Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Specific Families and Genera => Pleione and Orchidaceae => Topic started by: Graham Catlow on July 18, 2010, 05:37:46 PM
-
Hi!
I wonder if anyone would have any offsets of a white Dactylorhiza, (possibly O’Kellyi or ‘Eskimo Nell’), to spare if you are splitting yours this year. I have a couple of options for exchange. The first I purchased as D. foliosa, but the second was given to me and I don't have a name for it.
The other option is that I purchase one from you.
Please PM me if you are interested in exchanging or selling.
The photos below are of the parent plants that I will remove off sets from.
D. foliosa
D. unknown?
D. unknown? leaves.
Graham
-
I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.
-
I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
-
I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.
I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?
Thank you both for your comments.
Graham
-
Ah well, it was just a suggestion after all. ;D Thanks Gote for the correction. It wouldn't be the first time I'd put the parts around the wrong way. ???
I really like these spotted orchids because they seed about and come up in pots, troughs and anywhere in the grass or soil. Lovely to have orchids naturalizing in one's garden. :D
-
Lesley,
Dang, I wish they would in mine!! ::)
-
I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.
I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?
Thank you both for your comments.
Graham
So you are confused. Welcome to the club! ;D
I think that this is an area where there have been too many splitters around. Orchids are prestige plants so they are a popular subject. I have grown a plant that started with solid stem and narrow leaves = maculata and which two years later had hollow stem and broad leaves = majalis. I have also seen swarms of dactylorhizas at Catalan roadsides that had all sorts of variations.
I have a suspicion that some of the early diagnoses (which are supposed to have precedence) were made on immature or otherwise atypical specimen which were found singly - not in populations which showed the natural variation. The result is that keys and descriptions sometimes rely on traits that are not constant.
Looking at your pictures - at the stage they are - I also think it looks like majalis. The rather wide leaves and pointed dark inflorecense point to that. Fuchsii is USUALLY lighter pink but that says next to nothing.
Some of the things that I cannot see in your pics are length of bracts, edge of bracts shape of lip (threeparted, deeply threeparted or not threeparted). Shape of the bottom leaf.
The question would be easier if we knew the origin of the plant.
Göte
-
I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.
I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?
Thank you both for your comments.
Graham
So you are confused. Welcome to the club! ;D
I think that this is an area where there have been too many splitters around. Orchids are prestige plants so they are a popular subject. I have grown a plant that started with solid stem and narrow leaves = maculata and which two years later had hollow stem and broad leaves = majalis. I have also seen swarms of dactylorhizas at Catalan roadsides that had all sorts of variations.
I have a suspicion that some of the early diagnoses (which are supposed to have precedence) were made on immature or otherwise atypical specimen which were found singly - not in populations which showed the natural variation. The result is that keys and descriptions sometimes rely on traits that are not constant.
Looking at your pictures - at the stage they are - I also think it looks like majalis. The rather wide leaves and pointed dark inflorecense point to that. Fuchsii is USUALLY lighter pink but that says next to nothing.
Some of the things that I cannot see in your pics are length of bracts, edge of bracts shape of lip (threeparted, deeply threeparted or not threeparted). Shape of the bottom leaf.
The question would be easier if we knew the origin of the plant.
Göte
Thanks Gote,
I think this could run for a long time and is perhaps not in the correct thread. It may never come to a perfect conclusion.
Maybe we should wind it up after this entry and move to PMs if we wish to continue.
I have attached four more photos for you.
The cut stem is from the largest plant I currently have as is the photo of the leaf. All the stems I cut are not hollow; suggesting it is not majalis. The younger plants have narrow leaves even down to the basal ones. There are also two close up photos of the flower.
Maybe this will help :-\
Graham
-
I'll rename this topic and move it to the orchid section. :)
-
Hi Maggi,
I thought you might at some point ;)
Graham
-
Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata are seperate named species.
As for naming unknowns, safest way is just to put Dactylorhiza on the label and the flower colour.
The range you see in one population in the wild is amazing.
I did note that no one volunteered identifications on the field trip photos ;D
-
Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata are seperate named species.
As for naming unknowns, safest way is just to put Dactylorhiza on the label and the flower colour.
The range you see in one population in the wild is amazing.
I did note that no one volunteered identifications on the field trip photos ;D
Certainly - by the auctors in question. However, the situation today seems to be that fuchsii is regarded as a subspecies of maculata which was named Orchis maculata in Species plantarum and thus is the type.
That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte
-
Graham,
I will check with my books but cannot do that within the next few days. If you do not hear from me on this thread or privately within a couple of weeks, pls give me a prod.
Cheers
Göte
-
That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte
They've had 48 years to change the label, surely that's long enough ::)
-
That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte
They've had 48 years to change the label, surely that's long enough ::)
I am not quite sure what you mean by that ??? Stålberg’s doctoral thesis was published in 2003. That is only seven years ago and it seems that the homepage contains data from the thesis. If you disagree with the thesis I am sure Stålberg would be delighted to be corrected. :P
I suggest that you study the thesis. It is in English and available on: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1176457
-
hello Göte,
tks for that interesting link.
as a conclusion I think, the guy is right :)
cheers
-
If you disagree with the thesis I am sure Stålberg would be delighted to be corrected. :P
I suggest that you study the thesis. It is in English and available on: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1176457
Of course I disagree with Stålberg.
1. I agree with Soó, Dactylorhiza fuchsii is a seperate species, I like the Marches he wrote in the USA too
2. The thesis is not in English it's in Botanese, they have to do something to justify the time spent at university.
3. Agreeing would deprive Britain of an orchid species and we have few enough already.
-
Certainly I'm not able to take part in any botanical argument here but I bought DD. maculata and fuchsii as separate species, in the UK in 1981. Later I read that fuchsii was now to be considered a subspecies of maculata. In my plants, ssp. fuchsii is shorter, has paler pink flowers and narrower foliage. The spotting is paler too.
-
Certainly I'm not able to take part in any botanical argument here but I bought DD. maculata and fuchsii as separate species, in the UK in 1981. Later I read that fuchsii was now to be considered a subspecies of maculata. In my plants, ssp. fuchsii is shorter, has paler pink flowers and narrower foliage. The spotting is paler too.
The funny thing is that in my area (where ssp. maculata is endemic and ssp. fuchsii not) maculata is only half size of fuchsii - on the other hand, some 100 km from here, I once found what probably was ssp maculata (this was pre-Soó days) that were "full size". The local maculatas are usually paler than the fuchsiis I have got from various sources - none being so dark as the ones in the posts here. All mine seem to have the same shade on the spots. personally I go for the shape of the bottom leaf when I make the distinction.
The Swedish floras say that ssp. fuchsii is only found in limestone areas but mine grow knee high in a low pH bed - another case of the difference between what plants do in the wild and in a garden situation.
Cheers
Göte
-
If this is of any help ??? ??? ???, the International Plant Name Index maintained by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, has lots of entries for Dactylorhiza maculata, none of them ssp. fuchsii.
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=D28573E3F2C7F6A04FF59EA46B2DB601?find_family=&find_genus=dactylorhiza&find_species=maculata&find_infrafamily=&find_infragenus=&find_infraspecies=&find_authorAbbrev=&find_includePublicationAuthors=on&find_includePublicationAuthors=off&find_includeBasionymAuthors=on&find_includeBasionymAuthors=off&find_publicationTitle=&find_isAPNIRecord=on&find_isAPNIRecord=false&find_isGCIRecord=on&find_isGCIRecord=false&find_isIKRecord=on&find_isIKRecord=false&find_rankToReturn=all&output_format=normal&find_sortByFamily=on&find_sortByFamily=off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch (http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=D28573E3F2C7F6A04FF59EA46B2DB601?find_family=&find_genus=dactylorhiza&find_species=maculata&find_infrafamily=&find_infragenus=&find_infraspecies=&find_authorAbbrev=&find_includePublicationAuthors=on&find_includePublicationAuthors=off&find_includeBasionymAuthors=on&find_includeBasionymAuthors=off&find_publicationTitle=&find_isAPNIRecord=on&find_isAPNIRecord=false&find_isGCIRecord=on&find_isGCIRecord=false&find_isIKRecord=on&find_isIKRecord=false&find_rankToReturn=all&output_format=normal&find_sortByFamily=on&find_sortByFamily=off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch)
There are also lots of entries for Dactylorhiza fuchsii, none of them with ssp. maculata.
There is, however, Dactylorhiza majalis ( Rchb. ) P.F.Hunt & Summerh. f. maculata ( Thielens ) Soó
Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 16(3-4): 368. 1971 [1970 publ. 1971]. ;D
-
.......... the International Plant Name Index maintained by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, has lots of entries for Dactylorhiza maculata, none of them ssp. fuchsii.
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=D28573E3F2C7F6A04FF59EA46B2DB601?find_family=&find_genus=dactylorhiza&find_species=maculata&find_infrafamily=&find_infragenus=&find_infraspecies=&find_authorAbbrev=&find_includePublicationAuthors=on&find_includePublicationAuthors=off&find_includeBasionymAuthors=on&find_includeBasionymAuthors=off&find_publicationTitle=&find_isAPNIRecord=on&find_isAPNIRecord=false&find_isGCIRecord=on&find_isGCIRecord=false&find_isIKRecord=on&find_isIKRecord=false&find_rankToReturn=all&output_format=normal&find_sortByFamily=on&find_sortByFamily=off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch (http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=D28573E3F2C7F6A04FF59EA46B2DB601?find_family=&find_genus=dactylorhiza&find_species=maculata&find_infrafamily=&find_infragenus=&find_infraspecies=&find_authorAbbrev=&find_includePublicationAuthors=on&find_includePublicationAuthors=off&find_includeBasionymAuthors=on&find_includeBasionymAuthors=off&find_publicationTitle=&find_isAPNIRecord=on&find_isAPNIRecord=false&find_isGCIRecord=on&find_isGCIRecord=false&find_isIKRecord=on&find_isIKRecord=false&find_rankToReturn=all&output_format=normal&find_sortByFamily=on&find_sortByFamily=off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch)
There are also lots of entries for Dactylorhiza fuchsii, none of them with ssp. maculata.
There is, however, Dactylorhiza majalis ( Rchb. ) P.F.Hunt & Summerh. f. maculata ( Thielens ) Soó
Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 16(3-4): 368. 1971 [1970 publ. 1971]. ;D
hey, what can we learn by this ?
RHS is always right ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
but sometimes we are too arrogant to note,
that things can change...........
cheers
-
The distinction of D. maculata and D. fuchsii (or D. maculata ssp. maculata and D. maculata ssp. fuchsii) has already been discussed for more than 30 years. Because of the adaptability of both to different habitats I think, that from a gardeners point of view this distinction is only of academic interest. DNA-analysis also has not made things clear.
Nevertheless -since we have been spending our summer holidays in Sweden for nearly 15 years- I find Stahlbergs thesis very very interesting. The things he reports from the swedish populations of Dactylorhiza maculata ssp. fuchsii and ssp. maculata (that they are very similar in growth and may mainly be distinct by their growing places) can easily be seen there. My favourite criterion for distinguishing ssp. maculata and ssp. fuchsii is the structure of the lip. In nearly all swedish Dactylorhiza maculata, the lip is fairly intermediate between ssp. maculata and ssp. fuchsii (possibly nearer to ssp. maculata) but they are growing in completely different habitats.
Personally I think that all of these are D. maculata with more or less regional differences.