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!

Ping Pics

Here are two of the plants that I received from Joseph a little while back, P. 'Sethos' and P. 'Huahuapan'.

P. 'Huahuapan'
huahuapan.jpg


P. 'Sethos'
sethos.jpg

(Yeah, I know, it ain't so red anymore.
smile_n_32.gif
)

-Ben
 
Ben,
A very nice job acclimating them to your conditions. They appear to be doing very nicely. Despite the lack of red pigment in the Pinguicula 'Sethos', its leaves are still well formed.

BTW you can revise the label on the one to, Pinguicula 'Huahuapan'. It does match the standard for this cultivar and it was an error on my part to write the label as a "var" of moranensis.
 
Alright, I'll change that.

-Ben
 
ok...and my mex pings look like crap. they have no roots and are getting funges...ill probly have to start over with new plants (any one interested!?
smile.gif
) good looking pings ya got there!
Alex
 
Ben... same thing happened to me. But it was easily reversed when I put them under a shoplite. It only took a week or so to begin to turn pink.
 
my P. 'Sethos' looks like yours but is a little bit more of a rusty color and has much less leaves(does any one know why?).
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Farmer Dave @ Oct. 29 2006,3:55)]my P. 'Sethos' looks like yours but is a little bit more of a rusty color and has much less leaves(does any one know why?).
Being unfamiliar with the precise conditions you are keeping you plant in --- a correct diagnosis would be somewhat difficult. Usually it is a matter of "balance" in terms of the environmental factors the plant is subjected to. Almost any factor, or group of factors, can be responsible for the present appearance of your plant. If its getting enough light to develop a pink/reddish blush, then I would tend to rule out light. I would think of the other factors, factors that the plant needs in order to utilize the light it is getting. Does it capture lots of prey? Or is it starving for nutrients? Is there suitable free moisture in the media? Is the media open enough to provide good aeration of the roots? Etc.
 
  • #10
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Joseph Clemens @ Oct. 28 2006,8:07)]BTW you can revise the label on the one to, Pinguicula 'Huahuapan'. It does match the standard for this cultivar and it was an error on my part to write the label as a "var" of moranensis.
Joseph,

I am pretty sure "Huahuapan" is a location, not a cultivar
smile.gif
 
  • #11
<span style='color:darkblue'>Pyro,
Following is an excerpt from the CP Database concerning this cultivar.

It was registered on my birthday, in 1998 by Adrian Slack:</span>

"N: $[Pinguicula ' Huahuapan ' {Hort.Slack}]
P: Insect-Eat.Pl. & How to Grow Them:110 (1986)
S: =[Pinguicula moranensis {H.B.K.}]
HC: Registered 10. 11. 1998 (JS)
Nominant: A.Slack
Introducer: A.Slack, from Huahuapan, Mexico
Registrant: A.Slack
Description: Insect-Eat.Pl. & How to Grow Them:110 (1986)

"(...) Thus, in [Pinguicula ' Mitla ' {Hort.Slack}] the purplish to carmine pink (corolla) lobes are so narrow as to give a spidery appearance; they are rather less so in [Pinguicula ' Huahuapan ' {Hort.Slack}], and of lilac pink with crimson touches at their base. In [Pinguicula ' Vera Cruz ' {Hort.Slack}] the flower is of similar form to [Pinguicula moranensis {H.B.K.} var.caudata {(Schlecht.) Hort.Slack}], but it is of deep rose with more substantial basal marking."

Standard: Insect-Eat.Pl. & How to Grow Them:110 (1986)
Etymology: after the locality from which the plants were collected
image: pinguicu/loyd37: plant with flower
image: Check Bob Ziemer's Photo Finder"
 
  • #12
Well based on that I guess it is safe to say it is actually both. Guess I should ammend my growlist
 
  • #13
Actually, isn't "Huajuapan" the location? Just that somebody heard "jua" and it's pronounced "hua" so they did "Huahuapan"? When you search "Huahuapan" on google images, it says "Did you mean Huajuapan?" And that is apparently a place in Mexico (or in that area).

-Ben
 
  • #14
It gets pretty good coloration, and catches quite a bit of bugs, It has the same soil as all of my other cps, so it might not be getting enough root aeration
 
  • #15
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Pyro @ Oct. 30 2006,9:17)]Well based on that I guess it is safe to say it is actually both. Guess I should ammend my growlist
But, curious though, I've seen too many completely different plants labeled as Pinguicula moranensis var. huahuapan, and other inaccurate variations. Seems that some spell it Illuahuapan, among other spelling variations. Aparently it is actually spelled Huajuapan, though that is only the contemporary spelling. It seems difficult to determine which, if any, are the actual cultivar, I have little confidence that the link in the CP Database, which appears to be of Pinguicula rectifolia, is actually the cultivar, since it bears little resemblance to the actual cultivar description and the published description identifies it as being derived from Pinguicula moranensis. I certainly wish I had obtained a copy of Adrian Slack's book, where this standard is published, among others, back when they were more readily available.

BTW, if anyone has a copy of the particular publication where the standard for this cultivar is located and you are willing to scan it and send me a copy to compare my plants against, I'd be very grateful.
 
  • #16
Hey Joseph,

I have IEP, I'll look at it and bring it in tomorrow for a round with the scanner.

As for the Illuahuapan vs. Huahuapan, I have both and they are, to my eye, very different plants. Odd that I never really caugfht the similarity in the name, I just figured they were both seperate localities...
 
  • #17
Hi guys,

I drove by this Mexican town a few times on my way to hunt for Pings in Oaxaca, when I lived in Mexico 3 years ago. Apparently there is more than one correct spelling for the town's name, I remember seeing on different maps both "Huahuapan" & "Juajuapan".

Take Care,
Fernando Rivadavia
 
  • #18
Well I looked at IEP and I think I was correct in my initial comment. I think the good Dr made a couple mistakes when classifying these.

The first mistake is that he did not read the full text on the page:

"Some distinct horticultural forms of this variety [moranensis] exist... Geographical forms of this species show an astonishing range of variation... They are usually named after the geographical area in which they have been found. Thus in 'Mitla'..."

The second mistake is a bit more honest. British authors very often use only a singe quote (') where we Americans would normally use the double quote ("). This is very obvious if you have ever read any British novels. Through out his book Slack uses the single mark where we would normally use the double on plants that are not cultivars (for example S. flava 'Maxima' and 'Heavily veined form' or D. sp. 'Lake Badgerup'). Unless you are aware of this perculiar habit it is easy to be misled by what you read.

So I stand by my contention that "Huahuapan" is nothing more than a location name.
 
  • #19
Well, intentional or not, cultivars are simply a way to connect a unique name to a written and published description along with a photograph illustrating that plants unique characteristics. I understand that Dr. Jan Schlauer, by use of previously published works, was doing his best to catch up with plants already in cultivation, he recorded registrations for those plants already having met the criteria for valid cultivar registration - perhaps unintentional by some authors but valid nevertheless.

Several, very popular cultivars are published in the book Insect-Eating Plants and How to Grow Them, written by Adrian Slack, so I finally located my own copy for $56.00 plus shipping, through Amazon.com. I anxiously await its arrival, so I can finally see a copy of this book for myself.

Of course, no one is "required" to use cultivar names, or any names at all. Its simply another tool to assist communication about our plants. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread. I've already acquired several plants, each labeled as [(Huahuapan, Illuahuapan, etc.)] and several appear to be distinctly different from each other, while others appear identical to each other. My notion is to check them all against the published description and standard photograph in an attempt to validate if any of them are the cultivar Pinguicula 'Huahuapan'. If one or more meet this criteria, I see no reason not to use the cultivar name for it. At least that will reduce, by a small amount, the level of confusion concerning the name, (Huahuapan), as it concerns Mexican Pinguicula. My major motivation in supporting plant naming conventions, after all, is to know as much as I can about the plants that I grow.

I could rename every plant that I receive, giving them names of my own choosing, and then redistribute them to the CP world. My name, would, most likely, be remembered in infamy after that. I rather, choose to do my best to support the efforts of those who create and refine the established methods of naming and identifying the plants we grow, to positively identify those plants I receive; learn and use their correct names as accurately as I am capable of. Cultivar registration, if used, can help all of us to keep the names and their respective plants, together.
 
  • #20
Well, the P. 'Sethos' has turned more red, and the leaves are flatter down, and it looks a whole bunch better, so here's another pic of it.

sethos2.jpg


-Ben
 
Back
Top