Marcus B

Unfortunately Google doesn't know everything. Google earth could not even direct me to the bay when it is clearly marked on the map if you hunt for the lake near it. Instead it was sending me several 100 kms away from it. As much as many of us would like to have more accurate names of our plants, I think that we may have to settle for the fact that many already in cultivation cannot be traced to an actual location. I see a risk in re-naming plants as we may incorrectly do so. This is why I don't re-name the plant supplied to me as "Giant", as 'Hummer's Giant', as I have no firm proof that they are one and the same, even though reliable people say that they are sure that it is. Maybe what we need is a qualifier to location names, such as Ledge Bay (region) Giant to indicate that the exact site is not known and that it may be the same as other plants from actually named locations in that region, rather than a complete re-name. Any other suggestions?

So they are really just "large", much like the Paul Edwards' clone that has also gained a "giant" tag. Still large Cephs are better than small Cephs. Allen was sold out when I tried to get some of this seed a few years ago, that is why I remembered the name. He has material from the "Giant" now too, or should have, so that might come up in future lists, as he has had it for a few years now.

I have found that splitting small plants can set them back a few years, compared to the plants left whole until they mature. You are better off waiting until it develops long enough rhizomes to have separate root systems with each growth point. It only when they get to be fairly large that I take divisions regularly, and that amounts to separating off the shoots that come up away from the main clump, as they start to mature.

I may have the old price list from Allen on a disk stored away, so I will see if it matches the named giant on that, if I can find it and have not tossed it out. I am sure that I kept it, due to the other information on the CD. It may well be a vague area name, like the Walpoles.

That would make more sense of the desciption given than where Google Earth places it. So it would be possible then, wouldn't it?

If this is the site, then it is north of Perth. How likely is that?

It actually sounds a bit like the name of seeds that Allen Lowrie was selling a few years ago. Unfortunately I doubt I kept the list that they were on, so I cannot confirm it. According to the information on patrolled beaches in WA, "Ledge Bay beach is on the western side of Ledge Point, WA." Looks more north-south to me. http://beachsafe.org.au/beach/wa0392 Ledge Bay beach (WA 392) commences on the western side of Ledge Point and curves round to the west for 2.2 km to the base of 120 m high Cheyne Head. The beach is initially protected by the point maintaining a cusped reflective beach, which grades in the west to a narrow low tide terrace as waves pick up to about 1 m. The beach is backed by a well vegetated 20 m high foredune, then the shallow 50 ha Gull Rock Lake and elongated wetland, The beach is backed by a well vegetated 20 m high foredune, then the shallow 50 ha Gull Rock Lake and elongated wetland, which occasionally flows across the far western end of the beach. A gravel road reaches the western end of the beach terminating at a small car park with no facilities.which occasionally flows across the far western end of the beach. A gravel road reaches the western end of the beach terminating at a small car park with no facilities.

It probably won't require a few months. I have had plants colour nicely after two cold nights. I don't get a lot of really cold nights in a row and given your day time temperatures, the difference may have an effect fairly quickly. Then again it may be an experient that provides more clues to the role of temperature. I have had days in the high 20's and then night time temps below 15oC of late and my plants are colouring up, especially new pitchers.

Nice plants.

Really nice plants.

I have found that the larger the pot the greener the plant remains. It seems that the temperature of the substrate plays a part, as well as the air temperature. Cold winter mornings with sunny days are great for colouring up my plants, but some plants do seem to colour up much easier than others, even if they are the same clone. However, there are also differences between some of my clones. I also find that small plants colour up more readily, but this does not seem to be just because they are in smaller pots. It may be due to having a bigger proportion of the plant's rhizome near the surface, or being in a more open mix, but I am just guessing. I have seedlings in the same sized pots, mix and in similar positions which vary from green to reddish-purple, without being in direct sunlight and before it got cold. Your might try a night or two in a fidge, or a cooler box with ice in it, to lower the over night temp to below 10oC. I get the best colour formation when there is a significant difference between the day and night temperatures (approx 10oC difference or greater).

If that is so, then why are they being distributed as "Walpole" and why are there location photos of the same shaped plants that are also tagged as being at "Walpole". I think that even Greg Burke has photos tagged with Walpole, which show the same domed lids. It is then safe to re-label all such plants as CMB? Or could that cause an issue? Is it just that Coal Mine Beach was not being used as a name when they were first collected/photographed? I am having difficulties contacting my supplier of "Walpoles", so I cannot check where he got them, but I may be able get someone else to find out for me. At least, if they are actually CMB plants, then it makes sense as to why they are not being refered to.

Does anyone else grow location Cephs from Walpole? And if so do they show the domed lids? Every photo that I have seen of Walpole plants appear to have this same morphology, but they don't seem to come up in our discussions about different forms, and I am wondering why.

Interesting. I have most of my Cephs potted in mostly sphagnum with a peat, gravel, perlite core for the rhizome as my plants in that set up did better during a long hot dry summer and dry winter. Since then they have not done as well and I have been wondering if it the change in weather conditions, back to more humid, or the change in my Ceph house set up that is the issue. I may need to do a major repot of my plants, which I was planning to do, sooner rather than later. BTW, some of my seedlings which are entering their third year of growth are throwing some very nice looking adult pitchers, while others are barely a little clump of green sticking out of the peat, so the differences are becoming even more dramatic. The is occuring amongst seed from my original Ceph and the Giant's seedlings. It looks a bit funny seeing these clusters of tiny juvenile pitchers with one or two 3 - 4 cm pitchers amongst them. Others are producing several smaller mature pitchers at present.

Stephen, do you find that your Hummers establish quickly and then grow slowly, or do they continue to grow well? Reason being my Giant tends to establish fairly readily, producing a few small mature pitchers and then grows slower than the other plants. The result being that the smaller plants' cuttings, can over take the Giants. That, and the Giant tends to produce one growth point per leaf cutting while my other plants often produce multiple growth points.

I am actually testing this at present, but my VFTs are in a hot house, so the sphagnum doesn't dry out too quickly. I have normally kept sphagnum away from VFTs, but with a lot of recent pictures of them growing well in it, I have decided try it. I am only doing it to one plant as I also have serious doubts about it, but the advantage for me if it does survive, is the fact that I grow sphagnum, so I can produce more potting material for them.

Personally, if I found a plant looking like this among my VFTS, it would end up with the excess Drosera and sedges. Headed for the compost bin.

I have 3 year old leaf cuttings (pullings) that are still a bit too small to sell, but others for the same crop are so large that they winning awards in shows, as mature plants, for their new owners. All potted up the same time, same mix, same place in the Ceph house. Some start well and keep going, others struggle. At least I can say that the size of the parent leaf makes a difference in that case, but I have other plants divided from the same leaf cutting that were similar sizes originally, but not now. This is one of the issues with promoting certain clones based on growth habits, as Cephs can differ widely, even if genetically identical. That is why I prefer to refer to their increased tendancy to show certain traits, rather than say that they they will show them. You always going to get some that prove any firm statement to be flawed.

As has been said many times before, Cephs are a bit unpredictable and will grow differently for different people due to slight changes in their environment, or for unknown reasons. I have plants that are still very tiny after two years growing from seed. Others had to be transplanted out of the same pots, as they got too big and one has already flowered. I can't say that anything has been done wrong, as some plants have grown fast and some slowly in the same pot. This has occured for numerous pots in various parts of my Ceph house. My imported seed is the slowest growing, but the surviving EB x EBs are slowly getting there. Some of my tiny 2 yr old plants are now starting to grow well. Others are still barely growing at all and a number have died over summer, while in the same pot as good ones.

How are your "Giants" doing? Are they growing well for you? My original Ceph is a large plant that only produces "Typical" sized pitchers, while smaller "Giant" plants produce large pitchers upt to twice the size of the "Typical". However, occasionally the "Typical" occasionally produces larger, but not "Giant" sized traps.

Yes, they are all side in the same hot house. But, do I think it is worth elevating to cultivar status? No. However, is it is worth keeping identified. With plants that I have multiple pots of, I tend to spread them between the shelves to see where they do best, so I can end up with the same plant looking different depending on where it is. Unfortunately at present few plants are looking good due the weather we have had this past summer. This particular plant has faired better than many of the others in the section that copped the most damage.

Allen Lowrie was advertising seed from a named location giant a few years ago and Phil Mann reported collecting leaves from a very large pitchered plant elsewhere, so it would appear that there are definately other large cephs out there (or local conditions that result in large pitchers). Unfortunately Phil got flamed by a relative newbie when he reported his findings and he took offence. He made no more mention of it.

My "Giant" consistantly grows slower but larger than any of my other plants. Leaf cuttings tend to produce larger pitchers to start with (possibly because the larger leaves produce stronger shoots), often going straight to adult shape, while the other plants mostly produce immature pitchers. The other plants then grow larger and out grow the Giant in plant size until, in time the Giant produces the biggest pitchers. Rhizome cuttings go straight to larger leaves and keep going. Some Giant cuttings, within one to two years, are producing pitchers nearly twice the size of the most of the other plants' average pitcher sizes for cuttings of the same age. I also have other plants that tend to produce large pitchers, but not yet to the size that the Giant has produced, but larger than a few of my other clones. Others who have tested it in more ideal conditions have produced amazing plants. Large, dark pitchers that grew a lot faster, but still slower than their other plants under those conditions. I am still yet to get some to Greg Bourke, but Allen Lowrie now has material from the Giant. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets plants of interest from the seeds that were spread around a few years ago.

It can be a bit hard to tell what plant is what by looking at it, when the plant has not grown to its full potential, or the distinguishing feature is a growth habit. The newest "clone" in my collection has been selected due the ease with which grows. It does not look any different to the rest of my "Typical" plants, but I was told that it will grow readily from even small cuttings. I was given leaves, while others were given rhizomes. I was expecting that I would probably not succeed with most of the leaves, but they have all produced fast growing plants. Do I think that this plant is worth having over my numereous seedlings (from my seed and others')? Definately (except my EB x EB seedlings), but I am happy to get good clones and to produce seed from them. This plant is only known by the name of the original grower, and so we again have a situation where there are likely to be other distinct clones that have also come from this grower. As he has died it may not be possible to determine how many different plants he distributed that are of note.

And roots, which can also produce new plants. Just not so readily.