Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 22:18 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg259$foo@default> Subject: Re: too much 'Kosobe'!
Hello Jan,
> > 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.
Oh, I didn't realize that it had come from Japan! Perhap's the name
was published over there?
> > 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.
Me either! But then, I have not seen a plant labled N. * stewartii...
I'm assuming the plant I have is from the later cross which was
then named N. * wrigleyana. So should I just lable it N. * stewartii
or N. * stewartii cv. 'Wrigleyana'? Like you said, these later
names could be used as cultivar names since they were published
before the rules were, uh, "clarified". So do I follow the rules
and use a name nobody's heard of or do I ignore them like most everyone
else (so it seems).
Dave Evans
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST