Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 10 Location: Pahoa, Hawaii
Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Thread Started on Mar 12, 2007, 6:47pm »
The Need For A Nepenthes Grex Registry
The last several decades have witnessed a marked growth in Nepenthes cultivation around the world. The number of Nepenthes species in cultivation has risen from somewhere around 80 species twenty years ago to about 100 today and at the current rate of exploration could perhaps reach 120 by 2008. Major nurseries have become established in Europe, Australia, Japan, America and Indonesia and there are now more species available to collectors and enthusiasts than ever before in history. Parallel with this growth in discovery has been the rise in the number of manmade Nepenthes hybrids available for cultivation. The world leader in Nepenthes hybridization has been Exotica Plants of Australia and Geoff and Andrea Mansell have produced hundreds of unique and exceptional plants. But Geoff and Andrea are not alone as nurseries around the world are now actively producing Nepenthes hybrids and with many of the newly discovered species now reaching maturity in cultivation the future of Nepenthes horticulture seems certain to continue to grow at an accelerated rate. The existing Nepenthes Group system of registry has been rejected or ignored by the vast majority of Nepenthes growers and the need for consistent and complete record keeping among breeders has become pronounced. Selective breeding for desirable qualities in Nepenthes requires careful record keeping and the sharing of significant breeding data among growers and breeders. To this end a universal grex naming system for horticultural breed plants of the genus Nepenthes is desirable in order to provide an historical record of Nepenthes hybridization efforts for the use of breeders, collectors and enthusiasts around the world.
Conference Recommendations
I. Nepenthes Grex Registry
It is the considered recommendation of this conference that a grex registry for Nepenthes be established, that it should be sex respective, i.e., that a female plant crossed with a male of a different species is not the same as a male plant crossed with a female respectively, and once established it should be the sole official method of Nepenthes grex registration and that the existing Nepenthes Group system of registry should be discontinued and deemed archaic.
II. Requirements of Registration
1. Greges should not be considered for registration until 2 or more years after germination.1 A pictorial description of a ‘grex representative’ specimen is required at the time of registration so as to provide a convenient reference of an example(s) of a plant(s) from the grew being registered.2 This pictorial description would follow the proposed 1-5+ picture format (see "Definitions" below). 2. Names of parent plants including varietal epithets and descriptors3 (when known) are mandatory for registration of a grex. Names considered legitimate are natural species names, historical hybrid epithets4 , grex and registered cultivar names. 3. Descriptions of the features of the parent plants in a grex are mandatory for registration. Descriptions of parent plants are to be primarily pictorial and follow the 1-5+ picture format (see "Definitions" below). Also, a short written description noting unusual or distinctive features not readily ascertainable in photographs along with notes on plant origins and significant particulars of cultivation would be desirable.
1 In order to insure survivability of the grex before registration and to provide evidence of the existence of the grex registered. 2 It is to be understood that no single specimen can completely describe the spectrum of phenotypic expression produced in a particular grex and that the ‘grex representative’ descriptions (photo or otherwise) are intended only to provide registry users with a sample(s) of the plants resultant from the grex registered. 3 "Varietal epithets and descriptors" is not to be construed as representative of taxonomical forms but as those epithets and descriptions currently employed in Nepenthes horticulture. Examples would include N. alata, boschiana mimic, N. refflesiana, nivia, N copelandii, Mt. Apo, etc. 4 For the purposes of grex registration historical hybrid epithets are to be considered to represent uniform botanical entities. Individual parent plant descriptions would still be required for registration.
III. Proposed Grex Naming Formulas
A. New greges and remakes of primary greges and historic hybrids.
The ‘GENERIC’ name is mandatory but may be shortened to ‘N.’ (Nepenthes … Generic name: Latin, Italic, First letter capitalized)
The "Grex1" epithet is mandatory. A "Grex" epithet must follow the Definitions (see "Definitions" below) but are chosen at the discretion of the breeder. Grex epithets are fixed and are retained in all future, sex-respective, crossings of the same species, greges or hybrids.
The "Grex2" is mandatory if either of the following two conditions apply: a) The grex to be registered is a remake of an existing registered grex. b) A Historical Epithet is quoted in the Grex1.
Examples:
N. Blackbird (N. inermis x ramispina) 11/06 Browning Nursery N. Blackbird Pinole (N. inermis x ramispina) 3/08 Pinole Gardens
N. Rokko Pinole (N. thorelii x maxima) 5/08 Pinole Gardens
The "(AXB)" is a shorthand notation for a record of derivation. For the purposes of registry the genetic derivation of a plant is to be expressed in a formula recording female plant first and the male plant second, i.e., (N. maxima (f) x ventricosa (m)). Complex crosses having more than two species as ancestors are to be described in the same fashion, employing set theory type bracketing to clearly define order of crosses involved, and factored to species level1.
Example:
(N. x Rokko xx Dyeriana) x ventricosa
Must be factored to:
((N. thorelii x veitchii) x ((N. northiana x maxima) x (N. rafflesiana x veitchii))) x N. ventricosa
The (AXB) expression of derivation is mandatory and non-commutative with female plant always listed first in the expression.
1 Historical epithets are not allowed in the expression of derivation and must be factored to species level.
B. Horticulturally Breed Species and Natural Hybrids
The Natural Epithet is mandatory and precedes the mandatory Grex epithets. The Natural Epithet is the existing species or natural hybrid name. The default source for Natural Epithets is the ICPS database.
IV. Grex Registration Procedures
To insure that the proposed registration system finds acceptance among growers and breeders, registration procedure must be quick and simple to complete. The registry should be easily available and accessible to breeders and enthusiasts around the world. It is the recommendation of this conference that:
1. That the grex registry should be hosted and maintained by the International Carnivorous Plant Society and accessible through the ICPS Website. 2. That registration should be considered accomplished upon submission of the required data. That no publication of grex descriptions beyond the ICPS database should be required for the completion of registration procedure 1 3. That the registry should be easily updated by contributing breeders as supplemental information, not known at the time of registration, becomes available. 4. That new entries to the registry database be published in the ICPS Newsletter, without pictures, at annual intervals.
1 See ‘Transition Phase of Registry’, Section IX..
V. Definitions
Grex1: Primary grex epithet. This is the name chosen and assigned by the breeder to a particular grex. In a new grex this name becomes fixed with the registered derivation and is retained in all future registered greges of the same derivation.
Grex2: Secondary grex epithet. This is the secondary name chosen and assigned to a grex by the breeder under the conditions defined in Section II, A.
(AXB): A shorthand notation for a record of derivation. For the purposes of registry the genetic derivation of a plant is to be expressed in a formula recording female plant first and the male plant second, i.e., (N. maxima (f) x ventricosa (m)). Complex crosses having more than two species as ancestors are to be described in the same fashion, employing set theory type bracketing to clearly define order of crosses involved, and factored to species level.
(HE): Shorthand for "Histroical Epithet" and signifying that the particular grex in question is a remake of a cross that appears in the ICPS or other historical hybrid database.
(NE): Shorthand for "Natural Epithet" and meaning the species or natural hybrid name.
Date: This the month and year of pollination.
Nursery: This is the Nursery of origin or simply the breeder’s name.
1-5+ Picture Format:
1) Picture of plant. This should be representative of the entire plant to allow for determination of general growth pattern and foliar display characteristics. 2) Frontal/angle view of a typical lower pitcher. 3) Frontal/angle view of a typical upper pitcher. 4) View of leaf detail and attachment 5) View of inflorescence. - - - - - - - - - 6) View of pitcher lid. 7) View of peristome details 8) View of stem details.
Pictures should include a scale for reference.
VI. Nepenthes Color Chart
The establishment of the new registry should be accompanied by the production of a color -range chart specifically for Nepenthes. This chart should be inexpensive and available through the ICPS. This chart would contain 25 – 30 standardized colors.1
1 Nepenthes can be quite variable in color when grown under different climatic conditions and color description should, most often, be expressed color ranges rather than as a single color. VII. Labeling
Plants should always be clearly labeled. Registered plants intended for distribution should be labeled in such a way as to clearly make reference to their registered status and name. At a minimum, plant labels should bear the registered Grex1 and Grex2 epithets (and Natural Epithet when applicable).
VIII. Grex Decision Tree and Sample Registration Forms.
One of the advantages of a new registry is that it can be designed to take full advantage of data storage and retrieval hardware and software. A well-designed database would allow for easy ‘search’, ‘indexing’, ‘linking’, ‘sorting’ and other database functions. In time data could easily be displayed as clads or family trees.
X. Transition Phase of Registry.
A. Transition to new naming and registration rules pose a challenge to hose already deeply involved in Nepenthes breeding efforts. Many plants have been created in the last few decades and it would be unfair to expect that an active breeder would have the time or energy to enter upon a massive backlog of plants needing registration in an immediate fashion. Therefore, the new registry should allow for a transition period wherein breeders could submit a listing of existing greges intended for registration within the transition period and establish registration priority for their creations.
Breeders would be expected to submit within the first year an accounting of all previous greges intended for registration and noting date of pollination and derivation information. The registrar would utilize these lists to establish priority with regard to registration dates. After submission of their list a breeder would be expected to embark upon the tasks of completing the registration process for all those greges submitted. All greges to be thus "grand fathered" into the registry would be required to be completed by the end of the second transitional year.
B. During this period of transition it will also be necessary to embark upon an educational program to inform breeders of the new rules and procedures of registry. The rules of registry should be published in the ICPS Newsletter and made available on the ICPS website.
C. It is important that the registry be designed in such a fashion as to take full advantage of the data storage, retrieval and interface technology available today. Furthermore, it is equally important that the format adopted be flexible enough that it does not become dead-ended by future improvements in technology. The first year of the two year transition phase of the registry would be devoted to planning and development of the registry database and website interface. The registry should be operational and doing real-time data processing by, or before, the end of the second year of the transitional phase.
XI. A Few Questions and Answers
Q: “ I don’t have a computer or Internet access, can I register by mail?” A: Get one. Or go to Kinko’s or the Library or a friend’s house. This is what you would be told by your child’s school, your employer, your government or a thousand different businesses.
Q: “I have made a cross with pollen collected from the wild, and I do not have a picture of the donating male plant. Can I still register this grex?” A: Although the new registry would rely heavily on pictorial descriptions this does not mean that you cannot still present a written description.
Q: “What happens if a grex is registered and then later found to exist as a natural hybrid and description published by taxonomists?” A: Once the natural hybrid has a published description then, the new taxonomical name would, follow nomenclature formula B, and the natural hybrid name would precede the grex epithets in updated printings.
Q: “What if two breeders make the same cross at the same time?” A: After the transition phase has concluded registration would be on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Q: “What happens if a historical record is discovered after an grex has been registered?” A: This is really not a problem. The discovery of an historical crossing would only mean that an ‘(HE)’ would then be appended to the given grex record.
Q: “What about those breeders that refuse to participate?” A: Participation is voluntary.
Q: “Will this new registry mean the end of confusion, poor record keeping, unknown plants and misrepresented plants?” A: Of course not. Some will have no interest, some will find it too much work and others will see a personal interest in keeping this information to themselves. The BIG BOX chains and the large agricultural industries (growers of ‘units’) will do whatever maximizes profits and will name plants anyway they want (‘WALpenthes’, ‘HOME Depenthes’, etc.) without regard to the rules of nomenclature, grex or otherwise. This is the way of the world.
Q: “If its not going fix everything then, what good is it?” A: It won’t fix everything. What it will do is to give serious breeders, collectors and enthusiasts a consistent set of rules, an easily accessible and current registry and database where they can get reliable information about those plants that do make it into the registry. In time it will become a powerful tool for breeder’s and give new meaning to the terms ‘selective breeding’ in Nepenthes horticulture.
Q: “Everything is in English. Won’t this limit participation?” A: Yes, and this is why the registry process should be designed in a simplistic, decision-tree fashion, with simple and easily translatable instructions.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 3 Location: Germany
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #1 on Jun 27, 2007, 8:13am »
Dear leilani,
please post an update to this forum on progress made in the grex registry debate since your last message in March.
In your proposal on grex rules the requirement of descriptions or "types" (standards in cultivated plant terminology) for the registration of grex names is at variance with the grex concept as such, which is based on parentage (so the parents but not the greges themselves must be described and typified). A grex name is automatically established as soon as the involved parents are specified and the name and parentage are published. Contrary to cultivars, which are defined by their external appearance (or more generally on observable properties) and not by their ancestry, description or typification of greges would yield a set of information that is not only redundant but that might even contradict registered specifications (if e.g. the phenotype of a member of a grex did not correspond to the description/standard).
Thus, you must decide whether you want a grex system (based on parentage - no descriptions, no standards) or a Group system (based on phenotype - descriptions and standards required). A combination of both is impossible.
A phrase to the effect that grex names must not be translated (a difference to Cultivar and Group nomenclature) should be added to the rules.
A phrase to the effect that taxonomic hybrid names (formed according to ICBN rules, not sex-respective) must not be used as grex names (according to _Nepenthes_ grex naming rules, which are sex-respective) should be added to the rules.
In order to be able to grandfather in the (few) pre-existing Group names into the grex naming system (in _Nepenthes_ Group names have either not been used at all or have been used in the sense of grex names by breeders), the starting point for _Nepenthes_ grex nomenclature should be 1979 (when Fleming used the term "grex" in the context of _Nepenthes_ for the first time in CPN).
I understand your objections to the registry’s utilization of both derivation and description. You make a very reasoned and logically convincing argument. In very early discussions, with you, you convinced me of these definitions and I went into the conference with the, at the time, very clear understanding that cultivars and groups are about qualities and greges are about derivation or parentage and never the two should meet.
You say .....
Quote:
you must decide whether you want a grex system (based on parentage - no descriptions, no standards) or a Group system (based on phenotype - descriptions and standards required). A combination of both is impossible.
With all due respect, I now disagree. It is not as if these were the only two possibilities. There has never been a grex registry system for nepenthes so who is to say if descriptions and standards are allowed? Bob kindly referenced Fleming’s 1979 article “Hybrid Nepenthes”, which I have read before, and I took the time to read it again. (I wonder if this is the same article you refer to when you make reference to Fleming?) I do not see that the word “grex” appears anywhere in this article. Fleming, instead, defines the “hybrid group” concept. A concept that conference participants overwhelmingly rejected as useless for breeding purposes.
Over the almost six months of conference debate and discussion it became clear that the Nepenthes horticultural community wanted something more than just a strict record of derivation. A Nepenthes grex registry does provide a log of parental combinations and dates but conference participants felt that a registry that only provided names and dates would be insufficient to the needs of their professions and avocations. Those that have attempted hybrid listings in the past have done us all an excellent service but conference members wanted a new registry that could provide something more than just an historical log. The new registry is designed not only to serve as an historical accounting of plant derivations of the past but also to serve as an informational tool in the future selective breeding of nepenthes.
For the breeder, descriptions of parental stock plants are essential in order to provide the data needed for making deliberate and reasoned judgments in future breeding efforts. For the taxonomist N. alata is any plant that is coincident with the description provided by Blanco or the revised description by Danser and N. rafflesiana is any plant that is coincident with the description by Jack. Fine and dandy .... done is done until the next description. For the breeder, however, not all N. alata or N. rafflesiana are alike (http://pitcherplants.proboards34.com/ind....read=1179297603, http://pitcherplants.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=rafflesiana) and the choice of species variant makes a significant difference in the outcome of a grex. Breeding plants is as much about the subtleties of pheonotypical expression as it is about the more limited set of definitional characteristics employed by taxonomists in species differentiation.
The new registry will provide a record of plant derivations just the same as a registry devoid of plant descriptions but it will also provide a much more significant database for future hybridization efforts. N. alata, N. rafflesiana, N. mirabilis, N. sanguinea and other species, in spite of the fact that they all fall within the scientific descriptions of those species, are polymorphic and exhibit a wide range of variability in characteristics, both subtle and dramatic. It is knowledge of just these sorts of subtle phenotypical variations that breeders often find significant to their efforts and, for the first time, this information would be available to present and future generations of horticulturists.
The new registry was not designed for the purpose of sorting out the records of the past but rather to provide consistent record keeping in the future. There will be no attempt to reconcile or subsume existing databases into the new registry. There will, however, be a two year transitionally period during which time active breeders, or their agents, will be allowed, providing they can supply the required data, to establish registration priority for their relatively recent past creations. The new registry provides for a ‘fixed’ GREX1 name in the case of an original grex and all subsequent remakes would bear that GREX1 name but with the addition of a GREX2 modifier distinguishing them from the original. Being the first to make a grex is significant to breeders and this is the reason that necessitates the opportunity to establish registration priority by date of creation (date of pollination).
Beyond the new registry’s requirement of parental plant description a “grex representative” specimen would also be required before a grex could be registered. This is another concession to breeders and there are a couple of reasons for this. First, some considered it important to have proof of a grex’s existence. Secondly, breeders what to know what the resultant plant from a grex looks like and whereas it is certainly true that no single specimen will reflect the entire range of pheontypical expression to be found in any particular grex (Part II, Requirements of Registration, footnote 2) it was felt that it would still be better than nothing. Registrants would be required to post at least one and encouraged to post as many “grex representative” examples as they like in order to better represent the registered grex.
you suggest ......
Quote:
A phrase to the effect that taxonomic hybrid names (formed according to ICBN rules, not sex-respective) must not be used as grex names (according to _Nepenthes_ grex naming rules, which are sex-respective) should be added to the rules.
Taxonomic hybrid names are not sex-respective. Therefore any combination of, for example, N. rafflesiana and N. ampullaria will always be N. x Hookeriana whether created in nature or in the greenhouse. For this reason, the grex naming formula define horticultural species and natural hybrids as special cases with their own naming formula: GENERIC - Natural Epithet - Grex1Grex2 - (AXB) - Date / Nursery
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 3 Location: Germany
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #4 on Jun 28, 2007, 7:47pm »
Dear leilani,
"For the breeder, descriptions of parental stock plants are essential in order to provide the data needed for making deliberate and reasoned judgments in future breeding efforts."
Agreed, the *parents* defining a grex need to be described (as exactly as possible) and typified unambiguously. This is the proper objective of cultivar descriptions. The grex is, however, *anything* that results from the cross of these parents. All remakes of the cross must be given the same basic grex name (as long as the very same parent lines are crossed in the same direction as in the original cross). This basic name may (or should) then be augmented by additional epithets to highlight the fact that it is a remake but still also the result of all remakes belongs to the same basic grex. All these possibly very different plants do make up the grex, irrespective of their observable qualities. A grex will and cannot guarantee any observable property of any plant belonging to the grex, the grex will just yield information on lineage and based on this lineage, it can provide a clue on what plants belonging to the grex *may* look like. But a grex name cannot *force* the progeny into any particular phenotype.
"(...) and the choice of species variant makes a significant difference in the outcome of a grex."
Possibly. But my basic point remains unaffected by this fact. Even a plant that has nothing in common with any observable property of any parent used to build the grex does an must belong to the grex if it is really derived from the original cross. Thus, no description (other than noting as precisely as possible the parents involved) and no standard will have any significance for the definition of the grex. For this reason it does absolutely not make any sense to regard descriptions or standards as a requirement for establishment or registration of grex names. Again, it is the *parents* and only these that need to be described and typified.
"The new registry will provide a record of plant derivations just the same as a registry devoid of plant descriptions but it will also provide a much more significant database for future hybridization efforts."
This is at least to be hoped. But what we are talking about is a naming and registration system that needs to be practicable and based on transparent rules. The system must be able to survive a situation in which plants demonstrably derived from the original cross do absolutely not correspond to any phenotypic description or standard of the grex. What do you intend to do about such outliers in the context of a description/standard AND lineage-based naming system? Such a system will eventually blow up in contradiction.
Of course it is a dream of (some) breeders to be able to predict the outcome of a cross. But this cannot be forced by an intrinsically illogical concept of grex naming and definition.
"Beyond the new registry’s requirement of parental plant description a “grex representative” specimen would also be required before a grex could be registered. This is another concession to breeders and there are a couple of reasons for this. First, some considered it important to have proof of a grex’s existence."
OK. This is acceptable. I wonder, however, why anyone should take the trouble to define, name and register a grex that does not exist.
"Secondly, breeders want to know what the resultant plant from a grex looks like and whereas it is certainly true that no single specimen will reflect the entire range of pheontypical expression to be found in any particular grex (Part II, Requirements of Registration, footnote 2) it was felt that it would still be better than nothing."
Well, given the lineage-based definition of a grex, a standard is actually nothing for the definition of the grex (even a plant completely different from the standard does belong to the very same grex provided it is derived from the same cross).
"Registrants would be required to post at least one and encouraged to post as many “grex representative” examples as they like in order to better represent the registered grex."
I agree that it is nice to have as many pictures (as examples, not necessarily "representative") as possible. But I still fail to see why (apart from being proof for existence) it should be a necessity for grex naming or registration as long as the parents and the lineage can be specified to the necessary degree of precision.
"Taxonomic hybrid names are not sex-respective. Therefore any combination of, for example, N. rafflesiana and N. ampullaria will always be N. x Hookeriana whether created in nature or in the greenhouse."
Correct. For this reason, the name _N. hookeriana_ must not be used as a grex name (because a _Nepenthes_ grex *is* sex-respective). What I meant is that you should include this as a rule ("taxonomic hybrid names must not be used as grex names.") in your proposal.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 10 Location: Pahoa, Hawaii
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #5 on Jun 28, 2007, 10:59pm »
Dear Jan,
Quote:
The grex is, however, *anything* that results from the cross of these parents. All remakes of the cross must be given the same basic grex name (as long as the very same parent lines are crossed in the same direction as in the original cross). This basic name may (or should) then be augmented by additional epithets to highlight the fact that it is a remake but still also the result of all remakes belongs to the same basic grex.
The new registry provides for this.
Quote:
All these possibly very different plants do make up the grex, irrespective of their observable qualities. A grex will and cannot guarantee any observable property of any plant belonging to the grex, the grex will just yield information on lineage and based on this lineage, it can provide a clue on what plants belonging to the grex *may* look like. But a grex name cannot *force* the progeny into any particular phenotype.
This is understood.
Quote:
my basic point remains unaffected by this fact. Even a plant that has nothing in common with any observable property of any parent used to build the grex does an must belong to the grex if it is really derived from the original cross.
Again, this is understood.
Quote:
The system must be able to survive a situation in which plants demonstrably derived from the original cross do absolutely not correspond to any phenotypic description or standard of the grex. What do you intend to do about such outliers in the context of a description/standard AND lineage-based naming system? Such a system will eventually blow up in contradiction.
It is true that there will be plants resultant from a grex that are different from any ‘grex representative’ sample that a breeder might post and it is possible, I suppose, that a plant from a grex might appear to have very little in common with it ancestral parents. I have never entertained the idea of a completely consistent and complete system in the design of a registry for a family of plants as inherently polymorphic as Nepenthes. I would not, however, view the existence of a plant with no apparent phenotypic correspondence to it parents or siblings as a contradiction. Rather, I would admit that the system is incapable of providing for the comprehensive definition of an entire grex. It is clearly noted in the registry that no ‘grex representative’ is considered completely defining of all its siblings. The ‘grex’ representatives are a convenience to breeders and collectors and are required not because they are defining but rather because they representative of the grex to some degree. The system my spit and sputter on occasion but it will run and I have no fear of its “blow(ing) up in contradiction”.
Quote:
Of course it is a dream of (some) breeders to be able to predict the outcome of a cross.
At this time it is certainly still a “dream” in that there is too little significant data and understanding of the genetic processes to allow us such predictive skills. Its not such a crazy dream though as our understanding and sciences often stumble ahead on incomplete or inconsistent systems until such time as new data or ideas allow is to improve our methods or refine our ideas. Great deeds have been accomplished by selective horticultural breeders in the past and although I will certainly admit that we are not talking wheat, corn or tomatoes here but rather about a family of plant with no obvious economic import, the potentials for molding them into our own design are the same.
Quote:
But this cannot be forced by an intrinsically illogical concept of grex naming and definition.
No one is suggesting that it can. But I am suggesting that even a less than perfect system is far better than none. Your suggestion that the grex concept as conceived by the registry is “intrinsically illogical” fails in my mind on the fundamental grounds that there has never been a grex system for nepenthes and therefore the logic of the system is as defined.
Quote:
OK. This is acceptable. I wonder, however, why anyone should take the trouble to define, name and register a grex that does not exist.
Sounds crazy to me too but it was a serious concern to some. I understand that some nut recently tried to pass off some Nepenthes as glowing-in-the-dark.
Quote:
the name _N. hookeriana_ must not be used as a grex name (because a _Nepenthes_ grex *is* sex-respective). What I meant is that you should include this as a rule ("taxonomic hybrid names must not be used as grex names.") in your proposal.
A natural hybrid, created in the greenhouse, is still just a natural hybrid, e.g., N. rafflessiana x ampullaria: the crossing is communitive and would always bear the scientific name N. x hookeriana. Those N. x hookeriana made by selective breeding would be appended with a grex name. I thought that this was covered in the proposal but upon reading it again I see that you are correct and that the prohibition should be made more explicit.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 3 Location: Germany
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #6 on Jun 29, 2007, 4:29am »
Dear Sam,
"It is clearly noted in the registry that no ‘grex representative’ is considered completely defining of all its siblings."
But this is implied by the term "representative". Perhaps "example" would be more appropriate?
"The ‘grex’ representatives are a convenience to breeders and collectors and are required not because they are defining but rather because they representative of the grex to some degree."
Exactly this should be clarified in the rules in order to avoid confusion. The fact that they are *required* for registration strongly suggests they were used for *definition* of the grex.
Kind regards Jan
PS: I will be on vacation until July 9, which may explain some silence from this side.
The thread on the "Grex Registry TIME LINE" posted March 12, 2007 states
Quote:
August 2007 - August 2008 First Year of Transition Phase
In the first transitionary year breeders would be expected to submit data regarding greges, created before 2007, and intended for registration. This data would be received by the agent of the registry and used to determine registry priorities.
Work would begin on the construction of the registry database and internet interface.
Education efforts would continue throughout the year.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 10 Location: Pahoa, Hawaii
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #10 on Jan 30, 2008, 7:45pm »
Hello Barry and Bob,
The "Grex Registry Project" has not been dropped.
The registry will make it's appearance sometime in late February 2008. It will be hosted at a new nepenthes informational website (This will be it's home during the remainder of the two year transitional period.) It is still hoped that it will eventually find a home with the ICPS.
I will be posting further information in the near future.
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 512 Location: Redlands, Sanbern.. County, CA
Re: Proposed New Grex Registry for Nepenthes « Reply #12 on Apr 26, 2008, 6:06pm »
Sorry, but I am not understanding this all correctly. My basic misunderstanding with the system is this.
When you have a simple punnet square for a trait there would be, one trait on the top and one on the left side each respectively representing a parent plant. If both traits are heterozygous both traits should look exactly the same Tt x Tt. Their offspring seeing as how the parents are the same should predictably be TT, Tt, Tt, tt. However what you are saying is that this is not always the case? That just because you can guess that this is what the offspring should look like doesn’t mean they always will?
![[Home]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[Help]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g30/Leilani_10/hula.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.carnivorousplants.org/about/images/js.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://users.humboldt.edu/rziemer/ziemerBob2.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.sarracenia.com/thumbs/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs11/300W/i/2006/238/e/a/wild_iguana_by_radjess331.jpg "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[msn]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")