|
Hi George,
I'm sure I'm
not the only one who doesn't have a very clear picture of where the dividing
lines are drawn when trying to determine whether a plant is a separate species
or not. Of course, it can be approached from the other end by ruling out
those that appear to be crosses between two other species, but what set of
factors will determine whether something is a separate species to begin with? I
realize that this is open to interpretation and that disagreement has
always been the norm. Does the presence of one or more unique and
reproducible traits become a requirement? Are seedling batches grown to aid
in the determination of species, to see what traits express regularly in further
generations and if they are present in all or most examples brought from the
wild? We can never really know what happened hundreds of years ago, so if very
similar populations appear in isolated areas, they could have been spread by
people, so I guess location may not be too important a factor.
In a
related question, do you know if there is a native population of nigrescens, and
if so, is the upright nature of the plant that is in the trade present in all or
most of them. Having seen OP nigrescens seedlings, I've noticed that many
do not show this trait, and have wondered whether the wild population also
exhibits a wide variety of forms. These seedlings came from the plant most
commonly sold under that name, which I believe came from Japan to Alex Summers
some time ago. The other form which has been around some, and is sold by Shady
Oaks (which is more glaucous and more folded) also produced some odd
seedlings.
.............Bill
Meyer
----- Original Message -----
From:
h*@msn.com
To: hosta-open@mallorn.com
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:35
AM
Subject: Re: the number of hosta
species
Hi all,
Number of
species in the genus Hosta: The excellent reply of
Zonneveld of February 25 illustrates the fact that the number of true species
is always a work in progress. To wit, before Barry Yinger went to
Taehuksan to gather seed, no one new about H. yingeri. It is
always possible that new species are discovered. So for the time being,
Zonneveld's analysis is probably closer to the correct number (if there is
one) than the number of species listed in my book. In 1998/1990, to finish my
book, I found it necessary to adopt a
``legal'' species definition rather than a
theoretical/biological/micro-/macro-morphological one. The legal definition is based on the
rules promulgated by
the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the list of
species accepted and listed in Index Kewensis (which is the
undisputed authority for the taxonomic standing of validly published
taxa). I am glad that I based my species listing on LEGAL
(ICBN) definitions but some folks have repeated my list
without digging into my text and realizing that I questioned that list
extensively even back in 1990 when I wrote the taxonomy section of
my book. Even back then I had doubts about the validity of the number of
species then promulgated and if anyone is interested, please reread my
comments in my book starting on page 291 through 296. I even intimated that
the number of species may be less than the number now given by Zonneveld.
Let's remember that there are lumpers and splitters in plant taxonomy. In
1991 I did not want to cause chaos in Hosta nomenclature at
a time when no detailed scientific proof was available as to the true nature
of the "legal" taxa (species) within the genus. I felt it was more important
to reclassify the many "species" which were in fact cultivars, like H.
'Undulata' and `Tokudama'. a.s.o. Zonneveld and others have
done valuable research and it appears that many of the taxa Maekawa published
are in fact interspecific hybrids. I will publish an article in the near
future, in which I will comment further on this subject. At this point in time
I can state that Zonneveld's number is closer to the fact than my number based
on Maekawa. I am working with several learned institutions on this matter and
when more data are gathered, and together with currently published papers
(like Zonneveld's) a better picture will emerge. In the meantime, Zonneveld's
number is a very good one to consider and I applaud his valuable
research.
W. George
Schmid
----- Original Message -----
From:
zonneveld
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:49
AM
To: hosta-open@mallorn.com
Subject: the number of hosta
species
Let me quote from my article on hosta species ( the number
of
hosta species in the very valuable book of Schmid of 43
is
mainly based on the article of Maekawa of 1940 with 38
species
instead of on the article of Maekawa of 1969 with 27
species or better on
the 22 species of Fujita) is:
The number of Hosta species
From the 14
Japanese species recognized by Fujita (1976[18])
H. alismifolia F.
Maekawa (= H. longissima x H. montana;
Sugita, 1994) and H. tardiva are
shown here to be hybrids.
Two synonyms mentioned by Fujita
(1976[18]), H. rupifraga
and H. rectifolia, are reclassified as
species. H. gracillima is
demonstrated here to be a separate species;
related to H.
sieboldii, and not a varietas of H. longipes. Further there
are
two Chinese species and four Korean species, only
casually
mentioned by Fujita (1976[18]). Together with two new
Korean
species as mentioned by Chung et al., (1991d[15]), this adds
up
to the 23 species accepted here (excluding the newly described
H.
albofarinosa, see below). This is similar to the total number
of 22
species for Fujita (14 Japanese + 8 Chinese/Korean
species) or the total
number of 22-25 species suggested by
Chung et al.,
(1991d[15]).
Ben J.M.Zonneveld
Clusius lab pobox 9505
2300 RA
Leiden
The
Netherlands
mintemp-16C(5F)
Zonneveld@RULbim.LeidenUniv.NL
Fax:
31-71-5274999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message
text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|
