I just got this in my mail from favorite venders
Extremely rare - Brugmansia vulcanicola! - Must see
Current bid: US $255.00 (18 Bids)
Shipping: +US $5.95
Have you seen this one
Hi Doris ! Yes, I saw it and yes I want it but not at that price, LOL :)) Sure is pretty, huh :) Boy, would I ever love that shade of pink and that shape...wowsers !!! Very nice and I've heard nothing but good regarding the Vendor. God bless and be safe, Love, Margo
WOW!
I just met that vender at the Strybing Arboretum last Saturday. He and I had emailed back and forth awhile back and planned to meet at a sale. He is a very nice guy. In fact I was supposed to email him some pictures of this very Vulcanicola's pods so he could see what they look like and I forgot till just now. He swears he does not use a fancy camera to get those great shots.
Gorgeous
Well I would just love that plant but I am not into paying a lot of money for a plant that could die in the first year, it kis too much of a risk no matter how good you are at raising plants.
Doris
Those look much closer to a nice red form sang to me. I don't think they're vulcanicola.
grrrnthumb I think Kell would yell at the top of her lungs if he sold a "fake" Vulcanicola.
Janett
edit to say Kell knows her Brugs.
This message was edited Mar 17, 2007 6:10 PM
This is almost certainly a naturally-occurring vulcanicola/sanguinea hybrid collected from Laguna LaCocha in Colombia.
Sorry Janet, I didn't mean to disparage anyone's brug knowledge. I'm sure that Kell knows far more than I on everything brugs, but there's a real problem with Vulcanicola ID here in the states. It's so rare & so valuable that for a long while now everyone has been very, very highly motivated to assume that their pinkish sang or flava is a vulcanicola.
Most vulcanicolas aren't even pink, they're red & yellow. The true pink form is a very, very rare permutation and has been identified as growing on only a few small bushes in one isolated area of Columbia, and they have a violet calyx. The calyx in the auction is green. The vulcanicola calyx should also be split into several evenly spaced "teeth", but the one in the auction has only 1 split (just like sanguinea and arborea). Vulcanicola leaves should only be 3 1/2" to 4" long. Those on the auction look twice as large on a still very junior plant. The leaves should also all be smooth & shiny with very few hairs, unlike those in the auction. Alistair, I'm not sure I see any evidence at all that the auction plant has even a little vulcanicola in it's parentage.
My favorite part of Sesame Street was always the 'One of these things is not like the other' game. :^) See if you can find the true Vulcanicola in these 3 links:
http://strangewonderfulthings.com/Brugmansia_vulcanicola_7041.jpg
http://site.voila.fr/brugmansiasdaturas/sanguinea_1.jpg
http://leda.lycaeum.org//Images/Brugmansia_vulcanicola.15882.jpg
One is the auction in question. One is a true sanguinea 'Inca Queen'. One is a vulcanicola.
I think it's just another xflava hybrid with sanguinea & arborea (stil an amazing beauty!). I don't mean to say that this vendor or anyone else was aware of the mistake. I'm sure that it was given to them with that name, and probably the same for a few people up the line. It's just unfortunate there are so many misidentified.
Well thanks Janett! But I have long ago stopped yelling esp about brugs. LOL
Alistair, Jeff got his Vulcanicola from Strybing so its origins are the the same accession number as we discussed earlier. And OBTW, I did float the idea the other day at the Arboretum that it maybe be a naturally occurring hybird and was booed (but nicely). LOL
I actually had this one myself a few years ago, Grrrnthumb. It is very pink and is smaller than a sang bloom. It is quite narrow. I have seen it at the Arboretum and it does not look like a sang to me though similar. But then what do I know? LOL The few I knew that were around including those sold from Kartuz, I asked about the origins and they all led back to the Strybing Arboretum and Tommy Lockwood.
To get a better look at it, here is a photo I took in Oct. 06 at the Strybing.
It's very beautiful Kell. I hope to have one someday.
- Tom
Oh sorry Grrrnthumb, I was off looking for my pic for you and we cross posted. We had here on Dave's this same conversation about the true identity of this Vulcanicola a few months ago. We got so close to an answer of sorts but no cigar. At any rate, it was given to the Strybing Arboretum as Vulcanicola that Tommy Lockwood himself collected. I did mention that people were questioning whether it was really a hybrid to the Arboretums's brug person last Saturday but it did not seem to him as possible.
I can't say I am nuts over it, Tom. I was off looking for this thead for you so you can get up to speed on our debate. You are not alone in thinking it is not a true Vulcanicola though those in doubt think it most probably is a vulcanicola hybrid.
http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/689071/
Send boos back to Strybing LOL.
It is certainly possible that it is a hybrid: both sanguinea and vulcanicola grow at Laguna La Cocha, the two species can hybridise and Lockwood observed and collected hybrid plants there. The pics of the plant offered are clearly intermediate between vulcanicola and sanguinea.and if they are not hybrid, they rather suggest that the two species are not separate anyway!
I think its of just as much interest and value as a wild-collected plant whether its a hybrid or not: so I'm not knocking it LOL.
Maybe you're not nuts over it Kell, but I have a very special place in my heart for any of the cool growing brugs or iochromas (I. fuschoides is my favorite). Anything in that group automatically seems to look much more beautiful to me just because our climate here is especially suited to it. :^)
Thank you very much for that link, it was interesting.
So we agree it's not a true vucanicola, but on the question of is it Sang x vulcanicola or sang x arborea (flava), I don't think we can put much credence in the chain of paperwork since it was clearly mislabeled as a straight vulcanicola. Plus it looks from the paperwork like maybe they lost the mother plant in 1991?
If you can assume though that they got the plant name wrong but the location right, and also assume that when it was lost that they correctly found the right plant, then I still wonder if it isn't a flava hybrid. Does anyone know for sure if arborea doesn't also grow naturally in that same area near Laguan la Cocha? It appears that there's a chance Tommy Lockwood shared the common misunderstanding about the true vulcanicola. First because he didn't think it was a separate species (understandable if you are looking at what most people call a vulcanicola), and second because a plant recieved directly from him was mislabeled as vulcanicola.
So I think you really have to look at the plant. Is there anyone who can really look at those 3 picture links I posted and say what characteristics they think are more like a sang x vulcanicola than a sang x arborea?
I'm just not seeing anything that matches a vulcanicola over a flava.
This message was edited Mar 17, 2007 11:05 PM
I do not agree it is not a true vulcanicola. I have no clue really, I just do not know enough. I think it is an interesting debate though. I have only seen what Preissel said in 1 paragraph in his book and who knows if that info is really correct or even the whole picture.
This is an interesting thread too. LOL.
http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/266402/
The vender for this plant is Strange_and_wonderfull_things they have some very different plants on auction,
Kell I thought I remember somewhere that you had pictures of the seed pods of this one. Would it be really hard to find them? Vulcanicola seed pods are distinctive in both shape & texture. It could really add a lot to the discussion if they were still around somewhere.
Kereoke that sure is one drool worthy plant list. ;^)
Hey Tom when I was looking at your links you put in your Post #3293330
I thought one of the pictures looked so familiar and I came across it today. IT IS MY PHOTO!!!!!! That site stole it. LOL
http://site.voila.fr/brugmansiasdaturas/sanguinea_1.jpg
http://davesgarden.com/forums/fp.php?pid=527857
I am looking for the pictures of my vulcanicola pods. At one point I had much confusion about which pods were which but then found a day when I had actually labeled some and I am looking for that date in my picture folder which is HUGE!! The eBay seller Jeff wants to see that picture too to see if they were warty looking. LOL
I want it to be clear here so no one gets the wrong idea about Strange_and_wonderfull_things whom Doris is talking about. I met the seller last weekend but had emailed with him in the past. He is not trying and may not even unintentionally be..misleading anyone. As far as he knows and as far as the San Francisco Botanical Garden at Strybing Arboretum knows, the one he is selling on eBay is in fact Vulcanicola. I sure do not want us in our discussion to leave the impression the man is not on the up and up for from what I can see he sure is. The SF Botanical at Strybing has it clearly marked as Vulcanicola. And even if it were to be a hybrid which is all speculation on our part, it sure is rare and unique.
This message was edited Mar 18, 2007 10:04 AM
OK, I found some pod pictures. They were most unusual pods.
Early on
Then with calyx off. White!
Then they started to get bumpy.
Then old, lumpy and ugly. LOL
What Happened to all the seeds from those Pods Kell?
yea kell ,us brug nuts need to know LOL
Kell thank you very much for digging those pod pictures out. I think it's funny that I showed you one of your own pictures, lol. I saw there was a thread recently about stolen photographs, where did you come down on that one? Are you going to follow up on it?
I can agree with you 100% that the current seller had no real reason to doubt it wasn't exactly as labeled. But I am curious to see if they continue to sell it as such in the future. I don't really think though, at this point, that it would be fair to call it "speculation" that it's mislabeled. It's not a vulcanicola. Someone can call a pumpkin a rose, but that doesn't mean you need a DNA test to tell them apart. ;)
A real vulcanicola's pod should be wrinkled and warty. This one has a couple spots and a is a little lumpy, but not wrinkled and warty.
It should also be oval, not egg shaped like a sanguinea's pod.
It also looses it's calyx early instead of retaining it as the pod matures, unlike in the pictures.
Also since this is a pinkish flower, it would have to be the rare pink form if it was a true vulcanicola, but this one doesn't have a violet calyx like the true pink form vulcanicola does.
It's leaves are twice as large as the vulcanicola's 3.5" to 4".
It's leaves are hairy like a sang or arborea unlike the smooth surface with only occasional hairs of a vulcanicola.
Most of all, it just doesn't look like a real vulcanicola shape and round, unribbed tube:
http://leda.lycaeum.org//Images/Brugmansia_vulcanicola.15882.jpg
I honestly don't know for sure what it really is, but I think it's been proved for sure that it's not a true vulcanicola.
I sure do love it though!
This message was edited Mar 18, 2007 2:14 PM
Tom there are no records to my knowledge of B. arborea from Laguna La Cocha, so (assuming this plant does have its correct origin recorded) it is very unlikely to be a x flava.
LOL Paul and Doris, don't I wish I had them again! I sent most of them out. A lot to Canada to some sang growers and some to a lady here who posted a pic of one on another site and the leaves were incredible. I should email her and see if it has flowered yet for her. I crossed it with my orange sang that was in the picture above. I have a few but I have never potted them up above a gallon can in all these years. I am so pathetic. And they are so forgiving. My DH needs to dig up a couple brugs on the side of the house so I can plant them. As you can see, he is on strike. LOL
Pollinated by http://davesgarden.com/forums/fp.php?pid=527857. I think it may be interesting combo.
Tom, I am annoyed they deleted my copyright to my photo thus not giving me credit, but oh well. I try not to focus on the negative and am pleased they liked it so much to steal it.
I can tell you have researched this and feel strongly but keep in mind that though you are convinced others may not be. It does not matter to me one way or another, though I find it all interesting. I have only seen the one picture of vulcanicola you posted the link to. So much on only 1 photo. Does anyone even know who took it? And where did you get your info on the pods, from Tommy Lockwood's papers? I only have seen them described as warty. Have you seen pictures of them as they developed for 9 months?
I think I read where Preissel did have a relationship with Tommy Lockwood so it would be funny if the picture Tonny posted from Preissel is from the same brug that the piece the Strybing has came from. Or did they come from seeds?
At any rate, I have probably 1000 questions that I would need answered before I believe one way or the other. And I have learned that just because it is written somewhere that something is a certain way, does not necessarily mean it is true! LOL Too bad we cannot go back to April 8th, 1970 and watch just what Tommy Lockwood did and see just what he saw that day.
That's pretty brazen, what they did with your photo. I think anyone who crops a copyright out of a photo knows that they are stealing. Sometimes it takes someone else's wrong actions to let the goodness come out in us. I admire your forgiving spirit.
You asked about pod info. Both BGI & ABADS have formal vulcanicola descriptions. BGI says the "Fruit is oval shaped and over 5" long with the surface being wrinkled and warty". ABADS says "Fruit is oval and warty in appearance". I'll see if I can't dig up the original published description for you by the end of the week, since that's the only one that matters. Anyone have a copy of Harvard's Botanical Museum Leaflets, volume 25, laying around?
You asked about why that photo? Because unlike all these other highly ribbed pink hybrids with a green calyx, it shows the exactly correct color combination of green at the base, red in the middle, then yellow at the mouth. It also shows the tubular instead of ribbed corolla and the right sized leaves from the description. That one is a pure classic vulcanicola acording to its proper description.
I do apologize for seeming dogmatic on this one not being the true species, but I do think we're getting into 'calling a pumkin a rose' territory here. Not one person on this thread or the other one you posted gave one shred of evidence that the plant in question matches a true vulcanicola, only that Tommy Lockwood might have believed it be so. You did mention the man at Strybing that was so sure about it. I can't imagine that he gave you any real explanation of matching characteristics (since none match). It looks more like he might be just blindly believing his paperwork. I would be curious what he would say if shown this thread & pressed to identify matching characteristics.
I would agree with you and have a thousand questions myself if we had to say for sure exactly which cross it is though.
- Tom
I found a botanical illustration of B. vulcanicola. That is the ugliest fruit I ever saw LOL
http://catbull.com/alamut/Lexikon/Pflanzen/Brugmansia%20vulcanicola.gif
Lockwood's thesis contains (fig 52) a comparative photo of the flowers of vulcanicola, sanguinea and the putative hybrid, all from Laguna la Cocha: unfortunately it is completely illegible in the b&w phoptocopy I have access to :-(
The original description by Barclay, while significant, is not necessarily the only one which matters because Lockwood knew more of the variability of the species (or in his interpretation, subspecies) than Barclay, who was unaware of the Laguna La Cocha site. Unfortunately the descrption provided by Lockwood is not very detailed....
Further digging around in his thesis (page 161): Evidently cutting material from BOTH his relevant Laguna La Cocha collections - TEL621 (which he determined as vulcanicola itself) AND TEL622 (the putative vulcanicola/sanguinea hybrid) was successfully established in the US in the early seventies - so a mix up in labelling, with TEL621 coming to be applied to live material of the hybrid, is plausible in the intervening years.
Very interesting Alistair. I'm jealous you have a copy of his thesis. :^) Can I ask if it's from a source that is still available? I sure would love to have one.
I don't know if I can agree so much that Lockwood's papers are as important as the original description. You know how it works: either it's correct or you have to redescribe it. There has been over 40 years and vulcanicola is still widely accepted as a distinct species today. I don't think we have any evidence that it is a widely variable species other than the two original forms described.
The many, many sang hybrids floating around really don't say anything about vulcanicola in situ. I think that this particular one can only prove that there is a wild sang/vulcanicola hybrid, ...that is if the tenuous line of ascension could be proved, which doesn't look likely here.
First descriptions are often inadequate because at that point in its scientific history, a species is least known.
A look at the original of fig. 52 may clear it up!
You can request a copy of Lockwood's thesis from Harvard College Library. But it is extremely expensive to get a copy with color pics (cheaper for me to go there lol).
I would love to see a picture that showed the violet calyx. I keep hearing about it but have never seen it in a picture. Is there a picture out there of it?
Several questions ?
1 . how do I get a copy of Lockwood's thesis ? Can it be copied and posted or is it copyrighted ? Is there a web site to order from ?
2 . WILL A Sang come back from roots ? Cold got the one I bought last year . I am thinking about ordering another one . picture is the one cold got .
3 . No flowers on other 2 that are crosses - they are leggy - and didn't flower last year . They are in 2 gallon pots - should I put in bigger pots ?
2nd picture shows more of plant shape and leaves - no , no pods formed and I did put a humming bird feeder close to it - figured it wouldn't hurt - I replanted in bigger pot but wife went in Hospital and the help and me missed it on first and 2nd frost/freeze . I just moved to a place outside but I think it's a goner .
Hi Tony,
1) Alistair says it's available from the Harvard College Library, you'd have to contact them for details. Yes it's copyrighted so you can't post it online. I don't think it's available in digital form, but I'm really not sure.
2) I had one sang come back from the roots, but that one was more from drying out in the basement, not cold. Of the seedling sangs that I experimented with testing my overwinter boundries, none that died down came back.
3) I would only pot them up from a 2 gallon when the roots are virtually filling the pot and sucking up the water too fast.
when you folks talk about this brug on auction, do you mean on eBay or elsewhere?