Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:55:40 -0500 From: "PHILIP SHERIDAN" <psher001@odu.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg600$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. purpurea nomenclature
Hi Folks:
A few comments on S. purpurea nomenclature. Even though we now have S. rosea
written up as a new species I would like to make the point that we have already,
in a number of publications, applied the epithet "green" to designate all
anthocyanin-free mutations which are blocked in a late stage of anthocyanin
biosynthesis (see our 1998 Plant Science 135: 11-16 article for how to perform
diagnostic tests, HortScience 1998 33: 1042-1045, and CPN 1997 26:51-64, 1996
25:19-23, 1993 22: 58-61). These publications appeared before any of the more
recent designations. Despite this we have had publications naming "f.
luteolata" for mutations in southern S. purpurea and now I see talk of S. rosea
f. luteolata. We recently published an abstract in 1999 in the Association of
Southeastern Biologists Bulletin 46: 177 titled "Sarracenia purpurea L. ssp.
venosa (Raf) Wherry var. burkii Schnell (green) new to Florida" announcing the
discovery of this same mutation in Florida. Do we really need a separate form
designation, wit
h different names (e.g. heterophylla vs. luteolata) for every single
anthocyanin-free mutation found! We proposed the term "green" to avoid
confusion and to apply a single succinct term for a biochemically testable
mutation.
Any comments?
Sincerely,
Phil Sheridan
Director
Meadowview Biological
Research Station
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST