Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:51:42 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1131$foo@default> Subject: _Drosera filiformis_ complex
Dear Dave,
> Yes, but while it is formally named as _D.filiformis subsp.
> filiformis var. tracyi_, the reality of it is that tracyi *is* a
> subspecies as it looks different *and* can not grow where D.
> filiformis can, since it is nowhere near as hardy. Seems to be
> an even greater difference between these two Drosera than between
> the two subspecies of S.purpurea.
But in _Sarracenia purpurea_ a rather clear geographic distinction
exists. Although there is no real disjunction in the latter, we have
a +/- homogeneous northern population and a (somewhat less
homogeneous) southern population. An eastern/western separation seems
to exist between the varieties (so far not subspp.!) of _Drosera
filiformis_ with some overlap in Florida and Georgia. But the
distinction seems to be ecological rather than geographic. Therefore,
their staus does probably not need to be changed.
> I beleive the reasonning behind
> not giving the plant the names they ought have (...)
But they are given the names they ought have.
> that most everyone is *supposed to know* they are really
> subspecies.
Who *knows* that? Any evidence?
> (So don't formally name the subsp. =--> Goof Troop logic here,
> in my opinion)
This is *your* chance! Propose the new combination and you will once
overcome Goof Troop logic. But please check carefully if a new
combination is *really* necessary (doubts noted above) before you
publish anything.
> BTW, if there has been no published subspecies, why are they
> not called _D. filiformis_ and _D. filiformis var. tracyi_?
They *are* called like that. I do not understand this question.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:00 PST