Abies magnifica
Abies bifolia
California red fir, magnificant silver fir, red fir, Shasta red fir, silvertip fir
corkbark fir, Rocky Mountain alpine fir, Rocky Mountain subalpine fir
grayish, thin, with age thickening and becoming deeply furrowed with ridges being often 4 times wider than furrows, plates reddish.
gray, thin, smooth, with age somewhat furrowed and scaly (toward southern end of range bark is corky [corkbark fir]).
ascending in upper crown, descending in lower crown;
twigs opposite to whorled, light yellow to ± tan, reddish pubescent for 1–2 years.
diverging from trunk at right angles, stout, stiff;
twigs opposite to whorled, grayish, pubescence sparse, light brown;
fresh leaf scars with light brown periderm.
hidden by leaves or exposed, usually dark brown, ovoid, small, not resinous or with resin drop near tip, apex rounded;
basal scales short, broad, equilaterally triangular, densely pubescent, not resinous, margins entire to crenate, apex sharp-pointed.
exposed, brown, globose, small, resinous, apex rounded;
basal scales long, narrow, isosceles triangular to spatulate, glabrous, resinous or not resinous, margins entire to rarely crenate, apex sharp-pointed or rounded.
2–3.7cm × 2mm, mostly 1-ranked, flexible, the proximal portion often appressed to twig for 2–3mm (best seen on abaxial surface of twig), distal portion divergent;
cross section flat, with or without weak groove adaxially toward leaf base, or cross section 3–4-sided on fertile branches;
odor camphorlike;
abaxial surface with 2 glaucous bands, each band with 4–5 stomatal rows;
adaxial surface blue-green to silvery blue, with single glaucous band that may divide into 2 toward leaf base, band with (8–)10(–13) stomatal rows at midleaf;
apex rounded or, on fertile branches, somewhat pointed;
resin canals small, near margins and abaxial epidermal layer.
1.1–2.5cm × 1.25–1.5mm, spiraled and turned upward, flexible;
cross section flat, grooved adaxially, sometimes only slightly so;
odor camphorlike;
abaxial surface with 3–5 stomatal rows on each side of midrib;
adaxial surface light green to bluish green, usually glaucous, with 3–6 stomatal rows at midleaf, rows usually continuous to leaf base, usually more numerous toward leaf apex;
apex slightly notched to rounded;
resin canals large, ± median, away from margins and midway between abaxial and adaxial epidermal layers.
at pollination ± purple or reddish brown.
at pollination purplish.
cones oblong-cylindric, 15–20 × 7–10cm, purple at first but becoming yellowish brown or greenish brown, sessile, apex round;
scales ca. 3 × 4cm, pubescent;
bracts included to exserted and reflexed (Shasta red fir) over scales.
cones cylindric, 5–10 × 3–3.5cm, dark purple-blue to grayish purple, sessile, apex rounded;
scales ca. 1.5 × 2.5cm, densely pubescent;
bracts included.
=24.
Abies magnifica
Abies bifolia
Abies magnifica often exists in extensive high elevation stands in the Sierra Nevada; its close relative A. procera occurs in small mountaintop populations relatively isolated from one another. As expected for isolated populations, A. procera produces large interpopulation variation in morphology (J.Maze and W.H. Parker 1983) and chemistry (E.Zavarin et al. 1978). Where the two species meet in southern Oregon and northern California, many populations are intermediate; these have been called A. magnifica var. shastensis Lemmon. The status of such intermediates is unsettled. They may be accepted as hybrids between A. magnifica and A. procera (Liu T. S. 1971) or, alternatively, the paleontological record suggests that the two species may have originated from the intermediates (E.Zavarin et al. 1978). Individuals from this region should be assigned to A. magnifica, A. procera, or A. magnifica × procera (E.L. Parker 1963), depending on the morphologic criteria selected to differentiate the species, though clearly these individuals are genetically quite different from those near the type localities of the two species.
An extensive study of this variation, as proposed by E.Zavarin et al. (1978), is warranted. Such a study should consider data from the type localities as a basis of comparison. Moreover, to evaluate this situation critically, one should first determine if any genetic exchange occurs between Abies lasiocarpa and A. procera that may complicate an evaluation.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
Abies bifolia has been—and by many workers still is—included in synonymy under A. lasiocarpa or A. subalpina since about 1890, and A. subalpina under A. lasiocarpa since about the 1920s. Abies bifolia is distinct from A. lasiocarpa, however, in chemical tests on wood (H.S. Fraser and E.P. Swan 1972), lack of crystals in the ray parenchyma (R.W. Kennedy et al. 1968), lack of lasiocarpenonol (J.F. Manville and A.S. Tracey 1989), and distinct terpene patterns (R.S. Hunt and E.von Rudloff 1979). Abies bifolia also tends to have slightly shorter and fewer prominently notched leaves than A. lasiocarpa. The two are clearly separated by the color of their periderm and by the shape of their basal bud scales. These firs may be more distinct than the pairs A. balsamea -- A. fraseri and A. procera -- A. magnifica. A north-south transect, however, from south central Yukon to northern Washington yielded introgressed trees possessing characteristics of both A. lasiocarpa and A. bifolia, recalling the interior spruce (Canadian Forestry Service 1983), which has characteristics of both Picea glauca and P. engelmannii. These trees can similarly be called interior subalpine fir, i.e., A. bifolia × lasiocarpa. Both A. lasiocarpa and A. bifolia need comparative morphologic studies.
Isolated southern populations of Abies bifolia may also have unique characteristics. The taxonomy of corkbark fir, treated by some as A. lasiocarpa var. arizonica (Merriam) Lemmon, is uncertain. This taxon should probably be a segregate of A. bifolia, not A. lasiocarpa, a disposition that requires a thorough morphologic and chemical reappraisal, especially since the work of E.Zavarin et al. (1970) suggested that populations south of Wyoming may have unique terpene patterns. In north central Alberta, A. bifolia introgresses with A. balsamea (R.S. Hunt and E.von Rudloff 1974; E.H. Moss 1953).
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
CA
OR
Flora NW
PNW Herbaria
WildflowerSearch
iNaturalist
USDA Plants Database
SW CO Wildflowers
