User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 20

Thread: What do we know about the new byblis species?

  1. #1
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    I was doing some reserch and came across the names of the newly described Byblis species:

    B. aquatica so far known from a few sites near darwin

    B filifolia and

    B. rorida


    I was wondering what others knew about these species? Thanks.
    that makes no logic

  2. #2
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can not say for sure but I believe that until recently all were originally considered different forms of gigantea and so are probably very like that plant. I hope to be getting my hands on some here in the near future and I plant to treat them just like gigantea. I'll post updates as I discover how the tick
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    698
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They were actually considered to be forms of B. liniflora.

  4. #4
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I stand corrected. So then are they all annuals?
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  5. #5
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok. I was msitaken about the rules of copyright. i apologize if i offended. I must remembe rthat just because it does not bother me when people use mine that it bothers others. Im getting used to being wrong.
    that makes no logic

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    698
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They are all confined (rorida, filifolia & aquatica) to northern Australia and grow as annuals in nature. In cultivation they can successfully be grown for a couple of years. They can't be grown in a similar way to B. gigantea or lamellata which grow as perennials and need the cooler period in winter to thrive.


    Byblis filifolia used to be known as B. liniflora var. occidentalis so therefore was considered to be a form of liniflora

    B. aquatica is very similar to B. liniflora and grows with it in many areas. It is more robust and it too was once considered merely a variation of liniflora. In the photos you linked to (do you have permission to do this??), it evens looks very much like B. liniflora

    B. rorida is quite different and very distinct. But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora

    From your comment "some were only recently discoverd and a couple were never considerd the same".

    These plants were only recently discovered to be different, not recently discovered for the first time. B. aquatica grows very close to Darwin and has been known for a long period of time- just always considered to be B. liniflora.

    and "Some even onsider some so distinct that thegenus should be split"

    I can't see how that could possibly be justifiable as the flowers on each and very much the same, as are the growth habits. There are species of Drosera that I think could be separated from that genus alot sooner than any current members of the Byblis group could- ie- Drosera regia.

  7. #7
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    but tou are highlighting the similarities, and similarites in appearence are poor indicators of relationships. Flower structures can be usefull but are not at all a good basis for determening how closely related species are. Tanoaks, for instance, have flowers very similar to chesnuts but diverged from them mlellinia ago.

    As for relationships, closeness in looks and growth habit are not anything to pass of as not being very distinct. The fact is it has to be distinct genetically enough to not regularly interbreed with closely related speces. They also

    In absance of the complete botonical descriptions, such statements as " But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora" are rather brazen. Its like me comparing red oak to its shrubby releteves. One is basicly taller and with longer internodes but theres no question they are red oaks. however, this does not mean that they are not distinct. your statement
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]They can't be grown in a similar way gigantea or lamellata which grow as perennials and need the cooler period in winter to thrive
    Only enhanses the distinctnes softhese species from them.

    I am not saying they are not closely related. obviously they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I can not say for sure but I believe that until recently all were originally considered different forms so are probably very like that plant.
    All these suggest that they are not "very like" thet plant, dispite what they aere originaly classied.

    You should not use the original classification as a support to your argument on how similar they are becuae often very distinct species in the past were lumped togeather pending further reserch. Since they are obviously distinct enough to attain species status, it shows that diespide similarities, the original classification was WRONG. Several species of pine were lumped togeather often.

    " The some plants" i was refering to was B. rorida


    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]new discoveries in Australia brought to light three new species, B. rorida, B. filifolia, and B. aquatica. (Oddly enough, some of my own observations of the plants in cultivation were cited as important evidence that the genus should be split into more than two species!). Even more recently, yet another species (B. lamellata, closely related to B. gigantea) was described--so there are six species in the genus.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I can't see how that could possibly be justifiable as the flowers on each and very much the same, as are the growth habits. There are species of Drosera that I think could be separated from that genus alot sooner than any current members of the Byblis group could- ie- Drosera regia.
    I woulrd rather trust someone with as extensive experence in this such as Barry Rice to make this justification than you, who im guessing has never observed the plants closely enough to be able to throw others observations in the improbable pile quickly.

    As for the pictures, i am not claiming them to be my own. I tought it was common practice here to post some pics of something that another took, like from the internet. If you take up that issue with me, you should also speak to most of the members here.
    that makes no logic

  8. #8
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    B. rorida looks kind of wimpy to me... but i'd love to get my hands on one of those awesomely robust B filifolia.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •