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!

Dentate and dente?

Is there any real physical difference between the two? I know that the Dente was a mutation in TC
And Dentate was a wild field collected mutation

Because I'm recieving a Dentate this week (along with a cup trap!
smile.gif
)
I just wanted to know if they should be considered two "different" cultivars. even though the Dente isn't registered yet.
 
i dont know why people dont use the search engine... just the other day someone asked... they're the same thing
smile.gif
smilie4.gif
 
I did do my research before asking...
biggrin.gif

The reason I asked is because on Bobz site they are classified into different groups, so I didn't want to further mix up cultivars and create impurities in the Dionaea circulation.

Thanks for the info though.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reason I asked is because on Bobz site they are classified into different groups
I did indeed put them into different SUBgroups under the heading 'Dentate Traps' (B.Meyers-Rice) and stated that 'Dentate Traps' is the "official registered cultivar name for VFTs with dentate traps" Then, at the beginning of the subgrouping, I added the statement "Other names given to dentate trap forms at the web locations below"; those are “DentateTrap X11 form”, 'Dentate' (D'Amato), and 'Dente' (D'Amato). I did this simply to try to bring some order to the list and hopefully reduce, not increase confusion. To further reduce confusion, I have now added a quote from the ICPS Database after 'Dentate' and 'Dente' that "the established name for the same cultivar is Dionaea 'Dentate Traps' (B.Meyers-Rice)".
 
I suppose the naming of varieties will never really stop.  I keep seeing new ones all the time.  Cultivar registration is the only workable solution to the endless confusion non-resistered names generate.

The process of publication and registration is straightforward and simple.  It takes about 1/2 hour to write a description, take a photo, and email it to the CPN editors for publication (although the wait is long to see it in print).

Once a cultivar is published, the legitimate name takes precedence over all other names unpublished, or partially published previously without filing all the (few) requirements of the registration process.

So, Bob has now updated his site to reflect this, since Barry did publish 'Dentate' meeting all the requirements that previous authors did not.  Growers in turn should also update their labels, growlists and headset to reflect the now (happily)unambiguous status of this particular cultivar.

Whether it will happen is another matter.  This is where we all need to educate each other.  For example Drosera capensis 'Alba' is the name of choice for the true and legitimate published Drosera capensis 'Albino'.  It is always considered proper in the study of botany to offer these type of corrections unsolicited, and improper to take offense at any such correction.  This is because the status of plants is always changing, species get reassigned, and new cultivar names are assigned to previously familiar material with familiar names.  We all need to keep up on it, and mutual education is the only way this can happen effectively.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] ... since Barry did publish 'Dentate' meeting all the requirements that previous authors did not.
Actually, Barry did not publish the name 'Dentate'. He published the name 'Dentate Traps' in Carniv.Pl.Newslett.29:16 (2000); Registered 30. 3. 2000 (JS). Peter D'Amoto published the name 'Dentate' in his book Savage Garden in 1998. Why a published name in 2000 takes precedence over another name for the same cultivar published in 1998 is another story.
 
Oh, my bad. You are of course correct, I have the CPN he published it in. I am not positive as to why D'Amato's publication didn't stand, lack of a standard photo perhaps? Well, now I am off to update my labels, and thanks for the correction Bob
smile.gif
 
Perhaps because The Savage Garden wouldn't be recognized as an "official" publication for registering a plant? It does seem like the earlier publication would take precedence.

Registration is still a process I don't understand. I mean, I understand what it is and how...but it seems not to be clearly defined as to what is acceptable to qualify as "published". Does it have to be only certain magazines/publications (like the ICPN)? Does it depend on the circulation of the publication? The type of publication? WHO publishes it? And why isn't there a publication dedicated soley to cultivar registration so that it can be accomplished faster than waiting 1+ year/s? Does someone (one or more persons) have to review each description and photo to ensure its accuracy? I think a culivar registration publication would be fascinating.
smile.gif


I wonder what the average number is for registration per year? 3-4??

I'm with William on the need for more cultivars to be registered to avoid confusion on what is what. If the process could be accomplished faster, maybe more people would do this.

I could produce a cultivar registry booklet pretty easily.
 
Well when I get my money you're hired. I was talking to the ICPS Co-editors regarding this concept, and they are interested too. It would be great if the whole registration concept finally catches on. Actually, there seems to be a greater interest than at the programs inception.

The Savage Garden certainly fufilled the requirement of printed media with a wide circulation. Any publication with a wide distribution would serve: Society Journals, magazines, anything with wide circulation capable of reproducing the photo in reasonable clarity would work. There is no official publication, although the CPN is widely used because of it's convenience and quality.

Ideally, as an ICPS member I would like to see more participation from members in the writing of articles on cultivation, more taxonomic discussions, and the like. I feel the cultivar registration part of the publication would be better placed in a sister or satellite publication. This would lead to speedier publication of new cultivars. But, if members don't contribute, I assume the copy slack is taken up by the backlog of sumbissions for cultivar publication.

Another thing I would like to see is a central website where these registered cultivars might be seen and reviewed. I'd say there was a good work ahead for some dedicated dedicated webmasters and graphic artists!

Bob's website has gone a long way toward showing the community the value of photographic consensus. Once there is a photo, we can begin to discuss what it might or might not be.
 
Back
Top