"?" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:05:13 -0500 in
Kenni Judd
wrote:
Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
enforcement system, though. Kenni

Genetic database and have as a requisite to entry a plant sample
sufficient to undergo gene sequencing.
The trick is getting the price and size down on the equipment.
But I bet that the anti genetically modified food crops crowd could
be talked into funding cheaper portable equipment for that.

Chris,

What equipment are you talking about? That required in a gene sequencing
lab? I'd expect that most respectable universities, and many of the better
community colleges, would have suitable equipment, and that they would
appreciate whatever revenue would come in from providing sequencing
services. I can't imagine doing DNA fingerprinting with portable equipment,
though. I'd imagine the risk of contamination of the samples would be
insurmountable outside a properly run lab. There is an additional benefit
in that DNA fingerprinting may provide a way to identify NOIDs. I am sure
that with a little thought and creativity other applications may be found.

You say the anti-genetically modified food crops crowd might be interested.
I'd suggest that a larger, better established crowd, that involved in
traditional agriculture focussed on breeding, would be interested. There
have been farmers here who have been sued by such breeders because hybrids
containing genes from the company's hybrids were found on the farmer's land.
That struck me as unfair because it is almost certain that the hybrids for
which the farmer was sued was airborne, and carried from a neighbor's crop.
I don't know how a farmer is supposed to protect his crop from airborne
pollen from a neighbor's patented crop. Anyway, these breeders are often
huge corporations and I'd expect would have as much interest, or more, in
this than the anti-genetically modified food crop crowd.

The only other need is for suitable computer hardware and software. This
hardware is not a problem, thanks to the countless kids who use computers
for games and other multimedia applications. This hardware is very
inexpensive in large measure because of the size of the computer gaming
market, and that hardware is just about perfect for this kind of
application. You can get a desktop, or even a laptop, that will serve the
purpose for less than US$1,000. Of course, you can pay more if you want
faster answers, but if you can wait an extra second or three, you don't need
to spend the extra money. The biggest challenge would be to get an
appropriate application developed. It should be both centralized and
distributed; and yes, it is possible to do both. Some of my applications
are designed specifically to do this. A centralized database component is
required, with an assortment of mirrors scattered around the world, for
obvious reasons, but it needs to be accessable by client applets from any
location that has Internet access, again for obvious reasons. Good luck
finding a software developer with the competence to do this right. There
are outstanding developers out there, but there are a great many more that
are barely qualified for an entry level position. Compounding this is the
fact that some of the software technology required is relatively new and
rarely used (I am thinking here particularly of the distributed interface
and software security techniques required to ensure the application can't be
used by cyber-criminals for some kind of crime); so finding people who know
how to use it will be problematic. As you will recall, I am working on such
an application as time allows, but it will take many many years for it to
appear unless I magically receive sufficient funds to hire a few programmers
whom I can teach how to do it right, and to buy the requisite servers and
broadband Internet access.

Cheers,

Ted

--
R.E. (Ted) Byers, Ph.D., Ed.D.
R & D Decision Support Solutions
http://www.randddecisionsupportsolutions.com/
Healthy Living Through Informed Decision Making

Entry to what: the judging system? That's no solution for the thousands of
clones out there that never go to judging, even to the AOS here in the US,
never mind all the other judging authorities. Entry to the market, as in
being eligible for sale: The cost increase would put small nurseries like
me out of business, except that I can't imagine the big box stores, and the
mega-farms who serve them, allowing it to happen here in the US. Nor is
there currently any way (short of a new treaty G) to pass a global law to
enforce such a thing ...

When I said "workable," I was considering financial practicality as well as
technology. The orchid business is primarily financed by folks who couldn't
care less if their plants are properly labelled (most of them pull the tags
out immediately upon purchase and throw them away, so they won't "detract"
from the pretty flowers/arrangement).

I don't see a better alternative than the current "honor system" for those
few of us who do care. But it does look like more easily-accessible
education on the subject is needed, and that is the type of thing AOS is in
a good position to provide, both in its print rag and on its website. If
experienced and web-savvy hobbyists like Diana can still be confused about
it, the info obviously isn't being made sufficiently accessible.

We are still pretty busy digging out after Wilma, so I'm not going to set a
firm date, but I will try to add a "Nomenclature" section to our website
when I get the time.
--
Kenni Judd
Juno Beach Orchids



"?" wrote in message
rg...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:05:13 -0500 in
Kenni Judd
wrote:
Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
enforcement system, though. Kenni

Genetic database and have as a requisite to entry a plant sample
sufficient to undergo gene sequencing.
The trick is getting the price and size down on the equipment.
But I bet that the anti genetically modified food crops crowd could
be talked into funding cheaper portable equipment for that.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

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

Such events, as you've proposed, have happened I'm sure. However, it's
not a perfect system, and we'll just have to deal with it's
imperfections. Given the number of orchidophiles out there, I think
it's all but impossible to come up with a flawless system. But do
realize that if one every did want absolute confirmation, you could just
do some genetic testing.

Cheers,
Xi

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

Steve wrote:

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

Which is exactly why I now name all my clones "Littlefrog something".
It may even sound stupid, but it should be reasonably unique. I doubt
somebody across the country is going to start doing that, and if they do
I'll go and smack them around with a vanilla vine.

Related: I always splutter a bit when I see hybrids named "Brother
Dumbname" and "Wossner Whosiwatsis". But now that I have too many
plants and am beginning to register crosses, it is starting to make
sense. I know where a Brother hybrid originated, and a Wossner (can't
make the umlaut on this computer) cross.


--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

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

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:36:25 -0500 in Rob wrote:
Steve wrote:
Related: I always splutter a bit when I see hybrids named "Brother
Dumbname" and "Wossner Whosiwatsis". But now that I have too many
plants and am beginning to register crosses, it is starting to make
sense. I know where a Brother hybrid originated, and a Wossner (can't
make the umlaut on this computer) cross.

Ah, so if I ever get to the point where I'm doing my own crosses,
I'll go for things like 'Neotoma albigula' so google searches go
to the wrong kingdom :-).


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

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

Sorry about that!


wendy7 wrote:

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??

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

"Kenni Judd" wrote in message
...
snip
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.

Kenni,

Unless the Smith family lives in Austria, and they encounter someone like
the Austrian swimming instructor of friends of my family, who would always
call their 3-year old son Dr. SoAndSo because his father had a P.h.D. :-)
While that is a silly extreme, some titles that technically should not apply
to spouses get applied nonetheless, a lot of wives of college professors get
called Mrs. Professor, at least in many European countries they do. I guess
orchid nomenclature is a bit more consistent on that point, an award given
to a seed parent of a hybrid is not applied by association to the pollen
parent. :-)

Joanna

"Kenni Judd" wrote in message

snip excellent nomenclature explanation



Saved for reference.... many thanks!



--
Toni
South Florida USA
Zone 10b
http://ww.cearbhaill.com

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

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

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