July 2024

[Too Many Plants!]

Can't find my tag, but fairly sure these are Albuca. Maybe someone recognizes these little flowers going off unbothered by the high 90's°F full sun of late July...

[Wylie]

I have a border of Agapanthus, and the star is Agapanthus inapertus 'Graskop'. It is one of those colors that a camera has trouble with. There is a Philodendron behind it and a Crinum to the side.

A. Graskop is listed as a species agapanthus, right?

I wonder if this is related to an agapanthus I've seen that's not easy to find available for sale, called "Elaine". It looks very close in dark rich color, and pendulous flowers, but at least pictures make the flower heads look more substantial, with larger bells. I suppose those could be due to growing conditions...

I think A. Graskop is a cultivar. I do have another A. inapertus, 'Midnight Cascade'.

[Carlos]

Hi, @Too Many Plants!

I know I might become impopular for supporting the splitting of Albuca (as I've written, it was a botanist from the US who did it first, or more precisely corrected and enlarged what the British Salisbury had done).

At first I thought that he (Rafinesque) meant a plant like yours when he created Nemaulax, as he stated: 'the genus Albuca is very near Skilla in the hexandrous species, but the real Albuca has three sterile stamens: all the other species united thereto are aliens like this [Nemaulax]'.

Nemaulax was described as followed (translated from Latin): 'different from Albuca; six tepals, the inner ones hooded at the tip, six unequal stamens, three being shorter, filaments canaliculated, trigonous style, three-lobed stigma'. The type species is Albuca fastigiata, with white and green flowers. The plants usually shown as this species have the three erect inner tepals typical of Albuca, so I admit that Nemaulax should be synonimised, or should have been left as a subgenus. But Müller- Dobblies seem not to have known Rafinesque's Flora Telluriana and she created Albuca subg. Mitrotepalum U. Müll.-Doblies (= Albuca sect. Branciona (Salisb.) J.C. Manning & Goldblatt). Manning & Goldblatt, in turn, did not know neither M.-Dobblies's work, nor Flora Telluriana.

As for Albuca fastigiata, it might have been mistaken for A caudata [currently known from Addo in the west to Grahamstown in the east, below 600 m, with an outlying population as far inland as Somerset East, reaching 900 m], Albuca bateniana (with a proliferous bulb) or the more recently described Albuca bakeri [from Jansenville to Alice and the Keiskamma river in the Eastern Cape, with two outlying populations near Calitzdorp in the Western Cape].. But this paper did not include fastigiata in the comparative table ...

https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1382


All this said, I don't know what your plant is, probably Ornithogalum sp. according to Manning & Goldblatt, or a taxon in one of Rafinsque's splitted genera, maybe Stellarioides or Ethesia.

Carlos

[CG100]

It's my understanding plant roots optimal uptake is 5.5 to 6.0 ph for water, and soil is similar.

Botany, not my strong suit, but presumably optimum pH for nutrient/water uptake will depend on species?

Very strong calcicoles presumably work to a very different "standard"? Why otherwise would they be calcicoles, unless competition provides an answer in nature..........

If you mean the 7-7.9 pH range, that is of course slightly/moderately alkaline.

Not everything online is to be believed, but some interesting reading, although life is never simple    -  Soil pH - Wikipedia

[CG100]

It's my understanding plant roots optimal uptake is 5.5 to 6.0 ph for water, and soil is similar.

Botany, not my strong suit, but presumably optimum pH for nutrient/water uptake will depend on species?

Very strong calcicoles presumably work to a very different "standard"? Why otherwise would they be calcicoles, unless competition provides an answer in nature..........

If you mean the 7-7.9 pH range, that is of course slightly/moderately alkaline.

Not everything online is to be believed, but some interesting reading, although life is never simple    -  Soil pH - Wikipedia

[Too Many Plants!]

All this said, I don't know what your plant is, probably Ornithogalum sp. according to Manning & Goldblatt, or a taxon in one of Rafinsque's splitted genera, maybe Stellarioides or Ethesia.

Carlos

So, are you saying it for sure is not/can not be an Albuca? The thing is, I'm pretty sure I haven't bought Ornithagalum, certainly not seed. I believe the only unusual genera that I've purchased that aren't bulbs I'm really into have been Albuca. But I guess I can't be 100% certain about that. If only there was a better (reasonably easy) way to ID your plants than tags that degrade, or get lost...

When I looked over the Wiki yesterday, to me they look very close to-
https://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Albuca_unifolia
and
https://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Albuca_virens

[Too Many Plants!]

I have a border of Agapanthus, and the star is Agapanthus inapertus 'Graskop'. It is one of those colors that a camera has trouble with. There is a Philodendron behind it and a Crinum to the side.

A. Graskop is listed as a species agapanthus, right?

I wonder if this is related to an agapanthus I've seen that's not easy to find available for sale, called "Elaine". It looks very close in dark rich color, and pendulous flowers, but at least pictures make the flower heads look more substantial, with larger bells. I suppose those could be due to growing conditions...

I think A. Graskop is a cultivar. I do have another A. inapertus, 'Midnight Cascade'.

It's a selection (cultivar) of a sp., different than a hybrid? 

Here's a picture of A. Elaine I was talking about...

[Arnold]

I had Agapanthus 'Elaine' years ago from Plant Delights Nursery.

Not sure if they still have it.

[Wylie]

I have a border of Agapanthus, and the star is Agapanthus inapertus 'Graskop'. It is one of those colors that a camera has trouble with. There is a Philodendron behind it and a Crinum to the side.

A. Graskop is listed as a species agapanthus, right?

I wonder if this is related to an agapanthus I've seen that's not easy to find available for sale, called "Elaine". It looks very close in dark rich color, and pendulous flowers, but at least pictures make the flower heads look more substantial, with larger bells. I suppose those could be due to growing conditions...

I think A. Graskop is a cultivar. I do have another A. inapertus, 'Midnight Cascade'.

It's a selection (cultivar) of a sp., different than a hybrid?

Here's a picture of A. Elaine I was talking about...

Since I was a music major at University instead of Botany, I refer to the American Daylily Society for a lot of definitions. For hybrid, they say: " An individual descending from crosses between two or more species. (This is a botanical definition that is also widely used in horticultural commerce.) While in the AHS we may loosely refer to the results of our crosses as hybrids to distinguish them from the original species, they are more appropriately referred to as cultivars if registered, and seedlings if not registered."

For cultivar, they say: " A combined word for "cultivated variety." Denotes an assemblage of cultivated individuals that, when reproduced sexually or asexually, retains its distinguishing features. Nearly all registered daylily cultivars are propagated vegetatively and retain their identity as clones.".

I currently have 17 registered cultivars of daylilies, which is why I use the ADS site.

[CG100]

his is a botanical definition that is also widely used in horticultural commerce.)

No. not so, F1, F2, etc. hybrids are crosses betwen strains, not species.
It has been criticised many times, but it is still used.

As for "cultivar" - registration is a very, very recent thing and extremely imprecise.

Nearly all registered daylily cultivars are propagated vegetatively and retain their identity as clones.".

Nearly all is nearly irrelevant/useless. It is also totally impossible to police.