Re: Alocasia Amazonica and cultvar registration
- Subject: Re: Alocasia Amazonica and cultvar registration
- From: "Derek Burch" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:55:53 -0500
Much as I hate to have yet another entry
into the bulging file on this topic – which, thank goodness, this
masterful entry from Alistair and a private note from Tom Hulse to Steve should
do a lot to extinguish, it does give me the segue into the latest chapter in
the registration saga.
Tom makes the point that this name is
already well established, although we may never stumble on the first catalogue
or other dated paper publication that established the name. This publication in
paper-printed dated form is difficult for many breeders and introducers who do
not do this form of catalogue, but is vital ot do this first step of
establishing the name on the way to registration. We (Albert, really) have
developed a very simple form from which I can download a “catalogue-type”
short, identifying description which will appear annually as a section of
Aroideana. Check our cultivar page on aroid-l or go straight to http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/reg_form_short.php
to see how easy this is. Once that description is published the name
will be established and can then be submitted for registration on the longer
form, which is also under revision in certain areas to make it simpler.
So if all this torrent of stuff on the Alocasia which has
clogged my deleted file has the effect of stimulating interest in our
registration program, it will all have been worthwhile. Praise be. !!
Behalf Of Alistair Hay
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Alocasia
IMO what we really need to do is to let these hybrid
botanical names slide into complete disuse as historical curiosities.
Part of the problem is that there is so much confusing
orthography (they way they are written), and it is not clear if names being
used are (or are intended to be) botanical hybrid names (under the Botanical
Code), cultivar names (under the Cultivated Code - ICNCP) or something else
(outside the codes), and therefore to what plant or plants they should refer.
If botanical hybrid names are used, then there will be endless (pointless)
discussion about which definition of these hybrids should be adopted (particularly
in this A. longiloba complex where they may be legitimate disagreement about
what species can or cannot be recognized and hence how the hybrids are defined)
and which of the several hybrid binomials has priority.
The correct orthography for a cultivar name is Alocasia 'Amazonica' : the genus (i.e. the
denomination class) is italicized, and the cultivar epithet is non-italicized,
in single quotes and starts with a capital letter. This indicates unequivocally
that the entity is a cultivar whose definition and naming is determined under
the Cultivated Code (ICNCP). The definition
of this cultivar is not specified by its parentage. For practical purposes it
is simply plants that match Salvadore Mauro's plant. A variant arising from,
say, somaclonal mutation in the tissue culture of A. 'Amazonica' can be selected, propagated and named
something else if it has proven to be stable, such as A. 'Polly'. The parentage of A. 'Amazonica' is a piece of adjunct
information that may be useful for hybridizers to know, but doesn't have any
direct bearing on the definition
of the cultivar, and so opinions about what the parents were (if there were no
or dubious records) or, in this case, whether Alocasia watsoniana is a "good" species or not,
are irrelevant and need not complicate the question of what is A. 'Amazonica'.
On the other hand the recognition of the hybrid
'species' Alocasia x amazonica (with the correct
orthography of italics for both the genus and the species epithet, and the
epithet starting with a lower case letter, and the genus and species separated
by a multiplication sign, all to signify a hybrid 'species' under the Botanical
Code) opens up a raft of
hideous complications. First, the botanical hybrid IS defined by its parentage,
so what is it? Alocasia watsoniana
x A. sanderiana, or A. longiloba x A. sanderiana, or A.
longiloba "watsoniana" (my informal label for the watsoniana-like variants of A. longiloba) x A. sanderiana? Who decides where watsoniana begins and ends,
and so what hybrids belong in A. x amazonica
and what don't? Second, however the parentage is defined, the hybrid name
would be applicable to ALL hybrids with that parentage: not just f1's, but
f2's, f3,s and backcrosses etc etc etc. Third, there would arise the question
of priority - depending how A. x amazonica
was defined, there would likely be one or more Victorian-era hybrid binomial(s)
already validated for it. Fourth, there is the problem of consistency: if
botanical hybrid names are used for some cultivated Alocasias, how many more
need to be created for those interspecific hybrids for which they do not yet
So let's not talk about Alocasia
x amazonica :)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:00:31 -0600
Subject: [Aroid-l] Alocasia Amazonica
due to my mail a few are tired of this subject so I'm about to wrap it
up. I do believe some that are interested in tissue culture and how it
affects the plants we grow might find these notes from Denis Rotolante
Another very interesting event this week was the USDA elected to change the
information on its website to no longer indicate Alocasia x amazonica should be
credited to André:
If someone that reads Aroid l had anything to do with that I would like to give
you my thanks.
I am in hopes we can at the very least soon have a page on the IAS website
which explains how all the commonly held misconceptions regarding Alocasia
Amazonica evolved and give credit to Salvadore Mauro for his creation.
Denis Rotolante wrote:
on good sources that the parents of Alocasia x Amazonica were A.
watsoniana and A. sanderiana. However, since lowii Grandis, lowii Veitchii,
Watsoniana and longiloba have all been reclassified by taxonomists as one
swarm all belonging to the species Alocasia
parentage should be Alocasia longiloba and
sanderiana. It does not
make a difference unless you are trying to remake the hybrid.
growing Alocasia x Amazonica back in the 1980's from tissue cultured liners.
One of the plants exhibited new characteristics; heavier leaf substance,
shorter petioles, better shipping qualities and slower growth than the standard
plants. It was a sport from the standard Amazonica type created by genetic
changes in Tissue Culture, I called Polly. Scott Hyndman insisted I give a piece to him to put in
culture. The rest is history. It became the standard of excellence in alocasias
for many years. It's still hard to beat although the value has been degraded by
the fact that it was over produced by chinese labs that flooded the market with
sure by todays rules of nomenclature that it can be called Alocasia Amazonica
as something happened in the lab spontaneously to change the genetic make up of
the original plant. I would leave that to someone else to figure out. I just
call it Polly.
a separate email:
.most people do not understand that TC forces
changes in the genetic makeup of plants just as sexual reproduction. when TC
does it we see a lot more of the bad ones because they survive long enough to
mature. When nature does it... the deleterious changes in the genes do not
survive, only the favorable ones make it to reproduce into the next generation..
If you could see the number of bad genetic results from TC that have resulted
in disaster...entire crops of defective plants in the foliage industry have
been produced. Sometimes however a positive change occurs giving us a Poly.
Aroid-L mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |