|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 10, 2007 18:09:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by quogue on Apr 11, 2007 1:20:17 GMT
Interesting read, so lemme see if I get this...
Something like the N. 'Predator' is more like a Grex
and something like an N. 'Dyeriana' is a Cultivar.
Except I'd like to see Dyeriana keep it's Blue Blood as well as C. 'Hummer's Giant' which always has the same pitcher shape so you can tell a real 'Hummer's.
Unlike what seems to have happened to the 'Akai Ryu'.
It'd be cool to have a clone designation type of thing, like "where's it's paper's?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 11, 2007 1:46:47 GMT
Sort of...
I understand there are several different "Predator" clones, but the name has not been published and the grex system does not as yet apply to carnivorous plants.
N x dyeriana is a published hybrid and any plant of that cross may have the name attached. It is not a cultivar.
Cephalotus 'Hummers Giant' is a registered cultivar.
Dionaea 'Akai Ryu' is also a registered cultivar, but unfortunately a number of different clones now circulate under this name.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevestewart on Apr 11, 2007 11:43:32 GMT
Hello Bob & all, I think an important question for Bob Ziemer is, why did you decide to put your Carnivorous Plant Photofinder together to start with? I get the feeling that many people think the Dionaea section of your photofinder is to be used as an alternative, quick and easy access, identification source. Instead of using the old fashion method of publishing descriptions to attain accepted registered cultivar status, people can simply use your website. Despite your disclaimer on the site and your links here to www.sarracenia.com/faq.3920.html I find the CP photofinder a great tool to see which plants will possibly become cultivars in the future. Many of the plants linked to on the site are remarkable and in my opinion (completely non valid) will make excellent cultivars, once a full description is published and the plants are distributed. Many links are simply photographs of peoples favorite plants, like a Myspace for cps. Of course the obvious reason for visiting Bob's cp photofinder is to get a good look at the published cultivars and hybrids that have been linked to, so I know which plants I can no longer live without, and see some of the beautiful photography there. Take care, Steven Stewart |
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 11, 2007 16:59:01 GMT
I think an important question for Bob Ziemer is, why did you decide to put your Carnivorous Plant Photofinder together to start with? I had grown CPs for many years and became frustrated when I heard about a particular plant but was unable to find a photo to see what it looked like. As the Internet matured (and before Google), I began to notice photos on various web sites, but kept forgetting where to find them again. At one time, I had envisioned developing a repository of all of the photos, but immediately realized that many people would object to my stealing their photos. So, I settled on simply providing links to the photos. Even this raised some letters threatening me with a lawsuit. So there are a few nice photo sites that I do not link. As time passed, I noticed that there was confusion among growers about what their plant actually was. Some plants were actually mis-identified, others simply mis-labeled. I decided that my job was to arrange the links by the plant name that the owner stated, with the plea that if the identity was incorrect that someone contact the owner (with a copy to me) with the correct identification. I then add a note to the entry in the hope that this might assist in clarifying the mess. By comparing numerous photos from different growers, hopefully people will gain an appreciation of the similarities and differences in appearance due to genetics and cultural conditions (and unfortunately mis-identification). Upon close inspection of the Dionaea photos, one would probably conclude that there are only a few truly different plants -- and that most are just minor variations of the typical flytrap. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 11, 2007 19:24:10 GMT
I recall an email from Bob many years ago, in which he was talking to me about the idea of setting up a page which tracked all these photographs of CP.
I remember thinking at the time, "Oh god, this is a huge job. He'll never do it." Once again, I was proven wrong.
At least, this is how I remember things....
|
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Apr 20, 2007 14:24:49 GMT
Hi Aidan and All,
As an active hybridizer of Nepenthes, may I suggest not giving the name of N. Dyeriana to any crossing of (northiana x maxima) x (rafflesiana x veitchii), and for very good reason. We look at N. Dyeriana as a cultivar by default, and in fact the hybrid had been made previously to Dyeriana being named, with either other greges bearing different names, or individual cultivars from the greges given names. It is not clear. Because grex naming is not yet valid, the name should not be applied to remakes of the cross, but individual clones could be selected and given cultivar status. I have yet to see evidence of anything other than the one male clone of N. Dyeriana in cultivation. Does the original publication of the name clearly state it is a grex name?
While grex naming is not yet valid, there are those of us who are pushing for a more detailed hybrid naming methodology for Nepenthes. Please see Leilani's post in another forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Apr 20, 2007 15:14:29 GMT
Hi Aidan and All, As an active hybridizer of Nepenthes, may I suggest not giving the name of N. Dyeriana to any crossing of (northiana x maxima) x (rafflesiana x veitchii), and for very good reason. We look at N. Dyeriana as a cultivar by default, and in fact the hybrid had been made previously to Dyeriana being named, with either other greges bearing different names, or individual cultivars from the greges given names. It is not clear. Because grex naming is not yet valid, the name should not be applied to remakes of the cross, but individual clones could be selected and given cultivar status. I have yet to see evidence of anything other than the one male clone of N. Dyeriana in cultivation. Does the original publication of the name clearly state it is a grex name? While grex naming is not yet valid, there are those of us who are pushing for a more detailed hybrid naming methodology for Nepenthes. Please see Leilani's post in another forum. The problem is that it *might* be too late to know that we have a clear separation of the victorian hybrid N. xDyeriana and any that have been made from seed since. It would be nice to be able to do this, but I'm not sure its possible at this point. N. rafflesiana x N. vetchii ihas been available from commercial sources, and N xmixta has been readily available for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by quogue on Apr 20, 2007 16:43:53 GMT
I heard it once from Sunbelle for calling my rehybridized plant a Dyeriana and I agree with him. I think the original Victorian hybrid has some real class and deserves to be set apart from the unwashed masses that is later crosses.
I still love my hybrid, but I'll call the clone I picked up of the original, Dyeriana and I'll call the other one, (raff x veitch) xx mixta.
Maybe the original cross can be given Cultivar stautus by naming "Queen Victoria" or something to set it apart from the other crosses which by definition are Dyeriana's. I dunno, just my $.002...
|
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 20, 2007 19:03:04 GMT
There is no point going off at a tangent in an argument about a single plant. That was not the point of this thread. On checking the cp database I was in error. Assuming the entry to be correct, the name is invalid anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Apr 21, 2007 18:14:53 GMT
Having read the posts on this topic i have to agree with quogue.Something needs to be done to ensure you are recieving the genuine article you think you are buying.Papers to signify a plants authenticity sound like a good idea to me.A step in the right direction perhaps?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 21, 2007 18:45:46 GMT
Papers to signify a plants authenticity sound like a good idea to me.A step in the right direction perhaps?. Such a scheme would be wholly impractical, unenforceable and wide open to abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Apr 21, 2007 19:12:32 GMT
says who??
|
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Apr 21, 2007 20:11:58 GMT
map out the process required in you mind and the problems will come to you.
Imagine your a cheater and the opportunities will come to you.
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 21, 2007 20:30:34 GMT
Most of these things are mass-produced in labs unlike purebred dogs. No one is going to give you papers for each cultivar you buy stating it's real, and if that WAS implemented (it won't be) then the "Oh I lost my copy..." will start to happen and xerox machine sales will go up. The best you can hope for is a cheap plastic plant tag and even a lot of large-scale nurseries can't seem to get that right for some reason. Asking for a document of authenticity for every cultivar is to much lol. Marcel is the Zen Master  |
|
