|
Post by wallsg7 on Nov 23, 2007 18:56:42 GMT
Hi mike : ),your still tryin to get me to sign up for everything cp i see...lol.For you information i am now a fully fledged member of icps so hopefully this mistake wont happen again-so long as i do actualy read it that is : ) lol! All the best
gary
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Nov 26, 2007 7:37:15 GMT
Ah well, just like any other group of plants, no matter how many "cultivars" are registered, those that become popular and then common in collections will have swum against the rapids and gained grower's interest to make themselves a place in history. To my mind, that is an even better quality test than an official judging system like the one used for orchids.
With orchids there are many thousands of registered cultivars. Most are registered as they pass through an official judging system. But even this judging system cannot guarantee; vigor, ease of cultivation, desirability to any particular grower or admirer of beauty (or lack thereof), nor even the eventual popularity of any particular cultivar.
No matter; with a system of judging, or without one, the current system of registering cultivars is, from my perspective, about as good as it can get. I have never expected the cultivar system to guarantee that any particular plant will meet my own expectations of desirability --- I have learned that only by growing them myself, can I determine such a thing. And considering the amazing variety of people in the world, I could hardly expect that any individual plant, group of plants, or any particular cultivar would have any chance of providing universal appeal. But, at least, with cultivar registration, we have a starting point and some means beyond common names or even binomials, to communicate, imperfect though it may be.
Cultivar registration is just a way we humans attempt to more accurately describe/name our beloved plants, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Nov 28, 2007 17:15:31 GMT
Joseph,you sound like a very wise man.I couldnt agree more with your last post.Even with all the best intentions-no plant will please everyone and time will be the ultimate judge.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Nov 29, 2007 17:29:45 GMT
The present system of cultivar registration is just a list of names tied to written descriptions and usually a photographic standard, published so they are universally accessible.
Most of the arguments I've heard concerning culivar registration, as the system stands now, have complained that it does not provide for quality standards. From my perspective, as an avid hobbyist collector, I wouldn't want anyone's criteria of "quality" to inhibit the variety of plants that could be registered as cultivars. Those same arguments often seem to imply an assumed requirement to include all registered cultivars in their collections. There is no such requirement -- not even a requirement to use the cultivar registration system, though it is there for the benefit of all, to improve communications.
|
|
|
Post by Aidan on Nov 29, 2007 18:06:54 GMT
The present system of cultivar registration is just a list of names tied to written descriptions and usually a photographic standard, published so they are universally accessible. There are serious shortcomings: Many of those descriptions are either incomplete or so nebulous as to be of no use whatsoever. There is no requirement for a voucher photograph. A description good or bad simply has to be published for a plant to be considered a cultivar. Publication does not have to occur in any recognised journal. Nor does the appropriate ICRA even have to be informed of publication! Cultivars published in ICPS CPN are at least overseen by the ICPS as the ICRA for carnivorous plants and descriptions and photographs are generally but not always of a good standard. There are numerous examples of "iffy" descriptions slipping through the net. Most of the arguments I've heard concerning culivar registration, as the system stands now, have complained that it does not provide for quality standards. From my perspective, as an avid hobbyist collector, I wouldn't want anyone's criteria of "quality" to inhibit the variety of plants that could be registered as cultivars. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but I would hope that anyone registering a particular plant would be doing so on the basis that it was in some way a superior or unique specimen. While there is no value judgement within the cultivar system itself, registrants should exercise judgement when considering publication. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of forgotten and extinct cultivars already and little point in adding further to that list. Those same arguments often seem to imply an assumed requirement to include all registered cultivars in their collections. There is no such requirement -- Thankfully, I have never heard a grower express such a sentiment... until now. not even a requirement to use the cultivar registration system, though it is there for the benefit of all, to improve communications. Only if and when the system is properly utilised.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 30, 2007 22:08:36 GMT
And that is why there is no requirement to even use cultivar names. Some people get the strangest ideas into their heads... Examples of: 1) some folks will not grow a plant if it is not a cultivar, hence the retail market for houseplants consists of nothing but named cultivars. As if having a name makes the plant more beautiful... 2) Managers at stores understand cultivar names since they are written in the local dialect, whereas Latin names are basically gibberish to them so there is general basis against using Latin names in the general public. Which re-enforces the idea of using cultivar names...
3) clones are subject to entropy and have only a limited life span. Some plants can be cloned for what may seem like forever, but if you want your cultivar to last for a very long time, make sure it can be remade from seed. One reason CP cultivars are deficit is because nearly every cultivar I have seen described mentions the cultivar must be cloned in order to reproduce the same coloration pattern or ease of growth. For the most part, these statements are false and misleading. I call this the clone-o-var syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Dec 1, 2007 1:28:12 GMT
But the cultivar system is redundant if it just happens to exist as a process that you can go through if you feel the inclination and can bothered to get up off your backside.
Why bother with the official system if you can just name any old plant anything you desire? Eventually it becomes widespread and nobody cares if it's an official cultivar or not.
There are so many more unofficial than official cultivars in the case of dionaea that the cultivar system is already a dead duck. In my opinion it's mainly because the system hasn't changed and moved with the the times. Things are no different since there were a handful of growers in the Adrian Slack era.
That sounds to me like you'd like to get rid of the cultivar system altogether. Is this correct?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 1, 2007 4:54:48 GMT
Not really but, like Aidan keeps hinting at, cultivars we have would be in better shape if folks took a long view of the plants, instead on focusing on small differences. Like have been mentioned several times, some VFT cultivars only show their special characters in very limited conditions. They should be tested by other growers first, and there should be a system that can put a hold on the name while it is being tested, say for two years or there abouts by several established cultivators. The end result will the author could still publish the name, but I think they would be much less likely to if no one else felt their plant was special. At the same time, they would not need to keep the potenial name secret, in fear of being 'scooped' by someone else, as the name would be on hold.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Dec 1, 2007 12:45:54 GMT
That's a nice idea Dave, but I think that takes more effort than the current system and nobody would bother waiting 2 years to get on there officially.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Dec 1, 2007 21:04:28 GMT
Dear Alexis,
Well, it wouldn't take much more effort than writting this thread has... After all, we are talking about plants people are already distributing and giving them un-official names to. All that is needed is for a section be added to this web-site that can hold threads for each of these possible cultivars to be, or not. People can start new threads titled with their possible names and other growers could request divisions for evaluation. They can grow them out and come back to the thread and post their opinions about the qualities of the plants. Everything would be done in a transparent manner. All that would be required of the ICPS is to review a list of the names on hold before publishing a different cultivar with the same name until the reviewing period is done with. Not much effort at all.
There would be no requirement to go through this process. However, it would interesting and I also think it would be a lot of fun. And this would apply only to VFT cultivars, since this is the one plant we seem to be having the most trouble with regarding cultivar names.
Probably threads about the already established cultivars should be put in place first (with photos included please), so there is starting point for new cultivators who might not be familiar with them. They might think they have a new plant, only to find it already does have a name.
Instead of having a place to ***** about lame cultivars, we could be using this place for developing better ones and educating people by engaging them into the project.
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Dec 2, 2007 17:05:43 GMT
How about an official board ?(around six or seven people) that would include specialists such as barry,bob,mike,aidan ect that could collectively view and judge a particular plant to see if it is worthy of cultivar status?.At the moment if i understand it correctly only one person has to think a plant is worthy to give it a name.There is an old jewish saying that if six men tell you your ill-lie down.In other words if several people are in agreement they give good judgement.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Dec 3, 2007 17:42:45 GMT
Thanks for suggesting that I be on such a list. However, I still believe that it is the individual grower that decides whether a plant has merit. For example, 'Wacky Traps' has a bimodal appeal. Some people hate it, some love it.
At least once/month, someone sends me photographs of a carnivorous plant and asks me if it is "worth cultivar status". My gut feeling, that I try to convey as sensitively as possible, is that anyone thinking about establishing a cultivar name should be sufficiently experienced with the group of plants they are growing, that they shouldn't feel they need to even ask that question.
Barry
|
|
|
Post by wallsg7 on Dec 4, 2007 18:06:32 GMT
Barry-imagine if an inexperienced grower had a greenhouse full of the most beautiful and rare cultivars.Every day he walks into hes greenhouse and one(unamed)plant outshines them all.It outshines their colour,beauty and perfection.Wouldnt that make you ask for a more professional opinion?
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Dec 4, 2007 20:30:37 GMT
If a person had managed to grow carnivorous plants with enough skill and over enough years to have accumulated a large greenhouse collection full of "beautiful and rare cultivars," I would not call that person an "inexperienced grower."
Barry
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 7, 2008 22:34:04 GMT
WoW Barry, Great Plants! If you do not mind me asking, what 'Cultivar' is the one with deep red traps in the top right corner?
|
|