|
|
Post by NellyDee on Sept 6, 2015 18:14:58 GMT
Very tall, just one large cluster in amid scabious and knapweed and grasses - think peaty soil. In Glen Lonan, edge of cattle grazing land. Garden escapee perhaps?
 IMG_5720 by Wabi Gallery, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by aeshna5 on Sept 7, 2015 4:47:45 GMT
Purple Loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria.
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 7, 2015 8:14:10 GMT
This is quite an interesting record, actually. I believe aeshna is in the south of England somewhere (am I right?) and perhaps wouldn't be aware that until fairly recently purple loosestrife was quite rare in Scotland. I remember when i saw it near Strontian many years ago being told that it was close to its northern limit then. But climate change is only too evident in the natural world these days and purple loosestrife has even been seen on Skye in recent years. So Glen Lonan is an interesting place to have found it. It can be a garden escape too, but in that location there are not exactly many gardens!
|
|
|
|
Post by NellyDee on Sept 7, 2015 10:43:00 GMT
Thanks for the info Faith. This is the first time I have seen purple loosestrife. I have lots of yellow loosestrife (weed proportions actually) You are right of course not many gardens, though there is one 'open garden' near the start of the glen - mainly varieties of Rhododendrons,mosses and lichens and water/pond plants though.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeshna5 on Sept 7, 2015 17:32:54 GMT
Faith- you're correct I'm in the south- in the west London suburbs to be precise, so wasn't aware of any great significance to this record of one my favourite native wild flowers.It has become a problem in some other countries where it proved an invasive alien when it was introduced.
Nelly- Yellow + Purple Loosestrifes are totally unrelated being in different families. Yellow is in the Primrose family + in the same genus as Wood Pimpernel + Creeping Jenny.
|
|
|
|
Post by NellyDee on Sept 8, 2015 8:34:25 GMT
Nelly- Yellow + Purple Loosestrifes are totally unrelated being in different families. Yellow is in the Primrose family + in the same genus as Wood Pimpernel + Creeping Jenny.Gosh I learn something new every day  Thank you. I wrongly assumed that as they were both 'loosestrife' they were the same family. |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 9, 2015 12:21:01 GMT
. . . which goes to show that there is something to be said for learning the scientific names of plants. Evening primroses, for example, are unrelated to primroses; Grass of Parnassus is not a grass; black bindweed and hedge bindweed are in totally different families and so on. How would you know if you didn't look at the scientific names?
|
|
|
|
Post by NellyDee on Sept 9, 2015 13:02:27 GMT
Very true:)
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Sept 9, 2015 22:26:16 GMT
. . . which goes to show that there is something to be said for learning the scientific names of plants. Evening primroses, for example, are unrelated to primroses; Grass of Parnassus is not a grass; black bindweed and hedge bindweed are in totally different families and so on. How would you know if you didn't look at the scientific names? Totally agree, where would Silene.dioica be without it's 'two houses'... The (usually) Latin names nearly always give not only a major clue but also a means of remembering, akin perhaps to the descriptive (usually at least) 'common' names in use locally to a population. They really are more than just academic, very useful too. Hmm, mind you - is watercress really a Nasturtium? |
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 10, 2015 8:39:19 GMT
I heartily agree. It does help if you have what used to be called 'the benefit of a classical education', but I hear many people are now learning Latin just for fun, and certainly without it botany could be quite difficult to get to grips with.
Watercress used to be a Rorippa, which I think is something to do with moisture or trickling. Beats me how it got moved to Nasturtium but very likely something to do with its DNA as is usually the case these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Pappus on Sept 10, 2015 18:49:48 GMT
It could be, the 'Systematic' taxonomy is certainly the accepted or indeed de-facto taxonomic method now, mind you it is I suppose more logical and of course more practical for various reasons. It's a shame though when the 'more meaningful' names start to disappear...
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 11, 2015 14:25:48 GMT
My fear is the hand-held dna analyser that we will carry in the field one day, obviating knowing anything about plants except how to put on in the gadget. So it won't just be names that disappear, botanists will too – this one, for certain. (I'm only half joking.)
|
|
|
|
Post by peachysteve on Sept 12, 2015 6:34:41 GMT
I've often thought about this same issue. Unless you were to put every plant you saw into the gadget you would still need to know which you had previously identified and which you hadn't so in the first instance you'd have to learn to discern which plants you needed to ID. The next phase is the sweeping ID ray which scans and analyses everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by faith on Sept 12, 2015 8:31:02 GMT
Thank you for that! I hadn't thought of that and am much reassured. I'm afraid the handheld dna analyser is probably already in the pipeline – a colleague of mine sent an unknown leaf off for dna analysis last year and no-one seemed to think it was a mad thing to do. However, the ID ray sounds as though it might be a few years away yet; let us hope so, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by stigofthedump on Sept 12, 2015 18:19:34 GMT
My fear is the hand-held dna analyser that we will carry in the field one day, obviating knowing anything about plants except how to put on in the gadget. So it won't just be names that disappear, botanists will too – this one, for certain. (I'm only half joking.) This is an interesting concept, worthy of discussion methinks. Who would not make use of such a device, and why not? I'm not sure of my position on it but I'm leaning towards yes |I would.
Vince
|
|
Thank you. I wrongly assumed that as they were both 'loosestrife' they were the same family.
