|
Post by tonyp on Dec 7, 2008 12:29:23 GMT -10
Adding a copy of my post over at the other forums since we have this discussion going on in two places now ;<<
"It is certainly an interesting comparison but what does this prove of BE plants not being N. sibuyanensis x hamata? Nothing really. It highlights there are many similar traits that can be atributed to different species, particularly in seedlings. This doesn't make a case against the BE plants as N. sibuyanensis x hamata.
When you look at how the N. Lady Pauline chromosomes recombine when pollen is produced, crossing N. sibuyanensis x Lady Pauline would give you approximately the following N. sibuyanensis x Lady pauline 50% N. sibuyanensis x talangensis 25% N. sibuyanensis x maxima 25%
These are not exact and it's really more of a bell curve between the two extreames N. sibuyanensis x maxima and N. sibuyanensis x talangensis. With most of the plants in the middle having a good portion of N. talangensis in them as well. But yet the majority of the BE plants show little to no N. talangensis that I can discern.
So this puts me with Mitchell. If it was N. lady Pauline as a parent I would be looking for most of the plants to take after N. Lady Pauline (which exhibits a good deal of N. talangensis), and N. talangensis instead of N. maxima. I have yet to see any of the BE plants showing clear N. talangensis traits, and if it is indeed a cross of N. sibuyanensis x Lady Pauline then we should expect a significant portion of the population to do so.
One more final thought. Why should we expect lid hairs on N. sibuyanensis x hamata? N. sibuyanensis has no hairs. It is perfectly feasible that such a hybrid would show no hairs.
I still have yet to see solid evidence that the plants I am growing are not N. sibuyanensis x hamata, and until that time I can't rule out they are not.
Tony"
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 9, 2008 8:56:11 GMT -10
I have seen every hybrid to date of N. hamata to show at least some evidence of lid hairs in the juvenile stage. I seriously doubt that a cross with a diminutive N. sibuyanensis would be any different than the crosses that have confirmed hamata in it. BE is just beginning to enter the hybrid market. Just because you have some fantastic collector's material doesn't always put you at the top of the food chain. I would give more praise to them if they had developed strains of TRUE hand pollinated species between select clones and varieties instead of making hybrids which everyone is doing because of lack of species numbers. If you claim to be preserving through propagation, in vitro is like a kick in the balls and that's where the buck stops. But if you are making seed viable species in captivity, then you are truly preserving through propagation and conservation. A viable seed producing captive program really is sustainable and you won't need to visit the wild for more seeds if you have a good supply of clones in captivity. If anything, one might want to collect pollen (with permission) of true species to keep your bloodlines running strongly and maintain genetic integrity. Look at N. ventricosa, truncata, lowland veitchii, etc. We actually have a better genetic integrity in captivity than one would expect to see in the wild. Of course one might find a giant form or a new color form in the wild, but chances are that the species you have in captivity already has the genetic information to extend that variation in making a giant,m or a new color form. So why do we tc species? Because it's like selling the reprints of a famous painting, you can sell it over and over again without doing any work, like its 100% profit, so this is why we do it, why we sell it and why we keep finding new suckers to buy them. Its like buying that same old same old N. madagascariensis which we all hate and doesn't look like anything yet we keep buying it because there is nothing else out there to compete with it, so it's like getting something close to nothing with that name on it. I think a photo of N. madagascariensis with its name on it is worth ten times more than the real deal in captivity. But again, this is just my feeling on the current status quo of how the system is working today.
Tony wrote:
I and many others have had hybrids of a species and a first generation hybrid and can safely say that the offspring are almost homogenous to one another. N. sibuyanensis x (spectabilis x beccariana) all resemble each other resembling the spectabilis x beccariana almost as if it was a pure species. The uniformity is amazing. Even the current cross of sibuyanensis x (northiana x veitchii) all resemble each other with uncanny likeness as if it were a pure species. I have not seen this 25% of this 25% of that and if there is, PLEASE SHOW ME! I have about 20 plus seedlings of this cross and I have not seen that 25%or what ever you say. All are uniform!
M
|
|
Robiii
Nobiles
Grow the new world
Posts: 262
|
Post by Robiii on Dec 11, 2008 6:35:32 GMT -10
Well now I can see the truth and I too believe it is not sib x hamata, it does lack too much of any hamata traits. Now looking back at other primary hybrids ex. gracilis x ampullaria or ampullaria x gracilis which gives you trichocarpa either way. the parentage is still fairly strong my first two trichocarpa were leaning more on the gracilis side with a small stem, small leaves and ampullaria's growth style basaling as an ampullaria in a mat formation while the newer of the three that I owned has a much more beefer vine lightly hirsute larger broader leaves and a longer vining ampullaria internode length, you know like the vining wild ampullaria's. And it doesn't stop with that example it's quite similar with alata x truncata / truncata x alata and on and on... why should hamata break the rules it just has larger teeth than the rest.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 11, 2008 8:40:40 GMT -10
This dilemma goes far beyond just the what is it theme. Growers who have purchased hundreds of these seedlings for resale who is banking on this being the real deal may bite the dust and eat it all if they turn out to be something less than hamata. If these turned out to be truly N. sibuyanensis x Lady Pauline, then the idea would be to get rid of them all at a reduced price. If I was a grower and was selling an unknown, then I would be on the side that these DO LOOK LIKE HAMATA-school of thought and turn my head away from even the idea that these could be some other mutt hybrid. So you see, a lot rides on the notion that these are truly the real deal. Notice how the way that the opinion of this being of what it is, is leaning on growers saying that its for real and hobbyists being skeptical about the authenticity of this cross. I am a grower and a seller. But if you ask my professionalism of a grower I would say that these are some other mutt. As a reseller, I would say I am not selling something that I don't know the positive ID on to begin with. Very suspicious if you ask me! M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Dec 13, 2008 11:59:07 GMT -10
Thank you for keeping us abreast on your development of this hybrid! Thank you for your time in this topic. Your photos are proof to the contrary. I noticed in another forum you brought up the topic for keeping up to date. I think it is important that the unchallanged public be aware of updates and developments. It appears to me that they have already made the decision of accepting it (like they have accepted and buried the uncertainties regarding N. platychila, N. merrilliana x alata, N. bellii x merrilliana, etc.) and any new or posted informational updates that go against "their" train of thought as being unappreciated. This will be an ongoing subject and we will see further development whether this hybrid is true or fake. No person should be allowed to censor the proof of an individual's posting. Please feel free to post your photos and findings here. No one will censor your thoughts and expressions. The only proof will be when Rob Cantley comes out and say these are the parents, this is the real deal. But since he is away on holiday or have not answered the many cries of uncertain customers, this topic needs to be left open and subject to scrutiny of growers like yourself who may have some doubt regarding the authenticity of this hybrid. If the other forums want to just close a topic without proof and just because it is of a DIFFERENT opinion of their own agenda, then please feel free to keep this topic alive here. Until that time this is NOT a closed thread!!!!
M
|
|
obregon562
Nobiles
"I do believe Im feeling stronger everyday."
Posts: 387
|
Post by obregon562 on Dec 13, 2008 19:14:53 GMT -10
POWER TO THE PEOPLE! You have a very eloquent style M, have you considered writing speeches? I completely agree, however. Wish i had more to say haha...
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on Jan 18, 2009 8:09:16 GMT -10
Any updates? Got a shot of at least a ribbed peristome yet?
M
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on May 13, 2010 9:01:53 GMT -10
It appears that there is more mystery to this cross than secrets buried in the dead sea scrolls. Imagine the complexity of knowing the staff, who was where on a given day (and who's fault it was), for making this blind error in the cross. I think you should also check the moon-phase and if Mars was in Jupiter to be exactly 100% certain! Fingers were pointed to having an un-pure sibuyanensis (diluted with argentii-just a guess, just a left-field guess), to N. hamata having new characteristics that when combined with a species some place far away would react differently.
I just assumed that one individual would be responsible to make all the crosses and document them as a professional breeder (or even hobbyists) would. Not rely on so many variables (or excuses) for them.
M
|
|
|
Post by nygreg on May 13, 2010 13:27:01 GMT -10
|
|
|
Post by rainforest on May 15, 2010 8:43:56 GMT -10
I have more N. hamata in my butt than this cross has it in its bloodline. And like the other brown word that comes to mind, this cross is full of this too!
I am still waiting to see anyone who has anything that resembles a hamata in this cross with N. sibuyanensis!
M
|
|
|
Post by Noa_F on May 15, 2010 16:19:36 GMT -10
Michael, I know you aren't a member there but there is a very interesting thread on PP forums in which both EP and BE have contributed. It is titled "One for the Skeptics", started by EP.
Noa
|
|