Definitely not a Portulaca. Portulaca has an inferior ovary. No other
Portulacaceous genus found in the Southwest resembles it either. None have
two lobed leaves.
Its the stamen appendage and staminoideum that are the key to identifying
it. It probably belongs to a plant family that is otherwise predominantly
tropical. I get the impression it may possibly a member of the
Zygophyllum fabago L. perhaps?
Nick Harby <harby at dcwi.com> wrote in message
news:3B7D963C.61D53CBD at dcwi.com...
> Have you figured this one out yet? My first quick impression is that it
> resembles purslane, being succulent and growing in the middle of summer.
> Do you think it could be one of the Portulacaceae? Could anyone tell me
> why it couldn't possibly be one of the Portulacaceae, based on Monique's
>>http://www.keil.ukans.edu/delta/angio/www/portulac.htm>> Monique Reed wrote:
>> > Does anyone recognize the plant pictured and described at
> > http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/tfplab/mysteryplant.html ? I
> > collected it near Las Cruces New Mexico on July 11, 2001.
> > At the time, I thought it was sterile and distinct enough vegetatively
> > to identify, so didn't collect additional material to keep fresh to
> > key from.
> > Looking at it closely today, though, I note it does have fruit and
> > tiny, perfect flowers.
> > I'm sure it's common as dirt and twice as obvious, but identification
> > eludes me.
> > Monique Reed
> > Texas A&M University