Jump to content

jeff 1

Full Members
  • Posts

    447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by jeff 1

  1. Anyway I think we will not agree. Even a small explanation on the 2n = 64 of this taxon ? jeff
  2. it is not a joke , 'in situ' we can do without it for the species description also , may be for laboratory analysis and evenOther laboratory technician may very well. it is not a no-sense, the systematic and the clade system are not identical( see on the reptilian and the fish genus for example) ,and do not always make good household. here I think ,the melbourne code's must be use , like the IPNI . Anyway I think we will not agree jeff
  3. the caryotype and the morphologicals caracters For me botany is a whole, all the sciences must be joined: systematic, phylogenetic, caryology, palynology, study of the seeds, etc., none must have the predominance over the others why an hybrid in a consensus tree ?
  4. The author is always responsible for its publication, free to each to go in its direction or not In botany, as in other science, there is no single thought and fortunately. It needs to be peer-reviewed , why ? The forma taxa are highly polyphyletic. This is no more accepted as all taxa have to be monophyletic. Yes in the cladistic system, no in the evolutive systematic system jeff
  5. Bonjour Do you have evidence of your claims ? I do not see that on the last consensus tree,published, for apuana. jeff
  6. Bonjour Yes, but it can be published at any time if I want , I would always call it ,Even It displeases The notion of form is for me really real and must be taken into account, see the code of Melbourne and St louis : division II ,chapter I article 4 paragraph 4-1. the melbourne code's is always use by the IPNI JEFF
  7. for all my temperate and mexican calcareous ping I use cat liter 50% with some time akadama river sand 12.5% pouzzolane12.5% calcareous sand 12.5% vermiculite or perlite 12.5% jeff
  8. no difference it is the same . P.apuana 'in situ' in the alpes maritimes 2n=64 'in situ' in the alpi apuane 2n=64 where is the difference ? jeff
  9. Bonjour yes it make hibernaculae in winter , for me it is a natural mutant to P. longifolia f longifolia . By seedling, the plants keep their darkred caracter. JEFF
  10. Bonjour 2 form actually in flower here on my calcareous wall in pot P.longifolia f longifolia P.longifolia f pinetensis ( perenn darkred leaves) JEFF
  11. Bonjour P.leptoceras f leptoceras P.corsica f corsica JEFF
  12. Bonjour use for the real colour a RHS fan like this https://www.azaleas.org/rhs-fan-2/ my P.mariae is near the RHS88C jeff
  13. have you the sepal form for the other ? P.vulgaris var alpicola is a geant form of P.vulgaris ,For my part I found them always at altitudes of + 1200 m, in grassy places and in the shade, closer to an ecotype than a variety in my opinion. for me the first is nevertheless quite close to a P. leptoceras f leptoceras jeff
  14. jeff 1

    P.poldinii

    Bonjour see here one P.poldinii in my calcareous wall now the leaves are more grenat jeff
  15. Bonjour nice ping . Do you know where these 2 leptoceras come from ? I am taker for some alpina seeds jeff
  16. Bonjour look for a outdoor place , in morning sun , in mid -shadow or shadow always wet by capillarity attention to substrate here you have calcareous and acid species. They will go dark green,have deformed leaves,rot from the inside of the growth point and die here in my home, the effect of a strong heat or a strong frost is the same, transparent leaves cooked (like a cooked salad leaves) jeff
  17. Bonjour 2 actually in flower cyrtostylis huegelli chiloglottis trilabra jeff
  18. Bonjour keep all these ping, out door all the time . Preferably with the morning sun , always with a wet substrate . jeff
  19. Bonjour you can use cat litter ( Non-agglomerating and perfumed) with river sand for all the calcareous ( mexican,temperate,cuban). jeff
  20. for me christinae is different to apuana in the throat christianae in alpi apuane , where? mariae in apennin , where? FERNANDO you have others infos on this christinae? mariae :2n=32 it is not a vulgaris , avertii may be a leptoceras the morphological description is too succinct and is not the same from one person to another . for me the document is too succinct also for this christinae , no perennity and reproductibility test for these morphological caracters ,no dna ,etc . may be a vulgaris but a subsp - var or f , in taxonomy these infra-rank exist !!!!!!! damage in the classification of Mexican ping, these infra rank are rarely used, but it is true, there is still a lot of grain to grind jeff
  21. "Following what have been said, its distribution area does not meet the one of P. mariae but the one of P. apuana" for me it is not the same distribution area , P.maria and P.apuana are calcareous species , P.christinae more siliceous like I have seen in 2011 ' in situ' P.mariae and P.apuana more in the alpi apuana in toscane , P.christinae more in emilie- romagne or in the margin to the toscane "Whats the chromosome count?" 2n = 64 " P.arvetii " difficult to determine this specie or find 'in situ' "P. grandiflora subsp. rosea " I have find this subsp in pyrenées in 2012 on a P.grandiflora subsp grandiflora area , why ? for me she is more a grandiflora variety or form. jeff
  22. Bonjour certainly a hot shot the temperate ping ( except 2-3) must always remain outdoor. jeff
  23. Bonjour for quite some years this is their morphological difference see also here link and here link or the AIPC special issue 3 on the mexican pinguicula and others web site ( yours also). if you have several clone in cultivate , .may be you show these one to compare with the type. for me these 2 are different to esseriana or jaumavensis I am OK. "in shape and other habitual characters" can you tell us more . for the scape( pedoncule, pedicel) some time it is not a discriminant ,many parameters can intervene on their length, can be seen very well ' in situ' . jeff
×
×
  • Create New...