Bromeliad Forum
November 24, 2017, 17:53:18 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Please consider a small donation to help cover expenses.
Local donations, click here
Donate to the Forum

News: Change your Profile, Photo etc by clicking on the Profile button above
 
   Home   Help Forum Rules Login Register  
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Info on Canistropsis  (Read 1608 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sdandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: Awesome stuff.
Posts: 1247



WWW
« on: September 14, 2010, 08:23:24 »

Is this a newer genus?  I can't seem to find much info on when it was created, why, etc.  Are they very common in collections?
Thanks for any info,
-andy
Logged

Rickta66
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Australia Australia

Posts: 466



« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2010, 09:53:20 »

Andy,

I don't know when they were created, they are reasonably available in Aus.

I have Tamarillo and possibly Plum - I'm not convinced that some of the differant fruit colours are not the same plant grown under differant conditions.

I can get mine to look dark green, orange or bronzy red, they multiply well and grow well in filtered light -I like the way the flower takes on the foliage colour in the cvs that I'm growing.

Rick
Logged
Premium Advert
MadeiraBroms
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Portugal Portugal

Posts: 22



« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2010, 10:10:08 »

I believe it is correct that Canistropsis was introduced as a division within the Nidularium group, e.g. Canistropsis billbergoides was originally treated as a Nidularium.
Rick
Logged
No ads for the duration of the month!!!

Please consider a small donation to help cover expenses.
Local donations, click here
Donate to the Forum

Lisa
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: gingers, Heliconia
Posts: 1077



« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2010, 22:24:15 »

It's just taxonomic reshuffling, Andy.  Some of the former Nidulariums are now Canistropsis, some of the former Wittrockias are now Nidulariums, etc.   

Elton Leme is the one working on this group.  His first volume, Canistrum, was published in 1997, followed by Canistropsis in 1998, and Nidularium in 2000.  I have the second one, which actually has a broader scope than you might think from the title.   Nearly half the book deals with a couple of new subgenera of Neoregelia (Longipetalopsis and Protoregelia), and there is material on the stigma and pollen morphology of the entire Nidularioid complex.  Not exactly light summer reading, but it's pretty interesting. 
Logged

You are not allowed to view images.
Please register or login
sdandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: Awesome stuff.
Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2010, 02:51:38 »

Awesome.  Thanks for the info guys.  I just needed some of this basic info that doesn't seem readily available online.  I'll have to look into those books Lisa, they actually sound pretty interesting.  I'm sure good pictures to go along with the information in the books as well, right?
Logged

Lisa
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: gingers, Heliconia
Posts: 1077



« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2010, 05:36:46 »

Yup, nice photos in habitat, Andy.

If I'm reading Leme's remarks correctly, Canistropsis had existed as a subgenus for quite a while, first of Nidularium, and then of Aregelia (as Neoregelia was then known), before being dumped back into Nidularium and stripped of its subgenus status.  The number of species included has varied over the years, and some have been lumped or split as well.  They seem to be all stoloniferous, but apart from that I'm having a hard time finding a simple encapsulated statement that sums up what makes the group distinct.  I keep coming across "if A, then B; but if not A, then C" types of statements.  Oh well, guess you'll just have to read the book!
Logged

You are not allowed to view images.
Please register or login
bromlad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Other Plants I Grow: everything
Hobbies: nothing exists except plants
Posts: 47


« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2010, 11:29:27 »

All name changes are merely a suggestion by the botanist concerned and it is up to you whether you accept them or not. There is no right or wrong name for any plant, just what is popularly accepted by the plant growing community. It really annoys me when people comment that a plant has had its name "changed" and the name you are using is wrong. No one has the power to change a plants name and in my opinion Canistropsis has no validity but you are free to make your own mind up.Just FYI , Wanderly and Martins in Flora de Sao Paulo have sunk it back into Nidularium
Logged
Lisa
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: gingers, Heliconia
Posts: 1077



« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2010, 19:07:05 »

Well, that's interesting, bromlad.  I'd never really thought of it that way.  I know there are often differences in opinion, but I guess I kind of assumed that once taxonomic revisions were published we were all expected to go along with them.  Of course I don't necessarily agree with all of the current classifications either, but lacking the credentials to make a thorough scientific evaluation, I don't have much of a leg to stand on, just gut feelings. 

The thing is, there has to be some sort of consensus on nomenclature in order to have any kind of valid conversation about a taxon.  Isn't there any kind of official ruling body in the botanical world?
Logged

You are not allowed to view images.
Please register or login
sdandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: Awesome stuff.
Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2010, 20:01:58 »

I have to both agree and disagree.  Just because you don't like to change something (or understand the work) does not justify calling something wrong.  Calling them 'suggestions' is a bit too dismissive for my taste.  When proposals are made in the literature (scientific, peer-reviewed work) it is up to the community in that field to refute the findings with further works/articles arguing their position.  While it might appear that this is the case when Wanderley and Martins published their work it appears that they did not bring any new evidence or data but rather relied on decades old work like Smith and Downs lumping into historical groups rather than the bulk of more modern, more refined works within the last decade or so.  Leme published a direct rebuttal on W&M's work in the Nov/Dec 2009 BSI Journal.

And I strongly disagree about it being up to the 'plant growing community' to determine nomenclature.  While there can be very curious, intellectual, and self-trained people who have done a lot of work in the 'plant growing community', there are often two reasons not to leave it up to popular (mob, if you will) consensus: too many people not well enough informed (or interested in the actual details) and often a strong influence of commercial entities.

There is a need for a general consensus of the members of the scientific community that are either trained or specialize in the field, in this case those studying bromeliaceae.  Now I know this ruffles some feathers as that creates and 'elites' group, but as long as they are doing sound work and reporting the information clearly and fairly than they will continue to get my support.  If there are new findings and someone publishes studies that document a new revision I will celebrate that as science in action.  That is what makes the history of science great, there is a published record of successes and failures that we can learn from to hopefully become better scientists in the future.

But thanks for bringing up Wanderley and Martins work, it turns out after asking some simple questions that I found quite an interesting story when digging a little deeper.
Logged

sdandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: Awesome stuff.
Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2010, 23:22:59 »

Uh-oh.  Sorry if I sounded bitter.  Didn't mean to sound nasty.  Just frustrated with the response of tossing the hands in the air while saying all botanists/taxonomists do is change names for fun.

And oops, was too busy digging for more information and didn't see your post Lisa.  But from what I found digging toward Leme's earlier work when creating the genus Canistropsis I found this general description in a paragraph of an article by Gregory Brown and Leme in 2005 in the journal Taxon:
"In a revision of the genus Nidularium, Leme (1998) elevated subgenus Canistropsis to generic rank to accommodate a group of “nidular” species with long, slender stolons, bi- to tripinnately branched inflorescences, and suberect to spreading petals with acuminate, acute, or apiculate apices that become flaccidescent in post-anthesis.  Canistropsis appeared to be a natural genus; however, recent evaluations of taxonomic proposals introduced by Leme (1997, 1998, 2000), coupled with a better understanding of several species currently placed in the genus Aechmea, and new morphological and ecological data from a newly discovered population of C. selloana, suggest the removal of C. selloana from Canistropsis.  We conducted a morphological cladistic study to investigate the phylogenetic relationships within Canistropsis, with a special interest in the phylogenetic position of C. selloana."

And to add more irony to the whole topic, the article that was quoted above was resurrecting the genus Adrea for the species selloana which has since been changed to the genus Eduandrea.  I understand it may be frustrating, but I would rather have the flexibility of revision with the assumption that we are heading in the correct direction with more precise knowledge.
-andy
Logged

bromlad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Other Plants I Grow: everything
Hobbies: nothing exists except plants
Posts: 47


« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2010, 01:30:23 »

There is no doubt that there are differences between Canistropsis and Nidularium but they can easily be acommidated at sectional level rather than generic level. What of the far greater number of similarities between the two? Botanists have a lamentable tendency to focus on one tiny and often relativly insignificant feature to separate taxons such as seed anatomy with Pepinia and Pitcairnia or the peposterous petal appendages separating the silver leaved Vrieseas from Tillandsia. Remember that no matter how emminent or knowledgable a botanist may be, they can't see anything we ignorant peasants can , they can just interpret it differently. Thats why  Vriesea olmosiana is not Tillandsia olmosiana even though to my ignorant peasant eyes it bloody well should be. I'd be surprised if many of Leme's name last too long and as for his rant in the Nov-Dec BSI journal, he seemed to be admitting that many of his new species were bogus but please don't say anything because they could be used in the interests of conservation - i.e don't chop down this forest remnant because a very rare species I have just newly descibed lives there.Its hard to argue with anything that would result in conservation of plant habitat but Lemes use of this to justify his cavalier attitude to what constitutes a new species is hard to accept.
Logged
No ads for the duration of the month!!!

Please consider a small donation to help cover expenses.
Local donations, click here
Donate to the Forum

sdandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: Awesome stuff.
Posts: 1247



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2010, 06:09:40 »

Yeah, I agree the plea/excuse of using the 'nominal extinction hurt conservation' harms or cheapens the argument.  I don't know whether to admire that he dares be that transparent or not.  But he at least provides evidence of why he thinks they are new species.  If someone does work that provides evidence that there is no reason for the changes or additions then we should change.  Much like the resurrected genus Andrea already being changed to Eduandrea.  But until then I will go along with current evidence.  I would rather be nimble and adaptable to changes rather than be stubborn headed and reluctant to ever consider anything new.  (***warning: sarcasm***) But maybe you are right, just like if I don't like who our president is then I can say our government doesn't really exist and I can just pout about it.  Okay, I swear no more sarcasm....it just doesn't translate well in forums.

If you so strongly disagree about the Tillandsia/Vriesea division, have you published or done research to show why such petal appendages should not define a natural boundary, funded or encouraged such work?  What would need to be done to break down that barrier?  Would you consider all Tillandsias and Vrieseas to be combined or partial switch over (for instance, just the gray leaved species?)?  Would that just make it like the Aechmeas where there are distinct groups within the genus but not enough to elevate to genus status?  I really am interested in this topic.  Maybe start a new thread in another section?
-andy
Logged

bromlad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Other Plants I Grow: everything
Hobbies: nothing exists except plants
Posts: 47


« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2010, 10:15:39 »

Several points to consider here. No body votes for botanists, nor can they be kicked out of office if they do the wrong thing. Also if you ignore botanists no one is going to throw you in gaol. In other words they are not that important and can be safely disregarded. Re the Tillandsia/Vriesea thing,I have neither the time ,money or inclination to do anything about it as it seems does any botanist, many of whom agree with the petal appendage being irrelevant. Feel free to use as much sarcasm as you like but please, no irony as I just don't  understand that at all.
Logged
Lisa
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
United States United States

Other Plants I Grow: gingers, Heliconia
Posts: 1077



« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2010, 20:51:28 »

Gee, who knew this would become such a heated topic?  Maybe you should start a new thread, Andy.  We haven't even gotten into the thorny subject of of DNA analysis vs. morphology!

I don't have anything more to say about Canistropsis.  I don't grow enough of them to have an opinion about whether they should be lumped or split.  Most of my "ignorant peasant" conclusions tend to be based on how well the different groups interbreed, which is why I'd like to see Hylaeaicum split off from Neoregelia, etc.  Until someone does the work, however, I'm going to keep calling them Neos, just for the sake of communication. 

BTW, flaccidescent is my new favorite word.   Cool
Logged

You are not allowed to view images.
Please register or login
Premium Advert
bromlad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Other Plants I Grow: everything
Hobbies: nothing exists except plants
Posts: 47


« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2010, 01:32:17 »

I think the general rule of thumb with any plant group is you should be able to distinguish one species from another at a distance of 2 metres. If you have to look any closer then they probably aren't different. Assuming of course that you have reasonable eyesight or they are not really tiny plants. It always amazes me that a highly variable species like Homo sapiens fails to recognise or acknowledge variability in other species.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © Copyright Bromeliad & Airplant Forum | Hosted By GTS Designs
Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC | Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!