Drimia
Nhu Nguyen (Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:49:34 PDT)
Aaron,
Thank you for correcting the ID on this plant. I will make the necessary
changes on the wiki.
Regards to your comment about inconclusive genetics in this group, I will
have to disagree. According to Manning et al. (2004) *A revised generic
synopsis of Hyacinthaceae in sub-Saharan Africa, based on molecular
evidence, including new combinations and the new tribe Pseudoprospereae*,
the evidence for making this group a single genus is very well supported.
In the paper, *Ledebouria*, *Drimiopsis*, and *Resnova* falls into a single
monophyletic clade, supported by 99% bootstrap statistics. It is uncommon to
find a well supported clade like this and when one does find one, it is
clear that the organisms all fit together. If more evidence arises in the
future for Sub-Saharan Hyacinthaceae that would clarify more ambiguous
groups, this is one that will most likely remain unchanged. It has been 6
years since Manning made the revision to include *Resnova* and *Drimiopsis*in
*Ledebouria*. So it's time for us to move on and accept these similar
looking plant as a single, unified *Ledebouria*.
Nhu
Berkeley, CA
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM, aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com> wrote:
The picture on PBS is not D. maculata it is D. maxima. Drimiopsis maxima
lacks the prominent petioles of Drimiopsis maculata is seen here.
Lebatha's revision of Drimiopsis kept it separate from Ledebouria and
Resnova, and Venter also sees them as distinct, but closely related genera.
There are distinct morphologies between them and genetics are still
inconclusive.
Aaron
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerantheum/