The simplest way to look at cultivar names, is to consider that each published description and photographic standard is then locked virtually in perpetuity to the associated/registered cultivar name, not necessarily a particular plant genome. It is also, effectively tied to the denomination class, which in the case of CP is the genus name for that particular cultivar. Though in the rules it frequently speaks as if the plants and their cultivar names are indistinguishable/inseparable. They are quite distinct and separable. Any other plant in the same genus, which by design or coincidence happens to precisely match the published description and photographic standard, for all intents and purposes, is the cultivar in question. For instance, if cultivar descriptions were published, including their genetic codes, it would be conceivable that they would then be identifiable by their genetic fingerprint. However, the volume of information represented by the genetic code of any individual plant is unlikely to be routinely published with any cultivar description. Just obtaining such information would be unlikely, unless the current genetic code reading technology is greatly simplified.
Just because someone writes a method of propagation into a published cultivar description, does not impose limitations on how a cultivar can be reproduced, those can only be suggestions, since cultivar descriptions are just that, descriptions.
If I manage to provide, what is, to my mind, an optimal environment to grow my plants in, and in that environment, they exhibit traits, rarely seen in other environments (and this has actually become the norm for me, especially with Mexican/equatorial Pinguicula). That doesn't mean these plants aren't deserving of cultivar registration. On the contrary, if I were searching for cultivars exhibiting such traits, I would have a much better chance of obtaining a plant capable of demonstrating those traits (once its environment were suitable), than any other random plant, never known to exhibit those traits. It would basically inspire me to continue adjusting my environment, until I inspire those traits in my own plants, or not.
This system, is the best one we have, for now. Unfortunately some bandits, use the system to rob some of us, myself included, by selling us plants misrepresented to be propagations of various registered cultivars. Sometimes this misrepresentation is due to misunderstanding what a registered cultivar is, other times, sadly it is due to intentional misrepresentation - possibly for short term monetary gain. Regardless, bandits should not be allowed to keep us from using this system for registering cultivar names.
My personal reputation is in the plants I distribute. So, I always endeavor to verify the accuracy of those with registered cultivar names, before sending them to anyone else, unless I have a particular reason and intend to do so. Such as sending divisions of unidentified plants to other growers, to enlist their assistance in identifying a plant.
As an example, I once grew an F2 seedling, the progeny of a self-pollinated plant, said plant was/is a registered cultivar. I was not mistakenly convinced that the F2 seedlings were also this cultivar, as others have apparently been mistaken when dealing with the F2 progeny of other Pinguicula cultivars. Though, as is also evident when examining the ICNCP; registered cultivars, "can" be propagated via seed. Though the cultivar description should be adjusted accordingly, to allow for a somewhat more general description, to take into account variation among the seedlings.
Last edited by Joseph Clemens; 01-13-2015 at 12:38 AM.
Tucson, Arizona, U S A
Irrespective of what the cultivar process is supposed to be and how it is interpreted, I think it is fair to say that when most people obtain a registered cultivar they expect it to match the register description characteristics in their growing conditions, within a reasonable tolerance of typical growing conditions. I suspect that when people buy a supposedly dark clone they are doing so because they want a dark clone, not because of it's lineage, but they may find in their growing conditions that it is no darker than a typical. I also suspect that they pay a premium expecting this.
My avatar is a Big Boy, which is an unregistered clone. It's characteristic is large pitchers and I find in my conditions it grows pitchers the same size as my Hummer's Giant, which are larger than typical in the same conditions. It is however not known for dark colouration, but as you can see it is capable of obtaining it. I grow the same clone in numerous locations and conditions and it can vary from totally green to the dark maroon you see in the avatar. Basically the coloration is environmentally conditional, as are other dark clones.
...I can hear a blue bird sing, and hear a robin call but yellow, yellow daffodil I love you most of all.
i completely agree with DND. I value c. squat more than any other plant in my collection.
double ribbed has been the darkest in my collection. followed by big boy and emu point. I dont believe any of those clones are known to get very dark, but those are almost black in my conditions.
Whilst dark clones could possibly be inclined to getting slightly darker, if you can't get decent colouration of a typical in your growing conditions then I suspect you won't for a supposedly dark clone either.
Are there any clones that won't tern dark but stay green
I don't think it would stay green in all conditions.