Sarracenia purpurea VS. rosea

[Johnny]

What is the official nomenclature of these plants ? Is it only S.p.burkei that has been changed to S.rosea in order to separate it as it's own species ?

Thanks
-Johnny

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

Sarracenia purpurea ssp. purpurea
Sarracenia purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii or Sarracenia rosea


Some see enough difference in burkii to seperate it into it's own species; hence S. rosea. Personally it's still CLEARLY a purp and I stick with the long nomenclature of S. purp ssp. venosa var burkii. Lumper vs splitters. Tomato toemahto.

Some also believe some of the Sarracenia rubra subspecies vary enough from one another to give them their own species. Don Schnell's book talks about the differences and is extremely helpful in showing you what the debate is all about.

 

[Johnny]

I agree with you, I was just wondering if anything was made "official" on the staus of said plants. Taxonomy can be so frustrating sometimes !

 

[scottychaos]

Who has the authority to make these things "official"?
is there one global body that is in charge of such things?

Scot

 

[Alexis]

I don't pay any attention to 'rosea'. If visual differences were the important thing, we'd have to have sarracenia purpurea, sarracenia venosa and sarracenia rosea.

Yet everybody seems happy to lump ssp. purpurea and ssp. venosa together and elevate burkii to rosea.

Sarracenia purpurea ssp. purpurea pitchers are vastly different from the other two, yet venosa and burkii are broadly similar.

 

[Not a Number]

Sarracenia purpurea ssp. purpurea pitchers are vastly different from the other two, yet venosa and burkii are broadly similar.

Maybe that's why it is currently classified as S. purpurea ssp venosa var burkii

 

[Alexis]

That's my point.

Why should it be sarracenia rosea instead?

 

[Johnny]

Who has the authority to make these things "official"?
is there one global body that is in charge of such things?

Scot

I was wondering the same damn thing...

 

[Devon]

I read barry's thing on s. purps a while ago and appantly rosea has a bigger "lip" and is larger in general, and there are a few minor differences.. I don't really remeber all of it but I think that's what it said. I just call it rosea because it takes less time to type. but I would agree that it's a form of purpurea...

 

[Alexis]

appantly rosea has a bigger "lip" and is larger in general

Same applies to ssp. venosa when compared to ssp. purpurea.

So why don't we have sarracenia venosa?

No doubt somebody will point out the flowers, but we don't split red and yellow flowered rubra ssp. wherryi into two.

 

[Devon]

Same applies to ssp. venosa when compared to ssp. purpurea.

So why don't we have sarracenia venosa?

No doubt somebody will point out the flowers, but we don't split red and yellow flowered rubra ssp. wherryi into two.

good point.........

I really have no clue.

 

[seedjar]

I'm pretty sure the only justification that I've heard was the flower. Seems kind of silly to me; at a glance, you would group the purpurea varieties together as distinct from the various other species. They're too close in form to be distinct species.
But there is the case, among genera like Nepenthes, where plants that look very similar are named distinctly because of geographical distribution. I believe in my phylogeny class we talked about animal species that were distinguished almost entirely by genetic markers (probably as a result of geographic separation, I guess.)
With Sarracenia, though, it seems like varietal names are preferred for distinct groups, or simply location data.
~Joe

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

Though flowers in taxonomy usually play a large role in determining species, wouldnt it be simpler to just refer to all 4 as subspecies?
It sounds like the current classifications have more to do with location of the plants to one another then the characteristics. Sure one can make the case that the lip, flower colors, hood hairs etc all vary but IMO these are just genetic variabilities and not qualifications to claim a new species. Price example would be with Sarracenia flava (cuprea, rubricorpora, maxima, rugelli etc...) They are just referred to as varieties, not subspecies.

Sarracenia purpurea ssp./var. purpurea
Sarracenia purpurea ssp./var. venosa
Sarracenia purpurea ssp./var. burkii
Sarracenia purpurea ssp./var. montana

This would make things much simpler IMO.

If we were to use rosea then by these standards we could classify blondes, brunettes, red heads etc... all into their own species...

 

[Devon]

If we were to use rosea then by these standards we could classify, blondes, brunettes, red heads etc... all into their own species...

hahaha...

 

[Alexis]

I believe the current classifications have more to do with location of the plants to one another then the characteristics. Sure one can make the case that the lip, flower colors, hood hairs etc all vary but IMO these are just genetic variabilities and not qualifications to claim a new species.

Sarracenia purpurea ssp. purpurea
Sarracenia purpurea ssp. venosa
Sarracenia purpurea ssp. burkii
Sarracenia purpurea ssp. montana

This would make things much simpler IMO.

I agree. We all know they're different, but the argument revolves around exactly how different they are.

And that could go on forever.

 

[F R e N c H 3 z]

Drats caught me in between edits...

I dont know why I hadnt thought of flava yesterday as an example. Why does one follow a variety and another a subspecies? genetics?

 

[Johnny]

It's determined on a genetic level in this day and age. Even if plants (or animals) are similar looking, if they are genetically different enough "they" often asign them their own species designation rather than a sub-species status. I'm more familiar with the way this works in the animal kingdom however. I know it's sort of a different ball game when plants are considered.

 

[RL7836]

For an interesting read on this topic (& permutations) head over here.

 

[Ant]

I purpurea become a group/subgenus in Sarracenia. S. purpurea just seems to cover to many different plants. (yet I still would like to call them all purps if I refer to them as a whole.) The genetic test mentioned in RL's link stated that all the plants were very different then the species like flava, leucophylla, and rubra. So the species would be S. venosa, S. purpurea, S. burkii. (I hate the name rosea, but I guess that would be fine with me.)