TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sarracenia purpurea var. venosa subp. montana
- Thread starter Finch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- montana purpurea sarracenia venosa
Finch, correctly put, it would be:
Sarracenia purpurea var. venosa forma montana
The Georgia form is less desirable than the North/South Carolina form. The Carolina form has a very tightly rolled hood, and the
Georgia Form is about half and half on the hood structure, which gives this plant a very distinctive look. Go to Google, type in sarracenia photos, enter BobZ's site, and look up the form. Check the differences in the two locations, Carolina vs. Georgia. The Carolinans have the best form, IMO.
Sarracenia purpurea var. venosa forma montana
The Georgia form is less desirable than the North/South Carolina form. The Carolina form has a very tightly rolled hood, and the
Georgia Form is about half and half on the hood structure, which gives this plant a very distinctive look. Go to Google, type in sarracenia photos, enter BobZ's site, and look up the form. Check the differences in the two locations, Carolina vs. Georgia. The Carolinans have the best form, IMO.
Barry Rice and I have had a discussion on the differences in the populations in Georgia, and North/South Carolina. Pics of his Georgia excursion are in the BobZ archives of sarr photos, and can be viewed anytime. The Georgia plants are noticeably different, and a lot of the plants in this population do not have the tightly rolled hoods, and some do. It is always best to research any and all you can find on a plant before pronouncing it a fraud. The plant you have, Jerry, has been verified the montana form by Ron Gagliardo of ABG. Whoever said yours was NOT the montana form would do well to study all the forms from NC/SC and montanas from Georgia. I believe Ron Gagliardo, personally.
Homer, the history of your plant is this:
Hails from North Carolina
Henderson County
McClure's Bog
There are quite a few of these out there, the Georgia form being harder to come by. I have 2 Georgia Forms (Pic seen, Pitcher Plant Forum, topic is Bugweeds in September.) This is the closest I have seen this form (Georgia) having the tightly rolled hood. And it isn't much. I am still after the Henderson County form. Sooner or later, it will show up. Ron Dettermann promised Barry a few of them, and has not come through yet, but I am sure he will when Barry gets grayer! There is a stand in South Carolina too, but since they are just the same look as Henderson Co, N.C., they are not easy to find in collections. I won't tell where they are, but everyone should know IMO. If these plants were in common cultivation, they wouldn't have to be hidden and sat on by the eggheads to be hatched out like chickens. Everyone SHOULD have one in their collection, and they should be able to visit them in their wild homes just to appreciate the bog and its inhabitants. Same for the s. oreophila's and all the other plants presently in cultivation, CITES plants or not. If they were common in cultivation, they would not have to be hidden at all. But then, the powers that be would feel a loss of control, and we can't have that!!!!!!
Hails from North Carolina
Henderson County
McClure's Bog
There are quite a few of these out there, the Georgia form being harder to come by. I have 2 Georgia Forms (Pic seen, Pitcher Plant Forum, topic is Bugweeds in September.) This is the closest I have seen this form (Georgia) having the tightly rolled hood. And it isn't much. I am still after the Henderson County form. Sooner or later, it will show up. Ron Dettermann promised Barry a few of them, and has not come through yet, but I am sure he will when Barry gets grayer! There is a stand in South Carolina too, but since they are just the same look as Henderson Co, N.C., they are not easy to find in collections. I won't tell where they are, but everyone should know IMO. If these plants were in common cultivation, they wouldn't have to be hidden and sat on by the eggheads to be hatched out like chickens. Everyone SHOULD have one in their collection, and they should be able to visit them in their wild homes just to appreciate the bog and its inhabitants. Same for the s. oreophila's and all the other plants presently in cultivation, CITES plants or not. If they were common in cultivation, they would not have to be hidden at all. But then, the powers that be would feel a loss of control, and we can't have that!!!!!!
Well, you never got that location data from me! Too many secrets, is the cause of poaching, as well as the lack of giving for the various color/plant forms. If everyone could get the color forms they wanted, location codes would be unnecessary, and visits could be set up so one and all could visit the sites, and love the plants in place. Since you had it at home already, the visit would be for pleasure, not poaching. Go figure!
Pyro, The plant came from Brooks Garcia. He had it verified by Ron Gagliardo. If you want to know how he got it, ask him, and do it straight up. Brooks will, no doubt, be more than willing to tell you all about it. No behind the back stuff is necessary here, just ask Brooks. Ask him, and get your answer without all this pussyfootin' around.
