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!

Female Nepenthes hamata

  • #21
Something else to consider is that there have been very few hybrids done where hamata is the female parent. Reversing a cross such as ventricosa x hamata, for example, could give valuable insight into what differences there are between having the hamata being the male or female parent. Who knows the results could even be more than "mediocre". At any rate, any sort of hamata hybrid would translate into a boat-load of cash for you.

I'm not interested in letting potential financial gain motivate me to make a hybrid I don't care about. I gotta be interested in the results to be bothered doing it. I've got a male N. ovata in bloom right now and a male N. boschiana as well. The latter is something I am considering using. We all know what great progeny boschiana makes :-O
 
Last edited:
  • #22
I totally understand, more props to you if you are in the position to make such a decision anyway.

N. hamata x boschiana would almost certainly not be mediocre (at least to the majority of enthusiasts). If you can't find the male hamata, I don't see why that romance shouldn't occur.
 
  • #23
What! Bosch is nice and all, but I couldn't pass up Hamata x Ovata! At least there would be some chance of retaining the teeth.
 
  • #24
What! Bosch is nice and all, but I couldn't pass up Hamata x Ovata! At least there would be some chance of retaining the teeth.

Christian,
I've seen enough hamata hybrids to know that the teeth are rarely retained to a significant degree, no matter what you cross it with. N. ovata is a fairly squat pitcher whereas N. boschiana is much more elongated. Since I prefer long, thin pitcher forms (preferably displaying a waist), the hamata X boschiana option is immediately more appealing to me, since I doubt either cross would have much in the way of teeth anyway. (I'm thinking of J. Harris's pretty-but-toothless N. spectabilis X hamata)
 
  • #25
I know of a source of raff pollen....
 
  • #26
I know someone with a male lowii flowering currently.
Correction: will be flowering in a week or two.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
I know someone with a male lowii flowering currently.
Correction: will be flowering in a week or two.

That'll be too late. I don't think those would be well suited anyway. But thanks.
 
  • #28
N. rafflesiana pollen would almost certainly provide the toothiest offspring out of the aforementioned species.
 
  • #29
N. rafflesiana pollen would almost certainly provide the toothiest offspring out of the aforementioned species.

EP has done that cross before, or well, they've done the reverse cross. Uppers are very dull and like many hamata crosses very soft, also why I think a tall bosch would be second best to ovata ;-) ;-)
 
  • #30
N. rafflesiana doesn't interest me either. As Christian has pointed out, it's another very soft-bodied pitcher and I'm not especially fond of thin-walled pitchers.

I'm not interested in any further speculation on making various hybrids. I'm not likely going to pollinate this round of flowers at all, given the inavailability of hamata pollen. Thanks for the suggestions though.
 
  • #31
I'm not interested in any further speculation on making various hybrids. I'm not likely going to pollinate this round of flowers at all, given the inavailability of hamata pollen. Thanks for the suggestions though.

At least you now know the plant's gender. You may be able to find pollen easier the next time now that it's a known female. From now, until it blooms again, you could find some suitable pollen to store, or even be lucky enough to find a male in bloom at the same time. If nothing else, you've definitively proven that there ARE female N. hamata in widespread cultivation.
 
  • #32
If nothing else, you've definitively proven that there ARE female N. hamata in widespread cultivation.

The fact that its a Wistuba clone is noteworthy, since the popular mythology (and thats exactly what it is: a myth) is that the Wistuba hamatas are all male, which obviously is not the case. The same myth exists for BE plants - many people have gleefully stated that all BE species are males because they cull all females from their stock, which is utter nonsense, of course. I have one of the BE singalana Belirang clones and it is flowering right now, and its female.
 
  • #33
Andreas himself commented on this recently, questioning why people believe all of his plants are males, saying that they're definitely not, and that most he hasn't even seen flower.

Worth noting, I held out until the 11th hour with the campanulata flowers and it paid off for both the male and female. Worth the wait.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Does nobody freeze pollen , shame you can't find some frozen species pollen
 
  • #35
Andreas himself commented on this recently, questioning why people believe all of his plants are males, saying that they're definitely not

I dare say there are two likely reasons behind this. First is that people are probably confusing AW clipeata clones which, to date, have all proven to be male. Second, for a time a few years back the anti-TC crowd was pushing the idea that something about the TC process meant that all Neps came out male. This was/is unsubstantiated crap.
 
  • #36
Second, for a time a few years back the anti-TC crowd was pushing the idea that something about the TC process meant that all Neps came out male. This was/is unsubstantiated crap.

There's a lot of unfortunate mythos surrounding the TC process.
 
Back
Top