|
Post by BarryRice on Mar 8, 2008 1:57:27 GMT
That plant is an un-named specimen sent to me by Dean Cook a few years ago. None were "named" plants. Funny that this unnamed beast outshines so many of the pedigreed plants, ain't it? That's one of the things that started me thinking about these names. B
|
|
|
Post by kulamauiman on Jun 14, 2008 9:30:02 GMT
Aloha all, Was just thinking about this and remembering college over what seems to be 20 years ago. I recalled that depending on what tissue source (leaves, apical meristem, etc) was use for the tissue culture of a given plant (anthurium for example) had a great impact on the the abundance of soma clonal variants. In the case of anthuriums I remember that cultures derived from leaves seemed to produce more of these variants vs cultures derived from the apical meristem. Perhaps a similar phenomenon is occurring here? CP X goes into culture, forms clones of CP X and also produces variants Y and Z. Y and Z are similar but not quite identical but the differences are not really seen very well as they get grown up and sent out before the plants mature. Then out in the market we got things sold as CP X that are really Y or Z and when the grow up the look all together different.
MTF
|
|
|
Post by chloroplast on Dec 5, 2008 15:43:05 GMT
My two cents on the issue(s):
A big problem with cultivars prized/described based on their coloration is that, as we all know, a plant's color is influenced not only by sunlight but soil factors, etc. So even if the stringent rule of "the plant should have the characteristic color for ___ years or ____ generations before being registered as a cultivar" was adopted by horticulturalists, the cultivar, when given to another grower, may (and often does) quickly assume another color.
The more "exactly" a cultivar's color is described, the more "exactly" it's cultivation parameters must be met for it (or its divisions/clones) to retain the color. And that level of exactness may be near impossible for the new grower to meet.
Hence, I'm often wary of purchasing a cultivar named for its color qualities, unless I know that the color will remain true under a wide-variety of circumstances. Of course, I'll take any plant that's GIVEN to me, if I have the space for it! ;-) It's an illness, I know.....
Ken
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Mar 5, 2009 23:29:49 GMT
Ken, I'm afraid that we are dealing with living creatures and that genotype and environment will always interact to create phenotype. That the published cultivar description and standard should derive from plants grown in the best conditions possible for that cultivar's author, whatever they may be, these environmental conditions can be described, if desired, as part of the cultivar description. This way others will have some idea of how to duplicate the genotype described as each particular cultivar - since that is basically a large part of what a cultivar is.
Still remember these are living creatures we are dealing with, they may never perform exactly as desired or expected. Just like us. Any description, even photographs, will certainly have a variety of limitations.
|
|
taz6122
Full Member
Yesterday is History.Tomorrow is a Mystery and Today is a Gift.Thats why we call it the Present.
Posts: 289
|
Post by taz6122 on Mar 15, 2009 9:33:35 GMT
I've just realised that in part I have quoted myself almost word for word from an earlier thread. Embarassing... Anyhow, for illustrative purposes here is the photo Barry was referring to - Same clone, same conditions, wildly different habit. Where is this image and why are they deleted??
|
|
|
Post by ICPS-bob on Mar 15, 2009 23:05:58 GMT
It is likely that sometime since November 9, 2007, Aidan either deleted the image or renamed his directory.
|
|