# Need help identifying my plants



## joeeey (Mar 10, 2009)

Hi all,
I purchased a plant package and along with all my other plants. That makes 22 types of plants, now I don't know whats what. Should I keep some and get rid of others?? I have no idea what they are named and or compatibility. I currently have 4 X 55w 9325 CF / 8 - 10hrs with a 2 X 55w 10k Burst for 2 hrs, CO2 regulated by a Milwaukee SMS-122 and a pump reactor (soon to be changed to a inline), I maintain PH of 6.4, Temp 79f and 2 Eheim canisters. This is a 72 gallon bow.
Can someone help me identify these plants for me I have them numbered for easy identification. 
Thanks for your help and recommendations,


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

My guesses. 


1. Alternanthera reineckii
2. Vallisneria spiralis
3. Echinodorus cordifolius
4. Cryptocoryne cordata?
5. Alternanthera reineckii 
6. Eichornia diversifolia
7. Ludwigia repens
8 Cabomba caroliniana
9. Cabomba caroliniana (different color variety)
10. Cryptocoryne beckettii
11. Lindernia rotundifolia var. 'variegated'
12. Rotala rotundifolia
13. Vallisneria america (giant val.) 
14. Hygrophila difformis
15. Echinodorus hybrid?
16. Microsorum pteropus (Java fern)
17. Cryptocoryne beckettii?
18. Anubias barteri var. nana
19. Alterhanthera reineckii 
20. Anubias barteri var. ? 
21. Sagitteria platyphilla
22. Vallisneria?


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

I think, #3 isn't E. cordifolius but E. bleherae (= E. grisebachii "bleherae"), still with emersed leaves.


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

It could be. The inflorescence looks more like that of bleherae than that of cordifolius.
Has the species name been changed from bleheri to bleherae?


----------



## joeeey (Mar 10, 2009)

I redesigned my tank, added a 3D background, used a inline CO2 reactor, inline PH probe holder and reconfigured the plants. I will be installing lily pipes and a surface skimmer in the near future. My fish are very happy.


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

_E. grisebachii_ 'Bleherae' - the name ought to be written like that since Kasselmann made a cultivar of it last year (2010). Yes, the name should be in feminine (-ae), should have been already in the original description by Rataj in 1970 as it's in honour of Amanda Bleher.

15. could be x_osiris_ and
21. could be _E. uruguayensis_ (can't see the veins from the pic though)


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Daniel Falck said:


> Actually, all the cultivated plants should be called cultivars (or cultigens) and be ordered with the ICNCP and not International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.  However, I agree that this is not a point that is agreed on by everyone. Many a botanists would love it, though.  A cultivar doesn't have to have been altered by anyone; all is needed that a plant with certain desirable stable characteristics is _selected_ by someone (and then named, and published following all the rules and regulations).


It doesn't look to me like that's the intent of the language you quoted. An unusual plant is found, retained and intentionally propagated. _Microsorum pteropus_ 'Windelov' is an example of that. The many _Echinodorus_ cultivars such as 'Ozelot' are of a different origin, but still fall under cultivar. I have not seen any descriptions of cultivars in the botanical literature.



Daniel Falck said:


> Well, one evidence to the contrary re: 'Bleherae' could be that it hasn't been collected from the nature since then. Of course, this could be just because no one has gone to the exact location... there could be a local population like it. No natural location is known to Rataj... nor to others. This strongly suggests that it might not be naturally occurring.


I think it suggests that he described it based on cultivated material when he should probably not have. I don't see at all how that should mean it isn't naturally occurring. There is an unrelated plant in the hobby that has been identified by a botanist as a new species but not described and published in part because the provenance is not known. That will wait until a wild-collected specimen is obtained.



Daniel Falck said:


> Just to make this clear to me, are you saying that selections from natural growth forms, for example, Picea abies 'Echiniformis' or similar, are not a cultivars?


I'm not familiar with that particular plant, so I'll use my own example. _Rotala mexicana_ 'Goias' is one of many, many natural growth forms of _R. mexicana_. It has been selected for cultivation based on its normal, natural form but not for some kind of chance mutation (or hybridization, etc); therefore, it is not a cultivar.


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

In my opinion, your examples both qualify as cultivars. Here we seem to disagree.

We have two choices for plant names: the botanical code and the cultivated plant code. The former can be used with the cultivated plants too, though, the Recommendation 1 A of the latter reads: "Taxonomic units of cultivated plants that meet the criteria of being recognized as cultivars or Groups should be named in accordance with the provisions of this _Code_, not under the provisions of the _I.C.B.N._"

If we want to keep some track of the names and plants that we cultivate and if we are not using the botanical code...(since cultivars don't fall under its 'jurisdiction'), we have to use the cultivated plant code. If you want to speak of _R. mexicana_ under the botanical code, you can't use the cultivar designation 'Goias'. The single quotation marks are used only for cultivars. So, if you want to indicate that your _R. mexicana_ is from Goias population... you have to write it so. Do you see what I'm aiming at with this? If you don't want people to think you are talking about a cultivar, you don't want to use the single quotation marks.

Re: 'Bleherae'... a dip into its history might be revealing. The plants that are currently classified as _E. grisebachii_ first came to the Western aquarium plant market in the late 1930s. By 1950s, these and some other _Echinodorus_ were in heavy cultivation in Peru and then Brazil. Coming to late 1960s when Rataj recognised the 'Bleherae' being different, the Asian nurseries were already taking a huge share and the original cultivation in the SA was in decline. Therefore, there is no assurances for 'Bleherae' being natural. Cultivation techniques of producing triploid plants (such as 'Bleherae' supposedly is) is older than that. This origin has been suggested for it. Still, there are naturally occurring triploids in the genus _Echinodorus_ as well... so I'm not denying a possibility there being such a plant in the wild somewhere. (See also our article Lehtonen & Falck 2011).

There is a possibility of changing the status of a botanical taxon to that of a cultivar, if that is desired. Since the Haynes & Holm-Nielsen synonymised Rataj's _bleherae_ under the _E. grisebachii_ (1990s) and since no DNA analysis has been able to differentiate between it and other populations (Lehtonen 2008; Lehtonen & Falck 2011), but a difference between it and other populations is desirable in the naming, Kasselmann (2010) formed a cultivar name for the plant.

She also formed _E. grisebachii_ 'Parviflorus' and 'Amazonicus' at the same time. This way, they are all 3 considered as cultivar selections from a polymorphic species.

Sorry keep on going like this. I would like to convince you since you are in a position to make a big difference!


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Daniel Falck said:


> In my opinion, your examples both qualify as cultivars. Here we seem to disagree.
> 
> Yes, we disagree.
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Falck (Feb 18, 2011)

So we agree to disagree. 
I think we both have our rights to our own opinions... approaching the subject from different points of view. Even though, I think your definition of why, e.g., 'Goias' is designated that, fits the reason why it would be called a cultivar, exactly for those reasons. So, let's say that you have a _sensu stricto_ definition of cultivar while I avail myself of a _sensu lato_ one. 

Just one addition more: One problem with the use of informal names like 'Goias' is that if they ever get published in a nursery catalogue... they will be taken as valid publications of cultivar names. Ie., it is possible to "accidentally" create cultivars. This has happened for example with _Clematis_ & other ornamental plants.

_Echinodorus_ 'Tropica' is definitely a cultivar. 
Any plant that Tropica sells that has single quotation marks is a cultivar.

Samuli and I are very interested in collecting as many _Helanthiums_ as possible. If you'd be able to help us out there, we'd be thankful.


----------

