So, setting up the photo albums on my Facebook, I go to include the link on Bob Z's photo finder to include it for my published cultivar Drosera 'Rhodesian Beauty' published December 18, 2003 on the ICPN and for the entry I read this:
"Drosera 'Rhodesian Beauty' (W.Dawnstar)
Comments: Registered 30. 12. 2004 (JS).Described in Carnivorous Plant Newsletter' V.33, No.3 (Sept. 2004), apparently the same plant as D. sp."Rhodesia" above. Andreas Fleischmann says: falls within the natural variation of D. natalensis. Unfortunately, there's a member of the D. madagascariensis aggregate called D. sp. "Rhodesia" in cultivation as well. updated: 2009-09-19
So, I gather from this a BOGUS distribution of this plant takes precedence over a legitimate publication at cultivar level HUH? Folks, did I miss something? Here is the letter I sent to Bob with a CC to Dr. Jan Schlauer:
I trust this finds you well and happy.
I am writing concerning the comments on your CP Finder page regarding Mr. Andreas Fleishman's comments regarding the quite legitimate publication of my cultivar Drosera 'Rhodeian Beauty', which I take offense at.* His opinions in no way enter into the legitimacy of my publication.* I was long aware of the bogus nature of "sp. Rhodesia" which indeed is exactly the same plant as my cultivar. That is exactly why I chose to publish at cultivar level.* Distribution of bogus material only confuses and generates future contention.* I believe this was one of the reasons for creating this system.
I was totally within my rights to legitimately publish this name, as it had not been published beforehand, and I do not care for the comments relative to the entry in your photo finder.
That there is a distribution under the FORMER (and bogus!) name is not my concern, nor should it be yours.
*I am therefore asking that the comments under this entry be deleted.* Even if the plants are the same, I believe the ICBN articles support my demand that this particular cultivar now be referred to henceforward by it's legitimate and current published name, NOT by it's former bogus name!* This is correct nomenclature by the rules as I understand them.* In my opinion, once I published a legitimate name, any cultivar that exactly matches my description should bear the name I published.* Whoever it was (Mr. Fleishman, perhaps?) that distributed this before my publication with the bogus appellation had the same right to publish it legitimately as I did, but it was not done.
Also, that there was publication at species level did not bar my publishing it at a lesser rank!
I am sending a CC to Dr. Schlauer, and would like to hear back if I am wrong about this.* If I AM wrong, I would like some explanation as to how this passed the initial editorial review by himself and Dr.* Rice in the ICPN, and why my publication is still listed and so presumably valid?
It makes no sense to create a worthy system of cultivar publication, then turn around and ignore the rules when convenient.
I don't know who this Andreas Fleishman guy is, pr how gets off manipulating the ICPS, but got to compliment him as this is one GEM of a public insult, and I am mortified that apparently MY ICPS that I have belonged to for most of my life is just fine with that! I wonder what Don Schnell would have said about this?
SO Watson, the game is afoot. Stay tuned for updates as they happen.