In message , K
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message , Pam Moore
writes

The second I think is what I call starweed, which becomes a menace
when it gets established on top of pots.
Can't give botanical names.

Did you mean the 3rd, which Des suspects of being a water-starwort?
Unfortunately the predominant meanings of starweed - if one believes
Google - are Stellaria media (chickweed) and Plantago triandra (a New
Zealand plantain).

It doesn't look like the star-wort that we have in the ponds at the
nature reserve - that looks much more cross-like in pattern and is
nearer the surface. Colour is right, though.

Could the other one possibly be greater spearwort? - see, for example
http://www.map-reading.co.uk/wildflo...les/sl7117.htm

Could be - I thought I could recognise spearworts, but perhaps I need
the flowers. (I've seen greater spearwort in the canal bank about 1 1/2
miles away, and lesser spearwort up in Galloway.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message , K
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes

My preferred references for identification at the moment are Garward
and Streeter (illustrations and field marks)

Is that the Collins one?

No - coffee table size book published by Midsummer Press, bought from a
remainder book shop.

I couldn't find it on Google or Amazon

and Sterry (photographs, field marks and portable, but lacking
complete coverage).

Sterry I've seen but didn't like, but not sure why

Sterry is the (a?) Collins publication.

It's generally well thought of, isn't it? Must be irrational prejudice
on my part ;-)


For photos, I've got some of the little books by Roger Philips, all
sadly out of print now and very hard to come by.

I'd forgotten I had a copy of Philip's Wild Flowers of Britain. It's in

I haven't got that one. But he did a little series "mountain and
moorland" "Roadsides and waste places" "weeds" "coastal" etc. The
pictures are better than his big book. Like the big book, they're
arranged in approximate order of flowering, which can be handy when you
haven't a clue where to start. "Weeds" has pictures of the seedlings too
- ideal for the gardener!


I think I've just cracked the difference between Myosotis arvensis and
Myosotis sylvatica

Ah ... arvensis has smaller 'grey blue' flowers compared with larger
'sky blue' flowers. Arvensis flowers are slightly concave ("saucer
shaped") whereas sylvatica are flat. Arvensis is usually annual,
sylvatica is perennial. Sylvatica calyx is flightly flared at the top to
reveal the nutlets. Situation slightly complicated by existence of
garden forms of sylvatica and a shade subspecies of arvensis - is that
about what you gleaned?

which leaves the other terrestrial species around here as Myosotis
ramosissima.

Smaller flowers, flowering stem has very short leafy section and very
long flowery section?

My alternative to a hand lens is a macro photograph, but it doesn't
always focus properly.

I've got a 'supermacro' on my camera, but without flash. So I need good
light for fast shutter speed. And the focusing is difficult if the
flower is delicate - too easy to focus on the background not the flower.
Piece of paper (or a hand) behind the flower can help, by bringing the
background to the flower.

Part of the knack is learning to see differences between plants and to
use more traits than just the flowers.

I know. I was browsing through the Stace key for Geranium and noticing
that shining geranium, which is recognisable at 20 paces with or without
flowers, doesn't key out until almost the end. And I irritate my husband
by pointing out flowers to him and having to confess that actually,
they're not in flower yet, it's just the leaves, but they *will* look
beautiful in a couple of months time ;-)

(Fruits are useful with trefoils and crucifers.)

I had a great time in S Portugal earlier this year looking at legume
seed pods. Some really strange ones.

Another technique is learning field marks, which is why books with
field marks are handy.

What are field marks?

--
Kay

In message , K
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message , K
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes

My preferred references for identification at the moment are Garward
and Streeter (illustrations and field marks)

Is that the Collins one?

No - coffee table size book published by Midsummer Press, bought
from a remainder book shop.

I couldn't find it on Google or Amazon

Sorry - my eyesight isn't very good in poor light - it should have been
Garward.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Flowers.../dp/1900732033

But I only paid a tenner.

and Sterry (photographs, field marks and portable, but lacking
complete coverage).

Sterry I've seen but didn't like, but not sure why

Sterry is the (a?) Collins publication.

It's generally well thought of, isn't it? Must be irrational prejudice on my
part ;-)

I have the impression that Collins as an imprint was well thought of
(Mitchell on Trees I believe was very well thought of), but I can't
speak of this particular book.

I've put this, and the field edition of Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, down
as the books to carry with me, when I bother to carry books with me.


For photos, I've got some of the little books by Roger Philips, all sadly
out of print now and very hard to come by.

I'd forgotten I had a copy of Philip's Wild Flowers of Britain. It's in

I haven't got that one. But he did a little series "mountain and moorland"
"Roadsides and waste places" "weeds" "coastal" etc. The pictures are
better than his big book. Like the big book, they're arranged in
approximate order of flowering, which can be handy when you haven't a
clue where to start. "Weeds" has pictures of the seedlings too - ideal for
the gardener!

I don't particularly care for the Wild Flowers book - ordering the
plants by flowering might be useful if you've no idea what the plants
are, but not if you do. And I'd prefer photographs in life position.



I think I've just cracked the difference between Myosotis arvensis and
Myosotis sylvatica

Ah ... arvensis has smaller 'grey blue' flowers compared with larger 'sky
blue' flowers. Arvensis flowers are slightly concave ("saucer shaped")
whereas sylvatica are flat. Arvensis is usually annual, sylvatica is
perennial. Sylvatica calyx is flightly flared at the top to reveal the nutlets.
Situation slightly complicated by existence of garden forms of sylvatica
and a shade subspecies of arvensis - is that about what you gleaned?

M. sylvatica (at least garden forms) isn't reliably perennial.

Apart from that, that's more than I've got. Flower size can be
unreliable - forget-me-nots can produce smaller than usual flowers, and
I have the impression that M/ sylvatica has a tendency to do so late in
the flowering season.

The foliage differs as well. M. arvensis has a grayish tinge overall, as
well as in the flowers, and it has narrowly oblong leaves, while M.
sylvatica leaves are somewhat spoon shaped. M. ramosissima has ovate
leaves.

Stace does use calyx characters in the key, but they're not easy to use
on plants that you just happen to pass while walking.

which leaves the other terrestrial species around here as Myosotis
ramosissima.

Smaller flowers, flowering stem has very short leafy section and very
long flowery section?

And all the same colour, which distinguishes it from M. discolor.

My alternative to a hand lens is a macro photograph, but it doesn't
always focus properly.

I've got a 'supermacro' on my camera, but without flash. So I need good
light for fast shutter speed. And the focusing is difficult if the flower is
delicate - too easy to focus on the background not the flower. Piece of
paper (or a hand) behind the flower can help, by bringing the background
to the flower.

That's my experience as well.

Part of the knack is learning to see differences between plants and to
use more traits than just the flowers.

I know. I was browsing through the Stace key for Geranium and noticing
that shining geranium, which is recognisable at 20 paces with or without
flowers, doesn't key out until almost the end. And I irritate my husband
by pointing out flowers to him and having to confess that actually, they're
not in flower yet, it's just the leaves, but they *will* look beautiful in a
couple of months time ;-)

(Fruits are useful with trefoils and crucifers.)

I had a great time in S Portugal earlier this year looking at legume seed
pods. Some really strange ones.

Another technique is learning field marks, which is why books with field
marks are handy.

What are field marks?

The shining leaves of Geranium lucidum is one. A field mark is an
individual trait (or small number of traits) that allows you to identify
a species. Sterry gives the field marks in italic text.

If you have a hand lens, the number of stamens (5) is a field mark for
Geranium pusillum (most Geraniums have 10).
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , K
writes

It interests me our different approaches - you via the detailed
botanical structure, me by my gut feeling and similarities to things I
already know well. You will, of course, always get to the correct
answer while I can go spectacularly wrong, but just occasionally I may
get there more quickly albeit less rigorously.

There's a plant growing in walls in the main road through the town which
last year I thought was a labiate (clusters of flowers in the nodes). I
didn't look into it in detail as I also mistakenly thought that it was a
cultivated plant.

Turns out that it's pellitory-of-the-wall (Parietaria judaica), and is
growing wild. Today's other new record for the town is dwarf mallow
(Malva neglecta).

So you're not the only one who can go spectacularly wrong. (On the other
hand I can sometimes identify on sight plants that I'd never knowingly
seen before, such as moschatel.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
So you're not the only one who can go spectacularly wrong. (On the
other hand I can sometimes identify on sight plants that I'd never
knowingly seen before, such as moschatel.)

Yes, me too - strange sense of recognition and certainty.

--
Kay