User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 41

Thread: Plant Patent

  1. #33
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I used the Leah Wilkerson thing just as a figurative example, not literal.

    How would anyone check the genetic structure of every plant in order to see if the genes are exact for a cultivar?

    Vegetative reproduction does guarantee an exact genetic copy of a cultivar. I'm no expert in this by any means but I was told by someone who is well versed in taxonomy that "if it fits the described features"...it IS the cultivar. So if (for example) one has a ceph and it matches the description of Hummer's Giant...its Hummer's Giant.


    But like I said...I could have been given incorrect info on that.

    Ooops...let me add, if the cultivar description includes a specific mention of reproduction (i.e. Brook's descrip of Leah), then you are correct. However, if a description is not so specific and says "any large all white plant with a 3" lid"...then any "large all white plant with a 3" lid" is the cultivar.
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  2. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whether a plant is a cultivar or not and taxonomy are two totally separate things.
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  3. #35
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know. Lord y'all are literal around here. I guess I should have said "A Very Learned and Experienced Carnivorous Plant Grower Who Has Registered Cultivars" explained cultivars that way to ME. So I figured he knew what he was talking about.
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  4. #36
    Doing it wrong until I do it right. xvart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Zone 8
    Posts
    5,594
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PlantAKiss View Post
    Ooops...let me add, if the cultivar description includes a specific mention of reproduction (i.e. Brook's descrip of Leah), then you are correct. However, if a description is not so specific and says "any large all white plant with a 3" lid"...then any "large all white plant with a 3" lid" is the cultivar.
    Which is exactly the problem with the carnivorous plant cultivar registry system. Cultivars are unique and special, something out of the ordinary that is worthy of special recognition and a special title. It's easier to do with certain species, i.e. Nepenthes, but when you start looking at Cephalotus and Dionaea it becomes more troublesome.

    Sweet dood, this vft I have is beast! The traps are huge! They are so big I can't believe it. Surely this should be registered as a cultivar. I'm going to write up a description and get it published in n00basaurs hacking digest. Here's the description of my plant I'm going to call 'Beastly Burden:' "The traps are beastly huge." w00t I'm famous!

    There are so many cultivars of Dionaea that are solely based on trap size alone (at least in the common sensibility).

    "Man, look at those traps! They are huge, it must be a 'B-52' or a 'Big Mouth.' Nah, dude. Those are my new cultivar, 'Beastly Burden.'"

    "Has it already been vegitatively propogated?"

    "No, but it looks like it, so it is my cultivar."


    For god's sake, it's really not that unique anymore for Dionaea to have large traps. There are so many out there, cultivar or not. Half the plants out there with large traps are probably not even the real cultivar, or even any cultivar; but just a plant with big traps! And, considering the variablity of growth in Dionaea, a two paragraph description with no pictures can't cut it.

    I'm getting way off topic here... sorry to the original off-topic split thread!

    And PAK, what you describe may actually be the case, especially considering your source; I'm just pointing out how absurd it actually is in my opinion.

    xvart.
    "The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  5. #37
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is not necessarily a relationship between any cultivar and any particular genome. The ICNCP emphasizes that different cultivated plants may be accepted as different cultivars, even if they have the same genome, while cultivated plants with different genomes may be a single cultivar.
    There. They said it better than I could. lol

    Well I guess your example is why cultivars go up for review and can be accepted or rejected. There is SUPPOSED to be something very "worthy" and exceptional for a plant to be registered.

    I think with many plants, orchids for example, the cultivars are ridiculous. There must be millions. So I think, in general, cultivar registration is over the top.
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  6. #38
    wmgorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PlantAKiss View Post
    I used the Leah Wilkerson thing just as a figurative example, not literal.
    I didn't think you meant it literally, but I was just expounding on your example to illustrate my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by PlantAKiss View Post
    How would anyone check the genetic structure of every plant in order to see if the genes are exact for a cultivar?
    I'm not suggesting that each plant have an analysis of its DNA done to prove its identity as a cultivar. I mean that to say if the plant is not a vegetatively produced offspring of the parent plant, then there's a significant chance that plant is NOT the cultivar. If I understand what JC said, then there's a SLIM chance for a seed grown plant to be like the cultivar, so I'm not sure why someone would write a cultivar description that way. Therefore, if it's not a vegetatively cloned plant, it's not the cultivar. Now, what do you do when you self-pollinate something? I don't know enough about plant genetics to even open that can of worms, but I will hand someone the can opener!

    I hope you didn't think I was jumping down your throat - I'm not. I was just in a hurry when I wrote that message (just like I'm in a hurry writing this response too!) I'm doing it in chunks in-between clients, so I think it may be a little more "scattered" than I normally write.

    I also didn't intend to "hijack" the thread away from Max's original post about plant patents, but it all seemed very connected to me. I can say that I've really enjoyed all the input on the topic because it's certainly given me some insight into cultivars as I read other responses and process the information to form my own response and I'm starting to think that the term "cultivar" itself may not be as clearly defined as it needs to be.

  7. #39
    Moderator Schmoderator Fluorescent fluorite, England PlantAKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia/Zone 7
    Posts
    10,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No I didn't think you were jumping down my throat.

    I'm not disagreeing with the vegetative thing. I guess I was trying to say what that quote in my post says. Genetics are not a hard and fast rule with cultivars. If you read cultivar descriptions, you'll see how much they vary from extremely detailed to less so.

    I'm sure many CP folks have seen the various debates on some registered CPs. What name was chosen, what passes for a "worthy" plant, etc.

    It is an interesting topic. And I guess patents may be a growing part of the cultivar world.
    "Fox terriers are born with about four times as much original sin in them as other dogs." - Jerome K. Jerome

  8. #40
    Doing it wrong until I do it right. xvart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Zone 8
    Posts
    5,594
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wmgorum View Post
    Now, what do you do when you self-pollinate something? I don't know enough about plant genetics to even open that can of worms, but I will hand someone the can opener!
    It still wouldn't be the cultivar since there would still be genetic variations among the offspring. Considering the belief that self pollinating could lead to genetic deficiencies, the offspring should most certainly not be considered to be the cultivar. I believe the correct labeling would be S. 'Leah Wilkerson' x self.

    xvart.
    "The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •