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!
What do we know about the new byblis species?
I can not say for sure but I believe that until recently all were originally considered different forms of gigantea and so are probably very like that plant. I hope to be getting my hands on some here in the near future and I plant to treat them just like gigantea. I'll post updates as I discover how the tick
Finch
Whats it to ya?
They are all confined (rorida, filifolia & aquatica) to northern Australia and grow as annuals in nature. In cultivation they can successfully be grown for a couple of years. They can't be grown in a similar way to B. gigantea or lamellata which grow as perennials and need the cooler period in winter to thrive.
Byblis filifolia used to be known as B. liniflora var. occidentalis so therefore was considered to be a form of liniflora
B. aquatica is very similar to B. liniflora and grows with it in many areas. It is more robust and it too was once considered merely a variation of liniflora. In the photos you linked to (do you have permission to do this??), it evens looks very much like B. liniflora
B. rorida is quite different and very distinct. But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora
From your comment "some were only recently discoverd and a couple were never considerd the same".
These plants were only recently discovered to be different, not recently discovered for the first time. B. aquatica grows very close to Darwin and has been known for a long period of time- just always considered to be B. liniflora.
and "Some even onsider some so distinct that thegenus should be split"
I can't see how that could possibly be justifiable as the flowers on each and very much the same, as are the growth habits. There are species of Drosera that I think could be separated from that genus alot sooner than any current members of the Byblis group could- ie- Drosera regia.
Byblis filifolia used to be known as B. liniflora var. occidentalis so therefore was considered to be a form of liniflora
B. aquatica is very similar to B. liniflora and grows with it in many areas. It is more robust and it too was once considered merely a variation of liniflora. In the photos you linked to (do you have permission to do this??), it evens looks very much like B. liniflora
B. rorida is quite different and very distinct. But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora
From your comment "some were only recently discoverd and a couple were never considerd the same".
These plants were only recently discovered to be different, not recently discovered for the first time. B. aquatica grows very close to Darwin and has been known for a long period of time- just always considered to be B. liniflora.
and "Some even onsider some so distinct that thegenus should be split"
I can't see how that could possibly be justifiable as the flowers on each and very much the same, as are the growth habits. There are species of Drosera that I think could be separated from that genus alot sooner than any current members of the Byblis group could- ie- Drosera regia.
Finch
Whats it to ya?
but tou are highlighting the similarities, and similarites in appearence are poor indicators of relationships. Flower structures can be usefull but are not at all a good basis for determening how closely related species are. Tanoaks, for instance, have flowers very similar to chesnuts but diverged from them mlellinia ago.
As for relationships, closeness in looks and growth habit are not anything to pass of as not being very distinct. The fact is it has to be distinct genetically enough to not regularly interbreed with closely related speces. They also
In absance of the complete botonical descriptions, such statements as " But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora" are rather brazen. Its like me comparing red oak to its shrubby releteves. One is basicly taller and with longer internodes but theres no question they are red oaks. however, this does not mean that they are not distinct. your statement
I am not saying they are not closely related. obviously they are.
All these suggest that they are not "very like" thet plant, dispite what they aere originaly classied.
You should not use the original classification as a support to your argument on how similar they are becuae often very distinct species in the past were lumped togeather pending further reserch. Since they are obviously distinct enough to attain species status, it shows that diespide similarities, the original classification was WRONG. Several species of pine were lumped togeather often.
" The some plants" i was refering to was B. rorida
I woulrd rather trust someone with as extensive experence in this such as Barry Rice to make this justification than you, who im guessing has never observed the plants closely enough to be able to throw others observations in the improbable pile quickly.
As for the pictures, i am not claiming them to be my own. I tought it was common practice here to post some pics of something that another took, like from the internet. If you take up that issue with me, you should also speak to most of the members here.
As for relationships, closeness in looks and growth habit are not anything to pass of as not being very distinct. The fact is it has to be distinct genetically enough to not regularly interbreed with closely related speces. They also
In absance of the complete botonical descriptions, such statements as " But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora" are rather brazen. Its like me comparing red oak to its shrubby releteves. One is basicly taller and with longer internodes but theres no question they are red oaks. however, this does not mean that they are not distinct. your statement
Only enhanses the distinctnes softhese species from them.[b said:
I am not saying they are not closely related. obviously they are.
[b said:
All these suggest that they are not "very like" thet plant, dispite what they aere originaly classied.
You should not use the original classification as a support to your argument on how similar they are becuae often very distinct species in the past were lumped togeather pending further reserch. Since they are obviously distinct enough to attain species status, it shows that diespide similarities, the original classification was WRONG. Several species of pine were lumped togeather often.
" The some plants" i was refering to was B. rorida
[b said:
[b said:
I woulrd rather trust someone with as extensive experence in this such as Barry Rice to make this justification than you, who im guessing has never observed the plants closely enough to be able to throw others observations in the improbable pile quickly.
As for the pictures, i am not claiming them to be my own. I tought it was common practice here to post some pics of something that another took, like from the internet. If you take up that issue with me, you should also speak to most of the members here.
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
Finch, I am not even going to bother arguing with you about this for a single second- I'd rather not waste any more of my time. Your warped reasoning is severely flawed and you have absolutely no concept of the subject at hand. If I am brazen, I'll have a go at belittling you and declare you ignorant. That's all I've got to say at the moment without getting myself into trouble.
Why do I bother......
End of conversation, end of my participation in this topic. I unlike many others on this forum know when to keep my mouth shut
.
Why do I bother......
End of conversation, end of my participation in this topic. I unlike many others on this forum know when to keep my mouth shut
Finch, please just accpet that youre wrong......I am definetly with Seandew on this one, I have known about these plants ever sicne Ive gotten intot he industry and if you did a bit of searching you would discover that they wernt recently descovered at all.
Finch, Seandew has been growing for more then 20 years, not nessercerilly Byblis at the beggining of that period but to the best of my knowledge he has grown Byblis for at least 10 years, so why are you arguing with someone with that much experience? Dont you think over 20 years of growing is extensive experience? If Barry Rice sees this Im sure he'll give his opinion, and I bet he would also agree with Seandew.
You can also email him and ask, however dont expect his anwser to be any different then Seandews
Finch, Seandew has been growing for more then 20 years, not nessercerilly Byblis at the beggining of that period but to the best of my knowledge he has grown Byblis for at least 10 years, so why are you arguing with someone with that much experience? Dont you think over 20 years of growing is extensive experience? If Barry Rice sees this Im sure he'll give his opinion, and I bet he would also agree with Seandew.
You can also email him and ask, however dont expect his anwser to be any different then Seandews
Finch
Whats it to ya?
considering that im basing this information on a direct quote from his website, i would hope not.
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5080.html
Im dont doubt sedew's experence, but Barry rice is in the IUCN's Specialist Groups in Carnivorous Plants and North American Plants. AND the Director of Conservation for the International Carnivorous Plant Society, so i feel that his opinion has more clout than the person i am arguing with. If that makes me igrnorant in someones eyes, than good thing that others have a more specific defenition of ignorant! Just because he has lots of growing experence does not automaticly make him right, starman!
And Seandew is knows he is so right that, without even ever growing the plants or making any observations, he can accuse someone else of not justifying his statement. I wonder whos more justified- someones who has made an observation and make a statement (Barry rice), or somewonw who hasent made a observation and made a statement (Seandew). I have not hade any onservations so i was basing my arguments on other's. i would love to have soem direct growing experence with thes eplants to make my own observation. And i may be wrong. Barry rice may be wrong. And Seandew may be right. But come back and tell me weather its right or not when youv actually SEEN the plants in action. If you had, i would be much more inclined to beleive you. But right now i think you are somewat of a quack. Perhaps i am to. Do two ducks make a flock?
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5080.html
[b said:
Im dont doubt sedew's experence, but Barry rice is in the IUCN's Specialist Groups in Carnivorous Plants and North American Plants. AND the Director of Conservation for the International Carnivorous Plant Society, so i feel that his opinion has more clout than the person i am arguing with. If that makes me igrnorant in someones eyes, than good thing that others have a more specific defenition of ignorant! Just because he has lots of growing experence does not automaticly make him right, starman!
And Seandew is knows he is so right that, without even ever growing the plants or making any observations, he can accuse someone else of not justifying his statement. I wonder whos more justified- someones who has made an observation and make a statement (Barry rice), or somewonw who hasent made a observation and made a statement (Seandew). I have not hade any onservations so i was basing my arguments on other's. i would love to have soem direct growing experence with thes eplants to make my own observation. And i may be wrong. Barry rice may be wrong. And Seandew may be right. But come back and tell me weather its right or not when youv actually SEEN the plants in action. If you had, i would be much more inclined to beleive you. But right now i think you are somewat of a quack. Perhaps i am to. Do two ducks make a flock?
No Finch, Seandew has been growing Byblis for more then 6 years and hes seen them in the wild, so youre wrong on at least that argument.
When Barry Rice said that statement he meant that those species had recently been recognised. It doesnt mean they wernt discovered before that.
People DID know about them before that but they recognised them all as B.filifolia.
Finch, Im not going to argue with you either, just email Barry Rice and ask him yourself.
When Barry Rice said that statement he meant that those species had recently been recognised. It doesnt mean they wernt discovered before that.
People DID know about them before that but they recognised them all as B.filifolia.
Finch, Im not going to argue with you either, just email Barry Rice and ask him yourself.
Finch, I think you've misconstrued Barry's words. He meant that some of his evidence was used when recognising that the genus contains more than two species, not that the plants currently thought to be Byblis ought to be grouped into two or more distinct genera. You'll find then that Sean & Barry are basically saying the same thing!
Finch
Whats it to ya?
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
So I lied.[b said:Quote[/b] (Seandew @ Oct. 02 2005,5:23)]I unlike many others on this forum know when to keep my mouth shut.
Now that this seems to have been resolved I will add to my previous comments-
Regarding the posting of images that belong to others- I suggest you take a look at the forum rules.
It is not up to me to police this rule, I am not a moderator here. I noticed you did it so I pointed it out. A couple of those images were taken by a couple of friends of mine, hence the question. You may not have been aware of this rule, I simply asked a question.
I don't claim to be an expert on Byblis but I do have a reasonable amount of knowledge of the subject having grown (yes I have grown all species) and read up on them over the years. I answer questions on this forum when I think I can help or increase some of the knowledge of the board members. Reactions such as those after my mention of your "copyright infringement" and your undermining of my statements don't exactly inspire me to do so in the future.
You know nothing about me and yet you choose to make assumptions regarding my knowledge of the genus and my level of expertise in the cultivation of the genus- I find this insulting.
So yes, you were wrong & I was a rude (I removed the word unduly), insulting A$$hole. I can live with that.
BTW Dino, if you are going to defend me can I ask that you please make sure you get the facts right. I cringe when I read so-called facts about myself that I was not even aware of. When was it that I saw Byblis growing in the wild? I don't recall.....
Finch
Whats it to ya?
Ok i changed it. i must remember that just because it does not bother me when people use my photos it bothers others. also i was mistaken about the rules of compwright - i did not take the question as a question. and i was wrong about you, Seandew. And that its courtious to do that to photogrothers. Honestly, it really is news to me.
Im getting used to being wrong.
I had a feeling after my second response that this was gonna turn around and bite me somehow.
(sigh)
I am sorry i insulted you. I have a bad habit of doing that. But based on what i beleived to be said by others (but i know know i misinterperted) that seemed -yes- more qualified, and what was not said by you that you have grown all species and made observations... i would have been far more inclined to beleive you. And i even rather agree with you, but i took what i tought was a statement from someone who knew far more about these than me and ran with it. Instead of turning around and being insulting right back callimg me ignorant and warped, if you had kept on talking and showed me WHAT part of my reasoning was warped so i could se ethe error of my ways and understand your feelings, you just made a statement and slammed the door on further discussion, wich was irritating. That is why some forum members keep on talking (and we get the problems it sometimes causes). Im sorry if you are offended, but i can live with that.
Im getting used to being wrong.
I had a feeling after my second response that this was gonna turn around and bite me somehow.
(sigh)
I am sorry i insulted you. I have a bad habit of doing that. But based on what i beleived to be said by others (but i know know i misinterperted) that seemed -yes- more qualified, and what was not said by you that you have grown all species and made observations... i would have been far more inclined to beleive you. And i even rather agree with you, but i took what i tought was a statement from someone who knew far more about these than me and ran with it. Instead of turning around and being insulting right back callimg me ignorant and warped, if you had kept on talking and showed me WHAT part of my reasoning was warped so i could se ethe error of my ways and understand your feelings, you just made a statement and slammed the door on further discussion, wich was irritating. That is why some forum members keep on talking (and we get the problems it sometimes causes). Im sorry if you are offended, but i can live with that.
Well I thought I read posts about you seeing CP's in australia in the wild, so I figuired you would see Byblis by now aswell......[b said:Quote[/b] (Seandew @ Oct. 03 2005,7:58)][b said:Quote[/b] (Seandew @ Oct. 02 2005,5:23)]I unlike many others on this forum know when to keep my mouth shut.
BTW Dino, if you are going to defend me can I ask that you please make sure you get the facts right. I cringe when I read so-called facts about myself that I was not even aware of. When was it that I saw Byblis growing in the wild? I don't recall.....
