C.Cardenasii, C.eximium, Rocopica

[Lonewolf 18,622]

John,

I'm quite confused about these species (let's include C.praetermissum too ...)

 

Judging by your flowers' photoes gallery you've a long experience on these wild peppers

http://www.pbase.com/chiles400/flowers_04

 

Can you give us some info ?

Thanks

[Luca dalla Tailandia 2]

John,

I'm quite confused about these species (let's include C.praetermissum too ...)

 

Can someone else also give an opinion? I have not much experience with growing them, but some theoretical knowledge

to perhaps clear up the indeed confusing part of naming, respectively why it is confusing.

I was confused myself when coming across them and did some research.

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Can someone else also give an opinion?

 

Yes, of course ...

[Patahontas 5]

Inferno forum

 

Maybe this will help a little or maybe it will confuse more:unsure:

 

/regards

 

Patrik

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Maybe this will help a little or maybe it will confuse more

 

Thanks

I hope it will be helpful, but will require some time to read and understand all ...

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Ok, I read it ... it was useful.

 

I'm sure my C.cardenasii original plant is a Rocopica, more precisely a cross between a C.cardenasii or C.eximium or Ulupica and a C.pubescens.

All plants born from seeds of the original one show different behaviour, different leaves shape and size etc; but flowers are always similar, with two colours and no spots on the corolla.

 

By the way, in that topic there are wonderful photoes of C.lanceolatum's blossom and flowers; I'm anxious to see my first well formed blossom to become a flower and open itself ...

[Luca dalla Tailandia 2]

The way of how to make a difference between c. cardenasii and c. eximium is indeed tricky and confusing, because there are different parties who claim different things. Hence there are different sources where different authorities have different perspectives. There is the former research of Hunziker who first called the "whole bunch" "Eximium Group" (in 2001) hence including what we may call c. cardenasii. One source (www.infernochili.tk) claims, that c. cardenasii, is only the preferred name of c. eximium used by Charles B. Heiser, Jr. and Paul G. Smith while another source, by Michael J. McLeod, W. Hardy Eshbaugh and Sheldon I. Guttman claims, that C. eximium is widely distributed from middle Argentina through Northern Bolivia while C. cardensii is a (distinct and) narrow endemic of the La Paz, Bolivia region only!

 

Some of the few 'growers' of "both" report that there are clear taxonomic differences between c. cardenasii and c. eximium, (and hence claim that we deal with different species) but in fact they grow from seeds that provide from various sources and in fact were already labeled c. cardenasii and/or c. eximium and not collected on site. And all due respect, so to speak, those seeds were formerly labeled by the sources. So if both clearly look different (in general or partial taxonomy), it just says that we deal with different variations (or species), it actually gives no clue about how we should name them or how to differentiate. Even in case the source is a recognized Organization, they may have named/labeled them according to one way of differentiation (see above explanations).

 

As for the Rocopica it is more evident, even if there is a multitude of them, and not a distinct- or single-one. They are so called semi-domesticated (more or less) stabilized, hence ancient or newer crosses between Rocotos and their wild relatives, either c. eximium or c. cardenasii (the "eximium complex", if we want to use this general denomination). But then again, the c. cardenasii/c. eximium question interferes again as follows. As Rocopicas originate in Bolivia, - and if it is true that c. cardenasii is a distinct and narrow endemic of the La Paz region in Bolivia only, we could think that it is more likely that we mainly deal with cardenasii x c. pubescens (actually various Rocotos), as with c. eximium x Rocotos - when referring to Rocopicas. On the other hand, if c. eximium (as the same source claims) is more widely spread, we could also presume that we mainly deal with C. eximium x Rocotos...

 

As for Capsicum baccatum var. praetermissum (Heiser & Smith) also called "Cumari verdadero" in Brazil (as there is a semi-domesticated Cumari which comes as c. chinense as well), it is identical with C. praetermissum. There has been a change in naming, as scientists formerly thought this species was a .var of C. Bacatuum, they (at least some) now believe that it is different enough in taxonomy to deserve to be a distinct specie and hence should be called/named C. praetermissum (and not .var of any other). Still, some prefer/use the former denomination as capsicum baccatum var. praetermissum and that again, certainly is confusing.

 

That is why (from my personal point of view) there are 2 different ways of understanding and handling this c. cardenasii/c. eximium (Hunziker / Heiser & Smith) naming problem.

 

1. The closest wild relatives to C. pubescens should wether be called c. eximium, respectively c. cardenasii. Each of them is a distinctly different specie, and the differerent naming is not only due to the fact that they were discovered (and studied) by different people/teams. We are then emphazising on- and refering to the source who claims that C. eximium is widely distributed from middle Argentina through Northern Bolivia while C. cardensii is a (distinct and) narrow endemic of the La Paz, Bolivia region only! In that case we should clearly differentiate between both, and using c. eximium for the one which is supposed to be (relatively) more widely spread, and c. cardenasii for the more rare narrow endemic of La Paz.

 

2. The closest wild relatives to C. pubescens should either be called c. eximium or c. cardenasii, actually acording to those who discovered and studied them) - but we are anyway talking about the same specie but only call it a different name, wether after Hunziker (capsicum eximium) or after Heiser & Smith (capsicum cardenasii). In that case we should (even preferably) use the term c. eximium/c. cardenasii and in fact denominate any of them as only "one variation" of either way called 'complex'. We consider or not, that there is a (distinct and) narrow endemic of the La Paz (Bolivia) region but we anyway chose to not differentiate it by calling it c. cardenasii - and just wait for consensus in the future and how to call it "correctly". We here consider that we are only dealing with different variations of the same- and not with different species!

 

Conclusion: there are at least two different perspectives and one has to choose (considering all facts and speculations) from different sources, and actually make a personal decision about how to denominate and call these species.

 

Disclaimer: I do not claim any of the above and I neither confirm the correctness of any of those collected information, I only give an overview of what is claimed by diffrent sources and how one may deal with the confusion. I do not split hairs (so to speak) either, they were already split when I found them

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Thanks Luca, very precise analysis of the question!

 

I wish to add only a note.

When I start growing peppers I was surprised by the fact that different species of peppers could easily cross each other (fo example, annuum x chinense) because from my school studies (too much years ago!) I remembered that what make a species different from another is just they couldn't cross giving fertile hybrids (in the wild).

For example we say that horse and donkey are different species even if they are similar and can cross, because the hybrids (mule or hinny) aren't fertile.

Either rules are changed since 30 years ago or annuum and chinense should be considered belonging to the same species ...

[nipotastro 1,440]

uhm.. it's to late to read all and understand something, but i swear i'll do that soon!

 

anyway, thanks luca!

 

...

@ nagalone : ...so, my cardenasii what probably should be?

[Lonewolf 18,622]

...so, my cardenasii what probably should be?

 

Rocopica, I guess ... but we will have soon the opportunity to ask to a true expert which is also who gave me the original plant; recently writing something via email about that plant he put a question mark following the name "cardenasii", so I think the question is still open.

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Just to add new confusion to this topic ...

In our blog there is a Rocopica flower's photo by Mats Pettersson

 

http://www.pepperfriends.com/forum/index.p...p;showentry=120

 

If I would have seen the photo without comments, I would have say it was a "true" C.cardenasii ...

[JohnF 0]

Sorry to be so slow to respond. I have been busy and missed this post. I am not a botanist and can't explain to you the distinction but cardenasii and eximium are distinct species. There is debate about C. praetermissum and C. baccatum var. praetermissum with some people thinking they are two separate species and others that they are one species with different names but either way distinct from eximium and cardenasii. Rocopica is a cross between C. cardenasii and C. pubescens and the version I grew was from seeds from the man who made the cross. I don't think this would be classified as a wild species. Here is a picture of the flower and pod. The pod is larger than cardenasii but much smaller than pubescens.

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Thanks John

 

The flowers in your last photoes are quite different from those of my C.cardenasii or Rocopica, whichever it is.

My pods also look different, smaller and more roundish.

It's probable mine is also a cross Cardenasii/Pubescens, but different from yours.

 

The sons of the original plant show some unstable characters; just today I see flowers slightly different in one of the plants I grew this year from seeds of the original one of 2006 (I'll take some photoes asap).

 

Past week I met who gave me the first plant (dott. Dadomo); he's also unsure on what that plant really is.

[JohnF 0]

I have met Mario when I visited Italy.

 

I tried my own cross of Ulupica--C. cardenasii with pubescens and only got a few seeds.This is the flower of that cross. it has produced many blooms but very few pods and they are smaller and rounder also. The plant looks more like the cardenasii.The seeds of the one pod that ripened are also shown.

[JohnF 0]

Here is a gallery with some of the wild species pictures

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Here the flower of a plant of my second generation.

This shows some light-green nuances (third colour) which are totally absent in the flowers of her parent, which has only two colours.

 

 

PS. John, your wild species' gallery is impressive!

[Bonnet 157]

Here is a gallery with some of the wild species pictures

 

http://www.pbase.com/chiles400/some_wild_species

 

wow i think there isn't another place like that in internet for find so much wild variety. Very nice and impressive job

[Rapace 9,668]

I resurrect this quite old topic because i find this "Rocopica" varieties very interesting.

 

This year (for the first) time I'm cultivating this hybrid..... 4 plants.. and they have quite different features.

 

First of all flowers........

 

This are flowers from and "Rocopica 3"

 

 

White those are from "Rocopica 2"

 

 

Rocopica 3 (and Rocopica 1, which has same kind of flowers) are producing quite a lot of intense violet coloured flowers, while "Rocopica 2" have not so much flowers with this light violet colour.

Also the shape of flowers is quite different

 

Another important difference is the shape of the plant

 

Here is Rocopica 3... with a lot of quite thin branches starting from the base.... very flexible ones.

 

 

While both Rocopica 1 and Rocopica 2 have a plant-shape more similar to a tree with "regular" branches with quite "rigid" and defined "angles" (those plants have different flowers). I don't have a photo in this moment.

 

Rocopica 4 is still too small.

 

Very interesting.

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Il rocopica e' per definizione un ibrido.

A questo si aggiunge il fatto che nella mia coltivazione abbondano le specie che si possono incrociare con il Rocopica; C.cardenasii, C.eximium di vario tipo e molti C.pubescens.

Per questo motivo e' "normale" la comparsa di tante varianti.

 

Il rocopica che sto coltivando da semi puri (prodotti l'anno scorso in isolamento) e' conforme alle caratteristiche della pianta madre.

 

L'ibridazione del Rocopica con altre specie vale anche in senso inverso.

Quest'anno ho una bella nuova pianta di C.cardenasii con corolla conforme (campanulata), ma frutti decisamente piu' grandi della pianta madre.

[Pr0digal_son 1,407]

My rocopica from Claudio's seed has a very intense violet color but the flower is campanulate. It will not open even on sunny days. The flower is odd,very rigid and will not open even when pulled apart with fingers.

 

 

Initial flowers on the plant opened up. They had streaks of yellow or green

on the inside of corolla(barely visible in photo below) and a white throat.

 

[cmpman1974 504]

John, ours look the same.

 

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Very nice photos and varieties.

 

Both looks link intermediate individuals between C.cardenasii and Rocopica.

This i possible because these species cross-pollinate, even in the wild.

I'm trying to know more about them ...

 

I'm also trying to obtain fruits on true C.cardenasii (original plant) by self-pollination, to verify if it's possibile to produce pure seeds of this species (which is considered self-incompatible in literature).

[Pr0digal_son 1,407]

Claudio,

Do we know what the legendary rocopica from Mario was hybridized with? Cardenasii or eximium? Sunday I should have detailed photos of every aspect of my plant. The berries are small in relation to yours.

Very nice photos and varieties.

 

Both looks link intermediate individuals between C.cardenasii and Rocopica.

This i possible because these species cross-pollinate, even in the wild.

I'm trying to know more about them ...

 

I'm also trying to obtain fruits on true C.cardenasii (original plant) by self-pollination, to verify if it's possibile to produce pure seeds of this species (which is considered self-incompatible in literature).

[Lonewolf 18,622]

Do we know what the legendary rocopica from Mario was hybridized with? Cardenasii or eximium?

 

I don't know, unfortunately.

[Pr0digal_son 1,407]