Sida hermaphrodita - (L.) Rusby
Virginia Mallow
Other English Common Names: Virginia Fanpetals
Other Common Names: Virginia fanpetals
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby (TSN 21738)
French Common Names: sida hermaphrodite
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155128
Element Code: PDMAL100C0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Mallow Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Malvales Malvaceae Sida
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: Sida hermaphrodita
Taxonomic Comments: Very distinctive within the genus Sida, perhaps meriting its own monotypic genus, according to Dr. Paul Fryxell, 1997; see also Clement (Contrib. Gray Herb., 1957) for similar views: "The section [Pseudonapaea, including only Sida hermaphrodita] has no close affinities with any other in the genus, nor with Napaea save in habit." Sida hermaphrodita has been retained in the genus primarily because no other suitable placement has been found (Fuertes et. al 2003).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 01Aug2016
Global Status Last Changed: 11Oct2004
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Rare and local throughout its range but locally very abundant, primarily in non-natural habitat, with large populations in portions of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. In the Ohio drainage, it flourishes in artificially disturbed areas such as roadsides and railroad banks, but flood control and development along river corridors have eliminated most of its natural habitat in the remainder of its range. The large, artificially maintained populations have no formal protection, are dependent on late-season mowing, and will disappear if the management regime is altered. Elsewhere, the total number of occurrences is low and declining, making the species' long-term outlook precarious in spite of its locally "weedy" character. Competition from invasive exotic species is also a threat in some riparian habitats.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (21Sep2017)

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 District of Columbia (SX), Indiana (S1), Kentucky (S2S3), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (SNA), Michigan (SU), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), Ohio (S3), Pennsylvania (S2), Tennessee (SH), Virginia (S1), West Virginia (S3)
Canada Ontario (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (20Jun2012)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (25Apr2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: This globally rare showy perennial herb of the mallow family occurs in open riparian and wetland habitats where it reproduces by seed and asexually by spreading rhizomes. Only two small populations, separated by about 35 km, are known from southwestern Ontario where they are at risk from continued decline in habitat area and quality due to an aggressive invasive grass and quarry expansion. Designated Endangered in April 2010.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Native range thought to center on 4 disjunct areas: Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds in Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, and Virginia; southeastern Indiana, extreme southern Ohio, western West Virginia, and adjacent northeastern Kentucky; (formerly) northeastern corner of Tennessee; and the Great Lakes region (northeastern Indiana, northwestern Ohio, Michigan, and southeastern Ontario). The native status of some occurrences in the Great Lakes region is uncertain (some are currently thought to have been introduced), but at least the Ontario occurrences are considered native, and at least one source (Spooner et al. 1985) argues that this region is part of the native distribuion.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Locally abundant along about 100 miles of Kanawha River and lower New River, West Virginia, and portion of adjacent Ohio River (se Indiana, s Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia), especially between Point Pleasant and Huntington. Six extant occurrences in the eastern part of its range in Pennsylvania (1), Maryland (4), Virginia (1). Not much data from Ohio, where locally abundant near the Ohio River in the southeastern portion of the state. Extirpated from the District of Columbia, where perhaps only accidental; known historically but not known extant in Tennessee. The two occurrences in Ontario are considered native, as there is no evidence suggesting that either of them is of cultivated origin; also, one of these occurrences was evaluated by botanist Allison Cusick, who stated that the habitat was consistent with that of presumed native populations elsewhere and that the Ontario populations were likely native (M. Oldham pers. comm. 2009). In Indiana, the occurrences along the Ohio River corridor (se IN) are believed to be native; the origin of northeastern IN occurrences is less certain - they appear to be native per A. Cusick, but are disjunct and in different terrain than occurrences in the core of the native range (M. Homoya pers. comm. 2009). The origin of Michigan populations is also unclear; at the present time, they are considered more likely to have been introduced than to be native (M. Penskar pers. comm. 2009). M. Penskar (pers. comm. 2009) notes that "it seems that there has always been some uncertainty about the status of this taxon in Michigan," and a recent synopsis by A. Reznicek (pers. comm. 2009) states that it is "generally assumed to be introduced, but Spooner et al. (1985) argue for the nativity of Great Lakes region populations." Records for Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York are considered escapes from cultivation.

Population Size Comments: Locally common in a small area along Ohio River in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio; rare elsewhere. Estimated that within last 100 years, 66% of Potomac River population has been extirpated. Sites near Charleston, West Virginia, being lost to developement. Artificially abundant (due to management practices) along roadsides and railroads in western West Virginia, with many millions of plants in occurrences extending almost continuously for several miles along each of two highways.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few (4-12)

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Most populations are in non-natural habitat and are threatened by trampling, herbicides, changes in mowing schedules, road widening, removal (due to weedy appearance), and planting of grasses. Also threatened by flood control, severe flooding, and competition from invasive exotics such as Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Declining due to development and/or flood control along river corridors; artifically maintained stands along roads or railroads disappear quickly if herbicided, mowed too early in season, or planted to grasses. Some natural occurrences impacted by invasive exotic species in riparian settings.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <70% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: Habitat heavily impacted by human activity throughout range, especially for flood control, transportation corridors.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Seems to require loose soil; can become locally abundant in disturbed areas, but declines if disturbance not maintained. Flourishing in a few places along railroads and highways in Ohio drainage, but gone or declining in rest of range.

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Native range thought to center on 4 disjunct areas: Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds in Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, and Virginia; southeastern Indiana, extreme southern Ohio, western West Virginia, and adjacent northeastern Kentucky; (formerly) northeastern corner of Tennessee; and the Great Lakes region (northeastern Indiana, northwestern Ohio, Michigan, and southeastern Ontario). The native status of some occurrences in the Great Lakes region is uncertain (some are currently thought to have been introduced), but at least the Ontario occurrences are considered native, and at least one source (Spooner et al. 1985) argues that this region is part of the native distribuion.

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 DCextirpated, IN, KY, MAexotic, MD, MI, NJexotic, NYexotic, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN De Kalb (18033), Jefferson (18077), Switzerland (18155)
KY Boyd (21019), Bracken (21023), Campbell (21037), Gallatin (21077), Greenup (21089), Lewis (21135), Mason (21161)
MD Allegany (24001)*, Cecil (24015), Frederick (24021)*, Montgomery (24031), Washington (24043)
OH Adams (39001), Brown (39015), Clermont (39025), Gallia (39053), Hamilton (39061), Lawrence (39087), Meigs (39105), Scioto (39145), Williams (39171)
PA Bedford (42009), Dauphin (42043), Franklin (42055), Huntingdon (42061), Juniata (42067)*, Lancaster (42071)*, Mifflin (42087), York (42133)
TN Cocke (47029)*
VA Albemarle (51003)*, Alleghany (51005), Arlington (51013), Fairfax (51059)*
WV Cabell (54011), Fayette (54019), Hardy (54031), Kanawha (54039), Mason (54053), Putnam (54079), Raleigh (54081), Summers (54089)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Upper Juniata (02050302)+, Raystown (02050303)+, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+*, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+, Monocacy (02070009)+*, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+, Upper James (02080201)+, Middle James-Buffalo (02080203)+*
04 St. Joseph (04100003)+
05 Upper Ohio-Shade (05030202)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+*, Lower Kanawha (05050008)+, Coal (05050009)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+
06 Upper French Broad (06010105)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A tall (1-3+ m) perennial herb with deeply palmately lobed, toothed leaves with the lobe tips dramatically elongated. Produces clusters of white flowers. Fruit is a schizocarp. Flowering from June to August. Fruiting in September and October.
General Description: A tall, weedy, perennial herb with palmately 3-7 cleft leaves and a large terminal panicle of white flowers.
Technical Description: Stems 1 to 3+ meters tall, stellate pubescent when young, glabrate in age. Leaves broadly ovate to rotund in general outline, 1 to 2 dm long, deeply 3 to 7 lobed, the lobes lanceolate, irregularly serrate, the middle ones the longest. Flowers in small corymbs from the upper axils forming a large terminal panicle by the shortening of the internodes. Calyx 5-lobed, thinly to densely stellate or even velutinous. Petals white, 6 to 10 mm long. Carpels 6 to 10, accuminate into a slender, erect, 3 mm beak at maturity.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Sida hermaphrodita is very distinctive within the genus Sida. Leaves are deeply palmately 5-lobed and irregularly serrate. The lobes are elongated, the middle one the longest. Flowers are perfect and have white petals. For a technical description see Gleason and Cronquist (1991) and Fryxell (1997).
Duration: PERENNIAL, DECIDUOUS
Reproduction Comments: 2n=28. High seed production and viability are exhibited by this species. Considerable research has been done by Russian botanists, DMITRASHKO et al. Effects of cobalt-60 rays on Sida hermaphrodita seeds. UKRAJINS'K Bot. Zhurn 27:795-796. (in Russian). Savchenko etc.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow
Habitat Comments: Periodically flooded riverbanks on loose, sandy or rocky soil (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). A couple of populations occur on floodplains. Also thrives locally (becoming the dominant "weed") along roadsides and railroad banks on floodplains near natural populations, persisting in these areas if disturbance (especially late-season mowing) excludes woody invasives but allows Sida hermaphrodita plants to mature and produce seed.
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Research has been done by Russian botanists, P.F. Medvedev 1940. New fibrous crops in the USSR. Sel'kozgiz. Moscow, Leningrad, USSR. (in Russian).
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Notify private land owners regarding plant populations on their property. Work with managers of highways, canals, and railroads. Control invasive exotics such as Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: Three hundred or more plants associated with natuarlly open/disturbed areas with in a forested floodplain system.
Good Viability: One hundred to 300 plants associated with naturally open/disturbed areas within a floodplain system or mosaic of forested and cleared areas. If the area is notably disturbed with little tree canopy, then larger number of plants may also be considered at this rank level.
Fair Viability: One hundred to 25 plants occurring in a forested floodplain system or if the vegetation has been removed from the site and no longer part of a naturally occurring community then a larger population size may also be considered at this rank level.
Poor Viability: Fewer than 25 plants in any habitat.
Justification: Based on review of the known populations and associated habitats.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 26Jan2005
Author: White, D.
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 03Nov1994
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, L.E.(1983); Rev. Bartgis, R.L. (1992); Rev. Morse, L.E. (1994, 1995), rev. Sam Norris/K.Maybury (1996), rev. L. Morse (2000), rev. A. Tomaino (2004)
Management Information Edition Author: rev. A. Tomaino (2004)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 10Jul1992
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): rev. A. Tomaino (2004)

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
  • Clement, I.D. 1952. Studies in Sida (Maluaceae) Contributions to the Gray Herbarium. 180:1-90. A57CLE01PAUS

  • Clement, I.D. 1957. Studies in Sida (Malvaceae). I. A review of the genus and monograph of the sections Malacroideae, Physalodes, Pseudomalvastrum, Incanifolia, Oligandrae, Pseudonapaea, Hookeria, and Steninda. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University. 180:1-90.

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Fernald, M.L. 1949. Gray's Manual of Botany, Eighth edition. American Book Co. New York. B49FER01PAUS

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2015. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 6. Magnoliophyta: Cucurbitaceae to Droserceae. Oxford University Press, New York. 496 pp + xxiv.

  • Fryxell, P. A. 1997. The American genera of Malvaceae-II. Brittonia 49(2): 204-269.

  • Fryxell, P.A. 1985. Sidus sidarum - V. The North and Central American species of Sida. Sida 11(1): 62-91.

  • Fuertes, J., P. A. Fryxell, and R. K. Jansen. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the Sida generic alliance (Malvaceae) based on nrDNA ITS evidence. Systematic Botany 28(2): 352-364.

  • Gleason, H.A. 1952. New Britton & Brown. Illustrated Flora. Lancaster Press Inc. Lancaster, Pa. B52GLE01PAUS

  • Gleason, H.A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York. 1732 pp.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • Harvill, A.M., Jr., T.R. Bradley, C.E. Stevens, T.F. Wieboldt, D.M.E. Ware, and D.W. Ogle. 1986. Atlas of the Virginia flora. Second edition. Virginia Botanical Associates, Farmville. 135 pp.

  • Iltis, H.H. 1963. NAPAEA DIOICA (MALVACEAE): WHENCE CAME THE TYPE? AMER. MIDL. NAT. 70:90-109.

  • Iltis, H.H. 1963. Napaea dioica (Malvaceae): whence came the type? American Midland Naturalist 70: 90-109.

  • Iltis, Hugh H. 1963. Napaea dioica (Malvaceae): Whence Came the Type?. The American Midland Naturalist, vol. 70 no. 1, pp. 90-109.

  • 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.

  • Kujawski, J., D. Woolston and J.M. Englert. 1997. Propagation of Virginia Mallow (Sida hermaphrodita) from seeds, rhizomes (Virginia). Restoration and Management Notes 15(2): 193-194.

  • Morton, J.K., and J.M. Venn. 1990. A checklist of the flora of Ontario vascular plants. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. 218 pp.

  • Spooner, D.M., A.W. Cusick, G.F. Hall, & J.M. Baskin. 1985. Observations on the distribution and ecology of SIDA HERMAPHRODITA (L.) Rusby (Malvaceae). Sida 11(2):215-225.

  • Spooner, D.M., A.W. Cusick, G.F. Hall, and J.M. Baskin. 1985. Observations on the distribution and ecology of Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby (Malvaceae). Sida 11(2): 215-225.

  • Spooner, D.M., Cusic, A.W., Hall, G.E., Baskin, J.M. 1985. Observations on the Distribution and Ecology of Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby (Maluaceae). Sida 11:215-225. A85SPO01PAUS

  • Strausbaugh, P.D., and E.L. Core. 1978. Flora of West Virginia. Seneca Books, Inc., Grantsville, WV. 1079 pp.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 1987. Annotated Checklist of the Plants of Haldimand-Norfolk. In: M.E. Gartshore, D.A. Sutherland and J.D. McCracken. The Natural Areas Inventory of Haldimand-Norfolk, Volume 2. Annotated Lists. Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe. 152 pp.

  • THOMAS, L.K. 1979. DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY OF SIDA HERMAPHRODITA: A RARE PLANT SPECIES. BARTONIA 46:51-59.

  • Thomas, L.K. 1979. Distribution and ecology of Sida hermaphrodita: a rare plant species. Bartonia 46: 51-59.

  • Thomas, L.K. 1979. Distribution and ecology of SIDA HERMAPHRODITA: a rare plant species. Bartonia 46:51-59.

  • Thomas, L.K. JR. 1979. DISTRIBUTION & ECOLOGY OF SIDA HERMA-PHRODITA: A RARE PLANT SPECIES. BORTONIA 46.51-59.

  • Thompson, Melinda J. 2001. Status Report for Virginia Mallow Sida hermaphrodita (L.)Rusby in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, unpublished. 8 pp.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Draft as of March 2004. UNC Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Available online: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm. Accessed 2004.

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 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.