47 replies to this topic

[will9]

Tha_Reaper, on 5th June 2010 - 12:40 PM, said:

then thats ok... and seriously... i'm through with your thinking that people that try to help and explain things are against you or something. patience and being able to take some critics and hints are virtues that you will really need....

This are not carnivore ,but why some people think i have no patience?
Make this by myself ,it s 2,20 m long and made totally on scale 1:100,not a build packet only the plan,allmost a year work,it s another hobby off me,
It s not a question off patience ,it s a question of time that left for me!
the most members are between 12 and 30 years old,she have plenty off time and meaby plenty patience to, i feel very old whit my 56 years and realise me that i not have plenty off time left,not the time for cultivate all carnivores from seeds ,i did this 20years ago whit cacti.Most people i know above 70 can not do match anymore,the most are dead allready.So i supoose ,meaby 20 years left for me if i have lucky.


cheers Willy

Edited by will9, 05 June 2010 - 13:19 PM.

[DaveC]

will9, on 5th June 2010 - 08:57 AM, said:

Please people raed what i say

Willy,

I think you should try reading what everyone else has been saying!

Put as simply as possible, to get a cultivar you need a mummy plant and a daddy plant to make baby plants. If one of those baby plants looks different to it's mummy, daddy, brothers and sisters and remains this way then you may have a cultivar.

You cannot produce a cultivar by getting a named plant and treating it badly until it looks different.


Dave

[will9]

DaveC, on 5th June 2010 - 13:23 PM, said:

Willy,

I think you should try reading what everyone else has been saying!

Put as simply as possible, to get a cultivar you need a mummy plant and a daddy plant to make baby plants. If one of those baby plants looks different to it's mummy, daddy, brothers and sisters and remains this way then you may have a cultivar.

You cannot produce a cultivar by getting a named plant and treating it badly until it looks different.


Dave

Hi Dave totaly agree,but how many cultivars are there that nobody knows where she came from?Japanees growers are experts in this .you must not say what are the parents .It s from no matter where she came from ,i know some guy that cultivate plants in TC (haworthia )he have find some treatment that plants chanced a lot,color and shape.These plants are all sales for gastronomic sums,nobody want to know from where or how she are made ,it s only matter how the plants looks like! i mention many times in this topic .What to doo whit offsets that become yellow and green?Or whit monstruose or cristate forms?Cristate is most off the time becausse the plant is treat very bad! Is the plant intresting for the market or not ,thats the question ,and i think i have many times get answhere in this topic ,it s for sure not ,so i say it again for the fifht time ,i have no more intensions for make some cultivar of this.
No one is waiting for a plant like this,   So  
Cheers Willy

[mantrid]

will9, on 5th June 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

This is the same like this ,you become your plant as red dragon ,it must stay red dragon for so far i have understud,you may not give a name in this case ,so i supoose petit dragon is not exist.
B52 is a cultivar because he is bigger then normal,i see yesterday a plant a few  years old and looking smaller as a normall,meaby wrong cultivate condition?
If i see on fotofinder i see many different plant from one cultivar ,i think everybody can see this,must a cultivar not allways are tesame ?Normally there is only one clone ,how can these plants be so different?
Other cultivate conditions meaby ,or sales the wrong plants?
You see this by red dragon to ,different teeths different shape and different color ,i not no what i must think about these?
Cheers Willy

The only true cultivars are the officially registered cultivars. theres not many and for good reason, most of the named VFT are not significantly different enough or do not have stable characteristics. They are given names by people who get excited when they get or grow from seed a plant that looks a bit different (your average person wouldnt be able to tell it from a typicalVFT) or by people doing so AS a sales gimmic to shift some bog standard VFT.

Ive been caught out twice by being sold a plant called Red Line by a person on this site and also a reputable grower. Ive had the one of a reputable grower for a number of years now. Its a mature plant and is kept in direct sunlight outside in an open coldframe and has never developed red lines. Ironically I have bog standard VFTs that develop a red line in good light but I dont call it anything other than 'typical'.

There ought to be some rules even if they are just informal that growers of  VFTs should follow before naming a VFT

Heres three to start

1. Must display traits for all of the growing season
2. Traits must be common to all traps/leaves developed during growing season (This would rule out things like funnel trap which are not natural mutations but the result of chemical induced polyploidy)
3. Traits must be stable for at least 3 years before naming

[will9]

Thank you very match ,at least one person that know what i will to tell  
We talking here for make a registred cultivar,iff i place this foto whit the name Belgian mini sawtooth whitout any explane ,i give it a name allready then and i must say notting .There for i ask this ,i have not the intention to give a plant a name thats not earnt a name like so many growers do.I am totaly agree whit mantrid ,there are so many names but so lesser real cultivars that i not will make another one  
Thanks mantrid for understand what i try to say i wunderer only ,there are some registred cultivars because she are bigger ,so why is there not one thats get smaller?
Is it becausse nobody have ask?
Cheers Willy
I do some homework for see how to make a cultivar:
Dionaea 'Fused Tooth'Comments: Registered 30. 12. 2004 (JS) "A tissue-cultured mutation isolated by Thomas Carow. The teeth are few and fused together by ‘webbing’." NOTE: Some Germans (.de sites) call ‘Fused Tooth’ by the name “Shark Teeth” or “Shark Tooth”. updated
Dionaea 'Green Dragon' (M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl)
Comments: Registered 24. 11. 2005 {JS} [isolated about 1996 during the amplification of 'Akai Ryu']

Dionaea 'Korrigans' (G.Bily)
Comments: previously “Fused Petiole” similar to "typical", except the trap and petiole are not separate.

Dionaea 'Trichterfalle'
Comments: Stefen Lenssen in Germany wrote: “The plant comes from Dr. König/Germany who uses some phytohormones to create it. The leaves are grown together at the inner margins (cup trap at the outer margins)”. see http://www.cpukforum...?showtopic=2674

Edited by will9, 05 June 2010 - 19:07 PM.

[LoopyLee]

I'd like to ask a question of those in the 'know' as one who doesn't know much at all about cultivar registration, etc...

Hypothetically speaking..........

Say for example your plants are open pollinated and you collect the seeds and grown them on and as the plants grow up you realise one of them is a truly outstanding plant and unlike anything which has been seen before.. What will be the status of that particular plant, bearing in mind you know what the 'mother' was but have no idea about the 'father'?

Edited by LoopyLee, 06 June 2010 - 17:58 PM.

[BobZ]

There seems to be a bit of confusion about cultivars. First of all, the plant is not registered, the name is registered. To quote from
http://www.carnivoro...tivarsmain.html

Quote

The ICPS is the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for the names of cultivated carnivorous plants, appointed by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) on November 10, 1998. In order to promote uniformity, accuracy, and stability in the naming of cultivated carnivorous plants, all names of carnivorous plant cultivars and cultivar-groups must be registered with the ICPS.

I know this seems a minor issue, but according to the rules, any plant that looks like and meets the description of the registered cultivar name can be called that name. How do you know your plant is the same as the described cultivar? That is the problem and that is how 'Akai Ryu' has become so messed up. It seems that virtually anyone with a red VFT can decide to name their red plant 'Akai Ryu' ('Red Dragon') -- although the description states "This clone was also far superior to any of the parents in terms of growth rate and vigor."
http://www.carnivoro...s/v25n2p50.html
So 'Akai Ryu' was not just any red VFT, it was a specific clone that was superior to seven other clones grown in vitro.

Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion of 'Red Dragon' and 'Petite Dragon'. I decided to register the name 'Petite Dragon' after growing the plant for 6 years and sending it to numerous other growers for evaluation and confirmation of stable characteristics under differing growing conditions. Once I confirmed that the plant characteristics were indeed stable, I registered the name. I have now grown the plant for 11 years and the characteristics remain stable (as have offspring produced by selfed seed; although I have never distributed the seed-produced plants as 'Petite Dragon' -- only as 'Petite Dragon' x 'Petite Dragon').

The point is, in my opinion, the cultivar naming system is seriously flawed because of the built-in ability for growers to use the name for any plant that they believe looks like the named plant. There are some cultivars that are easy to distinguish, such as 'Wacky Traps'. However, without a pedigree from the original grower, who really knows if their 'Holland Red' is "real"?

Quote

[Dionaea ' Holland Red ' {M.Erbacher & M.Stoeckl}] grows like the nominate form. This plant follows the already described annual cycle. The plant starts in spring with the first set of prostrate leaves with short petioles, after flower these are followed by long petiolate mid- summer leaves, to form the last set of wider short petiolate winter leaves in late summer or autumn. The leaf rosette reaches a diameter of ca. 10 cm and individual traps may attain a size of up to ca. 3 cm. The red colouration of the leaves depends, however, strongly on light conditions. Only plants exposed to full sunlight colour more or less intensely red or red-brown. In winter the plants frequently get green leaf margins or even whole plant portions that do not receive sufficient light remain dark green. As soon as the plants are exposed to more intense sunlight, the colour begins to change to typical again.

http://www.omnisterr...?...&search=all

[Phil Green]

BobZ, on 6th June 2010 - 19:37 PM, said:

according to the rules, any plant that looks like and meets the description of the registered cultivar name can be called that name. http://www.omnisterr...?...&search=all

Bob - I don't think that is quite right, from what I understand, it all depends on the original description. If it states that reproduction may only be from division, then only divisions of THAT plant can be given that cutivar name. Any plant can only be called that cultivar when the description states so, or doesn't state vegetative reproduction only.

[will9]

Phil Green, on 6th June 2010 - 19:42 PM, said:

Bob - I don't think that is quite right, from what I understand, it all depends on the original description. If it states that reproduction may only be from division, then only divisions of THAT plant can be given that cutivar name. Any plant can only be called that cultivar when the description states so, or doesn't state vegetative reproduction only.

More confusion?This became from a newsletter of the ICPS!

On the other hand, if a cultivar has characteristic that are all faithfully reproduced even by sexual propagation (i.e. by seed), then the seed-grown plants which match the cultivar description would themselves be members of that same cultivar. For example, suppose a Dionaea cultivar that always had two traps per leaf was developed and named Dionaea ‘The Hydra’. If seed obtained by selfing Dionaea ‘The Hydra’ yielded offspring that were also double-trapped, they would be Dionaea ‘The Hydra’. Suppose you crossed this cultivar with a normal Dionaea , and of the seed only 25% of the resulting plants had double traps--those new double-trapped plants would also be specimens of Dionaea ‘The Hydra’.
Cheers Willy

Edited by will9, 06 June 2010 - 21:19 PM.

[Phil Green]

will9 - as I have already said

Phil Green, on 6th June 2010 - 20:42 PM, said:

it all depends on the original description. If it states that reproduction may only be from division, then only divisions of THAT plant can be given that cutivar name.

'Only vegetative reproduction' means just that - ONLY.
That is why cultivar descriptions state the allowed reproduction methods.

[mantrid]

will9, on 6th June 2010 - 21:17 PM, said:

More confusion?This became from a newsletter of the ICPS!

On the other hand, if a cultivar has characteristic that are all faithfully reproduced even by sexual propagation (i.e. by seed), then the seed-grown plants which match the cultivar description would themselves be members of that same cultivar. For example, suppose a Dionaea cultivar that always had two traps per leaf was developed and named Dionaea ‘The Hydra’. If seed obtained by selfing Dionaea ‘The Hydra’ yielded offspring that were also double-trapped, they would be Dionaea ‘The Hydra’. Suppose you crossed this cultivar with a normal Dionaea , and of the seed only 25% of the resulting plants had double traps--those new double-trapped plants would also be specimens of Dionaea ‘The Hydra’.
Cheers Willy

This would be ok with cultvars that are clearly distinctive by obvious characteristics like an unusual shape.  I dont have a problem accepting a dentate trap from seed being called a 'dentate trap' if it has dentate traps.
However, this becomes unreliable when a so called unusual VFT is very close to a typical VFT or only displays its 'special' characteristics under specific conditions. As shown by my recent experiences with Red Line, which to me are just typicals, and not very attractive ones at that.

[will9]

Phil Green, on 7th June 2010 - 08:58 AM, said:

will9 - as I have already said

'Only vegetative reproduction' means just that - ONLY.
That is why cultivar descriptions state the allowed reproduction methods.

Hi Phil,is this in case whit dionea?Whe talk only about dionea here i think ?What mains the explanation in my last post then?I not written this ,so i don t know what she mains whit this !
Iff this is wrong explanation you must contact the writter off this text and say him hes wrong,
cheers Willy

Edited by will9, 07 June 2010 - 09:33 AM.

[LJ]

Willy - in dionaea cultivar decriptions it usually states Propagation: vegetative - thats why people stick with the rule to only propagate dionaea using divisions/leaf culttings etc.

And so we get back to the whole........

Quote

I know this seems a minor issue, but according to the rules, any plant that looks like and meets the description of the registered cultivar name can be called that name. How do you know your plant is the same as the described cultivar?

Versus

Quote

it all depends on the original description. If it states that reproduction may only be from division, then only divisions of THAT plant can be given that cutivar name.

And......

Quote

This would be ok with cultvars that are clearly distinctive by obvious characteristics like an unusual shape. I dont have a problem accepting a dentate trap from seed being called a 'dentate trap' if it has dentate traps. However, this becomes unreliable when a so called unusual VFT is very close to a typical VFT or only displays its 'special' characteristics under specific conditions.

This debate has been raging for ages - if it were that easy to distinguish that parents and offspring were IDENTICAL then it wouldnt be an issue to name offpring with the same name as the parents BUT and this is a MASSIVE but - plants can look different at different times, in different conditions etc which can make identifying it to be EXACTLY the same as the parents very difficult. And ofcourse we are then relying on peoples personal opinions of whether the offspring looks like the parents, one person may agree it looks the same while the next person may not agree.

For me - it's way too risky to say 'if the offspring looks like the parents then its ok to give it the same name'. I dont think people's opinions can neccessarily be trusted on this.

So I ALWAYS stick to the 2nd rule rightly or wrongly - i.e. obeying the cultivar description stating reproduction must ONLY be vegetative. For me - this is the ONLY RELIABLE way you can guarentee that the plants is the same as the parents. Why take the risk with plants that have been produced by seed - you may realise 2 years down the track that there are differences between the offspring and parents - by then its too late and the plant has been circulated under the parents name but is actually different - we are then left with fakes circulating.

There are problems now with people selling seed of named clones and cultivars - ie 'sawtooth' seed - now some of this seed may produce offspring that look like 'sawtooth' - the grower may label all plants as 'sawtooth' - or they may label the ones they think look like 'sawtooth' - but again this is just their opinion and if they are new they may not think subtle difference are that important - they may then circulate these plants - again this leads to us having more fakes in circulation.

The only way to avoid all this and guarentee that your plant is the same as the named clone/cultivar is to stick with the rule that named clones/cultivars should only be reproduced vegetatively and NOT by seed. Personally this is the rule I will always follow. Also, when buying plants its worth checking how the plant was reproduced - I would NEVER buy named clones that have propagated by seed - I will not take the risk incase the plant turns out to be different to the named clone. Most reputable growers will use only vegetative reproduction (no doubt becasue they agree with me about the risks of not using vegetative reproduction!) so always try to buy plants from these, ask the seller where, who or when they got their plant from and keep good records.

Rant over  

[diva]

well put LJ, it never used to be a problem people understood it was for everyones benefit but we live in the age of celebrity and it appears everyone wants there 15 mins of fame without putting the work in. if you crave having a plant named after yourself or your intrests theres no shortcuts get crossing!

[mobile]

From my point of view, Dionaea cultivars/clones are a mess due to misinterpretation and misuse of cultivar naming. Sure, there are some growers, such as Heather, who check the pedigree of the plant before purchasing it, but there are far more poeple who don't. This means that there are thousands of mis-labelled/wrongly identifed plants in circulation, with little to no hope of being able to sort out the mess. It's not just confined to Dionaea either, for example there were seeds on eBay for Cephalotus 'Hummer's Giant'. There is of course no guarantee that these seeds will produce plants that look like the cultivar description, but I bet that they will be labelled as such - if they germinate!

[Phil Green]

will9, on 7th June 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

Hi Phil,is this in case whit dionea?Whe talk only about dionea here i think ?

The rules don't change for each species.

The same as with money, only certain people are allowed to make it. If you start making it in your garden shed, it doesn't matter how much it looks like the real thing - it's still fake and you will be in trouble.

[Marcus B]

Just to add my 2 cents worth, for over three years I had a Sharks Tooth VFT that was very small and it did not seem to matter what I changed, it did not grow any bigger.  It was an off shoot of a normal plant that I potted up separately.  When I lost my other VFTs this diminative plant survived.

However, now I have several normal Sharks Tooth VFTs, and I did not buy a new one.  My diminative plant suddenly started to put out normal sized leaves and grew larger and divided up numerous times.   In spite of being small for years it was still very much a normal Sharks Tooth.  I don't know why it stayed small for so long, but I am glad it got over it.  However, if I had sold it as a Mini-Sharks Tooth, the buyer may not have been quite so pleased about its return to normal size.

[will9]

Hi Marcus,Phil,Mobile and LJ i totaly agree whit your opinions,i have till now not sales a single carnivore plant and iff i go do this i want it be riht,this where the reaction what i hope for,so thanks you all for reply and clear this out.I think the biggest fault are info like i found on the ICPS Journall,this info is very confused for new growers off this wunderfull species.I do not understand that she have make cultivars like fused tooth ,maked by hormons or others make by TC,how looks this plant when the effect off these are gone?Meaby whitin 5 years meaby longer ,i think this plants go back to normall in future!TC can be the reasson by my plant or by Marcus B his plant ,like you see sooner or later it become normall again.Last month i buy a Holland red ,this is a young plant but must this are not red,same like red lines ,i see not a single red line,B52 :a young plant look this like a normall young plant?i see no difference ,this are plants that you pay match money and for some off them i see not match difference whit a normall dionea ,meaby because she are young?i hope so,but then came my question back,how long must a plant be stable before you can say it s a cultivar?
All members say emmidyatly this can never be a cultivar because i started whit a normall sawtooth,it happened before whit little dragon and so many plants in past ,
Cheers Willy

Edited by will9, 09 June 2010 - 20:54 PM.

[Marcus B]

will9, on 10th June 2010 - 04:07 AM, said:

All members say emmidyatly this can never be a cultivar because i started whit a normall sawtooth,it happened before whit little dragon and so many plants in past ,
Cheers Willy

After what happened with Dionaea "Minutissimum", I would be very wary of buying any VFT that was sold as different purely based on size.   Mind you they were interesting while they lasted, but Colin Clayton was apologising to everyone when they reverted to normal.  They had been producing tiny plants for years and mine lasted several seasons before it stopped producing tiny off shoots and all went back to normal growth.   Triffid Park stopped selling them, even though they still had plants producing tiny leaves, as many of them also put out normal growth and maintaining the small growth became too much of a chore.

If it is not raised from seed and is stable for years then it should not be sold as a cultivar, but there are plenty of plants out there (not just CP) that are sold this way.  I have other plants in the lab that have to repeatedly have normal growth removed to maintain the original (when bought) appearence of the plant.  

Some of these plants come from "Sports", off shoots that produce different charactoristics to the rest of the plant.  This indicates that whatever genetic change (if there was one) that caused the change may be easily reverted.  Sometimes this change is merely due to a viral or bacterial infection, not all of which make a plant sick.  The addition of a plasmid to a plant cell may affect the plant's appearence.  If the plasmid is not past on to all decendant cells, then reversion occurs in the cells lacking the plasmid.

[will9]

Marcus B, on 9th June 2010 - 23:13 PM, said:

After what happened with Dionaea "Minutissimum", I would be very wary of buying any VFT that was sold as different purely based on size.   Mind you they were interesting while they lasted, but Colin Clayton was apologising to everyone when they reverted to normal.  They had been producing tiny plants for years and mine lasted several seasons before it stopped producing tiny off shoots and all went back to normal growth.   Triffid Park stopped selling them, even though they still had plants producing tiny leaves, as many of them also put out normal growth and maintaining the small growth became too much of a chore.

If it is not raised from seed and is stable for years then it should not be sold as a cultivar, but there are plenty of plants out there (not just CP) that are sold this way.  I have other plants in the lab that have to repeatedly have normal growth removed to maintain the original (when bought) appearence of the plant.  

Some of these plants come from "Sports", off shoots that produce different charactoristics to the rest of the plant.  This indicates that whatever genetic change (if there was one) that caused the change may be easily reverted.  Sometimes this change is merely due to a viral or bacterial infection, not all of which make a plant sick.  The addition of a plasmid to a plant cell may affect the plant's appearence.  If the plasmid is not past on to all decendant cells, then reversion occurs in the cells lacking the plasmid.

Yes this is what i thinking ,whitin a few years there are not many cultivars of dionea left i am affraid.Like this Holland red ,are there still real plants off this one in cultivation?
I understand what happened ,growers give a lot off money to this cultivars and let the name whit the plant even when this plant not fit to the name ,so the offsets go sales under the wrong name ,growers see this but not chance anything .On this way the are many plants sales wrong and whit time there are no cultivars left!
I also see some sellers sales seeds of this cultivars like mention before  
Whitin a few years meaby all can begin again from start
For making a mini cultivar is allmost impossible i understand,plants become back there normall size after been mini for years ,is this also in case whit little dragon?
By the way ,i have minutissima and this is  still a very little plant
Cheers Willy