Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:37:10 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg105$foo@default> Subject: Re: P.sp.Pachuca = emarginata??
Dear Matt,
> I've noticed a good deal of similarity between the foliage of plants
> I have labelled as sp Pachuca and emarginata. I have yet to see
> either flower but was wondering if these are related or possibly the
> same?
There is at least one species in cultivation called "Pachuca" that is
not even remotely related to _P. emarginata_ but a fairly close
relative of _P. moranensis_ (belonging to another subgenus). Do not
rely on leaf morphology alone for the identification of _Pinguiculae_.
You will have to wait for flowers.
In the second round I expect lots of _P. moranensis_ relatives in the
market labeled "P. emarginata" as a nice substitute for the
useless/undefined "Pachuca". This case is another fine example why
bogus names are such a pain. My tip (not a really new one): do *not*
use bogus nomenclature at all.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:05 PST