Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:49:02 +0000 From: Phil Wilson <cp@pwilson.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3653$foo@default> Subject: Re: "unpublished cultivar"
Larry,
> My thoughts:
> I would suggest that Jan is a bit strong in his dismissal of
>an "unpublished cultivar" as rubbish. What would you call a selection that
>has not yet been published and registered? Simply "selection" or a "named
>selection" or a "tentatively named selection" seem too weak, though those
>are technically the better terms. For some practical reasons I see nothing
>wrong with using the term "unpublished cultivar." It certainly conveys a
>specific meaning to those who use such terminology. (I am not, however
>prepared to argue in favor of it becoming the BEST term to use.) Let's hear
>some other terms that are widely known and understood.
>
I agree with everything above. I used the term merely because it has
become established as a recognised clone in the UK CP growing circles
(if not others).
> BTW, I do not like the name "Schnell's Ghost" for its
>implications.
> There must be a more clever name.
>
Last year when I was researching the origins of this plant I wrote to
Don Schnell to ask him if he had any details on the plant. He too was
somewhat bemused at the implications of the name although I believe his
tongue was very firmly in his cheek!!
Regards,
-- Phil Wilson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:39 PST