>In some horticultural circles, such as Iris growers, it seems just
>about every clone is a cultivar, but in CP this isn't the case.
Why not?
>(I think this is partly because Iris growers have fewer wild
>colour-types to work with, so every new colour is deemed
>worthy.
This is definitely not the case.
>Also there is more money in a new cultivar.) Also if
>you just list your plant (botanically correctly) as _S.psittacina_
>you lose an enormous amount of trading leverage, since your
>orange-flowered plant is highly desirable
Now, is the clone "highly desirable" (so it deserves
conservation as cultivar) or not (in this case you can list it
(botanically correctly) as _S.psittacina_)?
>Whether it is academically correct or not, there is a definite
>need for things like:
> Drosera arcturi "High plains victoria"
> Nepenthes alata (female)
> Utricularia calycifida "pink flower"
> Utricularia calycifida "spotted flower"
> Sarracenia psittacina "Oke Giant"
Yes, maybe, but why not at cultivar state? I do not
understand why CP growers are so shy to register their
valuable clones as cultivars, when anybody else in the
horticultural community has hundreds of cultivars published
every year.
Comment is invited!
Kind regards
Jan