Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:42:56 +0000 From: schlauer@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3621$foo@default> Subject: RE: "unpublished cultivar"
Dear Larry,
> I would suggest that Jan is a bit strong in his dismissal of
> an "unpublished cultivar" as rubbish.
I fear there is no other way to prevent bogus names from spoiling CP
communication. This may sound harsh but it would give us (the ICPS)
a very hard time as the CP IRA if informal names abounded. In
consequence, this would give anyone a hard time who wanted to find
out what a particular plant name means.
> What would you call a selection that
> has not yet been published and registered? Simply "selection" or a "named
> selection" or a "tentatively named selection" seem too weak, though those
> are technically the better terms.
A plant that is not distributed nor talked about does not need a
name.
A plant that needs a name (because it should be distributed or talked
about) must be named properly. There are finite sets of rules how to
do so. Anything else will inevitably lead to confusion.
> For some practical reasons I see nothing
> wrong with using the term "unpublished cultivar."
I see great problems with particularly this term because unpublished
or unregistered names should have a lifespan so short that noone
(especially noone on this list or in similar circles!) should even
take notice of them.
Informal small talk may be interesting, but in connection with
nomenclature it is the main source of confusion. All names mentioned
"in passing" will automatically find their way to literature. Such
items can be very difficult to handle if the plants are not described
properly and if the names are not registered. We are presently
working hard on some of the more elusive cultivars created by
Adrian Slack. Please get me right, I do not accuse Adrian Slack of
having published rubbish on purpose (at that time another version
of the ICNCP was used, obviously none of his advisors was
familiar with it, and most importantly, there was no IRA), but it
would be very nice if experience like this could be avoided in the
future.
> It certainly conveys a
> specific meaning to those who use such terminology.
It is one of our main tasks as the CP IRA to reduce the number of
those who use such terminology to very close to 0 (zero).
I do certainly appreciate plant breeding as a melange of art,
science, and craft, of which you are one of the outstanding experts
whose opinion and advice I willingly accept. But plant nomenclature
is a science that IMHO also has its merits, and it should be
respected by all who are concerned. You have done so in the past, and
there is no reason for other people not to follow your example.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:39 PST