'Hurricane Creek White' cultivar description


Recommended Posts

And as for finding a similar plant to S. x 'Adrian Slack', that is the wrong example as the description of good old Slack include this text: "Propagation: vegetative only". So cuttings of an original, no seeds. As I understand the rules had this text not been added than you might call a seedling of 'Adrian Slack' that matches the description by the name 'Adrian Slack', but still not a totally unrelated plant that happens to match the description too.

Yes, it is a bit extreme for an example, but I think it fit. As you correctly said, the description included "Propagation: vegetative only", but as you previously mentioned:

The ICPS is the only organisation that can register an offical cultivar, but has to operate by the rules set forward by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.

As I explained earlier this code allows for cultivars to be reproduced both sexual and asexually because it would be very difficult to keep cultivars of annual plants any other way.

So, isn't it pointless to say "Propagation: vegetative only" while the rules set by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants allows people to propagate a cultivar bot sexually and asexually?

At this point, I think that ICPS could try to follow a sort of his own rule (and all the carnivorous plants growers will do the same, obviously) and change the description of HCW and any other cultivar (not being them annual plants) setting the reproducibility to vegetative only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the ICPS can only apply the rules, not change them and you're looking at my second post about the rules (hence..as I explained earlier). The original text was a bit more complete:

As I understand it the issue here is as follows:

whether a plant can be an official cultivar or not is ruled by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.

This code allows for cultivars to be reproduced both sexual and asexually because it would be very difficult to keep cultivars of annual plants any other way. The rule therefore was created that exually created offspring was to be considered the cultivar provided that the offspring displayed all the charasteristics of the cultivar.

So in a bunch of seedlings only those that match the cultivar discription could be called by that name, all seedlings that don't match (basic genetics would say that should be most of them unless it is a very loose description) all traits can't be called the cultivar.

At some point people recognised that this might be a problem (and also for commercial reasons) so they started adding to the text that to keep the cultivar it might only be reproduced asexually. As this is writen down in the official description this limitation is valid, if the grower ommited this limitation the above applies. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point people recognised that this might be a problem (and also for commercial reasons) so they started adding to the text that to keep the cultivar it might only be reproduced asexually. As this is writen down in the official description this limitation is valid, if the grower ommited this limitation the above applies. :yes:

Ops, sorry...I did not read that part :flag_of_truce:

Ok, so ICPS could be able to decide alone, and all could depend from what the original register wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point people recognised that this might be a problem (and also for commercial reasons) so they started adding to the text that to keep the cultivar it might only be reproduced asexually. As this is writen down in the official description this limitation is valid, if the grower ommited this limitation the above applies. :yes:

Ops, sorry...I did not read that part :flag_of_truce:

Ok, so ICPS could be able to decide alone, and all could depend from what the original register wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banana-the original Hurricane creek white population grew on private property, and was owned by a paper company. They scraped, drained, and ditched the bog to plant slash pines. Today, if you go to the site, it's now a forest with non-native pines being produced for pulp production. The sad truth is the general perception in Southern United States (aka the deep south) is that planting forests or farming trees is good for the environment, but they don't realize that many native plants forever go extinct in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here is the exact info on cultivar registration.

A plant must be described as a cultivar following the rules set forward by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.

This text should be published in a proper publication with a reasonable distribution such as society newsletters.

The editor of the publishing jourmal should ofcourse check if the criteria of the ICNCP are met.

The published article should be submitted to the ICPS. This is (among lots of other things :wink: ) the authority that takes care of registration, but does not check the text of the publication. It is an administrative function only.

If a cultivar is not published yet, publication in CPN, the ICPS-newsletter, is possible (and recommended by me for the obvious reason, but other newsletters are really fine too).

So now the description is published and registered. That closes the proces.

It is not possible to change an already published descrition for the logcal reason that people have labeled plants and produced offspring of those plants by following the original description and the ICNCP rules and it would be impossible to sort this out after the fact if it would be possible to change the description and thus the definition of what is cultivar X.

If you disagree with the rules of the ICNCP, the only option is to send them a request to change their rules. As these rules are the same all over the world and for all plants this would be a long proces with absolutely no guarantee of succes (actually, knowing this kind of organisations I would say it would be a very slim change that you can pull it off). The ICPS has no inluance what so ever on this organisation, compare it to a civil servant that produces your drivers license. He or she can fill it out but can't change the rules of your driverstest or traffic laws.

...and of course should you manage to get the rules changed it would only apply to new cultivars, submitted after the date of change.

I hope this helps to make everything clear to all involved in this discussion and those who have been reading it :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Marcel! You cleared things up!

I think I can define my self sad about that, because, it will be possible to lose the real (original) plant one day in the future, that plant coming directly from the extinct location. But those are rules...

Link to post
Share on other sites

H

Really sad story. The last possibility is dig endangered plants up. I can understand this foolishness in developing countries but in the U.S. it's sad. Money makes the world go round. :2095:

Some people may disagree, but I would rarely if ever recommend digging up any plants from the wild, regardless if the site is doomed. Imagine all the potential pests, weed seeds, diseases, nightmare sedges, etc. that will show up. The most sustainable method, which is how these hurricane creek whites were preserved in the first place by Barry, is by collecting a responsible amount of seeds. Each pod has hundreds of seeds, and you only need a few seeds from many different plants to capture a huge gentic diversity with minimum impact to the wild population. In the wild, barely any of those seeds will survive to maturity, but in cultivation, you can get 90-100% surivival rate if it's done right.

It's always good to assume that the plants will survive...imagine digging up the plants, only to find out the site isn't going to be destroyed. Genetic diveristy is lost in the wild, and the popuation as a whole is under even more stress.

Yuri-after reading all the comments from this post, I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. As you are validly concerned, if there are 10's of 1000's of seedlings from the original HCW population, and they're all called HCW, it is likely that nobody will be able to tell the difference between the original clones and the offspring. While it may "suck" for humans trying to preserve the original mother plants, the Hurricane creek whites, from a survivalist point of view, will have succeeded.

BTW: Unless there is a huge environmental catastrophy, it's very unlikely that the original clones will be lost in time. I estimate there are at least a hundred different individuals in the US with the original clones. Instead, the biggest challenge is that the original HCW mother plants will get confused with seedlings true to the original extinct population because people's records won't be accurate, tags will break and someone will call their seedling clone F, or some people will claim their seedlings are in fact the original mother clones. No doubt, this is a tough one. Maybe the original plants should be genetically sequenced to prevent this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.