Lotus subbiflorus
Lotus uliginosus
hairy bird's-foot trefoil
big bird's-foot trefoil, big lotus, big trefoil, greater bird's-foot trefoil, large bird's-foot trefoil, large trefoil, marsh lotus, stalk birds-foot trefoil
erect to decumbent, solid, not succulent.
erect or ascending, hollow, succulent.
8–15[–25] mm;
rachis 2–4 mm;
leaflet blades: basal 2 ovate, terminal 3 obovate to oblong or lanceolate, 5–10[–20] × 1–5.5[–8] mm, length 2–4 times width, apex acute to obtuse, often mucronate.
10–34 mm;
rachis 3–10 mm;
leaflet blades ovate-elliptic to elliptic, 8–25 × 3–15 mm, length 1.4–2.4 times width, apex obtuse, often mucronate.
(1 or)2–4(–6)-flowered;
bracts 3-foliolate.
(4 or)5–15-flowered;
bracts (1–)3-foliolate.
ascending to declined, 0.7–3[–15] cm.
ascending to declined, 0.7–10(–15) cm.
5.5–7[–10] mm;
calyx 3.3–4.7 mm, lobes not recurved in bud, linear, 2.5–3.2 mm, longer than tube, tube hirsute;
petals yellow, turning reddish, 5–6.7[–10] mm, wings shorter than angled and beaked keel.
10–14(–20) mm;
calyx 4.5–8 mm, lobes spreading or recurved in bud, triangular, (1.5–)2.2–3.5 mm, shorter, ± equaling to slightly longer than tube, tube glabrate to pilose;
petals yellow, often mottled with red, darkening, 8–13(–18) mm, wings equaling keel.
brown, cylindric, 7–10 × 0.7–1.2 mm, not or partially septate.
brown, cylindric, (10–)15–35 × 1.5–2.5 mm, not septate.
8–10, brown to greenish brown, ± mottled, globose to round-oblong, 1 mm, smooth.
15–35, yellowish, olive green, or yellowish brown, not or sometimes mottled, globose to round-oblong, 0.8–1.4 mm, smooth.
= 12, 24 (Europe).
= 12.
Lotus subbiflorus
Lotus uliginosus
Lotus subbiflorus is easily distinguished by its very hirsute foliage and its sharply angled, beaked keel that is longer than the wings.
The introduced Lotus subbiflorus was collected first in 2009 at four locations in Curry County. The taxon is introduced elsewhere in the world, reported under the names L. hispidus, L. subbiflorus, or L. suaevolens (R. P. Randall 2002); when plotted worldwide, reports of L. hispidus and L. subbiflorus have similar overall distributions. Thus, it seems that in areas outside the native range, only a single entity is present that should be called L. subbiflorus.
The name Lotus hispidus Desfontaines (1804) was considered an invalid name by T. E. Kramina (2006). Kramina, however, appears to have been unaware of the subsequent validation of the name by de Candolle: L. hispidus Desfontaines ex de Candolle in J. Lamarck and A. P. de Candolle, Fl. Franç. ed. 3, 4: 556. 17 Sep 1805. The exact publication date of the name L. subbiflorus by Lagasca, however, is not known, but it may have been late in 1805 because Varied. Ci. 2(4) has 6 numbers (19–24) that were issued in 1805, and the name was published in number 22. Without an exact date for that publication, it is not possible to decide which name has priority, and currently the name L. subbiflorus is adopted for the species.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
The name Lotus pedunculatus Cavanilles has been misapplied to specimens of L. uliginosus in North America.
(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)
- Local floras:
BC, 
CA, 
OR, 
WA - Local Web sites: CalFlora, CalPhotos,
Flora NW, 
IL Wildflowers, 
PNW Herbaria 
WildflowerSearch
iNaturalist (observations)
USDA Plants Database- LBJ Wildflower Center
- SEINet
- Plants of the World Online
- Encyclopedia of Life
- Wikipedia
- Google Image Search
