Yes. It's just an example of bad taxonomy. "Apomictic species" are clones.
Jim McKenney
From: penstemon <penstemon@Q.com>
To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [pbs] The "real' stoloniferous T. clusiana
>When you wrote "No one cares if it reproduces sexually or asexually. Or even if it reproduces at all, for that matter." I read that as an accurate description of nineteenth century taxonomy. I'm pretty sure our contemporaries in taxonomy are much better educated.
So now we are denying the existence of apomictic species?
Bob Nold
Denver, Colorado, USA
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/