Dentata or sawtooth?


TheCarnifreak
 Share

Recommended Posts

I disagree D. 'Dentate Traps' and D. 'Sawtooth' are very different, at least my two plants, which fit the cultivar description, are. My D. 'Sawtooth' produces traps like those in the photo, with irregularly divided dentate teeth all season, whereas my D. 'Dentate Traps' only produces undivided, dentate teeth later in the season.

Dionaea ' Dentate Traps ' {B.Meyers-Rice}]

P: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

S: =[Dionaea muscipula {Soland. ex Ellis}]

HC: Registered 30. 3. 2000 (JS)

GR: Dentate Traps Group {B.Meyers-Rice}

GRP: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

B: L.Song, Jr., before 1990

Nominant: B.Meyers-Rice, 30. 9. 1999

Registrant: B.Meyers-Rice, Davis, USA, 20. 10. 1999

Description: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

"A wild collected [Dionaea muscipula {Soland. ex Ellis}] plant was selected because its marginal spines were noticeably mutated. Instead of being long and filiform (as is usual), the spines of [Dionaea ' Dentate Traps ' {B.Meyers-Rice}] are short and triangular. This feature is not always apparent on small traps, or those produced early in the season, but the traps on mature plants in full growth are unmistakably dentate.

Dionaea ' Sawtooth ' {B.Meyers-Rice}]

P: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

S: =[Dionaea muscipula {Soland. ex Ellis}]

HC: Registered 30. 3. 2000 (JS)

GR: Dentate Traps Group {B.Meyers-Rice}

GRP: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

B: ?, before 1990

Nominant: P.D'Amato, 1998

Registrant: B.Meyers-Rice, Davis, USA, 20. 10. 1999

Description: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000)

"This [Dionaea muscipula {Soland. ex Ellis}] is of uncertain origin, but has been distributed without an established name. As such, the commonly used name [Dionaea ' Sawtooth ' {B.Meyers-Rice}] is being registered. [Dionaea ' Sawtooth ' {B.Meyers-Rice}] is a remarkable plant in the Dionaea Dentate Traps Group {B.Meyers-Rice}. Its marginal trap spines are reduced to small triangular teeth, as in [Dionaea ' Dentate Traps ' {B.Meyers-Rice}]. Unlike that latter cultivar, however, the teeth of [Dionaea ' Sawtooth ' {B.Meyers-Rice}] are frequently minutely divided into two or more tiny teethlets, so the trap has an almost fringed appearance. Late in the season, the interior of the traps may be deeply red, although this is not visible in young traps."

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sawtooth and Dentata are the same plant.

I agree.

Vic, Dentata is not Dentate Traps, it's just the unofficial name of the Sawtooth.

Dentata was the first name given by Thomas Carow to the Sawtooth.

(Thomas Carow is the selector of the Fused Tooth, Wacky Traps, Sawtooth...).

There appears to be only one sawtooth around which has large red traps when mature

There is also an all green form of Sawtooth found in a french garden center, and an all red form.

Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If D. 'Dentata' is just a synonym for D. 'Sawtooth', then why does P. d'Amato (The Savage Garden (1998), PP.66-67) describe the two as different, with the description for 'Dentata' being the same as for 'Dente' (itself a synonym for 'Dentate Traps')? !!

There's far too many confusing, unpublished and unregistered names for VFT's in my opinion.

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Dente' was a misread label of 'Dentate' at Agristarts, the tissue culture compan in Florida. Its certainly not a synonym! Itrs fun seeing both names on peoples' growlists probably (not) realising its the same plant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

synonym Term used in taxonomy, donating a different name for the same species or variety of organism.

In this case it's using a different name for the same cultivated variety (= cultivar), so I can't see why the term can't be used.

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also an all green form of Sawtooth found in a french garden center, and an all red form.

I've never heard of the green form, but perhaps this is the same plant which hasn't had much sun? The red form is 'Red Piranha'.

The shark's tooth plants are a different subject though. 'Dente', 'Dentate' and 'Shark's Tooth Dentate' all have the triangular teeth. 'Shark's Tooth' is different from the American 'Dente/Dentate' in having a more upright growth habit, less traps over a growing season as well as smaller traps. There are other triangular toothed clones out there all coming under 'Dentate'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of the green form, but perhaps this is the same plant which hasn't had much sun? The red form is 'Red Piranha'.

The green form was found in june, as far as I know it's in 3 collection. Mine is under a 125W envirolite lamp and it's still totally green.

The Red Sawtooth has teeth much more similar to the Sawtooth ones than the Red Piranha. Let's have a look there:

http://www.sarracenia.cz/informace/dionaea/redsaw/index.html

Bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Sawtooth and Dentata and they are definitely the same clone.

The green Sawtooth form has been getting lots of sun in my greenhouse and is still all green. :tu:

I also have a form called 'Dentée' that has irregular dentate style teeth.

Dentate Traps (in my collection, at least) is different to Dentate in that its early spring traps are almost normal and gradually become more dentate as the season progresses, and is more upright in habit.

Trev. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion demonstrates a typical problem with the cultivar naming process. As I understand it, if a suspect plant looks like the registered cultivar in all respects it can be labeled that name. Unfortunately, in all respects is often in the eye of the beholder and, furthermore, if you closely read the registration description (if, indeed, you can actually find it), you will discover how incomplete the description is. The result is that, even under the best of circumstances, many somewhat similar, but genetically different, plants are circulated using the name of the cultivar. [This is the flip-side of the problem of identical plants being given different names for marketing or trading purposes.] Finally, the same plant (clone) grown under different conditions can often look quite different from the original plant, although it is genetically identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very, very interesting thread, it shows the complexity especially

in designation.

I think it´s annoying buying a plant with a different name and later

you recognize....it´s the same.

Apparent we have to live with this fact and be pleasant about the "same

different" plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparent we have to live with this fact and be pleasant about the "same different" plants.

The entire situation is a joke and it isn't funny. This problem affects all the plants that we grow to some degree, but with Dionaea in particular it is now farcical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of factors at work:

Dubious marketing practices of some commercial suppliers.

Over zealous and illegitimate naming by collectors of plants that fall within the typical range of species characteristics.

Plants being distributed amongst collectors under incorrect and/or illegitimate names.

Incorrect renaming of plants "because it looks different".

14-09-05: Just remembered another problem... Both collectors and commercial suppliers erroneously assigning the parents name to seed grown plants.

The cultivar system itself does not help as Bob has already indicated. For example - some growers insist that there are a variety of dentate forms, but they all fall under the 'Dentate Traps' cultivar description at present. Unless that is someone decides to try and register (what may be the same clone) them and confuse matters yet further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that Dionaea plants are not actually that different from one other. Colouration, size, teeth shape and growing habit are the main ones, but about 20 plants would cover all these variations. However, the cultivar system is no use if you have a nice enough plant that isn't worthy of accolade, but you still need to refer to it as something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the cultivar system is no use if you have a nice enough plant that isn't worthy of accolade, but you still need to refer to it as something.

Ah, now there's the rub! :lol:

Not the case I'm afraid. There is no value judgement involved in the cultivar registration process. Provided that a plant can be distinguished from others, it may be registered. No matter how weak, spindly, inbred and disease-prone it may be.

Cultivars are not by definition good plants and there have been some pretty ratty examples registered over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share