Sign in to follow this  
mantrid

Inaccurate Descriptions

Recommended Posts

Just been looking at this site

Some of the pictures just dont seem to match what these plants are supposed to look like

eg this looks like a dingley giant and nothing like a big mouth.

http://www.czplants.com/p1594-Dionaea-muscipula-Big-mouth

There are other examples too like the Akai Ryu not looking like how it should, but perhaps this is just the picture.

http://www.czplants.com/p1587-Dionaea-muscipula-Akai-Ryu

Another problem with this is it is described as a mixture of DIFFERENT clones, so how can these specimens be Akai Ryu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, confusing. Also unfortunate that they sell VFT 'Sawtooth' seeds, and do not state that the seedling may not be named the same as the motherplant.

For czplants:

the only vft-cultivars, that I know of, that may be cultivated by seed are:

'Holland Red'

and

'Red Burgundy'

The author states clearly, sawtooth must be propageted vegetatively only.

N: $[Dionaea ' Sawtooth ' {B.Rice}]

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

PW: www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v29n1p14_21.html#sawtooth

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

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

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

B: T.Carow, Muennerstadt, DE, before 1989

Nominant: P.D'Amato, 1998

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

HC: Registered 30. 3. 2000 {JS}

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."

Standard: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:15 (2000)

Propagation: vegetative only

Etymology: the marginal trap tentacles are small and fimbriately notched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why you should only buy vfts from trusted sources. Its for the exact reasons mentioned above that I dont buy vfts from CZ now - I just dont trust that they are what they are supposed to be. I am quite happy to buy other cps from them but it seems not everyone thinks propagation should only be done vegetatively. There are the exceptions mentioned above but even for those I still only use vegetative methods.

When buying plants you should check how the vfts have been propagated and where the seller bought their plant from originally and check the info out if you can. This is especially important when buying plants from people that you think may originally have got their plants from CZ Plants.com or any other nurseries etc in that area.

Their own clones numbers should be ok (eg A22) if you want to buy these but I would advise people to be wary of the named clones/cultivars they sell, the same goes for any other nurseries/sellers from that area. Dont get me wrong - there are some good sellers from that area of the world but not all share the same views about propagating named clones/culitvars the same way we do. I have also experienced that some people think that if you have clone A that looks similar to clone B then you can give clone A the same name as clone B even though they are different clones!!

The Akai Ryu from CZ is a perfect example - in the description it says mix of red clones. This surely isnt possible as to be an Akai Ryu they must all be the same clone if propagated properly. My guess is they've self pollinated Akai Ryu or some other red clone, grown the seedlings on which will show variation due to being seed grown and this is what they are selling - they have to say mix of red clone to explain the variation. These plants are not Akai Ryu :yes: Ok rant over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats why you should only buy vfts from trusted sources. Its for the exact reasons mentioned above that I dont buy vfts from CZ now - I just dont trust that they are what they are supposed to be. I am quite happy to buy other cps from them but it seems not everyone thinks propagation should only be done vegetatively. There are the exceptions mentioned above but even for those I still only use vegetative methods.

When buying plants you should check how the vfts have been propagated and where the seller bought their plant from originally and check the info out if you can. This is especially important when buying plants from people that you think may originally have got their plants from CZ Plants.com or any other nurseries etc in that area.

Their own clones numbers should be ok (eg A22) if you want to buy these but I would advise people to be wary of the named clones/cultivars they sell, the same goes for any other nurseries/sellers from that area. Dont get me wrong - there are some good sellers from that area of the world but not all share the same views about propagating named clones/culitvars the same way we do. I have also experienced that some people think that if you have clone A that looks similar to clone B then you can give clone A the same name as clone B even though they are different clones!!

The Akai Ryu from CZ is a perfect example - in the description it says mix of red clones. This surely isnt possible as to be an Akai Ryu they must all be the same clone if propagated properly. My guess is they've self pollinated Akai Ryu or some other red clone, grown the seedlings on which will show variation due to being seed grown and this is what they are selling - they have to say mix of red clone to explain the variation. These plants are not Akai Ryu :tu: Ok rant over!

There also lies a problem in a totally different area. If I'm correct then you may name clone A by a certain cultivar name, if that clone A is identical in all aspects, to the given cultivar.

In short: if it looks like the culitvar, it is the cultivar. :yes:

I would really like to be corrected, if this is false information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, i've also heard the same Amar - the only problem then is that not everyone's perception may be the same - and this will create even more problems.

It contradicts the cultivar description somewhat too -

In short: if it looks like the culitvar, it is the cultivar.

Say we call this rule A.

Cultivar description states the clone must be propagated vegetatively.

Call this rule B.

If it states in the description that the clone must be propgated vegetatively then how can someone else with a different clone (that looks the same but actually isnt) give it the same name - by rule A its ok but by rule B its not possible. So which rule do you following if they contradict each other? Rule A is just not a good rule in my book! If everyone propagated named clone vfts vegetatively from the original clone it would save A LOT of trouble and confusion!!! I'm using rule B and most sensible vft growers do the same - atleast there's no chance of spreading clones that aren't 'the real deal' this way.

Heather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I understand our problems i've the same one.

I progangated only vegetatively, but i have some where ara flowering and i pollination her self but i dont now that the F1 has the theme future as the Motherplant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding of it (and maybe we need to clear this up with the ICPS), it doesn't matter how its propagated, as long as it consistently shares the same traits as the registered cultivar, it can be claimed to be that cultivar.

The problem is that the claim that they consistently share the same traits is dependent upon the seller. The only way to prevent this is to buy from a trusted seller. I have generally heard good things about CZplants (apparently, they are the same as Bestcarnivoroousplants.com), but it does worry me about that they sell named cultivars as seed.

Although, if you think about it, what nursery is going to rely on seed propagation for any meaningful production of plants? Tissue Culture, and cuttings, would produce market ready plants much faster for much less effort. (Ok maybe TC is a bit of effort, but still, it far outproduces seed for the effort given)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we saying then that CZplants are no good? Or their method/wording is a bit off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we saying then that CZplants are no good? Or their method/wording is a bit off?

It does seem that the more they are discused, the more dodgey practices/quality and bad experiences surface. I've bought from them once and won't be doing so again.

Check out this other post about them

http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?s...c=32213&hl=

Edited by Phil Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we saying then that CZplants are no good? Or their method/wording is a bit off?

I have bought off them only once and had a good service. But I dont think will again as the named cultivars they sell are in my opinion unreliable. as an example I purchased red purple, which is supposed to be the same as bigmouth.

The plant was indeed a red purple colour so I cant complain but its form and colour is completely different to big mouth even though they have been growing side by side all summer

pics below

Big mouth from VFTshop

bigmouth.jpg

Red Purple from CZ

redpurple.jpg

But saying this Red Purple and Bigmouth are not registered cultivars so CZ can use these names to describe any of their plants. I think red purple describes their plant better than the bigmouth from trev based on colouration (Infact it went more red purple in colour than in the pic, until my recent disaster nearly wiped it out).

So what should I do? Continue to call it Redpurple or bigmouth and are redpurple and bigmouth really the same?

Confusion confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really cannot be sure then call it unknown. Which is a shame but needs must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, you could leave it unlabelled or marked unknown or just leave it named as red purple but keep a note that its CZ's form. I have a red purple too that I thought would be the same as big mouth too but it isnt - I've left it labelled red-purple but I have also put the seller on the label - I dont think I'll be passing it on to anyone though as I dont want to add to the confusion. Its clearly a different clone that has been called red-purple rather than the clone thats meant to be the same as big mouth - a bit confusing. If you pass the plant onto anyone make sure they are aware of the history of it and that its CZ's form and not the one thats supposed to look like big mouth.

Find plants from trusted sellers where possible - they'll be sure to have plants that are what they're supposed to be and will propagate plants in the way most of us would expect. If I found out a seller had named a plant red piranha simply because they thought it looked like it and it wasnt propagated vegetatively from a confirmed real red piranha mother plant then I wouldnt buy it. Thats my personal way of working but also a very sensible choice IMHO!! Its always worth checking the history of a plant you're buying!

Heather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have bought off them only once and had a good service. But I dont think will again as the named cultivars they sell are in my opinion unreliable. as an example I purchased red purple, which is supposed to be the same as bigmouth.

Now this I just find strange. How can it be good service if the plant wasn't as advertised :oops:

It doesn't matter how quick the postage or how big the smile as they take your cash - if the item is not as described then this is at best poor service.

Although if anyone wants that type of 'good service', give me a call. I'm sure I could manage a big smile and polite thank you as I take your cash. Just tell me what you want (anything) and I'll send a plant labeled as it :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good link Stephen gave us a little while ago:

http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/new_cultivar.pdf

Basically, if the cultivar description states that it must be propagated by vegetative means only then it must be propagated by vegetative means only. If the description does not state this then, technically, your plant only has to share the qualities of the description (with photo?).

Unless the description is intended to be a number of clones sharing a certain group of characteristics (e.g. S. 'Schnell's Ghost'), rather than a single clone, then reproduction by sexual means and tagging the offspring with the cultivar name is a pretty poor show, deceptive to all and should not be done. The reason why it is, of course, is to make money fast. As Heather says, the critical thing is to trust the vendor, and forums like this one promote good, trustworthy vendors through discussion and shared experience.

People's views differ on what form a valid description (and 'publication') should take. If registered then you would think there should be no problem. Important things are, I guess, a date and an owner. Electronic means have not yet been accepted as publication. Maybe this helps ensure that the number of cultivar names don't start growing astronomically and differences between clones become less and less clear. Mind you, names don't need to be registered for that to happen (as, perhaps, can be seen with VFTs). There have been a couple of CPs registered in the ICPS newsletter recently where I have hoped that they look more special in real life than the photo of the mongrel shown.

The ICPS is the International Registration Authority (IRA) for carnivorous plant cultivars.

Take for example, D. 'Akai Ryu':

http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v25n2p50.html

This description does not explicitly specify how a plant given the tag 'Akai Ryu' should have been propagated but it is pretty darn obvious that it is a single clone and must be propagated vegetatively!!

Many older clones are very poorly published e.g. many of Adrian Slack's Sarracenia. Descriptions of many of these come solely from very brief descriptions in his books and the odd photo. For many of these, most people may never know which is the true clone.

I am still unclear about much of this naming business and like to be corrected whenever anybody more knowledgeable has the patience to do so (hint, hint). For example, is it possible for a plant to have two cultivar names apply to it? Take the S. 'Schnell's Ghost' cultivar group name example. Could a certain yellow flowering leuco clone, which matches the description of 'Schnell's Ghost' be registered with its own clone name i.e. can you have a cultivar name within a cultivar group name? I would think so.

Edited by jimfoxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now this I just find strange. How can it be good service if the plant wasn't as advertised :oops:

It doesn't matter how quick the postage or how big the smile as they take your cash - if the item is not as described then this is at best poor service.

Although if anyone wants that type of 'good service', give me a call. I'm sure I could manage a big smile and polite thank you as I take your cash. Just tell me what you want (anything) and I'll send a plant labeled as it :smile:

Well apart from the service, it was as described. It was red purple. Does anyone know what the real red purple is like or the real big mouth for that matter. When looking at images of them on the internet from various sources there is a definate lack of clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id try looking at Trevs site - he has 2 big mouth clones - an early one and a later one and also a red-purple.

See the thread below aswell for a bit of a discussion on it. Its all a bit confusing and I dont think we'll ever be 100% sure about this but I'm going with Trevs opinion.

http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?s...p;hl=red-purple

Heather

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this