Jump to content

Fernando Rivadavia

Full Members
  • Posts

    1,759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Fernando Rivadavia

  1. I found the original post!!! And I see it was Vince's plants. :) Unfortunately the pics are not showing up anymore: http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27326&page=3
  2. Hey guys, This subject is of high interest to me. Unfortunately the link Vince provided is a side discussion Andreas and I started (but which did not seem to go anywhere on this forum, although Andreas and I frequently discuss it). I was actually just searching for the original discussion on leaf circination in D.capensis (which Andreas mentions in his thread), when I accidentally came across this current post. In that original post, someone had shown a D.capensis with circinate young leaves (rolled in), instead of the more typical involute vernation (where the lamina is folded over the petiole, like in FVTs). It was the first time I saw a circinate D.capensis and I was fascinated that the two vernation types could be found in the same species, as this has shown to be a pretty important taxonomic character in Drosera. Anyways, what you claim is very interesting that your plants were originally involute and as they matured became circinate. Is this correct? How big are your plants (or how big were they when they became circinate)? Thank you, Fernando Rivadavia
  3. Thanks everyone, and thanks for the great tip Dave!!
  4. A month later, it looks even fuller and more lush, thanks to a deep soaking I did 3 weeks ago, using the irrigation system installed a few months ago (removing water from the gutter at the bottom afterwards). It helps wash the excess salts accumulated near the top and I always see a jump in growth afterwards. Even so, I still see some problems because of salts, with plants every once in a while rotting from the roots up, especially on the left side of the right panel, seen in the pic below: Nevertheless, D.madagascariensis seems to be doing well in this spot and will flower for the first time: And here's a view of the left panel: Contrary to last year, U.asplundii has not stopped flowering with the arrival of summer, even though there is only one flower scape left: And here's a panoramic view: Last of all, here's the proud owner: All the best, Fernando Rivadavia
  5. Hello everyone, The wall has really exploded in a good way this summer! Especially the left panel has been doing really well, with barely any holes left, now that the Pings have all come out of dormancy. See below some pics from mid June, starting with the left panel: Now the right panel: And now a panoramic view: I just took some more pics, I'll post them next. Best wishes, Fernando Rivadavia
  6. Thanks guys! :) Lee, that is definitely the plan, but first we had to work on some basic housekeeping by cleaning up the historical mess in groups like montana and villosa. The Brazilian tetraploids are almost done (one Diva left...), but the diploids (communis, hirtella, cayennensis, roraimae, and capillaris/esmeraldae/biflora complexes) are another big mess that may take many more years to resolve properly. Best wishes, Fernando
  7. Thanks Dave! The D.cayennensis complex is much closer in morphology and habit to D.brevifolia. The D.capillaris complex is quite different. Best Wishes, Fernando Rivadavia
  8. A relatively recent addition to this group is D. tentaculata, which I published in 2003. This species can be distinguished by its obovate, obovate-cuneate or cuneate leaves with conspicuous apical retentive (“snap) tentacles, tendency to form short stems of accumulated dead leaves, and a newly-discovered character unique among other Brazilian species: the way the young leaves unfurl (vernation) is geniculate (versus circinate in other tetraploid Brazilian taxa and the more common geniculate-involute vernation of most other New World species). Here are some pics of D. tentaculata: And finally we have the new species D. spirocalyx, a narrow endemic from the Serra do Cipó in SE Brazil. I originally “discovered” this species as a herbarium specimen back in the early 90’s, but only saw it in the field in 1999, thanks to precise location data provided by my friend Ms.Chiaki Shibata from Japan, who had visited the Serra do Cipó and showed me lovely pics of local CPs, including one where I recognized the plant I only knew from herbarium specimens until then (and thus the reason why it was called for many years D.sp. ”Shibata”). Subsequent and extensive explorations over the past 15 years have only turned up a few, mostly small populations, usually growing in sandy quartzitic soils or borderline habitats where sandy soils meet mounds of white quartz gravel mixed with fine sand. Drosera spirocalyx is distinguished by characters such as its bicolored leaves with green petioles and wine red lamina, villous adaxial petiole surface and whole abaxial leaf surface, short scapes with few flowers that open at the height of the dry season, and by the sub-orbicular to broadly ovate sepals with rounded (rarely subobtuse) apex. And it’s the sepals that give this plant its name, due to the fact that the margins of the sepals uniquely (among New World sundews) overlap when in bud and form a pyramidal projection at the fusion point between adjacent sepals. Here’s D. spirocalyx, forming typical (clonal?) clumps: And here you can see the plants forming columns of dead leaves (also present in D. tentaculata and D. tomentosa): This pic by Paulo Gonella shows the characteristic that gives D. spirocalyx its name. Notice how the sepals are large and overlapping – so much so that they even form a pyramidal projection where adjacent sepals fuse. Only one other Drosera species has these bumps: D. stenopetala from New Zealand. And just for clarity’s sake, here are some of the taxa we’ve excluded from the D. montana complex, starting with D. chimaera, which is possibly the missing link between the montana and villosa complexes: And here’s the beautiful D. schwackei (ex- D.montana var.schwackei) in its amazing white quartz habitat: Another species excluded from the complex is D. hirtella (ex-D. montana var. hirtella). Here’s a pic of D. hirtella var. hirtella with its reddish leaves and deeply ascending scapes covered in crisp red hairs: Following Saint-Hilaire’s original description from 1824, we decided to keep D. hirtella var. lutescens as a good taxon. Here’s a pic of this beautiful plant with its wine-red leaves and yellowish scapes covered in white hairs: Last of all, here are some pics of D. cayennensis, which were also confused for members of the D. montana complex in the past (especially in the Flora Neotropica): And just to avoid accusations that we are splitters (LOL), I would like to let you all know that we lumped a few names under D. cayennensis: D. colombiana, D. panamensis, D. pumilla, and D. sanariapoana. I hope you enjoyed! Fernando Rivadavia P.S. Here's the paper: http://biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.172.3.1
  9. Hello everyone, Here is another call to correct your plant labels! :) A few colleagues and I have just published a 35-page review of the D. montana complex. Like our previous publications on Brazilian sundews, this paper has been decades in the making and it has definitely been the most “complex” of all the sundew complexes in Brazil, at least in historical terms. Since D. montana and D. tomentosa were originally published by Saint-Hilaire nearly 200 years ago, there have been endless cycles of synonimizations and of lumping with unrelated species – culminating with the absurd Flora Neotropica in 2005, where ten names were lazily lumped under D. montana. In our new circumscription of the D. montana complex, we have left only D. montana, D. tomentosa var. tomentosa, D. tomentosa var. glabrata, D. tentaculata, and a new (& narrow endemic) species D. spirocalyx. This is supported by characters such as leaf shape & vernation, chromosome numbers, and molecular phylogenetic data. Excluded from the D. montana complex (hopefully permanently) are the following taxa: D. hirtella var. hirtella, D. hirtella var. lutescens, D. schwackei Rivadavia, D. parvifolia Saint-Hilaire (= D. communis), D. cayennensis Sagot ex Diels (including D. pumilla Santos, D. colombiana Fernández, D. panamensis, and D. sanariapoana Steyermark as synonyms), D. montana f. parviflora Chodat (= D. communis), and of course D. roraimae (Klotzsch ex Diels) Maguire & Laudon. Hopefully our new publication will set the record straight for a long while with the D. montana complex! Anyway, see below some pics and extra info for each taxon. First we have D. montana, which is the most widespread in the complex. Through herbarium specimens, we’ve newly discovered that this species is very common on the eastern slopes of the Andes in Bolivia, and possibly also extends into Peru and Argentina. Maybe as a result of this huge geography, it is probably not surprising that it is also somewhat diverse morphologically. However we were not able to establish clear-cut morphological lines, and thus opted to describe 3 morphotypes: Typical, Southern, and Central-western morphotypes. The characters that distinguish D. montana include the fact that it tends to go completely dormant in the dry season, it flowers in the summer, does not form stems with age, has uniformly-sized glandular trichomes from base to apex of the scapes, long and broad ovate to oblong-ovate sepals, and has relatively delicate leaves that are oblong, oblong-spatulate or more rarely spatulate. Here are two pics of D. montana rosettes where you can see the narrow leaves: And two pics showing the highly glandular scapes of D. montana (pics by Nilber Silva): Then we have another widespread and very abundant species: D. tomentosa, distinguished from other taxa by its obovate to oblong-obovate leaves (rarely oblong), with wide petioles (0.4–3 mm in width). It also shows some morphological variation across the range. Variations in density of the eglandular hairs on scapes seems to support the original description by Saint-Hilaire, splitting D. tomentosa into two varieties: D. tomentosa var. tomentosa with hairy scapes and D. tomentosa var. glabrata with glabrous to subglabrous scapes. We decided to keep these two infraspecific taxa at the varietal rank, due to the huge overlap in their geographical ranges, possible hybridization, and the fact that the sole distinguishing character (scape eglandular indumentum) is not easily quantifiable. Here's a typical dense colony of D. tomentosa at a seepage: Here's a view of a D. tomentosa rosette with typical broad leaves. Notice the scapes are practically hairless, meaning this is D. tomentosa var. glabrata: Here are two pics of D. tomentosa var. glabrata, with its mostly hairless scapes (glandular only): Here are a few pics of D. tomentosa var. tomentosa with its ultra-hairy scapes: So why did we keep two taxa as variaties of D.tomentosa instead of at higher rank (or none)? Even though the extremes are often found growing in the same habitats with no intermediates. However hybrids are known and there are numerous populations somewhat intermediate in regards to scape hairyness. Thus, we followed Saint-Hilaire and kept varietal rank due to the difficulty in quantifying this character, until further evidence is presented. Here's a plant we classified as var.tomentosa, since hairs were found all the way up the scape, even if less dense than the ones above (pics by Nilber Silva): And just as a reminder, D. tomentosa (both varieties) are known to freely form hybrids with D. grantsaui almost everywhere they meet, the hybrid being known as D.X fontinalis.Here's a pic of D. tomentosa var. tomentosa (L) and D.X fontinalis ®:
  10. Dave, look at the long tube behind laueana flowers (similar to crassifolia, hemiepiphytica, calderoniae), before they narrow into a spur. Best wishes, Fernando
  11. Dave, D.sessilifolia has been introduced to cultivation multiple times, but I have never seen anyone grow this as large as the wild parents. As for appearances, sessilifolia resembles burmannii and vice-versa, LOL. They're not too closely related to anyone else in the genus, at least not as much as they are to each other. The differences boil down to leaf shape, flower color, and base of the scape erect X ascending. Fernando
  12. Photographs from single clones in cultivation are not enough to decide whether any character is consistent across species. :)
  13. Nice pics and congrats on your plants! Even though Ed Read & I originially discovered this P.sp.Tonala back in 2003, I am not sure it deserves its own taxonomic rank. The habitat is truly very different from typical P.heterophylla and the above pics definitely show some interesting morphological differences. My only concern is that P.heterophylla is a very widespread and variable species. We know the very similar (conspecific?) P.medusina grows very close to this P.sp.Tonala and in a very similar gypsum habitat. Makes me wonder what else we could find in this region, if we looked at other gypsum habitats, or more clayish heterophylla-like habitats? For example we know that P.heterophylla just north of Oaxaca city also form pups on leaf tips (Forbes and Noah photographed this: http://www.pinguicula.org/A_world_of_Pinguicula_2/Pages/BAREFOOT_BOYS_MEXICAN_TRIP_10.htm), similar to P.medusina. So before anybody rushes to publish any new taxa in this group, I would prefer to see more field data from that region of Oaxaca, as well as a comparison to P.heterophylla across its range - and not just to the few clones in cultivation. Best wishes, Fernando Rivadavia
  14. Looks like regular moranensis to me.
  15. Hmmm, not sure the stigmata are different... Although D.burmannii may be larger in cultivation, in the wild D.sessilifolia can get quite large too. It's a mystery to me why D.sessilifolia is so small in cultivation... Fernando
  16. Beautiful plant and especially nice big flower on that specimen!
  17. Congrats on all the beautiful plants, including U.menziesii and the (rarely seen in cultivation) tepui sundews!
  18. Wow, congrats, I'm so jealous!! Thanks for bringing back great memories of this species in the wild! ;) Fernando
  19. Wow, great stuff, I hope someone can ID those Drosera! Thanks, Fernando
  20. Interesting Ping, would love to see more pics! The flower looks somewhat intermediate between that of moranensis and orchidioides. Does it produce stolons like orchidioides? Thanks! Fernando Rivadavia
  21. Ah, I'm so happy to see my lime-colored U.livida from Zambia in your collection!! :)
  22. Great pics,thanks for posting! P.S. The correct spelling for that D.tomentosa var.tomentosa location is "Morro do Jambeiro, Grão Mogol, Minas Gerais state". ;)
  23. Thanks for taking the time to post all these beautiful pics for us!!! Fernando
  24. Wow, Dani, what do you do that all your plants have such nice colors? I think this probably has more to do with your lights than your soil, the pic above is amazing! Best wishes, Fernando Rivadavia
  25. Although a little on the large side, that does look like the P.moranensis form from Pachuca. And yes, the father does seem to be P.X sethos - congrats! :)
×
×
  • Create New...