Re: Roridulaceae

SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:09:24

Dear Sir Kevin,

> > The situation is very similar in _Roridula_ but here the opposite is
> > claimed, based on the single observation by F.E.Lloyd that the secretion
> > of this plant is resinous and not mucilaginous
>
> Herr Doktor
> I hate to contradict you I'm most always wrong, butt.....
(...)
> Lloyd to my eyes, is only reaffirming in 1934 what Marloth was
> saying between 1903 and 1912. Obermeyer appears to have checked up on
> Marloth's work in 1969 and in 1970 "Flora of Southern Africa Vol. 13"
> does not offer any major contradiction. Ref. Page #202.

OK. The facts Lloyd mentions may not all be based on his own
observations, but IMHO the more important point is that our
(explicitly including my own) present "knowledge" is based on
observations some of which were made as early as 1903 and not tested
since. To "reaffirm" (in 1942) or not to "offer any major
contradiction" (in 1970) without own and further investigation is
simply insufficient by my standards. I do not principally doubt
Marloth's results but in the meanwhile it has become possible to
assay enzyme activities much more precisely than in 1903 or 1912.

I do not state that _Roridula_ *is* carnivorous or that _Ibicella_
*is not* carnivorous, I am just not satisfied with the quality of
the evidence I know. Perhaps, however, anyone has seen (or even
performed) some more recent investigations on these subjects. Any
information would be accepted most gratefully. TNX.

Kind regards
Jan