Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:21:50 EST From: MCATALANI@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg4019$foo@default> Subject: giant forms
<< However,
please do not generalize that these varients' traits
can be reversed by simply growing the plants
side-by-side. Doing so could definitely help us
understand the plants better, but only when done under
significant scientific scrutiny! Bruce>>
Actually i am not totally disagreeing with what you said, all I'm saying is
that I am not convinced that there are true "giant" forms of psittacina or
cephalotus. S. minor on the other hand has a couple of characteristics that
are very different between the typical and giant forms. Every S. psittacina
"typical" i've received on the other hand seems to grow into what is known as
the giant form. So, i'm not trying to be vague, nor am i disagreeing that
there isnt a true giant form of S. psittacina or cephalotus, I'm just saying
i'm not convinced of it yet....but what i am saying is that in 25 years of
growing these plants, S. minor "giant" has traits that are easily reconizable
from the typical form (especially in the size, hence "giant" is a proper
designation), whereas the psittacina and cephalotus that i grow do
not...psittacina grows the smallest in drier peat mixes, larger in very wet
peat mixes, and very large in waterlogged sphagnum moss (and to some degree,
even larger in live sphagnum)..
<However, please do not generalize that these varients' traits
can be reversed by simply growing the plants
side-by-side. Doing so could definitely help us
understand the plants better, but only when done under
significant scientific scrutiny!>
I totally agree, but i would rather the scientific work be done before the
plant is given a name, especially "giant"....this is where confusion
begins...it would be much better (in my opinion of course, for what its
worth) if the psittacina plants were designated as okeefenokee first (to
separate by geography where they are found), then we can all call them
"giant" after scientific investigation finds that they are worthy of a giant
status...in any case, all of this was my opinion anyway...all i was saying is
that while the giant form of minor is a much larger plant worthy of its
designation, the typical psittacina grows into a larger plant under wet
sphagnum moss conditions...if the so called "giant" form of psittacina has
any other special characteristics, they should be noted...but I havent been
convinced that they should be called giant...if anyone has any information on
this, I would love to know about it....I'm not saying that there isnt a true
"giant" form of psittacina...i just havent been convinced yet...
Michael Catalani
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:08 PST