How is it correct to call Cephalotus with locations?

[dimitar]

Well, regarding what Cephalotus is cultivar and what is clone now all is clear already for me. But how is correct we to call Cephalotus from wild locations?

Example - Coal mine beach, Walpole, Emu point etc? Cultivar, clone or how?

[eriomix]

super cultivar

[mobile]

I don't believe locations should be in either single or double quotes, as these mean cultivar or named (nickname).

[snapperhead51]

For me cephs like Coal Mine beach should be called just that because its the actual place it comes from , it is near the township of Walpole , and it over looks the Noralup inlet , so like other location site like Emu point and Broke Inlet or Gull Rock road ect , these are actual location sites and the cephs should be called as there location site name if it at all possible.

[Marcel van den Broek]

You should just give it the species named + Loc.:XXX So Cephalotus follicularis Loc.: Coalmine beach, W.A.

A plant with location data, provided you can trust the source to have good records, is potentially far more valuable than any cultivar or clone as it has additional information. It allows to keep populations/bloodlines separate and helps maintain a health population in cultivation by being able to cross unrelated plants. Also the plants are, if labelled correctly, still "wild" in most part (cultivation does have some unavoidable influence) and thus not diluted by what growers consider beautifull like in selected clones or cultivars.

In all aspects these are the botanically superior plants in cultivation if you can get away from the "tulipmania" attitude of the stranger the better. (Just to avoid being shot at by just about any cultivar loving grower, I don't say there is no place for cultivars. You should grow that what you personally like but I try to look at this strictly from a botanical/ Mother Nature point of view )These plants do represent a problem though....the question wether the original material was legally collected or not.....

Edited October 19, 2013 by Marcel van den Broek

[gardenofeden]

I would recommend giving it your own collection number. Eg dim23, with the origins described afterwards. . Then people who get it off you will know its the same clone, and can give it the same number, otherwise we might get the confusion there is with "vigorous clumping"... If you had plants from seed they might be eg dim24a, 24b, 24c etc to dhow they are all related , but all different clones.

[dimitar]

Thanks all!

[Marcus B]

Keeping location details with a clone is a great way to try preserve natural variation with a species, even if is not enough to make them look anything different from most others of the species. As I have said before, it can be help to enable the replanting of an area that loses it natural population.

There was a situation with a variety of S. purpurea that was declared extinct, until it was discovered that it was a local form from which seed had been collected. It was being grown successfully here in Melbourne and so material was able to be sent back to the USA. If it had not been correctly labelled, it may have ended up just mixed with other purps and its unique features lost in cross breeding. It is situations like this in which the plant's unique features are only recognised after the wild populations are wiped out, being assumed to be just a "typical" form, that give good reason to record and maintain location details.

[dimitar]

Thank u, Marcus!

[mobile]

I agree that the location details should be recorded where this is known and indeed it could help with bio-diversity and possible re-introduction in the future - provided the original provenance can be verified.

I'm not sure whether it should be part of the plant "name" though, rather it should be part of the record. For example, Cephalotus f. from Coal Mine Beach, rather than Cephalotus f. "Coal Mine Beach" - the latter suggests that it is a named variety. I guess it doesn't make much of a difference, as long as individuals understand that Coal Mine Beach is the source location - but I would be wary that some growers might name a different clone as "Coal Mine Beach" if it looks the same.

[dimitar]

but I would be wary that some growers might name a different clone as "Coal Mine Beach" if it looks the same.

You are quite right! I suspect that this is already happening unfortunately....

So, what we can do to prevent that? Any thoughts are much appreciated.

[Marcel van den Broek]

That's why I don't think a plant selected in cultivation should be given a name reffering to a location. A location name should reffer to plants from that location and nothing more.

So there should be no clone Coal mine beach with " " or ' ' but only a number of plants (think for instance of all seedling raised from some seeds) that can trace their genetic roots to that location.

"coal Mine beach black" or "coal mine beach giant" would be acceptable as it is the additions indicate that it's a selection from plants from this location. A single refference to a location should be reserved for all plants of that location.