TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bart simpson, aka wacky traps
- Thread starter Barry-Rice
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flytrap
I found a picture of one here
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/photos/bart03-1.jpg
Have also seen it described as a mutant of a red dragon.
I'll keep looking to see if I can find something regarding the origin of this.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/photos/bart03-1.jpg
Have also seen it described as a mutant of a red dragon.
I'll keep looking to see if I can find something regarding the origin of this.
there was a thread about it here recently..
the general concensus was that it should be destroyed.
it is obviously a genetic mutant and IMO shouldnt be allowed to weaken the VFT gene pool.
we should strive for beautiful, perfect plants..
this variety is a major step backwards..
In any other type of "breeding program" (like ornamental fish, or even flowers) this would be considered a "cull" and would be destroyed.
this is all (mostly) my opinion..although I know many agree.
besides, it REALLY looks awful! why would anyone even want it? aye carumba!
Scot
the general concensus was that it should be destroyed.
it is obviously a genetic mutant and IMO shouldnt be allowed to weaken the VFT gene pool.
we should strive for beautiful, perfect plants..
this variety is a major step backwards..
In any other type of "breeding program" (like ornamental fish, or even flowers) this would be considered a "cull" and would be destroyed.
this is all (mostly) my opinion..although I know many agree.
besides, it REALLY looks awful! why would anyone even want it? aye carumba!
Scot
Kate
Far too old to grow up now.
BigCarnivourKid
It's been one of dem days
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maehem @ July 09 2003,9
)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Umm.. correct me if I'm wrong but aren't ALL VFT besides the common genetic mutants?
And aren't most ornamental fish also genetic mutants? Goldfish are springing immediately to mind here.....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Umm..yes, and there are are a lot of goldfish varieties that should be culled too!
those bubble-eye fish should have never been created..
Lion-head goldfish often have those hideous growths cover their eyes, rendering them blind, they cant see to eat and slowly starve to death..(but they LOOK cool right?
so people buy them..ensuring they continue to be bred..)
just because we CAN create something doesent mean we SHOULD! IMO this applies to many fish varieties created by humans just for our amusement..
and it applies to the "Bart Simpson:VFT too!
the "parrot cichild" is a man-made freakish nightmare..
(but its CUTE! it SMILES! awww..so ill buy it! )
Discus are being bred, on purpose, without tails!
they can hardly swim!
they are sold as "butterfly discus".
but they will continue to be bred, because people will buy them.
its appaling..
pugs and persian cats are another example..the poor creatures cant even breathe, they were created just for our amusement, because they look "cute"..
grrrrr..
The Venus Fly Trap is an amazing, perfect, beautiful organism (and im not even religious! I fully believe in evolution!
no matter how it was created, the VFT is an amazing, stunning work of art..
as are cats, and dogs, and simple goldfish.
humans really dont need to mess with them!
yes sometimes we can create hybrids that are more robust, (tomatos or corn) or quite beautiful (S. Judith Hindle, yellow Discus) but these arent radically changing the physical FORM of the creature, I dont have a big problem with messing around with colors..as long as the creature is robust and can live a normal life..
but when the creature is stunted or deformed by our actions, and then those deformities are SOLD as a gimmick for profit! (lion-head goldfish and parrot cichlids) thats when I get really cranky..
if the resulting creature is harmed by our meddling, thats when it has gone too far and the creatures should be put out of their misery..the "bart simpson" VFT cant catch bugs! thats the very POINT of a VFTs existance! (someone) created a mutated stunted ugly VFT that cant even function as a carnivorous plant! its a mistake..IMO the bart simpsons are not happy, they are deformed, cant eat, and look very sad..
they are a major step-down from their gorgeous wild brethren.
If I created them, I would destroy them as a genetic mistake that should have never been made...
ok, stepping off the soapbox now!
major rant ending!
(I have said enough..I wont comment again about Bart!
I never said anyone had to agree with me..
Scot
And aren't most ornamental fish also genetic mutants? Goldfish are springing immediately to mind here.....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Umm..yes, and there are are a lot of goldfish varieties that should be culled too!
those bubble-eye fish should have never been created..
Lion-head goldfish often have those hideous growths cover their eyes, rendering them blind, they cant see to eat and slowly starve to death..(but they LOOK cool right?
just because we CAN create something doesent mean we SHOULD! IMO this applies to many fish varieties created by humans just for our amusement..
and it applies to the "Bart Simpson:VFT too!
the "parrot cichild" is a man-made freakish nightmare..
(but its CUTE! it SMILES! awww..so ill buy it! )
Discus are being bred, on purpose, without tails!
they can hardly swim!
they are sold as "butterfly discus".
but they will continue to be bred, because people will buy them.
its appaling..
pugs and persian cats are another example..the poor creatures cant even breathe, they were created just for our amusement, because they look "cute"..
grrrrr..
The Venus Fly Trap is an amazing, perfect, beautiful organism (and im not even religious! I fully believe in evolution!
no matter how it was created, the VFT is an amazing, stunning work of art..
as are cats, and dogs, and simple goldfish.
humans really dont need to mess with them!
yes sometimes we can create hybrids that are more robust, (tomatos or corn) or quite beautiful (S. Judith Hindle, yellow Discus) but these arent radically changing the physical FORM of the creature, I dont have a big problem with messing around with colors..as long as the creature is robust and can live a normal life..
but when the creature is stunted or deformed by our actions, and then those deformities are SOLD as a gimmick for profit! (lion-head goldfish and parrot cichlids) thats when I get really cranky..
if the resulting creature is harmed by our meddling, thats when it has gone too far and the creatures should be put out of their misery..the "bart simpson" VFT cant catch bugs! thats the very POINT of a VFTs existance! (someone) created a mutated stunted ugly VFT that cant even function as a carnivorous plant! its a mistake..IMO the bart simpsons are not happy, they are deformed, cant eat, and look very sad..
they are a major step-down from their gorgeous wild brethren.
If I created them, I would destroy them as a genetic mistake that should have never been made...
ok, stepping off the soapbox now!
major rant ending!
(I have said enough..I wont comment again about Bart!
I never said anyone had to agree with me..
Scot
Well... just my $0.02:
First of all, not having nervous systems, venus flytraps don't feel any sort of pain or inferiority complex just because they have wacky traps. They don't feel or care about anything at all. And furthermore, many biologists would argue that many, many animals do not interpret and think about pain the way we human animals do. I agree that breeding a fish for an obviously debilitating characteristic does seem to have a bit of cruelty attached to it, however.
And not to get on a completely different subject matter, with an exponential population growth, humans ought to "mess with" as many food plants as they can to make bigger, more robust plants to help feed people.
Dogs and cats, for example (perfectly healthy/happy dogs and cats), would not look they way they do today if not for thousands of years of human interaction minutely changing their physical form.
I just think it's a bit quick to judge this cultivar as "weird" or "deformed" when:
a.) The plant certainly couldn't "care" less.
b.) Some people might find the plant lovely; it's relative.
And also, about the plant not being able to catch bugs... flytraps aren't "meant" to catch bugs. They're meant to pass their genes along. And if they end up doing that by a bunch of CP'ers propagating the parent (even if the parent cannot catch bugs), then more power to them.
I don't want to start an argument or anything, just a difference of opinion.
Jake
First of all, not having nervous systems, venus flytraps don't feel any sort of pain or inferiority complex just because they have wacky traps. They don't feel or care about anything at all. And furthermore, many biologists would argue that many, many animals do not interpret and think about pain the way we human animals do. I agree that breeding a fish for an obviously debilitating characteristic does seem to have a bit of cruelty attached to it, however.
And not to get on a completely different subject matter, with an exponential population growth, humans ought to "mess with" as many food plants as they can to make bigger, more robust plants to help feed people.
Dogs and cats, for example (perfectly healthy/happy dogs and cats), would not look they way they do today if not for thousands of years of human interaction minutely changing their physical form.
I just think it's a bit quick to judge this cultivar as "weird" or "deformed" when:
a.) The plant certainly couldn't "care" less.
b.) Some people might find the plant lovely; it's relative.
And also, about the plant not being able to catch bugs... flytraps aren't "meant" to catch bugs. They're meant to pass their genes along. And if they end up doing that by a bunch of CP'ers propagating the parent (even if the parent cannot catch bugs), then more power to them.
I don't want to start an argument or anything, just a difference of opinion.
Jake
NickHubbell
It’s a trap!
I think the simple point here is that the plant is deformed and cannot function as an insect trap. If the plant is allowed to live, and its is then pollinated with normal plant, the resulting plant could carry on these genetic mutations and weaken the overall populations of plants. Even if not bred with other plants, if it were to be placed into tissue culture for mass production, it would cause a decrease in the interest in carnivorous plants because "it did not work they way the tag said it would."
As far as making food products bigger for human consumption. As anyone actually looked at the amount of food that this Country (USA) actually produces? We produce much more than we need and even pay out farmers not to produce crops because it would weaken the markets. I have also read news stories about food stores ( stock piles of corn, beans, etc ) destroyed because they could not be sold due to overproduction. How many of us toss out leftovers, eat too much or simply just don't eat all that we have put on our plates. If you look around, you will see that our food supply is more than enough, we just want more and more so we can toss more of it. This extra should be allowed to go to those areas that need help. Either within those areas of the United States that need help, or in other Countries.
I believe the biggest goal of genetic experimentation with food crops is to produce plants that are more disease and drought tolerant. This way crops that would normally perish in harsh conditions could be grown in those same areas and yield usable amounts of food.
A plant that is deformed and therefor unable to function fully, cannot survive long term.
Dogs and cats have been bred over time and many of the results have been successful. However, how many results have been terminated because the animal couldn't walk, see, eat, pee, etc. How many of these animals end up in shelters or just tossed on the street because they do not meet certain criteria for being perfect. The same has been applied to fish, but it appears to be reversed, the more hideous the animal, the better it is for profits.
One can only imagine what types of mutants we would have if we bred humans the same way.
As far as making food products bigger for human consumption. As anyone actually looked at the amount of food that this Country (USA) actually produces? We produce much more than we need and even pay out farmers not to produce crops because it would weaken the markets. I have also read news stories about food stores ( stock piles of corn, beans, etc ) destroyed because they could not be sold due to overproduction. How many of us toss out leftovers, eat too much or simply just don't eat all that we have put on our plates. If you look around, you will see that our food supply is more than enough, we just want more and more so we can toss more of it. This extra should be allowed to go to those areas that need help. Either within those areas of the United States that need help, or in other Countries.
I believe the biggest goal of genetic experimentation with food crops is to produce plants that are more disease and drought tolerant. This way crops that would normally perish in harsh conditions could be grown in those same areas and yield usable amounts of food.
A plant that is deformed and therefor unable to function fully, cannot survive long term.
Dogs and cats have been bred over time and many of the results have been successful. However, how many results have been terminated because the animal couldn't walk, see, eat, pee, etc. How many of these animals end up in shelters or just tossed on the street because they do not meet certain criteria for being perfect. The same has been applied to fish, but it appears to be reversed, the more hideous the animal, the better it is for profits.
One can only imagine what types of mutants we would have if we bred humans the same way.
Lets get back to the topic please. Whether you like it or not or your views on breeding for specific traits, the question was does anyone know how this plant came into existance. I don't want this to get into a heated argument about what is good/bad moral/immoral breeding etc. So lets just keep it that everyone is entitled to their opinion on these other matters.
Tony
Tony
I am going to offer a 100% purely hypothetical guess on the plants origin. At least it is an educated one..
Or you might say. If I was a betting man. Then my bet would be that it came out of a batch of TC plants. While severe mutations do occur in seed grown populations or to established plants, it is a very very low occurance and often the plants don't survive it. Plants undergoing rapid replication in callus form are far far more likely to have a mutation occur. Coupled with the ideal growing environment, these plants live and then enter cultivation.
Tony
Or you might say. If I was a betting man. Then my bet would be that it came out of a batch of TC plants. While severe mutations do occur in seed grown populations or to established plants, it is a very very low occurance and often the plants don't survive it. Plants undergoing rapid replication in callus form are far far more likely to have a mutation occur. Coupled with the ideal growing environment, these plants live and then enter cultivation.
Tony
The original question by Barry was
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone know about the origin of the "Bart Simpson" Venus flytrap? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Stefan Ploszak gives the answer on his web page
http://hometown.aol.com/lulibybb/vftm.html
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Bart Simpson" flytrap has been in limited distribution since around 1996. Not yet formally named, it has also been called, "wacky traps." ... This plant was first isolated by Thomas Carow.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone know about the origin of the "Bart Simpson" Venus flytrap? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Stefan Ploszak gives the answer on his web page
http://hometown.aol.com/lulibybb/vftm.html
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Bart Simpson" flytrap has been in limited distribution since around 1996. Not yet formally named, it has also been called, "wacky traps." ... This plant was first isolated by Thomas Carow.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey Bob, et al., for information about the Bart Simpson plant.
I have a few comments about this controversial (!
plant.
First, plants that show monstrous mutations like this can be useful entities to botany, because the mutations sometimes reveal how things have developed. For example, plants with petals that have been replaced by leaves are mutants that hint at how all floral organs are derived, ultimately, from leaves.
I'm not saying that ancient VFTs once looked like the Bart Simpson plant, but I am saying that monstrosities can have value to science, regardless of their horticultural or aesthetic values.
Second, I don't really think that we have to worry too much about Bart Simpson plants somehow damaging wild populations of plants. If some Bart Simpson seeds got into the wild, the facts that the plants can't trap prey, and (to add insult to injury) have smaller-than-normal leaves that, as a result, don't have as much photosynthesizing area, would STRONGLY weigh against the plants in the wild. They'd likely get removed from the gene pool pretty quickly.
Lastly, one person's junk is another person's treasure, as we're seeing on this list. Having a cultivar name is not necessarily a stamp of excellence. It can also be a tool that simplifies and clarifies discussions.
My $.02.
Interesting discussion!
Cheers
Barry
I have a few comments about this controversial (!
First, plants that show monstrous mutations like this can be useful entities to botany, because the mutations sometimes reveal how things have developed. For example, plants with petals that have been replaced by leaves are mutants that hint at how all floral organs are derived, ultimately, from leaves.
I'm not saying that ancient VFTs once looked like the Bart Simpson plant, but I am saying that monstrosities can have value to science, regardless of their horticultural or aesthetic values.
Second, I don't really think that we have to worry too much about Bart Simpson plants somehow damaging wild populations of plants. If some Bart Simpson seeds got into the wild, the facts that the plants can't trap prey, and (to add insult to injury) have smaller-than-normal leaves that, as a result, don't have as much photosynthesizing area, would STRONGLY weigh against the plants in the wild. They'd likely get removed from the gene pool pretty quickly.
Lastly, one person's junk is another person's treasure, as we're seeing on this list. Having a cultivar name is not necessarily a stamp of excellence. It can also be a tool that simplifies and clarifies discussions.
My $.02.
Interesting discussion!
Cheers
Barry
Mutations happen! If we cause it or nature causes it. In the wild if "new bread" has mutation it will either survive and create more or die off. Humans tend to create mutations and try to keep it alive. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Mutation is a way of adjusting to the surroundings or adapting to better fit its self.
That is my two Euro dollars - US dollar is to cheap
,
Travis
That is my two Euro dollars - US dollar is to cheap
Travis
