What is the definition of 'cultivar'?

[Gerry Webster]

Martin,
   'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/

Nice Azalea.... shame about the name 

This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.

[Martin Baxendale]

I've never been 100% behind the idea of naming those Rhododendron yakushimanum hybrids after the seven dwarves either. I mean, Grumpy, Sneezy, Doc, Itchy, whatever the rest of them were called. Are those names for shrubs?! Apart from anything else, whenever I hear or read the name of one of them, I think of the old joke about the seven dwarves in the bath, all feeling happy. When Happy got out, they all felt Grumpy.

[Lesley Cox]

Sleazy, Dirty, Crappy, Fatty, Skinny, Pimply and Fart!

[Lesley Cox]

It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit.  He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
 

I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.

Where there is a recognised organisation for such plants, one has to register with that, for the name to be accepted internationally. Examples are, of course, the various Rose, Daffodil, Iris and Rhododendron societies.

[Maggi Young]

It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit.  He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).
 

I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.

Where there is a recognised organisation for such plants, one has to register with that, for the name to be accepted internationally. Examples are, of course, the various Rose, Daffodil, Iris and Rhododendron societies.

 But it IS the case, as I said, that even if a plant IS a wild collected form, or identical to the type species, if it is given an RHS joint rock award, it winll HAVE to be given a cultivar name ( in 99.999% of the cases I have read) before the award is ratified.... and this from a body which often complains that too many plants are named......

[Gerry Webster]

It seems that, in the case of plants of wild origin, it is not necessary for the collector to approve of the cultivar name. Years ago I remember one collector telling me that he did not like & would not use the cultivar name bestowed by someone on one of 'his' plants - a frit.  He continued to refer to it by the collection number (& so do I).

I agree entirely. It seems to me the height of arrogance or egotism to give a wild plant a "cultivar" name. In the first place it is NOT cultivated, it is wild and in the second place, has no connection with the name or person giving the name, except - possibly - that the person may have collected it. Because it is slightly deeper pink or taller stemmed, is not good reason to put such a name on it. The collection number if there is one, or simply, deep pink form or tall form, is enough. I am sure that in many cases cultivar names are just selling mechanisms. It's probably easier to sell something called "Little Flirt' than called Narcissus ABS 1736.

Well, of course, the plant is only given a cultivar name when it is in cultivation. There is no problem with this. What I find obnoxious is that someone who has only grown/shown the plant can bestow a cultivar name without consulting or gaining the approval of  the person who introduced it into cultivation. This seems to have been the case with the plant I referred to above.    

[Maggi Young]

Well, of course, the plant is only given a cultivar name when it is in cultivation. There is no problem with this. What I find obnoxious is that someone who has only grown/shown the plant can bestow a cultivar name without consulting or gaining the approval of  the person who introduced it into cultivation. This seems to have been the case with the plant I referred to above.    

 Well, quite, Gerry, it is, apart from any other consideration, the height of bad manners, to act in that high-handed fashion.  Extraordinarily rude not to consult the finder/ raiser/ introducer of the form.

[Maggi Young]

Martin,
   'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/

Nice Azalea.... shame about the name 

This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.

Many years ago ...... MANY years ago.... I was told that it would cost at least 5 thousand pounds  (£sterling)to get a rose given a name of your choice. Goodness only knows what it would cost now.... even in a credit crunch! I wonder how cost effective that would really be for a charity?

[Martin Baxendale]

I know I'll regret getting drawn into this, but what about a plant selection from the wild that turns out to be a superb garden plant and becomes very widespread in cultivation? Surely it will have to be given a name eventually. If it's being sold in every garden centre in the world, it can't still be called XYZ 1183/A. Apart from anything else, the general gardening public often have problems getting fairly memorable plant names right, let alone collection numbers. A memorable name is surely preferable in that situation to a long collector's number. Be gentle with me, Lesley.

[Lesley Cox]

I can live with a wild plant being given a cultivar name if it is significantly different from others of its kind, in the wild and assuming it is brought into cultivation. That's fair enough. What annoys me is when a wild plant of which there are hundreds/thousands/millions in the wild, all visually identical, is given a cultivar name. I was particulartly offended years ago and many alpine growers in NZ were, that an English nurseryman came to NZ, collected many plants and took them home and named them for his nursery and his family members. They were native plants which had no differences from others of the same species.

Another example which I dredge up from time to time, is Pratia angulata 'Tim Rees.' Yes the plant is different from the NZ form but would be better identified as New Guinea form which at least gives a message about its hardiness compared with the NZ form. It is not different from all the other plants of Pratia angulata which live in New Guinea. No doubt Mr Rees was a charming and worthy young man before his early death but that still doesn't justify attaching his name to this wild plant. It can also be very misleading if all such plants are to have cultivar names before an award can be given. One knows a plant by generic and specific name then comes across that same name with a cultivar name attached and the obvious thought is that here is a better or different form when in fact it is just the same old same old as one has had for years. It is ridiculous that a properly named wild plant cannot be introduced and perhaps awarded, under that name alone.

Sorry to get so hot under the collar about this. No doubt I'm being quite anal about it. I do strongly feel (apparently with the RHS) that far too many plants are named when they're just not up to it. I also think that it's plain stupid to name a single plant, even a distinguished one, unless there is a real attempt to propagate and distribute it. As Maggi says, it's an RHS requirement for an award plant to be named in this way, in which case, I hold the RHS to blame for over and un-necessary naming. Not that they'll give a hoot for what I (or anyone else) think about the subject.

[fermi de Sousa]

Martin,
   'Persil' still exists.
http://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/shrubs/rhododendrons/rhododendron-persil/itemno.PL00000584/

Nice Azalea.... shame about the name 

This must be the horticultural version of product placement. Presumably money changed hands.

Not a very good ad for Persil - look at that large yellow stain left in the middle! 
cheers
fermi

[Rodger Whitlock]

What is the process of naming a cultivar. I know Ian and Maggie have a lot of 'Craigton' cultivars around but assume that the names have to be formally accepted by 'someone'.

For some groups of plants, cultivars must be registered with the designated international registration authority. Roses, orchids, and rhododendrons are three such groups. Generally speaking, these groups are given special rules because of the sheer number of cultivars in them, or because of their economic importance.

Otherwise, a cultivar name can be validated by as little as publication in a horticultural catalog with a known publication date, with priority given to earlier publication. Thus, the flowering quince (Chaenomeles) usually called 'Contorta' is properly called 'Rinho', an older published Japanese name for the same plant.

from http://www.raretrees.org/chae72.html:

This clone was called 'Contorta' by Clarke Nurseries of San Jose in Garden Aristocrats of 1942. Ishii published the name 'Rinho' in 1930 in Japan

[Diane Clement]

One issue is that a plant with just a Latin name won't sell in an ordinary nursery, it has to have an English name, hence the plethora of names (and the names are not necessarily cultivar names as they do not refer to a single clone, sometimes to a species, or seed raised group).  In a more specialist nursery it isn't a problem as those that use those nurseries are happy to use Latin names.
 
A botanist will accept the variety within a species as natural variation, whereas a nurseryman will try and appeal to the "collector" and give each one with a small variation from the "norm" a new name (hence the thousands of snowdrop names, and Japanese hepatica names, amongst others). 

[JPB]

Thanks for your replies. A lot is clear to me now....quite a lecture!!!

As I am mainly interested in wild plants, the ongoing bombardment with new monstrous Tulipa-hybrids named after the (prolifically breeding ) Royal Dutch Family is not my thing. So let's narrow down to more "natural" plants.

I often wonder how a certain species or cultivar can be kept in culture for a long time when the mode of reproduction is sexual (i.e. seed-raised). There must be a selectional process going on as the nurseryman each (few) year(s) makes decisions which seedlings will be propagated and which not. So there must be a change over the years whithin a certain cultivar/botanical species. How is that problem tackled by the registration authorities? Would it be a good thing to specify for every cultivar whether it is maintained through vegetative or sexual propagation?

My personal view is that there has not been given enough attention to describe the origin of a collected plant. Collection numbers are the way to go, but it is very difficult sometimes to trace back a certain introduction. An example is Pleione. Many individuals of the same species have been wild-collected over the years, and mostly being clones, they would give a wealth of information on the biogeography/taxonomy of the clones/"cultivars" within that given species. New hybrids from these plants will also be better traceable to their roots.

Just some thoughts...

Cheers, Hans

[ashley]

I agree Hans.  It would also be very useful to have a comprehensive system for registering collection numbers & recording associated notes.