>FINALLY, David Purks alerted me to something interesting. I sent him some
>U.graminifolia `Japan', and in a discussion with Ivo, Ivo asked him about
>this. See, Ivo was confused because U.graminifolia is not supposed to
>be in Japan. I opened my copy of the Gospels according to Taylor, and
>sure enough---it's not listed for Japan. Boy is my face red. The plant
>surely is graminifolia, but the `Japan' tag is probably in error.
>Everyone I've sent this plant to, cross out the word `Japan'! (Or maybe
>there's still more to this mystery?)
Is the plant really _U.graminifolia_ in the original sense of VAHL?
Regarding _Utricularia_, there has been extensive confusion of the epithets
caerulea, graminifolia, uliginosa, reticulata, etc. in the past (and also
in rather recent times, cf. the TAYLOR bible). Some horticulturists (with
the noble exception of everyone reading these lines, of course!) diligently
tend to repeat all the errors made by taxonomists in previous decades (even
if these were corrected in the meanwhile).
If the plant was really from Japan (and not _U.graminifolia_ VAHL), it
could be U.graminifolia auct. (non VAHL): R.BR., PROD.NOV.HOLL.:43, 1810
(based on material from Australia, syn. _U.uliginosa_ VAHL).
_U.ulginosa_ (based on material from India) does occur from India
eastwards, including Australia and Japan (cf. the taxonomically
insignificant U.uliginosa f.albida (MAKINO) KOMIYA & SHIBATA, BULL.NIPPON
DENT.UNIV.GEN.EDUC.9:179, 1980, based on material from Japan).
Everyone cultivating or distributing "Utricularia graminifolia from Japan"
should check out if it is _U.graminifolia_ VAHL (e.g. as described in
TAYLOR, not _U.uliginosa_ VAHL) *and* if it is from Japan. I fear it is
impossible to match both criteria simultaneously.
Kind regards
Jan