Jump to content
Forum for Epiphytic Myrmecophytes

Recommended Posts

H. moseleyanum var moseleyanum Becc. (Odoardo Beccari) published in Malesia raccolta 2, p150, (1885) (Malesia2.)

Type description http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44197923#page/264/mode/1up.

Image, tav.35, figs15-20 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44197923#page/157/mode/1up

In key http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44197923#page/239/mode/1up .

Type, Manus Island, Admiralty Islands, on the equator north of New Guinea Island.

http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:apni.taxon:687675#tab_records

A Solomon Islands collection. http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000772004

Synonyms, When finally published some of these may have infra generic status.

H. brassii, S. Moore, http://plants.jstor.org/specimen/k000761961.

H. camporum S. Moore, http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bri-aq0570117

H. forbesii Hook f. http://plants.jstor.org/specimen/k000761961

H. longistylum Becc. http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000772003

H. mindanaense Elmer http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.e00032343

H. oblongum (Benth) Becc. http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000761960

H. papuanum Becc. http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000761955 See Forster, P. I. in Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Dicotyledons, p435, (2002).

H. robustum Rech. http://herbarium.univie.ac.at/database/detail.php?ID=170851

H. stewartii Fosberg, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8443412#page/22/mode/1up

 

H. moseleyanum Becc. var. agatifolium (Val.) com. nov., Jebb & C. R. Huxley in press. See # 2 & 3 of the following herbarium sheets.

Synonym H. agatifolium Val.

http://ibis.biologi.lipi.go.id/specimen_detail.php?&species_id=00V8PTDEQ0&spec=moseleyanum&genus_id=0064I6M6CD&gen=Hydnophytum&family_id=00124Q9AB2&fam=Rubiaceae.

 

H. moseleyanum var teysmannii Becc. was published in Malesia raccolta 2, p151, (1885).

Malesia 2. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44197923#page/265/mode/1up

http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000761959

Kew Plant list http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-100978.

Basionym H. montanum Scheff. in Annales du Jardin Botanique de Buitenzorg 1, p31. (1876) (Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg) is illegitimate See,

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/88793#page/40/mode/1up

Do not confuse with H. montanum Blume. Nova Guinea 8, part2, botany, p773, (1906- 1907).

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42447#page/175/mode/1up

And, Nova Guinea 8, part2, botany, p503, (1906- 1907).

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42443#page/535/mode/1up

And, Nova Guinea 8, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42443#page/536/mode/1up.

Admiralty Islands collection http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000761962

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be important as to exactly how these will be formally published. If they are merely lumped into moseleyanum var. moseleyanum or whatever infra taxon, then I suggest we hold onto the original names informally by using double quotation symbols. Already excellent examples for this usage would be H. moseleyanum "forbesii", and H. moseleyanum "longistylum" because they differ so considerably from Australian populations.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

do you know  their flower form , and the anther,stigma, hair ring  position  ?

 

for the determination in my opinion it is the whole of the plant which must be taken into account not only the leaves .

 

in the role of taxonomy infrataxons are also important.

 

 

It will be important as to exactly how these will be formally published. If they are merely lumped into moseleyanum var. moseleyanum or whatever infra taxon, then I suggest we hold onto the original names informally by using double quotation symbols. Already excellent examples for this usage would be H. moseleyanum "forbesii", and H. moseleyanum "longistylum" because they differ so considerably from Australian populations.   

 

if  they differ so considerably why not just  H.forbesii or  H longistylum  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, you obviously have no real understanding of modern taxonomy and phylogenetics to ask such questions and especially to ask someone who has NOT done the years of training, field and herbarium work needed to provide such answers. It is evident that Jebb and Huxley consider that the various forms of H. moseleyanum are a cline of variable but potentially interbreeding forms.  Exactly what the entire range of forms in this cline happen to be, I cannot say, because I do not have access to anywhere near enough examples. However, what we do know is that at one end of a series of forms there is quite a 'spiny' example (H. forbesii) and at another end, there is the Australian form that is very smooth skinned. 

   My objective is NOT, repeat NOT to check if the works of Huxley, Jebb, and others are accurate, that is a job for their peers. What I am trying to ascertain is merely how many taxa/species are currently known and accepted and what is their correct name. This knowledge is very useful for those of us that spend time in ant-plant habitats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me the taxonomy and the phenology  are 2 complementary sciences that sometimes have difficulties to meet, modern taxonomy actually do not like the infrarangs and some want even remove them, for old like me, they will have all their senses on the contrary.

 

actually we have not, it seem to me , DNA analysis( consensus tree) on all these species , lack of fresh specimen.

 

we did mostly as descriptions sometimes very succinct or herbaria often not representative that sometimes very degraded leaves with that difficult to do something ,if not extrapolate :rolleyes:

 

jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff. What you say should be obvious to anyone whom has a more than superficial interest in botany. Although it is evident that care must be exercised and balanced against what is understood from examining plant forms, future phylogenetic work especially using genetics, will almost certainly change current concepts of the 'hydnophytinae' (and many other plant groups) but we laypersons can only work with the information currently available.

    Already there are hints that some new groupings of older species names in hydnophytum are based at least in part on the internal form of their tubers. But the details still await someone publicly publishing such 'new' insights. The quotation marks around the word 'new' are ironic, because some of these insights may be decades old.  About 50 years of work still awaits publication. Indeed, Huxley & Jebb's work may already be obsolete. Perhaps why it has not been officially published.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

for me  in example the genus pinguicula (a genus that I know well) 3 sciences are complementary  the taxonomy; the phenology; the caryology.

do without one or the other for me is a aberration ,

3 must be conducted simultaneously without privileging one or the other.
 
I have confessed that I have a weakness for taxonomy, the science that is in my view within the reach of all and that can be practiced 'in situ'
 
jeff

 

 

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...