Sarracenia alabamensis subsp. wherryi

[BarryRice]

Hey Folks,

After years of waffling on this issue, I've decided that I am going to adopt the old perspective that Case & Case promoted in the 1970s, which is to treat "S. rubra subsp. wherryi" as a subspecies of S. alabamensis, i.e. S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi.

I think that the enormous similarities of S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi to S. alabamensis subsp. alabamensis cannot be denied. They are certainly more similar to each other than they are similar to S. rubra subsp. rubra or S. rubra subsp. gulfensis. Furthermore, the fact that S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi occurs, for the most part, downstream of S. alabamensis subsp. alabamensis provides a strong plausibility argument for how a geographic migration might have resulted in one subspecies evolving into another population.

The other perspective that Schnell promotes, that all five plants in the "rubra-complex" should be treated as separate subspecies is perfectly workable, but just doesn't set right with me.

So, in summary, I'm using the following taxonomy:

S. rubra subsp. rubra Walt.
S. rubra subsp. gulfensis Schnell
S. jonesii Wherry
S. alabamensis subsp. alabamensis Case & Case
S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi Case & Case


Thoughts? Comments?

P.S. I've adjusted my treatments in the FAQ and photo gallery accordingly.

[Alexis]

It's a tricky one. It's as plausible a classification as any other.

The fly in the ointment may come from Chatham wherryi plants which seem more like gulfensis to me.

[BarryRice]

Alexis,

Agreed, 100% on that one. I've only seen plants in cultivation, and they are so peculiar and anomalous that I've wondered if they are incorrectly identified. I'd like to see these plants in the wild!

[Alexis]

You've got to assume that some hybridisation/evolution between rubra types has taken place somewhere along the line though, creating pockets of plants that defy clear classification.

From your oreophila trips, we can see some rubra-esque clones out there (some oreophila plants remind me of popei, so I'm sure some flava/rubra evolution activity is evident).

And alata is very much derived from rubra in my opinion (or vice versa).

One one hand, 5 subra subspecies could be simplest classification, but it's too simple to be correct all the way down the line.
I don't think it's possible to classify them definitively, especially since habitat loss means it's a lot harder now than 100 years ago.

[gardenofeden]

I think it is impossible to be sure, therefore go for the simplest i.e. Schnell's 5 subspecies. floral characteristics are so similar...

[BarryRice]

I followed Schnell's school of thought for a long time--it was, intellectually, what I was brought up on and I was also tremendously impressed by his work. Perhaps I was also a little under the spell of his celebrity, too (his being editor of CPN, so prominent in the ICPS and all).

And there was something nice in the simplicity of having the five subspecies at the same rank--the Occam's Razor approach promoted by "Gardenofeden" has its wisdom. However, having spent a fair amount of time in the field, my perspectives drifted over time.

Who knows? Molecular studies will probably dash to hell all this stuff anyway, and will probably make us merge S. psittacina with S. flava!