Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis

[jesse]

Hello,
as this is an U.S. species and the plants are currently starting flowering in my mini-bog, perhaps someone on this forum might be interested to have a look.

Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis is the first carnivorous species in my mini-bog to flower each year. I'm located near Hamburg, Germany.

Some plants are potted:

Most are planted in a mini-bog:

First they are in buds:

Then the buds open:

Then there are flowers:

A strange effect in flower coloring can be watched with this species: The lower half of the flower appears in different colors, depending on the lighting situation. All of the pictures above had been taken in "blue shadow", that means in full shadow under a clear blue sky on a sunny day. But if you take a photo in direct sunlight, the color appears different.

Is it a magic trick shown by the flower?

The last picture and the next one show the same flower on the same day, this is the picture taken in direct sunlight:

Watch out for the color: The flower not just shows a white spot, but almost the lower half of the flower appears nearly white.

 

[Not a Number]

Very interesting observations. This species is very sensitive to in-breeding depression so keep good records on pollination.

 

[jesse]

This species is very sensitive to in-breeding depression so keep good records on pollination.

Pollination?
Is this species self-fertile with itself?

Just let me explain: I started with this species two years ago with not more than one portion of about 15 very small winter gemmae. If I should make a guess, the original portion of gemmae was from one plant only. One year later each plant produced about 15 new gemmae which I spread in my mini-bog (15x15 = about 225 then).

Now that one more year had gone, I have hundreds of plants in different sizes. Last year, none of the (few) flowers had set seed.

Do you think they will set seed if they are all propagated from the same single plant?

Do you think the population would benefit from more different genes, such like mixing it with seed grown plants from a different source instead of vegetative reproduction only?

Vegetative multiplication is very effective with my plants, as every single plant creates about 15-20 gemmae, each of them growing to an adult plant the next season (if I had the place for them all to spread in my bog garden).

 

[jeff 2]

suite

for me she is self-fertile like a lot of others temperate .

attention nevertheless by cross with an other specie , often in cultivate all the species are close , and cross is possible by the insect and the wind.

for me to have a specie pure and clean the buds(gemmae) are ideal .

jeff

 

[jesse]

for me she is self-fertile like a lot of others temperate .

Thanks for information! So I will look out for seeds this year. As there will be more than a hundred flowers and the plants are kept outdoors, I should see seed capsules in some weeks - if they are fertile.

attention nevertheless by cross with an other specie , often in cultivate all the species are close , and cross is possible by the insect and the wind.

Currently, I have no pinguicula species flowering so early in the year. My only other Pinguicula species with buds in flowering size is P. grandiflora, but I think they will start flowering when P. macroceras ssp. nortensis is through with it.

I purchased some Pinguicula gemmae of different species and hybrids earlier this year, so perhaps next year there are some more Pinguicula species flowering in my mini-bogs and more chances of hybrid generation than this year.

Just in case somebody wants to see the same flower in three views: Front view, side view and top view:

(Don't mind the bananas in the background, picture has been taken in my kitchen.)

 

[jeff 2]

suite

here in FRANCE a lot of temperate ping are in flower , and mine 'ex situ' ,now ,are all in seeds .

attention , a lot of temperate ping are clayed alcaline just some one have need blond peat .

jeff

 

[jesse]

here in FRANCE a lot of temperate ping are in flower , and mine 'ex situ' ,now ,are all in seeds .

Currently it's VERY warm weather in Germany.
Nearly no rain for two months now. Very dry.
Warm like in summer, full sun and max. daytime temperature of 23°C.
Very unusual for April in Northern Germany.
Next species flowering in my location near Hamburg will be Pinguicula grandiflora.

attention , a lot of temperate ping are clayed alcaline just some one have need blond peat .

Yes, I know, some cold-temperate Pinguicula prefer limestome in the growing medium.
That's a lesson I already learned.

Two years ago I started with 3 species of cold-temperate Pinguicula:
P. macroceras ssp. nortensis and P. vallisneriifolia from gemmae and P. grandiflora from seeds.
I kept all these three species in pure peat. Not very blonde peat, I think (as it was cheap and looked very dark), it has been mixed with a lot of brown and black peat by the manufacturer. But only P. macroceras ssp. nortensis and P. grandiflora were (and are!) doing well in that dark peat I used. P. vallisneriifolia was slowly declining.

So this year I started again with some cold-temperate Pinguicula species, also P. vallisneriifolia. This time I'm using a lot of limestone and silica sand for P. vallisneriifolia, mixed with some peat only. Hope this works better.

You are writing about "clayed alcaline", what kind of a mix is that?
More a mix with clay instead of limestone?

 

[jeff 2]

suite

vallisneriifolia is a calcareous species 'in situ' often we find them in 'epiphyte ' on limestone cliff see my web site to this specie I have some picture.

'ex situ' to have long leaves ( sometimes 20cm) tilt the pot .

I use for some of my temperate and also some of my mexican this substrate

50% cat liter [ with now 'akadama'( bonzaï clay), in this % 10-20%]
12.5% pouzzolane
12.5% river sand
12.5% vermiculite
12.5% oolithic calcareous sand ( find here in my country)

these % are just approximate

the river sand is very important for the capillarity , without you have no contact with the others materials and the roots .

jeff

 

[jesse]

I use for some of my temperate and also some of my mexican this substrate

50% cat liter [ with now 'akadama'( bonzaï clay), in this % 10-20%]
12.5% pouzzolane
12.5% river sand
12.5% vermiculite
12.5% oolithic calcareous sand ( find here in my country)

these % are just approximate

So the approximate amount of mineral substrate is 100%?
With absolutely no peat in it?

Sounds very strange to me. For my second try with P. vallisneriifolia (and some others) I mixed this year:
40% peat
40% crushed limestone gravel
20% auqarium sand

If this doesn't work, perhaps I better should get informed about the several hundred brands of cat litter sold in Germany and find out, what ingredients they are made from.

 

[jeff 2]

suite

with no peat see here their 'in situ' ecology

you see peat ?

use a no agglomerate and no scented cat litter .

jeff

 

[jesse]

I just saw, that I forgot to show some pictures with more than just one flower of this species.

A bunch of P. macroceras ssp. nortensis and a single flower of P. grandiflora (in the background):

P. grandiflora plant removed, pure P. macroceras ssp. nortensis:

Another view of my macroceras mini-bog:

 

[jeff 2]

magnifique

jeff

 

[jesse]

magnifique

Thank you!

This one is a very easy species in my climate and the rate of reproduction is incredible.

The only thing I have to do in February is: Remove the huge amounts of small winter gemmae from the winter resting buds and spread them on the peat surface. And keep the peat in the mini-bog moist all the time. A good fraction of the small gemmae will grow to flowering size plants within 12 months.

 

[CPsam]

Looks great! Just saw tons of these flowering in the wild a few weeks back.

 

[BobZ]

Is Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis a valid subspecies? Barry Rice does not think it is. See:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/articles/CPNv40n2p44_49.pdf

 

[mass]

wow.. Bob made an appearance on this one.

Got just a couple there eh'? Looking great..

 

[kulamauiman]

Did not see peat when i observed them growing in their natural habitat

observed them growing in almost pure chips of serpentine with darlingtonia.

 

[jesse]

Is Pinguicula macroceras subsp. nortensis a valid subspecies? Barry Rice does not think it is. See:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/articles/CPNv40n2p44_49.pdf

Ssp. nortensis is a valid P. macroceras subspecies in the "official" CP names database:
http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=macroceras&submit=Senden&search=all

I'm no taxonomist, I'm a hobbyist gardener.

So, if the subspecies name was on the plant when I bought it and it is in the database of valid CP names as a "valid and accepted name" (printed in bold face with "N+" abbreviation), I also use the same subspecies name for my propagated plants. That's a no-brainer for me.

Perhaps that's a question for Dr. Jan Schlauer and what he thinks about revisiting ssp. nortensis to a synonym of P. macroceras? He is the official maintainer of the CP names database.

 

[BobZ]

Taxonomy advances are based on observation, discussion, and consensus. This is a continuing and lengthy process during which some taxonomists eventually decide to recognize a classification and others do not. The subsp. nortensis taxon was first published in 1975 by Jurg Steiger, but was not formally validated. In 1997, Hawkeye Rondeau and Jurg Steiger published a paper in the International Pinguicula Study Group Newsletter formally describing the taxon. Some taxonomists questioned that the IPSG Newsletter did not constitute a valid scientific publication because of its extremely limited distribution. A couple of years ago, ICPS decided to put scanned PDFs of the IPSG Newsletter on their website to make it more available. Barry Rice recently decided to revisit the type locations used by Rondeau and Steiger and make more detailed measurements. Based on these measurements Barry "found that different colonies, even if separated by only small distances, can have significantly different typical flower sizes. These differences are even greater than the differences that were used to define subspecies within Pinguicula macroceras. As such, there is inadequate evidence to support subspecific divisions within P. macroceras."

Now it is up to taxonomists to evaluate the various findings and opinions and decide what they want to do with subsp. nortensis. This will take a few more years.

 

[jesse]

Taxonomy advances are based on observation, discussion, and consensus. This is a continuing and lengthy process during which some taxonomists eventually decide to recognize a classification and others do not.

That's how it works.

Based on these measurements Barry "found that different colonies, even if separated by only small distances, can have significantly different typical flower sizes. These differences are even greater than the differences that were used to define subspecies within Pinguicula macroceras. As such, there is inadequate evidence to support subspecific divisions within P. macroceras."

Perhaps growers of P. macroceras could provide some decision aid: If someone would cultivate plants from different locations of P. macroceras, such as plants currently named P. macroceras ssp. nortensis from locations at the Oregon/California border region, as well as P. macroceras from Russia, from Japan, from Alaska, Idaho, Montana and so on (if plants are in cultivation), under the same cultivation conditions like soil and climate, then it would become clearly visible, what are the real differences that are not based on soil and climate.

Unfortunately P. macroceras is offered very, very seldom.

And I think, taxonomists prefer to make their decisions about "species or subspecies" not from cultivated plants, but from plants growing in the wild, so they would not be interested to have a look, even if growers would be able to show macroceras plants from different locations, grown under the same cultivation conditions in one place.

Now it is up to taxonomists to evaluate the various findings and opinions and decide what they want to do with subsp. nortensis. This will take a few more years.

Yes, and if the taxonomists have made up their mind, it would be up to the rest of the world using the "official" names.

But sometimes I find it very confusing that some people do not use the official names, for example in the CP Photofinder, let's name it P. grandiflora:

P. grandiflora: http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguicula-grandiflora-623.html
P. grandiflora f. reuteri: http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguicula-grandiflora-f-reuteri-3382.html
P. grandiflora subsp. chionopetra http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguicula-grandiflora-subsp-chionopetra-3380.html
P. grandiflora subsp. pallida http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguicula-grandiflora-subsp-pallida-3381.html
P. grandiflora subsp. rosea http://www.cpphotofinder.com/pinguicula-grandiflora-subsp-rosea-3383.html

And when I compare with the official naming:
http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=pinguicula+grandiflora&submit=Senden&search=all
I find that there are only two valid grandiflora names:
N: +[Pinguicula grandiflora {Lam.}]
N: +[Pinguicula grandiflora subsp. rosea {(Mutel) Casper}]

In the photofinder, "pallida" and "chionopetra" are subspecies of P. grandiflora, but in the official names list, they are just "forma"?
How does it come to that?

Do you think, the differences in P. grandiflora forma/subspecies pallida and chionopetra are bigger than the differences in the nortensis subspecies of P. macroceras?

So it's a proposal to use "ssp. pallida" and "ssp. chionopetra" with P. grandiflora, despite the official naming tells they are no subspecies at the moment, but on the other hand one should not use "ssp. nortensis" despite the official naming tells it is a subspecies of P. macroceras?

Perhaps you can't be everybody's darling naming your cultivated Pinguicula.
At least, I can't.
;-)