User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: OK, now I'm MAD

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    OK, now I'm MAD

    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
    http://www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn...89.html#beauty

    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:

    Hello Bob,

    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.

    Sincerely.

    William Dawnstar

    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.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  2. #2
    Hello, I must be going... Not a Number's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    7,506
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Tamlin

    Andreas Fleishman has spent a lot of time in field studying the South African Drosera and hopefully his research will clear up a lot of the confusion as to what is actually in cultivation.

    I don't think his observation in any way invalidates the cultivar status of the plant in question. After all cultivars can be applied to a form or variety or population as well as a single plant, e.g. Sarracenia minor 'Okee Giant' or Sarracenia leucophylla 'Hurricane Creek White'. So perhaps Drosera natalensis 'Rhodesian Beauty' is now appropriate.
    Grand Hotel... always the same. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens.

  3. #3
    i dont do pots. amphirion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area, US
    Posts
    3,498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    shoot me if im wrong (on second thought please dont shoot me) but when we are talking about a subset of organisms let's say a ring species like Ensatina escholtzii, all are recognized as that species, but are given subspecies designation ie: E. e picta, E. e oregonensis, etc etc.

    maybe we should reorganize cultivars and restrict them to individual plants of that exact genetic make up, in other words, clones, and give populations of Sarrs ('Hurricane White Creek' or 'Okee Giant') a subspecies or variant status such as S. minor var okeefenokee or S. minor sp. okeefenokee to indicate that there is a subset population of S. minors that exhibit a distinguishing trait. any thoughts?

    sorry for the tangent.
    " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya
    +growlist
    +petiolaris drosera going dormant?
    +picture thread

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jon,

    Cultivar publication is based solely on appearance, not genetic makeup. The current taxonomic climate favors lumping, not splitting which is what would happen if you tried to assign a ssp. or var. to every different phenotype arising where populations with matching karyotypes (e.g. Sarracenia here in the States or Droserae in South Africa) that also share overlapping ranges. IMO, there are too many of these as it stands, and cultivar publication allows what every GROWER wants, namely a different name for every different desirable form they distribute. My issue is solely with this attempt to assign a validity to a bogus name, when there is a legitimately published name, against ICNCP regs! Either it IS legitimate and if so, where is the photo under the entry Drosera 'Rhodesian Beauty'. or vs vs if it is not valid why is it still listed at the ICPS site maintained for published cultivars? If valid I want to see the photo under my entry, if not I want to know why this botanist has any say in what I choose to name. This has absolutely nothing to do with botany, field studies or genetics. It's all about horticulture and that's it. Apparently the International Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). makes the rules and the ICPS as the registering authority can blow them off as it pleases?

    Look at it like this, suppose I sent out a lot of VFT mutants back in 1970 with saw teeth, and listed this as Dionaea "sp.437B" to all I sent it to, then Barry Rice publishes it as D. 'dentate' a couple of decades later. You really think I could say that UNFORTUNATELY this falls within the natural variation of certain populations and because I sent this out (with a totally useless designation and nothing to refer to), he couldn't have his photo listed under his legitimately published name? Let me add this is just a fictitious example. The point is the rules have to apply equally to everyone, or they are nonsense, and this botanist has nothing to say about issues that don't concern botany!

    ISHS Acta Horticulturae 413: II International Symposium on Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants:

    "Problems in both botanical and horticultural nomenclature can arise when a species is named from a garden plant selected for characters which distinguish it from naturally occurring forms of the species. As long as it is accepted that the various forms involved do not need to be distinguished botanically, then these problems can be resolved by regarding the garden plant as a cultivar, even though it may represent the type of the species. This problem and its resolution are illustrated here using Viburnum macrocephalum (Caprifoliaceae) as an example. It is proposed that the name Viburnum macrocephalum covers the entire species and includes V. macrocephalum f. keteleeri as a synonym, and that the cultivated plant with a snowball inflorescence is known as V. macrocephalum 'Sterile'."

    The Correct Naming of Carnivorous Plants: ICBN, ICNCP, and the Roles of CPN and ICPS Jan Schlauer, CPN Editor:
    " If no valid or established name is available, the plant may be named by any person."


    I like a good debate. Someone please prove me wrong in this. Find me any International Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Article that supports Andreas's OPINION.
    Last edited by Tamlin Dawnstar; 07-29-2010 at 01:57 AM.
    "Grow More, Share More"

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
  •