Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeedG. If it works,
I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on the website. So
please, let me know.

Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have as many
as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a natural Genus,
such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS is calling these
"Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because so far as I know, there
aren't any Blcs found in the wild G. I'm sure Wendy knows, but for those
who might not, Blc. is the "Genus" name for a plant whose ancestry includes
species from the Brassavola, Laelia and Cattleya genera. Whatever it is,
this first part should be all one word, or one abbreviation.

The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the grex
name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some sources refer to
this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but regardless of what you
call it, it's the next thing after the Genus. E.g., B. nodosa (B for
Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the species) or Blc. George King (Blc. is
the "Genus", George King is the grex). I am aware that the RHS has changed
a lot of genera designations, but I'm not going to try to deal with that in
this post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone names.

When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring get a
new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go by the names
of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot. (Blc. George King x
Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring becomes Potinara because
Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the mix of ancestors. This
particular one has been registered, it's Pot. Edith North. Not all crosses
get registered, because (a) you have to know how, (b) there's a form to fill
out, and (c) there's a fee. So it doesn't always happen.

As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children G. Each
and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as every child
in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his or her nine
siblings [forget about identical twins for now G]. So think of "Edith
Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the family name of all the
children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of these children is entitled to
its own clonal name, more or less the same as the given names of children in
the Smith family (Arlene, Betty, Charles, Danny, Elaine, Frank, George,
etc.), but with orchids the parents can't do it so it's up the the
"god-parents," the breeder(s), and they don't always get around to naming
every one. Clones are sometimes referred to as varieties, so sometimes
clonal names are called varietal names. This is a major source of
confusion, but there is a solution. When referring to a species variety,
such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the "varietal" name should be lower
case and not in quotes; a clonal name should always be capitalized and in
single quotes.

Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them are
going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when it becomes
more important to bestow clonal names -- the part following the species or
grex name, and it should go in single quotes, e.g. 'Danny Adams'. When you
divide the first one, you should give it a clonal name, and that name should
go with both/all of the divisions. The next one you divide should get a
different clonal name, for all of its divisions.

But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name goes with
all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY SINGLE division or
clone of that particular plant, you don't have the right to change it.
Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is by the honor
system.

In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the clonal
name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be cloned (think
Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of tissue and used it
to produce thousands of identical copies (clones, mericlones, meristems).
All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams', just like any divisions of that
exact plant. But none of the other children of George King and Helen Velize
are 'Danny Adams'. Either they have different clonal names (Albert, Betty,
Charles), or they never got them.

The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to Smbcna. (now
Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the fourth part of the
name. I had lots of these. One I named 'Jupiter', and now all of its
divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Jupiter'. Even though it looks a
lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach', it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so that's not
part of its name. I also still have some divisions and lots of clones of
'Juno Beach'. All of them do get to have the HCC/AOS as part of their name,
on their labels.

Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith gets
a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
"Doctor". G. But there is a little difference, because all the clones or
divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS award, whether made before or
after the original plant was awarded. So, if someone were to get a flower
quality award, say an AM/AOS, on Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', all the
'Danny Adams' would then carry the award as part of their full names.

The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM, and
HCC. Other judging authorities use different award names/abbreviations.
Culture awards are different. A CCM is a Certificate of Cultural Merit and
really goes to the grower, not the plant. So if you were to buy one of my
Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully, and get a
CCM for it, the award would belong to you and I would not be entitled to put
CCM on all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE (Certificate of Cultural
Excellence).

There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g., there's
an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?) of a
particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I believe that
award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or registers the
plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if I'm wrong. Hope this
helps, Kenni




"wendy7" wrote in message
news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825@fed1read02...
Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood
the
scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused
now??

--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Steve wrote:
Diana Kulaga wrote:
....................
...................................
What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
to alter some tags....................................
.................................


I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
thinking.....
I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before
divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in
California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of
that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of
where the
plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee'
in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add
AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.

As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST
... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
Maybe
it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of
clones all to be named the same.

Steve