Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:16:22 -0500 From: "Dave Evans" <dpevans@rci.rutgers.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg577$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. flava "Maxima"
Hi John,
> In "The Savage Garden", Peter says something about Slack's "incorrectly
> named" cultivar S. flava "Maxima" with blue/gray coloring in the lower
> pitchers. What is the correct name?
There is none for this plant, besides _S.flava_ right now. A cultivar
cannot have a latin name, like 'Maxima', or this will cause even more
confusion than already exists. I'm wondering what you mean by, "lower
pitcher," since that is mostly used for Nepenthes in reference to the
pitchers growing on the lower sections of the vine. Do you mean they are
blue/gray on the lower parts of the leaves?
Anyway...
> Is it really just a cultivar or just a characteristic of a locality?
> I ask because I have a S. flava
> grown from seed that originated from Walton County, Florida, and it
> shows this same blue/gray coloring in the lower pitchers. The pitchers
> are very stocky and shorter than my other flavas, but the rhizome is
> much larger. It's still a young plant though (maybe 4 years old), so
> it's hard to tell how tall it will eventually get.
It sounds like you have something new to me. Perhaps this is an
interesting form of S. * catesbaei? Generally, a cultivar doesn't come from
the wild, but there are a lot of very interesting plants out there. If
there are hundreds of these plants or thousands showing these same features
at the location site, I would not call this a cultivar. However, if there
were only a handful, out of hundreds or thousands of plants, showing this
feature naming the plant as a cultivar has more merit to me. A cultivar is
supposed to be unique, showing a quality(ies) that none or almost none of
it's closest relatives show. If there are thousands of these plants near
this location, then they need to be studied so it can be determined if they
are new (to taxonomy) and in what way(s) they are different of other _S.
flava_. After these plants are studied, the researchers will have go over
their data and try to assign value to any differences and come up with a
possible taxonomic (Latin) name for these plants. If you have the only one
of a few plants like this in cultivation and they do not have a presence in
the wild, then you could name it as a cultivar yourself. Did all the
seedlings show these traits? Were the seeds mixed or all from the same
plant? If you have only one odd ball out of dozens of normal plants grown
from the same mother, even more so if from the same flower, then you most
likely have a good cultivar.
Which brings me to a question. If there are no wild plants of _S.
purpurea subsp. venosa var. burkii f. luteola_. Would it not be better name
this as a cultivar rather than as a taxon? Is that why the database doesn't
show this name as being accepted?
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST