Jan superbly covered this topic, and thanks for clarifying the history of D. indica.
<<Do you know why? It was Barry Meyers-Rice that proved that these now separate species cannot be hybridized. Since a species is a breeding pool and the different forms of Byblis cannot interbreed, they must then be iron clad separate species. This case of Byblis has more of a mathematical exactness of true science. >>
<Not really..........The case of _D. tokaiensis_ is exactly as obvious and simple genetically and taxonomically, and still some people would rather treat it as an independent species just because it is *not* sterile.>
How about the offsprings? To be recognized as its own species, I thought offsprings should not segregate as you often see those of primary hybrids. I was thinking the case of D. anglica, and that may be relevant as well, right?
<The important point (that has obviously still not penetrated public awareness sufficiently) is that sterility, fertility, and breedingbehaviour *alone* are *not* sufficient (although these data are doubtlessly useful) for species delimitation in many cases, especially not in the genus _Drosera_ (or _Nepenthes_ or _Sarracenia_).>
I agree. I think sterility among hybrids simply shows genetic dustance(s) between two parental species.
<Splitting and lumping will continue irrespective of the methods used.>
Speaking of sterility (or fertility) among primary hybrids, many of (not all, though) orchid primary hybrids are perfectly fertile. Intergenerics (hybrids between different genera) are hardly new. You can buy hybrids of Brassolaeliocattleya (Brassavola x Laelia x Cattleya), Ascocenda (Ascocentrum x Vanda) and Vulystekeara (Miltonia x Cochlioda x Odontoglossum) even at local Lowes (or Home Depot). If I remember correctly, there is a man-made genus that consists of species from nine genera. Of course, this depends on species, genera, subtribes, and tribes that orchids belong to. The concept of species that is readily applied to a group of family/genus, etc may not be applicable to another.
<Only the inclusivity of taxonomic ranks is defined (a species cannot contain two different genera but a genus can contain two different species),>Does this apply to fungal species as well? For example, Giberella fujikuroi is a teleomorph of Fusarium moniliforme (anamorph). I remember some macrocyclic rust fugi belonging to three genus depending on the number of life cycles. Since this is fungal taxonomy, the situation may be different.
There were
many other good points, but I should keep my message
short.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Fri Jan 4 02:35:34 2002 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:35:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Hybrids and species Dear Hideka, > Jan superbly (...) Thanks for your appreciation! ;-) > The case of _D. tokaiensis_ is exactly as obvious and simple > genetically and taxonomically, and still some people would rather > treat it as an independent species just because it is *not* sterile. > How about the offsprings? To be recognized as its own species, > I thought offsprings should not segregate as you often see those of > primary hybrids. I was thinking the case of _D. anglica_, > and that may be relevant as well, right? _D. tokaiensis_ is so similar to one parent species (_D. spatulata_) that it has been treated as a subsp. of it before it was discovered that part of its chromosomes are exact copies of those of _D. rotundifolia_ (which is morphologically not too far away, either). The offspring of _D. tokaiensis_ is, therefore, not very surprising (again very similar to _D. spatulata_, or _D. tokaiensis_ for that matter). The decisive point for my interpretation here (I regard _D. tokaiensis_ as a hybrid like _D. obovata_) is neither morphological (which would favour inclusion in _D. spatulata_) nor genetical (which would favour segregation as a separate species like _D. anglica_) but chorological: Like _D. obovata_, _D. tokaiensis_ is not chorologically independent from its parent species, i.e. it does not occur in a phytogeographic unit (province) outside the overlap of the ranges of the parent species, both of which extend considerably beyond that area. In contrast to _D. tokaiensis_, _D. anglica_ extends beyond the range of _D. rotundifolia_ in a number of places (Hawaii - probably introduced recently, S USA, S Europe), and beyond the range of the other putative parent (a possibly now extinct relative of _D. linearis_) by most of its range (outside N America). > Only the inclusivity of taxonomic ranks is defined (a species cannot contain two different genera but a genus can contain two different species), > Does this apply to fungal species as well? Yes (mutatis mutandis). > For example, Giberella fujikuroi is a teleomorph of > Fusarium moniliforme (anamorph). I remember some macrocyclic > rust fugi belonging to three genus depending on the number of life > cycles. Since this is fungal taxonomy, the situation may be > different. Not really. But the inclusivity is of course restricted to the stage if the stages may receive different names. _Gibberella fujikuroi_ does not *include* two or more different genera of teleomorphs, anamorphs or *whatsoever. Kind regards Jan ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Fri Jan 4 03:06:29 2002 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 12:06:24 +0100 Subject: cp cultivation articles Dear Mike, > There doesn't seem to be enough membership or worldwide interest in > carnivorous plants to warrant a separate quarterly that centers on plant > cultivation so what ideas are there to include useful current horticultural > information on growing these plants? One of the problems might be that cps occur in 118 (of 152) floristic provinces, all of which have a particular climate/vegetation. Cp growers occur in all 152 provinces (although they concentrate disproportionally in perhaps 20 provinces; these are usually not those with the highest indigenous cp diversity). Result: Cps are usually cultivated ex situ, and it is almost impossible to make general statements on the cultivation of any cp that will lead to success in all possible situations; "current horticultural information" can only consist of reports on what has worked in a particular situation. This will certainly not lead to 100% success everywhere. You can find plenty of such information in books like "Savage Garden" by Peter D'Amato (no endorsement, just a quotation). But we cannot satisfy the demands of our international readership by just printing the same in CPN. The other, possibly larger, problem is lack of manuscripts. It has been stated many times before, but it obviously requires repetition: ** We cannot print in CPN what is not submitted as a manuscript. ** A lack of articles (suspected or real) on a particular topic is not due to censorship by the editors who do not like them but due to missing authors who would write them. > (...)does every Sarracenia variant/hybrid deserve cultivar status? No. > I am a avid Sarracenia grower, and just love the plants, but if all one > has to do is pick every different hybrid and put it in cultivar status > then I will fill a 100 page periodical with new cultivars! Yes (the page number is of course variable according to situation). The periodical is called the International Register (IR). At the moment the cp IR fills 5162 lines, corresponding roughly to 100 pages. You can retrieve the information from the cp database: http://www2.labs.agilent.com/bot/cp_home > I must have 5 different forms of S. x formosa, but are they all of > cultivar status? No registered cultivar belongs to this taxon but the name has two later nomenclatural synonyms (same parent species): _S. decora_ and _S. maddisoniana_. > I doubt it, I am a legend > only in my own mind. Then someone else can name there cultivar of S. x > formosa after themselves and the whole thing becomes a diluted mess of > nothing. It is not the competence or duty of a registration authority to judge the quality or distinctness of cultivars. We just have to ensure the quality and distinctness of cultivar names. If the registrant *thinks* his/her cultivar is distinct and superior, and if he/she submits a description (published somewhere else or to be published in CPN) mentioning the features that in his/her opinion are distinguishing, and if he/she adds a high quality photograph (together with a permit to reproduce it) showing these features, the name of this cultivar will in any event be considered for registration. If the name is formally acceptable (cf. ICNCP), it will in any event be registered by the ICPS. > Many it looks like are coming right out of the wild, someone sees it > and "A-ha- I will name this Sarracenia a cultivar"! This is perfectly OK with the rules (ICNCP). > Lets get a handle on this The first handle is a way to fix the meaning of names: registration. The International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) provides exactly this, information on cultivar names (not more and not less). Another handle (but not an ICRA's job!) is awarding particular cultivars in plant shows or displays. This has been done in a few cases with cp cultivars. It can, however, sometimes degenerate into a political issue, and although we record notes on awards (to the best of our knowledge) in the cp IR, registration is entirely independent from awards. > before it becomes a worse mess than the naming of Nepenthes hybrids > has. A very generalized statement on a widely diverse topic. Most names are not too bad (if applied correctly), but some are really a pain. Kind regards Jan (ICPS Registrar) ################### From: slawarre@meijergardens.org Fri Jan 4 06:12:00 2002 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:05:28 -0500 Subject: RE: Humidifier Water pH In my humble opinion as a Professional grower (non CP, that is) pH of water is highly misunderstood. It is far more important to have water with a low ALKALINITY. Water alkalinity is often confused with water basicity. The alkalinity of water refers to its parts per million dissolved CaCO3. Basicity refers to pH. This is the main contributor to waters ability to buffer, or change media pH. It is far more important to have water with low ALKALINITY then it is to have water with low pH. If you are having trouble with your media pH rising, then your culprit is probably a water source with high alkalinity. I use well water in all our greenhouses. CP's get RO water. When I started here 4 years ago, the well water had an alkalinity of 340. Ideally, water used for plants should have an alkalinity of <100. We have to inject sulfuric acid into our well water to bring the Alkalinity down. Our water had such a high buffering capacity, that the sulfuric acid injector didn't lower the pH until our alkalinity got down to under 250. If you have ever done a simple titration experiment, you know what I mean. To put this in perspective, I can add one drop of sulfuric acid to a gallon of our RO water(alkalinity ~20)and the pH will drop. If I do this same thing to a gallon of our well water, the pH will stay the same, and the Alkalinity will drop slightly. The high alkalinity of the well water acts as a buffer. Anyway, I don't know why I started this, its about as clear as mud. I would check your water alkalinity before I would worry about trying to lower the pH. Steve -----Original Message----- Behalf Of Tom Stubblefield Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:57 PM To: Multiple recipients of list CP Hello all, Has anyone using an ultrasonic humidifier to fog a terrarium ever tried adjusting the pH of the water down to keep the pH of the medium from creeping upwards? If I do decide to try this, what would be a safe starting pH? Thanks for any input. Tom ################### From: Darren_bedwel@iquest.net Fri Jan 4 06:53:36 2002 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:54:28 -0500 Subject: Terrarium cooling with peltiers There are so many plants that can be killed by the heat, or that are healthier with cool temperatures - darlingtonia, highland neps, heliamphora, etc. Has anyone tried using a peltier device to cool a terrarium? If you don't know what a peltier device is, it is a solid state unit that gets cold on one side and hot on the other when you run an electrical current through it. Some fast computers nowadays use peltier units to cool their CPU's. The cold side of the peltier goes against the CPU, and the hot side has a heat sink and fan attached to it. The whole thing runs off of 12 volts DC and can be powered by a spare computer power supply. They draw a lot of current. I am buying one off of ebay to try it out, and will report back on the results. ################### From: ksanders@clas.ufl.edu Fri Jan 4 07:10:53 2002 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:10:47 -0500 Subject: CNN article CNN has a small story (no pics) about the Nep that attracts termites: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/03/killer/reut/index .html -Keith Keith Sanders Systems Programmer CLASnet 100 Rolfs Hall 352-846-1990 ################### From: MCATALANI@aol.com Fri Jan 4 07:27:28 2002 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:27:06 EST Subject: Re: Terrarium cooling with peltiers Yes, I do know of a person who is successfully using peltier devices for growing highland neps. I am looking at using them in my orchidarium to grow the really ultra highland neps and heliamphora which require cool temps with really bright light. He seems to be having good luck with it. Email me privately, and I will direct you to him if you like. I am not sure if he is on the listserve. Michael Catalani In a message dated 1/4/2002 8:55:47 AM Central Standard Time, Darren_bedwel@iquest.net writes: > There are so many plants that can be killed by the heat, or that are > healthier with cool temperatures - darlingtonia, highland neps, > heliamphora, etc. Has anyone tried using a peltier device to cool a > terrarium? > > If you don't know what a peltier device is, it is a solid state unit that > gets cold on one side and hot on the other when you run an electrical > current through it. Some fast computers nowadays use peltier units to cool > their CPU's. The cold side of the peltier goes against the CPU, and the > hot side has a heat sink and fan attached to it. The whole thing runs off > of 12 volts DC and can be powered by a spare computer power supply. They > draw a lot of current. I am buying one off of ebay to try it out, and will > report back on the results. > [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: jgreen@spectrasymbol.com Fri Jan 4 07:44:23 2002 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:41:43 -0700 Subject: RE: New edition of Donald Schnell's book coming > From: "Ron ."
Ivan,
I don't think I saw any article on Sarracenia flava gaining polymorphism through introgression last time I did a lit. search (been a while. Maybe a year?) on the genus. New things come up really quick as we know. I don't know what fingerpriniting technique they used (microsattelite, AFLP, SNP, etc), and I am very curious. I am wondering if you can give me the citation.
<Here is an example you will be familiar with: An expert knows that Sarracenia flava varieties have gained their polymorphism through introgression. These S. flava varieties are correctly labeled so, yet an expert knows they are of hybrid origin. According to the the rule of nomenclature, the plants must be labeled S. flava hybrids. >
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
################### From: imduff@hotmail.com Sat Jan 5 20:37:11 2002 Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:37:08 Subject: Re: Sarracenia cultivars Mike, >My point was simply if every S. x catesbaei is going to be considered >a >cultivar then the future is very bleak. >Example I have a plant (S. flava x purpurea burkii) that several non-cp >people have enjoyed seeing the past year. In no way do I consider the > >plant worthy of cultivar status. It is unique and I have to agree its > >better than a typical S. flava cut throat, but no, no its not worthy >of >cultivar status. I understand your point, clearly. The criteria for naming a plant as a cultivar is very general. Certainly, any plant that deviates from the typical form could become a cultivar. Hopefully, plants that become named have more merit than that. Your example of the catesbaei states this well. Incidently, one of the more astute Sarracenia hybridizers, Dr.Mellichamp, has created a catesbaei that is beyond typical. This plant is "perfect" in form, color, appearance. As well, the pitchers are very sturdy and prolific. This plant is beautiful and unique for many reasons, even though it is simply a catesbaei cross. >In my opinion almost all Sarracenia hybrids are incredible, okay a few >dogs. >Now I am not sure whoever the Delores Wyland hybrid is named for is a >compliment. This is another in a endless stream of psittacinea crosses >that >borders on pure sooner, >not good hybrid/cultivar at -all yet named. Ugh, this plant does not >deserve cultivar status yet it s a named cultivar. How could this be >named, >well someone liked it, named it, published it. The future sales potential >are nil for the clone I saw. Of course others may love it, though I doubt >it. Recently, there was a discussion about a Sarracenia hybrid, produced in California, called "Cobra's Nest." I feel this plant has unique characteristics, but is uninteresting. As well, the plant has circulated into many collections. It's not a plant that appeals to me, but I feel it deserves cultivar status. I made a similar argument about John's hybrids; they are unique and they've circulated, so credit should be established. Although, I find John's hybrids very "showy," as well. Because I cross a S. minor with a S. alata does that make a cultivar? >I don't think so. Not necessarily. Although, you may get lucky and produce something worth naming. >We have plants name for the "blood of >Dracula" or some other monster, and without a doubt someone displaying >these >plants will rip a pitcher open to show the consumed prey that is being >digested, they will smile while doing this and people will go "gross", I >don't want that kind of stinky plant at my home" then run off to by a >carrion flower succulent. Imagine if we all saw the contents of a super >models gut, I think sports Illustrated would not have a good swim suit >issue. LOL. The contents would have already been vomitted. :) > >Should there me more discretion towards naming of future cultivars? I say >yes, its pure bull to name any plant a person wants a cultivar because its >not been coined before. This is pure silly. A countless list of rubra >hybrids will outrun ink shortly. Certainly many hybrids are pretty and >unique I don't doubt this, I know this. But all Sarracenia are not worthy >of cultivar status, and I have seen nothing written that prevents stupid >duplicates of the same plants. IMO, the desire to establish Sarracenia cultivars is in relative "infancy." Perhaps the early days of rose or orchid hybridizing produced some poor cultivars. However, today's cultivars are usually something very desirable. Hopefully, Sarracenia hybridizing will continue to evolve to produce plants beyond imagination in beauty. >Even with the best records things run a foul, take Ladies in Waiting I >can >name 2 sources with different heritage for the plant both documented from >the creator of >the plant. One is on the data base the other at the Brooklyn Botanic >Gardens. Both these sources have different crosses named for the same >plant >(Ladies in Waiting, a dramatic cultivar) This situation for 'Judith Hindle' is even worse. The confusion is probably due to the fact that the exact crosses are unknown and the originators speculate the parentage. >You know we don't even class S. flava as genetic subspecies, when S. rubra >grabs the attention. Let me tell you a S. flava in North Carolina is >different than most in northwest Florida, you don't have to be a botanist >to >see this. Yet S. rubra gulfensis and S. rubra Carolina are different >animals yet in the field look almost alike to the horticulturist. This is a >job for botanist, not the horticulturist. The taxonomy can become somewhat political. Giving S.alabamensis species or sub-species status could allow for certain environmental protections that wouldn't occur for variety status. Your point is clear that Sarracenia taxonomy is incomplete. Naming redundant Cultivars, or >plants that have no place being cultivars takes space, money, & time for >the >horticulturist. Certainly some will get through, and maybe they should. >But here we name many of the same hybrids without any outstanding >charteristics a cultivar. Some of these plants are just not worth it in the >long run, we need to snuff this out now by form or a group that judges >cultivar status. Otherwise get ready, as the trend catches on there will >be >500 different cultivars of S. minor in the very near future. I disagree. I don't think there will ever be an epidemic of establishing Sarracenia cultivars. As Sarracenia hybridizing evolves, the plants becoming established as cultivars will as well. The process of having a group to judge cultivars is impractical and flawed. >The last point- most of these plants are not making it into commercial >propagation. At this point commercial propagation via tissue culture in >the >USA is almost nil. I have to out reach to Australia to find in-vitro >plants. Many of these are what they can import and may not be the best >clones for species. There are some hot hybrids in Australia. In the USA >we >are extremely limited as to Sarracenia. We are held by what a major lab >feels is commercially marketable, these may not be (I don't think they are >good choices at all) successful in the long run. To this date in the US we >have no successful S. flava clones in tissue culture for commercial >propagation, yet we have Delores Wyland (S. psittacina x rubra wherryi). Commercial propagators produce plants that they feel are marketable. For Sarracenia they desire plants that are short, sturdy and pitcher well. I love the flava varieties, but they usually don't have any of these characteristics. I agree that some of the best plants do not have widespread availability. I'd be interested to know which Australian plants you have found. I've always contended that the best Sarracenia come from the US. :) I've enjoyed the discussion. Stefan Ploszak Matthews,NC Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ################### From: dcbertelsen@peoplepc.com Sun Jan 6 05:56:00 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 07:58:12 -0600 Subject: Trichoderma and Cephalotus With all of the excitement of trichoderma, I purchased some and applied to a pot of Cephalotus. No big difference yet (only been about 3 weeks), but I noticed that the leaf cuttings in the same pot began to decompose rapidly. I'd suggest thoroughly washing cuttings and placing them in non-treated soils. Doug [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: csvieira@epm.net.co Sun Jan 6 06:26:36 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:23:50 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=2Enitidula=20ssp=2E=20nitidula=20for=20trade?= Hi, I have some gemma of D.nitidula ssp nitidula and am willing to trade for gemmae of other pigmie (specially looking for D.scorpioides) E-mail me privately if anyone is interested. Regards, Sebastian Vieira Medellin COLOMBIA ------------------------- Sebastian Vieira U. EEPPM E.S.P ________________________________________ Acceso ra'pido a Internet con Epm.Net http://www.epm.net.co ################### From: venusflytrap@bushinternet.com Sun Jan 6 06:49:37 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:43:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Foil in terrarium-risk of electric shock With reference to posting about earthing foil in a terrarium, I always use a residual current device on my Nepenthes tank, it goes beteen the plug and the wall socket. If the tank were to become live and you touched it, the electricity would be cut off immediately, so quick that you probably wouldn't even notice. They used to be called earth leakage circuit breakers, I don't know what they are called in other countries. I do remember, though, to take the breaker off the tank when I go on holiday, it can trip sometimes for no reason. We don't want to lose any CP growers, there are not enough of us as it is ! Regards David Ahrens London ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Sun Jan 6 09:19:13 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:14:48 -0800 Subject: Re: Hybrids and species >>The case of _D. tokaiensis_ is exactly as obvious and simple genetically and taxonomically, and still some people would rather treat it as an independent species just because it is *not* sterile... Hideka Hi Hideka, Jan, and all, That's not all of it. Ivan >>_D. tokaiensis_ is so similar to one parent species (_D. spatulata_) that it has been treated as a subsp. of it before it was discovered that part of its chromosomes are exact copies of those of _D. rotundifolia_ (which is morphologically not too far away, either). The offspring of _D. tokaiensis_ is, therefore, not very surprising (again very similar to _D. spatulata_, or _D. tokaiensis_ for that matter). The decisive point for my interpretation here (I regard _D. tokaiensis_ as a hybrid like _D. obovata_) is neither morphological (which would favour inclusion in _D. spatulata_)... Jan I talked to Professor Kondo about this and he too feels this way. The three of you share this philosophy because, sorry, you are ignorant of all the facts. Ivan >>nor genetical (which would favour segregation as a separate species like _D. anglica_) but chorological: Like _D. obovata_... Jan Firstly, you must realize that allopolyploids are by convention accepted as species, as in the case with D. anglica. Secondly, another reason for distinction is that D. tokaiensis is a hexaploid and so cannot interbreed with tetraploid D. spatulata. The offspring would be sterile pentaploids. It's simple, 3 + 2 = 5. Odd ploidys are always sterile. This is another example of the mathematical exactness I like, and you must learn. Ivan Snyder Hermosa Beach California http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: cmccarth@wvnvm.wvnet.edu Sun Jan 6 12:16:28 2002 Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 15:17:26 -0500 Subject: how many is enough of each one? Hello fellow cp'ers, I have a question that is a little off topic, but I hope you will bare with me. To maintain a specimen of a particular plant in a collection, what is the optimum number of examples? Or asked another way: Is it reasonable for an institution to say, we will only keep one pot of each specimen and that will be fine? On or off list answers are fine with me. Anyone who tries to keep special plants in "permanent collections" is free to answer. Please tell me in your answer if you are answering from the perspective of a commercial, individual devoted hobbyist or institutional, (educational i.e. university, etc) setting. I am just trolling for opinions. Thanks in advance for your time. Carol. ################### From: aarongunnar@home.com Sun Jan 6 12:52:06 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:51:44 -0600 Subject: re: Sarracenia cultivars {Delores Wyland} >>In my opinion almost all Sarracenia hybrids are incredible, okay a few dogs. Now I am not sure whoever the Delores Wyland hybrid is named for is a compliment. This is another in a endless stream of psittacinea crosses that borders on pure sooner, not good hybrid/cultivar at -all yet named. Ugh, this plant does not deserve cultivar status yet it s a named cultivar.<< Where can I get one of these Delores Wyland cultivars? After reading the none-to-kind words about it, I felt bad and would like to get one and give it the love and attention that apparently few others are capable of {wink}. [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: kwendex@yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 13:14:57 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 13:14:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Paranoia with watering my nepenthes Alright, I have just proven to myself that I'm very paranoid with water my nepenthes, by how much I'm sitting here worrying about it. The whole, less in the winter and more in the summer has me worried. I tried moving back on the amount of water I was giving my plant and lost a pitcher or two, then I started watering it again more. I haven't noticed much of a change in the plant. It's still very healthy, but, having lost two pitchers makes me very paranoid. Just touching the soil and saying, "that's enough" isn't good for me because I don't know the nature of these plants well enough to say, "that's healthy" or, "that's unhealthy". So, if someone out there could give me a more numeric example of how much they water their nepenthes (this is a gracilis). As in mililiters, etc. each day in the winter and in the summer. I touch and soil right now and it feels slightly damp, I have moss covering the plant and part of that moss takes the water up, so, when I water the plant I'm not sure if I'm not giving it enough water because of the moss cover. My apologies for those out there who are getting annoyed by my questioning about watering this plant, but, I think I have decided that I'm paranoid and would like some actual examples of how much someone waters their plants besides statements such as "damp" or "less damp" because I'm not sure what the means in relation to these plants. Thanks, Ben --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail. [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: cp@pwilson.demon.co.uk Sun Jan 6 13:31:11 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:38:17 +0000 Subject: Re: Foil in terrarium-risk of electric shock Dave, > >With reference to posting about earthing foil in a terrarium, I always >use a residual current device on my Nepenthes tank, it goes beteen the >plug and the wall socket. If the tank were to become live and you >touched it, the electricity would be cut off immediately, so quick that >you probably wouldn't even notice. They used to be called earth leakage >circuit Absolutely agree here. You have to use an RCD with any electrical device that is liable to become live. The RCD is designed to operate before you feel anything. The standard disconnection time is 30mS in the EC at least. However it should not be assumed the RCD will automatically make an unsafe piece of equipment safe. It is a mechanical device and as such is liable to failure, regardless of how reliable these pieces of equipment are. >breakers, I don't know what they are called in other countries. I do >remember, though, to take the breaker off the tank when I go on >holiday, it can trip sometimes for no reason. We don't want to lose any >CP growers, there are not enough of us as it is ! -- Phil Wilson Email: cp@pwilson.demon.co.uk ########################################## # New Plant Sales list available now at: # # www.pwilson.demon.co.uk # ########################################## ################### From: CMcdon0923@aol.com Sun Jan 6 14:41:57 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:41:49 EST Subject: Re: how many is enough of each one? Personally I like to maintain, at minimum, three examples of anything I am growing (mainly Sarrenecia), and preferably up to six of each. This ensures that if I would lose a specimen or two, I would still have sufficient plants remaining to rebuild the stock of that particular species (etc.). Craig McDonald "individual devoted hobbyist" ################### From: kit@kithalsted.com Sun Jan 6 15:09:38 2002 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:50:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Foil in terrarium-risk of electric shock At 6:51 AM -0800 1/6/02, david ahrens wrote: >With reference to posting about earthing foil in a terrarium, I >always use a residual current device on my Nepenthes tank, it goes >beteen the plug and the wall socket. If the tank were to become live >and you touched it, the electricity would be cut off immediately, so >quick that you probably wouldn't even notice. They used to be called >earth leakage circuit breakers, I don't know what they are called in >other countries.
Ivan,
<I talked to Professor Kondo about this and he too feels this
way. The three of you share this philosophy because, sorry, you are
ignorant of all the facts. >
I did agree with Jan's logic (this does not necessarily mean I "swallowed" it w/o thinking, though). I think what you need to do is, presenting data/evidence, etc. other than to come up with your own belief, or labeling others who do not agree with you "ignorant." I think it is very "non-scientific," and "ignorant" itself.
<Firstly, you must realize that allopolyploids are by convention accepted as species, as in the case with D. anglica.>
Always?
<Secondly, another reason for distinction is that D. tokaiensis is a hexaploid and so cannot interbreed with tetraploid D. spatulata.>
As we often say, "proving" (many scientists argue that they really don't "prove" anything) A is NOT B is much harder than A is B. In science, we all deal with probability, and whatever the alpha level is, we reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it. I beleive you have experience in some breeding, but what if this happens?
<The offspring would be sterile pentaploids. It's simple, 3 + 2 = 5. Odd ploidys are always sterile. This is another example of the mathematical exactness I like, and you must learn.>
This is
NOT simply true. One example I can immediately come up with is, a
Phalaenopsis hybrid. This particular hybrid (I think it was a Phal.
Golden Sands hybrid, but not itself) was found to be pentaploid (5 n),
but perfectly fertile. I think Robert Griesbach at USDA did a search on
this, and what he found was, pollen of this hybrid was diploid.
It is certainly not a bad idea to learn
there is always an exception to a "rule." As is known many plants
exhibit endoploidy, and it is very possible the ploidy level of gametic
cells is different from expected ones. Aside from endoploidy, many
plants are chimeric in nature. Genetics (or cytogenetics for the
matter) is not surely my speciality, but it is quite fascinating
because of "seemingly" complex nature. There's more to it other
than simple arithmetics.
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
################### From: kit@kithalsted.com Sun Jan 6 21:34:29 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:34:56 -0500 Subject: Re: how many is enough of each one? At 12:22 PM -0800 1/6/02, cmccarth@wvu.edu wrote: >Hello fellow cp'ers, > I have a question that is a little off topic, but I hope you will bare >with me. To maintain a specimen of a particular plant in a collection, >what is the optimum number of examples? I'd say 3. >Or asked another way: Is it >reasonable for an institution to say, we will only keep one pot of each >specimen and that will be fine? Short answer: No. Long answer follows; excuse me if it sounds pedantic, I just want to be clear: If there's one thing I've learned from working in the IT world, it's this: Always keep a backup on-site, & another off-site. My friend Andrew's mail & web server was in the WTC. He lost the server & all the email received between September 8 & 11, but he had it back up & running on new hardware in my apartment on September 17 because he had his weekly offsite backup from the 7th. Now imagine the thermostat in your greenhouse getting stuck on the first night of a long weekend. Heaters blast the temperature up to 110 Fahrenheit as humidity drops to near zero, your prized Sarracenia cultivar "Pickman's Pride" withers to a brown husk along with the rest of your plants. Sucks, but it's not the end of the collection because there are plants in the other greenhouse. Of course, back in the IT world, there are limitations. A tape drive big enough to back up a 40 Gigabyte hard drive costs at least $1000, & the tapes are $75 apiece. Andrew didn't have a tape drive, he had a 650MB CD made with a $100 CD-R drive. The CD only held his unique data, not system files & programs. System files & programs are easily reinstalled & are generally considered "acceptable loss". Perhaps the other greenhouse in the example above is much smaller, only containing cultivars & expensive plants. Things like Drosera intermedia might be considered acceptable loss. Andrew's machine in the WTC had 2 disks: 1 was the active system disk, the other was an exact duplicate, copied nightly. If (oh, if only!) his hard disk had failed instead of being blown up, he would've been back up almost immediately, with less than 24 hours worth of mail loss. This on-site backup would be analogous to having a second plant growing in the main greenhouse. >On or off list answers are fine with >me. Anyone who tries to keep special plants in "permanent collections" is >free to answer. Please tell me in your answer if you are answering from >the perspective of a commercial, individual devoted hobbyist or >institutional, (educational i.e. university, etc) setting. I'm just a hobbyist. Not having much room, & not having a collection that matters to anyone but me, I only have duplicates of the smaller plants. It's a balancing act; only you can decide what acceptable loss is for you. >I am just trolling for opinions. >Thanks in advance for your time. >Carol. Hope this helps, -Kit -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin "...qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" (...if you would have peace, be prepared for war) -Flavius Vegetius Renatus ################### From: r.vanloenen@ssi-epic.shell.com Sun Jan 6 23:33:58 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:30:26 +0100 Subject: CUT OFF the flowerstalks after Sarracenia division? Gents, Some people advice to cut new emerging flower stalks from just divided Sarracenia's, to let not exhaust the recovering plant to much. Some people don't mind it. Last year I didn't cut off the flower stalks, but I am considering to cut off the half this year. But before I loose a lot of those beautiful flowers, what are your experiences with this? Thanks! Kind regards from Rogier,The Netherlands. ################### From: garkoinsf@netscape.net Mon Jan 7 01:23:03 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 04:22:54 -0500 Subject: Speaking of Sarracenia hybrids... Hi Everyone-- I recently sowed as much Sarracenia seed that I harvested last autumn and have some left over that I'm offering up free to the first six responses, respective of seed type. (Sorry, US addresses only.) My pollination technique is far from exact, so be aware that both the viability and the purity of the cross can't be guaranteed. Here's a list of what I have: 2 -- batches each of: S. leucophylla (typical) x purpurea venosa, S. leucophylla = seed parent. S. leucophylla x flava "maxima", self-pollinated. 1 -- batch each of: S. flava "Coppertop", self-pollinated (although this clone has big floppy lids that almost look like it might have some purpurea in its distant past.) [S. leucophylla x flava "Maxima"] x S. leucophylla (typical), S. leucophylla x flava "Maxima" = seed parent. Of the "crosses," I have NO IDEA how they'll look or grow as adult plants, but I can tell you the leucophylla, purpurea venosa and flava "Coppertop" are hardy and vigorous growers, and the leucophylla x flava "Maxima" is grotesquely so. This particular clone is noteworthy for its large streaked orange/scarlet blossoms, and the monstrous rhizome that branches at a frightening rate, while its pitchers and phyllodia are nothing to write home about. To make it easier for me to divvy up who gets what, please *respond privately* with your name, mailing address and the top two you're interested in. I will send on a first come, first served basis, one seed type per person. In other words, you may not get your first choice. Note: if I could be more certain of the parentage, I would've donated them to the seed bank, but because I can't in all certainty guarantee parentage, I offer them to the list. If nothing else, you can sharpen your stratifying techniques with them. But hopefu! lly, you'll also grow them into beautiful adults, and then send me snapshots of your endeavor. :) Gary Kong -- "Have a rich life and Haiku will come." --Mamako Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ################### From: steven.stewart@worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 7 04:13:29 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 07:21:43 -0500 Subject: How many is enough of each one? Hello Carol, When I was working in a college greenhouse, I tried to keep at least 100 plants of each specimen I was growing. Usually three or more of each species in a mature flowering size state and the rest in tissue culture, seedlings or as rooted cuttings. This is _very_ dependent of the species being grown. Diversity is paramount in small populations and easily lost, resulting in very non-typical examples in many plants. I can think of exceptions to my arbitrary number in many cases. If you read the thread on Sarracenia, Drosera and Nepenthes currently going on you will easily see some exceptions. I am sure there are experts on this list that would disagree with me, so your (institution's) own sense of balance should be the final judge. The purpose of your collection is the real determining factor. Take care, Steve Stewart > Hello fellow cp'ers, . To maintain a specimen of a particular plant in a collection, > what is the optimum number of examples? Or asked another way: Is it > reasonable for an institution to say, we will only keep one pot of each > specimen and that will be fine? On or off list answers are fine with > me. Anyone who tries to keep special plants in "permanent collections" is > free to answer. Please tell me in your answer if you are answering from > the perspective of a commercial, individual devoted hobbyist or > institutional, (educational i.e. university, etc) setting. I am just > trolling for opinions. Thanks in advance for your time. > Carol. ################### From: dcbertelsen@peoplepc.com Mon Jan 7 04:14:15 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:16:27 -0600 Subject: Re: Trichoderma and Cephalotus Kit, I've had successful attempts at growing cuttings in the parent pot on several occasions. Doug > > Can you grow leaf cuttings of Cephalotus in the same pot? I was under > the impression that they would always fail due to proximity to the > parent. > ################### From: juerg.steiger@iae.unibe.ch Mon Jan 7 04:54:03 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:59:35 +0100 Subject: Addresses G Benda, HM Hanslin and S Gardner Dear all I lost the addresses of Georg Benda, Hans Martin Hanslin and Sara Gardner. Can anyone help? Thanks and all the best for 2002! Juerg ################### From: slawarre@meijergardens.org Mon Jan 7 05:57:19 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:49:51 -0500 Subject: RE: how many is enough of each one? Hey Carol, I take care of (among other things) a public, permanent CP collection. I don't like to have just one of anything CP. I like to have a back up just in case something goes south. Its also allot easier to experiment and learn as a grower when you have a few plants to play around with. Steve -----Original Message----- Behalf Of cmccarth@wvu.edu Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 3:23 PM To: Multiple recipients of list CP Hello fellow cp'ers, I have a question that is a little off topic, but I hope you will bare with me. To maintain a specimen of a particular plant in a collection, what is the optimum number of examples? Or asked another way: Is it reasonable for an institution to say, we will only keep one pot of each specimen and that will be fine? On or off list answers are fine with me. Anyone who tries to keep special plants in "permanent collections" is free to answer. Please tell me in your answer if you are answering from the perspective of a commercial, individual devoted hobbyist or institutional, (educational i.e. university, etc) setting. I am just trolling for opinions. Thanks in advance for your time. Carol. ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 7 07:44:55 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:08:20 +0100 Subject: Re: Hybrids and species Dear Ivan, Hideka has already answered most of your statements (appropriately). I will just add a few examples to feed your imagination. > Firstly, you must realize that allopolyploids are by convention > accepted as species, as in the case with D. anglica. There is no such convention whatsoever. It is just an unacceptable oversimplification. *Some* allopolyploids are commonly *considered* species (e.g. those *that are chorologically or otherwise independent from their parent species). Formally (from a nomenclatural point of view), there is actually no difference between hybrids and species, a fact that is also reflected in the naming convention (ICBN Art.H.10.2.: "Taxa previously published as species or infraspecific taxa which are later considered to be nothotaxa may be indicated as such, without change of rank, in conformity with Art. 3 and 4 and by the application of Art. 50 - which also operates in the reverse direction"; Art.50.1.: "When a taxon at the rank of species or below is transferred from the non-hybrid category to the hybrid category of the same rank (Art. H.10.2), or vice versa, the author citation remains unchanged but may be followed by an indication in parentheses of the original category."). Many of the plants we consider species now (irrespective of their ploidy or breeding behaviour) are probably of hybrid origin. _D. anglica_ is just one well-studied example. If the range of _D. tokaiensis_ will expand to territories not inhabited by the parent species (which would be difficult at the moment but very well possible in the future), it may "become" a species (i.e. a larger number of taxonomists will begin to *consider* it a species rather than a hybrid). > Secondly, another reason for > distinction is that D. tokaiensis is a hexaploid and so cannot interbreed > with tetraploid D. spatulata. Nice, but it does not prove a thing. _D. obovata_ cannot interbreed with anything. Still it is a hybrid and nothing else but a hybrid. > The offspring would be sterile pentaploids. It's simple, 3 + 2 = 5. How about back-crosses with the other, diploid parent _D. rotundifolia_? I guess I know why you missed it out: 3 + 1 = 4. > Odd ploidys are always sterile. So what? Apart from the exceptions mentioned by Hideka, _Utricularia bremii_, _U. australis_ & _U. ochroleuca_ are frequently sterile (malformed pollen although they usually have even ploidies), and still they are perfectly distinct species. > This is another example of the mathematical exactness I like, and you > must learn. Taxonomy is *more than* mathematics, genetics, morphology, chorology, ecology, etc. It just uses these disciplines, it cannot be absorbed or replaced by any of them. Taxonomy is not always an exact science (because it is not exclusively based on numerical calculations), but it is nevertheless a science (because it yields testable hypotheses), irrespective of what you like or not. > Yes, there are errors. Yes, there are errors. I have made several ones myself. > Here is a big one I'm sure a lot of you have > noticed. There is a conflict between the principle of introgressive > hybridization and a current rule of nomenclature. The rule is simply > wrong. The rule states that a hybrid, no matter how many times it is > backcrossed to one of the parents, can never again be labeled as that > parent species, but instead must always remain a hybrid. The rule actually says that a hybrid name must remain the same if the parent species involved are the same. ICBN Art.H.4.1.: "When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon is circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be recognized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated parent taxa (i.e. not only the Fl but subsequent filial generations and also back-crosses and combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct name corresponding to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest legitimate name (see Art. 6.3) in the appropriate rank (Art. H.5), and other names to which the same hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it." Hybrids in the sense of the ICBN are regarded as recognizable (note the phrase "as far as they can be recognized"!) sexual offspring of at least two different taxa, i.e. from a determinative point of view, which is usually the taxonomist's perspective; in vivo organisms do not have name tags or pedigrees. Only a tiny fraction of herbarium specimens comes from labs in which repeated hybridizations with defined parent clones have been performed. Thus, natural introgression is usually a process that is much more inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. from chromosome analysis) than actually observed. > Here is an > example you will be familiar with: An expert knows that Sarracenia flava > varieties have gained their polymorphism through introgression. In scientific slang, "an expert knows..." (or "it is generally agreed...") is synonymous with "I do not have any evidence...", and this phrase should be avoided. Rather mention the facts that make experts (and laypersons alike) think that things are the way you described. > These S. flava varieties are correctly labeled so, yet an expert knows they > are of hybrid origin. I am not sure Don Schnell would agree here (I am, however, sure he is an expert). He writes (CPN 27:117, 1998): "Macfarlane recognized six varieties of _S. flava_, four of which (...), in my opinion stand today. The other two (sic!) are likely hybrids. (...) I reduced the seeming spectrum of variation (...) to five genetic variants and concluded that all the others (sic!) were hybrids of these to varying degree. (...) I have come to recognize two additional basic varieties on the Gulf Coast to report here. (...p.120) I recognize seven varieties of _S. flava_ worthy of naming, the remaining (sic!) color and vein presentations of a seeming spectrum in some locations being varietal hybrids or backcrosses, or ecophenes." Introgression is (indirectly) discussed as a mechanism that accounts for transitions *between* the varieties, not for the origin of the ("basic") varieties themselves. > According to the the rule of nomenclature, the plants must be labeled > S. flava hybrids. Only if the author *considers* them to be hybrids (see ICBN articles cited above). In the case mentioned, the author clearly decided otherwise. q.e.d. (taxonomically) Kind regards Jan ################### From: h7n@hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 07:46:47 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:46:44 Subject: CPN in the UK Has anyone in the UK received the latest CPN, or is it just me who's reading the postings and drooling with anticipation? (I suggest you e-mail me privately on this). NigelH Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. ################### From: stovehouse@earthlink.net Mon Jan 7 07:59:17 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:59:27 -0500 Subject: cp books at Amazon Pitcher Plants : Slippery Pits of No Escape (Bloodthirsty Plants) by Victor Gentle Butterworts : Greasy Cups of Death (Bloodthirsty Plants) by Victor Gentle ...while searching the new title Gardening With Carnivores Sarracenia Pitcher Plants In Cultivation & In The Wild By Nick Romanowski these 2 gems appeared for young children. This will put the kids on the right track about carnivorous plants. ~ Mike St. Petersburg Fl ################### From: philmann@geo.net.au Mon Jan 7 08:26:54 2002 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:23:14 +0800 Subject: Utricularia cultures Hi I'm looking for someone who is working with Utricularia in culture. I have a few vials of two species collect from Borneo last year. They are most likely common species. Only those working with cultures please as there is only one set to give away. Please e-mail me privately. Cheers Phill www.scarnivores.com www.cephalotus.net philmann@geo.net.au ################### From: prometheus4242@hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 09:03:13 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:03:12 -0500 Subject: Utricularia menziesii Hey all, Is there anyone out there growing Utricularia menziesii who would be willing to share their cultivation techniques? Media, length of dormancy, dormancy conditions (damp vs. bone-dry,) temp, etc? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Travis Wyman Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ################### From: kit@kithalsted.com Mon Jan 7 09:45:32 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:45:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Trichoderma and Cephalotus At 4:19 AM -0800 1/7/02, Douglas Bertelsen wrote: >Kit, > I've had successful attempts at growing cuttings in the parent pot on >several occasions. Hmmm... Thanks for letting me know that, now I can't find where I read that cuttings wouldn't grow in close proximity to the parent. Anybody else have experience here? -Kit >Doug > >> >> Can you grow leaf cuttings of Cephalotus in the same pot? I was under >> the impression that they would always fail due to proximity to the >> parent. >> -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin "...qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" (...if you would have peace, be prepared for war) -Flavius Vegetius Renatus ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Mon Jan 7 09:48:38 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:47:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sarracenia cultivars Hey Folks, Mike in St. Petersburg FL has a number of most excellent points. Most particularly, I think that (with a very few exceptions), I never met a Sarracenia I didn't like, but I agree with Mike that they should not all be registered as cultivars. I think that a cultivar name IS NOT a something you should think of as a way of recognizing a superior plant. This is an important enough concept that it bears repeating. CULTIVAR NAME ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS RECOGNIZING SOME PLANT AS BEING SUPERIOR! Unfortunately, I think some people are making this mistake. Rather, cultivar names are names that are given to plants that are (or will be) widely distributed in cultivation, and for which a unique identifier would be useful. If I happened to have the most spectacular Sarracenia in existence, but which I did not intend to distribute to either privately or (especially) commercially to a large number of other growers, it would be counterproductive and very silly to give it a cultivar name. I also agree with Mike that growers without a lot of experience often see plants in their small collections as being better than they really are, as compared to the big picture of plants out there. I've seen Sarracenia leucophylla in the wild which far outshine any of the plants I've seen in cultivation. There is nothing like a field trip to Sarracenia country to make the plants in your collection seem drab and somehow anemic! (Note I am not the ICPS cultivar registrar, and my opinions are not necessarily official ICPS dogma!) Cheers Barry ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Mon Jan 7 09:54:48 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:54:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Utricularia 'Asenath Waite' Hey Steve, In the past I've sold bundled groups of Utricularia cultivars to folks. If there is much interest, I may do this again this summer. I'm not sure how many people are interested in the plants, but I'll try to get some plants together. Privately selling plants has become less interesting to me over time, and as my oh-so-patient trading partners know, it it hard for me to find CP time that is not gobbled up by CPN and the ICPS. We sell these cultivars each year at the UCDavis plant sale---there may be folks with this plant out there who are willing to trade some specimens. Barry >Hello Barry, >I remember when you offered this cultivar and a few other Utricularia to >the list a while ago, but I was not able to take you up on the offer at >the time. I thought the list would like to know ( I would) if you should >be contacted personally, or if you have a supplier(s) that you could >suggest we obtain a small amount of this cultivar from? I have found this >species to be very beautiful and easy to grow, but I now have less than >perfect conditions and my two forms rarely flower. Take care, Steve >Stewart ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ################### From: h7n@hotmail.com Mon Jan 7 10:23:10 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:23:09 Subject: Re: how many is enough of each one? The National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens, which runs the UK's National Collection scheme, simplistically 'recommends' a minimum of 3 plants of each taxon. They don't seem to have considered dioecious plants, where common sense suggests you should double that to include at least 3 males and 3 females. For my own particular specialisation, pygmy sundews, I aim (often unsuccessfully) for at least 3 colonies of at least 10 plants of each taxon. Even that ignores the complexities of things like Drosera mannii, where I understand plants of different clones are required to achieve pollination. NigelH > >Hello fellow cp'ers, > > I have a question that is a little off topic, but I hope you will >bare > >with me. To maintain a specimen of a particular plant in a collection, > >what is the optimum number of examples? Or asked another way: Is it > >reasonable for an institution to say, we will only keep one pot of each > >specimen and that will be fine? On or off list answers are fine with > >me. Anyone who tries to keep special plants in "permanent collections" >is > >free to answer. Please tell me in your answer if you are answering from > >the perspective of a commercial, individual devoted hobbyist or > >institutional, (educational i.e. university, etc) setting. I am just > >trolling for opinions. Thanks in advance for your time. > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Mon Jan 7 10:23:21 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:19:56 -0800 Subject: More from Pandora's box Hi Jan and all, In all your writings you say that your D. hartmeyerorum spec. nov. differs from ordinary red D. indica in two respects, the ascending orientation of the flower stalks, and the moriform organs. Did you not examine herbarium material of the red form of D. indica? Have a look at the cover of CPN June 1997. The photo of this red D. indica clearly has ascending scapes. -Ivan http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Mon Jan 7 10:23:24 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:09:33 -0800 Subject: Help with cultivar name Hi all, I am working on developing a new sundew cultivar and have made a Paddle-leaf Sundew (Drosera x obovata) which has no dormancy. I would like your help in giving this plant a cultivar name. I have come up with two names, 'Ivan's Paddle' or maybe 'Venus' Paddle'. Although I do like these names, a friend told me the word paddle might be misinterpreted. What do these names bring to mind? Ivan Snyder Hermosa Beach California http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: Killerplants@aol.com Mon Jan 7 10:58:18 2002 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:58:10 EST Subject: Re: Help with cultivar name Ivan, Yes, there is a lot of sick people out there(me included) who might think you are naming a S & M implement or something, lol. You could substitute "paddle" for the word "oar" and make a play of that, ie 'Viking's Oar'. Does that fuel any ideas? Regards, Joe Griffin Lincoln, NE USA ################### From: tdstubb@sofnet.com Mon Jan 7 11:34:35 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:29:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Help with cultivar name Or just simply "Ivan's Oar". It's personal and doesn't sound commercial like "Snyder's Oar". Have a good one! Tom ----- Original Message ----- To: "Multiple recipients of list CP"
If you are not interested in this topic, please skip. This will be long.
With saying that, I did a lit. search on this using four databases (Agricola, AGRIS, BIOSIS, and CAB) since I was not quite satisfied with the example I used. I was rather surprised to find many articles on this topic. I selected some (some were redundant--many on wheat, cotton, etc), and copied and pasted parts of abstracts. This does NOT mean ALL pentaploids are fertile., but definately some are. After all, unreduced gametes are nothing new.
I must confess that I did not find the example I used, but I will try to do so. The whole list of articles on this topic is available upon request (huge, but not complete).
Fruit crops:
Vaccinium (blueberry): "Pentaploids resulting from crossing cultivars of the tetraploid species V. australe with the hexaploid V. ashei 'Tifblue' and 'Woodard' were tested for fertility.....the progenies of 4x X 5x crosses would produce mainly tetraploids" (Jelenkovic et al., 1973).
Plums: "The fertile seedlings mainly had 2n = 48, though some were found in the tetraploid and pentaploid groups" (Turovtseva, 1975).
Actinidia (kiwifruit): "The pentaploid hybrid was intermediate between its parents for most traits, but less vigorous than either. It had poor male but reasonable female fertility" (Pringle, 1986).
Coffea: "The two pentaploids had a pollen fertility of 78 and 80% and a good fruit set" (Lanaud and Zickler, 1980).
Vegetables (in a broad sense):
Potato: "These pentaploid hybrids were vigorous and had uniformly sterile pollen. They were female fertile and were crossed with tetraploid cultivars..." (Adiwilaga and Brown, 1991).
Brassica napus x Orychophragmus violaceus: "A pentaploid hybrid plant (2n = 50, AACCO) between Brassica napus (AACC) and Orychophragmus violaceus (OO) showed matroclinous morphology and some patroclinous characters....The 50 chromosomes were mainly paired as 25 bivalents and segregated as 25: 25 or 22:28; many other segregations were observed in some cells" (Wu et al., 1997).
Brassica: "The majority of the hybrid plants (AABCC) were self fertile with brown seeds" (Jingling et al., 1998).
Beta (sugar beet): "It has been found that pentaploid level, characterized by high recombination possibilities, could be used in developing monogerm tetraploid forms with well regulated meiosis, high pollen fertility and high seed germination percentage" (Zakhariev, 1989).
Agronomic (grain, etc):
Avena (oat): "The pentaploid self-sterile hybrids obtained were backcrossed to A. sativa" (Premachandran et al., 1988).
Triticum (wheat): "The pentaploid with A. squarrosa cytoplasm did not transmit 14-chromosome male gametes" (Tsuji and Maan, 1981).
Gossypium (cotton): "Selfing a pentaploid from G. hirsutum x G. stocksii or back crossing it to G. hirsutum resulted in plants with chromosome numbers ranging from...." (Schwendiman, 1978).
Others:
Alopecurus (grass) :"one pentaploid plant, probably arising through a fusion of an unreduced F1 gamete and a normal pratensis gamete, was highly fertile" (Niseen, 1949).
Agropyron repens X Agropyron spicatum (quackgrass) : "Pentaploid hybrids (2n = 35) of A. repens (2n = 42) x A. spicatum (2n = 28) were intercrossed, back crossed to both parent species...." (Dewey, 1976).
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
################### From: dcbertelsen@peoplepc.com Mon Jan 7 23:38:21 2002 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:34:03 -0600 Subject: Re: : Trichoderma and Cephalotus Upon further digging around, I found that the most decomposed leaf was completely gone to the base, with no signs of new growth. The second, which was mostly yellow with a bit of brown at the leaf tip doesn't look too promising, but the third which still has some green on it, shows good signs of a rhizome and there is also a small root starting, but I'm a bit skeptical as to whether it will make it or not, as the decomposition seems fairly advanced. Doug ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Tue Jan 8 00:41:31 2002 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:05:09 +0100 Subject: Re: More from Pandora's box Dear Ivan, > Did you not examine herbarium material of the red form of D. indica? I have examined various forms of _D. indica_, including red ones. > Have a look at > the cover of CPN June 1997. The photo of this red D. indica clearly has > ascending scapes. Been there, seen it, done it. Have a look at my paper: "Similar plants have been depicted in the literature (e.g. by Mann, 1997)" The picture unfortunately does not have sufficient resolution to decide whether there are non-glandular emergences at the leaf base or not. If they are present, it is not a red _D. indica_ but an ordinary _D. hartmeyerorum_. Kind regards Jan ################### From: Susan.Farrington@mobot.org Tue Jan 8 05:06:17 2002 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:11:51 -0600 Subject: RE: Paranoia with watering my nepenthes Ben, No one can tell you exactly how much to water your plant or how often... circumstances vary for every place and every plant. However, here are some tips to help you. First, is your plant in a pot that has drainage holes? If so, you should always take it to the sink or put it over a bucket and water it thoroughly until water comes dripping out of the bottom. When it has stopped dripping, put it back on its dry saucer. By doing this, you will ensure that you get your plant thoroughly wet, but you don't leave it sitting in excess water to rot. If your plant is NOT in a drainable pot (e.g. planted directly in a terrarium), watering becomes far trickier. If it's in a pot that doesn't drain, you may be able to water it, wait a few minutes, then tip it gently over a sink to get the excess out. Now, as to how often your plant needs to be watered... that is very hard for us to tell you. There are MANY factors that influence how often a plant needs water, and it's impossible for us to guess... it could be every day or two or every week or two! The fact that you lost a couple of pitchers COULD mean your plant went too dry or stayed too wet, but I think it's far more likely that the air was too dry. Do you have your plant in a terrarium or in some sort of enclosure that will increase its humidity? If so, that keeps the plant from drying out so quickly. All I can tell you about how often to water is to try to use the moss to give you a clue... is it live sphagnum moss? If so, you can tell when the moss starts to dry a bit because it becomes a lighter color. That's definitely a clue to water your plant. In my experience, Nepenthes like to go slightly dry between waterings, but certainly not bone dry. I'm afraid this part is something you just have to learn with experience! Good luck! Susan Farrington Missouri Botanical Garden [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: kwendex@yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 05:51:47 2002 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 05:51:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Paranoia with watering my nepenthes Thanks Susan. Yes, I do have drainage holes in my pitcher and tried your example. It worked fine. I'll use that when actually watering the plant. As far as when to water it I'll just stick my finger into the soil every day and feel if it's starting to get dry. Or, as another member pointed out, pick it up so that I can feel how heavy the plant is compared to how heavy it was when I first watered it. Both indications should help me out quite a bit. I won't let it get bone dry, I'll just let it get pseudo-moist before I water it again. Thank you and everyone else for your time, ~Ben Susan Farrington
Barry,
I don't know how much experience she has in
CP tissue culture, but I think Carol on this list (Hi, Carol!)
probably has more expeience in tissue culture more than anybody on
this list. She has a Ph.D in tissue culture, and has a company, Kitchen
Culture Kit that sells CDs and kits for amature tissue culturists (she
is quite an advocate). I have done basic stuff (Sundews, flytraps,
etc), but I don't have time to do other than my Ph.D project (medicinal
plants). I don't mind writing an article on basic stuff, though (how to
make media, etc), but quite frankly, she is more qualified.
Anyway, check out her web page, www.kitchenculturekit.com.
That web page is full of info. for budding and experienced tissue
culturists.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
################### From: hkobayashi4@hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 22:12:59 2002 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:12:50 -0600 Subject: Orchids and Trichoderma
<I really don't know how
trichoderma will affect epiphytic orchids. As for the terrestrials, it
should help them.>
I have been
refraining from making comments on this because I don't have first hand
experience. However, I did study Plant Pathology for my MS, and my
initial advisor conducted experiments on Trichoderma (field
trial), who wasn't all that excited. That fungus may or may not
work. Biological controls are highly notorious for their
inconsistency in results.
With saying
that, I don't think orchids in general would benefit a lot with this
fungus (I know this is not an orchid list), particularly, terrestrial
orchids. They tend to do be more dependent on symbiotic (may not be
really "symbiotic" in a traditional sense) fungi (they may be plant
pathogens for other plants) such as Rhizoctonia solani
(teleomorph: Thanatephorus cucumeris), that is parasitized
by--guess what?--Trichoderma! This is an "educated guess"
at best, but logically thinking, application of extra
Trichoderma likely has an adverse effect instead.
< I don't have any orchids as yet but
will quite soon. The Everglades Ghost Orchid.>
Don't take this as a personal attack. But I am a
little uncomfortable to know someone who does not have an orchid is
going to grow Polyrrhiza lindenii. I don't know who
would recommend this for a beginner, and this species is not known
for its ease in culture. Can you try something easier before you
get confident in growing orchids like something you can find at local
Lowes (Phalaenopsis lowesii, Cattleya hquensis, etc)? I also
hope this is a seed propaged one. Polyrrhiza lindenii is
the orchid that was repeatedly mentioned in "The Orchid Thief" by
Susan Orlean. That book wasn't really good, and I was negatively
impressed. I would like to say something positive about the book,
but can't 
< I don't have any orchids as yet but will quite soon. The
Everglades Ghost Orchid.>
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
################### From: corusc8@hotmail.com Wed Jan 9 22:43:30 2002 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:40:42 -0800 Subject: Native? Hey folks, Help me out here. I thought that Utricularia gibba was a California native, however this page cites two references contrary to that. Can anyone cite others or have legitimate reason why or why it is not native? Here's the site: http://www.calflora.org/cgi/calflora_query?where-calrecnum=8189&one=T Joseph Kinyon [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: kit@kithalsted.com Wed Jan 9 23:24:00 2002 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:23:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Paranoia with watering my nepenthes At 1:16 PM -0800 1/6/02, Ben Rush wrote: >Alright, I have just proven to myself that I'm very paranoid with >water my nepenthes, by how much I'm sitting here worrying about it.
Phil,
<3. Some color forms of Sarracenia flava are almost certainly
due to recent, ongoing introgression.>
I
am not going to dispute this possibility.
<Without going into the details (since we are currently making
these phenotypes through crosses, a lengthy process unfortunately, and
will be publishing the mechanism of introgression in this species) I can
assure you we can make an excellent case for this phenomenon in this
species.>
But I am not too sure if this
shows phenotypic polymorphism observed in S. flava is in fact
due to "recent, ongoing introgression." Yes, it seems you can "create"
plants resembling ones found it nature, and it supports the hypothesis
to a certain degree. But does it really mean that is the way it
happened? How identical are "created" ones and naturally occurring
ones? And how do you plan to explain a chronogical event ("recent")
through hybridization? I am not a molecular person, but some techniques
that are readily available may be more "definate" and much
quicker. I am very aware not every body has access. But this can
be certainly done.
When I read Jan's recent
comment on D. anglica, something caught my eye. He stated
that one of the parents of D. anglica was likely a
progenitor of D. linearis. I thought that was a very good
point. We don't know how the ancestor of D. linearis differs
from the present form or what changes occured between now and then.
D. linearis may have not changed at all. We just don't know
(at this point). So, say, a progenitor of S. flava was
pollinated by a progenitor of S purpurea. Subsequently,
introgression occurs. Does this make offsprings of this particular
hybrid make a hybrid of S. purpurea, as defined presently?
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
################### From: stephend@direcpc.com Thu Jan 10 20:53:35 2002 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:51:41 -0800 Subject: California Native CP Hi, I'm am busy planting my bog right now and am looking for somebody who has seed from plants that are California natives. My biggest interest is sundews. I have Darlingtonia already planted. I also have a large redwood log that is alongside the pond, with one end in the waterfall. That means it's wet all the time and I'm looking for some CP that might like growing on the sides of the log. I can hack some depressions in it to plant them, but some non CP seeds are sprouting on it without doing that. It is a very, very rough surface. CP might make it ok too. I've tried to plant my backyard with CA natives, although it's tough as much of my backyard in under redwoods which produce lots of shade. Most of the pond gets good sun in the summer, although some only gets a little morning sun. Pictures are on my web site. (Sorry I know I've advertised it before, but I keep making updates so things do change.) Also, if anyone is interested and does visit my web site, could you give me feedback on how easy it is to get around? I'm noticing lots of visits to the home page, but there is a precipitous drop off to my other pages. I can't believe it's because people wouldn't be interested in CP. :-) I was wondering if the performance on some computers or connections might make people just give up. I have a fast connection and fast computer. Thanks in advance for anyones help, Stephen Davis www.carnivorousplants.homestead.com ################### From: hkobayashi4@hotmail.com Thu Jan 10 21:38:34 2002 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:38:32 -0600 Subject: Trichoderma, orchids, etc (again)
Hi all,
<The seeds of many vascular plant genera also
depend on a fungal association to aid in germination (i.e.
orchids).>
This may be a misconception
or over-generalization. It is rather difficult (I think) to define
orchid "germination" because seeds lack some structures (e.g.,
endosperm) commonly observed for seeds of other plants, and some
phenomena (e.g., emergence of root) are not observed. Yes, it has
been proved "symbiotic" (some argue their relationship somehow deviates
"symbiosis,") fungi provides nutrients, etc "during" germination
(and afterward). However, orchids (e.g., Habenaria
radiata, Epidendrum sp-don't remember which one., etc) can
germinate on the surface of water. After all, seeds of most epiphytic
orchids can germinate in vitro albeit on nutrient rich
medium.
<You could not find an orchid harder to grow than the Ghost Orchid.>
How about some Saprophytic ones 
? Many orchid
growers agree Telipogon may be the most difficult one.
Acacalis cyanea was considered to be one of the most
difficult ones. I hear plants of this orchid, grown from seeds are
easier to grow (but I have killed a few).
<Is it possible that the commercially available fungi might eat any beneficial forms already present in established pots of plants or gardens?>
This "may" be possible. but you can isolate Trichoderma from many types of soil, probably from your garden as well. I am not sure which species a particular product contains, but T. viridis is not some rare fungal species you can only find in a special place such as cloud forests in western side of Andean mountain, etc (I just made this up). But particular strain probably won't be found there.
< http://www.rambridge.com/products/garden/disease/disease2.html>
Trichoderma is a fungal genus, and this product contains
bacteria. If it is indeed Trichoderma, , it is a good sign you
should not buy this.....
<If I understand your last post correctly, there is one point I must disagree with. According to studies done at Cornell University, Trichoderma spp. do indeed target and destroy offending fungi through a process called mycoparasitism.>
<You are absolutely right, Trichoderma may target and destroy OFFENDING fungi. As this article states, "This process (mycoparastitism) limits growth and activity of plant pathogenic fungi". The Trichoderma does not consume or 'eat' the pathogenic fungi but it may produce substances that kill or break down the apposing pathogen.>
From the webpage:
Among their other activities, they grow tropically toward hyphae of other fungi, coil about them in a lectin-mediated reaction, and degrade cell walls of the target fungi.
This is a description of a degrative/digestive process. It can be interpreted as "eating" if you feel like. Trichoderma is a hyperparasite, meaning "a parasite of a parasite." What a parasite does? Parasitize. I read their mode of action may be partly due to competition, though.
<Along the lines of Trichoderma, I've found a place that sells this: Gliocladium virens already exists naturally in your soil and>
Gliocladium virens = Trichoderma vires. Check these pages:
http://www.dsmz.de/species/sp300607.htm
http://www.life.umd.edu/CBMG/faculty/straney.html
If anyone is going to Japan for the conference, don't forget to go
to the Kosobe Conservatory at University of Kyoto. I think that's
where "Koto" series (Dreamy Koto, etc--horrible name !) were bred. I am
not real sure if the greenhouse is open to public,
though.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
################### From: seansamia@yahoo.com Fri Jan 11 02:59:12 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:59:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ivan's Search For A new Cultivar Name Hello listserver! Ivan, what's the fuss? Why don't you just call it D.rotundifolia Tropical? That's how the plant looks, in my opinion. Sean Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Fri Jan 11 03:53:12 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:16:56 +0100 Subject: Re: cultivars- can of worms Dear Tom, > In the case of the Sarrs. there is no question in my > mind that you can obtain reddish, floppy, part-green things as a result of > any number of crosses. The important point is that the definition of any new cultivar must state what differentiates it from all other previously described cultivars. Registrants must state what makes their cultivar special and different. "Reddish, floppy, part-green" would probably not be differentiating in the opinion of many registrants (the above criteria have at least not been used in a cultivar description so far). > I am not crazy about the idea that these all > automatically fall under the same cultivar name if there appearance is > indistinguishable. And obviously, the level of distinguishability is a > matter of personal belief, not scientific measurement -whether qualitative > or quantitative. It all depends on the registrant. If any kind of measurement is used for the definition of the cultivar, distinguishability automatically becomes a matter of measurement for this cultivar. > As a related issue, someone on the list mentioned that the idea of cultivar > naming was necessary in part to deal with plants that might have commercial > appeal, or might be otherwise intended for wide distribution. We might also > note that in most published names there is always a phrase something to the > effect that the plant should be propagated by cutting or vegetative means. Yes. And this information *is* significant. But it is a recommendation, not a condition. It can become a condition only if the registrant mentions a characteristic in the description that can only be achieved/retained by cloning; such characteristics have, however, not been defined for cps so far. If anyone succeeds in breeding an identical plant (i.e. a plant with all distinguishing features mentioned in the original description) from different stock, this plant belongs to the cultivar. > Both the need for vegetative propagation, and the desire to maintain the > integrity of commercially distributed plants are moot if any plant that > looks sufficiently like the cultivar by default belongs to the cultivar. It is, therefore, necessary to select only very special plants as cultivars and to describe their special features very carefully. > There will be inevitable, overwhelming confusion if someone who desires a > cultivar is told that: Well I have one, (sotto voice: because mine looks > like it). What would this confusion consist of if the plant was indistinguishable from the original cultivar? NB: Cultivars are *not* trade-marks to protect any legal claims. Cultivar names are a means of standardized *communication* for the horticultural trade. > With the Sarrs. what might seem an obvious exception to my concerns might be > the anthocyanin-free forms. However these are a special case, and for these > plants the qualities that determine their status can be measured simply and > relatively precisely. This is clearly not the case with most of the other > cultivars I have seen published. The single color photograph (not a knock > at ICPN) is hardly detailed enough, nor does it offer enough perspectives, > to provide a definitive, unique identification of the plant in question. It is (and must be) detailed enough in the opinion of the registrant. This is the only criterion that matters for registration. > I can even see the potential problem of everyone jumping to have bragging > rights to having named the most cultivars (or is this already occurring?). Not that I am aware of. There is no hierarchy or inclusivity in cultivars, i.e. if someone originally had defined a cultivar that would include all forms of a denomination class (e.g. all species and forms of _Sarracenia_), this would not prevent the description of more specific cultivars, because their definition would allow a distinction from the previously described set. Thus, there is no point in having named the most cultivars, because this would not preclude the description of even more cultivars. > Every example of a flava with a little trickle of red in the throat is to be > called "arrow shot" or something equally inventive. Only if "a little trickle of red in the throat" was considered sufficient and distinctive by the registrant and if this was illustrated in the standard. > Every plant that has a > little more red in throat is to be called "twice shot", ad infinitum, ad > nauseum. The descriptions and standards would (at least in the opinion of the respective registrants) allow an identification, and by means of the International Register, all persons concerned could decide to which cultivar (if at all) their plants belong. Would this not be better than just having the bogus names "arrow shot" and "twice shot" without any possibility to check what such plants should look like (which would be the case if there was no possibility to standardize such expressions)? > The only way the naming of cultivars would seem to make sense to me (IMHO, > of course) would be that either 1) the conventions for allowing a cultivar > to be named must be very strict, requiring truly unique and outstanding > characteristics, (this has not been the case so far!) The problem is, there are about as many opinions on what "truly unique and outstanding characteristics" are as there are cp enthusiasts. There is no such strict convention, and I have no idea what such a convention should look like. > and/or 2) the cultivar > name must be applied only to the progeny of the plant named, so that > however, irrelevant, at least there is clarity and integrity in the use of > names. This is likewise the case if the name may be applied to all plants that are indistinguishable, irrespective of their origin. What should otherwise, e.g. someone do with a plant that is indistinguishable but of different origin? The plant could not be described as a new cultivar because there are no distinguishing features, and it could at the same time not be labeled as the original cultivar because its origin was different. > I see no other recourse if cultivars are to have any useful meaning > whatsoever. The meaning is standardized naming with all criteria to be met by plants in question, recorded and available at a publicly accessible authority (the ICRA). > Well, I am probably beating against the palace walls, but what the heck. No problem. This is the only way we can improve (although I would consider the ICRA an helpdesk rather than a palace; we offer a service to the cp community that we consider useful, we do not enact laws). Kind regards Jan ################### From: steven.stewart@worldnet.att.net Fri Jan 11 05:26:35 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:33:39 -0500 Subject: CP Masterlist '96 Hello Jan & list, At the time (6-9-96) when I found this list of plants I wrote that Rick Walker had compiled. I was interested in a few plants for class studies. I wrote down the site, and a few of the abbreviated sources that were on the list. I have [AL.] as Alan Lowrie a seed source with prices, [BAMR:] as Barry Meyers Rice, [LB] as Bruce Lee Bednar- with prices, [PP] as Peter Pauls- (mostly misspelled plants) with prices. I have your name next to [!CPW] I don't know what the abbreviation was to stand for, and very possibly put your name next to this designation incorrectly, no offense intended. I'm just trying to help find sources. Possibly Rick Walker has the key to the numerous abbreviations that were on this list. I doubt that most of the people on it would recognize their abbreviated designations. (except possibly Barry) This list might help find the largest collection of CPs. Again I'm sorry if I mistakenly associated Jan incorrectly. Take care, Steven Stewart > The ICPS (no other organization would match the description; in > particular, I was never associated to anything similar to "!CPW") does > not have a collection of its own. The cp database is exclusively what > you can find on the web (i.e. data, no collection of plants, living or dried). > > Kind regards > Jan ################### From: slawarre@meijergardens.org Fri Jan 11 06:15:16 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:07:03 -0500 Subject: RE: Trichoderma question Its important to keep a few things in mind when talking about these media applied bio-fungicides: 1) They are effective on several soil born pathogens. 2) They are not a cure all. 3) In my experience, they are effective as a preventative, not a curative. I used to grow about 15,000 poinsettias every year, among other things, for a production Greenhouse in Detroit, MI. We would mix ROOTSHIELD granular into our media as it was being made. Poinsettias are a high maintenance crop, they are always being soil drenched for fungal disease or sprayed for calcium deficiency and insects. I hate them. Anyway, we found that the application of ROOTSHIELD at the time of planting, did significantly cut down on the amount of root problems we had. Allot of people keep asking, "should I use it on my Nepenthes", "should I try it on my Cephalotus". I say, GO FOR IT. We are all addicted to carnivorous plants. The research for these products is paid for by the floriculture industry. This, for the most part, does not include CP. You will not find Nepenthes, Sarracenia or Pinguicula listed on any plant product labels. I can tell you that I would not be worried about putting Trichoderma on any of my CP's. I am not saying anyone should try on their one and only rare Nepenthes. But, the only way to find out how its going to work is to try it out, take notes, and maybe even send Barry a write up on your results. Steve ################### From: Sundew1802@aol.com Fri Jan 11 06:21:19 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:21:09 EST Subject: Re: U gibba and digest2795 Regarding Darren and his request for U gibba, my response is "do you want it my the ounce or pound?" Please let me know privately and Im sure I can get you a shovel load:)) To Rick Walker-couldn't remember your email address- yesterday's listserv came thru with another attachment. How do I send it back to you for analysis?(cp digest 2795) Thanks Bob McMorris ################### From: slawarre@meijergardens.org Fri Jan 11 09:08:47 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:00:15 -0500 Subject: Update on Irradiation Policies of the U.S. Postal Service I am forwarding this to the CP list, I think it will help answer questions about our plants/seeds and the mail. Steve TO: ASTA Representatives FROM: Drew Kinder, President SUBJECT: Update on Irradiation Policies of the U.S. Postal Service The American Seed Trade Association met with representatives of the U.S. Postal Service on January 7 to discuss seed industry concerns. ASTA has been following the procedures and policies by the U.S. government to combat bio-terrorism in the mail. Many ASTA members have been in direct contact with Association staff to discuss possible outcomes and their effect on members who routinely ship seeds through the mail for testing and commerce. The purpose of the meeting was to listen and learn from the U.S. Postal Service on the status of mail sanitization efforts and to answer our specific questions related to how seeds we ship will be safeguarded. I am pleased to report that the meeting was positive and the following points can be shared with ASTA members. \\267 Only mail which has been or will be irradiated is the mail that was in the Postal Service's Brentwood and Trenton facilities at the time they were closed. \\267 Current mail addressed to zip codes 202xx 205xx in Washington, DC is being irradiated. (Examples would include the zip codes for the U.S. House of Representatives which is 20515, the U.S. Senate at 20510, the White House at 20500, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture at 20250.) \\267 Irradiation of letters from Brentwood and Trenton has been completed in facilities in Lima, Ohio and Bridgeport, New Jersey. \\267 Mail that has been irradiated is placed in a plastic bag and an accompanying letter advising the recipient of irradiation is included. \\267 There are no new current plans to irradiate any other mail, unless a new anthrax contamination (or other bio-terrorism) is discovered. Accordingly, for ASTA members, it is business as usual. There are, however, some recommendations for mailpiece design that we can pass along to you. They include: \\267 Use safety seals and tamper-proof envelopes. \\267 Use transparent envelopes. \\267 Use closed window envelope rather than open window envelopes. \\267 Use a postmark or indicia that matches the city and state of the return address. \\267 Use a full return address and recognizable company logo. \\267 Discontinue using "handwritten" addresses. \\267 Include a toll-free number and web site on the outside of the mailpiece. \\267 Use indicia or metered postage instead of live postage stamps. \\267 Assess use of premiums such as pens and magnets, which make mailpieces lumpy and misshapen. Finally, ASTA is pleased to announce that we have joined the Mailers' Technical Advisory Committee, a group comprised of trade associations organized to assess, monitor and develop policies with the U.S. Postal Service that take into account unique concerns and experience. As a member, ASTA will be permitted to appoint two representatives to participate in the discussions. Meetings are held quarterly and members electing to participate by phone are encouraged to do so. Hopefully, this correspondence will alleviate much of the concern and apprehension by members and customers. ASTA will continue to follow this issue closely and will keep members updated as events warrant. Should policies change and the campaign to combat bio-terrorism require additional testing or procedures, ASTA will be advised. At that point, we will exercise every option and opportunity to meet with and work along side members of the U.S. Postal Service and the Office of Homeland Security to discuss options and ways to collaborate and cooperate. Please feel free to share this information with colleagues and customers. Joyce G. Latimer Extension Specialist, Greenhouse Crops Virginia Tech Department of Horticulture 306D Saunders Hall - 0327 Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-7906 FAX: 540-231-3083 jlatime@vt.edu [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: brewerce@navseadn.navy.mil Fri Jan 11 09:13:38 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:10:06 -0500 Subject: RE: Trichoderma and Cephs Regarding Cephs and the use of Trichoderma (ROOTSHIELD). I've been grow and sell Cephs for a number of years now to many, many people on this digest. Recently, I started using Trichoderma as drench on leaf cuttings, established plants and newly potted plants. Although I have seen some results, I don't consider Trichoderma to be the answer to growing "Super Size" plants, rather as another beneficial tool used in developing healthy plants. If you decide to use Trichoderma on your plants, try incorporating it into the soil a week or so prior to transplanting any new cuttings or divisions. Just don't expect over night results. Trichoderma takes time to work and this also depends on your own growing techniques. Trichoderma does encourage healthier root systems, which allows the plant to absorb more nourishment, which produces a heather plant. In all my years of growing and experimenting with Cephs, I have yet to find anything that will get these plants to grow faster and bigger in a shorter amount of time. Cephs just seem to take their own precious time no matter what you do. What I have found out is to place more emphases on producing a healthier rhizome/root system which results in a better and healthier plant. Charles Brewer Va. Beach, Va. ################### From: MCATALANI@aol.com Fri Jan 11 09:15:00 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:14:54 EST Subject: Cultivars- can of worms In a message dated 1/11/2002 6:00:45 AM Central Standard Time, jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de writes: > This is likewise the case if the name may be applied to all plants that > are indistinguishable, irrespective of their origin. What should > otherwise, e.g. someone do with a plant that is indistinguishable but of > different origin? The plant could not be described as a new cultivar > because there are no distinguishing features, and it could at the same > time not be labeled as the original cultivar because its origin was > different. Yikes!! Here's my problem with that. It goes back to the S .flava color forms. An S. flava growing in ideal conditions looks much different than an S. flava growing in ok conditions. Let's say that a person is growing a "real" S. flava heavily veined form. His light level and durations aren't as high as the plant sees in its natural environment, so their S. flava has a more pronounced ala, the mouth isnt as wide, etc. This person then creates a hybid S. flava x (S. flava x S. rubra). Amazingly, this hybrid looks just like their true S. flava "heavily veined". If they are allowed to pawn that plant off as S. flava "heavily veined", then any person receiving this plant who has better cultivating conditions is going to be disappointed, because the plant will not look like their other true flava forms. It's going to look like a hybrid, because it's ala will never be full reduced, the lid will never reflex backwards as far, the mouth will not be as wide, etc. So just because a plant in one persons collection looks like a true color form (or cultivar) does not mean it will resemble the plant if it is grown in better cultivating conditions. I can't tell you how many "green" forms of vft I have received, only to have them redden up in excellent light. I have received S. flava heavily veined which was some sort of flava x rubra hybid. I have also received a fake S. flava "maxima". Yes, it may be all green. Yes, it grows to 4' tall. Yes it has a large lid. Yes, it may have looked identical to a true flava "maxima" in someone else' collection. But in mine it does not, and it is not. As far as naming cultivars, my opinion is that a plant should meet a few requirements before being registered. First, a minimum number of plants should be established before registering a plant. There should be no reason a cultivar is lost forever in cultivation due to only one or a few specimans existing. The name cultivar stands for cultivated variety ( I think), therefore it should be actively cultivated. A minimum of 10 plants is not an unreasonable request, and helps out with my next point. The plant should be grown by several different individuals BEFORE REGISTERING to ensure that the plants characteristics are retained, and are not influenced by cultivating conditions. I wouldnt want to jump the gun and create a cultivar of a blue flowered leucophylla, only to find out that it was created by one of my kids dumping blue powder dye into one of the bogs. Spreading clones of this plant around to different growers would help prove the viability of the characteristics making it worthy of cultivar status, and would weed out plants with very shaky characteristics. Here's a real example: A flytrap of mine a few years back produced traps without cilia. Leaf cuttings of this plant went out to several folks and were created as well by myself. We all concluded that the plant clones all had cilia, even though the original leaf cutting did not. Since none of the leaf cuttings taken of this plant is producing traps without cilia, this individual plant, as unique as it may be, should not be a cultivar. It's characteristics can not be readily reproduced. Adrian Slack created an enormous number of hybrids. Some in our group have first hand knowledge of this. And how many plants did he deem worthy of cultivar status. Just a few. How many of his plants were beautiful and stunning. Probably just about every one. If I have seen 1 million S. flava x S. leucophylla hybrids in the wild, then I would have to say that 999,996 were simply incredible. Yet only one I would consider worthy of cultivar status. (Not counting the one named after Don Schnell, which was also a wild growing plant. So let's make that 2.) If you want to know if one of your plants is worthy of cultivar status, then do this. Show the plant (or a good picture) to someone else. Let them look at it for a few minutes. After a week, have that person recall from memory what was so special about the plant. If its cultivar material, you'll know it by how they describe the plant back to you. If they cant really remember the plant, then the plant didnt leave that much of an impression. Get enough similar responses, and it should be left as another stunning plant in your collection. If you get enough poeple banging down your email because they just have to have one, easliy describing what they like in the plant, then you're on cultivar track. I havent had a chance to thoroughly go through the recent ICPN yet, but I remember briefly seeing a Sarracenia cultivar plant with hammerheads. I think it was created by John Hummer, and hammerhead may be in the cultivar name. But the plant left an immediate impression on me that I can easily describe it weeks later, even though I only looked at it for a minute. I cant recall for sure who actually created it, nor its actual name, but I can recall the plant. Thats the power a cultivar should have on us. Michael Catalani [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: massey@fmhi.usf.edu Fri Jan 11 11:29:09 2002 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:25:58 -0500 Subject: RE: cultivars- can of worms Hi Jan: I was looking forward to your reply as I was sure you would have something useful to say, and I was not disappointed. However, I must also say (in all good humor) that I think you have finessed the larger concern I raised as you addressed each section of my letter. Let me add also, that I appreciate that the ICRA (what I know of it) serves as the depository for records and not as some watchdog organization. Perhaps what distinguishes our points of view is not the specifics of the way registration works (it is what it is after all), but personal frustration regarding what I see as the utility and consistency of the process. Let me explain. My major concerns (and I have no easy solution, unfortunately) are that 1) the inclusive nature of naming cultivars allows, and to my mind encourages a proliferation of names that offer little utility to collectors, commercial growers, botanists or anyone else, and 2) there is a good bit of misunderstanding about the implications of producing a cultivar. First, you state that "It is, therefore, necessary to select only very special plants as cultivars and to describe their special features very carefully." And you also say "The important point is that the definition of any new cultivar must state what differentiates it from all other previously described cultivars. Registrants must state what makes their cultivar special and different." Well and good, there is no argument. If we can rely on everyone to think carefully and apply this rule of thumb judiciously, then all may be well. However you also state that "It is (and must be) detailed enough in the opinion of the registrant. This is the only criterion that matters for registration." And "Only if 'a little trickle of red in the throat' was considered sufficient and distinctive by the registrant and if this was illustrated in the standard." Unless I misunderstand, if the cultivar is unique enough to the registrant then the cultivar is legitimate; that is all that matters. In short, if anyone seems to think that a speck of difference in a particular plant is significant, then by definition it is significant. And if described, the cultivar is established. It does not matter if 999 other growers see no relevance in this speck of difference, it still stands. And even if after looking at a single 2 x 3 photograph of a plant in habitat, if no one but the registrant can see what is being talked about, the cultivar still stands. And thus, I must reiterate: arrow shot, twice shot, thrice shot, and cutthroat, etc. if deemed worthy by the would be registrant (or as you put it "if
Hi all,
> <The seeds of many vascular plant genera also depend on a fungal
association to aid in germination (i.e. orchids).>
> This may be a misconception or over-generalization. It is rather
difficult (I think) to define orchid "germination" because seeds lack some
structures (e.g., endosperm) commonly observed for seeds of other
plants, and some phenomena (e.g., emergence of root) are not observed.
Yes, it has been proved "symbiotic" (some argue their relationship somehow
deviates "symbiosis,") fungi provides nutrients, etc
"during" germination (and afterward). However, orchids (e.g.,
Habenaria radiata, Epidendrum sp-don't remember which
one., etc) can germinate on the surface of water. After all, seeds of most
epiphytic orchids can germinate in vitro albeit on nutrient rich
medium.
> <You could not find an orchid harder to grow than the Ghost Orchid.>
>How about some Saprophytic ones ? Many orchid growers
agree Telipogon may be the most difficult one. Acacalis
cyanea was considered to be one of the most difficult ones. I
hear plants of this orchid, grown from seeds are easier to grow (but I have
killed a few).
<Is it possible that the commercially available fungi might eat any beneficial forms already present in established pots of plants or gardens?>
>This "may" be possible. but you can isolate Trichoderma from many types of soil, probably from your garden as well. I am not sure which species a particular product contains, but T. viridis is not some rare fungal species you can only find in a special place such as cloud forests in western side of Andean mountain, etc (I just made this up). But particular strain probably won't be found there.
>< http:/ /www.rambridge.com/products/garden/disease/disease2.html>
>Trichoderma is a fungal genus, and this product contains
bacteria. If it is indeed Trichoderma, , it is a good sign you
should not buy this.....
<If I understand your last post correctly, there is one point I must disagree with. According to studies done at Cornell University, Trichoderma spp. do indeed target and destroy offending fungi through a process called mycoparasitism.>
><You are absolutely right, Trichoderma may target and destroy OFFENDING fungi. As this article states, "This process (mycoparastitism) limits growth and activity of plant pathogenic fungi". The Trichoderma does not consume or 'eat' the pathogenic fungi but it may produce substances that kill or break down the apposing pathogen.>
>From the webpage:
>Among their other activities, they grow tropically toward hyphae of other fungi, coil about them in a lectin-mediated reaction, and degrade cell walls of the target fungi.
>This is a description of a degrative/digestive process. It can be interpreted as "eating" if you feel like. Trichoderma is a hyperparasite, meaning "a parasite of a parasite." What a parasite does? Parasitize. I read their mode of action may be partly due to competition, though.
><Along the lines of Trichoderma, I've found a place that sells this: Gliocladium virens already exists naturally in your soil and>
>Gliocladium virens = Trichoderma vires. Check these pages:
>http://www.dsmz.de/species/sp 300607.htm
>http://www.life.umd .edu/CBMG/faculty/straney.html
>If anyone is going to Japan for the conference, don't forget to go to
the Kosobe Conservatory at University of Kyoto. I think that's where
"Koto" series (Dreamy Koto, etc--horrible name !) were bred. I am not real
sure if the greenhouse is open to public, though.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
> > ################### From: tdstubb@sofnet.com Fri Jan 11 23:30:50 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 01:30:35 -0600 Subject: Are There Any Rare Miniature CP ? Hello all, I am seeking the help of those more knowledgable than I in compiling a list of rare to vary rare but still legally obtainable (in the US if possible) miniature terrestrial/epiphytic CP that will grow well in intermediate to warm terraria. Nothing microscopic, please. I want to enjoy them, not go blind trying to view them. :) And certainly nothing that is impossible or extremely hard to grow or takes a hundred years to mature. I'll leave these for those who have more time. Perhaps something 6" or less in stature and at least 1" tall when fully grown with pitchers big enough to see. Failing this, I would appreciate advice on any rare cp that at least fits the criteria in my first sentence. I won't be ready to purchase for another month or two but do need to start my list to give me time to research the plants before buying. Thanks to everyone for their wisdom and input to my past questions. I appreciated each and every response. TomStubblefield ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Sat Jan 12 08:12:19 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 08:08:29 -0800 Subject: Re: Help with cultivar name >UUMMM...Are you going to try to sell it? All I can say is that my marketing people keep saying [censored] sells. :-) Stephen >All too true, sadly. Look at what happened to S. cv. "Sultry Maid". Personally, I have no problem with "paddle". -Kit >Surely there are young people as well as less worldly adults who are members of this list to whom the word 'Paddle' has absolutely no "inappropriate" connotations whatsoever. Rufino "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Sigmund Freud I should think so! Living in Vermont with it's world class lakes and rivers I would only think of canoes and kayaks. Bryan Charlotte, Vermont Hi Joe, Stephen, Kit, Matt, William, Rufino, Bryan, and all, Cool, I hadn't really considered that angle Stephen. I figure I'll turn it over to Peter D. and let him sell it. Matt told me he was not serious about 'Spoon' anyway, though, it is a bit more rounded than typical Paddle-leaf and more spoon shaped. Alright then, we will go with 'Ivan's Paddle'. I will bring some plants to our LACP meeting today and see how many people would like a little paddle:-o Thanks again, Ivan http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: tmalcolm@islandnet.com Sat Jan 12 12:32:18 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:29:25 -0800 Subject: RE: cultivars- can of worms How has cultivar registration worked for other horticultural areas? Hypothetical worst-case scenarios aside, what have the actual results been for orchids or roses (or Saintpaulia for that matter)? tim. ################### From: hybrid_t@hotmail.com Sat Jan 12 14:09:07 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:09:05 Subject: Re:trichoderma and cephs Hi Tom, >What was the brand of this trichoderma? RootShield. >I have small ferns flourishing in the RootShield treated media in my CP >tank. Yeah, I don't really think the trichoderma is what fried mine (they are coming back btw!) >Is your ceph too wet? Low humidity? Not enough light? Are the roots okay? >Have you tried mixing trichoderma with water and drenching the whole plant? >Can you elaborate on your growing conditions? I'd like to help if I can. Thanks. Actually, this ceph has been to hell and back with me. It was one of the first CPs I got about nine years ago, when I had no idea how to take care of it. It totally disappeared twice and then came back. About three years ago I put it in a nice deep pot and babied it and it was doing really well, got multiple growing points and big traps. I have it on a windowsill under flourescent lights. The pot is raised so that the plant is about 6 inches under the lights. It seemed to love that until recently, when a lot of traps started to yellow and die. I think they are dying faster than new ones are being put out now. As far as water, I use DI water on it about once a week (?), and I water until some comes out into the saucer and then it stands in that for a few days until it evaporates. And yes, I did a soil drench with the trichoderma. I wonder if I should change the soil. The moss which grows on top (not sphagnum- don't know what kind) is also looking sickly and yellow. Any thoughts? Thanks for any advice! -Tierney Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ################### From: jgbritt@mac.com Sat Jan 12 19:30:36 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:30:25 -0800 Subject: New on the ICPS web site There are a number of new features on the The International Carnivorous Plant Society web site. (1) Pete Thiel added an archive of postings to this list. You can view previous postings in order or search for postings on any topic. As of right now the archive is manually updated monthly from my mail server. We hope to automate this process but it may take a few months. http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cplist/AboutCPList.htm The site also has information about the CP list and list server. (2) The News and Events pages have been redone with a database back-end. The pages are now generated on request with only current information. Anyone may submit events for inclusion on the site. An ICPS member will review submissions to make sure they are appropriate. http://www.carnivorousplants.org/news/newsmain.php (3) The Carnivorous Plant Newsletter index is approaching up-to-date. The ICPS member entering the information is up to the March 2001 issue and expects to finish the final issues of 2001 well ahead of the next issue being released. I use the index all the time when I need to look up information in the back issues. http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Search.php (4) The CPN back issue sale has been very successful! We ran out of certain issues so decided to add another volume to the sale. You can now get all the issues we have left from 1978-1996 for $125 plus postage and handling (and sales tax for California residents). If you order volumes from 1997 through 2001 at the same time you get them at a special price. Please see http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/BackIssues.htm for more information. ################### From: tissueculture@yahoo.com Sat Jan 12 22:15:51 2002 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:15:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Los Angeles CP Society meeting with Alfred Lau Hello everyone, I rarely write on the list but I simply must share my exitement about how great our meeting was today. Dr. Alfred Lau gave his slide presentation of Pinguicula in Mexico (including what looks like P.sharpii in Belize). Even though we had him give this presentation several years ago I was still blown away by the beautiful and exciting slides. Why exciting? Because several of them are still undescribed and simply wonderful. I hear that he will be in the Bay Area and highly recommend to all that can go to do so. He will be in Arizona this coming Wednesday (16th) till Sunday night (20). If there are any members of cp, orchid, passiflora, cacti (he has 18 presentations!)clubs in Tucson or Phoenix let me know if you would like to invite him to give a presentation (he's open the 18th-20th). Any other members throughout CA can also contact me if you would to invite him to speak to your group. He is "homeless" and "carless" (I don't know which is worse) and would need a place to stay and transportation. We gave him a well deserved honorarium too. Vivan la Pinguiculas Mexicanas y Don Alfredo! His newborn/temporary website: www.geocities.com/floralectures/ Your fellow cper, Ed Read Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ################### From: kit@kithalsted.com Sun Jan 13 00:19:53 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:19:34 -0500 Subject: Re: New on the ICPS web site At 7:38 PM -0800 1/12/02, John Brittnacher wrote: >There are a number of new features on the The International >Carnivorous Plant Society web site.
<For example, in orchid
breeding, dark-red paphiopedilums can be produced via two different
genetic mechanisms. One is dominant and the other recessive, so if a
breeder does not know which plant he/she is using, a breeding program
could be delayed for years.>
I am
assuming you are referring vini color Maudiae type. It has been
suggested so, but "scientifically" never proven. Or never published in
scientific journals (AOS Bulletin does not count). I read this in
"Novelty Paphiopedilum Breeding" by Koopowitz and Hasegawa, and
supposedly this appeared in Proceedings of WOC (don't know which
one). There were mainly two sources of vini color pigmentation:
Paph. callosum 'Sparkling Burgandy' FCC/AOS, and Paph.
callosum 'Jac.' The latter has been lately described as a new
species by Koopowitz and Hasegawa, and I have a personal reservation on
this.
But if you think about the complexity
of modern Maudiae type Paphs, I don't think it is that clear cut. For
example, Paph. Voodoo Magic is Paph. Vintner's
Treasure x Paph. Goultenianum. The hybrid has following
species in its background: Paph. sukhakulii, Paph.
purpuratum, Paph. barbatum, Paph. callosum,
Paph. lowrenceanum, and Paph. curtisii.
The influence of Paph. barbatum on red pigmentation of modern
Bulldog Paph. is well documented (e.g., Orchilla 'Chilton' AM/RHS,
FCC/AOS)
<The great strength of the grex system used in orchids is that plants of different ancestry can be distinguished, even if they are anatomically identical. Clonal names can then be used to identify exceptional clones of a particular grex.>
I don't quite follow the logics here. There is so much confusion on Sander's List, and in some respects, it is quite outdated as well. For example, RHS does not recognize Encyclia as its own genus, and still include all Encyclia species in Epidendrum. It is also known Phalaenopsis does not (usually) breed with Paraphalaenopsis, but for the registration purposes, hybrids of Paraphalaenopsis are treated as Phalaenopsis hybrids. This is partly due to frequent change in orchid names. And yes, in the beginning of the Sander's List, cultivar names were also recorded.
There was an artcle by Ned Nash some time ago ('94) on pink Cattleya breeding at Stewart. As is the case with his writing, he basically boasted about breeding at Stewart. One thing that really surprised me was, he attributed success of their breeding program to this particular hybrid that "they" misregistered. Mistakes may be inevitable in any system.
<How has cultivar registration worked for other horticultural areas? Hypothetical worst-case scenarios aside, what have the actual results been for orchids or roses (or Saintpaulia for that matter)?>
Grex names of orchids are registered through RHS (Royal Horticulture Society), and the names appear in Sander's List. Every three year or so an addendum is published. To register a grex, you need to be the person who made the cross or have permission from the breeder. For a friend I know, I contacted The Orchid Zone a couple years ago to do this. The registration fee is not all that expensive. I think it was around $12.
A little explanation on "grex." A grex (means a "herd") is a new combination of between species, hybrids, or betwen a species and a hybrid. For example, Paph. Maudiae is Paph. callosum x Paph. lawrenceanum. If you make this particular cross, it will be always Paph. Maudiae since it has been registered as such. The Sander's list does not recognize reciprocal crosses, or consider ploidy of parents. Genetically speaking, if you cross Paph. lawrenceanum (4 n) x Paph. callosum (2 n), it is pretty much identical to Paph. Alma Gevaert (Paph. lawrenceanum x Paph. Maudiae), but this hybrid is still considered as Paph. Maudiae. A similar thing happened with Lc. Mini Purple (C. walkeriana x L. pumila) recently.
I think cultivar name is pretty much up to the "original" owner of the particular clone. If a clone is given an award from AOS (American Orchid Society), the clonal name becomes "official." You are supposed to honor the "original" clonal name, but it is not mandantry. As you can guess, there have been (many?) incidents. I know a few incidents, but I am not supposed to tell here.
Using the example of Paph. Maudiae, there are many clones of this particular grex. Some of the famous ones are: 'Magnificum' FCC/RHS (album), 'Silvarado' (album), 'Los Osos' AM/AOS(coloratum), Ebony Queen FCC/AOS (vini (wine) color), 'Renaissance' (vi ni), etc. Needless to say, hybrids between clones of the same grex belongs to the same grex.
Once your plant receives (quality awards are given to plants in AOS system), you need to pay the fee. The amount of fee varies (the higher the award, the more expensive the fee is). And if you fail to do this within a given time period, the award becomes invalid. And needless to say, there are some orchids that have some award on their label, but this does not appear on the index.
During this process, mistakes do happen. For example, when my Paph. Jeweled Tapestry was given an award (HCC), I chose the name 'Ispaphan.' I forgot how they misspelled, but I sent a check along with my letter, and subsequently they fixed it.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
################### From: chouhan@chouhan.com Sun Jan 13 07:48:57 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 07:55:07 -0700 Subject: Help with media composition Hi, can any one list the composition for "Bill Carrols media" please. Ramesh ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Sun Jan 13 11:08:24 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:30:33 -0800 Subject: Ivan's Search For A new Cultivar Name >Hello listserver! Ivan, what's the fuss? Why don't you just call it D.rotundifolia Tropical? That's how the plant looks, in my opinion. Sean Hi Sean and all, I might just do that. One more backcross of this fertile D. x obovata with it's tetraploid D. rotundifolia parent and it should be indistinguishable from pure D. rotundifolia. This will be as Jan's belief that D. tokaiensis is essentially D. spatulata. And according to what Jan says about the nomenclatural rules, I could name the new tropical form D. rotundifolia 'EverGrow'. Ivan Snyder Hermosa Beach California http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Sun Jan 13 11:08:39 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:04:31 -0800 Subject: Re: S. flava introgression >But I am not too sure if this shows phenotypic polymorphism observed in S. flava is in fact due to "recent, ongoing introgression." Yes, it seems you can "create" plants resembling ones found it nature, and it supports the hypothesis to a certain degree. But does it really mean that is the way it happened? How identical are "created" ones and naturally occurring ones? Hideka >So any study into S. flava and introgression would have to include the gulf coast plants. (I am not saying that Phil is omitting them, and I look forward to any of his work on this subject. Michael Hi Hideka, Michael, Phil, and all, On my visit to the Florida Panhandle last year I witnessed what appeared to be introgression that had been going on for a very long time. The stand of one variant covered a large area. One place was the type location of a named variant. A give-away that the variant was of hybrid origin was in finding one plant with an unquestionable feature from another Sarracenia species, and this other species was also present there. I have photos. I am convinced that introgression is going on with S. flava, and for the above reasons, I'm sure phils work is provable. It's fascinating how these hybrids can stabilize into such successful and distinct variant patterns. Ivan Snyder Hermosa Beach California http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: K.Cook@bom.gov.au Sun Jan 13 16:28:55 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:58:44 +0930 Subject: Help with Cultivar Name > >Hi Joe, Stephen, Kit, Matt, William, Rufino, Bryan, and all, >Cool, I hadn't really considered that angle Stephen. I figure I'll turn >it over to Peter D. and let him sell it. Matt told me he was not serious >about 'Spoon' anyway, though, it is a bit more rounded than typical >Paddle-leaf and more spoon shaped. Alright then, we will go with 'Ivan's >Paddle'. I will bring some plants to our LACP meeting today and see how >many people would like a little paddle:-o >Thanks again, >Ivan If it's not too late, I'd like to suggest "Ivan's Smacker". Smacker being both something used to smack (eg a paddle) and slang for mouth. Cheer, Kevin Cook Darwin Australia ################### From: tdstubb@sofnet.com Sun Jan 13 16:54:12 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:54:07 -0600 Subject: Re: Help with Cultivar Name I would like to see you people who have seen the plant getting creative with Latin. Like on the old Road Runner cartoons. :) Ah the memories... Tom ################### From: nelhardt@hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 18:10:29 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:10:28 -0800 Subject: Re: Help with Cultivar Name >I would like to see you people who have seen the plant getting creative > >with >Latin. Like on the old Road Runner cartoons. :) >Ah the memories... >Tom I have seen the plant a lot and here is my latin: drosera x 'corynogemmata', which means, "club-like jewel". It is even more sparkly that the regular x obovata, also more robust I think, really a very very beautifull plant overall. One of my favorites. Noah Noah Elhardt cp enthusiast California,USA Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: hkobayashi4@hotmail.com Sun Jan 13 19:00:23 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:00:21 -0600 Subject: Introgression, field work, etc
Ivan,
Hope I won't sound mean or anything. However (yes,
"However"),
<On my visit to the Florida Panhandle last year I witnessed what appeared to be introgression that had been going on for a very long time. >
This does not tell me much. I suggested that you present some data, evidence, etc in my previous message, and Jan agreed. Should I assume you went there to conduct a survey, and reporting the results here? Many researchers do field work, and frankly, I am not sure if one visit (or a couple) would solve the matter. You should avoid using, "seem" and "appear" in scientific writing (my own advisor told me so). This may have not been such a case, though, and sometimes, it is very difficult to do so.
< The stand of one variant covered a large area. One place was the type location of a named variant. A give-away that the variant was of hybrid origin was in finding one plant with an unquestionable feature from another Sarracenia species, and this other species was also present there.>
Any subsequent testing to see if segragation occured or not? Molecular anaysis to show some evidence? Or even collecting values based on, height, color, number of leaves, etc? And if you did how many? How did you analyze? Those are kind of questions that will be asked in peer edited scientific journals.
<I have photos.>
Any quantifiable data?
< I am convinced that introgression is going on with S. flava, and for the above reasons, I'm sure phils work is provable. It's fascinating how these hybrids can stabilize into such successful and distinct variant patterns.>
I have never said I don't think introgression occured or played a role. It is possible. But I am not "convinced." I think that's where Michale stands. You can come up as many hypotheses as you please. But you never did a hypothesis testing. Your information may be valuable, but not scientific.
Ok, here's an example. Followers of some religious
cult (their name shall remain unwritten--it is copyrighted anyway)
believe that the origin of human beings can be traced back to aliens (or
their "thetans") massacared by the evil intergalactic lord (Xenu) with
hydrogen bomb(s) on Hawiian islands 76 million ago. Did this really
happen? Did they do a hypothesis testing? I hope they did . I
hear what they teach have some elements of science. But if you assemble
"facts" in wrong ways, it may not make sense, or you can come up
with soemthing really bizzar. I think that's the danger of
knowing half-baked scientific knowledge.
For on my part, I am still learning, and have made mistakes like Jan confessed. That's one thing I find rather unnerving about Voodoo scientists. They are not responsible for their claim. They think they don't have to go through the process we do. Of course you can say whatever you want. Your right of freedom of speech should be fully exercised. But if you deal with scientific realm, you cannot get away with this.
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
################### From: chouhan@chouhan.com Sun Jan 13 21:46:15 2002 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:52:45 -0700 Subject: Ideal Cold stratification temperatures... Hi, What would be the best temperature to do cold stratification of seed? what happens if they are in TC medium and frozen? in the wet method of stratification, can the moisture in the packets with seed condense and form Ice? or will it have to be kept cold but not frozen? any answers please? Ramesh ################### From: arfalshaw@xtra.co.nz Sun Jan 13 23:19:44 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:18:02 +1300 Subject: Re: U gibba >I was tempted to buy some utricularia gibba on ebay today but since it >is reportedly so easy to grow, Am I the only person to have had U. gibba and killed it? I've not seen it in any local collections lately, so maybe it isn't that easy to keep going. Anybody care to share tips on how to keep it going? Water conditions, container size etc? thanks Andy NZ Climate zone: wet. ################### From: h7n@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 02:48:30 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:48:28 Subject: CPN Since I'm still drooling with anticipation, have international members of the ICPS received their CPNs yet or is it just the UK that's waiting? Does anyone in the ICPS know what the holdup is? NigelH Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: h7n@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 02:52:10 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:52:08 Subject: Marston Cultivars Seeing the thread about cultivar names reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. Marston produced quite a lot of strains characterised by the description 'Giant', eg I've got some material of Drosera pulchella 'Giant' which I believe came indirectly from Marstons. Have any of these strains been registered as cultivars? NigelH Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ################### From: SteveDAlton@aol.com Mon Jan 14 03:19:09 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:18:57 EST Subject: Easy Carnivores Hi, Folks, Has anybody had any experience of a company called 'Easy Carnivores'? (www.easycarnivores.co.uk). I stumbled across their site by accident - never heard of them before. Steve Alton Sussex, UK ################### From: nplummer@duke.edu Mon Jan 14 05:26:55 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:25:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Orchid registration I wrote: >> The great strength of the grex system used in orchids is that plants of >> different ancestry can be distinguished, even if they are anatomically >> identical. Clonal names can then be used to identify exceptional clones >> of a particular grex > I don't quite follow the logics here. There is so much confusion on > Sander's List, and in some respects, it is quite outdated as well. For > example, RHS does not recognize Encyclia as its own genus, and > still include all Encyclia species in Epidendrum. That is irrelevant to my argument. Regardless of whether a particular orchid hybrid is registered as Epidendrum Orchid Jungle or Encyclia Orchid Jungle, you still (theoretically) know that all E. Orchid Jungle plants have the same parentage, and furthermore, that all E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are exactly the same clone. Even if the parentage of a hybrid is incorrectly listed in the registry, you can still be fairly confident that two divisions of E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are the same plant, even though in the orchid system the clonal name 'Big Flower' is informal. If I understand the CP cultivar registry correctly, you have no way of knowing whether two plants of Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' are actually the same clone, or even the same hybrid. It is perfectly legitimate to name a new plant Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' if it is indistinguishable from the description of the original. Of course, all registration systems are subject to abuse, and there are certainly mislabeled orchid clones out there. I just find it surprising that in CP (and most other horticultural categories), the ambiguity is deliberately built into the system, and not just a result of human failings. Nick ---------------------- Nicholas Plummer nplummer@duke.edu http://www.duke.edu/~nplummer/main.html ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 14 06:45:07 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:08:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Cultivars- can of worms Dear Michael, > So just because a plant in one persons collection looks like a true > color form (or cultivar) does not mean it will resemble the plant if > it is grown in better cultivating conditions. (...) > Yes, it may have looked > identical to a true flava "maxima" in someone else' collection. But > in mine it does not, and it is not. It is the responsiblility of the registrant to see to it that the characteristics that define a cultivar are maintained in different growing conditions. Colour variants are frequently not suitable for cultivar status, and your examples give an impression why this is the case. > As far as naming cultivars, my opinion is that a plant should meet a > few requirements before being registered. First, a minimum number > of plants should be established before registering a plant. There > should be no reason a cultivar is lost forever in cultivation due to > only one or a few specimans existing. The name cultivar stands for > cultivated variety ( I think), therefore it should be actively > cultivated. A minimum of 10 plants is not an unreasonable request, > and helps out with my next point. The plant should be grown by > several different individuals BEFORE REGISTERING to ensure that the > plants characteristics are retained, and are not influenced by > cultivating conditions. I wouldnt want to jump the gun and create a > cultivar of a blue flowered leucophylla, only to find out that it > was created by one of my kids dumping blue powder dye into one of > the bogs. Spreading clones of this plant around to different > growers would help prove the viability of the characteristics making > it worthy of cultivar status, and would weed out plants with very > shaky characteristics. All these are sensible recommendations, and I trust registrants follow this practice (or a similar one). There is, however, no means for the ICRA to test whether these procedures have been applied or not. And they are not required "officially" by the ICNCP (remember, ICRAs are not entitled to judge the quality of cultivars!), so there is no way for us to enforce "good horticultural practice". This is a task to be addressed by the horticultural community as a whole. The ICRA can just help by providing standardized names (not more, and not less). > Since none of the leaf cuttings > taken of this plant is producing traps without cilia, this > individual plant, as unique as it may be, should not be a cultivar. Yes, indeed. > I cant recall for sure who actually created it, nor its > actual name, but I can recall the plant. Thats the power a cultivar > should have on us. This would indeed be an ideal situation. Our duty as an ICRA is to provide an unambiguous name for this kind of plant (I guess from your description you meant _Sarracenia_ ' Hummer's Hammerhead ' in your example) if it has been registered. Kind regards Jan ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 14 06:45:58 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:09:46 +0100 Subject: Re: cultivars- can of worms Dear Tom, > Unless I misunderstand, if the cultivar is unique enough to the registrant > then the cultivar is legitimate; Just a detail here: the term "legitimate" is reserved (in nomenclatural slang) for the names of taxa described according to the ICBN, it is not applicable for cultivars or their names. Cultivar names are either "established" (by a published description) or not, according to the ICNCP. The legitimacy (in a more colloquial sense) of cultivars (i.e. whether a plant deserves to be regarded and labeled as a cultivar or not) is not a nomenclatural issue, there are no fixed rules for this. > In short, if > anyone seems to think that a speck of difference in a particular plant is > significant, then by definition it is significant. And if described, the > cultivar is established. It does not matter if 999 other growers see no > relevance in this speck of difference, it still stands. Yes. > The result: IMHO, we have the reasonable likelihood that these registrations > will be absolutely no more useful (and maybe less useful) than bogus names. > They may be documented, in that there is a record of who used the name on > what plant, but there will be absolutely no guarantee (dare I say hope) that > any reasonable observer could identify any meaningful reason for its unique > designation or even be able to apply the name consistently in a way that > others will find useful. As a result of subjective judgement, this is indeed possible. > Now, let me hasten to add that I am much too the heretic and iconoclast (or > just too anti-authority) to suggest that we create some committee on > standards and measures of the appropriateness of naming cultivars (the > CSMANC). If founded they would probably try to start controlling the naming > of city streets as well! Yes, probably. > But perhaps there should be a way to encourage > growers and field collectors to rein in their enthusiasm for new cultivar > names. Or maybe the ICPS could provide some non-binding guidance on minimum > criteria for establishing new CP cultivars. Michael has provided such guidance in his recent message. Perhaps we can collect some of these criteria, and I would also be happy to publish a few of them (in particular those that are generally agreed upon) in CPN (manuscripts, please!). But it must be remembered that we as an ICRA are all but allowed to *enforce* such rules. This is something that must come from and must be maintained by the horticultural community, and a disclaimer in this sense would also accompany the respective CPN article. > While you are correct that "The > problem is, there are about as many opinions on what 'truly unique and > outstanding characteristics' are as there are cp enthusiasts" surely there > is some way to make the practice more likely to generate a helpful > documentation of unusual examples of our plants. I do hope so. I am appreciative for suggestions, and I offer my help where it appears useful (but remember the ICRA is not and cannot be a cultivar police!). > I would be rather ticked off if I purchased a > plant with this name only to find that someone had decided that "it looks > like the ABG plant to me, so that's what I'm calling it." If nothing else, > growers could stand to be reminded of this. OK, how about reminding CPN readers by an article? Kind regards Jan ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 14 06:47:12 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:11:05 +0100 Subject: Re: cultivars- can of worms Dear Nick, > The great strength of the grex system used in orchids is that > plants of different ancestry can be distinguished, even if they are > anatomically identical. Clonal names can then be used to identify > exceptional clones of a particular grex. I wish the ICPS had been able > to use a similar system. We are precisely not allowed to do this. ICNCP Art.4.6.: "The designation of grex is not to be applied except in the case of orchids." If you want to ensure a particular genetic composition irrespective of the phenotype of the plant (which is an effect of grex designations to be avoided in cultivar naming), you must use the taxonomic (ICBN, not ICNCP, not cultivar) hybrid formula. A grex in orchids comprises, however, *all* hybrids that have been bred with the same parentage, not only clones. Kind regards Jan ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 14 07:16:52 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:40:42 +0100 Subject: Re: Marston Cultivars Dear Nigel, > Seeing the thread about cultivar names reminds me of a question I've been > meaning to ask for a while. Marston produced quite a lot of strains > characterised by the description 'Giant', eg I've got some material of > Drosera pulchella 'Giant' which I believe came indirectly from Marstons. > Have any of these strains been registered as cultivars? No. There is only one registered _Drosera_ ' Giant '. It belongs to the taxon _D. binata_. _D._ ' Florida Giant ' (belonging to _D. filiformis_) is an unestablished name (no description published so far). As the epithet ' Giant ' is already established for another plant, no other cultivar in the same denomination class (in this case the genus _Drosera_) can be described with the same epithet. That means a _D. pulchella_ ' Giant ' will never exist (at least not as an acceptable cultivar name). Kind regards Jan ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Mon Jan 14 08:11:08 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:34:57 +0100 Subject: Re: Orchid registration Dear Nick, > If I understand the CP cultivar registry correctly, you have no way of > knowing whether two plants of Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' are > actually the same clone, or even the same hybrid. Yes. > It is perfectly > legitimate to name a new plant Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' if it > is indistinguishable from the description of the original. Yes. > Of course, all registration systems are subject to abuse, and there are > certainly mislabeled orchid clones out there. I just find it surprising > that in CP (and most other horticultural categories), the ambiguity is > deliberately built into the system, and not just a result of human failings. I think the problem most people have (in theory) with description-based cultivars is the (wrong) assumption that cloning assures genetic identity. Not even in a single multicellular individual the genetic disposition is by necessity identical in all cells. Each new generation of cells acquires new traits by mutation, and it is not possible to reproduce any living being exactly (i.e. with mutation probability = 0). While the risk of profound genetic change can be minimized by cloning, genetic change cannot be abolished entirely. Thus, it is possible even in a group of clones that a few of them lack features of the original stock. Consequently, if the identity of cultivars was based on cloning or other propagation methods (rather than on defined features), a plant could be labeled with a cultivar name that was originally given to a different plant. In order to prevent such a shift in the meaning of cultivar names, the definition of cultivars according to the current version of the ICNCP was based on the original descriptions and standards rather than on a propagation method. The advantage is a gain in testability that ensures stability. With the cloning concept, one has to rely exclusively on good horticultural practice and good luck with the inheritance of desirable features, without a possibility to check plants in question (without name tags). Actually, all unnamed plants would have to be discarded if there was no possibility to prove that they were clones of named ones. In contrast, the description/standard concept allows all plants in question to be checked against published data any time. Additionally, favourable features (e.g. pest resistance) may be discovered in plants belonging to a named cultivar a posteriori (i.e. after the original description was published), when there is no way to find out whether the favourable features concern *all* individuals of the cultivar or only a subset. In this case it is better to describe a new cultivar based on the new features (so these features are part of the definition of the cultivar) rather than to maintain the old cultivar name in the weak (and no longer testable) hope that all individuals originally had the features and maintained them through cloning. Kind regards Jan ################### From: andreas@wistuba.com Mon Jan 14 09:46:02 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:45:52 +0100 Subject: AW: CPN I'm still waiting for mine (Germany). Bye Andreas -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: cp@opus.labs.agilent.com [mailto:cp@opus.labs.agilent.com] Im Auftrag von nigel hurneyman Gesendet: Montag, 14. Januar 2002 11:55 An: Multiple recipients of list CP Betreff: CPN Since I'm still drooling with anticipation, have international members of the ICPS received their CPNs yet or is it just the UK that's waiting? Does anyone in the ICPS know what the holdup is? NigelH Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Mon Jan 14 10:22:47 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:22:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: A *relatively short* comment on cultivar names! Hey Folks, I'm finding this spirited discussion of cultivar names interesting! Please recall two issues 1)The rules regarding cultivar name establishment were not devised by Jan or the ICPS. They are international rules developed by a body of horticulturists. So you may not enjoy some aspects of them, but they are the only rules we have, and the ICPS must abide by them or the entire cultivar nomenclature will descend into even greater chaos. 2)The adoption of these cultivar name rules provides little more or less than a way for us to have a better idea of what the cultivars are that we see in books and catalogues. For example, Nick Romanowski has finished writing a nice little book on Sarracenia cultivation, to be released this summer. I've reviewed the book and found about twenty-five bogus cultivar names. The only information about these names might be a photo with a caption that reads something like, "Sarracenia 'Alien Banana' " etc. What is this plant? Who made it? What are its characters? No one can say. If Nick had followed the cultivar naming rules, a lot of these questions could be answered. Later! Barry ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ################### From: MKing1@compuserve.com Mon Jan 14 10:29:45 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:28:17 -0500 Subject: Photo gallery update Dear All, I hope everyone in the northern hemisphere is looking forward to Spring. There is always something to do in the Autumn so for all you Sarracenia fans out there, feel free to look at my updated photo gallery at: http://www.carnivorousplants.uk.com Enjoy! Best wishes Mike King ################### From: sydneycarnivorous@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 12:55:37 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:55:36 +1100 Subject: CP in Borneo Greetings, Has anyone seen any NON-Nepenthes carnivorous plants in Borneo that can give me fairly specific details on where to see them? I'm especially interested in D. indica and terrestrial Utrics. I'll be there in the month of April. I'm also interested in seeing Nepenthes, so if anyone has some specific info on Nepenthes sites I would appreciate a little help there too. Thanks in advance Regards Greg Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. ################### From: sydneycarnivorous@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 13:01:34 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:01:32 +1100 Subject: Drosera stolonifera G'day all, Has anyone had success growing any of the Drosera stolonifera sub species from seed? I have had germination before but I have some seed that I really want to grow and I'm not so sure that my previous methods were the best. I offer a small reward to the person who can help me with this ;-) Thanks Greg Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ################### From: marliac@earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 16:52:08 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:18:15 -0600 Subject: Re: U gibba Ah, keep it wet. :) Wayne >Am I the only person to have had U. gibba and killed it? >Anybody care to share tips on how to keep it going? ################### From: MCATALANI@aol.com Mon Jan 14 17:43:02 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:42:48 EST Subject: Re: Cultivars Hey all, Just a few more quick ideas on cultivars. First, with all of the hooplah from myself and others about being very discriminant when creating new cultivars, we should also withhold useless negative comments about new cultivars. In other words, every time a new cultivar is registered, we don't need to hear that someone has seen thousands of better representations of the particular plant, either in the wild or in cultvation. If that was indeed the case, then you should have gone through the registration process yourself. After all, a cultivar is a "cultivated variety!" What good is there in telling everyone you've seen much better examples of a plant, but there is no way for anyone to aquire the material? Second, in order to keep negative comments at a minimum while at the same time ensuring that only superior cultivars are created, we might be able to come up with a "sponsor" system. The sponsor system is entirely voluntary, as the by-laws in which we are working under for cultivars do not call for it. (And we do not want to create any additional work for the tireless volunteer board members if the ICPS!) The sponsor system could work this way. You could send material of a plant to 5 or 10 other growers. (I would ensure that at least a couple of these folks are well known and well regarded.) These people would grow and evaluate the plant material, check characteristics, and determine if it was cultivar grade. If they agreed, their names would appear on the registration entry (or just on the ICPS cultivar webpage for this plant) as sponsors. This would signal that the sponsors grew the material, and also agreed that it was cultivar grade. Again, a totally voluntary system, but it could help lend more credit to your plant as cultivar grade when it is published, and it will keep negative criticisms down. Finally, since two plants with different heritages can be classified as the same cultivar, I would recommend labeling any material in which the heritage is DIFFERENT than the registered plant. If I receive a cultivar of "hummer's hammerhead" and it is of a different heritage than Johns original cultivar, I need to know that. If I create any further crosses with this plant, I would want to ensure I have the parentage correct. Michael Catalani [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: stovehouse@earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 19:31:39 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:31:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Cultivars > Hey all, > > Just a few more quick ideas on cultivars. First, with all of the > hooplah from myself and others about being very discriminant when > creating new cultivars, we should also withhold useless negative > comments about new cultivars. In other words, every time a new > cultivar is registered, we don't need to hear that someone has seen > thousands of better representations of the particular plant, either > in the wild or in cultvation. If that was indeed the case, then you > should have gone through the registration process yourself. Mike, I have been in support of everything you have said, so you sound like a kiss-up now. No matter how long you look at mud it will not change into chocolate ice-cream Oh say I cross a S. psittacina x rubra and it may be hideous, should I name it,..I don't think so. Because I write a song does that mean I am Elton John? Delores Wyland is pure mutt material for a named cultivar, why it ever saw the light of tissue culture mass production is beyond me. It just proves how much good material in 2002 we are lacking to put forth such gar-bage. After > all, a cultivar is a "cultivated variety!" What good is there in > telling everyone you've seen much better examples of a plant, but > there is no way for anyone to aquire the material? ...human nature, and we are lacking heavy in our specialty line of plants, way behind with tc and having anything but chaos labeled to cp in general. You can't get the material as our numbers are so limited, and have been since I have been with the hobby in the mid 70's. NO growth, no commercial output unlike almost every other horticultural specialty plant, we are the same as in 1988 or earlier. Stagnant. ..Let me rip open a N. truncata "belly": and show you the half eaten and stinky decaying bugs... (the reason is here) > > Second, in order to keep negative comments at a minimum while at the > same time ensuring that only superior cultivars are created, we > might be able to come up with a "sponsor" system. The sponsor > system is entirely voluntary, as the by-laws in which we are working > under for cultivars do not call for it. (And we do not want to > create any additional work for the tireless volunteer board members > if the ICPS!) The sponsor system could work this way. You could > send material of a plant to 5 or 10 other growers. (I would ensure > that at least a couple of these folks are well known and well > regarded.) These people would grow and evaluate the plant material, > check characteristics, and determine if it was cultivar grade. If > they agreed, their names would appear on the registration entry (or > just on the ICPS cultivar webpage for this plant) as sponsors. This > would signal that the sponsors grew the material, and also agreed > that it was cultivar grade. Again, a totally voluntary system, but > it could help lend more credit to your plant as cultivar grade when > it is published, and it will keep negative criticisms down. ... this is sounds good and I agree, but until a commercial market is developed with the bottom line on profits, making the more desirable species/hybrids a commercially available sought after horticultural market forget it. Profits and large numbers of people seeking stock make things change, not a hand full of hobbyist & botanist around the globe. It just doesn't work that way. For one thing the guy ripping open the pitcher of the N. truncata to gross out everyone around them (including the more mature educated well off woman- the hotspot in the horticultural market, who buys the most plant material- does anyone notice how we are missing many woman from our hobby??? Well, the numbers prove we ain't where we should be!!) couldn't care less with his cultivar of S. flava entitled `Blood spot of My mothers grave. This is a general, but also the type of person that could go to lengths to register such a cultivar. Extreme maybe, but from what I've seen not out of bounds by a long shot. ...You know we can talk about all of this cultivar stuff til the cows come home, bottom line sales equal profits, profits dictate how any hobby, class of plant stock moves. If you don't believe me look at the lowly Hurienas-Stapelia's of the succulent class, they move in production sales, species, hybrids,...most smell bad to awful, but they aren't sold that way off the line. There is a commercial demand for plants, well grown hybrids/species- this dictates more tasteful approach to naming cultivars, though confusion for certain exist. ..This isn't limited to Sarracenia. CPN printed a few pure mules of Nepenthes last year. Plants I hope I never have to deal with as a grower. As we stand now if I offered 500 different cultivars of Sarracenia leucophylla, the true collector would want everyone of them, no matter how bad- you know "I have the biggest collection in the world" list to impress someone, most likely themselves. But with commercial propagation of the plants 497 of these cultivars would die off, and leave the cr\350me of the crop. at any rate until we (USA) propagate and produce commercial levels of cultivar Sarracenia this will remain the same. Once and it will happen people see the beauty of Sarracenia but a bug catchers but as ornamentals the naming process will change rapidly, $$$ speak rounds over what we have now. Mike St. Petersburg Florida > Finally, since two plants with different heritages can be classified > as the same cultivar, I would recommend labeling any material in > which the heritage is DIFFERENT than the registered plant. If I > receive a cultivar of "hummer's hammerhead" and it is of a different > heritage than Johns original cultivar, I need to know that. If I > create any further crosses with this plant, I would want to ensure I > have the parentage correct. > > Michael Catalani > > [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] > ################### From: tdstubb@sofnet.com Mon Jan 14 19:57:47 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:57:01 -0600 Subject: ICPN Article Hello all, I am looking for Bill Carroll's cp tissue culture medium formula. I don't have access to ICPN and would appreciate some help. This is the reference I have: Bill Carroll's media (ICPN v11 n4 12/82 pp. 93-96) If you have this particular issue, could you please either post the formula or email it to me? Thank you. Tom Stubblefied ################### From: hkobayashi4@hotmail.com Mon Jan 14 21:01:40 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:01:38 -0600 Subject: Orchid registration system
Nick,
<That is irrelevant to my argument.>
Thanks for clarification, but it was rather unclear to me. I used that example to show how Sander's List is messed up. It may not have been as relevant as I thought, but it was still relevant on the regard that orchid registration system is not that perfect. Ask orchid breeders, and you may be surprised how some of them are frustrated about the system. Is RHS trying to make an effort to improve it (a rhetrical question)?
< Regardless of whether a particular orchid hybrid is registered as Epidendrum Orchid Jungle or Encyclia Orchid Jungle, you still (theoretically) know that all E. Orchid Jungle plants have the same parentage, and furthermore, that all E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are exactly the same clone.>
Small nitpicking: the abbreviation for Encyclia is, Enc., not E. This is a strictly horticultural invention, though. Anyway, how about somaclonal variation? Why do we see so many sports of Blc. Mem. Helen Brown 'Sweet Afton' AM/AOS? Do you know how some clones of Phal. Golden Peoker that are parents of "black" Phalaenopsis showed up through "cloned" populations of 'Brother'?
And if I use the example of vini color Paphs you mentioned, can you be certain all vini color Paph. Maudiae are really Paph. Maudiae, but not a hybrid of Paph. callosum 'Jac,' that may or may not be Paph. callosum? Depending on year, Cattleya harrisoniae was treated as a variety of C. loddigesii by Sander's List. Are we sure all "putative" hybrids of C. lodigesii are in fact hybrids of C. loddigesii? There are varieties of Paph. philippinense most notably, roebelinii. Are we all sure Paph. St. Swithin out there were made with philippinense, not roebelinii?
How about Enc. Orchid Jungle itself? I am not sure if Enc. parviflora is recognized by RHS, but just assume it has not been. Since this is a "variety" of Enc. alata, Enc. parviflora x Enc. phoenicea may be treated as Enc. Orchid Jungle. I often hear when somebody made a remake of old cross, it really did not turn out to look like "the first" batch (e.g., Paph. Peachy). I heard something similar about one of Phrag. bessae hybrid, too.
Or how about dubious clones of a species? There have been some nasty rumor regarding Cattleya walkeriana 'Pendentive.' AM/AOS. Are we that sure if it is really a "pure" species, not a hybrid? And you know it has been extensively used. There is even one on your web page!
Sander's List stopped listing varieties and cultivar names for registration for some time, so, in some case, you aren't so sure what you have. One more example you may be aware is, Ondontglossum hybrids registered in the beginning of breeding. Some times they didn't even list parentage, and it was accepted at that time. And I can go on and on. It is a fair system, but I don't think as robust as you (want to) think.
<you can still be fairly confident that two divisions of E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are the same plant,>
It is just a matter of "confidence level," I guess. If I see the plant divided in front of me, yeah, but if it is from some notorious place like The Orchid XXXXX, nah.
<even though in the orchid system the clonal name 'Big Flower' is informal.>
Informal?
<If I understand the CP cultivar registry correctly, you have no way of knowing whether two plants of Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' are actually the same clone, or even the same hybrid.>
That may be very well correct, I think. But there are ways to test to do this since you wrote there is "no way of knowing......." I am not one, but ask a plant genetist. Of course, it is very nice if we can prevent this from happening to begin with.
<the ambiguity is deliberately built into the system, and not just a result of human failings.>
But then again, there is an ample room for ambiguity in orchid registration system. It's not that stringent. Don't you remember the recent fiasco on Cattalasia Premire? It was a prt of human "failings," but it showed how fragile it can be.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
################### From: hyattenterprises@earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 21:19:43 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:46:53 -0700 Subject: Tucson Orchid Society meeting with Alfred Lau Hi, everybody - Reference Dr. Alfred Lau. We got him here in Tucson this coming Wednesday at the Orchid Society. This will be a real treat for us, and since the email we got from Ed Read didn't mention this, I thought people might like to know. Plenty of room at the meeting, but since we had nearly 300 attendees last meeting, if you want to come you might want to get here early for the 7:30 kick off. Usual meeting place at the Tucson Bridge Club. Dave Hyatt [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: kit@carnivorousplants.nyc.ny.us Mon Jan 14 21:19:55 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:19:36 -0500 Subject: Re: U gibba At 11:25 PM -0800 1/13/02, Andy Falshaw wrote: > >I was tempted to buy some utricularia gibba on ebay today but since it >>is reportedly so easy to grow, > >Am I the only person to have had U. gibba and killed it? You may be, are you sure it was gibba? ;) Seriously, I've killed some easy plants myself, though not U. gibba in particular. I got through the hard part of growing U. intermedia, but lost it to algae in the Spring, & the poor D. rotundifolia I got in May of 2000 never had a chance, so don't feel too bad. >I've not seen it in any local collections lately, so maybe it isn't >that easy to keep going. Anybody care to share tips on how to keep >it going? Water conditions, container size etc? I've only had mine for a month or so, but it seems to be happy. I have 3, 10-Gallon aquariums side-by-side on a shelf. Each one has a dual-tube fluorescent fixture with (2) daylight-balanced F15-T8D* bulbs. 2 of the aquaria are 2 thirds covered with plexi & filled with potted CP. I keep about an inch & a half of water in the bottom, though the level probably varies from 3 quarters of an inch to 2 inches. I dumped some U. gibba into the water between the pots & it's been doing well. HTH, -Kit *F15-T8D translates to "_F_luorescent bulb _15_ Watt _T_ubular _8_ Eighths of an inch in diameter _D_aylight color balance, in case I'm not the only obsessive person on the list. -- Kit Halsted - kit@carnivorousplants.nyc.ny.us Brooklyn, NY, USDA Zone 7a ################### From: gbwong@mindspring.com Mon Jan 14 22:11:04 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:10:56 -0500 Subject: BACPS Meeting on February 2 For those in the San Francisco area, there will be a BACPS meeting on February 2. Meeting: Bay Area Carnivorous Plant Society Time: 12:00 Noon Location: Randall Museum, San Francisco Program: Alfred Lau: "Mexican Pinguicula" ################### From: weststar59@yahoo.com Mon Jan 14 23:56:10 2002 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:56:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: tuberous sundew seddlings I have a question on D. Auriculata seedlings. I planted them in august and they are about 1/2 inch across now. They do not seem to be growing fast for a seasonal plant. The photoperiod is 15.5 hrs, florescent, in a terrarium with a soil mix of 1:1 peat sand with maybe a little more sand. They are in a gallon pot and the soil is kept wet, but not too wet. Should I just dry them out after 7 months or what? Thanks Gene Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ################### From: jpdelx@club-internet.fr Tue Jan 15 01:45:31 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:43:19 +0100 Subject: Astuce... Bonjour @ tou(te)s Pour ceux qui utilisent des enrouleurs (ou la barre de traction) pour enrouler les lignes, j'utilise des attaches de skis (sangle avec du velcro) pour 'bloquer' les fils ?? la fin. C'est mieux qu'un elastique et actuellement on en trouve dans tous les magasins de sport (D4 par exemple) @LPF -----[ Expediteur ]----- Jean Philippe DELCROIX 139 avenue DAMPIERRE 59300 VALENCIENNES - FRANCE mailto:jpdelx@club-internet.fr http://perso.club-internet.fr/jpdelx ################### From: philmann@geo.net.au Tue Jan 15 07:09:17 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:47:00 +0800 Subject: >Since I'm still drooling with anticipation, have international members >of >the ICPS received their CPNs yet or is it just the UK that's waiting? >Does anyone in the ICPS know what the holdup is? >NigelH Wouldn't it be nice for a change to be able to read it "first". Still waiting for mine, but then we are "Down Under". Phill Mann West Aust. ################### From: jgreen@spectrasymbol.com Tue Jan 15 08:35:49 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:33:02 -0700 Subject: Cultivars - S. 'Green Rosette' I have a question regarding one of John Hummer's cultivars in the new CPN. For S. 'Green Rosette' it says: "This cultivar name applies to anthocyanin-free clones of Sarracenia psittacina." Further on it says that it "should be propagated either vegetatively, or by crossing two anthocyanin-free Sarracenia psittacina parents" - so seed is okay in this case. A couple years ago I purchased some seed from Phil Wilson for antho-free psittacina that he called "Green Mutant." So does this mean that I should change the name of my plants to 'Green Rosette'? John Green Salt Lake City, Utah USA http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jsg16 PS note to Hideka Kobayashi: can you change your e-mail setting to "plain text" or something like that? We're getting a bunch of code and stuff with your messages that makes it hard to read. I'm sure what you're saying is useful, but usually I end up just skipping over most of it. :-( ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Tue Jan 15 08:39:17 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:39:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Guinness Records Hey Folks, Thanks for contacting me with information about plant collections. This is what I ultimately sent to Guinness Records. If, in the future, any of you decides that you have a larger collection than D'Amato, I suspect you should go to guinnessrecords.com and find out how to register your "record". Later Barry ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi Kim, Sorry I haven't gotten back to you before. Here is what I can say about the largest collection of carnivorous plants. I've polled a number of horticultural institutions in the world, and found that even the largest do not seem to measure up to the sizes of the largest private collections. Horticultural instutitions just don't have the maniacal dedication that private horticulturists have (alas, heh heh). I've queried the largest carnivorous plant listserve, and have concluded two facts. 1)It is EXTREMELY difficult to quantify what is meant by the "largest" collection. Is a collection with 500 separate plants, each of a different species, larger than a collection of 600 identical plants? This is made even more complex in horticulture when there might easily be 30 noteworthy races of a single species in cultivation (i.e. deeply veined, lightly veined, all red, a little red, etc). 2)My query of horticulturists was woefully incomplete. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to discover that some quiet, very private horticulturist in South Carolina (This profile is entirely fictional, and equally entirely plausible) has over the years amassed a huge collection and may be unknown to the rest of us well-connected horticulturists! 3)Peter D'Amato's collection is, probably about as large as they come. I haven't been able to find anyone with a larger collection! I hope this is of help to you. Cheers Barry ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Lacey Kim wrote: ################### From: miguelporto@mail.telepac.pt Tue Jan 15 10:27:05 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:25:18 -0000 Subject: Have gemmae for trade Hello to all of you! Time has come for pigmies to produce gemmae! I have the following mature species, plus some that I lost the names, some of which are producing gemmae now, others will do it soon. I would like to trade for other species I don't have. Drosera scorpioides pycnoblasta pulchella 'orange' other assorted pulchellas lasiantha dichrosepala sargentii nitidula nitidula x omissa mannii sp. Lake Badgerup sp.1,2,3,4 (lost the names, some have fat gemmae, other thin) I also have seedlings ("gemmaelings") of D. callistos, sewelliae and closterostigma. So, any pigmy species (not hybrid) not mentioned, interests me! Please email me if interested in trading. Thanks, Miguel ################### From: jgreen@spectrasymbol.com Tue Jan 15 11:33:16 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:30:22 -0700 Subject: Bad news for US wetlands FYI... in today's New York Times: "Bush Administration Rolls Back Clinton Rules for Wetlands." Some excerpts are below but read the whole article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/15/politics/15WETL.html. "The new rules would streamline the approval of certain development projects by giving more of them a green light under a general nationwide permit. That permit authorizes a developer to proceed \227 and avoid levels of scrutiny by the public and federal agencies responsible for resource management \227 if the project is said to have minimal impact on the environment." "Under the changes announced today, developers will not be required to provide a one-for-one replacement for the acreage affected by individual wetlands projects, as long as that goal is met in the broader region." John Green Salt Lake City, Utah USA http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jsg16 ################### From: nelhardt@hotmail.com Tue Jan 15 13:15:54 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:15:52 -0800 Subject: u. gibba Actually, may you be consoled by the fact that I just killed mine. Algae got it. How does one control algae anyway? I have mine in my pond/bog, so I can't replace the water every few days. Snails didn't seem to cut it, do I need to get fish? Thanks for any help. Noah Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: curt.onstott@orst.edu Tue Jan 15 14:38:35 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:36:48 -0800 Subject: RE: u. gibba I've heard of people using barley straw to control algae in their ponds. It is supposedly low in nitrogen and phosphorous. The bacteria that break it down pull the N and Phosporous out of the water and deprive the algea. Replacing the water in a pond will result in a worse algea problem within a few weeks because of the dissolved nitrogen in the water. It's best to leave your pond alone and let it turn green for a few weeks in the spring. After the algae bloom dies off the water should stay quite clear. -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:16 PM To: Multiple recipients of list CP Actually, may you be consoled by the fact that I just killed mine. Algae got it. How does one control algae anyway? I have mine in my pond/bog, so I can't replace the water every few days. Snails didn't seem to cut it, do I need to get fish? Thanks for any help. Noah Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ################### From: jorge_jesus@aeiou.pt Tue Jan 15 14:53:21 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:55:54 GMT Subject: Looking for Nahalka,J. Hello to all I would like to know if anyone has the contact of the following author: Nahalka,J.;Nahalkova,J.;Gemeiner,P and Blanarik,P. They did some publication of cell suspension of DL Thanks __________________________________________________________ Mensagem enviada pelo Xekmail: webmail gra'tis do AEIOU http://xekmail.aeiou.pt ################### From: mail@drosophyllum.com Tue Jan 15 15:28:16 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:36:42 +0100 Subject: tuberous sundew seddlings Hi Gene & list, During their growing time (winter) tuberous Drosera should be kept at a cool place with strong light but a photoperiod of LESS than 12 hours a day !! They are winter-growing plants !! My Dr. auriculata seedlings will start dieing back during April/May (here in Germany) because of the longer days and incresing temeprature, even if the soil is kept wet. I have some Drosera auriculata growing in a pot with a young Darlingtonia and the plants are kept wet year around and look amazingly healthy. Picture : http://www.drosophyllum.com/Bilder/V03_auriculata01.jpg I also kept a pot of seedlings wet during last summer and (almost?) all of the plants returned this winter. They are now at the beginning of their 2nd growing season Picture : http://www.drosophyllum.com/Bilder/V03_auriculata02.jpg But you can also keep Dr. auriculata like a "normal" tuberous Drosera and let the soil dry out completly during summer. If you live in the northern hemnisphere you should wait some months. good luck Martin ************** I have a question on D. Auriculata seedlings. I planted them in august and they are about 1/2 inch across now. They do not seem to be growing fast for a seasonal plant. The photoperiod is 15.5 hrs, florescent, in a terrarium with a soil mix of 1:1 peat sand with maybe a little more sand. They are in a gallon pot and the soil is kept wet, but not too wet. Should I just dry them out after 7 months or what? Thanks Gene ################### From: jblakeh1@swbell.net Tue Jan 15 18:21:32 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:21:29 -0600 Subject: Poor delores... I'm dying to see this plant... Does anyone have a photo? On 1/15/02 8:08 PM, "cp@opus.labs.agilent.com"
John Green:
<Hideka Kobayashi: can you change your e-mail setting to "plain text" or something like that? We're getting a bunch of code and stuff with your messages that makes it hard to read. I'm sure what you're saying is useful, but usually I end up just skipping over most of it. :-( >
I think that's how Hotmail is set up (there may be options, though). I am not sure about "we," but I am aware of this. Go ahead and feel free to skip my message if you feel like. I scroll whenever I feel. However, I do read most of messages I am interested.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
################### From: kit@carnivorousplants.nyc.ny.us Tue Jan 15 22:21:13 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 00:54:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Formmat Hi Hideka: I, too, would appreciate it if you could turn off Hotmail's HTML. Your input is valuable, but almost impossible to read. If you have any interest in this, you should be able to turn it off like this: Just go to the Compose page, and click the Tools button on the upper left of the message text, and then select Rich-Text Editor OFF. -Kit At 6:29 PM -0800 1/15/02, Hideka Kobayashi wrote: >
>
>
>John Green:
><Hideka Kobayashi: can you change your e-mail setting to >"plain text" or something like that? We're getting a bunch of code >and stuff with your messages that makes it hard to read. I'm sure >what you're saying is useful, but usually I end up just skipping >over most of it. :-( >
>I think that's how Hotmail is set up (there may be >options, though). I am not sure about "we," but I am aware of >this. Go ahead and feel free to skip my message if you feel like. >I scroll whenever I feel. However, I do read most of messages >I am interested.
Chat with friends online, try MSN >Messenger: Click >Here
-- Kit Halsted - kit@carnivorousplants.nyc.ny.us Brooklyn, NY, USDA Zone 7a ################### From: jan.schlauer@uni-tuebingen.de Wed Jan 16 00:33:25 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:57:17 +0100 Subject: Re: Cultivars - S. 'Green Rosette' Dear John, > A couple years ago I purchased some seed from Phil Wilson for antho-free > psittacina that he called "Green Mutant." So does this mean that I should > change the name of my plants to 'Green Rosette'? Only if your plants are indistinguishable from the described cultivar. Kind regards Jan ################### From: garkoinsf@netscape.net Wed Jan 16 01:29:31 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:29:14 -0500 Subject: seeing is believing Hi everyone-- After hearing about the dread Sarracenia cultivar "Dolores Wyland," I'm curious to see just how hideous the thing is, and why it stands as the lone example of what is wrong with freely describing and naming cultivars. Does anyone have a picture they could send me? BTW, Dolores Wyland was named volunteer of the year (2001) by the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. I don't know why I felt compelled to share that information, but I think the phrase "You oughta be ashamed" has something to do with it. Gary Kong garkoinsf@netscape.net -- "Have a rich life and Haiku will come." --Mamako Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ ################### From: nelhardt@hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 07:20:37 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:20:35 -0800 Subject: d. x obovata & 'ivan's paddle' pics Hi All, I got a horrible pic of the d. 'ivan's paddle' (or whatever it's called) back and posted them in case anyone was interested. I also posted a bad pick of d. x obovata for comparison. Here are the URLs: http://www.spacetowns.com/binata/obovata.jpg http://www.spacetowns.com/binata/paddle.jpg I took what I hope is a better photo them and hope to get it up within a few weeks. -Noah Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ################### From: moper@libero.it Wed Jan 16 08:12:09 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:12:06 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pics_and_info_on_the_Net.?= Hi all, I put on the Net some pictures of Australian CPs and a revised guide for Terrarium construction. I hope to complete the section dedicated to Cooled Terrarium within a few days. The url is: http:/digilander.iol.it/westaustralia/ Cheers, Cristiano -Genova,Italy- ################### From: jgreen@spectrasymbol.com Wed Jan 16 08:42:15 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:39:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Cultivars - S. 'Green Rosette' >Dear John, > > > A couple years ago I purchased some seed from Phil Wilson for antho-free > > psittacina that he called "Green Mutant." So does this mean that I should > > change the name of my plants to 'Green Rosette'? > >Only if your plants are indistinguishable from the described cultivar. > >Kind regards >Jan My confusion comes from the way the article is written - it sounds like 'Green Rosette' should include ALL antho-free psittacinas. I understood that to mean regardless of size or shape differences, which I don't think were detailed in CPN. I'm not trying to complain about the cultivar name or the process (ie. the recent discussion), just in need of some clarification. John Green Salt Lake City, Utah USA http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jsg16 ################### From: bioexp@juno.com Wed Jan 16 09:00:21 2002 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:53:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Help with Cultivar Name >I have seen the plant a lot and here is my latin: drosera x 'corynogemmata', which means, "club-like jewel". It is even more sparkly than the regular x obovata, also more robust I think, really a very very beautiful plant overall. One of my favorites. Noah Hi Noah and all, Call it what you like, just be careful not to get yourself in trouble:-) Good job starting it invitro via leaf tissue Noah. I hope that will help spread this beautiful plant around. Ivan "the paddle man" http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ################### From: smak_420@hotmail.com Wed Jan 16 10:14:26 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:12:37 -0500 Subject: Pruning N. alata.. and strange ruby red tendrils well, The N. alata i have been urging to put forth a baseal shoot finally has done so.. i had the pot mounted sideways for a few months but set it back recently as i had to make room in the terrerium for various vft's and a N. bicalacarta. i noticed first signs of new growth a few weeks ago and it is coming along nicely (on its third internode). But the new shoot seems to have its own root ball attached to the stem a good inch and a bit below the medium line, so how do i trim the old stem when i decide to cut it back, right above the root ball under the medium (this would probably promote stem rot), at the soil line or an inche or so above? also, i'll be cloneing at every second internode on the sections that have leaves, but almost half of the stem is browned and has developed a type of harder bark and has no leaves at all.. can i do anything with this other than possibly TC? i hate to discard even portions of my cp's if i dont have too. and no i dont think stem tea is something i'd care to try ;> and for part 2) it seems the tendrils of the new sprouts develop into the most amazingly vibrant transglucent ruby red in colour.. it does not appear that pitchers will result, but the plant has concentrated on developing a stunning tendril opposed to an actual pitcher.. i find this puzzling as i have only noticed light shades/splotches of red and only on pitchers on the more mature plant. otherwise its a completely green variety of N. alata. is this normal for young shootlets? is there anything i can do to nertuer this characteristic? is that the corrected spelling for nerteur? we'll find out tommorow, same cp time, same cp channel! thanks ################### From: wouter@fibre.a2000.nl Wed Jan 16 10:35:23 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:30:50 +0100 Subject: American CP-grower hi list, Last September an American commercial grower contacted me to ask if I knew someone who can grow several thousands of VFT's for him. I did say no and deleted the e-mail. I work at a nursery in Holland and my boss told me he wanted to grow some Cp's. He knows I have many contacts about Cp's so he asked me to set up a Cp-nursery. It's my purpose to grow not only the common Cp's but also some rareties. Is anyone recognise the American company described above? Take care, Wouter Noordeloos ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 16 11:23:51 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:23:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Killing U. gibba Hey Kit, Andy, I can meet your shameful claim and do one better---I've managed to kill *both* U. gibba, and U. longifolia. Never killed U. subulata, though. Maybe Peter D'Amato has, but I haven't the skill. :) Barry > At 11:25 PM -0800 1/13/02, Andy Falshaw wrote: > > >I was tempted to buy some utricularia gibba on ebay today but since it > >>is reportedly so easy to grow, > > > >Am I the only person to have had U. gibba and killed it? > > You may be, are you sure it was gibba? ;) ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ################### From: bamrice@ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 16 11:28:17 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) XSubject: Killing U. gibba Hey John, Yep. As long as your plant matches the cultivar description, i.e. no red in the leaves, stalk, flower. But if it makes red flowers (for example), it is not Sarracenia 'Green Rosette'. In this case, it would be an unnamed Sarracenia psittacina, since Sarracenia 'Green Mutant' is not an established cultivar name. Here is an example of the cultivar naming at work---you buy or get Sarracenia 'Green Rosette' and as long as the tag is correct (!) then you know what you are getting. Barry >A couple years ago I purchased some seed from Phil Wilson for antho-free >psittacina that he called "Green Mutant." So does this mean that I >should change the name of my plants to 'Green Rosette'? ------------------------ Barry A. Meyers-Rice, Ph.D. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter Conservation Coeditor barry@carnivorousplants.org http://www.carnivorousplants.org ################### From: MCATALANI@aol.com Wed Jan 16 11:30:18 2002 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:28:05 EST Subject: Re: Cultivars In a message dated 1/14/2002 9:35:42 PM Central Standard Time, stovehouse@earthlink.net writes: << Because I write a song does that mean I am Elton John? >> Because I don't like Elton John, does that mean that everyone else wants to hear me name off a thousand other performers who I think are better? <
Owen S.
The CP Bog [HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: Killerplants@aol.com Fri Jan 18 14:01:44 2002 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:01:37 EST Subject: Re: What carnivorous plant genus do you like to most? What? Drosera is ahead of Nepenthes? Either Matt is stuffing the ballot box or he is whining for absolutely no reason. There were only 45 votes when I voted, BTW. Regards, Joe Griffin Lincoln, NE USA Likes sticky rosetted things and Nepenthes almost equally ################### From: baalke@zagami.jpl.nasa.gov Fri Jan 18 17:02:45 2002 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:02:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Guinness Records...aerogel > > >From what the page says, it looks like aerogel would be perfect for > insulation in a greenhouse. just stick it between two panes of > glass, and it would probably last a while. You would still need to > produce it cheaply and effieceintly, but, given enough time, I'm > sure that someone will be able to make it profitable for > greenhouses... or maybe its wishful thinking. > Well, if anyone is interested, we do have a Technology Transfer office here, and I can put you in touch with them. Ron Baalke ################### From: Cpbog@aol.com Fri Jan 18 19:17:28 2002 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:17:20 EST Subject: Re: What carnivorous plant genus do you like to most? Yeah, I know...I was surprised the Drosera was beating out the Nepenthes! I set up a simple protective measure, so that people can't vote more than once. However, it isn't 100% fool proof. Let's just hope the votes can be trusted. Last time I checked, 62 people voted and Drosera is now tied with Sarracenia for 1st place! Nepenthes is number 2, down by 1 vote from Drosera. Heliamphora actually has 4 votes (including 1 that's mine). Owen S.
The CP Bog
www.spacetowns.com/cpbog
[HTML file part2 deleted by listprocessor] ################### From: hkobayashi4@hotmail.com Fri Jan 18 19:43:37 2002 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:43:35 -0600 Subject: Bickering, orchid judging, etc Sean,