Derrick Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 24 Myrmecodia tuberosa "salomonensis".JPG] Crown Prince Range above Arawa, Bougainville Island, Northern Solomon Islands. This is a particularly robust form of this extremely widespread and varied 'species' which is possibly an example of lumping and future research (DNA?) might consider some forms to be individual species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 very nice it's a shame we not see , the stem with the clypeoli and alveoli to the adult plant the last picture makes me think to the taxa to FRANCK, what do you think ? jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Hello Derrick, in your 3rd picture there is a stone sticking in the caudex. I've frequently seen stones sticking in Myrmecodia caudices in West Papua. I always thought that maybe children make fun of throwing stones at these plants, but have never investigated this any further. What do you think? All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted February 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 I did not look closely, so I am not even sure its a stone but if so it is the only example i have seen or perhaps noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted May 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Facebook certainly is a great source of misinformation even from persons that should know better. Myrmecodia tuberosa "salomonensis" with double quotation symbols is the correct spelling and presentation. It is not a horticultural cultivar so 'solomonensis' is wrong on two counts even though it does come from the Solomon Islands. See C.R. Huxley & M.H.P. Jebb's revision of Myrmecodia page 291. http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/565633. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 I am confused now Derrick? Huxley & Jebb use 'single quote marks' for all the variant names in their revision of the genus Myrmecodia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted May 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Frank. Even the illustrious Camilla Rosalind Huxley is not absolutely perfect in her work but extremely close to being so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivar If one uses double quotation marks then one may add whatever one wishes to a species name that provides more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 why not a subsp - var or f name ? for me a lot of these tuberosa have enough of different morphological characters to be able to claim to have a sub-ranking name, or even not a species name ? why give them all the name tuberosa ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Wistuba Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Hi Derrick, looking through the pictures again, I feel that the pictures show two different taxons. There are spiny plants and plants that quite closely would resemble Myrmecodia bullosa a bit. Are they all from the same location? All the best Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrick Posted May 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Yes Andreas, these plants were all from the region near Panguna village (ca. 2.000 m.) ranging right down to sea level near Arawa. Spineless plants although rarer grew among spiny examples (some very spiny) but were a little more common percentage in the mangroves. To the north on New Ireland Island in the Bismarck Archipelago, the often less spiny M. tuberosa "dahlii ' grades into M. tuberosa "salomonensis" in a north south cline. My rather limited field experience leads me to think that spine cover in myrmecodias is not a very useful diagnostic, (e.g M. beccarii) DNA may one day provide more certain diagnoses. Regarding Jeff's question "why give them all the name tuberosa ?" I give up. why? Bear in mind that the Huxley and Jebb studies used what are now rather obsolete methods. Bring on the DNA research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Bonjour for DNA analysis we must know all the species and specimens each having ,difficult at present no?and then as in other genres I'm not sure all infrarang can be differentiated by this analysis must not, above all, to drop the taxonomy, the science is accessible to all, for centuries botanists have used it. for me, but hey this is only my opinion, DNA analysis is only a complement to other sciences ( taxonomy , caryologie ,etc) and sometimes it brings more questions than answers ( I see on the pinguicula genus) what was done HUXLEY & JEBB and all their predecessors does not seem obsolete , on the contrary, since we use it, now use our new science to bring more answers, of course jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.