|
Post by BarryRice on Nov 9, 2007 20:15:08 GMT
Hey Folks,
You know, this morning I was looking at my Dionaea collection. I think I have around thirty different clones of Dionaea, most of which carry cultivar names, or bear as-yet-unestablished breeder names such as "Paradisea" or "Burbank's Best," etc.
I gotta tell you...while my collection is looking really great right now with a whole mess of brightly colored, beautiful traps, they sure don't seem to be living up to their cultivar names.
For example, while the various plants named for their red colorations surely are red (such as 'Red Piranha', 'Red Dragon', 'Clayton's Red Sunset'), they are easily matched in intensity by some of the other clones in redness.
And in agreement with what others have noted, my "Burbank's Best" plant---which a few years ago was almost all-green, has turned into a plant with nice red coloration.
And as for size? Three clones that are supposedly remarkable for their size ('Jaws', 'B52', "A2") are somewhat larger than the other plants, but for the last year the largest-trapped plant in my collection has been an entirely unnamed clone I got from Dean Cook several years ago. Meanwhile, my giant of last year---a simple old 'Dentate Traps'---is looking pretty boring this year.
All in all, in some ways, I think that the state of Dionaea cultivars is in shambles, and the differences from one so-called cultivar and another is fictitious at worst, or inconsistent at best.
I should temper my harsh comments above by saying that I'm really talking about Dionaea cultivars that are named, based only upon the details of red coloration or so-called trap size. The plants with really clearcut cultivar characters do seem to be living up to their names. Faithful little 'Justina Davis' is still absolutely green, with no red at all; the 'Fused Trap' plants are still fused, and 'Wacky Traps' is still as wacky as ever. (And so on.)
I guess what I'm thinking right now is that growing a bunch of separate cultivars is ensuring that I've got some genotypic diversity in my collection, but I'm not sure I wouldn't be getting the same phenotypic diversity with a set of thirty plants of the same clone. (Recall Aidan's photos of two specimens of the same clone, looking completely different.)
As a final attempt to explain the jumbled thoughts in my unsettled mind, let me put it this way. If you pulled the name tag out of the pot of one of my color-variant cultivars, and asked me to ID it for you, 'Justina Davis' is the only one I'm sure I'd get right!
I'll try to take some pictures this weekend to explain more what's on my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Nov 9, 2007 21:36:46 GMT
Hi Barry! Yes, i agree with you in some ways...I'm sure that you have seen Dionaea many times, as i also have in the wild {especially in the non-native stands existing in the Panhandle, wink-wink!}. One can see many diversities between plants in a colony....some with HUGE sized traps and some with smaller, some blood- red inside, some medium-pink, some more rosette in form, others with taller growth tendencies. The only variant i have not seen in the wild is the "Justina Davis" form, which is what everyone use to just call an "Alba". Do you think that some Dionaea "cultivars" came from plants harvested wild from the field, that were chosen to clone on site due to trap size, coloration, shape,... etc? Me thinks so... Of course the "wacky" looking forms are just tissue- culture/genetical mishaps or "Traps Gone Wild" (sounds like a video to me!) I like just the plain old Dionaea muscipula "typica" myself. Just my three shillings worth.... Oh, by the way...I enjoyed your book! Brian.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Nov 9, 2007 21:59:36 GMT
All in all, in some ways, I think that the state of Dionaea cultivars is in shambles, and the differences from one so-called cultivar and another is fictitious at worst, or inconsistent at best. I'd put it more harshly - The current situation with Dionaea is at best a nightmare and at worst a disaster. Pull all the labels out of my pots and I doubt I could get more than one in twenty back in the right place and matters continue to worsen. Dionaea is a monotypic genus and there are a limited number of variants to collect. Beyond the few published and easily recognisable cultivars there are an ever increasing host of unofficially named plants displaying characteristics that fall within the typical range. Why? Dubious marketing practices are at least a partial answer. As are over enthusiastic growers who yearn for more, "different" plants, naming every plant with the slightest and perhaps ephemeral variation. I have seen such names applied to single and immature individual plants and growers will not be reasoned with. I've tried!!! I am waiting for the day when I see names such as Dionaea "A little bit more pink than the one over there" and Dionaea "Half an inch taller than the one in the next pot". It's not far away... Add mislabelling (accidental or deliberate) into the brew and we find ourselves in a situation which now appears beyond any rectification. Thankfully, the other monotypic carnivorous genera have so far proved immune to this disease.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Nov 9, 2007 23:33:07 GMT
All in all, in some ways, I think that the state of Dionaea cultivars is in shambles, and the differences from one so-called cultivar and another is fictitious at worst, or inconsistent at best. I completely agree. Several years ago, after collecting hundreds of photos of various clones (official cultivars and local names), I was having a hard time seeing any difference in most. So, I decided to collect as many of these plants as I could trade for and see for myself. I now have several plants from 80 different "named" clones. This year, I separated my collection and grew one bunch in my greenhouse which gets sun only in the afternoon and an identical bunch outside in full sun. As the year progressed from spring to summer to fall, I moved each plant within the greenhouse bunch or outside bunch around so similar appearing plants were sitting next to one another. As the season progressed, the appearance of some plants changed to resemble other plants rather than the original grouping. Many of the plants in the greenhouse looked very different from their identical clone growing outside -- and their respective grouping was different. This was an evolving experiment and I did not take adequate notes. Next summer, I will design the experiment better and take detailed seasonal notes. However, there are several conclusions: 1) Some of the official cultivars are indeed different, but many are indistinguishable from others. 2) Most of the local named clones are not particularly unique. However, some are worthy of being registered as a unique cultivar (such as "Pygmy"). 3) Within the official cultivars, there seems to be several that are hopelessly contaminated so people really do not know what they have (such as the 'Red Dragon' mess). 4) Growing conditions and season make a huge difference in what each plant looks like. I have tested only 2 different conditions -- both being on the foggy northern California coast (40 58 42 N 124 05 10 W). If my plants were grown in a different environment, I fully expect they would look different. 5) As Barry states, a particular plant will look different from year to year. I also have had plants with huge traps one year and that same plant will have much smaller traps the next year -- while a plant in an adjacent pot will change from having small traps to huge traps.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Nov 10, 2007 0:29:55 GMT
I've just realised that in part I have quoted myself almost word for word from an earlier thread. Embarassing... Anyhow, for illustrative purposes here is the photo Barry was referring to - Same clone, same conditions, wildly different habit.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Nov 10, 2007 22:34:42 GMT
WOW Aiden! Looks like you've discovered a new cultivar! Are you going to name it "Aidan's Best"?? ;D I jest, of course....
|
|
|
Post by RL7836 on Nov 11, 2007 3:53:33 GMT
Overall I agree with Barry's assertion (as supported by the others). The vast majority of non-mutant cultivars fit within the fairly-wide parameters of a 'normal' VFT and many of the named plants vary widely with their growth characteristics.
However, for people who appreciate specific traits, some of the named cultivars tend to remain true to their descriptions. As an example - 'Big Mouth' has been a prostrate grower w/ large traps (and typically short petioles) in the 2 seasons I've grown it. My 'Dingley Red/Purple' plants do produce dark red trap interiors more reliably than most of my other plants. 'Charles Big Red' plants have large traps on the end of very long, thin, arched petioles (traits that have reliably repeated for over 5 seasons).
Other than 'Charles Big Red' being an all-red plant - all of these do fall within the parameters of a normal VFT. However, having plants that tend to retain specific characteristics is a small bonus that imho justifies minor recognition with a name.
Although this is the wrong forum to start this debate, are the named Cephalotus clones any better?
|
|
wadave
Full Member
He don't know me vewy well do he?
Posts: 283
|
Post by wadave on Nov 11, 2007 7:04:01 GMT
I totally agree with Aidan that it seems like people have been applying names to plants that are slightly different to the plants in the next pot.
Should cultivar status be only applied to plants showing consistancy in their growth habit over the growing season year after year?
I've thought for a long time now that some named VFT's have been labled as different because the owner liked that particular shade of red in the trap interior or it's rosette growth habit at one point during the year. But in reality, as has already been mentioned, a typical VFT may show these characteristics at any time throughout the seasons depending on external forces and not necessarily its genetic coding. Can the same be said of other CP species? If the other species show consistency then why are VFT's different?
Perhaps a review of VFT names by a group of peers to clean things up is in order?
Maybe plants that don't show consistency of their characteristics as stated in the application for cultivar status, have their cultivar status revoked? ICPS-bob sounds like he is onto something with his experiment.
Perhaps monotypic species should be monitored over a 12 month period to confirm the validity of the characteristics which are claimed as reasons for being accepted as a cultivar?
Forgive me if this is already the case, I've never looked into the rules for cultivars.
Dave.
|
|
wadave
Full Member
He don't know me vewy well do he?
Posts: 283
|
Post by wadave on Nov 11, 2007 7:05:54 GMT
I've just had another thought, are VFT's required to be mature before they are accepted as a cultivar? Or are some simply immature, showing certain characteristics which change with age?
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Nov 11, 2007 10:37:01 GMT
I think a plant should be mature and at least two generations stable in its appearance before you may call it something special
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Nov 11, 2007 11:45:25 GMT
Although this is the wrong forum to start this debate, are the named Cephalotus clones any better? There are barely a handful of named Cephalotus and though the potential is there for a similar situation to arise, it's not currently the case. The explosive proliferation of names is unique to Dionaea.Perhaps a review of VFT names by a group of peers to clean things up is in order? As the majority of named plants are not published as cultivars and therefore have no official recognition, a review process is not possible and in any event the results would be ignored. In addition and as Bob noted, a number of the cultivars have become "hopelessly contaminated" and no review process will sort that mess out.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Nov 11, 2007 13:16:44 GMT
I totally agree with Marcel. Cultivating a plant that has unusual characteristics should be done for at least two years, to make sure that the variety with traits at question, isn't due to growing conditions, etc....Otherwise, i'd just start calling my D. capillaris "long-leafs"- D. intermedia "tropical"!!
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Nov 12, 2007 20:45:29 GMT
Hey Folks, As promised, I spent a few hours this weekend taking photographs of some of my Dionaea cultivars. I only photographed the ones that were looking really nice, and did not make a complete photographic inventory of the collection. Can you tell, from the pictures alone, which cultivar or named clone is which?: www.sarracenia.com/galleria/g343.htmlTo be fair, I admit that I didn't try at all to follow a uniform standard in my photography, and just followed a photographic muse in my work. EVEN so, one would think that since most Dionaea cultivars are described on appearance, it would be relatively easy to pick out which clone is which. But you really can't (mutant forms, of course, aside). For your pleasure, below is a photograph of some of my plants. They're a little abused in this image, as I was moving the plants around, photographing them, and feeding them:
|
|
kby
Full Member
Posts: 162
|
Post by kby on Nov 12, 2007 21:11:45 GMT
Somethingin the picture with a fixed size (like a quarter) might help...well, probably not, but it's nice to think it would.-kby
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Nov 12, 2007 22:15:06 GMT
Regardless of cultivar type, your plants are absolutely lovely! Kudos!
|
|