Date: 08 Jul 1998 12:53:52 +0100 From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2279$foo@default> Subject: More on Juergs paper
Ok my second attempt to mail this.
Dear Jan and Juerg
>Let's ask Jan!
>The name _P. l. subsp. dertosensis_ does only have priority
>at subspecific rank. At specific rank, the combination by
>Sanz & al. has priority.
OK Jan so changes are necessary to the data base etc. and
another paper to add to the 'get' list. So in the absence of
the paper by Sanz and Co, Blanca's P.submeaditerranea would
still have taken priority over P.l.ssp. dertosensis if I
understand this correctly.
>> It is interesting to note the suggestion of a possible
>> hybridogenic origin for P.mundi. It has been suggested
>> to me as a possible scenario for the Hoz de Betetas
>> populations.
>Unfortunately they didn't. Morphologically the Hoz de
>Beteta specimens are very close to P. submediterranea, but
>not to P. mundi.
>The Hoz de Beteta plants are very close to _P.
>dertosensis_, much closer than _P. mundi_ is, which latter
>is closer to _P. vallisneriifolia_ in turn.
I think we all agree on this point i.e. Hoz de Beteta are
similar to P.dertosensis (P.submediterranea), none-the-less
I will maintain the Hoz de Beteta label in the pot until
further research confirms the situation with these plants.
These H de B plants are gradually getting into cultivation
and appear to be as accommodating as P.vallisneriifolia
i.e.not amongst the most difficult temperate Pinguicula to
grow. Although these plants are not yet widely cultivated,
there is now room for plenty of confusion regarding
identification.
Blanca and Co mention stolon formation : 'P.mundi also
develops stolons more frequently than P.submediterranea' .
Jan I think we have spoken about this before and you
confirmed my belief that by 'stolon' we are talking about
the gemmae developing on 'stolons' which project them away
from the parent plant as in P.vallisneriifolia. Has anyone
actually seen this on these plants other than Blanca and Co?
The gemmae that I have seen on P.mundi didn't develop on
stolons and Juerg from your paper you indicate that amongst
the European species this is a trait confined to
P.vallisneriifolia.
>> And what about P.fiorii? Juerg is obviously convinced
>> that it is a distinct species, however it is still
>> reduce to P.l.ssp.reichenbachiana in the database. I
>> have seen the flower on this species for the first >>
>> time this year and this species is really very
>> different from P.l.ssp.r. All I can do is to echo
>> Juerg's observations that the flower is very
>> different and the plant is without doubt homophyllus.
>>It IS really different from all other species.
Jan can we now recognise P.fiorii on the database, at least
until the whole issue is resolved by future work? Where as
some of the temperate Pinguicula we are talking about could
be considered as 'variations on a theme', what is so
interesting about P.fiorii is how different it is from the
others.
>The plants formerly identified with _P.l.r._ from the
>Abruzzi are quite different from the type as well. To make
>things even more complicated, there are somewhat
>intermediate plants in the Alpi Apuane, and the plants
>recently discovered in Italy are still different from all
>taxa described so far. They are all, however,
>quite certainly members of one and the same tetraploid
>complex of circummediterranean orophytes isolated very
>recently (postglacially) and defined by Casper as _P.
>longifolia_ s.l. Unfortunately, the type of _P. longifolia_
>corresponds to the most *untypical* plants in the
>whole complex. These are growing at montane-alpine
>altitudes together with _P. grandiflora_, and introgression
>of the latter did almost certainly occur repeatedly in the
>Pyrenees.
The Rio Ara plants possibly being one manifestation of this
P.l.ssp l and P.g. introgression. Again we have had
previous conversations about this i.e.why Blanca used
P.l.ssp.l for comparison in his P.mundi and
P.submediterranea study rather than P.l.ssp caussensis or
P.l.ssp.reichenbachiana. From a geographical point of view
Blanca's choice is obvious even if parochial. Given that
the type of the complex is so atypical then surely the whole
issue needs resolving on a pan circummediterranean level
rather than simply adding to the situation by publishing
more species.
>Whether the vicariants from Spain to Italy are treated as
>subspecies of _P. longifolia_ or as microspecies in the _P.
>longifolia_-complex depends on how effective their
>isolation and how significant the differences are
>considered to be.
Juerg is certainly of the opinion that the existing
P.longifolia subspecies should be elevated to the rank of
species, presumably, P.longifolia, P.caussensis and
P.reichenbachiana. So we could also (possibly) have a
situation where these vicariants become subspecies of
future elevated P.longifolia and P.reichenbachiana or even
P.dertosensis! It seems that this situation will become yet
more complicated before all of these issues are resolved.
>Anyway, further research is clearly indicated.
It will be interesting to follow this as it is reported, I
am sure there will be plenty of fuel for future discussions.
Kindest regards
Loyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST