Correct Nomenclature
I love the idea, and I really like the photos and the calendar layout. I would be happy to own one, but I am only adverse to propagating/supporting any disregard of correct nomenclature. I believe we should uphold and support international agreements concerning how we write the names of our beloved plants, to make our world of CP just a little bit easier and slightly less confusing.
There are just too many CP growers that not only disregard the hard earned existing naming conventions, but try to promulgate their own brand of plant anarchy, using their own naming conventions, ignoring those that have been carefully developed to help limit international confusion. I continue to personally deal with issues created by those who choose to ignore the existing naming conventions and moderate for problems this creates for others, as well.
-------
So it is said that there is a Sarracenia cultivar named: Wilkerson's Red, and that the photo titled that, is not actually that, but instead is a selfing or F2 seedling from that cultivar. First, I find no record of such a cultivar being registered and unless it has already been submitted and is just awaiting publication, publishing it in this calendar could interfere with its future proper publication and subsequent registration of this name as a valid cultivar name.
I checked out "Shropshire Sarracenias" website and they list it as Wilkerson Red, but even though they write the name on their website as if it were a valid registered cultivar name, it is not. The originator/owner of this plant should take the trouble /effort (actually very little effort) to register this plant as a cultivar. Unofficial, invalid plant names don't help anyone. The best ID I could recommend for this plant is (S. flava x leucophylla) x self.
It should simply be titled: Sarracenia hybrid. Or if the actual parentage be known, that could be given. It is easy to see, that despite its possibly complex parentage that it closely resembles Sarracenia leucophylla, but that is no reason to publish a plant as a cultivar, when that cultivar has not been registered yet, and especially when it isn't that plant at all, but rather a plant from an F2 crossing.
BTW, I also believe one of the other Sarracenia in the calendar should be corrected to read Sarracenia rubra.
In botany subspecies is abbreviated to subsp. and in zoology it is ssp. The correct abbreviation is subsp. and not sp. or even ssp. These abbreviations are frequently confused (I don't know why), sp. is used when the genus is known (e.g. Sarracenia sp.), but the actual species is not known, but the abbreviation subsp. is used to indicate a botanical subspecies. Another problem is that there is no publication for that particular subspecies of Sarracenia rubra. In other words, there is no such plant, currently in publication as Sarracenia rubra subsp. rubra. There are subspecies of rubra published as, Sarracenia rubra subsp. alabamensis, Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis, Sarracenia rubra subsp. jonesii, and Sarracenia rubra subsp. wherryi, but not Sarracenia rubra subsp. rubra. It would be most accurate to simply call it Sarracenia rubra since that is what the type species actual name is. Calling it Sarracenia rubra ssp. rubra would be the same inaccuracy as calling it Sarracenia rubra forma. typica which is another incorrect way I've seen it done in the past. I believe this plant is simply the typical or type species, Sarracenia rubra. It appears to be a fine example of the type species, and I think it is just fine to call it what it is - Sarracenia rubra.