On cultivars...

[jake moriarty]

I just finished reading the "Fang" thread in the VFT section here, and I wanted to give my opinion, for what it's worth. I think it warrants a new topic.

First, I'm sure everyone has come across some obviously wacky, useless cultivars. Names like "creeping death," for example, refer to some mythical plant that nobody sells or has a verified pic of (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). Also, obviously dumb names like "vigorous" should clue you in to how... normal the VFT is. Also, "giant." Giant what? Giant traps? Giant in general? Keep in mind that the longer you successfully keep a VFT, generally the more healthy, happy, and vigorous it looks (in my experience).

If you want a vigorous, larger VFT variety, go with the green dragon. But there's an interesting point here. To my knowledge, green dragon is NOT a registered cultivar. And yet here's an obviously cool, pretty distinctive plant! So on the one hand, we have cultivars that are obviously pretty lame. But to buy in to the belief that only registered cultivars are worth pursuing is equally lame. Here are some unregistered ones that prove this point:

Cup Trap--Obviously Distinctive
Fused Teeth--Obviously Distinctive
Green Dragon--Of Course!
Royal Red--Probably registered in Australia though...
Pink Venus--Beautiful new australian all purple cultivar.

I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting...

And here's my personal most-annoying-goofball-cultivar:

Fine tooth x Red

Maybe some of you have this and like it. Kudos. Unfortunately, where are the parent plants?? What typical flytrap have you seen without fine teeth? Do most have fat teeth? And what red? I've heard of royal, regal, dutch, etc etc. D. Muscipula "Red" is a pretty amorphous, nonspecific name.

So I guess my purpose is to demonstrate that trying to find every cultivar out there is a big waste of time as you'll end up with lots of plants that lack distinction from the "typical" variety. But avoid the arrogance of *just* going after the ones that some guy has bothered to punch into a computer. My advice? Look at the pictures, and make sure it looks neat or distinctive, and go for it. Just don't waste time looking for D. Muscipula "Jake Moriarty Giant" and so on.  

Jake

 

[Vertigo]

Fine tooth x Red is a hybrid if i'm not mistaken.

You can find a pic of a 'creeping death' at:

Creeping Death pic

I'd show you a pic of mine, but I need a camera that works (

) and it's still a tad small to truly warrant the name.

 

[larry]

Creeping Death does exists. Whether it really does creep, I don't know. I just recently obtained this plant, so we'll see how it looks at the end of this year.

 

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (jake moriarty @ April 21 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So on the one hand, we have cultivars that are obviously pretty lame. But to buy in to the belief that only registered cultivars are worth pursuing is equally lame. Here are some unregistered ones that prove this point:

Cup Trap--Obviously Distinctive
Fused Teeth--Obviously Distinctive
Green Dragon--Of Course!
Royal Red--Probably registered in Australia though...
Pink Venus--Beautiful new australian all purple cultivar.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not to split hairs but, you have to be cautious with your use of the word, "cultivar." A cultivar is a plant that is described in a published periodical or book and registered with the IRA of that genus. When you mention "cultivar," I think you are referring to plants that aren't registered cultivars. Further, of the plants you mention, 'Fused Tooth' and 'Royal Red' are cultivars, the others aren't (yet&#33

.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comments in the "Fang" post. I agree that some cultivars are lame, and some plants that aren't cultivars are worth pursuing. My point is that, many of the plants that people have informally named are not unique enough to formally name, as a cultivar. Germinate 50 seeds and you'll find plenty of variation in color, size, and habit. While some might be attractive, are they "unique" from the typical variation of vfts? Probably not. This is my argument with many of these vfts that are mentioned. Usually, they are nothing more than typical variation. If I've read your comments correctly, you've stated a similar argument.
The variant, "Creeping Death," looks like it might be etiolated from a lack of light. I understand that the plant is currently being evaluated for this character. In full sunlight if the plant retains these long, thin petioles, it could potentially be published and registered as a cultivar. It's distinctive characteristic is "unique" from the typical. This has nothing to do with it's worth in pursuing. Personally, I like some of the photos of seen of this plant.
imduff

 

[Tony Paroubek]

I agree to some extent but the use of applying a cultivar name even unofficially is fairly straight forward. It allows one to keep genetic lineage and origin intact as plants are propagated and circulated among hobbyist. Whether you give a plant a fancy name or just a number or letter makes no difference. Any time a vegatively propagated plant is circulated it should have some identifying 'name' in my opinion.

Tony

 

[Darcie]

Something has really been bothering me lately. It seems like regardless of which stance I take, someone corrects me. I'm really sick of being caught up in false info and opinyons so I would REALLY like a strait answer from someone who knows the textbook definition. Okay here are the questions:

1)A varient is any registerd or unregisterd cultivar, yes?

2)Is a cultivar a specific clone or any plant that fits the standard?(this is the the big one)

3)What do you call a group of plants that fit a standard but can be reproduced sexually to get more like them?

 

[Vertigo]

On a tangent, it's killing me that on another forum someone's post is asking:

"looking for any of the VFT spider forms"

Notice the plural? This is going to end up causing a whole lot more confusion than just one unregistered name.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Never heard of spider forms.. amazing how someone says something and it just spreads.. like wow a new form.. yeah right.

Uhh not sure what the problem is Darcie.. This is the first post you have made in this topic. To try and answer your questions

A variety does not have to be registered. It is merely a plant differing from the normal type by some observable trait.

In almost all cases a cultivar is a specific plant. ICPS says you can call two plants the same thing even if they are from completely different backgrounds as long as they fit the registered description. I think this is baloney and completely wipes out a plants history.

In the case of a population of plants all breeding true you are actually closer to having genetic uniformity than just calling two unrelated plants the same thing simply because they look similar to our eye. Simply because if they are reproducing sexually and uniform then they must have genetic uniformity or they would not produce a uniform result. I can see here that you would have a single name to differentiate the plants from the typical form.

Tony

 

[Vertigo]

Tony,

As far as I know, the so called spider form has only been seen in one picture from Japan, and looks like it's called that because that's what the tag in the picture says.

Actually, here's the info on it:

Dionaea Muscipula 'Spider'

Longer than normal petioles, and lots of thin teeth on the traps. For overall diameter of plant, this is one of the largest due to the very long petioles. The petioles in later season are very upright, many of them growing absolutely vertical, which makes this plant stand out when grown amongst other VFTs due to the length of the petioles making it look much taller than the rest. I have found the roots of this plant to be unusually short considering how long it's leaves are. Very vigorous.

Doesn't sound too different from some other forms really.

 

[Vertigo]

More confusing... Dionaea muscipula 'Paradisia'?

'Crested Petioles'
'Oxford'
'Long Red Fingers'

....
Seems like people are really just taking an interest.


Even more interesting, most of these unheard of forms come from japan apparently.

 

[schloaty]

Vertigo,
I wonder if these aren't different forms, but difficulties translating Japanese into English?

 

[Vertigo]

Schloaty,

That's the idea that i'm going with. What if 'Spider' was just an elongated giant form? From what i've seen "Giant" doesn't always mean the traps. Heck, I have VFT seeds that are labeled 'Giant Plant' and 'Large Traps'.
I'm just sticking with quite a few of the newer names especially are just synonyms for the same plant in a different country, kind of like slang.
What needs to be done is for someone to actually collect at least a few of these and compare them to registered or at least known of types and forms, and actually make a list of which names are duplicated on a description of a plant. Then maybe we can get a few registered with an actual name so that it's a little less confusing.
If I can get my hands on them, I might just do it. Dionaea muscipula deserves a bit more respect of its forms than it's really gotten. Plus, if someone doesn't clear it all up soon, it looks like it will get worse.

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

I do believe that the ICPS cultivar registration is the best chance to sort out the ID mess. At least it will provide a central data base of photographs with legitimate names attached. If nothing else this would afford a starting point. Until there is a central reference, there will never be any resolution: Dionaea is far too variable both in terms of phenotypic expression and environmental factors affecting this expression, and it is just plain human nature to attempt to segregate these varoius permutations by giving them a new name. I just wish that someone would initiate the process: the system is only as good as growers are willing to make it. Until this happens, there is no option other than personal opinion as to what constitutes a "cultivar", and there are nearly as many personal opinions as there are growers!

 

[jake moriarty]

Thanks for the constructive comments guys. I realize now that I was a bit too quick to make some of the statements in the original post, but I'm glad people are taking interest regardless. Apologies if I misconstrued any of the "Fang" thread.

I am glad, however, that other people agree that some cultivars are just goofy. And I use the word cultivar in the dictionary sense--just a plant that, selected for some quality, had been maintained and propagated. I'm sure more exclusive definitions are around to better suit what I'm trying to get across.

In any case, thanks for the 'Creeping Death' pics. It should be very interesting to see if this plant turns out to be something that always puts out those long petioles.

Jake

 

[Darcie]

Thank you for the dictionary definition. It was the repeat of a common debate, not this one thred that sparked my confution.

As to grouping plants and getting things together, I've already started the process, but it isn't prooving to be easy. I began by collecting images of different so called varients. I was able to cut down the actual number by quite a lot. However, their are a lot of them I can't trust to a photoe and finding the darn things is just about impossible. If anyone finds new places to buy a varient, please, let me know, My list is huge and it's not shrinking fast enough (*sarchasim* woo hoo, I have 2 varients, yae)