Agapetes miniata in bloom
This colourful gem is from a genus that is closely related to Vaccinium–the blueberries. Agapetes means “beloved” or “desirable”. Some readers may recognize its similarity to the Greco-Christian type of love known as agape.
This photograph was taken a few years ago in the Rutherford Conservatory at the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden, south of Seattle, Washington, USA. With respect to outdoor plant collections from Asia (particularly rhododendrons), RSBG and UBC Botanical Garden often share material and have similar successes. However, the (impressive) Rutherford Conservatory has allowed RSBG to acquire and maintain a collection of indoor plants that are absent from UBC.
I’ve marked this identification as tentative, though I am somewhat doubtful it is correct. As noted by frequent commenter Pat Collins in the Hygrocybe miniata BPotD entry,
The specific name is specific to the hue of red, minium is red lead, lead tetroxide. Red lead is a striking deep orange-red much the same colour as that fungus and previously much used as a pigment.
The Flora of China account for Agapetes miniata also makes note that the corolla is vermilion or crimson in colour and tubular in shape. This doesn’t seem to match the flowers in today’s photograph. The flora entry also doesn’t make note of the patterning on the corolla, which is actually used in the key to Agapetes to distinguish Agapetes burmanica (with zigzag patterning) from Agapetes miniata (no mention of pattern). This isn’t Agapetes burmanica, though (the patterning could be associated with other species in the key, too).
Here are a few possibilities to potentially explain my confusion.
Possibility 1: This is a very poorly-known species (there are few records of it online), and dried (herbarium) plant material may have been used to make the description–in which case, the flowers perhaps fade to a crimson and lose their patterning when pressed and dried. I am doubtful of this, as the person who named it, Joseph Dalton Hooker, was a plant explorer in the area where it is found in the wild (southeast Tibet (Xizang) and Assam (northeast India)). It is very likely he had access to fresh material.
Possibility 2: I assumed wrongly that a nearby label was in reference to this plant, or a label was misapplied. If that’s the case, others are making the same misunderstanding: see Northwestphoto’s A Visit to My Favorite Botanical Garden (visit the page anyway for more great photos!) or this page from one of the regional nurseries: Agapetes miniata.
Possibilities 3 and 4: Given that the RSBG has as strong of an emphasis (if not stronger) on wild-collected material as UBC Botanical Garden, a misidentification was made when the species was collected, and that name has persisted through all steps in the propagation / cultivation process–and the specimen has yet to be verified against other herbarium specimens. Or, there could have been a mix-up of labels at the nursery or conservatory somewhere along the way. We’ve found for our collection that this is an inevitable occurrence. When an institution like ours grows a number of species of the same genus side-by-side, it is easy for a label to slip one row over (and I imagine this was the scenario at RSBG, as they have significant number of Agapetes in their collection, all of which must have been grown at the same time around the construction of the conservatory in 2009-2010).
Possibility 5: I’m wrong in my skepticism. Do I need yet another reminder to be humble? I suppose we’ll see, if someone with more expertise can contribute in the comments.
There are only a few species / hybrids / cultivars of Agapetes in broader cultivation. It is doubtless this desirable group (“it’s right there, in the name!”) will become more popular with time.
Thanks for that explanation of miniata. I am growing Castilleja miniata, which has a distinctive deep rose-red flower color as compared to the scarlet of many other paintbrush species. I always appreciate learning more about the names of our plants.
how interesting!
Thank you for that wonderful picture. The detail of the flower is amazing. Very beautiful.
Daniel, excellent scientific taxonomic musing. Enjoyable to read and ponder about. And superb photo! Photographically yours.
Why not ask Steve Hootmann at the RSBG? He is an Agapetes fanatic and probably collected that plant!
Ron Rabideau
Thanks! Someone obviously sent him a note (see his comment below). If I was a better planner, that’s what I would have done well in advance. As it was, I started to write this at 3:30pm on a Thursday-before-long-weekend afternoon (had to leave by 5, wanted to leave at 4:30), and then found myself stuck as my uncertainty creeped in. Just had to embrace it at that point!
Hi Daniel,
Nice entry. I collected this plant in NE India as an unknown species. Once it flowered I was able to key it directly to miniata. It matches the description almost perfectly if you consider that very little material exists and that the Ericaceae keys in general in FoC are very far from accurate. Not sure what you call the color in your image but I can tell you that if the plant is grown outside, the color is much darker and more intense as is always the case when comparing with things grown under glass. I have observed and collected Agapetes in the wild for many years and none of them really match the descriptions in FoC (every time anyway). In other words, I am very confident in my identification. You are correct, it is definitely not burmanica (which I have also seen but do not grow) which leaves only miniata (and it pretty closely matches the description in leaf and flower shape and size other than the zig-zagging which I am pretty sure is just a miss on their part) or it is a species nova. I know you sort of have to but I always recommend not putting too much faith into keys (sounds loony I know but I have been keying plants for 35 years and you get a bit jaded, as my mentor once told me “they just write that stuff”.)
Keep up the good work,
Steve Hootman
Just going to try and embedding the Flora of Assam first…
Thanks, Steve. Yes, those are some other possibilities: a poorly-written key or a new species that doesn’t fit the key!
I know my doubts stem from a photograph, but would you consider taking a second look at it? The Flora of Assam linked above specifically mentions Agapetes miniata not having transverse veining in the corolla (page 131).
I’ve also tracked down (thanks to GBIF and herbaria around the world) three images of pressed specimens of Agapetes miniata, including Griffith’s collection with flowers. Those do seem a bit more tubular, but with pressed specimens, one never knows…(and of course, the transverse veining may likely disappear in a dried specimen). The leaf margins on the three specimens all have some toothing as well, which is absent in my photograph above (though, again, it could very well be I photographed a leaf that doesn’t really show that characteristic).
I see those three herbarium specimens all have the small teeth on the leaf margins also seen in Griffith’s drawing of Agapetes miniata, which I have linked in the other comment which is awaiting moderation because of all the links. The flower shape seems a little different, as well.
In “The Flora of British India” Vol III (1882), we have “Order LXXXI Vacciniaceæ” by C.B. Clarke, who remarks of Agapetes miniata
“Corolla slightly wider in the middle, vermilion (Griffith), no transverse bars visible in the dried plants nor suggested in Griffith’s picture;”
Other dried examples clearly kept their stripes, such as Agapetes parishii:
“Corolla cylindric, slightly campanulate upwards, bright red, transverse bars very obscure in the dried examples;”
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37403726#page/453/mode/1up
Here we see Griffith’s original drawing:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42087882#page/313/mode/1up
The photograph above does not seem to have the tiny teeth on the edges of the leaves.
Although those flowers are not perfectly miniaceous in hue, I think the descriptions may be helpful from the first reports of the plant.
For Ceratostema miniatum Griff. in 1854 we have the simple description of “Corolla miniata”.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11625614#page/344/mode/1up
For Vaccinium miniatum (Griff.) Kurz in 1873 we have
“flores coccinei” as though deliberately contradicting the specific name “miniatum” by comparing the colour to crimson from Kermes scale insects, a vivid scarlet which in the pure form has a definite cerise tint almost like a raspberry. Rather like those flowers pictured above. Crimson has no orangey tint at all.
“corolla glabra, 5-gona, c. poll. ¾ longa, lobis brevibus linearibus acutis”
Corolla smooth, 5-cornered, about ¾ inch long, short, sharp linear lobes.
While Google translate has “linearibus” as “linear”, the Lewish and Short has it as from “linearis” – “of or belonging to lines, consisting of lines, linear”. “linearis pictura” being “the art of drawing with lines”
So, perhaps an alternative reading for “lobis brevibus linearibus acutis” could be “sharp lobes briefly lined”? I don’t know enough Latin to say.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35545978#page/112/mode/1up
In the eFlora of China the colour is more complicated by being “vermilion or crimson”. Vermilion was named after the source of crimson but also refers to a mineral used as a pigment – cinnabar, the natural mercuric sulphide, HgS – intense red with a hint of purple. Crimson was originally the colour of a pigment made from Kermes scale insects as described above.
The flowers at 3mm with 1.5mm lobes seem much shorter in China.
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200016207
Thanks Pat, I was hoping you’d tackle this. It is commenters like you who make me check my assumptions!
The measurements of features in Flora of China (particularly when it comes to what unit is being used) sometimes slips by the editors, we’ve noticed.
My pleasure!
For more on William Griffith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Griffith_(botanist)
Please tell us where we can obtain this plant for additions to our gardens.
This particular species? I think I linked to the only nursery in North America who might have it. Or maybe it would be available via one of the spring plant sales at Rhododendron Species BG?
There are other Agapetes more available, Agapetes ‘Ludgvan Cross’ is somewhat similar in appearance.
Hi Daniel and all,
I am definitely having second thoughts on my original id. The images of the herbarium specimens are not the same plant as my collection. Unfortunately, I am too busy right now to take another serious look (headed out of town for three weeks) but will have a go at it when I get a chance in May.
We are propagating it but it is difficult and most of the results have gone to other botanic garden collections so far.
Thank you all for your interest and work on this!
Cheers,
Steve Hootman
Thanks for the update Steve. Let us know if we can be of any help in tracking down resources.
Hi Daniel and all,
I am embarrassed to say that I had forgotten about this discussion in the rush of spring. Our plant is now once again in full bloom and I remembered our ongoing mystery. Have just spent quite a bit of time going through the key in FOC with no luck including going the “other way” in any possible couplet. No luck so it may well be a new species. I do not have access to GBIF or other online herbaria (or do I?) but it did come out closest to the griffithii/pseudogriffithii/hyalocheilos group. But none were a match for various reasons. It was collected in a region that had not really been explored in the past.
Any comments are most anticipated,
Steve Hootman