|
Post by hcarlton on Mar 22, 2013 16:07:26 GMT
When I had P. moctezumae, I never really had a chance to put it through its dormancy period, as they always died on me. I am taking this info from other websites (like pinguicula.org) and observations from other people on how moctezumae works. Likely for this species, it doesn't want to be totally dry, but definitely no more than damp in winter.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Mar 23, 2013 22:14:26 GMT
Hi HCarlton - I am familiar with those sources, but I also know of people who grow P. moctezumae year round. It also seems that pinguicula.org defaults to suggesting dry dormancy for all Mexi pings. So I tend to view culture information from them through that lens.
I'd really like to find out if anyone has actually gotten P. moctezumae through a cool, dry dormancy. If no one has, then maybe it doesn't do that very well.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 26, 2013 0:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Mar 26, 2013 2:13:32 GMT
Hi Dave - You may well be correct, P. moctezumae may not do dry dormancy. Although, I'm pretty sure it's not an annual in cultivation. I've know people who have kept it for years. They have just kept it wet year round - but then they keep pretty well all of their Mexi pings wet year round regardless of dormancy. So their experience doesn't speak to its capacity for dormancy.
Does anyone know what it does in habitat?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 26, 2013 2:56:46 GMT
Yes, this one and a couple of other are homophyllus Mexican species. Another one is P. emarginata.
The Mexican pings are really great example of covergent evolution! Each group of closely related species has different yet repeating patterns of how they cope with the amount of water they naturally receive. For example P. moranensis forms a winter resting bud, but has a short dormancy. P. emarginata keeps growing all year long. P. laueana is more like P. m., but it stays dormant for a lot longer about half the year. Same for P. gypsicola, long dormancy.
P. moctezumae grows all year, but it next closest relatives like P. colimensis don't. In Mexico, Pinguicula seems in the habit of forming many local endemic species, rather like highland Nepenthes. Every mountain and/or range seems to provide enough isolation that Pinguicula basically fragmented into many different species; each with it own particular water requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Mar 26, 2013 15:44:05 GMT
Hi Dave - Quick note, the type of evolution you describe with the Mexi pings is an example of adaptive radiation not convergent evolution. We may as well use their proper definitions so people don't introduce these terms into the vernacular lexicon inaccurately - the word "theory" has already gotten away from us and become a nuisance.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Mar 26, 2013 20:50:40 GMT
Well, it is both. The convergent part is how they keep coming up with the same growing patterns, even when not directly related.
P. moranensis and P. gypsicola are closest related and P. colimensis is closely related to P. moctezumae, but one might be under the impression P. moranensis and P. colimensis are the closer relatives because of how similar their growing patterns are--from a cultivation point of view they are in the same group thanks to convergent evolution--as the adaptive radiation happens, different species/lineages are solving their local water/humidity issues in repeating patterns of convergent evolution.
One might also think P. gypsicola and P. moctezumae are very close as they both have long leaves for filtering prey from the air, but these long leaves appears to have evolved independently from each other.
|
|
|
Post by Apoplast on Mar 27, 2013 2:07:50 GMT
False! Convergent evolution is the acquisition of similar traits in unrelated lineages. Pinguicula are clearly related, and as of the last phylogeny for the genus I've seen all of the Mexi pings are one lineage within the genus. That makes them highly related. So suggesting convergence is patently wrong.
|
|