Date: Thu, 02 Oct 97 21:42 EDT From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3830$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: S. purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana
Hello Carl & List,
> I'm still trying figure out the rationale for venosa and purpurea
> distinction. I've seen purpurea purpurea that look like "venosa",
> fuzzy, large wavy hoods etc growing in multitutudes in Northern
> Ontario, and I've seen what most would call "ssp purpurea, growing
> in the carolinas.
I can't agree more, Carl. I don't understand the rational of the
purp vs. venosa naming at all. The more sites I visit and the more
plants I see the less distinction is seen between northern and southern
purps, including those from NJ which I had though different. While
I can recongize were the plants are from just by looking at them I don't
think subspecies statis is needed. It seems more like the coloration
that's different and shapes only somewhat reliably different.
(But I'm having some trouble understanding just what a subsp. is.)
> Other field types have also made the same observations.
> However, I would agree about the burkii, it is morphogically
> very different from other purps.
Yep, once in their territory, I don't see any purp's resembling
either reconized subspecies of _S.purpurea_. All the plants north
of them appear to slowly blend from one to the other, while S.p.v.b
is an abrupt change. I'd love to hear of examples contrary to this.
> more obvious plants that deserve status, ie all the green "albino" forms of
> Sarrs. S. purpurea f. heterophylla is formally recognized, where is S.
> rubra jonesii f. heterophylla, S. psittacina f. heterophylla, S.
> leucophylla f. heterophylla etc etc etc.
I don't think these plants should get any of such names, only the
all-green and poorly named _S.purpurea purpurea f. heterophylla_
has *naturally occurring* populations that can stand on their own.
The rest seem to pop up now and again, but can't stand on their own.
But if you do name them, I beg you to consider a better description
than "different leaved." Thinking of the way S.oreophila, S.flava
and S.leucophylla have different leaves; any of them would be more
aptly named S.heterophylla than a purp which has the same leaves all
the time. I don't have or see a problem with just calling them (all-
green) or (no-red). ex.: _S.luecophylla_ (all-green; Nowhereville, FL).
Dave E
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST