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
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: 85 of Alex Malloy's intros and NRs

Good enough.  I wasn't trying to criticize your library, and I'm not disagreeing
that there are hostas out there that I would not have introduced.  Just pointing
out that making the distinction and applying standards is difficult.

I think I note a bit of irritation because I'm disagreeing with you, so let's
consider that conversation ended.


This is a topic that many people have expressed opinions on, and I don't see why
it can't be discussed.  The following is in no way directed at Bob, his library,
or his opinion that there should be standards.

One thing I brought up long ago is the advantage, again theoretical, of naming
more plants than some people think advisable.  This applies primarily to sports,
which I think many of Alex's plants are.

I see absolutely no harm, and possibly some advantage, in naming and registering
sports, good, bad or indifferent, but again not necessarily going to the absurd,
if we can agree on what is absurd.  The advantage is that we have a record.  That
doesn't mean that we have to start buying and selling these plants, only that
someone has put an easily referenced name on a sport of a plant, and has recorded
that it exits.

I've seen people ask questions about sports of Gold Standard, Obscura, and
similar hostas that they've found in their gardens.  If we had better, more
accessable information about what sports are available, they might have found
that anyone who grows more than 20 plants of Gold Standard is going to find a
sport, and that most of them turn out to be worthless.  It's just information,
and it doesn't hurt anything.  If you go out in your garden and find a green
centered sport of King Tut, and think it might be a decent hosta, and get all
excited about it, wouldn't it be helpful to know that I already have a couple of
them out here?  I'm not trying to talk you into buying them.  I have tons of
sports and seedlings here that I could probably convince someone to buy if I
wanted to.  But personally, I would like to know as much as I can about what's
been found and have a way of refering to the existing sports.

When I first found Satisfaction, I had a hell of a time trying to find out if it
was unique.  Finally, I named it and introduced it because there didn't seem to
be another one like it.  Naturally, I soon started hearing about other identical
sports, Tyler's Treasure and others.  I have no idea who came first, how many, if
any, identical plants were out there, or anything else because nothing was

I realize that we can't require everyone to tell me what sports they have, just
throwing out the thought that registering plants serves a purpose other than
trying to get people to buy them.  I'm not even suggesting that everyone start
registering every sport in their garden, just saying that  ---  in my opinion
---  people who are registering plants they find are not doing anyone any harm
and if nothing else, are giving us a more complete record of what is out there.

I know we have the wheel, but that's unofficial and is based on what a few people
can find out and keep track of on their own time.  There are hundreds of sports
that are not recorded, quite a few of them right here.


bob wrote:

> The reason I post so many pictures in the library is first of all a not
> so good one might be the only one that comes around for awhile so I use
> it. Second I don't have time to go back through almost 9000 files that
> the library contains and sort them and remove the bad ones. Third if a
> plant is really eaten up by slugs or is puny it might give people an
> indication that it isn't such a good plant. There is always going to be
> bad photgraphy or equipment.
>         I quess there is no use discussing this much anymore. My opinion is a
> plant should be grown and self tested a few years minimum before
> named/and or released. Others might think different.
> Bye
> Bob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index