Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:45:29 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg745$foo@default> Subject: Re: Cultivars
Dear Peter,
I cannot see any great confusion so far, only a few minor
misconceptions.
> 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.
First of all, I do not think this is the case. AFAIK, no cultivar
group designations (or greges) have ever been published in the Koto
series. All these hybrids named are, therefore, to be treated as
cultivars.
> 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.
They have been published even after 1979 under the (then valid, now
illegitimate) name of greges by J.T.Robinson in a series of cultivar
descriptions in CPN (Journal of the 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),
There was no standard format for the nomenclature of cultivated
plants in the 1800s.
> that when a cross was done,
> it would be given a group name by which all duplicate crosses would then be
> known.
What you mean here is a hybrid taxon (to include all offspring
involving the same parent species) or a cultivar group (to include at
least one named cultivar).
> Any outstanding individuals of these crosses could then be elevated
> to a "cultivar" status,
Not in the case of a cultivar group. In this case, you must have a
cultivar first.
> thereafter only to be duplicated vegatatively.
Cultivars do not necessarily need to be clones (ICNCP Art.2.6.). They
may be clones (Art.2.7.), topophysic clones (Art.2.8.), cyclophysic
clones (Art.2.9.), derived from aberrant growth (2.10.), graft-
chimaeras (2.11.), assemblages grown from seed derived from
uncontrolled pollination (2.12.), lines (2.13.), multilines (2.14.),
F1 hybrids (2.15.), assemblages grown from seed from a particular
provenance (2.16.), or assemblages of genetically modified plants
(2.17.).
The ultimate killer of the clone dogma is Art. 2.18.:
"In considering whether two or more groups of cultivated plants
belong to the same or different cultivars, the origin of each group
is irrelevant. All indistinguishable variants, irrespective of their
origin, are treated as one cultivar." (!)
Anyway, it is (or will be) the policy of the ICPS to encourage
registrants to define vegetative reproduction as the appropriate
means for the propagation of carnivorous plant cultivars.
> 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.
Yes. This is the reason why cultivar groups have been invented.
> 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.
In the description of a cultivar, the appropriate method of
propagation may (and should) be defined. Only plants that are derived
from the original plant by this method (and, by virtue of Art.2.18.,
all plants that are "indistinguishable") belong to the cultivar.
>(...) In my opinion, and most other CP growers, cultivars
> should only be reproduced vegatatively.
See Art.2.18. and the possibility to define appropriate methods of
propagation.
> 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".
See above. The groups introduced by Fleming and the greges introduced
by Robinson are treated as cultivar groups.
> 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,
The ICPS will follow the ICNCP.
> 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.
ICNCP:
Trehane, P., Brickell, C.D., Baum, B.R., Hetterscheid, W.L.A.,
Leslie, A.C., McNeill, J., Spongberg, S.A., Vrugtman, F. (1995)
"International Code for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants -
1995", Quarterjack Publishing, Wimborne, UK
Available through Koeltz Scientific Books (www.koeltz.com).
DISCLAIMER: I am *not* affiliated with Koeltz in any way. The above
paragraph is neutral information without any guarantee.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST