What is the best naming system for hybrids?

[nsp88]

I've seen people make jabs at the names of hybrids (both agaves and other succulents). I see criticisms/jokes at both the "mix the name of both parents" method and the "give it a new flamboyant name" method. Is this just one of those things where someone is always going to criticize? Is there a different preferred method? I'm too new to all this to really grasp the history, criticisms, and debate of it all, so I am just curious if there is any agreement on what is preferred.

[Gee.S]

In my world, botanical names are always preferred over cultivar names, and that includes hybrids. Referring to a hybrid as anything other than agave1 × agave2 essentially normalizes an unnatural (and in my opinion a generally undesirable) action. This may seem like a silly perspective to many, but look what happened to cultivated Dyckia (almost all cultivated Dyckia are now hybrids of uncertain pedigree) -- and Aloe may be heading along the same path.

[nsp88]

...agave1 × agave2...

Awesome, thanks!

I kind of like having a nickname but I get where that just leads to lots of confusion. Having a traceable parentage in just the name without having to go do research is pretty nice.

That leads me to a few possible scenarios though, if you don't mind clarifying. And ignore if these scenarios are actually viable; I'm just throwing out examples for some messy cases that I could imagine. Also, I recently read an old thread where a lot of people were not fans of hybrids so forgive me if this is all blasphemy.


Okay so how would you name a few (messy) hypothetical hybrids under this system:

1. Blue glow and parryi hybrid.
"Blue glow x parryi" or "parryi x attenuata x shawii" or "attenuata x parryi x shawii"
I would assume not the first one, but also in this mix lies the question of do you put them in alphabetical order or in order of highest genetic percentage?

2. Bellville and americana
Do you try to guess what the parentage of Bellville is, as some have done, or just use the nickname? I assume you are stuck with hybrid nickname there.

3. Ovatispina 'blue arrows' and americana
Do you keep the name chosen by the people that named the hybrid or keep it simple and name it Americana x flexispina x ovatifolia? I would assume the keep it simple option since someone naming a hybrid doesn't get the same protection as an asexually created variety with a trademarked name gets as I understand it.

4. Echeveria strictiflora and Echeveria "pink diamond" PP33616
Pink diamond is a trademarked mutation/variety of E. Lola, which is a hybrid of E. lilacina x E. 'Deresina'.
Would you name it E. strictiflora x pink diamond or E. strictiflora x lilacina x deresina? Since it has a trademarked name, maybe use that? I don't know the rules around the names, just know you can't prop and sell it, but you can make hybrids with them.

5. Orostachys japonica and Sinocrassula yunannensis
An intergeneric hybrid that doesn't already have an established nickname. Pretty sure it would just be O. japonica x S. yunannensis, but want to establish that before the next one.

6. Sedum dasyphyllum and Echeveria strictiflora
Intergeneric hybrids of sedums and echeverias have an established nickname of sedeveria. Ignore that, or run with it? Sedum dasyphyllum x Echeveria strictiflora or Sedeveria dasyphyllum x strictiflora?


Sorry for so many scenarios. Not trying to be obtuse or anything. Genuinely curious. I want to do a bunch of hybridization, and the naming systems interest me.

[Gafoto]

Once you get beyond two names I think it makes more sense to simply give the plant a cultivar name. You’re multiple generations from wild plants and the genetics are muddy.

Keeping track of parentage is valuable but the assumed intent is to make some kind of marketable plant with desirable characteristics (hardiness, size, color, etc) so at some point people will just want a ‘Blue Glow’. Nobody looks for ocahui x attenuata at a nursery.

[Meangreen94z]

The nicknames are basically fancy packaging a grower slaps on to draw attention. It becomes pointless when different sellers give different names, or the same grower changes names for slight variations in the same hybrid seed strain, so they can sell the same Agave twice. I used to try and track and document them all but will instead mostly focus on proper names, outside of common hybrids like ‘Blue glow’.

As far as your theoretical hybrid it would be just like a math equation. Agave parryi x (attenuata x ocahui)

[edds]

There are clear rules for naming both hybrids and cultivars and whether one type of system or the other should be used.

The International code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants discussing cultivars, groups and grexes and how they should be used and where they should be published.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... kmWQVh5pH0

The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants covers other names including Latinised names for hybrids and when it is appropriate and how it should be formatted and published etc.
It has been a while since I read it but I think it only applies to nothospecies (hybrids between two described species) and not hybrids of hybrids and certainly not those in cultivation.

We have discussed this before on here and the biggest issue to me is the confusion this causes. People read a Latinised compound name, like x ovatispina, and think it is a species, not a hybrid. Even if the company that first published it put the X in front of the name, that is easily missed off by others and then rapidly plants are traded and then all of sudden someone misreads the original name and thinks it sounded like ovati-something when the label fades, Google's it and gets the species name instead.

There's nothing wrong with someone creating a hybrid name under the International Code of Nomenclature but it needs to fit those rules and be published according to them.

Without it the Code for Cultivated Plants should be followed where Latinised names were banned for use back in the 50s I think!

[jam]

As far as your theoretical hybrid it would be just like a math equation. Agave parryi x (attenuata x ocahui)

Yes, brackets are used in such cases. Plus the pollen receiver comes first and the donor comes second. So in the example above parryi's flowers would be pollinated with attenuata x ocahui pollen, in which attenuata flowers were pollinated with ocahui pollen.

Very much like Ron I prefer botanical names. I like to keep everything in order, when we talk about plants. I also understand nurseries' stand point they are targeting different markets. There are geeks like us who are frustrated if they don't know the location and elevation where the seeds of their newly purchased plant came from and there is general public which might not necessarily be able to tell an Agave from an Aloe, but can appreciate characteristics of these plants and still create beautiful gardens. Each to their own.

[Paul S]

There are internationally agreed conventions about the naming of plants and I really don't see a problem with sticking to those.
Genus with a capital G, species with a small s. No exceptions, even if the species name is honouring a person. Trachycarpus fortunei.
Then subspecies (subsp.), variety (var.), forma (f.), cultivar (cv.) with the cultivar name written in 'Parenthesis' and capitalised.
Interspecific hybrids are parent 1 x parent 2.
Complex hybrids are parent 1 x (parent 2 x parent 3) or however the combination arose.
Intergeneric hybrids have x before the generic name, which can be a combination of the two genus names.
The x should be a multiplication sign but usually written as a small x to make typing easier.
Really and truly we should include the authority for the name, too, but that starts getting really complicated.
There's loads more, it is worth looking up.

Names like Agave x ovatispina, x amourifolia and worse, where the suspected parent species names are combined, are a completely unique pathway chosen by Plant Delights nursery and don't conform to any kind of recognised nomenclature system. Sometimes it is pure guesswork because a plant 'looks like' it has one of those species included in the name as a parent. I strongly disagree with this approach. One problem being that Plant Delights must be the major grower and producer of agaves worldwide and this unilateral approach to plant naming is gradually replacing correct taxonomy.