[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sagittaria chilensis
Dave Grim asked about Sagittaria chilensis - Jared seems to think that it is
another name for S. platyphylla.
I ran a search on the genus Sagittaria in the IPNI (International Plant
Names Index), which contains information from RBG, Kew, Harvard University
Herbarium and the Australian National Herbarium (http://www.ipni.org/). At
least the NAME appears to be legit. - it was first published by Cham. &
Schlecht. in Linnaea, ii. (1827) 155. A note appended to the file equates
the species epithet with montevidenis. It is apparently a nomenclatural
synonym for S. montevidensis subsp. chilensis (Cham. & Schltdl.) Bogin in
Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 9: 196. 1955 AND S. pugioniformis var. chilensis
(Cham. & Schltdl.) Kuntze in Revis. Gen. Pl. 3, pt. 2: 328. 1898.
Since these things work on priority of date, the plant was first described
and named by Cham & Schlecht. in 1827. They gave it the name Sagittaria
chilensis Cham. & Schlecht.
In 1898, Kuntz reassigned the plant as a variety (classification below
species) of S. pugioniformis, so the name became S. pugioniformis var.
chilensis (Cham. & Schltdl.) Kuntze [the original author's names go into
parenthesis when there is this sort of change]
In 1955, Bogin reclassified it as a subspecies (another classification below
species, but a bit above variety) of S. montevidensis, so the name becomes
S. montevidensis subsp. chilensis (Cham. & Schltdl.) Bogin.
Now, that all being said, it is apparent that a diversity of opinion has
existed over the years about the status of this particular plant. Is it
distinct enough and different enough from all other Sagittaria to be
accorded full species status, or is it just a variety or subspecies of
another species. And if the latter is the case, WHICH is the "parent"
species? That's really a matter for experts to decide.
To settle the matter, you would probably need to look at the actual papers
in which the names and name changes appeared as well as examine the actual
herbarium specimens that were used for the descriptions. Oh yes, you'd also
probably need to be an expert, something which I am not.
Whether or not the plant you have is this particular
species/subspecies/variety is again something which would require you to
actually look at the source documents for. There would be a physical
description of the material upon which the name is based in the article and
by comparison with the plant you have you might be able to decide for
yourself. Of course, you should also probably be familiar with the physical
descriptions of all the other species/subspecies/varieties of Sagittaria
which have been collected before you could make a final determination.
Sometimes you can find Keys which will help you determine the exact
species/subspecies/variety. Right off the top, I am not aware if any such
Key exists which covers ALL of the Sagittaria species, but you might run a
search of the net to see what you can find.
I wouldn't think that this is "trade name confusion" - probably just luck
that your supplier got hold of an unusual variety which sounds rather
attractive from your description. Consider yourself lucky.