Dionaea 'Kinchyaku'

'Cupped Trap' does indeed catch quite well and 'Kinchyaku' is not dissimilar in structure

I agree with Steven. When I initially saw this photo, I couldn't see any noticeable difference between Dionaea 'Kinchyaku' and Dionaea 'Cupped Trap'. Does anyone know if there is a difference between the two plants?

ah, what does "Kinchyaku" mean?

guillaume,

I only submitted the cultivar name of this Dionaea to the ICPS because I noticed a great number of bogus names were being used to sell this cultivar multiple times to unwitting buyers. I wanted to "fix" it with an officially published cultivar name. I did not know it had been published in Japan under the name Dionaea 'Kinchyaku'. I did in fact contact a number of authorities and collectors to find out if anyone else had expressed a desire to publish a description of this plant under any name prior to my submitting my written description and photographs. None were known to the people I asked.
If anyone is guilty of giving this plant a new name it is in fact me, and that is why I think the name Dionaea 'Kinchyaku' should be the name this cultivar goes by. I just feel bad for the businesses that have had large numbers of labels printed, and now feel a need to redo their labels. It would be best if collectors that want to purchase this cultivar, would be patient with producers and re-label their plants themselves until a time when new labels are printed.

Take care,
Steven Stewart

This is an interesting turn of events.

First of all, I do not think that Steven should feel he should take the blame for anything. He did a good deed, by getting a name on a plant name that---as far as he could tell---had not been registered.

Now, here is some legalese in the cultivar world, as far as I understand it....

1)There is no doubt that Kondo's name, "Kinchyaku", was published before the 'Cupped Traps' epithet. By identifying such as plant as unique, and by publishing a photograph of the plant, Kondo was well on the path to establishing a cultivar name for the plant.

2)The other crucial portion of a cultivar description is a published summary of what makes the cultivar distinct from other cultivars. The text in Jan's db, presumably from the conference proceedings, is entirely inadequate for this purpose (the only relevent text being "which has imperfect trap closure but somewhat quite similar to Drosera L. trap movement").

3)EVEN if Jan deems the cultivar description to be adequate, the author did not submit the cultivar name for registration. This is a crucial step in the establishment of the name. Those who publish their articles in CPN have their cultivar names submitted automatically, by the way. However, this does not extend to other publications, such as that journal proceedings.

So....in summary, we have a situation where Steven published a valid description of a cultivar and established a cultivar name for it. He was unaware that Kondo was using an unestablished name for the same plant.

If Steven or I had known about the Kondo publication, no doubt we would have encouraged Kondo (or Kondo and Steven together) to publish a more complete description, and to register the name.

However, the fact remains that we did not. And the fact also remains that "Kinchyaku" remains a nomen nudem, so it would be incorrect to say that we should step backwards and use "Kinchyaku" as the name for this plant. "Kinchyaku" has no more validity than any other informal, unestablished name.

Time to play Devil's Advocate. My understanding of the situation differs from Barry's...

Registration with the appropriate ICRA (in this case the ICPS) is not required in order to legitimately establish a cultivar name. The preferred situation may be to follow that path, but it is not a requirement under the ICNCP rules. A one line description published in a catalogue is sufficient to establish a name. With 'Kinchyaku' we apparently have a published description as quoted in the database and a published photograph. This more than meets the requirements and the cultivar name is therefore legitimately established.

At the moment it would appear that we are dealing with two clones -

If the plants are identical or indistinguishable, then 'Kinchyaku' takes precedence as the first published name.

If the plants are distinguishable and we have too little information to be certain at this point, then both names are validly established.

Therefore, until such time as it may be determined whether or not the plants are distinguishable from one another, both 'Kinchyaku' and 'Cupped Trap' should be considered legitimately established.