Fw: Rejected posting to ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL

[Wilbert Hetterscheid]

Arisaema-l members. I have split this message on two parts because it was
too long to be accpeted by the listserver as one. This is part one:


> Peoples of aroid-l and Arisaema-l,
>
> Since there has been some cross-posting on the subjects in the header
above,
> I forward this message to both lists. It's gonna be a longer one and not
for
> the romantic souls among us, so there you have two reasons to delete this
> message right now..........
>
> You're still reading this? O.k., suit yourself...................
>
> The main players in the discussion are Bonaventure Magrys
> (Aroid-l/Arisaema-l), Neil Carroll (Aroid-l), Bjoern Malkmus (Aroid-l),
Mark
> Burack (Aroid-l) and Eduardo Goncalves (Aroid-l). The main themes that I'd
> like to address here shortly are the differences between nature's way of
> hybridising species and the human way, the naming of artificial hybrids
and
> why humans hybdridise plants (here's your last chance to NOT get involved.
> RETURN NOW, while you still can............!!).
>
> 1) naming hybrids: Bonaventure (may I refer to you as BM from here?
Thanks)
> introduces the grex-naming system as in place for orchids, as a means of
> documenting Amorphophallus hybrids (or any hybrid, I suppose). As
co-author
> of the International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plant (ICNCP), I
> can tell you all that the grex system has been under fire for a few years
> now, resulting in deferring that system to a mere note(#4) to art. 4,
> dealing with cultivar-groups. The problem of the grex is that its
> information content is limited. BM's explanation in his message to aroid-l
> (27 April) perfectly illustrates this. You need a LOT of extra background
> information to interpret e.g. his example grex Amorphophallus Bloody
Giant.
> Since it represents a collection of seedlings, which individually may
> undergo different fates (clonal perpetuation, recognition at the cultivar
> level, or die), it actually tells us nothing of great relevance. It merely
> tells us, WHEN its history is recorded at all, that entity A and entity B
> have been
> crossed (in one particular order) and produced offspring. Nothing more,
> nothing less. NO horticultural
> characters of a grex are registered, not even in The RHS register (which
IS
> a grex NAME register and, unfortunately, NOT a cultivar register!!). This
> system implies preciseness because names are created, but it indirectly
> promotes an explosion of "names" of horticultural entities (grexes/greges)
> of which the horticultural value is unknown. We, as members of the
> commission preparing
> the ICNCP, have often discussed why it has any relevance to put a name on
> results of a mere intermediate stage in the breeding chain that should
lead
> to improved horticultural products, worthy of a really useful name (i.e.
the
> cultivar!!). A majority of the commission came to conclude that it has no
> relevance to start naming such entities at an official level. Hence the
grex
> nomenclature is NOT part of ICNCP and is not supported by it.
Nomenclatural
> ("taxonomic") focus should be on end-products (cultivars) because it is
that
> entity that by its definition (ICNCP, art. 2.2) is a stable entity. It is
> the cultivar that bears a full description and can be qualified in terms
of
> horticultural value and can be preserved by designating a standard
specimen
> (all described in ICNCP). Neil Carroll (message to Aroid-l on April 29th)
> describes the reasons for the focus on cultivars excellently. We are
trying
> to "improve our life" by creating plants that fit those demands better
(more
> beauty, better harvest yields, better tastes, etc., etc.). Cultivars that
> have been named (mostly because they ARE an improvement), are registered
in
> cultivar-registers, either statutory (enforced by law) or non-statutory
> (consensus of interested parties). Cultivars may be systematically grouped
> into cultivar-groups (for the definition and content of which ICNCP has
> issued a set of rules/definitions).
>
> Thus, a cultivar name (as found on plant labels and in cultivar registers)
> identifies a product of which characteristics are known and published (in
> catalogues, research publications, taxonomic literature) whereas a grex
name
> merely says that A and B have been crossed. With the creation of a new
grex
> name with almost every new cross, the orchid register of the RHS is a
giant
> list (see also Sander's list of Orchid names = a grex encyclopedia of many
> volumes) of crosses that have yielded offspring. Is that what we want to
> know? I think it is a playground for people who like to give names to just
> about everything they create in a nursery or their backyard, without
> bothering about the question whether the result of their hybridisation
hobby
> has any merit beyond that nursery or backyard. Horticulturally important
> products are usually the result of long breeding processes and the final
> results that are introduced to society are only a small minority of all
> resulting plants from the crosses that may have been done in the breeding
> process. No serious breeder will want to register all these intermediate
> crosses and put names on them, only to find that 99% of those crosses
yield
> inferior material.
>
> I therefore would vote against the use of grex names in aroid "breeding"!
I
> advise the IAS as International Registration Authority for cultivated
> aroids, not to succumb to this system. It will put a lot of extra work on
> the registrar (Donna Atwood at Selby) and distracts from finding out what
> are the properly introduced cultivars of aroids through the decades (a big
> enough job as it is!).
>
> In the end, as a horticultral taxonomist, I am of course NOT against
> hybridising (Neil, don't worry!!) BUT I think that introducing the result
of
> hybridisation must go accompanied by a proper nomenclatural procedure,
which
> starts with thinking about the merit of introducing the hybrid in the
first
> place!! Bjoern Malkmus warns more generally against introducing new
> Amorphophallus clones on the grounds that labels etc. get lost. That is
> indeed a danger, and the longer the label is, the easier data get lost
from
> it, but I think that at some point when a particular genus of plants seems
> to have horticultural potential, somebody will have to start introducing
the
> improved cultivars and they will have to be labelled. I think that would
be
> the proper way to do it because it will indicate that the introduced
> cultivar is not the direct result of exclusively nature's actions but that
> humans have interfered. That information is obviously relevant to some of
> us. Those interested in buying a fine plant, will be able to communicate
the
> cultivar name to others and inspire them to ask for that cultivar in
shops,
> garden centers, and buy it. A good example is the recent introduction of a
> clone of Pinellia, that may have developed spontaneously under cultivated
> circumstances in a nursery as the result of a hybridisation between P.
> tripartita (the purple form) and P. pedatisecta. The nursery was wise
enough
> to recognise it's potential merit and tageed it as a cultivar Pinellia
> 'Polly Spout'. Simple and effective. People will learn in the end what
> 'Polly Spout' looks like and they can then order it, knowing WHAT they may
> expect to get. And THIS is the essence of effectively naming useful
> cultivated plants. The grex cannot serve this purpose.
>
> 2) hybridising for the sake of taxonomy: this is a point that has to be
> taken with great caution. Neil's example of the hybrid between Anth.
> scherzerianum and wendlingeri having contributed to the idea that the
latter
> can be firmly placed in Sect. Porphyrochitonium, implies that species in
> closer evolutionary proximity, should be easier to hybridise. This is
> definitely not a general rule. It was so in the days when Mayr claimed
that
> the biological species (based on the Biological Species Concept) is a
group
> of individuals that may potentially interbreed with succes. This has
> generally been promoted to mean that crossability in is an
> indication of evolutionary relationships, not just between members of a
> species, but also between species that are closely related. Shortly
> thereafter, the discipline of "biosystematics" evolved rapidly, founded on
> this notion. However, the discussion on species concepts has slowly
> marginalised the biological species concept because crossability is just a
> character of a set of plants, as is the posession of e.g. needle-like
> leaves.
>
> It is generally accepted that a speciation event may or may not lead to a
> set of new species that can produce viable hybrids. This is brought about
by
> the fact that species in different plant genera show very different
> behaviour in this respect. Orchids possess the proverbial promiscuity,
even
> to the point that species from different GENERA interbreed succesfully
> ("potentially", because in nature it may not happen at all, in greenhouses
> it DOES!!). Orchids obviously have evolved a plethora of forms BUT they
are
> genetically far less progressive (that is the genetics of
> breeding, which is a different thing from the genetics of morphological
> change!!). Thus our ability to recognise species or higher taxa is
obviously
> NOT related to the interbreeding behaviour of those taxa! Therefore there
is
> no solid ground for evaluating evolutionary relationships between species
or
> higher taxa on the basis of potential interbreeding succes.

(part 2 in next message)