Re: Pygmies

From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Sun Jun 28 1998 - 18:59:27 PDT


Date:          Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:59:27 
From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg2178$foo@default>
Subject:       Re: Pygmies

Dear Kris,

> If these are indeed correct, why does Allen Lowrie choose not to use them
> in his lists?

I guess he is either not aware of them or he does not agree with them.

> > The style structure is almost the same. I do not state that the two
> > are indistinguishable but specific distinction is IMHO clearly not
> > indicated.
>
>
> But what about the distinctively different habit of growing, where D.
> dichrosepela forms sort of a stalk, with dead foliage bellow, which
> can get quite high, whereas D. enodes does not exhibit this behaviour.
> I would have also thought for them to be classified together that
> there gemmae would have to be similar too, however as I mentioned,
> under close examination, they are quite distinctively different.

Still the differences do not outweigh the IMO much more important
similarities.

> > Both were apparently distributed originally by Allen Lowrie. One of
> > these plants (what I consider to correspond with the type) is (IMO)
> > certainly a subspecies of _D. paleacea_. The other one is a quite
> > different plant approaching _D. dichrosepala_ to some degree (but
> > far less than _D. d. subsp. enodes_ does). If the description of
> > _D. roseana_ was based on this heterogeneous material (I am not in
> > a position to judge this at the moment), the name is probably a
> > nomen ambiguum.
>
>
> It would seem that I have the latter you mentioned. I assume the one
> you regards as being close to D. paleacea is the first plant you
> mention?

Yes.

> If Allen Lowrie distributed it, is it in any of
> his books?

The (poor) inflorescence depicted (as a photo) in his book (under _D.
roseana_) does probably belong to the plant I regard as corresponding
to the type. It has very little to do with _D. dichrosepala_. The
specimens I have seen did have much more flowers, however. Note that
the drawing of the inflorescence in Allen Lowrie's book does not
resemble the photograph very much.

> I have seen pictures of this plant, but just assumed someone mixed
> up the names on their plants,

Who could have done this if it was not Allen Lowrie himself?

Kind regards
Jan



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST