YuccaDo1713 First Flower Photographs

[Darcie]

That is a fairly distinctly different looking flower from any I've seen. The petal width to length ratio proticularly.

I'm a newbe at growing pings, but I've been looking at photoes and at plants for a long time and that just doesn't line up with anything I've seen. It's oviously not a white varient because it has pigment all over the place in fine details. Otherwise, the shape fits best with some of the purple flowering species, which really does not may sence.

 

[Vic Brown]

I haven't been ignoring this thread, I've just been waiting for another flower to open!

The last of the YuccaDo plants to flower in cultivation, 1717 has just flowered for me and it is virtually identical to 1713.


YuccaDo 1717

The only real difference being that 1717 opened a very pale lilac colour, wheras the lobes of 1713 were alsmost pure white. However, with age, the flower of 1713 has darkened to a distinct pale lilac and the shape changed a little.

YuccaDo 1713 three weeks after opening

Still not sure what this Ping is (1713 and 1717), but out of all the likely suspects in my collection, it does look closest to my P. jaumavensis, but is still quite different.

P. jaumavensis and YuccaDo 1713

Vic

 

[epbb]

-tr

 

[epbb]

Here is the new <a href="http://perso.club-internet.fr/cpartrat/Pages/Postcard_11.htm" target="_blank">
postcard 11</a> of Fernando Rivadavia :

" Considering the variations I’ve been seeing, I’m really not sure any of these can be separated as species or even varieties. I think I’ll just call them all P.esseriana / ehlersiae/ jamauvensis from now on. Or else simply P.esseriana, which was the 1st name published. " Fernando Rivadavia on march 2004 !

P. jaumavensis, P. ehlersiae, P. esseriana...

P. reticulata

P. cyclosecta

 

[Darcie]

Yah, it's definetly NOT P. jaumavensis/P. ehlersiae/P. esseriana  Look at the width to length ratio on each petal.  It's the same for both the 1713's and doesn't come close to any seen in the flower varience pictures from the post cards which all have about the same ratio despite other differences.  The way 1713's petals overlap a little is also different as is that incredubly short spure.  It's interesting that this one is pail lilac, as I was noting earlier that it's flower reminded me more of the purples and pinks.  I wish I had a good photo reference with me, then I could do a comparison and parts matching so fun, but I can't.  Oh well.  

 this is exciting isn't it?  I love mysteries like this... were did this plant origenally come from?

 

[Pyro]

Quote[/b] (Darcie @ Mar. 15 2004,03:49)]way 1714 petals overlap a little is also different as is that incredubly short spure.  

Uhhh, Darcie... 1714 isn't even pictured here

1714 is a cyclosecta and is nothing like 1713 or 1717

 

[Darcie]

Quote[/b] (Pyro @ Mar. 15 2004,13:38)]

Quote[/b] (Darcie @ Mar. 15 2004,03:49)]way 1714 petals overlap a little is also different as is that incredubly short spure.  

Uhhh, Darcie... 1714 isn't even pictured here

1714 is a cyclosecta and is nothing like 1713 or 1717

Eeek, sorry that was a typo, ack and a horrid one at that. I'm fixing it now.

 

[Pyro]

I can understand typos, they seem to happen often with these guys. I am considering just registering all of them as cultivars to keep them straight in the community