comment 10: a clan is not a cultivargroup

Deaer Hostas Fans
1. Earlier I showed convincingly that both in my book and in my 
cultivargroup article I used the proper references. 
2. Further I argued that the whole purpose of names giving is that 
they can be used by anyone. I clearly stated I did use all available 
sources so it is funny someone now tries to proof this!
3. The last stronghold is the question or the clan of sports is 
the same  as the official cultivargroup concept.
Is there a definition for a clan in the AHJ article 26-2? No there is 
not.  Is there a definition for sports then? Yes there is. I quote: 
"These sports are not nuclear genetic mutations.They are known as 
chimeral aberations"
This actually excludes all sports due to mutation or mitotic 
recombinations so according to this definition about half the sports 
should have been omitted from the wheels!
By including in a single wheel also sports of  different 
clones of a species like montana ( AHJ 27-1)  clearly the clan 
concept is not restricted to all sports of a single clone.  Now in 
the last wheels sports of species are given separately at the end 
of the hostawheels, but still presented as single clans or wheels. I 
seem to remember that  there was a booklet were sports of species 
were also presented  separately at the end, but here excluded from 
the cultivargroups!
 Conclusion: a clan of sports has a content and meaning different 
from my cultivargoup that is based on sports of a single clone.
Ben J.M.Zonneveld
Clusius lab pobox 9505
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
Zonneveld@RULbim.LeidenUniv.NL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index