Andreas Fleischmann

Full Members
  • Content Count

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Andreas Fleischmann last won the day on December 15 2013

Andreas Fleischmann had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Good

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany
  • Interests
    Drosera! Parasitic Plants

Recent Profile Visitors

3,663 profile views
  1. Hello, The photo clearly doesn't show G. flexuosa - this plant looks like normal G. violacea (a variable plant!) to me. Regarding the discussion of flower colours in the African species of Genlisea: the pale flowers and dark flowers are a result of temperature and light. Grow your plants very bright and with a notable temperature drop at night (like the plants experience when grown outdoors, as shown here), and the corolla will exhibit a much darker colour. If the temperatures are too warm at night, the flowers remain pale, no matter how much light you give to your plants. The reason for this is sugar metabolism of the plant (assimilation and dissimilation), and the fact that the red plant pigments (anthocyanes in the case of Lentibulariaceae) are dissolved in the cell vaculoes, like sugars. The same underlying mechanism is responsible for the fact that Dionaea traps are more vividly coloured and darker red in spring and autumn than in summer, although the plants will receive much more sun (but less temperature decrease at night) in summer. All the best, Andreas
  2. Of course Utricularia (and Genlisea) can digest algae (of all kingdoms: diatoms, cyanobacteria, and green algae). But usually living cellular algae protect themselves by a layer of mucilage, which is continuously secreted (both for protection and movement). As soon as the mucilage layer dissappears, the enzymes of the plant can digest the algae. In many auqatic Utricularia (and also in several Genlisea) "algae" (of all organismic kingdoms) even consitute the majority of prey. All the best, Andreas
  3. Dear Drosera-lovers, Please excuse that I did dig out this old thread - but there's so much speculation about the ID of Drosera dielsiana (and so many wrong assumptions proposed ;)) that I thought it is better to reply here instead of starting a new thread. First of all: the true D. dielsiana *is* in cultivation since a long time, but unfortunately it is still not grown by its correct name. Plants currently grown as "D. spec. 4 South Africa" or "D. spec. 'pretty rosette, Africa" - these are the real thing, they match the type of Drosera dielsiana. Most likely these two plants/strains in cultivation are the same, as both normally display abberant 6-petalled flowers, and the first flower is always borne on a very long pedicel. Despite these two abnormal characters (which probalby arose in cultivation? I know that they are in cultivation in Germany since the early 1980's at least...), these plants perfectly match the type specmines of D. dielsiana. Second: Everything in cultivation (>99% of all plants) labelled as "D. dielsiana" actually belongs to D. natalensis. D. natalensis is quite variable morphologically, regarding the size of the rosette, the width of the petiole, and the numbers of stigmas. This is not surprising, as it is a widespread species, occuring from the Eastern Cape all across eastern Africa to Zimbabwe and Madagascar. However its seeds are always fusiform, with two narrow lateral appendages (David E., "testa" is not only referring to these appendages, but testa is the entire seed coat. ALL Drosera seeds have a testa, otherwise they would be naked embryos ;)). Drosera natalensis is very closely related to D. aliciae, and both species are very, very difficult to tell apart where their ranges overlap in the Eastern Cape. ALL photos shown in this thread (except the blurred ones showing an entire display of Drosera, including 6-petalled D. dielsiana) are D. natalensis - even these which obviously look slightly different are still all different forms of D. natalensis. Drosera dielsiana is a relatively small plant, and certainly has the tiniest rosettes among all South African Drosera (small specimens of D. trinervia might rival them in size). It always has roundish dark black seeds, lacking any appendages, unbranched (but spoond-shaped) stigmatic tips, and a comparatively thick, densely glandular scape (thus resembling D. trinervia from some distance, and indeed this species was first mistaken for D. trinvervia before it was described as distinct species, D. dielsiana). All plants of D. dielsiana which I know in cultivation have the first flower borne on a very long pedicel, and generally display 6-petalled flowers. However I assume that these mutations do represent the clonal inbred lines we grow in cultivation, as multiple herbarium specimens I have seen from several locations had perfectly normal 5-petalled Drosera flowers. All the best, Andreas
  4. Hello, Thanks for the photograph - the plant clearly is G. stapfii. This species is widespread in tropical Western Africa, and occurs both west and east of the Dahomey Gap. I expected it for Benin (which now represents the easternmost border of the distribtuion range of this species west of the Dahomey Gap), however the country will not be listed in the Genlisea monograph unfortunately - I should have known just about 3 weeks earlier, now the book is already in print ;). Genlisea stapfii is however not to be expected to occur further to the east however, as this is where the so-called Dahomey Gap, or Dahomey dry zone starts, which does not support growth of these seasonal tropical wetland plants. The range starts in Nigeria again, and the species occurs down to Gabon. Thus, in the forthcoming Genlisea monograph, you can already add Benin as another country in the distribution range of Genlisea stapfii.... I will update the distribution map for this species, and provide it for download soon, for those who like to have their Genlisea monograph continuoulsy updated... Regarding G. stapfii and G. barthlottii, there is also some confusion, because the identification keys in the species description of G. barthlottii, and in the revision of Fischer et al. 2000, contain a little mistake: G. stapfii is claimed to have a spur shorter than the corolla lower lip, and G. barthlottii a spur which is longer than the corolla lower lip. In fact, it is *exactly* the other way round (I have to re-label my photographs as well: what I have shown as "G. barthlottii" in this forum actually all is G. stapfii. Also ALL photos of G. barthlottii in cultivation are actually showing G. stapfii). Furthermore, G. africana *does* occur in Western Tropical Africa (the photos I have previously shown as "G. stapfii" are in fact the Western African form of G. africana). It took a while to sort out these things.... All the best, Andreas
  5. Hello, Regarding the identity of the Utricularia species on the two above photographs, the link to this thread was just sent to me by a friend from Slowenia, who used the photos for plant identification ;) The vegetative shoot shown belongs to U. minor, the flower is that of U. stygia. It is not even malformed, but U. stygia quite often forms such a lower corolla lip, which is bent upwards at its lateral margins. All the best, Andreas
  6. Hi Fernando, So you found D. anglica at Yellowstone, congrats! (Alexander, if you look at the width of the petiole base, and the stipule size and shape, you can even clearly recognize even at this early stage of growth that this plant is definitely not D. intermedia). The fen area the plants were growing in is certainly alkaline, the vegetation is very characteristic. However I rather doubt that this is the "small form" of D. anglica (AKA "D. kihlmannii", "D. anglica var. pusilla", or "D. anglica f. alpina"). At least at all alkaline sites here in Europe, that size of the lamina would tell me it is "typical" (i.e. large) D. anglica, which also thrives well in alkaline soil (probably a heritage it got from its parent D. linearis). At least the European D. anglica var. pusilla (that's the name I currently use for this taxon, until all studies regarding its taxonomic state are finished) have much smaller laminae on the first emergin leaves (not much longer than wide, i.e. more similar to D. intermedia). But correct ID is only possible from flowering size specimens, as Kevin already pointed out. The Utricularia visible in some of the photos certainly is U. minor (firstly because of the size of the trap-bearing leaf-segments, but also because U. bremii seems to be a strict calcifuge ;)) BTW, nice fungi at the base of some of the old Juncaceae scapes! Landscape is also fine of course, however me, I'd go to that area 1. because of the unique flora, and 2. because of the views ... ;) Andreas
  7. Hello Fernando, I agree regarding the yellow flowered U. foliosa. Among the pinkish-flowered plants, indeed the last flower close-up shown could be a U. purpurea. I would not be too surprised if it occurred in Nicaragua, considering that it was also found in the neighbouring countries. But some of the flowers also clearly belong to U. myriocista (which also is known from neighbouring counties already). Look at the 5th photo from this series (the more whitish flowers) : the plants have a strongly concave upper corolla lip, and a deeply trilobate lower lip, and a very long spur. Do you agree that this is U. myriocista? All the best, Andreas
  8. Hello, While I cannot deny the fact that this book contains a certain amount of typographical errors and little mistakes, which unfortunately did not get erased by the proof reader (who did cause a lot of other problems in the final stage of this book project!), I can at least address to some of the critics raised here: Phil, we are talking about naturally occuring Heliamphora hybrids here. And although the plants can easily be recognized as hybrids, and also the parent species are usually easy to identify, it is impossible to find out the exact parentage of the naturally occuring hybrids. That's why we decided to arrange the putative (;)) parent species in alphabetical order. And of course we have to state that we did so, so that nobody erronously assumed that eg. a H. purpurascens x sarracenioides is exactyl the hybrid arising form the cross of H. sarracenioides pollen on a H. purpurascens flower - it could have been the other way round as well. But you are right of course: for the documentation of artificially created hybrids, the pollen acceptor (mother) is always named first, followed by the pollen donor (father). LeeBr, thanks for your critical comments, maybe I can comment on them: 1) Me too, I noticed that the dimensions for the H. ceracea flower parts unfortunately got wrong in the body part of the book. The sizes given in the description are correct, and directly taken from the holotype specimen. These are the dimensions you should refer to, please ignore those in the text body. 2) You are most likely mixing up Mount Maringma and Mount Yakontipu here, don't you? 3) The Cerro Venamo story indeed is a complicated one. But I have spoken with Dr. Otto Huber from Caracas about this issue in detail (he has been working on the geography and vegetation of the tepuis for many decades, and also has joined most of the Venezuelan Terramar expeditions in the 1980ies, who did take geographical measurments and set landmarks), because the mountain drawn in maps as "Cerro Venamo" does not host any Heliamphora specimens. However there are collections from Cerro Venamo made by Steyermark in the 1980ies. The reason for this: the border mark drawn in the maps as "Cerro Venamo" is not Steyermark's original Cerro Venamo, but one out of several little unnamed tall tepui-like mountains. Steyermark went to a different place, a large elevated area -labout the range drawn in the centre-fold map in our book, and found (some strange) specimens of Heliamphora heterodoxa there. Later, for marking the Venezuela-Guiana border, the Venezuelan government randomly chose a conspicuous landmark, namely that mountain you are referring to, and named it "Cerro Venamo". Several expeditions went to that "new" Venamo recently, but did not find Heliamphora there. All the best, Andreas
  9. Hello, Of course this can be the case, as in ANY carnivorous plant. If you will make microbal digestion a criterium to exclude pants from being considered as carnivores, the list of genera treated in this forum here would decrease a lot ;). However, regarding this enzyme test presented for Philcoxia: if the digestion of the nematodes would indeed by carried out by bacteria, one would not expect to find such a high percentage of nitrogen isotopes in the plant tissue after just a few (- 48) hours. The nitrogen would first be incorporated by the bacteria, and although these have a fast metabolism, one would not find such a high amount of the isotopes from the prey in the plant's tissue, but more in the bacteria. Regarding such a "digestive mutualism", involving a thrid partner taking over the role of digestive enzymes, I would recommend the articles published on carnivory in Roridula. The tests finding out that Roridula indeed is a true carnivorous plant (although lacking own enzymes) was performed exactly the same way as done with Philcoxia now. For a carnivorous plant it does not matter at all WHO exactly is doing the digestive part - as long as the plant has developed special structures to attract and catch prey, and special (morphological and ecophysiological) adaptations to absorb and utilize the nutrients released from the prey - it can be called a carnivorous plant. And this is the difference between Philcoxia and tomatoes or Petunia, eg. Finally, you would not doubt calling a cow a "herbivore", would you? Although the digestion of its vegetarian diet is almost entirely performed by microbes and bacteria. All the best, Andreas PS: Dear Jeff, are you aware that the PDF article you link here hosted on your webpage is actually copyright protected? Although it is nice of course that you would like to share this document with others, I fear that Kew Publishing is still the copyright owner of this publication.
  10. Dear Felix, Thank you for that great report, and for showing the beautifull Drosera photos. The first species you found abundantly is not D. dilatato-petiolaris, but D. brevicornis. The flower scapes are much too thick and robust to be D. dilatato-petiolaris, and the pedicels would also be much longer in that species. There are only two species that have flower stalks and pedicels like the plants on your photos (and both are very closely related), namely D. fulva and D. brevicornis. In the flower close-up (the first one, with pure white petals) you can clearly see the "horns" at the tip of the anthers: it is D. brevicornis. And the flower below, with the larger and slightly pinkish petals clearly to D. fulva. Unfortunately it is a bit difficult for me to ID the Utricularia species from that flower angle, as I would need to see the spur and the bracts to confirm its identity. But it is most likely U. leptorhyncha. Do you perhaps have a photo of the flower in lateral view? The Drosera you were not sure about whether it is D. darwinensis or D. brevicornis is D. darwinensis. Very nice photographs! All the best, Andreas
  11. Hello all, Well, your "afternoon" was past midnight for me, thus please excluse if I'm a bit sleepy in this reply ;) I think we can draw a lot of parallels between the carnivorous nature of Philcoxia and certain zoophagous ("carnivorous" is only applied to flowering plants) soil fungi which catch nematodes with sticky dropplets of glue secreted from the hyphae (probalby few of you are aware that Pleurotus and a few related genera - the oyster mushrooms, - are nematode catching "carnivorous" fungi at least during part of their life stages). Other CP fungi even catch nematodes with actively constricting rings formed by their hyphae (snap traps like in the VFT!). But in all these cases, the nematodes are not killed, but just trapped by the carnivorous traps, and will get slowly digested when still alive. The same might be true for Philcoxia. Why does it have to "kill" its prey? It only needs to digest it. Same is true for our other CPs. The killing is just a side effect of the beginning digestion (however simplifies digestion in some species of course) of the prey. I'm not sure if there is actually an attraction of prey to the Philcoxia leave, or if these ABUNDANTLY present soil animals are not just caught by chance. Nematodes are the most abundantly present group of soil life (only outnumbered by bacteria and protozoa), and there is apparently no type of soil where they do not exist. From very wet and submerged to dry desert soils - nematodes are there. Moisture might be an attractant in the dry soils, which is probably used by Philcoxia? On the other hand, most of the soil interspace microfauna (which is very rich! "Sand" is not sterile and dead - there is a rich microfauna livving inbetween the sand grains, where microdroplets of moisture will condensate for at least a short time of the year) cannot will follow the evaporation water current in the soil, i.e. it is permanently brought from the deeper soil layers to the top. Nematodes can detect light, to actively avoid getting to close to the top of the soil, getting exposed to the surface. And that's - to my understanding- the most likely reason why Philcoxia leaves are burried undergroud: otherwise they would not be able to catch anthying living in the soil. A co-effect (or maybe the primary reason for the subsoil leaves) is that they are protected against the sun radiation, which is extreme in these white quartzitic sands. Several other small plants inhabting sand plain habitats (eg. Genlisea, Utricularia) have their leaves a few mm to a few cm below the soil surface, too. The quartz is like glas, thus the leaves are protected under a thin but still translucent layer - a subsoil greenhouse ;) At least for me, Philcoxia does not remain a "mysterious, doubtufll carnivore" anymore, but it clearly and evidently is a true carnivorous plant - just like Drosera or Pinguicula are, too. Just my two cents ;) All the best, Andreas
  12. Hello, Fernando probably still is not convinced because he did not ready the article carefully enough? ;) Enzyme activity in the glands + nutrient uptake from the prey directly! That's the best proof for carnivory one can get. There is not doubt that Philcoxia is as carnivorous as Pinguicula is, for example. Daniel, the three species of Philcoxia are very rare, and each species is currently known only from a very small area (or even just a single population). And all of them are threatened by human mining activity, as the dry sand plains where they grow are exploited. Andreas
  13. Dear Pinguicula lovers, As I haven't been very active on this forum recently, I don't know if anyone has already pointed out this piece of literature to you: The treatment of Pinguicula for the British Isles, which is freely available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00942.x/pdf This comprehensive paper deals with the four British species, P. vulgaris, P. alpina, P. lusitanica, and P. grandiflora, and all four species are treated in such a detailed way (all kinds of aspects, from ecology, distribution to physiology ), like it hadn't been done in any previous treatment. A real "must" for anyone interested in European Pinguicula, not only for CP friends from the British Isles! This article is from 2004, and only few information has to be added since: On page 1083, point "(B) Mycorrhiza" "absent" is not quite true, as specialized endophytic fungi have been discovered in the roots of P. vulgaris quite recently (see Quilliam & Jones, 2001). And the distribution map of P. grandiflora lacks a few (however most likely introduced) sites. But in all other respects, this is probably the most comprehensive treatment of these four European species I have read thus far ;). All the best, Andreas
  14. Hello, Thanks for the nice compliments! Daniel, the colour of the scapes and also the flowers is more intense at natural habitats, because the plants get higher levels of radiation there, in combination with a notable temperature decrease at night (which is usually not given in cultivation). That's why the scapes are dark reddish in the wild, but usually remain green in cultivation. [for those interested [off topic]: the red pigmentation of most CPs is caused by anthocyanines, which accumulate like sugars in the cells of the plant. The more difference between day temperature and night temps, the more sugars and pigments are found in the cells, and the deeper coloured they will get. This is because the plant cannot consume all sugar produced during the day at night (as the nocturnal sugar metabolism is temperature dependant - the cooler the nights, the less the plant can consume; some alpine plants are adapted to this, that's why they do not grow well at low altitudes: they starve! That's why some high alpine plants like Nepenthes villosa are so difficult to grow when they do not get a propper nocturnal cooling). And the same is the reason why your venus flytrap will get very dark red leaf blades in autumn. However in case of the reddened scapes of these Genlisea, this is nothing essential for the plant - they may look better with red scapes, but actually this is protection of the plant against radiation, and they will do as well without this red colour]. As Fernando already mentioned, Genlisea violacea - which is the most widespread species of subgenus Tayloria - is very variable across its range, especially in the outlying regions. The small plants from Couto de Magalhaes you mentioned, with a short cylindrical spur and beautifully veined flowers, however are closely matching the type of G. violacea. Although this "form" might be rare in cultivation, these plants from the centre of the range (around the Diamantina planteau) are relatively uniform - compared eg. with the strange large plants found in the northern part of the range (eg. in the Serra do Cabral), the amazingly coloured plants from the western end of the range at Furnas, and the plants from the southern end of the range (eg. from Ibitipoca). The morphologically most different G. violacea, however, which I first considered to be a distinct species, are the very glandular plants with a quite different corolla with glandular margins, and with broad leaves on creeping stolons, from one site at the Serra do Cipó, where they co-occur with G. oligophylla. These plants have a very pale (almost white) corolla in cultivation. However genetically, they are almost identical to the remaining "forms" of G. violacea. But now some photos to illustrate the variation of G. violacea (plants from cultivation - thanks to everyone who has sent me seed in the past!!). The size, colour, and venation of the corolla, the glands on spur and corolla margins, and the shape and length of the spur differ greatly between populations of this annual species. More "typical" G. violacea. This plant from the South has larger flowers, with a white area around the yellow marking on the palate, and with a thicker spur. Comparison of the large-flowered "form", and the more typical plants. The strange, very glandular plants from a site at the Serra do Cipó. The even more puzzling plants from the northern end of the range, which have a very long spur, and many flowers, and which are a bit intermediate between G. violacea and G. flexuosa. To compare, G. flexuosa from two locations: note the very long spur, and the different shape of the corolla (especialy angle between upper and lower lip! In G. violacea, this is more a flat landing platform for the pollinator...) All the best, Andreas
  15. Five new species of Genlisea have just been published in the latest issue of the botanical journal Phytotaxa. All of them belong to the subgenus Tayloria, i.e. the Brazilian species with seed capsules that open as two valves, and which have a spur that is spreading from the flower tube. This subgenus thus far did contain three species, namely G. violacea, G. lobata and the large G. uncinata. However in the past few years (or even decades ;)) Fernando Rivadavia discovered several new species, which were now altogether described in a complete revision of the subgenus: “A revision of Genlisea subgenus Tayloria” by Fernando Rivadavia, Paulo Gonella, Günther Heubl, and myself, in Phytotaxa 33, pages 1-40 (published 28 November 2011). The whole article (40 pages, with identification key, line drawings of all eight species, distribution maps, flower photographs and SEM images of the seeds of all species) can be sent to anyone interested on request – just send me an e-mail (not a PM, as I will probably not read it too soon). Probably the most widespread of the new species in cultivation is G. flexuosa, a perennial species of close affinity to the annual G. violacea. It is very easy in cultivation, and is known under the name G. violacea ‘Giant’ or G. ‘giant rosette’. I would even say that most “G. violacea” in cultivation (especially if they grow like a weed, are perennial and form carpets of leaves propagating by little plantlets that are budding from the trap leaves) are in fact G. flexuosa. The artificially created hybrid “G. lobata x violacea” sold by Kamil Pasek (bestcarnivorousplants) actually is a hybrid of G. lobata and G. flexuosa (and not G. violacea). The name of that new species refers to the long, flexuous scapes of this species, which have pedicles that reflex in fruit, and will twine around nearby herbs and grasses for support. G. flexuosa at the type location. This species grows in swampy areas, usually between tall grasses, often accompanied by other CPs such as Drosera graminifolia, D. grantsaui, D. x fontinalis, D. tomentosa, D. communis, Genlisea repens, G. aurea, and various Utricularia species. A CP paradise! The flowers with the relatively large lower lip and the comparatively small upper lip, and the long spur are familiar to many CPers, who have been growing this plant for a long time as “G. violacea ‘giant’”. The most easy to grow species of the whole subgenus in my opinion.... Another of the news species that also is in cultivation already (at least in Europe): Genlisea metallica, also known as G. sp. Itacambira Beauty. This is also a perennial species, with beautiful dark lilac flowers, that have a metallic shine in full sun (hence it’s name, which does not result from the authors' non-existing enthusiasm for the rock band, but from the flower's light reflections ;)). However some of my colleagues at least told me that this Genlisea species rocks! ;) G. metallica is probably the most glandular of the South American Genlisea species, and its scapes are even sticky when fully dried. It has a compact rosette of densely arranged leaves, which will however usually die back after flowering, and the plant survives a short dormancy at it’s natural location by a thickened underground stem. This species is very rare in the wild, and so far only know from two single populations. G. metallica at the type location G. metallica has flowers with a metallic shine, and large upper corolla lobes which are widely spreading. The large G. oligophylla is also a perennial species, which was thus far known as G. spec. ‘Cipo’. It is closely related to G. uncinata, and also has very thick, succulent tall scapes and only very few leaves during flowering time (the species’ name “oligophylla” means “with few leaves”). This species prefers to grow in more well-drained places, in sandy soil which are not soaking wet but only slightly moist in the dry season. It is usually found among tall grasses, and the flowers are borne on very long and succulent thick scapes. In contrast to the related G. uncinata, the corolla of G. oligophylla is veined, and the spur is never curved hook-like at its tip. The remaining two species are annuals like G. violacea and G. lobata (in the wild, but probably facultative perennials like all species of subgenus Tayloria in cultivation). One species from the state of Bahia was discovered by Fernando Rivadavia near the Fumaça waterfall, and thus had the preliminary name G. sp. ‘Fumaça’ thus far. This species was named Genlisea exhibitionista, which refers to Fernando’s sense of choosing strange names in general, but in particular to the flower morphology of this species: unlike most other Genlisea species, the corolla tube of this species is not fully closed (like in typical “snap-dragon” type flowers), but has an open throat – like eg. most Pinguicula species have. Thus the stamens of this species show off, and are not hidden by the corolla palate, therefore the name ;) This species most likely has adapted to a different pollinating insect, as it does not only have an open corolla throat, but also a short and thick spur, thus the pollinator most likely is a short-tongued insect (whereas the other Tayloria species are likely to be pollinated by insects with a long proboscis, like bombylid flies or butterflies and moths). The short spur, open corolla throat and hairy scape of G. exhibitionista. The remaining species is also a very rare one, and was yet only observed at two little locations. At one of them, this species grows in the spray of a large waterfall, and thus get permanently fogged by the spray. Therefore we named it Genlisea nebulicola – “growing in the spray”. This species has been referred to by Fernando by the informal name “G. mini-violacea”, which fit well, as this is the tiniest member of the subgenus. In all other respects, it resembles more a G. lobata however. It has delicate little flowers on thin scapes, which are almost glabrous – in contrast to all other species of the subgenus. The rosettes of leaves are comparatively large, in contrast to the inflorescence parts. All the best, Andreas PS: I am sure Paulo will post more photos of the new species soon, especially of G. nebulicola, which I haven’t seen alive personally yet.....