Pulsatilla 2014

[krisderaeymaeker]

would you please show a leaf/leaves photo of your turczaninovii. all "turczaninovii" plants i saw or got were ambigua.

Try to make a detailed picture from the leaves .

Sorry for the delay , but here some details from the leaves ......

[greenspan]

the leaves are of the ambigua type (bipinnate). compare your plants with this herbar example of ambigua and the tripinnate leaves of turczaninovii: herbar example + leaf foto by olga bondareva (scroll down to posting #9)

olgas leaf-photo of different Pulsatilla species : turczaninovii = the big leaf in the middle, left from that = ambigua (ambigua: in my opinion)

[Susann]

Pulsatillas, pulsatillas, pulsatillas; will we ever stop wondering what they are or not are? I think we should not be too sure about the leaves regarding P ambigua and P turczaninovii? They vary so much in nature. P turczaninovii seems to be very common both in Central Sibiria and in Mongolia while P ambigua is very rare. I only saw it at very high altitudes while turczaninovii was found at different altitudes, not rarely together with P multifida that is said to be a steppe species. I found multifida also at quite high altitudes, in light forrests and in clearings of the forrest.

I think ( and hope I am right) that I have noticed some better details than the leavesīs shape to help separate ambigua type from turczaninovii type. These details where always the same although the basal leaves varied a lot. I would like to check it all to make sure that I am correct.

Meanwhile, just let us keep enjoying these beauties. Whatever they are.

[krisderaeymaeker]

Thanks both Susann and greenspan for your reply and attention.
I have no idea about the true ID ....I am not anough botanist and more someone who find the challenge in try to grow plants and try to create rockgardens . But I always more happy when I know the right ID of my plants , that is also very mportant for me. So .........      

I hope this one is more clear , P. tatewaki 

[Susann]

Kris,
I am scared to say anything. But your plant looks a lot like Tatewakii; but...Tatewakii is usually very hairy with dark reverse of the involucrate leaves and usually, I say usually because I am sure they vary a lot as all the others, slightly lighter in their color than yours? Maybe Greenspan could give us his opinion?

[krisderaeymaeker]

Kris,
I am scared to say anything. But your plant looks a lot like Tatewakii; but...Tatewakii is usually very hairy with dark reverse of the involucrate leaves and usually, I say usually because I am sure they vary a lot as all the others, slightly lighter in their color than yours? Maybe Greenspan could give us his opinion?

Many thanks Susann ! By the way , I get this plant  from a very good Swedisch friend .
Yes it would be nice to have an opinion from greenspan to.
Even it is not true , I still find it a very beautiful plant ! I am really happy with it. It flowers here in spring and then always fade away ...Then I always have the idea that I lost it ....In the summer it really looks not very good. But by the end of summer it comes true again and flowers a second time. Bit strange...   

[Susann]

Today I found the most beautiful cross of P dahurica x P turczaninovii in flower. It had one flower last year but has grown very big this year, and now it has two flowers; second flowering ( P dahurica does flower two times in a season). The plant looks like P dahurica in any way, leaves, size, feature, involucrate leaves. The only thing that tells it is a cross is the very dark blue and different looking flowers. So, they are tricky. If my plant was not in flower I would be 100 % sure it was a dahurica.

[Susann]

Sorry, I was wrong. I went back to the rockery to take a picture of the plant and then realized it does not look like P dahurica in the leaves, but certainly very similar to it; not very difficult to mistake it for the true species at a quick look.

This plant flowered the first time last year ( I have a lot of crosses like this one in that rockery where originally only one P dahurica and one P turczaninovii grew. This is the only one I have seen in flower)

The flowers looks like this. Still too small I think to be appriciated by a non-Pulsatilla lover, but much more colorful than P dahurica.

[greenspan]

i can't help with the tatewakii id. what i see on photos so far, tatewakii + sugawaraii seem to be very similar. i was wondering how two Pulsatilla species, native on the same island (sakhalin) + without morphological differences at first glance each got a species status. maybe sugawaraii should be treated as a subspecies of tatewakii (nomenclature rules because of first description of tatewakii). but i'm no botanist.

CGW describes sugawaraii in his book as a smaller plant, compared to tatewakii (sugawaraii not more than 6 cm in flower, tatewakii 10-15 cm in flower). the peduncle of my sugawaraii (got under this name from yuzawa) is about 20 cm (after setting seed), the leaves level is about 8 cm. what do i have...tatewakii and wrong determinate by yuzawa? adaption to another climate here in my garden? i found one distinctive difference comparing my sugawaraii with photos of tatewakii in internet (if they are correct labelled)...the involucrate leaves of sugawaraii bound upward in flower and spreading when setting seed (see my pictures here, posting #113). the involucrate leaves of tatewakii are already spread when flowering. kris tatewakii shows spreading involucrate leaves in flower.

btw...another plant of my sugawaraii sprouts a flower.

[krisderaeymaeker]

Thanks for your comment greenspan !