Talk:Cultivar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia CD Selection Cultivar is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

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? [1]
Laws are very screwed up.
~ender 2005-05-06 12:00:MST

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECultivar_f297.html"