Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 2, 2008 18:04:03 GMT
Ahh, Fred! You bring up very good points. Unfortunately, you must realize that my clone can not be an inferior 'Hummer's Giant' since they are all the same clone. As far as horticultural technique, I grow it just like everyone else does, with the exception that I use metal halide lighting and Trichoderma. I have grown it in a tray of water, and it did equally well. Guess what? It was just as textured then as it is now. Also, please re-examine my pictures again. You can clearly see developing pitchers in different states of development. These are also clearly very textured, so I'm afraid the "past it's prime" theory doesn't quite fit. There's a different between a "very" old pitcher, and a pitcher that's "past it's prime" as you surely know that Cephalotus pitchers last quite some time due to their "leathery" tissue. I re-examined my pictures. I see no physical defects that would indicate they are past their prime. I see no torn pitcher, I see no dead tissue, I see no sagging opercula, I see no damaged peristoma. The only arguable imperfection is the uneven coloration as is displayed on some of the Ala, which would be due to intense light. This is not burning by any stretch of the imagination, so unless you can come up with something better than saying my plant has texture, I'm afraid I can't see any imperfections. Mobile, his plant is more plump. It's also not the same cultivar, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Or rather one type of apple with another type of apple
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Apr 2, 2008 18:21:50 GMT
Clint,
Let me explain some of the points you raise.
1.I do realise that there is only one clone of Hummer's Giant. I added as a choice that all Hummer's are inferior. Note I did not select that option even though it is not the best of the 'giant' clones
2. You do NOT grow it as all others do. That is a very strange assumption to make. You grow it in a terrarium for a start, I could go on. As for wasting money on Trichoderma that is another thread.
3. I did see the developing pitchers, they don't look good to my eye, far too textured for so young a pitcher which led me to growing conditions not being optimal.
4. Yes there is a difference with mature, older pitcher and 'passed its prime'. The later I would count in with very mature.
Clint, You appear to have edited your post since I replied so I will have to do the same. Your pitchers do not just have texture, they are over textured. They resemble misshapen limp potato sacks in places. The fact you do not see it brings me back to my original point. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT A GOOD CEPHALOTUS SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 2, 2008 18:30:20 GMT
Alright, Fred. I'm not going to argue with you; It's really not worth my time. I've received a lot of input on my plant since I received it, including the man I bought it from complimenting profusely on it and asking HOW I got such vivid color, and mobile and yourself are the only two negative opinions I have heard thus far. With all due respect, Phill's opinion, as well as the majority, carries quite a bit more weight with me than yours does. If you think my plant is unhealthy, so be it. Or maybe I know so little of these plants, and have such little talent, that I may so easily confuse Cephalotus with "limp potato sacks", as you so eloquently put it. (Ten points if you can spot my edit. ) Have a nice day, and enjoy your smooth, healthy plants. Clint Edit: I did edit Congratulations for catching that at the bottom of my post. Want to know a secret? I just edited again! It's so much fun, I may do it two or three more times.
|
|
kby
Full Member
Posts: 162
|
Post by kby on Apr 2, 2008 20:27:07 GMT
Unfortunately, you must realize that my clone can not be an inferior 'Hummer's Giant' since they are all the same clone. As I read the FAQ: With that preamble, there are some forms of interest that have been identified by horticulturists and naturalists. Some of these produce leaves times larger than normal--they can be several cm (3 inches) long! These large plants were given, en masse, the cultivar name Cephalotus 'Hummer's Giant' after John Hummer. Because the cultivar name was described very broadly, all so-called giant plants have this name. However, some clones of Cephalotus 'Hummer's Giant' are bigger and better than others, and informal names have evolved to designate them. ...it doesn't seem to me that there's only one clone. I sort of assume you mean you can trace your lineage back to the particular one mentioned in the cultivar description?-kby
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 2, 2008 20:39:58 GMT
If there are multiple plants circulating as 'Hummer's Giant', then they are not the real deal in MY personal opinion. It is my opinion that a plant is only a cultivar if it is genetically identical to the original plant that was made a cultivar. In other words, I don't think an entire group of genetically different plants should have been registered under one name. Other people may be happy with loose rules on this, but I'm not.
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Apr 2, 2008 20:40:05 GMT
. Or maybe I know so little of these plants Don't worry, another 20 years or so and you may. ;D . and have such little talent, There is no talent to growing Cephalotus. It's a very tough plant and so easy. All it needs is a modicum of care when potting/ repotting, sitting in a water tray and left alone.
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 2, 2008 20:46:21 GMT
Then I applaud your ease in growing it, Fred. Many people, including people with 20 years on me, would say the exact opposite.
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Apr 2, 2008 20:57:38 GMT
kby,
In the description John Hummer constantly refers to a single clone.
The confusion with multiple clones may have arisen due to the *editor's note (of which I bet he now wishes he hadn't made).
|
|
kby
Full Member
Posts: 162
|
Post by kby on Apr 2, 2008 21:00:43 GMT
If there are multiple plants circulating as 'Hummer's Giant', then they are not the real deal in MY personal opinion. It is my opinion that a plant is only a cultivar if it is genetically identical to the original plant that was made a cultivar. In other words, I don't think an entire group of genetically different plants should have been registered under one name. Other people may be happy with loose rules on this, but I'm not. Not saying I'm happy with the rules that way either, but that doesn't change the reality of what they are. Thanks for clarifying your particular case at least. Playing devil's advocate, though, what if hypothetically you have one that gets a mutation but that has no effect on the defining characteristics? What if it's even completely invisible? What if the change is in the epigenetic (sp?) characteristics and not the 'DNA' itself? Just because you got it from "the horse' mouth" so to speak doesn't guarantee it's genetically identical (e.g. a TC accident). As a practical matter, too, it's probably prohibitavely expensive to guarantee that each and every clone going out is genetically identical. Draw the line where you like, and, as I said, it's probably too loose for my tastes, too, but where to draw it ain't so easy, either.-kby
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Apr 2, 2008 21:08:04 GMT
Epigenetics isn't understood very well, but it is interesting. If epigenetics changed the plant, they would not affect the genes, but rather how the genes are expressed, which are two different things. If the genes did mutate, but the plant did not physically change, then no one would notice it the first place. I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track with that; I haven't studied it.
I'm not suggesting we enforce certificates of authenticity or anything, and you will never stop people calling a plant something it's not (either on accident or to mislead a buyer), but by the current rules if a plant looks like a cultivar, you may call it that cultivar even when it is not related to the "real" cultivar. It wouldn't cost much to make sure plants that are sold are clones of the original plant registered as a cultivar. I'm not talking about DNA testing, but proper record keeping isn't that expensive. I'm also not suggesting individual pedigrees for individual plants. Look at the orchid rules. That's what I'm suggesting.
|
|
vraev
Full Member
Posts: 171
|
Post by vraev on Apr 2, 2008 21:55:08 GMT
wow Clint. fantastic plant dude! As I have said before on TF. Fantastic color. Mine just looks like this and even though its not a hummer's clone... I just want to post to compare the colour with yours: I am sure that some ppl would think that this plant is fungus ridden as well. Which is technically true as it is bathed with trichoderma which u can infact see on the pitcher on the left. And If trichoderma doesn't work.....don't tell that to the colonies that are living with my plants. I don't know how come mine doesn't get that red colour. I guess a number of variables are to be considered: temp + humidity + light. My humidity and temps maybe low. But well, I am happy that the plant is growing the fastest it has ever grown for me.
|
|
locko
Full Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by locko on Apr 2, 2008 22:10:13 GMT
fredg I don't see a problem with them looking rough. potato sacks lol.
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Apr 3, 2008 17:55:18 GMT
hi locko, I hope you mean 'textured'. Terming the appearance 'rough' may offend You must admit, limp potato sack does impart the correct imagery ;D
|
|
|
Post by av8tor1 on Apr 3, 2008 21:10:33 GMT
Fred,
I believe what offended was you telling eveyone else you were right and they didnt know what they were talking about or telling them what they should like and dislike...
but nice effort at mudding the water so to speak...
Av
|
|
fredg
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by fredg on Apr 3, 2008 21:25:08 GMT
Mudding the water?
I don't think so.
I brought up a point for discussion and fought my corner.
I'm afraid any muddying was not my doing,
I still think I'm right ;D
|
|