Sarracenia silwia, sylvia or silvia?

[ShoalCreek]

Hi-

In regard to the above stated hybrid, (or cultivar?) - what is the correct spelling?

An internet search just lead me in circles.

Thanks!!

Best regards, Lisa

 

[nimbulan]

As far as I'm aware, there is a 'Silvia Luise' (probably not what you're looking for) and a "Sylwia"

 

[hcarlton]

If you're talking about the purp hybrid that's appeared recently, seems to be "Silwia;" however, it's not a trademark name nor registered as a cultivar so it's invalid and unofficial anyway.

 

[hcarlton]

I should also add: the one person I've seen selling this plant on eBay has also regularly mislabeled S. x swaniana as x catesbaei and ignored all attempts to correct the ID, so I am leaning toward ignoring the name altogether.

 

[Steve Booth]

The CP photofinder (a great resource) Sarracenia photos lists “Sylwia” as a Purpurea venosa (not a cultivar) or a similar name as ‘Silvia Luise’ (a cultivar) as a moorei, take a look and see if it is anythiong like it should be.
Cheers
Steve

 

[nimbulan]

I'm wondering if the person selling the "Silwia" on eBay is actually just misspelling "Sylwia." It's still a cultivar, just not a registered cultivar.

 

[ShoalCreek]

Thanks for the replies and the info on x catesbei. I bought that one too from her.

When I receive Silwia or whatever.... tomorrow, I will research it further.

Best regards, Lisa

 

[hcarlton]

I'm wondering if the person selling the "Silwia" on eBay is actually just misspelling "Sylwia." It's still a cultivar, just not a registered cultivar.

Without being registered officially it cannot technically be referred to as a cultivar, so no, it is not. A coined name for a plant someone picked out, perhaps, but as someone else could more than easily take the name and apply it to another plant and register it officially, it has no validity.

 

[Steve Booth]

Without being registered officially it cannot technically be referred to as a cultivar, so no, it is not. A coined name for a plant someone picked out, perhaps, but as someone else could more than easily take the name and apply it to another plant and register it officially, it has no validity.

Perfectly correct and the reason it is in double quotation marks rather than single, as single designates cultivar status.

Cheers
Steve

 

[fredg]

CULTIVAR noun. Botany. A plant variety that has been produced in cultivation by selective breeding.

Now that is the English definition and it says nothing about being registered. So a cultivar is a cultivar and a cultivar that is registered is a registered cultivar.
It also rules out many so called 'registered cultivars' as invalid as they are not produced by selective breeding but are in their natural form.

Single quotations designate a 'Registered Cultivar'
Double quotations designate an "Unregistered Cultivar"

 

[nimbulan]

There are a number of definitions for "cultivar" and I think the most accurate is "A variety of a plant that has been created or selected intentionally and maintained through cultivation" which encompasses both naturally occurring cultivars like Sarracenia leucophylla 'Hurricane Creek White' as well as hybrids.

 

[fredg]

There are a number of definitions for "cultivar" and I think the most accurate is "A variety of a plant that has been created or selected intentionally and maintained through cultivation" which encompasses both naturally occurring cultivars like Sarracenia leucophylla 'Hurricane Creek White' as well as hybrids.

And that doesn't mention 'Registered' at all. There appears to be a widespread belief that a Registered cultivar is superior to one that is not. That like many widespread beliefs is pure bunkum.

 

[hcarlton]

Nothing that says an unregistered plant is inferior to a registered one (there are registered plants that were better on the trash heap), but there's no safeguard with an unregistered plant against someone stealing the name out from under the originator of the name, and by the ICRA guidelines an unregistered name is not recognized (trademarks being a different story and a new mess altogether). Perhaps I should have made my wording more along the lines of: unless registered, the cultivar does not have an official name, just a marker that can still be used by anyone for any plant. It's still a "cultivated variety," but nothing to protect its recognition.

 

[fredg]

Perhaps I should have made my wording more along the lines of: unless registered, the cultivar does not have an official name, just a marker that can still be used by anyone for any plant. It's still a "cultivated variety," but nothing to protect its recognition.

Then you have to address the number of 'fakes' of registered cultivars that are in the hobby. Where's the protection there?

 

[hcarlton]

Traceability and knowledgeability, i.e. be able to find with ease the plant's origins that you are buying (reliable sellers generally know such info), and know what the cultivar you are buying actually looks like. There are a few imposters out there, but rarely do any of them actually manage to match the actual cultivar. The system in place is not perfect (and never will be to prevent attempted imposters), and that's where grower responsibility comes in.
In the case that one does match, technically the cultivar name can be applied in many situations since cultivars are typically based on appearance and, to a lesser extent, particular parentages (many cultivar names are passed on via seeds due to this detail, or can be recreated as is stated explicitly in descriptions such as the one for S. 'Alucard').

 

[fredg]

So you're saying that the Registrant's stipulations on how the cultivar should be propagated are irrelevant. If it looks like it, it is it? Great protection there then.
As for plant origins, please don't make me laugh. Nowadays there's serious money in many of the plants. If a lot money is changing hands then I'm afraid there will be/are so called 'reliable sellers' that really aren't.
Conclusion:- The system is broken/doesn't work. :-(

 

[osito]

Sorry to bump this old thread but I'm looking for info on this "cultivar".

It's mentioned to be a hybrid but I can't seem to find much info on it.

Is it a purp x venosa or what?

 

[bluemax]

Bob Ziemer, who hosts the Carnivorous Plants Photofinder, lists Sarracenia "Sylwia" as an unregistered cultivar of S. purpurea venosa. You can find that page and all the photo links on it here: http://cpphotofinder.com/sarracenia-sylwia-16132.html