cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 14, 2011 11:25:53 GMT
Dear sweetpea-san, Thank you once again for sharing your experience and the article. The following are the photos of B. guehoi (top) and B. 'Goliath' (bottom) flowers.
|
|
|
Post by shartmeyer on Aug 15, 2011 8:43:42 GMT
Hey Cindy, your "Goliath" does 1st not show the typical branching and 2nd the flower does not look typical for that cultivar. Goliath flowers vary in size, but their details are very stable and identical. Below you see a typical Goliath flower. Meanwhile I am a little experienced with the plant and in my collection the cultivar Goliath is since 2009 relatively stable in growing-shape, fertility and flower details.
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 15, 2011 12:58:12 GMT
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 15, 2011 13:42:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Aug 15, 2011 14:31:02 GMT
Hi Cindy,
The second photo you are referring to is; "B. rorida, guehoi, aquatica, filifolia = 'Goliath' . You forgot to mention the = (equals) symbol on the last photo, which makes all others self-explanatory.
Brian
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 16, 2011 15:03:32 GMT
Hi Brian,
I've modified the text as you have suggested. ;D
However, what I meant is...are 'Goliath' flowers with overlapping petals like in my photo or non-overlapping petals like in shartmeyer's photo? Or both? TIA
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Aug 17, 2011 12:36:07 GMT
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 17, 2011 14:52:35 GMT
Hi Brian,
Thanks for clarifying! I have only one plant that is flowering now...the others are still young.
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 26, 2011 13:47:47 GMT
Here are some results from the cross-pollination between three B. guehoi plants. Plant A and B - overlapping petals Plant C - non-overlapping/less overlapping petals Plant A's pulvini Plant C's pulvini Check out the fruit formed on Plant C where the upper right arrow is. The arrow on the lower left is shows the region represented by the photo above. Interesting observations... 1. All of Plant A's pedicels hang down and pulvini are very much enlarged. Pollen was from Plant C. 2. Plant B has flowers similar to Plant A and its pedicels hang down, similarly with pulvini enlarged. Pollen was from Plant C. 3. Plant C's pedicels stay mostly upright though some are lowered (to a lesser extent than Plant A and Plant B). Pulvini remain small. Pollen was from Plant A. 4. Fruits from all three plants look viable (but I'll update once they split if they do contain seeds). p.s. I am assuming that there is no natural pollinator over the past few weeks
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Aug 26, 2011 15:54:26 GMT
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 28, 2011 10:02:36 GMT
Hi Brian, I checked the plants very thoroughly today. (Not a difficult task 'cos I only have three B. guehoi at the moment. LOL) The fastest growing plant, which is also the first to branch, does not have enlarged pulvini on any of its pedicels! Why would the pulvini on one particular plant not enlarge despite the fruit being formed? I thought enlarged pulvini are found on all pedicels carrying a pollinated flower which will form seeds? Or am I mistaken? 'Cos so far, my very limited experience is with B. liniflora...and its pedicels are downwards pointing and always have enlarged pulvini. Differences in different clones?
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Aug 29, 2011 12:54:55 GMT
Hi Cindy,
Your prior post stated that all three examples have pulvini present, but one to a lesser extent. So pulvini is present on all, just less developed in one specimen I take it, correct?
I would contribute the pulvinic underdevelopment to minor genetic differences in that particular plant, however it would prove interesting to see how much seed and the seed fertility rate of the plant with lesser pronounced pulvini.
Brian
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Aug 30, 2011 7:31:50 GMT
Hi Brian, These are close-up photos of two pedicels on the same plant. I stated that the pulvini are not enlarged but upon closer look...there seem to be no pedicel pulvini at all. The leaves have them though.
|
|
|
Post by shartmeyer on Sept 3, 2011 10:07:21 GMT
Hey Cindy, is there still a flower on the pedicel (no pulvinus) or does the pedicel carry a seed pod (pulvinus develops)? Of course the size of pulvini may be very different. Here is a photo of a pulvinus on Mimosa pudica for comparison. Regarding the flowers of Byblis "Goliath", they are as constant in detail at my greenhouse (also new generations grown from seeds), like the less branching B. filifolia "Kununurra" was, which I grew for some generations. The partly developing really distinct flowers on some Byblis filifolia "Goliath" off-spring, described by Brian (who cultivated much more plants than I did), are in my opinion probably the result of back crossing (Fx-generation) from a former hybridization, which is of course not easy to evidence in behind. However, overlapping flowers with different colors as well as non-branching plants appear, but are not typical for the described cultivar.
|
|
cindy
Full Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by cindy on Sept 4, 2011 11:13:22 GMT
Hi shartmeyer,
The pedicel had no pulvinus when it carried a flower, and had no pulvinus when it carried a seed pod.
I harvested the fruit from that particular upright pedicel (photo in post #23) today. Seeds look viable but there is only a small number of them (eight in total).
The single 'Goliath' plant is all I have at the moment so the characteristics of its flowers cannot be used as a definitive description of the cultivar. Besides, the source wasn't Brian himself so there could very well be some other filifolia traits in it.
|
|