A "new" paper on _Pinguicula_ is to be commented on:
H.LUHRS (1995, recd. 1996), Phytologia 79:114-122
Comment: The author, an enthusiastic collector and investigator of
butterworts, and a prominent member of Stan Lampard's "International
Pinguicula Study Group" describes two new species of _Pinguicula_,
viz. _P.stolonifera_ which is very closely related to _P.oblongiloba_
(i.e. representing another recent addition to sect. Orcheosanthus,
the taxonomic "enfant terrible" in the genus) and distinguished from
the latter by the formation of long runners. It will have to be
investigated if _P.oblongiloba_ is indeed not able to produce similar
stolons until Luhrs' new species can be accepted as distinct without
doubt.
The other new species is _P.laxifolia_, the same plant which has been
traded as "P.coelestis" for some years. I cannot understand why Luhrs
was not able to validate the much more common name for this plant
(without doubt known to him!) but this will remain his secret. This
species is distinct from the other members of sect. Orcheosanthus by
a rather long corolla tube. Luhrs creates an own section Orchidioides
(very unfortunate name because it does exist already as an epithet in
the genus: P.orchidioides, a confused and ambiguous synonym; BTW the
same mistake as with _Pinguicula crassifolia_, described *after* a
section Crassifolia had been established, which does *not* include
_P.crassifolia_!) for his _P.laxifolia_.
Furthermore, three synonymizations are performed. The first two
concern the dubious "new" species described by B.L.Turner some time
ago, viz. P.jorgehintonii (=_P.rotundiflora_; not "rotundifolia"!) and
P.hintoniorum (=_P.ehlersiae_; NB: Luhrs continues the orthographic
error of Speta and Fuchs "ehlersae", he or the reviewers should have
consulted the ICBN once more before publishing the manuscript). I
agree with these two decisions (cf. my synonym list apud Rick Walker
in http://www.hpl.hp.com/bot/cp_home).
The third one concerns _P.reticulata_ (originally proposed by
F.Fuchs, circulating for many years as a nomen nudum through several
collections, and finally validated by myself in 1991) and _P.kondoi_.
Based on non-authentical material collected by Hinton from TEX, Luhrs
decides that the two are conspecific. I agree that since the
description of both species, intermediate specimens have been
collected which make identification difficult. However, as no
unambiguous material (the Hinton collections are not such!) of
_P.kondoi_ has been collected since the original gathering (Luhrs
himself and several others have been unable to locate the locus
classicus and therefore decided that it must have been somewhere
within the range of _P.reticulata_; a rather dubious conclusion). As
long as no additional unambiguous material of _P.kondoi_ (preferrably
living plants) is studied, I am not entirely convinced that the two
species are not distinct.
Facit: Two (apparently really) new species, three (at least feasible)
synonymizations, some remaining questions, and a +/- complete list of
references (BTW my name is spelt Schlauer, not "Schauer"!).
Definitely a progress if compared to the paper on a comparable
subject by B.L.Turner. Perhaps Phytologia will become a reputable
journal (if they improve their reviewing practice) some fine day.
Kind regards
Jan