|
Post by cloudsitter on Jul 20, 2008 13:57:31 GMT -10
I'd like to add tobiaca with good coloring would be something interesting. But have to agree with x trusmadeinsis is a magnificent progeny. I'd like to see lowii x sibuyanensis, sibuyanensis x ephippiata, x northiana, x macrophylla, x glandulifera, x veitchii, x albomarginata, x pectinata, x gymnamphora, to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by gre3nmind on Sept 3, 2008 0:02:34 GMT -10
Well here's Sib x northiana x veitchii starting to show colors slowly.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Sept 30, 2008 8:06:54 GMT -10
We now have to discount that N. sibuyanensis BE is pure or introgressed.
M
|
|
obregon562
Nobiles
"I do believe Im feeling stronger everyday."
Posts: 387
|
Post by obregon562 on Sept 30, 2008 16:16:27 GMT -10
michael,
you say that based on sib x ham BE? i dont think that directly puts sibuyanensis BE at fault, more that the hamata isnt pure or they used more than one pollen parent.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Oct 1, 2008 17:16:41 GMT -10
Someone sent me a thread of a point being made that many of the sibuyanensis is introgressed with N. argentii and that it is difficult to discern wether any might be pure or hybridogenic. If N. platychila is also seen as an introgressed "hybrid" then there is no end to what else might be of hybrid origin. N. macrophylla might even be N. macrophylla x Trusmadiensis. I guess most people don't really care if something is pure so long as they own a piece of it. For a company that sells their idea of propagation through tissue culture, it is pointless to make a tc sample if the suspect plant is of hybridogenic origins.
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Oct 3, 2008 9:11:42 GMT -10
From what I can tell from the sibuyanensis x hamata hybrid, it is definitely NOT hamata. Other than just the teeth, the features of the pitcher and lid and appearance is closer to a talangensis hybrid. Morever I believe that Rob Cantley didn't personally made the cross himself, instead it may have been his workers or other staff that made the cross. It could also be mislabeled where several pollen fathers were crossed with one female spike sibuyanensis. I would also check to see what their other sibuyanensis hybrids appear like, and see if they look more hamata-ish than what they are labeled. Or perhaps the hamata cross was unsuccessful and the other father parent were developed and got mistaken for the hamata. Either way it is too squat for it to have a hamata father.
M
|
|
|
Post by lamwn on Nov 22, 2008 0:05:54 GMT -10
Hi, just thought I'd post a pic of my sibu x (north x veitch) which i took recently. Its getting cute and all with its shape, and having nice pitcher:leaf ratio, but I'm worried its going to turn out green! thanks
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 22, 2008 12:08:07 GMT -10
I think this hybrid will strongly resemble a tubby N. northiana. I am hoping for compact but huge N. northianas.
M
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 28, 2008 7:52:17 GMT -10
Someone sent me a thread of a point being made that many of the sibuyanensis is introgressed with N. argentii and that it is difficult to discern wether any might be pure or hybridogenic. If N. platychila is also seen as an introgressed "hybrid" then there is no end to what else might be of hybrid origin. N. macrophylla might even be N. macrophylla x Trusmadiensis. I guess most people don't really care if something is pure so long as they own a piece of it. For a company that sells their idea of propagation through tissue culture, it is pointless to make a tc sample if the suspect plant is of hybridogenic origins. The issue with N. macrophylla is more complicated. It appears N. macrophylla Jebb & Cheek could be N. edwardsiana * N. lowii in the first place. Your argument about not putting them into TC is backward, after all where else would we be getting the material to do research on? It is rather difficult to study the genetics of plants you cannot obtain. Also being able to see how they respond in different conditions as they are cultivated around the world will help us understand them better...
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 28, 2008 12:54:30 GMT -10
A description of any species is from wild, natural plants. The dilemma regarding N. stenophylla having two alter egos is the result of plants described and identified from plants in cultivation over plants as seen in the wild.
TC seed plants also gives rise to further confusion, example is MT's N. burbidgeae x edwardsiana. We're still GUESSING of its true identity. And yes this is a tc clone, so what? So we have hundreds identical of these unknowns. Big deal! To study a hybrid in various regions actually says nothing because a species is only a true species in its natural habitat. When you take them away from their growing conditions, everything will change (leaf size, pitcher size, pitcher coloration, plant size, etc.). To study them in a scientific fashion, one must sweat long hikes and get a good sampling of plants in their natural habitat. The scientific data for what ever they have described is a natural population of what's out there. So if it is not Wistuba's clone, it should be called something else.
If N flava (WITH BRIGHT YELLOW PITCHERS) only occurs as a single plant, then it was described as a naturally occurring species, even if just one. It might even be a hybrid!
Actually seed original plants have a better chance of showing its true colors over the one or few selected tc clones set for massed propagation. If there is a range, then it will be evident in its progeny, but if you're just saving a single clone for propagation, it makes the sampling 100% that what you have cloned as a single clone represents itself for the entire species. This is not true (my example is N. burbidgeae x edwardsiana) if we just have the single clone (and we do with MT's clone of this) then what we are attempting to grow and illustrate is N. burbidgeae dressed up as N. burbidgeae x edwardsiana). So many many seed originals is best to represent this theory.
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Apr 7, 2009 13:55:02 GMT -10
Many sibuyanensis hybrids are now being available. What I like with this species is its higher rate of adaptability in its progeny. From all the species of hybrids used in hybridization, very few other species lends to climate variation as well as N. sibuyanensis. While classified as a true highlander, the hybrids of sibuyanensis contributes a great deal towards adaptive lowland climatization. Hybrids I have grown with sibuyanensis have all shown great tolerance or adaptability to a warmer climate zone. Even when crossed to another highland species, the resultant offspring shows great tenacity towards adapting to much warmer zones.
I look forward to seeing much more h/l species hybridization with this species in the near future. N. lowii x sibuyanensis, N. sibuyanensis x argentea, N. sibuyanensis x ephippiata, N. platychila x sibuyanensis, N. sibuyanensis x rajah, N. sibuyanensis x jacquelineae, N. sibuyanensis x sanguinea purple to name a few.
M
|
|