Second flush of flowers on Cobincho-MDESH. The flowers now have stamens like the previous example of this plant I grew. This is an odd plant

Hi Gekko

I think a lot of them have similar flowers. Here are pictures of some I've grown. Hope this helps. I find them to be very interesting plants too.
http://www.pbase.com/chiles400/solanaceae

Were the fruit of yours thick fleshed like a pubescens? Were the seeds dark? I have not grown out the seeds from mine so don't know what they will produce. Next winter I hope to concentrate on the wild varieties. Two winteres ago I started several of the wild species with the idea of doing some crossing experiments but had an infestation of mites and had to chuck them all. This summer I have cut way back and am only growing a few of them along with a some other peppers that are new to me.

Back to the lanceolatum which was the original subject of this thread--I was going to wait until it opened but....

I am not a botanist so I won't go further with the pod issue except to say I don't agree.


As for Rocopica it seems like the cross it is purported to be. All my pods were like those pictured and they were thick fleshed like the pubescens with dark brown pubescens-like seeds. I had two types of flowers -one being more bell-like-or maybe they became less so as they matured

Because of all this mess, I've myself decided to call all small-berried forms of these particular plants as c.eximium (A.T. Hunziker's recommendation) and the big-berried forms as "Rocopicas". It seems to me like some of the plants classified as c.cardenasii might actually be these "Rocopicas", semi-wild capsicums. It also seems like many researchers have named small-berried forms wildly either as eximiums or cardenasii with no clear logic behind it...


My opinion ,but I think that just adds to the confusion. It is very difficult to determine pepper species based on pods. There is already a lot of confusion with pepper names.

Interesting. I was under the impression that the Rocopica was not a natural cross but engineered by this guy  http://www.rocoto.com/

The version I grew came ( second hand) from seeds from him





What was your seed source? It might be interesting to trace the sources of various growers

The eximium flower seems distinct to me. The mystery for me is the C. pratermissum vs. C. baccatum var. praetermissum. Two species or different names for the same--two schools of thought on that.

Here are pictures of flowers from each. The first five, starting in the upper left corner, are identified as C. pratermissum and the last five are identified as C. baccatum var. praetermissum

As far as the classification of seed banks, it does not seem to be reliable ( from three I have had experience with). I received several samples of C. eximium from IPK  but they turned out to be several species other than eximium. I sent pictures to Dr Bosland and only one of the samples was C. eximium. He said the defining characteristic for C. eximium is green spots on the corolla.

CAP 503 C. eximium


The first part of this gallery shows the others along with Dr. Boslands determination of correct species
http://www.pbase.com/chiles400/cap

As for the other wilds they seem , to me, ( other than galapagoense) to have a similar growth habit

Bird,Wild--one of the annuums



C. praetermissum #3


CAP 503-C. eximium


cardenasii


Chiltepin,Sonoran-one of the annuums


Cobinch-C. exile ( chacoense)


C. flexuosum


Miniature-a wild pepper from Bolivia-species unknown


Mississippi Bird's Eye-one of the annuums


PI 260595-C. baccatum var. praetermissum


Ulupica de Bolivia

There does seem to be some resemblance. I wonder if all the wild species aren't closer to each other than the domesticated species? Galapagoense does have different traits but it comes from an isolated enviornment.Here are a couple of flexuosum pics

Thanks for the link!

This is a picture of the flower of galapagonse




and this is the flower of a galapgoense cross I am growing. My source does not know the father's name



Note the relative lack of pubesense on the cross

have a plant labeled: Squash, Red ( I believe the annuum version) and it produced this flower rather than the usual white- I'm guessing cross or mislabeled.




I didn't have that many early plants so when Black Cluster flowered




I thought it must be a Black Cluster mislabeled. But now the "Squah,Red" is forming pods





Which don't seem to be Black Cluster. Any ideas other than " Not Red Squash"?

Now 8" and growing

The younger of the two Cobinchos is now flowering and the flowers are interesting, not like the MDESH version, and only one per node.

Two views of flowers of Cobincho-NMDUC

Thanks for the responses. Don't think it is a fungus. It cannot be rubbed off. A friend who has a horticultural program in Florida says he has had this on plants in the green house but not outside and he thinks it's some kind of deficiency but hasn't really been able to identify it. Here is a closer look.

Anyone recognize this stuff? Click
'large' or 'original' for closer view.

http://www.pbase.com/chiles400/image/59489165/medium

It appears that either those were not forming pods or they aborted because now there are no flowers and no pods. This is a plant with strange behaior.

As regards the flowers --Here is a picture of the flower from the first grow out with the odd stamens and the new one with, it looks to me , a stamen that has degenerated.






Also the first time grown there were two flushes of peppers from the one plant. The first pods very small- 1/4" long with no heat and no seeds and the second with 1" long pods that had seeds and were very hot

First flush



Second flush

I fear the first may be a goner but I am still hoping for a miraculous recovery

Almost 5" high!

I add a small amount of bone meal to the hole when I plant the peppers ( and tomatoes) but don't add further during the season. I use dilute Miracle Grow ( the cheaper Wal-Mart version) for both seedlings and mature plants. About 1/4 strength for the seedlings and 1/2 strength for the mature plants.