Date: 18 Jun 1998 12:53:36 +0100 From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2083$foo@default> Subject: More on Nelson and Casper
Dear Jan, Juerg and Paul,
>If these are to be considered as occasional albinos as they
>occur in many violet plant species or if they should be
>ranked as a forma is subject of individual viewpoints.
So from this do I interpret that the 'rules' regarding
naming such things are flexible enough to incorporate
individual tastes? Given that previous authors have (rightly
or wrongly - depending on individual viewpoints again) named
plants on the basis of flower colour surely this set a
precedent for Nelson. Whether Nelsons f.chionopetra survives
a future revision is another matter, but on the positive
side the publication has brought attention to these plants
(again a good or bad thing depending on personal viewpoint)
and stimulated these debates.
>The name may be valid although the eccentric mode
>typification is in conflict with extant rules. A type must
>be a specimen, not a photograph of the living plant. A
>phototype may be selected if the holotype can be
>demonstrated to be unavailable (if it was destroyed or
>lost). However, a phototype is always a photograph of a
>dried or preserved specimen, not of a living plant.
Given the fragility of these things, I would have thought
that good photographic records would hold some advantages
over dried specimens. Are there major objections to
photographic material which prevents changes to the extant
rules? I can appreciate why Nelson did not want to remove
one of these plants for this purpose and consider his
approach more innovative than eccentric.
Also Nelson states 'To designate the variant with a white
corolla as a variety is extravagant' would you care to
comment on this statement Jan?
>Albinos disappear usually after the individuals death as
>they are mostly rare (no numerical opportunity for
>albino-albino heteropollinations), they may be inattractive
>for pollinators and their heredity is recessive.
Webb first encountered this plant in 1956, and Nelson
observed white flowered plants in '89, '90, and '91. Thus
the plants have been reported in 4 years in over 3 decades
and presumably they still persist today (providing
horticulturists havn't taken them into captivity, or
taxonomists preserved them for posterity). As Nelson
mentions the existence of plants (pleural) for his '89 to
'91 observations, then the possibility for albino - albino
heteropollination clearly exists. Also Nelson recorded that
these plants produced plenty of seed in '89 and '90 so they
are obviously not unattractive to pollinators either. The
fact that these albinos havn't disappeared may signal that
they are able to persist in the Burren for some reason but
not elsewhere in the range of P.grandiflora.
For me it is enough to know that for the time being these
white flowered plants are uniquely Irish until such time
that they are (if ever) found elsewhere. Dismissing such
plants as mere mutants risks losing them should the Burren
or the plants themselves become threatened in any way in the
future.
>The Pinguicula moranensis complex gave us tens of "new"
>species, forms, varieties, etc. etc. which Casper
>studiously and rigorously reduced to a single species, P.
>moranensis. Since his excellent monograph the world has
>ignored his wisdom and once again added to the list of
>"new" moranensis forms by adding those of a different
>colour, location, religion, etc. Casper performed the same
>check on other species and reduced them, especially where
>colour was a significant factor in naming a subspecies,
>variety or form.
Paul my German is weak to say the least but didn't the name
P.hirtiflora f pallida (Casper) again based upon flower
colour appear in this text (see P.107)? A colouration mutant
occasional observed in Greece and Albania. I also find it
intriguing that on the one hand you are not keen on the
mapping exercise Toby mentioned but you are full of praise
(rightly so) for Caspers monograph which is full of such
location maps and details for Pinguicula. Perhaps in this
respect you have something in common with Nelson who
withheld the precise locality of his f.chinopetra.
Regards
Loyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST