Forget-me-Not (Myosotis sp.) multispectral

[kds315]

Shot a Field Forget-me-Not (see Myosotis arvensis ?) multispectral the other day.

Lens used was a CERCO 94mm, Filters used were: Baader-UV Cut for VIS, Baader-U for UV, XBV4 for BV (simulated) Bee Vision. Camera: Panasonic GH2 (mod). Light: Sunlight

 

http://m8.i.pbase.com/g9/08/747708/2/159824948.ViARcKYy.jpg

 

Very interesting to notice is, that this Myosotis signals the state of its individual flowers through different UV "colors" (meaning the reflectance peak changes from long wave UV to shorter wave UV).

[OMG, I should not have used the words "UV" and "colors" :D ]

[nfoto]

Similar observations have been done with other Myosotis, for example M. sylvatica (see http://www.ultraviol...-forget-me-not/). The age of the flowers determine their UV reflectivity.

 

By the way, your specimens do not belong to M. arvensis. This species has much smaller flowers that do not open with a flat corolla disc. Differential characters required to put the correct name on this plant are missing from the photos.

[Andrea B.]

I wonder if the false colour change is due to pollination? Or just age? Do we know?

A nice illustration of the change.

***********

 

Yes. Mysotis is tricky to ID. You have to look at calyx hairs to start.

 

If calyx hairs are non-hooked appressed, then

small M. laxa (2-4mm corolla width)

large M. scorpiodes (5-10mm). This one likes damp areas.

 

Else calyx hairs are hooky.

tiny (1-2mm corolla width) are M. verna , M. stricta, M. discolor.

small (2-4mm, not flat) is M. arvensis.

large (5-8mm, flat) is M. sylvatica.

 

My best guess here is M. sylvatica or M. scorpiodes.

 

Unless the corolla is really large - like 8-10mm - then it might be a Cynoglossum?

[nfoto]

No, definitively Myosotis. M. alpestris is an alternative in addition to those listed by Andrea. However, identification of Myosotis species is not done using an elimination strategy. Adequate material, a good loupe (10-20X), and a regional flora are required.

 

Thus, all we can say at present is this is not M. arvensis.

[Andrea B.]

That's from a key. I only use keys. But of course I don't have M. alpestris here. It grows in mountains in Alaska. (And elsewhere.) This isn't M. alpestris or I eat my hat. :D

M. sylvatica, betcha !!

 

OTOH, might be from a botanical garden then M. alpestris is possible. Oh well. I give up.

 

Klaus, where is this from???

[nfoto]

Not M. arvensis. Period.

[Andrea B.]

This we know. :D

I just put up an M. arvensis for reference.

[nfoto]

This isn't M. alpestris or I eat my hat. :D

M. sylvatica, betcha !!

 

OTOH, might be from a botanical garden then M. alpestris is possible. Oh well. I give up.

 

 

Suddenly realising your hat might taste awful ? :D

 

The whole Boraginaceae family is pretty challenging taxonomy-wise.

[rfcurry]

Well, whether the flower is Myxomatosis or halitosis, it is interesting in the panel that Klaus presented. The range of UV "colors" is fascinating; it seems likely to have a message for the pollinator, just as UV honesty markings on male birds carry a message to prospective mates.

[nfoto]

Well, documentation on its own is not sufficient if you don't know what your subject is.

 

There is a world of difference between labelling something as Mysotis [sp.] or Myosotis arvensis. A salmon is not a trout even though they belong to the same genus.

[rfcurry]

Well, sometimes the trout do not belong to the same genus. For example, the rainbow trout was quite comfortable as Salmo irideus until 1989. Then some #%$@% taxonomist decided that "morphological and genetic studies indicated that trout of the Pacific basin were genetically closer to Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus species) than to the Salmos – brown trout (Salmo trutta) or Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) of the Atlantic basin.^[8] Thus, in 1989, taxonomic authorities moved the rainbow, cutthroat and other Pacific basin trout into the genus Oncorhynchus."

 

They were much better fish as Salmo. I think they are embarrassed to be known as O. mykiss

[Andrea B.]

Well, I would be too!

The Colorado Rainbows I know aren't having this. They're sticking with S. irideus.

 

****

 

See Botanical Nomenclature for more information about designating unknown species.

[nfoto]

Nomenclature changes are the evil cousins of taxonomy. They will always be with us and as long as proper synonym quotations are provided, mostly a nuisance to ingrained patterns. Thus, for example, using the name Myosotis palustris (L.)Hill. instead of M. scorpoides L. causes no real problem as the first is a valid synonym of the latter.

 

However, that is not relevant to the point I raised, which was that putting a specific name to an entity means you have identified the subject as such. So there is a world of diference between labelling it as Myosotis (sp. == unidentified member of the Myosotis genus), or M. arvensis (identified as a given species within the genus). Scientific names are not to be treated as convenient labels. You need to be sure that the identification is correct (as far as you can ascertain) and take the necessary steps to ensure this by consulting floras and relevant literature. If you haven't done this, do use a generic name such as 'Forget-me-not' or Myosotis sp. If you think the identification is correct, but some uncertainty may exist, as a last resort use a modifier such as 'cf.' For example, Myosotis cf. scorpoides. The weaker 'ad' modifier should never be used, though, as uncertainty as that level warrants using the generic designation instead. If you later arrive at another identification, do edit the original post to indicate the change of name.

 

The above might seem pedantic, but in a wider scheme of things we need to be strict about naming so any UV feature is attributed to the correct taxon. Do note that there are lots of cases of closely allied species which differ substantially in their UV appearance. The Brassicaceae (Cabbage Family) is a good example.

 

In the future, the admins of UVP will take the steps to change obviously incorrect species labels, by editing the submitted post(s). We urge the authors to do their homework first, though, as we lay no claims of being experts in everything (or anything, come to think about it ).