|
Post by gregallan on Aug 2, 2009 19:00:32 GMT
Byblis guehoi 'Kimberley', seed grown from the CPS seedbank. All of these flowers are from one plant Closeups of flowers, same plant. Not a good photo, but gives an impression of what the whole plant looks like. Byblis rorida 'Lake Campion' Developing seed pod, same form B rorida again, very sticky! Same plant. The dewy sessile glands around the growing point which are the distinctive feature of B rorida are visible on this photo Byblis filifolia 'Boulk Area' Same again, older flower Same again, developing seed pod Byblis aquatica 'Noonamah NT'. I had several plants which dried out as a result of a recent leak in my tropical terrarium. Fortunately, the plants sprouted new shoots from the old stems Same species- very sticky. Byblis aquatica has very short tentacles, so the leaves appear to be frosted with large droplets of dew. For the sake of completeness, Byblis liniflora, the most commonly grown of the five currently described species of tropical Byblis.
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Aug 4, 2009 17:33:50 GMT
Wonderful photography gregallan, Take care, Steven Stewart
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Aug 6, 2009 20:03:13 GMT
Hello gregallan & all,
I want to make this post here today, because of a post I made on Tuesday, that I removed due to the changes I found made by gregallan to his original post. I did not remove my original post lightly.
I will also state that I was in error when I made reference to error of his photograph of Byblis liniflora. I thought I had changed this prior to posting. There is not enough combined detail to determine, without doubt, the species of the photograph he labels Byblis liniflora, or any other species in his post.
I meant no disrespect to gregallan Tuesday or now. I feel gregallan is (hopefully) trying to make available concrete data for the readers here to make sense of the "new" species of tropical Byblis described from Australia.
I wrote line by line problems I saw in gregallan's post, and noted one, seemingly to me blatant, photograph used twice to describe two separate Byblis species. Gregallan's post was made on Aug. 2, 2009, and I said nothing for two days in hopes that gregallan or one of the moderators of this forum would correct the obvious discrepancies. Gregallan had made at least one edit to his post, prior to my post and the photographs were only changed after I made clear they were the same photograph.
I would like to look at all gregallan's photographs, and notes, and see information that I agree with. I am unable to do so. I fear gregallan's posted photographs will again change, so I see no point in repeating a line by line, photograph by photograph, disagreement again.
I will say that I noted the overlapping petals on a photograph gregallan labelled Byblis geuhoi, and the lack of any overlap in a front view photograph he labels Byblis rorida. Gregallan responded that newly open flowers of Byblis always overlap and older flowers spread more widely, making this a pointless aspect. I understand flower morphology quite well, and this was taken into account by me prior to my post. Gregallan is finding features in photographs to match the written descriptions from Australia rather than looking at the written descriptions to determine which species are which.
I have seen enough tropical Byblis grown by myself and others to know now that variable environmental conditions can have significant effect on plant and flower development and morphology.
Brian Barnes has posted some very clear photographs that show a few of the extreme differences Byblis can have when grown in unique conditions.
Take care, Steven Stewart
|
|
|
Post by gregallan on Aug 7, 2009 23:26:15 GMT
There appears to have been some sort of misunderstanding. I have no vested interest in these plants being classified as separate species. When I posted these photos, I was not even aware that such a debate was taking place. My intention was simply to post some interesting photos of my plants. The plants all originated from seed labelled as particular species. Despite apparent opinions to the contrary, I see nothing unreasonable in presuming that the plants are true representations of those species, especially as they seem to be in accordance with botanical descriptions of those species. If it is convincingly demonstrated that these plants are not separate species, then I will gladly amend the labels accordingly. I have my own opinions on the classification of these species, which I have laid out in the thread above this one. I am not a botanist, however, and will revise my opinions if sufficient evidence arises to the contrary. My own opinions are, in fact, that the current botanical classifications may not be correct. At present, though, I will label my plants as formally described. The post was not intended as any sort of justification for the current classification of the tropical Byblis species.
Steven states that he means no disrespect, and then implies that I may duplicitously edit my post if he posts a 'line by line' disagreement. I find this disrespectful in the extreme. There was indeed an error in my original post; a photo was erroneously duplicated and mislabelled. This was pointed out in no uncertain terms by Steven in his original line by line response. I edited my original thread (the sixth photo has been changed) I created a line by line response to his original response, in which I acknowledged my error. He then deleted his original response, so, figuring that my response would make little sense with his gone, I also deleted mine. Steven also states that he meant no disrespect on Tuesday. For the record, on Tuesday, he accused me of spreading 'disinformation', which, as it implies deliberate deception is, once again, disrespectful in my book.
Steven also states that 'I was in error when I made reference to error of his photograph of Byblis liniflora. I thought I had changed this prior to posting. There is not enough combined detail to determine, without doubt, the species of the photograph he labels Byblis liniflora, or any other species in his post'. This strikes me as nit-picking; the implication being that whenever photos of a plant are posted on this forum, the poster should ensure that sufficient detail is always included so that, from those photos alone, it is possible to determine the species. I find this concept a little peculiar.
For the record, I am by no means adverse to anyone pointing out errors in any of my posts, or challenging the identity of any species that I post photos of. In fact, I welcome any such clarifications. There are, however, polite ways of doing this.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Aug 8, 2009 14:26:47 GMT
Hello gregallan & all,
I agree, there has been some sort of misunderstanding!
From my perspective, I have seen this thread on Byblis, difficult to the extreme! Forgive any lack of diplomacy on my part. Communication is not one of my strong points!
I made a post pointing out a major discrepancy, that had seemingly gone unnoticed by many readers (same photo for two plant species), for several days, that was simply eliminated, making my post incorrect, where it was not. I still see a photograph in your post, of a plant you call Byblis guhoi, being used to show a feature of B. rorida, and believe they and B. filifolia (edit and B. aquatica) are all one variable species.
A private message to gregallan by me would probably have corrected the problem, and I apologise for not taking that "route". Instead I removed my post and complemented your beautiful photographs! I still believe your photographs are great!
The format of this and all on-line forum venues, allow editing after days of "publication", making all of the substance questionable, and sometimes, confused, over time. I have been frustrated in my attempts to match some published plant descriptions on-line and in print, to solid features of these species of Byblis in question. Censorship and exclusionary policies of "PG" level information, and opinion, in online venues is also concerning to me.
I also have no vested interests in Byblis taxonomy, other than wanting better understanding of these interesting carnivorous plants! We agree much more than we disagree. But we still obviously disagree! I repeat, I have meant no disrespect to you gregallan!! Thank you for sharing your photographs, obvious horticultural skills, and experience.
Take care, Steven Stewart
|
|
|
Post by gregallan on Aug 9, 2009 18:51:18 GMT
No hard feelings! Yes, we do appear to disagree, but disagreements of this type lead to progress. I look forward to more interesting debates on this topic. Also, thanks for your kind comments regarding the photos.
Greg
|
|