# Staurogyne sp "tropica 049b"



## Zezmo (Nov 2, 2005)

In another thread, I saw that HoustonFishFanatic got this plant to flower last December. Not wanting to hijack his thread, I thought I would start a new thread to show a few more Staurogyne flowers.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...lture/66819-staurogyne-sp-low-grow-bloom.html

Here is some pics of the flowers of Staurogyne sp "tropica 049g", aka Staurogyne sp "Low Grow" aka Staurogyne cfr. diantheroides... I like the "tropica 049b" as it is the one that is most likely to get folks to a reliable source of info on this one.

FWIW, I am also growing Staurogyne sp "Bihar" in the same tank and it flowered as well, nice purple flowers that are very similar to the sp "tropica" flowers in shape. That tank also has Staurogyne "Porto vehlo" aka "forground", that plant has a markedly different growth pattern, and has not flowered.

edit: to fix "049g"


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

Helllo zezmo,
nice photos! In the meantime the Staurogyne sp. from Tropica (049b) is identified as Staurogyne repens by Dieter C. Wasshausen:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plant-id/69321-staurogyne-sp-named.html So the guess that it is Staurogyne diantheroides has not been confirmed.
But as I understand it, Staurogyne sp. 'Low Grow' is a different plant, developing considerably longer leaves than S. repens under same conditions (see pics in the Staurogyne Discussion Thread).

-Heiko


----------



## khanzer22 (Nov 30, 2009)

I believe 'Tropica 049B' is UG (Utricularia graminifolia - http://www.tropica.com/productcard_1.asp?id=049B) and 'Tropica 049G' is now what is named/called Staurogyne Repens.

Nice pictures Zezmo


----------



## Zezmo (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: Staurogyne sp "tropica 049g"*

Ah, thank you for the correction. You are right, 049G not "B".

As for the moniker "low grow". It is not a name I use for this plant per se, and the fact that there is even a discussion about it show why it is a poor choice of names.

I throw the diantheroides name out there based on Claus Christensen's forum comment to that effect. As for calling this one repens... that seems like again a poor choice of names as the "other" staurogyne is the one that has a repens quality to it. The 049G will only creep if pruned to do so. Naturally, it has a comparatively vertical growth pattern.

I think as most know, there are 3 different plants commonly called "staurogyne". However there are only two that people get confused, and they only get those confused when they have not seen the two side by side. Once you see the two side by side, submersed or emersed the differences are very clear.

I first aquired the "other" Staurogyne in late 2005. It was wild collected as an unknown plant, and the person who collected it called it Hygrophila sp "Forground". We grew the heck out of this plant in the SFBAAPs, and when the 2006 AGA convention rolled though the Bay Area the plant was available at Aqua Forest, and in the AGA auction. Some time after that, Caven wrote an article in TAG that declared this to be Hygrophila "Porto Vehlo". This name stuck for a while. Then, tropica released it's article about Staurogyne 049G. It was then that folks took a look at the "Portho Vehlo" and decided that it must also be a Staurogyne.

At this point, there was Staurogyne "Porto Vehlo" aka "Foreground", and a separate and different plant that was Staurogyne "tropica 049G". At some point, someone coined the Name "Low grow"... what a disaster that name is, as it made anyone who did not have both plants confused as to which was which. Ugh.... Unfortunately, a similar story can be told about dozens of plant in our hobby today. Which is why, imo, the best name for this plant remains Staurogyne "tropica 049g". "repens", may be the right name, and it may be where we end up at..but for now one post on one forum does not outweigh a formal listing from a well known company such as Tropica.


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

> I believe 'Tropica 049B' is UG (Utricularia graminifolia - http://www.tropica.com/productcard_1.asp?id=049B) and 'Tropica 049G' is now what is named/called Staurogyne Repens.


Yes, I was wrong.



> As for calling this one repens... that seems like again a poor choice of names as the "other" staurogyne is the one that has a repens quality to it. The 049G will only creep if pruned to do so. Naturally, it has a comparatively vertical growth pattern.


The botanical names as Staurogyne repens (Nees) Kuntze are only links to descriptions and type specimens. If the names per se are descriptive and meaningful, it's fine, but that's not necessary. Similarly Ludwigia repens doesn't creep when submersed, the species was surely called after its terrestrial growth (although many other emersed Ludwigias grow creeping as well).

As for the surrogate / fancy / trade names for plant species not yet identified, I believe it's the best to use the name under which the plant first appeared in the hobby or trade, and not to change it (except for erroneously used botanical names as the supposed Hygrophilas turning out to be Staurogyne, Diodia or Oldenlandia species), until the species is ID'ed. 
I think, not the poor choices of trade names are the actual problem, but too few exact descriptions, comparisons/distinctions, and pictures of the plants behind the names.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: Staurogyne sp "tropica 049g"*



Zezmo said:


> Ah, thank you for the correction. You are right, 049G not "B".
> 
> As for the moniker "low grow". It is not a name I use for this plant per se, and the fact that there is even a discussion about it show why it is a poor choice of names.


Trade names are _always_ a poor substitute for an actual scientific name.



Zezmo said:


> I throw the diantheroides name out there based on Claus Christensen's forum comment to that effect. As for calling this one repens... that seems like again a poor choice of names as the "other" staurogyne is the one that has a repens quality to it.


I'm not sure where they got _S. diantheroides_ (which is a real species). Trade names are really only placeholders until the proper scientific name is discovered. We sometimes retain the trade name in single quotation marks to denote plants from a certain region or so on. It just doesn't seem like good practice to continue calling a plant by a trade name when the genus and species are known, especially when the determination is made by one of the world's foremost experts on the family.

There are quite a few _Staurogyne_ native to South America, and nearly all of them have the same growth habit (and are, with a few exceptions, similar in size).



Zezmo said:


> The 049G will only creep if pruned to do so. Naturally, it has a comparatively vertical growth pattern.


My _S__taurogyne repens_ creeps without any pruning help.



Zezmo said:


> I think as most know, there are 3 different plants commonly called "staurogyne". However there are only two that people get confused, and they only get those confused when they have not seen the two side by side. Once you see the two side by side, submersed or emersed the differences are very clear.


I am aware of six. They are; _S. repens_; 'Low Grow', which may be _S. fockeana_; _S. stolinifera_, which does grow more upright, 'Porto Velho', which, according to Dieter Wasshausen, is quite possibly a variation of _S. stolinifera_, 'Bihar', an Asian species that is proving to be very difficult to identify, and the 'Purple' (a name I strongly dislike), which seemingly only grows in a creeping fashion to cover more substrate; once it does, it grows vertically and gets tall.



Zezmo said:


> I first aquired the "other" Staurogyne in late 2005. It was wild collected as an unknown plant, and the person who collected it called it Hygrophila sp "Forground". We grew the heck out of this plant in the SFBAAPs, and when the 2006 AGA convention rolled though the Bay Area the plant was available at Aqua Forest, and in the AGA auction. Some time after that, Caven wrote an article in TAG that declared this to be Hygrophila "Porto Vehlo".


Cav*a*n.  I don't think any of us knew at the time that it was a _Staurogyne_, but it did indeed look similar to a plant Rayon Vert was selling as such. If you know exactly where it was collected, I would very much like to know.



Zezmo said:


> This name stuck for a while. Then, tropica released it's article about Staurogyne 049G. It was then that folks took a look at the "Portho Vehlo" and decided that it must also be a Staurogyne.


It is most certainly a _Staurogyne_. See the _Staurogyne_ discussion thread as to why.



Zezmo said:


> At this point, there was Staurogyne "Porto Vehlo" aka "Foreground", and a separate and different plant that was Staurogyne "tropica 049G". At some point, someone coined the Name "Low grow"... what a disaster that name is, as it made anyone who did not have both plants confused as to which was which.


You are talking about three different plants there, not two. The 'Low Grow' is quite a bit larger, and was masquerading as a _Hygrophila_ as well.



Zezmo said:


> Ugh.... Unfortunately, a similar story can be told about dozens of plant in our hobby today. Which is why, imo, the best name for this plant remains Staurogyne "tropica 049g".


See above.



Zezmo said:


> "repens", may be the right name, and it may be where we end up at


We did. 



Zezmo said:


> ..but for now one post on one forum does not outweigh a formal listing from a well known company such as Tropica.


A specimen of what turned out to be _S. repens_ was sent to Dieter Wasshausen from Christel Kasselmann, and I assume she did so at least somewhat to assist Tropica (whom I admire for their dedication to discovering correct plant names). It now resides in the Smithsonian's herbarium.


----------



## Zezmo (Nov 2, 2005)

Thank you Cavan, sorry for misspelling your name. ;-) You have filled in some of the thin parts on my understanding of this plants lineage.



> I think, not the poor choices of trade names are the actual problem, but too few exact descriptions, comparisons/distinctions, and pictures of the plants behind the names.


Well said. Right now, we can point to the Tropica website with pictures of the plant and its collection location. It just makes for an easy and stable reference.



> I am aware of six. They are; S. repens; 'Low Grow', which may be S. fockeana; S. stolinifera, which does grow more upright, 'Porto Velho', which, according to Dieter Wasshausen, is quite possibly a variation of S. stolinifera, 'Bihar', an Asian species that is proving to be very difficult to identify, and the 'Purple' (a name I strongly dislike), which seemingly only grows in a creeping fashion to cover more substrate; once it does, it grows vertically and gets tall.


If you are saying "low grow" is a separate species from "tropica/repens" and "porto vehlo". That explains a lot of confusions. You say it is distinctly different from the other two? Then I have for sure not had that plant, nor do I believe it is currently in circulation with the SFBAAPS.
Last year, we suddenly had several plants with staurogyne names on them that people were trading. I collected everything I could from other SFBAAPS'ers and grew them side by side submersed and emersed. The various samples resolved themselves into 3 plants. Most, including what was given to me as "low grow" turned out to be "tropica/repens". 
That is not to say that the "low grow" I was given is the same "low grow" that is being traded elsewhere. I already had the "tropica/repens" and the "porto vehlo" growing so I had a nice reference to compare the others to.



> If you know exactly where it was collected, I would very much like to know.


Yup, I was even told where it was collected when I got it. I wish I could remember that, or had put it in my plant journal. I had only been growing Aquatic plants for a year or so then. So I didn't realize the significance of that knowledge at the time.



> A specimen of what turned out to be S. repens was sent to Dieter Wasshausen from Christel Kasselmann, and I assume she did so at least somewhat to assist Tropica (whom I admire for their dedication to discovering correct plant names). It now resides in the Smithsonian's herbarium.


Obviously all well respected. What I was trying to say is that while this may be the correct name, the reference cited was just to a forum post. As opposed to link to an article written by Wasshausen, Kasselmann, or in the Smithsonian. If the article is out there I did not find it (FWIW).

One last comment on this plant, it does very well as an epiphyte when attached to driftwood.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Zezmo said:


> Thank you Cavan, sorry for misspelling your name. ;-) You have filled in some of the thin parts on my understanding of this plants lineage.


Don't worry about it. It's an Irish name that is sometimes spelled that way (sometimes with an I). Had you called me C***** (don't need to give bigstick120 any ammo)...



Zezmo said:


> If you are saying "low grow" is a separate species from "tropica/repens" and "porto vehlo".


Yes, it is a different plant. It's much larger, for one thing.



Zezmo said:


> Yup, I was even told where it was collected when I got it. I wish I could remember that, or had put it in my plant journal. I had only been growing Aquatic plants for a year or so then. So I didn't realize the significance of that knowledge at the time.


 Please send me a PM with the information. It will probably prove invaluable later on.



Zezmo said:


> Obviously all well respected. What I was trying to say is that while this may be the correct name, the reference cited was just to a forum post. As opposed to link to an article written by Wasshausen, Kasselmann, or in the Smithsonian. If the article is out there I did not find it (FWIW).
> 
> One last comment on this plant, it does very well as an epiphyte when attached to driftwood.


Oh, you're referring to the post Claus made? Gotcha.

There is a thesis written by someone in Brazil that revises the species found there, but as far as I know, it is unpublished. It was available online, but without illustrations and in Portuguese.  Some day, perhaps.


----------

