March 2021 CPN
How should I understand the cultivars definition of the ICPS?
Eventually, I will follow the international rules and the rules of the ICPS. Before that, I would like to share and confirm the unclear points with many people. I'm trying to understand the "cultivars" defined by the ICPS, but I'm a little confused.
It seems like a mixture of "easy to understand" and "difficult to understand", Probably I am living in the Stone Age, but I hope someone can explain it clearly.
Yes, I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of cultivars in the ICPS.
For example, I see "easy to understand" in Sarracenia cultivars. I have read that the applicant or author stated that "the progeny line loses cultivar status". These cultivars are cultivated semi-permanently by growers, by vegetative propagation, if they are the ones loved by many people.
Perhaps if there is a "difficult to understand" about Sarracenia, the members of the ICPS based in the United States will not be silent.
In the past, I mentioned my thoughts on the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ on the cp-listserv. I think the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ did surely exist. In my view of cultivars, the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ no longer exists. I personally think that the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ in the photo on the CPN disappeared within a couple of years later. If it is listed as Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, it will be cultivated for a long time as var. Goliath. If it was Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, I'm sure it still exists. This is because most Byblis species are allogamous plants. Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath is probably still present in the area where the ICPS cultivar ‘Goliath’ seed was collected.
That's why I never tried to register annual Byblis cultivars with either the Government of Japan or the ICPS. It might have been possible if I had been working on perennial Byblis breeding. Because perennial Byblis is easy to propagate vegetatively.
Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other, whether in the collected native population of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ or in the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ itself. Of course, self-breeding causes inbreeding depression, and even without obvious malformations, vigor begins to decline. In most cases, the seeds become smaller and become sterile due to repeated self-fertilization. Some Byblis species are originally perfect self-incompatibility plants. Hence, it is impossible to establish any of pure line (usually), and it is super difficult to establish any of inbred line.
At the end of this post, I'll add a summary of the text I posted to the cp-listserv.
In the Nepenthes 'Lake Poso' article, the author describes it as “variety” at first. It makes sense to me. Even if the author says "species", I'm easy to accept.
And then the author describes this variety as “In this article, I establish the cultivated variety name N. maxima ‘Lake Poso’ to discuss these miniature plants.”
And it is treated as the ICPS cultivar on the ICPS website.
How should I understand? This is what is difficult for me to understand. Why is "Lake Paso" given to multiple clones while other cultivar names are given to each one individual clone?
Nepenthes species are the allogamous plants.
In the Drosera section, ‘Kanto’ and ‘Kansai’ are included on the ICPS website as cultivars that will be officially described in the future. Before I started growing carnivorous plants (nearly 50 years ago), these names were already in common use (More than 50 years ago, long before World War II).
"Kanto" means the Kanto region, that contains Tokyo, Chiba prefecture, Ibaraki prefecture, Tochigi prefecture, Gunma prefecture, Saitama prefecture, Kanagawa prefecture. "Kansai" means the Kansai region, that contains Osaka prefecture, Kyoto prefecture, Hyogo prefecture, Shiga prefecture, Nara prefecture, Wakayama prefecture. For me living in the Kanto region, "Kansai" means a wider area. It may be a person in the Kanto region who started using the names "Kanto" and "Kansai" for Drosera. When I was a kid, I felt the Tokai region was like a part of the Kansai region.
For me, who has just started growing Carnivorous plants, Drosera spatulata ‘Kanto’ means Drosera spatulata, and Drosera spatulata ‘Kansai’ means Drosera tokaiensis. Yet, in the world of taxonomy, Drosera tokaiensis had not been described. These are the words Japanese people used for convenience. In other words, Drosera spatulata in Okinawa Prefecture (the westernmost part of Japan), which does not grow naturally in the Kanto region, is also "Kanto".
I only cultivated a few regional variations of "Kansai" = Drosera tokaiensis, therefore I don't know how much regional variations there are in Drosera tokaiensis. However, there are obvious regional variations in "Kanto" = Drosera spatulata, from my horticultural point of view.
In other words, when the ICPS registers ‘Kanto’ as a cultivar, it might cause highly misleading: it seems all Drosera spatulata that normally grow in Japan become the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’. Similarly, all Drosera tokaiensis that normally grow in Japan are the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kansai’.
To compare how strange this is to me: it is almost the same as the following.
U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. purpurea native to North America" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Purpurea’ ".
Also
U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa native to the United States" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Venosa ‘”.
In addition, the Japanese government refuses to apply for a name that has been commonly used for that genus as a newly registered cultivar name. Because it confuses old school people like me (one of the reasons).
no offense
According to the ICPS:
“This is effected only and exclusively by inclusion of the name in the International Register that is governed by the appropriate International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) accredited with the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). In the case of carnivorous plants, the appropriate ICRA is the ICPS, nothing else.”
O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.
Also, according to the ICPS:
“It must thus be different from any trademarks (which may exist for the same plant). Usually patents are granted for certain varieties (not cultivars) that should be sold under a certain proprietary brand name (trademark). Such names are not cultivar names and cannot be registered (they cannot be established because they are not free for everyone to use worldwide).”
O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.
I am a commercial grower in a capitalist society, a person who want to create some good cultivars in my lifetime, if possible.
I don't spend any public money. Therefore, I have to bear the breeding costs myself. Or I need to retrieve it later.
I have been trying to breed some cultivars. One of them is a pseudo-carnivorous plant so far, but I tried to register the cultivar of a certain plant. This clone was not created by crossing with another species, but was intentionally (artificially) created. It is a clone that usually does not occur in the wild or in cultivation.
The organization I aimed to register was the Japanese government.
And I didn't apply by the deadline, but if I wanted to register, they were some countries based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
If I try to protect my rights by law, I have to pay for it. And the exclusivity has an expiration date. Even before the expiration date, anyone can propagate and sell the clone at that point if I do not declare the continuation of the right.
Even if I waive legal protection, it is still a cultivar registered with the Japanese government (according to the ICPS, it is a variety or “patent and trademark”).
In my understanding, Sarracenia flava var. ornata contains a huge number of different clones (countless). What is the difference between this “var.” (variant) , the “variety” described by the ICPS and “variety” in the article in Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’? Could anyone please break it down for me?
In conflict with neighboring countries, the Japanese government is strengthening the law prohibiting taking it overseas. It is up to the applicant to apply the law. Therefore, if I claim the exclusivity only in Japan, the clone can be freely propagated and sold in any countries other than Japan, though it cannot be exported to Japan.
If I aim to register with the Japanese government, I will be subject to a document review of the application, and actual cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) will be conducted by professional engineers (government officials), and other reviews will be done. I'm not a Japanese government employee so I don't know some of the details. Since I was an applicant, I was not able to involved in the examinations.
The clone I applied for was officially recognized as a registered cultivar (variety as the ICPS describes) by the Government of Japan after a 7-year review period (genus with already screening criteria would have a shorter review period).
According to the ICPS Cultivar Description, I can accept it, the cultivar I have registered with the Government of Japan would be just like "patent and trademark". But at least the Japanese government was verifying the cultivar submitted in scientific fashion.
The Japanese government has conducted cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) three times between the cultivar I applied for and other clones. The cultivar status traits were verified in scientific fashion.
Does the ICPS, the only organization that can register cultivars of carnivorous plants (authority), verify cultivars in such a scientific fashion? By whom did the ICPS with authority create the screening criteria for verifying cultivar status traits? Who are verifying? Who are verifying other than the author (or applicant) and the people associated with the author(applicant)? Who are doing the cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials)? How is fairness and scientific judgment guaranteed?
According to the ICPS:
"The publication of a new cultivar name can only be effected by (hard copy) print. Electronic publication, especially if ephemeral, is definitely not suitable."
I agree that "hard copy print" is better than "Electronic publication", but for me it is only valid as a set of print and verification (excluding the applicant and related people). Otherwise, the ICPS will be a lawless zone.
The examination by the Japanese government's scientific fashion is very strict and it is quite difficult to pass it. If the application is accepted (not just arrived at the Japanese government, but officially), it only means a "temporary registration" or an "applied potential cultivar". It is not an officially registered cultivar until verification is completed.
If the ICPS give a cultivar name to a particular individual of D. spatulata or D. tokaiensis, the ICPS should avoid using the name that has already been commonly used for a long time. Japanese cp growers of my age would be confusing.
Again, Nepenthes 'Lake Poso', I'm easy to accept as a new species orvariety variant.
How inconvenient and confusing the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’ is for the Japanese. I don't know if The ICPS gives the name to a particular individual or to multiple individuals from a particular origin (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’).
What do US cp growers feel about:
Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has multiple habitats to my knowledge. If the ICPS gives the name the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Rubricopora’ to a specific individual or the population of Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora native to Sumatra, Florida. Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has other locations.
In Japan, Kanto-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera spatulata), Kansai-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera tokaiensis). If the ICPS uses "Kanto" and "Kansai" as cultivar names, Japanese cp growers of my age will be confused.
(Gata = Kata is Japanese meaning form, type, shape, etc.)
(Ko is Japanese meaning small, tiny)
(Mousenngoke=Sundew or Drosera rotundifolia)
My basic idea for cultivar is that the cultivar name is given only to a specific individual. The exception is autogamous plants with highly fixed its traits. This is the same idea for the Japanese government. I wondered if it was the difference between English and Japanese, not the definition. Sarracenia cultivar name, already listed in the ICPS cultivar list, appears to apply exactly to one particular individual (clone). Looking at the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’, it seems that it is applied to multiple different clones. Again, the individuals in the population of allogamous plants that are in the same habitat are very diverse.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarracenia rosea "Fat Chance" came to be called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. But I'm confused if the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ are called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. Similarly, I would be confused if the Sarracenia rosea clones in the native area where the ancestor of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ was present were called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Paso’).
Could anyone explicate it easy way so that even a caveman(me) can understand it?
What I would like to emphasize:
Except well selected cultivar that fixed cultivar status traits of autogamous plant, it is quite unacceptable for me (caveman) that someone give a cultivar name to multiple clones within same variation (or in the same location) of allogamous plant species.
Could anyone please break it down for me?
Don’t worry! I'm not looking for any disputes or any arguings. But hopefully someone could make this issue plain and comprehensible for me.
Isao Takai
An old post to the cp-listserv.,
My posting is a mere assertion of my opinion. I do not intend it to change anyone's opinion, nor is this a proposal to the ICPS either.
--------
--------
My studies in cultivation and breeding of Byblis taxa that are part of the large Byblis filifolia complex (i.e. characterized by the flowers bearing anthers as long or longer than their supporting filaments) are allogamous (self-incompatible) plants. Allogamous doesn't mean an absolute self-sterile taxon. It simply means the degree of out breeding is high. I have found some clones as well as some variations are perfect allogamous plants.
In the wild there are always outstanding clones to be found in any wild population according to Mr. Allen Lowrie. I believe that this condition is heterosis, (i.e. a greater degree of vigor or fertility through re-combinations of dominant and recessive genes). This (these) phenomena suggest that Byblis species are the allogamous plants. They are maintaining a lot of genes which cannot be held by just one clone but by a number of clones within a population. Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other in the same location.
I would like to say, It looks like Sarracenia flava also practices this heterosis phenomenon in the wild.
Dr. Phil Sheridan will be able to explain this properly for US cp growers. I guess US cp growers do not hand out cultivar status to each variation of S. flava plants found in the wild in the U.S.A. There is nothing stopping anyone naming all these S. flava variations as cultivars, However, this would be a huge endless undertaking and a harebrained waste of time.
The benchmark for a complete allogamous plant is Nepenthes which is a dioecious species (plants that only bear male or female parts, hence requiring for its perpetuation the proximity of two plants of different sex).
--------
How should I understand the cultivars definition of the ICPS?
Eventually, I will follow the international rules and the rules of the ICPS. Before that, I would like to share and confirm the unclear points with many people. I'm trying to understand the "cultivars" defined by the ICPS, but I'm a little confused.
It seems like a mixture of "easy to understand" and "difficult to understand", Probably I am living in the Stone Age, but I hope someone can explain it clearly.
Yes, I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of cultivars in the ICPS.
For example, I see "easy to understand" in Sarracenia cultivars. I have read that the applicant or author stated that "the progeny line loses cultivar status". These cultivars are cultivated semi-permanently by growers, by vegetative propagation, if they are the ones loved by many people.
Perhaps if there is a "difficult to understand" about Sarracenia, the members of the ICPS based in the United States will not be silent.
In the past, I mentioned my thoughts on the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ on the cp-listserv. I think the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ did surely exist. In my view of cultivars, the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ no longer exists. I personally think that the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ in the photo on the CPN disappeared within a couple of years later. If it is listed as Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, it will be cultivated for a long time as var. Goliath. If it was Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, I'm sure it still exists. This is because most Byblis species are allogamous plants. Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath is probably still present in the area where the ICPS cultivar ‘Goliath’ seed was collected.
That's why I never tried to register annual Byblis cultivars with either the Government of Japan or the ICPS. It might have been possible if I had been working on perennial Byblis breeding. Because perennial Byblis is easy to propagate vegetatively.
Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other, whether in the collected native population of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ or in the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ itself. Of course, self-breeding causes inbreeding depression, and even without obvious malformations, vigor begins to decline. In most cases, the seeds become smaller and become sterile due to repeated self-fertilization. Some Byblis species are originally perfect self-incompatibility plants. Hence, it is impossible to establish any of pure line (usually), and it is super difficult to establish any of inbred line.
At the end of this post, I'll add a summary of the text I posted to the cp-listserv.
In the Nepenthes 'Lake Poso' article, the author describes it as “variety” at first. It makes sense to me. Even if the author says "species", I'm easy to accept.
And then the author describes this variety as “In this article, I establish the cultivated variety name N. maxima ‘Lake Poso’ to discuss these miniature plants.”
And it is treated as the ICPS cultivar on the ICPS website.
How should I understand? This is what is difficult for me to understand. Why is "Lake Paso" given to multiple clones while other cultivar names are given to each one individual clone?
Nepenthes species are the allogamous plants.
In the Drosera section, ‘Kanto’ and ‘Kansai’ are included on the ICPS website as cultivars that will be officially described in the future. Before I started growing carnivorous plants (nearly 50 years ago), these names were already in common use (More than 50 years ago, long before World War II).
"Kanto" means the Kanto region, that contains Tokyo, Chiba prefecture, Ibaraki prefecture, Tochigi prefecture, Gunma prefecture, Saitama prefecture, Kanagawa prefecture. "Kansai" means the Kansai region, that contains Osaka prefecture, Kyoto prefecture, Hyogo prefecture, Shiga prefecture, Nara prefecture, Wakayama prefecture. For me living in the Kanto region, "Kansai" means a wider area. It may be a person in the Kanto region who started using the names "Kanto" and "Kansai" for Drosera. When I was a kid, I felt the Tokai region was like a part of the Kansai region.
For me, who has just started growing Carnivorous plants, Drosera spatulata ‘Kanto’ means Drosera spatulata, and Drosera spatulata ‘Kansai’ means Drosera tokaiensis. Yet, in the world of taxonomy, Drosera tokaiensis had not been described. These are the words Japanese people used for convenience. In other words, Drosera spatulata in Okinawa Prefecture (the westernmost part of Japan), which does not grow naturally in the Kanto region, is also "Kanto".
I only cultivated a few regional variations of "Kansai" = Drosera tokaiensis, therefore I don't know how much regional variations there are in Drosera tokaiensis. However, there are obvious regional variations in "Kanto" = Drosera spatulata, from my horticultural point of view.
In other words, when the ICPS registers ‘Kanto’ as a cultivar, it might cause highly misleading: it seems all Drosera spatulata that normally grow in Japan become the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’. Similarly, all Drosera tokaiensis that normally grow in Japan are the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kansai’.
To compare how strange this is to me: it is almost the same as the following.
U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. purpurea native to North America" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Purpurea’ ".
Also
U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa native to the United States" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Venosa ‘”.
In addition, the Japanese government refuses to apply for a name that has been commonly used for that genus as a newly registered cultivar name. Because it confuses old school people like me (one of the reasons).
no offense
According to the ICPS:
“This is effected only and exclusively by inclusion of the name in the International Register that is governed by the appropriate International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) accredited with the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). In the case of carnivorous plants, the appropriate ICRA is the ICPS, nothing else.”
O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.
Also, according to the ICPS:
“It must thus be different from any trademarks (which may exist for the same plant). Usually patents are granted for certain varieties (not cultivars) that should be sold under a certain proprietary brand name (trademark). Such names are not cultivar names and cannot be registered (they cannot be established because they are not free for everyone to use worldwide).”
O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.
I am a commercial grower in a capitalist society, a person who want to create some good cultivars in my lifetime, if possible.
I don't spend any public money. Therefore, I have to bear the breeding costs myself. Or I need to retrieve it later.
I have been trying to breed some cultivars. One of them is a pseudo-carnivorous plant so far, but I tried to register the cultivar of a certain plant. This clone was not created by crossing with another species, but was intentionally (artificially) created. It is a clone that usually does not occur in the wild or in cultivation.
The organization I aimed to register was the Japanese government.
And I didn't apply by the deadline, but if I wanted to register, they were some countries based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
If I try to protect my rights by law, I have to pay for it. And the exclusivity has an expiration date. Even before the expiration date, anyone can propagate and sell the clone at that point if I do not declare the continuation of the right.
Even if I waive legal protection, it is still a cultivar registered with the Japanese government (according to the ICPS, it is a variety or “patent and trademark”).
In my understanding, Sarracenia flava var. ornata contains a huge number of different clones (countless). What is the difference between this “var.” (variant) , the “variety” described by the ICPS and “variety” in the article in Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’? Could anyone please break it down for me?
In conflict with neighboring countries, the Japanese government is strengthening the law prohibiting taking it overseas. It is up to the applicant to apply the law. Therefore, if I claim the exclusivity only in Japan, the clone can be freely propagated and sold in any countries other than Japan, though it cannot be exported to Japan.
If I aim to register with the Japanese government, I will be subject to a document review of the application, and actual cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) will be conducted by professional engineers (government officials), and other reviews will be done. I'm not a Japanese government employee so I don't know some of the details. Since I was an applicant, I was not able to involved in the examinations.
The clone I applied for was officially recognized as a registered cultivar (variety as the ICPS describes) by the Government of Japan after a 7-year review period (genus with already screening criteria would have a shorter review period).
According to the ICPS Cultivar Description, I can accept it, the cultivar I have registered with the Government of Japan would be just like "patent and trademark". But at least the Japanese government was verifying the cultivar submitted in scientific fashion.
The Japanese government has conducted cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) three times between the cultivar I applied for and other clones. The cultivar status traits were verified in scientific fashion.
Does the ICPS, the only organization that can register cultivars of carnivorous plants (authority), verify cultivars in such a scientific fashion? By whom did the ICPS with authority create the screening criteria for verifying cultivar status traits? Who are verifying? Who are verifying other than the author (or applicant) and the people associated with the author(applicant)? Who are doing the cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials)? How is fairness and scientific judgment guaranteed?
According to the ICPS:
"The publication of a new cultivar name can only be effected by (hard copy) print. Electronic publication, especially if ephemeral, is definitely not suitable."
I agree that "hard copy print" is better than "Electronic publication", but for me it is only valid as a set of print and verification (excluding the applicant and related people). Otherwise, the ICPS will be a lawless zone.
The examination by the Japanese government's scientific fashion is very strict and it is quite difficult to pass it. If the application is accepted (not just arrived at the Japanese government, but officially), it only means a "temporary registration" or an "applied potential cultivar". It is not an officially registered cultivar until verification is completed.
If the ICPS give a cultivar name to a particular individual of D. spatulata or D. tokaiensis, the ICPS should avoid using the name that has already been commonly used for a long time. Japanese cp growers of my age would be confusing.
Again, Nepenthes 'Lake Poso', I'm easy to accept as a new species or
How inconvenient and confusing the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’ is for the Japanese. I don't know if The ICPS gives the name to a particular individual or to multiple individuals from a particular origin (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’).
What do US cp growers feel about:
Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has multiple habitats to my knowledge. If the ICPS gives the name the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Rubricopora’ to a specific individual or the population of Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora native to Sumatra, Florida. Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has other locations.
In Japan, Kanto-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera spatulata), Kansai-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera tokaiensis). If the ICPS uses "Kanto" and "Kansai" as cultivar names, Japanese cp growers of my age will be confused.
(Gata = Kata is Japanese meaning form, type, shape, etc.)
(Ko is Japanese meaning small, tiny)
(Mousenngoke=Sundew or Drosera rotundifolia)
My basic idea for cultivar is that the cultivar name is given only to a specific individual. The exception is autogamous plants with highly fixed its traits. This is the same idea for the Japanese government. I wondered if it was the difference between English and Japanese, not the definition. Sarracenia cultivar name, already listed in the ICPS cultivar list, appears to apply exactly to one particular individual (clone). Looking at the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’, it seems that it is applied to multiple different clones. Again, the individuals in the population of allogamous plants that are in the same habitat are very diverse.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarracenia rosea "Fat Chance" came to be called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. But I'm confused if the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ are called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. Similarly, I would be confused if the Sarracenia rosea clones in the native area where the ancestor of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ was present were called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Paso’).
Could anyone explicate it easy way so that even a caveman(me) can understand it?
What I would like to emphasize:
Except well selected cultivar that fixed cultivar status traits of autogamous plant, it is quite unacceptable for me (caveman) that someone give a cultivar name to multiple clones within same variation (or in the same location) of allogamous plant species.
Could anyone please break it down for me?
Don’t worry! I'm not looking for any disputes or any arguings. But hopefully someone could make this issue plain and comprehensible for me.
Isao Takai
An old post to the cp-listserv.,
My posting is a mere assertion of my opinion. I do not intend it to change anyone's opinion, nor is this a proposal to the ICPS either.
--------
--------
My studies in cultivation and breeding of Byblis taxa that are part of the large Byblis filifolia complex (i.e. characterized by the flowers bearing anthers as long or longer than their supporting filaments) are allogamous (self-incompatible) plants. Allogamous doesn't mean an absolute self-sterile taxon. It simply means the degree of out breeding is high. I have found some clones as well as some variations are perfect allogamous plants.
In the wild there are always outstanding clones to be found in any wild population according to Mr. Allen Lowrie. I believe that this condition is heterosis, (i.e. a greater degree of vigor or fertility through re-combinations of dominant and recessive genes). This (these) phenomena suggest that Byblis species are the allogamous plants. They are maintaining a lot of genes which cannot be held by just one clone but by a number of clones within a population. Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other in the same location.
I would like to say, It looks like Sarracenia flava also practices this heterosis phenomenon in the wild.
Dr. Phil Sheridan will be able to explain this properly for US cp growers. I guess US cp growers do not hand out cultivar status to each variation of S. flava plants found in the wild in the U.S.A. There is nothing stopping anyone naming all these S. flava variations as cultivars, However, this would be a huge endless undertaking and a harebrained waste of time.
The benchmark for a complete allogamous plant is Nepenthes which is a dioecious species (plants that only bear male or female parts, hence requiring for its perpetuation the proximity of two plants of different sex).
--------
Last edited:
?