nectardrugs and Bohemian rapsody

From: Guy Van Der Kinderen (Guy.VanDerKinderen@rug.ac.be)
Date: Thu Jun 19 1997 - 22:57:54 PDT


Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:57:54 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Guy Van Der Kinderen <Guy.VanDerKinderen@rug.ac.be>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg2397$foo@default>
Subject: nectardrugs and Bohemian rapsody

Hello Jan,

        Concerning drugs in nectar (?) of CP, the paper of Mody et al. is
also the only one I know about, apart from some information in Juniper.
Indeed, it deals NOT with coniin IN NECTAR, although this is often
misinterpreted and taken for real in certain books. Nevertheless, the
strange behaviour of insects, especially with Sarr. flava, has been noted
by several people and hence may not be a coincidence. This information,
together with the data of Mody et al., makes the search for coniin in
nectar of S. flava interesting, although the impact of possible fermenting
processes by moulds in exposed nectar, resulting in the production of
alcohol from sugars, may not be underestimated.
        Recently I started some preliminary chromatographic and isolation
tests on pure coniin, but some problems still need to be solved. Since I'm
doing these experiments in my free time (apart from many other things),
progress is slow.

        Regarding the Bohamian butterwort, the rather strange way of
posing your question makes one feel that the topic indeed is still hot.
Yes P. bohemica, or whatever it might be, is real fun, and the discussion
itself between certain taxonomists is quite interesting. The dispute
gained my attention when Miloslav Studnicka, a CP expert and good friend,
showed me the differences between P. vulgaris and the Bohemian, stating
2n=32 chromosomes for the latter. After subsequently reading the paper by
Krahulcova et al., showing 2n=64, I decided to do my own countings on
plants donated by Miloslav, and found 2n=64. Although this does not
necessarily mean that it might not be another species (not all Pinguicula
showing 2n=32 are P. grandiflora), and although I'm not at all a
taxonomist, I also think it concerns a P. vulgaris, but not as such. Being
a clearly distinguishable local form, the name P. vulgaris subsp. bohemica
as given by Dostal, seems more appropriate to me. Or do we not make any
distinctions anymore between varieties and forms such as albino's for
instance? A 'luxurios form' as it is called by Casper, is not at all
scientific, or is there indeed more than science perhaps in this matter?

Friendly regards,
Guy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:04 PST