Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 17:06 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1125$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: fertile Drosera hybrids
Hi List,
> > Who used terms I had not been previously familiar with. He
> > called the above D. fili hybrid D. x californica, as opposed to
> > the one more familiar to me (D. x "California Sunset"). Is there
> > a preference?
>
> One is a taxon name, the other is a cultivar name. Both are suitable
> but I prefer the bastard formula.
All (D. filiformis * D. filiformis var. tracyi) can be called by
the name D.* californica but only one seed gave rise to the
plants called D.* cv. 'California Sunset'. All plants grown
from the seed of 'Cal. Sunset' can't be called by that name either.
Only asexually produced divisions can still bear the name, all
others go back to the taxon or bastard formula names. Or be given
a new cultivar name.
> > He also referred to the Southern variety of D. filiformis as
> > D. Tracyi (conferring on it I assume, separate species, as
> > opposed to sub-species status). Has there been any
> > literature to support this assertion? Jan?
They are still close enough to be within the same species.
> I do not know any. The epithet has never been formally established
> at specific rank (only a ms. name cited in synonymy by Diels when he
> described the taxon as a variety). "tracyi" does not exist at
> subspecific rank (only as species, var., or f.) in _Drosera_. _D.
> filiformis var. tracyi_ formally belongs to _D.filiformis subsp.
> filiformis_.
Yes, but while it is formally named as _D.filiformis subsp.
filiformis var. tracyi_, the reality of it is that tracyi *is* a
subspecies as it looks different *and* can not grow where D.
filiformis can, since it is nowhere near as hardy. Seems to be
an even greater difference between these two Drosera than between
the two subspecies of S.purpurea. I beleive the reasonning behind
not giving the plant the names they ought have is tradition, and
that most everyone is *supposed to know* they are really subspecies.
(So don't formally name the subsp. =--> Goof Troop logic here,
in my opinion)
BTW, if there has been no published subspecies, why are they
not called _D. filiformis_ and _D. filiformis var. tracyi_?
I think this has been answered before, but I forgot.
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:00 PST