kate-w29's picture

White Campion

Observed: 5th June 2012 By: kate-w29
S159 Neighbourhood Nature - course complete
kate-w29’s reputation in Plantskate-w29’s reputation in Plantskate-w29’s reputation in Plantskate-w29’s reputation in Plants
stitchwort1
stitchwort2
Description:

Straggly plant with few leaves and clusters of 2-3 white flowers.

Identifications
Species interactions

No interactions present.

Comments

WS159's picture

check out these pictures

AlanS's picture

Don't believe

everything on the Web.

Those pictures are also S. latifolia.

Alan

WS159's picture

Thanks for the advice

.

Fenwickfield's picture

Knowledge

I personally feel that the only way you can learn about plants is to be out in the field also if it is to be a serious hobby or job then an education in plant Biology.There are so many things on the web which are wrong in all subject's your better of getting a good plant book.

Fenwickfield

WS159's picture

Reliable sources of ID are a problem

I actually had a White campion plant that I'd been looking at. It was the fact that what I'd seen in the field was so different to the observation here that led me to query it and look for an alternate ID.

Now, I am an interested amateur (and I really don't think you are saying that the only people that should post here are the much more well-resourced serious hobbyists, professionals and those with degrees in Plant biology) Clearly some discernment is required using online information - ispot itself has many errors, so what are the majority plebs supposed to rely on ?

A good book, I was recommended "The wildflower key Rose/O'Reilly" and now have it in my possesion. It seems OK, and in the main reasonably useful diagrams (but find photos are much easier to check against).

Their entry under white campion, though not actually showing this in the line drawing, does in fact give the clue to the discrepancy I had noticed.

The plant is dioecious. Male and female plants. I had only seen the female, quite distinctive, the picture in the obs above must be the male.

But I am left wondering why the expert did not point this out, as it would seem to be a key part of the id (and would have been a much more informative and interesting comment than the one we were treated to).

kate-w29's picture

Noctiflora

Hi WS159
I don't recall this being particuarly hairy/sticky, and it was in flower at midday in June, so having compared noctiflora and latifolia, I think it is more likely to be the latter.

WS159's picture

Yes, it is S.latifolia. Hope

Yes, it is S.latifolia. Hope you don't feel your comments thread has been hijacked, but it has been an interesting discussion.

kate-w29's picture

No problem

I agree there is almost too much info on the web these days, and it is easy to get confused once back at home and trying to remember exactly what was seen. Its been useful for me in recognising the importance to consider everything about the plant (location, climate, flowering time etc) as well as just its physical appearance when trying to ID it.

Fenwickfield's picture

Usefull

It may sound a bit daft but always take a note pad and pencil with you when out looking and jot down the relevant info to go with your photo's.As before you know it you could have taken pictures of more than twenty plants so it is impossible to remember all the points about each one unless you have a very good memory.I also and give each plant a number so it matches up with the pictures taken.I always do this with fungi too.
Hope this help's

I say pencil because if it rains pen ink smudges but pencil does not

Fenwickfield