S.rosea

[pond boy]

Well the title says it all!

 

[sarracenialuver]

Hello,
Try http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/ For lots of pictures.
Kevin

 

[pond boy]

Thanks.

 

[SnowyFalcon]

Isn't it S. Purpurea ssp. Venosa var. Burkei rather than S. Rosea??

**snicker**

<span id='ME'><center>SnowyFalcon watches to see people's reactions</center></span>

SF

 

[pond boy]

Hay! I didn`t know that thanks.(I think I`ll probably keep calling it s.rosea though `cause it`s easier to type lol)

 

[SnowyFalcon]

To me, the longer the name, the cooler. Try walking up to someone and saying you have a Sarracenia Purpurea subspecies Venosa var. Burkei and see what kind of look you get!!

People think I'm crazy when I start spouting off my own pronunciations of these Latin names!!

SF

 

[Alvin Meister]

If purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii is to be renamed S. rosea, then in theory we should have S. rubra, S. jonesii, S. wherryi, S. gulfensis and S. alabamamensis. I think S. rosea is a bit of a joke. It would also mean forma luteola should be renamed S. rosea forma luteola.

 

[gardenofeden]

I'm with you Alvin! Very few people here in the UK accept the rosea name, and the consensus seems to be that the plant is correctly named as S.purp. ven. var burkii.

 

[pond boy]

Actualy if you go by my bioligy for this year`s definition of species all sarrs should be the same species! So it would be s.sarracenia ssp.purpurea sssp. venosa var.burkei! There defination of species is any group of plants that can be hybridized and p

 

[pond boy]

roduce fertile young!

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

I personally don't like the name "S. rosea" at all either. Just stick with the subspecies and forms, that's how most people learned them.

 

[Alvin Meister]

Cheers Stephen

Who came up with S. rosea by the way?

 

[gardenofeden]

Quote[/b] (Alvin Meister @ Oct. 26 2003,2:18)]Cheers Stephen  

Who came up with S. rosea by the way?

It was Case, the same 1 who proposed the controversial rubras subspecies as species, eg S.jonesii!