User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 9 to 16 of 16

Thread: Baines Kloof

  1. #9
    Admin- I'm growing CPs in the Desert of Tucson, Az. adnedarn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona USA
    Posts
    8,432
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Christian, pretty sure- the plant came from a grower who got the plant or seed from that guy in AU (can't think of his name). But how sure can anyone REALLY be??
    My plant used to be grown in what i'd consider "not enough light" but with the building of my new g/h in a much better spot, perhaps the leaves will shorten (that seems to me the biggest difference between mine and the pictures you provided). But I'd say the plant is correct to the one we're disscussing.
    -Andrew
    Owner of TerraForums, FlyTrapShop.com, and cpforums.org.
    Support FlyTrapShop, support TerraForums! www.flytrapshop.com

  2. #10
    BobZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Arcata, California
    Posts
    1,230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    William, check the Drosera Photo Finder. There are a number of additional links to photos of Drosera "Baines Kloof" and other D. capensis forms.
    http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Drosera.html

  3. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  4. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The hybrid is very interesting Christian, did you make the cross? Is the seed fertile? It is obviously different from anything I have seen, so I doubt 'Baines Kloof " has any D. ramencetacea in its heritage.

    As for the D. capensis, the peduncle is very pubescent compared to the D. capensis I am familiar with. HAve you found other differences?
    "Grow More, Share More"

  5. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    st reviewed the photos on Bob's site, thanks Bob, sorry I missed your reply earlier.

    Here are my thoughts:

    Andreas Fleishmans photo's listed with the D. capensis "Baines Kloof" is obviously misplaced and should be included under D. admirabilis. He already has "Baines Kloof" in the header, and I see little variation from other D. admirabilis That was easy!

    There are apparently two forms of D. capensis being included in this heading. By consensus, I think the stockier broad leaved form is the likely typical form referred to by this name. Andrew's plant has narrower leaves as do some other entries under this heading. It is entirely possible that the original narrow leaved plants also originated from "Baines Kloof" but from a different collection. D. capensis is highly variable, and the two forms may both be there. We already know D. admirabilis IS, lol.

    So, here we have yet another example of the need to publish at some level to provide a standard for comparison. I would suggest to the community that the wider leaved form by published at cultivar level since there is a marked and obvious difference from the more typical D. capensis, and that Andrew's form be referred to as D. capensis "Baines Kloof, narrow leaf". Heck, I'd publish it myself but for fear of being called a "thief" again on the Listserve by someone too lazy to do the proper thing himself!

    I have great respect for Christian Kline's accuracy, and find it highly probable the collection data regarding this form is accurate. It would be nice to know who collected it and first introduced it, if that information is available. Perhaps Christian Dietz might inquire of Herr Kline?

    It is good to discuss these issues in Forum, it can only serve to reduce the confusion regarding unpublished forms within the genus which are being distributed willy nilly. Any information is better than none. Too bad information doesn't pass as quickly as misinformation. e.g. I still see D. "Sp. Magaliesburg" going around despite being determined to be D. nidiformis by my friend Vitor Olivera de Mirandas genetic assessment per my request. At least 4 major CP concerns distributed this for a decade under that bogus name. and the legacy continues despite new information. This in turn became confused with D. madagascariensis, and even the ICPS seedbank was in on that error.


    Back to Andrew's plant, I understand it was commercially obtained. Perhaps the seller can shed further light on the origin of the plants he sold?

    A lot of this confusion arises from certain seed merchants who like to puff up their sale catalog. In fact, one emminent botanist resold material sent by other growers under whatever name happened to be on the package and disclaimed responsibility for the accuracy of what he sold, and we know how easily material can become confused in private collections even with the best intentions. This is why I so dislike seeing unpublished names proliferating, especially when abused by commercial concerns. The genus Drosera has enormous variability in and of itself, and with growers making hybrids, botanists introducing and distributing unpublished "SP's", fanciful growers that want to name THEIR own "SP's", natural hybrids, Species Novae awaiting review, seed sold under previous names and most ALL of it unpublished, except as photo's on Bobs site.

    Well, it's too late to fix anything now, so maybe it should just be "whatever goes". What sense is there maintaining scrupulous, meticulous accuracy unless it starts from the get go? Collection data needs to be maintained and passed along with the seed. Growers receiving such seed need to record it along with the binomial. New forms need to be presented in some way that allows public discussion and review. Most critically, there needs to be PUBLICATION, and hopefully PRIOR to distribution. That way at least some of us may be able to get some sense from our studies of the genus. Without reliable material this is very difficult. And folks, this is why we have an International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature and an approved registration system to keep tab on these things. What we don't have is a community willing to employ them.

    Like I said, I don't really care anymore personally. Fooey on all of it. I have reached a place where I can be comfortable with the beauty of form and function without respect to name, but I still just..... can't...... resist giving my opinion, for what it's worth.

    That Christian Dietz guy gets me going



    "Grow More, Share More"

  6. #14
    It's been one of dem days BigCarnivourKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    I live in Chaffee County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,673
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tamlin, I had to laugh. After reading your post, I read your sig. line "Go ahead, ask me, I dare you". Sure enough, somebody asked!
    ---Steve Allinger---

    How come chicken fingers are bigger than buffalo wings?

    My Grow List

  7. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi William,

    The D. capensis from Montague Pass has very long petioles and short laminas compared to other forms i am growing. It is also a relatively large plant with long stems. This form is flowering the first time for me. It seems, as if it is sterile. Here is an old picture of my plants:

    http://www.utricularia.net/bilder/dr...ROS199_008.jpg

    I will try to post an updated picture and some, that compare some of my plants side by side.

    As for the D. capensis 'Baines Kloof' from Adnedarn. I have the feeling, that this plant is not from Baines Kloof, but from some other location. The plants from this location, that are grown for long time in germany are all looking like those in the first picture i posted above. I cannot say for sure of course, but i think, this is the real thing from Baines Kloof. Maybe even both forms are growing here (but i think, this is relatively unlikely).

    William, note, that i am not completely sure, that the D. capensis x ramentacea is really that hybrid! I got this plant about 3 years ago as Drosera ramentacea, which is clearly wrong. I was told, that this might be a hybrid between D. capensis and ramentacea. It is flowering at the moment and seems to be sterile. That's all i know.

    I tried to pollinate my D. ramentacea with the red form of D. capensis last year. I got seeds, that did not germinate. The pure D. ramentacea seeds i got germinated without problems. I saddly have not tried more crosses, as i was more after seeds of D. ramentacea than after hybrid seeds.

    Christian

  8. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi,

    two pictures, that compare the D. capensis from Montague Pass with the one i am calling "typical"


    http://www.utricularia.net/bilder....001.jpg

    http://www.utricularia.net/bilder....002.jpg

    I think, it is easy to see, that these two are really different.

    Christian

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •