ICPS - Cephalotus article by Richard Nun, Volume 43 March 2014


dimitar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am of the opinion that cultivars should have distinct characteristics, that are easily identifiable, and that can be readily replicated by other growers in most or all typical growing conditions.

I'm totally agree with you Carl.

Personally I can't say the same of C.f Eden Black because it seems the plant is unstable and doesn't show the desired black result in growers who I know and their plants. I still haven't seen photos proving the opposite.

However, but stable and distinguishable characteristics we can see of seed grown plant Eden Black x self, called by Erio " Bananito" cuz the plant has really nice shape that makes it unique and worth to be registered as cultivar according to me. Stable and one and the same characteristics in 3 plants can be seen...

971566_10201930446936361_115729279_n.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, that is the unique characteristics of C.f. "Bananito" prove to be stable in different growing conditions then I think it would be eligible for cultivar status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok, people often use the abbreviation cf. when they are unsure of the exact status of a taxon and it's their best guess...

It means "compare to", and I would avoid using it as an abbreviation for Cephalotus, as it has a specific taxonomic meaning.

Edited by gardenofeden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok, people often use the abbreviation cf. when they are unsure of the exact status of a taxon and it's their best guess...

It means "compare to", and I would avoid using it as an abbreviation for Cephalotus, as it has a specific taxonomic meaning.

Stephen, after you have edited your post today, I have impression that you didn't understand something from my post above. Please, would u point what exactly, so I can clarify it, because I don't understand your intentions here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, after you have edited your post today, I have impression that you didn't understand something from my post above. Please, would u point what exactly, so I can clarify it, because I don't understand your intentions here.

No I edited my post because I did not think you had understood me, as you used the abbreviation cf in another post afterwards. Please can you not use cf as an abbreviation of Cephalotus follicularis, as it has a different meaning which could confuse or offend people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically Stephen is right, 'cf.' represents the Latin word 'confer' and means 'compare to' in this context. So you might have a large "Cephalotus follicularis cf. Hummers Giant" meaning that it is similar but you are not saying that it is that cultivar (sensu stricto or possibly sensu strictissimo depending how far you want to take your Latin ;-) ).

'C.f.' would be ok as an abbreviation in notes but strictly a species would be shortened to 'C. follicularis'. As it is a monotypic genus (there is only one species) 'Cephalotus' is pretty explicit to the species level.

Possibly just calling it a 'Ceph' would keep everyone happy?

Cheers,

Steve

Edited by CephFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest paul y

has anyone thought about genetic testing and comparison, its the only way to establish if there is a difference between the cultivars and will put this debate to bed for good. at the end of the day this plant has an obvious and undeniable hold on a lot of people, it also has commercial potential for certain people and considering the work some have put into making this plant more widely available for cultivation plus registering cultivars means those certain people have "earnt" the right to that cultivar ownership if proven to be a separate cultivar.

just my thoughts on this, regards paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A PCR gel ought to suffice. You only need to determine if the DNA of two samples is identical, no need to sequence it. Some of the ludicrous prices paid for dubious clones would easily cover that (apparently you can buy kits for under £200).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A PCR gel ought to suffice. You only need to determine if the DNA of two samples is identical, no need to sequence it. Some of the ludicrous prices paid for dubious clones would easily cover that (apparently you can buy kits for under £200).

Unfortunately PCR is not always the best way to check this sort of thing. Epigenic differences are unlikely to show up this way, and yet they impact how the same sequence of DNA is processed, or not processed. Epigenic changes can be influenced by environment and may, or may not be, passed on for several generations, even when the environmental factor that caused them changes.

I have also heard of species that appear to have supposedly matching DNA giving very different results when particular strands are blocked with a probe. Clearly there was difference in how the same DNA information was processed in the two species. This is less likely within a species, but the point remains.

I know that I am coming late to this discussion and I have not read through all the comments, but I think that the article has a good point. However, I don't think we should simply dismiss good plants that grow well for a number of people over a long period of time.

Personally I have few location plants and woud like more, but I also like to get material from people whose particular plants seem to be a little different to the average Ceph. Some of these may prove to be merely due to the conditions, but some seem to be consistantly a little bit different. However, not enough to tag them as cultivars.

Having location plants is a good back up for conservation in case sites are damaged or lost. However, unless there are real differences between plants from different locations, it would not serve any other real purpose. Just collecting plants based on a label does not seem sensible to me.

That said, the location plants that I do have continue to show the morphology of plants in photos of insitu plants at that site that I have seen in multiple photos from various people. I have changed my plants' conditions several times over the years that I have had them and the morphology remains consistant and different to the rest of my plants. Other plants have on occasion had pitchers of a similar shape, but not consistantly.

I think the main point is that we still have lot to learn about this plant and what differences there may or may not be between different specimens. In the mean time what we really have is a lot of opinions and a fair amount of confusion.

Personally, with all the different named plants that I have seen referred to, I have never seen anyone trying to force me to by one. However, I have had people offer rediculous amounts for plants just because they looked good in a photo. A lot less interest has then been shown in the same plant just because the colour faded, even though it was then bigger.

Edited by Marcus B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately PCR is not always the best way to check this sort of thing. Epigenic differences are unlikely to show up this way, and yet they impact how the same sequence of DNA is processed, or not processed. Epigenic changes can be influenced by environment and may, or may not be, passed on for several generations, even when the environmental factor that caused them changes.

I think you may have missed my point. Epigenetics or environmental factors aren't relevant in determining whether a plant is the clone you think it is, genetically. For example to see if all the (alleged) 'Hummer's Giant' plants out there are indeed the same clone or not or to find out if you really have been sold a legitimate 'Eden Black'. The DNA will either match or not: the true clones increased through vegetative propagation will have identical DNA, while different clones (therefore different seedlings) with similar characteristics won't have identical DNA. This is what PCR could be used to determine; the legitimacy of a plant's label where a cultivar description applies only to a single clone -provided you have access to material from the "original" to compare it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may have missed my point. Epigenetics or environmental factors aren't relevant in determining whether a plant is the clone you think it is, genetically. For example to see if all the (alleged) 'Hummer's Giant' plants out there are indeed the same clone or not or to find out if you really have been sold a legitimate 'Eden Black'. The DNA will either match or not: the true clones increased through vegetative propagation will have identical DNA, while different clones (therefore different seedlings) with similar characteristics won't have identical DNA. This is what PCR could be used to determine; the legitimacy of a plant's label where a cultivar description applies only to a single clone -provided you have access to material from the "original" to compare it to.

I understand your point, and I agree with you in the main. My only reservation is with a simple kit that it may not produce the evidence of the genetic differences, if they are not exposed by the cuts made in the DNA. Testing would be needed to find out what cuts in the DNA would produce a distinguishing band separation pattern so that it actually works as required.

What if, as I have seen alleged (and which I find hard to believe, although it may be a matter of how much difference is significant) all Cephs are genetically pretty much the same. If the apparent differences are due to epigenic changes, then it may be possible that a plant is put forward as being different due to those effects, while not being significant different from a genetic position. Such issues would be beyond the simple PCR kit's ability to determine. It might also be why the features hold for some growers and not others.

Testing differences using PCR may well be the key, but I think it needs to be investigated by someone with appropriate experience. When it is known what differences there are and how to detect them, then a simple kit may be useful. Then there could be a market for "Clone Id Kits" to see if your plant matches the known named linages.

Edited by Marcus B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, this thread is so annoying to read... Seriously fellows, try growing Cephalotus from seed. Then you don't have worry about which clone you're getting. Also, how about we make a list of folks selling fake cultivars? Instead of trying to figure out what baby plant is which baby plant, how about we shame the fools mislabeling the plants? Perhaps if it actually "cost" them something instead of earning them money this would be a much smaller issue? Also, if you need a genetic test to tell which cultivar it is, then is it not a cultivar!!!!!!!!!!!! Let keep turning logic inside out and standing it on it head.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if, as I have seen alleged (and which I find hard to believe, although it may be a matter of how much difference is significant) all Cephs are genetically pretty much the same. If the apparent differences are due to epigenic changes, then it may be possible that a plant is put forward as being different due to those effects, while not being significant different from a genetic position. Such issues would be beyond the simple PCR kit's ability to determine. It might also be why the features hold for some growers and not others.

Ah, okay. Fair enough. Point well made.

Also, Dave Evans -how would we know for certain that plants are mislabelled and not 'mis-cultivated' to avoid condemning the innocent? Genetically maybe? Would it not be useful to compare how a single clone performs in the different conditions of different growers to determine if the traits are stable and valid as cultivars and how can this be done if half those who think they're growing a particular clone may actually not be? In order to get the "best" out of the plants grown it would be nice to know if it's the cultivation or the plant that needs altering!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, this thread is so annoying to read... Seriously fellows, try growing Cephalotus from seed. Then you don't have worry about which clone you're getting.

Also, if you need a genetic test to tell which cultivar it is, then is it not a cultivar!!!!!!!!!!!!

It can be a bit hard to tell what plant is what by looking at it, when the plant has not grown to its full potential, or the distinguishing feature is a growth habit.

The newest "clone" in my collection has been selected due the ease with which grows. It does not look any different to the rest of my "Typical" plants, but I was told that it will grow readily from even small cuttings. I was given leaves, while others were given rhizomes. I was expecting that I would probably not succeed with most of the leaves, but they have all produced fast growing plants.

Do I think that this plant is worth having over my numereous seedlings (from my seed and others')? Definately (except my EB x EB seedlings), but I am happy to get good clones and to produce seed from them.

This plant is only known by the name of the original grower, and so we again have a situation where there are likely to be other distinct clones that have also come from this grower. As he has died it may not be possible to determine how many different plants he distributed that are of note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you treating all the plants to the same conditions?

Yes, they are all side in the same hot house. But, do I think it is worth elevating to cultivar status? No. However, is it is worth keeping identified.

With plants that I have multiple pots of, I tend to spread them between the shelves to see where they do best, so I can end up with the same plant looking different depending on where it is. Unfortunately at present few plants are looking good due the weather we have had this past summer. This particular plant has faired better than many of the others in the section that copped the most damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Dave Evans -how would we know for certain that plants are mislabelled and not 'mis-cultivated' to avoid condemning the innocent? Genetically maybe?

 

Umm, how would someone do this exactly, "Condemning the innocent"?  You want to know if people are sending out the wrong plants, right?  It is not like they are guilty of a "crime", they just suck at distributing name clones of Cephalotus.  Put their name on the list.  If/when they get better, take their name off the list.

 

It's not like cephalotus clones appear to of the blue, you have a create cuttings and raise them for a while.  During this time, you should see differences between what are supposed to be different forms, if you cannot "see" it, then why are you still selling them as different???  Because you were ripped off in the past and want keep spreading bullshit clones, sharing your misery?

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