Pulsatilla 2021

[Susann]

Pulsatilla nuttalliana is another name for P. patens (or A. patens).

Rick!

I just want to correct you a bit, I hope you do not mind? Pulsatilla nuttaliana is, yes, a species belonging to the Pulsatilla patens aggregate. You are correct in this. But Pulsatilla nuttaliana is the North American species in this group, not to be confused with the Scandinavian Pulsatilla patens (ssp patens if you wish).

We have in Europe also Pulsatilla teklae belonging to the same group, as in the Russian continent you will find Pulsatilla multifida and Pulsatilla angustifolia, belonging to the same aggregate.

Pulsatilla is not to be referred to as Anemone, I am happy to explain why if someone is interested.

Pulsatilla nuttaliana has a very distinct morphology. Keep enjoying it, it is such a beautiful plant!

[Rick R.]

Thanks you, Susann!

The Flora of North America (in the parts that are complete) seems to be so incomplete and divergent from other works, that I am becoming less and less confident with its information. I am learning to be more critical of its findings, though it is still a good resource.  Indeed, there are are things right here where I live that defy the FoNA data.  Fortunately, being exposed to other viewpoints is key to our evolving understanding.  Thanks again.

[Susann]

Rick,

do not worry. It is not only Flora Of North America that helps spreading the misunderstandings about this wonderful genus.

But it does make it more difficult to understand the rather comlicated Pulsatillas by trying to place the two North American species in another genus.

Taxonomists will always disagree on certain things I am afraid. But sometimes one wonder if they forgot to check if there are other species in the very same aggregate; in this case the P patens group. Another thing to keep an eye on would be the phylogenetic evolution.

The other North American species, Pulsatilla occidentalis, belongs to the rather small Pulsatilla subgenus Preonanthus. It is therefore impossible to state it is an Anemone.

When it comes to all the other names that are used (as P ludoviciana as an exampel in the North Amercan case) it is many times originating in the same species being described several times and somehow the incorrect "synonymes" names manage to survive.

[Susann]

So many nice pictures!

I wish I could contribute with one, but this is what met me in the garden this morning.



It seems like a snail got tired of waiting for some delicate gourmet plant to show and decided to have a nocturn feast on the Pulsatilla.

I have heard about this from a British gardener, but did not really believe it as slugs and snails never touch this toxic genus in nature. But now I know it was true. I have never noticed this in my garden before, despite having thousands of slugs and snails and many many Pulsatillas.

I am interested in learning if someone has noticed this in the garden; or even more interesting - in nature?

We have had really bad and cold weather for over a week. It is very unusual to find a P multifida badly frostbitten, but this year some parts if the garden has suffered from cold streaks and this Pulsatilla was in a really sad shape. Might it have been the reason for the snail to go for the poor flowers? It is not a slug attack. They are not active yet due to the low temperatures.


Gabriela,
What a beautiful color your hybrid shows! Congratulations!

I am sorry, but it is not a strange behaviour you have noticed. It is simply two individuals in the same spot. Sorry for destroying your happy wonder.

[Gabriela]

So many nice pictures!

I wish I could contribute with one, but this is what met me in the garden this morning.
It seems like a snail got tired of waiting for some delicate gourmet plant to show and decided to have a nocturn feast on the Pulsatilla.

I have heard about this from a British gardener, but did not really believe it as slugs and snails never touch this toxic genus in nature. But now I know it was true. I have never noticed this in my garden before, despite having thousands of slugs and snails and many many Pulsatillas.

I am interested in learning if someone has noticed this in the garden; or even more interesting - in nature?
We have had really bad and cold weather for over a week. It is very unusual to find a P multifida badly frostbitten, but this year some parts if the garden has suffered from cold streaks and this Pulsatilla was in a really sad shape. Might it have been the reason for the snail to go for the poor flowers? It is not a slug attack. They are not active yet due to the low temperatures.

Gabriela,
What a beautiful color your hybrid shows! Congratulations!

I am sorry, but it is not a strange behaviour you have noticed. It is simply two individuals in the same spot. Sorry for destroying your happy wonder.

Sorry to see the beautiful specimen vandalized Susann. I don't have many Pulsatillas but I can tell you that no critters ever attempted to feed on them. And the rabbits are quite adventurous. But who knows, at the beginning they weren't eating Hepaticas and then they got  a taste. The snails can also feed on almost anything if necessary.

I realized there were 2 seedlings together and already marked the lilac one to separate it later. I had 2 peachy-pink ones. I don't think it is a hybrid because in the owners garden it is the only Pulsatilla to flower so very early in the spring. All the others are following after it. Simply a color variant.
With cool weather it is still looking decent, with A. canadensis 'Little Lanterns' nearby now.

[Leena]

So nice plants everyone!

This is a nameless garden hybrid, I guess.

[Susann]

Beautiful pictures, Leena!

I will not argue with you. It is a very beautiful Pulsatilla, and to me, that it is all that matters.

But still, I ask you all to please, remember, Pulsatillas hybridize, like many Ranunculaceae, more than readily. I guess they get bored, just standing there, doing nothing, but being the most besutiful of all plants, so they decide to play us a joke.

They actually have some secret little tricks to avoid self fertiIization, but when it comes to accept pollen from other species; no limits! So, normally when a Pulsatilla in a garden is the only to flower, a neighbour's plant is the pollen donor.

If there is any other Pulsatilla within the range if a pollinator I believe that you should be very careful with writing a species name on the seedling label....And if the mother plant itself is of garden origin there is even a bigger reason to consider to only write "Pulsatilla". (Mind you, not "Pulsatilla sp." as "sp." means species.)

Pollinators do not care about garden fences. The forage over waste areas. It is incredible how such thin little wings and tiny muscles can take them so long distances.

This hybridization readiness is not a "problem" only with garden collected seeds, but many times also in nature.

I wrote "problem" because I am grateful to this phenomena that has given us such beautiful garden plants. The favorite in my garden has 60 buds this year (I could not resist counting them when searching for snails). It is a spontanious seedling that clearly has P halleri involved in the ancestry.

[Gabriela]

I agree with all Susann and not to mention that most often hybrids adapt best to various garden conditions.

However, there are cases when for some reasons (very large properties, very early flowering....) even cultivated plants come true to the species or variety, same like it happens with other notoriously cross pollinating species, not only Pulsatilla.

I found useful nowadays that one can find for comparison herbarium specimens on-line, courtesy to many large Botanical Gardens/Herbaria, even type specimens!

[kris]

Here is a pulsatilla I got as Pulsatilla megyarica seeds. (Thanks Thomas) but no one heard of that name before. I found a wikipedia site about the name. The pulsatilla is now Pulsatilla hungarica. Before it was a sub species of Pulsatilla pratensis . Megyar is a term for Hungary. I hope I am right. Here is the link https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_kökörcsin

[Susann]

That was  very interesting to read Kris!

I can, if you do not mind, contribute with some more information to your story.

I do realize that what I write will not be very well recibed by some Hungarian botanist. But I can guarantee you it is supported by modern research such as RNA sequencing.

First I want to say I found  "the name" P magyarica very interesting as I think all of us did. I do not think I have come across this attemt to include such double nationalistic twist. I think I would remember if I had seen it in any published Hungarian work. It is not used in their flora. "Magyar" means, just as you explained, "Hungarian" in Hungarian.

There is a wellknown phenomena named "political species". I am afraid that this is a typical example of such. Many Hungarian botanists claim that there are two endemic Hungarian species belonging to the P pratensis aggregate. These are, according to the authors, P hungarica and P zimmermanni. Both were described as species, not as subspecies or any kind of form.


You will find the morphological form that is supposed to be P hungarica in almost any population in Hungary* happily growing mixed with what the Hungarians would admit is P pratensis and a nice range of other morphological forms. It is not an ecological form nor a strict georafical form and it is certainly not an endemic form (much less species!) as it is, for example,  to be found also in Swedish populations of P pratensis. The form is predominant in some populations and a less common form at other locations. This is totally normal for any species that shows variation.



*Of course I have not visited all Hungarian populations nor close to it. But many enough to dare to say that I have noticed the dilemma with this supposed to be species.

Gabriela, thank you for your  clarifying comment on my thoughts on hybridization! I am afraid I did not dive very deep into the subject.

The genus Pulsatilla is divided into subgenuses (that will never ever cross pollinate), sections (that are not unlikely to hybridize ) and series (that have absolutely no limits regarding hybridization).

A hybrid can to our eyes look like one if the parent plants because the genoma for morphology if that parent is dominant towards the other parent's. The seedling have DNA from two species, but we do not notice it if we are not very familiar with details. This is further complicated by the fact that a true species seedling does not necessary need to look as what we understand as being charateristic for the species because, as mentioned above, many species are morphologically very variable. One need to come across many populations of a species to learn what to expect.

I think I published an image if a P pratensis hybrid several years ago. This to illustrate the hybridization problem. The seedling looked almost perfect  but was red. Stunning, no?

What I did not show in the picture was that only 20 meters away was a P vulgaris hybrid ' Rřde Klokke' which clearly was one the parents.

[ruweiss]

Pulsatilla flavescens from Altai Mts:

[Tristan_He]

Here is a pulsatilla I got as Pulsatilla megyarica seeds. (Thanks Thomas) but no one heard of that name before. I found a wikipedia site about the name. The pulsatilla is now Pulsatilla hungarica. Before it was a sub species of Pulsatilla pratensis . Megyar is a term for Hungary. I hope I am right. Here is the link https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_kökörcsin

Hi Kris, I found this website https://www.nahuby.sk/obrazok_detail.php?obrazok_id=192770. So far as I can see the name is P. x magyarica and it is a naturally occurring hybrid between P. pratensis subsp. hungarica and P. zimmermannii.

Best wishes, Tristan

[Susann]

Tristan,
thank you for joining the conversation regarding the situation of Pulsatilla in Hungary and neighboring áreas. However, I am afraid we could continue this discussion for a very long time. I will try to explain what I base my opinion on. Please, I do not want to offend anyone!

I like to discuss things, this is how we learn. But regarding this subject I think I need to tell that I have visited several locations that Zimmermann meant were holding populations of "Pulsatilla zimmermannii" including what should be locus classicus.

Unfortunally there is no, in all individuals, existing detail in the morphology that shows any caracteristics that would apart them from the wide variation within P pratensis. Nor is it ecologically standing out from P pratensis which is very adaptable, so there should not be any reason to claim it would be an ecological form either.

Zimmermann never published any paper showing there was any genetic difference that would justify the description of this species. This means he made his description based on morphology only. As what is supposed to be caracteristic details and preferences are to be found within most populations not only within it's "range of distribution" but also far away from it, itbis rather dangerous to claim the species exist.

If P zimmermannii did exist so there could be a hybrid between P pratensis and P zimmermannii ir should have been almost impossible to find a first generation hybrid between the two as P pratensis is widely spread in the área and there would be a constant ongoing introgressive hybridization (crossing back to parent species).

Due to many reasons a population, as I mentioned before, can have greater or lesser number of individuals showing a specific morphological detail.

If you want to describe a new species there must be at least one distinct detail that does not exist in the species you want to separare it from. I think nowadays nobody would daré to do this without DNA studies. Especially not in a genus that is so plastic as is Pulsatilla. Many of its species is quite instable regarding the morphology. This is the case with P pratensis.

In the text you refer to, Tristan, the lenght of the stamens comparing to the sepals is used as a sign of identification. I would say this is a rather insecure detail for identification as the stamens are constantly growing. You must know exactly in which stage of the anthesis the description was made to be able to use it as a reference, but also  holding in mind that weather and other conditions have influence on the growing process.

Modern studies by DNA sequencing does not show that Pulsatilla zimmermanni is a species separated from P pratensis. So, I am very sorry; as P zimmermannii is not a legitim species there can not be a hybrid with P zimmermanni involved.

This is my opinion regarding the existence or no existence of P zimmermannii. As anyone, I could be wrong no matter how strong my opinion is. I am more than happy to change it and admit I was not fully informed if anyone can show any scientific evidence of P zimmermannii being a legitimate, genetically proved, species.

[Tristan_He]

Hi Susann,

I have no particular view on the rights and wrongs of Pulsatilla taxonomy either in general or in this specific case, and I have certainly never visited the relevant populations. I was merely trying to shed some light on the nomenclature.

Best wishes, Tristan

[Susann]

Here is a rather unusal flower form of the Central Sibirian Pulsatilla multifida. The sepals are very short, it reminds me more of water lilies than Pulsatillas. The buds are dark pinkish almost wine.

Regarding our discussion about "Pulsatilla magyarica". The nomenclature is ment to be crystal clear, but as we have all experienced it is a labyrinth full of false exits. It makes it very difficult for us who admire these beautiful plants, but would like to know what we are looking at.

There are many reasons for this confusion. Not long ago it was rather difficult to know if what seemed to be an unknown species was already described. One would need access to the botanical journals to check for descriptions to trace down type specimens. This led to re-descriptions. Illegitime names were established and many are still causing trouble today.

But there is also the problem with botanists who did/do not care about the strict rules as they seem to see it as a trophy having described a "new" species. Others are today forced to publish new "findings" to assure their grants for research while some really believe that minimal morphological details are a reason for describing a new species.

Perhaps the safest way to find information regarding a name is to search for articles in professional botanical journals combined with scientific papers. But, even so, it is tricky as information and conclusion are many times contradictory. It seems as the official international data bases sometimes have problems due to avoiding publications in for example Russian. Unfortunally floras some times turn out to be misguiding as the authors have copied older floras without doing any background research.