Hummer Giant origins I spoke to the man.

[snapperhead51]

After seen a lot of chat , writing and conjecture about the Hummer giant over the years or more , I decided to go ask the man who was one of the people who actually sent the plant to people in the USA a then pen pal , no email or pc's back then . Stephen gave me permission to put this up .

Stephen Beckwith was a member of the Australian Carnivorous Plants society long time before I joined , but was unable to maintain his plants and attendance at the ACPS and gave most of the plants away because of family and work commitments , just had no time , ,seems for most still true to day when bringing up a young family .

after re -acquainting our self's , asked him some questions about the origins of the now called Hummer Giant ., but time had clouded his memory ,as he had not thought about CP's in a very long time.

I feel I has stirred up a few thoughts and will be chatting to him again soon , he was very happy to do that.

He said that when receiving the plants from Michael Cepel of which he could not remember much of at all , the plants he had were just very ordinary Cephs , has some nice colour ,but to them then were just another lot of typical cephs.

When he heard from John Hummer that the plants he sent him grew in to some whooper pitchers he was very surprised.

The true origin of the plant has never been revealed, there are a few possible sites found with high possibility of being the original site, but we will never know for sure, with the death of Michael Cepel.

So with Stephens info ,and the now more suffocated growing conditions ,and people out of necessity having to make control or micro climates , I believe can change a growing habit of the cephs quite dramatically .

There are the facts to take into account of plants from origins that are and will grow natural lager pitchers , seen this with my own eyes.

Back in the mid 70'ties, the growing of cephs here was not a science or huge issue , here then just grew them out side or small in a in-appropriate G/H or shade houses , even growing helis was all most impossible too, because of lack of information more than any thing and accessibility of them too. like rocking horse dodo to get back then.

Any how , will chat more to Stephen , now he will have some time to think about the cephs way back then ,get some idea of the potting mixes and other things he used at the time , and may be more details of Michael Cepel's original cephalotus ,some history !.

more of a interest then than any thing else .

[dimitar]

Interesting!

Edited August 29, 2013 by dimitar

[Cephalotus]

Even if this future Hummer's Giant came from a certain place, it could just be that single plant. Or maybe I understood you totally wrong.

[snapperhead51]

Chris

think you may have got it wrong , still talking about the same plant , " the original plant ", just trying to dig or find out more about its past from a person who originally had it before even John hummer received any plants he called hummers giant , Stephen Beckwith from Adelaide south Australia , was one of the original people who had this plant ,way before it was named any thing .

.

[Cephalotus]

I understood that you found the person, but he did not remember about the plants place of origin. If it was not selected in cultivation, but found in the wild. The population it was taken from does not have to be more rich in such individuals, because it could be the only one plants with this phenotype.

Or maybe I understood wrongly that it came from the wild and was selected in cultivation?

Edited August 29, 2013 by Cephalotus

[snapperhead51]

Chris

may be, with stupid English language the way it is! we my miss some the interpretation of my post ?

I have known Stephen Beckwith since the mid nighties , ,so I didn't find him , we just have not spoken since about that time because of circumstances.

No one knows the true origin of the original plant, except the person who took it from the wild location in the very early 80'ies or more then likely well before , his name was Michael Ceple , who has been dead for some time now , so the true location will never be known.

There has been one or two people, who think that they found that location , but that has been keep a secret of its ware about so it dose not get poached . whether is or not who knows ?

perhaps read this may will help you better , a brief out look , http://users.humboldt.edu/rziemer/Franco/CephalotusfollicularisGiant.html

[wozzen]

Thanks for the link, snapper. Good stuff

Edited August 30, 2013 by wozzen

[Hannahraptor]

Very interesting. Thanks Snapper

[Flytyer]

Interesting read, thank you

[ada]

snapperhead,thanks for the link,a good insight into the origins of giants.

Just one little niggle, we all know Julie jones is a liar and a cheat(that's a fact).
So we can't assume the picture is real or the egg is a full sized hens egg.
It could be a very small egg from a young hen,or even some other bird.

I am growing this plant(from gardenofeden)she even said Stephen didn't have that exact clone once.then retracted what she said,eventually saying it was that clone.

I have never seen pitchers on this plant in the flesh that were "giant" so i wouldn't even give her the type space in that write up.
The plant may grow large pitchers and only time will tell,if mine grows pitchers as big as a hens egg i will post them and gladly apologise(she is probably reading this anyway)
Until then i stand by what i have said.

ada

[ada]

double post thing again

ada

Edited August 31, 2013 by ada

[SoLongFairWell]

Dang this double post thing. It annoys me all the time. I'll delete it later. I'm assuming Andy can't do anything about it or he would have done so by now.

[agustin franco]

Hi all:

I am still convinced that the cephalotus follicularis has at least 2 forms. standard (tiny pitchers) and giant (large pitchers).

While it's possible for a giant form to produce small pitchers, depending on the season, light, humidity, etc. I am yet to see a standard cephalotus produce a set of large pitchers. I do believe that there are genetic differences, but these need to be studied further.

Gus

[snapperhead51]

snapperhead,thanks for the link,a good insight into the origins of giants.

Just one little niggle, we all know Julie jones is a liar and a cheat(that's a fact).

So we can't assume the picture is real or the egg is a full sized hens egg.

It could be a very small egg from a young hen,or even some other bird.

I am growing this plant(from gardenofeden)she even said Stephen didn't have that exact clone once.then retracted what she said,eventually saying it was that clone.

I have never seen pitchers on this plant in the flesh that were "giant" so i wouldn't even give her the type space in that write up.

The plant may grow large pitchers and only time will tell,if mine grows pitchers as big as a hens egg i will post them and gladly apologise(she is probably reading this anyway)

Until then i stand by what i have said.

ada

ada, ok , is that right , well dam you never know do you , we dont get to hear these things way down here , ,so i can't expect my JJ ceph plant to have massive pitchers then hay Dam !.

[snapperhead51]

Hi all:

I am still convinced that the cephalotus follicularis has at least 2 forms. standard (tiny pitchers) and giant (large pitchers).

While it's possible for a giant form to produce small pitchers, depending on the season, light, humidity, etc. I am yet to see a standard cephalotus produce a set of large pitchers. I do believe that there are genetic differences, but these need to be studied further.

Gus

Hay Gus how are you . interesting information there , leaning to ward that too .

General discussion

we were having a discussion in a thread here before on what is a " typical ceph " ? may be that is the difference ? is the ceph that dose not grow larger pitchers a typical or ?

I do have a few cephs that never grow larger pitchers these are usually from inland areas or locations , they dont seem to grow as larger pitchers as the ones closer to the coastal areas .I believe because they get a lot more sun and just dont grow as big from that habit . , and others that will grow lager and smaller pitchers to the time of season , , but I have had cephs from people that never grew for them at all ,always had small pitchers, and been able to get quite large pitchers from them , in a short time , so I think that many times its growing conditions that will dictate how a ceph may grow in many cases for many people , hot dry outside low humidity or poor choise of grwoing media usually means small pitchers usually , cooler good light good water control climate or close native climate conditions usually result in larger pitchers overall . unless you have the one that just dont grow larger pitcher of cause !!

Many country's have ideal conditions naturally and have no trouble grow them, others struggle with highly variable climates and need a more micro control, , or like us here grow them with relative ease in most southern areas or AU . so climate can play a big part too , but probably experience is the number one factor in growing them , knowing what to do , and when and how .

[dimitar]

Well, interesting questions here.

What in fact are those meaning that are using around the forums, threads etc - "typical", "not typical" and such words?

And honestly said the word " typical" isn't a appropriate when we talk about Cephalotus.

For me all Cephalotus plants are typical.No matter how big or small they grow, what shape they have, what color they got.

They have all come from one and the same place - Australia.

As if we talk what is - typical Nepenthes or giant Nepenthes or typical sundews, not typical sundews, typical heliamphora and not typical heliamphora and foolish things like that.

So, Cephalotus are only one - just Cephalotus.

If one grow with big pitchers others with small or if one has different shape and other different color this doesn't mean that one is "typical" but the other is something "special"

So should be stopped with this speculations forever what is typical and what not.

[snapperhead51]

yer in the light of other plants probably a good point ., the term typical is a very old one , probably just from some thing to call it at the time

[dimitar]

the term typical is a very old one , probably just from some thing to call it at the time

Hmm, mate, I know what u mean but this term "typical" began to be used incorrectly.

This plant has color - oh, no, it isn't typical, it is something different than typical... The other has big pitcher, oh no it isn't typical it is something special....The other has different shape - oh look, it isn't typical it is something amazing...

And if u ask what in fact is typical - no one can tell you.

[19Silverman93]

just throwing my two penneth in, To me typical would translate as "average" so if I was talking about a "typical ceph" then it would refer to a plant that is decidedly average, pitcher size not huge but not tiny and form average too- not long not fat, colours up a bit in the sun but doesn't go full on Eden Black- you get the idea. you will have plants outside the norm yes, and those would really just need a footnote on the label like "C. follicularis, typical (pitchers slightly fatter than normal) but unless it is spectacularly different, for example, enormous pitchers like the titular Hummers Giant, or has a tendency to colour up nicely and with relative ease vis a vis Eden Black then I see no reason it should be given a special name.

[agustin franco]

just throwing my two penneth in, To me typical would translate as "average" so if I was talking about a "typical ceph" then it would refer to a plant that is decidedly average, pitcher size not huge but not tiny and form average too- not long not fat, colours up a bit in the sun but doesn't go full on Eden Black- you get the idea. you will have plants outside the norm yes, and those would really just need a footnote on the label like "C. follicularis, typical (pitchers slightly fatter than normal) but unless it is spectacularly different, for example, enormous pitchers like the titular Hummers Giant, or has a tendency to colour up nicely and with relative ease vis a vis Eden Black then I see no reason it should be given a special name.

Hi Silverman93, perhaps the word tiny was not the appropriate one to use. If we go back and use a ruler, any cephalotus pitcher less than 4 cm from the bottom of the pitcher to the mouth should be considered typical. Any cephalotus pitcher, on the other hand, with a pitcher of more than 4 cm from the bottom to the mouth should be considered a giant form. Again, the lid should not be measured at all as it changes positions depending on the relative humidity around the plant.

Gus

[gardenofeden]

There are unfortunately more than one clone of Hummer's Giant circulating, at least in the EU anyway. Below is a clone I have grown for many years and consider the authentic Hummer's Giant

Cephalotus Hummer's Giant by gardenofeden67, on Flickr

This is a clone I acquired within the last year, which is a very nice clone and quite dark, but is a completely different plant ...

Cephalotus Hummer's Giant by gardenofeden67, on Flickr

[wozzen]

Interesting topic keeps getting better.

Can see the different variation your talking about above Stephen.

[19Silverman93]

Hi Silverman93, perhaps the word tiny was not the appropriate one to use. If we go back and use a ruler, any cephalotus pitcher less than 4 cm from the bottom of the pitcher to the mouth should be considered typical. Any cephalotus pitcher, on the other hand, with a pitcher of more than 4 cm from the bottom to the mouth should be considered a giant form. Again, the lid should not be measured at all as it changes positions depending on the relative humidity around the plant.

Gus

No I suppose i should have worded it better but The general idea I think remains unchanged, unless it is a serious deviation from what would be considered an average specimen and that deviation form the "norm" can be replicated successfully by others in their particular set ups, I don't really think a ceph clone deserves a special title.

[snapperhead51]

Stephen

I have photos here of a the hummer that was originally sent to John hummer, my friend here has them from around that time of them being sent over to john Hummer may be a interesting comparison to see the plants you have and the originals

and for a bit of fun

Big Donk against Hummer

Hummer on the right hand side of cause

Edited September 20, 2013 by snapperhead51

[mantrid]

Because there is continuous variation in colour and size the accepted scientific way to determine if a plant is significantly different form the norm, is to apply statistical analysis. The tests would need to be performed on a group of the plant in question compared against a group of randomly selected 'typical' plants. This is the ONLY way that would have any scientific credibility. Anything else is just inaccurate and amaturish. These tests are not difficult for the amature to carry out but would require a large group of plants from which to select a random smaller group of plants, about 100 plants in total will be ok but the more you have the better and then a 100 of your test plant. The are a number of tests that can be performed but the t-test is suitable for this purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test

There are even online calculators that will do all the sums for you all you need is the data.

Edit

Been a long time since I did any of this but a bit of reading reveals that the t-test is ideal for small sample sizes ie less than 30, so my figure of 100 is not necessary (z-test is better for large sample sizes).

Also if you are comparing pitcher sizes then you will not need a group of plants but rather a group of pitchers so as long as you can select the pitchers to measure completely randomly then it doesnt matter if they are from the same plant.

If you wish to test if there is significant colour difference then you will need some way to measure the depth of colour such as its absorbance of light.

Edited September 20, 2013 by mantrid