Re: Pinguicula macroceras?

Jan Schlauer (
Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:30:33 +0100

Dear Dioecy (sorry, I initially thought this was only an email pseudonym),

> My apologies ZXMS101 (Jan)

Oh please, no need to apologize, I just wondered. (BTW: it is ZXMSL01...!)

>Indeed, I'am unsure of the true ID of this Drosera

As far as I know, only _D.rotundifolia_ (leaves with lamina slightly wider
than long) and _D.anglica_ (lamina much longer than wide) occur naturally
in the Pacific NW.

> Some say that it is P.
>vulgaris, such as Hitchcock and Cronquist in "Flora of the Pacific
>NorthWest", yet in their joint monumental work along with Ownbey and
>Thompson in "Vascular Plants of the Pacific NorthWest", they allow it to be
>P. macroceras, and P. vulgaris var. macroceras.

Yes, nomenclature in this special plant is not completely settled yet, but
like CASPER (Biblioth.Bot.127/128, 1966) I feel it has an own "way of life"
quite independent from _P.vulgaris_ s.str., with only little range overlap
in the far N of America.

> There is a new book out on the regional flora of the Northern Pacific Coast
>which purportedly puts Panguicula all the way up to Alaska.

_P.macroceras_ is a circum-boreo-pacific plant, it occurs from N California
(Del Norte Co.; "var.nortensis") through Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
Washington, British Columbia, (Yukon), Alaska, the Aleutians (TYPE from
Unalaska), Kamchatka, the Kuriles, Japan, and (???) in Dauria (=transbaical
Siberia; only a single, now destroyed (Berlin, 2.WW), specimen which was
obviously a teratologically malformed plant with 4 corolla lower lip lobes!
It might have been another species as well).

> As you say, Utricularia vulgaris is U. macrorhiza, here, but the same
>source as for Panguicula also refers to it as U. vulgaris var. macrorhiza.

TAYLOR (the _Utricularia_-guru) calls it _U.macrorhiza_, and I do not dare
to contradict him.

> There is also, apparently, a lot of variability in the other two Utriculas,
>U. minor and a form of it called U. occidentalis,

U.occidentalis (TYPE from Falcon Valley, Washington) is a synonym of
_U.ochroleuca_ s.l., which is a (or rather two) distinct species more
closely related to _U.intemedia_ (v.i.).

_U.minor_ can be recognized readily in the "leaf" lobes which do have only
terminal bristles, while the lobes of the other species have the bristles
also laterally on the lobes. The quadrifid hairs on the inner surface of
the traps are unique with all branches pointing in the same direction.
Generally, this is the smallest of the aquatic species (overlooked very
easily). A larger edition is _U.bremii_, only known from Europe so far.

_U.intermedia_, _U.ochroleuca_, and _U.stygia_ (which are closely related
to each other) have pale "shoots" without "leaves" which bear the traps and
are mostly buried in the mud, while the green "shoots" bear only very
rarely a few traps. Identification of the species without flowers is only
possible by microscopic details of the "leaves", and especially the
quadrifid hairs on the inner surface of the traps.

>(...)U. intermedia, with
>possibly a form here refered to as U. gibba, from Benton Co. Ore.

_U.gibba_ is still another distinct species. It has terete "leaf" lobes,
while those of the other species are flattened. When in flower, it can be
recognized by the upper corolla lip which is larger than the lower (it is
the other way round in the other species).

Kind regards