Hi Richard

It is difficult from photos accurately to determine many plants.
My book, admittedly written from a European perspective, gives
the following characteristics to look for in a Freesia:

-Slightly irregular, 6 petal (strictly 3 petals and 3 very
similar sepals) flower with 3 stamens (your photo appears to have
6 stamens); style usually 3-branched.
-Style branches narrow (not petaloid)
-Few to many flowers on stem, in spikes or panicles (not at end
of stem like crocus)
-Plant with a corm (as shown in one of Loosescan's photos)
-Style 3-branched, with each branch bifid (split in two)
-Bracts 1.5cm; spike bent horizontally near lowest flower;
flowers on one side of stem; leaves soft; wingless seeds.

From this description (Stace New Flora of thee British Isles), I
suspect that your plant is not a Freesia. Sorry - I cannot tell
you what it is.

Peter
-

"Richard Wright" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:13:50 +0900, "Loosecanon"
wrote:



You are right - the flower is scarlet.

I agree the search must go on.

To assist this I have posted a photo of the flower that shows
more
detail.

The length of each petal is 9 mm. Note the brown base to the
three
lower petals.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/zscyia95m1.jpg

Perhaps a Fressia laxa
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi2.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi3.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi4.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._corms_msi.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb...laxa_seeds.jpg


Thanks. This is definitely the species.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:34:28 -0000, "Peter"
wrote:

Hi Richard

It is difficult from photos accurately to determine many plants.
My book, admittedly written from a European perspective, gives
the following characteristics to look for in a Freesia:

-Slightly irregular, 6 petal (strictly 3 petals and 3 very
similar sepals) flower with 3 stamens (your photo appears to have
6 stamens); style usually 3-branched.
-Style branches narrow (not petaloid)
-Few to many flowers on stem, in spikes or panicles (not at end
of stem like crocus)
-Plant with a corm (as shown in one of Loosescan's photos)
-Style 3-branched, with each branch bifid (split in two)
-Bracts 1.5cm; spike bent horizontally near lowest flower;
flowers on one side of stem; leaves soft; wingless seeds.

From this description (Stace New Flora of thee British Isles), I
suspect that your plant is not a Freesia. Sorry - I cannot tell
you what it is.

Peter
-

"Richard Wright" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:13:50 +0900, "Loosecanon"
wrote:



You are right - the flower is scarlet.

I agree the search must go on.

To assist this I have posted a photo of the flower that shows
more
detail.

The length of each petal is 9 mm. Note the brown base to the
three
lower petals.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/zscyia95m1.jpg

Perhaps a Fressia laxa
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi2.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi3.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi4.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._corms_msi.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb...laxa_seeds.jpg


Thanks. This is definitely the species.


Peter

The pictures of Freesia laxa (see URLs above) are identical to my
plant. However on pursuing the matter further I find that this plant
has been removed from the Freesia genus and renamed Anomatheca laxa.
So perhaps that reconciles things.

Furthermore the plant is naturalised in Sydney, where I saw it
growing:

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cg...nomatheca~laxa

Richard

Hi Richard

I am sure that you are right as you have the plant there in front
of you. Even though scientific names are meant to be standard,
they are often changed, much to the confusion of this aging,
amateur botanist.

What a great website you quote. I have done several trips to
Australia, having family in Sydney and friends in Melbourne and
Perth. One of my principle pleasures there is your amazing
flora. I would have been immensely helped by a resource such as
this. I will bookmark it for future visits.

Best wishes

Peter

"Richard Wright" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:34:28 -0000, "Peter"
wrote:

Hi Richard

It is difficult from photos accurately to determine many
plants.
My book, admittedly written from a European perspective, gives
the following characteristics to look for in a Freesia:

-Slightly irregular, 6 petal (strictly 3 petals and 3 very
similar sepals) flower with 3 stamens (your photo appears to
have
6 stamens); style usually 3-branched.
-Style branches narrow (not petaloid)
-Few to many flowers on stem, in spikes or panicles (not at end
of stem like crocus)
-Plant with a corm (as shown in one of Loosescan's photos)
-Style 3-branched, with each branch bifid (split in two)
-Bracts 1.5cm; spike bent horizontally near lowest flower;
flowers on one side of stem; leaves soft; wingless seeds.

From this description (Stace New Flora of thee British Isles),
I
suspect that your plant is not a Freesia. Sorry - I cannot
tell
you what it is.

Peter
-

"Richard Wright" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:13:50 +0900, "Loosecanon"
wrote:



You are right - the flower is scarlet.

I agree the search must go on.

To assist this I have posted a photo of the flower that
shows
more
detail.

The length of each petal is 9 mm. Note the brown base to
the
three
lower petals.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/zscyia95m1.jpg

Perhaps a Fressia laxa
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi2.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi3.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._laxa_msi4.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb..._corms_msi.jpg
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pb...laxa_seeds.jpg


Thanks. This is definitely the species.


Peter

The pictures of Freesia laxa (see URLs above) are identical to
my
plant. However on pursuing the matter further I find that this
plant
has been removed from the Freesia genus and renamed Anomatheca
laxa.
So perhaps that reconciles things.

Furthermore the plant is naturalised in Sydney, where I saw it
growing:

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cg...nomatheca~laxa

Richard

Not being a botanist or taxonomist I never know how pressing some of
these namings are.

My chief amateur's hate is the introduction of the rule that a family
must have a genus with the name that produces the name of the family -
Hence long entrenched family names Umbilliferae and Brassicaceae were
thrown out of the window. I suppose somebody made a botanical
reputation out of engineering these changes. Confusion was created in
the name of tidiness.

I grew up in southern England, where one could learn to identify just
about every flowering plant. Not so here in Oz, I have found.

Richard


On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:32:07 -0000, "Peter"
wrote:

Hi Richard

I am sure that you are right as you have the plant there in front
of you. Even though scientific names are meant to be standard,
they are often changed, much to the confusion of this aging,
amateur botanist.

What a great website you quote. I have done several trips to
Australia, having family in Sydney and friends in Melbourne and
Perth. One of my principle pleasures there is your amazing
flora. I would have been immensely helped by a resource such as
this. I will bookmark it for future visits.

Best wishes

Peter

[remainder of thread snipped]

Richard,

Speaking of DNA ;-)
Have you submitted your DNA to the Wright Family DNA
project? http://www.wright-dna.org/
I have and the results are very interesting!

Your probable cousin,
Philip Wright

The great thing, however, is to enjoy the beauty of them all!

Cheers

Peter

"Richard Wright" wrote in message
news
Not being a botanist or taxonomist I never know how pressing
some of
these namings are.

My chief amateur's hate is the introduction of the rule that a
family
must have a genus with the name that produces the name of the
family -
Hence long entrenched family names Umbilliferae and
Brassicaceae were
thrown out of the window. I suppose somebody made a botanical
reputation out of engineering these changes. Confusion was
created in
the name of tidiness.

I grew up in southern England, where one could learn to
identify just
about every flowering plant. Not so here in Oz, I have found.

Richard


On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:32:07 -0000, "Peter"
wrote:

Hi Richard

I am sure that you are right as you have the plant there in
front
of you. Even though scientific names are meant to be standard,
they are often changed, much to the confusion of this aging,
amateur botanist.

What a great website you quote. I have done several trips to
Australia, having family in Sydney and friends in Melbourne and
Perth. One of my principle pleasures there is your amazing
flora. I would have been immensely helped by a resource such
as
this. I will bookmark it for future visits.

Best wishes

Peter

[remainder of thread snipped]

"Richard Wright" schreef
My chief amateur's hate is the introduction of the rule that a family
must have a genus with the name that produces the name of the family -
Hence long entrenched family names Umbilliferae and Brassicaceae were
thrown out of the window.

***
Actually there is no such rule: it is perfectly within the rules to use
Umbelliferae. It has become somewhat unfashionable, but any complaints
should be directed against the writers of flora's and textbooks, not against
the rules.

The confusion you note is probably worse at the level of order and above.
PvR

"Peter" wrote in message

What a great website you quote. I have done several trips to Australia,
having family in Sydney and friends in Melbourne and Perth. One of my
principle pleasures there is your amazing flora. I would have been
immensely helped by a resource such as this. I will bookmark it for
future visits.

I find this site useful too:
http://www.cpbr.gov.au/anbg/