# anyone know what this is? PIC HEAVY



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

Sorry, I have no idea what this is. It wasn't labeled in the lfs, and I am still pretty new to keeping plants. A lot of the pictures aren't clear, but they are kept to show what looks to be immersed and submersed growth. Also to show growth and leaf structure, and so you can compare with plants in the background for size reference. The plants you will see in the pictures accompanying the plant in question are. Cryptocoryne parva, both immersed and submersed growth, immersed lilaeopsis brasiliensis, freshly purchased all immersed ludwigia repens, submersed rotala indica, and submersed proserpinaca palustris. This plant is tiny, and I have a few good closeups of the plant. Thanks for any help provided. And please excuse my ignorance in any miss spelling of names etc.



























































































if more, clearer or specific pictures are needed please ask, I am more than willing to take and post. Thanks for any help.


----------



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

Another one the shop didn't know what it was and it wasn't labeled. Not the indica in the background. I purchased it because I love my wallichii  and it seems to have the same structure.


----------



## asukawashere (Mar 11, 2009)

The first looks to be a variation on a theme of Ludwigia palustris—which has highly variable foliage depending on origin locality and water conditions.

The second is some kind of rotala, perhaps sp. 'Nanjenshan' or cf. mexicana 'Bangladesh'. 'Nanjenshan' would be the more likely possibility unless your LFS is known for carrying obscure/new plants.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

I think that's probably 'Nanjenshan' in the last pic. And that's _R. rotundifolia_ in the background, not indica.


----------



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

Cavan Allen said:


> I think that's probably 'Nanjenshan' in the last pic. And that's _R. rotundifolia_ in the background, not indica.


I have heard these are one in the same. I came across a few times the name rotala rotundifolia (indica) this is incorrect? How can I tell?


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

fishnvw said:


> I have heard these are one in the same. I came across a few times the name rotala rotundifolia (indica) this is incorrect? How can I tell?


Nope, they definitely aren't the same. Looks like the Plant Finder has some technical issues now, or I'd link you.

Basically, _R. rotundifolia_ was introduced incorrectly as _R. indica_ a long time ago, and although the true identity of the plant was found, it is still often traded and sold under the wrong name. What makes things more complicated is that the REAL _R. indica_ showed up labeled as an _Ammannia_. It's a shorter plant with leaves that are round under water as well (above water, they look more similar, which is probably the source of the confusion).

This is indica:


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

The matter is further complicated by that: Rotala rotundifolia is a variable species, some variants are cultivated, often differentially labeled. 
Several providers use 3 labels for 3 different plants: 1) Rotala rotundifolia, 2) R. indica, 3) Ammania sp. 'Bonsai'. => 1 and 2 for different forms of the same species, R. rotundifolia. Apparently the label "R. indica" is frequently used for R. sp. "Colorata", IMO a R. rotundifolia form.
And the true Rotala indica hides behind the 3rd label: Ammania sp. 'Bonsai'. (correct spelling of Ammania is Amma*nn*ia)

The 2 species Rotala rotundifolia and R. indica are also clearly distinguishable as flowering plants:
R. rotundifolia: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/plantfinder/images/Lythraceae/R.rotundifoliaflower2.jpg
R. indica: http://www.flowgrow.de/db/images/aquaticplants/detail/rotala-indica-513f450d0a20a.jpg


----------



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

Well then, it's definitely not the same as the picture you posted. I am going to share a few more pictures. Primarily for an understanding, of the ludwigia, but also to give a better shot of the rotundifolia.









I have gotten a few different responses on this ludwigia sp. From regular repens, to sp. red, and palustris.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

That's the 'red' which appears to be some variation of palustris. Not repens, no.


----------



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

Ahhh, so wrongly labeled as 'red' by ?Tropica? But actually a variant of palustris. Thanks


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Well, not really wrong, no, since it's not a 100% done deal. Probably is palustris though.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

fishnvw said:


> Ahhh, so wrongly labeled as 'red' by ?Tropica? But actually a variant of palustris. Thanks


Tropica doesn't label it as 'red', it does label it as Ludwigia sp. which I think is the best thing to do when the true identity isn't known yet. But it looks a lot like that plant indeed. Which could be a palustris variety or cross (it has even smaller leaves than the palustris I've kept).


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

Even if Tropica's Ludwigia sp. turns out to be Ludwigia palustris (botanically), IMO it would make sense to attach an auxiliary or cultivar name in quotation marks to the scientific name. There's already a number of such names for that Ludwigia, dependig on the provider: "red", "super red", "mini super red",... I expect there will always be competing names.
Perhaps a publication where the plant is named with a cultivar name according to the ICNCP (the nomenclature code for cultivated plants) would give it some kind of "official" status.


----------



## fishnvw (Nov 12, 2009)

I hope it's OK to add another picture, even though we have a good idea of what this is.


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

Now I have no doubt that your Ludwigia is the mentioned "Red" or "Super Red" or however the plant is called.


----------

