Dear Jan:
You have stated your position very well, and I would only wish to
suggest a few points for consideration. Your hypothesis regarding the
sympatric existence of a paleo _S_ and a paleo _H_ (with presumably a
common ancestor) seems reasonable given the evidence, or lack of
evidence. (Although, I would suggest that other alternatives such as a
common primitive ancestor from an unknown locale, with the subsequent
further evolution of disjoint paleo _H_ and _S_ (and _D_??) might also
be possible.) However, this is not to say, as seems to be construed,
that Heliamps. are "primitive" forms of Sarrs. -- that the Heliamps.
are what Sarrs. "used to be." And this is one point that I was trying
to make. In this I suppose I am a gestaltist. I would consider that
any species must be considered a gestalt - a fully functioning and
complete organism, capable of effectively competing in its environment.
I believe it is often misleading to think that one species is more
primitive than another even when it does seem to c
As for the Sarracenia, I mentioned S. oreophila, and S. rubra jonesii
because they offer fair suggestion (I will not claim it proof) that the
recent geologic history of the Sarrs. is also one of montane endemism.
The Sarrs. have simply been able to expand their ranges more
effectively than Darlingtonia and the Heliamps. (Although some small
extension of range of the Heliamps below the Tepuis has been
documented.) And interestingly enough, the most competitive of the
species is S. purpurea, which has the most recent and extensive spread,
and yet has apparently evolved away from reliance on proteolytic
enzymes. Which leads an iconoclast such as myself to think that the
lack of enzymes is not necessarily evidence of a primitive (that word
again) pre-carnivory, but in S. purp.'s case, a further evolutionary
step toward greater competitiveness. (But I digress.)
As a final note, I had meant to emphasize that it seems unlikely to me that
Darlingtonia and its environs where reflective of the origination of the
Sarraceniaceae. It strikes me that if the Sarrs. recent history do suggest
montane origins, then all three extant forms (_S_, _D_, _H_) may be
fragementary montane remnants of an unknown ancestor which was not necessarily
montane, but was lost when more suitable planar environs were lost. Then we
may assume differentiation among the forms may have begun possibly even before
this loss and continued after. And as far as the original nexus being the SE
USA, I yield, I do not have any good arguments - except perhaps regional pride
:).
Tom in FL