Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:54:18 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg800$foo@default> Subject: Re:Cultivar Stuff
Dear Trent,
> From what I understand about "cultivar groups" or "grex group" (is
> the latter a valid term?),
No.
> there must be at least two named cultivars amongst the siblings to
> qualify.
Not really. There must be at least one named cultivar. But you are of
course right that a group that includes only one member is rather
degenerated, and there is no good reason to name it as a group (it is
sufficient to name the member).
> Apparently, this same methodology applies to both Sarracenia and
> Nepenthes-actually, just about all other flowering plants except
> orchids.
Yes.
> Sometimes all the hybrid siblings are attractive. (Example; the
> invalid name of N. splendiana (N. kampotiana X maxima)). All
> "splendiana" have a distinctive look. I can spot 'em instantly in a
> greenhouse full of Neps (not a frequent sight). Yet, I have not seen
> one that deserves cultivar status.
So they cannot be "attractive" or have a "distinctive look". A
cultivar does not need to be an awarded clone, it must only be
*distinguishable* from other cultivars.
> Could this grex
There is no grex in non-orchids!
> be given a name? Say, N. Splendid ? From what I understand, it
> cannot.
Everything can be given a name.
It (all individuals) or a selected batch of it could be named as one
cultivar _N._ 'Splendid' or if the differences between several
individuals are sufficiently large (only the registrant must be
convinced of this; the IRA does not judge it!), several plants can be
named as cultivars. All these cultivars could be united in a
_Nepenthes_ Splendid Group.
> I've got two of these plants. One is male and one is female. Could a
> cultivar name be based upon gender?
Male and female individuals can be distinguished, so the difference
would formally be qualified to (partially) base cultivar delimitations
on it. In _Nepenthes_, this should not be the *only* distinguishing
feature, because there are cultivars of both genders (or of undefined
gender) already.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST