No guesses?

I'm actually not asking the question out of the blue. Yesterday I was at Strybing Arboretum and they were selling seedlings of this hybrid in 1 gallon pots--decent sized plants. At first we were all skeptical, including the guy from Strybing who was answering our questions at the Passiflora table. The feeling was that it was probably actually pollinated with pollen from another Tacsonia. Then I noticed that a sizeable minority of the leaves have 5 (or sometimes 4) lobes--not exactly what one would expect if two Tacsonias were parents. So it seems likely it is in fact the P. parritae x P. caerulea 'Constance Eliot' hybrid.

The leaf in the middle has 5 lobes, also check out the leaf in the lower left (I think) and the one in the middle right with a small fourth lobe. I believe there are others in the picture, although those are the clearest. The plant has a number of leaves with 5 lobes. The picture is from a friend's phone (thanks Eric).

I checked the Ulmer, et al. Passiflora book--all the Tacsonias they picture have 1 or 3 lobes. Other than the number of lobes, the leaves in general and the rest of the plant looks like P. parritae in many ways.

So of course now the big questions are what will the flowers be like? How about temperature tolerance? There are so many interesting questions and it will be a lot of fun to see what the answers are.

I would still encourage speculation, especially regarding the flowers.

I don't know the name of the person (I assume at Strybing) who did the cross.

Mark, we will look forward to YOU telling US!

If you are looking forward to it, I assume you are talking about the actual flower and not a guess. Hopefully the seedlings will bloom eventually, but I think Strybing will get there first. Apparently they have one in the ground--it is much larger and I'm told it may have buds.

As far as temperature tolerance, I'm no help. We can grow Tacsonias already (at least some of them). So hopefully someone will experiment with the plant someplace that's a little warmer or colder than we are.

In terms of speculation about what it might look like--we can do that now--and since I have no knowledge or experience hyridizing, others will be better at that than I. However, anyone can make a guess--that's the fun part.

I would split my guess two ways--what I'd like it to look like and what I think it might actually look like.

I saw P. parritae in person for the first time on Saturday--it's spectacular. A hybrid that has parritae-like flowers on a robust plant, is floriferous and blooms all year would be ideal in my opinion.

Again, I have no knowledge of hybridization, so in terms of what I think it might actually look like, I can think of a few things to base a guess on.

I started to write down the reasons for some of my thinking, but it's too detailed and it takes the fun out of it. So I'll skip that.

Here's my guess as to what we'll actually get:

Flowers shaped mostly like P. caerulea but much larger, with somewhat shorter filaments. Pale orange with some darker orange and very pale regions on the filaments. The flowers would be pendant. Relatively long peduncles (more like parritae than caerulea).

That would be a really bizarre flower. Maybe I would like that more than my other guess.

It would be great to get a real orange color, lighter then the parritae which to me still has a lot of red in it. I can't wait to see what the blooms look like and how the plant does. I wonder what kind of temp tolerance the plant will have?

Karyn,

At what temperature do the leaves of P. caerulea die back?

And at roughly what age/size can P. caerulea begin to put out suckers?

There have been so many hybrids made with P. caerulea of either the normal color or with 'Constance Eliot'. Does anyone know what effect using 'Constance Eliot' has in the crosses where both have been used?

The reasons I think that the flower might be shaped more like P. caerulea are based on the very limited information from other crosses. As far as I'm aware P. parritae crosses tend to have the shape of the other parent--for example 'Mission Dolores' (parritae x antioquiensis) has a flat shape like the antioquiensis parent. The other cross I'm aware of between a Tacsonia and a species in supersection Stipulata is the P. x exoniensis x umbilicata hybrid that Eric showed pictures of a few days ago. In this case, if I understand it correctly, the flower is shaped more like the umbilicata parent. I'm hoping Eric can comment on this and tell me if that's incorrect.

Randy,

How to make this short? Hmmm...

First of all, yes, the shape of P. x exoniensis x P. umbilicata is much more reflexed with narrower petals and sepals than the Tacsonia parent. But not nearly as reflexed as the P. umbilicata. About middle ground, I would say. All the color comes from the maternal parent, except that it has a dark purple tinge to the edge of the petals, and the filaments are longer than the maternal, but not as long as the paternal.

If we were to subject this same formula, (and a little imagination), on this new cross:

I would guess that the orange remains the same, the huge awns reduce dramatically, and the petals narrow much. The balloon appearance of the buds would nearly cease to exist, and the flower would be much smaller, but not as small as a caerulea. They would be held more outward with shorter peduncles, partly due to the lack of weight that the P. parritae has.

Now add to that the fact that the P. caerulea 'Constance Elliot' is pure white, does change some things. In most cases where it is a maternal parent, the hybrid ends up being white. When paternal, it seems to sometimes lighten the color of the petals some, while sometimes making the filaments lighter OR darker. Just the fact that it is caerulea would by it's very nature cause a major flower shape and form change.

Then again, it could end up being a huge caerulea-shaped white flower, with a small orange coronal row just for fun. Imagine that!

... Or perhaps mine will die from the heat, and I'll never know... LOL. Let's hope not!

I wonder how big it needs to be to bloom. 'Constance Elliot' can bloom quite small, but the parritae we saw was eating a tree. That could be a tough support for me to provide.

I know one thing for sure... if it does bloom, it will open up a huge hybridizer's playground. I would think that breaking the Tacsonia/Stipulata barrier would allow for many possibilities. I certainly am already starting to play with my other one, and have one small fruit!

Eric

Eric,

Thanks for all the insights. I was completely in the dark about the maternal vs paternal effects of 'Constance Eliot'. Are there mitochondrial genes involved in this? (I forget--do plastid genes also contribute to such things?)

Regarding flower size, can't P. parritae be thought of as even larger than it would appear at first glance? That is, if you opened up the flower flat it would be even wider. You've probably seen claims that P. parritae flowers are some enormous size--I assume that's what people are getting at. P. 'Mission Dolores' (parritae x antioquiensis) for example, I believe is wider than either of its parents--I assume due to the extra contribution in size due to P. parritae. The few pictures I've seen of P. exoniensis x parritae also suggest it's much larger than P. exoniensis (which is already pretty big--about 5 inches). What I'm getting at is that maybe the contribution of P. parritae to the size of the hybrid would be larger than one would think.

Didn't Carlos say that one of the seedlings was in the ground and possibly in bud? I got the impression it was significantly larger than the ones we bought, but I can't imagine it was the size that P. parritae needs to bloom. I think he said that these are all the same age. From what I gather at least some of the P. parritae hybrids that are already out there bloom in 5 gallon pots (and my exoniensis x parritae does have buds) and I remember reading a report of one blooming in a 1 gallon pot. If you search the archives of Passiflora-l (or I suppose I could) I think it's in there. And those earlier hybrids are with other Tacsonias, so hopefully the one with P. caerulea will bloom relatively small. It's interesting though--I think the P. parritae x P. caerulea hybrid plant *looks* (superficially) a lot more like parritae than like caerulea--whether that might affect age/size at blooming I have no clue. It does lead me to wonder if it's less than likely to sucker, though.

Are you suggesting that the weight of the bud affects the length of the peduncle? I just checked my P. x exoniensis--the peduncle length doesn't seem to depend whether the flower is hanging straight down, or as in a few cases, resting on something or being supported by having a tendril wrapped around it. And significantly, the peduncles are pretty much always curved to some degree--the flower weight doesn't even stretch them out fully.

I believe Tacsonioides is considered part of Stipulata. Actually last night I checked some of the phylogenies and the molecular data seem to back that up. From what I understand the similarities between Tacsonia and Tacsonioides (it was once thought they had some close relationship)are due to the fact that both are bird pollinated. The similar features were either present in a common ancestor (and unnecessary in other members of Stipulata and thus lost) or are the result of convergence. Ulmer, et al. is one place that lists Tacsonioides in Stipulata. So the barrier has already been broken. You were saying that this cross would break that barrier, correct? Or am I just babbling?

You know, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where these flowers are NOT incredibly interesting. Maybe they'll bloom this fall? These plants should grow really fast.

I remember reading on Myles' site that hybrids frequently bloom much younger than the parents.

Do we know how old these seedlings are?

I just found the post on passiflora-l that mentions blooming size (and age):

https://listserv.surfnet.nl/scripts/wa.cgi?A2=ind0611&L=PASSIFLORA-L&D=0&P=920

(look towards the bottom of the post)

Eric,

I forgot to ask--how did they hold up to today's heat? We hit about 95--I assume you were about 10 degrees hotter? I don't think I notice any difference. If you were 105 that's about 40 degrees hotter than what they are normally used to in SF. Did you take cuttings?

Randy,

You have thoroughly broken the geek barrier, now. Sheesh... you want anyone other than geeks like me to post a response? Gametes and mitochondians,(weren't they the cause of "The Force"?), and pseudocytoplastidoic genes lost me. I'm not edumacated.

Okay, enough Randy bashing... you know we love ya'.

Carlos did mention that there was one in the ground, and much, much larger than ours are. He said that it was at a person's house, and I wonder who's? Could it be Dave H?

I like your thought process on the size potential... I hope you are right.

The plant does look MUCH more like P. parritae than the 'Constance Elliot' in many ways. My P. exo x P. umb, though having only 3 lobed leaves throughout, the overall structure of the vine is more Stipulata-like. (Am I going too Passiflora geek for most people too? Talking supersections may be a bit thick, unreadable, and way un-fun...)

And, no, I was not suggesting that the weight if the flower caused the peduncle to be longer. I simply worded my sentence poorly. I was meaning that I though the weight may contribute to the fact that the flowers are downward facing. I may still be mistaken, but that is my theory thusfar. Realize, please, that I am not accustomed to growing Tacsonias.

As far as the barrier being broken, other than my P. x exoniensis x P. umbilicata, I am not familiar with any supersection Tacsonia being crossed with any Stipulata supersection, whether Tacsonoides section or otherwise. Other than P. umbilicata, what other Passifloras are in that section? I'm not familiar with any, though I haven't done any research. By the way, yes, you were babbling... as am I.

I wish I did know how old these seedlings were. Many times, the tags from Strybing will have many dates on them. My "Paco" does not, and I assume your's does not either.

Do you think anyone will actually read and care about what we are posting here? Are are we just typing to each other, and should just do it in an email?

I would love to hear more opinions. Even from folks who have never grown a Passiflora in their lives who happen to read this, and look up the parents to see what they look like. I would like that very much.

Eric

Eric,

Perhaps the easiest way to get past the Stipulata jargon is to just mention that P. caerulea and P. umbilicata are much more closely related to each other than either is to P. parritae or other Tacsonias (a group that includes species such as P. mollissima and P. antioquiensis). P. caerulea and P. umbilicata are like brothers and P. parritae is like a cousin, to use one analogy.

When you said break the Tacsonia/Stipulata barrier I thought you had forgotten about the fact it had already been done with umbilicata and were implying caerulea was the first. Isn't it only recently that umbilicata was even classified in Stipulata? P. reflexiflora is also in Tacsonioides--I remembered seeing that in the phylogenetic papers and I just checked--Grassy Knolls describes it that way.

A lot of people read these posts, even if we are just babbling. If you ever post a Photobucket picture in a thread, you can see how many people have actually clicked on (or viewed--I'm not sure which) that picture--go to the "Stats" section in Photobucket. Although the picture above was posted on Sunday night, 9 people looked at it. I assume the total for today will be a lot higher. It's kind of creepy that you can find these things out, in my opinion.

You know, there is someone who can answer some of our questions, such as how old the seedlings are, whether they were grown in dense shade at Strybing, and who the hybridizer was (this person should be given credit). I'm sure there's a story of some sort behind all of this.

I would like to hear more guesses as well. It's sort of like if someone said they had just crossed a dog and a snake--what would the progeny look like? Perhaps that's too distant--I guess we are talking about the same genus. Regardless, I hope people can have fun with this.

A Boa ConDoberman? Or would that be DoberStricter?

I'm pretty sure the hybridizer was Carlos Rendon, although I'd have to verify that with him. I know at least that he grew the seedlings. I first saw the seedlings at Strybing late last summer when they were just a few inches high, so the plants are about a year old now. The seedlings were grown outdoors with pretty much sun.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the info. I asked about the the light levels because both Eric's and my plant experienced serious wilting by the time we got them home. This was more than the sort of wilting that the plants recover from--there was quite a bit of permanent damage to the newest growth (mine more than Eric's) This was in spite of the fact that it was a cloudy day, not warm, and as far as I know neither of us had cars that heated up much. It was kind of strange. The only thing that I could come up with is that they were grown completely in shade (at least recently) and putting them in the open (even though it wasn't sunny) caused damage due to much higher light levels. But it sounds like that wasn't the case. So now I wonder again what could have possibly caused that.

I noticed it while driving, and it was severe enough that I wondered whether the plant's stem had snapped.

Hi all,

Regarding the "barrier" between supersection Tacsonia and the rest of subgenus Passiflora: I wonder if breaking this barrier might be likened to tearing down a large concrete wall: sure, you might dig a hole at some point, but the rest of the wall is still standing. Umbilicata might cross well with both Taconsia and Stipulata (and also supersection Passiflora of subgenus Passiflora), but is there any other species that exhibits that behavior? I just wish the barrier could be more "broken" than it is now! :-)

Umbilicata is in supersection Stipulata, section Tacsonioides, along with
P. reflexiflora
P. tarapotina (not in cultivation?)
P. mendoncae (in cultivation perhaps, but where?)

Of these 4, only umbilicata has been used to produce viable hybrids -- reflexiflora, alas, does not hybridize with anything (that we know of). Umbilicata has been crossed with tucumanensis (= naviculata), cincinnata, incarnata, x exoniensis, and some Tacsonia mix that resulted in P. 'Trauf'. BTW, Henk Wouters of the Netherlands performed the original cross of x exoniensis x umbilicata that resulted in P. 'Blowback', the plant currently in San Francisco (seeds sent to Greg Cunningham, planted out by David Potter). Henk repeated this cross later and renamed the (much prettier, IMHO) result 'Fantasma'.

It should be noted that section Manicata of supersection Tacsonia is considered somewhat similar to many non-Tacsonias (it bears a short floral tube; there may be other similarities that I don't know of). Section Manicata includes
P. trisecta
P. macropoda
P. peduncularis
P. manicata

A message on the Passiflora-L group suggests that in 1990 Patrick Worley crossed manicata with caerulea, and the leaves seemed to indicate a hybrid. Unfortunately a freeze killed all the plants before they could bloom. A purported cross between caerulea (?) and trisecta can be seen at
http://forum.fraede-pflanzen.de/viewtopic.php?p=1452&sid=e6a6a380eb15fef83d1f4fb5c788d871

A number of people have set seed on Taconsias with non-Tacsonia pollen. The results are sometimes that the Tacsonias actually selfed under stimulation by the foreign pollen; sometimes the seeds are not viable; most of the times the plants that do grow never make it to blooming size, for whatever reason. If this parritae x caerulea CE makes it and actually blooms, it'll be quite a step forward.

I confess I'm skeptical of the genetic distance between umbilicata and the Tacsonias. At the very least, I'd say it's more closely related to Tacsonias than most other non-Tacsonias. But I haven't read any DNA analyses, so I'm just speculating on the basis of hybridizations over the years, and the fact that its floral tube looks a lot longer than that of the typical non-Tacsonia.

I hope I haven't veered too far off-topic. I just thought that a little history/background is always helpful when discussing the Tacsonia ~ non-Tacsonia divide.

I can't wait to see what happens with this new cross!!!

In response to the last poster:

I have, (from Strybing, of course), a sibling of the P. 'Blowback', and as you stated, the much prettier named 'Fantasma'. It is slightly different than both, so I am pretty certain it is not a cutting. It also has a root zone and stem that indicate it is probably seed-grown. Now, the fact that P. umbilicata can cross readily with other supersection Stipulatas as you stated and exemplified, wouldn't this cross possibly have already broken the divide?

I currently have a fruit on this plant, and hopefully viable seeds using P. umbilicata x P. tucumanensis as the paternal parent. If this produces a plant, we would be moving still further from the Tacsonia supersection, wouldn't we? P. tucumanensis is in no way "Tacsonia-like", and I dare say, almost Laurifolia-like in it's flower structure, though not as much in leaf and vine form. Any thought?

You mention the P. manicata not being very much like a Tacsonia... would you be suggesting that this would make a good possible "barrier-breaker"? I recently acquired one, and am ready to begin the expirimentation! What would you suggest trying first? Something extremely potent, such as a P. caerulea? I would value your advice, as you seem to know a lot about this subject.

If you don't feel like telling the whole world, you can email me personally as well.

Eric

Mikulas,

Have people tried to make lots of crosses between umbilicata and Tacsonias because of the belief (which from what I understand is now considered to be incorrect) that Tacsonioides is more closely related to Tacsonias? That is, did people attempt the crosses because they thought they were more likely to work than a cross between a Tacsonia and say P. incarnata? Why not put some effort into something you think might actually stand a chance of working?

So I think I see two possibilities in what you are getting at. Either Tacsonioides should not be in Stipulata, or Tassonioides is the result of hybridization between Stipulata and Tacsonia. When species are classified in a section like Stipulata it is generally assumed that they have a common ancestor. So unless the classification is wrong, the general thinking is that caerulea and umbilicata descended from a common ancestor, and all Tacsonias--such as parritae and manicata--descended from a different ancestor. Likewise all species in Stipulata and Tacsonia share a common ancestor.

To say that one species in Stipulata is more related to Tacsonia is like saying that your sister is more related to your cousin than you are. Assuming everyone behaved themselves, that is simply not possible. Now I suppose the idea that Tacsonioides is a hybrid between the two is a formal possibility, however it is highly unlikely. So do you think that Tacsonioides should be reclassified as some third section? If so, what's the rationale--hybrids that have been made and the length of the floral tube? Those don't exactly carry as much weight as genetic data. I think it's an understatement to say that we don't understand why some species make hybrids more readily. P. caerulea is known for being able to pollinate a lot of different species--does that mean it's more closely related to them than are other species?

If a long floral tube is a feature of hummingbird pollinated flowers why elevate it to something that defines relatedness, particularly if the molecular evidence argues otherwise? Long vs. short hardly even compares to really distinct differences that you might see in flower structure for example. And even then, if the molecular data are unambiguous that settles it. Molecular Biology has totally revolutionized Taxonomy and Evolutionary Biology for that reason.

The same arguments as to whether Tacsonioides is more related to Tacsonia than others in Stipulata also apply to Manicata and Tacsonia. Is Manicata the result of hybridization? Should Manicata not be part of Tacsonia?

To use another example--humans and chimps are hominids and are equally distant from monkeys. I'm sure you can find many instances where chimps "resemble" monkeys more--body hair, relative brain size, etc. That doesn't mean they are any more closely related. And certainly in the past people used to think they were. Luckily hybridization is impossible between even the closely related chimps and humans--they have a different number of chromosomes.

You should try growing the P. parritae x P. caerulea 'Constance Elliot' cross outside before it cools down there. It would be interesting to see how it handles your summer. Superficially it does look more like P. parritae, which of course doesn't necessarily mean a thing--some kids resemble one parent more than the other.

Regarding P. manicata (or Manicata, I suppose) as being special in terms of hybridizing with Stipulata. I just checked Ulmer, et al. Passiflora: Passionflowers of the World and it turns out most of Patrick Worley's Tacsonia hybrids, including Coral Seas and Coral Glow, involve P. manicata as a parent. I suspect the fact that he (supposedly) made a P. manicata x caerulea hybrid is not due to the fact that there's something special about P. manicata per se, but that that's just one of his favorite Passifloras to use in hybridizing.

Another picture and some numbers.

The 15 most recent leaves on the two longest vines have the following number of lobes:

5/5/5/5/5/4/4
5/5/4/5/4/3/4/5

And here's a picture that includes some unusual leaves:

(I believe the damaged leaf just below the center is due to heat damage when we hit 99 F)

A discussion of these seedlings also took place on Passiflor-l. It turns out that Tacsonias can have leaves with 4 or 5 lobes. However the extent of "unusual" leaves is so extreme here, and as far as I know is totally unprecedented. If this is indeed the case, while we cannot formally rule out that the leaves came from two Tacsonia parents, it is so incredibly unlikely that we can dismiss the idea. The idea that such an unusual plant (out of how many thousands?) is merely a coincidence can be safely rejected.

Eric to answer your question... I am reading this and a newb to passies and have nothing to offer other than to learn from you all... I am sure there are many reading and learning from you all :) Have a nice weekend... Thanks for teaching!

Looks like I need to follow up on my statement above. Last Saturday when I was at Strybing they were selling a P. antioquiensis seedling with not just one or two, but a number of leaves with 4 lobes. So I can't argue that the extra lobes are unprecedented. I also found out that the possibility that P. caerulea pollen caused the P. parritae to self-pollinate has not been ruled out. The seedlings may be P. parritae. This continues to be a very interesting story.

Here's the latest: It looks like the situation has been resolved. I've been told that the hybridizer is growing some of the seedlings, that two have bloomed and they look like P. 'Mission Dolores' (P. parritae x antioquiensis). So apparently the pollen somehow came from P. antioquiensis, which is growing in the hybridizer's garden.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell the seedlings resemble P. parritae in many ways, and some features, such as the petiole glands, differ significantly from P. 'Mission Dolores'. Perhaps there is variability in the cross, or maybe these change as the plant matures.

I thought it was important to figure out whether the seedlings were new P. parritae clones. In this case simply waiting for the flower to bloom could have led to the loss of many of the clones if people didn't think think another hybrid was worth the time, space and effort. Plus there would have been less reason to aggressively propagate the seedlings. It was surprising that the answer to their identity came so quickly, and of course the more information the better.

Any further updates on these plants? Would love to hear if it was resolved for certain if P. Parriatae and caerulea forms had been hybridized as I'm considering trying my hand at hybridizing my P. parritae and some Constance Elliot hybrids I made recently with another passie I can't identify (the unidentified one was the maternal plant).

shawn

Hi Shawn,

It clearly has no P. caerulea in it's parentage--that's agreed upon.

I've been told that several others have bloomed and they also look like P. 'Mission Dolores' (parritae x antioquiensis).

My plant still looks more like my young P. parritae than like my P. 'Mission Dolores'. All I can say at this point is that I'm a bit puzzled. I'm looking forward to it blooming, but no sign of buds yet.

As far as hybrids, it always good to try more things. You never know what might work, and as far as I'm aware there are no known reasons why such a hybrid would not work. They (P. parritae and P. caerulea) not only have the same number of chromosomes, but are in the same subgenus, after all.

Thanks for the reply Mark! I'll give it a go and let you all know if it works. By the way, I'd like to add a photo of the leaves of the hybrid I'm going to try crossing with P. Parritae (they're much larger than either parent plant), but can't get a photo in my post. Is there a trick to posting photos here?
thanks!
shawn

Shawn to post pics here use an image hosting service like Photobucket. If you don't already have an account it's free. Just go to Photobucket.com

I can't speculate on how the flower will look, but I'm really looking forward to the pictures of it!

Josh