Thanks for the feedback ! I attached all the pictures from a research with "rhododendron/s", "snowrose", "alpenrose". Perhaps some flowers were wrongly identified.
For 304229, it is mentionned "Rhododendron prunifolium"; for 260540 is "snowrose", but perhaps this is a legend mistake ; for 316447 and 316923 is also written "AlpenRose", but it looks like he was mistaken between "rose" and "alpenrose" which is not a rose.
Here is a little more information. The photo 260540 is correctly identified as Helloborus niger. Simple research will show this to be a herbaceous wildflower of the family Ranunculaceae (Buttercup family). The use of common names to identify things is always problematic. They can be whatever someone wants and can vary regionally. A good example over here is the Dogtooth Violet. Its not a violet at all, but a member of the lily family. Yet everyone knows it as Dogtooth Violet, though its not remotely related, nor does it even look like a violet. Calling something Snowrose doesn't make it a member of the genus Rhododendron. In this case its not even close.
Photo 304229 is clearly misidentified. The plant in the photo appears to be from the composit (Asteraceae) family. Rhododendron prunifolium is very different. Here is a link with a photo:
http://www.floridata.com/ref/R/rhod_pru.cfm
There is another one that I missed the first time. It is photo 414876. The caption mentions Rhododendrons so that is why it was included in your search results, but the plant in the photo is not identified as such. The flower in the photo is a Phlox of the family Polemoniaceae.
Forgive me for being a nitpic, but I'm sure you want your album to be as accurrate as possible.
Thanks for this very accurate comment which I greatly appreciate, I am not very expert in flowers and especially those out of my continent :) I notified the authors of these photos of the legend mistakes they made and why i detached them.
I also found out that an Azaleas album was already existing while I initially decided to include them. Instead of making a duplicate album I prefered to change the rule and detach them. I saw that you attached a very beautiful azalea to this album, but I think the place is rather in the other one despite your picture looks very nice.
Have a nice week end !
PS: I have several doubtful flowers to identify in my Pyrenees flora album so you're welcome to have an eye :)
I can take a look at the Pyrenees album, but I'm not an expert in the European flora. I can often tell a family or a genus, but rarely would I try to make a species determination.
mrh - Apr 21, 2009 11:44 am - Voted 10/10
Nice AlbumLove the Rhododendrons. But you have four photos here that are not Rhododendrons. They are:
304229
260540
316447
316923
You might want to remove them.
visentin - Apr 22, 2009 2:32 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice AlbumThanks for the feedback ! I attached all the pictures from a research with "rhododendron/s", "snowrose", "alpenrose". Perhaps some flowers were wrongly identified.
For 304229, it is mentionned "Rhododendron prunifolium"; for 260540 is "snowrose", but perhaps this is a legend mistake ; for 316447 and 316923 is also written "AlpenRose", but it looks like he was mistaken between "rose" and "alpenrose" which is not a rose.
mrh - Apr 22, 2009 4:24 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Nice AlbumHere is a little more information. The photo 260540 is correctly identified as Helloborus niger. Simple research will show this to be a herbaceous wildflower of the family Ranunculaceae (Buttercup family). The use of common names to identify things is always problematic. They can be whatever someone wants and can vary regionally. A good example over here is the Dogtooth Violet. Its not a violet at all, but a member of the lily family. Yet everyone knows it as Dogtooth Violet, though its not remotely related, nor does it even look like a violet. Calling something Snowrose doesn't make it a member of the genus Rhododendron. In this case its not even close.
Photo 304229 is clearly misidentified. The plant in the photo appears to be from the composit (Asteraceae) family. Rhododendron prunifolium is very different. Here is a link with a photo:
http://www.floridata.com/ref/R/rhod_pru.cfm
There is another one that I missed the first time. It is photo 414876. The caption mentions Rhododendrons so that is why it was included in your search results, but the plant in the photo is not identified as such. The flower in the photo is a Phlox of the family Polemoniaceae.
Forgive me for being a nitpic, but I'm sure you want your album to be as accurrate as possible.
visentin - Apr 25, 2009 3:37 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice AlbumThanks for this very accurate comment which I greatly appreciate, I am not very expert in flowers and especially those out of my continent :) I notified the authors of these photos of the legend mistakes they made and why i detached them.
I also found out that an Azaleas album was already existing while I initially decided to include them. Instead of making a duplicate album I prefered to change the rule and detach them. I saw that you attached a very beautiful azalea to this album, but I think the place is rather in the other one despite your picture looks very nice.
Have a nice week end !
PS: I have several doubtful flowers to identify in my Pyrenees flora album so you're welcome to have an eye :)
mrh - Apr 25, 2009 11:16 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Nice AlbumI can take a look at the Pyrenees album, but I'm not an expert in the European flora. I can often tell a family or a genus, but rarely would I try to make a species determination.
silversummit - Apr 21, 2009 12:03 pm - Voted 10/10
Beautiful idea!Visentin - How nice to see these gathered up! You included one of my absolute favorite pictures from my 1980 Outward Bound album.
Kathy
visentin - Apr 22, 2009 2:43 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Beautiful idea!thanks ! have you seen the bellflowers one I made few days ago ?