Recommended Posts

Following your logic if I cross two location plants for example: Cephalotus Two Peoples Bay x Coal Mine Beach or Northcliffe x French Mans Bay,  I will end up with pure location plant ? If so, to what location the resulted plant would belong? Since all 4 quoted location plants have different genes and characteristics.

How the resulted plant from this cross will have at one and the same time and will contain in itself 100% the genes and the characteristics from  Two Peoples Bay  and in the same time 100% the genes and the characteristics from Coal Mine Beach ?

 

Or if I cross tow cultivars Cephalotus 'Eden Black' x Cephalotus 'Hummers Giant'. How will u name all the resulted plants - cultivars ?

 

What do u think?  :smile:

 

To be honest, I don't understand what's the point of what you are saying (and what's the logic behind what you wrote), what are you talking about? cultivars? plants with location? or something else? They are different things.

If you want to obtain plants from a specific location you have, of course, to cross plants from the same location; if you cross plants from different location you will have plants that are completely different things and have no location.

If you want plants that mantain the cultivar name you have to cross plants from the same cultivar, but of course that isn't true for "false" cultivar as, let's say, Sarracenia 'Adrian Slack', because that is not what a cultivar should be; S.'Adrian Slack' it's simply a selected and named individual plant.

If you make the cross 'A.Slack' x self ('A.Slack' x 'A.Slack') the plants obtained can be only named 'A.Slack' x 'A.Slack' (or 'A.Slack' x self) because the plants obtained will not match the the description of the cultivar.

But if you want, for example, a S.'Schnell's Ghost' (please read the original description), that is a ture cultivar, you can cross two plants of this cultivar and the results are going to have all a yellow flower and will match the original description, so they are still 'Schnell's ghost'.

Please note that I'm not saying that if you obtain a plant (from selfed cultivar seeds) that match the cultivar description that will be the same cultivar and the other plants not.

I'm saying that if all the plants obtained from the seeds of that selfed cultivar plant (from the first, second, third...ecc generation) match the cultivar description, then that cultivar is a true cultivar (it's a new -artificial selected- variety) and can be described as cultivar (of course you have to verify this by yourself before you register the cultivar).

If, from those seeds, there are plants that does not match, that means that you have not selected a pure line (a new variety), and what you have is simply an (interesting/beautiful/strange) individual selected plant; according to the rules you can register it as a "cultivar" saying that "the plant should be reproduced only asexually to mantain name and characteristic" but that is a nonsense, that is not what a cultivar is meant to be (and should not be allowed to be registered as cultivar).

 

Seeing that huge mess in the registered carnivorous plants cultivars, maybe, what we probably need, should be to split true cultivars form all the "individual selected plants" (allowing only true cultivated variety to be registered as cultivars) and move those other "not-cultivars" to a new "registered individual selected plant index".

But is it worth it?...

Edited by .Pico.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great topic fischermans! F1 is used when you cross 2 genetically different clones with each other. It stands for the first filial generation. It's especially important in Sarracenia breeding because F

Ada, I'm not taking it personal. I justtry to make clear how things are. I don't have to like it but I do have to give the best information I got As for crapy descriptons: The ICPS (or any other off

Hi, from my point of view, it's a question of wether we're talking about a named and described clone or not. The selfed S. alata anthocyanin free is a S. alata anthocyanin free, because nobody reg

There may not be a stone county in alabama but there is a STONE CO in alabama.

It is a stone company could this be the source of some plants? and the reason for misunderstanding.

As for cultivars from seeds i think it depends on how the person registered the cultivar.

i.e Hurricane creek white leucos can be a cultivar from seed as it says in the description when registered

But the cultivar S X "SUSPICION" can only be produced vegatively

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true Ada, that is what I meant with the legallity of the added text that it should only be reproduced by vegetative means.

 

Technically, if a seedling looks like it it will be considered Suspicion regardless of what the selector or for that matter most people will say.

There is nothing in the rules that I could find that says you can make such an exception as the selector :read: . Some will say that the text also doesn't say you can't and that is the big argument.

I think everybody would prefer it otherways, but there are many things I would prefer like a system that can reject a submitted cultivar if it is a piece of you know what :banging:

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the ICPS cultivar descriptions of both plants i have stated it does state how they can be propagated.If this is not adhered to then the resulting plants are not the true cultivar,either by not matching the description if grown from seed as in HCW or by division as in suspicion,the creators of these cultivars wrote their description for a reason.

If this is not the case we might as well throw all the descriptions in the bin and refer to them all by our pet names just because it looks similar does not mean it is the real plant.

I don't sell AF flava's as s x suspicion just because they look the same,i could but i don't and never would.

Growers want to know they have the real plant,not one that looks like it.

For what its worth i agree with you that cultivars should earn their status by being tried and tested and not just registered because their is alot of s*** out there.

ada

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't understand what's the point of what you are saying (and what's the logic behind what you wrote), what are you talking about? cultivars? plants with location? or something else? They are different things.

 

Really ? Would u explain please, what are the differences between the location plants and the cultivars?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is not the case we might as well throw all the descriptions in the bin and refer to them all by our pet names just because it looks similar does not mean it is the real plant.

I don't sell AF flava's as s x suspicion just because they look the same,i could but i don't and never would.

Growers want to know they have the real plant,not one that looks like it.

 

I agree 100000000000000.... %.Thank you for these words..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a possibility that in some cases plants are registered as a "Selected Clone"?  This is more a more apt description of what is being requested than the very very broad "Cultivar" where a piece of a named cultivar  isn't that because it doesn't match the description yet a piece of something I just scraped off my shoe is because it does match.

Edited by FredG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred: I think that is what gets in the area of a grex registration. For the moment and despite heavy preasure by both commercial and hobbyist growers that is not allowed for any plants except orchids.

 

Ada, there is no such thing as ICPS cultivar descriptions. The ICPS maintains a register of plants that get submited as a cultivar and as an unrelated issue allows people to publish a cultivar description they made. We don't have opinions (at least policy wise, personally is something else) on if it is good or not. If it meets the demands set for registration of a cultivar it is added.

The rules say that if it matches the discription it IS the cultivar despite anything anyone might want to add. That is legally just an expression of the wishes of the selector.

You can only hope people respect that wish but there is no punishment if they don't. A cultivar is not the same as having breeding rights. That too can be done but the proces is more complicated and means people are not allowed to take cutting of a plant they bought and sell them on for a set number of years.

The only thing that a selector can do if he goes for a cultivar is express his wish and write an as accurate and detailed as possible description.

 

And yes, that does mean that you can question the need for a registration....but it is free and a way to announce your breeding succes.

 

Luckeily most people respect the formulated wishes and most buyers would only want a plant produced that way but that doesn't change the rules as I tried to explain...sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Marcel,i was not being personal.

So if the ICPS only maintains a register,anyone can publish a description anywhere and it will get added?

no matter how flimsy the description?

ada

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cultivars in most branches of horticulture are in actual fact single clones and not accurately (if at all) reproducible by sexual propagation. Just think of apples for example! CPs are no exception. The caveat that a plant need only fir the description is applied in the exceptional circumstances of characteristically stable lineages and especially in annuals. A single clone is no less valid as a cultivar. I think it would be to everyone's benefit if we all accepted the convention of only identifying the vegetatively propagated plants as a particular cultivar for Sarracenia and ignored what the 'rules' may or may not permit.

 

Marcel van den Broek, since all S. x 'Dixie Lace' (as with most other Sarracenia cultivars) are theoretically genetically identical crossing two 'specimens' is exactly the same as selfing and yields no more an F1 generation than selfing. Unless you can have an F1 from selfing a plant by cross pollinating two flowers from the same specimen also.

 

Dimitar, the issue of "location plants" in this context is crossing plants from the same location not different ones. When it comes to geographic variation, Sarracenia are a different kettle of fish to Cephs after all. A plant produced by parents of more than one location has no specific location itself but does still have a pedigree of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There may not be a stone county in alabama but there is a STONE CO in alabama.

It is a stone company could this be the source of some plants? and the reason for misunderstanding.

 

Ah! the perils of abbreviation. I wonder if this can even be verified? Even so, Stone Company, AL is hardly good location data, what if they move?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Sarracenia are a different kettle of fish to Cephs after all.

 

Exactly and I agree with u,  but as Marcel pointed out already the rules are for all cultivars i. e including Cephs cultivars, or the rules don't refer to Cephs cultivars?

It is a big mess, nope rather huge mess in those so called " international rules ", so they could hardly be apply to all CPs. :yes:   

 

More likely is me going to the Moon, than this mess to be sorted out ever anyway.... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ada, I'm not taking it personal. I justtry to make clear how things are. I don't have to like it but I do have to give the best information I got :yes:

As for crapy descriptons: The ICPS (or any other official registar for other plants) is not allowed an opinion on the plant or the completeness of a description. :read::thumbsdown:

There are a few rules to be followed (Jan does that check and knows more about it than I do) but if it meets those (very basic in my opinion) demands than we can't refuse it.

In the category of wishfull thinking: It would be great if there was some sort of professional jury that would judge proposed cultivars on their merrits and the description but that is not the case unfortunately :whistling: .

 

Ordovic: Sorry, you are correct..My mistake. What I described with two Dixie Lace plants would be an F2, self or cross polination of F1's. :thanks:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ? Would u explain please, what are the differences between the location plants and the cultivars?

Hello Dimitar,

A cultivar is a group of plants with a distinct, unifying characteristic and are usually all clones, nearly identical siblings or the result of line breeding or even the F1 generation of crossing two different lines.

A Location Plant is a plant whose genetics are all from a known location. There is no unifying characteristics, literally dozens of different species of plant will be living in close proximity to each other at any given location. I have seen up to five species of Sarracenia at a couple of different spots. If the population is large enough, it may house quite a number of varieties of several species.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, 

 

Thank you for your explanations.

 

Reading the book " International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated plants" - eighth edition, I can't find how should I name the resulted plants if u cross two different locations plants? I gave already several examples in this thread. Or if it is complex cross from several locations plants?

 

Don't want really to open the same thread in Cephalotus section with the same question "Naming of selfed Cephalotus ".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't want really to open the same thread in Cephalotus section with the same question "Naming of selfed Cephalotus ".

 

Oddly enough you'd get the same answers if you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, 

 

Thank you for your explanations.

 

Reading the book " International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated plants" - eighth edition, I can't find how should I name the resulted plants if u cross two different locations plants? I gave already several examples in this thread. Or if it is complex cross from several locations plants?

Well, the location isn't part of name, it is additional information. So if the cross is intra species you could write it like S. rosea (LD: Chipola x Crestview). LD being Location Data.

If it is a several locations, then just name the region they are generally from, like western Florida Panhandle.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the location isn't part of name, it is additional information. So if the cross is intra species you could write it like S. rosea (LD: Chipola x Crestview). LD being Location Data.

If it is a several locations, then just name the region they are generally from, like western Florida Panhandle.

Dave I hope you will not take this as me disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing but when I read the last sentence I see it as appearing to imply that the plant came from the Western Florida Panhandle and appear to be a general area location plant. I hope you can see my point.

Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I don't really follow what you mean? The Florida Panhandle is a big piece of land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? If the location information has been generalized, how does this imply anything other than the general location from which the line of plants was established?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like saying if you cross an S. purpurea from Ireland with an S. purpurea  from near Canada that the plant came from the middle of the Atlantic. Once a plant is out of it's location its lineage is no longer of a location as it is in cultivation and can no longer be considered a location plant. A location plant should only mean seed or a plant directly from a location NOT every descendant after that.y all means make a reference to the origin source as a point of data.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, I think you can call it 'plant from the northern hemisphere'. If this is reasonable, is another question.

But if you cross two plants from different counties in Florida, I think, it's OK to lable it 'plant from Florida'.

Edited by VChr
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like saying if you cross an S. purpurea from Ireland with an S. purpurea  from near Canada that the plant came from the middle of the Atlantic. Once a plant is out of it's location its lineage is no longer of a location as it is in cultivation and can no longer be considered a location plant. A location plant should only mean seed or a plant directly from a location NOT every descendant after that.y all means make a reference to the origin source as a point of data.

Well, I'll just say that doesn't make any sense! Of course all plants descent from location xxx are descent from location xxx. How would any location outside of the natural range be valid? Your example hurts my brain. All the plants naturalized in Switzerland are from Ontario. It would make no sense to say they were from somewhere else! Unless there were more collections and naturalizations.

In that case you might as well not bother with location data at all.

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.