Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKBOJBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4074The Linnean Society of London, 2006? 2006 151? 151163 Original Article ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163. The Palms Guest edited by William J. Baker and Scott Zona Endangerment of Colombian Palms (Arecaceae): change over 18 years RODRIGO BERNAL* and GLORIA GALEANO Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Apartado 7495, Bogotá, Colombia Received June 2005; accepted for publication November 2005 We compare an assessment of the conservation status of Colombian palms made in 1987 with the current situation in 2005. The number of species considered as threatened (critically endangered + endangered + vulnerable) in 2005 is the same (39) as the number in 1987 (endangered + vulnerable), although both the circumscription of categories and the total species counts for the country have changed between both assessments. Only 16 of the 39 species considered as threatened in 1987 are currently treated as such. The remaining 23 species are now treated as synonyms or have proved to be more widespread than previously known. On the other hand, 23 species have been newly added to the ‘threatened’ categories. Ten of them are new species, new records or new segregates. We predict that any new species discovered in the Andes of Colombia will prove to be threatened. We estimate that up to 12 species that may potentially become segregated from currently recognized species or species complexes might also be at risk. However, the proportion of threatened palms in the flora is not expected to change considerably as a result of improved understanding of the species’ taxonomy or distribution. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: assessment – conservation – flora – IUCN categories – Neotropics – rarity – Red List – threatened species. INTRODUCTION The worldwide process of habitat loss and inherent species extinction has made it necessary to identify those taxa under the most severe threat, so that conservation priorities and hotspot areas can be defined. The assessment of the risk level for all components of the world’s biota has been greatly facilitated in the last three decades by the use of well-defined categories of risk (IUCN, 1980, 1994, 2001). These various versions of the IUCN Red List Categories have been used for assessing the conservation status of many different biological groups across a range of geographical scales. Although such assessments provide the best available tool for implementing conservation actions, they require periodic review, as both the taxonomy of the species and the available information on their distri*Corresponding author. E-mail: rgbernalg@unal.edu.co bution change over time, as do also the nature of their threats and the definition of parameters. The comparison of successive assessments of endangerment for a particular group at a geographical area may provide a valuable insight into the robustness of such estimates, and may allow us to hypothesize changes in categorization under a better understanding of the group concerned. Palms (Palmae or Arecaceae) were among the first groups of plants to receive attention as to their state of endangerment (Moore, 1979) and to have an action plan for conservation (Johnson, 1996). Regional assessments of palm conservation status have been made for some areas (e.g. Kiew & Dransfield, 1987; Bernal, 1989; Henderson et al., 1990; Basu, 1991; Dransfield & Johnson, 1991; Madulid, 1991; Mogea, 1991; Kahn & Moussa, 1994; Borchsenius & Skov, 1999), and a preliminary conservation census for the whole family in the New World is available (Drans- © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 151 152 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO field, Johnson & Synge, 1988). This interest in palm conservation is due to the economic and ecological importance of the group (e.g. see Balick & Beck, 1990), and to the intrinsic risk of many species, derived, among other factors, from having a single apical meristem. Death of this meristem causes the death of the stem; for those palms that are sympodially branched at the base, other stems continue growth; for unbranched palms, however, death of the apical meristem implies the death of the genetic individual. Just less than half of all palm species are unbranched (Henderson, 2002a). Colombia was among the first countries to have an assessment of the conservation status of its palm flora (Bernal, 1989), and this family was also the first one in that country to be formally assessed under IUCN parameters. That assessment, originally presented at a palm symposium held at Cornell University in 1987, is now largely outdated. A new assessment of the conservation status of Colombian palms has just been produced (Galeano & Bernal, 2005), as a part of the initiative of producing Red Data Books of Colombian organisms. This new assessment is based on conditions quite different from those prevailing in 1987. First, knowledge of most species has improved substantially; a conspectus of the family in the whole continent is available (Henderson, Galeano & Bernal, 1995), and there are now monographs for large genera such as Chamaedorea (Hodel, 1992), Bactris (Henderson, 2000), Aiphanes (Borchsenius & Bernal, 1996), and Prestoea and Euterpe (Henderson & Galeano, 1996), as well as for several of the smaller ones. Second, palm exploration in the country has covered many areas about which we knew nothing in the past; and third, the current parameters of categorization (IUCN, 2001) are quantitative and have well-defined thresholds, thus making the assignment of species to categories a more objective decision than was possible with the criteria available in 1987 (IUCN, 1980). In this paper we compare the current assessment with the one made in 1987, and analyse the nature of changes in categorization that have taken place in the intervening 18 years. We use this comparison to predict changes in the current categorization. species circumscriptions of Henderson et al. (1995). In both studies, species has been used as the lowest taxon for assessment. Estimation of expected increase in the number of threatened taxa is based on the composition and geographical distribution of species complexes outlined by Henderson (1995) and Henderson et al. (1995), on the segregation of species based on the recent revision of some genera (e.g. Henderson, 2004, 2005) and on recent findings in particular genera (e.g. Bernal, 2001; Galeano & Bernal, 2002). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Appendix shows the assignment of all Colombian palm species to IUCN Red Data Book categories in 1987 and in 2005. Table 1 compares the figures by category. The number of species considered as threatened has remained the same during this interval, although both the circumscription of categories and the total species counts for the country have changed between both assessments. The total number of palms recognized in the country has decreased by 45 species, despite the fact that about the same number of species have been described as new to science or have been recorded as new for Colombia in the intervening period (see Appendix). This reduction is due to a better understanding of the taxonomy in some of the larger groups after recent revisions, often resulting in a considerable decrease in the number of species. Thus, for example, the number of species recognized in the genus Bactris decreased from 239 (Uhl & Dransfield, 1987) to 75 (Henderson, 2000); in Aiphanes the figure decreased from 38 (Uhl & Dransfield, 1987) to 22 (Borchsenius & Bernal, 1996); and in Hyospathe from Table 1. Assignment of Colombian palms to IUCN Red Book categories in 1987 and 2005 1987 Category 2005 No. of species Threatened MATERIAL AND METHODS We compared the assessment made in 1987 (Bernal, 1989) with the current one (Galeano & Bernal, 2005), to which some minor additions were made. A detailed discussion of the current status of Colombian palms can be found in that assessment, and will not be repeated here. For the latter, taxonomy is based on the most recent generic treatments (e.g. Hodel, 1992; Henderson, 1995, 2000, 2002b, 2004; Borchsenius & Bernal, 1996; Henderson & Galeano, 1996) or on the Endangered Vulnerable Rare Insufficiently known Not threatened Cultivated Total 22 17 18 121 80 Category Threatened Critically endangered Endangered Vulnerable Data deficient No. of species 6 17 16 7 Near threatened Least concern 44 126 Total 216 3 261 © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS 17 (Uhl & Dransfield, 1987) to six (Henderson, 2004). Because of this reduction, the proportion of taxa at risk has increased slightly (15% vs. 18%). By contrast, the species composition of threatened palms has changed remarkably – only 16 of the 39 species considered at risk in 1987 are currently treated as such. The remaining 23 species have since been reduced to synonymy or have proved to be more widespread than previously known. Additionally, another 23 species have been added to the ‘threatened’ categories. These include species previously unknown to science or not recorded in Colombia, taxonomic segregates, and species formerly treated as insufficiently known or as not threatened. The new species, new records and new segregates account for ten of these 23 species. Most of them come from the Andes, the region with the highest number of threatened species, both in 1987 and in 2005. Seventy-nine per cent of all palms deemed as threatened in 1987 grew in the Andes. This figure has changed substantially, and only 51% of currently threatened palms are Andean. In most cases, Andean palms are at risk because of their restricted distribution, often in small forest remnants within highly altered areas. This suggests that any new species or segregate that might be discovered or newly recognized in the Andes will probably be in some category of risk. Species segregates derived from novel approaches to palm taxonomy (Henderson & Ferreira, 2002; Henderson, 2002b, 2004, 2005) may increase substantially the number of species with narrow distribution. A dramatic example is the reappraisal of the genus Hyospathe. In the 1987 assessment of the conservation status of Colombian palms, six species of Hyospathe were recognized, based on the latest treatment available at that time (Burret, 1929). Five of the species were treated as insufficiently known, and one, the widespread and common H. elegans Mart., was treated as not threatened. A subsequent revision of the genus (Skov & Balslev, 1989) sunk most available names under Hyospathe elegans, thus strengthening the case for considering this species as not threatened. Recently, however, a morphometric analysis of the genus (Henderson, 2004) has recognized four species in Colombia, including two former names that have been reinstated, and one species described as new. Two of the newly recognized species, H. frontinensis A.J. Hend. and H. wendlandiana Burret, are known from small areas in the Andes, and they have been categorized as vulnerable and endangered, respectively (Galeano & Bernal, 2005). Thus, the reappraisal of this complex resulted in two additional threatened species. Henderson et al. (1995) have suggested that about 10% of all American palms are species complexes. The application of multivariate analysis to the taxonomy 153 of such complexes in large genera such as Chamaedorea, Geonoma and Bactris, or to smaller genera such as Desmoncus or Lepidocaryum, could result in the recognition of several species with narrow ranges. We estimate that, as a result of this, about 16% of the species currently known in Colombia could be split into two or more separate entities (Table 2). In most cases, segregates would have an Amazonian distribution, and most probably they would not be at immediate risk, as Amazonian ecosystems are relatively well preserved. Again, it would be Andean palms that would be under the highest risk. We estimate that there would be as many as a dozen Andean segregate species that would prove at risk in Colombia. Thus, the number of species at risk in Colombia would increase by c. 30%. However, the proportion of threatened palm species in the flora would probably remain close to the current 18%, as the number of species would also increase substantially. Another indication of future stability in the proportion of palms deemed at risk in Colombia is the remarkable reduction in the number of species insufficiently known or with deficient data, which decreased from 121 to seven. This change reflects the improved knowledge of the species’ taxonomy and distribution, and it suggests that any major changes in categorization will be most strongly linked to new approaches to the study of palm taxonomy, and to changes in ecosystems, than to a dramatic change in our understanding of species distributions or operating threats. However, some minor rearrangements might still result from a finer study of the distribution of the threatened species, particularly the rarest ones. Table 2. Colombian palm species most likely to become divided into two or more separate species under new taxonomic approaches Acrocomia aculeata Aiphanes aculeata Aiphanes gelatinosa Aiphanes hirsuta Astrocaryum murumuru Attalea butyracea Bactris acanthocarpa Bactris brongniartii Bactris corossilla Bactris hirta Bactris major Bactris maraja Bactris pilosa Bactris simplicifrons Chamaedorea linearis Chamaedorea pinnatifrons Desmoncus mitis Desmoncus orthacanthos Desmoncus polyacanthos Dictyocaryum lamarckianum Geonoma brongniartii Geonoma cuneata Geonoma interrupta Geonoma jussieuana Geonoma macrostachys Geonoma maxima Geonoma orbignyana Geonoma solitaria Geonoma stricta Lepidocaryum tenue Manicaria saccifera Prestoea acuminata Wettinia kalbreyeri Wettinia praemorsa © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 154 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO Rarity accounts for another major change in categorization over the past 18 years. Under the criteria used in the 1987 assessment (IUCN, 1980), rarity defined a category on its own, and species were considered as rare when they had ‘. . . small world populations that are not at present endangered or vulnerable but are at risk.’ These taxa were ‘. . . usually localized within restricted geographical areas or habitats or . . . thinly scattered over a more extensive range.’ In the last two decades the concept of rarity has received much attention (Harper, 1981; Rabinowitz, 1981; Gaston, 1994; Quinn, Gaston & Arnold, 1996; Hartley & Kunin, 2003), and it is now a major component of the IUCN criteria for categorizing extinction risk, along with rate of decline, fragmentation and population structure. Rather than making up a category of its own, rarity now pervades all categories. This change in the role of rarity in categorization is evident in the figures – whereas five species were considered as rare in 1987, rarity is currently the cause of risk for 29 species, 64% of all threatened palms. Thus, our knowledge of the conservation status of Colombian palms seems to be approaching stability, and no major changes are expected in the categorization of species currently recognized as threatened. However, some new taxa will probably be added to the list and these will most likely grow in the Andes and will have narrow ranges. Nevertheless, despite any minor changes, the available information on the threatened species already provides a sound base upon which action can be undertaken. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Eduardo Calderón, Néstor García, Carol Franco and the Instituto Alexander von Humboldt for their collaboration in the various phases of the assessment on which this analysis is based, and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. REFERENCES Balick MJ, Beck HT, eds. 1990. Useful palms of the world. A synoptic bibliography. New York: Columbia University Press. Basu SK. 1991. India: palm utilization and conservation. In: Johnson D, ed. Palms for human needs in Asia. Rotterdam: Balkema, 13–35. Bernal RG. 1989. Endangerment of Colombian Palms. Principes 33: 113–128. Bernal R. 2001. Una nueva especie de Aiphanes (Palmae) de los Andes de Colombia. Caldasia 23: 163–167. Borchsenius F, Bernal R. 1996. Aiphanes (Palmae). Flora Neotropica 70: 1–95. Borchsenius F, Skov F. 1999. Conservation status of the palms of Ecuador. Acta Botanica Venezuelana 22: 221–236. Burret M. 1929. Die Gattung Hyospathe Mart. Notizblatt des Botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin-Dahlem 10: 854–859. Dransfield J, Johnson D. 1991. The conservation status of palms in Sabah (Malaysia). In: Johnson D, ed. Palms for human needs in Asia. Rotterdam: Balkema, 175–179. Dransfield J, Johnson D, Synge H. 1988. The palms of the New World: a conservation census. IUCN-WWF Plants Conservation Programme, Publications 2. Gland: IUCN. Galeano G, Bernal R. 2002. New species and new records of Colombian palms. Caldasia 24: 277–292. Galeano G, Bernal R. 2005. Palmas. In: Calderón E, Galeano G, García N, eds. Libro Rojo de Plantas de Colombia. Volumen II: Palmas, Frailejones y Zamias. Bogotá: Instituto Alexander von Humboldt, Instituto de Ciencias NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, 59–223. Gaston KJ. 1994. Rarity. London: Chapman & Hall. Harper JL. 1981. The meaning of rarity. In: Synge H, ed. The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Chichester: Wiley, 189–203. Hartley S, Kunin WE. 2003. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conservation Biology 17: 1559–1570. Henderson A. 1995. The palms of the Amazon. New York: Oxford University Press. Henderson AJ. 2000. Bactris (Palmae). Flora Neotropica 79: 1–186. Henderson AJ. 2002a. Evolution and ecology of palms. New York: New York Botanical Garden Press. Henderson AJ. 2002b. Phenetic and phylogenetic analysis of Reinhardtia (Palmae). American Journal of Botany 89: 1489–1502. Henderson AJ. 2004. A multivariate analysis of Hyospathe (Palmae). American Journal of Botany 91: 953–965. Henderson AJ. 2005. A multivariate study of Calyptrogyne (Palmae). Systematic Botany 30: 60–83. Henderson A, Aubry M, Timyan J, Balick M. 1990. Conservation status of Haitian palms. Principes 34: 134– 142. Henderson A, Ferreira E. 2002. A morphometric study of Synechanthus (Palmae). Systematic Botany 27: 693–702. Henderson A, Galeano G. 1996. Euterpe, Prestoea and Neonicholsonia (Palmae). Flora Neotropica 70: 1–89. Henderson A, Galeano G, Bernal R. 1995. Field guide to the palms of the Americas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hodel DR. 1992. Chamaedorea palms. The species and their cultivation. Lawrence: International Palm Society & Allen Press. IUCN. 1980. How to use the IUCN Red Data Book categories. Kew: Threatened Plants Unit & IUCN. IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Gland: IUCN. IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List categories: versión 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Comission. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS Johnson D, ed. and the IUCN/SSC Palm Specialist Group. 1996. Palms: their conservation and sustained utilization. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN. Kahn F, Moussa F. 1994. Diversity and conservation status of Peruvian palms. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 227–241. Kiew R, Dransfield J. 1987. The conservation of palms in Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 41: 24–31. Madulid D. 1991. The Philippines: palm utilization and conservation. In: Johnson D, ed. Palms for human needs in Asia. Rotterdam: Balkema, 181–225. Mogea J. 1991. Indonesia: palm utilization and conservation. In: Johnson D, ed. Palms for human needs in Asia. Rotterdam: Balkema, 37–73. 155 Moore HE. 1979. Endangerment at the specific and generic level in palms. Principes 23: 47–64. Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Arnold HR. 1996. Relative measures of geographic range size: empirical comparisons. Oecologia 107: 179–188. Rabinowitz D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H, ed. The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Chichester: Wiley, 205–217. Skov F, Balslev H. 1989. A revision of Hyospathe (Arecaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany 9: 189–202. Uhl NW, Dransfield J. 1987. Genera palmarum. Lawrence: L. H. Bailey Hortorium and International Palm Society. APPENDIX Checklist of Colombian palms and their endangerment status in 1987 and 2005. Accepted names are in bold type; synonyms and species wrongly recorded in Colombia are in italics. CR, critically endangered; EN, endangered; IK, insufficiently known; LC, lower concern; NT (1987), not threatened; NT (2005), near threatened; R, rare; VU, vulnerable Taxon Acoelorraphe wrightii (Griseb. & H. Wendl.) H. Wendl. ex. Becc. Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. ex Mart. Acrocomia antioquiensis Posada-Ar. Aiphanes acaulis Galeano & R. Bernal Aiphanes aculeata Willd. Aiphanes concinna H.E. Moore Aiphanes deltoidea Burret Aiphanes duquei Burret Aiphanes erinacea (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Aiphanes fosteriorum H.E. Moore Aiphanes gelatinosa H.E. Moore Aiphanes graminifolia Galeano & R. Bernal Aiphanes hirsuta Burret Aiphanes kalbreyeri Burret Aiphanes killipii Burret Aiphanes leiostachys Burret Aiphanes lindeniana (H. Wendl.) H. Wendl. Aiphanes linearis Burret Aiphanes macroloba Burret Aiphanes monostachys Burret Aiphanes orinocensis Burret Aiphanes pachyclada Burret Aiphanes parvifolia Burret Aiphanes pilaris R. Bernal Aiphanes simplex Burret Aiphanes tricuspidata Borchs., M. Ruíz & R. Bernal Aiphanes ulei (Dammer) Burret Ammandra decasperma O.F. Cook Asterogyne martiana (H. Wendl.) H. Wendl. ex Hemsl. Astrocaryum acaule Mart. Conservation status 1987 Conservation status 2005 IK VU Notes LC NT R = A. aculeata EN LC NT IK IK IK IK IK NT IK EN VU VU NT NT IK EN EN VU LC EN NT = A. lindeniana Added after 1987 = A. hirsuta ssp. fosteriorum VU CR NT Added after 1987 = A. hirsuta ssp. kalbreyeri = A. aculeata CR NT NT NT = A. hirsuta ssp. hirsuta = A. aculeata = A. hirsuta ssp. hirsuta EN VU NT LC R NT LC LC LC NT LC Added after 1987 Added after 1987 Added after 1987 © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 156 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO APPENDIX Continued Taxon Conservation status 1987 Astrocaryum aculeatum G. Mey. Astrocaryum chambira Burret Astrocaryum cuatrecasanum Dugand NT IK Astrocaryum jauari Mart. Astrocaryum macrocalyx Burret NT NT LC Astrocaryum malybo H. Karst. Astrocaryum murumuru Mart. Astrocaryum standleyanum L.H. Bailey Astrocaryum triandrum Galeano, R. Bernal & Kahn Attalea allenii H.E. Moore Attalea amygdalina Kunth Attalea butyracea (Mutis ex L. f.) Wess. Boer Attalea cohune Mart. Attalea colenda (O.F. Cook) Balslev & A.J. Hend. Attalea cuatrecasana (Dugand) A.J. Hend., Galeano & R. Bernal Attalea ferruginea Burret Attalea insignis (Mart.) Drude Attalea luetzelburgii (Burret) Wess. Boer Attalea maripa (Aubl.) Mart. Attalea microcarpa Mart. Attalea nucifera H. Karst. Attalea phalerata Mart. ex Spreng. Attalea plowmanii (Glassman) Zona Attalea racemosa Spruce Attalea rhynchocarpa Burret Attalea septuagenata Dugand Attalea uberrima Dugand Attalea victoriana Dugand Bactris acanthocarpa Mart. Bactris amoena Burret Bactris aristata Mart. Bactris balanophora Spruce Bactris barronis L.H. Bailey Bactris bidentula Spruce Bactris bifida Mart. Bactris brongniartii Mart. Bactris campestris Poepp. ex Mart. Bactris caribaea H. Karst. Bactris chaetospatha Mart. Bactris coloniata L.H. Bailey Bactris coloradonis L.H. Bailey Bactris concinna Mart. Bactris corossilla H. Karst. Bactris cuvaro H. Karst. Bactris duplex H.E. Moore Bactris elegans Barb. Rodr. Bactris fissifrons Mart. Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. chichagui (H. Karst.) A.J. Hend. VU EN LC LC EN NT VU NT IK EN Conservation status 2005 Notes LC LC = A. murumuru var. macrocalyx = Astrocaryum murumuru var. macrocalyx LC EN LC EN EN Added after 1987 NT NT NT IK IK IK EN = Attalea racemosa LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC Added after 1987 Added after 1987 Added after 1987 = A. amygdalina NT = A. amygdalina = A. amygdalina LC IK IK NT NT IK IK R NT NT Doubtful name = B. fissifrons LC LC LC LC LC LC Added after 1987 = B. gasipaes var. chichagui = B. maraja var. chaetospatha LC LC LC LC IK IK IK Added after 1987 Added after 1987 LC LC VU = B. setulosa = B. corossilla Added after 1987 © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS 157 APPENDIX Continued Taxon Conservation status 1987 Bactris gasipaes Kunth var. gasipaes* Bactris glandulosa Oerst. Bactris granatensis (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Bactris guineensis (L.) H.E. Moore Bactris hirta Mart. Bactris hondurensis Standl. Bactris humilis (Wallace) Burret. Bactris kalbreyeri Burret Bactris killipii Burret Bactris lakoi Burret Bactris leptospadix Burret Bactris macana (Mart.) Pittier Bactris macroacantha Mart. Bactris macrotricha Burret IK IK Bactris major Jacq. Bactris maraja Mart. NT NT Bactris maraja Mart. Bactris martiana A.J. Hend. Bactris monticola Barb.Rodr. Bactris obovata Burret Bactris paula L.H. Bailey Bactris pilosa H. Karst. Bactris piritu (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Bactris riparia Mart. Bactris rostrata Galeano & R. Bernal Bactris sanctae-paulae Engel Bactris schultesii (L.H. Bailey) Glassman Bactris setulosa H. Karst. Bactris sigmoidea Burret Bactris simplicifrons Mart. Bactris sphaerocarpa Mart. Calyptrogyne baudensis A.J. Hend. Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana (Linden & H. Wendl.) H. Wendl. Catoblastus aequalis (O.F. Cook & Doyle) Burret Catoblastus andinus Dugand Catoblastus anomalus (Burret) Burret Catoblastus cuatrecasasii Dugand Catoblastus distichus R. Bernal Catoblastus drudei O.F. Cook & Doyle Catoblastus engelii H. Wendl. ex Burret Catoblastus inconstans Dugand Catoblastus kalbreyeri (Burret) Burret Catoblastus megalocarpus (Burret) Burret Catoblastus microcarpus Burret Catoblastus pubescens (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Catoblastus radiatus (O.F. Cook & Doyle) Burret Catoblastus sphaerocarpus Burret Catoblastus velutinus Burret Conservation status 2005 Notes LC LC IK NT IK = B. pilosa NT LC NT LC IK IK IK LC IK LC Misapplied name for B. brongniartii LC LC NT IK R VU IK IK = B. acanthocarpa var. exscapa = B. setulosa Added after 1987 = B. hirta var. lakoi Dubious name = B. gasipaes var. chichagui Added after 1987 = B. glandulosa var. glandulosa Added after 1987 = B. maraja = B. simplicifrons = B. hondurensis NT = B. guineensis LC VU IK IK Added after 1987 = B. maraja var. maraja = B. simplicifrons LC NT NT = B. maraja LC LC NT NT Added after 1987 Added after 1987 Misapplied name for C. baudensis = Wettinia aequalis EN IK IK VU NT IK IK IK VU EN NT NT = = = = = = = = = = = = EN IK = Wettinia kalbreyeri = Wettinia aequalis IK Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia Wettinia © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 praemorsa anomala praemorsa disticha drudei praemorsa kalbreyeri kalbreyeri kalbreyeri microcarpa praemorsa radiata 158 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO APPENDIX Continued Taxon Ceroxylon alpinum Bonpl. ex D. C. Ceroxylon ceriferum (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Ceroxylon mooreanum Galeano & R. Bernal Ceroxylon parvifrons (Engel) H. Wendl. Ceroxylon quindiuense (H. Karst.) H. Wendl. Ceroxylon sasaimae Galeano Ceroxylon schultzei Burret Ceroxylon sclerophyllum Dugand Ceroxylon ventricosum Burret Ceroxylon vogelianum (Engel) H. Wendl. Chamaedorea allenii L.H. Bailey Chamaedorea bartlingiana H. Wendl. Chamaedorea christinae Hodel Chamaedorea columbica Burret Chamaedorea deckeriana (Klotzsch) Hemsl. Chamaedorea dryanderae Burret Chamaedorea geonomiformis H. Wendl. Chamaedorea integrifolia (Trail) Dammer Chamaedorea kalbreyeriana H. Wendl. ex Burret Chamaedorea lanceolata (Ruiz & Pav.) Kunth Chamaedorea latisecta (H.E. Moore) A.H. Gentry Chamaedorea linearia L.H. Bailey Chamaedorea linearis (Ruiz & Pav.) Mart. Chamaedorea murriensis Galeano Chamaedorea pauciflora Mart. Chamaedorea pinnatifrons (Jacq.) Oerst. Chamaedorea pygmaea H. Wendl. Chamaedorea ricardoi R. Bernal, Galeano & Hodel Chamaedorea sullivaniorum Hodel & Uhl Chamaedorea tepejilote Liebm. Chamaedorea warscewiczii H. Wendl. Chelyocarpus dianeurus (Burret) H.E. Moore Chelyocarpus ulei Dammer Coccothrinax argentata (Jacq.) L.H. Bailey Coccothrinax jamaicensis Read Cocos nucifera L. Copernicia tectorum (Kunth) Mart. Cryosophila kalbreyeri (Dammer ex Burret) Dahlgren Cryosophila macrocarpa R. Evans Desmoncus cirrhiferus A.H. Gentry & Zardini Desmoncus giganteus A.J. Hend. Desmoncus mitis Mart. Desmoncus orthacanthos Mart. Desmoncus polyacanthos Mart. Desmoncus tenerrimus Mart. Desmoncus vacivus L.H. Bailey Dictyocaryum lamarckianum (Mart.) H. Wendl. Conservation status 1987 Conservation status 2005 EN EN DD EN VU = C. parvifrons NT EN CR R EN EN Notes EN NT NT IK Added after 1987 = C. ceriferum = C. parvifrons Added after 1987 IK R IK IK NT IK = C. pinnatifrons Added after 1987 = C. tepejilote Misapplied name for C. allenii = C. pinnatifrons Misapplied name for C. pygmaea = C. pauciflora = C. pinnatifrons NT = C. pinnatifrons IK = C. linearis NT IK Misapplied name for C. ricardoi NT R IK VU IK R = C. warscewiczii LC LC VU EN VU NT NT NT LC EN IK Added after 1987 Added after 1987 = C. argentata NT EN NT NT VU DD LC Added after 1987 R LC LC LC LC Added after 1987 NT IK IK NT = D. mitis var. tenerrimus = D. mitis var. tenerrimus LC © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS 159 APPENDIX Continued Taxon Conservation status 1987 Dictyocaryum ptarianum (Steyerm.) H.E. Moore Elaeis oleifera (Kunth) Cortés Euterpe andina Burret VU IK Euterpe aphanolepis Burret IK Euterpe brevicaulis Burret Euterpe catinga Wallace Euterpe cuatrecasana Dugand Euterpe frigida (Kunth) Burret IK IK VU IK Euterpe karsteniana Engel IK Euterpe kalbreyeri Burret NT Euterpe oleracea Mart. Euterpe oocarpa Burret IK IK Euterpe parviflora Burret Euterpe precatoria Mart. Euterpe purpurea Engel IK NT IK Euterpe rhodoxyla Dugand IK Euterpe zephyria Dugand IK Geonoma acaulis Mart. Geonoma aff. appuniana Spruce Geonoma arundinacea Mart. Geonoma aspidiifolia Spruce Geonoma atrovirens Borchs. & Balslev Geonoma brongniartii Mart. Geonoma calyptrogynoidea Burret Geonoma camana Trail Geonoma chlamydostachys Galeano Geonoma chococola Wess. Boer Geonoma concinna Burret Geonoma cuneata H. Wendl. ex Spruce Geonoma densa Linden & H. Wendl. Geonoma deversa (Poit.) Kunth Geonoma dicranospadix Burret Geonoma divisa H.E. Moore Geonoma euspatha Burret Geonoma ferruginea H. Wendl. ex Spruce Geonoma heinrichsiae Burret Geonoma helminthoclada Burret Geonoma interrupta (Ruiz & Pav.) Mart. Geonoma juruana Dammer Geonoma jussieuana Mart. Geonoma laxiflora Mart. Geonoma lehmannii Burret Geonoma leptospadix Trail NT IK NT NT NT EN NT NT IK NT IK R NT Conservation status 2005 Notes LC Added after 1987 EN = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = Prestoea carderi LC = E. oleracea = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = E. precatoria var. longevaginata = E. precatoria var. longevaginata LC = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = Prestoea carderi LC = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = E. precatoria var. longevaginata = Prestoea acuminata var. acuminata = G. macrostachys var. acaulis Misapplied name for G. solitaria LC LC LC LC LC LC VU LC DD LC LC LC = G. jussieuana LC LC IK IK IK NT IK NT VU NT Added after 1987 = G. interrupta var. euspatha Added after 1987 = G. orbignyana = G. undata LC = G. maxima var. chelidonura NT LC = G. jussieuana LC © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 160 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO APPENDIX Continued Conservation status 1987 Taxon Geonoma lindeniana H. Wendl. Geonoma linearis Burret Geonoma longevaginata H. Wendl. ex Spruce Geonoma macrostachys Mart. Geonoma marggraffia Engel Geonoma maxima (Poit.) Kunth Geonoma oligoclona Trail Geonoma orbignyana Mart. Geonoma oxycarpa Mart. Geonoma pachydicrana Burret Geonoma paradoxa Burret Geonoma pinnatifrons Willd. VU Geonoma piscicauda Dammer Geonoma poeppigiana Mart. Geonoma polyandra Skov Geonoma procumbens H. Wendl. ex Spruce Geonoma pulcherrima Burret Geonoma pulchra Engel Geonoma pycnostachys Mart. Geonoma seleri Burret Geonoma sodiroi Dammer ex Burret Geonoma solitaria (Engel) Jahn ex A.W. Hill Geonoma spinescens H. Wendl. ex Burret Geonoma stricta (Poit.) Kunth Geonoma triandra (Burret) Wess. Boer Geonoma triglochin Burret Geonoma undata Klotzsch Geonoma santanderensis Galeano & R. Bernal Geonoma weberbaueri Dammer ex Burret Geonoma wilsonii Galeano & R. Bernal Hyospathe concinna H.E. Moore NT Hyospathe elegans Mart. Hyospathe frontinensis A.J. Hend. Hyospathe lehmannii Burret Hyospathe pallida H.E. Moore Hyospathe pittieri Burret Hyospathe simplex Burret Hyospathe wendlandiana Dammer ex Burret Iriartea deltoidea Ruiz & Pav. Iriartella setigera (Mart.) H. Wendl. Iriartella stenocarpa Burret Itaya amicorum H.E. Moore Jessenia bataua (Mart.) Burret Leopoldinia major Wallace Leopoldinia piassaba Wallace Leopoldinia pulchra Mart. Lepidocaryum allenii Dugand Lepidocaryum casiquiarense (Spruce) Drude Lepidocaryum gracile Mart. NT NT VU NT NT IK IK IK Conservation status 2005 = G. orbignyana LC LC LC = G. orbignyana LC LC NT = G. interrupta var. interrupta = G. orbignyana DD = Geonoma interrupta var. interrupta = G. stricta var. piscicauda LC DD R IK IK NT IK IK EN IK R IK NT NT DD LC LC NT NT VU IK NT IK LC VU IK IK LC IK IK NT NT NT IK IK IK NT IK NT Notes Added after 1987 = G. cuneata = G. orbignyana = G. densa = G. stricta var. stricta Misapplied name for G. undata = G. cuneata var. sodiroi Added after 1987 = G. solitaria Added after 1987 = H. elegans ssp. concinna (not recorded from Colombia) Added after 1987 Dubious name = H. elegans ssp. elegans Added after 1987 Dubious name EN LC LC LC LC Added after 1987 Added after 1987 = Oenocarpus bataua LC NT LC = L. tenue var. tenue = L. tenue var. casiquiarense = L. tenue var. gracile © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS 161 APPENDIX Continued Taxon Conservation status 1987 Lepidocaryum guainiense (Spruce) Drude Lepidocaryum tenue Mart. Lepidocaryum tessmannii Burret Manicaria atricha Burret Manicaria martiana Burret Manicaria saccifera Gaertn. Mauritia carana Wallace Mauritia flexuosa L. f. Mauritiella aculeata (Kunth) Burret Mauritiella armata (Mart.) Burret Mauritiella cataractarum Dugand Mauritiella macroclada (Burret) Burret Mauritiella martiana (Spruce) Burret Mauritiella subinermis (Spruce) Burret Maximiliana maripa (Aubl.) Drude Morenia corallina H. Karst. Morenia lindeniana H. Wendl. Morenia cf. macrocarpa Burret Morenia montana (Humb. & Bonpl.) Burret Morenia robusta Burret Oenocarpus bacaba Mart. Oenocarpus balickii Kahn Oenocarpus bataua Mart. Oenocarpus circumtextus Mart. Oenocarpus makeru R. Bernal, Galeano & A.J. Hend. Oenocarpus mapora H. Karst. Oenocarpus minor Mart. Oenocarpus simplex R. Bernal, Galeano & A.J. Hend. Orbignya cuatrecasana Dugand Orbignya luetzelburgii Burret Pholidostachys dactyloides H.E. Moore Pholidostachys kalbreyeri H. Wendl. ex Burret Pholidostachys pulchra H. Wendl. ex Burret Pholidostachys synanthera (Mart.) H.E. Moore Phytelephas dasyneura Burret Phytelephas karstenii O.F. Cook Phytelephas macrocarpa Ruiz & Pav. Phytelephas pittieri O.F. Cook Phytelephas schottii H. Wendl. Phytelephas seemannii O.F. Cook Phytelephas tenuicaulis (Barfod) A.J. Hend. Phytelephas tumacana O.F. Cook Prestoea acuminata (Willd.) H.E. Moore Prestoea brachyclada (Burret) R. Bernal, Galeano & A.J. Hend. Prestoea carderi Hook. f. Prestoea cuatrecasasii H.E. Moore IK IK IK IK IK NT IK NT IK Prestoea dasystachys (Burret) R. Bernal, Galeano & A.J. Hend. VU IK NT IK IK NT IK IK IK IK IK NT R Conservation status 2005 = L. tenue var. casiquiarense LC = L. tenue = M. saccifera = M. saccifera LC LC LC LC LC = Mauritiella aculeata LC = = = = = = = = LC LC LC VU NT NT IK IK Mauritiella armata Mauritiella armata Attalea maripa Chamaedorea linearis Chamaedorea linearis Chamaedorea linearis Chamaedorea linearis Chamaedorea linearis Added after 1987 Added after 1987 = O. minor LC NT R IK NT Notes Added after 1987 = Attalea cuatrecasana = Attalea luetzelburgii LC NT NT LC IK EN = Ammandra decasperma = P. macrocarpa LC EN R EN = P. seemannii = P. macrocarpa NT NT EN LC IK Added after 1987 = Prestoea carderi NT IK = P. longepetiolata var. cuatrecasasii = P. acuminata var. dasystachys © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 162 R. BERNAL and G. GALEANO APPENDIX Continued Taxon Prestoea decurrens (H. Wendl. ex Burret) H.E. Moore Prestoea ensiformis (Ruiz & Pav.) H.E. Moore Prestoea latisecta (Burret) R. Bernal, Galeano & A.J. Hend. Prestoea longepetiolata (Oerst.) H.E. Moore Prestoea pubens H.E. Moore Prestoea schultzeana (Burret) H.E. Moore Prestoea simplicifolia Galeano Prestoea simplicifrons (Burret) A.J. Hend. & de Nevers Raphia taedigera (Mart.) Mart. Reinhardtia gracilis (H. Wendl.) Burret Reinhardtia koschnyana (H. Wendl. & Dammer) Burret Reinhardtia simplex (H. Wendl.) Burret Roystonea oleracea (Jacq.) O.F. Cook Sabal mauritiiformis (H. Karst.) Griseb. ex H. Wendl. Scheelea attaleoides H. Karst. Scheelea butyracea (Mutis ex L.f.) H. Karst. ex H. Wendl. Scheelea excelsa H. Karst. Scheelea humboldtiana (Spruce) Burret Scheelea insignis (Mart.) H. Karst. Socratea exorrhiza (Mart.) H. Wendl. Socratea hecatonandra (Dugand) R. Bernal Socratea montana R. Bernal & A.J. Hend. Socratea rostrata Burret Syagrus allenii Glassman Syagrus inajai (Spruce) Becc. Syagrus orinocensis (Spruce) Burret Syagrus sancona H. Karst. Syagrus smithii H.E. Moore Synechanthus warscewiczianus H. Wendl. Welfia regia H. Wendl. ex André Wettinia aequalis (O.F. Cook & Doyle) R. Bernal Wettinia anomala (Burret) R. Bernal Wettinia augusta Poepp. ex Endl. Wettinia castanea H.E. Moore & J. Dransf. Wettinia cladospadix (Dugand) H.E. Moore & J. Dransf. Wettinia disticha R. Bernal Wettinia drudei (O.F. Cook & Doyle) A.J. Hend. Wettinia fascicularis (Burret) H.E. Moore & J. Dransf. Wettinia hirsuta Burret Wettinia kalbreyeri (Burret) R. Bernal Wettinia lanata R. Bernal Wettinia maynensis Spruce Conservation status 1987 Conservation status 2005 NT LC Notes NT IK IK NT EN = Prestoea carderi DD LC LC EN Added after 1987 = P. carderi NT R EN LC CR CR NT CR NT NT Added after 1987 NT NT = Attalea insignis = Attalea butyracea NT IK IK NT NT NT IK NT IK = Attalea butyracea = Attalea butyracea = Attalea insignis IK EN R NT NT NT LC LC = Socratea rostrata LC = S. orinocensis Misapplied name for S. orinocensis LC VU LC LC LC LC Added after 1987 LC LC NT = Wettinia fascicularis LC LC EN LC VU VU LC NT LC IK Added after 1987 © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 ENDANGERMENT OF COLOMBIAN PALMS APPENDIX Continued Taxon Wettinia microcarpa (Burret) R. Bernal Wettinia oxycarpa Galeano & R. Bernal Wettinia praemorsa (Willd.) Wess. Boer Wettinia quinaria (O.F. Cook & Doyle) Burret Wettinia radiata (O.F. Cook & Doyle) R. Bernal Wettinia verruculosa H.E. Moore Conservation status 1987 R NT Conservation status 2005 Notes VU NT NT LC LC IK NT *Only the wild B. gasipaes var. chichagui is included in the total count. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 151, 151–163 163