Re: [Aroid-l] Alocasia Amazonica and cultvar registration

From: "Derek Burch" <derek at horticulturist.com> on 2009.11.21 at 12:55:53(20351) Much as I hate to have yet another entryinto the bulging file on this topic – which, thank goodness, thismasterful entry from Alistair and a private note from Tom Hulse to Steve shoulddo a lot to extinguish, it does give me the segue into the latest chapter inthe registration saga. Tom makes the point that this name isalready well established, although we may never stumble on the first catalogueor other dated paper publication that established the name. This publication inpaper-printed dated form is difficult for many breeders and introducers who donot do this form of catalogue, but is vital ot do this first step ofestablishing the name on the way to registration. We (Albert, really) havedeveloped a very simple form from which I can download a “catalogue-type”short, identifying description which will appear annually as a section ofAroideana. Check our cultivar page on aroid-l or go straight to http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/reg_form_short.phpto see how easy this is. Once that description is published the namewill be established and can then be submitted for registration on the longerform, which is also under revision in certain areas to make it simpler. So if all this torrent of stuff on the Alocasia which hasclogged my deleted file has the effect of stimulating interest in ourregistration program, it will all have been worthwhile. Praise be. !! Derek HTML +More From: aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com[mailto:aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com] OnBehalf Of Alistair Hay Sent: Thursday, November 19, 20096:52 PM To: Discussion of aroids Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] AlocasiaAmazonica IMO what we really need to do is to let these hybridbotanical names slide into complete disuse as historical curiosities. Part of the problem is that there is so much confusingorthography (they way they are written), and it is not clear if names beingused are (or are intended to be) botanical hybrid names (under the BotanicalCode), cultivar names (under the Cultivated Code - ICNCP) or something else(outside the codes), and therefore to what plant or plants they should refer.If botanical hybrid names are used, then there will be endless (pointless)discussion about which definition of these hybrids should be adopted (particularlyin this A. longiloba complex where they may be legitimate disagreement aboutwhat species can or cannot be recognized and hence how the hybrids are defined)and which of the several hybrid binomials has priority. The correct orthography for a cultivar name is Alocasia 'Amazonica' : the genus (i.e. thedenomination class) is italicized, and the cultivar epithet is non-italicized,in single quotes and starts with a capital letter. This indicates unequivocallythat the entity is a cultivar whose definition and naming is determined underthe Cultivated Code (ICNCP). The definitionof this cultivar is not specified by its parentage. For practical purposes itis simply plants that match Salvadore Mauro's plant. A variant arising from,say, somaclonal mutation in the tissue culture of A. 'Amazonica' can be selected, propagated and namedsomething else if it has proven to be stable, such as A. 'Polly'. The parentage of A. 'Amazonica' is a piece of adjunctinformation that may be useful for hybridizers to know, but doesn't have anydirect bearing on the definitionof the cultivar, and so opinions about what the parents were (if there were noor dubious records) or, in this case, whether Alocasia watsoniana is a "good" species or not,are irrelevant and need not complicate the question of what is A. 'Amazonica'. On the other hand the recognition of the hybrid'species' Alocasia x amazonica (with the correctorthography of italics for both the genus and the species epithet, and theepithet starting with a lower case letter, and the genus and species separatedby a multiplication sign, all to signify a hybrid 'species' under the BotanicalCode) opens up a raft ofhideous complications. First, the botanical hybrid IS defined by its parentage,so what is it? Alocasia watsonianax A. sanderiana, or A. longiloba x A. sanderiana, or A.longiloba "watsoniana" (my informal label for the watsoniana-like variants of A. longiloba) x A. sanderiana? Who decides where watsoniana begins and ends,and so what hybrids belong in A. x amazonicaand what don't? Second, however the parentage is defined, the hybrid namewould be applicable to ALL hybrids with that parentage: not just f1's, butf2's, f3,s and backcrosses etc etc etc. Third, there would arise the questionof priority - depending how A. x amazonicawas defined, there would likely be one or more Victorian-era hybrid binomial(s)already validated for it. Fourth, there is the problem of consistency: ifbotanical hybrid names are used for some cultivated Alocasias, how many moreneed to be created for those interspecific hybrids for which they do not yetexist? So let's not talk about Alocasiax amazonica :) Alistair Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:00:31 -0600 From: Steve@exoticrainforest.com To: aroid-l@gizmoworks.com Subject: [Aroid-l] Alocasia Amazonica I realizedue to my mail a few are tired of this subject so I'm about to wrap itup. I do believe some that are interested in tissue culture and how itaffects the plants we grow might find these notes from Denis Rotolanteinteresting. Another very interesting event this week was the USDA elected to change theinformation on its website to no longer indicate Alocasia x amazonica should becredited to Andr�: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?312551 If someone that reads Aroid l had anything to do with that I would like to giveyou my thanks. I am in hopes we can at the very least soon have a page on the IAS websitewhich explains how all the commonly held misconceptions regarding AlocasiaAmazonica evolved and give credit to Salvadore Mauro for his creation. Steve www.ExoticRainforest.com Denis Rotolante wrote: I haveon good sources that the parents of Alocasia x Amazonica were A.watsoniana and A. sanderiana. However, since lowii Grandis, lowii Veitchii,Watsoniana and longiloba have all been reclassified by taxonomists as oneswarm all belonging to the species Alocasialongiloba, theparentage should be Alocasia longiloba andsanderiana. It does notmake a difference unless you are trying to remake the hybrid. I wasgrowing Alocasia x Amazonica back in the 1980's from tissue cultured liners.One of the plants exhibited new characteristics; heavier leaf substance,shorter petioles, better shipping qualities and slower growth than the standardplants. It was a sport from the standard Amazonica type created by geneticchanges in Tissue Culture, I called Polly. Scott Hyndman insisted I give a piece to him to put inculture. The rest is history. It became the standard of excellence in alocasiasfor many years. It's still hard to beat although the value has been degraded bythe fact that it was over produced by chinese labs that flooded the market withknock offs. I'm notsure by todays rules of nomenclature that it can be called Alocasia Amazonicaas something happened in the lab spontaneously to change the genetic make up ofthe original plant. I would leave that to someone else to figure out. I justcall it Polly. Froma separate email: .most people do not understand that TC forceschanges in the genetic makeup of plants just as sexual reproduction. when TCdoes it we see a lot more of the bad ones because they survive long enough tomature. When nature does it... the deleterious changes in the genes do notsurvive, only the favorable ones make it to reproduce into the next generation..If you could see the number of bad genetic results from TC that have resultedin disaster...entire crops of defective plants in the foliage industry havebeen produced. Sometimes however a positive change occurs giving us a Poly. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CA6A80.0D83A590----==============w19015577706572453=

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.