Eden Black Pictures

[mobile]

They are reasonable questions Carl

But its an easy answer as things stand.

if it has already been registered then its a cultivar

remember we are talking about Eden Black.

ada

 

I think the question is given what has been said in this thread, if a similar clone came along in future, should it be considered for cultivar status?

[FredG]

If it goes through the registration process then it has to be. 

[mobile]

If it goes through the registration process then it has to be. 

 

Then I would question the registration process. What checks are in place to ensure that a cultivar matches the description and do these checks take variances of growing conditions into consideration?

[FredG]

You know as well as I do that it doesn't. A plant will become a cultivar if an author just happens to mention it in his book.

[mobile]

Fred, of course I do :)

 

So, should a clone be a cultivar if the requirements to achieve the described characteristics are condition dependant?

[FredG]

The registration of cultivars is a fixed process, neither we nor the ICPS can do anything about it the discussion is pointless.

[Cephalotus]

If the registration is a fixed process, than why it seems that Galanthus lovers have somehow different rules? I know less than nothing about the registration itself. If you write, that only mentioning about a plant in ones book is enough for a plant to gain a status of a cultivar, than how come Galanthus registration have something in addition to that? Maybe they were made on the surface of those "primary ones" to fix some occurred problems which were not foreseen when the general rules for cultivsars registration were made. Going further that thought. If they were made to prevent some unstable or identical clones of gaining rank of cultivar, than maybe CPs growers society, could do the same? Of course if there will be slightest possibility and will to do so.

[mobile]

The registration of cultivars is a fixed process, neither we nor the ICPS can do anything about it the discussion is pointless.

 

So, if we see a flaw in a process then we just accept it without question?

[FredG]

To be frank yes. Because plenty people will chat about it on the forum but no-one will actually try to do anything. The ICPS can't get people bothered enough to publish the plants that are registered never mind trying to get the system altered.

[Cephalotus]

Actually, I would even make myself do something about it. I was starting to think about it since I was not once told "nothing can be done", where I have examples some have done such changes. If that does not need someone living in a certain country and can be done remotely from anywhere in the world. I could give it a try. Just why somehow I get a feeling being skipped in your two conversation as if this topic stopped to be a public conversation? I hope I am not interrupting you with my posts, do I? I don't recall writing anything offensive to anyone of you. If that is how a public conversation looks like, than, why I even bother spending my time trying to make a difference, where it is not welcome. There is a way of offending people without even saying a word.

 

If I write too long thoughts and that is troublesome, than I can also write a sentence or two and that way the conversation will take forever.

 

If CPs growers society can do nothing about visible flaws of registration process, than we are so pitiful society in compare to some other ones... :/ Shame.

[FredG]

Well volunteered Chris, you can contact  Marcel van den Broek on this forum and offer your services. 

[Phil Green]

For what it's worth, here's my two pennies worth.

 

I agree that any cultivar should be proved to be 'stable'.

But for me, that means grown for several years by the person intending to register the plant, to 'prove' that the described feature is regular or normal and not a freak occurrence.

So DON'T register a plant as 'Giant' just because it once produced an exceptionally large pitcher. Don't label it as Dark, just because it once produced an exceptionally dark pitcher. But, if under 'your' conditions (assuming you aren't knowingly doing something unusual, or otherwise to cause this difference), this trait repeats itself regularly, then fine, register it if you are so inclined.

 

As we all know, no two peoples growing conditions and soil mixes are exactly the same and any small change 'can' make a difference.

So it should come as no surprise if some feature of the plant, changes in 'your' conditions.

 

For me, I don't seem able to grow my Sarra's to the same size I see in other collections.

But I'm not about to complain about it.

 

If you are able to have someone else 'test' the plants stability, then that is obviously better.

But it hasn't been a requirement in the past, so why should it now.

Although, if the person hasn't tested the plant with other grower - then feel free to wonder why.

[Cephalotus]

Thank you Fred for direction, but could you a bit more precise. I now barely anyone on the forum from their names, no matter how important person might be. A link with means of contact would be of great help. I think it should not be of a problem for you as it is for me.

[mobile]

As we all know, no two peoples growing conditions and soil mixes are exactly the same and any small change 'can' make a difference.

I suspect that therein lies the problem Phil. Without prior knowledge, people will believe that a cultivar will match its description in their conditions. Indeed, it would appear that some people might expect a cultivar to match an inferred description in the title.

[Veek]

A lot of replys since my last visit with many things to read.  I don't know where to start with replying.

 

 

To determine stability, tendency of being influenced by various growing conditions, there should be a strict rules made, which should be fulfilled before a plant could be called a cultivar and registered. Those rules should aim, to draw those lines where the feature is still easily visible and when it will stop being so distinct. Some features, according to my little knowledge, appear in some short time of plants life cycle, some occur more often when, the plant has ideal growing conditions. I still would not eliminate them as cultivars, if they are properly described. Same as Triphyophyllum peltatum is considered a carnivorous plant, although it is not as carnivorous as most of the other ones.

 

 

True and true we need some rules and I hope we can work some rules out together as a group.  Up until now I'd love to see the following rules being laid down:

 

1. Stability off course and like Phil said being tested over the course of years so you know for sure it ain't a freak occurence.

2. Description:  A decent description about the plant and its characteristics and like Carl mentioned a description about "my growing conditions"

3. Maybe this is a part of the stability test but the plant should be grown with several growers to see wether it keeps the characteristics also under their conditions.

 

If people of the ICPS like Marcel read this topic and they are willing to chip in or can help us with maybe changing the way people can register cultivar.  Please do so and help out here.

[ada]

Is it the ICPS rules that are wrong?

Many years ago i bought a plant from John Ainsworth.A flava cuprea.

He said it was being tested for cultivar status then.I read somewhere(can't remember where)that the plants had to be trialed in different conditions for years to show that the characteristics were stable in a variety of conditions before cultivar status was awarded.

Chris, anyone one can view their thoughts and the rules Do need changing. Some of us just say what we think more than others.

Its an age thing,once you get past a certain age you don't care what others think of you,you just say what you think.

[mobile]

Its an age thing,once you get past a certain age you don't care what others think of you,you just say what you think.

I'm there

[mobile]

Here's a starting point for the rules: http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm

[Phil Green]

I suspect that therein lies the problem Phil. Without prior knowledge, people will believe that a cultivar will match its description in their conditions. Indeed, it would appear that some people might expect a cultivar to match an inferred description in the title.

But is it fair to blame a cultivar or the rules, for peoples misunderstandings or lack of knowledge.

 

If I buy a plant that requires Full Sun and it dies because I grew it under my apple tree, I blame myself for not reading up about it first - not the cultivar register for naming it 'Apple Blossom'.

 

A name is just a name.

I don't expect VFT 'Alien' to actually come from another planet and bite my head off when I'm not looking.

Yes, it is well known I DO dislike names which imply something of a plant which may not be true and think people should try and avoid emotive names just to grab attention. But even so, a name is just a name, whether I like it or not.

 

Another problem is the time it would take to bring about new cultivars, if they HAD to be tested for several years by other growers as well.

Most people will have grown a plant for several years before they even think about it being special and worthy of cultivar status (excluding those who just find a TC mutation in a garden centre and register it the next year). To then have to multiply that and send it to other growers around the world (how else can it be considered 'truly tested', if not grown in other countries), could take decades and for us older growers might be impossible. Even then, someone is always going to pop up and say "but it doesn't hold it's features under MY conditions".

 

Also, for many people registering cultivars, they are going to want to recoup some of their costs from selling the cultivar when it is first released. But if it is already spread around the world in multiple collections, how do you stop those people selling the plant and making a profit from your hard work. Or even selling it prior to you registering it? For big businesses this is possible, but not really for the private grower.

 

For example. I've a S. Flava ornata which I plan to register. I acquired it as a mature seed grown plant back in 2007. Under my conditions it stays an ornata, but would it under other sunnier conditions? To test this, I sent a plant a few years ago, to the person in the UK who seems most adept at turning  flava ornata into a 'red tube' - Aidan. So far it is staying an ornata under his conditions as well. I'm still in two minds whether to give it another years trail or not. But there is no way I'm going to send it to yet more grower in Europe and maybe the USA, just to test this in even more conditions. No matter how rigorous your testing, there will always be 'more you could have done'.

 

As has been said many times. The real test of any cultivar is TIME. Those that are worthy will continue to be grown, those that aren't will disappear.

But if people continue to aquire worthless plants just because of a name, they have no one to blame but themselves, they should do some homework first.

[mobile]

Do all the cultivar descriptions describe the conditions required to achieve the characteristics?

 

I guess that this also brings into question the benefit of cultivar over named clone.

[Phil Green]

For me there isn't any.

One has just been named 'officially' the other hasn't.

 

But keeping thing official does help to keep some 'order' to things. So avoiding different people giving different plants the same 'nick name'.

At least with the cultivar system, you can (should be able to) check if a name has been used before naming yours. Whereas there is no way of knowing if someone is privately using the same name for their plant.

 

But as for 'quality', a named clone can be just as Good/Bad as a cultivar.

[Phil Green]

Do all the cultivar descriptions describe the conditions required to achieve the characteristics?

 

If it was known certain conditions where 'needed' to bring out the described characteristics, then to me this would suggest the plant wasn't being grown under 'standard' conditions.

 

I don't believe describing your growing conditions is required, but there is no reason  that they can't be mentioned. And if 'unusual' perhaps should be mentioned.

 

For example, if you grow your dark coloured Heli under 3000w of LED light at 2inchs away - it might be worth mentioning that this could be the cause of the exceptional colour achieved by your clone.

[mobile]

To be honest, if there are no more checks put in place other than making sure the name wasn't already used, I wouldn't personally bother with the hassle of registering a cultivar. "Big Boy" has been around for long enough without being a cultivar.

I suspect that many grower assume cultivar status makes a plant more worthy, but it's starting to appear that may not be the case.

If it was known certain conditions where 'needed' to bring out the described characteristics, then to me this would suggest the plant wasn't being grown under 'standard' conditions.

I don't believe describing your growing conditions is required, but there is no reason that they can't be mentioned. And if 'unusual' perhaps should be mentioned.

For example, if you grow your dark coloured Heli under 3000w of LED light at 2inchs away - it might be worth mentioning that this could be the cause of the exceptional colour achieved by your clone.

But surely this is the case with all Cephalotus? To achieve dark colouration, certain conditions need to be met. Many say the darker colouration is achieved in lower autumn temperatures for instance. I have seen it written that large or dark pitcher Cephalotus tend to be small or green pitchers if grown in high temerperature and humidity countries, so it would be reasonable to assume that if the description did not state what conditions were required then growers in such countries would expect the characteristics to be met.

[Marcel van den Broek]

Ok guys, most things have been said already, some of it actually quite accurate.

Just a short summary:

 

• The ICPS applies the rules for cultivar registration as they are formulated in a code by the ISHS. There is no influence or space for an opinion by the ICPS in this proces. It is just the ICRA, the organisation appointed to carry out the registration.
• Information on the ISHS organisation can be found, as was correctly mentioned by mobile, here: http://www.ishs.org/sci/icra.htm.
• The actual code you can find here: http://www.actahort.org/chronica/pdf/sh_10.pdf. All 200 and something pages of them!
• Just a technicallity, but what is actually being registered is the cultivar NAME, not the cultivar itself. The cultivar itself is described in whatever journal or book is chosen, but there is no registration of said cultivar involved. The idea about registration of the name is to prevent two plants having the same name, not to work out how unique they are.
• Having said that, every ICRA, has to follow the code. If the Galanthus guys are not following those rules they can get into trouble as they do not have the authority to have an opinion on the value of the cultivar, they just need to see if the registration demands are met. (By the way, the appointed ICRA is NOT the "Galanthus lovers society" but the Royal General Bulbgrowers Association KAVB).
• Why don't we submit a proposal to fix the rules? One reason being manpower has already been mentioned, The second is more important. As the code applies to the registration of cultivarnames of ALL plants it doesn't matter what we (ICPS or even whole CP community) think. We need to convince at least 50% of the ISHS "board" to accept a change that will apply to all plants. Let's be honest: We don't nearly carry enough wheight for that guys.

 

O and if you want to ask me something, send a pm. I honestly don't read every post as that would be a day job. Somebody pointed me at this discussion or I wouldn't have seen it as I'm not so much into cultivar pictures which the topic suggests.

[David Ahrens]

This topic has gone on and on. It's quite interesting though.

Lets just hope that Stephen does not take his ball away with him, never to return. It would be a real shame as he always, in the past, has had good things to say.

Me, personally, am just looking for people that can tell me how to grow the damn things well, I still haven't got the hang of Cephs completely.