My C. 'Hummer's Giant' has not yet - in three years - produced a pitcher that matched, let alone exceeded the size of the biggest pitcher on my "vigorous" (D. Hastings) clone.
Provenance, provenance, provenance!
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
Which is C. 'Eden Black'?
My C. 'Hummer's Giant' has not yet - in three years - produced a pitcher that matched, let alone exceeded the size of the biggest pitcher on my "vigorous" (D. Hastings) clone.
Provenance, provenance, provenance!
well, by definition pretty much anything that is cloned or TC'd qualifies as a cultivar...
It doesn't have to look unique unless it is cross pollinated
so, you are really making more a statement of pedigree and provenance than appearance when you state your plant is a cultivar.
"cultivar noun (Webster Concise Encyclopedia)
Any variety of a plant, originating through cloning or hybridization (see clone, hybrid), known only in cultivation. In asexually propagated plants, a cultivar is a clone considered valuable enough to have its own name; in sexually propagated plants, a cultivar is a pure line (for self-pollinated plants) or, for cross-pollinated plants, a population that is genetically distinguishable"
Last edited by a moderator:
I recommend all interested should read the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants Eighth Edition (current)
Chapter II: Definitions
Article 2: The Cultivar
2.3. A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a
particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform, and stable
in these characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those
characters (but see Art. 9.1 Note 1).
*9.1.Note 1. No assemblage of plants can be regarded as a cultivar or Group until its category,
name, and circumscription has been published. For a grex its name, category, and parentage
must be published. For the generic name of an intergeneric graft chimaera its name and
parentage must be published.
Articles 2.5 through 2.23 further define what is and what is not a cultivar. Contrary to popular believe a cultivar is not confined to a specific clone.
Examples:
2.12 An assemblage of individual plants grown from seed derived from
uncontrolled pollination may form a cultivar when it meets the criteria laid down in
Art. 2.3 and when it can be distinguished consistently by one or more characters even
though the individual plants of the assemblage many not necessarily be genetically
unfiorm.
Ex. 8. Ballota nigra 'Archer's Variety', Delphinium 'Astolat', Geum 'Lady Stratheden', Lavatera
'Ice Cool', Milium effusum 'Aureum', Verbena hastata 'Rosea', and Viola 'Penny Black' are cultivars
which are propagated from seed.
Ex. 9. When seed is sown of the yellow-fruited cultivar Viburnum opulus 'Xanthocarpum', a
proportion of the resulting seedlings is indistinguishable from the parent plant; such progeny is to be
treated as being part of the same cultivar.
Ex. 10. The seed-raised Betula pendula 'Penla', Hlppophae rhamnoides 'Ram', Larix kaempferi
'Palsgard Velling', and Rosa Carolina 'Indabes' were selected from plants from known geographical
(Example: Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White')
2.13 An assemblage of plants grown from seed collected from a particular
provenance on more than one occasion and clearly distinguishable by one or more
characters (a topovariant) may form a cultivar.
Ex. 11. If considered distinguishable, plants such as Picea abies of Dutch provenance Gortel-1,
Syringa vulgaris of a white-flowered Swedish seed source called Veberod, or Eucalyptus
camaldulensis selected from especially fast-growing populations, could be treated as cultivars.
(Example: Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White')
As far as progeny from selfed seeds:
2.20. In considering whether two or more plants belong to the same or different
cultivars, their origins are irrelevant. Cultivars that cannot be distinguished from
others by any of the means currently adopted for cultivar determination in the group
concerned are treated as one cultivar.
Ex. 17. Some cultivars derived from branch sports of Pittosporum 'Garnettii' are indistinguishable
and therefore belong to a single cultivar, even though these sports have occurred at different times in
different locations. Pittosporum 'Margaret Turnbull', which originated in New Zealand, appears to be
identical with P. 'John Flanagan' from Ireland. The International Cultivar Registration Authority for
Pittosporum designated P. 'Margaret Turnbull' as the accepted name, with P. 'John Flanagan' as a
later synonym.
Ex. 18. Dianthus 'William Sim' produces distinguishable mutants that by further mutation give rise
to a range of variants, some of which are indistinguishable from D. 'William Sim'.
2.21. If a change in the method of propagation of a cultivar leads to a change in the
set of characters by which it is distinguished, the plants so produced are not regarded
as belonging to the same cultivar.
Ex. 19. The double-flowered Campanula trachelium 'Bernice' is usually vegetatively propagated. If
grown from seed, it may produce a wide range of plants varying in height, degree of doubling, and
colour. Such seed-raised plants are not to be considered the same as, nor be named as, Campanula
trachelium 'Bernice' unless the individual plants cannot be distinguished from this cultivar.
Ex. 20. Cereus hildmannianus 'Monstrosus' is a teratological form of a cactus that is generally
increased from cuttings. However, on sowing seed, a proportion of seedlings show the same
monstrose condition. Whichever way propagation is carried out, the same name is to be applied to the
monstrose plants that form the cultivar. The non-monstrose plants are treated as indistinguishable
parts of the species.
Ex. 21. Hosta 'Halcyon' is vegetatively propagated, yet when increased by micropropagation a
number of mutants may be generated; one of these has been isolated and multiplied to form the
cultivar H. 'June'.
Article 3: The Group
3.1 The formal category which may comprise cultivars, individual plants or
combinations thereof on the basis of defined character-based similarity is the Group.
The Rules for forming Group names are laid out in Art. 22 of this Code.
3.2 Criteria for forming and maintaing a Group vary according to the required
purposes of particular users. All members of a Group must share the character(s) by
which that Group is defined.
Chapter II: Definitions
Article 2: The Cultivar
2.3. A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a
particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform, and stable
in these characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those
characters (but see Art. 9.1 Note 1).
*9.1.Note 1. No assemblage of plants can be regarded as a cultivar or Group until its category,
name, and circumscription has been published. For a grex its name, category, and parentage
must be published. For the generic name of an intergeneric graft chimaera its name and
parentage must be published.
Articles 2.5 through 2.23 further define what is and what is not a cultivar. Contrary to popular believe a cultivar is not confined to a specific clone.
Examples:
2.12 An assemblage of individual plants grown from seed derived from
uncontrolled pollination may form a cultivar when it meets the criteria laid down in
Art. 2.3 and when it can be distinguished consistently by one or more characters even
though the individual plants of the assemblage many not necessarily be genetically
unfiorm.
Ex. 8. Ballota nigra 'Archer's Variety', Delphinium 'Astolat', Geum 'Lady Stratheden', Lavatera
'Ice Cool', Milium effusum 'Aureum', Verbena hastata 'Rosea', and Viola 'Penny Black' are cultivars
which are propagated from seed.
Ex. 9. When seed is sown of the yellow-fruited cultivar Viburnum opulus 'Xanthocarpum', a
proportion of the resulting seedlings is indistinguishable from the parent plant; such progeny is to be
treated as being part of the same cultivar.
Ex. 10. The seed-raised Betula pendula 'Penla', Hlppophae rhamnoides 'Ram', Larix kaempferi
'Palsgard Velling', and Rosa Carolina 'Indabes' were selected from plants from known geographical
(Example: Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White')
2.13 An assemblage of plants grown from seed collected from a particular
provenance on more than one occasion and clearly distinguishable by one or more
characters (a topovariant) may form a cultivar.
Ex. 11. If considered distinguishable, plants such as Picea abies of Dutch provenance Gortel-1,
Syringa vulgaris of a white-flowered Swedish seed source called Veberod, or Eucalyptus
camaldulensis selected from especially fast-growing populations, could be treated as cultivars.
(Example: Sarracenia 'Hurricane Creek White')
As far as progeny from selfed seeds:
2.20. In considering whether two or more plants belong to the same or different
cultivars, their origins are irrelevant. Cultivars that cannot be distinguished from
others by any of the means currently adopted for cultivar determination in the group
concerned are treated as one cultivar.
Ex. 17. Some cultivars derived from branch sports of Pittosporum 'Garnettii' are indistinguishable
and therefore belong to a single cultivar, even though these sports have occurred at different times in
different locations. Pittosporum 'Margaret Turnbull', which originated in New Zealand, appears to be
identical with P. 'John Flanagan' from Ireland. The International Cultivar Registration Authority for
Pittosporum designated P. 'Margaret Turnbull' as the accepted name, with P. 'John Flanagan' as a
later synonym.
Ex. 18. Dianthus 'William Sim' produces distinguishable mutants that by further mutation give rise
to a range of variants, some of which are indistinguishable from D. 'William Sim'.
2.21. If a change in the method of propagation of a cultivar leads to a change in the
set of characters by which it is distinguished, the plants so produced are not regarded
as belonging to the same cultivar.
Ex. 19. The double-flowered Campanula trachelium 'Bernice' is usually vegetatively propagated. If
grown from seed, it may produce a wide range of plants varying in height, degree of doubling, and
colour. Such seed-raised plants are not to be considered the same as, nor be named as, Campanula
trachelium 'Bernice' unless the individual plants cannot be distinguished from this cultivar.
Ex. 20. Cereus hildmannianus 'Monstrosus' is a teratological form of a cactus that is generally
increased from cuttings. However, on sowing seed, a proportion of seedlings show the same
monstrose condition. Whichever way propagation is carried out, the same name is to be applied to the
monstrose plants that form the cultivar. The non-monstrose plants are treated as indistinguishable
parts of the species.
Ex. 21. Hosta 'Halcyon' is vegetatively propagated, yet when increased by micropropagation a
number of mutants may be generated; one of these has been isolated and multiplied to form the
cultivar H. 'June'.
Article 3: The Group
3.1 The formal category which may comprise cultivars, individual plants or
combinations thereof on the basis of defined character-based similarity is the Group.
The Rules for forming Group names are laid out in Art. 22 of this Code.
3.2 Criteria for forming and maintaing a Group vary according to the required
purposes of particular users. All members of a Group must share the character(s) by
which that Group is defined.
Last edited:
After Cephalotus is registered as ‘cultivar’ it should be distinct, uniform and stable. To be distinct, it must have characteristics that easily distinguish it from any other known cultivar. To be uniform and stable, the cultivar must retain all these characteristics under repeated propagation in any and in different conditions with no exception.
However, undoubted fact is that the Cephalotus can not do this in different climates and conditions, because the color is always unstable under different conditions in different growers and all that is once again proved with C. 'Eden Black'.
So the question is would C. 'Eden Black' deserve cultivar status or not since it was registered only for its color ?
Should a cultivar show the described characteristics in all typical growing conditions? This of course not only applies to C. 'Eden Black', but any other plant cultivar...
Unless a plant can show the same traits consistently as those in the cultivar description then I do not see how it can be considered a cultivar.
However, undoubted fact is that the Cephalotus can not do this in different climates and conditions, because the color is always unstable under different conditions in different growers and all that is once again proved with C. 'Eden Black'.
So the question is would C. 'Eden Black' deserve cultivar status or not since it was registered only for its color ?
Should a cultivar show the described characteristics in all typical growing conditions? This of course not only applies to C. 'Eden Black', but any other plant cultivar...
Unless a plant can show the same traits consistently as those in the cultivar description then I do not see how it can be considered a cultivar.
Last edited by a moderator:
If we were to apply this to Cephalotus, there would be not one single variety that could qualify for cultivar status. (Which is fine by me, since there are many "cultivars" distributed without provenance and because of some all-too-casual naming practices, there are plenty of mislabeled varieties distributed.)
I recently got a C. 'Hummer's Giant' who's lineage can be traced back to the original plant. It's definitely different than the one I already had here as C. 'Hummer's Giant'. Whether by accident or malicious intent, I suspect many of the "HG" plants in cultivation are not the true cultivar. I also agree that the naming of many of the Cephalotus cultivars has been too casual, in a similar manner to the way some of the totally normal looking Dionaea cultivars are registered. Very few of these Cephalotus "cultivars" are unique enough to warrant cultivar status in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
At this point, I am fairly certain my C. 'Hummer's Giant' isn't really C. 'Hummer's Giant' at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't say that I've grown many cultivars of Cephalotus, but I agree with Johnny. As far as my experience with VFTs go, there are a heck of a lot of cultivars which look exactly the same in the same conditions. Certainly, keeping the cultivar name lets me know genetic lineage, but, as far as actually being phenotypically "distinct," many of these are not.
Now my brain officially hurts - aaargh 
I believe this text was added by NaN:
Including this link & verbiage is very helpful for this thread/conversation as it is the accepted Authority. If possible, I'd recommend differentiating your inserted comments (or emphasis ie: bold/underline) so they are not confused with the original text.
I believe this text was added by NaN:
In general this is obviously true. However, is it also true if vegetative propagation is specified in the published cultivar description? Reading through the original Authority text, there does seem to be verbiage that stresses visible characteristics over possible hidden or genetic attributes.
Is the bolded text added by DND or is it from the Authority? (I've been unable to locate it in NaN's text or the original -- although due to brain pain, I definitely could have overlooked it).
Jcal
Decumbent Fanatic
agreed. my squat clone is uniquely different, and is the only plant in my collection that i would consider cultivar worth. another plant i would love to have would be bananito. both of these would be based on shape vs color.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Now my brain officially hurts - aaargh
Including this link & verbiage is very helpful for this thread/conversation as it is the accepted Authority. If possible, I'd recommend differentiating your inserted comments (or emphasis ie: bold/underline) so they are not confused with the original text.
I believe this text was added by NaN: In general this is obviously true. However, is it also true if vegetative propagation is specified in the published cultivar description? Reading through the original Authority text, there does seem to be verbiage that stresses visible characteristics over possible hidden or genetic attributes.
Is the bolded text added by DND or is it from the Authority? (I've been unable to locate it in NaN's text or the original -- although due to brain pain, I definitely could have overlooked it).
Ron:
Here's what I saw: (Items between * are my own comments)
2.3 A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform, and stable in these characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characters (but see Art. 9.1 Note 1 (*publication requirements*)).
"Distinct" is defined by the ICNC publication as "consistently different in one more more characters so as to permit repeated recognition."
"Uniform" is defined in the ICNC publication as "a condition in which relevant characteristics do not vary beyond a defined limit."
"Stable" is defined in the ICNC publication as "a condition in which the relevant characteristics of a taxon remain unchanged."
*So, yeah, NaN is correct. Essentially any plant which cannot be readily distinguished from other individuals of that species is not a true cultivar, regardless of whether a publication allows it to be published or not. The plant has to have characteristics which do not vary beyond a defined limit, and those characteristics must allow repeated recognition. Under the "Quick Guide for New Cultivar Names" the following is stated:*
A single plant is not a cultivar: a cultivar is a group of individual plants which collectively is distinct from any other, which is uniform in its overall appearance and which remains stable in its attributes. Do not attempt to name a cultivar until you have a number of individual which are uniform and stable.
*The definition of "stable" has to incorporate growing in "different conditions." What good would it do to propagate a handful of individuals and keep them all in the exact same conditions? How would that weed out any plants, except for the occasional mutation, which, one would imagine, would go away on its own as the plant with it grew?
From this, I understand cultivar to mean a plant with a distinctive characteristic that will present in any suitable growing condition. For example, a plant which is bright blue in bright light instead of green or red. That blue coloration should be present in any suitable growing condition where there is bright light.
Now, moving on to propagation. How do we propagate a cultivar?*
2.4 Cultivars differ in their mode of origin and reproduction, for example as described in Art. 2.5 - 2.19. Whatever the means of propagation, only those plants which maintain the characters that define a particular cultivar may be included within that cultivar.
*2.5 - 2.19 describe various propagation methods. All appear to utilize some genetic material from the original plant.
So, I don't believe that you can restrict how a cultivar is propagated by its description. All you have to do is ensure the progeny meet the original cultivar description. See also Barry's Rice's registration of 'Othello' ("Many people mistakenly think that cultivars may only be propagated by vegetative (asexual) means such as cuttings or tissue culture. The truth is that cultivars may be propagated by any method, as long as the plants resulting from propagation still match the original cultivar description.").
So, for instance, if you were to take our bright blue plant, you could clone it, divide it, or cross it with itself, regardless of what the original cultivar description said about propagation. To still be known as the cultivar, however, the progeny must meet the original cultivar description. Obviously, the clones and divisions should, but the selfed seed? That you'll have to grow out to the point where the seedlings are mature enough to display the characteristic (the "blueness"). Any non-blue seed-grown plants are not the cultivar. Only the blue ones are the cultivar.
Hope I've gotten all that right and clarified cultivars for some people.*
Jcal
Decumbent Fanatic
The squat clone is definitely one of the more unique ones out there. The reason I'm even interested in getting most of the different "cultivars" out there is for genetic diversity for future pollination attempts. Better chance of getting a greater variation in seedlings that way.
Jcal
Decumbent Fanatic
Funny you should say that. Since my success with seed last year I have decided that I'm done collection clones and using the plants I have to produce seed. I had a problem with head room last year, so I have already pick out a greenhouse to dedicate to Cephalotus. Growing from seed is going to be my new focus.
Last edited by a moderator:
From a previous thread on a diferent forum here was my personal opinion last year:
Also I was trying to look into the cultivar status of Hydrangea. These show variable colour based largely on soil pH and yet flower colour appears to be significant in the cultivar descriptions with notes that it is variable.
Cephalotus is certainly vairble depending on conditions. As far as I know all can be grown 'green' and I am certainly still waiting for significant differences to show between many of my 'named' plants but I am keeping an open mind.
Cheers,
Steve
Also I was trying to look into the cultivar status of Hydrangea. These show variable colour based largely on soil pH and yet flower colour appears to be significant in the cultivar descriptions with notes that it is variable.
Cephalotus is certainly vairble depending on conditions. As far as I know all can be grown 'green' and I am certainly still waiting for significant differences to show between many of my 'named' plants but I am keeping an open mind.
Cheers,
Steve
Then I have to register this one being seed grown C. Northcliffe location plant, cuz it has " genetic propensity towards more intense colouration than many other examples "....
What do u think?
It's a great colour. Also as it seed grown from a named location it would not be a bad thing to identify it's genetic provenance so that future growers are able to tell what plants they are growing or indeed using for cross pollination.
Whether or not it gets actual cultivar status it has some great genes!
Cheers
Steve
Whether or not it gets actual cultivar status it has some great genes!
Cheers
Steve
