Jump to content

My Big boy


Morph

Recommended Posts

Stephen,

You have a Cephalotus clone that you refer to as "clumping form", I too have one that I refer to with the same name. I don't know the origin of yours, or the true origin of mine, but they match the same name description. So, these two plants might or might not be from the same origin. However, if you or I register the name as a cultivar, with the characteristic being 'clumping', then basically we can both call the plant the same cultivar... even though it might not be the same clone... how bazaar!

it depends how the cultivar description is worded, if it is just the fact that they are e.g. clumping then any Cephalotus is covered! Clonal names are something else, and my "vigorous clumping" name was never meant to be more than a description on my growlist to differentiate the plant from others I grow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it depends how the cultivar description is worded, if it is just the fact that they are e.g. clumping then any Cephalotus is covered! Clonal names are something else, and my "vigorous clumping" name was never meant to be more than a description on my growlist to differentiate the plant from others I grow...

So, given John Hummer's cultivar registration as an example, if I registered a cultivar with the characteristics being 'vigorous and clumping', called it 'Carl's Clumper' added in the description that any plant that matches this description can be called 'Carl's Clumper' then you could rightfully call your plant this, provided that I don't stipulate it must be vegetatively propagated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, given John Hummer's cultivar registration as an example, if I registered a cultivar with the characteristics being 'vigorous and clumping', called it 'Carl's Clumper' added in the description that any plant that matches this description can be called 'Carl's Clumper' then you could rightfully call your plant this, provided that I don't stipulate it must be vegetatively propagated?

yes, so wording is crucial. I have several nice clones which look a bit different to each other with different characteristics, but as said before separating them descriptively would be very difficult, perhaps with the exception of Dudley Watt's clone with its thickened peristome....and 'Eden Black' of course, but even that may come back to bite me on the bum if the colour is not maintained as a distinctive feature!

This does not mean that there are not a lot of good clones out there, well worth growing, just that many could not be published as cultivars as the distinguishing features are not significantly different enough to separate them descriptively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, so wording is crucial. I have several nice clones which look a bit different to each other with different characteristics, but as said before separating them descriptively would be very difficult, perhaps with the exception of Dudley Watt's clone with its thickened peristome....and 'Eden Black' of course, but even that may come back to bite me on the bum if the colour is not maintained as a distinctive feature!

This does not mean that there are not a lot of good clones out there, well worth growing, just that many could not be published as cultivars as the distinguishing features are not significantly different enough to separate them descriptively.

I belief that the problem originates from John Hummers description then. There is no reference made to colour characteristics, nor pitcher form, peristome width, winter leaves, ect. It does seem very similar in most characteristics (pitcher shape, texture and size) to Big Boy, but i've definitely noticed some difference in fully coloured examples. Hummer's giant for instance is very slow to colour it peristome and rib's where Big Boy colours more evenly imo.

All due respect, but John describes any Cephalotus except for pitcher size.

Anyone know where I could find Agustin Franco "Myth or Reality"? Found it here - http://users.humboldt.edu/rziemer/Franco/C...larisGiant.html

Edited by Macro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, so wording is crucial. I have several nice clones which look a bit different to each other with different characteristics, but as said before separating them descriptively would be very difficult, perhaps with the exception of Dudley Watt's clone with its thickened peristome....and 'Eden Black' of course, but even that may come back to bite me on the bum if the colour is not maintained as a distinctive feature!

This does not mean that there are not a lot of good clones out there, well worth growing, just that many could not be published as cultivars as the distinguishing features are not significantly different enough to separate them descriptively.

Have you considered publishing the "Dudley Watts" clone Stephen? From the pictures I've seen, the differences are noticeable when compared to other clones, it looks really rugged and prehistoric.

Elliot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cultivar name is just a way to define the plant, all plants are different, I think if we did this to humans it could lead to some annoyance, maybe I shall start classifying people as H. sapien var. Michael Jackson (hybridised with plastic obviously) :wink: I have the plant because I find it interesting and unusual, and if a plant is so obviously different then it deserves perhaps a cultivar name :D Obviously I think that perhaps DM 'vars have gone slightly over the top perhaps, as any thing slightly out of the norm leads to a new 'var.

Edited by Stefano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What mix do you use to plant it in and what conditions do you recommend for best results.

Would recommend peat:perlite 30:70 with a top layer of live sphagnum. Humidity above 65% and temperatures below 30oC. I grow mine 50cm from a 400W metal halide with a 16 hour photo period, but I'm worried the the light intensity is a little much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, Cephalotus are not fussy about the potting mix, so long as it contains suitable materials and sufficient drainage. I have used mixes that contain all or some of the following in various ratios and cannot discern any significant difference in growth: peat, perlite, sand, dried Sphagnum moss, live Sphagnum moss. I even have cuttings rooted in just perlite, with a top dressing of live Sphagnum moss. Cephalotus seem to tolerate some nutients at there roots, in fact I root feed mine, so having some organic materials in the mix that breaks down to provide nutrients might be beneficial. I honestly think that there is no 'magic' or 'best' mix that performs significantly better than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...