Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
Did you get an email from me a couple of days ago about that 'lost'
Passiflora caponi John Innes? Apparently, it is just that, according to the JIC, although you and Ray always knew that! I've had a little email trouble from time to time so wonder if that piece of horticultural earthquake reached you! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon (new website online) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
Sacha wrote:
Did you get an email from me a couple of days ago about that 'lost' Passiflora caponi John Innes? I'm getting very bad at picking up my e-mails nowadays (about 600 sitting there at the last count), but I'll go and look. As for the Passiflora, all I can say is 'told ya' so!'. When I saw it I was certain it was John Innes hybrid and none of the reasoning by Leslie King has made me change my mind. 'John Innes' was growing at Ness botanical gardens in the early '70s, which is where I saw it originally and although the memory can get a bit sketchy at times, your plant brought it all back. King accepts that it matches the published description reasonably well, but then goes on to suggest your plant seems closer to P. x belottii. I grew P. x belottii on my nursery and disagree. There's nothing like real hands-on growing for getting to know a plant properly. Ah well, 10 years to confirm what we already knew! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
Sacha wrote:
In horticultural terms, this is really very exciting news. As you know, Ray was sure it was P John Innes because the very old man who gave it to him had not only been growing it at the temperate house in Kew, so had Ray's and his mutual friend *and* said old man had worked at the JI centre when this one was named. Yes it is exciting, because although I didn't believe it was totally 'lost', it was unlikely to get into circulation unless it fell into the right hands, which it has done. I never questioned the identity because your plant tallied with the only one I've seen growing and it looked right. Ray's subsequent explanation citing the source allowed a perfect fit. ......................But of course, those who grow a few as a hobby thought they knew better! One customer has insisted in naming it as P. belottii so I will now email him to confirm that he is incorrect. The problem seems to be that you get a few hobbyists who pore over photographs in books (worse still - on the net), together with descriptions of plants they've never seen. Of course the JI centre are in the same position because they don't have any of the original plant. However, they are more likely to have better quality pics and be more scientifically capable of accepting or rejecting any variations between your plant and that recorded as JI. It appears that they are happy for it to be nailed and so 45 years after its introduction, P. 'John Innes' has resurfaced and is coming back into general circulation. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
On 6/10/08 12:14, in article
, "Dave Poole" wrote: Sacha wrote: In horticultural terms, this is really very exciting news. As you know, Ray was sure it was P John Innes because the very old man who gave it to him had not only been growing it at the temperate house in Kew, so had Ray's and his mutual friend *and* said old man had worked at the JI centre when this one was named. Yes it is exciting, because although I didn't believe it was totally 'lost', it was unlikely to get into circulation unless it fell into the right hands, which it has done. I never questioned the identity because your plant tallied with the only one I've seen growing and it looked right. Ray's subsequent explanation citing the source allowed a perfect fit. ......................But of course, those who grow a few as a hobby thought they knew better! One customer has insisted in naming it as P. belottii so I will now email him to confirm that he is incorrect. The problem seems to be that you get a few hobbyists who pore over photographs in books (worse still - on the net), together with descriptions of plants they've never seen. Of course the JI centre are in the same position because they don't have any of the original plant. They do now. They asked us for one and we sent them a plant just about to bloom. ;-)) However, they are more likely to have better quality pics and be more scientifically capable of accepting or rejecting any variations between your plant and that recorded as JI. It appears that they are happy for it to be nailed and so 45 years after its introduction, P. 'John Innes' has resurfaced and is coming back into general circulation. Yes, they think the old, original photos have probably faded but that the foliage, flower, scent etc. matches the original description and seem wholly content that it is P. John Innes. The fact that Ray *knows* it is because of its provenance means that his reaction has been a sort of 'huh' but it's nice to have the official confirmation. After all, what do mere Nurserymen know? ;-)) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon (new website online) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
Sacha wrote:
Yes, they think the old, original photos have probably faded but that the foliage, flower, scent etc. matches the original description and seem wholly content that it is P. John Innes. Well, that's that then - ya-boo-sucks to those oh-so-expert passiflorists ;-) The fact that Ray *knows* it is because of its provenance means that his reaction has been a sort of 'huh' but it's nice to have the official confirmation. Yes and do remember there's a declaimer about it written by Leslie King some years ago, so it's extra nice to be able to dismiss that. After all, what do mere Nurserymen know? ;-)) Booger-all Sacha and as an ex-nurseryman, I know even less ;-) Still, I'm sure we can all live with that :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Att David Poole
On 7/10/08 17:09, in article
, "Dave Poole" wrote: Sacha wrote: Yes, they think the old, original photos have probably faded but that the foliage, flower, scent etc. matches the original description and seem wholly content that it is P. John Innes. Well, that's that then - ya-boo-sucks to those oh-so-expert passiflorists ;-) The fact that Ray *knows* it is because of its provenance means that his reaction has been a sort of 'huh' but it's nice to have the official confirmation. Yes and do remember there's a declaimer about it written by Leslie King some years ago, so it's extra nice to be able to dismiss that. After all, what do mere Nurserymen know? ;-)) Booger-all Sacha and as an ex-nurseryman, I know even less ;-) Still, I'm sure we can all live with that :-) I daresay we'll get by. ;-) Don't forget we're going away end of Oct so come over soon. The Scilla maderensis is blooming! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon (new website online) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
David Poole's funeral | United Kingdom | |||
ping David Poole | United Kingdom | |||
For David Poole | United Kingdom |