2 January 2022 at 16:09 #12577Thor DaleböKeymaster
The existing Groups (Cultivar Groups) have been in use for 15 years, and have received general acceptance from both science (which expects classification as a matter of course) and many growers, collectors and enthusiasts.
However, over this period it has become apparent that the Crozy Group has been noticeably stretched, covering both the early cultivars raised by Crozy, with relatively small flowers, up to the latest, large flowered cultivars that do not fit into the Italian or Premier Groups.
It is therefore proposed that we should establish a new General Group, which will cover all the ‘newer’ cultivars that have been developed since the demise of Monsieur Crozy 120 years ago, with larger staminodes than the likes of C. ‘Madame Crozy’, ‘Semaphore’, ‘Oiseau de Feu’ (syn. Firebird) and ‘Sophie Buchner’ .
Comments would be appreciated.20 January 2022 at 21:19 #12710diggerParticipant
Analysing the reason for a new group, it would appeat that it is because the breeding of the newer varieties is now so mixed up that we cannot put a handle on it any more. Basically the cultivars produced by Crozy and Sprenger have been crossed so often that they are all mixed up.
Perhaps a new group called (Mixed Group) would be appropriate or even (All Mixed Up Group) 🙂
Whatever is chosen, it cannot be worse than this x generalis farce we see still being used. It is so meaningless and simply shouts out “Look at me, I am trying to impress, but really I don’t know what I’m talking about!”21 January 2022 at 15:39 #12722diggerParticipant
Just been looking at Rose classifications, which are accepted by all of the public and growers alike. They have the same problem as we are trying to solve here and they have a classification that covers it. Following is their description of the Hybrid Roses:
“Hybrid tea roses: This is the most popular class of roses, which feature large ornate blooms with 30 to 50 petals, budding off of long stems. There are many thousands of hybrid tea roses that have been bred, with new introductions constantly replacing outdated varieties.”
My version of that, converted for cannas would read:
“Hybrid Group: This is the most popular group of cannas, which feature large ornate blooms with 4 petals (staminodes) of long stems producing many branches each containing a bouquet of said flowers opening individually over a period of several days. There are many thousands of hybrid canna that have been bred, with new introductions constantly replacing outdated varieties.”
In turn we also have the hybrids with very large staminodes, currently covered by the Premier Group, which could be more accurately remaned the Grandiflora Group, meaning in Latin “having large flowers”.
Just my suggestions, let’s hear some more from others.
21 January 2022 at 16:11 #12724thorParticipant
- This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by digger.
I am not at all protective about the Group names, when I created them about 20 years ago it was because I needed a way of classifying my collection of over 300 cannas.
I do see a need to separate the Crozy floriferous canna of the late 1800’s from the hybrids produced over the last 100 years, mixing Crozy and Italian Groups so much that you cannot classify them by their breeding.
Furthermore, I like the Hybrid suggestion, and I must admit that I have always found the Premier Group name as a bit awkward, but this suggestion is the first alternative anybody has come up with, and I rather like it.31 May 2022 at 02:15 #12789ArneParticipant
I agree with digger, the Hybrid Group and Grandiflora Group names would tidy up the naming conundrum, although the name Grandiflora might seem to some to be a throwback to Latin naming and all the things that the recent universal naming conventions have superseded.
16 June 2022 at 16:27 #12801
- This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Arne.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.