Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:16:00 -0400 From: "Mellard, David" <dam7@cdc.gov> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3834$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana
Carl Mazur said,
>I'm still trying figure out the rationale for venosa and purpurea
distinction.
Me, too, but figured it was just my inexperience. I'm sure that's still
part of it. I like the Appalachian form simply because it has survived
in a rather unusual place, a seepage bog at the base of a mountain.
It's as if it was part of some long forgotten low-country bog that we
now find in the coastal southeastern US, but now millennia have past and
it's found itself having to adapt to a new niche: mountains. It says,
"I'm a tough little creature. Watch out!"
>... 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.
Maybe we can get Jan to describe them somewhere as such <gr>
>While I'm on this thought, how about all the alatas, people are
splitting
>hairs on purps when alata is more variable than any other sarr!, and
yet,
>no ssp, no var's, no formas or anthing of the like.
I found a field of what I think are alatas in Mississippi. Some had
dark, red veined hoods while others had light green hoods with varying
degrees of white fenestration. I was trying to decide if I was looking
at normal variation in alatas or if I just couldn't tell the difference
between alata and rubra, or if I was looking at an alata x leucophylla
hybrid. There were no other leucophylla around except for one plant but
it looked more like a miniature leucophylla. Hoods from other plants
with fenestration had varying amounts of the fenestration.
>Maybe I should write a paper ;-)
Please do.
David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST