All Northern Marsh Orchids?

[Dorts]

Interesting thoughts from both of you and just the sort of debate my old orchid mates and I have had over such plants for many years. It's what makes this pursuit so enjoyable.
(My goodnes, I can remember we almost came to blows at times!)

Here's my view, (I'm not going to get too technical as I know others like to read these threads and it could quite easily get very deep):
I originally called this plant a Northern Marsh because that is what I though it most resembled and felt, rightly or wrongly, that because that is by far the more common species in that area, of the two, it was surely more likely to be a form of that species taking into account what I see before me in the photo
.
Because these two species, D. praetermissa and D. purpurella, are of hybrid origin, trying to tie-down a particular plant to a distinct morphologic 'type' that fits a perfect species discription is sometimes virtually immpossible.
I'm sure, like me, you have both seen Southern and Northern Marsh orchids throughout their range and have been aware of how much each individual species can differ, not only from region to region, but often, perhaps more subtley, even from colony to colony.

If you look at Alindsay's photo, No.3. it shows a plant with a short cut-off spike very similar in stature to a Northern Marsh.



The overall height of this plant is not known but looks from the photo to be quite short, leaning more towards the general height of a Northern M. rather then the taller Southern M..
If you look at the shape of the lip you find a shape just about intermidiate with the two.
The markings on the lower florets are not dissimilar to a Southern Marsh, (though the spots are not those normal peppery type), whereas on the upper florets the markings are very similar to a Northern Marsh.
The overall colour, assuming the camera has captured it about right, is also about mid-way between the two.
Unfortunately we can't see any leaves.

So here we have a plant which is not quite one or the other, growing at the very edge of the range of Southern M. but in an area where Northern M. are common and looking about mid-way betweent the two, but in my opinion tending towards Northen M.. We don't know if these two species are to be found in close proximity to this plant, or what other species are nearby other than Common Spotted and Early Marsh. We have no idea about the possiblities of recent hybridisation having occured at this site, so an exact determination is not going to be easy, if at all .

I am not so worried about giving this plant a 'name', as much as I would have wanted to do years ago. I have come across so many plants that have caused such debate that rarely is a conclusion drawn. If I'm pinned down I would say it tends towards Northern Marsh. Others I know would disagree.
Even if we had access to a DNA lab it is quite likely that we wouldn't be able to sort it out to a species level.

So I'm just happyto say, "a lovely plant found growing where the range of these two 'species' merge and showing some characters of both". But I know people do like to pin names on plants, it's what Wab thrives on. So I said it was a Northern Marsh, without going into a great debate about it.

All the best to you both. (I'ts alright readers, we won't come to blows.)

I'm hoping to visit Wed or Thurs. I'll do my best to tie this plant down if it is at all possible, (if I can find it!) Leaves and stem could be interesting in helping with that, but I won't hold my breath.
Dorts.

[the young hunter]

Thanks for explaining your thoughts further Dorts - interesting stuff!

Nevertheless, I still think if I saw this plant in the field, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at calling it a Southern Marsh and certainly wouldn't note it as being unusual or particularly intermediate to be honest.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the last group of plants....Unknown Marsh x Heath spotted hybrid?

Mike.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by the young hunter

Thanks for explaining your thoughts further Dorts - interesting stuff!

Nevertheless, I still think if I saw this plant in the field, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at calling it a Southern Marsh and certainly wouldn't note it as being unusual or particularly intermediate to be honest.
Anyway, I'm more interested in the last group of plants....Unknown Marsh x Heath spotted hybrid?
Mike.

Thanks Mike, nothing wrong in an amicable dissagreement over a dactyl orchid.

Yes, it's that group of possible hybrids that I am going up to see. About a 5 hour round trip from here!

Will definitely be getting back with news if I'm able to locate them.
All the best
Dorts.

[Dorts]

Footnote.
For anyone following the latter part of this thread, here are the orchids in question.

Alindsay's plant.


Northen Marsh


Southern Marsh.


Dorts.

[ceterach]

Dorts

Originally Posted by Dorts

Here's my view, (I'm not going to get too technical as I know others like to read these threads and it could quite easily get very deep):

A bit patronising since "getting technical" is often the only way to get to an answer. Besides if anyone does not know what something means they can always ask.

Originally Posted by Dorts

Because these two species, D. praetermissa and D. purpurella, are of hybrid origin, trying to tie-down a particular plant to a distinct morphologic 'type' that fits a perfect species discription is sometimes virtually immpossible.

You have done it again! You imply that because these two species are of hybrid origin they might not fit a species description. I take this to imply that hybrids are variable therefore these two species are variable. As I pointed out in my last post that DNA studies suggest their hybrid origin is apparently a long time ago (all relative I know) and the fact that from morphological data, they have been recognised as separate species/species since 1920 at least suggests this not likely to be true. In addition both the Harraps and Stace suggest hybrids between Northern and Southern Marsh to be rarely described. Perhaps this site will be interesting.

Originally Posted by Dorts

I'm sure, like me, you have both seen Southern and Northern Marsh orchids throughout their range and have been aware of how much each individual species can differ, not only from region to region, but often, perhaps more subtley, even from colony to colony.

No, I have not seen many Northern Marsh populations (being a dyed in the wool Southerner) but I have seen plenty of Southern Marsh colonies and in the absence of any obvious other Dactylorhiza species present I would suggest that flower variability is not so great either within or between colonies. Certainly not as much as some other Dactylorhiza species

Originally Posted by Dorts

If you look at Alindsay's photo, No.3. it shows a plant with a short cut-off spike very similar in stature to a Northern Marsh.



The overall height of this plant is not known but looks from the photo to be quite short, leaning more towards the general height of a Northern M. rather then the taller Southern M..
If you look at the shape of the lip you find a shape just about intermidiate with the two.
The markings on the lower florets are not dissimilar to a Southern Marsh, (though the spots are not those normal peppery type), whereas on the upper florets the markings are very similar to a Northern Marsh.
The overall colour, assuming the camera has captured it about right, is also about mid-way between the two.
Unfortunately we can't see any leaves.

I don't think I disagree although the colour and markings led to my first thought being Southern Marsh!

Originally Posted by Dorts

So here we have a plant which is not quite one or the other, growing at the very edge of the range of Southern M. but in an area where Northern M. are common and looking about mid-way betweent the two, but in my opinion tending towards Northen M.. We don't know if these two species are to be found in close proximity to this plant, or what other species are nearby other than Common Spotted and Early Marsh. We have no idea about the possiblities of recent hybridisation having occured at this site, so an exact determination is not going to be easy, if at all .

As mentioned above the powers that be suggest hybrids between Northern and Southern are rare. If that is the case hybridisation is unlikely to be the reason for the apparent overlap in morphology!

Originally Posted by Dorts

I am not so worried about giving this plant a 'name', as much as I would have wanted to do years ago. I have come across so many plants that have caused such debate that rarely is a conclusion drawn. If I'm pinned down I would say it tends towards Northern Marsh. Others I know would disagree.

You are right but giving a positive answer can be very misleading. Most Dactylorhiza species are very variable and often overlap and therefore the limitations of identifying plants from photos should be clearly stated. Why give a firm identification when from that picture we agree it is not really possible.

Originally Posted by Dorts

Even if we had access to a DNA lab it is quite likely that we wouldn't be able to sort it out to a species level.

You had better tell that to Richard Batemen!!! (Just to be patronising to others , he is a person at Kew trying to unravel the genus at DNA level.)

Originally Posted by Dorts

So I'm just happy to say, "a lovely plant found growing where the range of these two 'species' merge and showing some characters of both". But I know people do like to pin names on plants, it's what Wab thrives on. So I said it was a Northern Marsh, without going into a great debate about it.

No comment!

I look forward to the results from your visit.

Having got that off my chest I still believe Southern Marsh often have spotted leaves!

All the best

[ceterach]

Originally Posted by alindsay

For Dorts - happy hunting.

Hi Alindsay

I don't know whether this was supposed to be a PM for Dorts but I think this is a bit too much information for an open forum.

All the best

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by ceterach

Dorts
A bit patronising since "getting technical" is often the only way to get to an answer. Besides if anyone does not know what something means they can always ask.

You have done it again! You imply that because these two species are of hybrid origin they might not fit a species description. I take this to imply that hybrids are variable therefore these two species are variable. As I pointed out in my last post that DNA studies suggest their hybrid origin is apparently a long time ago (all relative I know) and the fact that from morphological data, they have been recognised as separate species/species since 1920 at least suggests this not likely to be true. In addition both the Harraps and Stace suggest hybrids between Northern and Southern Marsh to be rarely described. Perhaps this site will be interesting.

No, I have not seen many Northern Marsh populations (being a dyed in the wool Southerner) but I have seen plenty of Southern Marsh colonies and in the absence of any obvious other Dactylorhiza species present I would suggest that flower variability is not so great either within or between colonies. Certainly not as much as some other Dactylorhiza species
I don't think I disagree although the colour and markings led to my first thought being Southern Marsh!

As mentioned above the powers that be suggest hybrids between Northern and Southern are rare. If that is the case hybridisation is unlikely to be the reason for the apparent overlap in morphology!

You are right but giving a positive answer can be very misleading. Most Dactylorhiza species are very variable and often overlap and therefore the limitations of identifying plants from photos should be clearly stated. Why give a firm identification when from that picture we agree it is not really possible.
You had better tell that to Richard Batemen!!! (Just to be patronising to others , he is a person at Kew trying to unravel the genus at DNA level.)
No comment!
I look forward to the results from your visit.
Having got that off my chest I still believe Southern Marsh often have spotted leaves!
All the best

Wow! John, where to start.

"Patronising not wanting to get technical"
I prefer not to flood the forum with technical terms if it can be avoided, unless the OP's thread lends itself to using such terms. I think that if we are going to hijack a thread to argue over the identity of a particular orchid, the least we can do is make it easy reading. If you want to get technical, why not start a new thread.

"They can always ask".
Yes and they can also ask if they want more detail.

"You imply that because these two species are of hybrid origin they might not fit a species description."
Definitive descriptions of orchids, as with all plants are often based on a single plant. If you read through Stace and other such works, you will often notice the authoi say, "our plant is such and such and was growing at x". This is particularly so with dacty-orchids. You can have a description of a species based on a single plant thought to represent that species as closely as is possible, (not always easy), or it can be based on general view of data collected from a number of plants from different location. If the latter is the case the author will usually add some comment regarding any latitude allowed due to variation. This is particularly the case with hybrids. Even though the hybrid origin our two Marsh orchids may go back a long way, they are not necessarily 'settled' despite them having been given specific status.

"I would suggest that flower variability (of Southern Marsh) is not so great either within or between colonies and certainly not as much as some other Dactylorhiza species".
I agree, but there is still variability and at its extremes is quite noticable.

"The powers that be suggest hybrids between Northern and Southern are rare."
Indeed, D x insignis is rare but that does not mean that it can be totaly discounted.

"If that is the case hybridisation is unlikely to be the reason for the apparent overlap in morphology."
Hybridisation is the very reason for some overlap in morphology, because these two species are of the same hybrid origin.

"Most Dactylorhiza species are very variable and often overlap...."
Exactly what I have been saying!

"... and therefore the limitations of identifying plants from photos should be clearly stated."
You are right. I should have made it clear that it was not possible to give this plant a specific name, however close to a species it appeared to be. An error on my part in this instance.

"You had better tell that to Richard Batemen!!! (Just to be patronising to others , he is a person at Kew trying to unravel the genus at DNA level.)"
I am fully aware of the work Richard is doing, but this has led to a most interesting debate over whether some orchid species should be defined, based on DNA alone, as in some cases it doesn't appear to be either the best or only method that should be used. And it is also becoming clear that in some cases is actually causing confusion rather than clarity . (I can go into this in more detail later if you wish)

"Having got that off my chest I still believe Southern Marsh often have spotted leaves!"
I believe that too!

"I look forward to the results from your visit."
Coming very soon. Not to be missed! 'Cos I think you're going to like it.

All the best John.
Dorts.

[alindsay]

I can't wait for the next installment. All the information is facinating.

I am surprised at how promiscous orchids must be to fling their DNA at any passing handsome stranger.

This is only outdone by the passion of the orchid lovers following this thread on WAB. Glad you are not in the same room.

Enjoying the debate immensley.

alindsay

[Dorts]

Well, I visited the site where Alindsay had found these orchids, but unfortunately, try as I might, I could not find the most intersting plant, which was the group of strange 'hybrids' who's leaves were covered in tiny spots. So we still only have her photo to go on with those.

Found many other interesting orchids and as soon as I have formatted the photo's I'll post my findings.
Dorts.

[alindsay]

I had another photo of the 'interesting' orchid, almost the same, but perhaps you experts can see something more in it.