A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Wow this is so neat to see. I love Sarco's & I thought they grew mostly
close to streams on the ground?
Was this tree in the cloud forest area that is in the next posting? Do the
plants ever get sunlight?
Thanks for the photos Dave
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Glad you liked them, Wendy. Yes, it was right there on one of those trees.
However different species of Sarcs have different needs, & I'm no expert. But
falcatus does like the cool humid forests. These were on hoop pines with open
fields around. I suspect it's a relic of cleared forests. But right on top of
the ridge. Yes, they get a fair bit of sun - but the clouds & evening mists
come down fairly often as well - and that's the environment it's hard to
replicate in the shadehouse. We've also seen them on trees in the Lamington
Plateau rainforest.

Sarc ceciliae, in contrast, is lithophytic, growing as you said on rocks by
streams. And the rocky areas get much hotter in summer than the forests liked
by falcatus. But, even then, ceciliae's habitat is in the hills & mountains, so
still cool evenings. (Mountains! remember the highest mountain in Queensland
is about 5000')

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:06:28 -0700, "Wendy7" wrote:

Wow this is so neat to see. I love Sarco's & I thought they grew mostly
close to streams on the ground?
Was this tree in the cloud forest area that is in the next posting? Do the
plants ever get sunlight?
Thanks for the photos Dave
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
.. .
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.


Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Isn't it fitzgeraldii that also grows lithophytically in hot sun by stream
beds? The story is that the woman who found it took a scraggly one home and
after some phenomenal number of years it bloomed, a deep red unlike most?

Thanks for the outing!

K Barrett
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
...
Glad you liked them, Wendy. Yes, it was right there on one of those
trees.
However different species of Sarcs have different needs, & I'm no expert.
But
falcatus does like the cool humid forests. These were on hoop pines with
open
fields around. I suspect it's a relic of cleared forests. But right on
top of
the ridge. Yes, they get a fair bit of sun - but the clouds & evening
mists
come down fairly often as well - and that's the environment it's hard to
replicate in the shadehouse. We've also seen them on trees in the
Lamington
Plateau rainforest.

Sarc ceciliae, in contrast, is lithophytic, growing as you said on rocks
by
streams. And the rocky areas get much hotter in summer than the forests
liked
by falcatus. But, even then, ceciliae's habitat is in the hills &
mountains, so
still cool evenings. (Mountains! remember the highest mountain in
Queensland
is about 5000')

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:06:28 -0700, "Wendy7" wrote:

Wow this is so neat to see. I love Sarco's & I thought they grew mostly
close to streams on the ground?
Was this tree in the cloud forest area that is in the next posting? Do the
plants ever get sunlight?
Thanks for the photos Dave
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
. ..
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top
of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.


Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Kathy, as I said I'm not strong on Sarc knowledge. But yes, my books indicate
fitzgeraldii is also lithophytic, though its range is more southern & habitat
cooler & more humid than for ceciliae. And I haven't heard your anecdote about
fitzgeraldii.

For fitzgeraldii Jones gives a distribution of SE Queensland to NE New South
Wales in both his books (1988 & 2006). Its habitat is "... boulders and in
moist shady ravines, gorges and cliff faces in dense rainforest ..."

For ceciliae Jones (1988) quotes a distribution from NE Qld to central eastern
NSW; Jones (2006) quotes Atherton Tableland to Bundaberg - ie NE Qld to a bit
south of central eastern Qld. I strongly suspect he has busted the old ceciliae
out into two species, but I haven't sorted out what he's calling the southern
variant. Its habitat is "... grows on cliff faces and rocks, favouring crevices
and sites of litter accumulation, in shade to full sun ...". In my limited
experience, adjacent to, but not within rainforest.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:03:23 -0700, "K Barrett" wrote:

Isn't it fitzgeraldii that also grows lithophytically in hot sun by stream
beds? The story is that the woman who found it took a scraggly one home and
after some phenomenal number of years it bloomed, a deep red unlike most?

Thanks for the outing!

K Barrett
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
.. .
Glad you liked them, Wendy. Yes, it was right there on one of those
trees.
However different species of Sarcs have different needs, & I'm no expert.
But
falcatus does like the cool humid forests. These were on hoop pines with
open
fields around. I suspect it's a relic of cleared forests. But right on
top of
the ridge. Yes, they get a fair bit of sun - but the clouds & evening
mists
come down fairly often as well - and that's the environment it's hard to
replicate in the shadehouse. We've also seen them on trees in the
Lamington
Plateau rainforest.

Sarc ceciliae, in contrast, is lithophytic, growing as you said on rocks
by
streams. And the rocky areas get much hotter in summer than the forests
liked
by falcatus. But, even then, ceciliae's habitat is in the hills &
mountains, so
still cool evenings. (Mountains! remember the highest mountain in
Queensland
is about 5000')

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:06:28 -0700, "Wendy7" wrote:

Wow this is so neat to see. I love Sarco's & I thought they grew mostly
close to streams on the ground?
Was this tree in the cloud forest area that is in the next posting? Do the
plants ever get sunlight?
Thanks for the photos Dave
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top
of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.


Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Prompted me to do some checking. I think the Jones (2006) version of what used
to be the southern range of Sarc. ceciliae is Sarc. eriochilus.

Not sure I interpret taxonomic descriptions correctly but I think the situation
is this:

Mueller first described S. ceciliae from a plant found in North Qld (I think) in
1865. Fitzgerald described S. eriochilus from a plant found in Northern NSW in
1891. Most texts in the last two decades of the 20th century list S. eriochilus
as a synonym of S. ceciliae. Presumably the taxonomists concluded the two
plants were conspecific, and so the 1865 name took precedence.

Until Jones (2006), who started splitting big time. I assume he decided the
southern variant of "S. ceciliae" was sufficiently different in his opinion to
be classified as a separate species - when Fitzgerald's 1891 label again came
into effect in its own right.

See! It's not just the Cattleya alliance that has us poor enthusiasts tearing
our hair out in large lumps!

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:32:09 +1000, Dave Gillingham
wrote:

Kathy, as I said I'm not strong on Sarc knowledge. But yes, my books indicate
fitzgeraldii is also lithophytic, though its range is more southern & habitat
cooler & more humid than for ceciliae. And I haven't heard your anecdote about
fitzgeraldii.

For fitzgeraldii Jones gives a distribution of SE Queensland to NE New South
Wales in both his books (1988 & 2006). Its habitat is "... boulders and in
moist shady ravines, gorges and cliff faces in dense rainforest ..."

For ceciliae Jones (1988) quotes a distribution from NE Qld to central eastern
NSW; Jones (2006) quotes Atherton Tableland to Bundaberg - ie NE Qld to a bit
south of central eastern Qld. I strongly suspect he has busted the old ceciliae
out into two species, but I haven't sorted out what he's calling the southern
variant. Its habitat is "... grows on cliff faces and rocks, favouring crevices
and sites of litter accumulation, in shade to full sun ...". In my limited
experience, adjacent to, but not within rainforest.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:03:23 -0700, "K Barrett" wrote:

Isn't it fitzgeraldii that also grows lithophytically in hot sun by stream
beds? The story is that the woman who found it took a scraggly one home and
after some phenomenal number of years it bloomed, a deep red unlike most?

Thanks for the outing!

K Barrett
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
. ..
Glad you liked them, Wendy. Yes, it was right there on one of those
trees.
However different species of Sarcs have different needs, & I'm no expert.
But
falcatus does like the cool humid forests. These were on hoop pines with
open
fields around. I suspect it's a relic of cleared forests. But right on
top of
the ridge. Yes, they get a fair bit of sun - but the clouds & evening
mists
come down fairly often as well - and that's the environment it's hard to
replicate in the shadehouse. We've also seen them on trees in the
Lamington
Plateau rainforest.

Sarc ceciliae, in contrast, is lithophytic, growing as you said on rocks
by
streams. And the rocky areas get much hotter in summer than the forests
liked
by falcatus. But, even then, ceciliae's habitat is in the hills &
mountains, so
still cool evenings. (Mountains! remember the highest mountain in
Queensland
is about 5000')

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:06:28 -0700, "Wendy7" wrote:

Wow this is so neat to see. I love Sarco's & I thought they grew mostly
close to streams on the ground?
Was this tree in the cloud forest area that is in the next posting? Do the
plants ever get sunlight?
Thanks for the photos Dave
"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
m...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top
of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.


Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Yes Dave. I am lurking, but very slowly.

Here is a photo of the falcatus from the roof of my car. Note the drops
of water on the flower. It was not the only thing wet as it started to
rain heavily just as I climbed on the car roof. The things you do...

Graham Corbin


In article ,
says...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

A great shot Graham, wondering how you keep the camera dry?
Cheers Wendy
"Graham Corbin" wrote in message
. net...
Yes Dave. I am lurking, but very slowly.

Here is a photo of the falcatus from the roof of my car. Note the drops
of water on the flower. It was not the only thing wet as it started to
rain heavily just as I climbed on the car roof. The things you do...

Graham Corbin


In article ,
says...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

You just try to be really fast.

A bit of water won't hurt a camera (within reason), but I just try to
minimise the amount. In a case like this where I couldn't shield the
camera with my hat, I just tried to be as fast as possible getting the
shots I needed and then quickly got back into the car where I dried the
camera before retracting the lens.

A great shot Graham, wondering how you keep the camera dry?
Cheers Wendy

"Graham Corbin" wrote in message
. net...
Yes Dave. I am lurking, but very slowly.

Here is a photo of the falcatus from the roof of my car. Note the drops
of water on the flower. It was not the only thing wet as it started to
rain heavily just as I climbed on the car roof. The things you do...

Graham Corbin


In article ,
says...
A bit high up for a good pic - this was a tele shot.

Graham Corbin - are you lurking? I seem to recall you standing on top of
your
car to get a closeup - it would be far better than this, and one of the
ladies
(Sue? or Wendy?) really likes S. falcatus if I remember correctly.
Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.