Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:41:25 EST From: CALIFCARN@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg739$foo@default> Subject: Re: krazy kultivar konfusion
Greetings folks; Peter D'Amato here. I laughed and cried reading all this
stuff on cultivars, and am happy to see that others are as konfused as I am.
No doubt much of our baffled state is due to the fact that we often try
imitating what orchid growers do, and no information for CPs in general have
been available.
First of all, concerning the Japanese hybrids Leo spoke about: unless
I'm mistaken, the Koto crosses were all "hybrid group" names, given to all the
seedlings of each cross. Then, as Leo states, certain individuals were
numbered to give them a "cultivar" status.
Jan states that I was incorrect in saying that ICPS never took on
publication of "group names" of first time crosses, and refers us to Fleming's
article in ICPS l979.
This article is actually a rundown of Nepenthes hybrids done in the 19th and
early 20th century, long before ICPS was begun. ICPS has only solicited
"cultivars", and here we may simply be dealing with a misinterpretation of
terms, for as far as I and all other CP growers have been concerned, a
"cultivar" was an individual plant so desirable it should only be propagated
vegatatively. "Group names" have never been published, to my knowledge, in
ICPS. What I was urging in my previous statement was that we follow a format
similar to what was done in the l800s, (although as Fleming points out in his
article, even then this was not always followed), that when a cross was done,
it would be given a group name by which all duplicate crosses would then be
known. Any outstanding individuals of these crosses could then be elevated to
a "cultivar" status, thereafter only to be duplicated vegatatively.
There are two reasons for doing so, in my opinion, no matter what format
we choose to follow. The first is that our hybrids, let's say in Sarracenia,
are becoming so complex that to call them by their ancestry would entail a tag
with six or eight or a dozen names on it. A group name for specific crosses
would greatly simplify the matter.
The second reason pertains to what we have always called "cultivar".
When people see a plant like S. x 'Sultry Maid' or S. x 'Judith Hindle', they
want that specific plant, and not some brother or sister who may look somewhat
different.
When I chose and named S. x 'Judith Hindle', it was from a cross that
Alan Hindle in England had made, and I named only this one individual clone.
I suggested to Alan that he name the group as a whole. Incidentally, the
parentage of the plant was not duplicated exactly as I had sent it in to ICPS,
as S. x 'Judith Hindle' was begotten by the crossing of TWO seperate plants
that had purpurea, flava and leucophylla in them. After publication, I
noticed an Australian nursery had for sale SEED of S. x 'Judith Hindle'.
When I spoke to Alan about this, he admitted that he had given seed of this
plant to an individual who had to his horror distributed them as the said
cultivar. While some of these plants may look similar to the cultivar, they
are not that plant. In my opinion, and most other CP growers, cultivars
should only be reproduced vegatatively.
When I mentioned that people may start committing suicide if they took
on the task of tracing all hybrids done in order to give them "group names", I
meant it. While Jan claims that ICPS has always accepted "group hybrids" , he
interprets these as being "cultivar groups", a term, while probably correct
according to law, was never used in ICPS, which as I stated above only
registered "cultivars".
I'm glad that finally all of this is being discussed in the hope that
ICPS can perhaps finally come up with its own rules on this whole matter,
rather than borrowing what other plant growers do. I've had previous
discussions on this problem with other people like Larry Mellichamp and Trent
Meeks and Leo and Joe Mazrimas, too. Since Jan seems to know what he's
talking about, maybe he can direct us towards something we all can understand
and follow.
Th-th-th-th that's all folks, for now. Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST