Lobelia siphilitica or Lobelia gerardii 'Vedrariensis'

Discussion in 'Plants: Identification' started by rll, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. rll

    rll Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indiana, United States
    What are these flowers?

    What are the flowers pictured below? I didn't have a chance to ask the silver-spotted skipper that was nectaring at them.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Douglas Justice

    Douglas Justice Well-Known Member UBC Botanical Garden Forums Administrator Forums Moderator VCBF Cherry Scout Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    While the image is a bit fuzzy (but you did get the butterfly!), I think the plant may be Lobelia siphilitica (which is native to the eastern US and the midwest) or, if this is a garden shot, it could be the hybrid L. x gerardii 'Vedrariensis' (L. cardinalis x L. siphilitica).
     
  3. wcutler

    wcutler Paragon of Plants Forums Moderator VCBF Cherry Scout 10 Years

    Messages:
    10,907
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC Canada
    I got a bee - does that let me post in this very old thread?
    The reason I want to post these Stanley Park photos here is that I originally came up with the name Lobelia siphilitica, blue cardinal flower, but these flower stalks look so much more full than what I see on Garden Explorer, or what I posted at
    https://forums.botanicalgarden.ubc....august-in-the-garden-lots-of-colour.86995/and
    https://forums.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/threads/august-2016-in-the-garden-salvia.89273/#post-350761
    and also, there is the comment above about another possible name. My neighbour sent me to see these; I feel I should give her the correct name, if I can.

    So I looked up Lobelia x gerardii 'Vedrariensis' (L. cardinalis x L. siphilitica). Here's a page:
    Lobelia × gerardii 'Vedrariensis' - Plant Finder (missouribotanicalgarden.org)
    and lots of photos come up, but then I started to find photos named Lobelia x speciosa 'Vedrariensis'. Did the same cultivar name really get attached to both hybrids?

    Plant Finder (missouribotanicalgarden.org) has a separate page for Lobelia x speciosa (no cultivar name), developed from L. fulgens, L. cardinalis and L. siphilitica, but no photos.
    Lobelia × speciosa - Plant Finder (missouribotanicalgarden.org). This page mentions "These hybrids are noted for having attractive green foliage (often flushed with red, purple or bronze)", so maybe I can rule this one out. Maybe the L. fulgens contributed the attractive leaves.

    If these are really Lobelia x gerardii 'Vedrariensis', they would be the first ones posted on the forums, so it would be nice to know. What would distinguish them?

    The bee is in the last photo.
    Lobelia siphilitica_StanleyParkBorderComox_Cutler_20230807_153954.jpg Lobelia siphilitica_StanleyParkBorderComox_Cutler_20230807_154016.jpg Lobelia siphilitica_StanleyParkBorderComox_Cutler_20230807_154034.jpg Lobelia siphilitica_StanleyParkBorderComox_Cutler_20230807_154110.jpg
     
  4. Douglas Justice

    Douglas Justice Well-Known Member UBC Botanical Garden Forums Administrator Forums Moderator VCBF Cherry Scout Maple Society 10 Years

    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Looking again at the original image at the top of this thread, I'm pretty sure it's Lobelia siphilitica. I'm not sure why I'd think it was the hybrid.

    Your images are most probably of Lobelia × speciosa 'Vedrariensis' (there is reportedly another green-leaved, purple-flowered hybrid known as 'Purple Towers', but I cannot find a decent image). For the cultivar name 'Vedrariensis' I was following the sage advice of Allan M. Armitage from his indispensable Herbaceous Perennial Plants 2nd ed. The third edition (2008) lists the cultivar similarly, under Lobelia × gerardii, which he says is a hybrid between either L. cardinalis or L. × speciosa 'Queen Victoria' and L. siphilitica. Lobelia × speciosa, on the other hand, he says "is a catchall name for the numerous hybrids developed from L. splendens, L. cardinalis, and L. siphilitica." While I normally agree with Armitage's reasoning on most things, this sounds like he might have bet on the wrong horse. The RHS, which is usually the final arbiter in cases of cultivated plant nomenclature, lists the cultivar under L. × speciosa, so I'm going with that.
     

Share This Page