Re: Re: Re: Sarracenia Alata or Rubra
Phil (cp@pwilson.demon.co.uk)
Sat, 8 Jun 1996 21:29:36 GMT
In your message dated Friday 7, June 1996 you wrote :
> > From: Phil <cp@PWILSON.DEMON.CO.UK>
> >
> > Fuzziness is not a reliable indicator since some sub species of S.
rubra
> > are typically fuzzy, in particular S. rubra ssp Wherryi which overlaps
the
> > range of S. alata in southern Alabama.
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Sorry, I forgot about S. rubra subsp. wherryi having fuzzies.
> It's so distinct though, I can't imagine mixing that one up with
> any other Sarracenia. Infact, I rather believe it to be a seperate
> species apart from rubra. While it is closely related to rubra
> (the flowers are very similar) there seems to be a clear line
> seperating them.
> There are populations of this plant which only grow up 12 inches
> at most, while there are other populations which can grow well over
> 24 inches tall. Wouldn't this be justification for a subspecies
> rank, or variation at least, within what is called S. rubra subsp.
> wherryi?
>
> Dave Evans
>
Dave,
I agree that ssp Wherryi is unlikely to be confused with anything else, but
I also forgot to add that by no means all S. alata plants are fuzzy. Around
south Alabama most populations are non fuzzy and even in the Mississippi
sites only around 50% of the plants are fuzzy in my experience.
You have to be careful when you start proposing specific or sub specific
status. Plants of S. rubra ssp Wherryi can be very variable throughout the
range, as indeed can populations of many of the other Sarracenia species.
As I understand it to award a sub specific status to a section of plants
you need to prove that there exists populations of that form which vary
from the type in a consistent and distinct way.
--
Phil Wilson
(cp@pwilson.demon.co.uk)