A few from the Summer of '06

[andrew davis]

>>So how is it you expect a tropical lily in the prime growing season of summer to perform to its best when you are starving it?

I wouldn't call clay, loam, several forms of manufactured and organic fertiliser, e.g., superphosphate, potash, osmocote, mulch feeds 'starving' waterlilies.

That I choose not to pollute waters with excessive feeding is fairly obvious, who wants to turn a pond into a cess pit just because it is the only way to make fickle sub standard plants grow

Bear in mind I use a well here and don't intend to grossly pollute groundwater.

And if they are being starved (which is doubtfull, some varieties are compared in lean and heavy fertility) why are many varieties consistently blooming, thriving and setting tubers well in the same conditions other plants are obviously performing abysmal. Queen of Siam, Tina, Panama Pacific, Islamorada, nightbloomers, thriving in shade to full sun, lean to heavy fertility.

The plain fact is, many tropical waterlilies are fickle, sub standard, poorly documented plants (compared to hardy waterlilies) are put on the market and simple caution soon shows them up on lined ponds where isolation, water quality and fertility are accurately monitored

>>As to specific ridicule of my lilies

I have not mentioned 'your' waterlilies at all. Another false statement.

I do ridicule the notion of absurdly large messy plants that have poor growing habits, plants that obviously have poor reproduction, blooms that spoil in the sun, foliage that is a mess.

My criterion is to search out varieties that are known to have reliable characteristics, that can cope with a volatile climate, from folk who have a reliable track record.

There are plenty of excellent plants out there to find which I look forward to finding and growing for many years.

>>No Andrew, you are wrong again.  Mr. Slocum did not name N. tuberosa 'Maxima', he did not name Richardsoni #2 and he did not change the name of the latter to the former.

Perry Slocum says so, victoria-adventure.org, ditto. Another attempt to make false misleading statements. While there may be some debate over the details, the description exists

'Tuberosa Richardsoni' No. 2      H    O     DO    De    Pa    OA    AP  Slocum & Robinson  P  Water Gardening, water lilies and lotuses  VNP  250  PD  1996  SCN  'Tuberosa Maxima'? Slocum & Robinson

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

Lol...there is no debate over the details.  Let me crack the code for you.  False statement indeed.

H= hardy lily.  O =originator and *none is given*, DO = date of origin and *none is given*, DE= Description , *none given*, OA Originally as...none mentioned, AP= Author of Publication and that was Slocum. SCN = synonym Tuberosa Maxima ( questionably)

Slocum did not name  Tuberosa Maxima.  See following:  'Tuberosa Maxima'      H   Im  O  Boivin   DO    De  White peony, green pads  Pa  Selection of odorata  OA  odorata var. maxima, tuberosa var. maxima  AP   Jekyll   P  Wall, Water and Woodland Gardens  VNP    PD  1901  SCN  'Odorata Maxima', 'Maxima'   
So you see as I said, Boivin named that one.

Slocum gave no provenance at all, never hinted at who named it and Perry was not shy about claiming credit for his accomplishments so your statement "Someone' being by the name of  Perry Slocum. Who named 'Maxima' formerly known as T. Richardsonii No. 2. (A seedling plant of T.Richardsonii.)." is the false one. 

And the fact remains...there is and can be by definition on one N. "Richardsoni'.  There can be no other candidates...period.  And that goes for any named cultivar.  To suggest there are candidates is to mislead.  So once again I say...Wrong again Andrew.

[andrew davis]

Minor snag in your assumptions, Craig.

Slocum's description of tuberosa Richardsonii No. 2, tuberosa 'Maxima' (described as a seedling plant from Richardsonii) has a substantially different petal count to photographs of Boisin's 'odorata Maxima'

As far as I'm concerned, I'll take Perry Slocum's description over your 'opinion' any time. Anything to the contrary is just your 'opinion'

That Richarsdonii, odorata maxima, and tuberosa Maxima (formerly known as Richardsonii No2) are quite easy to confuse, makes them all candidates for mistaken identity

Alas your confusion over the descriptions of three similar plants is not someone else's 'mistake' it is just your addled, less than scientific mind it seems

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

"it is just your addled, less than scientific mind it seems"

You just can't get passed needless personal attacks.  Always a sure sign of a person with no factual leg to stand on.  If the only way you can attempt validate yourself is to demean any and all that disagree....well, your attacks really only demean you.  If you take such umbrage at being corrected, trying being correct from time to time.

Perry never described Richardsoni, turn to page 261 of your reference....see, no description.  Verified by this in your earlier post: "Tuberosa Richardsoni' No. 2      H    O     DO    De  "  See, no description.  It is a 'nomen nudum'.  If so inclined, I could describe one of my unnamed tropicals under the name Richardsoni #2  and once published the name would be valid for my lily.  I should, just to shut you up! As it stands now....it is an invalid name.  Even Perry eliminated the listing in his latest edition.

Perry never named a lily "Maxima'.  Actually no way has named a lily 'Maxima' though Boivin named and described N. Tuberosa Maxima' and Perry  provided publication of the name and description.

Obfuscate and insult to your hearts content.  It will not make you correct in your erroneous statement that Perry Slocum named the lily in question.  And  more importantly, your continued insinuations that there can be various "forms" and "candidates" for a specific named cultivar are patently wrong and fraudulently misleading.  There can be one and one only genuine form for a cultivar and that is the one described to and accepted by the International Society of Horticultural Science.  It must then be propagated vegetatively to remain true to type.  Something seed peddlers seem unable or unwilling to grasp as they destroy the market with there counterfeit "forms" and "candidates" all because of greed.

[andrew davis]

Nonetheless Perry Slocum has described such a waterlily exists and provides a quite specific description of Richardsonii No2, tuberosa Maxima.

That its name may be considered in dispute or not is some other irrelevant folks opinion, it does not change the fact that plant is known by that name and it has entered into common usage

While you choose to make all sorts of excuses to complain, any excuse to cause a dispute, I still prefer Perry Slocum's description over your opinion any day, Craig

After all, you have a track record of making false statements, significant errors of facts, false complaints, false claims, baiting disputes, trashing threads and claim to conduct malicious 'vendettas' with anyone that does not comply with your opinion.

Well, that's all you have got, 'opinions' that I sure choose not to subscribe to and would choose to avoid.

your 'opinion' that tropical waterlilies such as Gigantea can take full sun killed plants here
Your 'opinion' that seed cannot be sent to Canada was incorrect
Your 'opinion' that all seed that is started is inferior is innaccurate (and absurd)

Your attempts to slander all folk selling seed quite legitimately on the basis it is going to 'destroy' the market is thoroughly ridiculous, why, you yourself distribute seed...

If the market does choose to prefer to buy seed, maybe it is because they have had BAD experiences with crown rot, BAD experiences with being sold dead or dying tubers, BAD experiences paying high prices for plants sold with abysmal descriptions that FAILED.

Maybe seeds sell because that is what they want, a simple reliable way to start a few waterlilies, not some fickle unreliable high priced fancy schmancy labelled 'annual' from who knows what infected resellers pond.

So as far as I'm concerned, your 'opinions' while they may have some credibility on matters where you have some direct experience, by and large are to be discarded as just that. Only your opinion. To be taken with a large pinch of fungicide.

>>And  more importantly, your continued insinuations that there can be various "forms" and "candidates" for a specific named cultivar are patently wrong and fraudulently misleading.

What a load of codswallop. There are at least two versions of Gloriosa out there easy to confuse. Twenty plus 'Attractions' all easy to confuse with the 'original'. To say they are 'candidates' simply means there are varieties that are easy to confuse with the original. That experienced folk would have difficulty telling apart. A figure of speech. In many cases there are unnamed plants with more desireable characteristic similar to the named plant.

Yet again you chose to display doubtfull capacity of comprehension, make false suppositions and choose to imply a malicious interpretation of what is a simple 'figure of speech' for something which is an obvious fact of life.

Just another one of those false, malicious opinions you choose to invent and propogate.

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

"Nonetheless "
Lol...so you do concede my point.

Other than that...my daddy taught me never to get in a pissing match with a skunk 'cause all they have to offer is a lot of pure stink, but feel free to wallow in your aroma.<g>

Minor redirects....the cultural advise of every reknowned Anecphya expert didn't kill your gigantea.  You did that.
And that is assuming you ever had one, because it is you and not I that has provably lied about what lilies you have in your 'collection'.

I was indeed wrong about Canadian restrictions on seed.  I was wrong and freely, unashamedly admit it.

My opinion on seed....sounds like the makings of a new thread to me.  Thanks for the idea.

Hope you get them panties unknotted in time to read it.<g>

[Jerry]

God grant me the wisdom of Solomon!

[andrew davis]

>>And that is assuming you ever had one (gigantea), because it is you and not I that has provably lied about what lilies you have in your 'collection'

Prove it. Unsubstantiated false claim, intended to be malicious.

Contact source of Gigantea tubers available to moderators (in confidence) date marked kodachrome slides of flowering Gigantea on file, processed this Summer

Tubers from source grew well in shade, flowered, formed good tubers this year. Plants Craig sent, planted according to Craigs instructions, one died, one floundered in full sun hot positions over two Summers (date marked Kodachrome slide on file) Conclusion, heat tolerance problems, poor cultivation advice.

Anyway, back to the topic

Blink was a 'late stand in' this year, for a position where Pamela failed completely in the heat (photo's on file, not a pretty sight) I've always wanted to see a couple of pale blue blooms among the tropical waterlilies, as it seems Pamela has gone into the 'unreliable category, the quest is on...

With having being sent from several sources, a dozen or so dead or going to be dead, or misidentified tropical waterlilies this year, having noticed unreliable 'tudes' and inadequate plant descriptions among the purveyors of tropical waterlilies, a simple caution has been applied to sourcing plants for the time being.

I stick with folk who know them and grow them and have sent plants in the past that proved to be reliable. While there is always an element of risk in a volatile climate, it is a perk to find good quality plants and the folk who supply them. Well done.

Blink settled in without a qualm, trotted through brutal quarantine, chugged out neat foliage, steady blooms, has the great characteristic of good viviparous performance, excellent prospect this can be a pleasant plant to look forward to for many years.

While the blooms may be mundane, they do have that cool blue tone on a hot sunny day... the potential that it has dead cert, reliable growing habits, excellent reproduction more than makes up for maybe less than extravagant blooms. Beats dropdead, flopalot, rotalot anyday...

Neat compact foliage, still with two blooms today in spite of record 25°f record lows last week. Along with Bob Trickett, it looks like Blink is something to look forward to among the pale blues.

Pamela recovered after August, to put up a couple of buds in late October, however it will be some time before it gets out of the 'fickle' category.

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

"Some plants I've tried have been a puzzle, Winch's 'Regal' puts out the most stunning foliage, modest spread, grows steady as a rock in the hottest of positions, chunks out buds more or less all the time yet, the blooms are a complete absolute and utter mess in the sun. One of those mop head types, one of the better ones probably, hohum. "

I am the importer of record on Regal and received it directly from Mr. Winch's daughter to enter in the IWGS New Waterlily Competition....keyword "New" in 2005.  No one, and I repeat Andrew, no one outside the Winch family has this lily except for myself and Kit Knotts.

Additionally, anyone actually growing it  knows it is not a "mop head type".

Your own words proof enough for you? 

[andrew davis]

Other folk took an interest and tried Charles Winch's hybrids long before Craig's little clique. Not that it matters much, Regal does not compare very well with other more robust plants with vastly superior growing and flowering habits that are readily available at a good price

Folk over more of the globe will get a far better bang for their buck from a classic such as Escarboucle.

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[andrew davis]

Started in almost complete shade, Gigantea leafed up well through the heat of July. Steady 70°f to 90°f waters chugged them up to a blooming size.

Planted out mid August, blooms came through late August. Rather a short season to give over a large amount of pond space, inconvenient three gallon pots which would have been far better occupied by a hardy waterlily that would flower for at the very least, three months longer

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

How you can continue to make definitive statements with no basis in fact escapes me.   For instance you declare:

"Regal does not compare very well with other more robust plants with vastly superior growing and flowering habits that are readily available at a good price."

Exactly what fact(s) is this based on?  How much personal experience have you had growing this lily?  How many people growing it have you discussed it with and what was their input?  Oh, that's right....despite your false claim to the contrary you have NEVER even SEEN much less GROWN this lily.  And you have never discussed it with anyone that has grown it.  Kind of makes your statement look foolish doesn't it when the truth is out.

Also you say: "Other folk took an interest and tried Charles Winch's hybrids long before Craig's little clique." 

Just who where these people of which you speak?  Truth is, there was little interest in Mr. Winch's work outside of Australia until very recently and I'm proud to say that I and "my clique" were directly involved in getting Mr. Winch the attention he deserved and the family was grateful to for assistance as there had been so little outside interest to that point.
Fwiw, the Kew Gardens has finally recognized Mr. Winch's accomplishments and are adding his hybrids to their collection.

To pretend you know a darn thing about the gentleman and then belittle his work on a public forum for no factual reason other than your dislike of me is childish at best and further erodes any credibility you may have.

[Craig]

For those interested in staying current on waterlily science, 'Albert de Lestang' is no longer considered to be a selection of Nymphaea gigantea.  It has been reclassified under a new species name and is now correctly known as Nymphaea carpentariae 'Albert de Lestang' and while the photo does show it...it is a white flower.

Does it matter?  Sure it does, one would reasonably expect carpentariae to have at least slightly different cultural requirements than those of gigantea.

[Vickie]

I have had carpentariae for yrs. It bloomed from July to Oct here in zone 5. I had two of them and they bloomed good for me. I love them.

[andrew davis]

Hi Vickie,
I tried Andre Leu and Immutabilis, over two Summers in hot sunny ponds they died or withered in upper nineties waters.

This year, in a Summer where the heat index was hitting 120°f-130°f through July in sunny positions, de Lestang were started in shade and semi shade and did quite well by comparison through the heat.

I'm a bit indifferent to the Gigantea, they tend to be sprawly plants with foliage that seems to get scruffy a bit quick. Interesting to try if you have a hundred square foot of pond to spare.

Next year I'll try the surviving tubers of Andre Leu? Immutabilis? in shaded 70°f to 90°f waters. Like Lotus, they seem to have specific heat tolerance limits

>>To pretend you know a darn thing about the gentleman and then belittle his work on a public forum for no factual reason other than your dislike of me

I confess, I am indifferent to Craig Presnell. Why should I take serious someone who has stated repeatedly they intend to conduct some sort of malicious vendetta. Who persistently makes false statements, misinformation and disinformation. Who trashes threads with cheapshots. You do it to yourself.

Actually, I have been quite interested in Charles Winch's progress for some time, along with quite a few other accomplished hybridisers work (Marliac, Pring etc) Charles Winch has created 600 plus new hybrids, maybe 200 of which have been named. I might try a few more, from sources that don't have problems with 'mushy' tubers...

I look forward to collecting a few more of Charles Winch's hybrids now and then, maybe a dozen this year (cross fingers) and finding out how robust they are in a volatile climate like North Carolina. Comparing them side by side with hardy waterlilies etc

I'll feel free to belittle any plant that appears to have significant flaws. Might even use language less than polite... the phrase 'sucks' might be applied where appropriate. Some red hardy waterlilies, mopheads 'suck' in excessive heat. The climate here is a bit topsy turvy so flaws show up pretty durn quick.

>>And you have never discussed it with anyone that has grown it.

You don't know who I discuss waterlilies with. End of story.

>>For those interested in staying current on waterlily science, 'Albert de Lestang' is no longer considered to be a selection of Nymphaea gigantea

'Current science' is not available to many folk, I tend to use the names that came with the plant, that have been commonly in use and published.

Anyway, back to the thread

Given a choice, a good old fashioned hardy waterlily (named or unnamed ) over more parts of the planet is going to be neater than tropical waterlilies, which tend to have shorter lasting, scruffy lilypads.

They will have a longer flowering season, typically seven months in the Carolinas, compared to the tropical waterlilies with their (at best) three month flowering season. More cold tolerant and all that... They also seem to be more heat tolerant than the tropicals as well...

Flowering, in April, before the trops even start....

Regards, andy
http://www.members.aol.com/abdavisnc/swglist.html

[Craig]

Heat index is meaningless to plants, like wind chill, it is used to describe the expected reaction of the human body to the conditions with regard to thermal regulation.  Heat index factors in the effect of humidity on the cooling process of sweating/evaporation at a given temp, so the human body has more difficulty cooling if the temp is 90 F with a relative humidity of 70% compared to the same temp with a RH of say 15%.  For a tropical lily....it is just another hot sunny day.  Exactly they condition they need to thrive.  So your reference to a heat index of 120-130 is relevant only to the pond keeper, not the plants.

"Current science' is not available to many folk"

Current taxonomy is for sure available to any and all with an internet connection.  Visit www.victoria-adventure.org and click on waterlilies.  The latest from the USDA GRIN database is readily accessible to those that actually have an interest in being accurate.  But you'll need to recognize the correct spellings.....also the mark of an individual with a true interest in plants for plants' sake and not just as a market commodity.

I have been a big fan of the work of Charles Winch for some years now....glad to see you as well have a budding interest in the man's work; enough so that you even took the time to read his profile on v-a.org, though it would have been nice if you had acknowledged your source for the brief blurb on Winch.

That aside, your goal of obtaining a dozen true specimen of his plants may be a bit ambitious.  Since you read the profile you are aware he hybridized as a hobby mainly after his retirement, so I can barely think of twelve cultivars he ever released and a number of those that are available in the US are bogus.  I was privileged this past summer to have his daughters review my collection of their father's lilies and with few exceptions, the ones I had obtained from individuals other than the Winch family were the dreaded seedling peddlers knock offs.

Always one to help a fellow Winch aficianado, if you want to send me the list of the hybrids you hope to get, I will be happy to tell you whether they have been released or not.  With his recent recognition, the scamsters are no doubt afoot and there is already a bit of misinformation out there...like 'Black Prince' although attributed to him it is not his lily.  And it appears you have already been fooled into thinking what you were growing was 'Regal'.

There is hope that more of his cultivars will be available someday, but until then, I am pretty sure I have the largest provable Winch collection in the US, so if you have any lilies in your collection that are of interest to me and have good provenance, maybe a trade could be arranged.  I should specify any tropicals.

[Joyce]

Can't wait to see you, and your new collection next week Craig!
Will be taking my big camera and getting some good shots.
Is Mr. Gator still living in your pond?