|
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 7, 2011 2:08:00 GMT -10
Hi DVG:
Thanks for clarifying your statement. I am just confirming what you just mentioned. The problem is that some people believe that seed grown Nepenthes plants are superior to TC plants. The seed is the same. It's just matter of good judgement to decide which clones are to be kept and which ones to dispose in TC plants. With compost grown plants, one hardly has the same luxury, as there are fewer individuals to choose from.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Feb 6, 2011 23:10:33 GMT -10
Hi Thelarge, Runts and 'Plain Janes' might end up being one and done, after at least a few generations in the flask stage. They will be out there in circulation, but the demand for them will more or less dictate just how many of these get to continue on in the 'afterflask'. www.phytotechlab.com/detail.aspx?ID=1016 dvg Hi dvg: I do resent the fact that TC Neps are often linked with Runts and Plane Janes, as we have already seen on another thread that it could also happen in seed grown plants. The only difference being that in TC plants you can multiply the runt 10X faster than the seed grown counterpart. It's time to kill these myths as they don't help anyone, especially the collector Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 27, 2011 0:39:44 GMT -10
Hi all:
There are two things i am really glad about reading this thread.
1. We can't blame all the bizarre growth or lack of growth to all Nepenthes TC clones and
2. I have a burbidgeae X edwardsiana which grows well, but has never produce a pitcher unde r my care.
Gus
P.S By the way, i am not blaming any particular cross, just the plants in question.
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 14, 2011 12:55:26 GMT -10
Hi Sam:
Beautiful pitcher as usual. I am impressed but not surprised as you usually create top of line hybrids. I wanted to ask you whether it's possible to maintain the size of those pitchers for your next cross without keeping so much the spathulata characteristics as they are very much dominant on this particular plant.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 12, 2011 23:06:35 GMT -10
Hi all:
Like everything else, rules and regulations become obsolete, thus, they must be replaced. When and how, it is a different topic for discussion
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 12, 2011 0:57:38 GMT -10
Hi Lam:
Nice plant indeed. I don't really know what you should call it, as you should go by looking at the species involved in the cross and not at the characteristics of the plant, according to some.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 7, 2011 20:03:07 GMT -10
It's widely recognized that reverse crosses don't look exactly the same. The mother plant usually has more influence on the cross than the father. Then, why should not matter when it's lowii x ventricosa or ventricosaXlowii. I think it should! Right, it probably does. It just doesn't mean they get a different Latin binomial, that is all. You can still name your unique crosses by the grex and individuals as clone-only cultivars. Everything is covered by all these systems. Just apply them correctly and no one will be confused by what you mean Also, each Nepenthes plant is unique. Since it is impossible to reverse the direction of an individual cross... What I mean is, plant A is a female, plant B is a male; the resulting hybrid can never be 'Plant B' * 'Plant A'. So how do we know the direction of the cross influences the way the seedlings look when you have to use different individuals with their own unique DNA? Perhaps we don't, but by saying that A X B is the same as B X A is creating more confusion than solving the issue. We may never know how much DNA is from the mother and how much is from the father, but if at least, we acknowledge that there are differences and these must be noted regardless. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 6, 2011 14:37:02 GMT -10
Zu(thezyo) xBriggsiana is ventricosa x lowii, not the reverse though they are quite similar... Not too sure about this. Generally, the hybrid name should refer to same combination of species, not the direction of the cross. Thus, any combination of N. lowii and N. ventricosa will be an example of a N. x briggsiana. Applying Grex logic to Nepenthes shouldn't change this, but rather expand on Latin system and provide even more information. It's widely recognized that reverse crosses don't look exactly the same. The mother plant usually has more influence on the cross than the father. Then, why should not matter when it's lowii x ventricosa or ventricosaXlowii. I think it should! Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 1, 2011 10:40:05 GMT -10
Hi there:
It's pretty obvious, based on the ep photo that this plant is N. veitchii. It seems that his species has variable peristome shape. Still this does not explain how Sam got a veitchii mixed with maxima seeds. I wonder how the maxima from this batch of seed looks like? (besides the plant shown in the photo)
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Dec 26, 2010 13:07:19 GMT -10
Hi there:
This is a very interesting finding. If Sam is correct, that plant came from a batch of maxima seeds. This means that this plant has maxima genes in them; however, it looks like some form of N. veitchii with N. hurrelliana's peristome. What does it all mean?
Tentative explanations:
1) seed mix up received by Sam. In which case, there should be more plants like that to the people who grew the same batch of seeds. 2) N. maxima is capable of storing more than maxima genes and these are expressed in certain generation of plants? If this is true, then clonality in Nepenthes does not really exist! So much for the splitters!
Now even if it is a seed mix up, this N. veitchii shows a very unusual peristome (hurrelliana-like). I remember reading a thread on another forum about 6 years ago, when a well- known grower said that perhaps N.hurrelliana is a cross between N. fusca and N. veitchii, not between maxima and veitchii!. This is getting too confusing, really!
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Dec 18, 2010 23:54:31 GMT -10
Hi all: I just want to show you some N. ovatas. Beautiful! aren't they? Also, there is an unfounded theory that this species need to bury the tendril to produce a pitcher. Pitchers 1 and 3 were developed outside the pot. Pitcher number 2 did develop inside the pot. So much for that theory. The only species which I have found a pain in the &^%$# to develop pitchers outside the pot is N. sibuyanensis. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Dec 17, 2010 10:54:50 GMT -10
If they were cloned on mass, they would no longer be unique. True, but then more people would have a chance to enjoy them. Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Dec 3, 2010 11:29:24 GMT -10
HI Jade:
I think the merrilliana cross has a lot of potential. Just look at the size of those pitchers. I think a sibuyanensis X truncata )X(merrilliana) could be a real winner.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Nov 23, 2010 22:35:45 GMT -10
Hi all:
Nice plant Noah. Well grown. I wanted to ask you whether this plant has ever flowered. If it hasn't, well keep an eye on it. Technically if the plant is growing very well, it should flower at anytime.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Oct 30, 2010 19:36:41 GMT -10
Hi all:
After reading most of the responses, I would have to speak a piece of my mind. Yes, growing Nepenthes is a bit gender biased, as most of the opposite sex would not grow these kinds of plants. So what. I don't particularly grow orchids, so i would not know how difficult these are to grow in comparison with Nepenthes. But at the end of the day, which kind of plant brings you more joy to grow?. I don't really have to answer that question, because I think it's pretty obvious.
I always believe that Nepenthes are special plants, because they don't only look pretty, but they also feed on unwanted bugs, a t hing that orchids may never do.
Gus
|
|