Re: : Cult: Introducing an iris

From: HIPSource@aol.com

In a message dated 1/9/00 10:39:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jcwalters@bridgernet.com writes:

<<  It is not the usual practice to cite the introducer in catalogs and other
 references when it is different than the hybridizer and registrant.>>

As I understand the big picture, that wouldn't be the done thing.

I think what you have there in those parenthesis is the equivalent of the 
"authority" of a botanical name. 

The name of a new species for botanical purposes carries the name of the 
person who first formally 'published' a 'valid' description of it. We don't 
typically use the 'authority' in horticultural contexts, saying only, for 
instance, 'Iris pallida', not 'Iris pallida Lamarck', and that is one 
difference between botanical and horticultural palance. 

But, if we used them, the 'authority' of the name of the horticultural 
variety would logically be the person who registered it.

Or so it seems to me....

Anner Whitehead
HIPSource@aol.com 

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>

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