>Apparently the applicant has to provide a description of the plant which
>has to be created in some way e.g. cross A X B to get what they call a
>variety (sorry Jan).
There has been quite extensive debate in the (scientific) literature how to
define the status of variety. To date, there is no complete consensus, but
no definition even slightly approached the one cited above (i.e.
*anthropogenic* taxa). As long as the "names" thus created are not Latin,
and no phylogenetic relevance is implied, these PRVs ("Plant Right
Varieties") can be treated like cultivars (which they are from the
systematic point of view) but never like varieties (which term applies to
taxa growing wild).
I cannot imagine that *all* plants C (= A X B) can be patented (i.e. it is
forbidden to pollinate A plants with B pollen), or else the Australian
police would have to face a rather difficult job (i.e. to arrest all
inobedient insects which should try to cross-pollinate A and B).
If it is possible to patent the "All-red" PRV of VFT with the existence of
red colour being sufficient for PRV recognition, only completely apochromic
forms with no red at all (should they exist) could be definitely excluded
from the reservations of the PVRs. This cannot be the meaning of the law,
can it?
IMHO, lawyers should leave systematics alone and forget about patenting
organisms ASAP, or else we will have to face really amusing jurisprudential
argumentation in the near future. I do not dare to imagine possible
consequences for nomenclature, yet (if I just look at the confusion created
already).
Kind regards
Jan