What's new

ICPS cultivar definition

Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
90
March 2021 CPN



How should I understand the cultivars definition of the ICPS?

Eventually, I will follow the international rules and the rules of the ICPS. Before that, I would like to share and confirm the unclear points with many people. I'm trying to understand the "cultivars" defined by the ICPS, but I'm a little confused.

It seems like a mixture of "easy to understand" and "difficult to understand", Probably I am living in the Stone Age, but I hope someone can explain it clearly.



Yes, I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of cultivars in the ICPS.

For example, I see "easy to understand" in Sarracenia cultivars. I have read that the applicant or author stated that "the progeny line loses cultivar status". These cultivars are cultivated semi-permanently by growers, by vegetative propagation, if they are the ones loved by many people.

Perhaps if there is a "difficult to understand" about Sarracenia, the members of the ICPS based in the United States will not be silent.

In the past, I mentioned my thoughts on the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ on the cp-listserv. I think the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ did surely exist. In my view of cultivars, the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ no longer exists. I personally think that the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ in the photo on the CPN disappeared within a couple of years later. If it is listed as Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, it will be cultivated for a long time as var. Goliath. If it was Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, I'm sure it still exists. This is because most Byblis species are allogamous plants. Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath is probably still present in the area where the ICPS cultivar ‘Goliath’ seed was collected.

That's why I never tried to register annual Byblis cultivars with either the Government of Japan or the ICPS. It might have been possible if I had been working on perennial Byblis breeding. Because perennial Byblis is easy to propagate vegetatively.

Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other, whether in the collected native population of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ or in the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ itself. Of course, self-breeding causes inbreeding depression, and even without obvious malformations, vigor begins to decline. In most cases, the seeds become smaller and become sterile due to repeated self-fertilization. Some Byblis species are originally perfect self-incompatibility plants. Hence, it is impossible to establish any of pure line (usually), and it is super difficult to establish any of inbred line.

At the end of this post, I'll add a summary of the text I posted to the cp-listserv.



In the Nepenthes 'Lake Poso' article, the author describes it as “variety” at first. It makes sense to me. Even if the author says "species", I'm easy to accept.

And then the author describes this variety as “In this article, I establish the cultivated variety name N. maxima ‘Lake Poso’ to discuss these miniature plants.”

And it is treated as the ICPS cultivar on the ICPS website.

How should I understand? This is what is difficult for me to understand. Why is "Lake Paso" given to multiple clones while other cultivar names are given to each one individual clone?

Nepenthes species are the allogamous plants.



In the Drosera section, ‘Kanto’ and ‘Kansai’ are included on the ICPS website as cultivars that will be officially described in the future. Before I started growing carnivorous plants (nearly 50 years ago), these names were already in common use (More than 50 years ago, long before World War II).



"Kanto" means the Kanto region, that contains Tokyo, Chiba prefecture, Ibaraki prefecture, Tochigi prefecture, Gunma prefecture, Saitama prefecture, Kanagawa prefecture. "Kansai" means the Kansai region, that contains Osaka prefecture, Kyoto prefecture, Hyogo prefecture, Shiga prefecture, Nara prefecture, Wakayama prefecture. For me living in the Kanto region, "Kansai" means a wider area. It may be a person in the Kanto region who started using the names "Kanto" and "Kansai" for Drosera. When I was a kid, I felt the Tokai region was like a part of the Kansai region.

For me, who has just started growing Carnivorous plants, Drosera spatulata ‘Kanto’ means Drosera spatulata, and Drosera spatulata ‘Kansai’ means Drosera tokaiensis. Yet, in the world of taxonomy, Drosera tokaiensis had not been described. These are the words Japanese people used for convenience. In other words, Drosera spatulata in Okinawa Prefecture (the westernmost part of Japan), which does not grow naturally in the Kanto region, is also "Kanto".

I only cultivated a few regional variations of "Kansai" = Drosera tokaiensis, therefore I don't know how much regional variations there are in Drosera tokaiensis. However, there are obvious regional variations in "Kanto" = Drosera spatulata, from my horticultural point of view.

In other words, when the ICPS registers ‘Kanto’ as a cultivar, it might cause highly misleading: it seems all Drosera spatulata that normally grow in Japan become the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’. Similarly, all Drosera tokaiensis that normally grow in Japan are the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kansai’.

To compare how strange this is to me: it is almost the same as the following.

U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. purpurea native to North America" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Purpurea’ ".

Also

U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa native to the United States" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Venosa ‘”.



In addition, the Japanese government refuses to apply for a name that has been commonly used for that genus as a newly registered cultivar name. Because it confuses old school people like me (one of the reasons).



no offense

According to the ICPS:

“This is effected only and exclusively by inclusion of the name in the International Register that is governed by the appropriate International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) accredited with the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). In the case of carnivorous plants, the appropriate ICRA is the ICPS, nothing else.”



O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.



Also, according to the ICPS:

“It must thus be different from any trademarks (which may exist for the same plant). Usually patents are granted for certain varieties (not cultivars) that should be sold under a certain proprietary brand name (trademark). Such names are not cultivar names and cannot be registered (they cannot be established because they are not free for everyone to use worldwide).”



O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.


I am a commercial grower in a capitalist society, a person who want to create some good cultivars in my lifetime, if possible.

I don't spend any public money. Therefore, I have to bear the breeding costs myself. Or I need to retrieve it later.

I have been trying to breed some cultivars. One of them is a pseudo-carnivorous plant so far, but I tried to register the cultivar of a certain plant. This clone was not created by crossing with another species, but was intentionally (artificially) created. It is a clone that usually does not occur in the wild or in cultivation.

The organization I aimed to register was the Japanese government.

And I didn't apply by the deadline, but if I wanted to register, they were some countries based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).

If I try to protect my rights by law, I have to pay for it. And the exclusivity has an expiration date. Even before the expiration date, anyone can propagate and sell the clone at that point if I do not declare the continuation of the right.

Even if I waive legal protection, it is still a cultivar registered with the Japanese government (according to the ICPS, it is a variety or “patent and trademark”).

In my understanding, Sarracenia flava var. ornata contains a huge number of different clones (countless). What is the difference between this “var.” (variant) , the “variety” described by the ICPS and “variety” in the article in Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’? Could anyone please break it down for me?



In conflict with neighboring countries, the Japanese government is strengthening the law prohibiting taking it overseas. It is up to the applicant to apply the law. Therefore, if I claim the exclusivity only in Japan, the clone can be freely propagated and sold in any countries other than Japan, though it cannot be exported to Japan.



If I aim to register with the Japanese government, I will be subject to a document review of the application, and actual cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) will be conducted by professional engineers (government officials), and other reviews will be done. I'm not a Japanese government employee so I don't know some of the details. Since I was an applicant, I was not able to involved in the examinations.

The clone I applied for was officially recognized as a registered cultivar (variety as the ICPS describes) by the Government of Japan after a 7-year review period (genus with already screening criteria would have a shorter review period).

According to the ICPS Cultivar Description, I can accept it, the cultivar I have registered with the Government of Japan would be just like "patent and trademark". But at least the Japanese government was verifying the cultivar submitted in scientific fashion.

The Japanese government has conducted cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) three times between the cultivar I applied for and other clones. The cultivar status traits were verified in scientific fashion.

Does the ICPS, the only organization that can register cultivars of carnivorous plants (authority), verify cultivars in such a scientific fashion? By whom did the ICPS with authority create the screening criteria for verifying cultivar status traits? Who are verifying? Who are verifying other than the author (or applicant) and the people associated with the author(applicant)? Who are doing the cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials)? How is fairness and scientific judgment guaranteed?



According to the ICPS:

"The publication of a new cultivar name can only be effected by (hard copy) print. Electronic publication, especially if ephemeral, is definitely not suitable."



I agree that "hard copy print" is better than "Electronic publication", but for me it is only valid as a set of print and verification (excluding the applicant and related people). Otherwise, the ICPS will be a lawless zone.

The examination by the Japanese government's scientific fashion is very strict and it is quite difficult to pass it. If the application is accepted (not just arrived at the Japanese government, but officially), it only means a "temporary registration" or an "applied potential cultivar". It is not an officially registered cultivar until verification is completed.



If the ICPS give a cultivar name to a particular individual of D. spatulata or D. tokaiensis, the ICPS should avoid using the name that has already been commonly used for a long time. Japanese cp growers of my age would be confusing.

Again, Nepenthes 'Lake Poso', I'm easy to accept as a new species or variety variant.

How inconvenient and confusing the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’ is for the Japanese. I don't know if The ICPS gives the name to a particular individual or to multiple individuals from a particular origin (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’).

What do US cp growers feel about:

Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has multiple habitats to my knowledge. If the ICPS gives the name the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Rubricopora’ to a specific individual or the population of Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora native to Sumatra, Florida. Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has other locations.

In Japan, Kanto-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera spatulata), Kansai-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera tokaiensis). If the ICPS uses "Kanto" and "Kansai" as cultivar names, Japanese cp growers of my age will be confused.

(Gata = Kata is Japanese meaning form, type, shape, etc.)

(Ko is Japanese meaning small, tiny)

(Mousenngoke=Sundew or Drosera rotundifolia)



My basic idea for cultivar is that the cultivar name is given only to a specific individual. The exception is autogamous plants with highly fixed its traits. This is the same idea for the Japanese government. I wondered if it was the difference between English and Japanese, not the definition. Sarracenia cultivar name, already listed in the ICPS cultivar list, appears to apply exactly to one particular individual (clone). Looking at the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’, it seems that it is applied to multiple different clones. Again, the individuals in the population of allogamous plants that are in the same habitat are very diverse.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarracenia rosea "Fat Chance" came to be called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. But I'm confused if the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ are called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’. Similarly, I would be confused if the Sarracenia rosea clones in the native area where the ancestor of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ was present were called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Paso’).

Could anyone explicate it easy way so that even a caveman(me) can understand it?





What I would like to emphasize:

Except well selected cultivar that fixed cultivar status traits of autogamous plant, it is quite unacceptable for me (caveman) that someone give a cultivar name to multiple clones within same variation (or in the same location) of allogamous plant species.

Could anyone please break it down for me?



Don’t worry! I'm not looking for any disputes or any arguings. But hopefully someone could make this issue plain and comprehensible for me.


Isao Takai



An old post to the cp-listserv.,
My posting is a mere assertion of my opinion. I do not intend it to change anyone's opinion, nor is this a proposal to the ICPS either.
--------
--------
My studies in cultivation and breeding of Byblis taxa that are part of the large Byblis filifolia complex (i.e. characterized by the flowers bearing anthers as long or longer than their supporting filaments) are allogamous (self-incompatible) plants. Allogamous doesn't mean an absolute self-sterile taxon. It simply means the degree of out breeding is high. I have found some clones as well as some variations are perfect allogamous plants.

In the wild there are always outstanding clones to be found in any wild population according to Mr. Allen Lowrie. I believe that this condition is heterosis, (i.e. a greater degree of vigor or fertility through re-combinations of dominant and recessive genes). This (these) phenomena suggest that Byblis species are the allogamous plants. They are maintaining a lot of genes which cannot be held by just one clone but by a number of clones within a population. Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other in the same location.

I would like to say, It looks like Sarracenia flava also practices this heterosis phenomenon in the wild.
Dr. Phil Sheridan will be able to explain this properly for US cp growers. I guess US cp growers do not hand out cultivar status to each variation of S. flava plants found in the wild in the U.S.A. There is nothing stopping anyone naming all these S. flava variations as cultivars, However, this would be a huge endless undertaking and a harebrained waste of time.

The benchmark for a complete allogamous plant is Nepenthes which is a dioecious species (plants that only bear male or female parts, hence requiring for its perpetuation the proximity of two plants of different sex).

--------
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,447
Location
Hacienda Heights, CA USA
I don't have any experience breeding or registering cultivars like you but I thought I'd add my two cents to the discussion. I think the designation you mentioned of a cultivar name being assigned to a specific clone is correct, and I would guess most growers would agree with you on that point. I don't know who at the ICPS got the idea of separating Drosera spatulata in Japan based on where they grow by labeling them as cultivars but that seems like a ridiculous idea to me. I'm sure most people would be against labeling a specific Sarracenia flava var. rubricorpora as Sarracenia 'Rubricorpora.' As for the "screening" that the ICPS is supposed to do for cultivars, unfortunately there is nothing of the sort done. As it stands, there is no test done to see if a plant merits cultivar status.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
90
Dear Tanukimo-san,

Konnichiwa!

You seem to live in the same Stone Age as me.
Let's wait until someone comes to the rescue on the time machine so that we can move to the present age. I'm serious.

Kind regards from the Far East
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
90
I will post Dr. Jan Schlauer's description, so Please don't reply to the thread for a while.

Usually, this kind of question is asked in private communication between Jan-san and me. For some reason I am self-regulating for the moment, so I asked the forums for answers.
Thanks to Marcel-san, I received a kind email from Jan-san. After I understand this, I'll remove the private part and post Jan-san's description here on the forum.
Unexpectedly, as a result, this will be useful to everyone in the forum.
Please wait a few days.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
90
First of all,

I apologize for about Drosera Kanto, Kansai.

This was just a rumor and my misunderstanding. Confusing by this issue, I neglected the basic confirmation process. I should have checked with Jan-san in advance. I didn't do it because of for some reason. I apologize for this.

Jan-san and Mr. Carlton pointed out the use of Latin names. I just tried to express how confusing I was. I have no intention other than that. I apologize for the improper use of the words.



I still need time to understand ICNCP. Unlike you guys, I have to overcome the language barrier first.

But I will post Jan-san’s description next soon for the benefit of the forum members. I will post Jan-san’s description without editing it.

Splitting the quote (my part) into multiples in a forum style can be cumbersome and I may make mistakes.
I just use the ">" in the cp discussion group style. I may add ">" s if the quote is unclear.

In the ICPS forum: After pasting the document, I have to change each botanical name to italic or use "[ ] [ ]" to specify the italic part before pasting. "spatulata" is automatically converted to "spatulate".
In the Terraforum: The botanical name is automatically italicized. Only in my case????

In the UKCPForum: also uses another forum software



Due to the differences between these forum software, I may not always be able to make all the corrections.





In my understanding of this issue so far:


I feel that the ICPS will be forced to increase the number of pages in the CPN.


I have had similar dreams over and over again recently.
The flow of the story suddenly changes or doesn't make sense. It goes everywhere, out of sequence.
Someone gives me an assignment (task).
For example,

Many clones of each of the two cultivars are shuffled. I am ordered to re-sort.
Many cultivars without name tags are lined up. I am ordered to put the correct name tag on each one.

etc.
I work well when the difficulty is low. As the task gets harder, I make a mistake. After all, I can't pass the challenge. I woke up in a cold sweat once at midnight.
Although I have no knowledge about dream analysis. Maybe this suggests that I'm not allowed to board the time machine that transfers people from the Stone Age to the present day.
For the time being, I will ban myself using of the two words such as variety and cultivar.
I use n.v. (or w.v.) and a.v. (or m.m.v) instead of these. These abbreviations are for private use, so I won't write what the acronyms mean. Or I make new coined words for personal use. I would use them instead of “variety and cultivar.” By practicing the use of these terms for months, I may be free from nightmares.



And I don't know what time it will be,

By observing the many official ISHS registered cultivars (in the future), I would be able to use the words such as variety and cultivar again.



You may meet other elderly Japanese like me. The Japanese meaning of cultivar includes the implication of "things that people are involved in". We will soon be buried in multiple ways anyway. If you ignore us for a while, you will not hear those voices soon.
Be patient just a little bit longer.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
90
Dr. Jan Schlauer’s description

> How should I understand the cultivars definition of the ICPS?

Cultivars are defined and governed by the ICNCP (International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants), not by the ICPS, and most of your questions are actually already answered in the Code that I recommend for reference:

International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, Ninth Edition | International Society for Horticultural Science

> Eventually, I will follow the international rules and the rules of the ICPS.

Good. Both are the same.

> Before that, I would like to share and confirm the unclear points with
> many people. I'm trying to understand the "cultivars" defined by the
> ICPS,

ICNCP, that is.

> but I'm a little confused.
> It seems like a mixture of "easy to understand" and "difficult to understand", Probably I am living in the Stone Age, but I hope someone can explain it clearly.
>
> Yes, I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of cultivars in the ICPS.

ICNCP.

> For example, I see "easy to understand" in Sarracenia cultivars. I have read that the applicant or author stated that "the progeny line loses cultivar status". These cultivars are cultivated semi-permanently by growers, by vegetative propagation, if they are the ones loved by many people.
> Perhaps if there is a "difficult to understand" about Sarracenia, the members of the ICPS based in the United States will not be silent.
> In the past, I mentioned my thoughts on the ICPS cultivar Byblis
> ‘Goliath’ on the cp-listserv. I think the ICPS cultivar

There is no "ICPS cultivar". The ICPS does maintain the International Register of names for cultivated carnivorous plants, which includes all names that have been established according to ICNCP rules.

> Byblis ‘Goliath’ did surely exist. In my view of cultivars, the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ no longer exists.

This may be your personal view but it does not correspond entirely to the rules, which mandate that *all* plants that meet the distinguishing characters defined in the original description do belong to the cultivar and may bear the respective cultivar name. This means that if *one* individual exists that corresponds to the originally described plant, the cultivar does materially exist.

> I personally think that the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ in the photo on the CPN disappeared within a couple of years later.

You admit at the same time (below) that such plants still exist in the wild, so the cultivar did not effectively disappear.

> If it is listed as Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, it will be cultivated for a long time as var. Goliath. If it was Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath, I'm sure it still exists. This is because most Byblis species are allogamous plants. Byblis aff. filifolia var. Goliath is probably still present in the area where the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ seed was collected.
> That's why I never tried to register annual Byblis cultivars with either the Government of Japan or the ICPS.

Well, this does in no way preclude others from registering such names (NB: names and *not* cultivars are registered).

> It might have been possible if I had been working on perennial Byblis breeding. Because perennial Byblis is easy to propagate vegetatively.

Same for annuals, see ICNCP Art. 2.12. "An assemblage of individual plants grown from seed derived from uncontrolled pollination may form a cultivar when it meets the criteria laid down in Art. 2.3 (selected for a particular character or combination of characters, and remains distinct, uniform, and stable in these characters) and when it can be distinguished consistently by one or more characters even though the individual plants of the assemblage may not necessarily be genetically uniform."

> Clones will always be slightly different little by little each season from each other, whether in the collected native population of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ or in the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Byblis ‘Goliath’ itself. Of course, self-breeding causes inbreeding depression, and even without obvious malformations, vigor begins to decline. In most cases, the seeds become smaller and become sterile due to repeated self-fertilization. Some Byblis species are originally perfect self-incompatibility plants. Hence, it is impossible to establish any of pure line (usually), and it is super difficult to establish any of inbred line.
> At the end of this post, I'll add a summary of the text I posted to the cp-listserv.
>
> In the Nepenthes 'Lake Poso' article, the author describes it as “variety” at first. It makes sense to me. Even if the author says "species", I'm easy to accept.
> And then the author describes this variety as “In this article, I establish the cultivated variety name N. maxima ‘Lake Poso’ to discuss these miniature plants.”
> And it is treated as the ICPS cultivar on the ICPS website.
> How should I understand?

See above.

> This is what is difficult for me to understand. Why is "Lake Paso" given to multiple clones while other cultivar names are given to each one individual clone?

Because a cultivar is defined phenotypically, so it may include several genetically different plants (as long as the originally defined distinguishing characteristics are present). A cultivar does not need to be a clone. And even a clone ceases to belong to any given cultivar if it does no longer display the cultivar's distinguishing characteristics.

> Nepenthes species are the allogamous plants.
>
> In the Drosera section, ‘Kanto’ and ‘Kansai’ are included on the ICPS website as cultivars that will be officially described in the future.

This is a slightly exaggerated expectation. The fact that some names have been published (but not established, which would require a formal description and other details mandated by the ICNCP) does not necessarily mean that establishment of these names can be expected in the future.

> Before I started growing carnivorous plants (nearly 50 years ago), these names were already in common use (More than 50 years ago, long before World War II).

Which indicates that the probability that these names will ever be established is not high.

> "Kanto" means the Kanto region, that contains Tokyo, Chiba prefecture, Ibaraki prefecture, Tochigi prefecture, Gunma prefecture, Saitama prefecture, Kanagawa prefecture. "Kansai" means the Kansai region, that contains Osaka prefecture, Kyoto prefecture, Hyogo prefecture, Shiga prefecture, Nara prefecture, Wakayama prefecture. For me living in the Kanto region, "Kansai" means a wider area. It may be a person in the Kanto region who started using the names "Kanto" and "Kansai" for Drosera. When I was a kid, I felt the Tokai region was like a part of the Kansai region.
> For me, who has just started growing carnivorous plants, Drosera spatulata ‘Kanto’ means Drosera spatulata, and Drosera spatulata ‘Kansai’ means Drosera tokaiensis. Yet, in the world of taxonomy, Drosera tokaiensis had not been described.

Yes, it has, cf. Acta Phytotax.Geobot.42:136 (1991).

> These are the words Japanese people used for convenience. In other words, Drosera spatulata in Okinawa Prefecture (the westernmost part of Japan), which does not grow naturally in the Kanto region, is also "Kanto".
> I only cultivated a few regional variations of "Kansai" = Drosera tokaiensis, therefore I don't know how much regional variations there are in Drosera tokaiensis. However, there are obvious regional variations in "Kanto" = Drosera spatulata, from my horticultural point of view.
> In other words, when the ICPS registers ‘Kanto’ as a cultivar, it might cause highly misleading: it seems all Drosera spatulata that normally grow in Japan become the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’. Similarly, all Drosera tokaiensis that normally grow in Japan are the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kansai’.

It may or may not be misleading. All depends on the criteria defined in the description. As no such description is extant, no judgement can be made in this case.

> To compare how strange this is to me: it is almost the same as the following.
> U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. purpurea native to North America" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Purpurea’ ".

Well, formally this would be impossible to establish because cultivar epithets must not be Latin and in particular they must not repeat the genus or (taxonomic) species name of their denomination class (so it is not even possible to establish the name Sarracenia 'Pitcher Plant').

> Also
> U.S. cp growers call "all Sarracenia purpurea subsp. venosa native to the United States" "the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Venosa ‘”.

Wrong for several reasons, the most important point here is that "venosa" is a taxonomic and not a cultivar epithet.

> In addition, the Japanese government refuses to apply for a name that has been commonly used for that genus as a newly registered cultivar name.

Same for the ICNCP (see above).

> Because it confuses old school people like me (one of the reasons).
>
> no offense
> According to the ICPS:
> “This is effected only and exclusively by inclusion of the name in the International Register that is governed by the appropriate International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) accredited with the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). In the case of carnivorous plants, the appropriate ICRA is the ICPS, nothing else.”
>
> O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.

Fine.

> Also, according to the ICPS:
> “It must thus be different from any trademarks (which may exist for the same plant). Usually patents are granted for certain varieties (not cultivars) that should be sold under a certain proprietary brand name (trademark). Such names are not cultivar names and cannot be registered (they cannot be established because they are not free for everyone to use worldwide).”
>
> O.K. I understand and I can accept that claim.

Perfect.

> I am a commercial grower in a capitalist society, a person who want to create some good cultivars in my lifetime, if possible.
> I don't spend any public money. Therefore, I have to bear the breeding costs myself. Or I need to retrieve it later.
> I have been trying to breed some cultivars. One of them is a pseudo-carnivorous plant so far, but I tried to register the cultivar of a certain plant. This clone was not created by crossing with another species, but was intentionally (artificially) created. It is a clone that usually does not occur in the wild or in cultivation.
> The organization I aimed to register was the Japanese government.
> And I didn't apply by the deadline, but if I wanted to register, they were some countries based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
> If I try to protect my rights by law, I have to pay for it. And the exclusivity has an expiration date. Even before the expiration date, anyone can propagate and sell the clone at that point if I do not declare the continuation of the right.
> Even if I waive legal protection, it is still a cultivar registered with the Japanese government (according to the ICPS, it is a variety or “patent and trademark”).

The point is, even if it is called "cultivar" by the statutory (Japanese) plant registration authority, it is technically a trademark and not a cultivar name in the sense of the ICNCP (free for everyone to use).

> In my understanding, Sarracenia flava var. ornata contains a huge number of different clones (countless). What is the difference between this “var.” (variant), the “variety” described by the ICPS and “variety” in the article in Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’? Could anyone please break it down for me?

The latter is a cultivar introduced into cultivation from a natural population, defined by its original description in Carniv.Pl.Newslett.38:18 (2009).

> In conflict with neighboring countries, the Japanese government is strengthening the law prohibiting taking it overseas.
I guess the situation is rather that Japanese law cannot longer protect the applicant's rights once the objects to which these rights are linked (i.e., the plants) are removed physically from Japanese territory. In simple words, Japanese law can only be enforced in Japan. This makes sense because otherwise it would create conflicting situations if several different national legislations applied at the same time.
> It is up to the applicant to apply the law.

Yes, indeed. If you want to have your breeders' rights protected in another country, you must apply (and pay) for them in that country.

> Therefore, if I claim the exclusivity only in Japan, the clone can be freely propagated and sold in any countries other than Japan, though it cannot be exported to Japan.

Right.

> If I aim to register with the Japanese government, I will be subject to a document review of the application, and actual cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) will be conducted by professional engineers (government officials), and other reviews will be done. I'm not a Japanese government employee so I don't know some of the details. Since I was an applicant, I was not able to involved in the examinations.
> The clone I applied for was officially recognized as a registered
> cultivar (variety as the ICPS describes)

ICNCP, not ICPS.

> by the Government of Japan after a 7-year review period (genus with already screening criteria would have a shorter review period).
> According to the ICPS Cultivar Description, I can accept it, the cultivar I have registered with the Government of Japan would be just like "patent and trademark". But at least the Japanese government was verifying the cultivar submitted in scientific fashion.
> The Japanese government has conducted cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials) three times between the cultivar I applied for and other clones. The cultivar status traits were verified in scientific fashion.
> Does the ICPS, the only organization that can register cultivars of carnivorous plants (authority), verify cultivars in such a scientific fashion?

Simply: No. The commercial performance of any (ICNCP-) cultivar has nothing to do with registration of cultivar names (which exclusively serves the purpose of information and identification). The ICRA must, therefore, abstain from any judgement on the merit or even on the distinctness of new cultivars. As long as the registrant is convinced he/she has something special that is sufficiently distinct, we have to accept it. The only condition is a published description (to the satisfaction of the registrant) and a standard (pictures showing all distinguishing features, to the satisfaction of the registrant). In recent time we have been swamped with poor and not diagnostic Dionaea descriptions, so we have introduced the requirement that descriptions must at least be diagnostic (mention the most similar already existing cultivar(s) and the difference(s)).

> By whom did the ICPS with authority create the screening criteria for verifying cultivar status traits?

ICNCP.

> Who are verifying?

The Registrar (yours truly). But verification can only concern formal criteria, no quality judgement.

> Who are verifying other than the author (or applicant) and the people associated with the author(applicant)?

We are reporting our new registrations to the ISHS but this is likewise a purely formal procedure.

> Who are doing the cultivation comparison tests (comparative trials)?

This is an issue for awards of horticultural merit and explicitly not for registration.

> How is fairness and scientific judgment guaranteed?

There is no (and must not be any) judgment on horticultural merit.

> According to the ICPS:
> "The publication of a new cultivar name can only be effected by (hard copy) print. Electronic publication, especially if ephemeral, is definitely not suitable."
>
> I agree that "hard copy print" is better than "Electronic publication", but for me it is only valid as a set of print and verification (excluding the applicant and related people). Otherwise, the ICPS will be a lawless zone.

Not exactly lawless (there are still rules: ICNCP) but it is not our intention or purpose to establish or defend plant breeders' rights.

> The examination by the Japanese government's scientific fashion is very strict and it is quite difficult to pass it. If the application is accepted (not just arrived at the Japanese government, but officially), it only means a "temporary registration" or an "applied potential cultivar". It is not an officially registered cultivar until verification is completed.

Good, but it grants breeders' rights, not cultivar status (in the sense of the ICNCP).

> If the ICPS give a cultivar name to a particular individual of D. spatulata or D. tokaiensis, the ICPS should avoid using the name that has already been commonly used for a long time. Japanese cp growers of my age would be confusing.

Well, so far nobody has tried to establish these names formally, so I cannot comment on this.

> Again, Nepenthes 'Lake Poso', I'm easy to accept as a new species or variety variant.

So the only thing you still need to learn is to accept it as a cultivar name (sensu ICNCP).

> How inconvenient and confusing the ICPS cultivar Drosera ‘Kanto’ is for the Japanese. I don't know if The ICPS gives the name to a particular individual or to multiple individuals from a particular origin (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’).

I don't know either because this example is purely hypothetical.

> What do US cp growers feel about:
> Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has multiple habitats to my
> knowledge. If the ICPS gives the name the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia
> ‘Rubricopora’ to a specific individual

Impossible for the same reasons as for "Purpurea" above.

> or the population of Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora native to Sumatra, Florida. Sarracenia flava var. rubricopora has other locations.
> In Japan, Kanto-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera spatulata), Kansai-Gata Komousenngoke means a species (= Drosera tokaiensis). If the ICPS uses "Kanto" and "Kansai" as cultivar names, Japanese cp growers of my age will be confused.
> (Gata = Kata is Japanese meaning form, type, shape, etc.) (Ko is
> Japanese meaning small, tiny) (Mousenngoke=Sundew or Drosera
> rotundifolia
)

See above.

> My basic idea for cultivar is that the cultivar name is given only to a specific individual.

Well, at least some progeny should be included as well. Otherwise the distribution (horticultular significance) would be very limited, which would conflict with the meaning of cultivars.

> The exception is autogamous plants with highly fixed its traits. This is the same idea for the Japanese government. I wondered if it was the difference between English and Japanese, not the definition.

No. It is the fundamental difference between plant breeders' rights and trademarks (that Japanese and other national authorities can grant) and cultivars and their names (free for everyone to use).

> Sarracenia cultivar name, already listed in the ICPS cultivar list, appears to apply exactly to one particular individual (clone). Looking at the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’, it seems that it is applied to multiple different clones.

Correct. Still all are cultivars.

> Again, the individuals in the population of allogamous plants that are in the same habitat are very diverse.
> For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarracenia rosea "Fat Chance" came to be called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’.

It is (cf. Carniv.Pl.Newslett.45:126, 2016), except for the detail that there is no "ICPS cultivar", just a cultivar.

> But I'm confused if the progeny clones of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ are called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’.

It may indeed be called Sarracenia 'Fat Chance' if and only if the (all!) distinguishing features of the cultivar are still present.

> Similarly, I would be confused if the Sarracenia rosea clones in the native area where the ancestor of the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ was present were called the ICPS cultivar Sarracenia ‘Fat Chance’ (like the ICPS cultivar Nepenthes ‘Lake Poso’).

For both the origin (geographically or by breeding) is immaterial. The decision whether any plant belongs to any cultivar is exclusively goverened by the original description, its criteria, and the phenotype of the plant in question.

> Could anyone explicate it easy way so that even a caveman(me) can understand it?

Not sure. Some of your questions are not easy, so my answers are by necessity somewhat extensive. But I have tried to express the essential points as briefly as possible.

> What I would like to emphasize:
> Except well selected cultivar that fixed cultivar status traits of autogamous plant, it is quite unacceptable for me (caveman) that someone give a cultivar name to multiple clones within same variation (or in the same location) of allogamous plant species.

Once you accept that the penotype alone defines a cultivar, the other ICNCP provisions are just logical consequences of this fundamental principle.

> Could anyone please break it down for me?

Done to the best of my abilities.

> Don’t worry! I'm not looking for any disputes or any arguings. But hopefully someone could make this issue plain and comprehensible for me.
>
> Isao Takai
>
> An old post to the cp-listserv.,
> My posting is a mere assertion of my opinion. I do not intend it to change anyone's opinion, nor is this a proposal to the ICPS either.

Well, your message is a public statement in which the ICPS is mentioned several times, so I think your intention was to address the ICPS, and I do think I am the person who should answer on behalf of our society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top