john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Aug 17, 2009 22:43:41 GMT
John, I know you think otherwise, but until they are published through a recognised process they are not cultivars as most people understand it. haha, round it comes again!. My standard response, I'm afraid. Read the code! International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants.7th Edition. Acta Horticulturae No.647 (February 2004) ISBN 90 6605 527 8.
|
|
|
Post by gardenofeden on Aug 21, 2009 18:55:04 GMT
I doubt your average person has access to the code, I don't so cannot refute your point. Do you know if the code available online?
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Aug 21, 2009 19:45:37 GMT
It is if you are a member of the ISHS or are willing to pay per article download: www.actahort.org/books/647/It is probably less expensive just to buy the book. Or try a well stocked library. Of course John could just quote the relevant text to illustrate his point.
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Aug 21, 2009 22:21:14 GMT
I'll post a fuller reply in a few days if anybody wants it, but the definition of a cultivar from the code is: "A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that has been selected for a particular attribute or combination of attributes that is clearly distinct, uniform and stable in these characteristics and that when propagated by appropriate means retains those characteristics." (Chapter II, Definitions. Article 2.2). It seems to me that the cultivars mentioned above all fit these criteria, and can only be thought of as cultivars. They are distinct, stable and retain their characteristics when propagated (etc etc). As cultivars, the names can only be written as 'Tara' and 'Cowboy' (or cv.Tara and cv.Cowboy but that is rather archaic notation).
Worth emphasising that this is the definition of a cultivar, as the term is used in the code, not a suggestion explaining what the term means. Note that there is no mention of the concept of publication etc. (I know I have said it before but..) A cultivar is a taxonomic concept relating to a biological entity, not the result of a written or legal process.
Once you have selected a cultivar, and chosen a name, the code offers a number of ways to ensure the stability of your chosen name.
The first process is publication (under the terms itemised by later sections of the code). This establishes the authority for the name. Until it is published, someone else could come along with a name of their own, publish it, and make the original choice of name invalid. Publication does not affect the validity of the cultivar, it acts as a protection to the chosen name. At present, 'Tara' and 'Cowboy' have been named, but the names have not yet been published, so it is possible that someone could come along and force a name change by publishing an alternative (please don't do it! there is enough confusion out there without being deliberately spiteful) before Frank publishes. This would force a change in the name that was used, but not affect the validity of the cultivar.
The second process that can protect a chosen name is registration with the International Cultivar Registration Authority. (The ICPS in this case). The job of the ICRA is to keep a list ('Register') of the cultivar names that have been published, so that names are not duplicated.(For example, there are currently several cultivars competing for the name 'Redneck' , the first to publish will get the name!). By getting your cultivar name inculded on the list you confirm that your name has not previously been used (which would make your published description invalid) and that it cannot be used again in future by anybody else. So, Sarracenia 'Tara', 'Cowboy' (and 'Meike', 'Jedi', 'Ghost') are valid cultivars, and please hurry up and publish, Frank, so that your choice of names is protected.
Sorry not to quote more of the code, but I am cautious of infringing their copyright. I am tempted to put the whole thing online, because there is something very unsatisfactory about a code of practice (which is what the codes of nomenclature are, in effect) not being available freely to the people whose actions it regulates, however that's an argument for another day with the ISHS.
Happy to have another go if I have failed to make myself clear, or if anybody wants more, but it will take a few days - just about to leave for Vic's open day and won't be back until monday! (See you there if you are coming!)
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Aug 22, 2009 1:34:31 GMT
Thank you John. I think you'll run into a lot of trouble if you try to make the entire code online without permission or paying royalties. There is always this reference on the ISHS (International Society of Horticulture Science) website: How to name a cultivarThis covers many of the points you make. It is my understanding that only published, registered and accepted cultivar name can be put in single quotes (e.g. Sarracenia 'Judith Hindle'). Unregistered cultivars are in double quotes. Thus Ivan Synder's Drosera rotudifolia "Evergrow" became Drosera rotundifolia 'Charles Darwin' after it was registered (the name was changed as "Evergrow" was perceived by many as somewhat unsatisfactory). Another common misconception is that a cultivar has to be clones of a specific plant. From the above link: DO I HAVE A NEW CULTIVAR? You have a new cultivar and you wish to name it. First check that you do actually have a cultivar. A single plant is not a cultivar: a cultivar is a group of individual plants which collectively is distinct from any other, which is uniform in its overall appearance and which remains stable in its attributes. Do not attempt to name a cultivar until you have a number of individuals that are uniform and stable. Now convince yourself that your cultivar is really worth naming; there is no point in going through the process of naming your cultivar if it is not an improvement on others.
There are different sorts of cultivar ranging from clones, which should be genetically identical, to tightly controlled seed-raised cultivars such as F1 hybrids. Article 2 of the Code describes some of the different kinds of cultivar.
The only way you can check if your cultivar is new and distinct is by comparing it with existing cultivars. Your new cultivar must be distinguishable from others that exist or have existed.
Once you are satisfied that you do indeed have a new cultivar, decide if you want to give it a cultivar name. A name is made up of a botanical name in Latin (or its common-name equivalent) for a genus or species followed by a cultivar epithet which is the last part of the entire name and which renders the name unique. Cultivar epithets are always written within single quotation marks (never double quotation marks) so that they stand out from the rest of the name and so that their status is obvious.
Remember that cultivar names, by their very definition, are available for all to use and that the names themselves offer no protection if you wish to obtain intellectual property rights on your new cultivar. Also an article The Language of Horticulture by Denise Adams Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University further illustrates this point: cultivar. The term cultivar was coined by Liberty Hyde Bailey in the first part of the century from 'cultivated variety.' This term is defined as 'an assemblage of cultivated plants which is clearly distinguishable by any characters (morphological, physiological, cytological, chemical, or other) and which, when reproduced sexually or asexually retains its distinguishing characters.' (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, 1980).
A cultivar may be propagated sexually or asexually. Cultivars may be produced from seed and therefore may exhibit some variation in traits other than that for which the selection was made. For example, Lavandula angustifolia 'Munstead Dwarf' is a lavender selected for its dwarf habit. Even if seed grown, all plants so named should not exceed 18 inches in height, but may show slight variation in flower or foliage color, habit, etc. In order for all Munstead cultivars to be identical, or clones, they would have to be propagated asexually from cuttings. Many people do not realize that 'cultivar' is not synonymous with 'clone.'
For more information on Drosera rotundifolia 'Charles Darwin' see www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v35n3p68_69.html#darwin
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Aug 22, 2009 12:44:01 GMT
Perhaps useful for everyone that wants to name as CP-cultivar: The ICPS is the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for cultivated carnivorous plants, appointed by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) on November 10, 1998. In order to promote uniformity, accuracy and stability in the naming of cultivated carnivorous plants, all names of carnivorous plant cultivars and cultivar-groups must be registered with the ICPS. If you have a carnivorous plant that you want to be a cultivar, you must do two things. 1.You must write a description of this plant and have the description (and color photograph) published in a widely circulated journal such as Carnivorous Plant Newsletter or other comparable publications. 2. Once you have published the description, you must complete the cultivar registration form to register your new name with the ICPS. You may register your new name with the ICPS without having previously published a cultivar description. In this case, your cultivar description will eventually be printed in Carnivorous Plant Newsletter, subject to the space availability in that publication. The most detailed aspect of registering a cultivar name is probably writing the description of the plant. This description must indicate the precise features which make the plant different from other plants, and in particular, different from all other cultivars. A deserving cultivar is a special plant--point out its special features! The denomination classes (groups of plants within which the use of a cultivar or cultivar-group name may not be duplicated) to be covered by the ICPS are: * Sarraceniaceae (to include Sarracenia, Heliamphora and Darlingtonia) * Roridulaceae (Roridula*) * Byblidaceae (Byblis) * Cephalotaceae (Cephalotus) * Droseraceae (to include Aldrovanda, Dionaea and Drosera) * Drosophyllaceae (Drosophyllum) * Nepenthaceae (Nepenthes) * Dioncophyllaceae (to include Triphyophyllum, Habropetalum* and Dioncophyllum*) * Martyniaceae (to include Ibicella*, Martynia*, Craniolaria* and Proboscidea*) * Lentibulariaceae (to include Pinguicula, Genlisea and Utricularia) For the full text and the proper registrations forms: www.carnivorousplants.org/cultivars/cultivarsmain.html
|
|
|
Post by valmigo on Aug 22, 2009 19:34:48 GMT
i got them from not cutts garden centre Where is this garden center located?
|
|
josh
Full Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by josh on Aug 23, 2009 0:28:53 GMT
do u mean me? if you do, its notcutts i spelt it rong earlier in the post, but its in england Notcutts Garden Centre Daniels Road, Norwich, NR4 6QP
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Aug 23, 2009 22:15:50 GMT
Hi Not A Number, thanks for your useful post. The ISHS article is excellent if you don't have a copy of the code, but please be very careful how you read it - it uses language very precisely.
I am a bit more cautious about the article from Denise Adams Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University. It is based on the 1980 edition of the code and sections of it are now out of date. The definition of a cultivar I quoted is from the current (2004) edition of the code.
You also say; "It is my understanding that only published, registered and accepted cultivar name can be put in single quotes (e.g. Sarracenia 'Judith Hindle'). Unregistered cultivars are in double quotes.". I know a lot of people believe this, but if I can quote article 13.1 (again, from the current edition of the code). "Cultivar status is to be indicated by enclosing the cultivar epithet within single quotation marks. Double quotation marks, and the abbreviations cv. and var. are not to be used within a name to distinguish cultivar epithets:such use is to be corrected." (My emphasis in bold type.)
Just to reiterate, a plant is a cultivar if it meets the requirements of the definition. The only way to write the name is to include it in single quotation marks. The concepts of publication and registration are not relevant to a plants status as a cultivar - they are mechanisms to protect the name.
|
|
|
Post by gardenofeden on Aug 24, 2009 7:25:18 GMT
John that was a really clear explanation, thank you. I would suggest that for most people, including myself, the concept of "cultivar" is synonymous with "published cultivar" (quotes used for personal emphasis, not to indicate non-cultivar or other status ). Perhaps because this is the only concept we are familiar with? "Naming" a plant without publishing to me is bad practice verging on irresponsible and can only lead to confusion. The problem I have with "any named plant " being a cultivar is how this interacts with growers' personal nicknames or descriptions, e.g. S.purpurea dark red pitchers Pakim Pond. This is one of mine, the plant is distinct, uniform and stable in cultivation, but there is no intention on my part for this name to be a cultivar name. I may indeed publish this as a cultivar in due course, with an appropriate name. Perhaps this is the key point, that there should be an intention to name a plant, otherwise all the personal growlists would suddenly become lists of new cultivars.... I think the use of double quotes is fine where this is to indicate that a plant name is NOT intended to be a cultivar name, indeed all cultivars, definition aside for the moment, should use single quotes as mentioned already. The use of quotes or any other punctuation in written English is at the personal discretion of the user, indeed some on this forum don't use any at all, while others use nothing but...!!! I would love to hear the ICPS official view on the defintion of cultivar....
|
|
|
Post by marcel on Aug 24, 2009 15:19:53 GMT
I would love to hear the ICPS official view on the definition of cultivar.... You have it in my post of the 22nd, straight from the website Stephen If there is a published text describing the plant AND said description & name are accepted by the ICPS you have a CP-cultivar. Otherwise you only have a trading-name with no legal protection as there is no description to compare any claims to in case of discussion. For instance I can pull a non named Carniflora or Cresco TC-product (the nursery themselves wouldn't even no what is in the cross) out of my garden and call it Cowboy or Tara and neither Frank nor anyone else could claim I am doing something I am not allowed to and make it stick as there is no reference text to check if the plants looks like it or a registration to say that the name is already in use.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Aug 27, 2009 20:27:13 GMT
Marcel is correct that the ICPS is the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for cultivated carnivorous plants. Jan Schlauer is the designated official. You will notice in Jan's CP Database that he uses single quotes for published names, but provides caveats concerning those names for which official cultivar registration not been completed. I believe Jan includes these published names of unregistered cultivars as a name place holder in the event that the registration is eventually completed. In other cases, the published name is unacceptable for a number of reasons. For example, look at his list of Sarracenia www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=sarracenia&submit=Submit+Query&search=allOfficially registeredN: $[Sarracenia ' Abandoned Hope ' {D'Amato}] HC: Registered 4. 7. 2000 {JS} Registration preliminaryN: $[Sarracenia ' Evendine ' {Hort.Slack ex D'Amato}] HC: registration preliminary (standard missing) Name not establishedN: $[Sarracenia ' Adesugata ' {Hort. ex Kurata}] HC: name not established (no description, violating Art.24.1., ICNCP) Name not registeredN: $[Sarracenia ' All Red ' {D'Amato}] HC: name not registered with ICRA, doubtfully acceptable (conflicting with Rec. 19.D.1., ICNCP) Name not acceptableN: $[Sarracenia ' Green ' {T.Camilleri}] HC: name not acceptable (conflicting with Rec.19.D.1., ICNCP)
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Aug 28, 2009 23:38:40 GMT
Hi Bob, thanks for your clear reply, and the quote from Jan Schlaurs database. It is probably worth drawing attention to the exemplary precision with which Jan presents information. First, and most importantly in the current context, ('Tara' etc) it is worth noting that all cultivar names are presented in single quotes. The selection of cultivars you present show an interesting range of nomenclatural issues, I hope I don't cause any offense if I add some comments: Sarracenia 'Evendine' - The registration is preliminary because there is no nomenclatural standard. The issue of nomenclatural standards is covered by Principle 9 of the code, "The selection, preservation and publication of nomenclatural standards is important in stabilising the application of cultivar and Group names. Particular names are attached to nomenclatural standards to make clear the precise application of the name and to help avoid duplication of such names. Although not a requirement for the establishment of a name, the designation of such standards is strongly encouraged." Note that a standard is not required. It's absence does not affect the validity of the cutivar, the validity of the name, and in my opinion, should not affect the registration, though it's absence should be recorded. Jan does an excellent job of recording that situation. Sarracenia 'Adesugata'. Note that it is a valid cultivar, but the name is not established, and thus not protected under the principle of priority. Article 24 (in all of its sections) relates to the validity of the name, not of the taxon. Sarracenia 'All Red' is an unfortunate name, I think we can all agree (A lot of Sarracenia are entirely red) however it is a valid cultivar and a valid name (assuming it has been published - sorry I have not checked). The name conflicts with Recommendation 19D.1 however the Recommendations have no authority under the code, they are no more than footnotes for guidance about preferred practice. Paragraph 5 of the preamble to the code states "The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to bring about greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future naming: names contrary to a Recommendation may not, on that account, be rejected but, wherever possible, Recommendations should be followed."
Sorry to go on and on about this at such great length, but the proper way to record the plants that were the basis of the original enquiry is Sarracenia 'Jedi' and Sarracenia 'Cowboy'. (And I apologise that I have not been able to italicise the genus name using the quick reply function).
Please accept that I do not mean to ruffle any feathers or cause any offence. The code is a simple, elegant and useful document and if we can all adhere properly to it, in the long run we will all reap the benefits.
|
|
|
Post by gardenofeden on Aug 29, 2009 12:38:11 GMT
this was raised recently, but the standard for 'Evendine' was published along with a description on page 176/7 of Carnivorous Plants.
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Aug 30, 2009 22:39:15 GMT
Hi Stephen, I think this is a technical problem. A picture has been published, from an unimpeachable source, but a nomenclatural standard has to be formally designated (ideally, by the raiser within the original description). The issue of nomenclatural standards is a new(ish) one - the description in 'Carnivorous Plants' was published (Ebury Press, 1979) before it was common practice to designate one. As I am sure you are aware, the description of 'Evendine' was an accident - Adrian was quite surprised to discover that in publishing his book he had inadvertantly established valid cultivar names. It would still be possible to designate a standard for 'Evendine', but I don't believe it has been done, so the plant is still without a formally designated standard. (Although it is self evident that the picture in 'Carnivorous Plants' is a perfect candidate). (I'm not sure if that is Jan Schlaur's reasoning, but it is a hurdle that has to be overcome. It is also possible that a standard has been designated formally for 'Evendine' that I am not aware of, and I would be very pleased to hear about it if there is.)
|
|