patrickn Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 I bought this Ping one and half year ago as a little seedling. It flowers recently. However, the flower doesn't look like a P. ehlerisae. Can anyone help me to id it? Thanks in advance. Happy growing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johns Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 It looks like P. esseriana or P. jaumavensis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Almost certainly a P. esseriana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Vieweg Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 yes, thats P. esseriana! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fischermans Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) I think Marcus is right. Edited March 11, 2011 by fischermans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickn Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Thanks everyone. To me, it is difficult to distinguish between P. esseriana, P. jaumavensis and P. ehlersiae. Do you have any trick to distinguish between them except the flower? Or looking at flower is the only way to distinguish them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Actually, I was going to say P. 1713 or P. 1717. Here's a P. 1717, FWIW: P. 1717 P. jaumviensis P. ehleresiae P. esseriana P. 1713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickn Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Thanks jim. The flower showed is from 1717? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes.. the others haven't as yet graced me with flowers with which to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemens Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) With nearly optimal growing conditions the foliage of these closely related species is somewhat distinctive, though just barely. In less than optimal conditions the vegetative parts become less well defined, hence, less distinctive. Some growers question if perhaps; Pinguicula esseriana, Pinguicula jaumavensis, Pinguicula ehlersiae, and Pinguicula debbertiana, may simply be slightly different forms of the very same species. Edited March 13, 2011 by Joseph Clemens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrickn Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Thanks Jim and Joseph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Tonnerre Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 With nearly optimal growing conditions the foliage of these closely related species is somewhat distinctive, though just barely. In less than optimal conditions the vegetative parts become less well defined, hence, less distinctive. Some growers question if perhaps; Pinguicula esseriana, Pinguicula jaumavensis, Pinguicula ehlersiae, and Pinguicula debbertiana, may simply be slightly different forms of the very same species. In my growing experience the foliage of P. esseriana can be surprisingly variable, within the very same clone und quite similar growing conditions i can get different looking plants. I dont think P. debbertiana fits into this "same species" theory, as it clearly is distinctive. And P. ehlersiae should probably also be considered a good species, at least some newer Chromosome counts lean toward this solution. However, i believe P. jaumavensis and P. esseriana to be conspecific, especially when you take into account, that G. Köhres (in the scientific description of P. esseriana mentioned as the first collector of P. esseriana) found the plants on a mountain near Jaumave. But clearly, there is more research needed in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Personally, I think that there are lot fewer species than we think there are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.