another new species

Jan Schlauer (
Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:06:10 +0100

Dear CPers - especially Droseraceologists,

Another new species report:

"Una nueva especie del genero _Drosera_ L."

_Drosera_moaensis_ C.PANFET from the Sierra de Moa mountains, E Cuba, is
described. (Latin protologue, Spanish description, figure, distribution


The description is brief but sufficiently precise as to allow inclusion of
this taxon in _Drosera_brevifolia_ PURSH, from which it is distinguished by
virtually not a single feature. Unfortunately, Mrs. PANFET VALDES was not
sufficiently precise when she wrote:
"... estipulas pequenas en la base del peciolo..." (i.e. "stipules small at
the base of the petiole", describing _Drosera_brevifolia_ under "Grupo IV",
in REV.JARD.BOT.NAC.10:210, 1989).

Already PLANCHON (ANN.SCI.NAT.3.SER.9:191, 1848) noticed that the leaves of
_D.brevifolia_ are:
"...stipulis vix conspicuis..." ("with scarcely conspicuous stipules").

Indeed, the stipules of this species (as well as those of _D.uniflora_, and
some S African species) are very much reduced. The median part is
completely missing, and only two very narrow lateral setae (looking like
hairs) at the base of the petiole are left. These are very easily
overlooked. Exactly this seems to have happened with the species described
in the paper cited above. In the protologue of _D.moaensis_, PANFET VALDES
"...stipulis nullis..." ("without stipules"), her Spanish description repeats:
"...carecen de estipulas."

Thus, _Drosera_moaensis_ seems to be the product of a misinterpretation of
her own formulation concerning _D.brevifolia_. Neither the descriptions nor
the accompanying illustrations of _D.moaensis_ make me believe this is
really a new species.

_D.brevifolia_ is well distinguished from other species by the reduction of
the stipules (which it shows throughout its immense area of distribution
from S Brazil to the SE USA), and it is only this characteristic which
distinguishes _D.moaensis_ among American species of _Drosera_ with 3
basally bifurcate style-arms and glandular indumentum on the scape.

Thus, the title of the above cited paper should better read:
"A new record of _D.brevifolia_ from E Cuba". This result, together with
the apparent restriction of this population to montane regions (450 - 1000
m, the other populations of _Drosera_ on Cuba allegedly inhabit localities
below 300 m alt.) would have been sufficiently interesting to warrant
publication, and it would have saved obliteration of a further synonym.

Kind regards

DISCLAIMER: Please note that my comment above is only my personal opinion.
Maybe I am wrong, and there is really an endemic (morphologically
indistinguishable, with the data available, and within the very centre of
the total area of _Drosera_brevifolia_). Unless very convincing new
evidence (I do not consider the ecological data presented by PANFET VALDES
to represent such evidence) for this theory is presented I will not buy it,