IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
|
IAS Aroid Quasi Forum
About Aroid-L
This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.
Cultivar registration
|
From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.05.06 at 04:25:32(4538)
Bonaventure,
Unfortunately the 1995 version of the International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) is not available online. You can purchase the book,
but it is about $50 US. The two booksellers that I have found with this
available are Koeltz or Balough, each with web sites for ordering online.
This is not something you can pick up at the local Barnes and Noble nor is it
available from Amazon. I think they are making some changes to the Code so
there may be a new version out before too long.
| +More |
>From what I can understand from the ICNCP, instead of naming the grex, the
breeder/registrant selects a single clone and registers it with a cultivar
name. The parentage is recorded on the registration form (hopefully this is
known), along with description and other known information about the plant's
source. From what I can deduce from the rules, this cultivar name might later
be used as a "Cultivar Group" name if other cultivars from the same cross are
later selected. The cultivar group is kinda like a grex name but not really.
It is a way of getting rid of the grex naming concept which is not too
accurate a way to name anything.
Hypothetical example:
You cross Anthurium reflexinervium with Anthurium superbum. You get a really
vigorous, strongly bullate, black-leafed plant in the seedling batch and
select this out and register it as Anthurium 'Black Ruffles'. Someone else
makes this same cross at another time. They get an exciting plant in this
batch that looks distinctly different than "Black Ruffles' and register it as
Anthurium (Black Ruffles Cultivar Group) 'Wavy Gravy'. If I am not mistaken,
this can also be referred to more simply as Anthurium 'Wavy Gravy'. Anyway,
this is the way it seems to work.
The orchid people get to keep naming grexes but no one else can do this
anymore. Orchid cultivars are typically registered only when an award is
given to a special clone. The orchid grex name is still registered, but you
need to keep in mind that the grex name is actually just a shorter way to
express the hybrid cross (so you don't have to write out the formula). People
have gotten into the messy habit of only referrring to a grex name when what
they actually need to communicate about is a single selected plant from the
hybrid swarm. Naming a cultivar, or single clone, is the only way to go if
you want to accurately talk about about a specific entity in cultivation with
certain stable characteristics. In this way, we all can be on the same
wavelength about what we are discussing, propagating, selling and trading
with each other.
Since we are basically starting out fresh with aroid registration it will be
much easier to adapt to the new rules. There are already some older names
that have been published and these will be entered into a checklist (I am
working on the first of several now) and later published in a Registry (after
we pass the checklists around and see if anything needs changing or
correcting). After the checklists are done it will be easier to register any
new cultivars because then we will know which names were previously used, and
not make a mistake in using a duplicate name. The whole point of this is to
adher to a set of naming standards, although these standards may change over
time, we should at least get everything in sync as much as possible.
Cultivars can also be applied to species selected from the wild populations
and grown in cultivation for some special characteristics, such as larger
leaves, brighter colored flowers, unusual variegation, etc.
I hope Wilbert will straighten me out on this if I have made a mistake. I am
still trying to deciper the nuances of the ICCP. It is not easy to abolish
the idea of grex names in your mind after being involved with orchids, so I
can understand the confusion about this issue. I just hope I have not got it
all wrong in these examples!
I am in the process of writing an explanation of the ICNCP for the purpose of
aroid registration and this will go up on the web site, and hopefullly will
be published in Aroideana in the future. I still have many questions myself
that need answering, but will do my best to help everyone understand what the
current Code requires for cultivar registration. Wilbert Hettersheid should
also be a great help to us all since he is one of the ICNCP authors.
Donna Atwood
Selby Gardens
<< Just joking about the cultivar names. But doesn't one have to make the grex
name
official. This is what is done in orchid registery and cultivar (or clonal)
names are then "fixed" at judging when an official award is given to it (or
not)
at a judging center or show.
Bonaventure
>>>>>>>>>>SelbyHort@aol.com on 05/02/2000 05:58:44 PM
Just a note about Bonaventure's example with the A. Bloody Giant 'The Best'.
To register a cultivar, you will need to select a clone from the cross and
apply a cultivar name. Unfortunately you can't use names like 'The Best', or
'Biggest and Greatest' or anything like that when officially registering your
cutivars....sorry. >>
|
|
From: "Bonaventure W Magrys" magrysbo at shu.edu> on 2000.05.09 at 01:34:35(4550)
Yes Donna, thank you, you placed these ideas down very clearly and with more
elucidations. I'm glad you can see what perspective I've had of the
registration
| +More |
process (being familiar with the orchid system) and I can see now that ths
cultivar system can be just as exacting and precise, being able to record
lineages also.
Bonaventure
|
|
From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.05.10 at 00:08:23(4557)
I can see that there is a big misunderstanding about what a cultivar
registrar is supposed to do. First of all, parentage is not required
information, although there will be space for this information (if known) on
the registration form. We may have some dynomite clone that needs to be
registered and not know a thing about its lineage. The plant will still be
registered even if nothing is known about how it arose. There may be
misidentification of one or both parents, so why bother with recording
lineages unless every plant that contributed to the cultivar has been
properly identified. This will never happen, folks! There is no verification
of orchid hybrids simply because there is no way to identify hybrids, and it
is the same with aroids. I am sure to get plants submitted for registration
that have incorrectly identified parents. I will just have to register what I
get.
| +More |
Secondly, it is not up to the registrar to make any value judgements about
what is good and acceptable and what is a lousy cultivar. That responsibilty
belongs to the breeder or registrant or whoever is submitting the plant for
cultivar status. If a person wants to have a legacy of registering worthless
material, that is their choice. The only choice a registrar makes if whether
there is enough evidence to support accepting or rejecting the cultivar, so
in some cases questionable material may be evaluated by another party if
needed. The registrar makes no independent decision about whether the clone
is "worthy". This kind of judging is not the authority or responsibility of
the registrar.
I think if the IAS is concerned about quality control, then there will need
to be another process for evaluating any registered cultivars, such as a
judging program. I will just be keeping the cultivar records, making sure the
submitted names are appropriate and comply with the Code, and publishing
checklists and Registers. As long as the required information and fee is
submitted and the rules of naming are followed, then a cultivar will probably
get registered.
Donna Atwood
Selby Gardens
|
|
From: "Bonaventure W Magrys" magrysbo at shu.edu> on 2000.05.10 at 03:11:07(4559)
SelbyHort@aol.com on 05/09/2000 08:08:41 PM
Please respond to aroid-l@mobot.org
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
cc: (bcc: Bonaventure W Magrys/ADM/SHU)
Subject: Re: Cultivar registration
I can see that there is a big misunderstanding about what a cultivar
registrar is supposed to do. First of all, parentage is not required
information, although there will be space for this information (if known) on
the registration form. We may have some dynomite clone that needs to be
registered and not know a thing about its lineage. The plant will still be
registered even if nothing is known about how it arose. There may be
misidentification of one or both parents, so why bother with recording
lineages unless every plant that contributed to the cultivar has been
properly identified. This will never happen, folks! There is no verification
of orchid hybrids simply because there is no way to identify hybrids, and it
is the same with aroids. I am sure to get plants submitted for registration
that have incorrectly identified parents. I will just have to register what I
get.
| +More |
Secondly, it is not up to the registrar to make any value judgements about
what is good and acceptable and what is a lousy cultivar. That responsibilty
belongs to the breeder or registrant or whoever is submitting the plant for
cultivar status. If a person wants to have a legacy of registering worthless
material, that is their choice. [[[[[[[[[[[[Registering does not mean bringing
to the public eye, a good clone may come out of that cross later, then
after it
is named as a cultivar and judged worthy everyone interested or wanting to
promote it will then use that information of its merit - BWM ]]]]]]]]]The only
choice a registrar makes if whether
there is enough evidence to support accepting or rejecting the cultivar, so
in some cases questionable material may be evaluated by another party if
needed. The registrar makes no independent decision about whether the clone
is "worthy". This kind of judging is not the authority or responsibility of
the registrar.
I think if the IAS is concerned about quality control, then there will need
to be another process for evaluating any registered cultivars, such as a
judging program. I will just be keeping the cultivar records, making sure the
submitted names are appropriate and comply with the Code, and publishing
checklists and Registers. As long as the required information and fee is
submitted and the rules of naming are followed, then a cultivar will probably
get registered.
[[[[[[[[What about if we start making intergenerics. Since we don't require
exact parent (species) background, do we have to bother with genus? Also, whats
great for an Alocasia may not be as noticable in a Pinellia cultivar, yet are
all the Pinallias going to be deemed less worthy? - BWM]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Donna Atwood
Selby Gardens
|
|
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2000.05.14 at 20:43:41(4577)
In a message dated Tue, 9 May 2000 8:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SelbyHort@aol.com writes:
<< I can see that there is a big misunderstanding about what a cultivar
| +More |
registrar is supposed to do. First of all, parentage is not required
information, although there will be space for this information (if known) on
the registration form. We may have some dynomite clone that needs to be
registered and not know a thing about its lineage.
This discussion arose out of confusion over taxonomy, did it not? But
certain plants with a long history of cultivation have exited the realm of
traditional taxonomy. Take tulips for example. There are classes of
cultivars, e.g., Darwin tulips, Mendel tulips, lily-flowered tulips, but
these have no specific epithets; there is _Tulipa_ 'Glory of Appledoorn',
in which the cultivar name immediately follows the genus, because these
plants have been hybridized over and over until their parentage is no
longer known. Then there is the class called "Species Tulips," consisting
of those relatively few wild-type _Tulipa_ species, and varieties derived
from known species. Roses, Narcissi, and Irises have the same situation.
Where am I going with this? I am simply saying that perhaps it is time to
adopt a similar policy toward aroids. Those whose parentage is not known
should be classed in cultivar categories, and questions of species not
considered.
Jason Hernandez
Naturalist-at-Large
|
|
From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.05.15 at 22:07:07(4579)
To answer Jason's message about cultivars with missing lineage information:
The ICNCP does not require parentage information for this very reason. There
are many plants long in cultivation that have arisen spontaneously or they
exist with no records about their history. Aroids are no exception. There
will be attempts to collect any known information about parentage at the time
of registration, but the whole point of registration is to link the name to a
specific clone, make sure the name complies with naming standards, and to
ensure that there are no legal confusions with registered trademarks or
patented names. A Register of cultivar names will be produced and printed.
This will make it much easier to register future cultivars, since we want to
be sure we are not using the same name for two different cultivars.
Donna Atwood
| +More |
<< << I can see that there is a big misunderstanding about what a cultivar
registrar is supposed to do. First of all, parentage is not required
information, although there will be space for this information (if known) on
the registration form. We may have some dynomite clone that needs to be
registered and not know a thing about its lineage.
This discussion arose out of confusion over taxonomy, did it not? But
certain plants with a long history of cultivation have exited the realm of
traditional taxonomy. Take tulips for example. There are classes of
cultivars, e.g., Darwin tulips, Mendel tulips, lily-flowered tulips, but
these have no specific epithets; there is _Tulipa_ 'Glory of Appledoorn',
in which the cultivar name immediately follows the genus, because these
plants have been hybridized over and over until their parentage is no
longer known. Then there is the class called "Species Tulips," consisting
of those relatively few wild-type _Tulipa_ species, and varieties derived
from known species. Roses, Narcissi, and Irises have the same situation.
Where am I going with this? I am simply saying that perhaps it is time to
adopt a similar policy toward aroids. Those whose parentage is not known
should be classed in cultivar categories, and questions of species not
considered.
>>
|
|
From: "Culture Sheet" <team at culturesheet.org> on 2008.11.23 at 18:20:02(18750)
A small thank you to the people who went through the effort of
slipstreaming cultivar
registration for aroids. I've been waiting for this a long, long time.
| +More |
regards,
Fred
http://culturesheet.org
_______________________________________________
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
|
|
Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.
|
|