Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:41:42 +0930 From: Kris Kopicki <krisk@camtech.com.au> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2169$foo@default> Subject: Re: Pygmies
Jan,
Thanks for the info on the descriptions.
> 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).
If these are indeed correct, why does Allen Lowrie choose not to use
them in his lists?
> They are the only two Braystrum taxa with distinctly reflexed sepals
> and scented flowers.
D. roseana also has scented flowers. The roseana I am referring to is
the one matching the description in CP's of Australia Volume 2. I used
the description of the plant and location to find the plants. They
match the book perfectly.
> The style structure is almost the same. I do not
> state that the two are indistinguishable but specific distinction is
> IMHO clearly not indicated.
But what about the distinctively different habit of growing, where D.
dichrosepela forms sort of a stalk, with dead foliage bellow, which can
get quite high, whereas D. enodes does not exhibit this behaviour. I
would have also thought for them to be classified together that there
gemmae would have to be similar too, however as I mentioned, under close
examination, they are quite distinctively different.
> Which plants are we talking about?
As mentioned above.
> There are at least two plants in
> cultivation under the same name _D. roseana_ (with only one "n").
I was not aware of any other plant, but I would assume they are both
totally different plants then.
> 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.
It would seem that I have the latter you mentioned. I assume the one
you regards as being close to D. paleacea is the first plant you
mention? If Allen Lowrie distributed it, is it in any of his books? I
have seen pictures of this plant, but just assumed someone mixed up the
names on their plants, as seems to happen often with pygmies.
kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST