The issue I was raising is that the name clusiana was originally used for the pentaploid form. Subsequent taxonomic changes have made it difficult to name the original clone in such a way that it can be marketed without confusion with other forms of Tulipa clusiana. According to the Kew monograph, the taxon, Tulipa clusiana, an acknowledged species, found in the wild as mentioned earlier, *is pentaploid*. So “pentaploid” is not a distinguishing characteristic between the two. A clone is something created from something else (a tulip, a cat, Mr. Spock) and is genetically identical to the thing from which it was created. I suspect that most tulips were raised from seed until fairly recently; in which case they are not clones. So the distinction that needs to be made, between the actual species Tulipa clusiana, and the putative non-species “T. clusiana Hort.”, can have nothing to do with being pentaploid, since both have that in common. The distinction of “being a clone” can scarcely be proved without access to genetic material from all bulbs so described. So what is the actual difference, if there is one? Bob Nold Denver, Colorado, USA _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/