uncomfortable (and remember, taxonomists deal with name changes more than anyone), students 

 pick up new names easily, and it is our obligation to teach what we perceive to represent the best 

 and most recent science and reflect that in our herbaria. 



At the specific and infraspecific levels taxonomic opinion often differs between workers 

 assessing variation globally and those having extensive but mostly localized field experience. As 

 one who monographed a medium-sized genus of grasses that occurs on live continents and has 

 hundreds of synonyms 1 understand keenly some of the underlying reasons for differing 

 taxonomic views. Those with extensive but mostly provincial experience often can recognize 

 ecotypes and populations with some degree of evident difference that may have been ignored or 

 overlooked taxonomically by monographers or those writing broad treatments (e.g. Flora of 

 North America). However, if localized variation is not evaluated in the context of variation 

 globally, then a proliferation of heterotypic synonyms typically ensues. The extensive synonymy 

 associated with some taxa in our area reflects this tension, particularly in genera with 

 circumboreal or trans-American distributions (e.g. Viola, Salix, Silene). Pronounced 

 manifestations of the local versus global tension is seen with Mimulns guttatus, for which 

 Kartesz and Meacham (KTZ99) recognize nearly 70 synonyms. In the opposite direction, 

 Reveal recognized 4 1 varieties for Eriogonum umhellatum in Flora North America (Vol. 5). In 

 compiling the Checklist close attention was given to the views of those with extensive field- 

 based knowledge and overall breadth of taxonomic experience, but wider treatments (FNA, 

 PorterOO, Wagner07) also have been considered. 1 have summarized elsewhere in detail the 

 species concept and criteria I use, which was sometimes used to evaluate the taxonomic 

 treatments of others (Snow97, Snow03). 



The degree of synonymy indicated among taxa varies; users hopefully will understand that the 

 primary goal has been to summarize names used (mostly) regionally, either now or previously, 

 and to reflect modern taxonomic concepts. In some cases where the taxonomy of a group is 

 particularly difficult, more extensive synonymy is provided. 



Earlier versions (Snow04a, 07a,b) noted its origins in A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of 

 Colorado ( http://www.rmh.uwyo.edu ). Important differences in the listing of synonyms between 

 these documents is explained below (notes 2-v, 2-vi). In most cases 1 consulted volumes of 

 Flora of North America, A Working Index of \ ! ew Mexico Vascular Plants 

 (http://web.nmsu.edu/-4iallred/herbweb) by Kelly Allred, A Flora of New Mexico (Martin & 

 Hutchins 1980-81), the Synthesis of the North American Flora (Kartesz & Meacham 1999), the 

 plant database at the University of New Mexico Herbarium for NM counties in the SRMR, 

 Grasses of Colorado (Shaw(J8). and the Catalog of the Four Corners Flora of Heil & O'Kane 

 (http://www.sanjuancollege.edu/Herbarium. calaloglitle.htm). Some state records for Colorado 

 from Heil and O'Kane have not been published or await further confirmation. A number of 

 revisions and monographs that concern taxa from our region have been consulted and cited. 

 Nearly all previous references to the U.S.D.A. PLANTS database have been removed since it is a 

 dynamic document, and rechecking its usage would have required more time than that presently 

 available. Likewise, many references to "RMC (short for Rocky Mountain [Herbarium] 

 Checklist, from 1992) have been removed given its age and other generally reliable sources of 

 printed information since then (e.g., DornOl, FNA volumes). 



i.N. Jiiiuiiin iUO'l ( luckliM of V;;r. L -.il;u I'lunls ii:';hi: Siuilht'in Kniki \ 



