User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Cultivars

  1. #1
    Moderator Joseph Clemens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    2,539
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Following is an excerpt of a response Jan Schlauer made to an earlier inquiry to this same subject on the CP Listserv:

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Cultivars do not necessarily need to be clones (ICNCP Art.2.6.). They
    may be clones (Art.2.7.), topophysic clones (Art.2.8.), cyclophysic
    clones (Art.2.9.), derived from aberrant growth (2.10.), graft-
    chimaeras (2.11.), assemblages grown from seed derived from
    uncontrolled pollination (2.12.), lines (2.13.), multilines (2.14.),
    F1 hybrids (2.15.), assemblages grown from seed from a particular
    provenance (2.16.), or assemblages of genetically modified plants
    (2.17.).

    The ultimate killer of the clone dogma is Art. 2.18.:
    "In considering whether two or more groups of cultivated plants
    belong to the same or different cultivars, the origin of each group
    is irrelevant. All indistinguishable variants, irrespective of their
    origin, are treated as one cultivar." (!)
    --------------------------------------------
    I guess any car that looks identical to a '1966 yellow Volkswagon beetle' is just the same as any other car that looks identical to a '1966 yellow Volkswagon beetle', even if it were made in a different factory, on a different day, by different assembly workers, using parts from different part lots, created with slightly different materials and assembled in a different order, etc. You would still consider it a '1966 yellow Volkswagon beetle' and I appreciate the fact that it has a universally recognizable name. I would hate to try to have a conversation with anyone concerning it, if it were just called something like, "small yellow car", "yellow car made in Germany', "yellow bug car", etc. Especially so, if others were expected to join the conversation and each one had their own idea about what to call the car and each one called it something different from every other person involved in this conversation, boy now wouldn't that be fun?
    Joseph Clemens
    Tucson, Arizona, U S A

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a very good breakdown of the real regulations concerning the cultivar registration system. This topic needs to be brought to attention again and again.

    We need to register the names we are using for plants in our collections that at present have no legitimate central reference, but have a wide circulation in collections.

    Without a central reference we can never be sure we are talking about the same plant. I really liked the volkswagon comparison.

    In the Cp world, the topic of cultivar registration is one spicy hot tamale of debate. The CP world is polarized on this issue.
    People are sadly shaking their heads on either side of line.

    One camp says that cultivar registration should be only for prized plants, plants of outstanding beauty, or value. They don't want the "plain Jane's" to be represented or named.

    The other camp believes that CP registration is needed for plants having (or to have) wide distribution, whether they are pretty or plain.

    Joseph is in this camp, and so am I. If it is good to send out by virtue of some quality it has, then it deserves a name that we can all agree on. Distinction doesn't imply quality, only definite difference.

    In the case of D. spatulata, it is rather an insult to growers that we are only allowed to legitimately refer to this plant as D. spatulata. Why? Well, because I grow some 10 or 12 very appearing different forms: different sizes, different leaf shapes, different flower colors, different habits of growth. But, if I want to be legitimate and proper (and I do!) I may only refer to them all as Drosera spatulata (no "H", hee hee)

    I do assign a code at the end of the scientific name, so I can continue to discuss this within the circles I move in. Even though I explain to friends that this is just so we can continue to talk about this one type (out of 10) in my collection, this is technically improper, because once the plant moves out of the circle into wider distribution this code will mean nothing to anyone. It will generate many repeated questions like "Huh?" and "What the heck is this supposed to mean?" Because it is not published, it too is 'bogus". This has happened already: seed donated to Carnibank of D. spatulata carries the code AWM1. This is my code so that I can send a photo of this plant to my friends if they ask me, and know which of the 10 plants they are talking about. But to a guy in Germany getting this seed, this is useless. He can't email me, because he doesn't know who I am.

    Cultivar registration will now let me take the same plant and publish a legitimate name for it. I could call it anything I choose. For example D. 'Tamlin'. Once published with a photo, it gets registered internationally, and the name would be legitimate. I could send seed to carnibank under this name, and it would be proper.

    Now my unknown friend in Germany can find the published reference, and see a photo of the plant and know what he has, and if he is wise, will be able to collect and enjoy the other 9 or so beautiful forms he could add to his collection (once I register them)! There are likely many other beautiful and different forms of CP that we are unaware of, because they have no published reference. Let's bring them into the light that they deserve!

    Gentle reader, it is to save you confusion and to widen your perspective that this system evolved. I hope that you will take advantage of the tool to help us all define our collections. Everyone likes knowing what they have, and finding new and beautiful forms. Cultivar registration will give us that.
    "Grow More, Share More"

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    340
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]One camp says that cultivar registration should be only for prized plants, plants of outstanding beauty, or value. They don't want the "plain Jane's" to be represented or named.
    How can they say that? Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? I'm all for scientific accuracy and would like to know where my plants are coming from.
    Did not know that this presented such a problem.

    With all the talk about DNA mapping and such these days, is there not a method of taking tissue samples and positively identifying plants and cultivars?
    Please excuse my ignorance... [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]
    DOH!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joseph, Tamlin, this is in curent discussion in the CPUK forum..Please see the latest postings on that thread...
    Best Regards

    Mike King

    NCCPG National collection holder of Sarracenia

    http://www.carnivorousplants.uk.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Oswego, New York, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, it was quite completely explored there. I don't have it in me to continue the discussion here, I fought the good fight there, and now its time for a break. Interested readers can find my arguments in favor of the Cultivar Registration process at the UK Forum under General Discussions.
    "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
  •