Re: Chromosome numbers & c.

Fernando Rivadavia (ss69615@ecc-xs09.hongo.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:01:32 +0900 (JST)

Jan,

>Yes. And remember what you have written some time ago (about Allen
>Lowrie's new spp.):
>
>> D.caduca is probably the strangest of these new species since only
>> the young leaves have traps. The older leaves are produced later in
>> the season are very long like grass blades and without traps.
>
>Caducous laminae?! This mode of detachment (abscision, i.e. if
>laminae are not simply absent by reduction in D.caduca - name?) is (at
>least to me) reminiscent of the process observable (also "later in
>the season") in Bryastrum when the gemmae (transformed laminae) are
>dispersed.

Wow! I hadn't made the connection, but truly amazing and possible!
Anyways, I was just studying some past work by Kondo on chromosomes and
have some more comments and questions.
First of all, apparently all Drosera studied to date had no clear
centromeres, and not only Lamprolepis and Lasiosechapla. So no reason to
consider them closer because of this. in fact, I remembered that even with
my Brazilian Drosera there were no clear centromeres either. BUT, one
thing which Lamprolepis and Lasiocephala did have in common were large
chromosomes, when compared to Ergaleium, Prolifera, Arachnopus,
Thelocalys, and maybe others, I can't remember.
One of the things which had been nagging me recently in our
discussions was that I remembered Allen Lowrie telling me about his trips
to N.Australia and about D.banksii. Yet I remembered him talking about
another species similar to this one, but couldn't remember the name. Now I
just found it in Kondo's stuff: D.subtilis. I noticed that you do have it
on past nomenclatural synopsis of yours, but found it strange that it was
not in your recent list in CPN. Why is this?
Another question is on D.spatulata Labill.subsp.tokaiensis Komiya
& Shibata. Why do you have it on your nomenclatural synopsis as simply
D.spatulata X D rotundifolia? It has a full set of chromossomes
from D.rotundifolia as well as from a tetraploid spatulata. Shouldn't it
be considered a good taxa just like D.anglica?

All the Best,

Fernando Rivadavia
Tokyo, Japan