Pinguicula Id

[piscesilim]

[Guest Sheila]

Looks to me like the garden centre weser

[piscesilim]

Looks to me like the garden centre weser

May I know what is the different between Sethos and Weser as they came from the same parent?

[Guest Sheila]

'sethos' is a crossing of ehlersiae x moranensis,. 'weser' is the same parents but the other way round so sethos has ehlersiae as the mother plant, 'weser' has moranensis as the mother plant

[piscesilim]

OK. Thanks.

But how we know that this Pinguicula is Weser and not Sethos? What is the characteristic of this 2 hybrid?

I try to google the image and they look almost the same.

[Joseph Clemens]

To help with this discrimination I have a copy of the scanned image from the text and posted them on a web page. Below, you will also see a recent photo of each cultivar.

Link to show comparison between P. 'Weser' and P. 'Sethos'

Edited December 15, 2007 by Joseph Clemens

[piscesilim]

Thanks a lot! Then this hybrid must be Sethos.

But what is the correct way to write the name of this hybrid. Do we need to put x infront Sethos like Pinguicula x 'sethos' or just Pinguicula 'Sethos'?

[Joseph Clemens]

The correct way is how I have written it. The old way had an "X" before the name, but that is no longer correct. Since it is also a registered cultivar the name must not be in italics, it must begin with a capital letter and be enclosed in single quotes.

Pinguicula 'Sethos'

Edited December 15, 2007 by Joseph Clemens

[piscesilim]

Thanks for your explain. Thanks!

[Joseph Clemens]

'sethos' is a crossing of ehlersiae x moranensis,. 'weser' is the same parents but the other way round so sethos has ehlersiae as the mother plant, 'weser' has moranensis as the mother plant

Sheila

The parentage is the same for both of these cultivars. This is what Adrian Slack wrote of them in his book: "Of these (hybrids) I would mention [Pinguicula ' Sethos ' {Hort.Slack}] ([[Pinguicula moranensis {H.B.K.}] * [Pinguicula ehlersiae {Speta & Fuchs}]]), a fine, very floriferous clone with large orchid-purple flowers with a many-rayed mouth like a white star; [Pinguicula ' Weser ' {Hort.Slack}], of the same parentage and with rather similar flowers, has a solitary white streak down the central lower lobe and dark veins."

I'm not quite sure why Slack says the flowers are similar, to me they are very distinctive. It seems that the ability to discrimination details varies somewhat between individuals.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Joseph Clemens

[Joseph Clemens]

First is a foliage photo of Pinguicula 'Sethos', showing the nice pink coloration that can happen under strong fluorescent light.

Next is a photo of one of the many plants considered as "Garden Center Weser". The flower does not match either Pinguicula 'Sethos' or Pinguicula 'Weser', but has some characteristics of each. It is assumed these are also hybrids of (Pinguicula moranensis x Piinguicula ehlersiae) (which they may be), though that may not be accurate. They do seem to definitely be of Mexican Pinguicula. As you can see the foliage can color up nicely under fluorescent lighting -- the foliage of all of these appears virtually identical in my growing conditions.

[Guest Aidan]

I agree with Sheila. The plant in question appears to be "Fake Weser" rather than 'Sethos'.

[Guest Sheila]

I think the photo shown by piscesilim is closer to the photo you show as garden centre weser than it is to either of the first two photos you show Joseph. the white splodge in the centre is slightly larger but fake weser is slightly variable. It is likely the same cross but from seed and not from the original plant, although no one is sure of that. For it to be considered either the proper form of 'weser' or 'sethos' it would have to be identical because they are cultivars and the flower shown is definitely not identical to either.

I agree that both plants do have the same parentage, that is not in dispute, but even the main database shows them as having the opposite mother plant and pollen donors.

N: $[Pinguicula ' Sethos ' {Hort.Slack}]

P: Insect-Eat.Pl. & How to Grow Them:113 (1986)

S: =[[Pinguicula ehlersiae {Speta & Fuchs}] * [Pinguicula moranensis {H.B.K.}]]

N: $[Pinguicula ' Weser ' {Hort.Slack}]

P: Insect-Eat.Pl. & How to Grow Them:113 (1986)

S: =[[Pinguicula moranensis {H.B.K.}] * [Pinguicula ehlersiae {Speta & Fuchs}]]

[Joseph Clemens]

Sheila,

I have not, by my earlier responses, meant to imply that I believe the plant in question is Pinguicula 'Sethos', but that it strongly resembles that cultivar, so perhaps it may, at least, share the same parentage. In re-reading my earlier posts I can see that I was not as clear as I had thought myself to be.

I completely agree, the plant shown in the initial post does not appear to be either registered cultivar mentioned in this thread (P. 'Sethos' and P. 'Weser') -- with our present cultivar system an uncertain plant must, for me, be identical to unequivocally qualify for the cultivar name, others might not be as discriminating. Even if it were a vegetative propagation of the original cultivar, yet did not match the description and standard -- it just could not be considered the same cultivar. However, if the cultivar description were less precise such as it is with the cultivar Pinguicula 'Aphrodite'. Variation in flower color, shape, and size, etc. would be possible, yet still qualify for the cultivar name. Personally I prefer more precise cultivar descriptions, especially those that focus on flower or foliage characteristics.

My speculation is that "Garden Center Weser" may have come about when someone mistook the cultivar name for a hybrid name and so gave this name to a population of seedlings.

Thank you for correcting my error in the parentage of these two cultivars .

Edited December 16, 2007 by Joseph Clemens

[jeff 1]

I am from the JOSEPH advice x'Sethos'

but do you know the real morphotype to P.ehlersae and P.moranensis , type form ?

we have a lot of ehlersae caracter in a ecotype form , the same for moranensis

jeff

Edited December 16, 2007 by jeff 1

[Guest Sheila]

Joseph, You are absolutely right. However I think it is bad enough that a plant has been sold across many countries with the name 'weser' when clearly they are not the genuine cultivar. Because there are so many in circulation, probably more than there are of the real cultivar, we have had to stick the name fake weser or garden centre weser on it so that we can be clear it is not the real thing. Even though the plant in this id is quite close to 'sethos' would it be wise to call it that and then have a fake 'sethos' in circulation as well? As you say they do share the same parents. I personally think we are better to keep all these very similar plants under the umbrella of garden centre weser, so we know they are all the same parentage but not genuine cultivars.

As for the order of parentage, you are right again. I pulled the book out and read what Slack had to say. They actually have the page number of the book in the database listing. Nowhere does he say that the parents are opposites, so I don't know how the database comes to list them the way they do, but it does mean that again we can't be sure of anything except that they do share identical parents.

[jeff 1]

in taxonomy

the female are allways the first name ,

often this one keep their principal caracters no ?

then 2 solutions

P.moranensis xP. ehlersae or P.ehlersaex P.moranensis

in a first name :moranensis is a female it is the first picture with this little white macul and this lobe form

in a second name : ehlersae is a female it is the second picture with this throat caracteristic and this lobe form

are you OK?

now have you the first x'Weser' description from the people who obtain this hybrid ? if yes this first name is moranensis or ehlersae ?

and what exact taxon are ? moranensis and ehlersae type or others taxons like ehlersae santa gertrudis , santa catarina , moranensis kirkbright,rosei,caudata,pachuca,etc .

jeff

Edited December 17, 2007 by jeff 1

[Joseph Clemens]

in taxonomy

the female are allways the first name ,

often this one keep their principal caracters no ?

Actually the rules have changed on this issue. I understand the new rules require the male symbol ♂and the female symbol ♀are supposed to be used when indicating parentage in a hybrid formula. I suppose this has been adopted in order to reduce confusion concerning maternal vs paternal parentage. It seems that this change has been slow to be adopted, many still trust that the female parent is listed first when writing hybrid formula names.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Joseph Clemens

[jeff 1]

according to 'code international de nomenclature botanique de St LOUIS " 2000 and perhaps the new from MUNICH or others

3 possibility

- this one with this two logo

- the female name in first

- on a clear way the female and the male name

for these 2 hybrids and like your picture it is the second cas .

but for the "obtenteur" ( in french desolate) , have they utilised this rule ?

jeff

Edited December 20, 2007 by jeff 1

[Joseph Clemens]

according to 'code international de nomenclature botanique de St LOUIS " 2000 and perhaps the new from MUNICH or others

3 possibility

- this one with this two logo

- the female name in first

- on a clear way the female and the male name

for these 2 hybrids and like your picture it is the second cas .

but for the "obtenteur" ( in french desolate) , have they utilised this rule ?

jeff

Howdy Jeff,

It seems you are confusing the ICBN (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) (ICBN - Vienna) with ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants) (ICNCP). Once plants are no longer, just in their natural habitat or herbarium sample, then the ICNCP applies.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Joseph Clemens

[jeff 1]

hello JOSEPH

no confusion with this 2 , if you read the ICNCP to the chapitre IX article 32 division III you have the solution the ICBN rule is allways valid .

in french desolate

"La formation des noms pour des hybrides entre plantes appartenant à des genres différents est régie par les dispositions du C.I.N.B. Ces dispositions sont résumées ici pour en faciliter l'accès, mais le texte de l’édition en cours du C.I.N.B. doit être considéré comme emportant la décision. "

you are american , can you explain me the morphologic difference between macroceras subsp macroceras and macroceras subsp nortensis ?

no possibility to named some macroceras with white corol lob with a attribute of form ?

jeff

Edited February 15, 2008 by jeff 1