Difference between revisions of "Fritillaria gentneri"
Madroño 11: 138, figs. 6–10. 1951.
FNA>Volume Importer |
imported>Volume Importer |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|place=11: 138, figs. 6–10. 1951 | |place=11: 138, figs. 6–10. 1951 | ||
|year=1951 | |year=1951 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |special_status={{Treatment/ID/Special_status | ||
| + | |code=E | ||
| + | |label=Endemic | ||
| + | }}{{Treatment/ID/Special_status | ||
| + | |code=C | ||
| + | |label=Conservation concern | ||
}} | }} | ||
|basionyms= | |basionyms= | ||
| Line 33: | Line 40: | ||
-->{{#Taxon: | -->{{#Taxon: | ||
name=Fritillaria gentneri | name=Fritillaria gentneri | ||
| − | |||
|authority=Gilkey | |authority=Gilkey | ||
|rank=species | |rank=species | ||
| Line 47: | Line 53: | ||
|publication title=Madroño | |publication title=Madroño | ||
|publication year=1951 | |publication year=1951 | ||
| − | |special status= | + | |special status=Endemic;Conservation concern |
| − | |source xml=https:// | + | |source xml=https://bitbucket.org/aafc-mbb/fna-data-curation/src/2e0870ddd59836b60bcf96646a41e87ea5a5943a/coarse_grained_fna_xml/V26/V26_289.xml |
|genus=Fritillaria | |genus=Fritillaria | ||
|species=Fritillaria gentneri | |species=Fritillaria gentneri | ||
Latest revision as of 21:14, 5 November 2020
Bulb scales: large several; small numerous. Stem 5–7 dm. Leaves in 1–3 whorls of 3–5 leaves per node proximally, alternate distally, 7–15 cm; blade broadly linear to lanceolate. Flowers spreading to nodding; perianth broadly campanulate; tepals red to purple, clearly mottled with yellow, 3.5–4 cm, apex spreading, not recurved; nectaries linear, 1/2 tepal length; style obviously branched for 1/3–1/2 its length, branches widely spreading, longer than 1.5 mm. Capsules winged.
Phenology: Flowering Apr–Jun.
Habitat: Dry woodlands
Elevation: 300–1500 m
Discussion
Of conservation concern.
Fritillaria gentneri is a restricted endemic closely allied with F. recurva and F. affinis, with which it can be confused. Some evidence suggests that it may represent a hybrid between those two species. More study is needed to determine whether it should remain recognized as a distinct species.
Selected References
None.