Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:52:35 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2786$foo@default> Subject: Re: Pinguicula 'Hoz de Beteta' and Other Iberian Pings
Dear Loyd,
> What is the current general opinion on the taxonomic status
> of the Pinguicula from Hoz de Betata (Serrania de Cuenca,
> Spain)?
There is no current *general* opinion but rather various different
opinions.
> 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.
Zamora & al. did obviously not study these plants (from La Hoz de
Bet*e*ta). They belong to the _P. longifolia_ complex (comprising the
several subspp. of _P. longifolia_, _P. mundi_ and _P.
vallisneriifolia_; these should perhaps better be regarded as
subspp. of a single collective species with a -?postglacially
fragmented- disjunct W Mediterranean range). The most closely related
taxon is _P. longifolia subsp. dertosensis_ (or P. submediterranea,
if you like).
> 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.
Rather certainly not. _P. l. dertosensis_ seems to be closer both
geographically and taxonomically.
> 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?
I am not very familiar with the southern plants (incl. the type of
P. submediterranea) but I fear Zamora & al. have lumped several forms
of _P. vallisneriifolia_ (apparently all forms with short leaves with
the exception of _P. mundi_) with _P. l. dertosensis_ to call the
resulting amalgamate P. submediterranea, which I would not second. As
they have included the type of _P. l. d._ in their P. s. (only by
geographical inference but clearly within the limits of the
circumscription of their "new" taxon), their name becomes a taxonomic
synonym of the earlier name (if treated as a subsp.).
> 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
Certainly. However, _P. longifolia subsp. longifolia_ is atypical of
the complex as it probably has "suffered" introgression by _P.
grandiflora_ (like no other taxon in the complex). They should rather
have investigated the plants from the French Massif Central (_subsp.
cussensis_), the Maritime Alps (_subsp. reichenbachiana_), the
Italian Alpi Apuane (_subsp. reichenbachiana_?), and the Abruzzo Mts.
(treated under various names like P. fiorii or P. l. reichenbachiana).
> 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.
Vide supra! Without knowledge of the whole complex through its whole
range, describing new *species* which clearly fall within the limits
of the complex makes little sense. Of course the formal rank at
which the taxa are finally named is somewhat subject to opinion.
But without discussion of *all* pertinent material (and literature!),
these taxa are not well-defined taxonomically. The scopes of Zamora &
al. / Tammaro & Pace are definitely too limited. They did obviously
not read (or at least not understand) the very careful and profound
work by Casper. And this is in fact a really inexcusable error.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:06 PST