Colocasia worthy of being renamed?

My Colocasia esculenta "Limeade" has developed offspring with the light color of its chimeric variegation that consumes the entire plant. The morphed plant occasionally puts a few tiny darker spots on the leaves but is 98% the light color. Where the Limeade's petioles are striated, those of the new plant are white. The offspring of the new plant always come true to its parent and do not revert to Limeade's variegation. Though it's not as exciting as the parent Limeade should, could, would this be categorized or registered as a new variety? New registration of a sport is common with hibiscus rosa-sinensis when the bloom remains true to the sport with continued propagation of cuttings.

This message was edited Jul 31, 2010 9:25 AM

A new registration is possible through the International Aroid Society, the official registrar for aroid cultivars. The problem is few of the cultivars already being sold are registered! Most people just add a cultivar name with single quotes and don't realize an actual registration is required. At least technically, the single quotes should not be used unless a registration has been filed.

You can check the list of registered cultivars by going to the left column here:

www.Aroid.org


Steve

I found my colocasia in the IAS database listed as 'Lime Aide', a legacy entry of the name in common use but probably never actually registered. From what I've learned of its history, Lime Aide was discovered in the Philippines by and named by Alan Galloway sometime during (if my recollection is good) the late 80's. Which colocasia it actually derived from as a variegated form is probably a complete unknown unless Galloway researched it further and included the details in his journal.

Registration was always an issue with the American Hibiscus Society. Like the IAS seems to have done, the AHS has been adding the unregistered cultivars to their database. If this new sport of mine were to be distributed it would definitely be registered before doing so. It's the only proper and correct thing for ANYONE to do before releasing. Otherwise, the genealogy of the plant could or, at worst, would be lost forever.

On a side note, the Royal Horticulture Society considers them self as the definitive international database of registries for all plants in the world yet they seem to only have 36 named colocasia in their registry.

This message was edited Jul 31, 2010 11:38 AM

If you are interested in registering it I will give you a direct name to contact. I have been able to learn about cultivar registry is one of our senior members had to be trained and approved to do this work and many people have regretably been reluctant or simply refused to follow the registry rules. That, as you explained, messes up all record of any cultivar.

We have a member here on Dave's Garden that is a true expert in this and I am hopeful he will respond to this thread.

Steve

I am interested but only after growing and propagating the sport for at least a year. It needs time to prove itself by not reverting back to its original form and thus having an erroneous entry in the registry.

Are there any other colocasia that you know of that have totally white petioles?

True white petioles are certainly unique as I am currently working with an Alocasia hybrid with white petioles. I need to find out if the white persists to maturity; if it does, perhaps I'll display it at the IAS Show in September. Are you planning to come to the Show?

My sport has developed to maturity and all its offspring are the same form but time is the only way to assure quality of the plant before registering.

I wish I could attend but a regrettable family health event earlier this year obligated me to use almost all my allotted vacation days for the year. Next year would be more likely.

Today I separated Lime Aide from her baby, Lime Cooler (working name). Looks better on its own than when mixed with her dark green mom. Four young plants were also separated into their own pots for evaluation.

Each on their own.

Leaf pattern of Lime Aide.

Another.

Yet another.

Variegation in Lime Cooler.

And showing off her untanned legs!

Missed this picture of the variegation.

There are some frequent misconceptions about registration.

Registration is carried out by the registration authority or any one else maintaining a register. It has no bearing whatsoever on the nature or the quality of the cultivar. A register is, at core, simply a list of cultivar names that have been *established*.

The establishment of the name is the important thing, not registration itself. An established name is permanently fixed, according to international rules.

You can establish the cultivar name by publishing it, with a minimal description, in more or less any dated hard-copy publication. The value of sending a cultivar name to the ICRA for registration is mainly that the ICRA will establish the name by publishing it for you.

If you release a cultivar without an established name, it is open for anyone else to establish a name for it and for that name to become the correct one.

For the plant to get a cultivar name, it needs to be demonstrably a cultivar: it must have been propagated (numbers are not specified, but a single plant cannot be named), and it must be stable. The exact meaning of stable is slippery, but with variegated sports it means that the variegation pattern selected for tends to persist. If is *occasionally* reverts, that does not mean it is not stable.

If a cultivar name is in use, but not registered, it is arguably the fault of the ICRA: they should have found it and added it to their records! Adding "unregistered" names to their databases is not a problem: it is what they should do... :)

Thanks, Alistair. I'm very familiar with the International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRA) maintained by the International Society for Horticulture Science (ISHS). A number of years ago I was involved in discussions between the Australian Hibiscus Society (AuHS) and the American Hibiscus Society (AmHS) when the AuHS became the ICRA's authority for Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. There was a lot of work involved in blending the registries of the two organizations. Now, hibiscus registered with the AmHS are forwarded to the AuHS and from there to the ISHS. For aroids the International Aroid Society is the ISHS authority. As a former hybridizer of rosa-sinensis myself, I would not release/register any seedling without a thorough evaluation of the plant. Our concern was with those who grew only the seedling plant itself, liked the bloom and registered it without growing the plant through various means of propagation and its ability to be a good bloomer. If the seedling's cuttings would not take to a graft well or grow well on its own roots it should not be registered. Why do so if the plant cannot be reproduced? I bring these same beliefs with me of a new cultivar of any family of plants that I may work with.

Alistair,

Thanks for the excellent information about registering cultivars! I am now much more aware of both the process and the requirements, as previously I had thought that once a registration authority has been set up, one had to go through them exclusively to register a plant, rather than just publishing the description in a dated hard-copy publication.

I gather that if a cultivar has been published properly, but has not been registered with an ICRA, then it is the responsibility of the ICRA to add it to their database?

LariAnn

I have to strongly disagree that a registry is simply a catalog and a record of names. There's a lot more to it than that. When properly maintained and contributed to it's a history book.

I personally feel that it is the absolute responsibility of the hybridizer/cultivator to register their cultivar with the proper organization assigned by the ISHS as the ICRA representative of a particular family of plants. Even if every detail were to be properly published most of these organizations do not have the manpower to search every publication in the world for every unregistered plant. The genealogy of a species can play an important role in the development of new hybrids by a seasoned hybridizer who wants to pull certain recessive traits from a plant's lineage. Without proper registration containing a plants parentage and the easy access to that data it's nothing more than a catalog for ID'ing plants. I have an old friend who, IMHO, is one of the best rosa-sinensis hybridizers there is and creats some of the best producing plants and blooms. All his work starts from knowing a parent plant's family history and working from there. Even if a bloom won Seedling of the Year, he refuses to use any hibiscus as a parent plant if its parents are unknown x unknown.

Registering a cultivar takes very little time and is painless. It also gives the world a record and history of your hard work.

This message was edited Aug 2, 2010 1:03 PM

Your comments bring up the issue of science vs. art, and the difference in their needs and requirements. Science calls for detailed data to be logged and evaluated, while the plant fancier is looking for the next unique plant, making it somewhat more of an artistic pursuit than a scientific one. In art, you just name your creation, you don't analyze and dissect it! In science, you describe and name your work only by following strict scientific rules - art is not an issue. This gulf between art and science seems unbridgeable, but the two must come together or confusion will increase with accelerating speed.

I don't know how much information is required to register a Hibiscus hybrid, but in my hybridizing work with aroids, the process takes quite a bit of time and effort. The information required is not available until the plant reaches maturity, so registration cannot take place until the plant has bloomed and set seed, and data has to be collected at the vegetative stage, the blooming stage, and the fruiting stage. Quality of culture is going to affect this data, such as leaf size and characteristics, bloom size and color, etc. I've seen the same plant have blooms of different colors (for example, dark purple to pale pink), depending upon the season and nutrient availability. Leaf color can vary, likewise, for the same reasons. Even overall plant size at maturity can vary widely, as I've seen some of my plants bloom at relatively small sizes, but later grow on to be so much larger than that"blooming maturity" size as to appear to be a different plant altogether! So for registration purposes, which data is the right data to be used, if it can vary from season to season or grower to grower?

Being a scientist by training, I agree on the need for the hybridizer/originator of a new plant to keep accurate records of parentage, etc. However, this will not stop or enhance the marketability of the plant, as can be seen by the number of plants being marketed without proper registration. We do need a meeting of the minds between the aesthetic plant developer and the scientific investigator so that something useful and satisfying to both will emerge.

LariAnn

I absolutely agree with needing to find a middle road somewhere between too much and too little information to begin with. My feeling is that the responsible organizations should take a preliminary registration with the know details such a parentage, leaf shape and other identifying features. This is done to some extent with hibiscus where the last thing known is whether or not it will produce viable seedpods and the info recorded later.

Steve S

It certainly CAN be a lot more than just a list of established names, but its *primary* function IS nomenclatural. Under the 2009 ICNCP [p.62] ... "registration is the acceptance of a cultivar, group, or grex NAME by an authority responsible for registering such NAMES" [my capitals].

Yes, definitely. Furthermore, if a name is out there and in use but not established, the ICRA should establish it (after some research to make sure, as far as practically possible, that it is the right name and is in accordance with the ICNCP). Whether the cultivar's parentage is known or not is irrelevant, though obviously it is, as Steve says, highly desirable that such info be recorded. However, registration should not be contingent on such information being supplied: for example commercial growers may very reasonably want the parentage of a new cultivar withheld, and cultivars are quite often chance seedlings of unknown parentage.

I guess that after 30 years of being in a science field I do let my analytical thinking get the best of me. :/
Hard for me to get past validating what I do instead of just enjoying the result. :)

The best breeders adopt your standards :)