First of all, let me start by saying that I love the fact that anyone can "discover" a new variety of plant, regardless of genus. With dogwoods, it is exciting to find new varieties to choose and grow, since seedlings seem to exhibit a fair amount of diversity. Having said that, I am wondering if some kind of reasonable standard needs to be implemented regarding the issuance of patents for said new cultivars. A case in point, drawn from a previous thread: Cornus kousa 'Satomi' and Cornus kousa 'Heart Throb' appear, based on DNA evidence, to be either identical or extremely closely related. Who then, now controls how this (these) cultivar(s) are propagated? As growers go forward with new introductions, should DNA fingerprints be included as a condition of the patent process, and should new plants be clearly different from known cultivars in the nursery trade? It only seems fair. Any thoughts?
When I first became interested in Oriental Dogwoods there were not many around. We could almost count the number on one hand that could be obtained from specialty nurseries. In the early 90's there seemed to become an explosion of sorts as this list from a Greer Gardens 1993 catalog will attest to. Ron B can get more technical with the names if he so chooses but I'll leave these, as is, for now. Cornus kousa 'Autumn Rose' 'Blue Shadow' 'Bon Fire' 'Bush's Pink' 'China Girl' 'Dwarf Pink' 'Ed Mezitt' 'Elizabeth Lustgarten' 'Gold Star' 'Greensleeves' 'Milky Way' 'Moonbeam' 'National' 'Radiant Rose' 'Repeat Bloomer' 'Satomi Red' 'Snowboy' 'Snowflake' 'Summer Stars' 'Sunsplash' 'Temple Jewel' 'Tichnor's Choice' 'Trinity Star' 'Weaver's Weeping' Now before anyone wants to comment let me point out that there were two Universities in close proximity to Greer Gardens that knew of these Dogwoods. I think it is unfair for me to show the above list as I did it without asking for permission. The possible mistake of oversight made here was solely mine but I know of some of these Dogwoods also. The point I want to stress is that Mr. Greer is off-limits. He nor his catalog is the issue here, the issue is me and what I did with the above, not him. I would hope we can deal with just the plight of the Dogwoods above. Ron can probably tell us which of these were patented through the US Patent Office or not. From a nurseryman's point of view it did not matter if all or none of these Dogwoods were patented or not. All we cared about was whether they should be named or not or were any of these Dogwoods above just a form or a slight variant of one of the others. From a Oregon propagators standpoint the names did not matter much as the nursery that felt there was a market for one or more of these Dogwoods would go ahead and propagate it by the name they got the plant from Greer Gardens as being and yes, fellow OAN members did buy from and sell some plants on occasion to Greer Gardens and still do. A further note: Mr. Greer's mail order catalog became the standard in Oregon, the model that others years later tried to match as everyone was watching to see how successful this novel endeavor, at the time it was initiated, would work out and was quite the envy of a lot of people. I can tell you from down here there were some California nurserymen that were flat out jealous about it all and others were quite complimentary as well. I'll wait until later to add in any comments I have about the DNA issue. I would think someone from an Arboretum or a Botanical Garden or from the intellectual side of plants may have a good idea and offer a plausible explanation about how they feel about the merits of proof of DNA versus plant patent issue and whether it should be requisite or not. Jim
DNA fingerprint standards do not exist yet, as far as I know - and we're talking a very, very, very small slice of DNA that would be used for comparisons when DNA fingerprints are standardized. However, at the level of variability of cultivars, possibly accomplishing it would require either mapping the whole genome and comparing it or being able to target the genes that seem to be the cause of variability - a fairly expensive proposition. There are other methods of comparison, though, such as allozymes, which are often used to analyze populations. However, this isn't really refined enough to compare closely related cultivars. The old standby of side-by-side comparisons in field trials and careful observations by knowledgeable horticulturists and botanists is still the best method, I think. As to whether new plants should be different, well, yes, of course. If a breeder does do the patent route, then they do have to be justified as being different (here's an example of a plant patent).
Thanks for the information, Daniel. I had no idea that plant patents were as detailed as the one you cited. Is this typical? The science involved in DNA technology is way over my head, but I suspected it might involve significant effort and cost. For the time being, I wonder if it would be possible to establish some sort of official genome data bank to at least store the genetic information in some manner - or perhaps this has already been done. Just wondering and thinking. Thanks again.
Fruit cultivars are being conserved as genetic material at storage facilities. There is one for strawberries and brambles in Corvallis. They have pages online. Other plant patent descriptions can be viewed at the site linked to above, most easily by using Plant Patent Number Search function. Most descriptions have similar formats. Genetic comparisons mentioned in Cappiello & Shadow, DOGWOODS (Timber Press) were done recently at U of Tennessee. Possibly there is more information online or elsewhere about this analysis. Also, a friend saw a dogwood breeder (Orton?) speak at Farwest (nursery trades) Show some years ago who said anthracnose susceptibility and pink bracts were linked genetically. The implicaton of this is that some DNA work had been done.
As I browsed the Dogwood plant patent applications, using the search command ccl/plt/220 at:http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm I noticed that in many cases there is no name attatched to the plant, or the name given is different than the trade name. How does one determine which cultivar name is associated with these patents? The dogwood patents I found total 56, starting in 1940, and provide a good source of information, if you're willing to wade through it.
Just another thought and suggestion concerning PP & new cultivars; Perhaps it would be of value to include some basic information regarding the origins of these plants, patented or not (inventor, breeder, introducer, etc.) in nursery catalogues.
Many do so already. Sometimes a mention in a wholesale catalog is ALL there is in the way of a original description for a new tree.
Yes, you're right, Ron. And some do a very good job in this regard. My hope, just wishful thinking, perhaps, is that enough information is passed along to the consumer to know exactly what they are buying, or at least enough to do further research on one's own. I always like to know as much as possible about the history, breeding, etc. of a plant that I choose to grow.
So far the DNA studies in Cornus kousa to determine parentage of two similar plants have been inconclusive. This will probably change when we have a better idea what we need to be looking for in our lab studies. We can get into a little trouble when people claim to be doing DNA analysis, yet have a whole other agenda for why they are doing the analysis such as using the "base pairs" as a means to facilitate the quick breeding of the Oriental Dogwoods for the purpose of being able to grow in vitro the manipulated cells on via tissue culture. That we can work on but to backtrack and say this or a series of tests will show that a white flowered Kousa selected out in California is of the same line as a Kousa selected out in Japan are the same plant has a ways to go before we really know what we are doing. Years ago I was asked could a seedling Japanese Maple that was raised in Japan 40 years previous look the same, for all intensive purposes, as a recent seedling selection found in New Zealand? I said yes, it could happen and in some cases it just may have happened recently with some of our palmatum cultivars. In Dogwoods that same issue may have come about with two white flowered Cornus florida both selected out in two different areas several years apart in that some people feel they are the same plant so a DNA analysis was performed to see if they are the same and all but one test yields they are the same but the one area where they are not the same may be the more telltale subject for us to know more about when dealing with very similar yet not fully tested or explained gene pools. DNA may not tell us all we need to know about the actual genetic makeup of the plant we are testing is what I am getting at but we are getting closer to better knowing the various DNA in a plant, how they are different and how they function. We cannot always equate "plant DNA" as being the same as chromosomal DNA or ribosomal DNA and could a rootstock influence the scions chromosomal DNA? Now we are splitting hairs but unless the while flowered Dogwood selected out in Minnesota and the white flowered Dogwood selected out in California were grafted onto genetically the same understock then I have to believe the plants, not necessarily the flowers, are different from each other in some way, although we not always see it. While people today may want to know the DNA composition of the flowers and the plant, I want to know how many and which genes regulate the size, color and form of the flowers. When a plant breeder states that there is a genetic link between Dogwood anthracnose and flowering of a particular Dogwood they had better be able to prove it and tell where the mutation occurred or is occurring to precipitate a known linkage. I do not feel the current day plant DNA researchers are "there" yet, not without some help coming in from elsewhere. Enough for now. Jim
I believe the 2004 University of Tennessee Study referred to is: Trigiano, R.N., M.H. Ament, M.T. Windham and J.K. Moulton - "Genetic Profiling Of Red-Bracted Cornus Kousa Cultivars Indicates Significant Cultivar Synonomy". Hortscience 39. 489-492 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/nursery/metria/metria12/trigianoetal/index.html I was particularly struck by the last statement of the study as it relates to my original post; "We encourage nurserymen and plant breeders to employ DNA profiling of new materials before patent applications / cultivar releases to avoid confusion of similar plants in the trade".
I am not sure why the plant patent aspect is so important for nursery grown plant material. For Universities to work on the breeding and selection of new forms of plants then the plant patent process makes more sense as then the newly developed and worked on plants are protected. For the nurseryman it depends on what they want but a few plants that have been patented through the US Patent Office were not unique and new as some of them were seedlings raised from an earlier recognized plant. The other inherent issue is that the person that developed the Dogwood may not be the person listed as being the creator of it by online web sites, books and even in Society archives. I've seen more than one example of a Dogwood referenced back to the first source to sell it in a catalog and it is that person that people are listing as being the source of the plant. How am I supposed to feel when I know the person that actually developed the plant? Why should I tell you guys who he or she is when no one seems to want to know? It is a slap in the face to all of us that know the plant and its history when the person that does not grow any plants gets the credit for another person's work that did indeed develop the plant in question. There are times you guys make it easier for me, yet I am reviled by it, when you do not believe me when I write about a plant that perhaps none of you know about. I wrote about the old 'Satomi Red' which had its start in Japan. The first catalog that offered this plant for sale referenced the plant as coming in from Japan. Now 13 years later there is no mention of the origin in the newest catalog. My question was and I checked out the newest offering, are they the same plant? The answer is no, they are not the same plant. One has coloring in the flower which starts out with the rose-red and holds its color more uniformly and the other one starts out a cream in color and later the flower develops the rose-red color with a white mottling of color in the center of the flower. Catalogs do not tell you this stuff, you have to see it and be around it to know it. Names of Dogwoods have no meaning if we cannot tell the plants apart. When people see a new name of a plant they have interest in they go gaga over it but who is out there studying the plant and asking themselves should this plant have been named in the first place? DNA analysis can help for future reference but the current day techniques are not valid enough to show that the Satomi raised in Japan in the late 70's is different from the plant selected out in the 90's as a seedling in Oregon for example. Once the researchers get a handle on what they are doing, build a genomal or DNA databank to work from, then we are in a better situation for using DNA analysis as a main tool for subsequent approval from the US Patent Office. We are simply not there yet as there are too many Dogwood cultivars out there, some only in collections that people will have to know, take samples of, sort out and then use as part of the model for all Dogwood introductions. The problem from the nurseryman's point of view will be this: what happens when a guy in Gresham selects out a promising seedling, duplicates it by cuttings and then have the Patent Office refuse a patent all because one University said that the DNA is not any different than a Dogwood that has already been recorded? The nurseryman that may have that referenced base plant and feels his or her new plant is different will go ballistic and I don't blame them. I may not agree with the naming process of many of our plants but I will side with the person that developed the plant. People just will not go through a patent process then and will go ahead and introduce the plant into the nursery trade and say the heck with everyone else. We have seen the same thing going in Japanese Maples in which seedlings of forms of other Maples are being named in hopes that no one knows what the old forms look like. It does not matter that there are collections that have the old forms, we have a new Maple but it is really new? The vast majority of people in the Maple forum will not care, they will see the new name and will want one. They aren't going to care that a 'Beni shien' may be the old red form of 'Matsugae' that has been around in a few very select collections since the 70's. People do not get to see the red 'Matsugae', know nothing about it so why not go out and buy a 'Beni shien' as that new Maple is available to them now when the 'Matsugae' was not ever obtainable to them. My old kousa is a chinensis that starts out with a chartreuse flower with a pink border. As the flower ages the color fades to a cream color but the pink border at the ends of the flower petals holds, very much like Cornus florida 'Jackie' in that same respect in that as the flower ages the pink border becomes more visible and more pronounced. I've not ever seen another kousa quite like this flower. I could have named this plant years ago but the plant did not originate from me. It shall remain unnamed and a safe distance from the DNA guys as I am not going to let them play with this one until they can demonstrate that they know how to tell plants apart by using bona fide and verifiable scientific means to show that they are on top of things. They are getting closer to where they need to be, no doubt about that but they are still primitive in how to interpret their data that they are getting and currently have. Until they have some built in databanks of information in order to accurately be able to separate out similar plants, then DNA analysis is not ready to be mainstream in the process to be used as the primary tool for plant patent or for plant identification purposes. Jim
Thank you, Jim. You make some very important and relevent points - some of the same issues I was trying to raise. The most fundamental question: how can we reduce the confusion surrounding existing cultivars? More particularly, how do we establish that a previously known named cultivar is the same as that now known, or is distinct from newer introductions. I also heartily agree with your arguement about establishing the true and most complete history possible for plant introductions, and I thank you for the personal knowledge you have offered here. Any further specifics you care to relate concerning dogwood introductions will also be welcomed. I won't comment on your statement that DNA technology is not "there" yet, except to say that it seems undeniable that DNA technology (and plant patents, too, for that matter) will play an increasing role in plant production for both scientific and commercial reasons.
A quick note: I look at things from a purists perspective. All I have done is offer my opinion on the current state of affairs of Dogwoods but the ramifications can also apply to a host of other specialty plants. I am not saying the DNA analysis has no practical application. We've seen one rather important study done on a series of Ledums in the UBC forum in that if I knew anything about Ledums I would have lots of questions to ask. Instead I have to try to absorb what was written and think in terms of the impact this study may have on existing and perhaps future Rhododendrons. I like the fact that people are working on using DNA analysis but in order for it to be effective we have to be a little more sure of how we apply that technology. We have to backtrack and do some serious analysis of known cultivars and forms before we can apply the techniques to be a foundation for the newly introduced forms. For a new plant to be patented in the near future it may require proof of DNA but as of right now we cannot show this proof from our results in conclusive terms that will satisfy all the "players" in the nursery and plant breeding worlds. That will change for the better soon enough. The problem will be dollars and who out there is wanting an immediate return on their investment. We have seedling plants being named now within 3 years of their existence which makes a mockery of all that we know and apply toward the naming of plants. I know of Japanese Maples that were not named up to 20 years later all because the person that raised the plant wanted confirmation from other sources that the Maple was indeed different enough to be named. We do not see that sort of "higher standard" commitment applied to plants today. I do think for the long term that the fields of Molecular Biology and applied Genetics will become a closer to being the reality of what some people hope will be the true and all encompasing field of Molecular Genetics. When we apply what we know and can prove our work from these fields, then we will have a solid foundation for the US Patent Office to use as their basis to confirm or deny, if need be, plant patents in the future. Jim
Mr Shep refers to a red form of Matsugae. I recently bought Matsugae from Barthelemys and it is leafing out red. I can find no reference to a red from of Matsugae other than Mr Sheps post above. Maybe it is labelled incorrectly. Does any one have knowledge of the red form? John
