|
|
Post by leilani on Oct 26, 2006 2:38:30 GMT 7
Topic II, Thread 5: Cultivar nomenclatureUnlike grex registration the rules for naming cultivar already exist. These rules are defined in the ICNCP. A copy of this Code can be purchased (55 euro) from the ISHS at the following address: www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm . For the purposes of this conference some basic rules of cultivar naming are summarized below: A cultivar name is preceded by the generic name. A cultivar name begins with a capital letter, is in Roman type and set within single quotation marks. A cultivar mane should be no more than 10 syllables and no more than 30 letters or characters overall, excluding spaces and single quotes. A cultivar name cannot be in Latin and terms such as “Cross”, “Hybrid”, “Grex”, etc. are not allowed. A cultivar name should not exaggerate the merits of a cultivar. The purpose of this thread is to open discussion about “What are acceptable cultivar names?” and “Should there be provisions for appending nursery names to cultivars?”
|
|
|
|
Post by Rainforest Carnivores on Oct 26, 2006 13:28:48 GMT 7
While English is a universal spoken language, registration should not be limited to that as the foremost language!
There are some Thai cultivars of orchids with long names that could sink a ship, but this should not be a deterrent for registration. And YES, nurseries, individuals and growers should be allowed to register a plant with their name.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Oct 28, 2006 9:34:30 GMT 7
The rules of naming are very liberal. I believe that any language other than Latin is allowed. In fact, I don't think it even has to be a 'real' word.
I have no problems with nursery, personal or other names. The only question for me would be the syntax adopted for the application of nursery names, i.e., I'm not sure if they should be incorporated into the grex or cultivar name, appended to it or both.
e.g., N. Rokko Exotica ....... N. Rokko (Exotica) .......... N. Rokko Exotica (Exotica)
|
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Nov 2, 2006 18:18:08 GMT 7
Consider the following, point out deficiencies or excesses and make suggestions:
GENERIC - GREX - [AXB] - dateNUR - CULTIVAR - dateNUR
Horticulturally breed species w/ cultivars
Nepenthes Ventricosa [ventricosa_1 x ventricosa_1348] LH06 ‘Dancer’ LH10
Nepenthes Maxima [maxima_1 x maxima_3] LH04 ‘Maximus’ LH08
or
Nepenthes ventricosa LH06 ‘Dancer’ LH10
Nepenthes maxima LH04 ‘Maximus’ LH08
Remakes of natural hybrids w/ cultivars
Nepenthes Escort [x Hookeriana] SB05 ‘Call Girl’ SB11
Nepenthes Red Eye [albomarginata, rubra x reinwardtiana, purp.] LH04 ‘Billy Boy’ LH09
Nepenthes Green Gems [ x tricocarpa] BB90 ‘Emerald’ BB06
Remakes of Primary Hybrids w/ cultivars
Nepenthes Rokko Exotica [ x Rokko] EP00
Nepenthes Rose of India [ x Mastersiana] LH02
Nepenthes sanguinea x khasiana BB04
New Primary Hybrids w/ cultivars
Nepenthes Big Gulp [rajah x merrilliana] BE04 ‘Tanker’ BE10
Nepenthes Flying Frenchman [mirabilis, winged xx Isle de France] LH05 ‘Yves’ LH10
Nepenthes [gracillis, blk. x truncata] LH03 ‘Black Mamba’ LH11
Nepenthes [veitchii x boschiana] AW99 ‘Grundenauckhowderdozen’ 06
Nepenthes [truncata x singalana] EP89 ‘Sword’ EP06
Secondary Hybrids w / cultivars
Nepenthes [mirabilis, winged x (truncata x veitchii)] EP89 ‘Falcon’ EP06
Nepenthes Bluegill [sanguinea, purp. xx Mastersiana] LH02 ‘Silver’ LH08
Nepenthes Presidents [(veitchii xx Tiveyi) x truncata] TC02 ‘Taft’ TC09
Nepenthes Bulldog (ventricosa, red xx Andrewensis) 02 ‘Pit Bull’ 07
Nepenthes Gilligan’s Island [rafflesiana, giant x N. alata, grn] LH03 ‘Mary Ann’ LH09
|
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Nov 2, 2006 22:41:02 GMT 7
Not too complicated at all. Trent likes to see the registry log the parents of a named grex. Also, we like some of the entries not having a grex name, but performing as a record of a cross of two parents with the date and originator. The initials for the breeder is a little confusing, and while it easy for us to see who is who on most of them, the registry should show the entire name of who is the originator. Same for the cultivars. Some cultivars may be registered by someone other than the originator of the hybrid. Example: Nepenthes King Kong [merrilliana x truncata] Leilani Hap'ui Nepenthes Nursery'07 'T. rex' Sunbelle Exotics Inc '09 This kind of detail is needed for registry, but the plant tag would be simply be: N. King Kong 'T. rex'. Hmmmm. T. rex is a scientific name for an extinct species of Theropod. Would it be acceptable  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Nov 3, 2006 15:24:16 GMT 7
In the format:
GENERIC - GREX- (AxB) - dateNUR - CULTIVAR - dateNUR
The GENERIC name is mandatory but may be shortened to 'N.'.
A GREX name is optional.
(AxB) format statement of grex composition is mandatory.
Grex date is mandatory ... year
NUR is optional but intended for the nurseryman's id. In registration the nursery name would be spelled out but on tags nurseries could have a 2 letter abbreviation.
CULTIVAR name is mandatory.
Cultivar registration date is mandatory ... year
NUR is optional but intended for the nurseryman's id. In registration the nursery name would be spelled out but on tags nurseries could have a 2 letter abbreviation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Nov 3, 2006 21:31:26 GMT 7
sounds good to me. However, collectors and some traders will most likely shorten the tags to:
N. Grex Name 'Cultivar'
or
N. (a x b) 'Cultivar'
And take the attitude: "If you want nurseries and dates, look it up in the reg."
|
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Nov 8, 2006 7:54:24 GMT 7
RE: Genetically dissimilar plants that look alike and cultivar names
Making an ancestral reference, when known, a defining part of a cultivar definition would assure that no two genetically dissimilar plants that look alike could be called by the same cultivar name in the future. In other words; part of what it means to be the cultivar N.‘Predator’ is that it is from a the grex (N. truncata x hamata) EP01. Any plant, even if the parentage is unknown, can be registered as a cultivar providing that it is considered, by someone, to have special, distinctive and consistent qualities differentiating it from other plants. If the existing system were amended with an addendum to allow a grex reference, when it is provided, to be considered as a defining quality, in the same way that a physical feature is then, we could be sure that our cultivar ‘Predator’ consisted solely of plants with genes from the grex (N. truncata x hamata).
|
|
|
|
Post by sunbelle on Nov 8, 2006 8:57:56 GMT 7
First of all, N. Predator is not a cultivar, but a grex name. It is a name given to ALL SIBLINGS from the same seed pods. There are variations amongst the siblings. we have seen some have dark colored throats, others with pale green throats, differing shapes and peristome colors etc. There are differences amongst them, and once they bloom, there will be plants of different gender. Yet they all bear the name N. Predator. Therefore, it is a grex name. (whether official or not, it exists as such). Cultivar definitions do not include lineage, and because of this, it makes describing a cultivar based on a "genetic" background rather difficult. In this discussion of cultivar naming, it really is the only place we(Sunbelle) have a problem, because if a grex recognition (registration) system is to be adopted based upon documenting a single grex(inclusive of all siblings from the same bloom inflorescence), which is a documentation of lineage, then the cultivar system must follow suit, and be based on a sole individual clone (lineage of an individual plant from the recognized grex) that can only be reproduced by vegetative methods. Descriptions that match to different lineage are a problem with the current methods, and we recommend amending the cultivar definitions for Nepenthes to be limited to one genetic clone that can only be reproduced through vegetative methods (cuttings or mericloning).
Is this making sense? We see it clearly, but maybe not using the right wording to explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Nov 8, 2006 12:15:15 GMT 7
Yes, i realize that N. Predator is a grex name. I should have chosen another name for my hypothetical cultivar. Change the cultivar name and the EP nursery designation and the point still stands. What I am suggesting is a way to get one of the things we would like (a grex reference in the cultivar system) with only a slight addendum to the existing cultivar concept as it applies to nepenthes.
What I have suggesting above would not accomplish this but it would eliminate, in the future, the possibility of plants from genetically different parents being referred to by the same cultivar name.
What you suggest does make sense but would require changing the very definition of a cultivar and since this definition is used in all cultivated plants it would require amending the ICNCP itself and not just the registry process.
|
|
|
|
Post by leilani on Nov 11, 2006 15:57:18 GMT 7
What concerns the participants of this conference is the definition of a cultivar as it applies to nepenthes. As breeders and growers of just this one genus of plant the concept of a cultivar, as defined by the ICNCP, seems too broad for our purposes. In order to avoid the confusion of look-a-like plants of different genetic heritage both falling within the definition of a particular cultivar, we would want the concept of a cultivar, at least in relation to the genus Nepenthaceae, to contain a genetic component.
Consider ..........
In conjunction with the establishment of a grex registry it would be desirable to establish a new practice of appending a grex or derivation reference to new cultivar names. This reference would prevent the undesirable circumstance of look-a-like plants of different genetic heritage being called by the same name.
Cultivar notation:
GENERIC - ‘CULTIVAR’ - (Grex/AXB) - DATEnur
The GENERIC name is mandatory but may be shortened to 'N.' (Nepenthes .... Generic name: Latin, Italic, First letter capitalized)
The ‘CULTIVAR’ name is mandatory. (Cultivar name: not Latin, not Italic, First letter capitalized and enclosed in single quotes)
The (Grex/AXB) expression of derivation would be optional. This would be the Grex epithet if one exists. Otherwise it would be the Grex name, i.e., (AXB)
In the ‘DATEnur’ epithet the DATE would be mandatory. This date is the year of registry. The ‘nur’ designations is optional but intended for the breeder’s identification. (Date epithet: Month/Year. ‘nur’ epithet : Name of Breeder or Nursery.)
|
|
|
|
Post by josephclemens on Jan 17, 2011 4:30:24 GMT 7
What concerns the participants of this conference is the definition of a cultivar as it applies to nepenthes. As breeders and growers of just this one genus of plant the concept of a cultivar, as defined by the ICNCP, seems too broad for our purposes. In order to avoid the confusion of look-a-like plants of different genetic heritage both falling within the definition of a particular cultivar, we would want the concept of a cultivar, at least in relation to the genus Nepenthaceae, to contain a genetic component. . . Don't you mean the genus, Nepenthes? One reason, among many, that I appreciate the existing cultivar naming system, is that I don't have to keep track of the details of each plant, especially not on its label. The ICRA is responsible for keeping a list of registered cultivars. Any and all other pertinent details concerning the cultivar is recorded in the cultivar description. |
|
