Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:32:48 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg833$foo@default> Subject: Re: cultivar comments
Dear Stefan,
> I understand that cultivars and cultivar groups must
> be formally published(BTW, I'm looking forward to learning the protocol.
> I believe you mentioned it a few days ago.)
Yes, but I will mention it again for those who are still interested:
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.
> Now, how can a scientific taxon be validated(using your words).
By following the ICBN.
> With all the
> complex hybrids being created with Nepenthes and Sarracenia, I think
> Peter is correct in mentioning a need for naming new taxons which
> include these complex crosses.
Well, this is a question of the philosophy applied. From a taxon name,
the direction or repetition of a cross cannot be deduced because all
hybrids involving the same parent taxa have to be united under the
same name.
> It's obvious that newly created/discovered clones should be formally
> named by the creator; however, what if that person doesn't do so. Could
> another person undertake the formalities of naming on behalf of the
> creator?
Yes, if the "creator" (the ICNCP calls this person "originator")
agrees.
> I mention this, not only because of people like the Nep growers
> in FL, but also because of the situation being created with Dionaea. In
> the last few years many new variants/mutants of Dionaea have become
> readily available and nobody has formally named any(except for the 'Aki
> Ryu' and 'Royal Red'). It has become a problem as many names for the
> same plant have been informally created. As time goes on, and growers
> create their own clones, records and genuine plant material will be lost
> and the situation may never be resolved.
All this is very true. And this is the reason why registration of
cultivar names was introduced and why the ICPS has applied for IRA
status.
> I feel enlightened by this whole thread, as it is obvious that the
> ICNCP is confusing.
It is not so confusing if it is read with the intention to understand
the idea behind it. In fact, there are several appendices and
"filters" to explain in short form how cultivar naming works. Most
Articles are annotated profusely and explained by examples.
> Perhaps the lack of understanding of the ICNCP and
> the cultivar naming process could explain growers unwillingness to
> formally name their plants.
Perhaps. Additionally, the ICNCP has changed in 1995, while some
growers continued to follow the old Code.
> (...) it is up to you Jan to "walk us through" this process.
I think we have covered a considerable distance already, and our
discussions have been of great help for me to understand what are the
questions and possible problems we have to solve with potential
authors and registrants. BTW: It is not only the duty of an IRA to
store and collect data on cultivars but also to distribute and
publish these data. So you may regard these discussions as our
regular service for the cp public.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:29 PST