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!

How do you tell if its a ceph giant or typical?

I got this plant a year ago from Chuck Lyon. At the time I was told that it is either a German giant or an Australian giant. It only had one pitcher on it that was mature and this pitcher had a distinct hump on the back. Since then, plant has finally grown and matured and I wanted to ask for experienced opinions on the taxonomy of the plant and whether it really is a giant or not.

From the photos, is the plant old enough to tell? Or do I have to wait some couple more months for more mature pitchers that develop in larger sizes before it is possible to tell?

A few more details about the plant might reveal whether it really is a giant or not. When I got the plant and planted it up, it did not even flinch. Not a single leaf or pitcher was lost. It just kept growing. A friend of mine has a German giant and he told me that the same thing happened to his German giant. But he also told me that his German giant is ridiculously slow-growing. This plant grows plenty fast! Does that mean its just a vigorous typical?

I also received another plant from Chuck which is supposed to be the other giant of the two but it has grown much slower so I can't tell if either of these plants is a giant at all or if they are typical plants and not of giant taxonomy origins. That plant is not developing enough mature pitches for me to post a picture yet.

Old Plant:
plantold2-1.jpg


plantold-1.jpg


Almost a year later:
plantnew.jpg


Pitcher closeups:

pitcher2.jpg


pitcher.jpg
 
Nice looking ceph.

I do not think there is really any way to tell.
Any plant of the same clone can grow, and look very different under different conditions. (Lighting, Soil mix, Watering, Feeding, etc.....)
If you where told it was a German Giant or an Australian Giant, then I guess if you ever trade material from this plant, you say it is one of those Giants. (List both)
If I was looking for either one of those Giant, I myself would not trade with you. Just because I would want to know for sure what I have.
Others may disagree with me, but I got a plant from someone and I was told it was either a German Giant or an Australian Giant, I'd probably just call it a Typical so that there was no confusing when I traded plant material.
 
One way of differentiating -- to some degree anyway -- "Hummer's" from the "German Giant" Cephalotus is in the very appearance of the pitchers themselves. In all of the "Hummer's" plants I've had, the "T"-shaped ventral rib on the pitcher was very prominent (almost a broad triangle in many), even when the plants were seedlings (and seen in many juvenile leaves), and that they were more coarse (including even the nature of the peristome itself) or rugose in appearance than other clones, somewhat resembling the pock-marked texture of hammered metal. I would venture to say that the last photo posted with the adult pitchers is very likely a "Hummer's Giant." Here is an adult pitcher and a juvenile of that cultivar with the very pronounced "T"-shaped ventral rib and texture:

CF--HUMMERPITCHER.jpg
HG2008JUV.jpg



The fact that your plants did not "flinch" when you potted them, reflects more on your skill and the quality and the health of the plants in question than on anything else -- and not on any particular cultivar. The majority of Cephalotus I have received over the years arrived bare-root, either wrapped in sphagnum, paper towel, or both -- and I have never experienced a problem . . .

There are a couple of sites online which go into more exhaustive detail among the differences of the so-called "Giant" clones. I would have to agree though that the "German Giant" grows terribly slowly -- and if your plants appear more vigorous and grow in the habit of "typical" forms (as "Hummer's Giant", for example), there is a bit of a clue; I've had two "German" plants in a large container for the last four years, and another which is just now producing small adult pitchers after three (see photo below) -- even though other Cephalotus have developed from cuttings to large flowering plants in the same space -- under the very same conditions; and I have no doubt as to their origins, since they came from Tony Paroubek back in 2004 . . .

CF-GG2-1.jpg


Try these sites for more information:

http://www.aqph26.dsl.pipex.com/index.html

http://www.humboldt.edu/~rrz7001/Franco/CephalotusfollicularisGiant.html


I got this plant a year ago from Chuck Lyon. At the time I was told that it is either a German giant or an Australian giant. It only had one pitcher on it that was mature and this pitcher had a distinct hump on the back. Since then, plant has finally grown and matured and I wanted to ask for experienced opinions on the taxonomy of the plant and whether it really is a giant or not.

From the photos, is the plant old enough to tell? Or do I have to wait some couple more months for more mature pitchers that develop in larger sizes before it is possible to tell?

A few more details about the plant might reveal whether it really is a giant or not. When I got the plant and planted it up, it did not even flinch. Not a single leaf or pitcher was lost. It just kept growing. A friend of mine has a German giant and he told me that the same thing happened to his German giant. But he also told me that his German giant is ridiculously slow-growing. This plant grows plenty fast! Does that mean its just a vigorous typical?

I also received another plant from Chuck which is supposed to be the other giant of the two but it has grown much slower so I can't tell if either of these plants is a giant at all or if they are typical plants and not of giant taxonomy origins. That plant is not developing enough mature pitches for me to post a picture yet.
 
This is what I was also wondering because I have two different cephs and one has huge pitchers compared to the other.
 
One other factor is whether the plants were grown from cuttings, rhizome / root divisions, or tissue culture. I've been told by a number of growers -- including Peter D'Amato -- that the TC plants tend to grow very slowly; why this is the case, is a bit of a mystery.

I do know that the "German Giant" Cephalotus I have is from tissue culture, but that particular clone already has had a glow-growing reputation. I would insist though that the "German Giant" pitchers more closely resemble the "typical" form than "Hummer's Giant" . . .
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that insightful information about the giant clones. It makes me wonder how you can go about obtaining a clone and be sure that it is actually a giant and not just a typical. Short of going directly to the man who registered the cultivar and I forget his name it's probably *something* Hummer...

Is just a lot of trust involved in the end?
 
It makes me wonder how you can go about obtaining a clone and be sure that it is actually a giant and not just a typical.

Therein lie the problem.

Is just a lot of trust involved in the end?

Or wishful thinking. Look at venus flytraps...

xvart.
 
I have noticed one stratling difference between typical and 'giant' cepha's (or at least all the photos of 'ginat cephs' I've seen) and that is the shape of the leaf.
For instance: http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114126
The top photos are of a 'giant' ceph. Notice the leaves. They are very large, round, and on long stalks.

I find these differences in leaves are not always apparent though. Not all 'giant' cephs show these leaves, most only seem to have one or two of these leaves, some seem to make lots, but I've never seen a typical make leaves like that.
I don't know if this is actually correct, just an observation I made.
 
I have noticed one stratling difference between typical and 'giant' cepha's (or at least all the photos of 'ginat cephs' I've seen) and that is the shape of the leaf.
For instance: http://www.terraforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114126
The top photos are of a 'giant' ceph. Notice the leaves. They are very large, round, and on long stalks.

I find these differences in leaves are not always apparent though. Not all 'giant' cephs show these leaves, most only seem to have one or two of these leaves, some seem to make lots, but I've never seen a typical make leaves like that.
I don't know if this is actually correct, just an observation I made.

Among variations that I've consistently seen, having had both "typical" and "giant" cultivars of Cephalotus over the years, is a marked difference in the structure of the "vegetative" leaves. In the larger varieties, those round or spear-shaped leaves of Spring are distinctly thicker in cross-section -- almost succulent in character; in the typical forms, the leaves remain flatter -- even if they attain the same size and age.

Other minor differences, even among the larger varieties, include their general habit of growth. Some larger cultivars produce a plethora of vegetative leaves in the Spring (one having produced a leaf almost 15 cm (6") long), while others yield only the tiniest bundle before "pitchering" sets in. Also, my larger -- older -- plants seem to produce their fair share of odd intermediate leaves early in the year. In some of my plants, I am only able to take pitchers as a leaf-pull because the vegetative leaves are so few, tiny, and buried among the carnivorous leaves . . .

CF--GIANT.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #10
"Australian Giant" and "German Giant" are unregistered cultivars. If you're unsure of it's ID, you should clearly say so on your plant tags.

There's a wide amount of variation in the shape, markings, and coloration of Ceph pitchers. There's no full-proof way to use these characteristics to determine whether your plant is one cultivar or another. You'll find out whether your plant is a giant after it produces giant pitchers! Guessing does disservice to the community--there's a lot of misnamed plants out there already.
 
  • #11
I wonder if any of the giant clone will grow differently in different conditions i.e. giant clone never realising their full potential simply because of "non-ideal" conditions.

Anyone has got experience growing any of the giants next to a typical of the same age, side by side?
 
  • #12
I wonder if any of the giant clone will grow differently in different conditions i.e. giant clone never realising their full potential simply because of "non-ideal" conditions.

Anyone has got experience growing any of the giants next to a typical of the same age, side by side?

I have done that, and with the exception of the notoriously slow-growing "German Giant" Cephalotus, both the 'typical" form and "Hummer's Giant" Cephalotus grow at similar rates. The larger clones, cultivated under identical circumstances, will easily outstrip the "typical" plants when grown properly; otherwise, even the larger cultivars may only achieve a ten percent increase in size over the "typical" Cephalotus (a figure derived from the Augustin Franco article, "Cephalotus follicularis Giant Forms: “Myth or Reality?” mentioned at the beginning of this thread).

To add some further confusion, some so-called "Giant" clones may be of dubious quality -- something that Barry Rice has mentioned either in Growing Carnivorous Plants or on his site, and an opinion shared by a number of other growers. Whether this stems from an issue in tissue culture practices (a source of a good number of these plants nowadays) or in individual cultivation? I don't know.

This is something that I have also noticed. I have had "Hummer's Giant" clones where some plants of the very same age -- grown under identical circumstances, right down to compost, pot size, and location -- clearly outperform the others; and some only achieve sizes slightly larger than the "typical" forms.

In addition, I have also had so-called "typical" Cephalotus where occasional pitchers may achieve 7 cm (2.75") or more -- probably more a function of the plant's age at that point (twelve years at least) than in my cultivation . . .
 
  • #13
"Australian Giant" and "German Giant" are unregistered cultivars. If you're unsure of it's ID, you should clearly say so on your plant tags.

There's a wide amount of variation in the shape, markings, and coloration of Ceph pitchers. There's no full-proof way to use these characteristics to determine whether your plant is one cultivar or another. You'll find out whether your plant is a giant after it produces giant pitchers! Guessing does disservice to the community--there's a lot of misnamed plants out there already.

So, they're unregistered. So what? "Hummer's Giant", for example, was commonly referred to by that name for some fourteen years without any cultivar status whatsoever; and those innumerable plants now distributed all over the world are no less legitimate now for lack of publication status than they were then. No one is claiming anything can be "foolproof" but some overall distinctions can be made. Species status is not even a guarantee of safety anymore. I cannot even tell you how many times registered names change, are simply eliminated, superceded in some way, or expanded upon. A couple of particularly hairy Heliamphora minors I've had for years are now arbitrarily considered H. pulchella and a couple H. heterodoxas are now H. glabra and H. exappendiculata. So we change some labels from time to time. Who really cares? "Disservice to the community?" Taxonomy has always been a mess from top to bottom.

In terms "Australian Giant" I can only assume that "Hummer's Giant" is probably the cultivar being referred to in that instance; "German Giant" (aka "Giant" or "True Giant") commonly refers to the plant(s) introduced in the late 1980s by Harold Weiner, shortly after John Hummer received his plants from Stephen Beckwith (via) Michael Ceple of Australia. Though admittedly unregistered, a distinction enough had been made by the ICPS some time ago:

"Jan Schlauer, a cultivar registrar from ICPS (International Carnivorous Plant Society) contends that Harold Weiner may have had this ["Giant"] clone many years before it was commercially available in Germany . . .

"Furthermore, Harold Weiner and John Hummer have never met and there is no evidence to suggest that either the “true giant” is the same as the Hummer’s Giant. Furthermore, empirical knowledge from many Cephalotus growers suggest that the “true giant” grows very slowly while the Hummer’s Giant grows like the “typical form” (Tony Paroubek, Martin Reiner, Jan Schlauer, and Charles E. Brewer, personal communication) . . . "

--"Cephalotus follicularis Giant Forms: Myth or Reality?” by Augustin Franco

The combined experiences and expertise of John Hummer, Tony Paroubek, Charles Brewer, Phill Mann, and Augustin Franco are authority enough for my tastes, with or without formal ICPS registration or cultivar status . . .
 
  • #14
I got the same German Giant type advertised by Chuck. A year ago, it only had a few mature pitchers and looked as if it had just went from baby to mature about 3 or 4 months beforehand, I too, had the same results, with it not even flinching. I took it out of the bag, cleaned the roots [newbie back then], and potted it up and left it on the low humidity kitchen table, then moved it to a light deprived corner of my room under a few fluorescents. It did fine, nothing died, except a big pitcher about 2-3 weeks later but that just seemed coincidental. I then moved it to my windowsill where it has been for over a year and it has grown quite fast compared to what others say, before I got Cephalotus I expected the plant to be only about 1/5 of it's current size today!

I thought that it grew marvelously fast compared to what others said, and, it was kind of easy to grow. I've only tried propagation twice, I got two very good pullings and I put one in a little tray of wet peat in the same windowsill along with some seedlings and it failed quickly, the other was in a very salty mix about 9 months ago, so, I'm not surprised. When my Cephalotus flowers, it seems to fit the "very slow" trademark of Cephalotus, with the pitchers developing at 1/10 of their usual speed [it seems as though my Cephalotus has produced a 3rd growth point ALONG with flowering, so, no surprise there], and, the flower stalk took this vigor and gained an inch and a half in height in only 5 or 6 days. It ended up at about 14 inches [35 cm] which is odd, since, most people say that Cephalotus stalks are about two feet. So, my Cephalotus doesn't fit the norm, but, that's good. It's easier that way.

I trust Chuck not to false advertise, he did some dumb stuff [S. oreophila on eBay anyone?] but, I don't think he'd false advertise it. It's hard to tell. Even though my plant flowered this year, last year it had barely transitioned from baby to adult, so, I think it still has more growing to do and will be done in a year or two. Even if it doesn't grow "giant" size, I'm still probably going to call it that, considering my growing conditions aren't exactly perfect and it's impossible to know how big it could get in certain conditions. Just my 2 cents [or $10, considering the length of this post.]
 
  • #15
I thought that it grew marvelously fast compared to what others said, and, it was kind of easy to grow. I've only tried propagation twice, I got two very good pullings and I put one in a little tray of wet peat in the same windowsill along with some seedlings and it failed quickly, the other was in a very salty mix about 9 months ago, so, I'm not surprised. When my Cephalotus flowers, it seems to fit the "very slow" trademark of Cephalotus, with the pitchers developing at 1/10 of their usual speed [it seems as though my Cephalotus has produced a 3rd growth point ALONG with flowering, so, no surprise there], and, the flower stalk took this vigor and gained an inch and a half in height in only 5 or 6 days. It ended up at about 14 inches [35 cm] which is odd, since, most people say that Cephalotus stalks are about two feet. So, my Cephalotus doesn't fit the norm, but, that's good. It's easier that way.]

I have had a similar experience with both that "slow-down" after blooming and the variable-sized flower stalks. The same plants have produced stalks from 30-60cm (1-2') in height from year to year (a "typical" at 60 cm and a "Hummer" at 30 cm and vice-versa), sometimes two in the very same pot -- perpetuating the idiosyncratic reputation of Cephalotus.

Out of curiousity, was your "German Giant" produced from a leaf cutting / division, or from tissue culture? There does seem to be a relationship between TC and growth rate.
 
  • #16
I'm guessing it is leaf or cutting of rhizome. I don't think Chuck dabbles in TC. He barely had time to keep up running his shop and folks have posted his myriad of tanks of CPs online. Or am I mistaken?
 
  • #17
Species status is not even a guarantee of safety anymore. I cannot even tell you how many times registered names change, are simply eliminated, superceded in some way, or expanded upon. A couple of particularly hairy Heliamphora minors I've had for years are now arbitrarily considered H. pulchella and a couple H. heterodoxas are now H. glabra and H. exappendiculata. So we change some labels from time to time. Who really cares? "Disservice to the community?" Taxonomy has always been a mess from top to bottom.

I agree that taxonomists can be pesty and that horticulturalists are often stuck in the middle of the war between "lumpers" and "splitters," as well as the changes taking place as molecular/genetic information is used in classification schemes.

What I meant by "disservice to the community" is simply this: if one doesn't know for certain the ID of one's plant, one should not "guess" it's identity. As you alluded to, it''s difficult enough to keep up with nomenclatural changes, never mind having to contend with mis-identified plants. Not everyone may care about nomenclature, but it is important. The orchid people figured this out decades ago as the number of cultivars ballooned.
 
Back
Top