Isopogon & Petrophile
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A U S T R AL I A N N A T I V E P L A N T S A S S O C I A T I O N ( A U S T ) Isopogon & Petrophile Study Group Newsletter No. 24 April 2019 ISSN 1445-9493 Website http://anpsa.org.au/iso-petSG/ T H E P E T R O P H I L E I S S U E THE TOP THREE: What are they? And which was our members’ Number One? See our article. Photos: Royce Raleigh, Fiona Johnson, Catriona Bate Back issues of the Isopogon and Petrophile Study Group Newsletter are available at http://anpsa.org.au/iso-petSG/IPSG-news.html Isopogon & Petrophile Study Group Newsletter April 2019 1 STUDY GROUP LEADERS/NEWSLETTER EDITORS Catriona Bate & Phil Trickett Email: [email protected] Ph: 0409 789 567 T H E P E T R O P H I L E I S S U E Editorial How do you say it?? Distribution Characteristics History of the genus Petrophile naming Petrophile and Abbé Michel Gandoger – Peter Olde Solving the mystery of eastern petrophiles How to grow petrophiles How to propagate petrophiles Aulax trials A splash of red Natural hybrids Fire ecology Conservation issues The top petrophiles Where to buy petrophiles In the press Financial report Hello to all our members It’s a sad fact that there is barely a nursery in Australia you can walk into and find a petrophile plant to buy. And the common eastern species are particularly hard to acquire. Yet you can walk into Bunnings and buy a plant of Aulax, a genus no one has ever heard of and native to South Africa. There are only three species in Aulax and the scientists now tell us the DNA shows this genus is most closely related to Petrophile, instead of Isopogon as previously thought. To us, our endemic petrophiles and isopogons are morphologically very similar. However petrophiles are much harder to find in nurseries and gardens than isopogons. The main reason for this is that isopogons seem to be easier to grow, and there are more of the highly attractive pink flowering species with large flower heads. Therefore they are more likely to appear in the nursery trade. However our access to both genera seems to have reduced over time, with long-time growers of WA proteaceae telling us that they used to be able to access and grow many more I&P species in the past. The level of knowledge about petrophiles seems to be very low even among native plant people. The greater number of petrophile species compared to isopogon can be confusing. And there are many similar species and much taxonomic work yet to be done. Many WA species have a limited distribution and we are unlikely to stumble across them in the bush. But there are still plenty of easy to find and identify species! Here in the east they are easily found but even native plant experts have trouble distinguishing between species – however Isopogon & Petrophile Study Group Newsletter April 2019 2 this is a function of an overall lack of familiarity rather than any real difficulty. In this issue, Phil shows how to tell the difference. Not all species have stunning floral displays. Yet petrophiles are great foliage plants, some would say the flower heads are a bonus rather than the main reason to grow many species of the genus. The eastern species grow in similar locations to the popular eastern banksia cultivars and there is no reason that they should be any more difficult to grow than these trendier plants. Some say the showier species are actually among the toughest e.g. P. biloba and P. teretifolia are among the most commonly grown species. In this issue we celebrate the petrophile and bring it out of the shadow of its more familiar companion the isopogon. We hope that when you have finished reading this newsletter you will have a better understanding of these neglected plants plus a new appreciation and enthusiasm. And hopefully this will spread further within our Australian Plant Society and beyond. There are many similarities between isopogons and petrophiles but also some fascinating differences. We look at what makes petrophiles distinctive, and where they come from. Catriona’s article on the history of the genus discusses how botanists have debated over time on what, if anything, separates them. They have also made many changes to species as the science of botanical taxonomy has developed. Catriona also looks at the history of naming of petrophile species over the last 230-odd years. Peter Olde has delved even further into the taxonomic history of a few of the currently recognised species – the findings of the little-known French botanist Gandoger, a notable splitter, point to potential issues for further scrutiny. We also look at the distribution and fire ecology of petrophiles plus conservation issues, and report on presumed natural hybrids. We even address the perennial question of how to say the word petrophile. Phil looks at how to propagate and grow petrophiles drawing on members’ knowledge. Plus we report on where to buy petrophiles. A highlight this issue is the result of our Study Group member vote for top petrophile species. It was a close result but three really stood out. Wouldn’t we all love to have these in our gardens! Our sincere thanks to those members who took the time to share their knowledge and enthusiasm for petrophiles. Given the lack of knowledge of this genus, this information is vital and it’s great to have it documented. As a group we all need to increase our efforts to know, grow and promote this genus. We should all have some in our gardens. We need to encourage others to grow them too, starting with our Plant Society colleagues. Catriona and Phil How do you say it?? Catriona Bate Petrophile?? we constantly get asked. Not the word as such, but how to say it. Is it PET-RO-PHILE or pe-TROPH-i-LEE? It’s confusing to have two alternatives – but not as bad as the genus Alyogyne, we’ve heard four or five different ways to say that. Pronunciation is a vexed question in botanical circles. The topic came up in a recent article by an author wanting to remain anonymous to ‘protect the guilty’ reprinted in the Native Plants for NSW quarterly bulletin. But confusion isn’t confined to plant people, everyday English can be a minefield of tricky pronunciations causing red faces. For example, picturesque, quay, gunwales, forehead, the list is endless. Word expert David Astle calls these ‘gotcha’ words. Names for places, people, plants can be even more challenging to pronounce correctly. What about cotoneaster, or Canowindra? (Not to mention the confusion of names from other languages – a case in point being the Gaelic name Catriona). Isopogon & Petrophile Study Group Newsletter April 2019 3 So what’s the correct pronunciation? In botany we love rules, but there are various conventions which can be applied. To start with, there are two factors underlying botanical pronunciation: what classical scholars think ancient Greek and Latin sounded like, and what traditional English pronunciation of those languages is. This involves the sound of certain letters (for example, arkarkia versus aKAYsha for acacia) as well as the stresses in a word. Usage and other traditions also have a role in determining pronunciation. In some cases, this results in a way of saying a word being recognised even if it doesn’t follow a given rule. It is unsurprising to find that we Australians like to buck the system. Imagine pronouncing callistemon callySTEEmon, grevillea GREVillea or hakea HARKeea as rules might dictate. In the case of the word petrophile, it comes down to where we put the stress or accent, resulting in either three or four syllables. None of the word’s component parts refer to botanical structures (which should take the main accent) or a surname (where the stress is usually on the second syllable). We need to look beyond botany to the rules and customs of English language. The suffix -phile, from the Greek, is often used to coin nouns combining two elements where the second part - phile means ‘lover of’ or ‘enthusiast for’ and the first part specifies what is loved. In Petrophile, the word means rock-loving. There are hundreds of English words with the same ending, including bibliophile, Francophile, chocophile, oenophile, even plant-related ones like orchidophile, and more scientific terms like acidophile. In all cases the suffix is a single syllable, -PHILE (as in -FILE). Both components usually have equal stress. Following this lead, the pronunciation should be PET-RO-PHILE, three syllables. Although this makes the word components clear and is a pointer to its meaning, petrophiles do not necessarily grow in rocky situations and so as a descriptor for the DID YOU KNOW? genus this concept is not very useful. The unfortunate prominence (or overuse) in the media of a similar- When infused in hot water, sounding term for abnormal or socially unacceptable behaviour the flowers of P. brevifolia (pedophile or paedophile) causes those of us who frequently deal with are said to give off a this genus headaches. The syllables are the same and only a couple of brilliant yellow colour. hard-to-hear consonants differ. In speech, there is a high likelihood of mistaking PETroPHILE for PEDoPHILE, especially for listeners unfamiliar with this plant genus. Perhaps if the alternate pronunciation PEEDoPHILE was adopted we might have less of an issue. And the suffix -phile is a little offputting, reminding us of others like -philia, -philiac, -philic or -phobe, which tend to have negative connotations.