User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 14

Thread: Dew ID Please..

  1. #1
    mass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8,144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Dew ID Please..

    One of my unknowns finally flowerd.. Any ideas?

    Could it be: D. dielsiana








  2. #2
    mass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8,144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nobody wants to take a stab at this one?
    Think I'll stick with D. dielsiana then..

  3. #3
    i dont do pots. amphirion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area, US
    Posts
    3,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yeah it is.
    " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya
    +growlist
    +petiolaris drosera going dormant?
    +picture thread

  4. #4
    mass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    8,144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey thanks, now I feel smart.

  5. #5
    Hello, I must be going... Not a Number's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    7,506
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd wait until you get seeds before making any judgement. And as Tamlin has pointed out even that is not a sure thing.
    Grand Hotel... always the same. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry I missed this post earlier since Drosera dielsiana is a topic of great interest to me. It was one of my very first Sundews from back in my childhood days. I got my seed from the ICPS seedbank, and grew and shared the seed with many people. Because of my long association with this form, I came to adopt this as the TRUE and typical Drosera dielsiana. Probably many commercial dealers also felt this way and also grew and distributed the same form. Now, decades later after some deeper research I believe that the plants from the ICPS seed (like in this example) were and are probably closer to D. natalensis based on small morphometric considerations concerning the flower, stipules and seed. Dr. Robert Gibson's line drawings of this species shows a much longer and narrower petiole (the loing part of the leaf before the trap). I trust Robert's assessments as he has had both field and herbarium experience with this species, while I am limited by the MANY such named examples I have grown over many years as my only comparative resource. Now that there is internet consensus via Bob Ziemer's CP photofinder there is a new 2 edged sword. If the greater number of photo's under a species listing there, logic might seem to suggest that this is the most likely determination but not necessarily since the availability and distribution of material dictates how many people grow and photograph such plants, so consensus based on comparative photography can create as much confusion as definition. Collectors are hung up on names. they want to know what they have, but you can see there are problems with variability, esp. in the SAF species not easily resolvable by simple observation.

    When your plant flowers, details of the style divisions, seed form and length, and flower distribution on the pedicel will probably lead to a better idea of what this plant is NOT, even if not defining what is IS. This is an oft told tale with the SAF droserae.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  7. #7
    CPlantaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Corn Field, Iowa
    Posts
    970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just for fun, here are several pics of my D. natalensis (which used to be labeled as D. dielsiana before I took a look at the seeds, and saw that they weren't round, but were more elongated, resembling D. natalensis more closely- but as Tamlin mentioned...it's a pretty confusing situation.

    Either way, I just think it's funny how much the same clones can look so much different in varying conditions:











    They look even more different now, but I haven't had time to upload the pics yet.
    Visit The Sundew Grow Guides: http://www.growsundews.com
    New- Drosera video tours & other sundew info, now on YouTube!

    Happy Growing!

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Better hold onto those name tags Aaron, don't assume old Tamlin has a handle on the Drosera dielsiana issue 'cause I DON'T. I think the ICPS was part of the confusion regarding the placement of so many forms like this as D. dielsiana in so many collections worldwide. I know there are good taxonomists associated with the ICPS but the material they distributed was from before the days of Dr. Schlauer, and I think if he found the D. dielsiana circulated by the ICPS had been in error for decades they would just let sleeping dogs lie. But, if it is as I think it's not too difficult a stretch to assume that many commercial growers also redistributed this form in good faith. I certainly trusted the ICPS seed and got plants like yours, with the shorter broad lamina, but this does not conform with Excell and Launders paper published in 1956 or as mentioned in another post, Dr. Gibsons line drawings. Anyways, this would account for why this form has such a wide distribution:

    http://www.carnivorousplants.org/see..._dielsiana.htm

    Is it an imposter? I believe it is but I am only an egg. You could try contacting Andreas Fleischmann for his opinion, he has a lot of experience with the SAF's, but does not care to discuss taxonomy with the likes of me. Maybe you'll have more success!

    ---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------

    Digging deeper into the issue of this perplexing subject, I believe part of the problem with accurate determination is the importance of the flowers in making a determination. You see, the true D. dielsiana is virtually apmoictic (closed flowers) so if someone has a floral photo with an open flower it is already highly suspect! What is needed is for someone with a fairly good candidate to perform a dissection of the closed flower to confirm that the plant has the right stylistic divisions and then for a good photo of the seeds if the styles look right. This would be of great benefit to the CP community.

    The seed itself should be ovoid as stated in the protolouge, but I also note Dr. Gibson described the seed as "shortly fusiform" (!!!). I also read somewhere a statement that what he had once regarded as Drosera dielsiana was incorrect, but don't know if it was before or after his line drawings were published. I The seed testa is described as honeycombed and this is probably a better criteria than the seed shape or size. We must always keep in mind that "type" is a mythological concept that seldom evidences itself in individuals due to genetic variation and/or seasonal/cultural growth in its distribution and this includes seed length .

    The issues of flowers and seed must be resolved before anyone will ever know if this species is in cultivation.
    "Grow More, Share More"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •