On the homepage of the International Society for Horticultural Science they offer for free a download (PDF-format) of the ICNCP (Scripta Horticulturae #18) - you can also find an orderform for buying it in hardcover and support their work:
Lc. Mini Purple
- Thread starter Phred
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
SouthPark
Well-Known Member
Thanks eds! That's probably where 'clonal name' should be used for clarity ------- for orchids that is. So that all clone orchids of C. Mini Purple 'Tamami' will be genetically identical. Any mericlone orchid that happens to be not a 'clone' of 'Tamami' (eg. a mutated orchid) --- will not be genetically identical, and so should not be labelled 'Tamami'.
eds
Well-Known Member
With my genetics hat on I'm afraid it's not even that simple! Transcription errors occur even through cloning or general growth, it's one of the reasons variegated growth can revert to plain growth and cancerous growths occur. Different parts of the same plant may have slight differences. So very nearly identical but not necessarily exactly the same. And you can get some pretty big changes to genomes without any visible changes to the appearance of an organism, even to the extent of chunks of chromosomes missing!
I'd stick with thinking about the appearance because without sequencing the entire genome you can't know how different it is.
To paraphrase a saying about ducks, I'd say that if it looks exactly 'Tamimi' and grows exactly like 'Tamimi' and was purchased labelled as 'Tamimi' it is 'Tamimi'! Any differences it probably needs a new name!
eds
Well-Known Member
Always 'Keeping Up Appearences' as is with the Hyacinths!
Ha ha!
I do hate that program but understand that it has quite the following on the continent. I used to tease my mum's telephone voice about being like Mrs Bucket!
SouthPark
Well-Known Member
True eds! That is exactly why we have to define 'clone'. A clone has the same DNA as the original plant. Any deviation or departure ------ is then not a 'clone', or no longer genetically the same as the original. Uncertainty about the DNA sequence (when compared with the original) is something we have to just deal with. But when getting down to the actual definitions ------ as in identical DNA, then it's true to say that a clone isn't a clone if it doesn't have identical DNA, and so for correctness ----- can't and should not use the same clonal name for a non-clone, even for a plant that just so-happens to have the DNA changed due to mutation. That's not a problem. It is just definition.
Somebody still has a choice to use the same clonal name for what they like - but that would then be based on 'assuming' same DNA (or some other reason). But if something is clearly different - such as mutated, then it makes sense to not use the same clonal name - due to obvious visible feature differences ----- such as nearly all or every leaf of an orchid being variegated - while all the other members have no variegation.
Here, I'm just limiting the field to orchids. Definitely not even going to go there with non-orchids, such as some variegated monstera.
Last edited:
When it came out, it certainly had a following in Denmark. Recently Downtown Abbey has been more en vogue - I guess, it could somewhat be described as 'Keeping Up Appearences without the laughs' (to parafrase a derogatory remark about Pfitzner's opera Palestrina).
I liked the program, when it first came out, but somehow tired of its both stock characters and plots. Maybe my relationship with it is best caught as a love-hate one. A friend has recently started sending me Youtube snippets with scenes, he finds hillarious. I'm thinking of giving it another go - but will surely adhere to the warning on the packet: 'only to be taken in limited doses'!
Phred
Well-Known Member
Texture is definitely firm to hard. (In my untrained opinion)
Similar threads
