Bob,
nice that you brought this up!
It underlines the difference between CULTIvatedVARiety and Clone.Â
A clone being the specific genetic combination, therefore the
actual genotype, which may carry a clonal name and should only be
vegetatively propagated, while the cultivar is a plant that fills
its description, presumedly from similar genetic material, but
that is not actually defined, simply assumed as the most efficient
method of achieving the goal.
Interestingly, a clone is a cultivar, but every cultivar is not a
clone (most are not). Seed produced cultivars are a classic
example, representing a genetic pool. In a good seed cultivar
strain most of the progeny meet the cultivar standard.
Jamie
Cologne, Germany
Am 03.02.2015 um 22:40 schrieb 'Robert Pries '
r*@embarqmail.com [iris-species]:
The goals of Plant Systematists (taxonomists
) and Horticulture are not the same. According to various
codes, horticultural names are subservient to botanical
names. The âpureâ sciences like to laud it over the applied
sciences. I was there once myself. But I was also a
gardener. Horticulturalists
created the term cultivar to note types of plants suitable
for the garden. Botanists are interested that botanical
namesÂdemonstrate evolutionary relationships. Unless one is
studying speciation, the variations are largely ignored by
many taxonomists. Despite the tools of forma, variety, and
subspecies, much variation is simply taken for granted as
not important in describing the phylogeny of the species. But to gardeners a
pure yellow form has a different place in the garden, from
say a blue form, and even if the botanists chooses to ignore
giving it a name, the gardener finds it essential in knowing
what plants he has.
Because a gardener wants a plant true to
certain characteristics he expects a name that honors those
characters and does not change because the plant does not
change. On the
other hand the botanist is assigning a name based on the
current theory of how the plant evolved. Even though the
plant does not change, the theory often does and requires
that the plant be renamed to fit in the appropriate group.
ÂI
once attended a lecture by one of the principal
horticulturalists responsible for writing much of the code
of nomenclature for cultivated plants. At his lecture he
pointed out that a plant that fits the description of a
cultivar, is that cultivar. I was shocked. I asked him to
verify that if a cultivar is lost and someone repeats the
cross and comes up with a plant fitting the description of
that cultivar, it is now that cultivar. He affirmed that was
the case. As
Irisarians we are so used to having clonal reproduction we
assume a cultivar to always have the same genetic
background. It was not long ago that I discovered that King
Alfred daffodils are not the same plants of years ago, but
new plants have replaced the old clones and but have the
same description. Part of the take home message is one
should describe cultivars very carefully.
From: "Shaub Dunkley
s*@bellsouth.net [iris-species]"
i*@yahoogroups.com
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 4:02:46 PM
Subject: [iris-species] Re: naming irises
Â
Victor notes the eternal friction between splitters
and lumpers.
Botanists are sincere over their regard for precision
in their taxonomy.
Enter stage gardeners and cultivars and a whole new
order of friction
arises. Differences over the basics? L. H. Bailey went
to his grave
wishing he had not coined the term 'cultivar'. I'm not
fully informed as
to all the causes but I can imagine a few friction
points. Botanists go
to great lengths to establish botanical taxa to great
depth of audit.
The gardening world has never been cooperative in
trying to make
cultivar compatible with such a system of audit.
Species can romp around
in the garden literature and not muddle things up?
Cultivar cannot do
the same in the botanical literature?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
--
Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805
