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!

TC defects: The latest bugbear of CP growers?

Pyro

N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L
Moderator
I keep seeing this topic pop up in other threads rather than hijack those threads I decided to open a new one for a discussion of this.

More and more of late I have been seeing what can only be described as an anti-TC movement among the CP community. And I am more than a little curious to know where this is coming from.

I have seen numerous reasons put forth as to why TC is such an evil thing (some rational, some totally irrational) but the one that has been bugging me most of late is the one that states that TC and the chemicals used there in cause frequent and dramatic mutation/defects. Where is this idea coming from and how is it being perpetuated??

I do not deny that TC mutations happen (we all know about cup trap and pom-pom and straw lid) but why do so many people jump right to "TC induced problem" as an answer when there seems to be something wrong with a plant??

It is as if people are convinced that TC induced effects happen at the drop of a hat. This is not the case at all.

I am more and more convinced that people are just jumping on a band wagon for no reason other than "it sounds good to me"... There was a similar rash of this a few years back where, whenever someone posted a picture of a plant, half the board would immediately ID it as some type of cultivar.

I have been on these forums since the beginning and I have not met/seen many people here who have extensive or deep knowledge of TC. Yes, there are people here who do some home kit tinkering but there is a big difference between a home kit person who is a bit green and someone who has years of hands on experience.

I have personally been involved with a professionally run TC lab for a number of years now and in that time I have deflasked (conservatively) hundreds of plants. In all that time and among all those plants I have not once come across any type of aberration/mutation/defect that could be said to be TC induced.

So why is it that so many people believe that a mutation or an aberrant growth pattern automatically means the plant without a doubt came from TC and is suffering from the effects of exposure to the chemicals are used in that practice?

Can someone please explain it to me?
 
well..I think its simple.

if the majority of defects, such as most of the VFT mutated leaves, sawtooth, "bart simpson" cup-track, etc are all coming from TC plants, and are not coming from "naturally" propagated plants, then the obvious conclusion is "TC causes more mutations than seen naturally".

I agree no one should assume ALL or ANY mutation is automatically a result of TC,
because mutations do occur naturally...but its also obvious there has been a clear increase in the amount of mutations coming from TC plants.
a much higher percentage than occur naturally.

So why is it that so many people believe that a mutation or an aberrant growth pattern probably means the plant likely came from TC and is suffering from the effects of exposure to the chemicals are used in that practice?

they believe that..well..because its true.

Scot
 
TC lab for a number of years now and in that time I have deflasked (conservatively) hundreds of plants

i would say you have deflasked hundreds of flasks but there have been thousands of plants........thats just going by whats been sent my way......

without TC, most of us would not be able to afford most nep species, let alone get our hands on them a few years after discovery as has been the case a few times. without TC no way in hell would i experiment with VFT's the way i do for the hell of it more than anything..........are there occationally issues with TC plants? sure.......but the benifits FAAAAAR out weight the occational TC induced mutation
 
But it is not true.

Let us look at the VFTs closer since you cite them.

but its also obvious there has been a clear increase in the amount of mutations coming from TC plants.

This is not the case. Just because those mutants are common in the trade does not mean that they commonly occur in TC. I know of no onew ho has actually gone about the real time documentation of mutation occurrence in TC so you can not say that it is clear that there is an increase in the amount of mutations coming from TC. (Plus, on a personal note, if it is so obviously common, then why have I not seen anything in all the plants I have worked with in the past years??) How many times have those aberrant phenotypes occurred spontaneously? I do not know of any documentation on any except the "Bart Simpson" (which has only popped up the one time AFAIK.) What we have is a clear increase in the availability of the mutations on the market. So the reason we see so many of them is because once the trait is found it is then perpetuated. Not that the trait keeps popping up hundreds of thousands of times. People like the novelty of the cup-trap and "Bart" so the cup-trap and "Bart" have become independent clone lines, cup-trap is TC'd over and over and over to supply the demand and people are propagating the "Bart" as fast as possible for the same reason. I do not believe the sawtooth types are definitively TC mutants because some, I believe, are the result of selective breeding (I may be wrong on that.) The trait itself is also inherited so you can breed more sawtooth from a sawtooth line. Which, again, perpetuates and increases the numbers in cultivation but has no bearing on the actual occurrence in TC. To draw an analogy, albinism is not a common trait in snakes but go to a reptile show and every third animal you see is an albino... The trait is perpetuated because people like it. But if you take the time to actually track the parentage of those albinos then you find that they all trace back to a relatively few (in some cases a single pair) of progenitor animals.

Also the TC mutants we have are well documented because we are such a small group and word of a novel form spreads fast. But just because something is "well documented" does not mean that it is common. There are genetic disorders that are extremely well documented down to the specific error in the pathway the gene is involved in, but the disorder itself has only been found in a dozen people worldwide. 1 in 600,000 is by no means wide spread but, to those people in that specific field, the disease is common knowledge.
 
Well TC is a huge method propagating many plants in the horticultural industry, from shrubs to some annuals. And I have never once heard anyone blame any mutations or problems on TC in the gardening community. In part it is because we cant tell what was tissue cultured and what was not. And far, far more plants are propagated using TC for the horticulture industry than for the CP hobby.
 
Well TC is a huge method propagating many plants in the horticultural industry, from shrubs to some annuals. And I have never once heard anyone blame any mutations or problems on TC in the gardening community.

Indeed Finch and I was not going to bring that up as it seems a whole other can of worms. But it is very logical question, if people are so convinced that TC causes mutations then why do we not see gross abnormalities in things like orchids and ornamentals that are produced at significantly higher numbers than CPs??
 
I feel that it's up to the lab / person on how much he or she is willing to risk the induction of defects.

If you want standard run of the mill plants, pick your traditional route.
If you need hundreds of plants, you start adding chemical to induce the multiplication.
If you are looking to expose a different trait in the plant, you pick another chemical trying for a mutation on purpose.

Hell if you want to create one of those awesome potato / tomato hybrids, whip out the gene gun and fuse the buggers together.

I'd say all of these different routes take different risks with mutation. Once a mutation occurs, the ethics / goal of the lab then is put into the spot light. You see the problem, but throwing it away = loss of product. When we are paying $125 for a < 3" N. Jamban, chucking anything out is a hard choice to make when you're looking at the bottom line.

I have been on these forums since the beginning and I have not met/seen many people here who have extensive or deep knowledge of TC. Yes, there are people here who do some home kit tinkering but there is a big difference between a home kit person who is a bit green and someone who has years of hands on experience.

They're here, you're just not looking hard enough. ;)
 
You don't know where it's coming from? It's coming from Hawaii!

Some people have a cult-like devotion to seed grown plants, and it's as if they have a personal vendetta against TC. They aren't afraid to beat it into your head like Evangelicals, either!

The bottom line is that people who talk about replacing TC'd plants with seed grown plants on a large scale are silly. I don't see things like N. clipeata, N. rajah, N. villosa, etc. flowering in cultivation every day, do you? These aren't even the $150 plants that people have to be put on waiting lists for! Then again, the bombastic ringleader of this movement DOES claim to have seed grown N. rajah. Too bad he refuses to post pictures of them because either he's lying or paranoid. But this isn't about him, I digress. It's just hard to seperate the two since they have become so intertwined.

Do I think seed grown plants are bad? NO! Not at ALL! I believe we need MORE seed grown plants, but not at the expense of fewer TC'd plants. The reason is simple: More is just better! The idea of replacing TC with SG on a wide scale is a pipe dream. TC may not provide diversity, but it DOES provide stability and the assurance that you know what you're getting every time. On the off chance that a stable mutation does occur, it'll probably a good thing (Like Rob's fabulous variegated plants!)

In summation, the idea of REPLACING non-cultivar TC with all seed grown plants is fanaticism. The idea of supplementing the hobby with more seed grown plants, without going off the deep end like some zealot and professing the need to replace the TC industry, is a Godsend. Fortunately we have people like EP and Sam Leilani doing the latter, instead of the former which no one is doing anything about...except for COMPLAINING and preaching. Tissue culture does nothing but make the unobtainable obtainable to the hobbyist and the uncommon common to the consumer. Look at Dionaea. It's native to one tiny little spot in the world. It is a pretty rare plant if you look at it on a world-wide scale. Now with TC, they are a dime a dozen and anyone can buy, kill, and replace as many as they'd like without worry because there is, for all purposes, and UNLIMITED amount of the same thing, just like those subdivisions where each house is just like the next. As long as people keep shelling out money for their whiny kid to get one, and as long as we hobbyists keep buying them on sale and nursing them back to life, the unobtainable is obtainable for all.
 
They're here, you're just not looking hard enough. ;)

I did not say I had not seen anyone just that I had not seen many who were above the level of home TC :)

I know there are a number of tinkerers here. But when talking about this kind of thing I think tinkerers are more likely to see mutants because, due to their lesser experience they are more likely to make a mistake that could induce a problem. Anyone doing anything for the first time is going to make small mistakes that is part of learning. Sometimes that means they contaminate their media and other times it might mean they add just a little too much or too little of something. And in the realm of biology/genetics even micromolar errors can have big effects. Someone who has been doing it long term is much less likely to make those kind of mistakes.

And I have posted before looking for people who are doing TC at a level higher than home kits. No one replied...


I see your points and for the most I agree (and where I do not I can probably put it down to differing opinion on my part which makes me neither wrong nor right).

I still think people overplay the mutation/aberrant growth = mutation card though.

Yes, chemicals can cause multiplication and mutation but their presence does not necessarily mean they will. An example is N. rajah. This thing hyper-multiplies in normal media that lacks multiplication factors, as exemplified by Rob C.'s 20,000 plants. And in all those 20,000 plants Rob has seen all of three that are variegated. So for that trait we have a spontaneous rate of 1 in 6500. That is a lot more than 1 in 600,000 but in the grand scheme of things it really is not all that high an occurrence rate
 
  • #10
(and where I do not I can probably put it down to differing opinion on my part which makes me neither wrong nor right)

Welp, only one way to settle that... two words. -ARM WRESTLING-. Lets go!
 
  • #11
Alright. You and me. Right here right now.

LOL
 
  • #12
are there occationally issues with TC plants? sure.......but the benifits FAAAAAR out weight the occational TC induced mutation


i agree... without TC, we'd only have D. capensis collections :)
 
  • #13
But it is not true.


how do you know its not true?
the fact that you have not personally deflasked any mutations is irrelevant.

you actually dont know how many mutations are from TC and how many are not..

so you are just guessing too..

I understand your point..but your point is just guesswork.
you might be right..you might be wrong.

all I know is that the increase in mutations came along at the same time as the increase in TC..are those facts related? maybe..maybe not.
but it seems a lot more likely to favor the "TC causes more mutations" theory.
if it is just a coincidence, its a big coincidence!

unless anyone has any factual data to support either position, this discussion is pretty useless..

I know there are a number of tinkerers here. But when talking about this kind of thing I think tinkerers are more likely to see mutants because, due to their lesser experience they are more likely to make a mistake that could induce a problem. Anyone doing anything for the first time is going to make small mistakes that is part of learning.

why does it matter who is doing the TC-ing?
for the purposes of this discussion, the end result is still "TC equals more mutations"..
which I thought you were arguing against? ;)

Scot
 
  • #14
JLAP,

Its funny that you mention seed grown N. Rajah plants. While it would certainly be a good thing if seed grown rajahs became available (esp. for the anti-tc crowd), it would not matter much.

A central platform of the anti-TC movement is that seedgrown plants are more genetically diverse, and thus "easier" in the sense that certain seed-selected clones may turn out stronger and more tolerant than what the TC wholesalers are distributing. Many anti-tc folks have the beleif that the well-known difficulty of certain nepenthes (such as aristo, hamata etc.) may just be the result of putting a weak clone into tc.

Among Nepenthes, N.rajah is the poster child for genetic uniformity. Even if seed grown N.rajah plants were distributed someday, I doubt that a dramatically easier, or more attractive clone would surface.
 
  • #15
Which would imply that the people who TC these plants deliberately select the weakest clones to sell. OK, makes perfect sense to me .. not. Actually the opposite is true. Unless you think it's some big conspiracy, in which case I'll tell you to lock your doors so the Masons can't kidnap your children in the night.

These plants are not difficult because the clones are weak. These plants are difficult because they grow in an area with VERY specific conditions. If you can provide those conditions, however, voila! They suddenly are not so difficult. I can only think of three plants which almost everyone has a hard time with, and that which just about everything has been tried without too much success. N. pervillei, N. madagascariensis, and N. vieillardii. It is not my opinion that these are weak clones because people HAVE grown them successfully, it may just be some underlying issue that people have had bad luck with them in general. Perhaps they require some trace element that they are not provided with. We don't really know at this point.

Diversity is a good thing. It's VERY good! Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see the market flooded with seed grown plants. I just think it's silly to be anti-TC when you can produce an unlimited amount of identical plants (I'd like to point out now that when you buy seed grown plants, you don't always know what you'll get if it's not mature. Some people like to know EXACTLY what they will get, and that's not a bad thing whatsoever.) I think it's funny that without TC, the people who argue that TC is inferior would never have gotten to where they are now as hobbyist without it.

TC can produce mutations. Of course it can. Mutations can arise out of seed grown material, too. The word "mutation" has a very negative connotation. Most mutations are harmless, while some are beneficial either for the plant or for the aesthetics, and in some cases, particularly seen in Dionaea, beneficial for the aesthetics (Well... to some connoisseurs) at the expense of the vigor. That said, we're still asking if TC produces MORE mutations when performed by QUALIFIED people in this area of expertise. I'm not talking about Joe Schmoe adding too much of X hormone in his kitchen, I'm talking about professionals in a real laboratory. If there are so many mutations, where ARE they? PLEASE, let me see this great multitude of mutations of almost biblical proportions (by the way the anti-TC people make it sound) and I'll humbly concede.

One of the complaints is that some plants commercially available are just one clone. I agree. We should have more than one single clone available. This is why a small amount of seed should be collected with the proper documentation and put into TC, then the best and brightest should be selected and the rest eliminated, because the diversity found in seed is not always a good thing as some are better than others.
 
  • #16
OMG

I had a huge thing typed up and it disappeared.

Anyway Scotty is right. The fact that you didn't personally deflask any abberant growth/mutations is totally irrelevant. Because you haven't seem them doesn't mean they don't exist, because they certainly do. If you say TC doesn't cause any whatsoever, or at least mass propagate defects, you're not involved enough in the nep community.

BE's diatas and densiflora have fertility issues, and IIRC there is a mutation in the number of bracts. There are 2 different mutated ventratas running around (the one Glider had, and another "palm tree" looking one). BE's ramispina has a "hunch" in the back right under where the lid attaches that makes the plant look like garbage. Other mass produced neps have fertility issues too (think DeRoose). TC plants produce basals earlier and more often than they should (BE's rajahs), variegated plants most frequently come out of TC, overdose of auxins/cytokinins makes some horrendous growth, base analogs screw things up, and lastly...95% of TC clones are males. LOL! The ratio of males to females in the wild is about 5:1...so you're telling me the ratio of about 30:1 males to females from TC is "coincidence"? Let's get serious!

TC also takes forever, the clone sometimes doesn't represent anywhere NEAR the species's altitudinal range (tentaculata) or natural variation (raff/amp/mirabilis/alata/I could go on), sometimes has a single clone of a species which is very difficult to grow (pervillei/madagascariensis/mapuluensis/I could go on). Someone big has oft said "I felt that one clone best represented the species". Are you kidding me? Nepenthes are dioecious, and even in a single species there is an insane amount of natural variation.

I think TC and seed grown material should work in concert, but that can't happen until there is a responsible lab that actually selects the best clones, and keeps multiple clones of a single species. Besides MT back in the day, labs have yet to do this.

Myths also exist in favor of TC too....like the fact that mericulturing Nepenthes isn't possible. Please! There are multiple scientific journal articles on it, and it's been possible since at least '94. Another reason people are speaking out against TC is that for years it's been shoved down everyone's throats that TC is so incredibly awesome and the answer to all of life's problems, which is certainly not the case. There are problems with it, and instead of getting defensive and angry, these labs need to listen to their customers and fix what's wrong. I love natural variation and watching things grow from seed, and especially natural variation (which will never exist in TC like it will in a batch of seed). I know they're essentially the same since it is really micropropagation in this sense, but a lab will never release 300 different clones. If you don't think there are problems caused by TC and inherent to it, you're simply not involved enough in the nep community - end of story.

Speaking out against TC isn't a fad or a scapegoat, its just that lots of people are finally seeing the benefits of seed, and realizing that it is not hard at all (as they had been told for years). Remember when people didn't want to fertilize because they had been lied to for years that it would instantly kill their plants? Same thing (more or less). People are seeing the benefits of not listening to the lies that have been mass propagated, and are acting out on it.

JLAP,
Rainforest - love him or hate him, he's one of the top 10 growers in the world, and has either the biggest, or second biggest (after Leilani) collection in the US. Even Leilani labels him as "the most innovative and controversial grower on the scene today". The guy has literally thousands of plants, of multiple clones and from seed. Nothing that comes out of his mouth is unfounded. The guy has more experience than you and I combined ever will, so dismiss what he says as "crazy" or "fanatical" is truly a joke.
 
  • #17
And is there really a "anti-TC movement "?
If there is, I have never heard of them before this thread..

Yes, im strongly against the VFT "mutants"..I would prefer they dont exist.
but that does not make me "anti-TC"..
TC isnt a problem..I just dont like the propogation of the mutants.
if it were up to me, they would be destroyed whenever they are discovered.
I consider them unworthy, lesser VFTs..and I dont like the idea of them messing up the main VFT gene pool.

(if you like the mutants, thats fine, grow and enjoy them.. but please dont breed them! propagate them vegetatively only..)

as I have said..I am also against Bulldogs, Persian Cats and Parrot Cichlids.
I dont like the idea of any creature (or plant) being horribly disfigured on purpose just for our amusement..

Scot
 
  • #18
Now, Now Ron. I didn't say any names, you did :p This person may be a master grower, and may have a gargantuan collection, but that does not mean what he says is gospel just because it comes out of his mouth. The size of his collection is pretty irrelevant. He has done nothing except complain about the current "regime" if you will, and has not backed up his claims with hard proof. I'd like to say I do not hate him at all. I don't hate anyone. I give him much respect as a grower, I just think in this area he's a bit fanatical about it and does not back anything up. He's certainly got a fervent passion, for sure! I'd rather have had his name not mentioned since he's not really here, but it's VERY hard to separate him from this issue. They are mutually intertwined at this point.

I agree. a selection of over 300 clones of a single species would be great. That's also unrealistic. This is an obscure hobby in general, and the Nepenthes aficionado's are an even smaller part of an obscure hobby. I really feel lucky enough that we have wholesalers of something besides N. ventrata in the first place. You don't know how thankful and appreciative I am that people like Rob do what they do. Without them, I wouldn't be typing this now and almost all of you wouldn't be reading this right now. Think of the money and space it would take to do what you suggest. It's impractical.

Back up your claims. Tell me how I can procure a, for all purposes, limitless number of plants from a relatively few seeds. I can not do this EXCEPT with TC. THIS is what is great about TC. Please tell me how all seed-grown plants can possibly compete with this. They can't. I've got a REALLY good anecdote. It took me 4 years to find a domestic source for N. campanulata. The plants I found were all clones. Can you imagine how long it would have taken to get SEED grown plants from this species, which is reportedly tricky to pollinate in the first place?

I couldn't agree more with the altitudinal range comment. For some reason, no one ever collects a bit of material to TC from the lower end of the range. I can't fathom why not. They'd be able to sell to people who can't provide the proper conditions. There is IMMENSE variation in Nepenthes, but the space issue to grow 300 clones in vitro is monetarily and spatially impractical. On the other hand, all seed-grown plants can not provide the sheer numbers that TC can. This is why both can AND should coexist simultaneously. I can't support more seed-grown plants enough! I just think it's lunacy to think you can try and replace it, no matter HOW big your collection is. It can not and will not be done.

Lets take a look at EP. Fantastic company with fantastic plants, most of which are seed grown. Look at their current inventory list of what's available. Enough said.

You can't argue with the sheer quantity that TC provides, and if somehow a bract happens to be deformed (whether it was TC-induced or not), most people just don't care. YES mutations happen, but they aren't really a big deal and a lot of the issues could be eliminated if more clones (but CERTAINLY not enough to satisfy the most hardcore variety-demanding growers) could be in vitro. The hump as seen in some N. ramispina is not a lovely lady lump, as Fergie Ferg says, but some people like it. I gave my plant away because of it, and my trash was his treasure. Variegated plants would produce a pretty nice demand if they could be TC'd, and the prolific basal production is most definitely a good thing in almost everyone's eyes. You say these like they are bad things.

I have not seen the "Palm Tree" Nepenthes. I'd like to. I actually like a rosette on a stalk, and if a plant that I liked enough to purchase before any mutations could have a mutation so that it would consistently grow in this manner (not vine, which is what I'm assuming you mean given the nickname :p ), I'd gladly pay two, three, or perhaps even four times the price for it!

I can not comment on the gender issue as I've really never looked into it. I have always gone by the 3/1 ratio of males per female.
 
  • #19
BE's diatas and densiflora have fertility issues, and IIRC there is a mutation in the number of bracts. There are 2 different mutated ventratas running around (the one Glider had, and another "palm tree" looking one). BE's ramispina has a "hunch" in the back right under where the lid attaches that makes the plant look like garbage. Other mass produced neps have fertility issues too (think DeRoose). TC plants produce basals earlier and more often than they should (BE's rajahs), variegated plants most frequently come out of TC, overdose of auxins/cytokinins makes some horrendous growth, base analogs screw things up, and lastly...95% of TC clones are males. LOL! The ratio of males to females in the wild is about 5:1...so you're telling me the ratio of about 30:1 males to females from TC is "coincidence"? Let's get serious!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read Pyro's comment was more along the lines of freak "errors" happenings to Nepenthes often times get labeled as "TC issues or chemicals." For example, JMatt's thread. Even in this thread, after it was said multiple times that it was seed grown, people were still saying TC-related issues. I do see the TC-related comments quite often in posts about Nepenthes problems.

More and more of late I have been seeing what can only be described as an anti-TC movement among the CP community. And I am more than a little curious to know where this is coming from.

In all honesty, I don't think it is an anti-TC movement; but rather people who do not necessarily know what they are talking about remembering a recent post where someone else said that TC can cause weird problems or mutations, and that that could be the case in the new example. When in all reality, it very well, and probably was, caused by some environmental condition or pest.

xvart.
 
  • #20
I'm only following this in a general way, but...wouldn't the ratio of mutated plants be higher in TC simply because of the larger number of plants produced by TC? For example...if out of 60 wild nep seeds, 10 found conditions suitable to growing and germinated with no mutants...vs. 60 of 60 TC seeds germinating and there being 1 out of the 60 mutated. Made up figures but...it just seems "natural" (ha) that by sheer volume, TC would produce more mutated plants.

??? But I don't know nuthin'.
 
Back
Top