Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:11:09 -0500 (EST) From: Derek Glidden <dglidden@geocities.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg4139$foo@default> Subject: Re: D.cap. vs. D.rot.
mybog@aol.com writes:
> I've read with some amusement the recent volleys regarding D. cap. vs D.
> rot. at a "bog of opportunity" in N. CA. There are a few points that
> have been overlooked in this discussion.
Hmmm, I'm not sure what you mean about "overlooked" except that nobody's
brought up a couple of the points here yet, and the others have been.
> 1. D.r. does not normally grow as an aquatic plant. I have traveled
> thousands of miles throughout the western US and have never seen it
> growing this way, but rather it is always attached to substrate such as
> logs, sphagnum, sedges, or occasional lake shorelines. Did you notice
> during your visit just where the D.r. seemed to be most comfortable and
> predominant, and only rarely near the the D. c., eh?
No, not "aquatic" - just "in the water" which, I guess, would mean
"aquatic" but not in the sense of say, an aquatic Utric. I have photos
online at
http://www.mkintl.com/~dglidden/darlingtonia/
that show the "aquatic" and the terrestrial habits of the D.rotundifolias
at this site. They almost certainly weren't "free-floating" in the sense
that they could have set sail on a large lake without any discomfort, but
they were definitely in a much wetter environment than at least *I*
expected to see them. They grew much thicker on the ground, but much
larger in the water.
There were areas that they grew along with D.capensis, but they were
certainly not as thick in those areas, at least from my observations.
> 2. The habitat at this intro site is unique in my travels because of the
> podzolized soils at this site, a rare thing in the western US.
I'll take your word for it. :)
Are you saying this would have an effect on D.capensis vs. D.rotundifolia
growth patterns?
> 3. Also the hand of man has interferred with any kind of "normal" cp
> distribution here, and that may have more to do with the D.r-D.c. ratios
> than anything else.
Well, this is a certainty, since D.capensis is not at all native to this
site, much less this country.
> 4. If D.c. does in fact possess a growth inhibitor this shouldn't be too
> difficult to test in a potted situation. Of course, then one could test
> it against a variety of sundews or even other cps!
I, for one, have at least a few pots where this little "experiment" is
going on entirely without my blessing and as soon as I have the time,
it's going to stop! :)
I don't have enough D.rotundifolia (I don't have more than one or two of
very many plants at all *except* D.capensis and U.subulata) to try this
myself, and even so, it may be a "useless" effort in the sense that my
terrarium conditions are nothing at all like the conditions in the bog
in which these plants are growing, so there would be a whole different set
of variables involved.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Derek Glidden dglidden@geocities.com
Web development, database, graphics and general plumbing
Linux, FreeBSD, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, PHP (Say No to NT!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:13 PST