|
Post by rainforest on Nov 3, 2008 9:15:26 GMT -10
Top Ten EXCUSES how this happened. 10.) The non-English speaking worker who made the cross didn't realize what he had made. 9.) The tags started out as N. sibuyanensis x Lady Pauline, then after writting them over and over some were written as N. sibuyanensis x N. hamata. 8.) The harem where the female sibuyanensis occupied had a Lady Pauline (male-cross dresser-whatever) in it and just because the plant bore a woman's name, she was actually a he and in flower at the time. Like a Victor Victoria where a woman impersonates a man impersonating a woman, yeah whatever! 7.) "So you collected all of the seed pods at once across the nursery and didn't include the labels!?" 6.) "You mean all of the sib x hamata seedlings died and you substituted, WHAT?" 5.) In Sri Lankan, talangensis is spelled hamata 4.) Hamata pollen was saved and got mixed up with some other pollen in storage 3.) None of the parents are actually pure, we only use nepenthes species mutt in our breeding program, heck, N. hamata is pure, but perhaps the sibuyanensis we used is also part argentea, rajah and bellii and a host of so many unknowns. 2.) It wasn't Rob's fault he was on Holiday again! 1.) And the number one reason why this happened: Like Igor in Young Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein (Rob) asked, "OK, this wasn't the pollen from N. hamata, so where did you get this pollen from?" Igor replied, "You promise you won't get mad?...it was Abbey-something."
Anyone else got their top ten reasons how this happened?
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 6, 2008 8:18:50 GMT -10
I think I'll replace the number one spot with ghosts in the nursery.
M
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 6, 2008 15:32:13 GMT -10
Come on guys,
This plant doesn't look like N. sibuyanensis either... I haven't seen any characteristic which would make me think the identity is wrong... No lid protrusions, not very important. Many species have them at a young age, I don't think it would take much of a "push" from the N. hamata side for them to be very prevalent in most N. h. hybrids. Not having them does not mean, however, no N. hamata. If you look at over all shape it looks like this plant has the N. s. peristome while the pitcher profile and general shape is N. hamata.
It appears that the addition of N. hamata really improved on N. sibuyanensis's visual appeal.
Actually, it looks like a pretty nice plant, better than what I was expecting from the cross and I would certainly buy one.
|
|
Robiii
Nobiles
Grow the new world
Posts: 262
|
Post by Robiii on Nov 6, 2008 17:53:13 GMT -10
So will the eyes of the hobby please stand up, and give their visual calculation of what made this hybrid. I don't care how it came to be but more of what made it, 'IT'.
I've seen people mention maxima, talangensis, sibuyanensis, hamata... ...anything else that could be inside (not intel).
Rob
sdcarnivores: what do you see inside this hybrid, after all you have more the eye for hybrids than most of the people here.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 8, 2008 6:30:11 GMT -10
I (and everyone else) must be missing something. I don't own a pair of rose colored glasses so I can't even begin to see N. hamata in it. A species such as N. hamata would have a good percentage of its looks in its progeny and a species such as sibuyanensis so weak in characteristics that could take over this cross. This is a cross like crossing a saber tooth tiger with a common household cat. There's got to be some fang protrusions even if reduced by half!
The characteristics of N. Predator speaks for itself. Definitely no talangensis in that one, no second guessing that Predator has hamata in it. Now this hybrid is very lacking in all counts of any relation to hamata.
M
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Nov 8, 2008 8:09:43 GMT -10
Why does everyone seem to think that comparing other hybrids involving N. sibuyanensis with other parents or N. hamata with other parents has ANY bearing on how these two plants will combine together. There is ZERO correlation. Sure it's great to look at how potential parents responded in other hybrids to hopefully give an idea what to expect but there is no guarantee in the slightest.
From my experience N. sibuyanensis is quite dominant in many of it's hybrids and N. hamata is not, particularly the most notable teeth.
Maybe it will take redoing the cross but currently I see no sign of N. Lady Pauline, or maxima or talangensis or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Marcello Catalano on Nov 8, 2008 9:20:57 GMT -10
Why does everyone seem to think that Careful when you say "everyone", Tony This topic has been visited 373 times so far. Despite the big accuse that is being done, it contains just 20 messages or answers. 10 of them have been written by the same person One or two other people seem to agree or to be in doubt. Let's wait to see if this topic has enough sense to become a discussion, then we'll see more clearly who could be right and who could be wrong. Sorry guys, it's saturday evening, I'm bored again Marcello
|
|
|
Post by unclemasa on Nov 8, 2008 9:28:59 GMT -10
I mentioned, on pitcherplants.com, that, at least as far as I am concerned, I think it is too early to pronounce this as other than it claims.
I have done a couple of hybrids where ..... "I wonder where the Father went?". On some others the only time the true parentage became apparent was in the more mature plant or in the uppers.
I have yet to see a plant from this grex that was larger than a young adolescent.
I find it easy to dismiss the suggestion that the male was "Lady Pauline". The side-by-side comparisons, made by ep, are interesting but not convincing. After all, we only have a couple of hybrids with N. hamata as a constituent and I am not sure this is enough information to allow us to say that "N. hamata hybrids always look like this or that.".
Just because someone can make an interesting argument that these are not N. hamata hybrids does not make it so.
I find it difficult to believe that Rob would have made a mistake with such a potentially desirable hybrid and I would dismiss altogether the notion of deliberate fraud.
Beyond the fact that plant A was crossed with plant B there is always the second doubt of were plants A and B "pure" species. This, of course, takes us deeper into speculation and assumption and, although such arguments are interesting and sometimes informative, they are not sufficient to make me doubt the breeder's word when he says that he crossed A and B.
I think we owe it to the breeder and the community of growers to give this particular hybrid more time before we jump to conclusions and make accusations regarding the integrity of this release.
|
|
Dave Evans
Nobiles
dpevans_at_rci.rutgers.edu
Posts: 490
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 8, 2008 12:08:25 GMT -10
I (and everyone else) I don't own a pair of rose colored glasses... Dung colored glasses maybe? When the plants get bigger, its identity will be clearer, but I really do not see any characteristics which would make me think the id is wrong. I'm done with this boring thread.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 8, 2008 16:34:00 GMT -10
Leilani wrote
First of all, as mentioned earlier, I'm not accusing Rob of being a cheat or crook. I can fully understand if one of his workers claim to have made the cross and even wrote incorrect information on the cross itself. If someone had sent me seeds of N. rajah crossed with N. ampullaria and the offspring resembled N. mirabilis, then who is to say that I am guilty of fraud. But I would never make statements about a cross to even put myself in question as a grower unless I personally made the cross myself. This would make all my hybrids placed in jeopardy in question and especially if two crosses looked suspicious, then that would end my reputation as a hybridizer, and everything I have said ABOUT THE EXCLUSIVE ALL-FEMALE BLOCKED OFF NUSERY would be also in suspect. This has brought up the top ten reasons how this cross came to be (above), as we all know this can only happen if he had no clue (Clueless) what was going on in his harem (the only known greenhouse where all plants present are all females to prevent this sort of accidents from occurring). If you're going to come across as being a long term "hybridizer" it would be appropriate to do the actual pollination and as in any closed program, you will still bag your work to prevent even a slight accident from occurring. Just because you have an all female nursery, doesn't mean sh*t! Because we all know sh*t happens! Anyone knowing the behavior of N. sibuyanensis in hybrids can understand this. Show me a sibuyanensis hybrid that looks like a sibuyanensis! Even a sibuyanensis x ventricosa (reciprocal cross as well) has a heavy dominance of N. ventricosa.
While we have not seen many hamata crosses, we have seen many sibuyanensis hybrids. From all the evidence out there this cross looks more closely to N. sibuyanensis x talangensis! (perhaps a pale-green form of sibuyanensis crossed to a pale N. talangensis or talangensis hybrid).
M
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Nov 29, 2008 3:11:31 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 29, 2008 7:27:21 GMT -10
From all the hamata hybrids I have seen as seedlings, All of them have always had hairs on their lids at least in the juvenile stages. N. Rokko x hamata has hairs, N. Predator has hairs, etc. This hybrid doesn't even have nubs. THe blackness of the hamata's peristome should be dominant and this peristome is bright red like a talangensis.
The pitcher shape is too oval for hamata to be a part of this recipe.
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 29, 2008 7:50:16 GMT -10
Interestingly Rob/BE has made the cross and performed it in a CLOSED greenhouse (the only one of its kind in the world) harem of females, yet brings information to the fore that even species have a wider genetic diversity that we are led to believe. It would be a little more convincing if he (like EP) could show the parents actually used in the making of sibuyanensis x hamata. Instead we get a lecture on how that species variability in the wild and how tc clones of these so called pure species are in fact, introgressed hybrids. So there is nothing pure in regards to species and we should just wake up and accept that? I don't think so! Sounds more and more like excuses for a sloppy handling or mismanagement of species to me. Tony cited the seedling case of Predator in another forum, yet please note that the Predator seedling has hairs and nubs on its lids and the sibuyanensis x hamata does not. Every single Predator seedling had hairs on their lids (so is this to say that EP's species are pure and BE species is not?). That's the excuse we hear why this hybrid looks like no-hamata today! An ostrich can bury his head in the ground only for so long. Sooner or later he must come up for air. Watch out for my upcoming Top Ten Smokescreen Tactics to Bury this Farce.
M
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Nov 29, 2008 12:33:06 GMT -10
Guess we are going to get into this again even after Sam's well thought out and presented post. My recollection is that N. sibuyanensis doesn't have hairs on the lids, even in very small juvenile seedlings. So why should this hybrid have hairs just because different N. hamata hybrids hairs? How can you be so certain what a N. sibuyanensis x hamata seedling should look like if it has never been done before now? It's all well and good to estimate what you MIGHT get based on DIFFERENT hybrids but there is no guarantee of any of them holding true. I will post the photos here and you can take it or leave it. While looking at these photos consider the following: Both N. truncata and N. hamata both have hairs on the lids of young plants well beyond the juvenile stage. It would not surprise me to see hairs on N. predator seedlings. N. sibuyanensis however does not have hairs so the potential for seedlings of N. sibuyanensis x hamata to have no hairs is very real. Also keep in mind that N. hamata black coloration does not come out immediately even in N. hamata. Young seedlings don't get that real dark black color for some time and the color can take weeks to develop when it does. First up. N. predator seedlings (2 different plants 3" diamater with 1.5" pitchers) Note the shape, note the hip in the pitcher, note the color pattern on the pitcher, note the color of the splotches and color of the peristome. Next up 2 N. sibuyanensis x hamata approximately 4" diameter with 1.5" pitchers. I find it hard to believe that anyone comparing these two photos to the two above can't find any similiarities with respect to the traits I mentioned above. The main difference of course is the lack of lid hairs but I have addressed that. I will post a photo for reference of a very young N. sibuyanensis as well clearly showing lack of any lid hairs. My conclusions. The hybrid is what it is although I would still like to see them grown up considerably in size before I am certain. I would also like to see someone else redo the cross using N. sibuyanensis as the female parent. I have seen some photos of other N. sibuyanensis x hamata and there is reason to believe that perhaps there are a few rogue plants which are not what they are supposed to be. Does this mean that the rest aren't? No. I get plants from a variety of places and occasionally there is a plant that is not what it is supposed to be. Perhaps a few pollen grains from a neighboring flower and a different cross got 'relocated' by insect or gravity or wind or whatever. Perhaps a few plants got mislabelled along the way. Perhaps a stray seed or two landed where they shouldn't. Things happen, nothings perfect, but I see no reason to write off this hybrid as something other than what it is labelled.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 29, 2008 13:32:46 GMT -10
I must be the only one who cannot see even a speck of hamata in it. Predator has so much hamata it shouts at you. N. Rokko x hamata looks even closer to a Predator than a sib x hamata will ever be. The photo shows no hamata not even in the peristome (dead ringer for sibuyanensis if you ask anyone) but no hamata! The pitcher body and coloration doesn't say hamata even on a bad day!
I also use the foliage as evidence for hamata and the sib x hamata doesn't appear to be closely kin to hamata. It doesn't have the leaf shape or stem to petiole attachment as either species shows.
I like your strategy Tony for pointing these criteria out, but there's really no evidence to show me clearly that hamata is present. The Predator shows my point exactly and anyone seeing this can say that even the peristome of Predator shows more evidence of hamata than a sib x hamata shows. The ribbing on the Predator has points that make it stand out. Note the wider spacing and definite almost back-bone like raised features. The sib x hamata is like a series of small ribs like a washboard. Not the exaggerated ridges of a true hamata hybrid.
Note how these talks of "rogue" plants are surfacing these days. ATTENTION: OWNERS OF SIBUYANENSIS X HAMATA< YOUR SEEDLING MAY BE FROM A CONTAMINATED STRAND OF MIXED SEEDLINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING SIB X HAMATA. Stay tuned as this unfolds. It's getting more interesting as it goes. This is like the making of a movie that has no ending and we ust make up the story as we go along. (smoke is being blown right up your ___) be warned. smokescreen starting...
M
|
|