Click Here To Visit The SRGC Main Site
Thank you Janis and Gerry for your answers,i too think morphology does play apart but when we start using colour and length of stigma and do the anthers extend over the stigma or not ect it just doesn't seem right to me, when every sp has or should have a wide variation with in its genetic parameters and when a plant slightly strays from that is it right to give it a name?Are the papers that differs are they just two different interpretation of the findings.
Janis - I too belong to the generation which regards morphology as fundamental to classification. While genetic/phylogenetic analysis may eventually prove illuminating, at present the procedures are too limited to draw any definite conclusions or to discard a taxonomy based on traditional morphological criteria. Incidentally, the 'genetic concept of species' was severely criticised by by Harland in the 1930's &, in my view, his criticism still seems valid.
Beautifull pics Melvyn,do you think the stipled forms are dissapearing,it would be a shame for that colour form to go?I really like the dark goulymi.
Hello Davey, I have no reason to think they might be disappearing, I think we were just not there at the right time. For those not sure what I am going on about I attach an image taken in 2009 of the two forms together.
Some Crocus in bloom today, due to the strong winds they are a bit untidy...