Gripe on bogus S. 'Daniel Rudd'

[thwyman]

I recently recieved a plant labled as S. 'Daniel Rudd' in a trade. I was really excited about this because I have always wanted 'Daniel Rudd' since I first saw the photo of it in Slack's second book.




The plant recently put out a fully formed pitcher and I have to say that this is very obviously NOT 'Daniel Rudd'!




I do not blame the person who sent it to me as I am sure they did not know. Having discussed the plant with a few of the Sarr experts around the world I have learned that there is a nursery that is distributing this plant under the name 'Daniel Rudd' but that the plant just their attempt at remaking Slack's cross. I personally find this dishonest and I advocate that anyone with this plant mark it as BOGUS so that no one else will be duped like I was.

[mannyherrera]

All the pictures for it in the photofinder look different. There isn't a general consensus. I recently received one in a trade also. mine looks very leucophylla-heavy. It's a beautiful plant, but now I wonder if it's 'Daniel Rudd'.

[Aidan]

This looks familiar...

There is no certainty that any of the plants (and there are several) currently circulating under the name 'Daniel Rudd' are the genuine article. Even the plant that is supplied by the nursery that acquired Slack's stock is considered questionable.

The same is true of Slack's 'Lochness'. Several plants have recently emerged under the name, any one of which may be genuine. But, there is only one published photograph of the plant and that is not sufficient to confirm the identity.

[thwyman]

Aidan,

Put it everywhere cause I think all should know Some people avoid the other forums.

Re: identities, I was under the impression that any plant that matched the descriptive was considered "valid". And considering the description of 'Lochness' is just that it is an excellens with bright red blooms then any excellens with bright red blooms would be 'Lochness' even if it was not straight from the original Slack plant. The descriptive for 'Daniel Rudd' is quite a bit more thorough so it should at least be obvious if some of the plants are bogus, like the one I recieved which does not match either the pic (which you have pointed out is not the beststandard) or the written description

[Aidan]

What you say is (unfortunately) true of any cultivar. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc."

The description of 'Lochness' is extracted from "Insect Eating Plants & How to Grow Them". I doubt that Slack intended the passage to be taken as an official description, but it is a little more precise than you suggest:

www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=lochness&search=all

...and of course, being obsessive collectors we all want Slack's clone.

[thwyman]

Adian,

You are correct, the 'Lochness' descriptive is more than "red blooms" I was going from memory but I checked it when I got home and saw there was s bit more. Still and all it is a bit vague when compared with a few of the other clone descriptions in the book.

aidan said:

...and of course, being obsessive collectors we all want Slack's clone.

Well... Yeah ;D LOL