Byblis misinformation...

[Brian Barnes]

Hello All,

Well in my opinion I must say that there's something suspicious about Mr. Lowrie's recent Byblis photos. The link to his publicly posted Forum photos can be found here;

www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31873&pid=245236&st=0&#entry245236

Firstly, any Byblis I've ever grown always shows evidence of prior leaf growth on the bottom base of the main stem, usually pointing downwards like so. Note size of plant;




Secondly, using the above Lowrie photos as reference, there is definitely no bracts of any kind present on the lower main stem near the ground the supposed "B. rorida" in the photo. In fact, the few visable dead leaves that are present are coming up from what looks like what once was a finger hole in which a cutting was placed. Note the curvate shape of the emerging withered leaves from the indentation, which suggests the cutting was shoved into the ground with a downward force that caused the dead leaves to bow around the edges of the indentation... or what once was a hole. Even once the dead leaves are gone, a series of bracts are usually visable. Some of the dead leaves depicted even appear to be partially buried. Byblis never produces leaves completely flush with or below ground level when grown from seed, in my experience. Also, I suspect that the supposed "B. guehoi" accompanying "B. rorida" is one of the Byblis forms that has been sprayed with B-9 (Daminozide) or some other growth regulating hormone that stunts the internode length and produces bizarre branching and flower-producing anomalies, and is sadly...trying to be passed off as a naturally occuring new species or type-locality of Byblis. In my opinion, the supposed "second location" is simply someone's flower-bed. The final location photo is simply provided as a placebo and isn't even relevant to the "cutting" photos. Below are photos of some of my rooted B. 'Goliath' [filifolia] cuttings which were at one time, tops of clones. You'll see the definite relevance to the above mentioned instances when comparing the bottom main stem to ground zones with my photo below;



The above photo is a fine example of a Byblis 'Goliath' plant that has combined attributes of three supposed species. Using Lowrie and Conrad's paper on B. guehoi as a guide. The below reference paper was legally purchased by myself from Mr. Lowrie on 10/9/08 via his CP papers/music CD that is offered for sale on his seedlist.
www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/91873/Tel121023Low.pdf

I'll explain the combined traits. "pedicels longer than leaves" is present, which is a definitive trait of B. guehoi. B. liniflora is the only other species cited that supposedly shares this trait. Also, note the branching occuring. However, when viewing the flowers abaxially, one can see that they are purple. Per official description, B. aquatica is the only other Byblis species mentioned that has "purple backed" flowers;



Now, let's compare sepals, anthers and filaments;




Note the various sepal lengths existant on the same flower. In my opinion, this discredits the use of sepal to petal length comparisons as a definitive form of species identification within the genus Byblis. The filament color is pale lavender, which is supposed to be the definitive trait of B. aquatica, B. filifolia and B.liniflora, per the official species descriptions.

Now, let's focus our attention on "pedicel to leaf" comparision as a positive form of species identification. Below is a photo of a B. 'Goliath' clone. Notice that all flowers are open, but as one progresses towards the top of the plant, pedicel length decreases. The taller the plant gets, the pedicels eventually become equal to, then shorter than the length of the leaves. B. guehoi and B. liniflora are cited per official description as the only two species possessing "pedicels longer than leaves" The photo below proves pedicel length is useless in species identification.



On the topic of pedicel to leaf comparision, take a look at the supposed photo of "B. rorida" by Lowrie. To the left you can see a fruiting capsule that's almost the size of the entire plant!! One of "B. rorida's" most definitive traits per official species description is "pedicels shorter than leaves". The pedicel depicted is easily three times larger than any leaf on the plant. Well, I guess that pretty much proves my point.

Another topic one may find quite interesting, is the fact that Florabase (a well-known and popular Australian plant database) has had the photos of Byblis aquatica, Byblis rorida, Byblis guehoi and Byblis lamellata removed, with two being more recently. How convenient! This was one of the few official, (if not only) botanical databases that is publicly accessable as a comparative, neutral tool for identification of supposed Byblis species, other than the photos of grossly misidentified plants most growers have in cultivation. My opinion is that this is purely intentional, in order to frantically try to fix the blatent mistakes within the genus. (I've always thought that B. lamellata and B. gigantea are the same plant, just slightly different flower traits) Now, the only thing growers will have is these "new" photos of Byblis surfacing from Lowrie to take their place. Proof of the forementioned can be provided with the following link;

florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/search/quick?q=Byblis

Alas, I can say that B. 'Goliath' [filifolia] clones have been successfully growing in many different parts of the world by reputable, long-time CP growers for many months now. It is finally being proven by various growers that flooded conditions, wet conditions and dry conditions greatly influence overall plant growth habit, leaf size, pedicel size, seed size and flower morphology within the genus Byblis, giving the illusion of forms that deserve seperate species status. I am also pleased to report that the final results regarding the usage of the growth inhibiting B-9 (Daminozide) will be released soon, by two well-known German growers. So far, B. 'Goliath' [filifolia] clones are responding with growth habits almost identical to the Japanese "B. guehoi" forms, with multiple branchings occurring from leaf bracts, shortened internodes and over-all size and increased inflorescences, including huge flowers. Official detailed research documents and photos will be released soon on the Florida Carnivorous Plant Society's website and Forums. I guess i'll now step down from my soap box and leave you with photos of my latest creation, Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia] "Multicolored variant". I will make myself available, should anyone wish to discuss the above instances quietly, intelligently and in a gentlemanly fashion.

I'm guessing that the links I've provided, along with the photos in question may magically disappear or be altered after certain people read this post. Should that be the case, I'll gladly provide the proper research tools to anyone that asks, as I've legally purchased actual copies of the above mentioned reference materials, descriptions and papers.



Documentation of pulvinus;




Happy Growing,

Brian Barnes
ICPS Director of Conservation
President/The Florida Carnivorous Plant Society
8/6/2009

[stevestewart]

Brian,

I think that Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia] seems to have the most reliable name in the "newly" described species of this tropical group/individuals. Anyone taking the time to cypher through the selective descriptions from Australia, in the links you, and they, make available, will see that your photographs show the distinguishing characteristics clearly from multiple species on one plant.

Take care,
Steven Stewart

[Richard Davion]

I-'Found' The EMPHASIS on Albino-Forms in-Volume-III Rather-Bizzarre Considering It-Hadn't-Been 'Heralded' in-Any-Other Form Prior to Publication.

Your Bi-Coloured Byblis Certainly Must Put-The-Cat-Amongst The-Pigeons ... Cudos to-You for Showing that The-Emphasis on Flower-Colour is Apparently 'Ludicrous' in The Genus-Byblis.

We 'Now'-Have RED-Aldrovanda, RED-Capes & RED-Flytraps that Don't 'Stay'-RED and WHITE-Capes that 'Pink'. WHY?

Is-it 'Just'-ME ... or I'm I Overly-'Sensitive' When-it Comes to- Smelling The-Odour of Possible-Rats-in-The-Ranks!!!

This Comes on The-Recent 'Discovery' that LIVERWORTS R-Usually ~50% Obligate Calcicoles!!! >(*~*)<

We Dumb-Arse Little-Vegemite Australians Singlely-Failed, with-Our Non-European-Centric Mentality & Knowledge, Failed-to-Note Such Extrordinary Goings-on in Pots for The Past-~20-25-Years in This Country. >(*~*)<

I've NEVER 'Had' R-LIVERWORT Come-up in-35-Years, in Ordinary Peat-&-Sand Mixtures PERIOD!!! NEVER 'Seen'-One Growing in-Anyone-Else's-Collection in Peat-&-Sand Mixtures PERIOD!!! >(*~*)<

[BarryRice]

Hey Brian,

It is interesting to read your news. I’m particularly fascinated by your photo of a single Byblis plant bearing flowers with different colors.

I have to admit, I’m a little behind the times on the goings-on in this genus, but I think it is great that you’re doing very interesting research on the plants. I remember that, years ago, I observed some interesting behaviors regarding Byblis plants (that was back when they only had locational names like 'Darwin' and 'Kununurra'); Allen Lowrie later cited these observations in one of his scientific papers. So it is cool to see the interface between horticulture and science continue. I strongly believe that horticulturists, scientists, and conservationists can work together in a powerful synergy.

So, as I’m a little unsure, could you please clarify what your stance is regarding the plants? My species list for the genus is:

Byblis aquatica Lowrie & Conran
Byblis filifolia Planch.
Byblis gigantea Lindl.
Byblis guehoi Conran & Lowrie
Byblis lamellata Conran & Lowrie
Byblis liniflora Salisb.
Byblis rorida Lowrie & Conran

I gather that you think that B. lamellata is not distinct from B. gigantea, correct? I also gather you think that B. liniflora and B. filifolia are viable species, but that B. aquatica, B. guehoi, and B. rorida are merely environmental forms of B. filifolia?

Byblis filifolia Planch. (inc. B. aquatica, B. guehoi, B. rorida)
Byblis gigantea Lindl. (inc. Byblis lamellata )
Byblis liniflora Salisb.

If I recall correctly, the published differences between the species depend heavily upon stamen characteristics, in particular the relative lengths of the anthers to the filaments. What’s your take on this?

Finally, old friend, I encourage you to keep this civil discussion on understanding the plants, and not the motivations of the field researchers. I’ve spent time in the field with both you and Allen Lowrie, and both times I was impressed by the energy, passion, knowledge, dedication to the plants and conservation, and integrity of you both. I would be as surprised to learn of scientific fraud from one of you, as I would from the other. And as a metric of my good feelings, I’m looking forward to more field time with both of you—you in Tallahassee (in 2010), and Allen in Australia’s top end (at some as-yet-unscheduled date in the future, when finances calm down!).

All the best!

Barry

[Brian Barnes]

Hello Barry,

Yes, indeed I think that Byblis liniflora, Byblis 'Goliath'[filifolia] and Byblis gigantea are the only three that actually deserve separate species privileges. In retrospect to my above post, I firmly believe that extreme wet seasons or unusually dry seasons 'in situ' do affect overall plant and flower morphology, which is quite corrosive to any stamen data or filament to anther comparisons as tools for species discernment.

I simply think that one Byblis species, viewed in different 'in situ' situations was given multiple species names, be it by mistake...or for personal glory.

The complete absence of any documentation of pulvinic movement existing in any of Lowrie's Byblis descriptions and the birth of Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia] (or should I say "Byblis spec. Goliath") is the motivating factor for such unrelenting misguidance from supposed world-re-known Byblis experts. Let's not forget that what then separates B. 'Goliath' [filifolia] from all other Byblis is pulvinus. So one can say that if the plant has pulvinus, then per cultivar description...it is Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia] This must be a very bitter pill for some to swallow.

Besides color alone, one can see very different flower morphology existing within Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia] "multicolored variant" Note that the white flower is completely open and petals are not overlapping. Look at how long the sepals are. 3/4 the length of the petals! Sepal and filament to anther lengths are once agian, proven as worthless descriptive tools. The flower is much smaller than the others as well ;





In closing, Some may find this post of great interest in further proving my case.

www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32785

To my knowledge, "PowF Feathers" is either Isao Takai or his cohorts from Japan, (aka Sweetpea here on the ICPS Forum) who is very good friends with Allen Lowrie. The two above Forum entities are the only participants that ever start their posts with "Konnichiwa" and the forms of Byblis they depict in all Forums are the same.. Keep in mind that Isao Takai and his cohorts have greenhouses FULL of Byblis and has been growing multiple forms or "species" for at least ten years now. In fact, they were featured in an old CPN issue.

So, he's no stranger to Byblis and has invested alot of time and money into his forms for the greenhouse/garden center trade. And need I say who supplied him with all of his seed? "PowF Feathers" answers the "Henry" with blatant misinformation, stating that the they think plant is Byblis guehoi.

Note that the flowers are all open in "Henry's" photo, meaning pedicel length is at it's maximum and you can see that the leaves are in fact much longer than the pedicels. Now, let's look here at the official Byblis guehoi document by Lowrie and Conran, which I know "powF Feathers" is very familiar with;

www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/91873/Tel121023Low.pdf


Now, one can see per description, that the the main discerning trait of B. guehoi and B. liniflora is pedicels LONGER than the leaves. Also, you'll see that the flower shows yellow coloration abaxially....B. filifolia is the only one described as having yellow coloration on the backs of the petals! This is very easily seen in "Henry's" photo in the post, yet it appears he is being intentionally mislead...by a known Byblis expert! Busted....again!

In my opinion it appears that CP growers and botanists alike are being lied to, so that the entire works of certain individuals are not questioned and discounted as pure fiction. Or, so they don't have to call their entire stock Byblis 'Goliath' [filifolia]...or Byblis spec. Goliath in the near future.

I also agree that one should "stick to the plant" as far as conversation or healthy debate goes, but such blatant and open misleadings I can not allow for the sake of the scientific truth and endearing passion that I have for it.

Whew! That having been said.... Yes my friend, I look forward to our field time and Fl. panhandle bog adventures in 2010!

NOTE; 8/7/09 - The above article and publicly accessible information contained therewith, are the opinion of Brian Barnes and do not reflect the opinions of the ICPS.


Happy Growing,

Brian.

[BarryRice]

Konnichiwa Brian!



Interesting arguments. I'll go back to the original species publications and ruminate on what they have to say.

I've got a whole semester of class lectures to prepare, so I'm having a little trouble staying focused on some of this stuff. However, the remaining thought I have in my mind is the following...

It is quite possible that, via breeding and environmental effects, that you could obtain mimics of other Byblis species with your Byblis filifolia plants. However, even if you did such a thing, it is possible that in the wild, the separate populations of Byblis (currently described as species) might maintain consistent differences at a population level.

So, even if you could breed a B. filifolia to look like an individual B. rorida (for example), if -- on the whole -- B. rorida plants had distinct characters and were reproductively isolated, then I could see arguments for separate species status.

Maybe you'll have to start pinching pennies to save up for a trip to Australia and look for yourself!

In that vein, Beth and I are going into the Sierra Nevada with ropes this weekend to risk our necks in a steep notch canyon, looking for new Darlingtonia sites. If you don't hear from me again, send the dogs!

Barry

[gregallan]

This is a very interesting post. The Byblis ‘Goliath’ plants look great, especially the ‘Multicolored variant’, which I’d love to grow some day. I have some opinions on the classification of these plants. Please note that these are simply my own opinions based on my own personal observations of my plants and my take on the literature that I have read. I am an amateur enthusiast, not a botanist, and I make no claims to expertise.

Byblis gigantea/lamellata: apparently, the difference between the two is mainly to do with the seeds (I did have the B lamellata species publication on the hard drive of my old computer, but have since lost it, unfortunately). I am not overly convinced that they are separate species. I have grown both, and they do look remarkably similar.

Byblis aquatica: I have obtained seeds from this species on many occasions, and can make the following observations, which may be useful. It will only grow for me in a heated terrarium. It does not tolerate drying out; it dies rapidly if the substrate becomes less than waterlogged. The seeds will only germinate for me with special treatment (I use GA3), but it does self. The other tropical annual species that I grow are far less fussy about their conditions, but apparently will not self. The flowers of this species are distinctive; they are, in my experience very small, and different from filifolia/rorida/guehoi. In particular, the anthers are much shorter than the filaments. This is a characteristic shared with the B liniflora plants in my collection, but not with any other Byblis species that I grow. I have also noticed that the ‘tentacles’ on the leaves of this species are very short indeed, so that the leaves seem to be frosted with large droplets of mucleage (a little reminiscent of Drosophyllum). Also, the plants are very small in comparison to other tropical Byblis, although the stems can become long and straggly over time. The seeds are also noticeably larger than those of any other tropical Byblis that I have obtained. I have, in the past, had a copy of the scientific paper describing this species and, although I cannot remember all of the details, it did convince me. Finally, not worth a lot, but my gut feeling is that Byblis aquatica is a separate species; it simply looks very different from the others, even when grown in identical conditions in my setup. If this is not the case, I could only see it being classified as some form or ssp. of B liniflora.

Byblis rorida: I have grown plants labelled ‘Lake Campion’ for several years. My plants have always had sessile glands covering the shoot apex. They are quite distinctive. Whether this feature alone is enough to make it a separate species, I do not know. The anthers of all my plants have always been longer than the filaments, and the pedicals have been longer than the leaves. To be honest, I think that table 1 www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/91873/Tel121023Low.pdf contains errors in relation to B rorida. Again, my gut feeling is that this is a separate species. At least in my conditions, it looks different from the others.

Byblis filifolia/guehoi. I’m not so sure whether these two deserve to be separate species. I have only grown B guehoi recently, but the only plant that has branched for me is one whose main shoot got damaged. The two species look very similar in foliage and flower parts. The only discernable difference among my plants is that the flowers of B guehoi are slightly larger than those of my filifolia and that the petals are somewhat more serrated in B guehoi. My conclusion on B guehoi is that although it may well not be justifiably classified as a separate species, seeds labelled B guehoi are well worth growing! An interesting point is that I first obtained some seeds labelled Byblis guehoi in summer 2008. Only one seed germinated. It grew well (without branching) and flowered several times. A number of the flowers produced seed. It was growing near to some B filifolia plants. As far as I can see, there are only two alternatives; either it selfed (which I have only known B aquatica and liniflora to do), or I accidentally crossed it with B filifolia. I collected the seeds anyway and sowed them, after treatment this spring. The plants are now indistinguishable from my B filifolia plants.
The final interesting point to make about B filifolia is that I obtained a plant labelled as B filifolia from a Dutch grower a few years ago. It was very robust and vigorous, and it readily branched and at one stage, produced literally dozens of flowers simultaneously. The grower from whom I obtained it said that it was sterile and that he propagated it vegetatively . I tried this, and I did have some success with some stem cuttings for a time. The new plants were never as vigorous as the parent plants, however, despite identical conditions. Interestingly, I tried to cross this plant with B filifolia ‘Boulk Area’ plants, but was unsuccessful in obtaining seed. I am not quite sure what to make of this.

I was unaware of this controversy until today (hence my surprise at a most impolite response (since deleted) to an error in this thread that I started a few days ago: icps.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=byblis&action=display&thread=3193), but I do find the debate interesting. I have no vested interest in these plants being separated or lumped, and have no wish to offend anyone; I just like growing tropical Byblis!

Greg

[Not a Number]

Aug 6, 2009 13:26:54 GMT Brian Barnes said:

Secondly, using the above Lowrie photos as reference, there is definitely no bracts of any kind present on the lower main stem near the ground the supposed "B. rorida" in the photo. In fact, the few visable dead leaves that are present are coming up from what looks like what once was a finger hole in which a cutting was placed. Note the curvate shape of the emerging withered leaves from the indentation, which suggests the cutting was shoved into the ground with a downward force that caused the dead leaves to bow around the edges of the indentation... or what once was a hole. Even once the dead leaves are gone, a series of bracts are usually visable. Some of the dead leaves depicted even appear to be partially buried.

Hi Brian

I've looked at the photo in question which I believe is labeled "Photo 21: DSC06917 B. rorida left, Calandrinia centre & B. guehoi right 2nd location E of Broome c Allen Lowrie 2009" on the post over at CPUKForum.

The only thing I see that might be interpreted as a hole or depression is the shadow cast by the Calandrinia (?) flower. Compare the placement of the shadow of the Byblis flower.

Otherwise I'm not seeing anything that resembles the remains of a finger hole.

-Warren

[petiolarissean]

Hey Brian , if your correct. Than why does every type of byblis have seed special to it's own? One can identify each form on seed alone.petiolarissean

[shartmeyer]

Hey Petiolarissian, your statement that a different surface or size of seeds in a variable species like B. filifolia is a reason to define each of those varieties as a true species, you must do that also with other genera. If that argument would be accepted, you have to define for example immediately minimum 7 or 8 different true species from Drosera section Arachnopus (until now only D. indica and D. hartmeyerorum), as the difference in (not only!) seeds is much more eye catching than with Byblis.

Isn't it really strange that B. lamellata has been divided from B. gigantea only due to a little variation of the seed surface and a little variation of the flower, which is in botany usually only a reason to speak about different varieties of a species?

And isn't it even more surprising that between 2001 and 2006 Lowrie and friends stated bullheaded that the difference of seeds and even the unique morphological appearance of tentacles/emergences is NOT a reason to divide D. hartmeyerorum from D. indica and continued to name the plant on Lowries' sales list as "D. aff. indica" with the argument that "D. indica is a very variable complex and therefore such differences are no reason for a division" and even stating that such an attempt is a kind of "opening Pandoras' box" in a CP-forum?

However, the demand for seeds of the plant with unique light reflecting tentacles was strongly growing since its publication by Jan Schlauer in 2001, what I experienced through numerous requests for the seeds (which I could not satisfy as I don't have a plant business and only a few plants per species in my collection). Certainly a chance to make some money with the seeds, and surprisingly in 2007, 6 years after the publication and several discussions on its "species state" Lowrie changed the name from D. aff. indica to D. hartmeyerorum and provided suddenly even 4 different varieties on his list.

If your arguments on the definition of true species in Byblis are really based only on scientific reasons, you should not deny the same arguments for other genera or vice versa. If you continue that you are beating your own statements either with Byblis or with Drosera with this example.

[Dave Evans]

Well, it is clear to me there are more then two species in section Arachnopus. It is also clear to Sean.

His "argument" is political BS. He just feels that only Allen Lowrie should publish names for plants from Australia, which I find to be a ridiculous point-of-view.

[sweetpea]

Please see

Cindy-san’s result:
icps.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=byblis&action=display&thread=4953
and(not or)
www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127854


JohnnyBlaze-san’s result:
www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38180
and(not or)
www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38315

Kind regards

[petiolarissean]

I have to admit.You have me convienced.B.aquatica type loves wet.But the large form of aquatica doesnt like it wet and will rot iff sitting in water.its not a heat lover.It preferes cooler conditions.Seed differance means nothing.D.hartmeyorum-Aiden spell check.two forms has diffrtent seeds but both forms are same except ones golden green and one all red.Yes even the little meters are green.Their measuring devices not fake eggs or lure.Sean