Andy Perrin Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 I don't know what this flower is. The thing it looks most like is agrimony (species unknown), but it doesn't look identical to either of the species of agrimony known to be in Newfields, New Hampshire where these were captured. The two species are:https://gobotany.new...imonia/striata/https://gobotany.new...ia/gryposepala/ The location was by the side of the road, so Roadside Agrimony certainly has an edge here, but the center of the flower is different, and mine has hairy edges on the flower, as you can see in the UV pic especially. (Visible images captured by iPhone 6S Plus) UV info:sunlight2mm UG11 + 1.5mm S8612Sony NEX-7 body + NoflexarF/5.6, 1/50", ISO3200Captured hand-held, so forgive the image quality please. Crop of hairs on flower in the UV image: Additional crappy iPhone shots in hopes it might help with an ID: Unfortunately the location was very awkward to shoot in, and so this was the best I could do in terms of additional angles for IDing. Link to comment
nfoto Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 Yellow Archangel Lamium galeobdolon Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 27, 2018 Author Share Posted May 27, 2018 Thanks! Huh, it looks quite different from your images?http://www.ultraviol...d__480#entry480 Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Concur that this is L. galeobdolon. There are some cultivars grown in the US as ornamentals which typically have variegated leaves. Yours looks like the wild version. I see that you have photographed the top of the flowers. The other photos show the flower from the side. So you have captured an interesting area of UV absorption for this flower that might not have been obvious in the other views or not there due to the variability mentioned. Common name here is sometimes Yellow Henbit or sometimes Yellow Dead-nettle. May be others. Link to comment
Guest Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Interesting UV-dark spots on the petals of your specimen (especially that triplet). I also shot one of the Lamium species last year (http://www.ultraviol...__fromsearch__1). Some similarities, but with more pronounced/dense trichomes on the leaves. Link to comment
OlDoinyo Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 A different-looking blossom from that of many mint species. But I guessed from the foliage that it might be one of such. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Heh. You're late to the party, OlDoinyo, they have me convinced it's L. galeobdolon. (Anyway, those don't look much like mint leaves, which are shiny.) Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The Lamiaceae (formerly Labiatae) are the Mint Family. Square stems. Most of the flowers have a lower lip (3 fused petals) and overhanging upper lip (two fused petals). The yellow flower above is two-lipped if seen from the side. They look like little dragon mouths to me. From: https://www.wildflow...s/Lamiaceae.htmThe guy who wrote that uses mint leaves to purify "questionable water". I might pass on that one and just stick to canned water/beer/cola. ...this Latin stuff...whew....or rather Greek....https://en.oxforddic...finition/lamiumModern Latin, from Latin, from Greek lamia ‘gaping mouth’ (because of the shape of the flowers).The Greeks had a word for 'gaping mouth' ??? Like a yawn? Mint flowers are yawning ? Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Huh, I don't remember it smelling of anything particularly, although I guess I never broke the stalk to check.--That guy who uses mint leaves to purify water sounds like a nut. He says it's the oils that kill microorgamisms, and then he expects these OILS to mix with water? Also, he doesn't say what concentration is required... Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The referenced Botany in a Day book is superb, btw. It teaches pattern recognition of the floral families. I've used it for years. I tend to pass on a lot of herbal "medicine". You won't find me out in the field gnawing on the leaves of the flowers I photograph in spite of their often-touted medicinal properties. Although I do like a good mint leaf in my iced tea. :D Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 There is a mint plant growing in the churchyard next to my apartment and I sneak over and grab some for mojitos sometimes. Link to comment
Jim Lloyd Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 See http://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2698-yellow-archangel-lamium-galeobdolon/page__p__20552__hl__+yellow%20+archangle__fromsearch__1#entry20552 The white version of this also known as white dead nettle grows very widely around here Link to comment
nfoto Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The 'dead nettle' is an entirely different species. Link to comment
Jim Lloyd Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 I was referring to Lamium album which to my very amateur eyes looks pretty much the same apart from the colour D3200, UG1 2mm, BG40, (took this a while back and forgotten some details, but I think Photax 35 mm f/3.5 ASA 200 ~ 10 sec, indoors sunlight) Sorry to go off topic a bit, but I was thinking to myself the other day that white flowers are always false blue in UV - this is a good reminder to me that that is not the case ... Link to comment
nfoto Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Much different besides the flower colours ... In fact, a species is never differentiated solely on colour. Yes, we should always expect surprises in our UV flower photography. Sometimes red flowers are very UV-bright, whilst most red are nearly UV-black. Many yellow flowers are very UV-dark, or UV-"grey", others are very bright in UV with or without petal marks. And so it goes. Diversification is the essence of Nature. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 I know, I took a photo of a cinquefoil of some type (dwarf perhaps?) and it was just dark! It was a very drab cinquefoil. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Temporarily stuck on this one. The UV-dark Potentilla I have looks like it has a different leaf.http://www.ultraviol...arf-cinquefoil/ Andy, would you happen to have a foto of the underneath (abaxial side) of the flower which shows the sepals? Was the stem hairy? Nice foto !! Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 No, and yes, in that order, Andrea. Thank you! Here is what I have, but I literally just crouched down, grabbed a few photos, and kept walking. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 Interesting. There seem to be two leaves which look like my P. canadensis. And the flower and sepals look like mine. Let me check the Key. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 29, 2018 Author Share Posted May 29, 2018 Sometimes I think we're doing this backwards: UV signature should be part of the Key! Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 There are 98 Potentillas listed in the Flora of North America. Fortunately they are not all found in New England where we have a mere 18 to deal with. But we also have to look at the similar Dasiphora and Sibbaldiopsis to rule them out. (Well, not for your example because Dasiphora are shrubs and Sibbaldiopsis have 3-part leaves.) I think it is a Potentilla simplex, the Common Cinquefoil. At first glance the sprawling habit gives us either P. canadensis or P. simplex to consider. One key characteristic to check is whether the edges of a leaf are untoothed for 1/2 of the leaf length or for 1/3 of the leaf length starting from the stem end. These leaves seem to be toothed for about 2/3 of their length. Also most of the leaves in your example are longer than would be typical for P. canadensis, the Dwarf Cinquefoil, whose overall 5-part leaf is more rounded. At first I was thrown off by the extension of the bracts past the sepals. But the leaves are telling the P. simplex tale. Other characteristics which we would look for are not shown in your photo. (Sepals, bracts, rooting at nodes.) Sometimes I think we're doing this backwards: UV signature should be part of the Key!Perhaps it will be someday. I have a Lichen field guide which refers to some UV characteristics although it isn't part of a key there either. Edit: removed misleading remark about sepals. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now