Fang

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BigCarnivourKid @ April 17 2003,5:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Me too.  I want the real thing, not someone's knock-off of it.  While I might have the legal right to call a plant that I 'create' a Red Dragon, I feel that it would not be moral.  No matter how much it looked like a Red Dragon.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I guess you have to think about the criteria for naming a cultivar. Most importanty, it should be "unique." If the plant isn't unique, it shouldn't be named as a cultivar. This eliminates all these "so called" forms like "fang," "big mouth," etc. These plants really aren't much different from the "typical" forms.
When Ron Gagliardo named 'Aki Ryu,' there wasn't much out there to confuse it with. Although now there are numerous "all red" clones out there.
It might be easier to think of Sarracenia cultivars. 'Judith Hindle' is certainly unique. If by some stroke of luck, a plant is produced that fits into the cultivar description of 'Judith Hindle,' it can be called 'Judith Hindle.' In all likelyhood, the chances of producing such a plant are slim.
Unfortunately, the nature of flytraps makes it difficult to distinguish one clone from another or even 2 clones as being the same.
imduff

 

[Darcie]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (imduff @ April 18 2003,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BigCarnivourKid @ April 17 2003,5

9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Me too.  I want the real thing, not someone's knock-off of it.  While I might have the legal right to call a plant that I 'create' a Red Dragon, I feel that it would not be moral.  No matter how much it looked like a Red Dragon.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I guess you have to think about the criteria for naming a cultivar. Most importanty, it should be "unique." If the plant isn't unique, it shouldn't be named as a cultivar. This eliminates all these "so called" forms like "fang," "big mouth," etc. These plants really aren't much different from the "typical" forms.
 When Ron Gagliardo named 'Aki Ryu,' there wasn't much out there to confuse it with. Although now there are numerous "all red" clones out there.
 It might be easier to think of Sarracenia cultivars. 'Judith Hindle' is certainly unique. If by some stroke of luck, a plant is produced that fits into the cultivar description of 'Judith Hindle,' it can be called 'Judith Hindle.' In all likelyhood, the chances of producing such a plant are slim.
 Unfortunately, the nature of flytraps makes it difficult to distinguish one clone from another or even 2 clones as being the same.
imduff[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Big Mouths are registerd in Aulstralia. They are pritty distinctive.

 

[Darcie]

: $[Dionaea ' Akai Ryu ' {R.Gagliardo}]
P: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.25:50 (1996)
S: =[Dionaea muscipula {Soland. ex Ellis}]
HC: Registered 10. 11. 1998 (JS)
B: R.Gagliardo, Atlanta Bot. Gardens, before 1996
Nominant: R.Gagliardo
Registrant: R.Gagliardo
Translation: [Dionaea ' Red Dragon ' {R.Gagliardo}] (English)
Description: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.25:50 (1996)
"Growth habit and flower morphology are typical for this species. The leaf petiole, blade and trap exhibit dark maroon to burgundy coloration. Any green coloration has only been noted around the center of the plant in mid-winter. The entire trap, interior and exterior, exhibits dark burgundy coloration throughout the year. Grown under laboratory conditions, where nutrient levels can be comparatively high, the plants still exhibit partial burgundy coloration in the traps and leaf blade."
Standard: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.25:50 (1996)
Propagation: vegetative reproduction (originally in vitro culture)
Etymology: after red colouration of plants (Japanese: "Red Dragon")

Wow, look at that, they changed it^ I pulled data on all the registerd varients of VFT a few months ago and it didn't have red dragons as vegitative. Cool... hey they updated some others too, nifty.

 

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Darcie @ April 17 2003,10:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Big Mouths are registerd in Aulstralia.  They are pritty distinctive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"Big Mouth" is not the best example because, it has been published but, it hasn't been registered. So, it's not quite a registered cultivar. As for it's uniqueness, I fail to see it. This is a nicely colored plant but, it certainly isn't unique for the species. What am I missing?
imduff

 

[Vertigo]

For some reason I thought that 'Big Mouth' and 'Red-purple form' were synonomous. The only pictures i've really seen of it have been a purplish color, not typical coloration.