I do agree with most of your statements.
>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.
It does not seem so to me. Rather, the taxa you mentioned were washed
ashore the very *feet* of mountains. The elevations _S.oreophila_ (<600 m
alt.) and _S.r.j._ (1085 m alt. on Sassafras Mt. if it reached the very
summit, which I would doubt, however) are found at can at the most be
called colline (S of 35 deg. N). Just for comparison: Mt.Roraima 2878 m,
Marahuaca 2580 m, Cerro de la Neblina 3014 m, and many populations of
_Heliamphora_ are indeed found in the summit regions of these (I admit that
the genus is able to descend into the lowland, however). In this context,
the recent geologic history of at least _Sarracenia_ is in my views one of
very predominantly planar (postglacial) migration with *no* decidedly
montane element.
>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.
Same with me. BTW, David, your
> D. californica does not occur in the Cascades at all.
has made me take a look into the Atlas once again. There, not only Mt.
Shasta (loc.class.) but even Lassen Peak S of the former is part of the
"Cascade Mts." (sic!), the whole mountain range thus reaching 40 deg. N (!)
in the S. So I will (with your kind approval) continue to call _D.c._ an
essentially SW Cascadean (s.lat., i.e. including parts of the geologically
distinct Coast Range) floristic element. I agree, however, that the plant
can only partially be called montane (if this was your point). With an
altitudinal range from approx. 0 to 2800 m alt. and some apparent
preference for W facing slopes it rather shows an oceanic temperate nature.
BTW, even the celebrated Klamath Mts. can "only" since 20 million years
really be called mountains, because "Early Cenozoic rock layers" which -I
think- we both would call the old thing in this story "were folded and
thrust up as a result of earth movements in mid-Miocene time (...).
Subsequently central and transverse ranges eroded almost to a plain."
(cited from Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Pacific Coast Ranges").
So even these mountains seem to be *younger* than Sarraceniaceae (while the
rock constituting the mountains is certainly older), and IMHO
_Darlingtonia_ is older than any of the mountains and plains it inhabits
nowadays (i.e. it can -with some reservation, v.s.- be called a SW
Cascadean palaeoendemic).
Kind regards
Jan