You might want to take a look at this, too:

http://www.firstrays.com/orchid_names.htm

--

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


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:CkEhf.9797$dv.7437@fed1read02...
Thanks ever so much Kenni for your most explicit explanations, you have
managed to clear some items up especially the "varietals" *g*
Genus/species or grex/clonal or varietal/Awards......Do I have this
correct?
I will save this & will look out for your website url.
Thanks again,
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Kenni Judd wrote:
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