Plant Species of the Borrego Desert: Fabaceae: annual Lupinus species, Lupines
Two forms of Lupinus concinnus growing intermixed in Bitter Creek Canyon, 15 April 2011. The pictures are roughly to the same scale; see also picture with both forms in them. Click on the pictures to get larger versions.
Some lupine species are very distinctive, whereas others are taxonomic nightmares, in which even DNA has trouble separating them. This is true both for the shrubby species and the annual species. Many of these species are so difficult to tell apart that taxonomic keys often make use of miniscule characters that are hard to observe in order to try to reliably separate them, such as whether the hidden keel of the flower contains minute hairs at one end or the other (see labeled picture), and whether the back of the banner has a handful of nearly-invisible hairs or not. Neither of those characters are visible in typical photographs of the flowers.
This page presents just the annual lupine species found in the desert section of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park below 3000 feet elevation, which are the only lupine species we have, except for a small number of plants of L. excubitus var. medius in the southern part of the Park.
Using the taxon delineations in the Jepson Manual, both first and second editions, we have seven species of annual lupines, one of which has two subspecies, making a total of eight taxa. However, if one uses the taxon delination in the 1974 Munz Flora of southern California, we have nine species of annual lupines, and a total of 14 taxa! Furthermore, one of our annual lupine species comes in two forms that are different enough that most people think they are different taxa, which would make a total of 15 taxa if those are counted as two taxa.
The difference between the Munz (and Beauchamp) treatment and the Jepson Manual treatment is that the Jepson Manual combined six of the Munz taxa under one species name, Lupinus concinnus, and combined two of the L. sparsiflorus subspecies under just the species name. The Jepson Manual treatment for L. concinnus comments that this species is highly variable, generally self-pollinated, needs study; named vars. ± indistinct; plants in D with linear, coarsely hairy leaflets, ± ciliate lower keel margins may be confused with Lupinus sparsiflorus.
Note that this comment does not say that "these varieties look similar"; it only says at least some specimens are hard to determine to one of the named varieties. In fact, some of these varieties are so strikingly different that when botanists encounter some of the different forms of L. concinnus, their initial reaction is total disbelief that those forms can be called the same name as the previous forms they have encountered.
The additional comment is an alert that it is difficult to separate some forms of L. concinnus from L. sparsiflorus, and that the Jepson Manual key will not correctly determine those plants. And in my experience, that comment should be extended to plants with non-linear leaves as well; ciliate keels are apparently more widespread in L. concinnus than had been thought. I originally misdetermined plants of L. concinnus in Borrego Palm Canyon because they had ciliate keels and obovate leaves. It was only in collecting pictures for this page that I found I had been misled by the key to determine these plants as L. sparsifolius.
It may even turn out on further study that some of these forms of L. concinnus might be placed as a variety under L. sparsiflorus, or it might be discovered that some forms are hybrids between the two species.
The main purpose of this page is to show some of the extreme variability encompassed under the name of L. concinnus to make field botanists aware of this variation, and to help me and my colleagues compare plants we find to what we have seen before here. This page will eventually discuss and show pictures of the other annual species as well. (For now, see the Munz / Beauchamp key for the 14 taxa of annual lupines given in Munz / Beauchamp that are found in the desert section of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park below 3000 feet elevation.)
The forms of L. concinnus recognized in Munz 1974 and Beauchamp 1986 The six taxa that were combined into just the species name of L. concinnus in the Jepson Manua are given in Table 1, along with their distinguishing characteristics and locations in the Anza-Borrego Desert. Var. brevior was given as the species L. brevior in Munz, and var. pallidus was given as the species L. pallidus in both Munz and Beauchamp.
1Except as mentioned, all of the taxa are densely hairy on their stems and leaves, have a glabrous keel, and have non-whorled flowers that are pinkish-white to lavender. Table 1. The forms of L. concinnus recognized in Munz 1974
Variety Name Distinguishing Characteristics1 ABDSD and other Locations from Beauchamp 1986 Flowering Time agardhianus leaflets linear-spatulate, mostly subglabrous above; plants sparsely spreading-pilose; flowers bluish-purple Borrego Palm Canyon; Banner; Grapevine Spring: Box Canyon, coastal and foothill Mar-May brevior plant glabrous or sparsely pilose; leaflets glabrous above, truncatish; keel ciliate; flowers whorled, ~6 mm long, off-white to bluish or purplish Sentenac lupine. infrequent, sandy places, desert, below 700 m, in Creosote Bush Scrub; Borrego Palm Canyon; Scissors Crossing; Wagon Wash; lower Box Canyon; Mountain Springs Apr-May concinnus leaflets 1.5-3 mm wide; flowers 7-9 mm long occasional, sandy places; foothill, 400-1200 m; San Felipe Valley; Banner Apr-May. optatus leaflets 4-7 mm wide; flowers 9-11 mm long frequent, on granitic slopes; foothill and montane, above 400 m; Scissors Crossing; Vallecito Stage Station Mar-May orcuttii leaflets 4-7 mm wide; flowers 6-8 mm long infrequent, on rocky slopes, 700-1100 m; San Felipe Valley; Culp Valley; Montezuma View Point; Vallecito Valley; Mountain Springs Mar-Apr. pallidus keel ciliate; plant silky to strigose; leaflets pubescent on both sides; petals pale blue to whitish or yellowish, 5-7 mm long uncommon, sandy areas, desert, below 800 m; Borrego Palm Canyon; San Felipe; Vallecito Station; Carrizo Creek Mar-Apr. Remember, these varieties were said to be ± indistinct in the Jepson Manual treatment, and so you should not expect that a given plant will fit neatly into a single one of these varieties!
Note that three of these varieties are said to be present at Borrego Palm Canyon, vars. agardhianus, brevior and pallidus. One wonders if the same plants were vouchered at different times as those different varieties. The plants from Borrego Palm Canyon fit agardhianus best for the hairiness, leaf shape and flower color, but they have a ciliate keel, which fits the other two varieties. In fact, as mentioned above, I took these plants to be L. sparsiflorus at first, from the ciliate keel, using the Jepson Manual key.
Furthermore, we occasionally find plants of L. concinnus growing right next to each other with a pretty dramatic variation in leaf hairiness and color. One example is given in the pictures at the top of this page.
Distinguishing L. concinnus and L. sparsiflorus There is apparently no single foolproof way to distinguish these species, since there are versions of L. concinnus that can be confused with L. sparsiflorus. In particular, as mentioned above, the Jepson Manual key fails to properly determine plants of L. concinnus with a hairy keel.
The following is a suite of characters that should distinguish most specimens:
- Plant height. Munz and the Jepson Manual say the plant height for L. sparsiflorus is generally 20-40 cm, whereas according to Munz, the height of L. concinnus is generally less than 15-20 cm depending on the variety. However, the Jepson Manual says L. concinnus can reach 30 cm.
- Leaflet width. The leaflets of L. sparsiflorus are 2-4 mm wide, whereas the leaflets of L. concinnus are 1.5-8 mm wide.
- Inflorescence length. The inflorescence of L. sparsiflorus is significantly longer than that of L. concinnus, 15-20 cm vs. 1.5-9 cm. This is often obvious at a glance, with the inflorescence of L. concinnus barely making it out of the leaves, whereas the inflorescence of L. sparsiflorus stands tall above the leaves. However, note that the inflorescence of var. pallidus, shown below, stands above the leaves.
- Inflorescence hairs. From the pictures I've examined, the inflorescence axis (the stem connecting the flowers) of L. concinnus seems to always have some coarse hairs, whereas the inflorescence axis of L. sparsiflorus often has only appressed fine hairs.
- Flower color. The flowers of L. sparsiflorus in the desert are blue, whereas the flowers of L. concinnus can be white, yellow, pink, blue, purple or lavender. (There is a pink form of L. sparsiflorus found on the coast that has been called ssp. inopinatus.)
- Flower position. The flowers of L. sparsiflorus generally face directly away from the inflorescence axis (at an angle of 90° from vertical), whereas the flowers of L. concinnus generally face at an angle halfway between looking up at the sky and directly away from the axis (at an angle of 45° from vertical). However, some varieties of L. concinnus can have angles up to 90°, such as shown in the picture of var. optatus below.
- Keel hairiness. The keel of L. sparsiflorus always has minute hairs at its proximal end, whereas some varieties of L. concinnus are glabrous. However, unless you know what you are looking for, and have a good hand lens, good light and a good angle, you may falsely conclude a keel is glabrous when it is hairy. See the hairs in a labeled picture of L. sparsiflorus.
Pictures of L. concinnus and L. sparsiflorus Click on the thumbnails to get a larger version of each pix.
Fig. 2. Pictures of L. sparsiflorus and two forms of L. concinnus
Fig. 3. Pictures of three more forms of L. concinnus (two from locations outside the Borrego Desert)
Go to:
Copyright © 2012 by Tom Chester.
Commercial rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce any or all of this page for individual or non-profit institutional internal use as long as credit is given to me at this source:
http://tchester.org/bd/species/fabaceae/lupinus_annuals.html
Comments and feedback: Tom Chester
Updated 30 April 2012