What's new
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!

  • #41
I didn't dodge your question at all, I said of course it's ok. I don't mind you answering questions at all. I don't know why you feel that I "challenged" you, because I didn't. In fact, this was between Rob and I, until you felt it your moral duty or some other such nonsense to jump in on behalf of everyone else, or at least that's the idea you're insinuating. So even though you're opposing my views and whatnot, I'd like to thank you mr. crusader on behalf of everyone else.

Its absolutely fine for you to question and challenge me if you want, but I think you're missing the point that there is a difference between challenging someone's views on something, and trying to dissect every single word. One of those is benefical and helps the greater good, the other is straight up annoying. While you did raise a good point or two, most of your abitrary dissection of every single word falls under the latter.
 
  • #42
PK, you can't really accuse Pyro for dissection, because that is what you did to Dave's instructions. Well, you can, but that would be hypocritical.
Or did you not dissect and separated each point to make your objection, IYO, on that particular point? Well Pyro did the same thing there.
So is it dissection and nitpicking, or is it challenging the post? I guess it's up to the individual to decide.


:headwall:

I had no idea what I would be starting by introducing this thread.

Cheers,

Joe
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Some of pyro's dissection was good when it was actually challenging a point. When it comes down to debating every single written word...well we can speculate each other to death.
 
  • #44
I don't know why you feel that I "challenged" you, because I didn't.

You argued that things I said were wrong, irrelivant, innacurate, etc. That is a challenge. Unless of course I just decide to ignore it but I have seen what happens when someone does not take the time to address a point you make. You bring up the fact that they did not address it at a later date and then try to warp that around against them.

In fact, this was between Rob and I

So let me understand what you are insinuating... A post on a public forum that was started by someone else and contributed to by many others and it is only between you and Rob? What happened to:

Is it alright for you or anyone else to do whatever they want...because it's the INTERNET.

I guess it is only okay to post in a thread when it suits your means.

until you felt it your moral duty or some other such nonsense to jump in on behalf of everyone else, or at least that's the idea you're insinuating.

No that is not what I am insinuating (I do not think that word means what you think it means.) I jumped in with a simple comment on how I knew someone with years of personal experience and knowledge on the matter as well as the education to back it up had personally used the dark method. I was not crusading or jumping in on someones behalf. I was constructively contributing to the conversation. You still relegated that to "armchair" knowledge. Challenge made. I replied, challenge met. And here we are.

So even though you're opposing my views and whatnot, I'd like to thank you mr. crusader on behalf of everyone else.

Ah, name calling. The sign of a true intellectual


I am bowing out, this is as pointless and futile as arguing with the southern end of a north bound mule. And I'd rather not see this thread become another case of Godwin's Law.

Good day sir.
 
  • #45
nvm i don't feel like carrying this on
 
Last edited:
  • #46
When you plant exactly 30 seeds of the same exact cross in two different pots and place them in the same exact humidity and temperature, but one pot is right next to lights, and the other is in a shady corner, and you get germination in the pot that was right next to the lights, but none in the pot that was in shade....well that's pretty conclusive.

I have to point out here, that you say the same temperature. Were those temps measured at soil level? My bet is that the shady seeds were actually quite a few degrees cooler than the bright ones - lights do tend to give off heat.

I bet it's the heat that gave you the germination, not the light.
 
  • #47
When you plant exactly 30 seeds of the same exact cross in two different pots and place them in the same exact humidity and temperature, but one pot is right next to lights, and the other is in a shady corner, and you get germination in the pot that was right next to the lights, but none in the pot that was in shade....well that's pretty conclusive.

You beat me to it schloaty! Temperature.

PK, at one time you told me I should take Basic Genetics 101, maybe you should consider Basic Science 101. To get conclusive results from any scientific experiment of this sort you need a control, which is entirely lacking. You have said elsewhere that your temperatures and humidity vary wildly, or similar wording. Also, as has been pointed out by Pyro, it's rather difficult to run any sort of statistical study with n=1. Yes, there may have been 30 seeds in each pot but they are treated as 2 batches. Any pathogen or environmental condition in either pot that inhibits germination will affect all 30 seeds in that pot.

Your "pretty conclusive" result with 2 pots is therefore practically meaningless IMO. Sure, it's an experience worth posting if you wish, but not sufficient evidence to come out and dissect and then shoot someone else's ideas down in flames.

Schloaty's comment about the temperature is the first thing that occurrred to me too. Also, if you are not keeping the pots at a constant temperature and if they are covered, there will probably be condensation in the shady pot. Ever heard of "damping off"? The fungi that cause this can wipe out seedlings so fast that you may be fooled into believing they never germinated at all unless you get your magnifying glass out.

Sorry, don't buy it. Your experience in this case is not sufficient evidence to come out and dissect and demolish someone elses ideas. If, as an academically qualified scientist, you think your 2 pots constitute a valid scientific experiment, then well, words fail me....
 
  • #48
Update!!

There is germination in both boxes! :boogie:

The box under light has got a patch of algae which I will remove later but generally there are at least 2-3 seeds which germinated over the past week. I'll monitor and let all of you know if the conditions encourage different rates of germination.
 
  • #49
I don't cover my pots. Temp in my chamber is also pretty constant, but changes slighty vertically. Both pots were on the same level and I put a thermometer on top of the pots to measure temp, so it was about a quarter to a half inch above soil level. I didn't mean for that to be an "experiment", its just something I did a few times (mostly due to space limitations) and the results were good enough for me to keep growing the seeds in high light. I love how I'm awful for dissecting something someoen esle did, but its cool to do it to me. I don't see any replication in Dave's thing either. Interestingly enough, I've seen many an actual experiment done on orchids with no replication, and those ended up getting published, quoted, etc...
 
  • #50
Update!!

There is germination in both boxes! :boogie:

The box under light has got a patch of algae which I will remove later but generally there are at least 2-3 seeds which germinated over the past week. I'll monitor and let all of you know if the conditions encourage different rates of germination.

Good! Your seed was fresh enough then.

Greetings from Kuching where Diana and I are busy being tourists. We went to the beach yesterday. Made a nice change!
 
  • #51
Hi Rob! Glad to hear that you two are enjoying the beach. :-O

Update!
Box under light: 19 seedlings
Box in shade but on top of florescent tube for warmth: 7 seedlings

I will carry on the conditions for another week. Then the seedlings will be removed and put into a more permanent pot before they grow too much roots.
 
  • #52
Update! :boogie:
Box under light: 27 seedlings
Box in shade but on top of florescent tube for warmth: 16 seedlings
 
  • #53
Is the soil. temp the same in both groups?
 
  • #54
JLAP, I can't be exactly sure. It is a lousy experiment to begin with. Both boxes have the same temperature and light conditions for 12 hours. For the next 12 hours, the light is turned on. The box under the light is on top of a pot, thus it should be cooler at the soil region compared to the one on top of the lights for warmth. However, because the box is under light, heat could be trapped in the box and it could be warmer overall.

But as far as I can see, the rate is significantly different with light and/or more heat. I wished I had carried out the experiment more accurately but I was away for a while and the seeds germinated in that couple of days.
 
  • #55
This may work for some, but is uneccessarily complicated. I sprinkle Nepenthes seed right over the medium in pots or trays. I place them right next to my adult Nepenthes. I let rainwater fall on them. I water them overhead when it doesn't rain. And I fertilize them. They get 50% shade only. I do live in south Florida...this also helps.
 
  • #56
Oh and by the way. I have a degree in International Relations. So I can tell you that the Germans and the British have, in the past, had stormy relations.
 
  • #57
Manny,
Do you just use your normal medium the adult plants are in?

Cheers,

Joe
 
  • #58
Hi Joe. I do not. I use a heavier mix that won't dry out as fast. It is a mixture of peat and perlite. Occassionally I'll also add sphagnum and vermiculite (the latter only because I have it around).
 
  • #59
Very interesting Update!
Box under light: 38 seedlings
Box in shade but on top of florescent tube for warmth: 37 seedlings
 
Back
Top