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!

Cultivar question & here's why

You are correct that most cultivars can't be propagated by seed. However, one can still sell seed from cultivars, right? That's all that's going on there. They're selling seed resulting from self pollinating cultivars.
 
By the widest definition, cultivars are defined by their appearance - therefore seed-grown plants that match a cultivar's description are included. But different schools of thoughts on it exist; I believe that, among some genera, the generally accepted rules are less relaxed.
I think there's another classification (maybe "named varieties?") that strictly refers to the original plant and clones. I don't remember which though.
~Joe

PS - Er, maybe not? mmlr38 might know better than me - I find taxonomy endlessly confusing. Generally, seed resulting from a cultivar crossed on itself has the suffix "F2" - the two denoting the second generation of selfing.
 
By the widest definition, cultivars are defined by their appearance - therefore seed-grown plants that match a cultivar's description are included. But different schools of thoughts on it exist;
Though I didn't say it in my post, I believe you are correct seedjar in that any plant that matches a cultivar's description is, in fact, the cultivar. I personally believe that the cultivar system is flawed for this reason. However, if you read the ICPS entries for all of the Dionaea cultivars (since this is posted in the Dionaea forum I assumed that's what we were talking about) they nearly all explicitly state propagation should be done vegetatively only. The only clone I can think of that's the exception is Dionaea 'Red Burgundy'.

These two contradictory facts (vegetative propagation only vs. any plant that matches the cultivar description) make the cultivar system even more convoluted. In the case of Dionaea, since they are so easy to propagate vegetatively and in tissue culture, I believe that the only plants that should be circulated under a cultivar name are exact clones of the original plant that was registered. I've still not heard from any reputable source whether or not this is the "correct" way of doing things, but it seems to me to be the only way that makes sense given that any particular plant can exhibit different characteristics from year to year or even at different points during the growing season. My thought is that the process of officially registering a cultivated variety is sufficiently laborious that people will probably have a very good idea of the growth characteristics before they even attempt to register the plant.

Anyway...coming down off my soap box now...
 
I just thought that it's a bit miss leading if at the end you spend a good couple of years getting your plant up to find that it's not going to be what you first bought by seed.

That's my point...

Noddy
 
I just thought that it's a bit miss leading if at the end you spend a good couple of years getting your plant up to find that it's not going to be what you first bought by seed.

That's my point...

Noddy
And I think your point is a good one Noddy. I think it's false advertising in a way. They should make it clearer that you're not guaranteed to get a plant that's like the parent plants, as most people are hoping to get.
 
Will the young plants of any particular cultivar be that particular cultivar if the parent plant is self pollinated ? Has anyone here tried this ? What were the results ?
 
Will the young plants of any particular cultivar be that particular cultivar if the parent plant is self pollinated ? Has anyone here tried this ? What were the results ?

No, not necessarily. While under the cultivar definition of matching appearance, some might be able to be included as a cultivar, but most would display a variety of traits that would not match the cultivar description.

Since, I believe, that common practice prior to registering a cultivar is to propagate it (presumably by vegetative methods, or else it wouldn't make any sense) and distribute some to various growers in various locations to see if the exceptional traits continue under other conditions, so having a non-vegetative-ly propagated cultivar would render this practice unnecessary; since whatever trait the original grower thought was exceptional could be based on something that is conditional and that could be reproduced by another plant elsewhere. I suppose (and this might be a reach) but if this practice of non-vegetative-ly reproduced cultivars is common practice and continues, couldn't someone just describe a plant that doesn't really exist and then seek it out later?

Personally, I think the whole cultivar issue (especially with regard to Dionaea) is ludicrous. In my opinion, no plant should bear the cultivar name and status unless it is a direct vegetative propagation from the originally described plant. With Dionaea cultivars that are described mostly (if not all) on exceptionally large trap size one can see how problematic the lackluster description can be when trap size is so variable to begin with.

That is exactly why I never got into the whole Dionaea 'B-52', Dionaea 'Big Mouth', and Dionaea 'Big Mama Jama', etc. etc. (ad nauseum) collection debacle. There really no legitimate way to prove any of the (sized based) Dionaea cultivars, outside of a few notable, well described exceptions or you got a vegetative-ly reproduced plant from the cultivar describer.

The only clone I can think of that's the exception is Dionaea 'Red Burgundy'.

The only other described description I can think of is Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White'. Any plant from this population or reproduced from Sarracenia leucophylla from the population and display the characteristics is considered to be a cultivar of that name; specifically stated: In order to maintain this cultivar’s unique hardiness, color, and size characters, do not attach the cultivar name to any seedlings that do not show the large white pitchers of this Sarracenia leucophylla cultivar.

xvart.

edit: I recall having a few rants about Dionaea cultivars in the past, so I went back to search for them and found a couple good threads surrounding this topic:
Where in the bog is the "B-52"
I Can't Believe I'm About To Ask This
 
Last edited:
Some cultivars breed true. Not everything is propagated vegetatively. Take S. leucophylla "Hurricane Creek" for example. It's a strain of leuco with a very white top with little to no visible red veining. These characteristics have become fixed within the population and the seeds from this strain will resemble the parents.
 
  • #10
Personally, I think the whole cultivar issue (especially with regard to Dionaea) is ludicrous. In my opinion, no plant should bear the cultivar name and status unless it is a direct vegetative propagation from the originally described plant. With Dionaea cultivars that are described mostly (if not all) on exceptionally large trap size one can see how problematic the lackluster description can be when trap size is so variable to begin with.
I totally agree with this.
The only other described description I can think of is Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White'. Any plant from this population or reproduced from Sarracenia leucophylla from the population and display the characteristics is considered to be a cultivar of that name; specifically stated: In order to maintain this cultivar’s unique hardiness, color, and size characters, do not attach the cultivar name to any seedlings that do not show the large white pitchers of this Sarracenia leucophylla cultivar.
Another carnivorous plant example is Darlingtonia californica 'Othello'.

Quoted from here: http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v27n2p40_42.html
As such, this cultivar may be propagated by seed as long as the resulting plants also lack anthocyanin.
Some cultivars breed true. Not everything is propagated vegetatively. Take S. leucophylla "Hurricane Creek" for example. It's a strain of leuco with a very white top with little to no visible red veining. These characteristics have become fixed within the population and the seeds from this strain will resemble the parents.
Since this topic was posted in the Dionaea forum, I assumed that we were only talking about Dionaea cultivars. I was aware that there are cultivars in other species, including S. luecophylla "Hurricane Creek White" and Darlingtonia Californica Othello, that are true to type through seed. There may be a few other carnivorous plant cultivars that are as well. And I'm sure that there are plenty of other cultivars that aren't carnivorous plants that can be sexually propagated and remain true to type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivar#Nature_of_a_cultivar
 
  • #11
Some cultivars breed true. Not everything is propagated vegetatively. Take S. leucophylla "Hurricane Creek" for example. It's a strain of leuco with a very white top with little to no visible red veining. These characteristics have become fixed within the population and the seeds from this strain will resemble the parents.

Define 'resemble' though. Out of a batch of seedlings some will be whiter than others. Some may have none or little red veining. The shapes and growth habit may be slightly different etc. etc.
 
  • #12
One serious problem in the "if it looks like the cultivar, it is the cutivar" approach is that many, if not most, of the cultivar descriptions are so vague that such a comparison is virtually impossible. In some cases there is not even a photograph to compare.

The classic example of the how messed up things can get is the example of Dionaea 'Akai Ryu' (aka 'Red Dragon'). Here is the official description:
"Growth habit and flower morphology are typical for this species. The leaf petiole, blade and trap exhibit dark maroon to burgundy coloration. Any green coloration has only been noted around the center of the plant in mid-winter. The entire trap, interior and exterior, exhibits dark burgundy coloration throughout the year. Grown under laboratory conditions, where nutrient levels can be comparatively high, the plants still exhibit partial burgundy coloration in the traps and leaf blade."
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v25n2p50.html

It is widely reported that 'Red Dragon' was originally specifically selected from a number of tissue culture candidates because of its exceptional coloration and large size. Over the years, because their plants looked like the description, many growers began to name and distribute their dark red seedlings and plants as 'Akai Ryu'. This has resulted in a lot of complaints that 'Red Dragon' is not a particularly impressive plant. Unless your plant has a direct pedigree from the original Agristarts III source, it is unknown what plant you actually have. To complicate matters, there are well-known tissue culture anomalies (sports) that are are caused by some genetic "mistake" during cell division -- resulting in a different looking plant (for example, 'Wacky Traps').

Some of the 'Red Dragon' plants in circulation certainly cannot be said to have exceptionally large size. An extreme example is my cultivar 'Petite Dragon', a plant that was marketed as 'Red Dragon'.
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v36n2p53_56.html
 
  • #13
I agree totally with BobZ.

If you got the plant from someone not knowing the true genetics of it, do not call it something just because it looks like a cultivar.
It seems like so many people get a VFT from a garden center, or some other source without any label, and it has to be something other then a typical when it looks nice.

I have some seed grown VFT's that look similar and nicer then some of the cultivars out there, guess what... it's just a typical.
 
  • #14
BobZ hit the nail on the head, and more well spoken than I did. If I ever described a plant for cultivar status it sure would have a beastly description, and would be so long and tedious that it would be a chore to read.

xvart.
 
Back
Top