Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:01:49 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2189$foo@default> Subject: Re: Juergs Bonn Paper - yet more Pinguicula
Dear Loyd
> 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?
The name _P. l. subsp. dertosensis_ does only have priority at
subspecific rank. At specific rank, the combination by Sanz & al. has
priority.
> Also did Sanz and co
> consider the Serrania de Cuenca, La Hoz de Betetas
> Pinguicula?
Not AFAIK.
> Or should Blanca et al or other workers conduct
> RADP-analysis to confirm the status of these populations?
They perhaps should but they haven't either.
> Further tantilising information in terms of a potentially
> new Italian member of the longifolia 'complex' with the
> threat of additional new species.
Only threatening if one is to accept them at specific rank...
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
The Hoz de Beteta plants are very close to _P. dertosensis_, much
closer than _P. mundi_ is, which latter is closer to _P.
vallisneriifolia_ in turn.
> 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.
The plants formerly identified with _P.l.r._ from the Abruzzi are
quite different from the type as well. To make things even more
complicated, there are somewhat intermediate plants in the Alpi
Apuane, and the plants recently discovered in Italy are still
different from all taxa described so far. They are all, however,
quite certainly members of one and the same tetraploid complex of
circummediterranean orophytes isolated very recently (postglacially)
and defined by Casper as _P. longifolia_ s.l. Unfortunately, the type
of _P. longifolia_ corresponds to the most *untypical* plants in the
whole complex. These are growing at montane-alpine altitudes together
with _P. grandiflora_, and introgression of the latter did almost
certainly occur repeatedly in the Pyrenees.
Whether the vicariants from Spain to Italy are treated as subspecies
of _P. longifolia_ or as microspecies in the _P. longifolia_-complex
depends on how effective their isolation and how significant the
differences are considered to be.
Anyway, further research is clearly indicated.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:33 PST