[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Riccia see saw
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: Riccia see saw
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:50:00 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <200010200748.DAA07225 at actwin_com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> A Question/Answer in the December Aquarium Fish Magazine (pg 12-13)
> discusses a sinking form of Riccia. The conclusion by Claus Christensen
> of Tropica, after examining a clump under the microscope was that the
> two forms were the same species
This is what I was saying all along:) Check archives. It must be a 2-3 years
back. I said that it was a mutated form of Riccia.
But when someone else says they have a reliable source and another plausible
reason why it is not one species, then I'll be happy to say I am wrong.
Karen presented a good reason and source to why this was the case back
then(why it was two species and how I might have gotten a new species
Now Claus has settled the issue for now.
At least my original notions seem to be correct even if my confidence level
was not in my assertion:)
as he could see the two forms in the
> same plant. Karen Randall, answering the question, mentions the Baensch
> Atlas and says that she thinks it's not properly identified there.
Awhile back this was not clear though. As new information ( enter Claus)
came to light we have since corrected this issue.
At least it seems to cleared up... for now:) Hopefully no more see
Regards, The previously correct, then incorrect, now correct assertion
Growing is easy, identification and all the other stuff is not:)