Jump to content

Barry-Rice

Full Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Barry-Rice

  1. Oh yeah, it's good to keep an eye out for little rosetted Drosera. In large numbers they can make the ground slippery when you step on them. :)
  2. Alastair, François , et al. This is first-rate work. Really top notch. I am so happy for you, and for Nepenthes thorelii! Cheers Barry
  3. Hey Guys, Very interesting about the Utricularia having that weird problem. I can offer no assistance about the problem; I've never seen it before. Regarding questions about the plant's purity... If they are indeed seeds from Travis, which were produced by myself, I can offer the following information.... These seeds came from plants that I selfed myself. While we have a few other Iperua-Orchidioides Utricularia in our conservatory, none others were flowering at the time this one was. The plant is classic U. humboldtii, through and through. Photos of the plant are below. I am not denying that the leaves in the images surely are weirdly shaped. I would guess they were U. alpina leaves from the photo. Who knows....perhaps selfing U. humboldtii encourages strange recessive characters to emerge. Cheers Barry
  4. Hi Nicolas, Thanks. I agree that the identities of the plants are not that important, although I simply should have been more careful in that regard. My point in the selection of plants was to use plants that ranged from easy to hard. Still, I perhaps should have only used plants for which I had rock-hard identifications. This paper is actually reporting on ancient data. The first version of the paper was written back in 2000, but was at the time much more ambitious with a variety of statistical subsamples. Charles Clarke was a referee for the paper, and didn't like my stats, so I shelved the paper for years. As I wrapped up my editorial-ship with CPN, I found the paper again, reduced its scope, and just presented the barebones results without so much explanation. But yes, of course the gradings were done blind. While both Beth and I applied the superthrive, when it came to measuring leaves and grading root systems, Beth numbered the plants randomly, and then gave them to me. I made appropriate measurements. Only afterwards did we unscramble the samples. Since neither she nor I knew the identities of the plants, this was--I believe--referred to as "double blind." This study was great to do because we learned from the foliar spraying that ALL our plants responded well to foliar spraying, whether it was just water or superthrive. We also learned that the efficiency of our root cuttings increased by soaking them prior to planting, regardless of whether it was with water or superthrive. So it was a nice exercise for us. Now....I'd like to see someone prove us wrong by statistically showing superthrive DOES work. Finding improvements to cultivation is always much more desireable than having negative results! B
  5. Hey Phil, A valid point. When I came to the University of California in 1997, three clones of plants in the collection were listed as being N. thorelii. One was clearly N. rafflesiana. The other two were listed, inexplicably, as "N. thorelii-JAM" and "N. thorelii-Kondo". The reasons for these designations were unknown, but I guessed that somehow the plants were perhaps given to the collection by Joe A. Mazrimas and Professor Kondo. Further study as the plants grew larger suggested that the "N. thorelii-JAM" was another N. rafflesiana plant, although probably a hybrid, and we deaccessioned the plant from our collection. The other plant was more interesting, and actually seemed consistent with descriptions of Nepenthes thorelii. At the ICPS 2000 Conference, I snipped a few of the pitchers of "N. thorelii-Kondo" and brought them to the conference. I showed the plants to a number of people, including Charles Clarke, Andreas Wistuba, Chien Lee, and I think (but am not sure) Robert Cantley. All the answers I got were that the plants were consistent with N. thorelii, but that that pitchers were still a bit too small to tell. Subsequently, the plant was either stolen from our collections or it died, so any further discussion is largely irrelevent. But you are correct, I should have noted this plant as "Nepenthes sp.". Cheers Barry
  6. Hey Carlos, Bob alerted me to your post. Sorry that I confused you with that image. You see, that photo oddly labelled "S. gibbosa" is a lead-in to a later FAQ page. This later FAQ page describes (near the bottom) that because of a messed-up situation in botanical publications and rules, it was uncovered that what we now call "S. purpurea subsp. venosa " should actually be called S. purpurea subsp. purpurea, and that what we call "S. purpurea subsp. purpurea" should actually be called S. purpurea subsp. gibbosa. Fortunately, this was corrected by appropriate actions by those who govern the application of botanical names. Furthermore, it is a reference to the fact that the subspecies was described, at one point, with the name "S. gibbosa". Cheers Barry
  7. Hey Folks, I've seen D. brevifolia in many parts of the USA, so Rich asked me to comment. Using my USA (and not South America!) experience, I am sometimes hesitant to confidently ID small Drosera rosettes. Some who are more expert than I might roll their eyes, but to me, when the plants are small, weird D. capilliaris can look like D. brevifolia. Meanwhile, weird D. brevifolia can look like D. capilliaris. That being said, the flowering plant with the hairy (but oddly, not pubescent) scape on the 26 March post above does not quite seem to look like proper D. brevifolia. The leaves are not quite cuneate enough. They seem a little too paddle-shaped. Images I have of D. brevifolia in Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas can be seen here Cheers Barry
  8. I see the tiny lobation you're talking about, but it sure looks like classic U. bisquamata to me. I know that sometimes the 3-lobation or 5-lobation in lower corolla lips of Utricularia can be very subtle indeed, but Taylor talked about the lobation of U. pentadactyla being more or less "deep". Cheers Barry
  9. Hey Andreas, Thanks. A most excellent summary. I wonder how this translates to Sarracenia, where leaf pullings on the short, rosetted species is relatively easy, but are very difficult on the erect species. Cheers Barry
  10. Hey Folks, I'm a newbie to this water-cutting method. Reading the thread has been really helpful. As I was taking my first water-floating cuttings this morning, I noticed that sometimes the leaves would break off right near the petiole base, and sometimes just a little higher up the leaf. It struck me that the success some of you have reported, that occurred when two or more leaves were attached at the base, might be reflecting leaf-pullings in which the entire leaf was taken, including perhaps some crucial basal tissue? You folks probably already realized this---if so just disregard this post as an overly obvious observation from a newbie! B
  11. Hey Folks, So then let me ask about Dionaea 'Red Dragon'. It seems that all the 'Red Dragons' that I have seen for sale the last several years are plants that are mostly red, yes, but that even in very high light levels have a green band on the perimeter of the inner trap surface (see below). Is this, therefore, Dionaea 'Green Dragon'? From what I have read about both 'Green Dragon' and 'Petite Dragon', both plants are therefore mericlones of 'Red Dragon'? In fact, since all my 'Red Dragon' plants have turned out to be 'Green Dragon', I recently got a new couple of specimens from Henning von Schmeling. I'm hoping this is a proper 'Red Dragon'! Meanwhile, my specimen of 'Clayton's Red Sunset' is properly behaved, and is entirely red.
  12. Hey Folks, Interesting discussion on the cultivation of Genlisea aurea. I've never had very good luck with this plant---I certainly haven't gotten it to flower! I'll try submersing it a bit. Regarding ye ancient debate of the pale Genlisea that I labelled G. pallida on my site. The pale flowered plant I have photographed on my site consistently produced flowers with that shade, time and time again. Meanwhile, other Genlisea in my collection do not produce weird flowers. I no longer have the plant because during one of my collection-trimmings, I gave this plant away. I'm doing research on native aquatic Utricularia, and am (as always) short on space. On my newest revision of my FAQ, I have taken to referring to the plant G. "filiformis." A complete bit of text from the FAQ reads: You may puzzle over the table entry G. "filiformis". So have I! This is a plant that is commonly cultivated and sold under the name G. filiformis. When I first started growing this plant, I used my usual assumption that whatever was on the label was not to be trusted, and I assumed nothing about its identification. (This was a well-earned assumption, because I am actually relating my second attempt to grow G. filiformis---the first time, the so-called G. filiformis turned out to be nothing more or less than Utricularia bisquamata!) When it started flowering, it keyed quite readily as Genlisea pallida, an African species. Unfortunately, my plants never produce seed or even enlarged fruit, so I could not observe it in the fruiting condition (which would help the identification some). Even so, the identification was straightforward. Meanwhile, my source for this plant insisted up and down that this specimen came from collecting trips made by Fernando Rivadavia in Brazil. If so, it obviously could not be the African Genlisea pallida, and must instead be a South American species. I returned to my dissection microscope and keys, but try as I might to force the outcome, the plant simply would not key as G. filiformis. I tried, oh how I tried... So the mystery of this plant remains. Perhaps G. filiformis is more variable than the published keys allow. Perhaps the plant known as G. "filiformis" is a new species. Perhaps somewhere, somehow, some seed contaminations with African stock occurred.
  13. Fortunately, thought, it does not seem to produce seed...
  14. Hey Folks, This is an extremely interesting thread. My own perspective on the use of cultivar names has been evolving; I'd like to see it used for really nice plants, but I'd also see value in some other, larger db where everyone could just track their various clones of note. Personally, I find it practically impossible to tell the difference between many of these flytrap cultivars (especially the various red selections), and most of the nicknamed ones. I think it was Aidan Selwyn who recently illustrated the problem very nicely, when he showed side-by-side two specimens of the same clone, which looked nothing like each other. This discussion of mericlones, which I admit I was a topic I was blissfully ignorant about, is really distressing! I was given 'Justina Davis' a decade or so ago under the name of "All Green". I was happy to give it a name, and was really happy to give propagules to David Connor in hopes it would get out to wider cultivation. But I've heard whispers from Bob Ziemer that his clone is now showing pink coloration. I wonder if this is a mericloning issue.... It is interesting that John Jearrard doesn't mind the "sweeping all the more or less identical clones under a single name". I find this is a minority viewpoint among CP horticulturists. I can sympathise strongly with the majority view here, being a rather sentimental fool---I would proudly take a ratty, poorly growing Dionaea into my collection if I knew it was developed by Adrian Slack. And who wouldn't want a Dionaea if it could be traced directly back to a plant that was experimented upon by Darwin??? :)
  15. Hey Folks, I've got some new photos of S. debiles on line, so you can see the anther flicking back and forth, at: http://www.sarracenia.com/galleria/g323.html (About 3/4's of the way down the page.) Cheers Barry
  16. Hey Andreas, Interesting summary. From your description, I'd certainly agree with your assessment--not a particularly compelling publication. B
  17. Hmmm. Looks to me like the Darlingtonia seedling, while very pale, has red pigmentation in the infant fangs. I've seen 'Othello' seedlings, and while they lack red pigmentation, they are greener than the one in the photograph. I'm wondering if this is a chlorophyll-free mutant, and is short for the world?
  18. Hey Rob-Rah, Not missed at all, I just opted for a more subtle "play on words." I may not be a full wit, but at least half! Barry
  19. How do you guys get U. menziesii through summer dormancy? I've never had luck doing this. What tempertures, and how dry? Barry
  20. Barry-Rice

    Yucatan?

    Hey Folks, Early January I'll be spending a week in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. This seems like a fairly Ping-less area, but does anyone know of any CP in this area? I'm defining "in this area" to be in Yucatan. Cheers Barry
  21. Hey Folks, Hmmm....looking at these photos, I'm suspicious. Something about how the medium looks so clean and fresh, I suspect that these plants are mostly from field-collected mature specimens that have been recently inserted into cultivation. They remind me of how my European species look when I put them in new media for a new season of grown. It would be interesting to see if these plants can be maintained in cultivation. Man, this is a cool species.
  22. Hey Folks, Duh, I feel like a dolt. I looked this up in my copy of the Japanese journal, and found the plant occurs at 1000-1500 meters. Sorry about the superfluous question! B
  23. Hey Seandew, Are you growing the U. petertaylorii as a terrestrial or affixed aquatic? Cheers Barry
  24. Hey Folks, I have not seen the species description of Nepenthes saranganiensis. Does someone have access to this? I'd like to see what elevation range the plant was found at. Cheers Barry
×
×
  • Create New...