# Renaming



## kiwi (Jan 15, 2016)

So I have purchased flask if Paph. villosum fma. alba 'Albino Beauty' x self from Sam. This flower is pure yellow and as discussed in an earlier post it is more correct to call it flavum than alba. My question is what is the protocol once I have it with respect to label i.e. can I rename it to flavum? Or if it is a registered cross do I need to leave as is? 
Cheers


----------



## gonewild (Jan 15, 2016)

kiwi said:


> So I have purchased flask if Paph. villosum fma. alba 'Albino Beauty' x self from Sam. This flower is pure yellow and as discussed in an earlier post it is more correct to call it flavum than alba. My question is what is the protocol once I have it with respect to label i.e. can I rename it to flavum? Or if it is a registered cross do I need to leave as is?
> Cheers



You need to keep it labeled as is.


----------



## kiwi (Jan 15, 2016)

Thanks


----------



## troy (Jan 15, 2016)

Rename it!!!! (wish it had color) lol...


----------



## Ray (Jan 16, 2016)

First of all, it is not a registered cross. When you self a plant, the seedlings do not retain the cultivar epithet. In this case, 'Albino Beauty' X 'Albino Beauty' is not 'Albino Beauty', and in fact, each of the seedlings can have its own epithet.

If it was improperly identified as an alba form, then you are pretty much obligated to assign the correct designation - assuming you're certain...


----------



## gonewild (Jan 16, 2016)

The reason I suggest keeping the plants labeled as is is because the name "Paph. villosum fma. alba 'Albino Beauty' x self" identifies them as a seedlings from from the seed pod created on the 'Albino Beauty' clone.

Until you see each plant bloom you wont know if it is an alba color form or not. They may bloom with color in which case the would be just Paph villosum and not fma. alba, album or flavum.

Even though the seedlings are not technically hybrids they are also not technically fma. alba either since the pollination was not done naturally in the wild. But by keeping the name as is on the label it can be known that the plant, even if it has color, is from the fma. alba parent.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jan 16, 2016)

I agree that you should always maintain the full identification that comes with a plant exactly, and identify the source, and pass that on with any seedlings or divisions. That doesn't necessarily mean that is the right thing to call it. It appears that Paph. villosum fma. alba (or album, if it was correct) has never been validly published. That name is not correct no matter what the plant is. If 'Albino Beauty' conforms to the published description of Paph. villosum fma. aureum that may be the correct identification, and could be for any seedlings that also match the description.

There are quite a few issues involved if you start considering whether artificially propagated seedlings from var. _this_ or fma. _that_ should ever have that name passed on; or how to refer to varieties, forms or populations of a species that have not been formally described and named, or plants that haven't been accessed to see if they conform to a published name. But var. or fma. should definitely not be used if it hasn't been validly published or doesn't conform to the published description.

If this flask was mine, my label (as opposed to the complete record) would read Paph. villosum 'Albino Beauty' x self. With that cultivar name the fma. alba is redundant as well as invalid.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 16, 2016)

PaphMadMan said:


> If this flask was mine, my label (as opposed to the complete record) would read Paph. villosum 'Albino Beauty' x self. With that cultivar name the fma. alba is redundant as well as invalid.



I assumed that the alba form Sam has was genuine and originated from a wild plant and thus had the fma.alba name. If not then I agree with you completely.


----------

