Jump to content
Forum for Epiphytic Myrmecophytes

Myrmecodia tuberosa "salomonensis" Bougainville Island.


Derrick

Recommended Posts

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.  

post-3-0-22844700-1393202735_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-26049200-1393202908_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-35580900-1393202959_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-53114500-1393203029_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-16250100-1393203084_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-44773000-1393203134_thumb.jpg

post-3-0-74157300-1393203179_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

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

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

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? :)  :D:lol::rolleyes:  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

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

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...