TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Discussions of Sarracenia Taxonomy/Nomenclature
- Thread starter Joseph Clemens
- Start date
-
- Tags
- montana purpurea sarracenia venosa
Share this page
The seeds were given to me and labeled as S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. montana x OP (open pollinated.)
The note that was included read as follows.
What would be the proper way to classify them?
Edit: Since you seem to be more well versed in the naming conventions than I am, what is the reason for S. x readii or S. x readei not being a valid name? I thought it was described by Bell as discussed here.
Though I also found this which lists its taxonomic standing as not accepted.
When I purchased the plant it was listed as S. x readii, so that is what I've always called it.
The note that was included read as follows.
What would be the proper way to classify them?
Edit: Since you seem to be more well versed in the naming conventions than I am, what is the reason for S. x readii or S. x readei not being a valid name? I thought it was described by Bell as discussed here.
Though I also found this which lists its taxonomic standing as not accepted.
When I purchased the plant it was listed as S. x readii, so that is what I've always called it.
Last edited:
For the sake of keeping things short, i would call them S. p. subsp. v. var. montana OP on a label, but you can call them whatever you want, as long as you make sure to include OP and that it is montana. There are no other sarracenias with the var. montana, so it would be safe to call them even var. montana x op, as long as you know what it means.
The proper way to classify them is:
S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. monata [not really, since there is no such published plant, "montana" is a variety only known from the northern form of this species - see CP Database][On the above, I was mistaken - see additional discussion, below]OP
Last edited by a moderator:
For some reason, the IPNI recently changed the spelling to S. x readei - see IPNI. But the CP Database, still has it, despite its new spelling, as an unaccepted name, valid names are listed there, in all bold. It is, however, valid to call it - Sarracenia rubra x leucophylla or Sarracenia leucophylla x rubra. The hybrid formula are much easier to understand. Many people, and even many nurseries, are continuing to use invalid or inaccurate names - it is a real trouble , for some of us. I quit counting, how many times I received plant material, that I eventually discovered, was actually misidentified, it was actually something other than what it was sold/gifted/traded to me as. Not always the direct fault of the person I got the plant(s) from. What bothers me most, is when I'm fooled, and unintentionally continue to distribute plants I accept as correctly identified, then belatedly discover they are not. :-(
If you can, I'd check with the originator. Since there is no valid published species by that name. There is no Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venose var. montana. Perhaps it is simply a misnamed S. purpurea var. montana. Maybe they are the hybrid (S. purpurea var. montana x S. purpurea subsp. venosa) - since a simple hybrid, can be written with or without the parentheses.
Thanks for clarifying the definition of OP. It is not an abbreviation that I've seen used before with CP, but it makes perfect sense.
When I'm writing plant names on an international, public forum, I try to remember that many viewers of these posts may have no idea about valid, accurate, names, they may be inspired to try to locate and grow plants we write about here, but if the names are not correct, they may be disappointed when they try to locate what they see and read about in our posts. However, if we all use the same names to describe the same plants. everyone's experience, expert and beginner alike will have a better chance to be the best experience, possible.
BTW, BaseDrifter, I really enjoy your photo's.
If you can, I'd check with the originator. Since there is no valid published species by that name. There is no Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venose var. montana. Perhaps it is simply a misnamed S. purpurea var. montana. Maybe they are the hybrid (S. purpurea var. montana x S. purpurea subsp. venosa) - since a simple hybrid, can be written with or without the parentheses.
Thanks for clarifying the definition of OP. It is not an abbreviation that I've seen used before with CP, but it makes perfect sense.
When I'm writing plant names on an international, public forum, I try to remember that many viewers of these posts may have no idea about valid, accurate, names, they may be inspired to try to locate and grow plants we write about here, but if the names are not correct, they may be disappointed when they try to locate what they see and read about in our posts. However, if we all use the same names to describe the same plants. everyone's experience, expert and beginner alike will have a better chance to be the best experience, possible.
BTW, BaseDrifter, I really enjoy your photo's.
Last edited:
I'll see if I can get clarification on the seeds, though I have a feeling they are just an open pollinated Sarracenia purpurea var. montana.
Speaking of seeds, stratification for my Sarracenia seeds is over now, gotta pull em out of the fridge and get them under lights.
That's a sentiment I can understand, it takes awhile to pick up what is proper and improper nomenclature though. I'm sure partly due to the fact that there is a lot of misinformation being spread (or just sloppiness/laziness with the conventions.)
Thanks Joseph!
Thanks ps3, the table was just something I threw together today to give me a place to keep the plants out of harms way. That location is the sunniest spot in my back yard though, so I'll be building a more permanent water tray to house my Sarracenia at a minimum.
I'm looking forward to the impending explosion of growth. Remember, this time last year, all I had was my S. x readei.
Last edited:
That is the first time i have seen var. montana as a variety of the northern subsp. Every book, i have read, every website, even in the ICPS newsletter I have seen it as S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. montana (Not correct nomenclature)
Anyways, great pictures basedrifter. I love to see some pics from growers who are in my area, your plants look really nice and happy for you.
Well BaseDrifter and Goodkoalie,
You have helped to uncover a nomenclatural discrepancy. I assume that the IPNI and CP Database, both use the initial publication by Schnell & Determann, in
P: Castanea 62:60 (1997). I do not, presently have access to this publication, so I can't personally verify the information. However, I do have Donald Schnell's 2002 edition of Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada, where he does attribute the variety, "montana" to Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa, rather than the northern subspecies. If, however, the earlier Castanea publication, does attribute "montana" to the northern subspecies, that would take precedence - even if it were erroneous, at the time.
On a slightly different tack, Sarracenia x readii, though then, or now, not being validly published, was corrected in syntax, since it was named after an L. H. Reade, and there was no valid reason to change the last letter of the Reade name in order to latinize it. It only needed the addition of the final "i". So the misspelling was correctable, especially since, in the interim, no other Sarracenia species or nothospecies was published with the name, S. readei, before the correction was made.
Even invalid publications are important to the history of botanical nomenclature.
You have helped to uncover a nomenclatural discrepancy. I assume that the IPNI and CP Database, both use the initial publication by Schnell & Determann, in
P: Castanea 62:60 (1997). I do not, presently have access to this publication, so I can't personally verify the information. However, I do have Donald Schnell's 2002 edition of Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada, where he does attribute the variety, "montana" to Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa, rather than the northern subspecies. If, however, the earlier Castanea publication, does attribute "montana" to the northern subspecies, that would take precedence - even if it were erroneous, at the time.
On a slightly different tack, Sarracenia x readii, though then, or now, not being validly published, was corrected in syntax, since it was named after an L. H. Reade, and there was no valid reason to change the last letter of the Reade name in order to latinize it. It only needed the addition of the final "i". So the misspelling was correctable, especially since, in the interim, no other Sarracenia species or nothospecies was published with the name, S. readei, before the correction was made.
Even invalid publications are important to the history of botanical nomenclature.
Last edited:
. I will be changing it on my growlists asap.
To further muddy the waters try searching the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
http://www.itis.gov/
Note: You can read the Castanea article online for free on JStor. Create a free MyJstor account and save it to your bookshelf. You cannot download it for free although an institution such as a University or public library may be able to download it.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4034104
http://www.itis.gov/
Note: You can read the Castanea article online for free on JStor. Create a free MyJstor account and save it to your bookshelf. You cannot download it for free although an institution such as a University or public library may be able to download it.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4034104
Last edited:
I have asked Jan Schlauer, for help to clarify the variety montana issue. Hopefully he will be able to shed more light on the situation.
Personally, I think the authors should have given the plant its own subspecies status. It having characteristics that appear in-between the northern subspecies and the southern subspecies. Those characteristics, to my mind, don't make it a good candidate for a variety of either. Of course it could have been created from an introgressive population of both subspecies, or even independently developed from the same progenitors, but that doesn't fit our taxonomic model very well. Which is why I think it is much easier to view it as its own subspecies, that way it doesn't have to fit as a sub level (variety) to either the northern subspecies or the southern.
Personally, I think the authors should have given the plant its own subspecies status. It having characteristics that appear in-between the northern subspecies and the southern subspecies. Those characteristics, to my mind, don't make it a good candidate for a variety of either. Of course it could have been created from an introgressive population of both subspecies, or even independently developed from the same progenitors, but that doesn't fit our taxonomic model very well. Which is why I think it is much easier to view it as its own subspecies, that way it doesn't have to fit as a sub level (variety) to either the northern subspecies or the southern.
Thanks to Not a Number, I just read the Volume 62, no. 1 Castanea issue, and the subject article. I think it does indicate that the original authors meant to publish the variety in question as, Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana. Just follow the info provided by Not a Number, and you can check it out for youselves. The caption and photo in the article are the same that Donald Schnell uses in his 2002 edition of Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada.
I still await Jan Schlauer's illumination of this taxon. I don't have near the expertise in taxonomy that he has. If this is an oversight on his part, I will be flabbergasted.
I still await Jan Schlauer's illumination of this taxon. I don't have near the expertise in taxonomy that he has. If this is an oversight on his part, I will be flabbergasted.
Okay, Jan Schlauer was kind enough to already provide an answer to my inquiry.
And I'm not surprised and not flabbergasted. Jan explained that the way the name was published in Castanea, that the variety name, "montana" was equally valid, if written as Sarracenia purpurea subspecies purpurea variety montana, or Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana. So, no need to change your labels. Just something to keep in mind, when dealing with the variety "montana". It was published, the way it was, in order to avoid future complications, if, at some future point, the taxonomy of Sarracenia purpurea were to be changed.
Thanks again to BaseDrifter and Goodkoalie for inspiring me to investigate this issue and learn a little more about the taxonomy of our amazing CP.
And I'm not surprised and not flabbergasted. Jan explained that the way the name was published in Castanea, that the variety name, "montana" was equally valid, if written as Sarracenia purpurea subspecies purpurea variety montana, or Sarracenia purpurea subspecies venosa variety montana. So, no need to change your labels. Just something to keep in mind, when dealing with the variety "montana". It was published, the way it was, in order to avoid future complications, if, at some future point, the taxonomy of Sarracenia purpurea were to be changed.
Thanks again to BaseDrifter and Goodkoalie for inspiring me to investigate this issue and learn a little more about the taxonomy of our amazing CP.
Last edited:
Interesting derail of this thread... though informative. Many papers have been published more recently with the usage of S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. montana (though with genetic analysis recently it may well fit more as a separate subspecific entity of its own). And as for the S. x readii discussion, not terribly long ago there was a CPN article denoting names for crosses with the various S. purpurea/rosea hybrids and the S. rubra complex: S. x readii as a type was from hybrids with S. alabamensis ssp. wherryi, and the article provided the name S. x bellii for crosses with S. leucophylla and S. rubra, more specifically with S. rubra ssp. gulfensis.
Last edited by a moderator:
The ITIS site lists those names as not accepted. When is a species name valid but not accepted.
Re: S. readii (see my post below).
Although this paper is dated it goes over the conventions for the Latinization of personal names.
http://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/Congress/IBC_1975/Prop030-032.pdf
Re: S. readii (see my post below).
Although this paper is dated it goes over the conventions for the Latinization of personal names.
http://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/Congress/IBC_1975/Prop030-032.pdf
Last edited:
Re: Sarracenia × readii - Current accepted spelling is S. × readei.
A plant collected by L.H. Reade was labeled as "Sarracenia drummondii × S. rubra = S. readi" (single "i"). This name was never published but was used as a horticultural name for the plant in a 1948 publication. A description and name was published as "S. × readii" by Bell in J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 68(1): 69. 1952
Since it was named after Reade the Latinization would be to append a single "i" thus S. readei.
Bell's 1952 published description can be read here (page #69 in the text):
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/jncas/id/2093/rec/8
A plant collected by L.H. Reade was labeled as "Sarracenia drummondii × S. rubra = S. readi" (single "i"). This name was never published but was used as a horticultural name for the plant in a 1948 publication. A description and name was published as "S. × readii" by Bell in J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 68(1): 69. 1952
Since it was named after Reade the Latinization would be to append a single "i" thus S. readei.
Bell's 1952 published description can be read here (page #69 in the text):
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/jncas/id/2093/rec/8
