|
Post by Flytrap on Sept 21, 2014 13:22:42 GMT -5
Respected CP'er Richard Nunn prepared this interesting article on the fallacy and madness of creating "cultivars" or names for the Ceph. His argument may be applied to other CP species. Richard writes: "Over the past few years the author has watched with interest as cultivators of Cephalotus follicularis have attempted to find some points of difference to apply cultivar names, some registered, most not. Unfortunately, in what appears to be a push for commercial gain, the current plethora of cultivar names has reached the point of ridiculous, and one which unfortunately is also gaining popularity with other genera of carnivorous plants. Human nature is such that when we get bitten by the collecting bug we want to have every species or variation of it in our collections and I fear that this is now occurring with C. follicularis. The objective of this article is to try and bring some common sense to the naming of C. follicularis forms and preventing collectors from wasting their money on dubious and spurious forms and cultivars of this plant. Having, over the past 30 years cultivated this genus (with varying levels of success) and in the past decade documented and photographed this plant in multitudes of locations in its natural habitat, I feel that I have some basis for passing comment on this topic. The assertions in this article are my own views, but are supported by similar views of authorities such as Phill Mann, Allen Lowrie, and Greg Bourke, who have seen and studied C. follicularis at multiple locations in its natural habitat and cultivated many clones of this plant." Here's a link to Richard's full dissertation: www.facebook.com/download/preview/668496786547176and the link to download his pdf: www.facebook.com/download/668496786547176/Richard%20Nunn%20cepg%20artical.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Sept 21, 2014 15:58:28 GMT -5
That was the article in a recent ICPS journal wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by amanitovirosa on Sept 21, 2014 21:42:29 GMT -5
...that's a very well written article, a Ceph is a Ceph, pretty much, no? I believe the conditions you give it will determine what it's gonna do and what it's gonna be. Having said that, I just received 2 Hummer's Giants from somewhere in the Czech Republic. Hypocrite I am! Thank you for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by nwflytrap on Sept 22, 2014 6:49:05 GMT -5
All I get is page not found. I've never been a fan of cultivars. I like my typical VFT very much. Just the way nature intended. The same process is too frequent in the aquarium industry with every fish having long finned, short bodied, or other disfigurations made for peoples enjoyment.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Sept 22, 2014 8:55:38 GMT -5
I'm of two minds. I like the idea of growing a "pure" species. However the ease of growth of some cultivars like N. miranda or ventrata is really nice for people who haven't provided hard-core "nep-set-ups" (like me). Also the extravagant (more-natural) VFT cultivars, like B52 are very impressive.
Cephs seem to be different in that maybe they don't have as much "natural" variation to form "real" stable cultivars. Maybe one day, I'll try to create a tetraploid ceph with colchicine in TC.
|
|
|
Post by mabudon on Sept 22, 2014 16:19:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ng on Sept 22, 2014 19:30:35 GMT -5
Im not convinced... both squat form and double ribbed are distinctively different. Im no authority on this but like anything eles how does the old sayin go; Disbelief, fear,acceptance
|
|
|
Post by nwflytrap on Sept 22, 2014 19:39:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the link mabudon. Interesting read.
|
|