What's new
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 What???

This is one of my FAVORITE CPs right now, because it just sent up some beautiful spring pitchers.  I got it in the PFT grab bag sale, and was wondering if anybody could give it an ID for me.  I'm pretty sure it has a lot of Leucophylla in it, but that's as far as my inexperience can take me.  Here's a bunch of pics.
S_UnknownFrontOriginal.sized.jpg

S_leucoWhat.sized.jpg

S_LeucWhat2.sized.jpg

S_LeucHood.sized.jpg

TwinTowers.sized.jpg



Any ideas?

SF
 
Looks like a judith hindle to me!

Capslock
 
Really? Do Judith Hindles have such a translucent hood? I have another plant that I thought might be a Judith Hindle (from the grab bag sale), unfortunately it has no decent pitchers for ID right now. It looks nothing like that. Could be though, I'm a Sarr amateur!
smile.gif


Any other thoughts?

SF
 
Looks like an S. leucophylla 'red' or in other words S. x "Dana's Delight"
 
don't think its 'judith hindle'. Judith hindle's also have a different shaped hood.
 
The hood looks so leuco.
 
I agree with Goldtrap. That plant looks pretty much just like an almost mature variety of S.leucophylla. It looks *way* to tall to be a Judy.H, and it shares few of the Judy.H's characteristics.
 
I agree with DroseraDude. Not Judith Hindle-it's not the right shape and it is too translucent. It may not be a cultivar, but simply a hybrid involving leuco. The fattening of the tube and the somewhat open structure of the lid looks like there might be some purpurea further back in its lineage, and there might be some rubra in there too. There are so many naturally occurring hybrids that look like this-just call it 'leucophylla hybrid' and you're safe.
Also, S. 'Dana's Delight' is not the same thing as red leuco. It is a cultivar selected from a grex of the hybrid (leucophylla x willisii). True red leucos exist in nature, and there is some debate as to what causes the red coloration. Some botanists believe it is introgression from S. rubra gulfensis.
Most important, SF, have fun growing it!
Trent
 
I will Trent! It's my prettiest Sarr!

SF
 
  • #10
On the CPUK forum, the general consensus is S. leucophylla 'Tarnok'. Does this sound(look) right to you all?

SF
 
  • #11
How can they say it's a Tarnok when they haven't seen the flower? Did you take a pic of the flower? Once you see the flower, its REAL easy to tell whether it is or isn't a Tarnok.
 
  • #12
I don't think it's an s.leuco 'red' - it's not red enough. Mine looked like yours for the first week or so, then turned almost completely dark pink. I'm going to guess it's the lovely regular s.leuco. I love the mix of white, green, and pink!
 
  • #13
Larry,

Yes, you're right. The ID won't be totally accurate until it flowers. It will be a dead give-away if the flower is a double or 'pom-pom' like the 'Tarnok' cultivar. The pitchers do look like the photos on BobZ's site though.... plus the fact that was one of the ones PFT was selling...

It has not flowered yet, but I hope it will soon. When it does, I'll post it for a more definite idea of what it could be.

Thanks!

SF
 
  • #14
You know , it could be an S. leucophylla 'Tarnok" , tarnoks tend to have the brown red coloring but yuo won't know for sure til it flwoers .
smile.gif
 
  • #15
Doesn't look like pure S. leucophylla
I agree with Trent..... S. leucophylla hybrid
Tony
 
  • #16
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tony Paroubek @ Mar. 20 2004,16:17)]Doesn't look like pure S. leucophylla
I agree with Trent..... S. leucophylla hybrid
Tony
Nope, it's pure and it's probubly "Tarnok".  Why do you think it is a hybred?  Have you ever seen Schnells book?  That species is really variable, and the top starts out green and turns white as it ages and in accordence to light levels
smile.gif
 That and I went and looked up the list of plants found it that grab bag sale:

purpurea
rubra
Judith Hindle
leucophylla Tarnok
leucophylla (maybe or maybe not, I'm not sure on this one)
RED leucophylla
wrigleyana

So unless that is one very strait, tall, open pitcherd wrigleyana, it's Leucophylla ;)  Oh yah and I have plants from the same sale that I just fineshed doing a formal IDing via the measurments and all that other fun stuff on mine.  The only peice of the puzzle missing is the flower, but they should all be Tarnok unless some normals got mixed in.  Yah big buff double gened plant
smile.gif


I admit the bulge is a little funny, but several of the red veined wild populations have this and are still consitterd by most to be pure Lecophylla, those that actually have purp ansesstory start to show it a bit more. Not to mention, if it is Tarnok that would make sence because extra DNA could have caused more funnies then just a double petalled flower.
 
  • #17
I don't think it's pure because the bulge in the middle/upper part of the pitcher. Maybe the occasional wild plant shows this but then wild populations are not 100% pure either. I would not consider a plant I found in the wild with such a noticeable bulge pure either. Just because it may be growing in a stand of the pure deal doesn't make it pure by default.

I also would not label it as a pure species because unless I could verify 100% without a doubt that it was absolutely the correct label, it would be better to call it a hybrid and avoid any confusion or potentially spreading something that is not correctly labelled. It would be a much lesser error to call it a hybrid even if it is not than to call it a species when it is a hybrid.

Perhaps your correct about 'Tarnok'. I have not done alot of research on it. Have it's chromosomes been counted to see how they differ from the type species? A plant does not necessarily have to have a differing number to have extra flower parts and may or may not show other differing characteristics in it's growth also.

Tony
 
  • #19
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tony Paroubek @ Mar. 21 2004,15:14)]I don't think it's pure because the bulge in the middle/upper part of the pitcher.  Maybe the occasional wild plant shows this but then wild populations are not 100% pure either.  I would not consider a plant I found in the wild with such a noticeable bulge pure either.  Just because it may be growing in a stand of the pure deal doesn't make it pure by default.  

I also would not label it as a pure species because unless I could verify 100% without a doubt that it was absolutely the correct label, it would be better to call it a hybrid and avoid any confusion or potentially spreading something that is not correctly labelled.  It would be a much lesser error to call it a hybrid even if it is not than to call it a species when it is a hybrid.

Perhaps your correct about 'Tarnok'.  I have not done alot of research on it.  Have it's chromosomes been counted to see how they differ from the type species?  A plant does not necessarily have to have a differing number to have extra flower parts and may or may not show other differing characteristics in it's growth also.

Tony
I agree on your points. I don't think Tarnok have extra chromosomes, but you can have the dna within a chromosome double up and give simmilar effects. To my knowledge, the most common(and only I heard of) way plants suddenly double petal numbers is with a chromosome duplication or a genetic duplication with in a chromosome.

Now that I look a bit closer I could see it as being a really weird judith hindle, but if it were me I would wait to lable it till it flowerd.
 
  • #20
In my opinion, it is a pure leuco. Probably the 'Tarnok' variety, since that's what PFT was giving in the grab bag sale.
 
Back
Top