Sign in to follow this  
vic brown

Is this the real P. 'Weser'?

Recommended Posts

Almost three years ago Joseph Clemens (Pinguiculaman) pointed out on Pet Flytrap forums that virtually all the plants being grown under the name Pinguicula 'Weser' did not actually the resemble the standard photograph or description in Adrian Slack's 'Insect Eating Plants and How to grow them' (1986) pp.113-114, if you are lucky/rich enough to have a copy, or see http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Pinguicula.html and specifically http://wjclemens.com/cp_standards/pinguicu...eser_Sethos.htm

To my eye, only one of the many linked photographs purporting to be P. 'Weser' actually looks anything like the real thing, it's on Barry Rice's 'Galleria Carnivora' web site; http://www.sarracenia.com/photos/pinguicula/phybr05.jpg.

Over the past 2 years or so, I have been actively buying plants labelled as both P. 'Weser' and P. 'Sethos' from growers at UK open days who claim that their plants are not of garden centre origin and that they originated from Adrian Slack's nursery, 'Marston Exotics' . The first of these plants has now flowered for the first time and although I actually obtained this plant as P. 'Sethos', it clearly resembles both the written description and photograph of P. 'Weser'

Of these I would mention P. x 'Sethos' (P. moranensis x P. ehlersae, a fine, very floriferous clone with large orchid-purple flowers with a many-rayed mouth like a white star; P. x 'Weser', of the same parentage and with rather similar flowers, has a solitary white streak down the central lower lobe and dark veins.

Pinguicula 'Weser' (probably!)

Weser1.jpg

It's a young flower, which only opened fully this morning and like many mexican Ping flowers it will no doubt change size, shape and colour as it ages, but I am fairly confident that this is the real McCoy!

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this leave the 'Weser' forms that most people grow? How specific can we be about the parentage or is it a case of 'incorrectly-labelled hybrid'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plants sold by garden centres are not P. 'Weser', they don't look remotely like the real cultivar. They do look a bit like P. 'Sethos' and some growers think that they are this cultivar. However, I've not seen a garden centre plant that fits the description over here in the UK.

Does this look like a ' many-rayed mouth like a white star'?

WeserGCMutt.jpg

It's a dutch hybrid with this label

WeserGClabel.jpg

and I don't think we can be certain what it's parentage is, possibly an F2 hybrid. One thing about the garden centre mutts though is that they are very vigorous and easy to grow and propagate; so great for the producers, the garden centres and beginners to start with. They are much more vigorous, under the same conditions, than any of the plants I have received as real P. 'Weser' and P. 'Sethos'.

The way they are sold doesn't show much respect for the breeding skills of Harald Weiner though and in my opinion, it's a shame that original cultivars are likely to be lost due to the practices of the mass-market nurseries; hence my quest to search for the real things.

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic Vic. I agree that Barry's and your flower photos are the only ones that I have seen that looks like the description of P. 'Weser' and that nearly all of the photos of flowers that I have linked under the heading P. 'Weser' clearly do not fit the description.

I agree that most of the photo links to flowers of plants called P. 'Weser' show characteristics resembling P. 'Sethos', the hybrid P. moranensis x P. ehlersae, or some other hybrid, and not P. 'Weser'. Unfortunately, the owners of the linked photos have named them P. 'Weser'. Further, since it is only possible to identify this cultivar based on the flower, the identity of many of the links to photos of foliage must remain questionable until the plant flowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a shame that original cultivars are likely to be lost due to the practices of the mass-market nurseries; hence my quest to search for the real things.

Vic

Absolutely agree Vic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed very interestingm Vic. I wish you all the best for your crusade!

Cheers,

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish you all the best for your crusade

Thanks, I've still another plant, from another UK grower, that supposed to be a real P. 'Sethos', I hope it is! I've a couple more that are supposed to be real P. 'Weser' as well. I managed to sort out the P 'Tina' / P. 'Hans' situation as well and pointed Jan Schlauer in the direction of photographs of the real thing, it was awarded cultivar status in 2002, 21 years after it was bred and 16 after Adrian Slack described it!

Any one got a real P. 'Gina'?

I've a couple of plants, yet to flower, which are supposed to be, but the photos of this one on the web seem quite variable. The standard photograph was published in CPN in 1992 (Vol. 21, page 6), but I don't have easy access to a copy. If any kind sole has a copy and is prepared to send me a scan of the photo (purely for research purposes, not publication or distribution) I would be very grateful. :)

Cheers

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Aidan

I have what purports to be 'Weser' coming into flower now. I will examine it closely! I also have what purports to be 'Sethos' which may flower later.

I'll let you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting topic!

I got this plant from a swap, labelled as P. "weser" but I think it is more like a P. "sethos". What do you think?

weser30112043cs.jpg

weser12604049lz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... but I think it is more like a P. "sethos". What do you think?

I think it does not look like the P. 'Weser' standard. Whether it is actually P. 'Sethos' or simply a look-a-like would be a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the scanned standard photo of P. 'Sethos' from A. Slack's book is not as clear as in the actual publication. Even though it's quite a small image in the book, close inspection shows more distinct 'white rays' than in the plants such as Altair's and others. Yes it more closely resembles P. 'Sethos' than P. 'Weser', but it doesn't exactly match it either. I'm not convinced these plants are either cultivar.

This is what I think P. 'Sethos' should look like; note the white rays on all three lower lobes around the throat. http://www.volny.cz/fytoreidl/fotky/Ping/Sethos.jpg

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting topic and I was wondering if vic could do a FAQ to help everyone correctly identify these pings. I have a plant called P. 'Weser' (although perhaps unlikely) and wouldn't like to circulate the plant further if it wasn't the real P. 'Weser'.

Perhaps when the real P. 'Weser' is found (and other ping cultivars), we could redistribute the plant to cpers with the correct label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering if vic could do a FAQ to help everyone correctly identify these pings.

The best FAQ would be to read Vic's first post in this thread and look at his photo. The relevant distinguishing feature of P. 'Weser' is

P. x 'Weser' ... has a solitary white streak down the central lower lobe and dark veins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering if vic could do a FAQ to help everyone correctly identify these pings.

The best FAQ would be to read Vic's first post in this thread and look at his photo. The relevant distinguishing feature of P. 'Weser' is

P. x 'Weser' ... has a solitary white streak down the central lower lobe and dark veins.

I agree Bob, but sometimes these threads get lost or forgotten.

I’d also like to know how to recognise some of the other pings mentioned in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic,

Thank you for this post. I think you found it. I think I may have found it too, with the help of Travis. It is soon to flower and then I will know. The rosettes are the same general shape as my Pinguicula 'Sethos', but the leaf coloration is a little more intense, anyway, the flower will tell.

It's good to see evidence that someone else is just as serious about this genus as I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Aidan

The plant I mentioned above has opened a flower very similar to the one in Frank's photograph. :?

However, I obtained this plant from Steve last Saturday when Vic pointed it out to me. I believe it is the same clone as in Vic's original photo.

PWesser1.jpg

I got this one from another source a while ago.

PWesser2.jpg

Whadya reckon? :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread's prompted me to put pics of my Trago Mills so-called Weser, too. What's the verdict on this one:

PWeser1.jpg

PWeser2.jpg

Sorry about the out-of-focus bloom in the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve T's original plant, the parent of both mine and Aidan's) came from the original Sarracenia Nurseries, Mill Hill, London many moons ago. They stopped trading in the mid 90s.

All the mass-produced plants, including the Trago Mills one, have flowers that look the same as each other and bear no resemblance to P. 'Weser'. There are several UK growers who have the real thing now and are aware of it, so hopefully it won't be too long before they are more widely distributed.

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the mass-produced plants, including the Trago Mills one, have flowers that look the same as each other and bear no resemblance to P. 'Weser'. There are several UK growers who have the real thing now and are aware of it, so hopefully it won't be too long before they are more widely distributed.

Vic

Thanks, Vic. Do you, or anyone, have any idea what the lineage is of the false 'Weser' as peddled by Trago Mills et al?

EDIT: Sorry; saw the replies on the first page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jaicen
This thread's prompted me to put pics of my Trago Mills so-called Weser' date=' too. What's the verdict on this one:

[img']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/josefgiven/PWeser1.jpg[/img]

quote]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I'd like some help identifying my Ping!

I too have the dreaded garden center Wesser (sic) ping, whose ID i've had no reason to doubt until recently.

The thing is, my ping looks a lot like the plant above, (more pink in full light), but the flowers are not the same.

Mine bears a solitary flower, similarly shaped but a paler violet colour (more blue) with slightly more white in the center. Any ideas of it's heritage?

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about pings, i've only recently come to appreciate them for the interesting plants they are.

Which reminds me, if anyone has a P. Gypsicola, i'd very much appreciate a spare leaf this winter ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaicen,

For a better determination a photograph that focuses on the flower instead of the foliage would be good. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, only the presence of a flower matching the cultivar standard would be a strong indicator for cultivar identification. This process definitely needs a clearer photo of the flower.

- - - - - - - - - - -

I believe that some hobbyists and growers alike appear to have a bit of a misunderstanding of the cultivar registration process, perhaps even more than one. The misunderstanding evident in this circumstance seems to be that when a cultivar, such as: Pinguicula ‘Weser’ was selected from the hybrid population of Pinguicula moranensis x Pinguicula ehlersiae and registered, that this conferred the cultivar name on every plant of the same parentage, a “hybrid name”. However, this is not the actual reality. Actually a plant was selected with particular characteristics, these characteristics where described and photographed, then this information was published and submitted to the appropriate registration authorities, registrar; in this case Jan Schlauer with the ICPS (International Carnivorous Plant Society). Though it is true that any plant that matches the written description of this cultivar (regardless of parentage) and the photographic standard qualifies to be called by the same cultivar name, not all siblings of a similar cross should be, unless they too match the cultivar description and standard photograph.

Presently cultivars are not required to be identical clones, but they must be an exact match of the published cultivar description and photographic standard. Even cultivars that are identical clones may exhibit varying characteristics due to environmental conditions. It was explained to me that the cultivar registration process accepts additional information of this sort, which is kept by the registrar and made available along with the original cultivar description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Aidan
Presently cultivars are not required to be identical clones,...

Another failing of cultivar registration and also somewhat misleading.

The method of reproduction may be specified on registration. If 'vegetative reproduction' only is specified, then all plants of a specific cultivar should be clones. However, since a plant only has to appear to be a particular cultivar to be considered that cultivar, this negates the point of specifying the method of reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jaicen

Sounds to me like the regulations are less than helpful in determining nomenclature.

For what it's worth, I think the plant I have may in fact be P. 'Tina' going on this thread:

http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11900

that flower, although deformed is much closer to that I observed when my plant flowered, so perhaps that's the answer. The rosette is quite similar as well, though mine have a pink hue.

I find it strange that many pings which are undistinguishable except for their flowers can be regarded as seperate species.

For example, the Papaver Somniforum has many forms and colours, and yet is regarded as a single species. What is it that differentiates Pings???

edit: I don't know if it's important or not, but my particular plant is not self fertile.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this