Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:53:13 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg111$foo@default> Subject: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Dear Dave,
> > Ideally, yes. But the ICNCP allows for naming of *different* clones
> > by the same cv. name if they share a common reliably distinguishing
> > feature.
>
> Ok, I understand the "distinguishing feature" is supposed to be
> a physical feature of the plant, but would being the progeny
> this unnatural cross also count?
No.
> For this genus, rules being
> applied to fruit trees might prove restrictive or not applicable.
That's the crux with almost any rule. In order to be a rule it has to
apply generally to the whole range of its definition.
> Even the same plant looks different year to year, so "reliably
> distingiushable" might be hard to get from even the same clone...
So if the offspring of that cross does not even reach beyond this
variability then it can simply not be considered distinct.
> My N. * wrigliana cv. 'Forgotthenamecauseit'sdarnlate' does tend
> to have more red in the pitchers than other clones of the same
> hybrid, but even looking at the pitchers of it the other day, there
> were quite a number of differences from one leaf to the next.
> >From time to time, the only distingiushing feature is the name
> on the label. The deeper color and perhaps wider peristome do
> show up, but only after a 1/2 year or so in good condtions.
A difference in the sense of the ICNCP should be more obvious than
that (ideally recognizable even in seedlings).
> > > Is there any way to name the whole batch of seed under one
> > > name?
> > There are several ways. If the plant does not differ sufficiently from
> > either parent (which is what I would assume in our case), I would
> > simply call it _Nepenthes rafflesiana_.
>
> I'm leaning that way myself. But then again, the parent plants already
> have some horticultural distinction, and cultivars are a horticultural
> entity.
The parent plants are not designated cultivars. So why bother with
naming their offspring separately if they do not warrant cultivar
selection?
> I was thinking that a fair number of seedlings would probably
> expire, leaving a couple dozen (unique because of the parents)
> plants and couple of possible cultivar worth or none.
A plant cannot be regarded unique just because of its parents.
Otherwise every single individual would have to be named. The latter
may be possible formally but it is certainly not desirable. Naming
(even of cultivars) should in the first line serve the purpose of
identification (i.e. to make one given item to belong to a category
originally defined by *another* item), not isolation. It is rather
difficult for me to swallow this even for cultivars (which should
ideally be only clones of one original individual), but (rather
unfortunately) this is what the ICNCP says.
> Would naming most them under one cv. name and naming one or two
> outstanding clones under other cv. names be allowed?
All items to be named as cultivars *must* be "outstanding" inasmuch
as they have to have a common distinguishing feature. This feature
has to reside in the phenotype (i.e. common parents are *not*
sufficient, v.s.).
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST