> Jan and Juerg have you seen this paper?
I have now seen this paper.
> In the abstract it states that the genus Pinguicula is
> represented in Morocco by two species P.lusitanica and
> P.fontiqueriana Roma, Peris & Stubing sp. nov.!!!!!!!!
I would maintain my version of the story, i.e. _Pinguicula_ is
represented in Morocco by the three spp., viz. _P.lusitanica_,
_P.vulgaris_, and _P.grandiflora_.
> The abstract also states that reports of P.vulgaris and
> P.corsica were based on misidentified specimens.
No. The specimens of _P.vulgaris_ were correctly identified as
_P.vulgaris_. Part of the specimens from the same place (Beni Seddat,
Mt. Lerz), assumedly those on the sheets which contained both,
_P.vulgaris_ and _P.grandiflora_, were mistaken for _P.corsica_ in
the past and now mistaken for a new species.
> A key to
> all 4 species is provided in the full paper together with
> line drawings of P.fontiqueriana.
The drawing is especially interesting because it clearly demonstrates
the error of the present authors. In Fig. g1-3, 3 corollas are shown
with the comment that these should display the variability of
corolla shape. But in fact, g1 and g2 represent +/- straightforward
corollas of _P.vulgaris_ (short spur, narrow lobes, small corolla),
g3, however is a disconinuously different, much larger corolla which
has a long spur and broad corolla lobes (at least the median lobe of
the lower lip is very large): This (g3) is a (rather weak)
representation of a (dried) specimen of _P.grandiflora_. I have
published a photograph of the whole plant (from the *holotype* of the
"new" species "P.fontiqueriana"!!) in my account on this problem in
Palmengarten 1994. There, the broad and large (and laterally
overlapping) corolla lobes are clearly visible. Unfortunately 1. this
paper of mine is completely ignored in that more recent one in
Ann.Bot.Fenn., 2. the corolla of the plant which IMHO belongs to
_P.grandiflora_ is not at all depicted accurately (cf. my photograph
mentioned above).
Consequently, R.P.& S. have described a taxon on the basis of mixed
specimens of _P.vulgaris_ and _P.grandiflora_. Their description is a
mixture of the characteristics of both species. The differentiating
table/key are not suitable for delimitation of the "new" taxon from
both species which do in fact constitute it. The whole paper is IMHO
scientifically superfluous and not well researched (apparently, not
even the specimen in G cited by Casper in his monograph has been
examined). It should not have passed the editing process in its
published form.
Kind regards
Jan