What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

jimscott

Tropical Fish Enthusiast
I know that taxonomy is a manmade classification and that a lot of research goes into it to determine genus, species, etc... I also know that if you ask one taxonomist you get one opinion and if you ask another, you get a differning one. Still, a lot of logic and genetics go into it.

Having said all that, why do Byblis and Drosphyllum have genuses separate from Drosera, even though they are all dew-like plants? Secondarily, why would a sundew from North America be realted to one in Australia when something likbe B. liniflora is classified as being less closely related?

Why is Darlingtonia considered part of Sarracenia, especially S. minor?
 
Byblis is closer related to Pinguicula than Drosera. It's partly in the structure of the flowers. Drosera flowers have radial symmetry while Pinguicula and Byblis flowers are bilaterally symmetric.

BTW: The family Droseraceae contains Drosera, Dionaea, Drosophyllum and Aldrovandra. Genetic studies suggest Drosophyllum should be excluded. Wrap your head around this article if you like:

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/90/1/123
 
Last edited:
It truly is wild. The first thing I thought of when I saw "taxonomy" in the Drosera forum was that article, but I see it's already been provided. It's always blown my mind that the most closely related thing to D. regia is Aldrovanda... (if I'm reading the tree correctly).

xvart.
 
I understand that this sort of thing is based upon homology (structure) rather than analogy, but somehow I think they mix things up a bit. I'm also not fond of how they determine speciation. It kinda goes against that old thing about phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny. How can they call things a species when the crosses produce viable offspring that can further produce viable offspring?
 
How can they call things a species when the crosses produce viable offspring that can further produce viable offspring?

I believe it is called "magic."

xvart.
 
A lot of what I learned in Biology gets tossed out the window, in this hobby! Personally, I think there are a lot fewer species and a lot more cultivars / crosses.
 
A lot of what I learned in Biology gets tossed out the window, in this hobby! Personally, I think there are a lot fewer species and a lot more cultivars / crosses.

YOU said a mouthful my good man. I totally agree.
 
I understand that this sort of thing is based upon homology (structure) rather than analogy, but somehow I think they mix things up a bit.

Correct; the idea is to look at shared traits which arose from the common ancestor. The trick is how you tell what's similar because of common origin, and what's similar due to convergence (this applies to both morphology, where convergent evolution complicates things, and genetics, where it's entirely possible for mutations to be 'reversed' by subsequent mutations).

I'm also not fond of how they determine speciation. It kinda goes against that old thing about phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny.

The idea is old and, specifically, disused. While it's poetic and *does* allude to the evolutionary significance of shared developmental stages, it's long since been recognized as wrong. Sadly, this recognition led to the separation of developmental biology from evolutionary biology until recently, when we're recombining the two with much more nuanced views.

How can they call things a species when the crosses produce viable offspring that can further produce viable offspring?

A quote I once heard went something like this: "If you want to see the most vicious blood-sport ever, lock a dozen biologists in a room and tell them to define 'species'."

Since all species are constantly evolving, it's very hard to draw a static box around them, especially when you take asexual species into account. Is every asexual gecko individual a new species, since they never interbreed? What about bacteria, who scavenge DNA from the environment and incorporate it into their own genomes? The "separate gene pools" idea is good in theory, but falls apart when applied to the diversity of the natural world, leading to lots of hand-waving, workarounds, and general confusion.

As for the particular issue of hybridization, what you're missing is post-zygotic barriers, which you rarely see in cultivation. What if the hybrids can't survive natural winters, or lack a crucial chemical to protect against a local bug? What if they've got weakend immunity, or aren't desirable to the opposite sex (or pollinators)? Numerous factors can create a barrier to gene flow in natural settings, even if it's just different polination/breeding times; real plants can't rely on a person with a fridge and paintbrush to store their pollen a few months.

Numerous natural species produce hybrids, and I've even personally seen (almost assuredly non-fertile) cross-genus hybrids (corn snake x king snake and pygmy rattler x western diamondback). Darwin's finches, the flagship species of evolution, are known to hybridize during drought conditions (though such conditions are infrequent enough that the species will remain distinct). One species of frog (and several fish) exist only as hybrids, and can only reproduce by crossing with one of the two parent species (google hybridogenesis). Plants are even worse, as they hybridize far more readily than animals.

So basically, don't think in terms of absolutes; a trickle of gene flow doesn't undermine species status, nor does artificial hybridization.

Mokele
 
Henry, thanks for the respective explanations. What a muddles mess this whole area is! In light of all that, it makes me wonder why some fuss over location data?
 
  • #10
Well, different locations can still have different genes, even with gene flow, if there's natural selection acting on those genes. Ergo, even if they're all the same species, some regions may have brighter colors, larger traps, etc.
 
  • #11
The populations can also be adapted to local conditions for example Drosera intermedia "Cuba" and Drosera anglica "Hawaii".
 
  • #12
Henry, thanks for the respective explanations. What a muddles mess this whole area is! In light of all that, it makes me wonder why some fuss over location data?

Two reasons:

1) Conservation initiatives, like NASC; and,
2) Some people are crazy about collecting.

xvart.
 
  • #13
I agree with #2, but in light of what we know about how things change, is it really important, in the larger picture?
 
  • #14
Actually, it can be; there are numerous fossil examples (mostly in snails and clams, because the preserve so well) when a particular adaptation has arisen in a sub-population then spread throughout the whole population or species.

A vital part of a species long-term survival is preserving the genetic variability it needs to evolve in the face of new challenges, and preserving regional varieties preserves this natural variation.

Mokele
 
  • #15
Humans go to great lengths to preserve aesthetically pleasing genetic characteristics, which often end up in inbreeding and unhealthy animals and plants. I've seen that with chickens, tropical fish and goldfish. They are susceptible to anything that comes along and wipes them out. I think the emphasis should be more with the variation, rather than preserving certain characteristics.
 
Back
Top