Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:49:52 EDT From: PTemple001@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1997$foo@default> Subject: More on Pings in Ireland/Spain
Loyd
Jan's answer was roughly what I expected him to say (thank goodness!) although
I wasn't actually aware of the photo being the holotype! Meanwhile, your re-
emphasis of the pure white nature of the flower and even its geographical
isolation does not inspire me to support its naming as a form, variety or
other. This is exactly what I described for moranensis, whereby a different
colour or flower shape that happened to be geographically isolated became a
new "species", "subspecies" or other taxon without significant justification,
as later demonstrated by revision of all the taxa to a single species (one
that is very variable and therefore best considered a complex). I still
expect a future revision to reduce Irish grandifloras (P.grandiflora f.
chionopetra ) to being all of the same taxon ((P. grandiflora) though I'll be
happy to use whatever name is properly published.
Incidentally, with no apologies to taxonomists, some taxonomists are no
different to some plant collection holders; they thrive on "new" plant names.
We all know plant collection holders who thrill at the ability to add another
plant name to their list so that they can claim to have 163 different plants
instead of the unremakable 162 they had yesterday. Some taxonomists forget
their training and name plants based on little or no evidence of any
difference with previously published plants. Thus, it should be easy to find
plant references where forms or varieties exist as names given tens of years
ago but which might easily have just been considered variation within the
species. I keep references to all names used only so that I can trace back my
specimens to the supplier or source under the supplied or assumed name. (I
have no interest in how many "different" plants I have as I am not in a race
with anyone - which explains why i can never answer the question "how many do
you have?".) If some taxonomists (empasis on some) felt less pressurised to
publish then we would probably see a lot fewer varieties and forms listed!!!
(Oh I do hope this begins a juicy argument with some taxonomists. It's been a
long time since I had a good internet argument!)
> Whilst on the subject of P.grandiflora I was given some
> plants late last year from the Rio Ara in Spain. Up until
> flowering the plants are unremarkable, however the flower
> colour is an odd reddish purple colour but certainly
> P.grandiflora in form. After flowering the leaves become
> larger with undulating margins and held semi erectly. These
> longer leaves also take on a dark chocolate bronze colour.
> Thus these are clearly not straight forward P.grandiflora,
> and I suspect some P.longifolia influence in them. I would
> be interested to hear if other people have encountered these
> plants.
I have this plant as do several other people. It is believed to be a natural
hybrid but no actual research or name has been published. It's parentage is
believed to be complex rather than a single crossing. The wild population is
well defined (i.e. separate) so that intermediates between the type you
describe and any potential parents are not so far known. The assumed parent
types have been located nearby (note use of "assumed"). I don't know more I'm
afraid.
Chau
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST