Deane wrote:
This might sound like a silly question to some of you experts, but here you go is there any difference between Phyllostachys Vivax and Phyllostachys vivax 'McClure'
I think there may be some confusion here.
Phyllostachys vivax was formally described and named by F. A. McClure in 1945 in the Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences. See the original description here:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/122708#page/346/mode/1upAccording to international rules, it would be correct to refer to any clone of
Phyllostachys vivax as "
Phyllostachys vivax McClure", because he named the species. Again, "
Phyllostachys vivax McClure" does not refer to a particular clone, but rather to the species as a whole. You can read about the standards for author citation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author_citation_(botany)I have seen cases where horticulturalists confused the naming author citation with a cultivar name. If you could track down a division of the type plant that McClure used to prepare the original description of the species, you would be assured of having the actual species, and not an imposter. However, any correctly identified specimen of
Phyllostachys vivax could properly be referred to as "
Phyllostachys vivax McClure". If someone has named a specific clone of
Phyllostachys vivax with the cultivar name 'McClure', I would ask them what unique features this clone possesses, and what proof they have that it is actually a unique clone. It is possible that someone is just using the name McClure to indicate that they have the real species for sale, and not an imposter.
Keep in mind that, since bamboos are clonally propagated, some bamboos may exist in cultivation as only one or a few clones. I have no specific knowledge of this species, but it is possible that most of the
Phyllostachys vivax in cultivation belongs to the same clone as McClure's type specimen.