Re: Sarracenia hybrids and their names

Date: Fri Feb 12 1999 - 17:48:17 PST

Date:          Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:48:17 
Message-Id: <aabcdefg425$foo@default>
Subject:       Re: Sarracenia hybrids and their names

Dear John,

> (...) and I realize this is probably because there are no naturally
> occuring S. oreo hybrids. Have names been given to all the other
> hybrids that are typically produced only by growers? If so, where
> could I find such a list?

Using the search string "\* \[S" will output all names and formulae
of _Sarracenia_ hybrids published so far (rather long list).

> Also, I note that S. leuco x S. rubra = S. x readii, but is this for S.
> rubra ssp. rubra, or all subspecies of the rubra complex?

The name was created to include all infraspecific taxa of _S. rubra_,
because _S. *readii_ is a hybrid name at specific level (a
nothospecies, not a nothosubspecies, nothovariety, or anything else).

> Would it have
> a different name if you used S. rubra alabamensis, etc., or would you
> just note the particular subspecies that was used?

If you wanted to keep the information for the record (all ambitious
breeders should do this), you should note the precise hybrid formula,
including the infraspecific classifiation of the parents (if there is
one like in your example). The (scientific) name will remain _S.
*readii_. But if you felt that something distinguishes it from the
hybrid involving the typical subspecies of _S. rubra_, you could of
course describe the plant either as a new cultivar (preferably, if
the plant is of horticultural origin) or as a new
nothosubspecific taxon under _S. *readii_.

> The same question goes for S. x rehderi, and all other rubra
> hybrids.

A similar answer like above applies for these as well.

> I'm planning on experimenting a bit this year with my plants and would
> like to know the correct names. Thanks in advance for your help.

So far, no infraspecific classification has been used for cp hybrids.
One -merely theoretical- exception being _Drosera *californica_,
which would be a nothovariety rather than a nothospecies if the two
parents were regarded as varieties of one and the same species, in
which case it should be called _D. filiformis nothovar. californica_
(NB: This would be a new combination that should be publised together
with a reference to the basionym before it is used to label plants!)

Please note that no hierarchical grouping of cultivars is possible,
while taxa are hierarchical groups, i.e. a cultivar cannot include
other cultivars as subdivisions. Either they are the same or they
have equal rank and are mutually exclusive. Several cultivars can,
however, be included in a common cultivar-group. This applies for
cultivars of pure species and of hybrids alike.

Kind regards

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:54 PST