Post by calen on Jan 15, 2014 22:42:27 GMT -5
Thanks waxy. Such a stimulating thread.
John on the other forum mentioned something that I had been thinking about: that form, not varietal, status should be accorded in cases where a single gene accounts for the distinguishing characteristic in a taxon. This thought pretty much opens Pandora's Box, and I therefore humbly submit the following rant:
Flava varieties should be demoted to forms. If "albino" S. purpurea ssp. purpurea is forma heterophylla, why should over-expression of the gene warrant varietal status, as in red-tubed flavas? In the case of "var." rubricorpora there are entire populations exhibiting the red tube gene, which could give the superficial impression of a more significant taxon (and, surely, lay the foundations for future divergence from other populations), but is it really so? And of course even in Florida the red-tubes usually grow with rugelli, while in the Carolinas the special color "varieties" grow in sympatry as a total mixed bag. How could divergence between flava cuprea and flava flava occur under such circumstances? Seems more likely the "different" plants are just due to one gene that is getting shuffled around within the population generation to generation, while the concept that they are any more divergent than that is a misapprehension.
There are numerous other inconsistencies in the application of taxonomic categories within the genus Sarracenia, with the taxonomic double standard between S. flava and S. purpurea/rosea being the most glaring. It is interesting that no varieties analogous to those described in S. flava have been described in S. purpurea, even though the same color forms exist in both species. To wit: "veinless" purps are not var. maxima, all-red purps are not var. atropurpurea, and purps a la Belly of Blood are not var. rubricorpora, etc. The same features that are the object of so much debate in S. flava have been ignored taxonomically in S. purpurea, being blithely chalked up to the natural variability of the taxon! In my opinion this reflects a very unscientific bias towards the bigger, showier, "sexier" species S. flava. It's like a teacher only paying attention to an attractive student, while neglecting an equally interesting, but fugly, classmate!
This double standard also occurs in the case of S. rosea, aka "S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii." Despite it's disjunct range and clear differences in trap and flower morphology, some regard this plant as a mere variety of purpurea. C'mon, not even a subspecies? This is certainly inconsistent with the prevailing treatment of S. flava (and, arguably, S. oreophila: I would argue that S. rosea is as distinct from purpurea as oreophila is from flava). It's as if purple pitcher plants aren't "taken seriously" while every shade of S. flava is taxonomically overestimated.
I am, in the course of this little armchair dissertation, taking issue with a portion of the work of Dr. Donald E. Schnell. I have enormous respect for Mr. Schnell, whom I have never met, and his pioneering work with the genus Sarracenia. I do, however, find many of his taxonomic arguments to be less than cogent because of the way they contradict each other.
Haha thank God this isn't a thread about S. rubra, because honestly folks I don't want to go there!
John on the other forum mentioned something that I had been thinking about: that form, not varietal, status should be accorded in cases where a single gene accounts for the distinguishing characteristic in a taxon. This thought pretty much opens Pandora's Box, and I therefore humbly submit the following rant:
Flava varieties should be demoted to forms. If "albino" S. purpurea ssp. purpurea is forma heterophylla, why should over-expression of the gene warrant varietal status, as in red-tubed flavas? In the case of "var." rubricorpora there are entire populations exhibiting the red tube gene, which could give the superficial impression of a more significant taxon (and, surely, lay the foundations for future divergence from other populations), but is it really so? And of course even in Florida the red-tubes usually grow with rugelli, while in the Carolinas the special color "varieties" grow in sympatry as a total mixed bag. How could divergence between flava cuprea and flava flava occur under such circumstances? Seems more likely the "different" plants are just due to one gene that is getting shuffled around within the population generation to generation, while the concept that they are any more divergent than that is a misapprehension.
There are numerous other inconsistencies in the application of taxonomic categories within the genus Sarracenia, with the taxonomic double standard between S. flava and S. purpurea/rosea being the most glaring. It is interesting that no varieties analogous to those described in S. flava have been described in S. purpurea, even though the same color forms exist in both species. To wit: "veinless" purps are not var. maxima, all-red purps are not var. atropurpurea, and purps a la Belly of Blood are not var. rubricorpora, etc. The same features that are the object of so much debate in S. flava have been ignored taxonomically in S. purpurea, being blithely chalked up to the natural variability of the taxon! In my opinion this reflects a very unscientific bias towards the bigger, showier, "sexier" species S. flava. It's like a teacher only paying attention to an attractive student, while neglecting an equally interesting, but fugly, classmate!
This double standard also occurs in the case of S. rosea, aka "S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii." Despite it's disjunct range and clear differences in trap and flower morphology, some regard this plant as a mere variety of purpurea. C'mon, not even a subspecies? This is certainly inconsistent with the prevailing treatment of S. flava (and, arguably, S. oreophila: I would argue that S. rosea is as distinct from purpurea as oreophila is from flava). It's as if purple pitcher plants aren't "taken seriously" while every shade of S. flava is taxonomically overestimated.
I am, in the course of this little armchair dissertation, taking issue with a portion of the work of Dr. Donald E. Schnell. I have enormous respect for Mr. Schnell, whom I have never met, and his pioneering work with the genus Sarracenia. I do, however, find many of his taxonomic arguments to be less than cogent because of the way they contradict each other.
Haha thank God this isn't a thread about S. rubra, because honestly folks I don't want to go there!