Sundew Matt,
You said:
"Yeah, I'll look into registering it, since I'm the first person to actually grow this plant and appreciate its differences from other spatulatas enough to call it something different."
I assume by this statement that you believe that no one grew this plant or thought it beautiful before it made its way to you! I doubt very much this is the case, as it is very beautiful and quite distinct, even to a novice grower. Do you really think you are the only person capable of appreciating this plants character, and have some special claim on it above others? You have no more claim on this plant than does your source, or his source.
As for your registering it, you can register it if you like, but you cannot own it. It is not "your" plant even if you do put a name to it. There is no monetary profit to be gained, as registration is not synonomous with copyright other than in the actual name, and registration carries no patent rights.
The beauty of cultivar registration is that it does not matter who describes the plant, who found the plant, or who had the plant before someone else. The process is not meant to be used as a vehicle of personal ego gratification, but as a tool of communication between growers who need a way to intelligently refer to what they have. Everyone has an equal option to get about the job and get it done. Including you, if you get about the task before someone else does.
All this assuming that people choose to use the ICPS service. There will always be renegades who will not ascribe to the service, that actually have fun making up new names for their plants, and could care less about what any taxonomists or collectors have to say on this issue. Even if you registered the plant as a cultivar "Monster" I would still distribute it as "Tamlinosa" to my friends, for the reasons I give below. You might not approve, but it is not against the law, is it?
You stated:
"It is clear to anyone who knows anything about this plant that only one particular person should be allowed to publish this species, but some people suggested that we let someone else do it rather than wait for him to gather enough material to support his findings and understand a plant whose populations are somewhat variable"
If you refer to "sp. Emas" (and I am sure you do), then I suggest that the course of a decade should allow for sufficient research to make a protolouge description don't you? The plant seems fairly straighforward in it's appearance: it has lamina, petioles, scapes, styles, seeds - all of which are subject to description apart from population demographics and variation. Most authors are content to publish, and allow review to determine the worth of the determination. Maybe F. is waiting to see what this "species" is going to evolve into? Still, this is his call, as it should be, for his lifetime. I don't have to like it, and I don't: I really would like to see this species published. I detest "sp." designations. The distribution of "sp. Emas" from grower to grower, however, necessitates some form of centralized reference as a communication tool. Since it has not been published as a species, it needs to be recognized as a cultivar. It's really as simple as that: there is no need to bring ego issues into it. Rest assured though: if you or Fernando do not register it as a cultivar, someone else surely will, and it will be a service, not stealing.
"It's quite disturbing actually that anyone would want to take credit for someone else's find or work, but I suppose there will always be selfish cut throats out there who feel the need to steal other peoples work or pass off others knowledge as their own in order to boost their egos."
If you refer to "sp. Emas" and Fernando, then I am inclined to agree, in regards to publishing a species protolouge. Yes, there have been some very impolite dealings in the botanical world in regards to publishing species, and I believe it is a terrible thing to "jump the gun" and publish ahead of the true researcher of the species novae. If we are speaking of cultivar registration of "sp. Emas", that is an entirely different matter, and I do not agree that anyone has any more right than anyone else to name this plant. If you are speaking of "Tamlinosa", it is as I have stated before: I did not pen the name, although it pleases me. It may please me enough to register it under that name, as it is my right to do. My interest in doing this is not one of ego, but a simple desire to chart in my lifetime the dissemination of the results of my generosity in distributing this plant to the CP community.
Finally, knowledge is indeed passed off as "ones own" once it has been learned. This is what teaching is about. Once it has been learned, it is not "someone elses knowledge", it is yours. I pass on knowledge all the time, but I do not consider it "mine". I learn from teachers all the time too, but do not consider their knowledge their property, nor do they. As to someone "stealing" Fernando's work: once again the option is there for the man to be about the job. Writing a Latin description is not that hard a thing! Sooner or later, some bright young man is going to decide that he has what it takes to describe this as a new species, after researching, pouring over herbarium sheets, possibly traveling around the world to do so. Who is to say that he will not have earned the right to do what another omitted to do when he had the chance? It might not hapen until after Fernando passes on, but sure as frost it will happen.
That's it for me on this subject.
. Many of the taxonomic details of the genus can only be found by consulting obscure publications, sometimes in other languages and not readily available: your college library should be able to get some of them for you though.
