Juergs Bonn Paper - yet more Pinguicula

From: Loyd Wix (Loyd.Wix@unilever.com)
Date: Tue Jun 30 1998 - 05:27:55 PDT 

Date: 30 Jun 1998 13:27:55 +0100
From: Loyd Wix <Loyd.Wix@unilever.com>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg2188$foo@default>
Subject: Juergs Bonn Paper - yet more Pinguicula

          Dear all,

          I have been given a copy of Juerg's paper from the Bonn
          conference . Some of the UKCPS lads picked up some off
          prints to distribute to interested UK members. A very
          interesting paper it is Juerg, well done!

          Unfortunately I am probably about to re-open debates that
          have undoubtedly already occurred else where - sorry.

          P.dertosensis (AKA P.submediterranea/ P.longifolia.ssp.
          dertosensis) Sanz et al '95 - I had not heard of this paper,
          and the name is not present on the CP database. OK the 1995
          publication gives priority over Blanca and co's '96
          paper(for P.submediterranea), but I would still have thought
          that Jans '94 P.l.ssp.d paper would take priority over Sanz
          and co - or am I missing something? Also did Sanz and co
          consider the Serrania de Cuenca, La Hoz de Betetas
          Pinguicula? Or should Blanca et al or other workers conduct
          RADP-analysis to confirm the status of these populations?

          Further tantilising information in terms of a potentially
          new Italian member of the longifolia 'complex' with the
          threat of additional new species. After all the interest in
          Mexican Pinguicula over the 1980's and early 90's it is
          interesting to see all this activity in Europe over recent
          years.

          It is interesting to note the suggestion of a possible
          hybridogenic origin for P.mundi. It has been suggested to me
          as a possible scenario for the Hoz de Betetas populations.
          And what about the Rio Ara plants, a clearly heterophyllous
          plant with flowers very close to P.grandiflora ( a
          homophyllous species). Are these plants one of the potential
          1 to 3 new species?

          And what about P.fiorii? Juerg is obviously convinced that
          it is a distinct species, however it is still reduce to
          P.l.ssp.reichenbachiana in the database. I have seen the
          flower on this species for the first time this year and this
          species is really very different from P.l.ssp.r. All I can
          do is to echo Juerg's observations that the flower is very
          different and the plant is without doubt homophyllus.

          Kindest regards

          Loyd

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST