|
Post by ICPS-bob on Apr 12, 2007 19:10:56 GMT
Although I am certainly a fan of the web, there are a couple of drawbacks.
1) Print media is considered "permanent", whereas web sites are often ephemeral. Something published and printed in 1972 has a reasonable chance of being found and reproduced. Will something "published" on the Web be available in 35 years?
2) Technical print publications have a tendency to have received peer review or at least editorial processing. There is usually no such review for web material and any fool could "publish" stuff on a web site. Now, a safeguard could be that to receive registered cultivar status, the registration authority (ICPS) would review the completeness of the web description -- or the description could be required to be "published" on an approved web site.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 13, 2007 17:19:53 GMT
My model for this is that the ICPS, as registrar, would still be the official venue for publication of such descriptions, and would provide editorial oversight. Also, the ICPS would maintain the db as one of its functions, so it would be and institutionalized db and not quite so likely to disappear.
I have another can of beans to open about the cultivar system, but I'll save that discussion for a bit....
B
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Aug 3, 2007 17:39:40 GMT
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I posted my thoughts on CPUK a few weeks ago, but it was glossed over: I still think the cultivar system need overhauling The problem - hundreds of plants out there that have been given unofficial names, leading to mass confusion, plants unworthy of nomenclature and multiple named clones of the same plant. Fairly few cultivars are actually registered each year. The solution - cultivar status should be easier to apply for and be more of a judging process. Got a plant you think is worthy of being a cultivar? Send off a photo and description to the ICPS and a panel of judges should decide whether it's worthy or not. If it's worthy, great. If it isn't the decision should be posted on their website so we know what isn't a cultivar and what is. And it means cultivars will be what they should be - the best of the best. If it's not on the website, you know it's a fraud and a fake. No more Sarracenia 'Yellow Sunset' plants or whatever going on ebay for £300. Look at the plant in my avatar - "Juthatip Soper". Everybody knows it as a cultivar, but I don't see it on www.carnivorousplants.org/cultivars/names.htmlAs for the paper subject, I don't think you can ignore the internet because of it's temporary characteristics. Yes, a badly maintained site with no backups can lose information, but the internet is here to stay and should be embraced as much as possible. I think Aidan, Barry and Bob makes a superbs point about internet use, but I tend to agree with Barry that there is a solution. Fancy opening that can of worms now Barry? ;D
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Aug 3, 2007 21:44:43 GMT
Hey Alexis,
1)That "Juthatip Soper" hasn't been registered as a cultivar is entirely the fault of the person who originated the plant and started distributing it. Surely he or she should be able to establish it as a cultivar name; that person has had plenty of time.
2)I agree that there should be some judging agency that could provide ratings for the cultivars. Such a judging agency must be nonpolitical/nonpartisan in nature (i.e. no nationalism, etc.). HOWEVER, the cultivar code is extremely explicit in saying that the registration agency (in this case, the ICPS) cannot discriminate against cultivars on merit, etc. So to avoid anything like this, I'd much prefer to see some other group of people judging the cultivars.
I am frequently asked, "Take a look at my plant---is it worth cultivar status?" I tell people that only they can be the judge of this! Take Dionaea 'Wacky Traps'---some people hate it, others love it!
3)The other can of worms I alluded to? Probably for the best, I seem to have forgotten what it was. Truth.
Barry
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Aug 4, 2007 10:06:24 GMT
Hi Barry
It's a strange one with "Juthatip Soper" then. Matthew can find the time to put it into tissue culture, but not to register it!
It's a shame the cultivar system can't judge on merit, and while it would be interesting to have a nonpartisan group involved, I suppose it should be the ICPS at the end of the day.
I'm intrigued about your can of worms now, but I guess we'll never know!
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Aug 4, 2007 17:43:48 GMT
'Juthatip Soper' is a cultivar or is in that limbo between being published and picked up by the appropriate ICRA - in this case the ICPS. The description was published by Stewart in his book "Pitcher Plants of the Americas".
Stewart's description is recent and the overwhelming probability is that the plant was published long ago, even if only as an entry in a catalogue with the briefest of descriptions. It may not be the ideal route to cultivar registration (and the ICRA may not be aware of it), but I believe this is all that is actually required.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Aug 4, 2007 20:03:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Aug 4, 2007 20:35:08 GMT
Bob - What I said above was based on a recent discussion with someone more knowledgable on the subject than I am. The relevant part of that discussion is reproduced below and it may be seen in full here: www.cpukforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21960
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Aug 5, 2007 1:10:53 GMT
My point was that for a name to be registered by International Carnivorous Plant Society, the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for cultivated carnivorous plants, an application must be completed and submitted to ICPS, as Barry implied. I do not believe ICPS is running around checking the literature for published descriptions and cultivar names, except to determine, once a registration application is submitted, whether the name is valid and has not been previously published. It is my understanding that that a cultivar is not registered until a complete application is submitted and approved. However, previously published names and descriptions are important for setting precedence. Barry and Jan are the experts and my interpretation may be completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Aug 5, 2007 1:34:22 GMT
Unfortunately the ICNCP is not available online without paying for access. Otherwise I would read Chapter V in the hope of clarifying matters for myself.
If what I have been led to believe is correct, then the actual requirements under the code and the requirements specified by the ICPS as the ICRA for carnivorous plants are two different (though not incompatible) things.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 16:19:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Aug 8, 2007 18:01:42 GMT
This comes up as regular as clockwork and in a way I wish that photo would be taken down. The plant proved not to be stable and as such no longer exists.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Aug 8, 2007 20:17:12 GMT
Hey Bob, Aidan,
The real answer regarding registration is somewhere in the middle.
If someone develops a cultivar name, and then actually sends the ICPS a registration form, then absolutely the cultivar name gets registered.
However, if someone develops a cultivar name and doesn't inform the ICPS, then it is not guaranteed to be registered. HOWEVER, Jan is amazingly diligent in reviewing the literature and registering those cultivars that are established even if the ICPS isn't informed. This practice has actually surprised some folks---for example, I think that Peter D'Amato didn't realize that he was establishing a bunch of cultivar names when he wrote his book.
There is both a good and bad side to this, of course. The good thing is that the cultivars are actually registered this way. The bad thing is that if someone writes a book and says, "cultivar blah blah is characterised by big flowers" then that can be interpreted as a cultivar description. Hence we get lousy descriptions!
Barry
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Aug 8, 2007 22:55:48 GMT
Thanks for the clarification Barry. There seems to be a difference between the establishment of cultivar names and actually registering that cultivar with ICRA. So, if the name 'Big Mouth' is not registered, although previously published, I wonder if someone else could use that name and actually register another plant? Jan's database, for example, has entries such as these:
N: $[Dionaea ' Clumping Cultivar ' {D'Amato}] HC: registration preliminary (standard missing)
N: $[Dionaea ' Big Mouth ' {T.Camilleri}] HC: name not registered with IRA, description insufficient
N: $[Dionaea ' Kinchyaku ' {K.Kondo}] HC: name not registered with ICRA
N: $[Nepenthes ' Adorable Fuso ' {Hort.Nakagawa ex Y.Fukatsu}] HC: name not established (no description, violating Art.24.1., ICNCP)
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Aug 9, 2007 2:04:38 GMT
HOWEVER, Jan is amazingly diligent in reviewing the literature and registering those cultivars that are established even if the ICPS isn't informed. Jan has got to be severely underpaid.....
|
|