User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 17

Thread: ICPS - Cephalotus article by Richard Nun, Volume 43 March 2014

  1. #9
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My comment (which you've taken out of context) doesn't state that the process of using a cultivar name to describe a seed-grown plant originating from said cultivar is incorrect usage of the cultivar naming model, I simply stated that it isn't a good idea. I persist in my thinking that it is a bad idea to willfully apply a registered cultivar name to any F2 individual raised from seed, and there are going to be people who do so merely for the sake of capitalizing on the name for profit. Yes, the registration-as-cultivar model is flawed, but to intentionally distort the provenance of an individual simply because the rules allow it seems particularly un-helpful to me.
    Last edited by Whimgrinder; 03-02-2014 at 11:55 AM.

  2. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As I said you're free to like the rules or not. You can call applying them as intended "a bad idea", but then it's mysterious why you loudly trumpeted them as "viable and true" earlier. In any context, calling 'Eden Black' a "clonal designation" is a mistake and either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of the facts. This is a common mistake, so I thought it was worthwhile to address since a) this is a thread about cultivar naming and b) you were unequivocal in your support of the rules just moments ago. So I stand by what I said--let's make sure there is no confusion about the process.

    The funny thing is, I share your desire to have Morley's clone of 'Eden Black', not an indistinguishable son of 'Eden Black', nor some indistinguishable clone far removed. (Actually I'd like all 3, but that's beside the point.) But that's why it's so important to be clear about the naming convention--it does not and never was intended to satisfy this desire. A cultivar name just isn't a promise about clonal identity, it's a claim about phenotype. The workaround, of course, is to pass along a plant with additional info in double quotes, like "Emu Point", "from Phill Mann", 'Eden Black' "Morely's clone", etc. This is the conventional way to pass along information that isn't captured by the formal cultivar naming process, and is often the way people try to distinguish genotypes in cultivation. This convention is obviously imperfect; there must be a great many genotypes from Emu point, and "from Phill Mann" does not guarantee clonal identity, as Nunn points out. What I continue to object to is the baseless claim that people who put information in double quotes have mistakenly "designated cultivars", are "stupid" and/or are "insane."

    Nunn's bravest and most interesting claim is to depict two plants side by side in habitat that are measurably different in color, and insist that the differences are environmentally derived, not genetic. But as I said he makes this claim untestable, because he dismisses evidence from cultivation as unnatural when it doesn't suit his hypothesis.

  3. #11
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewilder View Post
    you loudly trumpeted them as "viable and true" earlier.
    You've made the above appear to be a direct quote from me, which it is not.

  4. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  5. #13
    Moderator Cindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,435
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  6. #14
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cindy View Post
    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.
    See page 31 of the March 2014 ICPS Journal: it lists four registrations accepted for C. follicularis cultivars in 2013 alone. How many others have there been? I find it very interesting that the ICPS published in this issue an article stating there are three registered cultivars in total, at the same time listing four new registered cultivars in 2013 alone. What are we supposed to think of this inconsistency?

  7. #15
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whimgrinder View Post
    See page 31 of the March 2014 ICPS Journal: it lists four registrations accepted for C. follicularis cultivars in 2013 alone. How many others have there been? I find it very interesting that the ICPS published in this issue an article stating there are three registered cultivars in total, at the same time listing four new registered cultivars in 2013 alone. What are we supposed to think of this inconsistency?
    There can be a significant amount of time that lapses between when an article is accepted and approved for publication and when it is actually published. So the numbers may not have been inconsistent at the time it was written. Just ask Butch about the publication process.

    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.

    http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_hom...arch=cultivars



    (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).
    https://www.omnisterra.com/botany/cp/html/schlauer.htm

    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.

  8. #16
    Carnivorous plant enthusiast vraev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,806
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for sharing the article. it was an interesting read and I totally agree with the argument. I have had cephs originating from leaf cuttings of the same plant which looked drastically different growing beside one another.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •