Re: Trip Report, CP books again

Scott Portman (
Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:56:48 -0500

Hi everyone;

I enjoyed reading Barry's trip notes, as well as previous posts like the
ones on Mt Kinbalu and Cuba. It's one of the really nice things about
this list.

It was sad to that Barry returned deflated (dessicated?) to the desert
after witnessing the signs of field collection... With so many reputable
sources for cp's, it seems there must be some legally correct way to get
information to interested individuals who subscribe to this list. I know
we've discussed this before and there's no easy solution... Perhaps those
contemplating purchasing/trading plants from a nursery or individual should
ask the list "Anyone know whether so and so is an ethical grower...please
reply privately".

Michael Chamberland noted some corrections in Gordon Cheers: Letts Guide
to CP of the World. Here's a few more:

Page 68: Drosera capillaris and D. cistiflora names are switched on the
text sections - although photo captions appear to be correct.

Page 86: The 'Helios' in Heliamphora means 'sun' in Greek, not 'marsh', as
stated in the text.

Page 129: Text caption is U sandersoni. Photo caption is U. aurea v.
multiflora. Photo appears to be of U sandersoni (?), and there's no
reference to U. aurea in the text.

Page 21:

I'm not a taxonomist, but I always thought Sarracenia and Bromeliads were
monocots, and that the Scrophularaceae were dicots. If so, the
classification system depicted here is inaccurate. Jan, anyone, pls
contradict me if I'm wrong.

Page 16

If this diagram is meant to indicate an actual taxonomic or evolutionary
relationship between different taxa, it is inaccurate. If it is meant to
indicate hypothesized "primitive" structures and their functional
relationship to more advanced ones, then I think Genlisea should not be
linked with Sarracenia. It's pure speculation that Nepenthes and
Cephalotus evolved from a tube-like ancestor that resembled a bromeliad -
one could just as easily speculate on a Nepenthes ancestor that had
rain-drop adapted leaves like a tropical ficus, only with some sort of
absorbtive capacity at the tips, developed to extract nutrients from canopy
run-off. It's just a guess to decide that pinguicula structures are more
functionally more 'evolved' than drosera - one could argue the opposite,
with drosera evolving bigger, more active tentacles from a more passive
'Pinguicula-like' ancestor. That's the problem with such a chart -
sometimes it's contradictory to depict actual evolutionary relationships
and increasing complexity on the same diagram. Pinguiculas may be more
recently evolved and still be a reversion to a less complicated functional