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!

Capensis alba

  • #21
Using D. 'alba' may be a big mistake... There is a drosera alba that is kinda rare in cultivation, I remember william had some seed and was germanating them. Just thought I'd throw in another 23 cents
wink.gif

-Spec
 
  • #22
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean that even if you feel that D. 'Albino' will simplify things, I see this name as confusing to the general public. Personally I hope that people also will include capensis to minimize confusion.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Christer,

I forgot to mention that I've been using the shorter name in the forums, bz the audience that I'm conversing to knows what the plant's species is. If I was referring to the plant to someone who doesn't know much about CPs, then I will definitely include the species' name w/ the cultivar name.


Vic,

Albino in other species are not entirely white either. From Webster's Dictionary:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
al·bi·no
Pronunciation: al-'bI-(")nO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
Etymology: Portuguese, from Spanish, from albo white, from Latin albus
Date: 1777
: an organism exhibiting deficient pigmentation; especially : a human being or nonhuman mammal that is congenitally deficient in pigment and usually has a milky or translucent skin, white or colorless hair, and eyes with pink or blue iris and deep-red pupil[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I grow some of the D. 'Albino' outside, while it has some pink pigmentation, it does not become as red as the typical form.

Perhaps the nominant of the D. 'Albino' cultivar name could have selected a better name. Nevertheless, it is the correct name.
 
  • #23
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vic Brown @ April 15 2003,11:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take a look at the photo at the start of the thread, there is clear red pigmentation on the tentacles, and P. D'Amato in 'The Savage Garden' mentions 'pale pink glands'. These are not mentioned in the original cultivar description, quite the opposite in fact.

Vic[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What exactly are you trying to say? I don't understand your post? Are you trying to say 'Albino' is pink or not pink?

The answer of corse is moot because the definition of Capensis 'Albino' is plant with little to no pigment in the tenticles and a white flower. It's the flower that makes it 'Albino'
 
  • #24
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christerb @ April 14 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi Emesis,

If the registered name is going to be used, shouldn't the species name - capensis -  be left out altogether, since the database says only D. 'Albino'?

Personally I will continue to call this form D. capensis "alba" or D. capensis "white flower" though.

Regards,

Christer[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You can only do that is you say something like D. Capensis varr D. 'Albino'.

You can't just say D. 'Albino', thats an error in the database, you can't just leave out the sp. name. That would be like saying white snake. What white snake?
 
  • #25
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Darcie @ April 15 2003,9:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't just say D. 'Albino', thats an error in the database, you can't just leave out the sp. name.  That would be like saying white snake.  What white snake?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I totally agree with darcie. Makes more sence.
biggrin.gif
(I'm not siding with anyone here though, it just starts arguements)!
 
  • #26
Hi Darcie,

Actually, when dealing with cultivars species name is optional, as has been pointed out above (see the quote from Emesis message April 14).

Although I have stated that I feel that capensis should be included, this doesn't change the fact that D. 'Albino' is correct according to the cultivar rules. I still hope that this name will never become widespread in cultivation, as this could fool growers into thinking that this plant is something other than a pale/white flowered D. capensis.

Regards,

Christer
 
  • #27
Hmmm, that wasn't in the naming rules I read.  Well, whatever
wink.gif
it's still like saying white snake... actually more like saying Albino Boa (WHAT KIND OF BOA&#33
wink.gif
lol
wink.gif
 

I think they choose 'Albino' because their isn't a spiecies called D. albino.  Your right though, something like 'white flower' would be better.

Oh look at the time, I have to go water my D. 'Red'.
 
  • #28
Darcie,

In regards to the scientific binomial, you are correct, it is necessary to use both the Genus and species name.

Its an entirely different ball game with cultivars however, and listing just the cultivar name along with the Genus is perfectly acceptable, according to the ICBN regulations.  It really doesn't matter what species it is, or is derived from, who first produced it, or the methods used.  All that is essential is that the plant conform *exactly* to the registered description.  Referring to your "white snake" example, if any "snake" out there matches your published description of "white snake" then it is that in fact.  If it differs significantly, then it is not (and also has the potential to be registered in its own right.  All that needs doing is to state the difference between it and the original "white snake")

The reason 'Albino' is correct vs. "alba" is because the ICBN rules do not permit Latinizations, which are reserved for the Latin binomials.

Also, if one wanted to be really cruel, they could technically register a blood red plant as 'Albino' and it would have to stand if so published.

There is a difference between horticulture and taxonomy.  Taxonomy has always been the tool used to define and seggregate these plants, but this is not the only method possible, and I see the new use of registered cultivars as an additional tool that will help us communicate effectively about the plants we grow and distribute.
 
  • #29
Back to what Schloaty was saying about having some which do not produce any pink pigment in the leaves - I have never had any pink pigment on mine either, and they are in direct sunlight.
After seeing this picture in this thread, I am beginning to wonder about differences with this plant.
 
  • #30
So what do we do about when more then one spiecies has the same cultivar name?
 
  • #31
Darcie,

That can't happen. If a plant exactly matches the cultivar description, it is the cultivar. If it doesn't match then it is not the cultivar, and may be described in it own right and registered. In the example of D. capensis 'Albino' if the description states "colorless glands" then pink glands would set it apart. If the main feature is considered to be a white flower, then the gland color doesn't enter in to the description and if both forms have the white flower, then they are both D. 'Albino'. The person who makes the publication (needed before registering the plant name) determines what the most important elements are to focus on. If I feel that the pink gland variety is worthy, I can register it as D. "Pink Maid" clearly stating the difference in gland color as the main consideration of distinction.
 
  • #32
Hun? I didn't say anything about pink and white gands making a difference. I was asking what do you do when you have two spiecies with the same cultivar name like (fictional example)
d. Rotundifolia 'red'
d. Capensis 'red'

How do you know what plant is being talked about when someone says d.'red'?
 
  • #33
Ah, I understand the question. If there is a cultivar named D. 'Red' there cannot be another plant to use this name. There would need to be something further added to the name to make it distinct, but this need not be a species name. "Round red" or "Deep Red" perhaps. Ideally the name will reflect something in the plant that distinguishes it, but this is not a requirement. What IS a requirement however is a photograph of the plant. This is a great step forward out of the dark ages in my opinion, since the current ICBN regulations regarding the first publication (protolouge) of a species novae do not require a photo, a fact that I find very distressing. The cultivar registration plan is elegant in its simplicity, and requires no focus on taxonomy whatsoever. Horticulturalists no longer need be scientists in order to discuss the beautiful plants they may wish to share. There will be no further debates over "is it REALLY that" since there will be a central reference that may be consulted to resolve such questions, both by written descriptions and by photographic evaluation. The problems are going to be to implement the system. It takes time to publish cultivar names, and to call these publications to the attention of Dr. Schlauer, who is the Registration Authority. There are many, many plants that should be registered, and not many are making an effort to move in this direction. Hopefully it will catch on though. As hobbiests we need this tool to discuss our plants without entering into the very opinionated science of taxonomy, which can provide few answers to our questions as to what species we are *really* growing. As a tool taxonomy is the wrong one for the job we are trying to do, and its use is better employed in the understanding of overall population dynamics versus trying to apply it to isolated specimens in collections, which often generates more questions than it answers.
 
Back
Top