Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:11:18 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2165$foo@default> Subject: Re: Pygmies
Dear Kris,
> Does anybody know which journals I could find descriptions of the
> later additions to the pygmies, like D. lasiantha, D. sargentii, D.
> silvacola, nivea and greivei.
_D. grievei_: Nuytsia 8:328 (1992)
_D. lasiantha_: Phytologia 73:100 (1992)
_D. nivea_: Phytologia 73:104 (1992)
_D. sargentii_: Nuytsia 8:330 (1992)
_D. silvicola_: Phytologia 73:105 (1992)
> Also, on the database on the ICPS homepage,
BTW, you could have extracted all of the information above from
exactly this cited database.
> many pygmy species have had name changes. Like D. roseanna becomes D.
> paleacea ssp. roseanna, and enodes becomes D. dichrosepela ssp.
> enodes. Are these actually official changes?
As official as the original descriptions of these taxa at specific
rank.
> If they are I must say I do not agree with them.
Fine. I do, however, not agree with these taxa as distinct species.
This was the very reason why I did the recombinations (in CPN 25,
1996).
> D. enodes is nothing like D. dichrosepela. Appart from having two
> distinctively different leaf shapes, D. dichrosepela grows long stems
> like D. scorpioides, not quite as big of course. Also the gemmae
> shape of the two is very different, D. dichrosepela is very rounded,
> while D. enodes is rather long and narrow. Pretty much the only thing
> two share in common is the fact that they grow in the same region and
> have small white flowers.
They are the only two Braystrum taxa with distinctly reflexed sepals
and scented flowers. The style structure is almost the same. I do not
state that the two are indistinguishable but specific distinction is
IMHO clearly not indicated.
> As for D. roseanna, the plant is much more closely related to D.
> dichrosepela than D. paleacea. To start with D. paleacea's forms a
> flat rosette whereas D. roseanna has erect leaves. Also gemmae is
> different in shape, and the flowers ard stalks are vastly different.
> Does anybody know anything about this?
Which plants are we talking about? There are at least two plants in
cultivation under the same name _D. roseana_ (with only one "n"). Both
were apparently distributed originally by Allen Lowrie. One of these
plants (what I consider to correspond with the type) is (IMO)
certainly a subspecies of _D. paleacea_. The other one is a quite
different plant approaching _D. dichrosepala_ to some degree (but far
less than _D. d. subsp. enodes_ does). If the description of _D.
roseana_ was based on this heterogeneous material (I am not in a
position to judge this at the moment), the name is probably a nomen
ambiguum.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST