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

Re: New Rules

Can't the market be a guide. The IAC list is good in that regard. "Many" of the plants on that list have already been market tested and successful ( Many is highlighted as the IAC list doesn't mean the plant is worthwhile either)

Butch Ragland wrote:

The problem is you don't understand registration.

It has nothing to do with garden worthiness and gives no seal of approval. Think of the power you are wanting to give the registrar. It doesn't really matter because he can not take that power.

Why do we want to give someone, anyone power. The oldest story in the world "power corrupts, etc.

And it would not protect the buying public in any way, the power is already in your pocket book.

From a recent posting by Jim Wilkins

The answer to this is very simple. The AHS is the registration authority.
I and many others feel registration is important historically and as a
resource for our members present and future.  I was a member of the Board
of Directors when this proposal was drafted and passed.  The intent was to
simplify registration, reduce the cost, encourage registration of the
nearly 800 plants in the trade which were not registered, to honor the
grower/sellers who committed to the process, and to try to prevent there
being  2000 unregistered plants in the trade in 5 years.  I am not ashamed
to support those goals.  As stated, ad nauseum, there have been some minor
problems and I am confident that a satisfactory solution will be

What is wrong with 2000 unregistered plants on the market. Is that worse than 10000 registered plants, many of which are not memorable, couldn't be picked out of a crowd. I am not against registration, I just don't understand the "push" to register everything. Jim's second line above has much to say. To record for historical purposes. Every plant does not need to be recorded.

Even taking it one step further- why register breeding stock? It serves a purpose, but it may not exist in a couple of years. Simplfy the registration process is the only thing that makes sense, everything else seems like a complete waste of energy.


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