A directory of names, with the evidence kept visible
This directory covers the 22 named hybrids listed in the Kew genus backbone used for the Nano Nursery encyclopedia's September 2026 register. It is a route into the individual profiles, not a claim that every possible cross, cultivar or informal horticultural name is included. The references were checked on 23 September 2026 for a series with a 22 September 2026 literature cutoff. Kew: Sarracenia genus treatment.
Some names have been used under different boundaries for the parent species. The table therefore cites a source for each formula and flags the combinations that need a fuller explanation. Read the qualifications before using a short formula to correct a plant label. A named hybrid's inclusion also does not certify the ancestry or wild origin of a plant sold under that name.
How to read the table
The multiplication sign marks a hybrid. All parent names below belong to Sarracenia; S. is the abbreviation. A subspecies designation is retained where the cited treatment gives it. The sequence in this reference table should not be treated as proof of which parent supplied seed in a particular cultivated cross.
Use the table to find the relevant name and then consult its individual profile and parent-species accounts. Those profiles are being prepared as separate entries in this encyclopedia. Until they are released, their names appear here without public article links.
The A–Z directory
| Hybrid | Parentage in the cited source | Reading note |
|---|---|---|
| Sarracenia × ahlesii | S. alata × S. rubra (source) | See the narrower wherryi interpretation below. |
| Sarracenia × areolata | S. alata × S. leucophylla (source) | A different combination from × moorei. |
| Sarracenia × casei | S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi × S. psittacina (source) | Retain the parent rank used by the source. |
| Sarracenia × catesbaei | S. flava × S. purpurea (source) | Compare × naczii when the parent is rosea. |
| Sarracenia × charlesmoorei | S. jonesii × S. purpurea subsp. purpurea (source) | Not the similarly named × moorei. |
| Sarracenia × courtii | S. psittacina × S. purpurea (source) | Natural-occurrence evidence needs particular care. |
| Sarracenia × excellens | S. leucophylla × S. minor (source) | Recognised cross; see the field-record qualification below. |
| Sarracenia × exornata | S. alata × S. purpurea (source) | Kew formula; compare the rosea treatment below. |
| Sarracenia × farnhamii | S. leucophylla × S. rubra (source) | Read with the two named nothosubspecies below. |
| Sarracenia × flavopurpurea | S. purpurea × S. rubra (source) | Do not infer flava parentage from the epithet. |
| Sarracenia × formosa | S. minor × S. psittacina (source) | Formula follows the 2015 revision. |
| Sarracenia × gilpinii | S. psittacina × S. rubra subsp. gulfensis (source) | The gulfensis qualification distinguishes this from casei. |
| Sarracenia × gordonii | S. alata × S. psittacina (source) | Published in 2023. |
| Sarracenia × harperi | S. flava × S. minor (source) | Formula follows the 2015 revision. |
| Sarracenia × mellichampii | S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi × S. flava (source) | Published in 2023; not the leucophylla–wherryi cross. |
| Sarracenia × mitchelliana | S. leucophylla × S. purpurea (source) | Kew formula; compare the rosea treatment below. |
| Sarracenia × moorei | S. flava × S. leucophylla (source) | A botanical hybrid name, not one cultivar. |
| Sarracenia × naczii | S. flava × S. rosea (source) | Separates rosea ancestry from the catesbaei formula. |
| Sarracenia × popei | S. flava × S. rubra (source) | Compare mellichampii when interpreting wherryi ancestry. |
| Sarracenia × rehderi | S. minor × S. rubra subsp. rubra (source) | Formula follows the 2015 revision. |
| Sarracenia × swaniana | S. minor × S. purpurea subsp. venosa (source) | Formula follows the 2015 revision. |
| Sarracenia × wrigleyana | S. leucophylla × S. psittacina (source) | Keep any cultivar or accession name separately. |
The species boundaries that change a formula
The 2015 specialist revision interprets × ahlesii as alata × alabamensis subsp. wherryi, and treats the short-pitchered parent of × exornata and × mitchelliana as rosea. Those formulas differ from the broader names shown in the cited Kew entries. The differences should remain attributed rather than silently combined. 2015 hybrid revision.
For a grower, the resulting question is concrete: which parent did the breeder or original collector actually mean? A broad historical label may not answer it. Keep that label and add a dated explanatory note; do not replace uncertain ancestry with an exact modern formula merely because a plant resembles a reference photograph.
The farnhamii subtypes and the readei question
Kew lists S. × farnhamii nothosubsp. bellii for leucophylla × rubra subsp. gulfensis, with × bellii as the earlier name. The prefix notho- indicates hybrid status; this is an infraspecific hybrid name, not a cultivar in quotation marks. It merits its own coverage rather than disappearing inside an undifferentiated farnhamii entry. Kew: nothosubsp. bellii.
Kew's typical × farnhamii nothosubsp. farnhamii entry includes × readei in synonymy. The 2015 revision separately uses × readei for leucophylla × alabamensis subsp. wherryi. Preserve that treatment difference in historical records. Kew: typical farnhamii; 2015 revision.
By contrast, × mellichampii has flava in its formula. Its original nomenclatural record identifies the wherryi–flava combination and publication in 2023. It must not be substituted for the leucophylla hybrid simply because both involve wherryi. IPNI: mellichampii publication and parents.
A name is not proof of a wild population
The 2015 revision questions the reported natural occurrence of × courtii and notes that no natural collection material for × excellens was located during that study. These are evidence qualifications, not declarations that the crosses cannot exist. Field and herbarium evidence review.
Keep three statements separate: a cross can be made in cultivation; a botanical name has been applied to it; and a documented population exists in the wild. One statement does not establish all three. Equally, an old collection does not demonstrate that its population survives today. Population claims need their own place, date and evidence.
Using the directory without losing a plant's identity
For a purchased plant, retain the received name, supplier, acquisition date and any accession or parent codes. Add an accepted-name interpretation in a separate field. This preserves the original evidence if a taxonomic treatment changes or the supplier later clarifies the label.
An informal trade name is not automatically a botanical synonym. A cultivar name belongs in the cultivar register, with its description and registration evidence, even when the cultivar is commonly associated with one of these hybrids. A seedling from a named plant also needs a record of its own; this table cannot supply an unknown pollen parent.
If a name is absent, use the complete supplied formula while its status is checked. Do not force an unfamiliar multi-parent cross into the closest-looking entry. Further names outside this initial backbone, and unresolved historical usages, remain part of the encyclopedia's continuing audit. New distinct taxa will be added with sources; simple synonyms will point to the existing biological account.
Care and further reading
A hybrid formula helps locate the relevant parent profiles but does not supply a universal growth calendar or mature size. Read it alongside the Australian foundation guide, seasonal guide and propagation chapter. For identification, compare the entire pitcher, lid, mouth and flowers where available, together with the plant's documentation.
This directory deliberately keeps the name source close to each entry. Follow those references when a label raises a question, and keep the answer at the level the evidence supports. That approach allows the register to become more precise over time without turning a change in terminology into an invented change in the plant.
