Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 10:02:51 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg791$foo@default> Subject: Re: Cultivar Stuff
Dear Peter,
I do not think that correct naming of carnivorous plants is in any way
comparable to religion or fanatism. It is rather a question of
discipline and respect for the cp community who has to live and deal
with the available names.
Sorry, but I seem to be unable to get the point why it is necessary or
beneficial to bogus-name and distribute plants or to drop even a
single word about them *before* they are named properly. Could someone
please explain this to me?
> I do have a question for Jan, however, about one point he's made
> several
> times. You state that a "cultivar group" can't be named without first
> naming a "cultivar". I have crossed many Sarracenia hybrids, some of
> them quiet complex. As I grow them out, if I notice an outstanding
> plant or two, I put them aside to evaluate them as a possible future
> cultivar. This is more or less what I've learned from Slack's books,
> (...)
While Slack's attitudes towards breeding were indeed exemplary, his
concept of naming the plants was not entirely so. Fortunately, at
least some of his cultivars were described in his books.
> While all of the plants in this or that hybrid cross may be
> attractive,
If they are "attractive" (even as a population of genetically
different plants) or at least distinguishable from other cultivars,
this is sufficient for cultivar selection.
> usually none are so drop dead gorgous that I would want to name it
> as a "cultivar" to preserve its status vegatatively.
You do not need to preserve the status of a cultivar vegetatively. A
cultivar does not need to be a clone (cf. my previous message).
> Do I still have to choose at least one "cultivar" from this
> group in order to establish a "cultivar group"?
Yes.
> Couldn't I just name the whole "group" without singling out one
> particular plant?
Not as a cultivar-group.
There is of course the possibility to name the hybrid as a taxon. This
taxon would include all hybrids involving the same parents
(irrespective of direction and repetition of the crosses). It would
require a protologue with type specimen, Latin description, etc. as
outlined in the ICBN.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST