# Staurogyne discussion thread



## hooha

*Re: FS: AGAIN with many plants!*



houseofcards said:


> Guess what, when I was growing up Pluto was a planet now it's not!


True dat, everyone know Pluto is the Mickey Mouse dog that doesn't talk - as opposed to the dog - who is his owner - who talks and wears pants. What drugs Walt was on when he came up with that concept is beyond me 

Donald and House (not the obnoxious psuedo-doctor guy on TV) have good points. Although this discussion is stimulating and useful, it doesn't belong in the For Sale or Trade section. In fact, I'm going to take this liberty to split this thread into an appropriate forum. 

That's the conundrum of our hobby - if you talk with any botanist they laugh at us. Most new plants brought into the hobby are from importers who have half-knowledge (or none) and come up with names they think are 'close enough'. Trying to determine a true ID is going to be a challenge for us for years to come......


----------



## hooha

And here is the poor little plant that's causing such a stir


----------



## nfrank

I was in Aqua Forest last week and saw an interesting Stauraogyne/Hygro type plant that a local hobbyist brought it.... It had not be growing long enough to get a clear idea of its long-term height and appearance, but was described as slow and low growing. Seemed to be brighter green and less pointy leaves than "Low grow" or "porto velho." . Its smaller leaves also did not seem to have the prominent veining. . It wasnt for sale yet.. Both Tom and I wanted to buy some 

If the local SF person is reading this, please provide your input.


----------



## DonaldmBoyer

So, regarding the plant that Hooha posted, what is the general consensus from "The Masses" on the name of this specie? What are the synonyms?


----------



## Cavan Allen

I was going to prepare a short photographic presentation explaining the differences between the genera involved here (including the specie*s* pictured above), but it appears that we have a minor issue with PF pics that have been recently added. The differences are quite evident if you know what to look for. A few follow (this is not comprehensive and is mostly meant to convey enough information to get everyone really pumped up about plant identification):

_Staurogyne_ - a waxy (viscid) leaf surface on emersed leaves
_Hygrophila_ - not waxy

Please see this photo by Dave Wilson of _S. leptocaulis_. The leaves of this plant are not wet! 








The 'Low Grow', Porto Velho/Roraima, and 'Rio Araguaia' all show this characteristic. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_Staurogyne_ - no cystoliths in leaves
_Hygrophila_ - cystoliths present

Cystoliths are small streaks of calcium carbonate in the leaf tissue and stems and are most easily viewed with a microscope. I have examined 'Low Grow' and 'Rio Araguaia' and neither have them ( a botanist had a look at the 'Porto Velho' for me and said he did not see any - before I had a microscope). _Hygrophila sp_. 'Sarawak' does have them. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers: 
_Hygrophila_ - upper lobes of corolla are large (5 total), usually violet (H. costata, aka 'Pantanal wavy' has white ones that are otherwise the same). Flowers are usually arranged around the nodes, occasionally in a terminal spike (the stem ends in an inflorescence in which the flowers are sessile, or without pedicels), as in _H. polysperma_.
Hygrophila sp. 'Araguaia':








_Staurogyne_ - 'Low Grow' and 'Rio Araguaia' have much smaller white flowers in which the _lower_ lobes are larger (again 5 total - no hooded appearance), the middle one being larger and spatulate. Herbarium specimens of the latter match (don't want to release a species name, just in case it's not correct). Usually in terminal spikes, although the "Low Grow' specimen I had grew both a terminal spike and a solitary flower at a node, which to me seems very unusual. 
'Rio Araguaia':








'Low Grow' (too bad it wasn't open more when the picture was taken):








------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Hygrophila_ - no hairs on leaves or short eglandular hairs (_H. difformis_ may be an exception)
_Staurogyne_ - longer, glandular or subglandular hairs (think sundew, but much less pronounced)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the stems of 'Low Grow' and 'Porto Velho' are densely pubescent both above and below water. I'm not sure how significant that is, but I have never seen any known _Hygrophila_ like that.

I have dispatched flowering specimens of several plants from both genera for confirmation of species and should hear back soon. For further reading, please see the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Flora-Austral...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235884212&sr=1-1

Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana (Missouri Botanical Press) - I forget which volume it is, but it's, of course, the one with _Acanthaceae_.

Both books have keys to _Acanthaceae_ and are quite good.


----------



## ingg

Cavan,

That lays out that these are not Hygrophilas for sure - I think a lot of us knew that, awesome to see the methodology behind it though! I don't know it, but sure respect that you do - good work!


For me, the biggest confusion is which Staurygene people have - is there a way to tell low grow, Roraima, etc., apart from each other; and how many species have you been able to discern?


----------



## edlut67

For what it's worth.

http://www.tropica.dk/article.asp?type=aquaristic&id=864


----------



## hooha

ingg said:


> Cavan,
> 
> That lays out that these are not Hygrophilas for sure - I think a lot of us knew that, awesome to see the methodology behind it though! I don't know it, but sure respect that you do - good work!
> 
> For me, the biggest confusion is which Staurygene people have - is there a way to tell low grow, Roraima, etc., apart from each other; and how many species have you been able to discern?


I think that's Cavan's current work in progress - stay tuned 



edlut67 said:


> For what it's worth.
> 
> http://www.tropica.dk/article.asp?type=aquaristic&id=864


Thanks for the link - now the question is which of the plants in the US is the same as Tropica's.....


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx1

hooha said:


> Thanks for the link - now the question is which of the plants in the US is the same as Tropica's.....


The one I have is from Tropica, because that is where it came from. That is why I have
questioned some of the bogus plants sold as "Staurogyne" like the one you have linked
above, that came from a link I had post in this original thread before it was severely and
bias-ly edited. 
According to that picture, it is "not" the plant I have which came from Tropica/Denmark.


----------



## hooha

The editing was to keep the useful parts of the thread available for the membership without all the worthless drama, insinuations and bickering. The other option would have been to delete the entire thread, losing the point of the original post. If you don't agree with it, that's your perogative, but it won't change the editing 

So we've gotten a little more useful info here - what you have (any pictures?) is the Tropica plant, listed as "Staurogyne sp.". You can call it "Staurogyne sp.", Staurogyne sp. 'Tropica'", or "Staurogyne sp. - I bought it from Tropica". Whichever suits you is fine.

I'd like to point out there are many species of Staurogyne, like there are many species of Hygrophila.

I'd also like to point out that the main point of this thread that was useful - all the other stuff edited out was absolutely worthless bickering - was that the plants brought in to the US hobby called 'Hygrophila species" are most definitely not Hygrophila. Please review the info posted above. If it's not easily understood, then at the very least refrain from demanding they be called "Hygrophila species". If you still think they should be called "Hygrophila", please post factual evidence on why they are really Hygrophila, not because some importer thought it looked "close enough".

If you prefer to still call Rotala verticillaris by that name, that's your perogative as well. Scientifically, it is quite wrong. Some importer decided it was "close enough". So we should stick with that? Many people disagree. You can review this thread for more details. You can perpetuate the misinformation yourself if you'd like, again that's your perogative, but making a case that we should do the same hasn't been convincing.


----------



## Cavan Allen

There's still some confusion out there as to which _Staurogyne_ species is which, but the genus of the plants sold was indeed correct, as shown above. Is 'Low Grow' the same as the Tropica stuff? I think it probably is, given how plants like this can grow differently depending on conditions (certainly, the emersed growth looks the same), but the only way to tell for sure is to flower, compare, etc. Until then, it's not for sure either way.

I know what the 'Rio Araguaia' probably is, but I want to be sure. I've got some really, really capable help on this, so stay tuned.


----------



## SOLOMON

here are some submersed pictures of S. leptocaulis from Dave Wilson (the photos are mine the plants are from him), it seems to be very variable in form.










here is some growing partially submersed outdoors in Sydney you can see pups coming up next to it. Doesn't really want to grow emersed for me its not humid or hot enough.










Also some info Dave provided on our forum.


Dave Wilson said:


> This plant is variable and changes appearance depending on its light and soil conditions, especially wether it is growing submerged. The plant mostly grows along side the water in the dry season and as the wet season progresses it becomes submerged and changes form. I remember some over in the Bullo River toward the Kimberley that had very elongated leaves and were growing submerged all year round. The plant beside the stream has very dark green leaves that are about a quarter the size of the submerged leaves and tiny blue flowers. I will get some photos of the streamside plant next time I am near some with a camera.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Cool. Thanks for sharing. Can you comment on its growth pattern submersed?


----------



## SOLOMON

I'll try, Well it was planted in some new AS powder, I think it really liked the initial ammonia discharge thats when it seemed to grow the fastest . Went well for a few weeks then was stipped of all its leaves by some ravenous seed shrimp :mad2:, Although it looks pretty robust in the top photo, it was still pretty leggy. It has really slowed down in my emmersed tank, seems to be suffering from some type of defiencancy









sorry about the glare.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Does it creep along the substrate or grow taller like typical Hygrophilas?

On another note, I received word from my contact today (a curator of a herbarium and _Acanthaceae_ expert) that he was able to confirm the species for the Rio Araguaia based in flowering material I sent him last week. It is...drum roll please...*Staurogyne stolonifera*.

The 'Low Grow' is also definitely _Staurogyne_, but will require a bit more work (we have a possible ID). Stay tuned.

As for the _Hygrophila sp._ 'Araguaia', nothing for sure yet. There is a species from Colombia that is very similar with the exception of having flowers on pedicels - 'Araguaia' has sessile ones. It's not yet clear whether this indicates it's a different species. It may really be undescribed. More on that later as well.


----------



## Tex Gal

:clap2: I knew you would find out!!! You are amazing!! :[smilie=n:It's time for you to take a bow! humble:


----------



## Cavan Allen

Thank you for the original material!


----------



## miremonster

Cavan Allen said:


> On another note, I received word from my contact today (a curator of a herbarium and _Acanthaceae_ expert) that he was able to confirm the species for the Rio Araguaia based in flowering material I sent him last week. It is...drum roll please...*Staurogyne stolonifera*.


 Congratulations! Many thanks! 
In case S. stolonifera is a variable species, perhaps it is favorable to name this particular plant Staurogyne stolonifera 'Rio Araguaia'?

Maybe it would also be helpful to name the Staurogyne sp. from Tropica (= "low grow"??) Staurogyne sp. 'Rio Cristalino', after the locality in Mato Grosso, Brazil, where it was found (http://www.tropica.com/).


----------



## Cavan Allen

Thank you! 

From the specimens I've seen, _S. stolonifera_ doesn't seem to be that variable, but you're right, it probably is a good idea to include the location.

I don't know for sure if Tropica's stuff is the same as the 'Low Grow' (I think it is), but I'll find out, and perhaps relatively soon. S_taurogyne_ seem to grow relatively slowly emersed (_Hygrophila_ are weeds!), but aren't all that picky apart from needing good light.


----------



## davemonkey

:clap2: Cavan, you never cease to amaze me! And am I to understand that you or someone you know can actually assign names to plants (in regards to varieties or locations) ? You know, _Genus species 'davemonkey'_ is still available.


----------



## manini

Just wanted to add some pics of my staurogynes. You guys make the call, I'll lable them as what I was told it is. All of them are grown in the same tank.  I am hoping to get some flowers off of them soon.

Low grow









Tropica









Roraima









All together....


----------



## hooha

awesome, thanks for the pics. If you get some flowers post those as well


----------



## Tex Gal

Manini - Wow! They all surely look different.


----------



## ts168

Post remove to prevent confusion to my posting.


----------



## Cavan Allen

With all due respect, have you read back through this thread? That may be what some of you guys are calling these plants, but I don't think it helps to introduce another common name to the mix, especially when it's attached to an incorrect genus.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Thanks for the pics Jojo. They really help. Looks like the Tropica stuff may really be different. Let's get some flowers going!


----------



## gf225

I tested out some Staurogyne sp. for Tropica around 18 months ago.

Here are some images from my 2.5 gal. nano.


----------



## miremonster

it's noticeable that the genus Staurogyne is not treated in C.D.K. Cook 1996, Aquatic Plant Book. Maybe no staurogyne species meets Cook's criteria for "aquatic plant", or perhaps there is too little information about their ecology.


----------



## Cavan Allen

miremonster said:


> it's noticeable that the genus Staurogyne is not treated in C.D.K. Cook 1996, Aquatic Plant Book. Maybe no staurogyne species meets Cook's criteria for "aquatic plant", or perhaps there is too little information about their ecology.


I noticed that too, but nearly all of the specimens of smaller species I've seen have them as coming from stream banks and seasonally flooded areas.


----------



## Cavan Allen

gf225 said:


> I tested out some Staurogyne sp. for Tropica around 18 months ago.
> 
> Here are some images from my 2.5 gal. nano.


Nice! Does it have dense pubescence on submersed stems? I'm struck by how similar the veins and leaf texture look to the 'Porto Velho', which at this point would surprise me greatly if it turned out to be anything other than a _Staurogyne_. It seems easy to spot them once you've gained some familiarity.


----------



## orlando

From Tropica I have...


----------



## nfrank

now that this genus is part of the vocabulary, anyone want to give some advice on pronunciation?


----------



## Cavan Allen

nfrank said:


> now that this genus is part of the vocabulary, anyone want to give some advice on pronunciation?


I believe it's star-oh-guy-nay.


----------



## hooha

orlando said:


> From Tropica I have...


nice pics - are these your plants/pics?


----------



## orlando

Yes, these are mine 

-Orlando


----------



## ingg

If you wanted to get classical technical about the pronunciation, it'd be something like

Stow-Ree-Guy-Nee. Accent would be, umm, on "guy" part I believe, second from end typically.

That said, in my head it is Stuh-rih-jean, accent on Stau, and it'll stay that way when I say it, just cause the other way sounds too danged awkward to be said.


----------



## orlando

I wish I new how to pronounce it well enough to say it in public  Lol!

-O


----------



## nfrank

ingg said:


> If you wanted to get classical technical about the pronunciation, it'd be something like
> 
> Stow-Ree-Guy-Nee. Accent would be, umm, on "guy" part I believe, second from end typically.
> 
> That said, in my head it is Stuh-rih-jean, accent on Stau, and it'll stay that way when I say it, just cause the other way sounds too danged awkward to be said.


i am not a latin-ist by any means... just inquiring. Where does the "Ree" come from Staurogyne?


----------



## orlando

I think that was his own way of pronouncing Staurogyne?

-O


----------



## ingg

Doh! Because it also gets mispelled in my head to be Staurygyne....

So it'd be Stow-row-guy-nee.


----------



## miremonster

Cavan Allen said:


> nearly all of the specimens of smaller species I've seen have them as coming from stream banks and seasonally flooded areas.


Interesting; for Cook perhaps not "aquatic enough". It's surely difficult to draw the line between aquatic and non-aquatic. Maybe some Staurogyne species are rheophytes. On the picture of the habitat of Staurogyne sp. on the Tropica homepage inflorescences of Podostemaceae are visible, too.


----------



## Cavan Allen

I've finally got buds on the 'Porto Velho'. Guess what they look like so far...


----------



## Cavan Allen

miremonster said:


> Interesting; for Cook perhaps not "aquatic enough". It's surely difficult to draw the line between aquatic and non-aquatic. Maybe some Staurogyne species are rheophytes. On the picture of the habitat of Staurogyne sp. on the Tropica homepage inflorescences of Podostemaceae are visible, too.


Yes, I think a lot of them are. In his book on the wetland flora of India, Cook specifically mentions that he has excluded rheophytes.


----------



## SOLOMON

Heres a shot of my S. leptocaulis which is growing much better now it has been moved inside


----------



## Martin

hi all.

interesting thread.

I was the one who sent out Staurogyne from Tropica to a few select users from various board.

Now I have all 4 staurogyne.

The original... or the Tropica one is different from the 3 others circulating in the US (and elsewhere)

Tropica is still trying to determine if:

1. The plant from tropica actually is a Staurogyne or if in fact is is a Hygrophila... I think we're about 99-1% but it's still not 100%.

Low grow is larger than the tropica sp. and the 2 others are out of the question..

There are hundreds of staurogyne as far as I know... but only very few are aquatic or semi-aquatic..

For many months we believed(tropica) that staurogyne wasn't truly aquatic... but it persisted to grow submerged... 

The work being done here to remove all the confusing labels such as 'porto velho' 'japan' 'greenspotted' blablabla is wonderful.

Claus from Tropica did mention that it would be a great help to receive samples of the other Staurogyne in the hobby.

I will certainly provide what I can from the plants I received from a board member here, but perhaps others might 'chip in' ?

Anyway, just trying to help


----------



## Cavan Allen

Currently being circulated:
- Tropica species
- _S. stolonifera_
-'Porto Velho'/'Roraima'
-'Low Grow' (I know what species this may be)
- a new, small purplish one
-'Bihar'? (most likely a Staurogyne)
-_S. leptocaulis_ (not in US yet, as far as I know)

The species Tropica sells is certainly not a _Hygrophila_; once you know what to look for, _Staurogyne_ are pretty easy to spot, especially if you can flower them. There are quite a few potentially useful species in South America, most of which seem to occupy similar habitats.


----------



## Martin

I agree that they're easy to spot.. so to speak, but..

Tropica is running DNA analysis and so far it's been, as I wrote, 99% sure, but not quite.. there are some small issues with the analysis that leaves a little doubt..

Similarly I have a Pogostemon which, until it flowered was 100% a Rotala.. I had no doubt..... I was quite surprised..

The leaf texture, as you pointed out, is 1 thing, the flower is another.. but DNA analysis is the dead sure way..
it is for this analysis that Tropica needs samples of other potential staurogynes..


----------



## Cavan Allen

There is _always_ some doubt as to what things are. Just a teeny, tiny amount, but pretty much always. If all the necessary characters are present, you can be confident of what something is. For example, the expert who helped us identify what we thought might have been _Acisanthera_ said before DNA testing that it was probably _Aciotis_, and it turned out - no surprise - that he was right, the point being that DNA testing is good confirmation but not always totally necessary.

I assume you're talking about _Pogostemon erectum_. It does look a lot like a _Rotala_, but to his credit, Aaron from our club did say a while ago that he thought it might be _Pogostemon_, even before we flowered it.


----------



## hooha

I think it's great that more people are trying to correctly ID plants. The fact that Tropica has access to DNA analysis is a plus. Keep us updated on what Tropica finds out Martin!


----------



## miremonster

What do You all think of temporarily calling the plant from Tropica "Staurogyne sp. 'Rio Cristalino'", after the locality?


----------



## Cavan Allen

miremonster said:


> What do You all think of temporarily calling the plant from Tropica "Staurogyne sp. 'Rio Cristalino'", after the locality?


It might be more accurate, but the danger there is that it would be another name attached to the plant. I think the less names attached to a species, the better, scientific or otherwise. Working to find out the species and going with that might be better?


----------



## Martin

actually I just received a plant list which lists staurogyne sp. rio cristallino... so the name is already in use.. 

Using locality to distinguish the plants is much much better than Rotala sp. 'pearl' or similar.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Martin said:


> actually I just received a plant list which lists staurogyne sp. rio cristallino... so the name is already in use..
> 
> Using locality to distinguish the plants is much much better than Rotala sp. 'pearl' or similar.


I agree, assuming the provenance is correct. I guess I'll put the _Staurogyne_ in the Plant Finder with the name of the location, unless someone is really close to an ID...


----------



## Martin

you are referring to the tropica staurogyne.. adding sp. rio cristallino?

I suggest holding off doing this.. since this plant is already known, it might cause more confusion...?

or?

Honestly I cannot know that the staurogyne offered on the list is infact the Tropica one.. but I'm definetely ordering one


----------



## Cavan Allen

Martin said:


> you are referring to the tropica staurogyne.. adding sp. rio cristallino?
> 
> I suggest holding off doing this.. since this plant is already known, it might cause more confusion...?


That's what I meant, yes. At least we know where that one is from. There's a new one only called 'purple'.


----------



## Martin

Yesterday I sent Staurogyne stolonifera to a DNA sampling to compare with the Tropica Staurogyne and hopefully confirm that the Staurogyne from Tropica is in fact a Staurogyne, and more importantly, what specific speicies it is.

hold the drumroll a bit yet.


----------



## hooha

I need to get me a botanist friend 

It's cool you guys work on this, the more forward we move with correct ID's the better.


----------



## Martin

Yes indeed.

I am waiting and hoping that Cavan Allen will respond to my pm regarding the name etc. of the identifier of S. stolonifera.


----------



## Dave Wilson

Hello,

The Staurogyne leptocaulis I have been keeping here in the NT of Australia is a common local plant that usually grows close to the water in shady places along the stream bank. It flowers and sets seed after the wet season when it becomes exposed by falling water levels. It is usually squat in habit and grows much larger leaves when growing in a submerged state. the information I have about this plant comes from personal observations and the book "Floodplain Flora" written by local NT Botanists Ian Cowie, Phil Short and illustrated by Monica Osterkamp Madsen. The plant is in the family ACANTHACEAE which worldwide has 2500 species and 250 genera including Hygrophila. In Australia there are 15 genera and 60 species. This book looks at four genera, Acanthus, Nelsonia, Hygrophila and Staurogyne. The Staurogyne genera has 80 species found in tropical regions of Africa, America, Asia and Australia. The S.leptocaulis is the only one in Australia. It is a subspecies Staurogyne leptocaulis decumbens with Staurogyne leptocaulis leptocaulis subspecies confined to New Guinea. I will try to dig up some more recent pictures of the local NT subspecies.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## miremonster

On the 'Rio Cristalino' issue again:

I have to admit, the less name changes, the better.
I didn't know that the species identity of the Staurogyne sp. from Tropica is almost clear. 
But assuming this wouldn't be the case and an ID wouldn't be in sight, I would consider the addition 'Rio Cristalino' being a better placeholder than the unspecific "sp." alone.
At least in Germany there is already some confusion about the identity of Staurogyne sp. and Staurogyne sp. 'Porto Velho' (the latter is probably hardly present in Germany). A company and some traders offer a "Porto Velho" that seems to be actually the Rio Cristalino type.
But even if the species of the Tropica-Staurogyne is identified, a name addition 'Rio Cristalino' could be useful. E.g. if the species is variable, or there are taxonomical problems. Provided that the Tropica-Staurogyne and S. sp. 'Low Grow' are really different under same conditions: what if they turn out to be the same species? Then I would call them Staurogyne XY 'Rio Cristalino' and Staurogyne XY 'Low Grow' in order to distinguish these forms.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Actually, the ID of the _Staurogyne_ from Tropica is pretty close to an ID. I got the chance to see a good pressed specimen recently with a specialist I know and can say that it is at once apparent that it is not the same species as the others; the flowers are much larger, for one thing. It most definitely not the same as the Porto Velho, which is...OK, I need to make sure of one or two things before I say what, but you will be surprised! Anyway, although I agree that fewer names are better, I think that we should wait a bit longer before attaching a location name. I don't imagine it will be too long, but you know how these things can be...

For now, I can say that Hygrophila sp. 'Sarawak' is _H. lancea_, but I digress.


----------



## miremonster

There's a revision of the tropical-American _Staurogyne_ species:

Denise Monte Braz. Revisão Taxonômica de Staurogyne Wall. (Acanthaceae) nos neotrópicos. 2005. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Biológicas (Biologia Vegetal)) - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. 
http://www8.ufrgs.br/taxonomia/taxonomistas.asp?letra=b&ordem=sobrenome

As I understand it, that's the PhD thesis of Dr. D. M. Braz.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Yes, I know of it, but it's in Portuguese.  I'm trying to get a hold of the complete version (with illustrations) anyway.


----------



## miremonster

Cavan Allen said:


> Yes, I know of it, but it's in Portuguese.


That's not so bad 


> I'm trying to get a hold of the complete version (with illustrations) anyway.


Super!


----------



## miremonster

On this French website the Staurogyne sp. from Rio Cristalino is thought to be _Staurogyne sylvatica_: http://www.aquaportail.com/fiche-plante-930-staurogyne-sylvatica.html
But that's apparently an error. There's a paper about new Staurogyne species from Brazil (Braz & Monteiro 2006): http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbb/v29n4/06.pdf
S. sylvatica is described there as a semi-shrub up to 1 m tall, with lilac flowers.


----------

