This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Names

Hi Lowilla,

If I understand you correctly, I do not think your question was answered by
any of the previous answers. I know that you know quite well how to write
cultivar names.

If I may rephrase your question (with the intention of making it clearer
only), you are asking if you happen to find a new cultivar that comes from a
different source than another, already known, cultivar, may you give it a new
name or does it have to have the same known name. After all, they come from
different sources!
I state in my book, that for obvious reasons, it should have the same name.
Otherwise we would have scores of different names for what appears from all
angles to be the same plant.

For those who couldn't care less about my book, the International Cultivar
Code, prescribes the use of the same name "mode of origin is irrelevant when
considering whether two populations belong to the same or different
cultivars" This is from the old code, the new one should have something
similar.

Jon Dixon, from the Bay Area, whose knowledge of succulents is quite
complete, including sansevierias, many many years ago named a cultivar after
his mother. The plant was S. trifasciata 'Silver Hahnii Marginated'. In his
case it came directly from S. t. 'Hahnii Marginated'. Normally this plant
should come from S.t. Silver Hahnii Variegated'. Until today, I feel bad that
I told him he could not do it. This was way back when and I am sure that Jon
did not know the plant existed already.

Also, Lowilla, the Code consistently names cultivars starting with the plant
that gave it rise. Not S. 'Craigii' but S. trifasciata 'Craigii'.

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