Joseph Clemens

Nepenthes are tropical, their seed has no usual inhibitors to germination. They easily germinate in appropriate conditions, if they are viable. I might expect that GA3 could cause more trouble than its worth to obtain, prepare, and apply to fresh, highly viable seed. My understanding is that it is used with difficult to germinate seed, seed that has inherent germination inhibiting systems in place. It might even cause abnormal germination and subsequently abnormal growth, if used. However, if the seed is old, and you anticipate that normal viability is strongly compromised due to age, it may be beneficial to pretreat the seeds with a very dilute GA3 solution, just prior to sowing. In that circumstance, you may achieve better germination, than with just normal germination regimens. My usual plan, with old, or seed of very low expected viability, is to surface sterilize them, then sow them in vitro. If done well, it is easy to see if there is any viability remaining in the seed.

Here is one of the plants from the pic in my first post to this thread. It was moved up to its own 2.25" (5.7 cm) pot. It is nearly finished transitioning to winter-form leaves.

I started many Mexican Pinguicula, in 100% moss peat (peat moss), first. They did well. Then I read Eric Partrat's site Pinguicula.org, and decided to try various media ingredients and combinations thereof. I discovered very little, if any difference in health or growth performance, no matter what media I used, as long as I gave them very strong flourescent lighting, weak and frequent feeding with dried insect powder and weak soluble fertilizer solutions, and kept them nearly semi-aquatically, year-'round. There are a few species that do not thrive in these conditions, but the majority do. The list of ingredients and combinations, I've tried, is extensive. Yet, I'm sure I haven't tried every combination that would be suitable. I haven't yet found any that aren't.

I agree, a strong resemblance to Pinguicula 'Sethos'. It most likely is that cultivar. It has no resemblance to any form of Pinguicula ehlersiae. It may simply be a mislabel confusion. Some people, who aren't that familiar with the various species, hybrids, and cultivars of Mexican/equatorial Pinguicula can make such mistakes. When I first began my interest in these plants, one of the first plants I acquired was identified to me as Pinguicula 'Weser'. It wasn't until I had propagated it and given away several dozen divisions, that I realized its true identity was Pinguicula 'Sethos'. I had many people to notify of my error. As you can see, I also had photographs to edit.

I believe what will9 is saying is that unofficial, unregistered names abound, while official, registered cultivar names are scarce. That many or most growers ignore the official naming conventions (coordinated by the ICNCP), that are carefully followed with most other plant groups. By looking through the various Sarracenia plants linked through the CP Photo Finder, most have "bogus" names, few have validly registered cultivar names.

Those original names, given to natural hybrids, originally believed to be species, such as Sarracenia x catesbaei, are considered by some, to be invalid - opting rather for the appropriate hybrid formula. I am also beginning to lean this way, myself. If you choose to opt for these formula, in lieu of the quasi-official botanical names given to some of the primary hybrids found in the wild - you may find it simpler, or perhaps not. Hybrid formula can be written in several ways: The symbols designating the sexes of the parents can be used and the parents can then be written in any order, even alphabetically -- Sarracenia psittacina x flava Or they can be written in parent order, with maternal parent listed first -- Sarracenia alata x minor

With nearly optimal growing conditions the foliage of these closely related species is somewhat distinctive, though just barely. In less than optimal conditions the vegetative parts become less well defined, hence, less distinctive. Some growers question if perhaps; Pinguicula esseriana, Pinguicula jaumavensis, Pinguicula ehlersiae, and Pinguicula debbertiana, may simply be slightly different forms of the very same species.

The first book, Carnivorous Plants, 1979/2005 is a very different book from the second book, Insect Eating Plants and How to Grow Them, 1988, published between the two editions of the first book. Though I'm not sure that you're talking about the two different titles and not different printings of the same book. If you're talking about two different printings of Carnivorous Plants, and I believe you are, there are probably a few typo's corrected in the second printing, though I may be mistaken. There may also be a few other differences. I have a copy of the first printing and Genlisea is misspelled, and a few other words in the volume. I remember reading a book review, somewhere that discussed the differences, though I haven't been able to find it again, yet.

Yes, the 90 grit is a "sieve number", and basically translates to passing a screen with 90 wires to the inch / 2.54 cm. It is a very fine sand (90 grit = 0.150 mm diameter). Silt particles are smaller, between 0.002 mm and 0.063 mm, larger particles than this are sand and smaller are considered clay. I believe that when fine sand particles like this are thoroughly blended with the peat moss, they help the peat re-wet if it becomes dry, due to their capillary attraction for water, verses the peat being hydrophobic. However it works, this media mixture seems to provide a very good substrate for Sarracenia. One caution, let it regularly drain thoroughly or anaerobic conditions may develop with undesirable or even dire consequences.

Sometime back in the late 1960's or early 1970's I visited Leo Song at the greenhouses of CSUF (California State University, Fullerton). As part of an experiment concerning germinating seeds of various Sarracenia primary hybrids he had a great many Sarracenia seedlings that were growing in what were/are called 2" rose pots. He gave me about a half-dozen or so of these seedlings. The media in these pots, was an obvious combination of fine, 90 grit silica sand, perlite, and peat moss. The seedlings growing in this media were doing very well. I mixed various combinations of these three ingredients until I had a media that matched the appearance of the media these seedlings were growing in. It seemed like a very suitable media, all the seedlings were quite robust. I remember they were only a few years old, but I had to cut the pots away from the rhizomes in order to avoid harming the plants, they were so tightly wedged into the pots. I remember as I potted them up, most had rhizome buds or branches that I was able to use to propagate divisions with. I planted them all in this same sand/perlite/peat mix, including the larger plants. All seedlings continued to grow very quickly in this media I had "duplicated". So, credit for my favorite Sarracenia media actually belongs to Leo Song. Even though my formula is only an approximation of the mix he originated. I propagated and distributed between fifty to one hundred or more of each of these original seedlings until I had to leave most of my CP collection behind when I had to suddenly relocate from Oak Harbor, Washington to Southern California. It may be true that perlite varies in physical properties and pH depending of how it is processed and/or where it originates. But I've only ever dealt with perlite distributed exclusively for horticultural purposes. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I've often been annoyed how some of the perlite would float away during watering, so I learned to water gently from above and frequently enough to keep the plants at or near an optimum media moisture level. I have successfully used and seen others use many different media mixtures and ingredients, but this mixture is one of the most simple and reliable.

For most Sarracenia I like using a media of 3 parts 90 grit silica sand, 3 parts perlite, and 2 parts peat moss.

Howdy Amar, You are correct, Drosera spatulata Hong Kong, as published in "Savage Garden", is not a validly registered cultivar. It does not meet all of the requirements for cultivar registration, so its registration is incomplete, see --> D. 'Hong Kong'. I don't believe the original publication even included a photographic standard. Cultivar names, such as Drosera spatulata 'Ruby Slippers' can be correct when written several ways; Drosera 'Ruby Slippers', Drosera spatulata 'Ruby Slippers', or D. spatulata 'Ruby Slippers'. See, ICRA Name -> "HOW DO I FORM A NEW CULTIVAR NAME? The full name of a cultivar will always begin with the name of the genus to which the cultivar belongs. Optionally, the species or hybrid epithet may be included as a second element in the entire name but this is not usually necessary; inclusion of such epithets merely provides more information about your cultivar" Here is a link to the published standard photograph for Drosera 'Ruby Slippers'. The main reason I chose to register this cultivar is that Drosera 'Ruby Slippers' closely resembles a large Drosera brevifolia. Drosera brevifolia was the very first Drosera species I ever found growing in the wild. I was amazed at how dry the soil was where I first found a small colony of them. I also find the wedge-shape of its leaves and intense dark red coloration (when growing in strong light), to be quite attractive. Whether or not your Drosera spatulata from Hong Kong is the same as the one Peter D'Amato wrote about in "Savage Garden", it would probably be best to ask Peter for his opinion. I think he is active on the CP Listserv. Of course, just because the cultivar, Drosera spatulata 'Ruby Slippers' allegedly originated from plants reported to be collected from Kowloon Peak, Hong Kong, does not necessarily follow that all Drosera spatulata from Hong Kong are Drosera spatulata 'Ruby Slippers', or any other specific clone or cultivar. There are so many different forms of Drosera spatulata, it would be nice if more of them were registered as cultivars. However, it seems quite challenging to describe their subtle, yet unique differences, in order to qualify them for cultivar status - I still feel it should be attempted. An additional question I would pose to the CP ICR, would be: Does the preliminary, yet incomplete registration of Drosera spatulata 'Hong Kong' reserve that cultivar name, awaiting the original author's completion, can it be completed by a new author, or even independently published by a new author?

Some or all leaves may die back as you describe, if the rhizome has died or if they're subjected to exceptionally cold temperatures. Without direct physical examination it is difficult to absolutely determine fatal root-rot. It is best to wait until Spring, when conditions for growth return, before examining the rhizome to make a final determination.

Which genera/species of plants?

mobile, I completely agree with you on the lack of any distinctive characteristics. That's partially why I said, "Calling this plant anything but Dionaea muscipula can be misleading." I just added most of the other stuff, links included, to help possible new growers discover plant nomenclature.

Having an unofficial, nickname for plants is really no different than a nickname for anything else. Though it can have an unfortunate impact, when growers, unfamiliar with the official naming systems (which are already in place), mistakenly believe this name, and others like it, have some kind of official status. Calling this plant anything but Dionaea muscipula can be misleading. Since it isn't a registered cultivar name, it really only has the official importance of being someones pet name. Until it becomes registered it should never be written, enclosed in single quotes, since they are reserved to indicate registered cultivar names. Double quotes, parentheses, or simply following the actual plant name without any punctuation, are preferred to enclosing the unofficial plant name in single quotes, which are reserved to indicate the name is a registered cultivar name. Dionaea muscipula 'Red Dragon' is a valid, registered cultivar, Dionaea muscipula "Bimbo" is not yet a registered cultivar - though if it were registered (which is a free process), it could become a registered cultivar. See, how to register a cultivar. Correct spelling and cultivar status can both be confirmed at several locations: ICPS Cultivar Registrations, CP Database, and CP Photo Finder.

Back in 1988 I was a student of horticulture at New Mexico State University (NMSU). I had a student job working with the Chile breeding program, supporting staff and graduate students. I was permitted to grow a few CP, using my own materials, in small idle areas between benches in the Chile breeding greenhouse. One plant I grew there was Byblis liniflora - it was good at collecting some of the few whitefly that escaped the other IPM. I originally obtained Byblis liniflora as seed from WIP (World Insectivorous Plants), many years before. The plants I grew in a tray at NMSU were started from seed, that was already several generations removed from the seed I originally obtained from WIP. As I grew this tray of Byblis liniflora plants I carefully pollinated a majority of the flowers as they were produced. Then I watched and waited, harvesting the seed as it ripened. I can only estimate, but I guess there were several thousand seed collected in total. Then I was unable to continue growing CP for quite some time. I donated many of these seed to the ICPS seedbank, I traded many more, and even sold a few vials containing one hundred each, of these seed. It is now, almost twenty-three years later, and even though I had developed a favorite technique for germinating Byblis liniflora seed, I did not use it when I recently sowed ten of these twenty-three year old seed. I simply sowed them on the surface of a 2" pot of media. It is about six weeks later and, "surprise" - already four of the seed have germinated and those tiny little Byblis liniflora seedlings are now growing in that little pot. I almost didn't expect the seed was still viable after all that time. If only all seed maintained its viability like this Byblis liniflora seed has.

Never let them dry out. Mexican Pinguicula are much more tolerant of dryness than any of the Southeastern USA species. I've also seen that all the species of Pinguicula native to this region of the USA are quite susceptible to spider mites. I kept losing plants and couldn't fathom the cause, until I began keeping some sealed inside ziploc bags, and others not sealed in bags. Then I noticed those that weren't in bags began developing brown spots on the normally upturned edges of their leaves. I severed a leaf with these brown spots and examined it under a microscope - bingo, spider mites. Once I began taking measures to reduce the chances my plants were besieged by spider mites, I had much better success with this group of species. I'm basically, just saying to keep an eye out for spider mite infestation - it can be insidious.

I get most of my gallon size pots, for free from a local nursery from their discard pile. I just need to sort and clean them, first. For very large pots, 5, 10, 15 and 25 gallon sizes, I pay a small amount each and pick them up in my own small trailer from a local landscaping contractors headquarters. I've obtained smaller pots from other online suppliers, like Peaceful Valley, Hummert, or Stuewe & Sons.

It's usually called, leaf-pulling propagation and it works as well for Pinguicula emarginata as it does for most of the other Mexican Pinguicula species, which is quite well. About damaging the original or "mother" plant, actually depends more on your technique of detaching the leves, than most anything else. My recent topic about Pinguicula propagation gives some descriptions of the process and there are several others, too. *************** One of the main keys to the process, for me, is to cleanly sever the leaves from the "mother" plant. I use large forceps to temporarily unpot the leaf donor plant. I use fairly large forceps, inserting them underneath the donor plant, on either side of the crown, pushing them so they are just a little beneath the media surface and just past the center of the crown, then leverage them against the edge of the pot so the tip ends lift the plant from its media, bringing the root system, intact, along with the plant, from the media. I then lay the plant on a slightly damp paper towel, to avoid harming the roots by drying out from exposure to the air. Then, with my fingers, I firmly grasp the leaves I intend to remove and while bracing the remainder of the plant gently with my opposite hand, I gently pull and twist the leaf as I detach it from the donor plant. After I have harvested the intended quantity of leaf-pullings, I simply, make a slight enlargement to the original location the plant was extracted from, sprinkle a pinch of dried insect powder (as a boost) into the opening, then return the plant to its pot and using a tiny stainless steel spatula, I replace the media around the crown of the plant. Then I return the plant (now back in its pot) to its growing place.

My success and appreciation of leaf-pulling as a propagation method for Mexican and other tropical Pinguicula species and their hybrids has gradually improved as I spend more time and gain more experience working with the technique and modifying my methods to discover nuances to its implementation. I have discovered that my favorite way to implement leaf-pulling propagation, also has the secondary benefit of creating a, sort-of, short-term bank of small propagules. Many of these small plantlets, in my impromptu test, had survived well beyond twelve months, some more than twenty-four months, just waiting for suitable habitat insertion for them to become established plants. [These are the plants I harvested leaves from to produce the plantlets shown in the image below.] For me even the humblest CP look more impressive when they are together in a group --> Curious how they look like they are jostling each other to get more light. Here is a photo, illustrating a group of plantlets, formed on leaf-pullings from Pinguicula agnata plants (shown above) --> The leaves were pulled in May 2007, and these plantlets had formed by June 2007, this photo was taken in November 2007, almost six months later. These leaf-pullings were generated by folding several layers of paper towels and placing them, as a liner, into clear clam-shell containers, recycled from ones used to market certain produce. They have vent holes in their tops and bottom sections. [instead of the method mentioned above, leaf-pulling propagation works equally well by just dropping the severed leaves into small plastic or styrofoam cups, with the added benefit of being able to write their names directly onto the cups, then discarding the cups, or reusing them after the plantlets are planted-up. Good lighting helps (as long as it doesn't over heat them), cool temperatures and moderate humidity are good, but moisture will quickly destroy leaf-pullings.] The majority of these plantlets persisted until near December 2008, more than a year beyond the date this photo was taken. It is amazing how rapidly these plantlets establish and grow to adult blooming size. It can happen in just a few months, when these plantlets are planted in suitable conditions. ^*^*^* Leaf-pulling can also provide a batch of plantlets, waiting and ready to use to replace those that are lost to pests and disease, or to provide material for trades. Happy growing. I like to be efficient so I've also taken leaf-pullings from the plantlets produced by the first leaf-pullings. As I am potting them up I take some of the largest leaves from the plantlets being planted up, thus producing a second group of leaf-pullings/plantlets from the first group of plantlets. A type of win-win situation. Many of the plantlets in the plastic cups can be grown up into a mass of larger plantlets, by placing them where they get strong light, spritz them with very weak fertilizer solutions and dust them with dried insect powder or powdered freeze-dried bloodworms. I've even watered them so they were floating or partially submerged without noticing any harmful effects. It's not really surprising since I normally grow all of them as if they were semi-aquatic.

Marcus, That group of plants in such tight winter rosettes, was an unusual event for me. It was the first time I'd let the pot become completely dry. It was also a taller pot, so the plants were only about 5cm from the fluorescent lights. Then I had an extended period where I wasn't able to attend to the plants. I took that photo when the plants had been dry for about eighteen months. Most recently, about 45 months after that pot first became completely dry - there are only about eight of those plants still alive (I'm sure more would have survived if I'd been able to care for them normally, sooner). I have begun attending to them again, and they are quickly coming back into summer leaf. When I attend my plants in my normal way - I grow them semi-aquatically (with the pots sitting in trays of water 24/7/365). They also, grow winter leaves (from time to time), but nothing near as small and compact as the ones in that photo.

Dani, What media do you use and can you elaborate a little more on your growing methods/conditions, thanks.

Very attractive plants and photos. Thanks for sharing. The Southeastern USA Pinguicula species were some of the first CP I ever grew. They may be difficult to maintain long-term, but they sure are gorgeous, and if you get them to bloom you can often get seed. If you get seed, you can then grow another generation and start all over again. I envy those that manage to maintain the adult plants for more than five years. Here in my current location the persistence of large populations of invasive spider mites has been a limiting factor in being able to maintain them, long-term.

Here are another few photos of more species showing good recovery: Pinguicula jaumavensis (or it might be Pinguicula debbertiana - I misplaced the label from this pot) --> A tray of Pinguicula jaumavensis, before they were unintentionally neglected --> Pinguicula laueana --> Pinguicula esseriana --> Pinguicula rotundiflora -->