|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Nov 22, 2014 16:41:47 GMT
Despite having identical, or nearly identical genotype, many plants are quite variable in phenotype, depending on environmental variation. For instance, Pinguicula 'Aphrodite'.    I do, however, think that perhaps the originators of this particular cultivar, may have mistaken "grex" for "cultivar". Grex is where a particular hybrid combination is given a grex name, to distinguish it from any other hybrid combination. Though if the same two; species x species, grex x grex, or species x grex, is a repeat of an already registered grex, then it shares that same grex name. This is most common with plants in the orchid genera, but there is no grex naming in Pinguicula, yet. In reading the published description of the Pinguicula 'Aphrodite' description, it seems like the author is attempting to register a grex, rather than a cultivar. However, unless all Mexican/equitorial Pinguicula plants are grown in identical or near identical conditions, it is sometimes difficult to tell one from another. However, most often the flowers more closely resemble each other, if they're of the same clone, despite varying cultural conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 25, 2014 0:50:58 GMT
Joseph, you can setup your cultivar like a grex if you want to. This is one reason some people don't want to make the system "official". I think both systems can be employed at this same time without much issue. And the ICPS should try to teach people how to use the system as there is way too much confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Nov 25, 2014 1:42:35 GMT
Yes, cultivars can be registered as a cultivar group. Barry Rice has registered at least one such group. However, Pinguicula 'Aphrodite', though described as if it were being registered as a grex, and not even a cultivar group, was not registered as one. The definition of this cultivar, groups the entire hybrid swarm resulting from the crossing of these parent species as if they were all the same identical cultivar, even though they are not identical. In some ways this seems a subtle way to undermine the efficacy ot cultivar registration. One important factor to consider, cultivar registration's purpose is to make it easier to identify one plant from another. If a group of siblings are registered, as near identical as they may be, if they aren't truly identical, they shouldn't be offered as a unique cultivar. However, they might qualify as a cultivar group. Yet, this is not how they were registered. Link to cultivar description. And, even though the plants I've grown, identified as Pinguicula 'Aphrodite', came from the originators of this cultivar may be genetically identical to the plants described as that cultivar, my growing conditions, sadly slipped them out of their cultivar description, rather quickly. - - - - - - - I don't really understand the confusion. There is only one official and international system to register cultivar names. It has only recently been available for registering cultivar names for our precious CP plants (more than a decade, now). It's the same one that's been used for most cultivated plants worldwide for quite a long time. There aren't any other cultivar registration systems. Of course, this is only my opinion. And it is my choice if I want to grow and distribute plants identified to me as this cultivar. The bottom line being that we each have our power of choice. Almost anyone can register a cultivar name for a plant they think deserves one. The rest of us can then decide, by our actions, if we appreciate that cultivar, by adding it to our gardens, or not I've grown many different plants that I knew nothing of their history or even identification. If I appreciated them, I grew them, if I didn't I still grew them. I like growing, and I like growing, even more, plants I can identify most completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Evans on Nov 25, 2014 4:20:37 GMT
Yes, cultivars can be registered as a cultivar group. Barry Rice has registered at least one such group. However, Pinguicula 'Aphrodite', though described as if it were being registered as a grex, and not even a cultivar group, was not registered as one. The definition of this cultivar, groups the entire hybrid swarm resulting from the crossing of these parent species as if they were all the same identical cultivar, even though they are not identical. In some ways this seems a subtle way to undermine the efficacy ot cultivar registration. One important factor to consider, cultivar registration's purpose is to make it easier to identify one plant from another. If a group of siblings are registered, as near identical as they may be, if they aren't truly identical, they shouldn't be offered as a unique cultivar. However, they might qualify as a cultivar group. Yet, this is not how they were registered. - - - - - - - I don't really understand the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Clemens on Nov 25, 2014 20:07:19 GMT
I was an avid orchid grower, before I was 10 y.o., long before I discovered CP. And in the orchid world, they do use a grex naming system and the cultivar registration system, together. They started using a grex naming system, for orchids (basically from day one), and before there was a cultivar registration system, then adopted it almost as soon as it came into existence (in the early 1950's), just before I was born. It was about the same time that methods to grow large quantities of orchid hybrids, from seed, was developed, and later rapid clonal propagation methods (meristem cloning via tissue culture). This inspired the adoption of cultivar registration. Since now there were large populations of orchid plants with varying qualities. A way to recognize those differences began with cultivar registration, then proceeded to judging those differences. There are also several different organizations that judge orchid cultivars, giving orchid cultivars various awards, or no award at all, depending on how they fared in those judging systems, two of them being the RHS (Royal Horticultural Society) and AOS (American Orchid Society), to name just a few.
I'm only making a critique of a particular cultivar Pinguicula 'Aphrodite'. Thogh I enjoyed the clone I was growing, soon after it adapted to my growing conditions, it no longer fit its cultivar description. So how could I continue to consider it a valid cultivar. If its published description could be eliminated by a simple environmental variation. My light levels caused the leaves to color up and there was no longer any green midrib for the entire length of the leaves, as the published description describing the cultivar says. "Under intense summer sunlight, the leaf-edges of leaves can be reddish, whereas the leaf midribs remain green along their enitre length. " The leaves on mine were also much shorter than for the cultivar description. The third photo I show in an earlier post on this thread, is when I was experimenting a bit and gave the plant a somewhat lower light level than I usually do. The leaves grew a little longer, the red faded to brown, and the bases of the now etiolated leaves became somewhat green. Again, I admit, I like this plant, but at least, I find the cultivar description lacking. The plant could have been grown in more diverse environments, in order to work the bugs out of its description. It also should have, to my mind, been registered as a cultivar group, since that's what it actually is. Or, if it must need be considered a single cultivar, its description could have then been a bit more vague, to include these variations between siblings, or environmental variations, as I see with mine. So that the description wouldn't eliminate its cultivar status, simply due to differences in culture.
And, just because a propagation method is published in a cultivar description, does not limit anyone to propagating the cultivar in that same way(s). A cultivar is just a name attached to a published description and photographic standard. Cultivars aren't tied to a genetic fingerprint, unless, perhaps, one is published as part of the cultivar description.
|
|
