Re: Registration

Sorry if I maligned the AHS.  It was my understanding that this particular change in the registration process came about through a decision of the registrar that it was better to have two identical hostas with different names than two different hostas with the same name.  A change from the way that Abiqua Moonbeam and Mayan Moon were handled to the way that Satisfaction and Tyler's Treasure were handled.  A complete reversal in policy, if I understand it.  I was told that the registrar made this decision and I assumed that he could also reverse it.  I guess I'm inclined to consider the AHS and the registrar one and the same, but I know that theoretically they may not be.

Chick

Giboshiman@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/19/01 9:35:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
chick@bridgewoodgardens.com writes:
 
 
It happens because of the rules of the AHS.  There are
obviously identical or nearly identical plants being sold under different
names,
but that's what the AHS dictates.

Chick, it is not the AHS that makes the registration rules.   Rather the
ICNCP is established by an International Committee of the United Nations'
UNESCO.  The AHS does not even get a vote on the rules, but, if it wants to
be the IRA (International Registration Authority) it must agree to follow
them.  If we do not, the Royal Horticultural Society, has indicated on
several occasions that it would be glad to do it.

Kevin P. Walek

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index