sites: one in east-central Idaho (Fremont 

 County) , one in northwestern Wyoming (Fremont 

 County) , and five in southwestern Montana 

 (Beaverhead, Deerlodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, 

 and Silver Bow counties) . The distribution 

 in Montana is shown in Figure 1, p. 6. 



I.5.B.I. Populations currently known extant: 



e. Montana: All known populations are 

 listed in Table 1, pp. 7-8; exact locations 

 are provided in the maps on pp. 9-13. 



I.5.B.4. Locations not yet investigated believed 

 likely to support additional natural 

 populations: Other areas where this taxon 

 potentially occurs exist in southwestern 

 Montana. The areas most likely to contain 

 additional habitat are in the Gravelly Range; 

 large meadow areas are visible in the 

 southern part of the range from the vicinity 

 of Raynolds Pass. Though less likely to 

 contain large, level meadow areas, potential 

 habitat might also occur in the Tobacco Root, 

 Madison, and Gallatin ranges. Also, it is 

 suspected that the taxon could be found in 

 Yellowstone National Park (mainly in 

 Wyoming) ; the area lies between known sites 

 in southwestern Montana and northwestern 

 Wyoming, and contains areas of extensive 

 moist grasslands at high elevations (i.e., 

 Lamar Valley, Hayden Valley) . 



I.5.C. Biogeographical and phylogenetic history: 



The details regarding the phylogenetic 

 history of C. lanceolata var. f lava remain 

 unknown. However, detailed systematic 

 studies are in progress; these are being 

 conducted in conjunction with Peter Lesica 

 (University of Montana, Missoula) and the 

 Department of Botany, Washington State 

 University (Dr. Douglas Soltis' laboratory). 

 Two analyses are involved: 1.) electro- 

 phoretic comparisons of populations of the 

 two varieties, and 2.) morphological 

 comparisons of the two taxa. The results of 

 the electrophoretic analysis indicate that 

 vars. lanceolata and f lava are genetically 

 distinct, at a level typically observed for 

 congeneric species (Wolf 1988). The results 

 of this analysis are summarized in Appendix 

 B, p. 38. The morphological studies also 

 indicate that the two varieties are 

 taxonomically distinct, especially with 



