Re: Image of the day - 2013

[Hoy]

Brian, you are an artist!

[McGregor]

Tim

Your comment on Pulsatilla/Anemone shows the problems of taxonomy more than anything else. Some people maintain Pulsatilla as a genus, others want to sink the whole genus into Anemone. And some species within Pulsatilla are more Anemone-like than others. John Bradshaw did list Anemone occidentalis but he also listed Pulsatilla patens this year.

I find it a really helpful genus with the species usually listed in it incl. P. patens having more in common with each other than with other Anemone.

Flora of North America (online at http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=101733) include the following comment:

The taxonomy of Anemone continues to be problematic. Anemone occidentalis and A . patens var. multifida (the first two taxa in this treatment) are frequently placed in the genus Pulsatilla Miller on the basis of the long plumose achene beaks, and A . acutiloba and A . americana (the last two taxa in this treatment) in the genus Hepatica Miller, primarily on the basis of the involucre immediately subtending the flower and the lobed, persistent leaves. Recent phylogenetic analyses of Anemone in the broad sense, however, indicate that both Pulsatilla and Hepatica should be subsumed within Anemone .

The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/search?q=pulsatilla) is progressively being used by the AGS and RHS as a absolute reference but it is hopeless for such issues with inconsistent treatment, and basing judgement on this is at the moment fraught with problems. For Pulsatilla-Anemone, for example, they maintain Pulsatilla with P. ajanensis, P. albana, P. ambigua, P. armena, P. aurea, P. campanella, P. cernua, P.chinensis, P. dahurica, P. grandis, P. kostyczewii, P. millefolium, P. nigricans, P. sukaczewii, P. tenuiloba, P. turczaninovii, P. violacea, P. wallichiana but not among many others P. patens and P. vulgaris. Major problem with this (and it leaves anybody using it very exposed to error) is that it is being compiled by two different sets of people.

At the ,moment I am keeping Pulsatilla and P. patens is definitely in for me.

[Tim Ingram]

I can't see these sort of problems ever being resolved because at one level plants can be genetically fingerprinted and assigned relationships in this way; at another they are viewed and enjoyed by gardeners who look at them in the ways that taxonomists always have (but less rigorously because our experience is of fewer plants); and in another living things are dynamic and evolving and with plants especially there can be immense hybridisation and complex changes in ploidy levels within the same species. When genera such as Cimicifuga and Actaea are made as one a lot of gardeners (let alone botanists) must be confused. From a gardeners point of view it makes little sense to incorporate Pulsatilla into Anemone, even if there might be a lot of debate about individual cases. Philosophically it really comes down to what value and information you gain from a 'name' - as much as what scientific basis it has.

[McDonough]

I've come to the conclusion current day taxonomy is "out of order".  Example, where Actaea subsumes Cimicifuga, it makes no sense, I stand by what I said in another topic: "YES I've gone rogue and belligerently maintain Cimicifuga (dry capsules, a follicle) and Actaea (fleshy fruits, a berry) as distinctly separate genera".
http://nargs.org/smf/index.php?topic=728.msg11398#msg11398

There is no level of consistency in these taxonomic upheavals. On one hand, North American asters are relegated to 6 or more other genera based on minute differences with involucre bracts, on the other hand two genera are combined into one (the Cimicifuga/Actaea example) apparently ignoring the glaringly bold contradiction that one produces seed in dry follicles and the other makes seed in plump fruits.

When I see bizarre things like Lewisia tweedyi singularly lumped into Cistanthe, the now accepted genus name holding former genus Calyptridium (but with at least one Calandrina thrown in for good measure), it makes one wonder if the taxonomists are sipping peyote tea.

To get back on track with "Image of the Day", I hark back to a fine spring day in May, with Trillium grandiflorum 'Multiplex' flowering with Trillium rugelii leaves to the upper left (white flowers hidden by the foliage in an overhead view)

[Gordon]

What a greatclump of Trillium grandiflorum! What is the sessile species to the right of grandiflorum? I remember visiting the original Heronswood Nursery near Kingston WA, years ago and seeing my first clump of mature Trillium chloropetalum in bloom. I've been hunting for a plant of my own ever since! This year I will add plain ordinaryT. grandiflorum and T. luteum to the garden, to live alongside T. erectum and T. kurabiyashi. Maybe this will be the year I discover Trillium undulatum in our woodland?

[McDonough]

What a greatclump of Trillium grandiflorum! What is the sessile species to the right of grandiflorum?

That would be Trillium decipiens.  Here are two photos from different angles. You'll notice two different color forms, and variable mottling on all three.  This particular bed, under a large Magnolia 'Forrest Pink', is home to a number of Trillium, and lots and lots of Trillium seedlings coming along from direct in situ seed sowing.



On these two Trillium decipiens forms, the coppery olive color one possessed an unusual aroma that was hard to pin point.  Had a discussion about this point on Pacific Bulb Society, with John Lonsdale (from whence my plants came from), but couldn't remember the exact details, but a google search came up with two short discussion entries on The Scent of Trilliums:
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbslist/2006-May/8q6n241vs4f65f9u6140ihcad5.html
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbslist/2006-May/kr3vdd09mtmc37vof5h5k9pf14.html#


Here's another favorite, Trillium lancifolium, another southeastern US species.  Slowly but surely it is seeding around a bit.

[cohan]

Love them all, Mark! The mottled leaves are awesome.. the only trilliums I have so far are small seedlings of T erectum and maybe grandiflorum... hope to change that with time..

[McDonough]

Love them all, Mark! The mottled leaves are awesome.. the only trilliums I have so far are small seedlings of T erectum and maybe grandiflorum... hope to change that with time..

Can't go wrong with grandiflorum and erectum, I think all trillium are supreme creatures for the woodland.  I actually don't have any T. erectum in my garden, still need to add more trilliums.

They're not that hard from seed, but they take 5-7 years to flower, and a few more years to bulk up, all a rather slow proposition. Just came across a photo of Trillium decipiens taken on 4-21-2008; gee, with luck I might see one bloom in a couple years.

[cohan]

The hard part- besides waiting, which doesn't bother me so much- have enough things going on and you aren't too impatient about any one- is getting fresh viable seed! The ones I had so far came from Kristl- the one commercial source I know of offhand that is safe for ephemeral seed. Anyone know other sources that either moist pack or send out ephemeral seed fresh from harvest? (besides private trades, I mean)

[cohan]

I was digging for pics of Spiranthes for the terrestrial orchids thread, and in the same album (from a 2010 bike ride up the road) I found this, among many other Aster spp photos-- many with some pollinator or other..
Another fave, an occasional local, Apocynum androsaemifolium, this is the closest I've come to seeds, and they weren't ripe. The other patch I know of, I have never found seeds on- wonder if it's all one plant? I do want a patch of this on my property (yes, not near anything small and delicate though it is far from the most aggressive plant around here) I like it all year, but it may be at its nicest in its early fall colour while most things are still green..

[Tim Ingram]

Cohan - I hadn't heard of Apocynum before though am very interested in species of Asclepias. The fall foliage is as good as Vincetoxicum but I don't suppose many gardeners grow either. It's actually quite an attractive flowering plant from pictures I've looked at on the web - but how much is it likely to spread?

[Hoy]

I am inclined to do what Mark does, refuse to use the new Latin names at least for a while. I think we are in the middle of a transition from the old way of using (minute) physical observable traits to genetic ones. Until that is more consistent for all the taxonomy I think it will be a little messy.

Nice Trilliums Mark! I have several pots with seedlings now. They sprouted outside during the mild spell around Xmas and I had to bring them inside. Hope they survive the next 5 years!

Cohan, Apocynum looks exciting!

[McDonough]

A word of warning with Apocynum androsaemifolium, take note of its common name: Spreading Dogbane
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=APAN2&mapType=nativity&photoID=apan2_002_ahp.tif

In the USDA link, it says "This plant can be weedy or invasive according to the authoritative sources noted below" (then gives a number of links).

It is a pretty plant when in full flower, but the underground rhizomes run deep, then pop up new shoots several feet away, its not possible to actually get the horizontal root when pulling out unwanted vigorous shoots.  I'm pulling them out all the time.  Here, the plants look pretty as they start flowering, but becomes decimated and unsightly from some sort of caterpillar that devours the foliage.

According to the USDA, there are many synonyms, so perhaps the plant is variable geographically.

[Gordon]

There is a large patch of Apocynum androsaemifolium growing just a block away from home. It is one of those plants I prefer to enjoy in situ, rather than adding it to a garden. Mark's caution about its spreading nature is good advice! Now, if someone could share a foolproof way to eradicate Campanula rapunculoides, I'd be a happy camper! I can't believe some seedhouses still sell this thug!

[cohan]

Re: names- the new genetic studies are promising but still have some of the same limitations as physical studies, such as the samples used, the things the researchers are looking for etc; an example I think I've mentioned before is with the Aloids (Aloe, Haworthia, Gasteria etc) in South Africa.There is huge disagreement in this group of plants- Haworthia has been divided into as many as 600sp and as few as 60 or less by various people, and recent genetic studies have done little to clarify the issue. How do you even get adequate sampling in a genus where hundreds of different populations separated by a few kilometres are often very physically divergent and indeterminately related?

Re:Apocynum Mark's cautions are good to keep in mind, especially for anyone looking at growing the plant outside its natural range. Here it's an occasional native, and I have seen a couple of extensive patches in roadsides, but no more so than many other things which are much more common. I suspect planting it in cultivated soil with no competition would turn it into an entirely different beast. I'd like to get some on my acreage, but I would put it in wild open woodland/woodland edge with an intact native flora/sod, where it can happily/hopefully spread a few square metres where it has to compete with other strong plants such as fireweed, asters and various small woodies, and where I also intend to add Anemone canadensis (a fairly common local) and Aralia nudicaulis, another occasional native.