So, for those who insist that clone means "genetically identical population/aggregation" , then clone might not describe the original Tulipa clusiana. The existence of something called “the original Tulipa clusiana” which is somehow distinct from *any other* example of Tulipa clusiana DC, exclusive of named forms, has not been demonstrated. Tulipa clusiana DC is stoloniferous (per Kew monograph), pentaploid, and grows in the wild. How does it then differ from this supposed “clone” (viticulture definition being irrelevant)? http://tropicos.org/Name/18400355/… (q.e.d.) Bob Nold Denver, Colorado, USA I should be watering the oncocyclus iris. _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/