About the names

[High Fuukiran]

To confuse you more, I wrote this HIGH FUUKIRAN: NOMENCLATURE NOTES ON FUUKIRAN. CULTIVAR VERSUS VARIETY OR FORM

[margitks]

Thank you very much for sharing.
Your article will definitely help me to understand orchid label names more readily in the future!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[RobinDavis]

Thanks for sharing.

[NeofinetiaCanada2014]

I have been growing neos for over 10 years, with about 300 plus in my care. I also travelled to Japan and spoken to neo experts there and in the US.

Unfortunately the neos have undergone too much scientific scrutinization in recent times to change it to something more confusing as it is currently. Although taxonomic rules apply to all plants, we need a true identification of varieties through DNA evaluation and hybridization analysis. To say that a selfing of all Byakko (a tora) is Byakko might be true as all plants show similarity phenotypically, but a selfing of Nishidemiyako (fukiden) does not produce any stripes. So then what?

If the true definition of a variety is up to taxonomists, then we will need a complete revision of the varieties, maintaining what is a true variety or form. Anyone who looks at a homeden and a Hakubotan will truly say that they are different species of the same genus. Thus Neofinetia (Vanda) falcata var Hakubotan.

Further if you see one Hakubotan (high grade) vs another Hakubotan (low grade), there is a world of difference in leaf variegation and root color. To the point the low grade will look like a kinbotan. Thus the high grade one should be named N. falcata var Hakubotan 'Prince'. This is how to tell the difference between plants.

Here lies in the problem. You have about several hundred named varieties, that may or not be the true pure strain or a seedling.

Trying to fit the Japanese system into our Western parameters will falter and the AOS has blundered a few times, trying to keep up with whoever tries to renamed and reclassify the group.

So until we have a complete revision (which might be my AOS thesis), I suggest keeping the current var status of each of the named varieties and give cultivar names to each of the selected award plants to differentiate that plant from another of the same variety, unless that variety was proven to come from the same division in Japan. This provenance is important even in Japan. To get the original Hakubotan and not a selfing is the ideal.

Anyways, these are my thoughts... And the plants I divide and sell may have cultivar status like 'MrBean'.

https://www.facebook.com/Japanese-Ne...8720534853007/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[High Fuukiran]

It has always been a big mass, to deal with nomenclature! When mentioning "variety", one have to be specific whether mentioning "variety" as a botanical variety (taxonomic rank) OR a horticultural variety OR a legal term.

Botanical variety occurs in the wild within the species rank that is geographically separated from other varieties within the same species and is different. Botanical variety is true to type (plants propagated by seeds look like their parents)

Horticultural variety or a cultivar is a plant selected under cultivation for desirable characteristics that can be maintained by propagation (not always sexual). Although, can be a special selection from the wild. Here is a great explanation of what cultivar is and does: "Cultivars are not necessarily true to type. In fact cultivar means "cultivated variety." Therefore, a cultivar was selected and cultivated by humans. Some cultivars originate as sports or mutations on plants. Other cultivars could be hybrids of two plants. To propagate true-to-type clones, many cultivars must be propagated vegetatively through cuttings, grafting, and even tissue culture. Propagation by seed usually produces something different than the parent plant." (from the article by Cindy Haynes, "Cultivar versus Variety", published originally on 2/6/2008 at the Horticulture & Home Pest News, Iowa State University).

"Variety" is also a legal term and used by breeders for some legal protection, providing so-called plant breeders' rights.

With Neofinetia falcata, some are true botanical varieties (those that can be still found in the wild). For example, depending on who's view you except Neofinetia xichangensis or richardsiana could be varieties of Neofinetia falcata. Majority of Neofinetias we grow are cultivars that were selected under cultivation by human.

There is no one solution to resolve the mess within the plant names (especially orchids!), but one can reject or accept someones view and follow it.

Personally, I am rejecting new taxonomic combination for Neofinetia, and will NOT call it Vanda. I am accepting "cultivar" (horticultural rank) and will be writing the name as follows - Neofinetia falcata 'Tamakongo' 玉金剛

Botanical and horticultural nomenclature is not an exact science and heavily depends on expert's personal view (splitters vs. "clumpers").

Now, that I can breathe easier, I have the time to enjoy my fuukiran, instead of chasing one expert view from another.

[Subrosa]

Although this pertains specifically to roses, I think it addresses the issue at hand. This and understanding that a cultivar is not necessarily the same thing as a clone. I'm sure he can chime in with a more detailed explanation than I can give.With all due respect to the new member who actually wrote it
Paul Barden: Old Garden Roses and beyond

[RobinDavis]

High Fuukiran brought up that "Variety" is also a legal term and used by breeders for some legal protection, providing so-called plant breeders' rights." I worked at the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) for 20 years and recently retired in 2015. The PVPO offers intellectual property rights for plant breeders much like a patent. The Commissioner (leader) of PVPO is aware that the correct word is cultivar not variety. The Commissioner and I discussed this about one year ago.

[NeofinetiaCanada2014]

Many Neofinetias such as the Setzuzan variety, a white tiger, have been in cultivation over a hundred years and were apparently discovered in the wild by the Samurai class. A selfing of this produces the same white patterns. So to name this a horticultural variety by your definition is wrong. Instead it should be considered a botanical variety. So your proposed way of naming it is erroneous.

On the other hand, there are new man made varieties from breeding. Such as in the case of the Manjushage, a tripled spur flower. This therefore is considered a horticultural variety as it does not breed true either.

Now you can see the conundrum that we face. It is not a black or white issue because giving it a right name is plant dependant and provenance of origin.

How can we then separate this to satisfy all parties?

My proposal is to give varietal status as well as to a cultivar designation to distinguish origin and provenance.

For example, for known botanical varieties:

Neofinetia (Vanda) falcata (bot) var Setzuzan 'Mountain Snow' (cultvr)

Or for man created horticultural varieties;

Neofinetia (Vanda) falcata (hort) var Manjushage 'Flying Cranes' (cultvr) AM/AOS

This will take away all doubt what it is... To do this one can go back the old Japanese literature to see which plants were found, created or bred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[High Fuukiran]

You can read my full post here, but here is an excerpt:

"To deal with the name dilemma for man-made or man-selected plants, the terms group and cultivar were introduced. As I mentioned earlier, since there are no botanically recognized varieties or forms of Neofinetia falcata, the term cultivar is more appropriate for identifying 'Tamakongo' place in the name of Neofinetia falcata.

"A cultivar is an assemblage of plants that (a) has been selected for a particular character or combination of characters, (b) is distinct, uniform and stable in those characters, and (c) when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characters." - Cultivated Plant Code. Art. 2.2 Brickell 2009, p. 6

According to Hortax (Cultivated Plant Taxonomy Group), the cultivar name should be enclosed in single quotation marks with the first letter of each word capitalized. Unlike the scientific botanical name, the cultivar name is never written in italics. Thus, the correct horticultural name is Neofinetia falcata 'Tamakongo'. If a group of cultivars exists, the words in the group name have the first letter capitalized and the group name is placed in parentheses if used together with the cultivar's name. Neofinetia falcata 'Tamakongo' belongs to Mameba or Bean-leaf group, therefore its full horticultural name would be:

Neofinetia falcata (Mameba Group) 'Tamakongo'
or
Neofinetia falcata (Bean-leaf Group) 'Tamakongo'

Although, a simplified name like Neofinetia falcata 'Tamakongo' is acceptable and it could be optional to include the group's name."

As far as 'Setzuzan' name goes, I would use
Neofinetia falcata (Torafu Group) 'Setzuzan'
or simplified Neofinetia falcata 'Setzuzan' and consider it a cultivar. I don't know if this is a botanical variety or not, someone has to do a study and confirm its botanical status. Most likely it is not a botanical variety, as we don't know if there is a viable wild population exists or excited. "Samurai" could have been spotted and selected a single mutation. In addition, some cultivars known to "come true from seed" .

I don't invent new names, but use existing convention. The most confusion with Neofinetia naming comes from misunderstanding the term VARIETY. In my understanding they are CULTIVARS and should be treated as such.

[NeofinetiaCanada2014]

Hi Alexander, I agree with you that more research is needed to confirm the origin and status of each group/cultivar. Until someone does that, let's enjoy our little miniature 'vandas'. Cheers, Leslie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk