"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message om...
It would appear that such concepts are way beyond your limited
comprehension.

So you are saying that it is alright for horticulturists to be mentally and
linguistically challenged?

Do they make you wear a special helmet so that you don't hurt yourself in
the garden?

Don't you get tired of people calling you "special" when they really mean
that you are stupid?

Never mind. You probably crave all that extra attention especially when you
get all flustered when you forget which end of the trowel you dig with.




One more time, waxboy; demonstrate the botanical difference between a
cultivar and a natural variation. You can't, and neither can anyone
else. Botanists disagree on what a species is, yet you claim there's
a solid definition of variety that distinguishes between natural
varieties and cultivars. Your cliam is empty.

A cultivar is --by definition-- a kind of variety, a subset, so to
speak. It's a difficult concept, but eventually even you may be able
to grasp it.

All cultivars are varieties, but not all varieties are cultivars,
comprende?


If you claim there's a botantical distinction that goes beyond that,
prove it.


J. Del Col

"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message om...
It would appear that such concepts are way beyond your limited
comprehension.

So you are saying that it is alright for horticulturists to be mentally and
linguistically challenged?

Do they make you wear a special helmet so that you don't hurt yourself in
the garden?

Don't you get tired of people calling you "special" when they really mean
that you are stupid?

Never mind. You probably crave all that extra attention especially when you
get all flustered when you forget which end of the trowel you dig with.





Name-calling seems to be your true, though meager, talent, waxboy.

Now listen carefully--

All cultivars are varieties, but not all varieties are cultivars.
It's a difficult concept, but you may be able to grasp it.

In fact many cultivars, are natural mutations, so what exactly would
the difference be between them and what you claim is the distinct
category of a natural variety? You can't demonstrate it, and neither
can anyone else.

If you -can- demonstrate a -botanical- difference between a cultivar
and a natural variety, prove it. Otherwise, your claims about the
distinction are so much wind.


J. Del Col

Alright DelColon, you arrogant retard, since you were obviously playing
hooky that day smoking reefer instead of in your biology class with all the
other students and you suffer permanent brain damage that severely limits
you ability to understand certain basic concepts, I guess I will need to
come out and explain it to you.

A botanical variety is a subspecific taxonomic ranking between that of
subspecies and form. In order to be valid, the name of a botanical variety
is given in Latin form and according to the rules of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). A botanical variety represents a subset
within a species as a wild population of phenotypically similar plants that
fall within the definition of a particular species and are more similar that
a subset that would be considered a subspecies but not as similar as a
subset that would be considered a form.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur....Luistitle.htm


A cultivar is a plant selected by man for its horticultural or agricultural
merit. It may be a selection from a wild population, a mutation appearing in
cultivation, a hybrid or a selection from a hybrid. A cultivar must be given
a fancy name and the name has no botanical ranking.

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm


The two terms are mutually exclusive and in no way have the same meaning.


J. Del Col wrote in message
m...
"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message
om...
It would appear that such concepts are way beyond your limited
comprehension.

So you are saying that it is alright for horticulturists to be mentally
and
linguistically challenged?

Do they make you wear a special helmet so that you don't hurt yourself
in
the garden?

Don't you get tired of people calling you "special" when they really
mean
that you are stupid?

Never mind. You probably crave all that extra attention especially when
you
get all flustered when you forget which end of the trowel you dig with.





Name-calling seems to be your true, though meager, talent, waxboy.

Now listen carefully--

All cultivars are varieties, but not all varieties are cultivars.
It's a difficult concept, but you may be able to grasp it.

In fact many cultivars, are natural mutations, so what exactly would
the difference be between them and what you claim is the distinct
category of a natural variety? You can't demonstrate it, and neither
can anyone else.

If you -can- demonstrate a -botanical- difference between a cultivar
and a natural variety, prove it. Otherwise, your claims about the
distinction are so much wind.


J. Del Col

Alright DelColon, you arrogant retard, since you were obviously playing
hooky that day smoking reefer instead of in your biology class with all the
other students and you suffer permanent brain damage that severely limits
you ability to understand certain basic concepts, I guess I will need to
come out and explain it to you.

A botanical variety is a subspecific taxonomic ranking between that of
subspecies and form. In order to be valid, the name of a botanical variety
is given in Latin form and according to the rules of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). A botanical variety represents a subset
within a species as a wild population of phenotypically similar plants that
fall within the definition of a particular species and are more similar that
a subset that would be considered a subspecies but not as similar as a
subset that would be considered a form.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur....Luistitle.htm


A cultivar is a plant selected by man for its horticultural or agricultural
merit. It may be a selection from a wild population, a mutation appearing in
cultivation, a hybrid or a selection from a hybrid. A cultivar must be given
a fancy name and the name has no botanical ranking.

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm


The two terms are mutually exclusive and in no way have the same meaning.



J. Del Col wrote in message
...
"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message
om...
Its back to school for you, DelColonic.



So exactly what is the botanical difference between a cultivar and a
natural variety?

If you can't demonstrate that, then your distinction between the two
is empty.

J. Del Col

Alright DelColon, you arrogant retard, since you were obviously playing
hooky that day smoking reefer instead of in your biology class with all the
other students and you suffer permanent brain damage that severely limits
you ability to understand certain basic concepts, I guess I will need to
come out and explain it to you.

A botanical variety is a subspecific taxonomic ranking between that of
subspecies and form. In order to be valid, the name of a botanical variety
is given in Latin form and according to the rules of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). A botanical variety represents a subset
within a species as a wild population of phenotypically similar plants that
fall within the definition of a particular species and are more similar that
a subset that would be considered a subspecies but not as similar as a
subset that would be considered a form.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur....Luistitle.htm


A cultivar is a plant selected by man for its horticultural or agricultural
merit. It may be a selection from a wild population, a mutation appearing in
cultivation, a hybrid or a selection from a hybrid. A cultivar must be given
a fancy name and the name has no botanical ranking.

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm


The two terms are mutually exclusive and in no way have the same meaning.



J. Del Col wrote in message
m...
"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message
om...
It would appear that such concepts are way beyond your limited
comprehension.

So you are saying that it is alright for horticulturists to be mentally
and
linguistically challenged?

Do they make you wear a special helmet so that you don't hurt yourself
in
the garden?

Don't you get tired of people calling you "special" when they really
mean
that you are stupid?

Never mind. You probably crave all that extra attention especially when
you
get all flustered when you forget which end of the trowel you dig with.




One more time, waxboy; demonstrate the botanical difference between a
cultivar and a natural variation. You can't, and neither can anyone
else. Botanists disagree on what a species is, yet you claim there's
a solid definition of variety that distinguishes between natural
varieties and cultivars. Your cliam is empty.

A cultivar is --by definition-- a kind of variety, a subset, so to
speak. It's a difficult concept, but eventually even you may be able
to grasp it.

All cultivars are varieties, but not all varieties are cultivars,
comprende?


If you claim there's a botantical distinction that goes beyond that,
prove it.


J. Del Col

"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message om...
Its back to school for you, DelColonic.

Welcome to the basics of botanical nomenclature.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur...SLContents.htm

Here's what your CODB forgot to include.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur...8Ch1Art004.htm


Ah, a list of taxonomic categories, how original; I learned them back
in high school. I also learned that they aren't nearly as neatly
defined as you seem to think they are. You really ought to keep up on
the war among the lumpers, splitters and redefiners in the taxonomic
wilderness.


Yur citations are no support to your implication that there is a
botanical difference between a cultivar (cultivated variety) and a
natural variety.

Put up or shut up, bunky.


J. Del Col

Read all my replies before shooting off your mouth and showing the depths of
your ignorance, DelColon, you rectal polyp.

I've already explained it to you three times. I am not going to draw you a
picture.

Since you refuse to actually read the citations and you are unable to
understand their meaning or any other basic concepts, you show you are
completely unworthy of any serious consideration and there is no reason to
waste any more time on you.

You can go back to playing in the dirt in the dark. Be sure to have your
mommy put on your protective helmet first so you don't hurt yourself.



J. Del Col wrote in message
m...
"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message
om...
Its back to school for you, DelColonic.

Welcome to the basics of botanical nomenclature.


http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur...SLContents.htm

Here's what your CODB forgot to include.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur...8Ch1Art004.htm


Ah, a list of taxonomic categories, how original; I learned them back
in high school. I also learned that they aren't nearly as neatly
defined as you seem to think they are. You really ought to keep up on
the war among the lumpers, splitters and redefiners in the taxonomic
wilderness.


Yur citations are no support to your implication that there is a
botanical difference between a cultivar (cultivated variety) and a
natural variety.

Put up or shut up, bunky.


J. Del Col

"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message om...
Its back to school for you, DelColonic.

Welcome to the basics of botanical nomenclature.

Welcome to reality, ace. Taxonomy is not nearly as rigid as you
imply.

I learned the system a long time ago, binky, probably well before you
were born.

The question is whether there is any substantive difference between a
cultivar and a natural variety. Faced with an unlabeled group of
plants that contained both cultivars and natural varieties of the same
species, you would not be able to identify any of the plants as being
one or the other--nobody could.


You have yet to present any substantive evidence at all that there is
a botanical way to distinguish between the two. Your claim that they
are "not at all the same," is, botanically speaking, nonsense.

But should concoct some evidence to the contrary, let us know.

Otherwise, continue your practice of self-proctoskepsis; you might
achieve some insights.



J. Del Col

"Cereoid-UR12-" wrote in message news:qagcb.1805$Gv1 A botanical variety is a subspecific taxonomic ranking between that of
subspecies and form. In order to be valid, the name of a botanical variety
is given in Latin form and according to the rules of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). A botanical variety represents a subset
within a species as a wild population of phenotypically similar plants that
fall within the definition of a particular species and are more similar that
a subset that would be considered a subspecies but not as similar as a
subset that would be considered a form.



Yeah, just like a cultivar, binky.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur....Luistitle.htm


A cultivar is a plant selected by man for its horticultural or agricultural
merit. It may be a selection from a wild population, a mutation appearing in
cultivation, a hybrid or a selection from a hybrid.....


And is therefore biologically indistinguishable from a natural variety.

You lose, binky.


Taxonomists have their rules; nature plays by different ones.


J. Del Col











The two terms are mutually exclusive and in no way have the same meaning.


J.