Smooth Water Hyssop

OK, thanks. It'll take me a little work to regroup those keys into a structure I can follow through quickly, but what's new . I guess the starting point should be that it's C. stagnalis and try to falsify that.

I've seen pictures of C. heterophylla that superficially looked similar. The specimen I photoed was quiet young in very early spring, and what I've been able to determine is that C. heterophylla differs mainly in the fruit shape and edges.

I have no reason to doubt your judgment that it's not C. heterophylla, but it looks like a good alternative candidate to me to try and falsify. I'll need a to observe a more complete life cycle before I'm really satisfied.

C. heterophylla looks very different. It has two leaf morphologies - a linear form underwater and an obovate form at the top of the stem, floating on the surface. The surface leaves form a pretty little rosette.

Mywan,
If you are enjoying keying out plants, you might like to look at "Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States" by Godfrey & Wooten. Comes in two volumes - one for dicots, and one for monocots. It's my favorite go-to book. If you are near a university, it is likely to be on their shelves if you want to look at a copy. Or you can probably get it via interlibrary loan from your local library.

It's not so much I enjoy keying out plants, or other species, but I enjoy learning. When I learn something I want to know exactly what that information pertains to. That sometimes involves keying species, which can be sometimes be very difficult, especially without specialized references.

Agree with Laura. The leaves on your plant all look spoon-shaped, both surface leaves and submersed leaves. C.heterophylla has spoon-shaped surface leaves, but the submersed leaves of het I've seen are always straight, never spoon-shaped.

C. heterophylla looks very different. It has two leaf morphologies - a linear form underwater and an obovate form at the top of the stem, floating on the surface. The surface leaves form a pretty little rosette.

Edited by gerald, 22 January 2011 - 11:23 AM.

Agree with Laura. The leaves on your plant all look spoon-shaped, both surface leaves and submersed leaves. C.heterophylla has spoon-shaped surface leaves, but the submersed leaves of het I've seen are always straight, never spoon-shaped.

I'm having a few problems, and I'll explain why I agree it obviously can't be the usual C. heterophylla (pictured here), yet I'm having very serious doubts it's C. stagnalis (pictured here). In fact the best fit, as I'll explain, appears to be Callitriche heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla, "twoheaded water-starwort". In fact the USDA site list a county with 20 miles of here for this particular "Pursh". Even closer with fewer geographical constraints than listed counties containing C. stagnalis.

Before going through these it should be noted that upon collecting these I packed the in that muddy container pictured. Then, with a little rinsing, the photo with the tadpoles shows the specimen fully submerged. The tops, which normally stuck out of the water, is now randomly mixed and submersed. Now let's compare these species.

Callitriche heterophylla:
The usual variety it appears my collection is being compared to is obviously distinctly different, as seen in this photo, and attested to by key features and knowledgeable people here. So let's compare C. stagnalis and C. heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla.

Callitriche stagnalis:
This has a general morphology quiet similar to my specimen, but note this photo here. This photo indicates veins even more pronounced than the standard C. heterophylla above, while the veins of my specimen appear even less pronounced. The floating leaves appear far more compact and fibrous than my specimen seemed to exhibit. So let's just go with unconfirmed but likely status.

Callitriche heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla:
Now compare this photo. Here we have less compact, less fibrous, and the same leaf characteristics as my specimen. If you look at the tops in my specimen, primarily in the initial packing container, you will also notice the stem length on the leafs became much less pronounced, sometimes close to round while maintaining the same general shape, much that the above picture. This picture also indicates a less fibrous leaf. This site mentions a similarity with C. plaustris, but plaustris does not occur withing two states of here. In fact, based on these comparisons, this species appears to be a stronger match than C. stagnalis.

Furthermore, the UK identification site, used in the initial comparison say: "Identification to species level is beyond the scope of this site. Many botanists simply record the aggregate, as I do."

Geography:
Although there is a county, in the next state up within 50 miles northeast of here (as the crow flies) containing C. stagnalis, there are extensive geographical barriers. A huge series of ridges and, even going against the current, several hundred miles of river to get any kind of river transport. The prevailing wind tends to be northeast, so any wind transport more likely require a source in mid to southern Alabama. For "pursh" ssp. heterophylla the USDA list a source in a nearby county within 13 miles by road, with no geographical barriers whatsoever.

I think the only way to resolve this is to get samples of the flowers and fruit.

Yup - that's what we really need:
"I think the only way to resolve this is to get samples of the flowers and fruit."

But back to your collection, are you saying that the parts you collected were all emergent-grown or floating leaves? If so that explains why we're not seeing the typical linear (non-spoon-shaped) submersed leaves of heterophylla.

Have you still got some growing under water, and if so are the new underwater leaves linear?

Yup - that's what we really need:
"I think the only way to resolve this is to get samples of the flowers and fruit."

But back to your collection, are you saying that the parts you collected were all emergent-grown or floating leaves?

There was both emergent and exposed Parts presents but in the pictures, due to the collection process, the distinguishability is not apparent. But this is not the main point.

If so that explains why we're not seeing the typical linear (non-spoon-shaped) submersed leaves of heterophylla.

The reason I am presuming is because it appears distinctly possible that what I may have found is neither C. heterophylla nor C. stagnalis. Rather the subspecies C. heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla. To see the difference compare these photos:

Callitriche heterophylla: http://web.reed.edu/...s/CAHE01_lg.jpg
Callitriche heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla: http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALHET
Hence the surface verses submerged leaves issue is moot, as it is not the standard C. heterophylla being considered as a candidate species.

Furthermore, when you compare my specimen to C. stagnalis: http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALSTA
The native "pursh" subspecies heterophylla matches more closely than does C. stagnalis. In fact that picture of C. stagnalis does not look to me like my specimen at all, and the UK site the original identification was based on did not differentiate the species, and included a disclaimer to that effect.

So there is no question that C. heterophylla does not match. The only real question is whether it is C. heterophylla Pursh ssp. heterophylla or C. stagnalis. Known populations of "Pursh" ssp. heterophylla have been recorded in a county with a border 13 miles from here, with no geographical barriers. Known populations of C. stagnalis occur 50 miles from here with highly significant geographical barriers, for both wind and river transport.

Have you still got some growing under water, and if so are the new underwater leaves linear?

I don't presently have any, as the tadpoles eat mine, but I left a significant wild population at a location nearby. I plan on returning to this population, hopefully still present, when it starts growing in the spring.

The "standard C.heterophylla" IS C. heterophylla var. heterophylla, and Pursh is the author's name. When somebody designates a subspecies (animal) or variety (plant), then the originally described species keeps the species and subspecies names the same, (like C. heterophylla heterophylla, or Homo sapiens sapiens), and the new described subspecies or variety gets a new third name.

So, all C. heterophylla in the eastern US are supposedly C. heterophylla var. heterophylla, which normally has linear submersed leaves. The other variety C. heterophylla var. bolengeri is in the western US. I dont know whether its leaves are different.

So when you go back out, look for those linear underwater leaves below the spoon-shaped surface leaves.
You might even find them in winter.

Edited by gerald, 24 January 2011 - 07:04 PM.

So what is the deal between these two pictures
http://web.reed.edu/...s/CAHE01_lg.jpg
http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALHET

The first picture listed on this page: http://web.reed.edu/...ants/index.html

In the first picture there is a fair number of leafs that can be described as linear. The second picture very much follows the profile of the leafs on my specimen.

Also the C. stagnalis in this picture: http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALSTA
Looks nothing like my specimen. I can reasonable attribute this the the original site here:
http://www.plant-ide...e-stagnalis.htm
not making species level distinctions.

Here it discusses the physiological triggers for the different leaf structure, and how these changes are can be artificially induced for either leaf structure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC32118/

I need the fruit off this plant. I stopped by there today. The snow just melted and the area didn't have much that was green. It also looked like some kind of red algae really thick on the bottom of this slow moving side pool.

I'd call those leaves in both the Reed Canyon and Wisconsin pictures spatuale or obovate, not linear. Reed Canyon is in Oregon, so that pic might be the western subspecies C. heterophylla var. bolanderi.

The linear underwater leaves on C. heterophylla heterophylla (the only Callitriche I've seen, far as I know) are essentially the same width from base to tip, like Didiplis. Here's some shots from Southeasternflora.org showing the very distinct difference between linear underwater leaves and obovate/spatulate surface leaves:

http://southeasternf...p?plantid=1192#

So whenever you find it again, if most of the leaves that developed underwater are linear, then I'll bet it's the very common C.het het. If most of the underwater leaves are obovate or spatulate, then it could be something other than C.het. I always see C.het growing rooted in stream bed areas with permanent flow, not on muddy shorelines or shallow still-water where Ludwigia and Micranthemum usually dominate. But if C.het can grow along the shoreline, then maybe those plants could have all obovate/spatulate leaves.

I would add that the terrestrial form of C. heterophylla, though it lacks dimorphic leaves, is tiny. It forms little 1-2 inch wide, virtually flat rosettes on mud.

Interesting Newt - So it DOES grow on mud out of water? Now I wonder if I've seen it that way and not recognized it; I could easily have just passed it by thinking it was Micranthemum or newly-sprouted Ludwigia. There's also a C. terrestris which is teeny-tiny; don't know if I've ever seen it.

I would add that the terrestrial form of C. heterophylla, though it lacks dimorphic leaves, is tiny. It forms little 1-2 inch wide, virtually flat rosettes on mud.

Yeah, I've seen it at the edge of Kentucky Lake on semi-firm muddy shorelines exposed during winter drawdown. The submerged form was growing nearby. I haven't seen it in the more extensive, soft mudflats, though it would be easy to overlook.

I'm curious about C. terrestris as well. From the pictures I've seen, it looks more like the seedling stage of something else than an adult plant in its own right. I'm sure it would be very easy to miss.

Oh, I just LOVE a botanical conundrum!!

I have an idea as to what we may be seeing. Callitriche tends to grow in habitats where the water level is highly variable. A particular specimen that is growing at a certain water depth may suddenly experience a greater depth which submerses the aerial rosette. The specimen starts to elongate its internodes (the stem between leaves) in order to once again reach the surface. However, once the leaves of the rosette are formed as obovate, they can not change to linear. The tiny internodes in the rosette lengthen, making that area a non-rosette, but it keeps the surface leaf morphology. A new rosette then grows when the specimen reaches the surface.

I have a proposal - if you mail me some of what you are finding, I can culture it on our sunporch to get it to bloom and set seed. PM me if you are willing to send down a sample and I can give you my address; I'd love to play with it and see what I can figure out.

So what is the deal between these two pictures
http://web.reed.edu/...s/CAHE01_lg.jpg
http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALHET

The first picture listed on this page: http://web.reed.edu/...ants/index.html

In the first picture there is a fair number of leafs that can be described as linear. The second picture very much follows the profile of the leafs on my specimen.

Also the C. stagnalis in this picture: http://wisplants.uws...p?SpCode=CALSTA
Looks nothing like my specimen. I can reasonable attribute this the the original site here:
http://www.plant-ide...e-stagnalis.htm
not making species level distinctions.

Here it discusses the physiological triggers for the different leaf structure, and how these changes are can be artificially induced for either leaf structure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC32118/

I need the fruit off this plant. I stopped by there today. The snow just melted and the area didn't have much that was green. It also looked like some kind of red algae really thick on the bottom of this slow moving side pool.