Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:20:03 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg746$foo@default> Subject: Re: Cultivars
Dear Trent,
> I see no reason why this methodology cannot be applied to Nepenthes.
Because _Nepenthes_ is not an orchid. Orchid nomenclature is older
than cultivar nomenclature, and the historical heritage poses many
problems with the ICNCP, some of which were quite appropriatley
described by Mark.
> > The Japaneses growers do something like this. N. Rokko is not a
> cultivar, as there are male and female plants, indicating it is a hybrid
> name.
See my previous message in reply to Peter's one, especially my notes
on Art.2.18 ICNCP.
N. 'Rokko' is a not properly described (and therefore not
established) cultivar name and nothing else.
> Leo's posting about the Koto crosses also indicates this.
I cannot discover anthing that would indicate this.
> The entire grex is given a name, and then individual plants are
> numbered. These numbered plants are the cultivars.
No. The names are cultivar names. The numbers (no description
involved, no standard, no registration) are bogus from a
nomenclatural poin of view.
> Those two bad boys of Nepenthes, Clyde Bramblett and especially Bruce
> Bednar, name their crosses, and published them in the CP Digest back in
> the early nineties, as they were told to do- back then.
DISCLAIMER: Barry and I are CPN co-editors since 1997. None of us has
told Bruce Badnar or Clyde Bramblett to do anything concerning
publications in CPN before that year.
> Bruce's hybrid
> N. Excellens has produced some great cultivars, namely N. Excellens
> "Jessica Laureen", N. Excellens"Superba", and one beautiful clone that
> has not yet been named. One important advantage to this method is the
> hybrid name immediately tells the parentage. N. Excellens is (N. Rokko X
> N. Mixta) This is a lot easier and just as succunct as saying ((N.
> thorelii X N. maxima) X (N. northiana X N. maxima)).
Right. The correct orthography of the above plants would be (if the
cultivar and cultivar group names were established):
_N._ (Excellens Group) 'Jessica Laureen' and something like _N._
(Excellens Group) 'Perfectly Nice' ("superba" is a Latin word that
may not be used for cultivar epithets acc. to Art.17.9. ICNCP).
> Now, what I am calling a "hybrid name", as described above; is this the
> same thing as a "cultivar group"?
Yes.
> Or, is a "cultivar group" basically the Japanese method, ie. everytime
> the cross is remade (same parents or different clones of same parents)
> the grex (the siblings) is given a different name. Example: N. Rokko, N.
> Balmy Koto, and N. Masamiae are all N. thorelii X N. maxima. ?
'Rokko', 'Balmy Koto', and 'Masami' (or similar, i.e. *not* the
Latin "masamiae") are cultivar names.
> Where hybids get complex, namely Sarracenia and Nepenthes, why not
> register the names of hybrids as well as distinctive cultivars?
Yes. Why not? I do not see a reason to prevent this. The only
limitation is that cultivar groups (that you called names of hybrids)
must include at least one named cultivar, i.e. it is not possible to
define a cultivar group before at least one cultivar can be stated to
belong to this group.
> Okay Jan, I've planted both feet firmly on the ground and put on my flak
> jacket. Fire away.
Which kind of fire would you like?
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST