In message , writes
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Note that I'm taking your word for its "mere" sub-species status on
trust: I wouldn't believe it from any old poster, as it seems
unlikely, and it's the first I've heard of it.

It hybridises readily and naturally, doesn't it? Lack of natural
inter-fertility is the usual criterion. As you should know, the
classification of such things is very much a matter of taste,
because plants have truly weird sex lives.

That however is not definitive. The red (Silene dioica) and white
campions (Silene latifolia) hybridise readily and naturally, but still
seem to be could species.

Again, there's been time since the last Ice Age for speciation.

Some evidence for that would make it more believable. I don't
know of a single example of a clear, natural speciation event in
higher animals or plants in that period, that wasn't the result
of an inter-species or inter-generic cross.

The same applies to several other endemic British species, like
the red grouse. I agree that we should avoid destroying them, but
we shouldn't start confusing molehills with mountains.

Have they made the red grouse back into a species again? I missed the
memo.

Miaow. Careless wording. Yes, it's probably a subspecies.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , writes
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Note that I'm taking your word for its "mere" sub-species status on
trust: I wouldn't believe it from any old poster, as it seems
unlikely, and it's the first I've heard of it.

It hybridises readily and naturally, doesn't it? Lack of natural
inter-fertility is the usual criterion. As you should know, the
classification of such things is very much a matter of taste,
because plants have truly weird sex lives.

Again, there's been time since the last Ice Age for speciation.

Some evidence for that would make it more believable. I don't
know of a single example of a clear, natural speciation event in
higher animals or plants in that period, that wasn't the result
of an inter-species or inter-generic cross.

Mimulus cupriphilus seems to be a decent candidate.

The same applies to several other endemic British species, like
the red grouse. I agree that we should avoid destroying them, but
we shouldn't start confusing molehills with mountains.

Have they made the red grouse back into a species again? I missed the
memo.

Miaow. Careless wording. Yes, it's probably a subspecies.

They have however decided that the Scottish crossbill is a species. (The
crossbills seem to be a genetically undifferentiated cryptic species
group. They make the white-headed gulls look simple.)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

wrote in message ...
Some evidence for that would make it more believable. I don't
know of a single example of a clear, natural speciation event in
higher animals or plants in that period, that wasn't the result
of an inter-species or inter-generic cross.

De Vries and evening primroses?

Phil

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

Hyacinthoides Taxon finds it readily enough.

Grundmann et al, Phylogeny and taxonomy of the bluebell genus
Hyacinthoides, Asparagaceae [Hyacinthaceae], Taxon 59(1): 68-82 (2010)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00008
(paywalled)

Damn. It's not accessible via our periodicals. Thanks.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , writes
In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

English bluebells are a big responsibility: the Brit Isles have most
of the world population, and they are vulnerable to hybridisation.

Well, yes and no. They are merely a subspecies, with only 11,000
years of difference from the Spanish.

Personally I would give serious consideration to lumping English and
Spanish (and Italian) bluebells into a single species (but I'd want to
read the recentish paper in Taxon), but the consensus classification
gives them species rank.

However, not all authorities agree, and I have considerable suspicion
that the species rank is as much political as scientific. I should
have at least clarified that my remark was my opinion and not the
consensus. As you know, I have a decreasing opinion of many of the
botanical taxonomists, especially English ones.

If the hysteria over their promiscuity isn't justified by the facts,
then I would change my mind. If it is, I would like to know why
they are claimed to be so clearly separate species, but equally
different variants of other plants aren't. Do you have a reference
to that paper, or at least a search key?


Hyacinthoides Taxon finds it readily enough.

Grundmann et al, Phylogeny and taxonomy of the bluebell genus
Hyacinthoides, Asparagaceae [Hyacinthaceae], Taxon 59(1): 68-82 (2010)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00008
(paywalled)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , Phil
Gurr writes

wrote in message ...
Some evidence for that would make it more believable. I don't
know of a single example of a clear, natural speciation event in
higher animals or plants in that period, that wasn't the result
of an inter-species or inter-generic cross.

De Vries and evening primroses?

Evening primroses (Euoenothera) are one of the groups of plant with an
odd genetic system (permanent translocation heterozygosity), and what is
species is in this group is a little murky.

In this group both gigas forms (autotetraploids) and hybrid Renner
complexes have spontaneously occurred. But as they occurred under
cultivation Nick may not consider this natural speciation.

But there might be an example of an autopolyploid demonstrably less than
10,000 years old somewhere. I'd suggest Primula scotica as a candidate,
but perhaps it lived somewhere else during the Wurm.

But Nick probably intended a wider exclusion of both hybrids and
polyploids.

Phil



--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Well, OK, if you think it's hysteria, look at it another way. Forget
about the species question, and consider that we have a "mere"
/variety/. This variety has a combination of subjectively desirable
features not found in its "rival" or, it seems, in their hybrids. If
there's a danger of losing it, even in limited areas, I find it
entirely reasonable to agitate for protective measures.

Within reason. My objection to what is going on is that it has got
beyond that, and is one factor in the exclusion of rational thought
about what we should do about woodland plant conservation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:51:28 +0000 (GMT), wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

English bluebells are a big responsibility: the Brit Isles have most
of the world population, and they are vulnerable to hybridisation.

Well, yes and no. They are merely a subspecies, with only 11,000
years of difference from the Spanish.

Personally I would give serious consideration to lumping English and
Spanish (and Italian) bluebells into a single species (but I'd want to
read the recentish paper in Taxon), but the consensus classification
gives them species rank.

However, not all authorities agree, and I have considerable suspicion
that the species rank is as much political as scientific.

And sometimes more philatelic than either.

I should
have at least clarified that my remark was my opinion and not the
consensus. As you know, I have a decreasing opinion of many of the
botanical taxonomists, especially English ones.

If the hysteria over their promiscuity isn't justified by the facts,
then I would change my mind. If it is, I would like to know why
they are claimed to be so clearly separate species, but equally
different variants of other plants aren't. Do you have a reference
to that paper, or at least a search key?

Well, OK, if you think it's hysteria, look at it another way. Forget
about the species question, and consider that we have a "mere"
/variety/. This variety has a combination of subjectively desirable
features not found in its "rival" or, it seems, in their hybrids. If
there's a danger of losing it, even in limited areas, I find it
entirely reasonable to agitate for protective measures.

--
Mike.

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Phil
Gurr writes

Some evidence for that would make it more believable. I don't
know of a single example of a clear, natural speciation event in
higher animals or plants in that period, that wasn't the result
of an inter-species or inter-generic cross.

De Vries and evening primroses?

Evening primroses (Euoenothera) are one of the groups of plant with an
odd genetic system (permanent translocation heterozygosity), and what is
species is in this group is a little murky.

In this group both gigas forms (autotetraploids) and hybrid Renner
complexes have spontaneously occurred. But as they occurred under
cultivation Nick may not consider this natural speciation.

But there might be an example of an autopolyploid demonstrably less than
10,000 years old somewhere. I'd suggest Primula scotica as a candidate,
but perhaps it lived somewhere else during the Wurm.

But Nick probably intended a wider exclusion of both hybrids and
polyploids.

Yes, because this is not one such. Natural hybrids and polyploids
are sufficiently common that some species have probably originated
in that period.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I know I'm going to regret this, but what in particular are you objecting to, both in attempts to preserve the english bluebell and in woodland plant conservation generally?

Jo wrote:
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Jo wrote:
"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Tell you what, if you're not too far away I'll come and dig them up for
you - and plant them on my plot...
You'd be only too welcome!
Where? (ish)

Leigh-on-Sea in Essex

Coo! One of my old stamping-grounds!

Give me a poke when they've flowered and I'll buy a train...

Remove the 'foobar' and the e-addy works.

--
Rusty

Jake wrote:

OTOH, the world's going to end next year, I believe, so why worry
;-)))

In the Mayan calendar, according to some. According to others, it's just
the end of a period, like the last millennium, etc., when another 5,000
year cycle will begin.

So it Mayend next year...

--
Rusty

Mike Lyle wrote:

Have they made the red grouse back into a species again? I missed the
memo.

I made one into a casserole once.

--
Rusty

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:39:41 +0000, Rusty Hinge
wrote:

Jake wrote:

OTOH, the world's going to end next year, I believe, so why worry
;-)))

In the Mayan calendar, according to some. According to others, it's just
the end of a period, like the last millennium, etc., when another 5,000
year cycle will begin.

So it Mayend next year...

Az tecking the p... is rude, according to the perudish, can I assume
you're simply being incaherent?

--
Mike.

On Jan 30, 5:49*pm, wrote:
In article ,

Jake wrote:

Perhaps the issue is that the spanish bluebell is aggressive and could
probably satisfy the definition of invasive before too long. Foreign
introductions usually turn out to be a mistake, not just in the UK of
course - Australia's battling cane toads and even camels! Here the
grey squirrel's killing off the red, well at least the virus it
carries is.

Er, no. *It isn't significantly more invasive than the native one.
It is a bit, but not enough to get excited about.

Let's not forget that gardeners introduced Japanese Knotweed,
Hilalayan Balsam, the so-called "OxfordRagwort" and others. OK, maybe
the last was introduced by botanists not gardeners.

Only the first is a serious problem. *Himalayan balsam is very
invasive, but does not form monocultures by excluding all other
plants. *And Oxford ragwort isn't a problem at all.


I do wonder if the comment about Oxford Ragwort is motivated by the
general hysteria about ragwort that is prevalent. Often stirred up by
by those with a financial interest. Common ragwort is not the problem
that it is often portrayed to be. See. http://www.ragwortfacts.com
http://www.ragwort.org

and
http://www.swanseafoe.org.uk/ragwort...-nonsense.html