Drosera coccicaulis

[noah]

to continue discussion about d. coccicaulis

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do the small plants labeled coccicaulis look like the plants that Tony posted? The coloration seems a good indicator as regards this. All the plants that I have seen have this golden color. I believe the seed was in fact coccicaulis, and my correction was based on the fact that coccicaulis is illegitimate, and it seemed to me closest to venusta. It seems that there is always something new to learn about the South Africans![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hi Tamlin,

The plantlets are still very small, right around half an inch across. I was examining them trying to come up with a description and noticed how closely they matched the d. dielsiana 'robust form's growing nearby, which were sowed at the same time. Upon closer examination, the only real difference between the two seems to be that the one labeled coccicaulis was forming somewhat of a "stem", supporting what tony said.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 'description' I read about coccicaulis was that it was very closely related to dielsiana. But doesn't form a flat rosette.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Other than that, they have the same coloration, same leaf hairyness, etc.

At this point the plantlets do not look like tony's pic, mainly because being younger plants their leaves haven't developed as fully and are a little more "spoon" shaped rather than a gradual widening of the leaf as in tony's pic.

cheers,

noah

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

I think upon maturity you will find them identical. Regarding the closeness to dielsiana, I am still inclined to place them closer to what I have seen as venusta, based on the seed morphology as well as the formation of a slight stem. Dielsiana seems to produce flat rosettes. In venusta the leaves are held somewhat upright, although it is by far larger and more robust than coccicaulis.

Robert Gibson has crossed coccicaulis with dielsiana and has gotten fertile seed. This implies the chromosone count for both taxa are the same 2N=40, but this does not imply much as it the karyotype for most of the South Africans. This also raises some questions of uncontrolled fertilization in collections, to further muddy things for those who wish to grow a truly representative specimen. There is always the potential that F2 generations will be hybrids unless care is taken to isolate flowering individuals!

My plants are now flowering, and I will be studying the scape and flowers which I hope will clarify some things.

BTW the appelation "robust" for the dielsiana variant I sent to you seems iffy now at best, My "typical" and "robust" forms now show little difference.

 

[jodajo21]

i am trying to follow all of you guys, with a great deal of ignorance so please bare with me. D.deliesiana and coccicaulis and venusta are almost the same plant Just different varients? D.deliesiana has less of a stem than that of D.coccicaulis, and the leaves are more upright on D.coccicaulis than D.deliesiana whitch hugs the ground a bit.
D.venusta is very similar to coccicaulis but venusta is larger and has less of the red pigment.Is all this correct did i miss somethig vital? oh and the coccicaulis has a slight flange at the base of the leaf causing a slight bulge at the base,correct? does D. deliesiana have this flange?

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

jodajo,

I think you have the idea, except dielsiana is in fact a legitimate species, formally described and with type material in place.  It is fairly stable within the natalensis complex.

Wait, it gets worse, not better!  Dielsiana and nidiformis have identical flower and seed morphology(&#33

, although the plants appear very different in their form: dielsiana being prostrate and nidiformis having an upright form.  There has been much debate over this, but nidiformis has been given legitimate species rank.

Venusta differs from dielsiana in regards to having fewer flowers per scape, in the overall form which is semi-erect, and by smaller seeds.  Robert Gibson notes however that cultivated plants produce longer seeds.  This is an important consideration when making a determination between the two in cultivated material.

Compared to natalensis, Robert states: " In Exell and Laundon (1956; page 219), D. dielsiana was separated from D. natalensis on the basis of seed shape and length. The seeds of D. dielsiana were described as “ovoid, 0.3-0.4x0.2 mm” whilst those of D. natalensis were described as “ellipsoid-fusiform, 0.5-0.6 mm long …0.2 mm broad, black”.  Sometimes these small differences can be used to demonstrate specific difference: if enough field work has been done to warrant it.

Plants of natalensis, venusta, nidiformis, burkeana, and dielsiana form a complex, as all occur within the same range.  Ivan Snyder has demonstrated hybrids of dielsiana with both nidiformis and natalensis.  These hybrids are in turn fertile, so backcrosses within the population can result in complex hybrids.

Without careful morphometric measurement of seeds, and small details such as the degree of division of the styles, they are all fairly difficult to tell apart, just by looking at them.  I think this is what I would like to do when I grow up