Snowdrops for identification, please.

[Cyril L]

Yes they are flat and applanate.  I have highlighted the shadows to show this better.

[Alan_b]

Tom hasn't ever bought most of the plants suggested, Trym Baby etc -

You must be reading some other forum, Maggi.  There has only been one suggestion made here and it wasn't that one. 

[Maggi Young]

Chatting offline, Alan.

[emma T]

I've got 'Janet' my Janet's leaves don't look the same as Tom's .

[Alan_b]

Chatting offline, Alan.

Because?  I would be interested to know what supervolute and inverse poc. snowdrops are out there now.  The only one I knew of hitherto was 'Cider with Rosie' which is a lovely snowdrop but a woronowii so the wrong leaf colour (not to mention that it also has reflexed petals).  I don't go in for catalogues so I had never heard of 'Trumpotute' until Gordon suggested it.  Are people generally too shy to make their suggested identifications in public?   

[Brian Ellis]

I've got 'Janet' my Janet's leaves don't look the same as Tom's .

It probably isn't then, they were the only two that sprang to mind - well not exactly sprang  back to the drawing board.

I generally don't like to make stabs in the dark at identification from photos, especially if I don't know the snowdrop, but I did know there was no way it was 'Trumpolute'...and we were chatting offline because we do?

[Alan_b]

I have long advocated that one should be very wary of identification by 'expert', as sometimes happens here.  The best that can be achieved is a prompt towards which of those 'lost-label' snowdrops it is amongst those that you know you bought but can no longer identify.  Even then you may never be sure that the original has not died to be replaced by a similar seedling.  Identification from a single photograph can often be difficult, particularly in instances where people take only the flower and omit the leaves or the spathe and pedicel.

I'm not for one moment suggesting one should not chat offline; it's an excellent facility provided by the Forum.  But cut me some slack if I get confused when people make public reference to conversations they had in private.

[Pauli]

Are the first two pictures warei?

The next two are from plants I selected from wild - are these "nearly albas" (inside of petals is slightly greenish) rare?

[Alan_b]

The original Scharlockii with it's huge split spathe and green-tipped outers was named in 1868 so reaches its 150th anniversary in four years time.  I suspect if it was discovered only today it would sell for hundreds of pounds on eBay.  It comes true from seed and has spawned a lot of varients in its 150 years.  Warei (found 1869) was probably a Scharlockii seedling and lacks the split in the spathe, which remains huge.  But such a long time has passed since that it's well-nigh impossible to say if something is a clone of the original Warei so on that basis if it looks like Warei, it is Warei.

I would say that near-albas as good as those are rare if they perform consistently.  Maybe not enormously rare though.

[Pauli]

Alan, thanks for your clarification.

My warei has a split spathe and an extraordinary long (nearly 5 cm) pedicel!

[Gerard Oud]

And this one? Found in the Amsterdam Forrest by some snowdropenthusiastic sisters, who have become severly infected with galanthusvirus

[MR GRUMPY]

And this one? Found in the Amsterdam Forrest by some snowdropenthusiastic sisters, who have become severly infected with galanthusvirus

Gerard,
       I hope you look after that for them?   It's another beauty

[Gerard Oud]

They found a clump of four Steve And i thought i was a lucky bird

[MR GRUMPY]

They found a clump of four Steve And i thought i was a lucky bird

 and i thought the best snowdrops came from The Crimea

[Alan_b]

My warei has a split spathe and an extraordinary long (nearly 5 cm) pedicel!

 I could not really see on the photograph.  If the spathe is split and huge then it is Scharlockii.  The pedicel is also very long in this type.