Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:04:00 -0400 From: "Mellard, David" <dam7@cdc.gov> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3826$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. p. v. m.
My orginal question:
> Is it that it's also smaller than venosa and burkii?
Jan's resposne:
>>A picture on p. 61 of the cited paper shows two pitchers of the new
>>var. and one each of the others. In both var. _montana_
>>specimens, the ventricose part is shorter than in the other pitchers,
>>the hood being of apparently equal dimension but with the incurved
>>distal margins mentioned before.
>>I do not know if the two pitchers are representative (considering the
>>*length* of the ventricose part) for all populations of the new var.,
>>so I cannot judge if the pitchers are *always* shorter than in the
>>other vars. If this was the case, the plants should be smaller,
>>indeed. This difference is not (as far as I could notice that upon
>>brief inspection) mentioned anywhere in the article, however. So this
>>may be variable.
I forgot to mention that the Atlanta Botanical Gardens have had them on
display for the past two or three years, if not longer, and that the
ones on display are smaller. However, I do not know if their small size
is because of age or nutrition or genetics, hence my question. Thanks
for your response and if I see Ron I'll ask
David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST