Re: AIS: Check List definitions
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] AIS: Check List definitions
- From: a*@cs.com
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:27:15 EDT
In a message dated 10/25/2002 11:56:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
laurief@paulbunyan.net writes:
> Thank you, Sharon, for this information. This raises an interesting
> question. If "obsolete" refers only to irises that are no longer listed
> in catalogs, and if an "obsolete" iris name can be released and granted
> to another cultivar, what safeguards (if any) exist to prevent the
> "obsolete" cv from surviving in someone's garden and reentering commerce
> at some point in the future? Irises come and go and come again in
> catalogs all the time. Surely "obsolete" must involve some verifiable
> elimination of stock of the "obsolete" variety beyond its absence in
> catalog listings?
Today, "obsolete" means something quite different than it did in the 1920s.
If I want to transfer a name that I've previously registered, I can do so by
including a letter that attests the entire stock has been lost or destroyed
and that neither the named cultivar nor any of its offspring have been
distributed -- and thus release the name. If someone else wants to use such
a name, as the original registrant I will have to provide sufficient
information to warrant the release of the name.
Flashing back to the 1920s, establishing the foundation for the new
registration systems involved unscrambling a massive puzzle. Before we delve
further into this, I'd recommend reading the ENTIRE front matter of the 1939
CL.
> >
> >>From page 4: "Where varieties conflicted and the old approved ones
> became
> >obsolete, the other has been raised to the approved list."
>
> Which raises another question. Why would there be two cvs carrying the
> same name at the same time? Why would there be an "other" that could be
> raised to the approved list?
Because there was no central system of control in the early days. No
authoratative reference to consult to make sure a name was not already in
use. Nothing to keep people from introducing different new iris using the
same name or distributing an existing one under a new name.
> This certainly all seems to have the potential to cause much confusion
> among historic irises.
>
It certainly did -- but the good news is that it provided adequate incentive
for developing the registration system we now use.
Sharon McAllister
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month.
Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads!
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info
http://us.click.yahoo.com/auyVXB/KJoEAA/jd3IAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
