Att David Poole

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Sacha - 05 Oct 2008 23:35 GMT

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!

Signature

Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
(new website online)

Reply to this Message

Dave Poole - 06 Oct 2008 02:51 GMT

> 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!

Reply to this Message

Sacha - 06 Oct 2008 11:09 GMT

On 6/10/08 02:51, in article
439ce8f3-8f05-4094-9f03-7a4eda346c66@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Dave
Poole" <daverpoole@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Did you get an email from me a couple of days ago about that 'lost'
>> Passiflora caponi John Innes?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Ah well, 10 years to confirm what we already knew!

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. He gave it to Ray, telling him it was just that plant! 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.

Signature

Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
(new website online)

Reply to this Message

Dave Poole - 06 Oct 2008 12:14 GMT

> 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.

Reply to this Message

Sacha - 06 Oct 2008 23:22 GMT

On 6/10/08 12:14, in article
720f3d7f-3876-4840-a789-a981cff5f435@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "Dave
Poole" <daverpoole@hotmail.com> 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
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> 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? ;-))

Signature

Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
(new website online)

Reply to this Message

Dave Poole - 07 Oct 2008 17:09 GMT

> 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 :-)

Reply to this Message

Sacha - 07 Oct 2008 17:17 GMT

On 7/10/08 17:09, in article
d797d7f3-44be-46ad-a7eb-f5f700d6b791@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com, "Dave
Poole" <daverpoole@hotmail.com> 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
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> 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!

Signature

Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
(new website online)

Reply to this Message

Homeowner Forum / Lawn and Garden / October 2008

Att David Poole