I noticed today a second posting in the CP listserve regarding the CPN
article about the Royal-Red VFT. I haven't yet received my copy of CPN
and look forward to reading this article.
But please note, there MAY be a few factual errors
in the CPN article. Specifically (from what I, a nonlawyer, understand),
the Plant Variety Rights (PVR) given to the australian horticulturist
govern Australians and is not global law. No doubt the many fine Ozzie
CPers may find the PVRs irritating, but CPers elsewhere in the world are
unaffected. Indeed, let us not forget that VERY RECENTLY Ron Gagliardo of
Atlanta Botanical Gardens distributed an all-red phenotype VFT.
A few years ago when this PVR stuff was really flying around, there was a
huge amount of energy spent by CPers regarding perceived elements of
unfairness or cruel restrictions placed on horticulturists. At that time,
and still, I thought it bizarre that so much effort was being deposited on
this issue while it would be infinitely better directed towards conserving
endangered plants and animals still in the wild---the VFT being an excellent
poster plant exemplifying a life form seriously endangered by land
consumption, development, and plant collection.
So let's not blow this out of proportion.
BAMR