dvg Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 This rare and small Mexican Pinguicula species is starting to color up well under the lights. A few springtail/bloodworm feedings have helped it to put on some size in the last couple of months. Looking forward to seeing how this one matures. dvg 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miloslav Macháček Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thats a one nice little ping! First time hearing about this spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuuagso Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Amazing!! I hope mine gets like this, beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zagato Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Nice color! Never see it before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando Rivadavia Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Looks like something from the ehlersiae-esseriana-jamauvensis complex. Please post flower pics if you have any. Fernando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Looks like something from the ehlersiae-esseriana-jamauvensis complex. Please post flower pics if you have any. Fernando P. from Minas des Asbestos is very similar to P. esseriana. The flower is pale violet to white with some violet stripes on the backside of the petals. There is another related species P. sp. El Mirador that is quite similar and they only differ from the amount of the stripes on the backside of the petals. I have to surch at home if I ever take a photo of these two plants. Cheers, Markus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimscott Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Gneiss colour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Nice Pinguicula, though I wouldn't want to spend long in the location 'Minas des Asbestos' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hingst Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Very nice plant - and nicely taken pictures! Luckily it doesn't need asbestos in its soil ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Here are some flower photos to show the differences between P. M.d. Asbe and P. spec. El Mirador. P. spec. El Mirador looks more like a P. esseriana and P. spec. M.d. Asbe looks like a P. jaumavensis. P. M.d. Asbe P. spec. El Mirador Cheers, Markus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Bonjour these 2 : P. M.d. Asbe and P. spec. El Mirador. when we see your picture are very close , may be some stripe more red on the spur but it is not a discriminant caracters, the sunlight sometimes increase the colour caracters. have you make on these 2 species some perenity and reproductibility test ? it is a species from esseriana-ehlersiae-jaumavensis complex . for me the jaumavensis and esseriana difference at left esseriana at right jaumavensis see others form from this complex here link thanks Fernando Edited April 2, 2012 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 for me the jaumavensis and esseriana difference Jeff, it's a bit too easy to declare the differences between P. esseriana and P. jaumavensis on the basis of two single clones.... I have several P. jaumavensis/esseriana/ehlersiae clones in culture to have more comparison. The two plants shown in my photos not only differ in colour but also in shape and other habitual characters, e.g. the flower stalk of P. El Mirador is extremely long. Cheers, Markus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) error Edited April 4, 2012 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) Jeff, it's a bit too easy to declare the differences between P. esseriana and P. jaumavensis on the basis of two single clones.... I have several P. jaumavensis/esseriana/ehlersiae clones in culture to have more comparison. The two plants shown in my photos not only differ in colour but also in shape and other habitual characters, e.g. the flower stalk of P. El Mirador is extremely long. Cheers, Markus Bonjour for quite some years this is their morphological difference see also here link and here link or the AIPC special issue 3 on the mexican pinguicula and others web site ( yours also). if you have several clone in cultivate , .may be you show these one to compare with the type. for me these 2 are different to esseriana or jaumavensis I am OK. "in shape and other habitual characters" can you tell us more . for the scape( pedoncule, pedicel) some time it is not a discriminant ,many parameters can intervene on their length, can be seen very well ' in situ' . jeff Edited April 4, 2012 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvg Posted August 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 An update on this plant, growing in a 4" pot. dvg 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zlatokrt Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Wow, thats a nice colour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvg Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Another update on this mexi-ping. dvg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Very nice looking plant... I really should grow more Mexican pings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Beautiful Pinguicula , the shape of the rosette and its vivid coloring and something very unique in this species of carnivorous plant . Best Regards, Rodrigo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Evans Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Does this plant form trailing stems in lower light? I used to have this plant called "acension" which looks like P. esseriana, but the rosettes crawl around during winter months. Now I have got something call 1717 (I think) that does the same thing. It is achieving the "crawling" motion by etiolating the stem. The esseriana just sit there as winter rosettes with succulent leaves while these other plants etiolate like crazy and actually crawl toward the lights. In one season, they look the same in the next they look completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel O. Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 What a beauty. I also should grow again more mexican Pinguicula. Best regards. Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando Rivadavia Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 I think we need to stop acting like orchid growers and start calling all of these plants by the same name: P.esseriana (which is the oldest name). There does not seem to be any clear taxonomical boundaries between esseriana, ehlersiae, jamauvensis, nor any of the above "P.sp.". The variability for these plants is huge even within wild populations, see my posts below with the amazing population near Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas: http://www.pinguicula.org/A_world_of_Pinguicula_2/Pages/Postcard_11.htm Thus, using simply "P.esseriana" followed by location data seems more logical, or else give them all cultivar names. Best wishes, Fernando Rivadavia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zlatokrt Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Fernando: what about ploidy levels (see Casper et Stimper 2009) and genome size connected to them? They do differ quite nicely. On the other hand, it is just one (or two connected) characteristic and it came only from plants in cultivation - an extensive population study would be more useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando Rivadavia Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) 1. Different chromosome numbers are not proof they're different species - especially in plants, where different ploidy levels are not uncommon. (See chromosome #s in the above paper for: P.apuana, P.bohemica, P.hirtiflora, & P.moranensis.) 2. P.ehlersiae is even reported as having either 2n=22 or 44 in this paper. 3. Then there is the bizarre "P.esseriana var.ehlersiae" with 2n=32. I would bet anything that this is a hybrid between a diploid (22) and a tetraploid (44) -- both reported in this paper. Thus, the real chromosome number for this plant should be 2n=33 (n=11 + n=22), but the extra chromosome was probably ignored, because the authors were simply not expecting a hybrid, much less an odd number of chromosomes. 4. Some Scrophulariaceae apparently have different ploidy levels in different tissues. AFAIK this has not been investigated in Pings/Lents (although the above article does mention cells with different ploidies in P.apuana roots). The above article also claims they used roots, leaves and even pollen for their chromosome counts. Best wishes, Fernando Rivadavia P.S. I've never seen an article with so many footnotes! :) Edited January 12, 2013 by Fernando Rivadavia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zlatokrt Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Good points... it is just one characteristic and not the most reliable one. As for endopolyploidic tissues, it might be present in some, but probably not often. I remember finding only some small polyploidic peaks. BTW: the chromosome number for P. bohemica is probably wrong. Or there are two ploidy levels in this taxon - my measurements (and not only mine, also other researchers found this) showed the same genome size (=>very probably the same ploidy level) as P. vulgaris. 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.