User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 28

Thread: Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis

  1. #17
    kulamauiman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kula, Maui USA
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did not see peat when i observed them growing in their natural habitat





    observed them growing in almost pure chips of serpentine with darlingtonia.

  2. #18
    jesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hamburg (Germany)
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
    Is Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis a valid subspecies? Barry Rice does not think it is. See:
    http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn...40n2p44_49.pdf
    Ssp. nortensis is a valid P. macroceras subspecies in the "official" CP names database:
    http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_hom...den&search=all

    I'm no taxonomist, I'm a hobbyist gardener.

    So, if the subspecies name was on the plant when I bought it and it is in the database of valid CP names as a "valid and accepted name" (printed in bold face with "N+" abbreviation), I also use the same subspecies name for my propagated plants. That's a no-brainer for me.

    Perhaps that's a question for Dr. Jan Schlauer and what he thinks about revisiting ssp. nortensis to a synonym of P. macroceras? He is the official maintainer of the CP names database.

  3. #19
    BobZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Arcata, California
    Posts
    1,230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Taxonomy advances are based on observation, discussion, and consensus. This is a continuing and lengthy process during which some taxonomists eventually decide to recognize a classification and others do not. The subsp. nortensis taxon was first published in 1975 by Jurg Steiger, but was not formally validated. In 1997, Hawkeye Rondeau and Jurg Steiger published a paper in the International Pinguicula Study Group Newsletter formally describing the taxon. Some taxonomists questioned that the IPSG Newsletter did not constitute a valid scientific publication because of its extremely limited distribution. A couple of years ago, ICPS decided to put scanned PDFs of the IPSG Newsletter on their website to make it more available. Barry Rice recently decided to revisit the type locations used by Rondeau and Steiger and make more detailed measurements. Based on these measurements Barry "found that different colonies, even if separated by only small distances, can have significantly different typical flower sizes. These differences are even greater than the differences that were used to define subspecies within Pinguicula macroceras. As such, there is inadequate evidence to support subspecific divisions within P. macroceras."

    Now it is up to taxonomists to evaluate the various findings and opinions and decide what they want to do with subsp. nortensis. This will take a few more years.

  4. #20
    jesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hamburg (Germany)
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
    Taxonomy advances are based on observation, discussion, and consensus. This is a continuing and lengthy process during which some taxonomists eventually decide to recognize a classification and others do not.
    That's how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
    Based on these measurements Barry "found that different colonies, even if separated by only small distances, can have significantly different typical flower sizes. These differences are even greater than the differences that were used to define subspecies within Pinguicula macroceras. As such, there is inadequate evidence to support subspecific divisions within P. macroceras."
    Perhaps growers of P. macroceras could provide some decision aid: If someone would cultivate plants from different locations of P. macroceras, such as plants currently named P. macroceras ssp. nortensis from locations at the Oregon/California border region, as well as P. macroceras from Russia, from Japan, from Alaska, Idaho, Montana and so on (if plants are in cultivation), under the same cultivation conditions like soil and climate, then it would become clearly visible, what are the real differences that are not based on soil and climate.

    Unfortunately P. macroceras is offered very, very seldom.

    And I think, taxonomists prefer to make their decisions about "species or subspecies" not from cultivated plants, but from plants growing in the wild, so they would not be interested to have a look, even if growers would be able to show macroceras plants from different locations, grown under the same cultivation conditions in one place.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
    Now it is up to taxonomists to evaluate the various findings and opinions and decide what they want to do with subsp. nortensis. This will take a few more years.
    Yes, and if the taxonomists have made up their mind, it would be up to the rest of the world using the "official" names.

    But sometimes I find it very confusing that some people do not use the official names, for example in the CP Photofinder, let's name it P. grandiflora:

    P. grandiflora: http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...flora-623.html
    P. grandiflora f. reuteri: http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...teri-3382.html
    P. grandiflora subsp. chionopetra http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...etra-3380.html
    P. grandiflora subsp. pallida http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...lida-3381.html
    P. grandiflora subsp. rosea http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...osea-3383.html

    And when I compare with the official naming:
    http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_hom...den&search=all
    I find that there are only two valid grandiflora names:
    N: +[Pinguicula grandiflora {Lam.}]
    N: +[Pinguicula grandiflora subsp. rosea {(Mutel) Casper}]

    In the photofinder, "pallida" and "chionopetra" are subspecies of P. grandiflora, but in the official names list, they are just "forma"?
    How does it come to that?

    Do you think, the differences in P. grandiflora forma/subspecies pallida and chionopetra are bigger than the differences in the nortensis subspecies of P. macroceras?

    So it's a proposal to use "ssp. pallida" and "ssp. chionopetra" with P. grandiflora, despite the official naming tells they are no subspecies at the moment, but on the other hand one should not use "ssp. nortensis" despite the official naming tells it is a subspecies of P. macroceras?

    Perhaps you can't be everybody's darling naming your cultivated Pinguicula.
    At least, I can't.
    ;-)

  5. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Juergen, how did your P. vallisneriifolia end up doing this year? Did you end up growing it in peat? Or did you go with a pure mineral mix?

  6. #22
    jesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hamburg (Germany)
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, shortly after my last message in this thread, two entries in the Photofinder have changed from "subspecies" to "forma" ("f."), accordingly to the official naming now:
    http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...etra-3380.html
    http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguic...lida-3381.html

    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    Hey Juergen, how did your P. vallisneriifolia end up doing this year? Did you end up growing it in peat? Or did you go with a pure mineral mix?
    P. vallisneriifolia is still a problem species for me. I tried growing them in pure peat in 2009 and this definitely does not work! I started with a portion of small winter gemmae and the first three months or so they seem OK in peat, then decline. By the mid of summer 2010 I replanted the last remaining three little plantlets into a limestone/peat mix. One survived the winter 2010/11 and from that start I have left one plant now that still lives (and had shown a single flower this year).

    I did another start with another portion of P. vallisneriifolia winter gemmae early this year. I still do not use "pure mineral mix" but my current mix with peat for P. vallisneriifolia is a mix of:
    1:1:1:1:1:2 limestone grit (12...16mm):crushed limestone (1...3 mm grain) : quartz sand : vermiculite : clay : peat
    So something more than 2/3 is minerals, the rest is peat.

    P. vallisneriifolia seems to do much better in this substrate than in pure peat.
    But I'm still not satisfied: Plants grow very slow, stay small, look weak
    All my little P. vallisneriifolia have now developed their winter buds. Small winter buds.
    Winter buds of P. vallisneriifolia appear very early, and how well the plants did this summer I can only tell when the winter is over and I can see and count the number and size of P. vallisneriifolia I have next spring.

    On the other side, P. macroceras ssp. nortensis has been growing until lately and now still is with its summer leaves. Picture as of today:

    P. macroceras is MUCH easier for me to grow than P. vallisneriifolia.
    Last edited by jesse; 09-16-2011 at 07:49 AM.

  7. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Juergen,

    here is Eric Partrat's method of growing P. vallisneriifolia http://www.pinguicula.org/pages/plan...neriifolia.htm. He grows it in a pure mineral substrate. I think if you have spare gemmae, it would be worth trying both methods to see how they do. I got a dormant bud in May, and plan on growing it under lights soon in a pure mineral substrate. This is a harder plant to cultivate, so it may be picky with the conditions we give them.

    Your P. macroceras look awesome!!! I've had a lot of the seeds you sent me germinate sporadically, and I think with winter coming up, it might give the rest a chance to stratify, so I think I'll get more in the spring. I'm looking forward to having a bog garden that looks like yours full of temperate pings!

  8. #24
    jesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hamburg (Germany)
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    here is Eric Partrat's method of growing P. vallisneriifolia http://www.pinguicula.org/pages/plan...neriifolia.htm. He grows it in a pure mineral substrate.
    Yes, he is from France. Also "jeff 2" on this forum is from France and suggests pure mineral substrate for several Ping species. But I'm not yet convinced. In my area (Northern Germany) the winter temperatures go much lower than in France. We may have sharp frost with no snow covering for several weeks each year. Lowest temperatures drop to -15C = 5F each year and some winters even lower. My concern is, that if a substrate cannot hold enough water, the winter buds will be freeze-dried and not survive the winter months. I just use a thin horticural garden fleece during frost periods to protect the mini-bogs while no snow is present during heavy frost.

    Of course I can (and will or even must) do more experiments on substrate, but unfortunately it is very time consuming to do tests: Only if a substrate proves to be suitable for use in summer AND winter, it is really a good substrate. For hardy Pinguicula the life cycle through the whole year is essential, not only a few months during spring or summer.

    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    I think if you have spare gemmae, it would be worth trying both methods to see how they do.
    If I'd purchase more portions of gemmae, I could do more experiments with P. vallisneriifolia. Unfortunately I will not be able to have good success with harvesting gemmae of P. vallisneriifolia myself, from what I have seen on growing my plants this summer. So my experimenting will be limited. Especially because I also want other temperate species to establish in my mini-bogs.

    Next spring I will have twice as much of P. grandiflora ready for flowering as this year. And another species looks promising currently: P. spec. "Rio Ara". They seem to like the same conditions as P. grandiflora does. Meaning that they grow in pure peat as well as in the same mineral mix that I posted in my posting above. P. spec. "Rio Ara" can develop nice reddish leaves under a bit of sun. I still must prove whether they do well during the winter in my climate.

    At the moment I do not put all eggs into one basket with my hardy Pinguicula. I try to grow different species and do my observations, what's growing easy and what's not in my garden.

    I propagate what's easy for me, until I have a full mini-bog of them under those conditions that have proven to be all right. I try one or two new species and hybrids each year. And I retry one or two species that I could not keep alive in earlier years by varying the conditions (like substrate and more).

    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    I got a dormant bud in May, and plan on growing it under lights soon in a pure mineral substrate. This is a harder plant to cultivate, so it may be picky with the conditions we give them.
    Perhaps I should visit the plant nursery some day, where I purchase my gemmae of hardy Pinguicula. It is also in Germany, only a few hundreds Kilometres away. Perhaps I can find out what they do to cultivate and propagate P. vallisneriifolia successfully. I think they are using their greenhouses, at least for some time of the year.

    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    Your P. macroceras look awesome!!! I've had a lot of the seeds you sent me germinate sporadically, and I think with winter coming up, it might give the rest a chance to stratify, so I think I'll get more in the spring.
    I have also sown some seeds of P. macroceras (although I have enough plants). A good fraction of them is germinating without cold stratification. I keep the seed pot in my cellar under LED lighting, I'm guessing the first germination starts after 4 weeks and it is stretching over a long time. I think between 4 and 12 weeks after sowing there will be a germination rate of 25 or 30%. That's BTW the same as with P. grandiflora, they will even show a bit higher germination rate without previous cold stratification (at least when the seeds are fresh).

    But with P. grandiflora the germination without stratification may already be a "positive selection", because I already grew the mother plants from seeds - without stratification.

    Quote Originally Posted by quatchi View Post
    I'm looking forward to having a bog garden that looks like yours full of temperate pings!
    Best wishes!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. P. macroceras nortensis
    By jack in forum Butterwort (Pinguicula)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-16-2013, 07:00 PM
  2. P. macroceras nortensis sites
    By sgardner in forum Butterwort (Pinguicula)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 04:03 PM
  3. P. macroceras ssp. nortensis
    By Drosera36 in forum Butterwort (Pinguicula)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-29-2006, 08:07 PM
  4. P. macroceras nortensis
    By BobZ in forum Butterwort (Pinguicula)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 04:44 PM
  5. Pinguicula macroceras nortensis
    By jack in forum Butterwort (Pinguicula)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2003, 01:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •