New discovery on how the VFT closes its traps

byron_1(z10FL)September 23, 2005

This is some good information I picked up from the net.

LONDON - High-speed video and mathematical models have helped to unravel how a Venus flytrap is able to ensnare its victims.

Charles Darwin called the plant puzzle "one

of the most wonderful in the

world."Since his time, scientists

have pondered how the flytrap (Dionaea

muscipula) is able to accomplish the

feat without benefit of the

nerves and muscles of swift animals.

Now researchers have found tensile strength is

behind the plant's speedy clampdown on a

hapless insect.

Once trigger hairs are tripped by the prey, the

plant bends its rubbery leaves into a convex

shape, like a tennis ball or soft contact lens that

has been flipped inside-out.

The leaves instantly turn to a concave, as if the tennis ball is popped back to normal.

The edges come together, trapping the insect inside.

Applied mathematics Prof. Lakshminarayanan Mahadevan of HarvardUniversity and his team were able to follow the leaf action by painting dozens of fluorescent ultraviolet dots on the leaves.

They then filmed the leaves using a high-speed camera sensitive to UV towatch the leaves change shape during a snap.

How the plant seems to actively control the change in curvature within itsleaves remains a mystery, but the study shows elastic strain plays a role in the process.

"In essence, a leaf stretches until reaching a point of instability where it can no longer maintain the strain," Mahadevan said in a release.

A mathematical model filled in the details of when the plant snaps, how long it takes once stimulated and the timing of the steps.

Engineers hope to someday mimic the flytrap's ability in order to move tiny artificial devices that depend on minute movements of liquids or gases.

Moving valves, hydraulic sensors or time-released drug systems are some of the possiblities.

The study appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

One thing that bothers me is that it took a team, a team! of scientist to discover that the way the VFT closes has to do with tensile strenght. I knew this more than five years ago. If scientist would listen to other scientists they would have save so much time and money.

One thing these guys still do not know is that the VFT also has a none-tensile strength. Apparently, they did not made the time to consider the way the venus flytrap closes its

traps when the traps become flat by the cause of closing and opening too many times.

Traps can also close slowly if they have lost their tensile strength. Also they can close slowly in a matter of days around the food just like a sundew would except slower. I believe this factor is the same mechanism that makes the plant leaves stay close until food is digested.

It is so sad to see that so many scientist take one evidence and disregard the rest, or perhaps it was just carelessness.

A team of scientists!

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
akheadbanger(z?? OH)

Wow... Where did they get their im a snotty sceientist degree? well thats crazy that it took a team to! Thanks for that nice update!


    Bookmark   September 23, 2005 at 2:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Very interesting stuff, although like you said, I don't think it's new information :p

    Bookmark   September 23, 2005 at 4:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

When I look at science such as physics, ethology, biology, I sometimes wonder if scientist are picked by universities for their mental skills or their lack of such.

Some are paid so much money and they do so little.

    Bookmark   September 23, 2005 at 6:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

One of the problems with academic scientists/professors is that they are often expected to produce a minimum number of research papers to keep in good standing. This can be a benefit if you have a team of brilliant people, but for those that have a limited amount of creativity, well they do have the "Golden Turkey Awards"...


    Bookmark   September 23, 2005 at 7:24PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Not too many of those brilliant teams exist. I think the most advance scientific teams we have is in the area of technology.

I have studied on the areas of physics, ethology, psychology, and have found they all have many weak points. Some of those points are so bad that they ruin the whole concept.

Tell any physicist to tell you how can light speed be the ultimate speed if motion is relative. It is not possible. However, they will give you some interesting theories which do not fit from the perspective of relativity.

In reality there is no such thing as the ultimate speed.

I think that politics is a major contributor when it comes to keeping certain science from advancing.

I believe it has to take a team of scientist to find out how the VFT traps work because if it took only one man, that would make Charles Darwin look bad.

This is the same reason why no one can come out with a better theory of gravity, for it will make Albert Einstein look bad.

So it will probably take a team of scientist to discover how the VFT closes, for Charles Darwin could not come up with it.

It is like when you have a race in your village, and the king is racing with all of the people. Everybody is going to have to be slower than the king. If you try to run faster
than him someone will trip you and hold you down.

Our culture is bounded by these instinctive behaviors that helped us as a social animal in the wild. However, these same factors that are encoded in our genes which makes us
behave like this sometimes have a flaw: it is hard to listen to someone who is not a king no matter how much sense they make, and in order to think like a king you have to use
other minds, a team can think like a king, an individual can not, even if you can, of course.

Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, these are all kings within our social history.

When a king makes a mistake, you do not correct it, you make everybody else believe it. Some great conquistador in Australia once told the native, "What is the name of that jumping animal?" The native man told him something like "Don't understand" Which means "kangaroo". So the conquistador called the animal kangaroo. In a way the kangaroo still does not have a name today.

In France some king decided he did not wanted people to say eighty or ninety, for some reason, instead four twenties for eighty and four twenties ten for ninety. Still today France does not have a ninety or an eighty.

It is easy for a king to make changes, even if those changes are wrong. But it is so difficult for one individual to correct such changes or improve upon them.

    Bookmark   September 25, 2005 at 11:35AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
brendan_of_bonsai(4b AK)

long dead post, but the truth is that it takes a team because its a pain to do all that work on your own. One professor and two student research assistants=a team.

    Bookmark   December 4, 2007 at 3:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Multiple points of view allow for objectivity rather than subjectivity. Alone, we often make mistakes based on personal belief rather than reality. Teams cut back on that, particularly if the team is set to respond as a group of individuals with different perspectives rather than as a team that blindly follows one leader (someone has to be the Devil's Advocate to overcome group-think). It takes one person to have an idea and a team to ensure that the idea makes sense or not.

    Bookmark   December 4, 2007 at 6:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Here is some fresh new Venus-Flytrap inspired technology. Very interesting.

    Bookmark   December 5, 2007 at 2:36PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Byron, I think you got Theory of Relativity wrong. When you say motion is relative you are wrong and indeed light speed is the ultimate motion. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. Light speed is constant and is a physical law built into the fabric of the universe. The 'interesting theories' is what explains the perspective of relativity itself, if the theories are wrong then one most point out why. But to date, thanks to scientific experiments, they had held up to tests.

Now when you say that nobody can come up with a better theory of gravity because it supposedly will make Einstein bad is wrong. Einstein postulated the first theories of gravity, which have been proven, for example time dilation and the warping of space. Of curse there are still mystery about gravity for example why it is weak.

Einstein, Newton, and Charles Darwin are not king of our social fabric, famous men yes but not kings. These are men that postulated their theories and from there it expended. They did what they could limited only to the knowledge or technology available of the time. So the possibility that some of their hypothesis may be wrong will happen. Besides, men that have appeared throughout history are like steps or rung on a ladder, which allows others to add to the discoveries. For example, Newton discovered the mechanics of gravity but couldn't explain how it worked. Einstein came along and figured out how it works but questions are still left on the theory of gravity and now Stephen Hawkins still adds more knowledge to the discoveries, like steps in a ladder. But these men were not born kings; most are common man who used their brains to make new discoveries about nature.

Nature has confounded science many times and science have been forced to rewrite their science books, thanks to knew detection technologies and accumulated knowledge. Science is self-correcting; even Einstein has made a mistake when Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding. Einstein was on the camp of the hypothesis of a Constant Universe, in other words a non-changing eternal universe. Now we know the universe is expanding and changing.

But some scientist refused to accept that the universe is expanding and once had a beginning and will one day end. These men were great scientist in their own right but unfortunately they were enamored to their ideas and refused to accept when new ideas, even provable ones, contradicted them. Again, Einstein is the founder of Quantum Physics but yet rejected them because it threatened the few of his cherished preconceived ideas. Science like I said is self-correcting and grows as knowledge are added to it. The problem are man with passions that may stir them to the wrong direction but eventually science through test and observation will eventually whittle them out.

Now returning to the closing phenomena of the Venus flytrap leaves. It is a wonder of nature and Darwin, because of the lack of tools of his time to study the phenomena, couldnt explain how it closed. One other competing hypothesis was that the cells of the inner wall of the trap lost pressure while the other increased, causing the closure of the trap. Thanks to Prof. Lakshminarayanan Mahadevan studies, now we know what causes the closure but know it remains to figure out how the mechanism that starts the closure works. Now how is Prof. Lakshminarayanan Mahadevan studies making Âking Darwin look bad? To me it adds to the knowledge started by Darwin. Another rung added to the ladder of the Theory of Evolution.

I do apologize that I had gone way off to a tangent from the forum true purpose but couldnÂt help myself. Well... nuff said.

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 1:10AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Well, everyone has their opinions. No matter whether is light or an object in motion, they all move through space, and the same factor of relativity applies. You obviously did not read all my theory, you just glimpse over it. I show many samples that prove light speed is not the ultimate speed. I also show how everything fits together as one in such an intricate manner it is more elegant than any thing any one else has ever done.

Einstein did not even knew what dimensions where and even today no one knows what dimensions really are, except for myself. And I am not singing that one, for I have not had the time for new theories.

We independent scientist have done so much for humanity, yet we are the ones that are treated with less respect. It is societies' loss I guess.

We are so busy with titles in this matriarchal society, no one knows or can recognize someone's work until some big fart points it out to the rest of us sheeps.

Do you know of any musician who became one in two hours. I am the only person I know in history to have ever done this. I could not believe it, and my cousin told me that music was genetically encoded in my DNA. Because there are so many musicians in our family. I still do not consider myself a real musician, for I have only done one album and I only worked on it for about a month, during my spare time. But every music and graphic is my creation.

At this moment, I have no time to defend myself, my talents or my theories. Last christmas I lost my cat and my brother died of AIDS. This christmas my father just suffered a stroke, and my mother is going crazy. I am keeping her afloat..... I am all she has right now. So I am sorry if I can not defend my scientific views right now.


Samuel Miensinompe

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 11:50AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

What I find most refreshing about true scientific endeavor is humility. It is easy to point out the perceived weaknesses in another's work, much more difficult to do so for oneself.

Even Einstein commented on how he felt his opinion of a constant universe was consistently overshadowed by the reality of his studies, indicating that he was wrong.

Darwin did not know the true workings of the Flytrap, yet he tried to come up with the best explanation possible at the time. Knowing how Darwin thought, I have studied his life, he probably would react with joy at finding out how much more we know today and start postulating about those facts that are still obfuscated by using present knowledge as a springboard. He also studied sundews, particularly Drosera rotundifolia. He was a man that was more interested in learning rather than trying to prove how smart he was.

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 3:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

If for some reason I have given you the image that I do my theories because I want to prove how smart I am you are totally correct, and guess what, every great scientist has a motivational engine, and most of such, at least in males, is our egos. Saying that Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin did not have an ego the size of the moon... if you think that, you do not know much about the sociology and what powers our actions. Why do you think they copyrighted their work! Why do you think that Alexander called himself "Alexander The Great". Behind every great scientist, inventor, artist and so fourth is a motivational engine. And most of the time such engine is our oversized egos.

When it comes to finding if my theories are wrong, I take criticism from everyone. And the biggest critic of all is myself. Because one of my biggest fears is that I get to publish a piece of crap like so many scientist today do not mind doing because their motivational engine is Money much more than their egos to be right.

If you have a mechanic with a large ego, who takes pride in his work and learns from his mistakes and wants to be the best mechanic in the world, would you prefer going to him to fix you car or would you prefer going to a mechanic that does his work thinking about the big paycheck he is going to have at the end of the week?

Today everyone is with "lets save the planet" "lets recycle". And the majority of us actually think that we will save the planet if we go green. This is because in our matriarchal society the ones that are pointed out to command are smart, but not so smart.

Going green is good for the planet, but it will by no means save it. Our population still growing out of hand, and the more we are the more we breed so our overpopulation is accelerating out of control and someday within just a few decades more, if this continues, no matter how green we become doom shall be our future.

It is all written in the book of "cause and effect".

God forgive our mighty ignorance!

Sorry for the typoes, no time to check it.

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 6:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Byron 1,

Actually, I know a lot more about Sociology and Psychology than most people, not all... as I also had instructors of varying opinions and points of view. We all have our own points of view. You have yours, I have mine. Some of our opinions might coincide and some might not. This does not suppose that anyone is correct or incorrect, only that we differ in opinion until someone conducts a proper experiment.

Unfortunately we have come to an impasse since this is the improper forum to discuss these issues with depth.

Just remember, ego can be a good motivator, but it can be as corrupting as any amount of cash. I intend no disrespect of your knowledge, however; everyone needs a gentle reminder every so often.

This string will likely be closed from here out as it has gone astray.

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 6:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

On the last post from Bryon I partly agree, especially of the silly notion of "going green", I would have liked to ask what branch of science Bryon is majoring but you are right mutant_hybrid. From my last post really I sent this string south. So I apologize for that.

    Bookmark   December 7, 2007 at 9:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


I also agree with the Malthusian viewpoint (Population and Migration courses), however; disparaging other peoples' work does little to advance science. Disagreeing and presenting sound data that has been statistically tested with the proper variables does. While I agree with Byron on several points about science and politics, there are simply other ways to go about changing the status quo. So far as changes to the Theory of Relativity, show me the evidence is what every scientist independent or otherwise will say. They will test and restest any new ideas themselves and come to a conclusion based on their individual results if they are serious about scientific inquiry.

That is pretty much all their is to it.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 4:32AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

You have not idea how much drunken reasearch is being done, expecially in the area of physics.

Remember the water drinking theory that had so many people gabbling extremes amounts of water. Many people actually died from that.

Logic tells you, if it is too much, and we would have not drank so much water when we were in the wild, the theory probably sucks.

We got to use common sence.

A team of reaserchers took to point out that a dog or a cat was not actually a self aware being because they could not recognise themselves in the mirror?
My theory of ethology showed how badly were their views.

Sometimes, when we see something, the mind plays tricks on us. If you are a scientist, you can only esplain things the way you see them, and if you see them the wrong way, your theory will be a piece of crap.

The best way to do a great theory of science is to critizise it to death, chipping it away like carving a statue until you get a piece of art that ether stand well or it falls appart.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 11:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

When you are a scientist and you are being paid to do a theory, and you have spent so much time and effort on it, but later you find out that it falls appart, for some scientist that is too much to bare, to see all of that work meant nothing.

So what do some of them do? They tape their statue until it stands by itself. It is sometimes easy to lie to once self if you got to think that you have to start all over from scratch. However, if you are a scientist, that should be part of your job. It is something you should accept before you even begin your work.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 11:17AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

These things are very true Byron, however; we are all forgetting one important point, Darwin himself was an independent thinker. How are his views being taped up if they were not even accepted by the public to begin with? Darwin started off being thought of as academically slow. Nobody even listened to him. These are just the things you argue against, yet you also argue against the very man that had your point validated for once in history once people started listening to him. He did not even care who listened either... usually other people read his work and argued in his stead.

In any case, good luck with your research.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 1:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I am not really pointing the finger at any scientist. I am mainly pointing the finger at the research behavior some of us scientist tend to have. Albert Einstein's theory of the universe had some good stuff and some bad stuff. His theory was not a piece of crap because some of it is good. Charles Darwin's theories were a bit more accurate, he obviously took time to think them trough, but his theories were not completely his, for other scientist also talk about such things.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 3:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Science is full of independent thinkers. Here I am going back to Einstein, he was considered to be almost a slow child (read retard) because he was late developing his language skills and his teachers at school so no hope in him because he was slow in class, bad at math, and always daydreaming. Now look what he achieved.

I agree Byron, that there are scientist spending money and their lives on a hypothesis or trying to prove a theory, which eventually turns to be wrong, that happens a lot. When there is a phenomenon that needs to be explained, scientists have to explain every detail or nuances that occurs in a phenomenon or it falls apart.

When a scientist pops out a new theory, he publicizes his work detail his theory. Then it goes through peer review. At time it can get real nasty but if it holds up through test or observation and shows positive observable prediction. Then it becomes more and more accepted. But even that, there will be scientist that will reject it because it contradict their own theories, these are people that spent their lives developing them and the idea they were wrong their whole life well some take it real hard. But peer review is very important to weed out theories that had been developed by misconceptions or faulty analysis.

And the closure of the Venus Flytraps is a good example of a very simple phenomenon that have botanists scientist scratching their heads. There were 3 competing ideas how the trap closed but one was proven right by Prof. Mahadevan. Now the mechanism that initiates the closure of the leaves has to be explained. How is it that plant cell can release an electric current during the closure process? Does the electric current assist in the closure of the trap or is it simply a "by-product" from the cells? How does the trigger work? What is the signal released by the trigger hairs and what is the mechanism that makes it a requirement for 2 stimuli to close the trap? Plus, there is also a time period that is required for the 2 stimuli to close the trap, if it takes to long between signals and it wont close, so how can the cells of the leaves "remember"?

mutant_hybrid is right, scientist have to show some humility. When Einstein realized he was wrong about the Constant Universe theory, he called it his "greatest blunder" when he learned of Hubbles strong evidence to the contrary and moved on. But now Einstein, who added a "cosmological constant" to his equation for the constant universe but later retracted it, may be now vindicated by the discovery of "dark energy". Thanks to the discoveries made by the Hubble Telescope (how ironic, eh?). The man formulated the equation to explain a force that would balance gravity out from crushing the universe. Who wouldve guessed he was right on one part of his theory? Now it seems that the Universe, thanks to the "dark energy" (scientist refuse to use the term anti-gravity), it will go on expanding forever.

I never heard about a water drinking theory, but I have heard people dying too much water, teenagers playing weird dare games in parties. It is a known fact that water can kill you as it dilutes the minerals and salts in your bodies. You are suppose to take at least 6 glasses of water because thats how much water a person looses in a warm day through perspiration, waste elimination, and through the mouth and nose in normal breathing.

Im no scientist myself but an electronic engineer, and was an amateur astronomer but stopped after my brothers death. But I know the scientific procedures because I tried to be an astronomer but thing didnt go as plan :-p.

Oh well thats life for ya. LoL this string has probably reached South America by now.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 4:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


Actually with your emphasis on trap closure you just helped bring the string back on line. These poorly understood events are much like the elecrical phenomena that are also poorly understood among animal gamete growth and conception. When gametes fuse, there is a weak electrical discharge or pulse. Perhaps this is similar in some ways to the poorly understood triggering and trap closing of Venus Flytraps. To find one answer one might have to find many. Venus Flytraps have been noted to close when triggered by electrical discharges as well.

Similarly, how does a Nepenthes "know" when to produce digestive enzymes? It is thought that the struggles of dying prey are "sensed" by the inner pitcher cells, inducing the glands to produce digestive fluid. The Nepenthes typically does not produce anything but sugars and benzoic acid to attract and preserve prey until something is actually captured.

All of these questions are being researched by avid independent thinkers and contracted scientists, so hopefully we will have more answers to come.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 5:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Are the fluids sitting inside nepenthes pitchers toxic? I mean when they are newly opened and no bugs have gone inside. Sorry, that is just how my strange mind works...

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 6:34PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I have heard that the B52 appears to be the largest VFT in the world?

Has any one actually measured the traps of this plant with the traps of other giants like the Big Vigorous?

I have gone to the internet, and have had absolutely no luck trying to find the actual size of this plant. Is it an exaggeration or does the plant stands up to its reputation.

I have a few cultivars of my on which I think may be even larger than the B52. However, they are still young, only three years old, but their trap size are in the range of almost 2" large!

I have seen many giant cultivars, however the SouthWest Giant and the Big Vigorous are the only ones who actually appear to be the biggest.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2007 at 10:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


No, the fluid in Nepenthes is not toxic to most animals that I know of. It has a lower surface tension than plain water to better drown insects, but is mostly just sugars and preservatives. Even when insects fall in and are digested, the released proteins and digestive enzymes are not toxic, as a matter of fact, many monkeys and oragutans drink from them to obtain the sugars and dead insect proteins, hence the term "monkey cups." Humans could probably drink the fluid and even eat the entire pitcher with no ill effects, people in New Guinnea use them to cook rice in actually.


There are many different reports that the Bigmouth Flytraps are just the biggest typicals on display, that coming from, and some that state that their is an actual cultivar that is genetically capable of producing bigger traps. I tend to trust more on this info. Their info indicated that typical Flytraps in optimal conditions would eventually produce traps the size of B52 or larger on their own. In suboptimal conditions, even B52 produces smaller traps like a typical would in the same conditions.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2007 at 12:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Thanks mutant,

I was trying to salvage the string but was afraid I was too late. It is an interesting discussion we are having hear. Its rare to bump into a good discussion like this.

I have the B-52 variety and the traps do reach the 1-inch length, but I also have the Triffids Traps and they reached the same size, both are about 2 years old. But these two are still large then my Red Dragon and Crested Petioles that are 5 years old but they produce traps only half an inch long. So who knows,

But would love to get my hands on the larger growing variety.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2007 at 2:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


My 3 year old Flytrap produces traps over an inch long, usually about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inch in length, and was indicated as a typical, however; has cilia (teeth) like a dentate. I am thinking it was a simple mixup during shipping or that it was genetically mixed with some other cultivars by bees during cross pollination outside.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2007 at 10:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I would like to go back to the VFT discussion, because sometimes I get too caught up in science discussions, and I do not have time for so much writing.

Has any one ever seen a B52 with traps of more than 2" in size???

Because this plant is selling for $25.00 each with only one inch size traps. And until now, I have not found one pic on the net that shows me this is a true giant.

I have Dingley Giants, Big Mouths, Dutch, Big Vigorous, and the Royal Red. Well, I have more cultivars than this, but these are the giants. In all my fifteen years growing these plants, I find that the trap sizes are as follows in smallest to largest:

Dutch, Big Mouth, Dingley Giant, Royal Red, and the largest of them all.. The Big Vigorous.

This plant without seen the label I can spot it in my CP garden because it always deploys large traps.

So I am wondering if the B52 might trully be bigger than the Big Vigorous, or would the Big Vigorous win in size.

The greatest thing about the Big Vigorous is that the traps are not only larger than any other cultivar I know, but the traps teeth are thick making the plant look stronger which is why it is call Vigorous.

In my garden I actually have others that are bigger than even the Big Vigorous, but they are plants that I grew from seeds and have not registered them as cultivars. I am looking for the largest traps in the world and they might be right in my garden..... that is if the B52 is not as large as they claim.

I guess the best thing to do would be to buy one, and grow it big myself. So my next question woould be....Does any one knows a good reputable place to buyt this plant?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2007 at 10:23AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
poolboy101(TX, 9)

Is this the high speed video they talked about?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2007 at 6:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Usually the best way to identify a cultivar of a VFT is by its structure of the leaf and by its flower. Some large cultivars leave very a lot as the seasonal leaves sprout, so the next best thing are its flowers and usually by its flowers is the best thing

I found a sight that has a large collection of cultivars flowers and I think it can aid in identifying cultivars:
Im planning to use this site to identify plants sold in Home Depot, Lowes, because Ive seen plants that I know belong to a cultivar and would be interested in identifying them.

Hey, maybe Ill develop a collection of VFT cultivars cheap instead of paying $15, $20, or $25 buck for them.

Unfortunately it doesnt have the flowers for B52 and Big Vigorous, I know this doesnt help much and but what they have may help you identify what you got or dont have. I will let my B52 flower and post it hear next spring. Hopefully you do have a new cultivar.

Good luck.

    Bookmark   December 11, 2007 at 2:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

So you have a B52, where did you bought it? Do you know for sure if it is the B52?

    Bookmark   December 12, 2007 at 4:04AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Yes, purchased it at California Carnivores past October when I visited Peter DAmatos nursery, unfortunately he wasnt there that day. I purchased the B52 and Triffids Traps and also S. flava ssp ornata , S. rubra ssp. alabamensis, and S minor Okee Giant.

Im very confident that it is B52 because Mr. DAmatos is a very reputable man what he grows in his huge collection of CP and man is it big.

Last year I visited his nursery and meet Mr. DAmato in person, took some pics of his nursery and him. Lost most of them and his pics when I was visiting the USS Papanitos submarine and SF. Dropped the 3 disc into the water and ended up losing most of my pics.

Plan do visit the the nursery this time in spring... Hopefully.

By boy did i butchered my last post.

    Bookmark   December 12, 2007 at 2:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

That is great that you live so close to them. I know California Carnivores. Sometimes the plants I have order have been smaller than I expected, but one thing that they have never done is give me the wrong cultivar.

I will see if they may have some B52s available.


    Bookmark   December 13, 2007 at 11:19AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
garyfla_gw(10 Florida)

Can't wait until you straighten the world out from it's convoluted logic!! We obviously have been led by idiots throughout history. I fail to see why they even bothered to write down what these people said. I think it's an alien conspiracy .
At last we have someone to lead us dummies out of the wilderness!!!! gary

    Bookmark   December 15, 2007 at 6:47AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

What? Bothered by who to write about what? Are you talking about how the VFTs traps closes?

Alien conspiracy? I think you are in the wrong forum. We talk and discuss about our experience growing carnivorous plants, we share pics of our plants and exchange plants to newbies or simple to obtain a plant to increase our collection. And if you have trouble growing your CP, this is a good site to get good advice from experienced growers and they will be more then happy to help you.

We did have a discussion about science and its methods but that has long been settled after we exchanged our point of views and opinions.

To Byron: I dont live in California, I live now in Casa Grande, Arizona. But I used to live in those parts N. Californa and didnt know about California Carnivore. What even worse, after I moved to Arizona and every time I visited Santa Rosa to visit relatives, I would drive up and down Petaluma. I failed to see Mr. DAmatos nursery. Talk about being and idiot! What worse, my cousin knew about my interests in carnivorous plants and new about California Carnivore and he failed to let me know because he would forget. What bigger idiot! I could just shoot myself and him. :-p

I accidentally bumped into his nursery last year and I do definitely plan to visit him again next year and hopefully this spring. So I cant wait for next year. ;-)

    Bookmark   December 15, 2007 at 5:04PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Horrible Experience with Mail Order
I ordered two plants from someone with a great website....
Conditions for Cephalotus seeds?
What conditions are necessary for germination of the...
Miracle Gro
:/ sigh Miracle Gro..... so it seems that this stuff...
Might be a stupid question but......,,
Hi everyone! I have two nepenthes. I believe they're...
Can dead sphagnum turn into live sphagnum?
I'm noticing some green patches in my LFS. Is it live...
Sponsored Products
LBL Vision Amber Crystal Pendant
Euro Style Lighting
Artistic Weavers Hand-tufted Molly Chevron Wool Area Rug (6' Round)
8' Vinyl Picnic Table - Ivory Finish
Anderson Leather Sofa - Brighton Ciment Gray
Joybird Furniture
Traditional Style Frosted Copper Glazing Hexagon Flush Mount
Contour Cloud Pillow - 13-100R-DS-454
$29.94 | Hayneedle
Aspire Fabric Office Chair in Brown
$159.00 | LexMod
Luli Prism Rug
$107.99 | Dot & Bo
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™