|
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.
|
|
|
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 BarryRice on Aug 23, 2007 18:35:03 GMT
Hey Alex,
This is new terrain for a CP cultivar. To date, nearly all the CP cultivars have been made based upon coloration and physical form.
A few cultivars (such as Drosera regia 'Big Easy') have been made on vigor or ease of growth. These have not always been made with universal acceptance since some folks feel that the cultivars are not always significantly different in growth characters. Hard to say.
Anyway, Jan Schlauer will be able to help you. I really don't know how one writes the description for a plant with flower scent as the key character. Does one take a page from wine tasting, and try to describe the scent ("oaky, with a butter after-scent that lingers...") or is it acceptable to just say "scented flowers". How does one distinguish between plants with different flower scents? Is a photograph of the plant needed, since the form and color is not a distinguishing characteristic of the plant?
I don't know!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on May 2, 2007 15:25:38 GMT
This is simply astounding to me.
I made the decision long ago that I don't want to try to make any kind of significant money off selling plants. Not that I'm badmouthing anyone trying to make either spare cash or a primary income from selling plants--not at all--but I decided I didn't want to go down that path. (Although I sometimes ask for postage/handling etc money.)
So when I see hobbyist horticulture and financial interests collide like this, I just shake my head in horror. Man.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on May 1, 2007 22:37:50 GMT
Hey Folks,
Countries might have their own weird specific laws, but the cultivar code itself does not have any provisions for being proprietary.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Aug 14, 2007 17:18:52 GMT
Hi Steven,
I think you propose a wise set of standards. Venus flytraps are funny little beasts, and the same clone will look great some years with huge traps, and pathetic other years.
A few years ago we had a plant here at UCD that looked like it would be fabulous cultivar material---it had several large, crimson colored traps that were HUGE! Unfortunately, it was the same clone as our typical strain we grow here. For some reason, that plant just looked great that year. It's never done that since, incidentally. Alas.
I'm sure there are plenty of growers working on trying to develop large-trapped plants, and maybe they're getting somewhere. I don't know. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the future we have indisputably large-trapped plants, just as we have in Cephalotus. But I'm not too convinced we're there yet.
I wonder what people do with cultivars in genera where flower scent is valued. How do they describe those cultivars?
Barry
P.S. I should mention that "Boca Grande" is something I just made up, out of perverse silliness. Incidentally, direct translations of cultivar names are not distinct cultivar names. Hence Akai Ryu=Red Dragon.
B
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Aug 10, 2007 17:11:34 GMT
Hey Steven,
I'll admit readily that I'm not sure of the status of Boca Grande.
CPN prints a useful little update list in the March issue of each year, of all the cultivars that were registered in the previous year. Scanning through the March lists for the previous couple of years, I just verified that "Big Mouth" was not registered, at least as of January 1, 2007.
Jan is currently on travel, I think until the 27th of August, and I don't know what new cultivars he may have for a listing.
HOWEVER, you can certainly aid the process. If you (or anyone!) spots a cultivar description, or what appears like one, please notify Jan. If there is a photograph and description of "Big Mouth" in a publication, and Jan doesn't know about it already, then I'm sure he wouldn't mind being told. It would make his job so much easier if people would tell him, so he doesn't have to find them himself.
So I don't know if "Big Mouth" should be enclosed in single or double quotes. I'll keep using double quotes until I learn that it really is a cultivar name.
Do you grow the plant? Does it seem worthy of name status?
Barry
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Aug 9, 2007 17:59:10 GMT
Hey Bob,
I don't have the codes in front of me, but I believe there are a whole bunch of technical terms that Jan would correct us on. I think that the following things are needed for the cultivar.
1)Description published in a suitable venue.
2)Photograph (i.e., the standard) published in a suitable venue.
3)Registration (i.e., the ICPS ICRA is informed about steps 1 and 2 above).
So I THINK that in the examples you gave, the plant called "Clumping Cultivar" had a description in The Savage Garden, but no photograph, so the standard was lacking. (Also, I believe that the word "cultivar" is not allowed in the cultivar name, but that's something else.
Meanwhile, I think that in the case of "Big Mouth", it is clear that Jan is familiar with the plant, but I guess he concluded that the cultivar description---presumably printed in Tony Camilleri's book---was too brief to indicate why the plant is special.
In the "Adorable Fuso", I'm guessing that no description at all was provided, and Jan just noticed the name in some article.
Barry
|
|
|
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 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 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 BarryRice on Apr 12, 2007 17:30:57 GMT
This is why I don't like the cultivar system we have. I'm a proponent of an orchid-like system where if something is a cultivar then it has the same DNA as the original plant and can only be propagated vegetatively through TC/cuttings. Right now we have a system that is sort of like "If it looks like a duck then it is a duck, even when it's not". Grossly oversimplified, I know, but a good example of how I see it. For the most part I agree with you, except what would you do with cultivars of annual or short-lived species? If you developed a Byblis liniflora that bred true and had black flowers the size of cantaloupes, surely this should merit a cultivar name. In my opinion, the biggest drawback with the cultivar system is the requirement that the cultivar name be published in the print literature. It seems to me that if the materials (cultivar description, suitable photo) could be published on the WEB via the cultivar registration authority, we'd have a much more responsive system. After all, who cares if the thing is published in CPN, for example? That's a readership of between 1000-2000. Consider the accessibility of a web-based publication! It would dwarf the CPN readership....
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 12, 2007 17:23:58 GMT
Just a question, normally writing the names of these plants, one would use lower case? I like to start with Caps cause it makes it easier to read, but I think scientifically it's supposed to be in lower case? When citing a genuine cultivar, you must specify two things. The first is called the "Denomination class" which in carnivorous plants is the genus. This should be in italics. Then, you must specify the cultivar epithet, which is in non-italics, leading capitals, and enclosed in single quotes: Sarracenia 'Adrian Slack' It is entirely optional for you to include the species name (or cross) if known, so all of the following are considered equivalent: Sarracenia 'Adrian Slack' Sarracenia flava x leucophylla 'Adrian Slack' Sarracenia x moorei 'Adrian Slack' Barry
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 11, 2007 15:38:57 GMT
I agree with all the postings, that this stuff is really a mess and hard to sort out.
On one hand, there is the cultivar code which is written a little too broadly for most CPers' tastes. Take Dionaea 'Dentate Traps', for example. There are apparently a number of clones of this in horticulture, so when I wrote the cultivar description of 'Dentate Traps' I wrote it broadly enough to include them all.
On the other hand, people also like to track vegetative clones---Blue Bloods as you call them. So what to do about those who would like to track 'Dentate Traps #1', 'Dentate Traps #2', 'Dentate Traps (German clone)" etc? Someone could register all these as separate cultivars, of course, but is that what we really want to do? This is an interesting source of tension.
(Notes: Why did I write the cultivar description for 'Dentate Traps' in the first place? Because the name was illegitimately floating around without a description, so I wrote one that I thought was the most appropriate description, that reflected the usage. I would have preferred naming the plant 'Dentate', but that is not permitted by the cultivar code because, for example, it is not clear if the dentate refers to the traps, petals, etc. Meanwhile, 'Dente' is a pseudo-Latin name, and is also forbidden by the cultivar code.)
Cheers
Barry
P.S. Regarding the punctuation of the final quote, I think that is a grammatical choice. The standard within the USA is different from the standard in the UK; I have forgotten now which side uses which!
P.P.S. Don't trust even vegetative clones completely. Apparently the mad rates of cellular division in TC can mess things up over time. The TC culture of Dionaea 'Red Dragon' has veered at least twice, causing the atypical 'Green Dragon' and another cultivar-in-the-making which is in press, and therefore still-unmentionable by me.
|
|
|
Post by BarryRice on Apr 11, 2007 19:24:10 GMT
I recall an email from Bob many years ago, in which he was talking to me about the idea of setting up a page which tracked all these photographs of CP.
I remember thinking at the time, "Oh god, this is a huge job. He'll never do it." Once again, I was proven wrong.
At least, this is how I remember things....
|
|