I received mine today. Thanks to Hugh and Carol of the Forestry Commission at Westonbirt. Looks very interesting! I've barely begun to study... It would have been nice to have a cross reference by species, however. Anyone else received their copy? -E
Emery, I have not seen the list yet but I heard that there are now around 3,000 maples listed. Is this true? Ed
Hi Ed, Greater than 3,800 actually! Most of which are palmatums, but many other intriguing entries, also. This is the official source so we can use it to report such connundra as "Mary Catherine," not "Mary Katherine." :) -E
So why is 'Mary Catherine,' right, and why does it have a comma in its name? Not sure the latter is allowed by the ICNCP?
:) When I learned English it was considered proper to put the comma or period inside the quotation marks. I'm not sure this is followed in common usage, but I'd expect a well educated fellow such as yourself to be British about it. ;) -E
Only if the comma is part of the quotation! If it isn't part of the quotation, then it goes outside the quote marks.
I'm amused that the thread focuses on punctuation with no mention of the greed and gullibility it surely required to bloat the count into the many thousands. With 3800 and counting it seems like it's as easy to name a new cultivar as it was to sell a new beanie baby.
K4, contact info is in the newsletter vol 18/4. Poetry, it is quite easy to declare a new cultivar, simply by writing to the ICRA for Maples, with the description and differences from existing cultivars, then publishing the information in a dated catalog (even a sales list). I guess the process is kept intentionally simple, which is perhaps not a bad thing. Of course the 3800 is not only palmatum cultivars, although they are the lion's share. There are many more cultivars of other species than I knew of from other literature. Anyway this is the official list, assembled to provide information to the community of botanists, professionals and enthusiasts, and as such is a terrific resource. It would be unfair to blame the messenger. Michael, according to the "Chicago Manual of Style" (13th Ed.) you are incorrect: 5.67 When the context calls for a comma at the end of materiel enclosed in quotation marks, ... the comma should be placed inside the quotation marks ...." The ever-concise "Strunk and White" (3rd Ed.) gives a more concrete reason for this usage on page 36: "Typographical usage dictates that the comma be inside the marks, though logically it often seems not to belong there. "The Clerks," "Luke Havergal," and "Richard Cory" are in Robinson's Children of the Night. This latter example seems to more than support my usage. (The only difference that "Chicago" draws between use of double vs single quotation marks is that in American usage single denotes a quote within a quote, whereas in British usage the converse is true. Thus in proper American usage cultivar names will use double quotes, whereas in British they will use single.) Satisfied? :) -E P.S. I married a writer, so the appropriate references are never far! ;)
Emery, My thought was to point out that concerns with punctuation overshadow obvious problems with redundancy,rigor (lack of), and sometimes plain deception in "declaring a new cultivar". The position of a comma, seems to me, less worthy of concern than a plant with multiple names and 'reputable' nurseries reintroducing new-old plants. It's vile and disappointing that pretty much anything goes when it comes to selling JMs. Collectors snatching plants up based on their names encourages the sloppy proliferation and deception. Have beanie babies infected France?
Sorry, not true. I couldn't give a toss about the Chicago Manual of Style. What do they know about English language?? They only know about confused American mangling of the English language, and that's not what I want to speak. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) - the international body that rules on cultivar naming - specifies single quotes for cultivar names. Double quotes are not an option, anywhere.
Poetry, I think it likely we all agree about the unfortunate proliferation of named cultivars. And yes as far as I know the Beanie Baby phenomenon spread to France, if not as virulently as elsewhere. The only point I was making is that the folks at Westonbirt are trying to bring some sanity to the process, it's not like they're naming like crazy. I suppose that the fact that it's easy to name cultivars "officially" is an attempt to democratize the process, rather than having an unseen committee in an ivory tower somewhere let only their friends name new cultivars... I am always interested in the correct placement of commas, however, :) and actually my digression into matters grammatical was never intended to be less than light hearted. Still, Michael, you seem sensitive about this subject. Actually the "Chicago Manual" is used in the redaction of both NATO and EU documentation, so the opinion voiced therein is certainly germane to English spoken or written in an International context. I don't dispute the use of single quotes in cultivar names, but of course that was never the issue beyond my later conjecture about purely American usage of such names. I'm always delighted to learn something new, and perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong if shown. Can you provide a citation for the use of commas outside of the quotation from the two most respected British style manuals?
Try the Oxford Style Guide and Folwer's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. See also discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation
I don't have these so I will rely on you for the citation. Like most I am naturally skeptical of web only and in particular wikipedia sources, especially when there is a "citation needed." Still I note that in the beginning of the article Which implies that even according to Fowler and Fowler the comma belongs inside the quotation. (The period being a different story.) I am though already interested to learn that the current British more is to put the period outside of the quotation. Apparently I read too much 19th century literature.... ;) I think we can both dismiss the subsequent "keyboard-based" discussion as being wikipedia-centric! :) In any case while the question of whether the comma belongs in the cultivar name may be of some limited public interest, I sense we have drifted into generalities. So I'd invite you to message me privately Michael with your citations, and perhaps we can come to an understanding with regards to the cultivar usage. In which case I will post it separately. The main point of the thread remains the usefulness of the cultivar checklist! -E
I spoke yesterday with Chris Behnke who confirmed to me that his father John grafted & named the witches broom 'Mary Katherine' for his (John's) red haired adult daughter who also worked at her father's nursery. Chris emphasized to me that his sister's name is spelled with a 'K' NOT a 'C'. This confirms the multiple conversations I have had with old timer nurserymen in that Bridgton/Deerfield part of NJ who knew John Behnke and who all told me that they referred to this broom as Mary K or MK never once saying Mary C or MC so the history is conclusive in saying that the 'official list' is wrong as is page 292 appendix C 3rd edition of Vertrees'/Gregory Japanese Maples listing this cultivar as 'Mary Catherine'. I am sure this came about because Mr Behnke never registered 'Mary Katherine' and its correct spelling with a 'K' was never officially listed. I have today emailled Peter Gregory (our official maple world registar & the person who circulated the world checklist subject of this forum topic) with these and more details on the history of this specific cultivar for his review. I will be putting much more detail on this specific cultivar on the 'Mary Catherine' topic in this forum but for this thread this is all I wanted to contribute. I believe the conundrum is concluded: it is 'Mary Katherine' with a K. Thank you.
Very persuasive presentation Mike. Your zeal comes across there. Did anyone notice that Stanley and Sons seems to be selling AJ 'Aka omote' as AJ 'Ruby'? UPDATE: I notice that 'Aka omote' is also offered there but no photo. What drew my attention to 'Ruby', besides other collectors, was the initial photo now changed which I am pretty sure showed 'Aka omote'.
Katsura, thanks for clearing it up, and for the additional research. I feel sure this is not the only error likely to turn up in the list, and the authors acknowledge as much. I will note 'K' not 'C' in mine, and I'm sure we will see the error fixed in the electronic addition as well as the second printed addition when they become available. -E
The renaming of ornamentals is rampant, it is known as an implied value. If you look closely at anything you might buy you will see it every where, but when you get it home it is no where. Some names that I like is Sky Rocket, Fire Glow, Crow Feather, Halcyon. I hope yall have a halcyon day. < did I use it correctly? I didn't mean the word yall, but I reckon some will take issue with its use, and yes I reckon we did lose dat war. But in Virginia we are still considering the issue. Grow maples form seed, it is an exciting endeavor! I reckon it to gold mining.my new email: easier2do@gmail.com
Richard, I agree with you wholeheartedly to "grow maples from seed, it is an exciting endeavor!" It is my contribution to midwifery; my making up for my never having life grow within me as a male. I love the newness of the gentics and the seedlings are the cutest babies except for human & animal babies.
Wow, alot to digest on this thread. Renaming cultivars is an unfortunate practice. How about Metasequoia 'Ogon' and 'Gold Rush'?? I guess 'Ogon' was just too japanese a term for some nursery to accept. Want to know an even more deplorable practice? I have a Cedrus atlantica 'Blue Cascade' that I paid $300 at a retail center as a stock plant. It looked like a mounding and contorted Blue Atlas cedar with the color of Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' when I bought it. Now, after 3 years in my landscape, every terminal is heading up..... Moral of the story, some nursery was long on Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca', they bent the tops over and tied them to the trunk, let them flush the next year in a confusing/weeping fashion, and sold them for top $$ as a new cultivar. I've even seen this joke of a plant appear in booths at nursery trade shows. Shameful. Brian
I think growing from seed is a scary subject for those that make a living from grafting. When you sow your fist two hundred select seeds, I don't think anyone could stop. Many of mine took two years to show up and that is pretty cool. I made a plywood container, 2.5 meters long, 1 meter wide and 1 meter tall. I filled it with compost, rock dust and pine bark plus a few secret ingredients like limestone. The ply board was not treated, I just painted it no problem. I build a shade house over it and closed in the side to keep the rodents outs. It was a bonanza event every spring and fall. Who knows maybe one day I will have cultivated so many new maples that I would be famous too, but surly long after I am dead. Maybe my wife will sell calenders, oh sorry X wife, on second though don't buy anything, they would be forgeries for sure. I like baby pigs they are the quietest little things. Well, ja know I was raised on a farm and I have seen all the babies, cats, dogs, calfs, but piglets and lambs are the best, and they taste good too. I don't eat veal, that is my line in the sand, then again sand is easily moved so let just say most of the time anyways. I don't eat French veil thats a bit odd to me. So in closing let me say Trees trees trees, am I safe yet, Acer palmatum 'migliorato molto' that's it, I am OK, Take care or Ciao, Rich er to be molto PS:or PS; or what is it, anyways The new book will be out soon 4th ed. sign up now and get thirty percent off. go to Timber Press, dats where it is. il libro > http://tinyurl.com/c64css
hey thanks for the heads up! who knows, but if accurate, the 4th edition offers a significant upgrade from the third: 150 new cultivars 400 pages (vs. 300 in the 3rd) 500 color photographs (vs. 313 in the third) 600 plant descriptions (vs. 400 in the third)
