(no subject)

Oliver T Massey CFS (massey@hal.fmhi.usf.edu)
Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:35:44 -0400 (EDT)

> > ... but it begs the question: why are these
> > names in the DB if they refer to non-carnivorous plants? At
> > least Roridula has a historical excuse for inclusion.
>
> The inclusion of the (2) non-carnivorous members of Dioncophyllaceae does
> not have any reason beyond taxonomic/nomenclatural completeness

>(the sub-carnivorous species of Sarraceniaceae are included as well).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Kind regards
> Jan

Ahhhh Jan, I wondered if you would ever get around to saying this! As
often as you have almost said it, I thought you might. Please don't
tell me you are ready to relegate S. purp. (and S. psit?) to the same
heap as B. reducta, and C. berteronianna. I would be mighty'
disappointed.

Regards,
Tom in Fl