Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 12:55:46 EDT From: PTemple001@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2921$foo@default> Subject: Re: Pings; plantlets and forked spurs
Nick
> My Pinguicula heterophylla has produced an offset from the tip of an old
> leaf that bent over and touched the substrate. I knew that this
> behavior was common in Pinguicula primuliflora but haven't noticed it in
> any other of my Mexican pings. Is it more common than I realized?
The behaviour you noticed is "normal". In the wild, most examples of this
plant normally produce no such daughter plants. However, a small percentage
of plants do have this capability. It is clearly a normal mutation that occurs
and reoccurs spontaneously. You would expect such a mutation to gradually
take over as it clearly outperforms other plants in vegetative propogation.
However, in most cases, the new daughter plantlets are unable to root without
help. In the wild, the natural habitat is a calcareous soil (this species
actually prefers calcium in the soil), a hard soil, and therefore rarely if
ever do the plantlets root. In my collection, such plantlets only root if I
take the trouble to assist them. Much to the amusement (I assume) of
taxonomists like Jan Schlauer, I once published details of this plant calling
it P. alfredae. It has since reapperaed under this name or as P. heterophylla
"alfredae" or with alfredae taked on in some other way. However, there are no
known subspecies, varieties, forms or cultivars of this species so the correct
name remains P. heterophylla no matter whether you have a plant producing
plantlets or not. Oh, a last thought on this; no-one that I know of has ever
seen a P. heterophylla leaf produce more than one plantlet per leaf tip.
Anyone unfamiliar with this plant can see an example of it in Carnivorous
Plants listed as P. alfredae (yes, I know I know!) (and the book is now out of
print so I'm expecting Australia to value it in the millions soon, whereapon I
will sell my copy and retire!) by, hold on a moment while I remember who - oh
yes, by Paul Temple. Although it is very unclear in the photo (it was the
first published photo of P. heteophylla so don't complain!), the leaf on the
extreme right bears a plantlet as does the central leaf pointing away from
camera (rootlets can just be seen). Sorry, I don't know if photos of this
plant can be seen on Barry's excellent Web site. Long time since I looked!
> Flowers of Pinguicula moranensis 'G' from Peter D'Amato invariably seem
> to have a tiny fork at the tip of the nectar spur. Several other
> unnamed clones of Pinguicula moranensis that I grow have simple pointed
> spurs. Is the fork just an oddity of this clone, or might it be
> indicative of more important differences between plants labeled P.
> moranensis?
I haven't seen flowers of this "G", as the plant I imported from the USA died
- a problem withplants stressed by post. (why is it labelled "G"???)
However, I do have other P. moranensis plants. I can't recall that any of my
P. moranensis plants have forked spurs. (Occassionally, any plant can be
mutated by strss and produce a change that does not repeat in it's offspring.
e.g. I've grown Dionaea with two traps on a leaf, a Ping with two complete
spurs, etc., but all wer one off mutations that could not be retained through
propogation. Perhaps someone can remind ius of the name for this type of
mutation?) If this is always present I suspect it would be an example of a
clear indicator. However, P. moranensis is a "complex", i.e. a species
including a very wide variety of form. Many people attempt to separate out
plants based on their slight difference from what they presumably decide
themselves is the normal, but all such to date have been improperly named and
the species remains P. moranensis with no separation into lower taxa (unless
one of our taxonomists cares to correct me - I easily lose touch with the rate
of Ping taxonomy!!!).
As far as the naked eye is concerned, the differences between plants of this
species include great differences in overall size, greatly differing flower
stalk lengths, same with spurs, about every shade of colour from white through
to dark purple flowers, leaves varyng from reddish to that lime green Ping
colour that is so representative of most pings, petal forms differ both in
size and shape, etc., etc., etc. There are even differences in how neat or
untidy the winter leaves become, some plants forming tight tidy winter
rosettes, some under or level with the ground, and others forming a mess of
leaves that point in all directions and stay well above ground. (My avoidance
of botanical terms here is deliberate.) This is all natural variation within
the species. However, naming is further complicated as frequently new species
get lumped in with P. moranensis until someone looks a little closer. as far
as I know the complex has not been reviewed since Casper's excellent work
(1966) and a great deal more variations have been identified since then. No
doubt the complex, if not the genus, will be reviewed soon.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:36 PST