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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?

  • Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?
  • From: "W. George Schmid" <hostahill@bellsouth.net>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:20:50 -0400
  • Thread-index: AcdnSCRwb/6J48BMTbm12F+OpuuM+wAAPTxA

Entirely correct, Alistair,
There should be no problems registering most aroid cultivars as you have pointed out. The genus name + cultivar name is usually sufficient to validly register a cultivar under the ICNCP. In other genera it has been found that certain valid species show considerable variation and some selected clones may be quite different from others. Clones might be an oxymoron, because most gardeners assume that a clones look exactly the same. While that is correct when one clones a selected "clone" from a variable wild population, it may be required that some cultivated clones will have to carry the full binomial + a cultivar name, to distinguish selected plants of a variable population of the same species. Another problem may arise when former species are found to be cultivars and have been validly reduced to cultivar rank. In Hosta, for example H. fortunei var. hyacinthina was found to be a European cultivated hybrid with no wild representation, so was reduced by me to cultivar rank and the name as a cultivar is H. 'Fortunei Hyacinthina' (per ICNCP articles). Another example are two non-perpetuating variegated chimaeral mutations of the same species found in the wild, which formerly were considered taxa under the ICBN. Thus H. ventricosa var. aureomarginata is now named  H. ventricosa 'Aureomarginata' and H. ventricosa var. aureomaculata is now H. ventricosa 'Aureomaculata'. I am mentioning these, because occasionally the full binomial needs to be applied and the ICNCP contains numerous articles, which govern such use. Obviously none of this may apply to aroids, but we are very careful to make certain that in hybrids we perpetuate the parentage by asking for that information on the registration form.
I believe that IAS already has work underway to facilitate registration of aroid cultivars and Derek is heading this effort. There is a link on the IAS website. I am involved more in taxonomy, but have been occupied with registrations for several genera and one thing we have found that it is difficult to come up with a registration form, which considers all of the different and salient morphological features to provide the foundation for a cultivar database. This will be particularly true in Araceae, with many different taxa being the source of cultivars. Without a comprehensive registration form it is difficult to get originators to register cultivars. That, I consider a hurdle (speaking from experience).
Best, 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

From: aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Alistair Hay
Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 20:14
To: aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
Subject: RE: [Aroid-l] Names for different forms?

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.


Aroid-l mailing list

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement