I’ve been trying to learn to identify Goldenrods, and it’s a nightmare. In the Dunning-Kruger graph, I’m in the Valley of Despair!
I decided to see which species are most commonly observed in my area, so I could focus on learning to identify just one or two of them to start. So in Explore I typed in my location and ‘Goldenrods’, (verifiable, with pics) and found 834 identifications, with 12 species. But I noticed that one species I’ve definitely seen - Flat-Topped Goldenrod - was missing from the list. After a lot of puzzling, I’ve finally figured out why: Flat-Topped and the other 12 species are all part of “Asters and Allies (tribe astereae)” but the Flat-topped Goldenrod is NOT part of “Goldenrods (genus solidago)”. It’s not even part of the same subtribe. There are species called ‘Goldenrods’ scattered throughout the subtribes of Asters and Allies, that are not part of the genus ‘Goldenrods’.
So I thought I was in the Valley of Despair, but it turns out there was further to fall! Now I just want to sit at the bottom (I hope) of the valley and sulk.
Even my husband (to whom I have ranted about Goldenrods) is making fun of me.
Husband: What kind of plant is that?
Me: It’s a Goldenrod.
Husband: What type?
Me: Sod off!
How am I supposed to figure all this out? Why are Goldenrods so complicated??? Does anyone have links to good info on identifying them (or a ladder)?
I’m not sure what geographic area you are in but in my area, it’s helpful to learn a few divisions. The most abundant goldenrods in Vermont, USA, are in this group: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1455736-Triplinerviae . Of those, S. gigantea is easy to distinguish much of the time due to glaucous stem and hairless stem and leaves. Altissima and canadensis are harder to tell apart, but if you get the observation to that group you’ve done more than most people can do! It’s also worth learning Solidago rugosa which is pretty distinctive, as well as the unique forest species S. caesia and S. flexicaulis. And there’s S. uliginosa in fens. Then there’s a wide range of other ones with large basal leaves that I don’t know well, such as S. juncea… And indeed, Euthamia graminiifolia isn’t in the same genus as the ‘true’ goldenrods and looks pretty different, but is still worth learning and fairly easy to pick out.
Of course this may be entirely useless if you are in a different area, but it looks lik you may be in Ontario which probably has much of the same species.
I just noticed the latest research (and iNat accordingly) has moved S. gigantea out of subsect. Triplinerviae to subsect. Serotinae instead. So now those tricky large goldenrods need to be ID’d up to sect. Unilaterales instead I guess…
Subsect. Serotinae (Rydb.) Semple & Beck included the North American Solidago gigantea Ait. and two South American species S. chilensis Meyen and S. microglossa DC. –– no obvious morphological feature unites these three species.
Frustrating but it least it does seem a bit easier to ID of the 3… I have never learned canadensis/altissima, does this summary seem accurate? The presence of galls and distribution of leaf serrations seem like the easiest features to use if so…
I see Broad-leaved and Bluestem a lot low to the ground in very shaded forests where other goldenrods don’t grow and they’re pretty easy to distinguish from each other. I don’t see Rough-stemmed often enough to recognize them but I just noticed someone left a helpful comment about the veins on one of my observations years ago.
The other species I’ve seen were smaller ones in fens, alvars, or far northern Ontario and I don’t know how to ID any of them.
Unless we just don’t accept this problematic proposed change at all. Did that go through? Shows yet another problem with the constant change. I’m still identifying possible gigantea into it since i wasn’t aware the change happened at all. Not cool. Though to be fair I can often differentiate gigantea so a group with just the other two might be nice. And to it’s credit, that family tree cladogrammy diagram for goldenrod in that paper is really nice.
I use the leaf underside hairs and overall hairiness. I’ve been told it isn’t always a reliable trait, but that’s getting beyond the point of margin of error for me. Nothing isn’t 100% perfect, and we just do the best we can. I haven’t noticed one having galls and the other not, but the leaf serrations may be worth looking at especially for plants that have turned brown.
I see rough stemmed often in wet disturbed fields.
In the Peterson System, the first major step is categorizing them into morphological categories, viz., plume-like, elm-branched, club-like, wand-like, or flat-topped; and then noting whether the leaf veins are parallel or pinnate. Even so, Peterson only illustrates the more widespread species.
