Sarracenia
Erect taxa
S. alabamensis subsp. alabamensis Case & Case S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi Case & Case S. alata (Wood) Wood S. flava L. S. flava var. atropurpurea (Hort.Bull) Bell S. flava var. cuprea Schnell S. flava var. maxima Hort.Bull ex Mast. S. flava var. ornata Hort.Bull ex Mast. S. flava var. rubricorpora Schnell S. flava var. rugelii (Shuttlew. ex A.DC.) Mast. S. jonesii Wherry S. leucophylla Raf. S. minor Walt. S. minor var. okefenokeensis Schnell S. oreophila (Kearney) Wherry S. rubra Walt. S. rubra subsp. gulfensis Schnell
Prostrate taxa
S. psittacina Michx. S. purpurea L. S. purpurea subsp. purpurea f. heterophylla (Eaton) Fern. S. purpurea subsp. venosa (Raf.) Wherry S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. montana Schnell & Determann S. rosea Naczi, Case & Case S. rosea f. luteola (Hanrahan & Miller) Naczi, Case & Case

Q: Sarracenia species lists

A: Now we come to something that causes endless arguments---which entities in the genus should be considered species? Scientists today conclude there are anywhere from eight to eleven species. The disagreement depends upon their species concepts; their scientific schools of thought; the type of research they use to form their opinions; who their graduate advisors were; and good old politics and personal animosities! (Oops, maybe I should not admit that here...)

In order to form a firm, reliable, and authoritative opinion about these matters, a scientist should spend a huge amount of time in the field studying these plants in great detail. I do not mean just a few trips---I mean a lot of field time. I estimate that I have probably spent about 90 field days total examining Sarracenia, in just about every state they occur in (at least for those species in the southeast USA). But you know what? That is simply not enough time.

Field time, and only field time, is what gives the researcher perspective on what is happening in the wild. Yes, molecular results can reveal relationships to help guide thought, but in the end you must examine the plants in the wild setting to judge the differences between, and commonalities joining, different populations of plants.

By the way, the decades I have spent looking at plants in cultivation do not count for much. In fact, studying cultivated plants can even be misleading, since the specimens in cultivation are often plants selected by horticulturists because they are abnormal!

Furthermore, I think that the modern botanist has another problem facing him or her. Specifically, anthropogenic land destruction has caused so much fragmentation of Sarracenia populations that modern botanists are presented with a skewed vision of how Sarracenia vary across the landscape. Where there were once great populations of plants across the southern US, there is now urban sprawl interspersed with scattered pitcher plant sites. The separate populations may look suggestively different from each other, but that is because the intervening sites---which may have had plants of intermediate character---have been destroyed. There may be an artificially enhanced appearance of distinct types of Sarracenia which is just an artifact of human development. Think about that, ye armchair taxonomists!

• S. gibbosa??
• S. rosea??
• S. alabamensis??
• S. jonesii??

On the table above, I list the species names that I prefer, along with all the subspecies, forms, etc. There are three main areas of controversy in that list. The first centers upon Sarracenia rubra. Many authors feel that Sarracenia jonesii and Sarracenia alabamensis should be considered subspecies, there is some disagreement as to what to do with the subsp. wherryi from this complex, and not all believe that Sarracenia gulfensis should be given separate status. The second controversy focuses on Sarracenia rosea, and whether it should be a separate species from Sarracenia purpurea. Finally, there is some current confusion about how the north and south subspecies of Sarracenia purpurea should be designated. Read the pages that follow for more details on these entities.

My interest is not so much in taxonomy as it is in conservation, so I am not going to defend any nomenclatural perspective with enormous vigor. My interest is just in trying to protect these entities from extinction. Call them what you will; our energies should be focused on keeping them alive in the wild.

Page citations: Rice, B.A. 2006a; Schnell D.E. 1976, 2002a.