|
Post by leilani on Jul 8, 2013 16:12:07 GMT -10
dueoka ...... ding, ding, ding! That's it! dominic ..... "yes", N. lowii x merrilliana. Sorry, I often do this late at night. shawn ..... The plant would be happier but ..... I don't think so. It is a pretty big plant but has only ever made about three pitchers (... in the heat of summer). I've been waiting a long time. Today's pic ...
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jul 7, 2013 22:19:07 GMT -10
It has been summer weather here and the lowlanders are loving it. Not bical but a combination of two very lowland plants that would love it at your place. a day older .....
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jul 6, 2013 21:42:24 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jul 2, 2013 20:21:13 GMT -10
Hi Geoff, Here are a few pictures of the truncata .... If, you recognize the "eustachya" as one of your hybrids it would go a long way toward explaining its giant size. I had never heard of that one. I have two of them and they are both the same. I may have gotten these from rainforest. They were both tagged as "N. eustachya EP" . Got a picture somewhere? I looked around but could not find one. BE's eustachya looks about right to me but here are a couple more pictures in case you want to bust his balls. The pink eustachya nat. hybrid earlier in this thread is supposed to be eustachya x' reinwardtiana. I also have this nat. hybrid supposed to be eustachya x' albomarginata. I think Burgandy was from one of those gregs where you only get a few. It looked odd as a seedling, got potted up, set aside and forgotten. It may be a sole survivor (technically not qualified for a grex name .... we will have that conversation in the future). It was only the odd pitchers that drew may attention. I do have one of your maxima x TM but it has seen better days and it never flowered for me. The combination of (ventricosa x lowii) x (merrilliana x truncata) is strange no matter how I picture it. I have two specimens of (ventricosa x lowii) x maxima, a hybrid from D'Amato, and it does have some similarities I see ventricosa and lowii corseting what wants to be a much bigger pitcher. I am anxious to see what it does next. I like the way the peristome splits into little 'ears' at the top. I wanted to ask you about the two very nice rafflesiana x merrilliana pictured earlier in this post. From two different gregs? Different mothers, same father?
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 28, 2013 20:36:37 GMT -10
N. jacquelineaeN. lowiiN. mira
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 26, 2013 22:29:02 GMT -10
mikuláš I think the eustachya is stunning -- even though we don't see the whole plant, I imagine the plant's presentation is striking, with dark stems & mid veins terminating in very bright, light pitchers. I have tried to take pictures of the entire plant but, as it has grown straight up, its hard to get it all into the picture. Believe it or not, it actually reminds me of growing N. sumatrana in a number of ways. While we are on the subject, here is a picture of the rather different N. eustachya from Borneo Exotics. No where near as large in proportions as the one from Exotica, this one is scrambling alone a fence structure. here are some (out-of-focus) comparison shots ..... another shot of my favorite N. eustachya nat. hybrid ... N. bokorensis is "all over the place" with its pitchers. Here is a sibling of the plant show earlier in this thread. N. rowanaeN. Abere NN5230103N. (clipeata x ventricosa) x merrillianaSome more shots of a very fat N. Whisper HCMM0508 ... N. Terpsichore NN5071049N. singalana x clipeataNoa ... That N. Burgandy looks great, although it is interesting that it has such strong mottling. I wouldn't have guessed it by the parentage! It is a very strange looking pitcher but it is a very strange combination of plants. What would ventricosa, lowii, merrilliana and truncata in equal proportions look like?
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 20, 2013 21:21:33 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 18, 2013 21:20:03 GMT -10
"From a conservationist standpoint I imagine it would be crucial to differentiate between the two if it was necessary to introduce plants back into the wild." It was this consideration that prompted me to make the distinction.
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 18, 2013 21:12:11 GMT -10
Both plants are N. rafflesiana x merrilliana from EP. N. Meteor ( maxima x clipeata) and N. Shaleen ( bellii x clipeata) are both looking really good and very clip-like. N. Meteor is developing some very interesting peristome colors and stripes and both gregs seem to have lots of vigor. Sorry Nicholas, I'm not sure on the first group picture. I'll need to go dig around in the pot and look for a tag. The N. Melvino is about as close to black as it gets with Nepenthes. Like the "Black Sands" cultivar of the N. Puna grex it differs from the deep-purple "Blacks" of most Nepenthes and look more like a "Flat Black" from a spray can.
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 17, 2013 22:03:03 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 13, 2013 22:28:43 GMT -10
"Hort. species", the way I use the term is meant to distinguish a species grex created in the nursery by crossing two plants of the same species but from different populations from a species grex produced by nature. For example, a N. maxima created by crossing a grassland mini N. maxima with a highland form of N. maxima is still, by botanical definition, a N. maxima. However, it is a N. maxima that would never have come to be without human intervention, i.e., it would never be found in nature. So, in some sense it is "unnatural". This seems paradoxical: "species" as an inventory of nature and "species" applied to something that would never occur in nature. There is a counter to this argument that goes something like "Humans are just as much a part of nature as any other species, therefore, human intervention is as natural as insect" and the problem goes away. The trouble is that, even if the above is true, its not the way most people think about species or human intervention in animal or plant breeding. "Whats more natural than a GMO?" For most, "species" are things found to occur in nature and not the product of human intervention. For this reason, I like to differentiate the two. As examples, I have bred N. sanguina, N. maxima, N. ventricosa and N. insignis in the nursery. Of these four crossings I would consider only the N. insignis, bred from male and female from the same population to be true species plants. The others, along with ep's house bred N. truncata I would call "Hort. species". The issue gets even sticker when you consider natural hybrids. I have in my collection a natural hybrid of N. tobaica x' spectabilis. I have also bred N. tobaica x spectabilis in the nursery to produce the same hybrid. Is one natural and one not?
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Jun 5, 2013 22:14:30 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on May 27, 2013 14:36:54 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Apr 26, 2013 22:17:42 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Apr 26, 2013 19:54:37 GMT -10
|
|