|
Post by Michael Catalani on Sept 29, 2007 16:37:09 GMT
Here's an observation I've made of S. rosea in the wild, versus the appearance of S. purpurea in the wild. I say "appearance" because I am basing this on photos of S. purpurea sites I've seen. I have not visited any S. purpurea sites, but I've been going to S. rosea sites for decades.
I have seen quite a few photos of S. purpurea growing partially submerged in water. I'm not sure how temporary this submersion may be, but the plants can be so covered that only the openings of the pitchers remain above water.
S. rosea will not tolerate these conditions in the wild. If only the growing crown of the plant is covered by water for even a short amount of time, it will disappear from that spot. I have visited some locations for more than a decade, and seen old and very mature S. rosea plants totally disappear from one location in a bog, and re-locate to another as the water level in the bog changes. For a couple of years after the water level increase, the almost complete disappearance of S. rosea was simply devastating to see, but after the third year, dozens of plants producing their first mature pitchers were found in a higher location that was now inhabitable. Some of the most mature and largest plants can be found growing on a slightly elevated embankment of a runoff area, where it is protected from flooding, but where the ground stays rather wet and moist.
One reason why an almost immediate recognition of this plant to species status is needed is that of conservation. This plant may still have hundreds of viable locations throughout its range, but the number of plants at most of these locations is extremely low. Some locations, which may be the home of thousands of S. leucophylla and S. psittacina plants, may only contain a single specimen of S. rosea. Most locations will only have a handful of plants. Some locations you may only know that it is there because of hybrids with S. leucophylla or S. flava, but you will be hardpressed to find the plant(s) of S. rosea.
I think the bottom line is that if S. rosea is a separate species, then it is much more endangered in the wild than S. leucophylla, a species in which a lot of attention has been made. S. rosea shares much of the same range as S. leucophylla, and inhabitats the same locations, so the same problems of development and habitat destruction that put S. leucophylla in peril also exist for S. rosea. But S. rosea has the additional problem in that the number of plants per location is far lower than those of S. leucophylla.
|
|
|
Post by John Brittnacher on Oct 2, 2007 0:16:28 GMT
What convinced me to to think about S. rosea as a separate species was the genetic data. It is clearly separable genetically from S. purpurea. When I did look more carefully at the plants, I realized that S. rosea isn't just a pink petaled version of S. purpurea. Yes the pitchers are shaped a little different: S. purpurea purpurea is to S. p. venosa as S. p. venosa is to S. rosea. But what is import is the flowers are different in more ways than petal color. The shorter scapes are important but size and proportions of the flower parts are different, the petals are shorter, colors of the ovary and style are different. It can't be recent derivative or ancestor of S. purpurea and be that different. Or putting it a different way the flower character differences are sufficient to define it as a separate species.
What I don't understand reading Don Schell's paper describing S. p. v. burkii is why he didn't want it to be a full subspecies. He says in the paper that at first he though the plant was just a local variant if not a unique plant. But when he went and looked at lots of populations he realized they were ALL the same variant. Don is a "lumper" but this is a big lump to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 2, 2007 4:40:29 GMT
Hello Michael and John,
Yeah, that is another difference which hasn't even made into any published work yet. S. purpurea likes very wet soil, it will even grow on floating hummocks, if they are stable enough.
S. rosea never does this and it cannot handle extremely wet soil conditions for long. In fact it is more like the VFT with regards to the soil it prefers than S. purpurea. Sandy quartz soil up off the water table vs. peat muck and living Sphagnum soils.
S. rosea is dependent on a fire based ecology, just like the VFT. S. purpurea is much less dependent on fire, though some populations do benefit from fire.
I think Dr. Schnell has mentally blocked himself from several species of North American PC, including Utricularia, Pinguicula, S. purpurea, S. rosea and S. psittacina, and does not pay them any mind other than to note whether they are present at a site or not. Many of the old timers do this. They consider only the largest species worth-while subjects for study. We have a similar situation with Nepenthes researchers passing up new species of Utricularia and Drosera while looking for species of Nepenthes... However, Don's treatment of S. rosea actually goes beyond ignoring the species to actually making up data which in turn cause them to seem more alike S. purpurea to people that can't go and study them in person... What is this "un-science"?
|
|
|
Post by mannyherrera on Oct 2, 2007 12:57:23 GMT
I've seen S.rosea growing in very wet to submerged locations right next to S.psittacina in the Apalachicola National Forest. I've visited these spots throughout the years and have not seen a decline in the population. In fact, the plants were growing in live sphagnum mounds. I don't agree that they "cannot tolerate these conditions in the wild." In cultivation maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Oct 2, 2007 15:19:47 GMT
One reason why an almost immediate recognition of this plant to species status is needed is that of conservation. A laudable sentiment but not a valid reason for elevation to species status.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Oct 2, 2007 17:34:51 GMT
Hey Folks,
There's some discussion regarding how S. purpurea often grows in wet, floating Sphagnum mats while S. rosea tends to avoid such situations, and instead is found in fire-ecology savannas. However, I'm not sure this is a useful observation. I can't think of any fire-ecology savannas in the range of S. purpurea; conversely I don't recall ever seeing a floating Sphagnum mat in the range of S. rosea.
Cheers
Barry
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Oct 2, 2007 17:41:09 GMT
I think Dr. Schnell has mentally blocked himself from several species of North American PC, including Utricularia, Pinguicula, S. purpurea, S. rosea and S. psittacina, and does not pay them any mind other than to note whether they are present at a site or not. Many of the old timers do this. They consider only the largest species worth-while subjects for study. Hey Dave, I'm not sure I can say this is a fair assessment. Don Schnell has, in my opinion, spent quite a bit of time thinking about diminutive little Sarracenia purpurea. After all, he did take the time and effort to describe both var. burkii and var. montana. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his work, the fact his work exists indicates he did indeed think about the plants. I think your claim that Schnell was involved in "actually making up data" is a pretty heady charge, and not one I would make. Cheers Barry
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Oct 2, 2007 17:43:20 GMT
One reason why an almost immediate recognition of this plant to species status is needed is that of conservation. A laudable sentiment but not a valid reason for elevation to species status. I'm not using it as reasoning for elevation. Those reasons have been laid out. I'm simply sounding the alarm, because this plant is in serious peril in the wild. It shares the same long-term viability problems as S. leucophylla (of which much fanfare has been made, and deservedly so) plus it has the additional problem of being extremely spotty throughout the range. It simply does not have the volume of plants in the wild that S. leucophylla does. As far as S. rosea growing in a more permanently submerged condition, I have never witnessed this. I have seen it growing in an area that may be submerged for weeks, but the water level subsides. The areas in which the plant grows that sees an inch or two of water cover the area for an entire growing season will see this plants disappear, whereas S. psittacina and S. leucophylla will explode in numbers under these conditions. Technically, I believe it is more correct to say that S. leucophylla, S. flava, and S. psittacina can grow with S. rosea, rather than saying that S. rosea can grow with these species. If you find S. rosea growing in southern Alabama, you will almost certainly find S. leucophylla and S. psittacina growing with it. But there are plenty of locations that are abundant in S. pisttacina and S. leucophylla in which few, if any, S. rosea can be found. Another good example of this is the area of the Tarkyln Bayou. There is an outter perimeter around the bayou where S. rosea, S. psittacina, and S. leucophylla can be found. But once you approach the bayou's edge, you will only find S. leucophylla and S .psittacina. This is because the bayou level can raise enough to flood the edge for an extended period of time. I'm not saying the plant doesnt get submerged from time to time, because the very areas in which it grows are subjected to this. It simply will not tolerated these conditions for any length of time, and certainly not as a permanent condition. Dave mentioned the conditions of S. rosea being similar to the VFT. A very good barometer plant in which it grows with naturally is Drosera tracyi. If it's too wet for D. tracyi, it's likely too wet for S. rosea. If I find S. rosea in southern Alabama, I guarantee D. tracyi is growing with it in abundance. Unfortunately, S. rosea is so spotty throughout much of its range that there are areas in which I can find a lot of D. tracyi, but no S. rosea.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 3, 2007 23:59:16 GMT
Hello Barry, You should re-read Dr. Schnell's sections on these plants. He actually mentions that he doesn't pay some plants the same attention he does others. I have heard him say this in person, and it is also mentioned in his book. Also, Dr. Schnell has made up data in his book when he mentions the S. purpurea purpurea heterophylla has a lip (peristome?) of similar size to the lip of S. purpurea venosa burkii. Whether one looks at the lips of the plants in question, does not help identify them one way or the other and S. purpurea purpurea heterophylla does not look any different from S. purpurea purpurea from the Great Lake region (I believe these plants represent an un-named taxon which is currently lumped into S. p. p.), in other than having no red/purple pigmentation. I have seen just as many S. p. p. heterophylla as Dr. Schnell, and his data is wrong or made up. Also, he mentions that it is surprising S. rosea has been the only "expression" of S. purpurea found in the Florida panhandle area. If he was paying attention, why would this be surprising without first making assessments and conclusions previous to gathering data? Schnell mentions each subspecies of Sarracenia have their own ranges. However the ranges of S. rubra wherryi and S. rubra gulfensis do overlap. Schnell also mentions Drosera filiformis has never been located or recorded in South Carolina. This isn't true either. Perhaps some of this data is too much for one person to deal with. I know I could not do it and produce a nice book like Carnivorous Plants of North America, but Dr. Schnell's success doesn't affect what I think about some of his data. Why does he elevate color forms of S. flava to variation and not form? And again he uses bogus data to support this, by comparing the shapes of color morph of S. flava from Florida to another color morph from North Carolina. He should compare it first to the shapes of the other color morphs less than a mile away in Florida, not the same one again in North Carolina! The reason he didn't is because they have the same shapes in Florida, the shapes the plants take on are based on more on their location than the color pattern shown by a particular group--bogus data or flawed application of the data... Is memory playing tricks on people? Several old timers tell me they have seen normal S. purpurea venosa down south. I have visited all these sites and have only found S. rosea, no S. purpurea venosa. Apparently there are no specimens of S. purpurea venosa from Florida panhandle area either, they are all (surprisingly!!!) S. rosea. So there are no records of this plant ever growing in Florida, but people do remember seeing it... (And every single one of them has added, "but I don't really pay purps any attention, since they are all over the place." And that is rather funny, because it is very rare in Florida) But only have photos of S. rosea from Florida[/i] and S. purpurea venosa from Carolina. Is this plant ( S. p. v.) like the "bog foot" of Florida pitcher plants? I think Dr. Schnell has mentally blocked himself from several species of North American PC, including Utricularia, Pinguicula, S. purpurea, S. rosea and S. psittacina, and does not pay them any mind other than to note whether they are present at a site or not. Many of the old timers do this. They consider only the largest species worth-while subjects for study. Hey Dave, I'm not sure I can say this is a fair assessment. Don Schnell has, in my opinion, spent quite a bit of time thinking about diminutive little Sarracenia purpurea. After all, he did take the time and effort to describe both var. burkii and var. montana. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his work, the fact his work exists indicates he did indeed think about the plants. I think your claim that Schnell was involved in "actually making up data" is a pretty heady charge, and not one I would make. Cheers Barry
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 4, 2007 6:46:46 GMT
This is interesting, I have seen them in several areas growing along side S. psittacina also. However, these areas were still dry enough for Drosera filiformis tracyi which was also present in large numbers. I was at this place in Perdido, AL that had several species of Sarracenia growing in a manner I can describe as stacked. Literally they were growing on each-other with S. psittacina at the bottom of the pile. But this was caused by the way the water drained from the area due to human disturbance. To say these plants were growing normally would not be accurate, none had flowered the year before. Different species of Sphagnum can be found in Florida, some sit in water, others can grow higher off the water table and still thrive. I have never seen S. rosea growing like S. purpurea purpurea with the water level just below the opening of the pitcher. I didn't even realize it until Micheal mentioned it here in this thread. Never seen S. purpurea venosa growing like this either... I've seen S.rosea growing in very wet to submerged locations right next to S.psittacina in the Apalachicola National Forest. I've visited these spots throughout the years and have not seen a decline in the population. In fact, the plants were growing in live sphagnum mounds. I don't agree that they "cannot tolerate these conditions in the wild." In cultivation maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Oct 4, 2007 7:08:57 GMT
Dear Barry, The fire-ecology savannas used to extend from Delaware, south into Texas. Four hundred years of industrialization has erased them. The Okefenokee Swamp (fen actually) was created and maintained naturally by fire. Now that fire has been suppressed for four hundred years, the swamp is about 1/3 its original size. S. minor okefenensis is the product of a fire-ecology. Take away the fire, the swamp fills in and the plant most likely goes extinct. The Pine Barrens main plant is a pitch-pine. The whole area is supposed to burn every five to ten years. Pitch-pines and cedar are fire resistant species, and they also tend to be marker species, indicating where you will probably find CP's... As fire stays suppressed, other species of shrubs and trees can move in, changing the ecology further away from one that can support carnivorous plants. Hey Folks, There's some discussion regarding how S. purpurea often grows in wet, floating Sphagnum mats while S. rosea tends to avoid such situations, and instead is found in fire-ecology savannas. However, I'm not sure this is a useful observation. I can't think of any fire-ecology savannas in the range of S. purpurea; conversely I don't recall ever seeing a floating Sphagnum mat in the range of S. rosea. Cheers Barry
|
|
|
Post by mannyherrera on Oct 4, 2007 11:39:47 GMT
I've definitely never seen S.purpurea venosa growing in Florida. Those who said so must be mistaken. I haven't found any purps in southern Georgia at all either. I think I read somewhere that purpurea skips over southern Georgia. But if they did grow there (and maybe they do) what form would they be?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Oct 4, 2007 16:47:38 GMT
I've definitely never seen S.purpurea venosa growing in Florida. Those who said so must be mistaken. I haven't found any purps in Georgia at all. I think I read somewhere that purpurea skips over southern Georgia. But if the did grow there (and maybe they do) what form would they be? This was kind of what I was alluding to, but left it out of my post. I was wondering if plants growing in extended submerged conditions in the range of S. rosea might be S. purpurea. I have never seen S. purpurea in the range of S. rosea, but my experience with the easternmost range is limited as compared to S. roseas central range. If the two did grow together, I would suspect that would be the place to find them. However, everyone I have talked to who are familiar with the area and these two plants share your same sentiment; S. purpurea is not down there.
|
|
|
Post by mannyherrera on Oct 4, 2007 17:00:13 GMT
You might be right about rosea not liking it submerged for extended periods. I was just commenting on the fact that there are sites where I've seen them partially submerged every time I've been there. That, of course, is probably due to the time of year when I normally visit Sarracenia country. I have, however, seen them growing on sphagnum mounds slightly elevated above the water (and in the water). I wish I had pics...I recently switched over to digital. But that's inconsequential. But no...S.purpurea venosa is not down here. Unless it was placed here like the flytraps. I, too, am not very familiar with purp venosa habitats on the East Coast. As aforementioned, I have never found any purps in south Georgia. I assume if the ranges of rosea and venosa were to overlap it would be there.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Oct 4, 2007 18:48:57 GMT
Dear Barry, The fire-ecology savannas used to extend from Delaware, south into Texas. Four hundred years of industrialization has erased them. The Okefenokee Swamp (fen actually) was created and maintained naturally by fire. Now that fire has been suppressed for four hundred years, the swamp is about 1/3 its original size. S. minor okefenensis is the product of a fire-ecology. Take away the fire, the swamp fills in and the plant most likely goes extinct. The Pine Barrens main plant is a pitch-pine. The whole area is supposed to burn every five to ten years. Pitch-pines and cedar are fire resistant species, and they also tend to be marker species, indicating where you will probably find CP's... As fire stays suppressed, other species of shrubs and trees can move in, changing the ecology further away from one that can support carnivorous plants. Hey Folks, There's some discussion regarding how S. purpurea often grows in wet, floating Sphagnum mats while S. rosea tends to avoid such situations, and instead is found in fire-ecology savannas. However, I'm not sure this is a useful observation. I can't think of any fire-ecology savannas in the range of S. purpurea; conversely I don't recall ever seeing a floating Sphagnum mat in the range of S. rosea. Cheers Barry Hey Dave, Your point is perfectly noted. My mistake. I just reread my post and thought to myself, "what was I thinking when I wrote that?!" I must have been thinking exclusively about S. purpurea subsp. purpurea populations (i.e. northwards of NJ, since I don't know what to make of your NJ Barrens plants). (For heaven's sake, anyone knows the importance of fire to NC's Green Swamp!!!) Even so, I didn't realize that habitats from NJ up to Delaware were fire communities. Thanks for this information.
|
|