no problems registering most aroid cultivars as you have pointed out. The genus|
name + cultivar name is usually sufficient to validly register a cultivar under
the ICNCP. In other genera it has been found that certain valid species show
considerable variation and some selected clones may be quite different from
others. Clones might be an oxymoron, because most gardeners assume that a clones
look exactly the same. While that is correct when one clones a selected "clone"
from a variable wild population, it may be required that some cultivated clones
will have to carry the full binomial + a cultivar name, to distinguish selected
plants of a variable population of the same species. Another problem may arise
when former species are found to be cultivars and have been validly reduced to
cultivar rank. In Hosta, for example H. fortunei
var. hyacinthina was found to be a European cultivated hybrid
with no wild representation, so was reduced by me to cultivar rank and the name
as a cultivar is H. 'Fortunei Hyacinthina' (per ICNCP articles).
Another example are two non-perpetuating variegated chimaeral mutations of
the same species found in the wild, which formerly were considered taxa under
the ICBN. Thus H. ventricosa var. aureomarginata is now
named H. ventricosa 'Aureomarginata' and H.
ventricosa var. aureomaculata is now H. ventricosa
'Aureomaculata'. I am mentioning these, because occasionally the full binomial
needs to be applied and the ICNCP contains numerous articles, which govern
such use. Obviously none of this may apply to aroids, but we are very careful to
make certain that in hybrids we perpetuate the parentage by asking for that
information on the registration form.
I believe that IAS already has work
underway to facilitate registration of aroid cultivars and Derek is heading this
effort. There is a link on the IAS website. I am involved more in taxonomy, but
have been occupied with registrations for several genera and one thing we
have found that it is difficult to come up with a registration form, which
considers all of the different and salient morphological features to provide the
foundation for a cultivar database. This will be particularly true in Araceae,
with many different taxa being the source of cultivars. Without a
comprehensive registration form it is difficult to get originators to register
cultivars. That, I consider a hurdle (speaking from
W. George SchmidHosta Hill R.
G.USDA Zone 7a - 1188 feet (361m) AMSL84-12'-30" W 33-51' NAll mail
virus-scanned by McAfee
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Alistair
HaySent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 20:14To:
email@example.comSubject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different
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.
Aroid-l mailing list