(no subject)

Jan Schlauer (zxmsl01@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de)
Thu, 11 Nov 1993 08:46:06 +0100

Barry, you wrote:
>I admit that at work I do not have my references near, so I don't know
>the meaning of "pleiochasial".

A pleiochasium is an inflorescence commonly found in _Utricularia_
sect.Pleiochasia, where at the nodes of a "raceme" several (not just one
flower) flowers are formed (you can look this up in the chapter "cymose
inflorescences").

>But you are suggesting that in this genus

(i.e. _Pinguicula_)

>, what is widely regarded as the peduncle (the inflorescence from rosette
>to calyx lobes) is actually the pedicel? And that the peduncle is
>reduced or absent?

Exactly that.

>You didn't nest parentheses properly above

Sorry!

>, so I don't know what you do with "(enlarged) subtending bracts"...

I think the bracts are not really absent, but if the "peduncle" is in fact
the pedicel, we have to look for the bracts at the very base of the
pedicel, i.e. in the rosette. With "enlarged" I meant the bracts which are
in no way different from the leaves of the rosette. In _Utricularia_, the
bracts are mostly very different from the "leaves", and much smaller.
However, I must append, e.g. Casper thinks the bracts are really absent or
suppressed, so there is not too much uniformity in opinions in this
respect. But this doesn't mean Casper's interpretation of the _P._
inflorescence to be different from mine as far as the pedicel is concerned.

>This is an interesting idea... With _Pinguicula_, the absence of visible
>bracts indicates the peduncle is actually a pedicel. Meanwhile, in something
>like _Sarracenia_ with three bracts in a whorl, right by the five sepals,
>the peduncle is truely a peduncle. Am I making sense?

Definitely.

Kind regards
Jan