Erythranthe moschata: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==Loss of scent== |
==Loss of scent== |
||
''Mimulus moschatus'' was widely grown and sold commercially in [[Victorian era|Victorian]] times for its scent, and is well-known for the story that all cultivated and known wild specimens simultaneously lost their previous strong musk scent around the year 1913.<ref name=gc>See correspondence in ''The Gardeners' Chronicle'' vols. 75: 78 (1924), 88: 259, 349, 399, 457, 520 ( 1930), and 89: 17, 36, 116, 190, 202, 207 (1931)</ref> Writing in 1934 in the journal ''Nature'', E. Hardy described a nurseryman, Thomas Wilkinson, who in 1898 found that his plants developed a "rank, leafy smell"; five years later, after leaving the trade, he noticed that plants then on sale were scentless.<ref name=hardy>Hardy, "Lost Fragrance of Musk", ''Nature'', v 134 (1934), 3383, 327</ref> While it was sometimes claimed that strongly scented plants could still be found in the wild, [[Arthur William Hill]], in a 1930 article in [[The Gardeners' Chronicle]], presented evidence from British Columbia claiming that wild populations had also lost their scent. A variety of suggestions were put forward for a solution to the mystery, such as that the scent of the original cultivated form had been a rare recessive feature, which later disappeared as a result of uncontrolled pollination or the introduction of other genes from the wild population. Other explanations were given based on changes in climate, that humans had lost the ability to detect the smell, or simply that the loss of scent was a myth. W.B. Gourlay (1947) suggested that the phenomenon could be explained if the highly scented cultivated form had been reproduced vegetatively from a single aberrant plant, first raised in England from the original batch of seed, and subsequently replaced by unscented plants grown from other sources of seed.<ref name=gourlay> Gourlay, W. B. "The lost scent of Mimulus moschatus". J R. Hort. Soc. 72, 285-287 </ref> It is notable that [[David Douglas (botanist)|Douglas]], who first described the species and collected seed in [[Oregon]] from which the first examples in England were raised, made no reference to a strong musk scent in his field notes.<ref name=gi>''Gardening Illustrated'', v.65, (1948), 6</ref> |
''Mimulus moschatus'' was widely grown and sold commercially in [[Victorian era|Victorian]] times for its scent, and is well-known for the story that all cultivated and known wild specimens simultaneously lost their previous strong musk scent around the year 1913.<ref name=gc>See correspondence in ''The Gardeners' Chronicle'' vols. 75: 78 (1924), 88: 259, 349, 399, 457, 520 ( 1930), and 89: 17, 36, 116, 190, 202, 207 (1931)</ref> Writing in 1934 in the journal ''Nature'', E. Hardy described a nurseryman, Thomas Wilkinson, who in 1898 found that his plants developed a "rank, leafy smell"; five years later, after leaving the trade, he noticed that plants then on sale were scentless.<ref name=hardy>Hardy, "Lost Fragrance of Musk", ''Nature'', v 134 (1934), 3383, 327</ref> While it was sometimes claimed that strongly scented plants could still be found in the wild, [[Arthur William Hill]], in a 1930 article in [[The Gardeners' Chronicle]], presented evidence from British Columbia claiming that wild populations had also lost their scent. A variety of suggestions were put forward for a solution to the mystery, such as that the scent of the original cultivated form had been a rare recessive feature, which later disappeared as a result of uncontrolled pollination or the introduction of other genes from the wild population. Other explanations were given based on changes in climate, that humans had lost the ability to detect the smell, that the scent had been produced by a parasite, or simply that the loss of scent was a myth. W.B. Gourlay (1947) suggested that the phenomenon could be explained if the highly scented cultivated form had been reproduced vegetatively from a single aberrant plant, first raised in England from the original batch of seed, and subsequently replaced by unscented plants grown from other sources of seed.<ref name=gourlay> Gourlay, W. B. "The lost scent of Mimulus moschatus". J R. Hort. Soc. 72, 285-287 </ref> It is notable that [[David Douglas (botanist)|Douglas]], who first described the species and collected seed in [[Oregon]] from which the first examples in England were raised, made no reference to a strong musk scent in his field notes.<ref name=gi>''Gardening Illustrated'', v.65, (1948), 6</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 12:57, 13 May 2016
| Erythranthe moschata | |
|---|---|
| |
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | |
| (unranked): | |
| (unranked): | |
| (unranked): | |
| Order: | |
| Family: | |
| Genus: | |
| Species: | M. moschatus
|
| Binomial name | |
| Mimulus moschatus | |
Mimulus moschatus is a species of monkeyflower known by the common names muskflower, musk monkeyflower, and formerly as the common musk, eyebright and musk plant.
Distribution
It is native to western North America from British Columbia to California to the Rocky Mountains, where it grows in moist, partially shaded habitat in mountains, woodlands, chaparral, and other areas.
It also occurs in eastern North America where it may be native or introduced.[1] It is known from Chile and parts of Europe, including England and Finland, where it grows wild after having escaped cultivation.[2]
Description
This is a rhizomatous perennial herb which is hairless to hairy, sometimes slimy in texture, and generally musky in scent. It is variable in appearance. The prostrate or upright stem grows up to 30 centimeters long. The oppositely arranged leaves are mostly oval in shape and may reach 6 centimeters long. The tubular flower is yellow in color, its tube just a few millimeters wide and widening at the lobed mouth. It may be up to 2.6 centimeters long.
Loss of scent
Mimulus moschatus was widely grown and sold commercially in Victorian times for its scent, and is well-known for the story that all cultivated and known wild specimens simultaneously lost their previous strong musk scent around the year 1913.[3] Writing in 1934 in the journal Nature, E. Hardy described a nurseryman, Thomas Wilkinson, who in 1898 found that his plants developed a "rank, leafy smell"; five years later, after leaving the trade, he noticed that plants then on sale were scentless.[4] While it was sometimes claimed that strongly scented plants could still be found in the wild, Arthur William Hill, in a 1930 article in The Gardeners' Chronicle, presented evidence from British Columbia claiming that wild populations had also lost their scent. A variety of suggestions were put forward for a solution to the mystery, such as that the scent of the original cultivated form had been a rare recessive feature, which later disappeared as a result of uncontrolled pollination or the introduction of other genes from the wild population. Other explanations were given based on changes in climate, that humans had lost the ability to detect the smell, that the scent had been produced by a parasite, or simply that the loss of scent was a myth. W.B. Gourlay (1947) suggested that the phenomenon could be explained if the highly scented cultivated form had been reproduced vegetatively from a single aberrant plant, first raised in England from the original batch of seed, and subsequently replaced by unscented plants grown from other sources of seed.[5] It is notable that Douglas, who first described the species and collected seed in Oregon from which the first examples in England were raised, made no reference to a strong musk scent in his field notes.[6]
References
- ^ Ewing, B. C. (2001). New England Plant Conservation Program Conservation and Research Plan: Mimulus moschatus
- ^ Hear.org Reports
- ^ See correspondence in The Gardeners' Chronicle vols. 75: 78 (1924), 88: 259, 349, 399, 457, 520 ( 1930), and 89: 17, 36, 116, 190, 202, 207 (1931)
- ^ Hardy, "Lost Fragrance of Musk", Nature, v 134 (1934), 3383, 327
- ^ Gourlay, W. B. "The lost scent of Mimulus moschatus". J R. Hort. Soc. 72, 285-287
- ^ Gardening Illustrated, v.65, (1948), 6
External links
 | This Lamiales article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- Mimulus
- Flora of the Western United States
- Flora of California
- Flora of the West Coast of the United States
- Flora of British Columbia
- Flora of the Cascade Range
- Flora of the Rocky Mountains
- Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)
- Natural history of the California chaparral and woodlands
- Natural history of the Transverse Ranges
- Lamiales stubs