I have just received the September CPN yesterday and haven't been
able to put int down since! I've been crashing into people all day in the
busy streets and subways of Tokyo, while having my face burried in the CPN
trying to digest all the info in those 21 pages of Jan's article.
Congratulations Jan, it's really fantastic! It's so much info in such a
small space that it's a bit confusing and it did take me a while to grasp
the binary numbering system, I confess. Before anything else, thanks tons
for mentioning me at the end, I'm truly flattered to have my name
somewhere in the middle of such a great article as well some of my info
on the Brazilian species. You're not far maybe from having a Drosera
monograph ready, are you?!?!?!
Anyways, I have several comments and questions which I would like
to make and was going to send them exclusively to Jan, but then remembered
that a few Drosera-freaks like Jan and I might be lurking out there and
might enjoy all this. So for those of you not interested in the details of
Drosera taxonomy and phylogeny, just skip it all and sorry for the long
message below.
1.) First of all, I was wondering why you placed your subgen.
Thelocalyx first, and not subgen.Regiae? Wouldn't you say the latter is
probably most primitive? If I remember well, D.burmanni even has the same
basic number of x=10 as subgen.Drosera. I don't remember now (and
unfortunately I'm not in my lab and don't have my literature nearby) but
aren't palinological and anatomical (wood) characters in D.regia more
primitive than in other Drosera?
2.) Why was subgen.Lasiocephala placed before subgen.Drosera?
Wouldn't you say the former would be better placed between the latter and
subgen.Bryastrum, which also has subpeltate lamina (plus peltate?) and
according to rbc-L sequence is closer?
3.) Don't you think maybe subgen.Meristocaulis is closer to
subgen.Drosera than subgen.Lasiocephala? After all, D.meristocaulis does
have petiolate lamina and the single flowers on short scapes are found in
several species in subgen.Drosera, such as D.felix and D.uniflora. Also,
the 3 undivided styles in D.meristocaulis seem closer to subgen.Drosera
than the multifid ones present in subgen.Lasiocephala.
4.) Why create a whole subgen. for D.glanduligera? Wouldn't it be
better placed as a section under subgen.Thelocalyx? I don't remember
floral morphology, but don't the annual habit, unusual yellowish color,
similar leaf shape, and similarly-shaped outer tentacles with rectangular
tips and wide flat stalks (is there a name for the 'stalks' of the
glandular hairs?) suggest some relationship? Another thing about the
outer tentacles is that in D.glanduligera they may bend in less than a
second, faster than any other known Drosera, while in D.burmanni and
D.sessilifolia they may bend in a few seconds only, also faster than the
rest of the Drosera. Coincidence?
5.) As to the inclusion of D.brevifolia, D.uniflora, + D.trinervia
in sect.Ptycnostygma, you'd already mentioned this to me in the beginning
of the year and I still find it a bit hard to swallow. D.uniflora and
D.trinervia both look a bit odd in this group, but I don't know enough on
them to argue with you. D.brevifolia is a delicate annual which I find
hard to be closely related to something as large and magnificent as
D.cistiflora and D.pauciflora. And as I've mentioned before, it is VERY
similar to type D.montana in the juvenile stage. The fact that type
D.montana and several other Brazilian Drosera have been observed to go
dormant as roots during the dry season may show a link between sections
Oosperma and Ptycnostygma, maybe indicating that they could be united into
a single section. A bit confusing at the moment.
6.) What do you mean by calling D.capillaris a "collective
species"? Is it as complicated a taxa as D.spatulata, D.montana, and
D.leucoblasta? Where does D.tenella fit in this? It's in your article but
I could not find it as valid on your CP list on the web.
7.) The difference in leaf length you point out between
D.sessilifolia and D.burmanni I believe is nonexistent. Apparently the
main differences are the leaf shape (which you mentioned), flower color
(pink and white, respectively), and the scapes (erect and ascending,
respectively).
8.) What did you mean by putting D.cistiflora twice, once followed
by "s.l." and once by "s.str."? The same was done for D.capillaris,
D.montana, and maybe others I haven't seen yet.
9.) I'm glad to see I convinced you as to placing D.hirtella apart
from D.montana and validating D.hirtella var.lutescens. Just wanted to say
that var.hirtella has glandular hairs on the upper 1/3 of the scape plus
inflorescence.
10.) As to D.chrysolepis leaf shape, I'd say it's more lanceolate
than spathulate.
11.) As to D.villosa scapes, only those of the ex-D.ascendens are
glabrous (and even then only in the lowermost parts). Type D.villosa have
glandular + simple hairs thickly covering the scapes and D.ascendens can
be found with many variations of hair distribution on the scapes.
12.) I liked very much your use of both subsp. + var., for
allopatric and sympatric species. I was just wondering how I should refer
to a few taxa now. For example the ex-D.microscapa. Can we just call it
D.occidentalis var.microscapa or does it have to be D.occ.subsp.occid.
var.microscapa?
13.) As to the true subsp.omissa, couldn't the 'circular stigma'
be a misidentification at the time, analysing herbarium specimens later
where the stigma were maybe not so visible? Maybe they are like in
Lowrie's book. What about the rest of the morphology, isn't it closer
between these two plants than it is between the other varieties
(var.nitidula, var.allantostigma, and var.leucostigma). And is the
subsp.omissa you mention allopatric, to be placed as a subsp.?
14.) What do you mean by synanthropous?
15.) What do you mean by sheating leaf bases?
16.) Isn't auriculata sympatric with peltata, and thus shouldn't
it be a variety?
17.) I took a quick look at Allen's publications in the lab this
morning and it does seem that you are right in placing subsp.eremae under
D.stricticaulis and not D.macrantha. According to his drawings it is quite
clear actually. I wonder what made him put it under D.macrantha? Anyways,
most of the pygmies you put as subsp. seem to be correct too, though a few
are maybe not that clear.
18.) Why did you decide to create sect.Osperma based only on seed
morphology, especially if you believe both groups are not monophyletic. In
D.villosa the seeds are somewhat fusiform, but in the D.villosa var.
graomogolensis which has not been published yet they are ovoid. Wouldn't
this show that seed shape can not be used for such a deep separation?
I better stop here before I think of any more questions and
comments! If I do, I'll put them in later. Hope this helps you in some
way and congratulations for this immense task once again!!
Best Wishes,
Fernando Rivadavia
Tokyo, Japan