International Galanthus Nomenclatural Standard List

[Wim Snoeijer]

Dear Galanthophiles,

Included you find the third version of the International Galanthus Nomenclatural Standard List. Hanneke, Annie, George and I published the first List in January 2010, the second List in January 2011 and now this third one in this Forum. The previous ones were paper versions, this one only digital.

Included some pictures of Standards choosen this year. I was fortunate to visit Mr Huisman together with Hanneke van Dijk & Gert-Pieter Nijssen in februari this year. He gave me some bulbs of his new introductions and when in flower I sacrified one or two bulbs to save them for eternity. This way, directly from the breeder/introducer, is a perfect way to choose Standards.

I upload the list as a Word document sothat anyone can use it.

The Standard Galanthus 'Grandiflorus' as listed in the previous list is withdrawn, the herbarium specimen is not present anymore.

If someone is aware of other Standards, please do let me know. Thank you.

Best wishes and a Galanthoflorius New Year,

Wim

[Hagen Engelmann]

Hello Wim,
to find an easy system to tabulate our lovely snowdrops is a good idea.
But also an old idea.
Here you can see an older and a little bit better nomenclature list for galanthus.
You were able to see this classification long before the book "Galanthomania" on my website
or here in the srgc.

[Paddy Tobin]

I prefer Hagen's system, starting from the foliage and sorting then by any further distinctive features.

Paddy

[Thomas Seiler]

I agree, Paddy.
On the other hand, they wanted to simplify things. Maybe this was a bit too much neglecting the leaves totally. But the work of registration is going on now which is welcome... :-)

[steve owen]

I have to say I am bit puzzled by this. We have the benefit of a reference book ("Snowdrops" by Bishop Davis Grimshaw) containing a subdivision system. It seems logical and reasonably easy to follow. The authors are planning a "Snowdrops 2" book; I haven't heard any major criticism of the descriptive structure in the first book and am unaware of any plan to radically change it for the second. Why then is another (and another!) subdivision system needed at all?  

[Maggi Young]

Perhaps it has been felt that something a bit more accessible to folks who cannot afford the book, would be useful,  Steve? 

[Wim Snoeijer]

Many thanks for your comments. However I expected comments like "come over Wim and dig up as many snowdrops as you like for your herbarium", it is nice too that the subject altered into comments on the cultivar groups.

Hagen, many thanks for your Cultivar Group table. When we were compiling our Cultivar Groups we searched for classifications already published but missed yours, which is too bad, sorry about that.

As we wanted to have the classification accepted by the Registrar, we had to follow the ICNCP. When we were ready with our first draft, we visited the Registrar, in this case Saskia & Johan, and sat down around the table. One of the names, not the description, was turned down directly being a cultivar name. The ICNCP does not allow cultivar names or Latin names to be used as a cultivar group name.

To make the picture complete, however it does not matter for the subject here, we went home and made a second draft. Hanneke went back to Saskia & Johan and all was okay now, the Registrar accepted the classification. The last step to be taken was that Hanneke had to defend the classification before the KAVB Committee, a Committee that exsist of bulb growers, experts, etc. After a little bit of swet, so Hanneke told me, the Committee agreed too. And so the classification was published in the Dutch trade magazine BloembollenVisie and a bit later in Hanneke's book Galanthomania.

Any way, Hagen, I have made a combined table of Hanneke's and your groups. I can not manage to copy this table here so I have to include it as an attachment.

The ICNCP only acknowledge Groups for the cultivars and not something else, like Division. That does not mean that you cannot use Division, Subdivision, etc. However not according the ICNCP, nobody can take you to court when you do not use Groups.

We choose to go for the flower only. The flower is the first part of the plant looked at. This is also in Bishop, Davis & Grimshaw. I have not counted the pictures of the cultivars but I guess 90% of the cultivar pictures only shows the flower. When a picture is shown of the complete plant then usually it is not possible to identify how the leaves are arranged.
Having written that I have to write too that cultivars have to be identified by the living plant and not by a picture, of course.

But pictures are of great help. When in the Forum a picture appears of a cultivar I have not in my records yet, I can "easily" include that cultivar in the key. The way the leaves are arranged or the shape is something I include in a key well down at the bottom as one of the last characteristic. You can see that in Hanneke's book on page 31 in key number 21.

Hagen, I like your "inverse POKULIFORME" and this is what I proposed to do in our classification too some months ago. But we still need to discuss this. If we would split our Fancy Group then the name of that Group had to change too.
But any one can propose alterations, make additional groups etc, as long as they confirm with the ICNCP rules. That is not only up to us because it is "our" classification. Changes can be proposed by any one. As long as we keep it simple and consistant, that is at least my view.

Wish you all a great New Years Eve and a Happy New Year,

Wim 

[Hagen Engelmann]

Wim, I have all respect  to your work with Agapanthus . I have your book on my bookshelf and like it.
But in your galanthus world there are some things incorrect.

On 12th of December 2008 I posted my "easy classification" for galanthus first time here in the forum.

In the middle of 2010 Hanneke contacted me in preparation of the publication "Galanthomania". She wrote, that she knows my website (and so my classification too, I think).

In  "Galanthomania" Hanneke tells "To make it easier to catalogue his snowdrops, he has divided them into a number of groups..."
What can she have meant by that?

So there was a lot of time to find contact and to discuss the groups and more.
But there was no real interest.

Only here in the forum is some more interest.

So I show again a picture of a lecture I gave to the Berlin group of the GDS (Gesellschaft der Staudenfreunde eV) on 29th March 2010.

But please note: the first view is always to the leaves and the second to the flower

[Paddy Tobin]

Hagen,

Do you have an expanded form of your galanthus classification?  It would be a very welcome addition to the literature on snowdrops.

Paddy

[Hagen Engelmann]

Paddy,
what do you mean with "expanded form"?

[johnw]

I have to say I am bit puzzled by this. We have the benefit of a reference book ("Snowdrops" by Bishop Davis Grimshaw) containing a subdivision system. It seems logical and reasonably easy to follow. The authors are planning a "Snowdrops 2" book; I haven't heard any major criticism of the descriptive structure in the first book and am unaware of any plan to radically change it for the second. Why then is another (and another!) subdivision system needed at all?

Steve  - I couldn't agree more.  However when I'm in a rush I hate having to refresh my memory by flipping back and forth through the Bible.  Hagen's Schneeglöckchengliederung seems like a fine solution, a handy way to narrow things down with one sheet in front of me with snowdrop in hand.

What would also be a help is a listing in Hagen's sheet of the very best 2-3 snowdrops representative of his groupings.   A novice could narrow his/her sights without emptying the bank account   - well maybe not  .

John G. restates his abhorrence of snowdrops in the green in this month's The Garden.  He also mention that certain hybrids and cultivars that do not establish when moved ITG.  I do hope the next edition of The Bible will clearly identify the offenders.  Back in the days when ITG was possible from the UK it was not a very successful method - simply too much time to Canada; when transporting as personal baggage in those days the dry air of the airliner cabin was not helpful nor was sitting in plastic bags in warmth.  Snowdrops from our west coast as well take too long in the mail or by courier and there's no assurance they will not freeze in transit through the colder parts of the country in late winter.  If only we could import from the eastern USA.

Have spent half the day defibrilating dummies with an AED.

johnw - another cold day and getting milder tomorrow.

[KentGardener]

Have spent half the day defibrilating dummies with an AED.

 

[fermi de Sousa]

We have the benefit of a reference book ("Snowdrops" by Bishop Davis Grimshaw) containing a subdivision system.

I'm so glad the clergy are still doing their bit for horticulture
Sorry, couldn't help myself! Just took 3 weeks to think of it!
cheers
fermi

[David Nicholson]

Have spent half the day defibrilating dummies with an AED.

Hope you enjoyed your day in our Houses of Parliament John

[johnw]

Have spent half the day defibrilating dummies with an AED.

Hope you enjoyed your day in our Houses of Parliament John

If they have any hidden piercings the AED will wake them in short order. 

johnw