Galanthus for ID

[Alan_b]

Richard, the picture reminds me of some plicate snowdrops (they might be plicate crosses) that grow in the verges near here.  They have very attractive striped leaves, the outer parts being green but the inner 1/3 being glaucous.  However the leaves would, I think, be wider than  10-12mm.  I will try to find or take a photograph.

[Alan_b]

"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?

I can see something distinctive about it straight away compared to a lot of plicatus varieties - it looks healthy and vigorous. 

Martin, here's a field full of healthy vigorous plicatus varieties.  Where shall we start?  Amy Janet extreme left?  Next to her Amy Jane, then Amy Jenny ...?  I don't mean to offend the person who named "Amy Jade" but my question about what makes it distinctive is a valid question.

[RichardW]

thanks Alan, it is an odd looking thing, am sure it's one I collected from a family friends garden many years ago, have some plants that were never labelled/marked in any way, am a little more organised now

the widest leaves are 10 -12 mm, the striped leaves are nice but it's the greenness of it that really stands out amongst the others.

[Martin Baxendale]

"Amy Jade" looks to be a nice-enough snowdrop but I do not see anything distinctive about it.  How would I pick it out of a line-up of other G. plicatus snowdrops?

I can see something distinctive about it straight away compared to a lot of plicatus varieties - it looks healthy and vigorous. 

Martin, here's a field full of healthy vigorous plicatus varieties.  Where shall we start?  Amy Janet extreme left?  Next to her Amy Jane, then Amy Jenny ...?  I don't mean to offend the person who named "Amy Jade" but my question about what makes it distinctive is a valid question.

I didn't mean to suggest your question was invalid, Alan. It is of course very valid. My comment was meant to be a little bit tongue in cheek, re. the health of some older named plicatus varieties. Plicatus tends to be prone to virus and fungal diseases and I find named varieties that have been around for a while are sometimes not the greatest garden plants. But this does take us back to a discussion we all had some time ago about whether snowdrops (or other bulbs) should be named purely because they're distinctive looking in the flower or whether vigour, disease resistance, fast clumping, strong flower stem, etc. should also be taken into consideration.

I feel there's a very good argument to be made that a strong-growing, disease-resistant good garden bulb should still be considered for naming even if it does resemble an exisiting bulb in flower, and especially if the existing variety is a weak grower, prone to disease, slow to increase, has a weak flower stem or other such drawbacks that make it not a good garden plant.   

[Martin Baxendale]

On the question of naming snowdrops generally, I'd say people should consider two questions when thinking of naming something:

1) Is it an attractive and distinctive flower (preferably also with attractive foliage and a nice habit)?

2) Is it a very garden-worthy plant, vigorous, disease resistant, with a strong weather resistant flower stem, fast to increase and clump up?

If the answer to 1) is yes then it may be worth naming even if the answer to 2) is not also a resounding yes on all counts - because it could be a lovely flower for more experienced growers prepared to take a little trouble over it, and it may be a very good show plant in  a pot or for the glasshouse.

If the snowdrop is not very distinctive but still a handsome (if not highly unusual) example of its species (reasonably large flowered, thick petals, nice mark, nice leaves,) and the answer to 2) is a definite yes then it's a good garden plant and deserves to be widely grown, in which case it will need a name so people know what they're being given and what they're buying.

[Martin Baxendale]

Sorry, what I forgot to mention was that question 1) is usually very easy to answer at first sight of a new snowdrop or within  a season or two of growing it, and this is what mostly drives the naming of new snowdrops. Question 2) re. garden -worthiness is something that can't be answered immediately but which requires a fairly long period of assessment; which is a good reason for not naming new snowdrops too quickly, especially if they're not highly distinctive because you can end up with the worst of both worlds - an indistinct snowdrop which also turns out to be a poor garden plant.

[mark smyth]

I dont see anything special about 'Amy Jade' either. The words late and early should be used either. e.g. in Bob Gordon's garden today plicatus good late form is in full flower.

[steve owen]

I promised to check on my Amy Jade, which I thought was different from the posted pic. I was wrong; mine is identical to the posted pic.

[galanthophile]

Well that's a relief. Thanks Steve.

[galanthophile]

I found this nice poculiformis form in my garden today that I hadn't noticed before. It doesn't look like nivalis to me. Can you advise the type please? Thanks

[mark smyth]

It looks like woronowii. If it does the same next year it will be worth removing from the group and keeping an eye on it. How many outers does it have?

[galanthophile]

It has 6 outers. I will watch it closely next year.

[Pauli]

Hello,

Could somebody help a novice Galanthophil with identification?
First: applanate leaves, glaucous with a slight white midrib - received as John Gray:




Second: plicate leaves



Any suggestions would be welcome!

All the best from Austria!

[wolfgang vorig]

hello,

what is it for a elwesii, who can help?
many thanks,    wolfgang

[Martin Baxendale]

Hello,

Could somebody help a novice Galanthophil with identification?

First: applanate leaves, glaucous with a slight white midrib - received as John Gray:
Second: plicate leaves

Any suggestions would be welcome!

1) Not 'John Gray', as you've obviously already realised. It could be any of the single-marked 'S. Arnott' types. Maybe label it 'Arnott type?'

2) Galanthus plicatus. Doesn't look distinctive enough to be a named form, or at least not one that I can put a name to.