Publications
Publications
The Plantsman
Not what they seem
Tony Lord finds that cultivars raised from seed are not always what they purport to be
‘... to sell seedlings of a cultivar named and labelled as though they were the cultivar itself ... would seem to be a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act unless the seedlings are identical to the parent cultivar’
Seed lists, whether from horticultural societies, seedsmen or in a directory of suppliers, often contain many cultivar names. But if you raise the seed, do you get the cultivar? Gardeners know to their cost that the result can be disappointing, even sometimes altogether different from the expected cultivar. The problem doesn't end there: plants from such seed are raised by nurseries and sold by them and by major retailers, labelled with the name of the original, even if not quite the same; the identity of the original can ultimately get lost amid the welter of inferior offspring.
This problem arises particularly with plants that are normally vegetatively propagated, and affects herbaceous perennials more than other sorts of garden plant. A notable example, albeit a woody plant, is Lavandula angustifolia 'Hidcote', included in the 1997-2001 RHS trial as cuttings-raised plants originating from Lawrence Johnston's original stock.
If you buy a lavender labelled 'Hidcote', you would expect it to be just this same plant. After all, the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) defines a cultivar as being ‘distinct, stable and uniform’: it should not have changed significantly since it was first raised and named. But what if the plant you bought had been raised from seed of 'Hidcote'? Would it still be the same cultivar? Most taxonomists would say it would, provided it had the same characteristics as the original. But what if, though some seedlings were more or less the same, others were distinctly different? Or if successive generations were raised that became more and more variable and less and less like the original? When would the seedlings cease being 'Hidcote'? And surely nurseries would never raise plants from seed and sell them to us under the original name if they were not like the original plant?
Well, unfortunately they do. Few suppliers seem to offer the original clone and, though there are true-breeding seed-raised cultivars derived from 'Hidcote', such as 'Hidcote Superior' and 'Hidcote Blue' from wholesale seed supplier Jelitto, Germany, there seems to be consensus that many seedlings offered as 'Hidcote' are too different to be given the same name. The ICNCP's definition of a cultivar continues to say that, ‘when propagated by appropriate means’, the cultivar must retain its characteristics. This is the nub of the problem: raising from seed is often not the appropriate means. For this reason, though 'Hidcote' itself received the Award of Garden Merit (AGM) in the RHS trial, its seedlings were excluded from this accolade.
Preference for seed
Seed is usually cheaper and easier for raising lots of plants than division or cuttings, so nurseries often prefer seed, even if not true-breeding, to clonal propagation. If nurseries feel they must sell us seedlings of 'Hidcote', no-one would object to them doing so provided they did not label them 'Hidcote' but called them ex 'Hidcote' or 'Hidcote' seedlings or some such. To pass them off as 'Hidcote' itself seems to be at best sharp practice. Nor is it an adequate excuse to say ‘we could only get labels for 'Hidcote' - there are none produced for 'Hidcote' seedlings’. That simply does not justify giving the plant a label that implies it is a uniform and superior product when it is variable (thus not the same cultivar) and possibly inferior.
Disappointing results
'Hidcote' is not an isolated case. Whenever, in a RHS trial of herbaceous perennials, a cultivar that was originally a vegetatively-propagated clone is offered also as a seed strain, both are assessed. The results for seed-raised plants are almost invariably disappointing. The seed strain of Monarda 'Cambridge Scarlet' produced not a single plant with scarlet flowers. Achillea ptarmica 'The Pearl' gave seedlings that varied from semi-double to double, all inferior to the only clonally propagated material that fitted the original description - the stock that had been grown at RHS Garden Wisley for many years.
The original clone of Salvia x superba produces no seed but is a superlative plant that rightly deserves the AGM. Many, perhaps most, plants bearing this name are now raised from a seed strain that, while it might still be the same hybrid species, is dramatically inferior to the original, lacking its intensely rich colour and long flowering season. There are dozens of examples of cultivars that were originally clones now listed in directories of seed suppliers and by some major seed houses. For instance, starting from the beginning of the alphabet, there are Achillea filipendulina 'Cloth of Gold', A. filipendulina 'Parker's Variety', A. millefolium 'Cerise Queen', A. ptarmica 'The Pearl', Aconitum carmichaelii (Wilsonii Group) 'Barker's Variety' and A. 'Newry Blue'.
Maintaining a cultivar
Of course, some cultivars, such as Geum 'Mrs J Bradshaw' and Rudbeckia fulgida var. sullivantii 'Goldsturm', do come true to type from seed. This might be because of a particular breeding system such as apomixis (effectively producing seedlings that are clones of the parent); it might be through successive raising and re-raising, rejecting all the individuals that are unlike the parent for about seven generations until a true-breeding seed-strain results. This last procedure, the creation of a ‘maintenance’, is how the excellent Echinacea purpurea 'Magnus' was raised, which received an AGM in the 2002-03 RHS trial. The result of more than 10 years of careful selection by Swedish nurseryman Magnus B Nilsson, it was named and introduced by Klaus Jelitto in 1985.
This long process means seed is not cheap, though the resultant seedlings are superior in terms of uniformity, reliability and quality. Seed offered as 'Magnus' sometimes produces few plants like Jelitto's maintenance, presumably because it is from another less rigorously rogued maintenance or because it is from open-pollinated plants.
Trials reveal laxity
Trials are a useful means of assessing whether seed-raised cultivars come true to type. However, maintenances can deteriorate rapidly. The 2003 RHS trial of Cosmos showed that maintenances of C. bipinnatus cultivars had been so poor that agms given only a few years before could not be re-confirmed.
After a few years, if sales diminish, seed producers sometimes allow maintenances to become lax, so that fewer and fewer of the seedlings match the original cultivar. Alternatively, one seedhouse might maintain the cultivar in its original state while another chooses to ‘improve’ it, perhaps making it shorter with larger flowers. The ‘improved’ variety should be given another cultivar name once it becomes distinct from the original. In practice this does not always happen, and two noticeably different plants can circulate under the same name.
Breaking the law?
In summary, to sell seedlings of a cultivar named and labelled as though they were the cultivar itself in the UK would seem to be a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 unless the seedlings are identical to the parent cultivar. This is not the sort of practice we expect of reputable nurseries or retailers. If nurseries think the offspring might be identical to the parent, it should be flowered first to make sure. If it is not the same, the offspring should be labelled and marketed as seedlings. Similarly, seedhouses whose maintenances are so lax that seed offered as a particular cultivar would produce a large proportion of ‘off-types’ seem to be sailing very close to the wind as far as the same law is concerned.
As far as the amateur is concerned, it pays to be wary of batches of plants in nurseries and garden centres that one would expect to be uniform but show considerable variation, even if only of foliage on immature plants. If the plant you buy turns out not to be the one named on the label, ask for your money back.
Gardeners are not always well served where such plants are concerned. For the future, one hopes that a greater awareness of the problem and more appreciation of the value of rigorously-maintained seed-raised cultivars will lead to more discriminating gardeners and better products from seedhouses, nurseries and retailers alike.
Tony Lord is Consultant Editor of RHS Plant Finder and Chairman of the RHS Floral Trials Subcommittee