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!
What Exactly is D. sp. South Africa?
- Thread starter jimscott
- Start date
-
- Tags
- africa cuneifolia seeds
When a plant has a designation Genus sp. whatever it means it hasn't been adequately identified against known species - it could be a new species, subspecies, form or variety awaiting publication of a formal description and herbarium specimens. Obviously if ever accepted and published the latin or latinized name can be completely different than the "temporary" name.
Just another bogus name attached to a packet of seed that produces a plant which doesn't conform to legitimately published plants at the species level. Different packets so named can produce different plants entirely, as there is no standard to compare them too, other than visual consensus from comparing a large number of photo's like on Bob Zeimer's site. But even this can be problematical since generous distribution by an individual can make it appear as if that particular form is more legit than others less distributed. Hmmm, maybe it IS! So it's just bogus from a botanical stance. In fact, ANY South African species can be a problem to collectors since in habitat they morph into vastly different looking plants even in habitat. Ask yourself rather if it's a desirable plant to grow. If it is, consider publishing it legitimately at the cultivar level and save future generations from asking the same question. There never is an answer as to what any "Sp. thingy" is. Not ever.
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Hey Jim,
I know the email link probably still won't work, but for some reason, posting the picture seems to work....
I will have to upload the rest of my pictures tonight, but this is the only one i have right now:
As for its id....the closest thing I could guess is a really really odd form of D. natalensis lol. No matter what it vaguely resmebles, this particular species definitely stands in its own category- only problem is that there's a sort of similar-looking D. sp "Pretty Rosette" but I like D. sp."South Africa" better
.
I know the email link probably still won't work, but for some reason, posting the picture seems to work....
I will have to upload the rest of my pictures tonight, but this is the only one i have right now:
As for its id....the closest thing I could guess is a really really odd form of D. natalensis lol. No matter what it vaguely resmebles, this particular species definitely stands in its own category- only problem is that there's a sort of similar-looking D. sp "Pretty Rosette" but I like D. sp."South Africa" better
.
Last edited:
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Very nice looking plant for sure! I would very much like to see the flower details and/or a seed photo. Yes, the natalensis complex is huge and extremely variable so it could fit in there. Seed would probably be more diagnostic. Petiole length isn't always diagnostic for this genus, and certainly not for The South African's. I am inclined towards D. dielsiana because usually the petiole length is shorter in that speciesbut probably this is just another of the many N=20 karyotype variations floating about. I want to see the divisions of the styles, and the seed testa.
You see the difficulty in trying to assess bogus names? How can you be sure this isn't ANY of the "Sp." designations? I've had plants come from "Sp. Auyan Tepui" that produced both this form (which has nada to do with South America) and also plants that were surely D. spatulata. Maybe once such seed produced a South American type plant but as there is no publication, there is no reference. So as far as taxonomy is concerned there can be no assessment.
So who cares? I don't anymore. It's a beautiful plant worthy of distribution and IMO publication at cultivar level would let future generations of CP growers communicate intelligently regarding it. Collectors are obsessed with names, and there is a rational way of naming them. It's an easy process, and I continue to advocate for the horticulturalists rights to name these ambiguous plants independently of taxonomy in spite of the problems I have had doing so from certain taxonomists who apparently do not understand this process.
But if you do choose to publish it, please drop the Sp. designation from the name! Drosera 'South Africa' is acceptable, and so is Drosera 'Pretty Rosettes'. One or the other, but not both!
You see the difficulty in trying to assess bogus names? How can you be sure this isn't ANY of the "Sp." designations? I've had plants come from "Sp. Auyan Tepui" that produced both this form (which has nada to do with South America) and also plants that were surely D. spatulata. Maybe once such seed produced a South American type plant but as there is no publication, there is no reference. So as far as taxonomy is concerned there can be no assessment.
So who cares? I don't anymore. It's a beautiful plant worthy of distribution and IMO publication at cultivar level would let future generations of CP growers communicate intelligently regarding it. Collectors are obsessed with names, and there is a rational way of naming them. It's an easy process, and I continue to advocate for the horticulturalists rights to name these ambiguous plants independently of taxonomy in spite of the problems I have had doing so from certain taxonomists who apparently do not understand this process.
But if you do choose to publish it, please drop the Sp. designation from the name! Drosera 'South Africa' is acceptable, and so is Drosera 'Pretty Rosettes'. One or the other, but not both!
Here are the requested pics! (loading will probably be slow)
As you can see it seems to "morph" shapes a bit from time to time...
overhead
younger, being fed when grown from seed
a larger plant with a flower stalk that curled in on itself...
flower
larger filesize: http://www.growsundews.com/sundews/sp_South_Africa/flower_Drosera_sp_South_Africa_post.JPG
crappy flower close-up
the flower stalk usually splits into 2 once it reaches maturity
...and one more just for the heck of it.
Hope that's enough
As you can see it seems to "morph" shapes a bit from time to time...
overhead
younger, being fed when grown from seed
a larger plant with a flower stalk that curled in on itself...
flower
larger filesize: http://www.growsundews.com/sundews/sp_South_Africa/flower_Drosera_sp_South_Africa_post.JPG
crappy flower close-up
the flower stalk usually splits into 2 once it reaches maturity
...and one more just for the heck of it.
Hope that's enough
Hmmm I have gotten seeds labeled as this plant. It has gotten me wondering about it . has gotten to flower and looks spatulata like or capillaris like. i haven't really looked them over very carefully. might need to look over with fine tooth comb and take pics also. my seed source for this one was highly regarded so might be something real.
Here are the requested pics! (loading will probably be slow)
As you can see it seems to "morph" shapes a bit from time to time...
flower
larger filesize: http://www.growsundews.com/sundews/sp_South_Africa/flower_Drosera_sp_South_Africa_post.JPG
crappy flower close-up
seed capsule shape is similar to what i have seen with dielsiana, but i have never seen nataensis, mine are still tiny seedlings wanting to be transplanted.....
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Hi all,
this plant really is one of the more difficult to discuss! It is in no(!) way similar to D. cuneifolia and really has nothing in commom with that plant. In fact, it is (for me) quite close to Drosera natalensis. But, as it is not even known if this plant really comes from South Africa, it just makes no sense to discuss which species this one belongs to. As far as i know, the plant has been spread by Harald Weiner in the 80s and has since then never be rediscovered. The most striking feature of this plant is the strange flower stalk, that is always split into two with one of the both ends having only one flower. Also, this plant most often produces flowers with six petals instead of the usual five.
Here are some older pictures from me: http://utricularia.net/drosera/sp_south_africa1.php
D. "pretty rosette" is the same as this plant, another similar (or even the same) one is D. spec "Cuba11" (or whatever it is called).
Also, this plant cannot be Drosera dielsiana, as the flowers do not fit. What we usually grow as D. dielsiana is a form of D. natalensis! i am not sure if true D. dielsiana is already cultivated.
Christian
this plant really is one of the more difficult to discuss! It is in no(!) way similar to D. cuneifolia and really has nothing in commom with that plant. In fact, it is (for me) quite close to Drosera natalensis. But, as it is not even known if this plant really comes from South Africa, it just makes no sense to discuss which species this one belongs to. As far as i know, the plant has been spread by Harald Weiner in the 80s and has since then never be rediscovered. The most striking feature of this plant is the strange flower stalk, that is always split into two with one of the both ends having only one flower. Also, this plant most often produces flowers with six petals instead of the usual five.
Here are some older pictures from me: http://utricularia.net/drosera/sp_south_africa1.php
D. "pretty rosette" is the same as this plant, another similar (or even the same) one is D. spec "Cuba11" (or whatever it is called).
Also, this plant cannot be Drosera dielsiana, as the flowers do not fit. What we usually grow as D. dielsiana is a form of D. natalensis! i am not sure if true D. dielsiana is already cultivated.
Christian
Last edited:
Hello Christian, thanks for stopping by and sharing your very informed ideas with this forum.
OK, I know I told you I've gotten allergic to discussions of taxonomy, but you always get me going!
These examples tell me a few things. It is certainly not related to Drosera cunefolia, but it is a South African plant. I/m not sure how close to D. natalensis it can be - the styles don't demonstrate the repeated bifurcation I expect for that taxa, the lamina are persistent, and the petioles are densely glandular and the floral color is not right. D. natalensis is more light pink from what I have grown (I believe you were the source for what I feel was that species!) It is not Drosera dielsiana, the styles in that species have a simple bifurcation,only dividing once, and floral color closer to magenta than pink. I have grown many examples of D. dielsiana, and have only infrequently found this character in the styles from many different seed sources but I believe it is in cultivation, but not as common as peoples grow lists would suggest. The scape does remind me of D. natalensis however, both in the commonly split scape and in the basal origin of it (as far as I can see in these examples). I have to consider as well that D. natalensis in the SE differs from plants in the SW and the shorter seed from these SE plants strongly suggests introgression with D. dielsiana, making things even more difficult!
So what do we have? Not D. dielsiana, not D. aliciae which also has repeatedly bifurcated styles. Not D. burkeana, the lamina are too round. Not D. cunefolia or D. admirabilis. We can dismiss D. acaulis as a scape is present. We can also dismiss any of the cauline species.
In one photo I can see the underside of the developing lamina, and it seems to demonstrate nerve characters similar to D. trinervia, but that species is commonly white flowered. This may or may not be significant as there are pink flowered individuals in field populations. I would like to see the underside of a mature leaf, there should be 3 nerves visible to support a relationship with D. trinervia. I'm not sure even if all these examples are the same taxa, and would like to know if the scape is central or arising curved from the base? it's not clear to me in the photos. The scape of D. trinervia is glandular (but less so than in these examples), arises from the plants center, has fused styles, . The lamina are a little too spoon shaped, not truncate as I would expect from D. trinervia, but you stated that the petals were often 6-merous and such aberrations often indicate hybridogenic origin. The spoon shaped lamina in the photos here are similat to D. natalensis, at least at their tips/ The stipules of D. trinervia are laciniate, but I can't make them out in these examples. All of the above inclines me towards D. trinervia, but not a "pure" form and that scape also suggests D. natalensis, as does the spoon shaped lamina. I note the floral color while not the lighter pink I associate with D. natalensis is still much lighter than many of the S. Af. taxa. If this has a hybridogenic origin, this might be why.
I won't bet my life on it, but my nearest guess (at present) is D. trinervia x D. natalensis. Not a species, but a process towards speciation.
My additional questions to the growers are:
1) can you detect 3 raised nerves on the underside of the lamina?
2) Is the scape central, or arising from the base?
3) Can you show me a seed photo?
4) Can you describe the shape of the stipules?
Ok Christian my good friend, have at it and shoot down my diagnosis!
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
NAN,
I doubt you will ever see this plant described as a species, it published at all it will likely be at the cultivar level. It's not found in habitat, so there can be no type specimen placed. New species are never found in private collections and any attempt to do so would be quickly rejected on review. Latinizations are reserved for publication at the species level, and distribution of material " awaiting publication" with bogus names is not botanically acceptable. These plants are referred to in taxonomy as bogus (meaning not legitimately published), and distribution of bogus material is counterproductive: it generates only dissension and confusion. ANY material worthy of distribution needs to have a reference publication, and publishing at cultivar level before wide distribution makes sense. It doesn't bar publication at a later date at species level.
OK, I know I told you I've gotten allergic to discussions of taxonomy, but you always get me going!
These examples tell me a few things. It is certainly not related to Drosera cunefolia, but it is a South African plant. I/m not sure how close to D. natalensis it can be - the styles don't demonstrate the repeated bifurcation I expect for that taxa, the lamina are persistent, and the petioles are densely glandular and the floral color is not right. D. natalensis is more light pink from what I have grown (I believe you were the source for what I feel was that species!) It is not Drosera dielsiana, the styles in that species have a simple bifurcation,only dividing once, and floral color closer to magenta than pink. I have grown many examples of D. dielsiana, and have only infrequently found this character in the styles from many different seed sources but I believe it is in cultivation, but not as common as peoples grow lists would suggest. The scape does remind me of D. natalensis however, both in the commonly split scape and in the basal origin of it (as far as I can see in these examples). I have to consider as well that D. natalensis in the SE differs from plants in the SW and the shorter seed from these SE plants strongly suggests introgression with D. dielsiana, making things even more difficult!
So what do we have? Not D. dielsiana, not D. aliciae which also has repeatedly bifurcated styles. Not D. burkeana, the lamina are too round. Not D. cunefolia or D. admirabilis. We can dismiss D. acaulis as a scape is present. We can also dismiss any of the cauline species.
In one photo I can see the underside of the developing lamina, and it seems to demonstrate nerve characters similar to D. trinervia, but that species is commonly white flowered. This may or may not be significant as there are pink flowered individuals in field populations. I would like to see the underside of a mature leaf, there should be 3 nerves visible to support a relationship with D. trinervia. I'm not sure even if all these examples are the same taxa, and would like to know if the scape is central or arising curved from the base? it's not clear to me in the photos. The scape of D. trinervia is glandular (but less so than in these examples), arises from the plants center, has fused styles, . The lamina are a little too spoon shaped, not truncate as I would expect from D. trinervia, but you stated that the petals were often 6-merous and such aberrations often indicate hybridogenic origin. The spoon shaped lamina in the photos here are similat to D. natalensis, at least at their tips/ The stipules of D. trinervia are laciniate, but I can't make them out in these examples. All of the above inclines me towards D. trinervia, but not a "pure" form and that scape also suggests D. natalensis, as does the spoon shaped lamina. I note the floral color while not the lighter pink I associate with D. natalensis is still much lighter than many of the S. Af. taxa. If this has a hybridogenic origin, this might be why.
I won't bet my life on it, but my nearest guess (at present) is D. trinervia x D. natalensis. Not a species, but a process towards speciation.
My additional questions to the growers are:
1) can you detect 3 raised nerves on the underside of the lamina?
2) Is the scape central, or arising from the base?
3) Can you show me a seed photo?
4) Can you describe the shape of the stipules?
Ok Christian my good friend, have at it and shoot down my diagnosis!
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
NAN,
I doubt you will ever see this plant described as a species, it published at all it will likely be at the cultivar level. It's not found in habitat, so there can be no type specimen placed. New species are never found in private collections and any attempt to do so would be quickly rejected on review. Latinizations are reserved for publication at the species level, and distribution of material " awaiting publication" with bogus names is not botanically acceptable. These plants are referred to in taxonomy as bogus (meaning not legitimately published), and distribution of bogus material is counterproductive: it generates only dissension and confusion. ANY material worthy of distribution needs to have a reference publication, and publishing at cultivar level before wide distribution makes sense. It doesn't bar publication at a later date at species level.
Last edited:
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Hi,
only a few word for now, i will try to take some pictures tomorrow
As far as i know, Drosera natalensis and Drosera trinervia do not grow together in habitat (i have not checked it, but think this is right). Drosera natalensis is a species from the East while Drosera trinervia is from the West. So, (at least) a natural hybrid can be excluded. Also, i cannot see any nerves on the leafs. to be honest, i can't see D. trinervia in it at all (but maybe i am just blind )
Where do you know from, that this plant is from South Africa? There is a similar one - if not even the same - that is grown as Drosera sp. "Cuba". So, i really would not be sure that the plant is from South Africa! It most likely is, but we do not know it for sure. Please have in mind, that noone, except for the collector (Harald Weiner??) has seen this plant in habitat.
We should have another problem in mind. Maybe the collector has had just bad luck and collected some seeds with a mutation in it. What we (can) grow are always just examples from in many cases much larger populations. Maybe there was a single deformed plant growing next to many normal ones, or such a plant has just shown up in cultivation. As long as we do not know this plant from habitat, we can never be sure, that such a plant naturally exists.
As for the styles of Drosera natalensis. The styles of this D. sp. look exactly what i would expect for D. natalensis (forked from the base and divided again towards the apex). Repeatedly styles would place the plant closer to D. venusta.
Do you have pictures of the D. dielsiana you have grown? Especially seeds and flowers. I have not yet seen a single plant in cultivation, that i would call Drosera dielsiana.
Flower color is for sure one of the worst things to be used for identification. I have seen growing white flowered D. trinervia and purple flowered plants side by side. In other species, the color seems to vary as well. So this is not really helpfull for identification.
More tomorrow!
Christian
only a few word for now, i will try to take some pictures tomorrow
As far as i know, Drosera natalensis and Drosera trinervia do not grow together in habitat (i have not checked it, but think this is right). Drosera natalensis is a species from the East while Drosera trinervia is from the West. So, (at least) a natural hybrid can be excluded. Also, i cannot see any nerves on the leafs. to be honest, i can't see D. trinervia in it at all (but maybe i am just blind
)Where do you know from, that this plant is from South Africa? There is a similar one - if not even the same - that is grown as Drosera sp. "Cuba". So, i really would not be sure that the plant is from South Africa! It most likely is, but we do not know it for sure. Please have in mind, that noone, except for the collector (Harald Weiner??) has seen this plant in habitat.
We should have another problem in mind. Maybe the collector has had just bad luck and collected some seeds with a mutation in it. What we (can) grow are always just examples from in many cases much larger populations. Maybe there was a single deformed plant growing next to many normal ones, or such a plant has just shown up in cultivation. As long as we do not know this plant from habitat, we can never be sure, that such a plant naturally exists.
As for the styles of Drosera natalensis. The styles of this D. sp. look exactly what i would expect for D. natalensis (forked from the base and divided again towards the apex). Repeatedly styles would place the plant closer to D. venusta.
Do you have pictures of the D. dielsiana you have grown? Especially seeds and flowers. I have not yet seen a single plant in cultivation, that i would call Drosera dielsiana.
Flower color is for sure one of the worst things to be used for identification. I have seen growing white flowered D. trinervia and purple flowered plants side by side. In other species, the color seems to vary as well. So this is not really helpfull for identification.
More tomorrow!
Christian
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Thanks for the photos. I would also exclude D. trinervia as a parent based on what I see here.
I don'k know for sure this is a S. Af. plant. Just a gut level feeling, but the flower makes me question that (again just a feeling)
The stipule photos I see from habitat are good for what I look for in D. natalensis (not so much for the sp. S.Af though)
Sp Debbert looks like nothing I know of as D. natalensis, appears closer to D. dielsiana but you have more experience with these taxa than I do.
http://www.vicbrown.cpuk.org/images/Drosera/Dielsiana2.jpg This one looks good to me.
I highly doubt this plant could be from Cuba.
Seems unlikey that D. dielsiana which as a large distribution in Africa should have somehow escaped cultivation doesn't it? What makes you say this? Perhaps we should explore this in another thread ;-)
My conclusion for this plant is a hearty I DUNNO. Have you explored this with Dr. Gibson?
I don'k know for sure this is a S. Af. plant. Just a gut level feeling, but the flower makes me question that (again just a feeling)
The stipule photos I see from habitat are good for what I look for in D. natalensis (not so much for the sp. S.Af though)
Sp Debbert looks like nothing I know of as D. natalensis, appears closer to D. dielsiana but you have more experience with these taxa than I do.
http://www.vicbrown.cpuk.org/images/Drosera/Dielsiana2.jpg This one looks good to me.
I highly doubt this plant could be from Cuba.
Seems unlikey that D. dielsiana which as a large distribution in Africa should have somehow escaped cultivation doesn't it? What makes you say this? Perhaps we should explore this in another thread ;-)
My conclusion for this plant is a hearty I DUNNO. Have you explored this with Dr. Gibson?
Last edited:
Hi,
please have in mind, that i am neiter a botanist nor have anything studied in this direction. I am just interested in these plants and have read a lot about them as well as i had lots of discussion with many experts. An expert may have a completely different opinion than i do have!
If i get the type description of D. dielsiana right, than the plant does only have simple at the base divided styles and egg-shapped seeds. That's both not true for any plant i have so far seen labeled as Drosera dielsiana. I discussed this with some german experts, that share this opinion. So, i am actually convinced, that true D. dielsiana is not widely grown if at all. Your picture looks exactly like the one i know of the many plant i got labeled as D. dielsiana. The following pictures show one of the plants, that i would include to D. natalensis instead of D. dielsiana:
Back to this D. sp. 'South Africa'. I also have absolutely no idea what this is! And as long as this plant is not rediscovered, it doesn't make sense to discuss the identification. We should rather keep it for what it is: a small, very interesting Drosera I also believe, that we will never be able to kategorise every single plant on this planet! Plants are just too variable for this. But we can do our best....
I am sorry, but i do not have contact to Dr. Gibson, but would really like to hear his opinon on this!
Christian
please have in mind, that i am neiter a botanist nor have anything studied in this direction. I am just interested in these plants and have read a lot about them as well as i had lots of discussion with many experts. An expert may have a completely different opinion than i do have!
If i get the type description of D. dielsiana right, than the plant does only have simple at the base divided styles and egg-shapped seeds. That's both not true for any plant i have so far seen labeled as Drosera dielsiana. I discussed this with some german experts, that share this opinion. So, i am actually convinced, that true D. dielsiana is not widely grown if at all. Your picture looks exactly like the one i know of the many plant i got labeled as D. dielsiana. The following pictures show one of the plants, that i would include to D. natalensis instead of D. dielsiana:
Back to this D. sp. 'South Africa'. I also have absolutely no idea what this is! And as long as this plant is not rediscovered, it doesn't make sense to discuss the identification. We should rather keep it for what it is: a small, very interesting Drosera
I also believe, that we will never be able to kategorise every single plant on this planet! Plants are just too variable for this. But we can do our best....I am sorry, but i do not have contact to Dr. Gibson, but would really like to hear his opinon on this!
Christian
Will work on getting some seed pics from the D. dielsiana that i received. About what level of magnification were you using? I have access to a scope at the lab with digital cam ......
looks like:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/seedbank/species/Images/D_dielsiana.jpg
looks like:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/seedbank/species/Images/D_dielsiana.jpg
