Sarraceniaceae of South America
Reviews
Reviews
-------

*Sarraceniaceae of South America* received generally favourable reviews.Köster, N. 2012\. [Buchbesprechungen / Book reviews](http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.3372/wi.42.42116). *Willdenowia* **42**(1\): 143–145\.Schmid, R. 2012\. [Reviews and notices of publications](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2012/00000061/00000003/art00033). *Taxon* **61**(3\): 699–706\.Rice, B. 2012\. Book review. *[Carnivorous Plant Newsletter](/wiki/Carnivorous_Plant_Newsletter "Carnivorous Plant Newsletter")* **41**(2\): 83–87\.Paulsen, I. 2012\. [Birdbooker Report 207](https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2012/jan/29/1). The Guardian: GrrlScientist, January 29, 2012\.Fay, M.F. 2012\. *Sarraceniaceae of South America* by Stewart McPherson, Andreas Wistuba, Andreas Fleischmann and Joachim Nerz. *Sarraceniaceae of North America* by Stewart McPherson and Donald Schnell. *Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society* **170**(1\): 133\.  Writing in the June 2012 issue of the *[Carnivorous Plant Newsletter](/wiki/Carnivorous_Plant_Newsletter "Carnivorous Plant Newsletter")*, [Barry Rice](/wiki/Barry_Rice_%28botanist%29 "Barry Rice (botanist)") praised the book's detailed coverage, photography, and build quality, as well as the inclusion of "very useful" distribution maps for each species. However, he pointed out the lack of a [botanical key](/wiki/Botanical_key "Botanical key") as a significant omission. He suggested that the book's shortcomings are likely "due to an overly\-speedy publication schedule at Redfern Natural History Productions". Summarising, Rice wrote that both *Sarraceniaceae of South America* and its sister volume "are beautiful books with wonderful images and lots of fascinating details".

A review by Nils Köster published in the June 2012 issue of *[Willdenowia](/wiki/Willdenowia_%28journal%29 "Willdenowia (journal)")* was also positive, describing the two monographs as "the ideal companions for everybody interested in New World pitcher plants". However, the author found the book's treatment of [synonyms](/wiki/Synonym_%28taxonomy%29 "Synonym (taxonomy)") "a little disappointing"—although present, they are "rather hidden within the text" and mostly absent from the index. The reviewer also noted the lack of an identification key, writing: "ultimately, a taxonomic concept which cannot be implemented in an identification key always leaves some room for doubt about its viability".

In his review for the September 2012 issue of the *[Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society](/wiki/Botanical_Journal_of_the_Linnean_Society "Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society")*, [Michael F. Fay](/wiki/Michael_Francis_Fay "Michael Francis Fay") described the two tomes as "beautifully illustrated", adding: "these authoritative volumes will be important books for all who wish to study New World pitcher plants \[...] No library of books on carnivorous plants will be complete without \[them]".


Can you explain why an identification key is necessary for a taxonomic concept's viability?