tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65018837740296065222024-02-07T13:52:54.550-08:00DISQUISITIONSGrahame Warehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04023128179088406280noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501883774029606522.post-57580535766294420942013-01-31T07:37:00.001-08:002013-01-31T07:37:09.892-08:00Of Fairy Tales and Fairy Bells-part 1<b>History- The Don of <i>Disporum </i>& <i>Prosartes</i></b><br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Like many a genera these days, <i>Disporum </i>and its sidekick <i>Prosartes,</i> have ‘been around the block’ and felt the sting of the taxonomists boots in the dark alleys of nomenclature. That’ll teach you for hanging out in dark alleys! There was a time when, as nomenclatural debutantes <i>Disporum</i> were feted and the toast of many a treatise. But soon they were ignored, their names were changed and they were left to their own devices. But over the past 15 years with the frequency of exploration in the Sino-Himalayan region yielding many garden-worthy species, it seems that they may have regained their stature and finally found their place. Naturally, the scope of their beauty and the distinctive forms has simultaneously given rise to a better understanding of this genus. But their reputations and the names they’ve been called...oh my!</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The genus <i>Disporum</i> was so named by the eccentric R.A. Salisbury in the first volume of the Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London (forerunner of the RHS). The name <i>Disporum</i> that Salisbury coined is a botanical neologism derived from the Greek epistemes “di” (two) and “spora” (seed)- therefore two-seeded. The specific type plant was named <i>pullum</i> and eventually identified as <i>D. cantoniense </i>[Lectotype: <i>Disporum pullum</i> Salisb. = <i>D. cantoniense</i> (Lour.) Merrill.]<i>. </i>However, it was not ‘validly’ published in 1812 due to a lack of a description on Salisbury’s part. James Edward Smith (1818) treated the plant, <i>D. pullum</i>, under <i>Streptopus</i>, and Wallich later in 1820 nestled it under <i>Uvularia</i>. (To show the sorry state of understanding of the taxonomic truths of <i>Disporum</i>, Graham Stuart Thomas was still using <i>Disporum pullum </i>in his </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">Perennial Garden Plants</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> book in his third edition in 1990!) The honour of actual authorship fell to Scotsman David Don in 1825 as he coordinated and organized the collections of Nathaniel Wallich and William Buchanan cum Hamilton in the seminal </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">Prodromus Florae Nepalensis</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> (aka Flora Nepalensis). It was then that he saw Smith’s and Wallich’s errors.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">His involvement in this important publication came about due to the fact that he was the librarian to Aylmer Lambert. Lambert, in turn, had many of the duplicates of plants sent from India and the Himalayas by the energetic Dane, Nathaniel Wallich and, to a much lesser degree, those of William Buchanan cum Hamilton. They were both employed by that great arm of corporate imperialism, the Brtish East India Company. (see Endnotes for much more biographical info on David Don)</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In Florae Nepalensis, the characters which David Don concluded were definitive characters to identify <i>Disporum</i> are: 1) campanulate periathium; 2) sepals formed into a pouch or spur at the base; 3) cells of its ovarium bearing two ovula; 4) its baccate pericarpium; and, 5) its umbellate inflorescence. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">14 years later, in 1839, David Don prepared his “</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">Monograph of the Genus<i> Disporum</i></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">” for the Linnean Society which he read before them. This first <i>Disporum</i> monograph dealt in much greater detail with the specific morphological attributes not only of <i>Disporum</i> but also with related genera namely <i>Uvularia,</i> <i>Streptopus</i> and his proposed authorship of the taxon, <i>Prosartes</i>. In this work, he clearly spells out the errors of Smith, Wallich and others in confusing<i> Disporum, Uvularia</i> and<i> Streptopus </i>which thus gave rise to his proposal of the genus <i>Prosartes</i>. Here is a little flavour of David Don's observational prowess. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“In <i>Uvularia</i>, which is closely allied to <i>Disporum</i>, the perianthium is also campanulate with imbricate aestivation; the stamens adhere to the sepals at the base, and fall off altogether; the pericarpium is capsular with polyspermous cells and loculucidial dehiscence; the ovula which are arranged in two rows are cuneate, angular and carunculate at the apex with the raphe forming an elevated ridge along their inner side.” (p. 514) </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">That was truly an amazing description which had me diving into my</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"> Penguin Dictionary of Botany</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">! With this statement it is clear that Don was intimately aware of the affinity and differences between <i>Uvularia</i> and <i>Disporum</i>. Molecular biologists Utrecht<i> et al</i> concluded in 1996 that Don was right in the first place to separate them. (reference Endnotes) This latest annoiting of authority took just under 200 years to achieve. In 1841, just before he died, Don provided a detailed addenda to his <i>Disporum et al</i> monograph. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Don was an astute observer of things microscopically especially the seeds and flower parts. The historian Mark Lawley believes that David Don’s skill of seeing morphological minutae so well was likely due to the fact that he grew up in a vibrant Scottish weaver culture that used hand lenses to examine their weaves. David Don’s father, George Don Sr., was an extraordinary pioneer bryologist and nurseryman that made excellent use of the hand lenses for identifying mosses. (reference Endnotes). </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As for David Don and his insights into <i>Disporum</i>, his message of logical, botanical distinctions subsequently fell on deaf ears or weak eyes. He states that the NE American<i> Prosartes </i>is different from <i>Disporum</i>. “The genus is essentially distinguished from <i>Disporum</i> by its innate anthers, nearly concrete styles and pendulous anthers.” (p. 44 Proceedings Linnean Soc. 1839). Note that <i>Prosartes</i> gains its name from its pendulous ovula- i.e. from the Greek word, “to append”. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Robert Wight in his various volumes of </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">Prodromus Florae Peninsulae Indae Orientalis</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> did not see what David Don saw or knew about <i>Disporum</i>. More to the point, he all but ignored Don’s analysis in his publications. Take for example, Wight’s naming of apparently two species of <i>Disporum</i> in Volume 6 of Icon. Pl. Ind. Or. p. 2049. Wight in 1853 authored <i>Disporum ceylandicum</i> and <i>Disporum mysorense</i> as new discoveries when in fact they were both <i>Disporum leschenaultianum</i>. At least the former one from Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was. The latter named one was a mistake by Royle that was duplicated by Wight. Notes the late modern authority on Disporum, Hara, “ This species does not grow in the Himalayas, and the locality 'Mussooree' cited by Royle (1840) seems to be a mistake, also a plant collected by him is a doubtful one.” (p 24 Tokyo M. Bull. #31,1988) Note that Mussoorie is located in Uttarakhand in North India. Wight by the time he came back from India was burned out and he really didn’t care about the distinctions. Neither did Joseph Hooker.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Joseph Hooker was dimissive of the differences between <i>Disporum</i> and <i>Prosartes,</i> the latter he referred to as “doubtfully distinct” (Curtis Bot. V. 113 Tab 6935). Together with Bentham, the differences that Don had detailed were rejected as valid when they published in 1883 (Gen. Pl. vol. 3, p. 831). In fact, authorship for the genus <i>Disporum</i> was still attributed to Salisbury and they dropped <i>Disporum</i> from consideration calling all species in India, etc. <i>Uvularia</i>! (“Flora of British India” Vol. 6 1894.) Thus, Don was expunged from authorship by some heavy hitters. But the eclipse of Don was only for a while albeit a very long while.</span></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> <div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The accepted viewpoint of Hooker, Bentham, etc. came to a halt in 1951 with the publication by Jones in the “</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;">Contributions from the Gray Herbarium</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">” (Jones, Q. 1951. “A cytotaxonomic study of the genus <i>Disporum</i> in North America.”) In this publication (vol.173: pp.3 - 40.), Jones concurred with Don that <i>Prosartes</i> was indeed a valid genus with morphological and cytological distinctions worthy of separate taxon status. He also found for the rule of priority under the Botanical Code for <i>Disporum</i>. (</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"> Editorial</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">: Modern authors want merely to credit David Don with the creation of a Section <i>Prosartes</i>. I am no expert in the finer points of the Botanical Code but Don proposed a new taxon not just a new Section. Therefore, should not Don’s name should be on all <i>Prosartes</i> not Smith’s or Hooker’s? Talk about adding insult to injury!)</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Resurrecting Hiroshi Hara</span></b></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">About 150 years after David Don’s pioneering work on the genus, the eminent Japanese botanist, Hiroshi Hara, prepared the last great monograph on <i>Disporum</i>. In 1988, this monograph was published posthumously in the Tokyo Museum Bulletin #31. It is unfortunate that this major work is still relatively unknown and little discussed. Is history going to repeat itself in ignoring significant treatments of the <i>Disporum </i>genus? No one has ever been as intimate with the differences and nuances of <i>Disporum</i> species as Hara and nobody since David Don himself has done as much analysis of the<i> Disporum/Prosartes</i> complex as the late Hiroshi Hara. To the best of my knowledge, no modern botanist has ever made such an extensive and global use of <i>Disporum</i> herbaria vouchers and specimens. Recently, Julian Shaw did some important work at Kew on the genus that shows up in The Plantsman of December 2011. But Hara did the heavy, herbarium lifting. In so doing, historical lectotypes were validated or not and, overall, a thorough analysis and sorting out of the species was realized. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This was not done however, without Hara doing time-consuming field work conducted over a long period of time.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here is the list of institutions (in alphabetical order with their codes bold-faced) that enabled Hara to look at all things <i>Disporum</i>: British Museum (Natural History), London (<b>BM</b>) ; Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (<b>E</b>); South China Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, Kwangchow (<b>IBSC</b>); Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (<b>K</b>); Kunming Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, Kunming (<b>KUN</b>); Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto (<b>KYO</b>); Laboratoire de Phanerogamic, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (<b>P</b>); Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, Peking (<b>PE</b>) ; Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo (<b>SAPT</b>); Department of Biology, Sichuan University, Chengdu (<b>SZ</b>); Department of Botany, National Science Museum, Tokyo (<b>TNS</b>).</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As a result of this comprehensive activity and work, Hara realigned sections within <i>Disporum</i> and declared <i>Prosartes</i> to be a valid section if not a different genera. Hara proposed three sections: Section Disporum, Section Ovalia and Section Paradisporum. The Section previously denoted as Prosartes now has its own generic status as proposed by David Don (some 170 years earlier!) and is no longer included within the genus<i> Disporum</i>. Hurray for Don! And, hurray fro Hara.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Here is Hara’s broad sectional strokes. Section Ovalia has one species, <i>Disporum ovalia</i>. Section Paradisporum has one species, <i>Disporum acuminatum</i>. Section Disporum has all of the remaining species. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Within the Section Disporum, Hara does varietalize extensively as well as acknowledging, naming and using <i>forma</i> (forms). I find this an acceptable approach and one that more and more taxonomists are taking with their ‘Group’ assignments to all of the grexy forms. This <i>both/and </i>method is to be preferred over the <i>either/or. </i>Call it ‘creative lumping’ or ‘anti-splitting’ but it does work better in many ways until there are some definitive taxonomic beachheads established. Note that many of the morphological keys are still used in the identification of many species. No, we haven’t quite yet thrown out the morphological baby with the molecular bathwater, so to speak.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">With confusion on the botanical front, is it any wonder that there is twice as much on the horticultural front? However, I believe that Hara’s treatment serves horticulturists well. Remember that Hara and his colleagues were well-versed in cytological analysis as a key in plant identification. Hara’s <i>Disporum</i> monograph is replete with pollen profiles as well as electron photos of seeds. Still Hara’s detailing of significant morphological differences in the species of <i>Disporum</i> is very handy for plantsman. Not surprisingly, many “authorities” do not fully recognize his categories or species. However, we are recognizing them fully and in this sense then we are resurrecting Hara for serious consideration.</span></span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">As a final note, botanist Julian Shaw as part of the article written by that fine Welsh plantsman, Bleddyn Wynn-Jones, in the December 2011 issue of The Plantsman follows Hara's approach. All of my research was done before this article was published.</span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br />
</span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 19.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Endnotes:</b></span></i></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">(Amended and adapted from <b>Mark Lawley</b> to which much credit must go)</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><br />
</div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">David Don was born on 21 December 1799 at “Doo Hillock”, Forgarshire, Scotland, into a family of modest means. His father, George Don Sr. was an amateur pioneer (and later celebrated ) bryologist and an accomplished gardener and nurseryman. Thus, it comes as no surprise that David Don would have developed a great eye for detail from his father. George Don Sr. met famed botanist <b>Robert Brown </b>in 1791 (when the latter was a medical student at Edinburgh) and they botanized the Highlands around Angus together making many new discoveries. The following year Brown read a paper regarding this trip with Don before the Edinburgh Natural History Society. The Brown connection would stand young David Don in good stead. Just before David Don was born, </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1a1a18;">in 1797, George Don leased two acres of land on the north side of Forfar. The plot he named as Doo Hillock (or Dove Hillock) after the land’s small knoll. Don established a nursery on ground sloping down westwards from the knoll, and stocked it with a variety of hardy plants (mostly alpines!) that exceeded most other nurseries in the kingdom</span><span style="font: 10.0px Times; letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1a1a18;">. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1a1a18;">When his good friend John McKay died in 1802, George Don succeeded him as head gardener of the RBGE, leaving his father to run the nursery at Dove Hillock. Four years later he returned to the nursery wanting the freedom of self-employment. Things didn’t go well for George Don Sr. in business and in health and he died penniless in 1814. His nursery and tenancy was taken over by a 20 year old <b>Thomas Drummond</b>, soon to make a reputation as a botanist in western and arctic Canada but not before spending the next ten years at Doo Hillock growing plants and raising a family. All specific epithets ending with <i>drummondii </i>are attributable to Thomas Drummond.</span></span></div><div style="color: #1a1a18; font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br />
</span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1a1a18;">And so it was that David Don </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">after working with his older brother, George Jr. at the Dickson Nursery in Broughton near Edinburgh, then followed his elder brother on down to London and the Chelsea Physic garden in 1816. David Don loved what he was doing and soon became the librarian to <b>Aylmer Lambert</b>. As an autodidact, he devoted his energies to learning the library's content- one of the best collection of botany books in private hands- and then applying that knowledge to the vast collections in Lambert's large herbarium. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">David Don began to publish in 1820 and continued unstopped until his death in 1841. In total, h</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #1a1a18;">e published over 50 botanical articles, as well as volumes 5–7 of Robert Sweet’s “British Flower Garden” (1831–1837). Later in 1837 he married Mary Evans (1796/7– 1866) in London but they had no children.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> In 1822, Don also became librarian to the Linnean Society of London. In 1836 David Don rose to the position of professor of botany at King's College. In this regard he followed a path blazed by John Lindley (son of a nurseryman, a librarian and eventually professor at King’s College) Both men took a deep interest in seed morphology and embryo structure as a key to identifying plants. In this regard, they became close friends with botanist Robert Brown and the preeminent botanical illustrator of his time, <b>Franz Bauer</b>. </span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The microscope was a key tool shared by all of these men and they developed terminology to describe what they saw though it magnifying lens. In this sense then this core group including Lindley, we far ahead of subsequent botanists that laboured in the field.</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">NB: Photos and more info to follow in Part 2</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">-Grahame Ware, independent horticultural historian</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br />
</div><div style="font: 12.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><br />
</div></span></div></span><br />
<div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><br />
</span></div>Grahame Warehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04023128179088406280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6501883774029606522.post-37141628991468527682013-01-30T12:04:00.000-08:002013-01-30T12:04:23.762-08:00Goodbye Mr. Mimulus<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnklYUD3xKGsGypD36H02BgmTGaCELFOglJukOUwPJ2AENeBZABV41bZwnEnNOLyhLp_00uiHuB5oCSEgdM0DJ1SWnFitMvIwPUaNWPMHNYtANTUmOfksbJW8qeVbeUlZ-cJ_SEY7cRC8/s1600/DSC06176.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="427" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnklYUD3xKGsGypD36H02BgmTGaCELFOglJukOUwPJ2AENeBZABV41bZwnEnNOLyhLp_00uiHuB5oCSEgdM0DJ1SWnFitMvIwPUaNWPMHNYtANTUmOfksbJW8qeVbeUlZ-cJ_SEY7cRC8/s640/DSC06176.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Diplacus calycina </i>from Tulare Co. Sherman Pass 5500' seen in my garden</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Here is a pic of what I received as seed from Alplains Seeds as <i>Mimulus longiflorus</i>. There has been a significant amount of work done on this genus over the past decade spurred on in no small measure by the second edition of the Jepson Manual, the definitive flora of California. Jepson 2 came out in February 2012.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">For starters the whole sectionalizing/taxonomy has been revised to come in line with all historical priorities.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">As such then all members of this section are now placed in the genus </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b><i>Diplacus</i></b></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Of deeper interest to us is the following from this recent <u>Phytoneuron</u> article which was a god-send because I concluded that<b><i> Mimulus longiflorus</i></b> is indeed <b><i>Diplacus calycina.</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">See here the pertinent section from the article:</span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Diplacus calycinus </b>Eastw., Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 41: 287. 1906. <i>Mimulus longiflorus </i>var. <i>calycinus </i>(Eastw.) A.L. Grant, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 11: 331. 1924. <i>Diplacus longiflorus </i>var. <i>calycinus </i>(Eastw.) Jeps., Man. Fl. Pl. Calif. 919. 1925. <i>Mimulus longiflorus </i>(subsp. <i>calycinus </i>(Eastw.) Munz, Aliso 4: 99. 1958. <b>TYPE</b>: <b>USA</b>. <b>California</b>. Tulare Co.: South Fork Kaweah River, 6000 ft, 22 Jul 1904, <i>G.N. Culbertson 4407 </i>[distributed by C.F. Baker, No. 4407] (holotype: CAS digital image!; isotypes: CAS digital image!, GH, K, MO digital image!, NY digital image!, PH digital image!, POM, UC, US digital image!).</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Distribution. San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, and Riverside Co, separated from a Sierran population system in Fresno, Tulare, and Kern cos.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Although first described as a separate species, <i>Diplacus calycinus </i>has more recently been treated at subspecific or varietal rank within <i>D. longiflorus </i>(Grant 1924; Pennell 1951; Munz 1973). Thompson (2005) went even further in including <i>D. calycinus </i>simply as a synonym within his concept of <i>Mimulus aurantiacus </i>var. <i>pubescens </i>(= <i>D. longiflorus</i>), but results from the Tulig PCA and DFA indicate that <i>D. calycinus </i>is distinct from <i>D. longiflorus</i>, especially in corolla length, corolla tube length, and style length. <b><i>Corolla color is cream to pale yellow</i></b> in <i>D. calycinus </i>and<b><i> salmon in D. longiflorus</i></b>.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><i>Diplacus calycinus </i>and <i>D. longiflorus </i>are essentially allopatric to parapatric. Particularly in Fresno, Tulare, and Kern cos., where <i>D. calycinus </i>occurs completely separated from <i>D. longiflorus </i>(see Thompson's Fig. 63), it appears to be clearly distinct especially in abaxial leaf vestiture –– the hairs are unbranched, broad, and vitreous, compared to the branched, thinner, and dull hairs of <i>D. longiflorus</i>. The type of <i>D. calycinus </i>is a Sierran plant from Tulare County.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 13px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">-above from Tulig, M.C. and G.L. Nesom. 2012. Taxonomic overview of Diplacus sect. Diplacus (Phrymaceae) in </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">Phytoneuron</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> 2012-45: 1– 20. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Published 16 May 2012. ISSN 2153 733X</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; min-height: 14px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><b></b></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Link here to full article: <a href="http://www.phytoneuron.net/PhytoN-sectDiplacus.pdf">http://www.phytoneuron.net/PhytoN-sectDiplacus.pdf</a></span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Helvetica; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlPDvk04nc4H7LtvnsHBEXMruXdm17qDc_uzpEj3fchh5u9s8fmhprvlO3rspS9xndP2q0yMF6Kw8Qq3u3DzFpQNUlkOd7tQcqKuHSrmcKfzd_OVyfpawOCOlrLD1PH-mvCnE57W10Ins/s1600/DSC06040_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlPDvk04nc4H7LtvnsHBEXMruXdm17qDc_uzpEj3fchh5u9s8fmhprvlO3rspS9xndP2q0yMF6Kw8Qq3u3DzFpQNUlkOd7tQcqKuHSrmcKfzd_OVyfpawOCOlrLD1PH-mvCnE57W10Ins/s400/DSC06040_2.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<b><div style="display: inline !important; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Despite the recent comprehensive work on <i>Mimulus </i>to sort things out as to what's what in the </span></div>
</b><br /><b><div style="display: inline !important; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">taxonomic world formerly </span></div>
</b>known as<i> Mimulus, </i>one thing caught my eye as I waded through all of the historical information. <i>Mimulus aurantiacus</i> was authored by Curtis in 1796 and the picture that he uses is not of<i> Mimulus aurantiacus</i> (now known as <i>Diplacus aurantiacus</i>) but seems to me that it might very well be that of<i> Diplacus calycina</i>. See the picture here.</div>
<div>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguCJeVktzctF-Da3jVqc1dRFnKLJ-FjUX-710yaBz0AW-eAVPMTJhXhxg783paFCgnk56mmsjrhklXtqnDUHY_pMs8QSbqrV4qPdLZQ60LSVnaqnbuLspwppwSnb2oZ5DIlBmCHAdCKt0/s1600/Mimulus_aurantiacus_Curt._.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguCJeVktzctF-Da3jVqc1dRFnKLJ-FjUX-710yaBz0AW-eAVPMTJhXhxg783paFCgnk56mmsjrhklXtqnDUHY_pMs8QSbqrV4qPdLZQ60LSVnaqnbuLspwppwSnb2oZ5DIlBmCHAdCKt0/s640/Mimulus_aurantiacus_Curt._.jpg" width="352" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;">
<i>Diplacus calycina</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Thus, the first image or icone of a California <i>Mimulus</i> was quite possibly that of<i> Diplacus calycina</i> and not <i>D. aurantiacus</i>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is a good garden perennial and performs similarly well to <i>Diplacus aurantiacus. D. aurantiacus</i> is pollinated by bees but <i>D. calycina</i> is done by hummingbirds. I have found it to be a really long-flowering species and it does very well in my sandstone "soil" and full sun here on the east coast of Vancouver Island.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Grahame Warehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04023128179088406280noreply@blogger.com0