Big Mouth And Finetooth X Red - The Same??

[LJ]

Hi all

I have a Big Mouth and Finetooth X Red and I cant see any difference between them, just wondering if anyone else has noticed this or whether one of my plants is mis-labelled?? I have another Big Mouth from a different supplier and thats also the same so thinking the Finetooth X Red may be mis-labelled unless they are the same plant thats been given different names at one point??

Any thoughts anyone??

Heather

[Trev]

Hi Heather,

I've been growing them together in the same conditions for about 2 and a half years now and I am of the opinion that they are the same clone. I also think the clone 'Atlanta' is also the same clone.

As far as I remember Big Mouth and Finetooth X Red both originated from Atlanta Botanical Gardens, which is probably where the Atlanta name comes from.

Trev. :)

[Guest Sheila]

You will find this with a lot of named vfts, many of them look no different from typicals you see in a garden centre every day. I buy those with an obvious difference but majority of vfts now are just given a name so someone can make some money. Let's be honest. Would you have ever bought the named vfts if they had just had a typical label in the pot?

Even some of the clones that are obviously different from typicals have several names attributed to one plant in order to sell more of them. How many people now want to have one of every plant in their collection? It is this desire that encourages this incessant renaming of the same clone and it is about time it was brought to a halt. All unofficial names should be removed and only registered cultivars should keep the names they have been given. That way if a grower really believes their plant is different to everyone elses they would be forced to register it or sell it nameless.

[BobZ]

Unfortunately the bogus unregistered names are already in circulation. Many (if not most) of these plants fall within the normal distribution of typical VFTs. Even if the unregistered names were discarded, it would not solve the problem because even within the registered names, there are numerous plants being circulated that are from seed or are just plants that someone decided looks like the registered cultivar name. The bottom line is "let the buyer beware". Grow the plant and then decide if it actually meets the cultivar description.

Below are photos of what my Big Mouth and Finetooth X Red plants look like. They are growing side by side in the same soil under what we on the northern California foggy coast laughingly call "full sun".

Big Mouth

Finetooth X Red

Edited July 31, 2010 by BobZ

[Trev]

Bob, I would have said that Big Mouth was a Pink Venus, where did it originate?

[BobZ]

I got the "Big Mouth" from Kirk Simpson (Colorado) in 1994. It only turns this color red for me under full sun. Whether my plant with that name is the same clone as someone else's is one of the problems with VFT clones.

In any event, my "Big Mouth" does not look like my "Pink Venus" (which is entirely dark purple). My "Pink Venus" looks most similar to a plant that I received called "BCP A25".

Please excuse the white specks (tree pollen that covers everything around here).

Pink Venus

BCP A25

Edited July 31, 2010 by BobZ

[Guest Sheila]

The trouble with named plants.

My big mouth variety looks exactly like your fine tooth x red.

[LJ]

Hmm, my Big Mouths and Finetooth X Red all looks like Bob's Finetooth X Red. There does look to be a bit of difference in Bob's Finetooth X Red and Big Mouth..........maybe I should re-name them all Finetooth X Red???

Its a shame the whole naming situation seems so out of control, as much as I love vft's it is a bit annoying to end up with plants that are the same but with different names. Not really the sellers fault as they are only selling the plants as they receive them in the first place, hopefully people will stop naming them before they've been registered properly.

Unfortunately I dont think the problems will be resolved any time soon though :-(

Thanks for the replies everyone. If anyone else has any pictures of both clones I would be interested to see them.

Heather

[Trev]

The plant that most of us have as 'Big Mouth' originated from Triffid Park in Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if they acquired a Finetooth X Red that someone had wrongly named Big Mouth and then distributed it. I remember before TP were selling Big Mouth, it was one of the forms that seemed to have disappeared. I have a couple of other plants that originated from the US about 5 years ago that claim to be 'Big Mouth', they are not like Bob's or Finetooth X Red but just look rather typical.

Trev. :)

[LJ]

I wouldnt be suprised if that were the case either Trev!! Thanks for your response............

Heather

[gardenofeden]

where does "Australian red rosetted" fit in...?

[Guest Aidan]

Again, it's most probably the same Triffid Park clone.

[FlytrapRanch]

The particular clone I have called 'Big Mouth' (aka 'Red-Purple') does look different from the particular clone I have of 'Fine Tooth x Red', but not very different. I actually prefer 'Fine Tooth x Red' (mine tends to look very much like Bob Z's, with deep red trap interior, sometimes red cilia and with sturdy, thick cilia bases).

The cultivar naming system when applied to carnivorous plants seems just about worthless to me, so I personally concentrate on growing and propagating specific clones. All of my 'Fine Tooth x Red' came from the same original plant, for example, so at least they are clones rather than so-called "Fine Tooth x Red" from various sources that may or may not be genetically identical. The same goes for all the rest of the plants I have, whatever their cultivar name. They are all vegetatively-propagated clones of the original plant I obtained.

This year I was excited to obtain, from David Conner here in the U.S., two clones with a known genetic source. Their cultivar names are 'B52' and 'Justina Davis', but rather than just fitting the cultivar description, they were micropropagated ("tissue cultured") by David Conner from tissue from the original plants which inspired the cultivar names. So they are true clones of the original plants. David is propagating quite a few of them, for anyone who may be interested. I plan to offer clones of these plants as they produce natural vegetative offshoots, but David is producing quite a lot of these clones now from sterile in vitro culture, for anyone who may be interested. His website:

http://connerscarnivores.com/

Anyway, back to the subject. My particular colonies of 'Big Mouth' and 'Fine Tooth x Red' don't look identical, but they do look similar. Fine Tooth x Red) has more of a tendency to produce deep red traps, for one thing.

As others have said, most Flytraps, even the "fancy" ones, are just variations on the genetic theme of the common Dionaea muscipula, and most are not really that special. The distinctions that can be compared, so far as I can tell, are these for the most part: whether the leaf, both the petioles and traps, are red or green or a mixture of the two; whether the cilia are long and thin, or short and shark-teeth-like; whether the plant tends to produce longer, thinner petioles or shorter, thicker petioles; whether the plant tends to produce large, medium or small traps for its size, maturity and diameter; whether the plant is a vigorous grower or not; whether it tends to produce numerous vegetative offshoots or few; whether the trap interiors develop a deep red color or merely a pinkish, or rarely, only green with no red at all; how much of a tendency or how readily the trap interiors develop color; how the color tends to be distributed inside the traps, evenly or in patches or patterns. Those are all of the distinctions I can think of now, and all of them (excluding weird mutations from tissue culture or for other reasons, like 'Bart Simpson', etc.) are just variations of the genetic diversity of this single species of this single genus, Dionaea muscipula. Humans are just a single species too, and we have a lot of genetic variation. :)

-Steve

Edited August 15, 2007 by xscd

[Guest Aidan]

All of my 'Fine Tooth x Red' came from the same original plant, for example, so at least they are clones rather than so-called "Fine Tooth x Red" from various sources that may or may not be genetically identical. The same goes for all the rest of the plants I have, whatever their cultivar name. They are all vegetatively-propagated clones of the original plant I obtained.

This is as it should be.

This year I was excited to obtain, from David Conner here in the U.S., two clones with a known genetic source. Their cultivar names are 'B52' and 'Justina Davis', but rather than just fitting the cultivar description, they were micropropagated ("tissue cultured") by David Conner from tissue from the original plants which inspired the cultivar names. So they are true clones of the original plants.

Here you are working under a misconception, as noted in this recent thread: http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?s...20728&st=40. Barry may (or may not) have been inspired by gazing lovingly at one particular plant. But, the description of 'Justina Davis' is such that any genuinely all-green plant may be legitimately considered to be the cultivar. In this particular case and like it or not, there is no "original plant".

[FlytrapRanch]

Here you are working under a misconception, as noted in this recent thread: http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?s...20728&st=40. Barry may (or may not) have been inspired by gazing lovingly at one particular plant. But, the description of 'Justina Davis' is such that any genuinely all-green plant may be legitimately considered to be the cultivar. In this particular case and like it or not, there is no "original plant".

Very well--agreed. :) I suppose I should rephrase that like this: The 'Justina Davis' plants I have were cloned from the tissue of an all-green, anthocyanin-free plant that happened to be in the possession of the person who created the cultivar name 'Justina Davis' for an all-green Dionaea. :)

My 'Triffid Traps' are almost all-green, and I thought for a time that they were truly an anthocyanin-free plant. However, under certain conditions the inside of the traps develop the slightest hint of pink--if you look real hard--with a jeweler's loupe. :)

-Steve

Edited August 16, 2007 by xscd

[John Jearrard]

A lot of wise things have been said here. Certainly with something like VFT it is easier if named cultivars are single clones, however some cultivar names - 'Justina Davis' springs to mind, have the great advantage of sweeping all the more or less identical clones under a single name. Since none of the alternative names for all green VFT are valid, they should all be scrapped. Unfortunately, CP growers are unlikely to scrap all of their old names in favour of a new one - people are very reluctant to take on new names, especially if they have to lose old names in the process.

As regards tissue cultured plants, under sterile in vitro conditions, it is possible for plantlets to regenerate from single cells. Different propagation regimes vary in the extent to which this happens. In microprop, the ideal is that plants are only regenerated from divisions and buds. Unfortunately, VFT produces callus (undifferentiated cells in a mass) quite easily. A proportion of all cells mutate in any given time period. If plants regenerate from mutated cells, you get mutated plants, unlike the original clone (potentially). Tissue culture commonly produces plantlets with a range of slight variations on the original clone - they are called mericlones. For many foliage plants, it is now the commonest way of breeding new cultivars - selecting the best mericlones from a batch. Unfortunately, therefore, tissue culture of the original plant does not ensure that the resulting plants will be identical. If practice, it guarantees that some of them will not be. Some mutations are easily spotted, and can be rogued out, but most result in slight variations that are only slightly different. The longer a plant is maintained in vitro, the greater the range of mutations that accumulates.

The problem of all nomenclature is finding ways of grouping the evident variation into categories that are meaningful and useful. This is why a cultivar is not the same as a clone. The key question with every proposed cultivar is "What characteristic(s) make this plant distinct and distinguishable from other plants?" If there isn't a good answer, then there isn't a good cultivar!

And if you ask that question about 'Fine Tooth x Red', or 'Big Mouth', or 'Australian Red Rosette' do you get an answer that you are prepared to pay good money for? (it is a purely personal decision).

The reason I advocate publishing cultivar descriptions for every plant people want to distribute is that it allows anyone with money to spend to go back to an authoritative description and decide for themselves if there is a good reason to buy it. Those that don't sell become extinct incredibly quickly. If you buy something that isn't described as clearly distinct, don't be surprised when it isn't clearly distinct. Don't blame the Code of Nomenclature, blame the fool with the money!

[FlytrapRanch]

(...) Don't blame the Code of Nomenclature, blame the fool with the money!

Very interesting point of view and post. Thanks!

Edited August 18, 2007 by xscd

[Barry-Rice]

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??? :)

Edited August 17, 2007 by Barry-Rice

[John Jearrard]

Sentiment is a perectly good reason for naming a cultivar (or call it historical significance if you want). There are any number of clones of garden plants out there that derive from ancient or historically significant plants. All that matters is that the description makes the reason for the selection clear.

On the matter of variability within cultivar names, it is worth remembering that life is all about variability and change (sorry, I don't mean to sound patronising, just that this is the foundation of all taxonomy). There are no fixed unvarying units within plant life, and conversely, there are no flexible evolving names. That is to say, the system for naming works in fixed defined units, while the material being named exhibits continuous (more or less) variation. The two systems can never match each other, they can only approximate eachother. Every taxon exhibits a degree of variation (even "cultivar"). The illusion that you can fix a name exactly to a specific unvarying plant is simple and comforting, it just isn't true. Every name used represents a spectrum of variation. The allowable extent of that variation is a matter of concensus among the interested parties (who may or may not call themselves taxonomists).

D.m.'Justina Davis' is great, because it defines what is required from an all green VFT, and says clearly that all the slight variations about can be included under the one name, and at last starts the process of creating workable cultivar names for VFT based on clear descriptions. Now, when someone comes up with a sharks tooth all green form .... an additional cultivar name will be required. Hopefully the description will be equally sensible and encompass all the slight possible variations in the sharks tooth form. The measure of a cultivar is that it should be distinct. Slight variations, that are often more about the eye of the beholder than about significant distinction, get included under the earliest available published cultivar name.

As I have said before (ad nauseam) I am in favour of publishing a name and description for any clone that is being distributed. Informal names are creating chaos, and there is no way of checking what was really meant by the name. If it is being distributed, that is to say, if more than one person is trying to communicate about a plant, then they need a common language (name) to work with. People may then decide that the plant is worthless, the name pointless, whatever. The important point is that they can communicate their opinions accurately and meaningfully.

And as for Big Mouth and Finetooth x Red, it's not so much a matter of whether thay are the same, as whether they can be significantly distinguished from eachother, or indeed whether there is anything significant about either of them? If there is, we need a cultivar description to tell us what it it.

I've quoted it before, but article 10 of the Code of Nomenclature for cultivated plants says:

"The international term cultivar denotes an assemblage of cultivated plants which is clearly distinguished by any characters, (.....) , and which, when reproduced (sexually or asexually), retains its distinguishing characters.

Note 1. Mode of origin is irrelevant when considering whether two populations belong to the same or different cultivars. "

Note 1 is important, it makes it clear that it doesn't matter where various plants originated, if they all have the distinguishing characters of the cultivar, then they are that cultivar (though they may well not all be the same clone).

I'm off to bed - and for anyone who now thinks that I am the human manifestation of the devil in taxonomic trousers, I promise to go out into the greenhouse with a tasty fly tomorrow, and shut my 'Big Mouth' !

[BobZ]

John, your two recent posts about cultivars are the most sensible and clearly written that I have read in a long time. Thank you!

[Trev]

I agree Bob. It's nice to see a post from someone who knows what they are talking about.

[Barry-Rice]

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.

[Guest Aidan]

Some recent photos of what I have labelled as 'Akai Ryu' are here:

http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22219

It hasn't been the greatest year in terms of sunshine (and therefore colour) and I can not be certain it is the genuine plant. The smaller trap in the second image can be seen to be entirely red. I find the various all-red plants largely impossible to distinguish from one another.

To complicate matters further I have a pet theory about 'Petite Dragon' that I have mentioned to Bob. There is an all-red clone from ABG that was imported and distributed via the CPS a few years ago. This is one all-red plant that I can distinguish from the rest. In my experience it always grows a bifurcated flower scape as in 'Petite Dragon'. The scape divides either at ground level or closely beneath the flowers. Perhaps therefore, 'Petite Dragon' is actually a sport of this plant rather than 'Akai Ryu'. :cry:

[John Jearrard]

Hi Barry - I don't know much about the history of Green Dragon and Petite Dragon, but it sounds as though they would be better described as t/c mutants or sports - 'mericlones' is generally used (at least by me!) to refer to the swarm of slight variants that emerge from tissue culture that aren't significant enough to call 'wrong' but which reduce uniformity in a crop context - irritating, but not particularly significant. (The mechanism of mutation is the same, it's just a matter of degree).

[BobZ]

Here is a 'Red Dragon' and 'Green Dragon' growing next to one another in full foggy sun. I can tell no difference. When the traps first open, there is a green ring on the outer part of the trap, but this turns red after exposed to the sun for a week or so.

Below are 2 photos of an "original" 'Red Dragon' clone that I got from Brad Adler that he had obtained from Exotic Gardens.

Below are 2 photos of a 'Green Dragon' that I obtained from Exotic Gardens.

Interestingly, the stigma on the 'Green Dragon' flower is red/pink, as with many red clones

whereas, on this 'Red Dragon', the pistil is not pink

Edited July 31, 2010 by BobZ