Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:28:10 -0800 (PST) From: Barry Meyers-Rice <bamrice@ucdavis.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg567$foo@default> Subject: More on S. rosea
Hi Aaron and Dave,
You all have interesting points on S. rosea. Still, I think the best
approach would be
S. purpurea subsp. purpurea
S. purpurea subsp. venosa
S. purpurea subsp. rosea
(of course, the last name has not been established, so is just a fiction
for the purposes of this email).
I do not deny that S. rosea has consistent differences. Aaron adds
interesting data to strengthen this claim. But to elevate it to a separate
species status is, considering the disparity in form between other
Sarracenia species, unjustified. I do not think that all three proposed
subspecies have to be equally closely related. I am content with noting
Aaron's data, and having it be known that S. purpurea venosa and S.
purpurea purpurea are closer in character than they are to S. purpurea
rosea.
Barry
------------------------
Dr. Barry A. Meyers-Rice
Carnivorous Plant Newsletter
Conservation Coeditor
barry@carnivorousplants.org
http://www.carnivorousplants.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST