Thanks for your reference on the more recent publication on naphtoquinones.
I was a little bit suprised that the names I used were out dated though.. I
took the systemathic information partly from a reference by Laenger, et al.
in Pl.Syst.Evol.194: p.163-172 (1995!) (and two older ones fron Zenk et
al.) In this new article the authors (perhaps you know them) claim to have
identified 13 types of different glandular hair in 52 pecies of Drosera.
They argue that it is possible to identify all these species just by taking
a closer look upon the glandulair hairs. They also mention the presence of
naphtoquinones in several of them. They do mention the presence of
plumbagin in the section Bryastrum and give D.pygmaea as a reference...
I gave the list just to show that the presence of these metabolic compounds
does NOT contradict towards your theory! I agree that this give no
exclusive evidence. But in combination with orther features, they can be
important, as their presence is regulated by the genetic codeof their
DNA...
>The most widespread and most complex sect. Drosera is obviously
>inhomogenous even if judged by morphological criteria.
Maybe we should change our views on the section Drosera...Maybe this
section sould be divided up into more sections...It is rather strange that
plum. occurs in D.intermedia and not in D.rotundifolia and D.anglica... I
think it is very likely that those species can therefore NOT be (very)
closely related. Laenger et al. also mention that the sect. Rossolis (which
is the old name for sect.Drosera I think...) is the only section were
non-glandular occur. But there are 5 exceptions D.filformis, D.tracyi,
D.rotundifolia, D.intermedia, D.anlica..... If I use my (still) incomplete
list then we also have here the inhomogenous species as naphtoquinones are
concerned... (With exception of D.capilaris)
I try to find the article of CULHAM atonce!!!
Kind regards,
Arnoud Boom (Who is not 23, as said last week but is actually 25!)