Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Eremophila vernicosa


DaveO

Recommended Posts

Oldfield, D. 2014. Eremophila vernicosa Chinnock (Scrophulariaceae) Flowers photographed in visible and ultraviolet light. http://www.ultraviol...hila-vernicosa/

 

 

 

Maldon, Victoria, Australia

25 March 2014

Australian Native Wildflower as Garden Specimen

 

 

Comment

Eremophila vernicosa is known from only two locations between Kalannie and Coorow in Western Australia. Its name refers to the varnish-like appearance of new growth.

 

 

Visible Light: Pentax K-5 Full Spectrum Modification, Nikon Rayfact PF10545 MF-UV 105 mm f/4.5 lens, Metz 15 MS-1 flash, 1/180 s @ f/11 ISO 200, B+W UV/IR Cut Filter.

post-28-0-16560100-1397793301.jpg

Image Reference: DO52256

 

Ultraviolet Light: Pentax K-5 Full Spectrum Modification, Nikon Rayfact PF10545 MF-UV 105 mm f/4.5 lens, Nikon SB-14 flash, 1/180s @ f/11 ISO 200, Baader UV-Pass Filter.

post-28-0-59717000-1397793322.jpg

Image Reference: DO52260

 

 

 

 

References:

Chinnock, R.J. Eremophila and Allied Genera, Rosenberg, 2007, p. 281.

Boschen, N., Goods, M. and Wait, R. Australia’s Eremophilas – changing gardens for a changing climate, Bloomings Books, 2008, p.227.

 

 

 

 

 

Atlas of Living Australia http://bie.ala.org.a...phila+vernicosa

 

 

Published 18 April 2014

Link to comment

Now this is a fuzzy Eremophila, isn't it?

 

It is so wonderful to have such a wide range of specimens in order to see the differences and similarities. At some point after you have finshed posting all, we should take a look at whether the ultraviolet fotos reveal any "sub-groups". We already know the obvious Visible division into the narrow-tubed bird-pollinated examples versus the landing-platform insect-pollinated varieties, so I mean beyond that. Of course, the work of photographing all these Eremophila may take a long time! :blink:

Link to comment
The latest field guide (2011) by Brown and Buirchell, which is only for Eremophila in Western Australia, provides photos (from the wild) and descriptions for 219 species, 69 subspecies and 1 variety including 232 that are named and a further 57 that are currently un-named (and hence un-described formally). Chinnock (2007) covered all 218 species known at that time, including 132 previously named and 86 species named and described for the first time by Chinnock himself. So we are going backwards trying to photograph them all :blink: especially as "the wild" is thousands of kilometres away. And then there are the hybrids which don't seem to get formally described at all and which appear in nurseries or botanic gardens without any apparent provenance. We will keep keep trying.
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...