User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 18

Thread: S. rosea?

  1. #1
    nepenthes_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Feild Ohio
    Posts
    3,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whats the Difrence Between S. Rosea and S. purpurea?

    cheers

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    S. rosea is/was also known as S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii (or is it burkei?)

    This is what I was told 4 year ago:
    "They [rosea] get bigger, much redder, hairier and have pink flowers. Very pretty plants I think. Otherwise, they are just the same as venosa."

    I also heard the flowers grow on shorter stalks and have smaller petals.
    Statik2426

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    S. rosea is a form of purp. It used to be S. purpurea ssp. Venosa ?? Burkeii I have no idea why they changed it
    Join the CCPS, you wont regret it: http://s4.invisionfree.com/CCPS

  4. #4
    nepenthes_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Feild Ohio
    Posts
    3,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thats odd... oh well thanks i was just curious it looks almost similar... except for a few notable things..

    cheers

  5. #5
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There was a CPN article detailing the reason for classifying it as a seperate species a couple years back. I checked the ICPS site and I think this is the one: September 2003 Issue (#32:3)
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It still is S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii. No way is it unique enough to be classified as a whole separate species. I recall Schnell said it hinged on the thickness of the pitcher lip, which varies anyway. S. flava var. rugelii has a wider neck on average, but we classify that by a whole different species.
    The S. rosea name should be binned.

    Rant over

    Anyway, var. burkii has a white flower style and petals that vary from white through to pale pink and bright magenta. The pitchers tend to have thicker lips, larger more undulating hoods and the colour is usually more of a uniform pink or pink with red veins.
    Alexis Vallance, U.K.
    Plant gallery
    Grow list

  7. #7
    nepenthes_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Feild Ohio
    Posts
    3,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks for the clarification!

    Cause sarracenia northwest is selling s.rosea.. not right now but will be

    Cheers

  8. #8
    BobZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Arcata, California
    Posts
    1,230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (nepenthes_ak @ April 07 2006,9:31)]thanks for the clarification!

    Cause sarracenia northwest is selling s.rosea..not right now but will be
    Let me add to the clarification/confusion. Here is what Barry Rice wrote in CPN 32(3):72
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]A recent paper by Naczi et al. (1999) validly published the name Sarracenia rosea for a plant already bearing the name Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii. You are free to use whichever of these two names you think is more appropriate. If you feel that this plant is a member of the species Sarracenia purpurea, then you would call it Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii. If you feel it is different enough to warrant being called a separate species, you could call it Sarracenia rosea. I have been contacted by a number of people who think it should be considered a separate subspecies -- however, names "Sarracenia purpurea subsp. burkii" or "Sarracenia purpurea subsp. rosea" have not been published in accordance with the ICBN, so using either would be only creating another illegitimate name, and more confusion.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •