Re: P.agnata?

From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Mon Feb 10 1997 - 08:03:46 PST


Date:          Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:03:46 
From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg534$foo@default>
Subject:       Re: P.agnata?

Dear Dave,

> I have a clone of P.agnata from CA Carnivores and a clone of
> that plant which may be part of P.agnata (I can't remember the
> spelling but it started with an "a").

Yes, it starts with an "a", like "gigantea". ;-)

> Anyway, P.agnata has flat leaves
> or at least the edges are not curled upward, unlike most Ping
> leaves.

Maybe *your* clone behaves like described but what about the taxon as
a whole? Remember that _P. agnata_ is almost as widespread as and
perhaps more variable than _P. moranensis_ s.l..

> The latter plant differs in that there is a curl at the leaf edge
> and both sides of the leaves have traps. While they
> does look similar at first glance, these two striking differences
> indicate they are not the same species.

Not at all. 1. The curve of _P. gigantea_ is much wider than in all
other usually incurved species. 2. The abaxial glands are by no means
unique to _P. gigantea_. 3. The "first glance" is particularly
striking when the flowers are compared, and flower morphology is
quite important in _Pinguicula_ classification. Luhrs has not
established a single floral difference between the two species.

> Both plants are growing
> fast, but the "a" plant is growing faster. Could it be a hybrid
> involving P.agnata or has this been ruled out?

This has not been ruled out but what would you suggest as the second
parent?

> BTW, what is P.acension? I didn't see this on your list but
> it is growing erect... (it looks a bit like P.agnata too)

It is a bogus name.

Kind regards
Jan



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:59 PST