Plethora of new named clones?

[Marcus B]

Well said. I think several of those ought to be registered though.

Then may be it would be best to distribute material between a number of growers and see if the distinctions in the clones hold.

From my understanding, that is how I ended up with my “Giant”. John Hummer sent material to different societies in various places for them to distribute and grow under various conditions. Later his material was registered as ‘Hummer’s Giant’.

If you give the clones a distinctive unofficial name it would then be easier for those growing them to be certain that their plants are synonymous with the cultivar, when it is successfully registered, thus removing issue of having “seemingly similar” plants around which are in fact the same clone, but under a different name. It would save on the issues of trying to trace plants when the person holding the vital information dies or merely drops out of contact.

[gardenofeden]

If you give the clones a distinctive unofficial name it would then be easier for those growing them to be certain that their plants are synonymous with the cultivar, when it is successfully registered, thus removing issue of having “seemingly similar” plants around which are in fact the same clone, but under a different name.

Or a number... :)

[gardenofeden]

From my understanding, that is how I ended up with my “Giant”. John Hummer sent material to different societies in various places for them to distribute and grow under various conditions. Later his material was registered as ‘Hummer’s Giant’.

Where did your 'Hummer's Giant' originate? I have 2 different clones...which is the real one?

[manders]

correct, plants produced in that way can then be described as clones of the parent plant. But until that point they are genetically unique so are not a clone of anything :)

correct, plants produced in that way can then be described as clones of the parent plant. But until that point they are genetically unique so are not a clone of anything :)

This puzzled me as well, a clone by definition is a copy of something, is variety a more correct term? The term clone seems to get used all over the place (ive done it as well) when it should be a variety (or something else?).

[gardenofeden]

This puzzled me as well, a clone by definition is a copy of something, is variety a more correct term? The term clone seems to get used all over the place (ive done it as well) when it should be a variety (or something else?).

Yes variety seems a better term , but unfortunately variety is also a taxonomic subdivision eg flava var rubricorpira, so could not really be used.

[manders]

Yes variety seems a better term , but unfortunately variety is also a taxonomic subdivision eg flava var rubricorpira, so could not really be used.

I guess clone is as good as anything then. If i take a cutting off my seed grown plant then that is a clone and the original plant is genetically identical so could/should be labelled as the same clone. Perhaps the original plant is a 'virtual clone'. Lol.

[Marcus B]

Where did your 'Hummer's Giant' originate? I have 2 different clones...which is the real one?

That is the problem, and why I keep it labelled "Giant" rather than 'Hummer's Giant', as I did not receive it under that name.

From the information that I have gathered, John sent material to a member of our society who was able to legally import and quarantine plants. The material was later grown at a commercial nursery and then distributed to society members, including myself, under the name of “Giant”. Unfortunately the person who received and grew the material has died, but Allen Lowrie tells me that the story of it is origin is correct.

If you want to be sure the plant you have is “Hummer’s Giant’ talk to Charles Brewer, as he got his plants directly from John Hummer. He ought to be able to supply the genuine named clone.

[Marcus B]

Or a number... :)

Actually I use the initials of the supplier and a number for most of my plants.

[Jcal]

Or a number... :)

Completely agree. I believe the clone names are more confusing. Cataloging doesn't mean you have to name every plant which is a method I feel is ill suited for the job.

[mantrid]

This puzzled me as well, a clone by definition is a copy of something, is variety a more correct term? The term clone seems to get used all over the place (ive done it as well) when it should be a variety (or something else?).

The problem arises because most growers although they are excellent and knowledgable about cultivating plants with practical experience they dont have a scientific background so will generally use the terms that other growers use. Dont know when the word started to be used, I suspect the word clone was adopted by a grower to describe varieties of plants because it was a word being heard alot at that time in real science and also in films.

From what Ive discovered my understanding is the correct word is cultivar or even cultigen but others here would disagree so we wont go there again :). I suppose it doesnt really matter outside of formal scientific institutions.

[Marcus B]

I may have to check this when I am at home and have my Language of Botany dictionary handy, but basically a clone is an organism that is asexually produced from another individual and is therefore genetically identical to the parent.

A cultivar is registered form of a plant that is consistent and distinct in its characteristics. A cultivar may be produced by cloning a distinct individual or by breeding a distinct lineage that can be reproduced from seed. Thus a cultivar is not necessary a clone and can show some genetic variation. A cultivar is basically different to the wild type or more common form of the plant due to human selection and breeding of the plant by various methods.

Until a plant is registered as a cultivar, if it is simply reproduced asexually, then the descendants are clones of the original seed grown individual.

Variety can be used of variations from the registered type (the specimen that is used to define the species) found in wild plants. They may be elevated to sub species or even separate species if it is warrented.

[mantrid]

A cultivar is registered form of a plant that ........

I'd be interested in your source of information for this. I couldnt find anything to say a plant has to be registered in order to be a cultivar.

[mobile]

I'd be interested in your source of information for this. I couldnt find anything to say a plant has to be registered in order to be a cultivar.

In order to promote uniformity, accuracy and stability in the naming of cultivated carnivorous plants, all names of carnivorous plant cultivars and cultivar-groups must be registered with the ICPS.

[...]

Once you have published the description, you must complete the cultivar registration form to register your new name with the ICPS.

Source: http://www.carnivoro...ltivarsmain.php

[SoLongFairWell]

Sadly I cannot commit to reading this thread at the minute as I have no Internet. However I do stress that if a clone is going to be registered then it must first spend two or three years in several different growing conditions. Doing this also protects the credibility of the registrants.

[mantrid]

That just says that a worthy cultivar should be registered to promote uniformity. Its implying that it is already a cultivar prior to registration and registration just makes it a registered cultivar.

Besides the sources that would clarify this properly is a formal scientific definition in a recognised publication rather than someone elsed use of the word.

Edited August 27, 2013 by mantrid

[manders]

Cultivars aren't part of plant taxonomy, the ICNCP describes what a cultivar is and isnt rather than the ICBN which describes taxonomic definitions. Cultivar registration is strongly encouraged and anything not registered as such should probably be regarded as a commercial marketing name, which doesn't need registering.

Edited August 28, 2013 by manders

[mobile]

Cultivars aren't part of plant taxonomy, the ICNCP describes what a cultivar is and isnt rather than the ICBN which describes taxonomic definitions. Cultivar registration is strongly encouraged and anything not registered as such should probably be regarded as a commercial marketing name, which doesn't need registering.

I was going to read the ‘International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants’ last night, so you’ve saved me from that thrill

[Marcus B]

That just says that a worthy cultivar should be registered to promote uniformity. Its implying that it is already a cultivar prior to registration and registration just makes it a registered cultivar.

Besides the sources that would clarify this properly is a formal scientific definition in a recognised publication rather than someone elsed use of the word.

Definitions from “The Language of Botany” - C. Debenham, The Society for Growing Australian Plants

Cultivar: a variety or race (strain) produced in cultivation, not necessarily referable to a taxonomic unit

Cultigen: a plant or group of plants known only in cultivation, apparently origination under domestication.

Clone: a group of individuals, each a ramet, produced asexually from a single parent hence normally of uniform genetic identity.

Form, Forma : a category subordinate to a species and subspecies. A sub-group within a species displaying a minor character, e.g. of habit, pubescence, colour etc. Also Race.

Variant: an individual, species, or parameter departing in some character or characters from the mean of the characters shared by a group or population.

Variety: a minor category at a level below a species. A group of individuals within a species which have morphological similarities and a restricted geographic range, and maintain a distinction from other individuals of the same species. It is below the level of a subspecies, the latter category used in relation to a segment of a species with much broader distribution than the variety. In many floras, a distinction is rarely made and the terms variety may mean actually subspecies.

“Henderson’s dictionary of Biological terms” - Sandra Holmes, 9^th Ed

Ramet: [L. ramus, branch] an individual member of a clone.

While from a technical definition a cultivar does not have to be registered to exist, it ought to be registered to be recognised as it needs to be defined somehow. Otherwise any similar plant may be passed off as the cultivar, even if it is not true breeding.

[SoLongFairWell]

Wow this topic has got too deep for me to follow. It'll make me cross eyed.

[mantrid]

While from a technical definition a cultivar does not have to be registered to exist, it ought to be registered to be recognised as it needs to be defined somehow. Otherwise any similar plant may be passed off as the cultivar, even if it is not true breeding.

The term 'registered cultivar' will distinguish a formally recognised plant from one that isnt

[gardenofeden]

I was always taught that a cultivar is established upon publication, in a scientific journal or even a plant catalogue. Some people disagree that publication is required, and think that the intention to name a plant is sufficient. Registration is not necessary to establish a cultivar, but is common sense, so you can consult the register before naming a cultivar to check that someone else has not used the name. If two plants have the same name, then the first name published is valid.

[Blocky71]

Dimitar, please re-post the pics or send me a link or summat, I'd really love to see the source of this very deep subject.

I've 5 different clones of ceph, If I didn't have labels I couldn't tell them apart, I love seeing ceph's that are strikingly different .