Scenario:

Person A receives a CCM/AOS on Epi. Schemagle. Person A names it Epi.
Schemagle 'Schmaltz'.

Person A gives a piece of Epi. Schemagle 'Schmaltz' to person B.

Clearly, the CCM does not go with the piece given to person B, since it is a
cultural award to the original grower.

Questions:

1. Does the name 'Schmaltz' go with the piece given to person B?
2. What if person B takes the plant to judging and wins an award? How is the
name handled? I.E., does person B now get to name the new plant Epi.
Schemagle 'Putz' (excuse me, those who get it), or does 'Schmaltz' come into
play?

Yeah, I have a keike from a CCM awarded plant. What if it grows like Topsy
and I want to have it judged? All purely theoretical, since Frank and I were
discussing the topic.

Enlighten me, please.

Diana

(I'm not a judge and neither do I play one on TV)

Diana Kulaga wrote:
> Scenario:
>
> Person A receives a CCM/AOS on Epi. Schemagle. Person A names it Epi.
> Schemagle 'Schmaltz'.
>
> Person A gives a piece of Epi. Schemagle 'Schmaltz' to person B.
(snip)
> Questions:
>
> 1. Does the name 'Schmaltz' go with the piece given to person B?

Yes

> 2. What if person B takes the plant to judging and wins an award? How is the
> name handled? I.E., does person B now get to name the new plant Epi.
> Schemagle 'Putz' (excuse me, those who get it

No, because it is not a new plant. It is still a division of the
previously named 'Schmaltz.'

The point of the clonal name is to uniquely identify a particular
clone, so it remains attached to any divisions or mericlones of that
plant. Renaming it every time it receives a different award defeats
that purpose. IMO, it is a good idea to assign a clonal name to
un-named clones whenever you distribute divisions, even if they are not
awarded. Knowing if one particular clone is widely disseminated is
useful information for breeders, collectors, and judges. Of course,
human nature being what it is, I'm sure there are cases of unscrupulous
persons buying an awarded clone, renaming it, and resubmitting it for
judging.

Nick is correct. If you get a flower quality award, it will be Epi.
Schemagle 'Schmaltz', AM/AOS (or HCC, or FCC). And if it grows like Topsy
into a specimen plant, you could get a new CCM, for yourself, on your piece
of it. Kenni

"Diana Kulaga" <diandfrankcat [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Dxvff.1287$6y4.587 [at] bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Scenario:
>
> Person A receives a CCM/AOS on Epi. Schemagle. Person A names it Epi.
> Schemagle 'Schmaltz'.
>
> Person A gives a piece of Epi. Schemagle 'Schmaltz' to person B.
>
> Clearly, the CCM does not go with the piece given to person B, since it is
> a cultural award to the original grower.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Does the name 'Schmaltz' go with the piece given to person B?
> 2. What if person B takes the plant to judging and wins an award? How is
> the name handled? I.E., does person B now get to name the new plant Epi.
> Schemagle 'Putz' (excuse me, those who get it), or does 'Schmaltz' come
> into play?
>
> Yeah, I have a keike from a CCM awarded plant. What if it grows like Topsy
> and I want to have it judged? All purely theoretical, since Frank and I
> were discussing the topic.
>
> Enlighten me, please.
>
> Diana
>

Thanks, folks.

Diana

One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when I
received a piece of it. Does that change things?

I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about it.
Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging any time
soon.

Diana

I don't imagine it would change things. If the other person already
named the clone "A", then any divisions should still carry that name
since the plants are genetically idential, regardless of award status.

Cheers,
Xi

Diana Kulaga wrote:
> One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when I
> received a piece of it. Does that change things?
>
> I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about it.
> Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging any time
> soon.
>
> Diana
>
>

Xi Wang wrote:
> I don't imagine it would change things. If the other person already
> named the clone "A", then any divisions should still carry that name
> since the plants are genetically idential, regardless of award status.
>
> Cheers,
> Xi
>
> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>
>> One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when
>> I received a piece of it. Does that change things?
>>
>> I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about
>> it. Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging
>> any time soon.
>>
>> Diana
>>

Ok, just to be the officious prig here...

According to the AOS handbook 11th ed. pg 43, section 6.1 Purpose and
granting of awards.

"The Certificate of Cultural Excellence (CCE) or Certificate of Cultural
Merit (CCM) will not be awarded to an orcid cultivar, but to the
exhibitor of the plant and becomes part of the plant record. Divisions
of the cultivar bear the culitvar name, but not the designation of CCE
or CCM."

For example, many many people own Paph. spicerianum 'St Albans' which
has a clonal name for its CCM (1978), and was only recently given a
quality award. An AM I think granted for its darker coloration than
previous awards (11/04).

If you know for a fact that you actually have a piece of orchid 'A'
(which predates the CCM/CCE award) then you can put the clonal name on
the piece, because it is in fact the same plant.

K Barrett

K Barrett wrote:
> For example, many many people own Paph. spicerianum 'St Albans' which
> has a clonal name for its CCM (1978), and was only recently given a
> quality award. An AM I think granted for its darker coloration than
> previous awards (11/04).
>
> If you know for a fact that you actually have a piece of orchid 'A'
> (which predates the CCM/CCE award) then you can put the clonal name on
> the piece, because it is in fact the same plant.

Not only can you use the previously assigned clonal name, but you must,
if you are playing by the rules. I'm not sure, but I think Diana may
be assuming that assignment of a clonal/cultivar name is linked to the
award process. An unnamed clone would need to be assigned a name at
that point, but there is no reason why the naming needs to wait for an
award.

Consider this scenario. I grow a nice plant, divide it, and trade one
or more divisions. The new owner exhibits a division and receives an
award. That person names the orchid 'Foo.' I later show the division
that I kept and receive an award. If I didn't hear about the award to
'Foo,' I will name the orchid myself. I call it 'Bar.' So now, we
have a single clone with two different clonal names, 'Foo' and 'Bar,'
and it will not be at all obvious that the two awards refer to the same
plant. Confusion reigns. It would have been much better to label all
the divisions 'Bar' when I traded them away, even though the plant was
not awarded.

I'm not sure, but I think Diana may
> be assuming that assignment of a clonal/cultivar name is linked to the
> award process.

I think that's the crux of the issue here. A cultivar name is simply
genetic tracking system, and has nothing to do with awards, of any kind.
If I have a Phal A 'B', any plant with identical genes will have the
clonal name 'B'. I mean, if you think about it, that's the only way it
would make sense.

Cheers,
Xi

Diana: The bottom line is that you are stuck with the clonal name
'Schmaltz'. There are lots of named clones out there which have never been
awarded. It still wouldn't be right to change the clonal name on one or
more of them, unless perhaps you could somehow be sure you had every single
one in existence and then gave the whole group your new clonal name.

E.g., I have one Catt that bloomed out green amongst a sea of
magenta/spotted siblings. I gave it the clonal name 'Green Ice' so I could
tell it apart while the plants were out of bloom. Eventually it made 4 or 5
divisions. Before I sold any of them, I could have changed my mind and
picked a new clonal name such as 'Envy.' But now that some of the other
divisions belong to other people, it would be inappropriate for me to do
that, even if it were to receive an award. Kenni


"Diana Kulaga" <diandfrankcat [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:__Pff.7403$6y4.3930 [at] bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when I
> received a piece of it. Does that change things?
>
> I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about it.
> Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging any time
> soon.
>
> Diana
>

I was clear on the difference between naming and awards, and also that a CCM
doesn't travel with divisions. Perhaps the one thing that I didn't mention
is that I got my division prior to the CCM being awarded to the person who
gave it to me. Not that it matters, because I will keep the name given by
the owner of the original plant. And I can certainly see the value in
keeping the identification intact.

What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again give or
trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time to alter some
tags.

Nick, re: your 'Foo' and 'Bar', you have no idea what befell me a few years
back when I joined in a pickup game of slow pitch while wearing my "Fubar"
T-shirt! ;-O

Diana

Unfortunately, each of the 4 or 5 new owners could now give it their own
cultivar names!

A flawed system, perhaps?

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
news:lYednUts4LyuAx3eRVn-hg [at] adelphia.com...
> Diana: The bottom line is that you are stuck with the clonal name
> 'Schmaltz'. There are lots of named clones out there which have never
> been awarded. It still wouldn't be right to change the clonal name on one
> or more of them, unless perhaps you could somehow be sure you had every
> single one in existence and then gave the whole group your new clonal
> name.
>
> E.g., I have one Catt that bloomed out green amongst a sea of
> magenta/spotted siblings. I gave it the clonal name 'Green Ice' so I
> could tell it apart while the plants were out of bloom. Eventually it
> made 4 or 5 divisions. Before I sold any of them, I could have changed my
> mind and picked a new clonal name such as 'Envy.' But now that some of
> the other divisions belong to other people, it would be inappropriate for
> me to do that, even if it were to receive an award. Kenni
>
>
> "Diana Kulaga" <diandfrankcat [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:__Pff.7403$6y4.3930 [at] bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when I
>> received a piece of it. Does that change things?
>>
>> I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about it.
>> Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging any time
>> soon.
>>
>> Diana
>>
>
>

Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
enforcement system, though. Kenni

"Ray" <raybark [at] firstrays.com> wrote in message
news:rbudnWQRss-LhxzeRVn-jQ [at] comcast.com...
> Unfortunately, each of the 4 or 5 new owners could now give it their own
> cultivar names!
>
> A flawed system, perhaps?
>
> --
>
> Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
> Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!
>
>
> "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> news:lYednUts4LyuAx3eRVn-hg [at] adelphia.com...
>> Diana: The bottom line is that you are stuck with the clonal name
>> 'Schmaltz'. There are lots of named clones out there which have never
>> been awarded. It still wouldn't be right to change the clonal name on
>> one or more of them, unless perhaps you could somehow be sure you had
>> every single one in existence and then gave the whole group your new
>> clonal name.
>>
>> E.g., I have one Catt that bloomed out green amongst a sea of
>> magenta/spotted siblings. I gave it the clonal name 'Green Ice' so I
>> could tell it apart while the plants were out of bloom. Eventually it
>> made 4 or 5 divisions. Before I sold any of them, I could have changed
>> my mind and picked a new clonal name such as 'Envy.' But now that some
>> of the other divisions belong to other people, it would be inappropriate
>> for me to do that, even if it were to receive an award. Kenni
>>
>>
>> "Diana Kulaga" <diandfrankcat [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:__Pff.7403$6y4.3930 [at] bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> One more wrinkle to this one: the plant had not yet been awarded when I
>>> received a piece of it. Does that change things?
>>>
>>> I know this sounds like nit picking, but I am genuinely curious about
>>> it. Full disclosure: I have no plans to take this plant for judging any
>>> time soon.
>>>
>>> Diana
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Diana Kulaga wrote:
> I was clear on the difference between naming and awards, and also that a CCM
> doesn't travel with divisions. Perhaps the one thing that I didn't mention
> is that I got my division prior to the CCM being awarded to the person who
> gave it to me. Not that it matters, because I will keep the name given by
> the owner of the original plant. And I can certainly see the value in
> keeping the identification intact.
>
> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again give or
> trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time to alter some
> tags.
>
> Nick, re: your 'Foo' and 'Bar', you have no idea what befell me a few years
> back when I joined in a pickup game of slow pitch while wearing my "Fubar"
> T-shirt! ;-O
>
> Diana
>
>

You always know what kind of person you are dealing with when they use
variables 'foo' and 'bar'... Secret club. *grin*

Everything said so far seems to be correct, IMHO. And there is indeed
no enforcement system. It can be a pain, for example: There is a clone
of Vuyl. (something) Isler (I can't quite remember before the coffee
kicks in) which was propagated before it was named. There are several
awards to this grex, but it is highly probable that all the awards are
to the same clone, grown by different people, who knew no better and
gave it their own clonal names.

For me, even though cultural awards are to the grower, I like to see the
CCM or CCE propagate through the tags and divisions. For several
reasons. As a judge, if I see a huge plant at a show and I'm wondering
whether I should pull it or not, it helps to know that there is already
a cultural award to the plant. Yes, I can still give it another
cultural award, but now I know who I'm comparing it to. And I'd find
that out in research anyway, so it isn't a big deal, but it can save a
step. A second reason I like to see the awards is that as a buyer I
know that this plant is capable of vigorous growth and impressive
displays. A lot of plants (most, probably) are just not capable of
becoming specimen plants.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:05:13 -0500 in <H4-dna08pKubJRzeRVn-sQ [at] adelphia.com> Kenni Judd <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote:
> Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
> enforcement system, though. Kenni

Genetic database and have as a requisite to entry a plant sample
sufficient to undergo gene sequencing.
The trick is getting the price and size down on the equipment.
But I bet that the anti genetically modified food crops crowd could
be talked into funding cheaper portable equipment for that.


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

"?" <pakrat [at] localhost.private.neotoma.org> wrote in message
news:slrndo3ona.h5f.pakrat [at] mouse.private.neotoma.org...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:05:13 -0500 in
> <H4-dna08pKubJRzeRVn-sQ [at] adelphia.com> Kenni Judd
> <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote:
>> Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
>> enforcement system, though. Kenni
>
> Genetic database and have as a requisite to entry a plant sample
> sufficient to undergo gene sequencing.
> The trick is getting the price and size down on the equipment.
> But I bet that the anti genetically modified food crops crowd could
> be talked into funding cheaper portable equipment for that.
>
Chris,

What equipment are you talking about? That required in a gene sequencing
lab? I'd expect that most respectable universities, and many of the better
community colleges, would have suitable equipment, and that they would
appreciate whatever revenue would come in from providing sequencing
services. I can't imagine doing DNA fingerprinting with portable equipment,
though. I'd imagine the risk of contamination of the samples would be
insurmountable outside a properly run lab. There is an additional benefit
in that DNA fingerprinting may provide a way to identify NOIDs. I am sure
that with a little thought and creativity other applications may be found.

You say the anti-genetically modified food crops crowd might be interested.
I'd suggest that a larger, better established crowd, that involved in
traditional agriculture focussed on breeding, would be interested. There
have been farmers here who have been sued by such breeders because hybrids
containing genes from the company's hybrids were found on the farmer's land.
That struck me as unfair because it is almost certain that the hybrids for
which the farmer was sued was airborne, and carried from a neighbor's crop.
I don't know how a farmer is supposed to protect his crop from airborne
pollen from a neighbor's patented crop. Anyway, these breeders are often
huge corporations and I'd expect would have as much interest, or more, in
this than the anti-genetically modified food crop crowd.

The only other need is for suitable computer hardware and software. This
hardware is not a problem, thanks to the countless kids who use computers
for games and other multimedia applications. This hardware is very
inexpensive in large measure because of the size of the computer gaming
market, and that hardware is just about perfect for this kind of
application. You can get a desktop, or even a laptop, that will serve the
purpose for less than US$1,000. Of course, you can pay more if you want
faster answers, but if you can wait an extra second or three, you don't need
to spend the extra money. The biggest challenge would be to get an
appropriate application developed. It should be both centralized and
distributed; and yes, it is possible to do both. Some of my applications
are designed specifically to do this. A centralized database component is
required, with an assortment of mirrors scattered around the world, for
obvious reasons, but it needs to be accessable by client applets from any
location that has Internet access, again for obvious reasons. Good luck
finding a software developer with the competence to do this right. There
are outstanding developers out there, but there are a great many more that
are barely qualified for an entry level position. Compounding this is the
fact that some of the software technology required is relatively new and
rarely used (I am thinking here particularly of the distributed interface
and software security techniques required to ensure the application can't be
used by cyber-criminals for some kind of crime); so finding people who know
how to use it will be problematic. As you will recall, I am working on such
an application as time allows, but it will take many many years for it to
appear unless I magically receive sufficient funds to hire a few programmers
whom I can teach how to do it right, and to buy the requisite servers and
broadband Internet access.

Cheers,

Ted

--
R.E. (Ted) Byers, Ph.D., Ed.D.
R & D Decision Support Solutions
http://www.randddecisionsupportsolutions.com/
Healthy Living Through Informed Decision Making

Entry to what: the judging system? That's no solution for the thousands of
clones out there that never go to judging, even to the AOS here in the US,
never mind all the other judging authorities. Entry to the market, as in
being eligible for sale: The cost increase would put small nurseries like
me out of business, except that I can't imagine the big box stores, and the
mega-farms who serve them, allowing it to happen here in the US. Nor is
there currently any way (short of a new treaty <G>) to pass a global law to
enforce such a thing ...

When I said "workable," I was considering financial practicality as well as
technology. The orchid business is primarily financed by folks who couldn't
care less if their plants are properly labelled (most of them pull the tags
out immediately upon purchase and throw them away, so they won't "detract"
from the pretty flowers/arrangement).

I don't see a better alternative than the current "honor system" for those
few of us who do care. But it does look like more easily-accessible
education on the subject is needed, and that is the type of thing AOS is in
a good position to provide, both in its print rag and on its website. If
experienced and web-savvy hobbyists like Diana can still be confused about
it, the info obviously isn't being made sufficiently accessible.

We are still pretty busy digging out after Wilma, so I'm not going to set a
firm date, but I will try to add a "Nomenclature" section to our website
when I get the time.
--
Kenni Judd
Juno Beach Orchids
kenni [at] jborchids.com


"?" <pakrat [at] localhost.private.neotoma.org> wrote in message
news:slrndo3ona.h5f.pakrat [at] mouse.private.neotoma.org...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:05:13 -0500 in
> <H4-dna08pKubJRzeRVn-sQ [at] adelphia.com> Kenni Judd
> <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote:
>> Well, they _could_, but they shouldn't. I can't imagine a workable
>> enforcement system, though. Kenni
>
> Genetic database and have as a requisite to entry a plant sample
> sufficient to undergo gene sequencing.
> The trick is getting the price and size down on the equipment.
> But I bet that the anti genetically modified food crops crowd could
> be talked into funding cheaper portable equipment for that.
>
>
> --
> Chris Dukes
> Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

Diana Kulaga wrote:
>....................
> ...................................
> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again give or
> trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time to alter some
> tags....................................
> .................................


I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been thinking.....

I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before divisions
go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in California
(who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of that same cross.
By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers 'Spee' also.
So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of where the
plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee' in
for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add AM/AOS
to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.

As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST ...
a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name. Maybe
it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of clones
all to be named the same.

Steve

Such events, as you've proposed, have happened I'm sure. However, it's
not a perfect system, and we'll just have to deal with it's
imperfections. Given the number of orchidophiles out there, I think
it's all but impossible to come up with a flawless system. But do
realize that if one every did want absolute confirmation, you could just
do some genetic testing.

Cheers,
Xi

Steve wrote:
> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>
>> ....................
>> ...................................
>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time to
>> alter some tags....................................
>> .................................
>
>
>
> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been thinking.....
>
> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
> to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before divisions
> go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in California
> (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of that same cross.
> By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers 'Spee' also.
> So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of where the
> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee' in
> for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add AM/AOS
> to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.
>
> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST ...
> a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name. Maybe
> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of clones
> all to be named the same.
>
> Steve

Steve wrote:

> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST ...
> a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name. Maybe
> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of clones
> all to be named the same.
>
> Steve

Which is exactly why I now name all my clones "Littlefrog something".
It may even sound stupid, but it should be reasonably unique. I doubt
somebody across the country is going to start doing that, and if they do
I'll go and smack them around with a vanilla vine.

Related: I always splutter a bit when I see hybrids named "Brother
Dumbname" and "Wossner Whosiwatsis". But now that I have too many
plants and am beginning to register crosses, it is starting to make
sense. I know where a Brother hybrid originated, and a Wossner (can't
make the umlaut on this computer) cross.


--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood the
scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused now??

--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>> ....................
>> ...................................
>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>> to alter some tags....................................
>> .................................
>
>
> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
> thinking.....
> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
> to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before
> divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in
> California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of
> that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of
> where the
> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee'
> in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add
> AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.
>
> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST
> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name. Maybe
> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of
> clones all to be named the same.
>
> Steve

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:36:25 -0500 in <dm1r52$d40$1 [at] news.msu.edu> Rob <rob [at] littlefrogfarm.com> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> Related: I always splutter a bit when I see hybrids named "Brother
> Dumbname" and "Wossner Whosiwatsis". But now that I have too many
> plants and am beginning to register crosses, it is starting to make
> sense. I know where a Brother hybrid originated, and a Wossner (can't
> make the umlaut on this computer) cross.

Ah, so if I ever get to the point where I'm doing my own crosses,
I'll go for things like 'Neotoma albigula' so google searches go
to the wrong kingdom :-).


--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

Sorry about that!


wendy7 wrote:

> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood the
> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused now??
>

Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeed<G>. If it works,
I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on the website. So
please, let me know.

Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have as many
as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a natural Genus,
such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS is calling these
"Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because so far as I know, there
aren't any Blcs found in the wild <G>. I'm sure Wendy knows, but for those
who might not, Blc. is the "Genus" name for a plant whose ancestry includes
species from the Brassavola, Laelia and Cattleya genera. Whatever it is,
this first part should be all one word, or one abbreviation.

The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the grex
name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some sources refer to
this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but regardless of what you
call it, it's the next thing after the Genus. E.g., B. nodosa (B for
Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the species) or Blc. George King (Blc. is
the "Genus", George King is the grex). I am aware that the RHS has changed
a lot of genera designations, but I'm not going to try to deal with that in
this post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone names.

When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring get a
new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go by the names
of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot. (Blc. George King x
Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring becomes Potinara because
Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the mix of ancestors. This
particular one has been registered, it's Pot. Edith North. Not all crosses
get registered, because (a) you have to know how, (b) there's a form to fill
out, and (c) there's a fee. So it doesn't always happen.

As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children <G>. Each
and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as every child
in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his or her nine
siblings [forget about identical twins for now <G>]. So think of "Edith
Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the family name of all the
children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of these children is entitled to
its own clonal name, more or less the same as the given names of children in
the Smith family (Arlene, Betty, Charles, Danny, Elaine, Frank, George,
etc.), but with orchids the parents can't do it so it's up the the
"god-parents," the breeder(s), and they don't always get around to naming
every one. Clones are sometimes referred to as varieties, so sometimes
clonal names are called varietal names. This is a major source of
confusion, but there is a solution. When referring to a species variety,
such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the "varietal" name should be lower
case and not in quotes; a clonal name should always be capitalized and in
single quotes.

Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them are
going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when it becomes
more important to bestow clonal names -- the part following the species or
grex name, and it should go in single quotes, e.g. 'Danny Adams'. When you
divide the first one, you should give it a clonal name, and that name should
go with both/all of the divisions. The next one you divide should get a
different clonal name, for all of its divisions.

But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name goes with
all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY SINGLE division or
clone of that particular plant, you don't have the right to change it.
Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is by the honor
system.

In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the clonal
name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be cloned (think
Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of tissue and used it
to produce thousands of identical copies (clones, mericlones, meristems).
All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams', just like any divisions of that
exact plant. But none of the other children of George King and Helen Velize
are 'Danny Adams'. Either they have different clonal names (Albert, Betty,
Charles), or they never got them.

The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to Smbcna. (now
Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the fourth part of the
name. I had lots of these. One I named 'Jupiter', and now all of its
divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Jupiter'. Even though it looks a
lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach', it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so that's not
part of its name. I also still have some divisions and lots of clones of
'Juno Beach'. All of them do get to have the HCC/AOS as part of their name,
on their labels.

Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith gets
a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
"Doctor". <G>. But there is a little difference, because all the clones or
divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS award, whether made before or
after the original plant was awarded. So, if someone were to get a flower
quality award, say an AM/AOS, on Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', all the
'Danny Adams' would then carry the award as part of their full names.

The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM, and
HCC. Other judging authorities use different award names/abbreviations.
Culture awards are different. A CCM is a Certificate of Cultural Merit and
really goes to the grower, not the plant. So if you were to buy one of my
Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully, and get a
CCM for it, the award would belong to you and I would not be entitled to put
CCM on all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE (Certificate of Cultural
Excellence).

There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g., there's
an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?) of a
particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I believe that
award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or registers the
plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if I'm wrong. Hope this
helps, Kenni




"wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825 [at] fed1read02...
> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood
> the
> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused
> now??
>
> --
> Cheers Wendy
>
> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>
> Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
>> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>>> ....................
>>> ...................................
>>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>>> to alter some tags....................................
>>> .................................
>>
>>
>> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
>> thinking.....
>> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
>> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
>> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
>> to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before
>> divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in
>> California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of
>> that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
>> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of
>> where the
>> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee'
>> in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
>> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
>> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add
>> AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.
>>
>> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST
>> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
>> Maybe
>> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
>> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
>> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of
>> clones all to be named the same.
>>
>> Steve
>
>

"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
news:V5mdnT0eWtVZSRjeRVn-oQ [at] adelphia.com...
<snip>
> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith
gets
> a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
> "Doctor". <G>.

Kenni,

Unless the Smith family lives in Austria, and they encounter someone like
the Austrian swimming instructor of friends of my family, who would always
call their 3-year old son Dr. SoAndSo because his father had a P.h.D. :-)
While that is a silly extreme, some titles that technically should not apply
to spouses get applied nonetheless, a lot of wives of college professors get
called Mrs. Professor, at least in many European countries they do. I guess
orchid nomenclature is a bit more consistent on that point, an award given
to a seed parent of a hybrid is not applied by association to the pollen
parent. :-)

Joanna

"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message

<snip excellent nomenclature explanation>



Saved for reference.... many thanks!



--
Toni
South Florida USA
Zone 10b
http://ww.cearbhaill.com

Good job, Kenni.

Might I make one suggestion which might help reduce potential confusion (not
to mention allay a pet peeve)? In paragraph four, you refer to George's and
Helen's offspring as each being entitled to its own "clonal name." I
believe that is a term that has been incorrectly generalized to the point of
potential confusion, notably in the case you discussed in a later paragraph
on the "cloning" of 'Danny Adams.'

In fact, that first 'Danny Adams' seedling was not a clone at all, and
neither are any of its divisions.

Instead - and following your descriptive methodologies - perhaps we should
try to standardize on an "artificial variety" or "cultivated variety", AKA
cultivar. The cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " is the
cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " whether it is cloned or
divided.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
news:V5mdnT0eWtVZSRjeRVn-oQ [at] adelphia.com...
> Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeed<G>. If it works,
> I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on the website.
> So please, let me know.
>
> Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have as
> many as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a natural
> Genus, such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS is calling
> these "Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because so far as I
> know, there aren't any Blcs found in the wild <G>. I'm sure Wendy knows,
> but for those who might not, Blc. is the "Genus" name for a plant whose
> ancestry includes species from the Brassavola, Laelia and Cattleya genera.
> Whatever it is, this first part should be all one word, or one
> abbreviation.
>
> The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the grex
> name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some sources refer to
> this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but regardless of what you
> call it, it's the next thing after the Genus. E.g., B. nodosa (B for
> Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the species) or Blc. George King (Blc.
> is the "Genus", George King is the grex). I am aware that the RHS has
> changed a lot of genera designations, but I'm not going to try to deal
> with that in this post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone
> names.
>
> When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring get
> a new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go by the
> names of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot. (Blc. George
> King x Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring becomes Potinara
> because Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the mix of ancestors.
> This particular one has been registered, it's Pot. Edith North. Not all
> crosses get registered, because (a) you have to know how, (b) there's a
> form to fill out, and (c) there's a fee. So it doesn't always happen.
>
> As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children <G>.
> Each and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as
> every child in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his or
> her nine siblings [forget about identical twins for now <G>]. So think of
> "Edith Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the family name of
> all the children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of these children is
> entitled to its own clonal name, more or less the same as the given names
> of children in the Smith family (Arlene, Betty, Charles, Danny, Elaine,
> Frank, George, etc.), but with orchids the parents can't do it so it's up
> the the "god-parents," the breeder(s), and they don't always get around to
> naming every one. Clones are sometimes referred to as varieties, so
> sometimes clonal names are called varietal names. This is a major source
> of confusion, but there is a solution. When referring to a species
> variety, such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the "varietal" name
> should be lower case and not in quotes; a clonal name should always be
> capitalized and in single quotes.
>
> Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them are
> going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when it becomes
> more important to bestow clonal names -- the part following the species or
> grex name, and it should go in single quotes, e.g. 'Danny Adams'. When
> you divide the first one, you should give it a clonal name, and that name
> should go with both/all of the divisions. The next one you divide should
> get a different clonal name, for all of its divisions.
>
> But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name goes
> with all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY SINGLE
> division or clone of that particular plant, you don't have the right to
> change it. Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is
> by the honor system.
>
> In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
> especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the
> clonal name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be
> cloned (think Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of
> tissue and used it to produce thousands of identical copies (clones,
> mericlones, meristems). All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams', just
> like any divisions of that exact plant. But none of the other children of
> George King and Helen Velize are 'Danny Adams'. Either they have
> different clonal names (Albert, Betty, Charles), or they never got them.
>
> The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
> god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to Smbcna.
> (now Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the fourth part of
> the name. I had lots of these. One I named 'Jupiter', and now all of its
> divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Jupiter'. Even though it looks a
> lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach', it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so that's
> not part of its name. I also still have some divisions and lots of clones
> of 'Juno Beach'. All of them do get to have the HCC/AOS as part of their
> name, on their labels.
>
> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith
> gets a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
> "Doctor". <G>. But there is a little difference, because all the clones
> or divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS award, whether made before
> or after the original plant was awarded. So, if someone were to get a
> flower quality award, say an AM/AOS, on Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams',
> all the 'Danny Adams' would then carry the award as part of their full
> names.
>
> The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM, and
> HCC. Other judging authorities use different award names/abbreviations.
> Culture awards are different. A CCM is a Certificate of Cultural Merit
> and really goes to the grower, not the plant. So if you were to buy one
> of my Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully,
> and get a CCM for it, the award would belong to you and I would not be
> entitled to put CCM on all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE
> (Certificate of Cultural Excellence).
>
> There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g.,
> there's an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?)
> of a particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I believe
> that award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or registers
> the plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if I'm wrong. Hope
> this helps, Kenni
>
>
>
>
> "wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825 [at] fed1read02...
>> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood
>> the
>> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused
>> now??
>>
>> --
>> Cheers Wendy
>>
>> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>>
>> Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
>>> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>>>> ....................
>>>> ...................................
>>>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>>>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>>>> to alter some tags....................................
>>>> .................................
>>>
>>>
>>> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
>>> thinking.....
>>> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
>>> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
>>> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
>>> to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before
>>> divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in
>>> California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of
>>> that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
>>> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track
>>> of where the
>>> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee'
>>> in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
>>> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
>>> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add
>>> AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an
>>> award.
>>>
>>> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST
>>> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
>>> Maybe
>>> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
>>> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
>>> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of
>>> clones all to be named the same.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>
>
>

Hi, Ray: Technically, you are absolutely correct. And if we could all
standardize on one term such as "cultivar," I'd agree with you that it would
be less confusing. But "variety" and "varietal" tend to create different
areas of confusion because those terms are often used for what seem to me to
be either subspecies [SHH, _please_ don't tell any taxonomists I said that
<G>] or more probably just color forms. How many times have you seen or
heard " C. skinneri v. alba " " Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana " or even "
Lc. Canhamiana v. coerulea "? In print, it's relatively easy to distinguish
that usage from " Pot. Edith 'Danny Adams' ", but in spoken language, they
are often said exactly the same way, at least around here -- even by AOS
judges!

There is some value in maintaining the difference between vegetative
divisions of a plant, and clones thereof, at least in some circles
(breeders, persons with sentimental attachments, truly "purist" collectors).
We here keep our original divisions of Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'
HCC/AOS separate from the clones, for that reason -- and most growers,
including us, do still charge a premium for vegetative divisions or
stem-props, compared to 'clones.

The major point I wanted to clear up, is that if the plant is genetically
identical to Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', then it should be labelled Pot.
Edith North 'Danny Adams', and _all_ the parts and pieces of it, whether
produced by division or by cloning, should be labelled with that full name.
[If it's a vegetative division, you can be 100% sure. If it's a clone,
there does remain some chance of error*, but for those buying from reputable
nurseries who deal with reputable labs, I think that these days it's
considerably less than 1%. This risk I think you have to lump in with the
risk of getting a mistaken label -- negligible but still possible when
dealing with reputable nurseries [we're all still human], a much higher risk
in other situations such as buying from a big-box store or yard sale.
Danny's siblings are all Pot. Edith North, but none of them are 'Danny
Adams', again regardless of whether produced by division or cloning.
Ideally, each of these siblings should have its own "given" name, in single
quotes, and if any one of them is divided, all of the resulting additional
plants should bear the same "given" name. So if a person acquires a plant
that already has one of those names in single quotes, it shouldn't be
changed unless the owner can be absolutely positive that he or she owns 100%
all of the genetically identical plants (whether clones or divisions). To
do so would be to misrepresent your plant as genetically different from all
the other genetically-identical plants owned by others. Kenni

*Mutations can occur in the 'cloning process. They can be accidental or
intentional, and the intentional ones are beyond the scope of this subject.
These mutations are not genetically identical to the original plant, and
really shouldn't bear the same clonal or cultivar name. In at least one
such case, the mutation has been given a new clonal or cultivar name which I
think has been recognized by most authorities. I'm not sure, I think it
might have been a mutation of Brs. Rex 'Sakkata.' The problem is that short
of expensive testing, there's no way to tell, _esp._ before the "clone"
blooms. But I don't see nearly as many accidental mutations now as I did 15
years ago.


"Ray" <raybark [at] firstrays.com> wrote in message
news:lM6dndmK1uJQbBjeRVn-gA [at] comcast.com...
> Good job, Kenni.
>
> Might I make one suggestion which might help reduce potential confusion
> (not to mention allay a pet peeve)? In paragraph four, you refer to
> George's and Helen's offspring as each being entitled to its own "clonal
> name." I believe that is a term that has been incorrectly generalized to
> the point of potential confusion, notably in the case you discussed in a
> later paragraph on the "cloning" of 'Danny Adams.'
>
> In fact, that first 'Danny Adams' seedling was not a clone at all, and
> neither are any of its divisions.
>
> Instead - and following your descriptive methodologies - perhaps we should
> try to standardize on an "artificial variety" or "cultivated variety", AKA
> cultivar. The cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " is the
> cultivar " Potinara Edith North 'Danny Adams' " whether it is cloned or
> divided.
>
> --
>
> Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
> Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!
>
>
> "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> news:V5mdnT0eWtVZSRjeRVn-oQ [at] adelphia.com...
>> Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeed<G>. If it
>> works, I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on the
>> website. So please, let me know.
>>
>> Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have as
>> many as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a natural
>> Genus, such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS is calling
>> these "Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because so far as I
>> know, there aren't any Blcs found in the wild <G>. I'm sure Wendy knows,
>> but for those who might not, Blc. is the "Genus" name for a plant whose
>> ancestry includes species from the Brassavola, Laelia and Cattleya
>> genera. Whatever it is, this first part should be all one word, or one
>> abbreviation.
>>
>> The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the grex
>> name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some sources refer
>> to this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but regardless of what
>> you call it, it's the next thing after the Genus. E.g., B. nodosa (B for
>> Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the species) or Blc. George King (Blc.
>> is the "Genus", George King is the grex). I am aware that the RHS has
>> changed a lot of genera designations, but I'm not going to try to deal
>> with that in this post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone
>> names.
>>
>> When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring get
>> a new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go by the
>> names of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot. (Blc. George
>> King x Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring becomes Potinara
>> because Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the mix of ancestors.
>> This particular one has been registered, it's Pot. Edith North. Not all
>> crosses get registered, because (a) you have to know how, (b) there's a
>> form to fill out, and (c) there's a fee. So it doesn't always happen.
>>
>> As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children <G>.
>> Each and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as
>> every child in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his or
>> her nine siblings [forget about identical twins for now <G>]. So think
>> of "Edith Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the family
>> name of all the children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of these
>> children is entitled to its own clonal name, more or less the same as the
>> given names of children in the Smith family (Arlene, Betty, Charles,
>> Danny, Elaine, Frank, George, etc.), but with orchids the parents can't
>> do it so it's up the the "god-parents," the breeder(s), and they don't
>> always get around to naming every one. Clones are sometimes referred to
>> as varieties, so sometimes clonal names are called varietal names. This
>> is a major source of confusion, but there is a solution. When referring
>> to a species variety, such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the
>> "varietal" name should be lower case and not in quotes; a clonal name
>> should always be capitalized and in single quotes.
>>
>> Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them are
>> going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when it
>> becomes more important to bestow clonal names -- the part following the
>> species or grex name, and it should go in single quotes, e.g. 'Danny
>> Adams'. When you divide the first one, you should give it a clonal name,
>> and that name should go with both/all of the divisions. The next one
>> you divide should get a different clonal name, for all of its divisions.
>>
>> But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name goes
>> with all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY SINGLE
>> division or clone of that particular plant, you don't have the right to
>> change it. Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is
>> by the honor system.
>>
>> In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
>> especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the
>> clonal name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be
>> cloned (think Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of
>> tissue and used it to produce thousands of identical copies (clones,
>> mericlones, meristems). All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams', just
>> like any divisions of that exact plant. But none of the other children
>> of George King and Helen Velize are 'Danny Adams'. Either they have
>> different clonal names (Albert, Betty, Charles), or they never got them.
>>
>> The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
>> god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to Smbcna.
>> (now Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the fourth part of
>> the name. I had lots of these. One I named 'Jupiter', and now all of
>> its divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Jupiter'. Even though it
>> looks a lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach', it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so
>> that's not part of its name. I also still have some divisions and lots
>> of clones of 'Juno Beach'. All of them do get to have the HCC/AOS as
>> part of their name, on their labels.
>>
>> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith
>> gets a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call
>> herself "Doctor". <G>. But there is a little difference, because all
>> the clones or divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS award, whether
>> made before or after the original plant was awarded. So, if someone were
>> to get a flower quality award, say an AM/AOS, on Pot. Edith North 'Danny
>> Adams', all the 'Danny Adams' would then carry the award as part of their
>> full names.
>>
>> The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM, and
>> HCC. Other judging authorities use different award names/abbreviations.
>> Culture awards are different. A CCM is a Certificate of Cultural Merit
>> and really goes to the grower, not the plant. So if you were to buy one
>> of my Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully,
>> and get a CCM for it, the award would belong to you and I would not be
>> entitled to put CCM on all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE
>> (Certificate of Cultural Excellence).
>>
>> There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g.,
>> there's an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?)
>> of a particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I believe
>> that award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or registers
>> the plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if I'm wrong. Hope
>> this helps, Kenni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825 [at] fed1read02...
>>> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly understood
>>> the
>>> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more confused
>>> now??
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers Wendy
>>>
>>> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>>>
>>> Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>>>>> ....................
>>>>> ...................................
>>>>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>>>>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>>>>> to alter some tags....................................
>>>>> .................................
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
>>>> thinking.....
>>>> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
>>>> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
>>>> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions
>>>> to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before
>>>> divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in
>>>> California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of
>>>> that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
>>>> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track
>>>> of where the
>>>> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee'
>>>> in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
>>>> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
>>>> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add
>>>> AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an
>>>> award.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST
>>>> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should
>>>> have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those
>>>> plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of
>>>> clones all to be named the same.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks ever so much Kenni for your most explicit explanations, you have
managed to clear some items up especially the "varietals" *g*
Genus/species or grex/clonal or varietal/Awards......Do I have this
correct?
I will save this & will look out for your website url.
Thanks again,
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Kenni Judd <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote:
> Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeed<G>. If it
> works, I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on
> the website. So please, let me know.
>
> Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have
> as many as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a
> natural Genus, such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS
> is calling these "Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because
> so far as I know, there aren't any Blcs found in the wild <G>. I'm
> sure Wendy knows, but for those who might not, Blc. is the "Genus"
> name for a plant whose ancestry includes species from the Brassavola,
> Laelia and Cattleya genera. Whatever it is, this first part should
> be all one word, or one abbreviation.
> The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the
> grex name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some
> sources refer to this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but
> regardless of what you call it, it's the next thing after the Genus. E.g.,
> B. nodosa (B for Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the
> species) or Blc. George King (Blc. is the "Genus", George King is the
> grex). I am aware that the RHS has changed a lot of genera
> designations, but I'm not going to try to deal with that in this
> post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone names.
> When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring
> get a new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go
> by the names of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot.
> (Blc. George King x Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring
> becomes Potinara because Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the
> mix of ancestors. This particular one has been registered, it's Pot.
> Edith North. Not all crosses get registered, because (a) you have to
> know how, (b) there's a form to fill out, and (c) there's a fee. So
> it doesn't always happen.
> As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children <G>.
> Each and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as
> every child in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his
> or her nine siblings [forget about identical twins for now <G>]. So
> think of "Edith Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the
> family name of all the children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of
> these children is entitled to its own clonal name, more or less the
> same as the given names of children in the Smith family (Arlene,
> Betty, Charles, Danny, Elaine, Frank, George, etc.), but with orchids
> the parents can't do it so it's up the the "god-parents," the
> breeder(s), and they don't always get around to naming every one. Clones
> are sometimes referred to as varieties, so sometimes clonal
> names are called varietal names. This is a major source of
> confusion, but there is a solution. When referring to a species
> variety, such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the "varietal" name
> should be lower case and not in quotes; a clonal name should always
> be capitalized and in single quotes.
> Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them
> are going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when
> it becomes more important to bestow clonal names -- the part
> following the species or grex name, and it should go in single
> quotes, e.g. 'Danny Adams'. When you divide the first one, you
> should give it a clonal name, and that name should go with both/all
> of the divisions. The next one you divide should get a different
> clonal name, for all of its divisions.
> But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name
> goes with all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY
> SINGLE division or clone of that particular plant, you don't have the
> right to change it. Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in
> this thread, is by the honor system.
>
> In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
> especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the
> clonal name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be
> cloned (think Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of
> tissue and used it to produce thousands of identical copies (clones,
> mericlones, meristems). All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams',
> just like any divisions of that exact plant. But none of the other
> children of George King and Helen Velize are 'Danny Adams'. Either
> they have different clonal names (Albert, Betty, Charles), or they
> never got them.
> The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
> god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to
> Smbcna. (now Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the
> fourth part of the name. I had lots of these. One I named
> 'Jupiter', and now all of its divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory
> 'Jupiter'. Even though it looks a lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach',
> it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so that's not part of its name. I also
> still have some divisions and lots of clones of 'Juno Beach'. All of
> them do get to have the HCC/AOS as part of their name, on their
> labels.
> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert
> Smith gets a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to
> call herself "Doctor". <G>. But there is a little difference,
> because all the clones or divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS
> award, whether made before or after the original plant was awarded. So, if
> someone were to get a flower quality award, say an AM/AOS, on
> Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', all the 'Danny Adams' would then
> carry the award as part of their full names.
> The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM,
> and HCC. Other judging authorities use different award
> names/abbreviations. Culture awards are different. A CCM is a
> Certificate of Cultural Merit and really goes to the grower, not the
> plant. So if you were to buy one of my Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno
> Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully, and get a CCM for it, the
> award would belong to you and I would not be entitled to put CCM on
> all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE (Certificate of Cultural
> Excellence).
> There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g.,
> there's an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?) of
> a particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I
> believe that award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or
> registers the plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if
> I'm wrong. Hope this helps, Kenni
>
>
>
>
> "wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825 [at] fed1read02...
>> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly
>> understood the
>> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more
>> confused now??
>>
>> --
>> Cheers Wendy
>>
>> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>>
>> Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
>>> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>>>> ....................
>>>> ...................................
>>>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>>>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>>>> to alter some tags....................................
>>>> .................................
>>>
>>>
>>> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
>>> thinking.....
>>> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
>>> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
>>> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few
>>> divisions to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name
>>> before divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile,
>>> someone
>>> in California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling
>>> of that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
>>> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose
>>> track of where the
>>> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever
>>> 'Spee' in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee'
>>> AM/AOS.
>>> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not
>>> award worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They
>>> add AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an
>>> award. As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ...
>>> ALMOST
>>> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
>>> Maybe
>>> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee
>>> should have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think.
>>> Give those plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a
>>> group of clones all to be named the same.
>>>
>>> Steve

You might want to take a look at this, too:

http://www.firstrays.com/orchid_names.htm

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:CkEhf.9797$dv.7437 [at] fed1read02...
> Thanks ever so much Kenni for your most explicit explanations, you have
> managed to clear some items up especially the "varietals" *g*
> Genus/species or grex/clonal or varietal/Awards......Do I have this
> correct?
> I will save this & will look out for your website url.
> Thanks again,
> --
> Cheers Wendy
>
> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>
> Kenni Judd <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote:
>> Wendy: Let me try, but don't hate me if I don't succeed<G>. If it
>> works, I'll save it as a draft for my planned Nomenclature Page on
>> the website. So please, let me know.
>>
>> Any orchid name/label should have at least two "parts," and may have
>> as many as four. The first part is the Genus. This can be either a
>> natural Genus, such as Cattleya, or an artificial Genus (I think RHS
>> is calling these "Nothogenus") such as Blc. I say artificial because
>> so far as I know, there aren't any Blcs found in the wild <G>. I'm
>> sure Wendy knows, but for those who might not, Blc. is the "Genus"
>> name for a plant whose ancestry includes species from the Brassavola,
>> Laelia and Cattleya genera. Whatever it is, this first part should
>> be all one word, or one abbreviation.
>> The second part is the species name, or in the case of a hybrid, the
>> grex name. A grex is essentially an artificial species. Some
>> sources refer to this name as a "hybrid name" or a "cross name," but
>> regardless of what you call it, it's the next thing after the Genus.
>> E.g., B. nodosa (B for Brassavola is the genus, nodosa is the
>> species) or Blc. George King (Blc. is the "Genus", George King is the
>> grex). I am aware that the RHS has changed a lot of genera
>> designations, but I'm not going to try to deal with that in this
>> post, as it doesn't really bear on the issue of clone names.
>> When Blc. George King is crossed with Slc. Helen Veliz, the offspring
>> get a new name if and when they're registered. Until then, they go
>> by the names of both parents, so the tag would properly read "Pot.
>> (Blc. George King x Slc. Helen Veliz) ." The Genus of the offspring
>> becomes Potinara because Sophronitis, the S in Slc, was added to the
>> mix of ancestors. This particular one has been registered, it's Pot.
>> Edith North. Not all crosses get registered, because (a) you have to
>> know how, (b) there's a form to fill out, and (c) there's a fee. So
>> it doesn't always happen.
>> As it happens, George King and Helen Veliz had a LOT of children <G>.
>> Each and every one of these children was a unique individual, just as
>> every child in a family of 10 is at least slightly different from his
>> or her nine siblings [forget about identical twins for now <G>]. So
>> think of "Edith Northh" as their family name, just like Smith is the
>> family name of all the children of Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. Each of
>> these children is entitled to its own clonal name, more or less the
>> same as the given names of children in the Smith family (Arlene,
>> Betty, Charles, Danny, Elaine, Frank, George, etc.), but with orchids
>> the parents can't do it so it's up the the "god-parents," the
>> breeder(s), and they don't always get around to naming every one. Clones
>> are sometimes referred to as varieties, so sometimes clonal
>> names are called varietal names. This is a major source of
>> confusion, but there is a solution. When referring to a species
>> variety, such as Milt. spectabilis v. mooreliana, the "varietal" name
>> should be lower case and not in quotes; a clonal name should always
>> be capitalized and in single quotes.
>> Although some of these offspring may die in childhood, a LOT of them
>> are going to grow up and, sooner or later, be divided. That's when
>> it becomes more important to bestow clonal names -- the part
>> following the species or grex name, and it should go in single
>> quotes, e.g. 'Danny Adams'. When you divide the first one, you
>> should give it a clonal name, and that name should go with both/all
>> of the divisions. The next one you divide should get a different
>> clonal name, for all of its divisions.
>> But if the plant already came with a clonal name, that clonal name
>> goes with all the divisions. Unless you can be SURE you own EVERY
>> SINGLE division or clone of that particular plant, you don't have the
>> right to change it. Enforcement on that, as mentioned elsewhere in
>> this thread, is by the honor system.
>>
>> In the case of Pot. Edith North, one prodigy among the children was
>> especially appealing to the god-parent breeders, and they gave it the
>> clonal name 'Danny Adams.' So they sent it off to a laboratory to be
>> cloned (think Dolly the sheep). The lab took a particular section of
>> tissue and used it to produce thousands of identical copies (clones,
>> mericlones, meristems). All of these copies are also 'Danny Adams',
>> just like any divisions of that exact plant. But none of the other
>> children of George King and Helen Velize are 'Danny Adams'. Either
>> they have different clonal names (Albert, Betty, Charles), or they
>> never got them.
>> The AOS judges didn't find 'Danny Adams' quite as appealing as did its
>> god-parents, and didn't award it. But they did give an HCC to
>> Smbcna. (now Ctph.) Garnet Glory 'Juno Beach'. The HCC/AOS is the
>> fourth part of the name. I had lots of these. One I named
>> 'Jupiter', and now all of its divisions are also Smbcna. Garnet Glory
>> 'Jupiter'. Even though it looks a lot like its sibling 'Juno Beach',
>> it doesn't have an HCC/AOS so that's not part of its name. I also
>> still have some divisions and lots of clones of 'Juno Beach'. All of
>> them do get to have the HCC/AOS as part of their name, on their
>> labels.
>> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert
>> Smith gets a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to
>> call herself "Doctor". <G>. But there is a little difference,
>> because all the clones or divisions of 'Juno Beach' carry the HCC/AOS
>> award, whether made before or after the original plant was awarded. So,
>> if someone were to get a flower quality award, say an AM/AOS, on
>> Pot. Edith North 'Danny Adams', all the 'Danny Adams' would then
>> carry the award as part of their full names.
>> The most commonly-seen flower quality awards, from AOS, are FCC, AM,
>> and HCC. Other judging authorities use different award
>> names/abbreviations. Culture awards are different. A CCM is a
>> Certificate of Cultural Merit and really goes to the grower, not the
>> plant. So if you were to buy one of my Smbcna. Garnet Glory 'Juno
>> Beach' HCC/AOS, grow it up beautifully, and get a CCM for it, the
>> award would belong to you and I would not be entitled to put CCM on
>> all my tags. Same with the even tougher CCE (Certificate of Cultural
>> Excellence).
>> There are some other award types about which I'm less clear. E.g.,
>> there's an AQ (Award of Quality?), which requires some number (12? 15?)
>> of a particular cross to be awarded in order to obtain it, and I
>> believe that award goes to the breeder (regardless of who exhibits or
>> registers the plants) -- one of you judges out there correct me if
>> I'm wrong. Hope this helps, Kenni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:U91hf.7994$dv.4825 [at] fed1read02...
>>> Well Steve, I have read all the posts & I have never clearly
>>> understood the
>>> scheme of naming, clonal, varietal etc. etc. & I am even more
>>> confused now??
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers Wendy
>>>
>>> Remove PETERPAN for email reply
>>>
>>> Steve <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Diana Kulaga wrote:
>>>>> ....................
>>>>> ...................................
>>>>> What this discussion has changed for me is that I will never again
>>>>> give or trade away a division without naming the plant first. Time
>>>>> to alter some tags....................................
>>>>> .................................
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've read all the posts (a couple of days late) and I've been
>>>> thinking.....
>>>> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
>>>> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from
>>>> that cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few
>>>> divisions to sell or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name
>>>> before divisions go to other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile,
>>>> someone
>>>> in California (who shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling
>>>> of that same cross. By some great coincidence, she decides to name hers
>>>> 'Spee' also. So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose
>>>> track of where the
>>>> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever
>>>> 'Spee' in for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee'
>>>> AM/AOS.
>>>> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not
>>>> award worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They
>>>> add AM/AOS to their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an
>>>> award. As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ...
>>>> ALMOST
>>>> ... a reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> it illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee
>>>> should have done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think.
>>>> Give those plants a clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a
>>>> group of clones all to be named the same.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>
>

And if you want to see a very good example of the most basic reason for
clonal or cultivar names, go to abpo and take a look at Dave Gillingham's
pics under the topic ! [at] *&%%$# [at] [at] !!! genetics

Kenni

Looks right to me. Kenni

"wendy7" <wendy7PETERPAN [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:CkEhf.9797$dv.7437 [at] fed1read02...
> Thanks ever so much Kenni for your most explicit explanations, you have
> managed to clear some items up especially the "varietals" *g*
> Genus/species or grex/clonal or varietal/Awards......Do I have this
> correct?
> I will save this & will look out for your website url.
> Thanks again,
> --
> Cheers Wendy
>
> Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Joanna: I think/hope that the usages you mention are just joking
pleasantries, and that "Mrs. Professor" wouldn't include her husband's
degree if she were to prepare something like a resume or job application for
herself, to publish or to submit to a potential employer.

Also, in the example, Betty was Albert's sister, not child or spouse.
Although I'm not sure that would make a difference in the conversations you
describe. Kenni

"J Fortuna" <joanna [at] REMOVEfortunabujard.com> wrote in message
news:3Wlhf.3510$Qs2.1889 [at] trnddc03...
>
> "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> news:V5mdnT0eWtVZSRjeRVn-oQ [at] adelphia.com...
> <snip>
>> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith
> gets
>> a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
>> "Doctor". <G>.
>
> Kenni,
>
> Unless the Smith family lives in Austria, and they encounter someone like
> the Austrian swimming instructor of friends of my family, who would always
> call their 3-year old son Dr. SoAndSo because his father had a P.h.D. :-)
> While that is a silly extreme, some titles that technically should not
> apply
> to spouses get applied nonetheless, a lot of wives of college professors
> get
> called Mrs. Professor, at least in many European countries they do. I
> guess
> orchid nomenclature is a bit more consistent on that point, an award given
> to a seed parent of a hybrid is not applied by association to the pollen
> parent. :-)
>
> Joanna
>
>
>

Steve: This is indeed one pitfall, but as you say, I think the benefits
outweigh the hazards. The likelihood of 2 purchasers of the same seed-grown
hybrid choosing the _same_ cultivar name seems far less, to me, than the
likelihood of say, 5 different purchasers of divisions of the same plant
choosing 5 _different_ cultivar names for what are actually pieces of the
same plant, if there's not already a cultivar name on it. Kenni

"Steve" <tlswilso [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:pJGdnXxMbIpvYx7enZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d [at] adelphia.com...

> I don't have a question; I understand all of this. Suppose I buy a
> seedling Catt, for example. Lots of other people buy a seedling from that
> cross too. It's a vigorous grower and I soon have a few divisions to sell
> or give away. I decide to give it a clonal name before divisions go to
> other people. I name it 'Spee'. Meanwhile, someone in California (who
> shall remain nameless) has purchased a seedling of that same cross. By
> some great coincidence, she decides to name hers 'Spee' also.
> So I give away some plants, time passes and I loose track of where the
> plants went. Now our California grower takes her Catt Whatever 'Spee' in
> for judging and it earns an award. Catt Whatever 'Spee' AM/AOS.
> Now a couple of people who ended up with one of my inferior, not award
> worthy, plants sees that 'Spee' got the AM/AOS. Oh boy! They add AM/AOS to
> their tag because they read that the 'Spee' clone got an award.
>
> As I said, I have no question. It's just that it's almost ... ALMOST ... a
> reason to refrain from giving an ordinary plant a clonal name. Maybe it
> illustrates a reason to give truly unique clonal names (Spee should have
> done it). The benefits outweigh the hazards I think. Give those plants a
> clonal name anyway, because it does help keep a group of clones all to be
> named the same.
>
> Steve

Kenni,

Oh, I really don't think that these are "joking pleasantries" at least the
people I have met in European countries (especially Austria) who would thus
misapply the title to the spouse were quite serious people and not joking at
the time -- I think in some European countries, among some people or some
classes, the importance attached to titles in an informal way as a social
status symbol is quite astounding to those who have not encountered it
before, and this is something that is very different than in the U.S..
However you are right that "Mrs. Professor" would definitely not include
this on her resume, indeed a woman thus addressed would be unlikely to talk
about herself in a similar fashion (unless _she_ was joking). And I think
such titles are not applied to sisters, just to spouses most of the time --
but as the ridiculous but true example of the 3-year old addressed as
Professor shows, there are times when the titles are misapplied further
beyond the spouse, but I think that is fairly rare, whereas the
misapplication of titles to spouse is fairly common.

Joanna

"Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
news:dm7tfk02kc1 [at] enews1.newsguy.com...
> Joanna: I think/hope that the usages you mention are just joking
> pleasantries, and that "Mrs. Professor" wouldn't include her husband's
> degree if she were to prepare something like a resume or job application
for
> herself, to publish or to submit to a potential employer.
>
> Also, in the example, Betty was Albert's sister, not child or spouse.
> Although I'm not sure that would make a difference in the conversations
you
> describe. Kenni
>
> "J Fortuna" <joanna [at] REMOVEfortunabujard.com> wrote in message
> news:3Wlhf.3510$Qs2.1889 [at] trnddc03...
> >
> > "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> > news:V5mdnT0eWtVZSRjeRVn-oQ [at] adelphia.com...
> > <snip>
> >> Much like the Smith family mentioned above. Just because Albert Smith
> > gets
> >> a Ph.D, that doesn't mean his sister Betty Smith gets to call herself
> >> "Doctor". <G>.
> >
> > Kenni,
> >
> > Unless the Smith family lives in Austria, and they encounter someone
like
> > the Austrian swimming instructor of friends of my family, who would
always
> > call their 3-year old son Dr. SoAndSo because his father had a P.h.D.
:-)
> > While that is a silly extreme, some titles that technically should not
> > apply
> > to spouses get applied nonetheless, a lot of wives of college professors
> > get
> > called Mrs. Professor, at least in many European countries they do. I
> > guess
> > orchid nomenclature is a bit more consistent on that point, an award
given
> > to a seed parent of a hybrid is not applied by association to the pollen
> > parent. :-)
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> >
>
>

In article <zwUhf.614$tg3.509 [at] trnddc02>, joanna [at] REMOVEfortunabujard.com
says...
> Kenni,
>
> Oh, I really don't think that these are "joking pleasantries" at least th=
e
> people I have met in European countries (especially Austria) who would th=
us
> misapply the title to the spouse were quite serious people and not joking=
at
> the time -- I think in some European countries, among some people or some
> classes, the importance attached to titles in an informal way as a social
> status symbol is quite astounding to those who have not encountered it
> before, and this is something that is very different than in the U.S..
> However you are right that "Mrs. Professor" would definitely not include
> this on her resume, indeed a woman thus addressed would be unlikely to ta=
lk
> about herself in a similar fashion (unless _she_ was joking). And I think
> such titles are not applied to sisters, just to spouses most of the time =
--
> but as the ridiculous but true example of the 3-year old addressed as
> Professor shows, there are times when the titles are misapplied further
> beyond the spouse, but I think that is fairly rare, whereas the
> misapplication of titles to spouse is fairly common.
>
> Joanna
>
> "Kenni Judd" <kenni [at] REMOVEjborchids.com> wrote in message
> news:dm7tfk02kc1 [at] enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Joanna: I think/hope that the usages you mention are just joking
> > pleasantries, and that "Mrs. Professor" wouldn't include her husband's
> > degree if she were to prepare something like a resume or job applicatio=
n
> for
> > herself, to publish or to submit to a potential employer.
> >
> > Also, in the example, Betty was Albert's sister, not child or spouse.
> > Although I'm not sure that would make a difference in the conversations
> you
> > describe. Kenni
This is a practice I hate here in Europe. When our village got its first
woman elected as mayor this year - an event in which I was not just a
bystander - I addressed her husband jokingly as Herr Bürgermeister. His=

shock was evident as he replied, "No, no! My wife was elected!" But the
"proper" title for a mayor's wife here is "Frau Bürgermeister"!!!
Frau Doktor is said to spouses of doctors, even those who have a non-
medical doctorate, and Frau Professor to wives of teachers, though the
male counterpart, as above, is still unusual.
--
Reka

This is LIFE! It's not a rehearsal. Don't miss it!
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html