Pared down to the basics, the only salient part of a cultivar that comes
under the ICBN is the genus. The cultivar name at the minimum consists of
the genus name and the cv epithet.
It does not matter all that much whether the plant is a selected man-made
hybrid or a selection from a wild species or a selection from a natural
hybrid population. The thing that is to be named is a clone, selected for
some merit, within a genus.
Thus: the gargantuan white-spathed Amorphophallus 'Wilbert's Surprise' can
be defined, named, established and registered provided it is distinct from
other cultivars of Amorphophallus, uniform and stable regardless of what
species or hybrid it is. Of course it would be nice to have the information
that it is an f2 hybrid of A. titanum and A. prainii, but that it not a
necessary piece of information to name the cv. [I have made this example up,
just in case anyone was wondering!].
The sort of problem that George raises would, I think, arise in specific
circumstances where there was an intention to transfer a latin botanical
epithet into a cultivar name. This can only be done where the entire taxon
is a clone. A possible example is Aliocasia zebrina var tigrina: If it can
be demonstrated that var. tigrina is a clone then that botanical varietal
epithet can become the cultivar epithet as in Alocasia 'Tigrina'. If it is
not clear whether var. tigrina is a clone then there are simpler solutions
than DNA and field analysis. Either don't transfer the latin epithet at all,
or translate it into a contemporary language e.g. Alocasia 'Tigrine' applied
to the cultivated clone known now as "tigrina". That way the exact status of
the botanical variety does not need to be found out at all, while a familiar
name (slightly adjusted) can be retained as a cultivar epithet.
What I am getting at is that the issues which George raises, while valid,
should not necessarily create the impression of vast hurdles to getting
things going with Aroid cv classifictaion.
Alistair
From: "W. George Schmid"
Reply-To: Discussion of aroids
To: "'Discussion of aroids'"
Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:11:33 -0400
>
>Julius,
>Some time ago we had an exchange on registering aroid cultivars in
>accordance with the ICNCP (INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR
CULTIVATED
>PLANTS 2004 edition). I made some suggestions and Derek worked on this
also.
>Perhaps we can refresh our previous conversations and efforts. The
problem I
>see in Araceae is to determine which aroids are valid taxa to be
handled
>under the ICBN and which are in fact cultivated varieties (man-made
hybrids)
>to be registered under the ICNCP. One of the problems we had under
Hosta
>were the numerous interspecific, natural hybrids existing in the wild.
We
>solved that problem by field investigations and accepted such hybrids
as
>taxa if perpetuating populations were found to exist in the wild. In
some
>cases, the holotypes were based on cultivated plants purportedly
collected
>in the wild, but lacking field verification were reduced to cultivars
under
>the ICNCP and so registered. From some of the earlier messages I deduce
that
>interspecific hybridization may also be a problem with aroids. To
determine
>synonymy, RAPD/DNA was employed to make the differentiations. That is
an
>expensive process, though. It seems to me that a number of aroids in
>cultivation are not taxa (valid species) but culta (cultivars). George
>
>W. George Schmid
>Hosta Hill R. G.
>USDA Zone 7a - 1188 feet (361m) AMSL
>84-12'-30" W 33-51' N
>All mail virus-scanned by McAfee
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com
[mailto:aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com]
>On Behalf Of Julius Boos
>Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 17:28
>To: aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
>Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
>
>
>
> >From : Brian Williams
>Reply-To : Discussion of aroids
>Sent : Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:20 AM
>To : Discussion of aroids
>Subject : [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
>
>
>Dear Brian,
>
>This all goes back to an issue that to date has not been 'solved' by
the
>aroid group, and which is a VERY difficult issue, namely the cultivar
names
>and the correct registering of these names according to whatever
>horticultural rules/laws that may apply.
>The IAS has nominated several people over the past several years ( I
can
>recall at least three) to do something about setting up some sort of
>registry to legitimize some or all of these names which are being
bantered
>about, but to date I think the progress on instituting this system is
not in
>place or even being worked on.
>I have mentioned on several occasions that when man collectes a certain
>plant from nature, he usually selects one which to him is the most
>attractive out of several hundred, maybe thousands of other 'less
>attractive' specimens he may see in the field. All of these plants,
both
>the 'attractive' ones AND the less attractive ones are still all
variations
>of ONE species.
>All I can suggest at this time is that you make a label that explains
what
>the particular clone or var. of that plant is, for example Philodendron
>stenolobum var. narrow/wavy/long leaf, and/or P. stenolobum var. short
and
>broad leaf, or 'Anthurium warocqueanum var. Murline Lydon minature',
vs.
>'Anthu. warocqueanum var. large leaf '. Collection data and
collectors
>name would be another good bit of information to keep with all wild
>collected plants.
>Perhaps Derek Burch can give some sort of suggestion or soloution that
may
>serve you guys better??
>
>The Best,
>
>Julius
>
> >>I have recently been trying to up grade my data base of names as
well
> >>as redo all my tags and make sure everything has as much data and
> >>information as possible. I have a few questions on forms. I know
many
> >>plants have several forms of the same species. I would like to know
if
> >>their are names for these forms or even if the science community
really
>makes note of it?
> >>If not would putting a added portion to the name to help ID
different
> >>forms be possible? If so who should come up with these name? Here
are
> >>a few for instance off hand that I really think should have some
more
> >>information. Their seems to be two very different forms of Veitchii
> >>one with wider leaves and much larger ripples. Then another form
with
> >>thinner leaves and a much more rippled effect. I know that naming
all
> >>slight different forms would not be worth while but for some very
> >>noticeable differences it could help people know exactly what they
are
> >>getting and their seems to be a major price difference in one form
> >>compared to the other. Another one that comes to mind is the two
forms
> >>of Anthurium warocqueanum one that can get 3 to 4 feet long and the
> >>smaller slender form with hardly any back lobes. They are very
> >>noticeably different yet go by the exact same name. If one was to
> >>order the plant under these name they could end up with either form
> >>though one form of each is usually much more sought after.<<
>_______________________________________________
>Aroid-l mailing list
>Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
>http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
| 
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
