|
Post by gardenofeden on Aug 8, 2009 16:05:46 GMT
I use black pots
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Aug 8, 2009 17:24:07 GMT
;D Stephen. ;D I'll still call it v alba. I'm not going to get my X10 and X25 lenses out every time I want to check for a tinge of pink. This is another white flowered plant..... I take it this one is waaaaay out of the question for albino. White flowered ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
sundewman
Full Member
Happy Growing!
Posts: 235
|
Post by sundewman on Aug 13, 2009 17:12:35 GMT
Hey Fred, So you are growing the pink-tentacled 'Albino' right next to your white-tentacled 'Albino'? Also, are both catching an equal amount of food? If one catches even a few more bugs than the other, it can make coloration much less pink. You may already know this, but Drosera that catch insects grow at a more rapid pace, which makes the sundew lose its red (or in this case pink) coloration until growth slows to its normal pace. This is because the light intensity can't keep up with new growth, as it did before. I'd be very interested to hear if both don't catch insects and they're getting the exact same amount of light!!!
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Aug 13, 2009 19:36:24 GMT
sundewman At present I have no 'Albino' plants. I have white flowered Drosera capensis To be called albino they would have to fit the description:-
That immediately rules out the 'pink tentacled' plant.
As Aidan correctly pointed out, for the 'white tentacled' plant to be 'Albino' it would need to be proved to be free of anthocyanins. Stephen's point that the same effect could be achieved by growing shaded is also valid, just because it looks like one it doesn't mean it is one.
On your point of feeding. The plants shown are not grown together, however I have plants of each kind self set and growing side by side in the same pots. So yes they do get the same amount of sunlight.
I agree that a feeding plant will have more growth than one which is not feeding but to say that a plant which has fed will lose it's colouring I find puzzling. Even if growth was as rapid as you describe then only the new growth would be affected, the existing plant would not be affected in the least.
I look forward to the continuing discussion ;D
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Aug 13, 2009 23:20:58 GMT
Just to muddy the waters the above quoted description courtesy of the Carnivorous Plant Database lists the photographic standard as the photo published in "The Savage Garden" page 128. The caption on the photo in my copy of "The Savage Garden" on page 128 reads: Cape Sundews (from left to right): D. capensis "Typical", "Alba", "Red" and "Narrow" form On page 129 Peter D'Amato further writes: "Drosera capensis "Alba" This very pretty form is similar to the narrow-leafed variety, except that the flowers are white and the tentacles transparent with pale pink glands, give the plants a ghostly appearance. Stems may gradually form over time.(emphasis mine) Now the photograph is too small to make out the tentacles but at least in my copy a couple of the leaves on the left of the plant in the photograph may have a pinkish tinge to them. This, however, could just be an artifact of the printing process. Doesn't a plant have to match both the registered and the photographic standard to be considered that cultivar? How can this be if the standard doesn't match the description?
|
|
|
Post by aaron308 on Aug 14, 2009 6:55:38 GMT
Now that I look at it, it seems like that description should count as a publication of Drosera capensis "Alba", characterized by a white flower and pinkish glands. Since it's accompanied by a photo labelled as Alba, I think that counts as a publication of a cultivar.
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Aug 14, 2009 15:09:16 GMT
"Alba" is Latin so it would be in violation of the ICNCP rules for naming registered cultivars.
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Aug 14, 2009 17:59:59 GMT
I call mine var alba, but then I'm a bit of a luddite... Why Luddite when you appear to be using a correct name, unlike others? 1. Drosera 'Albino', a registered cultivar where the standard doesn't meet the description 2. Drosera capensis 'Alba' published but doesn't meet the standard for cultivar names 3. Drosera capensis v. alba looks fine to me..... Would it be too much if I suggest someone registers this as Drosera capensis 'Ned Ludd' ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Aug 15, 2009 16:22:47 GMT
3. Drosera capensis v. alba looks fine to me..... This might be the best option, if someone actualy published a formal description of the variety. Presently the name is nom.nud. = "Nomen nudum" (literally "naked name" no description and/or no type).
|
|
jimscott
Full Member
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Posts: 122
|
Post by jimscott on Aug 16, 2009 21:31:03 GMT
Let's ask the plant what it would like to be called.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Aug 18, 2009 1:56:01 GMT
It said it would like to be named 'Champagne' for its light-pink color.
|
|
sundewman
Full Member
Happy Growing!
Posts: 235
|
Post by sundewman on Aug 28, 2009 3:29:09 GMT
Hey Fred, sorry for the delayed response. I have to clarify that the plants which lose their coloration have been fed constantly for an extended time. A great personal example of this is the experiment I tried with my D. capensis 'Red' (growing side-by-side under the same light indoors). Both plants were completely red when I began this experiment. I continually fed the leaves of one D. capensis 'Red' for 4 months. This plant grew more rapidly, flowered more, and became lighter than even my typical D. capensis plants (which I was not feeding at the time under lights). After losing its original old red leaves, it tended to keep only a few more leaves on it than before, so the leaves originally were a bit red and eventually lightened to the point that I described above. And obviously the adjacent plant remained with red coloration since it was not fed. Once I stopped feeding my experimental plant, it assumed its original coloration after 2 months (of not being fed). So it just goes to show that coloration can be completely changed from constant feeding, which is why I always question when someone claims to have the 'Albino' form.
I also think it's funny that no one[?] seems to have D. 'Albino', even though it was claimed to breed "true" to seed. I can understand the crestate form being rare, since it relies on asexual reproduction but somehow D. 'Albino' is one of the rarest species out there...
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Sept 2, 2009 10:58:46 GMT
(growing side-by-side under the same light indoors). An interesting account but would the effect have been the same under natural light?
|
|
sundewman
Full Member
Happy Growing!
Posts: 235
|
Post by sundewman on Sept 3, 2009 3:52:24 GMT
hmmm... you make an interesting point, and I think that my experiment may not work if the plants are grown outdoors in a location with high light intensity. What I'm guessing is that my fluorescent light setup is fairly inefficient, and a sundew growing in full-sun outdoors would have so much light intensity that the plant would always be red, whether or not it was fed often or not. I suppose the only way this experiment could be repeated in natural light would be if the plant was grown in a location that was not full sun or had around the same light intensity as my setup. so it looks like i have a lot more experimenting to do then .... I just question whether or not D. capensis 'Albino' was experimented with enough before it was described. Did anyone actually scientifically prove that it didn't contain any anthocyanins, or did they make this assumptions based on their observation that the plant's tentacles were white. Also, although the description says the plants were grown in "strong sun", this can be interpreted very differently by people. A great example of this (thanks to kulamauiman) is this picture: s300.photobucket.com/albums/nn35/kulamauiman/?action=view¤t=DSC_00080001-1.jpg It proves the point that while some people think their plants are getting "strong sun" in their greenhouses, the light intensity is sometimes reduced drastically depending on the type of glass you use, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say is, I wish they'd be specific and say "Our D. capensis 'Albino' was grown in an open lot, outside of a greenhouse, and the location was never shaded" or something like that. Otherwise, there are too many ambiguities. I originally found that picture from here (if you're interested): icps.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=kulamauimanwow, that was long-winded...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Sept 4, 2009 22:14:22 GMT
I just question whether or not D. capensis 'Albino' was experimented with enough before it was described. Did anyone actually scientifically prove that it didn't contain any anthocyanins, or did they make this assumptions based on their observation that the plant's tentacles were white. Also, although the description says the plants were grown in "strong sun", this can be interpreted very differently by people. Hmm, I have noticed in sun this plant does have clear traps, but the pink color show up better under flourescent lighting.
|
|