What's So Great About "Pure Species"?

[DJ57]

I think hybrids are beautiful also and have some myself, but I can see the point others make about them being put out in the wild and playing havoc with the natives. Still, many hybreds are created by nature also.

Natalie: Sarracenia 'Lamentations' × ([flava maxima × leucophylla] × minor) is absolutely gorgeous . Please post a picture when it gets adult pitchers.

 

[Exo]

I like species more, due the fact that they are far more distinct from one another.

However..I do like some hybrids, particularly with sarrs

 

[Heli]

Same with Mark. Mostly I prefer species but I like sarr hybrids.

 

[Nepenthesis]

To my newbie eye in the nepenthes hobby, uninfluenced by price and rarity, I have seen countless pure species that look absolutely stunning. That being said, I have seen countless hybrids that looks just as good. I agree with Exo, pure species are extremely different from each other. I'm really open to any kind of nep as long as it's vibrant and has a nice pitcher shape.

 

[UnstuckinTime]

Perhaps this is over simplifying it, but after reading through this thread, in my mind, it comes down to this: Pure species are a science, hybrids are an art.

We grow the pure species for the "challenge" (lack of hybrid vigor), the study of the genus, the preservation of the genetic material, and that "gotta grow 'em all" sense of completing the collection.

We grow the beautiful hybrids because they are easier, and they show off what the genus can really do in the ways of aesthetics.

I grow a N. sanguinea because my collection, to be complete, has to have one. But I long for N. x 'Lady Pauline' for her grace and beauty.

 

[jimscott]

In my experience, generally speaking, hybrids do better than pure species.

 

[Peatmoss]

I like pure Nepenthes species the most and I just can't stand Drosera hybrids. Sarracenia hybrids like "Adrian Slack" and others are quite nice and Pinguicula hybrids are fine as well.

 

[mikefallen13]

I really love nepenthes species but I do like some hybrids with trusmadinesis, lowii, and aristolochioides due to uniqueness. I also believe that ventricosa kind of ruins hybrids since it just makes other traits (teeth, underlid hairs, fangs) less defined and also lends that round fat shape to its hybrids. I think Ventricosa x Hamata will he a good example of this as it matures because I'm guessing most will be a spotted ventricosa shaped pitcher with a slightly toothy peristome, nothing like the amazing peristome of its father. That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[Cthulhu138]

Hurricane Creek White and Schnell's Ghost S.leucophylla are not hybrids b.t.w...............

 

[Wire Man]

N. ventricosa x hamata is looking very toothy from the mature plants that I've seen. It does look highly variable, though.

 

[jimscott]

Hurricane Creek White and Schnell's Ghost S.leucophylla are not hybrids b.t.w...............

Cultivars?

 

[RL7836]

What's So Great About "Pure Species"?

Although natural hybridization is a valid path for creating a new species (a completely man made concept) - one of the advantages that "True species" have over hybrids is that they were created through an evolutionary process in which they successfully adapted to fill a niche - a process that typically takes a long time.

Hybridization, otoh, is a quick process where you throw two groups of genes together and create a new entity that is typically somewhere between the two originals (depending on a number of factors on how the genes combine). So, by it's very nature, hybridization destroys (or modifies - if you prefer) the very unique traits that nature took so long to create via the process of evolution. MikeFallen13 stated this in a slightly different way:

I really love nepenthes species but I do like some hybrids with trusmadinesis, lowii, and aristolochioides due to uniqueness.

We recently learned that N. lowii's very unique shape (coupled with exudiate creation) is an incredible survival adaptation to capture nutrients from some of it's mammalian neighbors. When hybridized with another species it gives 'some' of those unique properties to it's progeny - but only some - so the original adaptation is destroyed (or modified) as it combines w/ traits from the other parent.

The same is true with N. aristolochioides. In offering some of it's unique traits to another Nep thru hybridization, it loses its incredible evolutionary trapping mechanism (or at least has it modified to be much less efficient). A similar structure, in a completely different CP group (Sarracenia psittacina) typically has it's fantastic trapping mechanism rendered completely non-functional through hybridization.

Each hybrid I have seen utilizing one of the 'toothy' species (N. hamata, N. villosa, N. edwardsiana, etc) loses most of that species incredible adaptation when paired with another species.

This response is in addition to the one I added previously - as it offers a different explanation on why man-made hybrids are inferior.

 

[Cthulhu138]

Cultivars?

Schnells Ghost is simply Sarracenia leucophylla f. viridescens and Huriicane Creek White is just Sarracenia leucophylla f. alba with specific location data. Neither plant is a hybrid of any kind, they are both naturally occuring varieties of S.leucophylla. So, I guess THAT'S what's so great about pure species.

 

[jimscott]

Schnells Ghost is simply Sarracenia leucophylla f. viridescens and Huriicane Creek White is just Sarracenia leucophylla f. alba with specific location data. Neither plant is a hybrid of any kind, they are both naturally occuring varieties of S.leucophylla. So, I guess THAT'S what's so great about pure species.

I did not know that. Thanks for the education.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

Although natural hybridization is a valid path for creating a new species (a completely man made concept) - one of the advantages that "True species" have over hybrids is that they were created through an evolutionary process in which they successfully adapted to fill a niche - a process that typically takes a long time.

Hybridization, otoh, is a quick process where you throw two groups of genes together and create a new entity that is typically somewhere between the two originals (depending on a number of factors on how the genes combine). So, by it's very nature, hybridization destroys (or modifies - if you prefer) the very unique traits that nature took so long to create via the process of evolution. MikeFallen13 stated this in a slightly different way:We recently learned that N. lowii's very unique shape (coupled with exudiate creation) is an incredible survival adaptation to capture nutrients from some of it's mammalian neighbors. When hybridized with another species it gives 'some' of those unique properties to it's progeny - but only some - so the original adaptation is destroyed (or modified) as it combines w/ traits from the other parent.

The same is true with N. aristolochioides. In offering some of it's unique traits to another Nep thru hybridization, it loses its incredible evolutionary trapping mechanism (or at least has it modified to be much less efficient). A similar structure, in a completely different CP group (Sarracenia psittacina) typically has it's fantastic trapping mechanism rendered completely non-functional through hybridization.

Each hybrid I have seen utilizing one of the 'toothy' species (N. hamata, N. villosa, N. edwardsiana, etc) loses most of that species incredible adaptation when paired with another species.

Can't argue with that.

 

[amphirion]

Actually i think it's both.
for example Darlingtonia 'Othello' is both recognized as Darlingatonia 'Othello' as well as Darlingtonia californica f. viridiflora

another example is S. 'Redtube' and S. flava var. rubricorpora