Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: JPB on March 12, 2009, 02:51:41 PM
-
I can't find it. To my recollection it is a specific form of a species. But does it apply to wild genotypes or selected genotypes? Is it one genotype which is vegetatively reproduced, or a number of different genotypes with the same characters? How is a 'cultivar' maintained? I.e. how is it protected from backcrossing with other conspecific individuals?
Thanks, hans
-
It's a long and twisted tale, Hans!
Tis is as good a starting point as any..... some brief points made on "Cultivar Groups- a sensible approach" and then a reply.... "....a systematic approach"......here..... http://www.hortax.org.uk/hortaxnews/text2.html
but perhaps you really need to read the 200 pages of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP, 1995) ?? ::) :-X
-
but perhaps you really need to read the 200 pages of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP, 1995) ?? ::) :-X
Maggie - surely no one deserves to be told that!! A punishment of last resort I think ;D
-
Yes, Sue, seems a bit harsh, I know.... but I must confess I was hoping Hans would read it and then summarise it for the rest of us!! ;D ;D ;D
There's this..... of course....
http://www.rhs.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B0D98AB8-3378-4D94-B105-77979D93388E/0/02Hanburyana12to14.pdf
------------------------
http://www.rhs.org.uk/Learning/Publications/pubs/garden0404/newslord.htm
--------------------------------------
This from an RHS SHow schedule........
The meaning of “kind” and “cultivar” (variety). Throughout the Schedule the
words “kind” and “cultivar” (variety) are used in the following sense: peaches,
nectarines, apples and plums are “kinds” of fruit; peas and potatoes are “kind” of
vegetable; Royal George, Noblesse and Alexander are “cultivars” (varieties) of peach;
Gladstone and Autocrat are “cultivars” (varieties) of pea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
other quotes......
A "plant variety" is a legal term, following the UPOV Convention. Recognition of a cultivated plant as a "variety" (in this sense) provides its breeder with some legal protection, so-called plant breeders' rights, depending to some extent on the internal legislation of the signatory countries.
Note that this "variety" (which will differ in status according to the local law of the land) should not be confused with the international (the same the world over):
taxonomic rank of variety (regulated by the ICBN)
cultivar (regulated by the ICNCP).
A cultivar is a cultivated plant that has been selected and given a unique name because of its decorative or useful characteristics; it is usually distinct from similar plants and when propagated it retains those characteristics.
The naming of a cultivar should conform to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (the ICNCP, commonly known as the Cultivated Plant Code). For this, it must be distinct from other cultivars and it must be possible to propagate it reliably, in the manner prescribed for that particular cultivar, either by sexual or asexual means.
The word cultivar, coined by Liberty Hyde Bailey, is generally regarded as a portmanteau of "cultivated" and "variety", but could also be derived from "cultigen" "variety". The word cultivar is not interchangeable with the botanical rank of variety, nor with the legal term "plant variety".[1]. Cultivars are a sub-set of Bailey's broader grouping the cultigen, defined as "a plant that has been deliberately altered or selected by humans" (see cultigen for Bailey's original definition of the cultivar[2], his definitions of the cultigen, and discussion of the current definition of cultigen).
..... and so it goes......... ::)
-
Cultivar - the following definition in The Hillier Manual of Trees & Shrubs seems to say all that is required in a simple & intelligible form.
-
I think Wikipedia gives a very clear explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivar
-
What is the process of naming a cultivar. I know Ian and Maggie have a lot of 'Craigton' cultivars around but assume that the names have to be formally accepted by 'someone'.
-
What is the process of naming a cultivar. I know Ian and Maggie have a lot of 'Craigton' cultivars around but assume that the names have to be formally accepted by 'someone'.
Not so very many 'Craigtons' around, really!
When a plant is given an award by the RHS Joint Rock Plant Committee, it is usually given " subject to the application of a cultivar name". The exhibitor is aske what name they want to give the plant. Accepted procedures for choosing a name ( as delineated, among other things,I suspect, in the 200 pages of the ICNCP) must be followed ....for example, no "latinised" names . For narcissus, of course, there is the International Daffodil Register, so one may secure a name in that manner also........ there are not international registers for all types of plant. The RHS registers and Plant Award committees are open to the amateur grower as well as the professional...these "registration" do not, I beleive, give any LEGAL protection to a plant name. There are other bodies,( such as the Dutch KAVB for bulbs) for the registration of plant names with commercial applications. This has been mentioned in other threads.
-
If one has a plant which is distinctive in some way which one feels worthy of a name to go with it on its journeys around the world, it is a sensible thing to give it a name before you start distributing it.
I recall some famous growers who began to distribute some fine hybrids, under the name of the cross, only for another grower to put it up to joint rock, get an award and give it a name.... the raisers diapproved of the name, and of an apparent attempt to pass the plant off as being raised by the exhibitor....... it could all have been avoided had the raisers given the plant a name in the first place!
That being said, it is only common courtesy, if one has been given an un-named plant to consult the raiser of the plant before giving it a name ..... I know of many instances of that good policy being used :)
-
It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit. He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
-
Hans,
an amateur's attempt at a definition of "cultivar". I believe that a cultivar is a cultivated variety, hence the abbreviation to "cultivar". Cultivars are then, by definition, plants which have been bred. They are not naturally occuring variations or crosses but are manmade.
Paddy
-
What is the process of naming a cultivar. I know Ian and Maggie have a lot of 'Craigton' cultivars around but assume that the names have to be formally accepted by 'someone'.
Anyone can name a cultivar and the name doesn't have to be accepted by anyone else. Registering a named cultivar with an international registrar, such as for daffs, may carry certain requirements. Of course anyone is perfectly free to disapprove of a name, especially if the naming seems especially stupid or commercial - wasn't there a white deciduous azalea raised in the middle of the last century named 'Persil' ? Dear God!
-
Hans,
an amateur's attempt at a definition of "cultivar". I believe that a cultivar is a cultivated variety, hence the abbreviation to "cultivar". Cultivars are then, by definition, plants which have been bred. They are not naturally occuring variations or crosses but are manmade.
Paddy
Paddy - many cultivars are selected & propagated from wild plants. Fritillaria hermonis amana 'Goksun Gold' & Iris reticulata 'Halkis' are just two, both from Norman Stevens collections.
-
Martin,
'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/
-
Martin,
'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/
Nice Azalea.... shame about the name ::)
-
Martin,
'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/
Nice Azalea.... shame about the name ::)
This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.
-
I've never been 100% behind the idea of naming those Rhododendron yakushimanum hybrids after the seven dwarves either. I mean, Grumpy, Sneezy, Doc, Itchy, whatever the rest of them were called. Are those names for shrubs?! Apart from anything else, whenever I hear or read the name of one of them, I think of the old joke about the seven dwarves in the bath, all feeling happy. When Happy got out, they all felt Grumpy.
-
Sleazy, Dirty, Crappy, Fatty, Skinny, Pimply and Fart!
-
It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit. He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.
Where there is a recognised organisation for such plants, one has to register with that, for the name to be accepted internationally. Examples are, of course, the various Rose, Daffodil, Iris and Rhododendron societies.
-
It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit. He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.
Where there is a recognised organisation for such plants, one has to register with that, for the name to be accepted internationally. Examples are, of course, the various Rose, Daffodil, Iris and Rhododendron societies.
But it IS the case, as I said, that even if a plant IS a wild collected form, or identical to the type species, if it is given an RHS joint rock award, it winll HAVE to be given a cultivar name ( in 99.999% of the cases I have read) before the award is ratified.... and this from a body which often complains that too many plants are named...... :o ::) :-\ :-X
-
It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit. He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.
Well, of course, the plant is only given a cultivar name when it is in cultivation. There is no problem with this. What I find obnoxious is that someone who has only grown/shown the plant can bestow a cultivar name without consulting or gaining the approval of the person who introduced it into cultivation. This seems to have been the case with the plant I referred to above.
-
Well, of course, the plant is only given a cultivar name when it is in cultivation. There is no problem with this. What I find obnoxious is that someone who has only grown/shown the plant can bestow a cultivar name without consulting or gaining the approval of the person who introduced it into cultivation. This seems to have been the case with the plant I referred to above.
Well, quite, Gerry, it is, apart from any other consideration, the height of bad manners, to act in that high-handed fashion. Extraordinarily rude not to consult the finder/ raiser/ introducer of the form.
-
Martin,
'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/
Nice Azalea.... shame about the name ::)
This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.
Many years ago ...... MANY years ago.... I was told that it would cost at least 5 thousand pounds (£sterling)to get a rose given a name of your choice. Goodness only knows what it would cost now.... even in a credit crunch! I wonder how cost effective that would really be for a charity? :-\
-
I know I'll regret getting drawn into this, but what about a plant selection from the wild that turns out to be a superb garden plant and becomes very widespread in cultivation? Surely it will have to be given a name eventually. If it's being sold in every garden centre in the world, it can't still be called XYZ 1183/A. Apart from anything else, the general gardening public often have problems getting fairly memorable plant names right, let alone collection numbers. A memorable name is surely preferable in that situation to a long collector's number. Be gentle with me, Lesley.
-
I can live with a wild plant being given a cultivar name if it is significantly different from others of its kind, in the wild and assuming it is brought into cultivation. That's fair enough. What annoys me is when a wild plant of which there are hundreds/thousands/millions in the wild, all visually identical, is given a cultivar name. I was particulartly offended years ago and many alpine growers in NZ were, that an English nurseryman came to NZ, collected many plants and took them home and named them for his nursery and his family members. They were native plants which had no differences from others of the same species.
Another example which I dredge up from time to time, is Pratia angulata 'Tim Rees.' Yes the plant is different from the NZ form but would be better identified as New Guinea form which at least gives a message about its hardiness compared with the NZ form. It is not different from all the other plants of Pratia angulata which live in New Guinea. No doubt Mr Rees was a charming and worthy young man before his early death but that still doesn't justify attaching his name to this wild plant. It can also be very misleading if all such plants are to have cultivar names before an award can be given. One knows a plant by generic and specific name then comes across that same name with a cultivar name attached and the obvious thought is that here is a better or different form when in fact it is just the same old same old as one has had for years. It is ridiculous that a properly named wild plant cannot be introduced and perhaps awarded, under that name alone.
Sorry to get so hot under the collar about this. No doubt I'm being quite anal about it. I do strongly feel (apparently with the RHS) that far too many plants are named when they're just not up to it. I also think that it's plain stupid to name a single plant, even a distinguished one, unless there is a real attempt to propagate and distribute it. As Maggi says, it's an RHS requirement for an award plant to be named in this way, in which case, I hold the RHS to blame for over and un-necessary naming. Not that they'll give a hoot for what I (or anyone else) think about the subject.
-
Martin,
'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/
Nice Azalea.... shame about the name ::)
This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.
Not a very good ad for Persil - look at that large yellow stain left in the middle! ;)
cheers
fermi
-
What is the process of naming a cultivar. I know Ian and Maggie have a lot of 'Craigton' cultivars around but assume that the names have to be formally accepted by 'someone'.
For some groups of plants, cultivars must be registered with the designated international registration authority. Roses, orchids, and rhododendrons are three such groups. Generally speaking, these groups are given special rules because of the sheer number of cultivars in them, or because of their economic importance.
Otherwise, a cultivar name can be validated by as little as publication in a horticultural catalog with a known publication date, with priority given to earlier publication. Thus, the flowering quince (Chaenomeles) usually called 'Contorta' is properly called 'Rinho', an older published Japanese name for the same plant.
from http://www.raretrees.org/chae72.html (http://www.raretrees.org/chae72.html):
This clone was called 'Contorta' by Clarke Nurseries of San Jose in Garden Aristocrats of 1942. Ishii published the name 'Rinho' in 1930 in Japan
-
One issue is that a plant with just a Latin name won't sell in an ordinary nursery, it has to have an English name, hence the plethora of names (and the names are not necessarily cultivar names as they do not refer to a single clone, sometimes to a species, or seed raised group). In a more specialist nursery it isn't a problem as those that use those nurseries are happy to use Latin names.
A botanist will accept the variety within a species as natural variation, whereas a nurseryman will try and appeal to the "collector" and give each one with a small variation from the "norm" a new name (hence the thousands of snowdrop names, and Japanese hepatica names, amongst others).
-
Thanks for your replies. A lot is clear to me now....quite a lecture!!!
As I am mainly interested in wild plants, the ongoing bombardment with new monstrous Tulipa-hybrids named after the (prolifically breeding :o ;D) Royal Dutch Family is not my thing. So let's narrow down to more "natural" plants.
I often wonder how a certain species or cultivar can be kept in culture for a long time when the mode of reproduction is sexual (i.e. seed-raised). There must be a selectional process going on as the nurseryman each (few) year(s) makes decisions which seedlings will be propagated and which not. So there must be a change over the years whithin a certain cultivar/botanical species. How is that problem tackled by the registration authorities? Would it be a good thing to specify for every cultivar whether it is maintained through vegetative or sexual propagation?
My personal view is that there has not been given enough attention to describe the origin of a collected plant. Collection numbers are the way to go, but it is very difficult sometimes to trace back a certain introduction. An example is Pleione. Many individuals of the same species have been wild-collected over the years, and mostly being clones, they would give a wealth of information on the biogeography/taxonomy of the clones/"cultivars" within that given species. New hybrids from these plants will also be better traceable to their roots.
Just some thoughts...
Cheers, Hans
-
I agree Hans. It would also be very useful to have a comprehensive system for registering collection numbers & recording associated notes.
-
I can live with a wild plant being given a cultivar name if it is significantly different from others of its kind, in the wild and assuming it is brought into cultivation. That's fair enough. What annoys me is when a wild plant of which there are hundreds/thousands/millions in the wild, all visually identical, is given a cultivar name. I was particulartly offended years ago and many alpine growers in NZ were, that an English nurseryman came to NZ, collected many plants and took them home and named them for his nursery and his family members. They were native plants which had no differences from others of the same species.
Okay, I'm with you now, Lesley. In my typically dense male way I hadn't cottoned on to the exact nature of your objections.
Have to admit my initial thought on seeing the pic of Azalea (sorry, Rhodo!) 'Persil' was similar to Fermi's - not that good an ad for the washing powder with that yellow stain in the centre, but then wee stains can be very stubborn.
-
Sleazy, Dirty, Crappy, Fatty, Skinny, Pimply and Fart!
Well I for one will not be getting into the tub with that lot.
johnw
-
I think the clearest is: http://www.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantnaming.asp#trade
It covers the use of 'trade designations' which allow a cultivar to be marketed with a name appropriate/understandable in the country in which it is being sold.
The cultivar name is the same in all countries, but the 'selling' name varies from country to country.
-
I think the clearest is: http://www.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantnaming.asp#trade
It covers the use of 'trade designations' which allow a cultivar to be marketed with a name appropriate/understandable in the country in which it is being sold.
The cultivar name is the same in all countries, but the 'selling' name varies from country to country.
But this too can cause problems for the unsuspecting buyer who has the plant with its English name then buys it again a year or so later under a Dutch/German/French name because a nursery/wholesaler has imported it under THAT name and either doesn't realize it's already around or - more likely - chooses not to let it be known that this is the same plant already in the trade, just under a different name.
I now avoid any name in a nursery catalogue which I know as a species but which now appears with a cultivar name. I used to assume here was a superior form but now I know it is just what I have already but with a "selling" name, in order, in fact, to boost sales rather than introduce something better than was available previously.