Re: naming irises

 

There have been a couple of Strains of Irises registered as cultivars. The 'Adamgrove Strain' of I. tectorum album and 'Valley Banner' in the PCNs. For Irises such as the Pacific Coast Natives which do not transplant well but do grow from seed, Seed strains could be particularly useful. The 'Valley Banner' irises seem remarkably consistent and to some degree have been offered as clones but also as seed. Seed strains have potential as a useful tool for many Iris species including Iris domestica hybrids that Jamie mentioned. As regulations become more difficult about international shipping who knows what we may wish to have in our toolbox.

From: "'JamieV.' jamievande@freenet.de [iris-species]" <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 4:13:09 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises

 

Are we all clear on the differences, then.  A clone is a specific genetic entity, while a cultivar is not restricted to this degree. One could think of it as a refined gene pool. It is important that one understands the difference as a cultivar has a much broader reach.

How a cultivar is produced does not play a big role, so long as the offered entities meet the description.

As to the F generation, Chuck, your professor is simply incorrect.  You make no difference between animals and plants.  It is a clear basic definition, and, as I noted, filial, which means brother/sisters, in short, direct relatives, is the keystone of the definition.  If one wishes to further restrict this definition in their work, that is their option, but it does not change the definition in general. F2 is both selfing and between members of the F1 generation (and their parents, for that matter). It allows one to define on which sequential! generation one is referring to and the relationships. Simply that it has become fashionable to work with direct in-breeding on the first level (selfing), it doesn't change F generation definitions.  If one were to change the definition, it would make generations of previous work invalid!  When I hear teachers/professors passing on such information as though it was an indelible truth, I am not surprised that many cannot grasp some of these very basic genetic concepts.  Mind you, professors are human, as well, and pass on that which they have been taught, whether it reflects the rules or not.

As to the registration of cultivar strains, yes, this is done, but I do not know of any defined strains under Iris or Hemerocallis, which does not mean it can't happen.  Just hasn't reached this point.  With Pardancanda norrisi (as ex) being consider as part of the genus Iris, a seed strain may well be registered.  One must ask themselves, if it is a! good idea.  You do not need to register a strain to make! it financially valid.  You do it for posterity. Registration is not copyright.  Or Patent, for that matter.

I hope I am not ruffling too many feathers.  I am simply speaking from decades of work with genetics and breeding.

cheers,

Jamie

Am 05.02.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Chuck Chapman i*@aim.com [iris-species]:
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: s*@bellsouth.net [iris-species] 
i*@yahoogroups.com
To: iris-species i*@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.







------------------------------------
Posted by: Chuck Chapman i*@aim.com
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    i*@yahoogroups.com 
    i*@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    i*@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
    https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/




--
Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805

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