What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • #121
Hi Damon,

My plants are grown in very strong light and so develop a nice red coloration and a neat compact rosette. It is possible that if yours were grown in lower light conditions the rosettes could be larger. I'm not exactly sure how large admirabilis is supposed to get in darker conditions. How much light do yours receive?

I've seen plants from different South African locations in other collections which seem to show a bit of variation (to mine at least)- whilst still identifiable as admirabilis.

Regards,

Sean.
 
  • #122
It is possible that the plant is D.aliciae.
 
  • #123
Hi,

I'm late to this thread, but I have a couple of these.

Here's my D. venusta. Is it legit? I dunno, but it's cool!
D.%20venusta.JPG


And a D. dielsiana:
D.%20dielsiana.JPG


Capslock <-- would appreciate feedback on whether these are as labeled!
 
  • #124
I really don't know about the conditions this plant was grown in...I recently purchased it at a CP society meeting. I believe it was grown in strong sunlight because the sphagnum moss had burned tips. It could possibly be admiralibis, but till I get a pic posted (and that won't happen till I get funds for a new digi-cam) I won't know. As to it being aliciaea, definitely not. I grow several aliciaea from several sources, and none of them are similar to this. I think that I'll take a pic with a regular cam and post it from a CD.

Thanks for the suggestions though:

Damon
 
  • #125
Hi Capslock,

Your first picture looks like Drosera or venusta to ( I still can't see differences in my plants). The second one is hard to say. As far as i know, Drosera dielsiana has hairy scapes. The ones of your plant look as if they are glabrous, so i would reject Drosera dielsiana. A better help would be, if you could post a picture of the rosette and/or the flowers.

Christian
 
  • #126
Christian,

I'll try to get a photo of the flowers tomorrow. They open and close while I'm at work, unfortunately, and there are only about two left. I did notice that the stalks are somewhat hairy, though. It didn't show up in the picture, but in person, they are there.

Capslock
 
  • #127
Hi,

Here are two better pictures of my Drosera venusta and my Drosera coccicaulis, as well as one of my Drosera madagascariensis.


Drosera madagascariensis


Drosera coccicaulis


Drosera venusta

Christian
 
  • #128
I sprouted some D.affinis few weeks ago I got from an order of seeds from the UK I made in spring... plantlets are well formed enough to be able to tell that... they are mis-IDEd! I got (again!&#33
wink.gif
a mysterious rosetted sundew instead of this semi-erect african beauty... Man, this is frustrating... I am waiting to see if D.coccicaulis, cuneifolia are alright... I hate to wate money this way... well it is not a total lost, sicne I have the mysterious plants... but it is a big deception!
 
  • #129
I got seed via a friend of D. affinis from Kew Gardens, and this too proved to be D. spatulata to my eye. I don't think many folk are aware of what D. affinis is supposed to look like, so I am not surprised the nursery had it wrong. May times it isn't a case of outright deception, but rather of trusting ID's that haven't been confirmed by a reasonably adept taxonomist.
 
  • #130
I too have what is supposed to be Drosera affinis growing, but the seedlings are too small yet to make any judgement - they do at least seem to be too slow growing for D.spatulata, so there maybe hope yet!  
biggrin.gif


If it does turn out to be true D.affinis, I'll let you know and distribute the seeds ( assuming they make it to maturity ok! ).

Also, unfortunately, whilst I still think it's a bit too soon to be certain, my seedlings of Drosera venusta obtained from the ICPS seedbank last year appear to be possibly a form of D.spatulata (although I can't be certain yet).  
sad.gif
 
  • #131
Good luck with the D. affinis. This is an upright form, not a rosetted sundew, so if your plants are "wheel like" they aren't the correct species.

D. venusta shows it's semi-upright form early on as well, so if the leaves are paddle shaped and low lying, it is not D. venusta.

My real question now lies with my D. communis, which is a rosetted plant. To my eye is looks very like D. spatulata, but I have been strongly assured that it is not.

I have my fingers crossed!
 
  • #132
Tamlin: that's a thing we, serious drosera fans, must get every so often... 'keep our fingers crossed'
wink.gif
 
  • #133
Thanks for the info Tamlin - from the pics I've seen of D.affinis, it looks a bit like a S.African stem-forming version of D.anglica, to me at least! My seedlings are I think still too young yet to show any upright habit (some only their first 3 or 4 leaves yet, and still very small), so it's too early to tell - I got them from a usually reliable source, so fingers crossed!

Unfortunately it looks like my D.venusta probably isn't, although I'll reserve judgement until next year.
 
  • #134
Hi all,

I didnot visit this thread for a while but want to add my two cents:
Greg, you are right that between plants of the correct and published name D. venusta and the invalid "D. coccicaulis" you can find some differences. The same thing as discussed above: Plants are of different collections. But in my eyes the differences are not big enough to separate it as new species. (I know I owe you more than one Email, hope to do it the next days)

D. affinis: I am sure that all plants sundewmatt has distrbuted the last time are absolutely correct labelled D. affinis. I have never had a plant like that before and I can find differences between D. affinis, D. madagascariensis (all three forms I grow) and even with the recently described D. longiscapa.

D. glabripes: The photo Martin published in this topic a while ago shows the real thing, the plants were grown from Allen Lowrie seed by a good friend of mine. I am growing D. glabripes that were brought to Europe from South Africa as seedlings two years ago with exactly the same shape/appearence.

The discussion on D. cuneifolia/D. admirabilis: It is always the same with taxonomists: Taxonomy depends on where you are sitting and what you are believing. The old example is that all Nepenthes/Sarracenia known so far can be cross-pollinated and give fertile hybrids. So after the law: "All whats is aggregating and copulating belongs to a species" make them one species if you want or let it be.
But if you are the opinion that distinct, clear visible morphological signs indicate two species you should allow D. cuneifolia and D. admirabilis to be two species. Some of the differences are shown in the excellent CPN-article.
Also you should know that D. admirabilis of course is known from different locations and collections. But one (for me) one of the most interesting features is that the flower colour of the HOLOTYPE plants is differnet to all other plants I know so far. Paul Debbert once told me that after he had described the plant he was never able to relocate the HOLOTYPE site again. So in cultivation one can find plants with a lilac (violet?) flower colour and others with a much more pink flower colour.

Stefan
 
  • #135
Tamlin and others.  A plant had come up with one of my South Africans.  I moved it quite a while ago and do not remember which one it was with.  I can tell you that it is not the same plant as the one it was near.  That older plant was a rosette and this one is on a short stem, with smoothly dipping short stemmed petioles .  I do not have a camera that will properly handle it, but I think I can get a picture in your minds.  The leaves look like that of a young rotundifolia (paddle?), but not a rosette.  It is a slow grower or does not grow large.  I have had it for three to four months and its width is still under an inch. The tips of the tenticles appears to be red.  The plant is green, leaning torward an olive.  I thought that it might be a madagacariensis, but the leave are persistant in their shape and not becoming like those of the madagacariensis. I also looked at the plant Tamlin IDs as a young madagacariensis and they are not the same.  The leave are also fairly close to the stem and there are much more of them than with my madagacariensis. I will get a picture as soon as the new camera arrives.  It is unlike any other plant I have.
 
  • #136
Copper,

The plant is likely to be D. nidiformis, it fits the bill and there aren't all that many Drosera that take this form. D. nidiformis is a ready self seeder and self sower in my collection so if you flower it it will be there to stay in your collection.
 
  • #137
Stefan,

Thanks for the post, and its very nice to see you on the forum whenever you have a moment.

Personally, I tend to favor lumping with regards to the South Africans, but not with other populations where geographic isolation is present, mostly because I believe speciation is a process and stable variations give valuable insight in to the process. With the South Africans concentrated in Southeast Africa, I feel that the issue is too confused, and reliance on simple phenotype is optimistic at best. However, when a population becomes stable enough to demonstrate statistical uniformity species seggregation is valid, as in the case of D. admirabilis. If species seggregation was granted to D. nidiformis, known only in the Hermanus area (and likely a one off sport of D. dielsiana), surely the same should be allowed for D. admirabilis, especially in light of Robert's publication in the CPN! I have seen photos of both floral colors you mention, but I thought it was due to different lighting! I am curious to how my plants will turn out. They are from 2 different sources so it will be very exciting to see this! Thanks for sharing the insight.

I am not surprised the D. admirabilis you have seen lacks the floral color of the holotype, and this is another instance demonstrating that no ultimate reliance may be placed on "type forms" in herbarium specimens. Phenotypic plasticity is a hall mark of South African Drosera where the term species is a verb and not a noun. It's a pity Mr. Debbert could not locate the plants again. Do you happen to have any collection data regarding the different forms you mention?

Please give my regard to Paul Debbert when you communicate with him, and express my admiration for his continued efforts in South Africa. I have long wished to communicate with him regarding the South African Drosera species. Despite the rejection of his attempt to publish D. admirabilis as a species, I will continue to refer to D. admirabilis as a distinct species while keeping an open mind: which is really, the best course regarding these plants in general.
 
  • #138
Hi all,

just one more note on D. cuneifolia/D. admirabilis:
The (bad) pic shows D. cuneifolia from Silvermine, SAF compared with my not very small hand. If anybody out there has ever seen/had/cultivated a D. admirabilis of comparable size please let me know I would be very interested to obtain a cutting!
Dundulata.JPG


Regards

Stefan
 
  • #139
G'day Stefan and all,

It has been 8 pages since I have been here and I appologise for this. Some would say that the time was better spent as I was discovering!!!!! Sorry Tamlin you'll have to wait
biggrin.gif


I've got a lot of slides back and a lot more photos to go through and get online but........

I was lucky to have both D. coccicaulis (Stefan) and D. coccicaulis (Fred Howell) in flower last week and as I susspected the flowers are different in size and colour! The plants from stefan are only one season old and had appeared different to my clone from early on. At the time of flowering Stefans clone has an almost flat rosette while the other clone is semi errect like venusta (Which I still don't have hint hint)

D. glabripes and D. madagascariensis are now out of dormancy. D. slackii, burkeana and all the others are flowering soon too. I also notice that from some seed grown D. slackii I have two very distinct clones. One has very long petioles (well not too long) compared with the usual suspect.

There is so much more going on but you'll have to read the good stuff in the Australaisian CP journal. For those who aren't members, I will send pics and info to this site after. Sorry.

Greg
 
  • #140
Good to see you back Greg. Very interested to hear/read about your discovery/ies. Hopefully will catch up with you again soon.

Sean.
 
Back
Top