hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Look-a-like hostas

To answer your question, I think we have to ask another.  Are we talking about
theory or reality?  In theory, your point is valid.  But in my experience, when
you find your sport of Piedmont Gold, in 99.9% of the cases it is going to be
Satisfaction.  If what you postulate actually comes to pass, by all means
introduce your plant.  But in most cases, I think these "improvements" are more
likely the result of someone looking for a reason to put a plant on the market,
and we usually find that the non-burning forms of Frances Williams, and the
faster growing forms of Frances Williams, and all the other type of improved
Frances Williams types were just Frances Williams.


Gerry/Bob O'Neill wrote:

> This is a really good discussion, guys. Thanks!
> But it seems like we are focusing almost entirely on the *looks* of the
> plant in deciding whether plants are the same and therefore not eligible
> for registration under a new name.
> Suppose I have a Piedmont Gold that throws a sport that looks exactly like
> Satisfaction. I separate it and grow it on for a while next to a plant of
> Satisfaction that I bought from Chick. After several years, it looks still
> looks exactly like Satisfaction, but has incredible slug resistance that
> Satisfaction lacks. (This is an example; I am not accusing Satisfaction of
> being slug candy...but suppose it was?)
> If I register this sport under the name of Gerry's Salvation, am I going to
> be accused forever of registering the same plant under a different name?
> Is there any consideration of noteworthy hosta traits other than looks?
> Or, suppose Mary comes up with a sport of Cherry Berry that is a Marachino
> Cherry look-a-like, but thrives in our hot, humid Southern climate. If she
> chooses to register it as Lakeside Cherry Volunteer (inside joke) is she to
> be condemned for introducing Maraschino Cherry to the trade under a new name?
> Is there a place on the registration form where characteristics like slug
> resistance, heat tolerance, other non-visual traits, to be listed?
> And to get really picky, if a sport is by definition a somatic mutation,
> how can anyone say that sports from two different plants of August Moon are
> the same, especially if those August Moons were propagated by division
> rather than tc??
> Gerry
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index