Musings on S. alabamensis

[Clue]

Not a lot's been posted about S. alabamensis ssp. alabamensis, rightfully so because it's covered by the Endangered Species Act which prohibits interstate commerce here in the USA. I thought I'd post some observations of my three S. alabamensis from the ICPS's 2003 distribution since I have a plant from each location. For more on these locations, Barry Rice's FAQ has brief descriptions here. I can't say whether these plants are typical of each location, but I think they are very good representations of how remarkably diverse this species is.


Left to right: S. alabamensis ICPS locations AL001, AL002, and AL003. Photo taken this morning, August 6. The most well-known feature of S. alabamensis is that the most robust pitchers are made in the fall and springtime growth is quite spindly, even in full sunlight. These weak spring pitchers are obvious in AL002 and AL003, which haven't begun making fall pitchers yet. In contrast, AL001 has already started its late season pitchers, and while some of its spring pitchers have an expanded ala, their habit is much more upright. AL001 runs on a shifted timetable compared to the other two - not only the late-season pitcher flush, but it also flowers about two weeks earlier.


AL001 in flower, early April 2022, demonstrating its uniquely upright and relatively robust spring pitchers. AL001 in fruit, August 2022, with most spring pitchers removed and late season flush underway.


AL002, early May 2022 and August 2022. The pitcher habit is particularly decumbent, even in the late season flush which can be seen in this photo from early September last year:



AL003, early May 2022 and August 2022 (before and after thinning some spring pitchers). I think of this plant as the archetypal S. alabamensis; neither as oddly robust as the S. alata-esque AL001 nor as contorted as the gangly AL002 in its fall growth. Last year's fall flush is a good example (September 2021):



Group shot again after thinning spring pitchers. As far as special cultivation notes, I've noticed that this species is especially attractive to pests (mealybugs and thrips in my experience). As high light as possible, thinning spring pitchers, and limiting plant density are all helpful steps. S. alabamensis has a very strong clumping habit, more so than other taxa in the S. rubra complex for me, so thinning growth points is also very important to keep airflow and plant health high. While S. alabamensis rhizomes at vegetative maturity are much larger than any S. rubra, I've had best success keeping this species in quite small pots. My casual observation is that the roots are not particularly robust, so large/deep pots have become anoxic before the roots could get deep into the peat to keep it loose. Unlike S. leucophylla, whose late season performance is heavily influenced by the environment, late season S. alabamensis seems to be quite programmatic (akin to midsummer phyllodia production of S. oreophila).

[Clue]

So you may be thinking, big whoop Clue, nice S. alabamensis, but there's another reason why S. alabamensis has been living in my head rent-free. So I'm a big S. oreophila fan. BIG. Those in the know may know that S. oreophila had observations in Elmore County, AL which is smack in the middle of the state, well away from S. oreophila's main range in northeast Alabama. I first read about the Elmore Co. plants in Donald Schnell's 2nd edition of Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada, and ever since, I've been captivated by the idea that there were some random S. oreophila by some railroad depot and prison in Central AL.

What does this have to do with S. alabamensis? First, S. alabamensis wasn't described until 1974. It's a very cool tale, botanists Fred and Roberta Case first went to Elmore County in the 1953 and met a man named Roland M. Harper. Mr. Harper was very familiar with the Sarracenia in Elmore Co. as he was the first to note them there in 1918 and deposited herbarium vouchers in the 1930's. He also guided Edgar Wherry in Elmore Co., where Wherry in the 1930's was convinced he was collecting specimens of S. oreophila. Second, Elmore County would wind up being the type location of S. alabamensis.

What's interesting is that the season growth habits of S. oreophila and S. alabamensis were not well-known at the time. The Case's collected plants from Elmore Co. in the winter of 1953 and thought that they collected S. oreophila, seeing pitchers with large, expanded mouths. Once they flowered these plants in their greenhouse, the S. rubra type flowers made them realize they had not collected S. oreophila but rather something else entirely; eventually, after many more field trips and observations, they described S. alabamensis as a new species.

So that opens the possibility - either S. oreophila once grew in Elmore Co. with S. alabamensis, and these two species that are famous for being isolated geographically from all other Sarracenia species, were once sympatric. OR Wherry was mistaken, and his Elmore Co. S. oreophila was actually S. alabamensis. The Case's actually remarked the latter, writing that Wherry's 1935 plant he ID'd as S. oreophila was actually S. alabamensis. Interestingly, the Case's stopped short of saying that S. oreophila never grew in Elmore Co. - Harper also deposited herbarium specimens in the 1930's, which the Case's thought could be S. oreophila.

All that being said, looking at the diversity and how enigmatic S. alabamensis was (and still is!), I can see how S. alabamensis could be confused for S. oreophila for so long:

I think the particularly early, robust, and quite green forms like my AL001 (leftmost), growing alongside more typical forms like AL002 (center) and AL003 (right) could give the impression of S. oreophila growing alongside S. alabamensis. Moreso, I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, it should be remarked that S. alabamensis also makes phyllodia throughout the spring and into early summer.


AL002 phyllodia.


AL003 phyllodia.


AL001 phyllodia.

Looking closely at the phyllodia, you'll note that there is usually a small vestigial lid, quite unlike S. oreophila phyllodia, though not always. All my S. alabamensis make phyllodia, but the phyllodia of my AL001 plant combined with its upright habit make it more obvious to me how even the trained eye like Wherry could interpret some plants in the field as S. oreophila.


AL001 in late August 2019. Note the falcate phyllodia, the one on the left lacks the lid vestige altogether.




Late season AL001 pitchers in late August 2019, September 2021, and early August 2022 (these just opened, hence the bronze color, which is not persistent). While we might call these reminiscent of S. alata (and rightfully so! Harper first ID'd the Elmore plants as S. sledgei, a synonym of S. alata), combined with the actually phyllodia and maybe floppy spring pitchers that also look like phyllodia, could this be the sort of S. alabamensis that trained botanists thought was S. oreophila, especially without floral details. Occam's Razor says that this is all just within the variability of S. alabamensis, though, as much I would like to think the traits of my AL001 are influenced by introgression with a relict, now extinct S. oreophila that once grew in central Alabama. Even for those who are not interested in my history tirade, please enjoy the photos of some cool plants!

For super nerds, I am also obsessive about S. oreophila herbarium records and was able to find some scans for specimens from Elmore Co.:

• sweetgum.nybg.org/science/vh/specimen-details/?irn=4114845 This is one of Harper's Elmore Co. specimens. It does look impressively like S. oreophila at first glance considering the large amount of phyllodia, but phyllodia are also impressively small (not more than 4 cm, and significantly shorter on average; the Blue Ridge Mountains S. oreophila are well-known in cultivation to make very small phyllodia, but that population is as far away from Elmore Co. as you can get). The flower appears to have dried quite a light color which matches S. oreophila, but the umbrella diameter (<2 cm) is way smaller than normal for S. oreophila.
• kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/specimen_search.php?mode=details&id=1152205 This is Wherry's Elmore Co. collection. In their discussion of the description of S. alabamensis, Case and Case say that "Wherry's July 13, 1935, Elmore Ala. specimen (PENN), determined by both Wherry and McDaniel as S. oreophila, is in our opinion S. alabamensis." The Case's may have gotten the year wrong since this was collected July 13, 1933, or they are referring to a collection exactly two years later (I'm inclined to say the former, odds of the latter seem very low). I do think this is S. alabamensis, the flowers are far too small, dark colored, the phyllodia are upright, and you can see the vestigial lid on practically all phyllodia.
  
• kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/specimen_search.php?mode=details&id=1152207 Here is another Harper specimen from Elmore Co. from the same collection as the first, which reinforce my remarks on the NYBG specimen. The open pitcher here looks quite S. rubra-ish compared to the open pitcher on the NYBG specimen which resembles S. oreophila quite strongly.

Very unfortunately, Sarracenia were long ago extirpated from Elmore Co., AL, so short of DNA testing the herbarium specimens and having them confirmed as S. oreophila, we'll never know if S. oreophila really grew there. Elmore Co., AL S. alabamensis certainly did enter cultivation, since the Case's collected and grew plants from there - I wonder if living plants still exist in some institution's collection somewhere...

[alexis]

Very interesting!

Here is another photo of ICPS003 in fall: