courtii 'paradisia'

[wallsg7]

Hi,i would like to own this plant but cant seem to find it for sale anywhere.Does anyone know the exact parentage so i can grow my own from seed.There are so many different types of purpurea and psittacina i need to know the exact ones used.
Thanks in advance

[Clint]

It doesn't work that way It's a cultivar and you can't just breed a new one.

I'm going to move this to the Cultivars area since it's ...well since it's about a cultivar and this could also further educate people about what a cultivar is. This website tells what a cultivar is.

www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq3920.html

[wallsg7]

If thats true then whats the point of keeping records of the parent plants?Also im used to people telling me you cant do this and you cant do that in life....but i usualy find i can!!

[Michael Catalani]

I dont believe Sarracenia cv 'Paradisia' is a valid registered cultivar. If it was, there might be a reference to the actual plants used in the cross if it was known.

The plant images on the web that show up under this name is not difficult to create though. Simply cross an S. purpurea and S. psittacina and you will likely find a plant that is colored and shaped just like this plant.

It should be pointed out that S. x courtii's have a varied pitcher shape, even within the same plant. Some pitchers will look like an overly bloated S. psittacina, and others will open up and look like an S. purpurea gone wrong, all within the same plant.

[wallsg7]

Thanks michael.If its not a registered cultivar perhaps my thread can be moved back to sarracenia.

[Clint]

Sorry. You wrote it with single quotes around the plant name and it led me to think it was a cultivar. Nomenclature is so confusing sometimes lol.


I'll move it back for you. Sorry about this (well come on it wasn't entirely me )

[ICPS-bob]

I have encountered photos from several growers that have used the name Sarracenia "Paradisia". As pointed out by others, the name is not official (AFAIK). (links to these photos are in the Sarracenia page of my CP Photo Finder)
users.humboldt.edu/rziemer/Sarracenia.html

One of these is
Sarracenia x courtii "Paradisia" -- a hybrid of purpurea x psittacina
the other is
Sarracenia "Paradisia" -- a hybrid of (oreophila x leucophylla) x purpurea

[jrl1265]

wallsg7
You can't just make a cultivar. Think of it this way, your parents can have baby after baby but there will only be one of you. A cultivar is like that, no matter how many times you cross psittacina with purpurea you will never get a Paradisa. You have to clone it. Hope this helps.

[Michael Catalani]

jrl1265 said:

wallsg7
You can't just make a cultivar. Think of it this way, your parents can have baby after baby but there will only be one of you. A cultivar is like that, no matter how many times you cross psittacina with purpurea you will never get a Paradisa. You have to clone it. Hope this helps.

This is not correct, even though many of us agree with your position.

A plant belongs to a cultivar if its features are identical to the cultivars description. Many times cloning is the only way to reproduce identical features, but it doesnt have to be.

Not only that, but the plant doesnt even have to be made up of the same species parents. If we took an S. minor and crossed it with S. psittacina, and a resulting plant looked identical to the description of Paradisa, then it would be a Paradisa.

I'm not saying I like the current rules, but they are what they are. (at least currently) If you want an exact copy of a plant, then cloning is the way to go. But under the current cultivar guidelines for CP, they dont have to be.

Which means the best way to ensure that a plant HAS to be cloned in order to belong the cultivar group is to write a detailed description of the cultivar in the first place, so that its virtually impossible for a non-cloned plant to be identical to the cultivar description.

And as pointed out earlier, the name Paradisa is currently not registered and invalid.

[ICPS-bob]

michaelcatalani said:

Not only that, but the plant doesnt even have to be made up of the same species parents. If we took an S. minor and crossed it with S. psittacina, and a resulting plant looked identical to the description of Paradisa, then it would be a Paradisa.

Michael is correct. And, there are at least two additional problems:
1) Often the cultivar description does not provide adequate detail to allow a person to know exactly what the plant should look like.
2) Who decides whether your unknown plant looks identical to the description? You do. So, since you have decided that your unknown plant looks exactly like the description, you give it that name and it eventually becomes distributed. Does this sound like a recipe for confusion?

[mikecpking]

Hi Gary,
You will be pleased to know its in the UK and I have one example in my collection. It looks like it will be divisible in a year or 2.

[wallsg7]

Justlikeapill...soz if i wrote it wrong-im still quite new to this!lol.A lot of interesting points have been made though.A subject which needs to be clarified maybe by the powers that be.
Thanks mike...put me down for one plz

[Dave Evans]

Guys, I think this is an example of thinking too much First, a cultivar is a cultivated variety. It is allowed to have or display diversity. I think people are trying to "purify" something which cannot be so. Example: If a cultivar is defined by a general definition, then multiple examples can exist. Will they all look exactly the same -- no. Will some folks prefer some clones over others -- yes. It is the same exact situation when you are looking at any group of plants.

Also, when a cultivar is established, a standard photo is used to display the new variety. Most of the time, the standard will show readers a clear example of the feature(s) which separate this variety from it's close relatives. The author can restrict propagation to cloning, BTW. Then it is up to other people (every one else) to decide if the plant actually is different enough to bother using the name. If you can not tell that a plant belongs in a particular cultivar, it is fine to use the species name or hybrid formula instead.

Good Growing,
Dave E.

admin said:

Does this sound like a recipe for confusion?

[Alexis]

South West Carnivorous Plants have them (www.littleshopofhorrors.com).

I bought mine last summer - it's an impressive courtii with beefy, bulbous heads and it colours up dark red easily. A worthy plant to have.

[ICPS-bob]

Alexis, wrong URL. That takes you to a New York City Broadway Shows site.

It should be
www.littleshopofhorrors.co.uk/