7 replies to this topic

[Kiwi Earl]

A very interesting paper on the phylogeny of all three genera within Sarraceniaceae.

Check out the results with respect to the following:

    - the relationship between S.oreophila and S.purpurea ssp venosa var. montana
    - that between S.psittacina and S.flava contradicting the colloquial belief that prostrate and upright species are divergent
    - the demarcation of S.rosea from S.purpurea ssp.
    - the relationship of S.minor and S.alata

Darlingtonia and Heliamphora diversification also analysed.

http://www.plosone.o...ne.0039291.s001

Edited by Kiwi Earl, 29 June 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Alexis]

Rosea is still part of the general evolutionary path of purpurea though.

In anything, it seems like it should be Sarracenia purpurea var. rosea and Sarracenia montana!

[Cedric-666]

Very interesting paper but it does not consider the genetics of the different 'forms' of S. flava (which are apparently not homogeneously distributed through the range of the species). Maybe something to study in the future.

[Dave Evans]

Alexis, on 29 June 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Rosea is still part of the general evolutionary path of purpurea though.

In anything, it seems like it should be Sarracenia purpurea var. rosea and Sarracenia montana!

Dear Alexis, both show up as separate taxa, by all three measures.  Why are you so interested in keeping S. rosea attached to S. purpurea???  Literally, every objective test we can think of demonstrates that S. purpurea and S. rosea are not the same species.  Maybe you could actually add this info into your concept already?  Thanks  :)

It is a bonified Cryptic Species.  It was formed out from proto-purpurea the same exact way many Heliamphora species did:  By isolation, genetic drift also with some minor influence from different ecologies.  Exactly, the same over-all way.  It is a "Classic Example of a Cryptic Species", why live in denial about something so cool?

[Dave Evans]

Cedric-666, on 20 July 2012 - 14:24 PM, said:

Very interesting paper but it does not consider the genetics of the different 'forms' of S. flava (which are apparently not homogeneously distributed through the range of the species). Maybe something to study in the future.

Well, I'm pretty sure that most of the color forms of S. flava are result of introgression by S. rosea and S. puruprea in their respective ranges.  Which is why there are different color forms in the Gulf than on the East Coast--different species result in different hybrids and different color patterns.

[Alexis]

Dave Evans, on 12 September 2012 - 23:00 PM, said:

Dear Alexis, both show up as separate taxa, by all three measures.  Why are you so interested in keeping S. rosea attached to S. purpurea???  Literally, every objective test we can think of demonstrates that S. purpurea and S. rosea are not the same species.  Maybe you could actually add this info into your concept already?  Thanks  :)

So, have you relabelled your purpurea venosa var. montana as sarracenia montana, or sarracenia oreophila var. montana?

[Dave Evans]

Hi Alexis, no, I don't have any of those species currently.  I'm stopped cultivating Sarracenia for the most part and am only interested in putting my efforts toward their habitat protection.  So instead of watering and weeding Sarracenia pots, I volunteer at Meadowview helping to maintain and expand their protected wetlands.

The part about S. purpurea montana showing up closer to S. oreophila doesn't mean it should be included under S. oreophila, but it does show S. p. v. m. is actually a hybrid species and so it should be ranked as a species. Sarracenia species xxxx.  And again, I'll repeat just one last time here, it never should have been included into Sarracenia purpurea venosa in the first place; same as with S. rosea; neither have venosa characteristics.  We have to stop trying to apply names that do not apply just because they were already published and therefore available for use.

Edited by Dave Evans, 13 September 2012 - 20:51 PM.

[marcello catalano]

Alexis, on 13 September 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

So, have you relabelled your purpurea venosa var. montana as sarracenia montana, or sarracenia oreophila var. montana?

Dave Evans, on 13 September 2012 - 15:34 PM, said:

Hi Alexis, no, I don't have any of those species currently.  I'm stopped cultivating Sarracenia for the most part and am only interested in putting my efforts toward their habitat protection.  So instead of watering and weeding Sarracenia pots, I volunteer at Meadowview helping to maintain and expand their protected wetlands.

That's very good Dave, I'm starting to do the same, I hope this will become viral in the next decades...