Drosera capillaris var. brasiliensis

[Rico Hiemann]

I got this plant as Drosera capillaris var. brasiliensis

http://virtuelle.gefil.de/~chrusty/bilder/...rasiliensis.jpg

http://virtuelle.gefil.de/~chrusty/bilder/...asiliensis1.jpg

http://virtuelle.gefil.de/~chrusty/bilder/...asiliensis2.jpg

Could it be the correct ID?

Is the name Drosera capillaris var. brasiliensis valid?

[Langy]

Hi, Rico

I just had a look on the ICPS Database and this came up...

N: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} subsp.brasiliensis {(Diels) Lowrie}]

P: in sched. (1991)

BN: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} var.brasiliensis {Diels}]

S: =[Drosera intermedia {Hayne}]

So in answer to your question yes Drosera capillaris var. brasiliensis is a valid name.

As for what it looks like, and if you have the real plant is another question..?

:wavey:

Langy

[Rico Hiemann]

Your post show me that it is a synonym of Drosera intermedia. Really interesting.

Hmmm.......

Other opinions?

[Joseph Clemens]

Following are the entries in the CP Database that refer to a Drosera which include the word brasiliensis. If you search for this on the CP Database at Link to CP Database you will note that there are no entries that are in bold, only entries in bold are considered as "accepted" names. Apparently attempts have been made to use the name brasiliensis, yet, so far have not been validly published. Most appear to be synonyms for other, already validly published species.

N: [Drosera brasiliensis {Mart. ex Eichl.}]

P: Mart., Fl.Bras.14.Pt.2:396 (1872)

T: between Cidade Diamantina & Bandeirinha, BR, Martius 1287 (?M)

S: =[Drosera graminifolia {St.Hil.}]

N: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} subsp.brasiliensis {(Diels) Lowrie}]

P: in sched. (1991)

BN: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} var.brasiliensis {Diels}]

S: =[Drosera intermedia {Hayne}]

N: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} subsp.brasiliensis {(Diels) Lowrie} f.tenella {(Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.) Hort.Hennern}]

P: in sched. (1991)

BN: [Drosera tenella {Willd. ex Roem. & Schult.}]

S: =[Drosera capillaris {Poir.}]

N: [Drosera capillaris {Poir.} var.brasiliensis {Diels}]

P: Pflanzenr.26:86 (1906)

T: Rio de Janeiro, Sitio de Paulistas, BR, St.Hilaire s.n. (P)

S: =[Drosera intermedia {Hayne}]

[Christian]

Hi,

I do have the same plant as Rico. They are most likely from the same source here in Germany. Mine havn't flowered yet. I don't think they are capillaris as well. If you mention Drosera colombiana, William. I have a plant, i got labeled as Drosera pumila. According to the ICPS-Database this is Drosera columbiana. It's definitely different from the capillaris var brasiliens. It may also be, that my D. colombiana is something different. At least i wouldn't be surprised.

Christian

[Christian]

Hi William,

I don't know, if the plants in question are Drosera intermedia. I only doubt, that it is capillaris. My plants are still smaller than Ricos. They are growing very slow for me, so I have not seen seeds or a flower of this plant.

As to Drosera colombiana. I don't have a picture of my plant. On the following site, you can find a picture of a plant from the same source as mine. The link is www.carnivoren.com . The direct link to the picture is http://www.carnivoren.com/dro_pum.htm . I don't know, if the plant really is a Drosera colombiana. I actually never heard of this species before i got it.

best wishes,

Christian

[Fernando Rivadavia]

What a mess! This series of posts shows a little of the taxonomic mess involving D.capillaris var.brasiliensis. So here we go, let's try to clear it up...

Diels published D.capillaris var.brasiliensis and as far as I know it was one of his worse blunders. It is a validly published name, following taxonomic rules and all. BUT... it is not a valid taxon because it is NOT D.capillaris, but D.intermedia!!!!

I don't know how Diels could've gotten them both mixed up, but that's what happened. So he published D.capillaris var.brasiliensis based on D.intermedia collected on the coast of Rio de Janeiro state, SE Brazil.

Unfortunately this created lots of confusion since D.capillaris ALSO grows on the coast of Brazil (S and SE, but no overlap with D.intermedia which grows on the SE and E part of the coast).

For years I believed the Brazilian D.capillaris must be this variety described by Diels. But in 1995 I visited the Paris herbarium, where all of Saint Hilaire's specimens are deposited, including the one of D.intermedia described by Diels as D.capillaris var.brasiliensis. Among several other surprises, I realized this big mistake Diels had made. (I also discovered that the true D.villosa and D.montana were very different from what people cultivated -- in fact, I was getting ready to publish both as new species, not knowing they were actually the real thing!)

Unfortunately, before realizing this mix up, I mailed lots of Brazilian D.capillaris seed labelled as D.capillaris var.brasiliensis. And unfortunately Allen Lowrie put some on his list as D.capillaris **SUBSP.** brasiliensis, which is why Jan has this on his Database.

As for the pics you have, Rico, they surely look like D.capillaris, but whether they are from Brazil is a whole different story. The ones in Brazil are usually flat-rosetted and with very short petioles (therefore, not very similar to yours, although the reddish color looks typical). But who knows what happens in cultivation...

Take Care,

Fernando Rivadavia

P.S. As for D.colombiana, I'll continue in the respective new thread...

Edited October 15, 2007 by Fernando Rivadavia

[Rico Hiemann]

Thanks a lot to all.

I will try to take a look at flower morphologie and seed form/structure.

Later I will post these pictures.

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Tamlin,

I agree it would be unusual for a small red rosetted D.capillaris to have longer semi-erect red leaves in cultivation, but I'm no cultivation expert. The picture sure looks like the Brazilian coastal forms of D.capillaris, and by the name (Praia do Imbe), it seems to be. I don't have my Brazilian maps with me here, but if I'm not mistaken that's in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, right??

Fernando

[sundewmatt]

Hey Fernando,

Have you seen this "Drosera sp. Chapada Diamantina" I've been growing? IF it's really from Brazil, this could be a seasonally erect form of capillaris. I say "IF" because I also got a "D.sp.Auyan Tepui" from the same source years ago but sincerely doubt it's from Auyan.

I have not grown what I believe to be the American "long arm form" of capillaris but I believe this particular plant, supposedly from Chapada Diamantina, is similar to this long arm form. However, I don't believe they are the same plants because I have never been successful at germinating the US long arm capillaris whereas the sp.CD germinate easily. I had the plant (sp.CD) for years under dryer conditions and it remained as a rosette but others I grew more recently from seed from a plant I gave a friend have grown upright under warmer, wetter conditions. I can take a photo if you'd like. Maybe you'd know something more about this one and it's origin.

Didn't Diels see tons of intermedias? I would think he would have seen enough of them to know when he was looking at another intermedia so that does sound like a ridiculous mistake. He must have known intermedia to occur in the US, so why wouldn't he think it could have been found in S.America as well?

Matt

[Fernando Rivadavia]

HI Tamlin,

Let me tell you what it is that worried me in these situations. How do we know if this plant of yours is found in the wild, and not an artificial cross from cultivation? Where are the pictures of it in the wild? Where are the herbarium specimens?

Without pics and herbarium, we can't guarantee this plant is "real". Taxonomy can not work with this sort of plant, or not easily at least.

In the wild I have not seen anything that would suggest that some of the plants in cultivation could be introgressions between D.roraimae and any of the taxa in the D.capillaris-complex.

Once again, what I saw at Araca APPEARED to be an introgression between D.roraimae and D.esmeraldae, but nothing is sure. These did not look like your plants and as far as I know no attempts have been made in cultivation to cross the Araca extremes with themselves or with anything else. I have not heard of or seen any other introgression in the wild between Drosera in S.America. Actually, I can't remember any introgression between 2 Drosera species in the wild anywhere in the world!

>I am not familiar with D. esmeraldae except by consensus reached from seeing various published photos (and these may not be accurate). In such photos I have seen both a flat rosetted form as well as a thinner petioled upright habit.

The former is correct, at least in the wild. They form flat rosettes much like D.capillaris from Brazil. In fact my DNA sequences were nearly identical for both.

>I am very curious regarding this D. capillaris var.brasiliensis which is so similar to the introgressed Southern U.S. form of D. capillaris.

Please do not use this name anymore. As I explained before, D. capillaris var.brasiliensis is a BOGUS name, based on a mixup by Diels who had D.intermedia in his hands, and not D. capillaris. Please refer to D.capillaris from Brazil as just that.

Furthermore, What do you mean by "introgressed Southern U.S. form of D. capillaris"? As far as I know, Brazilian D.capillaris resemble very much the more typical rosetted USA form, although in the USA they are usually larger and often with upright leaves, no?? The really confusing taxon is the narrow-leaved capillaris which maybe a HYBRID (and not introgression) with D.intermedia.

>Are there any other upright adventive taxa that occurr within the same range as D. capillaris in Brasil?

As far as I know, the only sympatric taxon with D.capillaris in Brazil is D.brevifolia. No hybrids known.

>How do the styles compare between D. esmeraldae and D. capillaris?: D. capillaris presents styles bipartate from the base with very little subsequent division, but I am not familiar with the D. esmeraldae styles.

As far as I know it's the same. Not much variation in style morphology among New World Drosera (except D.sessilifolia).

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

HI Matt,

>Have you seen this "Drosera sp. Chapada Diamantina" I've been growing? IF it's really from Brazil, this could be a seasonally erect form of capillaris. I say "IF" because I also got a "D.sp.Auyan Tepui" from the same source years ago but sincerely doubt it's from Auyan.

As far as I remember, this plant has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING known from the Chapada Diamantina. This is most likely one of those cultivation mixups where the real seeds did not germinate, but stray seeds of this plant did and the person assumed it was from the Chapada Diamantina.

I really wish you would not use this name for this plant, as it can cause lots of confusion.

>I have not grown what I believe to be the American "long arm form" of capillaris but I believe this particular plant, supposedly from Chapada Diamantina, is similar to this long arm form.

Exactly my point.

>I can take a photo if you'd like. Maybe you'd know something more about this one and it's origin.

Yes I would like to see anotehr pic....

>Didn't Diels see tons of intermedias? I would think he would have seen enough of them to know when he was looking at another intermedia so that does sound like a ridiculous mistake. He must have known intermedia to occur in the US, so why wouldn't he think it could have been found in S.America as well?

I have no idea either how this mixup occurred. It is quite baffling that Diels would make such a primary mistake. Although you should not forget all the other "messes" he made with S.American Drosera, lumping everything Sain Hilaire had so nicely described...

Fernando Rivadavia

[sundewmatt]

Once again, what I saw at Araca APPEARED to be an introgression between D.roraimae and D.esmeraldae, but nothing is sure. These did not look like your plants and as far as I know no attempts have been made in cultivation to cross the Araca extremes with themselves or with anything else.

Ugh, you're going to make me finally plant those packets of seed from hybrids I made, aren't you?! ;)

>I am very curious regarding this D. capillaris var.brasiliensis which is so similar to the introgressed Southern U.S. form of D. capillaris.

Please do not use this name anymore. As I explained before, D. capillaris var.brasiliensis is a BOGUS name, based on a mixup by Diels who had D.intermedia in his hands, and not D. capillaris. Please refer to D.capillaris from Brazil as just that..

JAN, what have you done with Fernando?!?! ;)

Matt

[sundewmatt]

As far as I remember, this plant has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING known from the Chapada Diamantina. This is most likely one of those cultivation mixups where the real seeds did not germinate, but stray seeds of this plant did and the person assumed it was from the Chapada Diamantina.

If that's the case, as it could be, I wonder what it really is. Would you want a plant for DNA sequencing to compare with long-leafed capillaris?

I really wish you would not use this name for this plant, as it can cause lots of confusion.

Actually, if it wasn't such a cool plant, I would have flushed it down the toilet. I think it's worthy of cultivation and for now I have to call it SOMETHING. So in order to reduce MORE confusion, I'd prefer to keep the label as it is, even if it's inaccurate as people would realize this is the same thing they have labelled this... As you know, names like "sp.Chapada" and "sp.Emas" are not scientifically accepted anyway...

If you have a better suggestion as to what to call it, let me know, but I do really think it would cause more confusion than good. Also, I know you've been all over Chapada Diamantina, but could you have possibly overlooked this plant??

>I have not grown what I believe to be the American "long arm form" of capillaris but I believe this particular plant, supposedly from Chapada Diamantina, is similar to this long arm form.

Exactly my point.

But my point is that the long arm form of capillaris never germinates for me yet this "sp. Chapada" did. There could have been outside factors causing this but all seed was fresh and I generally get excellent germination in general, leading me to believe that this "sp.C" and the long arm capillaris are different. Any other comparison is difficult for me right now as I have not grown anything received as the classic long arm form of capillaris yet. Actually, now that I think about it, I am going to ask a buddy for a leaf or 2 so I can eventually compare them sie by side.

>I can take a photo if you'd like. Maybe you'd know something more about this one and it's origin.

Yes I would like to see anotehr pic....

OK, next time I take pics I will email you one.

[Fernando Rivadavia]

"JAN, what have you done with Fernando?!?!"

Oh my god, you're right!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA! That sure put a mirror in front of my face, and what a laugh! HELP ME!!!!! :):)

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Tamlin,

>1) any long form of D. capillaris reputedly from Brasil is not from Brasil. There is no long arm form of D. capillaris in Brasil, and such material with the bogus name D. capillaris var. brasiliensis needs to be re-evaluated in this light, and the name removed before subsequent distribution.

Yes, as far as I know there is no long-arm form of capillaris in Brazil and the name D. capillaris var. brasiliensis is bogus since it represents a collection of D.intermedia.

2) D. emeraldae, although nearly identical to D. capillaris *may* have introgressed with D. roriamae in Araca, producing an upright form.

D.esmeraldae and D.capillaris are very closely related and probably interfertile. On Araca, there were probably hybrids (a simple cross between the parents) and maybe also introgressed specimens (the hybrids crossed with the parents again, which is only possible when the hybrids are fertile). As for "upright" what I saw were somewhat intermediate plants which formed short columns like D.roraimae, but NOT anything with long-petioles like the long leaf capillaris.

3) I obviously do not understand the difference between intorgression and hybridization as I thought them synonomous terms, lol!

Explained above.

(please recommend a good learning tool to enlighten me if you can.)

Hmmm, how about a crash course with the human encyclopedia Jan Schlauer?!?!

>To answer your questions regarding the long arm, thin petioled form of D. capillaris from the Southern range, you asked how I could be sure there was no mix up in cultivation. If you refer to CPN Vol. 32, #2, June 2003 you can read the history of the discovery of 2 forms of this plant. One was found by Bob McMorris in Florida, who led Ivan to the population, where it was collected, and subsequently cultivated. The other form from North Carolina was discovered by Phill Sheriden of Meadowview Biological Station. My plants came from Ivan's collection in Florida, and although not herborized, I trust Ivan's meticulous scientific nature to know he would not have allowed the material to become confused. I can say the same of Phill Sheriden: so there no little doubt that both these forms occurr in their respective populations, and I have seen various photos of such in habitat. I agree that this material needs to be placed in a herbarium, and will try to work towards that goal in 2004.

OK, sounds like there's no mixup then. What I'm always worried about are people who don't bother to check what has germinated in their collections, eitehr with literature or with the person that sent them. One famous case is that of D.sessilifolia. At some point somebody sowed seeds, but what really came up was D.aliciae. Either the seeds accidentally fell in the pot or were accidentally mixed with the seeds. And since nobody bothered to check what real D.sessilifolia were like, these D.aliciae were widely distributed with the fake name, resulting even in the publication of a false chromosome number for D.sessilifolia by Kondo (2n-80, which is aliciae, not sessilifolia).

So basically, what I am trying to say, is that CPers should be a bit more responsible with what they distribute. Nowadays with the facilities of the internet, there's really no excuse. I am glad that people like you and Matt are very keen on correct ID, especially of these small rosetted thingies which pitcher plant people like to trample. :)

>The Florida form is fertile, almost certainly as a result of amphiploidy, and as such may be considered a potential new species (just as in the case with D. anglica). I have cultivated F4 generations, and they are uniform in all regards. The North Carolina form is not fertile, so likely Matt has this form, since he reports no germination from his seed. Amphiploidy has evidently not occured in this population.

Has anybody checked if a simple capillaris X intermedia cross is fertile??? And are these similar to the so-called long leaf capillaris??

>Neither the Florida or North Carolia forms demonstrate the small hairs on the petiole associated with the material from Araca, and the plant I sent you photos of clearly exhibits these. Since this is the case, any material reputedly from South America demonstrating an upright habit should also have these hairs in evidence, and if they do, may be assumed to originate in Araca since you state there are no other sympatric possibilities that would account for this. There is no overlap of D. capillaris and D. intermedia in Brasil, and only D. roraimae seems to account for even the potential for granting this form (presuamably, along with the distinct petiole hairs). Unless this upright, hairy petioled form is found in other stations in Brasil I can see no other logical conclusion.

The problem is that nothing I found on Araca had those long petioles. So we can't even assume they are from there. How do we know this is not an accidental hybrid between something from Araca and something else in someone's collection?? Or simply one of these seed mixups and the plant has no Araca "blood" at all??

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Tamlin, I'm a bit confused here. I just checked the pics which started this post and saw that they were supposedly capillaris brasiliensis. How did this turn around to becoming something from Araca?!?!?!

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Matt,

>If that's the case, as it could be, I wonder what it really is. Would you want a plant for DNA sequencing to compare with long-leafed capillaris?

Maybe later, thanks! Gotta talk to Vitor first.

>Actually, if it wasn't such a cool plant, I would have flushed it down the toilet. I think it's worthy of cultivation and for now I have to call it SOMETHING. So in order to reduce MORE confusion, I'd prefer to keep the label as it is, even if it's inaccurate as people would realize this is the same thing they have labelled this...

Still, there must be other people growing THE REAL D.sp.Chapada Diamantina. Plus, I am afraid of mixups like the fake D.sessilifolia chromosome number...

>As you know, names like "sp.Chapada" and "sp.Emas" are not scientifically accepted anyway...

Which is what makes it easy for you to simply create another fake name for it, like D.sp."long-leaf-something", instead of calling your pet gecko "Tyranosaurus sp." because you don't know its true ID.

>If you have a better suggestion as to what to call it, let me know, but I do really think it would cause more confusion than good. Also, I know you've been all over Chapada Diamantina, but could you have possibly overlooked this plant??

Yes, I also didn't see the Lock Ness Monster nor Bigfoot while hiking those highlands, hehehe. YES there is always that possibility. But if **I** didn't find it, then WHO did?!?!

>But my point is that the long arm form of capillaris never germinates for me yet this "sp. Chapada" did. There could have been outside factors causing this but all seed was fresh and I generally get excellent germination in general, leading me to believe that this "sp.C" and the long arm capillaris are different. Any other comparison is difficult for me right now as I have not grown anything received as the classic long arm form of capillaris yet. Actually, now that I think about it, I am going to ask a buddy for a leaf or 2 so I can eventually compare them sie by side.

Whatever, it is still more likely a long leaf capillaris than anything from the CD.

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Tamlin,

I'm still looking at those pictures (getting crosseyed already), and see nothing really significant hair-wise on those petioles. I do see a few, but SOOO few. Why can't this just be a form of capillaris??? There's so much variation in this species-complex...

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hi Tamlin,

OK, so apparently the big mystery is plant #4. Do you have other pics of this plant, from other angles and hopefully with scapes??

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Tamlin,

Don't give up just yet, it might still turn out to be something from Araca. Just wait for it to flower and send more pics!

Fernando

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hi William,

By flowers, I also meant their subproducts: seeds!

>Too bad as it really is a pretty little plant, but I won't redistribute it until it is in some way registered, but I guess I chewed long and hard enough on that topic already at Terra Forums. (Don't take it personally though, I also sunk my teeth into IVAN as regards distributing his hybrids willy nilly without any central reference too).

Don't worry, none taken, I love good debates, even if we don't agree in the end.

>BTW, I have been in contact with Bob McMorris, and he seems interested in making a good collection of the 3 forms of D. capillaris within the area which he discovered the Florida long arm form. Presumably the 3 forms are the typical, a possible hybrid with D. intermedia which is the long arm form, and also another he speculates might have hybridized with D. brevifolia.

Now THIS is what we need! Finally somebody takes interest in these plants! I'll try to convince my friend Vitor to include these in his PhD project if Bob Can get us material.

As for Ivan's studies, they're very important but not conclusive unfortunately. Such crosses only give clues, not proof.

Fernando

[Rico Hiemann]

A small update :)

The first flower stalk :)

http://virtuelle.gefil.de/~chrusty/bilder/...asiliensis3.jpg

[sundewmatt]

"JAN, what have you done with Fernando?!?!"

Oh my god, you're right!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA! That sure put a mirror in front of my face, and what a laugh! HELP ME!!!!!

Fernando

Heheheheeeee!!! It's a good thing I pointed that out before it was too late, init? ;) There's someone else I know though who definitely has a much more serious problem / identity crisis but I won't go there. All I can say is that, as far as Jan goes, there is only ONE Jan Schlauer. And all the others are just wannabes. As Jan the Man would put it, "Bogus is bogus is bogus"!! :) Accept no imitations!

Seriously, Jan's definitely cool in my book. He may be a ball buster but he's always been extremely helpful to me. We might not see things from the same perspective but he's alright!

Matt

[sundewmatt]

>If you have a better suggestion as to what to call it, let me know, but I do really think it would cause more confusion than good. Also, I know you've been all over Chapada Diamantina, but could you have possibly overlooked this plant??

Yes, I also didn't see the Lock Ness Monster nor Bigfoot while hiking those highlands, hehehe. YES there is always that possibility. But if **I** didn't find it, then WHO did?!?!

Hey Fernando,

I know, it's pretty unreasonable to assume that someone else actually went to Chapada Diamantina and collected a Drosera there, isn't it? :)

Let's not outrule this as a possibility.... If you want me to send Vitor a sample of what I have as "sp.Chapada..." for DNA sequencing then I'd be happy to. Also, I might have to do a little research about which "capillarises" and "intermedias" have been collected in Brazil. While I provided you with lots of info on other specimens, I neglected the capillarises and intermedias because I didn't see the need to check them out. Hmmmmmm....

Matt