Nano Nursery · Rare Carnivorous Plant Encyclopedia
A Heliamphora cultivar name identifies a selected cultivated plant, while a hybrid formula describes ancestry. The two answer different questions. Six published cultivars illustrate the distinction particularly well: some were selected from documented crosses, one has uncertain parentage, and another is a distinctive selection within a species. Their pitchers also offer a useful comparison of the shapes hidden behind the familiar term nectar spoon.
Reading the comparisons
The accounts below use the original cultivar descriptions published between 2016 and September 2026. Measurements and performance reports belong to the authors’ plants and conditions. They are useful reference observations, not guaranteed adult dimensions in every collection. A small division can take time to express adult characters; colour alone is especially weak evidence when plants have been grown under different lighting.
Three separate records matter: the cultivar denomination, the documented parentage or species assignment, and the particular plant’s clonal provenance. Keeping them separate makes it possible to correct a parentage assumption without losing the identity of a cultivated selection.
Cyclops: a large spoon on a substantial plant
Andy Smith produced the cross in 2010 using H. neblinae as seed parent and H. folliculata from Murosipan Tepui as pollen parent. The selected plant previously circulated as “H. neblinae × folliculata Clone 2”. Its 2020 description records stout pitchers exceeding 30 cm, mouths about 10 cm across, and a nearly spherical red nectar spoon up to 3 cm wide, leaning into the pitcher and ending in a blunt hook. [1]
Smith also described a developing trunk, relatively infrequent offsets, and successful use of its pollen in another cross. His practical observations favour a deep pot and sufficient headroom; a mature plant may need support. [1] This is a particularly useful example of why fast clumping and eventual size should not be treated as interchangeable qualities. A plant that makes few divisions can still become physically imposing.
The name applies to that selection, not every sibling of the same cross. A cross label without “Clone 2” or equivalent provenance cannot establish that a plant is ‘Cyclops’.
Patasola: a waisted pitcher and a changing dark colour
Butch Tincher created H. parva × folliculata, and Jennifer Lei raised the selected seedling to maturity. The 2017 account reports flowering in under four years. Mature pitchers were 25–30 cm tall and 5–6 cm wide, with a marked waist and an upper portion that becomes compressed from front to back, producing a kidney-shaped opening in older pitchers. Fine hairs occur on both surfaces. [2]
Under intense light, colour develops from wine-like and violet tones towards charcoal as pitchers age. The nectar spoon is helmet-shaped, tapering diagonally to a point; nectar droplets were observed on the spoon and outer pitcher. The authors require vegetative propagation by rhizome division or cuttings. [2]
This description makes age part of the comparison. A newly opened pitcher need not display the same colour or upper shape as an older one on the same plant. A photograph should therefore identify the pitcher stage instead of presenting the darkest specimen as the plant’s unchanging appearance.
Red Mambo: a distinctive plant without a confirmed pedigree
François Boulianne’s 2016 description begins with a plant found in a private collection after its label had been lost. He suggested H. heterodoxa and H. tatei influence from its morphology, rather than reporting a known cross. Mature pitchers were at least 18 cm tall, green with red margins and veins, smooth outside and finely hairy inside. Strong light coloured the neck and the narrow, upward-horned nectar spoon red. [3]
The author reported slow growth and unsuccessful seed production on three attempts, while finding rhizome division or cuttings useful. He regarded sterility as possible. [3] Failed seed set does not by itself demonstrate absolute sterility: pollen viability, compatibility, timing and growing conditions can affect a crossing attempt. Likewise, resemblance to two species does not reconstruct a lost breeding record.
Use ‘Red Mambo’ as the documented cultivar identity and leave its parentage uncertain. It should not be catalogued as a confirmed H. heterodoxa × tatei hybrid simply because that formula appears plausible.
Scylla: selection within a documented hybrid batch
Ivan Bogdanov selected ‘Scylla’ from seedlings of H. purpurascens × ionasi offered by Andreas Wistuba in 2017. The original description explicitly distinguishes the pollen-parent labels “Killer” and “Red Giant” from established cultivar names. The selected clone was named after division in 2019 and described in 2020. [4]
The account describes mature pitchers around 25 × 7 cm, an opening with a conspicuous triangular dip at the front, and a large helmet-shaped nectar spoon with a triangular notch at its tip. The spoon remains red while the pitcher colour varies with light and season. Its habit combines angled pitchers with appreciable clumping. [4]
The species profile for H. purpurascens also discusses this cultivar. Here its value is comparative: both ‘Scylla’ and ‘Cyclops’ can have very large spoons, but their spoon outline and orientation differ. Size should direct attention to the correct structures, not replace their examination.
Yoda: a species selection with an unusual appendage
Maciej Stelmach’s 2025 description places ‘Yoda’ within H. uncinata, from a seed-grown batch germinated in 2014. Instead of the usual hooked helmet, its pitcher appendage forms an elongated upright lobe with a narrow tip swept strongly backwards, away from the opening. The conspicuous red nectary rows normally associated with the species’ major veins are absent or greatly reduced in this clone. Other pitcher proportions and colour remain typical of the species. [5]
The author reports persistence of the features over multiple seasons and among growers, and requires vegetative propagation. [5] This makes ‘Yoda’ different in kind from a named hybrid: its description does not supply a second species as a parent. Nor is every H. uncinata sold as a large clone automatically ‘Yoda’.
For comparison, photograph the appendage from the side as well as the front. A frontal view can conceal the direction in which the tip curves. These views help distinguish a structural feature from a temporarily bent or damaged pitcher.
The Empress of the Void: opening shape and reflective hairs
No Chang’s September 2026 description traces this selection to a 2015 cross, H. (nutans × glabra) × folliculata, produced by California Carnivores and raised by Jeremiah Harris. The author acquired a division in 2024. [6]
The pitcher opening spreads broadly to either side, contrasting with a comparatively small, sometimes poorly developed nectar spoon. A dense, velvety interior bears gold-toned hairs towards the lower opening and silvery tones higher up, against a dark purple background. Vegetative propagation is required. [6]
The apparent metallic effect is a visual description under illumination. It is not, on its own, evidence of fluorescence or a demonstrated prey-attraction mechanism. A diagnostic image should retain neutral colour references and show the opening’s shape; dramatic lighting that exaggerates reflections may make identification harder. The complete denomination includes “The” and should be retained on labels.
Growing and propagating the selected plants
The ICPS growing guide stresses bright light, a root zone protected from prolonged overheating, low-mineral water, and a medium whose aeration and moisture retention match the watering method. It describes several workable media rather than one universally necessary mixture. Division is best undertaken when plants are growing strongly and conditions are relatively cool. [7]
Those are genus-level starting points. The six descriptions do not establish six experimentally tested temperature optima. In particular, a robust hybrid appearance is not evidence that a clone tolerates a hot, stagnant enclosure. Evaluate the root environment as well as the air around the pitchers.
Where a description requires vegetative propagation, seedlings are offspring of the cultivar rather than automatically the cultivar itself. A named clone’s fertility and the method needed to preserve its identity are separate questions. Record any cross under its parents, retain divisions under their original identity, and compare mature features before distributing a plant whose provenance is uncertain.
Cultivar coverage and its limits
This chapter supplies individual diagnostic accounts within one comparison, preserving each cultivar as a separate register entry. These cultivated identities do not add six wild species or six natural hybrids to the flora. The described traits also do not establish a conservation category, a market value or current nursery availability.
The original publications contain photographs for further comparison. This draft links to them without reproducing those images. Any eventual nursery illustration needs an identified subject, an accurate caption and permission for use. The next useful observation is often a plain, well-lit view of the whole mature pitcher, rather than an isolated close-up of its most colourful part.
Sources
- Andy Smith (2020), Heliamphora Cyclops, CPN 49:141
- Butch Tincher and Jennifer Lei (2017), Heliamphora Patasola, CPN 46:157–158
- François Boulianne (2016), Heliamphora Red Mambo, CPN 45:158
- Ivan Bogdanov (2020), Heliamphora Scylla, CPN 49:93–94
- Maciej Stelmach (2025), Heliamphora uncinata Yoda, CPN 54:91
- No Chang (2026), Heliamphora The Empress of the Void, CPN 55:120
- ICPS, Growing Heliamphora
Sources checked 2 October 2026. Diagnostic photographs and owner release review pending.
