Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:56:50 +0000 From: schlauer@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg1138$foo@default> Subject: Re: CP Cultivars
Dear Nick,
> Just received my latest CP newsletter, and I have some questions about CP
> cultivars. I'm familiar with the system that the RHS uses for orchids.
> Each hybrid cross is given a grex name that applies to all plants of that
> parentage. Unusual or awarded members of a grex (or a natural species)
> may also be given clonal names that apply only to a single clone. The
> grex names are formally registered with the RHS, while clonal names are
> informal. Thus, you might have Bulbophyllum Big Stinker 'Dead Possum'
> and Bulbophyllum Big Stinker 'Litterbox' for two clones of a fragrant
> grex called Bulbophyllum Big Stinker. Having a grex name provides more
> information than simply naming individual clones Bulbophyllum 'Litterbox'
> and Bulbophyllum 'Dead Possum.'
The grex nomenclature of orchids is a defined exception sanctioned
by the ICNCP. It does not apply to any other group of plants. Cps are
(usually) not orchids.
In the nomenclature of cps, a group of cultivars sharing common
characteristics can be united in a cultivar group (cf. the _Dionaea_
Dentate Traps group) that bears a registered name. Cultivar groups do
not need to be defined by common parentage, but all members of a
cultivar group must share the characteristics defining the group
(these are mentioned in the description of the group).
>From reading the lastest CPN, it's not clear to me whether CP
> cultivar names function solely as clone names or whether they can also
> apply to entire hybrid crosses.
Cultivars are likewise (like groups) not defined by parentage but by
their original description. This is why a published description and a
standard photograph are so important for the definition of cultivars.
In some cultivars, the recommended method of propagation is clonal
division. But a plant that cannot be distinguished from the original
clone (according to the original description) does not need to be
genetically identical in order to belong to a given cultivar.
It is not possible to name entire hybrid crosses as cultivars
or as cultivar groups without describing the *features* of the
cultivars or groups. The parentage of a hybrid cultivar may be given
as additional information, but it is not sufficient for the
establishment of a name, nor is it required for this.
> The Utricularia calycifida cultivars appear to apply to single clones,
They *should* be propagated by clonal means, but if you grow a plant
that is identical in every respect to a plant described as a
cultivar, you do not need to prove it is a clone in order to apply
the cultivar name to it.
> But wouldn't it be more informative to call it
> Sarracenia oreophila 'Don Schnell' instead of just Sarracenia 'Don
> Schnell'?
You can use both combinations. In the International Register you will
find the taxonomic attribution to _S. oreophila_ as supplementary
information. But the taxonomic identity beyond the denomination
class (= below the rank of genus; NB: For cp cultivars the
denomination classes are the genera) does not need to be known for a
cp cultivar (cf. _Sarracenia_ ' Imhotep '). Within a given
denomination class, no two identical cultivar epithets may be used,
i.e. the hypothetical names _Sarracenia flava_ ' Blue Brother ' and
_Sarracenia purpurea_ ' Blue Brother ' would both be equivalent to
_Sarracenia_ ' Blue Brother ', so the epithet ' Blue Brother ' can
only be used for a single cultivar within the denomination class
_Sarracenia_. The other one would need a different epithet.
This naming method may have drawbacks but it has the
significant advantage of providing a possibility to select plants as
cultivars even if their parentage or taxonomic identity is not known.
Such plants can have horticultural merits (cf. _Sarracenia_ '
Imhotep ') even if they are a problem for the taxonomist. But the
naming of cultivated plants (following the ICNCP) has to serve
purposes of horticulturists in the first line (the interests of
taxonomists are sufficiently considered in the ICBN).
> What about Pinguicula 'Pirouette?' Does that name apply to a
> single clone or all plants from the cross P. agnata x (moranensis x
> ehlersiae)?
It does only apply to plants that cannot be distinguished from the
plant originally described with this name. They do neither need to
be of the same parentage nor of the same clone, but they must look
exactly like the original plants. Different (=reliably
distinguishable) plants of the same parentage or clone (even this is
possible! Cloning does *not* warrant maintenance of a cultivar
status, it is just a *recommended* method of propagation for many
cultivars) would not belong to this cultivar. But if they share a
common characteristic that is suitable to distinguish them from other
cultivars, they could be united as different cultivars in a common
cultivar group.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:07 PST