Thank you 💚🌱, and thank you for the pinkish flower picture of R. micrantha f. kirbergii, that is probably my favorite comparison against the whitish flowers because you can really see just how much they truly look alike!
Love this video!! Phenotypic plasticity is a factor in epigenetics. Heritable traits can actually reverse or change again generations later, or maybe remain!! It’s a really fascinating field. Thanks so much for doing this! So helpful!
7:54 Interesting that from previous reports (Rhipsalis website for example), and my own observations of plants, R, pachyptera and R,olivifera are very similar, differing only in the fruit morphology, and yet they diverged very early within the Phyllarthrorhipsalis sub-genus according to your phyllogenetic tree
Some earlier phylogenetic studies had R. olivifera, R. elliptica, and R. micrantha evolving from a common ancestor making those it’s closest relatives while others, like the sample one I used that is more recent, had it much farther back. I don’t think it’s strange that the phylloclades and overall vegetative morphology would be similar that is observable and understandable across a lot of Rhipsalis. I see bits and pieces of similarities between R. olivifera and a few of the other species in the same subgenus, which is also understandable. The unique thing about flowers is that they are reproductive parts and that is where a person would except to see a stronger divergence, for the berries to be different their flower ovaries would be different. My personal view between the two is I mostly just see the resemblance in their phylloclade size and shape, but flowers look quite different to me.
Thank you 💚🌱! 😂 it took a bit but, I had fun doing it. It helps me to really dig into to the identity of some of them, like I didn’t pay as much attention to the Baccifera subspecies prior to this and I learned a lot of fascinating things about them!
Wow! Incredible video! What are your thoughts on s. lutea bradei, and casa 1000 being possibly in the wrong genus? I have spoken to some experts who believe that it is misclassified as a schlumbergera when it should be in the rhipsalis family. I don't think a successful cross of lutea has ever been made with another schlumbergera, and it also has yellow flowers which is very unusual for a non hybrid schlum, and it blooms at times closer to other rhipsalis. Just curious to your thoughts.
Oddly enough it was phylogenetics that placed it where it is today in Schlumbergera, I believe it was classified as Hatiora previously. The trees aren’t consistent across all the studies for Schlumbergera. I think looking at that it’s best to look at Rhipsalideae studies as a whole and the common ancestors that Hatiora, Schlumbergera, and Rhipsalidopsis share, it’s a little more palatable when viewed that way. It definitely seems like an oddity but I don’t think it’s in the wrong genus, I think if the genus was split into subgenera we wouldn’t think it was so unusual 😂! Like with Rhipsalis the bell shaped flowers are in a subgenus and we don’t think there is anything strange because their vegetative morphology is consistent with Rhipsalis. S. lutea has a vegetative morphology consistent with Schlumbergera but most of us feel wrong or confused by it because the flower is symmetrical like that of Hatiora or Rhipsalidopsis. There was a study that tried to reclassify Rhipsalidopsis as Schlumbergera but that was generally not accepted by the broader community.
You introduced a phylogenetic tree for Rhipsalis at time stamp 3:41. Is that your work or did you find this on the internet somewhere? Thank you so much for this video!
It’s an example tree I fudged together from several different sources and added missing species into, it shouldn’t be taken as fully accurate for that reason. Here are some studies with phylogenetic trees, all of them are slightly different. The more recent ones are likely the more accurate representations, especially because some of the earlier studies led to the reinstatement of some species like Rhipsalis rhombea which I think would have been sampled as Rhipsalis oblonga. That is why in early studies there are labels like R. oblonga A and R. oblonga B. academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/180/4/491/2416556 bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.1000502 bioone.org/journals/haseltonia/volume-27/issue-1/026.027.0111/Neotypification-of-Rhipsalis-rhombea-Rhipsalideae-Cactaceae-and-Its-Taxonomic-History/10.2985/026.027.0111.short www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/41/41132/tde-12052010-134816/publico/alicecalvente.pdf
I see you describe Rhipsalis Crispata, I've been seeing an ID "Rhipsalis crispamarginata" that looks quite similar and is possibly the same plant but I can't find a clear answer. Have you heard of Rhipsalis crispamarginata and is it just an alternate name for the crispata?
That is typically what happens when we try to identify Rhipsalis based on clade shapes alone and ignore the botanical descriptions and history 😓. I rely on botanical texts and pictures written by experts; botanists/taxonomists for identification, sometimes even those can be a mixed up but I tend to follow a lot of the research. The plant that I find most frequently in botanical texts as Rhipsalis crispata and fits the botanical descriptions of Rhipsalis crispata is the plant I presented. Rhipsalis crispimarginata is not the same species, a key identifying feature in most botanical texts was that it has translucent pinkish berries although that alone is less than helpful but, R. crispata was described with white-ish or greenish-white berries, again as seen in the plant I presented. Some later botanical texts have synonymized R. crispimarginata with R. oblonga, meaning R. oblonga could potentially have white-ish, greenish-white, or pink berries, something not uncommon in Rhipsalis. R. oblonga though has a very distinct flower with a short round ovary and very long petals so, if they are indeed synonymous they would have very close to identical flowers. The plant I presented has neither of those characteristics, the ovaries are short but kind of squarish or angular and the petals are sort of wide and shorter. This gives us the keys to what R. crispimarginata flowers should look like though. Another botanical text about R. crispimarginata presented the idea that the more recently described R. barthlottii which was at one time labeled as R. oblonga in a botanical garden and has very magenta if not red berries was given a new independent species status as a result of molecular phylogentic testing is actually R. crispimarginata. This doesn’t help us as it hasn’t been confirmed or accepted just proposed except that it again solidifies the idea of what R. crispimarginata flowers probably should look like. A note about R. oblonga so it can’t be confused with R. crispata because the berries are described as white or greenish-white for both species is that it was always described as having the thinnest clades “leaf like”, not to be confused with narrow which it was also described as having but thin and leaf like in texture. R. crispata has pretty thick stiff clades. This also gives us an idea of what R. crispimarginata should be like. The general confusion about R. oblonga, R. barthlottii, and R. crispimargina actually helps us get an idea of what they all should look like 😂. As of today the general expert community recognizes R. crispimarginata as a synonym R. oblonga but that could change.
Amazing video. This is the definitive guide to Rhipsalis identification! Thank you so much for your tireless work.
Thank you 💚🌱, and thank you for the pinkish flower picture of R. micrantha f. kirbergii, that is probably my favorite comparison against the whitish flowers because you can really see just how much they truly look alike!
Love this video!! Phenotypic plasticity is a factor in epigenetics. Heritable traits can actually reverse or change again generations later, or maybe remain!! It’s a really fascinating field.
Thanks so much for doing this! So helpful!
Thank you! That is really interesting! 💚🌱
Holy cow! What a great and VERY informative video. love it! Thank you
Thank you 💚🌱
7:54 Interesting that from previous reports (Rhipsalis website for example), and my own observations of plants, R, pachyptera and R,olivifera are very similar, differing only in the fruit morphology, and yet they diverged very early within the Phyllarthrorhipsalis sub-genus according to your phyllogenetic tree
Some earlier phylogenetic studies had R. olivifera, R. elliptica, and R. micrantha evolving from a common ancestor making those it’s closest relatives while others, like the sample one I used that is more recent, had it much farther back.
I don’t think it’s strange that the phylloclades and overall vegetative morphology would be similar that is observable and understandable across a lot of Rhipsalis. I see bits and pieces of similarities between R. olivifera and a few of the other species in the same subgenus, which is also understandable.
The unique thing about flowers is that they are reproductive parts and that is where a person would except to see a stronger divergence, for the berries to be different their flower ovaries would be different. My personal view between the two is I mostly just see the resemblance in their phylloclade size and shape, but flowers look quite different to me.
What an amazing and beautiful video! You must have spent so much time creating that for us
Thank you 💚🌱! 😂 it took a bit but, I had fun doing it. It helps me to really dig into to the identity of some of them, like I didn’t pay as much attention to the Baccifera subspecies prior to this and I learned a lot of fascinating things about them!
i am so excited to watch this video, thank you for this amazing resource!!!
Thank you! 💚🌱
@@EpiphyticCacti Would you be able to allow download access to the linked presentation?
Ah, it was intentional to block downloads, because I will be updating the documents continuously.
I think I see, the file was too big to view, I fixed it so it should be viewable now.
@@EpiphyticCacti Yep, I can view it now! Thank you so much!!
Wow! Incredible video! What are your thoughts on s. lutea bradei, and casa 1000 being possibly in the wrong genus? I have spoken to some experts who believe that it is misclassified as a schlumbergera when it should be in the rhipsalis family. I don't think a successful cross of lutea has ever been made with another schlumbergera, and it also has yellow flowers which is very unusual for a non hybrid schlum, and it blooms at times closer to other rhipsalis. Just curious to your thoughts.
Oddly enough it was phylogenetics that placed it where it is today in Schlumbergera, I believe it was classified as Hatiora previously. The trees aren’t consistent across all the studies for Schlumbergera. I think looking at that it’s best to look at Rhipsalideae studies as a whole and the common ancestors that Hatiora, Schlumbergera, and Rhipsalidopsis share, it’s a little more palatable when viewed that way. It definitely seems like an oddity but I don’t think it’s in the wrong genus, I think if the genus was split into subgenera we wouldn’t think it was so unusual 😂! Like with Rhipsalis the bell shaped flowers are in a subgenus and we don’t think there is anything strange because their vegetative morphology is consistent with Rhipsalis. S. lutea has a vegetative morphology consistent with Schlumbergera but most of us feel wrong or confused by it because the flower is symmetrical like that of Hatiora or Rhipsalidopsis. There was a study that tried to reclassify Rhipsalidopsis as Schlumbergera but that was generally not accepted by the broader community.
You introduced a phylogenetic tree for Rhipsalis at time stamp 3:41. Is that your work or did you find this on the internet somewhere? Thank you so much for this video!
It’s an example tree I fudged together from several different sources and added missing species into, it shouldn’t be taken as fully accurate for that reason.
Here are some studies with phylogenetic trees, all of them are slightly different. The more recent ones are likely the more accurate representations, especially because some of the earlier studies led to the reinstatement of some species like Rhipsalis rhombea which I think would have been sampled as Rhipsalis oblonga. That is why in early studies there are labels like R. oblonga A and R. oblonga B.
academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/180/4/491/2416556
bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.1000502
bioone.org/journals/haseltonia/volume-27/issue-1/026.027.0111/Neotypification-of-Rhipsalis-rhombea-Rhipsalideae-Cactaceae-and-Its-Taxonomic-History/10.2985/026.027.0111.short
www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/41/41132/tde-12052010-134816/publico/alicecalvente.pdf
@@EpiphyticCacti thank you for your passion and the sharing of accurate information!
Excellent video 💯
Thank you 💚🌱
❤😊❤ Ty.
I see you describe Rhipsalis Crispata, I've been seeing an ID "Rhipsalis crispamarginata" that looks quite similar and is possibly the same plant but I can't find a clear answer. Have you heard of Rhipsalis crispamarginata and is it just an alternate name for the crispata?
That is typically what happens when we try to identify Rhipsalis based on clade shapes alone and ignore the botanical descriptions and history 😓.
I rely on botanical texts and pictures written by experts; botanists/taxonomists for identification, sometimes even those can be a mixed up but I tend to follow a lot of the research. The plant that I find most frequently in botanical texts as Rhipsalis crispata and fits the botanical descriptions of Rhipsalis crispata is the plant I presented.
Rhipsalis crispimarginata is not the same species, a key identifying feature in most botanical texts was that it has translucent pinkish berries although that alone is less than helpful but, R. crispata was described with white-ish or greenish-white berries, again as seen in the plant I presented.
Some later botanical texts have synonymized R. crispimarginata with R. oblonga, meaning R. oblonga could potentially have white-ish, greenish-white, or pink berries, something not uncommon in Rhipsalis. R. oblonga though has a very distinct flower with a short round ovary and very long petals so, if they are indeed synonymous they would have very close to identical flowers. The plant I presented has neither of those characteristics, the ovaries are short but kind of squarish or angular and the petals are sort of wide and shorter. This gives us the keys to what R. crispimarginata flowers should look like though.
Another botanical text about R. crispimarginata presented the idea that the more recently described R. barthlottii which was at one time labeled as R. oblonga in a botanical garden and has very magenta if not red berries was given a new independent species status as a result of molecular phylogentic testing is actually R. crispimarginata. This doesn’t help us as it hasn’t been confirmed or accepted just proposed except that it again solidifies the idea of what R. crispimarginata flowers probably should look like.
A note about R. oblonga so it can’t be confused with R. crispata because the berries are described as white or greenish-white for both species is that it was always described as having the thinnest clades “leaf like”, not to be confused with narrow which it was also described as having but thin and leaf like in texture. R. crispata has pretty thick stiff clades. This also gives us an idea of what R. crispimarginata should be like. The general confusion about R. oblonga, R. barthlottii, and R. crispimargina actually helps us get an idea of what they all should look like 😂.
As of today the general expert community recognizes R. crispimarginata as a synonym R. oblonga but that could change.