Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 15:53:28 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2869$foo@default> Subject: Re: More on Iberian Pinguicula
Dear Loyd,
> >> Superficially the Hoz de Betata plants appear to be
> >> closer to the other proposed species P.mundi also.
>
> >Rather certainly not. _P. l. dertosensis_ seems to be
> >closer both geographically and taxonomically.
>
> O.k. but remember that my comments above relate to Zamora et
> als paper together with the comments in the IPSG newsletter.
> The problem I still have with this is that the Hoz de Beteta
> plants appear to have longer semi-erect summer foliage (as
> P.mundi) whereas the P.submediterranea description is for
> a plant with leaves close to the soil and horizontal with
> summer leaves similar to spring leaves(i.e. not
> very 'longifolia' like).
These differences (semi-erect vs. horizontal leaves) may depend on
growing conditions (or may be influenced genetically). Anyway, I do
not attach too great taxonomic significance to them. At least
within _P. vallisneriifolia_ sensu moderato (excl. _P. mundi_ and _P.
l. dertosensis_), leaf morphology is different between populations
(and sometimes between individuals within a single population).
> The other aspect that I am not clear about is what Zamora
> and co are refering to as stolons in their description of
> P.mundi? Am I correct in assuming they refer to the
> development of stolons which push the gemmae away from the
> mother plant as with P.vallisnerifolia?
Yes.
> As such stolons were
> not mentioned for P.submediterranea (also I assume the same
> is true for P.l.dertosensis), presumably the gemmae do
> not form on such structure
I could not find stolons in _P.l.d._. They may be present in a part
of P. submediterranea (especially the plants from the Sierra de
Segura). In vitro, stolons can be seen in almost all temperate
_Pinguicula_ species.
(...)
> >have investigated the plants from the French Massif Central
> >(_subsp.cussensis_), the Maritime Alps (_subsp.
> >reichenbachiana_), the Italian Alpi Apuane (_subsp.
> >reichenbachiana_?), and the Abruzzo Mts. (treated under
> >various names like P. fiorii or P. l. reichenbachiana).
>
> Then we start to 'muddy the water' further and move into
> more debate with Tammaro and Pace with P.fiorii or
> P.l.reichenbachiana if you prefer.
*Ignoring* these plants and the pertinent problems will inevitably
muddy the water! And this is exactly what is being done by the
mediterranean authors. NB: I am very happy that these scientists
finally begin to be interested in their indigenous flora (after
decades of neglect, and the work relating to the respective regions
being done almost exclusively several degrees of latitude north of
it). But it is not an appropriate start to ignore previous work and
to describe some ill-defined taxa as species first.
> >Vide supra! Without knowledge of the whole complex through
> >its whole range, describing new *species* which clearly
> >fall within the limits of the complex makes little sense.
>
> So rather than naming 'new species' someones efforts should
> be directed towards reviewing the whole complex.
Yes, yes, yes!
> >Of course the formal rank at which the taxa are finally
> >named is somewhat subject to opinion.
>
> Which makes things all the more confusing for the hobbyists
> if the taxonnomists cannot agree. My main concern is that
> given the 'similarity' of these plants there will probably
> be enormous confusion when the inevitable labelling accident
> occurs and incorrect IDed plants are circulated.
Yes, probably.
> >But without discussion of *all* pertinent material (and
> >literature!), these taxa are not well-defined
> >taxonomically. The scopes of Zamora & al. / Tammaro & Pace
> >are definitely too limited. They did obviously
> >not read (or at least not understand) the very careful and
> >profound work by Casper. And this is in fact a really
> >inexcusable error.
>
> After 30 years Caspers work is still highly thought of - but
> surely some review is now required to sort out these errors.
The errors coming from some of these "reviews" are far more serious
than Casper's shortcomings!
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:06 PST