Morning Glories: Who "owns" these names and vines?, 1 by beckygardener

beckygardener wrote:
This has come up and I thought it might be a good topic to discuss.

Who owns the "name" of a vine?

Do names have to be patented to prevent others from using it? A vine that comes to mind right off the bat is Sazanami. It is commercially produced by at least two different companies. But the vine and blooms from each of those companies often produces quite different vines/blooms. Is there a Japanese patent on that name?

Who owns the vine?

Does a vine have to be a true hybrid that you can PROVE is your cross before you can claim fame to it? Or is each MG seed considered a unique vine unlike any other? It may have similar traits, but is not exactly the same? Or is the only way to get a true hybrid would be to grow a rooted cutting of the named vine? (Keep in mind that this may not be true for species vines that don't cross, but instead produce consistent vines and blooms for that species.) But ... the possibility of crosses within a species such as I. nil, I. purpurea, tricolor, etc. does exist, so the gene pool may be quite diverse.

If someone grows out Sazanami and the F1 vines grow something different which appears to be either a cross or recessive gene, does that mean it is still Sazanami or is it a unique and new vine?

A quote about Daylilies from http://www.ofts.com/bill/hybrdize.html :

"One question I am frequently asked is if seeds are available to grow a specific cultivar. Sorry, but the answer is no. Even seeds resulting from a plant that was fertilized with it's own pollen will not produce plants that are identical to the parent plant. While the likelyhood is that the plant will be quite similar, usually it will not bloom as well and sometimes the bloom will be completely different than the parent. "

A quote from another website http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07602.html :
"Hybrids do not come true from seed."