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

Re: Names

Dear Juan,

Sorry, we didn't intend to overlook your book.

Chahinian, B. J. (1986) THE SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA VARIETIES. Trans Terra.
Resenda, California.

It would be wise to consult Juan's book for a list of named cultivars
before attempting to name a new one. Your cultivar may already have a name.
Many superfluous names for the same cultivars still persist in the trade.

The statement "mode of origin is irrelevant when considering whether two
populations belong to the same or different cultivars" appears verbatim as
Note 1 under Article 10 of the 1980 version of the International Code of
Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, the most recent version.

Cereusly Steve

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
•Subject: Re: [SANS] Names
•From: Juan Chahinian
•Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:10:03 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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