Cinnion Fern and Fiddlehead

[Marcepstein]

Cinnamon Fern (Ive heard Ostrich fern by some) Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, previously known (Osmunda cinnamome) with the fiddlehead and sporangia (reproductive fertil structure) in the background. I am working on enlarging the sporangia and spora. This species, as I understand, is the only one in its family. The sporangia are seperate from the non-fertil fronds and is in a diploid stage, however there are spores being released. A lot of cluter has been removed from the background. Comments welcomed

[klevin]

Lovely shot of a part of nature often overlooked. The color contrasts are remarkable.

Great Photo.

[Olympusman]

Very nice.

Mike

[Lou Jost]

Yes, very nice. The Ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) is a different species, not a synonym for the Cinnamon fern.

[Marcepstein]

Thanks for the comments. I am trying to stack the sporangia now. I have a couple of macros just ahead of it.

Marc

[iconoclastica]

This species, as I understand, is the only one in its family.

The family is not a big one but it has several members. The Royal fern being the most known of them. Unlimited (and not always necessary) splitting now being en vogue among molecular taxonomists, an increasing number of monotypic (i.e. having only one member) genera and families are called into existence. The genus Osmundastrum is one of those with but a single extant member. There's no harm in still calling it Osmunda cinnamomea. No such concept as 'official names' exists.

[Marcepstein]

Thanks for explaining the genus and species. I recall that there is some reordering of reptile genus and species now based on genetic links as well.

[Lou Jost]

Yes, like iconoclasta said, the fashion these days is to split taxa. Sometimes this is correct and objective, in order to preserve the rubric that a genus should be monophyletic (all more closely related to each other than to members of any other established genera), but more often it is arbitrary, amounting to a decision about where to draw an imaginary "genus" line on the phylogenetic tree. It's an easy way to generate a publication for a taxonomist's resume. I think it is counterproductive.

That said, molecular analysis is often a much better basis for taxonomy than ancient ideas about morphological features. There is more convergent evolution than the early taxonomists suspected. An example I was just writing about is the case of South American dogs:

https://ecomingafoundation.wordpress.co ... venaticus/

When it comes to species-level taxonomy, there is more objectivity, though here too there is often abusive splitting in borderline cases.

I like to find evidence for reproductive isolation for longer than the last glacial/interglacial cycle before describing a new species, though this is often not possible.

[Marcepstein]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that article.