Jump to content

2 new temperate ping form


jeff 1

Recommended Posts

excuse me the index card are in french

longifolia subsp longifolia f pinentensis

with dark red leaves , perenn on 3 year consecutive , the seeds give also this same caracters , ERIC you are OK

http://fern72.free.fr/siteweb/donnees-mono...ie/longpin.html

and this other, you know ERIC :man_in_love:

grandiflora subsp grandiflora f asturiensis

the same that grandiflora subsp grandiflora but a draw in the throat on all the petal onglet.

http://fern72.free.fr/siteweb/donnees-mono...ie/graastu.html

in study for me, but ERIC have more info on her perenity .

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also never heard of this questionable forms.

The plant Jeff calls longifolia f pinentensis is a population growing in the 'Valle de Pineta' (France/Spanish border)

what actually is a hybrid between P. longifolia and P. grandiflora.

Both species grow there and regarding the plants it is very clear for me:

P_longifolia_VAL1.jpg

Cheers,

Markus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no publication for instant they are in study .

MARKUS for me it is not a hybrid but in this valley you have also an hybride perhaps yours

here these 2

longifolia subsp longifolia

long.JPG

longifolia subsp longifolia f pinetensis

pin2.JPG

same colour perhaps more dark for the corol , same drawing in the throat , but the leaves are dark red for one yellow green for the typical form .

I find this species in this valley in 2002 when I go to anisclo for longifolia subsp longifolia , ERIC , OLIVER, PETER know the station and the others I show to them ,since I go time to time , their ecology is particular on calcareous cliff but also often on sandy structure of worm perhaps one consequence of this dark red colour perenn with surely other thing.

3 others species in study : 2 from alpes 1 from landes and orne departement near my home , perhaps others this year from QUEYRAS and around :thanks:

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have several different plants from Valle de Pineta. They are all different and very variable. Some have red leaves, others have green leaves. You can also see that the leaves are not as narrow and long as in P. longifolia. So for me it's clear: nothing than a hybrid at all and as you said it really exists..

The same for the plants from Queyras. I visited this and other locations last summer with two friends.

Nothing spectacular. We agreed that those plants are hybrids between P. vulgaris and P. leptoceras.

Some look more like P. vulgaris and some very similar to P. leptoceras...

The literature also says that these plants are hybrids.

Markus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this form is heterophylle like longifolia subsp longifolia with spring leaves and summer leaves .

mine are allways dark red and as long as longifolia subsp longifolia 12-16 cm since 2002.

little recall all these specie grow in epiphyte on a cliff . I see yours , growing just horizontally like this method for reichenbachiana, vallisneriifolia, longifolia subsp longifolia you will never have long leaves.

have you see this species 'in situ' ?

see here

sp1pineta.jpg

in queyras we have still a lot of work to make , in the french alpes also ..I go back this year there to take a max of photographs of all the stations which I know to make a sorting by species

I am not so categorical that you, and I would like to know your literature sources ? the CASPER or the french literature ?

JEFF

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Markus and everybody,

Markus said:
I have several different plants from Valle de Pineta. They are all different and very variable. Some have red leaves, others have green leaves. You can also see that the leaves are not as narrow and long as in P. longifolia. So for me it's clear: nothing than a hybrid at all and as you said it really exists..

Although I think the P. grandiflora subsp. grandiflora from Asturias is not different from a normal one so that a new taxon is superfluous and redondant (sorry Jeff), I must admit that the P. longifolia subsp. longifolia that Jeff is speeking about, is very different. I join Markus on the point that it is probably an hybrid, but with an introgration of P. longifolia subsp. longifolia, so that is P. longifolia subsp. longifolia x (grandiflora subsp. grandiflora x longifolia subsp. longifolia) (quite long to right lol).

The plant you're showing Markus is for me the first hybrid P. grandiflora subsp. grandiflora x longifolia subsp. longifolia .

Markus said:
The same for the plants from Queyras. I visited this and other locations last summer with two friends.

Nothing spectacular. We agreed that those plants are hybrids between P. vulgaris and P. leptoceras.

Some look more like P. vulgaris and some very similar to P. leptoceras...

The literature also says that these plants are hybrids.

I also found in the departement of Isère the plants that Jeff is speeking about. And in Isère there is no P. leptoceras so an hybrid it's quite impossible.

The first one:

 

 

Jeff called it Pinguicula vulgaris f. maculata, it has 3 well marked dark lines on each lobe of the lower lip. Its ecology is also different from most of the P. vulgaris f. vulgaris but it is always growing with it. So more researchs have to be done to determine if it worth it to descrebed it as a new taxon.

The second:

 

It correspond to the description "white irradiate palate, with an halo of violet" that botanists of Savoie apply for Pinguciula arvetii. I have made some research in Arvet-Touvet's herbarium (its descriptor) and they are very different in color, shape and size. This plant is always growing with tipical P. vulgaris f. vulgaris in acidic peat bogs, and they are a lot of intermediate so that is very very difficult to find a plant with marked characteristics as the one I'm showing. For me it's quite impossible to describe this plant as is too variable so a new taxon will not be valide and it has to be considered as a natural variation of the very polymorphic P. vulgaris species (sorry Jeff if I don't agree with you).

Markus, can you show us pics of P. leptoceras x vulgaris ? I'm very interested to see it.

 

Edited by kisscool_38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, the plants in your photos are just P. longifolia with dark red leaves. There are some other sites where the leaves of P. longifolia turn red. As we all know most Pinguicula species are extremely variable not only depending on different sites and as you can see in the following photo from Eric Partrat there are numerous forms of P. longifolia, too.

So why should we unnecessary complicate this? Moreover, the terms pinetensis or maculata are not valid and we should limit our terms to [species]+[location]

variation3(HR).jpg

On the same trip mentioned above I found P. reichenbachiana in Zuccarello and another location near Zuccarello. They look very different to the well known P. reichenbachiana from Roya Valley. The leaves are not as long and narrow and the leaf margins are turned inward instead of outward – some plants even were dark red in colour and I never noticed this before in any P. reichenbachiana. But are these characteristics enough to make a new species or subspecies? I would just call it a local variation.

My literature source for P. arvetii is Casper’s “Monographie der Gattung Pinguicula“.

Casper states that it might be a hybrid with P. alpina what is in my opinion incorrect.

I visited silicate sites as well as calcerous sites. I don’t think it’s impossible that also P. leptoceras exists there. Some plants look extremely similar to P. leptoceras, some look very similar to P. vulgaris and others again look like somthing between both plants.

An interesting fact is that we found plants that were extremely large in size with more than 20 cm in diameter. But next to this place there where a cow paddock and the soil was rich on nutrients caused by the cow droppings. ;-)

At higher elevations near St. Véran we found some tiny plants growing beside the road with dark red leaves because of the high UV-intensity.

As Aymeric noted the plants are extremely variable. I think there is no chance to find a typical plant to describe a new species...

I will write an article of our trip and show some photos of the plants soon.

Cheers,

Markus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me this grandiflora subsp grandiflora f asturiensis is a new form not a new species or a new subsp or new variety simply a new form

in taxonomy you have these 4 possibility you must use them.

for this new form of longifolia I persist the leaves are always dark red like poldinii not a ephemeral colour with strong UV like a lot of others ( grandiflora, balcanica,alpina , vulgaris ,etc) the seeds give also the same colour .

if it is a natural hybrid we can make a test 'ex situ' with these 2 species longifolia subsp longifolia and grandiflora subsp gradiflora and see the resultat .

MARCUS this mosaique picture watch me a same species not different morphologic caracter.

yes on others longifolia subsp longifolia you find red leaves but at my knowledge allways dark red no.

for me a leaves more narrow or more long than several mm or with the leaf margin different it not a great different caracter morphologic than the type , often these caracter is a environment consequence I am OK with you , one question what environment, like the roya valley on a calcareous cliff ?

For arvetii I have all the documents : the french and the CASPER monography with all the station , the old and the new , you were over there with OLIVER on my councils ? I am OK with you, arvetii is not a leptoceras x alpina some one talk just a leptoceras 'lusus' .

in a french litterature we have more and nothing with different description , (perhaps 2 differente species ) not easy with them to find this supposed species .

for me the plant I not variable but they are simply over there , perhaps some hybrides but surely others things, to find then .

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not easy to say if it is or not an hydrid for this P. longifolia colony from Pineta cliff.

When I was there, I found an infinite variations of flowers.

As I wrote in A WORLD OF PINGUICULA - > See the article

" Many plants fall down from the cliff and try to survive at the bottom under heavy water flow. Some can also follow the numerous rivulets and arrive in the bog but no plants seems to survive there ! Despite a population of P. grandiflora subsp. grandiflora in the bog, the presency not far of P. longifolia subsp. longifolia and the arrival of fallen plant (but no survival), we didn't note any hybridation. "

I didn't note hrybridation in the bog but maybe on the fall insects can pollinate on the cliff after the bog ?

Speaking of new forms, there is one of P. vulgaris near the city of Reims in France, with isolates populations (maybe extinct now) of P. vulgaris with round seed boxes for all the plants !

See the picture here : pinguicula vulgaris from Reims

And many others pictures from Reims

Edited by epbb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it is a natural hybrid we can make a test 'ex situ' with these 2 species longifolia subsp longifolia and grandiflora subsp gradiflora and see the resultat .

There is no need to make a test because these hybrids are existing...

MARCUS this mosaique picture watch me a same species not different morphologic caracter.

yes on others longifolia subsp longifolia you find red leaves but at my knowledge allways dark red no.

I have a form of P. longifolia in cultivation that has the same dark red leaves as the plants shown in your photo.

The leaves even turn to this dark red coloration under my shaded cultivation I use for my temperate Pinguicula and it is definitely not from the Valle de Pineta.

So it is not a valid statement just to name them pinetensis regarding the leaves only.

for me a leaves more narrow or more long than several mm or with the leaf margin different it not a great different caracter morphologic than the type , often these caracter is a environment consequence I am OK with you , one question what environment, like the roya valley on a calcareous cliff ?

The leaves are a quite important characteristic for species identity. Why else do we call it longi-folia?

There are also rumors that P. dertosensis, P. caussensis and P. reichenbachiana will be seperated from the longifolia ssp. and make them to distinct species.

The other P. reichenbachiana we found grew in a typical habitat like longifolia: a calcerous cliff with dripping water.

for me the plant I not variable but they are simply over there , perhaps some hybrides but surely others things, to find then .

You also have a great variety in P. vulgaris and so also in this so called P. arvetii. What I saw were just hybrids or only a french form of P. vulgaris..

Markus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ERIC

on this species in effect a great disparity in a petal form "in situ" like we can see on my link or your report, but just this caracter .

on several year perhaps this caracter become again normal , but on my taxon no difference in 7 year allways the same caracters.

yes this vulgaris with rond seeds boxes , if the caracter is perenn on several year and if their seeds give the same caracter , can take a infraspecific name of form , I hope they still exist .

MARKUS

I am like St Thomas , perhaps a real piece of evidence . In the nature not any hybrid know in temperate, x "scully " perhaps ( grandiflora x vulgaris ) but when you can make this one artificially it is very difficult , then ? but perhaps some one have a sucess ? and then it should be explained in nature, who and how .

a picture perhaps tfor this longifolia subsp longifolia with dark red colour in shade with their spring leaves and summer leaves.

yes the leaves are very importante for this specie but with some mm in + or - not great interest .

dertosensis is already take off from longifolia by some author in example Mateo & Crespo for the rest it is the result of the DNA sequences now it is contreversy the genetic make not all .

for me ARVET TOUVET have describe just one species not several , with some caracter , now if certain people put under this name by facility or lack reference mark, that to say , take back all at the start .

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello to all,

Very interesting discussion! It seems like only a thorough DNA analyses can solve this problem!! :)

I don't know how comparable this is, but in Mexico I often saw populations of P.moranensis where the leaf color was very variable even in plants growing side by side. Take a look at these pictures taken at La Lagunita in Queretaro:

PmoranensisLaLagunita04.jpg

PmoranensisLaLagunita05.jpg

PmoranensisLaLagunita06.jpg

And as for variation in corola shape, size and color, take a look at the incredible variation observed in 2 different populations in Mexico:

http://www.pinguicula.org/A_world_of_Pingu...Postcard_11.htm

Best wishes,

Fernando

Edited by Fernando Rivadavia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fernando,

this is exactly what I mean. We have P. potosiensis with green leaves and P. potosiensis with red leaves and call it potosiensis ‚red’ or ‚green’ and it’s not a different species.

However, P. potosiensis is not a good species at all. In my opinion too much time is spent just on species description which oftenly conduces the popularity of the describer and his own purpose. We recently noticed this in the newly described P. martinezii.

Cheers,

Markus

Edited by Markus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about the P. vulgaris from Reims with perfectly round seed cap FOR ALL THE THREE POPULATION

Pinguicula vulgaris from Reims

You can see what Laurent Legendre noted about the notable differences with this local form in Chapter 4.

Sorry for the quality but this copy may have 12 years. All pefect pdf quality copy is welcome...

I remimber a "hot" discussion with Laurent, Jan Schlauer and Jurg Steiger. Jurg and Laurent found this population very interesting and that could reach a form rank and Jan close the discussion saying if I remimber well "just another Pinguicula vulgaris variation, publications are full of it". It was many years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FERNANDO for me this population is very interessant .

to know, why these plants side by side have different color would interest me much.

to know if this plants keep allways their colour and if their seeds keep this caracter also.

to put a form reference for me under these conditions is not very absurd , still once we must use all the infraspecific name of the taxonomy

sp,subsp,var and f

in taxonomy the epithete 'red ' or 'green ' is not valid .How to distinguish them then ,the concept of form is made for that, a species with green form and a species with dark red form , perennial in the 2 cases to be given very well

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FERNANDO for me this population is very interessant .

to know, why these plants side by side have different color would interest me much.

to know if this plants keep allways their colour and if their seeds keep this caracter also.

to put a form reference for me under these conditions is not very absurd , still once we must use all the infraspecific name of the taxonomy

sp,subsp,var and f

in taxonomy the epithete 'red ' or 'green ' is not valid

jeff

Maybe it is a lack of anthocyanin like we can find many plants in Sarracenia. I am not expert for this.

The same with P. alpina can be noted :

P_alpina(LR).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes ERIC one already spoke about it ,I think here a long time, but these 2 "ex situ " keep allways their leaves colour and the seeds give also this caracter I do not remember any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in taxonomy the epithete 'red ' or 'green ' is not valid .How to distinguish them then ,the concept of form is made for that, a species with green form and a species with dark red form , perennial in the 2 cases to be given very well
That is what I mean but leaf colour is taxonomically not an important character as most species are described with herbarium specimen only so the colour doesn't matter.
...and the seeds give also this caracter I do not remember any more.
I do not believe this. It is also possible that those plants originate from the same seed capsule and grew different.

I also noted this when I sowed some collected seeds.

I think such a 'mutation' is just the natural evolution.

Cheers,

Markus

Edited by Markus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I mean but leaf colour is taxonomically not an important character as most species are described with herbarium specimen only so the colour doesn't matter.

I not agree , for me the description is make on a alive material and with a lot of picture exactly for this raison of colour.

a lot of herbarium have this problem a dry plants without colour just brown , they are difficult for a determination especially after several century , in taxonomy we use now this one just for the great mophological caracter (and still ? )

I think such a 'mutation' is just the natural evolution.
if it is a mutation , perenial and reproducible ,we must take it into account and recorded .

jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not agree , for me the description is make on a alive material and with a lot of picture exactly for this raison of colour.

Maybe you are not good informed. In fact the describer is mostly not the collector. So the collector make herbarium material from the collected plants and oftenly the description begins after a couple of month/years when the material is already dead...

Markus

Edited by Markus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is for me a particular case, most of the time the discoverer are also those which describe the plants and their environment.

a dry material is a material which already lost some morphological caracters , how to describe a flower which is dry (brown) and on all its faces , for me it is impossible , yet the flower or the fruit on some plants are vital for a description .

on a herbarium only the great caracters are to show , the ephemeral (like the colour ) are descrive quite before ' in situ'

jeff

Edited by jeff 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Markus on the point that a description has to be based on an herbarium specimen. The description describes all the caracteristics of the specimen officially deposited in the herbarium and only on this specimen, this include the colors of the different parts of the specimen when it was alive. It is almost impossible when the description is made many years after the deposit, see many Utricularia species described by Peter Taylor, or Pinguicula utricularioides although MacDougall as reported in his notes that it is scarlet red and other characteritics are lacking (eg. seedpods, seeds). The description has also to mention the registration number of the specimen that is very important to recover it when it is needed.

Other point is that some descriptions include extrem values of various characteristic measurements (such as spur lengh eg.) that are made in the field or on various herbarium specimens, but it is only the extrem values, not the "medium" values that are measured from the type specimen (alive or several years after its deposit in the herbarium).

Well, that's not easy to explain nore to make a valid description. I hope you'll understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...