pictures of my winter drosera

[dudo klasovity]

Hi! We got so much snow today it was hard to walk outside, so i stayed in and took some pics for you. Hope you like them:-)

drosera platypoda

drosera erythrorhiza ssp. collina

drosera menziesii ssp. menziesii (grows like a weed but never flowers for me.....)

drosera peltata and drosera foliosa

drosera auriculata

I have been waiting 18(!) months for these little seedlings of drosera rupicola to sprout!!!

sometimes patience is rewarded:-)

Some of my tropical drosera flower this season and sent up unusually long flower stalks, I think it is due to lack of light in the winter.

drosera madagascariensis

drosera affinis

Recently I got some seedlings sprouting, for exaplme a single(!) plantlet of d.filiformis var. filiformis 'florida all red', a beautiful plant when grown up

...and some sprouting gemmaeings :-)

drosera barbigera 'small southern form'

drosera enodes 'Giant' (not much of a giant yet:-))

[dudo klasovity]

drosera peltata seedlings

drosera spatulata (common but beautiful)

drosera collinsiae flowering

flower detail

drosera coccicaulis

Petiolaris complex....

drosera petiolaris

drosera derbyensis

drosera ordensis, falling into dormancy

...and some South American species (some of them newly acquired-thanx Dani:-)

drosera graomogolensis

drosera montana var. tomentosa (a.k.a. glabrata or hairless scape)

drosera ascendens

drosera ascendens flowers

drosera graminifolia

drosera camporupestris

Edited January 10, 2010 by dudo klasovity

[Greg Allan]

Exceptional plants. What are your growing conditions- temps, humidity, lighting, photoperiod?

Cheers,

Greg

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Wow, beautiful plants and pictures!!!

drosera montana var. tomentosa (a.k.a. glabrata or hairless scape)

Oh, you mean, D.tomentosa var.glabrata??? :)

Best wishes,

Fernando Rivadavia

[jimscott]

Simply beautiful!

[Carlos Rohrbacher]

Great shots! I loved yours brazilian sundews!

[droseraman]

What a great collection!

My only pointer is that you may have the typical form of D. collinsiae vs. D. collinsiae "Faryland". I know that my "Farlyland" form looks like the pics on utricularia.net. Also, your flower resembles the typical form on his site. In the link below, you can see my pic of the "Faryland" form.

http://www.growsundews.com/sundews/Drosera_collinsiae.html

[dudo klasovity]

Thanx for nice comments.

Fernando: Yes, I meant that one. I wish there was less taxonomy commotion with some species:-)

Droseraman: You are right. it is regular form. I've corrected the mistake.

Greg Allan: tuberous : night:8-15C, day: 17-24C, 10hr light, open terrarium

South American: night:8-15C, day: 17-22C, 15hr light, almost closed terrarium

South African and tropical: night:15-20C, day:19-25C, 16hrs light, almost closed terrarium, in the summer 23/32C

lasiocephala: night:20-24C, day: 25C winter, 37Csummer (some go dormant at 25C-falconeri, ordensis,...)

I use T5 or turbo power save lightbulbs with white fluorescent light and distilled or R/O water.

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Fernando: Yes, I meant that one. I wish there was less taxonomy commotion with some species:-)

Oh, there will be a lot more in the next few years, hopefully!! That is, if I can get everything that I want published together with my colleagues... ;)

Best wishes and congrats on the beautiful plants,

Fernando

[Daniel O.]

Hi Dusan,

nice pictures.

Good to see that the plants are growing well.

Best regards,

Dani

[MFS]

Hi Dusan,

Gorgeous photos, thanks for sharing!

A couple of comments: You Drosera coccicaulis looks a lot like a D. venusta to me, and if I remember correctly they are the same thing and the name D. venusta takes precedence.

Also your D. foliosa: It looks to me remarkably like the upright, green D. peltata var. peltata. Drosera peltata var. foliosa has a different growth habit, with a large basal rosette and multi-branching from the base. It has many short stems with only one or two leaves, terminated by a flower. This is in contrast to var. peltata, which yours looks like, which it upright and single-stemmed.

Anyone care to comment?

[Sean Spence]

I don't believe that either of the names D. coccicaulis or venusta are valid and that D. natalensis is probably the more correct name, But I won't spend too much time on this discussion again.

I would be interested to know which location the D. peltata/var. foliosa are from. It does not look like I'd expect a typical var. foliosa to appear. Normally the plants would be much shorter (although the Jamieson form will grow to over 30cm). A plant of that size will normally have branched numerous times and at the termination of each branch (and often at the branch itself) a couple of flowers. It is unusual for a plant of var. foliosa to only have flowers at the top of the plant.

[Sean Spence]

Upon viewing the D. foliosa again, another thought occurred to me.

Here in Victoria we have another form of D. peltata that shares the characteristics of a regular D. peltata form and var. foliosa.

This form almost exclusively occurs well inland from the coast (I've found it on the shores of a few inland lakes as well as in Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red gum) woodland at the Grampians). It does not branch like var. foliosa but does produce the same large basal rosette and lime green colouration and blackish glands. The flowers are also white, unlike any of the other forms of typical D. peltata that I've seen in the state (and there are many, many of those). The flowers are held upon a very short inflorescence, usually only a couple of centimetres above the final leaves. It does not grow in colonies as a var. foliosa would. At first there were thoughts that it may be a hybrid between a typical D. peltata and a var. foliosa but it does not grow where both species occur together.

The form of var. foliosa that most closely resembles this inland form occurs at Jamieson on Lake Eildon (one of the inland lakes I refer to) where both plants almost occur together. At this location it is quite easy to distinguish each form from the other. The var. foliosa grow in dense colonies in completely exposed situations where the lake once was (due to the drought of the past 10+ years), whereas the inland form grows only at the edge of the Eucalypt woodland as solitary plants.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sean Spence

[MFS]

Has Drosera foliosa even been formally described? I know it was being worked on... years ago. The type locality was to be Campbell Town golf course. If that's the case then this form has branches from the well-developed basal rosette, terminated by a flower or two, as you say. Near Hobart we have an upright gren form with also a very well developed basal rosette and white flowers, but the growth habit is identical to our D. auriculata, branching only near the terminal inflorescence, so I've always called this D. peltata var. peltata (This is the Tunnel Hill population, which may no longer exist as the area was built up into low-density housing about eight years ago).

[dudo klasovity]

First of all, thanx for nice comments, I am happy you like the plants.

Fernando: dont get me wrong, I love the fact that new species are being discovered and described with great intensity at such fast pace, I just wish there was one name for one plant thats all:-)

MFS: Speaking of witch, an example of d.coccicaulis/venusta/natalensis.......I am not going to dispute about the correct labeling of this species as there are many opinions what this drosera should be called and whether there really is need for more names. Personally, I sense slight difference between members of this complex, so I distinguish between d. coccicaulis and d.venusta/d.natalensis (I take former 2 as synonyms).

Sean: The plant of drosera peltata var. foliosa is about 25cm tall. The flowers are not on the top of the plant as it continues growing upward. The plant is not branched. It created a massive basal rosette, from each 2-3 erect stems grew later. The plant is green-yellow colour with white flowers. The location is 'Jamieson, Victoria'. Maybe you remember sending me the seeds some time ago (along with other localised peltata varieties depicted above). BTW thank you for them they are my favourite plants! :-)

[fonta.78]

great Dudo!!

all plants are fantastic!

[Sean Spence]

OK, so it is the Jamieson form of D. peltata var. foliosa.

Miguel, this form of foliosa is much larger than other forms I've found. In nature it is much smaller, reaching only around 10cm tall in very dense clumps. Other forms that I've found throughout Victoria match the description you have provided of the Tasmanian forms.

I believe that plants were described as D. foliosa (not sure when or by whom) in the past but the plant was relegated to synonymy with D. peltata. At the very least I believe it should be a subspecies. Honestly, I can't see why it can't be considered a distinct species when compared to some other species that exhibit fewer differences (D. schmutzii, aberrans and whittakerii are probably a bad example to use as I don't believe they should have been separated at all).

[MFS]

Sean: I agree, though like you I can also see that carried to the ridiculous extreme, no need to name names

I think the trend of sinking species by synonymising them without even demoting them to subspecies, variety or form is counterproductive, because these are clear, stable morphological variations for which it is useful to have a name so one can refer to them.

I confess I tend to be a splitter as a taxonomist, but my argument (from working with toxic algae where not observing fine distinctions can kill people), is that distinctive instances of a species or group need a name first, so we can talk about them and work on them, then we can argue as to whether the appropriate taxonomic level is species, superspecies, species complex, subspecies, etc...

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hi guys,

Interesting discussion about the D.peltata complex! Or maybe I should say peltata-auriculata! I guess what makes this group especially complicated is that there is just SO MUCH variation that it is daunting to any taxonomist who wants to name one of the forms that looks a little different -- because he/she would have to look at variation across the complex first. Not a simple job...

I'm hoping somebody will take up this complex and do a molecular phylogeny, sequencing DNA from all these forms across the range. THAT would certainly help guide taxonomists one way or another...

Best wishes,

Fernando

[MFS]

Hi Fernando,

It would be fantastic! Unfortunatley I no longer work at a University, where I could 'sneak in' some samples when I do a run of ITS or cpDNA sequencing

I think a complicating factor as well is that taxa that act as separate species (in the biological sense, i.e. no fertile hybrids) in one area, may intergrade in a different geographical region. I think this has partially accounted for the description of many different forms as species, but not only in the D. peltata / auriculata complex.

For example, D. peltata and D. auriculata in Tasmania live often within cm of each other and flower often simultaneously, yet there are no observable intermediates. Partially I believe this may be the problem also with the Utricularia dichotoma complex. When Markus Reut examined these in New Zealand, he concluded they are just one species. Perhaps New Zealand is the centre of radiation of this group, and ancestral forms persist which readily interbreed. However when observed here across the Tasman, U. dichotoma and U. monanthos are functionally two separate species, with vastly divergent, stable morphotypes, which often coexist, and which form no intermediates.

So are they separate species in Tasmania, yet the same species in New Zealand? That is a logical impossibility (if 'a' equals 'b' then at the same time 'a' cannot be unequal to 'b'). Yet this may be how species such as these are behaving. Synonymising them based on research conducted exclusively on one population is as invalid as that conducted exclusively on the other, as neither represents the full range of diversity.

Maybe I am glad I can no longer be tempted to do this research myself

Edited January 16, 2010 by MFS

[Fernando Rivadavia]

I agree with everything you say, it really is a complicated issue taxonomically for these 2 groups and many others!

Best wishes,

Fernando

[rsivertsen]

There is the possibility that one or both of these may have undergone allopolyploidy in some areas and may be able to produce fertile hybrids; this is a current consensus on the evolution of D. anglica, which is believed to be an ancient diploid hybrid between D. rotundifolia and D. linearis, which is curious since D. anglica occurs all over Europe and is rare in North America while D. linearis ONLY occurs in a few marl bogs in North America near (and in) Canada. As for D. peltata and D. auriculata, when I grew these plants, I noticed that they have very different tubors, with D. auriculata being white and fleshy and D. peltata being red and layered. - Rich

[MFS]

Hi Rich,

The tuber colour is yet one more hugely variable character. My local D. auriculata (grows in the garden) has bright pink tubers, and our D. peltata have pink or white tubers depending on the population. Flower colour in Tasmania is also different, with all the D. auriculata I have seen having pink flowers, and all the D. peltata I've seen having white flowers.

The plants do look subtly different and this is easier if you have some experience of seeing different populations in the field. The easiest way if unsure is to look at what I think are the two characters that consistently differentiate them: seed morphology (D. peltata has small ovoid-pointy seeds whereas D. auriculata has thread-like seeds) and sepal morphology (D. peltata always has hairy sepals and those of D. auriculata are smooth and shiny). Again I'm talking only Tasmanian populations here. I once (~8 years ago) wrote a lengthy article in Wikipedia with all this but a user called RKtiko deleted my entry and merged D. peltata and D. auriculata so the info is no longer there. I have been playing with the idea of writing a new one for a while.