Burseraceae » commiphora

do you know this commiphora?

thanks

guy

Hello,
I think it looks like a Bursera. Do you know where the plants come from.

Christian

as far as i know it is commiphora gileadensis/opobalsamum (most of the plants came as few seeds from a well known botanic garden and its origin is apparently from Saudi Arabia and some of them from an unknow sorce )
it looks different from photos of gileadensis from yenen and dhafor that i saw in the net but i understand that there is a variety of configurations for this species.
the plant is a bit similar to Bursera fagaroides but there are significant differences in the seeds shape and color, the flowers and the behavior of the leaves
i attach some more photos and tomorrow and I'll attach photos of the seeds and flowersTomorrow
thanks
guy

Hello,

Zitat von ERLICHG

---

(most of the plants came as few seeds from a well known botanic garden and its origin is apparently from Saudi Arabia and some of them from an unknow sorce )....it looks different from photos of gileadensis from yenen and dhafor

---

In german Botanical Gardens is this a problem. A lot of plants, which titled as a Commiphora, is really a Bursera fagaroides. B. fagaroides is a very variable species. So it is possible that you have few clons of B. fagaroides. One of the best indication is the fact, that B. f. makes a lot of seeds. Another fact is the seedlings from Bursera have deeply cut seed leafs.

Christian

thanks Christian
i do hope that you are wrong but i am redy to Handle the truth
i'm not convinced yet about your first diagnosis

here is a link to photos of B. fagaroides (i hope i pick a right one)
http://www.bihrmann.com/caudiciforms/subs/bur-fag-sub.asp

here are some photos that i took today from the crime scene:
1-4: young plants that came out from seeds this summer

as i can see' my leafs are much less Serrated/Indented and when they are older, they become Oval completely and not Indented (i'm not sure about the right word but i hope you understand).
5: some mature seeds- their color is usualy strong orang (i think that the fagaroides seeds are red)
6: some fresh seeds on a branch (catting)


deeply cut seed leafs

Continuation:
it looks like my seeds do not have deeply cut seed leafs. they have a rib but- a. when they are fresh you can hardly see it. b. ut is not so deep (or acute
) as the seeds of B. fagaroides. c- it looks like that the fagaroides have more ribs than my plant and that the ribs of the fagaroides are much sharper.

7,8: cluster of flowers (on catting)- not so good photo- i'll tray to get a better one soon
9,10,11: more seeds on plants (cutting)

In addition, when injuring the trunk, at first comes out transparent resin that is very volatile and a few seconds later a white resin, more sticky, both of them very fragrant (more than the leafs).

12,13: some medume branches (from cuttings)

is there any other information / photos i can deliver in order to have the precise diagnosis (definition)?

thanks again for your help

guy

Hello guy,

compare your plants with my B. fagaroides, please.

B. fagaroides seedlings with seed leafs:

hi Christian

as for the seedlings with seed leafs, got to admit they are much alike (only the first two leafs). Is this a rule that in commiphoras the first leaves almost not Serrated?
do you have photos of c. gileadensis seedlings with first leafs?

My seeds are similar to those in the picture despite the fresh seeds of my plant start green and get shades of red before it dries and becomes orange

as for the trunk- here there is a grate Difference-
a. my trunks, not the seedling and not the cutting- never have bottle shape. (This swelling at the base of the trunk)
b. and more than this- in my plants there is no smooth bark at the bottom of the trunk (its all woody)
c. there isnt such peeling that exposes a green smooth stem
d. in cutting- my main clon branches (and trunk) grows to the sids more than to height- I'm guessing that it is related to the weight of branches

i'm still confused about the definition!
are you absolutely sure about your definition?

is there any other information that i can deliver that will help us get into a Clear definition?

thanks again

guy

Hello,

Zitat von ERLICHG

---

...
as for the seedlings with seed leafs, got to admit they are much alike (only the first two leafs). Is this a rule that in commiphoras the first leaves almost not Serrated?
...

---

Yes, all first leafs from Commiphora are non serrated. All off them, which I (and friends) have seed.

Zitat von ERLICHG

---

...
do you have photos of c. gileadensis seedlings with first leafs?
...

---

No, because C. gileadensis is very rare in culture. But I found some photos from mature plants. Have a look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanfari/57...in/photostream/

Zitat von ERLICHG

---

...
i'm still confused about the definition!
are you absolutely sure about your definition?
...

---

No, because I am not a Botanical scientist (I am gardener at the Bot. Garden Bonn). In the literature the different first leafs between Bursera and Commiphora are not mentioned. The most differences are floral and in the seeds. But in culture (here in Germany) flowers and particularly seeds are rarely seen. I got (a lot) seeds from other Botanical Gardens (worldwide) and commercial nurserys and I found these differences by watching the seedlings.

Best regards,
Christian

hi Christian
i know this photos, i even talk to the photografer (a very nice gay)
i saw another photos- different than that one at- http://www.omantoday.co.om/printCon.aspx?Cval=223
It looks like two different plants, The second plant looks very similar to my plant
i got photos of a third plant, comes from yemen- its look like a combination of the last two plants
do you know were can i find a reliable sorce to seeds (or plants) of the Gileadensis?

thanks

guy

one last nice photo of seed

hi Jean
Thanks for joining
what about the seeds make you so sure that the plant is a Bursera (and not Commiphora)?
I really would love to understand (and not just argue for argument)

guy

hi Andreas
first- im still not convinced that the plant is not Commiphora.
you are invited to present evidence, to persuade, to argue, but please do not cancel another opinion without bringing strong arguments.
Strong arguments have been brought in earlier entries, but I must say that although they managed to make me doubt regarding the identity of the plant, I'm still not convinced at all that it is a Bursera .
and as for my plants conditions- thay grow in a Desert Valley on the shores of the Dead Sea, in Israel.

Thanks for joining- the question regarding the habitat is important
guy

hi Jens
I thought I began to understand but just then I got lost
Please excuse me for my ignorance
The pseudo-aril/aril - is the part that surrounds the seed?
If I understood correctly- one of the differences between the species Commiphora and the species Bursera is (abstractly) that the pseudo-aril within the commiphoras is flashy and the pseudo-aril/aril within the Bursera is skiny?
Is this general idea?

In other words (that seems less professional) to describe it - most of the ripe seeds of Commiphora that I know (Such as Africana, Mosammbicensis, Guillaminii, Schimperi, etc.) have a thick and strong shell (I hope it's okay to give this name to the cover) , which appears with dark colors (brown - black - gray). the seeds of my Gileadensis are undoubtedly different. Their shell is thiner and their color is lighter - Orange.
I have no argument about the differences of the seed configuration but is there a scientific consensus that all ripe seeds of Commiphora have a uniform configuration?
I guess the answer to the mystery can be solved as follows:
can anyone please upload a photo of ripe seeds of Agreed / informal / non-controversial C. Gileadensis?

and as to the shape of the first pair of leafes :
There is no dispute about the shape of the first pair of leafes of my plant - I have published clear pictures showing how they look.
The dispute / disagreement is about whether this rule (presented by Christian and accepted by others) is a scientific definition or rational conclusion drawn from experience.
I certainly do not underestimate the values of thinking and reasoning, but in this case- we must always be ready for the possibility of exceptions. As I understand it, not only that this rule of Christian is not an official rule - scientifically, I know (or rather my botanical advisor know) on exceptions of that rule- such as seedilng of bursera micro-phylla that behaved in the typical form of Commiphora.

Jens
I learned a lot from you and from Christian in the last few days and I appreciate your experience, your knowledge and your willingness to share it
Like you, I'm not a scientist and if my words were understood as a criticism or with aggressive tone so I really apologize to you and to other forum members.
The plant in the subject of the current post has become the "project of my life" in the last few years and I found myself very disturbed by the appeal of his identity.
It was very wrong of me to enter this mood.
Questioning is the most important thing and I entered this forum to expand my knowledge (as well as hoping to enrich the genetic diversity of plants I cultivate) so instead of a threat I need to see doubt as a blessing, as an opportunity to renew and as a process that can only make us grow - both for me and for my plants.
Not so many people grows plants from the Burseraceae family and the subject of definition, may be very complex, particularly complex when it comes to less common species with limited accessibility and lack of information.
And now, after I explained and apologized, I'm asking you- please continue to enrich me with knowledge you have about the Gileadensis. If you have any suggestions / ideas / new directions I'd love to hear and promise not to feel threatened ...
If I can help any one of you in some way - please let me know
Guy

Hi Jens
it is great to have you back (i felt lonely...)
do you know how many fatel does Bursera fagaroides (my new enemy) have?