G. plicatus 'Warham'

[apothecary]

Now here's the first one I'm truly suspicious of.  We have it recorded as 'Warham', but so far all flowers (still from potted up samples) have these extra two marks on the basal end of the inner segments - not mentioned in the monograph.  Has anyone else found this?

I haven't looked through for alternatives yet, or found any 'Warham' pics to compare with.  I just thought I'd plonk this here straight away for discussion.

[apothecary]

Origins:

Another from Primrose Warburg, received 1997.

[David Nicholson]

Fascinating information, even for a non-Galanophile and well worth being kept together for posterity as it were!

[Martin Baxendale]

You're right, Kristina; it's not what's generally accepted as G. plicatus 'Warham', which has a much wider, rather flatter mark that comes to a point in the centre, really more of a thick upside-down v shape. Your plant has a much more rounded mark, and as you say, the marks towards the base of the inner segment aren't right either.

There have always been various snowdrops going around as 'Warham' and Primrose Warburg was probably given various 'Warhams' over the years. It may have been labelled Warham but dug up and sent out of flower with no way of knowing if it was right.

Primrose Warburg did grow a snowdrop as 'Warham' which was later renamed 'Gerard Parker'. If you have the Matt Bishop book, there's a photo on page 154 and an explanation of the history. But Gerard Parker has a slightly different mark to your snowdrop, the lower mark going up into a point and sometimes forming a vague cross shape with the marks towards the base. Also, Gerard Parker has much broader outer petals than your snowdrop. So I don't think it's that either. You'd know if it was Gerard Parker, as that has really big very rounded balloon-like flowers. It's also not a strong grower (at least for me).

I think your plant may have to just be plicatus. Sorry.

[Rob]

I found a pic on the broadleigh bulbs site for comparison.

The flowers look a little overexposed, but I think it is possible to see the green mark is flatter the way Martin describes.

[Martin Baxendale]

Yes, that's the accepted clone of 'Warham'. The mark's broader, flatter and more squared-off.

[apothecary]

Ok, thanks for the help so far.  I've looked up 'Gerard Parker' which can also apparently vary quite a bit.  I've compared my sample with the monographs and the following more prominent differences are apparent:

Different inner segment size ratio (4:3 v's 7:2)
Different outer segment size ratio (9:7 v's 7:4)
Leaf width - 'GP' with avergae width 2.4, mine with widest 1.2

Those are the most obvious differences my untrained eye can see.  Is it impossible that this is a victim if the name changes Martin talks about?  From what I understand, the official name change was in 2001, after we received this plant, so it would seem like a strong possibility to me.

My sample doesn't have the large balloon flowers that 'GP' should have, but my potted sample is very small (not a strong grower?).  I'll have to see what else I can find of it in Springwoods and see if the flowers are bigger there.

[Martin Baxendale]

The green marking on Gerard Parker can vary quite a lot, from a cross-shape to more broken single apical mark and two basal marks.

But the thing about Matt Bishop's petal measurements being based on width to length ratios is that the ratio generally stays about the same whether the flower is a large mature one or a small one from an immature bulb. That's why he used this system. So you won't find that larger flowers from the clump have wider petals. With all snowdrops, if the petals are short and wide on mature plants, they'll be short and wide on young plants, and if they're long and thin on mature plants, they'll be ditto on youngsters.

The G. plicatus you have there has petals too narrow to be Gerard Parker. And the re-naming of Gerard Parker was well prior to 2001 when you had the bulbs from Primrose Warburg's garden. Mix-ups like this happen all the time with snowdrops, I'm afraid.

[mark smyth]

This is 'Gerard Parker'

[apothecary]

Finally an outdoor sample.

Here are a couple of pics of our so-called 'Warham' from springwoods.

The outer perianth ratio is slightly different (3:2), but not different enough I guess.
The inner segment marking is also a little paler, though more of the X shape is apparent close up.
The outer perianths droop more, making photos of the markings quite difficult.

Any advance on the identity of this plant?  Otherwise I'll change its name on the system to straight G. plicatus with a few notes attached.

[Martin Baxendale]

Kristina, here are some pics of my one and only flower of 'Gerard Parker' in the garden today.My clump's gone down to just a couple of struggling bulbs with one poor, scrawny flower (I'm fed up with twin-scaling it to try to keep it going - I find it a weak-growing bulb that's probably suffering from old age).

The latest picture you posted does look more like Gerard Parker. As you suggested earlier, the weakness of the individual bulb does have considerable effect on the flower. As you can  see, the poor flower on my weak bulb isn't hugely balloon-shaped. In fact it's not a million miles away from your latest flower.

Mark's photo, on the other hand, is of a good flower from an obviously healthy, good-size bulb.

As you can see by comparing mine and Mark's pics, the mark varies. Mark's goes to a point, while mine is more rounded. But they're the same cultivar - Mark's looks right and is no doubt photographed from a clump that is known to be correct. Mine also came from a very reputable source and is right.

It's possible that the first (narrow-petalled) flower was from a seedling. Gerard Parker is a fertile diploid, and I've had seed from it and raised seedlings. So, if the clump is Gerard Parker there may also be one or more seedlings in the clump that look a bit like Gerard Parker but aren't. It's also possible that some bulbs are not growing as well as others, and that's giving the thin flowers.

The ratio rule for the flower segments only really holds true with healthy bulbs, mature or small; if bulbs are ailing, as mine are, you can get more variation.

It's difficult to make a definite ID just from a photo. Ideally, you need to see the whole clump in the flesh. An overall photo of the clump with a number of flowers might help.

So I can't say for sure that what you have is Gerard Parker (especially with such a variable flower as Gerard Parker). But given its provenance and that it came to you from Primrose Warburg's garden as Warham, and the names changes mentioned earlier, it would seem possible.

It's definitely not Warham. So I would suggest you label it Gal. pilcatus (var. 'Gerard Parker'??) in your records and append notes about these discussions, until you can get a more definite ID.

As I say, a good photo of the whole clump might help.

Here are the pics of my flower. See what you think. Remember, my bulb is pretty poorly.

 

[Rob]

Martin when you say your flower of 'Gerard Parker' is not a million miles away from Kristinas' flower, to my eye they look dead ringers.

Since Kristina knows the source is Primrose Warburg's garden surely she can make a positive id of 'Gerard Parker'

[Martin Baxendale]

Martin when you say your flower of 'Gerard Parker' is not a million miles away from Kristinas' flower, to my eye they look dead ringers.

Since Kristina knows the source is Primrose Warburg's garden surely she can make a positive id of 'Gerard Parker'

I think it's safer for now to make it a provisional ID unless Kristina can show a photo of the whole clump that's more conclusive or (better still) get an ID of the plant 'in the flesh'. As it didn't come as Gerard Parker, I'd always prefer to be cautious rather than be the one to make a fasle ID and possibly cause problems later on if it made its way around as G.P. but turned out not to be. I'd say there's a lot of evidence pointing to G.P. and her second flower does look a lot like G.P. (much more than her first flower).

[mark smyth]

Mine in the garden are just out so waether permitting tomorrow r over the weekend I'll take some photos. The do balloon out with age right up to the point that they will go over. What throws me while looking at all the photos, sorry Kristina, are the strange angles of Kristinas great photos and the use of flash

[apothecary]

What throws me while looking at all the photos, sorry Kristina, are the strange angles of Kristinas great photos and the use of flash

Ha!  Too right.  I'm using someone elses camera and I simply can't believe what they paid for it just for the gimmics (nice swivelly lens type job) when you can't even choose to switch the auto flash off in macro mode.  There's no flash button or menu.  The only way to get rid of it is to switch from 'camera' to 'scene' (whatever that is).  I've tried rigging up lights to stop the flash, but it bleaches everything out.  I might have more luck taking pics outside if the wind is down a bit today.  Yesterday I couldn't get the blasted thing to focus outside.  I'm just lost with a decent manual SLR. 

As for angles, tell me what's required and I'll do my best. Sometimes the weird angles are just to get the camera to focus on the right point, but other times it's just because I don't really know what I'm doing.  I tried to take a few clump pics yesterday, but I still need to go through them.  Having said that, my so-called 'Warham' is also a somewhat disappointing clump.