Bad ebay Seller and Cultivar Discussion.


Recommended Posts

Is zenflora using another username look at the last vfts just listed on ebay .

with 100% positive feedback and nearly 500 sales starting again with a new user name wouldnt make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend bought some plants a while back and he said her name is Heidi Anderson.

I like the purpurea montana but don't know if it's real.

So many growers don't join these CP forums or CP clubs / societies so they won't know the plants are fake ... that's if they are of course.

I'm rapidly going off this hobby !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I got a Cephalotus 'big boy' from Zen Flora last year.

The first one i got died soon after arrival for seemingly no reason. The seller was kind enough to send me a replacement free of charge and i found her nice to deal with.

Here are some pics of the Cephs from Zen Flora i got sold as 'Big Boy'

SDC11640-Copy.jpg

CIMG5667.jpg

CIMG5522.jpg

24052012731.jpg

I also have a smaller clone of Ceph Big Boy from Gardenofeden.

Personally i am not able to tell the difference between the Big Boys. My hummers giant however does seem to show some different characteristics.

I would like to know for sure that the Ceph is a 'Big Boy' as i have some cuttings i was hoping to trade but i don't want to pollute collectors with fakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can trace the 'Big Boy' clone back to the originator - FredG - then you will never be sure it's the true one. No one will be able to identify for sure purely by looking at it. If you're not 100% sure then you are best simply labelling it as Cephalotus follicularis.

The one you have from Stephen will definitely be able to be traced back to Fred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though i always keep note of where i have purchased my plants from i can't trace any of them back to the originator with 100% certainty. Unless you purchase from the originator, how can anyone? Its more a case of taking the sellers word or reputation, which in the case of Zen Flora, is now in dispute.

What proof is there that it isn't a Big Boy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What proof is there that it isn't a Big Boy?

If you can't trace its provenance, what proof is there that it is? You yourself have questioned this...

I would like to know for sure that the Ceph is a 'Big Boy' as i have some cuttings i was hoping to trade but i don't want to pollute collectors with fakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that i'm not defending that the Zen Flora's Cephalotus is a Big Boy but merely trying to get clarification ether way. Some of you seem to jump on anyone trying to get true clarification on the matter as though they are defending the distribution of fakes.

There is definitely enough ''fishyness'' to bring dispute over the origin of the ceph but other than speculation i have yet to see any discernible proof that it is or isn't a Ceph Big Boy.

Zenflora apparently will not say where their plants come from. A very good reason to treat labels as indicative only. They seem to be a Carniflora reseller, so it is most likely a "normal" Cephalotus you have.

This to me is the biggest indication that it MIGHT not be a Ceph Big Boy. I'm a bit annoyed i will have to label my cuttings as typical s when there is no rubber stamp proof ether way but i definitely won't contribute to this 'fake' malarkey that seems to litter the CP world.

Edited by 0rmus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should never write anything on the label that you're unsure of, but to bring this 'round in circles again, if the plant was sold to you as one thing, until you have proof that its not, then keep the original description. As far as anyone can tell, this Ceph isn't NOT Big Boy, so keep it as is until you are 100% sure its not.

It seems to me that as much confusion can arrise when growers start swapping labels and descriptions around on the hearsay of other growers. Do you have a real reasont that this seller is dishonest?

Regards

Alex.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, if a seller won't disclose their source of a plant so you can check its pedigree then something is wrong.

What are they trying to hide and why?

Go to the origin of something to be sure of its ancestry,or ask the seller for its history,if they cannot or wont provide that,don't buy it!

JUST DON'T BUY IT,BECAUSE ITS CHEAP.

I'm not saying they are dishonest,just short on the truth.

ada

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should never write anything on the label that you're unsure of, but to bring this 'round in circles again, if the plant was sold to you as one thing, until you have proof that its not, then keep the original description. As far as anyone can tell, this Ceph isn't NOT Big Boy, so keep it as is until you are 100% sure its not.

It seems to me that as much confusion can arrise when growers start swapping labels and descriptions around on the hearsay of other growers. Do you have a real reasont that this seller is dishonest?

There is a huge middle-ground of plants that we know as "typicals" and all plants are assumed to be in this group as the default assumption. A small number of plants are observed to be "special" and provided with cultivar status (for the current discussion both official (published) & unofficial names are included). When significant evidence exists to cast doubt on the provenance of a plant - virtually no confusion takes place by placing it back into the large diverse group of "typicals".

However, the reverse is absolutely not true. Elevating a "typical" to a specific cultivar because someone thinks it looks similar (or for any other host of silly, non-justifiable reasons) without the benefit of provenance causes confusion & muddies the waters.

The possible confusion coming from renaming a plant when there is doubt -- is not a two-way street (imho).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

should this plant even have a name if its so difficult to tell it from a typical. Perhaps it would be best if everyone with a Big Boy labelled it a typical and end any possible confusion :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say the same for most cps. Eg sarracenia flava var rugelii. They all look more or less the same to your average person. But, to the collector, there are small but important differences between forms: some have a larger throat patch, some have a large lid, some are a bit taller etc etc. the collector wants these plants even though the differences (to some people) are small. If someone sold you a plant and said it was flava rugelii F18, you might pay a premium for this plant as it grows large. Would you be able to tell if it was genuine without comparing it to the original? Probably not. It's down to trust.

Some collectors want every different form, for completeness, because they are collectors. These may be indistinguishable from other forms. They have the right to expect that someone is not going to deceive them by mass selling average clones as rare clones.

Other people may want plants from specific locations, perhaps northern parts of the range, or high altitude, as they want hardy forms. It may take years to work out you have been sold a fake. If you can.

What matters is genetic integrity. You want that specific individual clone, and you have a right to expect that. And no, it may not be different from other clones, but that is not the point, it is a different individual.

As said before, it is all down to trust. That trust is sadly abused by a few individuals. It now seems it is buyer beware! Only buy from those people you trust. Buy from established nurseries. Preferably buy in person. If someone sets up a new online nursery selling lots if rare plants, and it seems too good to be true, it probably is! Do your homework people.

I am extremely annoyed that a few individuals are deliberately mis-selling plants and have ruined it all for the rest of us, all for short term financial gain. Can anyone trust plants on eBay anymore? I don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRUST,I totally agree with Stephen.I have always dealt with people on trust,most of this is gained by meeting and talking to people face to face.

On the odd occasion i have been "done" or sold a pup as we say,it is with someone i have never met in person.

But i will never deal with them again and i tell my close friends who not to deal with too,so word gets around.

ada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should this plant even have a name if its so difficult to tell it from a typical. Perhaps it would be best if everyone with a Big Boy labelled it a typical and end any possible confusion :)

Does that mean you don't want me leave my Big Boy label in the mother plant? A shame for a 'Giant'( not my tern) pitchered Cephalotus that has been in cultivation for longer than 'Hummer's Giant'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scientific approach should be adopted in the naming of cultivars that differ only in their size from a typical plant. I doubt that anyone that names large sized cultivars does this. Looking at the ICPS website cultivar registration page, it looks like even they do not do this, making the whole official naming process of large cultivars a farce.

The scientific requirement is to apply statistical analysis on two sets of data, in this case the trap sizes of big boy and the trap sizes of a typical. The data is then subjected to statistical tests to establish if there is >95% confidence (someties 99%) that there is significant difference in th two data sets. If not then the hypothesis (ie big boy is significantly bigger than a typical) is rejected.

Applying statistical analysis to data to test for differences is standard procedure in science, to not do it is completely unscientific and would be laughed at in any scientific community.

I know many here will say well this is just a hobby should we need to do this. Well I think yes when these named cultivars are being sold and people are paying good money for then, then some professionalism needs to be adopted, particularly by an international official organisation like the ICPS. If they themselves dont carry out the analysis, which I would understand, then the registrant should provide the results of this analysis along with their application for cultivar status.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scientific approach should be adopted in the naming of cultivars that differ only in their size from a typical plant. I doubt that anyone that names large sized cultivars does this. Looking at the ICPS website cultivar registration page, it looks like even they do not do this, making the whole official naming process of large cultivars a farce.

The scientific requirement is to apply statistical analysis on two sets of data, in this case the trap sizes of big boy and the trap sizes of a typical. The data is then subjected to statistical tests to establish if there is >95% confidence (someties 99%) that there is significant difference in th two data sets. If not then the hypothesis (ie big boy is significantly bigger than a typical) is rejected.

Applying statistical analysis to data to test for differences is standard procedure in science, to not do it is completely unscientific and would be laughed at in any scientific community.

I know many here will say well this is just a hobby should we need to do this. Well I think yes when these named cultivars are being sold and people are paying good money for then, then some professionalism needs to be adopted, particularly by an international official organisation like the ICPS. If they themselves dont carry out the analysis, which I would understand, then the registrant should provide the results of this analysis along with their application for cultivar status.

Once again I see it is needed to explain the cultivar registration proces as people don't seem to understand it.

A plant becomes an official registered cultivar when the following proces is followed:

1. Give it a name

2. Make a description of the plant according to the rules set by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS).

3. Publish this description in a acceptabel publication (book, magazine etc with a good distribution/availability)

4. Submit this publication to the ICPS which is tasked by the ISHS to keep a registar of these names.

So, the ICPS does NOT make the rules and can only obey them. All issues with what is or is not a "good" cultivar should be brought before the ISHS. The registration proces within the ICPS is in the very professional hands of Jan Schlauer and I would imagation it is quite painfull to him to see all this remarks about lack of professionalism etc by people who don't understand the process.

So please, if you must vent that you have issues, direct them to the proper auhority, this being the ISHS and NOT the ICPS. :thanks:

(I'm not angry at anyone, just a bit sad :sad: )

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.

 Share