Jan
>One does not need to be specifically clever nor to anticipate anything to
>do this! It was done as long ago as 1966, when CASPER clarified the "enfant
>terrible" _Pinguicula_sect.Orcheosanthus_. He was the one who grouped all
>"forms" into a single species _P.moranensis_.
As usual your input is invaluable.
I've got Casper's monograph but my German is too poor to understand it all.
However, a question arises.
>Since then (1966), some people have again split the species _P.moranensis_
>into several rather ill-defined microspecies of unknown (as I fear very
>limited) taxonomic value. As far as I can judge, _P.moranensis_ is probably
>the most widespread species in Mexico, and it has a very wide range of
>variation. This complex species is in need of a thorough revision; it can
>not and will never be "resolved" if only a bunch of +/- new names (without
>discussion of chorology, variability, ecology, and affinity) are proposed,
>some of which only describing clones or cultivated plants of insufficiently
>known origin (resulting in "individual" nomenclature, not increased
>knowledge).
As you may recall, I'm part of a UK (now World Wide) scheme to build
National Collections of specific genera; I hold the Pinguicula
Collection. I'm happy to name all P. moranensis "forms/sub-species"
under the moranensis name but it seems that data is then lost. The
plants arrive with an associated "form/sub-species" name. So what is
the recommended or scientific (or best non-scientific) way to retain
the "form" when labelling the plant - or does one just drop the
form/sub-species and not care?
Regards
Paul