What do you think?
Rate this book
Flora of the Chicago Region A Floristic And Ecological Synthesis
Hard cover (laminated), 8.5 x 11 inches, 10.1 lbs, 1392 pages, 1517 illustrations (composite of genus), 3150 dot maps, keys, 47 full pages of color photos, 4 indices, glossary, nomenclatural authorities, literature cited, historic end sheet maps, phenomenal pollination biology
1371 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2017
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 13, 2019
Note: I have only had the book for about a week. I have read through around 2/3 of species descriptions, but not used the keys much yet.
Here are three quotes about the much anticipated book:
"After 15 years and close to 100,000 hours of work, the book is finished. We think it's everything you were hoping it would be —thoroughly researched, detailed, extensively illustrated." -- The book's website.
"This will be considered the most complete flora ever written for anyplace in the U.S. They have meticulously and accurately brought the status of vascular plants in the Chicago region up-to-date, while painstakingly recording an incredible array of interactions between the flora and other organisms, especially insects. The intricate pollination of some plants, many of these associations not previously known or recorded, is almost beyond belief." -- Robert H. Mohlenbrock
"Flora of the Chicago Region is magnificent — a major contribution to biodiversity studies. I'm very grateful for the copy you sent — and already going over it, with deep pleasure." -- Edward O. Wilson
With high praises like that, it was hard to temper any expectations down.
The first thing I noticed was that the book has a weight of around 15 pounds! (maybe even heavier!) I didn't measure the precise weight, but holding it feels the same as a 16 lb bowling ball.
The typical species entry includes:
1) A sketch (not every species has a sketch especially with large genera that look similar...Carex, Eleocharis etc., some species have multiple sketches).
2) A map of the counties of the "Chicago Region" -- Looping from SE Wisconsin around Lake Michigan to the southwestern most county in Michigan (3 counties in SE W, 11 counties in NE IL, 7 Counties in NW IN and 1 County in SW MI)with a dot of the species has been documented from said county.
3) Habitat description.
4) A (long!) list of associated species. If a certain plant grows in multiple habitats, the authors will list a long associated species list for each habitat type.
5) A description of insects that associated with the plant, especially focusing in detail on the known pollinators.
6) A dedication from a donor/sponsor (most species don't have dedications, only if they bear special meaning to a donor)
7) Various notes about distribution, especially if it is something uncommon in the area.
8) When it typically blooms, C value, Wetland indicator status
Overall this is an wonderful book filled with a tremendous amount of information. This is one of the best resources I have encountered.
However, there are still things that I don't like or see room for improvement which I explain below.
1) The plants are arranged alphabetically by scientific name rather than by family. So plants that are closely related are not next to each other (unless they are in the same genus, or by happenstance). In most cases the key for the family is not next to most members of the family. The members of the family are spread through the book.
2) The associated species description on each species are very long and repetitive. It seems like it would have made more sense to list around 50 specific microhabitats in the beginning of the book and give a very detailed list of species that live in each of those specific microhabitats with each other (similar to what they already did in the beginning of the book, but even more specific). Then within each species description limit to 5-10 plants that are found with that species with the most fidelity. I think if they did this the book would have been about 300 pages shorter with much less redundancy.
3) For some of the species, I feel that the essence of the plant is not fully captured especially on the ethnobotanical side. I understand that the book is already almost 1400 pages, and most species description do a fantastic job (the lead plant treatment is amazing). However, there were a few details that seemed to be missing badly on some species. As an example, in the description on Hedeoma pulegiodes it does not mention the scent of the plant at all (to be fair they do mention "sweet scented annuals" in the genus description). I recall walking through an understory of this plant and the aroma of broken foliage was so strong in the air that the person I was with almost vomitted! The scent has given me headaches on multiple occasions from walking through it. This overpowering odor is a defining characteristic of this species to me (the other species in the genus is very weakly scented). It was used frequently by tribes as insect repellent rubbed on skin according to Moerman.
Another example is the description for pawpaw Asimina triloba. The only thing mentioned about the fruit is: "fruit becoming brownish, mostly more than 5 cm long, with a sweet and edible pulp." This is a tropical fruit that somehow survives in Michigan, is the largest fruit native to the US/Canada, and has a 320 page book written about its history and mystique.
4) The book is way too heavy to hold or take into the field.
5) The authors generally seem to be quite lax in calling out ecologically invasive plants that have demonstrated they can take over native habitats quite quickly. In reading the descriptions the authors seem to treat species which are known to be very invasive with very similar descriptions to plants which have no history of invasive tendencies.
An example to illustrate this is the description for Spiranthes ovalis compared with Ampelopsis brevipedunculata. Spiranthes ovalis is high quality orchid that is "native" just south of the area covered by the book. It is listed as a species of concern in several states and has been miraculously moving north on its own in the heavily fragmented landscape(not deliberately moved by humans). Where it has been found (at least in Wisconsin, I don't have in depth knowledge of Illinois records) there are only a few plants. It is a wonderful plant that would be a treat to see for anyone who came upon it. It has absolutely no risk of becoming ecologically invasive. The entry for S. ovalis says "introduced from the south" and grows in "usually degraded woodlands and in old fields and ditches."
Contrast this with Ampelopsis brevipedunculata. This is horribly invasive plant that has demonstrated its potency as an invasive in many eastern states. It is known to vine over everything covering the ground, shrubs and entire trees (similar to kudzu). It is listed as a noxious weed in many states and has been restricted in many states. However, the description of this species in the book is quite comparable to the one for Spiranthes ovalis. "Turquoise berry...introduced from Asia...from a degraded area..." No mention of the invasive potential of the plant whatsoever.
Here is the problem. If you are a landowner and found each of these on your land and you read these descriptions you may be inclined to act the same way towards both (either pull both or leave both be.) When one is a beautiful, "native", ephemeral orchid and the other is among the worst invasive plants in the eastern U.S.
6) The insects mentioned has a bias towards pollinators. I would like to see more information about insects that feed on each species, for example food plants of caterpillars. In the authors' defense some of that information might be more esoteric or not yet discovered. But as an example, I know that the silver-spotted skipper caterpillar frequently eats Amphicarpaea bracteata, but that was not mentioned in the species, genus or family description.
Having said all that I want to reiterate that this book is one of the best references I have ever encountered and certainly deserving of a five star rating! I have learned much from this book and I will certainly use this as a reference quite frequently.
Here are three quotes about the much anticipated book:
"After 15 years and close to 100,000 hours of work, the book is finished. We think it's everything you were hoping it would be —thoroughly researched, detailed, extensively illustrated." -- The book's website.
"This will be considered the most complete flora ever written for anyplace in the U.S. They have meticulously and accurately brought the status of vascular plants in the Chicago region up-to-date, while painstakingly recording an incredible array of interactions between the flora and other organisms, especially insects. The intricate pollination of some plants, many of these associations not previously known or recorded, is almost beyond belief." -- Robert H. Mohlenbrock
"Flora of the Chicago Region is magnificent — a major contribution to biodiversity studies. I'm very grateful for the copy you sent — and already going over it, with deep pleasure." -- Edward O. Wilson
With high praises like that, it was hard to temper any expectations down.
The first thing I noticed was that the book has a weight of around 15 pounds! (maybe even heavier!) I didn't measure the precise weight, but holding it feels the same as a 16 lb bowling ball.
The typical species entry includes:
1) A sketch (not every species has a sketch especially with large genera that look similar...Carex, Eleocharis etc., some species have multiple sketches).
2) A map of the counties of the "Chicago Region" -- Looping from SE Wisconsin around Lake Michigan to the southwestern most county in Michigan (3 counties in SE W, 11 counties in NE IL, 7 Counties in NW IN and 1 County in SW MI)with a dot of the species has been documented from said county.
3) Habitat description.
4) A (long!) list of associated species. If a certain plant grows in multiple habitats, the authors will list a long associated species list for each habitat type.
5) A description of insects that associated with the plant, especially focusing in detail on the known pollinators.
6) A dedication from a donor/sponsor (most species don't have dedications, only if they bear special meaning to a donor)
7) Various notes about distribution, especially if it is something uncommon in the area.
8) When it typically blooms, C value, Wetland indicator status
Overall this is an wonderful book filled with a tremendous amount of information. This is one of the best resources I have encountered.
However, there are still things that I don't like or see room for improvement which I explain below.
1) The plants are arranged alphabetically by scientific name rather than by family. So plants that are closely related are not next to each other (unless they are in the same genus, or by happenstance). In most cases the key for the family is not next to most members of the family. The members of the family are spread through the book.
2) The associated species description on each species are very long and repetitive. It seems like it would have made more sense to list around 50 specific microhabitats in the beginning of the book and give a very detailed list of species that live in each of those specific microhabitats with each other (similar to what they already did in the beginning of the book, but even more specific). Then within each species description limit to 5-10 plants that are found with that species with the most fidelity. I think if they did this the book would have been about 300 pages shorter with much less redundancy.
3) For some of the species, I feel that the essence of the plant is not fully captured especially on the ethnobotanical side. I understand that the book is already almost 1400 pages, and most species description do a fantastic job (the lead plant treatment is amazing). However, there were a few details that seemed to be missing badly on some species. As an example, in the description on Hedeoma pulegiodes it does not mention the scent of the plant at all (to be fair they do mention "sweet scented annuals" in the genus description). I recall walking through an understory of this plant and the aroma of broken foliage was so strong in the air that the person I was with almost vomitted! The scent has given me headaches on multiple occasions from walking through it. This overpowering odor is a defining characteristic of this species to me (the other species in the genus is very weakly scented). It was used frequently by tribes as insect repellent rubbed on skin according to Moerman.
Another example is the description for pawpaw Asimina triloba. The only thing mentioned about the fruit is: "fruit becoming brownish, mostly more than 5 cm long, with a sweet and edible pulp." This is a tropical fruit that somehow survives in Michigan, is the largest fruit native to the US/Canada, and has a 320 page book written about its history and mystique.
4) The book is way too heavy to hold or take into the field.
5) The authors generally seem to be quite lax in calling out ecologically invasive plants that have demonstrated they can take over native habitats quite quickly. In reading the descriptions the authors seem to treat species which are known to be very invasive with very similar descriptions to plants which have no history of invasive tendencies.
An example to illustrate this is the description for Spiranthes ovalis compared with Ampelopsis brevipedunculata. Spiranthes ovalis is high quality orchid that is "native" just south of the area covered by the book. It is listed as a species of concern in several states and has been miraculously moving north on its own in the heavily fragmented landscape(not deliberately moved by humans). Where it has been found (at least in Wisconsin, I don't have in depth knowledge of Illinois records) there are only a few plants. It is a wonderful plant that would be a treat to see for anyone who came upon it. It has absolutely no risk of becoming ecologically invasive. The entry for S. ovalis says "introduced from the south" and grows in "usually degraded woodlands and in old fields and ditches."
Contrast this with Ampelopsis brevipedunculata. This is horribly invasive plant that has demonstrated its potency as an invasive in many eastern states. It is known to vine over everything covering the ground, shrubs and entire trees (similar to kudzu). It is listed as a noxious weed in many states and has been restricted in many states. However, the description of this species in the book is quite comparable to the one for Spiranthes ovalis. "Turquoise berry...introduced from Asia...from a degraded area..." No mention of the invasive potential of the plant whatsoever.
Here is the problem. If you are a landowner and found each of these on your land and you read these descriptions you may be inclined to act the same way towards both (either pull both or leave both be.) When one is a beautiful, "native", ephemeral orchid and the other is among the worst invasive plants in the eastern U.S.
6) The insects mentioned has a bias towards pollinators. I would like to see more information about insects that feed on each species, for example food plants of caterpillars. In the authors' defense some of that information might be more esoteric or not yet discovered. But as an example, I know that the silver-spotted skipper caterpillar frequently eats Amphicarpaea bracteata, but that was not mentioned in the species, genus or family description.
Having said all that I want to reiterate that this book is one of the best references I have ever encountered and certainly deserving of a five star rating! I have learned much from this book and I will certainly use this as a reference quite frequently.
Displaying 1 of 1 review