Why are wild double sports not species?

May 5, 2009
By

Categories: Daffodil Types, Species

Download PDF

For the edumicated crew:

Why are the old doubles, basically the wild sports that got tamed such as all the ‘Plenus’ es and ‘Telamonius Plenus’, not considered “species” -?

If a flower spontaneously mutates into something else/another flower form, and had no human intervention in the process, and the flower/plant is durable enough to last/reproduce, what is the botanical reasoning behind NOT allowing it to be a species -?

Or is it that these guys cannot reproduce without human intervention … ->?

-s

15 responses to “Why are wild double sports not species?”

  1. David Liedlich says:

    Certainly the debate over speciation vs regional variation within wild populations continues among many wild organisms – fish, birds, ferns, etc.  A species must be a viable wild and naturally reproducing population that is distinct from other similar organisims.  Most (not all) species are unable to reproduce with other similar species, and produce viable offspring.  Those “sport flowers are not populations that could naturally reproduce and sustain themselves. Additionally, they are not likely “different enough” to be considered a separate species.

  2. Ben Zonneveld says:

    Dear Sara
    Plants can have species names, cultivar names or both. So if you find in the wild a double N cyclamineus , you could /should give it a cultivar name lets say ‘Double Oporto’ However this is a loss of information. I would prefer to name it N. cyclamineus  ‘Double Oporto’ . Most/Some  people think this is too complicated and leave out the species name. Of course you must be sure it is a good species . That may not be the case in those historic doubles, at least it is not sure.
    Ben Zonneveld

  3. Marilyn Howe says:

    Hi Sara,
    The definition of a species is an organism capable of reproducing itself. The doubles or sports are not capable of reproducing as usually they lack an overy. The sports will replicate only by aesexual reproduction.
    Marilynn Howe
    In a message dated 5/5/2009 12:47:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  title= writes:

    Why are the old doubles, basically the wild sports that got tamed such as all the ‘Plenus’ es and ‘Telamonius Plenus’, not considered “species” -?

     

    If a flower spontaneously mutates into something else/another flower form, and had no human intervention in the process, and the flower/plant is durable enough to last/reproduce, what is the botanical reasoning behind NOT allowing it to be a species -?

     

    Or is it that these guys cannot reproduce without human intervention … ->?

     



    Remember Mom this Mother’s Day! Find a florist near you now.

  4. John Beck says:

    Hello Marilynn
    I understand your definition
    from the point of view of
    species theory, but from the
    point of view of daffodil naming
    I see the convention that a
    named clone becomes a cultivar
    even if it is merely a selection
    from the species- I believe “Chiva”
    is described as a N rupicola
    selection and should be shown
    as a named cultivar
    John Beck
     


  5. Marilyn Howe says:


    Yes John, ‘Chiva’ is a selection of N. rupicola and it must be reproduced aesexually to remain ‘Chiva’.
     Marilynn

  6. Don Hackenberry says:

    Dear Sara and All,
    Of my fiendishness, I shall mention that Rosa roxburghii was first described in its double form. Later its forma normalis was described.
    Whether a plant is a named and recognized entity depends on whether a botanist wants it to be. My opinion, which a given botanist may or may not concur with, is that a form consists of individuals who share a characteristic, or set of them. A variety consists of populations who not only look similar in some respect, but are more closely related to each other than to other members of the species. If a species, such as Narcissus poeticus, has a form flore pleno, all the doubles who arose from not especially closely related parents can be included in it, unless the form is described so as to include some and exclude others.
    Best,
    Don

  7. Ben Zonneveld says:

    Asexual reproduction is also reproduction. If you exclude all species that reproduce asexually ( including some animals!), a large number of species would disappear. To avoid the problem of sterility of double flowers, lets take a different mutant, say a white flowering N cyclamineus (found in the wild). It could be named N cyclamineus forma alba . It could also be given a cultivar name N cyclamineus ‘White Oporto’.

    I think it a loss of info if only the cultivar name is used as in N. ‘White Oporto’ So please keep the species name if you are sure it is a species . “A selection” is dangerous description, it could be a sport of the true species but also any kind of hybrid obtained from seed. Only a sport or the offspring of controlled fertilization of a species should include the species name.

    Ben Zionneveld

  8. Roger and Terry Braithwaite says:

    Hi All
     
    I see the splitters are in action, think of the consequences if all specie selections were named especially where the differences are so minute, it would be very difficult to determine which is a selection from the original. That is why I believe in grouping specie selections under one banner. Lets all try to produce new miniatures by hybridising not by sub selecting species and only naming species that are significantly different to the ones that have already been found.
     
    For example attached is a picture of n.intermedious or is it a selection called Baby Boomer can you tell without DNA?
     
    Roger Braithwaite

  9. John Beck says:

    So I wonder if it can be “selfed” it does well in the spring and then dies out for me- might try pulling the bulbs this summer.

    John

  10. Roger and Terry Braithwaite says:

    Hi All
     
    I see the splitters are in action, think of the consequences if all specie selections were named especially where the differences are so minute, it would be very difficult to determine which is a selection from the original. That is why I believe in grouping specie selections under one banner. Lets all try to produce new miniatures by hybridising not by sub selecting species and only naming species that are significantly different to the ones that have already been found.
     
    For example attached is a picture of n.intermedious or is it a selection called Baby Boomer can you tell without DNA?
     
    Roger Braithwaite

  11. Mary Lou Gripshover, Ohio Mary Lou Gripshover says:

    I don’t want to get into selecting species, but I do want to point out that N. x intermedius is a wild hybrid, supposedly from a cross between a tazetta and a jonquilla.  Because it is a hybrid, there can be quite a bit of variability within N. x intermedius itself.  The form I grow is rather starry, with a pale orange cup.  (photo attached).  ‘Baby Boomer’ is not a selection, but is said to come from ‘Avalanche’ x N. jonquilla.  I don’t find it surprising that some forms of N. x intermedius might look like ‘Baby Boomer’, since ‘Avalanche’ is a tazetta hybrid, making the parentage in both cases similar.  Cousins, perhaps?

    Mary Lou

  12. Donna Dietsch says:
    Roger,
    I don’t quite understand this.  DaffSeek shows Baby Boomer as  a cross between Avalanche and jonquilla, while you say Baby Boomer is a selection from intermedius.  The one in DaffSeek was registered by the Heath’s.  It look just like the one in your picture.  Which is which?
    Donna Dietsch
  13. Rod Armstrong says:

    Perhaps, first cousins thrice removed! – Rod

     

  14. Marilyn Howe says:

    John, it cannot be selfed to remain ‘Chiva’. It must be reproduced asexually. N. rupicola is not known to be a good candidate for cloning. It likes to reproduce by seed. I have no idea why it was given a cultivar name.When I saw it at the National Show in Chicago I thought it was a nicely formed N. rupicola but not anything unusual.

    Marilynn

  15. Hein Meeuwissen says:

    Hello Daffnet,
     
    Both Chiva and Baby Boomer were registered after being planted on the Kavb trial garden for several years, we had long discussions on both.
     For Chiva it is grown from a clone an homogeneous it was allowed a cultivarname. For me it is just a rupicola but the grower wanted otherwise. I don’t see Chiva compete with my stock variable rupicola. Some people just want to buy the species and not a cv.
    I will never produce as many of my lot as that they have of Chiva.
    Problem is I heared Chiva is multiplied by seed and therefor will not be Chiva anymore  in the near future!! I heared and did not see that!!
     
    When Baby Boomer came into the trial thee first year it was said it was intermedius by our chairman who had that in the collection. The raiser said it was not and it was a cross between avallanche and jonquilla.
    The second year we planted the two next to each other to compare.
    Their was a difference in the green leaves of the plants one was more standing up than the other. That should be in the discription for we did nor see a difference in the flowers.
    My intermedius which Terry won a prize with this spring is of the lot of our chairman and is in his opinion intermedius. Also here there are many more Baby Boomers( BTW a great name fore a fast multiplying daff.) than intermedius.
    Brent Heath, the hybridiser however visit me every year and said this spring he has sent some selections of seedlings to Holland and there might have been a mix of numbers long before the things were on the trial garden so my intermedius might be a brother/sister seedling of Baby Boomer but he is not sure.
    The intermedius he sent to Holland is then diapeared long before our chairman got his lot. No one will ever know that unless perhaps DNA is checked.
    Problem is still in this selecting that no one really knows all the species or cultivars in the different conditions they are grown. We all are just people who think sincerely they do right.
     
    Best regards, Hein meeuwissen.