gonewild said:
But my question is, has there been any serious expeditions to search for besseae? Just because none have been found in 25 years does not mean anyone has seriously looked for them. So unless we know the area has been throughly searched we should not assume they are not there anymore.
I will get back to you on this one. I will have to ask Dodson again... he would know of the serious searches, as I think he may disclose the information to select people, or would have been informed about a serious search.
Here is an assumption:
Phrag. besseae is found in Peru. It wasn't until 3 years later that is was discovered in Ecuador by Dodson... we know that when there is a new species of almost any orchid (especially the really wanted plants that will bring in money) orchid hunters go after the type locality, and try and find more around there. This may have happened, I have no proof, but it would only make sense. But we know that there weren't any
Phrag. besseae collected from Peru after Besse 1981... at least legally.
gonewild said:
I've been told by a somewhat "reliable" person in Peru
rollhappy
that besseae does in fact exist.
If that person can produce a true specimen of non-stolonous
Phrag. besseae, and can provide in situ pics, I will consider believing
Phrag. besseae existing in Peru. How come you haven't made mention of him earlier? Anyways, just a few pics is all anyone needs.
gonewild said:
No! Based on your example you must agree with me! We have (had) besseae so applying your example of aliens we then must assume there are others out there. We have real proof besseae existed in Peru unlike aliens from farout.
Real proof can exist when another plant turns up. The possibility of a waif which propagated by way of seed dispersal is more likely than real populations existing in Peru... if we look at the known and main distribution of Ecuadorian
Phrag. besseae, we will see that they are in a vast area, but contained in Ecuador...
Phrag. dallesandroi is right in the middle of them all. Isn't it maybe possible that some storm or wind dispersed the seeds south into Peru? It happens all the time with
Oceoclades maculata... we have plants of this species going from Selby Gardens here in Sarasota County down to Miami-Dade County (where some other escapees of the same species also dispersed)... then there are plants showing up in Ecuador, and I think other South and Central American countries as well... orchid waifs happen quite a bit... I have two new records for
Bletia purpurea and
Triphora gentianoides for Sarasota County... both species are found in the southern counties of Florida...
Zeuxine streumatica disperses everywhere in Florida...
gonewild said:
My second post. What we are discussing now is not the story, but more of the type specimen of
Phrag. besseae from Peru.
gonewild said:
Not having the wild Peruvian stolonous plants to look at I would raise a question to the purpose of the rhizome. Rather than being a method of reproduction the rhizome appears to me to be for elevating the plants foliage above competing "roadside" vegitation, enabeling the plant to recieve more light.
Which came first...
Phrag. besseae, or the roadside vegetation? I understand what you are saying, the smaller weeds which grow nearer to the road... I believe that most plants of
Phrag. besseae perfer a more vertical growing situation, preferably a cliff face or a steep hill... there may be a few exceptions...
Phrag. besseae was found on a steep hill though, away from the road in Peru... usually, they are found in quite a bit of light... again, there are some exceptions.
gonewild said:
Is this a fact that hummingbirds actually pollinate P. dallesandroi? Or rather have hummingbirds been observed visiting the flowers?
I think this is up for debate... it depends on who you talk to... the hummingbird visited the flower, but the pollen was dislodged from the flower afterwards... it isn't mentioned, because we have no evidence of another flower being pollinated, so assumuming the hummingbird is the pollinator is just taking a chance...
gonewild said:
I agree that you have drawn a logical conclusion. But based on my comments above about the purpose of the rhizomes I don't agree about it's function in reproduction. Does besseae have a branching rhizome? If not how can it cause the plant to multiply? To be a predominate factor in reproduction the purpose must be to increase numbers. Does your besseae population increase because you need to divide your plants often? More so than for dallesandroi?
Here's what I was getting at and decided not to post it (I don't know why)... I have seen so many in situ pictures of
Phrag. besseae and
Phrag. dallesandroi, that I get dizzy. I notice that plants of
Phrag. besseae usually grow on the cliff faces... where are the many growth specimens? Where is the
Phrag. besseae with a thousand growths? I then look at
Phrag. dallesandroi, and there are wide clumps of these, growing on the forest floor or horizontally on rocks... so perhaps
Phrag. besseae is similar to
Fernandezia sanguinea; in the wild, they have life spans. In cultivation, it is a different story (on both)...
Fernandezia can be kept alive for a long time in cultivation, instead of being a near-annual type orchid in situ... what do you think?
gonewild said:
Pat, I'm serious you should go look at these things for yourself. You're young and could easily do it.
I would really enjoy going down there if I went with someone who has been there before...
Also, Lance, I hope that all of these posts aren't offending you... I am re-reading them, and the way I have written them, seems like they are in an angry tone of voice (though it's being typed)... I am not trying argue with you, but seeing what information we can debate or draw about
Phrag. besseae...
I am tired, so good night,
-Pat