|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 27, 2015 23:59:45 GMT
Hi all, saw this at the edge of my lawn by the fence and think it may be a Galeopsis, perhaps pubescens but not really sure - any thoughts? I've not seen one (or at least tried to ID one) before and its's quite tricky when deciding on the species I think. Here's a composite of some of the pictures I took of it's characters... It's about 80cm tall and looks like an annual herb. it's covered in hairs, both simple-septate (pic bottom middle) and glandular-septate (picture bottom right). It seems to have net-venation, shallowly-channeled petioles and a square stem in cross-section. There isn't any woody tissue to speak of. The flowers are hooded with 4 stamens and a bifid-stigma. Hairs absolutely cover this plant, even the sepals and petals have hairs! It's a lovely plant and is growing very vigorously at this time, with lots of beautifully-marked flowers. Hmm - the pubescens from what I can gather (it doesn't seem to be in Stace!) has slightly swollen stems just beneath the nodes, which this plant definitely doesn't have, maybe it's an augustifolia.. Staces only 2 options for a plant without the swelling below nodes are augustifolia (pink, reddish) or segetum, which is yellow! Tricky one to nail down species - it may even be a cross - there are several with intermediate and shared characters of their parents... I'll get several more specimens tomorrow and try to get a more representative picture of my local population of about 20 plants, looks like I'll need to start measuring corollas and looking at corolla forms more closely! What a mystery!  The nodal-region isn't swollen, as it apparently is in several of the Galeopsis.. Anyone have any thoughts on this tricky blighter?  ws_galeopsis_multi by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr  ws_node_region by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 28, 2015 3:57:02 GMT
Another couple of pictures, the 4-ovule ovary contents that's just visible in the picture showing the nodal-region - of you look at the inside of the empty calyx-tube you can just glimpse these ovules from the superior (it looks like) ovary.. Another picture of the flowers: More specimens to consider tomorrow I think.. I'll have a look in Rose's book too - it's very good for flower-morphology and may help with this one a bit.  ovules by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr  ws_flowers_1 by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by aeshna5 on Jul 28, 2015 4:38:25 GMT
The microscopic photos don't help me John as I see whole plants in the field, though it's certainly interesting to see them.
However the flower markings+ colour look like Hedge Woundwort, Stacys sylvatica, to me + leaf shape would fit for this species too.
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Jul 28, 2015 10:28:31 GMT
The microscopic photos don't help me John as I see whole plants in the field, though it's certainly interesting to see them. However the flower markings+ colour look like Hedge Woundwort, Stacys sylvatica, to me + leaf shape would fit for this species too. I agree, although I'm not familiar with the Galeopsis species so Could well be wrong. Both of my field guides separate Galeopsis and Stachys in a single couplet, what persuaded you to go with one over the other John? |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 28, 2015 15:00:23 GMT
The microscopic photos don't help me John as I see whole plants in the field, though it's certainly interesting to see them. However the flower markings+ colour look like Hedge Woundwort, Stacys sylvatica, to me + leaf shape would fit for this species too. aeshna - I think you've got it! - I've just returned home and taken a quick cross-section of a leaf petiole. Now I've been using Poland's vegetative key for this one and came to the point yesterday where I had a decision to make, without data - i.e. I had to choose between the leaf petiole having an even number of vascular bundles and never a central one, or the vascular bundles being of an odd number, with a central vascular bundle present. I unfortunately chose the even pathway and was directed to the Galeopsis options.... Now then, I took some petiole cross-sections (with a razor-blade) and counted the vascular bundles about 1hr ago - you guessed it, there are 3 vascular bundles, including a fine large central one! oops... This is a picture taken with my trusty bridge-camera on macro, no microscope used, slices cut by hand with razor-blade, in water drops. Sooo, following Poland's other pathway I then needed to classify the shape of the leaf's base, and this is clearly cordate not cuneate, this lead me to group OK to be found on page 274 of Poland's book. Next the consideration was of the leaves, are they revolute when young, I saw no evidence of this so assumed no, next, have the leaves got unicellular or 'septate' (multicellular) hairs, and from the pictures I can answer septate... Next Poland asks if the leaves or stems have any glandular hairs, and whilst I saw no glandular hairs on the leaves there are plenty everywhere else on the plant, including the stems (as seen by the hairs with the tiny spheres at their tips).. This leads to a consideration of the presence or not of a basal-rosette, having looked carefully there are none present. There also appears to be a slight rhizome, together with this and the large size of some leaves (up to about 15cm long), see this picture: These final pieces of the jigsaw, as well as the height of about 80cm and the presence of purple stems are leading me towards the plant being Stachys sylvatica ('Hedge Woundwort')... Any thoughts? Still can't be 100%, I'll have a look at Stace and Rose when I get the chance.  ws_petiole_xs by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 28, 2015 15:05:16 GMT
vince - I'm pretty certain I was completely wrong with my first go - the petiole vascular bundles swing it towards stachys for me! Wildflowers are surely the most interesting things that are free! Thanks for your input vince.
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Jul 29, 2015 8:47:26 GMT
I tend to agree with aeshna that one can get too bogged down in microscopic details. Characters you can pick out fairly easily in the field are usually the best ones to go for, until you come to something really critical that can't be determined any other way. In the case of Galeopsis versus Stachys, I think I would plump for the tiny spines on the calyx and bracteoles of Galeopsis, that you don't find on Stachys. That said, no Galeopsis, at least in this country, comes in quite the same shades of purple that Stachys comes in – but you need to have seen them all a few times already to get your eye in for the 'jizz'!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 29, 2015 9:09:15 GMT
This may be true for many, but the details are not actually microscopic, they can be observed with a hand lens or loupe quite easily. Also the ID eventually used Poland's book which, in the abscence of flowers, sometimes calls for details such as the stem cross-section. I'll ensure that no future IDs I post here will include any truly 'microscopic' pictures as it seems to upset some or at least foster disapproval... My apologies to those that regard the consideration of fine details to be getting 'bogged-down'. I think perhaps that there are a lot of people, such as myself, who's interest in wildflowers isn't exclusively a matter of answering the question 'what is this called?' but may also include considerations such as the question 'what makes this an XX and how does it relate to other flowers that I encounter?'. The use of books for example, of whatever type, from the very portable photographic pocket-sized guide to a desk-top only monster such as Stace, delivers an empowerment to the observer in my opinion and experience - I'm purely an amateur that loves wildflowers and the mysteries encountered as one tries to not only identify but to understand and gain knowledge useful in further encounters with other plants or the same plant at another time & place perhaps. Yes, many folk love to know what a plant is and have no desire to 'get bogged down' in details, microscopic or otherwise, we don't after all have the same amount of time and or resources available. My personal experience from starting with the 'what is that plant called' question has been one of ever-increasing enjoyment and wonder as I learn more about plants and the comparison of their features often within the same species. Personally I still experience pleasure when seeing a fine example of something I may have seen many times before - there's always a fascination for me in the sheer beauty and yes complexity - all with a solid purpose surely, of the plants I encounter. I think that the use of books and keys can enable anyone with a little bit of equipment, say a notebook, hand lens or loupe and an enquiring mind to go out and be able to observe and perhaps make a note of certain details that will enable knowledge of the identification process to be built up in addition to knowing the name of a plant. There are those that love the growth of their 'seen this one' list - many folk absolutely love this aspect, but empowerment through knowledge gained will enable one to move away from the need to 'ask the expert' and receive an exclusively 'it's called XX' answer, and become able to investigate and understand a plant for themselves. The method of observation doesn't need a microscope and the 'microscopic' pictures that I have posted are a necessary way of actually getting a picture with which I can share what I've seen with others - I can't manage to take a photograph through a loupe and I'm very poor when drawings are needed! In the case of my pictures the method of producing them is a means to an end, the features they show can certainly be observed in the field with the aforementioned couple of pieces of kit. With curiosity, spare time, a hand lens & notebook - any encounter with a beautiful wildflower be it on your lawn or at the top of a fell in the Lake District where I'm lucky enough to reside can become as many hours as one wishes of enjoyment and pleasure. Sooo - if you know the name of a plant and would like to know more about it - the Devil's in the detail! |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Jul 29, 2015 9:43:24 GMT
Please don't take offence! Going by your blog, I think you are a microscopist first, and only starting to become a botanist, so naturally it is the tiny details that you find fascinating. My feeling is that most people who want to ID plants are not familiar with microscopes (I only have a NHM pocket one myself) and might be discouraged by the amount of study you are engaging in to find an ID, when there are actually easier ways to achieve the same end. Some people (believe me, I meet them often on workshops) even have to be shown how to use a hand lens properly. I would guess that you are also very confident about using keys involving fairly obscure characters – an entomology background, perhaps? Again, most beginners, and also some who don't regard themselves as beginners, find even the keys in Rose quite daunting, never mind Stace and Poland. You are actually exceptional in being able to use the latter with as little experience of field botany as you have at present. I hope that this website will encourage and help the less brilliant people, as well as being a forum for those with more knowledge and confidence such as yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 29, 2015 10:11:52 GMT
Please don't take offence! Going by your blog, I think you are a microscopist first........... Hi faith, you're a little off-beam there, I have loved wildflowers all my life and have only had a microscope for about 6 months. I started several years back with the purchase of a (now very tragic) teeny mobile 'phone that took pictures! I just wanted to look at the plants I'd seen again when I got home.... I really am a total amateur and suspect that folk may be daunted by some of the key-based books. I was the same, until I bought an old botany dictionary for less than £1 and I think Rose's book.... |
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Jul 29, 2015 12:56:55 GMT
interesting discussion folks.
My 2p worth. I do understand Faith's point but disagree. I know what species A is because someone has put the effort into guiding me to that position, either by compiling a key, showing me personally or sharing their knowledge online etc.
Lets say I had taken a photo of a bird that I thought was a Blue tit and it turned out to be a Great tit. I would hope someone would answer " Vince if you look at feature 'A-B-etc' this will separate them for you"
Now these may well be macroscopic characteristics but in reality are no different to the microscopic traits that we should all not shy away from. Remember John is not just asking what a specimen is but asking for input based on the traits of that specimen. As I've said I do understand the need not to put folk off with technical jargon but we should also be guiding folk to look for the salient points of a specimen be them small or large.
Vince |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Jul 29, 2015 13:45:48 GMT
I am glad, John that you added to your earlier post, because it does make your approach much clearer. And Vince, I couldn't agree more that there is a great deal more enjoyment to be had beyond botanical 'twitching', and that people don't just want to add a plant to a list, but to understand all sorts of things about it. These include the characters that distinguish it from another similar one, but also things like why it has these characteristics, why it grows where it does, how it is pollinated and all kinds of other things. So I also agree that when someone posts a photo asking for ID, we should never just say 'It's a so-and-so' and leave it at that. If people get tips, extra facts, cross-references and so on, they will learn more and get more fun out of it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Jul 29, 2015 14:06:04 GMT
It's the old story as with all Human activity, we all have our preferred 'stuff' and our individual approaches to just about everything. I wouldn't say anyone has a 'right' or 'wrong' approach to wildflowers - not because I'm a sitter-on-fences, but because I genuinely believe that virtually all approaches are enjoyed by someone. For me personally the above is my particular preference, but those that enjoy compiling lists for example, are still as valuable and valid part of the 'wildflower loving world' as any of us - they do what they love and they do it with skill & enthusiasm.
Thanks all for your input - this forum is a great place to be!
|
|
|
|
Post by silversea on Aug 15, 2015 5:06:23 GMT
Haven't read the page but it looks like Stachys sylvaticus to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Aug 16, 2015 3:29:26 GMT
Haven't read the page but it looks like Stachys sylvaticus to me. Aha - is that the Roman version! Welcome to the group silversea, good to have you on board. The Stachys turned out to be a really interesting plant, especially considering the Family-connection to the similar (flower structure) but tiny Prunella vulgaris. |
|
