>"When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon is
>circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be
>recognized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated
>parent taxa (i.e. not only the F1 but subsequent filial generations and also
>back-crosses and combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct
Jan, for space let me define "a"=ampullaria and "r"=rafflesiana.
Am I to understand then, that if I have two clones of _N.*hookeriana_
(or _N. a*r_) and cross them, that the progeny _N.(a*r)*(a*r)_ is
still considered _N.*hookeriana_? Or that _N. r*(a*r)_ is also
considered _N.*hookeriana_? This seems absurd.
B
P.S. Incidentally, I haven't been following the details of this
_Nepenthes_ nomenclatural nightmare too carefully, but be aware that part
of what Don is doing, I think, is trying to get a best guess on the
genetic make-up of a plant both M.Chamberland and R. Maharajh think is
truly _N*hookeriana_ but which I'm just calling _N.rafflesiana*??_.