Newsletter of the Cactus & Succulent Specialist ...

62 downloads 1141 Views 213KB Size Report
Closer Liaison with IOS Conservation Section, – Philip. Downs . .... Production of an update of the Cactus and. Succulent ... Next CSSG meeting will be at. IOS ...
Newsletter of the Cactus & Succulent Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Issue 8

November 2000 Contents

Chairman’s Report – Ted Anderson ....................................1 Report on the last CSSG Meeting – Wolfgang Stuppy ........2 W ORLD C ONSERVATION C ONGRESS 2000 Brief Report – Wolfgang Stuppy........................................3 Meeting of the Species Survival Commission, Wolfgang Stuppy ............................................................................3 N EWS FROM SSC A Second Plants Officer for IUCN-SSC – Ted Anderson.....3 R ED L ISTING The 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – Wolfgang Stuppy ............................................................3 Attention: Revised IUCN Red List Criteria will be valid from Jan 2001 on – W. Stuppy & C. Hilton-Taylor .........3 How to make and submit an assessment – Craig HiltonTaylor & Wolfgang Stuppy..............................................4 Establishment of Red List Authorities and their Responsibilities – Craig Hilton-Taylor.........................................4 A CTION P LAN R EVIEW General .............................................................................5 Mexico – W.A. & Betty Fitz Maurice ..................................6 United States of America – Julie Lyke ..............................7 Aloaceae & Southern Africa – Craig Hilton-Taylor ............7 Monitoring Studies Completed in Texas – Ted Anderson...........................................................................8

Chairman’s Report This issue of our newsletter comes after a very long hiatus, the last issue (# 7) which appeared at the end of 1996. Despite the group’s long “hibernation,” we hope to become active again. Our moribund nature was perhaps due to a wellearned let-down following the publication of the Action Plan, which has received numerous compliments for its excellence. In the last issue of the newsletter I informed the group that I was “retiring” as Chairman after 10 years, but here I am again. My efforts of writing a major book on the cacti have been completed, with the book

Mammillaria luethyi – Status in Mexico – W. Fitz Maurice ... 8 CITES Cactus Cops in Cologne – on the confiscation of illegally collected cacti in Germany – Joachim Thiede................. 8 Regulations in Force for Collection and Export – Daniel Ramadori......................................................................... 9 CITES-Study of Mexican Cacti Completed – Ted Anderson....................................................................... 10 CITES News – Plants – Ted Anderson ........................... 10 W E I NTRODUCE : Grupo San Luis de la Sociedad Potosina Cactología – Manuel Sotomayor ........................................................ 10 F UNDING British Cactus & Succulent Society - Grants available towards Conservation Projects – Philip Downs............. 11 German Cactus Society (DGK, e.V.) – Grants available for the Study and Conservation of Cacti & other Succulents – Detlev Metzing............................................................... 11 Closer Liaison with IOS Conservation Section, – Philip Downs ........................................................................... 11 Recent Publications ........................................................... 12 Soon to be published ......................................................... 14 The Next CSSG Meeting ................................................... 15 CSSG Members List .......................................................... 15

due to be published early next spring. The group has new life in many ways and many forms, despite my return as Chairman and Héctor Hernández as Vice-Chairman. As most of you know the group’s new Secretary is Wolfgang Stuppy, who has already created the important CSSG Listserver, which will allow faster communication among members. In addition, now that most Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter edited by: Wolfgang Stuppy, Secretary CSSG THE PRODUCTION OF THIS NEWSLETTER WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW

members of the group have e-mail, the Listserver will enable the newsletter to be “mailed” electronically. We have now entered a new quadrennium (no longer a triennium), which means that soon each of you will be invited to serve in the group for another four years. Hopefully you will be willing to do so, especially in a reactivated group with several important tasks awaiting it. I am also happy to say that the group will continue its close liaison with the IOS Conservation Section, now chaired by Dr. Philip E. Downs of the UK, now of New Zealand. We look forward to further joint sessions with his section at future IOS Congresses. Several important tasks

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

await us in this new quadrennium. First, the Action Plan needs to have a thorough review and update. Some tasks have been completed, but several new ones have arisen. Second, members of our group will be called upon to serve as reviewers of CITES plant proposals. Third, and most important, our group needs to work with the IUCN in updating the Red List of Threatened Plants. There is further information about this challenging task in the newsletter. I am sorry that this newsletter will not have the valuable contributions of one of our most active conservationists in Mexico, Charlie Glass. His sudden death was a shock to many of us and we have lost a strong ally in our efforts to study and conserve cacti and succulents in Mexico. If any reader of this newsletter has not received a copy of the group’s Action Plan, please let me know and we will get a copy to you. The recent meeting of the group at the IOS Congress in Zürich last March was productive and clearly indicates that there are many things to be done. A report of that meeting is in the newsletter. Also, included is an updated list of all group members. Please check to make sure we have the correct information about you, especially your e-mail address. Finally, please send news and items for future newsletters by e-mail to [email protected] or to either my or Wolfgang’s personal e-mail addresses. Welcome back to the Cacti and Succulents Specialist Group. I look forward to working with all of you in conservation activities in the next few years! Edward F. “Ted” Anderson

Report on the last CSSG Meeting The first meeting of the CSSG after a three years break was held during the XXVI IOS Congress in Zürich, Switzerland, March 20, 2000, 16.00h

to 18.10h. The following report on the meeting was already distributed to the members of the group via our listserver: Present: Ted Anderson (Chair), Wolfgang Stuppy (Secretary), Wilhelm Barthlott, Thomas Bolliger, Jean-Marc Chalet, Philip Downs, William & Betti Fitz Maurice, Craig Hilton- Taylor, John Gauci, Anton Hofer, David Hunt, Beat Ernst Leuenberger, Jonas Lüthy, Massimo Meregalli, Detlev Metzing, Bruno Mies, Boris Schlumpberger, Gideon F. Smith, Jean-Marie Solichon, Wendy Strahm, Diedrich Supthut, Nigel P. Taylor, Marc Teissier, Joachim Thiede, Matthias Uhlig, Robert Wallace. A) Welcome by the Chairman, Ted Anderson B) CSSG listserver: Secretary, Wolfgang Stuppy, gave report on CSSG listserver. Comments received by subscribers. Two subscribers asked to be taken from the list. C) In situ and ex situ conservation projects: The question was raised about what has been done/achieved since the publication of the Cactus and Succulent Plant Action Plan. - A summary document with reports hitherto received was presented by the Secretary. The document will be published after permission is received from contributors. Philip Downs: The British Cactus and Succulent Society spent 12,000 £ on conservation projects. How should such projects be reported? Discussion point: What happens to plants confiscated by customs? W. Fitz Maurice reported that undocumented plants confiscated in Mexico were given to respectable nurseries to keep as motherplants for seed production. Ted Anderson added that in the U.S. undocumented material was given to rescue centres, but the scientific value of the plants is almost zero since it lacks field data. Moreover, communication between the collector and the rescue centre is not allowed. It was suggested that seizures and convictions of illegal collectors should be publicised in the CSSG Newsletter. The CITES Newsletter and TRAFFIC could serve as sources of information for that purpose. Nigel Taylor: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Mexico and the Millennium Seedbank of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is soon to be signed which will include the banking of seeds of threatened cacti. Jonas Lüthy: The Linz Botanic Garden produces seed for distribution from a collection of documented material of the genus Turbinicarpus. Also, an Austrian group (headed by Peter Lechner) publishes an excellent Turbinicarpus Newsletter. The plot bought by CANTE where Mammillaria albiflora occurs is still safe, although CANTE suffers considerable financial difficulties. D) Information Management: Following a presentation on the background, general conditions and reponsibilities of Red

November 2000 List Authorities (RLAs) by Wolfgang Stuppy the CSSG decided that it must take up the responsibility and try to fulfill the requirements when acting as an official RLA of IUCN's Species Survival Commission. The contract was signed after the official meeting and Wolfgang Stuppy was appointed the focal point person. A summary document on the function and responsibilities of RLAs was handed out to those present. For the Red Listing Process, it was agreed that the 1997 Red List of Threatened Plants will serve as a starting point for re-evaluation of taxa according to the 1994 IUCN Categories of Threat. Until 2003 about 1000 evaluations of Cacti and Succulents should be completed. A centralised SIS (Species Information System) database kept by the focal point person with collect all assessments and data. Invitation of new CSSG members: The chairman asked the people present to suggest names of appropriate people to be invited as new members of CSSG. E) Fund raising: BCSS and DKG would be able to support small projects. It was also suggested that the CSSG should apply for money to produce a publication on cacti succulents similar to the Red List of Threatened Trees and other projects. F) CITES: It was agreed that in the future the group should work on - how to improve on CITES in as far as import of plants for scientific purposes can be facilitated (registration of incountry institutions was regarded as a first step). • how to help make trade registered nurseries easier.

of

CITES

• how to provide future support towards CITES. E.g. our membership database should store information on the specific expertise of each member so that future assessors of CITES proposal could easily be determined. G) Newsletter: It was agreed to re-establish the Newsletter in addition to the listserver. Project reports and project proposals should also be published. H) Other conclusions and suggestions: • The currently most important immediate goal of CSSG is to update the conservation ratings of Cacti & Succulents in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. This requires the application of the 1994 IUCN Red List Categories of Threat of our members and outside experts. • Production of an update of the Cactus and Succulent Plants Action Plan and its implementation and completion. Suggested projects should be prioritised and additional urgent projects be added. Projects suggested to be most urgent were the creation of IOS reserve collections and the creation of an inventory of important collections and species in cultivation. • The CSSG should analyse the role and impact of invasive succulent species (US and South Africa have just entered into a treaty concerning invasive species).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

• Future meetings will still be held with IOS Congresses. Next CSSG meeting will be at IOS congress in Phoenix in 2002. Wolfgang Stuppy

World Conservation Congress 2000 Brief Report on the

IUCN World Conservation Congress

encouraging results. Other talks included an update on the SSC Strategic Plan and presentations on the SSC Digital Library, the top 100 list of invasive species, the IUCN Red List Programme and the 2000 IUCN Red List and the upcoming Species Information Service (SIS). The highlight of the meeting was the announcement of the Peter Scott awards, this time awarded to Peter Jackson, Marshall Murphree and Bill Conway. Wolfgang Stuppy

4-11 October, Amman, Jordan

News from SSC

The Second IUCN World Conservation Congress was held from 4-11 October 2000 in Amman, Jordan. About 2,000 people from 140 countries representing governments, NGOs, UN Agencies and the private sector participated in the Congress. The theme of the Congress was "Ecospace", a concept that emphasises the importance of transboundary management of ecosystems. During the meeting 12 thematic sessions were held to consider the issues. For example, ecospaces and a global culture for sustainability, environment and security to local solutions promoting social equity and cultural diversity. As the main outcome of the Congress, 104 resolutions were adopted on a wide range of conservation, programme and governance topics, and the programme for the next four years was approved. For a full summary and the daily congress newsletters, please consult the following webpage: http://www.iisd.ca/sd/iucn/wcc2/

A Second Plants Officer for IUCN-SSC

Wolfgang Stuppy

Meeting of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) The IUCN World Conservation Congress held in Amman from Oct. 4-11 was preceeded by a meeting of the Species Survival Commission held on Oct. 3 & 4. The main body of the meeting comprised numerous Specialist Group reports (the CSSG was represented by its secretary), some of which were very impressive presenting some admirable and

Wendy Strahm announced in the spring that Mr. Alain Mauric was joining the IUCN/SSC office in Cambridge, UK. He is the second Plants Officer for the Species Program. Alain, a French national, has been seconded for two years to the Species Program by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which are jointly supporting his position with the Scottish Natural Heritage. A botanist, he has lived in Thailand for the past six years, where he worked at the Forest Herbarium of the Royal Forest Department. Alain’s responsibilities will include the implementation of the IUCN Plant Programme, in particular providing support to the Plant Specialist Group network for projects, liaison, help with fund-raising, using the Red List Criteria, and input into biodiversity conservation policies. Specific duties include an emphasis on the follow-up of the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Trees project, and support to the European Plant Specialist Group. He may be reached by: Mr. Alain Mauric Plants Officer, IUCN SSC Programme Office – Cambridge 219c Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Telephone: 44-1223-277-966 Fax: 44-1223-277-845 e-mail: [email protected] Ted Anderson

November 2000 Red Listing

The 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species As many of you may already know, on September 28 the 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species was officially launched. For the first time assessments of both fauna and flora are combined in a single red list. Due to the large number of species covered and the amount of documentation provided, the 2000 IUCN Red List is not available in printed format. It is instead made available in electronic format as a CD-ROM (with an accompanying analysis of the results and discussion of the major findings) and as a searchable database on the internet (webpage address: www.redlist.org). The 2000 IUCN Red List only lists taxa which have been evaluated against the 1994 IUCN Red List Criteria. A total of 9,485 plant taxa are included of which 5,435 are actually threatened (i.e. not classified as 'Lower Risk' or 'Data Deficient') among which are approximately 100 mosses and liverworts, the first time this group has ever appeared in and IUCN Red List. The majority of taxa, however, is constituted by those listed earlier in the World List of Threatened Trees (Oldfield et al. 1998). Hence, there is a strong bias towards trees. Also, very few of the plant taxa listed in the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (33,798 altogether) have been re-evaluated against the 1994 IUCN Red List Criteria. Therefore, this earlier publication does not become entirely obsolete, but should rather be used in conjunction with the 2000 IUCN Red List. Wolfgang Stuppy

Attention: Revised IUCN Red List Criteria will be valid from Jan 2001 on The review process of the 1994 IUCN Red List Criteria (see Species 31-32 (1999): 43-57) has been concluded during a final meeting of the Criteria Review Working Group in

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

February 2000. The final results of the review will be officially published in January 2001. All new assessment from January 2001 should use the latest adopted version and cite the version number and/or date. The adopted changes concern all five criteria: • Criterion A has been completely revised and will offer four very elaborate instead of two more general options; • Criterion B was changed to better differentiate the classification made by 'Extent of Occurrence' (EOO) and 'Area of Occupancy' (AOO); • Criterion C2 was changed to be more precautionary; • for Criterion D2 (only for 'Vulnerable') the area of occupancy should typically be less than 20 2 2 km instead of currently 100 km ; and • for Criterion E a maximum of 100 years is given for the timeframe defined by three generations; and • Furthermore, two categories spp • - 'Lower Risk' and 'Conservation Dependent' - have been removed ('Near Threatened' and 'Least Concern' will be retained). These changes in the criteria will not necessarily result in changes in the rating of a certain taxon, but each will have to be re-assessed on a case-by-case basis. Most taxa which have been assessed using the 1994 IUCN Red List Criteria can readily be re-assessed against the revised criteria, provided the original information used is available. To accommodate the above mentioned changes to the criteria the RAMAS® Red List software, which is used to make assessments particularly in situations where there is some degree of uncertainty, is also currently being adapted. Wolfgang Stuppy & Craig Hilton-Taylor

How to make and submit an assessment For a taxon to be included on the global IUCN Red List, it is necessary

for the assessment to be subject to a peer review process. To help facilitate this, a system of Red List Authorities has been established (in most cases these are the IUCN SSC Specialist Groups) which will ensure all species within their jurisdiction are assessed and evaluated at regular intervals. All assessments should be submitted to the IUCN Red List Programme Officer, who in turn will forward them to the appropriate Red List Authorities for evaluation if necessary. In order to ensure greater transparency in the listing process and to expedite the evaluation process, all assessments should be accompanied by a minimum set of documentation requirements: 1. Name of the taxon (incl. authority details) 2. Common names 3. Red List Category & Criteria 4. Date of the assessment 5. Distribution of the taxon (country and sub-country level e.g. islands far from mainland countries, provinces, states, etc.) 6. Rationale for listing (i.e. the numerical or other data used on which the assessment was based, including any assumptions and inferences) 7. Summary of current population trends 8. Major habitats (according to GLCC = Global Land Cover Characterisation) 9. Major threats 10. General notes about population range, habitat & ecology, threats, conservation measures or actions have been taken 11. Sources of all information 12. Consultation process (name(s) of assessor(s)) 13. In case of EX and EW taxa more details are required about what searches have been conducted, effective extinction date, causes, etc. 14. In case of application of criterion E, details of the quantitative analysis particularly if any PVA models were used, are required, especially if only criterion E is used. Craig Hilton-Taylor & Wolfgang Stuppy

November 2000

Establishment of Red List Authorities and their Responsibilites As mentioned above in the report on our recent meeting during the IOS Congress in March, the CSSG signed the contract to become a Red List Authority of IUCN-SSC. In the following article, Craig HiltonTaylor describes what this actually means for the work of the group. The improved objectivity of the 1994 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria has shown that the current ad hoc process of listing a species now needs to be improved. To achieve this, it is proposed that Red List Authorities be established for all taxonomic groups included on the IUCN Red List. In most cases, the Red List Authority will be the SSC Specialist Group responsible for a species, group of species or specific geographic area, but in the case of birds, BirdLife International will be designated as the Red List Authority and they will liaise with the bird specialist groups and Wetlands International where appropriate. In cases where the SSC and its partner networks do not cover a particular taxonomic group or geographic region, the Red List Program Subcommittee will recommend the appointment of other appropriate organizations or networks to act as Red List Authorities for these. No new species will be included on the IUCN Red List until it has been evaluated by an appointed Red List Authority and/or by the Red List Standards Working Group (a group established under the Red List Program Subcommittee). There will be some overlap in the jurisdictions of Red List Authorities, especially where regional groups consider taxa under the ambit of a taxon group and vice versa. In such cases, no Red List Authority has precedence over another and both authorities need to collaborate in evaluating the status of the taxon concerned. A key requirement for all Red List Authorities, whether or not they are part of the formal SSC or partner networks, is that they should follow specific agreed terms of reference.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

Acting on the advice of SSC staff, particularly the IUCN Red List Program Officer (Craig Hilton-Taylor), the Red List Standards Working Group will keep general oversight of the performance of Red List Authorities to ensure that the terms of reference are followed. A crucial aspect of the proposed procedure is that acceptance of any listing needs two or more named people within the recognized Red List Authority to evaluate and accept each assessment submitted for inclusion. In the case of overlaps in jurisdiction, written support for the assessment should be obtained from the other relevant Red List Authority. To help with the evaluations, each Red List Authority will be issued with a copy of RAMAS Red List. This is a software package developed recently by Applied Biomathematics in New York, which applies the rules of the IUCN Red List Criteria to obtain an assessment plus it has an algorithm to handle any uncertainties in the data used. The Red List Program Subcommittee has decided to use the software on a trial basis for the 2000 Red List. The Red List Standards Working Group will seek to ensure that each Red List Authority receives sufficient guidance and training in the application of the IUCN Red List Criteria and the RAMAS Red List software. The Working Group will also be responsible for ensuring that standards are adhered to and that, as far as possible, there is consistency between Red List Authorities in listing procedures, particularly the application of the criteria. The IUCN Red List on the Web will be interactive, in that it will allow users to submit comments and additional information. This information will be forwarded to the appropriate Red List Authorities for consideration. External users will not be authorised to change anything on the list. All changes and additions will be authorised by the Red List Standards Working Group or the IUCN Red List Program Officer (acting as their proxy) based on the recommendations of the Red List Authorities. All taxa on the IUCN Red List must be re-evaluated by the appointed

November 2000

Red List Authorities at least once every ten years. Any taxon that has not been re-evaluated for more than ten years will revert to the Not Evaluated category. The IUCN Red List Program Officer will give Red List Authorities notice one year before the ten-year deadline.

the Red List and will facilitate better analysis of the findings. They will also provide a basis on which listings can be contested.

Documentation Requirements and Taxonomic Standards A major weakness of the current IUCN Red Lists is that they are poorly documented and as a result, the listings in them are unsubstantiated. To rectify this weakness, a new system of minimum documentation requirements is being developed. All species added to the IUCN Red List, or any listings that are changed must be documented from the year 2000 onwards, following the requirements adopted (see article above). Red List Authorities will also be encouraged to start documenting all of their taxa on the IUCN Red List. The aim is to get all species on the Red List documented by the year 2003, except for those categorised as Lower Risk Least Concern. Documentation may be required for some of the Lower Risk species if petitions about their inclusion have been or are likely to be received. Another weakness of the current IUCN Red Lists is the lack of sufficiently clear taxonomic standards. Taxonomic standards have been adopted and all species on the Red List should conform to these by the year 2003. All new species’ listings, and any revisions to listings, must also be in accordance with the taxonomic standards. Deviations are permitted provided they are fully documented and substantiated. The documentation requirements and taxonomic standards will be reviewed at regular intervals. These new, and seemingly complex, requirements are not intended to frighten Red List Authorities and potential contributors. The documentation requirements and taxonomic standards are drafted as guides and deviations from them are acceptable provided they are fully substantiated. Adherence to these standards will bring greater credibility and transparency to listings on

Action Plan Review

Craig Hilton-Taylor

In February this year we asked our members to report back about the progress and success of the implementation of the Cactus and Succulent Plants Action Plan (S. Oldfield 1997). The comments we received below refer to Chapter 4 ‘Action Proposals’ (please, refer to the publication to see details on each proposal).

General Action 2) Development of proposals to amend the Appendices of CITES: All Ceropegia spp. have been proposed for downlisting. This proposal was considered at the eleventh Conference of the Parties to CITES in April 2000 (results see XX). --- Julie Lyke Action 2a) Addition of Beaucarnea to Appendix II of CITES: not taking place at this time. --- Julie Lyke Action 2b) Addition of other taxa to Appendix II of CITES: not taking place at this time. --- Julie Lyke Action 2c) Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I: not taking place at this time [about Ceropegia following comment]. --- Julie Lyke Action 2b) Development of proposals to amend the Appendices of CITES - Addition of other Taxa to Appendix II: The possible listing of Brachystelma on Appendix II is raised in the IUCN/TRAFFIC analysis of the proposal to remove Ceropegia from Appendix II (COP 11). If Ceropegia is removed and Brachystelma added later on, then Ceropegia will have to be listed again because of look-alike problems especially amongst the tuberous species. --- Craig Hilton-Taylor

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

November 2000

tion anyone has to provide on the biological or trade status of these species would be most appreciated. --- Julie Lyke Action 4) Implementation of nursery registration: We are not implementing this resolution here in the United States, and have no plans to do so in the immediate future, as we do not have the resources required to conduct the periodic monitoring of registered nurseries that would be required. --Julie Lyke Action 5) Regular review of CITES trade data for succulents: The TRAFFIC South Africa office conducted a detailed survey of southern African succulents in international trade. A report on their findings was published - Newton, D and Chan, J. 1998. South Africa's Trade in Southern African Succulent Plants. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg. A verbal report was also presented at the IOS Congress in Cape Town in 1998. --- Craig Hilton-Taylor Action 8i) Ex situ conservation – increase awareness of CITES: RBG Kew has recently published "CITES and Plants: A Users Guide" which helps with this action point. --Craig Hilton-Taylor Action 16) Medicinal research on Aloeaceae: Underway as part of a much larger project by the National Botanical Institute of South Africa on medicinal plants. --- Craig HiltonTaylor

point where Rasmusson withdrew his offer (information available from David Neville, Editor BCSS Journal). Although propagated M. luethyi is now available in Mexico, the search for the habitat continues with unabated intensity. Action 74) Population Studies: While population studies we proposed for Cante, A.C. were never implemented, CITES funded a series of population studies made jointly by the Desert Botanical Garden and Cante, A.C. The results of this study were covered in CITES Special Project S-53: Population Study on Rare Mexican Cacti. Final Report. This report was compiled by Ted Anderson of the Desert Botanical Garden. We participated in this project and have since done volunteer follow-up work particularly with respect to Ariocarpus bravoanus (the study site has been decimated by collectors, electronic chips and all). The local Sociedad Potosina de Cactología is headed by Manuel Sotomayor, MD and he has been making extensive field trips within the state of San Luis Potosí, working with Alberto Arredondo of FORESTAL and Mario Martinez of SEMARNAP. Arredondo has been funded by the government for the work he has been doing in studying the cactaceae of the state of San Luis Potosi. During this work he, together with Sotomayor and Martinez, has brought the CITES population studies up to date as concerns San Luis Potosi state. At our suggestion, they proposed to CITES that they continue the Project S-53 work as concerns the plants in mainland Mexico (excluding Baja California). They have been asked to submit a proposal and it is currently in preparation. Fairly extensive studies of the cactus populations of the state of Tamaulipas have been carried out by people from the University of Tamaulipas but we do not have a report of their findings. We know of no progress with respect to paragraphs 69) Education, 70) Preparation of clear guidelines on conservation legislation and collecting regulatins relating to Mexican succulents, 71) Enforcement for

Action 2c) Development of proposals to amend the Appendices of CITES – Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I: Ceropegia has been proposed for downlisting from Appendix II, but in the analysis attention has been drawn to the Madagascan situation with a recommendation to leave the Madagascan endemics on Appendix II. --- Craig Hilton-Taylor Action 3) Review of CITES listings for Succulents: The CITES Plants Committee are slowly working through these. Some cacti have been proposed for downlisting at COP 11 (Sclerocactus mariposensis and Discocactus macdougallii both from App. I to App. II) plus the removal of the Indian succulent Frerea indica from App. II. Other groups under investigation include Anacampseros/Avonia and southern African Appendix I Aloe spp. (see later). I would imagine attention will turn to succulent euphorbs and the rest of Aloe in due course. --- Craig Hilton-Taylor Some succulents have recently been reviewed, including many native to the U.S. (see http://international.fws. gov/global/plantpro.html). As a result of this review, several amendments to the appendices have been proposed for the eleventh Conference of the Parties to CITES which took place in April 2000 (see http://www. wcmc.org.uk/CITES/eng/cop/11/pro pose/index.shtml). In addition, several Appendix I Cactaceae spp. have been included in the last phase of the Review of the Appendices. These include: Aztekium ritteri, Obregonia denegrii, Coryphantha werdermannii, Mammillaria pectinifera, M. solisioides, Strombocactus spp., Astrophytum asterias, Discocactus spp., Melocactus conoideus, M. deinacanthus, M. glaucescens, and M. paucispinus. Currently, we are reviewing the following species to ensure that they are appropriately listed under CITES: Dudleya traskiae, Lewisia maguirei, L. serrata, Sclerocactus blainei, S. brevispinus, S. coveriae ssp. brackii, S. mariposensis, S. nyensis, and S. sileri. Any informa-

Mexico by W.A. & B. Fitz Maurice Action 72) Indigenous plant propagation: Indigenous plant propagation is going well in Mexico and all of the cactus species are in propagation. At this time, we know of one cactus and succulent nursery here in Mexico which had obtained permission to ship rare cactus plants (specifically Mammillaria luethyi) to England for propagation; Joel Rasmusson's Vivero Cactus, in Ajijic, Jalisco (email: joelrasmusson @hotmail.com). The corresponding English papers were delayed to the

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

conservation legislation and 73) Development of protected area system.

United States of America 57) Implementation of published recovery plans. This activity is ongoing in the United States. --- Julie Lyke

Aloaceae & Southern Africa by Craig Hilton-Taylor Action 17) Fencing Aloe bowiea: There has been a lot of work done on Aloea bowiea (The President of IOS can probably report more on this). A large number of plants were removed to ex situ cultivation at the Karoo National Botanical Garden in 1998, others were relocated to safer situations in the wild. A full update on this is required. Action 25) Checklist of southern African succulents: Done - the "List of Southern African Succulent Plants" by Smith et al. was published in 1997. It will require constant updating especially in view of the many new species being discovered and the constant changes in taxonomy of the mesembs. This was partly covered by the publication of "Mesembs of the World" by Smith et al. in 1998. Action 26) Production of a Red Data Book [for Southern Africa]: Two updates to the Southern African Red Data List were published in 1996 and 1997. A publication on "Rare and Threatened Plants of KwaZulu-Natal and Neighbouring Regions" was published in 1999 and further work in the region is going ahead to produce a comprehensive Red List for the whole of southern Africa (10 countries) through the SABONET Project. Action 27) Review of in situ succulent plant protection: This was done for the Succulent Karoo and resulted in a paper Lombard et al 1999. Reserve selection in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: coping with high compositional turnover. Plant Ecology 142: 35-55. Partly as a result of this, the new

Namaqua National Park in the Kamiesberg was proclaimed and negotiations are underway to expand this area and to proclaim another park in the Knersvlakte area. The negotiations for these parks involved the local communities Action 28) In situ succulent plant conservation in Zimbabwe: No progress on this known. Action 29) Participation in protected area planning: See Action 27. Action 30) Conservation on private land: The South African Botanical Society have a project looking into this. Action 31) Survey of ex situ succulent plant conservation: This was done for the BGCI Congress held in Cape Town in 1998. It is hoped that this will be published eventually in a volume dealing specifically with ex situ conservation collections. Action 32) Improving CITES implementation: The South Africa Govt with funding from NORAD are involved in a large programme to implement CITES in South Africa. Part of this includes a new Endangered Species Act. which is working its way slowly rough the parliamentary system. A project is also underway to loook at the status of the five southern African Aloe species on CITES Appendix I. The National Botanical Institute is co-ordinating this project involving many organisations and individuals from across the region. The project is funded by the British Cactus & Succulent Society Conservation Committee, The Chicago Botanical Garden and the Chicago Zoo. Action 33) Development of national legislation: Namibia is moving ahead slowly with new legislation, as are many of the new South African Provinces. Swaziland has new drafted new legislation, but this seems to have become stuck in a political process. No news on Botswana or Lesotho. Action 34) Law enforcement: Still a problem area, but recent arests and convictions in the Western Cape

November 2000 have sent a clear warning to would be succulent thieves! Action 35) National Biodiversity Action Plans: Moving ahead slowly. Action 36) Education and public awareness: Not much progress on the educational aspects, except for what has been done at Kirstenbosch Botanical garden in the new Conservatory and some work at other Botanical Gardens. Action 37) Promotion of the financial value of succulents: No further development of this despite growing awareness of importance of ecotourism. Action 38) Development of succulent plant nurseries: Work is moving slowly ahead on establishing nurseries for Aloe polyphlla. This is linked to Action 32 and is part of a larger conservation programme involving the Lesotho Authorities, KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Service and the World Bank (GEF). Action 39) In situ monitoring of threatened species: There is some work being done by the Euphorbia Section of IOS (through Daphne Pritchard), but not much else on a formal basis. Action 40) Rescue operations for threatened succulents: Still a very ad hoc. approach to rescue operations.

Copies of Action Plan available The Cactus and Succulent Plants: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, compiled by Sara Oldfield, was officially published by the IUCN in 1997. All members of the group should have received copies. If recent members have not received copies, please contact the Chairman, Edward Anderson, and he will send one. Copies are also available from the Secretary or directly from IUCN in Gland, Switzerland. Ted Anderson

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

Monitoring Studies Completed in Texas

Mammillaria luethyi Status in Mexico

A team from the Desert Botanical Garden, under the supervision of Edward F. Anderson, has completed two monitoring projects in the Big Bend region of Texas for the U.S. government. The first species, Echinomastus (Sclerocactus) mariposensis, was studied under a grant from Joint Task Force Six and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project was completed in 1997 and a report submitted, which recommended that the plant be removed from the status of Threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The research team found the species to be widespread, not only in Texas, but also throughout northern Mexico. It has also been recommended that it be removed from Appendix I of CITES. The second species, Coryphantha ramillosa, is likewise listed as Threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. An extensive survey was carried out on both public and private land in west Texas, where C. ramillosa was found to be widespread, though not common. Populations on private land appear to be safe from predation and collectors, as do those in Big Bend National Park. A report was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October 1999. The team recommended that this species be removed from the status of Threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Both studies suggest that some cacti presently listed as Threatened or Endangered need to be more thoroughly studied throughout their natural ranges. In some cases this is difficult because of inaccessibity to private land, but the Desert Botanical Garden team found many landowners to be receptive to visitations by scientists. They actually seem to be curious as to what plants and animals occur on their land.

W. A. and Betty Fitz Maurice report that the recently described cactus, M. luethyi, apparently is still known in the wild only to its two discoverers. However, with permission of SEMARNAP, the institution that has responsibility for such matters, this distinctive plant is now in cultivation in several Mexican nurseries. Attempts to export cultivated plants to England were easily arranged with the Mexican authorities, but fell afoul of red tape in England. Apparently some seeds of M. luethyi have managed to find their way to Europe. George S. Hinton reports that the type locality appeared to be undisturbed when he visited there recently. Hopefully, cultivated material of this remarkable cactus will soon be readily available, thus reducing the serious threat to wild plants of collectors.

Ted Anderson

Results In all five collections which have been inspected at least some apparently illegally imported specimens of cacti were confiscated [illegally

W.A. Fitz Maurice CITES Cactus Cops in Cologne – on the Confiscation of Illegally Collected Cacti in Germany

Introduction During January and May 1996, the author acted as independent scientific supervisor for the German Custom Investigation Office during the inspection of 5 private cactus collections in Cologne and its surroundings. The inspections were lead by three representatives from the Custom Investigation Office Cologne (= Zollfahndungsamt Köln), Germany. In the following, the results, observations and experiences made during these inspections are summarized from the viewpoint of species conservation, since it is felt that these observations may be of general interest for conservationists.

November 2000 imported specimens are understood as specimens of apparent wild origin collected not more than 5 years ago, since the illegal import comes under the statute of limitations after 5 years]. The number of specimens confiscated per collection ranges from 2 to 504 and totals at 831 (Tab. 1). From these 831 specimens, the vast major part (614 = 73,8 %) are listed under CITES Appendix I, with a rest of 217 specimens being listed in Appendix II. The vast major part of the confiscated plants originated from Mexico; the single exception being 12 specimens of Uebelmannia and few others (Arrojadoa) from Brazil. The high number of Turbinicarpus specimens is especially remarkable (497 in total, with 343 from one single collection!). Table 1. Number of confiscated cactus specimens in 5 inspected cactus collections and their generic distribution as well as conservation status (CITES Appendix I or II). collection (no.) genus

1

Ariocarpus Aztekium Encephalocarpus Obregonia Strombocactus Turbinicarpus (incl. Gymnocactus) Uebelmannia Mammillaria CITES App. I Mammillaria Echinocereus Geohintonia (other genera) CITES App. II

25 2 5

31 31

2 56 95

Total (App. I + II)

93

504

1 17

2 20 17 16 8 5 343

3

4

2

5



137

45 22 21 8 6 497

1

12 62

409 37

2

3 4 41 49

137

1 91 2

95

12 3 614 78 49

217 137

831

Interpretations, observations and impressions Exact data for the illegal import of cacti and other succulents are restricted to the rather few cases of confiscations carried out at the habitats, on airports or in collections, which no doubt represent a minimal amount of the total illegal trade and import going on. Despite the fact that the above data may thus not be representative at all for the illegal import of cacti in general, some interpretations, observations and impressions made during and after the confiscations are nevertheless summarized here:

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

• Illegal collecting is clearly concentrating on Mexican cacti. The favourite genera Mammillaria and Echinocereus (mainly CITES Appendix 2) are well represented. However, most collecting appears to take place in the small (with respect to plant size and species number), mainly slow-growing and sought-after Mexican genera listed under CITES Appendix I such as Ariocarpus, Aztekium, Encephalocarpus, Obregonia, Strombocactus, and Turbinicarpus. • The total amount of illegally imported cactus plants present in these five collections most certainly sums up to many thousands, if specimens imported more than five years ago (and thus coming under the statute of limitations) are included. • Most or all of the five owners of the inspected cactus collections were and are most probably members of the ‚German Cactus Society‘ (DKG); one of these was at that time and still is member of the ‚International Organization for Succulent Plant Study‘ (IOS). • Three of the five persons (collections no. 1, 3 and 5) were at that time (co-) author(s) of descriptions of new taxa and represent wellknown experts in their respective fields of interest. In none of these many descriptions any sort of statement on collecting permits is ever mentioned, indicating that the new taxa may be based on illegally collected material (however, the author did not attempt an exhaustive search of all new descriptions). Most of these new taxa were published in the monthly journal of the German Cactus Society (‚Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten‘), some also in the journal of the Cactus and Succulent Society of America (‚Cactus and Succulent Journal‘) and in the journal of the German Mammillaria Society (‚Mitteilungsblatt AfM‘). • Most remarkably, one of these authors (no. 1) published a new taxon even after the confiscation of illegally imported plants in his collection and subsequent previous conviction, again without indicating that the specimens were collected

with permits. As it became known to the author, the specimen assigned as holotype was incidentally confiscated and was thus replaced by material from another collector. One further person (no. 2) just recently co-authored a new taxon of Turbinicarpus/Gymnocactus (included in Appendix I). • Even after being punished by law, one person (no. 1) continued to publish many many travelogues and field notes on Brazilian and Mexican cacti in ‚Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten‘. Most of these articles are finely illustrated with photographs of most certainly fieldcollected specimens, incl. Ariocarpus and other App. I species (!). • As evidenced by the correspondence shortly checked from person 2, he exhibited excellent international connections to apparently virtually (nearly) all well-known amateur collectors of the genus Turbinicarpus (many professional botanists would possibly be glad to possess such wide-ranging connections). The author strongly feels that the extent of interconnection and exchange between specialists and collectors of sought-after genera is much underestimated by conservation authorities. This is also indicated by the finding that the Turbinicarpus-specimens confiscated in collection 5 were most probably at least partly obtained from persons 2 and 3, as is suggested by both person’s initials accompanied by field numbers on the labels of the plants. Many labels of the confiscated plants likewise suggested that they were obtained from other collectors by exchange. • Connected with the previous point, new discoveries rapidly find their way into collections. This is evidenced by the presence of 2 specimens of Aztekium hintonii in collection 3 and 2 specimens of Geohintonia mexicana in collection 2 (both species were described 4 years earlier in 1992), but even more evident by the many Turbinicarpus specimens confiscated in collection 2, which included specimens of taxa described in the

November 2000 recent past only (i.e., after the confiscation). • The well-known fact that specialized collecting activities in soughtafter genera may lead to the depletion or even extinction of species with restricted distribution is clearly indicated by the above correspondence: In one letter, it is described that only very few specimens (apparently the last ones) could still be found at the single known locality of a recently described new species of Turbinicarpus; all others were apparently already collected. On a second visit shortly thereafter, no plants, but only a film box were found, indicating that the last remaining plants were collected by other collectors. • Legal prosecutions lead to a previous conviction and a higher fine in one of the cases. Other cases finished with a small fine only or even came to nothing. It appears that species conservation is at least partly neglected by German courts. Considering the enormous amount of labour invested by the Custom Investigation Office Cologne, the results are being regarded as disappointing. Joachim Thiede

Regulations in Force for Collection and Export of Cacti from Argentina All species of cacti are listed on the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Most of the species are listed on Appendix II of the CITES Convention, which implies that international trade in these species is subject to controls, based in special export documents (CITES permits and certificates). Concerning those species listed on Appendix I of CITES, international trade is banned, except for specimens that have been artificially propagated in facilities registered with the CITES Secretariat. Argentina is a federal country, composed of 23 federal states or provinces. The Argentinean National

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

Constitution establishes that each province has competence over the natural resources within its territory. In addition, each province has its own wildlife legislation and regulations on use and trade of wildlife. Any person wishing to collect wild cacti in any Argentinean province must request prior authorization to the respective wildlife agency. In the case of scientific studies, such permits shall only be granted when the applicant belongs to a recognised scientific institution which supports their research. Amateur can also ask for permits, but it will be conditioned upon the volume of plants intented to be exported. If new species will be described from this materials, the holotypes must to be deposited in an Argentinan institution. Once the applicant has complied with these requirements and has been granted the pertinent provincial documentation, the CITES Management Authority of Argentina, after consulting the CITES Scientific Authorities, which shall advise whether the collection of specimens is detrimental or not to the survival of that particular species, shall issue the CITES export permit. In the case of artificially propagated specimens, the facilities must be registered at the Dirección de Fauna y Flora Silvestres (CITES Management Authority for Argentina), as established in Resolución 460/99 of the former Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable. Daniel Ramadori SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE Y POLITICA AMBIENTAL, DIRECCION DE FAUNA Y FLORA SILVESTRES, CITES Management Authority of Argentina. San Martin 459, (1004) Buenos Aires Argentina, TE:011 4 348 8551/0. E-Mail: [email protected]

CITES-Study of Mexican Cacti Completed The three-year joint project of the Desert Botanical Garden in the U.S. and CANTE A.C. in Mexico, funded by CITES, was completed in 1997. The goals were to determine population sizes of several rare cacti, to estimate the amount of illegal collecting, and the make

recommendations concerning the listing of the plants in the CITES appendices. The team set up 21 permanent monitoring sites in mainland Mexico and 8 sites in Baja California to study 26 taxa. An additional 24 taxa were studied, but no permanent monitoring sites established. Population changes were measured during the 3-year period. Unfortunately, two of the three project years experienced severe drought, thus adversely affecting the results. The results clearly indicated that some species, thought to be rare and endangered, were, in fact, not. However, others were found that should be proposed for inclusion in Appendix I. The final report was submitted to CITES on 10 June 1997. Plans for follow-up work were seriously hampered by the untimely and tragic death of Charles Glass, one of the team leaders. Since that time, a group of Mexicans in San Luis Potosí wishes to continue the monitoring of plants at several of the sites. Funding is being sought for them. Ted Anderson

CITES News — Plants 'CITES News – Plants' is a newsletter for the European region, but others may subscribe as well. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter by email, send your request to [email protected]. We Introduce:

Grupo San Luis de la Sociedad Potosina de Cactología The Sociedad Potosina de Cactología was founded by Dr. Manuel Sotomayor in October 1995. Together with three of its members, Dr. Sotomayor formed a working group called "Grupo San Luis." The ‘Grupo San Luis’ started a project with the aim to study all species of Cactaceae occurring in the State of San Luis Potosí and to investigate their conservation status. Surprisingly, there were only a very few

November 2000 bibliographical references on this subject and those that existed were often incorrect and confusing. The group then decided to carry out field studies on its members’ own expenses and to create an inventory of cactus species occurring in San Luis Potosí. Serious field work was started in March 1997 with field trips once every week (for 1, 2 and up to 3 days, depending on the distance and the difficulty of access). One of the projects, e.g. was to repopulate some localities of Turbinicarpus. The technique applied was sowing pre-treated seeds in situ. The re-population with nursery plants turned out not to be sensible; they all died. The group has sown 30 seeds of Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus sp. klinkeranus in a crack of a calcareous rock in the type localitiy. Members of the group returned to the place on 3 occasions (once a fortnight) to moisten the soil in the crack. The results are 28 live little plants of 0.5 to 1.5 cm in diameter (see publication in Cactus & Co 4: 4-9, 2000). In the meantime the members of the group have travelled the whole state and produced a comprehensive survey of the populations of cacti present. Of all taxa found, studies on the populations’ ecology, soil conditions, climate, topography, geology, conservation satus, morphological differences in and between populations, etc. were carried out. The results of these studies have already been or will soon be published in a number of articles (see list of recent publications). A summary entitled ‘Especies de la Familia Cactaceae presentes en el Estado de San Luis Potosí, Mexico, que son raras y/o endemicas y/o estan amenazadas’ covering the entire project will soon be published in ‘Cactaceae y Succulentas Mexicanas’. The expenses to continue the work start to exceed our personal budgets and we would urgently need outside funding to be able to continue our work. The study of the Cactaceae of San Luis Potosí (complete inventory, distribution, ecology and conservation status). We recognise 195

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

different taxa (species and subspecies). This word was supported by CONACYT and has allowed us to investigate how many taxa are endemic and/or threatened in San Luis Potosí. We do, however, have no support studies. We continue the long term CITES and CANTE studies of 5 threatened populations of cacti in San Luis' state. We also have begun a long term study of two new Ariocarpus agavoides and Pelecyphora aselliformis localities, both in San Luis Potosí. A paper on the the distribution, ecology and conservation status of the species of the genus Turbinicarpus in San Luis Potosí (18 taxa) has recently been published. The CSSG should pay more attention to the illegal collecting which is a very serious problem, not only in the state of San Luis Potosí but all over Mexico. Many of the cacti of San Luis Potosí are endemic and threatened (more than 35 out of the 195 mentioned above). For these taxa the biggest threat is illegal collecting. For other plants there are various reasons. In view of situation just described, a project was initiated between the Secreteria del Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP), the Instituto de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) and the Grupo San Luis de la Sociedad Potosina de Cactología. The project embraces with two localities (which might be extended to up to 8), one of which includes the type locality of Ariocarpus bravoanus ssp. bravoanus, and another one in Charco Blanco, where Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus ssp. klinkerianus occurs. In both cases the localities are fenced with barbed wire. The localities have been declared ‘Areas Naturales Protegidas’. Passage is forbidden (La Ley General de Ecologia established monetarial and physical penalties for trespassers), except for those visitors which are accompanied by a local person (which can be arranged against a fee of 4-5 US Dollars). At the entrance to these reserves there are information tables for visitors. There

is, of course, no possibility for our authorities to control the illegal access of the areas all the time, for the local people help to watch out for trespassers. The next step in the project, which has already been started, is the propagation of the protected species and it is hoped that in 2-3 years it will be possible to put propagated plants on sale at the ‘Areas Naturales Protegidas’ Manuel Sotomayor Funding

British Cactus & Succulent Society GRANTS AVAILABLE TOWARDS CONSERVATION PROJECTS The British Cactus & Succulent Society has a conservation fund which is managed by a Conservation sub-committee. Grants are made available (usually up to a maximum of £,500) to individuals and groups for approved projects in the field of conservation. Certain conditions apply; the principal ones being that the project should demonstrate some proposed benefits to the cause of practical conservation rather than solely to scientific research, and that a report of the project should be submitted to the committee within a reasonable time of its completion. This report, preferably illustrated, will be published in the British Cactus & Succulent Journal or Bradleya, thus allowing contributors to the fund to see how their money is being spent and to encourage further contributions. In the first instance, a costed protocol should be submitted to: Dr W F Maddams Chairman, Conservation Committee 26 Glenfield Road Banstead, Surrey SM7 2DG England The grant, if approved, may form part of the funding for large projects which are partially funded from other sources. Philip Downs

November 2000 German Cactus & Succulent Society GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR THE STUDY AND CONSERVATION OF CACTI & OTHER SUCCULENTS The German Cactus Society (Deutsche Kakteen-Gesellschaft e.V., DKG) aims to support the study of cacti and other succulents. Therefore the society offers financial support for scientific projects dealing with taxonomy, ecology, sustainable use, cultivation and – most preferably – conservation. Although funds supplied by the DKG are relatively small, they may help to carry out particular studies or a field trip. Some examples of supported projects in the last years are: • C. Klak (Bolus Herbarium, Kapstadt, RSA/University of Cologne, Germany): „Taxonomical studies of the Lampranthus-group“ – DM 2000,• B. Schlumpberger & B. Wittmann (University Bonn, Germany): “Pollination biology of cacti in the Andes” – DM 2000,• Western District Council – Environmental conservation (RSA) „Conservation project Haworthia springbokvlakensis“ – DM 2000,• U. Schmiedel & N. Jürgens (University Cologne, Germany): „Ecology and phylogeny of Argyroderma and Gibbaeum“. – DM 2000,Co-operation with a German institution and – in the case of field studies – with local conservation authorities is expected. Further informations can be obtained from the German Cactus Society (Deutsche KakteenGesellschaft, Oos-Str. 18, D-75179 Pforzheim), or by email directly from: [email protected] Detlev Metzing

Closer Liaison with IOS Conservation Section After a fairly dormant period the IOS Conservation Section has been revived. From 1999 Dr Philip E Downs, who is also a member of this Group, was appointed to the post of IOS Conservation Section Coordinator.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

November 2000

• Akeroyd J. 1996: Spotlight on Turkey's important plant areas. — Plant Talk No. 5: 20-23.

• Cable S. & Cheek M. 1999: The plants of Mount Cameroon. A conservation checklist. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (GB).

• Akeroyd J. 1997: Madagascar. Images of a damaged eden. — Plant Talk No. 11: 2123.

• Craib C. 1999: The propagation of succulent Othonna species from seed in Johannesburg. — Aloe 36(2&3): 38-42. --Eespecially on caudiciform species such as Othonna herrei.

This means that there will now be closer liaison and the opportunity for joint initiatives between the SSC Cactus and Succulent Group and the IOS. At the last IOS Congress in Zürich meetings were held between key personnel from both groups to explore ways in which progress can be made. At this Congress very little discussion of conservation matters took place and it is hoped that this can be rectified by holding a Conservation Symposium at the next IOS Congress in Phoenix, Arizona. The IOS was probably the first plant organization to establish a Conservation Code of Conduct. All members sign up to this before their admission is approved. The problem of alien plant invaders is increasing and now accounts for the elimination of more indigenous species than habitat degradation and destruction. Dr Downs hopes that this Group can investigate this major threat to conservation and there are opportunities here for collaboration with the other relevant SSC group. In the “IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent Plant Action Plan" (compiled by S. Oldfield 1997) mention was made of proposed IOS Generic Reserve Collections, but with one or two notable exceptions, this scheme has never really materialized. Such approved collections could be a valuable resource in ex situ conservation and we hope that with sufficient interest the scheme can be revived. Readers of this newsletter with ideas, comments, or suggestions on future conservation initiatives are invited to submit these to Dr Ted Anderson in the first instance. Philip Downs

Recent Publications • Abraham W.-R. 1998: 'Reserva Biologica Rudolfo Henrique Büneker' - Das erste Biosphären-Reservat für Kakteen in Brasilien. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 49(3): 69-70. --- Reports on the protection of the habitat of Notocactus linkii var. buenekeri. • Akeroyd J. 1995: How to reintroduce a plant successsfully. — Plant Talk No. 2: 14-15.

• Akeroyd J. 1999: Conserving the Mediterranean flora: A way forward. — Plant Talk No. 18: 23-28. • Alexander D. & Miller A. 1996: Saving the spectacular flora of Socotra. — Plant Talk No. 7: 19-22. • Anderson E.A. 1982: A meeting on the cactus trade. — Cact. Succ. J. (US) 54(2): 82-85. • Anonymous 1998: Gibbaeum threatened. — SABONET News 3(1): 24-25. --- 0n the threatened Gibbaeum esterhuyseniae. • Anonymous 1999: Endangered African Aloe thrives in California. — Plant Talk No. 16: 18. --- On the cultivation and propagation of Aloe polyphylla. • Anonymous 1999: Förderung eines Artenschutzprojektes in Südafrika. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 50(12): (219). --- Report on fencing project in Springbokvlakte in Steytlerville Distr., South Africa in order to protect habitat of the endangered Haworthia springbokvlakensis. • Archer R.H 1998: Euphorbia leistneri (Euphorbiaceae), a new species from the Kaokove (Namibia). — South African Journal of Botany 64 (4): 258-260. • Austin D.F., Binninger D.M. & Pinkava D.J. 1998: Uniqueness of the endangered Florida semaphore cactus (Opuntia corallicola). — SIDA Contributions to Botany 18 (2): 527-534. • Barnard P., Brown C.J., Jarvis A.M., Robertson A. & Van Rooyen L. 1998: Extending the Namibian protected area network to safeguard hotspots of endemism and diversity. — Biodiversity and Conservation 7 (4): 531-547. • Bashan Y., Gonzalez L.E., Toledo G., de La Luz J.L. 2000: A proposal for conservation of exemplary stands of the giant cardon cactus (Pachycereus pringlei (S. Wats) Britt. & Rose) in Baja California Sur, Mexico. — Natural Areas Journal 20 (2): 197-200. • Beverly A.C. 1980: The ecologic status and environment of Aloe polyphylla (polyphylia sic) in Lesotho. — Cact. Succ. J. (US) 52(5): 216-219. --- Aloe polyphylla population biology and conservation status. • Bowles M.L., McBride J.L. & Betz R.F. 1998: Management and restoration ecology of the federal threatened Mead's milkweed, Asclepias meadii (Asclepiadaceae). — Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85 (1): 110-125. • Bruyns P.V. 2000: Phylogeny and biogeography of the stapeliads. 2. Biogeography. — Plant Systematics and Evolution 221 (34): 227-244.

• Craib C. 1999: Zur Ökologie von Harpagophytum procumbens ssp. transvaalensis in der Nord-Provinz Südafrikas. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 50(10): 249-253. --- Ecology and popualtional biology of Harpagophytum procumbens ssp. transvaalensis in the Northern Province of South Africa. • Crouch N.R., Smith G.F., Nichols G., Burden J.A. & Gillmer J.M. 1999: A species recovery contribution for Haworthia limifolia var. limifolia, the umathithibala of the Zulu. — Aloe 36(1): 8-13. • Eggli, U. & Leuenberger, B.E. (“1998”) 1999: Eulychnia castanea Phil. (Cactaceae): geographical distribution and variation. — Gayana Bot. 55(2): 89-92. • Eggli, U. & Leuenberger, B.E. 2000: Eulychnia castanea Phil. – “Not easily accessible either by land or by sea”. – Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 72(1): 36-40. -- Both articles contain conservationrelevant data on distribution of Eulychnia castanea and suggestions for possible local action. • Enders P. 2000: Pachypodien vegetativ vermehren. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(6): 152153. [Vegetative propagation of Pachypodium] • Escofet A., Espejel I. 1999: Conservation and management-oriented ecological research in the coastal zone of Baja California, Mexico. — Journal of Coastal Conservation 5 (1): 43-50. • Fay M.F. 1996: Micropropagation as a tool in plant conservation. — Plant Talk No. 4: 22-23. • Felger R. 1999: The Flora of Canon de Nacapule: A desert-bounded tropical canyon near Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico. — Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 0 (35): 1-42. • Fernandes F.M. 1997: Restoration programme for Madeira's endangered plants. — Plant Talk No. 10: 19. --Mentions Aichryson dumosum (Crassulaceae). • Fick A., Schollenberger H. & Peckover R. 1999: Conservation column. — Aloe 36(4): 83-85. --- Conservational notes on Euphorbia obesa and Euphorbia symmetrica; Euphorbia valida; Lithops in the Orange River Valley; Adenium oleifolium. • Garcia, R. Mejía M., Rodríguez, S. 1999: La Rosa de Bayahibe, salvamento de una especie. - Boletín Jard. Bot. Nacional Dr. Rafael Ma. Moscoso 8(6): 12-13. 1999. --On Pereskia quisqueyana at Bayahibe, the only locality known hitherto, a new locality discovered by local collectors, activities to protect it at Bayahibe, cultivation and propagation in the Bot. Gard. and on

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

November 2000

— Kakt. and. Sukk. 49(10): 217-220. --Habitat study of the species.

• Newton D.J. & Chan J. 1998: South Africa's trade in southern African succulent plants. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg (RSA).

school grounds in the country, propagation and distribution for cultivation within the country. With illustrations (popular article). • Garcia-Mendoza A. 1998: Con sabor a maguey. Guia de la Coleccion Nacional de Agavaceas y Nolinaceas del Jardin Botanico del IBUNAM. IBUNAM, México City, México. --- On the National Collection of Agavaceae and Nolinacaer in the Botanical Garden of the Botanical Institute of Mexico City University. • Gemmill C.E.C., Ranker T.A., Ragone D., Perlmann S.P. & Wood K.R. 1998: Conservation genetics of the endangered endemic Hawaiian genus Brighamia (Campanulaceae). — Amer. J. Bot. 85(4): 528-539. • Gomes I., Leyens T., da Luz B., Costa J. & Gonçalves F. 1999: New data on the distribution and conservation status of some angiosperms of the Cape Verde Islands, W. Africa. — Willdenowia 29(1/2): 105-114. --- Includes data on Euphorbia tuckeyana. • Gómez-Hinostrosa, C. & Hernández H.M. 2000: Diversity, geographical distribution, and conservation of Cactaceae in the Mier y Noriega region, Mexico. — Biodiversity & Conservation 9(3): 403-418 • Henry J.-P. 1997: Integrating in situ and ex situ conservation. — Plant Talk No. 8: 2325. • Hernandez, H.M. & R.T. Barcenas 1995: Endangered cacti in the Chihuahuan Desert: l. Distribution patterns. — Conservation Biol. 9 (5): 1176-1188. • Hernandez, H.M. & R.T. Barcenas 1996: Endangered cacti in the Chihuahuan Desert: II. Biogeography and conservation. — Conservation Biol. 10 (4): 1200-1209. • Hilton-Taylor C. 1998: Gibbaeum esterhuyseniae rediscovered and threatened. — Endangered Wildlife 28: 30. • Hunt D. (Comp.) 1999: CITES Cactaceae Checklist, 2nd. Ed. — Remous Limited, Milborne Port. • Kettle W.D., Alexander H.M. & Pittman L 2000: An 11-year ecological study of a rare prairie perennial (Asclepias meadii): Implications for monitoring and management. — American Midland Naturalist 144 (1): 66-77. • Knowles L. & Witkowski E.T.F 2000: Conservation biology of the succulent shrub, Euphorbia barnardii, a serpentine endemic of the Northern Province, South Africa. — Austral Ecology 25 (3): 241-252. • Lavranos J.J., Roosli W. 1999: The habitats of Pachypodium in Madagascar. Part 2. — Cactus and Succulent Journal 71(1): 4-22. • Lawant P. & Suntjens R. 2000: Die seltene Euphorbia handiensis am Scheideweg: to be or not to be? - Avonia 18(1): 11-16. --Populational study of the rare and endangered Euphorbia handiensis from Fuerteventura, Canary Islands. • Lechner P., Jamtschgi G. & Hernandez Valencia R.E. 1998: Lebensraum im Gips: Studien zu Turbinicarpus lophophoroides.

• Leuenberger, B. E. & Eggli, U. (“1998”) 1999: Notes on the genus Blossfeldia (Cactaceae) in Argentina. — Haseltonia 6: 2-13. --- Paragraph on conservation with background of distribution data. • Leuenberger, B.E. 2000: Harrisia regelii (Weingart) Borg and the discovery of its Argentinian origin. — Haseltonia 7: 86-91. -- Conservation not specifcally addressed, but report on a rare species in nature (as far as known), but easy to grow and propagate, widespread in cultivation, naturalized and nearly a pest in Australia. • Leyens T. 1998: Plant conservation makes progress in Cabo Verde. — Plant Talk No. 13: 24-26. --- Mentions and depicts Euphorbia tuckeyana. • Lima A.N. & Adams R.M. 1996: The distribution and abundance of Pilosocereus robinii (Lemaire) Byles and Rowley in the Florida keys. — Bradleya 14: 57-62. • Lombard A.T., Hilton-Taylor C., Rebelo A.G., Pressey R.L. & Cowling R.M. 1999: Reserve selection in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: coping with high compositional turnover. — Plant Ecology 142 (1/2): 35-55. • Lotter W.D. & Hoffmann J.H. 1998: An integrated management plan for the control for Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae) in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. — Koedoe 41 (1): 63-68. • Lüthy J. & Helmer K. 1997: Neues vom Washingtoner Artenschutzübereinkommen. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 48(11): 246. --- News from CITES. • Lüthy J. 2000: Entlastung der CITESAnhänge: Neue Schutzbestimmungen für einige Sukkulenten. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(7): 178-179. --- New CITES affiliations for some sucuclents. • Lüthy J. 2000: Gute Nachrichten für Kakteensammler. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(5): 124. --- Reports on the possibility legal export of seedlings of rare cacti with CITES-documents. • Marchant T.A., Alarcon R., Simonsen J.A. & Koopowitz Z H. 1998: Population ecology of Dudleya multicaulis (Crassulaceae): a rare narrow endemic. — Madroño 45(3): 215-220. • Marin-Hernandez T, Marquez-Guzman J, Rodriguez-Garay B & Rubluo A 1998: Early stages in the development of somatic embryogenesis in Mammillaria san-angelensis Sanchez-Mejorada (Cactaceae) a severely endangered species. — Phyton (Buenos Aires) 62 (1-2): 181-186. • Marshall N.T. 1998: Searching for a cure: conservation of medicinal wildlife resources in east and southern Africa. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge (UK). • Maunder M., Higgens S. & Culham A. 1998: Neither common nor garden. The garden as a refuge for threatened plant species. — Curtis's Bot. Mag. 15(2): 124132.

• Oldfield S. 1995: Plants and the 1994 CITES conference. — Plant Talk No. 1: 1213. • Oldfield S. 1997: New directions CITES? - Plant Talk No. 11: 32-33.

for

• Olfelt J.P., Furnier G.P. & Luby J.L. 1998: Reproduction and development of the endangered Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi (Crassulaceae). — Amer. J. Bot. 85(3): 346-351. • Ostolaza C. 1998: -Conservation of cacti in Lima, Peru. Brit. — Cact. & Succ. J. 16(2): 63-66. • Ostolaza C. 1999: The cacti of the Pisco, Ica and Nazca valleys, Peru. — Brit. Cact. & Succ. J. 16(3): 127-136. • Pfab M.F., Witkowski E.T.F. 1999: Contrasting effects of herbivory on plant size and reproductive performance in two populations of the Critically Endangered species, Euphorbia clivicola R. A. Dyer. — Plant Ecology 145 (2): 317-325. • Pfab M.F., Witkowski E.T.F. 1999: Fire survival of the Critically Endangered succulent, Euphorbia clivicola R.A. Dyer - Fireavoider or fire-tolerant? — African Journal of Ecology 37 (3): 249-257. • Ponce M. 1989. Distribución de Cactáceas en Venezuela y su ámbito mundial. Trabajo de Ascenso Académico. Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Agronomía, Maracay. 284 p. + Anexos (9p.). Mimeogr. • Ponce M. & Trujillo B. 1990: Diagnóstico del grado de amenaza en caactáceas endémicas de provincias biogeográficas que ocurren en Venezuela. — Ernstia 5859-60: 9-17. • Ponce M. & Trujillo B. 1992: Algunos aspectos fitogeográficos de cactáceas terrestres registradas para Venezuela. — Ernstia. 2da. Etapa 2 (1):35-55. • Primack R. & Drayton B. 1997: The experimental ecology of reintroduction. — Plant Talk No. 11: 25-28. • Primack R. 1998: Monitoring rare plants. — Plant Talk No. 15: 29-32. • Pritchard D. 1997: Ein Euphorbia obesaSchutzprojekt. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 48(5): 106. --- Project to conserve habitats of Euphorbia obesa. • Rechel E.A., Ballard R.G. & Novotny T.J. 1999: Ecology of the threatened cactus, Sclerocactus glaucus. — Cact. Succ. J. (US) 71(3): 143-145. • Rosenberger P. 1997: Völlig legal - bitter notwendig unschwer machbar: Vermehrung von Ariocarpen durech Sämlingspfropfung. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 48(5): 104-105. --- Artificial propagation of Ariocarpus by grafting of seedling. • Rowe R. & Cronk Q. 1995: Applying molecular techniques to plant conservation:

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

screening genes for survival. — Plant Talk No. 1: 18-19. • Salas de Leon S.N., Garcia-Mendoza A., Reyes Agüero J.A. & Villar Morales C. 2000: Geographical and ecological distribution of the threatened flora of the arid region of the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. — Polibotanica 10: 1-22. • Sayed O.H. 1998: Phenomorphology and ecophysiology of desert succulents in eastern Arabia. — Journal of Arid Environments 40 (2): 177-189. • Schmiedel U. 2000: Die 'Institute for Plant Conservation - National Geographic Succulent Karoo - Expedition' ins Namaqualand. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(6): 145-149. • Schnabel D. 2000: Welwitschia mirabilis als Zimmerpflanze. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(3): 65-68. --- Reports on seed propagation and seedlings of Welwitschia. • Scott-Shaw R. 1999: Rare and threatened plants of KwaZulu-Natal and neighbouring regions. KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service, Pietermaritzburg (RSA). • Seymour C.L., Dean W.R.J. 1999: Effects of heavy grazing on invertebrate assemblages in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. — Journal of Arid Environments 43 (3): 267-286. • Sheldon J.W., BALICK M. & LAIRD S. 1998: Is using medicinal plants compatible with conservation? - Plant Talk No. 13: 2931. • Smith G.F. 1993: The ecology and conservation of Chortolirion and Poellnitzia (Aloaceae) in southern Africa. — Excelsa 16: 143-152. • Smith G.F., Ihlenfeldt H.D., Thiede J., Eggli U., Metzing D. 1999: The International Organization for Succulent Plant Study (IOS): its role and potential services to the international scientific community. — Taxon 48 (4): 715-720.

Bundesstaat San Luis Potosí. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51 (5): 97-200 pp. --- Discovery of new localities of Pelecyphora strobiliformis in San Luis Potosí. • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 2000d: El Género Turbinicarpus (Cactaceae) en San Luis Potosí. — Instituto de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFNAP). • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 2000e: Turbinicarpus schmiedickeanus subsp. klinkerianus (Backb. et Jacobsen) Taylor (1998). Distribution, ecology and state of conservation. — Cactus and Co. 4(3): 4-9. • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A.& Martinez M. 2000: Pelecyphora aselliformis Ehrenberg: Standorte, Verbreitung und Gefährdung. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(10): 253-259. --- Populational study of the species leading to the suggestion to downrank the species from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II . • Stiling P., Rossi A., Gordon D. 2000: The difficulties of single factor thinking in restoration: Replanting a rare cactus in the Florida Keys. — Biological Conservation 94 (3): 327-333. --- About Opuntia corallicola. • Stiling P., Rossi A., Gordon D. 2000: The difficulties of single factor thinking in restoration: replanting a rare cactus in the Florida Keys. — Biol. Cons. 94: 327-333. • Trujillo B. & Ponce M. 1988: ListaInventario de Cactáceas Silvestres en Venezuela con sinonimia y otros aspectos relacionados. — Ernstia, Nro. 47:1-20. • Trujillo B. & Ponce M. 1988: Notas sobre el problema taxonómico de las especies de Subpilocereus Backeb. (Cactaceae). — Ernstia Nro. 47:21-30. • Trujillo B. & Ponce M. 1990: Nueva Opuntia (Cactaceae) de Venezuela y algunos aspectos ecológicos de la misma. — Ernstia, 58-59-60:1-7.

• Smith TH, M. 1998: The cactus cops. How Arizona is coping with a prickly problem. — Plant Talk No. 12: 24-25.

• van Jaarsveld, E. 1999: The reintroduction of Gasteria baylissiana - a check up. — Brit. Cact. Succ. J. 17(3): 119-121.

• Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 1999: Mammillaria phantasma Sotomayor, Arredondo et Martínez, nom. nov., vieja conocida en San Luis Potosí. — Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas XLIV(2): 33-36.

• Williamson, G. 1998: The ecological status of Aloe pillansii (Aloaceae) in the Richtersveld with particular reference to Cornellkop. — Bradleya 16: 1-8.

• Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 2000a: Turbinicarpus valdezianus (Moeller) Glass et Foster. Nueva Localidad en el estado de San Luis Potosí, México. — NAKARI. Sociedad Jalisciense de Cactologia A.C. XI(1): 10-15. • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 2000b: Vorkommen auch in San Luis Potosí. Neue Fundorte von Ariocarpus agavoides. — Kakt. and. Sukk. 51(5): 113118. --- Discovery of new localities of Ariocarpus agavoides. • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. 2000c: Acht Sub-Populationen. Pelecyphora strobiliformis: Erster Fund im

• Willis, C.K. & Willis, C.B. 1995: Notes on the current conservation status of Aloe vossii Reynolds, a threatened endemic of the Northern Province. — Aloe 32: 34-37.

Soon to be Published • Hernandez H.M & C. Gomez-Hinostrosa 2000: An integrated approach to the conservation of cacti in Mexico. — In: Hankamer et al. (eds): Plant Conservation Manual in the Tropics; Perspectives and Practice. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. (in press). • Hernandez, H.M., Gomez-Hinostrosa C. & R.T. Barcenas 2000: Diversity, spatial arrangement and endemism of cactaceae

November 2000 in the Huizache area, a hot-spot in the Chihuahuan Desert. — Biodiversity and Conservation (in press). • Hernandez, H.M., Gomez-Hinostrosa C. & R.T. Barcenas 2000: Opuntia pachyrhiza (Cactaceae), a new species from the Chihuahuan Desert, Mexico. — Novon (submitted for publication).: • Ostolaza C. 2000: Haageocereus tenuis and H. repens - rescued Peruvian cacti. — Brit. Cact. & Succ. J. Vol. 18(3):129-131. • Smith G.F., Steyn E.M.A., Victor J.E., Crouch N.R. & Golding J. 2000 (in press): The conservation status of Aloe (Aloaceae) in South Africa: an updated synopsis. – Bothalia. • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. Ariocarpus fissuratus ssp. bravoanus (Hernandez et Anderson) J. Luethy, distribution, ecology and conservation status. — Succulentes [official publication of AIAPS (Association Internationale des Amateurs de Plantes Succulentes)] (in press, to be published in November 2000). • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. Coryphantha wohlschlageri Holzeis. Redescription. — Mamm J. (England) (to be published next September 2000) • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. Turbinicarpus beguinii (Taylor) Mosco et Zanovello. Distribution, ecology and conservation status. — Kaktusi (Republica Checa) (in press, to be published next September 2000). • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. Peyotl zacatecasensis Hernández (1649). Rehabilitación de un Género y un binomio olvidados. — Cactaceas y Suculentas Mexicanas (accepted for publication). • Sotomayor J.M., Arredondo A. & Martínez M. Especies de la Familia Cactaceae presentes en el Estado de San Luis Potosi, Mexico, que son raras y/o endemicas y/o estan amenazadas. — Cactaceas y Suculentas Mexicanas (date for publication unknown) I want to thank H. Hernandez, B.E. Leuenberger, C. Ostolaza, J.M. Sotomayor, J. Thiede, B. Trujillo and Ann McNeil (RBG Kew) for their help with building up this list of recently published literature. Wolfgang Stuppy

The Next CSSG Meeting The next planned meeting of the Cacti and Succulents Specialist Group is at the forthcoming IOS Congress, to be held at the Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, Arizona, in the spring of 2002. Because the IOS has suspended its intercongresses, this means that the SSC group, which has always met in conjunction with the IOS Conservation Section, must have meetings

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

only every biennium. The use of the group’s listserver and communication by the internet is more important than ever so that members may stay in contact and activities be reported. It is also hoped that newsletters may be released more frequently. Ted Anderson

CSSG Members List (as of November 2000) Prof. Dr. Edward F. Anderson, Chairman Senior Research Botanist, Desert Botanical Garden, 1201 N. Galvin Parkway, Phoenix, AZ 85008, UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-480-481-8105 FAX: 1-480-481-8124

e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Gerald S. Barad Conservation Chair, Cactus & Succulent Soc. of America, 521 Sergeantsville Road, Flemington, New Jersey, NJ 08822 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-908-782-5571 FAX: 1-908-782-7982 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Barthlott Director, Head of Department, Botanisches Institut und Botanischer Garten der Universität, Meckenheimer Allee 170, D-53115 Bonn GERMANY Telephone: 49-228-73-2526 FAX: 49-228-73-3120 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Pierre Braun Im Fusstal 37, D-50171 Kerpen GERMANY Telephone/FAX: 49-2237-54-307 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Hector M. Hernández M, DeputyChairman Director, Instituto de Biología, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70-233, 04510 México, D.F. MÉXICO Telephone: 52-5-622-5710 FAX: 52-5-616-2326 e-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Hans Britsch Western Cactus Growers, Inc., P.O. Box 2018 Vista, CA 92085 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-760-726-0068 FAX: 1-760-726-1799 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Wolfgang Stuppy, Secretary Threatened Plants Officer, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-181-332-5375 FAX: 44-181-332-5582

Dr. Andrea Cattabriga De Rerum Naturae, C.P. 141, I-40068 San Lazzaro di Savena ITALY Telephone: 39-51-625-5737 Fax: 39-51-625-5232 e-mail: [email protected]

e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Focke Albers Institut für Botanik und Botanischer Garten, Westfälische Wilhelms Universität, Am Schlossgarten 3, D-48149 Münster GERMANY Telephone: 49-251-832-4819 FAX: 49-251-832-3823 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Fahad M.A. Al-Hemaid Associate Professor Dept. of Botany & Microbiology King Saud University P.O. Box 2455 Riyadh 11451 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA Telephone: 467 7651 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Alberto E. Areces-Mallea Institute of Systematic Botany,The New York Botanical Garden, 220th St. and Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10458-5126 UNITED STATES e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Salvador Arias M. Instituto de Biologia, Jardín Botánico, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70-614, 04510 México, D.F. MÉXICO Telephone: 52-5-622-9048 FAX: 52-5-622-9046 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Jean-Marc Chalet Av. Tronchet 22B. CH-1226 Thônex, SWITZERLAND Telephone/fax: 41-22-348-61-62 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Graham Charles Briars Bank, Fosters Bridge Briars Bank, Fosters Bridge, Ketton, Stamford PE9 3UU UNITED KINGDOM e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Miguel J. Cházaro B. Facultad de Geografía, Universidad de Guadalajara, Apartado Postal 139, Zapopan, Jalisco 45101 MÉXICO Telephone: 52-3-824-2672 FAX: 52-3-853-5058 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Hugo Cota Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2 CANADA Telephone: 1-306-966-4399 e-mail: [email protected]

November 2000 Sr. José Delgadillo R. Facultad de Ciencias – Biologia, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Apartado Postal 1880, Ensenada, B.C. 22800 MÉXICO Telephone: 52-617-44-560, ext. 114 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Philip E. Downs IOS Conservation Coordinator, P.O. Box 717, Pukekohe, 1800 S. Auckland NEW ZEALAND Dr. Exequiel Ezcurra Deputy Director, San Diego Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 1390 , San Diego, CA 92112-1390 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-619-232-3821, ext. 191 FAX: 1-619-232-9248 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Richard S. Felger Director, Drylands Institute, 2509 N. Campbell Ave. #405, Tucson, AZ 85719 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-520-825-6755 FAX: 1-520-818-0911 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. W.A. Fitz Maurice Av. Hermanos Infante 225, 78250 San Luis Potosí, S.L.P. MÉXICO Telephone & FAX: 52-48-13-13-23 e-mail: [email protected] Sr. Abisaí Josué García M. Jardín Botanico, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70614, 04510 México, D.F. MÉXICO Telephone: 52-5-622-8976 FAX: 52-5-622-9046 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Michael G. Gilbert Department of Botany, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-20-7942-5677 FAX: 44-20-7942-5529 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Keith Grantham 21 Wadhurst Ave., Luton, Bedfordshire LU3 1 UQ, UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-1582-727-594 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Lambertus E. Groen Heelsumseweg 49, NL-6721 Gr Bennekom THE NETHERLANDS Telephone: 31-317-483-306 FAX: 31-317-484-917 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Chuck Hanson 64620 Pease Road, Glenwood, IA 51534 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-712-527-4929 FAX: 1-712-527-5641 e-mail: [email protected]

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

Dr. Bruce J. Hargreaves 5817 Pryor St., Bakersfield, California, CA 93308 UNITED STATES e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Heidrun E. K. Hartmann Institut für Allgemeine Botanik, Ohnhorststr. 18 D-22609 Hamburg GERMANY Telephone: 49-428-16-403 FAX: 49-428-16-254 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Craig Hilton-Taylor Red List Programme Officer, IUCN/SSC UK Office, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-1223-277-966 FAX: 44-1223-277-845 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Anton Hofer Jensstrasse 11, Postfach 32, CH-3252 Worben SWITZERLAND Telephone and FAX: 41-32-384-8527 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. David Hunt The Manse, Chapel Lane, Milborne Port, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 5DL UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-1963-250-011 FAX: 44-1963-250-022 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Norbert Jürgens Botanical Institute and Botanical Garden University of Hamburg Ohnhorststr. 18 D-22609 Hamburg GERMANY mobile +49-170-1666500 e-mail: [email protected]

FAX: 43-1-318-99-00-50 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Beat E. Leuenberger Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum, Königin-Luise-Strasse 6-8, D-14191 Berlin GERMANY Telephone: 49-30-8300-6117 FAX: 49-30-8300-6218 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Sigrid Liede Department of Systematic Botany, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstrasse 30, D-95440 Bayreuth GERMANY Telephone: 49-921-55 FAX: 49-921-55-2786 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Jonas Lüthy CITES Management Authority, Schwarzenburgstrasse 161, CH-3097 Liebefeld SWITZERLAND Telephone: 41-31-323-8399 e-mail: [email protected] Ms. Julie Lyke Plant Conservation Biologist, Office of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA 22203 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-703-358-1708, ext. 5054 FAX: 1-703-358-2276 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Gary Lyons 2606 W. Clark Ave., Burbank, CA 91505 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-818-843-5172 e-mail: [email protected]

from 1.12.2000 onwards: Botanical Institute & Garden, University of Hamburg, Ohnhorststr. 18, D-22609 Hamburg GERMANY FAX: 49-40-42816-254 mobile +49-170-1666 500

Dr. Massimo Meregalli General Manager, Botanic Garden, Department of Plant Biology, University of Torino, v. le Mattioli 25, I-10125 Torino ITALY Telephone: 39-11-6707-446 FAX: 39-11-6707-459 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Roberto Kiesling Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, Casilla Correo 22, ARG-1642 San Isidro ARGENTINA Telephone: 54-11-4743-4800 FAX: 54-11-4747-4748 e-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Detlev Metzing FB 7, AG Pflanzenökologie, Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg GERMANY Telephone: 49-441-798-3342 FAX: 49-4230-1571 e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Robert Kraus L.-Anzengruber-Str. 19, D-84405 Dorfen GERMANY Telephone: 49-8081-3127

Dr. Ulrich Meve Department of Plant Systematics, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstrasse 30, D-95440 Bayreuth GERMANY Telephone: 49-921-55 FAX: 49-921-55-2786 e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Peter Lechner, Head Department of Waste Management, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Nussdorfer Lande 29-31, A-1190 Vienna AUSTRIA Telephone: 43-1-318-9900

November 2000 Dr. Gary Paul Nabhan, Director Center for Sustainable Environments and the Bilby Research Center, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 5764, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-520-523-626 FAX: 1-520-523-8223 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Leonard E. Newton Dept. of Botany, Kenyatta University, P.O. Box 43844, Nairobi KENYA Telephone: 254-2-812-722 ext. 277 e-mail: [email protected] Ms. Sara F. Oldfield Global Programme Director, Fauna & Flora International, Great Eastern House, Tennison Road, Cambridge CB2 1DT UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-1223-57-1000 FAX: 44-1223-461-481 e-mail: [email protected] Ms. Peggy Olwell Senior Threatened and Endangered, Species Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, LSB-204 Washington, D.C. 20240 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-202-452-7764 FAX: 1-202-452-7702 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Carlos Ostolaza N. Apartado Postal 4338, Lima 1 PERU Telephone: 51-1-4792-360 FAX: 51-1-4762-102 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Steven D. Plath 8415 Mount Nido Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89147 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-702-362 1160 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Jon P. Rebman Curator of Botany, San Diego Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 1390, San Diego, CA 92112-1390 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-619-232-3821, ext. 247 FAX: 1-619-232-0248 e-mail: [email protected] Herrn Walter Röösli Gsteigstrasse 65, CH-8049 Zürich SWITZERLAND Telephone: 41-1-371-7373 FAX: 41-1-371-7374 Dr. Maurizio Sajeva Dipartimento di Scienze Botaniche, Universista degli Studi, Via Archirafi 38, I-90123 Palermo ITALY Telephone: 39-9-616-1493 FAX: 39-91-617-6089 e-mail: [email protected]

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16

Issue 8

Cactus & Succulent Conservation Newsletter

Dr. Uwe Schippmann Plants Officer, Scientific Authority to CITES, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Konstantinstr. 110, D-53179 Bonn GERMANY Telephone: 49-228-849-1136 FAX: 49-228-849-1119 e-mail: [email protected] Ms. Meena Singh Indian Society of Cacti & Succulents, A-162, Sector 40, Noida 201303 INDIA Telephone: 91-11-897-4593 FAX: 91-11-895-1010 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Gideon F. Smith Director, National Botanical Institute, Private Bag X101, RSA-0001 Pretoria REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Telephone: 27-12-804-5343 FAX: 27-12-803-4401 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Jean-Marie Solichon Directeur, Jardin Exotique de Monaco, B.P. 105, MC-98002 Monaco Cedex MONACO Telephone: 377-93-15-29-80 FAX: 377-93-15-29-81 e-mail:[email protected] Dr. J. Manuel Sotomayor Sociedad Potsina de Cactologia, Arista 885 Barrio Tequisquiapan, San Luis Potosí, S.L.P. 78230 MÉXICO Telephone: 52-4-811-2411 FAX: 52-4-811-0587 e-mail: [email protected] Herrn Dieter J. Supthut David-Hess-Weg 14, P.O. Box 758, CH-8038 Zürich SWITZERLAND Telephone/fax: 41-1-482-82-89 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Nigel P. Taylor Curator Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-181-332-5511 FAX: 44-181-332-5524 e-mail: [email protected]

November 2000

Prof. Baltasar Trujillo Active Researcher, Facultad de Agronomica, Instituto de Botanica, Apartado Postal 4579, Maracay 2101 VENEZUELA Telephone: 58-43-464-565 FAX: 58-43-454-175 Mr. Ernst Jacobus van Jaarsveld Horticultrist, Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Private Bag X10, RSA-7725 Claremont REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Telephone: 27-21-762-1166 FAX: 27-21-797-6570 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Andrew P. Vovides Instituto de Ecologia, A.C., Apartado Postal 63, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz MÉXICO Telephone: 52-28-421-800 FAX: 52-28-187-809 e-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Robert S. Wallace Department of Biology, Iowa State University 353 Bessey Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1020 UNITED STATES Telephone: 1-515-294-0367 FAX: 1-515-294-1337 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Georg Wolsky Senior Researcher, St. Petersburg State University, Babuschkina ul. 96-55, RU-193012 St. Petersburg RUSSIAN FEDERATION Telephone: 7-812-218-9696 FAX: 7-812-218-1346 e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Daniela Zappi The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB UNITED KINGDOM Telephone: 44-181-332-5288 FAX: 44-181-332-5278 e-mail: [email protected] ADDRESS CHANGES: Please send the Secretary address, telephone, fax, or e-mail changes so that we may keep our membership list current.

Dr. Joachim Thiede Botanical Institute, University of Cologne, Gyrhofstr. 15, D-50931 Cologne GERMANY Telephone: 49-221-470-6278 FAX: 49-221-470-5181 e-mail: [email protected] from 1.12.2000 onwards: Botanical Institute & Garden, University of Hamburg, Ohnhorststr. 18, D-22609 Hamburg GERMANY FAX: 49-40-42816-254 e-mail: [email protected]

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17