ANOTHER JUNIPER (CUPRESSACEAE) INJEEE DAVIS COUNTY NOT CONVINCED TEXAS^ WE'RE CZech JohnP.Karges James The Nature Conservancy Department of Biology Box 2078 Su! Ross State University P.O. TX TX Fort Davis, 79734, U.S.A. Alpine, 79832, U.S.A. [email protected], [email protected]. Within volume twenty, number two, of this journal, Griffith and Bartel (2002) & answered our request (Karges Zech 2001) further study and documenta- for tion of Cuprcssus arizonica within the Davis Mountains of Jeff Davis County, Texas. While the effort has been made, we found several problems with the at- main pomts concern Of tempt, including the of that follow. the three additional specimens sampled from Davis County there no indication that any were Jeff is collected from the Davis Mountains, alone the Davis Mountains Preserve let C why County (DMP). We're puzzled as to fresh material of the Jeff Davis DM? arizonica or Juniperus deppeana from the were not included chloro- for DNA Both would have been made upon plast analysis. available request. Griffith C and Bartel (2002) cite two specimens of the Jeff Davis County arizonica. Karges and Hedges 2480 the only existing specimen, a second specimen, Karges is was and and never collected. Griffith Bartel's (2002) reference discus- to, s.n., mixed specimen most Hedges comm.) sion a puzzling, since neither (pers. of, is nor Karges collected reproductive material. DNA County Perhaps the chloroplast data does suggest that the Davis Jeff Arizona Cypress Alligator Juniper. However, this study's discrepancies, along is We 63% with the admittedly low bootstrap, leave us unconvinced. recog- still C nize the tree in question as arizonica, and most importantly, continue to en- courage study unique additional, careful, of this tree. REFERENCES and 2002. A Cypress {Cupressus an 7on/ca,Cupressaceae)in Griffith, ^.P. S.C. Bartel. Davis County,Texas?Sida 20:585-592. Mo new Karges, .and J.C.Zech. 2001. Cupressus or/zon/ca(Cupressac eae) to the Davis J.