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!

Coding system

Snowy has been working on a coding system for the project. It looks great to me so far, so I am posting it here for everyone to discuss.


Here's how the coding system will work.

Example: S. purpurea ssp. purpurea f. heterophylla, Walton Co. FL.

Using the species name, we can get the first part of the code, SPPH.

The postal code of the state of origin will be the next two letters. In this case it would be: FL.

A three digit number would then be assigned to the clone. This number could then be looked up in a national database for information about that clone. Such information would be stuff like: The origin, who collected it and when, how much was collected, plants that were nearby (in case hybrid seed is accidentally collected, we'll have an idea of what the other parent was) and any special characteristics of the plant (light or heavy venation, pubescent, etc.).

The final code that would go on the tag should look something like

SPPH-FL-203

A non-complete lettering system can be found here

http://home.petflytrap.com/snowyfalcon/Coding.xls

And some example database entries (fictional) can be found here.

http://home.petflytrap.com/snowyfalcon/example.xls


If you have any corrections or additions that need to be made, let me know and I will correct them. The next step after both of your approvals would be to vote!

SF
 
FYI...folks who do not have Excell (like me) will not be able to see the tag at that link.
 
Well, I have excel on my office comp. and my p.PC so I didn't think about that
prehaps we could also put it in a form others could use also,but you may not have the editing capabilities you would with the excel.For the time being prehaps you could post the gist here. Sarracenia
Type Variety/Spp Clone Number Location Origin Date Comments (fictional at this point)

Purpurea
Venosa SPV-FL-001 Walton Co. FL Brooks Garcia 10/00/03 These plants are grown from approximately 1000 wild collected seed. The other species in the area are SA-FL-293 and SM-FL-453. Average height is 14 cm and width is 5 cm. Heavy venation throughout plant.
SPV-FL-002 Liberty Co. FL Whoever Collected Them 2/00/04 200 seed and three mature plants were collected at this site. Average pitcher height is 13 cm, width 7 cm. Light venation throughout plant.
SPV-GA-003 Long Co. GA Whoever Collected Them 2/00/04 4 mature plants were collected off private property. Average height is 19 cm, width 6 cm.

Purpurea SPP-NY-001 White Plains, NY Whoever Collected Them 2/00/04 16 mature plants were saved from a construction site. These plants are of an all green form.
Minor
Typical SM-GA-001 Long Co. GA Whoever Collected Them 1/00/04 Salvaged from a construction site.
SM-GA-002 Big Thicket National Preserve, Jefferson Co. FL Whoever Collected Them 2/00/04 Donated by park rangers at the BTNP, 5 mature plants. Average height is 20 cm. Large windows and thin pitchers.
var. Okee
etc.
Flava
var. ornata SFO-MI-001 Stone Co. MI Brooks Garcia 2/00/04 Approximately 200 seed was collected from a thriving population. The plants were especially veined near the throat.
SFO-AL-002 Conecuh National Forest, Covinton Co., AL Whoever collects them 7 Mature plants were brought back from populations suffering from tourist collection. Very light, spider web like venation. Other plants in the area: SFR-AL-123 and SL-AL-320.

var. rubricorpa SFR-AL-001 Conecuh National Forest, Covinton Co., AL Whoever collects them 2/00.04 7 Mature plants were brought back from populations suffering from tourist collection. Heavily colored. Other plants in the area: SFo-AL-002 and SL-AL-320.

and on and on


Sarracenia Hybrids
Parentage Clone Number Location Origin Date Comments (fictional at this point)

S. (Leucophylla X Minor) SH-AL-001 Citronelle/Deer Park Bog, Mobile Co. AL Whoever 1/31/99 This hybrid is a cross between SL-AL-322 and SM-AL-201. Heavy windows and nice coloration.
S. (Leucophylla X Minor) SH-AL-002 Citronelle/Deer Park Bog, Mobile Co. AL Whoever 2/30/02 This is a natural hybrid occuring between these two species. The exact cross is not known, but the parentage is definitely of Leucophylla and Minor descent. The plant is heavily influenced by the Leucophylla parent and only slightly by the Minor parent.
 
I just wanted to mention that Mijako10 helped out with a few suggestions on this project.  He also mentioned that along with the information collected with each clone, the individual grower should keep statistics of his own plants.  This would include germination date, date of acquisition, growth rates etc.

Please feel free to post any critiques you can come up with. The better and more complete this project ends up, the more chance we'll have of a working, easy to use system. If there is any data you feel needs to be added and tracked, let us know!

SF
 
Greetings. Just a couple of thoughts about coding. A common set of initials for species should be agreed upon

SPP
SPV
SMI
SFL
SRO
SRU

Etc, And we should determine what classifcation system we will adopt for instances is it S. rubra ssp alabamensis or S. alabamensis ssp alabamensis and ssp wherryii? That will impact coding SRA or SAA and SAW

Also the first two letters of the code should be NSC for National Sarracenia Collection, then it should be followed by a two digit state code FL, then plant designator SRG and then some sort of accession number.

EG NSC-FL-SRG-000001

That way it can be ordered by state. Another option is to add a county code say WAL walton, sor NSC-FL-SRG-WAL-00001 or something like that.

my 2 cents

Carl Mazur
 
We could code all the information into a gigantic 50 character long sequence, but remember, K.I.S.S.. I agree NSC should be added to the beginning of the code so that the plants can be differentiated from personal coding systems already in use by individual growers.

We also need to agree on how to label those controversial species, such as S. rosea or var. burkei? S. rubra ssp. or S. alabamensis? Not to mention all the S. flava variations. This is something that requires a poll, something I do not have the power to create.

SF
 
Thanks for mentioning me Snowy. I'm glad to say I helped. It's a great system and you should be proud.
 
  • #10
You should be proud too Mijako 10. I told you your 2 cents would eventually add up to a dollar. I appreciate your input and Snowy's help in this project. Now the fine tuning begins! Thank you again Mijako and Snowman!!
 
  • #11
As far as the controversials go I think we should go with the Schnell versions of things

S. rubra alabamenis
S. rubra wherryii
S. rubra gulfensis
S. rubra jonesii
S. rubra rubra

S. purpurea purpurea
S. purpurea venosa
S. purpurea venosa var montana
S. pupruprea venosa var burkii

But thats my personal preference, maybe we should vote on it? Not sure what the protocol is. I know the conservations groups use S. alabmensis, and S. jonesii, as their own species, so what happens to wherryii, is it alabamensis ssp wherryii or is put into the rubra complex? The rosea vs burkii, don't know. I personally have referred to it as S. rosea, but I am not too convinced of it being given species status, I think it will screw up people, especially people new to sarracenia, they would look at purpurea and rosea and say "hey, they look the same"!!!!

2.5 cents today

Carl
 
  • #12
I agree Carl. That is the version I was planning to use anyways. What I need next is a list of all the varieties, subspecies and forms for all the Sarrs. I will be updating my 'coding' to be a more complete project, hopefully covering all known (and accepted) varieties. If people would take a look at it and see if I missed any species/ssp/varieties/forms, I would much appreciate it. Either PM me or post here.

SF
 
  • #13
I'm working on that list. send me your personal email address to ccp@vaxxine.com and I'll send you a copy of that list when I get it finished.


CJM
 
  • #14
SnowyFalcon's system is very workable.
The taxonomic controversies could be problematic (S. alabamensis or S. rubra ssp alabamensis). A standard reference must be decided upon. Pick a recent scientific work that describes the genus in most thorough and accepted terms. How about Schnell's new book, or the ICPS database? I believe there are five or six recognized forms of S. flava: ornata, rubricorpora, cuprea, etc. so that's not a problem.

Trent
 
  • #15
Wow! You guys are moving faster than I can write. Schnell is where I would put my vote.
Trent
 
  • #16
Then Schnell is who we go with.
 
Back
Top