Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:22:59 -0400 From: "Dave Evans" <dpevans@rci.rutgers.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2469$foo@default> Subject: S. purpurea Subspecies
Dear Jan,
Thanks for clarifying this:
> Before the names start spreading on labels, I would like to bore
> you with a few orthographical/nomenclatural details. With
> cordial thanks in advance for your kind attention.
> The _Sarracenia_ is called _S. purpurea (subsp. venosa) var. burkii_
> after BURK.
>
> The difference is subtle, but we should honour the names of our
> predecessors.
>
> (...) _S. rosei_ you have what I feel should be called (...)
>
> ... _S. rosea_. This one is not named after a person but after the
> colour of its petals.
>
> > S. purpurea subsp. rosei
>
> ... was never published properly. If you want to use it (with the
> correct spelling, of course!), you must validate the combination by
> publishing it along with its basionym (incl. a literature reference)
> and an explicit statement that it receives a new rank (comb. nov.,
> stat. nov.). I would, however, recommend to select the earliest
> available epithet "burkii" rather than the later "rosea", especially
> as the former was already used for an infraspecific taxon under _S.
> purpurea_ (the change would only be a stat. nov. in this case).
Sorry for misspelling, Jan and all. I have seen them misspelled on
labels and lists so much, it's hard to keep track of which is the correct
way...
Anyway, at first this was a private discussion with MCliff428@aol.com (I
don't see any signature, so I'm not sure who this is...) I didn't think
anyone would use hypothetical names on tags, but then I realized they sure
would, but only after reading your mail.
So here's the clarified version of what I attempted yesterday:
I feel that all the plants that do fall under the names _Sarracenia
rosea_ or _Sarracenia venosa burkii_ ought to be "S. purpurea subspecies
burkii"--Currently there is no such name so please don't use it, you will
get me in trouble with Jan ;) While the plants, which are nearly all north
of the _S. rosea_ populations, could probably be reduced to belong under
_Sarracenia purpurea subspecies purpurea_. However, this is not the case
yet. If you have plants from locations south of New Jersey, they ARE _S.
purpurea venosa_.
MCliff428@aol.com was asking me how to find both subspecies of
_S.purpurea_, _ subsp.venosa_ and _subsp. purpurea_ in New Jersey. A whole
lot of people say that these two meet in New Jersey, but none have ever
clearly stated to me which is which and I don't see much difference that
cannot be attributed to environmental factors. The plants in the Jersey
Pine Barrens look very similar to those plants found much further South,
like in North Carolina. They look slightly less similar to those plants
found in Great Lakes areas (but then again the soil is more different too,
is it nature or nurture?). So I think if you really want to see what now
falls under _S.purpurea purpurea_ you will have to go the Great Lakes
regions. I don't know of any spots in New Jersey that positively contain
_S. purpurea purpurea_.
I do see that the Great Lakes plants have pitchers that tend to be a bit
thinner than those in the southern States. However, I have consistently
seen venosa pitchers as well as purpurea pitchers on all the different
plants in _S. purpurea_, so I can't say for sure whether both or neither
subsp. are located in New Jersey. I think all the plants north of _S.
rosea_ range (N. Florida area) are a series of varieties of _S. purpurea
purpurea._ If this is the case, finding two different subsp. native to New
Jersey would, well, be impossible....
Does anyone out there know of a location or locations in New Jersey that
contain bonified S. purpurea purpurea? I would love to see these plants!
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:11 PST