>> To me this is rather dubious, with 2 possible interpretations.
>> Maybe the common ancestor of Lasiocephala had 3 undivided styles,
>
>I am rather convinced of that. At least at the base the styles were
>entire. Otherwise, it would be difficult to imagine how Bryastrum
>(always entire styles) should have developed. Reversals could be
>an explanation, but I don't "like" them in theoretical reasoning.
I think we would all prefer to believe none ever happened!
>> Or maybe
>> the ancestor had basal bifurcations, as in Subgen.Drosera, which moved
>> upwards along the styles and branched a few more times.
>
>Have you considered Coelophylla (styles divided above centre) as a
>possibility?
I'd like to think that these fast-moving, rectangular-tipped outer
tentacles in Thelocalyx and Coelophylla are something which would be
conserved as an advantage for future lineages, but it would be very hard
to explain this characteristics being present in "primitive groups",
unless they represent a lineage of their own. If we do accept this
possibility though, we would have to believe that reduction from 5 to 3
styles happened at least twice in Drosera: once from Thelocalyx to
Coelophylla and once from an ancestor of Thelocalyx (which supposedly
didn't have the fast-moving tentacles) to the rest of the Drosera.
I guess at least one proof that large, fast-moving tentacles are
not essentially an advantage is clearly shown in Erythrorhiza, a
supposedly "advanced group" where the tentacles are tiny, with practically
no movement of the lamina itself, and even rare presence of glandless
leaves. Who knows, the fast-moving tentacles in Thelocalyx and Coelophylla
could be reminiscent of characteristics which eventually led to Dionaea
and Aldrovanda.
>> Just because Thelocalyx is an ancient group doesn't mean that the
>> disjunction between both species itself is old.
>
>Chorological reasoning indicates such, however. The W half of S AM
>(especially Colombia and Ecuador) is excepted; rather unusual for a
>recently formed area (which should be more continuous).
Explain better please, I didn't understand this part.
>The species
>is/are widely distributed in both parts of the total (tropical) area,
>not indicating a recent spread from a specific point of origin in one
>partial area.
Just like we prefer to assume that no reversals occured, I'd say
it's better to play safe and say that if two "ancient" species were
separated for such a long time, they would be bound to be very different
in the end, due to unevitable accumulations of mutations. And considering
how uniform these 2 species are in their respective ranges (well,
D.burmanni not as much maybe), I would suggest a recent spread, such as
that which occured with D.anglica.
>> I'm just being a perfectionist like you Jan!
>
>It is nice to see that my "education" was not entirely fruitless :)
And how! I can't believe how much I've learned in these past 2
weeks from our discussions, not to mention all along these several years
since we began corresponding. I hope others here are enjoying it at least
half as much as myself and maybe even learning something too. THANKS!
>> >It is not the number but rather the geographic pattern. The
>> >geographic distribution pattern of _D.peltata subsp.auriculata_
>> >suggests allopatric speciation (in the E AU part of the range of
>> >_D.peltata_).
>>
>> You can only really affirm this because D.peltata happens to have
>> a very extensive range, but you can't say whether it and D.auriculata
>> originated in W. or E.Australia.
>
>If it originated in the W, some remnant should be found there.
Not necessarily.
>> There
>> is actually someone at the moment in SE Aust. who believes that there are
>> a few species present in this peltata-complex (which you would probably
>> call subsp.) and is working on publishing them.
>
>Really? Exciting! I hope this "someone" will consider the problem on
>a world wide scale, not limited to SE AU.
Sorry Jan, but that's your job!! 8-)
>Barry Conn has discussed that in great detail, and I think he is
>right.
Sorry again, but who's Barry Conn?
>> About that D.insolita, I imagine there are few colections of it,
>
>I know of exactly one (1).
Great! Maybe we should ask if any of the members here live in
Zaire by any chance, to collect some plants for us???
>> And if the differences are so few, why did you leave it as a
>> separate species instead of putting it as a subsp. of D.peltata?
>
>This would be a rather grave recombination based on a single
>record. I simply did not dare to do it now. Further research will
>show...
Yes I agree. As you said before, don't change things until you
believe they are absolutely necessary.
Best Wishes,
Fernando Rivadavia
Tokyo, Japan