Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Bulbs => Galanthus => Topic started by: apothecary on January 22, 2008, 03:33:13 PM
-
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.
-
Origins:
Another from Primrose Warburg, received 1997.
-
Fascinating information, even for a non-Galanophile and well worth being kept together for posterity as it were!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, that's the accepted clone of 'Warham'. The mark's broader, flatter and more squared-off.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is 'Gerard Parker'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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).
-
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
-
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.
-
Kristina, don't worry about the "Warham" clump looking disappointing - anything will help with ID. Even just seeing the overall look of the clump, and some more flowers, but mostly how it looks overall as a clump should give us a better idea.
-
Found one! It's not very good.
-
Kristina, the "Warham" clump doesn't look like 'Gerard Parker' and I've just figured out what's really wrong with the flowers - both on the clump and the pics of cut flowers you've shown. I should have seen it earlier, but my attention's been a bit distracted with getting a book off to my printers to a tight deadline and subsequent proof-reading, corrections etc.
It's the shape of the outer flower segments. As you'll see from mine and Mark's photos, and the one in the book, 'Gerard Parker' has outer segments which are very pronouncedly unguiculate (they narrow to a very pronounced long, thin claw-like shape at the base). This also makes the outer segments appear to 'stand out' from the inner segments, so they seem separated at the base, rather than clasping the inner segments at the base. If you look at mine and Mark's pics you'll see what I mean. This is a very recognisable feature of 'Gerard Parker'.
In your flowers, though, the bases of the outer segments are not unguiculate, hardly narrowing into a claw-shape at all, so that they hug tightly to the bases of the inner segments. This gives the flower a quite different overall appearance and is what worried me, although I stupidly hadn't pinpointed it.
I don't think the outer segment bases of your flowers will become much more unguiculate as they age, but they might a little, so keep an eye on them. However, if they stay non-unguiculate (as I suspect they will) then it's not Gerard Parker and will have to be just plicatus.
That's the danger with making snap IDs. You don't always spot the discrepancies immediately, and as a result a plant can end up going around under the wrong name. Always best to be cautious.
Feel free to post another pic if the outer segments do become more unguiculate as they age.
Have a nice day - supposed to be sunny again (vitamin D supplements aren't the worst idea in the world in a terminally cloudy sunless winter :)
-
I like the clarity of the photos but I feel the flash probably gets rid of petal texture. I can turn off my flash off for any photos I take. Mine was cheap around £200 saving £150 by buying from 7 Day Shop. What camera are you using?
-
You're right.
Mine are unguiculate, but I'm not yet familiar enough with snowdrops in general to make distinctions between averagely and strongly unguiculate segments. Thanks for pointing it out. I will watch them, but I think I'll put the plant in as straight plicatus now anyway and I can change it again if anything becomes particularly apparent.
Thanks for the help.
I like the clarity of the photos but I feel the flash probably gets rid of petal texture. I can turn off my flash off for any photos I take. Mine was cheap around £200 saving £150 by buying from 7 Day Shop. What camera are you using?
I haven't got the camera on me at present (locked in a cupboard and I don't have the key). It's an excessively expensive, gimmicky Nikon something-or-other point-and-click type thingy. I have an SLR Nikon D70 at home which is brilliant, but I daren't bring it to work. I intend to get myself a slightly smaller and more portable pro-sumer at some point for stuff like this, but I don't currently have the funds. At least now I know not to opt for this one, it's slowly driving me crazy although I'll admit the pics are nice and sharp.
-
Well yes, all snowdrop flowers have outer segments that narrow somewhat at the base, but they're only described as unguiculate if it's quite pronounced, and in Gerard Parker it's very pronounced.
-
I don't think the outer segment bases of your flowers will become much more unguiculate as they age, but they might a little, so keep an eye on them. However, if they stay non-unguiculate (as I suspect they will) then it's not Gerard Parker and will have to be just plicatus.
I went out for another look today and took a pic for the fun of it. I then compared the pic to earlier examples of 'Gerard Parker' on this thread, suddenly there seems to be a little more of a resemblance.... ???
-
I went out for another look today and took a pic for the fun of it. I then compared the pic to earlier examples of 'Gerard Parker' on this thread, suddenly there seems to be a little more of a resemblance.... ???
You're right, Kristina! It's amazing how much longer the claws have become compared to the first pics where there was very little claw at all. I must say I haven't watched how Gerard Parker developes from first opening to going over, so hadn't realised how much the unguiculation can change. Come to think of it, the cultivar Fieldgate Superb does the same sort of thing, the long claw developing quite a lot as the flower ages.
Snowdrop flowers can change quite a bit as they age, which is why I suggested keeping an eye on it. But I didn't expect quite so much change so quickly.
Anyway, that does look much more like Gerard Parker now.If you want to be 100% sure, carry on observing it and see if the outers also widen a bit as they age and develop into more of a balloon-shape.
Could I ask you, if you have the time, to take another photo in a few days time, so we can all have another look. If it does continue to develop the way it's going, I think it's going to look dead right for Gerard Parker.
Sorry this has been a long round-about ID, but it's often like that with snowdrops, and it's advisable to be cautious with naming until you're absolutely sure or you can create problems for others later (I mean you as in anyone, not you personally).
-
Kristina, I had another look at my Gerard Parker this evening (I found another small clump with another single flower just about surviving under a shrub).
When the bulbs aren't doing so well, as mine aren't, the outer petals seem to be less wide than they would with big strong healthy bulbs. So it seems outer petal width can be variable.
Having looked at mine again, and at your latest photo again, I think you can safely say that you do have Gerard Parker - especially given that it came from South Hayes labelled Warham; it was probably a clump which never had its original Warham label changed to Gerard Parker when the naming was altered as set out in the snowdrop book.
It'd still be good to see another photo later, to see how the flower develops as it ages, to be be 100% sure.
-
Oh, that sounds so much more promising. I'll certainly keep an eye on it and photograph it later. Assuming a rabbit doesn't nibble off all the last flowers before I have a chance.
-
Right. I went for another potter over to the so-called 'Warham' the other day. Most of the flowers have reached that point just prior to going over so I took some pics of their balloony outer-perianths as they are now. Any chance they are 'Gerard Parker'? Or are they too droopy now?
Sorry the clump pic is so blurred, there was quite a breeze blowing. I shan't complain about this camera again ::), but it doesn't have what you would call the speediest of exposures.
-
Hi Kristina. They look okay. I think you're safe labelling them Gal. plicatus 'Gerard Parker'.
The problem you had with the second pic isn't down to flower movement; it's the camera's auto-focus focussing on the background rather than the flowers because it's looking for something with a lot of contrast to focus on as the subject, but the white of the snowdrop flowers doesn't register enough contrast. It's a common problem with pale flowers that's been much discussed on this forum.
I find with my camera it helps to use the special setting for taking plant close-ups. Failing that, blocking out the background helps - either use some card as a background, or hold your hand behind the flowers, which helps the camera to focus on the right area, then remove your hand once the camera has locked onto the flowers.