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!

Sarracenia purpurea var. venosa subp. montana

  • #21
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Oct. 11 2005,10:58)]Pyro, The plant came from Brooks Garcia. He had it verified by Ron Gagliardo. If you want to know how he got it, ask him, and do it straight up. Brooks will, no doubt, be more than willing to tell you all about it. No behind the back stuff is necessary here, just ask Brooks. Ask him, and get your answer without all this pussyfootin' around.
Bug,

I am not pussyfootin' and I rather resent the implication that I am trying to pull some nefarious behind the back thing.

Did you even read my post?!?

I directly asked Jerry who he got the plant from (not how) and it is right there in my post. I said that if he was not comfortable posting it in public (something that some people don't like to do) then he could PM me. That isn't "pussyfootin' " that is called being considerate. You will also note that I said I suspected who it came from anyways and my suspision was that it was Brooks (as he has been the source for many of the montanas out there.)

As for asking Brooks, I don't have to do that because I already had nice long conversation with Brooks about his montanas some time ago. I was well aware of the fact that they were confirmed to be that by Ron.

The point I was making (which is plainly stated for anyone who took the time to actually read my post) is that if Jerry's plant came from the person I suspected it came from (i.e. Brooks) then it is NOT the Georgia form of montana. It is the Tom's Swamp NC form. And I know this because I also had a nice long conversation with Ron about it. He put that one into TC while with AgriStarts so any commercial montana you get is the NC form.

So there go go. No pussyfootin'. No behind the back stuff. Just coming straight to the point and saying that your hasty identification of the plant as the GA form was wrong. And my goal was to clear that up (which, again, is right there in my original post.)
 
  • #22
Hmmmmm. I was told differently. So then that clears that up, and no pussyfooting was necessary. However, you can take whatever I say anyway you want. If you think I implied anything, well that's on you. Personally, it doesn't matter as to anything but identification, which I am glad is finally cleared up. Again, I was told differently, but that does not matter as long as we know the facts. If you feel attacked, too bad, I didn't attack you, though you feel I did. You feel like resenting, then knock yourself out while I pay attention to what matters. Growing CP, and getting the ID's right. Thanks for that part anyway, Pyro, while I ignore the rest. Too sensitive, compadre. And in this group, you can't afford it, unless you like being mad.
 
  • #23
Funny, if it was only about clarification of ID then the proper course of action would have been to wait until Jerry posted and see what I had to say or to state that according to the information you had it was the GA clone.

I cannot think of a single reason that clarification of ID would require you to make comments about me doing things "behind the back" or "pussyfootin' " or that I was not doing things "straight up". None of those things have anything to do with identification but they very much come off as jabs at me. Maybe I am wrong, it happens often enough to be sure. I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong either, I just don't see how your comments have any relation to my want to correct the identification of the plant.
 
  • #24
Oh, and as for being mad, I am not. Bothered, yes. Mad, no. If I were mad I would not have even bothered answering because that is just my way.
 
  • #25
Hey Folks,

I've had the pleasure of seeing S. purpurea in the wild at two NC sites (including the type location) and (AFAIK) the only GA site and the only SC site, and I'll readily admit that I sure as Kadath couldn't be sure I could differentiate these purps from ones I've seen in coastal NC, NJ, VA, or elsewhere on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Only the plants at the type site had the curled-in hood.

IMHO.

B
 
  • #26
I have learned from a reliable and very trusted source that Tom's Swamp is not in NC. So this means that I was wrong about the form I am growing and the TC clone. However, since the tag on my plant says NC and since it came from someone I figured would know I took it on faith that they were right. It seems I need to check back with them about where Tom's Swamp actually is. So, not fully my fault but I take responsibility for my screw up. And I have no clue now where Tom's Swamp is.
 
  • #27
spurp66.jpg


This a photo of var. montana from Barry Rice's site, from his trip to NC. Read about it here: http://www.sarracenia.com/trips/ncsc2005.html
 
  • #28
The link does not work,but thanks for posting the picture.Thats probably what my purp will look like when it gets bigger.

                                                             Jerry

Alvin Meister - should work now
smile.gif
 
  • #29
Here is a picture of the S. purpurea ssp. venosa var montana I have been growing for the past four years. As Homer stated, it came from the same location.

montana.jpg
 
  • #30
Brisco! Where you been guy?????
 
  • #31
That's the typical var. montana you see about - lovely stripey pitchers and enclosed hood.

Barry's reasoning for the above being var. montana is because it's slap bang in the range for the variety. Maybe there are typical venosas mixed in, in certain bogs
smile_l_32.gif
 
  • #32
Hey Folks,

My photos of Sarracenia purpurea var. montana are all on line at:
http://www.sarracenia.com/galleria/g261.html

FWIW, the images of the GA plants are all from the only GA location, the images noted as "NC I" through NC VII" are all from one NC site, "NC VIII" and "NC IX" are from the "type" NC location, and "SC 1" through "SC VI" are all from the only SC location for the species.

These are field photos, so the IDs are good. For my money, the Georgia plants are very pretty.

I'd be hesitant to identify this taxon based on the nature of the venation, alone, as you can see in the photos. Even the candy-cane type venation as seen in the GA plants are expressed in plants from other locations, such as ones from the Virginia coastal plain (one such photo can be seen on the link given above).
 
Back
Top