🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <1176536051.951814.234560@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, 
DONOTREPLY <DoNotReply2Here@gmx.net> writes
>
>Flowers Photo Gallery:
>http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200612-flowers/
>please !! help with botanical names!!
>

The "pink flowering tree" looks like a Rhododendron, and before that are 
5 poppies (Papaver species, perhaps varieties of Papaver rhoeas).
-- 
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 14 Apr, 08:34, "DONOTREPLY" <DoNotReply2H...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Flowers Photo Gallery:http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200612-flowers/
> please !! help with botanical names!!

Eschscholzia for the orange flowers, californian poppies, and perhaps
a camelia for the pink tree, theaceae.

"DONOTREPLY" <DoNotReply2Here@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1176536051.951814.234560@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Flowers Photo Gallery:
> http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200612-flowers/
> please !! help with botanical names!!

First one, "red flowers", try _Ixora_ [Rubiaceae].
http://images.google.com/images?q=ixora

Second flower photo, "red orchids", isn't an orchid at all but is a
Columnea species [Gesneriaceae]
http://images.google.com/images?q=columnea

The third one "red fruiting flowers" is of a bromeliad, probably
an _Aechmea_ species.
http://images.google.com/images?q=aechmea

The fourth, "green and red" is likely _Acalypha hispida_
[Euphorbiaceae]
http://images.google.com/images?q=acalypha

The fifth, "orchids" isn't an orchid, but an amaryllis _Hippeastrum_
http://images.google.com/images?q=hippeastrum

The next two "orchid colours" and "orchid flower pink white" are
indeed orchids, and look to be different _Phalaenopsis_ varieties
http://images.google.com/images?q=Phalaenopsis

The next five are poppies of some different cultivars.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Papaver

The "wild rose" is likely a rose [_Rosa_], but clearly isn't a wild
form.  Wild roses aren't double flowered. That is, it would have only
five petals and lots of stamens instead of being a cabbage-like
structure of many extra petals.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Rosa

I'm not sure what the pink-flowering tree in the next one is.

Nice pic of the Kauri, a minor quibble is that it should be
"_Agathis robusta_"; the genus is capitalized, the species isn't.

Hope this helps. Thanks for posting the link to your
nice photos.

cheers 

On Apr 14, 12:34 am, "DONOTREPLY" <DoNotReply2H...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Flowers Photo Gallery:http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200612-flowers/
> please !! help with botanical names!!

I like Mel Turner's use of Google Image links to assist with the
identification (even if I disagree with some of his ID's), so I'll
borrow it.


*** "Closeup red fruiting flowers" (n20060927_183201):

I'm starting with my weakest ID, but trust me, I'll get better.  This
doesn't look like a bromeliad to me, but rather something in the heath
family (Ericaceae).  It's hard to tell, though -- are there Ericaceous
flowers with no sepals?  Try these images for comparison:

http://sagehen.ucnrs.org/Photos/misc.%20credits/al_grigarich/red-pink/slides/R012%20Ericaceae%20(Heath).html
http://www.nybg.org/bsci/online_pubs.html
http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=ANDGLA



*** "orchid flower pink white" (n20060927_183318):

Yes, an orchid.  Genus: Phalaenopsis.

http://images.google.com/images?q=Phalaenopsis



*** "Orchids" (n20060927_183256)

All of my Hippeastrums have red flowers, but I think that Mel got this
one right.  Orchids don't have stamens like that.  Hippeastrum is in
the lily family (Liliaceae).



*** "Flower Orange water droplets" (n20060927_183420, and the four
photos that follow):

I am certain that this is not the genus Eschscholzia (California
poppies), as suggested by La Puce.  But, these are definitely in the
family Papaveraceae.  Iceland poppies (Papaver nudicaule) are very
popular garden plants.

http://images.google.com/images?q=Iceland+poppies



*** "Wild Rose pink" (n20060927_183806):

More likely a Ranunculus than a rose.

http://images.google.com/images?q=Ranunculus



+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.:  blowing sunshine up your   |
|       power grid since March 24, 2005.  Fiat lux!       |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   Uptime    Downtime    kWh generated     kWh consumed  |
|   744 days  13 hours        12886            14321      |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1176607885.476676.274620@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 12:34 am, "DONOTREPLY" <DoNotReply2H...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Flowers Photo Gallery:http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200612-flowers/
>> please !! help with botanical names!!
>
> I like Mel Turner's use of Google Image links to assist with the
> identification (even if I disagree with some of his ID's), so I'll
> borrow it.

> *** "Closeup red fruiting flowers" (n20060927_183201):
>
> I'm starting with my weakest ID, but trust me, I'll get better.  This
> doesn't look like a bromeliad to me, but rather something in the heath
> family (Ericaceae).  It's hard to tell, though -- are there Ericaceous
> flowers with no sepals?  Try these images for comparison:
>
> http://sagehen.ucnrs.org/Photos/misc.%20credits/al_grigarich/red-pink/slides/R012%20Ericaceae%20(Heath).html
> http://www.nybg.org/bsci/online_pubs.html
> http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=ANDGLA

There are Ericaceae with inferior ovaries that may look even more
like the photo in question,e.g.:

http://www.botany.org/plantimages/ImageData.asp?IDN=abot89-2&IS=700

but I'm still pretty sure this is an _Aechmea_. Looking a bit
further, I think it's identifiable as _A. fulgens_, or at least it's
the species I was thinking of:

http://www.nybromeliadsociety.org/Gallery/images/Aechmea%20fulgens%20v.%20discolor.jpg
http://olivier.paris2.free.fr/divers/fleurs/Pages/09-Aechmea.html
http://biotech.tipo.gov.tw/plantjpg/1/Aechmea%20fulgens%20cv.%20variegata.jpg
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/boga/html/Aechmea.fulgens.discolor.ja.jpg

cheers