Pinguicula 'Hoz de Betatas' and Other Iberian Pings

From: Loyd Wix (Loyd.Wix@unilever.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 1997 - 04:36:47 PDT


Date: 21 Jul 1997 12:36:47 +0100
From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg2719$foo@default>
Subject: Pinguicula 'Hoz de Betatas' and Other Iberian Pings


          Dear all,
          
          but particularly those of you with a keen interest in
          Pinguicula (esp. Jan and Jurg) -
          
          What is the current general opinion on the taxonomic status
          of the Pinguicula from Hoz de Betata (Serrania de Cuenca,
          Spain)? Although Casper originally reported these plants to
          be P.vallisnerifolia, the opinions that I have heard from
          some individuals suggest it to be a form of P.longifolia. In
          the last IPSG newsletter (No 8) an editorial note states
          that 'P.Hoz de Betata has been described as
          P.submediterranea' though I suspect that this statement was
          speculation on Stan Lampards part.
          
          In Zamora et als paper (Two new species of carnivorous
          genus Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae) from Mediterranean
          habitats. Pl. Syst. Evol. 200: 41-60 (1996)), I can find no
          mention of Hoz de Betatas or Serrania de Cuenca in relation
          to their proposed P.submediterranea. Superficially the Hoz
          de Betata plants appear to be closer to the other proposed
          species P.mundi also.
          
          So all comments on P.'Hoz de Betatas' gratefully received!
          
          The next bit is mainly directed to Jan (S).
          
          Jan - I realise that you dispute Zamora and co's
          P.submediterranea as a result of your 1994 revision
          of P.grandiflora var dertosensis, elevating it to the status
          of P.longifolia ssp dertosensis. Clearly both you and Zamora
          and co have considered the plants from Pto Tortosa and Pto
          Beceite, however Zamora has included populations from Sierra
          Segura, Sierra Cazorla and Sierra Tejeda in their study
          of P.submediterranea. Are you familiar with these
          populations and do you consider these to fall under
          your coverage of P.l.ssp dertosensis? Zamora and co do
          appear to have found some differences between
          P.submediterranea and P.longifolia - for example seed
          morphology and chromosome number but did not compare these
          two 'species' with the same rigor they applied to other
          Iberian Pinguicula such as P.vallisnerifolia. However in
          their opening paragraphs they state their comparison was
          between the two new species and cogeners of the same
          geographic area. I interpret from this that given the
          authors familiarity with P.longifolia, they did not consider
          this species as occurring within the geographic area of
          interest. This is perhaps the principle weakness of paper
          together with their failure to consider your P.l.dertosensis
          paper. Despite these weaknesses, Zamora and co have studied
          P.longifolia more than most given some of their previous
          publications on prey capture studies. Given their
          familiarity with that species these authors must feel they
          have sufficient justification for considering these various
          populations as being distinct from P.longifolia. Looking
          forward to some debate on this subject.
          
          Kindest regards
          
          Loyd
          
           
          



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:06 PST