<< << 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.
>>
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
