I was walking through my local lowes' clearance section and I found three different cultivars from this line of plants that were a dollar each. I wanted to get into the hobby of daylily breeding so I bought them, they seem to be growing well now but I do not know if I have to breed them with my one plant I know is a tetraploid or to try breeding them with my one plant that is a diploid. If anyone knows, thank you.

Which specific ones did you get? The three I looked up on Google are diploid - descended from 'Stella de Oro' according to the "History and Lore" section of the Monrovia pages.

https://www.monrovia.com/plant...

Also these are patented so "Asexual reproduction of plants protected by the Plant Patent Act is prohibited during the life of the patent."

The patent should not protect against making crosses, which are sexual reproduction.

The plants appear to be members of a series all derived from the same population of crosses. They appear to be diploids and are apparently at least two generations from 'Stella de Oro' as described in a couple of the patents.

Polymerous said:The patent should not protect against making crosses, which are sexual reproduction.

Correct, I added the note from Monrovia's page about asexual reproduction (would have thought propagation was a better word, how would you stop them spreading, i.e. reproducing vegetatively!?) as an extra note in case the OP did not realize they should only be propagated by seed (legally that is). I probably should have elaborated further and thanks for clarifying.

A further note about asexual propagation- those patents are only good for 20 years past the introduction year. If they are Stella babies, chances are those patents are expired. Check the registration year in the database for each variety...

We had a question about it last summer, I think. Can't recall who asked about plant patents. I just remember that I had a registered plant (Lavender Stardust) with a patent # and the warning... So I looked it up...

ShakespearesGarden said:A further note about asexual propagation- those patents are only good for 20 years past the introduction year. If they are Stella babies, chances are those patents are expired. Check the registration year in the database for each variety...

As is often the case with a plant patent, the cultivar name patented is not the one that is used in marketing.

The one in the link above is being marketed under the trade designation EveryDaylily® Yellow Punch but the actual patented cultivar name is 'VER00204' (Plant Patent #26,906).

Looking this up in the US Patent database gets you this descriptive page for it:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

The date on the patent is 2016 so this is quite new. It looks as though it is registered with the AHS as 'EDL Punch Yellow' (2015), at least it looks the same and the name is similar to the trade name. Also has EveryDaylily on the AHS pic:

https://www.daylilies.org/Dayl...

Edited to add, I'm not sure how this works because presumably a plant cannot have two valid cultivar names and the one dated first should be it.

Thank you, I ended up getting the "punch yellow" "cerise" and "cream" so I guess they are diploid.

I learn something new everyday.

Thanks for your investigation Sue!

I didn't read all the replies here, but it is my understanding that often times a company will steal someone elses plant, name it what they want, 'trademark' it or some such nonsense and then sell it as 'new'. Beware. If its a pretty thing you want, fine, but it's real name can be who knows what and don't sell it under any name if you are not sure. I am strongly against this kind of shady practice. I think there was a hoopla a few years back about crepe myrtles and this very thing. Advertising 'new' varieties that were not.

Frillylily said:I didn't read all the replies here, but it is my understanding that often times a company will steal someone elses plant, name it what they want, 'trademark' it or some such nonsense and then sell it as 'new'. Beware. If its a pretty thing you want, fine, but it's real name can be who knows what and don't sell it under any name if you are not sure. I am strongly against this kind of shady practice. I think there was a hoopla a few years back about crepe myrtles and this very thing. Advertising 'new' varieties that were not.

Thank you for bringing this up. In my opinion, it's beyond shady - it's deliberate fraud!

I read through the guy's patent. It looks like he started with a bunch of his own seedlings, mixed up pollen and dabbed it on everything he had already grown. Sounds like a messy way to create a plant...

"The new cultivar arose from crosses made in summer of 2006. Proprietary seed parent lines were pollinated with a mixture of pollen collected from proprietary pollen parents and the collected seeds were pooled and sown for evaluation. `VER00204` was selected as a single unique plant from the resulting seedlings in summer of 2009. The specific parents are unknown and none of the possible parent plants are named or patented." Third paragraph under background of invention.

ShakespearesGarden said:I read through the guy's patent. It looks like he started with a bunch of his own seedlings, mixed up pollen and dabbed it on everything he had already grown. Sounds like a messy way to create a plant...

"The new cultivar arose from crosses made in summer of 2006. Proprietary seed parent lines were pollinated with a mixture of pollen collected from proprietary pollen parents and the collected seeds were pooled and sown for evaluation. `VER00204` was selected as a single unique plant from the resulting seedlings in summer of 2009. The specific parents are unknown and none of the possible parent plants are named or patented." Third paragraph under background of invention.

I think the idea here is that "blending" pollen makes it almost magical. Particularly if it's 'proprietary pollen' from 'proprietary seed lines'. As ad copy, it's glorious, with an air of mystery and exclusivity, and I suppose it might appeal to a certain segment of the buying public.

What it sounds like to me is "Jelly Jar Hybridizing", or "Shotgunning", the former name alluding to the practice of storing all of one's seed in a jelly jar. Other than easing the worry and workload of the hybridizer, the only positive aspect I can see to this method is that sowing mixed seed removes the natural human tendency to favor the offspring of certain named varieties. This is actually not that uncommon of a practice even among respected daylily hybridizers, and quite a few cultivars are registered each year with partial or no parentage information.

Simply put. A bunch of "mumbo jumbo".