Re: All red VFT Dentate

From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 07:56:27 PDT


Date:          Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:56:27 
From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg3801$foo@default>
Subject:       Re: All red VFT Dentate

Dear Dave and potential cultivar describers,

> I notice you calling it a hybrid, but it's not as there is only one
> species and no subspecies or varieties of VFT. I suppose it can only
> be called by a clonal name, but so far it doesn't have one until the
> name is published...

Cultivars do not have taxonomic significance. This is why they may be
distinguished *within* any taxon of specific or lower rank. Cultivars
are assigned taxonomically to the species they belong to.

If you have two different cultivars of one species (at the moment
there are only two "reds" registered under _Dionaea muscipula_), you
may (if legal limitations do not exclude this) of course breed
hybrids between these (taxonomically they will remain _D. muscipula_,
without any symbol indicating hybrid nature because these are still
considered offspring of the same taxon) and give these hybrids new
cultivar names. This is possible even if one of the parents does not
yet have a correct cultivar name ("dentate", "dentata", or whatsoever
has not been registered yet; NB: "dentata" would be illegitimate
for a cultivar because it is Latin).

> On that note, I sure would like to see some of these very much so
> cultivar worthy VFT's get some cultivar names. What's wrong guys?
> (not directed at Sung per-sey) I mean you grow these very different
> plants and don't bother to name them?!? It's not as though you have
> to TC the clones to name them, just write up short article explaining
> why it's different, include a good photo which clearly shows the
> difference (I don't feel the photo of Sung's VFT would do, but a week
> or two in stronger light should fix that) and come up with a cool name.

Do not forget to ***PUBLISH*** the article. You should do so in CPN.
All cp cultivars should be registered in CPN as the IRA
(International Registration Authority; CPN is not yet listed in the
current version of the International Code for the Nomenclature of
Cultivated Plants but negotiation is in good progress) for cps.

> It's not that hard and it would end lot's of the confusion about which
> clone is which, what to call them (most important) and who produced it.
> Editors of the CPN will be able give you a better guide-line for
> article submission, but that is really all there is to it.

Your summary of the process was quite straightforward. The latest
version of the ICNCP recommends (NB: it does not require it!)
submission of a conserved specimen (cf. type specimens in the ICBN).
For cps this is not considered necessary or sensible as most cp
cultivars are colour forms or hybrids which are much better documented
by good colour photographs (as suggested above, already). So we do
not require a specimen but a *good* photo (showing the diagnostic
features) accompanying cultivar descriptions for CPN. Publication
of the description in CPN is considered a valid registration of cp
cultivars.

> P.S. what does "dentata" mean anyway? Replacement teeth for aged traps?

It means that the usually fimbriate condition of the leaf margin is
replaced by a dentate one (the teeth being considerably shorter than
in the "wild type").

Kind regards
Jan



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST