Hi Nev,
You've raised an interesting issue.
I don't know for sure about this, but here is my understanding.

As for cross-pollinating two broms, the resulting seedlings are not clones as such. It depends on what type of broms are cross-pollinated.

1.If you cross two DIFFERENT species or hybrids, then the results are hybrid seedlings. The distinctive seedlings from such a cross may each be officially named and registered as specifically-named hybrids - ideally, once matured and proven stable in its successive vegetative offspring. Only vegetative offsets earn the same name. The rest remain under parent formula, or are thrown out, or whatever. If the hybridist cannot tell any difference between a few from the same grex, then I believe it is fair play to give them the same hybrid name. I am not convinced anyone else has that same right.
eg. I have recently seen a plant described as "Vriesea 'Royal Hawaiian' BEST CLONE". That title is contradictory to me. To call it the "best", one would have to have seen all of them, and yet there cannot be more than one 'Royal Hawaiian'. As you say Nev, that is the purpose of naming them with an Anglicised hybrid or species cultivar name.

2.I think the term 'clone' is more appropriate in reference to varietal diversity of many SPECIES bromeliads. They have evolved over eons in various localities and conditions. Therefore, different clones of the one species exist, as long as they more-or-less fit within the descriptive code of the type specimen collected. Some species differ enough from fellow same species, that they earn a variety name. eg. Aechmea nudicaulis var. flavomarginata, and many other varieties of this species.
Some species occasionally throw an atypical offset (or "sport"), which I have heard referred to as a "superior clone". This clone often gets propagated vegetatively and given cultivar status. eg. Billbergia 'Ralph Graham French', a variegated cultivar of the species Bill. vittata.
If an established hybrid throws an atypical offset, then it no longer earns the same hybrid name, IMO. As we know, some variegated hybrids are unstable in their variegation, so if a named hybrid loses its variegation, we add '- Novar' to the name.

I hope this clarifies more than confuses - I think I have just confused myself!

Can anyone else confirm or refute my understanding?

Cheers,
Kerry

That sounds about right, Kerry. I think some of the confusion as far as hybrids is concerned revolves around the practice of either naming the cultivar or naming the grex. Originally the hybridizer was expected to give one name to the entire grex, and then if he/she selected more than one cultivar from the grex (or if one of them sported), then they got different cv. names. That's why we have names like Neo. Fosperior 'Perfection', Oh No 'Very Cherry', Aussie Dream 'Glorious' (or 'Lucky 7' or 'Ferny Grove', etc.) or Blue Navy Blues 'Pacific Fleet'. This can get pretty unwieldy, so at some point the rules were revised so that we're now to refer to them as simply Perfection or Glorious. The grex names persist, however, and sometimes the cv. name gets dropped somewhere down the line. For example, I've seen Blue Navy Blues on price lists, but I've never seen Pacific Fleet or any other cv. name given. So which clone of BNB is it?

That's one issue. Another one is as Kerry describes, if the hybridizer has two or more clones that look very similar, it just seems to make more sense to lump them all together under one cv. name. Uncle Derek has even given his unofficial stamp of approval to this practice, but I don't recall ever seeing it addressed in the rules of nomenclature. At any rate, it seems like the responsible thing to do if you're going to take this route is to number the clones. I will tell you that I have a Blueberry Muffin #1 and #2, Haole Girl #1 and #2, and several others like that among my own brood, but in each case I have registered them under one name because the differences are subtle and would not be discernible from a photo. I always include the number on the tag, but I can see where somebody else might decide that was not important information and omit it.

I seem to recall Keith Golinski's comments on this forum about there being at least a half dozen different clones of Neo. Gee Whiz in circulation. I can't tell you why that is, I guess you'd have to ask Grace Goode. I have 2 of them and they don't look much alike to me. On the other hand, Gee Whiz is not a grex name. There are other named cvs. from that same grex, like Red Gold. Maybe all of the extra-large clones were lumped together as GW? If they were ever numbered the numbers seem to have gotten lost. I'm just speculating here, I don't know the story. I've also seen several different clones of Break of Day, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of F2s of it floating around too. I don't mean to pick on Grace, these are just a couple of examples that come to mind. In the case of F2s, then "Break of Day F2" would be a formula rather than a cv. name, but if someone left off the "F2" part of the formula it might seem like there were many different clones of the same cv. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that type of thing might be another contributing factor.

Well, I'm not sure I cleared anything up either, but I agree it can be very confusing!

Kerry, I just reread your comments re:
"I have recently seen a plant described as "Vriesea 'Royal Hawaiian' BEST CLONE". That title is contradictory to me. To call it the "best", one would have to have seen all of them, and yet there cannot be more than one 'Royal Hawaiian'."

I don't want to wander too far off topic, but I got a bunch of Shiigi's culls many years ago and noticed "RHS" as a parent in many of the formulas. David told me this was for Royal Hawaiian Series, which is a grex name. I don't know at what point one clone was selected out and named Royal Hawaiian, or even if he had anything to do with that. It doesn't appear to be officially registered. At any rate, I'm sure there are a number of RHS clones out there. If you look at the parentage of Konig's Royal Hawaiian Maui, he gives it as Royal Hawaiian A x Royal Hawaiian B. I think those should more properly be called Royal Hawaiian SERIES A & B.

I'm not sure whose "best clone" you got, Konig's, Shiigi's or someone else's. Seems like David should be the one to make that determination, but then "best" is kind of a relative term.

Thanks for your experienced input,Lisa. All that you say makes sense to me. I agree the major problem has been caused by one grex name being applied to all of the diverse batch, and then the extra specific details being dropped along the way. I know one hybridist who still insists upon giving the same name to a whole grex of seedlings. The confusion continues.

Re the RHS vrieseas. The ones called 'Royal Hawaiian' here in Oz were originally seedlings grown here by Cheryl Basic, after she collected seed from post-flowering plants in Hawaii. Cheryl agrees she could not know if they had selfed, or been cross-pollinated naturally. Several different ones were flowering nearby at the time eg. Snows of Mauna Kea, Mauna Kea, Pahoa Beauty, and Royal Hawaiian(series). No-one did any specific pollination of the seed she collected. So, I reckon those plants should be called "unnamed Hawaiian hybrid", of uncertain parentage. I did not buy the supposed "best clone", but I have grown several of Cheryl's vrieseas from those batches of seedlings. Some are a bit weak, and non-descript, but a few are particularly lovely and of good strength. One of these has been officially named and registered, which is Vr.'Illusion'. I have one of my favourites from that group of seedlings finally coming into flower spike now. It took several years to establish, and has paper-thin leaves, but she's finally putting on a good show.

One of my unnamed Hawaiian vriesea hybrids, bought from Cheryl.
{{gwi:463562}}

{{gwi:463563}}

I cannot comment on Jack Koning's Hawaiian vriesea, or its parents' origin. I assume he must have worked with earlier imports, possibly not around now.

Back to the word "clone". I forgot to add before that when crossing two different clones of a species - maybe collected from different locales - then the chances are high that the seedlings, still named the same species, will have variety amongst them - therefore adding more clones of the one species.
On our recent brom crawl, we were delighted to buy seedlings of Neo. carcharodon Tiger x carcharodon Macho, and the reverse cross. Now although the young plants look similar, there will be differences in some. BUT - they are all still a form of the species Neo. carcharodon. By adding more clonal variation to the species, I can only wonder about how on earth we are to recognise one species from another in the future...

Cheers,
Kerry

Hi Guys
Lets try & make this easy for you.

First of all, I would suggest to you or recommend to all of you to get a copy of "A Bromeliad Glossary" from The BSI, also a lot of our books have a glossary in the back.

Grex - a group of species or hybrids; applied collectively to the offspring of a given cross from one seed pod; literally a flock or swarm.

Clone - an individual plant raised from a single seed & all the subsequent vegetative propagations.

Cultivar - a plant produced in cultivation as opposed to one growing in habitat; a horticultural strain.

Basically this is saying if you cross two diff. plants & the resultant seed batch (grex) are all green plants & you notice a single red seedling in there, you can select it out as one clone & call it Neo.Red Splinter & the others as Neo.Green Splinter, they are the same cross but you have noticed sufficient difference to call them different clones.

As far as diff. clones having the same name, this falls into the catagories of splitters & lumpers. $$$'s & who cares, there all the same cross.

Hope this helps simplify it for you Splinter.

Pinkbroms

Hi everyone,
Thank's a lot for the valuable input to help educate me in the way of the Bromeliad.

One final question, and probably best directed to our Australian growers. I have noticed on quite a few occasions when reading "Bromeliaceae" (For GW'ers who don't know it, it's the QLD. Brom. Soc. bi-monthly publication) there have been pic's of brom's with the names given as e.g. Neoregelia Red Splinter (unregistered) [I like the sound of that Pinkbroms, at last my one moment of fame].

Does this use of (unregistered) refer to what 'Uncle Derek' has sometimes referred to as a Nurseryman's Name, a name given by the plant owner (not necessarily the hybridizer)with no further intention of registering it, or is it just a way of identifying the name of a plant with the registeration still pending?

Thanks again for your help, all the best, Nev.

Hi (neo)Splinter

Unreg. generally means I'm using this name with intention of registrating it one day or at least as you say rego. pending, has been filed but not formally accepted yet.

Nurserymans name refers to the nursery industry giving a plant a name that makes the plant sound flasher, a more catchier name than the one given eg: Ae. gamosepala or does "Match Stick Plant" sound more catchy & a lot easier for the public to say, "Pink Feather" for Till. cyanea, these are nurserymans names.

Pinkbroms (unreg.)

Hi everyone, enjoyable and informative discussion all round. A couple of points I'd like to contribute, expanding on the comments that have already been made.

Re the 'Royal Hawaiian Best Clone', additional comments from the seller of this plant confirm Kerry's as-per-usual-solid info on its origin as a supposed 'Royal Hawaiian' seedling from Cheryl Basic, so I guess the appropriate naming of this plant would be 'Royal Hawaiian hybrid' if the seed actually came off a 'Royal Hawaiian', or 'un-named Hawaiian hybrid' as Kerry indicated if the identity of the seed parent was in doubt as well.

Re the word 'clone', a strict scientific use would imply that if two individuals are the same clone then they are genetically identical, and conversely if they are not genetically identical, then they are not the same clone. So, strictly speaking, this means that virtually every single seedling ever produced anywhere is a different clone.

This would apply to species as well as to hybrids, since it would be highly unusual for a population of any species to have no genetic variability at all. Just to clarify what we are dealing with here it is probably worth exploring this a bit further. I haven't found any scientific research to indicate how many genes bromeliads might have, but a range of other plants have had numbers of genes estimated to be in the range of around 20,000 to 50,000, so it would be reasonable to expect that bromeliads would be somewhere around this as well. Given that each seedling has two versions of each gene, one from each parent, then if there is any genetic variation in the population at all across somewhere around 20,000 to 50,000 genes, then the probability of getting two offspring that are genetically identical is vanishingly small.

Looking at this then, the strict scientific usage is reflected in the BSI definition for 'clone' cited by pinkbroms. So, what does this mean in practical terms? Three things come to my mind - I'm sure others will have views as well.

First, it is quite understandable that we have a historical accumulation of confused name usages, simply because the whole thing has grown hugely, probably way beyond what many people had in mind when they started applying names. That doesn't provide any justification for perpetuating the confusion that this causes.

Second, a name doesn't serve any useful purpose if you can't use it to reliably determine what it is referring to. For example, I have three different Neos that routinely get sold under the name of 'Spot On'. The notion that they are three different "versions" of 'Spot On' is an obvious nonsense - they are three different plants. I will probably end up wanting to sell some of these myself (two of them are really good plants and quite distinctive) and I am thinking that I might call them 'Spot On: tall reddish' and 'Spot On: compact dark', so at least I get potential customers to think about the fact that they are different plants. The problem with this is that it will perpetuate the nonsensical notion that they are different versions of the same thing, but what else could I do? It is a bit of a dilemma, and I will have the same situation with two different 'Bobby Dazzler's. If anyone has better ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Third, it is quite possible for a whole lot of seedlings to look quite similar but be quite different genetically, simply because different combinations of genes can end up producing similar visible results. Where these differences show up is when they are used as parents, in the following generations of seedlings where the genes are shuffled together in new combinations. This has two important consequences that I can see.

If I ended up with a whole lot of seedlings that didn't have much to distinguish them, I would not give them a name at all because: 1. What's the point? 2. It would incorrectly imply that they are the same, when in fact they might behave completely differently if used subsequently as parents. 3. In a lot of cases I probably couldn't be certain of the pollen parent anyway, so naming them under formula would be probably be misleading. So, if I had to give some information, the best I could do would be to call it '"Seed parent name" hybrid'.

On the other hand, if I had some seedlings that looked very similar to each other but were sufficiently distinctive from everything else to be worth naming, then I reckon I would follow Lisa's spot-on-as-usual recommendation to call them 'New Thing #1', 'New Thing #2', etc, so at least I or other people could keep track of where they came from and follow up on any differences in results when they are used as parents.

And Kerry, what you say about all these clonal variations of species coming through really hits the mark. Isn't it going to be fun keeping track of them! And when they are real 'flagship' plants like Neo. carcharodon and Vriesea ospinae gruberi 'Tiger Tim' and its relos, how important to know that you're getting a different plant when you're about to part with serious sums of money!

Sorry I couldn't help with your last question Nev, but I hope I've made constructive use of a horrible rainy Sunday morning. And the rain has finally stopped, so now I can go outside and make another new brom bed - after visiting you last weekend I'm just bursting with new ideas!

Love to see any further discussion. Cheers, Paul

Paul, you bring up another possible explanation, that of similar-looking but unrelated plants being tagged the same. This is an issue that is worth discussing here, because how many times has someone posted a picture asking for an ID, and then made a determination based on either our opinions or the photos on FCBS? This is not too unreasonable when you're dealing with species, but can be dangerous when you start to get into hybrids, especially Neo hybrids.

Never mind how many different clones of N. carolinae or N. concentrica there are, how many different hybrids based on them are there that all look kind of similar? Or how many marmorated Neo hybrids? Literally thousands, and those are just the ones that have been registered and/or submitted to FCBS and other websites for posting. There's no way to know for sure, but I'd guess that for every Neo. cv. pictured in the photo index, there are hundreds-- no, more like THOUSANDS of unnamed and/or unregistered plants in circulation. If any one of these should fall into your hands and you think you can come up with a reliable ID based on looking at a limited number of online photos, think again! I have to repeat over and over: NOT EVERYTHING IS ON FCBS. And not everything that IS on there has been grown under the same conditions that your plant is growing under, which for Neos, Bills and other very "plastic" genera, can make a huge difference in overall appearance.

It is also a mistake to assume that just because it has been posted on an ID index, it has been correctly identified to begin with. Of course nobody intentionally posts misidentified cvs, but these are some of the ways that one person's error or faulty memory can become perpetuated.

What I'm trying to say here is unless your NOID is an unmistakable match for a photo, or you can get a consensus of knowledgeable opinion saying "Yes, I'm virtually certain that is what you have", it might not be such a good idea to write a name on a tag, at least not without a question mark. How often have we had someone on GW say "Well, it's not A and it's not B, so I guess it must be C." Wrong. It MIGHT be C, but unless you're sure, you could be contributing to someone else's confusion and cause them to ask "How come I have 2 Neo. Red Splinters that don't look like the same plant?"

Just one other comment on one of pinkbroms' points: that a cultivar is of horticultural rather than natural origin. If that's what you meant to say, then I disagree with that interpretation. Neo. johannis 'DeRolf' or carcharodon 'Tiger' were originally wild collected, but they have been selected and cloned commercially, which is what makes them cultivars.

Hi again everyone,

Great point Lisa, and it makes me realise that I haven't had my mind around that as well as I could have. It has lurked about in my head a bit, but now you've brought it right into sharp focus. Thanks. One of the great things about this sort of forum!

Also, I've realised that one of the things that I inferred in my previous posting wasn't quite right, and this is it. If a plant had say 20,000 or maybe up to 50,000 different genes, it would be incorrect of me to expect variation in all of them. In fact, quite a few of them could be exactly the same genes that we have, because they have to do with some of the basic building blocks of anything living.

Having said this however, we are still dealing with some astronomical numbers. I hope you can humour me with this - it has started raining AGAIN and I am back to playing on the computer and I want to get this sorted out in my own head.

Lets say for argument's sake that even though there were a total of 20,000 to 50,000 genes in a plant, only 20 of these genes had any variation - probably conservative? Who knows, but probably a reasonable starting point for discussion. And lets say that for each of these variable genes, there were only two different variations - ie the absolute minimum. Now if my Excel calculations are correct, and I'm pretty sure they are, then this would result in approximately 3.5 billion (3,500,000,000) different possible genetic combinations in the seedlings from two such plants. !! From just two variants in each of 20 independent genes. If there were 3 different variants in each of 30 independent genes, the total number of different possible combinations, each equally likely, would be around 22 with 22 zeros after it !!!! nnnnggghh!

So, to get two seedlings that were genetically identical would be pretty unlikely with those sorts of odds, even if only a very small proportion of the genes were variable.

There, I hope that wasn't too bad. I just didn't want to leave something I'd said hanging there when I knew it was incorrect, even though the general thrust was still OK. And sometimes a couple of horrible numbers can paint a clearer picture than a whole heap of words. I hope. It certainly highlights Lisa's point about the unreliability of identifying specific clones and hybrids based on appearance, when there are absolutely astronomical possibilities for there to be things that look similar although they are not genetically the same.

Cheers, Paul

Hi Guys

Hang on Lisa,quotes were direct from, as mentioned, A Bromeliad Glossary - BSI, Inc.

A cultivar is exactly as stated, from cultivation, a plant found growing in somebodies shadehouse/garden but cannot be directly linked back to the wild. I think, what you are referring to, are "varieties".

Variety - a plant having slight but distinct differences which distinguish it from the type of the species; a botanical variety as opposed to a cultivar which is a horticultural variety.

Actually it works out quite well that we have tripped over the meaning of these two words, cultivar & variety, as they are quite often miss quoted when one is actually meaning there plant is of the other, therefore confusing people with the true meaning of the words.
So maybe Lisa we should have Neo. carharodon variety 'Tiger' which indicates it was found in the wild, which would help keep Splinter & others from getting confused over the incorrect use of some of these words, is it a clone is it a variety, I think best get a glossary.

Pinkbroms

Well, I guess I'll have to take it up with whoever wrote the glossary, Pinkbroms, because that still doesn't sound right to me. I'm not a taxonomist, but I'm fairly sure there are more stringent requirements for being classified as a true botanical variety than that. My understanding is that the words "cultivar" and "clone" are virtually interchangeable. Any botanists/taxonomists out there?

Hi everyone,
Gee I never thought my questions would lead to a discussion as informative as this. Wow! this is sure worth printing out for future reference, thanks a lot everyone.

However, it does answer why I have three Vr. Red Chestnuts that came from different sources and all look different even though they are growing in the same shade house on the same bench.

Thanks again, all the best, Nev.

Hi everyone,
Sorry, I pressed the wrong button before I had finished. I wanted thank Paul for his input and to thank pinkbroms for clearing up the difference between "Nurseryman's Name" and (Unregistered).

Thanks again, all the best, Nev.

Hi Guys

There again Lisa I feel you are misunderstanding the meaning of the two words "cultivar" & "clone", I think it is actually "variety" & "sub-species" you mean are virtually inter-changeable.

The following is part of an article printed in The Hunter District Bromeliad Society news letter written by Peter Franklin, May 2009.

Variety (the English spelling of the Latin word varietas)
A sub group within a species with slight but distinct differences to the normal "type" plant.

The word, variety, is often shortened to var.
Aechmea ornata var. hoehneana
Aechmea ornata var. nationalis
Guzmania zahnii var. longiscapa

The botanical word "variety" has specific meaning: unfortunately the English word "variety" is used in everyday and horticultural talk to distinguish plants. For example, we often see names like Aechmea nudicaulis var. variegata. In this particular case there is no such described plant, and this name is invalid. A variegated plant is probably of cultivated origin and therefore should have a cultivar name rather than a botanical "variety" name.
Theoretically someone should register a cultivar name for this plant and then it would have a name something like Aechmea nudicaulis 'Golden Glow'.

[There are of course plants that are true botanical "varieties" and happen to be variegated. Aechmea ornata var. nationalis is one.]

Sub-species
One or two botanists prefer to use the term Sub-species rather than Variety, but to all intents and purposes they are the same. Variety is much more common way to denote a subdivision of a species. Sub-species is often shortened to ssp.

Aechmea orlandiana ssp. belloi

Forma
A sub group within a species with slight differences that is not significant enough to be called a Variety.
Forma is often shortened to f. or fa.

There are formas of species-
Aechmea weilbachii f. leodiensis

And there are formas of varieties
Billbergia amoena var. stolonifera f. viridiflora

Like "variety", the English word "form" is loosely used in horticulture language; this has a different meaning to the botanical word "forma". For example, someone may say "The red-leaved form of Aechmea fasciata" when in fact the real name of the plant is not forma at all. Or, "I have lots of forms of Aechmea fasciata." meaning nothing more than "I have lots of different looking Ae. fasciata".

Peter often writes good, easy, simple to understand articles and I think this part article should help us all to understand these terminologies a bit better, basically I think it is about learning to speak better English (well that leaves me out) or use terminologies in the correct places so that we all understand what each other is referring to,trying to say, no matter what part of the world we come from.

I'm sure if you contact The H.D.B.S they would e-mail you part 2 of Peter's article which will look at names for cultivated plants, which are similar yet......different.

I hope this helps Splinter because that was a lot of typeing for one finger.

Pinkbroms

Hi everyone,

pinkbroms, thanks for that last posting - the one with the Peter Franklin explanation. I had been trying to find something similar but without success.

It confirms my understanding of a botanical variety as being a taxonomic grouping below the level of species that includes a variable group of individuals that differ in general terms from other variable groups within the same species. For a good example, think of all of the variable individuals of botanical variety Vriesea ospinae var. ospinae, compared to all of the variable individuals of the botanical variety Vriesea ospinae var gruberi.

If this is the case, then a plant like Neo. carcharodon 'Tiger' is clearly not a botanical variety. It is a wild-sourced clone that has been selected for and maintained in cultivation, and as such it is a cultivar as indicated by Lisa, not a botanical variety.

The fact that it was originally wild-sourced (or thought to be - it was actually found by Skotak in someone's collection) is trivial in terms of biological understanding of the plants, when you consider the point made by Kerry earlier that there are lots of new clones of species coming onto the market that have been bred in captivity, and the genetic diversity demonstrated by these plants is just as biologically legitimate as anything found in the wild. After all, they are just re-mixes of wild-sourced genes.

I would humbly suggest that the term "variety" should be completely dumped. As Franklin points out, common usage applies it to anything that looks a bit different, whether it is a true botanical variety or not. This confusion is further increased by the fact that "variety" is defined for legal purposes as a specific clone or group of related clones to which someone has restrictive trading rights, ie it is applied to patented plants, which is completely the opposite of a botanical variety.

Or, if the term "variety" is not summarily dumped, maybe someone can amend the definition so that it has a single, clear meaning? But will people use it that way? Naaaaa - I'd just ditch it. The only purpose it serves is to generate confusion and aggravation and provide a source of income for the legal profession.

Why not just talk about species, sub-species, clones and cultivars, where cultivars are named clones that are maintained in cultivation, regardless of where they are sourced? More than enough for discussion in that lot.

Cheers, Paul

Hi everyone,

I'm just a simple country boy who just wanted to know "how can different clones have the same name when the purpose of naming is to differentiate one from the other?

I'm afaid this is all getting far too complicated for me, but thanks for all the educational feed-back anyway, I'm sure others will reap the benefit of your collective knowledge.

All the best Nev.

Hi Nev,

To my mind, your question hits the nail on the head and is still just as relevant now as it was when you first asked it at the start of this discussion. I reckon if people kept it in mind when they applied names to plants, we would not have the confusion with naming that this discussion has canvassed.

Hope you keep the good questions coming! Cheers, Paul

Nev, your asking the question again prompts yet another possible explanation. Sometimes two different hybridizers can use the same cultivar name without realizing it. In the old days, when the registry was only updated every ten years or so, this was particularly easy to do, especially if they were in different parts of the world and their paths never crossed. Nowadays, with the online registry being constantly updated, it is easier to avoid, assuming hybridizers check to see if a name is already in use before naming a plant. Some do, some don't.

Thanks, Pinkbroms, for the info on the use of variety, subspecies and forma. I've always wondered about the differences between those. The cultivar/clone issue is a separate one, however, and I meant what I said about them being more or less interchangeable terms. Searching the web for a clear definition, however, I came across this article which says they are not. The author's explanation, however, sounds as though he is using the term "cultivar" as practically synonymous with "grex", so I found that even more confusing. Quoting the International Code of Nomenclature, he states:

" ' Article 10, page 12. The international term cultivar denotes an assemblage of cultivated plants, which is clearly distinguished by any charactersÂmorphological, physiological, cytological, chemical or othersÂand which, when reproducedÂsexually or asexuallyÂretains its distinguishing characters.'
This statement does not say that the plants must be identical in all respects. It merely states that the plants must have at least one thing in common, such as parentage, flower color, or anything else one may choose to base the cultivar name on. Clearly this applies to a group of similar plants  not a group of individuals that are identical in all respects, or a clone."

I have to say this really throws a monkeywrench into my understanding of what a cultivar is. The "reproduced sexually or asexually" part is particularly perplexing, since I always thought a cv. had to be reproduced asexually in order to retain its identity! Of course this article is over 30 years old, but have things changed at all? Or have we all had it wrong all this time? For the purposes of bromeliad registration, a cv. is considered to be a unique clone, at least that's how I've always taken it.

Paul, I'm glad you agree with me that a cv. can have a wild origin. Certainly FCBS considers N. carcharodon 'Tiger', N. johannis 'Fairchild' et al to be cultivars rather than varieties or formae. To me, "horticultural origin" implies that the plant was either bred in cultivation as distinct from anything found in nature, or had sported from an existing clone. This may be true for tomatoes or roses, but in the bromeliad world, many, if not most of the species in cultivation have wild origins.

Hi Guys

Such is botanical language or is that the English language,both left wide open for interpretation, everybody has there own opinion of the meaning of the various words we use and it will never change no matter how clearly it is written. So struggle on guys, but check a Glossary from time to time.

When a species found in the wild has been produced "sexually" in cultivation and gives a variegated seedling that isn't found naturally in the wild, that variegated seedling becomes a "variety" and then can be named as such but from then on under that name can only be reproduced "asexually", if seed is grown from the same "type" plant again, at another time and gives another variegated seedling it would be a different "variety" and therefore get a different varietal name.

A clone is a asexual reproduction of mum, as every offset is the same clone, unless mum throws a sport (ooops). Therefore a "cultivar" can be cloned, as a hybrid can be cloned but they have to be "asexual",offsets to be a clone of mum.

A particular "cultivar" would be a unique "variety" if it was only found in cultivation and not in the wild and every "asexual" offset of that particular "cultivar" would then be a "clone" of that one plant.

I hope that sounds fair Lisa as that is as I understand it.

Pinkbroms

Hi everyone again,

Sorry Nev, I just can't keep away - its a pretty good iceberg you've given a scratch!

Hi Lisa, I have to agree that article is confusing. What doesn't help matters at all is that it appears to be impossible to get hold of a copy of the current (2004) or previous (1995) International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants without parting with a bunch of money, even just to look at it on line. References that cite it seem to be thin on the ground as well. The only one I could find a few weeks ago (doing a bit of reading for the Big Red Brom thread) that looked authoritative and seemed to give comprehensive coverage was the economic botany text at the following URL citing the 1995 version of the Code. I have included the URL here again since the BRB thread turned into a bit of a monster to download and I think you were having trouble getting big downloads through?

URL as follows:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DH1mnIAttpMC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22definition+of+cultivar%22&source=bl&ots=k8pAAJUx2b&sig=z2nFnO6kczAho1revBcWg-epvOQ&hl=en&ei=52r3Sf3iKcGAkQXz7t3eCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA39,M1

As I understand the Code from my reading of this reference, a cultivar name is only correctly applicable to a specific clone apart from a couple of very restricted exceptions (at points 6 and 7 on page 40 of the text). If I read it correctly, these exceptions allow a cultivar name to be given to an assemblage of plants that are not genetically identical, but only if the plants in the assemblage are the same for all practical purposes, primarily where commercial plants have been line bred for so many generations that there is minimal variation in the offspring of repeated crosses, and the underlying principle in all of the exceptions seems to be that if you plant some seed, you pretty much know exactly what you are going to get. Given the variability we all routinely encounter in bromeliads, I cant see how bromeliads would qualify for these exceptions.

I suspect that you are spot-on about the age of the article you found. I haven't seen the Code as it existed at that time, but there has sure been a huge explosion in work in these sorts of areas with the advent of genetic engineering, massive-scale globalisation of commercial plants and the resulting importance placed on knowing what you are getting.

So, I reckon you were right all along. What do you think?

Cheers, Paul

Hi pinkbroms, sorry I missed your posting - happened while I was typing.

I thought that the article by Franklin that you posted covered the variegated seedling scenario pretty well - if it ends up a named clone then it is a cultivar.

Regarding confusing terms like "variety" where nobody can agree on a meaning (or where you can never be certain which meaning someone else is using), I'm afraid that I have to disagree that we are stuck with them. They are like old cars with dead motors and the body rusted out. When they stop working, just stop using them, they are junk. Get some nice shiny new ones that will work for a few years.

This is quite do-able. Just don't use them yourself and badger anyone who does until they get sick of explaining what the hell they are talking about. Terminology gets dumped all the time, just needs people to start doing it.

Hope this helps. Cheers, Paul

"When a species found in the wild has been produced "sexually" in cultivation and gives a variegated seedling that isn't found naturally in the wild, that variegated seedling becomes a "variety" and then can be named as such but from then on under that name can only be reproduced "asexually", if seed is grown from the same "type" plant again, at another time and gives another variegated seedling it would be a different "variety" and therefore get a different varietal name."

Are you using "variety" in the botanical sense here, Pinkbroms, or just the common English sense? Seems like this scenario would be the classic example of a cultivar rather than a true botanical variety, which would have to be officially described by a taxonomist, no?

This just proves Paul's point that the use of "variety" is problematic, but the trouble is that there isn't really a good substitute for the common English usage. There was a thread a while back (which I can't find now because the search engine doesn't seem to be working properly) on what to call a collective group of species, cultivar, hybrids, etc., i.e. what do you say if you want to tell someone "I grow over 500 different _______ of bromeliads"? At that time I suggested that "varieties" in the common sense would be the most easily understood by the layman. Can you think of a better term, Paul? The only other that comes to mind is "taxa", but then you end up having to explain what that is. Even "types" has a distinct botanical meaning, although it is not so likely to be confused in context.

"So, I reckon you were right all along. What do you think?"

Hehe..... thanks, Paul, maybe I should just hang it up at this point and go with that! Once I get into these things, though, I like to get to the bottom of them. I searched for the ICNCP online too, with no luck (and your URL won't let me see any text), but unless I can find some compelling current evidence to the contrary, I think I will continue to regard a cultivar as a unique clone being asexually propagated in cultivation, regardless of origin. Anyone not comfortable with that? ;-)

Hi everyone,

??????????????????????????????

I would just like to say, "sorry I started this" this to the rest of the Garden Webbers.

All the best, Nev.

Hi Splinter

I think you have begun some excellent discussions, if you stop asking questions you just go about life blindly and fumble about in the dark.
If you don't ask, you don't get answers, no matter what the question is,ask it anyway, because there is always someone else that needs the same answer also.

Like Lisa, I wont stop asking questions about this one till I get to the bottom of it also, same goes for your Big Red Brom. thread.

Keep em comming Splinter, think of how much we're all learning because you admitted you were confused, hope others are BIG enough to follow your example.

CONGRATS. to Splinter

Hi again everyone,

Pinkbroms, on your last posting - well put, I couldn't agree more.

Lisa, you asked the question "what do you say if you want to tell someone "I grow over 500 different _______ of bromeliads"? At that time I suggested that "varieties" in the common sense would be the most easily understood by the layman. Can you think of a better term, Paul?" (ie a better term if we ditched the term "variety")

It's a good question isn't it? All very nice for me to rabbit-on theorising, but this is where the rubber really hits the road.

Well, the reason I've taken so long to reply is that I've been puzzling over it all day, trying different terms to fill the space and not being able to come up with something that works, until it finally occurred to me that the situation that I was trying to describe (how many broms someone might have) is actually something that is quite complex when you get into it, as shown in this discussion, and probably different in every single case. So, what I finally realised I was tring to do was to describe a complex, variable situation accurately with a single word that everybody would understand. When I put it like that, I came to the conclusion that try as I might, it just ain't gonna happen.

The only way I can think of to deal with a situation like that is to just use simple everyday words that only have a single meaning and completely ditch the terminology, including ditching everyday words that are also used as terminology, then take the time to explain it simply to the level of detail that suits the situation.

Something like "Hey, I have about 2,500 brom plants in my front yard. There are 30 different ones, and all the rest are Aechmea gamosepala" .... person 2: "Wow, what do you do with all of those Eekmee whats-its?" ... me: "Not much, but the deer like pulling their flowers out and it takes their attention away from the other ones" ....person 2: "Cool, what about the other 30?" ....me: "Well, there are a few different Vrieseas with different leaf patterns, and the rest are mainly Neoregelias, some of them are quite different, but most of them look pretty similar with only small differences between them" ....person 2: "Hey, those Vrieseas sound interesting - what are they like?" ....me: "Well, three of them are different clones of Vriesea fosteriana, which means that they have lots of fine purple squiggly lines on the leaves and these are arranged in broader bands, but the different ones have big differences in the amounts of white between the bands and they stay like that in the pups they produce ......."

And so on, and on, for as long as needed. I did sneak one bit of terminology in there - "clones" - but I needed to immediately explain exactly what I meant by it in this context, in simple everyday words.

I really can't think of any other way to deal with this sort of situation. Having gone through this has made me realise that with a lot of these sorts of things, maybe we just get so involved and interested and close to it that we start to take it for granted and forget just how complex it all really is. Then, when we try to describe it simply with a single word, it just does not work. What do you think?

Please pull apart my little explanation - I'd love to hear any other thoughts on the matter.

Hope this helps. Cheers, Paul

Hi Guys
Like the rest of you I have been bashing my self over the head about this, and then it just hit me, it's so simple.

Paul don't fall off your chair.

"I grow over 500 KINDS of bromeliads"

From the Dictionary:
Kind, kind,n, Race; Genus; variety; nature; character.

There you go Splinter after all that you just helpeded teach us all proper English. SO B----Y simple yet it took us all that to get there, where were the chalkies among us.

By the way the eded was deliberate.

Thats it for me PINKBROMS.

Haha....yes, Pinkbroms, I thought of "kinds" too-- AFTER I posted the query above, of course. Maybe it was just too obvious, or maybe it didn't spring to mind because I tend to think of a "kind" as being a grouping of similar things, such as all Neos being the same kind of bromeliad. Still, it's probably a better solution than the deer in the garden, etc. No offense, Paul, but if I wanted to describe our nursery on our website, for example, I think I'd try to do it in 100 words or less! ;-)

With apologies to Nev (no worries, this thread has long since gone way beyond answering your question, we're just having fun with it now), this reminds me of a question my father once asked me. Apparently some family members didn't quite know what to make of my interest in hybridizing, and he said "They tell me you've invented a new kind of plant! Is this true???" I could tell by the way he asked the question that he was thinking of it in terms of some amazing scientific breakthrough that would land me on the cover of magazines and inevitably make me a fortune. I had to explain to him that it was more like breeding your poodle to the next-door neighbor's chihuahua. You've created a very different dog than either of its parents, but I wouldn't exactly call it "inventing a new kind of animal"!

Hehe, Lisa like you with your nursery, I wouldn't go to the 100 words on my front yard unless someone kept asking me for more detail. Just the first simple sentence would do, even though I wouldn't get a chance to whinge about the deer.

I must confess that I thought of "kinds" as well, but rejected it along with "variety" for the same reason that you didn't use it at first. As you point out, it is frequently taken to mean a grouping of similarish but not identical individuals, eg as in "race" or "genus" in the definition quoted by pinkbroms, which would be a totally different situation from one where you are trying to describe how many different clones you have. I'm afraid that I don't have a clue what someone means when they talk about "kinds".

How about just "500 different bromeliads making up around 3,000 individual plants", getting rid of the grouping terminology completely.

Cheers, Paul

Dear splinter...hope u do not split in two and clone yourself. As u asked to every one I may be one if not all...
and I will try to aswer as precise as ...as it can be.
Clones, my dear, are not made by seeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They can be made by or from an only one germinating seed...but...
Seeds are genetic material and there must exist ever something in there to be awaked to respont to the challenges nof nature. All living creatures on Earth regards to this fact! When you see an immense and huge group of sardines do no go on thinking they are all equal to one another.... No, and no Sir! They look equal but in fact they are all and each a tiny bit different from one another. Why so? This is the way nature fights the enviromental changes! There is always one that is a bit more apt to stant a bit more heat, or rain, or whatever. If all sardines were exactely the same (clones) there would be no more sardines on Earth. A peril that would kill one woul kill everyone. We, living creatures are all singular, unique, different from one another in many ways. A clone is a same thing, same! Very same! There is no clone comen from seed!!! To clone a plant may be very simple. To clone a cow is much more complicated ( but everybody does even so) and thanks God it is..imagine cloning someone like me..oh my...one is enough.

Well, cloning in bromeliadas is done by dividing or microdividing a growing point of a mature or not speciemen or ...Your plant may do it for you. When a bromeliad sprouts or pups it is cloning. Two same clones from different plants? No, no way.