jimscott Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 These gemmae came to me as D. omissa x pulchella 'Orange Flower'. Obviously the flowers aren't orange. I also have gemmae that came to me as 'Salmon Flower', but they aren't flowering. Is it possible that the ones flowering are the 'Salmon Flower'? I couldn't get a clearer picture of this but this is the one labeled 'Salmon Flower'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark.ca Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The id on it is correct: omissa x pulchella. "Orange flower" and "Salmon flower" reffer to forms of pulchella. You probably have a pulchella "Orange" like you have the pulchella "Salmon"....somehow the names got mixt on the labels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefforever Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I agree with Mark. It looks like my omissa x pulchella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hi Jim, I am not sure about your plant source, but in the I may be in part to blame for the confusion. There is one pink flowered hybrid D. ericksoniae x pulchella hybrid growing in many collections. As it seems, it made its way around the globe somehow. My best guesss would be that your plant is this hybrid. Then there are few new hybrids between D. pulchella and D. ericksoniae (or omissa if you wish) which were grown by me. I brought 4 different flower colours into circulation: a clear white flower, white flower with red centre, a pale pink flower with red centre and finally one which has a (for me difficult to define) colour which is not like the pink you see in D. pulchella typically, it does have an additional touch of orange. Because of that I called it "orange" but always use the quotes for it. Please note that for all my hybrids the seed parent was a D. pulchella, so my hybrids should be written as D. pulchella x omissa. Here are the four flowering side by side: In the past seasons I had the opportunity to make pictures comparing the flower with other flowers. It is very difficult to show the correct colour (just as in the orange D. pulchella below, which never seems to be as orange in reality as in the picture). If you are interested, I can add the information which D. pulchella I used to produced these crosses. I case of D. ericksoniae, it always was the white flowered form. Coming back to your question: I would expect it to be an orange flowered D. pulchella plus the "old" hybrid. Otherwise my hybrids would have had to find their way across the pont in the past 3 years - or someone else came up with the same name. Cheers Dieter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Thanks, Dieter. As far as I can perceive, my flowers most closely resembles that of D. pulchella x ericksoniae "orange" flower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark.ca Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hi all! First i have a question for Dieter...Why did you use pulchella as a parent and not omissa? Is there a good reason to it or just happened? As far as i know both are on the easy side of germinating, flower often and both have the white flowered variety which you started with. As for the Jim's plant....i really do not see your hybrid in his collection! If you take a close look at your pulchella x omissa "orange" and at his plant omissa x pulchella you can see that Dieter's plant still keeps the red center that the original pulchella "orange" plant has and it was past on to the hybrid. On Jim's plants you can see that there is no red center just the white/yellow center that the old omissa x pulchella hybrid has. You can see that red center better here: undefined ....not saying you pics aren't great Dieter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hi Mark, I tried it the easy way and rubbed the both flowers (that is D. pulchella and D. omissa) together, harvested the seeds from both parents a couple of months later and sowed both. It turned out, that the D. omissa offspring were pure D. omissa, whereas the D. pulchella produced only hybrids. I am aware that both parent my produce seeds even without pollination, but I just wanted to give it a try. By the way, the same result can be obtained when crossing D. mannii with D. omissa this way. But you are certainly right: D. omissa has a great germination rate and it would not the worst idea to keep this one from self pollinating and cross it with whatever is in flower the same day. I might try out a few crosses like this in summer (or already tomorrow if time permits: lots of plants are getting ready to flower.) That would be one option to avoid the difficult germination of most other pygmy drosera species. There are so many species I did not succeed in germinating yet... As for Jim's plant: I agree with your observations - and your shot is great. Cheers Dieter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 What should I call what I have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 D. omissa x pulchella (or as I prefer D. ericksoniae x pulchella). Cheers Dieter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 LOL! I'll have to switch the name back! What colour flower should I call it? I think we're not allowed to call it ericksoniae anymore. Poor Mrs. Erickson. What did she do wrong to get demoted? Mine doesn't have the red in the centre, so maybe it's none of the above. The petal shape is less full than the ericksoniaw x pulchella. Nonetheless, it's a pretty flower. It can really produce viable seeds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amar Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 LOL! I'll have to switch the name back! What colour flower should I call it? I think we're not allowed to call it ericksoniae anymore. Poor Mrs. Erickson. What did she do wrong to get demoted? Mine doesn't have the red in the centre, so maybe it's none of the above. The petal shape is less full than the ericksoniaw x pulchella. Nonetheless, it's a pretty flower. It can really produce viable seeds? That's a good question. I'd like to know why the name was changed from ericksoniae to omissa. What's the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark.ca Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I too don't understand this change...or like it... You should call it just that ....no color ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It does have a color. It's just not orange. It's pink. LOL! I should go to a fabric store and match the color with a fancy name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark.ca Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I should go to a fabric store and match the color with a fancy name. I believe many do that and this only makes it more confusing. You don't have to ad anything on the label because this is the "normal" or "original" omissa(ericksoniae) x pulchella hybrid and everyone growing them know the flower color....by adding the color on the label some (including me) may believe it's a new manmade hybrid that has a different color than the old one and is a distinct new plant....much like the beautiful hybrids Dieter manage to get...congrats on that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 So be it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droseraman Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 very nice work Dieter. Those are some neat crosses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Evans Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) That's a good question. I'd like to know why the name was changed from ericksoniae to omissa. What's the point? Ah, because the first person to name the species, called it Drosera omissa. Someone else, years and years later named the same species again with the name D. ericksoniae. So it isn't that "ericksoniae" is no good, it just refers back to D. omissa and is called a latter synonym. Either name you want to use is valid, you should just be aware that both names mean the same thing. People most often give 'props' to the first person to name a species and that's what I do. Edited June 15, 2009 by Dave Evans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark.ca Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 ...years and many years later... Drosera omissa Diels -year 1906 Drosera ericksoniae N.G.Marchant & Lowrie -year 1992 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amar Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Ah, because the first person to name the species, called it Drosera omissa. Someone else, years and years later named the same species again with the name D. ericksoniae. So it isn't that "ericksoniae" is no good, it just refers back to D. omissa and is called a latter synonym. Either name you want to use is valid, you should just be aware that both names mean the same thing. People most often give 'props' to the first person to name a species and that's what I do. Thanks Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Thanks for providing the background info. Still, ya gotta feel sorry for Ms. Erickson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.