>> (...): 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?
>
>If you mean the key by "your recent list in CPN", _N.subtilis_ *is*
>there on p.84 (under 1001011.).
Wait a second, I'm confused here! I thought this plant was native
to N.Australia and that it was a Lasiocephala! Don't ask me where I got
this from, I wouldn't remember myself, but are any of these 2 true, or
were they in the past?
>> 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?
>
>I don't think so. D.* tokaiensis obviously does not have an
>independent existence outside the ranges of both parents. It should
>be considered a hybrid (or hybridogenic species of recent origin)
>like D.* obovata, and rather different from _D.anglica_ (which is at
>least independent from the "other" parent, i.e. non-rotundifolia).
It doesn't have an independent existence outside the parent's
ranges, but it certainly DOES HAVE an independent existence. Whether it is
or isn't of recent origin, shouldn't disclassify a plant as a good taxon,
it being hybridongenic or not.
All the Best,
Fernando Rivadavia
Tokyo, Japan