One for ID Help Please

Lancashire Lad · #1 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 08:10 PM

Photographed this today, with a classic case of not really taking much notice of the key identification aspects of the subject.

I was concentrating on the composition of the shot and didn't bother taking any details of the leaves etc., because I was subconsciously thinking Nipplewort.

However, as soon as I got it onto the computer I "saw" the rough hairs on the flower buds, and considerably more petals than I would expect on Nipplewort.

The plant was about 60cm tall thin (smooth) stemmed, and with about 10 - 12 flowerheads on each stem. Individual flowers about 15 - 20mm diameter.

Regards
Mike.

Hedge Witch · #2 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 08:21 PM

Crepis sp. possibly

Chris Yeates · #3 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 08:34 PM

I must admit my first thought was Lapsana; the two rows of phyllaries - with the outer ones few in number and much smaller than the inner - look characteristic

I agree that the number of ligules is higher than one might expect, but still think the former character carries more weight

love to see the leaves though

best

Chris

Lancashire Lad · #4 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I must admit my first thought was Lapsana; the two rows of phyllaries - with the outer ones few in number and much smaller than the inner - look characteristic

I agree that the number of ligules is higher than one might expect, but still think the former character carries more weight

love to see the leaves though

best

Chris

I agree Chris - everything about the plant was subconsciously saying Lapsana communis (Nipplewort), which is why I didn't take much notice of the leaves. It doesn't readily seem to fit any of the Hawkbit/Hawkweed/Hawk's-beards, so I think I'll tag it Lapsana as per my original thinking.

Regards
Mike.

Adam Cheeseman · #5 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 09:06 PM

Flowers look too large for nipplewort for me compared to the rest of the plant structure. Looks like a Hawksbeard or similar without seeing the rest of its anatomy.

cheers,

Adam

pleb · #6 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 09:21 PM

...............my feelings about your plant tend towards Hawkweed (Hieracium sp.)

KeenTeen17 · #7 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 02:11 PM

In my opinion its one of those yellow flowers you pretend you haven't seen

James M · #8 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

In my opinion its one of those yellow flowers you pretend you haven't seen

Yes I agree, I'm learning that slowly

(though I got one right the other day! that only happens once in a blue moon that does

)

Lancashire Lad · #9 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

In my opinion its one of those yellow flowers you pretend you haven't seen

I agree with your logic KT, and must admit I've done just that on more than one occasion with some of the Daisy family and Umbellifers.

If the photo was rubbish, I would have just deleted it - but I think it's quite a nice photo. Pity I'm not certain what it's a nice photo of. (The photographer in me winning out over the inadequate botanist

).

Regards
Mike.

diggleken · #10 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I agree with your logic KT, and must admit I've done just that on more than one occasion with some of the Daisy family and Umbellifers.

If the photo was rubbish, I would have just deleted it - but I think it's quite a nice photo. Pity I'm not certain what it's a nice photo of. (The photographer in me winning out over the inadequate botanist

).

Regards
Mike.

the real conundrum is when there are inadequate photos and inadequate botany etc... help via WAB?

Ken