Lewisia triphylla

Continuing with the plants of Oregon series, here is number 4 in a series of 5.

I suppose I might get in trouble with Lewisia experts for displaying an unrepresentative plant of this species. Most plants tend to have one to a few flowers with 2-5 leaves and dot the area where they grow (for examples, see photographs of Lewisia triphylla from the Burke Museum). This particular cluster was either a relative beast or, possibly, a hybrid. To give a sense of scale, this is about as wide across as the palm of my hand — a very relative beast.

As you might expect, a plant native to Oregon will likely have a distribution spanning some parts of western North America. Do note, though (if you clicked on the link), the scattered distribution, coinciding roughly with high elevations as intimated by the Flora of North America account for the species: Lewisia triphylla (growing at elevations of 1500-3300m).

This population of plants was located in an exposed vernal streambed that had mostly dried out by the time of this photograph in early July, but not enough to avoid mud on the knees of my shorts. Other populations later observed elsewhere also had a high degree of soil moisture, usually from recently receded snow.

Lewisia triphylla

11 responses to “Lewisia triphylla”

  1. Lynne

    Where’s the fun in posting a representative plant of the species? Part of what’s so wonderful about plant life is how diverse it is, even within an individual species!

  2. Quin

    ah, Daniel – So DO appreciate your belly botany offerings. this li’l beauty and several of its cohabiting spp. just cover meadows in the central sierra about 6 – 8000′ (forgive my unit of measure) – soft, bright green, barefoot-friendly -don’t step in the bear poop! thanks again

  3. Robin

    Lewisia and Clarkia in the same week — good fun!

  4. elizabeth a airhart

    do we not have a picture of daniel
    in his mud on the knees shorts

  5. Quin

    elizabeth – ha! maybe you can convince him, maybe a calender of muddy botanists

  6. Eric in SF

    Sooooo cute! If it had little cheeks I’d try to pinch them.

  7. Don Fenton

    If you were wearing shorts, how come the mud was on your clothing’s knees and not yours’?

  8. Daniel Mosquin

    Don, my hiking shorts extend to just below my knees, a necessary feature for taking close-ups of plants on rocky / slightly muddy / scratchy surfaces when I’m too lazy to carry kneepads (which is often).

  9. Don Fenton

    Yeah! I take the point, although I would never wear shorts when hiking: jeans or other tough-materialed long trousers only; we have a rather extensive and lively population of highly-venemous snakes in Australia, and shorts in the bush is a sure sign of lunacy!

  10. tohaa

    Thanks for updating my knowledge and also for sharing it .

  11. lisa

    Don, we are so lucky not to have a venomous snake problem here in the Northwestern U.S. like you have in Australia! Wearing shorts here means you’ll probably suffer from some bug bites, possibly spider bites, and of course, some nasty scratches from the native (and non-native) flora. Also the chances of getting bitten by something particularly harmful (like a brown recluse) are really, very low; especially if you know where NOT to sit. Thank goodness. We are lucky indeed.

Leave a Reply