Flag for Taxon: Geranium potentillaefolium
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | Geranium potentillaefolium |
are there a bunch of misidentifications? |
Nov. 22, 2019 18:52:38 +0000 | mftasp |
swap committed |
Comments
As G.potentillafoilium grows wild in Mexico, there might be additional people that can help (They can at least disagree or ad a coarser ID) @alexiz, @idlegrraphics, @bodofzt
All the ones I've identified as this in the US were correct. I'm sure of it. It's established here for sure. The largest population is in California around Marin County.
EDIT: ignore this, I was thinking of G. potentilloides.
Another Mexican wild plant with some observations in North America is Penstemon roseus https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&taxon_id=153299 Is it introduced or cultivated in North America ? I have some doubts that these observations are really Penstemon roseus.
Please note that I have not made comments in the claimed observations of Geranium "potentillaefolium" in California. The observations elsewhere, e.g., southern Canada, central and eastern US, that I've looked at appear to be G. sanguineum or European species/hybrids from leaf shape and flower characteristics, and I have commented to that effect in those observations.
Also, please note that POWO, the reference that this site is apparently based on, uses what appears to be the correct spelling of the species (as correlated by other taxonomic references), namely potentillifolium, not "potentillaefolium" as is currently being used in iNat.
Thanks.
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:373501-1
@je9h I would be actually quite curious if you had any thoughts on those, whether they are correct or another related species from Oceania. There's also an undiagnosed Geranium complex spreading in the Bay Area which seems to involve yaoi, reuteri, and maderense, and hybrids (none of these are particularly mentioned from CA in literature).
I intentionally avoided the CA observations at the time, given my general unfamiliarity with plants that would occur there in cultivation or as escapes. Looking at CA now for G. "potentillaefolium" (24 observations), I see 2 European species/hybrid (possibly G. wallichianum or a hybrid) and a Malvaceae. None of
these is at "Research Grade". Several of them look like they may be Geranium incanum and some look like they may be G. dissectum. When I was looking through "G. potentillaefolium" observations in Canada and the U.S. outside CA, I don't recall running across any IDs by you in those postings, @silversea_starsong, and I don't see any in CA? Or am I missing them somehow?
I agree... it would be a great idea if some of the participants here who are familiar with G. potentillifolium in the wild in MX could go through the Canada/US observations.
RE. the comment about G. "potentillaefolium"/potentillifolium being established in CA, it's curious that I can't find any references to it occurring there... ? USDA Plants, BONAP, Calflora, Jepson don't list it. They do all show the Australian species, G. potentilloides, as naturalized in the SF Bay area though? I wondered if you were perhaps thinking of it, @silversea_starsong ?
Aha! Yes, I'm sorry. I had the names mixed. I was thinking of the Australian one, which as you say is G. potentilloides.
No problem!
My impression that G. potentillifolium is not generally cultivated in the US or Canada casts further doubt on all these supposed observations of it, to my mind.
Have a look at the ones labelled as G. incanum as well. We have this in CA, at least labelled as such. And now I think about it, I remember trying to distinguish these two in the past.
All of the observations of G. incanum outside of CA in the US appear to be misidentified as well, and seem to be either European garden species or, in one case, G. dissectum. I'm not deeply familiar with G. incanum but the observations from within CA didn't jump out at me as being obviously wrong.
The other one I tried to review is robertianum vs. purpureum. Some of the ones on iNat I actually visited in the field, and were just robertianum. But rarely I do see observations here that do indeed look like purpureum.
Do you by chance know anything about G. palmatum? It is listed for California, but the type location is gone and I only find G. maderense and reuteri types in that area.
Sorry, other than knowing enough about the foliage form to suspect one of the Canary Islands species when I see an odd one, I don't have much of any other knowledge about these. Geranium palmatum is endemic to Madeira (as is G. maderense) and so doesn't really have a "type location" in CA in the sense that I think it's usually used, but I think I get what you are asking about. (Similarly, G. reuteri (syn. G. cariense) is endemic to the Canary Islands.) The book by Peter F. Yeo, Hardy Geraniums, 2nd Ed., has reasonable descriptions and a leaf drawing for all, but after searching around, I can't suggest any other place on-line where one might find any other more detailed descriptions for these spp.. If you like, I can e-mail you descriptive excerpts from Yeo on these species (given that I don't think iNat allows any PDF's to be attached?)
BONAP shows this for P. palmatum naturalized in CA; it doesn't show G. reuteri or G. maderense as having naturalized: http://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/Geranium%20palmatum.png Similarly, Jepson only shows P. palmatum as having naturalized, of the three spp., and only describes it, not the others. But, not being familiar with CA flora, I wouldn't know what might be found there, of course.
This site unfortunately doesn't include detailed descriptions but mentions a couple of distinctions between G. purpureum and G. robertianum: http://www.floradecanarias.com/geranium_purpureum.html
(Here's what is probably an imperfect but understandable translation of the text from the linked site... "G.purpureum is a species of wide distribution, native possible in the islands. It is a plant up to 70 cm, very easy to confuse with Geranium robertianum L., from which it is distinguished by the characteristics of flowers and fruits. G.purpureum has yellow anthers and petals of 5-9.5 mm x 1.5-2.5 mm. G. robertianum has purple anthers and larger petals, 10-14 mm x 3.5-5.5 mm. It is known as "gravel leg".(??)" )
I have found definite maderense naturalized. And plants that match reuteri very closely, to the extent I call them this. However the "reuteri" definitely hybridize with yeoi here (yeoi is also not really recorded from the state, I remember one old record that never got published).
I do have an idea of the gist of purpureum, actually in the characters of the hairs and gestalt of the flower. I've heard of the anther colour but it seems variable. The bract hairs and perhaps also stem hairs seem to be glandular far more often in one species, and not the other (can't remember which way that is). But I have still not seen purpureum in person.
You might find all of my observations from this area quite interesting:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?nelat=37.83608073422037&nelng=-122.14823112823069&place_id=any&subview=grid&swlat=37.68679996577028&swlng=-122.61137352325022&taxon_id=47701&user_id=silversea_starsong
Another issue is separating Geranium core-core from G. solanderi, which are both supposed to be present (in California), but I have not seen definite solanderi yet. They are closer than I would like.
And yes I'm sorry, I don't mean type locality as in the actual types. Just in the sense of how it was described as new to California (as naturalized). I should have said voucher location.
Yeah, sorry, I can't add anything meaningful about the other species you mention either (other than to suggest again that the Yeo book might provide the odd tidbit of info - he published G. rubescens which was later renamed G. yeoi, apparently after him - and he also talks a bit about the various hybrids between the species you are asking about.)
But, as I was already fully aware, you're waaaayyy ahead of me on this! 🙂
Anyway, back to the purported G. "potentillaefolium"/potentillifolium observations in CA and elsewhere in the US and Canada... I hope someone who is familiar with it can review them.
Is there any reason why we are using the wrong name for this taxon? According to ICBN Article 60.10 (https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_60.html), the correct name is Geranium potentillifolium, as appears in POWO.
It was imported that way and no one has fixed it :)
Thanks @bouteloua, definitely gets my vote.
Here's a proposed swap. I ticked to move children but the autonym will have to be re-named as well (no obs on infraspecies): https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/89571
from @je9h:
Link to identify G. potentillaefolium in North America: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/identify?quality_grade=needs_id%2Ccasual%2Cresearch&taxon_id=179400&place_id=97394