|
Post by wallsg7 on Oct 24, 2007 8:55:48 GMT
I have a query concerning what actualy defines a plant as suitable for cultivar status.Time and time again i have read from different reputable authors that a plant should be truly superior in order for it to be considered.However browsing through bobz photo finder theres a section close to the top entitled 'A note about sarracenia names',which says 'there seems to be a belief that cultivar names are only for the most excellent.' With these widely differing views i was hoping the powers that be could clarify it for me.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Oct 24, 2007 10:21:49 GMT
Any plant may be published as a cultivar. It has only to have distinctive characteristics and therefore be distinguishable from others.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Oct 24, 2007 16:42:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Oct 24, 2007 17:51:36 GMT
I have a query concerning what actualy defines a plant as suitable for cultivar status.Time and time again i have read from different reputable authors that a plant should be truly superior in order for it to be considered.However browsing through bobz photo finder theres a section close to the top entitled 'A note about sarracenia names',which says 'there seems to be a belief that cultivar names are only for the most excellent.' With these widely differing views i was hoping the powers that be could clarify it for me. Bob has pointed you to the relative links for the official cultivar rules. As far as hearing some growers talk about "superior plants" and "high standards" for CP cultivars, this was harked on by Adrian Slack back in the 70's in his first CP book. Slack was really wanting everyone to set the bar rather high for Sarracenia cultivars, even though at the time there was no official registar for carnivorous plants. Adrian made a butt-load (for lack of a good descriptive scientific numerical name) of Sarracenia crosses, but there were only a handful he thought were worthy of cultivar status. So many growers like to follow Adrian's philiosophy.
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Oct 24, 2007 20:23:43 GMT
Im not one for rules and regs myself.I just wanted to ascertain if the plant needs to be special or not.Perhaps special and superior are the wrong words to use.It appears it just needs to be distinguishable from others.This i find interesting as ive got hundreds of sarras in my small greenhouse that are distinguishable from each other. Anyway thanks for the info-i think i have a better picture now of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Oct 24, 2007 21:11:38 GMT
There are hundreds of thousands of cultivars and most of them are long forgotten and extinct. Whilst it may be possible to publish more or less any plant, I'd question the point of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Oct 24, 2007 21:35:13 GMT
I bet that if every person who was compelled to establish a plant as a cultivar were to visit populations of the plants in the field, most would shelve their publication plans. We grow lots of plants here at UCDavis, and visitors frequently tell me, "Oh, you should register that as a cultivar." I just tell them, with a smile, "Oh, you should see plants in the field."
Field time gives you perspective. What looks special to a grower who has only ever seen plants in cultivation, looks pretty unremarkable against the natural variation in the wild.
My soap box.
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Oct 25, 2007 9:45:57 GMT
That sounds then barry that your saying a plant 'should' be special if it is to be elevated to cultivar status.Therefore the earlier mentioned view that cultivars are wrongly believed to be only for the excellent, is in fact incorrect, as no-body is encouraged to publish a plant that isnt excellent. For what its worth my own opinion on the subject is that a plant should indeed be truly superior before it is even considered for cultivar status.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Oct 26, 2007 0:18:14 GMT
Hey Wallsg7,
Well.....I almost agree. But my views would be more accurately described as being that a cultivar name should be established only for plants that are deemed special.
Now, what is meant by special? It could be that the plant has attributes that make it superior, in the conventional sense of larger leaves, more color, etc.
On the other hand, special might be used to denote a plant that is, in some way, inferior. For example, Dionaea 'Wacky Traps' has incompletely developed leaves, Dionaea 'Cupped Trap' and Dionaea 'Fused Tooth' both have leaf mutations that pretty much render the mutant leaves incapable of carnivory. Also, Sarracenia leucophylla 'Tarnok' has flowers that are interesting but incapable of producing seed. These attributes are considered inferior by some, but superior by others.
Finally, there are a few plants which are really mostly cultivars of historical interest. Growers have had them for years, and they date from an era in which carnivorous plants were harder to get, and the tiniest of differences were cherished. A few of Slack's cultivars might fall into this category, for example.
Ultimately, I believe that a cultivar is in the eyes of the beholder. If an experienced grower with a good perspective seasoned by years of horticulture thinks a plant is a good plant that other people would really like to grow and share, or if it is a plant that will be good as a source of revenue, then it should be considered for cultivar status.
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Jan 14, 2008 23:11:07 GMT
Sorry if I'm a bit late to weigh in here - as the author of the 'note on Sarracenia names' perhaps I could comment.
Article 2.2 of the current edition of 'The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants' states : 'A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that has been selected for a particular attribute or combination of attributes and that is clearly distinct, uniform and stable in these characteristics and that when propagated by appropriate means retains those characteristics.' There is no requirement for excellence, pleasantness or any other value judgement - however we all hope that nobody will bother to coin new names for a load of old rubbish. My own view is that it is better to produce a new name and have it judged worthless by the CP community than leave it nameless but distribute it anyway. My view has always been that the moment a plant is distributed, it needs to have a name to fix its identity. The market place is quite ruthless in the speed with which inferior plants fall by the wayside once they can be reliably identified!
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Jan 16, 2008 19:30:06 GMT
Hey John,
In general, I agree with you. There is only one thing I wish to add, though. In order to be established, a cultivar description and photograph must be published in a journal. This takes effort by the editors (i.e., yours truly for CPN), and also consumes resources in both journal space and the cost to print them.
I estimate that publishing a single cultivar in CPN costs the ICPS about US$500 because of color page processing and printing costs. Since we publish CPN with about two cultivar photos per page, in reality the cost probably translates to closer to $250-300 per cultivar. But this is significant, when you compare this to the ICPS's total conservation grant program of $8500 for 2007.
So, I'd rather folks show SOME restraint in deciding which plants to be published in CPN as new cultivars!!!!
Barry
|
|
john
Full Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by john on Jan 17, 2008 0:03:03 GMT
Hi Barry - I agree wiith you, there is a limit to the number of cultivars CPN should (or could) publish. However, all that is required is a short desription in a journal or other printed matter available to the public. It remains the case that most cultivars are established by publication in nursery catalogues. There are of course a lot of optional extras (colour pictures, standard specimens etc) that are highly desireable but not required. This is something of a compromise between the archival requirement and the reality of plant introductions, which are generally made by enthusiastic amateurs. My own view has always been that it is better to make the process as easy as possible so that people apply names formally, but effectively, rather than discourage people from naming, at which point people invent new identification systems for themselves, which cause endless chaos. Many genera are in nomenclatural confusion at present, the situation among Sarracenia is approaching meltdown - people have become astonishingly cynical about the whole system because the system has been made to look difficult and remote. Misaprehensions abound. The number of named cultivars among CP generally will continue to expand, probably exponentially, for the forseeable future. The simplest level of cultivar registration will cope with this, but as you say yourself, the high quality publications cannot bear a great deal more strain. The choice is, accept the lower level of cultivar publication, or try to restrict cultivar naming to manageable levels. King Canute tried to hold back the sea. I see cultivar naming as the first step - in my own filing system I employ the same technique - step 1:open a file (establish the name, minimum content). From that point you can add information to the file as it becomes available. Eventually it becomes more complete. If you try to go straight to complete authoratative file, most files never get started, most information gets lost. And I have droned on for long enough on this subject. I promise not to say anything about the most effective role for an International Registration Authority unless I am explicitly asked!! (but I am astonished at how good a job you have all done so far.)
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Jan 21, 2008 14:59:17 GMT
There are some very valid points being aired concerning this topic-many of which i hadnt considered.At the end of the day though, having heard everyones point of view, i find myself back with my original conclusion.Having never met adrian slack personaly i totaly agree with his approach to new cultivars.That is that they should only be reserved for plants of outstanding quality.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Jan 21, 2008 18:55:01 GMT
Why is this? I can only assume because the system was established before the advent of the web. Changing this silly rule would benefit everybody.
In fact, giving people the option of downloading a PDF of their journal in full colour, and letting the rest pay a nominal fee would be a wise idea. With the then lower demand for the printed copy, you could then easily print the journal in full colour through the digital process instead of single colour with CMYK litho pages.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Jan 21, 2008 21:38:13 GMT
Why is this? I can only assume because the system was established before the advent of the web. Changing this silly rule would benefit everybody. As the appointed ICRA for carnivorous plants, the ICPS follow the rules rather than make them and hard copy publication is a requirement in order to establish a cultivar. Paper is stable and remains legible for hundreds if not thousands of years. The very nature of the net is that the contents are ephemeral. Here today and gone tomorrow.
|
|