Red Venus Flytrap Cultivars: Seven Histories Beyond Colour

Nano Nursery · Rare Carnivorous Plant Encyclopedia

A red Venus flytrap can be a large, long-leaved plant, a miniature rosette or a compact clump lined with finely divided teeth. Colour alone does not tell those histories apart. Seven documented selections illustrate how a useful identification combines colour with leaf proportions, marginal teeth, adult growth and provenance. All belong to Dionaea muscipula; none is a separate botanical species.

Akai Ryu: the name behind Red Dragon

Ron Gagliardo described ‘Akai Ryu’ in 1996 from breeding at Atlanta Botanical Garden. A red seed parent was crossed with a fine-toothed plant; one of seven tissue-cultured selections combined strong growth with deep burgundy foliage. The reported colour extended across the leaf base and both faces of the trap, while overall habit and flowers remained typical of the species. Some central green growth appeared in midwinter. [1]

Red Dragon is the English translation of the established name. It does not identify an additional cultivar. Gagliardo’s account concerns a selected cultivated line, so a red seedling of unknown origin cannot acquire that identity solely by resembling it. Its history also shows that tissue culture was a method of multiplying selected material, rather than evidence that the name applies to every seedling produced by the same cross.

Royal Red: read the whole leaf, not just the trap interior

The 1994 diagnosis reproduced by the ICPS names resource describes dark red colour through most of the plant, with green trap margins. The distinguishing comparison is the colour of the other plant parts: ordinary flytraps can also have red trap interiors and green rims. The account does not claim a new trap shape. It allows some fading during winter or under low light. Geoffrey Mansell is recorded as the Australian originator. [2]

For a useful comparison, therefore, examine the leaf base and outer trap surface as well as the inner lobes. A photograph showing only an open red interior misses the character that the diagnosis was intended to distinguish. Historical registration dates and plant-rights references are not evidence of present availability or current legal status.

Red Piranha: red foliage with triangular teeth

Edward Read’s 1999 account follows a deliberate breeding sequence. A dentate plant was crossed with a European red flytrap in 1995; a selected green first-generation plant was then self-pollinated. Among the resulting seedlings, Read chose the combination of red colour and strongly triangular marginal teeth. He reported that colour intensity varied with season and cultivation. [3]

The short triangular structures along the trap edge are the important companion to colour. They should not be confused with the much finer subdivisions called sawtooth in ‘Bohemian Garnet’. Read interpreted the approximate quarter of red offspring in his cross as evidence of recessive inheritance; that observation is not a complete genetic model for every red flytrap. The original account does not specify a propagation requirement, so clonal provenance is the practical way to preserve the selected identity without assuming that red seedlings reproduce it.

Clayton’s Red Sunset: long leaf bases and a seasonal silhouette

Colin Clayton’s 2004 description emphasises usually long, narrow leaf bases, ordinary elongated marginal lashes and very dark red mature foliage. Young teeth can be yellow. He reported slow growth, eventually broad rosettes, and complete winter leaf loss in the Mediterranean climate where he grew it. The account specifies vegetative propagation. [4]

That climate qualification matters. A description of winter behaviour in one growing system should not be converted into a command to make every specimen lose every leaf. The useful contrast with ‘Purple Haze’ below is architectural: narrow extended leaf bases create a different outline from traps held close to the crown on short bases. Neither outline can be judged reliably from one detached trap.

Petite Dragon: adult smallness, not merely a young plant

Robert Ziemer received the original offshoot in 1999 under a Red Dragon label. After years of comparison, he described ‘Petite Dragon’ separately in 2007. His flowering adults remained small, with traps usually around 15 mm and a rosette roughly 6 cm across. Regularly forked flower stalks and red stigmas accompanied the red foliage. [5]

The six-year observation period is valuable because smallness in a newly acquired plant can reflect age or establishment. Ziemer also obtained small, fork-stalked red offspring from selfing, but preferred vegetative multiplication to preserve the clone’s genetic identity. The earlier mislabel does not prove that this selection is simply a juvenile ‘Akai Ryu’. In a collection, assess it through sustained mature growth rather than expecting it to become a giant after stronger feeding.

Bohemian Garnet: a miniature that readily makes a clump

Miroslav Srba described this selection from the second generation of a ‘Royal Red’ × ‘Sawtooth’ breeding line. Its diagnosis combines red foliage, finely subdivided marginal teeth, small adult rosettes and prolific offshoot formation. He reported rosettes about 4–6 cm across and, under his conditions, many divisions in a growing season. The name honours its Czech origin and jewel-like appearance. The Czech name is Český Granát. [6]

Its miniature habit can resemble ‘Petite Dragon’ in a distant photograph, but the tooth structure provides a much better comparison. Srba required vegetative reproduction and recommended removing offsets when the aim was a larger individual plant. That is a choice about the display: a crowded cluster and an isolated rosette should not be compared as though each represents the same growing space.

Purple Haze: short leaf bases beneath substantial traps

John Kotleba selected ‘Purple Haze’ from a 2005 cross using ‘Akai Ryu’ as seed parent and ‘Low Giant’ as pollen parent. The 2015 description combines deep purple-red colour with low, horizontal growth, short leaf bases and substantial traps. Mature traps in his material measured 3–4 cm, and their bases remained shorter than the traps. The lashes were robust rather than sawtoothed. Vegetative propagation was required. [7]

This combination separates it from a plant that is merely dark. Its published measurements also show why the ratio between trap and leaf base can communicate more than a single maximum size. They remain observations of the described material, not a guaranteed measurement for every division at every stage.

Growing and comparing red selections

These are selections of the same species, and their names do not establish seven separate water or soil recipes. The ICPS guide emphasises strong light, low-mineral water and a wet root environment without a persistently soggy crown. It discusses both outdoor seasonal culture and sustained indoor growth under adequate artificial light; the demands of those systems should not be mixed casually. [8]

For comparisons, record whether a plant is outdoors or under lights, the age of the leaf, the season and whether the plant has recently been divided. Photograph the full rosette, leaf base, outer trap and marginal teeth under consistent illumination. Redness in a heavily processed photograph is a weak character. A connected history from authenticated stock is stronger evidence than an isolated resemblance.

This comparison is a guide to seven identities, not a claim that every documented red cultivar is included. The linked descriptions supply the reference images. They also preserve the limits of the evidence: breeder observations are not controlled trials of heat tolerance, pest resistance or maximum size.

Sources

1. Ron Gagliardo (1996), Akai Ryu, CPN 25:50
2. ICPS Carnivorous Plant Names Resource: Royal Red and its 1994 diagnosis
3. Edward Read (1999), Red Piranha, CPN 28:99
4. Colin Clayton (2004), Clayton’s Red Sunset, CPN 33:21–22
5. Robert Ziemer (2007), Petite Dragon, CPN 36:53–54
6. Miroslav Srba (2007), Bohemian Garnet, CPN 36:68
7. John M. Kotleba (2015), Purple Haze, CPN 44:33–35
8. John Brittnacher, ICPS growing guide for Dionaea

Sources checked 2 October 2026.