Recommended Posts

Bonjour

2 form actually in flower here

on my calcareous wall

MUR2017.JPG

in pot

P.longifolia f longifolia

LONG2017.JPG

P.longifolia f pinetensis ( perenn darkred leaves)

PIN2017.JPG

JEFF

Edited by jeff 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice plants Jeff,i can see i'm going to have to look for some big lumps of limestone to grow these better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Jeff for sharing more great pictures, you and Ada are certainly spoiling us this year with all your fantastic plants.  I like the limestone wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful plants... I don't Knew The pinetensis one... Doesn't it make the hibernaculum? Very nice plant!!! Thanks for sharing;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

yes it make hibernaculae in winter  , for me it is a natural mutant to P. longifolia f longifolia . By seedling, the plants keep their darkred caracter.

JEFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've understood... Is the variety from Valle de Pineta, I'm wrong? I knew it with this name... Please, Tell me what Kind of calcareus soil do You use, where do you find it... Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for all my temperate and mexican calcareous ping I use

cat liter 50% with some time akadama

river sand 12.5%

pouzzolane12.5%

calcareous sand 12.5%

vermiculite or perlite 12.5%

jeff

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pinguicula longifolia f. pinetensis has never been published. Please forget this name. Moreover, forma rank is no more considered as valuable in taxonomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

Yes, but it can be published at any time if I want   , I would always call it ,Even It displeases

The notion of form is for me really real and must be taken into account, see the code of Melbourne and St louis :  division II  ,chapter I article 4 paragraph 4-1.

the melbourne code's is always use by the IPNI

JEFF

Edited by jeff 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please publish it so that we can talk about real things.

This is not because you submit it to any journal that it will be accepted and published. It needs to be peer-reviewed. This is science.

59 minutes ago, jeff 1 said:

The notion of form is for me really real and must be taken into account, see the code of Melbourne and St louis :  division II  ,chapter I article 4 paragraph 4-1.

The important thing in your sentence is "for me"...

The forma taxa are highly polyphyletic. This is no more accepted as all taxa have to be monophyletic.

Edited by kisscool_38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeff 1 said:

Yes, but it can be published at any time if I want   , I would always call it ,Even It displeases

That's merely a (arrogant) claim, and absolutely not science. If Pinguicula longifolia f. pinetensis has never been published, please, refrain from using this name, or you'll be misleading uninitiated readers. You must make your point by publishing actual facts in scientific journals, which offer peer-reviewing process as pointed out by kisscool. Unless you confront your opinions with the relevant scientific community, there is no possible validation of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author is always responsible for its publication, free to each to go in its direction or not

In botany, as in other science, there is no single thought and fortunately.

It needs to be peer-reviewed , why ?

The forma taxa are highly polyphyletic. This is no more accepted as all taxa have to be monophyletic.

Yes in the cladistic system, no in the evolutive systematic system

jeff

Edited by jeff 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jeff 1 said:

It needs to be peer-reviewed , why ?

Is it a joke?

21 hours ago, jeff 1 said:

Yes in the cladistic system, no in the evolutive systematic system

That's a no-sense... no comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not a joke , 'in situ' we can do without it :rolleyes:for the species description also , may be for laboratory analysis and even:rolleyes:Other laboratory technician may very well.

it is not a no-sense, the systematic  and the clade system are not identical( see on the reptilian and the fish genus for example) ,and do not always make good household.

here I think ,the melbourne code's must be use , like  the IPNI .

Anyway I think we will not agree

jeff

Edited by jeff 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 25, 2017 at 2:41 AM, kisscool_38 said:

This is not because you submit it to any journal that it will be accepted and published. It needs to be peer-reviewed. This is science.

The forma taxa are highly polyphyletic. This is no more accepted as all taxa have to be monophyletic.

I wish it were the case with regard to peer-review, but in terms of nomenclature, peer-review is not required.  I was pretty surprised about it.  But there are some requirements such as ISSN.  http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art29

I agree with the second point. We are trying to make the hierarchical system of classification consistent with the evolutionary history.  We are still long way to go.  Even though monophyly is a bit arbitrary criteria, it is a convenient one.   I wouldn't call forma as a taxonomic unit, but it can be a unit in nomenclature.  Note well that nomenclature isn't same as taxonomy and systematics.   The later is the task of biologically classifying organisms, and the former is how you call different "groups" of organisms.

However, this doesn't make the forma biologically irrelevant.  In some cases, certain forms are maintained within populations for reasons.  This gives us opportunities to study the evolutionary forces which are maintaining the polymorphisms (basically this is a part of population genetics, which I specialize on).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Point is, Jeff 1 shouldn't use in a public board fantasy names as if they were epithetes that have been formally published. This is misleading, at best.

Of course, one is free to do whatever he wants in his own lil' private garden. ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

François.

Edited by Sockhom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomenclature is strictly bound to taxonomy. Nomenclature is just about naming correctly taxonomic units. There is no unit in nomenclature, just rules. Units are defined by taxonomy (with the base unit being species). But I think we agree on all that, we are just talking about fine details.

This is not how a forma is maintained that makes it irrelevant, but how it appears. A single SNP can shut down a whole metabolic pathway and can thus be responsible of chemotypes or chromotypes. This is quite easy and is thus likely to happen independently in various populations. Thus, those forma are polyphyletic. The same can be assume for recessive alleles that can stay silent for long, until genetic mixing creates the perfect combination for these alleles to be expressed (although such recessive allele could have appeared only once). But I agree that how such mutation maintains, propagates and evolves can lead to a speciation process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.