Nhu Nguyen xerantheum@gmail.com
Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:49:34 PDT

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*.

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

More information about the pbs mailing list