Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:31:57 -0500 (EST) From: Oliver T Massey CFS <massey@hal.fmhi.usf.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg135$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: _Nepenthes_ naming
SNIP
> > A difference in the sense of the ICNCP should be more obvious than
> > that (ideally recognizable even in seedlings).
>
> So then, how did Bruce Bednar name N. * wrigliana cv. 'Kosobe'?
> Can (should) cultivars even be used for this polymorphic genus?
Not to short Bruce, but I am fairly sure he was not responsible for N.
wrigliana 'kosobe'. I obtained 'kosobe' in the mid 70's (still have it) and
was told it was developed in Japan and named for a Japanese city. Sorry I
don't remember the source, maybe the old World Insectivorous Plants - who was
that, Bob Hanaran?
> > The parent plants are not designated cultivars. So why bother with
> > naming their offspring separately if they do not warrant cultivar
> > selection?
> > A plant cannot be regarded unique just because of its parents.
>
> This is the problem I'm having with naming them as cultivars.
> So should Meryl's friend (Or I, in the future) name his plants as
> cultivars or not?
As far as cultivars go, I seem to recall the story that a Japanese grower
produced a hybrid and out of all of the resulting seedlings identified three or
four distinct patterns in pitcher characteristics. He then provided cultivar
names to each of the "unique" group of plants.
Given the complex Nepenthes crosses, it would seem to me that in any batch of
seedlings the chances are that only one or two (if that many) would have
unique, desirable characteristics worthy of naming. More or less the approach
Mellichamp uses for his Sarr. hybrids.
Along the same lines, if you check the parentage of several of the old hybrids,
N. wrigliana, N. coccinea, N. paradisea, -shoot I know there are one or two
others, maybe one of the Koto's that have flooded the scene- I believe they
all have the same parents. I don't recall if it is three or four parents,
mirabilis, raff., ampullaria, and maybe gracilis? - I guess I should check
Jan's list to know for sure! :)
N coccinea and N.paradisea look absolutely identical to me except for pitcher
size (may be growing conditions), while wrigliana kosobe is distinct in both
the width and angle of the peristome and the shape of the pitcher. Coloration
is identical for all three.
And as a question for the taxonomists, when the parentage is the same, as
described above, what is the difference between naming as a hybrid and naming
as a cultivar? It appears that in practice, naming a hybrid you have created
is equivalant to providing a cultivar name, although these hybrid names are not
treated as cultivar names. Is the difference the form of the published
description?
If I cross mirabilis, raff. and amp. and whatever else is in the mix, I would
assume I am not producing N. wrig., paradisea, or coccinea, but it seems likely
that the resulting mix will produce a hybrid largely indistinguishable from
them.
Tom in Fl
P.S. Jan I read your reply and I do not recall a specific citation for N.
wrig. kosobe; unless you count my early correspondence with other growers in
the seventies! :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST