User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 36

Thread: Drosera natalensis "coccicaulis"

  1. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    698
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Khoas @ April 27 2004,7:10)]We have the charming prize of having the top 10 deadly land snake in the world.
    We actually only have 8 of the top 10.

  2. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Missouri,zone 5b
    Posts
    3,134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well copperheads will bite totally unprovoked! I was just minding my own business picking pears when............BAM! WHACK! OUCH! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/img] [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]
    [img]http://home.**********.com/users/pondboy/Neps/Neps%20sig..JPG[/img]

  3. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    6 Vine St Taperoo 5017 South Australia
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Was it breeding season for snakes when you got bitten? Tiger and Brown snakes can have very bad tempers here especially around breeding season.
    Then again it could just been in bad mood and you were too close. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/img]

  4. #20
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Khoas, which seed do you have, labeled coccicaulis? Is it natalensis or venusta or dielsiana or... I'm fond of taxonomy, but sometimes....

  5. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    South African taxonomy is a very tough call. I can tell you that Khoas kindly provided me with the seed from which my plants grew a couple of years ago, and it pretty much conforms to what folk call D. "coccicaulis", but keep in mind that this is not a legitimate species. By this I mean it was not published with a protolouge, nor was material herborized. I know this by consensus agreement via photographs: all our coccicaulis look much the same although it may be that different events of hybridization gave rise to a similar form.

    As complex as taxonomy is, the science of Nomenclature by which plants are named, and those names are preserved is even more fussy. My focus on proper names is not just a whim - these matters are the central concern if the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature.

    So, although D. "coccicaulis" may be legitimately referred to as D. venusta to which some taxonomists have assigned it, it may not, in any case, be legitimately called D. coccicaulis. As far as botany is concerned, at present, D. coccicaulis does not exist. This is what is called a "bogus" name, and serious taxonomists discourage the use of "bogus" names.

    D. venusta is felt by some taxonomists to be somewhat dodgy as well, based on its many similar characteristics to D. natalensis, but it had a valid publication so it is a legitimate name. It is not bogus, but not all agree that it should have species rank. Dr. Schlauer is of this opinion, and this is reflected in his most esteemed CP Datatbase.

    I personally favor "lumping" all three under D. natalensis, which is highly variable across its range, as per Dr. Schlauer's assessment. Others disagree, and favor the opinion of Paul Debbert who published this as a species.

    But it is a fact that although you may legitimately call it by either the name of D. venusta or D. natalensis, you may not call it D. coccicaulis. Them's the rules, like it or not, LOL.

    Taxonomy is a highly opinionated science, and those opinions are only as good as extensive experience in the field, in literature, and in review of herborized material makes them.

    There aren't a lot of highly experienced experts in the genus Drosera, and those that are expert frequently disagree.

    For example, although I support the lumping of D. venusta with D. natalensis in Dr. Schlauer's CP Database, I do not accept that D. auriculata is a subspecies of D. peltata, nor do I regard that D. stelliflora is a subspecies of D. paleacea. In the latter instances, I favor the opinion of field researchers who have lived with and worked with these species all their long lives. But in the end, it is a gut level feeling that leads me to my own opinions, based on what I have seen, grown, read about and discussed with those of greater exposure to this genus then I can ever hope to have. In the end, I decide for myself though, and I occasionally disagree with even the Great Wise Ones, although not too often. These species speak to the soul of me: not very scientific, but there you go.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  6. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    oops.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  7. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    6 Vine St Taperoo 5017 South Australia
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With 'coccicaulis' I alway uses Sp. to inform that it is not been formally described. I had couple of Drosera natalensis and in general apperance I found that it look different and has a different growth habit when compared with Sp. coccicaulis (For starters natalensis it will not self seed). I have not grown Drosera venusta so I can't give option on this one. To make things more interesting Drosera Sp. 'Coccicaulis' was orginally Drosera Sp. Cape. I don't were the new name came from.
    While whole complex of natalensis is very variable over it whole range, forms like Sp. coccicauilus seem to be stable. It may be of hybrid origin then again some people think that over 50% of present plants species came into being though hybridation. Maybe system similar to orchid taxon maybe need. Have each seperate form which is stable treated a seperate species under a section of natalensis to show that each species very closely related to other members of the section.
    Finally anyone know where Drosera Sp. Transvaal come from?

  8. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is another "bogus" name, as are all the "Sp." names. The name itself implies this is from the Transvaal area in Africa. Since there is no holotype or publication there is no way of saying if this is really the case.

    Material by this name was sold by both Cambrian Carnivores in the UK, and B&T seeds. Since B&T order from Lowrie, I assume he also distributed it, as did the ICPS seedbank.

    Speculation has it that the plant is a D. dielsiana form and a possible hybrid with wither D. collinsiae (which is a hybrid as well) or with D. madagascariensis all of which are sympatric in the Transvall and capable of hybridization.

    Or, it may be something that hybridized in cultivation with a compatible species, producing fertile seed that someone gave this name to because they wanted to sell something different in their catalog, LOL. I have plants with very similar character which have formed by uncontrolled fertilization in my collection.

    Without publication, there is no way of ever knowing, and this is why I dislike the use of "Sp." names, and prefer the use of properly published cultivar names to give some intelligent meaning to these forms if they are to be widely circulated. Sadly, the concept has not caught hold in the CP community, so we will have your question repeated over and over and over down through the years by many growers, and always without any hope of a definite answer. I find this very frustrating.

    Meanwhile, I am seeking this type of "Sp. material" to grow, and will publish them as legitimate cultivars so there is some standard to refer to in future discussions. I have "Sp. Rhodesia" awaiting press in the CPN under the name of 'Rhodesian Beauty' since this is in such wide circulation, and also has been introduced to In Vitro cultivation in your own country.

    So, as far as botany is concerned, like D. "coccicaulis", this plant does not exist. It is "bogus".
    "Grow More, Share More"

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •