Date: Thu, 09 Jan 97 18:08 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg139$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
> > So then, how did Bruce Bednar name N. * wrigliana cv. 'Kosobe'?
> > Can (should) cultivars even be used for this polymorphic genus?
>
> Not to short Bruce, but I am fairly sure he was not responsible for N.
> wrigliana 'kosobe'. I obtained 'kosobe' in the mid 70's (still have it) and
> was told it was developed in Japan and named for a Japanese city. Sorry I
> don't remember the source, maybe the old World Insectivorous Plants - who was
> that, Bob Hanaran?
By looking at Jan's list, it seems to have been made twice, but I
am not sure.
> Given the complex Nepenthes crosses, it would seem to me that in any batch of
> seedlings the chances are that only one or two (if that many) would have
> unique, desirable characteristics worthy of naming. More or less the approach
> Mellichamp uses for his Sarr. hybrids.
Yes, I'm planning on naming one or two new S.flava, if they continue
to be so outstanding. One or two out of several hundred are very
different.
> Along the same lines, if you check the parentage of several of the old hybrids,
> N. wrigliana, N. coccinea, N. paradisea, -shoot I know there are one or two
> others, maybe one of the Koto's that have flooded the scene- I believe they
> all have the same parents. I don't recall if it is three or four parents,
> mirabilis, raff., ampullaria, and maybe gracilis? - I guess I should check
> Jan's list to know for sure! :)
For wrigliana, a female N.mirablis was used. For N.* coccinea, a female
N.* hookeriana was used. Both crosses are half N.mirablis and half
N. * hookeriana. My N.* coccinea favors it's N.raff. sapline much more
than both N.wrigliana (which are nearly indentical) for the pitchers
while the texture of the leaves (thick and waxy) on the N.*wrig.
favors the raff. and the leaves on N.coccinea very very similar to
N.mirablis. Do other's find things different from this?
> N coccinea and N.paradisea look absolutely identical to me except for pitcher
> size (may be growing conditions), while wrigliana kosobe is distinct in both
> the width and angle of the peristome and the shape of the pitcher. Coloration
> is identical for all three.
The coloration between my (perhaps wrongly labled?) N.* coccinea and
N.* wrig. is different as the N.cocc. has quite a bit of white in
it while neither N.* wrig. has no white. (Didn't you hear? Double
negatives are now part of English.)
> If I cross mirabilis, raff. and amp. and whatever else is in the mix, I would
> assume I am not producing N. wrig., paradisea, or coccinea, but it seems likely
> that the resulting mix will produce a hybrid largely indistinguishable from
> them.
Well, I've always wanted to see what N.ampullaria * (N. raff. *
N.mirablis) would look like. I searched Jan's list for it, but
never found this. I think most these N.amp. hybrids actually
used N.* hookeriana taken from the wild so people keep on making
the same crosses with it and not using N.amp. directly. Has any
one flowered N.ampullaria? I asked indirectly before but I'm
not sure if there was a response. Also, all the hybrids involving
N.amp as a parent appear to be taken from the wild (ie. N.*
tricocarpa, N.amp. * N.mirablis, ect.) also.
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST