Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:11:55 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg237$foo@default> Subject: too much 'Kosobe'!
Dear Dave,
> > > N: [Nepenthes * ' Kosobe ' {Hort. ex Hort.Bednar}]
> > > P: in sched. (1993)
> > > S: =[[Nepenthes mirabilis {(Lour.) Druce}] * [[Nepenthes rafflesiana {Jack}] *
> > > [Nepenthes ampullaria {Jack}]]]
> > >
> > > Who's name is that?
> >
> > This is exactly the question. Neither list entry refers to a proper
> > publication. The first is a nomen nudum (without description, only
> > synonym statement), the second is from informal communication (in
> > schedis, i.e. on herbarium or garden plant lables).
>
> So then, Bruce Bednar did make the cross, but he didn't publish
> the new cultivar name. Is that correct?
I rather think he received the cross from Japan (I do not know who
made it). Bruce Bednar made (or at least distributed) the name.
> The label for my 'Kosobe'
> should then read, "_N. * stewartii_ (Bednar '93)" until he, if ever,
> has a name for it published?
Apparently a new name is needed for this clone (because "Kosobe" is
a later homonym) if it is to be regarded as a cultivar. As long as
this is not available, your lable proposal seems sensible.
> > The first name used for the taxon (i.e. not specific cultivars) was
> > apparently N. * stewartii (1879).
>
> And the label for the N.wrigl*ey*ana ought to read:
> N. * stewartii cv. 'wrigleyana'
Is "wrigleyana" treated like a cultivar in the horticultural trade?
If so, the combination above would be correct (but with capital "W").
I have not yet seen a lable like that in a collection, however.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST