Staurogyne discussion thread

[hooha]

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Guess what, when I was growing up Pluto was a planet now it's not!

True dat, everyone know Pluto is the Mickey Mouse dog that doesn't talk - as opposed to the dog - who is his owner - who talks and wears pants. What drugs Walt was on when he came up with that concept is beyond me

Donald and House (not the obnoxious psuedo-doctor guy on TV) have good points. Although this discussion is stimulating and useful, it doesn't belong in the For Sale or Trade section. In fact, I'm going to take this liberty to split this thread into an appropriate forum.

That's the conundrum of our hobby - if you talk with any botanist they laugh at us. Most new plants brought into the hobby are from importers who have half-knowledge (or none) and come up with names they think are 'close enough'. Trying to determine a true ID is going to be a challenge for us for years to come......

[hooha]

And here is the poor little plant that's causing such a stir

[nfrank]

I was in Aqua Forest last week and saw an interesting Stauraogyne/Hygro type plant that a local hobbyist brought it.... It had not be growing long enough to get a clear idea of its long-term height and appearance, but was described as slow and low growing. Seemed to be brighter green and less pointy leaves than "Low grow" or "porto velho." . Its smaller leaves also did not seem to have the prominent veining. . It wasnt for sale yet.. Both Tom and I wanted to buy some

If the local SF person is reading this, please provide your input.

[DonaldmBoyer]

So, regarding the plant that Hooha posted, what is the general consensus from "The Masses" on the name of this specie? What are the synonyms?

[Cavan Allen]

I was going to prepare a short photographic presentation explaining the differences between the genera involved here (including the species pictured above), but it appears that we have a minor issue with PF pics that have been recently added. The differences are quite evident if you know what to look for. A few follow (this is not comprehensive and is mostly meant to convey enough information to get everyone really pumped up about plant identification):

Staurogyne - a waxy (viscid) leaf surface on emersed leaves
Hygrophila - not waxy

Please see this photo by Dave Wilson of S. leptocaulis. The leaves of this plant are not wet!

The 'Low Grow', Porto Velho/Roraima, and 'Rio Araguaia' all show this characteristic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Staurogyne - no cystoliths in leaves
Hygrophila - cystoliths present

Cystoliths are small streaks of calcium carbonate in the leaf tissue and stems and are most easily viewed with a microscope. I have examined 'Low Grow' and 'Rio Araguaia' and neither have them ( a botanist had a look at the 'Porto Velho' for me and said he did not see any - before I had a microscope). Hygrophila sp. 'Sarawak' does have them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers:
Hygrophila - upper lobes of corolla are large (5 total), usually violet (H. costata, aka 'Pantanal wavy' has white ones that are otherwise the same). Flowers are usually arranged around the nodes, occasionally in a terminal spike (the stem ends in an inflorescence in which the flowers are sessile, or without pedicels), as in H. polysperma.
Hygrophila sp. 'Araguaia':

Staurogyne - 'Low Grow' and 'Rio Araguaia' have much smaller white flowers in which the lower lobes are larger (again 5 total - no hooded appearance), the middle one being larger and spatulate. Herbarium specimens of the latter match (don't want to release a species name, just in case it's not correct). Usually in terminal spikes, although the "Low Grow' specimen I had grew both a terminal spike and a solitary flower at a node, which to me seems very unusual.
'Rio Araguaia':

'Low Grow' (too bad it wasn't open more when the picture was taken):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hygrophila - no hairs on leaves or short eglandular hairs (H. difformis may be an exception)
Staurogyne - longer, glandular or subglandular hairs (think sundew, but much less pronounced)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the stems of 'Low Grow' and 'Porto Velho' are densely pubescent both above and below water. I'm not sure how significant that is, but I have never seen any known Hygrophila like that.


I have dispatched flowering specimens of several plants from both genera for confirmation of species and should hear back soon. For further reading, please see the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Flora-Australi...5884212&sr=1-1

Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana (Missouri Botanical Press) - I forget which volume it is, but it's, of course, the one with Acanthaceae.

Both books have keys to Acanthaceae and are quite good.

[ingg]

Cavan,

That lays out that these are not Hygrophilas for sure - I think a lot of us knew that, awesome to see the methodology behind it though! I don't know it, but sure respect that you do - good work!


For me, the biggest confusion is which Staurygene people have - is there a way to tell low grow, Roraima, etc., apart from each other; and how many species have you been able to discern?

[edlut67]

For what it's worth.

http://www.tropica.dk/article.asp?ty...aristic&id=864

[hooha]

Originally Posted by ingg

Cavan,

That lays out that these are not Hygrophilas for sure - I think a lot of us knew that, awesome to see the methodology behind it though! I don't know it, but sure respect that you do - good work!


For me, the biggest confusion is which Staurygene people have - is there a way to tell low grow, Roraima, etc., apart from each other; and how many species have you been able to discern?

I think that's Cavan's current work in progress - stay tuned

Originally Posted by edlut67

For what it's worth.

http://www.tropica.dk/article.asp?ty...aristic&id=864

Thanks for the link - now the question is which of the plants in the US is the same as Tropica's.....

[Wö£fëñxXx]

Originally Posted by hooha

Thanks for the link - now the question is which of the plants in the US is the same as Tropica's.....

The one I have is from Tropica, because that is where it came from. That is why I have
questioned some of the bogus plants sold as "Staurogyne" like the one you have linked
above, that came from a link I had post in this original thread before it was severely and
bias-ly edited.
According to that picture, it is "not" the plant I have which came from Tropica/Denmark.

[hooha]

The editing was to keep the useful parts of the thread available for the membership without all the worthless drama, insinuations and bickering. The other option would have been to delete the entire thread, losing the point of the original post. If you don't agree with it, that's your perogative, but it won't change the editing

So we've gotten a little more useful info here - what you have (any pictures?) is the Tropica plant, listed as "Staurogyne sp.". You can call it "Staurogyne sp.", Staurogyne sp. 'Tropica'", or "Staurogyne sp. - I bought it from Tropica". Whichever suits you is fine.

I'd like to point out there are many species of Staurogyne, like there are many species of Hygrophila.

I'd also like to point out that the main point of this thread that was useful - all the other stuff edited out was absolutely worthless bickering - was that the plants brought in to the US hobby called 'Hygrophila species" are most definitely not Hygrophila. Please review the info posted above. If it's not easily understood, then at the very least refrain from demanding they be called "Hygrophila species". If you still think they should be called "Hygrophila", please post factual evidence on why they are really Hygrophila, not because some importer thought it looked "close enough".

If you prefer to still call Rotala verticillaris by that name, that's your perogative as well. Scientifically, it is quite wrong. Some importer decided it was "close enough". So we should stick with that? Many people disagree. You can review this thread for more details. You can perpetuate the misinformation yourself if you'd like, again that's your perogative, but making a case that we should do the same hasn't been convincing.