Grex vs. Cultivar

[Hakumin]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

I'm pretty sure that the terminology: genus species, or genus grex, or genus species 'cultivar', or genus grex 'cultivar' applies easily and conveniently to Neof. as well, right?

Yes, how to write out the cultivar names when writing them in English fits that method just fine.

The issue is that what constitutes a cultivar is completely different between the Neo world and the AOS.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Hakumin

The issue is that what constitutes a cultivar is completely different between the Neo world and the AOS.

If that's the case, then it will probably be just up to AOS to form a translation table ...... an interpretation table. That's if it's practically possible.

Are there any good examples of the differences? And is it possible to propose a naming convention for translating AOS to the other format?

Also ------ if the definition is different ..... and if nobody has yet done anything to sort it out, then we can't do much about it, unless something is done or proposed .... such as by you, the AOS, or us etc.


If some agreement can be made with two large entities ----- such as AOS and whatever the other entity is (overseas) ------- then maybe official data-bases could be combined (only a maybe) ----- so that the AOS can do something about it. That's if they want to.

As we know, combining data-bases etc can involve a lot of thing ...... a major operation ..... considerations about what happens if one database fails, or the communications link gets out of sync, or lost ------ security issues, administrative issues etc.

Sometimes ------ it's not easy to get something done. Sometimes - impossible. Nobody's fault really.

People might just need to (if they can) work together ----- and come up with a plan. Or if it just can't be done ...... then that's about it really.


I think also ------ that if the ID is unknown for a particular Neof. ....... then AOS would just put it into the 'no id' category.

[Hakumin]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

Are there any good examples of the differences?

In the neo world, just like as explained in the ICNCP, the individuals that comprise a cultivar do not need to be genetically identical, as opposed to the requirement by the AOS that the individuals that make up orchid cultivars be genetically identical (or presumably identical)

For example, the Neofinetia falcata cultivar 'Shutenno' is made up of divisions from the original wild found plant, as well as line-bred seedlings of that original plant. In other words, If you self a 'Shutenno' any offspring that results from the selfing that carries the same defining visible characteristics, are also legitimate 'Shutenno' even though seed propagated offspring do not have the same genotype as the parent. The same goes for other seed-propagable Neofinetia falcata cultivars such as 'Hisui', 'Hōmeiden', 'Setsuzan', 'Fugaku', 'Tamakongō', etc.

Another example is 'Musōmaru-Shima'. This cultivar was created by crossing a variegated long leaf neofinetia falcata with a dwarf short leaf neofinetia falcata, then sibbed to combine the variegation with the dwarf leaf characteristics. In this case, all of the siblings that carry the correct leaf shape and variegation are correctly part of the same cultivar even though being siblings, they would not be genetically identical. The same goes for other cultivars made up of a group of siblings such as 'Hime-Seikai', 'Jukai', 'Daishogun', 'Hokage', etc.

Originally Posted by SouthPark

And is it possible to propose a naming convention for translating AOS to the other format?

From my understanding, there has been some effort recently by certain AOS chapters to try and combine the two standards. However it's still a long way to go from being fully functional.

Personally, what I see is the fact that the AOS' insistence on keeping their own strict definition of the word cultivar, while ignoring the more inclusive definition set by the International Society for Horticultural Science in the ICNCP, is going to continue to cause confusion unless one of the two decides to choose a different word.

Overall, I don't think it's something that's going to be fully rectified for a long time from now, and it's going to end up being up to the hobbyists to keep track.

[SouthPark]

Hakumin ----- that's true. It's definitely a situation ..... a problem (not meaning a pain causing problem) ..... but a regular problem for solving if groups want to cooperate in future to propose some naming convention, or upgrade/update existing formats.

For example, if heritage of some Neof. is unknown, but they happen to have a cultivar name for it, and provided there is some agreement that it's official, and can be shared around internationally ..... then AOS probably could add an extra field to their database ---- such as Neof. NOID 'cultivarname' for a NOID grex. And for a species ..... Neof. speciesname 'cultivar name'.

Or for a species with no cultivar name .... Neof. speciesname

That's just an example. Might not be easy to implement, or some unforeseen and even immediately foreseen hiccups or issues could arise. Just an example only.

That is, if it throws a big spanner in the works, then they probably cannot implement the above, and won't do that ------ so in that case, nobody should get too hung up over it, as it's nobody's fault really.

[Hakumin]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

Hakumin ----- that's true. It's definitely a situation ..... a problem (not meaning a pain causing problem) ..... but a regular problem for solving if groups want to cooperate in future to propose some naming convention, or upgrade/update existing formats.

For example, if heritage of some Neof. is unknown, but they happen to have a cultivar name for it, and provided there is some agreement that it's official, and can be shared around internationally ..... then AOS probably could add an extra field to their database ---- such as Neof. NOID 'cultivarname' for a NOID grex. And for a species ..... Neof. speciesname 'cultivar name'.

Overall, my personal interest in this topic comes more from the fact that I have come across many people entering the world of Neos with the assumption that because Neos are orchids, all of the rules (or perceived rules) set by the AOS must apply to Neos. Honestly, I've seen multiple people proclaim that Japanese and Korean neo vendors are fraudulent because they do not adhere to the genetic identity definition used by the the AOS.

In the end, regardless of how it could be reconciled, or whether or not it ever is reconciled, my hope is that hobbyists have the resources available to understand that there is more than one system, and that they at least begin to learn about how they are alike and how they are different.

[SouthPark]

Hakumin ...... there is clearly 2 or more different systems here. Nobody is to blame here, as it looks like they developed independently ------ so it is possible (and maybe even likely) that the two systems are incompatible ------ can't really be merged.

In that case, one solution will be just to become multi-lingual. So people may need to adjust and learn the system (the language/syntax etc) for the other system, and become used to switching from one system to another.

Or ------ if AOS (and/or RHS) has Neof. in its database, and it can't accommodate no-id orchids ..... then it could just be a matter of not being able to accept no-ids, which makes sense and understandable. At least RHS does have Neofinetia in there ----- so at least it's a start with getting names together - for orchids having IDs that is.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Hakumin

Overall, my personal interest in this topic comes more from the fact that I have come across many people entering the world of Neos with the assumption that because Neos are orchids, all of the rules (or perceived rules) set by the AOS must apply to Neos. Honestly, I've seen multiple people proclaim that Japanese and Korean neo vendors are fraudulent because they do not adhere to the genetic identity definition used by the the AOS.

A personal interest in this area is actually very good. There appear to be several different orchid related matters here - but not necessarily sparked by AOS and/or RHS. A system or some systems had to be developed for official book-keeping purposes.

Regarding those particular people labelling some vendors as fraudulent -------- it's hard to comment on them right now, as we don't know from what angle they're coming from --- as in are the vendors (they mention) selling orchids with false/erroneous names? Or just selling orchids with some arbitrary unregistered (not registered in some official asia system), or selling orchdis that aren't what they're supposed to be when they flower? Or something else? We don't know the specific details about their claims of fraudulent activity. So impossible to comment right now.

It's unlikely to be the fault of AOS ----- unless "officials" of AOS are the ones claiming fraudulent activity. But again - no specific details here.

I'm just thinking that if Japan has their own system (for orchid sales, book-keeping etc, competitions etc), and Korea has their own system, and AOS/RHS have their own system, then we can't do much about that. People could maybe work towards (if they can) an international system. It could take a lot of work/money/time/effort etc. But considerations would also need to be made about reliability/robustness of any future international system - including security.

[Hakumin]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

Regarding those particular people labelling some vendors as fraudulent -------- it's hard to comment on them right now, as we don't know from what angle they're coming from --- as in are the vendors (they mention) selling orchids with false/erroneous names? Or just selling orchids with some arbitrary unregistered (not registered in some official asia system), or selling orchdis that aren't what they're supposed to be when they flower? Or something else? We don't know the specific details about their claims of fraudulent activity. So impossible to comment right now.

The vendors in question are normal, well respected vendors and breeders of Neofinetia falcata specifically. They sell cultivars Neofinetia falcata, and they sell them using the definition of cultivar used outside of the AOS, (i.e. without the requirement of them being genetically identical).

So, for example, they would sell seed grown Neofinetia falcata 'Hisui' with the name Neofinetia falcata 'Hisui' as long as the seed grown ones also have green flowers.

The people I have encountered claiming fraud were using the AOS definition of cultivar and saying that the Japanese and Korean vendors are fraudulent simply because they did not adhere to the genetic identity definition of the word cultivar.

They were not selling plants that did not have the correct characteristics defined by the cultivar. They were not using false and erroneous names. They were not selling plants with arbitrary names.

They were simply selling seed grown Neofinetia falcata with the parent cultivar's name after checking to see if the defining characteristics were there.

Those people claiming fraud have explicitly referenced the AOS definition and claimed that it is fraud to sell seed grown plants with the same cultivar name as the parent, even if the defining characteristics match, simply because they are seed grown and cannot be assumed to be genetically identical.

Originally Posted by SouthPark

It's unlikely to be the fault of AOS ----- unless "officials" of AOS are the ones claiming fraudulent activity. But again - no specific details here.

I'm just thinking that if Japan has their own system (for orchid sales, book-keeping etc, competitions etc), and Korea has their own system, and AOS/RHS have their own system, then we can't do much about that. People could maybe work towards (if they can) an international system. It could take a lot of work/money/time/effort etc. But considerations would also need to be made about reliability/robustness of any future international system - including security.

No, it's not the AOS' fault, never said it was. It's a problem caused by 1, the sparsity of information, and 2, the unwillingness of some people to accept anything outside of their familiarity.

Overall, all that I've been trying to explain in my comments in this thread is that there is more than one accepted definition of the word cultivar—one used by the AOS, which is familiar by most of the experienced orchid growers on the OB, and others used outside of the orchid world like the one used by Neofinetia falcata growers, which is specifically relevant in this thread because of where it was posted and the questions asked by the OP.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on whether or not the two systems should be reconciled, and I have very strong doubts that they could ever be because the end goals of the two systems are completely different.

The AOS concentrates on the cultivation of any species in the orchidaceae family, first and foremost for their flowers.

The Japanese and Korean Fukiran Associations are firstly, strictly concerned with the single species, Neofinetia falcata (with only a passing acknowledgement of hybrids of the species). Secondly, they put the greatest emphasis on the leaves and vegetative aspects of the plant with flowers only taking a secondary role.

However, because Neofinetia falcata is taxonomically still an orchid, and many western orchid growers encounter them as such, I think that the awareness of the differences between them makes for a richer experience overall.

[SouthPark]

Hakumin ....... thanks for explaining that kind of naming style. Looks like (I think) that the equivalent AOS naming would be something like Neof. falcata var. hisui

If there's just 1 species ....... and it is agreed upon as falcata as the single species, then it could probably be agreed upon that the Hisui orchids will fall under tne classification of variation within a species.

And even though I don't know the selling operations of asia -------- I would just assume that sellers selling orchids should be able to add a comment in the description of their orchid ----- mentioning (if it was) seed grown, or if it is a clone or division (and include a photograph of the clone/division).

All it takes is a few little words for clarification. That's all it takes.

[Hakumin]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

If there's just 1 species ....... and it is agreed upon as falcata as the single species, then it could probably be agreed upon that the Hisui orchids will fall under tne classification of variation within a species.

And that's one of the places where the AOS and International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants at the moment can't be reconciled.

According to the ICNCP, even though Hisui is variant of the pure Neofinetia falcata species, it is a cultivar, correctly written Neofinetia falcata 'Hisui'.

As far as the ICNCP is concerned, whether or not it is a taxonomic variety (i.e. Neofinetia falcata var. hisui) is a separate question that is irrelevant to its status as a cultivar.

Originally Posted by SouthPark

I would just assume that sellers selling orchids should be able to add a comment in the description of their orchid ----- mentioning (if it was) seed grown, or if it is a clone or division (and include a photograph of the clone/division).

All it takes is a few little words for clarification. That's all it takes.

A lot of sellers do, although unfortunately and annoyingly, often those notes end up lost in translation during import/export proceedings to the west.

Those that don't note them, their stance is usually that whether or not the individual would be seed grown or not is common knowledge in their market, and they don't realize that there's a potential for misunderstanding outside of their home market.