SD Titan now SD Kronos

[FlytrapCare]

I often think to that too... In my opinion, ALL cultivar MUST be reproduced vegetatively only, despite it is stated or not in the description. It should be a standard rule for every new registered cultivar, except if you are registering a "group name".

I believe that this is how almost all growers think.  I don't know of anyone reputable who sells flytraps who doesn't sell exact clones if they're distributing a plant with a name.  

 

And regardless of whatever perceived flaws might exist in the cultivar system, it is the only legitimate system in existence where plants' and growers' names can be officially tied together in writing.  So until one registers a plant under the name they like with their name tied to it as the registrant, anyone can take the nickname for the plant and use it to register their own plant (as Phil already stated).  One can even take a plant that has been widely circulated under a different name by a different grower and rename it and register it themselves, as David Conner recently did with 'Cheerleader' which used to circulate under the nickname "Pom Pom".  

[FlytrapRanch]

And regardless of whatever perceived flaws might exist in the cultivar system, it is the only legitimate system in existence where plants' and growers' names can be officially tied together in writing.

 

But a registered cultivar also requires, if I'm not mistaken, a unique description, and those are not that easy to truthfully produce. I've never seen a B52, after growing many hundreds of them, that lives up to its official cultivar description. The several Clayton's Red Sunset plants I grew (does anyone still grow or like this official cultivar?) were disappointments and I stopped growing them.

 

In order to be unique enough to merit a new cultivar name, a Venus Flytrap might need to be freakish in some way, and that's unfortunate because the freaks with non-functional traps and weak growth are not necessarily the finest examples of a Venus Flytrap. I'm doubtful that official registered cultivar status would be granted to a Venus Flytrap described as "looks like a beautiful wild typical Venus Flytrap, but much more vigorous, larger, often producing larger-than-average traps, a very impressive plant when compared with others growing in the same conditions, and an all-around SUPER Venus Flytrap!" No, that's not likely a persuasive-enough or unique-enough description to gain official cultivar registry status.

 

FTS Maroon Monster is a great Venus Flytrap. But I find myself curious as to how you (Matt, FlytrapCare) will describe it if you decide to register it, in light of the other red-leafed Venus Flytraps that have already been registered and to which it will be compared.

Edited July 2, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[Massacror]

Au moins, disent que prisé n'est pas expérimenté m'a fait rire, en Europe, il est le numéro 1 de la Dionée pour moi c'est "M. Dionée".

Il est vrai qu'en Europe, nous aimons fondamentalement différentes plantes! Les plantes qui nous pouvons reconnaître peuvent importe la saison, la lumière ou la culture!
Sinon, c'est une collection d'étiquettes ...

En Europe, les nouveaux clones ne sont pas que des monstres ...

 

Regardez ce qui suit:

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372072229 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372072229 /] Dionaea Elys dents de requin [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 / ] VegeCar ​​[/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14578774563 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14578774563 /] Dionaea Microdent (2) [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar ​​[/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14557052854 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14557052854 /] Dionaea Jawsmiley [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14280052209 /] [/ url]

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14280052209 /] Adentata [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar ​​[ / url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14555286811 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14555286811 /] Dionaea requin des dents (2) [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar ​​[/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14463327621 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14463327621 /] tasse australienne [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372081148 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372081148 /] Dionaea Harmony [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14522406581 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14522406581 /] x dégénérescence [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372235977 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14372235977 /] (2) [/ url] de Dionaea Coq par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar ​​[/ url], sur Flickr

 

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14558670185 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14558670185 /] Dionaea loup-garou [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

 

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14527065725 /] [/ url]

[url = https://www.flickr.com/photos/88151617 @ N03/14527065725 /] patchs Dionaea [/ url] par [url = https://www.flickr.com/people/88151617 @ N03 /] VegeCar [/ url], sur Flickr

 

Bohe par VegeCar, sur Flickr

 

 

 

 

Convaincu?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Massacror

[FlytrapCare]

But a registered cultivar also requires, if I'm not mistaken, a unique description, and those are not that easy to truthfully produce. I've never seen a B52, after growing many hundreds of them, that lives up to its official cultivar description. The several Clayton's Red Sunset plants I grew (does anyone still grow or like this official cultivar?) were disappointments and I stopped growing them.

 

In order to be unique enough to merit a new cultivar name, a Venus Flytrap might need to be freakish in some way, and that's unfortunate because the freaks with non-functional traps and weak growth are not necessarily the finest examples of a Venus Flytrap. I'm doubtful that official registered cultivar status would be granted to a Venus Flytrap described as "looks like a beautiful wild typical Venus Flytrap, but much more vigorous, larger, often producing larger-than-average traps, a very impressive plant when compared with others growing in the same conditions, and an all-around SUPER Venus Flytrap!" No, that's not likely a persuasive-enough or unique-enough description to gain official cultivar registry status.

 

It's true that a unique description is hard to produce for most "giant" flytraps because there are so many of them registered now and the differences between the already-registered giants and any giant flytrap that may be registered aren't likely sufficient enough to satisfy the "unique description" criteria.  And who would want to grow a flytrap described as "looks like a beautiful wild typical Venus Flytrap, but much more vigorous, larger, often producing larger-than-average traps, a very impressive plant when compared with others growing in the same conditions, and an all-around SUPER Venus Flytrap!"...Sounds BORING to me  Aren't there already lots and lots of flytraps in circulation that fit that description?  (I'm just kidding, of course).  Though I don't know if I agree with the assertion that "unique" implies "freakish".  I think there are lots of unique and interesting looking flytraps which have been registered with the ICPS over the last couple of years that aren't freakish nor do they have non-functional traps.

 

And, like you, I've never seen a B52 that lives up to its cultivar description of "vigorous growth, brightly colored traps that are up to 5.7cm (2.25 inches) long."  In fact, B52 does not grow very well at all for us here in Oregon.  It's definitely not one of the more vigorous plants for us.  And I've never seen traps, neither in person nor in photos, on B52 anywhere near the 5.7 cm mark.  I think that registration description was a bit optimistic when describing the size of the traps and the vigor of the plant.  Though, I've seen some impressive photos of it, and have seen ours put out some impressively sized traps, up near or at the 5cm range, so I know it can be a nice plant.

 

FTS Maroon Monster is a great Venus Flytrap. But I find myself curious as to how you (Matt, FlytrapCare) will describe it if you decide to register it, in light of the other red-leafed Venus Flytraps that have already been registered and to which it will be compared.

 

I don't have much of an inclination to attempt to officially register any of the clones we (FlytrapStore) have named.  Some of them will be officially registered (they might be already) because they were published in Stewart McPherson's and Tim Bailey's Dionaea book, for which I had the honor of writing some of the cultivar descriptions.  Jan Schlauer, who is in charge of keeping track of officially registered cultivars for the ICPS, intends to officially register the majority of the plants described in that publication.  I believe he is the one who is responsible for determining if the description of a plant is unique enough to warrant a new cultivar.  There may be others involved in that process as well.  I know there were a few in the book that didn't make the cut.  I think that 'FTS Maroon Monster' was in the majority that did go on to be officially registered (or will be soon).  I think you (Steve) have the book, so you can probably read the description of FTS Maroon Monster published therein and compare it to descriptions of other registered red-leafed flytrap cultviars and perhaps figure out how it is sufficiently different that Jan decided to officially register the plant.

[FlytrapRanch]

Thanks Matt for your thoughts--

 

I think that a problem in the official cultivar system is introduced when the people who judge a plant don't actually grow the plant they're judging.

 

Edited July 2, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[FlytrapCare]

I think that a problem in the official cultivar system is introduced when the people who judge a plant don't actually grow the plant they're judging.

 

 

Absolutely!  That would be a serious problem!

[FlytrapRanch]

Absolutely!  That would be a serious problem!

 

That probably is a serious problem.

[FlytrapCare]

Oh, I misunderstood.  In this case, I see it as the people who are judging the plant are the ones submitting it for registration.  The person responsible for making registration official is only judging the description (and photos) written by the grower to ensure the plant is sufficiently unique from other registered cultivars.

 

I thought that you meant people are submitting cultivars for registration who haven't actually grown them, which I think may have been done a time or two.

[gardenofeden]

Anyone can publish a cultivar, they don't have to be the person who produced it. The only "judgement" involved is with the person who submits the cultivar for publication and registration, there is no "quality control " in the process apart from checking the name has not been registered already. You could say that posterity is the judge....

[FlytrapRanch]

Anyone can publish a cultivar, they don't have to be the person who produced it. The only "judgement" involved is with the person who submits the cultivar for publication and registration, there is no "quality control " in the process apart from checking the name has not been registered already ...

 

To your knowledge, are any correctly-formatted submissions ever rejected and excluded from  the official cultivar registry? Matt mentioned that he thought some of the Venus Flytraps described in the Tim Bailey/Stewart McPherson book have been approved for the registry while others have not (perhaps merely not yet)?

 

Do you think that someone could raise a Venus Flytrap from seed, call it "Dionaea muscipula 'Alfie'," describe it as "This is my pet Venus Flytrap; he's special and I love him" and aside from the possibility that the registrars might ask him to rewrite the description so it at least sounds a little more technical and less personal, they would accept that registration, no "uniqueness" required?

 

I'm just curious if any cultivar registrations are ever rejected based solely on the human judgement of the registrars, though they probably have never grown or even seen the plant they're judging. I should have asked this question of Jan Schlauer (the man in charge of the official carnivorous plant cultivar registry) in a recent brief email exchange with him--

Edited July 3, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[FlytrapCare]

To your knowledge, are any correctly-formatted submissions ever rejected and excluded from  the official cultivar registry? Matt mentioned that he thought some of the Venus Flytraps described in the Tim Bailey/Stewart McPherson book have been approved for the registry while others have not (perhaps merely not yet)?

No, the ones that were not approved have been dropped from the agenda to do so.  There was some discussion amongst the authors of the book, the people who wrote the cultivar descriptions (me -- Matt Miller -- and Mathias Maier) and Jan who was questioning some of the descriptions of the cultivars in the cases where they were not sufficiently unique from other, already registered, cultivars.  In most cases, when a description of a plant wasn't unique enough, Jan would propose to drop the cultivar from the registration process unless someone could clarify and describe what made that particular cultivar unique or different from other another cultivar which was already registered.

[mdeford09]

No, the ones that were not approved have been dropped from the agenda to do so.  There was some discussion amongst the authors of the book, the people who wrote the cultivar descriptions (me -- Matt Miller -- and Mathias Maier) and Jan who was questioning some of the descriptions of the cultivars in the cases where they were not sufficiently unique from other, already registered, cultivars.  In most cases, when a description of a plant wasn't unique enough, Jan would propose to drop the cultivar from the registration process unless someone could clarify and describe what made that particular cultivar unique or different from other another cultivar which was already registered.

Here is a question I've had about the current registration process.....

 

 

Since B52 is already described has a plant that grows up to 2.25" traps that can have a deep red color (even though it clearly doesn't get that large and it is pretty picky about color too).. What happens when say a plant like DC XL comes along that is actually better? (Although, B52 has outgrew my DC XL's pretty consistently. But for the sake of an example, lets say for me DC XL kills B52 on average.)..... Since B52 is already registered as it is, where does that leave DC XL?

 

This is the problem that Steve is referring to with the current system. If a new plant comes along that is a better grower and is much more vigorous than a current named clone, but looks similar, that clone is pretty much unable to be registered. Even though it is better, it's still too close to the other plant to be named and deemed special.... You can't say "looks like B52 but grows bigger more often and is more vigorous than any B52 I've ever grown".... But, you can just call DC XL a B52, if you want. The registration doesn't say you can't and it matches plenty close enough to do so... So I guess from now on, I will start selling my DC XL's as B52. (not really, lol)

 

The only true way to be unique is for the plant to be a "freak". Venus Flytraps are either green, red, or have red in the traps... Everything else is pretty much the same.

[FlytrapCare]

Most of these questions should be directed a Jan or someone else at the ICPS, because I know very little about the formalities of the process of registering a cultivar, not really having any interest in registering plants myself.

 

I do know that there were no problems with the A2, Bimbo, DC XL, G14, G16, Low Giant and, Southwest Giant descriptions and all of those are mostly typical looking flytraps with larger-than-average traps and a few describable characteristics (i.e. Low Giant grows low most of the year).

[FlytrapRanch]

I do know that there were no problems with the A2, Bimbo, DC XL, G14, G16, Low Giant and, Southwest Giant descriptions and all of those are mostly typical looking flytraps with larger-than-average traps and a few describable characteristics (i.e. Low Giant grows low most of the year).

 

Low Giant does not yet appear in the list of registered cultivar names at the ICPS website (carnivorousplants.org). But Big Mouth does appear as a registered cultivar, and Big Mouth, like Low Giant, has large traps and prostrate growth. I know from personal experience that Low Giant's traps are frequently larger than those of Big Mouth, but I wonder on which grounds (what specific described characteristics) Low Giant could be registered when its basic description is so similar to that of Big Mouth.

[mdeford09]

Actually, none of the plants mentioned by Flytrapcare are listed there.... Maybe they don't update often?

 

http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cultivars/names.php?name=Dionaea

[FlytrapCare]

As for Low Giant vs. Big Mouth, if one reads the descriptions in the Dionaea book, they're described differently, at least slightly so, in terms of coloration, growth habit, size, etc.  I guess that's sufficient enough for registration purposes.

 

And regarding the cultivars in the Dionaea book that are registered (or soon to be), I don't know what stage the registrations are in, but I think they're all final.  At least that's how I understood it in the last email I received from Jan.  He wrote to the group in March 2014:

Dear all,

 

almost one year after my first endeavour into registration of the new names published in Bailey & McPherson (2013), almost all new names have been registered with the originators' consent.

 

I have no idea who updates the cultivar database for the ICPS website or how often it is updated.  It doesn't contain many of the cultivars published in the CPN and registered over the last couple of years like 'Ginormous', 'Sonic', etc., nor any of the cultivars from the "Dionaea" book, so my guess is that it is quite out of date.

 

Again, I don't know if this thread is the best place to be asking these sorts questions.  Probably best to contact the ICPS directly to get clarification for these sorts of questions.

[FlytrapRanch]

Sorry, but in what way does this merit the name 'Titan' ?

Traps of just 4.5cm aren't exactly large - that is typical.

There are several clones already which reach 5cm. At least match them if you're gonna give it a name.

 

Phil-- There is a "BCP Titan," pictured here--

http://www.bestcarnivorousplants.net/index.php?node=product&id=49-dionaea-muscipula-bcp-titan-1-plants-2-6-cm

--and described on that page as "one of best giant Venus Fly Traps."

 

Do you believe that this European "BCP Titan" is more deserving of the name than my American "SD Titan"? Or do you believe that neither Kamil Pasek nor I should have used that name?

Edited July 4, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[mantrid]

Here is a question I've had about the current registration process.....

 

 

Since B52 is already described has a plant that grows up to 2.25" traps that can have a deep red color (even though it clearly doesn't get that large and it is pretty picky about color too).. What happens when say a plant like DC XL comes along that is actually better? (Although, B52 has outgrew my DC XL's pretty consistently. But for the sake of an example, lets say for me DC XL kills B52 on average.)..... Since B52 is already registered as it is, where does that leave DC XL?

 

This is the problem that Steve is referring to with the current system. If a new plant comes along that is a better grower and is much more vigorous than a current named clone, but looks similar, that clone is pretty much unable to be registered. Even though it is better, it's still too close to the other plant to be named and deemed special.... You can't say "looks like B52 but grows bigger more often and is more vigorous than any B52 I've ever grown".... But, you can just call DC XL a B52, if you want. The registration doesn't say you can't and it matches plenty close enough to do so... So I guess from now on, I will start selling my DC XL's as B52. (not really, lol)

 

The only true way to be unique is for the plant to be a "freak". Venus Flytraps are either green, red, or have red in the traps... Everything else is pretty much the same.

Hence the need to apply some statistical tests to the plants to eliminate any human bias towards a certain cultivar. as well as comparing titan against a standard vft to see if the traps are significantly different you can also compare it to other giants to see if it is significantly bigger than them. it can also be used to test other characteristics too, such as, is b52 redder than other giants? or is big mouths leaves broader than that of other giants? etc. if this was done there would be no confusion. I suspect that the growers of these giants do not wish to do this because it will probably show their cultivars are nothing special and not significantly different from other varieties regarding their 'special characteristics'

Edited July 4, 2014 by mantrid

[FlytrapRanch]

I suspect that the growers of these giants do not wish to do this because it will probably show their cultivars are nothing special and not significantly different from other varieties regarding their 'special characteristics'

 

Plants don't need unique characteristics to be special. Sometimes the characteristics that make a plant special, or make it an improvement upon other, perhaps similar plants, is more evident when one grows the plant rather than merely looking at it for a few moments, or reading about it.

 

This is true with almost any nursery product, not just Venus Flytraps. Hardiness and vigor are judged over time, not at first glance. Characteristic behavior is not always reflected in momentary appearance. Experience with a plant often tells us more about it than what static pictures or words can provide.

[FlytrapRanch]

Well, unknown to either of us, Kamil Pasek of BestCarnivorousPlants.net, a European tissue-culture source and online store,  and I both named 2 of our Venus Flytraps with the same names: BCP Phoenix and BCP Titan, and SD Phoenix and SD Titan.

 

I wrote to Kamil to ask whether he thought this might cause some confusion in the future, and he agreed that it might. He has begun to name his plants with the "BCP" prefix, just as Matt at FlytrapStore uses the "FTS" prefix, DC XL has the "DC" prefix (for the source, David Conner), Bob Ziemer's plants, propagated and sold by others, have the "BZ" prefix, and my own several Venus Flytraps have the "SD" prefix (my initials).

 

I asked Kamil if he had  sold any of his BCP Phoenix and BCP Titan yet, and he said he had sold perhaps a couple dozen so far this year, the first year of their introduction, I believe, as named plants (previously these clones were designated using Kamil's letter-of-the-alphabet plus a number scheme). Since I have also sold some SD Phoenix, I guess we'll just have to hope that the prefix is enough to differentiate between the two.

 

However, because Kamil has already sold and distributed some of his BCP Titan, and I have not yet sold or distributed any SD Titan, I agreed to change the name of my plant (warning to Phil Green: I may choose another equally grandiose name for it).

 

I have no idea at the moment what I will name this plant, but am hopeful some name that I like will occur to me (if Phil or anyone cares to suggest one, I'll consider it).

 

So SD Titan is no longer SD Titan, but merely a nameless Venus Flytrap grown from seed that I really like very much--

 

Notice: Kamil Pasek has also recently named one of his own tissue-cultured seed-grown plants BCP Red Bull (like the energy drink (is Red Bull available in Europe and the UK?)), so sources of seed-grown plants should be aware that the name "Red Bull" is already in use.

Edited August 1, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[FlytrapRanch]

"SD Titan" to SD Kronos

 

This seed-grown plant, formerly named SD Titan, has been renamed SD Kronos because of a conflict with another recently named plant, BCP Titan from Kamil Pasek at BestCarnivorousPlants.net. Kamil has already sold some of his BCP Titan, while I have not yet sold any SD Titan, so I agreed to relinquish the name and use another.

 

I'm grateful to Phil Green (earlier in this discussion thread) for being critical enough of both the name (when it was SD Titan) and the plant to make me realize that I should probably speak and write about this favorite of my seed-grown plants in terms that sound less hyperbolic and less like marketing or advertising text. Thank you, Phil.

Edited July 31, 2014 by FlytrapRanch

[Jeroentje]

Sounds great Steve!