|
Post by quogue on Apr 11, 2007 1:50:08 GMT
Heya Steve, figured we could go on about the Flytrap Cultivars thing here... So for Flytraps, for something like a "Bigmouth", it'd be a stretch for me to call one of my finds that. But I have plants that are definitely part of the 'Dentate Traps' Group (alott of em out there) I agree that it's better for plants like 'Akai Ryu', 'B-52' & 'Red Pirahna' to be only cloned reliably, I think it gives them "Blue Blood" by having a definite clone. Getting one unlabeled at a Supermarket might possibly make them the same plant, but they ain't got their "Papers" I got some other Flytraps that aren't pictured, an 'Akai Ryu' (got from CC, so I think it's legit) and a "Burbank's Best" crossed with a "Triffid Park" (from CC also) Also have a "Giant" from Equilibrium I think is in the big pot. The Black Jungle Flytraps, while unnamed are quite possibly my favorite (aside from the 'Akai Ryu') (they're the Orange-y ones with the long teeth in both pots) Confusing subject, these Flytraps... don'tcha think? Venus Flytraps readily produce offshoot plantlets when well fed and healthy. So do (at least some) Sarracenia, right? Any plant produced from a cultivar in an asexual way (directly from the growing plant tissue itself, naturally or with human help, and not from the seed of the plant) is (theoretically anyway) genetically identical and is considered to be the exact same plant--the same "cultivar" as the single one-and-only original plant that was named and therefore then became a cultivar.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 11, 2007 3:46:18 GMT
Confusing only if one tries to give a name to each minor or imagined variation in color or size of every VFT. If the same game was applied to Sarracenia leucophylla, there would be thousands of different names.
|
|
|
Post by Steve D on Apr 11, 2007 14:42:31 GMT
Wow. What a mess the whole issue of "cultivars" is! Thank you very much Michael C., Barry R. and Bob Z. for your information and comments about cultivars in other discussion threads and in this one, and for the links to various weppages that clarify just how muddy the whole subject is. I have a red Dionaea 'Clayton's Red Sunset', with a cultivar description of "an all-red flytrap with petioles that are always long and skinny, that loses all its leaves during the winter, and that is always entirely red," except that mine often produces petioles that are short and wide, doesn't lose all its leaves in winter, and often has some green here and there. It is very slow growing (as 'Clayton's Red Sunset' is described to be) and therefore couldn't appropriately be called an 'Akai Ryu' because that red cultivar is described as an active, vigorous grower. If a 'B-52' is simply a cultivar with "very large traps," then I have several groups of plants that I could call "B-52" I guess, depending on how large "very large" is, and despite the fact that I have never bought or obtained any plant that was called "B-52" when I got it. Venus Flytraps are so variable. My 'Blood Red Traps' rarely have blood red traps, except sometimes in Spring when they wake up very hungry and decide to put out the extra effort to attract their first prey of the season. The traps of my 'Big Mouth' VFTs are generally not as large as those of my 'Vigorous' plants. 'Low Giant' seems to live up to its name, often producing the largest traps of any VFTs in my collection and producing ground-hugging wide petioles for more of the season, but 'Low Giant' is not a registered cultivar. I now find that my 'Dente' should be called 'Dentate Traps', and that there are quite a few genetically different plants that should properly be called 'Dentate Traps'. (When a single-quoted cultivar name ends a sentence, should the period be placed inside or outside the final single quote? If the quotation marks signified an actual bit of quoted text the period should go inside, right? But a cultivar name, designated specifically with single rather than double quotes, is not strictly a quotation, right?) What--a-- mess!
|
|
|
Post by Steve D on Apr 11, 2007 15:13:36 GMT
The Black Jungle Flytraps, while unnamed are quite possibly my favorite (aside from the 'Akai Ryu') (they're the Orange-y ones with the long teeth in both pots) Yes, those particular VFTs are very attractive. If you ever have extras for trade or something... After reading about the confusing subject of cultivars, I think that I will change my habit and instead of saying "I have many plants of various VFT cultivars" I'll say "I have many clones (asexually produced plants) of specific plants of various VFT cultivars," and of course I am now going to be more suspicious of cultivar names and of any specific new plants I obtain, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 11, 2007 15:38:57 GMT
I agree with all the postings, that this stuff is really a mess and hard to sort out.
On one hand, there is the cultivar code which is written a little too broadly for most CPers' tastes. Take Dionaea 'Dentate Traps', for example. There are apparently a number of clones of this in horticulture, so when I wrote the cultivar description of 'Dentate Traps' I wrote it broadly enough to include them all.
On the other hand, people also like to track vegetative clones---Blue Bloods as you call them. So what to do about those who would like to track 'Dentate Traps #1', 'Dentate Traps #2', 'Dentate Traps (German clone)" etc? Someone could register all these as separate cultivars, of course, but is that what we really want to do? This is an interesting source of tension.
(Notes: Why did I write the cultivar description for 'Dentate Traps' in the first place? Because the name was illegitimately floating around without a description, so I wrote one that I thought was the most appropriate description, that reflected the usage. I would have preferred naming the plant 'Dentate', but that is not permitted by the cultivar code because, for example, it is not clear if the dentate refers to the traps, petals, etc. Meanwhile, 'Dente' is a pseudo-Latin name, and is also forbidden by the cultivar code.)
Cheers
Barry
P.S. Regarding the punctuation of the final quote, I think that is a grammatical choice. The standard within the USA is different from the standard in the UK; I have forgotten now which side uses which!
P.P.S. Don't trust even vegetative clones completely. Apparently the mad rates of cellular division in TC can mess things up over time. The TC culture of Dionaea 'Red Dragon' has veered at least twice, causing the atypical 'Green Dragon' and another cultivar-in-the-making which is in press, and therefore still-unmentionable by me.
|
|
|
Post by quogue on Apr 11, 2007 17:01:29 GMT
Yes, those particular VFTs are very attractive. If you ever have extras for trade or something... I'll PM ya! So I think I'll call my finds Types. They aren't Typical, they aren't from a reliable source... kinda like gettin a Purebred from the Pound. So I have different Types of Flytraps would be the right thing to say? I'd like to call them Variety's but that would cause more confusion seeing as Nepenthes have multiple Variety's of a Species and those two meanings would be different. Is there something established for Variety's? Looks like you did what hadta be done with the 'Dentate Traps' Group Barry! Just a question, normally writing the names of these plants, one would use lower case? I like to start with Caps cause it makes it easier to read, but I think scientifically it's supposed to be in lower case? Or am I just buggin out? The picture of the "Giant" from Equalibrio does look to be really big so I got one awhile back. Unestablished? perhaps, but if it gets that big I won't really mind... although it was kind of a leap of faith buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 11, 2007 18:06:40 GMT
Probably they are exactly that - typical plants. Typical plants may exhibit a whole range of characteristics that are within the norm for the species. Therein lies the problem! Growers have taken to naming every plant (often based upon observation of a single example) that shows the slightest variation. It has become so ludicrous that we will soon be seeing names such as "A little bit redder than the one in the next pot" or "Half an inch taller than that one over there". To prove the point, here's a photo I took back in summer 2004: The plants appear substantially different. One upright with long, thin petioles and the other a compact, ground hugging rosette. In fact both are divisions of the same plant growing side-by-side in the same tray.
|
|
|
Post by quogue on Apr 11, 2007 18:38:27 GMT
Well, when ya get the same characteristics year in and year out (not just from seasonal changes) then I'd say it's safe to say they're not typical. I'm not sayin these plants are: "A little bit redder than the one in the next pot" or "Half an inch taller than that one over there". I'm also not saying I'm out to name any Cultivars. Just sayin I got some different plants in the same pot is all...
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 11, 2007 19:49:11 GMT
Just sayin I got some different plants in the same pot is all... Thanks to genetic variation every plant is different and the vast majority of those plants are still typical examples.
|
|
|
Post by quogue on Apr 11, 2007 21:10:35 GMT
Well, in that one big pot I pictured in the Flytrap thread I have: Definitely a Dentate Trap type of plant A plant I bought as a "Giant" from Equalibrio (I am waiting until I see the giant charateristics before calling it that) Flytraps bought as a clump from Black Jungle, which I guess were TC and they have been consistantly Orange-y with very long "teeth" over a few years Typicals from various sources And there's a plant I got from the NYBG gift shop that was big & low a couple years ago at the end of summer. Last year it did the same, we'll see if it does the same this year. I won't be so bold as to call it "Big Mouth" or something like that, but I will appreciate it for it's attributes in the comfort of my home.
So in all, I might not have bought these as specific types of Flytraps, but they are consistant in their habits and that makes em something to me. Even though I realize this might further the confusion of the Flytrap mess but until things are settled, I'll go on calling my Flytraps "different types" Also seems like any old cross would make an N. 'Dyeriana'. Kinda takes the fun outta havin the Victorian Hybrid. I have both, and would just like to say that if every one else is going to throw garbage on the floor, why should I bother using the garbage can? (definitely a bad attitude, I know....)
Disclaimer: I say all this in a not-so-serious way and am definitely not trying to be confrontational. On the internet, no one can hear you laugh...
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 11, 2007 21:57:47 GMT
I don't really fully understand what you're trying to say?
This is why I don't like the cultivar system we have. I'm a proponent of an orchid-like system where if something is a cultivar then it has the same DNA as the original plant and can only be propagated vegetatively through TC/cuttings.
Right now we have a system that is sort of like "If it looks like a duck then it is a duck, even when it's not". Grossly oversimplified, I know, but a good example of how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 12, 2007 17:23:58 GMT
Just a question, normally writing the names of these plants, one would use lower case? I like to start with Caps cause it makes it easier to read, but I think scientifically it's supposed to be in lower case? When citing a genuine cultivar, you must specify two things. The first is called the "Denomination class" which in carnivorous plants is the genus. This should be in italics. Then, you must specify the cultivar epithet, which is in non-italics, leading capitals, and enclosed in single quotes: Sarracenia 'Adrian Slack' It is entirely optional for you to include the species name (or cross) if known, so all of the following are considered equivalent: Sarracenia 'Adrian Slack' Sarracenia flava x leucophylla 'Adrian Slack' Sarracenia x moorei 'Adrian Slack' Barry
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 12, 2007 17:30:57 GMT
This is why I don't like the cultivar system we have. I'm a proponent of an orchid-like system where if something is a cultivar then it has the same DNA as the original plant and can only be propagated vegetatively through TC/cuttings. Right now we have a system that is sort of like "If it looks like a duck then it is a duck, even when it's not". Grossly oversimplified, I know, but a good example of how I see it. For the most part I agree with you, except what would you do with cultivars of annual or short-lived species? If you developed a Byblis liniflora that bred true and had black flowers the size of cantaloupes, surely this should merit a cultivar name. In my opinion, the biggest drawback with the cultivar system is the requirement that the cultivar name be published in the print literature. It seems to me that if the materials (cultivar description, suitable photo) could be published on the WEB via the cultivar registration authority, we'd have a much more responsive system. After all, who cares if the thing is published in CPN, for example? That's a readership of between 1000-2000. Consider the accessibility of a web-based publication! It would dwarf the CPN readership....
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 12, 2007 17:46:19 GMT
Touché Barry! I forgot all about our friend the noble Byblis.
Too bad we can't publish on the web. I consider web publishing to be published material nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 12, 2007 18:59:49 GMT
In my opinion, the biggest drawback with the cultivar system is the requirement that the cultivar name be published in the print literature. It seems to me that if the materials (cultivar description, suitable photo) could be published on the WEB via the cultivar registration authority, we'd have a much more responsive system. After all, who cares if the thing is published in CPN, for example? That's a readership of between 1000-2000. Consider the accessibility of a web-based publication! It would dwarf the CPN readership.... The problem with digital information is that it has a nasty habit of disappearing or becoming inaccessible. There was recently a classic case of this here in the UK, where a schools project (of some 20+ years ago) to create a modern 'Domesday Book' on videodisc was nearly lost as the disc format and computer were long obsolete. It was only by firing-up the last known working example of the videodisc player and an old BBC Micro (remember them?) that the data was retrieved and saved. Acid-free paper on the other hand will last for centuries if not millennia and importantly may still be read after a thousand years!
|
|