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


  • From: "Bill Meyer" <njhosta@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:25:29 -0400

Hi Bobby,
      Nice website. I see that you're more experienced with daylilies than
hostas. A big difference between the AHemS and the AHosS is that the
Hemerocallis society has its own registration rules in addition to the ICNCP
code. All in all their system is much more developed than the Hosta society
system at this time. The code as you've seen is very open to interpretation
in many areas and decisions could go either way in a situation like Chick's.
The AHemS has the advantage of some society rules to help clear up how
things should be interpreted for daylily registrations, while the AHosS
leaves it totally up to the Registrar.
      With hosta names, the decision to accept a name lies wholly in the
Registrar's hands. I believe the Registrar does seek input from the
Registrars of other genera when difficult issues arise, but the decision is
wholly his to make, as long as it does fit within the often vague boundaries
of the code.
       I prefer the idea of a society having rules on registration rather
than leaving all decisions to an individual registrar. I've recommended to
the AHosS Board that we look into putting such rules together. We recently
had a big flare-up about registration issues which revolved around people
not registering their plants "soon enough". With no clear rules from the
society on when (or even if) we should register a plant, there is too much
room for disagreement. I believe that in the near future we will see a set
of rules and guidelines from the AHosS that will resolve some questions like
Chick's naming quandary.
                                  ........Bill Meyer

> Chick, I believe that the name Hosta 'Bridgewood 007' should be rejected
> based on Article 19.27, Ex. 48 of the February 2004 ICNCP.  Your proposed
> name could easily  be considered as a "collector's reference number" or
> hybridizers's seedling number.  Your proposed name also exceeds the 10
> character limit of 19.27 in how it relates to "coded epithets."  I think
> ICNCP is clear in this regard as outlined on page 27 of the 2004 ICNCP.
> There are many nuances in The Code but I feel that once you start working
> with the ICNCP on a daily basis, then it becomes more clear and you can
> the logic behind it.  When considering a new epithet, then you must only
> consider how the ICNCP affects each individual proposed name.
> You should not say that if "Name 1" is allowed, then "Name 2" must be
> allowed.  This is the comparision you mentioned in your letter between H.
> 'Apollo 13' and H. 'Bridgeport 007'.  Article 19.16 addresses the proposed
> name of H. 'Apollo 13' and Article 19.27 addresses the proposed name of H.
> 'Bridgeport 007'.  Each name must be considered on its individual merits
> relationship with the ICNCP.
> Chick, I believe the ICNCP is very clear in this matter and I recommend
> you obtain a copy of it.
> Bobby Baxter
> Happy Moose Gardens
> http://happymoosegardens.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Chick" <chick@bridgewoodgardens.com>
> To: <hosta-open@hort.net>
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 6:44 PM
> > Thanks Kevin,
> >
> > I have to admit that rules irritate me, but in this case I asked for it
> > so I have only myself to blame.
> >
> > The reason I'm asking is that I am not a big fan of naming, nor or
> > registering, streaked plants unless they are truly unusual and
> > outstanding for some reason.  Obviously there are many who disagree
> > because I see all kinds of plants being named that don't look any
> > different than the hundreds of streaked plants I produce every year -
> > thousands if you count the ones I throw out. I can't see any reason to
> > introduce a streaked plant unless it's an outstanding breeder, and that
> > doesn't mean just any streaked plant that will produce additional
> > ordinary streaked plants.
> >
> > Anyway, I digress (does it seem that there's always a rant attached to
> > my questions?).  I do have some streaked plants that I consider
> > outstanding breeders and I have considered offering them for sale in the
> > future.  Generally I number the seedlings I use for breeding and don't
> > give them a name unless they stabilize into something I find
> > interesting.  I think I was once told that I could not name a plant
> > 'Bridgewood 0017 ' legally because it didn't conform to the rules.  It
> > would seem to me that if 'Apolo 13' is legal, then 'Bridgewood 0017'
> > would be too.  Yes?
> >
> > Chick
> >
> >
> > Giboshiman@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:36:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > >chick@bridgewoodgardens.com writes:
> > >
> > >Actually, I'm not bored.  Does it say anywhere in there whether  digits
> > >are allowed in hosta names?  That's really all I was wondering  about.
> > >
> > >Chick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Chick I know it scares you when I send anything that relates to rules
> in
> > >this case I think you will like the answer I am giving you to your
> question!
> > >
> > >The relevant sections ("articles") of the 2004 version of the code
> follow:
> > >
> > >
> > >19.15 For a cultivar name to be established on or after 1 January 1996,
> its
> > >epithet must
> > >consist of no more than 30 characters (Roman letters, numbers,  and
> permitted
> > >punctuation marks or symbols) overall, excluding spaces and  the
> demarcating
> > >marks.
> > >Ex. 24.  After 1 January 1996 a name with the  cultivar epithet "Madame
> la
> > >Comtesse Oswald de Kerchove de Denterghem" could not  be established.
> > >
> > >19.16. A cultivar name may not be established if on or after 1 January
> 2004
> > >its epithet
> > >consists solely of a single letter or solely of Arabic or  Roman
> numerals.
> > >Ex. 25.  Names containing the epithets "K", "400", and  "MMIV" cannot
> > >established, but the epithets "Hundred", "10 Downing Street",  "451
> > >Boulevard", "77 Sunset Strip", "Apollo 13", "Catch 22", "Henry VIII",
> "Pope Leo X",
> > >"4th July", and "Happy 21st Birthday" could be established.
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
> > >message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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

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