> To all (and especially Jan, of course),
> Allen has just sent me his paper on a few new species from the
> petiolaris complex. It came out in the latest Nuytsia issue. Unfortunately
> I don't have it here with me but I"ll wirte what I can remember.
Unfortunately, the latest issue of Nuytsia is at the bookbinder's in
Frankfurt...
> In the article Allen also reinstates D.fulva as a good species
> (note here Jan!!) different from D.dilatato-petiolaris.
Fine to see that Allen Lowrie has finally found the time (after
having described two new species) to read some of the pertinent
literature. Has he seen the type specimens?
> So all of a
> sudden this section which only had 2 species until a very short time
> ago (D.petiolaris and D.neocaledonica: or were there more?)
_D.neocaledonica_ (2n=40 chromosomes) does IMHO not at all belong
here, although originally (under the name D.caledonica) placed near
_D.petiolaris_ s.l. (x=6 chromosomes, _D.lanata_ with 19 chromosomes)
by DIELS and his uncritical successors (incl. A.LOWRIE). So there was
in fact *only* _D.petiolaris_ for more than 75 years before KONDO
started splitting the species again (PLANCHON did so before DIELS).
However, _D.banksii_ (2n=12), originally placed close to
_D.petiolaris_ s.l. by PLANCHON, to be removed by DIELS later, is
supposedly really closer to _D.petiolaris_ than to subgen. Ergaleium,
with base numbers of x=10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and no known member
with 2n=12 (x=6).
> has
> almost doubled in number after this single publication. Other
> species described in the past 10 years are D.falconeri, D.dilatato-
> petiolaris,
> D.lanata, D.ordensis, and D.kennealyi. And by what I've heard
> there are
> already a few more on their way to be described.
OK, I understand that splitting proceeds with incredible speed in
what has formerly been regarded a single species (very similar to
the alarming situation in _Pinguicula moranensis_ after it was
rather well defined by CASPER in 1966, just to be split into a
confusing, ambiguous, ill-defined, and steadily growing plethora of
names). As experience shows, this will go on and on (just wait until a
second expert starts producing names in the same group...) so at the
end we will either face a bunch of names for all (of course with the
customary exception of the single, not-yet-discovered, very rare, and
now *really* new, however, somewhat intermediate "good species" to be
named urgently...) the minor varieties, forms, and mutants in the
complex, or we will return to the good old _D.petiolaris_ sensu lato.
Never forget that the second (sometimes more important) job of the
taxonomist besides description of new taxa is the *identification*
(Latin, from "idem" the same and "facere" to make, i.e. to make
something to be the same, or to be called by the same name as another
thing; cf. you and your photographic picture from former times in your
passport) of taxa.
> Did I miss any Jan?????
Certainly. But Allen Lowrie will, no doubt, very soon tell us which
ones.
Kind regards
Jan