utley & H.Luther Pitcairnia cf. leprieurii Baker Racinaea spiculosa (Griseb.) var. spiculosa M.A.Spencer & L.B.Sm. Tillandsia flexuosa Sw. Tillandsia monadelpha (E.Morren) Baker Tillandsia monodelpha (E.Morren) Baker Vriesea heliconioides (Kunth) Hook. ex Walp. Vriesea splendens (Brongn.) Lem. Werauhia aff. gladiolifolia (H.Wendl.) J.R.Grant Protium sagotianum Marchand Buxus citrifolia (Willd.) Spreng. 8323 NC 8385 8079 8597 8349 8093 B 8400 8490 B 8429 8490 A 8454 8614 8397 8403 8601 DXT CAY, BBS, MO MF/MF-B LXF CAY, L, K, MO, BBS MF IF CAY, L, P, K, MO, BBS DXT CAY MF LF MF CAY, BBS MF CAY, L, BBS MF CAY, L, K, B, US, BBS MF CAY, BBS, US MF MF CAY, BBS LXF CAY, L, US, BBS IF CAY, BBS, US, K MF CAY, BBS, US MF CAY, L, K, US, BBS DXT CAY, BBS DXT CAY, BBS LXF CAY, BBS DXT CAY, BBS, L LXF CAY DXT CAY, BBS LXF CAY, BBS, L, NY DXT CAY, BBS DXT CAY, BBS NC 8602 IF DXT 8493 8137 NC 8168 8473 8497 A DXT IF LXF IF LXF SV 8265 8253 IF MF-B BORAGINACEAE BROMELIACEAE BURSERACEAE BUXACEAE CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L CAY, BBS CAY CAY CAY, BBS CAY © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 117 APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. CACTACEAE Epiphyllum phyllanthus (L.) Haw. var. phyllanthus Epiphyllum phyllanthus (L.) Haw. var. phyllanthus Celtis iguanaea (Jacq.) Sarg. Trema micrantha (L.) Blume Capparis flexuosa (L.) L. ssp. polyantha (Triana & Planch.) H.H.Iltis Capparis frondosa Jacq. Capparis aff. frondosa Jacq. NC LF 8573 LXF CAY, BBS, B 8499 8095 8519 MF MF SV CAY, BBS, L CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, L,WIS 8613 8520 DXT SV Capparis cf. maroniensis Benoist Capparis sola J.F.Macbr. 8273 8598-B MF DXT Capparis sp. Maytenus cf. guyanensis Klotzsch ex Reissek Maytenus cf. myrsinoides Reissek Peritassa laevigata (Hoffmanns. ex Link A.C.Sm. Peritassa laevigata (Hoffmanns. ex Link) A.C.Sm. Prionostemma aspera (Lam.) Miers 8177 8146 NC 8383 LXF IF MF DXT CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L, US, WIS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, WIS, US, L CAY CAY, L, US, NY, BBS 8413 DXT CAY, BBS 8097 MF 8134 8187 8115 8542 NC 8394 8494 8414 MF LXF IF IF MF SV DXT DXT CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, CAY, L, CAY, L, CAY 8274 MF CAY, BBS NC NC NC NC NC NC 8144 8166 MF MF IF MF MF IF IF IF CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, US, BBS 8518 8330 MF MF CAY, BBS, L, US 8522 8086 8418 8379 8344 8322 8192 8498 SV MF LXF DXT MF MF LXF IF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CANNABACEAE CAPPARACEAE CELASTRACEAE Tontelea cylindrocarpa (A.C.Sm.) A.C.Sm. CHRYSOBALANACEAE Hirtella hispidula Miq. Hirtella paniculata Sw. Licania cf. alba (Bernouilli) Cuatrec. Licania sp. CLEOMACEAE Cleome aculeata L. CLUSIACEAE Clusia nemorosa G. Mey. Clusia cf. schomburgkiana (Planch. & Triana) Benth. ex Engl. Garcinia benthamiana (Planch. & Triana) Pipoly Garcinia macrophylla Mart. cf. Moronobea coccinea Aubl. Symphonia globulifera L.f. Tovomita sp. COMBRETACEAE Buchenavia tetraphylla (Aubl.) R.A.Howard Terminalia dichotoma G.Mey. Terminalia cf. guyanensis Eichler COMMELINACEAE Commelina rufipes Seub. var. glabrata (D.R.Hunt) Faden & D.R.Hunt Dichorisandra hexandra (Aubl.) Standl. CONNARACEAE Cnestidium guianense (G.Schellenb.) G.Schellenb. Connarus patrisii (DC.) Planch. Rourea cf. frutescens Aubl. Rourea sp.?? Rourea sp.?? CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea phillomega (Vell.) House Maripa cf. densiflora Benth. Maripa reticulata Ducke Operculina sericantha (Miq.) Ooststr. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 Herbaria CAY MO, HRCB, BBS K, BBS K, NY, BBS CAY CAY, BBS, FTG CAY, BBS BBS L, BBS BBS, COL BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS, ARIZ 118 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria COSTACEAE Costus claviger Benoist Costus claviger Benoist Costus congestiflorus Rich. ex Gagnep. Costus scaber Ruiz & Pav. Dimerocostus strobilaceus Kuntze ssp. gutierrezii (Kuntze) Maas Gurania bignoniacea (Poepp. & Endl.) C.Jeffrey 씸 Flowers Gurania bignoniacea (Poepp. & Endl.) C.Jeffrey 씹 Flowers Gurania lobata (L.) Pruski Gurania aff. robusta Suess. Gurania subumbellata (Miq.) Cogn. 8387 8325 8402 8160 8514 MF MF LHF IF LHF CAY-BBS CAY-BBS CAY CAY–BBS CAY, BBS, L, NY 8479 LXF CAY, BBS, NY 8480 LXF CAY, BBS, NY 8195 8009 8324 MF MF MF 8159 NC NC IF IF IF CAY, K, NY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, L, K, P, NY CAY, BBS 8251 8540 8516 NC 8098 NC 8116 NC 8140 8059 8049 8328 NC NC 8357 8406 MF IF DXT MF/IF IF MF IF IF IF MF MF MF IF MF/IF MF LXF 8422 LXF CAY, BBS, IZTA 8021 LXF CAY, L, BBS 8279 8407 8327 LF DXT IF CAY CAY, BBS, B, F CAY, BBS 8175 8581 8018 8448 8586-B 8180 8580 8124 8492 8193 LXF DXT LXF LXF LXF LXF LXF MF MF IF CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, CAY-BBS CAY CAY, BBS, CAY, WIS, CAY, BBS, CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, FC CUCURBITACEAE Psiguria triphylla (Miq.) C.Jeffrey Asplundia brachyphylla Harling Bisboeckelera microcephala (Boeck.) T.Koyama. Calyptrocarya bicolor (H. Pfeiff.) T.Koyama Calyptrocarya glomerulata (Brongn.) Urban Diplasia karataefolia Rich. Diplasia karataefolia Rich. Mapania sylvatica Aubl. ssp. sylvatica Mapania sylvatica Aubl. ssp. sylvatica Rhynchospora cephalotes (L.) Vahl Rhynchospora cf. cephalotes (L.) Vahl Scleria latifolia Sw. DICHAPETALACEAE Dichapetalum rugosum (Vahl) Prance Tapura guianensis Aubl. Tapura guianensis Aubl. Tapura guianensis Aubl. DILLENIACEAE Genus indet. DIOSCOREACEAE Dioscorea altissima Lam. Dioscorea piperifolia Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. Dioscorea polygonoides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. Dioscorea cf. syringifolia Kunth & R.H.Schomb. ELAEOCARPACEAE Sloanea sp. ERIOCAULACEAE Paepalanthus fasciculatus (Rottb.) Kunth ERYTHROXYLACEAE Erythroxylum macrophyllum Cav. var. macrophyllum Erythroxylum squamatum Sw. Erythroxylum squamatum Sw. EUPHORBIACEAE Croton argyrophylloides Müll.Arg. Croton argyrophylloides Müll.Arg. Croton argyrophylloides Müll.Arg. Croton cajucara Benth. Croton cajucara Benth. Croton cf. nutians Croizat? (Juvenile form?) Croton schiedeanus Schltdl. Croton schiedeanus Schltdl. CYCLANTHACEAE CYPERACEAE CAY, L, P, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, K CAY, L, BBS CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, L, NY, BBS BBS L, BBS BBS, K CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L L, NY WIS BBS WIS WIS © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 119 APPENDIX Continued Family FABACEAE (CAESALP.) FABACEAE (MIMOS.) Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Croton schiedeanus Schltdl. Croton trinitatis Millsp. cf. Croton Dalechampia tiliifolia Lam. Mabea aff. speciosa Müll.Arg. Mabea aff. speciosa Müll.Arg. Manihot cf. anomala Pohl Manihot sp. Maprounea guianensis Aubl. Maprounea guianensis Aubl. Micrandra brownsbergensis Lanj. Micrandra brownsbergensis Lanj. Pausandra martinii Baill. Pausandra cf martinii Baill. Sagotia racemosa Baill. Sagotia racemosa Baill. Genera indet. Bauhinia cf. longicuspis Spruce ex Benth. Bauhinia siqueiraei Ducke Bauhinia siqueiraei Ducke Bauhinia siqueiraei Ducke Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench cf.var. disadena (Steud.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby Crudia aff. aromatica (Aubl.) Willd. Crudia aff. aromatica (Aubl.) Willd. Crudia aff. aromatica (Hub.) Willd. Crudia cf. spicata (Aubl.) Willd. Dimorphandra cf. pullei Amshoff Macrolobium cf. angustifolium (Benth.) R.S.Cowan Mora gonggrijpii (Kleinhoonte) Sandwith Paloue guianensis Aubl. Peltogyne venosa (Vahl) Benth. Peltogyne paniculata Benth. ssp. pubescens (Benth.) M.F.Silva Senna bicapsularis (L.) Roxb. Senna chrysocarpa (Desv.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby Senna latifolia (G. Mey.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby Vouacapoua americana Aubl. Abarema mataybifolia (Sandwith) Barneby & J.W.Grimes Acacia tenuifolia (L.) Willd. var. tenuifolia Calliandra hymenioides (Rich.) Benth. Cedrelinga cateniformis (Ducke) Ducke) Inga alba (Sw.) Willd. Inga retinocarpa Poncy Inga stipularis DC. Inga stipularis DC. Inga stipularis DC. Inga stipularis DC. Inga cf. umbellifera (Vahl) Steud ex DC. Inga cf. virgultosa (Vahl) Desv. Inga cf. virgultosa (Vahl) Desv. 8393 8150 8305 8084 8015 NC 8513 8111 8411 NC 8421 8535 8293 8058 8001 8109 8225 8291 8000 8278 8352 8083 LF MF MF MF MF MF/IF SV IF DXT MF/LXF LXF LXF MF MF LXF MF LXF MF LXF LF MF MF CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, CAY CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, 8104 8241 8267 8621 8004 A 8174 IF MF IF MF LXF LXF CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, NC 8354 NC 8006 MF MF IF LXF CAY 8202 8082 MF LXF CAY, L, K, US, BBS CAY, BBS 8093 A NC 8521 MF MF SV CAY, BBS 8090 8416 NC NC 8277 8243 8371 8472 NC 8176 8222 8226 MF LXF MF MF MF LXF DXT MF LXF LXF LXF LXF CAY, K, L, BBS CAY, P, L, K, NY, US © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 L, BBS BBS ALA, BBS L, US, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY, BBS, L BBS, L BBS, B BBS L, K, BBS L, BBS L, BBS L, K, US, BBS BBS L, NY, BBS BBS K, BBS BBS L BBS CAY, BBS, L CAY CAY, BBS CAY CAY, BBS, P CAY, BBS, P CAY, P, BBS CAY CAY, L, P, K, BBS 120 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family FABACEAE (PAPILION.) GENTIANACEAE GESNERIACEAE GNETACEAE GOUPIACEAE HAEMODORACEAE HELICONIACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Inga cf. virgultosa (Vahl) Desv. Mimosa sp. Pithecellobium sp. Pseudopiptadenia cf. psilostachya (DC.) G.P.Lewis & M.P.Lima Zygia racemosa (Ducke) Barneby & J.W.Grimes Alexa wachenheimii Benoist Andira sp. Bocoa prouacensis Aubl. Bocoa viridiflora (Ducke) R.S.Cowan Bocoa viridiflora (Ducke) R.S.Cowan Bocoa sp. Candolleodendron brachystachyum (DC.) R.S.Cowan Centrosema plumieri (Turpin ex Pers.) Benth Clitoria sagotii Fantz Dioclea scabra (Rich.) R.H.Maxwell var. scabra Dioclea macrocarpa Huber Lonchocarpus cf. heptaphyllus (Poir.) DC. Machaerium quinatum (Aubl.) Sandwith var. parviflorum (Benth.) Rudd Mucuna urens (L.) Medik Pterocarpus officinalis Jacq. Pterocarpus santalinoides L’Hér. ex DC. Rhynchosia phaseoloides (Sw.) DC. Rhynchosia sp. NC NC 8004 B 8333 MF IF LXF MF CAY, L CAY, BBS 8052 MF CAY, BBS 8495 A NC NC 8005 8533 NC 8275 IF MF MF LXF MF IF MF CAY, BBS, K 8206 8332 8152 IF IF MF CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, BBS 8122 NC 8307 MF MF FDH CAY, BBS 8158 NC 8156 8089 8133 MF IF MF MF MF Swartzia arborescens (Aubl.) Pittier Swartzia benthamiana Miq. Swartzia grandifolia Bong. ex Benth. Swartzia cf. schomburgkii Benth. Swartzia panacoco (Aubl.) R.S.Cowan Vigna caracalla (L.) Verde Voyria caerulea Aubl. Drymonia coccinea (Aubl.) Wiehler Paradrymonia cf. campostyla (Leeuwenb.) Wiehler Gnetum urens (Aubl.) Blume Goupia glabra Aubl. Xiphidium caeruleum Aubl. Xiphidium caeruleum Aubl. Heliconia acuminata Rich. ssp. acuminata Heliconia acuminata Rich. ssp. acuminata Heliconia bihai (L.) L. Heliconia bihai (L.) L. Heliconia chartacea Lane ex Barreiros Heliconia hirsuta L.f. Heliconia hirsuta L.f. Heliconia lourteigiae Emygdio & E.Santos Heliconia lourteigiae Emygdio & E.Santos Heliconia richardiana Miq. 8064 NC 8334 NC NC 8384 8053 8299 8298 MF MF MF MF MF SV MF IF IF 8306 NC 8065 NC 8092 NC 8343 NC 8501 8130 NC 8163 8500 8203 MF IF IF IF MF IF MF IF IF MF IF IF LHF IF CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, P, K, BBS CAY, K, BBS CAY, L, K, BR, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, K, NY CAY CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, NY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, NY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, P, L, US CAY © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 121 APPENDIX Continued Family HYPERICACEAE ICACINACEAE LAMIACEAE LAURACEAE LECYTHIDACEAE LOGANIACEAE LORANTHACEAE MALPIGHIACEAE MALVACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Heliconia richardiana Miq. Heliconia spathocircinata Aristeg. Vismia cayennensis (Jacq.) Pers. Pleurisanthes artocarpi Baill. Aegiphila racemosa Vell. Aegiphila villosa (Aubl.) G.F.Gmel. Vitex compressa Turcz. Vitex cf. compressa Turcz. Vitex triflora Vahl Vitex triflora Vahl Aniba megaphylla Mez cf. Aniba sp.? Endlicheria sp.? Couratari stellata A.C.Sm. Couratari sp. Eschweilera pedicellata (Rich.) S.A.Mori Eschweilera aff. pedicellata (Rich.) S.A.Mori Eschweilera sp. Lecythis zabucajo Aubl. Spigelia hamelioides Kunth NC NC 8198 8476 8497 B 8548 8272 NC 8321 8571 8508 8550 8361 NC NC 8173 8263 NC NC 8296 MF IF MF MF MF IF MF-B MF-B IF IF IF IF MF MF MF IF IF MF MF IF Strychnos erichsonii M.R.Schomb. ex Progel Strychnos cf erichsonii M.R.Schomb. ex Progel Strychnos eugeniifolia Monach. Strychnos medeola Sagot ex Progel Strychnos medeola Sagot ex Progel Strychnos medeola Sagot ex Progel Phthirusa stelis (L.) Kuijt Phthirusa stelis (L.) Kuijt Bunchosia argentea (Jacq.) DC. Byrsonima cf. laevigata (Poir.) DC. Byrsonima surinamensis W.R.Anderson Byrsonima surinamensis W.R.Anderson Byrsonima surinamensis W.R.Anderson 8390 8073 8063 8020 8410 NC 8233 8380 8165 NC 8364 8452 8565 LF MF MF LXF DXT MF LXF DXT IF LXF DXT LXF LXF Byrsonima surinamensis W.R.Anderson Heteropterys nervosa A.Juss. Hiraea affinis Miq. 8582 8244 8503 DXT LXF IF Hiraea fagifolia (DC.) A.Juss. Mascagnia surinamensis (Kosterm.) W.R.Anderson Mezia includens (Benth.) Cuatrec. Stigmaphyllon convolvulifolium A.Juss. 8386 8091 LF MF 8478 8106 MF MF Stigmaphyllon sinuatum (DC.) A.Juss. Tetrapterys styloptera A.Juss. 8081 8231 LXF LXF Genus indet. Apeiba glabra Aubl. Apeiba petoumo Aubl. cf. Bombax sp. Pachira dolichocalyx Robyns 8060 NC NC 8453 8103 MF MF IF LXF MF © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 Herbaria CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, L, BBS BBS BBS, L BBS, L, K, US BBS CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, BBS, L BBS, L BBS, MO BBS, MO CAY, L, P, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, U, P, B, NY, MO, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L, US CAY, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, MICH CAY, BBS, MICH CAY, BBS, K, L, US, MICH CAY, BBS, MICH CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L, P, MICH CAY, BBS, MICH CAY, L, K, NY, MICH, BBS, WRA CAY, BBS, L, MICH CAY, L, B, K, US, MICH, BBS CAY, L, MICH, BBS CAY, L, US, HRCB, BBS CAY CAY CAY, L, B, BBS 122 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Sterculia pruriens (Aubl.) K.Schum. Sterculia cf. pruriens (Aubl.) K .Schum. Theobroma subincanum Mart. MARANTACEAE Calathea altissima (Poepp. & Endl.) Körn. Calathea elliptica (Roscoe) K.Schum. Calathea elliptica (Roscoe) K.Schum. Calathea zingiberina Körn. Calathea zingiberina Körn. Hylaeanthe unilateralis (Poepp. & Endl.) A.M.E.Jonker & Jonker Ischnosiphon arouma (Aubl.) Körn. Ischnosiphon arouma (Aubl.) Körn. Ischnosiphon gracilis (Rudge) Körn. Ischnosiphon obliquus (Rudge) Körn. Ischnosiphon puberulus Loes. Monotagma secundum (Petersen) K.Schum. Monotagma spicatum (Aubl.) J.F.Macbr. MARCGRAVIACEAE Marcgravia pedunculosa Triana & Planch.. Norantea guianensis Aubl. MAYACACEAE Mayaca longipes Mart. ex Seub. MELASTOMATACEAE Aciotis purpurascens (Aubl.) Triana Aciotis aff. rubricaulis (Schrank & Mart. ex DC.) Triana Clidemia conglomerata DC. Henriettella caudata Gleason Miconia cf. affinis DC. Miconia chrysophylla (Rich.) Urb. Miconia lateriflora Cogn. Miconia plukenetii Naudin Miconia prasina (Sw.) DC. MELIACEAE Trichilia cf. surinamensis (Miq.) C.DC. MENISPERMACEAE Abuta rufescens Aubl. Abuta rufescens Aubl. Cissampelos fasciculata Benth. Curarea candicans (Rich. ex DC.) Barneby & Krukoff Disciphania sp.? Orthomene schomburgkii (Miers) Barneby & Krukoff Sciadotenia cayennensis Benth. 8268 NC 8504 NC 8389 NC 8114 NC 8506 A IF MF SV IF LF IF/MF IF MF IF CAY 8303 NC 8537 NC NC 8502 8259 8235 8515 8242 8161 8038 MF IF IF IF IF/MF LHF IF IF DXT A IF MF CAY, BBS 8034 8028 8037 8598-A 8470 NC 8467 8178 8072 8339 8568 NC IF IF MF DXT MF IF MF LXF MF IF MF-B MF/IF 8405 8468 LXF SV MORACEAE Bagassa guianensis Aubl. Brosimum rubescens Taub. Brosimum sp. Ficus nymphaeifolia Mill. Iryanthera hostmannii (Benth.) Warb. Virola cf. michelii Heckel Calycorectes batavorum McVaugh 8035 NC NC NC 8618 NC 8229 MF MF MF MF LXF MF LXF cf. Calyptranthes forsteri O.Berg? Calyptranthes pullei Burret ex Amshoff Eugenia cucullata Amshoff Eugenia excelsa O.Berg 8423 8396 8543 8628 LXF LXF LXF LXF MYRISTICACEAE MYRTACEAE Taxon 8626 CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, UMF, B CAY, BBS CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, BBS BBS BBS BBS, L CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, BBS P, L, NY, BBS L, US, BBS BBS, US BBS, US CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, BBS, P, US BBS L, NY, BBS L, US, BBS BBS BBS, B CAY, BBS, B, MO CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS, P, L, B, US CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, P, L, US CAY, L, K, BBS CAY, SEL CAY, BBS, CAY, BBS, CAY, BBS, US, SEL, SEL SEL SEL © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 123 APPENDIX Continued Family NYCTAGINACEAE OCHNACEAE OLACACEAE ONAGRACEAE ORCHIDACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Eugenia aff. feijoi O.Berg Eugenia aff. feijoi O.Berg Eugenia macrocalyx (Rusby) Mc Vaugh Eugenia macrocalyx (Rusby) McVaugh Eugenia patrisii Vahl Eugenia cf. ramiflora Desv. Eugenia wullschlaegeliana Amshoff Eugenia wullschlaegeliana Amshoff cf. Eugenia sp. 1 Myrcia citrifolia (Aubl.) Urb. 8348 8457 8181 8392 8629 8544 8353 8539 8545 8608 MF MF LXF LF LXF LXF SV LXF LXF DXT Myrcia guianensis (Aubl.) DC. Myrcia aff. pyrifolia (Desv. ex Ham.) Nied. Myrcia aff. pyrifolia (Desv. ex Ham.) Nied. Myrcia saxatilis (Amshoff) McVaugh Myrcia saxatilis (Amshoff) McVaugh Myrcia sylvatica (G.Mey.) DC. Myrcianthes prodigiosa McVaugh Genus indet. Genus indet. Genus indet. Neea cf. constricta Spruce ex J.A.Schmidt cf. Elvasia elvasioides (Planch.) Gilg Ouratea leblondii (Tiegh.) Lemée Ouratea leblondii (Tiegh.) Lemée Ouratea leblondii (Tiegh.) Lemée Ouratea schomburgkii (Planch.) Engl. vel Ouratea rigida Engl. Quiina aff. wurdackii Pires? Quiina aff. wurdackii Pires? Quiina aff. wurdackii Pires? Heisteria cauliflora Sm. Heisteria cf. insculpta Sleumer Minquartia guianensis Aubl. Ximenia americana L. var. americana Ludwigia sp. Brassia lawrenceana Lindl. Elleanthus cf. caravata (Aubl.) Rchb.f. Epidendrum purpurascens H.Focke Gongora sp. Heterotaxis villosa (Barb. Rodr.) F.Barros Jacquiniella globosa (Jacq.) Schltr. Koellensteinia kellneriana Rchb.f. Macradenia lutescens R.Br. Maxillaria alba (Hook.) Lindl. Maxillaria discolor (Lodd. ex Lindl.) Rchb.f. Maxillaria uncata Lindl. Palmorchis prospectorum Veyret or P. pubescens Barb. Rodr. Palmorchis pabstii Veyret or P. guianensis (Schltr.) Schweinf. & Correl Pleurothallis archidiaconi Ames Polystachya concreta (Jacq.) Garay & H.R.Sweet 8378 8446 8523 8367 8489 8527 A 8617 8269 NC 8526 A 8572 8220 8369 8372 8420 8604 DXT LXF DXT DXT DXT DXT DXT MF-B LXF DXT LXF LXF DXT DXT LXF DXT CAY, BBS, K, SEL CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, L, BBS CAY, SEL CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, BBS, SEL-K CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, BBS, P, K, L, SEL CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, BBS, SEL CAY, BBS, K CAY CAY, BBS CAY, BBS 8376 8487 8488 8236 8016 NC 8428 8264 8596 8434 8449 8430 8432 8435 A 8458 8401 8436 8442 8440 8068 DXT DXT DXT IF MF MF LXF A DXT LXF LXF LXF LXF LXF LXF LHF LXF LXF LXF IF CAY, CAY CAY, CAY CAY CAY, CAY CAY CAY CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, 8054 MF CAY 8609 8441 DXT LXF CAY, BBS CAY © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CAY CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY, CAY, BBS, K, MO BBS, P BBS, P BBS BBS BBS, MO BBS L, B, US, BBS BBS BBS, L, US BBS, MO BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS 124 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family OXALIDACEAE PASSIFLORACEAE PICRAMNIACEAE PIPERACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Polystachya amazonica Schltr. Prosthechea aemula (Lindl.) W.E.Higgins. Scaphyglottis cf. graminifolia (Ruiz & Pav.) Poepp. & Endl.. Scaphyglottis sp. Schomburgkia marginata Lindl. Stanhopea grandiflora (Lodd.) Lindl. Stelis argentata Lindl. Stelis santiagoensis Mansf. Vanilla sp. 8022 8431 8435 B LXF LXF LXF BBS CAY CAY 8438 8524 8491 A 8437 8610 8517 LXF DXT DXT LXF DXT MF Oxalis juruensis Diels Dilkea sp. Dilkea sp. Passiflora amoena L.K.Escobar Passiflora coccinea Aubl. Passiflora fuchsiiflora Hemsl. Passiflora fuchsiiflora Hemsl. Passiflora garckei Masters Passiflora cf. garckei Mast. Passiflora cf. garckei Mast. Passiflora glandulosa Cav. Passiflora laurifolia L. Passiflora laurifolia L. Passiflora cf. oerstedii Mast. Passiflora retipetala Mast. Passiflora rubra L. Passiflora serrato-digitata L. Passiflora vespertilio L. Passiflora vespertilio L. Passiflora vespertilio L. Passiflora vespertilio L. Turnera rupestris Aubl. 8204 8363 8477 8560 8085 8129 NC 8350 8107 NC 8290 8382 8464 8356 8564 8205 8600 8029 8066 8451 8465 8044 IF MF LXF MF-B MF MF IF SV MF LXF LF DXT MF MF LXF IF IF IF IF LXF MF IF CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, MO, CICY CAY, L, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, P, US, BBS Turnera rupestris Aubl. Turnera rupestris Aubl. Turnera cf. rupestris Aubl. Picramnia guianensis (Aubl.) Jans.-Jac. Picramnia guianensis (Aubl.) Jans.-Jac. Picramnia latifolia Tulasne 8563 8577 8594 8040 8534 8200 MF-B LXF DXT MF LXF MF Peperomia glabella (Sw.) A.Dietr. 8292 LF Peperomia macrostachya (Vahl) A.Dietr. Piper anonifolium (Kunth) C.DC. Piper anonifolium (Kunth) C.DC. Piper cf. anonifolium (Kunth) C.DC. Piper arboreum Aubl. 8576 8170 8217 NC 8301 LXF IF IF IF IF arboreum Aubl. cf. arboreum Aubl. bartlingianum (Miq.) C.DC. bartlingianum (Miq.) C.DC. demeraranum (Miq.) C.DC. 8398 8262 8075 8250 8141 LHF IF MF MF IF Piper Piper Piper Piper Piper CAY, BBS, US CAY, L, US, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS CAY CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, US, STR, BBS CAY, BBS, P CAY, BBS, P CAY, BBS CAY, L, NY, BBS CAY, BBS, NY CAY, L, P, K, NY, BBS CAY, L, P, US, HUA, BBS CAY, BBS, L CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, US, HUA, BBS CAY, BBS, L CAY CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, BBS © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 125 APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Piper demeraranum (Miq.) C.DC. Piper demeraranum (Miq.) C.DC. Piper hispidum Sw. Piper hosmannianum (Miq.) C.DC. Piper humistratum Görts & K.U.Kramer Piper cf. pulleanum Yunck. Piper trichoneuron (Miq.) C.DC. Piper sp. Scoparia dulcis L. Ichnanthus nemoralis (Schrad. ex Schult.) Hitchc. & Chase Ichnanthus panicoides P.Beauv. Ichnanthus panicoides P.Beauv. Panicum cf. miliaceum L. (introduced?) Parodiolyra micrantha (Kunth) Davidse & Zuloaga Pharus latifolius L. Pharus parvifolius Nash ssp. parvifolius Piresia goeldii Swallen Mourera fluviatilis Aubl. Rhyncholacis guyanensis P.Royen Rhyncholacis guyanensis P.Royen Rhyncholacis guyanensis P.Royen Securidace cf. paniculata Rich. Coccoloba excelsa Benth. 8261 8030 8088 8087 8260 8139 NC NC 8157 8117 IF IF MF MF IF IF IF IF MF IF CAY CAY, BBS CAY, L, HUA, BBS CAY, L, HUA, BBS CAY CAY 8014 NC 8445 NC MF IF LXF MF/IF CAY, L, BBS 8207 8208 NC 8196 8002 8003 8197 8491 B 8228 IF IF IF A A A MF IF LXF PROTEACEAE PUTRANJIVACEAE RHAMNACEAE Coccoloba excelsa Benth. Coccoloba cf. excelsa Benth. Coccoloba cf. excelsa Benth. Coccoloba cf. excelsa Benth. Coccoloba sp. 1 Coccoloba sp. 2 Clavija lancifolia Desf. ssp. lancifolia Cybianthus cf. penduliflorus Mart. Panopsis sessilifolia (Rich.) Sandwith Drypetes variabilis Uittien Gouania blanchetiana Miq. 8585 8546 8341 8607 8381 8616 8147 8505 8151 NC 8248 LXF MF DXT DXT DXT IF IF MF IF/MF LXF RHIZOPHORACEAE Cassipourea guianensis Aubl. 8185 LXF RUBIACEAE Cassipourea guianensis Aubl. Chiococca alba (L.) Hitchc. 8283 8337 MF MF Chiococca alba (L.) Hitchc. 8096 MF Chiococca alba (L.) Hitchc. Chiococca nitida Benth. Chomelia malaneoides Müll.Arg. Coussarea micrococca Bremek. Coussarea sp. Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K.Schum. Duroia aquatica (Aubl.) Bremek. Duroia eriopila L.f. 8584 8377 8417 8351 8606 8531 NC 8234 DXT DXT LXF SV DXT MF IF LXF PLANTAGINACEAE POACEAE PODOSTEMACEAE POLYGALACEAE POLYGONACEAE PRIMULACEAE © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CAY, L, US, NY, BBS CAY, L, MO CAY, BBS CAY CAY, L, BBS CAY, P, BBS CAY CAY CAY, L, US, BBS CAY-BBS-L-K-NY CAY, L, K, AAU, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, L, AAU CAY, BBS, MO CAY CAY, BBS, MO CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, FTG CAY CAY, L, K, NY, MO, BBS CAY, L, K, B, NY, BBS CAY, L, K, NY, BBS CAY, BBS, L, P, K, B, NY, MO CAY, L, MO, BR, BBS CAY, BBS, UFG CAY, BBS, MO, UFG CAY, BBS, MO, UFG CAY, BBS, L, MO CAY, BBS, MO CAY, BBS, L, P CAY 126 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Duroia cf. eriopila L.f. Faramea quadricostata Bremek. emend. Steyerm. Faramea quadricostata Bremek. emend. Steyerm. Faramea quadricostata Bremek. emend. Steyerm. Faramea sessilifolia (Kunth) DC. Faramea sessilifolia (Kunth)DC. Genipa spruceana Steyerm. Gonzalagunia dicocca Cham. & Schltdl.. NC 8023 IF LXF CAY, L, MO, BBS 8221 LXF CAY NC MF 8245 8605 8110 8297 LXF DXT IF IF Guettarda argentea Lam. Guettarda spruceana Müll.Arg. cf. Guettarda sp.? Ixora graciliflora Benth. Ixora graciliflora Benth. 8566 8415 8355 8076 8230 LXF DXT LXF LXF LXF Ixora graciliflora Benth. 8239 MF Ixora graciliflora Benth. Ixora graciliflora Benth. Ixora sp. Manettia alba (Aubl.) Wernham Margaritopsis guianensis (Bremek.) C.M. Taylor Morinda cf. brachycalix (Bremek.) Steyerm. Morinda surinamensis (Bremek.) Steyerm. Morinda tenuiflora (Benth.) Steyerm. cf. Pagamea sp. 8412 8574 8126 8320 8575 DXT LXF MF MF LXF 8051 8282 8424 8078 MF MF LXF LXF Palicourea cf. amapaensis Steyerm. Palicourea crocea (Sw.) Roem. & Schult. 8527 B 8188 MF LXF Palicourea croceoides Desv ex Ham. Palicourea guianensis Aubl. Posoqueria latifolia (Rudge) Roem. & Schult. ssp. gracilis (Rudge) Steyerm. Posoqueria latifolia (Rudge) Roem. & Schult. ssp. latifolia Posoqueria latifolia (Rudge) Roem. & Schult. ssp. latifolia Psychotria apoda Steyerm. Psychotria apoda Steyerm. Psychotria bracteocardia (DC.) Müll.Arg. Psychotria bracteocardia (DC.) Müll.Arg. Psychotria cf. carthagenensis Jacq. Psychotria hoffmannseggiana (Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.) Müll.Arg. Psychotria iodotricha Müll.Arg. Psychotria iodotricha Müll.Arg. Psychotria kappleri (Miq.) Müll.Arg. ex Benoist. 8019 NC 8532 LXF MF MF 8041 IF CAY, BBS 8121 IF CAY, BBS 8017 NC 8345 8541 8347 8374 MF IF SV LXF MF-B DXT CAY, BBS CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, 8025 8529 8331 LXF MF MF CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY, BBS, MO CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, BR, MO, BBS CAY, BBS, MO CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, MO CAY, L, MO, BBS CAY, L, B, BR, MO, BBS CAY, L, B, BR, MO, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS, MO CAY, MO, BBS CAY, BBS, L, MO CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY, L, BR, MO, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, NY, MO, BBS CAY CAY, BBS, L, UFG BBS BBS, MO, UFG BBS, L, MO BBS, L, MO © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME 127 APPENDIX Continued Family RUTACEAE SALICACEAE SANTALACEAE SAPINDACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Psychotria moroidea Steyerm. 8013 MF Psychotria moroidea Steyerm. Psychotria muscosa (Jacq.) Steyerm. Psychotria muscosa (Jacq.) Steyerm. 8184 8119 8143 LXF IF IF Psychotria muscosa (Jacq.) Steyerm. Psychotria racemosa Rich. Psychotria sp. Rudgea crassiloba (Benth.) B.L.Rob. cf. Rudgea sp. Genus indet. Conchocarpus heterophyllus (A.St.-Hil.) Kallunki & Pirani Conchocarpus heterophyllus (A.St.-Hil.) Kallunki & Pirani Erythrochiton brasiliensis Nees & Mart. Esenbeckia cf. pilocapoides Kunth Esenbeckia cf. pilocarpoides Kunth 8526 B 8399 8213 8365 8619 8271 8252 MF LHF IF DXT DXT MF-B MF-B 8336 MF-B CAY, L, NY, MO, BBS CAY, L, MO, BBS CAY, MO, BBS CAY, L, BR, MO, BBS CAY, BBS, MO, UFG CAY, BBS, MO CAY CAY, BBS, P, MO CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, NY, MO, BBS CAY 8486 8338 8254 MF MF-B MF-B Pilocarpus microphyllus Stapf ex Wardleworth Pilocarpus microphyllus Stapf. ex Wardleworth Ticorea foetida Aubl. Ticorea foetida Aubl. Ticorea foetida Aubl. Zanthoxylum cf. apiculatum (Sandwith) P.G.Waterman Zanthoxylum sp. 2 Casearia cf. combaymensis Tul. Casearia decandra Jacq. Casearia aff. decandra Jacq. Casearia cf. javitensis Kunth. Casearia aff. mariquitensis Kunth Casearia negrensis Eichler Casearia aff. prunifolia Kunth? Xylosma benthamii (Tul.) Triana & Planch. Xylosma sp. Phoradendron northropiae Urb. Phoradendron strongyloclados Eichler 8219 8536 LXF LXF 8045 NC NC 8010 MF IF MF-B MF NC 8625 8366 8475 8346 8375 8240 8329 8561 NC 8304 8599 MF MF DXT LXF MF DXT MF MF Cupania aff. diphylla Vahl 8189 LXF Cupania hirsuta Radlk. Cupania rubiginosa (Poir.) Radlk. Cupania rubiginosa (Poir.) Radlk. Paullinia acuminata Uittien Paullinia alata (Ruiz & Pav.) G.Don Paullinia anodonta Radlk. Paullinia latifolia Benth. ex Radlk. Paullinia plagioptera Radlk. NC 8455 8627 8183 8212 8507 8506 B 8077 MF/IF LXF LXF LXF IF SV SV LXF Paullinia plagioptera Radlk. Paullinia stellata Radlk. 8578 8335 LXF MF MF MF DXT © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CAY, BBS, L, B, NY CAY, BBS, L CAY, L, K, NY, MO, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, NY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, FC CAY, CAY, BBS, BBS, BBS, BBS BBS, MO MO MO K, MO BBS, MO BBS CAY, L, UVIC, BBS CAY, BBS, P, L, UVIC CAY, L, K, NY, US, BBS CAY, BBS, L, P, US CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS, US CAY, L, K, US, NY, BBS CAY, BBS, US CAY, BBS 128 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family SAPOTACEAE SIMAROUBACEAE SIPARUNACEAE SMILACACEAE SOLANACEAE THURNIACEAE TRIGONIACEAE URTICACEAE VERBENACEAE VIOLACEAE Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Pseudima frutescens (Aubl.) Radlk. Talisia guianensis Aubl. Talisia guianensis Aubl. Talisia aff. guianensis Aubl. Talisia macrophylla (Mart.) Radlk. Talisia macrophylla (Mart.) Radlk. Talisia macrophylla (Mart.) Radlk. Talisia mollis Kunth ex Cambess. Talisia pilosula Sagot ex Radlk. Talisia sp. Manilkara bidentata (A.DC.) A.Chev. Pouteria aff. sagotiana (Baill.) Eyma Pouteria cf. sagotiana (Baill.) Eyma Pouteria sp. Pouteria sp. Genus indet. Simaba guianensis Aubl. ssp. guianensis Simaba guianensis Aubl. ssp. guianensis Simaba guianensis Aubl. ssp. guianensis Siparuna decipiens (Tul.) A.DC. Siparuna guianensis Aubl. Siparuna guianensis Aubl. Smilax lasseriana Steyerm. Smilax staminea Griseb. Smilax sp. Cestrum schlechtendalii G.Don Solanum aff. adhaerens Roem. & Schult. Solanum asperum. Rich. Solanum velutinum Dunal Thurnia sphaerocephala (Rudge) Hook.f. Trigonia microcarpa Sagot ex Warm. Trigonia microcarpa Sagot ex Warm. 8131 8342 8588 8425 8061 8340 8391 8071 8232 8247 NC 8360 NC 8266 NC 8450 8128 8132 8224 8214 8050 8238 8603 8408 8012 8284 8404 8094 8427 NC 8484 8048 MF MF SV LXF MF MF LF MF LXF LXF MF SV MF IF MF LXF MF IF LXF IF MF MF DXT DXT MF IF LXF MF LXF A LXF MF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, Urera baccifera (L.) Gaudich. ex Wedd. Petrea volubilis L. Petrea cf. volubilis L. Amphirrhox longifolia (A.St-Hil.) Spreng. Paypayrola hulkiana Pulle Paypayrola cf. hulkiana Pulle. Paypayrola sp. Rinorea neglecta Sandwith Rinorea pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith Rinorea pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith Rinorea pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith var. pubiflora Rinorea pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith Rinorea aff. pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith Rinorea cf. pubiflora (Benth.) Sprague & Sandwith 8586-A 8047 NC 8562 8011 NC 8055 8471 8218 SV MF IF MF MF IF/MF MF MF IF 8289 IF CAY CAY, BBS, BHO CAY, L, K, NY, BHO, BBS CAY, BHO, BBS 8191 LXF CAY, L, BHO, BBS 8589 SV CAY, BBS, BHO 8255 MF-B CAY, BBS NC IF L, US, BBS BBS BBS, US BBS BBS, US US, BBS L, BBS BBS CAY, BBS, K CAY CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, BBS L, BBS L, BBS BBS L, P, BBS P, L, BBS L, P, NY, BBS BBS, B BBS, B, MO BBS L, K, NY, BBS BBS L, NY, BBS BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, K, MO, US, BBS CAY, BBS, BG CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, BHO CAY, L, BHO, BBS © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 129 CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN SURINAME APPENDIX Continued Family VITACEAE VOCHYSIACEAE ZINGIBERACEAE INDET FAMILY Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria Rinorea aff. pubiflora (‘Benth.’) Sprague & Sandwith Rinorea riana Kuntze Rinorea riana Kuntze 8569 MF-B CAY, BBS, BHO 8062 8155 MF MF Rinorea riana Kuntze Rinorea cf. riana Kuntze Rinorea cf. riana Kuntze Cissus haematantha Miq. Cissus verticillata (L.) Nicolson & C.E.Jarvis Cissus verticillata (L.) Nicolson & C.E.Jarvis Ruizterania albiflora (Warm.) Marc.-Berti Renelamia guianensis Maas Renelamia guianensis Maas Renelamia sp. Species indet. 8227 NC NC 8026 8080 8466 NC 8288 NC NC 8549 LXF MF MF-B LXF LXF SV MF IF MF MF-B IF CAY, BHO, BBS CAY, P, L, BHO, BBS CAY, BHO, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, BHCB, BBS CAY, BBS, HRCB CAY CAY 2. BRYOPHYTA Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria BRYOPHYTA indet. Species indet. 8148 A CAY 3. PTERIDOPHYTA Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria ASPLENIACEAE CYATHEACEAE DRYOPTERIDACEAE Asplenium serratum L. Cyathea pungens (Willd.) Domin Bolbitis semipinnatifida (Fée) Alston Bolbitis semipinnatifida (Fée) Alston Cyclodium inerme (Fée) A.R.Sm. Cyclodium meniscioides (Willd.) C.Presl. var. meniscioides Elaphoglossum glabellum J.Sm. Elaphoglossum luridum (Fée) H.Christ Elaphoglossum plumosum (Fée) T.Moore Lastreopsis effusa (Sw.) Tindale var. divergens (Willd. ex Schkuhr) Proctor Polybotrya caudata Kunze Hymenophyllum decurrens (Jacq.) Sw. Hymenophyllum polyanthos (Sw.) Sw. Trichomanes pedicellatum Desv. Trichomanes pinnatum Hedw. Trichomanes pinnatum Hedw. Lindsaea lancea (L.) Bedd. var. falcata (Dryand.) Rosenst. Lomariopsis prieuriana Fée Huperzia linifolia (L.) Trevis. var. jenmanii (Underw. & F.E.Lloyd) B.Øllg. & P.G.Windisch Metaxya rostrata (Kunth) C.Presl 8164 8461 NC 8169 NC 8033 IF IF IF/ MF IF MF/IF IF CAY, L, BBS CAY, BBS, P 8443 8593 8439 8210 LXF DXT LXF IF CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY 8462 8611 8612 8135 8281 8530 8100 IF DXT DXT IF IF MF IF CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY CAY CAY, NC IF/MF 8623 DXT NC MF HYMENOPHYLLACEAE LINDSAEACEAE LOMARIOPSIDACEAE LYCOPODIACEAE METAXYACEAE © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130 CAY, L, BBS CAY, L, BBS BBS BBS BBS BBS L, BBS CAY, BBS 130 B. G. BORDENAVE ET AL. APPENDIX Continued Family Taxon Coll. No. Veg. Herbaria POLYPODIACEAE Campyloneurum phyllitidis (L.) C.Presl Dicranoglossum desvauxii (Klotzsch) Proctor Pecluma pectinata (L.) M.G.Price Pecluma plumula (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) M.G.Price Pleopeltis percussa (Cav.) Hook. & Grev. Adiantum argutum Splitg. Adiantum argutum Splitg. 8592 8246 8622 8595 DXT LXF MF DXT CAY, CAY, CAY, CAY, 8591 8509 8211 DXT IF IF cajennense Willd. ex Klotzsch cf. cajennense Willd. ex Klotzsch fuliginosum Fée paraense Hieron. phyllitidis J.Sm. 8300 8074 8024 8138 8258 IF MF MF IF IF Adiantum terminatum Kunze ex Miq. Pityrogramma calomelanos (L.) Link var. calomelanos Schizaea elegans (Vahl) Sw. Selaginella cf. erythropus (Mart.) Spring Selaginella parkeri (Hook. & Grev.) Spring 8285 8113 MF IF CAY, BBS, P CAY CAY, L, P, UC, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, BBS CAY–BBS CAY, L, P, UC, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, BBS 8257 8359 8101 MF FR IF Selaginella parkeri (Hook. & Grev.) Spring Selaginella suavis (Spring) Spring Selaginella sp. Cyclopeltis semicordata (Sw.) J.Sm. Dracoglossum sinuatum (Fée) Christenh. 8286 8587 NC 8590 8032 IF MF IF SV IF Tectaria incisa Cav. Tectaria trifoliata (L.) Cav. Triplophyllum cf. dicksonioides (Fée) Holttum Triplophyllum sp. Thelypteris opulenta (Kaulf.) Fosberg Thelypteris poiteana (Bory) Proctor 8485 8067 8136 NC 8112 8209 MF IF IF MF IF IF PTERIDACEAE Adiantum Adiantum Adiantum Adiantum Adiantum SCHIZAEACEAE SELAGINELLACEAE TECTARIACEAE THELYPTERIDACEAE BBS, P BBS BBS BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, L, P, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, P, L, BBS CAY, BBS CAY, BBS CAY CAY, P, BBS CAY Coll. No. (Collectors Bordenave & Granville): NC, not collected. Veg. (Vegetation type): A, aquatic (stream) vegetation; DXT, dwarf meso-xeric thicket; IF, inundated forest; LXF, low meso-xeric forest; MF, mesic forest; MF-B, Buxus citrifolia forest; SV, secondary vegetation. Bold type indicates species of concern for conservation. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 94–130