Anyone see the latest American Journal of Botany?[img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/confused.gif[/img]? I haven't obtained the whole article yet, just the summary below from this link:
Enjoy, Fernando Rivadavia
Phylogenetic analysis of Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae): chloroplast DNA
sequences and morphology support several geographically distinct radiations1
Thomas Cieslak, Jai Santosh Polepalli, Adam White, Kai Müller, Thomas Borsch, Wilhelm Barthlott, Juerg Steiger, Adam Marchant and Laurent Legendre
The genus Pinguicula is one of the three genera of the carnivorous
Lentibulariaceae, comprising approximately 80 species. Phylogeny inference using nucleotide sequences of the chloroplast gene matK and the trnK group II intron, as well as a set of 32 morphological characters revealed five well-supported, major lineages within the genus. These lineages largely reflect radiations in clearly defined geographic regions, whereas most previously recognized sections of the genus are shown to be para- or polyphyletic. A species-rich Mexican-Central American-Caribbean clade has the Eurasian P. alpina and an East Asian clade as successive sisters. All three are characterized by a production of flower buds on winter-resting plants, a specific corolla hair structure and a very large corolla lower central lobe. Another diverse clade is composed of species with primarily European distribution including the widespread type species P. vulgaris. For this clade, vegetative reproduction during dormancy is synapomorphic. Species native to SE North America and the South American Andes and a group of Mediterranean and NE Atlantic coast species together appear in a fifth well-supported clade, that is characterized by a tropical-type growth habit. It is the only clade that has reached temperate zones of the southern hemisphere.
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Thank you for providing that. That conjures up a vague memory of a phrase from a Biology class, that went something like, Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. I think it meant something to the effect that like parents produce like offspring.
I was wondering if you straighten me out with another vague memory about speciation. I was under the impression that if you have a given species that produces non-sterile offspring, that is considered having a separate and distinct species. Why are we having, let's say, two sundews of different species names, crossing and producing viable offspring? Maybe I'm not expressing this clearly, but I was under the impression that if two of whatever can produce viable offspring, they should be classified as being the same species. But this doesn't seem to be the case with sundews, pitcher plants, butterworts, etc... Shouldn't there really be fewer true species?