TheCarnifreak Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 Hello, I've bought this plant a while ago as a D. muscipula 'dentata'. But I'm not sure if it's dentata...so can anyone help me to identify this plant? Cheers, Ries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaniceB Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 It is a sawtooth. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 There appears to be only one sawtooth around which has large red traps when mature. Sawtooth and Dentata are the same plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic brown Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroplastik Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic brown Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aidan Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 There's far too many confusing, unpublished and unregistered names for VFT's in my opinion. A man after my own heart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike King Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 '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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic brown Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroplastik Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 Very nice - in between a dentate and a sawtooth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCarnifreak Posted September 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 Thanks for the reply's! So the plant on the picture's is dentata/sawtooth? Cheers, Ries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroplastik Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 The official name of this cultivar is 'Sawtooth'. Dentata was an old name still in use in Germany for example, but it's the same clone. Bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCarnifreak Posted September 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 OK. Thanks Chloroplastik ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trev Posted September 5, 2005 Report Share Posted September 5, 2005 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZ Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jürgen Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanW Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 Dentata was an old name still in use in Germany for example, but it's the same clone. Thats definetely right. Thomas is still selling HIS clone under HIS name... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aidan Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jürgen Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 Is it a result of cloning and/ or the ambition to create a new form ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aidan Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aidan Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 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! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 Really? I thought the plant had to be approved and to do that it has to be featured in print. Surely no one will put a photo of a poor plant in print? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.