S. Purpuria, almost 1 year on.


Ian_P
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, just thought I'd post these pics of my S. Purpuria almost 1 year after I potted it up.

This was how it looked early this year after potting up.

IMAG0087.jpg

and this is the same plant now,

IMAG0286.jpg

The new photo was taken after a frosty night and the plant still shows no signs of dying back yet, although growth does appear to have stopped, as the new pitchers have stopped opening.

I will be potting it on into an even bigger pot in the spring, so looking forward to an even bigger plant in the coming year.

Best regards,

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what sub species of Purpuria it is. The guy I bought it from isn't exactly accurate with his descriptions, he sold me a S. Scarlett Belle which turned out to be a bog standard (no pun intended) S. Psittacina.

Looking at pictures on Google isn't much help either, there seem to be lots of variations, all supposedly S. Rosea.

Regards,

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it does look very much at this point like the taxon I like to classify as "S. purpurea ssp. burkii" (rather than S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii or S. rosea -it's all the same thing). The flower will confirm it, but it could easliy still be an intergrade.

btw pupurea is spelt with an e.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see no purpurea at all.

Why wait on the flower? That is only one of about 18 differences between the two species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a purpurea. This is one of the few resources from the UK that actually bothers to maintain which plant is which.

It seems that most folks in the UK are introduced to S. rosea as S. purpurea subsp. venosa. And have been for decades. However, there are no venosa plants where S. rosea is from. It can only be found several hundred miles to the north and is a very rare plant. S. rosea is a completely different species with a much more variation than S. purpurea venosa. They are different plants that have different ranges.

http://www.johnjearrard.co.uk/plants/sarracenia/purpurea/purpurea.html

For example, thanks to this endless laziness when it comes to purpurea and rosea, half the photos at

http://cpphotofinder.com/sarracenia-purpurea-subsp-venosa-754.html

show S. rosea instead of S. purpurea venosa and people look at this and think they really are this overlaping in form and coloration in nature, but it is just an artifact of the internet.

The ways in which S. rosea and S. purpurea are different is the same situation repeated by the twin species N. rafflesiana and N. hemsleyana. It is the same exact situation as even the seed and baby leaves are different. Systemically different plants aren't in the same species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Dave but whether the S. rosea taxon is included in S. purpurea or not is a matter of opinion. Species (infrataxa) delimitations are, in a way, rather arbitrary in a such a freely interbreeding genus as Sarracenia and relies far to heavily on the disjunct population concept. What is clear is that it cannot be subsumed under S. p. ssp. venosa as these are more closely related to the S. p. ssp. purpurea (if indeed they are even separate) than either is to the "Louis Burke" plants while all three form a distinct clade seperate to other Sarracenia which we are at liberty to call a species (S. purpurea s.l.) should we so wish. Also the leaves are not nearly as morphologically distinct as you make out.

Almost nobody else here calls it S. rosea do they?. Your crusade to force your opinion grows tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, the same about the flavas. In their southern range (mainely florida), their are very red plants some poeple call var. autopurpurea. To be called that, the plant needs to make red leaves from the start, while some var. rubricorpora have leaves that color up as the leaf ages. The var. description says the autopurpureas are only found in the carolinas. So, the florida plants are completly different plants, with different genes and such, So what do we do with the red plants in florida? Do we call them var. autopurpurea, or something else? It is your OPINION.

For all we know, it could be some complicated hybrid like:

S. [({minor x leucophylla) x purpurea} x S. purpurea) x S. rosea] x S. rosea making it look just like a regular rosea

If you were an amature, and you saw a S. purpurea subsp. purpurea, venosa, var. monta, and rosea side bu side, it seems that subsp. purpurea is most distinct, and montana looks like an intergrade between the to, venosa follows montana, and on some clones, venosa and rosea can look like the same plant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check again, they do not overlap. No one in the history of Sarracenia has ever found
S. purpurea venosa
in Alabama, Southern Georgia, Florida or Mississippi. Several taxonists performed an exhaustive search of herbariums looking for examples of
S. purpurea
from these areas, and even going back 300 years, there are no records of
S. purpurea
in these areas. It really is a fact. You want to call it an opinion, but when no one can even produce a shred of evidence I think it is more of a fantasy, not theory, that
S. rosea
is a form of
S. purpurea
.

You're making the same mistake that united
D. spiralis
and
D. graminifolia
by uniting these two. There is no gradient zone where they merge of one into the other. It is a fantasy produced by mentally merging
S. purpurea venosa
and
S. rosea
together.

One of the main differences that folks in the UK should be able to notice very easily is all forms of
S. purpurea
are evergreen and it is the most hardy of all Sarracenia. On the other hand,
S. rosea
is not evergreen and is one of the least hardy of all Sarracenia.
Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are obviosely one of those poeple who seperate plants up. I think they are seperartors and lumpers. For example, the seperators says that S. rubra subsp. jonesii and subsp. alabamensis and var. burkii are all seperate species, while the lumpers say they are all subsp. or varities. It is all a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I only posted the pictures to show how the plant had come on in less than 12 months, but I'm glad I gave you all something else to argue about. :laugh1:

But, on the name issue, Dave, you originally stated this isn't a S. Purpurea and then go on to say...

"One of the main differences that folks in the UK should be able to notice very easily is all forms of S. purpurea are evergreen and it is the most hardy of all Sarracenia. On the other hand, S. rosea is not evergreen and is one of the least hardy of all Sarracenia."

I did make the point that this plant had just seen a night of frost and is showing no sign of dying back, so if this is evergreen it's a Purpurea?

Confused,

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian-that's a fantastic amount of growth for one year-great work! You have a Sarracenia rosea, which is the most currently recognized name. It was formerly published as S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii. S. rosea can tolerate "light" freezing, but in cultivation, they tend to be the first ones to die if exposed to extreme freezes, wind chill, or freeze/thawing.

It really depends on what population your plant came from originally...the ones in Baldwin County, AL (further north) can tolerate slightly cooler temperatures than the ones from Liberty county, FL (further south, closer to the ocean).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are obviosely one of those poeple who seperate plants up. I think they are seperartors and lumpers. For example, the seperators says that S. rubra subsp. jonesii and subsp. alabamensis and var. burkii are all seperate species, while the lumpers say they are all subsp. or varities. It is all a matter of opinion.

Nope, the lumpers have done nothing good for CP's. Almost all the original names are being brought back into use, and some have been discounted for nearly 100 years. This is nothing short of total dis-serve to our community. Literally putting an entire species like S. rosea into a form at the same taxonmic level as the bogus S. purpurea purpurea ripira is confoundingly stupid and has nothing to do with science or even just evenly applying logic.

See, instead of following some religous ideal or some other pre-founded idea, you let information guide your decision making process. As far as I can tell, there are two species of rubra, S. rubra and subspecies rubra, jonesii, gulfensis and something without a name. Then there are S. alabamensis with subsp. abamensis and wherryi. I haven't seen much reason remove jonesii from rubra. Many lumpers have this idea, there just can't be that many species. And we need to reduce the number. It is a political thing for them, I think... The reason S. alabamensis is in a different species is because it makes a different leaf and shows a different seasonal growth pattern when compared against how S. rubra grows and the leaves. S. alabamensis grows fall leaves which resemble the spring leaves of S. oreophila. S. rubra and subspecies never do this.

I suppose we should also continue to call H. purpurascens by the name H. heterdoxa for no good reason also...? The same situation repeating itself again but resolved correctly however with the application of specie-hood. Specifically, almost everyone agrees that S. purpurea venosa is a different subspecies from S. rosea, right? Thus we have demonstrated the entire concept of S. purpurea venosa burkii is broken. The name should be retired because it is completely misleading as to indicate S. rosea is a part of S. pupurea venosa. The only good name to use is S. rosea until someone publishes S. purpurea subspecies rosea. I will happily accept either name. But please retire this gibberish name "S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii"; as it doesn't even exist--it isn't an opinion--the theory has been tested and it failed.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"One of the main differences that folks in the UK should be able to notice very easily is all forms of S. purpurea are evergreen and it is the most hardy of all Sarracenia. On the other hand, S. rosea is not evergreen and is one of the least hardy of all Sarracenia."

I did make the point that this plant had just seen a night of frost and is showing no sign of dying back, so if this is evergreen it's a Purpurea?

Sorry, it is the result of going through the whole winter. Northern Florida gets plenty of frosts every winter and frosts are not a problem for any sarracenia, unless it is growing out of season. S. purpurea leaves are thicker walled and tend to survive intact throughout the winter, regardless of how cold it gets. S. rosea leaves are papery and tend to be in tatters by the time spring comes. If you give it protection, like a greenhouse over winter, you might not notice these things. The flower bud hardiness is also different, with reduced flowering after colder winters. It is the most sensitive species in this regard. S. minor occurs further south, but still has better flower bud hardiness than does S. rosea.

The reason I say your plant is rosea is because of the shape of the leaf. S. purpurea and S. rosea only make leaves that overlap in shape when they are stressed and the growth isn't nomal.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things, Mr Evans.

Nobody said the "rosea" population overlapped with the venosa/purpurea populations so I'm not sure why you're stressing that. In fact my point was just that. If populations do not overlap it doesn't necessarily make it a seperate species (take the eastern and western Sarracenia alata).

I wholeheartedly agree that S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii is an invalid designation of the taxon (I was very disappointed in the assessment of this in McPherson and Schnell 2011). I'm going to say this again. Molecular cladistic analysis demonstrates S. p. ssp. purpurea and S. p. ssp. venosa var. venosa, are more closely related to one another than either is to "S. p. ssp. venosa var. burkii" necessitating the elevation of the rank of this taxon.

However because all three form a natural clade, what that rank is comes down to human opinion. In fact one analysis suggests (if we wanted) all three could be separated from the rest of Sarracenia as a separate genus* or subgenus* or indeed as a single species. This is the thing with phylogenetics and cladistics, what clades we designate as taxonomically significant and the ranks we assign various nodes on the "tree" are just opinion (technically arbitrary). This is especially true when considering that all species (of animal, plant, archaea etc.) form a continuous spectrum of diversity that cannot be divided into discrete taxa when the dimension of time (generations) is considered. **

The molecular data that I've seen does not well support splitting S. rubra s.l. -they're all just too closely related to resolve as separate species -maybe in a few hundred thousand years they'll be different enough.

All classification systems are human constructs and nature is going to be a bad fit at most levels. An entirely new perspective outside of the Linaean system and away from concepts of pigeon-holing discrete units would be a far more realistic approach if, probably entirely impractical. :laugh2:

*by the way some findings contradict this by placing the S. purpurea s.l. clade as sister only to S. leucophylla

** I'm happy to explain this on request if anyone doesn't understand what is meant here but I'm aware I've deviated from topic outrageously already :red33:

Edited by Ordovic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Ordovic! Sarracenia is such a newly evolved group, well demonstrated by their ability to form fertile hybrids, that it seems ridiculous to try and split further into different species.

Dave, purpurea ssp burkii/rosea would get my vote too.

I think the issue with people using venosa var burkii is that many people don't accept that a plant that is "obviously a purpurea" has been elevated to species status, and because we don't agree with it we are using the name we are familiar with until something better comes along...

Edited by gardenofeden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason people are not accepting it because they are being introduced to S. rosea and are told it is a "Standard" S. purpurea venosa. This keeps happening and will continue long into the future as long as people continue to write out S. purpurea venosa burkii. And some don't even both with burkii and just call it S. purpurea venosa.

The rules for making names for species and subspecies are different from those for name forms and varieties. Because Dr. Donald Schnell didn't publish it at the correct rank of subsp or as a fully ranked species the name he choose becomes a name without a plant, a nomen nuda. It is a correctly published name that doesn't apply to anything, science moves forward and you have to keep up. S. rosea will always be the name for this taxon, unless it can be demonstrated S. rosea is based on broken concept like it is comprised of two different taxa also. A subspecies and a species are basically at the same rank (which is something folks in the UK are having issues with, I think), which is why once published as a species or subspecies, the name stays the same. E.i. the only future choices for the name of this plant are either A) S. rosea or B) S. purpurea rosea. It was published in 1999, stop being so lazy and use the correct names, please. The only reason to use "venosa burkii" at this point is to reference the old publications. You don't keep using it as if it is still valid taxonomy. This isn't the same situtation like with "Drosera paleacea roseana" vs. "Drosera roseana" because Don named a subspecies/species as a variety and different rules apply! In this drosera example, it really is just a matter of personal opinion which rank to follow.

I helped collect samples for the DNA studies. I have traveled up and down the east coast multiple times and spent quite a bit of time reviewing the purpurea's when most other folks just wanted to ignore them in favor of looking at the taller species. If you don't actually take the time to look at something, it is rather difficult to notice all the differences... Just saying... Don Schnell even says he doesn't pay S. purpurea much attention like he does the tall species.

Like Ordovic says, the DNA studies to date suggest that S. purpurea can be placed in it own subgenus with three distinct species. We are never going back in time or history to a point when S. purpurea venosa burkii can be considered a valid entry/theory. Every time plants are distributed with this name on them, and photos are posted on the internet, you're just confusing people for no good reason. If you don't want to bother applying the rules, please as least don't try to teach other people how to do it wrong too, thanks.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason people are not accepting it because they are being introduced to S. rosea and are told it is a "Standard" S. purpurea venosa. This keeps happening and will continue long into the future as long as people continue to write out S. purpurea venosa burkii.

that's quite insulting, you are talking to people who have in some cases a lifetime's experience of growing Sarracenia purpurea derivatives, side-by- side, and who see the differences (or lack of differences) on a daily basis for years on end. Growers in the UK have been sourcing seed from the wild since at least the 1970's and there is a LOT of material in collections that I think you are unaware of....
It was published in 1999, stop being so lazy and use the correct names, please.
contentiously published, and hotly disputed, if you don't mind....the name Sarracenia rosea is one person's opinion, not a scientific fact!
. If you don't want to bother applying the rules, please as least don't try to teach other people how to do it wrong too, thanks.

talking of rules, the name rosea has been superceded by Stu's subsequent publication......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for purpurea ssp. rosea, ssp. venosa and ssp. purpurea.

Neither full species, or a variety of venosa seem appropriate. The genetic evidence is there, but to say it is widely different morphologically from venosa is also puzzling to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

talking of rules, the name rosea has been superceded by Stu's subsequent publication......

Actually no, you're running this logic in reverse. It is the first publication done correctly that takes precedence. That is why the name N. baramensis from 2011 is a later synonym of N. hemsleyana from 1908. Be insulted, that isn't my point I'd rather motivate you to action--but like I have clearly illustrated--it isn't just a matter of personal opinion. All McPherson did was repeat an old mistake and help continue this odd debate in which everyone agrees that S. rosea is not a part of venosa anyway. S. rosea is still Burke's Pitcher Plant and that is never going to change! The Latin translation is simply "pink pitcher plant". Is pink just not manly enough for such a noble plant? :sarcastic_hand:

Some folks didn't feel comfortable with this and were hesitant to contribute, but it was decided that McPherson's work is generally too good for us to get hung up on one (rather important) issue we have with it. Eventually, the name S. purpurea subspecies rosea/burkii is going to be published at some point; probably as some political compromise, not good science. However, since all the various studies on it keep coming back with "support for separate species status", no one feels very motivated to publish it as a subspecies. Further genetic studies with better detail will hopefully show whether to maintain it as a separate species or separate subspecies from the rest of purpurea... Until then, wishing away data and discounting studies is not going make S. rosea go away.

I really can't believe how much focus there is on the isolation of tepui plants, and how this causes speciation in Heliamphora, but then same logic isn't there when discussing S. purpurea... As these two species do not even occur on the same geological formations with S. rosea being a gulf coast endemic. When sealevels are low, it can move south into what is the Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, when sea levels are low S. purpurea can move down stream into what used to be Alantic Ocean toward the east. This is why S. rosea is the least cold hardy species moreso than the rest of the southern species it grows with. What we see is now is the northern limits of its range.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Ordovic! Sarracenia is such a newly evolved group, well demonstrated by their ability to form fertile hybrids, that it seems ridiculous to try and split further into different species.

You just explained how easy it is. Every hybrid between species is also ranked as a species. So if each or any population of <i>S. purpurea</i> can be demonstrated to be the result of a different hybrid-origin event involving at least one different parent taxa then each one like this should be ranked as individual species. I'm not suggesting that is the case, but there are already many well thought out rules for handling taxonomy and not using them is how we generate confusion. That is why these rules exist, to reduce confusion.

I'm all for purpurea ssp. rosea, ssp. venosa and ssp. purpurea. Neither full species, or a variety of venosa seem appropriate. The genetic evidence is there, but to say it is widely different morphologically from venosa is also puzzling to me.

Yeah, I totally get where you are coming from. I was not very happy as each study comes back with more data saying they aren't in the same species. it just seems much "neater" for it to be a subspecies. But it is better to follow the data than impose our views.

There is an issue with people having made hybrids between plants they thought were members of the same subspecies. While some growers are meticulous, many others are not. Also, some folks literally just dropped the "burkii" from the name. S. purpurea venosa is a very rare plant. It can have frilly hoods, but its leaves never have the dimensions S. rosea leaves have. Fact. They have different leaves, seeds, seed count, flowers (all parts are different), even the seedling leaves are different. I wish I had taken more photographs with a better camera!

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason people are not accepting it because they are being introduced to S. rosea and are told it is a "Standard" S. purpurea venosa. This keeps happening and will continue long into the future as long as people continue to write out S. purpurea venosa burkii. And some don't even both with burkii and just call it S. purpurea venosa.

Not in this country. -If they're told it's standard venosa I would have thought this can only mean in terms of cultivation requirements which are similar enough as makes no difference (note I'm not talking about natural conditions). Perhaps the burkii gets dropped because of uncertain identification between the two while certain it's definitely not S. purpurea ssp. purpurea

A subspecies and a species are basically at the same rank (which is something folks in the UK are having issues with, I think), which is why once published as a species or subspecies, the name stays the same. E.i. the only future choices for the name of this plant are either A) S. rosea or B) S. purpurea rosea.

This is true I think. I'd have to check. It's a shame because 'rosea' is such an awful wishy-washy epithet that doesn't suit a plant that already had a name: 'burkii' -Now that is an opinion and not mere fact!

I don't get why they chose not to use burkii in the 1999 publication -they say 'to avoid confusion, but I ask you, what possible confusion could there have been. In fact I think they've added to it.

talking of rules, the name rosea has been superceded by Stu's subsequent publication......

Actually Stephan, Dave's right that it's only superseded if the plant is accepted as a variety of venosa (which I think everyone agrees it ain't) otherwise Stu's description should be ignored as no more taxonomically relevant than Nicholas Culpeper's Complete Herbal, unfortunately.

S. purpurea venosa is a very rare plant. It can have frilly hoods, but its leaves never have the dimensions S. rosea leaves have. Fact.

What never? you mean these plants spring out of their seeds fully grown? -This is exactly the point posed by the original postings of this topic until maturity they're difficult to distinguish unless you have a honed eye from years of experience (and even then apparently).

They have different leaves, seeds, seed count, flowers (all parts are different), even the seedling leaves are different.

You've said this before but you're case would be greatly reinforced if you could state what those differences are. Oh and the word fact on it's own does not constitute either a sentence or a valid argument.

My final word on this is issue is that a few years ago I raised 25-30 plants from seed supplied to me as "Sarracenia purpurea mixed venosa/burkeii/purpurea and some intergrades". These showed considerable variation in all aspects and have proved nigh on impossible to classify in terms of species/subspecies and putative hybrids. Not a single plant can be said to be any one thing with any real certainty. I even constructed an extensive spreadsheet of characteristics/measurements to no avail (obviously this might be because they are all intergrades -but I would've expected some thoroughbreds in there at least).

Fundamentally the 'purpureas' form a natural group of closely related plants which should be recognised by lumping together somehow either under one species of distinct infrataxa or a separate (sub-)genus -we could then split purpurea and venosa and maybe even montana into separate species but the important bit I think is the proper hierarchy of relatedness: burkii/rosea is not just a variety of venosa.

Edited by Ordovic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in this country. -If they're told it's standard venosa I would have thought this can only mean in terms of cultivation requirements which are similar enough as makes no difference (note I'm not talking about natural conditions). Perhaps the burkii gets dropped because of uncertain identification between the two while certain it's definitely not S. purpurea ssp. purpurea

Right, S. p. v. and S. r. do have some superfacial overlap in appearence. However, the proportions are never the same.

This is true I think. I'd have to check. It's a shame because 'rosea' is such an awful wishy-washy epithet that doesn't suit a plant that already had a name: 'burkii' -Now that is an opinion and not mere fact!

I don't get why they chose not to use burkii in the 1999 publication -they say 'to avoid confusion, but I ask you, what possible confusion could there have been. In fact I think they've added to it.

Well, I'm wrong, the name can be replaced with another as long as the rank as changes with the new combination. I'm not sure where I got the idea species and subspecies names are taxonomically unique. As for the name, they just wanted to name it after the flower color, like with flava and rubra.

Actually Stephan, Dave's right that it's only superseded if the plant is accepted as a variety of venosa (which I think everyone agrees it ain't) otherwise Stu's description should be ignored as no more taxonomically relevant than Nicholas Culpeper's Complete Herbal, unfortunately.

Exactly. Everyone, including the bugs living in and on S. rosea also know it isn't a part of venosa. Part of science is throwing out the broken names. This is why I mention the word "lazy", I don't know what call it... Stubborn?

What never? you mean these plants spring out of their seeds fully grown? -This is exactly the point posed by the original postings of this topic until maturity they're difficult to distinguish unless you have a honed eye from years of experience (and even then apparently). You've said this before but you're case would be greatly reinforced if you could state what those differences are. Oh and the word fact on it's own does not constitute either a sentence or a valid argument.

In one dimension yes, they will overlap quite a lot. From memory, I recall the purpurea's have longer petioles, leaves with a leathery texture, larger seed(?) with a much higher seed count, smaller and taller flowers with a different odor and color, different shapes with the styles smaller and ovaries larger. I'm pretty sure even the first leaves right after the cotyledon are also consistently different. They probably can be ID'ed within six months of germination. Shoot, even looking at the seed should give you an idea.

My final word on this is issue is that a few years ago I raised 25-30 plants from seed supplied to me as "Sarracenia purpurea mixed venosa/burkeii/purpurea and some intergrades". These showed considerable variation in all aspects and have proved nigh on impossible to classify in terms of species/subspecies and putative hybrids. Not a single plant can be said to be any one thing with any real certainty. I even constructed an extensive spreadsheet of characteristics/measurements to no avail (obviously this might be because they are all intergrades -but I would've expected some thoroughbreds in there at least).

I don't see cultivated plants matching what is seen in nature. One of the few places I've been to that actually keeps the names straight is Meadview Biological Research Station. They even made a hybrid called North and South between the two. There has been too much confusion with people distributing S. rosea as just S. purpurea venosa for decades. Folks were sending mislabled seed over to the UK and everywhere else long before the concept of S. rosea was even thought of. I have no idea, was Slack aware of this taxon? I know he had a rather large collection of Sarracenia... I'd assume he had both kinds of "venosa".

Fundamentally the 'purpureas' form a natural group of closely related plants which should be recognised by lumping together somehow either under one species of distinct infrataxa or a separate (sub-)genus -we could then split purpurea and venosa and maybe even montana into separate species but the important bit I think is the proper hierarchy of relatedness: burkii/rosea is not just a variety of venosa.

But intellectual dishonesty is so much more fun and divisive! Which is what I believe the argument for maintaining S. p. v. b. really is, a lack of the application of logic. See, when the name S. rosea is used, it will not actually change the nature of the plants themselves, it is our relation to and understanding of the plants that improves. This is because people have to be taught or teach themselves and when you mix together the ideas you can reject a theory and still use the rejected name you're teaching new comers to ignore science and act a bit foolish. They will handle other complicated situations in the future in the same disorganized way, poorly.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh! I remember the rule now. Once a name is used as a species or a subspecies, but later on rejected or found to be a latter synomym, it cannot be reused in the same genus as a species name or subspecies name. it can only be changed from a species to a subspecies or the reverse for the same exact plant/sample. This rule keeps names from repeating in what would become a huge mess for some workers. However, a different name can also be used when changing rank. So in theory, S. purpurea subsp. burkii could be named, but who ever authors it needs to address the studies done to date, not sweep them under the rug with a dismissive shrug or they will just add more fuel to the more diversive parts of the debate.

With purp and rosea, the differences are systemic, with every single feature you can measure having different dimensions or proportions--they are as different from each as many Pinguicula species are different from each other. It is as though one or the other is being reflected in a fun house mirror and the mirror also has color filters on it.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share