On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:19 PM, aaron floden wrote: > Where is the molecular data!!! Lumping all these under one heterogenous P. daurica does not make much sense when there are ploidy differences between some of them (caucasica=daurica v. coriifolia is 2n=10, and wittmanniana is 2n=20, diploid and tetraploid). Dear Aaron and all, You are totally right. I was just reporting basically that the species is in a taxonomic complex and exhibits variability. Peony systematics are far from well understood or studied. The thing about all these so called daurica subspecies is that they do look a lot alike for what that's worth. > > The only recent phylogeny is from Russia and has a large polytomy where some of these Caucasus species included (they still include oreogeton). They also have the occasional hybrids that lead to the variability of flower color named; chamaeleon and litvinskajae. Yet another taxonomic mess. > > Is that third and final part of the series out? Really, the phylogeny should have been first. So far I've only seen thorough analyses of the Moutan. > The 3rd Vol from Hong is still in process, but due later this year, I think. Will it clarify things? I doubt it. Unfortunately there's no one doing serious research on this topic. Best Jim W.