|
Post by tonyp on Nov 29, 2008 15:31:44 GMT -10
Talks of rogue plants surfacing? I think you missed my point? This is not something specific to these plants in question. Nor is this something new. I have received over the years many plants in both species and particularly in hybrids from many different sources, the occasional plant that looks very different from any of the others. In some cases you can say yeah.. that is clearly not what it should be because it looks entirely different from any of the others of the same plants. Some cases you can't be so sure. The point here is that you are comparing individuals from the same batch of plants and when one stands out as being vastly and obviously different you can see it and identify it without question.
You keep making references to how the hybrid should look based on previous hybrids with N. hamata and other parents. There is NO correlation. N. sibuyanensis x hamata will look however N. sibuyanensis x hamata traits interact with each other. It makes no difference what N. hamata did when combined with N. truncata or N. Rokko or any other parent. It would be great if you could know exactly what traits will come through and to what degree ahead of time. But on the other hand isn't that the majority of the fun with hybridizing? You can never be sure exactly what you will get.
I went over the foliage on the other forum and while I agree there is some question to that regard. N. sibuyanensis leaves change form as the plant matures. If what we are seeing is a hybrid where N. sibuyanensis is dominating more than normal then it is also possible that is the case for the foliage as well. Maybe time will tell more here.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 30, 2008 8:12:23 GMT -10
Tony, I am basing my points clearly on sibyanensis hybrids (please see post on sibuyanensis on my section).
From what I have seen on: N. sibuyanensis x (spectabilis x beccariana) N. rafflesiana dark x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x ventricosa red N. macfarlanei purple x sibuyanensis N. macfarlanei red x sibuyanensis N. (ramispina x macfarlanei) x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x Trusmadiensis N. thorelii x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x truncata N. talangensis x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x fusca N. sibuyanensis x (northiana x veitchii) N. sibuyanensis x Mixta N. khasiana x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x bellii N. sibuyanensis x ampullaria Mersing N. maxima dark x sibuyanensis N. sibuyanensis x maxima (l)
In any of the above hybrids, I am yet to see any dominance of N. sibuyanensis taking over any of the other species' characteristics. Like I said, show me the money! Show me a sibuyanensis hybrid that strongly resembles sibuyanensis. To see N. sibuyanensis x hamata to completely resemble a sibuyanensis is very very peculiar to me! Especially with hamata whose features is so different. When a hybrid like khasiana x sibuyanensis can resemble a khasiana in its offspring (plain Jane pitchers like khasiana) then the trend shows true to most and I can safely assume this to be so by these hybrids above.
Time will tell even if the N. sibuyanensis x hamata will even be sibuyanensis in it. Pitchers should get huge with age. Looking forward to seeing HUGE N. sibuyanensis x hamata pitchers!
M
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Nov 30, 2008 9:10:27 GMT -10
I have read your N. sibuyanensis post and I disagree that all N. sibuyanensis adds is making the other species super size. As one example of many, have a look at the N.sibuyanensis x maxima just released. They look like overgrown N. sibuyanensis with splotching from N. maxima on the pitchers. The pitcher shape, the angle of the pitcher opening, the shape of the peristome. You could say the peristome color is N. maxima but I have seen N. sibuyanensis with black colored peristomes also so I am sure this is a combination of the two. Even the leaves are more N. sibuyanensis than N. maxima. I have seen many other N. sibuyanensis hybrids where the N. sibuyanensis is quite clearly the dominant plant. Your observation that N. sibuyanensis with N. khasiana is so very much N. khasiana is correct but show me a N. khasiana hybrid that the N. khasiana was not dramatically dominant as the one parent. But even so.. you can not guarantee from other hybrids how a new hybrid will act. Genetics don't work that way. As far as N. hamata being so totally different that N. sibuyanensis x hamata should look different than what we currently have, I don't agree. The main dramatic feature of N. hamata is the big ole toothy peristome. All hybrids to date when it's crossed with another plant with a fairly smooth peristome the teeth are pretty much wiped out. So that leaves pitcher marking pattern, pitcher/speckling/peristome color, pitcher shape, leaf shape etc. All of which in my opinion are represented in the plants we currently have as N. sibuyanensis x hamata. I have yet to see solid evidence that what we have is NOT what it supposed to be and until I do I see no reason to consider them otherwise. Here are some photos N. sibuyanensis x truncata These look more like N. truncata than N. sibuyanensis??? N. sibuyanensis x trusmadiensis This one looks more like N. trusmadiensis?? N. sibuyanensis x maxima I see a whole lot of N. sibuyanensis in there too. Does that mean there are no hybrids where the other parent was much more dominant than N. sibuyanensis? No of course not. The point being that there are plenty of hybrids where the N.sibuyanensis was and N. sibuyanensis x hamata could be one of them. The seedlings I have as N. sibuyanensis x hamata fall within my expectations with the range of possible outcomes based on the traits of both parents. I do not compare the plants on what they should look like based on other N. hamata or N. sibuyanensis hybrids because doing so is comparing apples and oranges. In many instances you are safe to make assumptions on what will or won't happen but they are nothing more than estimations and genetics will often throw you a curveball and give you something completely different. All you can really do is look at the traits of both parents and the traits of the offspring in front of you and compare. When I do that with N. sibuyanensis, N. hamata and the plants I have labelled N. sibuyanensis x hamata, I clearly see traits from both parents. Which to me is good enough at this point to keep them labelled as is until I see clear evidence that the majority of the plants are showing traits that do not belong to N. sibuyanensis or N. hamata.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Nov 30, 2008 16:10:48 GMT -10
Tony, I guess we see what we want to see. Sorry but each hybrid shows clearly the species which it was bred with. I don't see any extra long tendriled, rounded shaped pitcher as N. sibuyanensis. Each example you set forth looks very clearly like the plant it was bred with. If you did a guessing game of guess the "other" parent from the examples you've given, I seriously doubt that N. sibuyanensis will come to mind. The coloration (note N. hamata does not even come close to looking hamata-like in sib x hamata) of each hybrid is distinctly the species used. The cross with Trusmadiensis resembles TM as close to N. hamata would ever resemble anything a sib x hamata would. N. maxima resembles the very nature of maxima on sib x max and max x sib dead-ringer with maxima as maxima would describe its hybrid origins (unlike hamat which do not). and lastly N. truncata x hamata, the pitcher has all aspects of coloration, shape and style as a truncata would in a sib x truncata and sib x truncata squat. Even the foliage appearance resembles N. truncata and washes out the sib characteristics, unlike the sib x hamata which doesn't appear anything hamata-like even close to it. Look carefully at each example given, do you see a strong dominance of sibuyanensis as you seem to in sib x hamata? No you don't. each example shows clearly the dominance of the other species characteristic dominating over sibuyanensis. Even closely related species such as N bellii has its shape of pitcher and appearance of making multi-leads as bellii OVER N. sibuyanensis so these are the facts as seen and examples given by TonyP. Look carefully at your N.sibuyanensis x hamata and see f what points made here make any sense. If you see hamata, in your hybrid, I guess you could really see a rajah and even a lowii in there too! Because I don't get it. The hamat's hairiness and lid hairs and peristome wide ridge spacing becomes aborted by the presence of sibuyanensis in the blood? No where is sibuyanensis characteristics so dominant in any of the crosses given. Look at this N. rafflesiana dark x sib Where's the beef (sibuyanensis)? In this N. (ramispina x sanguinea) x sibuyanensis Where's the beef (sib)? See the maxima dominate in this sib x maxima seedling. Where's the beef (sib)? N. Medusa (sibuyanensis x bellii) See how the bellii is so dominant over its closely related N. sib. Where's the beef? N. macfarlanei x sibuyanensis looks like a macfarlanei which washes out the sibuyanensis from view. Where's the beef? N. thorelii x sibuyanensis Very strongly thorelii showing. Where's the beef? N. macfarlanei x sibuyanensis Strong coloring and shape as a mac. Where's the beef? N. sib x Trusmadiensis Colors and shape strongly resemble a TM to me, even with its very hard woody pitchers. Where's the beef? N. sib x fusca Note the triangular lid shape that makes coloration and looks appear fusca-like. Look closely at the leaves, doesn't it resemble N. fusca? Where's the beef? N. sib x truncata Looks like a truncata to me, even separates its coloration like truncata does between its peristome and pitcher body (no speckles from sib showing through). Where's the beef? N. sibuyanensis x (spectabilis x beccariana) Show me the anything sib about this. Where's the beef? N. sibuyanensis x ampullaria Mersing Looks like a dead ringer for ampullaria, following the rules of sib hybrids exposing the other parent's pitcher dominating sib's own form. Where's the beef? N. ventricosa x sib Showing even the waisted middle as seen in ventricosa. Growth habit like ventricosa. Where's the beef? M
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Nov 30, 2008 19:29:18 GMT -10
I am afraid I don't have any good pictures of a mature N. sibuyanensis or two. But perhaps we need to look at some to make comparisons? Here are a couple from Phill Mann which look like typical N. sibuyanensis to me. Some random red splotches, wide tubular pitchers, frilly peristome half in and half out of the pitcher red - black color, fairly shallow pitcher opening, lid with some red speckles and held off the pitcher relatively well. www.scarnivores.com/showphotos.asp?page=5&id=N|~SibuyanensisAll of my photos of N. sibuyanensis hybrids and the majority of yours clearly show distinct N. sibuyanensis characteristics to me. I think perhaps it is difficult to see in some simply because N. sibuyanensis lacks any majorly unique characteristics that you can say 'oh yeah there it is in the hybrid without a doubt'. This is not true for some of the hybrids you have listed where the other parent is quite unique in it's shape or color or some other aspect. The bottom line though is it doesn't really matter what any of the other hybrids between N. hamata and N. sibuyanensis look like because there is no guarantee past trends will hold true in future hybrids when bred with a completely different partner. All you can do is compare the seedlings in hand with the parents and make a determination from there. I have yet to see any traits in any of the N. sibuyanensis x hamata seedlings which lead me to believe they are not as labelled. Making claims that there should be more teeth or more ridges or whatever, because this is what happened when N. hamata was crossed with a different species is not a valid arguement. So lets go back to comparing the hybrid plants with the species parents and leave all the other nonsense out of it. Keep in mind also that we must compare plants of similar age/size. It would be inappropriate to look at mature N. hamata and N. sibuyanensis and compare them to seedling N. sibuyanensis x hamata. Typical N. hamata seedling approximately 4" diameter with 1.5-2" pitchers. This also happens to be one of BE's clones which would be a good representation of the plant they would have used. Typical N. sibuyanensis seedling approximately 3" diameter with 1" pitchers two N. sibuyanensis x hamata seedlings approximately 3-4" diameter with 1.5" pitchers. So let's compare! Hybrid pitcher, vertical elongated splotches with tiny little speckles tossed in. N. hamata, yep looks just like it. Hybrid lid with lots of elongated splotches and tiny speckles radiating out from the point of attachment. N. hamata, yep has them as well. Hybrid lid, no hairs. N. sibuyanensis no hairs too. Hybrid pitcher bulbous base with clear hip roughly 1/3 of the way up the pitcher. N. hamata has that same shape. Hybrid (second photo) plant with top half of the pitcher suffused red. N. sibuyanensis seedlings typically do that. Hybrid peristome color darker than pitcher color. N. hamata does that, as can N. sibuyanensis. Hybrid wings more developed and frilly than N. sibuyanensis but less than N. hamata. And of course .. peristome ridges and teeth. It looks more N. sibuyanenis to me than N. hamata. But the ridges do look a little more pronounced with less of them in the hybrid than in N. sibuyanensis. Why is it so hard to imagine that maybe in this hybrid the N. hamata peristome features were lost even more than in other N. hamata hybrids? There is no reason to expect that they would come through to an equal or greater degree based on what happened with other N. hamata hybrids. Drawing a conclusion that these are not N. sibuyanensis x hamata because you expect some specific trait to come through to a certain degree based on a different hybid is incorrect. Four years in plant science with a minor in plant genetics at Cornell was enough to teach me that. Show me something in these N. sibuyanensis x hamata seedlings that isn't in either N. sibuyanensis or N. hamata and then you will have something. Until then they remain as labelled.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 1, 2008 7:31:02 GMT -10
TonyP wrote: Careful what reputation you put on the line. For all we know Rob Cantley will come back and say that the seedling batches were all mixed up. It has happened, it can happen again!
As my examples clearly shows from uvenile to matured pitchers, the characteristics of the "other" parent, whether species or hybrid, comes through in strong features. I would expect that the strong characteristics of hamata to be as strong as any species to date, why should the pattern for these appearances when crossed with N. sibuyanensis be different now? Other than the fact that these are BE seedling hybrids, I am to assume all the species used were pure and of the same caliber as one that would come from EP. I don't have a degree in plant breeding more than a semester at UH under the guidance of Dr. Kamemoto, I do have years and years of experience in growing out many hybrid seedlings and I can base my criteria for my evidence in the many hundreds of hybrids I have seen from small green pitchers to what we see in photos today. I speak from conviction of observing, having a very keen eye and noting and making aware of all my findings. From all my past experiences of growing hybrids I can safely say based on my reputation that this is NOT N. sibuyanensis x hamata and it will never be N. sibuyanensis x hamata ever! If I recall the sibuyanensis that BE has shown, they appear to be redder, darker peristomed types with a very rounded pitcher. Even mottling/speckling and prominent peristome width.
M
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Dec 1, 2008 9:29:54 GMT -10
I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement either way. But in the post with my pic's I pointed out that this hybrid does have a dark strip down the back of the pitchers like hamata. I notice that Preditor also has this stripe. So if not hamata, what other species could this stripe have come from ?
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Dec 1, 2008 10:34:41 GMT -10
As my examples clearly shows from uvenile to matured pitchers, the characteristics of the "other" parent, whether species or hybrid, comes through in strong features. I would expect that the strong characteristics of hamata to be as strong as any species to date, why should the pattern for these appearances when crossed with N. sibuyanensis be different now? M Have I said it's different? Look at my list of comparisons. The majority of the traits exhibited in the seedlings arise from N. hamata. So how exactly am I disagreeing with you there? My arguement is with those that say these are not N. hamata hybrids because there should be bigger ridges and more teeth on the peristome and ignore all the other N. hamata features which to me are clearly evident as I outlined above. Show me something that isn't N. hamata or N. sibuyanensis in these hybrid seedlings. If you are so certain it is not N. hamata or N. sibuyanensis for that matter then what is it? Make your case, show me traits that are coming from some other parent that can not be attributed to either N. sibuyanensis or N. hamata.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 1, 2008 10:46:19 GMT -10
If I wanted to see characteristics, I can easily see N. ventricosa x (Lady Pauline) in this cross more than sib x hamata! I think that the ventri x (LP) would stand a better chance of looking like this than even a sib hybrid. A seedling from N. hamata would at least resemble something of it. Carefully see if anything stands out as this. Check your sibx hamata side by side with this and see if you can even see a resemblance to this? Time will tell. M
|
|
|
Post by ep on Dec 5, 2008 20:50:12 GMT -10
Hi All, Been a bit busy and haven't posted here for a while but just had to on this topic. I didn't notice this thread before I posted on the main forum so I hope you don't mind us popping in on this one Michael. We do agree with most of what you have said Michael and here is some more to support the discussion. Below could be the first photos of N.sib x hamata. It is from us and I am sure that those who see any N.hamata traits in BE's hybrid could clearly see them here, leaf shape and peristome ridges and colour etc.. Now the second set of photos are of N.Lady Pauline in BE's greenhouse. The photo is from the Humbolt site. There was mention of the stripe down the back of the pitchers of N.hamata, guess what is clearly evident on N.Lady Pauline(LP), the stripe! To quote Tony Tony, what is your take on the seedlings we posted above? Would you say they are N.sib x hamata? If so why? Tony, I thought we sorted this out on pitcher plants forum? I will state that from what we have seen of the plants from BE that they are selling as N.sibuyanensis x hamata, it is not that cross. Why BE have not shed anymore light on this subject, I do not know. Perhaps they are on holidays as it seems a bit quiet over there. Half his luck I will also say that the plants are N.sibuyanensis x Lady Pauline. I say this from 25 + years of breeding Nepenthes hybrids. No one can teach you that. As I have said before it is the customer's money and choice as to what they buy but we think it should be an educated decision. If not, from what we have seen on these forums, people are easily convinced about what they are buying or what they want to believe. Gee, it would make our sales easy if we did not say anything on these plants and let the customers believe the plant in question is a N.hamata hybrid Cheers, Geoff
|
|
|
Post by philgreen on Dec 6, 2008 1:01:08 GMT -10
Geoff - are you saying that these pic's are from a sib x hamata cross that you have made ? Because I can't see any difference to those everyone else has posted. Certainly non of the lid hairs that it has been said a hamata cross must have.
Or are these just your BE plants.
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 6, 2008 10:47:42 GMT -10
So the million dollar question is: "What is BE's N. sibuyanensis x hamata a cross of then?" Clearly the redder BE seedlings suggests a non-hamata, and EP's seedling shows the typical characteristic of a sib hybrid, and the pitcher coloring, peristome and hairs follow suit of the typical pattern shown by all sib hybrids to date. (of course this rule isn't applicable to BE's sib x ?hybrid). No reddish pitchers with blotching as BE's seedlings. Just a green/darker coloring mottling (fine longish speckling).
M
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Dec 6, 2008 14:42:29 GMT -10
Maybe it's me but my BE seedlings look just like the EP seedlings, plants as well as pitchers. Coloration, color patterns, shape .. everything....
I see no N. Lady Pauline at all, which has much bigger color splotches but none of the tiny little speckles you get from N. hamata. Has no bulbous base or distinct hip in the pitcher, which you clearly see in N. hamata hybrids. Has a much broader peristome, even as a small seedling and you see no such trait in the hybrids.
It will interesting to see how both populations mature but again I see nothing at this point in time, in the BE seedlings, to give me clear reason to discount them as something other than N. sibuyanensis x hamata. If anything the pics from Geoff highlight the same traits that I see in the BE plants as originating from N. hamata.
|
|
|
Post by ep on Dec 6, 2008 19:47:24 GMT -10
Hi All, Before this goes too far I never said the photos I posted were N.sib x hamata. I said could they be? My purpose for posting the photos was to see if the N.hamata traits being attributed to BE's plants could also be seen on these. The seedling (actually tcs) photos I posted are those of small N.Gothicas (sib x maxima) and the traits that seem attributable to N.hamata are actually those of N.maxima and in BE's plant, most probably the traits from the N.maxima parent in N.LP. The lack of lid 'hairs' really is a good clue as to it not having N.hamata in the primary hybrid. The peristome ridges evident in our hybrid are due to N.sib. That is the main reason I posted N.sib x talang. photos to show that N.sib is responsible for the ridges on the peristome. N.talangensis has a very smooth peristome even smoother than N.maxima in mature plants. There is no doubt that the immature pitchers of N.Gothica and N.Predator look similar and with lack of experience in Nepenthes breeding and hybridization, it would be easy to confuse the two and think that there is N.hamata in the N.Gothica plants. I can also understand the confusion with BE's plant to the inexperienced eye, in thinking or wishing it had N.hamata in it, although the peristome on their plants is even less ridged than that of N.Gothica. I hope, if nothing else, this experience leads to growers/customers being a bit more discerning in their purchases Cheers, Geoff N.sib x maxima
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on Dec 7, 2008 5:14:59 GMT -10
I think you are missing the point though. Noone ever said they couldn't be attributed to other species. So what you have highlighted is in fact the case. But until it can be shown there is something in the BE plants that isn't N. hamata how can it be said they are not that hybrid? Logically you can't because they could be. A hybrid lacking something isn't a valid arguement when discussing a new hybrid. How can we claim that N. sibuyanensis x hamata should have lid hairs? Just because N. truncata x hamata has lid hairs does not mean that N. sibuyanensis x hamata will. Maybe.. yes but not deffinately. So you can't rule them out as not having N. hamata because of it.
That's all I have been saying.. Don't rule out N. hamata because you were expecting this or that in a hybrid that's never been done before. There is no guarantee that you will see traits express themselves in similar fashion. That's just the nature of genetics.
|
|