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!
S. rosea?
- Thread starter nepenthes_ak
- Start date
S. rosea is/was also known as S. purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii (or is it burkei?)
This is what I was told 4 year ago:
"They [rosea] get bigger, much redder, hairier and have pink flowers. Very pretty plants I think. Otherwise, they are just the same as venosa."
I also heard the flowers grow on shorter stalks and have smaller petals.
This is what I was told 4 year ago:
"They [rosea] get bigger, much redder, hairier and have pink flowers. Very pretty plants I think. Otherwise, they are just the same as venosa."
I also heard the flowers grow on shorter stalks and have smaller petals.
It still is S. purpurea ssp. venosa var. burkii. No way is it unique enough to be classified as a whole separate species. I recall Schnell said it hinged on the thickness of the pitcher lip, which varies anyway. S. flava var. rugelii has a wider neck on average, but we classify that by a whole different species.
The S. rosea name should be binned.
Rant over
Anyway, var. burkii has a white flower style and petals that vary from white through to pale pink and bright magenta. The pitchers tend to have thicker lips, larger more undulating hoods and the colour is usually more of a uniform pink or pink with red veins.
The S. rosea name should be binned.
Rant over
Anyway, var. burkii has a white flower style and petals that vary from white through to pale pink and bright magenta. The pitchers tend to have thicker lips, larger more undulating hoods and the colour is usually more of a uniform pink or pink with red veins.
I actually cited the wrong CPN. The one with the article is from 2002.
In the article they note that, aside from the phenotypical differences, S. rosea consistantly fell out as the outgroup genetically when compared to S. pupr. purp., S. purp venosa, and S. purp venosa montana.
FWIW, I use rosea because it is quicker/easier to type.
In the article they note that, aside from the phenotypical differences, S. rosea consistantly fell out as the outgroup genetically when compared to S. pupr. purp., S. purp venosa, and S. purp venosa montana.
FWIW, I use rosea because it is quicker/easier to type.
The form I grow is a deep maroon with pitchers up to 12 inches long and large enough to fit your hand in. The flowers are bright pink, on very short stems and enormous. It also hates cold weather. I originally received this plant 10 years ago as Sarracenia purpurea "Louis Burke"...FWIW.[b said:
Right Bugweed!
The plant doesn't know...
The only reason it has a name in the first place is so we (humans) can communicate with each other. Very good point Bugweed.
We have seen literally hundreds of them in bloom at the same time in Apalachicola National Forest. The flower colors range from the palest pink, almost white, to deep rich orchid purple.
This is the right time of year to see them in bloom. Here are some pics taken mid April of 2004. It's a good thing these plants were blooming, otherwise we would have a hard time finding them because they're so low to the ground.
We think it's a sub species of purpurea, but whatever you want to call it is cool with us.
The plant doesn't know...
The only reason it has a name in the first place is so we (humans) can communicate with each other. Very good point Bugweed.
We have seen literally hundreds of them in bloom at the same time in Apalachicola National Forest. The flower colors range from the palest pink, almost white, to deep rich orchid purple.
This is the right time of year to see them in bloom. Here are some pics taken mid April of 2004. It's a good thing these plants were blooming, otherwise we would have a hard time finding them because they're so low to the ground.
We think it's a sub species of purpurea, but whatever you want to call it is cool with us.
