Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:21:45 +0000 From: Nigel Hurneyman <nhurneym@uk.oracle.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg574$foo@default> Subject: Re: More on S. rosea
Looks good to me, but the Devil's Advocate might also suggest
S. purpurea subsp. purpurea var purpurea
S. purpurea subsp. purpurea var venosa
S. purpurea subsp. rosea
which recognises, in order of importance
1) the difference between S purpurea and the other Sarries
2) the difference between rosea and the other purpureas
3) the difference between venosa and purpurea
(but then how would you recognise the current var montana?)
NigelH
PS - I have a .jpg of my Drosera citrina in flower - if you want to see
it drop me an e-mail and I will e-mail it as an attachment.
Alternatively I may soon have a web page for my pygmy photos.
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST