Flytrap Varieties

[BarryRice]

Hey Bob,

I don't have the codes in front of me, but I believe there are a whole bunch of technical terms that Jan would correct us on. I think that the following things are needed for the cultivar.

1)Description published in a suitable venue.

2)Photograph (i.e., the standard) published in a suitable venue.

3)Registration (i.e., the ICPS ICRA is informed about steps 1 and 2 above).

So I THINK that in the examples you gave, the plant called "Clumping Cultivar" had a description in The Savage Garden, but no photograph, so the standard was lacking. (Also, I believe that the word "cultivar" is not allowed in the cultivar name, but that's something else.

Meanwhile, I think that in the case of "Big Mouth", it is clear that Jan is familiar with the plant, but I guess he concluded that the cultivar description---presumably printed in Tony Camilleri's book---was too brief to indicate why the plant is special.

In the "Adorable Fuso", I'm guessing that no description at all was provided, and Jan just noticed the name in some article.

Barry

[stevestewart]

Hello,

So what is now correct for the plants that Bob mentions, double or single quotes? I see double quotes in Barry's reply. Do I have a Dionaea "Bigmouth" or a Dionaea 'Bigmouth'?! I think I'm up to date with Dionaea muscipula. (or am I really?)
Is anyone else publishing a change soon?
It doesn't matter how long the paper/ program lasts, if the words have no lasting meaning! The nomenclature must have at least as much staying power as the plants it is supposed to represent!

Take care,
Steven Stewart

[BarryRice]

Hey Steven,

I'll admit readily that I'm not sure of the status of Boca Grande.

CPN prints a useful little update list in the March issue of each year, of all the cultivars that were registered in the previous year. Scanning through the March lists for the previous couple of years, I just verified that "Big Mouth" was not registered, at least as of January 1, 2007.

Jan is currently on travel, I think until the 27th of August, and I don't know what new cultivars he may have for a listing.

HOWEVER, you can certainly aid the process. If you (or anyone!) spots a cultivar description, or what appears like one, please notify Jan. If there is a photograph and description of "Big Mouth" in a publication, and Jan doesn't know about it already, then I'm sure he wouldn't mind being told. It would make his job so much easier if people would tell him, so he doesn't have to find them himself.

So I don't know if "Big Mouth" should be enclosed in single or double quotes. I'll keep using double quotes until I learn that it really is a cultivar name.

Do you grow the plant? Does it seem worthy of name status?

Barry

[stevestewart]

Barry,

Firstly I should have said in my previous post the cultivar nomenclature must have at least as much staying power as the plants it is supposed to represent!

I realize that taxonomy is an evolving science, and as such needs to be flexible. Cultivar nomenclature is more of a pedigree, that is used to group or separate aesthetic qualities, of plants in this case.

I grow a plant that I received in a trade as Dionaea 'Bigmouth', now a.k.a. Boca Grand and "Bigmouth". Because of the source of my plant, I thought I couldn't be deceived .

I was using Jan Schlauers' database to gauge it's accepted status. I have never read a description of any cultivar with this name. I thought there was another, non ICPS, publication, possibly in another language, or coming soon, that I and others did not have access to, giving the plant accepted cultivar status.

I do not see any point in acknowledging a plant as a published cultivar, if there is no sufficient description or standard of it existing. The published name is bogus, and should be treated as such.

The plant I call Dionaea "'Bigmouth'" (please note the official, now possibly bogus, designation I have just given the plant) is a vigorous, large, red interior trapped plant that I managed to get three traps on one leaf this year.

Hardly a noteworthy description that will be constant year after year. I divided my plant after I photographed the three trapped leaf, and it is now one of my smallest trapped Dionaea. A clone I took of this plant last spring is the second largest trapped Dionaea I now grow. Dionaea 'Jaws' is now my largest trapped vft cultivar, and is comparable to the "'Bigmouth'" in vigor and size. The marginal cilia of my D. 'Jaws' are of the 'Dentate Trap Group' form, consistently.

I personally don't think the subjective use of large trap size, alone should be an acceptable standard to utilize in a cultivar description. Maximum size is something that will always depend on growing conditions, age of the individual plant, and is more a matter of cultivation skill, than an objective, consistent measurable trait. A one time measurement and photo of an individual plants largest leaf, is hardly a sustainable long term feature. Not that these plants are not worthy of collecting, mass propagating and growing, most are just not consistent and quantifiable as unique. Possibly someone would like to publish a "Large Trap Group" description. With a group description I could see some reason for acceptance, and lots of dissagreement!

On the other hand, if a plant constantly produced naturally occurring traps never smaller than a given size greater than found typically, say 2", starting at a certain age, that would be different, and very worthy of cutivar status. IMHO.

Small trap size and distinctive, constant, carefully determined color, morphological shape and any constantly unique floral qualities are worthy of cultivar status IMHO. Small trap size, color, and or form can easily be determined stable (or not), and constant, once enough growers have the plant in trials, and compare the maximum (minimal) size, color and form, and if it conforms to a well worded description written for publication with photographs.

Take care,
Steven Stewart

[BarryRice]

Hi Steven,

I think you propose a wise set of standards. Venus flytraps are funny little beasts, and the same clone will look great some years with huge traps, and pathetic other years.

A few years ago we had a plant here at UCD that looked like it would be fabulous cultivar material---it had several large, crimson colored traps that were HUGE! Unfortunately, it was the same clone as our typical strain we grow here. For some reason, that plant just looked great that year. It's never done that since, incidentally. Alas.

I'm sure there are plenty of growers working on trying to develop large-trapped plants, and maybe they're getting somewhere. I don't know. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the future we have indisputably large-trapped plants, just as we have in Cephalotus. But I'm not too convinced we're there yet.

I wonder what people do with cultivars in genera where flower scent is valued. How do they describe those cultivars?

Barry

P.S. I should mention that "Boca Grande" is something I just made up, out of perverse silliness. Incidentally, direct translations of cultivar names are not distinct cultivar names. Hence Akai Ryu=Red Dragon.

B