Autumn-Season 2008 begins

[mark smyth]

Paddy can you give examples?

[Paddy Tobin]

Mark,

Trying to think of a good example among snowdrops, as it is a snowdrop thread...

An Irish example would be Galanthus ' Cicely Hall' which is also in distribution as G. 'The Whopper', G. 'Helen Dillon's Whopper'. Only G. 'Cicely Hall' is correct.

And, continuing with Primrose Hill snowdrops, there are snowdrops being listed as G. 'Primrose Hill Special', even G. 'Primrose Hill Special No. 1', 'No.2', 'No 3' and 'No 4'. Neither Mrs. Hall nor her son Mr. Robin Hall ever named any snowdrop as 'Primrose Hill Special'. The name arose because Mrs. Hall liked to give visitors a keepsake of their visit and would habitually say, "Here's a 'Primrose Hill Special' for you." These 'Primrose Hill Specials' were simply snowdrops grown from their seed in hopes of something interesting arising but it was never their intention to name any snowdrop 'Primrose Hill Special'. Indeed, Robin finds it quite annoying that the name is being used in this manner; he thinks it silly carry on, something that snowdrop tickers like to do - name more and more snowdrops even when the plants do not deserve to be named at all.

Another is the confusion between G. 'Drummond Giant' and G. 'Drummond's Giant' - just a slight and understandable difference but an inaccuracy which can creep in so very easily.

Similarly, you have a snowdrop doing the rounds as G. 'Romeo' though the original 'Romeo' is almost certainly extinct but someone  (I don't know who and mean no offence) found a nice snowdrop and decided that 'Romeo' would be a nice name, not realising that the name had already been used and that the original plant takes naming preference and the name cannot be used again for another snowdrop.

Although it can be a bit of a nuisance, it really is worth while submitting any 'new' bulb for assessment to a taxonomist at one's nearest botanic garden where it will be grown on for a few years and compared with other recorded snowdrops to check that it is really different and deserving of a name. The temptation is, of course, to simply put a name on a snowdrop which is special to one and I imagine that for anyone selling snowdrops the temptation might be greater as a new name will sell more snowdrops than an old one.

Hope these examples illustrate my point. Paddy

[biodiversite]

Beginner questions :

- how do you differentiate Galanthus reginae-olgae from G. peshmenii ? Is the second one more difficult in the garden, as I lost the bulb I ordered some years ago ?

- what is the origine of G. elwesii 'Barnes' ? Someone wrote G. elwesii hiemalis 'Barnes' : is it correct ?

Thanks for your explanations 

[mark smyth]

Matt Bishop et al write Galanthus elwesii Hiemalis Group 'Barnes'.
According Matt Bishop et all EP Barnes bought bulbs from Barrs in 1928 and selected this early flowering form. He then sent some toOliver Wyatt who named in 'Earliest of All. Modern stock of 'Barnes' after '73 from Oliver Wyatt's last home where they were labelled 'Barnes'. Rod Leeds growth both forms side by side and says 'Earliest of All ' flowers three weeks earlier

[mark smyth]

Here's one of my Hiemalis Group that are eager to flower. Three in the group are in various stages of flowering. It simply goes under the name chubby flowers. An online dictionary says chubby = sufficiently fat so as to have a pleasing fullness of figure

[Brian Ellis]

Here's one of my Heimalis

You may have done that just to stir Paddy up Mark, but it is Hiemalis

[mark smyth]

Sorted! I have a bad cold and cough.

[Paddy Tobin]

Ah, Brian, Paddy wouldn't be too bothered. After a day reading children's work the writings on the forum are not such as trouble me.

Yes, I do feel it is inappropriate to write the names incorrectly but a certain level of informality is acceptable on the forum and most people will know what the writer has in mind. Careless spelling and sloppy naming can be irksome but, in the general run of life, are only a minor nuisance.

On the other hand, the naming of plants of insignificant distinction is something I consider a travesty and snowdrops have particularly been prey to this practice. Some do it, it seems to me, for the reputation of having 'discovered' a new snowdrops. To those I would say that putting their name to a nondescript snowdrops adds nothing good to their reputation. To those who do it to boost sales I would say that they are shameless blackguards.

Here in Ireland, one snowdrop enthusiast named a snowdrop to commemorate a good friend who had passed on some good snowdrops to him. A friend who is very informed on snowdrops wondered why he had chosen such an indifferent snowdrops to remember his friend. A case of damning with faint praise, I suppose.

Naming is best done rarely and then after consultation with a taxonomist.

Paddy

[johnw]

Galanthus 'Cambridge' and G. corcyrensis flower buds have just appeared above ground here in the last few days.

johnw

[Paddy Tobin]

Actually, Rob, it wasn't you or your 'Romeo' that I had in mind. In fact, it had not even come to my attention. No, there are other 'Romeo's doing the rounds as well. Which shows what a nuisance can be created by giving a bulb a name.

Paddy

[Martin Baxendale]

Re. snowdrop naming, I was thinking the other day that while it's reasonable to say that if a new snowdrop is being considered for naming it should look distinct, there could also be a case for naming a new snowdrop because it's much more disease resistant and stronger growing than existing cultivars which may be similar in appearance.

For example, there might be a similar-looking old cultivar in commerce which is sickly, prone to disease and difficult to keep going in the garden ('miffy', in a single word). Surely there's a good argument for naming a new cultivar which looks similar but is a massively better garden plant? Otherwise, how would the new (much better) plant ever get into commerce and become widely grown, as it deserves to be.

It just seemed to be that to concentrate purely on the looks of a new plant re. suitability for naming (while obviously very important) and ignoring garden worthiness, disease resistance, and speed of increase, might be a mistake. Yet the guidance on naming new plants always seems to concentrate almost exclusively on the plant looking very different to what's already being grown.

 

[Paddy Tobin]

Martin,

You make an excellent point but one will still be left with confusion as plants are generally, indeed almost exclusively, judged on their appearance.

Paddy

[Martin Baxendale]

Gal. 'Sutton Court' doesn't do well for me, unfortunately. The way I was thinking, Paddy, was that if  (for example) someone raised a snowdrop that looked very much like 'John Gray' but which had a stronger flower stem, was more disease resistant and clumped up very fast, there might initially be some potential for confusion between the two, but the vigour and fast increase of the new one would make it stand out in gardens, and eventually most people would end up growing the new one and the old variety would fade away, except in a few specialists' gardens. Which is how it works with most other plants.

I don't think you can avoid some confusion if new varieties of any plant are being raised and sold, and replacing previous less good varieties. But you have to move on in plant breeding or eventually the plants being grown get weaker and less growable, more prone to disease etc and disappoint. Probably a lot of it is down to how experienced the grower's eye is. There are plenty of less experienced gardeners who'd have a lot of trouble separating exisiting snowdrops like, say, 'John Gray' and 'Fieldgate Superb'. And I'm sure I couldn't separate the vast majority of trumpet daffs.

I think, as I've said before, and you've said before, a large part of the problem is that less experienced snowdrop growers will often 'find' and name something they think of as new and distinct without enough experience of what's already been selected and named - because that's always been part of the 'traditions' of snowdrop collecting; that every little  tiny distinction warrants a name.

[annew]

I agree, Martin, that plants with improved vigour should be nameable. Let's face it, apart from some extremes such as 'Trym', the existing varieties must just about cover most morphological variation, especially if variability due to individual garden microclimates is taken into account.

[Martin Baxendale]

I agree, Martin, that plants with improved vigour should be nameable. Let's face it, apart from some extremes such as 'Trym', the existing varieties must just about cover most morphological variation, especially if variability due to individual garden microclimates is taken into account.

I didn't want to go on too much about it, Anne, but I did also think that most of the basic variations in snowdrop flowers (apart from the freakier ones, and I'm not sure how much further anyone would want to go with developing those) have probably already been selected and named, and if those variations in flower shape and markings can never be repeated in new cultivars (no matter how much more vigorous and better as garden plants) then where do we go? The alternative is to just grow the ones we have until they become so decrepit as garden plants that they die out or people stop bothering to grow them.

I feel that snowdrops would be grown far more widely (and give far more pleasure to more people) if so many of them weren't decidedly 'miffy' as garden plants. So increased vigour and disease resistance seem to me to be at least as important as appearance, at least with this particular genus for general garden purposes.

Personally, I prefer the classic snowdrop flower shape to the oddities, so my breeding aim is really improvement in that direction, of classic (mainly single) flower shape and form and marking (e.g. very dark, eye-catching markings, full rounded petals etc, along with strength of flower stem for weather resistance and mud avoidance, disease resistance, vigour and speed of increase.