C. lanceolatum

[Nike]

A damp forest may mean a humid air and shadowy conditions,with well draining soil... but, I would go with "neutral" conditions first.

[svalli]

A damp forest may mean a humid air and shadowy conditions,with well draining soil...

This sounds the same as optimal for Saintpaulias. I did not have luck growing them until I found self watering African Violet pots from Home Depot. Now I have been able to keep the plants alive and flowering for many years. I grow even some of my ornamental chiles in these pots.

John, check these out. Maybe the Lanceolatum would like to grow in such.

[JohnF]

Thanks for the link--will check them out.

[JohnF]

Almost 5" high!

[bassino]

Looking good! How about the other one? Is it still alive?

[JohnF]

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

[Aji Inferno]

Almost 5" high!

Very pretty, reminds me of c.flexuosum...

[Nike]

Bravo!!  

[JohnF]

Now 8" and growing

[Nike]

That`s one beautiful capsicum!  :shock:  

[Aji Inferno]

That`s one beautiful capsicum!  :shock:  

A beauty, indeed!  And looks more and more like flexuosum. Makes one wonder whether there's some link between the species... Can hardly wait to get a chance to grow lanceolatum myself some day!

[JohnF]

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

[Aji Inferno]

A great Beauty, that one, too!

Both of my flexuosum plants (of different origin) are now starting to bloom on my glassed balcony...

I think, there seems to be even a bit surprising diversity between the wild capsicums... Until now, I hadn't seen anything even remotely similar to c.flexuosum, for example. Galapagoense is quite different, but so are chacoenses, tovariis, rhomboideums, eximiums, praetermissums, etc.

There's been - so far - one wild example that really puzzles me. That's CGN-19198 - a very, very strange plant... It looks like c.eximium - and it looks like c.praetermissum. Yet, it doesn't fit very well in either category. So far I've considered it to be a c.eximium -variant, even though at CGN they actually re-named if from eximium to praetermissum.

I also once grew a very strange, quite mild (!) Tepin variety PI199506 from Guyana. The appearance of this huge plant was strange enough to make me wonder whether it was a Tepin (wild annuum) at all.

And then there's that wonderful tiny wild frutescens PI-632932 from Guatemala... Again, something so un-Tepin-like that it makes one wonder.

[JohnF]

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

[cmpman1974]

John,

That C. Eximium flower is just gorgeous!   I'd have to say that's the prettiest pepper flower I have ever seen.

Chris

[Aji Inferno]

John,

That C. Eximium flower is just gorgeous!   I'd have to say that's the prettiest pepper flower I have ever seen.

Chris

Truly! The problem btw between c.eximium/cardenasii/praetermissum is that the flowers can be *very* similar... Some examples from Inferno: http://www.saunalahti.fi/thietavu/Chili/T_Scanned.htm

The plants are somewhat different, though. Still, makes one wonder whether there's a relationship between the eximiums and praetermissums...

[JohnF]

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

[Aji Inferno]

I think, there's something quite strange about the categarization of many wild species. According to A.T.Hunziker, c.cardenasii and c.eximium are one and the same plant - and c.eximium var. tomentosum possibly a species of its own. To my limited knowledge, c.praetermissum and c.baccatum var. praetermissum are just two different ways to describe the same plant.

As our leading (my honest opinion) capsicum expert in Finland, Fatalii, has already suspected, I think there may be hidden relationships between certain species like c.eximium, c.praetermissum, c.baccatum and c.pubescens that haven't been found yet - or at least not reported properly.

CGN19198 variety truly makes one think, since it resembles both some eximium/cardenasiis and some praetermissums. And yet, it's different from both...

Also, very, very interesting are the "Rocopicas" - either natural or man-made crossings of c.pubescens "Rocoto" and c.eximiums "Ulupica"... That's the only known link to Rocoto's origins - but there's a lot we don't know. It seems like in Bolivia, there's a huge variety of plants called "Ulupica" which may or may not have c.pubescens genes. That has, again, resulted in wild plants with berries of varied sizes.

The mess with c.cardenasii/c.eximium classification just might well result from this: some of the plants found have been truly wild, some have certainly been natural crossings btw c.eximium x c.pubescens - and many have been somewhere in between... And the researchers have named them as different species - sometimes as eximium, sometimes as cardenasii, according to e.g. the size of the berry.

What makes this interesting is that there's, I think, a great chance that some of these crossings btw c.eximium and c.pubescens may have happened thousands of years ago. And therefore, some of those crossings may well have stabilized themselves into true new wild varieties. For example, my two "Rocopica" plants with large berries (1 cm diameter) are exactly similar. They do appear like true wild capsicums.

And what wonderful plants they are..!!! Definitely among my favourites by any measure! Hot as hell, tasty, easy to grow and quite pretty, too.

[JohnF]

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

[Aji Inferno]

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

It's more than a little confusing... What you say is true - that's (AFAIK) the origin of the variety called "Rocopica". What makes things more interesting is that, for example, in USDA seed bank there's a wild c.cardenasii variety from Bolivia with a description exactly like "Rocopica". It seems like "Rocopica" -type grows both (semi?)wild and domesticated, and that the wild forms are probably stabilized forms of either man-made or natural crossings btw c.cardenasii/eximium and c.pubescens.

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 seed source may have been Mats Pettersson, but I'm not sure any longer - my plants are rather old. Their berries, however, seem to be smaller than the ones in your photo, and also completely round. They drop very easily when touched (typical to wild capsicums). -Their flowers are also strongly bell-shaped, and thus quite different from Rocotos I've seen. The flowers in your photo look more like Rocoto flowers. Interesting mystery...