User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 24

Thread: Drosera "Sp. Chapada Diamantina"

  1. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rose, the thing to do in my opinion is to grow the plant to maturity. Flowers and seeds can be very diagnostic. Get some phots and post them. Ill give it my "best guess" and if I feel too uncertain, we can open it to discussion to those who know more than I do, or present it to the community for consensus opinion. This is what I did with my "mystery plant" on the ID Forum. If, as in my case, no one can provide a "good guess", then the plant should either be resistered by the virtue of its form being desireable enough to be passed on, or it should be maintained for your interest however you see fit. It's oly when plants are shared without proper names that the problems arise. In no way should anyone continue to spread "bogus" sp. material. All this does is to dilute the certainty that good hard taxonomy grants, by introducing new and speculative variables that may have no place in fact. Most collectors care about the names they give their plants, and work hard at learning the ID of questionable
    sp. ecies (!) in their collections. Once hybridogenic material enters the equation, no one can really tell what is what, not even seasoned taxonomists. Accuracy has to be maintained from the very first collection from habitat, or from the first creation of a hybrid. I know this is an ideal, but it is also a fact. Most people can't be bothered to make the effort, but for serious collectors "good enough" doesn't apply.

    So if your plant can't be placed, and it is a real beauty that you just have to share, we can have some fun naming it! Drosera 'Coppers Cutie' is only 2 paragraphs and a photo away from publication and subsequent registration. It would probably take about 15 mins. before it could be emailed to the authorities in charge for their review. It's not a difficult process. Dr. Schlauer does everything possible to assist in this process. He greets submissions with open arms, and encouragement. The CPN will publish it, it will take its place in an international register, and you will have been granted virtual immortality since the record will be maintained in perpetuam.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  2. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi William,

    Registering plants is important, but not being a collector I'm not too keen on registering everything out there, many do not seem to have much botanical value to merit a cultivar name.

    I think the big problem is not that people don't register their plants, but that most CPers are not meticulous in trying to identify their plants. Most are unfortunately a little lazy with minimal taxonomy.

    You do not have to be a specialist to ID plants. There is no excuse nowadays with the facilities of internet. All you need is a single picture sometimes (better to have a few, of course) posted in a forum like this one. I am glad to help anyone correctly identify their CPs and there are more like me.

    I think it is an important responsibility of any CPer to check plants you grow from seed with the person who originally sent them to you. This way you can be sure that what you are growing is the real thing, and not some bogus seed that was accidentally mixed in or which fell from a neighboring pot.

    Do I need to mention once again the case of the wrong chromosome number published for D.sessilifolia because of the D.aliciae which one day came up in a pot where D.sessilifolia had been sowed?? I just don't see any excuse of how such different plants could ever be mixed up and distributed under the name D.sessilifolia.

    So until somebody invents a DNA genotyping maching/ sequencing machine that is cheap and quick, so everyone can have one in their greenhouses, the internet is the best solution.

    But what really irritates me is a worse type of lazyness: people who don't bother with CORRECT SPELLING. This happens to species names, cultivar names, bogus names, and especially location names.

    I see no problem with distributing D.sp."whatever" ***AS LONG AS*** people take minimal time to check if their spelling is correct in their plant labels, collection lists, seed packets, etc. If you can't read what's on the seed packet you received, just ASK the person who sent it to you what the correct spelling is, especially when in a foreign language. But please don't be lazy and careless with ANY names associated with your plants.

    There is much confusion, for example, with Mexican Pings because of this. There are several P.sp.'s which we do not even know where they are from, because the person who distributed it misspelt the city name. And it doesn't help that city names often repeat themselves here in Mexico. If only a state name had been attached with the city name, this would have avoided such a problem.

    This is why I always try to publish in CP journals and on the web accounts of my travels with pictures, so that people can check and correct possible misspellings along the CP distribution lines. And so that years from now people will be able to at least look at the pictures and hopefully clear up such confusions about location data.

    With Pings it seems that many people have come to Mexico to collect them, but have unfortunately not taken the time to write something about it and show some pics.

    Therefore, I've got nothing against any sort of plant name, whether bogus or not, AS LONG AS people don't play a game of "wireless phone" (or whatever that kid's game is called), changing a letter here or there everytime the plant is passed on. This is not the evolution, with DNA base changes in every generation, OK?? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img] If you've got doubts, then ASK!! And before distributing any material, please double check your plants grown from seeds with the supposed parents of the person who sent them to you.

    Fernando

  3. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fernando,

    A cultivar does NOT have to have any botanical or cultural merit: it can be butt ugly, but if it is going to find distribution then it needs to be placed centrally where others can be made aware of its form. There is no stated or implied requirement in the ICBN protocol that a specimen to be registered must have any "merit". Merit is a subjective quality, and once these cultivars are standardized the community can judge their horticultural merit, and assign awards, just as is the case with orchid growers. This isn't about "pretty" Growers want to grow EVERYTHING, it all has some merit to them. If it has enough merit to collect, then it has enough merit to be grown and distribute, and the rest follows. "Sp." material carries with it, from its initial collection to its ultimate establishment in mass confusion the implied suffix "I DUNNO".

    As far as growers not being able to identify their plants: how on earth is someone going to identify a plant that has no recorded identity? What are they supposed to use as a standard of comparison if there is no literature or photo? Taxonomy keys are not the end all answer: even the holotype is an isolated example in a sea of variation: a best guess. Also not many growers have any inclination towards taxonomy, and attempting to use the science of taxonomy to define isolated orphans from a population is like using an oxyacetyline torch to make popcorn! As regards the bogus "Sp." material that has absolutely no centralized reference, its like going to the bookstore and asking for them to order a book that you don't know the title of, nor the author, "But its 9 inches tall and 7 inches wide, blue cover, and was written in Brasil, maybe"!

    I applaude that you are willing to do the work in helping ID this material for horticulturalists, but you are not eternal. Consider posterity please! You can write about this material all you want in your travelouges, but that is not going to be enough for growers 30 years from today to be able to make any determinations *unless* there are some published details regarding form and a detailed photo! If you lack the time to do the deed, then please consider appointing someone as a responsible agent to do this, there are many who would be happy to take the time. I would be happy to (and not just to get free plants either!).

    As for the spelling issues, we are all guilty at times. I certainly misspell my share, esp. when in private communications, where I know the person I am speaking with understands the refferent. In public posts or publications I make an effort to be more focused and correct, but even here I am not perfect. It is everyones responsibility to correct each others orthographic errors. I welcome such corrections. I have never met a grower who did not appreciate me taking time to make a correction. It is bad form to take offense at anyone making such a correction. Some people just don't care, and they probably never will, unless we can convince and educate them.

    I do have a problem with bogus Sp. names, and since there is no central publication, drift in the spelling of such material is inevitable as there is nothing to compare the names with, so it hardly matters, does it? Bogus is bogus is bogus! If the names were registered, it would be different. I also have problems with people NOT correcting their bogus names when presented with evidence of the error because "I've already distributed so much of this that it would only cause confusion now to change the name", and I rather doubt that you approve of this either. Statements like this are absurd no matter who makes them. Bah!

    Sorry if I appear to be harsh in this, but I honestly believe in the registration of bogus material introductions before the ID mess gets worse than it already is. I fully agree that growers should confirm their plants identity by consensus with their source for the material, but what if the source is likewise incorrect? Anyone seeking confirmation of Matt's "Chapada Diamantina" would no doubt find consensus: but does that make the plant genuine? Had there been a instrument of registration in place back when (and if) you collected this, and had you (or whomever) utilized it, this mess would have never happened. We would know what it looked like, its salient features, and even who collected it. Now, any material carrying this name is suspect whether genuinely from the area or not...and there is still no way of sorting it out, except through you! Now that there is such a tool, it should be employed.

    You mention your genetic study being skewed by the use of mislabeled material? Well, I am not surprised. I wonder if it would be possible to do such a study based on material taken from the type collections? I am leaning towards this notion in my seed testa research, and plan on going to the source. Relying on anything in private collections is risky. Even esteemed botanical garden directors are error prone with what they grow, no matter how many letters they have after their name.



    "Grow More, Share More"

  4. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    2,974
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fernando,

    Is this what you mentioned where that horrible name, "D. aliciae var sessifolia" came from?

    Regards.

    Joe

  5. #13
    Moderator Joseph Clemens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    2,539
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tamlin,

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]A cultivar does NOT have to have any botanical or cultural merit: it can be butt ugly, but if it is going to find distribution then it needs to be placed centrally where others can be made aware of its form.
    Do I understand you correctly? You are proposing that we use the tools that some people have taken great pains to get for us CP horticulturists? The ability to register cultivars, officially and in a standard format almost like taxonomists do when they are publishing new species? And you say that even people who collect the"ugly" ones can register their favorites too? This sounds too good to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]There is no stated or implied requirement in the ICBN protocol that a specimen to be registered must have any "merit". Merit is a subjective quality, and once these cultivars are standardized the community can judge their horticultural merit, and assign awards, just as is the case with orchid growers. This isn't about "pretty" Growers want to grow EVERYTHING, it all has some merit to them. If it has enough merit to collect, then it has enough merit to be grown and distribute, and the rest follows. "Sp." material carries with it, from its initial collection to its ultimate establishment in mass confusion the implied suffix "I DUNNO".
    Are these rules part of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants "Cultivated Plant Code" or ICNCP? I see they have there an official publication that outlines these "rules".

    There are lots of "different" people in this world, many of them are horticulturists and some are taxonomists. We are probably as different as the plants we grow, as different as a Saguaro cactus is from a Sarracenia pitcher plant. I would not want anyone to be hindered from being able to register a particular plant as a cultivar.


    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]As far as growers not being able to identify their plants: how on earth is someone going to identify a plant that has no recorded identity? What are they supposed to use as a standard of comparison if there is no literature or photo? Taxonomy keys are not the end all answer: even the holotype is an isolated example in a sea of variation: a best guess. Also not many growers have any inclination towards taxonomy, and attempting to use the science of taxonomy to define isolated orphans from a population is like using an oxyacetyline torch to make popcorn! As regards the bogus "Sp." material that has absolutely no centralized reference, its like going to the bookstore and asking for them to order a book that you don't know the title of, nor the author, "But its 9 inches tall and 7 inches wide, blue cover, and was written in Brasil, maybe"!
    I see what you mean. Since it is difficult to give 100% positive ID to plants in cultivation, especially ones where the "chain of custody" has been broken or where other weedy species have usurped the place of the desired plant, possibly unbeknownst to the person now growing it, for instance, Drosera spatulata. How then is someone supposed to be able to "lock down" an identification of plants they are growing? Sure there are "keys" and several books on CP, contemporary and otherwise, but really, where can a young, beginner or novice in CP horticulture go to easily verify the identifications of their plants? To complicate matters, many people seem to lack the discernment to easily distinguish one "sticky rosette" from another. An example that comes to mind was a recent question, where someone wanted to know how to distinguish Drosera aliciae from Drosera hamiltonii. I responded by posting a high-resolution image of each, side by side and pointing out, to me, the obvious differences. They still had difficulty discerning, what to me were the many obvious differences between the physical appearances of the two plants. Since my early years as a CP grower/collector I have longed for such an illusive "rosetta stone" for CP identification, especially for Drosera.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]As for the spelling issues, we are all guilty at times. I certainly misspell my share, esp. when in private communications, where I know the person I am speaking with understands the refferent. In public posts or publications I make an effort to be more focused and correct, but even here I am not perfect. It is everyones responsibility to correct each others orthographic errors. I welcome such corrections. I have never met a grower who did not appreciate me taking time to make a correction. It is bad form to take offense at anyone making such a correction. Some people just don't care, and they probably never will, unless we can convince and educate them.
    I can certainly empathize with you concerning spelling of and especially proper formatting of names. As a moderator on this forum I try to help out by correcting spelling and formatting of those I notice as I peruse those threads I have time to see.
    I want to assure everyone that nothing here is meant to be punitive, and I make my own share of typos and other errors.
    Common errors I see are:
    1. Not to use italics or underline the scientific binomial names of our beloved CP.
    2. Outright incorrect spelling, or using a spelling that has been changed for that species, i.e. spathulata vs spatulata or hamiltoni vs hamiltonii.
    3. Missing punctuation, i.e. D.spatulata vs D. spatulata. A space after a "period" is a necessity for correct punctuation in english.
    4. Other frequent errors: d. anglica, D. Anglica, and DROSERA ANGLICA, to demonstrate a few.
    Since the forum is not a "formal" scientific venue, some informality is expected. Lack of italics or underlining is not very critical, though it can lend credence to what we post if we use correct spelling and formatting. We should however, take some effort to help inform those who may be unfamiliar with the proper way to write plant names, so that their communication can be less likely to cause any confusion. A recent example showed that D. cap 'Giant' was most likely a D. capillaris plant with a bogus cultivar name and not a D. capensis plant with a bogus cultivar name.


    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I do have a problem with bogus Sp. names, and since there is no central publication, drift in the spelling of such material is inevitable as there is nothing to compare the names with, so it hardly matters, does it? Bogus is bogus is bogus! If the names were registered, it would be different. I also have problems with people NOT correcting their bogus names when presented with evidence of the error because "I've already distributed so much of this that it would only cause confusion now to change the name", and I rather doubt that you approve of this either. Statements like this are absurd no matter who makes them. Bah!
    On this point I completely agree. If the material cannot be identified and it is worthy of cultivation, by all means, at least register it as a cultivar so it won't show up decades later under 10 or more different names.
    Joseph Clemens
    Tucson, Arizona, U S A

  6. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Tamlin,

    I'm not sure publishing a plant as a cultivar will avoid nomenclatural problems, because the same people who will misspell Genlisea sp."Itacambira beauty" will also misspell Genlisea "Itacambira beauty". Either way, the name has the same chance of soon becoming irrecognizable as the plant spreads in cultivation. Or worse, somebody will begin spreading seeds of something totally different (like a Utric) simply because that's what came up in their pots and they never crosschecked it with the source of the seeds, CP journals, or internet.

    In my opinion, publishing a cultivar name like Genlisea "Itacambira beauty" still requires CPers to do minimal botanical research and read about it somewhere. In the same way, CPers would have to check their Genlisea sp."Itacambira beauty" with what has been written on the internet or other sources.

    As I see it, the trouble one has to ID his plants is the same and and valid or invalid names are not the cause of problems. The real problem are people who are not careful with spelling of plant names (whether valid or not) and careless with what germinates in their collections.

    Obviously it's a much bigger problem if the person who introduced the plant to cultivation did not write something about it in some journal or web page. But if the information is available somewhere, written, then it shouldn't be hard to find out about it with tools such as this forum, CP listserv, etc.

    Ah, and when i mention misspellings, I'm not talking about informal exchange of e-mails, I get them wrong all the time too. I'm talking about labelling correctly on plant lists, seed lists, seed packets, web pages, papers, books, etc. It's surprising to see how bad the taxonomy is in several popular CP books. You'd think these authors would've taken the time to ID their pics correctly at least...

    >You mention your genetic study being skewed by the use of mislabeled material?

    Hmmm, don't remember this...

    >Well, I am not surprised. I wonder if it would be possible to do such a study based on material taken from the type collections?

    Possible yes, but you'd have to have A LOT of influence. That is, a VERY BIG name in the botanical/ taxonomical world. Curators are not very keen on people ripping off pieces of holotype material

    >I am leaning towards this notion in my seed testa research, and plan on going to the source.

    How is this work going

    >Relying on anything in private collections is risky. Even esteemed botanical garden directors are error prone with what they grow, no matter how many letters they have after their name.

    Any source of information obtained 3rd hand is questionable, no matter the source. Talking to Allen Lowrie about a week or 2 ago, he told me something in this line. After years of getting plants mixed up due to wrong info like papers, references to type material, etc., he's decided not to take ANY info for granted and to check it all himself.


    Take care,
    Fernando

  7. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HI Joe,

    > Is this what you mentioned where that horrible name, "D. aliciae var sessifolia" came from?

    Wow, I wasn't even aware of this name going around, or maybe I saw it and trauma erased it from memory!!!.

    Whatever it is, BURN it!! OK, maybe it would be better to just burn the label. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Fernando

  8. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    William,

    One more thing. Regarding cultivars, if I remember well CPN is the only "official" place to publish cultivars of CPs. And I know I sure wouldn't like to see its precious few pages cluttered with ugly cultivars... [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Fernando

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •