(no subject)
Robert Allen (Robert.Allen@Eng.Sun.COM)
Tue, 6 Apr 93 10:06:52 PDT
>>>"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*??_.
Barry, is this a plant I got a clone of from you? As I recall
there was some doubt as to whether it was really x. Hookeriana.
Mine is still small (thank god), but so far the pitchers do
*not* resemble what is shown for the hybrid in Kuratas' book,
Nepenthes of Mt. Kinabalu.
R.