8 comments for “R.H.S WISLEY”


  1. Nice collection but the N. pachybulbos looks like N. panizzianus to me?
    Harold

    At 12:05 PM 4/7/2009, M . Baxter wrote:

       WINNER  OF 6MINIATURES  SHOWN  BY  JANINE  DOULTON 

       MICHAEL BAXTER 

  2. Hello Harold,
    Interesting point. I am certainly not qualified to tell the difference between N. pachy. and N. panni. – can you let us know what are the distinguishing characteristics that made you identify so quickly from a photograph. So far as I know there was no question from class judges or the  the ‘Best Bloom judging Panel’.  I confess to confusion (and I may not be alone) between these two and N. papyraceous and would like to have clear, obvious and identifiable characteristics pointed out.
    Brian


  3. Hi Brian and all,
    I agree with Harold that the flower in the Wisley collection is not N. pachybolbus.  Botanical drawings of the two species may be found in The Botanical Magazine Plate 947 Volume 24 (1806), Narcissus papyraceus and Plate 6825 Volume 41 of Series III (1885), Narcissus pachybolbus. I am sure Wisely has these volumes in their library.
    The bulb of pachybolbus is huge compared to N. papyraceus and N. panizzanus. There are also differences in the color of the tube and the shape of the leaves as well as the size and shape of the flowers. 
    It is hard for me to believe that one would show N. pachybolbus as a miniature. The flowers may be small but the plant is huge in all other parts (leaves, stem, bulb).
    Marilynn Howe 
    In a message dated 4/8/2009 2:11:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, title= writes:

    Hello Harold,
    Interesting point. I am certainly not qualified to tell the difference between N. pachy. and N. panni. – can you let us know what are the distinguishing characteristics that made you identify so quickly from a photograph. So far as I know there was no question from class judges or the  the ‘Best Bloom judging Panel’.  I confess to confusion (and I may not be alone) between these two and N. papyraceous and would like to have clear, obvious and identifiable characteristics pointed out.
    Brian


  4. Hi Brian:

    As I have grown it P. pachybolbos is distinctly different from P. papyraceous var. panizzianus. The most obvious difference is that the three anterior stamens fill the small corona and produce a yellow boss of pollen in the center of the flower. Secondly P. pachybolbos has tiny rounded flowers rather than the double triangle of P. papyraceous. Thirdly, P. pachybolbos is a standard sized plant with wide leaves and a flower stem as wide as a standard paperwhite, although the large truss of flowers are quite tiny. I will try and remember to photograph it next season. It is very early.

    This being said the only place I have seen it being grown was in Australia. My plants came from the late Lindsay Dettman.

    Mary Lou may remember seeing it grown in Australia during the World daffodil trip, I sent her a bulb later.

    Question for you Brian. My Volcanic Rim pods are shrivelling, have you bred on with it?

    best
    Harold

    At 02:10 AM 4/8/2009, Brian S. Duncan wrote:

    Hello Harold,
    Interesting point. I am certainly not qualified to tell the difference between N. pachy. and N. panni. – can you let us know what are the distinguishing characteristics that made you identify so quickly from a photograph. So far as I know there was no question from class judges or the  the ‘Best Bloom judging Panel’.  I confess to confusion (and I may not be alone) between these two and N. papyraceous and would like to have clear, obvious and identifiable characteristics pointed out.
    Brian
     

  5. Harold,
    Yes, I remember seeing it in Australia, and you later sent me a bulb.  However, after several years of not flowering in my climate, I sent a bulb to Delia, and perhaps one to Jaydee.  I couldn’t say whether the one shown at Wisley was correctly named or not from the photograph.  Needless to say, I can’t grow panizzianus here either, and the only papyraceus would be the Paper Whites sold in winter for growing in pebbles and water.
    Mary Lou

  6. Harold and Marilynn

     

    Could you look at the photograph at

     

    http://www.bulbsociety.org/GALLERY_OF_THE_WORLDS_BULBS/GRAPHICS/Narcissus/Narcissus_pachybolbus/Narcissus_pachybolbus.html

     

    and say whether it is pachybolbus or not.

     

    The flower grown in the UK as pachybolbus is sourced in Holland and is very different in form from the panizzianus which I have seen in Spain and grown in the UK. It is also in my experience much more difficult to get to flower, though the bulb is a similar size to panizzianus.

     

    James Akers

     


    =2 width=”100%” align=center tabindex=-1>


  7.  Marilynn

     

    Although you say “It is hard for me to believe that one would show N. pachybolbus as a miniature. The flowers may be small but the plant is huge in all other parts (leaves, stem, bulb).”, it is only the flowers that are being judged in miniature classes and the length of the natural stem is irrelevant as it can be cut to size to match the others in the class. If the stem is very wide then it would cause a problem, but I am not aware that it is with the flower that we show as pachybolbus.

     

    James Akers


  8. James:
    This is not pachybulbos either.
    Harold

    At 12:20 PM 4/8/2009, James Akers wrote:

    Harold and Marilynn
     
    Could you look at the photograph at
     
    http://www.bulbsociety.org/GALLERY_OF_THE_WORLDS_BULBS/GRAPHICS/Narcissus/Narcissus_pachybolbus/Narcissus_pachybolbus.html
     
    and say whether it is pachybolbus or not.
     
    The flower grown in the UK as pachybolbus is sourced in Holland and is very different in form from the panizzianus which I have seen in Spain and grown in the UK. It is also in my experience much more difficult to get to flower, though the bulb is a similar size to panizzianus.
     
    James Akers
     


Comments are closed.