Hi, Ray: Technically, you are absolutely correct. And if we could all
standardize on one term such as "cultivar," I'd agree with you that it would
be less confusing. But "variety" and "varietal" tend to create different
areas of confusion because those terms are often used for what seem to me to
be either subspecies [SHH, _please_ don't tell any taxonomists I said that
G] or more probably just color forms. How many times have you seen or
heard " C. skinneri v. alba " " Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana " or even "
Lc. Canhamiana v. coerulea "? In print, it's relatively easy to distinguish
that usage from " Pot. Edith 'Danny Adams' ", but in spoken language, they
are often said exactly the same way, at least around here -- even by AOS
judges!

There is some value in maintaining the difference between vegetative
divisions of a plant, and clones thereof, at least in some circles
(breeders, persons with sentimental attachments, truly "purist" collectors).
We here keep our original divisions of Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'
HCC/AOS separate from the clones, for that reason -- and most growers,
including us, do still charge a premium for vegetative divisions or
stem-props, compared to 'clones.

The major point I wanted to clear up, is that if the plant is genetically
identical to Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', then it should be labelled Pot.
Edith North 'Danny Adams', and _all_ the parts and pieces of it, whether
produced by division or by cloning, should be labelled with that full name.
[If it's a vegetative division, you can be 100% sure. If it's a clone,
there does remain some chance of error*, but for those buying from reputable
nurseries who deal with reputable labs, I think that these days it's
considerably less than 1%. This risk I think you have to lump in with the
risk of getting a mistaken label -- negligible but still possible when
dealing with reputable nurseries [we're all still human], a much higher risk
in other situations such as buying from a big-box store or yard sale.
Danny's siblings are all Pot. Edith North, but none of them are 'Danny
Adams', again regardless of whether produced by division or cloning.
Ideally, each of these siblings should have its own "given" name, in single
quotes, and if any one of them is divided, all of the resulting additional
plants should bear the same "given" name. So if a person acquires a plant
that already has one of those names in single quotes, it shouldn't be
changed unless the owner can be absolutely positive that he or she owns 100%
all of the genetically identical plants (whether clones or divisions). To
do so would be to misrepresent your plant as genetically different from all
the other genetically-identical plants owned by others. Kenni

*Mutations can occur in the 'cloning process. They can be accidental or
intentional, and the intentional ones are beyond the scope of this subject.
These mutations are not genetically identical to the original plant, and
really shouldn't bear the same clonal or cultivar name. In at least one
such case, the mutation has been given a new clonal or cultivar name which I
think has been recognized by most authorities. I'm not sure, I think it
might have been a mutation of Brs. Rex 'Sakkata.' The problem is that short
of expensive testing, there's no way to tell, _esp._ before the "clone"
blooms. But I don't see nearly as many accidental mutations now as I did 15
years ago.


"Ray" wrote in message
...
Good job, Kenni.

Might I make one suggestion which might help reduce potential confusion
(not to mention allay a pet peeve)? In paragraph four, you refer to
George's and Helen's offspring as each being entitled to its own "clonal
name." I believe that is a term that has been incorrectly generalized to
the point of potential confusion, notably in the case you discussed in a
later paragraph on the "cloning" of 'Danny Adams.'

In fact, that first 'Danny Adams' seedling was not a clone at all, and
neither are any of its divisions.

Instead - and following your descriptive methodologies - perhaps we should
try to standardize on an "artificial variety" or "cultivated variety", AKA
cultivar. The cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " is the
cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " whether it is cloned or
divided.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Kenni Judd" wrote in message
...
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