Andreas Fleischmann
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Events
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Andreas Fleischmann
-
-
Hello,
The reason for this: the Durch plant collector Burman chose the latinized version of his family name as "Burmannus". Vahl described a Drosera collected by Burman in India as Drosera burmanni, i.e. he created an epithet based on the wrong Latin family name "Burmannus". However, the correct latin version of Burman would have been Burmannius, thus the correct spelling of the Drosera would have been D. burmannii. That's why some authors use the double "ii" (those that like grammatical correctness ;)), while those that are preferring the original spelling write "burmanni".
Jan Schlauer's convincing argument to spell it D. burmannii is the plant genus Burmannia, which was named in honour of Burman, too, but latinized the right way. It's much easier to "rename" one single Drosera species than to use a new spelling for a whole plant genus ;).
Andreas
-
Hello,
It sounds like the leafy liverwort (Jungermanniales, those liverworts that have leaflets not thalli) that grows in your pot with the Utricularia has decided to develop sporogons. This is quite common in spring, and several genera (like Lophocolea) have these sporogon heads that open with 4 arms. Just follow the translucent "stalks" down where they come from, and you'll discover that there's a moss attached to them! ;)
Hope this helps,
Andreas -
Hello Fernando and Vitor,
Are you shure these are Genlisea leaves in the first CP-related photo? Couldn't this be U. pubescens? The growth habit looks rather spreading than rosetted to me...
Andreas
-
I can't wait!! :) But do you have specimens from the Chapada dos Veadeiros, Chapada dos Guimarães, Jalapão, Cristalina, or other places in western Brazil?
G. aurea is well represented in my taxon sampling, as there had been a very generous person in SPF, hahaha! ;);)
I have included specimens from Chapada dos Veadeiros, Jalapão (Ponte Alta and Novo Jardim), Cristalina, Diamantina, Itacambira, Caparao viz. Pico de Bandeira, and at least 2 more accessions I can't remember right now.
Later,
Andreas
PS: Sorry to the rest of you, I promise to continue this rather private dialog with Fernando by e-mail, leaving this forum for public discussion ;)
-
Hello Vitor,
What a phantastic place to go! Thanks for the nice photographs and travel report!
The unidentified Utricularia species most likely is U. trichophylla!
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hi Fernando,
>Only the larger forms of G.pygmaea seem to produce mucilage on the leaves. I believe these are the tuberous >plants and thus possibly a separate species. But is it type G.pygmaea? Hmmm...
I'll be in Paris herbarium to check St.-Hilaire's types in June. Did I ever send you the photo I've got of type G. pygmaea? ;) It's just the upper part of a scape and a deformed corolla ;)
>>Obenoha (I got this one as "G. repens Obenoha, Minas Gerais", but it is G. pygmaea for sure);
>This name is certainly wrong, there is no such place. Please check! Did I send you this?
No, I got this a seed from Markus Welge, who got it from...?
>>In cultivated G. aurea, I did observe no slime on the leaves of plants from Pico de Bandeira and Caparao,
>This is the same place. Caparaó is the name of the highlands while Bandeira is the name of the highest peak.
Thanks for clarification! But I assume it's different collections of yours isn't it?
>>Unfortunately, there's no difference between mucilage-producing leaves and "bold" leaves once they are >>herborized. (I thought that the one would have some glands whereas the others wouldn't, but all species of >>Genlisea do bear sessile glands on their leaves
). Thus no chance to find out which species did produce mucus >>on its leaves in life from Martius' and St.-Hilaire's type specimens. Too bad! ;)>AHA, but I think there is! :) My latest impression is that the ones with thick mucilage are the ones with very >narrow leaves in densely-packed rosettes -- whereas the "bald" leaves are usually wider at the tip (more >cuneiform, not as linear) and fewer in number per rosette. I can't say if this is always true though. I'd have to >start checking all my pictures... and they will only arrive with all my stuff from Brazil in a month or 2.
But even >then, I'm not sure it would be enough to cme to any conclusion.You are right! I have just compared the different forms of G. aurea in the greenhouse: those plants that are not producing mucilage have a lot more leaves, which are narrowly spatulate. And the rosettes are spreading horizontaly on the ground in old plants (they almost look like the "foxtail-like" shoots of some forms of Aldrovanda ;))
Let's see what DNA says here ;);)
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
Most fascinating to me is the fact that some G. pygmaea and G. aurea are producing this slimy mucilage on their leaves, whereas others don't. I don't know in which thread Fernando mentioned this recently, but I will reply to this issue here ;).
These are the observations from my cultivated plants:
Mucilage on leaves of G. pygmaea from the Chapada dos Veadeiros and from Cristalina, both Goiás.
No mucilage on the following collections of G. pygmaea from Jalapão; Barreirinhas; Vigia Para (however Fernando and I are still not sure if this indeed is G. pygmaea); Obenoha (I got this one as "G. repens Obenoha, Minas Gerais", but it is G. pygmaea for sure); Gran Sabana, Venezuela and a few other locations I don't remember now. Except of the doubtfull pygmaea from Vigia Para, all these species do have an almost glabrous scape (but only almost! ;)), that's why they are identified as G. repens sometimes!
Maybe 2 different taxa?
In cultivated G. aurea, I did observe no slime on the leaves of plants from Pico de Bandeira and Caparao, all others (quite a few accessions thanks to Fernando and his Brazilian CP-friends!) produced a lot of mucilage on their rosettes.
Maybe this coincidences with flower size? Then Martius and co-workers would probably have been right in distinguishing 2 different taxa, G. ornata and G. ornata var. gracilis (Martius did not know of St-Hilaire's G. aurea, that's why he described a G. ornata), and slimy leaves would represent another character to seperate them ;) Unfortunately, there's no difference between mucilage-producing leaves and "bold" leaves once they are herborized. (I thought that the one would have some glands whereas the others wouldn't, but all species of Genlisea do bear sessile glands on their leaves
). Thus no chance to find out which species did produce mucus on its leaves in life from Martius' and St.-Hilaire's type specimens. Too bad! ;)All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello Christian,
Very nice photos of well-grown plants, as usual! ;)
Yes, flowers of D. cisitiflora can last for up to 3 days (or until successfull pollination occured earlier). But in contrast to some Australian species with long-lasting flowers, flowers of D. cisitflora close at night, just to open their petals the next morning again. Same for D. pauciflora.
Three days, this was the confirmed "record" for long-lasting Drosera-flowers so far. But I have just discovered a new record-holder in my collection: D. rupicola (aka D. stolonifera ssp. rupicola). Its flowers stayed open for day and night for five days! (Allen Lowrie reports that these flowers remained "open for days and nights for weeks or until pollinated"). Well, "weeks" sounds a little bit exaggerated in my opinion, but 5 days, that's not bad at all (compared to the main part of Drosera whose flowers are ephemerids ;)). Most interestingly, D. stolonifera (D. stolonifera ssp. stolonifera) opens its flowers for one day only, and the flowers are closing in the early evening! How about the other members of this complex? (Mine are not flowering this season).
BTW, did anyone of you ever observe Drosera flowers that stay open at night in a species that is not from Australia? It seems that this phenomenon (obviously adapted to nocturnal pollinators) has only evolved in Australian Drosera species, and is restricted to species that have white and scented flowers. However, not every Australian Drosera that has white scented flowers is night-blooming. ;) I have observed this in D. heterophylla (long-lasting, up to 3 days), D. rupicola (5 days), D. paleacea (one day + night), D. roseana (1 day + night), D. dichrosepala (2 days) and a few other species.
Andreas
-
Hello,
This IS Utricularia aurea! ;)
First I tried to figure out if there where any hairs on the corolla margins in the first photo (which is a distinct character for U. aurea in SE Asia). But then I noticed your nice photo of the fruiting scape, which made identification very easy: U. aurea is the only species that has these kind of spreading calyx lobes in fruit: both lobes are almonst bent horizontal from the capsule.
All the best,
Andreas
PS: I just got a herbarium specimen of U. aurea which was collected in Madagascar by water plant specialist Christel Kasselmann. She has sent it to me for identification. No doubt that this was U. aurea, too. Thus we can add Madagascar to the range of this widespread tropical aquatic, and maybe it will be even recorded from the African continent, too.
-
Hello Sebastian,
Yes, this plant is U. gibba for sure.
Andreas
-
Hello,
>Last of all, if it is a hybrid, what could it possibly be a hybrid with???
The following species are recorded from Duida: D. hirticalyx, D. roraimae, D. arenicola. I agree that I cannot imagine any intermediate of them to look like that hirticalyx-like D. sp. 'Duida'.
>Therefore, I am convinced that either something happened to make the plants sterile in vitro (more likely), or else >something is going wrong in cultivation which is keeping them from being fertilized (less likely).
Dito. ;)
>The leaf rosette of D.sp Duida is apparently indistinguishable from that of D.hirticalyx, except for the hairy leaf >undersurface, right Andreas?
Yep.
>The real difference is in the inflorescence, which in D.sp.Duida is closer to D.roraimae (flower number, shape & >size, scape thickness, height & pubescence, etc.), correct?
Yes. (except for the fact that in some populations of D. roraimae, the scape is glabrous, but that's something different ;)).
>(Before going on, I will just say that I discard the possibility of D.sp.Duida being a D.roraimae X D.hirticalyx >hybrid, because a hybrid plant would be more or less intermediate in all its characters, and NOT have the rosette >of one parent and the inflorescence of the other parents...)
I do fully agree with you in this point.
>In conclusion: ARE THERE ANY CHARACTERS IN D.SP.DUIDA WHICH DO NOT MATCH D.YUTAJENSIS???
I have just compared the D. sp. 'Duida' with Duno's description of D. yutajensis. Except the seeds, which are apparently not available, everything matches well: Leaf shape and size, indumentum, stipules, floral characters (which are poorly described and illustrated in the protologue). D. yutajensis is seperated from D. hirticalyx by leaf hairiness, floral characters and seed shape. In my opinion, there are species which have been seperated by fewer characters. ;) Thus I do not believe that D. yutajensis (aka D. sp. 'Duida' ;)) is conspecific with D. hirticalyx. I'll send you the description of D. yutajensis and D. hirticalyx (which luckily is the same publication), thus you can compare, too.
Southpark commercial break is over, thus I quit here ...
...All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
I cannot explain why I missed this interesting thread until now
.Daniel, very nice photographs of very healthy plants! Well done!
Thus, here's my 2 cents on the Drosera sp. 'Cerro Duida':
The plant was collected by Joachim Nerz several years ago, he collected seeds and raised the plants in vitro. Gert seems to have his plants originating from Joachim. Joachim told me that this "D. sp. 'Duida'" was not growing on the summit area of Cerro Duida, but on the slopes at a low elevated area on the back of Duida. (I wanted to know where exactly the population occurs, as I would love to see this plant in the wild some day. I rember Joe saying: "Ei, des is fei schwierig, da musch oimal um de ganze Teppui rum, weil des Pflänzle wächst undde auf da ganz de andre Saidde!"
)The plant itself seems to be sterile, none of my 5 plants I got from Joachim's tissue culture clones did ever set seed! It produces pollen, however few, but the pollen looks viable under a microscope. However, I did not start pollen growth experiments, if it's able to form pollen tubes for example. Even flowers which I have cross-pollinated by hand didn't ever set viable seed. The ripe capsules only formed tiny aborted seed grains, which did not germinate.
Thus, why is this plant sterile? It could either be a sterile natural hybrid, and Joachim collected the hybrid seed on a fertile mother plant by chance. Or it could be a fertile plant (hybrid or species), which turned into a sterile clone by in vitro tissue culture treatment. There are some studies on other plant species showing that intensive treatment with growth promotors and plant hormones can lead to development of sterile flowers.
The plant looks very similar to D. hirticalyx vegetatively, I agree. (Both D. hirticalyx and the D. sp. 'Duida' have those exceptionally large glands on the base of the lamina, by the way
. These long tentacles are not uncommon in several Drosera species, D. roraimae has them, too. However, they are usually overlooked in species that have long petioles, and I agree that they are even more conspicuous in species with short petioles, when they are covering the centre of the rosette). Both plants are forming tall columns of dead leaves with age.But their flowers and scapes are quite different:
Scapes of D. hirticalyx are thick and robust, but rather short (according to the type description, the scape is 4-15 cm in length), bearing few flowers (1-6, according to the protologue). The pedicels of D. hirticalyx are very short, sometimes the flowers appear to be almost sessile on the scape. And the calyx bears those large, dark glands. The stigmas are slightly knob-shaped.
In these characters, the D. sp. 'Duida' differs: scapes are long and slender (in some of my plants, the scapes where exceeding 50cm in length!) and they bear a lot of flowers (at least 20 in my greenhouse grown plants). The flowers are much smaller than in D. hirticalyx, however the styles are longer in relation to the flower size. The stigmas are more acute (like in D. roraimae). The pedicels are well developed, and longer than in D. hirticalyx. The scape is covered with short-stalked glands, peduncle, pedicels and sepals are densely covered with small glands (much smaller than the large glands of D. hirticalyx).
I hope that these photographs can illustrate what I poorly tried to explain above:
(Thanks to Chrisitan Dietz for kindly hosting my photos on his website again!!)
Note the short pedicels and the hairy sepals!
Petals are about 6 mm long and spatulate, stimas are knob-like.
And now for the strange D. sp. "Cerro Duida":
You can estimate that it's at least more than 6 flowers on this developing scape. Note the longer pedicels and the indumentum of short glands that covers the whole inflorescence.
Petals are about 3 mm in length and broadly cuneate to obovate. Stigmas are thin and narrow.
A long thin scape with lots of flowers, these characters match well the description of D. yutajensis. This is the reason why I did first identify this plant from Duida as "D. yutajensis". D. yutajensis was described to have leaves that are densely pubenscent on the lower surface (like in D. villosa or D. ascendens!). I have just had a closer look at my plants of D. sp. 'Duida', and this is the case in this one, too. Hhmm, if it just would produce seed! (Seed is described and illustrated for D. yutajensis, thus I would exclude that D. yutajensis in fact could be a sterile hybrid
). I will have to see this plant in the wild sooner or later .BTW, in some publications you will find a note that D. yutajensis has pink flowers. This is not stated in the original publication, nor on the herbarium specimens. It just results from lazy botanists working on South American Drosera (Fernando's special girl friends, hahaha), who usually cite the flower colour of a certain species to be "pink or white". A good guess for South American Drosera, if you don't know the colour excatly, hahaha!
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
Utricularia graminifolia.
(In U. reticulata, pedicels are much shorter, and scapes are usually twining.)
All the best,
Andreas
-
Dear Franklin,
I've just sent the requested article by Dolling and Palmer to the e-mail address that I have found in your member's profile.
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
Andy, nice plant you caught there! But following Barry’s explanations, it may be delicatula more likely?Nope, the plant on Andy's photo bears a "sterile" bract (a bract not subtending a developed flower), easy to notice at half distance between the uppermost and the 2nd flower. And U. delicatula is limited to New Zealand ;). Andy did photograph U. lateriflora in Tasmania.
Mmandi, your plant is U. lteriflora, too.
All the best,
Andreas
-
Dear Fred,
Although your plants are not catching any insects in your greenhouse (for whatever reason), there may be still no need to fertilize them. As I mentioned, a greenhouse is an open system (copared to a terrarium), and lots of nutrients like dust, pollen etc. are blown in daily and will accumulate in the pant's pitchers. You may not even recognize this "micro-prey" that your plants use for their own fertilization ;).
And even if Heliamphora plants are grown in a terrarium, they will grow without any fertilizer. But as I mentioned, growth will be much slower, and plants will be less robust compared to fertilized ones.
Still it sounds strange that your Heliamphora plants did never catch any insects in your greenhouse. Is it an indoor greenhouse? ;);). I fully believe your observations nevertheless. Your Sarracenia pitchers are full of insects in autumn, aren't they? (Just wanted to ensure that there are insects buzzing around in your hometown at least ;)).
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
You separate terrarium culture from the ' open systems like greenhouses'Is this based on the assumption that greenhouse grown plants can and will catch their food?
It's based on the fact that I can find lots of insects (especially flies and wasps) in my adult Heliamphora plants grown in my greenhouse. Friend CPers made the same observations. Sometimes some Heliamphora species even catch that much prey in greenhouses that pitchers start to rot.
If these plants do not catch prey naturally for what ever reason, are they still less starved or do they require artificial feeding to survive.Please do not tell me that all such plants do catch prey naturally, I have my own observations.
I have looked in quite a few pitchers of Heliamphora nutans on Mt Kukenan and Roraima, as well as into pitchers of the lowland population of H. heterodoxa in the Gran Sabana, as observations on natural prey capture are part of my studies on Heliamphora. ;) Well, they caught insects! Not many, and not in every pitcher, but they do catch insects! Why else should they have evolved these strange pitchers with nectar spoons?
Interestingly, we only found few insects in a few pitchers on the tepui summits (but sometimes rather large prey, like a butterfly, see photograph in Stew McPhersons "Pitcherplants of the Americas", which was made on this occassion!). But we found a large amount of ants in the pitchers of the lowland H. heterodoxa. In my opinion, Heliamphora are quite good at attracting and catching insect prey! It's more the rarity of insects on the tepui plateaus that is responsible for the few prey records made in natural tepui habitats! But based on the large amount of insect prey in greenhouse grown plants, I assume that they are doing a rathewr good job! ;) Some species (H. tatei, H. chimantensis) even have a sweet, honey-like scent originating from the lid to attract insects! This is part of my studies as well.... ;)
BTW, for a more detailed study of insect prey of Heliamphora species in Venzuela, see Jaffé et al. 1995 ("On insect attractants from pitcher plants of the genus Heliamphora", Journ. of Chem. Ecology, Vol. 21(3)).
The mycorrhizal fungi are not manufacturing the nutrients, they are merely making the small amount present available to the orchid.The orchid is adapted to form this symbiosis so yes it is an example.
There are also articles to show that the presence of mycorrhiza can be to the detriment of some orchids.
They do better without the relationship
That's nonsense, sorry to tell you. ;) Maybe in cultivation, where orchid keepers spray fertilizer on their plants alost daily ;). But EVERY orchid is in need of soil fungi in order to germinate! (Except of those lucky ones that had the chance to germinate within an in vitro tube on axenic medium, haha ;)). Orchid seedlings are highly reduced, they are nothing more than a bunch of undifferenciated cells (called "protocorm"), which need a fungal hyphe to penetrate them. Then they start digesting this hyphae (they have a lot of proteolytic enzymes and chitinases, just like CP have!) and get ALL nutrients (including carbon and nitrogen!) from the "fungal prey" (protocorms are usally achlorophyllous, thus cannot make photosythesis, thus are heterotrophic organisms!).
Adult orchids still digest soil fungi, but some get their carbon from photosynthesisi then (the green orchids). Achlorophyllus orchids (so-called mycoheterotrophics, the term "saprophytes" is not appropriate, as it's the fungus that gets nutrients from decaying organic matter, not the plant itself) depend on nurishing on fungal hyphea for their wwhole life cycle.
Orchid "mycorhizae" are not a symbiosis, but true parasitims! The fungus gets no benefit from the orchids, it's hyphae are fully digested inside the orchid's roots! Only the orchid "partner" benefits from this one-sided relationship. However, as parasitism is only used for one-sided relationships between animals, animals-plants, plants-plants, and fungi on plants, a special term has been created by botanists to explain the parasitism of plant on fungi: mycotrophy, or - in case the host plant is fully dependent on the fungus- mycoheterotrophy.
All the best,
Andreas
-
Hello,
Off-topic, but just my 2 cents, as these are some general missunderstandings:
NO plant can be killed by too many nutrients! It will only take up as many nutrients as needed anyway. And it will grow bigger and more robust as a result of this. Even CPs will do! But there are some problems in cultivation with fertilizers: Most of them are salt-based (even the low-salt orchid stuff). And some plants can't stand high salt concentrations (it's usually plants that are naturally growing in acidic soil, as there roots have adapted to low organic salt availablility. Their roots will take up any salt available in the soil, they cannot discriminate between different ions, and thus they can cause self intoxication. It's not the nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) in the fertiliser that kills Drosera or Utricularia for example, it's the fact that these nutrients are applied as organic salts!
The case why CPs grow in natural niche habitats that are low in nutrients like nitrogen is not the fact that they can't stand high nutrient concentrations! Even Drosera are bigger in peaty seepage sites where a special amount of nutrients is permanently washed in, compared to inorganic soils like wet sand plains for example. Of corse they can't stand growing in soils rich in N, but that's because they would be outcompeted by other plants there!
Another fact: Plants in bogs are not comparable to plants grown in a terrarium! The airborne nutrient uptake of a peat bog is huge, it can be several kilograms of carbon per year!!! (Pollen, dust, particles etc.). Peat bogs are big and effective carbon sinks!! Some european Pinguicula species even seem to rely more on this air dust as a source of nutrients as on catching insect prey.
There are many other plants in bogs that are not carnivorous.Terrestrial orchids are a good example.
Where do they get nutrients?
They are adapted to grow with the minimal nutrients available.
No, orchids are a bad example (orchids are always the most a-typical plants to refer to ;)). They feed on soil fungi, and get a huge amount (in some species even the major part) of nutrients such as N, K or P from digesting fungal hyphae.
Other plants that accompany CP in european peat bogs are usually Ericaceae. Those have a mycorhizial symbiont, too, which is able to digest organic matter as a saprophyte. And the plant host will get the nutrients via this mycorhizal partner. Grasses: Mycorhizae. Sedges: Bacterial symbionts and a lot of decaying own biomas to regenerate nutrients. Sphagnum: uptake of airblown dust directly. Thus every bog plant found it's own way to gather as many nutrients available. You'll find the same (and even some more) smart tricks used by plants in natural Heliamphora habitats!
Compared to nutrient availability of natural CP habitats (or open systems like greenhouses), terrarium cultivation is a starvation diet for most CPs (as soon as the nutrients available from the soil mix are leached out, as there's no futher nutrient input).
Andreas
-
Hello,
This discussion about what could be the "right" D. capensis from Baines Kloof is ridiculous, as the Baines Kloof NR is a large valley, where several populations of D. capensis exist! And D. capensis is quite variable across its range, plants originating from different populations usually look sligthly different.
Both plants shown here could well originate from Baines Kloof! In 2006, we have found large plants with long, narrow petioles (like the plants shown in Andrew's photos) on a west-facing sphagnum dripping wall at the base of the valley. At this site, the plants were growing sympatrically with D. trinervia (which seems not to got dormant at all in this permanently wet soil) and U. bisquamata (the weedy small flowered form). Close to this location, on drier ground, mass populations of a multi-flowered form of D. cistiflora occur (which has smaller petals and was therefore described as a doubtfull new species, D. liniflora, by Paul Debbert).
The stem forming variant of D. capensis with long internodes and short but broad petioles is a montane plant of high altitude sites of the mountains bordering Baines Kloof valley (where D. regia grows, too). This plant grows in permanently cool seeping water year round, and it may even experinece very cold temps and occassionally snow in winter (Eric Green, pers. com.). That is why this plant sometimes forms even winter bud-like structures in mid winter under greenhouse conditions, and slows down growth very much (like the high altitude "form" of D. regia).
BTW, seed set of my plants in the greenhouse is quite good, if I hand-pollinated the flowers. Thus maybe terrarium cultivation should be blamed for your bad results?
As far as I know, this stem-forming, short petioled plant from Baines Kloof was introduced in cultivation in Germany by Thomas Carow several years (decades ;)) ago.
Andreas
PS: Christian,
I could add D. capensis from Silvermine NR (hughe plants, maybe the biggest of all D. cistiflora forms, reaching up to at least 30 cm in diam.), from Palmiet River NR (stem forming, very very long narrow petioles in spring, more hairy than the other "forms" of D. capensis). The plants from Thewaterskloof Dam are not very spectacular, they are very close to the odd small "narrow leaf form" of D. capensis, which is available in every nursery. BTW, thanks for seed of the Matroosberg plants! This one went "dormant" under my greenhouse conditions, too. Makes sense well, as the Matroosberg are some of the highest mountains (with snow-covered tips, where D. acaulis grows ;)) of the Western Cape.
-
Hello Martin,
Well done! I'm glad to see that this picky plant has successfuly entered at least a few collections of CP enthusiasts! ;)
I have experienced the same, that flower colour is more pale if the plants are grown under artificial lights. "Typical" flowers of ink-blue colour (like those of the plants I have seen in their natural habitat on Doi Inthanon, Chiang Mai Province, Thailand) I have only observed on my plants grown in the greenhouse. Unfortunately, this species does not self under my growing conditions, thus I do not get any seed if the flowers are not pollinated by hand. I would strongly recommend not to try to propagate this plant by division. Every attempt of mine to do this lead to loss of both offspring and mother plant
.It is strange that you got better germination of U. babui under warm growing conditions. The location where this U. babui (i.e. all plants in cultivation ;)) had been collected is a montane seepage area on Doi Inthanon. Day temperatures were about 10-20°C, and according to a local Thai botanist, the temperature there can drop down to alomost freezing at night!
All the best,
Andreas
-
Thanks for sending the dried flower heads, they arrived well for me today.
Now that I have dissected them using a binocular, I can definitely say that this IS Paepalanthus tortilis. (Flowers are unisexual, stamens 3, petals of pistillate flowers free, anthers dorsifixed --> Paepalanthus. To identify the species was easier, as I could guess most leaf and stem meassurements from your photographs ;)).
All the best, Andreas
-
Hello,
The full-text article of D. solaris for download for free here:
http://www.botanik.biologie.uni-muenchen.d..._et_al_2007.pdf
All the best,
Andreas
-
Actually, I wouldn't even expect that you got fertile seed from this crossing experiment ;)
In Drosera, the subgeneric division has been chosen in a very smart way (it is indeed reflecting well the natural relationships within the genus, although it's a manmade artificial system). As far as I know, no hybrid has been reported from crosses made between Drosera species of 2 different sections (except D. neocaledonica x spatulata, when D. neocaledonica was still considered to belong to section Lasiocepahala, which is clearly wrong ;) Thus this one does not count either). Thus crosses over subgeneric "borders", like you did, are even much more impossible to set fertile hybrid seed.
Nevertheless, I'm curious to hear about your results.
-
In this seepage area, between grasses and rushes (restios), another Drosera species grows: D. longiscapa.
Total view of the habitat, and of Fernando who is busily tracing our location and taking field notes ;).
In the Magaliesberg area, Drosera longiscapa grows in a thin layer of organic soil and green filamentous algae over red sandstone.
Detail views of the plant. In contrast to D. collinsiae, D. longiscapa is forming stems with age.
We found D. longiscapa at a different location, at a seepage area along a roadside close to Pretoria, where it was growing in cushions of Sphagnum. Accompanying CPs at this location where a blue-flowered Genlisea hispidula and dirty purple-flowered U. welwitschii.
All the best,
Andreas
PS: Thanks to my CP-friend Christian Dietz for hosting my photographs on his webpage!
CPs in Santander, Colombia
in Carnivorous Plants in Habitat
Posted
Hola Sebastián,
I'll reply to your PM in public here:
It is hard to tell from the resolution of your photograph (which is excellent, by the way!), but it seems like this plant has only non-glandular hairs on its scape. Therefore this should be D. colombiana.
D. cayennensis bears both glandular and non-glandular hairs on the upper part of the scape and the sepals. The location and altitude you found the plant at are more typical for D. colombiana then for D. cayennensis, too.
However, I'm still not quite convinced about the seperate specific state of D. colombiana vs. D. cayennensis vs. D. brevifolia. I haven't studied many populations/specimens of these 3 species yet, to be certain that the minute characters seperating them are stable across there range. If there would be any intermediates, it would make sense to circumscribe them by one single species, i.e. D. brevifolia.
I don't have my literature on hand right now, too, but I can send the descriptions to you on monday, if you like.
All the best,
Andreas