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!
Just to clear some things out for he newbies
Dionaea Dentate, Dente, and Dentate Traps, are ALL the same. When a plant from a Red Piranha (example) has germinated, even if it looks Identical to the mother. It is NOT a Red Piranha. Just because a leaf is turning black means nothing, it is part of the natural growth cycle for the Dionaea. If you see a flower stalk, cut it off immeadeiatly, even if you think they have to do it, or they have to do it in the wild, you're wrong. Some plants just don't flower. Only use Maxsea fertilizer. No other one. I'm sure there are more, but I am also sure that that one is safe. For Neps, you can use coffee and betta pellets as fertilizer. The coffee SIGNIFICANTLY makes the pitchers have a huge growth sport. Maybe it stays all night up growing. Dentate does not go against flytraps, as it was found that way, and it's genetics wanted it that way.
I want some of what you're smoking.... lol
If your experience in VFT has not flowered is because you are doing something wrong or is still not mature. VTF is a flowering plant and when well established there is nothing wrong in letting it flower.
I am sorry but I am also 5 year old grower but it seems you or I cannot make a statement like the one you have just made. You know, many in here have more than 5 yrs exerience in the CP world. I think you just insulted many with your bold statement.
Going to the fert thing... No one has once mentioned, not one time since I've read at 1103 9 mar 2010 Iraqi time, the natural job these guys do: trap organisms! That is the function of the traps, so IMO to simply say orchid ferts etc (including coffee which I understand has not been fully established) are the only ferts is false and BS. Feed them bugs!! I can name any number of feeder insects that are easy to care for and quickly accessible or a number of traps to catch these insects from the wild. IMO Don't just use liquid fertilizer (especially as a noob) but give them bugs!! Crickets, roaches, ants, flies, FF (fruitflies) for the smaller traps, almost anything from outside! It's what they naturally do! Sorry there's my rant... but that drove me nuts... 
All better!
All better!Unless otherwise indicated that the cultivar can only be propagated through vegetative means...
IF these plants were NEVER allowed to cross with other VFT's, or if they were never allowed to flower or reproduce by any means other than vegetative reproduction..then you would be correct..
but we all know that is not the case..
therefore you are wrong..
they do "weaken the species" because the genes of the "deformed" varieties are continually mixed with other VFT genes, because people want to create even more "wacky" deformaties..
therefore I am right..these varieties weaken the species overall..because "un-natural" genes (gene combinations that would not exist without human intervention) are created and allowed to propagate..
I have nothing to reword!
Scot
---------- Post added at 05:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 AM ----------
Thats a brilliant idea!
I love it..
the plants are taking advantage of the stupidity of humans to pass on their genes!
hmmm..there might be something to that!
Scot
Timmy
BANNED
Dionaea Dentate, Dente, and Dentate Traps, are ALL the same. When a plant from a Red Piranha (example) has germinated, even if it looks Identical to the mother. It is NOT a Red Piranha. Just because a leaf is turning black means nothing, it is part of the natural growth cycle for the Dionaea. If you see a flower stalk, cut it off immeadeiatly, even if you think they have to do it, or they have to do it in the wild, you're wrong. Some plants just don't flower. Only use Maxsea fertilizer. No other one. I'm sure there are more, but I am also sure that that one is safe. For Neps, you can use coffee and betta pellets as fertilizer. The coffee SIGNIFICANTLY makes the pitchers have a huge growth sport. Maybe it stays all night up growing
you have been growing for 5 years? must not have grown much very well.........
the flowering thing is false and if you think about it just plain stupid......these arent agaves that flower once and then die, if the plant is healthy and your care correct they can flower all they want and live perfectly fine.....
ive been fertilizing my neps for several years with several ferts, all have worked and not one of them has been Maxsea......
pull your head out of your rear, the last 5 years of growing hasnt taught you a damn thing.........
the plants are taking advantage of the stupidity of humans to pass on their genes!
hmmm..there might be something to that!
It _is_ a selective pressure nonetheless. The same way that dogs and cats have become household pets and their numbers have exploded to 50 and 60 million in the US alone.
is it really selective pressure that brought these plants into cultivation in the first place? i thought most of the deformed trap cultivators arose out of TC errors during cultivation. they're accidents--but no....somebody had to turn them into novelties and replicate them. so naturally (in the litteral sense, in their native habitat) you would never find deformed, mutated runts in the wild. however, i'd think it'd be cool to have a flytrap that produced 2 traps per petiole consistently.
but then again, like what Brokken said, you arent going to find chihuahuas in the native mexican wilderness either...
but then again, like what Brokken said, you arent going to find chihuahuas in the native mexican wilderness either...
GrowinOld
Not Growing Up!
But, it would be cool if they did. They could fill the niche left by Compsognathus.
OBITUARY: Legendary Arizona polar hunter, while searching the Mexican wilderness for new species of pinguiculas, was tragically mauled to death by a pack of 500 chihuahuas. Taco Bell wrappers left at the scene of the incident painted a grizzly tale of big bean burritos and border sauce.
droseraguy
Illinois
Don't get "Rattled"!
Its a kid!
Wake up people! Just let the thread die!
Makes me wish there were a separate place for this sort of thing.
It really lessens the integrity of the forum, for members who are serious about the hobby.
it boils down to other newbies will take it seriously and stupid and worthless info keeps getting passed around......kinda like the morons that keep saying hamata is an ultra-highlander though it aint and they have never even grown it but they insist on passing on info like they have been growing the species for years......bad info doesnt do the hobby any good....especially kids just getting started in it.....
GrowinOld
Not Growing Up!
Ant
Your one and only pest!
IF these plants were NEVER allowed to cross with other VFT's, or if they were never allowed to flower or reproduce by any means other than vegetative reproduction..then you would be correct..
but we all know that is not the case..
therefore you are wrong..
they do "weaken the species" because the genes of the "deformed" varieties are continually mixed with other VFT genes, because people want to create even more "wacky" deformaties..
therefore I am right..these varieties weaken the species overall..because "un-natural" genes (gene combinations that would not exist without human intervention) are created and allowed to propagate..
I have nothing to reword!
Thats a brilliant idea!
I love it..
the plants are taking advantage of the stupidity of humans to pass on their genes!
hmmm..there might be something to that!
Scot
You can determine if a plant is weak simply by looking at it? Its a pretty big assumption that because some varieties have different traits (that clearly do no prevent it from eating insects like the crazy pom pom thing) that they would weaken a species in the wild. First of all, unless you live in the native range of the vft or are growing seeds that are intended to be used to return them to the wild locations that are of NO DANGER TO ANYTHING IN THE WILD. Experienced growers who intend to keep species location plants for release later on would never cross them with another clone or even location. Also, if it would simply never exist in nature like you stated, then it goes against your point! If it escaped into a wild bog and would be weaker then the rest it would die off! Now I would understand if you don't want to have impure genes in your plants because they are weak (making the less attractive to the eye or harder to grow) but, that is no reason to kill off mutations others find attractive. You have simply a differing taste in what makes something look good that I tend to agree with, just don't try and push it down others' throats.
I am pretty sure there has never been a proven case where a vft has been mutated by TC. If seeds are started in tc like they do with new Nepenthes added to cultivation it could give the appearance that they are mutated by it even though they aren't. Go ahead and prove me wrong though, I would really like to see a mutation caused in a plant by TC.
Edit: I was proved wrong. Never knew it was proven. Any one know what mutagens cause these? Here were the examples used, stated to be tc mutants in the description.
http://cpphotofinder.com/dionaea-wacky-traps-367.html
http://cpphotofinder.com/dionaea-fused-tooth-439.html
well ant if you think about it, while in the growth medium, the cells of the plant are multiplying at an exponential rate. DNA code is being replicated over and over and over in rapid fashion for countless numbers of times as the tissue develops into a callous. at that rate, it is very easy for DNA to misreplicate a couple of base pairs or to add in new base pairs in the process (if you know about genetics, you'll understand why this is a big deal). normally, the cell has ways of repairing the strands, but since the rate of division is so high, the cells divide before the 'proof reading' enzymes get to fix the DNA.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that maybe it hasn't flowered because it has a standard photoperiod that doesn't change year round?
I am on Scot's side here. I am no expert on whether or not "cup traps" are genetically weaker; but if they are then breeding them in cultivation is making a population of weaker Dionaea. As long as plants bred with genetically mutated are being passed around then the genes are too. You could get plants that are D. genetically strong x D. genetic mutant and have a plant that appears like a standard Dionaea but still have the gentics to pass on in F1 or F2's.
I agree that mutants should be burned on site. I would be super angry if I got a plant with mutant genes in it and didn't learn about it until I crossed it and all the children were freakazoid weaklings. I wouldn't even want a seeds from a plant in a greenhouse with a mutant, unless I was assured beyond a reasonable doubt that the mutant had never flowered.
Obviously, the example above is exaggerated; but the outcome is the same.
xvart.
Oh boy genetics.... Now I know that tune, who wants to dance??
To be clear here we are talking about genes and not genetics. Genes, in and of themselves, do not "want" anything. A gene is nothing more than a unit of information, it has no "wants" or "goals".
A mutation is no more "bad" than it is "good". A mutation simply is. However, how that mutation effects the organism can be said to be "bad" or "good" but that is totally arbitrary depending on who/what is making that determination. For example, most everyone would agree that Sickle Cell Anemia is "bad" and yet, in parts of the world where malaria is rampant, being a carrier for the Sickle Cell gene gives you a resistance to malaria which most people would say is "good". So, is Sickle Cell "bad" or is it "good"?
You cannot say that they weaken the species, I am sorry Scot. You are putting a trait on genes that simply is not there, basically you are personifying them. I am tired of the "good"/"bad" label because it simply is not applicable so let me use what geneticists use: "Fit", which brings us also to one of the single most misunderstood ideas in genetics/evolution, the idea of "Fitness".
A gene is "fit" only in relation to other variants (alleles) of that same gene it has nothing to do with the organism as a whole or how that gene relates to other genes.
So, genetically speaking, Wacky Traps (aka Bart Simpson) and Pugs and Persians and Parrot cichlids are all very much genetically fit because the genes for those traits have survived the process of selection. I grant you that that selection was at the hand of "man" and not "nature" but that simply does not matter.
The species in and of itself is not weak. There are numerous other alleles of those genes out there and if the selective pressure switches then the unfit genes will be culled from the population and new ones will take their place.
Again, genes do not want, they simply are. You must quit personifying them.
And for the record, cancer is actually the ultimate in fitness from a genetic stand point. Immortality is the ultimate in "self-preservation".
Just because a mutant gene is present in a pool does not by default mean that pol is weakened. Again I point you back to the Sickle Cell gene, outside of malaria regions it is not a fit gene but within those malaria areas it is most certainly a fit gene, and purging it from those populations would actually hurt them. I can think of many other cases where the presence of a mutant gene actually ended up conferring a fitness unto a population by its presence.
So, you cannot correctly say that mutant individuals will, by default, harm the population.
That argument does not stand up to reason though. There are perfectly normal looking plants from perfectly normal looking parents that are in no way genetically related to "cup traps" and yet harbor "weakness" genes and could produce weak offspring. Whether a plant grows weakly is likely not the result of a single gene. Every year people are producing plants from crosses where they sow the seed out and a few years later the weak plants have died or been pulled but the strong plants are sent out to others likely carrying some of those same genes that made their siblings weak. And yet no one baulks about that.
The example hits a flaw though. While you may not like those genes popping up in your collection some one else may. I can relate this back to a snake breeder who bred a couple snakes together looking for one result (piebald) and got out another (piebald, axanthic and piebald axanthic). He was not aware that either snake carried the axanthic gene but he was thrilled to discover they did.
When we are dealing with such things as "desirable" mutations there is always a level of subjectivity on what exactly is desirable. You do not like cup trap and I do. I do not like fused tooth and you do. So what happes is that I do not breed fused tooth plants and you do not breed cup traps and some people will want my plants and some people will want your traps and then one day someone who wants a fused tooth cup trap will get both of our plants and breed them together and get something new and unusual that will rock the VFT community. So while we each have our dislikes the genes behind those dislikes still have their fitness under the selective pressure of the collector. No "good". No "bad".
To be clear here we are talking about genes and not genetics. Genes, in and of themselves, do not "want" anything. A gene is nothing more than a unit of information, it has no "wants" or "goals".
A mutation is no more "bad" than it is "good". A mutation simply is. However, how that mutation effects the organism can be said to be "bad" or "good" but that is totally arbitrary depending on who/what is making that determination. For example, most everyone would agree that Sickle Cell Anemia is "bad" and yet, in parts of the world where malaria is rampant, being a carrier for the Sickle Cell gene gives you a resistance to malaria which most people would say is "good". So, is Sickle Cell "bad" or is it "good"?
You cannot say that they weaken the species, I am sorry Scot. You are putting a trait on genes that simply is not there, basically you are personifying them. I am tired of the "good"/"bad" label because it simply is not applicable so let me use what geneticists use: "Fit", which brings us also to one of the single most misunderstood ideas in genetics/evolution, the idea of "Fitness".
A gene is "fit" only in relation to other variants (alleles) of that same gene it has nothing to do with the organism as a whole or how that gene relates to other genes.
So, genetically speaking, Wacky Traps (aka Bart Simpson) and Pugs and Persians and Parrot cichlids are all very much genetically fit because the genes for those traits have survived the process of selection. I grant you that that selection was at the hand of "man" and not "nature" but that simply does not matter.
The species in and of itself is not weak. There are numerous other alleles of those genes out there and if the selective pressure switches then the unfit genes will be culled from the population and new ones will take their place.
Again, genes do not want, they simply are. You must quit personifying them.
And for the record, cancer is actually the ultimate in fitness from a genetic stand point. Immortality is the ultimate in "self-preservation".
Just because a mutant gene is present in a pool does not by default mean that pol is weakened. Again I point you back to the Sickle Cell gene, outside of malaria regions it is not a fit gene but within those malaria areas it is most certainly a fit gene, and purging it from those populations would actually hurt them. I can think of many other cases where the presence of a mutant gene actually ended up conferring a fitness unto a population by its presence.
So, you cannot correctly say that mutant individuals will, by default, harm the population.
That argument does not stand up to reason though. There are perfectly normal looking plants from perfectly normal looking parents that are in no way genetically related to "cup traps" and yet harbor "weakness" genes and could produce weak offspring. Whether a plant grows weakly is likely not the result of a single gene. Every year people are producing plants from crosses where they sow the seed out and a few years later the weak plants have died or been pulled but the strong plants are sent out to others likely carrying some of those same genes that made their siblings weak. And yet no one baulks about that.
The example hits a flaw though. While you may not like those genes popping up in your collection some one else may. I can relate this back to a snake breeder who bred a couple snakes together looking for one result (piebald) and got out another (piebald, axanthic and piebald axanthic). He was not aware that either snake carried the axanthic gene but he was thrilled to discover they did.
When we are dealing with such things as "desirable" mutations there is always a level of subjectivity on what exactly is desirable. You do not like cup trap and I do. I do not like fused tooth and you do. So what happes is that I do not breed fused tooth plants and you do not breed cup traps and some people will want my plants and some people will want your traps and then one day someone who wants a fused tooth cup trap will get both of our plants and breed them together and get something new and unusual that will rock the VFT community. So while we each have our dislikes the genes behind those dislikes still have their fitness under the selective pressure of the collector. No "good". No "bad".
Timmy
BANNED
