|
|
Post by phissionkorps on May 8, 2008 2:19:37 GMT 8
Yeah, just recently on pitcherplants they stated that it was just a rumor that they had remade it. Can't find the thread, but it's there somewhere if you search for it. It was within the last month.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsivertsen on May 8, 2008 5:30:42 GMT 8
Re: N. dyeriana,
Sunbelle is absolutely correct in that post. I became familiar with this plant back in the mid '70s at Longwood Gardens when they had it labeled as "N. dicksoniana". I sent photos of it to Japanese authorities, who informed me that is was in fact NOT N. dicksoniana, but "N. dyeriana".
I did some research on this, and found it described in the [Kew] Gardner's Chronicles as "N. x Sir William T. Thistleton Dyer" (too short, huh? ;D) and became better known in the circles as just D. dyeriana; but that name does NOT (to my knowledge), appear in any formal documented botanical description; it's just a name that has become synonymous by de-facto over the years, and yes, it is a male plant, and only one clone of it exists. Even if someone else were to remake this hybrid, it would be of completely different plants, and would most likely look different too.
Longwood grows them in hanging baskets, and gets them to produce pitchers up to 16 inches! They have to tie the pitchers to the tendrils (just under the peristome) so that they don't topple over when they water them and the pitchers fill up with water, sometimes fertilizer.
It is N. x mixta (N. northiana x N. maxima) X N. x dicksoniana (N. rafflesiana x N. veitchii - and most likely a lowland form at that). It doesn't produce hybrids very well, as I've tried several times, but each time rendered no germination.
- Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by hongrui on May 8, 2008 7:35:26 GMT 8
Great! thanks for sharing the information, phissionkorps and rich!  |
|
