RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
- Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
- From: "Julius Boos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:33:21 +0000
From : Alistair Hay <email@example.com>
Reply-To : Discussion of aroids <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent : Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:14 AM
To : email@example.com
Subject : RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
Dear aroid Friends,
First off, thanks to my friends George Schmid, Wilbert Hetterschied and
Alistair Hay for their most informative comments on registering cultivars.
I wrote to the L on behalf of Brian Williams, so hopefully he is better
informed on what registering a cultivar involves. I guesss the NEXT big
hurdle is---where does he register an aroid cultivar, with whom, and HOW
does he go about doing so!! :--)
Pared down to the basics, the only salient part of a cultivar that comes
under the ICBN is the genus. The cultivar name at the minimum consists of
the genus name and the cv epithet.
It does not matter all that much whether the plant is a selected man-made
hybrid or a selection from a wild species or a selection from a natural
hybrid population. The thing that is to be named is a clone, selected for
some merit, within a genus.
Thus: the gargantuan white-spathed Amorphophallus 'Wilbert's Surprise' can
be defined, named, established and registered provided it is distinct from
other cultivars of Amorphophallus, uniform and stable regardless of what
species or hybrid it is. Of course it would be nice to have the information
that it is an f2 hybrid of A. titanum and A. prainii, but that it not a
necessary piece of information to name the cv. [I have made this example up,
just in case anyone was wondering!].
The sort of problem that George raises would, I think, arise in specific
circumstances where there was an intention to transfer a latin botanical
epithet into a cultivar name. This can only be done where the entire taxon
is a clone. A possible example is Aliocasia zebrina var tigrina: If it can
be demonstrated that var. tigrina is a clone then that botanical varietal
epithet can become the cultivar epithet as in Alocasia 'Tigrina'. If it is
not clear whether var. tigrina is a clone then there are simpler solutions
than DNA and field analysis. Either don't transfer the latin epithet at all,
or translate it into a contemporary language e.g. Alocasia 'Tigrine' applied
to the cultivated clone known now as "tigrina". That way the exact status of
the botanical variety does not need to be found out at all, while a familiar
name (slightly adjusted) can be retained as a cultivar epithet.
What I am getting at is that the issues which George raises, while valid,
should not necessarily create the impression of vast hurdles to getting
things going with Aroid cv classifictaion.
From: "W. George Schmid" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: Discussion of aroids <email@example.com>
To: "'Discussion of aroids'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:11:33 -0400
>Some time ago we had an exchange on registering aroid cultivars in
>accordance with the ICNCP (INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR
>PLANTS 2004 edition). I made some suggestions and Derek worked on this
>Perhaps we can refresh our previous conversations and efforts. The
>see in Araceae is to determine which aroids are valid taxa to be
>under the ICBN and which are in fact cultivated varieties (man-made
>to be registered under the ICNCP. One of the problems we had under
>were the numerous interspecific, natural hybrids existing in the wild.
>solved that problem by field investigations and accepted such hybrids
>taxa if perpetuating populations were found to exist in the wild. In
>cases, the holotypes were based on cultivated plants purportedly
>in the wild, but lacking field verification were reduced to cultivars
>the ICNCP and so registered. From some of the earlier messages I deduce
>interspecific hybridization may also be a problem with aroids. To
>synonymy, RAPD/DNA was employed to make the differentiations. That is
>expensive process, though. It seems to me that a number of aroids in
>cultivation are not taxa (valid species) but culta (cultivars). George
>W. George Schmid
>Hosta Hill R. G.
>USDA Zone 7a - 1188 feet (361m) AMSL
>84-12'-30" W 33-51' N
>All mail virus-scanned by McAfee
>On Behalf Of Julius Boos
>Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 17:28
>Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
> >From : Brian Williams <email@example.com>
>Reply-To : Discussion of aroids <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent : Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:20 AM
>To : Discussion of aroids <email@example.com>
>Subject : [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
>This all goes back to an issue that to date has not been 'solved' by
>aroid group, and which is a VERY difficult issue, namely the cultivar
>and the correct registering of these names according to whatever
>horticultural rules/laws that may apply.
>The IAS has nominated several people over the past several years ( I
>recall at least three) to do something about setting up some sort of
>registry to legitimize some or all of these names which are being
>about, but to date I think the progress on instituting this system is
>place or even being worked on.
>I have mentioned on several occasions that when man collectes a certain
>plant from nature, he usually selects one which to him is the most
>attractive out of several hundred, maybe thousands of other 'less
>attractive' specimens he may see in the field. All of these plants,
>the 'attractive' ones AND the less attractive ones are still all
>of ONE species.
>All I can suggest at this time is that you make a label that explains
>the particular clone or var. of that plant is, for example Philodendron
>stenolobum var. narrow/wavy/long leaf, and/or P. stenolobum var. short
>broad leaf, or 'Anthurium warocqueanum var. Murline Lydon minature',
>'Anthu. warocqueanum var. large leaf '. Collection data and
>name would be another good bit of information to keep with all wild
>Perhaps Derek Burch can give some sort of suggestion or soloution that
>serve you guys better??
> >>I have recently been trying to up grade my data base of names as
> >>as redo all my tags and make sure everything has as much data and
> >>information as possible. I have a few questions on forms. I know
> >>plants have several forms of the same species. I would like to know
> >>their are names for these forms or even if the science community
>makes note of it?
> >>If not would putting a added portion to the name to help ID
> >>forms be possible? If so who should come up with these name? Here
> >>a few for instance off hand that I really think should have some
> >>information. Their seems to be two very different forms of Veitchii
> >>one with wider leaves and much larger ripples. Then another form
> >>thinner leaves and a much more rippled effect. I know that naming
> >>slight different forms would not be worth while but for some very
> >>noticeable differences it could help people know exactly what they
> >>getting and their seems to be a major price difference in one form
> >>compared to the other. Another one that comes to mind is the two
> >>of Anthurium warocqueanum one that can get 3 to 4 feet long and the
> >>smaller slender form with hardly any back lobes. They are very
> >>noticeably different yet go by the exact same name. If one was to
> >>order the plant under these name they could end up with either form
> >>though one form of each is usually much more sought after.<<
>Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |