Nano Nursery · Rare Carnivorous Plant Encyclopedia
Byblis ‘Goliath’ and Byblis liniflora ‘David’ bring two different rainbow plants into a shared horticultural story. Their original descriptions, followed by a crossing experiment, show why size, flower behaviour and a familiar nursery label must be interpreted together. Both have published cultivar descriptions; the plant reported from a cross between them needs a different, explicitly qualified account.
Two names with published descriptions
The CPN cultivar index lists Byblis ‘Goliath’ and Byblis liniflora ‘David’, linking their descriptions from 2009 and 2010. [6] These are documented horticultural identities, rather than two additional botanical species. The comparison belongs beside the species profiles for B. filifolia and B. liniflora.
ICPS registration guidance emphasises a description of distinguishing features and a photographic nomenclatural standard. [5] A cultivar name therefore carries an identification claim. It cannot safely be assigned to every unusually large seedling, or every plant that happens to resemble a photograph taken under different growing conditions.
Goliath: stature, fruiting stalks and an uncertain origin
Brian Barnes raised the original material from seed received as B. filifolia in 2007; its precise supplier was not remembered. His description reports plants approaching a metre, successful cross-pollination between different individuals, and swelling flower-stalk bases that bent developing capsules downwards. He also observed a disturbance-associated smell, while proposing possible functions rather than demonstrating them. [1]
Barnes considered possible B. filifolia–B. aquatica ancestry. That was a hypothesis, not confirmation of a natural hybrid. Later authors treated ‘Goliath’ under B. filifolia. [1], [4] Preserve the cultivar name when discussing this history: converting the suggestion into a definite hybrid formula would add certainty the original account did not establish.
The original propagation report describes rooting cuttings in living sphagnum, followed by a sand-and-peat medium. Those are attributed cultivation observations, not a promise that every cutting will root or every plant will reach the reported height. [1]
David: a smaller plant with a different reproductive pattern
Barnes’s 2010 description traces ‘David’ to seed purchased as B. liniflora in February 2009. He described plants up to about 20 cm, usually unbranched, with basal swellings associated with downward leaf movement and a supporting, tripod-like arrangement. Sessile glands on the leaves and shoot apex were part of his diagnosis. [2]
The same account records substantial variation in flower colour and proportions with growing conditions. More decisively for propagation, ‘David’ produced fertile seed through self-pollination, whereas ‘Goliath’ required genetically different plants. Barnes allowed propagation of ‘David’ by seed and cuttings, while reporting poor success with the latter. [2]
This is why a universal instruction to multiply every cultivar only by cuttings would be wrong here. Read the individual description. Conversely, permission to propagate this cultivar by seed does not establish that arbitrary crossed offspring should retain its name.
Movement is not a unique identification shortcut
A pulvinus is a swollen region involved in changing the position of an attached organ. In this discussion, the relevant organs are leaves and flower stalks; movement of these structures must not be confused with the behaviour of the tiny sticky glands.
Allan and Chiang’s 2019 account describes pulvini as widespread in Byblis. It also contrasts the long, relatively straggly stems of ‘Goliath’ with exceptionally robust forms of B. filifolia from Pago. [4] Thus, neither movement alone nor the word giant separates every cultivated identity. A plant can be tall without having the same proportions or branching pattern as another tall plant.
For a useful comparison, examine plants at equivalent stages and include flowers, leaves, stem architecture and fruiting stalks. A seedling and an ageing, sprawling adult answer different identification questions. The original descriptions are the reference points; one conspicuous feature is only part of the comparison.
What the 2011 crossing experiment actually showed
Irmgard and Siegfried Hartmeyer reported applying ‘David’ pollen to ‘Goliath’ flowers. Their initial offspring appeared in a neighbouring pot after capsules opened; they excluded two small, unbranched plants of uncertain origin from their measurements. Five plants combined branching with self-pollinating flowers. A repeat cross produced seed, and a further generation was raised. [3]
The paper’s title calls the offspring a putative hybrid. Its comparison table uses supposed parents and records flower maxima of 12–15 mm for ‘David’, 20 mm for the putative hybrid and 27 mm for ‘Goliath’. These are observations from that material, not fixed identification thresholds. [3]
The report supports a horticultural crossing account; it does not document a wild hybrid population or present molecular parentage confirmation. [3] Nor does the hybrid automatically become ‘David’ because it self-pollinates. Keep the reported parentage and its uncertainty attached to this separate treatment.
Cultivation: apply the climate context
Allan and Chiang drew on cultivation in Britain and Singapore. Their annual-Byblis guidance stresses warmth and strong light, with methods adjusted to climate. They describe feeding young plants cautiously because excessive food can damage leaves. Their recommendations concern annual species generally, rather than a controlled comparison proving an optimum for either cultivar. [4]
For a grower, the useful starting point is an established plant’s actual conditions. Changing the lighting, medium and watering together makes subsequent decline difficult to interpret. When comparing these cultivars, separate the question of identity from the question of performance: a correctly named plant may grow poorly, while a vigorous plant may still carry an unreliable label.
The practical distinction is reproductive. Self-pollination in ‘David’ changes what is needed to obtain seed; the reported requirement for different ‘Goliath’ individuals means two cuttings of one individual do not provide two different genotypes. A successful seed crop is an observation to document, not retrospective proof of a label.
How this treatment fits the encyclopedia
This article provides named accounts for both cultivars and the published putative cross in one directly comparable treatment. Their identities remain distinct in the coverage register. It does not turn an uncertain cross into a named natural hybrid, or imply that every possible Byblis cross has been investigated.
The source photographs remain in their original publications; no diagnostic image has been reproduced here. A future nursery photograph should identify the exact plant, show the features being discussed and have permission for use. Availability in cultivation, conservation status in nature and current Nano Nursery stock are separate questions: this article makes no stock or rarity claim.
Sources
- Brian Barnes (2009), Byblis Goliath, CPN 38:16–18
- Brian Barnes (2010), Byblis liniflora David, CPN 39:43–44
- Irmgard and Siegfried Hartmeyer (2011), comparison and putative hybrid, CPN 40:129–135
- Gregory Allan and Cindy Chiang (2019), Byblis cultivation in two climates, CPN 48:79–88
- ICPS, cultivar registration and diagnostic standards
- ICPS, CPN cultivar-description index, checked 2 October 2026
Sources checked 2 October 2026. Diagnostic photography and owner release review pending.
