Wild flower identification help

[toilet digger]

the wild flower key by francis rose. covers 1600 gymnosperms found in Britain. pretty standard id book for undergrad and jobbing ecologists

 

[BILLy]

Cheers Digger

 

[Harvestman]

I use Rose as well, but also the Collins pocket guide to wild flowers of Britain and Northern Europe, which is not quite as good as a definitive book, but the keys are a heck of a lot easier to use unless you know your plant anatomy in enormous technical detail.

To be honest I tend to use the Collins guide as my go to book, and Rose for confirmation.

 

[toilet digger]

I use Rose as well, but also the Collins pocket guide to wild flowers of Britain and Northern Europe, which is not quite as good as a definitive book, but the keys are a heck of a lot easier to use unless you know your plant anatomy in enormous technical detail.

To be honest I tend to use the Collins guide as my go to book, and Rose for confirmation.

+ 1 to that! massive ball ache

 

[Mick721]

To settle the debate I took a couple more pics. Better quality and you can see the leaves.

 

[Mick721]

 

[Myosotis]

Well the transverse spotting on the leaves rule out Early-Purple Orchid leading to the genus Dactylorhiza which is made up of the Marsh Orchids and the Spotted Orchids. Looking at the flower leads me to the two species previously discussed - Common Spotted and Heath Spotted Orchids. Deciding between these two species can be tricky and it is likely they hybridise although I'd still maintain that the plant in question is the Heath Spotted-orchid - Dactylorhiza maculata. This is due to the shape and size of the flower 'lips' but also because the markings on the petals are more like lines rather than dots.

 

[Harvestman]

Well the transverse spotting on the leaves rule out Early-Purple Orchid leading to the genus Dactylorhiza which is made up of the Marsh Orchids and the Spotted Orchids. Looking at the flower leads me to the two species previously discussed - Common Spotted and Heath Spotted Orchids. Deciding between these two species can be tricky and it is likely they hybridise although I'd still maintain that the plant in question is the Heath Spotted-orchid - Dactylorhiza maculata. This is due to the shape and size of the flower 'lips' but also because the markings on the petals are more like lines rather than dots.

Oh this is brilliant. I was going to say almost the same, except that I was going to say Common spotted orchid and not heath spotted, but for exactly the reason you give - the shape of the flower lip

In my experience the central lobe is barely present on Heath spotted, and this lobe is very prominent and obvious in the specimen in the photograph. As you say, they hybridise, and my orchid book treats the two as the same species anyway, and gives several subspecies. Orchids are variable and confusing.

Oh yes, and many thanks to Mick721, not only for listening to us squabbling about identification, but for taking the trouble to post more pictures. It has been an interesting thread.

 

[Myosotis]

Haha Harvestman I did take a while to come to this conclusion and as you'll know doing such with tricky species from photographs is never definitive! So maybe all we can really settle for is Dactylorhiza sp. ?

Yes, whilst in many cases Heath spotted has very reduced middle petal it can have more prominent ones (as I believe is the case here). If you see the pictures in this thread http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109990 they are an 'obvious' Common Spotted Orchid with the middle lower petal being divided by more than half of it's total length -which does not appear to be the case with this plant. Nevertheless the species themselves are variable and hybridisation is a possibility,without being able to see and handle the plant in question in person we can never be sure.

Regards,
Myo.

 

[Harvestman]

I always find that I learn most when someone challenges my identifications, because they inevitably bring different past experiences with them, which I won't have shared. Inevitably you end up with your own sets of assumptions about things, which may only be locally correct. Also, if my identification is open to challenge in the first place, it means I'm not entirely certain, so I could do top learn a bit more anyway.

Besides which there is always the possibility that I've made a mistake. It happens more often than I would like, to be honest. Anyway, thanks to both Myosotis and Toilet Digger for an interesting discussion.

 

[Harvestman]

Basically, if only nature would conform neatly to the categories we try to impose on it...

 

[Myosotis]

I always find that I learn most when someone challenges my identifications, because they inevitably bring different past experiences with them, which I won't have shared. Inevitably you end up with your own sets of assumptions about things, which may only be locally correct. Also, if my identification is open to challenge in the first place, it means I'm not entirely certain, so I could do top learn a bit more anyway.

+1

Harvestman
Basically, if only nature would conform neatly to the categories we try to impose on it...

+1, although in some ways I'm glad .

 

[Mick721]

Oh yes, and many thanks to Mick721, not only for listening to us squabbling about identification, but for taking the trouble to post more pictures. It has been an interesting thread.

My pleasure folks. Thanks for helping out.