S. rosea?

[nepenthes_ak]

Whats the Difrence Between S. Rosea and S. purpurea?

cheers

 

[Statik2426]

S. rosea is/was also known as S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii (or is it burkei?)

This is what I was told 4 year ago:
"They [rosea] get bigger, much redder, hairier and have pink flowers.  Very pretty plants I think.  Otherwise, they are just the same as venosa."

I also heard the flowers grow on shorter stalks and have smaller petals.

 

[Kirkscoastalcarnivores]

S. rosea is a form of purp. It used to be S. purpurea ssp. Venosa ?? Burkeii I have no idea why they changed it

 

[nepenthes_ak]

thats odd... oh well thanks i was just curious it looks almost similar... except for a few notable things..

cheers

 

[Pyro]

There was a CPN article detailing the reason for classifying it as a seperate species a couple years back. I checked the ICPS site and I think this is the one: September 2003 Issue (#32:3)

 

[Alvin Meister]

It still is S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii. No way is it unique enough to be classified as a whole separate species. I recall Schnell said it hinged on the thickness of the pitcher lip, which varies anyway. S. flava var. rugelii has a wider neck on average, but we classify that by a whole different species.
The S. rosea name should be binned.

Rant over

Anyway, var. burkii has a white flower style and petals that vary from white through to pale pink and bright magenta. The pitchers tend to have thicker lips, larger more undulating hoods and the colour is usually more of a uniform pink or pink with red veins.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

thanks for the clarification!

Cause sarracenia northwest is selling s.rosea..

not right now but will be

Cheers

 

[BobZ]

Quote[/b] (nepenthes_ak @ April 07 2006,9:31)]thanks for the clarification!

Cause sarracenia northwest is selling s.rosea..not right now but will be

Let me add to the clarification/confusion. Here is what Barry Rice wrote in CPN 32(3):72

Quote[/b] ]A recent paper by Naczi et al. (1999) validly published the name Sarracenia rosea for a plant already bearing the name Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii. You are free to use whichever of these two names you think is more appropriate. If you feel that this plant is a member of the species Sarracenia purpurea, then you would call it Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii. If you feel it is different enough to warrant being called a separate species, you could call it Sarracenia rosea. I have been contacted by a number of people who think it should be considered a separate subspecies -- however, names "Sarracenia purpurea subsp. burkii" or "Sarracenia purpurea subsp. rosea" have not been published in accordance with the ICBN, so using either would be only creating another illegitimate name, and more confusion.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

wow... kinda contraversial... kind of like VFT cultivators right?

Cheers

 

[Pyro]

I actually cited the wrong CPN. The one with the article is from 2002.

In the article they note that, aside from the phenotypical differences, S. rosea consistantly fell out as the outgroup genetically when compared to S. pupr. purp., S. purp venosa, and S. purp venosa montana.

FWIW, I use rosea because it is quicker/easier to type.

 

[Alvin Meister]

If these things were so clear cut we'd have the rubra complex sorted out by now.

I'm with Donald here - rosea is out.

 

[philcula]

Quote[/b] (Alvin Meister @ April 07 2006,7:35)]the colour is usually more of a uniform pink or pink with red veins.

The form I grow is a deep maroon with pitchers up to 12 inches long and large enough to fit your hand in. The flowers are bright pink, on very short stems and enormous. It also hates cold weather. I originally received this plant 10 years ago as Sarracenia purpurea "Louis Burke"...FWIW.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

Hmmm so its not as cold tolerant as Other Sarr's?

Debate debate!

cheers

 

[Bugweed]

What debate? Whatever you choose to call the plant, we all know what you are talking about, so what does it matter?

 

[Trent]

Right Bugweed!

The plant doesn't know...

The only reason it has a name in the first place is so we (humans) can communicate with each other.  Very good point Bugweed.

We have seen literally hundreds of them in bloom at the same time in Apalachicola National Forest.  The flower colors range from the palest pink, almost white, to deep rich orchid purple.
This is the right time of year to see them in bloom.  Here are some pics taken mid April of 2004.  It's a good thing these plants were blooming, otherwise we would have a hard time finding them because they're so low to the ground.  

We think it's a sub species of purpurea, but whatever you want to call it is cool with us.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

Ill just stick to calling it S. purpurea s.sp. Rosea if i get it, or would that be a bad identification of it? Neat photos by the way

Cheers

 

[Alvin Meister]

You can't just make up names. That's how growlists get messed up and the situation arises where people buy plants and a plant they already own arrives.

Please use only S. rosea or S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

sounds goud, ill just use S. rosea then! Thanks

cheers