Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:13:18 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg690$foo@default> Subject: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
Dear Dave,
> But then I still don't understand why a Nepenthes
> would get a cultivar name at all... Perhaps if a plant were to
> produce double pitchers reliably or by a very different color
> or something.
Yes, Exactly.
> The plant I want to name has nothing which indicates
> a cultivar name would be applicable, unless it has some marvelous
> temperture restantance which the rest of the cross didn't that
> I don't know about. I never saw the issue of CPN within which
> it was named, so I'm not sure why it supposed to be a cultivar...
I m not sure either.
> > Cultivars do not need to be described in a protologue (no
> > Latin, no type, no taxonomic relevance).
>
> Ok, I now understand this bit (but disagree completely). Why
> aren't the wild Nepenthes hybrid names on the list valid then?
Please read the instructions to the list carefully! The names are
not *invalid*, they are only replaced by the (unambiguous,
typified by types of parent species, reproducible, descriptive =>
simply better for most purposes except for having your buddy s name
or your own name cited once more!) bastard formulae in my list.
According to the ICBN hybrid epithets and bastard formulae are
*equivalent* (i.e. both equally valid at the same time for the same
taxon). I therefore prefer the formula wherever applicable.
> I see that N. * hookeriana and N. * tricocarpa are not valid.
> Why?
They are valid (v.s.).
> > Impossible with hybrids of horticultural origin.
>
> Is there any real reason for this?
No artificial product of horticultural origin can have a taxonomic
significance. Taxonomy deals with entities derived from processes
called "variation" and "*natural* selection" (since Darwin).
Biosystematics is aiming at a reconstruction of the phylogenetical
development of (usually) monophyletic taxa. Whereas artificial
hybridization may account for variation (even in a +/- natural way),
the (human) selection in the greenhouse simply is not a natural
process. As artificial hybridization almost always results in
polyphyletic taxa, these entities are (usually) not suitable for
biosystematical considerations. Artificial hybridization may be a
suitable means to test phylogenetical theories (e.g. when a natural
taxon is supposed to be of hybrid origin) but the resulting
individuals cannot be considered equivalent to (hybridogenic) species.
Especially a cross between _Nepenthes anamensis_ (from Indochina) and
_N. maxima_ (Borneo to New Guinea) cannot be considered taxonomically
relevant. It is an artificial product only possible in the
greenhouse and significant for the collector. No speciation process
(in the sense usually applied) has led to this bastard.
> I mean, is this a rule? It seems a bit misguided here, if it is.
So you have strange views on natural selection, I m afraid.
> So then, in order to name a new cross, it must be a cultivar by
> default?
If it is artificial, it can only be named properly by the bastard
formula. The ICBN would allow for scientific naming formally
(& validly), but such a thing just does not make any sense,
taxonomically.
> But cultivars
> can't be applied to more than one individual clone and hybrids
> can be made over and over and have millions of seperate clones.
This is only true "cum grano salis". Cultivar names *should* only be
applied to a single clone. However, the ICNCP allows for cultivar
group (grex) naming. Thus, all offspring of a single cross *could*
receive a collective cultivar name. *But* this name *must* be linked
in some way to a recognizable character which distinguishes the whole
group. The latter is (in cps) usually only possible in a selected
clone, so you will automatically return to the clone definition of
cultivars.
> How about a horticultural hybrid naming system?
ICNCP.
> To keep it's
> "value" seperate from the "real" names.
Cultivar names.
> As it stands now, people
> must keep naming plants as cultivars that shouldn't be named as such.
Noone must do that. Everybody is allowed to use bastard formulae or
scientific names.
> In other words, the current rules, as I understand them, are not
> working.
The rules are not perfect but the people misapplying them (or even
those who do not know the rules and name plants anyway!) are a much
more serious problem. Some of the current people are not working. ;-)
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:59 PST