|
Post by Not a Number on Mar 29, 2007 18:30:34 GMT
At the beginning of the week one of the flowers Sarracenia flava blossomed (two flowers, only one plant). Now it looks like a flower or two on my S. leucophylla is about to open. From what I read self pollinating S. flava is not recommended so I thought perhaps I could cross pollinate with S. leucophylla pollen. The offspring seeds/plants would be S. moorei correct? What about the reciprocal pollination - using S. flava pollen on S. leucophylla? As a newbie I'll be using techniques from the pollination guide on NASC forum, although I prefer a small paint brush over a cotton swap for collecting and delivering the pollen. www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93602Any pointers would be welcomed. Warren
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Mar 29, 2007 18:41:38 GMT
Yes, you may cross-pollinate in both directions and I agree, a fine paintbrush is much superior to a cotton-bud.
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Mar 29, 2007 18:58:19 GMT
In this case, i.e. S. flava and S. leucophylla, are the resulting hybrids called S. moorei no matter which species is the pollen donor?
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Mar 29, 2007 19:27:20 GMT
Yes, S.flava x S.leucophylla = S moorei The name is not reserved to a specific cross-product. example: 'Brook's Hybrid' and 'Leah Wilkerson' are both S moorei, but these names point out 1 specific plant of this cross. An ostrich is a bird, but a bird doesn't have to be an ostrich.
|
|
Clint
Full Member
Posts: 808
|
Post by Clint on Mar 29, 2007 19:30:46 GMT
I think he means while S.flava x S.leucophylla = S moorei , is S. leucophylla x S. flava still an S. x moorei.
In other words he's asking if it is still a moorei if you switch the mother and father (whoo sounds kinky...)
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Mar 29, 2007 19:35:20 GMT
oh, in that case: Yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Mar 29, 2007 19:38:23 GMT
Thanks, that is what I meant. I have to learn how to express hybridization etc. It's all new to me
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Mar 29, 2007 20:44:51 GMT
Not a Number, A little more info: because S. moorei is a natural hybrid, the name pertains to any crossing of leucophylla and flava, even past a primary cross. For example: (S. flava x S. leucophylla)x S. leucophylla, or the hybrid (S. flava x S. leucophylla)x S. flava...are both S. moorei. The specific plants that are given names, like S. 'Leah Wilkerson' are called cultivars. There is detailed information on cultivars and hybrids at the ICPS website.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Mar 31, 2007 1:23:31 GMT
because S. moorei is a natural hybrid, the name pertains to any crossing of leucophylla and flava, even past a primary cross. For example: (S. flava x S. leucophylla)x S. leucophylla, or the hybrid (S. flava x S. leucophylla)x S. flava...are both S. moorei. Surely the epithet may only be legitimately applied to the primary cross? Doubtless there are many back-crossed plants in circulation under the name S. x moorei (particularly plants of wild origin), but strictly speaking I would think this incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Apr 3, 2007 15:47:08 GMT
Hi Aidan, I thought the same thing, but somewhere Dr. Schlauer pointed out that the name is based on the natural hybrid, and legitimately extends to any combination of flava and leucophylla, mainly because pedigree of a wild type specimen cannot be assured. All other names of complex hybrids in Sarracenia are really bogus horticultural names, even though they seem to be somewhat useful for the nurseryman. Hybrid names in Sarracenia are relegated to the cultivar system.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 3, 2007 17:01:45 GMT
OK... but that pretty much makes a mockery of the labelling of any simple hybrid that may occur in the field. I encourage anyone that hybridises plants to label them with the exact parentage no matter how complex.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 7, 2007 23:12:56 GMT
Another thread has prompted me to reopen this.
The name S. x moorei was coined for a specific, cultivated plant raised in Glasnevin Botanic Gardens, Ireland in 1868 and not a natural hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Apr 13, 2007 6:49:05 GMT
Dear Aidan,
When you cross two species together, the resulting hybrid's taxon is at the same rank as a species. Regardless what percent of DNA each parent species contributes to the hybrid, the resulting plants are still named at hybrid taxon species rank. For example: S. flava * (S. purpurea venosa * S. flava) is still S. catesbiae, as is S. flava * S. purpurea purpurea. When you want to differentiate between hybrids involving plants higher than species rank, then you would add more specific names. For example you could name S. flava * S. purpurea purpurea, "S. catesbiae subsp. purpurea", which I put in quotes as it is not a published taxon and has not been established.
At first, I didn't like this system. However, after much thought and reflection, I realized this helps keep the species names more specific, well structured and informative--easier to understand the underlaying theory about how they are related to each other.
Good Growing, Dave E.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Apr 13, 2007 12:21:57 GMT
Dave - Another point on which we will disagree.
I do agree with your initial opinion as it effectively renders the naming of hybrids meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Apr 13, 2007 14:49:27 GMT
Dave - Another point on which we will disagree. I do agree with your initial opinion as it effectively renders the naming of hybrids meaningless. I understand your point, however: If the binomial hybrid names (ie S. x moorei) ONLY applied to a first generation cross of two species, then no wild plants could be legitimately named because their parentage would be unknown. Whereas its relatively easy to determine most wild Sarracenia hybrids as a cross between two species, what is not certain is the level of backcrossing that has occurred. Without the naming convention the way it is, we would simply point to some hybrids in the wild and refer to them as "those things over there." I understand what you are alluding to though. As far as purchasing or trading plants, its much better that nurseries refer to the plants with the actual composition name. The reason this is ultimately better is because we know the exact heritage of the plant (and sometimes even the seed parent). Using composition names also means we will be using totally legitimate names. (Which will keep Jan Schlaur from turning over in his grave, even though he is still very much alive and kicking.) So, for instance, let's say I was the first person to create the cross of S. flava x (S. flava x S. psittacina) x (S. oreophila x S. psittacina) x (S. rubra x S. purpurea) x (S. oreophila x S. minor) The good news is that the newly created cross already has a totally legitimate composition name. I could create a new binomial name for it, but it has to go thru steps to becoming a legitimate name. (ie:publication, correction naming scheme, I also believe public humilation and flogging are involved) The only drawback to using the composition name is that they dont roll off the tongue very easily.
|
|