Epipactis gigantea - Dougl. ex Hook.
Giant Helleborine
Other English Common Names: Stream Orchid
Other Common Names: stream orchid
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Epipactis gigantea Dougl. ex Hook. (TSN 43481)
French Common Names: épipactis géant
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.152197
Element Code: PMORC11010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Orchid Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Orchidales Orchidaceae Epipactis
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Epipactis gigantea
Taxonomic Comments: The only native member of its genus in United States and Canada (Brunton 1986).There is a variant of Epipactis gigantea native to California that has wine-red leaves.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Jun2016
Global Status Last Changed: 01Dec2006
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: The range of the Epipactis gigantea is very wide although it is generally not common within that range (except perhaps in California). It can be relatively abundant locally, but some these dense local patches may represent single genetic individuals. The species has an absolute habitat requirement for surface water, which is a threatened habitat in many parts of its range, and it can occur infrequently despite the availability of seemingly suitable habitat. Despite these concerns, on a rangewide basis it is thought to be "apparently secure" (G4) given the large number of existing populations---many without known threats---over its wide range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4 (27May2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arizona (S3S4), California (SNR), Colorado (S2S3), Idaho (S3), Montana (S3), Nevada (SNR), New Mexico (S2?), Oklahoma (S1S2), Oregon (SNR), South Dakota (S1), Texas (S3), Utah (S3S4), Washington (S3), Wyoming (S1)
Canada British Columbia (S3)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (26Nov2015)
Comments on COSEWIC: Designated Threatened in April 1984. Status re-examined and designated Special Concern in April 1998. Status re-examined and designated Not at Risk in November 2015.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Epipactis gigantea grows from southern British Columbia in Canada to northern Mexico and eastwards in the United States to South Dakota and Texas. There has also been at least one collection made in central Mexico (San Luis Potosi).

Area of Occupancy: 501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This is the most widely distributed orchids of California, with populations nearly throughout the state (Coleman 1988, Hickman 1993). Outside of California, this species appars to occur uncommonly but over a very wide geographic and habitat range. The total number of occurrences are certainly greater than 300.

Population Size Comments: Possibly relatively few genets (genetic individuals), although many thousands of ramets (flowering stems). It is often described as locally abundant and very persistent, flourishing for decades in suitable habitats. Populations of E. gigantea are frequently small although there are some populations that get very large (>5000 ramets) (Thornhill, 1996). Often, however, even where the populations sizes exceed 1000-1500 ramets, the entire population is in an area smaller than 10-20m (Thornhill, 1996).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Described as locally abundant and a number of populations presumed to have good viability.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The main threat is loss of suitable habitat that is caused by water development projects or any activity that lowers the water table or disturbs the habitat. Rocchio et al. (2006) estimates the primary threats as being (in order of importance): recreation, exotic species, water development, livestock grazing, urban development, timber harvest, and utility line maintenance.

In Idaho and Wyoming populations have been extirpated or reduced in size due to impacts from the recreational use of hot springs. In New Mexico populations have also been extirpated due to water developments. Livestock grazing has detrimentally impacted some populations. In the Rocky Mountain states Rocchio et al. (2006) noted that 7 of the 41 populations known there were definitively UNthreatened. From this, we speculate that a high percentage of populations face at least some of these (possibly interacting) threats (scope=High). The overall degree of immediacy of the various threats to populations rangewide is unknown.

Site scale conservation efforts are likely to be effective in mitigating threats in most cases except where large-scale impacts such as groundwater withdrawl is occurring (Rocchio et al. 2006).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: The general trend is one of decline due principally to habitat loss. The loss and modification of riparian areas, seeps, and springs has led to local decline or extirpation of many populations.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments:

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Epipactis gigantea must have a permanent and constant source of water at the roots. This type of habitat tends to be threatened by a multitude of land use and recreational activities.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Requires water but beyond that it occurs in a wide variety of habitats. Coleman (1988) noted that it is found in deserts, including Death Valley, on cliffs overlooking the ocean, and in the mountains below 7,500 feet elevation in California and that it shows a wide tolerance of soil pH.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Epipactis gigantea grows from southern British Columbia in Canada to northern Mexico and eastwards in the United States to South Dakota and Texas. There has also been at least one collection made in central Mexico (San Luis Potosi).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY
Canada BC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Archuleta (08007), Chaffee (08015), Delta (08029), Las Animas (08071), Mesa (08077), Moffat (08081), Montezuma (08083), Montrose (08085), Saguache (08109)
ID Adams (16003), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017)*, Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Camas (16025), Clark (16033), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Gooding (16047), Idaho (16049), Jerome (16053), Lemhi (16059), Madison (16065), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
MT Carbon (30009), Flathead (30029), Granite (30039), Lake (30047), Madison (30057), Powell (30077), Sanders (30089), Teton (30099)
NM Sierra (35051)
OK Garvin (40049)*, Johnston (40069)*, Murray (40099), Pontotoc (40123)*
SD Fall River (46047)
UT Box Elder (49003)*, Uintah (49047)*
WY Big Horn (56003)*, Teton (56039)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Jefferson (10020005)+, Sun (10030104)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+*, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+
11 Arkansas Headwaters (11020001)+, Purgatoire (11020010)+, Middle Washita (11130303)+, Lower Washita (11130304)+*, Blue (11140102)+*, Clear Boggy (11140104)+*
13 San Luis (13010003)+, Caballo (13030101)+
14 Colorado headwaters-Plateau (14010005)+, North Fork Gunnison (14020004)+, Lower Gunnison (14020005)+, Upper Dolores (14030002)+, San Miguel (14030003)+*, Lower Dolores (14030004)+, Lower Yampa (14050002)+, Lower Green-Diamond (14060001)+*, Piedra (14080102)+, Mancos (14080107)+
16 Lower Bear-Malad (16010204)+*
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Middle Fork Flathead (17010207)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, Stillwater (17010210)+, Swan (17010211)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+*, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Bruneau (17050102)+*, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, North and Middle Forks Boise (17050111)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, Middle Fork Payette (17050121)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Epipactis gigantea is a tall perennial orchid that grows from creeping rhizomes. The one or more stems are 30 to100cm tall and are essentially hairless until the inflorescence, when they become pubescent. There are usually ten or more green leaves per plant, that alternate up the stem. Each leaf is 5-11 cm wide and up to 25 cm long. The lower leaves are ovate and sessile while the upper leaves are linear-lanceolate. The foliage dies back in the fall. After the foliage turns brown, the new shoots begin to spread away from the rhizome. The inflorescence is composed of 3 to 12 rather showy, greenish-yellow (with purple veining) to brownish purple, flowers (after Cronquist et al, 1977). It flowers from April through early August.
General Description: Giant Helleborine is a large perennial herb with leafy stems that are 30-100 cm tall and which arise from short rhizomes. The leaves are without petioles and up to 20 cm long; the lower are ovate, while the upper are lance-shaped. The herbage is rough to the touch or smooth and glabrous. The numerous flowers are borne singly in a long, narrow, leafy-bracted inflorescence located at the tops of the stems. The lance-shaped sepals are green with brownish stripes and approximately 15 mm long. The upper two petals are shorter and broader than the sepals. The lower petal is sac-like and longer and more reddish than the sepals. The nodding capsule is elliptic and bears many thousands of tiny seeds.
Technical Description: From CNHP Wetland Guide 2012: Growth Habit: perennial, terrestrial; roots from short rhizome
Stem: erect, to 1.4 m, essentially glabrous.
Leaves: 4-14, ovate, ovate-elliptic to narrowly lanceolate, 5-20 × 2-7 cm. Inflorescences lax racemes; floral bracts lanceolate to oblong, 7-127 mm
Flowers: 2-32, rather showy; sepals greenish to rose-colored with rose-colored to purple veins; lateral sepals 16-24 × 8-9 mm, apex very oblique; petals pale pink to rose-colored to orange with red or purple veins, broadly ovate to ovate-lanceolate, 13-17 × 6-8 mm; lip marked with red or purple, strongly veined, distinctly 3-lobed, constricted at middle into 2 parts, proximal part papillose, minute, warty, lateral lobes prominent subtriangular wings, distal part linear-oblanceolate to narrowly spatulate-oblanceolate, grooved to tip, 14-20 mm, calli near base, erect, orange or yellow, wing like; column erect, short, stout, with pair of lateral processes, 5-10 × 3 mm; anther green; pollinia 2 pairs, yellow, soft.
Fruit: capsules, ellipsoid, glabrate or sparsely pubescent, 20-25 mm.

Diagnostic Characteristics: The tall stems with reddish flowers in the leaf axils make this species one of our most distinctive orchids. It is not easily confused with any other species.

From CNHP Wetland Guide 2012: Main Characteristics:
·Three upper sepals are greenish-yellow, with the two upper petals are tipped in pink, larger lower lip's veins a striking coppery red with lowest part of lip a contrasting gold
·Rhizomatous orchid that can form extensive stands

Ecology Comments: Epipactis gigantea must have a permanent and constant source of water at the roots. It is easy to cultivate as long as a wet habitat can be provided (Cronquist et al, 1977). In the northern part of its range, it prefers hot springs. One of the known pollinators is the Syrphid fly (Coleman, 1995). E. gigantea seeds are probably dispersed by wind, and possibly by water (Dressler 1981). Seeds of E. gigantea probably require the presence of a mycorrhizal symbiont for germination (Prendergast 1994) In addition to seeds, this species reproduces asexually by underground rhizome, and can sever the connection between the daughter ramet and the parental plant within one season (Thornhill, 1996).
Habitat Comments: A wide variety of habitats, but all have a constant source of water for the roots (Coleman, 1988).
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Economic Uses: Showy wildflower, OTHER USES/PRODUCTS
Production Method: Cultivated, Wild-harvested
Economic Comments: Epipactis gigantea is used as an ornamental only. E. gigantea is not used as a medicinal herb although it is used for ceremonial purposes by some Native American tribes. Cypripedium calceolus var. pubescens (syn. C. parviflorum var. pubescens) is used medicinally in Europe and North America but because of its endangered status some herbalists recommend using the roots of stream orchid or helleborine (Epipactis helleborine), which has the same purported effects. There is no indication that E. gigantea can be substituted for E. helleborine.

Prices for this species were found as follows: While not normally available at local garden centers the plant is apparently not too hard to acquire e.g. garden outlets on the web. The price for a reasonable sized division is between $6- $12.

Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any naturally occurring population.
Separation Barriers: An EO is separated by:
a substantial man-made barrier to colonization (e.g. an interstate or four-lane highway),
a substantial natural barrier to colonization (e.g. dry canyon),
a distance of more than 0.16 kilometer (0.1 miles) of land unsuitable for colonization
or a distance of more than 0.322 kilometer (0.2 miles) of land suitable for colonization.

In the case of extended suitable habitat along a waterway there may be two or more sub-EOs for every EO.
Where there is contiguous suitable habitat along a waterway (e.g perennial stream) individual stands that are distributed along the same length of wet canyon may be more related than those where the suitable habitat is patchy.
Individuals downstream are probably related to those up stream and will likely share the same environmental disturbances, e.g. scouring due to Spring run-off. Individuals that are located on streams that run in such a way as to meet at a confluence are not likely part of the same EO but the individuals located downstream of that confluence may be related to both the EOs upstream.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: .16 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: .322 km
Separation Justification: A relatively short distance between EOs has been recommended because E. gigantea exhibits relatively prolific asexual reproduction and has an intermediate to low level of gene flow and the populations are long-lived (Thornhill, 1996). Because E. gigantea relies on a non-specific pollinator, can reproduce asexually at a rate of up to 3 new above-ground ramets per season (under greenhouse conditions; Thornhill, 1996), and is self-compatible, it is likely to be an ideal orchid pioneer species. However, once established, the likelihood of additional migrants from the same or related founder populations is very slight, and any drift or additional influx of individuals from other populations will tend to differentiate it from the founders (Thornhill, 1996). In addition, seeds of E. gigantean are extremely small (on the order of 10 g each), have no endosperm, no seedcoat, and are relatively short lived in ambient temperatures (Thornhill, 1996). Although groups of plants are often genetically similar, separate populations are often genetically dissimilar (Thornhill, 1996) so that many small populations rather than one big population need to be maintained to conserve broad genetic diversity.
Date: 15Dec2000
Author: J.A.R Ladyman, Ph.D.
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: 15Apr2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: J. Ladyman, rev. K. Maybury; rev. Lyon, P. and J. Handwerk
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 22Oct1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): JM

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. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-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.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2013h. Management plan for giant helleborine (Epipactis gigantea) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 17pp.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment. Recovery Planning in BC. B.C. Minist. Environ. Victoria, BC. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/recoveryplans/rcvry1.htm

  • Balzarini, J., J. Neyts, M. Hosoya, E. Van Damme, W. Peumans, and E. De Clercq. 1992. The mannose-specific plant lectins from Cymbidium hybrid and Epipactis helleborine and the (N-acetylglucosamine)n-specific plant lectin from Urtica dioica are potent and selective inhibitors of human immunodeficiency virus and cytomegalovirus replication in vitro. Antiviral Research 18(2):191-207.

  • Berg, K., and R. Bittman. 1988. Rediscovery of the Humboldt milk-vetch. Fremontia 16(1):13-14.

  • Brown, P. M. and G. W. Argus. 2002. Epipactis. Pages 584-586 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.

  • Brumback, W.E., and L.J. Mehrhoff. 1996. Flora Conservanda: New England. The New England Plant Conservation Program list of plants in need of conservation. Rhodora 98 (895): 235-361.

  • Brunton, D. F. 1986. Status of the giant helleborine, EPIPACTIS GIGANTEA (Orchidaceae), in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist. 100:414-417.

  • Brunton, D.F. 1984. Status Report on Giant Helleborine Orchid, Epipactis gigantea, in Canada. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Comm. on the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can. Ottawa. 32pp.

  • Brunton, D.F. 1986. Status of the giant helleborine, Epipactis gigantea (Orchidaceae), in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100(3):414-417.

  • Burns-Balogh, P., D. L. Szlachetko, and A. Dafni. 1987. Evolution, Pollination, and systematics of the tribe NEOTTIEAE (ORCHIDACEAE). Pl. Syst. Evol. 156:91-115.

  • Burns-Balogh, P., D. L. Szlachetko, and A. Dafni. 1987. Evolution, Pollination, and systematics of the tribe NEOTTIEAE (ORCHIDACEAE). Pl. Syst. Evol. 156:91-115.

  • Coleman, R. A. 1988. The Epipactis of California. Fremontia 16(1):24-27.

  • Coleman, R.C. 1995. Wild orchids of California. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca.

  • Collar, N.J. and P. Andrew. 1988. Birds to watch. The ICBP world checklist of threatened birds. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 8. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

  • Colorado Native Plant Society. 1989. Rare plants of Colorado. Rocky Mountain Nature Association, Colorado Native Plant Society, Estes Park, Colorado. 73 pp.

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

  • Correll, D.S., and M.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner. 1881 pp.

  • 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.

  • Dorn, R. D. 1992. Vascular Plants of Wyoming, second edition. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne, WY.

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

  • Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Penny. 2002. Rare Native Vascular Plants of British Columbia, 2nd ed. B.C. Conserv. Data Centre, Terrestrial Inf. Branch, Victoria. 358pp.

  • 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.

  • Dressler, R. 1981. The Orchids: Natural History and Classification. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. 332 pp.

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

  • Fertig, W. 1993. Black Hills National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Unpublished report prepated for the Black Hills NF by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Fertig, W. 1994. Guide to Sensitive Wyoming plants of US Forest Service Region 2 (with emphasis on plants of Bighorn, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests). Unpublished report prepared as a handout for the TES species identification workshop conducted for US Forest Service Region 2 in Laramie, WY, 11 May 1994.

  • 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., C. Refsdal, and J. Whipple. 1994. Wyoming Rare Plant Field Guide. Wyoming Rare Plant Technical Committee, Cheyenne, WY.

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

  • Handley, J. 2008. State Species Abstract: Epipactis gigantea. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Available on the internet at www.uwyo.edu/wyndd.

  • Harrington, H. D. 1954. Manual of the Plants of Colorado. Sage Books, Denver, CO.

  • Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1400 pp.

  • 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., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. 914 pp.

  • Idaho Native Plant Society. 1993. Federal candidate (C1 and C2) and listed rare plants of Idaho. unpaginated.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Lesica, P. & J. S. Shelly. 1991. Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Occ. Publ. No. 1. Helena, MT.

  • Mantas, M. 1993. Ecology and reproductive biology of EPIPACTIS GIGANTEA Dougl. (Orchidaceae) in northwestern Montana. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho. 73 pp.

  • Mantas, M. 1993. Ecology and reproductive biology of EPIPACTIS GIGANTEA Dougl. (Orchidaceae) in northwestern Montana. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho. 73 pp.

  • Markow, S. and W. Fertig. 1993. Report on a general floristic survey of vascular plants of Targhee National Forest and vicinity. Unpublished report prepared for Targhee National Forest by the Rocky Mountain Herbarium and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Marriott, H. J. 1991. Rare plants of Grand Teton National Park, annual report. Unpublished report prepared for the National Park Service by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database,, Laramie, WY.

  • Missouri Botanical Garden. Online nomenclatural database (vascular plants). http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html.

  • Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 1086 pp.

  • Munz, P.A., with D.D. Keck. 1959. A California flora. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 1681 pp.

  • Naumann, T. S. 1990. Inventory of Plant Species of Special Concern and the General Flora of Dinosaur National Monument 1987-1989. Unpublished report prepared for the National Park Service Report, Denver, CO.

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

  • Predergast, G. 1994. Growing Epipactis species from seeds at Kew. Orchid Review. 102:199-203.

  • Rocchio, J., M. March, and D. G. Anderson. 2006. Epipactis gigantea Dougl. ex Hook. (stream orchid): A technical conservation assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. March 2006. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

  • Rocchio, J., M. March, and D. G. Anderson. 2006. Epipactis gigantea Dougl. ex. Hook. (stream orchid): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/Epipactisgigantea.pdf.

  • Rocky Mountain Society of Botanical Artists. 2009. RARE Imperiled Plants of Colorado, a traveling art exhibition. Exhibition catalogue developed by the Denver Botanic Gardens and Steamboat Art Museum.

  • Ryke, N., D. Winters, L. McMartin and S. Vest. 1994. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. May 25, 1994.

  • Schassberger, L. A . 1988. Status review of EPIPACTIS GIGANTEA, USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Flathead National Forest. Unpublished report. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 42 pp.

  • Schassberger, L. A . 1988. Status review of EPIPACTIS GIGANTEA, USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Flathead National Forest. Unpublished report. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 42 pp.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978-1979. The flora of Canada: Parts 1-4. National Museums Canada, Ottawa. 1711 pp.

  • Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado rare plant field guide. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Colorado Natural Heritage Program.

  • Steele, B., F. Johnson, and S. Brunsfield, eds. 1981. Vascular plant species of concern in Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. 161 pp.

  • Thornhill, A.D. 1996. Ph.D. Dissertation: Population and species level patterns of genetic diversity in a widespread temperate orchid species, Epipactis gigantea Dougl. ex. Hook (Orchidaceae): Evolutionary and conservation implications. Rice University, Houston, TX 77005.

  • USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

  • Vanderhorst, J. and B. L. Heidel. 1995. Sensitive plant survey in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana. Unpublished report to the Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forests. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 66 pp. plus appendices.

  • Vanderhorst, J. and B. L. Heidel. 1995. Sensitive plant survey in the Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana. Unpublished report to the Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forests. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 66 pp. plus appendices.

  • Vij, S. P. and G. C. Gupta. 1975. Cytological investigations into W. Himilayan Orchidaceae 1. Chromosome numbers and karyotypes of taxa from Kashmir. Cytologia 40:613-621.

  • Vij, S. P. and G. C. Gupta. 1975. Cytological investigations into W. Himilayan Orchidaceae 1. Chromosome numbers and karyotypes of taxa from Kashmir. Cytologia 40:613-621.

  • Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Field Guide to Washington's Rare Plants. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources and Spokane District, USDI Bureau of Land Management.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Eastern Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 555 pp.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 532 pp.

  • White, D.J., and G.W. Douglas. 1997. Update COSEWIC Status Report on Giant Helleborine, Epipactis gigantea, in Canada. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Comm. on the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can. Ottawa. 4pp.

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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2017. 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.