Sign in to follow this  
Christian

Drosera dielsiana

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

is anyone growing the true Drosera dielsiana? If yes, i would really to see picture of the flowers (simple divided stytles), the seeds(ovoid) and the plants.

So far, everything i have seen as this species looks to me like Drosera natalensis. I doubt, that true D. dielsiana is widely grown at the moment and i think, that 99.9% of all D. dielsiana in cultivation are in fact D. natalensis. So, anyone please post pictures of your D. dielsiana here. I would really be interested in seeing what is currently grown under this name.

Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can get a picture of my "D. dielsiana" plants if your interested? I've yet to get a flower stalk as I cut it so the plants would grow a little bigger and get stronger, but I can definitely get plant pics? Also I can do close macros of the plant if there is a particular area that would need to be examined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Christian

I make some phot of my D.Diesiana and D. natalensis clone.

The only form of D.dielsiana i have

ddielsiana2.jpg

The 3 clone of D.natalensis i grow.

Drosera natalensis "Debbert"

dnatalensisdebbert.jpg

Drosera natalensis "Inanda road"

dnatalensisindianroad.jpg

Drosera natalensis from Natal

dnatalensisnatal.jpg

If you can tell me if my D.dielsiana is a real one or not i'll be pleased.

by

jp

Edited by jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

thanks for your pictures! This looks pretty much like the plants i know as D. natalensis/dielsiana. The problem is, that i don't think you can identify them from the rosettes. I think, the only safe method is looking at the seeds and the flowers. So, does anyone have good pictures of the seeds or the flowers of these plants? What i would expect from D. dielsiana would be egg-shappes seeds as well as only once divided styles. I am almost sure if you check your plants for this, you will in most cases find fusiform seeds as well as at least twice divided styles. That puts the plants to D. natalensis in my opinion.

regards,

Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have no picture of flower, it's too late for this year but i'll try to make big macro of the seeds and post them

by

jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I just make some photo, it's not easy with a camera

two photos of D.dielsiana seeds

graineddielsiana.jpg

graineddielsiana2.jpg

a D.natalensis "Debbert" seeds

grainednatalensisdebber.jpg

by

jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

thanks for the pictures! The D. dielsiana seeds do not look like what i would expect them to look. They are fusiform and not egg-shaped (at least to me). So, most likely not true D. dielsiana!?

regards,

Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Christian

Do you have some seeds photo of "true" dielsiana?

by

jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

Here is a link into the Carnivorous Plant Database:

http://www.omnisterra.com/botany/cp/pictur...rosera/0075.htm

Do take a close look at Figure 28:

http://www.omnisterra.com/botany/cp/pictur.../0075.htm#fig28

Drosera dielsiana is #5, while D. natalensis is #6:

0075.gif

I think it is safe to assume some plants may actually be hybrids between D. dielsiana and D. natalensis or perhaps they are really subspecies that look different as one travels north and south... But without plants matching the type for D. dielsiana for a decent comparison, what I'm saying here is simple conjecture. It is odd though, the seeds overlap in general apparence too much. I've studied the seed of the three D. natalensis I have and they all match, but the dielsiana seed is only slightly wider, but often displays smaller versions of those pointy appendages seen on D. natalensis seed (testa?) and some seed from the natalensis plants are thicker and smaller or missing testa so... :Laie_97: They are not very consistently different. It almost appears to just be different populations of the same species, even mottled pattern on the seed coats are very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the leaf/seed diagram! That's pretty handy.

The hybrid idea is interesting, since somewhere along the line, something got mixed-up.

I received the following plants below as "D. dielsiana", but after Christian mentioned they might be D. natalensis, I'm convinced after looking at the seeds that it is, indeed, D. natalensis (or a hybrid, but I'll just stick with Natalensis since it seems closer to that).

And another question- what's up with D. dielsiana ssp. "Transvaal", which appears to be a hybrid with D. nidiformis?

Dielsiana_ssp_

So just for fun, here is what I now re-labeled as D. natalensis:

(as you can see, there is some interesting variability in leaf structure depending on the light/temperature so maybe this explains the hybrid idea?)

These are all the same clone (Propagated via root cuttings):

Drosera_natalensis_orange_sundew.JPG

Natalensis_green-2.JPG

natalensis_flower-1.JPG

natalensis_seeds.JPG

Drosera_natalensis_young_red_sundew.JPG

Edited by droseraman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, sp. Transvaal is D. nidiformis. Not sure what "D. dielsiana transvaal" means...

A typo of "D. dielsiana (but more likely natalensis?) * D. sp. from Transvaal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right. I got them here http://www.triffidnurseries.co.uk/browse_p..._id=1&cid=5 and there is one above it called Drosera dielsiana X sp. Transvaal, which makes more sense after seeing that D. sp. "Transvaal" is D. nidiformis... so I'm guessing there was a typo somewhere down the line.

There is some interesting variation between the petioles and the growth point which are very different compared to the D. nidiformis I grow, so it looks like this might be somewhat complicated...

I'll have to ask Andy about that one...

Edited by droseraman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And another question- what's up with D. dielsiana ssp. "Transvaal", which appears to be a hybrid with D. nidiformis?

Hi,

I cultivate this Drosera as D. x 'Snyderi' (D. dielsiana x nidiformis). I received the seeds with this name.

regards,

Andreas

Edited by Andreas S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

is anyone growing the true Drosera dielsiana? If yes, i would really to see picture of the flowers (simple divided stytles), the seeds(ovoid) and the plants.

So far, everything i have seen as this species looks to me like Drosera natalensis. I doubt, that true D. dielsiana is widely grown at the moment and i think, that 99.9% of all D. dielsiana in cultivation are in fact D. natalensis. So, anyone please post pictures of your D. dielsiana here. I would really be interested in seeing what is currently grown under this name.

Christian

:wacko1:

Hi Christian ,you ask :is anyone growing the true dielsiana?can you post a pic of your dielsiana please ,then we can see what you main,i think there is no pic in your book from dielsiana also!So i never see a pic of the true dielsiana ,or i not know wich is the true. How must we know whats the true?

Is this only a name,iff there is some true dielsiana then there must be pics of this, things like this are very confused for all enthousiasts,the are still many plants sell under this name ,so you saying she sell all the wrong plants ? even the very trustfull sellers sales the wrong plants ? and no one say something abouth this?

I would really be interested in seeing how plants looks that you have under this name,

Cheers Willy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware Christian does not grow the true D. dielsiana either. I have never seen a picture of the real thing and I doubt that any of the plants currently being sold as D. dielsiana are truly that species. This is a problem that has been perpetuated over many years where growers have had no reason to question whether what they were growing was D. dielsiana or not- they simply accepted that it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I am aware Christian does not grow the true D. dielsiana either. I have never seen a picture of the real thing and I doubt that any of the plants currently being sold as D. dielsiana are truly that species. This is a problem that has been perpetuated over many years where growers have had no reason to question whether what they were growing was D. dielsiana or not- they simply accepted that it was.

Hi,

thanks for the pictures! The D. dielsiana seeds do not look like what i would expect them to look. They are fusiform and not egg-shaped (at least to me). So, most likely not true D. dielsiana!?

regards,

Christian

Hi Sean thanks for answhere,but now i am even more confused,i am only buzzy whit this for some more then 1 year ,so i not know what growers allready know for years !!!!

What do Christian main whit this?Meaby i understud wrong ,my Englisch is not very good,but whit this i thaught he have allready seeds of true dielsiana!So ...

It s only a name and there is no proof there is some true dielsiana?Then i not understand the maining off this topic at all iff growers know this allready!Why ask for true dielsiana if this not excist? :tu:

Iff there are no pics then you can call everything you not know D dielsiana,Christian say that only a few people have the true one ,so there must be a true one or notting att all,and then growers may not use this name anymore,it s makes things very confused,for me anyway!

I think so long i have not seeing any pic or proof that true dielsiana excist there is no D dielsiana for me! But what must i do whit the plants i allready buy under D dielsiana? :wacko1:

This is only my opinion ,i am sure there are many people thinking different abouth this and i can understand this ,it s not easy issue,i hope not understand things wrong,

Cheers Will

Edited by will9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you have the right idea. It's not an easy issue at all, since so many growers now have incorrectly labeled plants. Christian is basically saying that if you examine the seeds and anatomy of your "D. dielsiana" and it actually resembles D. natalensis moreso than it does D. dielsiana, then you should re-label your plants as D. natalensis (or at least stop circulating them around as D. dielsiana when they are not that species). From other conversations, it seems likely some of these may even be hybrids between D. natalensis and D. dielsiana. But this is obviously not going to fix anything for a while, since many people will continue to circulate their plants around as D. dielsiana...

I think so long i have not seeing any pic or proof that true dielsiana excist there is no D dielsiana for me! But what must i do whit the plants i allready buy under D dielsiana? :sarcastic_hand:

This is only my opinion ,i am sure there are many people thinking different abouth this and i can understand this ,it s not easy issue,i hope not understand things wrong,

Cheers Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

yes, right! I am currently not growing what i would consider D. dielsiana. I only grow the same stuff as everyone here obviously does, which is if you ask me a from of D. natalensis. So far i have not seen anything, that i would happily call D. dielsiana.

Will: D. dielsiana does exist! It has been officially published and there is also an herbarium species somewhere. The problem is just, that a plant with a wrong name entered cultivation. Most likely the collector did not know better, which sometimes happens.

Btw, does anyone here have pictures of seeds, plants or flowers of D. sp. 4 "South Africa"?

Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Will: D. dielsiana does exist! It has been officially published and there is also an herbarium species somewhere. The problem is just, that a plant with a wrong name entered cultivation. Most likely the collector did not know better, which sometimes happens.

Btw, does anyone here have pictures of seeds, plants or flowers of D. sp. 4 "South Africa"?

Christian

Hi Christian thanks very match for answhere :thumbsup: ,but i have a few questions more now.

Iff its officially published ,where can i find this?And how looks it different from Natalensis?For only different seeds ,can you make a new species for this reasson?

I think it s a ghost plant only hold alive by sellers,no one seems to know how this plant looks,if you know the place where it normally grows then there must be fotos off this plant.

Many fieldresearcers you included are visit RSA ,can no one find this plants?I find this really unbelievable if its exist! :confused:

You ask iff anyone have fotos off this plant ,but no one know whats is dielsiana ,very difficult this way,i have buy 3 D dielsiana from 3 different sellers and i have 3 different plants whit te same name . :sarcastic_hand:

Meaby this name is only used for sell plants that have no name or for unamed crossings? :wink:

I have spec South Africa,also from 3 different sellers,but she looks te same,all little plants ,half the size off natalensis,but what is spec 4 South Africa ,is this another plant?

i have also a spec 57 ,do some one know what this is?

many questions but i hope some go be answhere,

Cheers Willy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Will,

i think you are mixing something up here. Drosera dielsiana is a validly published name. The reference for the description is:"Bol.Soc.Brot.2.ser.30:214 (1956)". I do have this description and can send it to anyone who is interested in this (just send me your Mailaddress). I have no idea where the corresponding herbarium sheet is placed, though.

According to the publications, the most obvious difference to D. natalensis seems to be divided styles (natalensis) vs. undivided styles (dielsiana) and fusiform (natalensis) seeds vs. egg shaped seeds (dielsiana). As this plant has been described, collected and a herbarium sheet exists, this cannot be a ghost plant. If you think, the differences between those two plants are too small to separate them as different species, this is ok. Taxonomy is to some degree subjective.

Drosera dielsiana grows in the east of southern africa, i have not yet been there. I think, this area has not yet been explored too much for these Drosera and so there is only a little known about them. Plants with wrong names enter easily cultivation. All that is needed is, that the collector has identified the plants wrong. This has happened many times before and will most likely happen again and again (just think of D. ascendens vs. D. villosa for example).

Drosera sp. "South Africa" and Drosera sp. 4 "South Africa" are different plants, or at least they should be. I would not be surprised if these names are mixed up meanwhile too.

The original source for D. spec. 57 is most likely myself. This is a plant, that has grown with this code at the botanical garden in Göttingen (if i remember correctly from top of my head, i don't have my list here at the moment). In my opinion this is also a plant from the natalensis/venusta/dielsiana-complex, that is quite close to Drosera venusta.

Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Will,

i think you are mixing something up here. Drosera dielsiana is a validly published name. The reference for the description is:"Bol.Soc.Brot.2.ser.30:214 (1956)". I do have this description and can send it to anyone who is interested in this (just send me your Mailaddress). I have no idea where the corresponding herbarium sheet is placed, though.

According to the publications, the most obvious difference to D. natalensis seems to be divided styles (natalensis) vs. undivided styles (dielsiana) and fusiform (natalensis) seeds vs. egg shaped seeds (dielsiana). As this plant has been described, collected and a herbarium sheet exists, this cannot be a ghost plant. If you think, the differences between those two plants are too small to separate them as different species, this is ok. Taxonomy is to some degree subjective.

Drosera dielsiana grows in the east of southern africa, i have not yet been there. I think, this area has not yet been explored too much for these Drosera and so there is only a little known about them. Plants with wrong names enter easily cultivation. All that is needed is, that the collector has identified the plants wrong. This has happened many times before and will most likely happen again and again (just think of D. ascendens vs. D. villosa for example).

Drosera sp. "South Africa" and Drosera sp. 4 "South Africa" are different plants, or at least they should be. I would not be surprised if these names are mixed up meanwhile too.

The original source for D. spec. 57 is most likely myself. This is a plant, that has grown with this code at the botanical garden in Göttingen (if i remember correctly from top of my head, i don't have my list here at the moment). In my opinion this is also a plant from the natalensis/venusta/dielsiana-complex, that is quite close to Drosera venusta.

Christian

Hi Christian many thanks again for answhere ,i am very intresting is this matter and i go send you a mail,for moment i see not allways difference in some different Drosera.

I say it s a ghost plant hold alive for sell only,i main whit this only in cultivation,it s exist on paper but not in cultivation ,so long i have not see on picture it s for me a ghost plant .

Growers and sellers know it s wrong labbeled but she are still sell this under the wrong name,and this is very wrong!!!!

(it s only my maining and what i thinking ,like i say before ,it s very difficult issue,and other people think on another way and i fully respect this)

I hope you guys go visit this place to in time,meaby then it s clear some things out!

Its a bit off topic but i have problems to seperate a lot off CP,this is not like other plants,it s very difficult to see the difference,i think iff you take a bench of venusta ,natalensis,alicea ,spatulata,esterhuiseniae,curviscapa and a lot others ,even a few South Americans that looks a bit te same as plant ,and you take away the labels it s very difficult ,i think impossible to set this all back on the riht place.meaby the are growers that can do this but for cultivate this only 1 year ,i can not do this,meaby whitin a few years or so,or never!

Same whit sarracenia purpurea,venosa,burkii and montana,i grow all this ssp and var. , and i think whitout labels i can not say who is who.

.

What i try to say is ,it s match more difficult named CP then any other kind off plants .The difference is sometime very hard to see,

Cheers Willy

Edited by will9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Will,

Are you sure of their pedigree? The differences actually are pretty obvious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this