>New species!! YES!!! What are the goals of DNA sequencing, to
>find out what plants are closer related?
I hope to get better insight into the relationships between
the South American Drosera taxa, to not only see which are more closely
related but also HOW closely related. Hopefully afterwards I'll be able to
organize the taxa better at the specific and subspecific level.
To Loyd!
Greetings Loyd! How are ya? Interesting comments on the Utrics,
let's see if I can answer them. I would first of all like to stress the
point that Utric taxonomy is a hell of a job and I seriously think that
anyone considering to undertake Utric taxonomy should go look for a
shrink! Luckily there are a few crazy people who undertake this task and
we are all thanful for the fantastic work of Peter Taylor in organizing
this genus. Though it did take several decades to complete and most likely
left him with severe traumas.
But seriously, after 6 years of intensive CP studies in the
Brazilian outback, I feel I have "grasped" the local Drosera and
Genlisea, getting what I feel was a good grip on how their taxonomy
works and how they functioned in nature. By this I mean that I could
make small predictions for the species, expecting certain characteristics
to be present in determined habitats, I could identify ecological
abnormalities easily in the field and even in battered herbarium
specimens, and could even predict where new subspecies would be most
likely to occur, then go out, and find them.
Yet Utrics are a whole different story. First of all, there are
many more species to be found in Brazil (more or less 60, including a few
which are only known from Venezuela in areas close to the border with
Brazil and which most likely can also be found in the latter) then there
are of Drosera and Genlisea. I've seen more or less 40 Utric species in
the wild in Brazil and some were relatively very uniform
morphologically (at least at the populations where I saw them), such as
U.nana, U.hispida, U.praelonga, U.hydrocarpa, U.breviscapa, and others.
Yet most species usually showed a spectrum of variation, enough to make
anyone go mad over. Usually the variations showed when comparing different
populations, but often in one area you could find the whole range of
variation, completely wrecking your dreams of ever being able to
separate a particular species into several subspecies.
This was the case with U.amethystina. Each mountain range I
visited usually had its unique form of U.amethystina. It varied from
large to small, annual to perennial, bare rocks to swampy habitats, and
flowers ranged from bright yellow to white to deep purple-violet. The only
problem is that there is one place called the Chapada dos Veadeiros in
central Brazil where almost all these variations could be found! Every 50m
I walked in this region I would come across a population different from
the one right before, showing that at least in part the differences were
due to ecological factors. Just how much is the big mystery. Though I
still believe that at least 2 of the variations (not present in that
region) may be eligible for subspecific classification at least.
> U.blanchetii white flower - this is a beautiful plant,
> lowerlip white with a yellow spot, upperlip white with dark
> purple stripes. Reading through Peter Taylors book this
> colouration is similar to that of the related species
> U.parthenopipes. Taylor mentions other differences between
> U.parthenopipes and U.blanchetii as being the different
> shaped upper lip (transversely elliptic or sub reniform in
> U.blanchetii, and broadly obovate-cuneate in
> U.parthenopipes), differences in the spur and smaller
> corolla in U.parthenopipes.
> The problem I have is this, the upperlips of my purple
> flowered and white flowered U.blanchetii show considerable
> variation - some fit into Taylors description of
> U.blanchetii others into the description of U.parthenopipes.
> The main difference between the white and purple flower
> forms (other than the flower colour of coarse!) is the white
> flowers are slightly smaller. Fernando are you familiar with
> U.parthenopipes and if so how does this differ from the
> white flowered U.blanchetii?
>
U.blanchetii is endemic to the central mountains of the
northeastern state of Bahia in Brazil. In the wild it grows as an annual,
though in cultivation as a perennial. In July of last year I went to a
town called Mucuge in the southern range of this species. I was surprised
to find on my first walk, heading north from the town, that all the
U.blanchetii were white! Not completely white though. The upper lip had
the purple stripes you mentioned above, but what I also observed was
that the lower lip was apparently never completely white (excepting the
orange-yellow stripe at the base). There were usually 3 deep puple spots
arranged in a semi-circle around the yellow stripe. Of course at first I
was in doubt if it really was this species, since I had never seen this
variation nor was it mentioned in Taylor's book.
When I headed in the opposite direction the next day I found the
normal purplish U.blanchetii growing by streams in shadier habitats. They
had larger flowers and the scapes were more delicate and longer. I had
already seen this with a related species (U.laciniata), where the plants
in shady conditions showed these same characteristics while the ones in
drier sunnier sites were almost white-flowered and stockier. So no
surprise here, it could easily be explained by ecological factors.
Then on the 3rd and last day I found an area where not only these
2 forms grew together, but there were also all possible intermediate forms
among them. So in the end I wasn't sure anymore if there were actually 2
different varieties adapted to different habitats and which in some places
formed hybrid swarms or if it was just a polymorphic species which reacted
differently to different habitats. I guess maybe the plants in cultivation
might help solve this question. The seeds you received were collected on
the first day, where there were only the white ones. I'm very happy to
hear of your success with this plant! Congratulations Loyd!!
As to U.parthenopipes, the 2 species are very similar
morphologically in Taylor's book, but in the wild very different. The
U.parthenopipes I found were always in very shady habitats, usually on wet
rocks next to waterfalls. The flower scapes were much more delicate and
the flowers were smaller (especially the upper lip). Though in cultivation
the scapes were erect, in the wild they were often decumbent on the wet
rocks. I don't remember well at the moment, I'll have to check my diary
from that trip, but I think I did see an occasional upper lip that had
purplish veins (mentioned in Taylor's book). In Mucuge I did find a small
U.parthenopipes-like species growing on wet rocks in sunny locations which
had no flowers open, but the ones about to open were purplish. So for
this species it may be the opposite than for U.blanchetii: white in the
shade and purplish in sunny spots. Yet on none of the white
U.parthenopipes were there purple spots on the lower lip.
There is a U.parthenopipes-like plant at the Caraca Mts.
("Kahrahssah") in central M.Gerais state, a few hundred km south from the
U.parthenopipes range (which coincides with that of U.blanchetti and
U.flaccida in Bahia) which has lilac flowers. Taylor mentions it in his
book, saying it may be U.parthenopipes, but I don't believe so.
Anyways, to try and answer your question, I think what you might
have in your collection are 2 forms of U.blanchetii at the most, but not
U.parthenopipes. So it seems that the upper corolla lip is maybe not a
good characteristic, yet there is still trap and spur shapes to try
(though neither of these 2 seem to be very clear either). Maybe bracts
would be the best to analyze.
> Another Brazilian I have grown from seed is U.hispida, and I
> have small plants from seed from 2 different locations. What
> is interesting about these small plants is that they have
> two types of leaves like U.praelonga (in many respects they
> are like a miniature version of U.praelonga). Some leaves
> are ovoid in shape where as others are grass like on the
> same plant. My second question again arises from reading
> Taylor. In his discussion on U.hispida he states ' Specimens
> bearing the two types of leaf are not common and have been
> seen only from Surinam, where they grew on granitic rocks'.
> Is this phenomena that unusual or is it just the case that
> the seedlings/ small plants display both leaf types whereas
> the adult plants generally don't ?
I found this species to be very widespread in Brazil yet not
variable. The flower colors did vary a little between plants in the same
population and sometimes between different areas, but these differences
were very slight. I never did see any with hairy peduncles, which Taylor
mentions. I do believe I did find hybrids between this species and it's
close relative U.praelonga. I now see that Taylor mentions intermediate
plants described as U.picta, and which may be the hybrids mentioned. As to
the small leaves, I think these are mostly present on young specimens. But
they are not an abnormality. I can easily understand why they are only
present in one of the collections seen by Peter Taylor, due to the habitat
it and U.praelonga are found (thick grasses in boggy habitats). In fact,
it's surprising there were any leaves at all for him to analyze! In my
young, overly enthusiastic days of CP hunting I once decided to find some
U.praelonga leaves among the grasses, where there were scapes. After much
work I did come up with several leaves (which are almost indistinguishable
from the long grass blades), but with U.hispida I'd be surprised if I saw
more than a few leaves in all the dozens of sites I found for this
species. They are thinner than those of U.praelonga and I was happy enough
to see them in cultivation.
Maybe to get the plants flowering in cultivation you would have to
plant them with some kind of large bog-dweling grass. I have noticed with
several Utrics in the same kinds of habitats that the flower scapes
usually arise from the center of the grass bundles, where the stolons are
slightly more elevated and drier.
All the Best,
Fernando Rivadavia
Tokyo, Japan