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!

Drosera natalensis "coccicaulis"

  • #21
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.
 
  • #23
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?
 
  • #24
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".
 
  • #25
Reasonable enough suggestion with plants of uncertain location and parentage and coccicaulis certainly is that. What would you suggest for naming them until they formally published as a cultivar.
 
  • #26
Well, short term naming "Sp." isn't so much of a problem, especially if the material is recorded SOMEWHERE: a web site, a society journal travelouge, anything where the information can be gotten to.  But when the material has circulated for years or decades without any reference, then the problem gets worse.  Now that there is a system created that will allow for legitimate publication by ICBN regulations it should be used in a timely manner.  So, I go to South Africa, find a desirable looking plant.  I write about it, giving it a name which I intend to call it by when I publish it formally.  I also publish a photo, or place it on my website BEFORE I begin to redistribute it.  I sit down for 15 mins and write a brief description of what makes it "special", photograph those special qualities, and send it to a publication like the CPN, or the UK Journal, or the ACPS Journal.  Once it is published, I make an public announcement about the fact, and ask that people update their labels and drop the "SP".  Now there is a way to answer the question "What is Drosera SP. Mumbojumbo" because I have established what it IS, not what it "might be".  I have a photo, and a description I can refer someone who asks this question to.  If their plant looks like the standard and exactly matches the written description, it is Drosera 'Mumbojumbo', if it does not, then it isn't.

If I later decide to formally publish this as a species with a protolouge, I change the cultivar name to a Latin Scientific name: Drosera rumtumtorium, and mention its former discovery and cultivar status in the discussion part of the Species Novae protolouge which needs be in Latin, and must have a specimen herborized.  Formal Species Novae publication is a bit more demanding than a cultivar description which requires only a description, photo, short history, and reproduction method to maintain the special character.

That would be how I would do it.
 
  • #27
Very educative William. Now, what do you think about making a website specially for this purpose??
 
  • #28
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Khoas @ May 01 2004,11:11)]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.  
sad.gif
Well mid july I don`t know if thats breeding season? Lol. my birthday is on july 17th so it was the worst b-day present ever!
 
  • #29
D. natalensis it is! What is D. cuba I?
 
  • #30
Never got hold any thing I can match Cuba I to. It not intermedia form. Speaking of anyone know anything about Drosera Sp. Synderi. From I seen a self fertile hybrid between capillaris and intermedia would be a good bet. The seeds pods shape and the central mid rib are very capillaris in nature while the shape of leaves and the angle they are held at is very intermedia
 
  • #31
D X snyderi= D. dielsiana x D. nidiformis.

The plants I grow as D. sp. Cuba 1 look like a small form of D. intermedia.
 
  • #32
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Seandew @ May 04 2004,10:32)]D X snyderi= D. dielsiana x D. nidiformis.

The plants I grow as D. sp. Cuba 1 look like a small form of D. intermedia.
Yet again - thanx!
 
  • #33
Hey Sebastian, you read that? Drosera "Cuba"! Talk about a small world, ha ha ha! Let me ask a question about this plant. Do you notice that a single bud always froms midway down on the flowerscape, with additional and more numerous buds are held higher up on the scape? Sebastian, can you post a photo of your plant and the scape, or grant me permission and I will do it. I suggest you start a thread on this

If it is what I think it is, this plant just recently came to my attention, and it is a very interesting plant indeed! More to follow on this, and we might have a very interesting discussion coming up!
 
  • #34
Hi, William. Interesting think, indeed. I will post the pics and start a new thread later today.
 
  • #35
Seandew,
Got dielsiana x nidiformis (I think), certain looks like it got dielsiana in it and what I have labelled as Sp. Synderi look different, especially one, it got capillaris in it for sure. The other I got labelled as Sp. Synderi look like the dread spat. Looks like I am swapping labels again
sad.gif
 
  • #36
If it really does have D. capillaris in it, it is not Ivan's hybrid.  May I ask what leads you to think that D. capillaris is involved?
I am not sure if fertile seed would result from either South African species (N = 40)  crossed with D. capillaris (N = 20)
I think I may have the karyotypes right for these species, but I may be wrong.

I grow two different hybrids.   One was made by Ivan, and the other by your own Greg Bourke.  I may have ended up with the same cross through random uncontrolled fertilization  since my F2 plants very closely resemble both of the others.

Drosera_nidiformis_x_dielsiana_GB1_043004_1.sized.jpg
 
Back
Top