Talk:Cultivar/Archive 1

Comment
Many cultivars are planted in what is called nature. With true natural processes, the cultivars will over time as such disappear. The genetic material however may become part of the gene pool of a population. This is why many trees are culled when a "back to nature" regime is in place. GerardM 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that information is needed in this entry for Cultivar, then. When you're editing your paragraph for inclusion, GerardM, better make explicit those reservations you have about "what is called nature." Plants that are propagated naturally by wind or insects aren't usually considered "cultivars" though. Try Googling "definition cultivar" and see if Wikipedia's definition is equal or better. RHS has quite a good definition, BTW... Wetman 06:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * What about plants that are patented that are propagated naturally by wind or other natural processes? Those aren't considered natural (under legal definitions), and are still owned.  If they happen to grow in your field, you can be liable for theft.
 * Are cultivars that are trademarked (are some patented, even though they are just breeds?), also protected in this manner, as are GMOs?
 * ~ender 2005-04-26 15:30:MST


 * Those "open-pollinated" plants can't be patented in the first place, for the very reason ~ender suggests. Patented plants are all clones. Well-fixed plants that "come true" from seed are sold as "Strains": you could sell their next-generation seedlings, which you've found in your garden, with a clear conscience. --Wetman 02:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 02:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no?
 * Laws are very screwed up.
 * ~ender 2005-05-06 12:00:MST

Wikipedia disparages "strain"...
...but offers no alternative:
 * "Some cultivars and Cultivar Groups are so well 'fixed' or established that they 'come true from seed', meaning that the plants from a seed sowing (rather than vegetatively propagated) will show very little variation. In the past, such plants were often called by the terms 'variety', 'selection' or 'strain'; these terms (particularly variety, which has a very different botanical meaning) are best avoided with cultivated plants. "

Shirley poppies would make a good example of a strain that "comes true" from seed. This paragraph needs work. --Wetman 19:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patents
The "pro patent" argument is stupid. There's no reason why society should reward hard work per se. To argue that patents are good one would have to show that without them either developments would remain secret and that would be bad for society (probably not applicable here), or they wouldn't happen at all and that would be bad for society, and then trade that off to the disadvantages of a temporary monopoly. I don't know what proponents actually claim, so I can't really fix it. --141.35.12.66 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

___

"Stupid" is a bit strong, don't you think? Reward for hard work is a perfectly reasonable societal expectation if that hard work provides benefit to society. Digging and refilling holes is hard work, to be sure, but few would argue that society should reward it. Developing new and valuable cultivars, on the other hand, is hard work that often provides benefit. How do we determine if it provides benefit? Generally, we ask the market. Patents foster an environment where hard work that produces societal benefits can be rewarded by the market.


 * I'm slightly confused by this answer; first you agree that whether work was hard or nonhard is completely irrelevant as to deserving reward from society, but then you still go on to argue with it. Next, nobody disputed that developing cultivars might be beneficial to society; the question is whether *patenting* them is. And the existence of a market is not a very convincing point for a benefit to society here; if I got a patent on white T-shirts, I had a huge market, however, that doesn't mean it's beneficial to society to give me a patent on white T-shirts. The comment above already mentions what would constitute a valid argument. --Mellum 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The point: (1) Society may benefit from a breeder's efforts when the breeder produces valuable new cultivars. (2) Plant breeding is often labor- and resource-intensive work. (3) If society benefits from the labor and investment of the breeder, the breeder deserves to be rewarded for that labor and that investment. (4) In our market system, reward comes as cash. (5) The only way to assure that the rewards accrue to the breeder is to protect the breeder's rights to the newly developed cultivars. (6) Patents represent the way society has agreed to do that. The system works well enough: Hard work alone (as in digging and filling holes) is not rewarded. Benefit that society values is what is rewarded. By this reward system, society assures that breeders continue to expend the effort and make the investments that will generate further benefits. If, as is often the case, society (i.e. the market) decides that the new cultivar does not provide benefits, the reward is not forthcoming. You may object to market-driven reward systems, but that's what we have in place. As it stands, the patent system is what has evolved to assure the supply of new, improved fruits, vegetables, grains and ornamentals.

To more clearly address the first comment: Patents do not reward hard work per se (in the commenter's words). Patents hold out the promise that hard work that produces value and benefit to society can be rewarded appropriately. _____


 * I knew a pensioner who had taken up plant breeding late in life. He did it for his own interest, and the love of the plants he'd created. He sold a few for small amounts from his cottage gate (sounds like I'm making this up, but it's true) and gave cuttings away to friends. The cultivars he'd created gradually filtered through to the nursery trade and were sold in their millions (for summer bedding plants) each year. He was flattered, and delighted to see them used and enjoyed by so many people, but gradually he began to feel a little resentful that so many people were making large amounts of money out of his creations, for very little work on their part (the plants were extremely easy to propagate). Eventually he got one of his new plants taken up by a commercial company which introduced it to Australia. Because it was being introduced in a limited geographical area the company could take out Plant Breeder's Rights for that area for a limited period (three years, I think) which meant that royalties were paid to the breeder for having created it (he could never have afforded to do this himself). This meant that he could afford to travel to Australia for the launch of the plant, meet interested nurserymen and gardeners, and widen his horizons in many ways. At last he had some recompense - only fair, don't you think?
 * Many plants are bred by people working in their spare time who would love to give up the day job and create plants full-time (it can be a very slow and time-consuming process): royalties might allow them to do so, or at least to fund their part-time work. While the abstract "benefit to society" may be marginal in these instances (most such creations will be plants of aesthetic interest rather than food crops), nevertheless it seems fair that, if a large profit is being made by a person or company out of a plant that someone else has created, the creator should be entitled to at least a small proportion of those profits. Patenting (for a limited period) is perhaps the "least worst" way of doing this...
 * ...which doesn't mean that I condone the "big stick" approach of multinationals (see "Ummm, no?" in the top thread on this page) who allow their GM crops to pollute fields of related crops (something which I seem to remember they originally claimed could not possibly happen) and then threaten to prosecute the unfortunate owner of those polluted crops for using their technology without permission!!! When they wanted to trial GM canola (we call it "oilseed rape") in the UK, it was also claimed their plant couldn't possibly cross with its wild relatives, such as the very common but fairly harmless charlock. It has, of course, creating a potentially non-eradicable weed. SiGarb 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Two current anonymous versions
Can we select the best, most accurate wording from each of these new edits? --Wetman 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Each of which new edits? I'm getting confused here! In case you didn't see them, I'm appending the comments I left on UtherSRG's talk page the other day.
 * Cultivar changes
 * Hi Uther. I see you've reverted the edits that 83.117.23.63 made to Cultivar. Since 81.215.54.134 only added a language to the bottom of the page, it's actually my version that you've reverted to. Thanks for your support, but in fact, I think "83" was correct to make most of those changes! The only thing that I'd seriously argue with was their statement that "Usually a cultivar can be placed in a species but this is not required." That is rubbish, or at least seriously misleading. In popular genera (Rosa, for instance, or Dahlia, or Hosta or Hemerocallis) the ancestry of most cultivars is so complex that there is no hope (and no point) in ascribing it to a species. Also, I think if we are going to use "epithet" it should be linked, and probably explained briefly on this page as well. Not everyone who reads this will know what it means. SiGarb 17:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps the Trade Designation aspect also needs some clarification. I'm not sure I've got time to do it myself at present.SiGarb 19:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit late to the conversation here, but...
Cultivar really does just mean cultivated variety. The "standards" organization referred to in the article is only there to register names to be used in commercial sales (they don't "own" the word). I know of more than a few nurseries that sell plants with cultivar names that simply connote where they came from (and often connote that they were nursery propogated rather than collected from the wild). This article needs major tweaking away from the mass-commercial POV before it will be good for the CD. SB Johnny 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree this article is rather extremely over-bureaucratized. IMO, almost all of it should be merged into International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.--Pharos 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not quite precise to say that "cultivar" is the same as "cultivated variety" even though it is a contraction of that phrase. The term cultivar was invented to replace the term "variety" as used for cultivated plants, to avoid confusion with the rank of variety in botanical nomenclature. Many people still use the term "variety" interchangeably with "cultivar" but that's an imprecise and ambiguous usage of the term "variety" from a botanical viewpoint. On the other hand, "cultivar" has a fairly precise and unambiguous meaning, as defined within the ICNCP, and has been widely accepted by both horticulturists and botanists. MrDarwin 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, variety (plant) is also defined (on its page, anyway) as a "legal term". Where do we get a cultivated variety article that isn't about some bureaucracy or other?--Pharos 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "cultivar" analogous to "breed" (i.e. for dogs)? --RealGrouchy 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer is - yes. Plant Cultivars are more varied than animal breeds because they can be produced by more methods.  Hardyplants 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. In that case, I would suggest that a knowledgable someone add that tidbit; it would add a very useful frame of reference for people like me, who aren't in any related fields. --RealGrouchy 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally and coincidentially, "cultivar" is a Spanish verb, which means "to cultivate", "to grow", or "to breed", when referring to plants. The word sounds odd or funny when used as a noun in English. --AVM 16:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

maybe the word your looking for in English is "cultivator" which means a person who works, plants and sows seed or plants plants in the ground. To "cultivate" is the work the ground and make it ready for planting or tend to plants as they are growing. Hardyplants 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of cultivars
Wouldn't this article benefit from some examples of cultivars, so that people can more concretely recognize what is being talked about? The article right now doesn't mention a single one (that I saw). Rinkuhero 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are more than ten listed already, which ones should should be mentioned? Hardyplants 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bailey/cultigen
I have added reference to Bailey's original definition of the cultivar and his very useful term "cultigen". Roger D Spencer (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Canola
I have corrected the caption to the picture which read "Canola is a cultivar of rape". Canola is not a cultivar - see WP article on Canola.Granitethighs (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions and nomenclature rules
The info of the naming conventions against nomenclature rules for each cultivated plant need to be listed, or addressed in the article, please. For example, wheat species can be distiguished by names, or plus code, from cultivated one to wild one.--222.64.217.37 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a code assigned to cultivated one, mean it--222.64.217.37 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge at least, there is no coding system of cereals out there before 2002 because I worked in the cereal industry before then and haven't seen it

Please provide more legal info about ISO 5526 --222.67.212.58 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New Cultivated Plant Code 2009
As the Cultivated Plant Code 2009 has just been released this will affect the wording and content of the article. I have adjusted it accordingly and added sections on the origin of the word "cultivar" and the distinction between cultivars and cultigens including several new citations which i have reorganised. The lead also needed adjustment but I would appreciate editorial assistance for clarity of expression.  Granitethighs  07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am working on the lead - which is not easy - any help would be gratefully received. There are a couple of points (a) technically a cultivar is not "a" plant but all plants that possess particular characteristic(s) - like a "species" (the human species), I have tried to make this clear but its not easy (b) plants within a cultivar are recognised by being given the same cultivar name, which I think is worth mentioning in the Lead. Choosing the words which most succinctly and clearly express these ideas is not easy.  Granitethighs   19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Word use
Hello,

Just a note to propose an improvement. One sentence in the article contains "the correct naming of a cultivar is proscribed by the Rules and Recommendations...". It should read "...is prescribed...".

Regards, BartschF (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When you find a typo, just fix it}}. There's no need to raise a discussion thread about it on the talk page. :-) — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A missing section: Examples of Cultivars
I believe it would be hoghly beneficial to add an "Examlpes" sections, referring to examples such as wild cabbage cultivated into cabage, Brussels sprout, broccoli etc. This is the only good example I know from plants - had there been an examples section, I would have known more examples. Other examples may include dogs, cats, poor cows -milk vs. meat :(, poor chicken - eggs vs. meat :( etc. Dan Gluck (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section "Different kinds of cultivar" gives examples of the different kinds. But I agree that this could be done more thoroughly and with more explicit examples - I will try and do this shortly i nobody else does so. The word "cultivar" is generally taken as acontraction of "cultivated" and "variety". Since animals are not culivated they do not have cultivars. Thanks for your input.  Granitethighs  22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment prior GA review
I was contemplating taking up the review of this article given my interest in agriculture. There are mainly two concerns that I have for now: the first is the lack of references, which, per my understanding of a good article criterion, should accompany each paragraph. The second concern is the character merely biological of the article without taking into consideration the agricultural needs and the farming processes and practices with the different cultivars. In other words we are taking in consideration only the scientific approach, leaving a little aside the agricultural practices of the cultivars, the use of them by farmers, and the weight that farmers have in improving cultivars, experimenting with them and so forth. Probably we are missing sources on this? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall try and ensure that the article is properly referenced. You also make a good point about the derivation and use of cultivars in agriculture (this could apply to forestry too). Again, I will try and include more discussion of the use of cultivars in this way. Seven days isn't it?  Granitethighs  12:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is usually seven days from the start of the review. If you need more time, just drop a line on my page. I am not starting any review until you are ready. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ready for assessment now.  Granitethighs  09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Substantial changes to lead in a GA need discussion on the talk page?
Where does this policy exist? I note that the top of the talk page says "Make changes as needed" The current article is very unclear and seems to lack an understanding of cultivars from a practical point of view. Hardyplants (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardyplants this article, whether you agree or not, has been assigned GA status. This means that an independent review has assessed it as being of a high standard. Your view is therefore contrary to that of the article history. The Lead is an extremely important part of any article and should be both engaging to read and a summary of the article - see WP:Lead. The editing you (or another person) did on the Lead reduced it to a short paragraph that did not summarise the article. It was, by any judgement, a substantial misinterpretation of what a Lead should be; what it should contain; and how it should be written. It also contained several errors of judgement and poor English. Please read the WP recommendations on the Lead before doing this sort of thing. To avoid edit wars I suggest changes are first discussed here until a consensus is reached. At present the Consensus is that, as written, the article is GA - improvement is welcomed but not by deleting large quantities of text. This article is not a Sandbox.  Granitethighs  05:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add that with the tag above concerning the article being used on a WP CD it says Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues. The editing under discussion certainly did not follow this spirit.  Granitethighs  05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The intro is supposed to highlite the topic, the older intro was bogged down in details about naming and as such much of the text was tangent to the topic as a whole. I covered the same info in the changes I made and those details were moved down into the body. Poor English can be corrected. You also reinstated a false statement about seed raised cultivars, which needs to be removed or made more clear. A GA status is not the stamp of a finished product. Hardyplants (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article and, if possible, its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition. The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. Please try to be objective and read what is currently written and the way the article had been left before I reverted. No-one suggested the article was "finished" just the reverse - I said "improvement was welcomed". I do not agree with your assessment of the lead and think what was there before was a vast improvement on the subsequent editing. So where does that leave us? I have suggested we discuss changes in more detail on this page so that we can see where we are each "coming from". How about it?  Granitethighs  05:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, my main concern was that the intro covered to much about the terminology of the name and not enough about the subject. The subject is cultivars which are plants, how they are given a name is important but should not dominate the intro text. The term has a history of use that has changed somewhat over time and that should be covered in body of the article also. Hardyplants (talk)
 * I agree with both your points. The reason the nomenclature was included was because it was a section of the article and should therefore get at least a mention in the Lead - but I agree it could be shorter. We can work on that. The history of the changing use of the term would be good: could you make a stab at what you think should be in the article here on the talk page - and we can work together on it. Thanks.  Granitethighs  06:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)