mom2cjemma said:If I take Plant A and Plant B and pollinate them for 4 consecutive blooms, I will end up with 4 sibling pods. So what about the seeds inside? If there are 2 seeds in each pod, are those 2 seeds identical twins or just 2 more siblings (fraternal twins) produced from the union of A & B???

They are just two more siblings not twins of any sort (just like two brothers or two sisters, etc.)

So I guess that my next question is that when I plant those 8 seeds, will I potentially end up with 8 new cultivars?

Yes, you could if the plants meet your requirements for registering cultivars.

And another question... so Mr. Daylily went and created a new cultivar from plant A & B. Overtime, he decided that he really liked this new flower and so then what???? He had to wait for it to grow new fans so that way he could grow his supply before he could register the new cultivar??

He could register the cultivar even if there was only one fan in existence. That would be his decision.

Will he never be able to use the seeds if they were self pollinators to increase his supply???

Now that is a more thought-provoking question. There are ways to produce cultivars from seed. The plant does not even need to be a self-pollinator. But there are requirements that the plants that are produced by seed must meet before they could be considered to be the same cultivar. It is unlikely that he could produce more plants from seed that would increase his supply of that cultivar without many generations of self-pollinated crosses and selection (probably five consecutive generations).

Finally, if he registers his cultivar, sell his supply to a few growers and then all of the plants die off, is that the end of that cultivar??

Yes.

Natalie said:I think that the seeds in one pod are siblings, but not identical. I've seen many pictures of siblings that look nothing alike, though the seeds came out of the same pod. I'm not sure what you would call the seeds from different pods on the same scape though. I haven't actually seen that talked about before.

Seeds from different pods on the same scape are siblings as long as the pollen parent was the same for each pod.
Seeds from different pods on the same scape are half-siblings if the pollen parents were different for each pod.

Thanks for clearing that up, Maurice. I guess I have heard of half-siblings, but didn't pay close enough attention to the details.

profesora said:Becky-- you are correct. Cloning daylilies has not proven to be productive, and daylilies multiply much faster than hostas.

There is also the attitude difference toward tissue culture plants: Daylily growers are not interested in a mutation as a result of cloning. Hosta growers are thrilled to see a mutation and watch it continue to mutate until it becomes stable. Sometimes the results are spectacular.

Of course, hostas mutate in the garden all the time. The majority of variegated hostas are mutations, not seedlings. It is very difficult to produce a variegated seedling.

Gerry, I loved the article that you wrote about hosta mutations and/or sports, and ran outside and sprinkled alfalfa pellets around my hosta as soon as I was done reading!

Natalie said:I believe that a clone is an exact replica, so a clone of a particular plant couldn't be a different cultivar. Is that correct? It says above that "a cultivar doesn't necessarily have to be a clone." I'm confused. Nothing new there. As I have understood it, a cultivar is different, and not identical. It may look the same, but it isn't the same. A clone would look the same, and be the same.

Sorry if I confused you. When you divide a plant, those individual divisions are clones. Clone basically means the plants are asexually propagated and genetically identical. In the AHS, therefore, the majority of cultivars consist of clones because each individual plant is a division (clone) of the original plant that was registered as that cultivar. The term "clone" is not confined to tissue culture. The ICNCP definition of clone is "two or more individuals, originally derived from one plant by asexual propagation, which remain genetically identical (ICNCP Art. 2.5)".

However, under the general rules for cultivars (ICNCP) a cultivar can be reproduced by seed as long as the seeds produce plants that meet the characteristics of the original named cultivar, so under the ICNCP there are ways that cultivars can be reproduced by seed (sexual reproduction). That's what I meant when I said a cultivar didn't necessarily have to be a clone (asexual propagation).

Whether the AHS currently has a specific individual definition of what constitutes a cultivar that is more limited than the ICNCP requirements I don't know. In practical terms it's also unlikely that anyone would go to the effort of trying to produce a line that breeds sufficiently true from seed to be considered a cultivar. But since the AHS rules say that the originator must own ALL of the cultivar when it blooms for the first time, that would seem to me to preclude even an indistinguishable seedling produced by the same cross for someone else at a later time being included under that cultivar name.

Does this help or have I made it more confusing?

Regarding the question of whether one fan can constitute a cultivar, under the ICNCP the answer would presumably technically be no because a cultivar is an "assemblage of plants", plural. Quoting from the ISHS's ICRA * page on how to name a cultivar:

"You have a new cultivar and you wish to name it. First check that you do actually have a cultivar. A single plant is not a cultivar: a cultivar is a group of individual plants which collectively is distinct from any other, which is uniform in its overall appearance and which remains stable in its attributes. Do not attempt to name a cultivar until you have a number of individuals that are uniform and stable".

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icrana...

Edit: * For clarity I should add that the ISHS (International Society for Horticultural Science) is the body that publishes the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants) which an ICRA (International Cultivar Registration Authority) such as the AHS must follow.

But since the AHS rules say that the originator must own ALL of the cultivar when it blooms for the first time, that would seem to me to preclude even an indistinguishable seedling produced by the same cross for someone else at a later time being included under that cultivar name.

The hybridizer does own all of the cultivar when it blooms for the first time. They sell some after it is registered.
Two possibilities
1. The buyer propagates it by division and sells it as the named cultivar.
2. The buyer propagates it by self-pollination and selection, chooses individual seedlings that are indistinguishable from the named cultivar and sells them as that cultivar.

Rule 2.20 from the ICNCP
"2.20. In considering whether two or more plants belong to the same or different cultivars, their origins are irrelevant. Cultivars that cannot be distinguished from others by any of the means currently adopted for cultivar determination in the group concerned are treated as one cultivar. "

I don't think the AHS rule prevents someone from producing more plants of the cultivar by sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction.

Thank you. This has been a very enlightening conversation..... I guess that I should pay more attention to my dad's ramblings when he talks about his Ginger plants that he has collected from all over Asia..... I may actually learn something that I could apply to my daylily gardening here in CT. He is a professional horticulturist/botanist and has published many scientific articles regarding these rare Ginger plants..... but then again he talks on a scientific level where they are actually analyzing these plants under microscopes to differentiate the different cultivars!!!!

admmad said:

2. The buyer propagates it by self-pollination and selection, chooses individual seedlings that are indistinguishable from the named cultivar and sells them as that cultivar.

Rule 2.20 from the ICNCP
"2.20. In considering whether two or more plants belong to the same or different cultivars, their origins are irrelevant. Cultivars that cannot be distinguished from others by any of the means currently adopted for cultivar determination in the group concerned are treated as one cultivar. "

I don't think the AHS rule prevents someone from producing more plants of the cultivar by sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction.

Agreed as a general case but the case we're discussing in this thread is not the same as item 2. Heidi's question related to crossing two different parents to try and re-create a cultivar that is presumably itself different from both its parents. That is not the same as someone propagating one specific cultivar by seed and considering the seedlings that have the characteristic of that parent to be the same cultivar.

Edited to add that the first checklist (Hemerocallis check list, 1893 to July 1, 1957, American Hemerocallis Society) specifically talks about the registrations being clones. My understanding is that the AHS can have its own rules over and above the ICNCP as long as it doesn't contravene the ICNCP, so it looks to me as if the intent is not to include anything other than asexually produced cultivars from the original seedling.

Agreed as a general case but the case we're discussing in this thread is not the same as item 2. Heidi's question related to crossing two different parents to try and re-create a cultivar that is presumably itself different from both its parents. That is not the same as someone propagating one specific cultivar by seed and considering the seedlings that have the characteristic of that parent to be the same cultivar.

OK.
2. The buyer propagates it by self-pollination and selection, chooses individual seedlings that are indistinguishable from the named cultivar and sells them as that cultivar.
OR
3. The buyer recreates the original cross using the same parents and chooses individual seedlings that are indistinguishable from the named cultivar and sells them as that cultivar.

The ICNCP rules in general (and Rule 2.20) seem to apply to both situations.

the first checklist (Hemerocallis check list, 1893 to July 1, 1957, American Hemerocallis Society) specifically talks about the registrations being clones.

Is that available from Hathitrust? - edited - I found it at Hathitrust; the use of the term clones would seem to eliminate sexually produced inbred lines from being registered (as long as species or non-clonal varieties have not been considered as 'clones' and previously registered?).

The simple answer to the question is no. Daylilies will never breed true from seeds. An example would be - you can plant 100 or 1000 seeds of Plant A x Plant B in a quest to find that certain look of a daylily you admire. Each and every seed that grows and blooms will become a different plant. Any number may look exactly like what you wanted, and they will all carry similar genes, but they can never be the same plant. The only way to get a duplicate plant is by division or by proliferation. So if you want a particular daylily produced by parents A and B, you must acquire THAT plant. You can not remake it. You can make a similar-looking daylily, but not THAT daylily.