Utricularia sp-1 unknown

[BigCarnivourKid]

I thought I'd read a previous post asking this same queation not too long ago but I can't find it. I've had this Utricularia for a little over a year now and thought it was past time to nail down a proper ID for it, if there is one. The flower is about 5/16th of an inch (8mm) across.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

That's that thing which is often labelled as U. microcaylx (which it isn't). I think the general concensus is some sort of U. livida. I thought I remember saying something about registering it but not sure off the top of my head. It is very pretty ;>

Here is picture of mine:

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

is that copper's sp-1?

 

[BigCarnivourKid]

Alpha, I got it from Jeremiah. He may have got it from Copper though.

Tony, I don't see how they came up with the possible relationship to U. livida. I compared the flower with those on my U. livida, and they looked entirely different. Any idea what criterion they used to come up with that? It is a pretty flower. I'm hoping that more come up this summer. That would be as eye catching as U. sandersonii's little bunny flowers.

 

[jimscott]

I got both Sp. 1 & 2 from Copper. #1 didn't do much of anything. #2 is currently flowering. I posted about #2 and got the same livida response. Neither your #1 nor my #2 look anything like livida. Of course that doesn't solve anything, either. Still, an attractive flower.

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Yes, this is one that I would like to see registered as a cultivar since this is so widespread and is now generating this same question in many collections worldwide. We are lucky to have the forums to be able to discuss this, but it may not always be so. This needs to get published. It would be ironic if someone with the true U. microcalyx were to reject the ID based on consensus that THIS is U. microcalyx.

Yes, this is copper's SP. 1 .

I believe the diagnostic for U. livida is based on the trap morphology, not the flower although there are similarities there too.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

There are similarities if you look carefully. The constriction in the upper corolla, the green spot with the half circle ring of purplish below it, etc. I have looked at the traps as well and they look identical to U. livida (as far as I can tell).


Tamlin I would hope that anyone with the real U. microcalyx has a copy of Taylors and is able to verify it instead of using an incorrectly identified plant as their key!

Tony

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Tony,

I would hope so too, but so many growers would simply go to a site like Bob Z's and base their ID on consensus from the photo's listed there. Consensus like this is a double edged sword...if there are 4 photos showing an incorrectly ID'd plant listed under a heading, and one that is patently different, it's easy to assume the 4 photo's are correctly ID'd and the one is in error, but this is an assumption. Taxonomy is a lot of work and fuss, and with this genus it means using a microscope to get at the bladder morphology (or having Peter Taylor as a buddy, lol).

 

[BobZ]

Quote[/b] (Tamlin Dawnstar @ June 16 2005,10:02)]... so many growers would simply go to a site like Bob Z's and base their ID on consensus from the photo's listed there.

This is precisely why I try to include some guidance and caution for those plants having a confused identification history. And, in the case of livida vs microcalyx, I purposefully included a link to Taylor's drawings comparing the two traps -- the only reliable diagnostic feature because of "the considerable variation in overall inflorescence and flower size" (to quote Taylor).