Re: Another new Pinguicula?

Juerg Steiger (steiger@iae.unibe.ch)
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:27:08 +0100

I completely agree with Jan: The description of the 'new species' Ping.
fontiqueriana (derived from the name of the botanist Font i Quer) is so
much incompetent that I have serious doubts about its validity. The text as
well as the line drawings display a dubious level of careful observation.
The shape of the corolla lobes (fig. g1-g3), the the inaccurate position of
the calyx relative to the flower (a, b), the (not Pinguicula-like) fine
branching of the roots (a) and the inaccurate surface pattern of the seeds
are probably less due to imperfect drawing skills but rather to
insufficient observation skills.
In fig. a) the 3 depicted flowers have a length of 22.5, 23.7 and 27.5 mm,
the flower in fig. b) 13.8 mm and the 3 flowers in fig. g) are 22.7, 19.1
and 28.6 mm. As assumed by Jan Schlauer this latter one, although very
poorly depicted, might be a P. grandiflora flower. The smaller flower
measures would be compatible with P. vulgaris, the two largest flowers with
small P. grandiflora (usually 25-35 mm long). The spur width of P. vulgaris
(table 1) as 11.3 mm is a printing error and should read 1.3 mm.

In 1994 Jan Schlauer (hi Jan!) has detected, photographed and published a
specimen of the Barcelona herbarium, labeled as from Marocco (Er Rif
mountains, Beni Seddat, Aguersif), collected by Font-Quer, together with P.
vulgaris, in 1929. This one specimen shows typical characteristics of P.
grandiflora, but Jan himself mentions that a parallel sheet of the
Barcelona sheet, stored in Geneva, shows only P. vulgaris. Personally I
tend to doubt if the geographical origin of the Maroccan P. grandiflora
specimen is correctly labeled (in many herbaria unintentional mislabelings
are not rare at all). BUT if Jan is right and P. grandiflora really occurs
in Marocco (how did it get there?), fig. g3 might indeed also be a flower
of P. grandiflora, meaning that the authors R.P&S mixed up two rather
different species. The hairs of the flower throat pubescence (fig.c) are
practically identical with those of P. vulgaris (see S.J. Casper, Ping.
Monograph p.19, fig. 4 nr. 11).

P. vulgaris is a morphologically rather variable species with wide
ecological tolerance. I can't see significant differences between P.
vulgaris and the ' Maroccan endemism P. fontiqueriana'. Until I have seen a
better description, or living material, of this 'new species', I don't
believe it to be a distinct taxon.

Juerg

___________________________________________________
Juerg Steiger, Institut fuer Aus-, Weiter- und Fortbildung IAWF
University of Bern, Inselspital 37a, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
Office: +41 31 632 9887 Fax: +41 31 632 9871