Monika, According to Preissel’s book page 88, which lists 2 Glockenfontane. He states,”These hybrids also occur naturally in the wild. …Currently there are varieties with white and pink flowers, but apricot and yellow are also possible. Examples:
B. hybrid ‘Rosa Glockenfontane’ A form that originates from Colombia, its pale pink flowers are 16 in (41cm) long.
B. hybrid ‘Weisse Gloclenfontane’ Hybrid from Herrenhauser Gardens, it has white flowers that are 14 ½ in (37 cm) long.”
is there a white Glockenfontanefor monika
Weisse Glockenfontäne is a cv and looks much different from the natural pink form. Preissel said, these colors are possible in natural hybrids but at the moment, Glockenfontäne pink is the only real natural hybrid.
Naming cv after natural forms, makes much confusion.
Won`t it be more correct to place these natural varieties as eco-varieties or endemic varieties (endemic is plants only found in a small restricted area)?:) As for versicolor I heard of both glabrous plants and very densely pubescent plants and these would also qualify as eco-varieties. According to Preissel, one kind is found in the north of their native habitat, the other type in the south. :) I think, that Tommie E. Lockwood, Bristol and other researchers works is far from finished. They are close to, but as it was the case with the Daturas I think, that Brugmansia taxonomy is using a too broad species category.
Example of a narrow and a broad species ctegory:
Broad intrepretation:
Species no. 1:
D. straminium
(Fls. white, lavender or mauve)
D. stramonium var. stramonium f stramonium
(white fls, spiny fruit)
D. stramonium var. inermis
(White fls., smooth fruit)
D. stramonium var. stramonium f labilis
(White fls., spiny and smooth fruits)
D. stramonium var. tatula f tatula
(Lavender fls., spiny fruits)
D. stramonium var. tatula f godronii
(Lavender fls., smooth fruits)
D. stramonium var. tatula f bernhardtii
(Mauve fls., spiny elongated fruits)
Narrow intrepretation:
Species no. 1:
(Fls. White)
D. stramonium
(frfuits spiny)
D. stramonium var. leavis
(Fruit smooth)
D. stramonium f. labilis
(fruits both spiny and smooth)
Species no. 2:
(Fls. Lavender)
D. tatula
(Fruits spiny)
D. tatula var. inermis
(Fruits smooth)
Species no. 3:
(Fls. mauve)
D. bernhardtii
(Fruits spiny)
Notice the simplicity. - and of course the high degree of differentiation in the narrow species concept. :)
This message was edited Friday, Oct 11th 6:35 PM
Tonny,
sorry.........
Brugmansias are not Daturas.
Monika told us that Glockenfontäne (pink) was found in Southamerika.
Glockenfontäne ( white ) is a product of Germany..........
Next year I will cross a versicolor X suavolens...I will have the third Glockenfontäne........
It is very dangerous to name different Brugs simillar.
He should named it HG the second, and everyone would know where it comes.
Monika, please help me lol
Greetings Ludger
No, Ludger. I know. Especially I would say, that Brugmansia currently is not Datura, because it all depends of the eyes, that see. Tommie E. Lockwood wrote an excellent thesis, that segregate Datura from Brugmansia, but there is a BUT. *LOL* It takes only the next ambitious botanist to "discover" that the two Genuses is the same and build a water proff thesis to support his idea. In botany you can`t just say, that a genus is a particular genus forever. The world is ever changing and ever moving and the taxonomy of Datura and Brgmansia is such ever moving cailetoscope. Datura ceratocaula did once belong to the Brugmansias. The Brugmansias was once a section in the Genus Datura. Now is ceratocaula a section in genus Datura and Brugmansia a genus of its own. If you go only a few years back culebra was not a Brugmansia, but a Methysticodendron and some researchers said, as you say now about Datura: "Methysticodendron is not a Brugmansia. *LOL* Ludger, what I trry to say is, that there are no fixed rules and no fixed Genuses as such. In our generation Brugmansia is not Datura, but none of us know, what they will be in the next. Truth and fact are not fixed characteristics about our world. They are intrepretations of a single wawe in motion at a certain time at a certain place on the great ocean.
This message was edited Saturday, Oct 12th 4:55 AM
Well, while I was talking mere philosophy of science I forgot to say, that the datura mentioned above is just an example of a narrow and a broad species concept. The same concepts have been widely in use in taxonomy and nomenclature of cactus. The Cactus family is even more complicated, that Datura or Brugmansia ever was and a new taxonomy was proposed about 10 years ago to gain a bit control of the Genuses, subgenuses, species, subspecies etc. What I said using Datura as an example was, that the Genus Brugmansia is currently intrepretated according to a broad species concept (several species gathered under one species) and I think it is better to use a narrow species concept (a gathered-species split up in several individual species). If you for example go a bit back in time there was no such thing as B. vulcanicola. Yes, but the species were there and many people knew the trees, but they was classified under B. sanguinea and sometimes as B. sanguinea and sometimes it was considered, that they were a sub species. A narrow intrepretation will be to say, that they are different species, B. sanguinea and B. vulcanicola. I wish, that we had like intrepretations to work with dealing with B. versicolor. As you know, there is hairy types and hairless types. These characteristics are coherent with adaption to two different types of ecological environment and as such it would be proper applied botany to regard these as varieties or at least forms. That was my point. :)
Well, I will know more about this in a few years. I am expecting seeds from different ranges of the Brugmansias native habitats and it will take a few years to grow them to bloom and pods to study their morphology and behaviour.
Growing their hybrids is fun, but to search for pure knowledge require the wild plants (and unfortunately also climatically conditions similar to those found in habitat).
This message was edited Saturday, Oct 12th 5:01 AM
Tonny
what you say about botanik is very OK and I agree with you
smile !!!
I only think that is wrong to name to different crossings between versicolor and suavolens with similar names.
GL
Ludger, I couldn`t agree more. You think about the white GF? Yes, if the white is a German cross it is an error to name it the same as a natural occuring hybrid. The least I could expect from a white GF is, that it is collected in a plant population geographical close to the original pale rose GF. All other collections given that name would be directly misleading. :) *LOL*
Most of this I read with my eyes glazed over. But I do think we have to be really careful naming new seedlings. I think we should check every available list and website there is to make sure that we have one that stands out. One was recently named that will cause some confusion later down the road, and as a beauty of its own, should have had a distinctive name. You can't go just by what you think are the most popular names and pick something else.
Another thing is when we look at some of the names in German,we have to know the english translation,so we don't name anything close to the German translation.
I never thought of that because they still go by the German name!
tiG, I agree! :)
In regard of plant names I found a link to the international code of nomenclature (Saint Louis Code 2000, that override the Tokyo Code of 1994).
http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/default.htm
there are some REALLY smart people who know both languages,they could get a European hybrid with a name and translate it to english,and really confuse people if it tanslates to a name already in english
Yeah, I know. `Hope anyone have suggestion on how to avoid that. :) Luckily some names translates very bad. *LOL* Pink Bell Fountaine. *LOL* Love. *LOL* The other way around too. I hope, that the smart folks will for a change be creative and pick names, they themselves like. I prefer persons names and mythological names and a single dog name I guess. :)
What about Rosa Überraschung (a Preissel hybrid) and Pink Delight (my hybrid? Delight, surprise, Überraschung, the words have the same meaning. The name, given by the breeder is valid, even if it is a tongue breaker such as Kurpark Bad Salzschlirf. If we follow the botanic rules, there should be no problems.
monika, perhaps this is a good place to ask, what are the botanical rules when it comes to this?? I couldn't read that link Tonny gave, I'm not that smart.
tiG, its simple to follow. Collected wild species and their cuttings are always natural wild form. Plants raised out of seeds from these wild species are cultivars. Here in Germany, only wild species are of value to bot. Gardens and if the place is known, where they had been collected.
Man made hybrids are of no value, seen from the bot. point of view, unless they are natural hybrids and known, where collected.
The naming of a hybrid is its breeders right. Latin names or double names are not permitted. For instance: my EP x Rothkirch-hybrid cannot be named B. x candida Rosea or Purpurea or mollis. The latin endings are for wild species only. So I named it B. x candida Rubirosa, #2 Rubella etc.
When you buy seeds, the hybridizer is anonym.
Monika, L. H. Bailey introduced the word cultivar in 1923. As much as I hate to say it, by cultivated plants is meant plants raised in cultivation which differ sufficiently from their wild ancestors. If I raise seeds of a Brugmansia collected in the wild it is still a wild plant and it will be verified with a "W" in a botanical record. If the seeds for example result in six plants more or less different from the wild parent and I choose to grow one, that is most different from it, it will be a selection from a wild plant and a cultivar. Cultivar implies human selection in cintrary to natures selection.
Tonny, there is a disagreement in your writing.
Either is the seedling a wild or a cv.