Byblis (Should CP database be adjusted?)

From: Dionaea@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 23 1999 - 07:54:11 PST

Next message: Cwmonarch@aol.com: "VFT & Dried Flies"
Previous message: takaicp@sh0.po.iijnet.or.jp: "Re: Utricularia pollination and in-vitro propagation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:54:11 EST
From: Dionaea@aol.com
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg203$foo@default>
Subject: Byblis (Should CP database be adjusted?)

I recently asked if anyone knew more information about Byblis filifolia,
aquatica and rorida.

I came across the following recent Literature Review by Barry on an article
about the taxonomic revision of the Genus Byblis (CPN 27:3, p. 76). The
article states the following about the newly described species (and their
former designations):

B. filifolia = B. liniflora sp. occidentalis
= B. aff. "Kunnunurra'
B. aquatica = B. aff. "Darwin"
B. rorida = ?

So, here is my question to Rick. Should the CP database be adjusted to
reflect this? The entry for B. liniflora ssp. occidentalis shows pictures of
B. aff. "Kununurra" and B. aff "Darwin" which are really B. filifolia and B.
aquatica, respectively. If the revision is accepted (and it appears it has)
then the entry (and photos) for B. liniflora ssp. occidentalis is misleading.

Christoph

Next message: Cwmonarch@aol.com: "VFT & Dried Flies"
Previous message: takaicp@sh0.po.iijnet.or.jp: "Re: Utricularia pollination and in-vitro propagation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:54 PST