Date: 30 Jul 1997 12:41:38 +0100 From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2864$foo@default> Subject: More on Iberian Pinguicula
Dear Jan,
thank you for your comments on the Hoz de Beteta Pinguicula
and the paper by Zamora et al.
>There is no current *general* opinion but rather various
>different opinions.
Thank you for yours.
>Zamora & al. did obviously not study these plants (from La
>Hoz de Bet*e*ta).
Ok this is what I had concluded from their paper.
> 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).
Or as Zamora and Co like!
From what I have seen of habitat photographs and the small
plants I have in cultivation they appear to be some form of
'longifolia' i.e. the summer foliage is somewhat longer than
the first spring foliage. What I was confused about (and
still am to a degree) is the relationship of these plants to
the other Iberian 'species'. The treatment of these plants
as a collective species would appear to be one way
of treating the problem.
>> 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.
O.k. but remember that my comments above relate to Zamora et
als paper together with the comments in the IPSG newsletter.
The problem I still have with this is that the Hoz de Beteta
plants appear to have longer semi-erect summer foliage (as
P.mundi) whereas the P.submediterranea description is for
a plant with leaves close to the soil and horizontal with
summer leaves similar to spring leaves(i.e. not
very 'longifolia' like).
The other aspect that I am not clear about is what Zamora
and co are refering to as stolons in their description of
P.mundi? Am I correct in assuming they refer to the
development of stolons which push the gemmae away from the
mother plant as with P.vallisnerifolia? As such stolons were
not mentioned for P.submediterranea (also I assume the same
is true for P.l.dertosensis), presumably the gemmae do
not form on such structures.
>> 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
Hence their description of summer leaves similar to spring
leaves which is the main problem I have relating Hoz de
Betetas Pinguicula with their P.submediterranea!
>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.).
>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
This is something I hadn't considered so the differences
noticed by zamora and co could be due to this
introgression rather than actual differences with
P.longifolia.
>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).
Then we start to 'muddy the water' further and move into
more debate with Tammaro and Pace with P.fiorii or
P.l.reichenbachiana if you prefer.
>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.
So rather than naming 'new species' someones efforts should
be directed towards reviewing the whole complex.
>Of course the formal rank at which the taxa are finally
>named is somewhat subject to opinion.
Which makes things all the more confusing for the hobbyists
if the taxonnomists cannot agree. My main concern is that
given the 'similarity' of these plants there will probably
be enormous confusion when the inevitable labelling accident
occurs and incorrect IDed plants are circulated.
>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.
After 30 years Caspers work is still highly thought of - but
surely some review is now required to sort out these errors.
Kindest regards
Loyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:06 PST