BobZ Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 The March 2009 issue of Carnivorous Plant Newsletter (v38 n1) is now available. Hard copy was mailed on March 17. The PDF is available for ICPS members to download at http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/CPNarchive.php Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 38(1). March 2009 CONTENTS Letter from the editor A new variety of Drosera spatulata (Droseraceae) from Sarawak, Borneo News and views Brocchinia reducta light preferences New cultivars: Byblis ‘Goliath’, Nepenthes maxima ‘Lake Poso’, Sarracenia ‘Reptilian Rose’, Sarracenia ‘Black Widow’, Sarracenia ‘Royal Ruby’, Sarracenia ‘Alucard’. Pinguicula planifolia submersion technique Looking for horticultural effects of SUPERthrive™ on Nepenthes From the board: Splinter Hill Bog update CPN 25 years ago Literature reviews Names of cultivars registered in 2008 Instructions to authors ICPS seed bank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Mine arrived today An issue that isn't dominated by Ping's and Utric's I've at last got something to read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loakesy Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Mine arrived today too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenofeden Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 glad to see Superthrive debunked... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) glad to see Superthrive debunked... Yep but did you notice that in this "Technical Refereed Contribution" one of the Neps they used to test it, was N. thorelii - a species that is believed to be 'not in cultivation'. They could at least have bothered to have the species/hybrid correctly identified. Edited March 26, 2009 by Phil Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry-Rice Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Yep but did you notice that in this "Technical Refereed Contribution" one of the Neps they used to test it, was N. thorelii - a species that is believed to be 'not in cultivation'. They could at least have bothered to have the species/hybrid correctly identified. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas de Lyon Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Hi Barry, this is a good job, I like when scientific method is employed to test growing methods. To my mind, the fact that one species is or isn't mismatched don't really create a bias (it would have be only if the study was design to only test N. thorelii, I guess). Nonetheless, I see another potential bias that you don't mention into the text. You tell us that you avoided observational bias, but you don't tell who applied the treatments. Did this person know if he was applying the test or the control treatment ? In a medical essay, the answer would be no : this is the definition of a "blind essay" (I don't know how to write that in English, I'm sorry). If his person was basically sure that using Superthrive is stupid, he could have, even involuntary, be less careful with the plants of the test group than those of the control group. Personally, I feed my plants mainly with egg white, I've never tried Superthrive and I don't want to. So, I would really like to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry-Rice Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Hi Barry,this is a good job, I like when scientific method is employed to test growing methods. To my mind, the fact that one species is or isn't mismatched don't really create a bias (it would have be only if the study was design to only test N. thorelii, I guess). Nonetheless, I see another potential bias that you don't mention into the text. You tell us that you avoided observational bias, but you don't tell who applied the treatments. Did this person know if he was applying the test or the control treatment ? In a medical essay, the answer would be no : this is the definition of a "blind essay" (I don't know how to write that in English, I'm sorry). If his person was basically sure that using Superthrive is stupid, he could have, even involuntary, be less careful with the plants of the test group than those of the control group. Personally, I feed my plants mainly with egg white, I've never tried Superthrive and I don't want to. So, I would really like to know. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I totally agree, as far as the test goes, its identity was irrelevant. The other plant was more interesting, and actually seemed consistent with descriptions of Nepenthes thorelii.Subsequently, the plant was either stolen from our collections or it died, Ah that is so sad, sounds like it would have a good one for Marcello to scrutinise. What might have been Finding improvements to cultivation is always much more desireable than having negative results! Too true . But then you do appear to have found some benefitial results, just not from that product. So congratulations anyway. 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.