Date: 30 Jun 1998 13:19:08 +0100 From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2187$foo@default> Subject: even more on white grandiflora again!
Dear Michael, Jan , John et al,
>I encourage you to read the publications I and Jan have
>mentioned, if you wish to pursue this subject. I think you
>will not find inconsistency in the modern recommendations
>for delineation of taxa. The papers Jan and I have
>listed, especially that of Hamilton & Reichard are calling
>for consistency in infraspecific classification
I will try to obtain a copy of these texts, I will take Jans
word that they are illustrative and fun reading.
>European taxonomists tend to favor subspecies, whereas
>their counterparts in the United States usually employ
>variety.
Hmmmm.
>The latter is more descriptive. If I found the
>f.chinopetra listed on a plant list I would have no idea
>what it looked like. In what way is the epithet
>f.chinopetra preferable to the vernacular description
>"white-flowered form"?
Chion or snow and petra or rock are a reference for the
white flowers and the rocky environment in which it grows -
apparently. (I would not have thought snow is very common in
County Clare). Preference depends upon context, 'white
flowered form' is fine for the hobbyist (or even cv.
chinopetra for a 'posh' name), though not appropriate for
Nelson and his forma nova.
>If Nelson has addressed the issue of WHY he chose to name
>these plants as forma, and defended this against the
>numerous inherent problems of one-character taxa (which we
>have covered in this thread), then I have have indeed
>missed something by not having the paper. But if Nelson
>did this I'm sure you'd have mentioned it.
I think I have mentioned most of the relevant information
from his 1993 paper. Unfortunately he originally proposed
that these plants be placed within a distinct form in an
earlier paper in 1991 which I do not have, and thus I cannot
comment upon. If possible I will try to obtain a copy of the
'91 paper also. One further point I have noticed in reading
the '93 paper again is Nelson mentioned one flower bud in
'90 appeared with a pale pink flush which was no longer
apparent when the flower was fully developed. Does this pink
flush indicate that at least some of these plants are not
straight forward mutants?
On a further point, in Eire these white flowered plants have
been reported from County Clare and County Kerry. These
counties are the most northerly recorded for P.grandiflora.
At the Eastern extremes of the species distribution P.g.ssp
rosea and f.pallida occur. However over the Pyrenees and
further West and South into Spain, I am unaware of pale
flowered P.grandiflora. Certainly the plants that I have
seen in the Pyrenees have had a deeper flower colour than
the typical (purple flowered) Irish plants. Is it just
coincidence that these pale flowered P.grandiflora occur at
the fringes of the plants range?
John, regarding your points:
>Regarding your first point,if you were a nasty
>dig-em-up-from-the-wild type how would you know it was a
>white flowered grandiflora,if all the flowers have
>finished,as they all have at the mo? (sorry, couldn't
>resist that one! -Grin :).
Wait till next year and book a holiday in Eire in May 8-).
>Secondly, and more seriously, I TOTALLY agree with you on
>your second point. When I was initially told about the
>existance of this plant, my source seemed to think that it
>was only ONE plant that was white-flowered. My concern
>(allayed a bit after recent postings to the list that
>suggest it isn't as rare as I thought) was that the
>dig-em-up-from-the-wild types would indeed make a bee-line
>for, and remove this plant.
Well rarity is relative, there is certainly more than one
individual plant, but I get the impression we are still
talking about comparatively few plants.
>However I've recently been informed that somebody DOES have
>this plant in cultivation. God knows why they feel the need
>to hang onto it; selfishness? greed? one-upmanship? Who
>knows? But ,I think, it is a sad state of
>affairs,especially as the plant is as (seemingly) prolific
>as the 'normal' grandiflora.
OK so it is suspected that someone has already holidayed in
the Burren, in May together with their bucket and spade.
Attitudes to the removal of plant material from habitat
vary. I am sure that if someone was to admit to bringing
this plant into cultivation then some may be critical of
this activity. For this reason I can understand this
individual (if they do exist) keeping the fact quiet. Also
if this person was to reveal themselves they would
undoubtedly be inundated by requests for material. I could
provide many reasons why some plants don't get into general
cultivation and give examples of how they do (from a UK view
point).
Kindest regards
Loyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST