Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Specific Families and Genera => Rhododendron and other Ericaceae => Topic started by: Maggi Young on January 10, 2016, 06:12:58 PM
-
It's fun to see what wacky plants are included in the ericaceae - quite a diverse family- not just heathers and rhododendrons, for sure!
A member of the Hampshire AGS, Harvey K., posted a super photo on their group's facebook page of this beauty
[attachimg=1]
Photographed near the melting snow line in California - c1973 by Harvey Kagakusha
Sarcodes sanguinea. which Harvey described as " A very odd plant, saprophytic not parasitic, and surprisingly it's in Ericaceae, monotypic genus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcodes
Sarcodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Which leads us to ....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoheterotrophy 8)
-
Moneses uniflora is a mixotrophic plant. It can photosynthesize and get nutrients from mycorrhizal fungi. it is also in the Ericaceae family.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Moneses_uniflora_1437.JPG
-
Monotropa uniflora (Indian pipe) is another odd Ericaceae, also mycoheterotrophyc :)
[attachimg=1]
-
Monotropa uniflora (Indian pipe) is another odd Ericaceae, also mycoheterotrophyc :)
Gabriela,
Have you ever tried it from seed?
-
Gabriela,
Have you ever tried it from seed?
I haven't because there was a Fagus missing from our garden; not anymore! I planted a young one in the fall and there will be more. Mix some mushrooms spores around (specific genera) and maybe it will work.
It's not too common though even these conditions are found in many woods but I'll give it a try. At least it is more certain what it needs comparing with Chimaphila ;)
There is also a pink form that I still have to found.
-
Is Monotropa a member of the Monotropacea family? While we are on the subject here is M. hypopitys. img. 0062.
-
Two more members of Erica are Bog Rosemary, Andromeda polifolia img. 3513 and Kalmia angustifolia img. 09 367.
-
I think Moneses is in the Pyrolacea- Wintergreen family. Here is M. uniflora img. 1872.
-
I,ll post some more wintergreens on the wildflower site.
-
When I was a kid we picked small bouquets of Moneses uniflora. It is many years ago. I have been looking for the last ten years, but I have not found a single.
Many of the species that were in the pasture, when I was a child, is gone.
They live only in memory.
-
Is Monotropa a member of the Monotropacea family? While we are on the subject here is M. hypopitys. img. 0062.
Kew says " species in the genus Monotropa (family Ericaceae) "
-
Maggi, a bit strange? Ericas are woody shrubs. According to Stace and CTW Monotropa are members of their own family. Taxonominists strike again.
-
I understand very little about how the taxonomists reach their classifications, Ian. :-X
-
You are right Maggi, another re-shuffle by the desk bound.
-
Perhaps we mere field naturalists should call all plants Magnoliopsida?
-
Perhaps we mere field naturalists should call all plants Magnoliopsida?
:) That's a good one! ;D
I became aware about the changes when double checking for Chimaphila (that I offer seeds), so...I try to stay botanically correct.
-
Maggi, a bit strange? Ericas are woody shrubs. According to Stace and CTW Monotropa are members of their own family. Taxonominists strike again.
Many plant families contain both woody and herbaceous plants. Fabaceae comes to mind. But almost all members of Fabaceae look a bit pea-like, Monotropa and Erica have little in common.
-
Many plant families contain both woody and herbaceous plants. Fabaceae comes to mind. But almost all members of Fabaceae look a bit pea-like, Monotropa and Erica have little in common.
Maybe the common element is the 'tree' Trond? ;)
-
Thinking about plant name changes last night it turned into a Ronnie Barker sketch. I could imagine him sitting behind a desk in a dark suit, reading the following (use RBs voice when reading. "Good evening, as many of you will know, the constant changing of plant names is causing widespread confusion. Only this morning I was preparing this Gladiolus for my lunch (see img 4693).The group who sit in the pub discussing the weeks name changes, amid much merriment, have been abolished. The Government have given the task of name changing to the Ministry for Statistics. It has been decided that numbers will be used instead of names. Sub-species will be dropped altogether. After a settling-in period of 12 months it will be illegal to use the old plant names. Dandelion will be no.1. Daisy will be no.2. English bluebell no.3 and Spanish bluebell no.4. The hybrid 3x4, as we all know, equals 12. To avoid confusion there will be a gap in the list between 11 and 13. The Ministry for Entertainment have already begun changing song titles. My Love is like a red, red, rose, will be My love is like a red, red, 38. No confusion with London Transport is intended. A white sport coat and a pink carnation will be, a white sport coat and a pink 23. Those of you who are old enough to remember The Billy Cotton Band Show may have difficulty with I,ve Got a Lovely Bunch of 7294s. I must leave now as I promised my wife Primrose, sorry that should be No.6, that I would pick up a bunch of 53s on the way home. Goodnight.
-
Gabriela, why stay "botanically correct." The name changers get away with it because the general public are in awe of them. Apathy prevents the public saying NO. If scientists have nothing better to do than change the names of natural history species then there should be two systems. One for the scientists to play with and another, stable one, for the vast majority to use. In my opinion scientists time would be better spent campaigning for the protection of wildlife and their habitats. There is at least one nursery that sells their plants in pots using inches instead of cms. Sanity prevails there. If the majority of the public dare stand against change for changes sake we would still be in a reasonably secure community. Perhaps Clive Stace et. al. would object to the stability of plant names. Sales of books would not increase if plant names were not constantly changing.
-
While I always appreciate a good joke, my opinion regarding this is quite opposite. In general, I don’t think that disregarding or ridiculing facts just because we don’t understand them/want to make the effort to do so, it is the way to go.
A discussion about name changes has started, without intention, on Robert’s blog - I am sure you follow or if not can have a look.
Change is good and keeps things interesting in life, but requires adaptability ;) My worry was exactly about the divide that could arise between the gardeners and scientific world, which is NOT a good thing to happen. And believe me, at least in US and Canada, these discussions don't happen in pubs.
Phylogenetic Classification of Ericaceae: Molecular and Morphological Evidence
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2399857?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2399857?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
-
Who decides what are "facts." Take Fen Violet as an example. Follow the name changes of this plant through history as an exercise. By the way, I was not joking. Say NO and mean NO if you dare, to name changes.
-
Gabriela, I have read the phylogenetic piece and it seems to be saying the same as me, only in a round about way. Perhaps I am the only person in the world who does not let anyone tell me how to run my hobbies of botany and plant growing? I cannot find the thread by Robert re-plant names. In this part of the world we tend to speak plainly and say what we think, although this may cause offence that is not the intention. Perhaps it is peculiar to Yorkshire and there are no people more peculiar than Yorkshire folk. :D :)
-
Gabriela, I have read the phylogenetic piece and it seems to be saying the same as me, only in a round about way. Perhaps I am the only person in the world who does not let anyone tell me how to run my hobbies of botany and plant growing? I cannot find the thread by Robert re-plant names. In this part of the world we tend to speak plainly and say what we think, although this may cause offence that is not the intention. Perhaps it is peculiar to Yorkshire and there are no people more peculiar than Yorkshire folk. :D :)
Maybe you are a very unique person...As for me, I expressed my personal opinion very clear on the subject. However, anyone wishing to adopt a contrarian attitude towards the new methods used in classification is surely entitled to do so.
The thread I was talking about referred to Dodecatheon/Primula (scroll over few pages)
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=13952.90 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=13952.90)
-
A note from the Nordic Journal of Botany of a newly described Gautheria .....
"A new species of Gaultheria (Ericaceae) has been revealed in Sichuan, China. The most striking characteristics of the novelity, here described as G. marronina are the white fleshy calyx with a maroon capsule and glabrous calyx margins. The new species is known only from five gatherings, two of which are old with imprecise geographical information, and as assesed as being Endangered (EN) according to the IUCN criteria."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/njb.01129/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/njb.01129/abstract)
"Gaultheria marronina, a new species from the Hengduan Mountain chain of western Sichuan Province, China, is described and illustrated. This species is similar to G. bryoides P. W. Fritsch & L. H. Zhou from the Gaoligong Mountains in its white fleshy calyx with a maroon capsule but differs in its stem setae 0.34–0.50 mm long, petioles 0.4–0.6 mm long, leaf blades 5.1–6.2 × 2.1–3.1 mm, overwintering flower bud pedicels 0.6–0.8 mm long, calyx lobes 2.2–3.0 mm long, and usually slightly open fruiting calyx, among other characters. The species is known only from two widely separated unprotected populations and is categorized as endangered."
[attachimg=1]
Gaultheria marronina
-
A note from the Nordic Journal of Botany of a newly described Gaultheria .....
Do they by chance mention the altitude at which this one is found? I hope it is not yet another exquisite blue-fruited species that vaporizes at 25c like G. sinensis et al.
johnw
-
I haven't access to the full paper - but I'll ask.
-
Reply back from the NJB - found at " 2910 m a.s.l. according to the paper."
-
Kalmia latifolia
-
Chimaphila umbellata and Pyrola asarifolia.
-
Chimaphila umbellata and Pyrola asarifolia.
So beautiful - never succeeded in growing Chimophila - to my great regret.
-
So beautiful - never succeeded in growing Chimophila - to my great regret.
Neither did I Maggi from seeds, but I want to try more. Being pretty it’s not its only quality - Chimaphila is also a medicinal plant. It has mainly the same constituents/usage like Arctostaphylos, but is more potent. The Japanese may be the only ones cultivated, with one important drug having Chimaphila in the recipe.
I found studies which suggest similarities in germination between orchids and other mycoheterotrophic sp. with dust-like seeds (Pyrola,…). That explains my request posted in the 'Grow from seeds' section. It wasn't tried in vitro, as far as I know. I am curious if it would work.