S. purpurea "tina"

[ada]

I agree with Maniac, my "sorrow" has changed a lot since i got it.

It has flowered,been repotted,has divided into three growing points and been left outside.

So the pitchers are smaller(due to dividing and flowering)and a lot paler in colour,the throat patch is also much reduced in colour and size.

But it is much more purpurea like than"tina" appears in these photos.

This could be due to disturbance or just our rubbish weather only time will tell.

ada

Edited October 24, 2009 by ada

[guillaume]

Tina or Sorrow?

[ada]

I would have to say "tina" purely because this plant exhibits a vigourous nature,in the cultivar description it says sorrow is a slow grower & divider.

I think we are talking about two plants that been seed grown and look almost identical.

As i said in an earlier post,only growing them in the same conditions over time, side by side will tell.

Guillaume,are you willing to send me a piece to grow beside "sorrow"?

ada

[maverick]

Hi Adrian,

The picture shown over here came from this site: http://utricularia.net/sonstiges/stefan_le..._2008/index.php

The picture was taken in 2008 in the collection from Stefan Lenssen.

I think this is the 'Sorrow' he grows

Or he must be growing the tina clone as well.

I've send Freddy de Conick another letter last wednesday, still no reply... I think this will end with a dead end.

If there are any updates from my side I will let you all know.

Regards,

Laurens

[ada]

Thanks Laurens, same plant as mine. I thought guillaume had bought one and was posting a picture.

And now i know why it appears so vigorous

ada

[Miroslav Srba]

To Guillaume: I would say yor lastpost is Sorrow. The pitchers seems to me mor closer to purpurea. The post s as 'Tina' here seems to me more tubular.

To general: I have sent also one selfed seedling os Sorrow to Steffan Lenssen. He grows it separately, but I haven't seen any difference between the mother plant and offsrping. So just third clone to make it more complicated.

[(Maniac)]

...I have sent also one selfed seedling os Sorrow to Steffan Lenssen.

Thanks for complicating Miroslav...

[guillaume]

The picture I have show you is a purpurea "Sorrow" growing by Stefan Lenssen.

I grow purpurea "tina" and purpurea "sorrow" and I can't see any difference...

[gardenofeden]

I am not sure if it is correct to call either of them purpurea. 'Sorrow' arose from a purpurea parent, but the parent is unknown, to me the parent might be a catesbaei (which would make it S. catesbaei 'Sorrow')

[(Maniac)]

I am not sure if it is correct to call either of them purpurea. 'Sorrow' arose from a purpurea parent, but the parent is unknown, to me the parent might be a catesbaei (which would make it S. catesbaei 'Sorrow')

Indeed there is a clearly valid point of view in what you say, anyway I guess all of us are thinking about a S. flava var. rugelii introgression, that obviously turns the most correct plant's epithet to catesbaei, but meaning something like:

S. x (((((catesbaei) x purpurea) x purpurea) x purpurea) x purpurea)...

On the other hand, since we can just make use of our fantasies for the hypotized introgression, I have to say that the only correct way to treat this plant (or these plants?!) is just as S. 'Sorrow' and S. "Tina"... because noone demonstrated at the time whether this is an hybrid or a pure purpurea... I mean, appearence is not jet science!!!

Edited November 5, 2009 by (Maniac)

[Fabrice Reolon]

in the book 'gardening with carnivores' (Nick Romanowski) copyright 2002 you are able to see a picture of S. x'tina p.46

it's mentionned : "possibly an intraspecific hybrid between variant of S. purpurea which do not occur together in the wild, although it may also include some other genes"

Fabrice.

[maverick]

I personally think this is just a X catesbaei hybrid between some veinless purpurea(either the burkii veinless or the ssp. purpurea veinless) x flava rugelii.

This would also result in this kind of offspring.

But I think all the people over here where pretty convinced that this was no pure purpurea as mentioned in the cultivar description.

I now only hope to find out the truth behind the tina.

But, I asked this before: Tina is oficially published in that book, does this mean this plant now is a oficcial cultivar? and so can be registered with the single quites?

Thanks a lot!

Regards,

Laurens

[(Maniac)]

[...]

But, I asked this before: Tina is oficially published in that book, does this mean this plant now is a oficcial cultivar? and so can be registered with the single quites?

[...]

The registration of a cultivar is an official procedure; it requires some specifics, INCLUDING a pubblication. But one can't ponderate and decide by himself whether can a clone be considered a cultivar or not.

You can check a list of the registered cultivars on the ICPS website and write their names with single quotes. All the other clones must be written with double quotes.

[maverick]

Hi Maniac,

Thanks for the explenation,

I'm happy it isn't published, because the whole goal of the cultivar registration system is to preserve the Unique clones and this one isn't because it is just like 'sorrow'

I've also mailed Bob Ziemer about it and he told me the following:

S."Tina" is not registered. Although published in 2002, Jan Schlauer (the official ICRA registrar) has not picked it up, either because he is unaware of the publication, feels the description did not meet the registration criteria, and/or had never received a request to register it. Jan could provide a more complete and official explanation. Anyway, to answer your question, S. "Tina" should be in double quotes until it is registered as an official cultivar. -Bob-

So this is indeed NO cultivar

Thanks for the help!

Regards,

Laurens

[Dave Evans]

Folks, northern populations of S. purpurea tend toward elongated pitchers, more so than the southern populations. S. rosea is strictly squat pitchered, unless it is etiolating. I think this is related to the northern populations of purpurea tending to also live in mats of Sphagnum moss and the pitchers grow tall enough to just reach out of the moss surface. Different species of Sphagnum might have influenced different populations of S. purpurea, this is just a hunch though...

Does anyone have photos of the whole plant including the flower(s)? Tall scapes just as tall as S. purpurea scapes would indicate a lack of S. rosea influence.

The cultivar system is set up to maintain specific traits, not necessarily specific clones. If you cannot tell different clones apart when looking at them, tasting them, or anything else one can do with a plant; why be worried they may have grown from different seeds? The reason many cultivars are restricted to single clones is because those are the only clones with those specific traits. It is usually possible to rebreed new clones of old cultivars, which is a very good thing as genetic diversity is very important for a number of reasons including disease resistance so all the plants with the same traits (we want to maintain) don't died when a new disease develops.

[(Maniac)]

The cultivar system is set up to maintain specific traits, not necessarily specific clones.

[...]It is usually possible to rebreed new clones of old cultivars, which is a very good thing as genetic diversity is very important for a number of reasons including disease resistance so all the plants with the same traits (we want to maintain) don't died when a new disease develops.

Ok, but we know how frequently the tolerance of diversities on the "rebreeds" is directly proportional to the interest one has to (declare to) own a cultivar!!!

If I were an authority in the cultivar management, I imposed that only the plants dveloped strictly via cutting or invitro propagation can be labeled with the cultivar name, without adding any further information. I think some terribly different plants are nowadays sold/swapped as "original cultivar". Imagine how intelligent would be to add a specific after the cultivar name when it is produced by seed and not from the first clone...

For an instance, how many original 'Claret' are actually available out there?... And can one be sure today that the first clone still exists somewhere?... Here why I think when one "rebreeds" a cultivar, he would specify in the naming that it is produced by self pollination or by new crossing, depending on the system he used... but I think a lot of growers prefer to avoid it just to sell better / have more "fame" with "original cultivars" in their growlists!

Edited November 8, 2009 by (Maniac)

[Dave Evans]

This isn't a problem, since you can add the breeder's name at the end.

The problem simply appears to me, people don't feel like recording and maintain accurate records. Not that there is a problem with having cultivars with multiple clones. Cultivar is short for "cultivated variety", it is not shorthand for "cloned variety".

[sarracenia_australis]

Sarracenia 'Sorrow' was selected by Dr. Studnicka from batch of S. purpurea ssp. purpurea seeds which he obtained in 1980's (!) from Ghent, Belgium (!!!). I got a specimen as a present 11 years ago from Dr. Studnicka and I am pretty sure it is some bacross of S. purpurea snd S. f. rugelii. According to my knowledge and experience with Sarracenia genetics such hybrid can be obtained in 3rd or 4th generation of crossing. Anyway i am sure it is not a form or mutant of S. purpurea.

Anyway it would be interesting to track the origin of Tina. I would be very curious. I would estimate, the origin is the same.

Dear Miroslav and others,

I have a sneaking suspicion that 'Sorrow' and "Tina" have common parentage because Triffid Park have plants growing in their nursery labelled as "Sarracenia purpurea Tina, from Gent" (the from Gent bit is not on their website). This assumption is based on the "Gent" from their label meaning the Beligan Ghent where the cv. 'Sorrow' is apparantly from. My plants were brought direct from Triffid Park at their open day last year and the label is the original from their nursery, so I place some weight on its intent.

Of course, one would need to ask Trifid Park to be 100% sure.

It is also worth noting that the current Meadowview Research Station Sarracenia catalogue has a Sarracenia "Horizon" (p. 21) on offer with similar markings to cv. 'Sorrow'. It was apparantly bred by Dave Evans as a hybrid between Sarracenia flava and S. rosea (or S. purpurea var. burkii, depending on whose taxonomy you subscribe to).

The Meadowview catalogue is available online at: http://www.pitcherplant.org./Meadowcatalog2010.pdf (warning - 5 MB file). For ease of download, I suggest going to www.pitcherplant.org and saving the catalogue from there (link at top of page).

Regards,

John, Canberra, Australia.

[maverick]

My "Tina" plant is making a flowerstalk now, Is there somebody out there with a decent picture of a true 'Sorrow' flower? (not the one of the ICPS website, it's to pale)

This way it's possible to compaire both flowers.

I didn't find any other information about "Tina" unfortunately, I really hope I can get in tough with Freddy this year.

In the meantime Karnivores.com is still naming their "Tina" plants as true 'Sorrow' examples, very dissapointing , though they are sold out at the moment.

I tried to contact them a couple of times in the last months, but they never repied to my emails again, I think they only want to make profit on my information(wich is not yet confirmed )

Happy growing!

[Miroslav Srba]

My plynt of original 'Sorrow' clone will flower in May hopefuly. If I remember, I will send the photo. If not, remind me please.

[Dave Evans]

It is also worth noting that the current Meadowview Research Station Sarracenia catalogue has a Sarracenia "Horizon" (p. 21) on offer with similar markings to cv. 'Sorrow'. It was apparantly bred by Dave Evans as a hybrid between Sarracenia flava and S. rosea (or S. purpurea var. burkii, depending on whose taxonomy you subscribe to).

Dear John,

No, I didn't breed it, but I did mention how the thinner line of red across the back of the openning looks like a "burning horizon". Somehow the name 'Horizon' stuck with the plant :) Pretty sure this isn't the same type of plant as 'Tina' and/or 'Sorrow'.

[(Maniac)]

New developing pitchers on my S. x "Tina".

Let's hope to compare a lot of our specimens

of both "Tina" and 'Sorrow' on this topic.

[maverick]

New pitchers over here too, The flower is about one week from flowering now.

I will post some pictures of it when it is fully open.

Happy Growing!

[maverick]

My S. "Tina" flower is nearly fully open.

Here is a picture of the tina flower:

And here is a picture of the true S. 'Sorrow' flower.

Thanks Adrian for this clear picture.

I think the plants are not the same, based on the petal coloration.

There is much more red in my "Tina" petals then there is in the 'Sorrow' petals.

If more people have "Tina" of 'Sorrow' flowering please post these pictures.

However there is a difference in the flowers this can also be the effect of growing in differend environments.

For instance how big the temperature differs at night from the day, since anthocyanins(the red pigments) will be formed in larger quantities when this change is big.

Currently my greenhouse is about 30*C during the day and at night it's 5 or 10*C.

Adrian, do you know the day and night temperatures in your greenhouse?

All the Best and happy growing!

[ada]

Laurens, during the day,up to 30*c until i open the doors or windows if the sun is out.

At night this drops to what ever the surrounding outside temperature is(+ a degree or two) when the doors are shut.This can still get to freezing point because my greenhouse is unheated.

ada