Fair enough, I apologize for that, I was not trying to misrepresent your view. You sure seemed to draw a sharp contrast between "iffy" and "arbitrary" criteria on the one hand, and "proper" and "legitimate" processes on the other. If I've misunderstood this apparent contrast in "legitimacy", I apologize. Importantly, it remains the case that "proper" "legitimate" cultivar names aren't clonal designations. If you consider it problematic or a bad idea to circulate 'Eden Black' x self plants that match the description of 'Eden Black' as 'Eden Black', the "proper" and "legitimate" processes won't help you. That said I'm happy to admit that if I selfed 'Eden Black', I'd circulate the seedlings as 'Eden Black' x self A,B,C... But this is contrary to the "proper" "legitimate" processes, is unverifiable, and is in the long run iffy and arbitrary, since others could reasonably do the same with their seedlings. It still doesn't satisfy that craving (which we seem to share) for names applying uniquely to individuals.
It would be more interesting if the article has not been accepted and allowed to be published by ICPS, the same institution that accepted and allowed cultivars to be registered. There are only TWO Cephalotus cultivars 'Eden Black' and 'Hummer's Giant' so far.
Cindy probably looked up the registrations on the ICPS website which shows only two registered cultivars for Cephalotus follicularis at the moment I am writing this. If you query the Carnivorous Plant Database it too only returns two. The page and database simply hasn't been updated.
(FYI: This is Dr. Jan Schlauer's database who just happens to be one of the persons of the International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRA) for Carnivorous Plants).
You'll notice that 3 of the cultivar descriptions were published in 2011 and not in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter (cited as Cephalotus Teratol.Abnorm.L.:21 (2011)). And just because a description is published in a valid source it may never be submitted for registration. And even registrations can have an invalid status due to some omission. There are a number of registrations that are invalid due to lack of a standard photograph.
To fault an author or editor for omissions or inaccuracies due to knowledge that was unavailable at the time of writing or printing is simply ridiculous. Indeed, Mr. Nunn's article was even more up to date then both the ICPS website and the Carnivorous Plant Database.
Grand Hotel... always the same. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens.
Very interesting. While I fundamentally agree with the point made in the article and the thread here, I do find one point of contention. I personally find it important to keep track of my different clones, even if they are all 'typical', and even if they potentially came from the same source down the lines. This is similar to keeping accession numbers/names for any seed grown plants. Any seed grown plant has a unique genotype, and potentially unique phenotype. This is the only way to track selective breeding. I agree C. follicularis can exhibit a high degree of phenotypic plasticity. I think adding a clone/accession name/number is totally reasonable as long as trading and selling is done with some effort to keep track within our collections. I think the difference between a source and locale can just be stated as such, why so much hyperbole required?