Drosera "Sp. Chapada Diamantina"

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Don't bother reading this unless you have some care or concern about what you have in your collection as concerns it's true ID.  This is a long topic.


Anyone growing material labelled Drosera "Sp. Chapada Diamantina" sold or distributed as a  valid species from Brasil  should be aware that much of this material has been recently determined to be bogus, and most likely a Southern U.S. form of D. capillaris.  Please update your labels accordingly.

The thread of this discussion may be viewed at:

http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1593

(The discussion begins about 3/4 of the way down on page 1, and continues)

Likewise on the same thread it was determined that material in my collection known as D. aff. roraimae Araca has been assessed as possibly misidentified.  I don't believe I have shared any of this, prior to this revelation, but if I have please remove this name and do not redistribute the plant by this name.

Regarding the D. "Sp. Chapada Diamantina" please do not redistribute this material under its former (and bogus) name, if you have it in your collection via Sundew Matt.  Apparently he plans on not changing the name (see above), so likewise be aware of this, if you are seeking to obtain this plant from this source.  Other sources may or may not have legitimate material from this locality as mentioned in the thread I have provided the link too.   In any case, be alert that any material carrying this name may be incorrectly identified. I suggest you post a photo for Fernando to review while he is still in his skin to determine if your material is authentic within your collection.

This is a perfect examply why I so detest the sharing of "Sp. Anything" material: it only creates additional confusion and dissention further down the line for all concerned.  The rationales that such material may have horticultural merit and should spread despite the lack a positive ID is debateable, especially now that there is a way to define this  sort of merit using the cultivar registration process afforded by the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature through their registering authority who is Dr. Jan Schlauer, co-editor (along with D. Barry Rice) if the ICPN, and an officer in the ICPS.  If it is worth sharing, it is also worth giving a legitimate name to: one we can all access and agree on.

Registering bogus material PRIOR to distributing or selling it saves a lot of head scratching and hard feelings, and continuing to share and market material that is known to be bogus or incorrectly identified is simply not ethical.  I have been vocal on this subject before: this sort of bogus material needs to be boycotted.  "SP. Anything" is often just a way commercial concerns flesh out their catalogs, offering new and exciting and utterly meaningless material for you to quibble over in later years with growers all over the world!  Stop selling it, and stop spreading it around without registering it!  If you think it's a neat plant, that's great!  I LIKE neat plants, but I also like neat plants to be neatly identified.  I am talking to all you Nurserymen out there, and some of you are my friends even: if you have something with the initials Sp. after the species name, you are subscribing to the promotion of confusion and dissention.  You need to stop this, and register the plants you are selling!

Another source of bogus material are taxonomists and field researchers who make a field collection, assigning a temporary (although still bogus) name while they work out their phylogeny prior to publishing as a new species (or rejecting the material).  This also does no credit to future generations, and such material should likewise be legitimately registered and published as a cultivar BEFORE it ends up in circulation.  The use of names is inherent in our wiring: its how we understand and communicate, but this is partly why the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature initiated this registration process.  Please stop introducing bogus material into cultivation without pre-registering it!  Even if it is subsequently published as a species, it can still be a cultivar as well without botanical conflict, and referred  to in your species novae publication when and if that occurrs.

Another source of error in ID is continuing to utilize a Species Novae name after the publication has been rejected in review.  This is somewhat more forgiveable since there is still a holotype that may be consulted, and literature available discussing the material.  Names change with review, and effort should be made to keep up with these changes, and when noted, to in turn educate others of these changes when they are unaware of them.  This includes the proper spellings!  It's our responsibility to educate each other: there is no school out there to teach these things to those who have real interest in being a model grower or scientist.

I also address growers who form hybrids, whether natural or non-natural.  PLEASE register a name before you start sending your material willy-nilly into others collections.  If it's good enough to create and share, it is good enough to name!  Please use the tool!  This applies especially to non-natural hybrids.  Most growers HATE a good mystery!  Lately I have been seeing all sorts of South African hybrids, which although lovely, only add more confusion to an already excruciatingly difficult taxonomy. (Ivan, Greg: I hope you're reading this): remember the great words: "With awesome powers come awesome responsibilities......".

We all on occasion have a form unique to horticulture that we might wish to share and spread, but we now have the means to begin making sense of our collections, please, lets use it!  Until we do, there are no Drosera capillaris "Giant", no D. capensis "Thin leaf", no Dionaea muscipula "Pink erect giant cross toothed Joe Greenbottom".  If you want to use the name, then register it, otherwise just drop it and call it by it's legitimate scientific name, and nothing more, and let the new grower decide if it is worth registering!

To adopt any other attitude than this is to do a diservice to both botany and horticulture.  It is not ethical,  I do not approve of it, and neither should you!  We all send out material with names like "all red" or similar color descriptions,(I have too), but be aware that color and form can varry from grower to grower, and keep in mind that these terms are relative.  I view them as "qualifiers" and as such to be treated with a certain skepticism.  Assigning locality names is a different story, since it creates an expectation that the material comes from the location named.  I assure you, without herbarium placement, it does NOT.  (e.g. Don't trust that D. intermedia "Cuba" is from Cuba.  Most likely it is not.)  Its great that we have Fernando around to mail our photos to of the Brasillian "SP. This or That" but where will posterity be when Fernando is pushing up sundews (or is it Pings now?)?  Posterity is going to up up a tepui without a parachute, to paraphrase an old expression!

Every time I see names like D. Sp. "Auyan Tepui", or D. Sp. South Africa #4, or D. SP. "Pretty Rosettes" (No lie!) I wince and cringe.  Names like this are a botanical embarassment, and passing these bogus names on along with the plants is moronic to those seeking to intelligently deal with what they grow.  This may seem a bit harsh to the kid that just got his first Sundew and just grooves on it, but to other more serious growers of scientific inclination there is a different perspective, and here is why:  

Correctly identified collections are more than just a matter of personal pride: they provide valuable data and material to researchers, afford good consensus opinion, and most importantly can give the owner the best sense of how these species interrelate since very few of us will ever be field or herbaruium researchers: and it is percisely this sort of understanding of relationships within the genus that BOGUS material destroys!  Good growers care about these issues very much, and I very much want you all to be good growers.  Help the future by working hard here on your end in the "here and now" to keep things straight.

There is so much variation "out there" in the field within this genus, we just can't romanticize every one of them, and still have a clear head of what makes a species unique, but I can tell you, in many cases it is not their differences, but rather their placement within a commonality.

Ok, that's the end of my lecture on this, for now.  You can bet that I will be mentioning it again and again though.  We can't help but ignore what we are not aware of, but continuing to act ignorant after being informed is just plain stupid and a thing I have little patience for.

Thank you for caring enough to read this, and please remember, you *can* make a difference!

 

[Tom]

Ohhhh I love this almost rageous speach lol, and I know how you feel about this, and it is just as much as I do (and you surely know it) about sp. and misIDed plants

P.S. the URL don't work for me...

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Thank you sir. I have fixed the link.

 

[Copper]

Tamlin,

A suggestion is needed then.  I just recieved a sp. plant.  It was sent with legit plants as a freebie.  It is a nice plant.  I have tried to find information on it, but have been unsuccessful.  Besides not sharing it, what else do we do.  It would be nice to get it registered, but would I not first have to figure out if it is not already registered under another name.  As with the South African, it seems that many plants have been given a name, believing that it was a new plant, only to eventually find that the plant is already described under another name.  

With this plant I am going to let it grow out and flower.  Pictures will be taken.  Then I will again attempt to find it.

 

[SnowyFalcon]

Wow, if only more people cared about correctly IDing. Thanks for writing that Tamlin!

SF

 

[PlantAKiss]

Good rant.

It is something to be aware of and take heed. The taxonomy of these plants is a complicated riddle in many cases and mis-IDed plants only add to the mess.

I hope people read this and take it to heart.

 

[Copper]

I just hope Tamlin and the others can eventually sort out the mess, But of course that can only be done if the mess stops getting beigger.

 

[Joseph Clemens]

To know if a plant you have with questionable ID has a valid ID. You could start with getting some good digital pictures of the plant and possibly seed and flower shots as well. Post them on the "Identify that plant!" category. Check the CP Database, CP Database. You can look here for valid species, ones in bold type and even registered cultivars and there standards.

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

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.

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

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??

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

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

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.

 

[The Griffin]

Fernando,

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

Regards.

Joe

 

[Joseph Clemens]

<span style='color:red'>Tamlin,</span>

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>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.</span>

<span style='color:red'>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.</span>

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>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".</span>

<span style='color:red'>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.</span>

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>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"!</span>

<span style='color:red'>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.</span>

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>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.</span>

<span style='color:red'>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.</span>

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>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!</span>

<span style='color:red'>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.</span>

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

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

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

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.

Fernando

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

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...

Fernando

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Fernando,

You are quite incorrect in saying the CPN is the only "Official" publication possible.  Any publication with "wide distribution" is acceptable, provided that the official Registrar (Dr. Schlauer) is made aware of the publication.

I've discussed the potential with the CPN co-editors of publishing a Journal as a companion to the CPN, and they are ammenable.  This would free the CPN for more varied content and contribute towards a more timely publication.

What is needed is for people to understand the use of the tool!

Your concept of ugly is a relative and personal evaulation.  Cultivar registration has NOTHING to do with assessing merit.  You have this confused with the orchid cultivar concept, and the judges that grant awards to desirable material.  This is not the purpose that the ICBN registry is trying to afford, but it may create a method by which the community can be aware of these new forms, and later assign merit.  Whether this happens or not, it is not the primary focus, and nowhere has this been implied.  I think the very use of the term "Cultivar" was a mistake, since this concept is irrevokably married to the orchid side of horticulture.

Registration of CP names (not plants!) is a recording tool to enable intelligent discussion regarding bogus material by making it legitimate.  Simply that.  It applies to anything outside the legitimate binomial that is being distributed: whether it be pretty, ugly, common, rare: irrespective of genetics or production method, irrespective of who first produced or introduced it.  Without it, "Sp. I dunno's" will be a plauge to future growers, unnatural hybrids will create confusion and debate, and intelligent discussion of any of these plants will be vain.  If I sound like Jan in this to you, it's because he too understands and sees these things clearly.  He would know best, since nomenclature is his focus.

In the case if your G. "Itacambrina Beauty" since there is no LEGITIMATE centralized record of either the plant, or its name as regards proper spelling, it is all a matter of opinion as to what it is and how it is spelled.   I have probably mispelled it in the past on my own growlists, since it isn't in the CP Data Base or the CP cultivar registry to check.  I use Bob Ziemer's site to readily access correct spelling (when it matters) since it is easily accessed and based on the CP Database.  There is no reliable database entry to consult regarding the proper spelling.  Web site consensus is quite unreliable, both for photos and spellings: .  You think that 40 years after you are gone from the earth that there will still be some sense of what this material may or may not be?  After the websites are no longer maintained, where will any reference be?  Think ahead!  This isn't about the here and now, its about posterity.  Legitimate registery is maintained in perpetuem by the ICBN.  They are the reason we still know what plants Linneaus first recorded some 4 centuries ago!

Why would you be concerned if some newbie spells it right on a growlist, when you (and others) refuse to create a legitimate standard for them to learn to employ?  Yes, your travelouges are informative and much better than nothing (I have them all printed out, and I love them!), but a picture is worth a thousand words, and one legitimate publication is worth a thousand travelouges.

Nothing personal here my friend.  I admire your efforts and your person very much.  I chew everyone equally on this.  Someone has to try to educate, and present the facts regarding this tool, and I sure could use your support for the rationality of this rather than your arguments to the contrary!  If you don't want to trust my statements, check them with Barry or Jan.  We've discussed these things at some length, and I think I have a good clear concept of this process, and what it can afford to us now, and in the future.

Now if people would only listen!

Look at the "MESS" on the UK Forum regarding the near impossibility of discussing unpublished material like D. "Sp. Chapada Diamntina" "D. capillaris long arm form"  "D. aff. rorimae" and realize the only intelligent resolution came from posting reliable photographs and from your (hopefully) accurate recall of your intrepid adventures some 10 years ago!   I have the accounts, have read them and enjoyed them many times, but nowhere in them is there an actual detailed description of the material you saw, and few photos.  Such a description is nowhere but in your head.  I am very fond of your head, Fernando, but the fact remains, memory fades with age.  A small vein in the head goes "pop" and the information is locked away forever, lost.  We decline and pass on, but the information may now be conserved.  The tool is in place as has not been the case in the past!  I hope sometime you will see fit to make the wonderful gifts of your experience with these "Sp." thingys a true gift for the ages.  You deserve that.

Here are my other replies to this discussion:

Publication will resolve nomenclature by defining what is correctly spelled and what is not.  Publication sets this in stone.   Were I to call "Itacambrina Beauty" by another name, then that would be the only legitimate reference.  If I publised it as "Insain Impressuns" this would be the name by which the ages will call it, and only this spelling would be correct: if they care to be accurate, that is!

You can spell as correctly as you like, but if there is no legitimate publication to consult and tie to the name, then what is the sense?  Yes, if the information is published, it is reachable: See!  You do agree with me!

I totally agree that proper spelling is required regarding growlists, published photos, and sending out plants.  There is are times when being lazy is marginally acceptable and understandable, but these are not those times.

You said mislabeled D. aliciae/sessilifolia was used and a wrong ploidy count was the result, earlier in the post.  This is what I was referring to by a "skewed study".  I cited it as an example of why it is important to know what you grow, and also as an example of why you can't trust cultivated material.   I don't mean to imply that you made the ID error, but obviously someone did and passed it on to you.

The seed testa research is going like a snail riding on a turtle.  I can't use seed from cultivated collections as it is atypical and too prone to ID error, plus the everpresent concern of hybridogenic involvement -  and it takes forever to source and obtain native seed.  This is where I should once again make my pitch to you for a few native Drosera seeds when you happen by them!   If there were more such contributions, a good inclusive reference might someday be possible, but no one is really falling over themselves to assist.  I am expecting some native South African material (inviable, but utterly precious) collected by Debbert.  I no longer have the assist of the resources provided by the Idaho State Herbarium since my associate left for private employment.  I am looking into purchasing a good digital dissecting microscope (if I ever see that money I am waiting on) and will continue the work on my own.  I wonder if the herbariums would be willing to LOAN me the seed for the study?  I only need 3 seeds to mount and photograph, I'm not asking for all that much.  What other purpose is there for such material other than legitimate research like this?  Yeah, I am not BIG, but I have some pretty good references, even if I don't have a string of letters after my name.  Maybe this, along with my silver tongue, will win the day, and a three year knock out effort to find some good material for the study will actually be realized before I end up in a nursing home!  It is meant to be a gift, I do not intend on profiting from the reference, but finding good seed is like pulling rhinocerous teeth with chopsticks.

Kudos to Allen Lowerie for checking his seeds for accuracy!  He probably should have done this years ago.  He's going to have quite a time of it, regarding the length of his seed list: if he is going to check the all  his material  he should finish about the same time I have a complete seed reference to offer the world.....say around the year 3000.

 

[The Griffin]

Fernando,

I had a pack of seed from the ICPS(I think) that was labeled as that. I hope I am wrong on the source, as that would be a really bad place to get it, but it was under the old management if it matters.

Joe

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Seedbanks are only as accurate as the donors, whether this be the ICPS, Lowerie, Carnibank, or any of the society seed banks.  This also applies to Universities and Botancial Gardens. The only thing immune from errors are the holotype itself (and keep in mind that "typical" is also relative to the experience of the initial collector, and may or may not reflect accurate statistical variation across the range: this depends on the depth of the sampling). In other words, nothing is "For Sure".

P.S. Just to toot my horn a little, a good squeaky clean accurate seed testa reference might just possibly be of use to seedbank managers!

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey William,

OK, here goes another long one so please be patient with William and I! I'd just like to warn everybody 1st to please not think that I am offended by anything anyone wrote, especially you William. Remember that things always seem harsher when written, so just try to imagine me speaking the words below while all the time laughing about it, OK? I do get pissed off every once in a while, but it’s usually nothing I’ll take to my grave. And whenever I do get pissed off, I am always happy to tell that person so.

So don’t worry, cause if you step on my toes, I’ll tell you so -- and expect the same treatment too!

-------------------------------------------------------

To start off, I think my joke was lost in the text of my last message, my fault. I wasn't sure if CPN was the only place to publish cultivars, but if it was, I sure didn't want to see too much space taken up with cultivars(pretty or ugly) simply because cultivation is not really my interest. Hmmm, isn’t it ironic that I should be complaining about taking up space in CPN, considering that I clogged up 14 full pages in the last CPN issue?? Hahaha! 8-P

Anyways, I agree registering cultivars is a useful tool... but for cultivators, NOT taxonomists. I think that's where we're disagreeing (and as long as it's not done in CPN

). From a taxonomist's point of view, a cultivar is worth ZIP! I believe no herbarium specimen (holotype) is necessary for a cultivar description, right? If so, then excuse me, but who's not thinking about the future here? Who's gonna be able to prove 100 years from now whether I have the right cultivar or not if there isn't a holotype? A picture in an obscure publication will not be enough...

And from a cultivator’s point of view (I wonder if I can still do this), if the person is really keen on tying a name to his plant, he'll do it no matter if it's a cultivar or if it's a P.sp."whatever", especially with the internet. But if he's not, he'll get it wrong either way and will soon be growing D.capensis thinking it's a VFT!

And I want to make one point very clear to you (then maybe you’ll stop nagging me about it...

) that I certainly do worry about the future. My main objective on any CP trip is to collect herbarium material. I am close to 2000 collections already, which is pretty good if you consider that Lowrie is around 3000 -- and he had a good head start on me.

All my herbarium collections are deposited at the University of Sao Paulo for anybody who wants to see and study them. Sorry if that's WAY far south for some, but just remember that most of the holotypes for our flora are in Europe and the US -- and it really sucks sh*t that we have to go abroad to study our own flora! So the least a serious taxonomist should do is travel to the country of origin of the plants he wants to study.

Therefore you can relax, because if I fall off a mountain tomorrow and crack my head, any taxonomist that wishes to take up my work (karma?) would have it really easy. All my collections are in a public herbarium PLUS a quick search on the internet would give anyone all the information they could wish for on why I consider such and such plant different from another, since I write about everything. Not to mention all the pictures available too. It’s more than any taxonomist could wish for.

Look, you have to agree that I am not one to hog information like most taxonomist do until after they’ve published their new species, fearing that somebody could “steal” it from them. I believe in sharing information, even if this puts me at risk of having new species “robbed” from me by people anxious to see their own names attached to a new species, no matter how bad the description is. Incomplete or poor descriptions of new species only add to taxonomic confusion – and I think the goal of any such publication should be to help clear up taxonomy, don’t you?

Tell me the truth William, would you prefer that I 1st introduce a new species to cultivation with a bogus name and publish it years later, or only introduce it to cultivation years after discovering it, when I’ve finally published it? I think it’s a small price for cultivators to pay to have a D.sp.”whatever” going around for a few years, rather than waiting until it is published before you finally get a shot at cultivating it (or even seeing a picture of it), don’t you?

I’m sorry if this is a bit harsh, but I have to admit it rather pisses me off when cultivators who are used to sitting on their @sses, doing absolutely nothing to increase scientific knowledge of CPs, write to me telling me what I should or shouldn’t do in relation to plants I busted my *** to discover in the field. CP expeditions are not only tiresome, exaustive, difficult, and d@amn expensive, but often downright dangerous and life-threatenning too. I am not joking when I say that I often risk my life for these plants!! And then I have people write to me saying how “lucky” I am, as if I was on a Carribean cruise, geez!! Its got NOTHING to do with luck, it’s pure sacrifice.

Many CPers don’t seem to understand that I have a regular job just like most people, but that I spend almost all my money to pay for gasoline, car rentals, airplanes, hotels, etc., in order to hunt these plants down -- instead of simply wasting it all on myself as most people would do. And I don’t earn a salary in US dollars, Euros, or Yen either, which makes it all the more difficult. I sacrifice much of my personal life because of these plants, which I’m sure explains why I’m still single, hehehe! After all, who would be crazy enough to want a guy that is always going on long trips, driving literally thousands of kilometers in a single weekend and waking up at 5am every day, without even stopping to eat during the day in order not to waste any time And all the while knowing that plants go first, always! Hahaha!

So what I want to make clear is that NOBODY pays me to go CP hunting. It all comes out of my own wallet and my own vacation time when I could be relaxing on a tropical beach instead of killing myself climbing dangerous mountains. I’ve only ever accepted donations from 2 people, and this was for my last 2 trips to Venezuela which were very expensive due to rented airplanes and helicopters. My interest in CPs is purely scientific. I have no commercial nor career interests in publishing new species, it will not bring me any money nor something to put on my CV when I apply for a job. All I want is to understand better the carnivorous flora of Brazil, S.America, the world. I want to publish papers that will make things clearer, not foggier.

Therefore it does not seem at all “fair” when people tell me I have to publish quickly, just so they can write a name on a label and stick it in a pot. And this from people who are often living right next door to widely-known potential new species, but for some reason can’t be bothered with their time and money to do a little field work of their own (D.capillaris and Pings in the SE USA ring a bell??). Yet they somehow feel they’re in a position to bother other people they’ve never even met about certain plants growing thousands of miles away.

Speed in publication is not in the best interest of anyone except commercial growers and taxonomists who need to publish papers in order to get grants. So if I take several years to publish a new species, please remember that this is so because I want to publish a full report, not just throw another name in the pot. And unfortunately nobody has yet offered to pay me to do full time taxonomical work at home and get all these names out faster, I do have a career to worry about too.

So back to cultivar names. Publishing cultivars is a useful tool, but I still believe it is only good for horticulture, not for science. In my point of view a cultivar name should only be applied to plants that have horticultural interest, but which do not deserve a taxonomic rank of their own, whether species, subspecies, or variety. If a plant is believed to be a new species, then people should work on actually publishing it as such, and not as a cultivar. If somebody is already working on it (which is the case with many of the plants I’ve discovered), then just be patient and WAIT! Putting a cultivar name on it, which will soon become invalid once the new species is published, will NOT help at all, in my opinion. The same lazy CPers who do not care about writing names correctly will get it wrong either way, while the really interested and responsible ones like you will try to maintain some order whether the name is G.sp.”Itacambira beauty”, G.”Itacambira beauty”, or G.itacambiraensis. The internet is here to help spread the word.

In short (hehehe),
Fernando