Date: 21 Jul 1997 12:36:47 +0100 From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2719$foo@default> Subject: Pinguicula 'Hoz de Betatas' and Other Iberian Pings
Dear all,
but particularly those of you with a keen interest in
Pinguicula (esp. Jan and Jurg) -
What is the current general opinion on the taxonomic status
of the Pinguicula from Hoz de Betata (Serrania de Cuenca,
Spain)? Although Casper originally reported these plants to
be P.vallisnerifolia, the opinions that I have heard from
some individuals suggest it to be a form of P.longifolia. In
the last IPSG newsletter (No 8) an editorial note states
that 'P.Hoz de Betata has been described as
P.submediterranea' though I suspect that this statement was
speculation on Stan Lampards part.
In Zamora et als paper (Two new species of carnivorous
genus Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae) from Mediterranean
habitats. Pl. Syst. Evol. 200: 41-60 (1996)), I can find no
mention of Hoz de Betatas or Serrania de Cuenca in relation
to their proposed P.submediterranea. Superficially the Hoz
de Betata plants appear to be closer to the other proposed
species P.mundi also.
So all comments on P.'Hoz de Betatas' gratefully received!
The next bit is mainly directed to Jan (S).
Jan - I realise that you dispute Zamora and co's
P.submediterranea as a result of your 1994 revision
of P.grandiflora var dertosensis, elevating it to the status
of P.longifolia ssp dertosensis. Clearly both you and Zamora
and co have considered the plants from Pto Tortosa and Pto
Beceite, however Zamora has included populations from Sierra
Segura, Sierra Cazorla and Sierra Tejeda in their study
of P.submediterranea. Are you familiar with these
populations and do you consider these to fall under
your coverage of P.l.ssp dertosensis? Zamora and co do
appear to have found some differences between
P.submediterranea and P.longifolia - for example seed
morphology and chromosome number but did not compare these
two 'species' with the same rigor they applied to other
Iberian Pinguicula such as P.vallisnerifolia. However in
their opening paragraphs they state their comparison was
between the two new species and cogeners of the same
geographic area. I interpret from this that given the
authors familiarity with P.longifolia, they did not consider
this species as occurring within the geographic area of
interest. This is perhaps the principle weakness of paper
together with their failure to consider your P.l.dertosensis
paper. Despite these weaknesses, Zamora and co have studied
P.longifolia more than most given some of their previous
publications on prey capture studies. Given their
familiarity with that species these authors must feel they
have sufficient justification for considering these various
populations as being distinct from P.longifolia. Looking
forward to some debate on this subject.
Kindest regards
Loyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:06 PST