Holmgren milkvetch (ESA listed)

Description:

A collage of pictures taken on the same day and in the same area with an old camera starting with a juvenile plant (upper left), a plant in flower, a closeup of the flowers using my best available "macro" lens at the time, and a plant with fruits. Astragalus holmgreniorum was named by the late legume expert Rupert Barneby in 1980 for Drs. Noel and Pat Holmgren who were with him when the type was initially collected in late May of 1979. Barneby's common name for this species confusingly was "Paradox milkvetch" because he meant it as a previously christened name for the two PhD's that where with him (i.e. a "pair of docs") and not because it has any significance with respect to the location of the plants nor the formation on which it grows. A common name of "Holmgren's milkvetch" is sometimes used but since it was named in honor two people, if a possessive form of the name is used it should instead be "Holmgrens' milkvetch." Simplifying this to "Holmgren milkvetch" seems in this case best. There are no rules for the common names of plants, so choose your own!Plants belonging to same species were collected by Marcus Jones (late 19th century) and by Melvin Oden in the early 1940's but not recognized as a new species until much later.This milkvetch is unique in having an acaulescent stem so particularly when in fruit, it appears to be sprawling and laying flat on the ground. The white-tipped keels (visible at lower left above) are often not described as characters of the flower. It co-occurs with a smaller statured milkvetch, Astragalus nuttallianusThis is a Virgin-Mohave endemic that is highly restricted to localities south of St. George and just barely into Arizona. All of its locations are under a variety of threats, primarily habitat loss but also invasive species (Red brome, African mustard and Cheatgrass primarily) and recreational impacts. It typically occurs in gravelly draws.It was listed as endangered on 9/28/2001 following a petition for its listing by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) (although it was also a candidate species at the time of the 1999 petition and reportedly the FWS was already working on a listing proposal at the time of the petition). Its ultimate listing included a provision for the designation of critical habitat as prescribed under the Act, however, no habitat was designated at the time of listing forcing the need for a lawsuit involving CBD and the Utah Native Plant Society which was successful. Designation of critical habitat was then finally made as a result of that lawsuit on 12/27/2006 and a recovery plan finalized several months prior.The "best" occurrence of this species is about to have a city built over it and involves habitat that SITLA allowed (and paid) to be surveyed but refused to protect. This is typical SITLA behavior; the state of Utah only pays attention to federally listed species and typically will take no action with respect to plant species (unless forced) otherwise creating the need for yet more suits.May 1, 2004, Washington County, Utah, elev. approx. 2,725 ft.