What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Gemmae i sent of drosera hyperostigma

T

Tamlin Dawnstar

My apologies to all who received Drosera hyperostigma gemmae from me since last season. The plants recently flowered, and the flower does not conform to hyperostigma. These plants were purchased, and I assumed they were as claimed. My source did not have adequate resources to key the material before it was sold, and I assumed it was correctly ID'd. If you received this species from me, please change your labels. I suggest D. palacea with a question mark: this is the closest determination I can arrive at, and my guess is confirmed by another grower of these plants. Pygmy Drosera are very difficult to identify when out of flower, so mistakes can happen. I will keep all updated as to my progress in identifying this beautiful plant.

I currently have abundant gemmae of this if anyone wishes some, (considering the ID problem). If you are not too hung up on accurate names, the gemmae is available for a SASE.

Sorry again for the problem.
 
Ditto on that. At least they're not D.spatulata or tokaiensis
smile.gif

I'd hesitate before labelling them "paleacea" though, they look a lot like the "D.roseana" I have seen. Of course, I have seen neither in flower from what I recall, plus I am no expert on pygmy Drosera IDs. The plants I have labelled paleacea flower frequently, even without much season fluctuation.
 
Tamlin,

What color are the flowers? These guys have not yet flowered for me, but they are producing gemmae.

The D."not hyperostigma" does not look anything like the roseanas or palacea ssp. trichocaulis that I grow. Maybe it is stelliflora.
 
Drosera roseana is considered a sub-species of Drosera paleacea, as is Drosera stelliflora, leioblastus, and trichocaulis.  I would not hesitate to change labels as far as paleacea, but wait on the ssp. until I can do some research.

 The closest determination I can reach is to exclude the possibility of ssp. stelliflora as the petals are not lanceolate, but rather, obovate.

Drosera paleacea ssp. leioblastus has glandular hairs on the scapes.  I did not note this in these plants.

Drosera paleacea ssp. trichocaulis has non glandular hairs.  This doesn't fit the bill either, but is closer.

Drosera paleacea ssp. paleacea is a distinctly different color overall, and the stipules differ.

I am familiar with ssp. roseana, and the plant in many ways conforms to this ssp., esp. regarding flower color. I tend to lean in this direction, esp. after seeing the flower photos online.

I will continue to try to remedy this unfortunate problem, and will keep you posted of what I am able to come up with.
 
What I have labelled stelliflora is quite different from what I have labelled roseana and both are easy for me to tell apart. However, the "not hyperostigma" looks very similar (possibly identical - id have to take a better look?) to roseana. Both my "roseana" and "stelliflora", without flowers, also look like the photos in Lowrie's volume 2, which is a must have if youre going to do any pygmy ID work. If I had this book sooner, I would not have believed this plant to be hyperostigma and would have had doubts about its ID even before anyone saw it flower.
 
Just a thought, but perhaps you should acquire these essential tools *before* you sell the material in the future, it would certainly be more effective than hindsight.

Since the plants produced gemmae from last October to Early July this year, I sent this material freely to some 30 growers, most of whom I can't recall. They in turn will probably spread the error exponentially.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just a thought, but perhaps you should acquire these essential tools *before* you sell the material in the future, it would certainly be more effective than hindsight.

Since the plants produced gemmae from last October to Early July this year, I sent this material freely to some 30 growers, most of whom I can't recall.  They in turn will probably spread the error exponentially.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Have you ever tried to find a copy of Allen Lowrie's Volume 2?
I looked for a long time before I found someone with a copy he didn't want anymore.

Just a thought, but I am quite surprised that *you* of all people made the same mistake of accepting this ID before verifying it.  Perhaps *you* should have acquired the same tools before sending your gemmae out.  There's obviously no 1 person to blame for this mixup.
I originally received more gemmae of this plant than I hoped for and, as usual, I sent out the spare plants before they reached maturity.  It was either find new homes for the spares which I had no room for or toss them in the trash.
There's no sense in your beating this one to death, it was an honest mistake which you feel was an easy one to make and made yourself, so let it go.  There are plenty of commercial nurseries who you can blame for a lot more obvious and less forgiveable (and possibly even intentional) misidentification.
 
Careful, we've been down this road before.

This is a good reason to start keeping better records. Most of the utric growers I know keep extensive records of where plants came from, probably for just such a reason. Utrics are even harder to ID out of flower than pygmies. It is almost inevitable that some plants will be misidentified, in fact, most of my trading negotiations begin with a discussion of each others' condifidence in the correct identification of tricky species.
 
  • #10
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Careful, we've been down this road before.

This is a good reason to start keeping better records. Most of the utric growers I know keep extensive records of where plants came from, probably for just such a reason. Utrics are even harder to ID out of flower than pygmies. It is almost inevitable that some plants will be misidentified, in fact, most of my trading negotiations begin with a discussion of each others' condifidence in the correct identification of tricky species.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yup, I thought I recognized the scenery....

I feel for you - Utric ID must be tricky!
 
  • #11
Hmmm...i recived a few gemmae from Tamlin of hyperostigma. Hmmm..mine are kinda wierd. They didnt produce and leaves with tenticles until they were on a short stalk. Is that typical of whatever sp. you guys think it is?
 
  • #12
hi! I know EVERYONE is smiling in this topic right?
smile.gif
 
  • #13
Ceph88,

Howdy - I have that happen with various species of gemmae if they where not getting enough light, they produced tall stems and no true leaves, just little projections from the stem. I ended up moving them under a sunstick and that caused them to start growing correctly.

Cheers,
 
  • #14
Some pygmy forms are flat, some look like as round as marbles when mature, Some really do form stems, and these get taller as seasons progress. Drosera palacea ssp. roseana is a stem forming type even in good light, although the stem is not tall.
 
  • #15
RamPuppy,

I am smiling as much as I can be after deleting a species from my grow list! I hate it when that happens, but at least I didn't kill this one. In fact, I expect to have thousands of gemmae from it. I am now searching for the true hyperostigma. Hopefully I will find it this season.
 
  • #16
:-\ I wish I could pull one out of my pocket for you.
 
  • #17
wow, i never knew that about gemmae, thanks for the info pete.
 
  • #18
According to the CP Database, D. roseana and D. palacea ssp. roseana are the same. Does anyone have an opinion on this?
 
  • #19
They are not the same, but rather subspecies.  There is D. paleacea ssp. paleacea, D. paleacea ssp. roseana, D. paleacea ssp. stelliflora, D. paleacea ssp. trichocaulis, and D. paleacea ssp. leioblastus according to the determination of Dr. Jan Schlauer.
 
  • #20
But D. roseana is equivalent to D. palacea ssp. roseana, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top