It was not my intention to hurt anyone.
> But what happens if I procrastinate with a plant I think is
> new, and in the meantime the area where they were found is covered
> by concrete, which is happening to Drosera cistiflora "purple
> flowering form" these past two years.
Taxonomy (and *not* conservation!) drives nomenclature.
> Take it to a recognized
> Botanical Institute who should be able to positively identify it.
> Gunter and I very excitedly did take it to Kirstenbosch Botanical
> Gardens, they have their hands full trying to prevent the
> extinction of hundreds of rarer plants, and we never heard what the
> outcome was of our cistiflora.
Then you obviously relied on the wrong institute (but cf. also the
specific problems in _D.cistiflora_, one of the more variable species
in the genus).
You have to protect the location, not a specific taxon. I know that
the weird concept of species conservation still keeps some people
busy. But it will not be of any help to have valid names for the
extinct taxa; you must stop the bulldozers!
> I found Drosera 'Hermanus high up' a few weeks/months after
> Drosera 'Highland red' was collected in Hermanus and sent to Adrian
> Slack, who sold the plant from his nursery, Marston Exotics. It was
> only a few years later that Dr. Martin Cheek of Kew Gardens
> communicated with me, indicating he was in the process of
> officially naming the plant after Adrian Slack, requesting material
> I had collected, and the possibility of trying to identify it's
> range, by then many CP enthusiasts Worldwide had plants I had
> collected, hopefully by now, they all know it's correct name is
> D.slackii.
Yes, although it could have been named "D.debbertii": There is a
specimen under this name in PRE, seen by Obermeyer-Mauve, who -
rather inexcusably - confused it with _D.aliciae_, and therefore
refused to describe it as a new species! Dr. Martin Cheek of K
(Hi, Martin!) did not know anything about this PRE-specimen & story
even *after* he had described _D.slackii_.
> I have reason to believe someone has called D.sp magaliesburg,
> D.nidiformis, am I right???
The "someone" who described D.nidiformis (which is IMHO a synonym of
_D.dielsiana_) was Paul Debbert of the Botanischer Garten zu
Muenchen, Germany. In his protologue, he wrote only "Natal" as the
provenience of the original material. As Magaliesburg (Transvaal)
seems to be another locality, I would at least doubt the identity of
the two. Moreover, as you compare the Transvaal plant with
_D.collinsiae_, I would assume your Magaliesburg plant to be not
even closely related to D.nidiformis (or _D.dielsiana_).
> There is a right and a wrong way of naming plants, but can't
> we, the non-biologist, when finding something we believe is new,
> have some way to name and distribute the plants we enjoy so, until
> some fundi comes along and names it properly.
Send the plant to a botanist ("fundi") who will be able to name it
properly.
> > How did it differ?
> My collinsae has +-8 leaves, +-6cm long, the 'other' plant had
> a maximum of 4 leaves which were 8-10 cm long and it's flower stalk
> was taller. It does not sound like much now, but they looked like
> two different plants to me. I realize chromosome counting is
> required, flower parts closely examined etc. but where!!!
Here.
The above is the English version of the (unpublished) protologue that
could have read:
"_D.collinsiae_ affinis sed foliis paucioribus (ca. 4 vs. ca. 8 in
_D.collinsiae_) et longioribus (8-10 cm vs. ca. 6 cm), scapis
altioribus differt. Chromosomata ignota. Floribus adhuc non
examinatis." (well, you should probably elaborate on the last details
instead of only mentioning that you have not examined them).
NB: in this region of _Drosera_ chromosome numbers are of rather
limited taxonomic value. They tend to be 2n=20 or simple multiples
thereof. The above is not really a complete or particularly beautiful
protologue. But many of the validating texts composed by some
colleagues (names on private email only ;-)) are not much better.
If you have plants, you are able to prepare a herbarium specimen.
You seem to know people at Kirstenbosch. Give them your specimen,
send the protologue to a botanical journal (together with a type
specimen reference), have it published properly, and you can use the
name without trouble. So where's the problem?
OK, I have a problem for you, at least. I think there are specimens
of _D.collinsiae_ which are in fact as robust as the "new taxon" just
described, so I fear the "new" taxon would not survive unchallenged
for a very long time. Probably the botanical journal (if it is not
"Phytologia";-)) will not accept your manuscript unless you present
convincing evidence for the distinctness (analyses of variability
etc.) of your "new taxon".
Moreover, the type specimen of D.curvipes (=_D.madagascariensis_) was
collected at "Magaliesberg, Transvaal", so there is some possibility
of an affinity with this latter species as well. NB: The type of
_D.burkeana_ (the other supposed parent species of
_D.collinsiae_?=?_D.burkeana * madagascariensis_) was also collected
at "Magaliesberg"!!
Perhaps what you call "D.collinsiae" is in fact only a form of
_D.burkeana_, while the "new" Magaliesburg plant is the true
_D.collinsiae_? Dr. Martin Cheek at K could check that as both
mentioned type specimens are deposited at his institution. You could
check the same by comparing your plants with the descriptions/
illustrations in Obermeyer's monograph (1970) in Fl.S.Af. (also on
the cp web page).
> > >, so informed him that I thought it was new. HELP!!!!. I was
> > dying to distribute it to my friends at the time, I am just a
> > printer fascinated by CP. and D.sp Magaliesberg sounded
> > good!!!!!.
> >
> > It sounds terrible.
> What do you suggest would have been better.
Perhaps _D.collinsiae_ (?, v.s.).
> > >What about the others, nothing like what Allen Lowrie is finding
> >
> > Very good! ;-)
> Allen and others have sent me many plants/seed with names like
> D.sp Auyan Tepui, spec nova 8 Borneo, sp El Caballo Blanco, sp red
> Dwarf, sp Golden leaf, there are many more.
>
> > aliciae, esterhuizenae, slackii yes, "D.sp floating" (shudder!)
> > no.
> Is it any worse than 'golden leaf' for D.bulbosa
I am not able to choose the worst of these names. Terrible is
terrible.
> D.cistiflora var. zeherii
"zeyheri" (with "y" and only one "i")
> will always be D.cistiflora var. zeherii
"zeyheri" (v.s.)
> in my book, the fundis may say the flowers are the same as
> the normal cistiflora, but the plants look like a comparison of
> capensis and aliciae to me, both have pink flowers.
This is another cup of tea. Here taxonomic *opinion* is involved
(there are some "fundis" who will not accept "zeyheri" at any rank)
but the name is at least a published one. So we +/- know what we are
talking about.
However, there is another bunch of (nomenclatural, i.e. irrespective
of opinions) problems with the name you use:
1. The combination D.cistiflora var. zeyheri was never established
properly (just the name published in a plant list; no effective
publication, no basionym citation).
2. The (obvious but not explicit) basionym "D.zeyheri" (based on
the type of the earlier name D.pauciflora var. minor, and thus
superfluous at varietal rank!!!) is a nomen ambiguum, i.e. it
comprises elements from two different taxa, some of the material
belongs to _D.cistiflora_ (obviously the part you wish to distinguish
from this species at varietal rank), the rest belongs to
_D.pauciflora_.
In order to prevent confusion, "D.cistiflora var. zeyheri" should not
be used. A not superfluous (but still ambiguous) name would be
"D.cistiflora var.minor (Banks ex DC.) E.Green" if you established
the combination validly. Anyway, you should examine the type specimen
and clarify the name if you want to use it at all.
On the other hand, there is no problem with splitting (only that I
will not necessarily follow the *opinions* of all splitters in my
list; but this is again my *opinion*) as long as it does not result
in bogus names.
If you have something "new" you cannot name correctly (for whichever
reason), give it to a botanist rather than a horticulturist to name
it. Once the thing is identified (mostly there will not even be a
necessity to create new names), you can trade it under the correct
name. Until that date, only the name which can be applied to the
plant (e.g. _Drosera spec._) without doubt can be used. If you have
several spp. without proper names, something must have gone wrong
(either you can distinguish between them => then they can be
described scientifically, or you can't => then they are simply not
distinct). Once again, there is no nomenclature "in between".
Kind regards
Jan