The reason I thought Heidi posed an interesting question is because, under the code of nomenclature, a cultivar doesn't necessarily have to be a clone. For example in 2.12 of the code "An assemblage of individual plants grown from seed derived from uncontrolled pollination may form a cultivar when it meets the criteria laid down in Art. 2.3 and when it can be distinguished consistently by one or more characters even though the individual plants of the assemblage may not necessarily be genetically uniform." I'm not suggesting this applies to daylilies but just to illustrate that in some plants cultivars aren't inevitably clones.
In practice daylily cultivars are asexually reproduced clones and the other possibilities defined under the code for seed produced cultivars don't really seem to fit. I'm curious to know if the AHS has ever defined what it considers a cultivar (the earlier comment about the "originator" also seems to exclude Heidi's example). My understanding is that in past days, perhaps before the inception of the ICNCP (which the AHS has to follow, being the international cultivar registry for daylilies) not all daylilies that we consider cultivars were vegetatively reproduced clones, although that is probably always the case these days. I still agree that in the case under discussion the answer would be no, though.
