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: 2004 Hosta registrations

  • Subject: Re: 2004 Hosta registrations
  • From: "Bobby Baxter - Wake Forest, NC" irismoose@daylily.net
  • Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 10:48:40 -0400

Tim, the new 2004 checklist indicates that there is a total of 3,227 registered hostas. You mention the number of "over 6,000". Are these ~3,000 other hostas that you refer to only in commerce under "garden names"?

It is hard for me to imagine that nearly an equal number registered and unregistered (though supposedly named) hostas are in commerce. If this is the case then why would hybridizers be so irresponsible to reject the registration process that would only benefit them and their business. From what I have also read, the registration fee is only $5, but the AHosS would pay this fee if no money were sent with the registration.

I would love to hear from different people why they feel hybridizers have chosen in the past not to comply with the registration process, and also why some continue to reject the registration process.

Tim, you also mentioned over 6,000 names to juggle. Is this a reference to it becoming difficult to come up with new names, or do you have over 6,000 named (registered and unregistered) hostas in your garden? The daylily society has 57,655 named cultivars that are either registered.or the name is reserved. I can not even imagine that coming up with new names for daylilies is difficult since the ICNCP allows for up to 30 characters (spaces excluded) and no limit to the number of syllables used in a name.

It is a shame that people are registering new hostas using names of other people's unregistered plants. This appears to be taking advantage of someone else's effort to popularize their own hosta by using their name. Just because something can be done within the guidelines, it does not make it right to do so ( I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV so I choose not to debate the ethics vs legality of this issue). I would say however, that the originator of hosta that does not register their plant has chosen to operate outside of the accepted practices of the hobby and trade. But the person that selects one of these popular and unregistered names to use on their hosta can also been seen in several ways as acting inappropriately.

If the hybridizer of popular unregistered hostas is not deceased, then I would favor the AHosS to take it upon themselves to officially register these plants. However, if the hybridizer of these popular unregistered plants is still alive, then they should submit the appropriate paperwork to bring their plants into compliance with the accepted practices of naming hostas under the guidelines of ICNCP. The AHosS would be doing a great service if they notified these people that they have one year to bring their plants into compliance. Perhaps the AHosS could even consider these unregistered plants to be under "reserved" status for a period of year, thus protecting those names from being used by others. If at the end of that year, the plants are not in compliance, then shame on the hybridizer for choosing not to register. If this were the case, then I would not feel bad about other people using these names for new registrations.

Glorious Gardening,


Bobby Baxter
Happy Moose Gardens

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Saville" <timsaville@breathe.com>
To: <hosta-open@hort.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: 2004 Hosta registrations

On a tangent it is interesting (and confusing ) to find that 2004 has been
similar to 2003 in as much as there are two or three registrations where a
name known to me has been used to register another's hosta. In 2003 Ron
Livingston was particularly unlucky I thought to get two of his unusual
monikers "confiscated". I guess registration as soon as possible must be the
answer for all us data-rites, unless you use a prefix of course. Life is
tough enuff when you have over 6000 names to juggle.
----- Original Message ----- From: <ctuttle39@juno.com>
To: <hosta-open@hort.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: 2004 Hosta registrations

Has anyone received a copy of the listing of the 2004 Hosta registrations
-- or has it been published yet?

Charles Tuttle

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

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