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 11:50:23 -0400

Hi Bobby,
     Was just reading over the daylily registration rules at the AHemS site
here http://www.daylilies.org/AHSregister.html . So you're married to the
registrar, eh? Must make things interesting when it comes to naming
questions. Yes, things are much more developed than the AHosS registration
process. We're still pretty much just leaving everything up to the Registrar
at this point. There have been quite a few interesting challenges to the
system so far, and I think we'll see a more developed system in the future.
To appeal now you mostly go "Hey, Jim, what's wrong with my name? I think
you should allow it."
      I feel rules and guidelines are important because they put everyone,
even the Registrar, on the same footing. If you leave one person with too
much power over a process people inevitably complain they are abusing that
power even if they really aren't. With the ICNCP code being as vague as it
is, this becomes even more of a problem.
     The code is an attempt to put together a set of rules that will fairly
cover many different genera with very different plants among them. I feel
that most of our problems that come from not developing our own set of rules
come from applying a code that frequently is better adapted to flowers than
foliage. As the flowers are a secondary consideration with most hostas (few
are named for their flowers), we need guidelines which reflect the foliage
      One persistant argument about streaked hostas is that the code refers
to "stable" characteristics that can be propagated on, but does not define
what that means. Some interpret that to mean all propagated material must
carry that characteristic, while others say that if it can be propagated on
it is stable, regardless of some odd divisions that do not carry the trait.
These are the kind of things we need the AHosS to clarify in its own rules.
In the next few years we will probably begin looking into putting together a
set of rules for hosta registrations. It should make for some interesting di
       There were strong arguments that for a time held sway that streaked
hostas should not even be allowed to be registered. I believe that there was
a period when they were all rejected. Personally, I feel this was a mistake
because the whole purpose of registrations is to create a (somewhat)
accurate record of the plants of the time. What point is served by ignoring
some of the most interesting and influential plants? Everyone today knows
hostas like 'Dorothy Benedict', so how weird would it be for people looking
back from the future to find no registrations for such important hostas?
      While I disagree personally with Chick's opinion of streaked plants,
many others agree with him. Neither opinion is wrong in the eyes of either
the ICRA or the AHosS as neither has any clear rules on the subject. The
problem with not having rules is clearly illustrated by looking at what
would happen if the next Registrar decides he is of Chick's opinion and
again starts refusing any registrations for streaked plants.
                                       .......Bill Meyer

> Hey Bill,
> The daylily registration process continues to evolve just like all the
> IRA's.  The one consistency is the ICNCP "rule book."  The daylily
> reviews each submitted name.  After this review each name is submitted to
> the full "Registrations Committee" along with the Registrar's
> for each name.  Sometime the recommendation is to reject because the name
> already used or is in direct conflict with an existing rule (the reason is
> always stated). This is all done via email and the process is efficient
> timely.  After final committee review the registrant is notified of the
> decision.  All decisions are subject to an appeal process.  The first
> of appeal is back to the Registration Committee, the second level is to
> AHS Board of Director's, if still unsatisfied, the final appeal is to the
> International Union of Biological Sciences Commission for the Nomenclature
> of Cultivated Plants.
> I was the first to test of the rules of the previous version of the ICNCP
> rules several years in a daylily registration. I submitted the name "A
> Fishing On A Pond On Monday".  The registrar recommended to the committee
> that the name be denied but the committee overruled her because the ICNCP
> the time stated that names could have up to 30 characters, excluding
> and up to ten syllables.  I was not upset with the Registrar and we remain
> happily married.
> I am not aware of the appeal process within the Hosta society but feel
> any decision could ultimately be appealed to the IUBS.
> We just started growing hostas this year, and next year will be my first
> year of making crosses.  Hopefully a few years later I will register my
> first  hosta.
> Thank you for enjoying our web site.  That is another passion that has
> gotten out of control.
> Bobby
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Meyer" <njhosta@hotmail.com>
> To: <hosta-open@hort.net>
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:25 AM
> > Hi Bobby,
> >       Nice website. I see that you're more experienced with daylilies
> > hostas. A big difference between the AHemS and the AHosS is that the
> > Hemerocallis society has its own registration rules in addition to the
> > 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
> > than leaving all decisions to an individual registrar. I've recommended
> > the AHosS Board that we look into putting such rules together. We
> > had a big flare-up about registration issues which revolved around
> > 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
> > room for disagreement. I believe that in the near future we will see a
> > of rules and guidelines from the AHosS that will resolve some questions
> like
> > Chick's naming quandary.
> >                                   ........Bill Meyer
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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