Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum

Bulbs => Galanthus => Topic started by: mark smyth on January 26, 2009, 10:31:01 PM

Title: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 26, 2009, 10:31:01 PM
I'm sure there are people out there who would like their snowdrop/s identified. That includes me. I havent had a problem with labels going missing but now some are.

Does anyone know this snowdrop? It has plicatus genes. The margins are only slightly turned over.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Paddy Tobin on January 26, 2009, 10:50:19 PM
Sorry, Mark. I can be of no help. Paddy
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on January 26, 2009, 11:06:38 PM
I'm sure there are people out there who would like their snowdrop/s identified. That includes me.

Trouble is, it's always dodgy trying to name snowdrops just from a photo on the forum, especially if the owner doesn't even know for sure whether it's a named cultivar. If someone's lost a lable and thinks they know what a 'drop might be and want a second opinion that's one thing, but it's so easy to mis-identify and create yet another imposter if someone says 'I've no idea what this might be. Anyone  got any suggestions?' with no other information. So many snowdrops look like other snowdrops, and from years of raising seedlings I know that many of the seedlings I've raised could easily be mistaken for named cultivars. So I hope everyone will forgive me if I often seem reluctant to rush into identifications and keep making dubious, cautionary sounds in these situations. I'm not being curmudgeonly, just cautious. The history of snowdrops is littered with mis-identifications, sometimes by even the most knowledgeable growers.

 

 
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 26, 2009, 11:23:00 PM
I need to start keeping records again.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on January 26, 2009, 11:57:24 PM
I need to start keeping records again.

Me too!!  As I mentioned on another thread, I just found a snowdrop in the garden ('Robert Berkeley') I didn't even know I had!   ::)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Anthony Darby on January 26, 2009, 11:59:47 PM
I need to start keeping records again.

Me too!!  As I mentioned on another thread, I just found a snowdrop in the garden ('Robert Berkeley') I didn't even know I had!   ::)

So that's where I left it!? ::) ;D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on January 27, 2009, 12:05:59 AM
I need to start keeping records again.

Me too!!  As I mentioned on another thread, I just found a snowdrop in the garden ('Robert Berkeley') I didn't even know I had!   ::)

So that's where I left it!? ::) ;D

Finders keepers!!!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 27, 2009, 06:27:00 AM
This is an example why I tell beginners to only buy distinctive snowdrops.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on January 27, 2009, 08:32:34 AM
I think the test of any snowdrop, identified or not, should be the merits it has.  Is it particularly, large, small, neat, prolific, hardy, early-flowering, late flowering or unusual and are the flowers (and/or the leaves) particularly attractive?  Perhaps there should be a rating form so you could give a snowdrop marks out of 10 in each category? 

In terms of classification, am I right in thinking it should be somewhere in class N1b of the Book, i.e. Hybrid snowdrop with inner segments with a single mark on the apical half or less, vernation one or more margins explicative?  That would narrow the choice of named snowdrops down to 40 or so and many of those could be quickly eliminated because the mark is less extensive than in Mark's example.       
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on January 27, 2009, 10:35:51 AM
Quote
I havent had a problem with labels going missing but now some are.

I know it's shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted, and you don't want to use net pots, but using net pots means you can also put a label in the base of the pot so if the one above ground is lost to birds etc, there is still a failsafe.  I know people who use sheeps eartags (the left one if my memory serves me rightly as it has a hole in it) these can be bought already impressed with numbers.  The hole is used for attaching to wire made into a hook so that it can be plunged into the soil  in the middle of the clump (obviously when replanting to avoid damage).  This is an excellent use for old wire coat hangers.  A master index is kept in book form, and, should you wish to show your collection to friends, visitors etc, labels can be temporarily inserted using the Master key so people can easily see which they are.  Not my idea, but one I am toying with.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Maggi Young on January 27, 2009, 11:11:17 AM
I think the test of any snowdrop, identified or not, should be the merits it has.  Is it particularly, large, small, neat, prolific, hardy, early-flowering, late flowering or unusual and are the flowers (and/or the leaves) particularly attractive?  Perhaps there should be a rating form so you could give a snowdrop marks out of 10 in each category? 

In terms of classification, am I right in thinking it should be somewhere in class N1b of the Book, i.e. Hybrid snowdrop with inner segments with a single mark on the apical half or less, vernation one or more margins explicative?  That would narrow the choice of named snowdrops down to 40 or so and many of those could be quickly eliminated because the mark is less extensive than in Mark's example.       
Alan! Wonderful, a man with a reasoned approach to identifying the blessed thing! Thank you!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on January 27, 2009, 11:13:54 AM
In terms of classification, am I right in thinking it should be somewhere in class N1b of the Book, i.e. Hybrid snowdrop with inner segments with a single mark on the apical half or less, vernation one or more margins explicative?  That would narrow the choice of named snowdrops down to 40 or so and many of those could be quickly eliminated because the mark is less extensive than in Mark's example.       

But is Mark sure it came to him with a name, or was it an un-named snowdrop that someone gave him because they'd found it in a garden? The point I was trying to make is that not every snowdrop has a name and we should only try to put a definite name to an unidentified snowdrop if there's good reason to think it is a named cultivar and not just an un-named seedling (unless it's a very distinctive un-named seedling, in which case it needs a new name).

I appreciate what Mark says about people wanting to know if their 'find' is a named snowdrop, perhaps a rare and valuable one; it's a natural desire. But I wouldn't want to encourage people to reach straight for the snowdrop monograph every time they find an un-named snowdrop in a garden and start using the naming system to try to idnetify it unless they have some provenance to suggest the snowdrop is a named form. Identification keys work fine (most of the time!) for species, but much less so for garden varieties, where the distinctions can be far more minute than those between species, and where any number of garden seedlings may exhibit very similar features to named forms.

Again, I'm not tryi ng to be curmudgeonly, and I'm all in favour of trying to correctly id snowdrops where possible. Just trying to sound a note of caution.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on January 27, 2009, 02:31:18 PM
Quote
I wouldn't want to encourage people to reach straight for the snowdrop monograph every time they find an un-named snowdrop in a garden

Particularly so as, good as it is, it is far from complete and could do with Volume 2 covering some of the others ;)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 27, 2009, 03:00:13 PM
I heard a whisper last week about vol. 2. Martin this snowdrop is named but it doesnt really matter if I dont get the name again.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on January 27, 2009, 03:16:09 PM
Martin this snowdrop is named but it doesnt really matter if I dont get the name again.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't try to id your snowdrop, especially if you know it's a named one and have just lost the label. I was just using it as an example to make a wider point about us all needing to be careful about encouraging people to try to slap names on any and every snowdrop they might find in gardens with no label. Many of them may be seedlings which never had names but bear some resemblance to a named snowdrop in the book, and bingo, people are thinking if it looks like so-and-so then it must be so-and-so, especially if they're not so experienced in snowdrop collecting. I just thought that starting a thread inviting people to show pics for id could be getting into dangerous waters, and simply wanted to urge a little caution before the ball starts rolling.   :)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Jo on January 27, 2009, 05:56:23 PM
I agree with you Martin, but how about this one ? I don't think its a named one and doesn't key out in the book. Its a plicatus, its substantial and its leaves stay flat on the compost. Does it look like a named one anyone has seen before  ??? ??? ;D ;D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 27, 2009, 06:02:00 PM
Jo, I'm sure you are aware but just in case there are 3 different snowdrops growing in your pot including a green tipped.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Jo on January 27, 2009, 07:13:14 PM
Wow Mark,

good eyesite ;), yes its a mixture of stuff and I am talking about the big one in the middle  ;D ;D  I can't believe you spotted the green tip before it opens. I think the whole lot are seedlings, once again a pic n mix a friend gave me. :D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: ichristie on January 27, 2009, 07:17:47 PM
Hi, the Big one in the middle as you describe is Galanthus plicatus var Byzantinus according to the books but yes perhaps also a seedling group cheers Ian the Christie kind
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Jo on January 28, 2009, 07:48:01 PM
Jo, I'm sure you are aware but just in case there are 3 different snowdrops growing in your pot including a green tipped.

Here is the green tipped one open now, but not viridipice, and also an elwesii I was given. I thought its inner mark looks quite like a deer slot too. I must look up deer slot and see what it looks like.

Oh, and also Quadripetala which I bought labelled as such. Then discovered that MB doesn't recognise it as a var.  It is stable and has four perfect petals. It is rather olivey in colour and not particularly vigorous.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 28, 2009, 07:51:29 PM
The inner mark of your elwesii matches the outers. It looks more like my (not) late form from Kath.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on January 28, 2009, 08:00:53 PM
But now that I look on a different computer I can see a feint bridge joining the two marks.

Here's a good 'Deer Slot' at Colesbourne and the one they sold me
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Jo on January 28, 2009, 09:20:38 PM
I think they're quite different in outer petal shape and the genuine one has a sharp inner mark, so I think Martin is right on this one. Don't try and put a name just cos its similar.   Shame, ' Deer Slot ' sounds so romantic. :(
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 11, 2009, 12:10:05 PM
Hi All

after my disappointing 'Hyde Lodge' at the end of last year (written about in the autumn thread)  :( - I now find another impostor from the same place.   >:(

The order arrived in excellent condition on March 4th 2008 with the label 'G. Fieldgate Superb'.  Today I have had the chance to go into the garden during day light hours and find this:

It is a nice looking thing and I am quite happy for it to be in my garden - but, unless I am pretty much mistaken, it is not £25 worth of 'Fieldgate Superb'!  ::)

Any one care to hazzard a guess as to what I have £25 worth of?

Cheers

John

Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 11, 2009, 01:08:59 PM
It looks very like 'Spindlestone Surprise'/'Primrose Warburg'
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 11, 2009, 01:19:41 PM
It looks very like 'Spindlestone Surprise'/'Primrose Warburg'

Just what I was about to say, Mark. The Snowdrop Company was selling both last year, and they're very difficult to tell apart. Must have been a labelling mistake when preparing bulbs for dispatch. I'd contact Ron and ask him if he can help with the name. Maybe someone else got your Fieldgate Superb and has complained, so he can tell you what yours is?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 11, 2009, 02:26:06 PM
Mark, Sue Staines says that Deer Slot normally would only show the proper mark on one inner face - in a good year!  Anything more is a bonus.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 11, 2009, 03:59:04 PM
Mark, Sue Staines says that Deer Slot normally would only show the proper mark on one inner face - in a good year!  Anything more is a bonus.

That's a bit feeble, isn't it?  I see lots of wild snowdrops with a slotted mark on one face but I always assumed Deer Slot was better.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: steve owen on February 11, 2009, 04:41:17 PM
The Book confirms that the separation of the apical mark is present on only one of the inner segments, so if nyone has a variant that has the separation on all inners, they are going to be, in Mark's words, rich rich rich. Maybe they could christen it Coin Slot. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 11, 2009, 04:44:02 PM
Mark, Sue Staines says that Deer Slot normally would only show the proper mark on one inner face - in a good year!  Anything more is a bonus.

That's a bit feeble, isn't it?  I see lots of wild snowdrops with a slotted mark on one face but I always assumed Deer Slot was better.

I think that is the way of the world Alan, as Steve rightly says anything better would be Coin Slot :-\
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: steve owen on February 11, 2009, 04:44:21 PM
Hi All

after my disappointing 'Hyde Lodge' at the end of last year (written about in the autumn thread)  :( - I now find another impostor from the same place.   >:(

The order arrived in excellent condition on March 4th 2008 with the label 'G. Fieldgate Superb'.  Today I have had the chance to go into the garden during day light hours and find this:

It is a nice looking thing and I am quite happy for it to be in my garden - but, unless I am pretty much mistaken, it is not £25 worth of 'Fieldgate Superb'!  ::)

Any one care to hazzard a guess as to what I have £25 worth of?

Cheers

John



John

I can't think of any drop with the pictured combination of a yellow ovary and limey inner mark. Its like Blonde Inge in reverse. Maybe you should hold on to it!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 11, 2009, 04:44:35 PM
Hi Alan

I have heard the same from another well know Galanthophile.  He has clumps of Deer Slot in his garden and only 20/25% of each clump exhibit that distinctive mark.

Maybe we need another Alan Briggs find?....

Regards

John
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 11, 2009, 04:47:04 PM
I have heard the same from another well know Galanthophile.  He has clumps of Deer Slot in his garden and only 20/25% of each clump exhibit that distinctive mark.

Makes you wonder if it should have been named in the first place (or if it was trialed enough to be sure the mark was constant before naming). Mind you, it's not the only one.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 11, 2009, 04:53:42 PM
I have heard the same from another well know Galanthophile.  He has clumps of Deer Slot in his garden and only 20/25% of each clump exhibit that distinctive mark.

Makes you wonder if it should have been named in the first place (or if it was trialed enough to be sure the mark was constant before naming). Mind you, it's not the only one.

But when that mark is there - it is perfect.   ;D

Just a shame it isn't there more often.  That is the reason I am not on any waiting lists for 'Deer Slot' (or 'Clovis'- if it did it all the time it would be wonderful - but once in a blue moon :-\).

Cheers

John
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Diane Clement on February 11, 2009, 05:35:33 PM
A leaf for ID, well confirmation - is this virused?

its a seedling of G reginae olgae vernalis.  Also is this variety normally bright green, not glaucous?
Sorry, the pics are not good
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Jo on February 11, 2009, 06:00:25 PM
I wouldn't like to guess Diane, I find that leaves in the garden can have marks like that if they've had mulch dumped on them as they are coming through. ( Who would be so irreligious  >:( )

Some more of the snowdrops for ident from a garden I visited today, please :D

Firstly an Arnott lookalike. It is athird again bigger in all respects, can have 2 scapes, is also scented, has a slightly different inner mark.

Secondly an elwesii, does it look like any named ones or is it just the sp. ???

Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 11, 2009, 06:14:09 PM
single marked Galanthus are mind boggling especially when tall so while I watching Dragon's Den - I'm out. I dont know about the elwesii either, sorry.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 11, 2009, 06:39:43 PM
I think that is the way of the world Alan, as Steve rightly says anything better would be Coin Slot :-\

It may be the way of the world, but is has knocked any desire I might have had to own Deer Slot on the head.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Maggi Young on February 11, 2009, 06:43:17 PM
I really must say, "I told you so!"  That is exactly my point about these multitudinously named 'drops.... half are indistinct and the other half are inconsistant.......wake up and smell the crocus, Folks!  ;D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 11, 2009, 06:47:09 PM

Secondly an elwesii, does it look like any named ones or is it just the sp. ???


It looks like one of the "funny face" forms with two eyes and a downturned mouth.  There is a named cultivar called "Grumpy" like this but many more unnamed ones.  In fact I saw one today in a verge where the eyes and the top of the mouth were peaking out from between the elongated closed outer petals, which I thought should be named "Shy Boy"; but it was just a snowdrop growing in a verge.  Unfortunately I did not have my camera so cannot show you a picture.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 11, 2009, 06:50:39 PM
A leaf for ID, well confirmation - is this virused?

its a seedling of G reginae olgae vernalis.  Also is this variety normally bright green, not glaucous?
Sorry, the pics are not good

It perhaps looks a bit miserable but with the weather we have been having, who wouldn't be?  Seedlings are very frequently bright green but become glaucous in subsequent years.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Hagen Engelmann on February 11, 2009, 07:41:00 PM
Oh Maggi, this is the false topic. Wake up and smell the few best galanthus.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Maggi Young on February 11, 2009, 07:45:04 PM
Impossible, Hagen.... look at Ian's new Bulb Log.... only snowdrops are deep in the snow!! :P

http://www.srgc.org.uk/logs/logdir/2009Feb111234361398Bulb_log_06.pdf
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Hagen Engelmann on February 11, 2009, 07:53:04 PM
hm.hm.hm
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: gote on February 11, 2009, 08:31:08 PM
I realise that an ID might be next to impossible unless we have a provenience. Nevertheless.....
We bought a bag of mixed Galanthus in the sixtes and planted them in our forest. Most of them failed but two kinds survived. They seem by the way to prefer forest that is not too dense.
One of them is the following. (Woronowii???)
Any ideas??
Göte
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 11, 2009, 09:11:32 PM
it looks about right for woronowii
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 11, 2009, 10:16:22 PM
Yes, it does look as though it could be woronowii Göte, I love the way you have posted the pics of the galanthus parts on graph paper, a very good idea.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 12, 2009, 05:46:17 AM
I love the way you have posted the pics of the galanthus parts on graph paper, a very good idea.

Yes - what a good idea to help us judge the scale.   :)

John
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: gote on February 12, 2009, 08:30:23 AM
Thank you very much for the confirmation. This means that wronowii likes mid-Swedish climate in deciduous forests.
Thank you also for your kind words.
We have seen some posting for identification that showed very beautiful pictures which hid all details necessary for identification so I intended to avoid that pitfall.
Göte
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Eric Locke on February 20, 2009, 10:58:56 PM
Hi All
Any Ideas on this one ? Had thought they might be Kite,but not so sure.

Eric
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 22, 2009, 02:04:44 PM
this was given to me many years ago as plicatus Percy Picton but not convinced it's right?

leaves are approx 15 - 20 mm wide

(http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo250/richard41_2009/pp.jpg)

(http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo250/richard41_2009/pp2.jpg)

not all flowers have particularly long pedicels

(http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo250/richard41_2009/pp3.jpg)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Paddy Tobin on February 22, 2009, 07:53:50 PM
Richard,

Here's a photograph of G. 'Percy Picton' taken in my garden yesterday for comparison.
There doesn't seem to be much difference between the flower marking, some more diffusion of the green in mine but such variation would be common within an homogenous group at any rate.

Paddy
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 22, 2009, 08:05:06 PM
thanks Paddy, does look very similar allowing for the variation.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Diane Clement on February 22, 2009, 08:49:48 PM
This came as part of a packet of Crocus gargaricus at the SRGC weekend bulb sale.  It's tiny - about 4cm tall.  I'm guessing it's a G nivalis Sandersii - any other ideas?
And thanks to the generous donor for this bonus!  ;D

Unknown yellow galanthus
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 22, 2009, 10:02:36 PM
I would say nivalis Sandersii Group

This is my plicatus 'Percy Picton'
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 22, 2009, 10:22:12 PM
thanks for that Mark (I did look at yours on your site as a comparison), mine does lack the very noticeable V in both yours & Paddy's, does appear that the pedicel is about right, thought from other descriptions it was much longer.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 22, 2009, 10:29:13 PM
Eric yours could be 'Kite'. I have seen only a few over the years doing what they should do like the two below.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 22, 2009, 10:36:19 PM
Quote
I would say nivalis Sandersii Group

I believe we should all say Sandersii Group shouldn't we!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 22, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
well yes because one yellow nivalis is much the same as another. Yesterday at Margaret Owen's we were looking at two groups of Sandersii that were growing side by side. One was a much cleaner yellow for some reason
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Anthony Darby on February 22, 2009, 11:09:06 PM
So what do we call yellow nivalis from, say, eastern Europe?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Maggi Young on February 22, 2009, 11:15:41 PM
So what do we call yellow nivalis from, say, eastern Europe?
"Slawomierz" ......... perhaps?      ( name signifying glory and grace)   except that's Polish so not very eastern!!!!  :-[

Thanks for the G. Viridipice yesterday , Anthony  8)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: annew on February 24, 2009, 05:50:55 PM
I have two different snowdrops, both obtained as Doncaster's double charmer, and neither look like the picture in The Book. Can anyone help with identification? Maybe show me a picture of the real thing?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 24, 2009, 05:53:23 PM
Anne, I saw this at Ann Borrill's garden and had a good look as I have one on order.  I have to say it was a miserable looking thing although there were a couple in the clump which looked a bit more as I (and you) expected.  Maybe it needs to have a mature bulb to show it's true characteristics?  No doubt someone will be growing it and know.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 24, 2009, 06:11:39 PM
....and I was stood next to Brian joining in the discussion.  Not a single flower had opened it's petals (even on a warm day - though it was in the shade).  We agreed that it wasn't anything like 'the picture in the book' - the clump had about 20 flowers in it but not one was open.  Perhaps it could be one of those flowers that looks good for a few days only. 

If I were to choose between your two examples I would lean towards your first pictures (the ones with the green outers) - the last photo is nothing like what I saw.  Unfortunately I didn't take a photograph, I was that unimpressed.  ::)

If you ask Brian nicely he may go back in the next couple of weeks with his resident photographer and take a few pics.  8)

John

p.s.  I rather like the one in your first pics whatever it is - attractively ugly, I like it.  ;D

Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 24, 2009, 06:17:06 PM
Quite often young bulbs of doubles flowering for the first time dont look normal. I'll check my records for a photo
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: annew on February 24, 2009, 06:44:24 PM
Thanks all. The spiky green thing is in its first flowering from chipping. The other is mature.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Anthony Darby on February 24, 2009, 06:47:03 PM
Looks like a cross between Narcissus 'Rip van Winkle' and N. viridiflorus? ;D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: annew on February 24, 2009, 06:48:38 PM
Not a match made in heaven.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 24, 2009, 06:53:08 PM
Thanks all. The spiky green thing is in its first flowering from chipping. The other is mature.

Hi Anne

the two different forms you have are from different sources I hope/expect/deduce?

Looking again I think the first 2 pics are most likely to settle into what I would expect.  The third photo will have to do some serious morphing to get there!

John
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: steve owen on February 24, 2009, 06:57:00 PM
I have two different snowdrops, both obtained as Doncaster's double charmer, and neither look like the picture in The Book. Can anyone help with identification? Maybe show me a picture of the real thing?

maybe the Galaticos could also explain the differences between Charmer, Double Charmer, Doncaster's Double Charmer, Double Scharlockii and Double Scharlockii? Or are there at least two distinct varieties here? (Sorry to muddy the debate...)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 24, 2009, 07:03:18 PM
maybe the Galaticos could also explain the differences between ........

Double Scharlockii and Double Scharlockii?.......

Sorry Steve - I can't stop myself...

I can't see any difference between those two.   ;D

John   ;)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 24, 2009, 07:03:28 PM
Pass!  :D To my eye they are all doubles with green tips
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 24, 2009, 07:08:21 PM
'Double Sharlock'
'Doncasters Double'
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: KentGardener on February 24, 2009, 07:13:50 PM
Mark, your second picture looks pretty close to what Brian and I saw on the weekend.  It is interesting to see that your example didn't open fully either.  I have a feeling this is another one that is going to be crossed off my wants list....  ::)

cheers

John

 - But Anne's version.... I like!, in it's stange green spikey looking way.
  Please let us (me) know how it does next year.  8)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 24, 2009, 07:34:49 PM
I was sent a plant last year as Double Sharlock and appears to be closer to Doncaster's Double, but like Anne's (mine looks identicle) is fully open.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: annew on February 24, 2009, 08:00:07 PM
I'm not much wiser yet. No1 seems more likely. I'll see what it looks like next year as suggested Thanks, folks.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on February 24, 2009, 08:02:17 PM
Can anyone confirm whether a snowdrop called Amy Jade exists as I can't find a reference. I bought this one on EBay (I know, I know...)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Anthony Darby on February 24, 2009, 08:04:29 PM
Looks like a very nice plicatus. 8)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Brian Ellis on February 24, 2009, 09:20:11 PM
Well it must exist Ann as it is in both our gardens, as I recall it was being sold for charity. 8)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: steve owen on February 24, 2009, 10:08:00 PM
I also have Amy Jade but I don't think it looks like the posted pic. I'll post a pic in a day or two.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on February 25, 2009, 04:43:48 PM
Thanks, I look forward to seeing your version Steve.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on February 25, 2009, 04:44:23 PM
Just to add I do love Amy Jade or whoever she is!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: chasw on February 26, 2009, 07:14:54 AM
Amy Jade originated in Northamptonshire,in the garden of Jim Letherland who named it after his grand daughter,his garden is open this sunday...................Rosemount? Hollowell, Northamptonshire
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 26, 2009, 08:33:03 AM
"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Maggi Young on February 26, 2009, 10:22:04 AM
Amy Jade originated in Northamptonshire,in the garden of Jim Letherland who named it after his grand daughter,his garden is open this sunday...................Rosemount? Hollowell, Northamptonshire
Hello, Chas, welcome to the Forum ......you're another infected with the white fever, I take it?!!  :D
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 26, 2009, 10:55:45 AM
"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?

I can see something distinctive about it straight away compared to a lot of plicatus varieties - it looks healthy and vigorous.  :)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 26, 2009, 12:47:57 PM
another swap from years ago but no name??

leaves are quite distinctive, approx 10 - 12 mm wide, very green, glossy with a faint pale central stripe, hope they will help, the flowers nothing special, quite small but plant has a nice habit.

(http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo250/richard41_2009/DSCF6561.jpg)

(http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo250/richard41_2009/DSCF6560.jpg)
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: chasw on February 26, 2009, 03:23:50 PM
Hi Maggi and thanks for the welcome,yes have been into the little white beauties for a few years now,also Frits,and have also been a member of the srgc for a few years as well ,but only just discovered the website, which I have to say is great,Just need more time to get out and about to visit more of the gardens that are open
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 26, 2009, 08:56:41 PM
Flowering when, Richard?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 26, 2009, 10:41:28 PM
now Mark, was taken today.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 27, 2009, 08:33:44 AM
Richard, the picture reminds me of some plicate snowdrops (they might be plicate crosses) that grow in the verges near here.  They have very attractive striped leaves, the outer parts being green but the inner 1/3 being glaucous.  However the leaves would, I think, be wider than  10-12mm.  I will try to find or take a photograph.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Alan_b on February 27, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?

I can see something distinctive about it straight away compared to a lot of plicatus varieties - it looks healthy and vigorous.  :)

Martin, here's a field full of healthy vigorous plicatus varieties.  Where shall we start?  Amy Janet extreme left?  Next to her Amy Jane, then Amy Jenny ...?  I don't mean to offend the person who named "Amy Jade" but my question about what makes it distinctive is a valid question.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: RichardW on February 27, 2009, 08:45:42 AM
thanks Alan, it is an odd looking thing, am sure it's one I collected from a family friends garden many years ago, have some plants that were never labelled/marked in any way, am a little more organised now ;)

the widest leaves are 10 -12 mm, the striped leaves are nice but it's the greenness of it that really stands out amongst the others.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 27, 2009, 10:45:11 AM
"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?

I can see something distinctive about it straight away compared to a lot of plicatus varieties - it looks healthy and vigorous.  :)

Martin, here's a field full of healthy vigorous plicatus varieties.  Where shall we start?  Amy Janet extreme left?  Next to her Amy Jane, then Amy Jenny ...?  I don't mean to offend the person who named "Amy Jade" but my question about what makes it distinctive is a valid question.

I didn't mean to suggest your question was invalid, Alan. It is of course very valid. My comment was meant to be a little bit tongue in cheek, re. the health of some older named plicatus varieties. Plicatus tends to be prone to virus and fungal diseases and I find named varieties that have been around for a while are sometimes not the greatest garden plants. But this does take us back to a discussion we all had some time ago about whether snowdrops (or other bulbs) should be named purely because they're distinctive looking in the flower or whether vigour, disease resistance, fast clumping, strong flower stem, etc. should also be taken into consideration.

I feel there's a very good argument to be made that a strong-growing, disease-resistant good garden bulb should still be considered for naming even if it does resemble an exisiting bulb in flower, and especially if the existing variety is a weak grower, prone to disease, slow to increase, has a weak flower stem or other such drawbacks that make it not a good garden plant.   
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 27, 2009, 01:40:38 PM
On the question of naming snowdrops generally, I'd say people should consider two questions when thinking of naming something:

1) Is it an attractive and distinctive flower (preferably also with attractive foliage and a nice habit)?

2) Is it a very garden-worthy plant, vigorous, disease resistant, with a strong weather resistant flower stem, fast to increase and clump up?

If the answer to 1) is yes then it may be worth naming even if the answer to 2) is not also a resounding yes on all counts - because it could be a lovely flower for more experienced growers prepared to take a little trouble over it, and it may be a very good show plant in  a pot or for the glasshouse.

If the snowdrop is not very distinctive but still a handsome (if not highly unusual) example of its species (reasonably large flowered, thick petals, nice mark, nice leaves,) and the answer to 2) is a definite yes then it's a good garden plant and deserves to be widely grown, in which case it will need a name so people know what they're being given and what they're buying.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on February 27, 2009, 01:50:10 PM
Sorry, what I forgot to mention was that question 1) is usually very easy to answer at first sight of a new snowdrop or within  a season or two of growing it, and this is what mostly drives the naming of new snowdrops. Question 2) re. garden -worthiness is something that can't be answered immediately but which requires a fairly long period of assessment; which is a good reason for not naming new snowdrops too quickly, especially if they're not highly distinctive because you can end up with the worst of both worlds - an indistinct snowdrop which also turns out to be a poor garden plant.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on February 27, 2009, 07:19:55 PM
I dont see anything special about 'Amy Jade' either. The words late and early should be used either. e.g. in Bob Gordon's garden today plicatus good late form is in full flower.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: steve owen on February 28, 2009, 10:03:50 PM
I promised to check on my Amy Jade, which I thought was different from the posted pic. I was wrong; mine is identical to the posted pic.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on March 01, 2009, 03:23:41 PM
Well that's a relief. Thanks Steve.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on March 01, 2009, 03:29:57 PM
I found this nice poculiformis form in my garden today that I hadn't noticed before. It doesn't look like nivalis to me. Can you advise the type please? Thanks
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: mark smyth on March 01, 2009, 07:10:53 PM
It looks like woronowii. If it does the same next year it will be worth removing from the group and keeping an eye on it. How many outers does it have?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: galanthophile on March 04, 2009, 03:25:35 PM
It has 6 outers. I will watch it closely next year.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Pauli on March 09, 2009, 05:40:01 PM
Hello,

Could somebody help a novice Galanthophil with identification?
First: applanate leaves, glaucous with a slight white midrib - received as John Gray:




Second: plicate leaves



Any suggestions would be welcome!

All the best from Austria!
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: wolfgang vorig on March 09, 2009, 08:18:56 PM
hello,

what is it for a elwesii, who can help?
many thanks,    wolfgang
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on March 09, 2009, 09:21:53 PM
Hello,

Could somebody help a novice Galanthophil with identification?

First: applanate leaves, glaucous with a slight white midrib - received as John Gray:
Second: plicate leaves

Any suggestions would be welcome!

1) Not 'John Gray', as you've obviously already realised. It could be any of the single-marked 'S. Arnott' types. Maybe label it 'Arnott type?'

2) Galanthus plicatus. Doesn't look distinctive enough to be a named form, or at least not one that I can put a name to.
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Martin Baxendale on March 09, 2009, 09:24:14 PM
hello,

what is it for a elwesii, who can help?
many thanks,    wolfgang

It's a nice elwesii, Wolfgang. Doesn't look like a named form, or at least not that I recognise. Did you buy it from a snowdrop nursery or is it from a packet of dried bulbs?
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Pauli on March 10, 2009, 05:30:38 AM
Thank you very much, Martin! ;D

All the best from Linz
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: wolfgang vorig on March 10, 2009, 06:31:15 PM
hello,

what is it for a elwesii, who can help?
many thanks,    wolfgang

It's a nice elwesii, Wolfgang. Doesn't look like a named form, or at least not that I recognise. Did you buy it from a snowdrop nursery or is it from a packet of dried bulbs?

Hello Martin,
I have this Elwesii years ago by a Galanthus - friend get, unfortunately I last the name.

many thanks,  Wolfgang
Title: Re: Galanthus for ID
Post by: Gerard Oud on March 10, 2009, 06:48:28 PM
Could be elwesii Bo Bette, sorry i have no resized photo of it.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal