> OK, so you're saying that species which spread recently are more
> likely to not leave gaps behind in their ranges, while species which
> spread longer ago are more likely to leave gaps, such as the one found
> between D.burmanni and D.sessilifolia (Africa, that is).
Nope! Colombia and Ecuador (if Thelocalyx is an amphi-PACIFIC taxon!),
*not* Africa. However, Planchon mentions a tr. W AF (Sierra
Leone) specimen for _D.burmannii_ (BTW, with 2 "i") collected by
Afzelius. Nobody seems to have seen this specimen afterwards.
Strange, at least!
>, So where do Colombia and Ecuador come in this story?
V.s.
> Sorry Jan, but I don't participate in the Rafflesiaceae nor the
> Balanophoraceae listservs, so your examples were lost on me and most other
> here I'd imagine.
This is very regrettable but the examples are still extant.
> >(the) one author from AU (Adelaide, I think) I know of who has
> >published some well researched papers on _Drosera_ recently. They are
> >certainly worth reading.
>
> Which??
At least the one in J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. 3 (1981), dealing with
_D.peltata_.
> As to D.subtilis, summing it up, it is thus the only member of
> subgen.Ergaleium which is native to N.Australia. Apparently it has not
> been collected with tubers and is thus probably rare.
Yes.
> On the other hand D.tokaiensis has a full set of chromosomes from
> D.spatulata and another full set from D.rotundifolia and is completely
> reproductively independent from the parents, existing where one or both
> parents are not present. Furthermore, hybrids with either parent are not
> viable. It thus has an unique genome which is free from the ancestors and
> can follow its own evolutionary path. So where's the problem?
No problem at all. I know the parent species so I can deal with it
as a hybrid (fertile or not, this is completely immaterial). At the
same time you can say species (but you won't be able to force me to
do the same) and nobody will kill you for that. That's all, ICBN-
wise.
Kind regards
Jan