![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Many cultivars are planted in what is called nature. With true natural processes, the cultivars will over time as such disappear. The genetic material however may become part of the gene pool of a population. This is why many trees are culled when a "back to nature" regime is in place. GerardM 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
...but offers no alternative:
Shirley poppies would make a good example of a strain that "comes true" from seed. This paragraph needs work. -- Wetman 19:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "pro patent" argument is stupid. There's no reason why society should reward hard work per se. To argue that patents are good one would have to show that without them either developments would remain secret and that would be bad for society (probably not applicable here), or they wouldn't happen at all and that would be bad for society, and then trade that off to the disadvantages of a temporary monopoly. I don't know what proponents actually claim, so I can't really fix it. -- 141.35.12.66 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
___
"Stupid" is a bit strong, don't you think? Reward for hard work is a perfectly reasonable societal expectation if that hard work provides benefit to society. Digging and refilling holes is hard work, to be sure, but few would argue that society should reward it. Developing new and valuable cultivars, on the other hand, is hard work that often provides benefit. How do we determine if it provides benefit? Generally, we ask the market. Patents foster an environment where hard work that produces societal benefits can be rewarded by the market.
The point: (1) Society may benefit from a breeder's efforts when the breeder produces valuable new cultivars. (2) Plant breeding is often labor- and resource-intensive work. (3) If society benefits from the labor and investment of the breeder, the breeder deserves to be rewarded for that labor and that investment. (4) In our market system, reward comes as cash. (5) The only way to assure that the rewards accrue to the breeder is to protect the breeder's rights to the newly developed cultivars. (6) Patents represent the way society has agreed to do that. The system works well enough: Hard work alone (as in digging and filling holes) is not rewarded. Benefit that society values is what is rewarded. By this reward system, society assures that breeders continue to expend the effort and make the investments that will generate further benefits. If, as is often the case, society (i.e. the market) decides that the new cultivar does not provide benefits, the reward is not forthcoming. You may object to market-driven reward systems, but that's what we have in place. As it stands, the patent system is what has evolved to assure the supply of new, improved fruits, vegetables, grains and ornamentals.
To more clearly address the first comment: Patents do not reward hard work per se (in the commenter's words). Patents hold out the promise that hard work that produces value and benefit to society can be rewarded appropriately.~~ _____
Can we select the best, most accurate wording from each of these new edits? -- Wetman 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Cultivar really does just mean cultivated variety. The "standards" organization referred to in the article is only there to register names to be used in commercial sales (they don't "own" the word). I know of more than a few nurseries that sell plants with cultivar names that simply connote where they came from (and often connote that they were nursery propogated rather than collected from the wild). This article needs major tweaking away from the mass-commercial POV before it will be good for the CD. SB Johnny 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is "cultivar" analogous to "breed" (i.e. for dogs)? -- RealGrouchy 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
maybe the word your looking for in English is "cultivator" which means a person who works, plants and sows seed or plants plants in the ground. To "cultivate" is the work the ground and make it ready for planting or tend to plants as they are growing. Hardyplants 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this article benefit from some examples of cultivars, so that people can more concretely recognize what is being talked about? The article right now doesn't mention a single one (that I saw). Rinkuhero 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added reference to Bailey's original definition of the cultivar and his very useful term "cultigen". Roger D Spencer ( talk) 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected the caption to the picture which read "Canola is a cultivar of rape". Canola is not a cultivar - see WP article on Canola. Granitethighs ( talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The info of the naming conventions against nomenclature rules for each cultivated plant need to be listed, or addressed in the article, please. For example, wheat species can be distiguished by names, or plus code, from cultivated one to wild one.-- 222.64.217.37 ( talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is a code assigned to cultivated one, mean it-- 222.64.217.37 ( talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge at least, there is no coding system of cereals out there before 2002 because I worked in the cereal industry before then and haven't seen it
Please provide more legal info about
ISO 5526
--
222.67.212.58 (
talk)
03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As the Cultivated Plant Code 2009 has just been released this will affect the wording and content of the article. I have adjusted it accordingly and added sections on the origin of the word "cultivar" and the distinction between cultivars and cultigens including several new citations which i have reorganised. The lead also needed adjustment but I would appreciate editorial assistance for clarity of expression. Granitethighs 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Just a note to propose an improvement. One sentence in the article contains "the correct naming of a cultivar is proscribed by the Rules and Recommendations...". It should read "...is prescribed...".
Regards, BartschF ( talk) 11:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
When you find a typo, [[WP:BOLD|just fix it}}. There's no need to raise a discussion thread about it on the talk page. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe it would be hoghly beneficial to add an "Examlpes" sections, referring to examples such as wild cabbage cultivated into cabage, Brussels sprout, broccoli etc. This is the only good example I know from plants - had there been an examples section, I would have known more examples. Other examples may include dogs, cats, poor cows -milk vs. meat :( , poor chicken - eggs vs. meat :( etc. Dan Gluck ( talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I was contemplating taking up the review of this article given my interest in agriculture. There are mainly two concerns that I have for now: the first is the lack of references, which, per my understanding of a good article criterion, should accompany each paragraph. The second concern is the character merely biological of the article without taking into consideration the agricultural needs and the farming processes and practices with the different cultivars. In other words we are taking in consideration only the scientific approach, leaving a little aside the agricultural practices of the cultivars, the use of them by farmers, and the weight that farmers have in improving cultivars, experimenting with them and so forth. Probably we are missing sources on this? -- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: One found and fixed. [2] Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Where does this policy exist? I note that the top of the talk page says "Make changes as needed" The current article is very unclear and seems to lack an understanding of cultivars from a practical point of view. Hardyplants ( talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Many cultivars are planted in what is called nature. With true natural processes, the cultivars will over time as such disappear. The genetic material however may become part of the gene pool of a population. This is why many trees are culled when a "back to nature" regime is in place. GerardM 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
...but offers no alternative:
Shirley poppies would make a good example of a strain that "comes true" from seed. This paragraph needs work. -- Wetman 19:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "pro patent" argument is stupid. There's no reason why society should reward hard work per se. To argue that patents are good one would have to show that without them either developments would remain secret and that would be bad for society (probably not applicable here), or they wouldn't happen at all and that would be bad for society, and then trade that off to the disadvantages of a temporary monopoly. I don't know what proponents actually claim, so I can't really fix it. -- 141.35.12.66 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
___
"Stupid" is a bit strong, don't you think? Reward for hard work is a perfectly reasonable societal expectation if that hard work provides benefit to society. Digging and refilling holes is hard work, to be sure, but few would argue that society should reward it. Developing new and valuable cultivars, on the other hand, is hard work that often provides benefit. How do we determine if it provides benefit? Generally, we ask the market. Patents foster an environment where hard work that produces societal benefits can be rewarded by the market.
The point: (1) Society may benefit from a breeder's efforts when the breeder produces valuable new cultivars. (2) Plant breeding is often labor- and resource-intensive work. (3) If society benefits from the labor and investment of the breeder, the breeder deserves to be rewarded for that labor and that investment. (4) In our market system, reward comes as cash. (5) The only way to assure that the rewards accrue to the breeder is to protect the breeder's rights to the newly developed cultivars. (6) Patents represent the way society has agreed to do that. The system works well enough: Hard work alone (as in digging and filling holes) is not rewarded. Benefit that society values is what is rewarded. By this reward system, society assures that breeders continue to expend the effort and make the investments that will generate further benefits. If, as is often the case, society (i.e. the market) decides that the new cultivar does not provide benefits, the reward is not forthcoming. You may object to market-driven reward systems, but that's what we have in place. As it stands, the patent system is what has evolved to assure the supply of new, improved fruits, vegetables, grains and ornamentals.
To more clearly address the first comment: Patents do not reward hard work per se (in the commenter's words). Patents hold out the promise that hard work that produces value and benefit to society can be rewarded appropriately.~~ _____
Can we select the best, most accurate wording from each of these new edits? -- Wetman 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Cultivar really does just mean cultivated variety. The "standards" organization referred to in the article is only there to register names to be used in commercial sales (they don't "own" the word). I know of more than a few nurseries that sell plants with cultivar names that simply connote where they came from (and often connote that they were nursery propogated rather than collected from the wild). This article needs major tweaking away from the mass-commercial POV before it will be good for the CD. SB Johnny 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is "cultivar" analogous to "breed" (i.e. for dogs)? -- RealGrouchy 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
maybe the word your looking for in English is "cultivator" which means a person who works, plants and sows seed or plants plants in the ground. To "cultivate" is the work the ground and make it ready for planting or tend to plants as they are growing. Hardyplants 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this article benefit from some examples of cultivars, so that people can more concretely recognize what is being talked about? The article right now doesn't mention a single one (that I saw). Rinkuhero 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added reference to Bailey's original definition of the cultivar and his very useful term "cultigen". Roger D Spencer ( talk) 06:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected the caption to the picture which read "Canola is a cultivar of rape". Canola is not a cultivar - see WP article on Canola. Granitethighs ( talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The info of the naming conventions against nomenclature rules for each cultivated plant need to be listed, or addressed in the article, please. For example, wheat species can be distiguished by names, or plus code, from cultivated one to wild one.-- 222.64.217.37 ( talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If there is a code assigned to cultivated one, mean it-- 222.64.217.37 ( talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge at least, there is no coding system of cereals out there before 2002 because I worked in the cereal industry before then and haven't seen it
Please provide more legal info about
ISO 5526
--
222.67.212.58 (
talk)
03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As the Cultivated Plant Code 2009 has just been released this will affect the wording and content of the article. I have adjusted it accordingly and added sections on the origin of the word "cultivar" and the distinction between cultivars and cultigens including several new citations which i have reorganised. The lead also needed adjustment but I would appreciate editorial assistance for clarity of expression. Granitethighs 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Just a note to propose an improvement. One sentence in the article contains "the correct naming of a cultivar is proscribed by the Rules and Recommendations...". It should read "...is prescribed...".
Regards, BartschF ( talk) 11:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
When you find a typo, [[WP:BOLD|just fix it}}. There's no need to raise a discussion thread about it on the talk page. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe it would be hoghly beneficial to add an "Examlpes" sections, referring to examples such as wild cabbage cultivated into cabage, Brussels sprout, broccoli etc. This is the only good example I know from plants - had there been an examples section, I would have known more examples. Other examples may include dogs, cats, poor cows -milk vs. meat :( , poor chicken - eggs vs. meat :( etc. Dan Gluck ( talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I was contemplating taking up the review of this article given my interest in agriculture. There are mainly two concerns that I have for now: the first is the lack of references, which, per my understanding of a good article criterion, should accompany each paragraph. The second concern is the character merely biological of the article without taking into consideration the agricultural needs and the farming processes and practices with the different cultivars. In other words we are taking in consideration only the scientific approach, leaving a little aside the agricultural practices of the cultivars, the use of them by farmers, and the weight that farmers have in improving cultivars, experimenting with them and so forth. Probably we are missing sources on this? -- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: One found and fixed. [2] Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Where does this policy exist? I note that the top of the talk page says "Make changes as needed" The current article is very unclear and seems to lack an understanding of cultivars from a practical point of view. Hardyplants ( talk) 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)