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: Cultivar registration

To answer Jason's message about cultivars with missing lineage information:
The ICNCP does not require parentage information for this very reason. There
are many plants long in cultivation that have arisen spontaneously or they
exist with no records about their history. Aroids are no exception. There
will be attempts to collect any known information about parentage at the time
of registration, but the whole point of registration is to link the name to a
specific clone, make sure the name complies with naming standards, and to
ensure that there are no legal confusions with registered trademarks or
patented names. A Register of cultivar names will be produced and printed.
This will make it much easier to register future cultivars, since we want to
be sure we are not using the same name for two different cultivars.

Donna Atwood

<< << I can see that there is a big misunderstanding about what a cultivar
 registrar is supposed to do. First of all, parentage is not required
 information, although there will be space for this information (if known) on
 the registration form. We may have some dynomite clone that needs to be
 registered and not know a thing about its lineage.

 This discussion arose out of confusion over taxonomy, did it not?  But
 certain plants with a long history of cultivation have exited the realm of
 traditional taxonomy.  Take tulips for example.  There are classes of
 cultivars, e.g., Darwin tulips, Mendel tulips, lily-flowered tulips, but
 these have no specific epithets; there is _Tulipa_ 'Glory of Appledoorn',
 in which the cultivar name immediately follows the genus, because these
 plants have been hybridized over and over until their parentage is no
 longer known.  Then there is the class called "Species Tulips," consisting
 of those relatively few wild-type _Tulipa_ species, and varieties derived
 from known species.  Roses, Narcissi, and Irises have the same situation.

 Where am I going with this?  I am simply saying that perhaps it is time to
 adopt a similar policy toward aroids.  Those whose parentage is not known
 should be classed in cultivar categories, and questions of species not

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index