Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens - (Willd.) Knight
Large Yellow Lady's-slipper
Other English Common Names: Greater Yellow Lady's-slipper
Other Common Names: greater yellow lady's slipper
Synonym(s): Cypripedium calceolus var. pubescens (Willd.) Correll ;Cypripedium pubescens Willd.
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Cypripedium pubescens Willd. (TSN 501945)
French Common Names: cypripède pubescent
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.134081
Element Code: PMORC0Q092
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Orchid Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Orchidales Orchidaceae Cypripedium
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Concept Reference Code: B99KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens
Taxonomic Comments: The varietal-level taxon Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens of Kartesz (1999) corresponds to the species C. pubescens of Kartesz (1994) where C. pubescens was recognized at the species rather than the varietal level.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5T5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12Jan2016
Global Status Last Changed: 14Oct2002
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: T5 - Secure
Reasons: Although there may be far more than a thousand populations of this species throughout its extensive range, most are small, and Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (Cypripedium pubescens), when treated taxonomically to exclude the more widespread var. makasin (as by Kartesz, 1999) is clearly vulnerable to habitat loss, horticultural collecting, and medicinal collecting rangewide. There are very few reports of large, demonstrably secure populations anywhere in North America. All reported populations contain less than 400 individuals, and most contain less than 30. There are numerous threats to this species and its habitats, and the typically small populations of this species are highly vulnerable to extirpation. Extirpation of two populations has been documented in Arizona, and it is likely that many others have been recently extirpated. Despite efforts to protect this species from collectors, it continues to be impacted by this practice. Though quantitative data is not available at this time, available information suggests that this species is still in decline, and further measures to protect it should be implemented.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4N5
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (12Jan2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S3), Alaska (SNR), Arizona (S1), Colorado (SNR), Connecticut (SU), Delaware (S1), District of Columbia (SX), Georgia (S3), Idaho (S1), Illinois (S3?), Indiana (S3), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S4), Maine (SNR), Maryland (S3), Massachusetts (S1?), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S2S3), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SNR), Navajo Nation (S1), Nebraska (SNR), New Hampshire (S2), New Jersey (S3S4), New Mexico (S2?), New York (S3), North Carolina (S3), North Dakota (S2), Ohio (S4), Pennsylvania (S4), Rhode Island (S1), South Carolina (S3), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (SNR), Texas (SNR), Utah (S1), Vermont (S3), Virginia (S4), Washington (SNR), West Virginia (S4), Wisconsin (SNR), Wyoming (S2)
Canada Alberta (S5?), British Columbia (S3S4), Labrador (S1), Manitoba (S5?), New Brunswick (S4), Newfoundland Island (S4), Nova Scotia (S2), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S2), Quebec (S3S4), Saskatchewan (S2), Yukon Territory (SNR)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Widespread in Canada and the United States. Alaska to Newfoundland, south to Oregon, northern Idaho, eastern North Dakota, Louisiana, and Georgia, with disjunct populations in the Rocky Mountains from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Thousands of populations are probably extant rangewide. Michigan: common, not tracked (Michigan Natural Features Inventory); Indiana: not common, not tracked (Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center); Manitoba: >100 (Manitoba Conservation Data Centre); Texas: one historic occurrence reported in 1929 (a collection from the shore of a playa lake in Bailey County) but not seen since then-record may be erroneous (Texas Conservation Data Center), and is considered so by Kartesz (1999); Kansas: about 30 (Kansas Natural Features Inventory); Idaho: 4, all limited in extent (Idaho Conservation Data Center); Wyoming: 9 (2 historical) (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database); Mississippi: 27 (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program); New Mexico: 8 (New Mexico Natural Heritage Program); Georgia: 23 reported, hundreds likely (Georgia Natural Heritage Program); Vermont: 25 (Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage); Colorado: 28 (Colorado Natural Heritage Program); Delaware: 2 (Delaware Natural Heritage Program); New Hampshire: 9 current and 10 historical (New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory); South Dakota: 23, mostly in Black Hills (South Dakota Natural Heritage Database); Arizona: 6 (in White Mountains)-Ron Coleman, an expert on the orchids of Arizona, has failed to relocate two of the occurrences during several trips, and it is believed that they have been extirpated due to trampling and collecting (Sue Schuetze pers. comm.).

Population Size Comments: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is a colony-forming species (i.e. forms clonal patches) (Great Plains Floral Association 1986), so counting methods need to account for this.

Available information suggests that most occurrences of this species are small populations, at least in parts of its range where it is less common. In Georgia, the largest population on record contains approximately 200 individuals, but most other occurrences contain between one and 30 plants (Georgia Natural Heritage Program). No occurrence from Mississippi reports a population larger than 121 individuals, and many report between 1 and 7 individuals (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program). One population in Vermont contains an estimated "200 to 400 clumps," but most of the other 24 occurrences known from the state in which population size information is available contain from 4 to 8 individuals (Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage). In New Mexico there are no reports of more than 14 individuals in a given occurrence (New Mexico Natural Heritage Program).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species is threatened by plant collectors (presumably for gardens) and by habitat loss within parts of its range.

Of the several varieties of Cypripedium, C. calceolus var. parviflorum is the usual source for dried roots (Frontier Co-op 2000). After an industry resolution was passed in 1988 to discontinue sales of wild-collected lady's slipper root, many responsible herb companies complied. However, some companies persist in selling it (Frontier Co-op 2000). In addition, although many herb companies have agreed not to sell any Cypripedium material, some large companies continue to pay root diggers for rhizomes (Robyn Klein pers. comm.).

This species is reportedly very difficult to cultivate. It is "considered to be a semi-parasitic species and must be grown in very controlled conditions and is not economically feasible." (Ed Fletcher pers. comm.). Recently, the native plant nursery industry has successfully propagated it and considers it not technically difficult to grow in gardens (Rolf Schilling pers. comm. 2007).

Many orchid species have a reputation for difficulty of cultivation, which may be one reason that wild populations tend to be targeted for harvesting. An internet site contained the following general information on this species: "While commercially propagated plants are available, the quantities and prices do not support cultivation for the dried herb market. Dried lady's slipper roots currently being sold are likely wildcrafted roots, roots of other plants, or roots which have been dug in the wild and replanted in order to be called cultivated." (Frontier Co-op 2000)

It is reportedly cultivated somewhere by tissue culture for ornamental uses (Tim Smith pers. comm.). Small scale cultivation for the horticulture trade is reported from Manitoba, but this involves gathering plants from the wild and transplanting them in nurseries. Techniques for propagating this species from seeds involve germinating them on agar and then transplanting them to soil, but these have not been perfected yet (Elizabeth Punter pers. comm.).

Because the roots of this species are being sold in the medicinal herb trade [and cultivation is perceived to be very difficult] it is certainly being collected from somewhere (Mike Homoya pers. comm.).

Like other orchid species, some populations have been reduced over the years by collecting for gardens (Weber and Wittmann 1996).

In Kentucky, Deborah White (pers. comm.) has received anecdotal information that all lady's slippers are being collected, and has received a call from a collector inquiring about federal regulations who claimed to have a large box full of roots. Ladies slippers have also been collected for gardens, but the transplants commonly fail (Deborah White pers. comm.).

This species is protected in Georgia as a Special Concern Plant, a category that is used for commercially exploited species that are infrequent in the state and often dug for horticultural or medicinal purposes (Georgia Natural Heritage Program). The situation in Georgia is described as follows: "Permits are required to dig, sell or transport [this species]. There is little enforcement carried out with regard to protected plants. Yellow ladyslippers are sold by half a dozen individuals who propagate the species by rhizome division mostly from plants on their own lands. There are some illegitimate nurseries still obtaining plants dug from the wild without permit or landowner permission. The yellow ladyslippers when sold by permit are required to have transport tags, a copy of which is filed with the Georgia Natural Heritage Program. During 1993 through 1999, records indicate that as few as zero individuals to as many as 43 individuals per year were sold by permit (as garden plants) in Georgia. There is no estimate on numbers taken without permit, nor do we have any misdemeanors filed against individuals for removing yellow ladyslippers within the past few years." (Tom Patrick pers. comm.)

Plants are probably collected in the southern part of the range of the species in Manitoba (Elizabeth Punter pers. comm.).

An individual knowledgable about the medicinal herb trade states that Cypripedium is insignificant in the market currently and estimates trade on the order of ten pounds of dry root per year (McGuffin pers. comm.). It may be that horticultural collection is a much greater threat than medicinal usage, but this requires further research.

Any serious efforts to collect this plant for the plant trade could have negative impacts on this species in Indiana, where it is not common (Mike Homoya pers. comm.). In Missouri, wild-collection for personal gardens threatens populations (Tim Smith pers. comm.).

All Cypripedium species are listed by the United Plant Savers At Risk Forum on their "At Risk" list. This list consists of "herbs which are broadly used in commerce and which, due to over-harvest, loss of habitat, or by the nature of their innate rareness or sensitivity are either at risk or have significantly declined in numbers within their current range" (United Plant Savers 2000).

Other than threats from plant collection and habitat loss, like many orchids, Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens may be relatively intolerant of degraded natural habitat (Swink and Wilhelm 1994), and to the extent that this is so, it is relegated to a decreasing portion of the natural landscape, which is threatened by pollution, changes in hydrology, resource harvesting, over-abundance of certain animals (such as deer), alien species invasion, and loss of landscape connectivity.

Other than collection, the following threats are reported from across the plant's range. Illinois: competitive exclusion by exotic species such as bush honeysuckle and garlic mustard (Bill McClain pers. comm.); Wyoming: grazing by livestock in the Bighorn Range, vulnerability to trampling by off-road vehicles and hikers (Walt Fertig pers. comm.); Idaho: weed invasion and right-of-way maintenance (Michael Mancuso pers. comm.); Mississippi: widespread land conversion, such as land clearing and the establishment of pine plantations (Ronald Wieland pers. comm.); New Mexico: individuals in one occurrence found with tops clipped off, not clear if due to grazing or collection (Sara Gottlieb pers. comm.); Georgia: rooting by wild pigs (Tom Patrick pers. comm.); Manitoba: road maintenance (herbiciding, mowing, ditch cleaning, removal of woody vegetation), forestry activities, agricultural activities (haying, grazing, tillage), and picking and digging of plants (Elizabeth Punter pers. comm.).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: The habitat of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens has certainly declined since European settlement of North America began. Forests have been cut. Wetlands have been drained. It is likely that Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens has incurred simultaneous population loss, the amount of which partly reflecting the localized habitat losses. It is likely that populations have been and continue to be impacted, at least locally, by collectors for the plant trade and by gardeners. This species was reportedly far more abundant historically in northeastern South Dakota (David Ode pers. comm.).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Widespread in Canada and the United States. Alaska to Newfoundland, south to Oregon, northern Idaho, eastern North Dakota, Louisiana, and Georgia, with disjunct populations in the Rocky Mountains from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT, DCextirpated, DE, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Jackson (01071)*, Lawrence (01079)*
AZ Apache (04001), Greenlee (04011)
DE New Castle (10003)*, Sussex (10005)*
GA Towns (13281)*
ID Blaine (16013), Bonner (16017), Boundary (16021)
IN Brown (18013), Crawford (18025), Monroe (18105), Perry (18123), Warren (18171)
MA Berkshire (25003), Essex (25009), Franklin (25011), Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015), Middlesex (25017), Norfolk (25021), Plymouth (25023), Worcester (25027)
MS Chickasaw (28017)*, Choctaw (28019), Clay (28025), Grenada (28043), Itawamba (28057), Lafayette (28071), Lauderdale (28075), Lee (28081), Lowndes (28087)*, Monroe (28095), Prentiss (28117)*, Tippah (28139), Tishomingo (28141)*, Webster (28155), Winston (28159)
NC Clay (37043)*
ND Benson (38005), Eddy (38027), Ransom (38073), Rolette (38079)*
NH Belknap (33001)*, Carroll (33003), Cheshire (33005), Coos (33007), Grafton (33009), Hillsborough (33011)*, Merrimack (33013)*, Rockingham (33015)*, Strafford (33017), Sullivan (33019)
NM Grant (35017), Los Alamos (35028), San Juan (35045), San Miguel (35047), Santa Fe (35049)*
OH Adams (39001), Ashland (39005), Cuyahoga (39035), Defiance (39039)*, Franklin (39049), Fulton (39051), Geauga (39055)*, Henry (39069), Highland (39071), Hocking (39073), Jackson (39079), Knox (39083), Lawrence (39087), Lucas (39095), Morgan (39115)*, Pike (39131), Ross (39141), Scioto (39145), Summit (39153), Tuscarawas (39157), Vinton (39163), Warren (39165), Washington (39167), Wood (39173)*
PA Blair (42013)
RI Providence (44007)
SC Greenville (45045), Laurens (45059)*, Oconee (45073), Pickens (45077), Spartanburg (45083)
UT Cache (49005), Salt Lake (49035), Utah (49049)*
WY Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Johnson (56019), Sheridan (56033), Washakie (56043)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Upper Androscoggin (01040001)+, Lower Androscoggin (01040002)+*, Saco (01060002)+*, Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Concord (01070005)+, Merrimack (01070006)+*, Upper Connecticut (01080101)+, Waits (01080103)+, Upper Connecticut-Mascoma (01080104)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Charles (01090001)+, Blackstone (01090003)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+*, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+*, Upper Juniata (02050302)+
03 Upper Broad (03050105)+*, Tyger (03050107)+, Enoree (03050108)+*, Saluda (03050109)+, Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Town (03160102)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+*, Tibbee (03160104)+, Luxapallila (03160105)+*, Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub (03160106)+*, Noxubee (03160108)+, Sucarnoochee (03160202)+, Chunky-Okatibbee (03170001)+
04 Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Lower Maumee (04100009)+, Cuyahoga (04110002)+, Ashtabula-Chagrin (04110003)+*
05 Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Hocking (05030204)+, Tuscarawas (05040001)+, Mohican (05040002)+, Muskingum (05040004)+*, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Paint (05060003)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
06 Hiwassee (06020002)+*, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+*, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+*, Bear (06030006)+*
08 Upper Hatchie (08010207)+, Little Tallahatchie (08030201)+, Yalobusha (08030205)+, Upper Big Black (08060201)+
09 Willow (09010004)+*, Devils Lake (09020201)+, Upper Sheyenne (09020202)+, Lower Sheyenne (09020204)+
10 Little Wind (10080002)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Clear (10090206)+, Redwater (10120203)+
13 Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Mimbres (13030202)+*, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+
14 Chaco (14080106)+
15 Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+, Upper Gila (15040001)+, San Francisco (15040004)+, Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir (15040005)+*, Black (15060101)+
16 Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Utah Lake (16020201)+*, Provo (16020203)+*, Jordan (16020204)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Little Wood (17040221)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (as treated by Kartesz, 1999) is an orchid of North American woods and boggy areas. It is roughly one foot tall, with yellow to brownish, purplish, or greenish petals, and characteristic of the "lady's slipper" orchid group, its lowest petal looks like an inflated pouch or slipper (Cronquist et al. 1972, Swink and Wilhelm 1994).
General Description: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens grows from 23-70 cm high. There are 4-6 oval-lanceolate leaves. 1-2 flowers are borne at the top of th estem. The sepals and petals are greenish-yellow streaked with fine lines of madder-purple. The sepals are ovate-lanceolate. The upper sepal is 4-7 cm long and the lower sepals are usually fused together except at the tips, although occasionally specimens are found in which the lower sepals are entirely separate. The lanceolate petals, 5-8 cm long, are very conspicuously spirally twisted. The waxy, orange-yellow lip is 3-5 cm long.
Technical Description: Stem 1.5-4 dm. tall, sparsely pubescent and more or less glandular, leafy throughout; leaves mostly slightly sheathing, broadly elliptic to elliptic-lanceolate, 6-17 cm. long, up to 7 cm broad, lightly pubescent and usually glandular; flowers 1 (very occasionally 2), subtended and usually exceeded by an erect, leaflike bract; sepals and petals greenish-yellow to somewhat purplish-brown or purplish-mottled, usually very wavy-margined and slightly twisted, the upper sepal broadest, 2.5-4 cm long, the lower pair completely fused or with only a notch at their tip; petals somewhat narrower and longer than the sepals up to 4.5 cm long; lip 2-3 cm long, stroungly pouched, yellow, often purplish-dotted around the orifice; staminodium triangular, usually lobed or auriculate at the base, up to 10 mm. long, yellow with purplish dots.
Diagnostic Characteristics: C. calceolus var. parviflorum may be easily differentiated from var. pubescens by its small leaf, lip, and plant size, leaf shape, degree of twisting in lateral sepals, sepal color, and habitat preference.
Duration: PERENNIAL
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND
Habitat Comments: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens grows in boggy areas, swampy areas, damp woods (often with a rich layer of humus and decaying leaf litter), near rivers or canal banks (Great Plains Floral Association 1986, Swink and Wilhelm 1994, Weber and Wittmann 1996, Hulten 1968, Cronquist et al. 1972), and in wet meadows (in the Pacific Northwest) (Welsh et al. 1993). In Kentucky it is reported from dry mesic woods and occasionally associated with open glades (Kentucky Natural Heritage Program).

It has also been associated with rocky wooded hillsides on north or east facing slopes, wooded loess river bluffs, and moist creeksides or swales in spruce zones. Soils are sandy loams to loams.

Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Commercial Importance: Indigenous crop, Minor cash crop
Economic Uses: MEDICINE/DRUG, ESTHETIC
Production Method: Wild-harvested
Economic Comments: Species in this same genus, Cypripedium, have been used medicinally by both Native and Euro-Americans (Niering 1979, Weiner 1980).

The roots of Cypripedium parviflorum were used by the Cherokee as a treatment for worms, and the roots of all Cypripedium species were used as a treatment for insomnia, nervousness, or nerve-related disorders by Native Americans and Euro-Americans (Niering 1979, Weiner 1980). References describing medicinal uses cannot be associated with single species or varieties with great confidence, as the species/variety and nomenclature for Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens and related strains (complex) is confusing and perhaps not yet standardized; although, references do imply that the medicinal uses were not restricted to one species or variety of Cypripedium.

Herbalists in the U.S. have agreed not to purchase, dig, or use any Cypripedium species in their formulas [however, not all companies are complying with this agreement, and wild-collection continues]. In the late 1800s, Cypripedium was very popular as a nervine tonic (Robyn Klein pers. comm.). Cypripedium pubescens is listed as an ingredient in a recipe for making a homeopathic remedy for poison ivy and poison oak on internet websites (Frontier Co-op 2000). As a medicinal herb, the rhizomes are used to make a tincture. Two more common species, Scutellaria lateriflora and Lavendula angustifolia, are recommended as suitable substitutes for Cypripedium for medicinal uses (Ed Fletcher pers. comm.).

Prices for this species were found as follows:

Georgia: $6.00/single root or rhizome (Tom Patrick pers. comm.)

Toronto, Canada: $24.95/individual plant, $68.00/3 plants (Elizabeth Punter pers. comm.)

Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Taxonomic and nomenclatural confusion make population separation issues difficult in the eastern U.S. In the plains, the increasing rarity of var. parviflorum and of suitable habitat for var. pubescens makes separation easier, and it is likely that the populations become increasingly separated to the west. However, certain mountain ranges in the northern Rockies, and from there northwards and westwards, could provide larger habitats of rich woods and wetland communities which could support more frequent populations.
Separation Barriers: In arid portions of the Great Plains and the western U.S., the habitat of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is uncommon, and separations of populations are dominated by unsuitable habitat. In eastern portions of its range, a combination of destroyed and degraded habitat (cities, intensively farmed areas, logged forest, overgrazed or over-browsed forest, polluted waterways, drained wetlands) and unsuitable habitat (areas which are too dry, too open, or of improper soil chemistry) may now cause major separations of populations. Northwards into Canada and Alaska, it is possible that relatively large and continuous natural areas still exist in which Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens could reside.
Date: 21Jan2000
Author: Spackman, S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14Oct2002
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Susan Spackman, David Anderson, and Steve Thomas (1/00); rev. Eric Nielsen (1/00), rev. L. Morse (2001)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 27Feb2001

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. HUC10-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Atwood, J.T. 1984. The relationships of the slipper orchids (Subfamily Cypripedioideae, Orchidaceae). Selbyana 7: 129-247.

  • Beauvais, G.P., W. Fertig, and G.P. Jones. 2000. Rare species and the vegetation of Washakie County, Wyoming. Report prepared for the Washakie County planner by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Brown, P.M. 1997. Wild Orchids of the Northeastern United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 236 pp.

  • Bruce-Grey Plant Committee (Owen Sound Field Naturalists). [1997]. A Guide to the Orchids of Bruce and Grey Counties, Ontario. Stan Brown Printers Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario. 105 pp.

  • Case, F.W., Jr. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Revised Edition. Bulletin 48, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 251 pp.

  • Case, M.A. 1993. High levels of alloyme variation within Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) and low levels of divergence among its varieties. Systematic Botany 18(4). 663-677

  • Cody, W.J. 1988. Plants of Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Agriculture Canada, Publication 1818/E, Ottawa ON.

  • Colorado Native Plant Society. 1997. Rare Plants of Colorado, second edition. Falcon Press Publ., Helena, MT.

  • Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal and P. K. Holmgren. 1977. Intermountain Flora Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, USA: vol. 6. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

  • Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. 1977. Intermountain Flora; Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume 6: The Monocotyledons. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

  • Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1977. Intermountain flora: vascular plants of the intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. Six. Monocotyledons. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 584 pp.

  • Culver, D. R. and J. M. Lemly. 2013a. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University. 694 pp.

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp.

  • Dorn, R. D. 2001. Vascular Plants of Wyoming, third edition. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY.

  • Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 2001b. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 7, Monocotyledons (Orchidaceae through Zosteraceae). B.C. Minist. Sustainable Resour. Manage., and B.C. Minist. For. Victoria, BC. 379pp.

  • Evert, E. F. 1985. Rare Plants: Story Area. Unpublished report prepared by the author.

  • Evert, E. F. 2010. Vascular Plants of the Greater Yellowstone Area: Annotated Catalog and Atlas. Park Ridge, IL.

  • FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee). 2002b. Flora of North America and Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliphyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 608 pp.

  • Fertig, W. 2000. Rare vascular plant species in the Wyoming portion of the Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains Ecoregion. Prepared for the Wyoming Nature Conservancy by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Fertig, W. 2000. Target plant species and potential plant conservation sites in the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills Ecoregion. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy Midwest Science Division by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp.

  • Girard, M. 1992. Sensitive and Watch Plant Species of the Bighorn National Forest. Bighorn National Forest, 1969 S. Sheridan Ave., Sheridan, WY.

  • Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

  • Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 1402 pp.

  • Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

  • Haines, Arthur. 2001. Taxonomy of the Cyprepedium parviflorum complex in Maine. Woodlot Alternative, Inc. Environmental Consultants. Botanical Notes, 6:4-6. Available: http://www.woodlotalt.com/publications/publications.htm

  • Harms, V.L. 1986. The yellow lady's-slipper varieties in Saskatchewan and western Canada. Blue Jay 44(2): 87-95.

  • Harrington, H. D. 1954. Manual of the Plants of Colorado. Sage Books, Chicago, IL.

  • Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

  • Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

  • Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Part 1: Vascular Cryptograms, Gymnosperms and Monocotyledons. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

  • Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

  • Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp.

  • Holman, R.T. 1976. Orchid Conservation: Cultivation of Cypripedium calceolus and Cypripedium reginae. American Orchid Society Bulletin May: 415-422.

  • Homoya, M.A. 1993. Orchids of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 276 pp.

  • Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

  • Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford Univ. Press, Palo Alto, CA. 1008 pp.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Keim, F. 1985. Some flowers of yellow lady's-slipper (Cypripedium calceolus L.) probably browsed by deer in central Ontario. Plant Press 3(2): 44.

  • Larson, G. E. and J. R. Johnson. 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains. South Dakota State University College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences & South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings, SD.

  • Luer, C. A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

  • Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp.

  • Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. The New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp.

  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2018. Vascular Plant Species ranking forms from initial CDC ranking.

  • Marriott, H. J. 1991. Suitability investigation report for a Proposed Bear/Beaver Gulches Special Botanical Area. Unpublished report prepared for the Black Hills National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Mergen, D. E. 2006. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. (lesser yellow lady?s slipper): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/Cypripediumparviflorumvarpubescens.pdf.

  • Morris, F. and E.A. Eames. 1929. Our Wild Orchids. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 464 pp.

  • Morton, J.K. and J.M. Venn. 1984. The Flora of Manitoulin Island and the Adjacent Islands of Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and the North Channel. Second Revised Edition. University of Waterloo Biology Series No. 28, Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo. 158 pp. + appendices.

  • Moye, William S. 2006. Highly Ranked Plants of the South Mountain Region. Unpublished notes sent via email to Misty Franklin in February 2006.

  • Nelson, Ruth Ashton. 1969. Handbook of Rocky Mountain Plants. Dale Stuart King, Tucson, Arizona.

  • Nelson, Ruth Ashton. 1969. Handbook of Rocky Mountain Plants. Dale Stuart King, Tucson, Arizona.

  • Niering, W.A. and N.C. Olmstead. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Wildflowers, Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 887 pp.

  • Ode, D. J. and H. Marriott. 1990. Sensitive plant surveys in the northwestern Black Hills. Unpublished GFP Report No. 90-3 prepared for the Black Hills National Forest, Spearfish and Bearlodge Ranger Districts by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • O?Dea, K. and W. Fertig. 2000. State Species Abstract: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. Updated 2008 by J. Handley. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Available on the internet at www.uwyo.edu/wyndd.

  • Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual. Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.

  • Porter, C.L. 1965. A Flora of Wyoming: Part IV. Bulletin 434:1-88. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming.

  • Reddoch, J.M. and A.H. Reddoch. 1997. The orchids in the Ottawa District: floristics, phytogeography, population studies and historical review. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111(1):1-185.

  • Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1061 pp.

  • Rhoads, A.F., and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: Annotated checklist and atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 636 pp.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1957. Flora of Manitoba. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin number 140.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Publ. in Botany 7(4).

  • Sheviak, C. J. 2002. Cypripedium. Pages 499-507 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editor. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

  • Sheviak, C.J. 1974. An Introduction to the Ecology of the Illinois Orchidaceae. Scientific Papers XIV, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois. 89 pp.

  • Sheviak, C.J. 1992. Natural hybridization between Cypripedium montanum and its yellow-lipped relatives. American Orchid Society Bulletin 61: 546-559.

  • Sheviak, C.J. 1995. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. Part 2: the larger-flowered plants and patterns of variation.. Amierican Orchid Society Bulletin 64: 606-612.

  • Smith, W.R. 1993. Orchids of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 172 pp.

  • Stoutamire, W.P. 1967. Flower biology of the lady's-slippers (Orchidaceae: Cypripedium). Michigan Botanist 6 (4): 159-175.

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • Wallace, L. E. and M. A. Case. 2000. Contrasting allozyme diversity between northern and southern populations of Cypripedium parviflorum (Orchidaceae): implications for Pleistocene refugia and taxonomic boundaries. Systematic Botany 25:281-296.

  • Weakley, A.S. 2002. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of July 19, 2002. Unpublished draft, UNC Herbarium, NC Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

  • Weber, W.A., and R.C. Wittmann. 1996b. Colorado flora: Western slope. Univ. Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 496 pp.

  • Weber, William A. and Ronald C. Wittmann. 1996. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope.

  • Weiner, M.A. 1980. Earth Medicine Earth Food. Ballantine Books, New York. 230 pp.

  • Weiner, M.A. 1980. Earth Medicine Earth Food. Ballantine Books, New York. 230 pp.

  • Weldy, T., D. Werier, and A. Nelson. 2017 New York Flora Atlas. [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (original application development), USF Water Institute. University of South Florida]. New York Flora Association, Albany, New York. Online. Available: http://newyork.plantatlas.usf.edu/ (accessed 2017).

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Dry Fork Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Sheridan County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Tongue River Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Sheridan County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W.F. Fertig, G.P. Jones, G.P. Beauvais, and S.M. Ogle. 2000. Fine filter analysis of the Bighorn, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welsh, S.L, N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora, second edition, revised. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins (eds.) 1993. A Utah flora. 2nd edition. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah. 986 pp.

  • Whiting, R.E. and P.M. Catling. 1986. Orchids of Ontario: An Illustrated Guide. The CanaColl Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario. xii + 169 pp.

  • Wieland, Ronald. Quick review of status of Cypripedium pubescens in Mississippi. Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, Jackson. 14 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.