Hey, Cole.

By the way, I don't think "cultivar" is right. That would imply the various catagories are made by human selection? Wouldn't cultivar apply to selection massale?
 
Cultivar is, obviously, coherent as a subcategory of variety. I am not wildly in favor of it, though, not for grammatical reasons but because it promotes the fallacy that humanly caused natural selection is, somehow, a different process. As the biology professor with whom I taught a Darwin course used to say, natural selection doesn't change just because human beings are somewhere in the vicinity.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Cultivar is, obviously, coherent as a subcategory of variety. I am not wildly in favor of it, though, not for grammatical reasons but because it promotes the fallacy that humanly caused natural selection is, somehow, a different process. As the biology professor with whom I taught a Darwin course used to say, natural selection doesn't change just because human beings are somewhere in the vicinity.
Click to expand...

There is nothing particularly natural about the process in many cases. In fact, it happens through human intervention both in the case of vegetable cultivars and many horticultural breeding programs for flower cultivars.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Cultivar is, obviously, coherent as a subcategory of variety. I am not wildly in favor of it, though, not for grammatical reasons but because it promotes the fallacy that humanly caused natural selection is, somehow, a different process. As the biology professor with whom I taught a Darwin course used to say, natural selection doesn't change just because human beings are somewhere in the vicinity.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there’s anything implicit in the word that attempts to remove it from the notion of “natural selection”. It is just to provide context of how the variety came to be (ie. In an agricultural setting through active human selection) which seems pretty appropriate when you are talking about grapes, or vegetables for that matter.
 
See Mark e, above, for the very usual claim that human intervention is somehow not natural selection because human beings do it, as if human beings aren't just animals like all the other fauna in the world. If an antelope developed more speed to escape the lion hunting it as a direct result of being hunted, would you not describe that as natural selection? But if the grape develops a quality sought by its human breeder so that it will be bred rather than a grape without that quality, is that something different? It's worth remembering that the first chapter in Origin of Species is on human breeding.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
See Mark e, above, for the very usual claim that human intervention is somehow not natural selection because human beings do it, as if human beings aren't just animals like all the other fauna in the world. If an antelope developed more speed to escape the lion hunting it as a direct result of being hunted, would you not describe that as natural selection? But if the grape develops a quality sought by its human breeder so that it will be bred rather than a grape without that quality, is that something different? It's worth remembering that the first chapter in Origin of Species is on human breeding.
Click to expand...

Johnathan, it seems like your issue is with the word itself and what it implies rather than whether it is appropriate in the context discussed. If you can’t see breeding for agricultural, ornamental, or socio-cultural purposes in the way that people pursue the endeavor, as to be unique enough in nature to justify its own descriptive word than I’m not sure what to say. Any philosophical sub-plot of whether it’s “natural” or not comes from you, not the word. If another species impacted the trait evolution of such a breadth of species in the world, then I’d want a word for that too.
 
As you can readily see, again, from Mark's response, but also, virtually everywhere, it's not a "philosophical subplot" but a common belief. It even shows up in your distinction between human influence and other species' influence on each other. The fact that human beings do it to more species doesn't make the act different.

I do concede one significant difference and it is the reason that taxonomists talking about grapes make the distinction, I think. A cultivar can be created by a graft that leaves the rest of the plant genetically unchanged. As long as the cultivar is bred in this way, as I understand, grape taxonomists will not call it a variety (I don't know what the taxonomic practices of rose or tulip breeders are). This makes some sense, but I dont' see the word being limited to that use.
 
Ah, the sounds of the babble of pedantry! So refreshing!

Here's my toot-toot:
- A vine that is reproduced asexually (e.g., grafting) produces offspring that are genetically identical to the parent and are therefore called clones.
- A vine that almost always reproduces true from seed is a variety.
- A vine that almost never reproduces true from seed (and, therefore, continues to exist only through the benevolent intervention of The Politburo horticulturists) is a cultivar.

GMOs may fall into any category, depending on exactly what was inserted.

I shall spare you any discussion of cultigen.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Ah, the sounds of the babble of pedantry! So refreshing!

Here's my toot-toot:
- A vine that is reproduced asexually (e.g., grafting) produces offspring that are genetically identical to the parent and are therefore called clones.
- A vine that almost always reproduces true from seed is a variety.
- A vine that almost never reproduces true from seed (and, therefore, continues to exist only through the benevolent intervention of The Politburo horticulturists) is a cultivar.

GMOs may fall into any category, depending on exactly what was inserted.

I shall spare you any discussion of cultigen.
Click to expand...

I believe that 2 and 3 was the distinction I made above. Except that I understood a grape variety bred by human beings that did reproduce by seed was also called a cultivar. I would be happy to be corrected about this, but I have seen it stated by various vine specialists on Wine Berserker.
 
Can we simplify? A cultivar is cultivated. A variety is a distinct subsubspecies created by natural selection. Right? Or...???

I really have no idea what I'm talking about. This is WAY outside of my area of expertise. However, I've found that has never stopped me in the past.
 
originally posted by BJ:
Can we simplify? A cultivar is cultivated. A variety is a distinct subsubspecies created by natural selection. Right? Or...???

I really have no idea what I'm talking about. This is WAY outside of my area of expertise. However, I've found that has never stopped me in the past.
Click to expand...

Right. 'Cultivar' as a term is just refers to having been developed through selection/breeding by people ie. in cultivation. It's a broad term that covers plants that are propagated in many ways. Grafted apples, asexually reproduced potatoes, and true to seed heirloom tomatoes are all "cultivars".
As this all started, I think when people use "varietal" as a noun they are trying to sound sophisticated (ironic, of course) as "variety" sounds just a little too plebian to scratch that itch when talking about fancy things like wine and "heirloom vegetable varietals". Cultivar seems like a good alternative.
 
originally posted by BJ:
Can we simplify? A cultivar is cultivated. A variety is a distinct subsubspecies created by natural selection. Right? Or...???

I really have no idea what I'm talking about. This is WAY outside of my area of expertise. However, I've found that has never stopped me in the past.
Click to expand...

And so we start around again. As per Brian's definition below, a cultivar is a subset of a variety. All varieties come into existence through natural selection. In the case of cultivar's the natural force is human action. One further quibble, though. This term seems only to be used with regard to flora. By any reasonable description, most of the canine varieties that we do not call mongrels, would be cultivars if the term applied to flora. I do think this asymmetry in the use of the term tells us about how we are thinking about it. But since Brian objects to that claim, and I can hardly prove it, if he wants it, I'll let him have the last word and end the circle.
 
To call human breeding natural selection may be technically correct but to me it’s a bit of a semantic dodge. Natural selection as typically formulated results from environmental factors such as predation, food shortages and changing climate. Breeding implies the selection for particular traits regardless of their utility. Michael Pollan points out that modern corn can’t propagate without human intervention. That’s hard to rationalize as a product of natural selection as usually thought of.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
To call human breeding natural selection may be technically correct but to me it’s a bit of a semantic dodge. Natural selection as typically formulated results from environmental factors such as predation, food shortages and changing climate. Breeding implies the selection for particular traits regardless of their utility. Michael Pollan points out that modern corn can’t propagate without human intervention. That’s hard to rationalize as a product of natural selection as usually thought of.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

This, again, confirms my original point about people objecting to natural selection including human activity. I have argued why I think this objection is incorrect above so I will not repeat myself. I will only say that I take comfort in the fact that Darwin, who, as I said, wrote the opening chapters of Origin on human animal breeders, agrees with me.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by BJ:
Can we simplify? A cultivar is cultivated. A variety is a distinct subsubspecies created by natural selection. Right? Or...???

I really have no idea what I'm talking about. This is WAY outside of my area of expertise. However, I've found that has never stopped me in the past.
Click to expand...

And so we start around again. As per Brian's definition below, a cultivar is a subset of a variety. All varieties come into existence through natural selection. In the case of cultivar's the natural force is human action. One further quibble, though. This term seems only to be used with regard to flora. By any reasonable description, most of the canine varieties that we do not call mongrels, would be cultivars if the term applied to flora. I do think this asymmetry in the use of the term tells us about how we are thinking about it. But since Brian objects to that claim, and I can hardly prove it, if he wants it, I'll let him have the last word and end the circle.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t “breed” be the animal equivalent, connoting the same human intervention? And for the record, I agree with you Jonathan, that nothing here falls out of the realm of “natural selection”.
 
I guess one could say that "breed" would be the equivalent. But in fact, it is common usage to refer to varieties of dogs and pigeons as well. I really do think the term cultivar has currency because of special elements within fauna reproduction. But I wouldn't vouch for that.
 
I don't have a position, but if humans are to be understood as part & parcel of natural selection, what would qualify as not natural selection? Breeding by aliens?
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I don't have a position, but if humans are to be understood as part & parcel of natural selection, what would qualify as not natural selection? Breeding by aliens?
Click to expand...

What about inserting a gene by one of the modern technologies? That makes the first part of the process non-natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top