Sarracenia x catesbaei Melanorhoda Group

[john]

I have been wrestling with the idea of Sarracenia x catesbaei for a while now, and I wondered if anybody else had any comments?

Sarracenia x catesbaei is a name formed under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to cover the hybrids between Sarracenia flava and Sarracenia purpurea . The name meets the needs of botanists, allowing them to assign hybrids found the field to a particular group. As with all hybrid names formed in accordance with the ICBN, it encompasses all hybrids, their back-crosses, second (and third and ...) generation hybrids. In fact, all plants that are not the pure species, but that only contain genetic material from the two species concerned.
In horticulture, we tend to pay more attention to the exact parentage, and there is a belief (erroneous) that the name S.x catesbaei only applies to the first generation cross.
Sarracenia x melanorhoda ((flava x purpurea) x purpurea)presents a problem. We are all accustomed to use the name, and the plants, though variable, have some common characteristics. However, they should all properly be included in Sarracenia x catesbaei.
I wonder if anybody can suggest a way of resolving this problem?
My own suggestion is that we use the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, and create a group. Prior to the current edition of the code, it would have been possible to create a grex - a group of plants with a common parentage, but this is no longer permitted under the code for any plants except orchids. Sarracenia x melanorhoda would then become the Melanorhoda Group of Sarracenia x catesbaei. There is provision in the code for the name 'Melanorhoda' to be preserved to maintain established usage. When writing a group name, it should ideally be in a distinct typeface, though this is not always possible. The name would therefore be written:
Sarracenia x catesbaei Melanorhoda Group.
What do people think?
(sorry this is all a bit dry)

[ICPS-bob]

Personally, I prefer the use of parentage, rather than the hybrid name. If growers were to follow the convention [female (seed) parent x male (pollen) parent], more information is conveyed and with less confusion than using hybrid names or groups. Certainly, it is not possible to determine the parent order of hybrids found in the field. However, for captive breeding, it is easy to keep track of complex multiple generations. For some, it is important to know whether a plant is ((flava x purpurea) x purpurea) or (purpurea x (flava x purpurea)).

For those interested in the Nepenthes grex debate, see
icps.proboards105.com/index.cgi?board=grex&action=display&thread=1173725277
and for all of the gory details
pitcherplants.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=naming

[Aidan]

Tricky... As Bob says, the parentage where known is more useful. It also obviates the need to remember the parentage of the various named forms - which I can't always do.

[Alexis]

I tend to think simple hybrids names are fairly easy to remember - catesbaei, swaniana etc. - but when you start getting any futher there's no point really.

Melanorhoda is probably better as purpurea x catesbaei.

[john]

Yes Alexis, as a grower I agree with you. The problem is that the name S.x catesbaei includes all plants of purpurea x catesbaei - the idea of purpurea x catesbaei is tautological (an oxymoron perhaps in modern parlance). I think that the group of plants (purpurea x (purpurea x flava)) is well known in cultivation, and that referring to them all as S. x catesbaei would be unpopular at the very least, though accurate. The only solution I can think of is Sarracenia x catesbaei Melanorhoda Group , but I would be interested in any other suggestions?

I agree with Bob that using the parentage gives the most information - although we are moving into an era where parentages are going to be so complex that we will be writing labels that are a minefield of names and brackets.
Also, there are two acceptable conventions for writing hybrids. The first, seed parent followed by pollen parent, is informative, but alphabetical listing is also an accepted convention. It becomes important that you state which convention you are using every time you write/publish a name.

[BarryRice]

Hey John,

I am perfectly willing to disclose that in my own Sarracenia breeding work, I track all the parentage information. But I wonder, is there really any value in doing so, other than to satisfy my own obsessions with detail? I frequently observe that when you get to crosses past the F1 level, the seedlings range all over in character. So while most plants with hybrid ancestry of Sarracenia flava x (flava x purpurea) look like unremarkable Sarracenia flava x purpurea plants, some individuals in the mix range in appearance from looking like nearly pure Sarracenia flava to nearly pure Sarracenia purpurea.

In other words, since:
Sarracenia (flava x (flava x purpurea)) x flava

might look more like Sarracenia purpurea than

Sarracenia (purpurea x (flava x purpurea)) x purpurea

is there a point in tracking the information? What does it benefit the breeder? The details of the cross would seem to have little practical application. It has little predictive value. So why track it?

Barry

[ICPS-bob]

Why track it? I suppose just because you can. If your Sarracenia flava x (flava x purpurea) plants vary in looks that "range in appearance from looking like nearly pure Sarracenia flava to nearly pure Sarracenia purpurea", what would you call them? Sarracenia flava and Sarracenia purpurea? Or, both Sarracenia x catesbaei? I think knowledge of the breeding tells the grower a bit about the potential result of future offspring.

Of course, one has no knowledge of the genetic makeup of the original parents of the plants or seed collected from the wild.

[john]

Hi Barry - I agree with you entirely that once you get past the F1, the detail of the parentage becomes irrelevant in predicting the appearance of the offspring. One of the reasons for the post was to gather opinion on the group concept. I have had problems with it for some some time now - the obsessive hybridist in me wants more precision - but I am coming to the realisation that it is quite a useful way of organising hybrids as they become more complex.
It seems to me that there are two issues here - the hybridist values a detailed 'pedigree' to guide their own work, but for general use, a way of breaking down the mass of complex hybrids into comprehensible groups might be quite useful.
Sorry I can't give a practical example yet - I am about to re-organise the hybrids on my website by group, but haven't got to it yet.
S.xcatesbaei (for example)covers the same genetic spread as a group would, that is, all hybrids that include both S.flava and S.purpurea in their make up, but nothing else. All of the ((p x f) x p) and (((p x f) x (p x f)) x f) ... and any other combination you can imagine, are comfortably grouped under S.xcatesbaei, and if you produce a worthwhile cultivar, it would be
S.xcatesbaei 'Sun Warrior' (as an example).
Naturally, we have to get over the simplistic idea that S.xcatesbaei only consists of the F1 generation, and the question is, Do you think there is any value in a Melanorhoda Group (mostly for historical reasons) or should they all be sunk into S.xcatesbaei ?

[Alexis]

I thought you had pretty strong opinions on this John?

www.johnjearrard.co.uk/sarraceniaceae/sarracenia/hybrid/flavaxpurpurea.html

:-)

[john]

Ha ha! You're right Alexis, I have occasionally expressed a more forthright view, but I thought this probably wasn't the place for:
" So, if you'll pardon the phrase, you know where you can stick S.x melanorhoda." (ie S.x catesbaei!)
Unusually for an out of control egomaniac, I am genuinely interested in other people's opinions on the matter! ;D

[Alexis]

:-)

I had a look at your website earlier. Lots of fantastic photos on there and i like your humour too!

You certainly seem to like your oreophilas as well.

[wallsg7]

Ive been reading this post with some interest as i constantly find myself looking up what these names mean.As time goes by im finding i remember more and more of them but it does seem a complicated way to name plants in my opinion.Instead of catesbaei, for example,i far prefer flava x purpurea.That way i dont have to look it up to understand it.
In addition there are many types of flava and purpurea so there isnt much point in this, in my opinion, unless the exact parents are described.ie;flava 'burgundy'x purpurea montana.

Even then i can understand earlier views about it all being pointless.Even if i were to cross the exact same parent plants as someone else there is no guarantee the resulting offspring will look the same.



Gary

[BarryRice]

Hey Folks,

Another reason to track detailed parentage that hasn't been noted is that in my own hybridization work, I not only track the exact nature of the detailed cross, but also the specific clones involved. This is useful when looking for certain individual breeding clones that may be more vigorous, for example.

However, back to the question of whether or not using some naming convention is useful or not. I think that each person is the one to decide that. I could argue up and down that such-and-such convention is critical (or useless), but that doesn't matter. It boils down to whether or not YOU think it has value.

B

[sunbelle]

Barry hits the proverbial nail on the head. From a breeders perspective, the individual clones used as the parents are what is most important.