> The name _D.echinoblastus_ is already a somewhat ugly combination. A
> substantival epithet (only as such it is acceptable) is at least not
> elegant if an adjectival one (like in _D.leucoblasta_, published 128 years
> earlier) is possible. But the MARCHANT & LOWRIE name is still valid in
> this rather clumsy form.
I didn't understand this bit.
> However, "D.leucoblast*us*" really hurts at least in my eyes. The original
> (and correct) spelling is _D.leucoblasta_ (_Drosera_ is female, the epithet
> is adjectival). Please use the original form. Thank you very much.
About this bit, Allen told me his intention was to publish is as
"D.echinoblast*a*" (which any of you can see in his volume 2 of Aussie
CPs), but it was Marchant who told him it would be best to publish it as
"D.echinoblast*us*". I guess Allen accepted because Marchant was the
"professional" taxonomist and supposedly knew what he was doing.
A long time ago, Jan, we discussed by snail-mail about D.pumila.
For those of you who don't know, this Brazilian species was published by
Emilia Santos as D.pumilla (with 2 L's) in the '80's. The epithet is
derived from the Latin "pumilus", which is written with a single L, and
thus the author made an obvious spelling error.
Now Jan, you told me that when this type of error occurs, it
immediately reverts to the correct form, without anyone having to publish
another article stating the error. So wouldn't this also apply to the
D.echinoblastus case? Shouldn't it be switched to D.echinoblasta?
I don't know if this difference sounds important to the native
English speakers, since in English almost everything is referred to as
"it". In Latin derived languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French,
and others) things are always either masculine or feminine. For example,
in English you refer to a ship as "she". In Latin derived languages it
sounds very strange when you refer to a feminine object as "he" and
vice-versa, not to mention that it is gramatically incorrect. This is
just to illustrate the difference between Droser*a* echinoblast*a* and
Droser*a* echinoblast*us*.
On another matter related to pygmies, I read someone's message
the other day mentioning how one of his pygmies had produced a flower
with 6 petals and 5 styles. What I've observed in cultivation is that
pygmies, and to a lesser extent tuberous species, very often produce crazy
mutations with extra flower parts and leaves on the peduncles. Maybe this
tendency to mutate often is something endogenous to these 2 groups, and
might help explain their evolution! Or maybe their speedy evolution
hasn't given them time to get well organized at the gene regulation and
expression level.
Fernando Rivadavia
Sao Paulo, Brazil