What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

So Ceph Stratification Is Over...

  • #21
then where is the line drawn with the seedlings "earning" the cultivar status? they could be very similar but when looked at carefully, there are differences. I was never taught that seedlings from cultivars could be put under the same name regardless of what they look like. If that were the case, why couldn't seedlings from any parent be eligible for that cultivar if the same unique traits are shown?
 
  • #22
distinct characteristics or behaviors about a plant aka 'Eden Black' vs 'Big Boy' vs 'Hummer's Giant' vs 'Clumping'

but furthermore, the individual plants need to be subjected to a series of tests, including if the propagules remain true to the original description + if those characteristics are able to be maintained in a variety of conditions.
 
  • #23
However, plants grown from that seed that display the SAME unique traits as the parent plant CAN be called the same cultivar.

And that is a dreadful premise for defining a unique selection chosen for its horticultural value. This "gray area" definition is often challenged by hybridizers who work in various genera, as it degrades the value and integrity of the work.

Lets say you were working on a breeding program in your chosen genus, and a new hybrid had become available in commerce. If the "owner" of that new "cultivar" chose a dozen genetically unique individuals to serve as propagating material to make up the commercial body known as "cultivar X", you would have no way of knowing which plant to acquire, and if some of the twelve were horrible breeders, and only one or two had merit as breeding plants. What a hopeless situation. This is what you call corrupted data. Under these conditions I find "cultivar" to be a badly abused term that can lead to horrific documentation errors.

Would you be happy to discover that S. 'Adtian Slack' turned out to be a group of five genetically unique plants? What if it was discovered twenty years into ownership that two of the five had serious genetic flaws that became evident only when they reached ten years of age or more? What if you had been using your 'Adtian Slack' as breeding stock for years, only to generate garbage seedlings, and yet your friend consistently created beautiful hybrids from his plant? Then to discover you had one of the bad clones and your friend had the good breeding clone? And yet both we're virtually identical in appearance! I don't know about you, but I'd be p*ssed.

(This is just an example case; S. 'Adrian Slack' is a single clone, of that I certain. However, there is an imposter S. Moorei in commerce erroneously labeled as 'AS', but that's a different issue)
 
  • #24
There-in lies the problem! Many people are not trained botanists/taxonomists/horticulturists so they may not notice subtle differences between the parent plant and the seedlings. In my opinion this should not be how it works, but I understand the need for such a distinction. The agricultural industry as a whole grows many plants that are not very good for propagation through cuttings and growing from seed is much more effective. For instance, apples do not come true from seed. However, if I went to the grocery store and bought some 'Granny Smith' apples and planted the seeds and the resulting trees produced sour, cardboard textured, green skinned apples that are approximately the same size as those in the store I could call my apples 'Granny Smith' apples. However, maybe the fruit on my tree are a little larger and less cardboardy textured than those of the original Granny Smith trees which are propagated through grafting. Are they still 'Granny Smith' apples?

Technically no they are not because they are not in appearance identical and the taste is different. However, it would take an expert on Granny Smith apples to determine this. Trust me I know a couple people that could determine the difference :p. But if it were some random schmuck that just decided that he wanted to grow his own apples from the grocery store he may just call them Granny Smiths and leave it at that.

Anyway, the whole idea of a "clone" referring to a named entity is rather confusing which is why I try to avoid the term entirely except when referring to cloning a plant via division, asexual propagation, or tissue culture. It is only a clone if it came asexually from the original cultivar. I.E. a division from Cephalotus follicularis 'Eden Black'

If you are growing from seed that has been selfed, or hybrid seed you can and SHOULD label it this way. Cephalotus follicularis EX. 'Eden Black' x 'Hummers Giant' for example. If it is selfed seed you should label it Cephalotus follicularis this little circle with an "X" through it 'Eden Black'
activity-flow-final.png


Even if your seedlings appear identical in traits to 'Eden Black' I urge you to call it with the above labels to avoid perpetuating the idea that your seed is genetically identical to 'Eden Black' which is unfortunately what most people think a cultivar is. Even though you are technically well within your rights to call your seedlings Cephalotus follicularis 'Eden Black' if the traits appear to be identical to the original cultivar description.
 
  • #25
:beer: okay, sounds like we are on the same page now. the ag industry is our (the querky plant purists) worst nightmare :p
 
  • #26
Rest assured, my plants will be labeled as to their origin (assuming the seeds even germinate!)
 
  • #27
Even though you are technically well within your rights to call your seedlings Cephalotus follicularis 'Eden Black' if the traits appear to be identical to the original cultivar description.

No you are not.

The registration of the cultivar specifies vegetative propagation. I did post the extracts earlier.

Cephalotus 'Eden Black' :- Propagation: vegetatively via leaf or rhizome cuttings or by division

Cephalotus 'Hummer's Giant' :- Propagation: vegetative only

'Big Boy' of course I would naturally specify the same.
 
  • #28
Fred is correct. We need to observe the rules for naming so we don't pollute collections with grossly misnamed seed-grown imposters. Please, please do it right.
 
Back
Top