Agreed with Marcello ~ photos to clear things up Disagree with Marka ~ If your business is being attacked would you not want to defend it? A photo of pink plant in flower would end the mixed seed business... assuming he has such photos and his official story is true. Paul I guarantee you will be back if those photos come
Rob, with regards to your first response. Sorry, I didnt know when you said you did not have access to a slide scanner you meant no slide scanner entire country. Will you will eventually get those photos up for everyone to see ? its been over 3 months. If Geoff is "making things up / wild accusations and unnecessarily bashing you" and you yourself have said and made contradictory statements that allow him to do such things then surely you would want to set them all straight with something solid???
With the second response..I believe you are not lying when you say you did not refuse sale or restrict quantity then did you not delay the availability of the plant to the distributor ie they are only allowed to order black truncata early 2012? Something must of happened for them to only reach Australia mid 2011 and for so many hobbyist to believe such a ban was enforced....
Last Edit: Mar 18, 2012 0:31:49 GMT 7 by Predator08
Agreed with Marcello ~ photos to clear things up Disagree with Marka ~ If your business is being attacked would you not want to defend it? A photo of pink plant in flower would end the mixed seed business... assuming he has such photos and his official story is true.
It's not the defense that i find embarrasing to read...
The plants are what they are and i bought one well before it was described as a new species and without caring what label folks want to give it.
The paper as it stands is apparently legit and the way I see it if someone wants to say its something else then they should get off their backsides and write their own paper.
Personally, i think regardless of what photos are, or are not posted here, the sniping will continue because the motivation behind it is not really about this plant.
MarkA: Obviously you are biased towards BE and that is fine and so is your opinion appreciated. However, you are obviously saying that in your opinion, it is okay with you that BE can bring up comments from other threads and emails that have nothing to do with this thread, call me names and make other snide remarks, which probably go over the heads of most. Very biased I think. You obviously have not read this thread thoroughly if you think that it is about the paper. I am not a taxonomist and as I have previously stated, it is irrelevant what I or anyone really says about MC's paper on this thread, as you would have to write another paper and have it published to challenge it. If you would like to hear my opinion of MC's paper please start another thread. I promise I will keep it to taxonomy. BTW. I am not sure what you mean about grainy photos as Rob said that the originals would be pretty good and the others posted to date are okay.
On that note, Rob, if you don't have the time to scan those slides I'll make you an offer. To show you I don't have any malice towards you as you or others may think, I don't have a scanner either but I will buy one. After that you can send me the slides by registered post, I will scan them for you (in my ample spare time ) and send them back to you. All at my expense. I am trustworthy and you would know what is on the slides so could point out any discrepancies. What do you reckon?
Also, how about some simple questions based on what you obviously relayed to MC about the paper and Diana's experience? Would you mind answering them?
You have now said that the truth about the seed collection is what is written in the paper, which is basically the following. You went to the Pasian highlands and observed lots of truncatas that had seed on them that was all quite immature. You also saw two atypical plants. One, the pink one in your photo, had an old seed spray on it and you collected the remaining seed. I take it that the second atypical plant was the black one that you also had in your photos. Is this correct? You brought only this seed back and sowed it in your nursery. There was no other truncatas sown at the same time as the seed of the other ones you saw was 'quite immature'. I take it that you labelled the seed tray well. Is this correct? BE has a large tc lab specializing in Nepenthes and you as their major share holder were in a process of building your nursery up with obtaining new and rare species. Correct?(We all know this is). Yet you did not initiate these maginificent atypical truncata seeds in tc? Not even half? Initially your story of all the seed being mixed explained this but I am having a hard time understanding this one. Also if Diana saw, quite clearly, the tray with the black truncatas in it and these were collected months or years before the Pasian typical form, how did the workers mix them up and send only one to Shinya and 4 to Tony? I assume your staff with that responsibility can read English? Wouldn't the Pasian ones have been a different size from the black ones? Just some thoughts.
I have been watching from the sidelines, and have thrown in a couple comments, but so far, this has really been a quarrel between the two main companies over the details of misplaced comments. Geoff, if you read MarkA's thread, he is not talking about the paper, but the comments you have been putting out toward BE. I must agree, there have been contradictory quotes put up here, and unfortuantely not all of these quotes will be reconciled with. However, the base line here is that, yes, most of us can agree this is a new plant, most likely species, highly unlikely it is a hybrid, most of us can agree that BE has messed up on a few details on the origin of these plants, and most of us seem to agree that there seems to be a bit of an underhanded attack here. I would also like to point out I agree that we need the "in situ" pics, and some pics of the current plants would be nice, but as the collection of both batches of seed had to have been made over 11 years ago, there is bound to be some mix-up on collection details and exact times for the collections, and not all details will be remembered or even written down. I am usually very thorough when I collect anything from my own plants, or am making notes about any happenings, but there have been big details I have missed out on as well. We're all human! We make mistakes! As for the questions EP would like answered, so far I have not seen anything saying that the N. robcantleyi seeds were collected first. All say that the truncata Pasian seeds were collected first, and while the robcantleyi seeds came later, and both were grown in trays very near to, if not next to, each other. Any worker who is trying to fill a couple of unfilled orders, or even Rob himself, could take an out-of-tray selection and send different plants to a lucky couple people. Plus, info I have read suggests the timing for the collections could only be a few months apart at best, meaning plants would not necessarily have been that different in size. Also, if the seed was limited, and it was unknown at the time, or little thought of, how important tc might be for these original plants, that may be why they were not immediately introduced. Plus, plants in tc may grow fast, but even then the original robcantleyis would not be as large as they are now, only in larger numbers. A flowering example could possibly not even be available now in that case.
Post by mitchelldavis76 on Mar 18, 2012 13:14:50 GMT 7
OK... I have read this thread from the start and WOW... what a great thread! Longest ever I think. All "Bickering", "Quarrels" blah blah blah aside, I see a lot of valid points. I don't question that this is a fantastic plant and a HUGE discovery, I like everyone else, would just like to know what I am growing. As for the whole seed mix up, BE has many workers and I'm sure mistakes happen.(Like sibuyanensis x "hamata"?). I expect perfection out of no one. We are "Human". But... if Rob has pics that can help clear this up then PLEASE... Help clear this up. Let EP help if you do not have the means. What ever it takes, please bring some clarity to the plants we are growing. I think they are very nice plants. Now as for the paper, I have not read it and could really care less. It is clearly based off one Taxonomists opinion about one plant. (From what I read) But here are my 2 cents... After seeing pics of the parents, siblings and offspring... I have my doubts it is a new species. Just a fantastic sport or maybe a hybrid with sp.? that may not have been found yet. The parents and their siblings have WAY to much variation in their characteristics to be a pure species (IMO, since no 2 look alike). And the offspring (QOH X KOS) have just the variation that I would expect of a sport (Varying traits of just the parents). I know for sure robcantleyi grows VERY differently than the Pasian truncata because I have grown both. Pasians are the most cold intolerant neps next to bicals. In fact the Pasian truncatas, when young, showed cold burn before my bicals to my surprise (As I mentioned to Rob in the past, and at the time he said he saw the same thing). And robcantleyi is much more cold tolerant. But as Tony mentioned, looses color in Winter (Or cooler temps maybe) and is also a MUCH slower grower than the Pasian truncatas. (All above points are IMO from what I saw, results may vary). Point here is, fantastic plant, but I just would like to know what I am growing. Not trying to take sides... that is all. Mitchell
Mitchell, oddly i find the opposite, this year I overwintered my pasian for 4 months at a min of 9C, which would kill any/most bicals (mine died after 4 months @15c). My N. rc seems to prefer true intermediate temps. In terms of cold tolerance its seems to go pasian -> rc-> lowland truncata, but thats just my plants.
Geoff, I have no particular connection with BE and most of my plants are either from AW, MT, various asian nurseries or are seed grown with only a few plants from BE. If i have a bias its as a result of this thread.
geoff: You are trying to damage BE's image here, but your are masterfully destroying your own. Be aware of that! This is not my opinion only but the one of all (not even most) PM's I have been receiving in this matter. This is not the purpose of a public forum - sorry!
Thanks Volker for your comments. I think Proboards should be paying me for all the traffic on this topic, though . You must admit that there has been major interest and only a few complaints. Obviously there has been a few complaints about my posts on this thread and I have been asked to tone things down. Apparently it is okay for others to post as they feel though. I definitely don’t see my posts as hostile or embarrassing, insistent, yes. There have been a lot of hints or statements by others that I have ulterior motives to my posting, other than what I have stated my reasons to be. I assure everyone that if I had other motives other than the truth and the integrity of the genus, which I, obviously incorrectly, assumed was one of the functions of this forum, I would not be wasting my time being insulted on this forum. I am sure there are much easier and thorough ways to go about it if I had other motives. Anyhow, so I don’t upset anyone anymore I won't post for now. If anyone else is interested though there are many facts that don't add up even in this thread and in very recent posts but obviously it is not for me to say on this thread. We will see what pans out when the paper is challenged though . Thanks for all your interest.
I’m preparing a web page about the entire history of discovery and cultivation of N. robcantleyi which I hope will eventually dispel some of the speculation that has appeared on this thread, much of which has been made in good faith by people doing their best to work with the scant information available and the rest has been presented as ‘facts’ by someone who has almost no knowledge of the genealogy of the plants currently in cultivation. I believe that by now most people have already realised this and the underlying motives, so it’s time to move on.
To complete the web page, I will of course need to get the habitat shots scanned in which will take a few weeks yet, for reasons already discussed. In the meantime though - as promised, here are photos of all the Royals we have, as well as some shots of Shinya Yamada’s plants (courtesy Shinya Yamada) and the only photos I have of Tony’s clones which were stolen (thank you Tony). I’ve also thrown in a small gallery of shots of a fairly typical clone of the Pasian N. truncata as well as some various N. veitchii for comparison. There are many photos, so rather than post them all on the forum, they are in galleries. Clicking on thumbnails will open up an image 650 pixels high. If anyone really needs very high resolution versions, or different shots to show taxonomic features, they can be made available if required for research purposes
Just a couple of additional points to throw in:
In my efforts to be candid, I have revealed something about our internal numbering system for plants, which differ from the sales BE-codes many of you may already be familiar with. For example, the number 0136 is the BE Variety ID we gave long ago for Nepenthes truncata and the number following it is a clone number. Please do not infer that (for example) because 0136-20 and 0136-053 have the same Variety ID of 0136, they are from the same seed collection – they are not. At the time of discovery in 1997 and for some years afterwards, we accepted that N. robcantleyi was an extreme form of N. truncata and it wasn’t until we grew the 6 plants in our care to maturity, that we found there really were such significant differences between them. Hence in the early days they were all labelled with the same Variety ID of 0136-xx.
One question that has come up on this thread that seems to be valid, is the question of why, if we obtained seeds of N. robcantleyi before those of N. truncata – as stated in MC’s paper – did we not put N. robcantleyi into sterile culture in the lab? The reason is very simple - because we set up BE in 1997 and we had no laboratory facilities until 1998, therefore we sowed the few seeds of N. robcantleyi in the nurseries because there really was no other choice.
Here are the links to the galleries, please let me know if any don't work properly or if higher res photos are needed.
Just a note regarding the plant of mine Rob has pictured. This is the plant I called clone C. It was one that didn't survive. It did not grow well and would sometimes make deformed leaves. This one plant, and the only plant out of more than 80 something plants obtained originally, looked to me to be somewhere between the N. truncata Pasian and the N. robcantleyi. It is my belief that this one may have been a hybrid between the two.
This was not one of the stolen plants Rob so if you can correct the website please.
I still have to dig through my old photos and send them to Rob. The next week or two are very busy with shipments due and the ever looming income taxes..
Post by mitchelldavis76 on Mar 26, 2012 2:02:48 GMT 7
Rob, thank you for the pics! They seem to show a lot less variation then I have seen in past pics. And I just finished reading the paper in question in regards to the species description. My thoughts are, it is a great paper but it seems to be based on a lot of speculation and unknown information. It is clear, and I agree with the fact that we are not dealing with a standard truncata. But the description seems based on the few facts that are known with a lot of gaps between. I'm not in a place to say the paper is wrong, but IMO I just think it maybe a bit premature to be describing this plant as a new species. It seems to come to the species conclusion based on the fact that there is no known hybrid that can look like this. Then again the entire area has been logged and all possible chances of finding more of these plants, or the possible parents to make a hybrid, seem to be lost. I'll also add that if Rob went there with permission to collect and an escort, knowing that the area was going to be destroyed, why didn't you collect the plants as well? Now the plan proposed in the paper to reintroduce these plants back to the wild... are you planning to put them back where you found them? Would they survive now? It seems that a new location is to be chosen which just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It may impact the ecology of that area. BTW... has everyone read the paper here? Does anyone know if it is OK to post it? Or is there a copy wright on it? It was sent to my by a friend so I'm not sure. Oh... one last thing... the artist that did the drawings in the paper did a FANTASTIC job! Mitchell