|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 23, 2013 13:57:21 GMT -10
Hi tuaagso:
I think you really want to grow these plants, you must either acquire more equipment to make the humidity right or move to a location where the relative humidity is higher than mexico city. e.g closer to the ocean? Acapulco?
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 21, 2013 10:19:33 GMT -10
Hi sewinans:
Although i saw your post 2 months later, i'd say the plant will recover if you cut the black bud off. Even if the rest of the plant dies, you'll have another clone of it down the bottom. Just give it a bit warmer temperatures, more humidity and plenty of light. Please post a photo soon.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Mar 18, 2013 11:36:57 GMT -10
Another possibility is that the plant is a seed grown specimen from a population that contains some hybrids and it may in face be a complex hybrid that might have watered out the other parent a little. Whether its a hybrid or not its still a pretty plant but i get what geoff means when he says there is something a bit off about that pitcher. But maybe its just a case of unrecorded variability in the species even taxonomists can miss a population or two Hi Kevnep: It looks like the general consensus of "Nepenthes species" means all plants must look like one clone. In my view, the idea is simply absurd. If you look at a population of plants, there are small variations between individuals and they are all species. If you make hybrids between 2 single clones from 2 different species, you'll get all the F1's looking the same. Although the idea sits well on anyone's mind, it is hardly what occurs in the wild, as there are several individuals from the same species with small variations in pitcher colour, shape, etc. Now how much variation is tolerated before we call it a hybrid, it would depend on who is judging the plant Perhaps for commercial purposes, that's the way to go, so nobody questions your merchandise, but you are removing the very essence of genetic variation and the process becomes predictable. When you set the rules of the game, nobody can beat you!. Cheers, Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Sept 20, 2011 0:38:12 GMT -10
Hi all:
thanks for your answers. Considering Morbus's answers, then it's very clear that unless you are targeting mutants in TC, this unlikely occurs and your other comments also make sense. This is exactly what i suspected. BTW, Morbus: i used to grow Hela S3 in Joklik modified Eagle media, U937's, Jurkat T cells, and others in RPMI 1640 for years. However, i needed somebody else's opinion.
Thanks again
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Sept 16, 2011 20:24:34 GMT -10
Hi the large:
I don't think this is the same thing discussed before. some mutations do not change plant characteristics at all and they are called silent mutations. My question is whether TC induces mutations in plants propagated this way. Whether these change plant shape or characteristics is another topic for discussion
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Sept 15, 2011 22:08:19 GMT -10
Hi all:
I would like to open this discussion to present evidence for and against the hypothesis/theory that artificial plant propagation using standard Tissue culture procedures induces mutations. We all know that in the horticultural industry, plant tissue culture is widely used. However, some plant breeders criticise this practice, because of the reasons mentioned above. It'd be helpful if plant growers contribute to this discussion.
My first question is: is there scientific evidence to corroborate this hypothesis?
Cheers,
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 6, 2011 0:31:10 GMT -10
Exactly Rich, the isolation results in populations living with different conditions and so each now each separate population reaches differently to a different environment, but it is the accumulation of useful traits that make for different species, not a couple of random mutations that happen all the time and get promoted via genetic drift. Mutations, which cause evolution, are random. Evolution is not random. Most mutations result in cell death. Most mutations that don't kill are useless. But with natural selection, only useful traits are promoted and therefore the underlining specific mutations as well. The theory of genetic drift is more related to the mathematical properties of genes and it demonstrates how non-useful mutations can come to be present in most or all individuals in a given population, while no individuals in another population can inherit the mutation as it isn't available to them. Genetic drift can also kill off these useless mutations as well, and none are the wiser. Genetic drift is in some ways anti-natural selection. This is similar to the slow kind of evolution that Darwin envisioned--not accurate all. The accumilation of useful traits can occurs rather quickly--natural selection works a lot faster than genetic drift and a lot faster than Darwin thought. Dave: biological entities whether they are plants or animals develop characteristics and traits for functionality. Natural selection is a combination of environmental pressure and genetic plasticity to change for survival. Genetic drift, in my opinion, is also part of evolution. Random mutations are usually repaired by specialized enzymes to maintain the accuracy of genome composition . If mutations occur and remain in the plant population, then they must offer an advantage to the plants having them, because if they don't, these are wiped out. Evolution needs mutations. By mutations, i am referring to all kinds not just single base pair changes, but large gene sections exchanged, deleted, or translocated elsewhere. We can't have new species with the same gene composition as their ancestral species. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 5, 2011 1:40:52 GMT -10
Hey Rich: Thanks for your comments, but i would still have to ask you: How much genetic drift is required to call them a new species then? Gus Dear Gus I really don't think genetic drift is going to drive evolution. Genetic drift more or less results in different varieties; might function more as starting place for speciation; getting the ball rolling so-to-speak. Dear Dave: As the rules for evolution are not tightly set by anyone, as far as I know then, who is qualified to say when a plant cross transforms from a complex hybrid to a species?. Perhaps we are looking too hard at a process which may have a very simple explanation Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 2, 2011 12:49:45 GMT -10
Hey Rich:
Thanks for your comments, but i would still have to ask you: How much genetic drift is required to call them a new species then?
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 1, 2011 19:05:51 GMT -10
Hey Gus, I'm not saying that this is a simple first generation F1 hybrid, but that this population may have some gene pool contamination from perhaps N. glabrata. Gene pool contamination does occur in this genus as can be seen in the Genting Highlands where N. ramispina, N. sanguinea and N. macfarlanei all grow together in the same general area, and some plants will show obvious traits of one or both of the other species. Some Sarracenia populations have the same problem, some sites are just complex hybrid swarms. We don't really know if the "hairyness" trait would be lost either, since we don't yet fully understand the genetics of this genus. This is another example of why I regard N. macrophylla as an ancient hybrid swarm between N. lowii and N. villosa; it's leaves are nearly identical to N. villosa and the pitchers are obviously N. lowii influenced; despite the fact that N. villosa does not exist in G. Trus Madi, or anywhere near it today. There are other botanical examples of how some plants have gone extinct in recent years in some places leaving behind a few hybrids, mostly sterile ones. Sedums are a prime example of this in this country, where several mountains have lost a few species presumably due to "Global Warming" on their summits. - Rich Hi Rich: Thanks for your reply. I think we are seeing the same thing, but you call it differently. What is "gene contamination" for you I call it "speciation". Using the macrophylla case, perhaps it came from Lowii X villosa, but villosa is no longer around in Mt Trusmadi, then one will have to call "macrophylla"a species then as it has replaced a species which presumptively inhabitely the same area hundreds or thousands years before. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jul 1, 2011 2:47:00 GMT -10
We really need to see other individual plants of this "hairy hamata" before making any generalizations about them, this individual plant may be a sport, or have some genetic contamination; it is lacking the tentacles on the lid as N. tentaculata and N. hamata has, and its pitcher makes me think of N. glabrata for some reason, particularly, the uppers. Very fine plant though! - Rich Hi Rich: I don't particularly believe it's a hybrid, as it has conserved most of the hamata traits for it to be a first cross hybrid. If anything, i'd be it's a hamata-like species. Now if you are thinking it to be a complex hybrid, that's a different issue; however, I think we should not speculate until we find the hairy species involved in your hypothesis, because a hamata X glabrata will not produce a hairy hamata anyway. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Apr 25, 2011 22:40:21 GMT -10
Hi all:
It's important to remember that many growers, no matter how many decades they have culturing Nepenthes, they are not growing them in their natural habitat. N. aristolochioides is a true highland species which requires cooling at night. I am not sure what conditions Vraev grows his plants, but Ontario is not Sumatra. I am sure he has cold nights, but he also has freezing nights in winter, conditions which are not found in Sumatra. any excess cold weather or sudden heat wave for these plants, may cause weird things to happen (even with heating systems in place for extreme cold or evaporative cooling systems for summer)/ I believe N. aristolochioides grows in conditions which are neither extreme for light nor temperature. Unfortunately, most growers do tend to overlook these sudden temporary changes in temperature and light, thus giving freaky flowering patterns. At least, vraev's plant flowered this time around. I know many growers who can't make this species flower at all.
The best way to grow these plants is to mimic their growing conditions in the wild as much as possible. Until then, weird things will happen to the plant's growth and flowering pattern. Also, it's important to acknowledge that some species adapt to many environments ie, maxima, truncata, but others just can't and won't/
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 27, 2011 23:59:02 GMT -10
Hi all:
One thing is very clear. Nepenthes makes some people very obsessive about them and i include myself in the mix. It's a shame that due to the different growing requirements, their cultivation is not as widespread as other kinds of plants, hence the demand is not relatively great. If we all agree that the global market for Nepenthes is relatively small, when compared to that of orchids or bromeliads, then why is is that we spend so much energy and time accusing others of profiteering or bad business practices?. Is it the same obsession to get these plants that blinds us? If it was a ten million dollar a year business or more , i can understand the competitive nature of different growers to be the best. there is nothing wrong with that. But the truth is that anyone in this business, is usually involved because they love what they do and not about how much money they are going to make!
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 10, 2011 11:14:58 GMT -10
Dear Sir:
I think instead of discussing the issue as a whole, your post is a blatant attack to particular nurseries. Unfortunately, i would like to discuss this issue in general terms and not pointing out anyone in particular.
The issue of seed grown vs TC will go on for a while, but when people read extremely biased comments, we can't move further. It'd be nice if we can try to address this issue again without pointing the finger at anyone.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 8, 2011 0:00:19 GMT -10
Hi PhilG:
I respect your points of view, but i don't necessarily agree with them. We've been biased by the fact that one gets a beautiful seed grown plant and propagate them by cuttings and possibly these are given to other growers, so everybody have a beautiful seed grown plant (which in fact is a clone of the original one). We don't happen to see the dozens of seedlings that perished 3 years earlier to get only a few seed grown plants bigger and colourful. TC helps the runts and the good plants to grow side by side. The issue is that it takes some time to pinpoint the clones which in fact will give good plants and which ones will be runts. In the future, i would encourage all commercial nurseries to sort out the good ones from the bad ones when grown in TC flasks
Furthermore, there is a large percentage of growers in which most of their collection is composed of seed grown plants, that's great, but i would like to ask to those collectors whether the majority of their collection is made up of hybrids/seed grown. Obviously hybrid vigour plays an important role in these seed grown plants, thus we believe they are better because they are seed grown, but as a matter of fact the hybrid vigour in these plants is inconspicuously helping the plants to grow faster and not just because these are seed grown. the only advantage of seed grown plants is that nature takes care of the runts while in TC: "everything goes".
We should be comparing species seed grown vs. species TC and hybrids seed grown vs. hybrids TC. I think it's fairer to do it that way.
Gus
|
|