unofficial (non-cultivar) names

[Amar]

I'm just wondering, is there a 'correct' way to write unofficial names?

And if there aren't any rules, what would you chose from:

1. Drosera capensis Baines Kloof

2. Drosera capensis "Baines Kloof"

3. Drosera capensis baines kloof

4. Drosera capensis "baines kloof"

5. ?

I myself so far have picked number one..

Edited May 2, 2009 by Amar

[gardenofeden]

Baines Kloof is a location, proper noun, capitals....as a location it can be added to the name as is eg Drosera capensis Baines Kloof. or Drosera capensis from Baines Kloof etc, no rules about it apart from grammar....

[Stefan P]

I always though Baines Kloof was a Dutch person

[Amar]

and how about this one:

Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant

would you write giant or Giant?

[John Jearrard]

Tut tut tut Amar, you haven't been paying attention.... lol.

"A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that has been selected for a particular attribute or combination of attributes and that is clearly distinct, uniform and stable in these characteristics and that when propagated by appropriate means retains these characteristics."

(International Code of Nomenmclature for Cultivated Plants, Seventh Edition, 2004. International Society for Horticultural Science, Acta Horticulturae No.647.)

Key point here, a cultivar is a biological group with shared characteristics, not a group defined by a written document.

Carolina Giant is a particular selection from the whole range of variability of Drosera intermedia. It is a biological taxon, and it cannot be treated as a taxon under the botanical code (as a new species, subspecies, variety or form) so the only way of referring to the plant is as a cultivar. The only other option is to not treat it as distinct in any way, and regard it as ordinary D.intermedia, and part of the typical variability of the species, of no note.(Which would not suit the needs of CP growers).

Are you still with me?

You could choose to refer to it as "a giant plant collected in Carolina", but if it is distinct, propagated and distributed, then it is a cultivar, and the correct way of expressing that is Drosera intermedia 'Carolina Giant' (or you can say Drosera intermedia cv Carolina Giant, but it is an inelegant form that is little used now).

Once you have recognised a new cultivar, the issue of a name arises. You may have a favourite name, but under the rules, the first name to be published is the one that is valid, so if someone else publishes a description of your new cultivar before you do, their name is the one that sticks. Publication does not affect the validity of the cultivar, it protects your right to choose the name.

The idea of an unofficial (non-cultivar) name is confusing two ideas. Either a selection of plants is a cultivar, or it is not distinct from the typical species. However, a cultivar may have a name that has not yet been published (and so may not be a stable name if someone else publishes first).

Does that help at all?

[Amar]

Hi John, thanks for your post! Perhaps I was not very clear writing my question.

I do by now know what cultivars are, and also know how to write them. But Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant (just as an example) is not (yet) a cultivar. Therefore I would like to know what the correct way is of writing the name of the plant.

Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant

Drosera intermedia Carolina giant

Drosera intermedia carolina giant

or perhaps with double quotation marks?

Drosera intermedia "Carolina Giant"

etc...

Edited May 2, 2009 by Amar

[mantrid]

Hi John, thanks for your post! Perhaps I was not very clear writing my question.

I do by now know what cultivars are, and also know how to write them. But Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant (just as an example) is not (yet) a cultivar. Therefore I would like to know what the correct way is of writing the name of the plant.

Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant

Drosera intermedia Carolina giant

Drosera intermedia carolina giant

or perhaps with double quotation marks?

Drosera intermedia "Carolina Giant"

etc...

I think what John is saying is that because it isnt an official cultivar then the quotes are not needed, as for the capital letters, then just follow standard grammar ie Carolina is a place so would have a capital letter but giant wouldn't. So if it was a cultivar it would be 'Carolina Giant' as this is a name like Joe Blogs. But if it isnt a cultivar it would be Carolina giant or any other phrase/sentence to describe it, I think.

[jimfoxy]

Are you still with me?

Er, you lost this bear of little brain... sorry.

You could choose to refer to it as "a giant plant collected in Carolina", but if it is distinct, propagated and distributed, then it is a cultivar, and the correct way of expressing that is Drosera intermedia 'Carolina Giant' (or you can say Drosera intermedia cv Carolina Giant, but it is an inelegant form that is little used now).

So I think the question is whether it is distinct and its characteristics can be uniquely described (in which case it is a cv and written as 'Carolina Giant' or whatever name it was first 'published' under - please see our other thread discussions about what 'publishing' means), or whether it is just a plant known to be from Carolina but not distinct from any other D. intermedia, in which case you have to call it D. intermedia and simply keep a note somewhere of where it is from (you could keep that note on the label, but it would not be part of the name!).

Have I got it straight, John?

[Amar]

I had a lengthy email talk with John.

It comes down to this. Even though some plants have not yet been registered as official cultivars, for example Dionaea muscipula South West Giant, they nonetheless are cultivars and would merit being written this way: Dionaea muscipula 'South West Giant', or just Dionaea 'South West Giant', registered or not.

A cultivar name should not really be the name of a location, therefore 'Carolina Giant' or 'Baines Kloof' should not be cultivar names.

Only time and the growers experience can tell whether a plant really is distinct in its character, whether it should really get a cultivar name.

If the intermedia Carolina Giant really does show distinct characteristics, then it should get a cultivar name, but not 'Carolina Giant' but perhaps something like:

Drosera 'Big Dipper' - Brunswick Co., NC

Edited May 3, 2009 by Amar

[jimfoxy]

Only time and the growers experience can tell whether a plant really is distinct in its character, whether it should really get a cultivar name.

Quite. Support for the usage of "name" rather than 'name' in my book, regardless of the official rules.

[John Jearrard]

' Carolina Giant' is fine, as is 'Baines Kloof' - in fact I prefer cultivar names that refer to the original collection location, however there is the possibility for confusion if another plant is collected on Baines Kloof, or from Carolina.

The problem with using "name" as a notation is that you are inventing a new way of writing a cultivar. It is unnecessary.

"But Drosera intermedia Carolina Giant (just as an example) is not (yet) a cultivar. "

I think we probably sorted this out last night Amar, but the point I was making is that 'Carolina Giant' IS a cultivar, it just hasn't been published yet, or registered, but a cultivar is a biological category, not a status that is awarded when you have the paperwork sorted.

A cultivar is an assemblage of plants with distinct characteristics that has been selected in cultivation. The way you show that when you write the name is to use single quotes. It says that this plant is a distinct selection in cultivation, not a species or a subspecies or a variety, but a cultivar.

[Trev]

Once you have recognised a new cultivar, the issue of a name arises. You may have a favourite name, but under the rules, the first name to be published is the one that is valid, so if someone else publishes a description of your new cultivar before you do, their name is the one that sticks. Publication does not affect the validity of the cultivar, it protects your right to choose the name.

What is the definition of 'published' in this context? Many things were published about cultivars like Red Sawtooth and All Green before they were re-named.

Trev.

[Amar]

What is the definition of 'published' in this context? Many things were published about cultivars like Red Sawtooth and All Green before they were re-named.

Trev.

I assume publishing means sending all your info to the International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRA). Perhaps this wasn't done for 'Red Sawtooth' and the like.

[jimfoxy]

http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/new_cultivar.pdf

[mobile]

I assume publishing means sending all your info to the International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRA). Perhaps this wasn't done for 'Red Sawtooth' and the like.

'The ICPS is the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) for cultivated carnivorous plants...'

[Trev]

To summarize, it basically says any paper publication which is dated, including nursery catalogues.

There must be quite a few that include All Green and Red Sawtooth.

Trev.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Trev

[gardenofeden]

A cultivar is an assemblage of plants with distinct characteristics that has been selected in cultivation.

I think one of the main issues here is the use of "pet" or nicknames by growers. In time, some of these plants may demonstrate "distinct characteristics" which may merit them being cultivars, some may not. I think your post is slightly confusing John in that it may be taken by some to mean that any nickname is a cultivar, whereas that is not the case. The double quotes have been used by many, including myself, to indicate as such, a nickname, and I would suggest should continue to be used for that purpose.

[John Jearrard]

Hi Stephen, one of the things I am trying to get around is the use of "double quotes", which is explicitly prohibited in the code.(And therein lies a long and tedious story, that I am not going to get into.)

My own view is quite simple. If the plant is distinct and selected it in cultivation ( and the rest) then taxonomically, it is a cultivar.(There is no other botanical taxon that can be used). The proper notation for a cultivar is 'single quotes' (or cv *** if you must).

Distinct + selected = 'Cultivar'.

The issue of "pet names" is an interesting one, and I recognise that people use them. For me, the question arises as to when a cultivar needs a proper 'Cultivar' name? I would contend that the plants status as a cultivar needs to be recognised as soon as it is distributed to another grower. At that point, several people are referring to the plant, and they need a uniform, stable cultivar name to describe it. If it is not distinct and selected, then you are talking about the typical plant and I don't see that any additional "name" should be tacked on.

In the IT age I would go further, and say that a proper cultivar name should be attached as soon as the plant appears in a grow list available to other people. That avoids the confusion that is generated when plants that people have read about change their name as they become available and "pet names" are converted into 'cultivar names'.