Nepenthes Grex Registry

[wasted]

Ive been following the thread below with interest and wondered what the opinions are over here for using the grex registry with Nepenthes..

http://pitcherplants.proboards34.com/index...amp;thread=6238

All seems a little un-necessary to me and probably a little confusing.. but then im not really into hybrids..

Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject??

[SamInLondon]

It does seem really confusing, and probably more tailored to the US market than others. I admit to finding the penchant for complicated, exotically named and often dull-looking hybrids baffling. (There have been some real monsters on view recently - sorry.) But if you're going to make those crosses, I do think that the parentage should be as transparent as possible.

Edited July 28, 2008 by SamInLondon

[manders]

It does seem really confusing, and probably more tailored to the US market than others. I admit to finding the penchant for complicated, exotically named and often dull-looking hybrids baffling. (There have been some real monsters on view recently - sorry.) But if you're going to make those crosses, I do think that the parentage should be as transparent as possible.

I agree totally, lets preserve more varieties of wild plants and get rid of the hybrid junk...

[wasted]

I just don't see any need to replace the naming standards we already have for hybrids, what's wrong with nepenthes blah x wassname, why give it a name unless its an oustanding plant and if that's the case make it a cultivar and register it accordingly.

I noticed that there seems to be only 2 nurseries registering plants on the grex registry site.

[Phil Green]

Must have missed that thread. Didn't realise it had moved on so much.

Personally I CAN see the merits of it, but then any system has good and bad points. Even now there is confusion between offical cultivar names and unoffical names given by growers - for all CP's, just look at the VFT mess At least with this system you know exactly what the parents of a hybrid are and can see pictures of the parents. Most species (and hybrid batches) are so variable that just the basic cross doesn't say much. At least with this you know exactly which plants are in the parentage. I currently have a N. fusca x maxima, I'm assuming it is a N "Gentle", but I don't know it for sure, it may be another fusca x maxima cross and if so, is it highland or lowland maxima ??? The current cultivar system is confussing - sometimes a cutivar is a clone of one plant sometimes it's just a batch of variable seedlings - you never really know without having to investigate it. Also, at least this naming is less likely to suffer from mistakes, rather than a long label of (Ax[Cx{AxB}])x([DxE]x[ExA]) which gets faded looses some of the parents so accidentally get passed around as just a part of the cross.

Also remember, just because a plant has a cultivar name, doesn't mean it has any merits, just that someone has registered a name for it/them.

Anything that brings more clarity can only be a good thing IMHO.

I agree totally, lets preserve more varieties of wild plants and get rid of the hybrid junk...

If you'd like to get rid of those junk hybrids you grow, feal free to chuck them my way Yes more species should be grow from seed (Junk those TC'd mass produced things), but there is a place for hybrids - I've recently had a few gems (seed grown). Edited July 28, 2008 by Phil Green

[SamInLondon]

Anything that brings more clarity can only be a good thing IMHO.

I agree with you there, which is why the last thing we need is a system that would legitimize a name - say, N. Exterminator - but not give you any clues as to what it actually means. It tells the grower nothing, until he or she goes to look it up. Caesar, Predator, Red Dragon ... Rokko - sheesh!

[wasted]

You raise some good points Phil, but I am much happier labelling plants via the full N. blah x wassname label unless I know for sure they are a cultivar, ie.

I'm happy to label my talangensis x maxima a 'lady pauline' because I know that it comes from genuine vegative stock from BE.

If I make a cross myself which happens to be on the grex registry I'm not going to label the plant after some volcano in hawaii just because 1 nursery has already named it, I'm going to label it N. blah x wassname unless it deserves cultivar status in which case then there's the icps cultivar system.

I'm certainly not going to name any plant N. Pompey, that's just daft sorry, football related snobbery!

Just my opinions you understand!

[John Jearrard]

I know a lot of work has been put into the Nepenthes grex register, but the fact remains that the grex is not taxonomically acceptable for any group except orchids.

(International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (seventh edition, 2002) , Article 3.3

"The grex (plural: greges, although often written as grexes), a particular sort of Group based solely on specified parentage, may only be used in orchid nomenclature.")

[Phil Green]

If I make a cross myself which happens to be on the grex registry I'm not going to label the plant after some volcano in hawaii just because 1 nursery has already named it,

And you wouldn't have to. Unless you used the exact same clones then it would be a different hybrid anyway and you call them whatever you like. Even if you used the very same parents, you cross would be followed by your name as it would a different (repeat) cross to the original.

"The grex (plural: greges, although often written as grexes), a particular sort of Group based solely on specified parentage, may only be used in orchid nomenclature.")

So they may have to call it something other than grex (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet ). That wouldn't change the usefullness of the system - specified parantage, not just 'any old' fusca x maxima but a specific fusca x a specific maxima.

I like it.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Phil Green

[wasted]

And you wouldn't have to. Unless you used the exact same clones then it would be a different hybrid anyway and you call them whatever you like. Even if you used the very same parents, you cross would be followed by your name as it would a different (repeat) cross to the original.

The very same parents? do you mean the same species or the same plants?

I understood it as species..

So if someone lists a plant on the registry as N. Sillyname whose parents are sibuyanensis x mira for example.

I then make the same cross with my own different sibuyanensis and mira what would I call it?

N. Sillyname (Wasted)

or

N. Sillyname

or

N. sib x mira

or

my very own Grex name that I choose such as N. Silliername

Im a little lost

[Phil Green]

As I understand it, a cross of the same 2 species, but different clones, is a different hybrid/grex (or whatever, if grex isn't allowed). So your sib x mira would likely be different clones, so give it whatever silly name you like.

I like it. It doesn't replace cultivars, but runs in addition to them. Just as N. maxima is variable and you know roughly but not exactly what you are getting, so with this system. Then if any are very special, that individual can be registered as a cultivar.

Yes some people may get confused between cultivars & grex names. But people get confused now between species and cultivar names and then there is all the unoffical names given to plants - which know one knows what the parents are. This it seems would allow every one to know exactly who a hybrids parents were.

[Simon Lumb]

Whilst I don't have a lot of hybrids there are some from the Mansell stable that I think are outstanding and I do have a penchant for lowii hybrids. However this thread caught my attention because I do really dislike cultivar names if simply because I feel it seems to devalue (not in the monetary sense) the plants and gives them a sense of mass produced petunias. Take N.x Lady Pauline I can't get myself to write this name on the label, call me old fashioned but maxima x talangensis looks and feels better to me and tells me immediately what the cross is between. As for the N. x a x b x blaha blah blah hybrid for hybrids sake, well I'm not interested anyhow so I dont have to worry about looking for 12" labels.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Simon Lumb

[John Jearrard]

Under the now outdated Grex system, any cross beween the specified parent group, shares the grex name (the original grex description might specify two species, or any other taxonomic class, down to two particular clones). Any two greges could also be crossed to make a new grex.

If the original grex specified two species, then every seedling from any hybrid between those two species belongs to that grex, so Nepenthes pickoneatrandomii x Nepenthes fatenoughtobursteana could be published as the Silly Bugger grex. Obviously, those seedlings would be variable, you could select one as a cultivar, lets call it 'Hot To Trot' and the proper way to write it would then be: Nepenthes Silly Bugger 'Hot To Trot' . Unfortunatley, a lot of orchid growers leave out the single quotes, so it can be difficult to work out what is the grex and what the cultivar.

The system has been replaced by the GROUP. Groups CAN be the offspring of particular parents , or they may be made up in a number of other ways - the imortant thing being that they have something obvious in common. The double flowered Primroses, for example, could be called Primula vulgaris DOUBLE FLOWERED GROUP though they haven't been yet - it is just and example to show other characters that could be used to make a group.

New group names have to be validly published under the provisions of the code, and it would be wise to make very clear what the reason for the group is.

When printed, group names should be written in a typeface that clearly distinguishes them from the other elements of the name. Currently, people are favouring slightly larger, 'boxier' typefaces, however when this isn't possible, I tend to simple use upper case letters for the group name.

If Nepenthes pickoneatrandomii x Nepenthes fatenoughtobursteana were to be published validly as a group, it would be written: Nepenthes SILLY BUGGER GROUP , and a selected cultivar would be:

Nepenthes SILLY BUGGER GROUP 'Hot To Trot' . or just Nepenthes 'Hot To Trot' (since all the significant details of it's ancestry will be recorded in the published cultuivar description).

If you feel that a particular hybrid always produces seedlings with particular unique characteristics, then a group name is a good way of identifying that, allowing growers to know what they are getting. If a hybrid swarm is simply a bunch of variable, loosly connected and not very distinctive seedlings, it is difficult to see what a group name would achieve, except add complexity. If a seedling is good enough to distribute, it deserves a cultivar name, so everyone knows exactly what they are getting/talking about. If it isn't good enough to distribute - well, answers itself really doesn't it - don't distribute it!

It is perfectly reasonable to use what is called a 'Hybrid formula' for seedlings of known parentage, that is to say:

Nepenthes pickoneatrandomii x Nepenthes fatenoughtobursteana , which can also be written

Nepenthes (pickoneatrandomii X fatenoughtobursteana ).

Either list the female parent first (gardeners do it, but it isn't the preferred route), and say that is what you have done,

or list the parents alphabetically, and specify which is male and which female:

Nepenthes (fatenoughtobursteana[m] X pickoneatrandomii[f] ). (or using any other unambiguous symbol).

The advantage of alphabetical listing is that hybrids can always be located in alphabetical listings!

[Dicon]

I happen to be in favour of the Grex system, It seems to work well enough in the orchid world (which is a massive genus of over 25,000 species....that is about a tenth of all the flowering plants)

When Nep. hybrids become complex which will happen in years to come, (sone orchid hybrids have 20 generations of cross and back cross in them and would need a lable the size of a horse's leg ! ) it will be far easier to recognise a hybrid (no matter how complex) by a simple name, and so long as an international database (such as the RHS Orchid one) is kept accurately, then it will be quite simple to follow.

We all refer to Ventrata, Hookeriana, Trusmadiensis, Kuthcingensis, etc and we all know what the parenteage is and pretty much what they are going to look like, even though they are not clones but merely crosses of the same two species.

Why then would one object to calling your own cross of raff x amp by the name Hookeriana?

If you believe that your version of Hookeriana is of particular merit then you would (might) wish to give it a cultivar name N. Hookeriana "The Bestest"

This would then be recognised by everyone: simple!

I see no sense in writing labels longhand. The tag on my dog's collar says MAX, not Admiral Crossguns, son of Vinnie and Valglo, Grandson of yada yada yada! This data I can look up!

Whats wrong with a simple name?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Dicon

[Dicon]

As I understand it, a cross of the same 2 species, but different clones, is a different hybrid/grex (or whatever, if grex isn't allowed). So your sib x mira would likely be different clones, so give it whatever silly name you like.

I think this is incorrect Phill.

Regardless of differing clones, the Grex name will remain the same as the first registered eg. N. Hookeriana is raff x amp always.

If your own cross made from superlative specie clones makes a particularly good example, it is still Hookeriana but you may then wish to give it a further cultivar name to identify that prticular clone. The full name might then be N. Hookeriana "Lady Boy" (which is IMO how it should always be written and not shortened to merely the cv name N. "LadyBoy")

Which brings me on to Simons post re "Lady Pauline"

The problem with this name is that the cross has not been given a Grex name for everyone to use but has skipped this and gone straight to cv name.

If the cross (maxima x talangensis) were called N. Talmax for example it might be more acceptable as N. Talmax "Lady Pauline" and anyone elses version of the cross would be called N.Talmax, always.

PS. I dont much care for Hybrids either and in particular many complex crosses seem to merge into one.