At my society we have a number of "specialists" - you're all probably familiar with the scenario. One of them, Don Porter (who you'll hear a little more of in the future) grows Paphs and Phrags like they were clover.


At the meeting on Thursday night he presented something like 10 plants - each and every one a joy to behold. One of the plants was Phrag pearcii. This plant is really quite small which surprised me because I thought Phrags were these big hulking things that threw two metre flower spikes :). From what I saw it has a "rambling" habit and a flower that looks like this ;

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a236/shaberer/Society%20shots/Phragpearcii.jpg

Cheers
Stephan

Thanks Stephan!
I love these types (Himantopetalum).
I think the plants can get big over time, but the leaves are much narrower than many of the other groups and the flowers are really quite small on all of them I believe. At least the ones more common to me such as this, richterii, caricinum, and ecuadorense. My klotzsceanum is a teeny plant. I don't have pearcei...yet! :twisted:

As a note, for me, I've had trouble getting them established. After finally putting an ecuadorense in a saucer of water, I am getting good growth but it really struggled as did my caricinum division. I had another tiny ecua division that didn't make it. :sad: I think now though, I am getting the hang of these finally!

You should get one! :poke:

Give me time Heather - I need to learn quite a bit more just yet.

Cheers
Stephan

Stephan,

Very nice pouch and twisted petals!

thanks

Very nice, Stephan. Phrag pearcei/ecuadorense stays small unlike the larger types, like longifoliums and sagrentianums but they do become multigrowth plants very quickly.

I killed my first ecua as well Heather. The second one is much easier and has formed into a 'bush' very quickly from a single growth plant.

Your pearcii is lovely. Those little ones are so cute.

Wouldn't it be best to describe as a Phrag pearcii var Ecuadorense? As a species, it's pretty distinct and here's a picture of the flower that will supposedly come from my division:

http://images.andale.com/f2/120/115/17760516/1122181395472_ecuadorense.jpg

Ernie

I think the answer to that question is more controversial than the meaning of life itself. I'm begging to think that pearcei, ecuadorensis, christianianum, and richteri are all variations of a single species group. My opinion is that the differences in the flowers are too subtle for pollinators to descriminate, and they probably do not differ much in habitat requirements.

You could probably make a similar argument for paph parishii versus dianthum (and many do), but there is good geographical separation, and differences in habitat preferences between those two, despite the similarity in flowers.

There is a phenomenon called clinal variation of species. Lowland version of species x is big; highland version of the same speceis is small. Sometimes there are subtle color differences too. Transplanting the highland to the lowland does not immediately result in plant growing big, but still not considered a different species.

The differences between us and the pigmies in Africa seem greater than the differences in the pearcei group, but no one is trying to split humans into different species.

What is the typical leafspan of a blooming plant and how many growths before blooming? Thanks great photos!

Very nice, I am still hunting for one of these

There is a phenomenon called clinal variation of species. Lowland version of species x is big; highland version of the same speceis is small. Sometimes there are subtle color differences too. Transplanting the highland to the lowland does not immediately result in plant growing big, but still not considered a different species.

P. sanderianum for example, yes?

Steve T was recently telling me about narrow leafed highland sanderianums and wide leaf lowland sanderianums so that may be an example. There has also been a recent flap about wide and narrow leaf gratrixianums, but they are from disjoint populations in two different countries, so it may be harder to argue that one.

I am also wondering about the glanduliferum group, with the stumpy little highland wilhelminae versus the larger lowland glanduliferum.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/ahmcd33/Happyfamily.jpg