Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:10:00 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg612$foo@default> Subject: Re: wild collected cultivars or new taxa
Dear Paul,
Not that I always have to disagree with what you are writing here
(just take all incidences in which I did not reply as implicit
endorsement) but some of the rules you mentioned are not international
law.
> theoretically any body authorised to "validate" a new cultivar
(NB: a cultivar is described with a publication, whereby its name is
"established" according to the ICNCP, no "validation" is involved with
cultivars; they are not taxa in the sense of the ICBN).
> originating from the wild must be placing
> itself at risk. The conventions require collectors to have permission
> to collect - so unlesss a validating organisation asks whether wild
> sourced cultivars were collected with permission, the organisation could
> be guilty of validating an illegally collected specimen.
This applies only to some countries (e.g. the UK and the USA, so it
might be of importance to *most* readers of this list but definitely
not to *all* persons world wide). The *international* regulations in
operation at present concern 1. the protection of endangered species
(CITES) and 2. the sustainable use of natural resources (Rio
convention).
If a wild plant is collected in a country (like e.g. Germany) that
does not regulate the removal of limited amounts of specimens of non-
protected species for non-commercial purposes from non-protected
areas, and if this plant is propagated and bred into a cultivar, it
(i.e. the propagated offspring) may even be sold commercially without
any legal risk. Likewise, a specimen collected in the wild
(considering the mentioned restrictions) can become a type specimen
of the name of a new taxon without the violation of any law in such
countries. For the sake of fairness it should, however, be mentioned
that most cps *are* protected by law in many countries (incl.
Germany).
Natural resources are principally/originally free of any proprietary
claims, especially if a certain sample size is not exceeded. Only
some countries or organizations *created* special restrictions. But
these must not be mistaken for international agreements. They are
local (most frequently national) legislation.
Once it comes to selling plants, the Rio convention would of course
demand an "appropriate" part of the revenue achieved to be shared with
an "appropriate" authority in the country of origin. It is, however,
at least in the case of cps rather difficult to assess the meaning
and extent of "appropriate" here.
> e.g. can a person who illegally collects a
> specimen be rewarded with validation of their choice of cultivar name?
You have to consider that it simply is not principally always illegal
to collect wild plants. For the purposes of registration of its name,
it is essentially immaterial how a given cultivar was created or
selected. The only thing that matters for the IRA here is that the
name is acceptable according to the (predominantly nomenclatural)
rules of the ICNCP. It is *not* the responsibility of a registration
authority to evaluate cultivars or persons who want to register
names. It is perhaps rather a moral issue to the horticultural
community if one wants to buy plants from a source known for
poaching.
> I think this set of conventions is very poorly defined and counter
> productive.
Well, it depends. It is of course always disputable what is a limited
sample or what should be property in natural environments.
> Written by idiots is the phrase that comes to mind.
But I trust most were written with at least some good intentions
(albeit with limited expert knowledge and too little reflection on
eventual consequences on a global scale).
> But the convention exists so I just thought I'd remind y'all of it.
Yes, but the conventions that exist can have quite different
consequences in different countries.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST