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 nidiformis

Since the post on South African species is getting some good results I thought I would open some threads to keep things sorted.

Please add your comments, thoughts and photos/links on Drosera nidiformis to this thread. Thanks!
 
I believe I grow the real nidiformis. Maybe I'll post a pick if I can get my Cam to work!
 
Thanks Tristan, I would really appreciate the photos, as there is some confusion in my mind regarding nidiformis vs. affinis and I am not overly familiar with either species. I use Obermeyer's Droseracea The Flora of Southern Africa Vol. 13

(which is on-line at http://www.omnisterra.com/botany/cp/pictures/drosera/0075.htm for those interested)

and he makes no reference of nidiformis.  Since I do not have Paul Debbert's protologue, I am a little vague.

For a long time nidiformis was considered a variant of dielsiana, and this fact further enhances my confusion!
 
Hi,

I've read about the connection to dielsiana too, which is strange since it seems that the general consensus now is that the plant that was known in cultivation as D. sp. 'MagaliesbUrg'/MagaliesbErg is in fact D. nidiformis. I don't know why this change happened because I can't see how dielsiana can be confused with D. sp. Magaliesberg/burg. I have to add though, that I don't have personal experience with this species.

Regards,

Christer
 
Christer,

Is there any way you can post me a photo of sp. 'MagaliesbUrg'/MagaliesbErg or email me one?  I have never seen this, so I am not sure how to answer.

Check out my post under coccicaulis for a bit of history on how these determinations were made.  Most have very little to do with the overall appearance of the plants, but rather from morphometric measurments.
 
Sorry to post in reply to this old topic.
Does anybody know what colour the flower of D. nidiformis has?

Cheers,
Marcus
 
I remember that the sp.Magaliesburg was renamed D.nidiformis...
 
If I remember correctly mine flowered pink.
 
  • #10
If it makes any difference, my nidiformis seeds came from CEG and look identical to the photo on the first link above, ICPS.
 
  • #11
My D. nidiformis seeds came from the UK CPS seedbank manager. They were submitted to the seed bank as D. madagascariensis, but when germination tested, proved to be D. nidiformis and I was kindly given the pot. They look identical to the ICPS photo too, and flower pink.

Vic
 
  • #12
Hm... so my white-flowered plant is not D. nidiformis after all?
Or is there such a variety?

Best,
Marcus
 
  • #13
I don't know of a white-flowered form. Your plants are most likely to be a tropical form of Drosera intermedia, they can look very similar in foliage and have white flowers.

Vic
 
  • #14
Vic,

thanks for the reply. I already thought of D. intermedia, but I only had temperate forms to compare. The plant looks closer my D. nidiformis.

I have some poor quality pics online. I would be nice if you (all) could have a look:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mr30/cp/greenone.htm

Cheers,
Marcus
 
  • #16
Although I cant make out the styles in the photo provided, it is highly unlikely that this is D. nidiformis, the lamina are too narrowly spathulate and the flower is the wrong color. I would go with D. intermedia as the determination. If a tropical var. (no hibernacula produced in season) then it is likely to be either D. intermedia Cuba or D. intermedia Brazil.
My D. nidiformis have flowered always with a very deep pink, almost magenta colored flower born on very long thin and wiry scapes.

This is an old post. I have since learned that D. nidiformis "sp.Magaliesburg" was distributed and sold for over a decade by several nurseries over the world as D. madagascariensis. This problem is not likely to ever go away at this point, and all we can do is keep awareness up on this subject. For this reason, I am glad this post was brought up again.

D. nidiformis seed distributed by the ICPS produces smallish upright plants which attain a fine red coloration in good light. D. nidiformis "Magaliesburg" produces plants that are larger overall, with a spreading erect habit (but non-caulescent) stem. The color remains greenish even in strong light, the leaves turning only slightly golden with red on the glands only.

There also exists some confusion between D. nidiformis and D. collinsiae (did I spell that right this time?). I have had the latter plants prove to be D. nidiformis "Magaliesburg" as well, but this problem seems not as wide spread.

Regarding D. dielsiana and D. nidiformis: they are indistinguishable from each other based on floristics and seed details. This is a powerful argument for synonomy. You should also be aware that the distinctions between D. dielsiana and D. natalensis are not as black and white as Exel and Laundon make it seem in their protolouge, esp. where their range overlaps. D. dielsiana forms ready hyprids with both D. natalensis and D. nidiformis producing large amounts of fertile seed (Robert Gibson, Ivan Snyder Pers. Comm.) For my part, I have little doubt that there is involvement with either D. dielsiana or D. natalensis (or both) in the "Magaliesburg" D. nidiformis. In the end, we will learn more by studying what makes these numerous variations coming from South Africa the same, not by exploring what sets them apart.

Hopefully the publication of papers on the genetic phylogeny of the genus by Fernando Rivadavia and also by Vitor Olivera de Miranda based on L-ribsomal markers will shed some light on the confusing South African taxonomy. Observational taxonomy seems at best to be problematical within the Natalensis complex.
 
  • #17
Hi dear African-Drosera growers ,

William : maybe you was speaking about D.collinsiae as you spoke about D.dielsiana ? (this is just a question...)
D.collinsiae looks like a "small" D.nidiformis : leaves are shorter ,  also the flower-stalk is shorter , 1/3 smaller......

CP2K : you are right , D.sp.Magaliesburg was attached to the "nidiformis" group , but in my opinion, this plant is a "variation" of D.nidiformis :
- petioles are longer
- color is bronze-gold , while nidiformis is red (under good light conditions)
- under bad light conditions , nidiformis is totaly green , leaves and glands , while the tip of the "magliesburg's" glands are red
- under good light conditions the Magaliesburg's glands never become totaly red , while the nidiformis glands become of a deep red

That's why I named my "Magaliesburg" : D.nidiformis form from Magaliesburg.
Also , the magaliesburg form is larger than the true nidiformis.

The flower colors of D.nidiformis and of the Magaliesburg form are the same , a deep pink

Marcus's plant : I originaly sent this plant to him.....that plant appears in one of my Dionaea pottings...the plants overwintered two times , they died back but appeared again in spring....also , there were many other Droseras growing in these Dionaea pottings , maybe this plant is an hybrid ? I haven't yet identified it 100%.....

Best regards

Patrice
 
  • #18
Hi Patrice,

I am not sure I understand your question....but here are my thoughts, and some thoughts of others regarding these taxa.

I have come to believe that trying to discuss any individual member of any South African Drosera species that exhibits the potential for introgressive hybridization with other compatible plants to be nearly impossible.

Regarding the question of synonymity of D. dielsiana and D. nidiformis:  these were long considered the same species.  
Robert Gibson stated in a past ACPS article:

"Drosera dielsiana is a fairly stable species that occurs within a complex of closely allied species: D. burkeana, D. natalensis, D. nidiformis and D. venusta. It has an identical flower structure and seed to D. nidiformis, from the coastal plains near Durban (Debbert, 1991) but lacks the semi-erect, paddle shaped leaves of that taxon."


I am sure you have noted as well the similarity of seed details between the probable hybrid D. collinsiae (D. burkeana x D. madagascariensis) and D. dielsiana.

To further complicate things Dr. Schlauer stated:

"Even D. dielsiana might be of hybridogenic origin (as an intermediate between D. burkeana  and D. natalensis). Actually, there is a series of transitions from D.
madagascariensis  to D. aliciae, intermediate stations being D. collinsiae, D. nidiformis, D. burkeana, D. dielsiana, D.
venusta, and D. natalensis. This series is not linear and the
mentioned "taxa" do not even represent the whole range of variability that can be observed." Dr. Jan Schlauer (Pers. Com.2002)

My opinion and speculation is they are all recent hybrids that formed from progenitors of a much more diffuse range that became concentrated in South Africa as the continent migrated to the North, where they then formed complex hybrids, some transitional populations of which became stable enough within a specific range to achieve speciation through the mechanisms of sexual recombination, and competition.  Possibly the trend towards apomictic reproduction in the S.A. species (as evidenced by the tendency of flowers to remain closed) is a demonstration of the consolidation of this trend.
 
  • #20
Christian,

yes, I agree - it seems to match! Thanks.

Very nice pictures, by the way!

Best,
Marcus
 
Back
Top