Portulaca grandiflora 'Mohave Yellow' [Moss Rose]

[Andrea B.]

Blum, A.G. (2013) Portulaca grandiflora Hooker 'Mohave Yellow' (Portulacaceae) Moss Rose. Flowers photographed in ultraviolet and visible light. http://www.ultraviol...llow-moss-rose/

 

Middletown, New Jersey, USA

04 August 2013

Cultivar in home garden

 

Synonyms:

• Purslane
  
• Purslane Moss-rose
  

Comment:

Native to South America.

In UV, the flower has a UV-dark central bullseye including the stamens and very UV-reflective petals and stigmas.

This plant cultivar was labeled and sold as a P. grandiflora 'Mohave Yellow', but please see comments in posts below about this identification.

 

Equipment [Nikon D600-broadband + Nikon 105mm f/4.5 UV-Nikkor]

 

Visible Light [f/16 for 1/50" @ ISO 100 in Sunlight with Baader UVIR-Block Filter]

 

Ultraviolet Light [f/16 for 1/200" @ ISO 100 with SB-14 UV-modified Flash and Baader UV-Pass Filter]

[igoriginal]

Great shots!

 

Although, I have arrived here initially, because I may have spotted a possible misdentification of a cultivar. I believe you may have actually shot photos of a specimen of Portulaca umbraticola, and not Portulaca grandiflora.

 

Here is why I suspect this: I, too, have just shot photos of my own specimens of Portulaca umbraticola (this past weekend), and my own photos more closely appear to match your own (rather than available, on-line archive photos of Portulaca grandiflora).

 

I understand that these two cultivars come very close to one another in appearance, and their regional adaptation / commercial shipping / sales can actually overlap (regardless of how they are officially listed as "native" plants in botanical plant databases.)

 

But, one key identifying (but subtle and easily missed) feature between the two which I have taken notice (unless I am mistaken) is that grandiflora specimens appear to often come in petal types that have one "slit" (cut-like separation) at the tip of each individual petal (see attachment below, with the white arrow which I have added to the photo to point out this feature) ...

 

... Whereas umbraticola does not appear to have this petal feature (see below).

 

Again, maybe I am wrong ... and if I am, then please fill me in, and educate me on how I can identify between the two cultivars, because I am nearly bashing my head against the wall, trying to figure this out for myself, before posting my own formal photos. :)

 

(By the way, I have been reading some articles online, warning that plant shops / nursery businesses often misidentify and mislabel closely-appearing cultivars, too. Thus, I am learning not to trust the labels on plants that I buy from nurseries, and instead do some independent checking of my own. So much for "authority", huh? ;) )

 

Hope you are having a great spring out there, in your own neck of the woods (so to speak). Thanks, immensely!

[Andrea B.]

The "Proven Winners" Mohave series is fairly well known -- but there is always a possibility that it might have been mislabeled -- hard for me to say for sure. If a grower mislabels a patented/registered/trademarked cultivar, then I suppose I would be surprised because it would be a patent/trademark/registration violation in one direction or the other.

 

If the "Proven Winners" company themselves are mislabeling it, well, what can I do?? :)

 

For further ID, you would need to compare the seed pods, leaf shape/arrangement - all the usual stuff. One just-opened flower does not an ID make. And, cultivars do not always fit the keys. The leaves do look wider here than the typical P. grandiflora leaves.

 

Here, you will enjoy this:

http://australianpor...aticola-in.html

[igoriginal]

Thank you for that response.

 

So, for the time being, should I just make my formal post under the assumption that I have an actual specimen of P. umbraticola on my hands? (Even though my shots look just about identical to your P. grandiflora?)

 

I should note that after doing some basic research, I found out that there was no way in heck that I had a specimen of "Portulaca oleracea" on my hands (as are the labels which come with other P. oleracea plants grown in people's gardens, around here), given that P. oleracea is a common weed, the shrubbery is quite different, and the flowers are much smaller and less showy than the ornamentals / cultivars which we are pondering over. Thus, that experience alone only demonstrates how prevalent this mislabeling may be, regardless of potential for litigation / trademark infringement. Thank goodness that I did not settle for the label's claims.

 

(Here is one link, which states that many nurseries commonly mislabel ornamental / cultivar Portulacas as the much wilder oleracea, which of course is a glaring error: http://www.flowersof...20Purslane.html )

 

You'll see what I mean, though, when I finally complete my formal post later. (BTW: The example photos given above are not mine.They are public-domain stock photos on botany database sites, and are associated with the cultivars in question. Which is why I used them. And yet, the petals on my own specimen look practically indistinguishable from yours. It even appears to have the same petal width as your photographs).

 

But, since we are FAR from seed season, then I suppose I will have to default to my best educated guess on my own specimen at hand. That of P. umbraticola, until further notice / additional investigation. (I will try to go out, and take measurements, for additional identity clues ... but I fear that the P. umbraticola or grandiflora decision will still turn out to be a "dime toss" in the end (as in, "eeny-meeny-miny-moe").

 

Blast these look-alike wildflower cultivars! :)

[igoriginal]

On second thought, is there any chance of an unexpected hybridization and / or mutation occurring between the two, that may still remain undocumented because if it being a new anomaly?

 

Shrug. :)

[Andrea B.]

Igor, just do the best you can. That's all any of us can do with these identifications. Cultivars can sometimes be more difficult to ID than wildflowers because they are hybrids or because selective breeding over generations has caused them to deviate greatly from the wild type or from the founding parents. And in the garden plants can and do indeed cross and 'drift' and mutate "all on their own", so to speak.

 

[side note: I've had some fun and amazing Rudbeckia crosses in my garden over the last 15 years. One year the coolest quilled Rudbeckia appeared and reseeded itself true to type for a few years only to eventually die out.]

 

Unfortunately with respect to my particular Portulaca specimen posted here -- which was sold labeled as a P. grandiflora 'Mohave Yellow' -- I do not (so far) find any discussion anywhere about the development of the trademarked "Mohave" series which might enlighten us as to whether this specimen is a hybrid or actually some other species of Portulaca. Nor am I able find any discussion about whether the Mohave series has been generally mislabeled. It is occasionally possible to find this kind of additional information or discussion about trademarked or patented plants with a bit of searching. I gave a link above to such an example.

 

What I did for this P. grandiflora 'Mohave Yellow' was to add a note to the Comment about the plant's labeling as sold and then referred the reader to our subsequent posts about possible mislabeling. Maybe someday we might get some feedback from some grower or botanist who knows more about this commercial variety.

 

Remember that it is perfectly acceptable to post a Cultivar under the genus label only. So you could post your Portulaca simply as "Portulaca sp."

 

If I have serious doubts about my ID of an uncultivated, wild flower, then I simply will not post it at all - even under a genus only label.

[igoriginal]

Thanks for putting my mind at ease. :-)

 

Yes, I just tend to be a little too hard on myself, at times. Perhaps place unrealistic expectations and pressures, where there shouldn't be any. :)

 

But, on the flip side ... sometimes pushing oneself a little harder (than just the "bare minimum") can lead to results, where others might have fallen short of their goals.

 

I guess it takes some acquired wisdom and insight know when to dig deeper ... and when to fold, because one has truly done their due and honest diligence to more than satisfactory effect. It's definitely not worth developing an ulcer over. Maybe as I grow "longer in the tooth", that wisdom will come with it. Otherwise, people who constantly stress over the small stuff don't get to live very long, to begin with, do they? ;)

 

Anyway, sorry for tying up your time in such trivialities. I am sure you have better things to do, as well. Haha.

 

I will just go out there, one last time ... take a few more measurements, research published comparisons on botanical databases, and finalize my formal post on an HONEST (and best effort) basis. And if we do our work HONESTLY, then that is all that can be expected of us. No?

 

Thanks immensely!

[Andrea B.]

A lot of botanical identification ultimately has to be made under the microscope or in the DNA lab. Which is fascinating -- and sometimes a little distressing for the serious amateur.

 

And, you know I'm sure, that taxonomy and identification will never be an exact science for many reasons but particularly because a plant never seems to remember that it is supposed to fit itself to the botanical key !!!

I remind them all the time, but to no avail. :) ;)

 

As I said, just do the best you can. If you cannot get the species, post under the genus only. Try to always be open to re-evaluating an initial identification based on new data or inputs from other folks. If there is controversy, we don't take it personally but simply add a note or comment about the issues.

 

Good discussion in this thread. And a couple of useful links illustrating ID difficulties in the Portulaca world.

[nfoto]

The first lesson any botanist learns when commencing professional training, is that it is human to make errors in determination of a species ID. We all do it from times to times. Familiarity with a species complex or genus may over time help to clarify where species boundaries should be drawn, but at the same time, we observe that some species groupings simply refuse to fall nicely into square and clear-cut boxes of their own. In earlier days such observations lead to a confusing proliferation of new descriptions of 'new' species, subspecies, varieties and what have you; currently one tends to be more relaxed in these matters and allow Nature a little more slack.

[igoriginal]

It's been a month, now, since this discussion was active ... but, I have finally gotten around to making a positive ID out of which species of Portulaca I have. Turns out, that the key identifier was contingent upon the actual shape of the emerging seed pods / capsules, post-flowering stage.

 

(In other words, I had to wait until my Portulaca plants went through a good bunch of their initial blooms for the new blooming season, and reveal some mature seed pods / capsules, after the petals fell off.)

 

The result is now most likely conclusive and positive: Portulaca umbraticola, it is.

 

I will now be working on my formal post, and will include this key identifier (seed / pod structure) as notes within the formal post (as well as a photo example), so that anyone else who suspects this particular species will also be able to employ the same methodology of positive identification.

 

It was definitely worth being patient, and truly digging deeper (via acquiring various, highly-detailed books on flower identification), as well as taking my time to go through many other resources, so that I can be more certain. I've also learned something new: That not every stage of a flowering plant's life will always clearly reveal the specific species / cultivar in question. Sometimes, you have to be patient and inspect all of its stages of growth, to make a positive (or, at least, better informed) ID. And, as I have learned in this particular case, sometimes you have to wait until after the flowering stage itself (and long after you took the UV photo comparisons of the flower), just to ID which flowering species that you've had taken a photo of. :)

 

Thanks!

[igoriginal]

Also, it turns out (as I am researching) that while P. grandiflora has been extensively cultivated by humans (which establishes it a "cultivar" in many cases), other species, including my ID of P. umbraticola, remain a generally "wild" flower species (or even an "aggressive weed", in some cases).

 

So, I will need one of you nice moderators to add umbraticola to the list of species under the Portulacaceae family, within our wildflower database, before I can proceed. :)

 

Thanks again.

[nfoto]

We don't add species, only the genera.

[igoriginal]

Sorry. Yes. What I meant was to add *Portulaca* genus to the Portulacaceae family list, please. It was a typo. I was typing from small phone screen / keys.

 

I already know that you do not add individual species, because that is what is added when someone makes a formal UV post.

 

Thanks.

[Andrea B.]

OK, I just added genus Portulaca to family Portulacaceae.

I guess you want to add your flower as a Wildflower as Garden Specimen? Or was it actually wild?

 

I like your tenacity, Igor, in learning about your botanical specimens. :)

[igoriginal]

OK, I just added genus Portulaca to family Portulacaceae.

I guess you want to add your flower as a Wildflower as Garden Specimen? Or was it actually wild?

 

Thank you.

 

I would say "garden specimen", in this particular case, since it is now growing in one of the pots in front of my home.

 

However, it wasn't "bought" that way (not to my knowledge, anyway). Surprisingly, it started growing out of that pot, all its own, this spring. (Last spring, a completely unrelated batch of plants were being grown in the very same pot: Felicia amelloides / "Blue daisy.")

 

Which has led me to suspect that the seeds of this now "garden crasher" guest most likely were spread to my growing pot by "natural" means (either defecated by a visiting, foraging bird, after it must have fed on some opened seed pods belonging to P. umbraticola growing in some other location), or, somehow propagated by strong wind (during violent storms with straight-line gusts and even tornadoes, which we get much of around here).

 

In either case, this P. umbraticola wasn't planted in that pot, deliberately. It just made a "surprise" presence, this year. (Although, I have discovered that cultivars of P. oleracea are sold and grown around these parts. But I believe that I have already ruled out that my specimen is not P. oleracea, because the seed pods / capsules do not match up.)

 

And, after doing some diligent research, I learned that P. umbraticola is in fact quite common in this parts, as wildly growing. They particularly can be found around wetlands, marshes, and lining the immediate banks of river / lake beds, in this area. Here in central Mississippi, where I happen to live, this is "sub-tropical wetland" territory. Cyprus swamp trees, alligators, and all. I actually live on a massive reservoir (The 'Ross Barnett Reservoir'). And my home is practically on the water front. I can walk down my street to the nearest boat launch / dock.

 

I like your tenacity, Igor, in learning about your botanical specimens. :)

 

Thanks, Andrea!

 

However, I would probably (and more honestly) call it my "OCD." :)

 

But, I suppose that the end result is still the same, and still useful. Haha.

[Andrea B.]

I love it when wildflowers wander into my yard or garden. One of my favorites was a Hypochaeris radicata, or Cat's Ear, which grew for several seasons and from which I made some really nice UV photos.