|
Post by Aidan on Nov 12, 2007 23:11:40 GMT
Barry, you should have removed the labels from the pots first... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Not a Number on Nov 12, 2007 23:28:35 GMT
But then he wouldn't be able to put back into the correct pots ;D
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Nov 15, 2007 20:49:48 GMT
The inadequacies of the cultivar registration system now that we're in the internet age are partly a cause of the current situation. With so many people involved now, and so many sales and swaps going on (which is great), it's not surprising people started to unofficially name plants.
There are plenty of distinctive Dionaea clones, it's just that there are so few cultivars and so many named plants, that the cultivar system is now completely redundant. Nobody cares that "DM08 Green Giant" isn't an official cultivar (but it's a cracking plant) because as far as Dionaea is concerned, the cultivar system is in tatters.
Perhaps the ICPS should post something on their website, listing every unofficial name in circulation and actively inviting people to register cultivars. Otherwise, what's the point of bothering at all? We get back to the 'worthiness' argument admittedly, but a yay or nay system could quickly enlarge the list of official cultivars - and there are distinctive Dionaea out there that should be cultivars - AND finally make clear that all the others are not officially recognised.
There's no proactive action and this same subject will come up endlessly over the coming decades.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Barnes on Nov 15, 2007 21:08:41 GMT
Hi Alexis. What "list of credentials" do you think should be the guideline for an actual true cultivar to comply with, to avoid such redundancies? {in any species for that matter...} I truly believe that many would then be self- weeded out.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Nov 16, 2007 20:15:58 GMT
Hey Alexis,
Heh heh heh. I agree that there are lots of names out there, but in terms of trying to force growers to register them? It's like shouting at a brick wall. I've been trying the "proactive" approach for years. Things I've tried include....
1)Trying to convince, bully, finagle growers to register their good plants.
2)Trying to assign other authors to research existing clones and register the names.
3)Doing #2, myself---hence 'Dentate Traps', 'Justina Davis', etc.
4)Proactively contacting growers and asking them about plants in their collections that should be given wider distribution, and names too: 'B52.'
The bottom line----after years of trying to get collectors to register their plants, I've pretty much thrown in the towel. It's the old cliche---don't try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time, and irritates the pig.
B
P.S. I'm a horticulturist too, so don't get bent out of shape by the analogy using the noble porcine beast in its imagery.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 17, 2007 3:51:01 GMT
I think one of the main problems is people want these plants to have names. I have seen this with Orchid people... Many seem to be interested only in named plants. And by named, I mean with cultivar names. Latin names are gibberish to them, so I have to say that CP'ers are much more sophisticated in this regard. I am not happy with how cultivars have been applied to CP's in general, but the only people to "blame" are folks that insistent on naming everything, or using a description as a name when it isn't. Just becasue I put a note a plant label, doesn't mean it is a name for the plant and some not so sophisticated folks cannot tell the difference. Barry, you should have removed the labels from the pots first... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Nov 17, 2007 13:47:50 GMT
Hi Barry
Glad you liked my rant!
It sounds like you've had a hard job convincing people. I think the web needs to utilised more - kind of an 'amnesty' on the ICPS front page, inviting people to register the cultivars but listing all the named plants under a 'not official cultivars' page and making it clear that if they want to be removed from the unrecognised list, they MUST register.
Ah, well that might depend on how the the registrar describes their plant. It would have to be on a plant by plant basis.
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Nov 17, 2007 17:44:44 GMT
I have hesitated to register cultivar names for at least two reasons:
1) I did not "discover" the particular plant. Someone simply sent it to me. So it really was not my plant and I figure it is not my place to register it and take the glory.
2) It is permissible to publish the description in various places, such as books and society newsletters/journals. The distribution of many of these publications is limited to members only and it is difficult to get access to these publications to determine if the plant has already been described. Also, there is a substantial lag time between submission of an article/book and its appearance in print. This either creates a waste of time preparing a publication on an already described cultivar or a potential argument about precedence.
Perhaps my reasons are simply an excuse for laziness.
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Nov 18, 2007 18:15:33 GMT
I think dionaea is a slightly different cp when it comes to cultivars.With other cps it is quite easy to see the difference between one cultivar and another.With dionaea the differences are sometimes miniscule.Take the new bohemian garnet,(sorry barry),for example.Very difficult to distinguish in my opinion from red sawtooth.I also agree with aidans earlier post that if i took the labels out i too would have trouble telling most of them apart.I think we should just apply common sense to the issue and only give a plant a cultivar name if it is truly worthy. Ill get off my soap box : /
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Nov 18, 2007 19:05:16 GMT
... Take the new bohemian garnet,(sorry barry),for example.Very difficult to distinguish in my opinion from red sawtooth. ... There is a very good reason that you are having difficulty distinguishing between "Red Sawtooth" and 'Bohemian Garnet' -- they are the same plant! Here is an extract from the cultivar description www.carnivorousplants.org/cpn/Species/v36n3p68_70.html
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Nov 20, 2007 14:52:38 GMT
Hey bob,i think im having a homer simpson moment......doh!
In my defence i didnt actualy obtain my red sawtooth from barry-i purchased it from cz plants last year who were selling it as a red sawtooth.So i labelled it as a red sawtooth. To make matters even more complicated the plant i have doesnt divide as rapidly as bohemian garnet is supposed to.Ive had two or three divisions in the past year.Also it has kept pace in terms of size with the regular sawtooth i bought at the same time! In retrospect though,(although i like to voice my opinion), i dont want to rock the boat and will change the label to bohemian garnet forthwith : )
Gary
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Nov 20, 2007 19:47:30 GMT
Uh, what do I have to do with 'Red Sawtooth'? I've never grown the plant, nor have I ever seen seen the dang thing except for photos!
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Nov 20, 2007 21:18:49 GMT
Sorry baz,for some reason i thought it was you who named bohemian garnet.Seems ive got my wires crossed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Catalani on Nov 20, 2007 21:28:20 GMT
To make matters even more complicated the plant i have doesnt divide as rapidly as bohemian garnet is supposed to.Ive had two or three divisions in the past year. Gary I'd be interested in knowing if others are seeing this proliferation of cv"bohemian garnet", and if it is being maintained over time. This would be a very neat trait, as long as it is stable over time, and isn't simply a temporary condition caused by tc growth harmones.
|
|
|
Post by mikecpking on Nov 20, 2007 23:06:30 GMT
Hi Gary, High time you signed up to the ICPS? The history of the red sawtooth and the now established name was recently well documented!
|
|