Post by shartmeyer on Nov 4, 2010 17:11:25 GMT
Thanks for your posting, gregallen, it’s always commendable if someone donates his plant material to a societies seed bank and I have no reason to doubt that the plants from your bunch of seeds are fertile like Brian’s cultivar Goliath. However, in that case there must have been minimum one more person who donated seeds producing infertile plants, because I am certainly experienced enough to pollinate Byblis correctly and, as I know now, I am not the only one who observed that infertility. Fact is without any doubt - for whatever reason - fertile and infertile plants of the same species/variety exist. Interesting to me is actually that you also found that Goliath and the “CPUK Guehois” are looking very similar except a little variation in petal shape. I think we are at one that neither a different stem size (healthy or meager, see jonmoijunks match above) of the large tropical Byblis nor any “little variation in petal shape” is a serious reason to state that we are dealing with different species, especially not in such a variable genus like Byblis.
No special knowledge in taxonomy is necessary to simply match two sets of plants. Nothing but such a simple comparison (including the observation of developing pulvini and leaf-movement) has been the goal of my 2010 experiment. I simply treated two different portions of seeds with Gibberelinic acid and grew them from early spring to late summer inside our tropical greenhouse, actually being curious what will happen.
The result: All plants developed pulvini, all plants grew identically branching, all plants developed identical looking flowers with a brownish brush-like structure on one anther (sometimes at the branches the flowers are in both plants only as small as those of B. liniflora, but are mostly of normal size along the main shoot).
Due to the fact that some Byblis varieties show that brush-like structure at one or more anthers and some do not, it is simply one more feature of the flowers to be compared, and also this detail is identical in both. But only the “Goliath plants” proved to be fertile and produced about 20 seed pods. More than a dozen attempts to pollinate the “CPUK-Guehoi” plants failed, not one single seed pod developed.
Therefore I ascertain not more and not less that the “Goliath” plants and the B. guehoi grown from seeds from the CPUK seed bank are one and the same species. I really wonder that the results of this simple experiment cause the Japanese Isao Takai alias sweetpea, alias pofW_feathers, obviously to lose his countenance and to presume that Irmgard and I violate the copyright rules with our 2002 ICPS conference video. To lance such a rumour apparently only because his arguments in this thread are as meagre as one of jonmoijunks plants, is incredible because he knows very well (he participated in the conference!) that we filmed officially in order of Prof. Katsuhiko Kondo. This meanly allegation has meanwhile clearly been removed at this thread: icps.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=3505
I guess everything important about the comparison of the here discussed Byblis plants has been mentioned at this point and due to his committed verbal faux pas above, Isao Takai is welcome to consider not to participate in this thread anymore without apologizing for his “below the belt“ vulgarity.
No special knowledge in taxonomy is necessary to simply match two sets of plants. Nothing but such a simple comparison (including the observation of developing pulvini and leaf-movement) has been the goal of my 2010 experiment. I simply treated two different portions of seeds with Gibberelinic acid and grew them from early spring to late summer inside our tropical greenhouse, actually being curious what will happen.
The result: All plants developed pulvini, all plants grew identically branching, all plants developed identical looking flowers with a brownish brush-like structure on one anther (sometimes at the branches the flowers are in both plants only as small as those of B. liniflora, but are mostly of normal size along the main shoot).
Due to the fact that some Byblis varieties show that brush-like structure at one or more anthers and some do not, it is simply one more feature of the flowers to be compared, and also this detail is identical in both. But only the “Goliath plants” proved to be fertile and produced about 20 seed pods. More than a dozen attempts to pollinate the “CPUK-Guehoi” plants failed, not one single seed pod developed.
Therefore I ascertain not more and not less that the “Goliath” plants and the B. guehoi grown from seeds from the CPUK seed bank are one and the same species. I really wonder that the results of this simple experiment cause the Japanese Isao Takai alias sweetpea, alias pofW_feathers, obviously to lose his countenance and to presume that Irmgard and I violate the copyright rules with our 2002 ICPS conference video. To lance such a rumour apparently only because his arguments in this thread are as meagre as one of jonmoijunks plants, is incredible because he knows very well (he participated in the conference!) that we filmed officially in order of Prof. Katsuhiko Kondo. This meanly allegation has meanwhile clearly been removed at this thread: icps.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=3505
I guess everything important about the comparison of the here discussed Byblis plants has been mentioned at this point and due to his committed verbal faux pas above, Isao Takai is welcome to consider not to participate in this thread anymore without apologizing for his “below the belt“ vulgarity.
