I wait until they go into hibernaculum in the fall and then press them into the natural voids in the tufa or moss. Drilling holes works too but I don't bother.
The hypertufa planter at bottom right was given to me with an unknown saxifrage species and some tiny unknown sempervivum species.
Top right to left:
-2 pots of seedlings. One pot Kalmia procumbens and one pot Rhododendron camtschatcensis.
-Asplenium trichomanes "cristatum"
-Lobelia siphilitica seedling
-Lobelia siphilitica "mistassinica" seedling
-Austroblechnum penna-marina
-Vaccinium vitas-idaea "minus"
-Various rooted heather cuttings with some other spare plants tucked in there from re-potting. I just made a new 4'x8' bog table so eventually these will get their own pots or go into an appropriate biotope planter.
No top watering needed. The tufa is porous enough that it wicks enough water all the way up. It is a little dryer near the top but the pings still do fine there.
Pinguicula casperiana. I had these in the fridge as hibernacula and recently put them in the grow tent. I'm hoping to get multiple cycles in a year by doing this. The test plants I did this with produced two sets of gemmae in one year. I'm really hoping this means I will soon be able to share more temperate Pinguicula with you all.
Honestly no I'm not absolutely sure yet. I'm trusting Kamil at BCP. This was labeled as Pinguicula casperiana {Hoz de Beteta, Spain}
This is the first time I've flowered this one. So far, from comparing it to what I have read about the species the spur looks longer than I would have expected and the lower calyx lobes aren't fused much more than 1/2 the length. Of course in one of the flowers the calyx lobes look close to free while on the others they are around 1/2 fused. I've noticed that calyx fusion varies enough that I don't think it's very useful in identifying individual specimens though.
I don't know nearly enough about the species to feel strongly either way. I'm hoping to look into it more and compare over time to what I have here. These are under bright lights which may effect how it grows. I have some more shaded outside to also compare with. Do you have an opinion to share Jeff?
Thanks Jeff. I see how they do look somewhat different but it would be very helpful if you could explain the differences in characteristics that you are seeing so that I know what to look out for. All I'm seeing different from the species description is that the calyx lobes are not obviously acute and triangular and not every calyx has lobes that are fused more than half their length.
Is your photo showing P. casperiana? I can't usually tell species by photos of a single plant unless the characteristics are very obvious but it looks like from the photo of your plant that the lower corolla lobes are overlapping and the calyx lobes are free at more than half their length. This looks quite different from the photos of P. casperiana you show below it and others I have seen. From what I gather these would be features more similar to P. dertosensis. Do you happen to have more photos to share?
I'll keep taking photos of the plants labelled as P. casperiana that I received from BCP to post here and if we can be sure that it differs enough from the species description I will contact Kamil. I know that I wouldnt want to be selling plants with incorrect identity and I'm sure he'd feel the same. Until then I'm not convinced and they will remain labelled P. casperiana and I will share them as that.
my plant is indeed a P.casperiana .
if you look at my plant and the plant called E , they look very similar .
for my part I am wary of this story of overlapping lobes and the division of the lobes of the sepals very often this, for plants seen in situ, does not correspond to the standard.
Note that this plant P.casperiana was considered for a long time as a P.vulgaris, a P.mundi or a P.dertosensis these 3 plants have a very close growing area
for P.dertosensis see here mine
the 2 lower lobes of the calyx are not acute like those of P.casperiana
I am also wary of the overlapping lobes and sepal division story. I have seen it many times in our macroceras that the differences of those and some other characteristics within a population vary enough to not be useful to identify individuals from closely related species based on them.
You could be right about it being a hybrid. I don't know the species well enough. There aren't many good photos or herbarium scans of casperiana for me to have a good idea of it's morphology. All I have to go by is the species description.
I have a general idea of the range of those four from inaturalist. Is there a geographic seperation of the species or do any of them overlap? From what I read casperiana grows in a unique tufa habitat but does it grow with other species like vulgaris? That might explain how I might have a hybrid if the seed was originally collected near where vulgaris also occurs.
Thanks for sharing those photos. Your dertosensis are beautiful. It's always a pleasure to see what you grow Jeff.
here a picture which justifies my point on the overlapping lobes from P.casperiana
not really identical to the photo I put above and yet it is really a P.casperiana
all these 4 species often grow on oozing limestone cliffs between the serrania de cuenca and the massifs dels ports.
long before the name P.casperiana it was known to us as P.sp Hoz de Beteta ,some considered it a P. vulgaris, others a P. mundi, others a P. dertosensis
In fact I don't know how Kamil grows his plants, maybe there are also unwanted hybridizations in him
Pinguicula grandiflora (same plants that I was recently selling if anyone's wondering what they look like) and Pinguicula longifolia subsp. longifolia {red plants, Valle de Pineta}. I recently planted a Saxifraga and some Soldanella in the tufa above the longifolia. Near where they grow in Pyrenees there are some very nice saxifrage species. I'm hoping to get some more of those from some of my alpine gardener friends for this rock.