Yes. As that is how we ( iris people) defined it for our plants.
Same way someone buying a 'Bosc' pear tree gets a clone of original
and not something grown from a seed of a 'Bosc' pear. No mater how
much seedling looks like parent 'bosc' pear. But someone buying a
'Millenium' asparagus ( it was developed by the prof Dr. Wolyn)
gets a seedling grown from seed from parental stock.
Chuck Chapman
-----Original Message-----
From: sdunkley1@bellsouth.net [iris-species]
<iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 5, 2015 11:39 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises
I want to make sure I understand correctly. And I'm still trying to
compute what the implications are for what the lecturing professor
said. (When it comes to matters of clone and cultivar it seems it can
be difficult to make sure everyone understands each other clearly.) The
AIS only registers iris clones? I presume this would mean this is the
current policy but things in the past might be have been different. So
for an iris hypothetically registered in 2015 as 'HYPO', this iris name
is to be understood by the world as denoting a singular clone and a
cultivar and these two are synonymous? And to be clearer still, no
other clone but this singular clone can be properly labeled or referred
to as 'HYPO', no matter how phenotypically it resembles 'HYPO'?
All the fuss being perhaps important if in 2050 we are trying to
protect the utility of name 'HYPO' when doing research where it shows
in the pedigree of various irises.
