Talk:Utricularia minor

Surely the photograph on this page is not Utricularia minor? The thickness of the peduncle, the overall nature of the the flower....it looks vastly more like a somewhat distorted U. vulgaris or U. macrorhiza flower. Any other opinions on this?--Plantphotographer (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the USDA's identification. I've known them to be inaccurate on identifications in the past. If you doubt it at all, by all means remove the image and edit the photo description. It's not a very good image, anyway. The only other public domain image we have for this article is Image:Uricularia minor.jpeg - is that positively identifiable as U. minor? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the USDA ID. Unfortunately, in the western USA, any "small" Utricularia will often get the U. minor ID, even if the problem with the specimen is only that too little was collected. In other words, take a nice big U. macrorhiza, split it up into parts, and you get U. minor!  :) The other image you suggested is, while not definitively U. minor, at least not inconsistent with a U. minor identification--Plantphotographer (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)