early narcissus

[David Nicholson]

Gerd, thanks for those pictures, very informative and does illustrate something we have said many times on the Forum ' it just goes to show that whatever the books say the plants just don't read them'

[Maggi Young]

Vegetable cultivars  is just that.... cultivar names of turnips, potatoes, courgettes, etc.

Now I'm totally confused. Does this mean that only vegetables can be clonal.

 What makes you think the rest of us are NOT confused, Gerry......... these are botanists and taxonomists who make these regulations..... need I say more ?   

[Gerry Webster]

Well, some of my best friends are botanists......

With regard to the plants which are the subject of this thread. ‘Nylon’ has been discussed in earlier posts. It is not the name of a clone but of a Group. As such, if I understand the code correctly, it can also be a cultivar name.

After a bit of research, I can elaborate on this (no yawning at the back please).There seem to be two distinct cultivars - 'Nylon' & 'Nylon Yellow'.  If I understand the rules regarding Groups, the currently correct form of the names would appear to be Narcissus (Nylon Group) 'Nylon' & Narcissus (Nylon Group) 'Nylon Yellow'.

If you are so inclined, you can check the basis for these names on the RHS website in the Plantfinder Glossary under 'Group'.  I imagine most people will be content  with the cultivar names.

(We retired people have to occupy ourselves  with trivia like this to ward off  Alzheimers &  to keep us from rioting in the  streets).

[David Nicholson]

Had to read your last line twice Gerry, the first time I thought your last line said 'rotting in the streets'!

[ashley]

We retired people have to occupy ourselves  with trivia like this to ward off  Alzheimers &  to keep us from rioting in the  streets).

 

But presumably seedlings would be just Narcissus Nylon Group? 

Many thanks Gerry, and relieved to hear that you're neither rioting nor rotting

[Gerry Webster]

But presumably seedlings would be just Narcissus Nylon Group? 

Many thanks Gerry, and relieved to hear that you're neither rioting nor rotting

I'm no authority but I guess so Ashley, unless I selected  & named one, say, Narcissus (Nylon Group)'White Dwarf'.

Rioting will start in the New Year if my gas bills do not come down.

[annew]

NOOOOOO!! Not the Julia Jane and Joy Bishop epic again!  See http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=245.0 and http://www.srgc.org.uk/discus/messages/321/23059.html. Just when I thought I had it sorted.
Technically members of a clone have to be identical genetically, so only vegetative propagation can be used to produce them. Some variation can occur in clones if there are mutations or sporting, which I assume is what happens when vegetatively propagated snowdrops do not come true.

[Jim McKenney]

Re Narcissus 'Nylon,' I'm not too sure whether it should be 'Nylon' which is a cultivar name and implies a single clone, so every one identical,

I don't think cultivar names really imply clones: think of all the vegetable cultivars grown from seed as annuals.

Jim - I agree with this. I think a cultivar raised from seed would strictly be described as a strain

Also, the components of a clone are not necessarily identical, certainly not for horticultural purposes.

See reply 50 here: http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=2644.45

I'm not sure I agree with this. A clone (in the plant world) is conventionally regarded as a group of individuals derived from a single individual by vegetative propagation. Consequently, and barring somatic mutation, all these individuals are alike and will be identical with the original, given the same conditions of cultivation. I think 'identical' here is used  in the everyday  sense that we speak of two things as being identical & not in some esoteric sense.

Gerry, I meant clone in Webber's original sense: the group of plants which results from the vegetative propagation of one original seedling.

Webber in his definition said nothing about the elements which make up a clone being identical.

This business about the elements which make up a clone being identical is a later accretion.

Perhaps we need to retrofit the word clone, and I  should start to use the phrase "Webber clone" to indicate the original meaning of the word.

Ian, I had never heard about this 10% rule, perhaps because I'm not about to dip into my pockets for the privilege of reading rules on which I was not consulted.     It must be an American thing - you know, representative government, the consent of the governed and all that.   

[Gerry Webster]

NOOOOOO!! Not the Julia Jane and Joy Bishop epic again!  See http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=245.0 and http://www.srgc.org.uk/discus/messages/321/23059.html.

Sorry Anne, I only remembered the previous threads after posting. I guess it bears repeating since false 'Julia Jane' is still in circulation.

[Jim McKenney]

NOOOOOO!! Not the Julia Jane and Joy Bishop epic again!  See http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=245.0 and http://www.srgc.org.uk/discus/messages/321/23059.html. Just when I thought I had it sorted.
Technically members of a clone have to be identical genetically, so only vegetative propagation can be used to produce them. Some variation can occur in clones if there are mutations or sporting, which I assume is what happens when vegetatively propagated snowdrops do not come true.

Can someone please point me to a thread in which 'Joy Bishop' is discussed and, I hope, illustrated. 

[Maggi Young]

Try a search of the Bulb Log for N.  'Joy Bishop', Jim... there may be items in Old and New Forumm posts, also.

representative government, the consent of the governed and all that. 
 

Really? I thought that idea had hit the ground, out cold, in both our countries, lately 

[Jim McKenney]

Hope blooms eternal, Maggi. And when all else fails, we always have our gardens ( or at least I hope we will).

[annew]

Jim, see the links on my posting above re Joy Bishop, including input from the lady herself.

[Maggi Young]

Folks, the RHS accepted terminology for "clone" etc  has been set out here, well enough for most of us gardeners to follow..... let's not go down the road of further discussion on the usage of the words.... this is a plant thread 

Here are a couple of 'Joy Bishop' photos.... the  bulb, not the lady herself, though the lady has confirmed these!
 
 

[Jim McKenney]

Jim McK,

Do you set out to confuse people?  Getting into semantics on a point like the definition of a clone is as far as I can see only designed to do that, unless you're talking to serious botanists.  It's why I have never opened the topic on latin pronunciation, because I imagine it will just become a point-scoring effort (or at least that is what I have seen in other discussions on other lists elsewhere).  A lot of us here are just gardeners, not serious botanists.  Does telling people that a clone is "technically" in some obscure way not that really help?   It's another word I guess I have to stop using now because it is no longer clear, or else every time I use the word I now need to put a sentence to clarify what I mean (which sort of defeats the purpose).    A shame really, as it used to be useful for indication something of identical genetic material that has been propagated by division/cuttings etc.  Now you tell us it is not in certain senses.  I give up! 

Maggi, I just read your most recent post on this thread. Am I permitted a response to Paul's post? If so:

Paul, I understand your frustration. But why give up? In my view a life without new insights is hardly worth living.

For my own part, when things don't add up I'm likely to squawk.  

But please keep in mind that I did not cause the ambiguity which exists. I'm simply the messenger.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone; just the opposite, I'm trying to call attention to the pot holes in the road. People use the word clone assuming that others understand it the same way they do; yet as I've pointed out, there are two mutually contradictory concepts involved.  It seems to me that you should be thanking me, not castigating me.

And I won't for a moment deny that I enjoy doing this.

I thought it was appropriate to introduce that into that thread because one of the sub-threads there, if you will, centered on the original definition of another word.  My intention was not to confuse people but rather to alert them to the potential confusion.  I used the history of the word clone to illustrate a similar wandering away from an original meaning.

With respect to your comments on point scoring and the pronunciation of Latin, all I can say is that you don't know what you're missing. It's a great game for anyone with a love of words and language. It's a great way to build your vocabulary and hone your semantic skills. Are those things to resent? We all bring differing skills to this or any game, just as we bring different skills to  cricket or football/soccer. I don't feel the least bit diminished when I watch a star athlete perform. Oddly, their excellence does not remind me of my own ineptitude; to me it's just another exhilarating celebration of the diversity of human accomplishment.  
Let's hear it for the diversity of human accomplishment!